broward wrote:

WOW
you guys weren't kidding about the aisles at walmart

What's going on at Wally World?
.
Edit: Holy Shznat! I've got people on my ignore list that I don't ever recall ignoring. I guess I need to check that list more often.

FFDIC was all over this in the comments here more than a year ago.

“At the height of the economic boom, to take an aggressive supervisory approach and tell people to stop lending is hard to do.”
But isn't that the regulator's job?

Regulators will only do what they are allowed to do. They can be undermined by Congress or by the Administration. Neither wanted this bubble to lose air. They still don't.

“At the height of the economic boom, to take an aggressive supervisory approach and tell people to stop lending is hard to do.”

An economic boom based on loose credit does run counter to an aggressive supervisory approach. I wonder if he is admitting implicitly that the "boom" really wasn't a boom. Just privatizing and capitalizing on social structures and securities.

"But isn't that the regulator's job?"

Not if they want to keep it...

"Born was appointed to the CFTC on April 15, 1994 by President Bill Clinton. Born and her team at the CFTC conducted a financial analysis which led them to anticipate a serious financial crisis due to growth in the trade of unregulated derivatives. When Born became chair of the CFTC, she sought comments on the regulation of derivatives,[6] a first step in the process of writing comprehensive regulations. Born was particularly concerned about swaps, financial instruments that are traded over the counter on the dark market, and thus have no transparency except to the two counter-parties. Regulation was strenuously opposed by Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers.[7] On May 7, 1998, former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt joined Rubin and Greenspan in objecting to the issuance of the CFTC’s concept release. Their response dismissed Born's concerns off hand and focused on the possibility that discussing the regulation of swaps and other OTC derivative instruments would increase legal uncertainty of such instruments, potentially creating turmoil in the markets, and reducing the value of the instruments. Further concerns voiced were that the imposition of new regulatory costs would stifle innovation and push transactions offshore.[8]

An economic and financial crisis affected US and world markets in 2008. As it gained momentum, newspapers began reporting on some of its possible causes, including the suppression of Born's recommendations and the adversarial relationship Greenspan, Rubin and Levitt had with Born,[3][7] The disagreement has been described not only as a classic Washington turf war,[citation needed] but also as a war of ideologies as Greenspan and highly placed Clinton administration officials believed that in large measure, the capital markets could be trusted to regulate themselves.[9]"

Brooksley Born - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In 2005, Levitt was named a special advisor to the American International Group's board of directors and the board's nominating and corporate governance committee following the resignation of CEO and Chairman Maurice "Hank" Greenberg, who left after an investigation into the firm's accounting practices by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer."

Arthur Levitt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is where full disclosure of who made the decisions to ignore the examiner reports needs to come in. And shareholder lawsuits.

For folks who use a credit union, you're automatically a shareholder generally. That would give you more ability to raise a stink about lending practices.

I suspect that one of the people sending the message to not do anything was on that pic showing the regulators with the oversized scissors cutting the ribbon on regulation.

Take your pick.

Doofus wrote:

The math to figure out ultimate responsbility is easy.

So sayeth the Doofus.
.
Remember that a lot of these bad housing/credit policies were enacted before Dubya. You will find yourself looking at Clinton and further to find the front of this train.

homedad43 wrote:

Take your pick.

Sounds like Phogress to me.

It was not just Bush, but any number of neocon republicans who inhabited the executive branch.

I used to listen to Limbaugh years ago and recall when he was shilling (no offense, Shill) for the Glass-Steagal repeal saying that things were so much different now. Thought at that time that change was largely technological in nature but didn't see how human nature had changed to any extent.

How can we have any confidence in regulation going forward if we don't understand how this breakdown happened.

I don't expect any of it to ever see the light of day.

Too many people are culpable.

Report: GM bailout costs each taxpayer $12,200 - South Florida Business Journal:

So between my wife and I, we expect to have a new Pontiac (if they still make 'em) in the driveway next week.

Think that a GM dealer would give me a taxpayer pricebreak?

homedad43 wrote:

This one is clearly the bastard stepchild that no one wants or will claim. Looks like any number of possible parents...

Bill Hicks once said:

I don't remember your daddy's name, but he was a trucker so your name will be Trucker, Jr. Your daddy was the pizza delivery guy so your name was Pizza Delivery, Jr. Your daddy was the exterminator so your name was Exterminator, Jr. Your name was Will-Work-For-Food, Jr.

homedad43 wrote:

we expect to have a new Pontiac

Um, why?

Why would you want a Pontiac?

For that matter, why would you want a GM product?

Why would you want an American vehicle?

"I'd like to hear the field examiners testify (they apparently did a fine job early)."

