2 ms·

> For example, Australia has quite strong financial regulation - much, much stronger than in the US and UK. This includes everything from higher ratios of capit

by anamax 16y ago

> For example, Australia has quite strong financial regulation - much, much stronger than in the US and UK. This includes everything from higher ratios of capital-to-loans required by the banks, to stricter laws around mortgages. You don't understand - the loose standards in the US for mortgages came from govt, not banks. > Anyway, some evidence that regulation can align the interests of the financial sector with the economy as a whole: You're assuming that govt is interested in the economy as a whole. I don't know about Australia, so I'll accept your assertion that the Australian govt is concerned about the economy as a whole, but the US govt isn't. And no, the Repubs aren't the worst culprits here. They're largely useless to moderately clueless, but they're not actively hostile.

nl 16y ago
You don't understand - the loose standards in the US for mortgages came from govt, not banks. Yes, I do understand that. In Australia (and in many other places) "sub-prime loans" were not made by banks because they are illegal. There have been occasional attempt by non-bank lenders to bring them in (eg, "low doc loans") but in every case the loopholes that allowed them were closed. You're assuming that govt is interested in the economy as a whole. I don't know about Australia, so I'll accept your assertion that the Australian govt is concerned about the economy as a whole, but the US govt isn't. That's quite a bold statement! How about some evidence? ;)
- anamax 16y ago
  >> You're assuming that govt is interested in the economy as a whole. I don't know about Australia, so I'll accept your assertion that the Australian govt is concerned about the economy as a whole, but the US govt isn't. > That's quite a bold statement! How about some evidence? ;) You quoted one bit "You don't understand - the loose standards in the US for mortgages came from govt, not banks." Another is regulatory "encouragement" for banks to hold fannie and freddie stock; that put them all at risk.

by anamax 16y ago

nl 16y ago

You don't understand - the loose standards in the US for mortgages came from govt, not banks. Yes, I do understand that. In Australia (and in many other places) "sub-prime loans" were not made by banks because they are illegal. There have been occasional attempt by non-bank lenders to bring them in (eg, "low doc loans") but in every case the loopholes that allowed them were closed. You're assuming that govt is interested in the economy as a whole. I don't know about Australia, so I'll accept your assertion that the Australian govt is concerned about the economy as a whole, but the US govt isn't. That's quite a bold statement! How about some evidence? ;)

anamax 16y ago
>> You're assuming that govt is interested in the economy as a whole. I don't know about Australia, so I'll accept your assertion that the Australian govt is concerned about the economy as a whole, but the US govt isn't. > That's quite a bold statement! How about some evidence? ;) You quoted one bit "You don't understand - the loose standards in the US for mortgages came from govt, not banks." Another is regulatory "encouragement" for banks to hold fannie and freddie stock; that put them all at risk.