| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/18/2008 12:06:43 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
One analysis of the current economic troubles that I read concluded that the crisis was, at least in part, due to too little regulation and that it was evidence that the markets aren't really self-correcting after all. |
I think more than one analyst would agree with you. This seems to be the majority opinion.
Although the libertarian view has some attractive things to say about personal responsibility, I also agree with metatate that one must not forget the good that government "interference" can do.
Message edited by author 2008-09-18 12:07:56. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 12:17:57 PM · #127 |
My issue with the Libertarian platform is it is most attractive to those who are most capable of self-support (ie. the well off). To put it in cynical terms, it sounds too much like a, "I've-made-it-now-why-should-I-help-anybody-else?" philosophy. I have a personal view that the well off have a societal duty to continuously try to raise the lowest classes higher than where they are. (Now we can certainly argue on HOW that is done, but I'm trying to simply say it SHOULD be done.)
That's my view at least. I don't know if it would have a political name (socialism doesn't really fit) other than I firmly believe in a progressive system of taxation. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 02:51:25 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
One analysis of the current economic troubles that I read concluded that the crisis was, at least in part, due to too little regulation and that it was evidence that the markets aren't really self-correcting after all. |
They seem to be doing quite well in terms of self-correcting at the moment, since the deregulation in the 1999's.
The misunderstanding maybe comes when you think the self-correction should not be horrendously painful for all involved, or that 'innocent' people shouldn't be hurt by the side-/ knock-on- effects |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 03:00:35 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
One analysis of the current economic troubles that I read concluded that the crisis was, at least in part, due to too little regulation and that it was evidence that the markets aren't really self-correcting after all. |
They seem to be doing quite well in terms of self-correcting at the moment, since the deregulation in the 1999's.
The misunderstanding maybe comes when you think the self-correction should not be horrendously painful for all involved, or that 'innocent' people shouldn't be hurt by the side-/ knock-on- effects |
I wouldn't call the bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae along with the loan ("it's not a bailout" wink wink) to AIG and Lehman filing the largest bankruptcy in history "self-correcting"
Message edited by author 2008-09-18 15:00:55. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 03:04:16 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
One analysis of the current economic troubles that I read concluded that the crisis was, at least in part, due to too little regulation and that it was evidence that the markets aren't really self-correcting after all. |
They seem to be doing quite well in terms of self-correcting at the moment, since the deregulation in the 1999's.
The misunderstanding maybe comes when you think the self-correction should not be horrendously painful for all involved, or that 'innocent' people shouldn't be hurt by the side-/ knock-on- effects |
I wouldn't call the bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae along with the loan ("it's not a bailout" wink wink) to AIG and Lehman filing the largest bankruptcy in history "self-correcting" |
Neither would I. Self-correcting would be letting them go... |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 03:19:52 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I wouldn't call the bailout of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae along with the loan ("it's not a bailout" wink wink) to AIG and Lehman filing the largest bankruptcy in history "self-correcting" |
Neither would I. Self-correcting would be letting them go... |
Letting them go wouldn't be like letting a corner hardware store go. It would be more like letting avian flu go, and the ensuing chain reaction would kill huge swaths of otherwise healthy dependents. While it would certainly weed out all but the healthiest companies, even those firms would be crippled by the global implications. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 03:21:33 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
One analysis of the current economic troubles that I read concluded that the crisis was, at least in part, due to too little regulation and that it was evidence that the markets aren't really self-correcting after all. |
They seem to be doing quite well in terms of self-correcting at the moment, since the deregulation in the 1999's.
The misunderstanding maybe comes when you think the self-correction should not be horrendously painful for all involved, or that 'innocent' people shouldn't be hurt by the side-/ knock-on- effects |
While I would agree that eventually the market would "self-correct", the question would be is it worth having such things simply for the sake of deregulation? One could, I think, also argue Enron "self-corrected", but in the meantime it hurt a huge amount of "average" people and only a select few of the big players have paid for their sins. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 03:29:27 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
One analysis of the current economic troubles that I read concluded that the crisis was, at least in part, due to too little regulation and that it was evidence that the markets aren't really self-correcting after all. |
They seem to be doing quite well in terms of self-correcting at the moment, since the deregulation in the 1999's.
The misunderstanding maybe comes when you think the self-correction should not be horrendously painful for all involved, or that 'innocent' people shouldn't be hurt by the side-/ knock-on- effects |
While I would agree that eventually the market would "self-correct", the question would be is it worth having such things simply for the sake of deregulation? One could, I think, also argue Enron "self-corrected", but in the meantime it hurt a huge amount of "average" people and only a select few of the big players have paid for their sins. |
I wouldn't equate Enron to the bank/insurance company failures. Enron was 100% caused by greed.
The bank failures are partly due to greed and mostly due to consumers having no clue what they can afford. (i.e. taking on much more debt than they could handle)
Message edited by author 2008-09-18 15:30:10.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2008 03:34:02 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
The bank failures are partly due to greed and mostly due to consumers having no clue what they can afford. (i.e. taking on much more debt than they could handle) |
No, the bank failures are mostly due to banks investing in those clueless consumers. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 03:34:34 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
The bank failures are partly due to greed and mostly due to consumers having no clue what they can afford. (i.e. taking on much more debt than they could handle) |
No, the bank failures are mostly due to banks investing in those clueless consumers. |
The consumer always has the option to walk away from making the deal in the first place hence not incurring the debt.
The banks are always pushing for consumers to borrow more and more so they can make more and more on the interest, hence, greed.
Message edited by author 2008-09-18 15:37:06.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2008 03:42:11 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
The bank failures are partly due to greed and mostly due to consumers having no clue what they can afford. (i.e. taking on much more debt than they could handle) |
No, the bank failures are mostly due to banks investing in those clueless consumers. |
The consumer always has the option to walk away from making the deal in the first place hence not incurring the debt.
The banks are always pushing for consumers to borrow more and more so they can make more and more on the interest, hence, greed. |
Sure, the consumer is responsible for the mess he's in.
But the bank is also responsible for the mess that it is in. The banks did not have to offer loans to people who couldn't pay them back. The banks did not have to invest in Mortgage-Backed Securities. Their failure is not "mostly" due to consumers. It's due to their own bad judgement. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 03:50:26 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
While I would agree that eventually the market would "self-correct", the question would be is it worth having such things simply for the sake of deregulation? One could, I think, also argue Enron "self-corrected", but in the meantime it hurt a huge amount of "average" people and only a select few of the big players have paid for their sins. |
Exactly the point I was making. It'd be horrendous for all involved. But unregulated markets do self-correct. The Libertarian approach would work. It would just hurt a lot of people along the way. There's nothing that says the invisible hand works to help people out.
Personally I don't even think it is a reasonable question to ask if it is worth it or not. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 03:53:23 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
The bank failures are partly due to greed and mostly due to consumers having no clue what they can afford. (i.e. taking on much more debt than they could handle) |
No, the bank failures are mostly due to banks investing in those clueless consumers. |
The consumer always has the option to walk away from making the deal in the first place hence not incurring the debt.
The banks are always pushing for consumers to borrow more and more so they can make more and more on the interest, hence, greed. |
Sure, the consumer is responsible for the mess he's in.
But the bank is also responsible for the mess that it is in. The banks did not have to offer loans to people who couldn't pay them back. The banks did not have to invest in Mortgage-Backed Securities. Their failure is not "mostly" due to consumers. It's due to their own bad judgement. |
You expect the bank to take too much concern about their customers. Sure they have formulas to determine what a person can afford, but in the end it's up to the consumer to accept or deny what the bank is offering. Maybe the formulas are flawed. So what, it's ultimately up to the consumer to sign on the dotted line. No one put a gun to their head.
Having said that, I'm sure there are a few situations where, something has happened after the fact to change things though I think that's probably a small number compared to the overall number of subprime loans that were defaulted on.
Consumers have the power to change that.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2008 04:06:53 PM · #139 |
It's funny when companies market themselves, isn't it? Especially banks â€Â¦ "It's people that matter â€Â¦" "We're there with you" â€Â¦ etc.
So when you go in to apply for a loan, they seem to be on your side â€Â¦ "You can afford this â€Â¦ " Maybe they even throw statistics at you "The average wage increases each year etc". I remember applying for my home loan they told me I could afford 2X the amount I "wanted" to afford. I'll never forget that.
But, much like a hospital, it's a business. Their goal is to make money - so it certainly is their fault when they fail to do so. Too bad "taxpayers" keep having to bail them out.
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
The bank failures are partly due to greed and mostly due to consumers having no clue what they can afford. (i.e. taking on much more debt than they could handle) |
No, the bank failures are mostly due to banks investing in those clueless consumers. |
|
|
|
|
09/18/2008 04:13:44 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
I wouldn't equate Enron to the bank/insurance company failures. Enron was 100% caused by greed.
|
I think the analogous portion I was referring to was they both came from greed looking for ways to exploit recent deregulation. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 04:35:16 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
You expect the bank to take too much concern about their customers. Sure they have formulas to determine what a person can afford, but in the end it's up to the consumer to accept or deny what the bank is offering. Maybe the formulas are flawed. So what, it's ultimately up to the consumer to sign on the dotted line. No one put a gun to their head.
Having said that, I'm sure there are a few situations where, something has happened after the fact to change things though I think that's probably a small number compared to the overall number of subprime loans that were defaulted on.
Consumers have the power to change that. |
This is where I get mad at conservatives. You want consumers to be responsible for their own decisions, but not bank executives. It went WAY WAY beyond not taking too much concern about their customers. Banks pushed people to take out mortgages they couldn't afford to pay. I'm amazed that you won't concede this point. Everyone is responsible for their own mistakes. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 04:49:40 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Everyone is responsible for their own mistakes. |
Exactly. I did state that the banks push (greed).
BTW, 'everyone' includes consumers. Since it's the consumer that ultimately pays, it is ultimately their responsibility to do their due diligence.
In the end, the government has to have the policies in place that somewhat protects the consumer from their own stupidity and keeps big business from getting overly greedy. Where that point is, who knows.
Message edited by author 2008-09-18 16:53:46.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2008 05:00:24 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Sure they have formulas to determine what a person can afford, but in the end it's up to the consumer to accept or deny what the bank is offering. Maybe the formulas are flawed. So what, it's ultimately up to the consumer to sign on the dotted line. No one put a gun to their head.
|
Google "no income verification loan" or "stated income verification loan"
The fact that that was ever marketed and made available to the mass market is appalling.
The industry knew the mortgage business as run like it was being run was a house of cards but couldn't help themselves.
Message edited by author 2008-09-18 17:00:37. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 05:03:14 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by rswank:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Sure they have formulas to determine what a person can afford, but in the end it's up to the consumer to accept or deny what the bank is offering. Maybe the formulas are flawed. So what, it's ultimately up to the consumer to sign on the dotted line. No one put a gun to their head.
|
Google "no income verification loan" or "stated income verification loan"
The fact that that was ever marketed and made available to the mass market is appalling.
The industry knew the mortgage business as run like it was being run was a house of cards but couldn't help themselves. |
Let me restate something....
Since it's the consumer that ultimately pays, it is ultimately their responsibility to do their due diligence.
In the end, the government has to have the policies in place that somewhat protects the consumer from their own stupidity and keeps big business from getting overly greedy. Where that point is, who knows.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2008 05:30:10 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Everyone is responsible for their own mistakes. |
Exactly. I did state that the banks push (greed).
BTW, 'everyone' includes consumers. Since it's the consumer that ultimately pays, it is ultimately their responsibility to do their due diligence.
In the end, the government has to have the policies in place that somewhat protects the consumer from their own stupidity and keeps big business from getting overly greedy. Where that point is, who knows. |
But you do understand that  posthumous is arguing that consumers are not responsible at all for the banks' financial problems, right? Earlier it sounded like you disagree with that. If consumers should be responsible for their debt then surely banks should be responsible for theirs. No?
Message edited by author 2008-09-18 17:30:56.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2008 05:32:37 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Everyone is responsible for their own mistakes. |
Exactly. I did state that the banks push (greed).
BTW, 'everyone' includes consumers. Since it's the consumer that ultimately pays, it is ultimately their responsibility to do their due diligence.
In the end, the government has to have the policies in place that somewhat protects the consumer from their own stupidity and keeps big business from getting overly greedy. Where that point is, who knows. |
But you do understand that posthumous is arguing that consumers are not responsible at all for the banks' financial problems, right? Earlier it sounded like you disagree with that. If consumers should be completely responsible for their debt then surely banks should be completely responsible for theirs. No? |
To put it bluntly I'm saying that banks are being greedy and consumers are being stupid. They each have some responsibility for the mess. Consumers were in control but were too stupid to say no to the carrot the banks were waving at them.
