Originally posted by twhitehead🙄🙄
Yes.
Besides, the banks did not wreck the economy. Peoples poor personal financial planning did.
The problem is that Americans deluded themselves into thinking that the 'great boom' was here to stay and thus, instead of saving up for a rainy day, they spent all their money and then some.
(Northern Michigan University) College Professor Offers Students Extra Credit for Attending Occupy Protest
http://conservativebyte.com/2011/10/college-professor-offers-students-extra-credit-for-attending-occupy-protest/
"Students" have to sign the attendance sheet twice, both at the beginning and at the end of the occupation.
Originally posted by TheBloopShe's a Professor of Sociology which is defined as:
(Northern Michigan University) College Professor Offers Students Extra Credit for Attending Occupy Protest
http://conservativebyte.com/2011/10/college-professor-offers-students-extra-credit-for-attending-occupy-protest/
"Students" have to sign the attendance sheet twice, both at the beginning and at the end of the occupation.
: the systematic study of the development, structure, interaction, and collective behavior of organized groups of human beings
Viewing a social protest like the Occupy movement would seem to be excellent sociological research.
Originally posted by TheBloopI think it should be a mandatory requirement for ALL students that they attend a protest rally of some sort.
(Northern Michigan University) College Professor Offers Students Extra Credit for Attending Occupy Protest
http://conservativebyte.com/2011/10/college-professor-offers-students-extra-credit-for-attending-occupy-protest/
"Students" have to sign the attendance sheet twice, both at the beginning and at the end of the occupation.
Originally posted by generalissimoI take it you are totally ignorant of the facts. Never mind your copycat name calling. Come up with some facts. No1 gave it an intellectually lazy try, by going to Reckless Endangerment and pulled a single paragraph which seemed to support his notion, but failed to read anywhere near the entire book. It would be impossible to read any chapter and conclude that this whole episode wasn't deeply rooted in government excesses and incompetence, bipartisan incompetence.
I take it that you belong with the mass of brainwashed zombies then, given this logic-defying, history-butchering mindless comment of yours.
Early in chapter 1, "A Pied Piper of the financial sector, Johnson led both the private and public sectors down a path that led directly to the credit crisis of 2008."
The players in no particular order were Fannie Mae, The Boston Fed, Congress, the SEC, HUD, a host of predatory lenders, and banks local and international investment banks, several Presidents, and to some degree a compliant media. No one, certainly not me, claims that investment bankers, or mortgage brokers were innocent in all this. However, they were enabled, and encouraged by the very agencies of government that were supposed to reign them in.
It is beyond absurd, beyond preposterous, in fact I lack words to describe how totally unreasonable it is to blame this on "laissez faire" when a half dozen federal agencies are directly involved, and a history of government banking bailouts giving bankers license to do risky stuff knowing their risk would be passed on to the taxpayer.
Originally posted by no1marauderI'll bet she didn't assign or give extra credit for attendance at TEA party demonstrations.
She's a Professor of Sociology which is defined as:
: the systematic study of the development, structure, interaction, and collective behavior of organized groups of human beings
Viewing a social protest like the Occupy movement would seem to be excellent sociological research.
Originally posted by normbenignKeep "spinning". I notice the words Glass-Stegall never come out in your posts. Nor do you discuss Alan Greenspan's radically anti-regulatory, Randian philosophy.
I take it you are totally ignorant of the facts. Never mind your copycat name calling. Come up with some facts. No1 gave it an intellectually lazy try, by going to Reckless Endangerment and pulled a single paragraph which seemed to support his notion, but failed to read anywhere near the entire book. It would be impossible to read any chapter and conc ...[text shortened]... ng bankers license to do risky stuff knowing their risk would be passed on to the taxpayer.
Sure the government was "incompetent"; incompetent in scrapping the regulatory system put in place during the 30's that had reined in excessive risk taking by banks.
You're a pathetic liar to claim I quoted "one paragraph" of a book that you don't understand. In fact, I linked to an entire chapter which clearly placed the main blame on the excessive greed and arrogance of the investment banks. That the relevant regulatory agencies didn't rein in such behavior because they believed in a philosophy akin to yours is a fact, not an opinion.
I'm somewhat reluctant to spend money on Reckless Endangerment since I already have Roger Lowenstein's excellent The End of Wall Street which covers the same ground and reaches the same conclusions.
Originally posted by rwingettAre you sure your not the guy with the beard picking his nose?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paintingdetroit/6245775176/in/photostream/lightbox/
In this photo, on the right side, toward the back of the crowd, there is a man in a Detroit Tiger cap holding up a small sign that says: WE ARE THE 99%. That's me.
Also, is it true they don't bath and are often seen drinking their own urine? 😛
Originally posted by normbenignWhat "facts" are you referring to exactly? How is it that they bolster your increasingly twisted view of the world and its history? The only possible explanation for your ludicrous assertion that the financial crisis was brought about by the US government is that you've been spending these last few years locked in a basement being spoon-fed a especially pre-packaged version of events, no doubt kindly provided by Fox News and other far-right outlets.
I take it you are totally ignorant of the facts. Never mind your copycat name calling. Come up with some facts. No1 gave it an intellectually lazy try, by going to Reckless Endangerment and pulled a single paragraph which seemed to support his notion, but failed to read anywhere near the entire book. It would be impossible to read any chapter and conc ...[text shortened]... ng bankers license to do risky stuff knowing their risk would be passed on to the taxpayer.
It would be impossible to read any chapter and conclude that this whole episode wasn't deeply rooted in government excesses and incompetence, bipartisan incompetence.
Regardless of the scale of governmental incompetence, the major factor at play was without a doubt the recklessness and unmitigated greed of the financial sector, this is something you seem incapable of recognizing, but then again, seeing the world through the lens of blind ideology as you are, its only natural you'd en up with bizarre conclusions.
No one, certainly not me, claims that investment bankers, or mortgage brokers were innocent in all this.
and yet when allocating blame you're quick to denounce the government, while simultaneously (as your posting history reveals) advocating even less government oversight and regulation in favor of some idealized but still hazy "true capitalism". How is it that you blame government for not reigning in on the excesses of the financial sector in the same breath as you call for less government intervention?
Who wrote this, norm:
Even as they ignored the stock market bubble, these very regulators were laying the groundwork for a subsequent, far more virulent mania in the credit markets -- which helped finance, among other things, mortgages and home ownership. Regulators did this by siding with the banks that wanted to loosen the capital strings that bound them, too tightly they thought, in this brave new world.
Unfettered capitalism coupled with the ownership society-- where individuals were invited to participate in the wealth creation engine of the financial markets-- had become a potent combination. It had produced riches for corporate executives and considerable wealth for individuals, and had replaced federal deficits with an unheard-of government surplus, generated largely from taxes paid by investors on their market gains.
The belief that the free market could police itself better than any government regulator had already taken hold. So, even as Ferguson and other Federal Reserve officials paid lip service to the important lessons of the 1998 crisis, their actions showed that they ignored those lessons. Instead of heightening the scrutiny of risky practices among the big banks they oversaw, the Fed backed these institutions' desires to reduce capital requirements and increase their leverage and profits. Instead of reining in financial institutions in areas that could result in losses, Fed officials loosened them.
In other words, the Fed was busy becoming a pushover, not a policeman.
(Emphasis supplied)