4 ms·

You are correct that it lionizes prosecutors and demonizes Wall Street. The article keeps shifting focus way too much - first it's about Galleon, then about Pre

by dr_ 15y ago

You are correct that it lionizes prosecutors and demonizes Wall Street. The article keeps shifting focus way too much - first it's about Galleon, then about Preet, then the financial crisis, and it ends with a comment about Goldman Sachs, with some implied cynicism on the part of the author. I'm not sure if the blame should be put on Clinton/Bush for pushing affordable housing however. At the end of the day, no one forced people to purchase a home beyond their means, just like no one forced people to purchase stocks during the late 90's tech bubble. It's a decision people made on their own.

shareme 15y ago
incorrect..sir.. When the regulatory bodies allow a no-doc loan for a house to be entered into by the consumer they are in-fact complicit in fraud.. Uniform Commercial Code already implies that such a loan as a contract is extremely leaning towards fraud. The biggest entities involved Bank lobbyists encouraging others to look the other way rather than enforce laws and rules laready on the books
- mdda 15y ago
  This makes no sense. A no-doc loan is precisely that. If an applicant chooses to lie, the government is not responsible. If your claim is that the applicants are being encouraged to commit fraud (by their local mortgage broker), then the government should start with regulating mortgage brokers. That's where the rot started. While it's natural for politicians to point fingers at their opponents, or the Wall Street bogeymen, the reality is that neither party caused the massive run-up in housing prices, and nor did Goldman Sachs.
prodigal_erik 15y ago
Some people bought houses they couldn't afford because they were betting on a quick sale at an appreciated value to bail them out (and for a while they got away with it). But some people literally didn't understand that their mortgage payments were going to skyrocket after the "teaser" rate expired in a few years, nor that the fast-talking broker actually expected them to default but had perverse incentives to offer them a stupid deal anyway.

by dr_ 15y ago

shareme 15y ago

incorrect..sir.. When the regulatory bodies allow a no-doc loan for a house to be entered into by the consumer they are in-fact complicit in fraud.. Uniform Commercial Code already implies that such a loan as a contract is extremely leaning towards fraud. The biggest entities involved Bank lobbyists encouraging others to look the other way rather than enforce laws and rules laready on the books

mdda 15y ago
This makes no sense. A no-doc loan is precisely that. If an applicant chooses to lie, the government is not responsible. If your claim is that the applicants are being encouraged to commit fraud (by their local mortgage broker), then the government should start with regulating mortgage brokers. That's where the rot started. While it's natural for politicians to point fingers at their opponents, or the Wall Street bogeymen, the reality is that neither party caused the massive run-up in housing prices, and nor did Goldman Sachs.

prodigal_erik 15y ago

Some people bought houses they couldn't afford because they were betting on a quick sale at an appreciated value to bail them out (and for a while they got away with it). But some people literally didn't understand that their mortgage payments were going to skyrocket after the "teaser" rate expired in a few years, nor that the fast-talking broker actually expected them to default but had perverse incentives to offer them a stupid deal anyway.