40 Years of Class Warfare in One Chart.

[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.

.

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

lol




Morgan Stanley

Despite its long history as the investment banker for major corporations, in September 2008 Morgan Stanley was on the verge of collapse. It had written off $15.7 billion in bad investments and was running out of cash. The firm was heavily involved in packaging and selling subprime mortgages. John Mack, Morgan Stanley’s CEO up to 2010, told the President’s Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission that “We did eat our own cooking, and we choked on it…”


However, the Congressional Oversight Panel on TARP published a report that showed that even as late as the first quarter of 2009, more of Morgan Stanley assets – 11% - were categorized as “Level 3” than those of any other of the 19 banks examined. The Panel said high percentages of Level 3 assets are revealing this is the category where toxic assets are most likely to found on a bank’s balance sheet
Morgan Stanley - SourceWatch


JP Morgan Chase

JP Morgan Chase agrees record $13bn settlement charges over toxic mortgages

Bank acknowledges it made serious misrepresentations to the public over the sale of numerous mortgage-backed securities

JP Morgan Chase agrees record 13bn settlement charges over toxic mortgages Business The Guardian

Goldman Sach

Goldman Sachs charged with subprime mortgage fraud


In 2006 and 2007, Goldman Sachs Group peddled more than $40 billion in securities backed by at least 200,000 risky home mortgages, but never told the buyers it was secretly betting that a sharp drop in U.S. housing prices would send the value of those securities plummeting.

How Goldman secretly bet on the U.S. housing crash Top Story McClatchy DC

 

[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.

Weird how you keep skipping over posts that counter your Ayn Randian BS...

 

[georgephillip]

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.

Can you prove the people who doubled their income between 1950 and 2010 paid no federal income taxes?

 

[georgephillip]

As I said, your salary was DOUBLED with respect to inflation, and still you are complaining that someone else is doing better than DOUBLE.

How many salaries have doubled since the richest 1% have tripled their "fair" share of US income?

"The U.S. middle class had $17,867 less income in 2007 because of the growth of inequality since 1979"
Wage Stagnation in Nine Charts Economic Policy Institute

 

[Darkwind]

Where is the other half of the story?

Where is the chart where efficiency of task has increased and driven up productivity?

An increase in productivity != an increase in task value. Unless you are advocating that wage structure should be tied into a merit or piece work scale.

 

[georgephillip]

Where is the other half of the story?

Where is the chart where efficiency of task has increased and driven up productivity?

That seems to be the trillion dollar question.
The Industrial Revolution was supposed to free humanity from the universal need of work; millions of US workers have reached that stage over the past forty years, yet the owners of the means of production claim all the spoils. What wrote that story?

 

[ralfy]

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!!!

Not likely if governments earn more from the opposite.

 

[ralfy]

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!

I think it started long before 2004.

 

[ralfy]

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.

All you are doing is explaining what the government did. You're not countering my arguments.

The fact that what we saw involved only a fraction of the global derivatives market makes matters worse.

 

[ralfy]

Where is the other half of the story?

Where is the chart where efficiency of task has increased and driven up productivity?

An increase in productivity != an increase in task value. Unless you are advocating that wage structure should be tied into a merit or piece work scale.

I'm not sure about efficiency, but there are some points about productivity here:

Overworked America 12 Charts That Will Make Your Blood Boil Mother Jones

 

[RKMBrown]

As I said, your salary was DOUBLED with respect to inflation, and still you are complaining that someone else is doing better than DOUBLE.

How many salaries have doubled since the richest 1% have tripled their "fair" share of US income?

"The U.S. middle class had $17,867 less income in 2007 because of the growth of inequality since 1979"
Wage Stagnation in Nine Charts Economic Policy Institute

OMFG You show a chart with a massive increase in income, that cries like a baby that it's not even more massive. What a looser you are.

 

[dblack]

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.

Oh I forgot. You're only interested in partisan sniping. Go team!

 

[Darkwind]

Where is the other half of the story?

Where is the chart where efficiency of task has increased and driven up productivity?

That seems to be the trillion dollar question.
The Industrial Revolution was supposed to free humanity from the universal need of work; millions of US workers have reached that stage over the past forty years, yet the owners of the means of production claim all the spoils. What wrote that story?

I'm thinking more along the lines of an assembly worker. Take the auto industry....Line workers used to do a number of different assembly jobs......Now, there is basically one worker per station, and that station requires them to do things like tighten a bolt...or lift a panel in place....and they are given a specific amount of time to accomplish this simplified task. I read one article in which the employee had to tighten a nut that came by his station, once every 30 seconds and they were given 25 seconds to tighten the nut........that took 3 or 4 seconds to accomplish. There were being paid over $25 per hour for this.

The money comes in the form of rapid assembly...it makes huge profits for the care maker, productivity is through the roof, yet the wages are way out of line with the task skill set.

But charts like the OP show that the wage now remains the same, while productivity increases, but there is no mention that getting paid $25 per hour for a 3 second task is way overpaid.

They only see a carefully targeted and deliberately misleading chart.

 

[Darkwind]

Where is the other half of the story?

Where is the chart where efficiency of task has increased and driven up productivity?

An increase in productivity != an increase in task value. Unless you are advocating that wage structure should be tied into a merit or piece work scale.

I'm not sure about efficiency, but there are some points about productivity here:

Overworked America 12 Charts That Will Make Your Blood Boil Mother Jones

Sorry, but anything posted from mother jones is immediately discarded as untruthful.

 

[Andylusion]

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.

All you are doing is explaining what the government did. You're not countering my arguments.

The fact that what we saw involved only a fraction of the global derivatives market makes matters worse.

Again, there was no problem with the unregulated derivatives market. The problem was with the sub-prime loans, which were regulated.

No, I countered each of your arguments. Every single one of them, in detail. Read it again.

 

[Andylusion]

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!

I think it started long before 2004.

Predatory lenders was a tiny fraction of the problem. The biggest source of bad loans were primary lenders, like Countrywide. They were following the government's push for sub-prime loans, and that's what caused the problem.

 

[Dad2three]

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!

I think it started long before 2004.

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”



Q Did the Community Reinvestment Act under Carter/Clinton caused it?


A "Since 1995 there has been essentially no change in the basic CRA rules or enforcement process that can be reasonably linked to the subprime lending activity. This fact weakens the link between the CRA and the current crisis since the crisis is rooted in poor performance of mortgage loans made between 2004 and 2007. "

http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/20081203_analysis.pdf

FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Dad2three]

As I said, your salary was DOUBLED with respect to inflation, and still you are complaining that someone else is doing better than DOUBLE.

How many salaries have doubled since the richest 1% have tripled their "fair" share of US income?

"The U.S. middle class had $17,867 less income in 2007 because of the growth of inequality since 1979"
Wage Stagnation in Nine Charts Economic Policy Institute

OMFG You show a chart with a massive increase in income, that cries like a baby that it's not even more massive. What a looser you are.

Glad you agree, you lost the debate Bubba

 

[Dad2three]

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.

Oh I forgot. You're only interested in partisan sniping. Go team!

Sorry, pointing out he failure of conservative economics is kinda a hobby of mine Bubba!

 

[Dad2three]

Where is the other half of the story?

Where is the chart where efficiency of task has increased and driven up productivity?

An increase in productivity != an increase in task value. Unless you are advocating that wage structure should be tied into a merit or piece work scale.

I'm not sure about efficiency, but there are some points about productivity here:

Overworked America 12 Charts That Will Make Your Blood Boil Mother Jones

Sorry, but anything posted from mother jones is immediately discarded as untruthful.

To those low informed or unable to counter the evidence. Yes