Wealth Reality

[HenryFortune]

So far no one has pointed out the fact that the wealth gap shown in the graph directly corresponds to the existence of the Glass-Steigall Act.

Oh gawd, not another one that believes wealth is a finite pile of cash from which we all must draw.

Honestly, other than pure jealousy, why would you care if the wealthiest Americans (a group in constant flux) increased their wealth over time...even if it was to a greater extent than Americans around median income levels (also a group in flux)?

Do you think that if one guy makes himself rich, another man must therefore go with less?

You have much to learn grasshopper...

I've noticed you people have a habit of making assumptions based on next to no evidence, so this doesn't surprise me. No, I do not believe that wealth is a finite pile of cash, nor am I jealous if anyone, wealthy or otherwise, increases their wealth over time (or even all at once, like with the lottery). The beef I have is primarily with the banking industry, which not only uses their wealth to buy and control Congress and change the laws to their advantage, but then use the absence of safeguards and regulations (which they created by doing things such as eliminating the Glass-Steigall Act) to gamble with billions of dollars of other people’s money on the stock market, lose it all, and then ask the tax payers to cover their bets. This is exactly what they did in the 1920s, and it led to the Great Depression. And now that they’re virtually unregulated, they’re doing it again, and the next time they have a meltdown it’s going to be too big for the government to fix. The problem with JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY is that you won’t believe this until you see it, but by then it will be too late.

 

[eflatminor]

So far no one has pointed out the fact that the wealth gap shown in the graph directly corresponds to the existence of the Glass-Steigall Act.

Oh gawd, not another one that believes wealth is a finite pile of cash from which we all must draw.

Honestly, other than pure jealousy, why would you care if the wealthiest Americans (a group in constant flux) increased their wealth over time...even if it was to a greater extent than Americans around median income levels (also a group in flux)?

Do you think that if one guy makes himself rich, another man must therefore go with less?

You have much to learn grasshopper...

I've noticed you people have a habit of making assumptions based on next to no evidence, so this doesn't surprise me. No, I do not believe that wealth is a finite pile of cash, nor am I jealous if anyone, wealthy or otherwise, increases their wealth over time (or even all at once, like with the lottery). The beef I have is primarily with the banking industry, which not only uses their wealth to buy and control Congress and change the laws to their advantage, but then use the absence of safeguards and regulations (which they created by doing things such as eliminating the Glass-Steigall Act) to gamble with billions of dollars of other people’s money on the stock market, lose it all, and then ask the tax payers to cover their bets. This is exactly what they did in the 1920s, and it led to the Great Depression. And now that they’re virtually unregulated, they’re doing it again, and the next time they have a meltdown it’s going to be too big for the government to fix. The problem with JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY is that you won’t believe this until you see it, but by then it will be too late.

Is your beef really with the bankers or the government that forced them to loan to borrowers with insufficient incomes while backing mortgages so default no longer mattered? Do you despise the bankers for taking bailout money or the politicians that forced the money upon them?

I argue your ire is misplaced. More regulation and government meddling in mortgages is not the answer. Free markets are.

So far, you sound like a confused occupier.

 

[HenryFortune]

Nobody forced them to invest in subprime mortgages, they did that on their own, with nothing else in mind but increasing profits and with no regard for the consequences. Granted, they knew they could count on the government to bail them out, but that's only because there were no regulations to control them, and they were the ones who had those regulations eliminated. The fact is, Wall Street owns the government and the government knows it. You're right, I'm angry at the government for allowing themselves to be put in this position, but I'm just as angry at Wall Street for being such greedy ***** to begin with. So, no, I don't think my "ire" is misplaced at all.

 

[eflatminor]

Nobody forced them to invest in subprime mortgages, they did that on their own, with nothing else in mind but increasing profits and with no regard for the consequences.

Incorrect. Look up the CRA among plenty of other mandates from the government to ensure everyone had "The American dream of home ownership".

But even if there was no CRA, why in the world would you disparage "increasing profits"? Why in the hell else would they be in business? Why would anyone buy a bank's stock if they weren't interested in increasing profits?

