Since non-bank lenders originated the overwhelming majority of subprime mortgages, and the buyers of over half of them in the 10 years leading up to the 2008 crisis were not banks – commercial or investment – but Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, pointing the finger at this particular banking regulation is not warranted.
Some argue that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 caused the financial crisis because banks were no longer prevented from operating as both commercial and investment banks, and repeal allowed banks to become substantially larger, or "too big to fail." However, the crisis would likely have happened even without the Glass-Steagall repeal.
Glass-Steagall applied to banks, and although many of mortgage-backed derivatives were created and sold by banks, subprime mortgages — the underlying assets of the derivatives — were originally issued by non-bank lenders, and these initial loans would not have been prevented by Glass-Steagall. In addition, investment banks such as Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Goldman Sachs — all major players in the subprime mortgage meltdown — never ventured into commercial banking. They were investment banks, just as they had been before Glass-Steagall was repealed.
The root cause of the financial crisis was the subprime mortgage meltdown. At the heart of that problem lies the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase more "affordable" mortgages to encourage lenders to make loans to low-income and minority borrowers. In order to meet HUD's goals, lenders began to institute policies such as foregoing any requirement for a down payment and accepting unemployment benefits as a qualifying source of income. (Again, the majority of these lenders were private mortgage lenders, not banks, so the Glass-Steagall Act didn't apply to them.) This lead to a lot of people getting mortgages they couldn't afford, making defaults inevitable.
There were a number of contributing factors to the financial crisis, and partial blame can be assigned to deregulation. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, however, played at most a minor role in the crisis.
Read the last sentence. Sounds pretty much like what it said. It was another dry log.
Sounds a lot like the position you retreated to after your initial claim blew up in your ignorant face.
Even with no GS repeal we still would of had a mortgage meltdown.
Since non-bank lenders originated the overwhelming majority of subprime mortgages, and the buyers of over half of them in the 10 years leading up to the 2008 crisis were not banks – commercial or investment – but Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, pointing the finger at this particular banking regulation is not warranted.
Some argue that the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 caused the financial crisis because banks were no longer prevented from operating as both commercial and investment banks, and repeal allowed banks to become substantially larger, or "too big to fail." However, the crisis would likely have happened even without the Glass-Steagall repeal.
Glass-Steagall applied to banks, and although many of mortgage-backed derivatives were created and sold by banks, subprime mortgages — the underlying assets of the derivatives — were originally issued by non-bank lenders, and these initial loans would not have been prevented by Glass-Steagall. In addition, investment banks such as Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Goldman Sachs — all major players in the subprime mortgage meltdown — never ventured into commercial banking. They were investment banks, just as they had been before Glass-Steagall was repealed.
The root cause of the financial crisis was the subprime mortgage meltdown. At the heart of that problem lies the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase more "affordable" mortgages to encourage lenders to make loans to low-income and minority borrowers. In order to meet HUD's goals, lenders began to institute policies such as foregoing any requirement for a down payment and accepting unemployment benefits as a qualifying source of income. (Again, the majority of these lenders were private mortgage lenders, not banks, so the Glass-Steagall Act didn't apply to them.) This lead to a lot of people getting mortgages they couldn't afford, making defaults inevitable.
There were a number of contributing factors to the financial crisis, and partial blame can be assigned to deregulation. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, however, played at most a minor role in the crisis.
Read the last sentence. Sounds pretty much like what it said. It was another dry log.
Sounds a lot like the position you retreated to after your initial claim blew up in your ignorant face.
Even with no GS repeal we still would of had a mortgage meltdown.
Maybe, maybe not. Or maybe it wouldn't have been as bad.
SFGBob that article you cite is a classic opinionated viewpoint that minimizes contrary facts while inflating and giving undue weight to those facts that support it's premise. What's hilarious is that anyone who can critically think and analyze can see that 1) you like biased news sources, and 2) the cited article acknowledges and concedes as facts things you've been arguing against for 5 fucking pages.
Hoisted on your own petard. Bound to happen when you can't STFU and think before typing.
SFGBob that article you cite is a classic opinionated viewpoint that minimizes contrary facts while inflating and giving undue weight to those facts that support it's premise. What's hilarious is that anyone who can critically think and analyze can see that 1) you like biased news sources, and 2) the cited article acknowledges and concedes as facts things you've been arguing against for 5 fucking pages.
Hoisted on your own petard. Bound to happen when you can't STFU and think before typing.
SFGBob that article you cite is a classic opinionated viewpoint that minimizes contrary facts while inflating and giving undue weight to those facts that support it's premise. What's hilarious is that anyone who can critically think and analyze can see that 1) you like biased news sources, and 2) the cited article acknowledges and concedes as facts things you've been arguing against for 5 fucking pages.
