On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:21:18 -0800, Calif Bill wrote:


It started a lot further back than Bush, or Clinton, or Bush 1.

Bush Basher that I am, I can't blame this on Bush. I believe the
government gets too much blame, *and* too much credit, for the economy.
The government might have developed the framework that allowed this to
happen, but they didn't cause it to happen. No one put a gun to the head
of Wall Street's Masters of the Universe and forced them to make
incredibly risky decisions. No one told Lehman Brothers they had to
leverage themselves 33 to 1. Greed and stupidity did that. This is a
free market, after all.

thunder wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:21:18 -0800, Calif Bill wrote:


It started a lot further back than Bush, or Clinton, or Bush 1.

Bush Basher that I am, I can't blame this on Bush. I believe the
government gets too much blame, *and* too much credit, for the economy.
The government might have developed the framework that allowed this to
happen, but they didn't cause it to happen. No one put a gun to the head
of Wall Street's Masters of the Universe and forced them to make
incredibly risky decisions. No one told Lehman Brothers they had to
leverage themselves 33 to 1. Greed and stupidity did that. This is a
free market, after all.



If you look backwards to some legislation good old Phil Gramm
promulgated, you'll find some answers. Look up the Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act. It allowed all sorts of financial mergers, such as the ones between
banks and insurance companies, and, bascially, deregulated the financial
services company.

In other words, it was a license for greed.

On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 11:35:03 -0400, HK wrote:


If you look backwards to some legislation good old Phil Gramm
promulgated, you'll find some answers. Look up the Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act. It allowed all sorts of financial mergers, such as the ones between
banks and insurance companies, and, bascially, deregulated the financial
services company.

In other words, it was a license for greed.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was a mistake, but it allowed this to happen.
It didn't cause this to happen. In the markets, greed has been, and will
be around forever. Nothing wrong with that, but it has to be balanced
with risk. IMO, it's the government's job to protect the economy from
the inevitable greed-risk imbalances. Some smart, hopefully minimal,
regulations have to be put in place to keep this disaster from happening
again. I would start by repealing Gramm-Leach-Bliley.

thunder wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 11:35:03 -0400, HK wrote:


If you look backwards to some legislation good old Phil Gramm
promulgated, you'll find some answers. Look up the Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act. It allowed all sorts of financial mergers, such as the ones between
banks and insurance companies, and, bascially, deregulated the financial
services company.

In other words, it was a license for greed.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was a mistake, but it allowed this to happen.
It didn't cause this to happen. In the markets, greed has been, and will
be around forever. Nothing wrong with that, but it has to be balanced
with risk. IMO, it's the government's job to protect the economy from
the inevitable greed-risk imbalances. Some smart, hopefully minimal,
regulations have to be put in place to keep this disaster from happening
again. I would start by repealing Gramm-Leach-Bliley.


That's a start. And I would also suggest that *all* financial
institutions be oversighted and regulated by effective state insurance
commissions who have the power to come in at anytime, unannounced, pull
the books and padlock the doors, if deemed necessary. I would also
stipulate more examinations by organizations like A.M. Best, which
investigates and rates insurance companies.

I'm also not a fan of the big national banks, and never have been. The
remaining solid ones out to be broken up into state or at best regional
entities.

On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 11:51:57 -0400, HK wrote:



That's a start. And I would also suggest that *all* financial
institutions be oversighted and regulated by effective state insurance
commissions who have the power to come in at anytime, unannounced, pull
the books and padlock the doors, if deemed necessary. I would also
stipulate more examinations by organizations like A.M. Best, which
investigates and rates insurance companies.

I watched a Congressional hearing yesterday where state's AG's
testified how their investigations in the financial area are seriously
hampered by federal rules which end up protecting fraudsters from
investigation and prosecution.
Barney Frank - who chaired - wasn't happy listening to them, and did
his best to brush their criticisms aside.
I don't trust this asshole at all, and he's running that show.
He's so busy covering his ass for his past malfeasance that he's
rendered himself ineffective.
The very people who allowed this mess to happen are now trying to fix
it. Best argument for term limits I've ever seen.

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 11:51:57 -0400, HK wrote:


That's a start. And I would also suggest that *all* financial
institutions be oversighted and regulated by effective state insurance
commissions who have the power to come in at anytime, unannounced, pull
the books and padlock the doors, if deemed necessary. I would also
stipulate more examinations by organizations like A.M. Best, which
investigates and rates insurance companies.

I watched a Congressional hearing yesterday where state's AG's
testified how their investigations in the financial area are seriously
hampered by federal rules which end up protecting fraudsters from
investigation and prosecution.
Barney Frank - who chaired - wasn't happy listening to them, and did
his best to brush their criticisms aside.
I don't trust this asshole at all, and he's running that show.
He's so busy covering his ass for his past malfeasance that he's
rendered himself ineffective.
The very people who allowed this mess to happen are now trying to fix
it. Best argument for term limits I've ever seen.

