40 Years of Class Warfare in One Chart.

[georgephillip]

Of course thats idiotic. Today average people are lining up in the 10's of millions to buy Iphone toys and 1000's of other great new toys that they don't need..

Because of credit cards that weren't available in the 1950s, Idiot.

 

[dblack]

The relevant question, in my view, is whether the current range of prices/wages/salaries is an accurate reflection of market values or not.

 

[ralfy]

Actually, they were "regulated," but not really regulated.

They were regulated, period.

Hardly. Try this feature for details:

House Of Cards The Mortgage Mess - CBS News

Let me just clarify.... I don't want to imply you are saying something that you are not.

FDsys - Browse Code of Federal Regulations Annual Edition

This web site is the Federal Code of Regulations, for the year 2000.

If you scroll down to Title 12, Banks and Banking, you will discover that the regulations come in a 6 Volume set. If you download all 6 volumes, (as I have done), you will discovered over 4,000 pages of regulations on virtually all aspects of banking.

In addition, you will discovered several government bodies created to monitor banks, including Federal Financing Bank, Federal Housing Finance Board, Department of the Treasury which has it's own regulations, FDIC which has it's own regulations, and lastly Comptroller of the Currency which has it's own regulations.

But wait! There's more!

Moving down to Title 17, you'll find a three volume set, containing over 2,400 pages exclusively to regulation on securities.
Then moving to Title 24, you'll find another three volumes, of just under 1500 pages, and while they are not all related to mortgage securities, some are, such as Government National Mortgage Association, Office of Assistant Secretary for Housing, and Office of Housing and Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring, each with their own various regulations that must be followed.

And of course, if you wish to claim that the roughly 8,000 pages of regulations that existed back in 2000, regulating and over-seeing every aspect of banks was just far too limited and modest.....

Lawriter - ORC - Title 11 XI FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Let us add in State Level banking regulations as well. Ohio Revised Code, Title 11, contains no less than 80 Chapters regulating banks. That's just Ohio Revised Code. Many states have more regulations than Ohio.


Now.... Allow me to ask again.... Are you saying that the banks and mortgage backed securities were not regulated?

Failure due to deregulation was the conclusion made by the FCIC:

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Are you telling me..... that you are going to the word of the people who caused the problem... over the facts that already know? Are you saying there were not 8,000 pages of regulations? Because I have already posted direct links to those regulations.

So you can't examine the evidence yourself, but blindly follow what some government agency says? And by the way..... who benefits from this conclusion? Government. See if they came to the conclusion "our policies caused the problem", we would blame government, and people would lose their cushy government agency positions. Can't have that.

Instead let's blame deregulation, and what does that do? Well obviously we need MORE cushy government jobs, MORE lush paid government agencies.

Isn't it funny how when a company says "our product is great", you instantly realize a conflict of interest, but when government says "we need more government", no such ethical question comes to mind? Why do you blindly trust these guys?

I can't find any credible evidence that the problem was lack of regulation. If you have it, share it.

The causes are enumerated here:

Financial crisis of 2007 08 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In short, the problem isn't thousands of pages of regulation but several deregulatory policies.

 

[dblack]

They were regulated, period.

Hardly. Try this feature for details:

House Of Cards The Mortgage Mess - CBS News

Let me just clarify.... I don't want to imply you are saying something that you are not.

FDsys - Browse Code of Federal Regulations Annual Edition

This web site is the Federal Code of Regulations, for the year 2000.

If you scroll down to Title 12, Banks and Banking, you will discover that the regulations come in a 6 Volume set. If you download all 6 volumes, (as I have done), you will discovered over 4,000 pages of regulations on virtually all aspects of banking.

In addition, you will discovered several government bodies created to monitor banks, including Federal Financing Bank, Federal Housing Finance Board, Department of the Treasury which has it's own regulations, FDIC which has it's own regulations, and lastly Comptroller of the Currency which has it's own regulations.

But wait! There's more!

Moving down to Title 17, you'll find a three volume set, containing over 2,400 pages exclusively to regulation on securities.
Then moving to Title 24, you'll find another three volumes, of just under 1500 pages, and while they are not all related to mortgage securities, some are, such as Government National Mortgage Association, Office of Assistant Secretary for Housing, and Office of Housing and Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring, each with their own various regulations that must be followed.

And of course, if you wish to claim that the roughly 8,000 pages of regulations that existed back in 2000, regulating and over-seeing every aspect of banks was just far too limited and modest.....

Lawriter - ORC - Title 11 XI FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Let us add in State Level banking regulations as well. Ohio Revised Code, Title 11, contains no less than 80 Chapters regulating banks. That's just Ohio Revised Code. Many states have more regulations than Ohio.


Now.... Allow me to ask again.... Are you saying that the banks and mortgage backed securities were not regulated?

Failure due to deregulation was the conclusion made by the FCIC:

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Are you telling me..... that you are going to the word of the people who caused the problem... over the facts that already know? Are you saying there were not 8,000 pages of regulations? Because I have already posted direct links to those regulations.

So you can't examine the evidence yourself, but blindly follow what some government agency says? And by the way..... who benefits from this conclusion? Government. See if they came to the conclusion "our policies caused the problem", we would blame government, and people would lose their cushy government agency positions. Can't have that.