I would too. And get prosecutions for everyone involved. But that's all going after the sneak thiefs. What about the stealing in plain sight going on now with 3.5% down FHA loans, and continuing madness at FNM and FRE, or the Fed's $1.2 trillion of MBS purchases? That $1.2 trillion could have been spent on WPA-like programs, and jump-starting demand and businesses that make the most of what Americans can do for each other, not pissed away on keeping home prices too high.

Why would I want a Pontiac/GM?

Quoting Sally after missing Halloween: "All I want is what's coming to me. All I want is my fair share."

Hey, for the tax money, I want my effin' car.

Bush picked folks as top regulators that did not believe in regulation. They were Ann Randian folks following Greenspan, where altruism is evil and the only thing is to be for yourself only. They all believed in Homo Economicus, the totally rational economic being. Such a being never exists as humans are animals and we go for the bandwagon effect (like lemmings), make decisions based upon small samples, with a bias to the first observation indicating what is to happen i.e. the whole area of behavioral economics. Bush and his team believed in the myth of homo economics and conducted themselves accordingly.

Another point is that memories were far to short "housing prices won't go down on a nationwide basis" when they did in the 1930s. It seems that bankers need to get spanked every so often and then they behave until a new generation of bright young things who did not experience the troubles comes along and knows better than the voice of experience. Perhaps the current crisis will give us 15 to 20 years until a new ignorant generation comes up in banking.

teapot dome?

The criminality underlying the housing bubble and everything since goes right to the top -- there's no way these people come to justice.

And that's just one of the reasons I no longer believe in "justice."

Not in this life.

Hell, the S&L debacle was just a trial run for this one.

name names?

how about this. regulators are destined to fail so long as they and especially their masters remain captured.

I don't need a stinkin commission to get to the truth. Regulation ALWAYS fails for the same reason in the U.S. Regulatory capture.

I know the commentariat believes in strong regulation. I would argue that every time we set up a regulatory body we guarantee a new hornet's nest of problems. No regulation is bad. Regulation that is not enforced is much, much worse.

The criminals are all still in place, rooking the public as usual. There's only way I can think of to root them out.

I would argue that every time we set up a regulatory body we guarantee a new hornet's nest of problems.

That's why I suggest that some future generation of regulators be garbed in black uniforms and equipped with Walther PPKs.

As an ode to nova: Even superstars start small:

YouTube - Jimmy Page 1957

Regulators who turn off the supply of air for the housing bubble get a letter they cannot ignore, from the people who determine their budget.

"Back when the housing mania was taking off, Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank famously said he wanted Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to "roll the dice" in the name of affordable housing. That didn't turn out so well, but Mr. Frank has since only accumulated more power. And now he is returning to the scene of the calamity -- with your money. He and New York Representative Anthony Weiner have sent a letter to the heads of Fannie and Freddie exhorting them to lower lending standards for condo buyers."

The FDIC is pure Ponzi.

duh! it is indicative of our whole "pay as you go" government!

Congress and the Fed will never, ever admit their role in this mess. Why should they? If they admit their fault, they're out of a job.

If they don't admit a thing - J6P won't care.

Amazing how at first, laws are needed to restrain the chaos and violence, but in the end chaos and violence is needed to restrain the law.

CR,
It doesn't help that the Fourth Estate betrayed its responsibility either, Reuters.com
ditto for academics who vociferously provided the argument that a bank would not commit such acts because it would be detrimental to their reputations, which I believe became official policy
but if you want to make an example of a regulator, how about the OTS Chairman who approved IndyMac filing a fraudulent quarterly report to shareholders, and allowing them to backdatedly restate their books I believe 4 days later for no good reason. IndyMac was of course shut down before the end of another quarter
OTS Says IndyMac, 4 Thrifts Allowed to Restate Capital Levels - Bloomberg.com
http://www.ustreas.gov/inspector-general/audit-reports/2009/oig09037.pdf
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKN3040214020090131
Audit: OTS knew bank data skewed - TheHill.com
There were 4 other institutions that did the same, but haven't been named to the public

MrBeach wrote:

Congress and the Fed will never, ever admit their role in this mess.... If they don't admit a thing - J6P won't care.

That's what amazes me. Hardly anyone is holding Congress and the Fed accountable for past and ongoing sins. They are the ones appointed to look after the public's interests. If the public's interests are not being served, that's the fault of these bozos - on both sides of the aisle.

1 million jobless face benefits loss in January

Extended jobless benefits run out in new year - Nov. 18, 2009

patientrenter wrote:

That's what amazes me. Hardly anyone is holding Congress and the Fed accountable for past and ongoing sins.

There is literally no way to hold them accountable. They have put themselves above the law, and rigged the electoral system such that they cannot be removed through the process that was intended to hold them accountable.

Thanks Yag....just got in from work

shill wrote:

Thanks Yag....just got in from work

Np. Just keeping you honest.

