Signs that a collapse is under way.

[DiscoBiscuit]

In the old days, lenders proved they didn't need regulation the same way you and I don't lend a C note to sketchy past.

IMO, lenders need regulations in the new market because they've decreased their risk. Risk kept them honest and the same risk helped identify solvent borrowers.

Squeeze a balloon. One end expands and the other end contracts. Responsible regulation is like a second skin on the balloon. When market conditions squeeze the balloon, one end doesn't pop and the other end doesn't implode. We now need that second skin where lenders assume minimal risk.

This is all opinion and hope I don't offend.

 

[robbiedublu]

Here is the deal. These banks wouldn't have lent all these crap loans out if they knew they had to eat the losses when they inevitably failed. They would be put out of business. Such goes free market self regulation.

But knowing that the taxpayer slaves are on the hook for all their losses they lent indiscriminately, at the behest of the government, and continue to do so. When the bad loans went belly up the taxpayer was on the hook and the CEO's of the banks were paid handsome salaries for raping everyone. Go America!

That is the heart of the problem. Privatized gains and socialized losses. The banks will continue with these practices because there is no incentive to stop. They know that whenever they fuck up the taxpayer slaves will have to foot the bill. They make all the money going up and the taxpayer eats all the losses going down. That's how America works. That's how fascism works. And the regulations they are passing now only serve to further institutionalize the monopoly the big banks have. It's disgusting.

+ 1000 This is the bottom line right here..

 

[SpasticGramps]

Today in Greece. Coming soon to the USA.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I worked for a conglomerate that included a joint called Federal Labs? Been a while and can't be sure of the name. Anyhoo the conglomerate did the hostile takeover for businesses with government contracts in the early 90s.

Federal Lab's boss went on to run the show and gave us presentation of their operation. Just about any kind of crowd control devise was made by these bastards. Anything from cans of crowd-dispersing smoke (fake tear-gas) all the way up to fire trucks with water cannons.

We called this guy dracula because he looked like Bela Lugosi. Can't imagine all the shit our own riot forces have stored for the inevitable. But it's gonna happen.

 

[HempKat]

So telling...and true! Not EVERYONE possesses the same knowledge and abilities...so WHY won't we admit it publicly? Some people just aren't cut out to be responsible homeowners.

You keep calling it "predatory lending"...like there were guys grabbing people off the streets, dragging them kicking and screaming, into their office and tying them to a chair until they signed!

They should have KNOWN they couldn't afford the loan even though the GOVERNMENT had made NEW regulations telling the banks that HAD to give these people loans. So maybe I was right...to COMPLY with the new government regulations...maybe the banks DID have to drag people in and MAKE them buy a house!

The government didn't make new regulations saying banks had to give loans to people who normally wouldn't qualify. Alan Greenspan "encouraged" them to take advantage of the sub prime market. What's funny is you're so ready to blame the sub prime borrowers because of your obvious racism that you've convinced yourself that the banks were forced to do this by the evil government. They weren't and for what it's worth predatory doesn't mean the victims are forced against their will. It means that the lenders hunted out people they knew would likely be too stupid to realize what they were doing.

 

[HempKat]

Here is the deal. These banks wouldn't have lent all these crap loans out if they knew they had to eat the losses when they inevitably failed. They would be put out of business. Such goes free market self regulation.

But knowing that the taxpayer slaves are on the hook for all their losses they lent indiscriminately, at the behest of the government, and continue to do so. When the bad loans went belly up the taxpayer was on the hook and the CEO's of the banks were paid handsome salaries for raping everyone. Go America!

That is the heart of the problem. Privatized gains and socialized losses. The banks will continue with these practices because there is no incentive to stop. They know that whenever they fuck up the taxpayer slaves will have to foot the bill. They make all the money going up and the taxpayer eats all the losses going down. That's how America works. That's how fascism works. And the regulations they are passing now only serve to further institutionalize the monopoly the big banks have. It's disgusting.

I would have to say this is a mischaracterization of what happened. The banks didn't know at the time that the taxpayer would cover the losses. What they knew was that the derivatives being made from these loans was putting the responsibility on others. The end result is the same but it didn't happen quite the way you are describing, which is a shame since your version fits so nicely with your own personal view of things.

 

[joeuser]

The government didn't make new regulations saying banks had to give loans to people who normally wouldn't qualify. Alan Greenspan "encouraged" them to take advantage of the sub prime market. What's funny is you're so ready to blame the sub prime borrowers because of your obvious racism that you've convinced yourself that the banks were forced to do this by the evil government. They weren't and for what it's worth predatory doesn't mean the victims are forced against their will. It means that the lenders hunted out people they knew would likely be too stupid to realize what they were doing.

