Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Why don't you all stop talking about each other and deal with the topic?

Like I said, the banks did not give out houses in the name of equity. I'm laughing at that statement.

God are you stupid. What was explained is that the mortgage companies/banks weren't regulated by the Democrats in the name of equity.

As MCL explained above. Perhaps you should go back and re-read the posts in this thread because you're clearly clueless as to what's going on here?

I did read the story, and it isn't a valid example because it is only relevant in the context of guys drinking at a bar, not in the wider social context.

I guess they are entitled to poor quality schools, poor roads

Yes, teachers and garbage collectors drive on different roads than the rich. Everyone knows that.

BB - I will look up film and book.

Two books covering the crisis which I've read and recommend are:
Return of Depression Economics and the crisis of 2008 - Paul Krugman
and Crisis Economics: A Crash Course in the Future of Finance - Noriel Roubini:
http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Economics- ... 1594202508

Misery Called Life wrote:

shafique wrote:Those that made money out of the whole affair are the mortgage originators, the salesmen, the ones selling them off etc etc. The ones who lost out are those losing their homes and the taxpayers who have had to bail out the banks etc.

Be fair Shafique (fat chance),
So why would you loose out on your home? So long as you can pay your loans nobody's evicting you right?
How sensationalist indeed!!! Evil bankers kicking you out of your home...BooHooo

MCL - read my quote again. I'm not saying that those who can't afford to pay back the mortgages secured on (in many cases, over valued) houses should not be evicted. I'm stating that they are the ones who are losing out, comparing them with those involved in giving them the mortgages who made money out of the transactions. The guys gullible enough to buy the CDOs are being bailed out - not the guy being evicted.

How is this sensationalist?

Misery Called Life wrote:

shafique wrote:Why a capitalist or right winger supports this is a curious question, don't you think? Surely you should oppose bail outs and allow the banks go bust?

Why is his stand relevant to the argument?

Goes to the heart of the subject matter of this thread - the injustice in the social bailout of losses vs privatising of profit - and distinguishes between those who (like Soros) see some merit/basis in the protesters gripes. And whilst you may not want to know the answer, I do - and I do think it pertinent to this thread and the arguments that stem from it.

Misery Called Life wrote:

shafique wrote:Under the Republicans - the AIG bailout channelled a lot of money to Goldman Sachs - did you approve of that?

Be fair Shafique (fat chance),
You seem to have conveniently forgotten the bit where the Republicans did indeed let Lehman Brothers fail.

Hank Paulson didn't work for Lehmans. I didn't ask about Lehmans, I asked about the AIG bailout and the fact the money went to GS.

The question was whether eh approved of this effective bailout of GS by taxpayers.

Misery Called Life wrote: So what then are you advocating Shafique? AIG gets bailed out but then through selective profiling, commitments with certain banks should have been written-down? Or that AIG shouldn't have been bailed out?

I wouldn't have allowed AIG to get to the situation where a small group in London bet the whole firm away by issuing risky products that they didn't understand.

Given that they took a gamble and lost, the question becomes: why should the taxpayers bail out private firms?

If a private insurance company can take bets out that threaten the global financial system - then regulation should be in place to stop these bets occurring. If the up sides of the bets are privatised, why should the downsides be socialised?

To be honest - on the economy (and indeed on foreign policy) - the difference between the Democrats and Republicans is pretty much reminiscent of the end of Orwell's Animal Farm. What's the real difference?

I hear the rhetoric, but policies are substantially the same.

Hence, you'll note that it was eh that introduced the 'it happened under the Democrats' argument when asked about the bailouts.

My original question was on the bailouts - not on who was in power when they were handed out. I'm focusing on AIG now, because it was so early on in the crisis and also happens to be under the Republicans (so no excuse for eh not tackling the question asked).

Cheers,
Shafique

Hence, you'll note that it was eh that introduced the 'it happened under the Democrats' argument when asked about the bailouts.

Another idiotic strawman.

I made the point that the protesters' anger at the Republicans is misguided since it was the Democrats more than the Republicans who supported the bailouts.

Nice try. But basic reading comprehension still evades you.

You need to look up the term strawman - and then also read the fact that I'm not asking you about your views on the Democrats - but on the bailouts.

Cheers,
Shafique

Is this an example of a strawman:

dubai-politics-talk/anti-semitism-fanbois-perspective-t47663-60.html#p390186

-- Mon Oct 10, 2011 6:15 am --

shafique wrote:You need to look up the term strawman - and then also read the fact that I'm not asking you about your views on the Democrats - but on the bailouts.

