Ignore Ron Paul are the new marching orders?

[Arraya]

[quote=SK in CV]
First, there’s a big difference between saying the GSE’s weren’t responsible for the bubble and that the government was blameless. The GSE’s weren’t blameless, they were just a small part. But the government certainly wasn’t blameless. (I’d dispute the use of the socialistic tag, mostly because when government actions acts solely in support of private industry, that’s fascist policy, not socialistic.)
[/quote]

Well the ‘socialist’ leanings of the government is a common narrative of the ideologues to explain the bubble. Which is pure unmitigated bullshit. RP and associates gives a bogus narrative. Either out of ideological blindness or just pushing an agenda. I take issue with either.

[quote=SK in CV]
I find it hard to place primary blame for criminal actions on anyone other than the criminals. And the criminal enterprise was the financial industry. The loan originators and syndicators. But the government agencies (including congress) in charge of overseeing and regulating these industries were probably a close 2nd. The SEC, the Fed, Comptroller of the currency, Treasury, and more. They all f’d up beyond belief. Conspiracy to do so? I’m not real big on conspiracies. I’d go with Occam’s razor here, the much more simple explanation is gross negligence. In a different context, it would be criminal complacency.[/quote]

Well, first, conspiring is a systemic tendency in politics and money. That is the world we live in. It’s in a state of non-stop conspiring for wealth a power. The term “conspiracy” has been conflated with every crack pot conspiracy in the world. One of the reasons there is so much conspiracy theorizing is because people are lied to on a non-stop basis. So they come up with a comic book versions of a complex reality. The fact is, the DOJ is HUGE into conspiracies and has thousands of laws on the books to deal with such.

Second, you have to look at things systemically. Systemically speaking, the conditions for a bubble were set into motion via the government bending to the whims of corporations. Because that is their job. Once one business lowers it’s standards the rest will follow until they all slit their own throats on the alter of competition. This is a well known and tested reason for regulations. This happened from top to bottom during the bubble. I knew mortgage brokers that conspired with borrowers and appraisers to lie to lenders, which, apparently, was common place. This went on at all levels. People conspiring to make more money. Big surprise.

Now, aside from the every present conspiring, was there a larger agenda to set it into motion for some purpose? Well, there is a lot of evidence to point in the direction. Lots of indications of foreknowledge and other dubious shenanigans as well as motives that makes it a possibility. Not that it matters a lick if it was. Let’s face it, people with all the money in the world, the best lawyers, access to the levers of power and being masters of plausible deniability – makes it a futile exercises to even ponder. It can only lead to frustration.

Greenspan once said that he did not want fraud investigated because it may inhibit the magic of the market or some nonsense. Now, Imagine if you were a clever, ambitious and conniving banker that knew about this ideological rigidity. That’s is quite a shield to do what you want.

But, you all can take solace that nothing was done to stop this behavior besides a little song and dance the administration gave – even with his phony song and dance his detractors talk about how he is a tyrant to industry.

[briansd1]

I agree that there is ever-present systemic self-preservation, enhancement and promotion. That’s how even the strongest of institutions over-reach and corrode over time.

I’m sure that Greenspan, the academics, policy makers, and financial masters who designed all the financial products thought those were great innovations. At least the big-picture executives thought that financial alchemy would elminate risk.

In fact, they believed that financial innnovations would bring great riches to us so we didn’t need to worry about dirty thing such as manufacturing. Let other people furnish goods to us and, in exchange, we give them financial paper. That was a deal too good to pass up.

At the lower level of the production chain, we had people hustling and selling because they were being paid handsome commissions. They were not being held responsible for the quality of underwriting.

I however don’t believe for a minute that there was a conspiracy or plan with handlers executing the details every step along the way.

Unfortunately for us, financial alchemy did not eliminate risk. The risk got concentrated but they did not show up on the financial statements. This was a case of innovation moving faster than our ability to understand and manage it.

[briansd1]

I agree that there is ever-present systemic self-preservation, enhancement and promotion. That’s how even the strongest of institutions over-reach and corrode over time.

I’m sure that Greenspan, the academics, policy makers, and financial masters who designed all the financial products thought those were great innovations. At least the big-picture executives thought that financial alchemy would elminate risk.

In fact, they believed that financial innnovations would bring great riches to us so we didn’t need to worry about dirty thing such as manufacturing. Let other people furnish goods to us and, in exchange, we give them financial paper. That was a deal too good to pass up.

At the lower level of the production chain, we had people hustling and selling because they were being paid handsome commissions. They were not being held responsible for the quality of underwriting.

