Greased palm psychology: Collectivism and bribery

(PhysOrg.com) -- Bribery is condemned in most cultures; but it is more common in some countries than in others. Is poverty, political instability, or lax regulation to blame? A new study published in an upcoming issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, suggests a surprising contributor: Collectivism—a culture that downplays individual self-determination and stresses interdependence and shared responsibility.

“Collectivism may promote bribery by diffusing responsibility,” says Professor Nina Mazar, who conducted the study with Professor Pankaj Aggarwal, also at the University of Toronto’s Joseph L. Rotman School of Management. Collectivism may allow individuals to sidestep their personal morality and do business in ways they know to be wrong.

To test this hypothesis, the authors conducted both a cross-national study and a lab experiment.

The cross-national study looked at 21 of the world’s most economically influential countries for correlations between collectivism and bribery in international business. Collectivism was rated using an established international survey of some 17,000 corporate managers, who rated the “degree to which individuals express pride, loyalty, and cohesiveness in their organizations or families” in their countries. Another instrument tallied national rates of bribery by asking executives how often firms from various foreign countries offered illicit incentives when doing business in the executives’ countries. The researchers factored in the nations’ wealth as well as the extent to which they valued prosocial and ethical considerations.

The findings: The poorer and more collectivist a country, the more likely it was to turn to bribery. Controlling for wealth and also for moral standards, collectivism still correlated “fairly strongly” with the willingness to offer payments under the table.

To test causal relationships, not just correlations, the researchers conducted a laboratory experiment. In it, 140 business students were divided into two groups and primed with either an individualist or collectivist mindset using well-established manipulations.

Then participants were asked to assume the role of a sales agent competing against two other firms for a contract with an international buyer, and a commission. Would they bribe the buyer? Having answered that question, they rated the degree of responsibility they felt for their actions, their desire for the contract, inappropriateness of the bribe, likelihood the competitors would bribe or that a bribe would win the contract. Finally, participants were tested for mood and arousal.

As expected, the collectivists felt less personally accountable and more prone to grease the buyer’s palm. Collectivist mindset affected neither mood, moral judgment, assessment of a bribe’s effectiveness, motivation, nor any other factor.

Even when the choice to bribe or not was directly assessed — in a second experiment with 47 participants—the collectivist group felt less personal responsibility.

The study suggests that the motivations for corrupt business practices may be viewed too narrowly. Bribery is “not just about the economic costs or benefits, says Mazar. “‘Soft factors’ like cultural values might be quite important.” If we can understand them, “we may be able to design more effective and efficient measures of prevention.”


Explore further

Calm after the storm

Citation: Greased palm psychology: Collectivism and bribery (2011, April 5) retrieved 17 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2011-04-palm-psychology-collectivism-bribery.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 05, 2011
"the collectivist group felt less personal responsibility."
That's why so many love socialism. They don't have to be responsible for themselves or anyone else.

Apr 05, 2011
a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, suggests a surprising contributor: Collectivism


I would call that "an obvious contributor", not a surprising one.

Apr 05, 2011
"the Washington culture of influence peddling is not entirely or even primarily the fault of the corporations that hire the lobbyists and pay the bills. It's a vast protection racket, practiced by politicians and political operatives of both parties. Nice little software company you've got here. Too bad if we have to regulate it, or if big government programs force us to raise its taxes. Your archrival just wrote a big check to the Washington Bureaucrats Benevolent Society. Are you sure you wouldn't like to do the same?"
http://www.latime...0.column
Bribery is alive and well in Washington, DC.

Apr 05, 2011
Bribery is alive and well in Washington, DC.
That's what happens when you slash the budgets of the departments that are tasked with enforcement of the various laws.

You get pissy because you think your neighbors are filing fraudulent returns, then you get pissy when they hire more enforcement officials to investigate tax fraud.

You can't have it both ways Swenson. Government for you and not me isn't allowed. Government for me and not you is not allowed. Government for neither of us is tyranny.
Government for both of us is what we have.

Pick 1 of those 4 options, and prepare for the rammifications of your choice.

Apr 05, 2011
That's what happens when you slash the budgets of the departments that are tasked with enforcement of the various laws.

That is ALWAYS the excuse. Govt: we failed, give us more money.
Business: we failed. Too bad, you are out of business.

You get pissy because you think your neighbors are filing fraudulent returns, then you get pissy when they hire more enforcement officials to investigate tax fraud.

