On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 2:03:35 PM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: 
> > On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 13:09:55 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote: 
> >> 
> >> The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were 
> >> somehow afraid of "civil rights prosecution" seems pretty absurd. 
> > 
> > They lent to everyone because they could bundle up bunches of bad 
> > loans and resell the bundles at a profit. The feds encouraged that on 
> > both ends.
>
> First came the pressure from the Clinton administration, which is 
> mentioned at the end of the first NY Times article I cited. Bitrex 
> thinks it's absurd and it is, but they did it, and he voted for them. 

The banks applied pressure to the Clinton administration, rather than the other way around.
The banks wanted to be de-regulated, and they got their wish.
 
> Second came the banks complaining that the policy was going to kill 
> them, so they demanded the repeal of the regulation preventing them from 
> selling the debt. That regulation never existed in Europe, but the 
> crisis didn't start there because they weren't forced to make bad loans. 

US banks weren't "forced to make bad loans".  The loans to people who in low-income neighbourhoods were carefully regulated to make sure that they wouldn't go bad, and they didn't, even after the sub-prime mortgage crisis.
 
> Third came the left claiming that the banks demanded the repeal of the  regulation out of greed. 

That was a large part of the banks' motivation.

> The alternative was to bail out the banks  instead of bailing out the investment houses. 

What's that supposed to mean?

> Fourth came conservative economists predicting the crises in many  articles they published between 1998 and 2005, many of which you can 
> still read online. 

Predict crises often enough, ,and you will be bound to be right some of the time.

> Liberal economists and politicians contradicted them  all the while. 

Correctly. Using bad theory to predict a crisis doesn't validate the  theory when one of the many predicted crises finally happens.
 
> Fifth (after the crisis) came the liberal economists claiming that the  people who predicted the crisis don't understand what cause it, but 
they, who never wrote an article predicting it, understand it  completely.

They understood what to do about it, which is why the consequences of the global financial crisis were a lot less devastating than the consequences of the 1929 stock market crash.
 
> Defund the Thought Police

Can't see why Tom Del Rosso is so worried about the thought police. He doesn't think for himself at all. What he has posted is pretty much the same right wing nonsense that James Arthur was spouting directly after the sub-prime mortgage crisis hit.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 1/29/2022 10:03 PM, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 13:09:55 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were
>>> somehow afraid of "civil rights prosecution" seems pretty absurd.
>>
>> They lent to everyone because they could bundle up bunches of bad
>> loans and resell the bundles at a profit. The feds encouraged that on
>> both ends.
> 
> First came the pressure from the Clinton administration, which is
> mentioned at the end of the first NY Times article I cited. Bitrex
> thinks it's absurd and it is, but they did it, and he voted for them.

I wasn't old enough to vote in 1996.. 8-)

> Second came the banks complaining that the policy was going to kill
> them, so they demanded the repeal of the regulation preventing them from
> selling the debt. That regulation never existed in Europe, but the
> crisis didn't start there because they weren't forced to make bad loans.
> 
> Third came the left claiming that the banks demanded the repeal of the
> regulation out of greed. The alternative was to bail out the banks
> instead of bailing out the investment houses.
> 
> Forth came conservative economists predicting the crises in many
> articles they published between 1998 and 2005, many of which you can
> still read online. Liberal economists and politicians contradicted them
> all the while.
> 
> Fifth (after the crisis) came the liberal economists claiming that the
> people who predicted the crisis don't understand what cause it, but
> they, who never wrote an article predicting it, understand it
> completely.
> 
> 

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 13:09:55 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
>>
>> The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were
>> somehow afraid of "civil rights prosecution" seems pretty absurd.
>
> They lent to everyone because they could bundle up bunches of bad
> loans and resell the bundles at a profit. The feds encouraged that on
> both ends.

First came the pressure from the Clinton administration, which is 
mentioned at the end of the first NY Times article I cited. Bitrex 
thinks it's absurd and it is, but they did it, and he voted for them.

Second came the banks complaining that the policy was going to kill 
them, so they demanded the repeal of the regulation preventing them from 
selling the debt. That regulation never existed in Europe, but the 
crisis didn't start there because they weren't forced to make bad loans.

Third came the left claiming that the banks demanded the repeal of the 
regulation out of greed. The alternative was to bail out the banks 
instead of bailing out the investment houses.

Forth came conservative economists predicting the crises in many 
articles they published between 1998 and 2005, many of which you can 
still read online. Liberal economists and politicians contradicted them 
all the while.

Fifth (after the crisis) came the liberal economists claiming that the 
people who predicted the crisis don't understand what cause it, but 
they, who never wrote an article predicting it, understand it 
completely.


-- 
Defund the Thought Police 

On Sunday, January 30, 2022 at 5:45:19 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 13:09:55 -0500, bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote: 
> >On 1/28/2022 9:16 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> >> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:21:06 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote: 
> >>> Tom Gardner wrote: 
> >>>> On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote: 
> >>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: 
> >>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800,  jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: 
 
<snip> 
 
> >>>> One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was 
> >>>> repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up 
> >>>> to a fixed multiple of their assets. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then 
> >>>> spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as 
> >>>> Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill. 
> >>>> 
> >>>> Repealing laws only works when people are decent and 
> >>>> honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't, 
> >>>> or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going 
> >>>> beyond them into the impossible. 
> >>> 
> >>> Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in 
> >>> most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive's most 
> >>> consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have 
> >>> been a mistake. 
> >>> 
> >>> The law you speak of can't hold a candle to the destabilising effect of 
> >>> threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn't lend to 
> >>> people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn't a new 
> >>> law, just a misuse of one. 
> >> 
> >> That was a popular explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis shortly after it happened. James Arthur peddled it here with some enthusiasm. 
> >> 
> >> When people looked into what had actually happened, the guaranteed loans made to people in low income areas hadn't been abandoned any more often than usual during the crisis, and the problem was all about irresponsible lending by fringe banks. 
> >> 
> >> It's just right-wing propaganda. George W. Bush Jnr tried to use the expanding house price bubble as an excuse to cut back the guaranteed loans, but Congress correctly rejected his proposal (which clearly hadn't addressed the actual problem) so he just let the bubble blow up and burst. 
> >> 
> >> <snipped the rest>  
> > 
> >The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were 
> >somehow afraid of "civil rights prosecution" seems pretty absurd.
>
> They lent to everyone because they could bundle up bunches of bad 
> loans and resell the bundles at a profit. The feds encouraged that on 
> both ends.

The fringe banks did a lot of that. The bundled loans were "innovative financial products" and the US ratings agencies labelled them as much more secure than they turned out to be, which meant that they got sold around the world. That's what turned the US "sub-prime mortgage crisis" into the "global financial  crisis" so the fringe banks weren't the only contributors. I don't think that the feds had any control of the ratings agencies.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/23324880
-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 1/29/2022 2:56 PM, Rick C wrote:
> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 1:10:04 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
>> On 1/28/2022 9:16 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:21:06 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>>> Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>> On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800,
>>>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
>>>>> repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
>>>>> to a fixed multiple of their assets.
>>>>>
>>>>> At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
>>>>> spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
>>>>> Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.
>>>>>
>>>>> Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
>>>>> honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't,
>>>>> or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
>>>>> beyond them into the impossible.
>>>>
>>>> Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in
>>>> most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive's most
>>>> consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have
>>>> been a mistake.
>>>>
>>>> The law you speak of can't hold a candle to the destabilising effect of
>>>> threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn't lend to
>>>> people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn't a new
>>>> law, just a misuse of one.
>>>
>>> That was a popular explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis shortly after it happened. James Arthur peddled it here with some enthusiasm.
>>>
>>> When people looked into what had actually happened, the guaranteed loans made to people in low income areas hadn't been abandoned any more often than usual during the crisis, and the problem was all about irresponsible lending by fringe banks.
>>>
>>> It's just right-wing propaganda. George W. Bush Jnr tried to use the expanding house price bubble as an excuse to cut back the guaranteed loans, but Congress correctly rejected his proposal (which clearly hadn't addressed the actual problem) so he just let the bubble blow up and burst.
>>>
>>> <snipped the rest>
>>>
>> The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were
>> somehow afraid of "civil rights prosecution" seems pretty absurd.
> 
> It is absurd.  The banks loaned the money because they would not hold the note for more than a few weeks.  It would be someone else who actually took the risk.  Meanwhile they had met all the requirements so the note could be sold.
> 

