Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 08:11:32 -0800 (PST) From: Gilbert Lawrence <[email protected]>
You should follow your own advice to Edward: "Instead of mindless poppycock, wouldn't you have far more credibility if you had responded to some of the facts" with factual information from multiple sources rather than a single talking head. Mario responds: Edward cited unrelated anecdotes from the UK to try and respond to a column about the US financial markets, which I correctly described as poppycock. The fact that you were unable to grasp this speaks for itself. Gilbert wrote: Edward did respond to the article you are referring to. Perhaps you missed his point. Mario responds: Can you cite examples of what Edward had written that referred to anything in the article by Prof. Tom Sowell that I had posted? Gilbert wrote: It is the author Thomas Sowell, that creates the melodrama in his article, with his opinions and unsubstantiated statements. Mario responds: Goanetters should understand that what we have here is a Physician, Gilbert, with time on his hands on a "bekaar" Sunday afternoon, trying to challenge an eminent professor with a Ph.D. in finance and economics, Prof. Tom Sowell, from one of the pre-eminent universities in the USA. This is like a Proctologist challenging an Opthalmologist about your failing eyesight:-)) If that by itself does not amuse you, nothing else in life will:-)) Gilbert wrote: The govt. intervention did not grow. Mario responds: Please provide your proof that the intervention did not grow. Prof. Sowell cites the actions of the Justice Department and HUD during the Clinton administration to show that there was an increase in the intervention by the government. Gilbert wrote: The 1977 Act "encouraged banks." The 1977 Act did not force the banks to make the poor financial decisions. It was a decade later that some with a devious financial mind chose to abuse and take advantage of government regulations to display greater greed and seek more profits. They developed several "'creative' financial arrangements". Mario responds: This is like saying that the 60 mph speed limit "encourages" people to drive slowly, or that the Criminal Code "encourages" people to avoid criminal behavior. Please explain why the Legislature and President would pass a law that just "encouraged" an industry to do something. What would be the use in passing such a law? Couldn't the President just make an encouraging speech? Please explain how banks make more profits by lowering lending standards and making risky loans to low income people. Please describe the "creative financial arrangements" and how these were designed to make money by making risky loans. Gilbert wrote: Not true statement. It is the author's right-wing spin making the case again for less regulations. Mario responds: Please explain how bureaucrats and politicians know where loans should go, better than people who are in the business of making loans. Gilbert wrote: Both are false statements! Banks have been proven / shown to time and again 'red-line' neighborhoods. So the quotas were 'the other way around'. Mario responds: Please provide your proof that Prof. Sowell's assertion that "quotas were imposed and if some people didn't meet the standards, then the standards need to be changed" were false statements. Please also provide the proof that banks "red-line" neighborhoods "time and again". Please also explain how, if they were avoiding poor neighborhoods then what caused the increase in bad loans to low income people during the Clinton and Bush 43 administrations, which led to the financial crisis? Gilbert wrote: Please provide data and statistics to back this statement. Please provide statistics on how many banks were sued because of failure to implement this act or because of "statistical difference". Mario responds: Please contact Professor Sowell at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. I'm sure he will be glad to provide you the information you are looking for. Unlike you, this is his profession. http://www.hoover.org/bios/sowell.html Gilbert wrote: The act was not designed to help ethnic groups; but rather people of lower income levels and poorer neighborhoods. Mario responds: Please explain how people of lower incomes from poorer neighborhoods are helped by borrowing money they may be unable to repay. Gilbert wrote: Another right wing cliche with no basis! Was this a talking point of Rush Limbaugh? Mario responds: Using the definition of "cliche", please explain how the assertion by Prof. Sowell that whites are turned down for loans more often than Asian Americans is a "right wing cliche". Isn't it the conventional right wing wisdom that Asian Americans are inferior to whites? BTW, if you had read Prof. Sowell's column you would know that Rush Limbaugh is not cited as a source by Prof. Sowell. Gilbert wrote: Another right wing cliche with no basis! Mario responds: Please show how Prof. Sowell's assertion that "Lawsuits were only part of the pressures put on lenders by government officials. Banks and other lenders are overseen by regulatory agencies and must go to those agencies for approval of many business decisions that other businesses make without needing anyone else's approval." is a "right wing cliche". Please provide proof that banks and lenders in the USA are not overseen by regulatory agencies. Gilbert wrote: Please provide data on how often this happened. Mario responds: Please refer this question to Professor Sowell at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University who will be glad to enlighten you. http://www.hoover.org/bios/sowell.html Gilbert wrote: Banks lowered their lending standards. They went beyond that. They encouraged borrowers to lie on the application forms regarding income etc etc. so that a deal could be done and everybody (from the salesperson to the bank president) could get their productivity bonuses. These individuals were now into lying and criminality. Mario responds: Please provide three affidavits from people who were encouraged to lie on the application forms for loans regarding income, etc. Also, explain how banks make money from making risky loans that may not be repaid. Gilbert wrote: These verifications were to be done by the (private) bank's middle level managers. Mario responds: If you had understood the column under reference, you would know that Prof. Sowell used the statement "Mortgage loans with no down payment, no income verification and other "creative" financial arrangements abounded." to show how banks responded to the increased pressure from the regulatory agencies to make more loans to low income people. Gilbert wrote: Another good example of the escalation of the criminal abuses of banks. Mario responds: Please explain how giving loans to people with higher incomes than poor people is an "escalation of the criminal abuses of banks." Gilbert wrote: Hope you will respond with facts and not more cliches and opinions; however elegant the authors' titles. And this time please do not patronize me by advising me to stick to my field of expertise.:=)) Mario responds: I think the record shows that you, with no background or experience in finance or the operation of the financial markets, have written a post filled with subjective left-wing media cliches in a supremely comical attempt to contradict a column written by an expert in the field of finance and economics, Prof. Sowell.
