Questions for Conservatives (prompted by recent remarks by various G.O.P. pols)

[onejayhawk]

Look, I'm in that business. Banks and lenders were not forced to make those loans. The brokers were using false and misleading information and the lenders damn well knew it. Trust me, the higher-ups were not just placidly going with the flow. Their hands were not tied. They established and nurtured an atmosphere for fraud and fully participated every step of the way. They were pushing the brokers to do these loans just as much, if not more, than the brokers were pushing them to accept them. The inside name for these loans was a "liars loan" and everybody - everybody - in the system had heard and used that term.

To say the banks and lenders were forced to accept these loans is ludicrous. Everybody from the lender to the broker to the appraiser to the borrower participated in a system that is the main reason we are in this mess today.

I will accept you as an expert opinion. It is one that does not stand alone, but it carries a lot of weight. My contact with the business is once removed. I also recall several conversations where bank officers were concerned about the viability of the portfolio. In the end those conversations may have been simple grousing, or genuine worry, and I cannot now tell the difference.

It is certainly true that some suspect practices were very profitable for a long time; then they turned and bit. The practices were made possible by a Carter/Clinton rule. That does not mean that they should have been used in the way that they were. If it is unwise, but it makes money, it takes a strong hand to keep it from happening.

J

[onejayhawk]

California does not need to be self-sufficient to meet its energy needs. There are plenty of other states who would be happy to sell energy to California. That system can work fine, as long as you keep the cheaters and crooks away.

This is sig material.

J

[OaklandA's]

This is sig material.

J

So by your flip response, are you suggesting that California should be entirely energy self-sufficient?

Edit to add: It is true that no new power plants were built during the 1990s, while the population grew by 13%. However, the capacity of existing plants was increased by over 30% during that period. So there was no fundamental reason for the electricity crisis, except for the planned shutdowns and energy laundering tricks used by the manipulators (which was made possible by the partial deregulation, causing the utilities to sell their energy generation systems to private, unregulated companies).

[onejayhawk]

So by your flip response, are you suggesting that California should be entirely energy self-sufficient?

Edit to add: It is true that no new power plants were built during the 1990s, while the population grew by 13%. However, the capacity of existing plants was increased by over 30% during that period. So there was no fundamental reason for the electricity crisis, except for the planned shutdowns and energy laundering tricks used by the manipulators (which was made possible by the partial deregulation, causing the utilities to sell their energy generation systems to private, unregulated companies).

Not exactly. I am saying that relying on foreign supplies, as a policy, is shortsighted. Being independant would remove the possibility of being mousetrapped in a market pinch. Spot market shortages occur in all commodities, including electric power. Contingency plans need to be in place. It is, after all, neither immoral or unethical to charge the going rate.

BTW I was speaking of a much more recent set of shortages than 2000 and 2001.

J

[OaklandA's]

It is, after all, neither immoral or unethical to charge the going rate.

But it is, of course, both immoral and unethical to manipulate the supply, which is what happened in 2001.

BTW I was speaking of a much more recent set of shortages than 2000 and 2001.

J

Then you need to be more specific in your arguments. If you refer to the "California energy shortages", the most significant one was the 2000/2001 case.

[onejayhawk]

But it is, of course, both immoral and unethical to manipulate the supply, which is what happened in 2001.

Then you need to be more specific in your arguments. If you refer to the "California energy shortages", the most significant one was the 2000/2001 case.

Go ahead and add illegal. As to the manipulation, why allow the opportunity to manipulate? The problem does not arise without leverage. You blame deregulation. I think that is short sighted.

The shortages in 2005 arose after the problems were supposedly fixed.

J

[OaklandA's]

The shortages in 2005 arose after the problems were supposedly fixed. As to the manipulation, why allow the opportunity to manipulate? The problem does not arise without leverage. You blame deregulation. I think that is short sighted.

J

Again, please try to support your ramblings and assertions with facts.

It is clear that the "partial deregulation" was to blame. As part of this, the energy distributors had to give up their energy generation, and buy energy from the spot traders. Wholesale prices were completely unregulated. This led to the wholesalers gaming the market by manipulating the supply. There was plenty of potential supply available; California had an installed generating capacity of 45 MW, and the demand was only 28 MW at the time of the blackouts. But the energy traders intentionally took plants offline, and purposely overscheduled the transmission lines, to artificially reduce the supply. There were more than enough power plants available to meet the demand.

What part of this do you disagree with?