Wall Street Whitewash

techs

Lifer
Sep 26, 2000
28,559
4
0
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/17/opinion/17krugman.html?_r=1&src=ISMR_HP_LO_MST_FB

Wall Street Whitewash

by Paul Krugman, Nobel Prize winning economist:

When the financial crisis struck, many people — myself included — considered it a teachable moment. Above all, we expected the crisis to remind everyone why banks need to be effectively regulated.

How naïve we were. We should have realized that the modern Republican Party is utterly dedicated to the Reaganite slogan that government is always the problem, never the solution. And, therefore, we should have realized that party loyalists, confronted with facts that don’t fit the slogan, would adjust the facts.

Which brings me to the case of the collapsing crisis commission.

The bipartisan Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission was established by law to “examine the causes, domestic and global, of the current financial and economic crisis in the United States.” The hope was that it would be a modern version of the Pecora investigation of the 1930s, which documented Wall Street abuses and helped pave the way for financial reform.

Instead, however, the commission has broken down along partisan lines, unable to agree on even the most basic points.

It’s not as if the story of the crisis is particularly obscure. First, there was a widely spread housing bubble, not just in the United States, but in Ireland, Spain, and other countries as well. This bubble was inflated by irresponsible lending, made possible both by bank deregulation and the failure to extend regulation to “shadow banks,” which weren’t covered by traditional regulation but nonetheless engaged in banking activities and created bank-type risks.

Then the bubble burst, with hugely disruptive consequences. It turned out that Wall Street had created a web of interconnection nobody understood, so that the failure of Lehman Brothers, a medium-size investment bank, could threaten to take down the whole world financial system.

It’s a straightforward story, but a story that the Republican members of the commission don’t want told. Literally.

Last week, reports Shahien Nasiripour of The Huffington Post, all four Republicans on the commission voted to exclude the following terms from the report: “deregulation,” “shadow banking,” “interconnection,” and, yes, “Wall Street.”

When Democratic members refused to go along with this insistence that the story of Hamlet be told without the prince, the Republicans went ahead and issued their own report, which did, indeed, avoid using any of the banned terms.

That report is all of nine pages long, with few facts and hardly any numbers. Beyond that, it tells a story that has been widely and repeatedly debunked — without responding at all to the debunkers.

In the world according to the G.O.P. commissioners, it’s all the fault of government do-gooders, who used various levers — especially Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored loan-guarantee agencies — to promote loans to low-income borrowers. Wall Street — I mean, the private sector — erred only to the extent that it got suckered into going along with this government-created bubble.

It’s hard to overstate how wrongheaded all of this is. For one thing, as I’ve already noted, the housing bubble was international — and Fannie and Freddie weren’t guaranteeing mortgages in Latvia. Nor were they guaranteeing loans in commercial real estate, which also experienced a huge bubble.

Beyond that, the timing shows that private players weren’t suckered into a government-created bubble. It was the other way around. During the peak years of housing inflation, Fannie and Freddie were pushed to the sidelines; they only got into dubious lending late in the game, as they tried to regain market share.

But the G.O.P. commissioners are just doing their job, which is to sustain the conservative narrative. And a narrative that absolves the banks of any wrongdoing, that places all the blame on meddling politicians, is especially important now that Republicans are about to take over the House.

Last week, Spencer Bachus, the incoming G.O.P. chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, told The Birmingham News that “in Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks.”

He later tried to walk the remark back, but there’s no question that he and his colleagues will do everything they can to block effective regulation of the people and institutions responsible for the economic nightmare of recent years. So they need a cover story saying that it was all the government’s fault.

In the end, those of us who expected the crisis to provide a teachable moment were right, but not in the way we expected. Never mind relearning the case for bank regulation; what we learned, instead, is what happens when an ideology backed by vast wealth and immense power confronts inconvenient facts. And the answer is, the facts lose.




This is why America is doomed. When ideology trumps fact we just continue down the rabbit hole. There really is no truth anymore, just partisan propaganda from the right.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
When ideology trumps fact we just continue down the rabbit hole.

There really is no truth anymore, just partisan propaganda from the right.

Do you wake up in the morning and say, "How can I make myself sound more like a partisan douchebag while exemplifying irony today?"... or does it just happen?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Do you wake up in the morning and say, "How can I make myself sound more like a partisan douchebag while exemplifying irony today?"... or does it just happen?

So, uhh, You're defending the Republican story line, or what?
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,330
126
You know what would put an end to that line of BS from the Republicans?

Indictments of the banksters who are guilty of massive amounts of fraud and various other illegal activities that helped get us here, thats what.

So how many indictments has the Obama Justice Department handed out in the two years that the Dems had complete control of the House, Senate, and Executive?
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
This is why America is doomed. When ideology trumps fact we just continue down the rabbit hole. There really is no truth anymore, just partisan propaganda from the right.

Because hey, the left never engages in partisan propaganda! :rolleyes:

Were you ever not a partisan hack troll?
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
It's pretty foolish to set the blame on either "Wall street" or government sponsorship or low income housing. Blame goes all around, from gov't and deregulation/excess leverage to securitization to people that lied on their mortgages, to rating agencies, to bond issurers ... and the list goes on and on.

If you sold your house before 07, you're part to blame also.

The only thing I really take issue with is the notion that nobody understands these "complex financial instruments".
 

brencat

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2007
2,170
3
76
It's pretty foolish to set the blame on either "Wall street" or government sponsorship or low income housing. Blame goes all around, but the root cause that led to all the bad stuff that came after is cheap money from the Fed.

Fixed for you
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
Krugman LOL, NEXT please.
Also, Nobel prize is a too much a political pat on the back to be anything valuable anymore.
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
Ron Paul nonsense

Ha yeah, except that the central bank of canada ran essentially identical rate policy and they didn't experience anywhere near the dislocation that we did.

But don't let empirical evidence impact your nuttery and dogma...

fed-701983.jpg
 
Last edited:

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
This plus the fact that the Republicans are on record saying they would block all legislation through the Senate until the Bush era tax cuts for the rich were extended should clearly state to one and all that the only true constituency of the Republican party is the very wealthy. They do not have the best interests of the entire country at heart, only their own.
 

brencat

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2007
2,170
3
76
Ha yeah, except that the central bank of canada ran essentially identical rate policy and they didn't experience anywhere near the dislocation that we did.

But don't let empirical evidence impact your nuttery and dogma...

<snipped image>]

Funny picture...

What can I tell you? Maybe Canadians have a lot more common sense, character, and are a lot less greedy and jealous than Americans are. And them not having the mortgage deduction also disincentivizes people from the goal of home ownership 'at all costs' like here.

Regardless, if you tempt a guy on a diet (saver / austerity) with a chocolate cake (cheap rates / available credit) long enough, eventually he will bite (take out huge mortgage). That is what the Fed did following the collapse of the first stock market bubble. We just papered over the losses with cheap money and created a massive credit bubble in its place. But the debt is still there after it blows up, unlike stock investors who can just take their losses and move on.

I'm hardly a Ron Paul nutjob, but nobody can convince me otherwise that all the other bad stuff that followed can't be traced back to cheap money and too low interest rates as the root cause.

Cheap money --> people don't save --> seniors/retirees get hurt --> institutional investors 'reach for yield' --> banks create leveraged products to satisfy demand from said investors --> initial success = more leveraged products --> public gets involved --> inflation, which drives commodities and hard asset prices higher --> on and on and on.

Meanwhile the debt remains. But that's okay, we suspended FASB mark to market accounting rules. Can't have that toxic sh*t priced at par marked to its true clearing price of 40 cents on the dollar, right?

Or how about those HLOCs marked at par on bank balance sheets on houses where the 1st mortgage hasn't been paid in over a year? Can't foreclose right?...or those HLOCs as subordinated/2nd lien debt become worthless.

And the debt remains. We are so fvcked.
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126

Thank you. Seeing your link, I'm planning to go see this today.

There are so many good documentaries that have some great info but are just flawed in ways, it's hard to think of one to just say 'it's all great' with no qualifiers.

The trailer for this one looks just great.

Wonder if it has much chance to stir the public to demanding more from government - I don't think so with the new Republican house, unfortunately.

They're clearly shameless and almost immune to any public condemnation, based on their Senate counterpart's hostage taking for the top 2&#37; tax cuts.
 
Last edited:

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Funny picture...

What can I tell you? Maybe Canadians have a lot more common sense, character, and are a lot less greedy and jealous than Americans are. And them not having the mortgage deduction also disincentivizes people from the goal of home ownership 'at all costs' like here.

Regardless, if you tempt a guy on a diet (saver / austerity) with a chocolate cake (cheap rates / available credit) long enough, eventually he will bite (take out huge mortgage). That is what the Fed did following the collapse of the first stock market bubble. We just papered over the losses with cheap money and created a massive credit bubble in its place. But the debt is still there after it blows up, unlike stock investors who can just take their losses and move on.

I'm hardly a Ron Paul nutjob, but nobody can convince me otherwise that all the other bad stuff that followed can't be traced back to cheap money and too low interest rates as the root cause.

Cheap money --> people don't save --> seniors/retirees get hurt --> institutional investors 'reach for yield' --> banks create leveraged products to satisfy demand from said investors --> initial success = more leveraged products --> public gets involved --> inflation, which drives commodities and hard asset prices higher --> on and on and on.

Meanwhile the debt remains. But that's okay, we suspended FASB mark to market accounting rules. Can't have that toxic sh*t priced at par marked to its true clearing price of 40 cents on the dollar, right?

Or how about those HLOCs marked at par on bank balance sheets on houses where the 1st mortgage hasn't been paid in over a year? Can't foreclose right?...or those HLOCs as subordinated/2nd lien debt become worthless.

And the debt remains. We are so fvcked.
Somehow, you've completely omitted the gross negligence and outright fraud committed by the banks. Excerpts from Wikipedia's article on the Financial Crisis of 2007 to 2010:

Weak and fraudulent underwriting practice

Testimony given to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission by Richard M. Bowen, III on events during his tenure as Citi's Business Chief Underwriter for Correspondent Lending in the Consumer Lending Group (where he was responsible for over 220 professional underwriters) suggests that by the final years of the US housing bubble (2006–2007), the collapse of mortgage underwriting standards was endemic. His testimony states that by 2006, 60% of mortgages purchased by Citi from some 1,600 mortgage companies were "defective" (were not underwritten to policy, or did not contain all policy-required documents). This, despite the fact that each of these 1,600 originators were contractually responsible (certified via representations and warrantees) that their mortgage originations met Citi's standards. Moreover, during 2007, "defective mortgages (from mortgage originators contractually bound to perform underwriting to Citi's standards) increased... to over 80% of production".

In separate testimony to Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, officers of Clayton Holdings—the largest residential loan due diligence and securitization surveillance company in the United States and Europe—testified that Clayton's review of over 900,000 mortgages issued from January 2006 to June 2007 revealed that scarcely 54% of the loans met their originators’ underwriting standards. The analysis (conducted on behalf of 23 investment and commercial banks, including 7 "Too Big To Fail" banks) additionally showed that 28% of the sampled loans did not meet the minimal standards of any issuer. Clayton's analysis further showed that 39% of these loans (i.e. those not meeting any issuer's minimal underwriting standards) were subsequently securitized and sold to investors.
.
.
.
Predatory lending

Predatory lending refers to the practice of unscrupulous lenders, to enter into "unsafe" or "unsound" secured loans for inappropriate purposes. A classic bait-and-switch method was used by Countrywide Financial, advertising low interest rates for home refinancing. Such loans were written into extensively detailed contracts, and swapped for more expensive loan products on the day of closing. Whereas the advertisement might state that 1% or 1.5% interest would be charged, the consumer would be put into an adjustable rate mortgage (ARM) in which the interest charged would be greater than the amount of interest paid. This created negative amortization, which the credit consumer might not notice until long after the loan transaction had been consummated.

