WSJ: Wall Street's Gullible Occupiers - The protesters have been sold a bill of goods

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2011 12:25 PM GMT
    Wall Street Journal, Opinion, October 12, 2011
    By Peter J. Wallison
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203633104576623083437396142.html?mod=ITP_opinion_0
    The protesters have been sold a bill of goods. Reckless government policies, not private greed, brought about the housing bubble and resulting financial crisis.

    There is no mystery where the Occupy Wall Street movement came from: It is an offspring of the same false narrative about the causes of the financial crisis that exculpated the government and brought us the Dodd-Frank Act. According to this story, the financial crisis and ensuing deep recession was caused by a reckless private sector driven by greed and insufficiently regulated. It is no wonder that people who hear this tale repeated endlessly in the media turn on Wall Street to express their frustration with the current conditions in the economy.

    Their anger should be directed at those who developed and supported the federal government's housing policies that were responsible for the financial crisis.

    Beginning in 1992, the government required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to direct a substantial portion of their mortgage financing to borrowers who were at or below the median income in their communities. The original legislative quota was 30%. But the Department of Housing and Urban Development was given authority to adjust it, and through the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations HUD raised the quota to 50% by 2000 and 55% by 2007.

    It is certainly possible to find prime borrowers among people with incomes below the median. But when more than half of the mortgages Fannie and Freddie were required to buy were required to have that characteristic, these two government-sponsored enterprises had to significantly reduce their underwriting standards.

    Fannie and Freddie were not the only government-backed or government-controlled organizations that were enlisted in this process. The Federal Housing Administration was competing with Fannie and Freddie for the same mortgages. And thanks to rules adopted in 1995 under the Community Reinvestment Act, regulated banks as well as savings and loan associations had to make a certain number of loans to borrowers who were at or below 80% of the median income in the areas they served.

    Research by Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer of Fannie Mae (now a colleague of mine at the American Enterprise Institute) has shown that 27 million loans—half of all mortgages in the U.S.—were subprime or otherwise weak by 2008. That is, the loans were made to borrowers with blemished credit, or were loans with no or low down payments, no documentation, or required only interest payments.

    Of these, over 70% were held or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie or some other government agency or government-regulated institution. Thus it is clear where the demand for these deficient mortgages came from.

    The huge government investment in subprime mortgages achieved its purpose. Home ownership in the U.S. increased to 69% from 65% (where it had been for 30 years). But it also led to the biggest housing bubble in American history. This bubble, which lasted from 1997 to 2007, also created a huge private market for mortgage-backed securities (MBS) based on pools of subprime loans.

    As housing bubbles grow, rising prices suppress delinquencies and defaults. People who could not meet their mortgage obligations could refinance or sell, because their houses were now worth more.

    Accordingly, by the mid-2000s, investors had begun to notice that securities based on subprime mortgages were producing the high yields, but not showing the large number of defaults, that are usually associated with subprime loans. This triggered strong investor demand for these securities, causing the growth of the first significant private market for MBS based on subprime and other risky mortgages.

    By 2008, Mr. Pinto has shown, this market consisted of about 7.8 million subprime loans, somewhat less than one-third of the 27 million that were then outstanding. The private financial sector must certainly share some blame for the financial crisis, but it cannot fairly be accused of causing that crisis when only a small minority of subprime and other risky mortgages outstanding in 2008 were the result of that private activity.

    When the bubble deflated in 2007, an unprecedented number of weak mortgages went into default, driving down housing prices throughout the U.S. and throwing Fannie and Freddie into insolvency. Seeing these sudden losses, investors fled from the market for privately issued MBS, and mark-to-market accounting required banks and others to write down the value of their mortgage-backed assets to the distress levels in a market that now had few buyers. This raised questions about the solvency and liquidity of the largest financial institutions and began a period of great investor anxiety.

    The government's rescue of Bear Stearns in March 2008 temporarily calmed the market. But it created significant moral hazard: Market participants were led to believe that the government would rescue all large financial institutions. When Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail in September, investors panicked. They withdrew their funds from the institutions that held large amounts of privately issued MBS, causing banks and others—such as investment banks, finance companies and insurers—to hoard cash against the risk of further withdrawals. Their refusal to lend to one another in these conditions froze credit markets, bringing on what we now call the financial crisis.

