UCLA: FDR Prolonged the Depression

[PoliticalChic]

Dust Bowl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What years did the dust bowl take place?

You see you want to isolate the facts as if they can be looked at in a void.

The total history is the ONLY way it can be examined or you come up with BAD acessments of what happened.

Your UCLA hack proffs failed.

Judging by the provenance, UCLA, they would be, more correctly, 'your hack profs..."

 

[Truthmatters]

You people are so desperate to defend your hisorically failed ideas you will accept any excuse to pretend they work.

These guys have not recieved much support within the historical community for their strained and held in a void ideas.

They are hacks who wnated an outcome so they ignored all the other factors in the historical period to force an outcome.

Why all the girations, why not just come up with some better ideas instead of ignoring the real history to defend failed ideas?

 

[Truthmatters]

Dust Bowl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What years did the dust bowl take place?

You see you want to isolate the facts as if they can be looked at in a void.

The total history is the ONLY way it can be examined or you come up with BAD acessments of what happened.

Your UCLA hack proffs failed.

Judging by the provenance, UCLA, they would be, more correctly, 'your hack profs..."

So are you trying to claim wiki is lying and the dust bowl did not take place in these years?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So in summary.....

A couple of economists have decided that the "New Deal" wasn't as efficient as it could have been which means that FDR is now a lousy president.

"...which means that FDR is now a lousy president..."
I'll stipulate that this change of subject represents a loss by your team.

To review, the topic was whether or not the Depression was extended by FDR's policies.
My earlier post, in fact, suggested there were positive aspects to his presidency.

To receive credit, you must return to post #32 and actually read and comprehend same.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Dust Bowl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What years did the dust bowl take place?

You see you want to isolate the facts as if they can be looked at in a void.

The total history is the ONLY way it can be examined or you come up with BAD acessments of what happened.

Your UCLA hack proffs failed.

Judging by the provenance, UCLA, they would be, more correctly, 'your hack profs..."

So are you trying to claim wiki is lying and the dust bowl did not take place in these years?

I'm pointing out how foolish you apprear in claiming that UCLA economics professors are conservatives....

Clear now?

 

[Truthmatters]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

You won huh?

You people just keep pissing in your own eyes no matter what happens huh?

 

[Truthmatters]

Judging by the provenance, UCLA, they would be, more correctly, 'your hack profs..."

So are you trying to claim wiki is lying and the dust bowl did not take place in these years?

I'm pointing out how foolish you apprear in claiming that UCLA economics professors are conservatives....

Clear now?

Proove they are not conservatives.

This shows just how brain washed you are

 

[PoliticalChic]

So in summary.....

A couple of economists have decided that the "New Deal" wasn't as efficient as it could have been which means that FDR is now a lousy president.

Lee Edward Ohanian is a macroeconomist who teaches at the UCLA, Department of Economics, where he received the Kaplan distinguished teaching award (2001–2003). Professor Ohanian received a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics from the University of California Santa Barbara with high honors (1979), an MA in economics from the University of Rochester (1992) and a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Rochester (1993) where he was the recipient of the Kaplan Prize for the highest performance in PhD work. He has researched and written extensively on the causal relationship between economic policy and the Great Depression. Ohanian has broken new ground in his research on the regulatory policies of the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations that is now being widely cited in understanding how to avoid another prolonged period of economic contraction.
Lee E. Ohanian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

You won huh?

You people just keep pissing in your own eyes no matter what happens huh?

I must admit that it is tons of fun dealing with you...because you make me look so smart!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Rewriting history to make your failed ideas seem plausible again?


There are people who lived the depression and now they are all nearly dead.

So a couple of right wing hack profs try to go back and rewrite the history toi prop up their failed ideas.


You idiots lapp it up like pablum so you can retain these same failed ideas.

There was a reason Americans adored FDR, that was because they SAW first hand the improvements in their lives during the policies.

Thanks for pissisng on the graves of all these Americans and trying to erase their exsistance for your political hackery.


FUCK YOU PEOPLE.

History has shown over and over again your ideas have failed.

Face the facts and GET SOME NEW IDEAS THAT MIGHT WORK!

How Progressives define Success: a decade a double digit unemployment.

 

[editec]

Economic is not hard, it's just is taught that way to make Keynesian Economics look believable.

Okay, it's all a plot.

I'll ask again...are all NON Keynesian economists billionaires?

No?

Why not?