Cheers,
Shafique

So you lied when you said I used the "blame the Democrats argument" when I merely pointed out the anger at the Republicans by the protesters for the bailout is misguided?

eh - let me repeat, I'm asking you about the bailouts. Try and focus.

(I understand and agree that you think the protestor's anger should be at Democrats and Republicans - and I understand you are arguing they are wrong to be angry at Republicans. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and agree that they should be angry with both Democrats and Republicans. There - now, let's focus on the policies and principles - not the finger pointing - be it of protesters or posters.)

So, what is your view of the bailout of AIG and the money going to GS - isn't that against capitalist principles - socialising a loss, whilst the gains all went to private interests?

Cheers,
Shafique

EH, you don't seem to get who the protesters are angry at. It's not about any one particular party - its about the government as a whole and big business. It's about ALL the politicians - the way they have been running, or should I say ruining, government. If the government was rated as a business and how it was run it would get a big, fat F!!!! (As in FAIL)

event horizon wrote:

Like I said, the banks did not give out houses in the name of equity. I'm laughing at that statement.

God are you stupid. What was explained is that the mortgage companies/banks weren't regulated by the Democrats in the name of equity.

As MCL explained above. Perhaps you should go back and re-read the posts in this thread because you're clearly clueless as to what's going on here?

I did read the story, and it isn't a valid example because it is only relevant in the context of guys drinking at a bar, not in the wider social context.

I guess they are entitled to poor quality schools, poor roads

Yes, teachers and garbage collectors drive on different roads than the rich. Everyone knows that.

Me not agreeing with your assertions doesn't make me stupid. Show some class and stick to your arguments instead of resorting to personal insults.

The fact is, you think that people are not equal and people only deserve a standard of living that they can afford. So poor people who can pay only a small amount of taxes should remain poorly educated and die from lack of access to medical care etc. Rich people should pay as little tax as the poorest people so it is fair, and they should horde their wealth and use it for their own benefit and enjoyment, even though they are making their money off of the backs of the lower-economic bracket folks. Viva capitalism!

-- Mon Oct 10, 2011 7:33 am --

Bora Bora wrote:EH, you don't seem to get who the protesters are angry at. It's not about any one particular party - its about the government as a whole and big business. It's about ALL the politicians - the way they have been running, or should I say ruining, government. If the government was rated as a business and how it was run it would get a big, fat F!!!! (As in FAIL)

Exactly. Government is controlled by big business via lobbyists and the fact that many politicians and their families are involved in the big businesses themselves. So much for the power of democracy when average citizens have a difficult time controlling their own governments!

Ok eh, let's attempt to nip this latest attempt at smoke and mirrors in the bud.

event horizon wrote:

shafique wrote:If you believed in Capitalism, these banks should be allowed to go under if they can't exist without tax-payer bailouts.

And it was the Democrats who largely supported the bailouts. So the protesters' anger is misdirected. It should be with the Democrats more than Republicans.

shafique wrote:As for my question about the bailouts - I didn't mention Republicans or Democrats. The crisis hit before Obama took office and IIRC the first bailouts were agreed before he came to power - AIG for example.

AIG's bailout was the one I highlighted where the money flowed through to Goldman Sachs - to their clients and to the bank itself. Didn't this take place under Bush? (Correct me if I'm recalling wrongly - can't be arsed to look it up)

As for Japan - yes, it is still suffering. US isn't out of the woods yet - it could get worse than Japan.. we'll see.

However the question was on the principle of bailouts - why should the tax payers be forced to bail out banks for dodgy lending etc? As a right-wing capitalist, shouldn't you advocate companies going bust?

You see, you brought up the Democrats in a reply to me when I asked about bailouts. Focus on the issue now.

Cheers,
Shafique

Many die-hard capitalists believe in having their cake and eating it too. In principle it sounds like perfect capitalism for companies to go bust, but only if they are smaller businesses. Big financial institutions or companies subsidized by the govt? They are exempt of course! There is a large pool of taxpayers who can pay the bill if the govt tells them they HAVE to. They just scare everyone that the entire economy will tank if they don't pony up more money (while they are losing their jobs due to financial downturn). Of course the execs who leave those companies in disgrace should get their golden handshakes - they SO earned that million dollar bonus or severance! Thanks taxpayers!