EvilHenryPaulson wrote:

Resign 12 Feb 2009 -> Gone 27 Feb 2009

Seriously. What took him so long to get out of Dodge?

sm_landlord wrote:

Let the states blow themselves up one at a time if they so choose, but at least the damage would be better contained when regulatory failure happens.

Some states learned from S&L and did not repeat the FAIL. Even so, if the derivatives and TBTF are not fixed, Just five of fifty fools can bring us to the brink again.

digalert wrote:

Hindsight is 20/20

** THIS IS NOT TRUE!!!** It seems like it should be, but look at the evidence. We know what the causes are, but they still can't see it!!

sdtfs wrote:

they still can't see it!!

"They" can see it, sdtfs. But it works better for them as long as things continue the way they are.

patientrenter wrote:

Hardly anyone is holding Congress and the Fed accountable for past and ongoing sins

Grayson and Paul are trying. Wait for a little more hurt and for someone more credible than Beck and the tea baggers, to rally around and I think we'll see a change of tune. It took GD I to get Glass-Steagall. It may take GD-II to get it back.

sm_landlord wrote:

you can't even leave without giving them at least half of everything you own.

I am OK with paying taxes, sm_landlord. My complaint is not about our govt being too far to the left or too far to the right. Both right and left pushed about equally hard to inflate asset price bubbles, and the resulting misallocation of capital, lives, and rewards and wealth is highly corrosive to the US economy and society.

It's going to take more than just a little more hurt. I see absolutely nothing changing until after the collapse. However long that takes. Once we destroy ourselves, the landscape will alter drastically and we can see who's capable of doing the rallying then.

edit: Maybe the person who leads us out of the rubble will be someone completely unexpected. Eliot Spitzer to the rescue?

Shnaps
In more than one case like OTS Chairman Reich, SEC Chairmen Levitt and Cox, Federal Reserve Chairmen Bernanke and Greenspan, FDIC Chairman Powell, it was a policy / philosophy / ideology -- to varying degrees -- of anti-regulation
that's just from the top of my head. Now Levitt and Greenspan are popping up every other day in the media trying to cover their ass for historical purposes, saying something has to change -- but it shouldn't be through added regulation please

Amazing how at first, laws are needed to restrain the chaos and violence, but in the end chaos and violence is needed to restrain the law.

,
I am reminded of the John Adams book (and mini-series on HBO). Our second president was walking that line for much of his early life as a lawyer, defending redcoats who gunned down civilians or enforced tax collection, only to finally go over to the revolution.

Frankly, I don't think we have that kind of principled thinking these days in general. And less so among the jackals who presume to lead us.

yagij wrote:

Canada is forcing Americans to return to U.S.?

I was referring to the policy of assessing death taxes upon renouncing citizenship.

sm_landlord wrote:

I was referring to the policy of assessing death taxes upon renouncing citizenship.

You don't renounce. Besides, who is going to stop you from "taking a hike" in Idaho into Canada with your PM collection in your bag/sack/shoe? It will be the Shawshank Redemption. You will smuggle one gold coin every weekend 'til it is all out of the country.
.
The underground economy worked for illegals here. Just gotta get savvy and scrappy in your newfound "homeland"

The key problem -- tax money does two things:
1) creates a protected governmental class that draws their salary from those revenues
2) creates a permanent entitlement underclass

Both of which groups are totally dependent on tax revenue for their very existence, and both of which groups vote. At different times, monarchs, aristocracy, an educated citizenry, and a mercantile middle class served to keep those forces somewhat in check.

Harndog wrote:

banks and other public corporations have a board of directors.

US laws make most shareholders toothless. All they can do is sell their stock.

I sensed a tremendous amount of pain and anger among my peers when the stock market was crashing and their savings were getting rapidly decimated. Now that AAPL and GOOG are nearing their highs - people seem much calmer.

Some friends have aggressively ridden the rising market up from the spring and ahead of where they were last year.

They want to hear nothing of systemic collapse, currency crisis, regulatory capture, bond market failure, etc.

As long as their wealth is growing, they are willing to overlook everything.

This is really the key: people will only demand change under duress.

For the moment, we have QE and direct mortgage market support. And who knows, perhaps even secret stock market support.

J6P is calmed. TPTB can keep their jobs.

sm_landlord wrote:

But everyone should have the option of voting with their feet when a system becomes unsalvageable or intolerable. That's a human rights issue, not a tax issue.

Hmm, not used to sharing your views.

patientrenter wrote:

Well said. J6P wants asset bubbles, and the more the merrier.

Speaking of which, the USD/JPY cross is heading back down to an 88 handle. Looks like the BoJ has to warm up their presses again.
.
Edit: Also, Nikki is slumping today. Bad sushi?

yagij wrote:

Besides, who is going to stop you from "taking a hike" in Idaho into Canada

"Follow the drinking gourd." (Follow the North Star to freedom. Maybe Broward will run a safe house.)

