Here is the deal paulejb. Credit Default Swaps came out of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. It was proposed by three Rs. When it was first passed in the Senate there were 53 Rs for and 44 Ds against. In other words, it was an exclusively R invention and proposal. That is where our financial crisis was conceived and where it came from.
Because it got caught in 'conference committee', improvements to the Community Reinvestment Act were added. That is how the GBLA got 'sold'. The GBLA was entirely a creation of the Rs. The CRA is the law that the uninformed dupes of the propaganda machine think 'forces banks to make loans to unqualified borrowers'. That's the propaganda redherring. But the CRA forces no one to make a loan to any unqualified borrower. It prohibits 'redlining', the practice of not lending in certain areas.
Blaming Dems for what was done under the GLBA is like blaming Dems who voted for the Iraq invasion for how Dubya screwed it up.
Here's an article from BusinessWeek that shoots down the BS about the CRA.
Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis
Posted by: Aaron Pressman on September 29
Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we???re hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act ??? a 30-year-old law that was actually weakened by the Bush administration just as the worst lending wave began. This is even more ridiculous than blaming Freddie and Fannie.
http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinv.html
The Greater Greed
Wall Street didn't invent excess. It just upped the ante.
PHOTOS
The Greediest People of All Time
A look at the despots and robber barons who believed that greed really is good.
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Those Wall Street bonus-baggers may have been innovative enough to develop credit default swaps, but they didn't invent greed. No, that's been around as long as there have been people, and stuff to lust after.
In every era, there have been people who had an excessive desire to accumulate money, power and prestige, says Ryan K. Balot, an associate professor of political science at the University of Toronto, and author of "Greed and Injustice in Classical Athens" (Princeton University Press, 2001). In earlier eras, it may have focused more on power than wealth, and acquisitions were carried out on battlefields instead of boardrooms. But it had the same basic definition: the desire for excess. And it provoked the same ire. "Greed in the ancient world and almost all of the modern world is a term of abuse and object of criticism," says Balot. "You very rarely find people making the argument that greed is good."
COMMENTARY
Wall Street didn't invent excess. It just upped the ante.
Perhaps, but it sure was lucrative in recent years. Some recent examples: the 73 AIG employees who each were handed at least $1 million in bonuses (though some have been talked into returning them); Bernard Madoff, who pleaded guilty to fraud charges and may have bilked his clients of more than $50 billion; and Stanford Group chairman R. Allen Stanford, who is accused of orchestrating an $8 billion Ponzi scheme. Still, they are only the latest symbols of wretched excess and the newest lightning rods of populist anger.
That anger ebbs and flows along with economic cycles, says Robert Brent Toplin, a history professor at the University of North Carolina in Wilmington. "In our culture, we are not that concerned about greed; it's not usually on our radar screens." When the economy turns sour, when there is the perception that people who are accumulating great sums are doing it dishonestly or at the expense of many who are suffering, "then we get angry," he says.
It's not hard to find historic examples of greed. You can call central casting, and order up conquerors and criminals, kings and their consorts, religious pretenders and robber barons, political bosses and Wall Streeters to fill out more than one top-10 list. But first you have to define greed, and that's a challenge. It's not just about having wealth. If it were, Bill Gates, the wealthiest person on the planet, would also be the greediest. He's not, of course: Gates made his fortune building a productive business and then spent a fair amount of it on charitable pursuits, and most ethicists would say that disqualifies him from being the greediest person ever.
To be really greedy, a person has to not just want and acquire a lot of material wealth. He (or she) needs to come by it less than honestly, and enjoy stacking it up in the face of the far less fortunate. He has to put his own desire for stuff above the needs and legitimate concerns of those around him. In the business world, that often means cheating. Madoff, for example, didn't just get rich, he got rich by faking an entire investment enterprise and doing it at the expense of decent charities and people who had trusted him with their life savings. All that just served to make him the most-hated guy of ... well, of February. By March, all that populist anger had turned to the AIG bonus boys. It wasn't just that they got fat bonuses after their firm took U.S. government bailout funds, it was that they were collecting them while others in the U.S. were losing their jobs, houses and retirement investments. And those were the people whose taxes were paying for the AIG bonuses. What made the AIG-ers seem even more objectionable was the perception that the same guys who were bagging the bonuses had created the strategies that led to the financial mess in the first place.
"When you're taking things that aren't rightfully yours, or entering areas where you are closing off opportunities for others, your ambition has turned into greed," says Pat Harned, president of the Ethics Resource Center, a Washington think tank. "It's a fine line."
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Discuss