Did Bill Clinton cause the banking crisis?

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Repeal of the Glass-Steagall act (this was Clinton) + uber low interest rates (fault for this was Greenspan) + government lending programs (FM&FM) lead to where we are now.

Considering that more than 60% of all mortgages were either Alt-A or subprime non-conforming, F&F didn't cause the problem. Low interest rates didn't cause the problem either, look at the Fed Funds rate vs mortgage rates, there isn't a 1:1 relationship. Long-term rates are set by the market, not by the Fed.

The biggest problem is a lack of regulation in origination or mortgages through eventual disposition of same. 100% leverage from the borrower, to the broker (who never took a position) to the seller/securitizer, to the investor (CDOs), caused the vast majority of the problem. 100% leverage squeezed risk premiums and allowed *nobody* to take the bottom-end risk.

Who caused this lack of regulation and allowance for over-leveraging? Paulson lobbied in 2004 for the i-banks to be allowed to uber-leverage. In 2001 FAS140 was put in place, allowing for off-bs securitizations in a large mass-production effort.

No matter how many times you repeat otherwise, the Fed was the primary cause of the problem. Your denial that the Fed deserves some blame really makes you appear foolish.

Man, I am fucking tired of this. I've tried to lead you to the water but you refuse to drink on your own. Instead, you're fucking lazy and want to be spoon-fed Mises.org and YouTube videos.

Here you have Fed Funds rate vs a 30-year fixed mortgage rate, from 1995 through May 2009. as you can see, the spread between FF is what determines the rate of interest. As you can see, the spread compressed about 60% during the period in question.

As you can see, the long-term rate of mortgages ARE NOT set by the Fed, the Fed drops rates significantly while 30-year fixed rates DO NOT MOVE. Why? Because the market doesn't react to short-term rate movements of the Fed. Furthermore, as you can see from the second chart, the spread as a % of the total mortgage rate balloons out during the periods in question. Why? BECAUSE THE MARKET SETS THE FUCKING RATE!!!!!!!!

http://i21.photobucket.com/alb...gndKiller/FFvs30yr.jpg

http://i21.photobucket.com/alb...274/LgndKiller/FF2.jpg


I expect some bullshit from you next without any data or analysis, or some YouTube or Mises link, which won't provide anything of substance. Please, at least meet my expectations for your failure.

Much of your post is irrelevant. All of those rates are low. And how is that possible? The Fed was pumping way too much new money into the market.

When even Vic states the Fed was the primary source of the problem, and you continue to state otherwise, why should anyone listen to you?

interest rates were low because other countries were saving too much money and lending it in american (and english) financial markets

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
All of what rates are low? Low compared to what? as you can see, even when the Fed drops FF rates, nothing happens (investors use long term rates) because spreads expand to account for term and risk. When the Fed raises rates, spreads contract to account for term and risk.

Do you even know what the term structure of interest rates is? Yield preference? Term preference? Preferred habitat?

No, you have no mother fucking clue how rates are set.

Vic is wrong. No offense to Vic, but he's absolutely wrong, as proven by the charts. The benchmark for mortgages was the 30-year, then the 10, now it has no real benchmark. Why? Because the market sets their own rate. Short-term borrowing rates, influenced by the Fed, don't feed into the long-term rates.

As your post above indicates, you run away from reality and say "But...but...but...HE SAID!"


Please, I'd enjoy for you to refute the DATA, tell me about how the DATA is wrong by posting YOUR OWN DATA. Tell me about term-structures, I'd love to debate it with you.

Ohh, but wait, in order to have a debate you have to actually know something about the subject. It's why you don't debate with your own knowledge, you just post other people's knowledge. It's because you're uselessly stupid and/or lazy.

:laugh: Every time you result to personal attacks, you crack me up, LK. I can just picture you banging on your keyboard.

every time you post, it makes me wonder how long until the cognitive dissonance makes your head explode

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I blame this:

The repeal of Glass-Steagall passed 90-8 in the Senate and 362-57 in the House.

Republican-controlled houses of Congress who passed a veto-proof bill. I'm not quite sure how the OP's article makes the leap that somehow Clinton was responsible for this.

The bill passed 90-8 and yet it is the Republicans fault???

Were there only 8 Democrats in the Senate at that time???

FYI it was 55-45 at the time the bill was passed. The Democrats could have stopped the bill if they wanted or Bill Clinton could have vetoed the bill and stopped it, but they did neither.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Repeal of the Glass-Steagall act (this was Clinton) + uber low interest rates (fault for this was Greenspan) + government lending programs (FM&FM) lead to where we are now.

Clinton didn't repeal Glass-Steagall, Congress did while it was busy at the same time impeaching Clinton for a blowjob. Greenspan provided the Fed policy that was demanded of him (some people forget he was heavily criticized for raising rates leading to the dot-com bubble). And Fannie and Freddie were not 'government lending programs' during the housing boom.

Those complaining of apologists in this thread need to look in a mirror. Or at the very shut the fuck up about topics they know absolutely nothing about, including MSLSD. Seriously.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bamacre
When even Vic states the Fed was the primary source of the problem, and you continue to state otherwise, why should anyone listen to you?

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I have never said the Fed was the primary source of the problem. Not to say that I think the Fed played no part in the blame or anything like that (I don't believe in black-and-whites), but I have repeatedly said here that I believe that primary cause of the problem is plain ol' shortsighted stupidity. This was a classic market bubble, as historical in precedent as tulip bulbs. The simple fact of the matter is that most people are stupid. They buy high and sell low and never learn from their mistakes.

 

[Svnla]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Svnla

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Svnla: Ice cream is responsible for global warming

Moonbeam: CO2 is much more responsible than ice cream.

dphantom: And the apologists rise....

Hummm, nice try...did you read the sub tittle/topic summary or my reply to Robor, especially the highlighted/bold parts?

Did you read the article or my very first post in this thread when I said "not going to be like the extreme left and right in here and yell..."of course it is caused by only that party and not my party"?

Take some time and read, it will do you wonder.

I said what you said and the article said and I did so because of your title question, 'Did Bill Clinton cause the banking crisis?" We both had the same aim, I'm sure, to show that Clinton was not the cause, right?

In other words, why did you create this post? Was it to tie in Clinton to the banking mess or show how the congress led? I think we know the answer and why I emphasized what I did.

One more time, READ THE ARTICLE!!!

Because if you did read it S--L--O--W--L--Y....then you would be able to see the article said and I quote "Did Clinton cause the banking crisis?
A trio of regulatory changes and missteps on the former president's watch let the banks run wild and encouraged the housing bubble. But he had help, of course.
By David Weidner, MarketWatch"

I did NOT make up the headline, the author did write "Did Bill Clinton cause the banking crisis" and he works for MSN, not FOX............. get it yet?? Or shall I need to repeat it again?

Why don't you point out what I said in this thread is not true? Debate me with facts/articles/sources......well???

Neither I or most of the normal <non biased > posters or the article's author said Bill or a person/party was "THE" cause of the crisis....AGAIN, read my reply to Robor long before your want- to- be -cute post about ice cream and global warming. Are you that dense or what? And you've been in for 10 years and an Elite Member?? :disgust:

 

[Moonbeam]

S: One more time, READ THE ARTICLE!!!

M: No. You must imagine I care if I misunderstand you or you misunderstand me.

S: Because if you did read it S--L--O--W--L--Y....then you would be able to see the article said and I quote "Did Clinton cause the banking crisis?

M: That still won't tell me why you posted the article in the manner you did.

S: A trio of regulatory changes and missteps on the former president's watch let the banks run wild and encouraged the housing bubble. But he had help, of course.
By David Weidner, MarketWatch"

M: We know that. That has nothing to do with whether Clinton was to blame.

S: I did NOT make up the headline, the author did write "Did Bill Clinton cause the banking crisis" and he works for MSN, not FOX............. get it yet?? Or shall I need to repeat it again?

M: Wonderful, it doesn't tell me why you repeated in that form.

S: Why don't you point out what I said in this thread is not true? Debate me with facts/articles/sources......well???

M: I am not in a debate with you. I said what I wanted to say. I don't care if it is or isn't what you said, I don't care how you read what I said, or how stupid you think what I said is. I don't care to figure out if I completely misunderstand where you're coming from. Again, I said what I wanted to say and it bore little reference to you. You were never a focus of mine. I know not or care not where you are coming from in this.

S: Neither I or most of the normal <non biased > posters or the article's author said Bill or a person/party was "THE" cause of the crisis....AGAIN, read my reply to Robor long before your want- to- be -cute post about ice cream and global warming.

M: Ice cream and global warming had nothing to do with you. That was directed to another poster who reacted to my saying apparently just what you did.

S: Are you that dense or what? And you've been in for 10 years and an Elite Member??

M: I am uninterested whether I am dense or what, or whether you think I am or am not. I said what I wanted to say. I don't care if you or somebody else thinks it was predicted or anticipated. I don't care if I missed some point you were making. I am not in competition for your praise and am indifferent to your opinion about me. I am not here to impress you that I some how elite. I don't care what you think I am. I posted for me, saying what I wanted to say. It didn't have to be perfect, relevant to what you said, or anything else you want to name. I am not and was not in any kind of a contest with you nor was I focused on you or intent on what you might mean.

I just wanted to say Bill Clinton was not to blame, it was congress and the lobbyists that got the old protections removed. I wanted to give my answer to the question. I don't care what you were trying to say or the author of the article. Did Bill Clinton cause the banking crisis? No. Forgive me if that is or is not what you said, is or is not relevant to your post, does or does not have a thing to do with what you are talking about or the author of the link. Bill Clinton was not the cause of the Banking crisis in my opinion.

Additionally, I don't care if Clinton was or was not the cause if he were the cause but I don't think he was. I am not interested in defending Bill Clinton or apologizing for him. I did not vote for him and recommended to all the women I knew not to also because I was sure he was a woman user that would dishonor his wife and besmirch the Presidency.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bamacre
When even Vic states the Fed was the primary source of the problem, and you continue to state otherwise, why should anyone listen to you?

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I have never said the Fed was the primary source of the problem. Not to say that I think the Fed played no part in the blame or anything like that (I don't believe in black-and-whites), but I have repeatedly said here that I believe that primary cause of the problem is plain ol' shortsighted stupidity. This was a classic market bubble, as historical in precedent as tulip bulbs. The simple fact of the matter is that most people are stupid. They buy high and sell low and never learn from their mistakes.

Heh, interesting. I should have, at first, asked bamacre to prove his assertion that you thought it was the Fed, sorry about that.

Now what bamacre?

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: SammyJr

Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
Good article, but this thread is not going to go well. The current trend is to blame Bush entirely for the current economic meltdown, despite all of the evidence that there were many, many hands involved with this situation and that the problems stretch back years, maybe even decades.

Bush gets a lot of the blame because the shit hit the fan on his watch. If he and his advisers and his Republican Congress had been paying attention, maybe they could have softened the blow or prevented the problem all together. But they didn't because too many of their buddies where getting really, really richer.

Clinton deserves some of the blame for passing a bill allowing Credit Default Swaps, but that could have been quickly turned around if anyone noticed or cared what was happening.

:thumbsup:

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I blame this:

The repeal of Glass-Steagall passed 90-8 in the Senate and 362-57 in the House.

Republican-controlled houses of Congress who passed a veto-proof bill. I'm not quite sure how the OP's article makes the leap that somehow Clinton was responsible for this.

The bill passed 90-8 and yet it is the Republicans fault???

Were there only 8 Democrats in the Senate at that time???

FYI it was 55-45 at the time the bill was passed. The Democrats could have stopped the bill if they wanted or Bill Clinton could have vetoed the bill and stopped it, but they did neither.

Whomever is in control of Congress gets the blame. Where have you been?

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The repeal of Glass-Steagall passed 90-8 in the Senate and 362-57 in the House."

You're admitting that a good majority of Democrats also voted to repeal the Glass-Steagall act? My understanding is that it was one of those bills where the Democrats stuck something in it that they wanted passed and that's the reason they voted for it.

Which is why politics in this country is so hopelessly broken.

Once the ball got rolling, it was impossible to stop. Can you imagine a politician popping the bubble artificially? Most of our politicians/elected officials has shown no political courage to do what's right for our people. They only cozy up to lobbyists.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The repeal of Glass-Steagall passed 90-8 in the Senate and 362-57 in the House."

You're admitting that a good majority of Democrats also voted to repeal the Glass-Steagall act?

Fact check, please:

Respective versions of the legislation were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001.

Ahh, the source of the bill is 3 Republican Congressmen. Go figure!

The House passed its version of the Financial Services Act of 1999 on July 1st by a bipartisan vote of 343-86 (|Republicans 205?16; Democrats 138?69; Independent/Socialist 0?1),[3] [4] [5] two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill on May 6th by a much-narrower 54?44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed)

While it appears the House Dems rolled over to some degree, it was almost universally opposed in the Senate.

When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30th by a vote of 241-132 (R 58-131; D 182-1; Ind. 1?0) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law which ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy as well as "robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities" (i.e., protection against exclusionary redlining).

Hmmmm, strangely, I'm still not seeing that vote you're referring to.

The bill then moved to a joint conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November.[8] [11] On November 4th, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8,[12] [13] and by the House 362-57.[14] [15] This legislation (whose voting margins, if repeated, would easily have overcome any Presidential veto) was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999

Ahh, there it is. Looks like the Dems were bribed with some strengthened anti-redlining laws, etc. Lame.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bamacre
When even Vic states the Fed was the primary source of the problem, and you continue to state otherwise, why should anyone listen to you?

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I have never said the Fed was the primary source of the problem. Not to say that I think the Fed played no part in the blame or anything like that (I don't believe in black-and-whites), but I have repeatedly said here that I believe that primary cause of the problem is plain ol' shortsighted stupidity. This was a classic market bubble, as historical in precedent as tulip bulbs. The simple fact of the matter is that most people are stupid. They buy high and sell low and never learn from their mistakes.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=52&threadid=2234644

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: bamacre
I blame the Fed for shoving the money out. Low interest rates lead to malinvestment.

Only if you believe in the nonsense of Ron Paul Economics.

I think it's inarguable that artificially low interest rates fueled excessive borrowing, which was the primary cause of all this (although not the only cause by a long shot).

You don't need to be a Ron Paul follower to see that.

 

[nobodyknows]

^^^

:laugh:

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: alphatarget1

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The repeal of Glass-Steagall passed 90-8 in the Senate and 362-57 in the House."

You're admitting that a good majority of Democrats also voted to repeal the Glass-Steagall act? My understanding is that it was one of those bills where the Democrats stuck something in it that they wanted passed and that's the reason they voted for it.

Which is why politics in this country is so hopelessly broken.

Once the ball got rolling, it was impossible to stop. Can you imagine a politician popping the bubble artificially? Most of our politicians/elected officials has shown no political courage to do what's right for our people. They only cozy up to lobbyists.

Yes, both sides were guilty, cept the Republicans had both majorities, which makes them more guilty.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Yes, both sides were guilty, cept the Republicans had both majorities, which makes them more guilty.

Partisan Hackery, Engage!

 

[alphatarget1]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Yes, both sides were guilty, cept the Republicans had both majorities, which makes them more guilty.

Democrats in the Senate could've filibustered and killed it but they didn't.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Yes, both sides were guilty, cept the Republicans had both majorities, which makes them more guilty.

Partisan Hackery, Engage!

Republican cloaking device, engage!

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Yes, both sides were guilty, cept the Republicans had both majorities, which makes them more guilty.

Partisan Hackery, Engage!

Republican cloaking device, engage!

Yeah, you got me. I'm a Republican. It's quite well known around here in fact that I'm the biggest Republican cheerleader on the forum.

Try again, fool.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Yes, both sides were guilty, cept the Republicans had both majorities, which makes them more guilty.

Partisan Hackery, Engage!

Republican cloaking device, engage!

Yeah, you got me. I'm a Republican. It's quite well known around here in fact that I'm the biggest Republican cheerleader on the forum.

Try again, fool.

Remember when the Republicans called us "liberals?"

Oh how things change. Or don't.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Yes, both sides were guilty, cept the Republicans had both majorities, which makes them more guilty.

Partisan Hackery, Engage!

Republican cloaking device, engage!

Yeah, you got me. I'm a Republican. It's quite well known around here in fact that I'm the biggest Republican cheerleader on the forum.

Try again, fool.

Logically, one party vs. the other is more to blame. There's no f'ing way it's 50-50. So let's figure it out: Which party is more to blame?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bamacre
When even Vic states the Fed was the primary source of the problem, and you continue to state otherwise, why should anyone listen to you?

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I have never said the Fed was the primary source of the problem. Not to say that I think the Fed played no part in the blame or anything like that (I don't believe in black-and-whites), but I have repeatedly said here that I believe that primary cause of the problem is plain ol' shortsighted stupidity. This was a classic market bubble, as historical in precedent as tulip bulbs. The simple fact of the matter is that most people are stupid. They buy high and sell low and never learn from their mistakes.

http://forums.anandtech.com/me...id=52&threadid=2234644

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: bamacre
I blame the Fed for shoving the money out. Low interest rates lead to malinvestment.

Only if you believe in the nonsense of Ron Paul Economics.

I think it's inarguable that artificially low interest rates fueled excessive borrowing, which was the primary cause of all this (although not the only cause by a long shot).

You don't need to be a Ron Paul follower to see that.

Uhh... I think you should read my posts again.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Yes, both sides were guilty, cept the Republicans had both majorities, which makes them more guilty.

Partisan Hackery, Engage!

Republican cloaking device, engage!

Yeah, you got me. I'm a Republican. It's quite well known around here in fact that I'm the biggest Republican cheerleader on the forum.

Try again, fool.

Logically, one party vs. the other is more to blame. There's no f'ing way it's 50-50. So let's figure it out: Which party is more to blame?

Logically, the reason it's not 50-50 is because the parties, even collectively, do not have absolute control of this country.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Vic
Uhh... I think you should read my posts again.

BTW, I didn't post that as an attack, just for context and perhaps clarification.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that while artificially low interest rates certainly provided the opportunity, the stupid who took advantage are more to blame?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Yes, both sides were guilty, cept the Republicans had both majorities, which makes them more guilty.

Partisan Hackery, Engage!

Republican cloaking device, engage!

Yeah, you got me. I'm a Republican. It's quite well known around here in fact that I'm the biggest Republican cheerleader on the forum.

Try again, fool.

Logically, one party vs. the other is more to blame. There's no f'ing way it's 50-50. So let's figure it out: Which party is more to blame?

More to blame. You hacks are hilarious.