Cleveland Buck;1316372 wrote:It wasn't risky at the time. The Fed, bankers, and government thought they could keep housing prices climbing forever, as though they are exempt from economic laws. The buying and selling of mortgages and mortgage backed securities were unaffected by Clinton's "deregulation" of the banks. If you insist on keeping the central bank to fuel the bubbles, they will always come. No regulation will ever prevent that, short of outlawing banking in this country.

More or less. You didn't need to pass any laws or change any regulations, all you had to do was take away the punch bowl and reign in Freddie and Fannie. Banker and their best, most evil intentions can't create a bubble from nothing.

gut;1316379 wrote:More or less. You didn't need to pass any laws or change any regulations, all you had to do was take away the punch bowl and reign in Freddie and Fannie. Banker and their best, most evil intentions can't create a bubble from nothing.

Which would require regulations.

gut;1316379 wrote:More or less. You didn't need to pass any laws or change any regulations, all you had to do was take away the punch bowl and reign in Freddie and Fannie. Banker and their best, most evil intentions can't create a bubble from nothing.

Reigning in or doing away with Fannie and Freddie would have slowed the growth of the bubble, or maybe even directed it somewhere else. It still wouldn't have preventing a crash from coming.

Cleveland Buck;1316392 wrote:Reigning in or doing away with Fannie and Freddie would have slowed the growth of the bubble, or maybe even directed it somewhere else. It still wouldn't have preventing a crash from coming.

If you had taken away the punch bowl (interest rates). Exactly the same thing happened with the tech bubble. The fed did not view that as its responsibility - they target employment and inflation.

They just have to figure out how to do it better. The regulations and people that enforce them are always two-steps behind and minor league in comparison. But Wall Street behaves pretty predictably. I mean, seriously, you help create this artificial demand for mortgage loans and juice it with historically low interest rates and people are surprised Wall Street lends money and takes risk?!?

This is the fourth time off the top of my head in the last 25 years that Wall Street has had a major problem with new securities and/or risk models. And everyone always cries about regulation. Well, gee, how many more times will it take before people start to realize that regulation is ineffective and inefficient? It's reactive, and it works in that regard but I don't believe the regulators are capable of being effective on a proactive basis.

And I think the "too big to fail" creating the wrong incentives is bogus. The guys at the very top that have final authority are pretty well aligned with large equity stakes - they DID get hosed financially. Pretending like they have unlimited risk aversion because they have nothing at stake is completely bogus. Now the junior guys below them, that inspire overconfidence in their models and overconfidence in their understanding of market dynamics with new securities, DO have an incentive problem. These guys usually don't have an equity stake, or bonus clawbacks. You have a big year as a trader and make millions, what happens the next year really doesn't matter nor does it matter if you ever work again. The trader doesn't care about such fat tailed events occurring every 5-10 years, the trader wants to make as much as he can when he can. And in some cases it's $5M P&L for 5 years and then lose $20M. That trader IS making money. Traders can handle that volatility, mainstreet can't.

Sure, all these guys do get jobs again because they are smart and do know how to make money. The problems with that and why investors keep hiring them again and again is a different discussion.

Plenty saw the tech and housing bubbles coming, by the way. Few if any understood the magnitude and consequences. I suspect among the Fed & Washington it was nearly unanimous, in both cases, that taking steps to responsibly deflate the bubbles (if that's even really possible) would have caused more harm to the economy then letting the markets run their course.

We'll see if any real lessons have been learned. There's a bubble in student loans and in govt debt. There's a lot of retirees and people near retirement following "time-tested" advice to choose "safe" investments in fixed income and it's going to be horrendously painful when interest rates and inflation start to rise.

And the irony in all of it is, if you take steps to try and deflate a bubble, and cause a recession or (at best) availability dries up on student or mortgage loans then you might as well pack-up your desk.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/how-many-businesses-have-announced-closings-or-lay-offs-since-obama-won-a-second-term/

I Wear Pants;1316382 wrote:Which would require regulations.

