Think Socialism is so great?

Cawacko supports stealing
Here is how you lose
You all support policies that had us losing 800,000 jobs a month at the end of bush
What is the plan tax cuts and deregulation. Same dumb ass shit that got us the biggest recession in our lifetime.
boom

Tax cuts caused the housing crisis? Please explain further
 
More on the deregulation side, banks and financial companies playing Russian roulette trying to get rediculously quarterly earnings gains.

What was the deregulation legislation that you feel allowed banks and financial companies do this when they couldn't do it before?
 
The difference in career salary a decade ago for a college grad was 2 million.
It's still a million, you have high demand for those jobs because of pay so colleges can jack up the entry fee.

Government loans play any role?
 
More on the deregulation side, banks and financial companies playing Russian roulette trying to get rediculously quarterly earnings gains.

How do you explain the fact that Canada didn't have the same issues yet lacked the regulations others claim would have prevented the crisis.

For the record I agree that the banks played fast and loose, but I disagree on the cause. I believe it was a classic case of moral hazard. Whether implicit or explicit, they always knew that they would be bailed out. So it was no different then telling a degenerate gambler they can go to Vegas and keep all of their winnings and someone else will cover their losses
 
Let me amend that to no doc bs loans instead of deregulation
It took new regulation to fix it

They did it with encouragement from the government. Everyone touted this notion or home ownership. While I am obviously a fan of real estate as a means of accumulating wealth, individual home owners should never look at their primary residence as an investment. It is a loser. But many were.
 
How do you explain the fact that Canada didn't have the same issues yet lacked the regulations others claim would have prevented the crisis.

For the record I agree that the banks played fast and loose, but I disagree on the cause. I believe it was a classic case of moral hazard. Whether implicit or explicit, they always knew that they would be bailed out. So it was no different then telling a degenerate gambler they can go to Vegas and keep all of their winnings and someone else will cover their losses

Your hind site is so 20/20
Saying they knew they would be bailed out is comical. Thanks
 
How do you define moral hazard
I'm telling you banks to excessive risk from fraudulent buyers

I don't define moral hazard. It is already defined for us. See my gambling analogy in a previous post.

I agree that the banks took on excessive risk. But it isn't as simple as that. Either you believe they were unaware of the risks or didn't care. If they didn't care, why didn't they care? If they were unaware then there was systemic stupidity the likes of which is unfathomable
 
They believed not so crazily in hindsight that housing prices might moderate but not go down.
National median home prices had never gone down year over year.
So they ignored income compliance checking thinking the repossessed house would cover the loan.
 
They believed not so crazily in hindsight that housing prices might moderate but not go down.
National median home prices had never gone down year over year.
So they ignored income compliance checking thinking the repossessed house would cover the loan.

Actually that was part of the problem as they carved up the loans nobody knew who owned what or what the underlying asset was worth.

I believe that Sarbanes Oxley is responsible for making the crash more severe due to its mark to market provisions. As the asset began to decline, the banks saw their balance sheets unwind and head toward insolvency.
 
Ronald+Reagan+-+Noted+Socialist.jpg
 
Back
Top