Could a Hillary Vote Bring Us Another Clinton Economic Boom?

[g5000]

The underlying assumption behind the OP article is that we are on the cusp of an economic boom.

If the premise is correct, then a Clinton presidency is not the driver of the forthcoming prosperity. Therefore, it could be a Jeb Bush economic boom, a Cruz economic boom, even a Sanders economic boom.

Whoever is elected will get to take the credit, even though the foundation for the boom was not laid by them.

You can be sure no red partisans will give the credit to Obama, though.

This is how it works for red partisan: Blame Carter, Clinton and Obama for any present economic stress. Credit Reagan and Bush for any present day economic boom.

And vice versa for blue partisans.

But again, this entire topic is built on a prediction.

We could just as easily have the Fed's bond bubble blowing up in our faces, with runaway inflation.

 

[g5000]

Greenspan was right about adjustables. 30 year fixed are expensive. Especially if you move in 5-7 years.

Yes, but ARMs were grossly misappropriated.

ARMs and Pick-A-Payments were used to lower the monthly payments on amounts that people had no business borrowing.

You might be a good credit risk up to a $200,000 loan, but the system was corrupted to such a point that an ARM would be used to float you a $400,000 loan instead.

The average lifespan of a 30-year fixed mortgage was about eight years. ARMs reset after three years. And there's the rub.

Not only that, 80 percent of all Pick-A-Payment mortgage payments received were negative amortization payments. And so when they reset three to five years later, the borrower owed more than the original principal. A lot more.

 

[The Rabbi]

Clinton gave us the economic collapse of Fannie Mae.

And Bush gave us the economic collapse of Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Citibank, AIG, et al.

What did Bush do to cause the economic collapse of those companies? Be specific.

Here's one thing: http://www.gao.gov/decisions/majrule/d04896r.pdf

That SEC decision has been directly credited with the collapse of the broker-dealers, which of course led to the collapse of AIG.

Now tell us how Clinton caused the collapse of the GSEs. Be specific.

Signed by the Managin Associate General Counsel. Obviously a high level decision there. Bush's fingerprints are all over it.
I never claimed Clinton caused the collapse of the GSEs. But the Democrats in Congress consistently refused to provide aggressive oversight despite ample warnings.
What They Said About Fan and Fred - WSJ

 

[The Rabbi]

It's funny how the rubes blame every President back to Carter for the crash, including Obama who took office AFTER the crash!

But they never blame any of the Republican Presidents. It's as if they believe those Presidents just warmed the chair in the Oval Office.

We blame Obama not for the crash, but for the subsequent slow growth and stagnation. And that is pretty well documented.
Again you have failed to show what Bush did to cause the crash. Hint: There isnt anything,

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Hillary Clinton should thank Barack Obama for beating her in 2008. Every day.

Not only does the former first lady and U.S. Secretary of State appear as well-positioned as any candidate to capture the presidency in 2016, but her arrival in the Oval Office could well coincide with tailwinds that the U.S. economy has not seen since, well, the last time a Clinton occupied the White House.

Are we getting ahead of ourselves? Absolutely. A lot can happen in three years, but there’s one scenario for 2017 that should be staring all would-be prognosticators in the face: The very real possibility of another Clinton economic boom like the U.S. experienced in the 1990s.

Here are five key economic and political trends that should leave Camp Clinton giddy — and the GOP scared out of its mind — when it comes to the next presidential election.

Could a Hillary Vote Bring Us Another Clinton Economic Boom Fast Forward OZY

Don’t know, if it’s the right sub forum for this discussion, the article is about both economy and Hillary, so…

The author of this story tells us that we can expect another economy boom. And what’s more interesting, the manufacturing will come back to US, as well as loads of capital. And, all in all, this will help Hillary to win the game. Too bad, the last trend, about Republicans losing their influence in the White House, turned out to be not that close to the reality, but a year ago the guy just couldn’t predict the results of the Congress elections.

All in all, though the article is very encouraging, I feel like none of it can come true. And you?

I suspect it would bring us another Trade Center bombing among other international catastrophes

 

[Leweman]

Just need the next internet and it should work. She will need another al gore to invent it though.

 

[The Rabbi]

Hillary Clinton should thank Barack Obama for beating her in 2008. Every day.

Not only does the former first lady and U.S. Secretary of State appear as well-positioned as any candidate to capture the presidency in 2016, but her arrival in the Oval Office could well coincide with tailwinds that the U.S. economy has not seen since, well, the last time a Clinton occupied the White House.

Are we getting ahead of ourselves? Absolutely. A lot can happen in three years, but there’s one scenario for 2017 that should be staring all would-be prognosticators in the face: The very real possibility of another Clinton economic boom like the U.S. experienced in the 1990s.

Here are five key economic and political trends that should leave Camp Clinton giddy — and the GOP scared out of its mind — when it comes to the next presidential election.

Could a Hillary Vote Bring Us Another Clinton Economic Boom Fast Forward OZY

Don’t know, if it’s the right sub forum for this discussion, the article is about both economy and Hillary, so…

The author of this story tells us that we can expect another economy boom. And what’s more interesting, the manufacturing will come back to US, as well as loads of capital. And, all in all, this will help Hillary to win the game. Too bad, the last trend, about Republicans losing their influence in the White House, turned out to be not that close to the reality, but a year ago the guy just couldn’t predict the results of the Congress elections.

All in all, though the article is very encouraging, I feel like none of it can come true. And you?

Actually, while Bush deserves some of the blame for the recession, the stage was set by Bill Clinton...
Who Caused the Economic Crisis

So who is to blame? There’s plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn’t fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn’t do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility … with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here’s a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:

• The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
• Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
• Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
• Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
• The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
• Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
• Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
• Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
• The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
• An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
• Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

So, yeah, lets let a Clinton set us up for another recession, right?

A good list. But it left out the ratings agencies. They were also responsible.

Also, Clinton's biggest failing was his deregulation of financial derivatives. The crash would not have been anywhere near as severe. This was not a housing bubble so much as a global derivatives bubble.

Global.

Derivatives were force multipliers. Derivatives were the motive. Loans were just the raw materials which were needed to power all those derivative products which brought in the profits.

Please cite where Clinton deregulated financial derivatives.

 

[The Rabbi]

Greenspan was right about adjustables. 30 year fixed are expensive. Especially if you move in 5-7 years.

Yes, but ARMs were grossly misappropriated.

ARMs and Pick-A-Payments were used to lower the monthly payments on amounts that people had no business borrowing.

You might be a good credit risk up to a $200,000 loan, but the system was corrupted to such a point that an ARM would be used to float you a $400,000 loan instead.

The average lifespan of a 30-year fixed mortgage was about eight years. ARMs reset after three years. And there's the rub.

Not only that, 80 percent of all Pick-A-Payment mortgage payments received were negative amortization payments. And so when they reset three to five years later, the borrower owed more than the original principal. A lot more.

And all of that would have been irrelevant.
The COFI loans were fine products, for the right borrower. The problem is brokers oversold them. But the ultimate responsibility still rests on the borrowers, who signed their names to the loan (I had one of them myself. Worked just fine). In an expanding market with higher values equity cushions were growing nicely. But that stopped.
No, the entire fault was the Fed keeping rates too low for too long. This created a huge incentive to make mortgage loans and package them for sale on Wall St. I cant blame someone for seeing opportunity and taking it. Were there actual abuses of fraud, etc? Of course. There always are in any bubble. But that played a very small part on the overall probkem.
And FWIW we're back there again. Too low rates have spawn asset bubbles, esp in the stock market but elsewhere, that will collapse at some point.

 

[Obiwan]

Hillary Clinton should thank Barack Obama for beating her in 2008. Every day.

Not only does the former first lady and U.S. Secretary of State appear as well-positioned as any candidate to capture the presidency in 2016, but her arrival in the Oval Office could well coincide with tailwinds that the U.S. economy has not seen since, well, the last time a Clinton occupied the White House.

Are we getting ahead of ourselves? Absolutely. A lot can happen in three years, but there’s one scenario for 2017 that should be staring all would-be prognosticators in the face: The very real possibility of another Clinton economic boom like the U.S. experienced in the 1990s.

Here are five key economic and political trends that should leave Camp Clinton giddy — and the GOP scared out of its mind — when it comes to the next presidential election.

Could a Hillary Vote Bring Us Another Clinton Economic Boom Fast Forward OZY

Don’t know, if it’s the right sub forum for this discussion, the article is about both economy and Hillary, so…

The author of this story tells us that we can expect another economy boom. And what’s more interesting, the manufacturing will come back to US, as well as loads of capital. And, all in all, this will help Hillary to win the game. Too bad, the last trend, about Republicans losing their influence in the White House, turned out to be not that close to the reality, but a year ago the guy just couldn’t predict the results of the Congress elections.

All in all, though the article is very encouraging, I feel like none of it can come true. And you?

Actually, while Bush deserves some of the blame for the recession, the stage was set by Bill Clinton...
Who Caused the Economic Crisis

So who is to blame? There’s plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn’t fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn’t do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility … with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here’s a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:

• The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
• Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
• Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
• Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
• The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
• Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
• Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
• Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
• The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
• An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
• Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

So, yeah, lets let a Clinton set us up for another recession, right?

A good list. But it left out the ratings agencies. They were also responsible.

Also, Clinton's biggest failing was his deregulation of financial derivatives. The crash would not have been anywhere near as severe. This was not a housing bubble so much as a global derivatives bubble.

Global.

Derivatives were force multipliers. Derivatives were the motive. Loans were just the raw materials which were needed to power all those derivative products which brought in the profits.

Please cite where Clinton deregulated financial derivatives.

Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA) is United States federal legislation that officially ensured modernized regulation[1] of financial products known as over-the-counter derivatives. It was signed into law on December 21, 2000 by President Bill Clinton. It clarified the law so that most over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions between "sophisticated parties" would not be regulated as "futures" under the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 (CEA) or as "securities" under the federal securities laws. Instead, the major dealers of those products (banks and securities firms) would continue to have their dealings in OTC derivatives supervised by their federal regulators under general "safety and soundness" standards. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) desire to have "Functional regulation" of the market was also rejected. Instead, the CFTC would continue to do "entity-based supervision of OTC derivatives dealers." [2] These derivatives, including the credit default swap, are a few of the many causes of the financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent 2008–2012 global recession.[3]

OTC derivatives regulation before the CFMA[edit]
Exchange trading requirement[edit]
The PWG Report was directed at ending controversy over how swaps and other OTC derivatives related to the CEA. A derivative is a financial contract or instrument that "derives" its value from the price or other characteristic of an underlying "thing" (or "commodity"). A farmer might enter into a "derivative contract" under which the farmer would sell from next summer's harvest a specified number of bushels of wheat at a specified price per bushel. If this contract were executed on a commodity exchange, it would be a "futures contract."[14]

Before 1974, the CEA only applied to agricultural commodities. "Future delivery" contracts in agricultural commodities listed in the CEA were required to be traded on regulated exchanges such as the Chicago Board of Trade.[15]

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act of 1974 created the CFTC as the new regulator of commodity exchanges. It also expanded the scope of the CEA to cover the previously listed agricultural products and "all other goods and articles, except onions, and all services, rights, and interests in which contracts for future delivery are presently or in the future dealt in." Existing non-exchange traded financial "commodity" derivatives markets (mostly "interbank" markets) in foreign currencies, government securities, and other specified instruments were excluded from the CEA through the "Treasury Amendment", to the extent transactions in such markets remained off a "board of trade." The expanded CEA, however, did not generally exclude financial derivatives.[16]

After the 1974 law change, the CEA continued to require that all "future delivery" contracts in commodities covered by the law be executed on a regulated exchange. This meant any "future delivery" contract entered into by parties off a regulated exchange would be illegal and unenforceable. The term "future delivery" was not defined in the CEA. Its meaning evolved through CFTC actions and court rulings.[17]

Not all derivative contracts are "future delivery" contracts. The CEA always excluded "forward delivery" contracts under which, for example, a farmer might set today the price at which the farmer would deliver to a grain elevator or other buyer a certain number of bushels of wheat to be harvested next summer. By the early 1980s a market in interest rate and currency "swaps" had emerged in which banks and their customers would typically agree to exchange interest or currency amounts based on one party paying a fixed interest rate amount (or an amount in a specified currency) and the other paying a floating interest rate amount (or an amount in a different currency). These transactions were similar to "forward delivery" contracts under which "commercial users" of a commodity contracted for future deliveries of that commodity at an agreed upon price.[18]

Based on the similarities between swaps and "forward delivery" contracts, the swap market grew rapidly in the United States during the 1980s. Nevertheless, as a 2006 Congressional Research Service report explained in describing the status of OTC derivatives in the 1980s: "if a court had ruled that a swap was in fact an illegal, off-exchange futures contract, trillions of dollars in outstanding swaps could have been invalidated. This might have caused chaos in financial markets, as swaps users would suddenly be exposed to the risks they had used derivatives to avoid."[19]

 

[The Rabbi]

Hillary Clinton should thank Barack Obama for beating her in 2008. Every day.

Not only does the former first lady and U.S. Secretary of State appear as well-positioned as any candidate to capture the presidency in 2016, but her arrival in the Oval Office could well coincide with tailwinds that the U.S. economy has not seen since, well, the last time a Clinton occupied the White House.

Are we getting ahead of ourselves? Absolutely. A lot can happen in three years, but there’s one scenario for 2017 that should be staring all would-be prognosticators in the face: The very real possibility of another Clinton economic boom like the U.S. experienced in the 1990s.

Here are five key economic and political trends that should leave Camp Clinton giddy — and the GOP scared out of its mind — when it comes to the next presidential election.

Could a Hillary Vote Bring Us Another Clinton Economic Boom Fast Forward OZY

Don’t know, if it’s the right sub forum for this discussion, the article is about both economy and Hillary, so…

The author of this story tells us that we can expect another economy boom. And what’s more interesting, the manufacturing will come back to US, as well as loads of capital. And, all in all, this will help Hillary to win the game. Too bad, the last trend, about Republicans losing their influence in the White House, turned out to be not that close to the reality, but a year ago the guy just couldn’t predict the results of the Congress elections.

All in all, though the article is very encouraging, I feel like none of it can come true. And you?

Actually, while Bush deserves some of the blame for the recession, the stage was set by Bill Clinton...
Who Caused the Economic Crisis

So who is to blame? There’s plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn’t fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn’t do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility … with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here’s a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:

• The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
• Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
• Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
• Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
• The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
• Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
• Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
• Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
• The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
• An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
• Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

So, yeah, lets let a Clinton set us up for another recession, right?

A good list. But it left out the ratings agencies. They were also responsible.

Also, Clinton's biggest failing was his deregulation of financial derivatives. The crash would not have been anywhere near as severe. This was not a housing bubble so much as a global derivatives bubble.

Global.

Derivatives were force multipliers. Derivatives were the motive. Loans were just the raw materials which were needed to power all those derivative products which brought in the profits.

Please cite where Clinton deregulated financial derivatives.

Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA) is United States federal legislation that officially ensured modernized regulation[1] of financial products known as over-the-counter derivatives. It was signed into law on December 21, 2000 by President Bill Clinton. It clarified the law so that most over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions between "sophisticated parties" would not be regulated as "futures" under the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 (CEA) or as "securities" under the federal securities laws. Instead, the major dealers of those products (banks and securities firms) would continue to have their dealings in OTC derivatives supervised by their federal regulators under general "safety and soundness" standards. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) desire to have "Functional regulation" of the market was also rejected. Instead, the CFTC would continue to do "entity-based supervision of OTC derivatives dealers." [2] These derivatives, including the credit default swap, are a few of the many causes of the financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent 2008–2012 global recession.[3]

OTC derivatives regulation before the CFMA[edit]
Exchange trading requirement[edit]
The PWG Report was directed at ending controversy over how swaps and other OTC derivatives related to the CEA. A derivative is a financial contract or instrument that "derives" its value from the price or other characteristic of an underlying "thing" (or "commodity"). A farmer might enter into a "derivative contract" under which the farmer would sell from next summer's harvest a specified number of bushels of wheat at a specified price per bushel. If this contract were executed on a commodity exchange, it would be a "futures contract."[14]

Before 1974, the CEA only applied to agricultural commodities. "Future delivery" contracts in agricultural commodities listed in the CEA were required to be traded on regulated exchanges such as the Chicago Board of Trade.[15]

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act of 1974 created the CFTC as the new regulator of commodity exchanges. It also expanded the scope of the CEA to cover the previously listed agricultural products and "all other goods and articles, except onions, and all services, rights, and interests in which contracts for future delivery are presently or in the future dealt in." Existing non-exchange traded financial "commodity" derivatives markets (mostly "interbank" markets) in foreign currencies, government securities, and other specified instruments were excluded from the CEA through the "Treasury Amendment", to the extent transactions in such markets remained off a "board of trade." The expanded CEA, however, did not generally exclude financial derivatives.[16]

After the 1974 law change, the CEA continued to require that all "future delivery" contracts in commodities covered by the law be executed on a regulated exchange. This meant any "future delivery" contract entered into by parties off a regulated exchange would be illegal and unenforceable. The term "future delivery" was not defined in the CEA. Its meaning evolved through CFTC actions and court rulings.[17]

Not all derivative contracts are "future delivery" contracts. The CEA always excluded "forward delivery" contracts under which, for example, a farmer might set today the price at which the farmer would deliver to a grain elevator or other buyer a certain number of bushels of wheat to be harvested next summer. By the early 1980s a market in interest rate and currency "swaps" had emerged in which banks and their customers would typically agree to exchange interest or currency amounts based on one party paying a fixed interest rate amount (or an amount in a specified currency) and the other paying a floating interest rate amount (or an amount in a different currency). These transactions were similar to "forward delivery" contracts under which "commercial users" of a commodity contracted for future deliveries of that commodity at an agreed upon price.[18]

Based on the similarities between swaps and "forward delivery" contracts, the swap market grew rapidly in the United States during the 1980s. Nevertheless, as a 2006 Congressional Research Service report explained in describing the status of OTC derivatives in the 1980s: "if a court had ruled that a swap was in fact an illegal, off-exchange futures contract, trillions of dollars in outstanding swaps could have been invalidated. This might have caused chaos in financial markets, as swaps users would suddenly be exposed to the risks they had used derivatives to avoid."[19]

Thanks for confirming there was no "deregulation."

 

[Obiwan]

Could a Hillary Vote Bring Us Another Clinton Economic Boom Fast Forward OZY

Don’t know, if it’s the right sub forum for this discussion, the article is about both economy and Hillary, so…

The author of this story tells us that we can expect another economy boom. And what’s more interesting, the manufacturing will come back to US, as well as loads of capital. And, all in all, this will help Hillary to win the game. Too bad, the last trend, about Republicans losing their influence in the White House, turned out to be not that close to the reality, but a year ago the guy just couldn’t predict the results of the Congress elections.

All in all, though the article is very encouraging, I feel like none of it can come true. And you?

Actually, while Bush deserves some of the blame for the recession, the stage was set by Bill Clinton...
Who Caused the Economic Crisis

So who is to blame? There’s plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn’t fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn’t do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility … with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here’s a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:

• The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
• Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
• Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
• Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
• The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
• Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
• Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
• Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
• The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
• An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
• Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

So, yeah, lets let a Clinton set us up for another recession, right?

A good list. But it left out the ratings agencies. They were also responsible.

Also, Clinton's biggest failing was his deregulation of financial derivatives. The crash would not have been anywhere near as severe. This was not a housing bubble so much as a global derivatives bubble.

Global.

Derivatives were force multipliers. Derivatives were the motive. Loans were just the raw materials which were needed to power all those derivative products which brought in the profits.

Please cite where Clinton deregulated financial derivatives.

Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA) is United States federal legislation that officially ensured modernized regulation[1] of financial products known as over-the-counter derivatives. It was signed into law on December 21, 2000 by President Bill Clinton. It clarified the law so that most over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions between "sophisticated parties" would not be regulated as "futures" under the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 (CEA) or as "securities" under the federal securities laws. Instead, the major dealers of those products (banks and securities firms) would continue to have their dealings in OTC derivatives supervised by their federal regulators under general "safety and soundness" standards. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) desire to have "Functional regulation" of the market was also rejected. Instead, the CFTC would continue to do "entity-based supervision of OTC derivatives dealers." [2] These derivatives, including the credit default swap, are a few of the many causes of the financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent 2008–2012 global recession.[3]

OTC derivatives regulation before the CFMA[edit]
Exchange trading requirement[edit]
The PWG Report was directed at ending controversy over how swaps and other OTC derivatives related to the CEA. A derivative is a financial contract or instrument that "derives" its value from the price or other characteristic of an underlying "thing" (or "commodity"). A farmer might enter into a "derivative contract" under which the farmer would sell from next summer's harvest a specified number of bushels of wheat at a specified price per bushel. If this contract were executed on a commodity exchange, it would be a "futures contract."[14]

Before 1974, the CEA only applied to agricultural commodities. "Future delivery" contracts in agricultural commodities listed in the CEA were required to be traded on regulated exchanges such as the Chicago Board of Trade.[15]

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act of 1974 created the CFTC as the new regulator of commodity exchanges. It also expanded the scope of the CEA to cover the previously listed agricultural products and "all other goods and articles, except onions, and all services, rights, and interests in which contracts for future delivery are presently or in the future dealt in." Existing non-exchange traded financial "commodity" derivatives markets (mostly "interbank" markets) in foreign currencies, government securities, and other specified instruments were excluded from the CEA through the "Treasury Amendment", to the extent transactions in such markets remained off a "board of trade." The expanded CEA, however, did not generally exclude financial derivatives.[16]

After the 1974 law change, the CEA continued to require that all "future delivery" contracts in commodities covered by the law be executed on a regulated exchange. This meant any "future delivery" contract entered into by parties off a regulated exchange would be illegal and unenforceable. The term "future delivery" was not defined in the CEA. Its meaning evolved through CFTC actions and court rulings.[17]

Not all derivative contracts are "future delivery" contracts. The CEA always excluded "forward delivery" contracts under which, for example, a farmer might set today the price at which the farmer would deliver to a grain elevator or other buyer a certain number of bushels of wheat to be harvested next summer. By the early 1980s a market in interest rate and currency "swaps" had emerged in which banks and their customers would typically agree to exchange interest or currency amounts based on one party paying a fixed interest rate amount (or an amount in a specified currency) and the other paying a floating interest rate amount (or an amount in a different currency). These transactions were similar to "forward delivery" contracts under which "commercial users" of a commodity contracted for future deliveries of that commodity at an agreed upon price.[18]

Based on the similarities between swaps and "forward delivery" contracts, the swap market grew rapidly in the United States during the 1980s. Nevertheless, as a 2006 Congressional Research Service report explained in describing the status of OTC derivatives in the 1980s: "if a court had ruled that a swap was in fact an illegal, off-exchange futures contract, trillions of dollars in outstanding swaps could have been invalidated. This might have caused chaos in financial markets, as swaps users would suddenly be exposed to the risks they had used derivatives to avoid."[19]

Thanks for confirming there was no "deregulation."

Right, there was no deregulation as such..... More like Clinton failed to regulate derivatives.....

 

[The Rabbi]

Actually, while Bush deserves some of the blame for the recession, the stage was set by Bill Clinton...
Who Caused the Economic Crisis

So who is to blame? There’s plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn’t fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn’t do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility … with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here’s a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:

• The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
• Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
• Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
• Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
• The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
• Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
• Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
• Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
• The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
• An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
• Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

So, yeah, lets let a Clinton set us up for another recession, right?

A good list. But it left out the ratings agencies. They were also responsible.

Also, Clinton's biggest failing was his deregulation of financial derivatives. The crash would not have been anywhere near as severe. This was not a housing bubble so much as a global derivatives bubble.

Global.

Derivatives were force multipliers. Derivatives were the motive. Loans were just the raw materials which were needed to power all those derivative products which brought in the profits.

Please cite where Clinton deregulated financial derivatives.

Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA) is United States federal legislation that officially ensured modernized regulation[1] of financial products known as over-the-counter derivatives. It was signed into law on December 21, 2000 by President Bill Clinton. It clarified the law so that most over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions between "sophisticated parties" would not be regulated as "futures" under the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 (CEA) or as "securities" under the federal securities laws. Instead, the major dealers of those products (banks and securities firms) would continue to have their dealings in OTC derivatives supervised by their federal regulators under general "safety and soundness" standards. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) desire to have "Functional regulation" of the market was also rejected. Instead, the CFTC would continue to do "entity-based supervision of OTC derivatives dealers." [2] These derivatives, including the credit default swap, are a few of the many causes of the financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent 2008–2012 global recession.[3]

OTC derivatives regulation before the CFMA[edit]
Exchange trading requirement[edit]
The PWG Report was directed at ending controversy over how swaps and other OTC derivatives related to the CEA. A derivative is a financial contract or instrument that "derives" its value from the price or other characteristic of an underlying "thing" (or "commodity"). A farmer might enter into a "derivative contract" under which the farmer would sell from next summer's harvest a specified number of bushels of wheat at a specified price per bushel. If this contract were executed on a commodity exchange, it would be a "futures contract."[14]

Before 1974, the CEA only applied to agricultural commodities. "Future delivery" contracts in agricultural commodities listed in the CEA were required to be traded on regulated exchanges such as the Chicago Board of Trade.[15]

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act of 1974 created the CFTC as the new regulator of commodity exchanges. It also expanded the scope of the CEA to cover the previously listed agricultural products and "all other goods and articles, except onions, and all services, rights, and interests in which contracts for future delivery are presently or in the future dealt in." Existing non-exchange traded financial "commodity" derivatives markets (mostly "interbank" markets) in foreign currencies, government securities, and other specified instruments were excluded from the CEA through the "Treasury Amendment", to the extent transactions in such markets remained off a "board of trade." The expanded CEA, however, did not generally exclude financial derivatives.[16]

After the 1974 law change, the CEA continued to require that all "future delivery" contracts in commodities covered by the law be executed on a regulated exchange. This meant any "future delivery" contract entered into by parties off a regulated exchange would be illegal and unenforceable. The term "future delivery" was not defined in the CEA. Its meaning evolved through CFTC actions and court rulings.[17]

Not all derivative contracts are "future delivery" contracts. The CEA always excluded "forward delivery" contracts under which, for example, a farmer might set today the price at which the farmer would deliver to a grain elevator or other buyer a certain number of bushels of wheat to be harvested next summer. By the early 1980s a market in interest rate and currency "swaps" had emerged in which banks and their customers would typically agree to exchange interest or currency amounts based on one party paying a fixed interest rate amount (or an amount in a specified currency) and the other paying a floating interest rate amount (or an amount in a different currency). These transactions were similar to "forward delivery" contracts under which "commercial users" of a commodity contracted for future deliveries of that commodity at an agreed upon price.[18]

Based on the similarities between swaps and "forward delivery" contracts, the swap market grew rapidly in the United States during the 1980s. Nevertheless, as a 2006 Congressional Research Service report explained in describing the status of OTC derivatives in the 1980s: "if a court had ruled that a swap was in fact an illegal, off-exchange futures contract, trillions of dollars in outstanding swaps could have been invalidated. This might have caused chaos in financial markets, as swaps users would suddenly be exposed to the risks they had used derivatives to avoid."[19]

Thanks for confirming there was no "deregulation."

Right, there was no deregulation as such..... More like Clinton failed to regulate derivatives.....

Clinton left office in 2001. He wasnt responsible for a collapse 7 years later. You might as well blame FDR.

 

[Obiwan]

A good list. But it left out the ratings agencies. They were also responsible.

Also, Clinton's biggest failing was his deregulation of financial derivatives. The crash would not have been anywhere near as severe. This was not a housing bubble so much as a global derivatives bubble.

Global.

Derivatives were force multipliers. Derivatives were the motive. Loans were just the raw materials which were needed to power all those derivative products which brought in the profits.

Please cite where Clinton deregulated financial derivatives.

Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA) is United States federal legislation that officially ensured modernized regulation[1] of financial products known as over-the-counter derivatives. It was signed into law on December 21, 2000 by President Bill Clinton. It clarified the law so that most over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions between "sophisticated parties" would not be regulated as "futures" under the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 (CEA) or as "securities" under the federal securities laws. Instead, the major dealers of those products (banks and securities firms) would continue to have their dealings in OTC derivatives supervised by their federal regulators under general "safety and soundness" standards. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) desire to have "Functional regulation" of the market was also rejected. Instead, the CFTC would continue to do "entity-based supervision of OTC derivatives dealers." [2] These derivatives, including the credit default swap, are a few of the many causes of the financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent 2008–2012 global recession.[3]

OTC derivatives regulation before the CFMA[edit]
Exchange trading requirement[edit]
The PWG Report was directed at ending controversy over how swaps and other OTC derivatives related to the CEA. A derivative is a financial contract or instrument that "derives" its value from the price or other characteristic of an underlying "thing" (or "commodity"). A farmer might enter into a "derivative contract" under which the farmer would sell from next summer's harvest a specified number of bushels of wheat at a specified price per bushel. If this contract were executed on a commodity exchange, it would be a "futures contract."[14]

Before 1974, the CEA only applied to agricultural commodities. "Future delivery" contracts in agricultural commodities listed in the CEA were required to be traded on regulated exchanges such as the Chicago Board of Trade.[15]

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act of 1974 created the CFTC as the new regulator of commodity exchanges. It also expanded the scope of the CEA to cover the previously listed agricultural products and "all other goods and articles, except onions, and all services, rights, and interests in which contracts for future delivery are presently or in the future dealt in." Existing non-exchange traded financial "commodity" derivatives markets (mostly "interbank" markets) in foreign currencies, government securities, and other specified instruments were excluded from the CEA through the "Treasury Amendment", to the extent transactions in such markets remained off a "board of trade." The expanded CEA, however, did not generally exclude financial derivatives.[16]

After the 1974 law change, the CEA continued to require that all "future delivery" contracts in commodities covered by the law be executed on a regulated exchange. This meant any "future delivery" contract entered into by parties off a regulated exchange would be illegal and unenforceable. The term "future delivery" was not defined in the CEA. Its meaning evolved through CFTC actions and court rulings.[17]

Not all derivative contracts are "future delivery" contracts. The CEA always excluded "forward delivery" contracts under which, for example, a farmer might set today the price at which the farmer would deliver to a grain elevator or other buyer a certain number of bushels of wheat to be harvested next summer. By the early 1980s a market in interest rate and currency "swaps" had emerged in which banks and their customers would typically agree to exchange interest or currency amounts based on one party paying a fixed interest rate amount (or an amount in a specified currency) and the other paying a floating interest rate amount (or an amount in a different currency). These transactions were similar to "forward delivery" contracts under which "commercial users" of a commodity contracted for future deliveries of that commodity at an agreed upon price.[18]

Based on the similarities between swaps and "forward delivery" contracts, the swap market grew rapidly in the United States during the 1980s. Nevertheless, as a 2006 Congressional Research Service report explained in describing the status of OTC derivatives in the 1980s: "if a court had ruled that a swap was in fact an illegal, off-exchange futures contract, trillions of dollars in outstanding swaps could have been invalidated. This might have caused chaos in financial markets, as swaps users would suddenly be exposed to the risks they had used derivatives to avoid."[19]

Thanks for confirming there was no "deregulation."

Right, there was no deregulation as such..... More like Clinton failed to regulate derivatives.....

Clinton left office in 2001. He wasnt responsible for a collapse 7 years later. You might as well blame FDR.

Actually, my take on it is that Clinton's actions (or lack thereof) got the ball rolling, and Bush failed to address them until things got too far along to avoid the recession..... Both Clinton and Bus share the blame......

 

[The Rabbi]

Please cite where Clinton deregulated financial derivatives.

Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA) is United States federal legislation that officially ensured modernized regulation[1] of financial products known as over-the-counter derivatives. It was signed into law on December 21, 2000 by President Bill Clinton. It clarified the law so that most over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions between "sophisticated parties" would not be regulated as "futures" under the Commodity Exchange Act of 1936 (CEA) or as "securities" under the federal securities laws. Instead, the major dealers of those products (banks and securities firms) would continue to have their dealings in OTC derivatives supervised by their federal regulators under general "safety and soundness" standards. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission's (CFTC) desire to have "Functional regulation" of the market was also rejected. Instead, the CFTC would continue to do "entity-based supervision of OTC derivatives dealers." [2] These derivatives, including the credit default swap, are a few of the many causes of the financial crisis of 2008 and the subsequent 2008–2012 global recession.[3]