If understanding the economy was as easy as you say, then doesn't it follow that every right-thinking economist would be rich?

Don't be fooled by the fancy metrics these guys throw at you, Cru, they can no more predict the future than any historian can predict the future.

The complexity of the interaction of people is ten trillion times (that's an exact figure, I just pulled out of my ass, incidently, I can be much like an economist when I want to be) more complex than anything in the hard sciences.

Rocket science is EASY compared to social science.

Hard science guys are people who cannot stand uncertainty.

That's exactly why they took the EASY way out and studied those fields.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Economic is not hard, it's just is taught that way to make Keynesian Economics look believable.

Okay, it's all a plot.

I'll ask again...are all NON Keynesian economists billionaires?

No?

Why not?

If understanding the economy was as easy as you say, then doesn't it follow that every right-thinking economist would be rich?

Don't be fooled by the fancy metrics these guys throw at you, Cru, they can no more predict the future than any historoian can predict the future.

The complexity of the interaction of people is ten trillion times (that's an exact figure, I just pulled out of my ass, incidently, I can be much like an economist when I want to be) more complex than anything in the hard sciences.

Rocket science is EASY compared to social science.

Hard science guys are people who cannot stand uncertainty.

That's exactly why they took the EASY way out and studied those fields.

Do you know what "Right thinking economists" are called?

Bond traders

 

[Truthmatters]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

You won huh?

You people just keep pissing in your own eyes no matter what happens huh?

I must admit that it is tons of fun dealing with you...because you make me look so smart!

I love how you cons all resort to empty insults when you have lost a debate.

 

[Truthmatters]

Rewriting history to make your failed ideas seem plausible again?


There are people who lived the depression and now they are all nearly dead.

So a couple of right wing hack profs try to go back and rewrite the history toi prop up their failed ideas.


You idiots lapp it up like pablum so you can retain these same failed ideas.

There was a reason Americans adored FDR, that was because they SAW first hand the improvements in their lives during the policies.

Thanks for pissisng on the graves of all these Americans and trying to erase their exsistance for your political hackery.


FUCK YOU PEOPLE.

History has shown over and over again your ideas have failed.

Face the facts and GET SOME NEW IDEAS THAT MIGHT WORK!

How Progressives define Success: a decade a double digit unemployment.

Its more correctly labeled the fucking messes you assholes leave us to clean up when history once again prooves how fucked up your ideas really are.


What party ran us into both of these economic messes oh piss eyed one?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'll take that to mean you are pretty much tapped out on this matter.

Not at all.

You stated that the president gets to take all the credit for what happens during his administration. Then you put conditions on that statement after the fact so as to make your original statement more reasonable..

That's called rationalizing.

So: In your opinion, what degree of culpability does Clinton have for 9-11?

I never stated that a president gets to take all the credit (or blame) for what happens during his administration. You did.

I have always held the opinion that the relatively short presidential terms we have established makes it impossible for one president to take all the credit or blame.

But since FDR was the only president to ever serve more than 8 years, one can say that he may be able to be held more responsible for what happened during his presidency. But even that admission does not negate the fact that it was WWII that pulled us out of the depression and not any specific policies of FDR.

As to your question:

Yes Clinton had some culpability for 9/11 just as he does for the sub prime mortgage bust and the too big to fail fiasco.

He did not pursue Bin Laden as aggressively as he could have. the proliferation of sub prime mortgages started during his term and he signed the bill that removed the once sharp dividing lines between banks, insurance companies and investment firms which was directly responsible for AIG and Citi bail outs.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Rewriting history to make your failed ideas seem plausible again?


There are people who lived the depression and now they are all nearly dead.

So a couple of right wing hack profs try to go back and rewrite the history toi prop up their failed ideas.


You idiots lapp it up like pablum so you can retain these same failed ideas.

There was a reason Americans adored FDR, that was because they SAW first hand the improvements in their lives during the policies.

Thanks for pissisng on the graves of all these Americans and trying to erase their exsistance for your political hackery.


FUCK YOU PEOPLE.

History has shown over and over again your ideas have failed.

Face the facts and GET SOME NEW IDEAS THAT MIGHT WORK!

How Progressives define Success: a decade a double digit unemployment.

Its more correctly labeled the fucking messes you assholes leave us to clean up when history once again prooves how fucked up your ideas really are.


What party ran us into both of these economic messes oh piss eyed one?

OO-oooo-ooo, Miss Truth- can I answer this one???