Hoisted on your own petard. Bound to happen when you can't STFU and think before typing.
SFGBob that article you cite is a classic opinionated viewpoint that minimizes contrary facts while inflating and giving undue weight to those facts that support it's premise. What's hilarious is that anyone who can critically think and analyze can see that 1) you like biased news sources, and 2) the cited article acknowledges and concedes as facts things you've been arguing against for 5 fucking pages.
Hoisted on your own petard. Bound to happen when you can't STFU and think before typing.
Lots of mouth zero substance
Now answer the fucking question you were asked
I don't tutor remedial students. Sorry.
You keep telling me how fucking smart you are and how what I'm saying is so dumb and yet all you've done is run your fucking mouth. You've not provide a whit of evidence that refutes anything I've fucking said.
I cited news sources from both the right and the left and both of them have supported my claim while you've cited nothing but your fucking mouth. Hey you've got Hondo tonguing your ass, that's got to mean something.
The fact that you're dodging the simple question that I asked reveals you to be all fucking mouth and no substance. Essentially your position I'm wrong because you say so. Nice work Kunt.
Wait, ya'll actually don't know how/why we went to using the electoral college instead of a popular vote or are ya'll trolling...? Her tweet lacks nuance, but it's a historically accurate statement.
SFGBob that article you cite is a classic opinionated viewpoint that minimizes contrary facts while inflating and giving undue weight to those facts that support it's premise. What's hilarious is that anyone who can critically think and analyze can see that 1) you like biased news sources, and 2) the cited article acknowledges and concedes as facts things you've been arguing against for 5 fucking pages.
Hoisted on your own petard. Bound to happen when you can't STFU and think before typing.
Lots of mouth zero substance
Now answer the fucking question you were asked
I don't tutor remedial students. Sorry.
You keep telling me how fucking smart you are and how what I'm saying is so dumb and yet all you've done is run your fucking mouth. You've not provide a whit of evidence that refutes anything I've fucking said.
I cited news sources from both the right and the left and both of them have supported my claim while you've cited nothing but your fucking mouth. Hey you've got Hondo tonguing your ass, that's got to mean something.
The fact that you're dodging the simple question that I asked reveals you to be all fucking mouth and no substance. Essentially your position I'm wrong because you say so. Nice work Kunt.
Um, yeah. Arguing with a news-sourcing fucking rock that can't think for itself is a useless exercise, so I'm not wasting my time.
But I enjoy the fuck out of driving your mediocre ass batshit crazy.
Why is your Ego so fucking weak? Did you father despise you?
SFGBob that article you cite is a classic opinionated viewpoint that minimizes contrary facts while inflating and giving undue weight to those facts that support it's premise. What's hilarious is that anyone who can critically think and analyze can see that 1) you like biased news sources, and 2) the cited article acknowledges and concedes as facts things you've been arguing against for 5 fucking pages.
Hoisted on your own petard. Bound to happen when you can't STFU and think before typing.
Lots of mouth zero substance
Now answer the fucking question you were asked
I don't tutor remedial students. Sorry.
You keep telling me how fucking smart you are and how what I'm saying is so dumb and yet all you've done is run your fucking mouth. You've not provide a whit of evidence that refutes anything I've fucking said.
I cited news sources from both the right and the left and both of them have supported my claim while you've cited nothing but your fucking mouth. Hey you've got Hondo tonguing your ass, that's got to mean something.
The fact that you're dodging the simple question that I asked reveals you to be all fucking mouth and no substance. Essentially your position I'm wrong because you say so. Nice work Kunt.
Um, yeah. Arguing with a news-sourcing fucking rock that can't think for itself is a useless exercise, so I'm not wasting my time.
But I enjoy the fuck out of driving your mediocre ass batshit crazy.
Why is your Ego so fucking weak? Did you father despise you?
Comments
Even with no GS repeal we still would of had a mortgage meltdown.
Hoisted on your own petard. Bound to happen when you can't STFU and think before typing.
Now answer the fucking question you were asked
I cited news sources from both the right and the left and both of them have supported my claim while you've cited nothing but your fucking mouth. Hey you've got Hondo tonguing your ass, that's got to mean something.
The fact that you're dodging the simple question that I asked reveals you to be all fucking mouth and no substance. Essentially your position I'm wrong because you say so. Nice work Kunt.
But I enjoy the fuck out of driving your mediocre ass batshit crazy.
Why is your Ego so fucking weak? Did you father despise you?