only a part of it which had nothing to do with the crash at hand.

You misunderstood, it was a regulation that caused the crash

not a deregulation

Glass Steagal definitely contributed to the crash. The fact that commerical and investment banking were no longer separate and that banks were able to grow so much worsened the crisis.

@Neco2040 Dude the banking crisis had nothing to do with firms affilitating underwritting and dealing with securities

it was purely due to subprime loans

I understand, I don't argue that all regulation is good, I'm just saying that there should be a limit to how much credit people can borrow

Glass Steagal didn't prevent

It was subprime loans, you even say it your self about credit.

So basically the GLB act repealed a section of the Glass Stegal act which stopped banks affiliating with companies that underwrite or deal with securities. This obviously did nothing for the 2008 crisis

Now the real culprit was the CRA ( community reinvestment act) this act created by the dems forced banks into giving loans to people who couldn’t pay it back. This causes the real boom then bust. The CRA evolved through times and got hard pressed by regulators over the years until in 2008 it all popped.

The CRA was not a static piece of legislation. It evolved over the years from a relatively hands-off law focused on process into one that focused on outcomes. Regulators, beginning in the mid-nineties, began to hold banks accountable in serious ways. Banks responded to this new accountability by increasing the CRA loans they made, a move that entailed relaxing their lending standards.

All this combined with the FEDs weak monetary and contractionary policy caused the crash. Before the crash they had very low interest rates and had a monetary expansion. This as always causes a recession as the malinvestments that take place due to cheap credit turn out to be unprofitable and they are abandoned,resulting in a bust.

@Neco2040

How to run an SJW liberal country
1 - Ban white people
2 - Ban straight people
3 - Ban free speech
4 - Anyone who is homophobic or racist executed
5 - Kill anyone you disagree with

That just seems like a straw man SJW country that no SJW would want to live in

I honestly can’t tell if he’s joking or serious

If it was anyone else I would know they are joking but we have to remember this dude said “all Muslims are evil”

@chad 90% of muslims are radical so

i dont know the exact percentage but it's fucking high

Seems very inaccurate

yeah do you mean 90% aren't?

The CRA forced banks to stop redlining (discriminating against POC). The crash happened because we scaled back glass steagall and we had some more deregulations which allowed banks to invest in derivatives with our money

In the United States, Christians are far more radical than Muslims

@Colonel Sanders™ Lol ik ur trolling I’m not falling for the bait

Well, there is some truth to a lot of muslims being "radical" (although 90% is ridiulous), but that is mostly due to American foreign policy @chad

@Neco2040 the CRA tried to stop redlining as it’s intentions and help the “American dream”

But forcing banks to give out bad loans doesn’t work and it shows central planning fails

It’s why the recession was a subprime loan crisis

It was nothing to do with banks affiliating with companies than deal with underwriting or dealing with securities

What banks did in 2008 was exactly what they could do decades before. Glass steagal never prevented it

And far right terrorism does not constitute Christianity

I’d say Muslims are far more radical in depending how you’d define it

It has nothing to do with the glass steagal act, but subprime loans. Of which the CRA was involved in

And cheap credit policies

Question the liberals who post here: What is the actual ideological framework your party is now currently using?

Literally the exact same could be said in reverse

I would come up with a better question than that

But to be honest, most liberals (at least the ones that I know) cannot stand the democratic party. It is rather disingenuous to associate all liberals with the democratic party just as it would be so to group all conservatives with the republican party.

Fair enough. I was using "liberal" in the common US colloquial.

In that case: If anyone here is still in the Democrat party, then I'm interested in your assessment of both the sub-factions therein and which you think will likely take over its platform in the near future.

From an outsider perspective, it still looks like a neoliberal head with "progressive"/socialist/commie useful pawns, which may easily hijack the former.

The Democratic party in the United States is fractured just like the republican party is. You have some (woke) representatives who are more progressive than others. I think that if the progressives push hard enough that they will take over the party. Then they will finally win election since progressives have a populist message.