Financial meltdown in 2008 was avoidable and plenty of blames to go around

[Ausm]

The right is already rejecting these finding and believe that further deregulation is the answer.

 

[Svnla]

Congress played a part, but the Bush Admin was the prime mover, along with Greenspan's FRB.

It's a given that Wall St will rob anybody and everybody, given the chance, and the Bush Admin gave it to 'em, and cheered them on.

.........I've posted these links before, many times, but you apparently refuse to even click 'em, denial being what it is...

Oh, Bush WAS the prime mover you said? Funny MSN, not FoxNews said otherwise. How do I know? Because I made a thread in 2009 (almost 2 years ago).

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=304034&highlight=

Clinton didn't do it all alone. He had a lot of help from Congress. He was under pressure from a legislature controlled by laissez-faire Republicans who were hellbent on pushing Ronald Reagan's ideology of deregulation and free markets. The repeal of Glass-Steagall passed 90-8 in the Senate and 362-57 in the House.

Greenspan, the virtually universally loved Fed chairman, gave everyone bad advice in regard to interest rates, home ownership and derivatives. Under Levitt at the SEC, Wall Street accounting reached its nadir, only to reveal itself with the WorldCom and Enron scandals after he left office.

Then, Clinton's Republican successor closed the deal. President George W. Bush took the ball into the end zone, making buying a home easier than spelling "FNMA" or "FICO" and removing the last vestiges of capital requirements at U.S. brokerage firms.

Ultimately, however, the big bang -- the wall torn down between brokers and banks -- happened on Clinton's watch.

Funny that your 2 links out of 3 were blogs, very reliable there..NOT. Don't think I heard of New York Sun before, NY Times, yes but not Sun.

I said it in the OP and I will say it again. There are plenty of blames to go around on both parties and everyone that involved.

You were saying something about "denial being what it is"?

 

[Craig234]

Oh, Bush WAS the prime mover you said? Funny MSN, not FoxNews said otherwise. How do I know? Because I made a thread in 2009 (almost 2 years ago).

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=304034&highlight=


Funny that your 2 links out of 3 were blogs, very reliable there..NOT. Don't think I heard of New York Sun before, NY Times, yes but not Sun.

I said it in the OP and I will say it again. There are plenty of blames to go around on both parties and everyone that involved.

You were saying something about "denial being what it is"?

Listen carefully.

The *corrupt agenda* for the benefit of certain people at the expense of many others was bad. The people who tried to serve the public interest and failed were doing good.

That's the issue - then you break it down to the political parties if you want.

As pretty much ever credible book I've seen on the topic says, a lot of this goes back to Reagan and the far right's embrace of an ideology supporting things like deregulation, not just where it was useful but more as a religion, where it caused harm as well. Reagan was the head of a government he hated, and helped prove how the government can do harm, here and abroad (you didn't want to deal with his death squads or Contra terrorists).

The right has consistently supported this ideology and agenda, with a few exceptions.

The Democrats have had a part of the party support it, too - especially the end of Clinton's term. This is the 'corporatist wing' of the Democrats.

The progressive wing of the Democrats has consistently opposed these measures for the most part, and fought for the public interest.

But the issue isn't as simple as 'Democrat vs. Republican', even if one party is much worse than the other overall - it's about the corrupt rich versus the rest of the country.

 

[LegendKiller]

Oh, Bush WAS the prime mover you said? Funny MSN, not FoxNews said otherwise. How do I know? Because I made a thread in 2009 (almost 2 years ago).

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=304034&highlight=


Funny that your 2 links out of 3 were blogs, very reliable there..NOT. Don't think I heard of New York Sun before, NY Times, yes but not Sun.

I said it in the OP and I will say it again. There are plenty of blames to go around on both parties and everyone that involved.

You were saying something about "denial being what it is"?

Ultimately Glass Steagall wouldn't have prevented the situation from happening. The worst I-banks weren't ones that were commercial banks and I-Banks, they were the I-banks only with separate mortgage origination arms.

This is how Bear and Lehman failed and how Goldman was able do what it did.

Thus, Glass-Steagall wouldn't have prevented the worst of the problem. On the other hand, the ability to infinitely leverage mortgages, from underwriting through re-re-re-securitization, could have been prevented by proper regulation of the banks, including Greenspan, Paulson, and Bush (Paulson).

The single biggest problem was Bush (Paulson) allowing the i-banks to go into an uber-leverage orgy of destruction and Greenspan sitting on the sidelines with his ridiculous notion of "creative destruction".

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh, Bush WAS the prime mover you said? Funny MSN, not FoxNews said otherwise. How do I know? Because I made a thread in 2009 (almost 2 years ago).

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=304034&highlight=


Funny that your 2 links out of 3 were blogs, very reliable there..NOT. Don't think I heard of New York Sun before, NY Times, yes but not Sun.

I said it in the OP and I will say it again. There are plenty of blames to go around on both parties and everyone that involved.

You were saying something about "denial being what it is"?

That's right- attack the source when you can't attack the content.

The pic of Gilleran wielding the chainsaw isn't real?

Lee Pickard never said that stuff?

Greenspan never said that stuff, either?

Who would you accept- the Weekly Standard?

PUh-leeze. You stink of denial.

Glass-Steagall was functionally dead at the time of its repeal. The fact that the FRB endorsed the Citi/ Travelers merger made the repeal unstoppable.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/

Yeh, I know TL, DNR...

 

[Svnla]

That's right- attack the source when you can't attack the content.

The pic of Gilleran wielding the chainsaw isn't real?

Lee Pickard never said that stuff?

Greenspan never said that stuff, either?

Who would you accept- the Weekly Standard?

PUh-leeze. You stink of denial.

Glass-Steagall was functionally dead at the time of its repeal. The fact that the FRB endorsed the Citi/ Travelers merger made the repeal unstoppable.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/

Yeh, I know TL, DNR...

Look at my source. MSN is a pretty liberal news source and they even had to say that there were plenty of blames for ALL that involved. NO ONE is saying Bush/Republicans/others are not blameless. I did not see the source in my OP (New York Times) and the previous source from MSN said anything about Bush was the "prime mover" as you said from your sources....did you see this?

Ultimately, however, the big bang -- the wall torn down between brokers and banks -- happened on Clinton's watch.

Let see, MSN and New York Times vs. blogs and New York "Sun"? I will take my sources over yours anytime and most, if not all, will agree. While you are at it, bring on Wiki...and Huffington Post..LOL.

One more thing, did you see I highlighted the part about Bush's involvement? No one is playing "xyz is the ONLY main culpit/primary responsible" blame game, except you, and Craig, and the gang.