0 members (),
4
guests, and
0
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,129
Posts314,568
Members6,305
|
Most Online294 Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 7,626
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 7,626 |
Through his actions millions of Americans have lost 50% of their retirement income. retirment funds were being drained well before pres. obama took office. the recession has been in effect for a while now. it is not even logical to hang this on the current administration. i just want to know where in the world have you been for the past six months?
sure, you can talk to god, but if you don't listen then what's the use? so, onward through the fog!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,723
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,723 |
The markets are a living breathing entity. They willreact to an event half way around the world ten minutes after it has happened. Yesterday evening, Mr. Obama said now is a good time to invest in the stock market. Today, the stock market's downward trend has been halted, and at the moment the market is up over 100 points. Would you say that upturn is a reaction to Mr. Obama's advice? Absolutely! That's really sad. Anyone who knows anything about the market knows that today's upturn is nothing more than bargain hunters snapping up bargains. There will be no real turn around unless and until the economy begins showing signs of real recovery. That won't happen until people start returning to real jobs. And that's going to take quite some time.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,643
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,643 |
Ma, I don't think you fully read my last posting, which was directed at your prior posting. But, that's okay. However, I'd like to fill in a bit more as it relates to Subprime lending. 1. When interest rates are low in general it causes the economy to expand because businesses and individuals can borrow money easily which causes them to spend more freely and thus increases the growth of the economy. 2. What drives interest rates lower is the fact that there is an increase in the supply of money, meaning that there is more money to go around. Before the Fed lowered interest rates substantially after the bursting of the NASDAQ bubble in 2000, if you wanted to get a loan for a house you had to have a relatively good credit score. Buyers with a FICO score below 620 (generally considered sub-prime) where in most cases considered too risky to lend to and therefore could not get a loan. After the fed lowered interest rates to historical lows however there was so much money (also referred to as liquidity) available that financial institutions started offering loans to buyers with FICO score’s below 620. Because these borrowers were considered less likely to be able to pay the loan back than borrowers with higher credit scores, these sub prime borrowers were charged a higher interest rate.The above pretty much reflect how the consumer was allowed to play in our economic crash. But, as we might suspect, it's a lot more complicated. By the way, I do want to add that we are all aware that lenders started the practice of not even checking borrower credit ratings and job status...and for a very clear reason!Now I want to fill in some more of the Money Trail that leads to our Government, Corporations, and Market Place.... I still reference two legislative acts that clearly are related to our financial woes.
1. Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000
2. Gramm-Bailey-Leach Act of 1999
There are two individuals who have a history of being completely correct about our financial and economic condition and they are:
1. Warren Buffett has been making it well known about the severity of our financial problems since 2003.
In more recent times:
In an interview with Marketwatch, Mr. Buffett labeled derivatives “the financial weapon of mass destruction.” He stated that the derivatives market is approximately $500 Trillion ($500,000,000,000,000). To put things in perspective, the same magazine tells us that America’s gross domestic product (GDP) is around $15 trillion. The GDP of all nations combined is around $50 Trillion. The total value of all the real estate in the world is estimated at $75 Trillion, and the total value of all the world’s stocks is about $100 Trillion. But there is a $500 Trillion market in derivatives!” Obviously derivatives are weapons of mass destruction.
<Snip>
Wall Street Didn't Listen to Buffett. Derivatives grew into a massive bubble, from about $100 trillion to $516 trillion by 2007.
The new derivatives bubble was fueled by five key economic and political trends:
a. Sarbanes-Oxley increased corporate disclosures and government oversight
b. Federal Reserve's cheap money policies created the subprime-housing boom
c. War budgets burdened the U.S. Treasury and future entitlements programs
d. Trade deficits with China and others destroyed the value of the U.S. dollar
e. Oil and commodity rich nations demanding equity payments rather than debt
In short, despite Buffett's clear warnings, a massive new derivatives bubble is driving the domestic and global economies, a bubble that continues growing today parallel with the subprime-credit meltdown triggering a bear-recession.
Data on the five-fold growth of derivatives to $516 trillion in five years comes from the most recent survey by the Bank of International Settlements, the world's clearinghouse for central banks in Basel, Switzerland.
2. Nouriel Roubine, an economics professor at New York University, stood before an audience of economists at the International Monetary Fund and announced that a crisis was brewing. In the coming months and years, he warned, the United States was likely to face a once-in-a-lifetime housing bust, an oil shock, sharply declining consumer confidence and, ultimately, a deep recession.
He laid out a bleak sequence of events: homeowners defaulting on mortgages, trillions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities unraveling worldwide and the global financial system shuddering to a halt. These developments, he went on, could cripple or destroy hedge funds, investment banks and other major financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
This man was virtually 100% right...and everybody blew his warnings off.
Our government and Wall Street have had plenty of warnings! Link To Above in RR Topic Contrived Crisis? Ma, the laws listed above made a haven for raping the consumers in so many ways that were never dreamed possible. Now, you can still refuse to accept the turn of events that lead to our nation's...and world's financial and market crash, but I say the evidence speaks for itself.
Turn on ANY brand of political machine - and it automatically goes to the "SPIN and LIE CYCLE" 
Yours Truly - Gregg
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 1
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 1 |
funny thing about this whole subprime thingy.
if you look at britain in the 80's and the thatcherite "ownership" society policies which created a huge boom in housing and inflated houses out of all proportion which led to a huge bust, lotsa foreclosures, negative equity and the like. It was all underpinned by massive deregulation of the financial services with rather similar (but by no means as big) repercussions.
it had everything to do with creating imaginary money from credit on a "safe as houses" foundation. It had little to do with PC or any such nonsense. it was supposed to be the gift that keeps on giving, except were certainly getting it now.... right in the a$$.
oh it wasnt clintons idea, and nor did the idea spread from America, it was a thatcherite policy of percieved prosperity followed by actual ruination.
I do believe herself and Mr Reagan were soulmates in this regard. I suspect that if youre looking for the causes of subprime, youre looking a decade too late.
Ill have to do a bit of checking, but I understand that this deregulation (or blackmailing as youre calling it) was also introduced by Mr Reagan. thats if of course you want to get all blamey!
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." (Philip K.Dick)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 1
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 9,740 Likes: 1 |
lol, imagine if it were that simple, president speaks and markets go up and stay up based on nothing buyt the words. no other factors are involved, merely the application of syllables in oral form.
in the beginning there was the word......
"The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." (Philip K.Dick)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,723
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 6,723 |
Austin,
Excellent post. I'm glad you mentioned Roubini. He has been universally ignored by the powers that be, while being universally "right" about just everything he has said. The causes of the current financial stress are complex and multifaceted and go back decades. To lay the blame on Americans who "bit off more than they could chew" and who "didn't play by the rules" or on policies that were designed to get rid of the last vestiges of de facto racial discrimination ("red-lining") is both intellectually lazy and intellectually dishonest, and I'm being nice in not using the pejoratives I'm tempted to use.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,523
old hand
|
OP
old hand
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 6,523 |
Austin,
Excellent post. I'm glad you mentioned Roubini. He has been universally ignored by the powers that be, while being universally "right" about just everything he has said. The causes of the current financial stress are complex and multifaceted and go back decades. To lay the blame on Americans who "bit off more than they could chew" and who "didn't play by the rules" or on policies that were designed to get rid of the last vestiges of de facto racial discrimination ("red-lining") is both intellectually lazy and intellectually dishonest, and I'm being nice in not using the pejoratives I'm tempted to use. Please do not hold back! I can take it, but I might blush a little. The thing is, I don't disagree with what Austin posted. We agree more than not as a matter of fact. As for the last vestiges of de facto racial discrimination ("red-lining") , sometimes the truth hurts I guess. Business was never meant to be "fair". Business is meant to make money. By loaning money to people who couldn't possibly repay their loans unless their every wish came true, we are is the crapper today. he rootcause is that feel good initiative spknsored by the Reno DOJ. Now, you may think that I am spouting racist lies, and I do believe that your ignoring the facts in the name political correctness and hero worship, but the facts remain that banks were made to make profits. Loaning money to people who were bad bets was never their policy until the DOJ started prosecuting them for "red-lining", another name for "good business" btw. Oh I am sure there were a few who did discriminate, but the vast majority wouldn't loan their mother money if she couldn't meet their lending criteria. The idea that there was some inherent evil hiding in the banking industry is laughable. They were the ultimate capitalists. Their ONLY job was to create wealth, and they would take anybody's money to do so, as long as they could meet the conditions of the loan. So here come Janet reno on her white (no racial slur here) horse to save the poor and destitute from their hell on earth. Threatening banks with prosecution and encouraging protests. You are naive. You may know the market better than I, although the market does indeed react to what any President says, but I am pretty sure I know politics better than you. I have a realistic idea of how it works and why it doesn't. Bill Clinton wanted to cement that voting block so he became the hero. Sticks and stones Chuck, fire away. I can trace it back to almost the very beginning of the end and ultimately it was the sub-prime mess that got us into this mess, and it was the Clinton Administration who made the rules that lead directly to the sub-prime mess. No good deed goes unpunished, and I am not so sure that Clinton considered it as much a good deed as he did smart politics. And NO, I have no sympathy for the dolts who didn't read their mortgage contracts, or knew they were making a mistake but made it anyway. As far as I am concerned they are the ones who should be prosecuted for this mess. White, black, orange, it doesn't matter, they gambled and lost and we will end up paying their debt.
