Political stuff from the Brand Reilly DUI thread

[teachercd]

Again...mods...take his name off this. It is clearly not about him at all anymore.

 

Some of you are gross...some of you really act like this is worse than ISIS.

 

If you reply to this to try to refute that...you clearly know I am right.

 

Reaction!

[Guy Chamberlin]

No, not Barney Frank's fault. But ironically for your position is that he was a "deregulator" or at least regulation reducer, even though his kickback oriented provisions werent the cause of the meltdown. As a rule, preditory lending and borrowing has been very overstated in what caused the actual meltdown (versus what caused the housing bubble).

 

Even President Obama has specifically stated that derivatives and the repeal of glass steagall were not the cause of the meltdown. Elizabeth Warren acknowledged the same but stated that such misinformation was too valuable "for the cause" to be corrected... Let that sink in.

 

Also, once again in the irony column, the banks that imploded on wall st and started the dominoes (leahmans, bear sterns, et al) were those that didn't even fall under GS to begin with. Those banks that had commercial and investment arms actually fared better because the assets on hand to meet obligations during the collateral calls that doomed other banks and almost crushed the entire system.

 

Oh, and as far as AIG goes, those underwriting policies are not unlike the very "middle man" positions that many regulation proponents are now asking to be required! Except, they'll end up distorting the market and handicapping the economics that would check "bad" bahavior. Weve seen it before, for example, in regulations imposed by the SEC in the 70s that shifted rating agencies from being paid for by investors for their services to an issuer-oriented market.

 

You know I always thought your painstakingly cherry-picked and conveniently inconsistent theories on college football had a whiff of political ideology.

 

I get it now.

[cm husker]

 

No, not Barney Frank's fault. But ironically for your position is that he was a "deregulator" or at least regulation reducer, even though his kickback oriented provisions werent the cause of the meltdown. As a rule, preditory lending and borrowing has been very overstated in what caused the actual meltdown (versus what caused the housing bubble).

 

Even President Obama has specifically stated that derivatives and the repeal of glass steagall were not the cause of the meltdown. Elizabeth Warren acknowledged the same but stated that such misinformation was too valuable "for the cause" to be corrected... Let that sink in.

 

Also, once again in the irony column, the banks that imploded on wall st and started the dominoes (leahmans, bear sterns, et al) were those that didn't even fall under GS to begin with. Those banks that had commercial and investment arms actually fared better because the assets on hand to meet obligations during the collateral calls that doomed other banks and almost crushed the entire system.

 

Oh, and as far as AIG goes, those underwriting policies are not unlike the very "middle man" positions that many regulation proponents are now asking to be required! Except, they'll end up distorting the market and handicapping the economics that would check "bad" bahavior. Weve seen it before, for example, in regulations imposed by the SEC in the 70s that shifted rating agencies from being paid for by investors for their services to an issuer-oriented market.

 

You know I always thought your painstakingly cherry-picked and conveniently inconsistent theories on college football had a whiff of political ideology.

 

I get it now.

 

 

 

That's a bizarre leap of logic right there.

 

Bizarre, but unfortunately unsurprising, because in typical fashion, you've evaded the heart of discussion by allowing your replies to devolve into ad hominem attacks.

[Guy Chamberlin]

No leap of logic, CM.

 

I just stand here and you hand things to me.

 

I'm not attacking you, because we could probably be great friends in real life. Heck, maybe we are, since we're all using pseudonyms.

 

But you frequently say things with great assurance that simple aren't true. I've taken time -- way too much time -- to respond with specifics, citations and links, only to have you move the goalposts.

 

So I wasn't surprised to see your technique and leanings move into politics. That's all.