Can You Imagine How Badly It Might Have Gone If Trump* Had Been Elected In 2008?

AssHatZombie said:
I think I just spiked off when you said something about government staying out of bank regulation. laissez faire is just not workable in this world of hylerinflsted fiat petrodollars based on banker preapproved asset bubbles leveraged five times on mark to model wet dream.

#barter2020
Click to expand...

I've edited my post to elaborate on where we differ. I'm not saying things should be completely without regulation, but there are connections between the CRA and the risky behavior of banks.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I voted for President Obama in two general elections but I certainly didn't ever vote for him in a Democratic Primary. Obama was honest, competent, and decent...but he was not particularly liberal. He was a "centrist" or "moderate" Democrat which means that in some ways, he was a Republican-Lite.

I'll gladly take honest, competent, and decent over a vile, fascist, real Republican, but I'd vastly prefer a progressive who'll drag us out of the mid-20th Century where we ideologically remain.
Click to expand...

"clean and articulate" --joe biden
 
Woko Haram said:
I've edited my post to elaborate on where we differ. I'm not saying things should be completely without regulation, but there are connections between the CRA and the risky behavior of banks.
Click to expand...

I mean what is to be done about the power to sculpt society choosing what to fund and what not to fund with your fiat credits? it's like the one ring to rule them all. twill always be problematic.
 
AssHatZombie said:
I mean what is to be done about the power to sculpt society choosing what to fund and what not to fund with your fiat credits? it's like the one ring to rule them all. twill always be problematic.
Click to expand...

I like the concept of competing currencies. It's not easy to set up given the current fiscal environment, but cryptocurrencies seem to be changing things a bit.
 
Woko Haram said:
I agree with your post, but I think you meant to quote someone else.

EDIT: after reading your post more closely, I think I see where there may be a misunderstanding.

Everything you said here is more or less true, but do you know why they were so eager to lend? The CRA created an environment where lending to risky consumers was supported by government. There would be no incentive to do this without the history of bailouts by government. There would also be less of an incentive to do so without the legal pressure of the CRA.

The CRA itself is legislation that has largely evolved as a response to things like redlining. There is a general belief that banks discriminated against poor minorities in lending, especially with regard to mortgages. Overcompensation for correcting this has come in the form of laws that open the door for suing banks for discrimination on loans. So while the banks themselves did act recklessly, it wasn't without political pressure to do so.

The side of this that can mostly be blamed on banks has to do with toxic CDOs that you referenced. It is true that banks should take most of the blame for that, although they would act somewhat less recklessly without any reason to believe that government would bail them out.
Click to expand...

yeah yeah. and all that makes it fascism too.
 
Imagine how bad it would have been if Trump had been duly elected with a mandate, instead of coming in second to Hillary.

No election is legitimate when the winner gets fewer votes than second place. To the extent Trump got to inhabit the White House anyway,
the law is an ass.
 
Nordberg said:
Worse than that. The government bailed out the bankers who caused the crash. But there was no way he could have nationalized the banks, which was the long-term answer. We had to have a functioning banking system, so Obama signed on to a very unfair position. He made the banks solvent and the bankers whole.
If Trump was in charge there is no telling what stupid things he would have done. Trump walked in with zero knowledge and no tact. If it was 2008, it would have been a mess.
Click to expand...

wait, so bailing out the banks was a bad thing, but Obama did it, and who knows what would have happened if Trump had been there to actually do a bad thing?.........you do realiize 2009 WAS a mess, right?......
 
Nordberg said:
Can you follow the Financial Times? https://www.ft.com/content/b5b764cc-d657-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e They say Obama saved the economy from disaster. They are not lefty, but a financial site. Forget models, read what happened.
Click to expand...

read what the spokesman for the big banks that got bailed out felt about big banks being bailed out?.......sure we can trust that, can't we?.......after all, its not like he doubled the national debt and dragged the economy through the slowest recovery in US history or something......
 
Woko Haram said:
The answer is to have let the banks take the fall. Yes, the short run would have been very rough,
Click to expand...

it wouldn't have been that rough........it was only a handful of banks at fault and most of them were merged into other banks afterwards anyway.......getting clear title to properties was a circus for a while.......clients would be selling their homes and we would contact the mortgage companies for a release of the mortgage and they would call back "we don't know who holds that mortgage any more......it was sold to X who was taken over by Y which went bankrupt and was assumed by Z......
 
Nordberg said:
That is no answer. Banks are needed. There were banks closing by the shit ton in 2008. You figure out what would have happened if we let them go.
Click to expand...

more banks closed because of the "solution" the government imposed in 2009 than closed in 2008 because of the subprime loan situation........I had dozens of clients who lost their cross collateralized properties even though they were current on payments simply because the banks had to increase the assets held in the Reserve and the only way they could do it in time was to stop lending on short term construction loans......
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Woko Haram,



The United States Postal Service should offer basic banking services and reasonable small loans to lower income Americans. Clearly there is a need. That need is currently being met by Buy-Here-Pay-Here used car joints and Payday Loan joints. These unscrupulous places charge outrageous interest rates which keep the poor poor. This is not beneficial to the US economy. All it does is forward the Class War. It makes it impossible for poor people to rise out of poverty or build wealth. It is unconscionable to be getting rich from the desperation of the poor.
Click to expand...

but the left will tell us they do not favor socialism........
 
PoliTalker said:
That only happens when government is corrupted by big money. We are going to fix that with anti-corruption laws which will dissallow big money to dictate what government does, and return power to the people.
Click to expand...

socialism is taking money and power FROM the people and giving it TO the government.........
 
Woko Haram said:
As far as regulations go that might actually work in favor of the working class, we could switch to full reserve banking instead of fractional reserve banking.
Click to expand...

if there was full reserve banking where would the money to make loans come from?.......full reserve would mean banks could do nothing except hold the money......banks would earn nothing, therefore they would pay no interest on saving and would not make loans.........
 
PostmodernProphet said:
if there was full reserve banking where would the money to make loans come from?.......full reserve would mean banks could do nothing except hold the money......banks would earn nothing, therefore they would pay no interest on saving and would not make loans.........
Click to expand...

yes. what about that bankers needs? antisemitism!
 
Hello Woko Haram,

Woko Haram said:
Germany also has much higher personal taxation than us. If you can manage to get the average citizen on board with higher taxes (and not just on rich people), then that might work. Until then, trying to just increase taxes on the wealthy won't properly fund this idea.
Click to expand...

If the government provided commensurate services to the level of taxation it is logical that some compromise should be worked out there. After all, that's the whole idea. But those are not the only differences between the nations. In Germany, every corporation is required to have labor representation on the board which makes the decisions which affect labor. And executives are paid FAR less in Europe than they are in the USA. The ratio of executive to average worker pay is far lower. That disparity would also have to be eliminated. Either the rich can't be raking in a far greater portion of the national wealth OR they have to be taxed at a far greater rate, one or the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top