Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Morning Legal Briefs

View
60 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >

40. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Oct 30, 2012, 02:20 Bet
 
NegaDeath wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 17:41:
"which comes primarily from liberal legislation"

is not compatible with

"and there were dipshits from both sides supporting it."
"Now this was caused by both both parties,"
Idiosyncratic hypocrisy is what makes a person stop voting straight ticket R.
 
Avatar 9253
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
39. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Oct 30, 2012, 01:14 mag
 
nin wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 22:31:
jdreyer wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 22:28:
Mordecai Walfish wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 19:52:

Hahaha.. this is beyond words.. I can only imagine what all the *REMOVED* posts are.

I know! I'm dying to know what Cutter said.


Cutter has mellowed considerably from his earlier days.


His language has mellowed a little, but he still says the most batshit-crazy stuff here.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
38. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Oct 30, 2012, 00:59 Mr. Tact
 
I wish we could have let the bankers go down in flames. Unfortunately, doing so would have caused more suffering to others than it would to the bankers. They had already skimmed their profits off the top anyway.

The argument that the government forced the banks to make loans they otherwise wouldn't is a red herring. While it might have a small basis in fact, what really caused the problem is bankers taking those loosened rules and running with it. Making every single loan they could sign anyone up for.
 
Truth is brutal. Prepare for pain.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
37. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Oct 30, 2012, 00:32 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Beamer wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 23:55:
Yeah, the rating companies made asses of themselves. Ignoring the fraud, everyone basically did what they were supposed to. They made bets. Terrible bets.

The rating companies saying they were safe bets despite not understanding them is pretty poor. Sure, traders also didn't understand them, but they thought they'd be good, and it wasn't their job to rate them, just make them, as trading is always betting.
I don't think the banks were so innocent as that even. They were actively trying to game the ratings.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/business/24rating.html

Ultimately though, Congress made the laws that allowed this to happen (or they enabled it through deregulation like the CFMA). They turned over the reigns to the banks to essentially make their own rules. No wonder they're the only ones that come out on top after all is said and done.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
36. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Oct 29, 2012, 23:55 Beamer
 
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 23:23:
Beamer wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 22:30:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 22:24:
Beamer wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 20:40:
I sadly worked for a subprime mortgage company in the early 2000s. One of the better ones, sadly. No one was forcing anyone to give those loans, in fact the companies were bending over backwards. Did your numbers not work? We fired one sales manager for advising his loan officer to advise his customer to photoshop his pay stubs. That guy was rehired at a much bigger company in under a week.

No, everyone wanted to give bad loans (and, incidentally, get bad loans.) The thought was that everything would be consolidated, sold off in a package, and probably work out for the best. If not, well, by that point it was someone else's problem.

As it turned out, it was all of our problem. Pretty much everyone deserves blame here. Bankers. Loan officers. Borrowers. Bill Clinton. George Bush.
Don't forget Congress. Aside from the Bankers, who sure as hell should have known better, they are the most guilty. Banks are supposed to do the underwriting and not tell people they can afford more than they actually can, but I had that happen when I was looking for a house. Thankfully I had the sense to go with what I knew I could afford, and get a regular 30yr fixed mortgage, but a lot of banks were just telling people what they wanted to hear. That homes are a great investment and that they'll just keep going up in value, so it's no problem, and we've got this cool new type of mortgage so you can have affordable payments, etc.

It was fraud, fueled by greed, plain and simple, but a lot of people were too ignorant about finance and/or too greedy to care, so they signed for those stupid loans. Probably why Congress was so quick to bail out the banks too, as they were largely responsible for the laws that allowed it to happen. Of course they still caved to the banks afterwards and made sure to water down and stonewall all the reforms so that they banks stay fat and happy and still legally allowed to continue screwing with the economy.

Maybe the investment bankers should have, but they didn't. They didn't know better. Their models were too complex and faulty. And no one really knew.

But banks weren't underwriting these, subprime mortgage companies were. New regulations started originators, who would do the loan themselves then sell them. If no one would buy they loan they'd put them into scratch-and-dent, meaning they'd package a whole bunch of bad loans together and sell them off. Odds were only a small amount would foreclose. Turns out most did.


Yeah, you're right that they probably didn't actually know what was going on, at least not until it was too late. But everyone was doing things that were dumb and/or outright fraud. Either by duping the lendees, or by duping investors, or by duping ratings agencies, etc. Everyone thought they could make it someone else's problem. A lot of those packages were full of terrible loans and were still given AAA ratings and sold off as such. They were making so much money off of it that nobody cared. They just wanted their fat bonuses and someone else could deal with the fallout.

Yeah, the rating companies made asses of themselves. Ignoring the fraud, everyone basically did what they were supposed to. They made bets. Terrible bets.

