The financial crisis... Who's to blame?

Users who are viewing this thread

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
I have been hearing from both sides of the isle that it's the fault of the other side... Well I don't want to hear the partisan bullshit on this bailout. I want good hard evidence and good information explaining exactly how we got to this point. I want the viewpoint of a world renowned economist that isn't spouting partisan bullshit. I want to know if this 700 billion is really needed or not.

Please, if anyone has any good links to an in depth analysis that gets to the root cause of this economic disaster, post them up. We can play the partisan blame game later, I just want facts right now and I'm having a hard time finding any.
 
  • 60
    Replies
  • 1K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

BadBoy@TheWheel

DT3's Twinkie
Messages
20,999
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.06z
I am going on the lookout for some NON-POLITICAL information.

I did have an owner of a wealth management company tell me there will be bones found with all the short-call trading and day trading.

That is why the FTC is calling for short sell records.....There's something fishy Tim....and it's not Hillarys undies
 

BadBoy@TheWheel

DT3's Twinkie
Messages
20,999
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.06z
i'm not too smart but it sounds to me like the blame can be spread pretty wide on this one.


I have no hard evidence yet, but I'm willing to bet the blame is so narrow.....Even the FTC missed it;)


Interestingly enough, trading companies are now applying with the government to become lending institutions...:eek
 

Wookiegirl

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,255
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I have no hard evidence yet, but I'm willing to bet the blame is so narrow.....Even the FTC missed it;)


Interestingly enough, trading companies are now applying with the government to become lending institutions...:eek

well you better get on it there inspector! ;)

all i know is that lending requirements were so lax that my cat coulda got a mortgage. now commodities are going up while all the other stocks are bailing. so as an investor, you can't make any money on stocks but here, let me charge you some more for oil, gas, and gold.
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
After two pro-business Administrations the U.S. suffered the Great Depression. Who has been screaming for deregulation for as long as I can remember? I won't try to flat out pin this on Republicans and the Republican Party as has been pointed out that under Clinton steps were taken to increase home ownership. Were these steps risky? Maybe, but it was also the judgement of mortgage brokers to decide if a loan was risky or not. And I'm sure that judgement was mitigated by the fact that these loans could immediately be sold to another institution, hence the need for regulations and over sight.

Bottom line, if your pro-business or not, you still have a responsibility to be and act responsibly. Unfortunately as humans, we frequently come up lacking, hence the need for regulations and over sight. I think this "maximize profits", and CEO "make me rich" mentality went overboard to the extent of high risk practices and expendable employees. Prudence, caution, and moral standards were thrown out the window in the name of short term profits.
 

siasl

Member
Messages
224
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
well you better get on it there inspector! ;)

all i know is that lending requirements were so lax that my cat coulda got a mortgage. now commodities are going up while all the other stocks are bailing. so as an investor, you can't make any money on stocks but here, let me charge you some more for oil, gas, and gold.

interesting point.....it's been said that investing is a form of gambling....never felt that when i was a kid and my dad was teaching me the ropes of the market....but then he was a very conserative investor, and relied on the sure thing and steady growth over time.

as the world of investment has broadened the number and catagories of allowable bets, the idea of risk has come to be managed by the same folks who happen to profit from the transactions.....

how exactly does that limit the possibility of manipulaton?....is the SEC any different than the FDA?
 

BadBoy@TheWheel

DT3's Twinkie
Messages
20,999
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.06z
In direct response to MinorAxis, and without getting partisan, here's simply an article from Business Week.

Bill Clinton's drive to increase homeownership went way too far

Posted by: Peter Coy on February 27

bill%20clinton.jpg
Add President Clinton to the long list of people who deserve a share of the blame for the housing bubble and bust. A recently re-exposed document shows that his administration went to ridiculous lengths to increase the national homeownership rate. It promoted paper-thin downpayments and pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-time buyers with shaky financing and incomes. It’s clear now that the erosion of lending standards pushed prices up by increasing demand, and later led to waves of defaults by people who never should have bought a home in the first place.
President Bush continued the practices because they dovetailed with his Ownership Society goals, and of course Congress was strongly behind the push. But Clinton and his administration must shoulder some of the blame.
In writing this blog entry, I’m following the lead of Joseph R. Mason, who is a finance professor at Drexel University’s LeBow College of Business, a senior fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, and a consultant at Criterion Economics. Here is a link to a piece that he wrote on Feb. 26.
The Clinton-era document that Mason cites—“The National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream”—was hiding in plain sight
on the website of the Department of Housing & Urban Development until last year, when according to Mason it was removed (probably because the housing bust made it seem embarrassing to the department). Mason credits Joshua Rosner of Graham Fisher & Co. with saving a copy of it before it was expunged.
The National Homeownership Strategy began in 1994 when Clinton directed HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to come up with a plan, and Cisneros convened what HUD called a "historic meeting" of private and public housing-industry organizations in August 1994. The group eventually produced a plan, of which Mason sent me a PDF of Chapter 4, the one that argues for creative measures to promote homeownership.
The very worst idea in the plan, which fortunately never gained approval, was to let first-time homebuyers freely tap their IRA and 401(k) retirement-savings plans with no penalty to scrounge up a downpayment. That, HUD estimated, would have "benefited" 600,000 families in the first five years.
Plenty of other ideas in the plan did become reality, though. Knowing what we know now about the housing bust, the earnest language in the document seems faintly ridiculous. Here's an excerpt. Read it closely and you can see the seeds of disaster being planted:
For many potential homebuyers, the lack of cash available to accumulate the required downpayment and closing costs is the major impediment to purchasing a home. Other households do not have sufficient available income to to make the monthly payments on mortgages financed at market interest rates for standard loan terms. Financing strategies, fueled by the creativity and resources of the private and public sectors, should address both of these financial barriers to homeownership.
Note the praise for "creativity." That kind of creativity in stretching boundaries we could use less of. Mason puts it well: "It strikes me as reckless to promote home sales to individuals in such constrained financial predicaments."
 

Fox Mulder

Active Member
Messages
2,689
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Tim, here is an article that explains it pretty well (from the Wall Street Journal):

Worst Crisis Since '30s, With No End Yet in Sight - WSJ.com

"Fault" is not the correct word to use here--its a concept thrown around way too much (ala's Minor's last post, which is a completely uninformed knee-jerk response). In a nutshell, you had too much borrowing on appreciated real estate values, which when the inevitable deflation of real estate occurred, like a vaccumn equity was sucked out of many financial institutions as well as consumers. This off course caused stocks to lose value--first those directly affected and next the entire market simply based on the fears and concerns (like the great depression). I think MOST of the blame has to be laid at the feet of the consumer who went out and borrowed against the equity in their house--I know a lot of people who did it--I didn't--I'm fine.

You can also blame the institutions that made loans to people who really could not afford them--but do you really want to go down the road of making loans very difficult to obtain? If you do that, you are hurting of course the lower income strata of America--the rich and affluent will still easily get loans and capital. That's why we absolutely SHOULD NOT go down the path of the typical knee-jerk reaction of "let's get the government involved in more regulation" because that will compound the problem. Like being burned bya fire, the market will take care of itself eventually. I think a lot of people needed to learn this lesson and next time will think twice before over-extending themselves again.

But God help us if real estate and other loans become very difficult to obtain due to stringetn government regulation because that will not help the situation, it will onl compound it and slow down the eventual recovery.

BTW--this is not Clinton's fault (pat of it is as BB @ W pointed out is related to more lenient lending poliicies but really he did the right thing--so its not his fault from a "he screwed up sense) its not Bush's fault eother--its really has little to do with the politicians frankly and much more to do with people's self discipline when it comes to money--either lending it or borrowing it.
 

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
as much as I am for deregulation this one was directly the result of it.

it sounded good to allow the insurance and the banks to diversify but there were no safeguards. I have read a few interesting articles that explained it but not sure if I can find them.

as to blame I put it squarely on both sides. the legislation passed with it being veto proof. that means all hands have blood on them in my book. as I said somewhere before the republican congress may have been driving the bus but the Democrats kept it from running out of fuel. Clinton did not even have the chance to turn off the bus as by then it was coasting downhill.
 

Fox Mulder

Active Member
Messages
2,689
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
BTW--this is good for America, actually. People need adversity to learn what they are all about. The true measure of a person cannot be viewed during good times, but when bad times hit (and it happens to everyone at some point). How do you react to a loss of job or a cut in salary? Do you take a disgruntled "its their fault" attitude or do you take the attitude that's like and you'll move on from there? Many people will learn very valuable life lessons for the future--if you are in your 20s or 30s, then there is plenty of time to make up what you lost--if you are older and you haven't learned this lesson yet then you probably won't and will make the same mistakes again (because anyone older would have gone through this already from the recession/housing crash of the late 1980s early 1990s). Because you can bet there will be another again once the housing market recovers--its cyclical--always happens--always wll--one should NEVER consider 30% equity or less in a home as anything to "bank" on because that can disappear during a downswing in the market--so lesson is keep that or more.
 