-- Mon Oct 10, 2011 9:55 am --

I've become quite interested in reading more about what "optimal taxation" should look like. I've read and am digesting one paper on optimal taxation which has challenged some of my views, but I need to read deeper and take a look at more examples. It is quite complicated! http://www.google.com.sg/url?sa=t&sourc ... yA&cad=rja And here is another interesting article on a blueprint for an optimal tax system - http://www.economist.com/node/17461040

EH, watch and listen (and anyone else who cares to understand the Occupy Wall Street movement). Strength in numbers, and the numbers are growing as well as the movement going global. Seems there are many countries that have issues with big business and government.

To think, someone in Vancouver planted the seed.

"Elite Fear the 99.9"



Noam Chomsky, a highly respected person and his take:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wtHTh6N ... re=related

Michael Moore
Note: this interview also includes MM's opinion and his actions regarding a man who was executed in Georgia, where he was denied a stay of execution in spite of lack of proof and retraction of statements by witnesses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrFQs5X- ... re=related

Here is a great opinion piece from the New York Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/opini ... d=fb-share

Joe Nocera summarizes and comments and urges everyone to read this paper;

The Way Forward
Moving From the Post-Bubble, Post-Bust Economy to Renewed Growth and Competitiveness

By Daniel Alpert, Westwood Capital; Robert Hockett, Professor of Law, Cornell University; and Nouriel Roubini, Professor of Economics, New York University

October 10, 2011 New America Foundation

http://newamerica.net/publications/poli ... ay_forward

Full Paper, PDF - http://growth.newamerica.net/sites/newa ... oubini.pdf

Its pretty sobering and will require massive changes...

-- Fri Oct 14, 2011 7:26 am --

Here is some news about the spin-off Occupy Canada rallies - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... tests.html

CBC wrote:Duff Conacher, founding director of Democracy Watch, a non-profit citizen advocacy organization based in Ottawa, is watching the Occupy Canada movement with great interest, saying it has a potential for change if done the right way.

“Peaceful demonstrations where lots of people come out and express their concerns are always a good thing in a democracy, but they’re better if the demonstrators have specific demands that they want action on," Conacher said in an interview from his Toronto home.

"It is easy to be an activist. It’s not very easy to be an effectivist and actually effect change. You have to do your research, find out problems and the actual solutions, and activate that in strategic ways.

"Specific demands are more likely to corner decision makers and policymakers and force a response: 'Yes or no. are you going to do this?'”

Specifically, Democracy Watch suggests that ralliers should support the 15 key measures endorsed for the past decade by 140 citizen groups across Canada rather than 'reinventing the wheel."

The measures include:

The creation of civilian watchdog agencies to oversee corporate activity in each economic sector.
Increased financial and legal penalties for corporate illegality.
Expanded protection for whistleblower employees.
A requirement that corporations must legally represent not only the interests of shareholders, but also those of their employees, customers, and society and the environment at large.

"The government is reviewing the Bank Act and other financial institution laws over the next year, so the window of opportunity is open now," notes Conacher.

I completely agree that specific plans for action have to be suggested or the protesting is rather useless beyond showing mass discontent.

shafique wrote:Those that made money out of the whole affair are the mortgage originators, the salesmen, the ones selling them off etc etc. The ones who lost out are those losing their homes and the taxpayers who have had to bail out the banks etc.
MCL - read my quote again. I'm not saying that those who can't afford to pay back the mortgages secured on (in many cases, over valued) houses should not be evicted. I'm stating that they are the ones who are losing out, comparing them with those involved in giving them the mortgages who made money out of the transactions. The guys gullible enough to buy the CDOs are being bailed out - not the guy being evicted.

So did banks rate the mortgages AAA+? Nopes, they were rated by independent agencies right. So as a buyer if I buy a security rated AAA how is it my fault? The government is obligated to insure me in case of default, because it's clearly a failure of the government regulatory agencies. But those who took out loans were under no such obligation. So why do they deserve protection?

shafique wrote:Why a capitalist or right winger supports this is a curious question, don't you think? Surely you should oppose bail outs and allow the banks go bust?

There you go again. You cannot quit with the name calling can you? Disgusting!!!

shafique wrote:Hank Paulson didn't work for Lehmans. I didn't ask about Lehmans, I asked about the AIG bailout and the fact the money went to GS.

