rickyp wrote:One does not follow the other.The linkage you refer to was both unnecessary to either "force" or motivate the key players in their quest for the end of investment restrictions.

First off the credit requirement easement was done by Fannie Mac specifically to facilitate the CRA minority lending requirements. This is the change that allowed the non-CRA lenders to make the problem loans. Therefore, it is a definite linkage.

Second, you are reneging on your previous agreement with me. Basically that GLB would not have made in through the Senate or been signed by President Clinton without the Republican agreement to the CRA changes. You had previously agreed that to be the case.

Now, you could argue that the changes would have gone through during the Bush years. However, I would argue no because the Republicans never had a filibuster proof majority. Therefore, it would only have taken 1 Senator, such as Feingold, or Saunders to place a hold on the bill to kill it. Considering what was done anytime the Bush Administration tried to regulate Fannie and Freddie, I think we are pretty confident in saying that such a hold would have happened.

This is the change that allowed the non-CRA lenders to make the problem loans.

No. It was a change specifically within Fannie. And then it accounted for a very small portion of the sub and alt mortgages.
This did not free financial and non-fianncial institutions from regulations on mortgages (or who could offer mortgages) That came later.
The second did not require the first. There is no causative link. The only thing that caused the deregulation was the deregulation.

Basically that GLB would not have made in through the Senate or been signed by President Clinton without the Republican agreement to the CRA changes. You had previously agreed that to be the case.

Yes. But I don't link further deregulation to the motivations held that ended Glass... (Although the repeal of Glass was key, and Clinton and the Dems bear resposnbility for this event.)
You want to excuse the degulation of the Bush years because of the previous acts under Clinton. The first allowed the second. But didn't cause it. The Bush deregulation didn't HAVE to follow the end of Glass. That deregulation was a delibrate act, and a stand alone act(s). . And there was no coercion that forced the companies that entered into the new wild west of mortgages to act irresponsibly. as soon as they felt they had come up with a way to downstream risk they went nuts, all without the slightest coercion .
Its a way of spinning the facts of the financial crisis to suggest that govenrment was largely at fault. It was, because government stopped regulating and governing, but that's about it. Private actors managed to do almost all the damage when set loose. Without coercion and without FF being more than minor players for 2 years..
It's like Flip Wilson declaring that "The devil made me do it".
Ain't no such thing.

rickyp wrote:

This is the change that allowed the non-CRA lenders to make the problem loans.

No. It was a change specifically within Fannie. And then it accounted for a very small portion of the sub and alt mortgages.
This did not free financial and non-fianncial institutions from regulations on mortgages (or who could offer mortgages) That came later.

I think we both agree that the cause of the problem was bad loans that masked by the CDS and sold as AAA rated products is the main cause. If we take the bad loans out of the picture, one can reasonable argue the outcome would have been different, i.e. even if investment banks and saving banks combined as the G-S repeal allowed, w/o the bad mortgage back CDS's, their positions wouldn't have been so calamitous.

Therefore, the question becomes what specific action allowed banks to make loans without traditional credit limitiations? Requirments such as not requiring proof of income or allowing 0% down payments. The only one I can find that specifically mentions changing the credit requirements to get a loan is Fannie Mae's actions. If there is something else, please specify.

rickyp wrote:[Yes. But I don't link further deregulation to the motivations held that ended Glass... (Although the repeal of Glass was key, and Clinton and the Dems bear resposnbility for this event.)
You want to excuse the degulation of the Bush years because of the previous acts under Clinton. The first allowed the second. But didn't cause it. The Bush deregulation didn't HAVE to follow the end of Glass. That deregulation was a delibrate act, and a stand alone act(s). . And there was no coercion that forced the companies that entered into the new wild west of mortgages to act irresponsibly. as soon as they felt they had come up with a way to downstream risk they went nuts, all without the slightest coercion.

No I don't want to excuse the deregulations of the Bush years. What I do see is a progression. You assume that without the earlier step the later steps would have happened in the exact same way with the exact same outcomes. I disagree with that. Change any one link in the chain and the outcome will most likely change. It's called the Butterfly effect.

However, at this point, we are just repeating arguments already made. We will just have to disagree.

danivon wrote:[So, did OWS actually try to physically occupy stores or intimidate shoppers? Or did they do more of the 'boycott' that the email calls for?

Yes. In a couple of cities such as Oklahoma City and Seattle the Occupy protesters entered Wal-marts and tried to block the check out lanes and do other things to harass the workers and shoppers.

Russell, are there sources for this. I'm not asking because I don't believe you, it's because I'd like to see what was actually happening.

Oh yes, OWS is really making a point--they are not like other Americans. Consumerism = bad. Distributing wealth from other people to them = good.

In Pennsylvania, Occupy Harrisburg protesters showed up at Capital City Mall dressed as zombies to protest the consumerism of the celebrated day.

The Capital City Mall bans outfits that hide a person’s face. According to police, only one protester refused to wash off the makeup, and was arrested and charged with misdemeanor trespassing. The remainder of the ­protesters, minus zombie face paint, walked peacefully through the mall.

In Oklahoma, a group of Occupy OKC activists showed up at a Wal-Mart to protest the large wage disparity between store workers and corporate officers. Occupy OKC participant Mark Faulk said 10 members of the group were arrested for disorderly conduct early Friday after conducting a group chant inside the store in the Oklahoma City suburb.

Faulk contended police used excessive force by tackling and handcuffing participants who were heading toward the exit after being asked to leave by store personnel. Del City Police Lt. Steve Robinson disagreed.

Two Wal-Marts were targeted Friday in Eugene, Ore., where Occupy protesters chanted and used a bullhorn. One person was arrested on a trespassing charge.

Meanwhile, in Washington state, Occupy Seattle members were urging shoppers who must buy to patronize local businesses instead of giant corporations, and to consider giving handmade holiday gifts.

Imagine no possessions. I wonder if you can. No greed or hunger. A brotherhood of man. Imagine all the people sharing all the world.

That may be utopia, but it is not America and it won't be.

http://www.nwcn.com/news/Occupy-Seattle-targets-Black-Friday-shoppers-134490958.html

Here is the Seattle link...

danivon wrote:Russell, are there sources for this. I'm not asking because I don't believe you, it's because I'd like to see what was actually happening.

Owen, I read about it in my local paper which unfortunately is behind a subscription wall. However, it looks like Brad got you Seattle, and Steve got you Harrisburg. Here is something about Oklahoma City.

http://thinkprogress.org/special/2011/1 ... ck-friday/

Thanks for that, guys. Clearly a few actions in some places, and at least they weren't macing shoppers. I'm not sure of the wisdom of doing more than asking people to boycott the mega-corps, as it can easily be twisted into 'attack' and 'harassment' of shoppers. But it seems that American consumers are stoical enough not to let it bar them from chasing bargains.

Seattle - seems that the Occupy demo was near the mall anyway (not in it though), and a few did go to some stores. A little inconvenience, but no reported violence and not much in the way of harassment.

Harrisburg - Zombies. Seriously, Steve, is supposed to be an example of how violent the Occupy movement is, some people dressed as zombies (most of whom removed their facepaint when told to)?

Oklahoma & Eugene - About the most intrusive examples, with a small number of people chanting in Wal-Mart. Not sure I approve either, but it's hardly the hallmark of revolutionaries.

I did like the line from Steve's quote:

Meanwhile, in Washington state, Occupy Seattle members were urging shoppers who must buy to patronize local businesses instead of giant corporations, and to consider giving handmade holiday gifts.

What's so wrong with that? Freedom of Speech, innit?

While there are superficial similarities between the Tea Party and OWS, I think this video strikes at the heart of the matter. It compares the two viewpoints and shows an undeniable incompatibility. They might be angry at some of the same things, but the approaches are polar opposites.