A proud member of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy, Massachusetts Chapter
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134
Administrator Bionic Scribe
|
Administrator Bionic Scribe
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 21,134 |
MA, you are so wrong about banks, business and loans. Hard to know where to start, but do you any evidence at all that banks didn't knowingly make risky loans until Janet Reno stepped in? That is absolute nonsense and you know it.
Also, which minority, low earner is it that thought up derivatives? Designed clunker cars? Drove up the home real estate market in speculation by buying 2nd and 3rd homes?
Every single study many of which have been cited here on RR several times shows that the minority loan program has had no or negligible impact on this crisis.
It is not the small amount put into such loans that caused the crash, it is greedy, lying, manipulative lenders and their investors who did it. Of course, the Fed and President Bush waved them on through the gates, but even they aren't the cause.
Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373
Member CHB-OG
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,433 Likes: 373 |
...It is not the small amount put into such loans that caused the crash, it is greedy, lying, manipulative lenders and their investors who did it. Of course, the Fed and President Bush waved them on through the gates, but even they aren't the cause. ***Nods in agreement***re: "small amounts down" It was the low and enticive adjustable interest rates of 1-3% that got people into mortgages they couldn't afford...later, once the interest rate adjusted. (We have the greedy owners of World Savings to think for that one...) What's wrong with the goal of 80% of Americans owning their own home?
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
Through his actions millions of Americans have lost 50% of their retirement income. retirment funds were being drained well before pres. obama took office. the recession has been in effect for a while now. it is not even logical to hang this on the current administration. i just want to know where in the world have you been for the past six months? This may be the most succinct deconstruction of the post that initiated this thread. I am disappointed, Ma, that you have felt the need to pursue a political/philosophical argument based on perception rather than facts, as it obscures what could be pertinent points. I am in general agreement that the President's administration has the responsibility for managing the economy - he is, after all, the "chief executive" - and that his policies are affected by the makeup of Congress and its support (although I think that persuasion and public support can do wonders - e.g., Ronald Reagan's presidency). I think your timeframes are woefully off, however - blaming President Obama for virtually any of the present downturn is not only disingenuous, but destroys the credibility of the argument. I do agree with the premise that eventually (and I agree with the 2-4 year judgment) the economy will reflect the policies and priorities of the President, but they certainly don't yet. Which is why, I think, except among die-hard Republican apologists, the majority of the population recognizes that the current economic mess is almost purely the result of pitiful economic policy of the Republican Party - and most particularly President Bush - which controlled the entire government throughout the period when the defects were created/encouraged. Blaming the Democrats, and Obama in particular, is not only intellectually dishonest, it is ridiculously juvenile and a purely partisan exercise - and I am sorry to see you perpetuating it here. Another fatal defect in your premise, moreover, is equating the condition of the stock market to the health of the economy. It is merely one factor, which is why it is not viewed as an economic indicator by economists. Savings, spending, manufacturing, employment, inflation and monetary policies are much better indicators, and are far less volatile. All these indicators, however, cannot be viewed as "snapshots" of economic health, but are "indicators" and have to be viewed as trends. the trends, of course, defeat the argument entirely. False premises produce false results.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
|