How much responsibility do overzealous homeowners bear for the 08 crash?

Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
3,960
Reputation
950
Daps
8,302
Reppin
NYC
I'm cool with that honestly. Public ownership is only good in my opinion to raise funds for business expansion and the owners benefit that way. Otherwise I feel like these legal loopholes are killing us for real.
So denying the lower and middle class access to ownership of the majority of industry in this country and further concentrating society's wealth in the hands of the rich will provide a net benefit in your mind? :usure:

You boys have the situation all messed up. The problem lies in aligning the interests of the shareholders with that of management. In many of the breakdowns of corporations we see, it is management taking risks that shareholders would not generally approve. When effective corporate governance practices are implemented, shareholders can manage the risks the company is taking by proxy and limit these breakdowns. I just don't see how we can throw out a system that has created so much wealth for our country instead of just tweaking it where it is needed in order to make it run more smoothly. So reactionary...
 
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
3,960
Reputation
950
Daps
8,302
Reppin
NYC
:why:
I never said they were ineffective, or said I have a problem with Dodd - Frank, I said...



I never stated which way the cost benefit analysis would go, I asked what you thought they were, so i could compare... what is so offensive about that?:what:
I even prefaced my comments with IMHO...:what:



... and you wouldn't be overhauling business, you would be removing the limited part of current liability. If your argument is that people wont invest, I will look into it, and see how much water that claim holds:ehh:.

More over, I think limited liability should be done away with whether dodd-frank is reinstated or not.
No one would become a shareholder of a company if they had full liability and no control over its daily management. This is quite basic. I can't understand why you don't see this clearly.
 

Broke Wave

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
18,704
Reputation
4,580
Daps
44,606
Reppin
Open Society Foundation
Dude, do you pray to Marx or something? :what:

Very mature. I have not said a single Marxist thing and nor am I anything close to a Marxist but :mjlol:

So denying the lower and middle class access to ownership of the majority of industry in this country and further concentrating society's wealth in the hands of the rich will provide a net benefit in your mind? :usure:

You boys have the situation all messed up. The problem lies in aligning the interests of the shareholders with that of management. In many of the breakdowns of corporations we see, it is management taking risks that shareholders would not generally approve. When effective corporate governance practices are implemented, shareholders can manage the risks the company is taking by proxy and limit these breakdowns. I just don't see how we can throw out a system that has created so much wealth for our country instead of just tweaking it where it is needed in order to make it run more smoothly. So reactionary...

Yeah friend but the idea is that companies should not go public simply to offset the costs of doing business but rather they should to expand their existing business. Something like 90% of capital gains go to the top 1% so I'm not sure this is about the lower class or middle at all anymore. Either way we both know that corporations even these days are less and less responsive to their boardrooms or shareholders, just look at this golden parachute phenomena. It's disgusting really what's happened but at the end of the day I strongly feel that corporations should be totally held liable for their costs of business.
 

DEAD7

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2012
Messages
51,489
Reputation
4,659
Daps
89,787
Reppin
Fresno, CA.
I think those who shares the profits of an enterprise ought also to be subject to its losses, period. :manny: This private profits, with socialized risk structure you are trying to temper with regulation needs to thrown in the bushes. IMHO
 
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
3,960
Reputation
950
Daps
8,302
Reppin
NYC
Very mature. I have not said a single Marxist thing and nor am I anything close to a Marxist but :mjlol:



Yeah friend but the idea is that companies should not go public simply to offset the costs of doing business but rather they should to expand their existing business. Something like 90% of capital gains go to the top 1% so I'm not sure this is about the lower class or middle at all anymore. Either way we both know that corporations even these days are less and less responsive to their boardrooms or shareholders, just look at this golden parachute phenomena. It's disgusting really what's happened but at the end of the day I strongly feel that corporations should be totally held liable for their costs of business.
There's no question that the wealthy, with the most liquid capital, would benefit the most from a rise in the stock market, but to say that the middle class doesn't generate wealth and exert power on the market through institutional investors is bullshyt. The US has the most fragmented market by ownership in the western world, so its not just Warren Buffett eating out here on stocks.

The bolded statement, I would argue, is simply untrue. Increased shareholder activism and independence of boards has put pressure on corporations' management in the US. Golden parachutes are much less frequent than in the past.

Your position just feels so reactionary. What you want to do is going to blow up the way business is done here and bury our economy. To be honest, I have never even heard of getting rid of limited liability a serious proposal to fix our problems until now :ld:
 

Broke Wave

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
18,704
Reputation
4,580
Daps
44,606
Reppin
Open Society Foundation
There's no question that the wealthy, with the most liquid capital, would benefit the most from a rise in the stock market, but to say that the middle class doesn't generate wealth and exert power on the market through institutional investors is bullshyt. The US has the most fragmented market by ownership in the western world, so its not just Warren Buffett eating out here on stocks.

The bolded statement, I would argue, is simply untrue. Increased shareholder activism and independence of boards has put pressure on corporations' management in the US. Golden parachutes are much less frequent than in the past.

Your position just feels so reactionary. What you want to do is going to blow up the way business is done here and bury our economy. To be honest, I have never even heard of getting rid of limited liability a serious proposal to fix our problems until now :ld:

I don't want to get rid of it, I'm not dead7 but I want tighter restrictions. Capital gains is separated from the middle class though there is plenty of evidence to display that. The way businesses is done is wrong though, just because things are done done a certain way doesn't mean they can continue. I feel that if we want the middle class and lower class to truly enjoy the fruits of an industry it should be nationalized. Other than that, I am indifferent to the idea that private corporations through stock actually spread any wealth to the lower classes.
 
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
3,960
Reputation
950
Daps
8,302
Reppin
NYC
I don't want to get rid of it, I'm not dead7 but I want tighter restrictions. Capital gains is separated from the middle class though there is plenty of evidence to display that. The way businesses is done is wrong though, just because things are done done a certain way doesn't mean they can continue. I feel that if we want the middle class and lower class to truly enjoy the fruits of an industry it should be nationalized. Other than that, I am indifferent to the idea that private corporations through stock actually spread any wealth to the lower classes.
If you create a situation of full liability, that is exactly what you are doing. I too want more effective regulation, but this is going too far. I don't see the problems leading to wealth inequality as beginning with corporate structure so we aren't going to agree here. The periods in history where our middle class thrived the most was alongside the growth of the American corporation. The problems are much more structural on a macroeconomic level than what we are discussing right now.
 

Broke Wave

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
18,704
Reputation
4,580
Daps
44,606
Reppin
Open Society Foundation
If you create a situation of full liability, that is exactly what you are doing. I too want more effective regulation, but this is going too far. I don't see the problems leading to wealth inequality as beginning with corporate structure so we aren't going to agree here. The periods in history where our middle class thrived the most was alongside the growth of the American corporation. The problems are much more structural on a macroeconomic level than what we are discussing right now.

Plenty of times they do though honestly. Look at the oil industry. The fact that it is privately owned and that oil companies pay zero to no royalties to the state or federal government constitutes a massive transfer of wealth that could be publically and democratically owned. That goes for a number of natural resources. There are structural issues that we agree on but we have to break free from this paradigm about private ownership of everything. There are some things that need to be owned for the sake of public interest.
 
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
3,960
Reputation
950
Daps
8,302
Reppin
NYC
Plenty of times they do though honestly. Look at the oil industry. The fact that it is privately owned and that oil companies pay zero to no royalties to the state or federal government constitutes a massive transfer of wealth that could be publically and democratically owned. That goes for a number of natural resources. There are structural issues that we agree on but we have to break free from this paradigm about private ownership of everything. There are some things that need to be owned for the sake of public interest.
I understand your frustration with that but creating a more effective tax code would be a better way to rectify that specific issue, in my opinion. The only major industry that I would be inclined to agree would be health care, but a non-profit single payer system seems to be out of the cards in this country for the foreseeable future :manny:
 
Joined
May 15, 2012
Messages
28,010
Reputation
1,216
Daps
60,695
Reppin
NULL
It's the banks fault, it was one big insurance job and they got broke the fukk off

They allowed it to happen

for one, the interest rates on the mortgages were ridiculous, because broker added points, title companies would come up with other ridiculous charges

but heh everybody was eating so it was all good

most of those mortgages didn't even require a down payment or job verification

I put 3 million dollars in real estate in a hair dressers name who's never even filed taxes
 

Dusty Bake Activate

Fukk your corny debates
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
39,077
Reputation
6,057
Daps
132,839
Well every brick has its place in a home.

I'm talking about STRICTLY the consumer here.

The stock market wouldn't exist if most people knew what was being packaged and sold :wow:

...that being said, this isn't about the banks, its about the literacy of the consumer.
No, you're not talking strictly about the consumer. You asked what responsibility homeowners have, so you're literally asking to weigh their "responsibility" against other factors involved with why the crash happened. And this is not about the literacy of the consumer. That's one relatively minor aspect that you're choosing to highlight in this thread.

Asking how much "responsibility" the homeowners have in the crash is a peculiar question. They were people who were hoodwinked into getting mortgages they couldn't afford, often though fraud. And it was fraud because mortgage fraud is defined as "the intentional misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission by an applicant or other interest parties, relied on by a lender or underwriter to provide funding for, to purchase, or to insure a mortgage loan." by the FBI. People were given teaser rates that would skyrocket after 6 months and not told, and they were assured that they would be able to refinance, meanwhile the banks were securitizing the mortgages and selling them off right away after getting their cut and they knew exactly what they doing.

So these mortgages buyers had no organizational/planning role in the crisis. They were not aware, nor could they be, that they were somehow inadvertently shaping macroeconomic policy in a deleterious way. They were just trying to buy a house, maybe the most American thing you can possibly do, in accordance with what is ingrained in our national ethos, and the "ownership society" of which our government is actively pursuant to in granting.

Meanwhile, you have people in high levels of government and banking, with a hands-on active role in molding policy and the world economy. The Federal Reserve using the influx of money from oil imports and keeping interest rates unreasonably low, and the federal government with the horribly-run Fannie and Freddie both actively working to fuel the debt-consumption model that created the housing bubble. Angelo Mozilo and the rest of these crooked a$$holes setting the standard of these NINJA-type loans knowing they would get paid regardless if the borrower defaulted. The Fed and the government failing to regulate the derivatives markets and separate commercial and investment banking interests creating a shadow banking system, depending on "financial innovation," all assuming that housing prices could never all drop at once.. The ratings agencies with their greased palms slapping AAA ratings on shyt. Once again, the mortgage bubble would've just been that, a sector crash instead of a global financial system crash if these toxic assets weren't spread as collateral throughout the entire financial system.

They may not have known specifically what would happen and when it would happen, but they knew they were playing with fire, they knew what they were doing was fraudulent, they knew it was unsustainable, and they knew these assets weren't really worth what they were valued as. Read the Goldman Sachs memos uncovered in the fraud investigation. But they kept at it because of greed, pure and simple...and because they knew the politicians they paid off and played golf with would be there to catch them when they fall.

So I blame the people who actually crafted it, at an organizational level. No the people who were tricked by them because they wanted to move their family into a house and were convinced they could.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
Bushed
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
338,367
Reputation
-35,073
Daps
641,708
Reppin
The Deep State
No, you're not talking strictly about the consumer. You asked what responsibility homeowners have, so you're literally asking to weigh their "responsibility" against other factors involved with why the crash happened. And this is not about the literacy of the consumer. That's one relatively minor aspect that you're choosing to highlight in this thread.

Asking how much "responsibility" the homeowners have in the crash is a peculiar question. They were people who were hoodwinked into getting mortgages they couldn't afford, often though fraud. And it was fraud because mortgage fraud is defined as "the intentional misstatement, misrepresentation, or omission by an applicant or other interest parties, relied on by a lender or underwriter to provide funding for, to purchase, or to insure a mortgage loan." by the FBI. People were given teaser rates that would skyrocket after 6 months and not told, and they were assured that they would be able to refinance, meanwhile the banks were securitizing the mortgages and selling them off right away after getting their cut and they knew exactly what they doing.

So these mortgages buyers had no organizational/planning role in the crisis. They were not aware, nor could they be, that they were somehow inadvertently shaping macroeconomic policy in a deleterious way. They were just trying to buy a house, maybe the most American thing you can possibly do, in accordance with what is ingrained in our national ethos, and the "ownership society" of which our government is actively pursuant to in granting.

Meanwhile, you have people in high levels of government and banking, with a hands-on active role in molding policy and the world economy. The Federal Reserve using the influx of money from oil imports and keeping interest rates unreasonably low, and the federal government with the horribly-run Fannie and Freddie both actively working to fuel the debt-consumption model that created the housing bubble. Angelo Mozilo and the rest of these crooked @ssholes setting the standard of these NINJA-type loans knowing they would get paid regardless if the borrower defaulted. The Fed and the government failing to regulate the derivatives markets and separate commercial and investment banking interests creating a shadow banking system, depending on "financial innovation," all assuming that housing prices could never all drop at once.. The ratings agencies with their greased palms slapping AAA ratings on shyt. Once again, the mortgage bubble would've just been that, a sector crash instead of a global financial system crash if these toxic assets weren't spread as collateral throughout the entire financial system.

They may not have known specifically what would happen and when it would happen, but they knew they were playing with fire, they knew what they were doing was fraudulent, they knew it was unsustainable, and they knew these assets weren't really worth what they were valued as. Read the Goldman Sachs memos uncovered in the fraud investigation. But they kept at it because of greed, pure and simple...and because they knew the politicians they paid off and played golf with would be there to catch them when they fall.


So I blame the people who actually crafted it, at an organizational level. No the people who were tricked by them because they wanted to move their family into a house and were convinced they could.

way to stay focused. :comeon:

There are MANY levels of blame here and you REFUSE to acknowledge the role the CONSUMER had in the affair, do you not?

And yes, there were illegal things that happened. We're NOT talking about that. :beli:

You can't help but quote shyt that you think no one else knows. :stopitslime:
 

Dusty Bake Activate

Fukk your corny debates
Joined
May 1, 2012
Messages
39,077
Reputation
6,057
Daps
132,839
way to stay focused. :comeon:

There are MANY levels of blame here and you REFUSE to acknowledge the role the CONSUMER had in the affair, do you not?

And yes, there were illegal things that happened. We're NOT talking about that. :beli:

You can't help but quote shyt that you think no one else knows. :stopitslime:
Again, you asked the question how much responsibility the borrowers have in the financial crisis. You are the one asking to quantify it. I'm explaining to you why that's a pointless and non-sequitur question.

You're just exercising your desire to display your elitism and contempt for anybody you think you're better than again. I would say to look at the totality of the financial collapse and say it's about financial literacy of subprime loan borrowers is an example of the idiot looking at the finger when the wise man points to the moon, but it's really more like the idiot closing his eyes.
 

Broke Wave

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
18,704
Reputation
4,580
Daps
44,606
Reppin
Open Society Foundation
@Mephistopheles I don't know why you're wasting time writing posts when you know this nikka ain't reading them. Once again this dude just wants to look down on people and get his dikk hard at his own perceived superiority. He's made threads about the minimum wage as a disciplinary tool and now is blaming consumers for lack of legal expertise and contract knowledge.

He doesn't even have a political belief he just goes with who ever is more powerful. He defends the drone program. He's rabidly pro Israeli expansion. I can't think of a single time this dude has gone off script and had a single creative thought outside of his world view of might is right. I'd rather argue with @DEAD7 at least he has a coherent political ideology.
 
Top