OTC derivatives regulation before the CFMA[edit]
Exchange trading requirement[edit]
The PWG Report was directed at ending controversy over how swaps and other OTC derivatives related to the CEA. A derivative is a financial contract or instrument that "derives" its value from the price or other characteristic of an underlying "thing" (or "commodity"). A farmer might enter into a "derivative contract" under which the farmer would sell from next summer's harvest a specified number of bushels of wheat at a specified price per bushel. If this contract were executed on a commodity exchange, it would be a "futures contract."[14]

Before 1974, the CEA only applied to agricultural commodities. "Future delivery" contracts in agricultural commodities listed in the CEA were required to be traded on regulated exchanges such as the Chicago Board of Trade.[15]

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act of 1974 created the CFTC as the new regulator of commodity exchanges. It also expanded the scope of the CEA to cover the previously listed agricultural products and "all other goods and articles, except onions, and all services, rights, and interests in which contracts for future delivery are presently or in the future dealt in." Existing non-exchange traded financial "commodity" derivatives markets (mostly "interbank" markets) in foreign currencies, government securities, and other specified instruments were excluded from the CEA through the "Treasury Amendment", to the extent transactions in such markets remained off a "board of trade." The expanded CEA, however, did not generally exclude financial derivatives.[16]

After the 1974 law change, the CEA continued to require that all "future delivery" contracts in commodities covered by the law be executed on a regulated exchange. This meant any "future delivery" contract entered into by parties off a regulated exchange would be illegal and unenforceable. The term "future delivery" was not defined in the CEA. Its meaning evolved through CFTC actions and court rulings.[17]

Not all derivative contracts are "future delivery" contracts. The CEA always excluded "forward delivery" contracts under which, for example, a farmer might set today the price at which the farmer would deliver to a grain elevator or other buyer a certain number of bushels of wheat to be harvested next summer. By the early 1980s a market in interest rate and currency "swaps" had emerged in which banks and their customers would typically agree to exchange interest or currency amounts based on one party paying a fixed interest rate amount (or an amount in a specified currency) and the other paying a floating interest rate amount (or an amount in a different currency). These transactions were similar to "forward delivery" contracts under which "commercial users" of a commodity contracted for future deliveries of that commodity at an agreed upon price.[18]

Based on the similarities between swaps and "forward delivery" contracts, the swap market grew rapidly in the United States during the 1980s. Nevertheless, as a 2006 Congressional Research Service report explained in describing the status of OTC derivatives in the 1980s: "if a court had ruled that a swap was in fact an illegal, off-exchange futures contract, trillions of dollars in outstanding swaps could have been invalidated. This might have caused chaos in financial markets, as swaps users would suddenly be exposed to the risks they had used derivatives to avoid."[19]

Thanks for confirming there was no "deregulation."

Right, there was no deregulation as such..... More like Clinton failed to regulate derivatives.....

Clinton left office in 2001. He wasnt responsible for a collapse 7 years later. You might as well blame FDR.

Actually, my take on it is that Clinton's actions (or lack thereof) got the ball rolling, and Bush failed to address them until things got too far along to avoid the recession..... Both Clinton and Bus share the blame......

My take is aliens from outer space took over the SEC.
Both takes are about as plausible.

 

[boedicca]

The answer is: No.

The Clinton "boom" was due to the Reagan tax cuts, the "peace" dividend from Reagan's handling of the Cold War, and the temporary-artificial impact of the Dotcom-Y2K-telecom bubble. Hillary will not benefit from these; and the QE which is propping up the stock market right now will have completely lost steam by 2017, or will result in massive inflation with no growth, thus making her a Neo-Carter Stagflation Overseer.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Greenspan was right about adjustables. 30 year fixed are expensive. Especially if you move in 5-7 years.

Yes, but ARMs were grossly misappropriated.

ARMs and Pick-A-Payments were used to lower the monthly payments on amounts that people had no business borrowing.

You might be a good credit risk up to a $200,000 loan, but the system was corrupted to such a point that an ARM would be used to float you a $400,000 loan instead.

The average lifespan of a 30-year fixed mortgage was about eight years. ARMs reset after three years. And there's the rub.

Not only that, 80 percent of all Pick-A-Payment mortgage payments received were negative amortization payments. And so when they reset three to five years later, the borrower owed more than the original principal. A lot more.

Yes, idiots who bought homes they could not afford were not saved by ARMs. Responsible buyers who could handle the risk of rates flucuating ( listen to what Greenspan actually said) can do very well with an ARM.

 

[g5000]

Greenspan was right about adjustables. 30 year fixed are expensive. Especially if you move in 5-7 years.

Yes, but ARMs were grossly misappropriated.

ARMs and Pick-A-Payments were used to lower the monthly payments on amounts that people had no business borrowing.

You might be a good credit risk up to a $200,000 loan, but the system was corrupted to such a point that an ARM would be used to float you a $400,000 loan instead.

The average lifespan of a 30-year fixed mortgage was about eight years. ARMs reset after three years. And there's the rub.

Not only that, 80 percent of all Pick-A-Payment mortgage payments received were negative amortization payments. And so when they reset three to five years later, the borrower owed more than the original principal. A lot more.

Yes, idiots who bought homes they could not afford were not saved by ARMs. Responsible buyers who could handle the risk of rates flucuating ( listen to what Greenspan actually said) can do very well with an ARM.

I know I did.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hillary Clinton should thank Barack Obama for beating her in 2008. Every day.

Not only does the former first lady and U.S. Secretary of State appear as well-positioned as any candidate to capture the presidency in 2016, but her arrival in the Oval Office could well coincide with tailwinds that the U.S. economy has not seen since, well, the last time a Clinton occupied the White House.

Are we getting ahead of ourselves? Absolutely. A lot can happen in three years, but there’s one scenario for 2017 that should be staring all would-be prognosticators in the face: The very real possibility of another Clinton economic boom like the U.S. experienced in the 1990s.

Here are five key economic and political trends that should leave Camp Clinton giddy — and the GOP scared out of its mind — when it comes to the next presidential election.

Could a Hillary Vote Bring Us Another Clinton Economic Boom Fast Forward OZY

Don’t know, if it’s the right sub forum for this discussion, the article is about both economy and Hillary, so…

The author of this story tells us that we can expect another economy boom. And what’s more interesting, the manufacturing will come back to US, as well as loads of capital. And, all in all, this will help Hillary to win the game. Too bad, the last trend, about Republicans losing their influence in the White House, turned out to be not that close to the reality, but a year ago the guy just couldn’t predict the results of the Congress elections.

All in all, though the article is very encouraging, I feel like none of it can come true. And you?

Actually, while Bush deserves some of the blame for the recession, the stage was set by Bill Clinton...
Who Caused the Economic Crisis

So who is to blame? There’s plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn’t fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn’t do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility … with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here’s a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:

• The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
• Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
• Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
• Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
• The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
• Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
• Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
• Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
• The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
• An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
• Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

So, yeah, lets let a Clinton set us up for another recession, right?

A good list. But it left out the ratings agencies. They were also responsible.

Also, Clinton's biggest failing was his deregulation of financial derivatives. The crash would not have been anywhere near as severe. This was not a housing bubble so much as a global derivatives bubble.

Global.

Derivatives were force multipliers. Derivatives were the motive. Loans were just the raw materials which were needed to power all those derivative products which brought in the profits.

Still confusing MBS with derivatives?

 

[g5000]

Please cite where Clinton deregulated financial derivatives.

Whatsa matter? You didn't get enough butt hurt when I provided a specific example of Bush causing the Wall Street firms to crash?

Did you miss the part where I asked you in turn to provide a specific example of Clinton causing the GSEs to crash?

I guess you did miss it, because you have not been forthcoming with that proof.


So now you want a cite where Clinton deregulated financial derivatives. I see someone already provided a link about the CFMA, at which you smarmily commented that does not show Clinton deregulated derivatives. Wrong!

For example, I refer you to section 117 of that Act. To wit:

This Act shall supersede and preempt the application of any State or local law that prohibits or regulates gaming or the operation of bucket shops

Now, while you are out there hunting for evidence that Clinton caused the GSEs to crash, perhaps you will take some time to explain why banks needed exemptions from state gaming laws for casinos. Why does a bank need to be exempted from laws prohibiting bucket shops?

Hmmmm...

Those in the know understand exactly why. The banks wanted fraud legalized. And later on, their apologists would ask stupid questions like, "What laws did they break when they ripped off their clients?"

Kind of like an idiot asking what laws were broken when someone murders another person after state laws against murder are federally pre-empted...

Superceding state regulatory laws is deregulation, by definition. And how come no states rights people screamed over this? Why didn't Fox News play some doom music and shout from the rooftops over this federal pre-emption? Huh? Huh? Huh?

Sorry to make your butt hurt. Again.

 

[g5000]

Hillary Clinton should thank Barack Obama for beating her in 2008. Every day.

Not only does the former first lady and U.S. Secretary of State appear as well-positioned as any candidate to capture the presidency in 2016, but her arrival in the Oval Office could well coincide with tailwinds that the U.S. economy has not seen since, well, the last time a Clinton occupied the White House.

Are we getting ahead of ourselves? Absolutely. A lot can happen in three years, but there’s one scenario for 2017 that should be staring all would-be prognosticators in the face: The very real possibility of another Clinton economic boom like the U.S. experienced in the 1990s.

Here are five key economic and political trends that should leave Camp Clinton giddy — and the GOP scared out of its mind — when it comes to the next presidential election.

Could a Hillary Vote Bring Us Another Clinton Economic Boom Fast Forward OZY

Don’t know, if it’s the right sub forum for this discussion, the article is about both economy and Hillary, so…

The author of this story tells us that we can expect another economy boom. And what’s more interesting, the manufacturing will come back to US, as well as loads of capital. And, all in all, this will help Hillary to win the game. Too bad, the last trend, about Republicans losing their influence in the White House, turned out to be not that close to the reality, but a year ago the guy just couldn’t predict the results of the Congress elections.

All in all, though the article is very encouraging, I feel like none of it can come true. And you?

Actually, while Bush deserves some of the blame for the recession, the stage was set by Bill Clinton...
Who Caused the Economic Crisis

So who is to blame? There’s plenty of blame to go around, and it doesn’t fasten only on one party or even mainly on what Washington did or didn’t do. As The Economist magazine noted recently, the problem is one of "layered irresponsibility … with hard-working homeowners and billionaire villains each playing a role." Here’s a partial list of those alleged to be at fault:

• The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.
• Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.
• Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.
• Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.
• The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and downpayment requirements for working- and middle-class families.
• Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers subprime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.
• Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.
• Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.
• The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.
• An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.
• Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

So, yeah, lets let a Clinton set us up for another recession, right?

A good list. But it left out the ratings agencies. They were also responsible.

Also, Clinton's biggest failing was his deregulation of financial derivatives. The crash would not have been anywhere near as severe. This was not a housing bubble so much as a global derivatives bubble.

Global.

Derivatives were force multipliers. Derivatives were the motive. Loans were just the raw materials which were needed to power all those derivative products which brought in the profits.

Still confusing MBS with derivatives?

Nope. Not at all.

If it was just about MBS, the crash would not have been anywhere near as bad.