Basic economics for Republicans (attorney, Sanders, companies, dollar)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What happens when artificially inflated collateral readjusts ,(bubble bursts)? A lot of people lose a lot of money, but the bubble creators made a fortune first, which is how ponzi schemes generally work.
Tell that to Bear Stearns, AIG, New Century, Countrywide, Lehman, WaMu, et. al.
It's not a defense. My posts were in response to this being a ponzi scheme.
If you need that explained, I cannot help you.
That's how a Ponzi scheme works......except when caught the guilty parties are usually prosecuted. Angelo Mozilo was far guiltier than Madoff. As is Lloyd Blankfein.
Doesn't matter what the repubs did, because what they did in isolation didn't cause the problem. The Dems in isolation didn't cause the problem. Together one was digging up the foundation while the other was putting in a roof garden, and if the whole picture had been seen before the event someone might have thought, you know, I think that may not be such a great idea.
I agree in principle that both parties are responsible, but claiming the CRA was a factor in the financial crisis is an inherently partisan argument.
Quote:
what does not work is deregulating the credit market and requiring by law that lenders begin to provide loans to people on factors other than solely financial.
To the extent that "forced mortgage lending" occured at all, had no impact on the mortgage crisis.
I'm not claiming the Democrats are absolved of responsibility. I'm just saying that your particular argument here does not hold water in an analytical sense. It's really puzzling to me how someone interested in this topic can point to "forced lending" as a factor in the crisis, when the only analysis claiming such has been thoroughly debunked.
I agree in principle that both parties are responsible, but claiming the CRA was a factor in the financial crisis is an inherently partisan argument.
How it was carried out was a factor. Granting loans to people with no verifiable income is not going to end well. Would that alone have caused the crash? No, but that is why it is noted as only a factor.
Quote:
To the extent that "forced mortgage lending" occured at all, had no impact on the mortgage crisis.
I'm not claiming the Democrats are absolved of responsibility. I'm just saying that your particular argument here does not hold water in an analytical sense. It's really puzzling to me how someone interested in this topic can point to "forced lending" as a factor in the crisis, when the only analysis claiming such has been thoroughly debunked.
It wasn't forced. It was a quid pro quo arrangement. You provide bad loans and we relax regulations.
That's how a Ponzi scheme works......except when caught the guilty parties are usually prosecuted. Angelo Mozilo was far guiltier than Madoff. As is Lloyd Blankfein.
No. That's not how a Ponzi scheme works.
It may feel that way but...... systemic - not operator / investor specific.
This would be a Ponzi within the system-wide downturn.
I'm not seeing where the top 1% or even the top 0.1% is paying a lower effective federal income tax rate than anyone else.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
