FACTS on Dubya's great recession

[Dad2three]

, like Canada, that relied on GOOD GOV'T REGULATORS missed the Bankster created bubble!

this is a perfect example of the ignorance on which liberalism is based. All you need is good govt regulators they think. Its as if they think Obama set out to put bad regulators at the VA or East Germany China and Cuba set out to impoverish their citizens with bad regulators.

The fact is capitalism makes everyone a regulator and so yields the best results which is why China just switched to it and achieved such phenomenal results. If you still don't understand please ask specific questions.

Isn't Rush on to get some more of your financial advise from him?

So the US doesn't practice capitalism? lol


GROW A BRAIN BUBBA

Q Why would Bush’s regulators let banks lower their lending standards?

A. Federal regulators at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) and the Office of Thrift Supervision work for Bush and he was pushing his “Ownership Society” programs that was a major and successful part of his re election campaign in 2004. And Bush’s regulators not only let banks do this, they attacked state regulators trying to do their jobs. Bush’s documented policies and statements in timeframe leading up to the start of the Bush Mortgage Bubble include (but not limited to)

Wanting 5.5 million more minority homeowners
Tells congress there is nothing wrong with GSEs
Pledging to use federal policy to increase home ownership
Routinely taking credit for the housing market
Forcing GSEs to buy more low income home loans by raising their Housing Goals
Lowering Invesntment bank’s capital requirements, Net Capital rule
Reversing the Clinton rule that restricted GSEs purchases of subprime loans
Lowering down payment requirements to 0%
Forcing GSEs to spend an additional $440 billion in the secondary markets
Giving away 40,000 free down payments
PREEMPTING ALL STATE LAWS AGAINST PREDATORY LENDING


But the biggest policy was regulators not enforcing lending standards.

 

[Toro]

Libertarians are FARRRR right on economics

Weird, so Krugman and Comp weren't against the Bush tax cuts?

You 'explanation' is bogus on the fed causing a world wide credit bubble and bust when places, like Canada, that relied on GOOD GOV'T REGULATORS missed the Bankster created bubble!

I'm not a libertarian either. But I am a Canadian. And there's a housing bubble in Canada right now as there was before the crisis. Fitch just warned about it a few days ago.

I never said anything about the Bush tax cuts so I don't know why you keep mentioning it as if I did. I referenced the article in your link. The authors said we should have raised taxes on mortgage debt. No economists were saying that 10 years ago.

BS

You said no economists were mentioning increasing taxes WHILE the US went to 2 UNFUNDED WARS? Stockman (an economist headed CBO and Krugman are 2. Need more?

THE AUTHOR IS SAYING REGULATOR FAILURE WAS THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF THE SUBPRIME CRISIS. It was. I've REPEATEDLY shown that

Canada didn't have a housing boom AND if they bust, it'll be 10%-15% range, that's ALWAYS acceptable, 40%-60% (bust) range that the US and other nations had? Not so much!

No economists were saying we should raise taxes on the housing market. That's what the authors in your link argued.

The authors argue the Fed was not responsible. You shouting in caps doesn't change the fact that they are wrong.

Canada most certainly is a housing boom. Its housing market is one of the most expensive in the world relative to income. Prices have risen as much as they did in the US.

 

[Dad2three]

I'm not a libertarian either. But I am a Canadian. And there's a housing bubble in Canada right now as there was before the crisis. Fitch just warned about it a few days ago.

I never said anything about the Bush tax cuts so I don't know why you keep mentioning it as if I did. I referenced the article in your link. The authors said we should have raised taxes on mortgage debt. No economists were saying that 10 years ago.

BS

You said no economists were mentioning increasing taxes WHILE the US went to 2 UNFUNDED WARS? Stockman (an economist headed CBO and Krugman are 2. Need more?

THE AUTHOR IS SAYING REGULATOR FAILURE WAS THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF THE SUBPRIME CRISIS. It was. I've REPEATEDLY shown that

Canada didn't have a housing boom AND if they bust, it'll be 10%-15% range, that's ALWAYS acceptable, 40%-60% (bust) range that the US and other nations had? Not so much!