TJ and The Bear wrote:

the worm turns when the market takes its final deep bow, which shouldn't be too far off

You have a fascinating belief that one day TPTB will wake up and stop printing money. I cannot share your idealism.

patientrenter wrote:

You have a fascinating belief that one day TPTB will wake up and stop printing money.

Speaking of which, I was reminded to order some more PM tonight for some odd reason...
.
Now, I just gotta decide to move into GLD or SLV and be willing to sit in it for 3-6 months without losing sleep.

patientrenter wrote:

I cannot share your idealism.

The markets and the printed money are not the same thing, although they are related. Stocks will dive regardless.

rosethorn, from that WaPo article you linked to:

"The Washington Post reported last month that OTS allowed thrifts to lend massively while reserves against future losses dwindled. "

Isn't that what's happening in plain sight at both the FDIC and the FHA right now? Is Congress reining them in too?

patientrenter wrote:

Is Congress reining them in too?

No, because "that's a policy".

There is not a doubt in my mind that this was the official policy if the Bush administration. Now let's see some serious investigations and let the chips fall where they may.

Well said. J6P wants asset bubbles, and the more the merrier. Sitting on rising asset prices is a lot easier than saving the old-fashioned way - spending less than you earn.
J6P doesn't know or care what an asset bubble is. He is locked into an unsustainable lifestyle that was enabled by a level of credit that is no longer available, and the expectation that this situation would never change in his lifetime.

what makes this period in the stock market end?

The next shock, whatever it is.

The next shock, that even Brad DeLong now seems to admit, will bring down the system.

Uh, isn't our guy saying,"The past is past, and let's move forward!" ?
Or are we hoping someone else will step up?
And why haven't they already?

From Edward Harrison:

Barack Obama: “if we keep on adding to the debt… that could actually lead to a double-dip” - Credit Writedowns

... Think of an economy this way: the people in any economy buy goods and services from one another and from the outside. In any given time period, one person, one company or one group/sector might use credit in order to buy more goods and services than it makes in income. It’s like spending future income by using credit. This puts that individual, company or group/sector in deficit i.e. they have spent more money than they have earned. Now obviously, if one sector is in deficit in a given period (i.e. they have spent more capital than they have earned), then the other sectors are in net surplus (i.e. they have received more cash than they have earned).

Let’s give these groups/sectors of the economy names: the private sector, the public sector and the foreign sector. Giving the groups names makes it plain that if the public sector is in deficit, the combined foreign and private sectors must be in surplus. Simply put, if you look at all of the households and businesses that make up the private sector and aggregate them together, you can determine if the private sector has a net surplus or a net deficit in any individual time period. And if the private sector has a net surplus, the combined foreign sector and public sector must have a deficit for that time period. The sector financial balances move in concert.

What this means for today is that a government which reduces its deficit in a given time period is forcing an equal reduction in surplus in the private and foreign sectors. So that means, in aggregate, the private sector and the foreign sector will reduce the surplus cash it is taking in over what it spends. ...

MrBeach wrote:

what makes this period in the stock market end?

how is next week for you? promise it will be done within the month
/said EHP from the spacious trunk of a ford taurus with cop specs

Gary wrote:

There is not a doubt in my mind that this was the official policy if the Bush administration. Now let's see some serious investigations and let the chips fall where they may.

Unfortunately for justice seekers, the current admin is in the business of "looking forward, not back," which is convenient given how much it would be wiped out by any serious investigation.

Exactly. This Dochow person should be canned and barred from any kind of government employment. Failing that, he ought to at least be mopping floors in the basement.

MLM: A global currency crisis? Or a USD currency crisis?

Not a single bank has failed in Canada. From what I have read they have a principles based regulatory system versus our rules based system. From what I have learned when the Canadian OFSI says jump the banks listen. They have only one regulator, but that regulator is very powerful. They conduct frequent audits of their big five banks and strictly control capital levels. And those banks can not engage in financial conduct that is not approved of by the OFSI. Reminds me of the USMJ that governs our military. Engage in any conduct that is a violation of the general article or the article governing conduct unbecoming and you are in a world of hurt. It does not matter that you might know what exactly gets you in trouble, but you engage in said conduct that brings a bad name to the military you are in a world of hurt. That is an example of a principles based system vs a rules based system. Like the US military, Canadian banks also are governed by a principles based system. Might be a model worth exploring.

EvilHenryPaulson wrote:

oil.

Good point. >$4 Gas crushes sooo many things.

I will be happy to see the Bob Rubins and Larry Summers of the world right there next to them in the dock. You think we should sweep this under the rug and say bygones? No. We need some goddamned accountability for once.