Granted, they knew they could count on the government to bail them out, but that's only because there were no regulations to control them,

Correct, the government told everyone they would bail them out. That's the very reason for Freddie and Fannie as well as the laws that dictated and encouraged more loans, even to people that clearly should not be buying real estate.

There are TONS of regulations in the banking and mortgage loan industry. Ensuring bailouts are among those regulations.

and they were the ones who had those regulations eliminated.

You think bankers can write laws? Or was it crony politicians that meddled in the mortgage industry? OF COURSE the bankers accepted bailouts and guarantees of backed mortgages. They had no choice in the matter. Do I like it that bankers play along with their crony counterparts in elected office? No, but I place blame first and foremost at the feet of the politician, not the banker who has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of their shareholders. If that means the government is willing to back the bank, the banker pretty much is obligated to accept those handouts.

Point is, we need to end the cronyism and there is NO WAY you'll do that by disparaging bankers. Voting crony politician out of office? That's a start.

The fact is, Wall Street owns the government and the government knows it.

Again, if true (it isn't but I'll play along), why are you mad at Wall Street for looking out for their own interests? Isn't that what any good businessman should do?

You're right, I'm angry at the government for allowing themselves to be put in this position,

That's a start!

but I'm just as angry at Wall Street for being such greedy ***** to begin with.

Greed? Like wanting to make profit? Like fulfilling the duty to maximize shareholder wealth? What do you propose businesses strive for if not profit?

 

[Rshermr]

Nobody forced them to invest in subprime mortgages, they did that on their own, with nothing else in mind but increasing profits and with no regard for the consequences.

Incorrect. Look up the CRA among plenty of other mandates from the government to ensure everyone had "The American dream of home ownership".

But even if there was no CRA, why in the world would you disparage "increasing profits"? Why in the hell else would they be in business? Why would anyone buy a bank's stock if they weren't interested in increasing profits?

Granted, they knew they could count on the government to bail them out, but that's only because there were no regulations to control them,

Correct, the government told everyone they would bail them out. That's the very reason for Freddie and Fannie as well as the laws that dictated and encouraged more loans, even to people that clearly should not be buying real estate.

There are TONS of regulations in the banking and mortgage loan industry. Ensuring bailouts are among those regulations.



You think bankers can write laws? Or was it crony politicians that meddled in the mortgage industry? OF COURSE the bankers accepted bailouts and guarantees of backed mortgages. They had no choice in the matter. Do I like it that bankers play along with their crony counterparts in elected office? No, but I place blame first and foremost at the feet of the politician, not the banker who has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of their shareholders. If that means the government is willing to back the bank, the banker pretty much is obligated to accept those handouts.

Point is, we need to end the cronyism and there is NO WAY you'll do that by disparaging bankers. Voting crony politician out of office? That's a start.



Again, if true (it isn't but I'll play along), why are you mad at Wall Street for looking out for their own interests? Isn't that what any good businessman should do?

You're right, I'm angry at the government for allowing themselves to be put in this position,

That's a start!

but I'm just as angry at Wall Street for being such greedy ***** to begin with.

Greed? Like wanting to make profit? Like fulfilling the duty to maximize shareholder wealth? What do you propose businesses strive for if not profit?

rite, eflat. No problem there. It was all the fault of the borowers. And the government. Not at all the banks fault. The bankers are saints. No issues there at all.
Dipshit.

 

[Bfgrn]

The thing about wealth distribution that I find fascinating is comparing today to the bad old robber barron days. Over a hundred years ago, the sky was falling because the wealthiest Americans apparently controlled all the wealth. After over 100 years of Progressivism, the "problem" is worse! That's right, today's wealthiest own a greater percentage of the wealth than during the days of Carnegie and Morgan. So much for the effectiveness of your meddling...

That said, I think the entire idea of wealth distribution is bullshit. It's not as though there is a finite pile of wealth from which everyone tries to get their piece. Wealth can be created or destroyed. Just because someone makes a ton for themselves does not mean someone else must make less.

