How can he dare?
-
"History has shown that the greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market, it is too much government involvement in the market,"... "If you seek economic growth, if you seek opportunity, if you seek social justice and human dignity, the free market system is the way to go"[^] This guy led a country for eight years. During that time, the economy of this country went so out of touch that it triggered a worldwide crisis with an amplitude similar to 1929, at least. During this 8 years the country which knew the biggest expansion of its economy is China, which policy cannot be defined as 'laissez-faire'. But no problem, this guy denies all and in front of his friends of Wall Street, the same ones whose greed led us to today's situation, claims that he was right all along....how can he dare?
Anyone who is not a misanthropist at 40 never loved men at any time Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
where can the finger of failure be pointed at?
Subprime mortages. Loans given to people with limited chances of making the repayments. Something thought up by the Democrats.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
There may have been a Democrat in the White House when this "policy" started, but, there has been a Republican in the White House for almost the last 8 years who could have and should have done something about this. Surely this situation did not creep up upon him as a "bolt out of the blue".
-
"History has shown that the greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market, it is too much government involvement in the market,"... "If you seek economic growth, if you seek opportunity, if you seek social justice and human dignity, the free market system is the way to go"[^] This guy led a country for eight years. During that time, the economy of this country went so out of touch that it triggered a worldwide crisis with an amplitude similar to 1929, at least. During this 8 years the country which knew the biggest expansion of its economy is China, which policy cannot be defined as 'laissez-faire'. But no problem, this guy denies all and in front of his friends of Wall Street, the same ones whose greed led us to today's situation, claims that he was right all along....how can he dare?
Anyone who is not a misanthropist at 40 never loved men at any time Fold with us! ¤ flickr
Ka?l wrote:
This guy led a country for eight years. During that time
The US of A weathered the demise of the fantasy economy, aka. dotcom boom. The US of A weathered an attack that slaughtered ~3,000 people and decimated markets. The US of A restarted its economy creating jobs that were lost when the dotcom bubble burst and the nation was attacked. The US of A under the leadership of Democrats in Congress forced financial instituitions into making loans so people who were unqualified for those loans so they could buy homes they couldn't afford. The US of A's economy, as with the rest of the world, is held hostage to an oil producing cartel that in 22 months time tripled the price of energy. As a result of the idiotic mortgage loan circumstances (advanced and supported by Democrats) and an oil producing cartel's greed, we have a world wide economic crisis. You really do not understand, now do you?
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
There may have been a Democrat in the White House when this "policy" started, but, there has been a Republican in the White House for almost the last 8 years who could have and should have done something about this. Surely this situation did not creep up upon him as a "bolt out of the blue".
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
there has been a Republican in the White House for almost the last 8 years who could have and should have done something about this
In 2005 McCain explicitely warned about the looming crisis caused by sub prime mortages. Go google it: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBR_enBE293BE293&q=mccain+2005+warned+subprime+mortgage[^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
there has been a Republican in the White House for almost the last 8 years who could have and should have done something about this
In 2005 McCain explicitely warned about the looming crisis caused by sub prime mortages. Go google it: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBR_enBE293BE293&q=mccain+2005+warned+subprime+mortgage[^]
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ka?l wrote:
This guy led a country for eight years. During that time
The US of A weathered the demise of the fantasy economy, aka. dotcom boom. The US of A weathered an attack that slaughtered ~3,000 people and decimated markets. The US of A restarted its economy creating jobs that were lost when the dotcom bubble burst and the nation was attacked. The US of A under the leadership of Democrats in Congress forced financial instituitions into making loans so people who were unqualified for those loans so they could buy homes they couldn't afford. The US of A's economy, as with the rest of the world, is held hostage to an oil producing cartel that in 22 months time tripled the price of energy. As a result of the idiotic mortgage loan circumstances (advanced and supported by Democrats) and an oil producing cartel's greed, we have a world wide economic crisis. You really do not understand, now do you?