Instead let's blame deregulation, and what does that do? Well obviously we need MORE cushy government jobs, MORE lush paid government agencies.

Isn't it funny how when a company says "our product is great", you instantly realize a conflict of interest, but when government says "we need more government", no such ethical question comes to mind? Why do you blindly trust these guys?

I can't find any credible evidence that the problem was lack of regulation. If you have it, share it.

The causes are enumerated here:

Financial crisis of 2007 08 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In short, the problem isn't thousands of pages of regulation but several deregulatory policies.

We need re-regulatory policies!!!

 

[Dad2three]

Hardly. Try this feature for details:

House Of Cards The Mortgage Mess - CBS News

Let me just clarify.... I don't want to imply you are saying something that you are not.

FDsys - Browse Code of Federal Regulations Annual Edition

This web site is the Federal Code of Regulations, for the year 2000.

If you scroll down to Title 12, Banks and Banking, you will discover that the regulations come in a 6 Volume set. If you download all 6 volumes, (as I have done), you will discovered over 4,000 pages of regulations on virtually all aspects of banking.

In addition, you will discovered several government bodies created to monitor banks, including Federal Financing Bank, Federal Housing Finance Board, Department of the Treasury which has it's own regulations, FDIC which has it's own regulations, and lastly Comptroller of the Currency which has it's own regulations.

But wait! There's more!

Moving down to Title 17, you'll find a three volume set, containing over 2,400 pages exclusively to regulation on securities.
Then moving to Title 24, you'll find another three volumes, of just under 1500 pages, and while they are not all related to mortgage securities, some are, such as Government National Mortgage Association, Office of Assistant Secretary for Housing, and Office of Housing and Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring, each with their own various regulations that must be followed.

And of course, if you wish to claim that the roughly 8,000 pages of regulations that existed back in 2000, regulating and over-seeing every aspect of banks was just far too limited and modest.....

Lawriter - ORC - Title 11 XI FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Let us add in State Level banking regulations as well. Ohio Revised Code, Title 11, contains no less than 80 Chapters regulating banks. That's just Ohio Revised Code. Many states have more regulations than Ohio.


Now.... Allow me to ask again.... Are you saying that the banks and mortgage backed securities were not regulated?

Failure due to deregulation was the conclusion made by the FCIC:

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Are you telling me..... that you are going to the word of the people who caused the problem... over the facts that already know? Are you saying there were not 8,000 pages of regulations? Because I have already posted direct links to those regulations.

So you can't examine the evidence yourself, but blindly follow what some government agency says? And by the way..... who benefits from this conclusion? Government. See if they came to the conclusion "our policies caused the problem", we would blame government, and people would lose their cushy government agency positions. Can't have that.

Instead let's blame deregulation, and what does that do? Well obviously we need MORE cushy government jobs, MORE lush paid government agencies.

Isn't it funny how when a company says "our product is great", you instantly realize a conflict of interest, but when government says "we need more government", no such ethical question comes to mind? Why do you blindly trust these guys?

I can't find any credible evidence that the problem was lack of regulation. If you have it, share it.

The causes are enumerated here:

Financial crisis of 2007 08 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In short, the problem isn't thousands of pages of regulation but several deregulatory policies.

We need re-regulatory policies!!!

Just regulators on the beat, unlike how Dubya, Reagan (S&L) and Harding/Coolidge did! Weird we elect guys who "don't believe in" Gov't and Gov't regulators then are shocked when the "free markets" hose US like they did in the period before Gov't regulators!

 

[Dad2three]

They were regulated, period.

Hardly. Try this feature for details:

House Of Cards The Mortgage Mess - CBS News

Let me just clarify.... I don't want to imply you are saying something that you are not.

FDsys - Browse Code of Federal Regulations Annual Edition

This web site is the Federal Code of Regulations, for the year 2000.

If you scroll down to Title 12, Banks and Banking, you will discover that the regulations come in a 6 Volume set. If you download all 6 volumes, (as I have done), you will discovered over 4,000 pages of regulations on virtually all aspects of banking.

In addition, you will discovered several government bodies created to monitor banks, including Federal Financing Bank, Federal Housing Finance Board, Department of the Treasury which has it's own regulations, FDIC which has it's own regulations, and lastly Comptroller of the Currency which has it's own regulations.

But wait! There's more!

Moving down to Title 17, you'll find a three volume set, containing over 2,400 pages exclusively to regulation on securities.
Then moving to Title 24, you'll find another three volumes, of just under 1500 pages, and while they are not all related to mortgage securities, some are, such as Government National Mortgage Association, Office of Assistant Secretary for Housing, and Office of Housing and Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring, each with their own various regulations that must be followed.

And of course, if you wish to claim that the roughly 8,000 pages of regulations that existed back in 2000, regulating and over-seeing every aspect of banks was just far too limited and modest.....

Lawriter - ORC - Title 11 XI FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Let us add in State Level banking regulations as well. Ohio Revised Code, Title 11, contains no less than 80 Chapters regulating banks. That's just Ohio Revised Code. Many states have more regulations than Ohio.


Now.... Allow me to ask again.... Are you saying that the banks and mortgage backed securities were not regulated?

Failure due to deregulation was the conclusion made by the FCIC:

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Are you telling me..... that you are going to the word of the people who caused the problem... over the facts that already know? Are you saying there were not 8,000 pages of regulations? Because I have already posted direct links to those regulations.

So you can't examine the evidence yourself, but blindly follow what some government agency says? And by the way..... who benefits from this conclusion? Government. See if they came to the conclusion "our policies caused the problem", we would blame government, and people would lose their cushy government agency positions. Can't have that.

Instead let's blame deregulation, and what does that do? Well obviously we need MORE cushy government jobs, MORE lush paid government agencies.

Isn't it funny how when a company says "our product is great", you instantly realize a conflict of interest, but when government says "we need more government", no such ethical question comes to mind? Why do you blindly trust these guys?

I can't find any credible evidence that the problem was lack of regulation. If you have it, share it.

The causes are enumerated here:

Financial crisis of 2007 08 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In short, the problem isn't thousands of pages of regulation but several deregulatory policies.

Main cause was the executive branch who not only ignored warnings from the FBI that started in 2004, but fought all 50 states who wanted to better regulate the predatory lenders, who got the thirst of wall street started!

 

[georgephillip]

The relevant question, in my view, is whether the current range of prices/wages/salaries is an accurate reflection of market values or not.

And whether or not market value is an accurate reflection of Fair value?
"There are two schools of thought about the relation between the market price and fair value in any kind of market, but especially with regard to tradable assets:

• The efficient-market hypothesis asserts that, in a well organized, reasonably transparent market, the market price is generally equal to or close to the fair value, as investors react quickly to incorporate new information about relative scarcity, utility, or potential returns in their bids; see also Rational pricing."

Fair value - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[dblack]

Let me just clarify.... I don't want to imply you are saying something that you are not.

FDsys - Browse Code of Federal Regulations Annual Edition

This web site is the Federal Code of Regulations, for the year 2000.

If you scroll down to Title 12, Banks and Banking, you will discover that the regulations come in a 6 Volume set. If you download all 6 volumes, (as I have done), you will discovered over 4,000 pages of regulations on virtually all aspects of banking.

In addition, you will discovered several government bodies created to monitor banks, including Federal Financing Bank, Federal Housing Finance Board, Department of the Treasury which has it's own regulations, FDIC which has it's own regulations, and lastly Comptroller of the Currency which has it's own regulations.

But wait! There's more!

Moving down to Title 17, you'll find a three volume set, containing over 2,400 pages exclusively to regulation on securities.
Then moving to Title 24, you'll find another three volumes, of just under 1500 pages, and while they are not all related to mortgage securities, some are, such as Government National Mortgage Association, Office of Assistant Secretary for Housing, and Office of Housing and Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring, each with their own various regulations that must be followed.

And of course, if you wish to claim that the roughly 8,000 pages of regulations that existed back in 2000, regulating and over-seeing every aspect of banks was just far too limited and modest.....

Lawriter - ORC - Title 11 XI FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Let us add in State Level banking regulations as well. Ohio Revised Code, Title 11, contains no less than 80 Chapters regulating banks. That's just Ohio Revised Code. Many states have more regulations than Ohio.


Now.... Allow me to ask again.... Are you saying that the banks and mortgage backed securities were not regulated?

Failure due to deregulation was the conclusion made by the FCIC:

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Are you telling me..... that you are going to the word of the people who caused the problem... over the facts that already know? Are you saying there were not 8,000 pages of regulations? Because I have already posted direct links to those regulations.

So you can't examine the evidence yourself, but blindly follow what some government agency says? And by the way..... who benefits from this conclusion? Government. See if they came to the conclusion "our policies caused the problem", we would blame government, and people would lose their cushy government agency positions. Can't have that.

Instead let's blame deregulation, and what does that do? Well obviously we need MORE cushy government jobs, MORE lush paid government agencies.

Isn't it funny how when a company says "our product is great", you instantly realize a conflict of interest, but when government says "we need more government", no such ethical question comes to mind? Why do you blindly trust these guys?

I can't find any credible evidence that the problem was lack of regulation. If you have it, share it.

The causes are enumerated here:

Financial crisis of 2007 08 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In short, the problem isn't thousands of pages of regulation but several deregulatory policies.

We need re-regulatory policies!!!

Just regulators on the beat, unlike how Dubya, Reagan (S&L) and Harding/Coolidge did! Weird we elect guys who "don't believe in" Gov't and Gov't regulators then are shocked when the "free markets" hose US like they did in the period before Gov't regulators!

The de-regulation you're whining about wasn't. It was simply tweaking the regulatory apparatus on behalf of well-heeled lobbyists. That's how regulation works. It serves, first and foremost, the interests of those in power.

 

[dblack]

The relevant question, in my view, is whether the current range of prices/wages/salaries is an accurate reflection of market values or not.

And whether or not market value is an accurate reflection of Fair value?
"There are two schools of thought about the relation between the market price and fair value in any kind of market, but especially with regard to tradable assets:

• The efficient-market hypothesis asserts that, in a well organized, reasonably transparent market, the market price is generally equal to or close to the fair value, as investors react quickly to incorporate new information about relative scarcity, utility, or potential returns in their bids; see also Rational pricing."

Fair value - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The term 'fair' - especially when capitalized - imparts a moral judgement that has nothing to do with how much people actually value goods and services in a market. My concern, and what I think the goal of economic policy should be, is to ensure that people aren't using coercive means to influence market values. The government should work to ensure honesty and transparency in markets, and guard against regulatory policies that can be used to manipulate markets artificially.

 

[RKMBrown]

4) The average salary after inflation adjustments is double today than it was in 1950.

How are you calculating those inflation adjustments?
In 1950 the richest 1% earned less that 7% of aggregate US income, today they earn nearly 23%. Average earners haven't kept pace with those gains.

How? That's what the chart says. 100% increase is double.

So basically you are saying that if your salary doubles and someone else triples you got screwed. Cause no one else should be allowed to have more gains than you... ROFL Thanks for explaining why YOU are not in the 1%.

 

[georgephillip]

So basically you are saying that if your salary doubles and someone else triples you got screwed

That probably depends on how your tax rates changed between 1950 and today. The richest 1% have used their "fair share" of productivity gains to bribe Republicans AND Democrats to shift the tax burden off the rich and onto the middle class.

 

[georgephillip]

How? That's what the chart says. 100% increase is double.

Hourly compensation increased 113.1% between 1950 and 2010, yet it leveled off in the mid '70s while productivity gains continued to increase to 254.3% in 2010.

The richest one percent of Americans earned around 7%-8% of US income in the mid '70s and they earn three times that today.

Why would you feel the need to defend that?

40 Years of Economic Policy in One Chart CounterPunch Tells the Facts Names the Names

 

[Dad2three]

Failure due to deregulation was the conclusion made by the FCIC:

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Are you telling me..... that you are going to the word of the people who caused the problem... over the facts that already know? Are you saying there were not 8,000 pages of regulations? Because I have already posted direct links to those regulations.

So you can't examine the evidence yourself, but blindly follow what some government agency says? And by the way..... who benefits from this conclusion? Government. See if they came to the conclusion "our policies caused the problem", we would blame government, and people would lose their cushy government agency positions. Can't have that.

Instead let's blame deregulation, and what does that do? Well obviously we need MORE cushy government jobs, MORE lush paid government agencies.

Isn't it funny how when a company says "our product is great", you instantly realize a conflict of interest, but when government says "we need more government", no such ethical question comes to mind? Why do you blindly trust these guys?

I can't find any credible evidence that the problem was lack of regulation. If you have it, share it.

The causes are enumerated here:

Financial crisis of 2007 08 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In short, the problem isn't thousands of pages of regulation but several deregulatory policies.

We need re-regulatory policies!!!

Just regulators on the beat, unlike how Dubya, Reagan (S&L) and Harding/Coolidge did! Weird we elect guys who "don't believe in" Gov't and Gov't regulators then are shocked when the "free markets" hose US like they did in the period before Gov't regulators!

The de-regulation you're whining about wasn't. It was simply tweaking the regulatory apparatus on behalf of well-heeled lobbyists. That's how regulation works. It serves, first and foremost, the interests of those in power.

Yes, weird how it works SOOOOOOO horrbly under GOPers right?

Why Prosecutors Don't Go After Wall Street

BUSH GAVE A GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD SUMMER 2008

Why Prosecutors Don t Go After Wall Street NPR

“When regulators don’t believe in regulation and don’t get what is going on at the companies they oversee, there can be no major white-collar crime prosecutions,”...“If they don’t understand what we call collective embezzlement, where people are literally looting their own firms, then it’s impossible to bring cases.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/14prosecute.html?pagewanted=all

The FBI correctly identified the epidemic of mortgage control fraud at such an early point that the financial crisis could have been averted had the Bush administration acted with even minimal competence.
'
The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis William K. Black

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources.

FBI saw threat of loan crisis - latimes

Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:

Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

FBI Financial Crimes Report 2005

The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION and CONGRESS stripped the White Collar Crime divisions of money and manpower.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/washington/19fbi.html?pagewanted=all

DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

 

[Dad2three]

Failure due to deregulation was the conclusion made by the FCIC:

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Are you telling me..... that you are going to the word of the people who caused the problem... over the facts that already know? Are you saying there were not 8,000 pages of regulations? Because I have already posted direct links to those regulations.

So you can't examine the evidence yourself, but blindly follow what some government agency says? And by the way..... who benefits from this conclusion? Government. See if they came to the conclusion "our policies caused the problem", we would blame government, and people would lose their cushy government agency positions. Can't have that.

Instead let's blame deregulation, and what does that do? Well obviously we need MORE cushy government jobs, MORE lush paid government agencies.

Isn't it funny how when a company says "our product is great", you instantly realize a conflict of interest, but when government says "we need more government", no such ethical question comes to mind? Why do you blindly trust these guys?

I can't find any credible evidence that the problem was lack of regulation. If you have it, share it.

The causes are enumerated here:

Financial crisis of 2007 08 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In short, the problem isn't thousands of pages of regulation but several deregulatory policies.

We need re-regulatory policies!!!

