On the Fact that Banking, Mortgages, and Housing Were the Three Most Regulated Sectors of the American Economy and Yet this is Exactly Where the Problems Erupted Leading Up to the Financial Collapse

A total coinkydink, I gather. By which I mean I'm totally pushing the bullshit from the Right that OVER regulation caused the collapse. Because, when it comes to Libertarian lies concerning regulation of the financial sector being bad, I'm a total stooge for our plutocratic overlords.

For example, Cato says Gramm-Leach-Bliley (the law that repealed the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall) and allowed "the mixing of investment and commercial banking" was not responsible for the financial crisis. Cato says too much regulation is to blame. They say "Congress should repeal the Community Reinvestment Act".

And, given the fact that Cato is Libertarian Think Tank that I frequently reference on my other blog, Contra O'Reilly (although I usually don't say who I'm quoting), I completely agree with them. The blame, in my opinion, should be heaped upon government (via the CRA and Fannie and Freddie) and on poor people who could not afford homes being given loans they would never be able to pay back.

So what if this is total bullplop?

...the false narrative [is] that the financial crisis was caused by... government regulators [who] used the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to force banks to make loans to undeserving poor people and that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchased doomed subprime mortgage backed securities to meet the affordable housing goals. This [so goes the false narrative] was the main cause of the crisis. The argument that CRA and the affordable housing goals caused the crisis have been debunked time and time... again. The CRA has been in place since 1977, while subprime lending only skyrocketed in the 2000s. Even if one concentrates on the changes in enforcement of the act in 1995, the Act does nothing to explain the massive uptick in subprime lending concentrated from 2004 to 2006. What's more, most subprime lenders weren't banks and therefore weren't even subject to CRA. That's why only 6 percent of the high-cost mortgages at the time (a proxy for subprime) could even potentially qualify for CRA credit. Similarly, for most of the housing boom, Fannie and Freddie were on the sidelines due to their fairly strict underwriting requirements. By the time Fannie and Freddie lowered their standards in 2006 to buy riskier products, they were too late to the game to cause the subprime frenzy. Moreover, while they also bought private subprime mortgage backed securities for their investment portfolio – an inarguably bad idea – those purchases did little to meet the housing goals. For the most part, Fannie and Freddie-guaranteed loans have performed, and are still performing, remarkably better than the toxic products pioneered by subprime lenders. The real causes of the financial crisis were predatory mortgage products, out-of-control securitization and derivatives markets, and the failure of government regulators to crack down on the massive risk being taken by our nation's financial institutions. (Excerpt from No, Lending To Poor People Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis by David Sanchez. ThinkProgress 8/15/2013).

What this article points out is that I, Willis Hart, am totally full of shit! That does not matter to me, as I simply do not care what "Think Regress" says (even though this article accurately recounts the real causes of the financial crisis).

Because lazy low-skilled losers earning low wages (all they deserve) who wanted a home without earning it and government regulators "forcing" banks to loan them money they could never pay back is the better narrative, IMO.

Because it lets the real culprits totally off the hook! And, given that I am a stooge for the plutocrats who benefited from the crisis, I absolutely do NOT want them to be assigned any blame (even though they deserve it). Which is why I eagerly buy into the BS about OVER regulation being responsible for the financial crisis. Because if we were to crack down and increase the regulations... well, then the plutocrats couldn't do it again (make tons of money by duping poor people into signing up for predatory mortgages).

And that would be bad. Very bad.

Byline: This stoogish commentary was authored by the true-believing stooge Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of blind stoogery. LLIN-166.

Is America Approaching Neo Fuedalism?

Does anyone take issue with the following? Is it reasonable to expect that when working 70 hours a week, as the gentleman who wrote the following does, a person is able to provide for the basic needs for their family and themselves without needing government assistant? Is it acceptable that government contractors make healthy profits and yet not provide decent wages for their employees? Is it ethical, moral? What, if anything should be done to rectify the unfairness, if that is what it really is? As we continue to see more economic stratification (rich/working poor) are you concerned about the long range negative and potentially volatile societal consequences that may occur?

American voters should ask themselves: if presidential candidates won't help the workers who serve them every day, will they really help the millions of low-wage American workers who they don't know or see? I'm a Bible-believing Christian, just like a lot of the candidates. Scripture says to "Love your neighbor" and "Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you". It's a shame too few candidates follow the guidance of the book in which they say they believe. My employer, Compass Group, is renewing its contract with the US government today – but none of the senators or government officials to whom we serve food asked me or my co-workers whether this multinational corporation, headquartered in the United Kingdom, is treating American workers right. No-one bothered to check if the company that makes billions in profits is paying workers a living wage and offering decent benefits so we don't have to use public aid programs to meet our basic needs. (Excerpted from the article I am a cook in the US Senate but I still need food stamps to feed my children by Bertrand Olotara).

Bertrand Olotara says "I work 70 hours a week doing two jobs but cannot make ends meet". Lying Lester's response? I say Bertrand is a whiner who should acquire more skills if he wants more money. Given he is a low skilled loser, it is entirely appropriate that he receive low wages.

If he can't provide for his family, he shouldn't have one. How many kids does this loser have? Lying Lester suspects he has too many. I mean, he should have considered whether or not he could provide for children before he decided to father them. But irresponsibility is quite common among the Poors.

Now he needs government assistance in the form of food stamps to feed his family. And the government provides it - with assistance from Lying Lester (in the form of his tax dollars). Frankly Lying Lester finds this to be an outrage! I say let this loser's kid's starve.

Neither the taxpayer nor the employer should pay extra because a low skilled poor made a bad decision. Lying Lester says Olotara (a single father) should put his kids to work. That would provide extra income in addition to him not having to pay for daycare. Unfortunately child labor laws prevent this. Laws Lying Lester strongly believes should be done away with.

Under no condition should Compass Group be forced to pay Olotara any more than they negotiated. If Olotara does not like the pay he can find employment elsewhere. That is how the Free Market works! As a Objectivist Libertarian Lying Lester believes in the Free Market with all his heart. He does not believe, by the way, in "loving his neighbor" or "doing unto others as Lying Lester would have them do unto him".

That's pu$$y talk - at which Lying Lester laughs. Same as he laughs at those who speak of imaginary friends who live in the sky and look to books written by said invisible imaginary friend. Whenever strong belief in mysticism, regardless whether Allah or God, trumps sound science and objective philosophy a society is bound to lose liberty and freedom.

Is it ethical and moral for a corporation to make healthy profits and yet not provide decent wages for their employees? HELL YES it is! And Olotara, who went on strike for more money than what he negotiated for, should have his ass fired for walking off the job.

As far as Lying Lester is concerned, nothing at all should be done to rectify the "unfairness". Because it is VERY fair in Lying Lester's opinion that working Poors be paid low low wages while their employers get richer and richer.

The bottom line here is that America *is* approaching neo feudalism, and Lying Lester says that is a good thing. But enough with the "approaching" already! Get rid of the public aid programs completely and those who can't or won't work will starve. This will keep the remaining Poors in line and stop them from striking.

If Olotara's labor were truly worth more he could negotiate for a higher wage, instead of attempting to EXTORT it from his employer! My father, a manager and business owner always told his employees: "If I go to the candy store I'll take you with me". And he always did with those that were productive.

But he shouldn't have had to. Back then the economy was better and good employees could easily find employment elsewhere. Thank Ayn Rand those days are over! Now the Poors can be forced to work for lower and lower wages. Leaving those at the top with an ever growing portion of the candy.

Before long they will have the entire candy store to themselves and the Poors will have to get by on what their wealthy betters (the Makers) can't eat and throw away... Just thinking of this makes Lying Lester smile.

Byline: This excellent commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of untruth. LLIN-158.

Lying Lester Heartily Endorses So-Called "Wage Theft"

Being conservative in matters of business, I Lying Lester believe that in the employee-employer relationship, the contract is sacrosanct. In deference to the Job Creators, however, adherence to said employee-employer contract should, in my strong opinion, be primarily a one-way street.

Specifically I'm thinking of recent accusations of the "theft" of contractually agreed upon wages. I say employees should shut the hell up if they have a suspicion that their employer is doctoring the timesheets, or by some other method not paying the employee for all hours worked.

I mean, these workers should be grateful to have a job at all! A business needs to make a profit to stay in business, and what with the unconstitutional minimum wage being forced upon them by greedy and pandering Liberals, Makers have to do what's necessary to ensure their businesses don't go under.

That is not a worry of the greedy employee, of course, which is why they cry foul when they aren't paid what the employer "agreed" to pay them. How about a little flexibility in gratitude for your job? It's the employer's responsibility, after all, to make sure they make enough profit to stay in business so the responsibility-free employee can collect their paycheck.

Frankly I find the entire "wage theft" concept to be bogus. It's like the lIberals are saying "damn those corporations for creating jobs, the gall of them!" It only makes sense that, if an employer looks at the books and determines that an employee's labor brought in less profit for them (during the pay-period in question), then HELL YES the employer should be able to adjust down the employee's wages.

By the way, if the employer looks at the books and determines that the employee's labor generated MORE profit than normal, then the wage of the employee should NOT be adjusted up. Remember what I said about the one-way street? I am inclined to think, however, that this wage-adjusting-based-on-profit-generated scenario should apply to low-skilled workers only, and not high-skilled workers such as myself.

If you're low-skilled you should be grateful simply to have a job and accept whatever wage the employer decides you're worth, IMO. You're obviously an idiot, or you wouldn't have a low-skill job, right? So I say the low-skilled workers should leave the determination of how much their labor is worth up to their betters and stop whining about "wage theft".

Keep the government bureaucrats out of it as well. And by that I mean get rid of the minimum wage and all the regulations that depress the profits of our job creators. Truly it sickens me when I see the USSA (United SOCIALIST States of America), being pushed by pRogressive Takers everywhere.

Allow our job creators to create jobs and quite piling on the burdens, "pRogressives"! Trust me (as someone who is considerably more intelligent that you), I know it would work. We need to get government out of the way and we'll all be better off.

Byline: This 6th LLIN commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of untruth. LLIN-006.