5 ms·

The banks did cause it to happen. They had an insatiable appetite for mortgage backed securities and would shop credit rating agencies (who were newly public co

The banks did cause it to happen. They had an insatiable appetite for mortgage backed securities and would shop credit rating agencies (who were newly public companies) to get a AAA rating on total garbage they knew would explode. Municipalities and pension funds would buy AAA securities even though the originators and packagers of the mortgagers knew they were garbage. It was a big fraud caused by the bankers greed.

oihoaihsfoiahsf 8y ago
Yes, the banks were part of the cause. That is not in dispute, as you can see by reading my previous comments. But they would not have been able to commit their fraud without the aid of credulous buyers willing to purchase far more house than they could afford. That's all I'm saying.
- wiz21c 8y ago
  >>> without the aid of credulous buyers or with the aid of people with that necessary skill needed to convince regular people to do something only credulous people would do. What was the name of that skill,... hmm... isn't it "manipulation" or "marketing" ? You see, if someone's is going to make a mistake, I tend to help him by preventing him to do so. I don't give him the pen to sign its destiny.
  - oihoaihsfoiahsf 8y ago
    Y'all keep trying to explain the morality of what the banks and lenders did to me like I don't already know. I know. It's not good. That's irrelevant to the question of whether they were solely responsible.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- chadbaud 8y ago
  In a functioning market, a buyer would not have received a loan, no matter how much they wanted to over extend themselves. But, because fraud was being committed from the rating agencies, investment banks and mortgage originators, they got the loan. I understand what you saying, but I think you underestimate the lack of accountability that allowed people to get loans they were not in the best interest of anyone.
  - oihoaihsfoiahsf 8y ago
    I guess my thing is more of a reaction against paternalism and the infantilization of the public. I do think there need to be much more in the way of bank regulations. I don't think the public ought to absolve itself of all responsibility because of the absence of some regulations. I just don't think it's healthy or necessarily leads to better decisions being made in the future. I want an informed public, not a deluded one.
    - Applejinx 8y ago
      Statistically, you can't have that. No matter what you want, a sufficiently motivated conman will be able to find the dumbest person, for instance by the methodology used by Nigerian-prince scammers: put out bait that's bad, to pre-screen for people dumb enough to be that kind of deluded. Then you can say 'oh, that scam was so obvious that people ought to have seen through it!' but it was explicitly designed to be obvious because, statistically, THERE WILL be someone (perhaps a nice but foolish someone!) who does fall for it. Therefore, you can't have an informed public. Ever. It's a matter of how you handle the edge cases. We don't have rules making things like murder, etc. bad just because MOST people don't deserve to be straight-up murdered. We have them because it needs not to be too tempting to murder in those cases where the guy REALLY deserved it… it's inhibiting the potential murderer on general principles, not making value judgements on why to protect extremely deserving victims. This is not the case in the financial industry, and the consequences we pay for that might be pretty dire. In the financial industry they think they can say things like 'I want an informed public', and they think they can make entire business models on screwing deserving victims, and it's not really about the victims, it's about social pressure stopping people from being monstrous on general principles. And again, nothing at all stops bankers from being monstrous. Indeed, it's a survival characteristic: we select for that.

oihoaihsfoiahsf 8y ago

Yes, the banks were part of the cause. That is not in dispute, as you can see by reading my previous comments. But they would not have been able to commit their fraud without the aid of credulous buyers willing to purchase far more house than they could afford. That's all I'm saying.

wiz21c 8y ago
>>> without the aid of credulous buyers or with the aid of people with that necessary skill needed to convince regular people to do something only credulous people would do. What was the name of that skill,... hmm... isn't it "manipulation" or "marketing" ? You see, if someone's is going to make a mistake, I tend to help him by preventing him to do so. I don't give him the pen to sign its destiny.
- oihoaihsfoiahsf 8y ago
  Y'all keep trying to explain the morality of what the banks and lenders did to me like I don't already know. I know. It's not good. That's irrelevant to the question of whether they were solely responsible.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
chadbaud 8y ago
In a functioning market, a buyer would not have received a loan, no matter how much they wanted to over extend themselves. But, because fraud was being committed from the rating agencies, investment banks and mortgage originators, they got the loan. I understand what you saying, but I think you underestimate the lack of accountability that allowed people to get loans they were not in the best interest of anyone.
- oihoaihsfoiahsf 8y ago
  I guess my thing is more of a reaction against paternalism and the infantilization of the public. I do think there need to be much more in the way of bank regulations. I don't think the public ought to absolve itself of all responsibility because of the absence of some regulations. I just don't think it's healthy or necessarily leads to better decisions being made in the future. I want an informed public, not a deluded one.
  - Applejinx 8y ago
    Statistically, you can't have that. No matter what you want, a sufficiently motivated conman will be able to find the dumbest person, for instance by the methodology used by Nigerian-prince scammers: put out bait that's bad, to pre-screen for people dumb enough to be that kind of deluded. Then you can say 'oh, that scam was so obvious that people ought to have seen through it!' but it was explicitly designed to be obvious because, statistically, THERE WILL be someone (perhaps a nice but foolish someone!) who does fall for it. Therefore, you can't have an informed public. Ever. It's a matter of how you handle the edge cases. We don't have rules making things like murder, etc. bad just because MOST people don't deserve to be straight-up murdered. We have them because it needs not to be too tempting to murder in those cases where the guy REALLY deserved it… it's inhibiting the potential murderer on general principles, not making value judgements on why to protect extremely deserving victims. This is not the case in the financial industry, and the consequences we pay for that might be pretty dire. In the financial industry they think they can say things like 'I want an informed public', and they think they can make entire business models on screwing deserving victims, and it's not really about the victims, it's about social pressure stopping people from being monstrous on general principles. And again, nothing at all stops bankers from being monstrous. Indeed, it's a survival characteristic: we select for that.