It's all bullshit to create class warfare.

No, the problem is only worse because of 30 years of trickle down, tax cuts for the wealthy and union busting eviscerated those gains. Ronald Reagan was the greatest socialist president in history. Reagan and his comrades transferred over 3 Trillion dollars of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent.

 

[expat_panama]

...Reagan and his comrades transferred over 3 Trillion dollars of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent...

Wait, you're saying that in the early '80's America's poorest half (113,000,000) had $3T, so that's $27,000 each. In 1980 that could buy a home in the subs plus a car in the garage. A poor family of four would have four homes and four cars.

Ah, we're still being told the Great Depression was between 1922 and 1932, and that life for Americans in the '30's was better than life in the 1990's.



Most people would disagree.

 

[Grandma]

[ame="http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmlX3fLQrEc"]http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmlX3fLQrEc[/ame]

 

[eflatminor]

The thing about wealth distribution that I find fascinating is comparing today to the bad old robber barron days. Over a hundred years ago, the sky was falling because the wealthiest Americans apparently controlled all the wealth. After over 100 years of Progressivism, the "problem" is worse! That's right, today's wealthiest own a greater percentage of the wealth than during the days of Carnegie and Morgan. So much for the effectiveness of your meddling...

That said, I think the entire idea of wealth distribution is bullshit. It's not as though there is a finite pile of wealth from which everyone tries to get their piece. Wealth can be created or destroyed. Just because someone makes a ton for themselves does not mean someone else must make less.

It's all bullshit to create class warfare.

No, the problem is only worse because of 30 years of trickle down, tax cuts for the wealthy and union busting eviscerated those gains. Ronald Reagan was the greatest socialist president in history. Reagan and his comrades transferred over 3 Trillion dollars of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent.

That's just stupid on it's surface...nor does it have anything to do with my post. You're still thinking of wealth as finite. It is not.

 

[eflatminor]

Nobody forced them to invest in subprime mortgages, they did that on their own, with nothing else in mind but increasing profits and with no regard for the consequences.

Incorrect. Look up the CRA among plenty of other mandates from the government to ensure everyone had "The American dream of home ownership".

But even if there was no CRA, why in the world would you disparage "increasing profits"? Why in the hell else would they be in business? Why would anyone buy a bank's stock if they weren't interested in increasing profits?



Correct, the government told everyone they would bail them out. That's the very reason for Freddie and Fannie as well as the laws that dictated and encouraged more loans, even to people that clearly should not be buying real estate.

There are TONS of regulations in the banking and mortgage loan industry. Ensuring bailouts are among those regulations.



You think bankers can write laws? Or was it crony politicians that meddled in the mortgage industry? OF COURSE the bankers accepted bailouts and guarantees of backed mortgages. They had no choice in the matter. Do I like it that bankers play along with their crony counterparts in elected office? No, but I place blame first and foremost at the feet of the politician, not the banker who has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of their shareholders. If that means the government is willing to back the bank, the banker pretty much is obligated to accept those handouts.

Point is, we need to end the cronyism and there is NO WAY you'll do that by disparaging bankers. Voting crony politician out of office? That's a start.



Again, if true (it isn't but I'll play along), why are you mad at Wall Street for looking out for their own interests? Isn't that what any good businessman should do?



That's a start!

but I'm just as angry at Wall Street for being such greedy ***** to begin with.

Greed? Like wanting to make profit? Like fulfilling the duty to maximize shareholder wealth? What do you propose businesses strive for if not profit?

rite, eflat. No problem there. It was all the fault of the borowers. And the government. Not at all the banks fault. The bankers are saints. No issues there at all.
Dipshit.

Oooh...Dipshit! Another internet tough guy. Scary...

Tell you what, why don't you tell us EXACTLY what bankers should have done differently. Be specific now and make sure your suggestions would not have conflicted with laws and regulations related to banking and mortgages.