MAKE THE FORM EASY TO COMPLETE! WHY IS THAT SO DIFFICULT?
Because the govt wants to have hundreds of laws they can use to turn everyone into a criminal if they choose to do so and they can keep a massive bureaucracy in place to run the mess.

Apr 05, 2011

That is ALWAYS the excuse. Govt: we failed, give us more money.
No, I said 'stop taking the money away from a budgetted department.' The enforcement budget is written, then corporatists mutton heads like your hero Boehner go ahead and cut the enforcement divisions. EPA, cut, FDA, cut, IRS, cut, Treasury Department, cut, INS/ICE, cut. That's your budget. Well if there are no cops on the street, guess what happens to the shops.

Business: we failed. Too bad, you are out of business.
More like: 'we failed, but our bonuses are huge.' Name a failed bank that didn't give out bonuses the year prior.
MAKE THE FORM EASY TO COMPLETE! WHY IS THAT SO DIFFICULT?
If you think tax forms are hard to fill out, you need an education.
Because the govt wants to have hundreds of laws they can use to turn everyone into a criminal
No, those would be the laws that businesses got their crooked friends to pass. Then they cry foul when we remove their loopholes.

Apr 05, 2011
You can't have it both ways Swenson. Government for you and not me isn't allowed. Government for me and not you is not allowed. Government for neither of us is tyranny.
Government for both of us is what we have.


What about if I work for the government, and you work for a private firm? In that case we don't have government for both of us. About 16% of the working population works for government. Government workers, crony capitalists, welfare recipients and others suckling on the government teat want more government milk, so they work to make government for them, and not for real producers.

Apr 05, 2011
This article shows a correlation between collectivist societies and bribery. But what is it about such societies that bribery is more prevalent? The article speculates that cause is feelings of less responsibility. I think that's wrong. I say collectivist government employees see the public as their source of income. They do so by preventing the public from doing something they want, unless they pay a bribe.

Bribes normally go to government agents. Private agents asking for bribes (like a purchasing agent in a private firm) usually, eventually get fired, as asking for a bribe is stealing from the company. And someone asking a vendor for a bribe may just get turned in by a losing vendor. But paying a bribe to a government official is often the only way to get something done in many "collectivist" countries. See Mario Vargas Llosa's writings on the subject for details.

Apr 05, 2011
What about if I work for the government, and you work for a private firm? In that case we don't have government for both of us.
We both get the protections of government, we both receive the services of government, we both pay the costs of government. How is that not government for both of us?
About 16% of the working population works for government.
According to the 2007 stats your figure is about double what the total number of govt jobs are, and that figure has declined sharply since Obama's election. Republicans would like you to believe otherwise, but the stats are available from the DoL. Actual number is about 4% of the population and about 7% of all employed persons, 2% of that 7% are military enlisted and officer positions. Those figures are federal. If you're including the state governments and contractors, your figure is probably correct.

The majority of states that have waste/unnecessarily high employment in the public sector are Red states. Coincidence?

Apr 05, 2011
Name a failed bank that didn't give out bonuses the year prior.

How can a bank 'fail' and still be in business? Oh, that's right, it is propped up by the govt.

laws that businesses got their crooked friends to pass

Crooked GOVT friends you mean? Business can't make laws. Only 'crooked' govt agents can.

Apr 05, 2011
Oh, that's right, it is propped up by the govt.
Yes, correct, by the govt. which it owns. All because lobbying and fiscal blackmail/bribery of political campaigns constitute "freedom of speech" according to demagogues like you.

Apr 05, 2011
Oh, that's right, it is propped up by the govt.
Yes, correct, by the govt. which it owns. All because lobbying and fiscal blackmail/bribery of political campaigns constitute "freedom of speech" according to demagogues like you.

If the govt limited its authority to the Constitution there would be fewer opportunities to lobby and fewer reasons to lobby to be left alone by the govt.

Apr 05, 2011
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Apr 05, 2011
If the govt limited its authority to the Constitution there would be fewer opportunities to lobby and fewer reasons to lobby to be left alone by the govt.
And fewer people to lobby for, since the vast majority of the population will have been subsumed and/or enslaved by the "government" that fills the void: the New American Super-Mega-Corporate-Consortium, LLC.

Apr 05, 2011
If the govt limited its authority to the Constitution there would be fewer opportunities to lobby and fewer reasons to lobby to be left alone by the govt.
And fewer people to lobby for, since the vast majority of the population will have been subsumed and/or enslaved by the "government" that fills the void: the New American Super-Mega-Corporate-Consortium, LLC.

????
You know the 'S' in USA stands for STATES?
There are 50 state govts that have powers defined in the 9th and 10th amendments.

Apr 05, 2011
The lies continue:
http://www.tnr.co...ninsured

I'm waiting for accusations that old people will have to eat dog food.

Apr 05, 2011
The current ratio is 22 million government employed / 136 million total employed = 16.2%
www.bls.gov/webap...tab1.htm

Apr 05, 2011
The lies continue:
http://www.tnr.co...ninsured

I'm waiting for accusations that old people will have to eat dog food.

Didn't have to wait too long:
Pelosi: GOP Budget Will Deprive Seniors Of Meals
http://www.realcl...als.html
Those democrats are real jerks. The first thing they want to cut is food for old people.

Apr 05, 2011
There are 50 state govts that have powers defined in the 9th and 10th amendments.
I'm sorry, did you just suggest that state "govts" are not subject to corruption by lobbyists and campaign funders? And moreover, did you just suggest that interstate (and indeed, international) corporate consortia won't step in where the Federal government leaves a void? Who shall win in the end: the people with all the money, or the local small-time town alders?

Apr 05, 2011
The current ratio is 22 million government employed / 136 million total employed = 16.2%
http://www.bls.go...tab1.htm

And the govt now takes 25% of the GDP.

Apr 05, 2011
There are 50 state govts that have powers defined in the 9th and 10th amendments.
I'm sorry, did you just suggest that state "govts" are not subject to corruption by lobbyists and campaign funders? And moreover, did you just suggest that interstate (and indeed, international) corporate consortia won't step in where the Federal government leaves a void? Who shall win in the end: the people with all the money, or the local small-time town alders?

What void would a limited federal govt leave?

Apr 05, 2011
What void would a limited federal govt leave?
Oh yes, I forgot. The current "limitless" federal "govt" does absolutely nothing useful. Sorry, my bad, I accidentally strayed from your world into reality. I'll try not to slip again.

Apr 06, 2011
Speaking of "Greased palm psychology: Collectivism and bribery", I just finished watching the movie, "Inside Job". Holy crap...

I knew it was real bad, but I underestimated the bastards. They really are a new breed of human being; I feel about as much affinity with them as I probably would with an alien from another galaxy...

Apr 06, 2011
????
You know the 'S' in USA stands for STATES?
There are 50 state govts that have powers defined in the 9th and 10th amendments.
Yeah you know that Supremacy clause? It's the one that states all federal laws supercede and replace state laws where there is an overlap in jurisdiction.

It's the reason why marijuana dispensaries can still be raided by the DEA but not by the California state police.

You constantly pound on about the constitution yet when it comes to knowledge of it, you appear to have absolutely none.

Apr 06, 2011
Have you heard of the concept of enumerated powers?
What is the constitutional authority to ban marijuana?
It wasn't a problem until SH's Regulatory State was created by 'progressives'.

Pinky, I hope the federal govt shuts down soon. You will find the world will not end. Maybe your world will if you are federal employee, but he rest of the world will press on.

Baby elephants elephants are shackled with a strong restraint. When they become adults, they cold easily break those restraints, but they don't. They can't imagine they could. Sounds like Pinky has been well trained.

Apr 06, 2011
Have you heard of the concept of enumerated powers?
What is the constitutional authority to ban marijuana?
Commerce clause.
It wasn't a problem until SH's Regulatory State was created by 'progressives'.
So you're saying the founding fathers were 'progressives'? For once we agree.
Pinky, I hope the federal govt shuts down soon.
Would be so bad for the country. A shutdown would close confidence on the US, reducing the purchasing power of the dollar and impoverishing the nation. It's a Republican threat, and a stupid one too.
You will find the world will not end.
No, it will just get a lot tougher for all Americans.

Your hope will negatively affect you in the extreme. I'd strongly suggest you consider the economic rammifications of a government shutdown.


Apr 06, 2011
What is the constitutional authority to ban marijuana? It wasn't a problem until SH's Regulatory State was created by 'progressives'.
The "War on Drugs" was started by... drum roll... Richard Nixon. An exemplary Progressive, if there ever was one. And guess what: all those pot and hallucinogenic enforcement actions were used mainly to clobber and repress the anti-war/Hippie movement -- who of course epitomized the antithesis to Progressivism.