Yes...they DID make new regulations that the banks HAD to follow. MEANT for the inner cities...but EVERYONE "qualified" and we had the mess we had.

Wow...it was easy to get you to throw that race card. It must really suck to have that as your only excuse over and over. Everything wrong in this country is because white people are racists? Got it...thanks!

Read this: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6 and this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125.html two articles I grabbed from a quick search. They're both pretty good.

I would have to say this is a mischaracterization of what happened. The banks didn't know at the time that the taxpayer would cover the losses. What they knew was that the derivatives being made from these loans was putting the responsibility on others. The end result is the same but it didn't happen quite the way you are describing, which is a shame since your version fits so nicely with your own personal view of things.

His "version" really IS quite accurate...

Quit watching the network "news" quit reading the MSM newspapers...they're all servants of TPTB. They're all owned by TPTB. They ALL lie! Or worse...don't mention it at all!

Why don't we hear ANYTHING from Japan any more? Those nuke reactors are STILL uncovered and spewing radioactive particles...why the silence? Because TPTB want it silenced! I've noticed the "news" lately is nothing but "fluff" stories. Stories about people...not about things happening. Japan turns into a nuclear wasteland and what do we get? Wiener sending a few pictures through tweet...some stupid bitch killed her kid so she could party...which "bought off" Republican candidate is going to run against Obama.

It's misdirection. Look over here...not over there. Remain ignorant and calm...go back to your chips and TV...we'll take care of everything.

I think YOU HempKat are the perfect example of brainwashing. You seem to believe EVERYTHING that "they" tell you. Everything you defend...is a lie. The government DID make the banks give those loans...it really did!

 

[sso]

signs of a true collapse =

people running around like headless chickens. (and dying)

anything else is just a hickup.

money is just money.

if there is actually still alot of food and whatnot around = no problem.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Yes...they DID make new regulations that the banks HAD to follow. MEANT for the inner cities...but EVERYONE "qualified" and we had the mess we had.

Wow...it was easy to get you to throw that race card. It must really suck to have that as your only excuse over and over. Everything wrong in this country is because white people are racists? Got it...thanks!

Read this: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

and this: http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125.html two articles I grabbed from a quick search. They're both pretty good.

His "version" really IS quite accurate...

Zero fact to establish these opinions. Talk about brain washed, you're just taking their word. A typical piece like these gathers facts and forms opinions afterward. These two pieces are devoid of facts necessary to make their assumptions. Facts aren't included because they're 'pesky things' that don't fall in line with ideology.

 

[HempKat]

Yes...they DID make new regulations that the banks HAD to follow. MEANT for the inner cities...but EVERYONE "qualified" and we had the mess we had.

Nope, sorry, I'm not buying the twisted version of events you're trying to peddle. Sub prime loans were around for years and years without causing problems on the scale of the housing boom/bust. There is no force on the planet that can make the banks loan money if they don't want to. If there was you wouldn't have folks with near perfect credit and make plenty of money, getting turned down for loans. Much of the economic troubles we have experienced after the housing bubble burst was because banks stopped making loans to companies that required the loans to make payroll. Loans they had made for years and years with the same companies and now suddenly they stopped. The fact of the matter is nobody can force the banks to give out money they don't want to give out. As for your good articles, well lets see the first one is from a guy who used to be for CRV before a few blogs and messages from unnamed individuals caused him to change his mind. The second article blames the Government for causing the problem but then cites how it was actually people who worked for non government groups and community organizations that were actually pressuring the banks to do anything. Ironically the government did cause the problem and in exactly the opposite way of what you think. They removed regulations that had kept things in check since even before CRV was established and then acted surprised when the banks went crazy with it.

Wow...it was easy to get you to throw that race card. It must really suck to have that as your only excuse over and over. Everything wrong in this country is because white people are racists? Got it...thanks!

Stop trying to guess motivations, I called you racist because ever since you got in this thread a half dozen or so pages ago you've made racist comments and arguements. I have no clue as to what color your skin is. I assume white now because of what you said here but trust me, you shit for brains redneck, there are racists of every color out there but like most white racists you think you're the only ones that matter or count. Nor is you being a racist an excuse. Excuse for what? What really sucks and what I do have to do over and over is accept that there are ignorant fucks like you in the world.

His "version" really IS quite accurate...

Quit watching the network "news" quit reading the MSM newspapers...they're all servants of TPTB. They're all owned by TPTB. They ALL lie! Or worse...don't mention it at all!