I'm going to tell the local Lamborghini dealership they need to lease me 
one at $299/month or they will be violating my civil rights

On 1/28/2022 2:28 AM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 6:21:56 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 9:58:41 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>> On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 4:28:57 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 5:55:40 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 5:51:49 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Jan 2022 08:24:03 +0000, Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 26/01/22 01:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:33:13 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>> We've seen this pattern for hundreds of years, but nobody adds much
>>>>>>>>> damping or lead comp to the loop. Quite the contrary.
>>>>>>>> Or none that John Larkin can understand.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The real economy is nonlinear and not all that mathematically tractable - as
>>>>>>>> John Maynard Keynes pointed out in the 1930's and Dan Kahneman
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> has explained in more detail, more recently, for which he was awarded the
>>>>>>>> 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John's friend James Arthur prefers the Monetarist's mathematically tractable
>>>>>>>> models of the economy, even though they are unrealistic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Naomi Klein - in "Shock Doctrine"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shock_Doctrine
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> suggests that this a deliberate choice - bad theory makes for bad control,
>>>>>>>> and people with lots of money do well out of picking up the pieces after the
>>>>>>>> economy has crashed.
>>>>>>> "Disaster capitalism" is a pain at whatever scale it occurs.
>>>>>> What's worse is disaster socialism; that asserts single-player control... lacks "diversity."
>>>>> Like all American right-wingers, John Larkin confuses communism with socialism.
>>>>>
>>>>> Karl Marx got thrown out of the international socialist movement in 1871 because his enthusiasm for "the leading role of the party" was seem as undemocratic, and likely to lead to tyranny, as indeed it did.
>>>>>
>>>>> China and Russia have exactly the same problem as the US - a small minority run the country for their own advantage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Genuinely socialist countries, like most of the northern European countries are much more diverse, have less economic inequality, and offer a better standard of living for most of the population.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult
>>>>>
>>>>> The US is at 26 with $79.274. China is at 43 with $24,067, and Russia is at 91 with $5,431 . Australia is a number 2 with $238,072 - we aren't famously socialist, but we do have universal health care and long history of trade union activism.
>>>> I have a hard time believing that, SNIPPERMAN. The median Australian income is LESS than the US:
>>>>
>>>> https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-income-by-country
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income
>>>
>>> says much the same thing. but I was talking about wealth.
>> You have to have income to create wealth, Sloman.
> Or make good investments. Having a bigger income can make it easier to invest, but not everybody does.
>
>> Lower income implies lower wealth - where did the large difference come from?
> Australia now has universal health care. Unexpected illness used to be a drain on many peoples finances - the 1960's Melbourne poverty survey high-lighted it as the most common event tipping people into poverty.
>
>>>> while the income tax rates are HIGHER:
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tax_rates#cite_note-28
>>> If you've got universal health, you live in a country where income tax rates are higher. In assessments of well-being universal health care and an education system that does well for the children of the least well off are worth quite a lot. The US doesn't have either. If one of your relatives gets sick and you have to cough up to cover their medical bills, you don't get much of a chance to turn that slightly larger income into persistent wealth.
>> That bullshit says nothing about the unexplained Australian wealth.
> Not to you.
>
>   > Much of the US has health insurance thru their employer. And there are other government supplied health insurance plans.
>
> None of which stop unexpected illness being the most likely cause for an American to fall into bankruptcy.
>
>>> Wealth is more heritable than height in the US, and in no other advanced industrial country. The US is run for the benefit of people who already have money, and it's gross income inequality makes for some stark differences in opportunity.
>> More libtard bullshit - you don't have inheritance in OZ? I really doubt it.
> Of course we do. It's just that it's not the only way to pay for your education, and because out primary and secondary education systems are funded on a state by state basis, you can get decent education even if you live in an area of low average income. The US system of tiny school districts means that the kids of rich parents grow up going to better-funded schools.
>
>>   Especially if your suspect wealth figures are true (a couple would have nearly half a million dollars to give to their kids). Does the OZ government give you a car or a house?
> There is "social housing" - if not enough of it. Nobody gets a free car, but there's quite a lot of public tansport.
>
>> Income inequality comes from differences in education, training and motivation.
> And opportunity, Growing up with rich neighbours generates quite a lot of opportunities.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_by_Design
>
> goes into that.
>
>> Anyone in the US who can't afford college and doesn't want to borrow the money can enlist in the military, get trained and earn the G.I. bill (college tuition).
> If you are fit and healthy enough for the military to let you enlist. And the US has a wide range of educational institutions. John Larkin went to Tulane.
>
 &nbsp;It seems are awfully jealous of John's accomplishments.

