Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

If the U.S. was a "decaying emmerging market nation" that sorely needed assistance from the IMF it would be told to strip the oligarchy of it's power, nationalize the banks, and break them up into smaller pieces. None of this is neccessarily new except to us.

I mentioned everyone taking a hit in another thread. In order for the fundamentals of our economy to be made solid, the Wall Street oligarch's are going to have to be the ones. And they're not about to let that happen.

Below is a link to an article written by Simon Johnson who served as chief economist for the IMF in 2007 and 2008.

It's a well written comprehensive review of what led to the current economic crisis including historical parallels and suggestions for resolving the situation (none of which are easy or likely to happen)

Sorry believers in deregulation, magical unrestricted free market capitalism, and the notion that Fannie, Freddie, brown skinned homebuyers, illegal immigrants, government intervention and the Democratic party are to blame.

It's everyone's fault. Time to shut your yap holes.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice

Thanks for posting - shows how screwed we are, how Wall Street has too tight a grip on our economy and government.

TAX THE BASTARDS at 50%!

kalm wrote:If the U.S. was a "decaying emmerging market nation" that sorely needed assistance from the IMF it would be told to strip the oligarchy of it's power, nationalize the banks, and break them up into smaller pieces. None of this is neccessarily new except to us.

I mentioned everyone taking a hit in another thread. In order for the fundamentals of our economy to be made solid, the Wall Street oligarch's are going to have to be the ones. And they're not about to let that happen.

Below is a link to an article written by Simon Johnson who served as chief economist for the IMF in 2007 and 2008.

It's a well written comprehensive review of what led to the current economic crisis including historical parallels and suggestions for resolving the situation (none of which are easy or likely to happen)

Sorry believers in deregulation, magical unrestricted free market capitalism, and the notion that Fannie, Freddie, brown skinned homebuyers, illegal immigrants, government intervention and the Democratic party are to blame.

It's everyone's fault. Time to shut your yap holes.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice

The truth is that believers in deregulation and less restricted markets (no one believes in unrestricted free markets) and believers that appropriate competition means many smaller firms are not mutually exclusive. I don't believe in too big to fail. With the protections the large banks have, if they are big enough to pose systemic risk, then they are probably too big to exist at that size.

PS, Fannie and Freddie were as much a part of Wall Street as they were the government. The only difference between them and most lenders is that the government provided an implicit guaranty for their debt that allowed them to receive financing they would never have received without such guaranty. Government and Wall street are also not mutually exclusive.

OL FU wrote:

kalm wrote:If the U.S. was a "decaying emmerging market nation" that sorely needed assistance from the IMF it would be told to strip the oligarchy of it's power, nationalize the banks, and break them up into smaller pieces. None of this is neccessarily new except to us.

I mentioned everyone taking a hit in another thread. In order for the fundamentals of our economy to be made solid, the Wall Street oligarch's are going to have to be the ones. And they're not about to let that happen.

Below is a link to an article written by Simon Johnson who served as chief economist for the IMF in 2007 and 2008.

It's a well written comprehensive review of what led to the current economic crisis including historical parallels and suggestions for resolving the situation (none of which are easy or likely to happen)

Sorry believers in deregulation, magical unrestricted free market capitalism, and the notion that Fannie, Freddie, brown skinned homebuyers, illegal immigrants, government intervention and the Democratic party are to blame.

It's everyone's fault. Time to shut your yap holes.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice

The truth is that believers in deregulation and less restricted markets (no one believes in unrestricted free markets) and believers that appropriate competition means many smaller firms are not mutually exclusive. I don't believe in too big to fail. With the protections the large banks have, if they are big enough to pose systemic risk, then they are probably too big to exist at that size.

PS, Fannie and Freddie were as much a part of Wall Street as they were the government. The only difference between them and most lenders is that the government provided an implicit guaranty for their debt that allowed them to receive financing they would never have received without such guaranty. Government and Wall street are also not mutually exclusive.

Agreed.

kalm wrote:

OL FU wrote:
The truth is that believers in deregulation and less restricted markets (no one believes in unrestricted free markets) and believers that appropriate competition means many smaller firms are not mutually exclusive. I don't believe in too big to fail. With the protections the large banks have, if they are big enough to pose systemic risk, then they are probably too big to exist at that size.

PS, Fannie and Freddie were as much a part of Wall Street as they were the government. The only difference between them and most lenders is that the government provided an implicit guaranty for their debt that allowed them to receive financing they would never have received without such guaranty. Government and Wall street are also not mutually exclusive.

Agreed.

Agreed 1000%.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
Agreed.

Agreed 1000%.

You greedy bastard, your just agreeing because if the too big to fail banks were exposed or nationalized there'd be a flood of new business for credit unions.

In all seriousness, everyone pulling their business from big banks would be a really good start.

Another point, commercial banks should be regulated in a heavy but still fair fashion. The reason is quite simple. We put our money in a bank that has accounts insured by the federal government. We put our money in those banks for precisely that reason many times. Unless you are very rich you probably wouldn't consider abank that wasn't insured. Because banks then use money that is insured by the government, they should be subject to restrictions on use, large capital requirements and should be prevented from most investment banking activities. Once that split has occurred investment banks should be able to take risk. Their risk taking is one of the reasons that our capital markets have provided the ability to grow a strong economy. Without that risk taking ability, the economy suffers or the risk taking moves off shore. Many of the financing instruments that caused our recent problems were good ideas gone awry with mortgage back securities being one of them. I participated in one of the first large ones done for apartments many many years ago. 100 plus apartments financed with 20% equity and the financing was split into three pieces representing first through third mortgages ( actually bonds with similar rights to mortgages) with increasing interest rates. The equity was significant, the risk was reasonable and the returns were equivalent to the risk assumed. How in the world we got to doimg the same thing on mortgages without equity I will never understand. But the point is that IB firms should be allowed to create innovative financing programs. Just keep the commerical banks out of it. (My two cents).

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Agreed 1000%.

You greedy bastard, your just agreeing because if the too big to fail banks were exposed or nationalized there'd be a flood of new business for credit unions.

In all seriousness, everyone pulling their business from big banks would be a really good start.

Been saying that for decades...best job stimulus idea.

Keep your money/business with locally owned banks which (generally) invest it back into the community rather than investing it on Wall Street.

kalm wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Agreed 1000%.

You greedy bastard, your just agreeing because if the too big to fail banks were exposed or nationalized there'd be a flood of new business for credit unions.

In all seriousness, everyone pulling their business from big banks would be a really good start.

You can't pull your business from the big banks. They eventually find you.

You can have your credit card and mortgage with a smaller bank you like. But the big bank will eventually acquire it.

David Rockefeller wrote:

kalm wrote:
You greedy bastard, your just agreeing because if the too big to fail banks were exposed or nationalized there'd be a flood of new business for credit unions.

In all seriousness, everyone pulling their business from big banks would be a really good start.

You can't pull your business from the big banks. They eventually find you.

You can have your credit card and mortgage with a smaller bank you like. But the big bank will eventually acquire it.

travelinman67 wrote:

kalm wrote:
You greedy bastard, your just agreeing because if the too big to fail banks were exposed or nationalized there'd be a flood of new business for credit unions.

In all seriousness, everyone pulling their business from big banks would be a really good start.

Been saying that for decades...best job stimulus idea.

Keep your money/business with locally owned banks which (generally) invest it back into the community rather than investing it on Wall Street.

Bottom up economic stimulus

OL FU wrote:

kalm wrote:If the U.S. was a "decaying emmerging market nation" that sorely needed assistance from the IMF it would be told to strip the oligarchy of it's power, nationalize the banks, and break them up into smaller pieces. None of this is neccessarily new except to us.

I mentioned everyone taking a hit in another thread. In order for the fundamentals of our economy to be made solid, the Wall Street oligarch's are going to have to be the ones. And they're not about to let that happen.

Below is a link to an article written by Simon Johnson who served as chief economist for the IMF in 2007 and 2008.

It's a well written comprehensive review of what led to the current economic crisis including historical parallels and suggestions for resolving the situation (none of which are easy or likely to happen)

Sorry believers in deregulation, magical unrestricted free market capitalism, and the notion that Fannie, Freddie, brown skinned homebuyers, illegal immigrants, government intervention and the Democratic party are to blame.

It's everyone's fault. Time to shut your yap holes.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200905/imf-advice

The truth is that believers in deregulation and less restricted markets (no one believes in unrestricted free markets) and believers that appropriate competition means many smaller firms are not mutually exclusive. I don't believe in too big to fail. With the protections the large banks have, if they are big enough to pose systemic risk, then they are probably too big to exist at that size.

PS, Fannie and Freddie were as much a part of Wall Street as they were the government. The only difference between them and most lenders is that the government provided an implicit guaranty for their debt that allowed them to receive financing they would never have received without such guaranty. Government and Wall street are also not mutually exclusive.

isn't that the entire basis of the communist manifesto? There would be no bourgeois, no alien, no proletarians. There would be no regulations or government.

dgreco wrote:

OL FU wrote:
The truth is that believers in deregulation and less restricted markets (no one believes in unrestricted free markets) and believers that appropriate competition means many smaller firms are not mutually exclusive. I don't believe in too big to fail. With the protections the large banks have, if they are big enough to pose systemic risk, then they are probably too big to exist at that size.

PS, Fannie and Freddie were as much a part of Wall Street as they were the government. The only difference between them and most lenders is that the government provided an implicit guaranty for their debt that allowed them to receive financing they would never have received without such guaranty. Government and Wall street are also not mutually exclusive.

isn't that the entire basis of the communist manifesto? There would be no bourgeois, no alien, no proletarians. There would be no regulations or government.

I don't understand the connection