Glad this dude lost this battle

[JackReacherDawg]

I love how you have the ability to run circular in every argument.

Did political pressure to make loans to people who weren’t good candidates for loans make the 2008 crash worse? YES OR NO. Answer the question directly you ignorant PY.

you won’t bc you are intellectually dishonest

Dude, thats you.

NO.

AT BEST, complaining of your "political pressure" is akin to complaining of one bad call in a complete blowout. Its not the cause, and to harp on it is to distract from the real causes.

Again you are changing the arguement.

My arguement since this started is that political pressure was a big cause of why banks loaned the way they did, and that political pressure made the crash significantly worse. And thats a fact. It did.

Argue against that specific point or shut your whining beech @$$ up. PLEASE!!

"Big cause". Your own cites do not say this. This intellectual dishonesty is a constant problem with you.

 

[JackReacherDawg]

Be specific. Which countries declined bc of capitalism. Pick one or 2. Name them.

I already gave my answer. You can lead a horse to water......

 

[mstateglfr]

Again you are changing the arguement.

My arguement since this started is that political pressure was a big cause of why banks loaned the way they did, and that political pressure made the crash significantly worse. And thats a fact. It did.

Argue against that specific point or shut your whining beech @$$ up. PLEASE!!

Yep, you have continually claimed banks were 'pushed' to loan. But that doesnt mean forced to loan.
This is why I have said there is a huge difference between 'political pressure' and 'legally required'.

Your argument sucks. It offloads the responsibility from for profit banks and pushes it over to vague 'politicians', despite the reality that BANKS CHOSE TO MAKE THE LOANS.

Legislators can be like 'hey banks, we would like you to create ways for at risk people to get mortgages', but if the banks didnt see a way to make billions, they would have passed. Banks CHOSE to engage in risky lending because they saw a chance to grab a ton of short term profits while offloading risk using investment products banks CHOSE to utilize.

Over and over again, reality comes back to banks CHOSE to do make loans. They were not forced to make loans. They were not pressured to make loans. They CHOSE to grab money and ignore a ton of warnings while doing so.

 

[paindonthurt]

Dude, thats you.

NO.

AT BEST, complaining of your "political pressure" is akin to complaining of one bad call in a complete blowout. Its not the cause, and to harp on it is to distract from the real causes.

"Big cause". Your own cites do not say this. This intellectual dishonesty is a constant problem with you.

Use common sense.

What do you think happens when you give bad loans to people who can't pay them?

And don't blame that on banks. They literally didn't do this for years until they were pushed to. And before you answer that remember GMAC and other automobile financing companies didn't have the same regulations as normal banks and they got sued b/c they didn't give loans to people who couldn't afford them and/or b/c they increased interest rates on riskier people.

When you can admit that we can go back to my sources and i'll prove you wrong again.

 

[paindonthurt]

I already gave my answer. You can lead a horse to water......

You won't answer b/c you can't.

 

[JackReacherDawg]

You won't answer b/c you can't.

No, I already answered. I'm just not playing the lawyer game of ask for never ending detail. I said basically all of them with a few modern exceptions after communism was invented. An intelligent person can take it from there.

 

[paindonthurt]

Yep, you have continually claimed banks were 'pushed' to loan. But that doesnt mean forced to loan.
This is why I have said there is a huge difference between 'political pressure' and 'legally required'.

So you agree they were pushed to loan money? Yes or no.

Your argument sucks. It offloads the responsibility from for profit banks and pushes it over to vague 'politicians', despite the reality that BANKS CHOSE TO MAKE THE LOANS.

I never said they banks weren't guilty. My thesis statement is the root cause is that we tried to find a really dumb way to get houses to people who couldn't afford them in the name of "equity and inclusion".

 

[paindonthurt]

No, I already answered. I'm just not playing the lawyer game of ask for never ending detail. I said basically all of them with a few modern exceptions after communism was invented. An intelligent person can take it from there.

You haven't name one country that declined due to capitalism b/c you can't.

 

[JackReacherDawg]

Use common sense.

I am, combined with intelligence and reasoning. Try it.

What do you think happens when you give bad loans to people who can't pay them?

Any loan that is not paid back, loses money for somebody. If its a low enough percentage of a group of loans, lenders still make money. But most crucially for this discussion, the banks were making money on EVERY loan, even the defaulted ones. Because they were offloaded in 30 days! Do you not understand that?

Eventually, some investors lost money in the crash. A handful of investment banks lost money (Lehman). Most didn't. So you'd have to ask why INVESTORS were paying for these bad loans. And the CRA or whatever has absolutely no involvement in that answer. Use common sense on that!

And don't blame that on banks. They literally didn't do this for years until they were pushed to. And before you answer that remember GMAC and other automobile financing companies didn't have the same regulations as normal banks and they got sued b/c they didn't give loans to people who couldn't afford them and/or b/c they increased interest rates on riskier people.

They've literally done it throughout history. The US Congress did not invent bad loans.

Poor credit score is literally the only reason anyone has ever needed to justify not giving a loan. Prove otherwise. The only lawsuits were for denying loans DESPITE good enough credit scores. (I could be wrong, but prove me wrong.)

When you can admit that we can go back to my sources and i'll prove you wrong again.

Lol. Your own sources prove you wrong every time you cite them.

 

[JackReacherDawg]

So you agree they were pushed to loan money? Yes or no.


I never said they banks weren't guilty. My thesis statement is the root cause is that we tried to find a really dumb way to get houses to people who couldn't afford them in the name of "equity and inclusion".

And your thesis is wrong, as your own prompts tell you.

 

[paindonthurt]

And your thesis is wrong, as your own prompts tell you.

So you can't tell me which countries declined under captialism?

Got it.

 

[JackReacherDawg]

So you can't tell me which countries declined under captialism?

Got it.

What part of my answer was too much for your intelligence?

 

[paindonthurt]

What part of my answer was too much for your intelligence?

The part where you didn't name a country. Not 1.

I get it. You are wrong so you can't name one. Its ok little buddy. Just admit it.

 

[mstateglfr]

So you agree they were pushed to loan money? Yes or no.


I never said they banks weren't guilty. My thesis statement is the root cause is that we tried to find a really dumb way to get houses to people who couldn't afford them in the name of "equity and inclusion".

So we agree banks are responsible because they CHOSE to lend money and therefore created the problem out of greed for short term profits?
Yes or no.


This is absurd. You are trying way too hard to carry water for 'the free markets'.

No. Banks were not pushed to enter into situations where they lent money to people who would default.
Banks chose who to lend to and what risk they wanted to take.

Banks were free to lend or not lend. This is reality.
Since they were free to lend or not lend, they were not pushed.

 

[mstateglfr]

So you can't tell me which countries declined under captialism?

Got it.

What countries have a capitalist economy and not a mixed economy?
Bear in mind there are varying levels of mixed involvement.

I keep seeing you ask for examples of countries that have declined and I just am not sure what countries could even be discussed as thriving or struggling.

 

[JackReacherDawg]

The part where you didn't name a country. Not 1.

I get it. You are wrong so you can't name one. Its ok little buddy. Just admit it.

Oh, so you're dumb? I mean dum, I am a Democrat.

But ok. Let's start by you naming the countries that aren't capitalist. Gotta know the rules here.

 

[JackReacherDawg]

I will give Pain every bit he's worth, and that includes that there are potential pushes under the CRA. No direct penalties, but a very few banks have had mergers or expansions held up over bottom tier CRA ratings. I think maybe 2 total before the financial crisis. But the part he either cant or wont understand is that this lending was SO profitable, that the "push" equates to a spitball fired at the back windows of a car doing 100mph down the highway. To point to that as a "big cause" of the following crash is so dishonest, that we probably should wonder why he gets so upset about it.

 

[CochiseCowbell]

 

[paindonthurt]

So we agree banks are responsible because they CHOSE to lend money and therefore created the problem out of greed for short term profits?
Yes or no.

Waiting on your direct answer that we will never get.

So we agree banks are responsible because they CHOSE to lend money and therefore created the problem out of greed for short term profits?
Yes or no.

This is absurd. You are trying way too hard to carry water for 'the free markets'.

I don't need to carry water for free markets. They are great and have proven it!

No. Banks were not pushed to enter into situations where they lent money to people who would default.
Banks chose who to lend to and what risk they wanted to take.

Yes banks were absolutely pushed to give loans to people who werent good candidates for loans. Its not debatable.

What countries have a capitalist economy and not a mixed economy?
Bear in mind there are varying levels of mixed involvement.

I keep seeing you ask for examples of countries that have declined and I just am not sure what countries could even be discussed as thriving or struggling.

So you cant name one either? Got it.

 

[paindonthurt]

Oh, so you're dumb? I mean dum, I am a Democrat.

But ok. Let's start by you naming the countries that aren't capitalist. Gotta know the rules here.

So you still can’t name one? Got it.

 

[paindonthurt]

View attachment 1309461

 

[paindonthurt]

I will give Pain every bit he's worth, and that includes that there are potential pushes under the CRA. No direct penalties, but a very few banks have had mergers or expansions held up over bottom tier CRA ratings. I think maybe 2 total before the financial crisis. But the part he either cant or wont understand is that this lending was SO profitable, that the "push" equates to a spitball fired at the back windows of a car doing 100mph down the highway. To point to that as a "big cause" of the following crash is so dishonest, that we probably should wonder why he gets so upset about it.

So you still can’t name a country? Got it.

 

[mstateglfr]

Waiting on your direct answer that we will never get.

I answered you directly. You even responded to it.

PDH - So you agree they were pushed to loan money? Yes or no.
GLFR - No. Banks were not pushed to enter into situations where they lent money to people who would default.
Banks chose who to lend to and what risk they wanted to take.

Why the 17 do you keep claiming I havent answered, even after I answered you directly and you responded to my answer?

So you cant name one either? Got it.

This isnt some mic drop for you. If no free market economies exist, then while none have failed, that also means no free market economies have succeeded.

But I am not claiming there have been none to fail, I was genuinely asking you to just list off economies that are actually free market. You are clearly gung-ho about this and I figure you have examples to point to that show it works.

JackReacher said free markets have failed many many times. Perhaps he is not speaking to entire economies, but rather segments of an economy that werent regulated and therefore ran 'free'. I dont know as I dont speak for JackReacher.