Just regulators on the beat, unlike how Dubya, Reagan (S&L) and Harding/Coolidge did! Weird we elect guys who "don't believe in" Gov't and Gov't regulators then are shocked when the "free markets" hose US like they did in the period before Gov't regulators!

The de-regulation you're whining about wasn't. It was simply tweaking the regulatory apparatus on behalf of well-heeled lobbyists. That's how regulation works. It serves, first and foremost, the interests of those in power.

One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.

 

[georgephillip]

The term 'fair' - especially when capitalized - imparts a moral judgement that has nothing to do with how much people actually value goods and services in a market.

Moral judgement has a great deal to do with how some people value goods and services in a market. The boycott and divestment movements in South Africa, for example, played a major role in toppling apartheid in that state. Economic systems that are believed to treat people unfairly aren't subject to much public confidence.

 

[RKMBrown]

So basically you are saying that if your salary doubles and someone else triples you got screwed

That probably depends on how your tax rates changed between 1950 and today. The richest 1% have used their "fair share" of productivity gains to bribe Republicans AND Democrats to shift the tax burden off the rich and onto the middle class.

Uhmmm the people that only "doubled" their income are paying ZERO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. Please explain how paying ZERO IS A BURDEN for these poor downtrodden middle class folk.

 

[RKMBrown]

How? That's what the chart says. 100% increase is double.

Hourly compensation increased 113.1% between 1950 and 2010, yet it leveled off in the mid '70s while productivity gains continued to increase to 254.3% in 2010.

The richest one percent of Americans earned around 7%-8% of US income in the mid '70s and they earn three times that today.

Why would you feel the need to defend that?

40 Years of Economic Policy in One Chart CounterPunch Tells the Facts Names the Names

As I said, your salary was DOUBLED with respect to inflation, and still you are complaining that someone else is doing better than DOUBLE. FYI there is a cost of investment to productivity. You seem to believe if I buy 3 robots and pay one operator of those robots to replace the work previously done by 6 people that I should pay the operator 6 times more. It does not work that way.

 

[Andylusion]

They were regulated, period.

Hardly. Try this feature for details:

House Of Cards The Mortgage Mess - CBS News

Let me just clarify.... I don't want to imply you are saying something that you are not.

FDsys - Browse Code of Federal Regulations Annual Edition

This web site is the Federal Code of Regulations, for the year 2000.

If you scroll down to Title 12, Banks and Banking, you will discover that the regulations come in a 6 Volume set. If you download all 6 volumes, (as I have done), you will discovered over 4,000 pages of regulations on virtually all aspects of banking.

In addition, you will discovered several government bodies created to monitor banks, including Federal Financing Bank, Federal Housing Finance Board, Department of the Treasury which has it's own regulations, FDIC which has it's own regulations, and lastly Comptroller of the Currency which has it's own regulations.

But wait! There's more!

Moving down to Title 17, you'll find a three volume set, containing over 2,400 pages exclusively to regulation on securities.
Then moving to Title 24, you'll find another three volumes, of just under 1500 pages, and while they are not all related to mortgage securities, some are, such as Government National Mortgage Association, Office of Assistant Secretary for Housing, and Office of Housing and Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring, each with their own various regulations that must be followed.

And of course, if you wish to claim that the roughly 8,000 pages of regulations that existed back in 2000, regulating and over-seeing every aspect of banks was just far too limited and modest.....

Lawriter - ORC - Title 11 XI FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Let us add in State Level banking regulations as well. Ohio Revised Code, Title 11, contains no less than 80 Chapters regulating banks. That's just Ohio Revised Code. Many states have more regulations than Ohio.


Now.... Allow me to ask again.... Are you saying that the banks and mortgage backed securities were not regulated?

Failure due to deregulation was the conclusion made by the FCIC:

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Are you telling me..... that you are going to the word of the people who caused the problem... over the facts that already know? Are you saying there were not 8,000 pages of regulations? Because I have already posted direct links to those regulations.

So you can't examine the evidence yourself, but blindly follow what some government agency says? And by the way..... who benefits from this conclusion? Government. See if they came to the conclusion "our policies caused the problem", we would blame government, and people would lose their cushy government agency positions. Can't have that.

Instead let's blame deregulation, and what does that do? Well obviously we need MORE cushy government jobs, MORE lush paid government agencies.

Isn't it funny how when a company says "our product is great", you instantly realize a conflict of interest, but when government says "we need more government", no such ethical question comes to mind? Why do you blindly trust these guys?

I can't find any credible evidence that the problem was lack of regulation. If you have it, share it.

The causes are enumerated here:

Financial crisis of 2007 08 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In short, the problem isn't thousands of pages of regulation but several deregulatory policies.

So, let's go through those.

Jimmy Carter's Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA) phased out a number of restrictions on banks' financial practices, broadened their lending powers, allowed credit unions and savings and loans to offer checkable deposits, and raised the deposit insurance limit from $40,000 to $100,000 (thereby potentially lessening depositor scrutiny of lenders' risk management policies).​

I'm against FDIC to begin with, and for the reasons given here. However... What's that go to do with sub-prime loans? Mortgage backed securities? Or anything else? There's no evidence that I have seen yet, which shows how this is related.