--Vic


Just more evidence that the "free market system" is only free at the top
for those who want to abuse it.

We need to bust up these huge financial services companies. Your typical
small business owner wouldn't dream of committing the sort of fraud the
big guys engage in every day.

thunder wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:21:18 -0800, Calif Bill wrote:


It started a lot further back than Bush, or Clinton, or Bush 1.

Bush Basher that I am, I can't blame this on Bush. I believe the
government gets too much blame, *and* too much credit, for the economy.
The government might have developed the framework that allowed this to
happen, but they didn't cause it to happen. No one put a gun to the head
of Wall Street's Masters of the Universe and forced them to make
incredibly risky decisions. No one told Lehman Brothers they had to
leverage themselves 33 to 1. Greed and stupidity did that. This is a
free market, after all.

Except the Clinton administration in forcing banks to make loans to
unqualified individuals because it was everyone's right to own a home.

On Mar 21, 6:30*pm, Keith Nuttle wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:21:18 -0800, Calif Bill wrote:

It started a lot further back than Bush, or Clinton, or Bush 1.

Bush Basher that I am, I can't blame this on Bush. *I believe the
government gets too much blame, *and* too much credit, for the economy. *
The government might have developed the framework that allowed this to
happen, but they didn't cause it to happen. *No one put a gun to the head
of Wall Street's Masters of the Universe and forced them to make
incredibly risky decisions. *No one told Lehman Brothers they had to
leverage themselves 33 to 1. *Greed and stupidity did that. *This is a
free market, after all.

Except the Clinton administration in forcing banks to make loans to
unqualified individuals because it was everyone's right to own a home.

which had nothing to do with the current situation. countrywide
financial was the largest provider of mortgage loans in the US and was
not subject to the type of law (the community reinvestment act) that
you think had a role.

the real problem was credit default swaps. in 2000 the total amount of
credit default swaps was $920 billion. in 2007, the amount of CDS was
$62 TRILLION....or more than the entire output of all economies on the
planet. how did wall street propose to pay $62 trillion in exposure?

that's greed. it's stupidity.

california bill is right: the govt gave wall street a loaded pistol
via deregulation of derivatives.

wall street greed pulled the trigger.

"wf3h" wrote in message
...
On Mar 21, 6:30 pm, Keith Nuttle wrote:
thunder wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 15:21:18 -0800, Calif Bill wrote:

It started a lot further back than Bush, or Clinton, or Bush 1.

Bush Basher that I am, I can't blame this on Bush. I believe the
government gets too much blame, *and* too much credit, for the economy.
The government might have developed the framework that allowed this to
happen, but they didn't cause it to happen. No one put a gun to the head
of Wall Street's Masters of the Universe and forced them to make
incredibly risky decisions. No one told Lehman Brothers they had to
leverage themselves 33 to 1. Greed and stupidity did that. This is a
free market, after all.

Except the Clinton administration in forcing banks to make loans to
unqualified individuals because it was everyone's right to own a home.

which had nothing to do with the current situation. countrywide
financial was the largest provider of mortgage loans in the US and was
not subject to the type of law (the community reinvestment act) that
you think had a role.

the real problem was credit default swaps. in 2000 the total amount of
credit default swaps was $920 billion. in 2007, the amount of CDS was
$62 TRILLION....or more than the entire output of all economies on the
planet. how did wall street propose to pay $62 trillion in exposure?

that's greed. it's stupidity.

california bill is right: the govt gave wall street a loaded pistol
via deregulation of derivatives.

wall street greed pulled the trigger.


And the Congress people who gave the gun to wall street cashed in huge
bribes, opps campaign contributions. And it was not under Bush's when the
majority of bullets for the gun were manufactured.

On Sat, 21 Mar 2009 18:30:42 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:


Except the Clinton administration in forcing banks to make loans to
unqualified individuals because it was everyone's right to own a home.

I don't buy it. This was a market problem, not a political problem.
Fully 1/2 of sub-prime loans were from mortgage companies *not* covered
by the CRA. They didn't make those loans because of Clinton. They made
those loans because of greed and stupidity. The groupthink that's at the
root of all bubbles. The market will keep going up and up, and we'll all
get rich.

This wasn't about home ownership. It was about using houses as banks.
Sucking out any equity, to pay of credit card bills. Flipping houses
expecting a 10-15% return in a year. It was a bubble, and like all
bubbles, it burst. It wasn't Clinton's fault. It wasn't Bush's fault.
It was *our* fault.