    The narrative that came out of these events—largely propagated by government officials and accepted by a credulous media—was that the private sector's greed and risk-taking caused the financial crisis and the government's policies were not responsible. This narrative stimulated the punitive Dodd-Frank Act—fittingly named after Congress's two key supporters of the government's destructive housing policies. It also gave us the occupiers of Wall Street.

    Mr. Wallison is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He was a member Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and dissented from the majority's report.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2011 12:49 PM GMT
    Related observations:

    1) Aside from people who have concerns, the protests are fueled by political operatives who want to deflect attention from the economic conditions and the performance of this administration by creating private-sector villains and emphasizing class warfare.

    2) The jobs bill, son of stimulus, represents a doubling down of a policy that has already shown to be a failure. Economists exist on both sides of the debate, negating the position of either that "all economists are on my side". If you look at cost per job created as well as unemployment trends, it is a failure. The response from its supporters is to create a metric, hypothetical jobs saved, that cannot be shown.

    3) Looking at what political parties have done in the past is not highly relevant, to say the least. On the Republican side, what the candidates are advocating is different from what was practiced by the Bush administration. On the Democratic side, what this administration seeks to do, specifically raise taxes, is not supported by Bill Clinton http://policydynamics.org/blog/?p=679 In other words, in terms of economic policies, the Republicans today are better than their past, and the Democrats today are worse than their past. This can change if the Democratic moderates again take control of the party.

    4) Whatever economists you choose to believe, there is overwhelming evidence based on the actual narrative of businesses, both large and small, the the business-hostile policies and related uncertainties of this administration are suppressing job growth. I had a conversation with a business owner with 100 employees. He sees the business supporting doubling his size and has the cash to do so, but is afraid that the regulations here would kill his business. From a business standpoint, he would be smarter to increase the capacity in China and even move current jobs to China, but he is holding off because he cares about his employees and about the country.

    5) The demonstrators consist of political operatives, as discussed in 1), hard leftists, the socialists/Marxists, and many innocent people duped into supporting a political faction that is working against job growth and economic prosperity. Aside from energizing the hard left, they will do nothing but further alienate the mainstream because they basically have no constructive messages, only negative, and are being highly marginalized by the sound bites and images widely seen. In my opinion, the tactics by the political operatives will backfire even further, if anything changing Obama's upcoming defeat into a rout.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2011 2:18 PM GMT
    Will be interesting to see if there will be interest in this topic. Takes a bit more effort than watching videos.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2011 2:42 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidAccordingly, by the mid-2000s, investors had begun to notice that securities based on subprime mortgages were producing the high yields, but not showing the large number of defaults, that are usually associated with subprime loans. This triggered strong investor demand for these securities, causing the growth of the first significant private market for MBS based on subprime and other risky mortgages.


    The protesters are complaining about precisely this greed: The "strong investor demand" resulted in relaxed standards for qualification. I don't know where you were in 2005, but I was buying a house, and I was amazed at the persistence with which my broker was trying to push risky loans. Freddie and Fannie were nowhere involved. The greed of investors, of banks, and of brokers: I could feel that all over the place.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2011 3:59 PM GMT
    themachine said
    socalfitness saidAccordingly, by the mid-2000s, investors had begun to notice that securities based on subprime mortgages were producing the high yields, but not showing the large number of defaults, that are usually associated with subprime loans. This triggered strong investor demand for these securities, causing the growth of the first significant private market for MBS based on subprime and other risky mortgages.


    The protesters are complaining about precisely this greed: The "strong investor demand" resulted in relaxed standards for qualification. I don't know where you were in 2005, but I was buying a house, and I was amazed at the persistence with which my broker was trying to push risky loans. Freddie and Fannie were nowhere involved. The greed of investors, of banks, and of brokers: I could feel that all over the place.

    Can't disagree with your experience at all except that "greed" has a negative connotation. What you describe can be viewed as a desire to make a profit and comply with requirements that were imposed upon the industry.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Oct 13, 2011 4:56 PM GMT
    Republican Faery tales so early in the Mornin????

    God I didn't even have my Cheerrios yet

    SAME tired old right wing clap trap

    WE needed to bail out MAJOR. Wall street institutions and banks because there was a systematic repeal ...... Ie Glass Steagall
    And watering down of regulations that were put in place after the last republican led economic debacle .... That was called the Great Depression
    Look up Mr and Mrs Phil Gramm
    Wendy ... If you wanna be specific

    So in you Vain attempt to color this something else than a completely republican disaster ...... Your wrong

    The OWS protests are only growing to grow and pick up steam

    And the republicans are going to have to come to the defense of the indefensible so whine and gripe all you want ....... Just wear clean underwear because your going to be caught with your pants down icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 13, 2011 6:02 PM GMT
    GQjock saidRepublican Faery tales so early in the Mornin????

    God I didn't even have my Cheerrios yet

    SAME tired old right wing clap trap

    WE needed to bail out MAJOR. Wall street institutions and banks because there was a systematic repeal ...... Ie Glass Steagall
    And watering down of regulations that were put in place after the last republican led economic debacle .... That was called the Great Depression
    Look up Mr and Mrs Phil Gramm
    Wendy ... If you wanna be specific

    So in you Vain attempt to color this something else than a completely republican disaster ...... Your wrong

    The OWS protests are only growing to grow and pick up steam

    And the republicans are going to have to come to the defense of the indefensible so whine and gripe all you want ....... Just wear clean underwear because your going to be caught with your pants down icon_biggrin.gif

    Must really suck big time when you want to criticize but have nothing to say, eh?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2011 2:51 PM GMT
    Thought I would give this thread a bump. It disappeared very quickly. Perhaps the facts are inconvenient to the agenda du jour.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2011 3:27 PM GMT
    theantijock saidSo you are saying this disaster was not caused by the greed of financial institutions but that the United States government orchestrated it. Tell us please, what were the US government policies which also, by extention of your theory, must have caused the housing bubbles around the rest of the world...

    That the US government was used as a tool of the greedy financial institutions is the bad bill being protested.

    Each country has its specific issues that led to the current situation. While the housing policies discussed above are specific to the US, the common thread generally among countries in trouble today consist of 1) Influence of the public sector in the economy, 2) Strength of the unions, 3) High taxes, 4) Entitlements greater than the country can afford, 5) Disincentives for private enterprise.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2011 3:30 PM GMT
    icon_lol.gif Oh, this old canard again. The Wall Street Journal has jumped the shark with Murdoch in charge. icon_lol.gif
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Oct 16, 2011 3:39 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    GQjock saidRepublican Faery tales so early in the Mornin????

    God I didn't even have my Cheerrios yet

    SAME tired old right wing clap trap

    WE needed to bail out MAJOR. Wall street institutions and banks because there was a systematic repeal ...... Ie Glass Steagall
    And watering down of regulations that were put in place after the last republican led economic debacle .... That was called the Great Depression
    Look up Mr and Mrs Phil Gramm
    Wendy ... If you wanna be specific

    So in you Vain attempt to color this something else than a completely republican disaster ...... Your wrong

    The OWS protests are only growing to grow and pick up steam

    And the republicans are going to have to come to the defense of the indefensible so whine and gripe all you want ....... Just wear clean underwear because your going to be caught with your pants down icon_biggrin.gif

    Must really suck big time when you want to criticize but have nothing to say, eh?


    Yeah ... it might Suck to be you at times eh?
    Where'd your OP piece come from? WSJ is it?
    BTW ...didya THINK the WSJ opinion mill would be fair with the OWS movement
    Didya really THINK that way? You funny

    LONDON — Britain's newspaper auditor said Thursday that it may move to investigate The Wall Street Journal's European circulation figures after a former employee accused it of propping up its subscriptions by effectively paying for its own papers via third parties.

    The Wall Street Journal Europe's publisher, Andrew Langhoff, has already resigned over the paper's links to the Netherlands-based Executive Learning Partnership, a consultancy that former program manager Gert Van Mol says was receiving payments and getting press in return for buying up thousands of copies of the Journals' papers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2011 3:42 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    socalfitness said
    theantijock saidSo you are saying this disaster was not caused by the greed of financial institutions but that the United States government orchestrated it. Tell us please, what were the US government policies which also, by extention of your theory, must have caused the housing bubbles around the rest of the world...

    That the US government was used as a tool of the greedy financial institutions is the bad bill being protested.

    Each country has its specific issues that led to the current situation. While the housing policies discussed above are specific to the US, the common thread generally among countries in trouble today consist of 1) Influence of the public sector in the economy, 2) Strength of the unions, 3) High taxes, 4) Entitlements greater than the country can afford, 5) Disincentives for private enterprise.

    Seriously, you can't even stay on your own topic without trying to derail it once you've lost your point. My work is done here. Enjoy.

    Are you serious? Without addressing any of the points in the OP, you tried to diminish its relevance by pointing to problems in other countries. My response was quite appropriate to your point. If you are finished here, it is because you have nothing substantive to say about the OP.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2011 3:48 PM GMT
    Debating for Dummies

    How to disagree if you have something intelligent to say:

    1. Identify factual errors or misrepresentations. Back-up your point.
    2. Identify material facts omitted in the discussion that would change the conclusions, and explain the logic.
    3. Identify the logical fallacies and discuss how correct logic would either discount the conclusion or lead to a different conclusion.

    How to disagree if you either don't have anything intelligent to say, or are unable to articulate a rebuttal intelligently:

    GQjock said
    Yeah ... it might Suck to be you at times eh?
    Where'd your OP piece come from? WSJ is it?
    BTW ...didya THINK the WSJ opinion mill would be fair with the OWS movement
    Didya really THINK that way? You funny
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2011 4:09 PM GMT
    It appears to me and millions of Americans, that the Occupy Protests are scarring the hell out of the Status Quo far right Republicans and the WSJ as well as FOX and the MSM are desperately trying to discredit those Protests. They are trying so hard because the reality is that the more the Protests, the longer they continue, the more truth is coming out about the establishment sceems and it is exposing them and their chronies.

    The Government is scared of this too, next thing you know the pressure will be raised again to expose the Fed Reserve which is privately owned, not a Federal Entity and its investors are getting rich off public dept at tax payers expense, The status quo Government fears a real Audit. The house of cards in falling in on them and the backers of the status quo don't like it.

    What I like seeing is how peaceful protesting and exposing the truth, puts the status quo powers that be in an impossible position to fight it. If the protests were rioting they could jail them all and put them away to shut them up. but with democracy, peaceful protests calling attention to wrongs in our society cannot be 'shut up', the government knows that after a certain point of protestor intensity and volume, they will have to address the concerns, they have no choice. All the status quo adherents and Gov. leaders are left with is weak disparaging remarks about the protests which are falling on deaf masses ears who know that the protestors have a point and want those points addressed in real ways this time around.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2011 4:13 PM GMT
    realifedad said It appears to me and millions of Americans, that the Occupy Protests are scarring the hell out of the Status Quo far right Republicans and the WSJ as well as FOX and the MSM are desperately trying to discredit those Protests.


    We read what we want to though icon_wink.gif . I for one hope we see a lot more of the protests and wish them longevity to the point that people ultimately choose at the ballot box which movement they believe in more.

    "The blonde haired fellow in the 2nd video is none other than Edward T. Hall, III, a trust fund child whose parents are "two politically active lawyers".



    http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/opposite-sides-of-the-protest-come-together-briefly/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2011 4:35 PM GMT
    riddler78 said...We read what we want to though. I for one hope we see a lot more of the protests and wish them longevity to the point that people ultimately choose at the ballot box which movement they believe in more.

    Agree with you completely. I hope they persist. Consistent with what I said in the second message in the thread, these sound bites and images are sending a good message to the moderates and independents. To the far left today, it is music they love, but they won't be so happy next year. Reminds me of the Greek mythology story of the Sirens, who were three dangerous bird-women, portrayed as seductresses who lured nearby sailors with their enchanting music and voices to shipwreck on the rocky coast of their island.

    ADDED: Riddler - have you noticed none of the responses have addressed the points in the OP at all, just changing the topic and spin? Not surprised. A few of us have discussed the housing situation and the role played by different politicians going back several years. I suspect many of the respondents have not even read the OP or are prepared to provide any kind of rebuttal at all.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Oct 16, 2011 4:57 PM GMT
    socalfitness saidDebating for Dummies

    How to disagree if you have something intelligent to say:

    1. Identify factual errors or misrepresentations. Back-up your point.
    2. Identify material facts omitted in the discussion that would change the conclusions, and explain the logic.
    3. Identify the logical fallacies and discuss how correct logic would either discount the conclusion or lead to a different conclusion.

    How to disagree if you either don't have anything intelligent to say, or are unable to articulate a rebuttal intelligently:

    GQjock said
    Yeah ... it might Suck to be you at times eh?
    Where'd your OP piece come from? WSJ is it?
    BTW ...didya THINK the WSJ opinion mill would be fair with the OWS movement
    Didya really THINK that way? You funny


    DUDE ... you used a WALL STREET JOURNAL OP ED PIECE
    Not only was it a WALL STREET JOURNAL piece
    opining about Wall Street's implication in our economic crisis
    But it's an OPINION piece as well

    I also cited a recent piece uncovering journalistic malfeasance on the part of the Wall Street Journal

    1. There IS nothing but FACT presented to you
    2. OP provided from WSJ BY WSJ and my presentation ABOUT the WALL STREET JOURNAL
    3. Provided with factual material regarding your OP you turn and provide nothing ....

    BTW? One of the FIRST lessons in Journalism?
    Is Know your source ............... You don't get a critique of the Black Panther movement from the KKK
    You don't get material for an expose on gay life from the Head of NOMA

    Just passin on that info
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2011 5:04 PM GMT
    GQjock said
    socalfitness saidDebating for Dummies

    How to disagree if you have something intelligent to say:

    1. Identify factual errors or misrepresentations. Back-up your point.
    2. Identify material facts omitted in the discussion that would change the conclusions, and explain the logic.
    3. Identify the logical fallacies and discuss how correct logic would either discount the conclusion or lead to a different conclusion.

    How to disagree if you either don't have anything intelligent to say, or are unable to articulate a rebuttal intelligently:

    GQjock said
    Yeah ... it might Suck to be you at times eh?
    Where'd your OP piece come from? WSJ is it?
    BTW ...didya THINK the WSJ opinion mill would be fair with the OWS movement
    Didya really THINK that way? You funny


    DUDE ... you used a WALL STREET JOURNAL OP ED PIECE
    Not only was it a WALL STREET JOURNAL piece
    opining about Wall Street's implication in our economic crisis
    But it's an OPINION piece as well

    I also cited a recent piece uncovering journalistic malfeasance on the part of the Wall Street Journal

    1. There IS nothing but FACT presented to you
    2. OP provided from WSJ BY WSJ and my presentation ABOUT the WALL STREET JOURNAL
    3. Provided with factual material regarding your OP you turn and provide nothing ....

    BTW? One of the FIRST lessons in Journalism?
    Is Know your source ............... You don't get a critique of the Black Panther movement from the KKK
    You don't get material for an expose on gay life from the Head of NOMA

    Just passin on that info

    DUDE.... Peter J. Wallison is not on the WSJ staff. Having a debate with you is like taking candy from a baby. Care to discuss any of the points in the OP, DUDE? I don't think you are capable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2011 5:41 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    riddler78 said...We read what we want to though. I for one hope we see a lot more of the protests and wish them longevity to the point that people ultimately choose at the ballot box which movement they believe in more.

    Agree with you completely. I hope they persist. Consistent with what I said in the second message in the thread, these sound bites and images are sending a good message to the moderates and independents. To the far left today, it is music they love, but they won't be so happy next year. Reminds me of the Greek mythology story of the Sirens, who were three dangerous bird-women, portrayed as seductresses who lured nearby sailors with their enchanting music and voices to shipwreck on the rocky coast of their island.

    ADDED: Riddler - have you noticed none of the responses have addressed the points in the OP at all, just changing the topic and spin? Not surprised. A few of us have discussed the housing situation and the role played by different politicians going back several years. I suspect many of the respondents have not even read the OP or are prepared to provide any kind of rebuttal at all.


    Two things. Multiple polls have shown that OWS' popularity is in the mid to high-60 percents. They have a net approval rating in the double digits. By contrast, the Tea Party's support has feel to 15% or so, which means that even a decent percentage of conservatives and Republicans no longer support it.