I don't know who Dochow is exactly, but I doubt he was the most powerful inflater of the home price bubble amongst those who represent the public's interests, elected and appointed .

My vote is to pick the most powerful such person today, and hold them accountable for the damage they are doing to our future. Just to placate those who think this is a witch-hunt designed merely to further partisan political catfighting, pick the most culpable public servant from the other side of the aisle and give them the same treatment.

Oil is certainly a possibility.

Another possibility could be a $US crisis that forces Bernanke to raise rates.

sdtfs wrote:

Sounds like someone's getting impatient.

How right you are. I'll calm down now.

ALL HAIL FFDIC!!! Nice to see you, dude!!!

Beers all around!

p.s.: And some vino for the ladies...

Yes! All hail, FFDIC!

FFDIC wrote:

FDIC had many hellish ways to punish employees who didn't get in line. Involuntary transfers 2,000 miles from home to a frozen wasteland. Downgrades, no promotions for 20 years, poor assignments or plum assignments going to others, no awards or training, supervisors from hell, the list is fucking long, hard and creative...

YouTube - Kevin Bacon - Fraternity Paddle

FFDIC wrote:

FDIC had many hellish ways to punish employees who didn't get in line.

I would love the people responsible to be roasted. But I'd like to make sure the top guys responsible for the asset price bubbles get their just desserts too. It's really annoying to see the captains and majors get prosecuted for war crimes and the field marshals going free - and some even continuing to be field marshals.

patientrenter wrote:

It's really annoying to see the captains and majors get prosecuted for war crimes and the field marshals going free - and some even continuing to be field marshals.

That only happens when the problem is at the top. Makes me think of Abu Garaib.

Thanks FFDIC.

The more you speak out the better.

It's seems we're all sitting around waiting for Glodot.

I'm sitting around waiting for my once a week Big Mac.

Tonight is Big Mac Night.

Blackhalo wrote:

hat only happens when the problem is at the top.

I think you had the snark on. But in the middle of the largest asset price bubble in recorded history, anyone at the top who says they were unaware is not credible. You could see the bubble all around you every day, in public stock prices and home prices.

My prediction.... at the end of the day if there is an investigation ( unlikely ) it will be found that no one really did anything wrong, no rules were broken and no-one will be prosecuted or pilloried for gross incompetence. So business as usual basically.
~splat

MrBeach wrote:

MLM: A global currency crisis? Or a USD currency crisis?

A global monetary freak out, precipated by a USD currency crisis.

Imagine China dropping the peg, the Saudis announcing they want to be paid in Euros, and Russian announcing they insist on being paid in currencies partially backed by gold for their natgas, all in the space of a few weeks. I think that gives a rough feel of some of the craziness during GD1, and this really ought to be worse all things considered.

FFDIC wrote:

There is a huge amount of plain old arrogance at FDIC and as long as Barney Frank has FDIC's back it will only grow into a larger cancer on the American people.

All the dogs in my neighborhood just started howling at the moon simultaneously. Did someone say Barney Fran -- lightning bolt strikes down heretic ndk

I've at least enjoyed the Bair/Geithner turf war for the spectacle of it. To step on some toes, it's like watching a Yankees/Red Sox game. It's good theater and sport even if you hate both the competitors and wish there were a way for both of them to lose. (and for the record, I prefer Bair to Geithner by a fair margin)

Anyway, the punishment of the prudent and the just makes my blood boil. Anyone with a mote of ethos has been banished so deep into the bowels of these organizations and our collective national leadership, public and private, that we should expect all above a certain rank to be total slimeballs.

It's certainly true in academia, and I count a number of CIO's and provosts as personal friends. I'd just hate, Hate, to have to work with or under them.

But at least they can't send you to Hoboken to clean up Joisey State Thrift & Loan.

splat wrote:

it will be found that no one really did anything wrong, no rules were broken and no-one will be prosecuted or pilloried for gross incompetence.

Not quite. Some mid-level former bureaucrats and political hacks will be sacrificed to keep attention away from the real powers - people like Frank, Rove, Summers, Bernanke, Greenspan, Geithner, Dodd. [For the life of me, I'd like to add more Republican names to this list, but were there really many Republicans smart enough to orchestrate asset price bubbles as well as someone like Frank or Summers?]

FFDIC wrote:

Downgrades, no promotions for 20 years, poor assignments or plum assignments going to others, no awards or training, supervisors from hell, the list is fucking long, hard and creative...

There appears to be a journalistic appetite for exploring this, FFDIC, that may have not existed a year or two ago. You would be doing your patriotic duty to contact Eric Dash, Alison Vekshin, or one of the other competent reporters who have already shown interest in this topic and providing some context for them. We've been giving the 4th estate a bad rap over the past while, but I think there are still reporters and editors who are just waiting for a bombshell story like this to build a career out of. Perhaps you've moved on and are no longer interested in thinking of this, but at least throw down some thoughts into an anonymous letter, maybe laced with a few tantalizing crumbs that lead a reporter to a door or two they would have never thought to open.

I'll be the voice of youthful optimism today: give the 4th estate a chance to redeem themselves and watch how quickly the government cowers in fear.

Personally I would like to see an investigation, however given the FDIC's army of in house lawyers and deep pockets to hire expert outside counsel ... well, the lawers would win in the end. During the 1930s investigations FDIC had a tiny legal team and mostly honest people. None of that is what we are dealing with today. It has grown into an arrogant monster with plenary powers that are ever expanding with no significant investigations to assist the tax paying public.

patientrenter wrote:

For the life of me, I'd like to add more Republican names to this list, but were there really many Republicans smart enough to orchestrate asset price bubbles as well as someone like Frank or Summers?]

How powerful and influential was Frank before the 2006 elections?

Today's six sigma is tomorrow's hoocoodanode.

Things have a way of going from the impossible to the inevitable without ever stopping at probable.

Like my Big Mac.

FFDIC wrote:

I even wrote Sen Frank in 2005

I think we know Frank has zero interest in prudent lending. But what about Noob's idea of dropping a few breadcrumbs for the 4th estate?

patientrenter wrote:

I wish I lived in a world where Noob's suggestion was one you could act on, FFDIC. Best of luck to you, whatever you do.

There's a lot of cynicism on this board when it comes to the internal mechanisms of the government, a cynicism rightfully bred from recognizing the issues early and seeing warnings go unheeded and perpetrators go unpunished. But we're statistical outliers in that respect; the overwhelming majority of the great unwashed still believes their government operates in their best interest, for the most part, and does not have the same cynical attitude toward its ability to heal itself.

If the population in general becomes cynical toward their government, society has a problem. But I don't think we're there yet, personally, and an enterprising reporter might just find an audience for a bit of Watergate-type scandal.

patientrenter wrote:

Very. But clearly Republicans had the upper hand before 2006.

Well, have you heard of Rep. Michael Oxley? He held the strings during the most egregious period of the bubble. Frank, relatively, wasn't powerful at all during that period as the Dems were a distinct minority with very little leverage. Admittedly, Dems have more leverage today but that is primarily as a result of more voices in the Senate and obviously the Presidency.

To try to pin this disaster on Frank is a joke.

c'mon sheeple - get in the spirit!

Silver, silver and gold
Silver and gold, silver and gold
Ev'ryone wishes for silver and gold
How do you measure its worth?
Just by the pleasure it gives here on earth.
Silver and gold, silver and gold
Mean so much more when I see
Silver and gold decorations
On ev'ry Christmas tree.
Silver, silver and gold
Silver, silver and gold
Silver and gold

Blackhalo wrote:

Cheney, Oxley, Grassley, Paulson, Cox

Huh? Paulson was in the private sector prior to 2006. I expect that CEOs will look after their own interests. I expect, and we should all expect, better of our public servants.

patientrenter, enough of your shilling. I put up with your "pox on both their houses" false equivalency BS. But that last statement is flat out false.

The significance of 2002 is that the GOP consolidated their power and took full control of congress. DSo the Bushies had all the executive functions, and after the 2002 elections, completely eliminated meaningful congressional oversight. No subpoenas. No hearings. No investigations.

Barney Frank was practically powerless from 2002-2006.

noob goldberg wrote:

There's a lot of cynicism on this board when it comes to the internal mechanisms of the government, a cynicism rightfully bred from recognizing the issues early and seeing warnings go unheeded and perpetrators go unpunished.

I totally thought you were going to follow this with something like, "But at times, that cynicism can go too far, and you must always give a sinner sufficient incentive and leeway to reform. Without the benefit of the doubt, we leave not even room for change."

Psych.

But we're statistical outliers in that respect; the overwhelming majority of the great unwashed still believes their government operates in their best interest, for the most part, and does not have the same cynical attitude toward its ability to heal itself.

That may be true in Canada. That is almost certainly not true in America. Have you seen the approval ratings for Congress? I'm reasonably sure they dropped below 20% awhile ago. That's as close to a proxy as we'll find for "do you trust your government?" in a national poll.

Good thread. Reality is hitting the fan!

Gary wrote:

Barney Frank was practically powerless from 2002-2006.

Thank glod he's had the chance to make up for it since!

When do we get money back? No dollars please.

Lay off the viagra noob. I've been talking to Alex Blumberg with NPR ...he did a FDIC fluff piece on a tiny bank closing and thinks it is great. Snore....

"At the height of the economic boom, to take an aggressive supervisory approach and tell people to stop lending is hard to do."

I might not get my bonus and free parking...