Why don't you quit trying to denigrate him and do something for yourself 
that you can be proud of.

Readers see your posts and it's always you trying to make yourself look 
better by climbing on someone else.

Just stop.

 &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Mikek


-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 1:10:04 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:
> On 1/28/2022 9:16 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote: 
> > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:21:06 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote: 
> >> Tom Gardner wrote: 
> >>> On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote: 
> >>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: 
> >>>>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800, 
> >>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: 
> > 
> > <snip> 
> > 
> >>> One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was 
> >>> repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up 
> >>> to a fixed multiple of their assets. 
> >>> 
> >>> At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then 
> >>> spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as 
> >>> Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill. 
> >>> 
> >>> Repealing laws only works when people are decent and 
> >>> honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't, 
> >>> or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going 
> >>> beyond them into the impossible. 
> >> 
> >> Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in 
> >> most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive's most 
> >> consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have 
> >> been a mistake. 
> >> 
> >> The law you speak of can't hold a candle to the destabilising effect of 
> >> threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn't lend to 
> >> people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn't a new 
> >> law, just a misuse of one. 
> > 
> > That was a popular explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis shortly after it happened. James Arthur peddled it here with some enthusiasm. 
> > 
> > When people looked into what had actually happened, the guaranteed loans made to people in low income areas hadn't been abandoned any more often than usual during the crisis, and the problem was all about irresponsible lending by fringe banks. 
> > 
> > It's just right-wing propaganda. George W. Bush Jnr tried to use the expanding house price bubble as an excuse to cut back the guaranteed loans, but Congress correctly rejected his proposal (which clearly hadn't addressed the actual problem) so he just let the bubble blow up and burst. 
> > 
> > <snipped the rest> 
> >
> The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were 
> somehow afraid of "civil rights prosecution" seems pretty absurd. 

It is absurd.  The banks loaned the money because they would not hold the note for more than a few weeks.  It would be someone else who actually took the risk.  Meanwhile they had met all the requirements so the note could be sold.  

-- 

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On 1/29/2022 1:45 PM, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 13:09:55 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 1/28/2022 9:16 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:21:06 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>>> Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>>> On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800,
>>>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
>>>>> repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
>>>>> to a fixed multiple of their assets.
>>>>>
>>>>> At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
>>>>> spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
>>>>> Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.
>>>>>
>>>>> Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
>>>>> honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't,
>>>>> or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
>>>>> beyond them into the impossible.
>>>>
>>>> Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in
>>>> most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive's most
>>>> consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have
>>>> been a mistake.
>>>>
>>>> The law you speak of can't hold a candle to the destabilising effect of
>>>> threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn't lend to
>>>> people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn't a new
>>>> law, just a misuse of one.
>>>
>>> That was a popular explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis shortly after it happened. James Arthur peddled it here with some enthusiasm.
>>>
>>> When people looked into what had actually happened, the guaranteed loans made to people in low income areas hadn't been abandoned any more often than usual during the crisis, and the problem was all about irresponsible lending by fringe banks.
>>>
>>> It's just right-wing propaganda. George W. Bush Jnr tried to use the expanding house price bubble as an excuse to cut back the guaranteed loans, but Congress correctly rejected his proposal (which clearly hadn't addressed the actual problem) so he just let the bubble blow up and burst.
>>>
>>> <snipped the rest>
>>>
>>
>> The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were
>> somehow afraid of "civil rights prosecution" seems pretty absurd.
> 
> They lent to everyone because they could bundle up bunches of bad
> loans and resell the bundles at a profit. The feds encouraged that on
> both ends.


Yep, there was a profit motive to do it, the customers were looking to 
buy despite their lack of funds, and "it seemed like a good idea at the 
time", no one had to pull a gun and the Civil Rights Act out on anyone 
to make it happen.

Business can be pretty equitable all by itself about stuff like race and 
class if and when it seems like there's a better buck to be made in not 
fretting it. Some of the first businesses to independently de-segregate 
in the South were railroads, hauling around two types of passenger car 
and paying someone to enforce the distinction, was a money-loser long 
before 1964.

On Sat, 29 Jan 2022 13:09:55 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

>On 1/28/2022 9:16 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:21:06 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>> Tom Gardner wrote:
>>>> On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800,
>>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>>>> One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
>>>> repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
>>>> to a fixed multiple of their assets.
>>>>
>>>> At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
>>>> spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
>>>> Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.
>>>>
>>>> Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
>>>> honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't,
>>>> or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
>>>> beyond them into the impossible.
>>>
>>> Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in
>>> most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive's most
>>> consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have
>>> been a mistake.
>>>
>>> The law you speak of can't hold a candle to the destabilising effect of
>>> threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn't lend to
>>> people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn't a new
>>> law, just a misuse of one.
>> 
>> That was a popular explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis shortly after it happened. James Arthur peddled it here with some enthusiasm.
>> 
>> When people looked into what had actually happened, the guaranteed loans made to people in low income areas hadn't been abandoned any more often than usual during the crisis, and the problem was all about irresponsible lending by fringe banks.
>> 
>> It's just right-wing propaganda. George W. Bush Jnr tried to use the expanding house price bubble as an excuse to cut back the guaranteed loans, but Congress correctly rejected his proposal (which clearly hadn't addressed the actual problem) so he just let the bubble blow up and burst.
>> 
>> <snipped the rest>
>> 
>
>The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were 
>somehow afraid of "civil rights prosecution" seems pretty absurd.

They lent to everyone because they could bundle up bunches of bad
loans and resell the bundles at a profit. The feds encouraged that on
both ends.




-- 

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On 1/28/2022 9:16 PM, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 2:21:06 AM UTC+11, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> Tom Gardner wrote:
>>> On 28/01/22 13:52, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 25 Jan 2022 09:33:02 -0800,
>>>>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>> One of the contributory factors to the 2008 crash was
>>> repealing the law restricting bank to lending only up
>>> to a fixed multiple of their assets.
>>>
>>> At least one (Northern Rock) lent 42* its assets, then
>>> spectacularly crashed burned, and became known as
>>> Northern Crock. The taxpayer picked up the bill.
>>>
>>> Repealing laws only works when people are decent and
>>> honest. There will /always/ be a proportion that aren't,
>>> or who demonstrate the limits of the possible by going
>>> beyond them into the impossible.
>>
>> Repealing laws works whenever the law was a bad idea, which was true in
>> most cases since the progressive era began. The progressive's most
>> consistent behavior is refusal to believe anything they do could have
>> been a mistake.
>>
>> The law you speak of can't hold a candle to the destabilising effect of
>> threatening banks with civil rights prosecution if they didn't lend to
>> people who couldn't afford to pay it back. Of course that wasn't a new
>> law, just a misuse of one.
> 
> That was a popular explanation of the sub-prime mortgage crisis shortly after it happened. James Arthur peddled it here with some enthusiasm.
> 
> When people looked into what had actually happened, the guaranteed loans made to people in low income areas hadn't been abandoned any more often than usual during the crisis, and the problem was all about irresponsible lending by fringe banks.
> 
> It's just right-wing propaganda. George W. Bush Jnr tried to use the expanding house price bubble as an excuse to cut back the guaranteed loans, but Congress correctly rejected his proposal (which clearly hadn't addressed the actual problem) so he just let the bubble blow up and burst.
> 
> <snipped the rest>
> 

The idea that banks lent to everyone with a pulse because they were 
somehow afraid of "civil rights prosecution" seems pretty absurd. Who 
were they so afraid of and what consequences. Major lenders settle class 
actions by citizens all the time for chump change, they're not afraid of 
this it's a cost of doing business.

<https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/the-rise-of-bank-prosecutions>

Only times they get really hit hard is when they fuck with the federal 
government itself like in tax evasion, money laundering, and anti-trust 
suits, that is to say the big gangsters got the impression the little 
gangsters were trying to screw them over on their cut. They were never 
afraid of violating anyone's "civil rights", come on.

"Upon closer examination, the recent string of bank prosecutions, while 
noteworthy, fails to address persistent concerns that deterrent fines 
are not routinely imposed, that compliance terms designed to 
rehabilitate firms are not used effectively, and that individuals remain 
largely un-prosecuted."

They're not afraid of shit