Democrats!

a. Congress passed a bill in 1975 requiring banks to provide the government with information on their lending activities in poor urban areas. Two years later, it passed the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which gave regulators the power to deny banks the right to expand if they didn’t lend sufficiently in those neighborhoods. In 1979 the FDIC used the CRA to block a move by the Greater NY Savings Bank for not enough lending.

b. In 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new “flexible credit and underwriting standards” for minority borrowers—for example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income.

c. In 1987, Acorn led a coalition of advocacy groups calling for industry-wide changes in lending standards. Among the demanded reforms were the easing of minimum down-payment requirements and of the requirement that borrowers have enough cash at a closing to cover two to three months of mortgage payments (research had shown that lack of money in hand was a big reason some mortgages failed quickly).

d. ACORN then attacked Fannie Mae, the giant quasi-government agency that bought loans from banks in order to allow them to make new loans. Its underwriters were “strictly by-the-book interpreters” of lending standards and turned down purchases of unconventional loans, charged Acorn. The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers.

e. Clinton Administration housing secretary, Henry Cisneros, declared that he would expand homeownership among lower- and lower-middle-income renters. His strategy: pushing for no-down-payment loans; expanding the size of mortgages that the government would insure against losses; and using the CRA and other lending laws to direct more private money into low-income programs.

f. Shortly after Cisneros announced his plan, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac agreed to begin buying loans under new, looser guidelines. Freddie Mac, for instance, started approving low-income buyers with bad credit histories or none at all, so long as they were current on rent and utilities payments. Freddie Mac also said that it would begin counting income from seasonal jobs and public assistance toward its income minimum, despite the FHA disaster of the sixties.

g. Freddie Mac began an “alternative qualifying” program with the Sears Mortgage Corporation that let a borrower qualify for a loan with a monthly payment as high as 50 percent of his income, at a time when most private mortgage companies wouldn’t exceed 33 percent. The program also allowed borrowers with bad credit to get mortgages if they took credit-counseling classes administered by Acorn and other nonprofits. Subsequent research would show that such classes have little impact on default rates.

h. Pressuring nonbank lenders to make more loans to poor minorities didn’t stop with Sears. If it didn’t happen, Clinton officials warned, they’d seek to extend CRA regulations to all mortgage makers. In Congress, Representative Maxine Waters called financial firms not covered by the CRA “among the most egregious redliners.”

i. Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) shocked the financial world by signing a 1994 agreement with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), pledging to increase lending to minorities and join in new efforts to rewrite lending standards. The first MBA member to sign up: Countrywide Financial, the mortgage firm that would be at the core of the subprime meltdown.

j. A 1998 sales pitch by a Bear Stearns managing director advised banks to begin packaging their loans to low-income borrowers into securities that the firm could sell. Forget traditional underwriting standards when considering these loans, the director advised. For a low-income borrower, he continued in all-too-familiar terms, owning a home was “a near-sacred obligation. A family will do almost anything to meet that monthly mortgage payment.” Bunk, says Stan Liebowitz, a professor of economics at the University of Texas: “The claim that lower-income homeowners are somehow different in their devotion to their home is a purely emotional claim with no evidence to support it.”

k. Any concern was quickly dismissed. When in early 2000 the FDIC proposed increasing capital requirements for lenders making “subprime” loans—loans to people with questionable credit, that is—Democratic representative Carolyn Maloney of New York told a congressional hearing that she feared that the step would dry up CRA loans. Her fellow New York Democrat John J. LaFalce urged regulators “not to be premature” in imposing new regulations.

l. In July 1999, HUD proposed new levels for Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s low-income lending; in September, Fannie Mae agreed to begin purchasing loans made to “borrowers with slightly impaired credit”—that is, with credit standards even lower than the government had been pushing for a generation.

m. In 2004 Congress pressed new affordable-housing goals on the two mortgage giants, which through 2007 purchased some $1 trillion in loans to lower- and moderate-income buyers. The buying spree helped spark a massive increase in securitization of mortgages to people with dubious credit.

n. In October 1994, Fannie Mae head James Johnson had reminded a banking convention that mortgages with small down payments had a much higher risk of defaulting. (A Duff & Phelps study found that they were nearly three times more likely to default than conventional mortgages.) Yet the very next month, Fannie Mae said that it expected to back loans to low-income home buyers with a 97 percent loan-to-value ratio—that is, loans in which the buyer puts down just 3 percent—as part of a commitment, made earlier that year to Congress, to purchase $1 trillion in affordable-housing mortgages by the end of the nineties. According to Edward Pinto, who served as the company’s chief credit officer, the program was the result of political pressure on Fannie Mae trumping lending standards.

o. In 1992, the Boston Fed produced an extraordinary 29-page document that codified the new lending wisdom. Conventional mortgage criteria, the report argued, might be “unintentionally biased” because they didn’t take into account “the economic culture of urban, lower-income and nontraditional customers.” Lenders should thus consider junking the industry’s traditional income-to-payments ratio and stop viewing an applicant’s “lack of credit history” as a “negative factor.” Further, if applicants had bad credit, banks should “consider extenuating circumstances”—even though a study by mortgage insurance companies would soon show, not surprisingly, that borrowers with no credit rating or a bad one were far more likely to default. If applicants didn’t have enough savings for a down payment, the Boston Fed urged, banks should allow loans from nonprofits or government assistance agencies to count toward one. A later study of Freddie Mac mortgages would find that a borrower who made a down payment with third-party funds was four times more likely to default, a reminder that traditional underwriting standards weren’t arbitrary but based on historical lending patterns.

p. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus launched Hogar in 2003, an initiative that pushed for easing lending standards for immigrants, including touting so-called seller-financed mortgages in which a builder provided down-payment aid to buyers via contributions to nonprofit groups. As a result, mortgage lending to Hispanics soared. And today, in districts where Hispanics make up at least 25 percent of the population, foreclosure rates are now nearly 50 percent higher than the national average, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis.

q. Republicans and Democrats, meanwhile, have scrambled to reignite the housing market through ill-conceived tax credits and renewed federal subsidies for mortgages, including the Obama administration’s mortgage bailout plan, which recalls the New Deal’s HOLC. Behind these efforts is a fundamental misconception among politicians that housing drives the American economy and therefore demands subsidy at virtually any cost. Our praiseworthy initial efforts—to eliminate housing discrimination and provide all Americans an equal opportunity to buy a home—were eventually turned on their heads by advocates and politicians, who instead tried to ensure equality of outcomes.


Timeline shows Dems were warned:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM]YouTube - Timeline shows Bush, McCain warning Dems of financial and housing crisis; meltdown[/ame]

Can I get extra credit by showing the hand of HUD Secretary Cuomo in the 'mess'???
I think he's a Democrat.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Rewriting history to make your failed ideas seem plausible again?


There are people who lived the depression and now they are all nearly dead.

So a couple of right wing hack profs try to go back and rewrite the history toi prop up their failed ideas.


You idiots lapp it up like pablum so you can retain these same failed ideas.

There was a reason Americans adored FDR, that was because they SAW first hand the improvements in their lives during the policies.

Thanks for pissisng on the graves of all these Americans and trying to erase their exsistance for your political hackery.


FUCK YOU PEOPLE.

History has shown over and over again your ideas have failed.

Face the facts and GET SOME NEW IDEAS THAT MIGHT WORK!

How Progressives define Success: a decade a double digit unemployment.

Its more correctly labeled the fucking messes you assholes leave us to clean up when history once again prooves how fucked up your ideas really are.


What party ran us into both of these economic messes oh piss eyed one?

Hoover was a Big government, Central planning, Union loving Progressive.

FDR took Hoover's failed idea and double down again and again and again, and you love him for it -- that's insanity.

 

[PoliticalChic]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

You won huh?

You people just keep pissing in your own eyes no matter what happens huh?

I must admit that it is tons of fun dealing with you...because you make me look so smart!

I love how you cons all resort to empty insults when you have lost a debate.

How is 'you make me look so smart' an 'empty insult'?

But, (sigh), you must be correct.
I'll bow to your expertise in the areas of intelligence, class, grace, knowledge, especially spelling, and, of course, eschatological prescience.

Sort of.

 

[Truthmatters]

You are a fucking idiot who has no understanding of the history because you wish to believe failed ideas

 

[Truthmatters]

I must admit that it is tons of fun dealing with you...because you make me look so smart!

I love how you cons all resort to empty insults when you have lost a debate.

How is 'you make me look so smart' an 'empty insult'?

But, (sigh), you must be correct.
I'll bow to your expertise in the areas of intelligence, class, grace, knowledge, especially spelling, and, of course, eschatological prescience.

Sort of.

Ya betcha Sara