Yes, to reign in Freddie & Fannie the govt would need to regulate itself. As a first step, I'd just suggest getting the govt out of the housing business all together. Shocking that gubmit subsidies in multiple forms contributed heavily to a housing bubble that ultimately cost taxpayers trillions more than the benefits they received.

It strikes me as ironic when the govt contributes to a major boo-boo costing the taxpayer trillions that the solution always remains MORE gubmit.

rmolin73;1316173 wrote:I'm still waiting on a link. Your boy Quacker came up with two. Now that's a big ass list.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/11/the_mass_firings_begin.html
http://www.ksl.com/?sid=22890041&nid=148&title=utah-company-blames-president-obama-for-102-workers-laid-off&s_cid=featured-4
http://www.wkyt.com/wymt/home/headlines/Teco-Coal-announces-layoffs-177980801.html
http://www.tylerstarnews.com/page/content.detail/id/508789/Momentive-Inc--plans-temporary-layoffs-for-150.html?nav=5008
http://www.businessinsider.com/groupon-layoffs-2012-11
http://annistonstar.com/view/full_story/20755025/article-More-layoffs-announced-at-Anniston-weapons-incinerator?instance=1st_left
http://www.wtov9.com/news/news/murray-energy-confirms-layoffs-three-subsidiaries/nS2qF/
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2012/11/06/business/dairy-coop-closing-minnesota-plant/
http://www.kentucky.com/2012/11/07/2398967/brake-company-in-stanford-laying.html
http://www.rep-am.com/Business/681890.txt
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/11/06/4393207/ati-plans-to-lay-off-172-workers.html
http://www.scpr.org/blogs/economy/2012/11/08/10998/spacex-claims-its-first-victims-rocketdyne-lays-10/
http://news.providencejournal.com/business/2012/11/providence-journal-lays-off-23-full-time-employees.html
http://pressrepublican.com/0100_news/x121543000/CVPH-lays-off-17-as-part-of-fiscal-belt-tightening
http://www.farmers-exchange.net/detailPage.aspx?articleID=11871
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865566367/102-Utah-miners-laid-off-because-of-war-on-coal-company-says.html
http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20121107/NEWS08/121109803/u-s-cellular-drops-chicago-cuts-640-local-jobs
http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20121108/business/711089725/
http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2012/11/vestas_to_cut_3000_more_jobs.html
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/11/firstenergy_third_quarter_earn.html
http://www.wsiltv.com/news/local/Mine-Owner-Blames-Obama-Administration-for-Layoffs--177987291.html
http://www.wsiltv.com/news/local/Mine-Owner-Blames-Obama-Administration-for-Layoffs--177987291.html
http://kaaltv.com/article/stories/S2828413.shtml?cat=10151
http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=426179
http://www.bizjournals.com/triad/news/2012/11/08/te-connectivity-to-close-greensboro.html
http://earthfix.opb.org/energy/article/more-layoffs-for-major-wind-company/
http://www.kten.com/story/20049247/cigna-to-lay-off-1300
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view/20221108ameridose_to_lay_off_hundreds_of_workers/srvc=home&position=5
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/11/energizer-to-slash-workforce-by-10-or-about-1500-jobs/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/nov/8/picket-companies-plan-massive-layoffs-obamacare-be/

i predict that in two weeks people will stop talking about the election and start another union thread

COMPANIES PLAN MASSIVE LAYOFFS AS OBAMACARE BECOMES REALITY...

Utah company fires 100, blames Obama...

CEO reads prayer to staff, announces layoffs... [HR][/HR]RECORD 70.4 Million Enrolled in Medicaid: 1 Out of 5 Americans...



Change we can believe in .....

gut;1316486 wrote:Yes, to reign in Freddie & Fannie the govt would need to regulate itself. As a first step, I'd just suggest getting the govt out of the housing business all together. Shocking that gubmit subsidies in multiple forms contributed heavily to a housing bubble that ultimately cost taxpayers trillions more than the benefits they received.

It strikes me as ironic when the govt contributes to a major boo-boo costing the taxpayer trillions that the solution always remains MORE gubmit.

