- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194316
22 Aug 11
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperYou're right. In fact, Calculated Risk was indicating that we were headed for a serious recession back in 2007, while Fox News and associated idiots were talking bull markets.
What you said is so idiotic I'm embarrassed for you.
The job losses were increasing month by month almost exponentially long before Obama was the clear winner.
Companies choose to hire or layoff employees based on profits and their labor needs. Your suggestion that companies were laying people off en mass because they feared Obama is 100% b ...[text shortened]... e that, because your "logic" twists and turns with whatever suits your hyper partisan needs.
22 Aug 11
Originally posted by SoothfastSeeing as how the average lifespan was 65 when they implemented social security and that's the age they set for being able to draw it, I would have to guess that FDR was a founding father of Wajomastan.
In Wajomastan the elderly and infirm are supposed to work until they die, because that way they realize maximum personal freedom and opportunity.
22 Aug 11
Originally posted by KunsooThe Clinton administration put the CRA on steroids, with Barney Frank and later Barack Obama running interference for Fannie and Freddie. The Bush administration, and John McCain wanted meaningful regulatory restrictions placed on Fannie and Freddie, but were blocked.
Bush was blasted for failing to enforce what's left of banking regulations and thus failed to prevent a recession which was based upon a pullback of investment when it was learned that banks had defrauded investors with years of glowing reports based upon assets which were crap. Deregulation and lack of enforcement, and companies like S&P giving banks with c ...[text shortened]... s to pass trade deals which created an incentive for companies to move jobs to other countries.
The fraud of Fannie and Freddie went on during administrations of both parties, with the lobbying strength of Fannie and Freddie far more powerful than the regulatory agencies overseeing them.
I agree with you that both parties share the blame for phone "free trade" treaties that are misnamed because they are statist managed trade treaties, not free trade at all.
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by KunsooYou perhaps have a dated example of Rush Limbaugh making such a remark?
But what's especially hilarious is that idiots like Rush Limbaugh were calling it the "Obama Recession" weeks before he was even in power. I just love the conservative notion of where the buck stops!
23 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderRead the whole thing. I don't just read, based on stuff that supports or agrees with my personal philosophy. The fact is that banking is highly regulated. That isn't going to stop, because I wish it.
I've read excerpts from "Reckless Endangerment" and fail to see how someone who wants virtually no regulation of private business can have the nerve to cite it. While the authors vastly overstate the influence of Fannie Mae on the subprime market (their share of the market sharply decreased in the years before the financial meltdown), their basic message ww.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/23/gretchen-morgenson-reckless-endangerment_n_864841.html
Their message to me over the entire content of the book, was that Fannie and to a lesser extent Freddie used their quasi governmental status to influence policy, supposedly to reach laudable social goals. Jim Johnson's tactics are outlined in detail, politically assuring that every year, Fannie would reach goals triggering bonuses enriching himself and other Fannie executives. Fannie with its public/private structure just overpowered the watchdog agencies, including the bond rating agencies. Witness what is happening to S&P at the hand of the government.
No claim that the book represents laissez faire. On the other hand it doesn't lay the blame on laissez faire, recognizing that what happened was the result of government planning, and putting together a hybrid of the private sector for profit and a government protected entity. Sure, at the end it was predators like "Countrywide" and others who pushed this over the edge, but without Fannie there was no Countrywide.
The whole process could not have happened with laissez faire in place. The CRA was the result of a flawed report out of the Boston Fed, which appeared on the surface to prove racial bias in lending. The book is an easy read, and well worth the time invested.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 194316
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by normbenignOkay, let's assume you're right. But why the dearth of criticism of the banks which listed those assets as strong investments? And while the rating agencies might have felt "overwhelmed" there was no gun to their head in giving the banks AAA ratings while they were touting these loans as assets.
Read the whole thing. I don't just read, based on stuff that supports or agrees with my personal philosophy. The fact is that banking is highly regulated. That isn't going to stop, because I wish it.
Their message to me over the entire content of the book, was that Fannie and to a lesser extent Freddie used their quasi governmental status to influen ...[text shortened]... prove racial bias in lending. The book is an easy read, and well worth the time invested.
And whatever you say about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, these were not "no doc" loans made for speculators, and it was these loans which speculators abandoned which were rated highly - fraudulently. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac probably need policy tweaking. But the market collapsed because of criminal fraud on a massive scale, and to date not one of these people is behind bars.
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by KunsooJapan and Germany have implemented (effectively) universal coverage through private insurance companies. They are nevertheless heavily regulated, though.
There's a reason the insurance industry and their Republican surrogates fought the reform tooth an nail. Despite its lacking qualities, it completely changes the framework of health care. Once it's vested, it will have to be improved. A public option is all but inevitable, and that will eventually evolve into single payer because the insurance industry simply cannot deliver and so it cannot compete.
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by KunsooDid you by any chance read the text? In any case, general practice is that even though the President isn't sworn in until January, after the election he takes the heat. Bush caught a break, due to the disputed election in 2000, so the bad economy and high unemployment couldn't be "pinned" on anyone until Gore's concession.
Yup. From the horses mouth, mere days after the election.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110608/content/01125107.guest.html
As soon as that happened it was his recession.
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by normbenignBut you are ignoring the undisputed fact that Fannie and Freddie's share of the market actually sharply decreased in the years before the financial collapse. This renders your logic that the collapse was BECAUSE of them ludicrous.
