Occupy Bay street | Page 17 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Occupy Bay street

sonnythebull said:
Or the dummies taking mortgages and loans they couldn't afford?
Click to expand...

No sense trying to herd a million poor idiots when you can slap some rules and regulations on the smart guys in the room.

Who the hell thought it would be a good idea to create an entire industry out of sub-prime mortgage lending? How in the world did anybody think it would be feasible to lend money to people who obviously weren't in a position to pay back their loans? Its preposterous.
 
daught said:
Both had fault in it. But who should have known better? The dummies or the investors that have a much better understanding of the economy?
Click to expand...

Personal reponsibility is more important. Nanny state isn't something I want
 
sonnythebull said:
Personal reponsibility is more important. Nanny state isn't something I want
Click to expand...

I think when institutions that are too big to let fail go and hang themselves way over the edge like they did before the crisis, a good dose of nannying is a healthy thing.
 
fastar1 said:
I think when institutions that are too big to let fail go and hang themselves way over the edge like they did before the crisis, a good dose of nannying is a healthy thing.
Click to expand...

Then we will go back to very little credit available and 17 percent mortgages. You ok with that?
 
sonnythebull said:
Personal reponsibility is more important. Nanny state isn't something I want
Click to expand...

Banking regulation is hardly "nanny state".... I want my guns and my booze and my freedoms too. But only fools agree with deregulation of the system.

How is there any argument for deregulation? None of it was a good idea, that's why it failed. If it was regulated (like in our own country, for example) things would've been fine.
 
mmmnaked said:
Banking regulation is hardly "nanny state".... I want my guns and my booze and my freedoms too. But only fools agree with deregulation of the system.

How is there any argument for deregulation? None of it was a good idea, that's why it failed. If it was regulated (like in our own country, for example) things would've been fine.
Click to expand...

I didn't say deregulate I don't want more and more regulation that will spill over to everything else. Our guns included. Slippery slope
 
sonnythebull said:
I didn't say deregulate I don't want more and more regulation that will spill over to everything else. Our guns included. Slippery slope
Click to expand...

I don't connect banking regulations to loss of freedoms. We can't let sneaky money managers control our collective well-being. The government should've never allowed the securitization of mortgages.. that's ultimately (afaik) what allowed sub-prime lenders to conduct business. The institutions writing these crappy loans weren't responsible for them because they could package them and sell them off to investors. Nobody took responsiblity for any of it. To top it off, someone had the bright idea of selling insurance against these pools of crappy loans to make even more money. That's convoluted. It should've been illegal from day one.

I certainly don't expect 'poor' people to turn down what was essentially free money and housing... lenders should've known better.
 
mmmnaked said:
I don't connect banking regulations to loss of freedoms. We can't let sneaky money managers control our collective well-being. The government should've never allowed the securitization of mortgages.. that's ultimately (afaik) what allowed sub-prime lenders to conduct business. The institutions writing these crappy loans weren't responsible for them because they could package them and sell them off to investors. Nobody took responsiblity for any of it. To top it off, someone had the bright idea of selling insurance against these pools of crappy loans to make even more money. That's convoluted. It should've been illegal from day one.

I certainly don't expect 'poor' people to turn down what was essentially free money and housing... lenders should've known better.
Click to expand...

Shouldn't have been allowed but it was a new thing invented that they couldn't regulate for until it happened. The more rules imposed to protect the dummies the more personal freedoms will be taken away. Some would argue borrowing money is a personal freedom
 
sonnythebull said:
Shouldn't have been allowed but it was a new thing invented that they couldn't regulate for until it happened. The more rules imposed to protect the dummies the more personal freedoms will be taken away. Some would argue borrowing money is a personal freedom
Click to expand...

The rules aren't to protect the dummies. They're to protect our economy.

The kind of rules I'm talking about wouldn't have protected the dummies in the first place. They would've protected the rich people from themselves, and our collective ***** by proxy. The crux of the collapse was the financial institutions doing stupid things between themselves. I'm not talking about outlawing sub-prime lending, I'm talking about regulating things like the mortgage-backed securities market, bond insurance on those securities, and the ratings agencies in charge of actually analyzing these securities. Those idiots gave AAA ratings to pools of sub-prime mortgages... somehow completely toxic loans being grouped together made them triple A :rolleyes:

The dummies still would've had their houses and lost them, but it wouldn't have crippled the economy.
 
sonnythebull said:
I didn't say deregulate I don't want more and more regulation that will spill over to everything else. Our guns included. Slippery slope
Click to expand...

Pardon me but "slippery slope" is a crock of ****. In fact, maybe the **** is what makes it so slippery heheh.

"Slippery slope" could be said about anything. Don't take painkillers, it leads to harder drugs. Don't let your kids go to a sleepover, that leads to pre-teen sex. Never gamble, you'll lose everything.

As we should all know, "everything in moderation". And that should include state controls on business, more on big business, and even more on megacorps. As they get bigger they should have to meet higher standards and follow stricter controls. In fact, no business should ever be allowed to get so big that we can't afford it's failure. Regulation can accomplish that.

You wanna know the side-effect of such a system? More employment, less corporate profit. So if the government is really "for the people" as opposed to for big business, why wouldn't it enact stricter controls for larger businesses?
 
Last edited:
fastar1 said:
Pardon me but "slippery slope" is a crock of ****. In fact, maybe the **** is what makes it so slippery heheh.

"Slippery slope" could be said about anything. Don't take painkillers, it leads to harder drugs. Don't let your kids go to a sleepover, that leads to pre-teen sex. Never gamble, you'll lose everything.

As we should all know, "everything in moderation". And that should include state controls on business, more on big business, and even more on megacorps. As they get bigger they should have to meet higher standards and follow stricter controls. In fact, no business should ever be allowed to get so big that we can't afford it's failure. Regulation can accomplish that.

You wanna know the side-effect of such a system? More employment, less corporate profit. So if the government is really "for the people" as opposed to for big business, why wouldn't it enact stricter controls for larger businesses?
Click to expand...

Give it up. Communism failed. Control how big a business gets and there will not be less umemployment. Smaller company employs less people not more. Your argument makes no sense
 
sonnythebull said:
Give it up. Communism failed. Control how big a business gets and there will not be less umemployment. Smaller company employs less people not more. Your argument makes no sense
Click to expand...

Is that what they did in Communist countries? Regulate bigger businesses more than smaller ones?

Come on, you can do better than resorting to tired old slogans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom