Summations Only

Page not found | Media Research CenterYeah let's vote for the guy who insisted there was no housing bubble. With this kind of economic foresight, the situation will surely get better. As you noted, he even said right here that many in the media have been foretelling about the housing bubble while he insisted there was no such bubble. The guy is just a Wall Street shill, no wonder he opposes the "occupy Wall Street" movement. He's part of the group of guys that have been helping pumping house prices for the benefit of his banksters buddies so with him, expect more banks bailouts, mark to fantasy and other frauds from banks (not that the current republicans/democrats are any better in this regard).For more info in mark to fantasy btw:
Bloomberg - Are you a robot?
allowing banks to put their own values for their assets which resulted in those kinds of things:
http://www2.fdic.gov/hsob/hsobRpt.asp
To get the interesting results, you need after clicking on the links to go to "Failures & Assistance Transactions", select the years between 2009 and 2011 and submit report.
The number are in thousands of dollars meaning that when they write 100,000 , it means 100 millions.
You can see there that the 239,916 in total assets for FIRST INTERNATIONAL BANK corresponds to $239.9 million in total assets in the press report : http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2011/pr11156.html
Scrolling down on the table that you produced shows you that for 243,738,872,000 dollars in deposits in failed banks (and insured by the FDIC), the FDIC incured a loss of 61,302,707,000 dollars despite the value of assets used to reimburse the depositors claimed at 292,529,467,000 dollars. What it means that the assets actually sold at 243,738,872,000-61,302,707,000=182,436,165,000 dollars resulting in the overevaluation of the assets at around (292,529,467,000/182,436,165,000)-1=60%!!Notice that I got those results from the FDIC's official site, so I think it should be pretty accurate.Edited by Son, : No reason given.Edited by Son, : No reason given.

Could you provide some evidence that the crisis is the result of government intervention?As I pointed out in my previous message, it's not banks that have their hands forced by the government but the other way around and so far, both parties worked as puppets for the big banks.More reading here:
http://digital.library.unt.edu/...es_d/IB87061_1987Jun29.pdf
You can see that the banks have sought (and obtained here) the repeal of Glass-Steagall in a ultimately bi-partisan effort that led to "too big to fail" along with the removal of leverage limits that allowed the bubble to grow in the first place (I'm still looking for sources for this one since I don't quite remember where I found it).I could try to find other sources and a better analysis but I won't do that if you're not even interested in responding to what I've shown so far, especially in my previous message.

Since when Wall street earned their money? I've already shown you in my previous messages that they stole their way to their fortune with the complicity of the government but you have yet to refute my argument. That's why people protest at Wall Street, it's because it is Wall Street that makes the calls and stole taxpayer's money.
To remind you, here's where I argued about it, I could try to find more sources but it's useless if you don't even try to address the point:
EvC Forum: Occupy Wall Street

Did you even read the links? The government made laws after being asked by the banks and in their favor, doesn't matter if you vote democrate or republican since both obey Wall Street. The links made it obvious that it wasn't the government that came up with the laws (mark to fantasy and repeal of Glass-Steagal) but the banks asked for them and got them. You still didn't address that the banks STOLE the public.