Countrywide, sued by California Attorney General Jerry Brown for "unfair business practices" and "false advertising" was making high cost mortgages "to homeowners with weak credit, adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) that allowed homeowners to make interest-only payments". When housing prices decreased, homeowners in ARMs then had little incentive to pay their monthly payments, since their home equity had disappeared. This caused Countrywide's financial condition to deteriorate, ultimately resulting in a decision by the Office of Thrift Supervision to seize the lender.

Former employees from Ameriquest, which was United States's leading wholesale lender, described a system in which they were pushed to falsify mortgage documents and then sell the mortgages to Wall Street banks eager to make fast profits. There is growing evidence that such mortgage frauds may be a cause of the crisis.

Not to mention the effects of deregulation of the banking industry:

Deregulation
Further information: Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis

Critics[who?] have argued that the regulatory framework did not keep pace with financial innovation, such as the increasing importance of the shadow banking system, derivatives and off-balance sheet financing. In other cases, laws were changed or enforcement weakened in parts of the financial system. Key examples include:

* Jimmy Carter's Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (DIDMCA) phased out a number of restrictions on banks' financial practices, broadened their lending powers, and raised the deposit insurance limit from $40,000 to $100,000 (raising the problem of moral hazard).
Banks rushed into real estate lending, speculative lending, and other ventures just as the economy soured.
* In October 1982, U.S. President Ronald Reagan signed into Law the Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act, which provided for adjustable-rate mortgage loans, began the process of banking deregulation, and contributed to the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s/early 1990s.
* In November 1999, U.S. President Bill Clinton signed into Law the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. This repeal has been criticized for reducing the separation between commercial banks (which traditionally had a conservative culture) and investment banks (which had a more risk-taking culture).
* In 2004, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission relaxed the net capital rule, which enabled investment banks to substantially increase the level of debt they were taking on, fueling the growth in mortgage-backed securities supporting subprime mortgages. The SEC has conceded that self-regulation of investment banks contributed to the crisis.
* Financial institutions in the shadow banking system are not subject to the same regulation as depository banks, allowing them to assume additional debt obligations relative to their financial cushion or capital base. This was the case despite the Long-Term Capital Management debacle in 1998, where a highly-leveraged shadow institution failed with systemic implications.
* Regulators and accounting standard-setters allowed depository banks such as Citigroup to move significant amounts of assets and liabilities off-balance sheet into complex legal entities called structured investment vehicles, masking the weakness of the capital base of the firm or degree of leverage or risk taken. One news agency estimated that the top four U.S. banks will have to return between $500 billion and $1 trillion to their balance sheets during 2009. This increased uncertainty during the crisis regarding the financial position of the major banks. Off-balance sheet entities were also used by Enron as part of the scandal that brought down that company in 2001.
* As early as 1997, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan fought to keep the derivatives market unregulated. With the advice of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, the U.S. Congress and President allowed the self-regulation of the over-the-counter derivatives market when they enacted the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Derivatives such as credit default swaps (CDS) can be used to hedge or speculate against particular credit risks. The volume of CDS outstanding increased 100-fold from 1998 to 2008, with estimates of the debt covered by CDS contracts, as of November 2008, ranging from US$33 to $47 trillion. Total over-the-counter (OTC) derivative notional value rose to $683 trillion by June 2008. Warren Buffett famously referred to derivatives as "financial weapons of mass destruction" in early 2003.

Any transparent accounting of the causes of the financial crisis simply has to include deregulation of the industry and negligent and fraudulent banking practices as major contributers. For the Republican members of the commission to try to completely avoid laying any blame where the blame clearly lies is just more evidence that the right isn't interested in truth; they just want to protect their multi-billionaire patrons.
 

brencat

Platinum Member
Feb 26, 2007
2,170
3
76
Somehow, you've completely omitted the gross negligence and outright fraud committed by the banks.

There was no doubt some funny business with Countrywide going on and likely others as well. However, if interest rates had been sufficiently high, you wouldn't have had the flood of demand for housing that we had.

You wouldn't have had institutional investors trying to squeeze blood from a stone levering up to take risk if rates were higher and they could earn a decent return by not doing so.

You wouldn't have had people cashing out of savings and checking accounts earning next to nothing to put the money in the stock market if rates were sufficiently high.

You wouldn't have had lower and lower middle class families even bothering to get in their car to apply for a mortgage at their local bank if interest rates -- and by extension, mortgage rates -- were higher and more costly.

Like I said, it can all be traced back to cheap money from the Fed. The idea that we need to bail our economy out with zero interest rates every time there is a recession is hugely flawed. All it does is create bubbles and massive debt in its wake. Nobody wants to take a loss. Well, too fvcking bad! The piper has to be paid. The debt needs to be liquidated...likely at pennies on the dollar. A recession/depression is the necessary cure for our extreme excesses of the past 10-15 years and the only way this nightmare finally ends.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
There was no doubt some funny business with Countrywide going on and likely others as well. However, if interest rates had been sufficiently high, you wouldn't have had the flood of demand for housing that we had.

You wouldn't have had institutional investors trying to squeeze blood from a stone levering up to take risk if rates were higher and they could earn a decent return by not doing so.

You wouldn't have had people cashing out of savings and checking accounts earning next to nothing to put the money in the stock market if rates were sufficiently high.

You wouldn't have had lower and lower middle class families even bothering to get in their car to apply for a mortgage at their local bank if interest rates -- and by extension, mortgage rates -- were higher and more costly.

Like I said, it can all be traced back to cheap money from the Fed. The idea that we need to bail our economy out with zero interest rates every time there is a recession is hugely flawed. All it does is create bubbles and massive debt in its wake. Nobody wants to take a loss. Well, too fvcking bad! The piper has to be paid. The debt needs to be liquidated...likely at pennies on the dollar. A recession/depression is the necessary cure for our extreme excesses of the past 10-15 years and the only way this nightmare finally ends.

fuckin a someone who speaks my mind
 

ModerateRepZero

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2006
1,572
5
81
This plus the fact that the Republicans are on record saying they would block all legislation through the Senate until the Bush era tax cuts for the rich were extended should clearly state to one and all that the only true constituency of the Republican party is the very wealthy. They do not have the best interests of the entire country at heart, only their own.

Well said.

There was no doubt some funny business with Countrywide going on and likely others as well. However, if interest rates had been sufficiently high, you wouldn't have had the flood of demand for housing that we had.

You wouldn't have had institutional investors trying to squeeze blood from a stone levering up to take risk if rates were higher and they could earn a decent return by not doing so.

You wouldn't have had people cashing out of savings and checking accounts earning next to nothing to put the money in the stock market if rates were sufficiently high.

You wouldn't have had lower and lower middle class families even bothering to get in their car to apply for a mortgage at their local bank if interest rates -- and by extension, mortgage rates -- were higher and more costly.

Like I said, it can all be traced back to cheap money from the Fed. The idea that we need to bail our economy out with zero interest rates every time there is a recession is hugely flawed. All it does is create bubbles and massive debt in its wake. Nobody wants to take a loss. Well, too fvcking bad! The piper has to be paid. The debt needs to be liquidated...likely at pennies on the dollar. A recession/depression is the necessary cure for our extreme excesses of the past 10-15 years and the only way this nightmare finally ends.

And why did the Fed keep interest rates artificially low? because "businesses knew best" and the market can self-regulate"...what we keep on learning is how problematic deregulation is in practice. I've mentioned previously a few examples such as the S & L scandal of the 1980s. It still goes back to libertarian (if not laisse-faire) capitalist theory.

Not to mention that while the Fed certainly provided the temptation for businesses to pursue profit, it didn't force widespread fraudulent mortgage practices. Downplaying if not outright ignoring that is certainly revisionist history:

Instead of trying to deal with Republican revisions of history why is it not possible for Democrats to shout from the roof tops that mortgage and real estate brokers and every cockamamie lending company were making or splitting huge commissions and banks were making enormous fees, all while knowingly selling financial obligations that they knew would never be repaid?

I know this for a fact as I was offered mortgages that required no proof of income, in fact "offered" is the wrong term. I was being cajoled by lenders to shop for a house knowing that I was already approved for a mortgage that I could not possibly afford. They didn't know or want to know my real income as they said any income I put down would never be checked.

In other words if I just took their mortgage, they would get their commissions, the banks would get their fees, and no one was talking about balloon payments or trebled monthly obligations, or the almost certainty of my default, at least not before I signed the papers.

I am glad I did not take one of those offers as I would have been wiped out along with my credit worthiness, and I feel very sorry for those who fell for the fast-talking money vendors who were in reality the sleaziest, slimiest, crookedest snake oil salesmen ever to walk on two legs.

I wondered why they weren't worried that I might not be able to afford the payments. Of course we all came to learn, eventually, that the commissions and fees were huge and that any losses would not be sustained by the same people who sold those loans. They got to keep their commissions and fees. The losses went to the insurers.

http://community.nytimes.com/commen.../opinion/17krugman.html?permid=190#comment190
 

halik

Lifer
Oct 10, 2000
25,696
1
81
There was no doubt some funny business with Countrywide going on and likely others as well. However, if interest rates had been sufficiently high, you wouldn't have had the flood of demand for housing that we had.

You wouldn't have had institutional investors trying to squeeze blood from a stone levering up to take risk if rates were higher and they could earn a decent return by not doing so.

You wouldn't have had people cashing out of savings and checking accounts earning next to nothing to put the money in the stock market if rates were sufficiently high.

You wouldn't have had lower and lower middle class families even bothering to get in their car to apply for a mortgage at their local bank if interest rates -- and by extension, mortgage rates -- were higher and more costly.

Like I said, it can all be traced back to cheap money from the Fed. The idea that we need to bail our economy out with zero interest rates every time there is a recession is hugely flawed. All it does is create bubbles and massive debt in its wake. Nobody wants to take a loss. Well, too fvcking bad! The piper has to be paid. The debt needs to be liquidated...likely at pennies on the dollar. A recession/depression is the necessary cure for our extreme excesses of the past 10-15 years and the only way this nightmare finally ends.

You cannot make this argument in the light of the evidence that came from canada - had the central bank policy been responsible for this, both countries would see similar experience.

Obviously since that wasn't the case, the rate policy CANNOT be the source of the issue - it's the deregulation and the "market knows the best" attitude that someone else has mentioned. People were able to lever up without any any restriction and recourse which ended up driving the asset bubble.

Again let me reiterate again, Canada central bank ran the same policy and their outcome was completely different than ours, so cheap money obviously cannot be the root cause of this dislocation. Suggesting otherwise is at odds with logic and empirical evidence.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,686
136
Much the same positive things can be said for Texas as for Canada, where consumer protections wrt home loans are actively enforced-

http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/judgments/2010/03/30/lone-star-secret

Just one example. Google "Real Estate Bubble Texas" for a lot more.

In truth, the ability to take Refi cashouts at low rates were key to the "Ownership Society" pitch from the Bush Admin and to recovery from the tech bust. People who'd been unemployed for long stretches could refi to pay off other debt, if they were smart, or for any purpose in most states, like speculating in real estate.

The Bush Admin and the FRB acted in concert to achieve the housing bubble. Low rates + "Self regulated banking" made a lot of money for everybody in the chain between borrowers and investors, and was a cornerstone of Bush's 2004 re-election campaign- the "Ownership Society".

I rather suspect that the end of the boom was a timed event, designed for the big money and for the Bush Admin to step in with the bailout. Had it occurred later, under possibly a Democratic Admin, nationalization might have been used as an alternative to the bailout. That's what was done in Sweden in the early 90's when they experienced much the same thing. Banks were taken over, their fake balance sheets cleaned up, recapitalized, and sold back into the market. They actually recovered much more quickly than Japan, where we apparently got our model of how to deal with it- zombie banks using a lot of balance sheet trickery. They still haven't recovered, and we likely won't do any better. They call it "the lost decade" of no growth and strong deflationary pressures...