"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:12:29 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

McCain was among those who advocated
for the failed policies of deregulation,

So long as people buy into that kind of superficial nonsense, the problem
won't be solved. There needs to be some creative thinking about how to
restructure our financial system so that there is no such thing as a bank
too big to fail.

There are a lot of mortgage backed assets out there now that are changing
hands, when they do change hands, at far less than their risk and
projected
cash flows justify. That means there are some big profit opportunities for
the right buyer.

There is also a great deal of capital sitting on the sidelines that could
be matched up with those assets. The objective should be to get the
undervalued assets out of the hands of the "too big to fail" institutions
and into the hands of a large number of smaller players funded by the
capital on the sidelines.

That means that in one fashion or another those "too big to fail"
institutions have to be allowed to fail, and their assets split up into a
number of smaller but healthy institutions.

Empty-headed slogans about the supposed evils of deregulation (a la
Democrats), or "corruption" or "greed" (a la McCain) aren't going to get
us
there.


I agree with much of this, except that I do believe a lot of this could have
been prevented or mitigated by regulations that were either abandoned or
ignored. And, there was certainly plenty of corruption and greed. McCain
knows all about that, having been involved up to his eyeballs with Keating.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:56:48 -0700, Capt. JG wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:12:29 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

McCain was among those who advocated
for the failed policies of deregulation,

So long as people buy into that kind of superficial nonsense, the
problem won't be solved. There needs to be some creative thinking about
how to restructure our financial system so that there is no such thing
as a bank too big to fail.

There are a lot of mortgage backed assets out there now that are
changing hands, when they do change hands, at far less than their risk
and projected
cash flows justify. That means there are some big profit opportunities
for the right buyer.

There is also a great deal of capital sitting on the sidelines that
could be matched up with those assets. The objective should be to get
the undervalued assets out of the hands of the "too big to fail"
institutions and into the hands of a large number of smaller players
funded by the capital on the sidelines.

That means that in one fashion or another those "too big to fail"
institutions have to be allowed to fail, and their assets split up into
a number of smaller but healthy institutions.

Empty-headed slogans about the supposed evils of deregulation (a la
Democrats), or "corruption" or "greed" (a la McCain) aren't going to
get us
there.


I agree with much of this, except that I do believe a lot of this could
have been prevented or mitigated by regulations that were either
abandoned or ignored. And, there was certainly plenty of corruption and
greed. McCain knows all about that, having been involved up to his
eyeballs with Keating.

keating had nothig to do with the current problem caused by dem's
insisting that people that couldn't afford a loan had to be given one
anyways, just to be fair.

"Ken Marino" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:56:48 -0700, Capt. JG wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 13:12:29 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

McCain was among those who advocated
for the failed policies of deregulation,

So long as people buy into that kind of superficial nonsense, the
problem won't be solved. There needs to be some creative thinking about
how to restructure our financial system so that there is no such thing
as a bank too big to fail.

There are a lot of mortgage backed assets out there now that are
changing hands, when they do change hands, at far less than their risk
and projected
cash flows justify. That means there are some big profit opportunities
for the right buyer.

There is also a great deal of capital sitting on the sidelines that
could be matched up with those assets. The objective should be to get
the undervalued assets out of the hands of the "too big to fail"
institutions and into the hands of a large number of smaller players
funded by the capital on the sidelines.

That means that in one fashion or another those "too big to fail"
institutions have to be allowed to fail, and their assets split up into
a number of smaller but healthy institutions.

Empty-headed slogans about the supposed evils of deregulation (a la
Democrats), or "corruption" or "greed" (a la McCain) aren't going to
get us
there.


I agree with much of this, except that I do believe a lot of this could
have been prevented or mitigated by regulations that were either
abandoned or ignored. And, there was certainly plenty of corruption and
greed. McCain knows all about that, having been involved up to his
eyeballs with Keating.

keating had nothig to do with the current problem caused by dem's
insisting that people that couldn't afford a loan had to be given one
anyways, just to be fair.


Keating have very much to do with the current problem, supported by McCain
who has apparently learned little from his humilation.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 10:56:48 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

I agree with much of this, except that I do believe a lot of this could
have
been prevented or mitigated by regulations that were either abandoned or
ignored.

Yet you've repeatedly failed to corroborate that belief with specifics,
choosing instead to fling about without amplification some ill-informed
general references repeal of a 1930s statute that no knowledgeable
observer
would suggest had any impact on the current crisis.


Squirm all you want, but the fact remains that McCain was responsible for
much of the deregulation that lead directly to the financial meltdown we're
experiencing. McCain, by his own words, supported Bush 90% of the time. Bush
was a disaster on so many levels that even if McCain was 5% complicit, he
should resign from the Presidential race and the Senate immediately.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 13:50:16 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

McCain was responsible for
much of the deregulation that lead directly to the financial meltdown
we're
experiencing.

And of course you again fail to identify any such deregulation. Where's
the
beef, Jon?


Do your own research! He claims he was anti-regulation and I take him at his
word. Don't you?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008 18:34:47 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

And of course you again fail to identify any such deregulation. Where's
the
beef, Jon?


Do your own research!

No need to, Jon. I'm quite familiar with bank regulation. Deal with it
daily. That's why I asked the question--to demonstrate that you haven't a
clue about financial regulation or deregulation.


So, you're now claiming that removing legislation that's been around for
decades didn't significantly contribute to the melt-down. Talk about fantasy
land!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 18:38:17 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

No need to, Jon. I'm quite familiar with bank regulation. Deal with it
daily. That's why I asked the question--to demonstrate that you haven't
a
clue about financial regulation or deregulation.


So, you're now claiming that removing legislation that's been around for
decades didn't significantly contribute to the melt-down. Talk about
fantasy
land!

I'm not simply claiming it--it's true. I've explained elsewhere why that's
the case. And despite my repeated requests you have come forward with no
explanation whatever of any reason why the Glass-Steagall's replacement by
Gramm-Leach_Bliley's holding company provisions had any impact on the
mortgage crisis. There's a whole universe of liberal blogs out there
making
that claim, and not a one that I've seen has come up with even a
semi-credible basis for it. They simply chant "deregulation" over and over
like some magic incantation, apparently relying on the principle that if
you
repeat a lie often enough and loud enough people will eventually believe
it.


Yep, it's fantasy time for you. You need to stop listing to the
right-wingnut financiers.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:04:52 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

I'm not simply claiming it--it's true. I've explained elsewhere why
that's
the case. And despite my repeated requests you have come forward with no
explanation whatever of any reason why the Glass-Steagall's replacement
by
Gramm-Leach_Bliley's holding company provisions had any impact on the
mortgage crisis. There's a whole universe of liberal blogs out there
making
that claim, and not a one that I've seen has come up with even a
semi-credible basis for it. They simply chant "deregulation" over and
over
like some magic incantation, apparently relying on the principle that if
you
repeat a lie often enough and loud enough people will eventually believe
it.


Yep, it's fantasy time for you. You need to stop listing to the
right-wingnut financiers.

Hey, Jon, I'm listening for you to supply that explanation. So far all I'm
getting is deafening silence.


"Few pin all the blame for the current crisis on the repeal of
Glass-Steagall or expect its wall of separation to return. Steven Kyle,
associate professor of economics at Cornell University, says re-imposing
that wall with the "sledgehammer or meat-axe approach of the 30s" would not
be advisable, but for Congress to have "cut that wall and replaced it with
nothing was a bad idea."

"There's no question in my mind that there was inadequate regulation which
led to this mess," says Kyle. "If you look at financial history, certainly
the private market does self-regulate, but with periodic crashes, and we
don't like that."

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 12:16:06 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

Hey, Jon, I'm listening for you to supply that explanation. So far all
I'm
getting is deafening silence.


"Few pin all the blame for the current crisis on the repeal of
Glass-Steagall or expect its wall of separation to return. Steven Kyle,
associate professor of economics at Cornell University, says re-imposing
that wall with the "sledgehammer or meat-axe approach of the 30s" would
not
be advisable, but for Congress to have "cut that wall and replaced it with
nothing was a bad idea."

"There's no question in my mind that there was inadequate regulation which
led to this mess," says Kyle. "If you look at financial history, certainly
the private market does self-regulate, but with periodic crashes, and we
don't like that."

Looks to me like you've just proved my point far better than I could,Jon
Even your academic "source" doesn't claim that the repeal of Glass
Steagall
had anything to do with the mortgage melt-down. His first sentence is most
enlightening, since it confirms what I've been saying all along. And like
you he simply says it's "inadequate regulation" that caused the problem,
apparently expecting people to believe him without the need to get into
messy specifics like identifying what "inadequate regulation" he has in
mind, and how the alleged inadequacy is the result of specific changes.

I'd be happy to discuss the impact of other changed regulations on the
mortgage problem if you'd just tell us what changes you have in mind. I
think your "expert" pretty much drove the last nail in the coffin of your
Glass Steagall claims.


I never claimed that Glass Steagall was the sole cause and you know it.
Lying isn't helping your cause. I claimed and I and others with greater
expertise than I claim that deregulation has significantly contributed to
the debacle. If you choose not to believe it, fine with me, but don't
distort my views toward your silly point of view.


--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com