The Intrusions In Our Lives

[N0SYA]

don't know which perspective you're repsonding from, but there was nothing in anything cited that would lead me to distrust the FDA.

I believe you.

[NL7W]

You're most definately reading into my words here... and preaching to the choir.

Years ago, right here, I was condemning those (in government) who caused the demise of Glass-Steagal, through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. On signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a certain President said that it, "establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the [Community Reinvestment] Act".

Our Constitution spells out what the feds can and cannot do -- what they should concentrate on. Regulating interstate commerce (banking) is a good and necessary thing -- spelled out in the Constitution as a duty of our federal gov. This former act was a good thing -- it came about for good/valid reasons after the Depression -- it worked for decades. It worked until "the best government money could buy" decided quick bucks could be made through deregulation and the enhancement of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). As well, certain low/no income voters' interests, and certain ideology, could be served by allowing and having the government push for loans that would never be paid back.

The best interests of a very few were served, while they damned the rest of us. It's a common theme today.

73.

You mean like the Glass-Steagal act, and other regulations which "boxed in" mortgage lenders?

When those rules, which "dissed economic opportunity", were pushed aside, we had a housing boom. It became a seller's market, and lots of new buyers flooded in. Borrowing power went up, home prices went up, builders and realtors and bankers and movers and suppliers were busy making money hand over fist. All sorts of "creative" lending "products" became available, like interest-only and balloon mortgages. The stock market soared. People all over America bought houses that were bigger and nicer than they had been able to buy before.

All because those nasty regulations were pushed aside.

Some folks said that the boom was unsustainable, and that a very bad day of reckoning would come, because the houses being sold were simply unaffordable by those buying them. But those folks were told to quiet down - that they were throwing a wrench in the gears of "progress" and "wealth creation" and "the American dream" and "growth".

But then a funny thing happened: the bubble popped. Lots of Americans discovered that they couldn't afford the homes they'd bought. Worse, they couldn't sell them for what they owed on the mortgage. The whole house of cards came tumbling down as defaults exploded and homes that would have previously sold in a day for asking price spent months on the market for less than they cost to build. The crash rippled out into a full-blown recession that some would call a depression.

All because those nasty regulations were pushed aside. Except now they don't look so nasty, do they?


Some folks, mostly those who moved the money around in "creative" ways, made a fortune from the boom and managed to hang onto it when the bust came. Did those folks "create wealth"? Or did they just rake in the chips while the game was hot, and leave others out in the cold when it was over?

You can yell that the b@$%@#!s responsible should go to jail for what they did, but that won't happen. Because what they did was not against the law when they did it.

73 de Jim, N2EY

[KG4RRH]

There aren't many crops NOT genetically modified -- the long, hard way, by crossbreeding and selection -- and that may be one reason for gluten intolerance; modern wheat has much higher gluten and protein than more primitive grain. I'm trying spelt bread (was that spelt right?) as I need to cut down the calories anyway.

However... it was a genetically engineered drug that erased the symptoms of my stroke last October.


Cortland
KA5S

GM or GM0 means that genetic engineering (GE) was involved. GE means that the DNA itself was directly modified via chem or bio agents (a virus typically) to introduce either an alteration to an gene all ready present or add new ones. Things that are developed involving the "natural" methods like crossing or mutagenesis, even those forced to mutate by a man-made methods, are not considered to be GM/GMO organisms. The biggest problem that I have with GMO is that little is understood (...my opinion) on what mutations may arise in the new species in the wild over time.

I doubt if the drug itself was genetically engineered. More likely, it was produced by a GE bacteria or plant. Drugs produced via GE can be better than those produced by the normal chem manufacturing or bio-harvesting methods. If one can modify a bacteria to directly produce the drug molecule without the use of a lot of the industrial chemicals, mostly solvents, needed to do it in a "old style" chemical manufacturing environment, the chances of producing a drug with higher purity go up considerably as well as the fact that the drug can be exactly what was desired/required. Even drugs that are harvested from natural occurring bio sources can contain things that a person shouldn't be putting into their bodies or may not be exactly was needed or desired...it just happen to work for a large percentage of people. Insulin today is a very good example of a major success at that level of biosyntheses.

[KI4NGN]

Oh yah and the FDA says GM foods are no different from non GM foods.
Don't forget to buy your GM Corn at Walmart.
http://www.naturalnews.com/035029_GM..._Monsanto.html
GM corn linked to organ failure...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_420365.html

Eat up....

Do you think those are "unbiased" sources of information? LOL

[N2EY]

You're most definately reading into my words here... and preaching to the choir.

Years ago, right here, I was condemning those (in government) who caused the demise of Glass-Steagal, through the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. On signing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, a certain President said that it, "establishes the principles that, as we expand the powers of banks, we will expand the reach of the [Community Reinvestment] Act".

Yep. But look into who voted for and against GLB, and you'll see a definite pattern.

Plus there were warnings, such as those given by John Dingell, about the effects of GLB.

Our Constitution spells out what the feds can and cannot do -- what they should concentrate on. Regulating interstate commerce (banking) is a good and necessary thing -- spelled out in the Constitution as a duty of our federal gov. This former act was a good thing -- it came about for good/valid reasons after the Depression -- it worked for decades.

Yes, it did. It limited the size and range of banking activities in such a way as to promote stability over short-term profitability.

It worked until "the best government money could buy" decided quick bucks could be made through deregulation and the enhancement of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). As well, certain low/no income voters' interests, and certain ideology, could be served by allowing and having the government push for loans that would never be paid back.

CRA had been in existence since 1977. GLB was 1999. As I said, look who pushed for GLB.

There was no quota of CRA loans, nor any requirement or push to make loans that would not be paid back. CRA is about loans in "redlined" areas - but look where the defaults are. Most of them aren't in those areas. If you look at who is defaulting, and the big dollar amounts, it's not just or even primarily the CRA folks.

The best interests of a very few were served, while they damned the rest of us. It's a common theme today.

Yep. The best interests of those running the banks were to merge and become giants who were "too big to fail". And to allow them to make big, quick profits on FEES rather than long-term profits on INTEREST by writing lots of mortgages and then selling them off to others.

The main point is that regulation, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. But it has to be good regulation. Glass-Steagal was good regulation.

Just as important: do you think the folks who pushed and pushed for GLB (not just the president who signed it, but the folks who wrote it, sponsored it, voted for it) will be held accountable? Will they lose their jobs, their homes, their fortunes because of their bad decisions? Or will they go on in wealth and luxury without a peep of remorse or change of ideology?

73 de Jim, N2EY

[N2EY]

But there was a requirement that a specific percentage of loans be targeted.

What was the percentage? Where is it documented as a requirement?

The references I read say there was none. CRA was all about loans in "redlined" areas.

That was as good as requiring bad loans. The lenders originally didn't make those loans for a reason. Now why do you think that was? Because they didn't want to make money? LOL

Many of the "inventions" were made in order to meet federal requirements! Sure, they made money. Why shouldn't they when being coerced into loans that they would have rather not made to begin with?

CRA specifically required that loans meet good business practices. It did not mandate bad loans.

What really made bad loans a frequent practice was a fundamental change in the mortgage business. In the bad old days, a lender would write a mortgage and then hold onto it for years - often for its entire lifetime. The profit was in the interest paid over the long term.

The "creative" folks changed all that. They'd write mortgages and then sell them off, often in huge bundles, in a short time (as little as six months). The made their profit on the front end, in fees, points and charges up-front. The long term was left to those who bought the bundles of mortgages.

73 de jim, N2EY

[AF6LJ]

Do you think those are "unbiased" sources of information? LOL

Do you think the FDA is unbiased?

What you don't believe Walmart is selling GM corn?

It's the duty of everyone to know what their food is and where it comes from.

Life isn't plug and play.

[KI4NGN]

What was the percentage? Where is it documented as a requirement?

The references I read say there was none. CRA was all about loans in "redlined" areas.



CRA specifically required that loans meet good business practices. It did not mandate bad loans.

What really made bad loans a frequent practice was a fundamental change in the mortgage business. In the bad old days, a lender would write a mortgage and then hold onto it for years - often for its entire lifetime. The profit was in the interest paid over the long term.

The "creative" folks changed all that. They'd write mortgages and then sell them off, often in huge bundles, in a short time (as little as six months). The made their profit on the front end, in fees, points and charges up-front. The long term was left to those who bought the bundles of mortgages.

73 de jim, N2EY

I can't find the orginal that I read last year, but have so far found this:

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

Although minor amendments were made directly to the Community Reinvestment Act concerning the consideration of minority and female owned institutions & partnerships during evaluations first established in 1991, other portions of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 indirectly affected the CRA practices at the time in requiring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government sponsored enterprises that purchase and securitize mortgages, to devote a percentage of their lending to support affordable housing.

If there is a targeted percentage, then that is dictating a number of loans, and in order to be compliant, loans were made that should not have been.

I will keep looking, but I know that I've seen several references to there having been targeted percentages in order to be in compliance.

I really don't care which law screwed the pooch: all I care is that the screwing was caused by federal law.

[KI4NGN]

Do you think the FDA is unbiased?

I think that they're biased towards scientific data, not the fears of the ignorant and uninformed.

What you don't believe Walmart is selling GM corn?

I didn't say whether I believed it or not. Those sources start with a premise, stated as fact, about the harm from consuming the corn, and use that as their foundation for complaining about Walmart.

Opinions, not fact.

It's the duty of everyone to know what their food is and where it comes from.

Life isn't plug and play.

This coming from the person who is very ignorant or blaise about the dangers of consuming raw dairy products from sources other than your own farm, the dangers of which are fact.

[KG4RRH]

I think that they're biased towards scientific data, not the fears of the ignorant and uninformed.

I didn't say whether I believed it or not. Those sources start with a premise, stated as fact, about the harm from consuming the corn, and use that as their foundation for complaining about Walmart.

Opinions, not fact.


This coming from the person who is very ignorant or blaise about the dangers of consuming raw dairy products from sources other than your own farm, the dangers of which are fact.

The big problem with the FDA is that they're just not funded to anywhere near the level required to allow them to do the science task that's required do them to be able to fulfill their primary job, even at minimal levels. They've been pushed into a mode of operation that basically would allow things to happen that the reasonably rational mind, or at least myself, find rather crazy with no clear warning to the people they are suppose to be serving. I'm not referring to the "food inspection" task here ... that's another problem.