... and before anyone jumps all over that..
I also said that there are probably a few situations where the inability to pay came about after the loan was granted. I am not including those consumers in my above statements.
Message edited by author 2008-09-18 17:35:58.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2008 05:35:14 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by rswank:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Sure they have formulas to determine what a person can afford, but in the end it's up to the consumer to accept or deny what the bank is offering. Maybe the formulas are flawed. So what, it's ultimately up to the consumer to sign on the dotted line. No one put a gun to their head.
|
Google "no income verification loan" or "stated income verification loan"
The fact that that was ever marketed and made available to the mass market is appalling.
The industry knew the mortgage business as run like it was being run was a house of cards but couldn't help themselves. |
Let me restate something....
Since it's the consumer that ultimately pays, it is ultimately their responsibility to do their due diligence.
In the end, the government has to have the policies in place that somewhat protects the consumer from their own stupidity and keeps big business from getting overly greedy. Where that point is, who knows. |
What about the corporate stupidity of offering no income verification loans? Without that stupidity there would be no consumers getting those loans in the first place. So... if governments have to have policies in place to protect consumer stupidity then it would seem like this is where you start (i.e. from the top down.).
|
|
|
|
09/18/2008 05:36:06 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Carly Fiorina (Advisor to McCain and short list VP pick) was asked if she thought that Palin had the experience to run a major corporation and she said no. She also said that McCain didn't have enough experience to run one either. |
She also said that Obama doesn't have enough experience to run a major corporation, and neither does Biden. The full quote: "I don̢۪t think John McCain could run a major corporation. I don̢۪t think Barack Obama could run a major corporation. I don̢۪t think Joe Biden could run a major corporation. But on the other hand a major corporation is not the same as being the president or vice president of the United States. It is a fallacy to suggest that the country is like a company. So of course to run a business you have to have a lifetime of experience in business, but that̢۪s not what Sarah Palin, John McCain, Joe Biden or Barack Obama are doing." |
Funny how we see/hear/read what we want to and skip over the truth to make it fit our (people in general) POV. |
Yes, that's true, though in this case, I believe Ms. Fiorina originally made the statement about Palin and McCain, and only later elaborated on her point to include the Democratic candidates. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 05:36:22 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Everyone is responsible for their own mistakes. |
Exactly. I did state that the banks push (greed).
BTW, 'everyone' includes consumers. Since it's the consumer that ultimately pays, it is ultimately their responsibility to do their due diligence.
In the end, the government has to have the policies in place that somewhat protects the consumer from their own stupidity and keeps big business from getting overly greedy. Where that point is, who knows. |
But you do understand that posthumous is arguing that consumers are not responsible at all for the banks' financial problems, right? Earlier it sounded like you disagree with that. If consumers should be completely responsible for their debt then surely banks should be completely responsible for theirs. No? |
To put it bluntly I'm saying that banks are being greedy and consumers are being stupid. They each have some responsibility for the mess. Consumers were in control but were too stupid to say no to the carrot the banks were waving at them. |
Consumers are only in control of their own personal situation. The "mess" we are in now they had no control over but the banks did...
Message edited by author 2008-09-18 17:37:38.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2008 05:36:52 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by rswank:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Sure they have formulas to determine what a person can afford, but in the end it's up to the consumer to accept or deny what the bank is offering. Maybe the formulas are flawed. So what, it's ultimately up to the consumer to sign on the dotted line. No one put a gun to their head.
|
Google "no income verification loan" or "stated income verification loan"
The fact that that was ever marketed and made available to the mass market is appalling.
The industry knew the mortgage business as run like it was being run was a house of cards but couldn't help themselves. |
Let me restate something....
Since it's the consumer that ultimately pays, it is ultimately their responsibility to do their due diligence.
In the end, the government has to have the policies in place that somewhat protects the consumer from their own stupidity and keeps big business from getting overly greedy. Where that point is, who knows. |
What about the corporate stupidity of offering no income verification loans? Without that stupidity there would be no consumers getting those loans in the first place. So... if governments have to have policies in place to protect consumer stupidity then it would seem like this is where you start (i.e. from the top down.). |
The corporate stupidity amounts to greed. Offering, not forcing consumers to sign.
But, I guess if you don't want the government telling you how to run your business, this is what you end up with.
Message edited by author 2008-09-18 17:39:33.
|
|