I however don’t believe for a minute that there was a conspiracy or plan with handlers executing the details every step along the way.

Unfortunately for us, financial alchemy did not eliminate risk. The risk got concentrated but they did not show up on the financial statements. This was a case of innovation moving faster than our ability to understand and manage it.

[briansd1]

I agree that there is ever-present systemic self-preservation, enhancement and promotion. That’s how even the strongest of institutions over-reach and corrode over time.

I’m sure that Greenspan, the academics, policy makers, and financial masters who designed all the financial products thought those were great innovations. At least the big-picture executives thought that financial alchemy would elminate risk.

In fact, they believed that financial innnovations would bring great riches to us so we didn’t need to worry about dirty thing such as manufacturing. Let other people furnish goods to us and, in exchange, we give them financial paper. That was a deal too good to pass up.

At the lower level of the production chain, we had people hustling and selling because they were being paid handsome commissions. They were not being held responsible for the quality of underwriting.

I however don’t believe for a minute that there was a conspiracy or plan with handlers executing the details every step along the way.

Unfortunately for us, financial alchemy did not eliminate risk. The risk got concentrated but they did not show up on the financial statements. This was a case of innovation moving faster than our ability to understand and manage it.

[briansd1]

I agree that there is ever-present systemic self-preservation, enhancement and promotion. That’s how even the strongest of institutions over-reach and corrode over time.

I’m sure that Greenspan, the academics, policy makers, and financial masters who designed all the financial products thought those were great innovations. At least the big-picture executives thought that financial alchemy would elminate risk.

In fact, they believed that financial innnovations would bring great riches to us so we didn’t need to worry about dirty thing such as manufacturing. Let other people furnish goods to us and, in exchange, we give them financial paper. That was a deal too good to pass up.

At the lower level of the production chain, we had people hustling and selling because they were being paid handsome commissions. They were not being held responsible for the quality of underwriting.

I however don’t believe for a minute that there was a conspiracy or plan with handlers executing the details every step along the way.

Unfortunately for us, financial alchemy did not eliminate risk. The risk got concentrated but they did not show up on the financial statements. This was a case of innovation moving faster than our ability to understand and manage it.

[briansd1]

I agree that there is ever-present systemic self-preservation, enhancement and promotion. That’s how even the strongest of institutions over-reach and corrode over time.

I’m sure that Greenspan, the academics, policy makers, and financial masters who designed all the financial products thought those were great innovations. At least the big-picture executives thought that financial alchemy would elminate risk.

In fact, they believed that financial innnovations would bring great riches to us so we didn’t need to worry about dirty thing such as manufacturing. Let other people furnish goods to us and, in exchange, we give them financial paper. That was a deal too good to pass up.

At the lower level of the production chain, we had people hustling and selling because they were being paid handsome commissions. They were not being held responsible for the quality of underwriting.

I however don’t believe for a minute that there was a conspiracy or plan with handlers executing the details every step along the way.

Unfortunately for us, financial alchemy did not eliminate risk. The risk got concentrated but they did not show up on the financial statements. This was a case of innovation moving faster than our ability to understand and manage it.

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1]

I however don’t believe for a minute that there was a conspiracy or plan with handlers executing the details every step along the way.

.[/quote]

You don’t need to handle it – its self-perpetuating once set into motion. Once you understand the socioeconomic phenomena of a bubble and how the system will act – you just need to set it into motion and everybody will do their part. Maybe a little arm twisting at ratings agencies. But pretty much all you have to do is set the stage. We’ve been having bubbles for a thousand years and they are very very well understood.

It’s apparent it was known buy the tops of the industry in 2006 when officials were denying it. Actually emails came out where low level MBS traders were laughing at how it was all going to blow up from 2006.

If we did not have the wars and the bubble the US would have been in depression in 2001-2002 because they country had been gutted from 30 years of polices.

Interestingly the Feds mandate is to protect from bubbles. Which Bernanke and Greenspan were denying in 2006. So you trust Bernanke why, brian? He either does not know what he is doing or is a liar?

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1]

I however don’t believe for a minute that there was a conspiracy or plan with handlers executing the details every step along the way.

.[/quote]

You don’t need to handle it – its self-perpetuating once set into motion. Once you understand the socioeconomic phenomena of a bubble and how the system will act – you just need to set it into motion and everybody will do their part. Maybe a little arm twisting at ratings agencies. But pretty much all you have to do is set the stage. We’ve been having bubbles for a thousand years and they are very very well understood.

It’s apparent it was known buy the tops of the industry in 2006 when officials were denying it. Actually emails came out where low level MBS traders were laughing at how it was all going to blow up from 2006.

If we did not have the wars and the bubble the US would have been in depression in 2001-2002 because they country had been gutted from 30 years of polices.

Interestingly the Feds mandate is to protect from bubbles. Which Bernanke and Greenspan were denying in 2006. So you trust Bernanke why, brian? He either does not know what he is doing or is a liar?

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1]

I however don’t believe for a minute that there was a conspiracy or plan with handlers executing the details every step along the way.

.[/quote]

You don’t need to handle it – its self-perpetuating once set into motion. Once you understand the socioeconomic phenomena of a bubble and how the system will act – you just need to set it into motion and everybody will do their part. Maybe a little arm twisting at ratings agencies. But pretty much all you have to do is set the stage. We’ve been having bubbles for a thousand years and they are very very well understood.

It’s apparent it was known buy the tops of the industry in 2006 when officials were denying it. Actually emails came out where low level MBS traders were laughing at how it was all going to blow up from 2006.

If we did not have the wars and the bubble the US would have been in depression in 2001-2002 because they country had been gutted from 30 years of polices.

Interestingly the Feds mandate is to protect from bubbles. Which Bernanke and Greenspan were denying in 2006. So you trust Bernanke why, brian? He either does not know what he is doing or is a liar?

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1]

I however don’t believe for a minute that there was a conspiracy or plan with handlers executing the details every step along the way.

.[/quote]

You don’t need to handle it – its self-perpetuating once set into motion. Once you understand the socioeconomic phenomena of a bubble and how the system will act – you just need to set it into motion and everybody will do their part. Maybe a little arm twisting at ratings agencies. But pretty much all you have to do is set the stage. We’ve been having bubbles for a thousand years and they are very very well understood.

It’s apparent it was known buy the tops of the industry in 2006 when officials were denying it. Actually emails came out where low level MBS traders were laughing at how it was all going to blow up from 2006.

If we did not have the wars and the bubble the US would have been in depression in 2001-2002 because they country had been gutted from 30 years of polices.

Interestingly the Feds mandate is to protect from bubbles. Which Bernanke and Greenspan were denying in 2006. So you trust Bernanke why, brian? He either does not know what he is doing or is a liar?

[Arraya]

[quote=briansd1]

I however don’t believe for a minute that there was a conspiracy or plan with handlers executing the details every step along the way.

.[/quote]

You don’t need to handle it – its self-perpetuating once set into motion. Once you understand the socioeconomic phenomena of a bubble and how the system will act – you just need to set it into motion and everybody will do their part. Maybe a little arm twisting at ratings agencies. But pretty much all you have to do is set the stage. We’ve been having bubbles for a thousand years and they are very very well understood.

It’s apparent it was known buy the tops of the industry in 2006 when officials were denying it. Actually emails came out where low level MBS traders were laughing at how it was all going to blow up from 2006.

If we did not have the wars and the bubble the US would have been in depression in 2001-2002 because they country had been gutted from 30 years of polices.

Interestingly the Feds mandate is to protect from bubbles. Which Bernanke and Greenspan were denying in 2006. So you trust Bernanke why, brian? He either does not know what he is doing or is a liar?

[Arraya]

Speaking of conspiracy theorizing. This is what Cass Sustein thinks should be done to control it.

Sunstein advocates that the Government’s stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups.” He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called “independent” credible voices to bolster the Government’s messaging (on the ground that those who don’t believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government). ”

haha

[Arraya]

Speaking of conspiracy theorizing. This is what Cass Sustein thinks should be done to control it.

Sunstein advocates that the Government’s stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups.” He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called “independent” credible voices to bolster the Government’s messaging (on the ground that those who don’t believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government). ”

haha

[Arraya]

Speaking of conspiracy theorizing. This is what Cass Sustein thinks should be done to control it.

Sunstein advocates that the Government’s stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups.” He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called “independent” credible voices to bolster the Government’s messaging (on the ground that those who don’t believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government). ”

haha

[Arraya]

Speaking of conspiracy theorizing. This is what Cass Sustein thinks should be done to control it.

Sunstein advocates that the Government’s stealth infiltration should be accomplished by sending covert agents into “chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups.” He also proposes that the Government make secret payments to so-called “independent” credible voices to bolster the Government’s messaging (on the ground that those who don’t believe government sources will be more inclined to listen to those who appear independent while secretly acting on behalf of the Government). ”

haha

[Author]

Posts