• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Red warning lights' flashing for global economy

PeteEU said:
....

QE is gone and ECB refuses to do QE, so cheap money is gone

......
Click to expand...

The ECB is not so much refusing to do QE as waiting to see if it is legal.

But cheap money in Europe is certainly still there. A customer of mine just refinanced at 1.55% pa on middle term debt. That is pretty cheap.
 
joG said:
The ECB is not so much refusing to do QE as waiting to see if it is legal.

But cheap money in Europe is certainly still there. A customer of mine just refinanced at 1.55% pa on middle term debt. That is pretty cheap.
Click to expand...

It is legal, but German resistance is the problem. And even if it was not "legal", then it would take under a day to make it legal.. so /shrug.
 
Fearandloathing said:
The OP is wrong. Canada, Germany, Norway are all growing above 2%

After seeing the economic forecasts produced by the independent Bank of Canada, I will allow that Britain and the US are in for hard times again, but as with the '08 crach, some of us were exempt
Click to expand...

What exactly makes the Bank of Canada independent?
 
PeteEU said:
It is legal, but German resistance is the problem. And even if it was not "legal", then it would take under a day to make it legal.. so /shrug.
Click to expand...

It certainly is counter the treaty's wording. There can be no honest doubt there. But it is not yet legal either, as far as I remember. Was it not referred to the European Court to check consistency with the treaty and with the Bundesverfassungsgericht reserving later judgement?
You see, the BVerG would have to decide the opposite of what it said in an earlier decision to make it legal. That is rather ify in on a continent that is growing annoyed with the EU shenanigans.
 
I don't believe all this stuff about the US and UK being the only two good economies that are growing. The drumbeat we've heard for years now about China blowing our doors off just doesn't jive with this.
 
PeteEU said:
Holy **** that falsehood has taken hold. NO, no no no no. No one forced US banks in selling sub-prime mortgages that not even Fannie and Freddy would touch.. which in 2006 was a huge majority of all mortgages.



Again NO. False, Fox News bull****. The only thing the government "mandated" was allowing banks to sell mortgages aka securitize them to Fannie and Freddie Mac and these loans had lower requirements than what the normal market would give out.

However the mortgages that caused the crisis were so ****ty and outside any regulation, that they could not even be securitize through Fannie and Freddie. You had freaking pizza delivery people selling mortgages to out of work people for **** sake.. because banks were allowed to do so as there was no rules against it.

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | Economics | McClatchy DC





Now the irony is, that without Fannie and Freddie... most American home owners would NEVER QUALIFY for a freaking mortgage!



What "socialist policies" and corruption? You right wingers keep throwing that crap out and never back it up with actual facts.
Click to expand...


Its " taken hold " because it's true. Its taken hold because it can be easily proven.

Whats total and complete BS are the Democrat attempts to cover their asses after the Subprime mortgage crisis. Its the same nonsense you just brought up and it can be easily debunked.

In 1993 the Riegle Neal interstate Banking Act was signed by Clinton.

The law tied a banks CRA score directly to their ability to expand and grow by way of merger across State lines.

Then in 1995, the Clinton administration passed a long list of executive orders via his National Homeowner-ship strategy.

Among other things the National Homeowner-ship strategy published banks CRA Scores.

Community organizations and Federal agencies took advantage of this by targeting ( extorting ) banks who had low CRA scores.

For example, Janet Reno bragged in 1998 that JUST the Justice department had already SUCCESSFULLY targeted ( sued ) 13 different lenders and she vowed to target more.

In 1999 HUD settled with AcuBank for 2.1 Billion dollars

Banks were FORCED. Clinton's Treasury Secretary bragged in a E-mail sent to Clinton in 1998 that Clintons new CRA changes had led to a 1 Trillion dollar increase in CRA commitments.

Clinton's National Homeowner-ship strategy also lowered the GSEs Capital requirements on loans purchased down to 3 percent and it increased their HUD " affordable lending " quota to 42 percent.

It also gave the GSEs " affordable lending " credit for their purchase of Subprime securities.

So as usual you have no idea what your'e talking about.

And your stupid little link there has been debunked. The vast majority of those " private sector " subprime loans were being made by a Company called Country Wide.

The GSEs were Country Wides primary consumer. Fannie Mae was their best customer.
 