Oh really? So how come congress had to go back to the drawing board when Bush first proposed T.A.R.P. It was because politicians were afraid of losing their jobs because an unprecedented number of taxpayers were saying no to it and that they would make sure their representatives did not get re-elected. The banks did not have the luxury at the time of "Knowing" the taxpayers would bail them out. Maybe folks like Paulson were telling them that and since he was one of them they believed it but at the time the lending was going on what the taxpayer would do was an unknown quantity. That's why they had to float that "too big to fail" boat to try to convince the taxpayers to go along with their plans.

Why don't we hear ANYTHING from Japan any more? Those nuke reactors are STILL uncovered and spewing radioactive particles...why the silence? Because TPTB want it silenced! I've noticed the "news" lately is nothing but "fluff" stories. Stories about people...not about things happening. Japan turns into a nuclear wasteland and what do we get? Wiener sending a few pictures through tweet...some stupid bitch killed her kid so she could party...which "bought off" Republican candidate is going to run against Obama.

It's misdirection. Look over here...not over there. Remain ignorant and calm...go back to your chips and TV...we'll take care of everything.

I hear plenty of news about Japan, then again though I don't go looking for news by channel surfing or opening my browser to my MSN homepage like you apparently do judging by the stories you think everyone else is getting. Perhaps you've convinced yourself they all lie so much that this is the only sort of crap that makes it thru to you but trust me there's plenty of news out there about Japan if you go look for it rather then being a typical lazy redneck that thinks he's got it all figgered out.

I think YOU HempKat are the perfect example of brainwashing. You seem to believe EVERYTHING that "they" tell you. Everything you defend...is a lie. The government DID make the banks give those loans...it really did!

No it really didn't, the government started CRV back in the 70's. It wasn't until Alan Greenspan encouraged banks to take advantage of the sub prime market about 20 years later, that you started to see ads like "No Money?, No Job?, No Credit? No problem!" When confronted about the situation after it all went to shit Greenspan basically said that he never expected the banks to be irresponsible about it. Also what makes your claims of regulations forcing the banks to do things is that at the time it was all starting to fall apart there were alot of politicians and economists callng for more regulations to force the banks to not give out such risky loans. Of course he and all the bank regulators resisted such demands stating they felt that regulations were no better at controlling things then the free markets.

You talk about brainwashing and yet here you are throwing out all the usual arguments "You can't trust the MSM" "They All Lie" "The Banks were victims of liberals who forced them to give loans to *insert favorite racist term here*". Get a clue and or learn at least a little of what you're talking about before you open your mouth and reveal to all what a moron you are.

 

[SpasticGramps]

I would have to say this is a mischaracterization of what happened. The banks didn't know at the time that the taxpayer would cover the losses. What they knew was that the derivatives being made from these loans was putting the responsibility on others. The end result is the same but it didn't happen quite the way you are describing, which is a shame since your version fits so nicely with your own personal view of things.

I would have to say you are being naive. The precedent of bailout had already been set decades earlier. To say the banks didn't know and don't know that their losses are ultimately backstopped by taxpayers is incredibly naive.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I did hear talk of too-big-to-fail prior to the collapse. I just think it's interesting that Dick Fuld was shorted into bankruptcy before the bailout. Somebody knew the shit was about to sling and got rid of one potential bail out recipient.

 

[joeuser]

I would have to say you are being naive. The precedent of bailout had already been set decades earlier. To say the banks didn't know and don't know that their losses are ultimately backstopped by taxpayers is incredibly naive.

He hasn't realized yet that all our talk is moot...the bankers, the government, multinational corporations, they're ALL run by the same people. If the banks need to be bailed out...they will...because, "they" have placed well paid politicians in the right places. The banks got bailed out REGARDLESS of what the voters wanted because they were TOLD to bail them out. So what if there are new people voted in next time...they will work for the banks and corporation too...that's HOW they get elected. We don't VOTE...we choose between 2 or 3 paid shills that they offer to us. We don't actually PICK anyone.

Business and government are the same thing with different names. One helps the other. They both take from the taxpayer.

Take Obama for example...what was his preelection rhetoric? Close Gitmo, out of Iraq, Afghanistan...what do we have? All that plus, the Patriot Act signed AGAIN, another shooting war, 2 more on the horizion, and twice as in debt as when he got there...PLUS his health care program, adding 20-40 million to the roles, hasn't really started yet!

Hemp:

Yes...CRV was created in the 70s...because of redlining. Banks would NOT lend in those areas. Because they KNEW it would be a loss. CRV eventually reversed that to ACTIVELY promoting loans to inner city poor. Once THAT was opened up...no job, no credit, no income...ANYONE could get a loan...even a "white deadbeat". They just lied on their application and the bank took it. ALL these sub prime loans ended up with fannie guarantees. The banks knew they were holding shit...but they WERE government backed. So, the banks sold them. To other countries and pension funds. When the gas got too high, when the resets started, the monthly payments stopped, the banks couldn't make good on their payments, and everything seized up. Fed money was needed to get it going. It's STILL pumping in money and buying it's own bonds. All that is supposed to stop in 9 trading days. 1 July, Friday, is the FIRST day since last year that the treasury will have to sell it's bonds "for real". Without a shill bank buyer. We'll see what happens. We're at the point where we can't bring in enough tax money to service an ever expanding national debt. China won't buy them, Japan won't buy them, Europe won't buy them...and if they do, they'll be using "made from thin air money" to do it. It's all a huge "debt farce" that has (thanks to the end of CHEAP energy) ended...there isn't enough growth to keep expanding exponentially. I'm curious (and for the most part prepared) to see what happens. Will we fall into a depression as Greece starts the collapse cascade. I think the "rabbit we pull from our hat" will be a big...WWIII?...ME war over oil to give us that cheap energy we need. It fits in with the "Muslims are evil" we've been taught...

Anyway... For the most part, it DID work...until...GASOLINE shot up to $5 a gallon...followed by ARM resets and gas at $3 a gallon. These people were BARELY able to scrape by before and with the cost of energy and it's associated inflation...they couldn't make their payments. It started the death spiral in the financial industry. With the poor not making their payments, the banks couldn't service THEIR debt, and it all crashed. A Ponzi works as long as everyone keeps playing.

Congress DID have to intervene. But maybe we should have let it go, the tension is STILL there...and it's worse now.

But the bottom line still stands...government made the banks lend money to inner city poor. If you don't think the Fed can MAKE a bank lend money...you don't know much about the Mafia then.

Ask the last IMF boss what happens when you think about crossing TPTB even higher up the pole. The guy was tried, convicted, and sentenced before he go on that plane. He was removed...and in a much nicer way than some others.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

nothing in comments proves what's posted unless posts are associated with fact

what constitutes fact? - congressional act or alternative definition? applied to - government made the banks lend money to inner city poor

 

[SpasticGramps]

I did hear talk of too-big-to-fail prior to the collapse. I just think it's interesting that Dick Fuld was shorted into bankruptcy before the bailout. Somebody knew the shit was about to sling and got rid of one potential bail out recipient.

When the petty bourgeoisie start going down you know something is up.

Although not spoken of much it's common knowledge now on CNBC and Bloomberg and around the financial world that the Fed is intervening in the markets. They really have been since post 1987 and the creation of the President's Working Group. Also known as The Plunge Protection Team. How much is of course conjecture, but it's also pretty well known that rigged markets never end well.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The Plunge Projection Team! LMAO I imagine four old white guys and a plunger, that must be the sucking sound Ross was talking about.

I know... sorry times, sorry jokes.

 

[Hydrosun]

The Plunge Projection Team! LMAO I imagine four old white guys and a plunger, that must be the sucking sound Ross was talking about.

I know... sorry times, sorry jokes.

Imagine as you will but these clowns exist and work for your best interests

 

[SpasticGramps]

The Plunge Projection Team! LMAO I imagine four old white guys and a plunger, that must be the sucking sound Ross was talking about.

I know... sorry times, sorry jokes.

I laughed my ass off when I first heard that too. I do a lot of laughing rather than crying these days. It's how I dealt with my cancer and it's how I deal with watching this coming trainwreck.

Here's some info on the President's Working Group.

Working Group on Financial Markets Wkipedia

The Working Group on Financial Markets (also, President's Working Group on Financial Markets, the Working Group, and colloquially the Plunge Protection Team) was created by Executive Order 12631,[1] signed on March 18, 1988 by United States President Ronald Reagan.
The Group was established explicitly in response to events in the financial markets surrounding October 19, 1987 ("Black Monday") to give recommendations for legislative and private sector solutions for "enhancing the integrity, efficiency, orderliness, and competitiveness of [United States] financial markets and maintaining investor confidence".[1]
As established by Executive Order 12631, the Working Group consists of:
The Secretary of the Treasury, or his designee (as Chairman of the Working Group);
The Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or his designee;
The Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or his designee; and
The Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or his designee.

"Plunge Protection Team" was originally the headline for an article in The Washington Post on February 23, 1997,[2] and has since become a colloquial term used by some mainstream publications to refer to the Working Group.[3][4] Initially, the term was used to express the opinion that the Working Group was being used to prop up the markets during downturns.[5][6] Financial writers for British newspapers The Observer and The Daily Telegraph, along with U.S. Congressman Ron Paul and writers Kevin Phillips (who claims “no personal firsthand knowledge” and is “not interested in becoming a conspiracy investigator”)[7] and John Crudele,[8] have charged the Working Group with going beyond their legal mandate. Claims about the Working Group, which are labeled conspiracy theories by some writers, generally include that it is an orchestrated mechanism that attempts to manipulate U.S. stock markets in the event of a market crash by using government funds to buy stocks, or other instruments such as stock index futures—acts which are forbidden by law. In August 2005, Sprott Asset Management released a report that argued that there is little doubt that the PPT intervened to protect the stock market.[9] However, these articles usually refer to the Working Group using moral suasion to attempt to convince banks to buy stock index futures.[10]
Former Federal Reserve Board member Robert Heller, in the Wall Street Journal, opined that "Instead of flooding the entire economy with liquidity, and thereby increasing the danger of inflation, the Fed could support the stock market directly by buying market averages in the futures market, thereby stabilizing the market as a whole." His statement has been used to claim that the Fed actually did act in that way. Mainstream analysts call those claims a conspiracy theory, explaining that such claims are simplistic and unworkable.[11][12]

On 06 October 2008, the working group issued a statement indicating that it was taking multiple actions available to it in order to attempt to stabilize the financial system, although purchase of stock shares was not part of the statement.[13] The government may wind up owning shares in the firms to which it has provided loans, as they will receive warrants as collateral for these loans.

They still haven't gotten out of the markets yet because the crisis never really went away. Trying to paper over everything only makes the inevitable that much more destructive.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Can't hide from systemic insolvency.

UK banks abandon eurozone over Greek default fears
UK banks have pulled billions of pounds of funding from the eurozone as fears grow about the impact of a “Lehman-style” event connected to a Greek default.

Senior sources have revealed that leading banks, including Barclays and Standard Chartered, have radically reduced the amount of unsecured lending they are prepared to make available to eurozone banks, raising the prospect of a new credit crunch for the European banking system.
Standard Chartered is understood to have withdrawn tens of billions of pounds from the eurozone inter-bank lending market in recent months and cut its overall exposure by two-thirds in the past few weeks as it has become increasingly worried about the finances of other European banks.
Barclays has also cut its exposure in recent months as senior managers have become increasingly concerned about developments among banks with large exposures to the troubled European countries Greece, Ireland, Spain, Italy and Portugal.
In its interim management statement, published in April, Barclays reported a wholesale exposure to Spain of £6.4bn, compared with £7.2bn last June, while its exposure to Italy has fallen by more than £100m.
One source said it was “inevitable” that British banks would look to minimise their potential losses in the event the eurozone crisis were to get worse. “Everyone wants to ensure that they are not badly affected by the crisis,” said one bank executive.

Moves by stronger banks to cut back their lending to weaker banks is reminiscent of the build-up to the financial crisis in 2008, when the refusal of banks to lend to one another led to a
seizing-up of the markets that eventually led to the collapse of several major banks and taxpayer bail-outs of many more.
While the funding position of UK banks is far stronger now than it was back in 2008, the banking systems of several other major European countries, including Spain, Germany and Italy, are showing increasing signs of weakness.
Analysts at UBS have warned that eurozone banks are “particularly exposed” having not done enough since the crisis to cut their reliance on the wholesale funding markets and remain acutely sensitive to the withdrawal of liquidity from the inter-bank market.
Simon Adamson, a banks analyst at CreditSights, said it was clear many eurozone banks had been having trouble funding themselves for several months.
“Clearly there are some banks that are finding it difficult to access markets. I think this is a long term sign of the way the markets are going,” he said.
Spanish banks have become the main focus of market concerns with the latest European Central Bank (ECB) figures showing that Spanish banks have been forced to increase their use of ECB lending facilities and borrowed a total of €58bn (£51bn) in May, up from €44bn in April.
“We have been amazed at the ability of Spanish banks to find ways to fund themselves, but it is clear they are running out of options,” said one senior analyst at a major investment bank.

 

[HempKat]

I would have to say you are being naive. The precedent of bailout had already been set decades earlier. To say the banks didn't know and don't know that their losses are ultimately backstopped by taxpayers is incredibly naive.

I'd say they know now but they didn't know for sure back then. Just because something similar happened before does not mean it will happen again and in this case it almost didn't happen. Frankly, IMO it only happened this time because Obama came onboard with it and the public was having such a love affair with him at the time that they bought it, hook, line and sinker. Call it naive but that's refusing to face the facts, if bailouts were such a sure thing then what about Lehman Brothers? What about Merrill Lynch & Company?