- Colonel Paul YinglingNobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.
Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.
All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.
Engaging in risk-reward in the private, capitalistic economy voluntarily?
Using government to subsidize home buying on a massive scale?
Seems to be one is an act of freedom in a capitalistic economy.
The other is using government in ways that were neither intended, nor appropriate. <- that's the root cause of the entire discussion (distortion of government power), like it or not.
Sorry, but your apparent understanding of what happened is overly simplistic and contrary to common sense. I had some first hand exposure to what happened here as I did some strategic planning work for a mortgage producer in the middle of the decade: This was a supply-side problem that was allowed to happen because of lack of regulatory oversight. Investment banks created sophisticated financial instruments around mortgages, then pushed mortgage companies to place money with large signing bonuses and kick-backs. These mortgage companies created boiler-room sales operations to push their product out. This house of cards was allowed to happen largley because our individual tax rates were too low and hedge funds were able to get liberal intrepretions of capital gains treatment on otherwise earned income. The low tax rates promoted bonuses and encouraged the concept taking money out of companies (rather than re-investing it). This is also a crude explanation of the meltdown, but a bit more illustrative. A meltdown of this magnitude could only happen if the very fiber of our financial system were threatened, as was the case in 2008, the problem was so sophisticated the very integrity of the world's banking and insurance system was in question.....
What liberal policy are you citing as causing this problem? I have heard some people mindlessly cite the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. Please don't let your ignorance show if you are on that bandwagon. Again, it defies common sense to think that a piece of legislation enacted 31 years prior would cause a problem this grave .. That is on par with nonsensical as believing Obama is not a citizen.
Last edited by upsideguy; 04-26-11 at 02:11 PM.
This happened becuase of low tax rates on hedge funds. This would be funny if it were not so sad. What hedge funds were involved in a major way in this issue. Other than taking sides like Paulson did, which BTW made he billions.
1. Regulatory lending disciplines were relaxed due to a complicit government.
2. Regulatory oversight of Wall St. was virtually non-existent.
3. Investment banks, Bear Sterns, Goldman, Bank of America etc.. found a way to make money off their risky toxic debt.
4. The debt was mounting, and as with all ponzi schemes the influx of new customers generally offsets how much a bank is exposed.
5. As foreclosures were mounting circa 2007 Banks needed a way to make their toxic debt attractive.. enter AIG's AAA rating.
6. AIG began insuring all this debt to the tune of about 547 trillion dollars, giving the potential investor/buyer of this toxic debt the illusion that it was backed by a triple A rating.
7. In late 2007 (If memory serves) defaults on mortgages were up 93% over the previous year. Banks began to notice, hedge Fund managers began to panic, everyone began to panic.
8. 2008 Hedge Fund managers began naked shorting Bear Sterns placing 5-day puts that the stock would fall to less than 50% of its value in five days. (the fix was in)
9. Late March Bear Sterns loses something like 80% of its net worth in five days due to this naked shorting, the fed steps in..
10. The Fed offers JP Morgan a deal of a millennium selling Bear Sterns stock at $2.00 a share, two days later opens up the stock to auction, by that time way too late, Bear Sterns was finished.
11. That same month, and for three months after naked shorting (Read Hedge Funds completely unregulated even to this day) was responsible for the drop of Goldman Sachs, and destroyed Lehman Bros.
12. Naked shorting attacked Citigroup, BoA, and various other institutions, but by this time, the banks caught on. The gig was up, and the Hedge Fund managers knew it before the banks did, and were trying to profit off the collapse that everyone knew was coming.
13. Paulson, and Ben ask congress to bail them out, congress said no.
14. Banks spent inordinate amounts of money lobbying congress, and one week later congress bails out the banks in the first TARP.
Now here's the problem. The new Financial reform bill doesn't address Hedge Funds, it does not eliminate naked shorting, and it ignores a lot of the same regulatory measures that would have stopped this scheme before it started, so make up your own mind why they didn't address it. My guess is that they know the debt is still there, and government insiders (The Fed and the treasury, along with Obama and congress) must leave open a way for them to launder this debt, and slowly absorb it. That means that mom and pop investor is the one that will get hosed again with the next scheme.
They traded paper folks.. They traded something that had zero value, and made trillions of dollars doing it. They encouraged, and down-right forced loan originators to push loans on people that could not afford them, just get them to sign. The banks promised to take their risk from them, just get us the paper to trade..
It was if not illegal, it was unethical, and in my opinion it should have been illegal, and the vehicle that caused it still exists for the next big bubble..
“When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
“Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher
GOP's gamble on the budget pays off, so far - USATODAY.comA new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds that House Republicans, who took a political risk in passing a controversial budget blueprint last week, have survived so far with some key advantages intact as Congress moves toward the debate on raising the debt ceiling, passing the 2012 budget and enacting a long-term deficit plan.
Pessimistic about the economy and the nation’s course, they overwhelmingly blame too much spending for soaring federal deficits and want to rely more on spending cuts than tax hikes to get it under control.
By more than 3-to-1, those surveyed say the deficit stems from too much spending, rather than too little tax revenue.
When it comes to solving the deficit problem, about half of Americans, 48%, want to do it entirely or mostly with spending cuts. Some 37% support an equal mix of spending cuts and tax increases; 11% prefer mostly tax hikes.
Republicans hold a 12-percentage-point edge over Democrats as the party better able to handle the budget, and a 5-point edge on the economy in general.
"We all of us know down here that politics is a tough game. And I don't think there's any point in being Irish if you don't know that the world is going to break your heart eventually."-Daniel Patrick Moynihan, December 5, 1963