    Second thing. Many of us have read several books and countless articles on the backstory of the financial crisis. Apparently the author of this "article" is not one of them. Why bother rehashing the endless ways in which many of us have proven his contentions completely devoid of truth, when you'll just revert to them in another thread?
  • dancedancekj

    Posts: 1761

    Oct 16, 2011 5:44 PM GMT
    I'm still reading up on the background info. The Community Reinvestment Act, Dodd-Frank Act and so on.

    Here's the thing that I'm finding hard to understand. The government set the restrictions in place in terms of the income of people who were at or below the median income level of their communities, increasing it to 55% by 2007. Sure, that's fine, and that stinks, I agree.

    I'm still not understanding why the banks loaned as much and as aggressively as they did though. You'd think it would be the opposite - that they would try and find loanees that would be as reliable as possible, even below that median income level instead of pushing mortgages on people that they would know from a cursory glance would be a high risk. For what reason? To scrape by? Or to make a profit from predatory lending? To me, their earnings would suggest the latter opposed to the former, but I do not know enough about them to make that call.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2011 6:06 PM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    riddler78 said...We read what we want to though. I for one hope we see a lot more of the protests and wish them longevity to the point that people ultimately choose at the ballot box which movement they believe in more.

    Agree with you completely. I hope they persist. Consistent with what I said in the second message in the thread, these sound bites and images are sending a good message to the moderates and independents. To the far left today, it is music they love, but they won't be so happy next year. Reminds me of the Greek mythology story of the Sirens, who were three dangerous bird-women, portrayed as seductresses who lured nearby sailors with their enchanting music and voices to shipwreck on the rocky coast of their island.

    ADDED: Riddler - have you noticed none of the responses have addressed the points in the OP at all, just changing the topic and spin? Not surprised. A few of us have discussed the housing situation and the role played by different politicians going back several years. I suspect many of the respondents have not even read the OP or are prepared to provide any kind of rebuttal at all.


    Two things. Multiple polls have shown that OWS' popularity is in the mid to high-60 percents. They have a net approval rating in the double digits. By contrast, the Tea Party's support has feel to 15% or so, which means that even a decent percentage of conservatives and Republicans no longer support it.

    Second thing. Many of us have read several books and countless articles on the backstory of the financial crisis. Apparently the author of this "article" is not one of them. Why bother rehashing the endless ways in which many of us have proven his contentions completely devoid of truth, when you'll just revert to them in another thread?

    I read these threads quite regularly and I have never seen any of you provide any proof whatsoever that any of his contentions are devoid of truth. I have seen several of you make the claim often when faced with facts that so much is false that it is not worth responding to. Say that enough times and you can try to build a edifice to suggest you had refuted any points, when, in fact, you never did.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Oct 16, 2011 6:27 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    GQjock said
    socalfitness saidDebating for Dummies

    How to disagree if you have something intelligent to say:

    1. Identify factual errors or misrepresentations. Back-up your point.
    2. Identify material facts omitted in the discussion that would change the conclusions, and explain the logic.
    3. Identify the logical fallacies and discuss how correct logic would either discount the conclusion or lead to a different conclusion.

    How to disagree if you either don't have anything intelligent to say, or are unable to articulate a rebuttal intelligently:

    GQjock said
    Yeah ... it might Suck to be you at times eh?
    Where'd your OP piece come from? WSJ is it?
    BTW ...didya THINK the WSJ opinion mill would be fair with the OWS movement
    Didya really THINK that way? You funny


    DUDE ... you used a WALL STREET JOURNAL OP ED PIECE
    Not only was it a WALL STREET JOURNAL piece
    opining about Wall Street's implication in our economic crisis
    But it's an OPINION piece as well

    I also cited a recent piece uncovering journalistic malfeasance on the part of the Wall Street Journal

    1. There IS nothing but FACT presented to you
    2. OP provided from WSJ BY WSJ and my presentation ABOUT the WALL STREET JOURNAL
    3. Provided with factual material regarding your OP you turn and provide nothing ....

    BTW? One of the FIRST lessons in Journalism?
    Is Know your source ............... You don't get a critique of the Black Panther movement from the KKK
    You don't get material for an expose on gay life from the Head of NOMA

    Just passin on that info

    DUDE.... Peter J. Wallison is not on the WSJ staff. Having a debate with you is like taking candy from a baby. Care to discuss any of the points in the OP, DUDE? I don't think you are capable.


    BUT he IS writing an OPINION piece Definition od OP ED

    also
    Peter J. Wallison is the only member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) to release a formal dissent to the FCIC's official report on the causes of the financial crisis. Wallison, codirector of financial policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, argues that government-mandated subprime loans, not greedy investors, were the force behind the deterioration in underwriting standards. This dissent is a must-read for anyone seeking to understand the causes of the financial crisis—and to prevent future economic collapse. Really now Peter
    Who the HELL cut those mortgages up and sold them as triple A rated bonds????
    Who leveraged the hell out of them and entered them onto the hedgefund markets???
    And who made millions upon millions knwing that they were going to fail and insured the hell out of them with AIG backed notes???

    Wallison Reinvents History – and His Own Positions on the Causes of the Crisis
    By William K. Black
    http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2011/02/wallison-reinvents-history-and-his-own.html

    From HIS OWN F**KIN BIO
    Peter J Wallison was important in developing Reagan administration proposals to deregulate financial services that, with some changes, became law in 1999.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2011 6:38 PM GMT
    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2011 7:57 PM GMT
    GQjock said
    socalfitness said
    GQjock said
    socalfitness saidDebating for Dummies

    How to disagree if you have something intelligent to say:

    1. Identify factual errors or misrepresentations. Back-up your point.
    2. Identify material facts omitted in the discussion that would change the conclusions, and explain the logic.
    3. Identify the logical fallacies and discuss how correct logic would either discount the conclusion or lead to a different conclusion.

    How to disagree if you either don't have anything intelligent to say, or are unable to articulate a rebuttal intelligently:

    GQjock said
    Yeah ... it might Suck to be you at times eh?
    Where'd your OP piece come from? WSJ is it?
    BTW ...didya THINK the WSJ opinion mill would be fair with the OWS movement
    Didya really THINK that way? You funny


    DUDE ... you used a WALL STREET JOURNAL OP ED PIECE
    Not only was it a WALL STREET JOURNAL piece
    opining about Wall Street's implication in our economic crisis
    But it's an OPINION piece as well

    I also cited a recent piece uncovering journalistic malfeasance on the part of the Wall Street Journal

    1. There IS nothing but FACT presented to you
    2. OP provided from WSJ BY WSJ and my presentation ABOUT the WALL STREET JOURNAL
    3. Provided with factual material regarding your OP you turn and provide nothing ....

    BTW? One of the FIRST lessons in Journalism?
    Is Know your source ............... You don't get a critique of the Black Panther movement from the KKK
    You don't get material for an expose on gay life from the Head of NOMA

    Just passin on that info

    DUDE.... Peter J. Wallison is not on the WSJ staff. Having a debate with you is like taking candy from a baby. Care to discuss any of the points in the OP, DUDE? I don't think you are capable.


    BUT he IS writing an OPINION piece Definition od OP ED

    also
    Peter J. Wallison is the only member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) to release a formal dissent to the FCIC's official report on the causes of the financial crisis. Wallison, codirector of financial policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, argues that government-mandated subprime loans, not greedy investors, were the force behind the deterioration in underwriting standards. This dissent is a must-read for anyone seeking to understand the causes of the financial crisis—and to prevent future economic collapse. Really now Peter
    Who the HELL cut those mortgages up and sold them as triple A rated bonds????
    Who leveraged the hell out of them and entered them onto the hedgefund markets???
    And who made millions upon millions knwing that they were going to fail and insured the hell out of them with AIG backed notes???

    Wallison Reinvents History – and His Own Positions on the Causes of the Crisis
    By William K. Black
    http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2011/02/wallison-reinvents-history-and-his-own.html

    From HIS OWN F**KIN BIO
    Peter J Wallison was important in developing Reagan administration proposals to deregulate financial services that, with some changes, became law in 1999.


    Of course it is in the Opinion section, but you still never responded to the basic points in the OP.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 16, 2011 8:12 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    socalfitness said
    theantijock said
    socalfitness said
    theantijock saidSo you are saying this disaster was not caused by the greed of financial institutions but that the United States government orchestrated it. Tell us please, what were the US government policies which also, by extention of your theory, must have caused the housing bubbles around the rest of the world...

