Stimulus Spending Doesn't Work

[Incorruptible]

Proof that government caused the crisis

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...vernment-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/

 

[fskimospy]

Proof that government caused the crisis

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...vernment-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/

lol, an editorial from the codirector of about the furthest right wing think tank on earth blamed the government. Shocker. Of course every other member of the commission he was a part of concluded that Fannie and Freddie were not the driving factor behind the crisis, as have myriad economists, world economic institutions, etc, etc. Not to mention that Fannie and Freddie's share of the subprime market was declining during the boom, not increasing.

But hey, inconvenient information will be ignored by you I'm sure.

 

[Incorruptible]

lol, an editorial from the codirector of about the furthest right wing think tank on earth blamed the government. Shocker. Of course every other member of the commission he was a part of concluded that Fannie and Freddie were not the driving factor behind the crisis, as have myriad economists, world economic institutions, etc, etc. Not to mention that Fannie and Freddie's share of the subprime market was declining during the boom, not increasing.

But hey, inconvenient information will be ignored by you I'm sure.

Your an ignorant liberal, obviously you wont accept that government caused the crisis. If the government was not involved the banks wouldn't have made out those loans because they wouldn't have been bailed out.

 

[fskimospy]

Your an ignorant liberal, obviously you wont accept that government caused the crisis. If the government was not involved the banks wouldn't have made out those loans because they wouldn't have been bailed out.

That's not even the argument that what you linked was making. (he was more trying to dishonestly tie Fannie and Freddie into it)

You can't be this stupid, you must be trolling. Why?

 

[Incorruptible]

That's not even the argument that what you linked was making. (he was more trying to dishonestly tie Fannie and Freddie into it)

You can't be this stupid, you must be trolling. Why?

Fannie and Freddie both share blame, the whole point is that the GOVERNMENT caused the recession not greedy bankers and Wall Street.

Why is there no blame towards the people that took the loans knowing they couldn't afford them? They share blame as well

 

[LegendKiller]

Proof that government caused the crisis

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...vernment-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/

I can give two words to you that undercut that entire article. Subordination and overcollateralization.

 

[jackstar7]

Why is there no blame towards the people that took the loans knowing they couldn't afford them? They share blame as well

You mean blaming the people who are losing/lost their homes? Yeah... I think they know their part in this. What did the bankers lose to teach them a lesson, hmm?

 

[QuantumPion]

I highly suggest watching the PBS film AMERICAN EXPERIENCE - RIDING THE RAILS
(if you can get your hands on it).
Once available on netflix, but no more

I thought it was about hobo's, which it basically was, but more so about the post depression era of "no government".
Not BIG-BAD government (like we hear today), but NO government help.
People were on their own. Period.
Much like what many republicans wish for society today.
Returning back to those good ole days.
Everyone on his/her/their own.

And what got us out of that post depression era? Government stimulus programs.
So strap in, grab a train, elect more republicans, and RIDE THEM RAILS.

Seriously.... watch this if at all possible. So much history.
Much of it forgotten, and destine to be repeated, and sooner than you might think.

Right, no government. Except for the government which passed tarriffs preventing importing and exporting of goods, laws requiring union membership thus locking out the rest of the population from many jobs, and using the power of the Federal Reserve to contract the money supply drying up all credit. Oh yeah, total libertarian paradise there! :hmm:

 

[Incorruptible]

You mean blaming the people who are losing/lost their homes? Yeah... I think they know their part in this. What did the bankers lose to teach them a lesson, hmm?

But many weren't able to afford the homes in the first place and shouldn't have received those loans because there was no way they could afford them. If the government had stayed out of this then these loans wouldn't have been given out and the crisis wouldn't have happened

 

[LegendKiller]

Fannie and Freddie both share blame, the whole point is that the GOVERNMENT caused the recession not greedy bankers and Wall Street.

Why is there no blame towards the people that took the loans knowing they couldn't afford them? They share blame as well

Yeah, damn that government and their CDOs, CDO^2, CDO^3, synethetic CDOs, synthetic CDO^2 and synthetic CDO^3.

Again, what you don't get is that without an ability to offload the mezzanine, subordinate, and overcollaterization portions of a securitization combined with the ability to lever up the balance sheet (which the government took a hands-off approach to), you simply cannot issue any more securitizations, even to the GSEs.

This whole thing comes down to leverage, you cannot lever securitizations to infinity without the ability to offload the worst of the trash, either through CDOs or through synthetic CDOs (CDS).

 

[LunarRay]

Your an ignorant liberal, obviously you wont accept that government caused the crisis. If the government was not involved the banks wouldn't have made out those loans because they wouldn't have been bailed out.

Assuming you're not talking about Fannie Brice and Freddie Prinze, I'd say that the Freddie and Fannie and Ginnie for that matter that I'm talking to are basically a conduit between the mortgage lender and the public investor in such vehicles.

It would seem to me that the lender had regulations to follow regarding credit testing and valuation of assets and perhaps ever seeing if the borrower had a job.... These lenders then send the portfolio to Fred/Fan and freed up their money supply to make more lending...

Since '38 that is what Fannie did... When the bubble burst recently it did so because folks couldn't sell their homes that they felt they could for a profit... the home value dropped and they had no equity so they bailed or couldn't make the payments cuz they didn't have jobs, etc.

How is the Government the culprit in that? Did Government need more cops to insure compliance? That is like saying we need more cops to patrol the streets but we can't afford them so we'll do what we can to thwart crime.... We do have laws in place but we can't make folks obey them... Government can only do so much and beyond that you complain that we waste money on cops and have cops on every corner... where is the break even here?

 

[jackstar7]

But many weren't able to afford the homes in the first place and shouldn't have received those loans because there was no way they could afford them. If the government had stayed out of this then these loans wouldn't have been given out and the crisis wouldn't have happened

You didn't answer my point. These people lose their homes. What do the bankers lose?

 

[Incorruptible]

You didn't answer my point. These people lose their homes. What do the bankers lose?

People will lose their homes especially when they cant afford them, whats the problem?

Apparently you missed the part where I said the bailouts shouldn't have happened.

 

[jackstar7]

People will lose their homes especially when they cant afford them, whats the problem?

Apparently you missed the part where I said the bailouts shouldn't have happened.

And what's going to stop them from happening again? What is the disincentive to the banks to avoid this behavior? What loss did they suffer?

 

[LegendKiller]

And what's going to stop them from happening again? What is the disincentive to the banks to avoid this behavior? What loss did they suffer?

The banks suffered pretty huge losses and their shareholders are still getting hit. Most of the big banks have paid back TARP.

 

[jackstar7]

The banks suffered pretty huge losses and their shareholders are still getting hit. Most of the big banks have paid back TARP.

How do those two things reconcile? They suffered significant losses, but paid back their outstanding debts to the government...with what I have to assume is... profit, no?

 

[Incorruptible]

And what's going to stop them from happening again? What is the disincentive to the banks to avoid this behavior? What loss did they suffer?

This will happen again. I already explained this but if the government didn't bail out the banks this would send a message. Along with the government not getting involved by subsidizing the risk and making it easier for people to borrow who shouldn't be.

Keep the government out of the way and no bailouts is whats needed.

 

[jackstar7]

This will happen again. I already explained this but if the government didn't bail out the banks this would send a message. Along with the government not getting involved by subsidizing the risk and making it easier for people to borrow who shouldn't be.

Keep the government out of the way and no bailouts is whats needed.

Your path leads to an economic downfall the likes of which makes Thunderdome look appealing.

 

[Jhhnn]

People will lose their homes especially when they cant afford them, whats the problem?

Apparently you missed the part where I said the bailouts shouldn't have happened.

Apparently you missed the part where we'd be re-living 1932... only worse, given the much smaller number of banks today.

 

[Bowfinger]

Yeah, damn that government and their CDOs, CDO^2, CDO^3, synethetic CDOs, synthetic CDO^2 and synthetic CDO^3.

Again, what you don't get is that without an ability to offload the mezzanine, subordinate, and overcollaterization portions of a securitization combined with the ability to lever up the balance sheet (which the government took a hands-off approach to), you simply cannot issue any more securitizations, even to the GSEs.

This whole thing comes down to leverage, you cannot lever securitizations to infinity without the ability to offload the worst of the trash, either through CDOs or through synthetic CDOs (CDS).

Crickets.

It looks like someone's out of talking points.

 

[Bird222]

Corporations are afraid to hire new employees because the government makes it so expensive and risky

Corporations will hire more workers when there is more demand for their products than their current workforce can produce.

 

[Abraxas]

Crickets.

It looks like someone's out of talking points.

Oh no, he merely outsourced them to another thread.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2251273

 

[LegendKiller]

Crickets.

It looks like someone's out of talking points.

He's a typical troll. He lobs a bomb, stirs the pot, then runs away like a coward into another thread.

 

[Incorruptible]

Apparently you missed the part where we'd be re-living 1932... only worse, given the much smaller number of banks today.

That's fear mongering and hysteria, that has nothing to do with what I said

 

[Jhhnn]

That's fear mongering and hysteria, that has nothing to do with what I said

No, it merely references the hysteria that occurred both in 1932 & 2008-

http://repowatch.org/

It's the modern version of a bank run.