I Wear Pants;930130 wrote:Solyndria was merely an investment that didn't work out. We invest in emerging technologies because otherwise it's difficult for them to get off the ground (many things we now use started with government funds). We can't arrest people every time it doesn't work out.

The govt has traditionally addressed this via the tax code....Rarely have they made such sizeable private investments - that would general be what capital markets are for. Sounds like there were a lot of red flags. Seriously, the govt doesn't know shit about investing, or how to balance a budget (much less make a profit)...we don't need the govt to try and start picking winners and losers.

Mooney44Cards;930154 wrote:I think we can put that one on the back burner for the time being and focus our attention on the rich folks on Wall Street who collected record bonuses during the housing bubble while meanwhile squandering away 20% of the wealth that has been accumulated over the course of our 200+ year history. I'm pretty sure that's the more pressing issue.

Wow.

Are you new to the kool-aid?

BGFalcons82;930155 wrote: http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/10/10/2011-10-10_occupy_wall_street_protesters_can_stay_in_zuccotti_park_indefinitely_says_mayor_.html

Gotta love that Che Guevara flag.

Mooney44Cards;930092 wrote:Washington is not the disease, it is the symptom.

If we eliminate the cause (Wall Street) somehow, perhaps through more oversight, transparency, regulation while at the same time eliminating or severely crippling the massive amount of influence Wall Street has on Washington we can begin to solve the problem. Just because you and I can't agree on how to solve the problem doesn't mean that we ignore the problem, but many in this thread seem to want to deflect the attention elsewhere, and that comes off as defending Wall Street which is pretty much an indefensible position.

Washington is absolutely the disease. Wall Street isn't going to stop being reckless as long as they have access to free money and a bailout whenever they need it, no matter what regulations you put on them. If you want a solution you have 2 options. First, nationalize Wall Street and remove the profit motive. Obviously we wouldn't have much of an economy left, but at least then you would have to blame the government for their risky loans.

Second, and the only realistic solution, you bar the federal government and the Federal Reserve from bailing out failed companies, giving tax incentives, and subsidies, and writing new regulations. Many of these companies, not only on Wall Street, but also big oil companies and big drug companies lobby for new regulations to be written that they buy their way out of but their competition can't. The whole system is corrupt and the way you solve it is to eliminate government subsidies, handouts, bailouts, and regulations. If the government can't offer these things, then companies have no reason to buy politicians.

QuakerOats;930172 wrote:Wow.

Are you new to the kool-aid?

Oh I guess the housing collapse didn't happen?

Mooney44Cards;930179 wrote:Oh I guess the housing collapse didn't happen?

And I guess the government did not create legislation forcing banks to make bad loans that they otherwise would never have dreamed making in an environment free of government meddling, interference, and coercion.

Cleveland Buck;930177 wrote:Washington is absolutely the disease. Wall Street isn't going to stop being reckless as long as they have access to free money and a bailout whenever they need it, no matter what regulations you put on them. If you want a solution you have 2 options. First, nationalize Wall Street and remove the profit motive. Obviously we wouldn't have much of an economy left, but at least then you would have to blame the government for their risky loans.

Second, and the only realistic solution, you bar the federal government and the Federal Reserve from bailing out failed companies, giving tax incentives, and subsidies, and writing new regulations. Many of these companies, not only on Wall Street, but also big oil companies and big drug companies lobby for new regulations to be written that they buy their way out of but their competition can't. The whole system is corrupt and the way you solve it is to eliminate government subsidies, handouts, bailouts, and regulations. If the government can't offer these things, then companies have no reason to buy politicians.

Why do you keep acting like Wall Street and Washington are two separate entities? The Fed will keep bailing out companies, giving tax incentives, and subsidies as long as Wall Street is paying off those in Washington.

They are intertwined, cannot be separated from one another.

Wall Street is just the machine by which Central Banks used liquidity to artificially prop-up the economy. I actually consider Wall Street to be relatively benign - yes, people made mistakes and models failed, that happens. And, yes, there is greed and corruption just like any other industry (including the public sector).

Wall Street wasn't really manipulating anything, but just doing what they do - which is serve as a middle man to move capital to companies/people wanting it. When you fuck with the interest rates and liquidity, Wall Street behaves in a predictable and expected manner, which is to take on increased risk. You know what? The homeowners weren't behaving any differently.

QuakerOats;930182 wrote:And I guess the government did not create legislation forcing banks to make bad loans that they otherwise would never have dreamed making in an environment free of government meddling, interference, and coercion.

And I guess those banks didn't sell of these loans that they knew were bad by paying off S&P and Moody's to rate them AAA while at the other end, betting that the loans would fail and profiting off their own product failing.

gut;930184 wrote:Wall Street is just the machine by which Central Banks used liquidity to artificially prop-up the economy. I actually consider Wall Street to be relatively benign - yes, people made mistakes and models failed, that happens. And, yes, there is greed and corruption just like any other industry (including the public sector).

Wall Street wasn't really manipulating anything, but just doing what they do - which is serve as a middle man to move capital to companies/people wanting it. When you **** with the interest rates and liquidity, Wall Street behaves in a predictable and expected manner, which is to take on increased risk. You know what? The homeowners weren't behaving any differently.

You don't think theres anything immoral or unethical about selling a product that you know is going to fail and then basically collecting insurance on it when it does fail? Imagine if GM did that....

Mooney44Cards;930195 wrote:You don't think theres anything immoral or unethical about selling a product that you know is going to fail and then basically collecting insurance on it when it does fail? Imagine if GM did that....

If you want to classify the likes of Countrywide as "Wall Street", then I'll agree with you. When I think of Wall Street, I think of the 7 (now 5) bulge-bracket investment banks, and hedge funds/mutual funds if you like. The latter two didn't originate anything, they just traded. What the BB banks did was buy the bundled mortgage backs from FNMA and FMAC (and Countrywide), slice them up and sell traunches...wash rinse repeat. The BB's are a middle man here, buying the MBS and then selling them to investors and then repeating the cycle buying again. That's what they do. Now, they do take short-term insurance against that risk of holding securities while waiting to sell, and there's nothing wrong with that and doesn't implicate anyone in selling something they knew would fail.

Where the banks got into trouble was their prop trading desks started holding the riskiest traunches for the juicy returns, thinking their downside was hedged with buying insurance. So I fail to see the "fraudulent" intent behind buying insurance on something you OWN presumably expecting that investment to fail. They never expected that valuation hit, nor that the insurance wouldn't be there. I won't go into the paper loss of the mark-to-market hit due to a liquidity reval, the resulting consequences of which we are all very familiar with.

C'mon, y'all know you want to paint your faces blue & white and see if it catches on at the Occupy rallies.

Mooney44Cards;930168 wrote:Who's controlling the Fed?

(hint: they're folks from Wall Street)

Actually, nobody is controlling the Fed. That's been a BIG part of the problem.

However, if we're wanting to know who has most of the influence over their decisions, look at where most of the money has gone: NOT Wall Street (though a lot has gone there), but foreign central banks.

So who controls the Fed? Other countries.

Cleveland Buck;930177 wrote:Washington is absolutely the disease. Wall Street isn't going to stop being reckless as long as they have access to free money and a bailout whenever they need it, no matter what regulations you put on them.

Bingo.

Cleveland Buck;930177 wrote:If you want a solution you have 2 options. First, nationalize Wall Street and remove the profit motive. Obviously we wouldn't have much of an economy left, but at least then you would have to blame the government for their risky loans.

Second, and the only realistic solution, you bar the federal government and the Federal Reserve from bailing out failed companies, giving tax incentives, and subsidies, and writing new regulations. Many of these companies, not only on Wall Street, but also big oil companies and big drug companies lobby for new regulations to be written that they buy their way out of but their competition can't. The whole system is corrupt and the way you solve it is to eliminate government subsidies, handouts, bailouts, and regulations. If the government can't offer these things, then companies have no reason to buy politicians.

And again, BINGO!

QuakerOats;930182 wrote:And I guess the government did not create legislation forcing banks to make bad loans that they otherwise would never have dreamed making in an environment free of government meddling, interference, and coercion.

As the son of a banker, I remember this, and I remember my mother saying how dangerous such legislation was.

gut;930184 wrote:Wall Street is just the machine by which Central Banks used liquidity to artificially prop-up the economy. I actually consider Wall Street to be relatively benign - yes, people made mistakes and models failed, that happens. And, yes, there is greed and corruption just like any other industry (including the public sector).

Wall Street wasn't really manipulating anything, but just doing what they do - which is serve as a middle man to move capital to companies/people wanting it. When you fuck with the interest rates and liquidity, Wall Street behaves in a predictable and expected manner, which is to take on increased risk. You know what? The homeowners weren't behaving any differently.

Good point on the homeowners. If I know what I can afford (and it is nobody's responsibility but mine), why the hell would I accept a loan that I can't afford to pay back, REGARDLESS of whether or not I was approved for it?

gut;930226 wrote:If you want to classify the likes of Countrywide as "Wall Street", then I'll agree with you. When I think of Wall Street, I think of the 7 (now 5) bulge-bracket investment banks, and hedge funds/mutual funds if you like. The latter two didn't originate anything, they just traded. What the BB banks did was buy the bundled mortgage backs from FNMA and FMAC (and Countrywide), slice them up and sell traunches...wash rinse repeat. The BB's are a middle man here, buying the MBS and then selling them to investors and then repeating the cycle buying again. That's what they do. Now, they do take short-term insurance against that risk of holding securities while waiting to sell, and there's nothing wrong with that and doesn't implicate anyone in selling something they knew would fail.

Where the banks got into trouble was their prop trading desks started holding the riskiest traunches for the juicy returns, thinking their downside was hedged with buying insurance. So I fail to see the "fraudulent" intent behind buying insurance on something you OWN presumably expecting that investment to fail. They never expected that valuation hit, nor that the insurance wouldn't be there. I won't go into the paper loss of the mark-to-market hit due to a liquidity reval, the resulting consequences of which we are all very familiar with.

Except that there's a conflict of interest when you're selling a product that you have an interest in seeing fail. This would never fly in any other walk of life.

If I am opening a restaurant and asking you to invest in it, then turn around and allow that place to burn to the ground so I can collect insurance....that is fraud. Even more so if I pay off people to tell you that it is a good investment when they in fact know it isn't.

Mooney44Cards;930252 wrote:Except that there's a conflict of interest when you're selling a product that you have an interest in seeing fail. This would never fly in any other walk of life.

Good god that's ignorant. Hedging is a very common and justifiable business practice. Companies do it, too (airlines with fuel the most obvious). Perfectly legitimate. And where's the conflict of interest? How in hell do you get that the BB's had an interest in seeing the product fail? How do you expect them to profit from holding securities, for investment, they expect to fail - are you not aware that miscalculation on the hedging and counter-party risk nearly took down the whole financial system? Your boogeyman argument here is DOA. And it's typical of the demonization of Wall Street because the average Joe doesn't understand what happened, but Joe always loves him some good class warfare.

Was there fraud and unethical behavior in the lending companies, and also the appraisors? Absolutely. That's not Wall Street.

QuakerOats;930182 wrote:And I guess the government did not create legislation forcing banks to make bad loans that they otherwise would never have dreamed making in an environment free of government meddling, interference, and coercion.

This is not true and I've cited numerous respected sources in past posts to get you to stop but to no avail I see. When will you stop? I suppose I'll try one more time.

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in 2011 that Fannie & Freddie "contributed to the crisis, but were not a primary cause." GSE mortgage securities essentially maintained their value throughout the crisis and did not contribute to the significant financial firm losses that were central to the financial crisis. The GSEs participated in the expansion of subprime and other risky mortgages, but they followed rather than led Wall Street and other lenders into subprime lending.

In reality but deregulation and the pervasive laissez-faire approach to regulation of financial institutions was the primary cause.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fcic/fcic.pdf

Glory Days;930138 wrote:hahahahahaha that is a good one. i would have loved to see that little old jewish guy just go off and clock that kid upside the head.

I'm finding it a bit funny to see the conservatives on here and in the media like Glenn Beck who defended the tea party tooth and nail and were willing to ignore the bad apples and loons in support of the general message of anti-government sentiment fervently trying to discredit these protesters. I can remember CenterBHSfan saying it was cherry picking (where's she been by the way?) when people like Gibby posted videos of loons from the Tea Party and all the conservatives on here agreeing. Don't see any claims of cherry picking here do we?

And as to the point of the OWS people being disruptive and unkempt etc. whereas the Tea Party Protests normally minded their own business. It seems to me that the point of these particular protests is to be disruptive. I mean they call themselves "occupiers." Seems it's their goal to disrupt the ordinary course of business.

We can rest assured that Fox News and Glenn Beck will find every communist they can and give them a microphone just like MSNBC went looking for militant conservatives.

gut;930275 wrote:Good god that's ignorant. Hedging is a very common and justifiable business practice. Companies do it, too (airlines with fuel the most obvious). Perfectly legitimate. And where's the conflict of interest? How in hell do you get that the BB's had an interest in seeing the product fail? How do you expect them to profit from holding securities, for investment, they expect to fail - are you not aware that miscalculation on the hedging and counter-party risk nearly took down the whole financial system? Your boogeyman argument here is DOA. And it's typical of the demonization of Wall Street because the average Joe doesn't understand what happened, but Joe always loves him some good class warfare.

Was there fraud and unethical behavior in the lending companies, and also the appraisors? Absolutely. That's not Wall Street.

They didn't....a lot of them went bankrupt and the government bailed them out. Remember that?

Mooney44Cards;930307 wrote:They didn't....a lot of them went bankrupt and the government bailed them out. Remember that?

Actually, the two that would have gone bankrupt were allowed to (along with Countrywide, if we're counting them). BofA may not have survived, possibly Morgan Stanley - Goldman, CSFB, DB, and JP would have been bruised, but fine. The "bailout" was more about restoring confidence than the banks actually needing it - most of them didn't need or want it, which is probably why it was paid back so quickly, plus interest. But the govt needed to step in to prevent a domino effect.

However, you're argument that they were holding securities they expected to fail, hoping to cash in on insurance (and hence the conflict of interest) is beyond ignorant.

gut;930310 wrote:Actually, the two that would have gone bankrupt were allowed to (along with Countrywide, if we're counting them). BofA may not have survived, possibly Morgan Stanley - Goldman, CSFB, DB, and JP would have been bruised, but fine. The "bailout" was more about restoring confidence than the banks actually needing it - most of them didn't need or want it, which is probably why it was paid back so quickly, plus interest. But the govt needed to step in to prevent a domino effect.

However, you're argument that they were holding securities they expected to fail, hoping to cash in on insurance (and hence the conflict of interest) is beyond ignorant.

Except that you're totally discounting the credit rating companies' role in this. They were rating CDOs AAA that they knew were junk just so these companies could sell them off, you don't think that's wrong?

Mooney44Cards;930320 wrote:Except that you're totally discounting the credit rating companies' role in this. They were rating CDOs AAA that they knew were junk just so these companies could sell them off, you don't think that's wrong?

I'll give you that on the credit ratings agencies. Again, I don't consider that Wall Street. The credit analysts at the agencies are hacks and sophisticated investors don't rely on it in place of their own due diligence. Anyone at Moody's or S&P worth a damn would take a job making multiples more at a bank or hedge fund.

But the credit ratings agencies aren't involved in gaining on the insurance, so your conflict of interest argument still fails miserably. You're just throwing darts now.

BoatShoes;930279 wrote:This is not true and I've cited numerous respected sources in past posts to get you to stop but to no avail I see. When will you stop? I suppose I'll try one more time.

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in 2011 that Fannie & Freddie "contributed to the crisis, but were not a primary cause." GSE mortgage securities essentially maintained their value throughout the crisis and did not contribute to the significant financial firm losses that were central to the financial crisis. The GSEs participated in the expansion of subprime and other risky mortgages, but they followed rather than led Wall Street and other lenders into subprime lending.

In reality but deregulation and the pervasive laissez-faire approach to regulation of financial institutions was the primary cause.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fcic/fcic.pdf

Imagine that, a government appointed inquiry into government abuse and interference resulted in blaming the private sector and capitalism. Oh, and the majority of the commission members were appointed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

And this then led to the Dodd-Frank bill.

What a complete and utter clusterfu#k, all brought to you by the democrats in Washington D.C. But you do a rather masterful job in carrying their water.

QuakerOats;930344 wrote:Imagine that, a government appointed inquiry into government abuse and interference resulted in blaming the private sector and capitalism. Oh, and the majority of the commission members were appointed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

And this then led to the Dodd-Frank bill.

What a complete and utter clusterfu#k, all brought to you by the democrats in Washington D.C. But you do a rather masterful job in carrying their water.

Haha...I was going to point that out. You could add that Fanny and Freddie's balance sheets were a mess YEARS before this fiasco.

http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/fcic_final_report_wallison_dissent.pdf


One of two dissenting opinions from the majority. As always, there is more to the story.

I know this for a fact, what happened in 2008 would never have happened in a true free market, with zero government regulation or intereference.

QuakerOats;930344 wrote:Imagine that, a government appointed inquiry into government abuse and interference resulted in blaming the private sector and capitalism. Oh, and the majority of the commission members were appointed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

And this then led to the Dodd-Frank bill.

What a complete and utter clusterfu#k, all brought to you by the democrats in Washington D.C. But you do a rather masterful job in carrying their water.

Look, nobody's saying Fannie and Freddie weren't in need of fixes....and you attack the source but the fact is I've cited numerous other sources in various posts that follow the same theme. I don't have the time nor the inclination to compile sources over and over again for someone who would not be swayed. I mean Alan Greenspan said as much and he is basically the male version of Ayn Rand.

But either way I suppose this is hijacking the thread anyways as its supposed to be about OWS.

In other news, I think the local Cleveland news is mistaking the homeless men who've been sleeping in public square for the better part of a decade for Occupy Cleveland...