What is/are the cause(s) of this economic peril? (1 Viewer)

Essentially?


Not too long ago, when you took out a mortgage, you were lended money by a private local bank for that. The net effect was, for banks, mortgage entailed taking on huge liabilities (for their size) and consequently standards for a mortgage were high.

What Fannie Mae originally was created to do was to buy up, either bonds issued on these debts or, later, the mortgages themselves. Fannie Mae received a different, and preferential rate as compared to most banks. So they could make money off the difference in interest.

This allowed banks to off-load liabilities and continue to issue mortgages, adding liquidity to the US economy.

What happened is Wall Street eventually got the bright idea to, basically, get in the same business as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They began buying up mortgages from banks and begin selling shares in the debt.

The problem is it basically took all of the liability off the individual banks. They were dumping mortgages on the market place as soon as they were issued. Banks were accuring no liability and consequently had no reason to stop issuing mortgages.

Without any sort of natural breaking mechanism on the issuing of mortgages, banks got more and more "adventurous" in terms of who they loaned too. Standards dropped and more and more marginal people got mortgages. Why not? It wasn't the banks problem, they'd sell it off to the financial and be free of it.

The net result was the so-called "Real Estate bubble". Because you had all of these new buyers flooding the market with bigger price ranges then they would have historically had, housing prices started jumping all over the country. At some point however things simply got too outrageous. At some point people stopped buying in shares to the more marginal CDO's (Collateralized Debt Obligation), which meant financials stopped buying up bank issued mortgages, which meant banks were suddenly stuck with the most marginal of mortgages.

Suddenly there was a dramatic drop in the flow of people entering the housing market, which meant prices dropped, which meant people counting on the equity of their home were suddenly in trouble.

People began to default, banks got in trouble because they had all of these marginal mortgages they could no longer sell, financials got in trouble because they had all of this acquired debt no one wanted to invest in anymore, and voila, the current crisis.

At least, that's how I understand what happened
 
By the way, buzz phrases of "socialized cost, privatized profits" and "greatest ponzi scheme ever" are neither descriptive nor helpful to anyone understanding what's going on. They are fun, they are somewhat clever, and they make great partisan by-lines.

They just aren't useful.
 
Tell me how fundamentals are good when we are a consumer based economy, with 70% of GDP dependent on you going to the mall or to Wall Mart and buying things and consumers are tapped out with debt, can't get new debt, income is stagnant, employment weakening and stock portfolios and home equity is declining rapidly?

Everything you describe is part of the belt tightening. yes, we do shop at Wall Mart, or the Mall, but no more excess spending first at the top, and second at the bottom. We can't get out of this mess by continuing to live beyond our means. St tammany is very correct pointing this out, in one of his posts above. The good news is, we still have our jobs, and that is the ticket to crawl out of this mess. Yes, it won't be easy, and if McCain wins, he might have to pay the price for the belt tightening and the pain associated with it.....but its worth it!






The fundamentals are absolutely not good in the short run and restoring them to equilibrium requires "adjustment." Government intervention distorts and postpones "adjustment."

I agree with the statement that the "Government intervention distorts and postpones "adjustment."

What I mean by the strong fundamentalls is this: ""Our workers are the most innovative, the hardest working, the best skilled, most productive, most competitive in the world. My opponents may disagree, but those fundamentals of America are strong." John McCain.

face it blackadder.....it will be us, you & me and millions like us who will have to start digging ourselves out. And let me assure you: I have 100% FAITH in your abilities, just as I have 100% faith in every body's ability to adjust. We will survive this!
 
Essentially?


Not too long ago, when you took out a mortgage, you were lended money by a private local bank for that. The net effect was, for banks, mortgage entailed taking on huge liabilities (for their size) and consequently standards for a mortgage were high.

What Fannie Mae originally was created to do was to buy up, either bonds issued on these debts or, later, the mortgages themselves. Fannie Mae received a different, and preferential rate as compared to most banks. So they could make money off the difference in interest.

This allowed banks to off-load liabilities and continue to issue mortgages, adding liquidity to the US economy.

What happened is Wall Street eventually got the bright idea to, basically, get in the same business as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They began buying up mortgages from banks and begin selling shares in the debt.

The problem is it basically took all of the liability off the individual banks. They were dumping mortgages on the market place as soon as they were issued. Banks were accuring no liability and consequently had no reason to stop issuing mortgages.

Without any sort of natural breaking mechanism on the issuing of mortgages, banks got more and more "adventurous" in terms of who they loaned too. Standards dropped and more and more marginal people got mortgages. Why not? It wasn't the banks problem, they'd sell it off to the financial and be free of it.