RE wrote:

To try to pin this disaster on Frank is a joke

I wasn't trying to pin this disaster on Republicans OR Democrats. Even a moron can see that the blame for what happened and is now happening falls squarely on both Republicans AND Democrats. As I've said before, this is way beyond petty partisan political point-scoring.

What interests me is the dynamics of the (equally misguided and selfish) thirst for asset price bubbles as an economic policy. On the Democrat side, it is highly organized, top-down. On the Republican side, I see equal and maybe greater fervor for asset price bubbles amongst the political base, but I see fewer orchestrating leaders, apart from Greenspan.

So you're saying that Cheney, Oxley, Grassley, and Cox can be added to the list of those in public service before 2006 who were the most powerful proponents of asset price bubbles? Cox seemed so out of touch at the SEC that this surprises me. He always seemed a follower rather than a leader to me, but I am probably not as well informed as you.

FFDIC wrote:

Lay off the viagra noob. I've been talking to Alex Blumberg with NPR ...he did a FDIC fluff piece on a tiny bank closing and thinks it is great. Snore....

I think it's apparent to most that the fourth estate has become part of the problem by this point. The destruction of their independence-based business model has incentivized them to try others, like sucking executive arse for leaks and abusing their mouthpiece to benefit trades they've established. I just can't wait until they literally are funded directly by the Feds! EHP just posted a link about that which noob might consider revisiting.

ndk wrote:

That may be true in Canada. That is almost certainly not true in America. Have you seen the approval ratings for Congress? I'm reasonably sure they dropped below 20% awhile ago. That's as close to a proxy as we'll find for "do you trust your government?" in a national poll.

I agree, but general dissatisfaction with the work of Congress is not synonymous with 'actively working against the interest of the citizenry of the United States of America'. I think most voters, if shown evidence that Congress was actively working against them, would still sit up straight in their seats and respond "Excuse Me?" Because campaign support revenue from business aside, congress people aren't elected for life; they still do have to answer for themselves to voters, but will never do so voluntarily.

Is it just me or doesn't anybody long to see an EXAMINER or LAWYER from FDIC on TV instead of Bair? Are none of them smart enough to represent FDIC on TV? Ditto: OCC

FFDIC wrote:

Lay off the viagra noob. I've been talking to Alex Blumberg with NPR ...he did a FDIC fluff piece on a tiny bank closing and thinks it is great. Snore....

I had a nap; I'm full of piss and vinegar tonight.

Gary's going rouge! Goodnight Gary!

why yes.
it represents Sisyphus (the debt slave, i.e. the avg citizen) condemned to push the load up a mountain, only to see it roll down again. The triangle/hill will never be conquered by j6p.

The squids and sharks will soon be on the run...

noob goldberg wrote:

I agree, but general dissatisfaction with the work of Congress is not synonymous with 'actively working against the interest of the citizenry of the United States of America'.

Here we go. We're down to 23% of Americans who trust the Government to do the right thing at least "most of the time".

WSJ/NBC News Poll: Trusting the Government to Do the Right Thing - Washington Wire - WSJ

This used to be around 70%.

Wanna know where I first heard this metric? Volcker's speech to the Economic Club of New York some two years ago. I hear from him about as often as I hear from the examiners at FDIC.

ndk wrote:

EHP just posted a link about that which noob might consider revisiting.

If it's the Felix Salmon one, I can't seem to open it.

Noob wrote-
"an enterprising reporter might just find an audience for a bit of Watergate-type scandal."

The 24 hour news cycle, centralizing of media to a handful of corporations and the downsizing/eradication of newspapers poses an obstacle to that hope. Multiple times over the last two years I have read a finance story that I considered important enough to trigger a broader investigation or popular outrage. Still waiting for that to manifest into action. Kinda given up tbh.

What I am seeing is a trend towards revisionism of the entire crisis and an effort to rebrand it as "these things happen in a complex economy." Keep repeating the big lie until people believe it.

It would be easier for Congress to go to Russia and get to the bottom of its regulatory oversight vs capture than to attempt it here and they know it.

And then 99% of Americans need to be deprogrammed...

from the media speak

Feldstein 2008.

A successful plan to stabilize the U.S. economy ... must address the fundamental cause of the crisis: the downward spiral of house prices that devastates household wealth and destroys the capital of financial institutions that hold mortgages and mortgage-backed securities....

We need a firewall to break the downward spiral of house prices. Here's how it might work. The federal government would offer any homeowner with a mortgage an opportunity to replace 20% of the mortgage with a low-interest loan from the government, subject to a maximum of $80,000. This would be available to new buyers as well as those with mortgages. The interest on that loan would reflect the government's cost of funds and could be as low as 2%. The loan would not be secured by the house but would be a loan with full recourse, allowing the government to take other property or income in the unlikely event that the individual does not pay. It would by law be senior to other unsecured debt and not eligible for relief in bankruptcy.

ndk wrote:

Wanna know where I first heard this metric? Volcker's speech to the Economic Club of New York some two years ago. I hear from him about as often as I hear from the examiners at FDIC.

You guys are all ruining my post-nap buzz, dammit.

Volcker being muzzled is unfortunate, but hopefully the big guy realizes he's got nothing to lose and becomes a bit more vocal. But he's already fought his war, and it's unrealistic to expect an 80 year old to head back into battle. As much as we wish he would...

The internet and access to relevant, reliable, and accurate information is also a step to deprogramming unless you end up on a programming site...so it's tricky...but the internet can be a useful tool for learning...

Yankee wrote:

this is my dream (early) retirement home.

Beautiful. You have good taste!

I was there in Sept. I know I like that neighborhood. the view slays me.

patientrenter wrote:

Hmm... I can see Cheney and Greenspan being the drivers, the architects. But Paulson wasn't Treasury Secretary before 2006.

I just mentioned them because they were the most identifiable members of the Bush Admin. Paulson clearly only got in in 2006. However, let us not forget where he worked beforehand and that the company he led had and still has a significance influence on U.S. policy. I did mention that lots of economic policy in the Bush Admin came from outside the White House.

There's no such thing as Republicans and Democrats as such just their financiers, handlers, and chief global architects who fund their special interests and goals of cornering market share and unregulated wealth accumulation and concentration...

Fading fast and failing to hit on all cylinders of cynicism tonight...

patientrenter wrote:

But Paulson wasn't Treasury Secretary before 2006.

You doubt that the CEO of the had a hand in setting policy during the Bush administration? That is kind of like saying Ken Lay did not have a hand is setting energy policy because he was not the VP. You might want to read Paulson's Wiki or scroll up to the pertinent passages I posted.

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

Fading fast and failing to hit on all cylinders of cynicism tonight...

That won't do. Go have a nap and be back here in an hour.

merchants of fear wrote:

gold is a scary haven to hide in

Not as scary as the alternatives.

Silver may be better...

Fun thread, everyone. Enjoy your night.

If you're on a budget...

Especially junk silver...

Where is my squid t-shirt?

Phil Gramm, by then at UBS, was still spinning his webs. Architect and shepard of Gramm-Leach-Bliley and Commodities Futures Modernization Act

Several Texans are to blame in a big way:
1. Gramm
2. Bush (Laura not so much)
3. DeLay
4. Hutchison
5. Cornyn
6. Armey

i like grassley's stances on prosperity churches, medical research ethics, and whistleblowing.

"prosperity churches"?

Scary stuff...

To my mind, Bair acts as though it's her job to protect banks.

Her job is to protect depositors. All FDIC info should be public.

Going After the Money Ministries - TIME

That's fine, and I know he's fairly moderate, but I don't forget anyone who voted for TARP.

China Commercial Aircraft plans plant in Shanghai

China Commercial Aircraft plans plant in Shanghai - Yahoo! Finance

Earlier this week, General Electric's aviation unit teamed up with Aviation Industry Corp. of China, COMAC's state-run parent company, to develop and market electronic systems for commercial aircraft customers, including the C919 narrow-body aircraft.

GE is also supplying engines for the 70 to 110-seat ARJ-21 passenger jet, designed for the local market .

>
For some reason i doubt if the [edit] intended use is just local markets, and of course the seat capacity will grow.

designed for the local market .

Uh, huh. I'm sure it would be very difficult to move an airplane to another region... /s

CalculatedRisk wrote:

Names should be named - no matter how high up the chain. We owe this to future generations.

I'm just curious. Does Eric Holder do anything? I want his job. Golf must be involved. Like everyday.

Which is worse - bankers or terrorists wrote:

I'm just curious. Does Eric Holder do anything?

He must be involved with something to do with Guantanamo at the very least. But there's not a whole lot of anything coming out of Justice. He's got a lot on his plate, that's for sure.

FFDIC wrote:

Where is my squid t-shirt?

Great idea! I was thinking about making a Hoocoodanode t-shirt, and had been thinking of the pitchforks and torches guy, but this would be more subtle...

FFDIC - you may have just outed yourself. That's a narrow search range if someone felt so inclined.

C

kcoop wrote:

I was thinking about making a Hoocoodanode t-shirt,

I was thinking more along the lines of a jet black plush squid toy. Not really menacing though.

Here, with my emphasis, is what chilled me:

"Haven Trust, founded in 2000, enjoyed a light touch from its regulators, according to its autopsy, which was completed in August."

As if they just came in to slurp up some bubbly. I'm toying with the idea that the most reliable bubble indicator in real estate markets is the appearance of bandwagoning, "innovation," and such on the part of lenders. Watch for those and you'll catch'em early.