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
-
Ka?l wrote:
This guy led a country for eight years. During that time
The US of A weathered the demise of the fantasy economy, aka. dotcom boom. The US of A weathered an attack that slaughtered ~3,000 people and decimated markets. The US of A restarted its economy creating jobs that were lost when the dotcom bubble burst and the nation was attacked. The US of A under the leadership of Democrats in Congress forced financial instituitions into making loans so people who were unqualified for those loans so they could buy homes they couldn't afford. The US of A's economy, as with the rest of the world, is held hostage to an oil producing cartel that in 22 months time tripled the price of energy. As a result of the idiotic mortgage loan circumstances (advanced and supported by Democrats) and an oil producing cartel's greed, we have a world wide economic crisis. You really do not understand, now do you?
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
Karl does not have a clue about economics. He is only capable of parroting the crap he reads on his Communist Party approved websites.
-
He also said "the crisis was not a failure of the free market system". This begs the question, if this was not the failure of the free market system, where can the finger of failure be pointed at? Also, "Our aim should not be more government," he added later, "it should be smarter government." , I'm curious of his definition of "Smarter Government" as he seems to dismiss excessive regulation. So where does this "smartness" come from and how do you know how effective this is without some degree of control?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
where can the finger of failure be pointed at?
http://politiken.dk/archive/00292/wulff_23_10_2008_292595a.jpg[^] According to the text, the poor rodent bit through some cables for the NASDAQ servers...
"God doesn't play dice" - Albert Einstein "God not only plays dice, He sometimes throws the dices where they cannot be seen" - Niels Bohr
-
Well, his real point is to make it clear that the U.S. is not volunteering to let the IMF set it's economic policy for it, no matter how thrilled that might make Sarkozy.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
the U.S. is not volunteering to let the IMF set it's economic policy for it
So, you can dish it out but you can't take it, eh? :)
-
That's as may be, but nobody, including the President, took up the baton to confront the looming crisis head-on, well, not until it exploded in everybody's face.
A number of economists, within the government, knew the crisis was looming and pointed it out in alarm to the powers-that-be. These include Ellen Seidman, former director of the Treasury’s Office of Thrift Supervision, and Edward Gramlich, a Federal Reserve Board Governor from 1997 until 2005 and author of the book Subprime Mortgages: America’s Latest Boom and Bust said he urged Alan Greenspan in 2000 to use the power of the Federal Reserve to crack down on subprime mortgage lenders. After Gramlich's death in 2007, Greenspan started saying that he didn't recall the conversation. [^] It should be noted that it wasn't until 2004 that the FRB's banking regulators revised the Capital Adequacy Regulations and allowed banks to leverage their capital 40:1. [^] One of Bush's appointees showed up to the press briefing on the changes with a chainsaw so he could demonstrate exactly what was happening to the regulations. I think there's a good chance that Paulson and Bush did see this coming and were hoping and praying that it wouldn't blow up in anyone's face until after they left office. How lovely it would have been for them to claim that the mess was caused by the market's reaction to Obama. At any rate, it's certain anyone in the administration who had proposed more regulation of the banking industry would have been pilloried by the true believers on the right.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
"History has shown that the greater threat to economic prosperity is not too little government involvement in the market, it is too much government involvement in the market,"... "If you seek economic growth, if you seek opportunity, if you seek social justice and human dignity, the free market system is the way to go"[^] This guy led a country for eight years. During that time, the economy of this country went so out of touch that it triggered a worldwide crisis with an amplitude similar to 1929, at least. During this 8 years the country which knew the biggest expansion of its economy is China, which policy cannot be defined as 'laissez-faire'. But no problem, this guy denies all and in front of his friends of Wall Street, the same ones whose greed led us to today's situation, claims that he was right all along....how can he dare?