    That the US government was used as a tool of the greedy financial institutions is the bad bill being protested.

    Each country has its specific issues that led to the current situation. While the housing policies discussed above are specific to the US, the common thread generally among countries in trouble today consist of 1) Influence of the public sector in the economy, 2) Strength of the unions, 3) High taxes, 4) Entitlements greater than the country can afford, 5) Disincentives for private enterprise.

    Seriously, you can't even stay on your own topic without trying to derail it once you've lost your point. My work is done here. Enjoy.

    Are you serious? Without addressing any of the points in the OP, you tried to diminish its relevance by pointing to problems in other countries. My response was quite appropriate to your point. If you are finished here, it is because you have nothing substantive to say about the OP.


    Oh, look, subterfuge. How unpredictable.

    Your OP tries to convince the unwitting that the US government, acting for the good of the people, not the greed of financial institutions (and, by implication, that the US government is separate from the forces of greedy financial instititutions--the counterpoint to the protest), caused the housing bubble, the subsequent crash and thus the current disaster of draining ever more money from the public's future (future taxation, inflation) and pouring it into the private banks today (bailouts, bonuses, 0% interest), painting the financial institutions not just without the tint of greed but also free of market guilt even though it was the financial institutions, not the government, which created the massive instruments (derivatives, zero down) of this destruction.

    It is false for you to say I didn't address your OP, because I have shown that this bubble/pop is not just a US phenomenon but a worldwide event; and if you are going to argue that the US government caused our problems here, then, given that this is a worldwide event, the onus is upon you to show not just how you say the US government caused the bubble/crash only here but how is it that around the globe that this exact same event is occurring. If you want to isolate the cause to one country's government, then you must isolate the event. But it is not an isolated event. And what crosses borders unimpeded without an army, governments or markets & financial institutions?

    The bill of goods that the protesters don't buy is your argument: that it's all been one big happy coincidence perpetrated by separate, independent, uncoerced governments.

    But then instead of addressing the obvious point, the one being protested per the very title of your own thread, that if our government of the people (and not this government of the financial institutions) screwed us, then how is it that all these other governments screwed in unison their citizens too?. So what was the grand scheme of all these governments, to raise the prices of housing so as to collect more property taxes to pay for social programs? Then why is it that since the crash, even more money has been sucked out of the public teet?

    What you do instead of arguing a point, even your own point, particularly when you have been shown your thinking flawed, is that you then, without acknowledgement of the point made, go off on un- or somewhat-related topics so that suddenly instead of discussing that supposedly "Reckless government policies, not private greed, brought about the housing bubble and resulting financial crisis" per your OP (and, by the way, not that anyone is even arguing that, but arguing whether or not that was caused by the influence of the financial sector without regard for the public good), you segway into arguments you think you can win and hope nobody will notice that you lost the argument you originally set out to battle. If I gave a flying crap, it would be infuriating. And that is the method of your madness. Probably it works on some and gives the illusion that you have won an argument. But I am not going to play your game. Better to leave you in the capable hands for others to hone their skills. Until they can also see through your subterfuge to see your arguments for what they are. Nonsense.

    Substantiative much?

    Unimpressed. Your verbosity does not cover up your flawed assumptions and reasoning.

    Your discussion assumes the identical conditions and identical causalities existed in each country leading to the problems seen in several countries. That is absurd. What I pointed out, which escaped you, is there are certain common characteristics associated with the problems in general, although each country has its own specifics. Therefore, the fundamental basis of your point, that because the US housing policies are not relevant to other countries experiencing problems, then they must also not be relevant to the US situation. Your assumption is false and your logic is false, and you clearly did not address the specific factors discussed in the OP.

    It is, in fact, a lazy attempt to skirt the entire point. If you were interested in a substantive discussion of the OP instead of verbosity and deflections, you would go back to the OP and very simply:

    1. Identify factual errors or misrepresentations. Back-up your point.
    2. Identify material facts omitted in the discussion that would change the conclusions, and explain the logic.
    3. Identify the logical fallacies and discuss how correct logic would either discount the conclusion or lead to a different conclusion.