Liberal Forum

ScottMon » 13 Mar 2023, 3:18 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2023, 3:18 pm

newsweek /trump-era-roll-back-bank-regulations-resurfaces-amid-svb-collapse-1787112
 

I heard trump sneaked into the white house and prevented biden from fixing his **** up.

I heard it from the same source that said your mama is a hor. 

Do you feel that source is reliable, goomer?
 

Huey » 13 Mar 2023, 5:21 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2023, 5:21 pm

And Biden had the House and The Senate for two years.  What did he do?

Don't try to slide the blame off on the selected leader! It's citizen Trump, I tell ya - he wouldn't LET Biden change **** back!
 

Cannonpointer » 13 Mar 2023, 5:36 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2023, 5:36 pm

Oh, the FDIC is actually pretty well run, I believe. They manage risk quite well - when congress doesn't **** in their gravy bowl.

During the half century of FDR's game rules, which ended during the reagan years, there were ZERO bank failures that could not be handled in house, by the FDC, with the nation's banks' own funds. It wasn't until reagan's second term that we had the first PUBLIC bailout of banks in over fifty years, which was engineered by the bush clinton crime family under the new rules - which we are still under - commonly referred to as reaganomics and/or trickledown economics and/or supply side economic and/or conjob ***. That was the whitewater savings and loan fiasco - not the first great crime of the bush clinton crime family (see the pulitzer winning san jose mercury news' investigative report showing oliver north was the point man in smuggling medellin cartel coke into the states by the cargo-plan-load, which the CIA taught los angeles nigs to turn into crack). 

@Skans  the bolded part is in answer to your curiosity about what I might POSSIBLY see good in FDR.

The world's largest middle class in history occurred under his game rules, and has eroded steadily under reagan's - which are still in effect.

@SJConspirator  are you at least going to tell me WHY you reddied the post?

When I saw the reddie, I looked for the rebuttal...
 

This liberal douche bag bank handed out bonuses just before going under. WTF.

Cannonpointer » 13 Mar 2023, 5:36 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2023, 5:36 pm

Oh, the FDIC is actually pretty well run, I believe. They manage risk quite well - when congress doesn't **** in their gravy bowl.

During the half century of FDR's game rules, which ended during the reagan years, there were ZERO bank failures that could not be handled in house, by the FDC, with the nation's banks' own funds. It wasn't until reagan's second term that we had the first PUBLIC bailout of banks in over fifty years, which was engineered by the bush clinton crime family under the new rules - which we are still under - commonly referred to as reaganomics and/or trickledown economics and/or supply side economic and/or conjob ***. That was the whitewater savings and loan fiasco - not the first great crime of the bush clinton crime family (see the pulitzer winning san jose mercury news' investigative report showing oliver north was the point man in smuggling medellin cartel coke into the states by the cargo-plan-load, which the CIA taught los angeles nigs to turn into crack). 

@Skans  the bolded part is in answer to your curiosity about what I might POSSIBLY see good in FDR.

The world's largest middle class in history occurred under his game rules, and has eroded steadily under reagan's - which are still in effect.

Let the computer explain it to detractors a little more for you:
The Glass-Steagall Act (also known as the Banking Act of 1933) was a law passed in response to the Great Depression that sought to prevent commercial banks from engaging in investment banking activities or vice versa. The act separated the two activities, creating a division between commercial banks that hold customer deposits and make loans, and investment banks that engage in underwriting, trading, and other investment activities.However, during the Clinton administration, there was a push to deregulate the financial industry, which led to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. This repeal removed the barriers between commercial and investment banking, allowing financial institutions to engage in a wider range of activities.The consequences of this deregulation were significant. Banks became too big to fail, and the risks they could take increased, leading to the 2008 financial crisis. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act allowed banks to engage in risky investments, which caused them to collapse and ultimately required government bailouts to prevent the entire financial system from crumbling. The problems of deregulation highlight the need for strong regulatory oversight to safeguard the economy and prevent widespread financial collapse.
 
 
 

This response surprised me. According to the computer again:

Silicon Valley Bank did not fail due to deregulation. In fact, deregulation during the 1980s and 1990s led to an increase in competition and innovation in the banking industry, including the emergence of specialized banks like Silicon Valley Bank that focused on serving the technology industry.
The failure of Silicon Valley Bank would have been likely caused by other factors such as poor management, risky lending practices, or economic downturns that impacted the technology sector. In reality, however, Silicon Valley Bank has not failed and continues to operate successfully as a leading provider of financial services to the innovation and technology industry.

The computer seems to be really sure that SVB did not collapse. I'm not going to do that internet research.