At least, all of that is true in your twisted rotten little mind. You are to be pitied, really...
he rest of the world will press on.
True. The rest of the world isn't shutting (shooting?) down its governments like we are.

Apr 06, 2011
"One of the most influential legislative acts ever passed concerning drugs occurred in 1914 when the Congress approved the Harrison Act (after its main sponsor, Representative Francis Burton Harrison of New York). This act (with a multitude of regulations, court decisions, Supreme Court decisions and amendments) was to become the standard and the basis of narcotic regulation in the United States for the next 50 years."
With Anslinger and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics vocally advocating for its passage, the Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act and it was signed into law on August 2, 1937 (Inciardi, 1992, p. 24). Modeled after the Harrison Act, it essentially placed marijuana into the same category as the cocaine and opium products. It became illegal to import marijuana into the United States (McWilliams, 1991)."
And it ALL ties back to the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. The beginning of the Regulatory State.

Apr 06, 2011
And it ALL ties back to the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906
No, actually it ALL ties back to the naked racism of the early 20th century. Marijuana was associated with the "coloreds", and the sight of whites using it and generally fraternizing with the "lesser races" was a frightful one for the bigots of the day. It was a sign of racial degradation and moral decay.

General policy brought to you by the same Puritanical nut jobs who instituted the disastrous alcohol Prohibition... IOW, the very same contingent of "moral and religious people" whom you like to reference in your favorite Adams quote from time to time.

As for the Pure Food and Drug Act, I suppose it's perfectly alright with you if your hot dog contains actual dog, your Tylenol is laced with arsenic, or your Coca Cola actually contains coke -- just as long as you aren't notified. Of course, perhaps you like dog, take daily arsenic pills, and maybe you're a coke addict as it is (like so many Wall Street types are?)

Apr 09, 2011
It always amazes me, the ignorant, pointless, base-level rage that some people hold for corporations. Any corporations, including the catch-all faux "New American Super-Mega-Corporate-Consortium, LLC." ones. Good choice that, especially the "LLC". Oh yes, let's DO go there.
Companies are just people getting together to do business. An LLC - Limited Liability Company - exists to take legal advantage of tax and liability laws created by the government. Let's compare, shall we? Historically, who has harmed and/or killed more: Governments (of their own citizens), or Corporations (of their customers)? Even if you include Big Tobacco, which I do not, it is governments that come out drenched in blood, by orders of magnitude.
It is "the evil corporations" that produce "all" jobs, including government jobs because they're paid for via tax dollars generated outside of government.

So get off your anti-corporate high horse - you'd have nothing if not for companies. Which are just people.

Apr 09, 2011
As for the Pure Food and Drug Act, I suppose it's perfectly alright with you if your hot dog contains actual dog, your Tylenol is laced with arsenic, or your Coca Cola actually contains coke -- just as long as you aren't notified. Of course, perhaps you like dog, take daily arsenic pills, and maybe you're a coke addict as it is (like so many Wall Street types are?)

Why would you buy a product if you did not know what it contained? If a company can't sell its products because the customers demand to know the ingredients then the company will provide that ingredient information and will hire a reputable certificate company to verify.
Two govts, US and China certified tainted pet food.
Govt inspection can't stop fraud but it can provide a false sense of security.

Post contamination of Tylenol was mitigated by the company creating anti-tamper packaging products.

Apr 09, 2011
Post contamination of Tylenol was mitigated by the company creating anti-tamper packaging products.
After the FDA and local authorities in many states called for it.
http://www.time.c...,00.html

Remember?

This one wasn't the fault of the manufacturer, but the safeguards were not of J&J's invention.
Historically, who has harmed and/or killed more: Governments (of their own citizens), or Corporations (of their customers)?
Corporations, by a long shot. Now that doesn't mean all corporations are evil, far from it, but the few that are do extravagant amounts of damage.

Apr 10, 2011
Corporations, by a long shot.

Sure.

Apr 11, 2011
Why would you buy a product if you did not know what it contained?
And whom do you trust to tell you?
the company will provide that ingredient information
And you will trust it??? LMAO
will hire a reputable certificate company to verify
Oh, you meal like the bond ratings agencies that did such a FINE job with AIG, Bear Stearns, Lehman, et al? So you think it makes sense for a ratings industry to be tough on those it rates, while at the same time soliciting business from them? No conflict of interest there at all, as abundantly demonstrated in the latest and greatest financial panic...
Govt inspection can't stop fraud but it can provide a false sense of security.
It can't stop fraud altogether (nothing can), but it can make fraud a lot harder and far more costly.

Apr 11, 2011
Companies are just people getting together to do business.
So are organized crime families. But that makes it all just dandy, right?

Beyond that, our brilliant Supreme Court has seen it necessary to grant personhood to companies. So they are no longer just "people getting together". They are in fact, under law, newly formed legal "persons" -- apart from and in addition to the actual people who created them.
who has harmed and/or killed more: Governments (of their own citizens), or Corporations (of their customers)
Historically, the notion and charter of "Corporation" was reserved for nonprofit enterprises organized for the service of public good.
exists to take legal advantage of tax and liability laws created by the government
And why should the government either allow or encourage such sheltering?
So get off your anti-corporate high horse - you'd have nothing if not for companies.
Sure, let's not bother distinguishing "company" from "corporation".

Apr 11, 2011
And whom do you trust to tell you?

Someone that has an incentive to maintain a reputation like the National Sanitation Foundation.
And you will trust it??? LMAO

Do you trust your local restaurant's ingredients? Who certifies they are serving what they claim on their menu?

Arthur Anderson went out of business very quickly after their fraud was discovered. The SEC enabled Madoff to commit fraud and the Congress commits fraud everyday and they are still in business. A company is caught committing fraud, they are out of business. The govt lies, and no one cares.

Apr 11, 2011
It can't stop fraud altogether (nothing can), but it can make fraud a lot harder and far more costly.

How many SEC employees were fired for not stopping Madoff?

I was defrauded by a Chinese company using a HSBC credit card. The credit card company did not do anything. But after complaining to BBB, HSBC refunded my money.


Apr 11, 2011
Someone that has an incentive to maintain a reputation
Reputation is maintained easily enough by running enough TV commercials.
Do you trust your local restaurant's ingredients?
No. I expect it to be regularly inspected by food safety professionals.
Arthur Anderson went out of business very quickly after their fraud was discovered
Moody's, S&P, and Fitch are all still in business, and flourishing.
The SEC enabled Madoff to commit fraud
By abdicating its mandate. You argue there should be no mandate in the first place. You're hilarious.
A company is caught committing fraud, they are out of business
Oh really? Is Chase out of business? How about Bank of America? How about UBS? Citigroup? Wells Fargo? Goldman Sachs?
The govt lies, and no one cares.
Ditto for you.
How many SEC employees were fired for not stopping Madoff?
Which is the default outcome, GUARANTEED in EVERY CASE by deregulation policies and practices.

Apr 11, 2011
inspected by food safety professionals.

Govt employees?
By abdicating its mandate.

The govt failed. Who was fired?
Chase out of business? How about Bank of America? How about UBS? Citigroup? Wells Fargo? Goldman Sachs?

They are all part of the govt today, regulated by FDIC and the Federal Reserve. Wachovia securitized loans that were guaranteed by the govt, Freddie and Fannie under CRA, and promoted by Barney Frank and Dodd. Where was any free market?

Apr 11, 2011
Govt employees?
Yup. Certified ones.
The govt failed. Who was fired?
Precisely. Govt needs to be more about law and order, and less about deregulation and hobnobbing with lobbyists.
They are all part of the govt today
But you're against campaign finance reform, lobbying reform, and increased funding for regulation and law enforcement functions of the govt. So what are you complaining about? You're getting EXACTLY what you've demanded.
regulated by FDIC and the Federal Reserve
The Federal Reserve isn't part of government; it's a private institution and an utter perversion of Congress' constitutional mandate to control the budget.
Where was any free market?
Freddie and Fannie were a small fraction of the market, and followed in the wake. The vast bulk of the fraudulent securitizations were issued by private interests, and sold off to private investors and various pension funds and endowments, as AAA-certified paper. Thank Jeebus for "financial innovation."

Apr 11, 2011
Freddie and Fannie were a small fraction of the market,

"In 1985 Agency and GSE-backed mortgage pools accounted for $77.6 Billion of the $178.6 Billion home mortgages, compared to $52.7 Billion for banks."
"GSEs such as Fannie Mae (the Federal National Mortgage Association or FNMA) purchase mortgages from mortgage issuers and then resell them in the form of Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS) that are packaged in ways attractive to institutional investors. "
http://understand...om/?p=20
You're getting EXACTLY what you've demanded.

