An alternative view on life, politics, and computers
Greed on wall street
Published on September 19, 2008 By Calor In Democrat

The melt down on wall street is exactly what happens when you have a Republican and a Republican congress. Their faith in letting the market decides means that everyone else, the hard working Americans who make life in this nation possible, suffer the consequences for the greed at the top.

Republicans always claim that communism doesn't work because it doesn't work with human beings. Humans are too greedy and selfish for communism to work. But Democrats never argue in favor of Communism. They argue for a mixed economy.

By contrast, many Republicans loudly and frequently talk about the merits of "letting the market" decide.  What they don't realize is that laissez faire doesn't work either. We don't have anything approaching that but plenty of right wingers think that the solution to our economic problems is less regulation which just results in the mess we're in.

In reality, greedy people who know how to game the system tend to work with like minded allies. The result is you get greedy CEOs who protect one another and collude to enrich themselves and concentrate wealth not based on merit or "market forces" but through pure manipulation or gaming of the system.

So much of the wealth in this country is taken not by those producing a product or service but by people who just know how to manipulate the market, play the system, and skim off the labor of the millions of Americans who ultimately pay the bill when their short-sighted schemes fall apart.

McCain and his Republian allies don't understand this. They sometimes call for more oversight but it's a bandaid. What America needs is leadership from people who understand that the strength of our nation isn't just from the top 1% but by the hard working men and women of the entire nation.


Comments (Page 2)
3 Pages1 2 3 
on Sep 21, 2008

Dr Guy

The melt down on wall street is exactly what happens when you have a Republican and a Republican congress
Good thing we DONT have that, right?  Instead (like the S&L meltdown) we have a Democrat congress - again!  There is a reason the meltdown waited until Pelosi and Reid were in charge - they caused it!

Actually this has been in the works for years its hardly the Democrats at fault here and its not all the Republicans. And to the ones saying the Fannie-Freddie guys are Obama's economic advisors, way to use McCain talking points guys. You might want to check how factual they are before you use them though as they are by no means economic advisors for Obama they and he will tell you so. He met with Obama once, hardly an advisor. Check out Factcheck.org its a great website for those sort of things.

 

This is a build up of problems caused by deregulation, "hands off" economics and a large portion of the blame goes on the federal reserve. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act as Zelbinian pointed out had a major role in this as well. Now you see why regulations should be in place to keep buisness owners from making risky investments to line their pockets while having US the taxpayers bail their ass out when the shit hits the fan.  Also love how only certain business get these hand outs. If you think this had to do largely with the Democrats your wrong.

I won't even say most the republicans had a hand in this but McCain certainly did. Hes one of the strongest deregulators in congress. Thats all he talks about when it comes to economics.  Quite a few people warned this was coming everybody from that mad money guy can't remeber his name, Obama and even Ron Paul warned of it.

Most americans just don't have money in their pocket right now. Times are tighter than I've ever seen. Thats bad for everybody, including wall street. Gas prices are sky high and wages arent going up. Its a wonder we went this long without things breaking down.

on Sep 22, 2008

Actually this has been in the works for years its hardly the Democrats at fault here and its not all the Republicans.

It is all Congress - But I was using stupid hyperbole just like the author. 

This is a build up of problems caused by deregulation, "hands off" economics and a large portion of the blame goes on the federal reserve.

 No, but then I would not expect a democrat to not try to pin blame on the gun makers, instead of the shooter.  It is not the Feds Fault, it is not even the "hands off" fault.  It is very much the "fairness" folks fault.  Wanting to be "fair" they made sure that those not qualified would be able to get money.  Wanting to be "fair" they never paid a mind to how these unqualified people would be able to pay the money back.  And so they defaulted.  ANd in so doing, are dragging down some companies that are mismanaged - for the most part by clinton Advisors (Use your factcheck.org to verify that one).

And instead of allowing them to fail - which is what is needed to be done, they are getting bailed out in the name of "fairness", instead of sanity.

No, this is not "hands off" or the Fed.  This is once again the results of good intentions without regards to reprecussions.  And is why the road to hell is paved with "good intentions" (and no brains).

on Sep 22, 2008

It is not the Feds Fault, it is not even the "hands off" fault. It is very much the "fairness" folks fault. Wanting to be "fair" they made sure that those not qualified would be able to get money.

But Doc one of the groups involved in making sure that people not qualified to get money could get it was the Fed.  They lowered interest rates so much that they were essentially giving money away to the banks which in turn lended that money out to people who had no business borrowing money.  The Fed didn't do this because of any congressional action they did so because they wanted to make a quick buck just like the banks.  And it worked for a few years, the banks made tons of money but as the mortgage rates reset the problems started happening.  I'm not saying that the Fed is completely to blame, but they certainly played a major role in creating the housing bubble and constantly trying to prop it up for far longer than it should have been.

on Sep 22, 2008

But Doc one of the groups involved in making sure that people not qualified to get money could get it was the Fed. They lowered interest rates so much that they were essentially giving money away to the banks which in turn lended that money out to people who had no business borrowing money. The Fed didn't do this because of any congressional action they did so because they wanted to make a quick buck just like the banks. And it worked for a few years, the banks made tons of money but as the mortgage rates reset the problems started happening. I'm not saying that the Fed is completely to blame, but they certainly played a major role in creating the housing bubble and constantly trying to prop it up for far longer than it should have been.

Actually, they couldn't afford even those low rates, primarily ARM's.  The folks who got fixed-rate loans at those low rates (on their own homes) have made up a small percentage of the defaults.  The majority of defaults have been related to ARM's & the drop in home values affecting 'flippers' or speculators.  So the Fed is really not at fault - they actually helped reduce the cost of home ownership for the vast majority.

on Sep 22, 2008

Your premise is one sided. Read "Atlas Shrugged" for the other side. If you HAVE read it, you clearly didn't get it. Read it again.

I always love these people if you dont get it your the idiot and need to reread something.  The problem is that this person here is unwilling to admit in any way shape or form that his side MIGHT and I said MIGHT even be wrong.  Ahh the path to the darkside of life.

on Sep 22, 2008

Y ou want the real people to blame try this on for size.  Most of the blame can be put on big Bisiness.  End of story.  The blame that goes to government should go as far as not closing certain loopholes in the regulation system that appear after years of business's finding ways around the last string of regulations placed on them.  Bottom line is that BIG BUSINESS is greedy(and I qaulify this here--for the most part).  Everytime you stick regulationis on them they find away around and then government needs to readjust those regulations.  Its just like a poor person who steals cars.  They add a security feature and the theif figures a new way around it.  HMMM maybe there are as many rich "theives"  i mean businessmen as their are poor ones.

on Sep 22, 2008

But Doc one of the groups involved in making sure that people not qualified to get money could get it was the Fed. They lowered interest rates so much that they were essentially giving money away to the banks which in turn lended that money out to people who had no business borrowing money. The Fed didn't do this because of any congressional action they did so because they wanted to make a quick buck just like the banks. And it worked for a few years, the banks made tons of money but as the mortgage rates reset the problems started happening. I'm not saying that the Fed is completely to blame, but they certainly played a major role in creating the housing bubble and constantly trying to prop it up for far longer than it should have been.

I do love your sarcasm!  It is good! Yea the mean old feds (who by law cant make a profit) were ujp to their simon legree tactics!

The truth is the feds did not care a whit about the housing boom or bust.  But Greenspan sure over reacted and that contgributed to the housing problems.  Kind of like a beaver contributing to a flood - by design?  No, by coincidence.

on Sep 22, 2008

Y ou want the real people to blame try this on for size. Most of the blame can be put on big Bisiness. End of story.

Greaqt one!  Give that man a NObel Prize!  And then go ask a bum for a job.  After all Big bidness is bad!  Bums good!

on Sep 23, 2008

Actually, they couldn't afford even those low rates, primarily ARM's. The folks who got fixed-rate loans at those low rates (on their own homes) have made up a small percentage of the defaults. The majority of defaults have been related to ARM's & the drop in home values affecting 'flippers' or speculators. So the Fed is really not at fault - they actually helped reduce the cost of home ownership for the vast majority.

Where do you think the ARMs came from?  They were created by the banks to loan money to people who shouldn't have been buying property in the first place.  The banks had all this money to lend away and they were looking for anyway that they could to loan it out.  The Fed is definitely a primary player here.  I'm not saying it's all their fault, but they are definitely a big player.  If you want a really good argument for it check out a video called "The Money Makers" you can find it on google video.  It's long but a very good history on centralized banks and their role in our current economic crisis.

I do love your sarcasm! It is good! Yea the mean old feds (who by law cant make a profit) were ujp to their simon legree tactics!

The truth is the feds did not care a whit about the housing boom or bust. But Greenspan sure over reacted and that contgributed to the housing problems. Kind of like a beaver contributing to a flood - by design? No, by coincidence.

The feds have nothing to do with this, the Federal Reserve (the Fed) on the other hand is a PRIVATE bank not a government entity and did facilitate this nonsense.  I am not saying that they are completely at fault here as there is a lot of blame to go around, the actual banks that did the lending, the loan officers, the appraisers, the home buyers who bought homes they couldn't afford.  Lots of blame.  My point was that the Fed, and other national banks around the world, is NOT blameless in this crisis.

on Sep 24, 2008

The feds have nothing to do with this, the Federal Reserve (the Fed)

When talking about banking feds or The Fed is the same thing - Federal reserve.

But as far as THE FED being blameless of blameful, you have to ask yourself a question.  Is it the bartender's fault that he served a drink to the alcoholic?  If the answer is yes, then sure, you can blame the Feds.  If not (and I do not blame the bartender), then the answer is no.  The Feds made a mistake in making money too cheap.  But they did not force the lenders or borrowers to take that drink.

on Sep 24, 2008

But as far as THE FED being blameless of blameful, you have to ask yourself a question. Is it the bartender's fault that he served a drink to the alcoholic? If the answer is yes, then sure, you can blame the Feds. If not (and I do not blame the bartender), then the answer is no. The Feds made a mistake in making money too cheap. But they did not force the lenders or borrowers to take that drink.

sorry for the double post, ignore this one.

on Sep 24, 2008

But as far as THE FED being blameless of blameful, you have to ask yourself a question. Is it the bartender's fault that he served a drink to the alcoholic? If the answer is yes, then sure, you can blame the Feds. If not (and I do not blame the bartender), then the answer is no. The Feds made a mistake in making money too cheap. But they did not force the lenders or borrowers to take that drink.

But if the bartender knows that the person is an alcoholic and continues to lower the price of the booze so that the alcoholic will stay and drink longer that is the fault of the bartender for preying on the alcoholic.  And that is essentially what the Fed was doing.  Interest rates too high so you can't afford to borrow money to loan out to people, no problem we'll lower the interest rate for you.  I'd say that gives them a share of the blame, again I'm not saying it's all their fault but they do have to accept some of the responsibility.  I mean even the bartender has the responsibilty to cut off a patron before they get too drunk and should take away the drunks keys if they are obviously too drunk to drive.

on Sep 24, 2008

True, the blame falls on neither democrats no republicans (at large)... it falls on 2 SPECIFIC democrats who abused the system. And are now on Obama's team.

on Sep 25, 2008

But if the bartender knows that the person is an alcoholic and continues to lower the price of the booze so that the alcoholic will stay and drink longer that is the fault of the bartender for preying on the alcoholic.

So you are saying the We are all Alcoholics?  It is clear the Feds do not know us from Adam, just like the bartender does not know the drunk from Adam.  SO they must then assume that either we all are - and then the issue of intention comes into play - olr that they were acting on good faith (if wrongly IMHO) to address a problem.

But you are treading close to a personal pet peeve of mine.  Nanny state.  Yes, we all know that some people are alcoholics (which ones are the $64 question), and we know that some cant manage money to save their lives.  But why should WE ALL suffer because some people are candidates for Darwinism?  I say we should not.  The Pursuit of Happiness and all that jazz includes the possiblity of failure, not guarantee of success.  It is a pursuit after all, not an end point.

 

on Sep 25, 2008

So you are saying the We are all Alcoholics?

Nope I'm saying the banks were the alcoholics.  That saw that easy money that the Fed had to lend out and the gobbled it up and lent to anyone who walked in their doors.  Some loan officers purposely falsified loan applications so that the applicant would be approved to get a loan they couldn't possibly afford.  Yes the person getting that loan certainly should have known something was up, red flags should have gone off.  I put a lot of blame on those people, but we aren't debating a bailout for those people, we are debating a bailout for the banks that were lending money to people who shouldn't have had money lent to them in the first place.

But you are treading close to a personal pet peeve of mine. Nanny state. Yes, we all know that some people are alcoholics (which ones are the $64 question), and we know that some cant manage money to save their lives.

I don't like a nanny state anymore than you do, trust me.  But there should have been some oversight here.  It's not like the banks had no idea that these people were risky investments, they had bad credit.  Think of it this way with your analogy: a drunk stumbles into a bar and the bartender can clearly see that this guy has already had too much to drink yet like I said before the bartender continues to lower the price of the booze to keep the drunk drinking.  There is some amount of responsibility that falls on the bartender, an alcohol license can be pulled for not cutting people off when it is clear they had too much to drink, and the same should be said for the banks.

The banks took a risk lending money to far too many high-risk individuals and it shouldn't fall on the tax payers to take that burden over.

3 Pages1 2 3