Tom Toles by Tom Toles

?fh=0defb6f1098ab6c40b611922d0115c70

Comments (10) Jump to Comments Form

  1. jabo

    jabo said, about 1 year ago

    It seems that,”this is why” regarding the $$$ now.Ought not one examine the other side, the purchaser(s)?

  2. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 1 year ago

    Oh, that’s been done in various cartoons and in the fora here. The argument is that there are laws that “force” lenders to take on some more risky borrowers. Unfortunately for that logic, that only applies to 25% of the lending organizations that provided subprimes. Probably a more central reason is that the big companies thought they could make money and minimize the risk even with riskier subprime mortgages through new derivatives, which turned out to be stunningly wrong - instead of spreading the risk, we’ve multiplied it across a larger scope and taken down the whole economy at once. So they went after the money regardless of risk.

  3. TheGreatSatan

    TheGreatSatan said, about 1 year ago

    “that only applies to 25% of the lending organizations that provided subprimes.”

    Fannie and Freddie were the companies that were backing those loans. It is exactly because of those bad loans that those companies went under in the first place. Between 2000 and 2002 Fannie Mae securitized $394 billion in CRA loans. We aren’t bailing out banks as much as we are bailing out Fannie and Freddie.

    http://www.hoover.org/pubaffairs/dailyreport/30262239.html

  4. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, about 1 year ago

    That may explain Fannie and Freddie, but what about Lehman, Merril, AIG, et al.?

  5. mivins

    mivins said, about 1 year ago

    Ouch!

  6. iamnoman

    iamnoman said, about 1 year ago

    Bravo, Mr. Toles: they carry the economic weapon of mass destruction, the mythical Free Market, a perpetual motion holy war cash machine, in their hearts and minds. Were the bonuses actually kickbacks, as we use for our overseas economic hit jobs?

  7. DHLEAKY

    DHLEAKYGenius_badge said, about 1 year ago

    iamnoma.

    YES.

  8. lalas

    lalas said, about 1 year ago

    TGS… FM/FM were part of the problem… the LARGEST problem was the magical system of debt, borrowing and voodoo that was on top of the mortgages. The insane leveraging, credit default swaps etc… If the bubble burst without the ridiculousness on top of it, it would have hurt A LOT LESS.

  9. TheGreatSatan

    TheGreatSatan said, about 1 year ago

    “the LARGEST problem was the magical system of debt, borrowing and voodoo that was on top of the mortgages”

    Yes, and thanks to the CRA and the HUD those magical systems came into existance! You can’t give people that don’t have enough money loans they can’t afford no matter how bad you feel for them. The bubble was the direct result of doing just that.

  10. jimbo90036

    jimbo90036Genius_badge said, about 1 year ago

    Terrorists attacked Wall Street and Banks with charges (credit) under their $2,000 business suits.