Should Corporate Profits be Banned?

Tricky said:
Just a little historical reference for you: Neither Samuel Adams nor Patrick Henry fought in the Revolutionary War, or shed a drop of blood for their cause.
Click to expand...

Which is irrelevant to their historical standing as Patriots and not what I posted.
 
Robert Prey said:
False claims for cures for cancer are made all the time -- by the Cancer Establishment.
Click to expand...

You'll probably need another thread, possibly in the social issues forum, to answer this; but, what actual evidence do you have to support this assertion? For example, was Leatrile a creation of this "Cancer Establishment"?
 
Dancing David said:
Except for the fact that the vast majority, wait that's ALMOST ALL of the sub prime loans were generated by institutions not covered by the CRA, so dream on.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Banks not covered were nonetheless influenced by the acts and had to compete with the easy lending practices of banks that were covered.
 
TimCallahan said:
You'll probably need another thread, possibly in the social issues forum, to answer this; but, what actual evidence do you have to support this assertion? For example, was Leatrile a creation of this "Cancer Establishment"?
Click to expand...

I don't think so, but chemo, radiation and surgery are all of the Cancer Establishment and of dubious value, and in many cases a "cure" worse than the disease.
 
Robert Prey said:
I don't think so, but chemo, radiation and surgery are all of the Cancer Establishment and of dubious value, and in many cases a "cure" worse than the disease.
Click to expand...

You know, sometimes you post stuff that I agree with. But I always feel uncomfortable defending you even in those cases, because other times you say stuff like this which is not only wrong but completely divorced from reality. You did yourself no favors with this post.
 
Dancing David said:
Except for the fact that the vast majority, wait that's ALMOST ALL of the sub prime loans were generated by institutions not covered by the CRA, so dream on.
Click to expand...

It's not that simple. There were many banks which were not covered by the CRA but which wanted to be able to expand in the future. Under such conditions they could become subject to the CRA, and their past lending would then come under scrutiny. If they wanted to pass that future scrutiny, they should logically modify their then current behavior to meet its requirements even though those requirements were not yet in place. So the CRA did affect the behavior of banks which were not technically covered by the CRA. A simple percentage calculation of loans originated by CRA-covered banks does not reflect the true extent of the CRA's influence. Now, the CRA alone certainly doesn't explain the mortgage crisis, but it was a contributing factor. Smaller than Fannie and Freddie, and a Fed that wanted to inflate a housing bubble, but it was still part of the problem.
 
Robert Prey said:
Clearly,when you read history you skipped over the fact that that those acts were seen as unconstitutional and repealed in 1802 with only the Alien Enemies Act left in tact, but only applying to war time.
Click to expand...

No, Robert, I didn't. However, now that you've googled the subject, perhaps you realize that the Founding Fathers (pbut) were not, in fact, above "censorship of such speech in the nation they created."


Glad you finally read some history.
 
Robert Prey said:
I don't think so, but chemo, radiation and surgery are all of the Cancer Establishment and of dubious value, and in many cases a "cure" worse than the disease.
Click to expand...

So, do you think there is some great cure the "Cancer Establishment" is covering up? If so, what is it?
 
Cleon said:
No, Robert, I didn't. However, now that you've googled the subject, perhaps you realize that the Founding Fathers (pbut) were not, in fact, above "censorship of such speech in the nation they created."

Glad you finally read some history.
Click to expand...


You need to google it again. The Founding Fathers could hardly be responsible for 4 years of an unconstitutional law. Unconstitutional laws are passed and upheld all the time, including the upholding a a law against tax protesters who write books about their beliefs.
 
Robert Prey said:
You need to google it again. The Founding Fathers could hardly be responsible for 4 years of an unconstitutional law. Unconstitutional laws are passed and upheld all the time, including the upholding a a law against tax protesters who write books about their beliefs.
Click to expand...

They're not responsible for a law that they passed?
 
Robert Prey said:
Nonsense. Banks not covered were nonetheless influenced by the acts and had to compete with the easy lending practices of banks that were covered.
Click to expand...

No, the mortgage originators of the sub prime markets loans were not even banks. What language is your primary? I suspect English is not your first language.

Either that or you just read garbage without knowing what the words mean, so who made the sub prime loans Robert? What banks specifically?

And what share of the market were they competing against CRA loans?

Don't worry I won't hold my breath.
 
Ziggurat said:
It's not that simple. There were many banks which were not covered by the CRA but which wanted to be able to expand in the future. Under such conditions they could become subject to the CRA, and their past lending would then come under scrutiny. If they wanted to pass that future scrutiny, they should logically modify their then current behavior to meet its requirements even though those requirements were not yet in place. So the CRA did affect the behavior of banks which were not technically covered by the CRA. A simple percentage calculation of loans originated by CRA-covered banks does not reflect the true extent of the CRA's influence. Now, the CRA alone certainly doesn't explain the mortgage crisis, but it was a contributing factor. Smaller than Fannie and Freddie, and a Fed that wanted to inflate a housing bubble, but it was still part of the problem.
Click to expand...

It is complex, the institutions that made the sub prime loans were not banks. Now I agree the multi generational expansion of Freddie and Frannie was a real problem, but the financial institutions that created the sub prime loans were a big part of the problem, as were the ones that then made fraudulent securities upon the basis of those loans.

I do not see that as part of the CRA but more one of unregulated lending , unethical securities and then the whole sovereign wealth bubble in the US.

So if most of the sub prime loans weren't made by institutions that competed with the CRA, what percentage of loans made by banks were influenced by the CRA? Just a guess to keep talking.

I do not see the CRA creating the predatory lending or the bundling of securities under false values. I could be wrong.
 
Dancing David said:
No, the mortgage originators of the sub prime markets loans were not even banks. What language is your primary? I suspect English is not your first language.

Either that or you just read garbage without knowing what the words mean, so who made the sub prime loans Robert? What banks specifically?

And what share of the market were they competing against CRA loans?

Don't worry I won't hold my breath.
Click to expand...

Do you have a point? A source? Data? Don't worry,I won't hold my breath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom