Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold and Silver Juniors, Mid-tiers and Producers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Land Shark who wrote (61707)	10/17/2008 1:59:24 PM
From: E. Charters	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78410

No, it was policy that prevented banks from forming on their own. Government Cabal allowed banks to join hands. Washington in cahoots with big banking so IT could make more money. For 500 years there were NO loaning rules in England, yet fractional reserve never got beyond 4 to one. Banking panics were rare and could easily be solved. The country never went under. You have confused loose regulation with license to print money. What they did was encourage their friends who were making money buying their bonds to consolidate the banks. This never would have happened without a corrupt federal reserve and a greedy government. If they made bank charters more freely available, then nobody could start a national bank without 10,000 bricks and mortar branches. It is self regulating. Canada's branch banks only survive because of conservative fiscal policy. If branch banking were no allowed by monopoly rules we would not have the ability to print money en massse and have this massive failure. Absolutely no regs would work from the get go. Once you have a certain level then anti trust is needed to disallow constructive empire from unfairly monopolizing and failing en masse. If there were 2000 Washington Mutuals they could not hold hands to do the damage they have done. It is the largeness and in cahootness that did it. Small is beautiful. Once a certain size of financial animal has been reached you need guard dogs to keep the beasts from eating the houses. The very existence of Freddie Fannie May Mac predicted the mess we are in. EC:<-}

To: Land Shark who wrote (61707)	10/17/2008 2:44:13 PM
From: hank2010	5 Recommendations Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 78410

Everyone considered it laudable to increase the % of the population who were home-owners. Lending regs were relaxed. Then political pressure from community orgs was applied onto individual bankers to loan to the poor etc. Bankers said "no can do, Fannie and Freddie will not approve" Fannie etc appealed to congress,wined and dined and donated to re-election campaigns, etc. Execs of Fannie and Freddie made huge salaries and bonuses for increasing business. The rules were relaxed, more loans were made. Bankers who would not make enough NINJA loans were Pilloried in the press, picketed in their homes etc. If a banker could make a NINJA loan, and shift it off to someone who would package it, and it was off his books, why put up with the pressure? Make the loans! The whole mess of making bonds out of mortgages and insuring them and marketing them is a whole nuther story.