It is your problem so you have every reason to be passionate about it, but I don't recall calling them victims, just for arguments' sake.
Printable View
It is your problem so you have every reason to be passionate about it, but I don't recall calling them victims, just for arguments' sake.
You said they "had" to give these loans, which is a lie. Or at least a deliberate misrepresentation to fit your ideology. See my other posts about what kind of people were getting these mortgages before you try to play act like this was mommy government forcing the banks to give loans to poor people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Let's go easier on the "lie" and "play act" bits, to ensure a civil conversation.
And I point out that Fragony is Dutch, merely joining the conversation with his point-of-view - and with no dog in this fight.
I'll try but I do honestly believe some people are being intellectually dishonest about the nature of this crisis to continue defending ideologies about deregulation.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
I am afraid it is one of these inconvenient truths. There is a whole lot of wiki to bark at if you must.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
If laws require companies to do something that was massively profitable for them, I would think you'd be in favor of that anyway. I consider this argument ridiculous to take out the profit motive and pretend these companies weren't making big bucks on signing the loans and then pawning them off. Everyone knows that's what was going on, anyone who works in financial fields in America anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
He's a hardcore capitalist in principle and theory, but when the real world appears he is in favour of things that work, ie. socialist measures ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
[/troll]
That's true of every single ideological capitalist in America. There is no other variety. Ever seen one of these big belly floppers walk away saying "no no, we won't take a bailout?" I haven't.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
The real reason Washington Mutual failed
Quote:
National Review's Mark Krikorian notes that (1) Washington Mutual became the largest bank to fail in American history yesterday and (2) its last press release touted the fact that it was named one of America's most diverse employers, having been "honored specifically for its efforts to recruit Hispanic employees, reach out to Hispanic consumers and support Hispanic communities and organizations"; for being "named [one of] the top 60 companies for Hispanics"; for "attaining equal rights for GLBT employees and consumers"; for having "earned points for competitive diversity policies and programs, including the recently established Latino, African American and GLBT employee network groups"; and for being "named one of 25 Noteworthy Companies by Diversity Inc magazine and one of the Top 50 Corporations for Supplier Diversity by Hispanic Enterprise magazine."
While juxtaposing these two facts -- (1) WaMu has a racially and ethnically diverse workforce and (2) WaMu collapsed yesterday -- the National Review writer headlined his post: "Cause and Effect?" He apparently believes that the reason Washington Mutual failed may be because it employed and was too accommodating to large numbers of Hispanics, African-Americans and gays. Is that why Lehman Brothers, AIG, Bear Sterns and so many others also failed -- too racially diverse of a workforce?
God, people are actually making that argument?
I haven't heard anything like that from anyone.
This is a funny column against the bailout. He's just a columnist, but they are as entitled to an opinion as any of us.
Must be a Pat Buchanan disciple.Quote:
While juxtaposing these two facts -- (1) WaMu has a racially and ethnically diverse workforce and (2) WaMu collapsed yesterday -- the National Review writer headlined his post: "Cause and Effect?" He apparently believes that the reason Washington Mutual failed may be because it employed and was too accommodating to large numbers of Hispanics, African-Americans and gays. Is that why Lehman Brothers, AIG, Bear Sterns and so many others also failed -- too racially diverse of a workforce?
Hmm, maybe because they focused on getting people who looked different on the surface, instead of the best talent.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
CR
They weren't forced to, and don't pretend that they were.
Also are you saying that these Hispanics, Gays and Blacks weren't the best people for the job?
Jeez. Show me the tapes of the interviews and the resumes of those who went for the job before I am can agree with you there. It is bigoted to say that without knowing or speaking with the people in question. That is a shame on both sides - the people who believe that AND the absurd policies that make that perception widespread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I can't get on board with that.
Ever heard of affirmative action?Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
But they probably weren't forced in this instance.
I'm not saying anything about any group in reference to their individual ability.
What I'm saying is a company should focus on how good their employees are, and how a person looks has no bearing on that. Instead they chose to trumpet something unrelated to their business acumen. So this might be seen as them focusing more on political correctness than making sure there business, doesn't, you know, collapse and get sold off.
Heck, perhaps their employees were the very best, but if management is focusing on getting the ideal ratio of minorities hired, then they aren't focused as much on staying solvent, are they?
