It's BAD, it's STILL very bad REPRISE thread (13 months on)
Discussion
Durruti said:
I'll take the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commissions conclusions over Businessweek thanks.
Firstly, the messenger is not the message and to dismiss the message for the reason stated is too simplistic to be taken seriously - it's not actually Businessweek, is it? It's official Clinton era documentation as cited: The National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream and the considered judgement of academics. There is also the matter of on-record explicit HUD targets for subprime lending by Fannie and Freddie which has largely been ignored, this is the 'mandated lending' which was claimed not to exist. Taking political inquiry verdicts as gospel is also too credulous for my liking, I've read the output of enough political inquiries to know that their remits are chosen carefully, their personnel likewise, and their findings are in accord with this - and with the expedient requirements of the moment. Do the inquiry finding mean that documentation content ceases to exist? Does the content at inquiry links remove HUD targets to Fannie and Freddie on subprime lending for the Clinton White House's 'political free lunch'? The answer is of course 'no' and we are paying the price for the non-existent free lunch.
Until the Clinton era subprime lending targets are shown to be figments of the imagination, and Clinton era documentation is shown to be a forgery, I'll take that together with other information available (as I already have) and remain of the view that on the balance of evidence, Clinton's egalitarian delusion sowed the seeds of the credit crunch.
t than they were likely to admit, as far as I can tell 
. It's looking like Cameron played an absolute blinder.turbobloke said:
Firstly, the messenger is not the message and to dismiss the message for the reason stated is too simplistic to be taken seriously - it's not actually Businessweek, is it? It's official Clinton era documentation as cited: The National Homeownership Strategy: Partners in the American Dream and the considered judgement of academics. There is also the matter of on-record explicit HUD targets for subprime lending by Fannie and Freddie which has largely been ignored, this is the 'mandated lending' which was claimed not to exist.
Taking political inquiry verdicts as gospel is also too credulous for my liking, I've read the output of enough political inquiries to know that their remits are chosen carefully, their personnel likewise, and their findings are in accord with this - and with the expedient requirements of the moment. Do the inquiry finding mean that documentation content ceases to exist? Does the content at inquiry links remove HUD targets to Fannie and Freddie on subprime lending for the Clinton White House's 'political free lunch'? The answer is of course 'no' and we are paying the price for the non-existent free lunch.
Until the Clinton era subprime lending targets are shown to be figments of the imagination, and Clinton era documentation is shown to be a forgery, I'll take that together with other information available (as I already have) and remain of the view that on the balance of evidence, Clinton's egalitarian delusion sowed the seeds of the credit crunch.
Fine, when even the people with the most to gain if your assertion was true - I'm sure they would've loved a chance to scream "it wasn't my fault, bigger boys made me do it" ("former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines said it might have been a catalyst encouraging bad behavior, but it was difficult to know. Raines also cited information that only a small percentage of risky loans originated as a result of the CRA.") are denying that the CRA played any meaningful role, and the fact that I'm not aware of any of the major lending institutions having blamed the CRA as a contributory factor, if you want to continue to believe, for the aforementioned Blue tie/Red tie reasons, that Bill Clinton was the genesis of this crisis, then fill your boots.Taking political inquiry verdicts as gospel is also too credulous for my liking, I've read the output of enough political inquiries to know that their remits are chosen carefully, their personnel likewise, and their findings are in accord with this - and with the expedient requirements of the moment. Do the inquiry finding mean that documentation content ceases to exist? Does the content at inquiry links remove HUD targets to Fannie and Freddie on subprime lending for the Clinton White House's 'political free lunch'? The answer is of course 'no' and we are paying the price for the non-existent free lunch.
Until the Clinton era subprime lending targets are shown to be figments of the imagination, and Clinton era documentation is shown to be a forgery, I'll take that together with other information available (as I already have) and remain of the view that on the balance of evidence, Clinton's egalitarian delusion sowed the seeds of the credit crunch.
Bill Clinton was, in this crisis as much else in his career, distinctly small time.
From former Director of the U.S. Treasury's Office of Thrift Supervision Ellen Seidman:
It has lately become fashionable for conservative pundits (Larry Kudlow, George Will) and disgruntled ex-bankers (Vernon Hill, for example, in his March 7 American Banker editorial) to blame the current credit crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act. This is patent nonsense. The sub-prime debacle has many causes, including greed, lack of and ineffective regulation, failures of risk assessment and management, and misplaced optimism. But CRA is not to blame.
First, the timing is all wrong. CRA was enacted in 1977, its companion disclosure statute, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) in 1975. While many of us warned against bad subprime lending before the turn of the millennium, the massive breakdown of underwriting and extension of risky products far down the income scale-without bothering to even check on income-was primarily a post-2003 phenomenon. To blame a statute enacted in 1977 for something that happened 25 years later takes a fair amount of chutzpah. [...]
