TakeYouToTasker Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 @Joe in Winslow What is your fascination with ex-post facto laws designed to throw people in jail for things which weren’t crimes when they were done? As GG mentioned, unethical possibly; but not illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 I guess someone wrote a junior high paper on the economy between 2001 and 2006 and will talk about it forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: @Joe in Winslow What is your fascination with ex-post facto laws designed to throw people in jail for things which weren’t crimes when they were done? As GG mentioned, unethical possibly; but not illegal. Problem is, mister "rule of law", did the laws change to prevent this kind of nonsense again? Edited March 20, 2019 by Joe in Winslow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said: @Joe in Winslow What is your fascination with ex-post facto laws designed to throw people in jail for things which weren’t crimes when they were done? As GG mentioned, unethical possibly; but not illegal. You'd have a tough climb even convincing me it was unethical. They were creating highly leveraged trading vehicles that were multiple times removed from any tangible value. They were trading vapor whose only value was that it acted like something else that had tangible value. That's stupid, but not immoral. Just now, Joe in Winslow said: Problem is, mister "rule of law", did the laws change to prevent this kind of nonsense again? No. I mean, they changed. But not in any meaningful way that'll prevent another catastrophe. Just as how the previous catastrophe was caused by the change in laws motivated by the catastrophe before that (Enron). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: You'd have a tough climb even convincing me it was unethical. They were creating highly leveraged trading vehicles that were multiple times removed from any tangible value. They were trading vapor whose only value was that it acted like something else that had tangible value. That's stupid, but not immoral. I say possibly unethical because there were certainly some few who perfectly understood the machinations, but acted anyway; though it would be hard to prove. 3 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said: Problem is, mister "rule of law", did the laws change to prevent this kind of nonsense again? So, mister “arbitrary whims of a dictator”, explain what legal changes should have been made, and what the impacts would have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 Each fraud is the result of interested parties not doing due diligence to catch it. often it’s because they cannot, often they could have Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 3 hours ago, Foxx said: not necessarily. the proposed work for welfare thing has been floated again. maybe this time it has a chance? I have not heard this. I am 1000000% behind this. It would be a huge game changer. When I lived in San Francisco the litter drove me nuts. Of course every urban area is like that. But I was saying if we handed welfare/unemployment recipients a rake and a garbage bag and they got their check when they finish cleaning up the mess this cities would be much more enjoyable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: So, mister “arbitrary whims of a dictator”, explain what legal changes should have been made, and what the impacts would have been. Well for one thing, I'd have made it illegal to bundle sub-prime and sub-sub-prime mortgages into resale packages with solid ones. 9 minutes ago, DC Tom said: No. I mean, they changed. But not in any meaningful way that'll prevent another catastrophe. Just as how the previous catastrophe was caused by the change in laws motivated by the catastrophe before that (Enron). So, then I suppose the answer is to let the corruption continue unabated. Shame, that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 1 minute ago, Joe in Winslow said: Well for one thing, I'd have made it illegal to bundle sub-prime and sub-sub-prime mortgages into resale packages with solid ones. So, then I suppose the answer is to let the corruption continue unabated. Shame, that. You don't even understand where the corruption is, dumbass. Shut the ***** up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 10 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said: Well for one thing, I'd have made it illegal to bundle sub-prime and sub-sub-prime mortgages into resale packages with solid ones. Speak to why, and make comparisons, and draw distinctions between these and other bundled securities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q-baby! Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 11 minutes ago, DC Tom said: You don't even understand where the corruption is, dumbass. Shut the ***** up. Try Metamucil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 (edited) 14 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Speak to why, and make comparisons, and draw distinctions between these and other bundled securities. Why? You really need to ask why? Because the people who were sold the CDS instruments were sold a product that wasn't what was advertised. That's not right, and was a HUGE part of what caused multiple institutions to crash and burn which then required billions of taxpayer dollars to fix. What SHOULD have been allowed to happen is every single institution affected by the problem should have been allowed to fail without assistance. THAT would have been the free market at work. Edited March 20, 2019 by Joe in Winslow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 20, 2019 Author Share Posted March 20, 2019 55 minutes ago, DC Tom said: More accurately, no one understood how much exposure banks had to borrowers who over-borrowed, through their own negligence or being defrauded or blackmailed into it (e.g. Countrywide.) Really, the three parties most directly responsible are Washington Mutual and Countrywide - who rightfully went out of business, and some of whose executives were rightly jailed - and HUD, for completely neglecting to enforce regulations concerning settlements. Of course, no one was held responsible for that. Four - IndyMac, and of course GMAC's mortgage subsidiaries. Oops lost another loan to Ditech. 51 minutes ago, DC Tom said: No. I mean, they changed. But not in any meaningful way that'll prevent another catastrophe. Just as how the previous catastrophe was caused by the change in laws motivated by the catastrophe before that (Enron). As always new regulations are enacted to prevent the prior crises, not to prevent the next crises. Regulators are usually 2 steps behind. 48 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: I say possibly unethical because there were certainly some few who perfectly understood the machinations, but acted anyway; though it would be hard to prove. The ones who truly understood it profited massively from the fallout. They weren't the ones who structured and sold the original issues. They would squarely be more on the stupid side than unethical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 20, 2019 Author Share Posted March 20, 2019 (edited) 48 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said: Well for one thing, I'd have made it illegal to bundle sub-prime and sub-sub-prime mortgages into resale packages with solid ones. For starters, that's exactly NOT what caused the liquidity crisis, but carry on. They weren't CDS securities, idiot. At least get the basics of the terminology right. Edited March 20, 2019 by GG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, GG said: The trouble with your example is that sanctuary cities are also the places where labor laws are the toughest and it's almost impossible for large companies to hire illegals in the industries that you cite. The jobs are in fact filled largely by immigrants, but almost always they're not by the wall jumpers. Your Chicago example is quaint, but it will take much more than raising the landscapers' pay rate to get the inner city youth into the workforce. Nope. In Chicago and all over illinois illegal immigrants from all over the globe work in union jobs, restaurants, as truck drivers, warehouse operations, etc.... and they are taking work away from citizens that want the jobs every day. Citizenry as an employment requirement is barely enforced here. Don't believe the 4% unemployment bull#### number. Whenever I place an ad for an entry level operations position here in our small company I get literally 100+ applicants within 3-4 days of posting the job on indeed or similar. Sometimes 200+. 1 hour ago, GG said: WTF are you talking about? There was nothing illegal in the creation of the financial instruments. You would have a valid argument that it was unethical and with very lax oversight by everybody, but it wasn't illegal. The illegal stuff was happening on the ground with false representations on mortgage documents. Now run along and round up the thousands of real estate agents and bogus mortgage brokers. Exacerbated by Fannie, Freddie and others who would buy debt in staggering numbers without having strict underlying credit requirements and audits. The portion of actual fraudulent applications was pretty low. Edited March 20, 2019 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 37 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: A puff piece by a trump cheerleader. 2018 will be the high point for Trump @ 2.9% RGDP growth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 24 minutes ago, TPS said: A puff piece by a trump cheerleader. 2018 will be the high point for Trump @ 2.9% RGDP growth. Is 2.9% a good number to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 1 minute ago, row_33 said: Is 2.9% a good number to you? I predicted between 3-3.5%, so it was slightly disappointing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted March 20, 2019 Share Posted March 20, 2019 32 minutes ago, TPS said: I predicted between 3-3.5%, so it was slightly disappointing. what has been the recent number and what has been seen as acceptable recently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts