Cupidity - e.g. GSA employee

cu·pid·i·ty (ky-pd-t)n.
Excessive desire, especially for wealth; covetousness or avarice.

Oooh this is being educational :-)

cu·pid·i·ty (ky-pd-t)n.
Excessive desire, especially for wealth; covetousness or avarice.

Oooh this is being educational :-)

Or cupidity in conjunction with stupidity.

Want a regulation to prevent it? You can't regulate against stupidity.

Oh and we agree, it was bipartisan foolishness here -- these days we no longer worry about that - it has been replaced with partisan foolishness. Probably just as damaging.

I agree also, the money never existed -- as I noted, we had a bubble economy perhaps from 1998 to 2007 -- a bipartisan one at that.

OK -- so because of that act (which was less a case of regulation than bipartisan encouragement of home ownership), financial institutions were compelled to create derivatives and complex swaps?

Actually the way it was written it did exactly that. Because of the dollar for dollar lending issue, the banks had to get the ghetto loans they were now required to make off their books. Fannie and Freddie were there to take them, but only if they were AAA. Bundle a credit default swap with the loan and bingo, now crap is magically AAA. Move it off the books and let the US taxpayer take the hit when it defaults. This was a regulatory nightmare, the thing that happens when you try and force social engineering. Expensive experiment Congress did.

You have a point with part two -- that failure to understand risk was both at the personal level and the institutional level. Of course that risk taking did bubble up not only real estate, but also the stock market and the rest of the economy. Had we not seen both components, along with the 'creativity' regarding financial instruments to extend the reach of the 'infection', we would not have seen the seeming growth in 2002 to 2007. Lacking that growth particularly in 2002 to 2004, it is possible that a different political outcome would have been seen in 2004.

I guess I'd note it was not so much a lack of regulation that spurred this, but a change in regulations which might be a cause.

Yes, the original act signed by Jimmy Carter worked well as the banks were left to self regulate on risk, but when the amendment signed by Bill Clinton took effect, then the risk was regulated by ACORN with lawsuits.

You have that backward, part one anyway, it was regulation that led to this mess. Went along for better than a century without an issue and then the social engineers came along with their Community Reinvestment Act and bingo was his name.

Part two is the failure to understand risk. You see it everyday on your TV. "Do not attempt" has to be put on every car commercial. The sheeple aren't taught about risk. You can't lend trillions of dollars into the Ghetto, even if it is under government orders, and not expect something bad to happen.

You might ask yourself where did this Ghetto money go? A part went to the commissioned sales people. A bit went to a couple failed Wall Street companies, so some left as salary. Where did the rest go? It never existed in the first place. That is the part that drives people crazy.

The Community Reinvestment Act allowed people to speculate with their homes. It gave them cheap and easy to get cash to play with. Just like the cheap and easy margin loan before the 1929 stock market crash. Exactly the same thing. It was a home of cards all depending on another dumber sucker to come along and pay even more than the property is worth. Eventually it must collapse under it own weight, just like a ponzi scheme.

Want a regulation to prevent it? You can't regulate against stupidity.

---

To each their own. Making the rich richer has done nothing to help the majority. If you think otherwise, maybe you've missed out on the last many years of the US economy.

this shows a little clearer. look at the median (50%) earners and below, the income has slowly risen over the last 40 years. The 50% group for example grew from about 35,000 to 45,000$ in 40 years, meanwhile the top earners (95%) income grew from about 90,000 to 150,000. And if this chart showed the top ONE percent, you'd have a much more drastic picture of the problem I am speaking of here... especially from 1990-2000 where only the rich enjoyed practically any gains in income.

Factor in inflation, and all the median income and lower families in the US have been making LESS money than 40 years ago, and the top are earning 50% more.

Deregulation all those years back, and this recent putting money in at the top sure helped the majority though.... NOT!

Long story short, we the people, are the ones who support the economy by making money (which makes our business owners' money) and putting that money back into the economy by buying goods, services, property, etc.

I see no evidence that trickle down economics works in this modern corporate world.

Maybe "trickle-up" economics could do more for everyone. Start by investing some serious funds into the nations horrible inner-city schools, make money available in the "ghetto" by creating jobs with some of that corporate wealth that I feel should be spread around a little better...

---

#resist

You can't lend trillions of dollars into the Ghetto, even if it is under government orders, and not expect something bad to happen.

My opinion based on first hand experiences:
Money going in to the hands of people of the "ghetto", is the quickest to trickle upwards, and find its way back into the pockets of the rich...

I will never accept that putting money in at the bottom is a bad idea. It's actually a good idea, its the greed of the rich that's the problem.

It's putting money in at the top, that is the problem in my eyes. That money stays at the top, and does NOTHING for the economy.

---

#resist

OK -- so because of that act (which was less a case of regulation than bipartisan encouragement of home ownership), financial institutions were compelled to create derivatives and complex swaps?

You have a point with part two -- that failure to understand risk was both at the personal level and the institutional level. Of course that risk taking did bubble up not only real estate, but also the stock market and the rest of the economy. Had we not seen both components, along with the 'creativity' regarding financial instruments to extend the reach of the 'infection', we would not have seen the seeming growth in 2002 to 2007. Lacking that growth particularly in 2002 to 2004, it is possible that a different political outcome would have been seen in 2004.

I guess I'd note it was not so much a lack of regulation that spurred this, but a change in regulations which might be a cause.

You have that backward, part one anyway, it was regulation that led to this mess. Went along for better than a century without an issue and then the social engineers came along with their Community Reinvestment Act and bingo was his name.

Part two is the failure to understand risk. You see it everyday on your TV. "Do not attempt" has to be put on every car commercial. The sheeple aren't taught about risk. You can't lend trillions of dollars into the Ghetto, even if it is under government orders, and not expect something bad to happen.

It was the lack of regulation that lead to this mess.

How soon they forget.

You have that backward, part one anyway, it was regulation that led to this mess. Went along for better than a century without an issue and then the social engineers came along with their Community Reinvestment Act and bingo was his name.

Part two is the failure to understand risk. You see it everyday on your TV. "Do not attempt" has to be put on every car commercial. The sheeple aren't taught about risk. You can't lend trillions of dollars into the Ghetto, even if it is under government orders, and not expect something bad to happen.

---

It was the lack of regulation that lead to this mess.

How soon they forget.

110% agreed!!

I see no point in discussing the bailouts and or what's right or wrong with them. The mess should never have happened in the first place.

No one wants the government interfering in their affairs, however business at that level MUST be regulated, simply for the purpose of protecting the many against the greed of the few.

---

#resist

Sorry, meant to say 8 to 13 million *foreclosures* projected by the time we make it through this financial dip caused by government regulation.

I was probably thinking bankruptcy usually follows foreclosure, but not always.

It was the lack of regulation that lead to this mess.

How soon they forget.

---

Janice

8 to 13 million bankruptcies projected, but we saved the banks. Whoo hoo! clap clap clap clap!

Guy, one of the more insightful comments you have made recently.

I suppose we should have let the banks fail so everyone's payroll check would have bounced.

Gary, there were other ways to deal with the problem. Ensuring their solvency was the first step, which we took, then we stopped. The next step would have been to break up the oligopolies which do not operate under free market rules. The fact the money was made for the treasury is good. The fact that the banksters have no reason not to commit malfeasance in the future still exists. The world financial markets are too "slick". Adam Smith had it right in The wealth of Nations, but of course that world never existed except in Ayn Rands mind.

---

2009, FDIC has no money to cover bank failures. Maybe it was cheaper to bail out the banks than to bail out the depositors.

---

@^^^ *shakes head, turns around, walks away.*

---

#resist

If you really want to have fun stretch that graph back to the 1980's. The $&L crisis, brought to you by conservative deregulation, makes these numbers pale by comparison. 25% of the S&L's failed and it took nearly 10 years to get the money paid back on it. 50% of the S&L's closed. Oh lets not forget that the gov't lost it's shirt paying to cover the losses created by the massive fraud that came from the greed and lack of oversight.

One might ask, How many times do we have to be fools to believe that when it comes to money and especially other peoples money we have to have safe guards against lying cheating white collar thieves.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

Maybe some realistic answers are here:

If this year the column will be above 700 then things are still in arctic territory. Meaning after greece, likely italy, france or even uk begin to take blows.

---

Mandtugai!

8 to 13 million bankruptcies projected, but we saved the banks. Whoo hoo! clap clap clap clap!

Guy, one of the more insightful comments you have made recently.

I suppose we should have let the banks fail so everyone's payroll check would have bounced.

---

8 to 13 million bankruptcies projected, but we saved the banks. Whoo hoo! clap clap clap clap!

Guy, one of the more insightful comments you have made recently.

---