CR
Are you just looking for an excuse to be racist or something? I know you're not pretending that them hiring a bunch of black and hispanic and gay people to be loan brokers or tellers or bank managers had any bearing whatsoever on what the shareholders and executives were doing in closed meetings. With this mortgage crisis, let's see, so far poor people have been blamed, now minorities, next let's blame it on Al Qaida. Or maybe it was all those black people from Katrina. After they got evacuated they all went to work for Washington Mutual and ruined that too. Sounds good. We got this one solved. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
So you're saying that WaMu failed because it was too focused on hiring minorities than good workers? Are good workers white now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I'm sure you could dig up some black guy at Countrywide and Fannie Mae to blame this on, too, if one was so inclined. Nevermind the fact that the rest of the shareholders and execs were probably 98% white.Quote:
Originally Posted by SwedishFish
Actually, Koga, don't pretend to know what goes on in companies; I highly doubt you've been in any boardroom meetings.
If a company was pursuing plans to make good PR material and how to hire the people who looked right, then that definitely could impact what effort they could put towards staying solvent.
I'm not saying that's what happened, but its not inconceivable. Suprise - following lefties' little pet projects at companies could actually lead to bad results!
You got some sort of reading comprehension problem?Quote:
So you're saying that WaMu failed because it was too focused on hiring minorities than good workers? Are good workers white now?
CR
Un-backed Paper money doesnt work. It's inherently inflationary. It just DOESNT WORK!!! Has anyone here ever heard of Von Mises??? The problem is not interest rates or subprime loans, its the fact that the more FIAT currency you print, the worse things get.
Back the money with gold or silver. If you cant do that, find something! anything to back your money is better than NOTHING!!!
the only reason that the global paper money scheme has worked so far is that the american economy has kept things relatively stable. We all know that once the US Economy tanks, everyone else goes with it.
Does any other country back their money with something substantial anymore????
The problem was lack of regulation, period. It doesn't matter if you were giving subprime loans to hispanics, blacks, whites or purple people. Plenty of white people took bad loans, plenty of white people brokered bad loans, plenty of white Wall Street execs made money off making bad loans. Turning this into a race issue is a ridiculous argument and you rightfully look foolish trying to make it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
And while we're on the topic of board rooms, if you think you could walk into these companies that have flopped since last week and see a bunch of brown and black faces, it is you my friend who have probably never been to a board room meeting.
*looks at the current financial hellhole*Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Yeah..... Those righties sure have everything sorted out....
:laugh4:
How about this guy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Raines
How much does "CEO of Fannie Mae" fit in your percentages? Poor choice of direction for this argument. :tongue2:
Because this is just what the discussion needs, someone pulling out the race card. ~:rolleyes: Leave race out of this, we don't need Sharpton getting an .Org account.
Have you even bothered to read the discussion? I didn't pull out the race card. People are making the argument that these companies failed because of their policy of hiring minorities and boasting a diverse workforce. That is not just ridiculous as an explanation for the mortgage crisis, it is indeed racist.Quote:
Originally Posted by drone
It is inconceivable, because the recruitment department isn't connected to keeping the company solvent. Or to be more correct, it's about as conceivable as the companies going under because they spent PR on those tv-comercials posted here. While possible, it would require an insane stupidity to be anything more than a bad investement at worst.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I've read it, and I think the article posted by CountArach is full of it. I know you didn't start with it, and it is indeed a ridiculous explanation. But you need to be a little more careful about generalizing the culprits as "white rich guys", when one of the main players in this does not fit that description. It only hurts your argument and gives the impression that you are not very informed on the subject matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi
:focus:
Something posted as a joke really took this places...
What do you mean posted as a joke? I could post links to stories where Margaret Sanger said that the U.S. needs abortion on demand in order to control minority population birth rates. It doesn't mean that all people who support abortion support negative racist eugenics. If they are true, though, then they aren't jokes.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
I appreciated the post. Sometimes it is best to understand underlying corruptions in thought that might hold your message back from a wider acceptance. I believe that promoting people based on things that shouldn't have a role in the decision speaks more to bad business practices than anything about minorities. Affirmative action is part of the problem because it is a bad idea for everyone, but I can't blame the employment of minorities for the market crisis. White accountability, respect and intelligence in business has plummeted recently - so we shouldn't be looking for any excuse to pass the buck onto people who largely don't make the decisions.
"Let all of the poisons that lurk in the mud hatch out"