Second, CRA does not either encourage or condone bad lending. Bank regulators were decrying bad subprime lending before the turn of the millennium (see Interagency Guidance on Subprime Lending), and warning the CRA-covered institutions we regulated that badly underwritten subprime products that ignored consumer protections were not acceptable. Lenders not subject to CRA did not receive similar warnings.
Or, if you prefer Businessweek -
The CRA Did Not Affect The Vast Majority Of Subprime Loans. From Businessweek: "The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it's even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren't subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations." [Businessweek, 9/29/08]
And finally, a report a scientific mind like yours cannot deny - it has methodologies and everything!
http://www.richmondfed.org/conferences_and_events/...
If you want to skip right to the heart of the issue, last para, page 19.
With that I wish you goodnight, it's been emotional.
As you will know I make my own mind up over the relative merits of evidence. I say that, since I trust you also take the same approach and will recognise the symptoms.
All any inquiry has to do, to convince me about Clinton, is to show that the official Clinton document as cited was a forgery or its existence is a fabrication, that he didn't appoint Achtenberg after all to do what she did, and the increasingly dangerous subprime loan targets set year-on-year for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't exist, or weren't in fact met, and I'll be on board as fast as a ninja mortgage was offered to people with no job or assets.
At the moment none of those conditions are met and the use of rhetorical devices can't take their place.
All any inquiry has to do, to convince me about Clinton, is to show that the official Clinton document as cited was a forgery or its existence is a fabrication, that he didn't appoint Achtenberg after all to do what she did, and the increasingly dangerous subprime loan targets set year-on-year for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac didn't exist, or weren't in fact met, and I'll be on board as fast as a ninja mortgage was offered to people with no job or assets.
At the moment none of those conditions are met and the use of rhetorical devices can't take their place.
bosscerbera said:
WhoseGeneration said:
Gwagon111 said:
Dead decade it is then. Awwwww sheeeeeeiiit.
Why only a decade?That'd be no fun though, would it.
WhoseGeneration said:
bosscerbera said:
WhoseGeneration said:
Gwagon111 said:
Dead decade it is then. Awwwww sheeeeeeiiit.
Why only a decade?That'd be no fun though, would it.
Digga said:
'They' talk about Japan's lost decade but the phrase is factually inaccurate - specualtive even - as Japan has yet to emerge from the dolldrums.
Yet wages are high, personal debt is low, and they make things that other people want to buy? They also haven't sold their culture down the drain in the name of PC and multi-culturalism.Bing o said:
Digga said:
'They' talk about Japan's lost decade but the phrase is factually inaccurate - specualtive even - as Japan has yet to emerge from the dolldrums.
Yet wages are high, personal debt is low, and they make things that other people want to buy? They also haven't sold their culture down the drain in the name of PC and multi-culturalism.Digga said:
WhoseGeneration said:
bosscerbera said:
WhoseGeneration said:
Gwagon111 said:
Dead decade it is then. Awwwww sheeeeeeiiit.
Why only a decade?That'd be no fun though, would it.
Guam said:
I picked up on some economist or other on one the Tv programs <Randal I think> who made the point regarding the PIIGS, that it took the Southern States of the US 150 years to equalise with the Northern states following the civil war <economically speaking> and they had the benefit of One currency one fiscal System and one constitution.
Now THAT is a depressing concept imho!
Even more depressing when you realise that the biggest piggy, Italy, has only existed as a nation for about that long in it's own right. And still they cannot collect taxes in the south. Now THAT is a depressing concept imho!
Digga said:
Bing o said:
Digga said:
'They' talk about Japan's lost decade but the phrase is factually inaccurate - specualtive even - as Japan has yet to emerge from the dolldrums.
Yet wages are high, personal debt is low, and they make things that other people want to buy? They also haven't sold their culture down the drain in the name of PC and multi-culturalism.Bing o said:
Digga said:
Bing o said:
Digga said:
'They' talk about Japan's lost decade but the phrase is factually inaccurate - specualtive even - as Japan has yet to emerge from the dolldrums.
Yet wages are high, personal debt is low, and they make things that other people want to buy? They also haven't sold their culture down the drain in the name of PC and multi-culturalism.Low suicide rate.
High social mobility.
High returns from domestically listed stock.
The well off are turning to pawn for a bit of relief.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/re...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/re...
Digga said:
Low government debt.
Low suicide rate.
High social mobility.
High returns from domestically listed stock.
1) No chanceLow suicide rate.
High social mobility.
High returns from domestically listed stock.
2) I would imagine this is getting, or will get, worse
3) No such thing. What is actually being measured is the inverse of long term stability (government, taxes, benefits, health, law and peace) which is usually a much better situation than instability.
4) Outlook uncertain though FTSE looks a bit low so may be a good time to buy.
Overall - not happy (as you define it)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff