Jump to content
Required Reading for any Longhorn ×

For or against reparations?

TexArcher

By TexArcher
in Cloak Room

 Share

Reparations?  

111 members have voted

  1. 1. Reparations?

    • For
      16
    • Against
      95

Recommended Posts

DixonHur

DixonHur 11395

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

I'm blaming the meltdown in large part to the government's intervention that led to the reckless lending in the sub-prime mortgage market.  You remember right?

Wrong, it was the loosening of regulations that caused reckless lending.   

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4606

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, BradInATX said:

American Swindle

Can you link us to any posts you've made in the post decrying government intrusion into the market, and debt-spending, when the government passed the multi-trillion dollar handout to corporations and the rich a couple years back? I know you're an ideologically consistent guy, so I'm sure if you did this you'd shut everyone up. You definitely should. You've got to have a bunch of posts on it, given how passionate you are about these issues.

I don’t recall specifically if Swindle was around c. 2008, but he actually has always been consistent on this, whether you agree with him or not. Years and years worth of posts. His views are extremely libertarian.

Edited by formermav43
Link to comment
Share on other sites
American Swindle

American Swindle 102

Posted
Posted
57 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Wrong, it was the loosening of regulations that caused reckless lending.   

51 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Wrong, it was the loosening of regulations that caused reckless lending.   

 

The Government Housing Policy led to the crisis.  

Quote

What Really Happened: CRA and the Affordable Housing Mission for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac But there is an alternative explanation for the financial crisis, and it focuses on the U.S. government’s housing policies under both the Clinton and second Bush administrations. Beginning in the early 1990s—in order to enable more Americans to buy homes—the government began to press housing lenders such as banks and the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reduce the requirements for a mortgage so that more Americans would be able to buy homes. The first step in this direction was Congress’s enactment in 1992, near the end of the first Bush administration, of an affordable housing “mission” for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These two firms were originally established to purchase loans from originators—banks, mortgage banks, and mortgage brokers—and in that way help to create a secondary market in mortgages. Eventually, Fannie and Freddie would either hold these 400 Cato Journal mortgages in their portfolios or sell them off to investors as mortgage-backed securities (MBSs). Affordable housing loans were defined as mortgages for buyers who were at or below the median income, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was given authority to administer the affordable housing regulations that implemented the congressional mandate.

Quote

At around the same time in the early 1990s, the regulations under the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) were amended to increase their influence on bank mortgage lending. The CRA had been adopted in 1977, and initially required that banks make efforts to increase mortgage lending in all the communities they serve, not just the communities where middle income or well-to-do families lived

 

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2010/5/cj30n2-12.pdf

Basically, the fundamental cause of the crisis was you had banks that extended mortgages that shouldn't have been extended, the government's policies cited above pressed them to.  

Nice try though bud. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18952

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, American Swindle said:
 

The Government Housing Policy led to the crisis.  

 

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2010/5/cj30n2-12.pdf

Basically, the fundamental cause of the crisis was you had banks that extended mortgages that shouldn't have been extended, the government's policies cited above pressed them to.  

Nice try though bud. 

The government made me do it excuse.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sidis

sidis 9832

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

I don’t recall specifically if Swindle was around c. 2008, but he actually has always been consistent on this, whether you agree with him or not. Years and years worth of posts. His views are extremely libertarian. 

not in 2008.  he has actually undergone a massive evolution for a urinal cake salesman from 2008 in which he stated he voted for obama and had never heard of ron paul to whatever you want to call where he is today.  do not give too much credit...there's not a ton going on up there.

 

1 hour ago, American Swindle said:

So it's your claim that the partial repeal of Glass-Steagall was what led to it? 

of course it was a major, contributing factor...

laying this all at the feet of the cra and not at the actual actions of banks, investment banks, insurance, the cds markets, and the incredible amount of greed involved is either disingenuous or uninformed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
American Swindle

American Swindle 102

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, sidis said:

not in 2008.  he has actually undergone a massive evolution for a urinal cake salesman from 2008 in which he stated he voted for obama and had never heard of ron paul to whatever you want to call where he is today.  do not give too much credit...there's not a ton going on up there.

 

of course it was a major, contributing factor...

laying this all at the feet of the cra and not at the actual actions of banks, investment banks, insurance, the cds markets, and the incredible amount of greed involved is either disingenuous or uninformed.

Did you miss the part where I said banks extended loans to those they shouldn't have?  Did you even bother reading the Cato article form Paul Wallison?  Probably not, and it's ok.  Glass-Steagall wasn't the cause.  

And I take offense to you're claim there's not much going on in my mind.  That's just juvenile.  

4 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Have we figured out where free markets exist yet?

If you look, you can find them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
I don’t recall specifically if Swindle was around c. 2008, but he actually has always been consistent on this, whether you agree with him or not. Years and years worth of posts. His views are extremely libertarian.
Oh, I'm sure he had plenty to say in 2008. I'm talking about December, 2017, as you already know.

