Torture versus collateral damage; the bigger evil?

[motorfirebox]

I understand that if all those loans had not been forced to be made the whole thing would not have happened. I understand to that one reason all the various shenanigans went on was because the gov wasn't doing things like watching what was going on. I understand that the banking sector is too bigger to fail than it was before. I understand that much.

Then you understand nothing. Silver Thursday happened just fine without the government forcing anyone to buy anything. As for the government not watching what was going on--the government, at the behest of the finance industry, passed that responsibility down to private enterprise. Oops.

Uh, Fannie and Freddie were/are monstrous entities that pretend to be private institutions while taking advantage of the perception that any failures they had would ultimately be paid for by the taxpayer so that made them less risky...taxpayer money you see.

That's not what was being discussed, and not what you agreed with Dayuhan over. Dayuhan specifically mentioned securitizing bad debt as a factor in the crash. Securitizing bad debt is a completely separate concept from taxpayer backing of bad debt.

One thing I see is investment bankers gave an awful lot of money to the campaign of Mr. Obama and that many of the high up guys dealing with investment banking issues in the gov were formerly investment bankers.

Yes. It's unfortunate. Obama has shown slightly more willingness to restrict the finance industry than the GOP, but won't go so far as to throw people in jail for fraud on a scale that makes Bernie Madoff look like a three card monty hustler. So, because the Tea Party is even worse for the markets than Obama--seriously, trying to cancel the debt limit? Do you want to kickstart the zombie apocalypse? Wait, don't answer that--they've thrown their weight behind the Democrats. For the banks, it's a choice between total disaster and a slap on the wrist. For the lower and middle class, it's a choice between total disaster now and total disaster over the next few decades.

[carl]

Then you understand nothing. Silver Thursday happened just fine without the government forcing anyone to buy anything. As for the government not watching what was going on--the government, at the behest of the finance industry, passed that responsibility down to private enterprise. Oops.

I do too understand stuff. Honest. I understand the offsides rule in soccer/football and I understand why when the Kuwaiti team long ago tried to depend on that they ended up failures. So that is something.

The gov was watching what was going on. They were watching very closely to see that what they figured were enough of what the lending institutions had formerly figured were bad loans were being made to people who were poor credit risks. Then when those people couldn't pay, a predictable event, things fell apart.

That's not what was being discussed, and not what you agreed with Dayuhan over. Dayuhan specifically mentioned securitizing bad debt as a factor in the crash. Securitizing bad debt is a completely separate concept from taxpayer backing of bad debt.

No, what I understood Dayuhan's main point to be was the gov establishing perverse incentives. In my view that sort of institutionalized moral hazard.

[motorfirebox]

No, what I understood Dayuhan's main point to be was the gov establishing perverse incentives. In my view that sort of institutionalized moral hazard.

Really? You understood "the perception that if you pool enough dubious loans together they somehow cease to be dubious" to be about government establishing perverse incentives? Because, wow. That's not at all what that phrase means.

I do too understand stuff. Honest. I understand the offsides rule in soccer/football and I understand why when the Kuwaiti team long ago tried to depend on that they ended up failures. So that is something.

The gov was watching what was going on. They were watching very closely to see that what they figured were enough of what the lending institutions had formerly figured were bad loans were being made to people who were poor credit risks. Then when those people couldn't pay, a predictable event, things fell apart.

Yeah, see, you can say you understand "stuff", but when you're flatly ignorant of the role the ratings companies played? That indicates that you actually don't understand stuff.

Regardless, that's twice you've shifted goalposts in a single page, which is more crap than I'm willing to deal with.

[carl]

Really? You understood "the perception that if you pool enough dubious loans together they somehow cease to be dubious" to be about government establishing perverse incentives? Because, wow. That's not at all what that phrase means.

I did understand. Though I had to read it real slow and then put my thinking cap on and cogitate hard before I got it. Because, wow, if government provides perverse incentives and subsidizes moral hazard, it may tend to lead to dubious groupthink.

Yeah, see, you can say you understand "stuff", but when you're flatly ignorant of the role the ratings companies played? That indicates that you actually don't understand stuff.

I already said I understood the offsides rule in soccer/football. That is stuff, I think.

Anyway, I do understand that because ratings companies were paid by financial institutions to rate them and the investments they offered there was an inherent conflict of interest. That was not a good thing. See, not so ignorant, at least not completely, totally, blindingly, maddeningly ignorant.

Regardless, that's twice you've shifted goalposts in a single page, which is more crap than I'm willing to deal with.

I have a question. How come when I wrote #### as part of a quote in post 77 it came out ####, but when you write crap, it comes out crap? I don't understand that.

[carl]

Backwards Observer:

You provide good links.

That one says more or less that the good stay good and the bad stay bad. Our elites, to me, seem to be trending bad. I don't know why either. Maybe it has something to do with the paramount importance of being nice. That may sound paradoxical but in order maintain the right (thank you RCMP), you have to say no at times, which isn't nice.

I don't know, I am still trying to puzzle this out.

[Surferbeetle]

Carl,

As long as we are considering things, 'a man's character is his fate' is attributed to Heraclitus...

...PBS Frontline always has some interesting programs:

The Crash: Unraveling the 1998 Global Crisis, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crash/

Money, Power, & Wallstreet, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...r-wall-street/

...and the Open Secrets: Money in Politics website is always interesting, http://www.opensecrets.org

[carl]

Surferbeetle:

That Open Secrets site had an interesting quote by an airline captain. I'm sure he still has his job. You can do a lot as a captain, sometimes it's sort of fun.

[Backwards Observer]

Backwards Observer: You provide good links.

Better nip this in the bud.

Dorakyura Tsū: Noroi no Fūin

Simon thought he had destroyed him - but Count Dracula may have the last laugh. Castlevania is facing disaster, and Simon is turning into a vampire. Unless Simon can defeat Dracula once and for all, Castlevania is doomed.

Dorakyura Tsū: Noroi no Fūin

[carl]

Backwards Observer:

When did this turn into improv night?

I'm still laughing at that. Castlevania is doomed!

[motorfirebox]

I did understand. Though I had to read it real slow and then put my thinking cap on and cogitate hard before I got it. Because, wow, if government provides perverse incentives and subsidizes moral hazard, it may tend to lead to dubious groupthink.

Wow. Just... wow.

Wow.

[carl]

Wow. Just... wow.

Wow.

Yep. That's what they all say.

(stage direction: that is to be said in a drawling Clint Walker sort of way. Like when he said to Kim Novak in a movie "Just because I talk slow don't mean I'm peculiar.")

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOiqicU5-tk

[motorfirebox]

Yep. That's what they all say.

(stage direction: that is to be said in a drawling Clint Walker sort of way. Like when he said to the dance hall girl in a movie "Just because I talk slow don't mean I'm peculiar.")

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOiqicU5-tk

Mm. I'm posting this so that I'll remember to not engage with you in the future: you are, without a doubt, the least intellectually honest person I've ever tried to have a discussion with. If you put half as much effort into being smart as you do into trying to be clever, you wouldn't have to resort to shifting the discourse every time someone raises a solid point against your position. There are good, reasonable, convincing arguments against the arguments I'm putting forward--I know this, because other people have made them. You haven't. You've obfuscated, you've avoided, you've deliberately misunderstood, but you haven't debated with anything approaching honesty. It's a tiresome habit that you really ought to work yourself away from.