ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

Banks were giving out loans based credit score and income. Clinton is trying to incentivize banks to giving out garbage subprime loans to poor people. Banks were not giving out subprime loans at a high enough rate to please Clinton, so Clinton sends Janet Reno out to make fake racist lawsuits against banks.

Reno attacked the banks claiming that giving out mortgages based on credit score and income is racist. Banks give up and go crazy giving out garbage subprime mortgages.

What's ironic is that after the collapse, extremist leftists attacked banks for targeting minorities with garbage loans.

LOL I wonder why they did that? Couldn't have had anything to do with Janet Reno's nonsense lawsuits.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2008/10/what_really_happened_in_the_mo.html

This article has some of the history of the predatory lending. I find it hilarious that in the 90's Republicans were trying to increase regulation on risky loans, and the leftists shut them down, claiming it would be racist.

The bankers were more than happy to make those loans. They figured out to lie and grade them AAA and sell them to pension funds and the like. Then bet against them because they knew they were bullshit loans. They made money coming and going and no one went to jail for fraud. Now they got a shit loan of cash from Fed at zero or even negative intrest to buy up companies (since American's are tapped out credit wise and unlendable) which is why stock market is insane P/E ratios... Anyway that's nothing compared to whats coming. The whole USG will go broke not just a couple sub prime lenders who didnt get bailed out.

Like I've explained democracies can't survive because public can't make hard choices. Or rather leaders who will make hard choices are unelectable.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/social-security-medicare-and-medicaid-spending-drive-our-national-debt-to-incredible-heights

These young socialists from "justice democrats" like Ocasio-Cortez poised to take over the Democratic party will only accelerate the process of bankruptcy. The God father, Sanders, may well win in 2020 too.

I won't act like Republicans are responsible either. They are running a 1 Trillion dollar deficit in a good economy (probably why it's good like maxing out your CC on black Friday is a good day for everyone involved) And helped Clinton repeal legislation that enabled banks to become sub prime lenders in the first place.

"

Ersatzdrummel wrote:

"

Khoranth wrote:

You cannot ignore how devastating it was for Clinton to send Reno out to make up fake racist lawsuits. That influenced how banks gave out garbage subprime loans.

No business wants the president telling the country they are racist, it was a big deal. The banks gave up resisting Clinton and went crazy giving out garbage subprime loans

The bottom line is: subprime loans are risky garbage. The government shouldn't back them period.

Fact:No govt backed subprime loans, no housing collapse.

Rojimboo, if you are still wondering what Koranth is hinting at and is dispairing at you not commenting on it: For the 6th or 7th time now Koranth has suggested that the main reason (the only one, as he suggested once, that, if prevented, would have made the subprime crisis impossible.) for the subprime crisis is that the banks gave out loans to black people, and that those black people did not deserve to get those loans, predictably defaulted on those loans and thus took the loan-deserving white america down with them.

Thanks mate. I'm slowly getting there, and I have touched upon that subject a few times now, and to keep the discussion going, I've even expanded on things in the futile hope the man stops repeating himself all the time.

There are a few reasons why I remain skeptical of this whole matter, and in some way, actually doubt it happened exactly the way Khoranth says it happened. Sometimes I doubt whether it happened at all to be honest, but let's assume it did.

Some discussion points.

1. A threat of a law suit for discrimination based on ethnicity, is still just a threat. I am aware of no legal action that was actually taken.

2. The case for the lawsuit would have had to have been rocksolid, for the threat to have worked. Banks requiring an income level and a credit rating high enough from lenders, to my knowledge, does not inherently discriminate based on ethnicity. Not all black people are dirt poor, for example.

2.The whole assertion is that the banks were reluctant to make a ton of money by trading complex, low risk, high yield financial derivative instruments like CDOs (collateralized debt obligations), because of discrimination lawsuits.

Apparently, banks were reluctant to make money, and were the conservative, voice of reason in this matter that these sub-prime mortgages and other derivatives would be bad for people. There is a fundamental flaw here. Bankers don't actually ever do such things. I worked in a bank in North America, I claim no profound expertise but at least some.