Swindle?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, BradInATX said:

American Swindle

Can you link us to any posts you've made in the post decrying government intrusion into the market, and debt-spending, when the government passed the multi-trillion dollar handout to corporations and the rich a couple years back? I know you're an ideologically consistent guy, so I'm sure if you did this you'd shut everyone up. You definitely should. You've got to have a bunch of posts on it, given how passionate you are about these issues.

@American Swindle

Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4606

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Oh, I'm sure he had plenty to say in 2008. I'm talking about December, 2017, as you already know.

Swindle?

Umm...no, I didn’t know that. I made the mistake of thinking your question was at least semi-genuine. I guess you got me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29439

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

Did you miss the part where I said banks extended loans to those they shouldn't have?  Did you even bother reading the Cato article form Paul Wallison?  Probably not, and it's ok.  Glass-Steagall wasn't the cause.  

And I take offense to you're claim there's not much going on in my mind.  That's just juvenile.  

If you look, you can find them.

The then-present value of the derivatives market in 2008 was estimated to be about $15 trillion. There was essentially infinite money to be made by creating and securitizing mortgages, but yeah, it was actually the mean old government forcing banks to lend to black people that caused everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
formermav43

formermav43 4606

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, BradInATX said:
7 minutes ago, formermav43 said:
Umm...no, I didn’t know that. I made the mistake of thinking your question was at least semi-genuine. I guess you got me. 

Oh it was certainly sarcastic. We all know that his fiscal responsibility is selective.

I actually don’t think it is (to my knowledge, I might have missed it), which is the only reason I posted. But that’s not really to defend him- I recall a thread where he was a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. I had him pegged as a classic (but consistent) kook, but I could be wrong.

Edited by formermav43
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sidis

sidis 9832

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

Did you miss the part where I said banks extended loans to those they shouldn't have?  Did you even bother reading the Cato article form Paul Wallison?  Probably not, and it's ok.  Glass-Steagall wasn't the cause.   

And I take offense to you're claim there's not much going on in my mind.  That's just juvenile.   

i mean...

dude, i have spent more of my life than i care to even reflect on studying every element of the financial crisis and testifying about it.  i should have known better than to engage you on the topic.  that was my mistake.  thinking that you can cite an oft-referred to article that has been debated repeatedly as some sort of authoritative conclusion as to what drove the financial crisis (from the then treasury dept general counsel) is laughable.  feel free to broaden your reading...

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/systemically-important-banks-and-capital-regulation-challenges_5kg0ps8cq8q6-en

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

I actually don’t think it is (to my knowledge, I might have missed it), which is the only reason I posted. But that’s not really to defend him- I recall a thread where he was a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. I had him pegged as a classic (but consistent) kook, but I could be wrong.

I'd love to proven wrong here - seriously. There's not a lot of ideological consistency here. Would love to see it, even if it's not aligned with my beliefs. I don't think I'm going to, though. Not in this case anyway.

Edited by BradInATX
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sidis

sidis 9832

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

I actually don’t think it is (to my knowledge, I might have missed it), which is the only reason I posted. But that’s not really to defend him, sidis was right on what’s going on up there-I recall a thread where he was a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. I had him pegged as a classic (but consistent) kook, but I could be wrong. 

the one thing i will absolutely, 100% give him credit for is his honesty, sincerity and genuineness.  he is not as much of a sarcastic asshole like the rest of us.  if you ask him if he voted for obama in 2008 and if he even knew what libertarian thinking looked like at the time, i think he will answer you honestly.

for the most part, i will give him credit for being a good faith discussion participant which i cannot give myself the same benefit of...but he has gotten more and more selective in his memory, that for sure...such as his conspicuous avoidance of bradinatx's "depo control" he has over him right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sidis

sidis 9832

Posted
Posted

reparations are not practically feasible, nor calculable in any meaningful way...and there is absolutely no political will to do anything about it, pointless discussion.

grandstanding football for both sides to appeal to the most extreme elements of their supporters.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fozzz

Fozzz 152

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I'd love to proven wrong here - seriously. There's not a lot of ideological consistency here. Would love to see it, even if it's not aligned with my beliefs. I don't think I'm going to, though. Not in this case anyway.

Ideological consistency will result in a lot of negging, believe that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
American Swindle

American Swindle 102

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The then-present value of the derivatives market in 2008 was estimated to be about $15 trillion. There was essentially infinite money to be made by creating and securitizing mortgages, but yeah, it was actually the mean old government forcing banks to lend to black people that caused everything.

Both the government and the reckless lending practices of the banking institutions are responsible.  Why are you trying to make it racial?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sidis

sidis 9832

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

Both the government and the reckless lending practices of the banking institutions are responsible.  Why are you trying to make it racial?  

ratings agencies, mortgage backed securities, the entire derivatives market, predatory lending, inadequate risk and internal controls born out of a complete neutering of any regulatory powers, and so on ad infinitum...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11395

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

Because that's the prerequisite into having any financial, economic or banking understanding whatsoever?

Okay pal. 

Any understanding? No.  I'm sure you can manage your personal financial affairs adequately, but when you're acting like you're the authority on banking regulations vis-a-vis the housing crisis, you'd better have more than an "any whatsoever" level of understanding. 