 

[expat_panama]

So far no one has pointed out the fact that the wealth gap shown in the graph directly corresponds to the existence of the Glass-Steigall Act...

Let's focus on what is and what's not.

The GS was passed in '35, it took stocks out of banking, and was never repealed. OK, so in '99, two unenforced and unenforceable provisions were dropped but banks still can't sell or loan on stocks. As far as that silly 'wealth gap' goes--

--nothing changed after either '35 or '99 that wasn't already happening.

 

[Uncensored2008]

SNIPP

The 1%

 

[HenryFortune]

Incorrect. Look up the CRA among plenty of other mandates from the government to ensure everyone had "The American dream of home ownership".

But even if there was no CRA, why in the world would you disparage "increasing profits"? Why in the hell else would they be in business? Why would anyone buy a bank's stock if they weren't interested in increasing profits?

The CRA was not a mandate, it was a law designed to encourage the banks to put money into the housing market, not force them to. And they did so with the expectation that the banks would do their part responsibly, which they didn’t.

And I’m not against banks or anyone else making a profit. My comment clearly stated that they made those loans with nothing else in mind but increasing profits and with no regard for the consequences. The people who took out loans (and by they way, the majority of mortgages taken out were home equity loans, not first time buyer loans) knew they couldn’t afford it, but so did the lenders. They knew their clients couldn’t pay back the loans but they didn’t care because a) they were only in it for the short term gain, and b) they simply bundled those loans into mortgage securities and sold them so that when the bottom fell out someone else would take the fall. They were guilty of predatory practices and they would have been prosecuted for it if the Glass-Steigall Act had still been in effect.

There are TONS of regulations in the banking and mortgage loan industry. Ensuring bailouts are among those regulations.

I’m guessing you’re referring to the few weak, watered down laws that have been passed since 2008, and which the banking industry is working hard to get repealed. The fact is that Wall Street believes they should be completely unregulated and allowed to “regulate themselves” (Alan Greenspan was notoriously vocal on this subject), which is like leaving the fox in charge of the henhouse.

And the government never ensured these bailouts. The FDIC insures deposits to customers of traditional bank account holders, it does not insure losses incurred on the stock market. The banks may have had no other choice but to accept the bailouts but the government ha no choice but to offer the bailouts, otherwise there would have been a worldwide collapse of the markets. They bailed out Bank of America and Goldman Sachs and others because they had to, but they didn’t bail out Lehman Brothers because they didn’t have to.

You think bankers can write laws? Or was it crony politicians that meddled in the mortgage industry? OF COURSE the bankers accepted bailouts and guarantees of backed mortgages. They had no choice in the matter. Do I like it that bankers play along with their crony counterparts in elected office? No, but I place blame first and foremost at the feet of the politician, not the banker who has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of their shareholders. If that means the government is willing to back the bank, the banker pretty much is obligated to accept those handouts.

Bankers don’t write the laws, but their lobbyists do pay politicians to write the laws for them. How do you think the massive amount of deregulation was accomplished? Congress just woke up one day and decided to deregulate the industry? And how is authorizing loans to clients that you know can’t afford them meeting thier fiduciary responsibility and acting in the best interest of their clients? When the banks got bailed out the money didn’t go to the shareholders, it went to proppping up the business.

Again, if true (it isn't but I'll play along), why are you mad at Wall Street for looking out for their own interests? Isn't that what any good businessman should do?

Again, Wall Street went far beyond “looking out for their own interests.” They recklessly pursue short term profits at the expense of their clients and the government.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Incorrect. Look up the CRA among plenty of other mandates from the government to ensure everyone had "The American dream of home ownership".

But even if there was no CRA, why in the world would you disparage "increasing profits"? Why in the hell else would they be in business? Why would anyone buy a bank's stock if they weren't interested in increasing profits?

The CRA was not a mandate, it was a law designed to encourage the banks to put money into the housing market, not force them to. And they did so with the expectation that the banks would do their part responsibly, which they didn’t.

