Home › Forums › Financial Markets/Economics › The View From Inside a Depression
- This topic has 250 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 11 months ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 19, 2009 at 2:36 PM #471749October 19, 2009 at 2:38 PM #470917
sd_matt
ParticipantWhy not let the big banks fail, break them up, and sell the chunks to the more responsible banks? And if those guys can’t afford it then give the taxpayers $$ to aid the transaction?
Yes it would be another bailout but at least the financial future would be built on a banking system that isn’t a casino. Am I missing something here? Of course this a late question and mostly rhetorical.
Besides, when the AT&T monopoly was broken up phone lines didn’t go dead.
October 19, 2009 at 2:38 PM #471098ParticipantWhy not let the big banks fail, break them up, and sell the chunks to the more responsible banks? And if those guys can’t afford it then give the taxpayers $$ to aid the transaction?
Yes it would be another bailout but at least the financial future would be built on a banking system that isn’t a casino. Am I missing something here? Of course this a late question and mostly rhetorical.
Besides, when the AT&T monopoly was broken up phone lines didn’t go dead.
October 19, 2009 at 2:38 PM #471455ParticipantWhy not let the big banks fail, break them up, and sell the chunks to the more responsible banks? And if those guys can’t afford it then give the taxpayers $$ to aid the transaction?
Yes it would be another bailout but at least the financial future would be built on a banking system that isn’t a casino. Am I missing something here? Of course this a late question and mostly rhetorical.
Besides, when the AT&T monopoly was broken up phone lines didn’t go dead.
October 19, 2009 at 2:38 PM #471532ParticipantWhy not let the big banks fail, break them up, and sell the chunks to the more responsible banks? And if those guys can’t afford it then give the taxpayers $$ to aid the transaction?
Yes it would be another bailout but at least the financial future would be built on a banking system that isn’t a casino. Am I missing something here? Of course this a late question and mostly rhetorical.
Besides, when the AT&T monopoly was broken up phone lines didn’t go dead.
October 19, 2009 at 2:38 PM #471754ParticipantWhy not let the big banks fail, break them up, and sell the chunks to the more responsible banks? And if those guys can’t afford it then give the taxpayers $$ to aid the transaction?
Yes it would be another bailout but at least the financial future would be built on a banking system that isn’t a casino. Am I missing something here? Of course this a late question and mostly rhetorical.
Besides, when the AT&T monopoly was broken up phone lines didn’t go dead.
October 19, 2009 at 2:38 PM #470922Arraya
ParticipantConsidering that we have a Democratic President and House and Senate are largely Democratic… why? Three reasons.. Pelosi, Raines, Franks.. who are ‘staunch’ Democrats and are working hard behind the scenes to find ways to support RE prices. These are the same three who subverted bills to regulate the GSEs and banks from unsafe lending, which helped create the bubble and left us where we are now.
Sure, Democrats enabled the banks and gave them exactly what they wanted too. Still, talking about democrats NOT regulating is funny. Usually if they try to regulate anything they get dog-piled by the free-market crusaders. Now, they are getting criticized for not regulating. Too funny.
October 19, 2009 at 2:38 PM #471103ParticipantConsidering that we have a Democratic President and House and Senate are largely Democratic… why? Three reasons.. Pelosi, Raines, Franks.. who are ‘staunch’ Democrats and are working hard behind the scenes to find ways to support RE prices. These are the same three who subverted bills to regulate the GSEs and banks from unsafe lending, which helped create the bubble and left us where we are now.
Sure, Democrats enabled the banks and gave them exactly what they wanted too. Still, talking about democrats NOT regulating is funny. Usually if they try to regulate anything they get dog-piled by the free-market crusaders. Now, they are getting criticized for not regulating. Too funny.
October 19, 2009 at 2:38 PM #471460ParticipantConsidering that we have a Democratic President and House and Senate are largely Democratic… why? Three reasons.. Pelosi, Raines, Franks.. who are ‘staunch’ Democrats and are working hard behind the scenes to find ways to support RE prices. These are the same three who subverted bills to regulate the GSEs and banks from unsafe lending, which helped create the bubble and left us where we are now.
Sure, Democrats enabled the banks and gave them exactly what they wanted too. Still, talking about democrats NOT regulating is funny. Usually if they try to regulate anything they get dog-piled by the free-market crusaders. Now, they are getting criticized for not regulating. Too funny.
October 19, 2009 at 2:38 PM #471538ParticipantConsidering that we have a Democratic President and House and Senate are largely Democratic… why? Three reasons.. Pelosi, Raines, Franks.. who are ‘staunch’ Democrats and are working hard behind the scenes to find ways to support RE prices. These are the same three who subverted bills to regulate the GSEs and banks from unsafe lending, which helped create the bubble and left us where we are now.
Sure, Democrats enabled the banks and gave them exactly what they wanted too. Still, talking about democrats NOT regulating is funny. Usually if they try to regulate anything they get dog-piled by the free-market crusaders. Now, they are getting criticized for not regulating. Too funny.
October 19, 2009 at 2:38 PM #471759ParticipantConsidering that we have a Democratic President and House and Senate are largely Democratic… why? Three reasons.. Pelosi, Raines, Franks.. who are ‘staunch’ Democrats and are working hard behind the scenes to find ways to support RE prices. These are the same three who subverted bills to regulate the GSEs and banks from unsafe lending, which helped create the bubble and left us where we are now.
Sure, Democrats enabled the banks and gave them exactly what they wanted too. Still, talking about democrats NOT regulating is funny. Usually if they try to regulate anything they get dog-piled by the free-market crusaders. Now, they are getting criticized for not regulating. Too funny.
October 19, 2009 at 2:42 PM #470927briansd1
GuestMost real estate people I know in San Diego are Republicans.
I bet that the Democrats would make a deal. Sacrifice real estate for health care.
[quote=ucodegen]
same three who subverted bills to regulate the GSEs and banks from unsafe lending, which helped create the bubble and left us where we are now.
[/quote]Good point but the GSE contributed maybe 3% to the crash.
The crash first occurred with non-GSE backed subprime loans, and they infected the GSE loans. And now the crash is infecting the middle to upper end loans.
Community reinvestment loans were never the problem as Rush likes to claim. Speculation on flip properties, whether the flippers were residents or not, was the problem.
Of course that would have never happened if Wall Street didn’t make the money available.
October 19, 2009 at 2:42 PM #471108GuestMost real estate people I know in San Diego are Republicans.
I bet that the Democrats would make a deal. Sacrifice real estate for health care.
[quote=ucodegen]
same three who subverted bills to regulate the GSEs and banks from unsafe lending, which helped create the bubble and left us where we are now.
[/quote]Good point but the GSE contributed maybe 3% to the crash.
The crash first occurred with non-GSE backed subprime loans, and they infected the GSE loans. And now the crash is infecting the middle to upper end loans.
Community reinvestment loans were never the problem as Rush likes to claim. Speculation on flip properties, whether the flippers were residents or not, was the problem.
Of course that would have never happened if Wall Street didn’t make the money available.
October 19, 2009 at 2:42 PM #471465GuestMost real estate people I know in San Diego are Republicans.
I bet that the Democrats would make a deal. Sacrifice real estate for health care.
[quote=ucodegen]
same three who subverted bills to regulate the GSEs and banks from unsafe lending, which helped create the bubble and left us where we are now.
[/quote]Good point but the GSE contributed maybe 3% to the crash.
The crash first occurred with non-GSE backed subprime loans, and they infected the GSE loans. And now the crash is infecting the middle to upper end loans.
Community reinvestment loans were never the problem as Rush likes to claim. Speculation on flip properties, whether the flippers were residents or not, was the problem.
Of course that would have never happened if Wall Street didn’t make the money available.
October 19, 2009 at 2:42 PM #471542GuestMost real estate people I know in San Diego are Republicans.
I bet that the Democrats would make a deal. Sacrifice real estate for health care.
[quote=ucodegen]
same three who subverted bills to regulate the GSEs and banks from unsafe lending, which helped create the bubble and left us where we are now.
[/quote]Good point but the GSE contributed maybe 3% to the crash.
The crash first occurred with non-GSE backed subprime loans, and they infected the GSE loans. And now the crash is infecting the middle to upper end loans.
Community reinvestment loans were never the problem as Rush likes to claim. Speculation on flip properties, whether the flippers were residents or not, was the problem.
Of course that would have never happened if Wall Street didn’t make the money available.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.