A 13 billion dollar bail out of super giant Goldman Sachs? And you're supposed to be some sorta economist!!! The fact of the matter is that AIG was bailed out. They had certain financial obligations with Goldman which had to be met, just like how they had 36b USD worth of obligations with French and German banks.

shafique wrote:I wouldn't have allowed AIG to get to the situation where a small group in London bet the whole firm away by issuing risky products that they didn't understand.

In retrospect these are your words of wisdom Shaf? Seriously? If my pet pooch could speak, in retrospect even she would've said the exact same thing.

The fact of the matter simply is, that unfortunately bailouts cannot be averted. if you had money invested would you like to loose all that? That said the system though needs to be cleaned up. And the rot needs to be stemmed out. I quite like what Iceland has done, go straight after the ex-PM. Heads need to roll, politicos, investment bankers, credit rating agencies. The books of all these banks must be made public too. There must be an honest clean up of the system, no doubt about that.
Once the system is cleaned up, the economy then must be rectified.
But I totally agree with you when u say that bankers in UK are the biggest trouble makers. I don't know if you're big on conspiracy theories, but I sure am. And deep down the role of the Rothschilds just cannot be ignored. Maybe I should start a thread on them.

MCL - I've been speaking out against speculation and derivatives for years. I wasn't alone - Warren Buffet called derivatives 'financial weapons of mass destruction' - and I agreed with him. (I actually worked for a Berkshire Hathaway company before joining AIG).

I also agreed with Noriel Roubini who in 2006 and 2007 predicted exactly the crisis and causes of the crisis caused by the lending etc.
http://www.economonitor.com/nouriel/200 ... -of-grief/

I predicted the housing bubble bursting in Dubai and the underlying problems of US economy on this forum - and there were a number of threads on the demise of the Dollar, the end of the US empire etc.

(BTW - eh calls himself right wing and capitalist, why is this 'name calling')

I disagree with you about bailouts - bailouts of bankers can indeed be averted. The banks will collapse and reality will have to be faced - but there is a mass fear of facing up to the 'emperor has no clothes' moment. I however understand where you are coming from - a bailout is necessary if we refuse to face the underlying reality of the fundamental issues/failings of the system.

Glad we agree that the bankers who gave out these loans voluntarily are the trouble makers.

Cheers,
Shafique

Shaf, what did you think about the paper?

I've downloaded the full 35 page paper, but haven't read it yet. I plan to do so over the next week.

I'm currently busy with preparations for a long trip that will start on Monday.

Cheers,
Shafique

Misery Called Life wrote:The government is obligated to insure me in case of default, because it's clearly a failure of the government regulatory agencies. But those who took out loans were under no such obligation. So why do they deserve protection?

I strongly disagree that the business of any government is the only asvising but rather preventing scum. It was not enough to establish criteria like for the prime lenders:

FICO score: at least 640
downpayment: at least 20%.

but made them as the only law. It isn't my fantasy but the current instruction of the Central Bank of the UAE for all banks, which have a deal with car buyers - at least 20% downpayment. Car-makers are not very happy though.

Instead of that the smart-arse bankers had revealed to the World the brightest financial innovation for the last 30 years: sub-prime mortgage without any downpayment at all and FICO score 500.

Another invention, without which the crisis was hardly possible, had been adjustable-rate martgages, which made the lender highly vulnarable after a couple of years but fees unpredictable what made eviction inevetible.

Between 2004–2006 the share of subprime mortgages relative to total originations ranged from 18%–21%, versus less than 10% in 2001–2003 and during 2007.[22][23] In the third quarter of 2007, subprime ARMs making up only 6.8% of USA mortgages outstanding also accounted for 43% of the foreclosures which began during that quarter.[24] By October 2007, approximately 16% of subprime adjustable rate mortgages (ARM) were either 90-days delinquent or the lender had begun foreclosure proceedings, roughly triple the rate of 2005.[25] By January 2008, the delinquency rate had risen to 21%[26] and by May 2008 it was 25%.

I assume that all those transactions must have been a subject of government regulations but last ones had been lifted under W. administration. What do we have as a result? 10 millions families lost their houses and 10 American banks, which conrol 77% of all bank asserts. The latter became even bigger to fail. The former occupied the area around Wall Street.

@RC

The movie I spoke of in an earlier (To Big to Fail) post ran again last night and will probably air a few more times before the end of the month. I recorded it as I will watch it again (and again?) as there is so much info in. Trust me, you won't be bored and it has a great cast.

^The film is also available to download on torrent sites. Haven't downloaded it yet, but it looks interesting and certainly one I'll dl and watch.

Will also see if I can get the book too. Edit - book is also freely available as a pdf.

Cheers,
Shafique

Bora Bora wrote:@RC

The movie I spoke of in an earlier (To Big to Fail) post ran again last night and will probably air a few more times before the end of the month. I recorded it as I will watch it again (and again?) as there is so much info in. Trust me, you won't be bored and it has a great cast.

The last stat in my post IS from the film. Thank you Bora, I saw it with big inteest and it confirmed my assumption for 100%.

A new twist - some loons are trying to blame Mooslims:

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/10/it-did ... onspiracy/



Cheers,
Shafique

Was out in Amsterdam tonight. Couldn't help myself having a chat with one of those Occupy Amsterdam people. Besides some signs against Zionists, of which I had no clue what was the connection, I stepped towards a guy with a sign 'say no to coperate money'. 80-90% looked as if they are on welfare. I asked, and yes this guy was an welfare also. I asked hIm how he can protest against those that pay his shelter and food. He answered that him being on welfare is a delibarate choice to drain the system dry. This is some phucked up sh!t. If I had my Uzi I would have let him dance. .

Certainly sounds strange FD. I've got some friends in Canada who have participated in the Occupy Canada protests, but they all have jobs.

Well the OWS - in NYC, is going down the drain, along with a few other cities in the States.

There are some well meaning people who got involved and as it grew the crusty ragtag homeless drug addicted mentally ill cockroaches crawled out of their holes and joined in. There is alot of tension in these camps with those people going in. Clearly the "organizers" were more interested in numbers not the quality of people they were "welcoming". NYC is hoping that winter comes soon to drive them out of the park where they set up camp. Some of them claim that there will be those who say even if its 50 degrees below zero. Riiiiiiiiiight. Huge piles of rubbish and apparently it's hard to distinguish between what is garbage and what is human garbage. In one city they apparently had this man, big guy, who was physically fighting with people, got piSSed off when someone ate 2 pieces of chicken, rather than the allotted 1 piece, and pulled a knife on a bunch of people when they told him that he had to leave the camp. Off his meds??? Now, how do you tell someone to leave public property??

It looked to me that the reporters were targeting either the mentally challenged or just idiots.

Statement: I want the government to pay for my education.
Reporter: Why should they?
Answer: Because. (Sounds like a 5 year old.)

Some that were filmed looked like the walking dead.

They interviewed a guy that was "Head of Security". Well I can't tell you how proud he was of that. Unfortunately he seemed to have been punched in the head once to many.

Due to lack of organization, the trash that they have behind them (human trash that is), no real agenda, no one of any credibility supporting them, it's going down the drain. The only people who are going to come out winners are those that are in "charge" of the more than $500,000 they received in donations.

Before going forward with the protest it would have served them well to read up on past protests that eventually the government had to heed the call - Protests against the Vietnam War and Civil Rights protests. Well they got their 15 minutes of fame. If it's going to remembered down the road, it's going to be remembered as a having been a good premise, but a total failure.

300 of London's great unwashed have managed to close st Paul's Cathederal for the first time since WW2.

They are protesters from the Occupy London Stock Exchange and have now been camped in the churchyard
in London for a week and have refused to leave.

The dean has cited health and safety concerns for the closure decision.

One CLC member called on them to disband in a peaceful manner.

The Cathedral would normally attract thousands of visitors on a Saturday but they will be turned away although some weddings and other services are expected to take place.

Sunday services have also been suspended.

I think I've seen some of this lot last week at the eviction of the gypos from Dale Farm.

Where's my double barrelled shot gun?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-15413255

On another forum they posted that NYC protesters are defecating on the property of people living near the park!!!! Just shows you the element that are involved in this. Funny thing is, the park that they are camping out in is private property and they can be forced to move by the police. I wonder if the owner asked that they be removed and the Mayor, or whoever, talked him out of it. I think that they should take their "movement" to Battery Park, right near City Hall, and see how the mayor would like going to or leaving his office and stepping in human feces. It wouldn't get that far because he would have them removed before they could drop their pants down to their knees!!!!

Bora Bora wrote:EH get the book "Too Big to Fail" or watch the movie. It examines how the BANKS and GOVERNMENT caused the collapse. Very enlightening.

Taken from Amazon:

A brilliantly reported true-life thriller that goes behind the scenes of the financial crisis on Wall Street and in Washington.

In one of the most gripping financial narratives in decades, Andrew Ross Sorkin-a New York Times columnist and one of the country's most respected financial reporters-delivers the first definitive blow- by-blow account of the epochal economic crisis that brought the world to the brink. Through unprecedented access to the players involved, he re-creates all the drama and turmoil of these turbulent days, revealing never-before-disclosed details and recounting how, motivated as often by ego and greed as by fear and self-preservation, the most powerful men and women in finance and politics decided the fate of the world's economy.

To understand how 2008 financial crisis built up, you should really be watching the documentary called "inside job"

http://www.sonyclassics.com/insidejob/

.

Bora Bora wrote:Statement: I want the government to pay for my education.
Reporter: Why should they?
Answer: Because. (Sounds like a 5 year old.)

I have never been asked such a question. I hope it will never happen with my son but the reply is evident. Probably he cannot pay for tuition fees and living expenses far away from his own small town or vilage somewhere in Visconsine or Montana. Who can at the age of 17? Nobody except wealthy parents.

On the other hand, during study in my uni with the strickest entrance exams in the former USSR, I recognized that fraction of smart boys distributed equally on full range of society as there were only 10% of Moscovites in the Uni, which is located in Moscow too (Moscow is much wealthier city than the rest of Russia with better schools and another fascilities for preparation to any uni).

I assume you have another reply. Education is a business, not right. So pay and take. Such most of my mates would have been out of the bar. Is it what government whants to achive?

Red Chief wrote:

Bora Bora wrote:Statement: I want the government to pay for my education.
Reporter: Why should they?
Answer: Because. (Sounds like a 5 year old.)

I have never been asked such a question. I hope it will never happen with my son but the reply is evident. Probably he cannot pay for tuition fees and living expenses far away from his own small town or vilage somewhere in Visconsine or Montana. Who can at the age of 17? Nobody except wealthy parents.

On the other hand, during study in my uni with the strickest entrance exams in the former USSR, I recognized that fraction of smart boys distributed equally on full range of society as there were only 10% of Moscovites in the Uni, which is located in Moscow too (Moscow is much wealthier city than the rest of Russia with better schools and another fascilities for preparation to any uni).

I assume you have another reply. Education is a business, not right. So pay and take. Such most of my mates would have been out of the bar. Is it what government whants to achive?

RC, I don't think the idiot graduated from high school!!! Government student loans outstanding are almost $900 billion which goes back decades. Either the borrowers never paid them off or they claimed bankruptcy. I don't think anyone should be allowed to claim bankruptcy against government loans for education. As long as they are employed, they should be made to pay them back - it doesn't matter when or how long. Either way the government failed. If the IRS can chase people down for $100, they sure as heLL can chase people down who owe thousands of dollars. The social security number is a tracker and if the government wanted to find them, they could.

The interviewer had asked the knob "What is it you are protesting for?" and that was his response. Even if he was in his home town he probably dropped out of high school and doesnt have the ability to get a GED. I doubt he would pass entry to a community college and qualify for any grants or such. Maybe his parents weren't footing the bill or going to go into debt because they knew they gave birth to an idiot.

I'm sure that he is fully aware of the fact that higher education is not a right, but something you pay for (or daddy does. )

-- Sat Oct 22, 2011 4:27 pm --

Berrin wrote:

Bora Bora wrote:EH get the book "Too Big to Fail" or watch the movie. It examines how the BANKS and GOVERNMENT caused the collapse. Very enlightening.

Taken from Amazon:

A brilliantly reported true-life thriller that goes behind the scenes of the financial crisis on Wall Street and in Washington.

In one of the most gripping financial narratives in decades, Andrew Ross Sorkin-a New York Times columnist and one of the country's most respected financial reporters-delivers the first definitive blow- by-blow account of the epochal economic crisis that brought the world to the brink. Through unprecedented access to the players involved, he re-creates all the drama and turmoil of these turbulent days, revealing never-before-disclosed details and recounting how, motivated as often by ego and greed as by fear and self-preservation, the most powerful men and women in finance and politics decided the fate of the world's economy.

To understand how 2008 financial crisis built up, you should really be watching the documentary called "inside job"

http://www.sonyclassics.com/insidejob/

.

Thanks Berrin. Will download it. Great trailer. I guess it wasn't very "popular" because this is the first I've heard about it.