Anyone who is not a misanthropist at 40 never loved men at any time Fold with us! ¤ flickr
Totally agree. This is called Republican consistency: when they preach the wrong thing (e.g.: no regulation of credit and energy market) they do it, when they preach the right thing (fiscal conservatism, free trade, no subsidies) they still do the wrong thing (huge fiscal deficit, trade protectionism, farm subsidies). In economic policy (as in all other policies) the Bush administration either did the opposite of what they preach or preached and did disasters.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
-
A number of economists, within the government, knew the crisis was looming and pointed it out in alarm to the powers-that-be. These include Ellen Seidman, former director of the Treasury’s Office of Thrift Supervision, and Edward Gramlich, a Federal Reserve Board Governor from 1997 until 2005 and author of the book Subprime Mortgages: America’s Latest Boom and Bust said he urged Alan Greenspan in 2000 to use the power of the Federal Reserve to crack down on subprime mortgage lenders. After Gramlich's death in 2007, Greenspan started saying that he didn't recall the conversation. [^] It should be noted that it wasn't until 2004 that the FRB's banking regulators revised the Capital Adequacy Regulations and allowed banks to leverage their capital 40:1. [^] One of Bush's appointees showed up to the press briefing on the changes with a chainsaw so he could demonstrate exactly what was happening to the regulations. I think there's a good chance that Paulson and Bush did see this coming and were hoping and praying that it wouldn't blow up in anyone's face until after they left office. How lovely it would have been for them to claim that the mess was caused by the market's reaction to Obama. At any rate, it's certain anyone in the administration who had proposed more regulation of the banking industry would have been pilloried by the true believers on the right.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Unfortunatley the 'true believers' seem to think without question that all government is evil, thus any intervention is evil. It's true the free market will always sort itself out. But most pragmatists (including this one) would argue that the material and social costs are too great a burden to bare when faced with frozen credit markets and a debt ridden economy in free fall. It's almost as if some people want a depression.
Bar fomos edo pariyart gedeem, agreo eo dranem abal edyero eyrem kalm kareore
-
But the crisis was cause by Freddie and Fanny, with their intent of providing a 'home for everyone' regardless of the ability of the owener to keep up the repayments. AKA, subprime mortages. Ans the President behind this was Clinton, not Bush. This mess is due to government interference.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
B-S. We are talking here about a worldwide crisis, not an american one. You forget conveniently all the parameters which transformed this local crisis in global crisis, starting with securitization. - Freddie and Fanny as they are are the consequences of deregulation, when Fannie Mae was transformed into a private shareholder-owned corporation, and Freddie Mac created to compete with Fanne Mae. - you exonerate the banks, which lended money to people knowing they may not be able to refund - you exonerate the housing bubble, and all the speculations made around. - you exonerate the rating companies, who lied in exchange of money.
Anyone who is not a misanthropist at 40 never loved men at any time Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
A number of economists, within the government, knew the crisis was looming and pointed it out in alarm to the powers-that-be. These include Ellen Seidman, former director of the Treasury’s Office of Thrift Supervision, and Edward Gramlich, a Federal Reserve Board Governor from 1997 until 2005 and author of the book Subprime Mortgages: America’s Latest Boom and Bust said he urged Alan Greenspan in 2000 to use the power of the Federal Reserve to crack down on subprime mortgage lenders. After Gramlich's death in 2007, Greenspan started saying that he didn't recall the conversation. [^] It should be noted that it wasn't until 2004 that the FRB's banking regulators revised the Capital Adequacy Regulations and allowed banks to leverage their capital 40:1. [^] One of Bush's appointees showed up to the press briefing on the changes with a chainsaw so he could demonstrate exactly what was happening to the regulations. I think there's a good chance that Paulson and Bush did see this coming and were hoping and praying that it wouldn't blow up in anyone's face until after they left office. How lovely it would have been for them to claim that the mess was caused by the market's reaction to Obama. At any rate, it's certain anyone in the administration who had proposed more regulation of the banking industry would have been pilloried by the true believers on the right.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
A number of economists, within the government, knew the crisis was looming and pointed it out in alarm to the powers-that-be. These include Ellen Seidman, former director of the Treasury’s Office of Thrift Supervision, and Edward Gramlich, a Federal Reserve Board Governor from 1997 until 2005 and author of the book Subprime Mortgages: America’s Latest Boom and Bust said he urged Alan Greenspan in 2000 to use the power of the Federal Reserve to crack down on subprime mortgage lenders. After Gramlich's death in 2007, Greenspan started saying that he didn't recall the conversation. [^] It should be noted that it wasn't until 2004 that the FRB's banking regulators revised the Capital Adequacy Regulations and allowed banks to leverage their capital 40:1. [^] One of Bush's appointees showed up to the press briefing on the changes with a chainsaw so he could demonstrate exactly what was happening to the regulations. I think there's a good chance that Paulson and Bush did see this coming and were hoping and praying that it wouldn't blow up in anyone's face until after they left office. How lovely it would have been for them to claim that the mess was caused by the market's reaction to Obama. At any rate, it's certain anyone in the administration who had proposed more regulation of the banking industry would have been pilloried by the true believers on the right.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
At any rate, it's certain anyone in the administration who had proposed more regulation of the banking industry would have been pilloried by the true believers on the right.
Instead, we all have a bitter pill to take that will linger an awfully long time. But, nobody in this thread has yet commented on my question (above) about "Smarter Government" where I asked "Our aim should not be more government," he (G. W. Bush) added later, "it should be smarter government." , I'm curious of his definition of "Smarter Government" as he seems to dismiss excessive regulation. So where does this "smartness" come from and how do you know how effective this is without some degree of control? "
-
Oakman wrote:
At any rate, it's certain anyone in the administration who had proposed more regulation of the banking industry would have been pilloried by the true believers on the right.
Instead, we all have a bitter pill to take that will linger an awfully long time. But, nobody in this thread has yet commented on my question (above) about "Smarter Government" where I asked "Our aim should not be more government," he (G. W. Bush) added later, "it should be smarter government." , I'm curious of his definition of "Smarter Government" as he seems to dismiss excessive regulation. So where does this "smartness" come from and how do you know how effective this is without some degree of control? "
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
where can the finger of failure be pointed at?
Subprime mortages. Loans given to people with limited chances of making the repayments. Something thought up by the Democrats.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
There are 1 million mortgage foreclosures in the United States in 2008. At a median home value of $202,000, that is $202 billion dollars worth of foreclosed mortgages. Assuming there is NO residual value to these properties, which is unlikely, the U.S. government could have bought every single foreclosed 2008 mortgage with just 2 weeks worth of the money spent so far on the bailout of Wall Street. So, no, fat_head. It has very little to do with "Something thought up by the Democrats" and very much to do with greed and mismanagement of the financial system by Republicans.
-
He also said "the crisis was not a failure of the free market system". This begs the question, if this was not the failure of the free market system, where can the finger of failure be pointed at? Also, "Our aim should not be more government," he added later, "it should be smarter government." , I'm curious of his definition of "Smarter Government" as he seems to dismiss excessive regulation. So where does this "smartness" come from and how do you know how effective this is without some degree of control?
We've taken the first step to Smarter Government by electing Barack Obama.
-
Ka?l wrote:
This guy led a country for eight years. During that time
The US of A weathered the demise of the fantasy economy, aka. dotcom boom. The US of A weathered an attack that slaughtered ~3,000 people and decimated markets. The US of A restarted its economy creating jobs that were lost when the dotcom bubble burst and the nation was attacked. The US of A under the leadership of Democrats in Congress forced financial instituitions into making loans so people who were unqualified for those loans so they could buy homes they couldn't afford. The US of A's economy, as with the rest of the world, is held hostage to an oil producing cartel that in 22 months time tripled the price of energy. As a result of the idiotic mortgage loan circumstances (advanced and supported by Democrats) and an oil producing cartel's greed, we have a world wide economic crisis. You really do not understand, now do you?
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
... can we agree on the number $220,000,000,000,000 for the amount of money in unpaid loans? Maximum (as in, not one payment)? Tack on another 50,000,000,000,000 if you want, just to be sure. Then wasn't the final report of Lehman crashing, some $290,000,000,000,000 dollars in "toxic debt." While we're at it, can someone drop the term "toxic debt" in the Buzzword Hall of Shame? I understand it to mean "debt that we don't want to take responsibility for" - please correct me if that is wrong. Why are all these institutions failing if all that was lost was $300,000,000,000,000 to one of them? Where are the gigantic numbers ($1 trillion) coming from? Do they share debt like junkies share needles? So that they can all skip to step 3 and 4 (3. ???, 4. Profit!)? I'm also pretty sure that's what's happening - everyone wrote down too much of the same money. and why the obsession with bill clinton / george bush? 'Pubbies can't let go of clinton (a good campaign sticker would be, "I'm running against a Clinton"), and dems blame everything on bush. At least pelosi-bashing is closer to the source of the problem.