Fenton said:
Its " taken hold " because it's true. Its taken hold because it can be easily proven.
Click to expand...

LOL no it is not.. only in right wing fantasy land.

Whats total and complete BS are the Democrat attempts to cover their asses after the Subprime mortgage crisis. Its the same nonsense you just brought up and it can be easily debunked.

In 1993 the Riegle Neal interstate Banking Act was signed by Clinton.

The law tied a banks CRA score directly to their ability to expand and grow by way of merger across State lines.

Then in 1995, the Clinton administration passed a long list of executive orders via his National Homeowner-ship strategy.

Among other things the National Homeowner-ship strategy published banks CRA Scores.

Community organizations and Federal agencies took advantage of this by targeting ( extorting ) banks who had low CRA scores.

For example, Janet Reno bragged in 1998 that JUST the Justice department had already SUCCESSFULLY targeted ( sued ) 13 different lenders and she vowed to target more.

In 1999 HUD settled with AcuBank for 2.1 Billion dollars

Banks were FORCED. Clinton's Treasury Secretary bragged in a E-mail sent to Clinton in 1998 that Clintons new CRA changes had led to a 1 Trillion dollar increase in CRA commitments.

Clinton's National Homeowner-ship strategy also lowered the GSEs Capital requirements on loans purchased down to 3 percent and it increased their HUD " affordable lending " quota to 42 percent.

It also gave the GSEs " affordable lending " credit for their purchase of Subprime securities.

So as usual you have no idea what your'e talking about.
Click to expand...

Actually you are the one who has no idea what you are talking about. The above loans had a 2-3% default rate when the crisis was full blown with 30%+ default rate among the real problem... the unregulated private sector.

And your stupid little link there has been debunked. The vast majority of those " private sector " subprime loans were being made by a Company called Country Wide.

The GSEs were Country Wides primary consumer. Fannie Mae was their best customer.
Click to expand...

Yes and guess what.. Fannie and Freddie did not securitize the ****ing loans that actually were the root cause of the problem.. because they were not allowed too. And saying that Fannie/Freddie were "customers" is a bit strange. Countrywide was lending money and if those loans met the requirements set out by Fannie and Freddie, then these 2 institutions would buy aka securitize the loans. Since Countrywide was by far the largest lender in the US, the of course a lot of the legal loans went to Fannie/Freddie, since that is how the system is built... to push money into the banks so they can lend more, and doing it by Fannie and Freddie securitizing the loans they have. That is their whole freaking job.

Stop spreading freaking lies about what happen just because you hate Fannie and Freddie. It is a well established fact that the unregulated sub-prime mortgage created after the removal of Glass-Segall in 1996, was the root cause of the whole mess. It is also a fact that by the time the collapse happened, Fannie and Freddie were only holding aka securitizing under 50% of all loans consider "sub-prime". The rest... private sector and too crappy to be securitized by Fannie and Freddie. It is also a fact, that if it was not for Fannie and Freddie, then most Americans would be renters instead of owners..

Your view is a lie, and has been invented by far right wing think tanks and certain politicians.. it is simply not true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/opinion/nocera-the-big-lie.html?_r=0

Thus has Peter Wallison, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and a former member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, almost single-handedly created the myth that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the financial crisis. His partner in crime is another A.E.I. scholar, Edward Pinto, who a very long time ago was Fannie’s chief credit officer. Pinto claims that as of June 2008, 27 million “risky” mortgages had been issued — “and a lion’s share was on Fannie and Freddie’s books,” as Wallison wrote recently. Never mind that his definition of “risky” is so all-encompassing that it includes mortgages with extremely low default rates as well as those with default rates nearing 30 percent. These latter mortgages were the ones created by the unholy alliance between subprime lenders and Wall Street. Pinto’s numbers are the Big Lie’s primary data point.
Click to expand...

Private Wall Street Companies Caused The Financial Crisis — Not Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Or The Community Reinvestment Act | Political Correction

Financial Crisis Narrative Flunks Reality Check: Jonathan Weil - Bloomberg View

and many many other sites out there, that say all the same ... your view is flawed and a lie.
 
PeteEU said:
LOL no it is not.. only in right wing fantasy land.



Actually you are the one who has no idea what you are talking about. The above loans had a 2-3% default rate when the crisis was full blown with 30%+ default rate among the real problem... the unregulated private sector.



