Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Yeah, all these companies destroyed themselves (HUNDREDS of them, most with sharp as tack CEO's) due to undue political pressure.> That's not what I said.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Yet another personal attack from DouglasDubh, and yet another off-topic post.> Actually, it was a response to a personal attack. And again, if you want me to stop making off-topic posts, stop making them about me.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <based on things I've read over the years, such as articles and editorials where people complained about the lack of lending to the poor.> And from that you leaped to "The banks responded to political pressure by lowering the barriers to credit"? Okay, it's just an opinion (though presented as though it were fact), but it's not a very well formed one. For one thing, we only saw increased lending to the poor in the area of home mortgages, and nowhere else, at the same time that middle class people also got easier credit than ever before for mortgages. So concluding that this all happened because there was political pressure to lend more to the poor... like I said, it's fine as an opinion, but it's not a very well-formed one.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <For one thing, we only saw increased lending to the poor in the area of home mortgages, and nowhere else, at the same time that middle class people also got easier credit than ever before for mortgages.> That's not been established. <So concluding that this all happened because there was political pressure to lend more to the poor... like I said, it's fine as an opinion, but it's not a very well-formed one.> One, I never said it "all" happened because of that. This is another occasion in which you distort my statement by adding or dropping qualifiers. Two, I disagree that my opinion is not very well-formed. If that was the case, you could present evidence that against it, but 250 posts later, you haven't done that.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<For one thing, we only saw increased lending to the poor in the area of home mortgages, and nowhere else, at the same time that middle class people also got easier credit than ever before for mortgages.>> <That's not been established.> It's certainly been established that middle class people got easier credit during the period we're talking about than previously. "No money down" home loans, for example, used to be unheard of for the average homeowner; likewise not having to prove your income. For the other part of the equation, if you can show that poor people got marked increases in loans outside of the home mortgage market, feel free to do so. <<So concluding that this all happened because there was political pressure to lend more to the poor... like I said, it's fine as an opinion, but it's not a very well-formed one.>> <One, I never said it "all" happened because of that. This is another occasion in which you distort my statement by adding or dropping qualifiers.> Actually, the "all" I'm referring to is the "all" of this discussion, not the "all" of the current credit crunch. Sorry if that wasn't clear. <Two, I disagree that my opinion is not very well-formed. If that was the case, you could present evidence that against it, but 250 posts later, you haven't done that.> I've explained above why it isn't well formed. You presented this opinion that there was political pressure to lend more to the poor, and this resulted in the banks lowering credit. You haven't shown any backup or evidence to this effect, but okay, it can still be an opinion. Except that middle class people got easier credit at exactly the same time for mortgages, and if poor people suddenly got easier credit all around, you should be able to show that they did outside the home mortgage area. So the opinion doesn't jibe with reality.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 You disagree that credit barriers for mortgages were lowered to the middle class at the same time they were lowered to the poor? Hard to see how it could be that. So you disagree that the lending to the poor didn't increase outside the realm of home mortgages? If you disagree with that, perhaps you should show that it did.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <So, it's really the little guy that gets left holding the bag, while the "scumbags" will be riding whatever the next big wave is.> Boy howdy, 2oony.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You disagree that credit barriers for mortgages were lowered to the middle class at the same time they were lowered to the poor?> No, I disagree that you've explained why my isn't well formed, and with your assertion that it doesn't jibe with reality. <If you disagree with that, perhaps you should show that it did.> If you want to keep asserting I'm wrong, perhaps you can show that it didn't, rather than just keep repeating your opinion.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<You disagree that credit barriers for mortgages were lowered to the middle class at the same time they were lowered to the poor?>> <No, I disagree that you've explained why my isn't well formed, and with your assertion that it doesn't jibe with reality.> Then you agree that credit barriers for the poor and the middle class were both lowered in the mortgage realm? If so, then at least THAT part of the equation would have nothing to do with any supposed political pressure to lend more to the poor. That brings us to the second part... <<If you disagree with that, perhaps you should show that it did.>> <If you want to keep asserting I'm wrong, perhaps you can show that it didn't, rather than just keep repeating your opinion.> How sadly typical of you. But it doesn't work that way. The original assertion/opinion was yours, in #7. Here's how it works. Whether you want to call it an assertion or opinion, if you say "Chocolate is evil," and someone says "I don't think that's true," you do not get to say "prove it isn't." It's not up to person #2, it's up to person #1 to back up his opinion. You have been repeatedly challenged to do so, and you quite obviously can not.
Originally Posted By Mr X Okay, now that we've (finally) established that your idea about political pressure is just your opinion and not a matter of fact, my question to you would be why didn't the management of all these dead companies rail against the politicians that ultimately doomed them? You'd think they'd be screaming from the rooftops to any media that would listen, and you'd also think the media would be clamoring to get on board such a "kill the politicians" story. What with all the CEO's being dragged in front of congressional committees to explain their actions, why have we never heard "well, you see, it was the politicians fault because x y z"? Seriously, what would these guys have left to lose? Some are looking at possible criminal charges, for pete's sake. If there were a valid argument based on your opinion, wouldn't the corporate fat-cats be using it?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <You keep asserting that, but it's just your opinion. > It's my opinion that you can't back up your assertion? Perhaps. But it's opinion backed up by your own (in)actions.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <my question to you would be why didn't the management of all these dead companies rail against the politicians that ultimately doomed them?> Who said that it was the politicians that ultimately doomed them? I certainly didn't.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's my opinion that you can't back up your assertion?> It's also your opinion that I made an assertion that needs to be backed up.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Who said that it was the politicians that ultimately doomed them? I certainly didn't.*** Okay, then what did you mean by political pressure being brought to bear on the companies being part of the problem, then? If what you said IS true, then yes it did have everything to do with their ultimate demise.
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy Let me summarize so we can get back on topic: Doug says a bunch of stuff, but it doesn't really mean what it sounds like it means because no one can actually interpret correctly what he is saying except for him. So, in the end everything he says is really meaningless and not worth all the words being wasted to respond to his meaningless drivel.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <It's also your opinion that I made an assertion that needs to be backed up.> Not only my opinion, but that of everyone who's weighed in on it, except you. You don't have to back up your assertions, of course, but when you don't, your credibility takes another hit. I know, I know, you don't care about my opinion about your credibility. And on and on we go. #276 has it about right.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Okay, then what did you mean by political pressure being brought to bear on the companies being part of the problem, then?> Exactly that. Part of the problem. Not all of the problem, and not that politicians ultimately doomed anybody.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Doug says a bunch of stuff, but it doesn't really mean what it sounds like it means because no one can actually interpret correctly what he is saying except for him. So, in the end everything he says is really meaningless and not worth all the words being wasted to respond to his meaningless drivel.> That's not an accurate summary. But I guess I shouldn't expect any better.