SMFH at what I've bolded. We witnessed 4 years ago...3 year time frame yielding the biggest money heist in the history of the planet. And you want to fire the newly put in place police force to prevent the pillage of 3 trillion dollars from happening again? Do you ever read a book on a subject? Ever?

I don't even respect your opinion any more. Lucky for you the mods won't let me say what needs to be said.

Footwedge;1316646 wrote:SMFH at what I've bolded. We witnessed 4 years ago...3 year time frame yielding the biggest money heist in the history of the planet. And you want to fire the newly put in place police force to prevent the pillage of 3 trillion dollars from happening again? Do you ever read a book on a subject? Ever?

I don't even respect your opinion any more. Lucky for you the mods won't let me say what needs to be said.

WTF? You do realize that Fannie and Freddie are govt institutions, or was that not mentioned in the many books you've read and didn't understand?

LMAO, I realize "all together" was a bit much if taken literally - but do you read ANYTHING with a hint of restraint, insight and understanding or just look to constantly attack and come across as a clueless fool? Anyone who read with a modicum of common sense what I wrote would get the point being made and what I was referring to.

And I've never respected your opinion, so that really hurt my feelings. Like clockwork you pop-up and take me on, get smacked down for being foolish, and then disappear for about two weeks.

JU-ICE;1316603 wrote:http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/nov/8/picket-companies-plan-massive-layoffs-obamacare-be/

LOL at the Washington Times article blaming Obamacare for these layoffs. Let me tell you that the medical device companies that you've cited are members of an industry that is loaded with bloat. Poor bastards are now going to have to actually compete for their business.

Like it or not, businesses are never at a competive disadvantage when laws are passed to improve the lives of the worker.

When UC laws were enacted, the same cries were heard, When unemployment compensation was enacted as federal law, the same cries were heard. When OSHA laws were enforced, they all cried in unison that their doors would shutter.

I'm pretty familiar with the shananigans that the healthcare industry have pulled (med. device and big pharma)...seeing that I was an employee in that field for almost a decade. The congress bought and paid for by lobbyists have allowed business practices to go on that resemble nothing of the true competition model.

Not happy to see any American lose their jobs....but happy as hell to see that particular industry taking it on the chin because it is long, long overdue.

gut;1316652 wrote:WTF? You do realize that Fannie and Freddie are govt institutions, or was that not mentioned in the many books you've read and didn't understand?

LMAO, I realize "all together" was a bit much if taken literally - but do you read ANYTHING with a hint of restraint, insight and understanding or just look to constantly attack and come across as a clueless fool? Anyone who read with a modicum of common sense what I wrote would get the point being made and what I was referring to.

And I've never respected your opinion, so that really hurt my feelings. Like clockwork you pop-up and take me on, get smacked down for being foolish, and then disappear for about two weeks.

I rarely respond to you because of your inane replies...as was the case up above. But go ahead and let the housing industry return to the ways of 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008...and relive the economic collapse that apparently you think was just the result of bad government policies.

Apparently the three trillion dollars stolen from Americans by a select few collusionists at the top of the financial world food chain is a-OK with your line of thinking.

You have no conscience. Really.

You come here and bitch and moan about the ineptness of Obama, yet the economic depression happened under Bush's watch. And the number one reason for the depression...was the deregulation of the financial industry...and the resultant housing collapse.

Pathetic. yeah, let's let the power brokers run wild again as you have so suggested.

Footwedge;1316646 wrote:SMFH at what I've bolded. We witnessed 4 years ago...3 year time frame yielding the biggest money heist in the history of the planet. And you want to fire the newly put in place police force to prevent the pillage of 3 trillion dollars from happening again?

You witnessed government in the housing industry. What do you think you witnessed? Free markets? Government suppressed interest rates. Government guaranteed loans. Government bailouts promised to the bankrupt banks. Where is the free market?

obama insists on tax increase for the wealthy. I guess the conciliatory tone lasted 24 hours, and then the radical community activist re-emerged.


This country is completely [EMAIL="fuc@&ed"]fuc@&ed[/EMAIL].

Footwedge;1316670 wrote:I rarely respond to you because of your inane replies...