The way it works in investment banks is "What can I get away with today to make loads of money?". It's certainly not "How can we contribute to society today whilst not making that much money?".

The Basel agreement sets out the rules by which banks and counterparties play. Regulatory agencies monitor compliance. Laws govern regulatory agencies. Politicians amend/repeal laws.

3. Investigations done in a bi-partisan manner after the crisis, and experts who have studied the matter, have already concluded that government affordable housing policies were not the main cause of the financial crisis.

I linked this already, somehow it was missed, at the risk of repetition, I link it again
From the Wikipedia (yuck) entry, sources within
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_of_2007%E2%80%932008

"

The majority report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, written by the six Democratic appointees, the minority report, written by three of the four Republican appointees, studies by Federal Reserve economists, and the work of several independent scholars generally contend that government affordable housing policy was not the primary cause of the financial crisis.[26] Although they concede that governmental policies had some role in causing the crisis, they contend that GSE loans performed better than loans securitized by private investment banks, and performed better than some loans originated by institutions that held loans in their own portfolios.[26]

This should really be the final nail in the coffin for this theory of "Republicans are afraid of being branded prejudist, because of Democrats"

I mean, look at what a Republican president gets away with these days.

4. Whilst it is true that without sub-prime mortgages, the housing bubble would have not burst in such a spectacular fashion, you can say the same about around 50 other things that contributed to the financial crisis. Without repealing the Glass-Steagal act, the crisis would not have happened. Without the trading and existence of mortgage-backed securities, and other apparently low risk derivative financial instruments, the crisis would not have happened. Without GSEs, and the unwritten rule that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were 'too big to fail' and the government would always bail them out, it would not have happened. etc. ad nauseam.

5. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This has so far not been demonstrated. The main causes for the last financial crisis are still being theorised, with no end in sight. You Khoranth, think you can put all the blame on Billie and Janet, probably because it fits a narrative and they are politically aligned opposite to you, so it's a very convenient 'truth'.

Things aren't as black and white though, they never are.

There is like 6-7 causes but I know fringe breitbart Republicans love blaming black/brown ppl. Yes political pressure to put minorities in houses were one but so was greed, glass steagal which turned banks into speculators, feeling houses could never go down and so on. This is why we have a problem with minorites and I'm one not quite white Republican.


Actually I'm more libertarian than those big GOV republicans but low taxes low regs they offer is better state for me.

Ludwig von Mises once pointed out that one government intervention inevitably leads to more government interventions. The reason is that the first intervention inevitably causes a crisis. Rather than repeal the original intervention, public officials double down by enacting a new intervention to fix the crisis caused by the first intervention. This is basically what happened in sub prime crisis.

Everyone was backed in various ways by big gov from old school 20% down loans so they took advantage.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

There is like 6-7 causes but I know fringe breitbart Republicans love blaming black/brown ppl. Yes political pressure to put minorities in houses were one but so was greed, glass steagal which turned banks into speculators, feeling houses could never go down and so on. This is why we have a problem with minorites and I'm one not quite white Republican.


Actually I'm more libertarian than those big GOV republicans but low taxes low regs they offer is better state for me.

Ludwig von Mises once pointed out that one government intervention inevitably leads to more government interventions. The reason is that the first intervention inevitably causes a crisis. Rather than repeal the original intervention, public officials double down by enacting a new intervention to fix the crisis caused by the first intervention. This is basically what happened in sub prime crisis.

Everyone was backed in various ways by big gov from old school 20% down loans so they took advantage.

I was thinking that perhaps Khoranth didn't want to point at Breitbart as the source for his outlandish theory. But I decided it was much more likely that intellectual laziness was to blame.

I would have to wonder if some of you even know what a subprime mortgage is?

If you are a decent human being, and go read what a subprime mortgage is, the first thought in your head should be "Wow, this is even legal?, subprime loans seem evil", then you should think something like "If this type of evil has to be legal, we sure should not be trying to trick poor people into getting subprime loans, and the government sure should not backing these loans"

Anyone who thinks we should be giving out subprime loans to poor people is either 1) evil or 2) doesnt know what a subprime loan is

I am still shocked anyone would defend this insane behavior. But I am not surprised, extremist leftists will go to any lengths to Defend Clinton. The fact that you would question whether or not Reno took legal action shows pure ignorance on the topic.

"

Khoranth wrote:

I would have to wonder if some of you even know what a subprime mortgage is?

If you are a decent human being, and go read what a subprime mortgage is, the first thought in your head should be "Wow, this is even legal?, subprime loans seem evil", then you should think something like "If this type of evil has to be legal, we sure should not be trying to trick poor people into getting subprime loans, and the government sure should not backing these loans"

Anyone who thinks we should be giving out subprime loans to poor people is either 1) evil or 2) doesnt know what a subprime loan is

I am still shocked anyone would defend this insane behavior. But I am not surprised, extremist leftists will go to any lengths to Defend Clinton. The fact that you would question whether or not Reno took legal action shows pure ignorance on the topic.

I don't know man.

You seem to be displaying a tremendous amount of intellectual dishonesty here.

1) One, nobody is defending sub-prime mortgages (which existed for a decade before the financial crisis, and stil exist in many places) to my knowledge.

Maybe you can state and quote who and where is 'defending this insane behaviour'?

Else, it did not happen.

2) I'm seriously considering you don't actually know yourself what it is, or how the derivative security market works, and how the government is 'backing' them. All you'd have to is answer the question, 'How does the government back sub-prime mortgages?' to change my mind regarding this. Easy.

3) You ignore most of the poignant points addressed to you and your claims. It's not that you ignore them, you've probably read through them, yet you don't even acknowledge their existence.

It's like, debating with a ghost. At some point you are convinced they are present, but you will never have anything to show for it. You keep talking to the ghost, but they can never reply. But you keep trying.

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN

"

rojimboo wrote:

Ummmm. I talked about this already. You might have missed my previous post (just before the cute little parable post).

I didn't. My post was a reply to both of those posts. Your previous post didn't state anything personally known and experienced, it stated a statistical coincidence from which a cause was implied.

I'll make it more clear for you.

If the NYT, CNN, Washington Post and 12,436 scientists all told YOU that you've never played Path of Exile and you've never posted on Path of Exile.com's forums - would you believe them?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

My statement of my experience during the financial crisis was in response to this line of your pre-parable post:

"

rojimboo wrote:

And forgive me for saying so, you seem to have inadequate tools to speak about the last financial crisis.

"

rojimboo wrote:

Otherwise what you wrote makes less sense, and I am (yet again) confused. It happens a lot.

Y0U 4R3 R34D1NG WH4T Y0U W4NT 0R EXP3CT T0 SEE.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

rojimboo wrote:

Ummmm. I talked about this already. You might have missed my previous post (just before the cute little parable post).

I didn't. My post was a reply to both of those posts. Your previous post didn't state anything personally known and experienced, it stated a statistical coincidence from which a cause was implied.

I'll make it more clear for you.

If the NYT, CNN, Washington Post and 12,436 scientists all told YOU that you've never played Path of Exile and you've never posted on Path of Exile.com's forums - would you believe them?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

My statement of my experience during the financial crisis was in response to this line of your pre-parable post:

"

rojimboo wrote:

And forgive me for saying so, you seem to have inadequate tools to speak about the last financial crisis.

"

rojimboo wrote:

Otherwise what you wrote makes less sense, and I am (yet again) confused. It happens a lot.

Y0U 4R3 R34D1NG WH4T Y0U W4NT 0R EXP3CT T0 SEE.

Ah ok, then it seems you missed the whole point of the parable, unfortunately.

I guess I have to explain it. Sigh.

Instead of commenting on the fact that was presented (financial crises each time GOP had full control for over 4 years), you attacked the credibility of the source.

Source critique has its place of course, but you cannot just attack the source, and dismiss the presented fact without commenting on it or presenting counter-arguments or evidence.

In this case, it matters very little what the blogger did in the past, whether he is qualified.

You only need to check whether what he is saying is true.

Similar to attacking a homeless man for his credibility saying the sky is blue.

I now seriously hope we can move on regarding this. But something about you tells me you need to have the last word.

Last-worditis. It's ok. I suffer from it too sometimes.