Actually you are getting exactly what happens when govt tries to do what socialists want.

Apr 11, 2011
In 1985
Now try and look up 1995, or 2005. Get back to us with your discoveries.
when govt tries to do what socialists want
Excuse me, but are you implying that law enforcement and accountability are only desired by socialists? Back amid the 80's S&L crisis, a lot of people were disgorged of their embezzled wealth, and actually went to jail for fraud. But then we had several bouts of deregulation, and now we're all enjoying the fruits thereof. It's only going to get better and better.

Incidentally, here's a recent PhysOrg example of govt regulation doing what free markets cannot:

http://www.physor...lth.html

Apr 12, 2011
I was defrauded by a Chinese company using a HSBC credit card. The credit card company did not do anything. But after complaining to BBB, HSBC refunded my money.
I always wondered who was stupid enough to order pills from those spam mail ads. Now I know, and I'm not surprised.

Apr 12, 2011
But then we had several bouts of deregulation,

What deregulation?
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which together account for about 60% of the mortgage market but have cost taxpayers a net $150 billion in bailout money in the last three years "http://articles.l...20110220
60% is a SMALL fraction to Pinky. That's 6/10 or 3/5. It larger than 50% or 1/2.

The BBB is NOT funded with taxes.

Apr 12, 2011
The BBB is NOT funded with taxes.
No, they're not. Instead they run a protection racket against other businesses.

'If you don't pay us, you won't be accreditted, then no one will buy your products!'

Apr 12, 2011
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which together account for about 60% of the mortgage market
In the depth of the housing market's collapse, they accounted for about 90% if not more -- now that all the other scam factories pulled out. However, back in the heyday of the mid-2000's, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were a drop in the bucket.

"Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the explosion of high-risk lending a few years ago, an explosion that dwarfed the S.& L. fiasco. In fact, Fannie and Freddie, after growing rapidly in the 1990s, largely faded from the scene during the height of the housing bubble. ... Also, they didnt do any subprime lending, because they cant"

http://www.nytime...man.html

"Before the subprime mortgage crisis, [Fannie & Freddie] owned or guaranteed $1.4 trillion, or 40%, of all U.S. mortgages. They only held $168 billion in subprime mortgages"

http://useconomy....FNMA.htm

Apr 12, 2011
I have posted a link many times to a Wachovia press release in OCT 1997 that bragged about how they were securitizing mortgages to meet their CRA requirements and their securitized mortgages were virtually guaranteed by the GSEs with a AAA rating.
This was 1997. The GSEs were in middle of it.
Krugman is your expert? That explains it.

Apr 12, 2011
"Interestingly, subprime market growth in the 1990s occurred largely without the participation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The GSEs started showing interest in this market toward the end of the decade and now purchase A-minus mortgages as a regular part of their business. National Mortgage News, a trade publication, estimates their combined market share in 2001 grew by 74 percent, representing about 11.5 percent of all subprime loan originations in that year. Some market analysts estimate that GSEs will soon be purchasing as much as one-half of all subprime originations."
"The GSEs say their stronger presence in the subprime market will create lower priced mortgages for some subprime borrowers."
http://www.nhi.or...ime.html
This was 2002.

Apr 13, 2011
"Big banks like Bank of America Corp and Citigroup Inc should be reclassified as government-sponsored entities and have their activities restricted, a senior Fed official said on Tuesday."
http://ca.news.ya...434.html

Apr 13, 2011
"Big banks like Bank of America Corp and Citigroup Inc should be reclassified as government-sponsored entities and have their activities restricted, a senior Fed official said on Tuesday."
I'd rather see them nationalized entirely.

Apr 13, 2011
"Big banks like Bank of America Corp and Citigroup Inc should be reclassified as government-sponsored entities and have their activities restricted, a senior Fed official said on Tuesday."
I'd rather see them nationalized entirely.

Of course you would.

