Should the bankers and wall street crooks who caused 2008 crisis be punished?

But banks can't do this? They're FORCED by the government to do something that the government makes optional?

Those banks weren't forced to do anything. They were given positive incentives. If that's not voluntary, then nothing in capitalism is voluntary.

 

What? They...huh? Worst simile (I guess it would be) ever. Totally baffling.
I'm not even complaining about the opinion because I'm not sure what it is.
Undecipherable. Amazing.

 

The Fact is that the government backed toxic loans that caused the crisis. Had the mortgage companies been on their own, you would not have seen this crisis, period.

 

It is only optional in the sense that they had the option to fail, or to make sub-prime loans. It isn't voluntary because it isn't free-market capitalism, to reward bad behavior.

ARMs weren't the problem. The bubble was caused by an increase in demand of homes, because of the CRA. Without the bubble parties which back out of an ARM loan, can simply sell their home and be done with it. With the bubble, they are in debt when they sell their home for a lower price. The CRA is the problem, not the ARMs.

It is that simple, we have been making ARMS CDS and all other investment strategies for 100 years or more in some cases. They never before have caused a bubble. The only way to cause a bubble is to affect the demand or supply of a product (loans), the government created artificial demand by encouraging the sell of mortgages to people who cannot pay for them. The dotcom bubble was increased demand from fraudulant advertising. The great depression was a shortage in food supply from the dustbowl and bad farming practices.

 

The death penalty is a little extreme of a punishment for death. But they definitely should do time. But the logic of the Obama Administration is to bail them out with taxpayer money and appoint them to powerful positions in government/The Fed

 

The government will never go after them because the government is complicit in their criminality. Indeed, without the government, they couldn't have done what they did in the first place.

 

That's not my problem.

 

Well it's not my coded message of a post so it's certainly not mine either. Just pointed it out to see if you wanted to clarify. It seems even you are not interested in your own posts.

 

actually, there really was no "housing crisis".
The banking crisis was precipitated by small percentage losses to banks that were highly leveraged on derivatized products based on the original mortgages, as well as US treasuries.
In 2008, 5 US banks alone held over $200T in dollar based derivatives products on their books, the bulk of which were interest rate swaps and CDS's. This can be verified by the office of the comptroller on their web site. By coincidence, the number has grown form $500T to $600T globally since 2008, verified by the BIS

We have been printing trillions to prevent the collapse of these highly leveraged corporations. Corporatism at its finest.

 

Worldwide economic collapse a better alternative to you?

 

oh great. The leftist government is encouraging death and destruction against the wealthy and people who WORK on wall street. NOT THEMSELVES...THE REAL culprits. GREAT South American Revolutions! people NEVER learn from history....especially when they don't know it.

 

chicken little anyone ?

 

Bingo sir.

 

Just pointing out, I believe, the ultra high level extortion inherent in propping up massive financial institutions with taxpayer money in order to insulate those institutions from their own mistakes, stupidity and hyper greed.
We are set to do the same with Europe again (just like the last round of TARP where our money went to bail out European banks and financial houses).

 

well head back to Europe. Personally, i am hoping that there are some americans that won't stand for this.

 

So we should prop them up every time their greed gets the better of them, and Their misdeeds affects us all?

 

"If you don't forward this letter to twenty friends, Bob Crane's ghost will hunt you down and kill you!"

 

Right along with Obama for suing banks, Cuomo for pushing the issue and all the Democrats that fought regulation of Fannie and Freddie 2003 to 2005.

 

Yes, we must give trillions to fraudulent bankers, so that their bankrupt companies can save us.

If we must bail them out with public money, why do the companies remain private ? Why are their assets and control of their companies not immediately seized by the public, and the crooks thrown out on the street, or better yet, in jail ? Do we really need the same individuals that bankrupted the most powerful entities in the world to be in charge of running them now ?

 

On the contrary. For any suggestion that the deficit problem in the US can be part met by corporations paying their way, as is done in most western countries, seems to place you on suicide watch.

 

Because what everyone defines as "crooks" is no such legal thing. Most people weren't even aware what kind of "(*)(*)(*)(*)ty deals" they were buying. There is no legal crime for stupidly melting down the world economy. These guys didn't "hustle" or rob anyone. Since when is giving a home loan to someone, and then suffering severe economic consequences when millions of those loans default all at once a crime?

 

they still bankrupted their companies, and therefore deserve to be broke, not retaining one asset or one ounce of control.

 

Did they break a law?

In the US, profits are the name of the game. They were doing what they were supposed to do.

It did not turn out well for us this time, so we want to punish them?

 

This one comes back to the forum every so often. It was those evil "predatory lenders" not the people who signed up for these loans in the first place!

This sort of thinking very clearly shows the liberal mindset at it's finest. In 2003 I went to a bank to secure a loan for a mortgage, just like so many others. Because I have very good credit, I was offered $500,000 for a home loan. I can remember just laughing, and said I only needed a very small fraction of that, and there is no way I could pay off a $500,000 loan on the salary that I was making!

Now the liberal mind says that most people are simply too stupid to know what they are doing, and just like children, if they are offered "too much candy" they will eat it all untill they get sick. So in their minds since most people are so easily led astray, then it was obviously the bankers fault for giving them "too much money". Somehow none of the people that took out these loans are responsible for their own actions. I guess I just look at things a bit differently.

If you want to say that these people are not smart enough to make decisions like this for themselves, then why are they still allowed to drive a car, have children, vote, drink, own fire arms, or engage in any of the other things that only "adults" are supposed to be able to do in life?

To be classified as an "adult", it means that you are responsible for your actions, and you have the mental ability to plan your way through life for yourself. Being an adult means that you will make mistakes (we all do), but you will take the responsibility for your bad decisions. It is not possible in the "real world" to be a "partial" adult. You either can mentally take care of yourself and make your own decisions, or you are classified as someone who has some form of mental disability, and in that case you need someone to help you make decisions for yourself.

I guess the thing that I find confusing about this sort of mindset, is the conflict of thought, that says that these people that took out loans that they could never afford are still responsible and competant as adults, in all of the other facets of their lives. I do not think I have ever heard of a mental condition in which a person would be considered mentally incompetant in one area, but yet in all other areas is considered to be a person of average intelligence. I guess I do not see how that can work.

I agree that if someone is of low enough intelligence, they should not be allowed to make their own decisions. Just like children are not allowed to decide what are good financial investments. They obviously mentally cannot do it. Would it be appropriate to have to take a financial literacy test before being allowed to take out a loan? To prove that you are mentally competant before a bank can legally give you a loan? I guess there are certain assumptions that I would make about people that are over 25 that I would tend to believe. Like they are at the point in their lives where mentally, emotionally, finacially, then can handle being a homeowner. I might be wrong here... but this was my thought process anyway...

 

I would like them to reap the fruits of their own labor.

Last I heard though, fraud is a crime, and the regulators that turned a blind eye are accessories.