And I’m not against banks or anyone else making a profit. My comment clearly stated that they made those loans with nothing else in mind but increasing profits and with no regard for the consequences. The people who took out loans (and by they way, the majority of mortgages taken out were home equity loans, not first time buyer loans) knew they couldn’t afford it, but so did the lenders. They knew their clients couldn’t pay back the loans but they didn’t care because a) they were only in it for the short term gain, and b) they simply bundled those loans into mortgage securities and sold them so that when the bottom fell out someone else would take the fall. They were guilty of predatory practices and they would have been prosecuted for it if the Glass-Steigall Act had still been in effect.

There are TONS of regulations in the banking and mortgage loan industry. Ensuring bailouts are among those regulations.

I’m guessing you’re referring to the few weak, watered down laws that have been passed since 2008, and which the banking industry is working hard to get repealed. The fact is that Wall Street believes they should be completely unregulated and allowed to “regulate themselves” (Alan Greenspan was notoriously vocal on this subject), which is like leaving the fox in charge of the henhouse.

And the government never ensured these bailouts. The FDIC insures deposits to customers of traditional bank account holders, it does not insure losses incurred on the stock market. The banks may have had no other choice but to accept the bailouts but the government ha no choice but to offer the bailouts, otherwise there would have been a worldwide collapse of the markets. They bailed out Bank of America and Goldman Sachs and others because they had to, but they didn’t bail out Lehman Brothers because they didn’t have to.

You think bankers can write laws? Or was it crony politicians that meddled in the mortgage industry? OF COURSE the bankers accepted bailouts and guarantees of backed mortgages. They had no choice in the matter. Do I like it that bankers play along with their crony counterparts in elected office? No, but I place blame first and foremost at the feet of the politician, not the banker who has a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of their shareholders. If that means the government is willing to back the bank, the banker pretty much is obligated to accept those handouts.

Bankers don’t write the laws, but their lobbyists do pay politicians to write the laws for them. How do you think the massive amount of deregulation was accomplished? Congress just woke up one day and decided to deregulate the industry? And how is authorizing loans to clients that you know can’t afford them meeting thier fiduciary responsibility and acting in the best interest of their clients? When the banks got bailed out the money didn’t go to the shareholders, it went to proppping up the business.

Again, if true (it isn't but I'll play along), why are you mad at Wall Street for looking out for their own interests? Isn't that what any good businessman should do?

Again, Wall Street went far beyond “looking out for their own interests.” They recklessly pursue short term profits at the expense of their clients and the government.

You are either severely deluded, or a liar.

 

[HenryFortune]

Well, thanks for that insightful analysis. I've done a lot of research on these subjects and am merely telling you what I've learned. I admit it's possible that I'm mistaken or misinformed (if I am, you'll have to show me where, and how you came to that conclusion), but I'm not a liar and I resent being called one.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Well, thanks for that insightful analysis. I've done a lot of research on these subjects and am merely telling you what I've learned. I admit it's possible that I'm mistaken or misinformed (if I am, you'll have to show me where, and how you came to that conclusion), but I'm not a liar and I resent being called one.

{ Justice Cracks Down on Redlining
Published: August 26, 1994

The Justice Department dramatically sharpened its attack on discriminatory lending practices this week when it got Chevy Chase Federal Savings Bank, the largest in the Washington D.C. area, to agree to set up branches in black neighborhoods. Justice has gone after banks that discriminated against black loan applicants, but until the Chevy Chase case it had never used anti-discrimination laws to challenge where banks provided services or placed branches.

The new tactic deserves praise. As Attorney General Janet Reno observed, blacks are no better off if a bank shuns their neighborhood than if it rejects their loan applications. The purpose of anti-discrimination laws is to guarantee that qualified blacks have an equal shot at loans. At Chevy Chase they did not. According to Justice, the bank made 97 percent of its loans between 1976 and 1992 in white neighborhoods. It opened no branches where 90 percent of blacks in Washington D.C. live, nor did it open branches where 75 percent of the blacks in Prince George’s County, Maryland, live.}

Banks sued for not lending now sued for lending | Steve Bussey

The Clinton Administration forced banks to make unsound loans.

Mortgage discrimination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[HenryFortune]

The Justice Department dramatically sharpened its attack on discriminatory lending practices this week when it got Chevy Chase Federal Savings Bank, the largest in the Washington D.C. area, to agree to set up branches in black neighborhoods.

That's redlining, not loaning.

The Justice Department under President Bill Clinton threatened to sue banks and mortgage companies under the Civil Rights Act if they failed to increase the number of mortgage loans to minority Americans

Increasing the number of loans isn't the same as willfully and knowingly giving loans to people you know can't pay it back. I'd also like to point out that around 30 percent of all of the bad loans made were to first time home buyers; the rest were to people who already owned their homes and were taking out second or third mortgages.

 

[Uncensored2008]

That's redlining, not loaning.

Increasing the number of loans isn't the same as willfully and knowingly giving loans to people you know can't pay it back. I'd also like to point out that around 30 percent of all of the bad loans made were to first time home buyers; the rest were to people who already owned their homes and were taking out second or third mortgages.

The fact is, as you fully know, the Clinton DOJ forced compliance with CRA through civil and criminal prosecution of lending institutions who failed to meet quotas set by the Administration.

Bush deserves a kick in the nuts for not reversing the Clinton actions, but the FACT is that Clinton was the architect of the 2007 recession and financial collapse.

 

[HenryFortune]

The fact is, as you fully know, the Clinton DOJ forced compliance with CRA through civil and criminal prosecution of lending institutions who failed to meet quotas set by the Administration.

Thanks for telling me what I fully know. The fact is I don't "fully know" that at all, and even if this were true, how does it explain that 70 percent of the bad loans that were made were made to people who already owned homes? How does that square with the government's "mandate" to make everyone in the country a homeowner?

Bush deserves a kick in the nuts for not reversing the Clinton actions, but the FACT is that Clinton was the architect of the 2007 recession and financial collapse.

I'm only disagreeing with this because Clinton wasn't the only one. Although he was definitely a friend of Wall Street, he didn't do it all by himself. All the sessions of Congress dating from the mid-80s to the present, President Reagan, President Bush, and the leaders of Wall Street all had a hand in it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Well, thanks for that insightful analysis. I've done a lot of research on these subjects and am merely telling you what I've learned. I admit it's possible that I'm mistaken or misinformed (if I am, you'll have to show me where, and how you came to that conclusion), but I'm not a liar and I resent being called one.

Well, thanks for that insightful analysis. I've done a lot of research on these subjects and am merely telling you what I've learned. I admit it's possible that I'm mistaken or misinformed (if I am, you'll have to show me where, and how you came to that conclusion), but I'm not a liar and I resent being called one.

{ Justice Cracks Down on Redlining
Published: August 26, 1994

The Justice Department dramatically sharpened its attack on discriminatory lending practices this week when it got Chevy Chase Federal Savings Bank, the largest in the Washington D.C. area, to agree to set up branches in black neighborhoods. Justice has gone after banks that discriminated against black loan applicants, but until the Chevy Chase case it had never used anti-discrimination laws to challenge where banks provided services or placed branches.

The new tactic deserves praise. As Attorney General Janet Reno observed, blacks are no better off if a bank shuns their neighborhood than if it rejects their loan applications. The purpose of anti-discrimination laws is to guarantee that qualified blacks have an equal shot at loans. At Chevy Chase they did not. According to Justice, the bank made 97 percent of its loans between 1976 and 1992 in white neighborhoods. It opened no branches where 90 percent of blacks in Washington D.C. live, nor did it open branches where 75 percent of the blacks in Prince George’s County, Maryland, live.}

Banks sued for not lending now sued for lending | Steve Bussey

The Clinton Administration forced banks to make unsound loans.

Mortgage discrimination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Like I said, either you are seriously deluded, or a liar. If your research didn't cover how the law was applied I will count you as a deluded fool, if it did, you are a liar.