In October 1982, U.S. President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act, which provided for adjustable-rate mortgage loans, began the process of banking deregulation, and contributed to the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s/early 1990s.
​

First, why did government do this? Answer, because of the stagflation. Savings and Loans S&Ls had a huge problem with inflation, and interest rates. So they would make a home loan, at a fixed interest rate of say 10%. Then inflation and interest rates would go up to 20%. So the S&L had two bad options. They could pay the 20% interest on deposits, while only earning 10% on their loans... thus losing money.... or they could pay less than the market interest rate, and have all their depositors withdraw their cash, to put in other banks with higher rates. One way they go broke quickly, and the other they go broke slowly.

The ARM, allowed the bank to avoid going bankrupt, even in a jacked up inflation, interest rate environment. It was very need at the time. Today, not so much, just because inflation and interest rates have been so low for almost two decades. But it was different then.

Second, regardless I would deny this was directly related to the 2008 crash, because only a fraction of ARM loans were part of the big crash. They played a part.... yes. I don't deny that. But most of the failures were in other sub-prime loans.

In November 1999, U.S. President Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, which repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933. This repeal has been criticized for reducing the separation between commercial banks (which traditionally had fiscally conservative policies) and investment banks (which had a more risk-taking culture).[92][93] However, there is perspective that Glass-Steagall being in effect may not have made any difference at all as the institutions that were greatly affected did not fall under the jurisdiction of the act itself.​

It's not just a "perspective". It's the reality. Countrywide, IndyMac, Wachovia, Bear Stearns, and literally hundreds of others, would not have been affected in any way, had GLB Act never existed. None of them were commercial and investment bank combos.

Also, if that was the problem, then why hasn't the problem started elsewhere in the world? No other country in the world, has ever had the Glass-Staegall type restriction. Canada doesn't. UK doesn't. France, Sweden, all of the EU, or Asia. Singapore, Hong Kong, Tiawan and S.Korea. None have ever had this restriction, and yet the problem started here, not there.

In 2004, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission relaxed the net capital rule, which enabled investment banks to substantially increase the level of debt they were taking on, fueling the growth in mortgage-backed securities supporting subprime mortgages. The SEC has conceded that self-regulation of investment banks contributed to the crisis.​

It's always interesting how when trying to discuss facts, people toss in opinion. What the SEC 'concedes', isn't relevant. What are the facts? The SEC did not just relax the rules, they were regulated. Banks could apply to the SEC for an exemption. The SEC granted a total of 7 banks, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Citibank, and JP Morgan Chase.

Bear Stears, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, all failed.
Citibank, was in a pinch, but survived.

Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley, all had no problem.

If the net capital requirement were the issue, why didn't they all fail? And for that matter, why did all those banks that didn't get exemptions fail? Countrywide, Indymac, Wachovia? Here's the trick: The ones that failed, and Citi, were all involved in sub-prime loans. It wasn't the net capital requirements.

And by the way, Canada's net capital requirements have always been lower. UK is lower. EU, is lower. Most countries have lower capital requirements than the US.

Financial institutions in the shadow banking system are not subject to the same regulation as depository banks, allowing them to assume additional debt obligations relative to their financial cushion or capital base.[97] This was the case despite the Long-Term Capital Management debacle in 1998, where a highly leveraged shadow institution failed with systemic implications.​

But they ARE regulated, it's just not the same regulations. And obviously, if that was the problem, then we should have been having banking melt downs every single year since the 1950s. They have never had to follow the same exact regulations.

And even then, what's this got to do with sub-prime loans? Sub-prime loans are what caused the problem. If there had been no sub-prime loans, there would have been no crash, no matter about the rest of this.

Regulators and accounting standard-setters allowed depository banks such as Citigroup to move significant amounts of assets and liabilities off-balance sheet into complex legal entities called structured investment vehicles, masking the weakness of the capital base of the firm or degree of leverage or risk taken. One news agency estimated that the top four U.S. banks will have to return between $500 billion and $1 trillion to their balance sheets during 2009.[98] This increased uncertainty during the crisis regarding the financial position of the major banks.[99] Off-balance sheet entities were also used by Enron as part of the scandal that brought down that company in 2001​

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. How they move and mix the bad loans, after the loans are made, is focusing on a cracked toe-nail when you have a hole blown through your foot.

And again, this isn't deregulation. If you have to ask permission from the government.... then you are not deregulated lol

As early as 1997, Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan fought to keep the derivatives market unregulated.[101] With the advice of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets,[102] the U.S. Congress and President Bill Clinton allowed the self-regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market when they enacted the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Derivatives such as credit default swaps (CDS) can be used to hedge or speculate against particular credit risks without necessarily owning the underlying debt instruments. The volume of CDS outstanding increased 100-fold from 1998 to 2008, with estimates of the debt covered by CDS contracts, as of November 2008, ranging from US$33 to $47 trillion. Total over-the-counter (OTC) derivative notional value rose to $683 trillion by June 2008.[103] Warren Buffett famously referred to derivatives as "financial weapons of mass destruction" in early 2003.
​

What does this have to do with the cost of tea in China? What does it have to do with anything?

Derivatives were not the problem. Out of the entire derivative market, only a tiny tiny fraction failed, and they were all related to sub-prime loans.... why? Because the sub-prime loans failed.

Credit Default Swaps did not cause people to default on their mortgage payments, did not cause mortgage backed securities with those loans to fail, cause institutions holding those MBS's to fail.

In fact.... many of the investors, purchased CDS's to hedge against the risk of those Mortgage Backed Securities. In other words, they mitigated the effect of the crash, not caused it.

 

[Dad2three]

So basically you are saying that if your salary doubles and someone else triples you got screwed

That probably depends on how your tax rates changed between 1950 and today. The richest 1% have used their "fair share" of productivity gains to bribe Republicans AND Democrats to shift the tax burden off the rich and onto the middle class.

Uhmmm the people that only "doubled" their income are paying ZERO FEDERAL INCOME TAXES. Please explain how paying ZERO IS A BURDEN for these poor downtrodden middle class folk.

Right wing MYTH. Shocked you'd try to sell it



Bottom 50% of US mad a whopping 11% of ALL US income, about half as much as the top 1% (50 more families)

The avg income for the bottom 50% of US was less THAN $15,000 PER FAMILY. Middle class? lol


But income taxes aren't he only federal taxes Bubba, in fact they are only 44% of federal revenues!

 

[Dad2three]

Hardly. Try this feature for details:

House Of Cards The Mortgage Mess - CBS News

Let me just clarify.... I don't want to imply you are saying something that you are not.

FDsys - Browse Code of Federal Regulations Annual Edition

This web site is the Federal Code of Regulations, for the year 2000.

If you scroll down to Title 12, Banks and Banking, you will discover that the regulations come in a 6 Volume set. If you download all 6 volumes, (as I have done), you will discovered over 4,000 pages of regulations on virtually all aspects of banking.

In addition, you will discovered several government bodies created to monitor banks, including Federal Financing Bank, Federal Housing Finance Board, Department of the Treasury which has it's own regulations, FDIC which has it's own regulations, and lastly Comptroller of the Currency which has it's own regulations.

But wait! There's more!

Moving down to Title 17, you'll find a three volume set, containing over 2,400 pages exclusively to regulation on securities.
Then moving to Title 24, you'll find another three volumes, of just under 1500 pages, and while they are not all related to mortgage securities, some are, such as Government National Mortgage Association, Office of Assistant Secretary for Housing, and Office of Housing and Office of Multifamily Housing Assistance Restructuring, each with their own various regulations that must be followed.

And of course, if you wish to claim that the roughly 8,000 pages of regulations that existed back in 2000, regulating and over-seeing every aspect of banks was just far too limited and modest.....

Lawriter - ORC - Title 11 XI FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Let us add in State Level banking regulations as well. Ohio Revised Code, Title 11, contains no less than 80 Chapters regulating banks. That's just Ohio Revised Code. Many states have more regulations than Ohio.


Now.... Allow me to ask again.... Are you saying that the banks and mortgage backed securities were not regulated?

Failure due to deregulation was the conclusion made by the FCIC:

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Are you telling me..... that you are going to the word of the people who caused the problem... over the facts that already know? Are you saying there were not 8,000 pages of regulations? Because I have already posted direct links to those regulations.

So you can't examine the evidence yourself, but blindly follow what some government agency says? And by the way..... who benefits from this conclusion? Government. See if they came to the conclusion "our policies caused the problem", we would blame government, and people would lose their cushy government agency positions. Can't have that.

Instead let's blame deregulation, and what does that do? Well obviously we need MORE cushy government jobs, MORE lush paid government agencies.

Isn't it funny how when a company says "our product is great", you instantly realize a conflict of interest, but when government says "we need more government", no such ethical question comes to mind? Why do you blindly trust these guys?

I can't find any credible evidence that the problem was lack of regulation. If you have it, share it.

The causes are enumerated here:

Financial crisis of 2007 08 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

In short, the problem isn't thousands of pages of regulation but several deregulatory policies.

So, let's go through those.

Jimmy Carter's Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA) phased out a number of restrictions on banks' financial practices, broadened their lending powers, allowed credit unions and savings and loans to offer checkable deposits, and raised the deposit insurance limit from $40,000 to $100,000 (thereby potentially lessening depositor scrutiny of lenders' risk management policies).​

I'm against FDIC to begin with, and for the reasons given here. However... What's that go to do with sub-prime loans? Mortgage backed securities? Or anything else? There's no evidence that I have seen yet, which shows how this is related.

In October 1982, U.S. President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act, which provided for adjustable-rate mortgage loans, began the process of banking deregulation, and contributed to the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s/early 1990s.
​

First, why did government do this? Answer, because of the stagflation. Savings and Loans S&Ls had a huge problem with inflation, and interest rates. So they would make a home loan, at a fixed interest rate of say 10%. Then inflation and interest rates would go up to 20%. So the S&L had two bad options. They could pay the 20% interest on deposits, while only earning 10% on their loans... thus losing money.... or they could pay less than the market interest rate, and have all their depositors withdraw their cash, to put in other banks with higher rates. One way they go broke quickly, and the other they go broke slowly.

The ARM, allowed the bank to avoid going bankrupt, even in a jacked up inflation, interest rate environment. It was very need at the time. Today, not so much, just because inflation and interest rates have been so low for almost two decades. But it was different then.

