Questions for our American friends

[awboy33]

Originally Posted by DTravel

You are aware that the Republican party under President Bush forced thru, against all advice from everyone who had a clue about economics, the deregulation that allowed the banks to sell and bundle the very high risk mortgages whose failure was the trigger for the current recession, right?

The bundling of high risk mortgages started well before GWB was in office. It was during Reagan's term that the regulations that separated investment banks from your standard savings banks were removed. Some more regs came down during GHWB's term. There is so much blame to spread around from the homeowner who bought more than they could afford, to the mortgage broker and real estate agents who were in bed together and colluded to jack up home prices, to the Wall Street investors who encouraged the ARM's that made owning more home than you could afford more attractive, to the Feds.

Here is a good article about the sub-prime mortgage crisis. It is written by a libertarian group, but it explains pretty well what went on. Every politician crowed about how they were helping people get into houses.

http://oregoncatalyst.com/1740-Was-t...gulations.html

[Nobody1]

Originally Posted by awboy33

The bundling of high risk mortgages started well before GWB was in office. It was during Reagan's term that the regulations that separated investment banks from your standard savings banks were removed. Some more regs came down during GHWB's term. There is so much blame to spread around from the homeowner who bought more than they could afford, to the mortgage broker and real estate agents who were in bed together and colluded to jack up home prices, to the Wall Street investors who encouraged the ARM's that made owning more home than you could afford more attractive, to the Feds.

Here is a good article about the sub-prime mortgage crisis. It is written by a libertarian group, but it explains pretty well what went on. Every politician crowed about how they were helping people get into houses.

http://oregoncatalyst.com/1740-Was-t...gulations.html

I think it's a little more complicated awboy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=qOP2V_np2c0

[kennyjackson]

Originally Posted by gtos4ever

While Gramm-Leach-Billey (repealing Glass-Steagall)was authored by Republicans it was heartily endorsed by Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and signed by Clinton, not Bush. G-L-B also expanded (at Democrat insistence)the reach of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977(Carter's pet project) which 'encouraged' banks to make mortgages available to low and middle income borrowers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E...nancial_crisis

Small issue: The adjective form of Democrat is DemocraTIC. Not Democrat. Of course you know this which is why Republicans do this - to emphasize the words R-A-T. It shows how childish our politics and politicians have become. I want to add fuel to the fire. I'm trying to start a trend: The Rethuglican Party or The Repugnants or The Republicants. Or we could just try to use reason and stop insulting each long enough to work together - when we can.

[deepsepia]

The best account of the US mortgage crisis -- which, it should be added, is just one facet of a much larger financial crisis-- that I've found is in the book All The Devils Are Here

Is a long and very detailed book, which analyzes the many fronts of this very complicated story. It is much better than the various YouTube videos etc that purport a diagnosis. Highly recommended, and if you can't be troubled to read this very dense book, the New York Times book review of it serves as a useful summary, here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/bo...tt-t.html?_r=0

The book is particularly strong in the "Murder on the Orient Express" theme. Many partisan accounts have preferred villains -- for Republicans, it's fair housing and civil rights activists, for Democrats it's greedy bankers, and so on. What's particularly nice about "Devils" is that the authors illustrate how housing finance was the perfect bipartisan Titanic-- the was something in it for everyone, which is precisely why there were so few critics. It's a subtle point, and one lost in the accounts that ry to spin the story one way or the other.

[Nobody1]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

The best account of the US mortgage crisis -- which, it should be added, is just one facet of a much larger financial crisis-- that I've found is in the book All The Devils Are Here

Is a long and very detailed book, which analyzes the many fronts of this very complicated story. It is much better than the various YouTube videos etc that purport a diagnosis. Highly recommended, and if you can't be troubled to read this very dense book, the New York Times book review of it serves as a useful summary, here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/bo...tt-t.html?_r=0

The book is particularly strong in the "Murder on the Orient Express" theme. Many partisan accounts have preferred villains -- for Republicans, it's fair housing and civil rights activists, for Democrats it's greedy bankers, and so on. What's particularly nice about "Devils" is that the authors illustrate how housing finance was the perfect bipartisan Titanic-- the was something in it for everyone, which is precisely why there were so few critics. It's a subtle point, and one lost in the accounts that ry to spin the story one way or the other.

Exactly here lies the problem deepsepia. They describe symptoms. Not the disease. Therefore, they are not able to predict future crises. Something that Marx could do with consummate ease.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

The best account of the US mortgage crisis -- which, it should be added, is just one facet of a much larger financial crisis-- that I've found is in the book All The Devils Are Here

Is a long and very detailed book, which analyzes the many fronts of this very complicated story. It is much better than the various YouTube videos etc that purport a diagnosis. Highly recommended, and if you can't be troubled to read this very dense book, the New York Times book review of it serves as a useful summary, here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/21/bo...tt-t.html?_r=0...

You are absolutely right - I recommend it too!

But it isn't a long book. My copy is less than 400 pages, and when you think how interesting the authors make the subject - well, it could have been much longer and I wouldn't have been bored

However, I almost certainly wouldn't have bought it if they had kept Bethany McLean's name a secret. That woman is such a phenomenal writer on such subjects. Really, she is. Not to downplay Mr Nocera or anything, but Bethany is a supergirl

And she has a brilliant track-record. Anyone interested in US white-collar crime should check out "The Smartest Guys In The Room" as well, because it's just as good

(Not you, Comrade deepsepia, because I'm sure you already read it)

[awboy33]

Originally Posted by palo5

Anyone interested in US white-collar crime should check out "The Smartest Guys In The Room" as well, because it's just as good

Very good read. But I have always thought the fall of Enron was not so much a cultural issue with the country or capitalism, but more of the culture of the company. The same cultural mindset existed with Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, and other smaller banks, which was to take risks, manipulate the markets and make the most that you could and to hell with the consequences. There were plenty of financial institutions who did not buy into the mindset and they survived just as there were other energy trading companies who did not collapse like Enron. I would have to disagree you, Nobody1, because I do not see the problem as capitalism. You can have the same level of greed no matter what the economic system.

[Nobody1]

Originally Posted by awboy33

Very good read. But I have always thought the fall of Enron was not so much a cultural issue with the country or capitalism, but more of the culture of the company. The same cultural mindset existed with Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, and other smaller banks, which was to take risks, manipulate the markets and make the most that you could and to hell with the consequences. There were plenty of financial institutions who did not buy into the mindset and they survived just as there were other energy trading companies who did not collapse like Enron. I would have to disagree you, Nobody1, because I do not see the problem as capitalism. You can have the same level of greed no matter what the economic system.

Well, that's the question. How can you tame a rabid capitalism ? We all like to live in a democratic society. But stride through a factory gate and you find yourself in a flawless dictatorship.

[gtos4ever]

Originally Posted by kennyjackson

Small issue: The adjective form of Democrat is DemocraTIC. Not Democrat. Of course you know this which is why Republicans do this - to emphasize the words R-A-T. It shows how childish our politics and politicians have become. I want to add fuel to the fire. I'm trying to start a trend: The Rethuglican Party or The Repugnants or The Republicants. Or we could just try to use reason and stop insulting each long enough to work together - when we can.

While I didn't major in English in college I believe I correctly used Democrat as a noun not an adjective. Possibly I should have made it possessive?

I'm afraid though your interpretation of my motives is purely in your mind. I'm neither a Republicrat or Demublican. I'm a Libertarian. My motive was to show that there was more than enough blame to go around (on both sides of the aisle) in the bad legislation which led our current financial difficulties.

[kennyjackson]

Originally Posted by gtos4ever

While I didn't major in English in college I believe I correctly used Democrat as a noun not an adjective. Possibly I should have made it possessive?

I'm afraid though your interpretation of my motives is purely in your mind. I'm neither a Republicrat or Demublican. I'm a Libertarian. My motive was to show that there was more than enough blame to go around (on both sides of the aisle) in the bad legislation which led our current financial difficulties.

I did major in English. That is why the use of language is important to me. The Republican Party has been trying to mutilate the term 'Democratic Party' for some time now. Their 'trick' is a phonetic one as I said - emphasize the syllable "R-A-T". So while, "Democrat" as in "Democrat" Party is technically an adjective, 'Democratic" - with the "ic" is the proper adjective used to modify the 'Party. As to your party affiliation - I view Libertarians as the GOP on steroids. I see huge differences between the parties which is demonstrated by how polarized our politics have become. Republicans have moved (or been pushed) to the Right and the Dems have moved more towards the center than they are given credit for. For example, Obama's Healthcare Law and the idea of mandates was loved by conservatives until Obama adopted it. We could use more political parties but not just ones that are variations on the same theme.