So in Libertarian/Republican world, EVERYTHING is the government's fault. At all times, no exception. Libertarians usually give more cogent arguments, but it all boils down to one thing. The protesters shouldn't be protesting Wall Street at all, but the government which has somehow forced Wall Street to act as it has. George Soros, ACORN, and the community investment act masterminded by the evil Barney Frank of course make their appearances, and the right wing is appeased.
Does anyone else find this to be utter, complete bullshit and indicative of Corporate Stockholm Syndrome prevalent on the right, and which libertarians will not own up to?
Okay, so the evil Barney Frank forced banks to give loans to people who otherwise had bad credit. How many loans in total and what percentage of total loans given out fit this criteria? How many of those people are still in their homes? If you have a contract with someone and they have to pay you $500 a month, and you can foreclose on them if they miss payments for 3 months, then if they really can't afford the house, you kick them out after 3 months. If they don't make the requisite amount of money per month, they're kicked out. Is government paying people's house notes?
Secondly, why the hell are they defending Wall Street when THEY IGNORE YOUR LAWS? This is what gets me into fights with libertarian friends. You have this weird idea that regulation is bad, but laws (which are regulations) will fix things, along with personal choice. Personal choice has its limits, and laws are useless when they're circumvented or flat out ignored. I have read reports of banks forging deeds to people's homes, claiming that the renter is behind on their payments when they were not. There's the robosigning fiasco. There's the breaking local and federal laws BLATANTLY. We have law firms working in concert with banks, making people sign away their rights, knowing they do not know the law, or working with THEIR attorneys to obfuscate their clients' rights in favor of the banks. Banks are not forced to write long contracts in legalese no one can reads. Banks are not forced to take advantage of the fact that the deeds to old homes are lost, and then forge a deed to kick someone out of their home. Banks are not forced to promise to work with homeowners then deliver a "Fuck off" note a month later, lying to lull people into a sense the bank is somehow working with them.
Is this lost on teabaggers and Red State types? I saw Ron Paul go off on this, and I think he is so fixated on the evil poor people who didn't feel the boot of the free market on their necks that he acts as if Wall Street did nothing.
Did I mention credit swaps, making fake companies to create assets out of thin air, and bribing credit rating agencies to take turds and dip them in gold?
That is not going to be fixed with market forces. Instead of fair banking practices you'll just force the psychopaths to make a sharper sword. Regulation in this case isn't bad, and it's a poor critique of government agencies when they provide the information and power for someone, anyone, to take on a company with 100 times their resources and knowledge.
Am I not understanding this right? I'm basing a lot on my experience with foreclosures in my family, with people who have paid off their houses for 10 years and get railroaded by banks who make promises they BREAK constantly.
Any of you big financial people want to lend me a hand with understanding all this?