well on the pro dem threads all the libs were telling me wall street types were much bigger contributors to dems then republicans. I guess thats because they were easier to purchase.
Ha can we stipulate that there is enough blame to go around, from wall street to washington dc to the borrowers themselves? I don't blame republicans, that would be an inaccurate oversimplification. But I do take issue with people who don't recognize that the deregulation of this industry was the catalyst that started this whole mess, and things wont get better until it is fixed. In another thread someone actually thought that CDS's simply grew bc subprime mortgages did lol. I believe there are so many areas in this country with too much government and too much spending that people dont realize that there are actually areas with NO government at all, and those areas are hurting us. I think we need to take some government out of entitlements etc and "spread" it over to CDSs lol. The free market really isnt free until there is some oversight.
allow them to default and bingo, the free market has solved it. i guarantee you no financial firm would ever do it again in the wishy washy world of bailouts, firms do this shit cuz they know they cant be allowed to fail
lol greed doesn't "learn it's lesson". besides, what would be the result of the collapse of almost every major financial institution?
Jonbig you point out that you have to take issue with deregulation and conservatives. Well than to only be fair i have to take issue with liberals advocating massive lending programs through freddie and fannie and other financial institutions.
Shit, so do I. They only added to the problem. However keep in mind that the lending institutions you speak of only held around 10% of all subprime loans. Trust me when I say that when I was a broker, I never once sold a loan to fannie or freddi bc the restrictions were far tighter than what I could do on the non-conforming market. So yes you are right, but honestly its a drop in the bucket.
true. it's darwinism either way, just a question of whether it's survival of intelligent risk taking, or survival of plugged in institutional employees de-concentration of wealth. a larger number of smaller participants. more competitive, liquid markets that aren't dominated by a handful of megoliths