No economists were saying we should raise taxes on the housing market. That's what the authors in your link argued.

The authors argue the Fed was not responsible. You shouting in caps doesn't change the fact that they are wrong.

Canada most certainly is a housing boom. Its housing market is one of the most expensive in the world relative to income. Prices have risen as much as they did in the US.

WHICH link are you saying it about?

The links I gave said it wasn't the PRIMARY reason for Dubya's regulator failure subprime crisis


Canada in a boom? AND? Is it MASSIVELY overinflated? See the difference?

I'll note you ignore the Krugman link that calls you a LIAR and the 450 economists who warned Bush tax cuts in 2003 would harm US


AND the facts that this was MAINLY a regulator failure (like Reagan's S&L crisis where he ALSO ignored regulator warnings)...

 

[Dad2three]

I'm not a libertarian either. But I am a Canadian. And there's a housing bubble in Canada right now as there was before the crisis. Fitch just warned about it a few days ago.

I never said anything about the Bush tax cuts so I don't know why you keep mentioning it as if I did. I referenced the article in your link. The authors said we should have raised taxes on mortgage debt. No economists were saying that 10 years ago.

BS

You said no economists were mentioning increasing taxes WHILE the US went to 2 UNFUNDED WARS? Stockman (an economist headed CBO and Krugman are 2. Need more?

THE AUTHOR IS SAYING REGULATOR FAILURE WAS THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF THE SUBPRIME CRISIS. It was. I've REPEATEDLY shown that

Canada didn't have a housing boom AND if they bust, it'll be 10%-15% range, that's ALWAYS acceptable, 40%-60% (bust) range that the US and other nations had? Not so much!

No economists were saying we should raise taxes on the housing market. That's what the authors in your link argued.

The authors argue the Fed was not responsible. You shouting in caps doesn't change the fact that they are wrong.

Canada most certainly is a housing boom. Its housing market is one of the most expensive in the world relative to income. Prices have risen as much as they did in the US.

The problem with all of these “rates were too low” theories is that a very large portion of the mortgage market – the flippers and investors – were almost completely rate insensitive. They didn’t care what rates were, only that there were buyers.



A recent report from the Feds states that aggressive real estate investors investors played a major role in today’s housing crisis which has led to record amounts of foreclosure across the country, especially in hard-hit states like California, Florida, Nevada, and Arizona. In these states the average home price nearly doubled in just six years from 2000 to 2006.

In 2006, about a third of all home loans originated that year were granted to borrowers who already owned one or more properties. The researchers report that a large amount of property owners during the boom years owned three or more homes.


The report from the Fed says that mortgage lenders should regulate properties purchased by investors to avoid future housing problems. Researchers point out that China now requires real estate investors to pay more of a down payment than normal buyers along with a higher interest rate as well. -

House Flippers Caused the Housing Crisis, Says Feds | LoanSafe.org

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

THE AUTHOR IS SAYING REGULATOR FAILURE WAS THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF THE SUBPRIME CRISIS. It was. I've REPEATEDLY shown that

yes and regulatory failure was why USSR, Red China, East Germany, Cuba, US Post Office, VA, Fanny Fed etc etc failed.

Capitalism provides the best regulation becuase it makes everyone a regulator rather than a few unregulated bureaucrat regulators in DC. Do you understand now. If you do you understand how freedom works and why our Founders were for it.

 

[Dad2three]

THE AUTHOR IS SAYING REGULATOR FAILURE WAS THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF THE SUBPRIME CRISIS. It was. I've REPEATEDLY shown that

yes and regulatory failure was why USSR, Red China, East Germany, Cuba, US Post Office, VA, Fanny Fed etc etc failed.

Capitalism provides the best regulation becuase it makes everyone a regulator rather than a few unregulated bureaucrat regulators in DC. Do you understand now. If you do you understand how freedom works and why our Founders were for it.

Sure Bubba, those things 'failed' Ever look at Russia and Putin? lol.



The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves." (talking about you)

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."

Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html


(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.



Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.


