So you dodge or ignore my first two questions and point the finger at someone else to sidestep the third?

Hardly a sidestep. I’m pointing at the locus of the problem. It exemplifies the ’stiffarm’ you spoke of.

You wrote: “That you manage to find a worthwhile read in the thing occasionally, doesn’t engender nearly the help needed for the reputation of the place, in my view. Sorry.”

I’ll bet a gooberwad that you still didn’t read that article. Good for you! “And don’t apologize! It’s like those miserable Psalms –they’re sooooooo depressing!”

You wrote: “Oh, I dunno. Ask Chris Dodd.”

So you dodge or ignore my first two questions and point the finger at someone else to sidestep the third?

Let us face the fact that the CRA didn’t make the banks overleverage at 30:1. The banks grabbed that fumbled ball at the 5-yard line, ran with it while throwing a couple of stiffarms into the face of regulation at the 50-yard mark (with the consent of the referees (read the government “regulators”)), and finally blasted into the end zone while dancing with diamond watches and earrings glittering in the staduim lights. A short touchdown display of slamming the ball through the uprights (read AIG bonuses, et al.) really kicked sand in the face of the losing team.

I’m afraid to inform you that you’ve been pwn3d by Alex. (And me, too.)

regards

I don’t know about you, Mr. Florack, but I have an open mind about many things and have read a number of very good articles in the Atlantic

That you manage to find a worthwhile read in the thing occasionally, doesn’t engender nearly the help needed for the reputation of the place, in my view. Sorry.

You said, “The government, under Clinton MANDATED that they lend to risky borrowers.”

You are correct there. But let’s get down to brass tacks here. What percentage of the risky loans were forced on the banks; did the banks ever exceed that percentage; can you explain Countrywide’s collapse?

Oh, I dunno. Ask Chris Dodd.

And on what basis, once a policy was established to grant such loans would you manage to keep out of court a case brought by someone denied such a loan because they didn’t happen to fall inside a percentile?

Seems to me you’re the one who needs to research your subject. Pay particular attention to lawsuits, this time round.

Always research your subject.”

For The Win!

I don’t know about you, Mr. Florack, but I have an open mind about many things and have read a number of very good articles in the Atlantic. I like to get opinions and analysis from as many sources as I can so that I attain solid backing for my reasoning and arguments.

Your dismissive tone concerning the Atlantic I find to be disconcerting. Did you even read the article that I linked? I bet not.

Just because you worked in a bank doesn’t make you an expert. And maybe, just maybe some research would have helped a little to flesh out your arguments.

You said, “The government, under Clinton MANDATED that they lend to risky borrowers.”

You are correct there. But let’s get down to brass tacks here. What percentage of the risky loans were forced on the banks; did the banks ever exceed that percentage; can you explain Countrywide’s collapse?

What about the banks being allowed to leverage 30:1? That’s ridiculous on its face. I’m no economist or banker, but that smacks of nonregulation! Even a fool would know better than to bet the farm with that much liability!

regards

This explains why your article falls short. Not researching cause of this banking crisis, and assuming it is due to what you saw come across your desk is nonsense. You saw less than 1 / 10 of 1% how banking works and you saw absolutely nothing how international banking operates. There is no substitute for good research.

PNB paribas froze depositors funds in August of 2007, this is what set off the crisis. PNB does not sell mortgages in the USA, so if a french bank had exposure, there was more than subprime mortgages in play. It was at that point the house of cards came crashing down as Banks scrambled to unload worthless derivatives, which were insured by AIG. The hundreds of billions sent to AIG went to pay off European banks and Goldman Sachs holding derivatives, not american banks writing sub prime mortgages.

Regulated banking system worked just fine after Glass Steagal was legislated in 1934. Congress forced banks to operate under regulation as they went wild during the 1920’s and issued credit based on thin air. This forced banks to operate in a regulated and organized system of credit markets and brought stability to the American banking system.

In 1999 Congress and Clinton repealed Glass Steagal and allowed banks to once again run amok and issue credit (derivatives) out of thin air. Interestingly enough it took the same amount of time, one decade, for banks to destroy credit systems and bring markets crashing down.

Always research your subject.

Numbers dont lie;

But, liars figure.

What Banks did was create derivatives to sell each other out of thin air.

But, why? The whole things started rolling when the CRA got modified by Clinton. What the banks were doing was a direct reaction to governmental interference in the marketplace. THe law of unintended consequences. The government, under Clinton MANDATED that they lend to risky borrowers. The laws he set up wouldn’t let them grow or expand without doing so. That changed the way they did business and is exactly what got us here. That’s the corruption you speak of, Alex. It wasn’t a lack of regulation, it was OVER-regulation. And it falls directly at the feet of the Democrats.

And Alex? I didn’t need to research the thing. I spent a few years in a bank. I got to see this stuff from the inside.

His remarks about the people with the pitchforks didn’t “come out of nowhere”. He has a nasty and very low opinion of the general population of the United States and doesn’t succeed in masking it very well, as illustrated also in his remarks on the road last fall with regard to the Bible clingers, etc.

Can you imagine President Bush or President Reagan referring to those who opposed them as a bunch of people with pitchforks?…ready to come after those involved with the administration?

I fully expect to hear soon about obama’s plans to force everyone to register their pitchforks. Apparently this is the kind of stuff he thinks about when he visualizes people opposing his policies.

The potential massive mental breakdown you posit has occurred to me as well. This group is so removed from normal procedures, practices, protocols and policies they have got to be experiencing mental overload from morning ’til night. (And I don’t say that with any sympathy or empathy. Just sayin’.)

Please….