The rating companies saying they were safe bets despite not understanding them is pretty poor. Sure, traders also didn't understand them, but they thought they'd be good, and it wasn't their job to rate them, just make them, as trading is always betting.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
35. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Oct 29, 2012, 23:23 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Beamer wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 22:30:
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 22:24:
Beamer wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 20:40:
I sadly worked for a subprime mortgage company in the early 2000s. One of the better ones, sadly. No one was forcing anyone to give those loans, in fact the companies were bending over backwards. Did your numbers not work? We fired one sales manager for advising his loan officer to advise his customer to photoshop his pay stubs. That guy was rehired at a much bigger company in under a week.

No, everyone wanted to give bad loans (and, incidentally, get bad loans.) The thought was that everything would be consolidated, sold off in a package, and probably work out for the best. If not, well, by that point it was someone else's problem.

As it turned out, it was all of our problem. Pretty much everyone deserves blame here. Bankers. Loan officers. Borrowers. Bill Clinton. George Bush.
Don't forget Congress. Aside from the Bankers, who sure as hell should have known better, they are the most guilty. Banks are supposed to do the underwriting and not tell people they can afford more than they actually can, but I had that happen when I was looking for a house. Thankfully I had the sense to go with what I knew I could afford, and get a regular 30yr fixed mortgage, but a lot of banks were just telling people what they wanted to hear. That homes are a great investment and that they'll just keep going up in value, so it's no problem, and we've got this cool new type of mortgage so you can have affordable payments, etc.

It was fraud, fueled by greed, plain and simple, but a lot of people were too ignorant about finance and/or too greedy to care, so they signed for those stupid loans. Probably why Congress was so quick to bail out the banks too, as they were largely responsible for the laws that allowed it to happen. Of course they still caved to the banks afterwards and made sure to water down and stonewall all the reforms so that they banks stay fat and happy and still legally allowed to continue screwing with the economy.

Maybe the investment bankers should have, but they didn't. They didn't know better. Their models were too complex and faulty. And no one really knew.

But banks weren't underwriting these, subprime mortgage companies were. New regulations started originators, who would do the loan themselves then sell them. If no one would buy they loan they'd put them into scratch-and-dent, meaning they'd package a whole bunch of bad loans together and sell them off. Odds were only a small amount would foreclose. Turns out most did.


Yeah, you're right that they probably didn't actually know what was going on, at least not until it was too late. But everyone was doing things that were dumb and/or outright fraud. Either by duping the lendees, or by duping investors, or by duping ratings agencies, etc. Everyone thought they could make it someone else's problem. A lot of those packages were full of terrible loans and were still given AAA ratings and sold off as such. They were making so much money off of it that nobody cared. They just wanted their fat bonuses and someone else could deal with the fallout.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
34. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Oct 29, 2012, 23:09 Prez
 
My two cents (supplied free of charge) - clubbing the guy over the head about what a cretin he is for his opinion is counterproductive. Better to politely illustrate that his opinion is founded on some seriously one-sided, narrow-minded extremist idealism that fails to properly and objectively consider all of the facts involved. I find that many people of even the most extreme views (on both sides) are more susceptible to having their beliefs altered through thoughtfully expressed opinions to the contrary than their outward online persona may reflect.  
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
33. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Oct 29, 2012, 22:48 Beamer
 
nin wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 22:31:
jdreyer wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 22:28:
Mordecai Walfish wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 19:52:

Hahaha.. this is beyond words.. I can only imagine what all the *REMOVED* posts are.

I know! I'm dying to know what Cutter said.


Cutter has mellowed considerably from his earlier days.


Many here have, but yes, while Cutter goes off from time to time he seems to engage in discussion far more than trolling. He's become an entertaining poster.

Lots of the older posters have done some serious mellowing.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
32. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Oct 29, 2012, 22:31 nin
 
jdreyer wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 22:28:
Mordecai Walfish wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 19:52:

Hahaha.. this is beyond words.. I can only imagine what all the *REMOVED* posts are.

I know! I'm dying to know what Cutter said.


Cutter has mellowed considerably from his earlier days.

 
http://store.nin.com/index.php?cPath=10
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
31. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Oct 29, 2012, 22:30 Beamer
 
Wowbagger_TIP wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 22:24:
Beamer wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 20:40:
I sadly worked for a subprime mortgage company in the early 2000s. One of the better ones, sadly. No one was forcing anyone to give those loans, in fact the companies were bending over backwards. Did your numbers not work? We fired one sales manager for advising his loan officer to advise his customer to photoshop his pay stubs. That guy was rehired at a much bigger company in under a week.

No, everyone wanted to give bad loans (and, incidentally, get bad loans.) The thought was that everything would be consolidated, sold off in a package, and probably work out for the best. If not, well, by that point it was someone else's problem.