Read the whole thing. I don't just read, based on stuff that supports or agrees with my personal philosophy. The fact is that banking is highly regulated. That isn't going to stop, because I wish it.
Their message to me over the entire content of the book, was that Fannie and to a lesser extent Freddie used their quasi governmental status to influen ...[text shortened]... prove racial bias in lending. The book is an easy read, and well worth the time invested.
What happened was NOT the result of government action except the loosening of FDR era regulations. It was Wall Street that decided there was a lot of money to be made in mortgage based securities and credit default swaps. But for that you needed more mortgages. So they made it clear they would buy up virtually ANY mortgage given; a whole slew of fly by night mortgage companies started in the late 90's and early 00's that sold the mortgages virtually as soon as they made them. And then Wall Street wound up issuing something like $60 trillion in securities and CDO's backed by less than $10 trillion in mortgages. Once the real estate bubble burst (as all bubbles do), the result was predictable.
That story has little to do with activist government and lot to do with the laissez faire attitude towards regulation that conservatives have. The disaster is on them and the banks.
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by KunsooThere is plenty of criticism of banks in Reckless Endangerment. Banks and other institutions could not have done the stuff they did without Fannie as a clearing house which would handle and bundle all those toxic loans.
Okay, let's assume you're right. But why the dearth of criticism of the banks which listed those assets as strong investments? And while the rating agencies might have felt "overwhelmed" there was no gun to their head in giving the banks AAA ratings while they were touting these loans as assets.
And whatever you say about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, th ...[text shortened]... of criminal fraud on a massive scale, and to date not one of these people is behind bars.
Read the book. There were effectively guns at the heads of the ratings agencies. It was the power of Fannie (Freddie was comparatively a wimp) which every time anyone tried to reign it in, it overpowered the attempt.
Fannie was the catalyst that made it all possible, and it was Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and later BO, who shepherded Fannie through troubled waters, avoiding meaningful oversight and regulation.
Absolutely, there was massive fraud, criminal fraud. I'm not certain that a few people got prosecuted, probably not nearly enough, but once that cart got going, it would have had to include the aforementioned congressman and Senators.
23 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignUtter nonsense. From the link I provided of the book you keep talking about:
There is plenty of criticism of banks in Reckless Endangerment. Banks and other institutions could not have done the stuff they did without Fannie as a clearing house which would handle and bundle all those toxic loans.
Read the book. There were effectively guns at the heads of the ratings agencies. It was the power of Fannie (Freddie was comparativ that cart got going, it would have had to include the aforementioned congressman and Senators.
While nobody mistook Wall Street banks for charity organizations, the degree to which these firms embraced and facilitated corrupt mortgage lending was stunning. Their greed and self-interest took the mortgage mania to heights (or depths, depending on your view) it could not possibly have reached without Wall Street's involvement. And in so doing, Wall Street helped propel world financial markets to the brink of collapse.
The voraciousness of these firms would also push the nation's economy into its most serious recession in more than 75 years.
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by no1marauder"But you are ignoring the undisputed fact that Fannie and Freddie's share of the market actually sharply decreased in the years before the financial collapse. This renders your logic that the collapse was BECAUSE of them ludicrous."
But you are ignoring the undisputed fact that Fannie and Freddie's share of the market actually sharply decreased in the years before the financial collapse. This renders your logic that the collapse was BECAUSE of them ludicrous.
What happened was NOT the result of government action except the loosening of FDR era regulations. It was Wall ...[text shortened]... attitude towards regulation that conservatives have. The disaster is on them and the banks.
At the beginning Fannie was handling stuff first hand, but like many business models it later turned a lot of the dirty work over to surrogates and became a clearing house, even some of that was farmed out. The fact is that Fannie set the wheels in motion, and created the rules by which the game was played, and every time somebody set out to say WTF, Fannie played scorched earth to assure the continued flow of profits.
"What happened was NOT the result of government action except the loosening of FDR era regulations."
Who was in favor of that. Fannie, primarily Jim Johnson, who knew it would open up new opportunities for Fannie. Don't you see that Fannie is in many ways a parallel to the Fed. It was a private corporation, masquerading as a government entity, and given wide latitude due to that perception.
Even the AIG collapse is related, due to their insuring the securities invented by Fannie, which when the totally predictable failures began to mushroom out of control, AIG was left holding the bag. No sympathy for them from me, because underwriting is supposed to be their game. That is true of the banks, mortgage companies and everyone involved, but Fannie made it look like a no risk game, and when the taxpayers bailed out the crooks, it turned out to be true.
Read the chapter in Edward Griffins, "Creature from Jekyll Island" called "Bailout is the Game". Very revealing about how the Fed figures into this, and into previous banking bailouts.
23 Aug 11
Originally posted by normbenignYou must have just looked at the pictures in Reckless Endangerment because your version of what happened is crazy.
"But you are ignoring the undisputed fact that Fannie and Freddie's share of the market actually sharply decreased in the years before the financial collapse. This renders your logic that the collapse was BECAUSE of them ludicrous."
At the beginning Fannie was handling stuff first hand, but like many business models it later turned a lot of the dirty w ...[text shortened]... ery revealing about how the Fed figures into this, and into previous banking bailouts.