Yes and guess what.. Fannie and Freddie did not securitize the ****ing loans that actually were the root cause of the problem.. because they were not allowed too. And saying that Fannie/Freddie were "customers" is a bit strange. Countrywide was lending money and if those loans met the requirements set out by Fannie and Freddie, then these 2 institutions would buy aka securitize the loans. Since Countrywide was by far the largest lender in the US, the of course a lot of the legal loans went to Fannie/Freddie, since that is how the system is built... to push money into the banks so they can lend more, and doing it by Fannie and Freddie securitizing the loans they have. That is their whole freaking job.

Stop spreading freaking lies about what happen just because you hate Fannie and Freddie. It is a well established fact that the unregulated sub-prime mortgage created after the removal of Glass-Segall in 1996, was the root cause of the whole mess. It is also a fact that by the time the collapse happened, Fannie and Freddie were only holding aka securitizing under 50% of all loans consider "sub-prime". The rest... private sector and too crappy to be securitized by Fannie and Freddie. It is also a fact, that if it was not for Fannie and Freddie, then most Americans would be renters instead of owners..

Your view is a lie, and has been invented by far right wing think tanks and certain politicians.. it is simply not true.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/opinion/nocera-the-big-lie.html?_r=0



Private Wall Street Companies Caused The Financial Crisis — Not Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Or The Community Reinvestment Act | Political Correction

Financial Crisis Narrative Flunks Reality Check: Jonathan Weil - Bloomberg View

and many many other sites out there, that say all the same ... your view is flawed and a lie.
Click to expand...



LOL !!

Grahm- Leach- Bliley was passed in 1999 space cadet, NOT 1996.

Who's lying now ?

Fannie and Freddie didn't securitize Subprime loans ? They weren't " allowed too " ?

In 1998, A YEARS BEFORE Grahm -Leach - Bliley, Freddie Mac guaranteed 380 Million dollars worth of securities backed by Subprime loans.

Lets see what else the GSEs did that they weren't " allowed to " do.

In 2006 the GSEs for the very first time in their history started submitting their quarterly financial statements to the SEC.

They were exempt prior to 2006 but were compelled by the MASSIVE amount of fraud committed by their Clinton appointed CEO Franklin Raines.

According to the 2011 SEC investigation, the GSEs failed to report 90 percent of their worthless debt in their SEC quarterly filings.

Huh, the SEC isn't a " Right Wing " think tank. So why would they say such a thing ? Because the GSEs were profoundly corrupt.

No amount of links to left wing hack opinion pieces from YOU is going to change that.

Lets try to figure out just how much worthless trash Securities they purchased. ( of-course this doesn't address the amount of trash Securities they created on their own and then distributed out to Capital markets all of the world )

Well, thanks to dip **** Holders law suites a good portion of their worthless debt has been made public.

250 Billion dollars worth of Subprime securities was made public in one law suite alone.

The FED has agreed to buy 1.25 Trillion dollars worth of worthless MBS s through their quantitative easing initiative.

So 1.5 Trillion ? Actually its closer to 2 Trillion if you add in the other law suites.

They were supposedly not ALLOWED to purchase subprime securities .....hmmmm.
 
Fenton said:
If we're in the midst of such a great economic recovery then why are interest rates still down next to nothing ?
Click to expand...

Because that was the Fed's plan... Or were you just not listening the whole time?
 
Luftwaffe said:
Because that was the Fed's plan... Or were you just not listening the whole time?
Click to expand...


The markets sets interest rates genius, not the FED.

The Fed can influence rates to a degree by setting the overnight rate and manipulating the money supply, but ultimately its the markets that have the final say.
 
Fenton said:
The markets sets interest rates genius, not the FED.

The Fed can influence rates to a degree by setting the overnight rate and manipulating the money supply, but ultimately its the markets that have the final say.
Click to expand...

The Fed has INCREDIBLE influence, to the point where I would think it safe to say that they pretty much control interest rates.

They're showcasing the level of control they have right now, they want the rates low, the rates become low. If the Fed wants the rates to stay low, they stay low. That is what we are seeing right now.

Genius
 
Luftwaffe said:
The Fed has INCREDIBLE influence, to the point where I would think it safe to say that they pretty much control interest rates.

They're showcasing the level of control they have right now, they want the rates low, the rates become low. If the Fed wants the rates to stay low, they stay low. That is what we are seeing right now.