The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School of Economics


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis

 

[CrusaderFrank]

THE AUTHOR IS SAYING REGULATOR FAILURE WAS THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF THE SUBPRIME CRISIS. It was. I've REPEATEDLY shown that

yes and regulatory failure was why USSR, Red China, East Germany, Cuba, US Post Office, VA, Fanny Fed etc etc failed.

Capitalism provides the best regulation becuase it makes everyone a regulator rather than a few unregulated bureaucrat regulators in DC. Do you understand now. If you do you understand how freedom works and why our Founders were for it.

Sure Bubba, those things 'failed' Ever look at Russia and Putin? lol.



The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves." (talking about you)

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."

Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html


(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.



Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.


The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School of Economics


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis

Good thing we still have a semivibrant economy where people with entrepreneurial talent can prosper

 

[Dad2three]

yes and regulatory failure was why USSR, Red China, East Germany, Cuba, US Post Office, VA, Fanny Fed etc etc failed.

Capitalism provides the best regulation becuase it makes everyone a regulator rather than a few unregulated bureaucrat regulators in DC. Do you understand now. If you do you understand how freedom works and why our Founders were for it.

Sure Bubba, those things 'failed' Ever look at Russia and Putin? lol.



The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves." (talking about you)

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."

Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html


(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.



Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.


The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School of Economics


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis

Good thing we still have a semivibrant economy where people with entrepreneurial talent can prosper

Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


The only reason the American economy is stalled is because the GOTP kicks the leg from under it, every time the economy begins to recover in the name of cutting the deficit



80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.

 

[regent]

yes and regulatory failure was why USSR, Red China, East Germany, Cuba, US Post Office, VA, Fanny Fed etc etc failed.

Capitalism provides the best regulation becuase it makes everyone a regulator rather than a few unregulated bureaucrat regulators in DC. Do you understand now. If you do you understand how freedom works and why our Founders were for it.

Sure Bubba, those things 'failed' Ever look at Russia and Putin? lol.



The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves." (talking about you)

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."

Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html


(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.



Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.


The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School of Economics


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis

Good thing we still have a semivibrant economy where people with entrepreneurial talent can prosper

To keep some semblance of capitalism in the US requires constant government supervision. As business creates new methods to destroy the most important characteristic of capitalism, competition, the government must create new methods (regulations) to keep capitalism capitalistic. So the game goes on: businessmen devise new methods to make profits, some which would destroy capitalism, and perhaps people, and government devises new regulations to regulate those methods.
Business is not evil, but capitalism is based on greed and greed must be regulated, or we lose the democracy part of our government.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Sure Bubba, those things 'failed' Ever look at Russia and Putin? lol.



The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves." (talking about you)

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."

Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html


(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.



Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.


The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School of Economics


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis

Good thing we still have a semivibrant economy where people with entrepreneurial talent can prosper

To keep some semblance of capitalism in the US requires constant government supervision. As business creates new methods to destroy the most important characteristic of capitalism, competition, the government must create new methods (regulations) to keep capitalism capitalistic. So the game goes on: businessmen devise new methods to make profits, some which would destroy capitalism, and perhaps people, and government devises new regulations to regulate those methods.
Business is not evil, but capitalism is based on greed and greed must be regulated, or we lose the democracy part of our government.

In short, the Capitalists are the greatest threat to Capitalism and to our democratic institutions.

This is a great thread, notice only the dumbest members of the conservative set posted on it, and all of their posts were non sequiturs and Idiot-grams (Stephanie and CrusaderFrank get dishonorable mention).

 

[boedicca]

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

Are you high or stupid? The Real Estate bubble was seen as a consequence back in 2001. It started before that.

This is a great example of a moron throwing around stats without any understanding of their meaning.

 

[boedicca]

For those who'd like to actually understand the mortgage fueled financial crisis, I highly recommend "Reckless Endangerment". The crisis had Many Fathers and Mothers, including Congress, The Fed, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mach, Banksters, as well as greedy irresponsible people who wanted houses they couldn't afford.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Reckless-Endangerment-Outsized-Corruption-Armageddon/dp/0805091203/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1405523721&sr=8-1&keywords=reckless+endangerment]Reckless Endangerment[/ame]

 

[edthecynic]

Sure Bubba, those things 'failed' Ever look at Russia and Putin? lol.



The founders, despite decades of rancorous disagreements about almost every other aspect of their grand experiment, agreed that America would survive and thrive only if there was widespread ownership of land and businesses.

George Washington, nine months before his inauguration as the first president, predicted that America "will be the most favorable country of any kind in the world for persons of industry and frugality, possessed of moderate capital, to inhabit." And, he continued, "it will not be less advantageous to the happiness of the lowest class of people, because of the equal distribution of property."

The second president, John Adams, feared "monopolies of land" would destroy the nation and that a business aristocracy born of inequality would manipulate voters, creating "a system of subordination to all... The capricious will of one or a very few" dominating the rest. Unless constrained, Adams wrote, "the rich and the proud" would wield economic and political power that "will destroy all the equality and liberty, with the consent and acclamations of the people themselves." (talking about you)

James Madison, the Constitution's main author, described inequality as an evil, saying government should prevent "an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches." He favored "the silent operation of laws which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigents towards a state of comfort."

Alexander Hamilton, who championed manufacturing and banking as the first Treasury secretary, also argued for widespread ownership of assets, warning in 1782 that, "whenever a discretionary power is lodged in any set of men over the property of their neighbors, they will abuse it."

Late in life, Adams, pessimistic about whether the republic would endure, wrote that the goal of the democratic government was not to help the wealthy and powerful but to achieve "the greatest happiness for the greatest number."



http://www.newsweek.com/2014/02/07/why-thomas-jefferson-favored-profit-sharing-245454.html


(Re-)Introducing: The American School of Economics

When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown.

Closely related to mercantilism, it can be seen as contrary to classical economics. It consisted of these three core policies:

protecting industry through selective high tariffs (especially 1861–1932) and through subsidies (especially 1932–70)

government investments in infrastructure creating targeted internal improvements (especially in transportation)

a national bank with policies that promote the growth of productive enterprises rather than speculation.



Frank Bourgin's 1989 study of the Constitutional Convention shows that direct government involvement in the economy was intended by the Founders.


The goal, most forcefully articulated by Hamilton, was to ensure that dearly won political independence was not lost by being economically and financially dependent on the powers and princes of Europe. The creation of a strong central government able to promote science, invention, industry and commerce, was seen as an essential means of promoting the general welfare and making the economy of the United States strong enough for them to determine their own destiny.

American School of Economics


American School (economics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Louis D. Brandeis

Good thing we still have a semivibrant economy where people with entrepreneurial talent can prosper

To keep some semblance of capitalism in the US requires constant government supervision. As business creates new methods to destroy the most important characteristic of capitalism, competition, the government must create new methods (regulations) to keep capitalism capitalistic. So the game goes on: businessmen devise new methods to make profits, some which would destroy capitalism, and perhaps people, and government devises new regulations to regulate those methods.
Business is not evil, but capitalism is based on greed and greed must be regulated, or we lose the democracy part of our government.

Exactly, Capitalists abhor competition!!!

"Competition is a sin"
- John D Rockefeller

 

[Dad2three]

For those who'd like to actually understand the mortgage fueled financial crisis, I highly recommend "Reckless Endangerment". The crisis had Many Fathers and Mothers, including Congress, The Fed, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mach, Banksters, as well as greedy irresponsible people who wanted houses they couldn't afford.

Reckless Endangerment

WHY?

Reckless Endangerment Repackages Falsehoods From The American Enterprise Institute





Reckless Endangerment, by Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner, regurgitates AEI talking points and narratives that were discredited by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission.


Of course Reckless Endangerment supported Wallison's position. The book, which cannot withstand cursory fact checking, repackages the same falsehoods and distortions first promoted by Wallison for The American Enterprise Institute. So far, the authors have escaped critical rebuke by concealing the origins of much of their source material. Perhaps their most transparent deception was Morgenson's claim that, “We have identified as many of our sources as we could when we could."

It seems shocking Morgenson would stain her reputation by writing a book with so many glaring falsehoods.