Fox Mulder

Active Member
Messages
2,689
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
as much as I am for deregulation this one was directly the result of it.

How do you regulate making a loan to a consumer? Are you going to require now at least 20% equity? Seriously, that SHOULD NOT be regulated because you are going to screw up the economy and screw up the one place people do build some security. Anyone advocating regulation of loans to consumers is sorely mistaken in my view. I don't even know how you do that--its far too emorphous--there is too much judgment in evaluating credit.

Regulating the industry will do nothing but keep money in the hands of the people who already have it.
 

dt3

Back By Unpopular Demand
Messages
24,161
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.21z
All I know is on November 4th, I'm not voting for any incumbent on the national, state, or local level. :nod:
 

BadBoy@TheWheel

DT3's Twinkie
Messages
20,999
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.06z
All I know is on November 4th, I'm not voting for any incumbent on the national, state, or local level. :nod:


CannI get an Amen:clap

Personally, and Sorry Tim, but if America wanted someone who understood the economy, Ron Paul would be the nominee....


*ducks*
 

Wookiegirl

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,255
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
CannI get an Amen:clap

Personally, and Sorry Tim, but if America wanted someone who understood the economy, Ron Paul would be the nominee....


*ducks*

:clap:clap:clap:clap

i knew i liked you for more than just your charm and good looks
Ron Paul knows a thing or two.
a lot more than these too yahoos
 

Alien Allen

Froggy the Prick
Messages
16,633
Reaction score
22
Tokenz
1,206.36z
How do you regulate making a loan to a consumer? Are you going to require now at least 20% equity? Seriously, that SHOULD NOT be regulated because you are going to screw up the economy and screw up the one place people do build some security. Anyone advocating regulation of loans to consumers is sorely mistaken in my view. I don't even know how you do that--its far too emorphous--there is too much judgment in evaluating credit.

Regulating the industry will do nothing but keep money in the hands of the people who already have it.
I was not referring to that.

I was referring to the change where banks and insurance companies were allowed to get into other areas. which created a conflict.
 

siasl

Member
Messages
224
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
BTW--this is good for America, actually. People need adversity to learn what they are all about. The true measure of a person cannot be viewed during good times, but when bad times hit (and it happens to everyone at some point)

this makes sense...but it unfortunately is counter intuitive.....the "bailout" is a pragmatic need at this juncture....and while the politicians argue back and forth regarding how much help individuals should recieve for their crummy choices, the money remains earmarked to help business recover from IT'S bad ones.

i glanced at an editorial today calling for punitive action for the offending businesses...this, too, seems counter intuitive, imo....but how do you structure minimizing this "adversitiy" so the economy doesn't take a big, cold shower, AND so that business willingly seeks more of a balance between human values -like integrity- and economic ones -like profit?

this would seem to be key here, as so many people made these crummy choices by following the lead of "best business practices" as they have come to be demonstrated in the last couple of decades.

and...hasn't that key been shown to lie in regulation?
 

BadBoy@TheWheel

DT3's Twinkie
Messages
20,999
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.06z
There needs to be strict regulation of trading, there are way too many loopholes and borderline un-ethical behavior in the market.

Regulating lenders, outside of what is already in place, I am not sure if it's a good idea to squeeze them, basically they do need to invest in something that will actually make a return, and lending is essentially what makes the free market survive, banks need to give out money, it's what they do.
 

Tim

Having way too much fun
Valued Contributor
Messages
13,518
Reaction score
43
Tokenz
111.11z
As far as the regulations go... from what I can piece together, the market needs to have certain regulations in place to keep it from making bad business decisions for short term financial gain. ie. going after as many mortgages as possible many of which are bad paper, because they know they will be bundled up and sold off. This is great for those who are writing the bad debt since they won't own it long enough for it to come back on them and they made their billions selling the bundled debt. This is where the free market concept will not correct itself. Those who initiated the bad debt have made their money and moved on leaving others holding the bag. The way to correct this is to regulate how these debts are passed on or attaching some sort of liability... Anyway you slice it, there needs to be oversite of the market to protect from unscrupolous business practices.

If the market was completely unregulated, a true free market, it would ultimately fail under its own greed.
 
78,875Threads
2,185,392Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top