reply to post by Bugman82
It saddens me that someone can actually buy into this nonsense.
Their artificial values placed on assets that were not real caused huge capital and credit surges that the banks used to do what they did.
Also, government regulation forced banks to hand out loans to lower income people because government believed all deserved a home even if they
couldn't afford it.
I have already pointed out what nonsense this is, blaming the police because crime exists.
The artificial values were created by the mortgage lenders creating exotic loan packages with balloon payments and other such nonsense to justify
loaning people more money than they could afford to pay back. This enabled them to make larger bids on the homes they wanted to buy. With the
practice of closed bids, the person willing to sign the biggest loan got the house. Those who didn't agree to the crazy loan terms found themselves
losing out to the highest bidder time and time again, which convinced even the more intelligent borrowers to agree to the crazy loan terms.
The government didn't force the banks to make these loans. That is just pure ignorant nonsense put out by people who want to blame the government for
everything, and especially to cover up and ignore the crooked business practices that wrecked out economy, and the failure of free market economic
The government made funds available to people in the lower incomes, because there were a great many people who could afford to make the mortgage
payments, but couldn't get a real estate loan. If the mortgage companies had done their job and loaned people money based on what they were able to
pay, home prices wouldn't have been artificially inflated.
What I am looking for is an argument that disproves the Federal Reserve's part in the formation of the bubble.
You need to provide an actual argument that proves the Fed Res role in the formation of the bubble. You have yet to do this. All you have done is
throw around terms, as if this is evidence, without ever identifying how these things did what you claim.
I have pointed out time and time again that blaming government for the actions of the fraudsters is pure nonsense, and you have yet to face the
First, you need to point to the sections in RPs video that you think proves your claim. Then I will offer a rebuttal.
You might want to consider that if you can't point out the actual language in the video that proves your point, then it doesn't really exist. I am
not debating some video, I am debating you.
You apparently don't believe they should be prosecuted or should have failed.........even though you think they were fraudsters.
Where in any of my posts did I state any of this? I certainly believe the fraudsters should be prosecuted, and all their ill-gained wealth be
stripped from them, and then some. As we speak the DoJ under Obama is doing this.
As far as letting the banks fail, you have yet to address my point that this wouldn't have stopped the crooks from getting away with the money, as
that had already been distributed out to them. Letting these firms fail only would have screwed the investors, and that is why the banks were bailed
out. A great deal of wealth would have disappeared, maybe even the original fraudsters would have lost out in the tsunami of failed firms.
Personally, I was against the bailout. Sadly a lot of innocent people would have lost their life's savings, but in the crooked way the boomers have
screwed future generations, it would be better in the long run for everyone.
Wearing expensive jewelry in public makes it possible for for one to get robbed, but that doesn't make the person wearing the jewelry responsible for
the actions of the criminal. This is why your desire to blame government for the actions of the crooks is wrong. I have made this clear numerous
times now. I don't understand how you can even think this way.
edit on 1-3-2012 by poet1b because: typos
edit on 1-3-2012 by poet1b because: correct first line, had an extra
edit on 1-3-2012 by poet1b because: change would loose to would have lost.