"The Conversation"

Kookspew.

Remember McCain's campaign co-chair, Phil Gramm, who had to be fired once he called Americans 'whiners'? Author of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act? Welcome to the architect of the credit crash.

or

Of course, it may be said that the other half would be the republican-sponsored Zero-Downpayment act. =)

Naaah! The "other half" will be accomplished when all you leftist whiners get laid off.

...Jim Thompson

More k00kspew. But it's interesting to see you root for damage to America, as right wingers do nowadays.

Lie.

And there's a good

Lie.

You are saying the requirement not to do both was not an operational requirement? lol

That doesn't affect the previous article.

More k00kspew.

Thank you for demonstrating one of the typical, and despicable, characteristics of 'liberals': the knee jerk use of "lie" and "liar" with no substantiation or reason, or even any respect to the meaning.

I re-read it just to double check my first opinion and it stands. The article does a Jim Dandy job of dancing through every 'fighting word' and innuendo it can dream up but provides no theory as to how this 'caused' the crisis.

The only 'hint' of a possible theory is when they claim "most banks, as seen in contemporary times, chose not to anticipate losses in the mortgage market; they presumed home prices would continue to appreciate." Except it's nonsense because banks don't 'presume home prices will appreciate'. That's what a buyer might do but banks don't care. What they care about is the buyer paying the notes on time.

Traditionally the loan bank might let price expectation influence their down payment requirements, so you have a 'stake' in the place, but that became moot with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac insisting they make 0 down loans and then buying the loans so the bank has no stake in it at all. So why the hell would they care?

I, on the other hand, and despite your snippage, gave a definitive sequence of events and their measurable impact. The government, though Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, set up a system where is was FREE (0 down, no question asked) to 'speculate' on the expectation home prices would appreciate, but that's the buyers doing it and not the banks.

I was clear. There was no change to the existing operational requirements for 'investment' or 'loan' banking. It simply allowed institutions to do both.

The 'change' came from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buying and repackaging the loans, so the loaning institution had no stake in the matter, and then requiring them to make 0 down, no questions asked, loans.

It directly contradicts it by showing the thing they arbitrarily claim 'caused' the crisis, in fact, ameliorated it.

Fascinating that you consider President Clinton's words "k00kspew."

and once the Act passed, an influx of "megamergers" took place among banks and insurance and securities companies, as if they had been eagerly awaiting the passage of Gramm's Act.

Senator Phil Gramm clandestinely slipped a 262-page amendment into the omnibus appropriations bill titled: Commodity Futures Modernization Act. (Explains why some Dems voted for the final version - the original netted every republican and one democrat.)

The essence of the act was the deregulation of derivatives trading (financial instruments whose value changes in response to the changes in underlying variables; the main use of derivatives is to reduce risk for one party). The legislation contained a provision -- lobbied for by Enron, a major campaign contributor to Gramm -- that exempted energy trading from regulatory oversight.

So, why lie?

"megamerger" -- fighting word

"as if they had been eagerly awaiting" -- innuendo

But not one thing about how any of that 'caused' a housing bubble, declining prices, bad loans, toxic assets. or anything else.

"clandestinely" -- fighting word (of course, to a liberal so is simply invoking the name Phil Gramm.)

"Explains why some Dems" --- I suppose the lesson here is "some Dems" are idiots who vote for 'pretty titles' with no idea what's in the bill and while that might be the only valid point, seeing as how they all just passed the largest spending bill in U.S. history without reading it, there's still not one thing as to how this 'caused' a housing bubble, declining prices, bad loans, toxic assets. or anything else.

"deregulation" -- liberal knee jerk fighting word.

"essence of the act" is unsubstantiated opinion with, still, not one thing as to how this 'caused' a housing bubble, declining prices, bad loans, toxic assets. or anything else.

The 'main use' of derivatives is to redistribute assets and risk. Some investors, depending on the circumstance, prefer 'high risk' for the higher return while others prefer low risk with a correspondingly lower return. Not terribly unlike how your 401k advisor might suggest 'high yield' stocks, with higher risk, or 'safe' insured government bonds depending, as the commercials say, "on your investment goals."

"Enron" -- fighting word which, of course, has not one thing to do with home loan or investment banking.

And still not one thing about how any of that 'caused' a housing bubble, declining prices, bad loans, toxic assets. or anything else.

It would be more illuminating to ask a practitioner so you tell me.

See 'research'. lol

I have, which is how I know that article is hogwash and the problem stems from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Sounds a lot like when the repubs tried to blame a dem bill from 1977. lol

Anyone here who can read above the fifth grade level knows better.

Non sequitur.

or else you wouldn't have looked for more,

Non Sequitur.

and don't offer

Made-up crap.

)More citreless crap snipped)