Zim, to help you understand Jim's thought process here's a brief tutorial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf71YotfykQ

"You were ok with Bush bailing out the banks, I take it." No, I was not.

"if your stupidity (your word) was going to take down the entire economy of the US with it, there would likely be a program"

That's a good argument for it. My rebuttal would be, if you don't let crooks/idiots fail, they never learn their lesson, so they have no incentive not to do it again. We cannot know what would have happened had they been allowed to fail.

So because I was individually stupid, instead of collectively stupid, I have to pay for my own mistake, as well as pay for the mistakes that others made that I did not make. Does that sound fair to you?

I'm not a sheep like you Spence, I actually think things through, which is why I agree with both sides on different, major issues. I'd like to know a major component of the liberal platform that you disagree with. All ears.

What if the crooks are the ones writing the policy the idiots have to follow?

Or rewriting?

Sheep. HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHHA :doh:

"I am not sure where you are getting that"

I got it from you.


the bailing out buddies part is the political hacks taking care of bankers but screwing people. The recession is on it's way yet the guy in charge of the rate keeps it low fending off the inevitable. I am talking in general terms not specific to harp or whatever you are fixated on.

Good for regulations, I'm glad they work to prevent mistakes, now keep the corrupt people away and things will go well. I guess time will tell

Who "had to follow"? You're talking about the people who bought 3x the house they should have? The "had to follow"?

Not fixated on anything. There were two different programs discussed here, though limped together by some. I agree completely about political hacks taking care of the bankers. There is no way to keep corrupt people out of banking since money corrupts and attracts corrupt people to banking. Only defense is regulation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You certainly pat yourself on the back alot. Good Christian value, vanity.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I find great delight observing conservatives who wave the flag of Christianity and yet completely lack any understanding of the teachings of Jesus. I’m not pointing my finger at anyone here, just at my observations in life in general.

There’s a lot of people on this planet that need to take a long hard look in the mirror.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The more that government is centralized and the less it is limited, the greater the connection between the banks and the government--so the more that regulations become favorable for the central banks. It was government regulation that led to the housing bubble, and government stimulus that created the following stock bubble that is now experiencing a correction which is not finished and may get worse and create a new financial "crisis." And that will lead to more regulation to save the ability of government to borrow money by saving the big banks.

And so will continue the growth of that symbiotic relation between our expanding government and the banking system. The real defense against that is a free market in which poor or corrupt banking policies actually lead to failure instead of government protection and greater wealth for the bankers.

If our government regulations protected a free market rather than supporting its cash cow, that would be, as you put it, the "only defense."

this can't be correct...democrat politicians would never work in conjunction with evil businesses to rig the system in their favor...they are only concerned for the "little guy" and therefore all of the regulation that they propose and support and pass must naturally fix all that is wrong with the world....can't possibly be the reason for or contribute to any such failures...more government=freedom and fairness for all...ideally...we move to one, government run banking system(after healthcare gets done)...then there will be no more greed and pillaging and profit by those running things

Perhaps the road to serfdom is paved with good intentions?
How will the end of work play into that?

And decentralization can lead to localized corruption as well. See it all the time in communities.

Pretty much exactly the opposite. The bubble was mainly caused by a lack of regulatory control that allowed for cheap and reckless loans, further exacerbated by additional lack of regulation that encouraged corrupt banking practices to obfuscate the risk.

"The bubble was mainly caused by a lack of regulatory control that allowed for cheap and reckless loans,"

You are correct there. But I wonder what would have happened, if the Bush administration had put a stop to that. if the feds passed laws saying banks had to follow more traditional mortgage underwriting, then people would have said Bush was trying to keep poor people from buying houses. But I think you nailed the causes. The Clinton administration, with the GOP congress I think, removed the regulations which prevented traditional banks from getting too involved in these fishy investments.

It was government regulation that encouraged and coerced the cheap and reckless loans.

The traditional banks were directed and encouraged by a regulation that substantially led to these fishy investments--The Community Reinvestment Act.

While you say Traditional Banks, traditional banks no longer exist. The bank that i used to be able to call and say i need this, they would say, for what and put the money in my account, I would stop and sign the paper has been bought and sold 3 times in the past 20 years.
All we have now is corporations funding other corporations, there are no banks that care about the community or their clients.

That's complete nonsense, it was deregulation that allowed lending and securities to become one in the same.

It was government regulation that led to people who could not afford to pay for a home loan to get one. That led to bad mortgage notes which were bundled in with good ones and then sold to unknowing suckers. Without the plethora of bad notes, that corrupt bundling would not have occurred or been far less destructive.

Your position isn't supported by the facts. CRA loans actually have had a much lower default rate historically. I think this was discussed years ago on this very site.

The smaller banks were not bailed out. Banking became, as did many other corporations, more centralized into fewer large ones. Many small "traditional" small, single owner businesses, like neighborhood corner drug stores, have become scarce or no longer exist. They have been replaced by franchises which are under the umbrella of large, centralized corporations. The regulatory state promotes corporatism over smaller business entities. The big business/big government complex grows.

I see your reference is a financial gossip blogger who was fired from businessinsider shortly after the piece was authored.

Touche indeed :laugha:

I see you didn't refute a thing he said. There are plenty of other sources that say the same things. I chose Business Insider because it is a left leaning publication. Maybe that's why they fired him.

BI isn't left leaning as much as just catering to a younger demographic. Don't need to refute anything he's said, it's all in the archives in this forum.

Oh . . . in the archives . . .al-l-l-righty then! I like your debate style. And, yeah, Business insider is left leaning. It's in the google archives.

more reason to not vote for Democrats and their liberal policy, and more reason to vote for more liberties and freedoms and free market