The problem is, that you don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
American Swindle

American Swindle 102

Posted
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

I'd love to proven wrong here - seriously. There's not a lot of ideological consistency here. Would love to see it, even if it's not aligned with my beliefs. I don't think I'm going to, though. Not in this case anyway.

It's simple dude. Non-Aggression Principle, Free Markets, Property Rights, Individualism and Liberty.  Part of the liberty side I feel strongly about is economic liberty.  That is the right to the fruits of your labor if earned honestly without force, fraud or deception. In this thread I'm really banging on the government intervention part because it's pretty easy to explain how they have diluted the value of our money with out of control spending and wasteful programs.  I consider it stealing our tax dollars much like the farmer that dilutes his whole milk with water.  Basic moral intuitions such as don't steal, don't lie, don't hit others get ignored when politicians and government officials do it and it's fucking insane that we all circle jerk around the political theater of them fucking us.  

You can probably find multiple responses from myself going after badteammate's progressive agenda and rebutting him on the grounds of economic sanity and reality. 

*ON THE 9/11 STUFF*

The 9/11 truther stuff I was about ways back. I've evolved on that and changed my mind on that.  The government wasn't responsible, it was some radical terrorist extremists led by Osama Bin Laden.  WTC 7 Falling was always a head scratcher.  There. 

Are you assholes human?  Have you ever changed your mind over time?  If you say you aren't, then fuck you, smoke a turd, and PM me for a dolla fitty. 

Edited by American Swindle
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, American Swindle said:

It's simple dude. Non-Aggression Principle, Free Markets, Property Rights, Individualism and Liberty.  Part of the liberty side I feel strongly about is economic liberty.  That is the right to the fruits of your labor if earned honestly without force, fraud or deception. In this thread I'm really banging on the government intervention part because it's pretty easy to explain how they have diluted the value of our money with out of control spending and wasteful programs.  I consider it stealing our tax dollars much like the farmer that dilutes his whole milk with water.  Basic moral intuitions such as don't steal, don't lie, don't hit others get ignored when politicians and government officials do it and it's fucking insane that we all circle jerk around the political theater of them fucking us.  

You can probably multiple responses from myself going after badteammate's progressive agenda and rebutting him on the grounds of economic sanity and reality. 

*ON THE 9/11 STUFF*

The 9/11 truther stuff I was about ways back. I've evolved on that and changed my mind on that.  The government wasn't responsible, it was some radical terrorist extremists led by Osama Bin Laden.  WTC 7 Falling was always a head scratcher.  There. 

Are you assholes human?  Have you ever changed your mind over time?  If you say you aren't, then fuck you, smoke a turd, and PM me for a dolla fitty. 

Right - but were you anywhere to be found when our current government spent trillions of dollars on a corporate handout in December 2017?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, American Swindle said:

What specific government action are you referring to?

You really can't figure it out based off of December 2017, trillions of dollars, and "corporate handout"?

Edited by BradInATX
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, American Swindle said:

Is this your "gotcha" way of trying to see if I support the Tax Cuts and Jobs act of 2017?

Did it lower taxes for everyone?

It did not.

It also added trillions to the national debt. I guess it you were cool with it then, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
American Swindle

American Swindle 102

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I wonder what you would think of Polanyi's Great Transformation, swindle.  

I suppose I'm biased to see things through more of the Mises and Austrian-Economic lens, but I googled Mises and Polanyi and found this critique from Murray Rothbard that was written in 1961 that seems extremely thorough and interesting. 

https://mises.org/library/down-primitivism-thorough-critique-polanyi

 

It's a long read so I'll touch on it later when i get some more time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
American Swindle

American Swindle 102

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

It did not.

It also added trillions to the national debt. I guess it you were cool with it then, though.

I'm cool with it, it lowered taxes.  I think I got like an extra 1200$ this year back (from 300$ last year.) The problem is the government never cuts expenses, it just grows and grows and has zero incentive to ever LIMIT itself so that's why it's projected to raise the national debt.  So there you go.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Huckleberry

Huckleberry 33120

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

I'm cool with it, it lowered taxes.  I think I got like an extra 1200$ this year back (from 300$ last year.) The problem is the government never cuts expenses, it just grows and grows and has zero incentive to ever LIMIT itself so that's why it's projected to raise the national debt.  So there you go.  

 

 

You understand that lowering revenue will raise a budget deficit, and therefore total debt, even if spending remains static, right?

Spending needs to be addressed. But this answer was a complete dodge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11395

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, American Swindle said:

I'm cool with it, it lowered taxes. 

Well sure, except for the fact that they didn't...

Quote

The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service...finds that the cuts have had virtually no effect on wages, haven’t contributed to a surge in investment, and haven’t come close to paying for themselves. Nor have they delivered a cut to the average taxpayer.

Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DixonHur

DixonHur 11395

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

So instead of reading something and forming an opinion based on its merits you intentionally looked for a place that would tell you what to think about it?

Confirmation bias, table for one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...