As it turned out, it was all of our problem. Pretty much everyone deserves blame here. Bankers. Loan officers. Borrowers. Bill Clinton. George Bush.
Don't forget Congress. Aside from the Bankers, who sure as hell should have known better, they are the most guilty. Banks are supposed to do the underwriting and not tell people they can afford more than they actually can, but I had that happen when I was looking for a house. Thankfully I had the sense to go with what I knew I could afford, and get a regular 30yr fixed mortgage, but a lot of banks were just telling people what they wanted to hear. That homes are a great investment and that they'll just keep going up in value, so it's no problem, and we've got this cool new type of mortgage so you can have affordable payments, etc.

It was fraud, fueled by greed, plain and simple, but a lot of people were too ignorant about finance and/or too greedy to care, so they signed for those stupid loans. Probably why Congress was so quick to bail out the banks too, as they were largely responsible for the laws that allowed it to happen. Of course they still caved to the banks afterwards and made sure to water down and stonewall all the reforms so that they banks stay fat and happy and still legally allowed to continue screwing with the economy.

Maybe the investment bankers should have, but they didn't. They didn't know better. Their models were too complex and faulty. And no one really knew.

But banks weren't underwriting these, subprime mortgage companies were. New regulations started originators, who would do the loan themselves then sell them. If no one would buy they loan they'd put them into scratch-and-dent, meaning they'd package a whole bunch of bad loans together and sell them off. Odds were only a small amount would foreclose. Turns out most did.

 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
30. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Oct 29, 2012, 22:28 jdreyer
 
Mordecai Walfish wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 19:52:

Hahaha.. this is beyond words.. I can only imagine what all the *REMOVED* posts are.

I know! I'm dying to know what Cutter said.
 
Avatar 22024
 
"Microsoft is the absent minded parent of PC gaming" - Verno
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
29. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Oct 29, 2012, 22:26 jdreyer
 
Axis wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 12:17:
If most people honestly think it's the lesser of two "evils", I cant imagine anything more evil than murdering unborn children, so there's that.

If The Right concerned themselves with the stuff that happens BEFORE conception (birth control, sex ed) and AFTER birth (subsidized day care, WIC, public education, and other child-friendly programs) they might have a leg to stand on. As it is, they just like telling women what they can or can't do with their bodies, despite supposedly being all about "freedom."

Axis wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 12:17:
And UN control is exactly a liberal thing, you won't see any republicans advocating shit like that.
Total BS. The Right is all about control: the Patriot Act, torture, indefinite detention, military tribunals, warrantless searches and surveillance, secret courts and evidence, extraordinary rendition, denying gays marriage rights, SOPA, anti-Pr0n legislation, TSA, the Iraq war, No Child Left Behind, the list goes on and on.

The party of individual freedom and limited government? A truly laughable claim.
 
Avatar 22024
 
"Microsoft is the absent minded parent of PC gaming" - Verno
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
28. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Oct 29, 2012, 22:24 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Beamer wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 20:40:
I sadly worked for a subprime mortgage company in the early 2000s. One of the better ones, sadly. No one was forcing anyone to give those loans, in fact the companies were bending over backwards. Did your numbers not work? We fired one sales manager for advising his loan officer to advise his customer to photoshop his pay stubs. That guy was rehired at a much bigger company in under a week.

No, everyone wanted to give bad loans (and, incidentally, get bad loans.) The thought was that everything would be consolidated, sold off in a package, and probably work out for the best. If not, well, by that point it was someone else's problem.

As it turned out, it was all of our problem. Pretty much everyone deserves blame here. Bankers. Loan officers. Borrowers. Bill Clinton. George Bush.
Don't forget Congress. Aside from the Bankers, who sure as hell should have known better, they are the most guilty. Banks are supposed to do the underwriting and not tell people they can afford more than they actually can, but I had that happen when I was looking for a house. Thankfully I had the sense to go with what I knew I could afford, and get a regular 30yr fixed mortgage, but a lot of banks were just telling people what they wanted to hear. That homes are a great investment and that they'll just keep going up in value, so it's no problem, and we've got this cool new type of mortgage so you can have affordable payments, etc.

It was fraud, fueled by greed, plain and simple, but a lot of people were too ignorant about finance and/or too greedy to care, so they signed for those stupid loans. Probably why Congress was so quick to bail out the banks too, as they were largely responsible for the laws that allowed it to happen. Of course they still caved to the banks afterwards and made sure to water down and stonewall all the reforms so that they banks stay fat and happy and still legally allowed to continue screwing with the economy.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
27. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Oct 29, 2012, 20:40 Beamer
 
I sadly worked for a subprime mortgage company in the early 2000s. One of the better ones, sadly. No one was forcing anyone to give those loans, in fact the companies were bending over backwards. Did your numbers not work? We fired one sales manager for advising his loan officer to advise his customer to photoshop his pay stubs. That guy was rehired at a much bigger company in under a week.

No, everyone wanted to give bad loans (and, incidentally, get bad loans.) The thought was that everything would be consolidated, sold off in a package, and probably work out for the best. If not, well, by that point it was someone else's problem.

As it turned out, it was all of our problem. Pretty much everyone deserves blame here. Bankers. Loan officers. Borrowers. Bill Clinton. George Bush.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
26. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Oct 29, 2012, 19:52 Mordecai Walfish
 
Axis wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 16:25:
CONTROL of others is a liberal thing

Axis wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 12:17:
And UN control is exactly a liberal thing, you won't see any republicans advocating shit like that.

You are obviously under CONTROL of something if you believe that.

Hahaha.. this is beyond words.. I can only imagine what all the *REMOVED* posts are.
 
Avatar 56178
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
25. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Oct 29, 2012, 19:46 Orogogus
 
The WHO is part of the UN, and did good against smallpox and polio.

The people being sued by the content creators in that article all had a business set up around importation and resale. No one seems to be a Joe Everyman who just wanted to buy a cheaper textbook to get through the semester. As such the argument's already been pushed all the way to the endpoint - should companies be allowed to sell products at higher prices in wealthier markets, and more cheaply in poorer ones?

I think we already went over the extreme case here before: buying up Steam keys from Asia & Eastern Europe and reselling them in the US. Purely digital, so it's basically all profit, with no need to put anything on a boat. As I recall, the argument is basically that people in weaker economies have no fundamental right to affordable video games, whereas consumers do have the right to buy things and resell them wherever they want.

There was a Valve interview where they noted that games used to be sold in Russia at parity with Western countries and released months later, so of course everyone just pirated everything. Now apparently Valve has become the first Western distributor to make major inroads in Russia, selling at deep discounts on or near the same release date as the West, but it could just cannibalize publishers' primary sales markets. So it might be better for them to just go back to horrifically overpriced & months late, and let the Asians and Eastern Europeans pirate everything.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Oct 29, 2012, 19:08 Prez
 
Back on topic, regardless of where you fall on the re-selling used videogames debate I think that the idea that a content creator has the right to control how you use your legally bought item would be offensive to anyone. We're not talking about illegal downloading here; in a resale one person loses access while another gains, making it essentially a zero-sum equation. The person selling the item can only sell it once and no longer has the ability to use the item, making it a perfectly legal transfer by any metric.

And on the UN controlling the Internet -No. Just NO. 'N' fucking 'O'. The UN completely fucks up every single solitary thing it touches. Most useless, incompetent organization in the history of mankind.

This comment was edited on Oct 29, 2012, 19:20.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Oct 29, 2012, 18:45 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Bodolza wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 17:00:
Going by what's been written, I have to believe that Axis is either a troll, or just insane. No one can be this disconnected from reality and still be considered sane. Either way, I don't see any point in arguing. The sad thing being that his vote counts just as much as mine. Some days I think the Electoral College is a good idea.
His vote could count for a lot more than yours, depending on what state he lives in.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Oct 29, 2012, 18:44 Wowbagger_TIP
 
Axis wrote on Oct 29, 2012, 16:59:
Only the die-hard libs won't admit a simple fact (of which you state you aren't):

When you force banks to offer loans to people who cannot pay them back, and the gov't say they'll back them ALL... KABOOM, welcome to America's bust.

Now this was caused by both both parties, but the vast majority of "what caused it" lies in the Gov't guaranteeing bust loans in first place. Read up on it, I did all that years ago.
Oh god... here we go with the "banks were forced to make lousy loans" crap. No, they weren't. Not only that, but the CRA only covered a fairly small percentage of the crappy loans that were made. Most of the stupid loans had nothing at all to do with it. Nor does it explain the fact that they were making as many loans as they possibly could, even foregoing underwriting to speed up the process.

Now you say it was caused by both parties, but you sure weren't saying that before. What lead to the ridiculous loans was the ability to package them into securitizations which they could then insure via credit default swaps, thereby giving the illusion of no downside. Thing like the CFMA of 2000 allowed AIG to essentially print money by selling insurance on these "AAA" securitized mortgages with no requirement for maintaining any sort of reserve that any real insurance company would have. So when the shit hit the fan, AIG couldn't cover even a fraction of the liability they took on, we see that the banks were lying about the "AAA" ratings, and the ratings agencies are worse than useless, and the whole thing comes crumbling down.
 
Avatar 9540
 
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." -- Bertrand Russell (I think...)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: Morning Legal Briefs Oct 29, 2012, 17:41 NegaDeath
 
"which comes primarily from liberal legislation"

is not compatible with

"and there were dipshits from both sides supporting it."
"Now this was caused by both both parties,"
 
Avatar 57352
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
60 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo