General

Re: Wheylous vs. SkepticalMetal

My Buddy — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 12:23:57 GMT

Deposit banks were able to start aggressively offering mortgages to people who cannot afford them, hoping that they will be able to foreclose on the houses and get lots of expensive houses cheaply. Over the next two years, 3 million houses got foreclosed upon when people that the banks did not expect to be able to make their mortgage payments are unable to make their mortgage payments - just as planned. The banks start loaning each other money to make even more mortgages, putting up the foreclosed houses as collateral. Then, in 2006, the housing prices crash unexpectedly. Oh no! The banks are suddenly sitting on a bunch of houses that are no longer worth anything and have loaned out all their money as part of their mortgage deals. The banks, not having any money, are unable to make any more loans or even pay off their loans to eachother. America's economy, needing easy to get loans in order to properly function, begins to slow down.

Re: Wheylous vs. SkepticalMetal

Wheylous — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 03:18:42 GMT

How did that cause the collapse of the system?

And Neodoxy - what do you mean?

Re: Wheylous vs. SkepticalMetal

Neodoxy — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 01:44:34 GMT

I disapprove of this debate.

Re: Wheylous vs. SkepticalMetal

My Buddy — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 01:39:49 GMT

It caused the conflict of interest between banking and brokering that caused the system to collapse.

Re: Wheylous vs. SkepticalMetal

Wheylous — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:17:44 GMT

Things like what?

Every additional loan is one more thing that happens.

Re: Wheylous vs. SkepticalMetal

My Buddy — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:10:48 GMT

Okay, but it allowed things to happen that otherwise wouldn't have by destabilizing the system.

Re: Wheylous vs. SkepticalMetal

Wheylous — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 00:01:32 GMT

Simply because there was more risk it doesn't mean that it will automatically cause a crisis. Hell, having a banking system at all creates risk.

Re: Wheylous vs. SkepticalMetal

My Buddy — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 23:48:51 GMT

It allowed banks that deal with mortgages and savings accounts and the like to get involved in investment banking, which is far more risky, thus putting far more money at risk.

Re: Wheylous vs. SkepticalMetal

Wheylous — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:53:19 GMT

How did the repeal of part of GS cause the crisis?

Re: Wheylous vs. SkepticalMetal

My Buddy — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 22:30:16 GMT

Now hold on. You assume the Social Democrat has no answer to "what regulations". What if they say "Glass Steagall"?

EDIT: Hell, I'll play the SD for a bit I guess.

Re: Wheylous vs. SkepticalMetal

Wheylous — Wed, 12 Dec 2012 02:18:34 GMT

Wheylous 3?

Re: Wheylous vs. SkepticalMetal

Wheylous — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 19:57:20 GMT

It's not restrictive because the employees are given the ability to control their workplaces. Capitalism, on the other hand, is restrictive, because employers control capital without actually using said capital. They have no claim to it if they're not using it.

Re: Wheylous vs. SkepticalMetal

SkepticalMetal — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 19:45:47 GMT

If it isn't restrictive, than I would think it would be easy to tell me why it isn't. If it is difficult, than that tells me that you yourself have a feeling that communism is restrictive, and that it employs slavery to make it work. If I'm wrong, please tell me why it is not how I see it as.

Re: Wheylous vs. SkepticalMetal

Wheylous — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 19:31:22 GMT

Once again, explain to me how this is restrictive.

Re: Wheylous vs. SkepticalMetal

SkepticalMetal — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 17:58:01 GMT

How do you think this is not restrictive?