Apr 13, 2011
Interestingly, subprime market growth in the 1990s occurred largely without the participation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Yup, that's a fact.
their combined market share in 2001 grew by 74 percent, representing about 11.5 percent of all subprime loan originations in that year
That's a half-truth. The GSEs didn't ORIGINATE subprime mortgages; however they did purchase some. Still, 11.5% is hardly the same as 60%, and this is before the subprime market really exploded. When it did explode, Fannie/Freddie share in it plummeted; the great majority of subprime origination and securitization was performed by private enterprises, not GSEs.
Some market analysts estimate that GSEs will soon be purchasing as much as one-half of all subprime originations
And that's not even remotely fact: it's a speculation that didn't pan out in reality.

Apr 13, 2011
The GSEs didn't ORIGINATE subprime mortgages;

They just guaranteed them.

Apr 13, 2011
They just guaranteed them.
They did not for those they didn't purchase (which would be the vast majority.)
I'd rather see them nationalized entirely.
I'd rather see them prosecuted for document fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, money laundering, bribery, theft, tax fraud, and all the other criminal conduct they've exhibited over the last decade or two. I want to see all of their upper management investigated and, whenever appropriate, indicted, sent to trial, and when convicted, disgorged of all their ill-gotten wealth and sent to prison for at least several decades. I want to see them broken up, and true competition restored. And I want to see a new regime of strengthened policing both of the markets and of the financial industry as a whole.

Apr 13, 2011
I want to see them broken up, and true competition restored.

Sounds like a Ron Paul supporter!
End the Fed!

Apr 25, 2011
@Skeptic_Heretic, quoted me and then responded:
---Historically, who has harmed and/or killed more: Governments (of their own citizens), or Corporations (of their customers)?
Corporations, by a long shot. Now that doesn't mean all corporations are evil, far from it, but the few that are do extravagant amounts of damage.


Do you really think so? Seriously? Are you perhaps forgetting the 100+million killed by the various communist regimes in the last century, the vast majority of which was of their own citizenry?

Sorry, governments have historically been far deadlier to their constituents by orders of magnitude. Sure, "bad corporations" have existed. More than once even! But they're complete pikers by comparison.

Apr 25, 2011
I'd say governments save far more lives than they cost.

Apr 25, 2011
I'd say governments save far more lives than they cost.


Of course you would.
How many Chinese babies have been murdered since the one child policy was put in place?
And Stalin murdered millions to keep the rest from starving? Too bad Stalin didn't try to emulate US ag practices and no one would have starved.

Apr 25, 2011
And who enforced US ag practices...

Apr 25, 2011
Sounds like a Ron Paul supporter!
End the Fed!
There are many things in Ron Paul's platform I'd never support. However, ending the Fed is something he and I would wholeheartedly agree upon.

Apr 25, 2011
Do you really think so? Seriously? Are you perhaps forgetting the 100+million killed by the various communist regimes in the last century, the vast majority of which was of their own citizenry?

Want to play this game? Let's talk about the billions of people who have been killed or displaced by mercantilist colonialism. Remember the ITC?

Apr 25, 2011
And who enforced US ag practices...

US farmers decided what to plant, when to plant when to harvest and when to sell.

SH, BILLIONS? You need data to support your fantasies.


Apr 26, 2011
Jesus Christ... Well, we know who won this debate, I WAS going to read this and then mnove on, but ryg pissed me off again, here we go:
I'd say governments save far more lives than they cost.

Of course you would.
How many Chinese babies have been murdered since the one child policy was put in place?
And Stalin murdered millions to keep the rest from starving? Too bad Stalin didn't try to emulate US ag practices and no one would have starved.



Right then, Stalin murdered millions out of paranoia, and China killed all those kids (yes out of sheer cruelty and callousness) to save the other billion people they have. My God, here's something I found.
Quick question, your a "Christian" right? This is going to be fun.

The Stalin fact That I posted, I found out that it is also in a 5th grade christian themed textbook. By ABeka Books. You were saying? Do a little research, maybe go back to elementary school too.

Silver out.

Apr 26, 2011
Billions?
SH made the claim, prove it.

Apr 26, 2011
I think he just did, and I quote:

SH: Start reading.

Apr 26, 2011
I think he just did, and I quote:

SH: Start reading.


No, he did not. He made the claim, he can back it with details, not reading lists.


Apr 26, 2011
No, he did not. He made the claim, he can back it with details, not reading lists.

You said I didn't have the data. I presented it above. Go fish.

Apr 26, 2011
Again, hilarious...

Apr 26, 2011
FYI, I put rygs activity page on my favorites so I know where to look when someone uses cold, clear logic to take everything he says, and shoot it out of the sky, assuming he gets up there in the first place...

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more