So far, so good in LA and Philly. No violence.

Great video link, Steve. Very succinct.

Again, this is part of why I continue to say that Republicans and Democrats are enemies of the Constitution. McCain would have been the alternative to Obama.

WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted Tuesday to keep a controversial provision to let the military detain terrorism suspects on U.S. soil and hold them indefinitely without trial -- prompting White House officials to reissue a veto threat.

The measure, part of the massive National Defense Authorization Act, was also opposed by civil libertarians on the left and right. But 16 Democrats and an independent joined with Republicans to defeat an amendment by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) that would have killed the provision, voting it down with 61 against, and 37 for it.

"I'm very, very, concerned about having U.S. citizens sent to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention," said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the Senate's most conservative members.

Neal Anderth wrote:Again, this is part of why I continue to say that Republicans and Democrats are enemies of the Constitution. McCain would have been the alternative to Obama.

WASHINGTON -- The Senate voted Tuesday to keep a controversial provision to let the military detain terrorism suspects on U.S. soil and hold them indefinitely without trial -- prompting White House officials to reissue a veto threat.

The measure, part of the massive National Defense Authorization Act, was also opposed by civil libertarians on the left and right. But 16 Democrats and an independent joined with Republicans to defeat an amendment by Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) that would have killed the provision, voting it down with 61 against, and 37 for it.

"I'm very, very, concerned about having U.S. citizens sent to Guantanamo Bay for indefinite detention," said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), one of the Senate's most conservative members.

A sidebar: again, Rand is such a better politician than his father. He could actually be President one day.

Back to the topic. if you mean that Anwar Al-Awlaki, for example, should have been tried for treason if captured, I agree. I am very uncomfortable with US citizens being treated like non-citizens. However, killing him was perfectly acceptable in my opinion.

Oh wait: this topic is actually OWS. So, what does THIS have to do with OWS? Stop the ADD!

Democrats vs. Republicans vs. The Constitution is a fine topic, but that's not OWS.

You are right, Dr Fate. that is not the topic.

OWS would claim it's the Democrats & Republicans (combined) vs the vast majority of the US people.

On the other hand, this isn't such a bankshot:

Six central banks led by the Federal Reserve lowered the cost of emergency dollar funding for financial companies in a global effort to ease Europe’s sovereign-debt crisis.

The new interest rate is the dollar overnight index swap rate plus 50 basis points, a half percentage-point cut, and the program was extended by six months to Feb. 1, 2013, the Fed said today in a statement in Washington. The Fed coordinated the move with the European Central Bank as well as the Bank of Canada, Bank of England, Bank of Japan, and Swiss National Bank. (SNBN)

U.S. and European stocks rallied on the move aimed at easing strains in markets and boosting central banks’ capacity to support the global financial system. The cost for European banks to fund in dollars rose to the highest levels in three years today as concerns about a possible breakup of the euro area increased after leaders said they’d failed to boost the region’s bailout fund as much as planned.

“It’s a step in the right direction,” said Jay Bryson, global economist with Wells Fargo Securities in Charlotte, North Carolina. “It doesn’t solve the problem in Europe, but to the extent that European banks are having trouble raising dollar funding, it makes it easier and less costly for these banks to borrow dollars.”

So, what does this have to do with OWS?

Actually, quite a bit. It is an under the table bailout of the European socialistic failure to take care of their own economies. Greece, Spain, Italy are all failing and without Americans taking a hit (via printing billions or even trillions more in dollars, which will mean inflation down the road), those countries might fail.

So, I'm sure OWS will start protesting the Federal Reserve. After all, it's time to stop bailing out the fat cats, right? Who benefits from the Fed's move? Banks, the investing class, and Europeans who retire at 50.

Or not, since central planning and saving socialist governments are a major part of the focus of the people behind the curtain at OWS.