1. Not exactly true either according to what I read. Banks were making loans to more than just unqualified. And the loans made to the unqualified were made to balloon up. The investment banks were the idiots that made the most complicated financial instruments ever conceived to lump many diff types of loans together so no one knew what the hell they were buying. This exacerbated the bad loan problem.

2. No they dont. But they can certainly clean up their balance sheets with government money instead of using government money to make loans. Maybe your friend works for a smaller bank that stuck to what they were always successful with and now they have become a part of what was not their problem. (Make loans they are comfortable with because the consumer they loan to will be good for it... maybe not loans to another bank trying to get out of trouble because of unfettered greed)

The problem I have with all these "ancedotes" is everyone seems to look for evidence that supports their political leaning instead of looking at the whole body of work. I just read a little bit of Paul Krugman (a liberal), the Nobel Prize winning economist, and of course his take is very different than the above (he also thinks that deflation is a more likely problem in the near future). He says it is a lesson that free-markets need to be regulated. The lesson above is dont let the government get involved in pushing loans to help less affluent indiviuals. Everyone looks for evidence that supports their own line. But in reality it looks much more complex than that. Its almost like an avalanche. It started with some fairly small economic factors in housing, which uncovered a whole lot of skirting rules and pure greed. Which then revealed the government's inept nature (Securities and Exchange Comm.) in regulation... yada yada yada.

I still have yet to get a tale that sets up events
without some sort of political intervention to
highlight a belief. It is amazing how problems
are immediately made political to prove a political
position. Real problems are not solved this way...
In Science anyway. If you ignore data because
it does not fit your model, you get bad answers.

With all due respect to Democrats and Republicans,
liberals and conservatives.

Of course it is more complicated than I put it but do you really want a 30 page dissertation? The fact was the banks were making bad bets because the quasi-govt programs FM and FM were in effect guaranteeing them not because of good monetary policy but because of political reasons. The fact is that political influence regardless of side will screw up the economy.

Very few banks are getting govt money.

No one said that free markets dont need some regulation but Krugman is using the current crisis which was caused by regulation in some ways to further his cause. And winning a Nobel prize is basically only possible if one is liberal.

My post was not politically leaning but stating the danger of political involvement in broad economic policy.


by the way in science there are no politics hence the lack of political involvement and the reason that it makes sense.

he learned his lesson well...remember all the fear mongering after 9-11, and how that was used to sway congress (both reps and dems, altho dems wish to lay all blame squarely at bushes feet) to vote for a broader war? the similarities are astounding-and what if this 'stimulus' doesn't work?

LOL..That's quite a photo (of Barney.)

What is disturbing that this and other articles highlight
(including Krugman) is how
economics can be so politicized. I thought there
was some actual math associated with it. But everyone
seems to pick an index, rate, some type of economic measurement
that highlights their political position.

As far as Obama fear-mongering: The vast majority of what
I have read and heard (which is all I can speak to obviously),
is that we have a very large problem. That is systemic, real and
pyschological. And I still have great faith in the innovation
and the brain power that this country fosters. I would like to
see this continue. I think Obama has pretty much laid it out,
maybe too much (I think he is on TV way too much and he
of course does not need to think about questions concerning
Aroid or NCAA football tournaments)

No. maybe 20 or so...

Its just interesting how diff. people start off
explaining a problem.

1. Govt. forcing banks to make loans to poor people without homes
that have no business being in home because of lack of hard work or some other fault of their own. (extreme)

2. The greed that Madoff, Enron chiefs, and so many other executives exhibit has finally caught up with them and put all of us in the sh it hole. Rich folks suck and will strip you clean, and now look what happens. In Japan Madoff would be required to kill himself.(extreme)

many conversations begin with something like the above.
guess its fun...

and unfortunately both true.

Plenty of blame to go around, no doubt ... but it's pretty funny how the current financial/economic implosion happened while Bush-Cheney were at the wheel.

A full seven years after they hopped into that driver's seat, no less.


Not like they didn't have enough time to deal with stuff...

try 2006.....and keep drinking the Kool-aid!

have you got enough to go around? :D

Wall Street "Gone Wild" under Bush-Cheney 'watch'




Shocking...

Yassir Arafat won a Nobel prize.
He was merely a terrorist, extortionist, and money launderer.

Your post was politically leaning.
It basically says that the government should
have very little involvement in the economy.
That is associated with a conservative point of view.

The opposite would be extensive intervention which
would be considered a more liberal idea from a financial
point of view.

If my stereotypes are correct.

Bernie Madoff runnin' wild and free like some half-cocked loose maiden claimer a minute before the third at Chuck Town.




Under those watchful eyes of Bush-Cheney-Cox...

Bush was caught off camera cursing guys like
Madoff. He was very POed at the greed factor.

i just read that the tax 'cut' that is part of the stimulus package will result in a whopping $8 to $15 more a week to a couple. oh, WOW! so glad we're ballooning our deficit so i can have enough money to buy lunch one day a week.
this is why i said i didn't want to see a tax cut-it's not enough to affect any one persons day to day existence, but it sure can add to the debt that will affect future investment in this country.

[quote=Danzig]i just read that the tax 'cut' that is part of the stimulus package will result in a whopping $8 to $15 more a week to a couple. oh, WOW! so glad we're ballooning our deficit so i can have enough money to buy lunch one day a week.
this is why i said i didn't want to see a tax cut-it's not enough to affect any one persons day to day existence, but it sure can add to the debt that will affect future investment in this country.[/QUOTE

I told you so!

The thought that tax cuts will lead to future deficits is the same thinking that racetrack execs make when raising takeout. You may want to reconsider that theory. I do think it is ironic that the liberals here (not you) who are so opposed to tax cuts are also so opposed to raising takeout though in effect that produces the same results as eliminating tax cuts or raising taxes.

Libs have a "special" brand.......I just use caffeine:D