The viability of a strong free market economy sounds real good, doesn't it. But what exactly does that mean? What is viable, and how do you keep it that way? And, what is free? Note that, I was an econ major in college, so I am asking those questions for your benefit.
Regarding the CRA and the meltdown - I read a whole lotta stuff over the years on it, too. And almost every non-biased analysis on the meltdown concluded that the CRA had little if anything to do with it. At best, I recall a long discussion on this subject with someone, and the best conclusion we came up with as far as the CRA is - the CRA and NGO's (Fannie and Freddie) at worst gave the private entities which actually caused the problem the business models which they bastardized to blow up the economy. Read this for more info: http://ritholtz.com/2016/06/no-cra-not-cause-financial-crisis/ On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 2:32:11 PM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote: > > Obviously we disagree Pittalum, as did both conservatives and even some > liberal Democrats back in 2008/2009 when the meltdown was plainly obvious. > > > Personally I believe in the viability of a strong free market economy, as > many "Liberals/Progressives/Democrats" don't. By example, you may remember > that Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail, with no governmental bailout > proffered. Lehman’s collapse froze short-term money markets, making "Some" > (short term) financing of both industrial and small consumer projects > impossible; (Obviously this is not my area of expertise, but I do recall > that hedge funds, as well as even home mortgages were severely limited); > but by 2009, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and other financial > institutions were quickly picking up the slack; admittedly at a much slower > pace than the previous ten years. Again, it's my opinion that the "Troubled > Asset Relief Program"; ("TARP") as well as the Federal Reserve’s revised > lending programs and rate cutting just extended the problem if not making > the economic downturn worse. > > As I have posted just recently, (and I've attached it here again below!) > this whole boondoggle was again caused by those "Politically Motivated > Individuals" who Like a lot of Progressives, had a honorable intention, > and it sounded like a good idea to increase the level of home ownership; > but the "Community Reinvestment Act" was a horrific idea, and the cause of > the American and subsequent global economic meltdown! The government in a > nutshell put in place huge incentives for financial institutions to make > bad loans; and severe consequences to these financial institutions if they > didn't "Play Ball"; (*See* Johnny Reno's and Robert Rubin's comments in > my attachment below!). Moreover, it removed risk from the financial > institutions who made the loans and placed it squarely on our federal > government whose full faith and credit was backing up the misguided > policies of these Secular Progressive cronies like Barney Frank, Chris > Dodd, Franklin Raines and others! > > No financial institution or banker in the private sector would ever have > made such poor loans as what we witnessed under the CRA; and likewise, any > subsequent failure under a true free market economy without government > interference would be quickly absorbed. Any loss would have been on those > bankers/financial institutions; and that is the real power of free market > logic! You act morally out of self-interest. > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Pittalum <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Then you don't have an understanding of the concept of systemic risk. >> >> Really, all you have to do is look at all the dominoes that fell in 2008. >> >> Also, note that because of the consolidation that occurred as a result of >> the 2008 failures, the industry is even more concentrated now that it was >> then... >> >> On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 1:31:58 PM UTC-5, KeithInTampa wrote: >>> >>> I don't necessarily believe that a bank failure would cause the iminent >>> collapse of our economy. >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 1:20 PM, Pittalum <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Perp! >>>> >>>> I am by no means into bank bailouts, and saying no to them is all fine >>>> and good. But taking this position in no way shape or form addresses the >>>> serious systemic risk the failure of one of our big banks would pose to >>>> the >>>> entire banking system. >>>> >>>> You wanna bet if, say, B of A or Citi is on the brink - we're gonna see >>>> a *bailout *of some nature or degree, despite this EO? >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 12:51:13 PM UTC-5, Perplexed wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/02/03/presidential-executive-order-core-principles-regulating-united-states >>>>> >>>>> It's about time. >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