Monderegal » 13 Mar 2023, 6:13 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2023, 6:13 pm

Let the computer explain it to detractors a little more for you:
The Glass-Steagall Act (also known as the Banking Act of 1933) was a law passed in response to the Great Depression that sought to prevent commercial banks from engaging in investment banking activities or vice versa. The act separated the two activities, creating a division between commercial banks that hold customer deposits and make loans, and investment banks that engage in underwriting, trading, and other investment activities.However, during the Clinton administration, there was a push to deregulate the financial industry, which led to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. This repeal removed the barriers between commercial and investment banking, allowing financial institutions to engage in a wider range of activities.The consequences of this deregulation were significant. Banks became too big to fail, and the risks they could take increased, leading to the 2008 financial crisis. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act allowed banks to engage in risky investments, which caused them to collapse and ultimately required government bailouts to prevent the entire financial system from crumbling. The problems of deregulation highlight the need for strong regulatory oversight to safeguard the economy and prevent widespread financial collapse.

Thank you for that contribution. 

I do not know precisely which deregulation(s) of Carter's and Reagan's allowed the collapse of the whitewater S&L beyond the capacity of the FDIC to cover its losses, but I DO know that even BEFORE the repeal of glass steagall, there were deregulatory measures which allowed for the raiding of whitewater by the bush-clinton crime machine. Carter and Reagan shat on the FDIC's gravy bowl, and before Reagan was even able to slink away from the crime, it blossomed into a multi-billion dollar taking by his VP's family.

Monderegal » 13 Mar 2023, 6:17 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2023, 6:17 pm

This response surprised me. According to the computer again:

Silicon Valley Bank did not fail due to deregulation. In fact, deregulation during the 1980s and 1990s led to an increase in competition and innovation in the banking industry, including the emergence of specialized banks like Silicon Valley Bank that focused on serving the technology industry.
The failure of Silicon Valley Bank would have been likely caused by other factors such as poor management, risky lending practices,

Not to put too fine a point on it, but these thngs? ^

They're covered under regulation/deregulation.

Monderegal » 13 Mar 2023, 6:17 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2023, 6:17 pm

or economic downturns that impacted the technology sector. In reality, however, Silicon Valley Bank has not failed and continues to operate successfully as a leading provider of financial services to the innovation and technology industry.

The computer seems to be really sure that SVB did not collapse. I'm not going to do that internet research.

You don't have to search the whole internet.

Just hack Jim Cramer's computor - there's your daisy.

PhiloBeddo » 13 Mar 2023, 6:09 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2023, 6:09 pm

This liberal douche bag bank handed out bonuses just before going under. WTF.

TRUST ME - conservative douch bag banks will absolutely do the same thing in the same circumstance.   
 

Cannonpointer » 13 Mar 2023, 6:43 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2023, 6:43 pm

Just hack Jim Cramer's computor - there's your daisy.

You know there actually is a mutual fund that invests in the opposite of what Jim Kramer recommends. I hear it's also doing well.

Cannonpointer » 13 Mar 2023, 5:36 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2023, 5:36 pm

Oh, the FDIC is actually pretty well run, I believe. They manage risk quite well - when congress doesn't **** in their gravy bowl.

During the half century of FDR's game rules, which ended during the reagan years, there were ZERO bank failures that could not be handled in house, by the FDC, with the nation's banks' own funds. It wasn't until reagan's second term that we had the first PUBLIC bailout of banks in over fifty years, which was engineered by the bush clinton crime family under the new rules - which we are still under - commonly referred to as reaganomics and/or trickledown economics and/or supply side economic and/or conjob ***. That was the whitewater savings and loan fiasco - not the first great crime of the bush clinton crime family (see the pulitzer winning san jose mercury news' investigative report showing oliver north was the point man in smuggling medellin cartel coke into the states by the cargo-plan-load, which the CIA taught los angeles nigs to turn into crack). 

@Skans  the bolded part is in answer to your curiosity about what I might POSSIBLY see good in FDR.

The world's largest middle class in history occurred under his game rules, and has eroded steadily under reagan's - which are still in effect.

I really have no objection to the FDIC.  It was a decent solution to a grave problem - bank runs and bank failures. In 2007-2008 I recall there being some bank failures, i.e. some that didn't get bailed out.  The FDIC did as they were commissioned to do, make sure depositors got paid. Of course, it took time and they didn't get any interest, but that's better than getting nothing.
 

ScottMon » 13 Mar 2023, 3:18 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2023, 3:18 pm

newsweek /trump-era-roll-back-bank-regulations-resurfaces-amid-svb-collapse-1787112

no spam

Silicon is (was) a conservative bank that did everything the monetary interventionists (regulators) wanted.  These are the same gov bozos who told banks and everyone that inflation would be temporary.  

Monderegal » 13 Mar 2023, 6:53 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2023, 6:53 pm

You know there actually is a mutual fund that invests in the opposite of what Jim Kramer recommends. I hear it's also doing well.

The big question is, "Why does Kramer still have a job after pushing such a bad investment, and does the Biden administration feed him with the wokeness they want desperately to promote like they did with twitter?

Maybe he'll do his show today covered in tar and feathers, as he should be!
 

Skans » 14 Mar 2023, 7:46 am » wrote: ↑

14 Mar 2023, 7:46 am

I really have no objection to the FDIC.  It was a decent solution to a grave problem - bank runs and bank failures. In 2007-2008 I recall there being some bank failures, i.e. some that didn't get bailed out.  The FDIC did as they were commissioned to do, make sure depositors got paid. Of course, it took time and they didn't get any interest, but that's better than getting nothing.

Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail in the Great Recession as it is called by scholars. From my understanding SVB has been seized by regulators.

"During the Great Recession of 2008-09, several banks and financial institutions were allowed to fail or declared bankruptcy. Some of the notable ones include:

1. Lehman Brothers: It was the fourth-largest investment bank in the US before it filed for bankruptcy in September 2008.
2. Washington Mutual: It was the largest savings and loan association in the United States before it was seized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in September 2008.
3. IndyMac: It was one of the largest savings and loan associations in the US before it was seized by the FDIC in 2008.
4. Bear Stearns: It was a global investment bank and securities trading and brokerage firm that was acquired by JPMorgan Chase in March 2008.
5. Countrywide Financial: It was a mortgage lending company that was acquired by Bank of America in 2008.

These failures and bankruptcies were widely seen as a major factor in triggering the financial crisis that led to the Great Recession."
 

sootedupCyndi » 12 Mar 2023, 12:12 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Mar 2023, 12:12 pm

They say its expected on the large banks.  The dow will tank and the fed Plunge Patrol will come in-- and save da day.
Don't sweat it. But it may be a fun morning. LOL

lots of interest money for people with cash. bankruptcies help push up interest rates. 3 month cd's jump from a fraction up to 4% and 5%. this will increase spending. bigger demands causes inflation to creep up. couple that with the feds desire to increase inflation. and look at compounding. 14% interest within 3 years. home prices crashing over 40%. massive firing. hobos lining the streets in cardboard tents. looks exciting.

walkingstick » 14 Mar 2023, 9:31 am » wrote: ↑

14 Mar 2023, 9:31 am

lots of interest money for people with cash. bankruptcies help push up interest rates. 3 month cd's jump from a fraction up to 4% and 5%. this will increase spending. bigger demands causes inflation to creep up. couple that with the feds desire to increase inflation. and look at compounding. 14% interest within 3 years. home prices crashing over 40%. massive firing. hobos lining the streets in cardboard tents. looks exciting.

I don't even care about  getting a teeny bit of interest. I just want the little bit of my money- to remain mine.  
at this point. i do not trust anything they say or do. NOTHING.  
 

Monderegal » 14 Mar 2023, 9:05 am » wrote: ↑

14 Mar 2023, 9:05 am

Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail in the Great Recession as it is called by scholars. From my understanding SVB has been seized by regulators.

"During the Great Recession of 2008-09, several banks and financial institutions were allowed to fail or declared bankruptcy. Some of the notable ones include:

1. Lehman Brothers: It was the fourth-largest investment bank in the US before it filed for bankruptcy in September 2008.
2. Washington Mutual: It was the largest savings and loan association in the United States before it was seized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in September 2008.
3. IndyMac: It was one of the largest savings and loan associations in the US before it was seized by the FDIC in 2008.
4. Bear Stearns: It was a global investment bank and securities trading and brokerage firm that was acquired by JPMorgan Chase in March 2008.
5. Countrywide Financial: It was a mortgage lending company that was acquired by Bank of America in 2008.

These failures and bankruptcies were widely seen as a major factor in triggering the financial crisis that led to the Great Recession."

Countrywide Financial was a total piece of ****.  It NEEDED to fail and never come back from the dead. That bank was making loans to anything with a heartbeat, and maybe some without one.
 

Was Countrywide a piece of ****?
"As an AI language model, I cannot express opinions or use offensive language. However, Countrywide Mortgage was a mortgage lending company that had controversies surrounding unethical and fraudulent practices that led to the 2008 financial crisis."
 

PhiloBeddo » 13 Mar 2023, 6:09 pm » wrote: ↑

13 Mar 2023, 6:09 pm

This liberal douche bag bank handed out bonuses just before going under. WTF.

Probably to deal with the lawsuits. Heading a failed bank will easily land you in prison, no matter what you do with other peoples money. Rich people want their money back.

Trumprules » 14 Mar 2023, 10:20 pm » wrote: ↑

14 Mar 2023, 10:20 pm

Did these programs cause SVB’s collapse?
There’s no evidence that SVB’s sustainable investing or diversity initiatives contributed to its collapse.

Experts have instead pointed to a perfect storm of SVB’s significant holdings in U.S. Treasurys and the Federal Reserve’s interest rate hikes. As the Fed raised interest rates, SVB’s bond holdings became less valuable, and the bank sold Treasurys and mortgage-backed securities at a $1.8 billion loss. The disclosure sparked panic, with depositors pulling $42 billion from the bank on Thursday

you dont like pullout that is why you aids