Then try making an actual point and articulating why you disagree. Drop the small ball and maybe you could be capable of engaging in a productive discussion. I mean, the vast majority of people readily understand and make a distinction between regulation and "being in business", and many would also argue the govt should not be "in the business" it seeks to regulate.

Never, NEVER have I said the housing industry is solely the result of govt policies, even within this very thread. So you have, again, demonstrated an inability to read, comprehend and recall (which is why I laugh uncontrollably at every post of yours that begins "I read..."). That's your little small ball game to discredit me because you don't understand the issues and can't articulate a cogent argument.

And if you think I have no conscience because I disagree with the absurd claim of "$3T stolen" (who "stole" it and where is it?) there's really no helping you. It is very telling, however, of your thought process and the sort of books you are supposedly reading. Also, in your warped way of thinking you equate talking about shortcoming and ineffectiveness of regulation as some sort of call for no regulation. I've never done that. How does your thought process work such that criticizing regulation means people favor no regulation?!? Even if you think someone has said or implied that, a little common sense would go a long way. That's the type of strawman arguments you make. My "inane replies" are all in your head dude.

Let me sum up your contributions on these topics: "I read a book. You're wrong".

QuakerOats;1316692 wrote:obama insists on tax increase for the wealthy. I guess the conciliatory tone lasted 24 hours, and then the radical community activist re-emerged.

This country is completely fuc@&ed.

Ehhh, it's the open salvos in negotation. Everyone postures in the beginning. Although I felt Boehner extended somewhat of an olive branch, and perhaps Reid, I don't find Obama's rhetoric particularly encouraging. Seems like he might be doubling-down on the divide & conquer strategy that just won him an election. But let's wait and see.

What do I expect? A new CIA Director. Wow.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/09/david-petraeus-cia-resign-nbc/1695271/

ptown_trojans_1;1316733 wrote:What do I expect? A new CIA Director. Wow.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/09/david-petraeus-cia-resign-nbc/1695271/

"CIA Director David Petraeus has resigned from his post citing an extramarital affair"

Well, yeah, if you can't cover that up you have no business in the Obama administration :laugh:

ptown_trojans_1;1316733 wrote:What do I expect? A new CIA Director. Wow.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/09/david-petraeus-cia-resign-nbc/1695271/

Bush's fault.

BGFalcons82;1316221 wrote:In the next 4 years, we will have:
1. A recession. The economy is not anywhere near strong enough to grow through occasional setbacks. It will be blamed on Bush 43.
2. Further downgrading of our credit rating. There was an article today this is a certainty if the debt limit is raised again. Anyone think it won't be raised? It will be blamed on Bush 43.
3. The dollar will be deflated to its lowest level of all time. Bernacke will be praised for keeping interest rates low through QE-Infinity policies and continued borrowing from anyone and everyone. America is for sale to anyone whi wants to own our worthless currency.
4. Unemployment won't be below 7% for the next 4 years. Obama will be praised for such miraculous job creation.
5. Home values will finally rise to 2008 values in 2016. Obama will be praised for building back everything Bush 43 destroyed. 8 years of ostensibly 0% growth will be portrayed as worthy of Rushmore inclusion by the media.
6. Median income will continue its slide, exascerbated by the coming recession and job losses. Government will provide over 100 weeks unemployment benefits.
7. Foodstamp usage will increas by 1/3. It will be hailed as humanitarian and visionary.
8. California, Illinois and Michigan will apply for and receive a federal bailout for their malfeasance. Further, these states will see their population decrease as people flee for lower tax rates in the South.
9. Right to Work states will be sued ny Obama. Public unions rejoice and become larger.
10. Growth will average less than 2%. Bush 43 policies will be blamed by Obama and the media a full 8 years after Bush left office. Polls will show Americans agree that Bush 43 caused every down indicator.


There's 10 items and Obamakare will add even more misery. The solution proffered in the Fall of 2016 will be to spend even more and increase it to 27% of GDP. Only government can solve problems created by government...and, of course, George Bush.

Never too late to repent lol.