Reckless Endangerment Repackages Falsehoods From The American Enterprise Institute


I'LL EASILY REFUTE IT

The "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," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008



First, this fun congressional testimony by AEI’s Peter Wallison, the only inquiry commission member to insist that Fannie had blood on her hands:

By Peter J. Wallison | House Subcommittee on Capital Markets

(September 06, 2000)

The GSE form–at least as it is embodied in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–contains an inherent contradiction. It is a shareholder-owned company, with the fiduciary obligation to maximize profits, and a government-chartered and empowered agency with a public mission. It should be obvious that it cannot achieve both objectives. If it maximizes profits, it will fail to perform its government mission to its full potential. If it performs its government mission fully, it will fail to maximize profits.

[T]he incentives of their managements [are] to increase their own compensation. This has direct consequences in the real world. Since 1992, Fannie and Freddie have had an obligation to assist in financing affordable and low income housing. Obviously, doing so would be costly, and would thus reduce their profitability. Studies now show that their performance in financing low income housing-especially in minority areas- is far worse than that of ordinary banks. In other words, despite the fact that Fannie and Freddie receive subsidies to perform a government mission-in this case support of low income housing-their need for and incentives to retain a high level of profitability is an obstacle to their performance.

Hahahahaha. Fannie did too little. Until it did too much

 

[Dad2three]

Are you high or stupid? The Real Estate bubble was seen as a consequence back in 2001. It started before that.

This is a great example of a moron throwing around stats without any understanding of their meaning.

Stop projecting Bubba



The "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," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008

 

[mudwhistle]

This is a great example of a moron throwing around stats without any understanding of their meaning.

Stop projecting Bubba



The "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," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008

Yup, Barney Fwank and Chris Dodd.

Tell me something I don't know......

 

[boedicca]

For those who'd like to actually understand the mortgage fueled financial crisis, I highly recommend "Reckless Endangerment". The crisis had Many Fathers and Mothers, including Congress, The Fed, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mach, Banksters, as well as greedy irresponsible people who wanted houses they couldn't afford.

Reckless Endangerment

WHY?

(drivel and nonsense removed from quote)

You are a blithering idiot to whom responding is absolutely pointless.

 

[Dad2three]

This is a great example of a moron throwing around stats without any understanding of their meaning.

Stop projecting Bubba



The "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," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008

Yup, Barney Fwank and Chris Dodd.

Tell me something I don't know......

Yep, Super powers Barney Frank in the GOP majority House 1995-Jan 2007 right? lol


We have made significant adjustments to our mortgage loan sourcing and purchase strategies in an effort to meet the increased housing goals and subgoals. These strategies include entering into some purchase and securitization transactions with lower expected economic returns than our typical transactions. We have also relaxed some of our underwriting criteria to obtain goals-qualifying mortgage loans and increased our investments in higher-risk mortgage loan products that are more likely to serve the borrowers targeted by HUD’s goals and subgoals,

http://www.fanniemae.com/resources/file/ir/pdf/stock-info/series_T_05152008.pdf


HOLY COW! Bush forced them to lower their standards. If only somebody had warned us that Bush's policies would hurt Freddie and Fannie. Wait, somebody did.



Fannie, Freddie to Suffer Under New Rule, Frank Says

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would suffer financially under a Bush administration requirement that they channel more mortgage financing to people with low incomes, said the senior Democrat on a congressional panel that sets regulations for the companies.


So if your narrative is "GSEs are to blame" then you have to blame bush


http://democrats.financialservices....s/112/06-17-04-new-Fannie-goals-Bloomberg.pdf

 

[Dad2three]

For those who'd like to actually understand the mortgage fueled financial crisis, I highly recommend "Reckless Endangerment". The crisis had Many Fathers and Mothers, including Congress, The Fed, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mach, Banksters, as well as greedy irresponsible people who wanted houses they couldn't afford.

Reckless Endangerment

WHY?

(drivel and nonsense removed from quote)

You are a blithering idiot to whom responding is absolutely pointless.

Got it, besides AEI talking points ALL you have is bullshit and personal attacks

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

This is a great example of a moron throwing around stats without any understanding of their meaning.

Stop projecting Bubba



The "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," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008

standards can be as low as possible but unless the Fed is printing the money to buy and bid up prices no bubble is possible. Do you even know what the Fed is?