Genius
Click to expand...


" Incredible " ??

If investors doubt that their principle in treasuries will be returned it doesn't matter what the FED does, interest rates are going up.

So no, its not " safe to say " they control interest rates.

Because the truth is in the end they dont, the markets do.
 
Fenton said:
" Incredible " ??

If investors doubt that their principle in treasuries will be returned it doesn't matter what the FED does, interest rates are going up.

So no, its not " safe to say " they control interest rates.

Because the truth is in the end they dont, the markets do.
Click to expand...

If means nothing to me.

The FED made a goal, keep interest rates low. The FED took action. The FED 100% got its goal and continues to do so this very second we are arguing.

That is a pretty sound level of control.
 
Luftwaffe said:
If means nothing to me.

The FED made a goal, keep interest rates low. The FED took action. The FED 100% got its goal and continues to do so this very second we are arguing.

That is a pretty sound level of control.
Click to expand...


Of-course it means nothing to you. You're wrong and can't admit otherwise.

The value of humility is lost on the young.
 
Fenton said:
Of-course it means nothing to you. You're wrong and can't admit otherwise.

The value of humility is lost on the young.
Click to expand...

The value of intelligence is lost on the senile.
 
Fenton said:
Gas prices are falling because the Saudi's are trying to drive their competitors out of bussiness.

Lowering their prices on their product to make exploration unprofitable.

Their competitors of-course would be the US fracking industry

If they can get it down to around 60 bucks a barrel for a extended amount of time they might just succeed.

As for Global economic data that shows things are " improving " ? I don't trust it one bit.

Especially ANYTHING out of the US Government.

If we're in the midst of such a great economic recovery then why are interest rates still down next to nothing ?
Click to expand...

The Saudi price followed Kerry's visit to Saudi Arabia when he got them to lower the price to create BIG pressure on the Russian economy because the Russians aren't kissing butt like Obama and the Neocons think he should. Russia is a threat to their economic smoke and mirrors fiat printing presses. Also, some Nations, particularly Japan are trying to devalue their currencies to help their export businesses. It's known as "beggaring thy neighbor," and usually starts a chain reaction involving many Nations. The large size of the fiat money banks (USA, UK, ECB, Japan) has given those Nations 60% of total world assets and with the USA having reserve currency status, even allowing it does not have reserves to cover its' debts, but does allow the USA to create currency like blank checks and the World accepts this. The current alliances developing between BRICS, new Banks, especially China and Asian nations bodes a sea change in money SOON. The USA is able to print money endlessly and spend it as if it is backed by something because the USA controls the UK, ECB, and Japan with debt. China and Saudi Arabia are semi-trapped because they have so much of their surplus reserves in US Treasuries. All the trapped Nations work together to make sure their investments in US Treasuries don't tank. Commodities are manipulated, currencies are manipulated, banks and Nations are manipulated and that is what has come of "Too big to fail" banking practices. One great big cluster****, don't ya' know?
 
DaveFagan said:
The Saudi price followed Kerry's visit to Saudi Arabia when he got them to lower the price to create BIG pressure on the Russian economy because the Russians aren't kissing butt like Obama and the Neocons think he should. Russia is a threat to their economic smoke and mirrors fiat printing presses. Also, some Nations, particularly Japan are trying to devalue their currencies to help their export businesses. It's known as "beggaring thy neighbor," and usually starts a chain reaction involving many Nations. The large size of the fiat money banks (USA, UK, ECB, Japan) has given those Nations 60% of total world assets and with the USA having reserve currency status, even allowing it does not have reserves to cover its' debts, but does allow the USA to create currency like blank checks and the World accepts this. The current alliances developing between BRICS, new Banks, especially China and Asian nations bodes a sea change in money SOON. The USA is able to print money endlessly and spend it as if it is backed by something because the USA controls the UK, ECB, and Japan with debt. China and Saudi Arabia are semi-trapped because they have so much of their surplus reserves in US Treasuries. All the trapped Nations work together to make sure their investments in US Treasuries don't tank. Commodities are manipulated, currencies are manipulated, banks and Nations are manipulated and that is what has come of "Too big to fail" banking practices. One great big cluster****, don't ya' know?
Click to expand...


Its all just a Global iniative of kick the proverbial can down the road.

Thats all it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom