Gogarty wrote:

It wasn't socialism that crashed but capitalism. Ironically, the gummint now
has to resort to socialism to try to fill the hole in the dike.

Peaceful Bill wrote:
Actually, it was socialism, in the form of pressuring lenders to make
loans to those unfit to pay them, that brought down capitalism.

Is this a re-run?

How did "pressuring lenders to make loans to those unfit to pay them"
force Wall St corporate banks to extend their leverage on CDOs and
similar vehicles of unassessed risk?

Seems to me like the gripe is legit about 'privatising profit while
socialising risk.' And if you look carefully, instead of just
listening to the fascist tub-thumpers, you'll see that our neighbor to
the North has far less of a problem with their banks.

DSK

wrote:
Gogarty wrote:

It wasn't socialism that crashed but capitalism. Ironically, the gummint now
has to resort to socialism to try to fill the hole in the dike.

Peaceful Bill wrote:
Actually, it was socialism, in the form of pressuring lenders to make
loans to those unfit to pay them, that brought down capitalism.

Is this a re-run?

How did "pressuring lenders to make loans to those unfit to pay them"
force Wall St corporate banks to extend their leverage on CDOs and
similar vehicles of unassessed risk?

Seems to me like the gripe is legit about 'privatising profit while
socialising risk.' And if you look carefully, instead of just
listening to the fascist tub-thumpers, you'll see that our neighbor to
the North has far less of a problem with their banks.

DSK



You clearly can't see the connection. So there's no point in wasting my
time on explaining it to you.

Yeah, Canada is a world leader in economics and banking. All five banks.

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:14:40 -0500, Peaceful Bill wrote:

You clearly can't see the connection. So there's no point in wasting my
time on explaining it to you.

it appears that you would like him to see your concocted
connection...but...

Yeah, Canada is a world leader in economics and banking. All five
banks.

name one of the banks in danger of failing?


....

waiting...

mister b wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:14:40 -0500, Peaceful Bill wrote:

You clearly can't see the connection. So there's no point in wasting my
time on explaining it to you.

it appears that you would like him to see your concocted
connection...but...

Yeah, Canada is a world leader in economics and banking. All five
banks.

name one of the banks in danger of failing?

Interesting that you should post this today, The World Economic Forum
just rated Canada's banks as the soundest in the world, ahead of Sweden.

http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv...4981X220081009

USA, #40, behind Namibia for crying out lout! Great Britain? 44th!


Cheers
Martin

"Gogarty" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

Yeah, Canada is a world leader in economics and banking. All five banks.

Yep. All five SOUND banks. Used to be 15,000 individual banks in the USA.
They
were kept honest by their local regulators and since the '30s were
forbidden
to be investment banks. In many states, i.e., Texas and Illinois, they
were
not even permitted to have branches and a stand-alone ATM was considered a
branch.It worked just fine. But the ABA finally prevailed on the
Republicans
to repeal Glass/Steagall, lots of other stuff went by the board (boat
reference) and the rest is disaster. You can quibbble about the details
but
that's the long and the short of it. So now you have the surviving
investment
banks turning themselves into deposit-taking commercial banks for their
own
protection -- under much more stringent regulation. They have fled to the
protective embrace of -- can it really be? -- THE GUMMINT!



When in doubt, blame the Democrats. That's the right-wingnuts' mantra... I
think they think it had something to do with Bill Clinton's blow job.

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

Gogarty wrote:
In article ,
says...

Yeah, Canada is a world leader in economics and banking. All five banks.

Yep. All five SOUND banks. Used to be 15,000 individual banks in the USA. They
were kept honest by their local regulators and since the '30s were forbidden
to be investment banks. In many states, i.e., Texas and Illinois, they were
not even permitted to have branches and a stand-alone ATM was considered a
branch.It worked just fine. But the ABA finally prevailed on the Republicans
to repeal Glass/Steagall, lots of other stuff went by the board (boat
reference) and the rest is disaster. You can quibbble about the details but
that's the long and the short of it. So now you have the surviving investment
banks turning themselves into deposit-taking commercial banks for their own
protection -- under much more stringent regulation. They have fled to the
protective embrace of -- can it really be? -- THE GUMMINT!

You forgot to mention that many states even forbid out-of-state
ownership of banks. Missouri immediately comes to mind. Otherwise a
fair assessment.