Second, regardless I would deny this was directly related to the 2008 crash, because only a fraction of ARM loans were part of the big crash. They played a part.... yes. I don't deny that. But most of the failures were in other sub-prime loans.

In November 1999, U.S. President Bill Clinton signed into law the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, which repealed part of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933. This repeal has been criticized for reducing the separation between commercial banks (which traditionally had fiscally conservative policies) and investment banks (which had a more risk-taking culture).[92][93] However, there is perspective that Glass-Steagall being in effect may not have made any difference at all as the institutions that were greatly affected did not fall under the jurisdiction of the act itself.​

It's not just a "perspective". It's the reality. Countrywide, IndyMac, Wachovia, Bear Stearns, and literally hundreds of others, would not have been affected in any way, had GLB Act never existed. None of them were commercial and investment bank combos.

Also, if that was the problem, then why hasn't the problem started elsewhere in the world? No other country in the world, has ever had the Glass-Staegall type restriction. Canada doesn't. UK doesn't. France, Sweden, all of the EU, or Asia. Singapore, Hong Kong, Tiawan and S.Korea. None have ever had this restriction, and yet the problem started here, not there.

In 2004, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission relaxed the net capital rule, which enabled investment banks to substantially increase the level of debt they were taking on, fueling the growth in mortgage-backed securities supporting subprime mortgages. The SEC has conceded that self-regulation of investment banks contributed to the crisis.​

It's always interesting how when trying to discuss facts, people toss in opinion. What the SEC 'concedes', isn't relevant. What are the facts? The SEC did not just relax the rules, they were regulated. Banks could apply to the SEC for an exemption. The SEC granted a total of 7 banks, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs, Citibank, and JP Morgan Chase.

Bear Stears, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, all failed.
Citibank, was in a pinch, but survived.

Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley, all had no problem.

If the net capital requirement were the issue, why didn't they all fail? And for that matter, why did all those banks that didn't get exemptions fail? Countrywide, Indymac, Wachovia? Here's the trick: The ones that failed, and Citi, were all involved in sub-prime loans. It wasn't the net capital requirements.

And by the way, Canada's net capital requirements have always been lower. UK is lower. EU, is lower. Most countries have lower capital requirements than the US.

Financial institutions in the shadow banking system are not subject to the same regulation as depository banks, allowing them to assume additional debt obligations relative to their financial cushion or capital base.[97] This was the case despite the Long-Term Capital Management debacle in 1998, where a highly leveraged shadow institution failed with systemic implications.​

But they ARE regulated, it's just not the same regulations. And obviously, if that was the problem, then we should have been having banking melt downs every single year since the 1950s. They have never had to follow the same exact regulations.

And even then, what's this got to do with sub-prime loans? Sub-prime loans are what caused the problem. If there had been no sub-prime loans, there would have been no crash, no matter about the rest of this.

Regulators and accounting standard-setters allowed depository banks such as Citigroup to move significant amounts of assets and liabilities off-balance sheet into complex legal entities called structured investment vehicles, masking the weakness of the capital base of the firm or degree of leverage or risk taken. One news agency estimated that the top four U.S. banks will have to return between $500 billion and $1 trillion to their balance sheets during 2009.[98] This increased uncertainty during the crisis regarding the financial position of the major banks.[99] Off-balance sheet entities were also used by Enron as part of the scandal that brought down that company in 2001​

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. How they move and mix the bad loans, after the loans are made, is focusing on a cracked toe-nail when you have a hole blown through your foot.

And again, this isn't deregulation. If you have to ask permission from the government.... then you are not deregulated lol

As early as 1997, Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan fought to keep the derivatives market unregulated.[101] With the advice of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets,[102] the U.S. Congress and President Bill Clinton allowed the self-regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market when they enacted the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Derivatives such as credit default swaps (CDS) can be used to hedge or speculate against particular credit risks without necessarily owning the underlying debt instruments. The volume of CDS outstanding increased 100-fold from 1998 to 2008, with estimates of the debt covered by CDS contracts, as of November 2008, ranging from US$33 to $47 trillion. Total over-the-counter (OTC) derivative notional value rose to $683 trillion by June 2008.[103] Warren Buffett famously referred to derivatives as "financial weapons of mass destruction" in early 2003.
​

What does this have to do with the cost of tea in China? What does it have to do with anything?

Derivatives were not the problem. Out of the entire derivative market, only a tiny tiny fraction failed, and they were all related to sub-prime loans.... why? Because the sub-prime loans failed.

Credit Default Swaps did not cause people to default on their mortgage payments, did not cause mortgage backed securities with those loans to fail, cause institutions holding those MBS's to fail.

In fact.... many of the investors, purchased CDS's to hedge against the risk of those Mortgage Backed Securities. In other words, they mitigated the effect of the crash, not caused it.

Your continued dodge of blaming F/F for the Banksters WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE AND BUST IS NOTED BUBBA!

Credit Default Swaps

Derivatives trading was developed so that banks could take credit risk off their books Terri Duhon, JPMorgan (1994-02)


. It's pure speculation.

AIG had $70 billion in bets. With zero required to back it up.