fellow servant
Yes.Originally Posted by NHL Fever
Not only does it have a different standard than state control it has different levels of abuse. When the state abuses it is usually much harsher than what happens in capitalist systems.
Capitalist systems have better justice systems, generally, and that means a better chance at recovering losses. Not to mention not being killed for speaking out against the state.
GAL 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
As opposed to the bad man that does nothing?
AMOS 6:3 Ye that put far away the evil day, and cause the seat of violence to come near;
Posting Freak
You can also get killed by speaking out against a business, and this happens all the time in various places in the world. This used to happen with the Mafia who operate on the black market, the purest type of free market. You are assuming that a corporation cannot become like a state, but in fact many examples of state tyranny are closely tied to maintaining corporate tyranny. Business nepotism has a huge, usually critical role in state tyranny, and in fact it can create state tyranny by its influence.
The housing crash is perfect example. Corporate America influenced a process of deregulation which allowed banks to make foolish bets. (For all those who will comment, no this is not because the law said they had to, its because they decided on their own they wanted to and those loans failed at a much greater rate than the government mandated loans) Then the banks made sure the government, through the bailout, made you the average citizen pay for it. This is not fundamentally different than a King coming around and extorting taxes from you in order to raise an army because on of the nobles lost his in a foolish and miscalculated battle. Another perfect example is Russia, which is de facto ruled by an elite business class who ensure Russia is governed to the benefit of their profitability above all else, at the expense of competition and real economic prosperity for the average person.
fellow servant
The Russian Mafia is just about the worst example I can think of in this regard, but it was formed because of the government, not in spite of it.
No, it's not.
Corporate America allowed itself to be influenced by big government and street thugs that had combined forces.
It started with the Clinton Administration passing a law allowing banks to make subprime loans. But the banks refused to fall for it.
Acorn then started threatening the bank presidents and picketting outside the banks.
Some of the idiot bankers fell for it, and started issuing subprime loans.
GAL 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
As opposed to the bad man that does nothing?
AMOS 6:3 Ye that put far away the evil day, and cause the seat of violence to come near;
Posting Freak
This is the standard argument, and it is false. The mandate loans from the Clinton years were probably a bad idea, but they were not the cause of the crash. The number of these loans was fairly constant through the 90's and early 2000's. Then deregulation on the financial and mortgage industry took place, and the loans skyrocketed. This was completely by choice of the industry, not because they needed to meet a quota. They were far beyond the quota's set for them in decades previous. The sector had some regulations restored in the late-2000's, and defaults began to decrease. There are very thorought reports on this topic, which clearly illustrate how the loans in the deregulation period failed at a much higher rate than loans given before or since. Furthermore, the re-packaging of loans into derivatives and other financial products, had absolutely nothing to do with government whatsoever. The very worst years of bad mortgages coincide to where the GSE-sponsored mortgages were at their lowest levels.
Of all the mortgages that failed, the ones that were the riskiest were issued during the years of the greatest deregulation, and failed the most often. Of the mortagages that ran into trouble, the GSE-associated mortgages did the best. So whether or not it makes sense to aim for 64% homeownershp and 50% of homeowners be below the median income (which I think it does not), the facts of the housing crash are that it happened because of widespread and reckless lending that occurred specifically during the years when government deregulated the industry such as to allow it. Furthermore, bubbles develeped in the commercial markets as well which were also deregulated, but had no government mandates like the residential market.
fellow servant
The mandated loans were the deregulation, no?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr1M1...eature=related
Also, the Bush administration warned the banking regulation body in congress that they were headed in the wrong direction and they called the concern "a political lynching" against the head of Fannie Mae, Frank Raines, no?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebWJ8...eature=related
And the Democrats blocked new regulatory legislation, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_2D4...eature=related
Last edited by dan; May 21st 2012 at 05:18 AM. Reason: content
GAL 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
As opposed to the bad man that does nothing?
AMOS 6:3 Ye that put far away the evil day, and cause the seat of violence to come near;
Posting Freak
But none of that changes the facts. The facts are that the GSE-sponsored loans outperformed the sub-prime mortgages given out during the periods of greatest deregulation. The existence of Fannie and Freddie is inherently a bad idea in my opinion, but they were not the primary cause of the crash. Whether democrats or repulicans wanted or didn't want them is beside the point, they did not tip the market into freefall, the lenders did.
Those videos just re-make the points I addressed in the above post, they do not add anything new. They also leave out some of the most important facts about the problem. Specifically, they don't recognize the fact that the types of mortgages given out in the early and mid-2000's went far beyond any of the legislative requirements, and were far riskier products than they were ever required to lend. These were the ones where the banks knew would fail, but had constructed a model where they would profit anyway (previously it was believed that a default was always a money-losing situation for the bank). The main reason was that were able to sell the bad mortgages as repackaged products to other institutions and therefore not be stuck when they failed. These were unconnected to the GSE-sponsored leans of previous years. Those people did not start defaulting until the riskier loans defaulted en mass and drove down the housing values.
A significant part of this problem was expanding the field of institutions who could lend, and relaxing the conditions of lending. Several countries have kept their financial lending industry on a shorter leash and have not run into these problems. To blame this on purely on Fannie and Freddie or laws enforcing loans to minorities, basically means the problem is sure to repeat itself in the future.
Some of the specific points which are faulty:
In the first video it states that ACORN forced the banks to make "bad" (sub-prime) loans. True, but what they leave out is that these loans actually did better than most during the crash.
In the second, valid points are made about the problems with gov backing mortgages, but they make the same mistake by not following that up with the actual results of those loans.
The other vides basically repeat the same points.
These are talking points, presented primarily by Fox for people who enjoy that point of view. They leave a lot out, and clearly have a bias. If you want to actually learn about the mechanics behind what happened, you should try reading some of the reports which were prepared which can show you the actual data and breakdown of which loans ran into trouble and why.
fellow servant
Funny, what really matters to me is the fact that once the bad path was recognized it was not corrected.
Fannie Mae was the lender in many instances, and was the main bail out component.
Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are still making those loans today according to some.
GAL 4:25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.
MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
As opposed to the bad man that does nothing?
AMOS 6:3 Ye that put far away the evil day, and cause the seat of violence to come near;
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks