|
Oops ! here we go again ..... panic has broken out; in share markets AGAIN .... ZZZZZZZZ
|
|
Topic Started: Jan 22 2008, 06:28 AM (477 Views)
|
|
Minuet
|
Jan 23 2008, 04:40 PM
Post #31
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
- Posts:
- 36,559
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- May 19, 2003
|
- Dandandat
- Jan 23 2008, 04:12 PM
Research a man named Alan Greenspan. That's a start. Most of this is his doing.
With the flood of capital in 2000 Banks had to do something with it. After exhausting shore bet loans they moved into more risky loans and then into very risky loans. No a bank can’t capitalize on defaulted moorage; but like most humans Bank policy makes suffered hubris, believing the risk was well worth the reward. And since they where deemed “To Big To Fail” that only helped to entice them.
Add to that the systematic end runaround of Banking regulations brought about by the use of SIVs and Conduits, all under the nose of Alan Greenspan, and you get the problem we have today.
Was this response for Admiralbill?
I know a bit about Mr. Greenspan, so I presume you are speaking to AB. The man has served under both Democrats and Republicans, but I believe he was first appointed by a Republican. (Ronald Reagan) Source for basic information on Mr. Greenspan
I think your remark on hubris makes a great deal of sense. I really find it difficult to believe that anyone could "strongarm" the banks in your country. They wield a great deal of financial power on thier own and are unlikely to bow to any pressure from either side.
|
|
|
| |
|
Dandandat
|
Jan 23 2008, 04:51 PM
Post #32
|
Time to put something here
- Posts:
- 17,948
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- August 30, 2003
|
- Minuet
- Jan 23 2008, 04:40 PM
- Dandandat
- Jan 23 2008, 04:12 PM
Research a man named Alan Greenspan. That's a start. Most of this is his doing.
With the flood of capital in 2000 Banks had to do something with it. After exhausting shore bet loans they moved into more risky loans and then into very risky loans. No a bank can’t capitalize on defaulted moorage; but like most humans Bank policy makes suffered hubris, believing the risk was well worth the reward. And since they where deemed “To Big To Fail” that only helped to entice them.
Add to that the systematic end runaround of Banking regulations brought about by the use of SIVs and Conduits, all under the nose of Alan Greenspan, and you get the problem we have today.
Was this response for Admiralbill? I know a bit about Mr. Greenspan, so I presume you are speaking to AB. The man has served under both Democrats and Republicans, but I believe he was first appointed by a Republican. (Ronald Reagan) Source for basic information on Mr. GreenspanI think your remark on hubris makes a great deal of sense. I really find it difficult to believe that anyone could "strongarm" the banks in your country. They wield a great deal of financial power on thier own and are unlikely to bow to any pressure from either side.
It was an attempt to explain the truth regarding the sub prime and credit problems. Alan Greenspan will be blamed for this for a long time to come, it will have marred his otherwise well run administration.
I would agree that Greenspan was not partisan.
Every recession is preceded by hubris, this time it was on the part of the Banks and investors in foreign markets, last time it was the average joe investor. All saying "Things are different this time" in order to turn a blind eye to the risk they are running.
|
|
|
| |
|
Admiralbill_gomec
|
Jan 23 2008, 04:57 PM
Post #33
|
UberAdmiral
- Posts:
- 26,022
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #5
- Joined:
- August 26, 2003
|
- Minuet
- Jan 23 2008, 04:32 PM
- Admiralbill_gomec
- Jan 23 2008, 03:51 PM
- Minuet
- Jan 23 2008, 09:54 AM
- Quote:
-
So, let's look at the so-called "credit crunch" or "housing crisis." Truth be told, it affects six percent of the ten trillion dollar housing market. How did it come about? Liberal polititions forcing (some would use the word "strongarm tactics") banks to lend to credit-poor constituents. Following that is a sympathetic media urging the issue.
Interesting theory - I've never heard that one before. I thought it was because the banks were trying to open up new markets and make more money. Sort of the same as giving credit cards to people who cannot pay thier balance each month so that they can gouge them for the interest. Do you have any examples of these "strongarm" tactics that the poor poor banks were "forced" into?
Research a man named Charles Schumer. That's a start. Most of this is his doing. The flaw in your theory is that people who can't make payments don't make interest payments either. In addition, you pay a monthly mortgage. You renege on it and you lose your house and the bank is stuck with a bad loan. Most of the subprime loans were ARM (adjustable rate mortgage) loans, usually 2/28 (two years of a low rate that adjusts upward for the rest of the loan). In addition, many of these subprime borrowers paid no money down so they had no equity in the home. Bad news all around.
I haven't forwarded a theory. You made an accusation and as usual liberals were your scapegoat. I haven't the time to research Mr. Schumer. Why don't you detail his involvment? Surely you can come up with at least one, strongarm tactic to back up your accusations. I presume you had something specific in mind when you made the accusation. So let it out. Let's hear it. Otherwise your accusations aren't worth the cyberspace.
Neither is your response. typical, though.
|
|
|
| |
|
Minuet
|
Jan 23 2008, 07:27 PM
Post #34
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
- Posts:
- 36,559
- Group:
- Flag Officer
- Member
- #2
- Joined:
- May 19, 2003
|
- Admiralbill_gomec
- Jan 23 2008, 04:57 PM
- Minuet
- Jan 23 2008, 04:32 PM
- Admiralbill_gomec
- Jan 23 2008, 03:51 PM
- Minuet
- Jan 23 2008, 09:54 AM
- Quote:
-
So, let's look at the so-called "credit crunch" or "housing crisis." Truth be told, it affects six percent of the ten trillion dollar housing market. How did it come about? Liberal polititions forcing (some would use the word "strongarm tactics") banks to lend to credit-poor constituents. Following that is a sympathetic media urging the issue.
Interesting theory - I've never heard that one before. I thought it was because the banks were trying to open up new markets and make more money. Sort of the same as giving credit cards to people who cannot pay thier balance each month so that they can gouge them for the interest. Do you have any examples of these "strongarm" tactics that the poor poor banks were "forced" into?
Research a man named Charles Schumer. That's a start. Most of this is his doing. The flaw in your theory is that people who can't make payments don't make interest payments either. In addition, you pay a monthly mortgage. You renege on it and you lose your house and the bank is stuck with a bad loan. Most of the subprime loans were ARM (adjustable rate mortgage) loans, usually 2/28 (two years of a low rate that adjusts upward for the rest of the loan). In addition, many of these subprime borrowers paid no money down so they had no equity in the home. Bad news all around.
I haven't forwarded a theory. You made an accusation and as usual liberals were your scapegoat. I haven't the time to research Mr. Schumer. Why don't you detail his involvment? Surely you can come up with at least one, strongarm tactic to back up your accusations. I presume you had something specific in mind when you made the accusation. So let it out. Let's hear it. Otherwise your accusations aren't worth the cyberspace.
Neither is your response. typical, though.
Actually it is your response that is typical. You are the first one to ask for "proof" from others, yet are unwilling to provide a single concrete example here.
I don't know every single politician in the US, nor do I know their records. If you make an accusation you should be mature enough to explain with specific examples. Otherwise you just come off as a partisan hack who is more concerned about conservatives being right and liberals being wrong.
Your biased and unfounded attacks are much like those of another member that you often clash with.
Dandandat has backed up his comments with a specific example of something that led to the problems when he mentioned the flood of capital. If you disagree with him at least explain why.
|
|
|
| |