The net result was the so-called "Real Estate bubble". Because you had all of these new buyers flooding the market with bigger price ranges then they would have historically had, housing prices started jumping all over the country. At some point however things simply got too outrageous. At some point people stopped buying in shares to the more marginal CDO's (Collateralized Debt Obligation), which meant financials stopped buying up bank issued mortgages, which meant banks were suddenly stuck with the most marginal of mortgages.

Suddenly there was a dramatic drop in the flow of people entering the housing market, which meant prices dropped, which meant people counting on the equity of their home were suddenly in trouble.

People began to default, banks got in trouble because they had all of these marginal mortgages they could no longer sell, financials got in trouble because they had all of this acquired debt no one wanted to invest in anymore, and voila, the current crisis.

At least, that's how I understand what happened

Yep.

You can add in the Greenspan artificially low interest rates that allowed the ridiculous teaser rates. His monetary policy undergirded the whole thing by suddenly making mortgages affordable to many who otherwise could not afford them.

He essentially papered over the fallout of the dot com bubble by creating another bubble in real estate. Rates were too low for too long.

And then he rode off on his book tour.
 
By the way, buzz phrases of "socialized cost, privatized profits" and "greatest ponzi scheme ever" are neither descriptive nor helpful to anyone understanding what's going on. They are fun, they are somewhat clever, and they make great partisan by-lines.

They just aren't useful.

Not useful, or just uncomfortably accurate?

Because if they are accurate, that means that there is something really wrong going on.
 
Yep.

You can add in the Greenspan artificially low interest rates that allowed the ridiculous teaser rates. His monetary policy undergirded the whole thing by suddenly making mortgages affordable to many who otherwise could not afford them.

He essentially papered over the fallout of the dot com bubble by creating another bubble in real estate. Rates were too low for too long.

And then he rode off on his book tour.

Right, the low interest rates were a big spur in this in the late-90's leading into the 21st century.

If the old financial barriers hadn't been stripped away in the late 90's the interest rates would have been fine, having the desired effect of sustaining growth.

The problem, without some of the barriers erected following the Great Depression, all the rates did was encourage financial adventurism and speculation.
 
There is no point in bickering which party is at "fault" over this because the blame is equal between them. The damage done was two-fold:
Deregulation and government tampering.

The escalation began with deregulation in 1998, when Senator Phil Gramm (Republican) created the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which removed Structured Investment Vehicles (SIVs) or Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO) that had acted as a firewall against aggressively bad investments. Republicans alone can't be blamed for this, however. The Democrats "Messiah President" Clinton not only signed it, he aggressively backed the move, and exacerbated the problem by boosting the Community Redevelopment Act at the same time, which encouraged offering loans to high risk individuals in high risk areas.

The problem reached the boiling point, however, because of government meddling in the industry through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the National Home Loan Bank Board. These entities were allowed to operate without the FCC mandates that other companies still had to follow (and operated outside the SIVs even before they were gone), received government subsidies estimated as much as $13.5 billion dollars each fiscal year, and they were extended an open-end line of credit from the US Treasury, estimated at over $2 billion dollars by 2003 with the explicit promise to bail out any or all three of the GSEs should they default.
This brought unfair competition to the market and forced other companies like Lehman, AIG, Merril, et al to partake in riskier and riskier loan deals in order to compete and draw customers.

Ironically, though he has been mostly a huge waste of space as a President, even an idiot like "W" saw this coming and tried to circumvent it before it exploded 5 years ago. Democrats led the effort to block him and were successful, allowing the GSEs to go on their merry, irresponsible way.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/16/whose-policies-led-to-the-credit-crisis/

Then, in the fall of 2003, Ron Paul tried again to bring this problem to the attention of Congress and get them to enact the "Free Housing Market Enhancement Act" that would correct this loose cannon, but he was ignored. I don't have a link, so here is the Congressional transcript from that day (emphases mine):

INTRODUCING FREE HOUSING
MARKET ENHANCEMENT ACT
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, September 10, 2003
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce
the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.
This legislation restores a free market in housing
by repealing special privileges for the
housing-related government sponsored enterprises
(GSE). These entities are the Federal
National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae),
the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
(Freddie Mac), and the National Home Loan
Bank Board. According to the Congressional
Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received
13.6 billion worth of indirect Federal
subsidies in Fiscal Year 2000 alone.
One of the major government privileges
granted the GSE is a line of credit to the
United States Treasury. According to some
estimates, the line of credit may be worth over
$2 billion dollars. This explicit promise by the
Treasury to bail out the GSEs in times of economic
difficulty helps the GSEs attract investors
who are willing to settle for lower yields
than they would demand in the absence of the
subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation
of capital. More importantly, the line of
credit is a promise on behalf of the government
to engage in a massive unconstitutional
and immoral income transfer from working
Americans to holders of GSE debt.

The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act
also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority
given to the Federal Reserve to purchase the
debt of GSE. GSEs are the only institutions
besides the United States Treasury granted
explicit statutory authority to monetarize their
debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision
gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable
to their competitors.
The connection between the GSEs and the
government helps isolate the GSE management
from market discipline. This isolation
from market discipline is the root cause of the
recent reports of mismanagement occurring at
Fannie and Freddie.
After all, if investors did
not have reason to believe that Fannie and
Freddie were underwritten by the Federal government
then investors would demand Fannie
and Freddie provided assurance they were following
accepted management and accounting
practices before investing in Fannie and
Freddie.
Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread
mortgage default, the government increases
the likelihood of a painful crash in the
housing market This is because the special
privileges of Fannie and Freddie have distorted
the housing marketing by allowing
Fannie, Freddie and the home loan bank
board to attract capital they could not attract
under pure market conditions.
As a result,
capitol is diverted from its most productive use
into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the
entire market and thus reduces the standard
of living of all Americans.
Despite the long-term damage to the economy
inflicted by the government’s interference
in the housing market, the government’s policies
of diverting capital to other uses creates
a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-
created bubbles, the boom in housing
prices cannot last forever. When housing
prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty
as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore,
the holders of the mortgage debt will
also have a loss. These losses will be greater
than they would have otherwise been had
government policy not actively encouraged
over-investment in housing.
Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off
the day of reckoning by purchasing the GSE’s
debt and pumping liquidity into the housing
market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable
drop in the housing market forever. In fact,
postponing the necessary, but painful market
corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall.
The more people invested in the market, the
greater the effects across the economy when
the bubble bursts.

No less an authority than Federal Reserve
Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed
concern that the government subsidies provided
to the GSEs make investors underestimate
the risk of investing in Fannie Mac and
Freddie Mac.
Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to act
to remove taxpayer support from the housing
GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers
are once again forced to bail out investors
who were misled by foolish government interference
in the market. I therefore hope my colleagues
will stand up for American taxpayers
and investors by cosponsoring the Free Housing
Market Enhancement Act.

Congress led us down this path and Congress kept us on it. No one can throw blame squarely at either party because they both had a hand in it, predictably one party a stronger hand at times and the other party a stronger hand at other times.
Well, the bubble has burst. We can't avoid that, but Congress should re-institute the CIVs to help bolster some feelings of security in investors so they will return to the market sooner; and enact some form of Ron Paul's Free Housing Market Enhancement Act if they even allow the GSEs to continue existing at all (removing them permanently would be an even better idea, IMHO).
 
What I mean by the strong fundamentalls is this: ""Our workers are the most innovative, the hardest working, the best skilled, most productive, most competitive in the world. My opponents may disagree, but those fundamentals of America are strong." John McCain.
No we really arent. I dont know what industry you are involved with, but I can tell you from where I sit. We have a company of 52 employees, 2/3 of which are support personnel and can tell you that of 30 or so employees we have seen a decline in the workforce pool and individual motivation that we have never seen before. We have employees that are calling in sick to miss a day so they can stand in a line for 10 hrs to get food stamp card after Gustav, us knowing they had ZERO damage or loss, just so they can get free money from the Government. So innovative, based on that maybe, but hard working, best skilled can be argued infinitely. No one wants to "start at the bottom and work thier way to sucess " anymore. They EXPECT it now, earn it later. It truly is amazing. Oh and if they have a college degree, you ought to see some of the "SALARY EXPECTATIONS" we get....
 
No we really arent. I dont know what industry you are involved with, but I can tell you from where I sit. We have a company of 52 employees, 2/3 of which are support personnel and can tell you that of 30 or so employees we have seen a decline in the workforce pool and individual motivation that we have never seen before. We have employees that are calling in sick to miss a day so they can stand in a line for 10 hrs to get food stamp card after Gustav, us knowing they had ZERO damage or loss, just so they can get free money from the Government. So innovative, based on that maybe, but hard working, best skilled can be argued infinitely. No one wants to "start at the bottom and work thier way to sucess " anymore. They EXPECT it now, earn it later. It truly is amazing. Oh and if they have a college degree, you ought to see some of the "SALARY EXPECTATIONS" we get....

You're anecdotal evidence isn't compelling.

US workers work longer, produce more, and the productivity of US workers grows faster, then any other country in the world

American workers stay longer in the office, at the factory or on the farm than their counterparts in Europe and most other rich nations, and they produce more per person over the year.

They also get more done per hour than everyone but the Norwegians, according to a U.N. report released Monday, which said the United States “leads the world in labor productivity.”

The average U.S. worker produces $63,885 of wealth per year, more than their counterparts in all other countries, the International Labor Organization said in its report. Ireland comes in second at $55,986, followed by Luxembourg at $55,641, Belgium at $55,235 and France at $54,609.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20572828/
 
There is no point in bickering which party is at "fault" over this because the blame is equal between them. The damage done was two-fold:
Deregulation and government tampering.

The escalation began with deregulation in 1998, when Senator Phil Gramm (Republican) created the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which removed Structured Investment Vehicles (SIVs) or Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO) that had acted as a firewall against aggressively bad investments. Republicans alone can't be blamed for this, however. The Democrats "Messiah President" Clinton not only signed it, he aggressively backed the move, and exacerbated the problem by boosting the Community Redevelopment Act at the same time, which encouraged offering loans to high risk individuals in high risk areas.

The problem reached the boiling point, however, because of government meddling in the industry through Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the National Home Loan Bank Board. These entities were allowed to operate without the FCC mandates that other companies still had to follow (and operated outside the SIVs even before they were gone), received government subsidies estimated as much as $13.5 billion dollars each fiscal year, and they were extended an open-end line of credit from the US Treasury, estimated at over $2 billion dollars by 2003 with the explicit promise to bail out any or all three of the GSEs should they default.
This brought unfair competition to the market and forced other companies like Lehman, AIG, Merril, et al to partake in riskier and riskier loan deals in order to compete and draw customers.

Ironically, though he has been mostly a huge waste of space as a President, even an idiot like "W" saw this coming and tried to circumvent it before it exploded 5 years ago. Democrats led the effort to block him and were successful, allowing the GSEs to go on their merry, irresponsible way.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/16/whose-policies-led-to-the-credit-crisis/

Then, in the fall of 2003, Ron Paul tried again to bring this problem to the attention of Congress and get them to enact the "Free Housing Market Enhancement Act" that would correct this loose cannon, but he was ignored. I don't have a link, so here is the Congressional transcript from that day (emphases mine):



Congress led us down this path and Congress kept us on it. No one can throw blame squarely at either party because they both had a hand in it, predictably one party a stronger hand at times and the other party a stronger hand at other times.
Well, the bubble has burst. We can't avoid that, but Congress should re-institute the CIVs to help bolster some feelings of security in investors so they will return to the market sooner; and enact some form of Ron Paul's Free Housing Market Enhancement Act if they even allow the GSEs to continue existing at all (removing them permanently would be an even better idea, IMHO).

But Ron Paul is a kook.
 
You're anecdotal evidence isn't compelling.

US workers work longer, produce more, and the productivity of US workers grows faster, then any other country in the world


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20572828/

So whay are we ( as a company ) having employees on "flex time"? It seems to me what is referred to in that article is "production" ( ie autos, goods mfg etc ) What about all the other companies that offer services rather than goods?

as compelling as MSNBC's evidence is, then please tell me why we increasingly outsource our work to say, India which produces 40,000 certified accountants per year? Hold up let me help...because Indians do not request a "signing bonus" or $60,000 + salary a year to start. Thats why. I wont argure with the Steel Mill Mentality becasue ultimately thats where this "hard-working" thought comes from. But guess what happened to the Steel Mill? We cannot as a country just overlook the fact that many Americans have been raised in a culture that tells us "dont worry, if you dont suceed, we will finance you indefinitely". So there is a fundamental problem and no real reason to suceed other than what you have inside that drives you as a person. And unfortunately you will not convince me otherwise with MSNBC or anyone elses ideas on that.
 
Clinton definitely shares SOME responsibility for Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Clinton favored deregulation much more so than the center of the Democratic Party. But to consider Democrats to blame for it is funny especially given that it was Senate Democrats who offered up the only opposition. And then to say everyone shares the blame given that we have had 7 and half years of GOP executive leadership coupled with 12 of 14 years of GOP control of Congress denies credibility. Its like saying the existence of the "Log Cabin Republicans" means that the GOP is very pro-gay-rights, or that Tom Ridge is proof that the Republicans are pro-choice.
 
as compelling as MSNBC's evidence is

It's not "MSNBC's evidence". You should be mildly embarrassed that you wrote that.


efil4stnias said:
then please tell me why we increasingly outsource our work to say, India which produces 40,000 certified accountants per year? Hold up let me help...because Indians do not request a "signing bonus" or $60,000 + salary a year to start. Thats why. I wont argure with the Steel Mill Mentality becasue ultimately thats where this "hard-working" thought comes from. But guess what happened to the Steel Mill? We cannot as a country just overlook the fact that many Americans have been raised in a culture that tells us "dont worry, if you dont suceed, we will finance you indefinitely". So there is a fundamental problem and no real reason to suceed other than what you have inside that drives you as a person. And unfortunately you will not convince me otherwise with MSNBC or anyone elses ideas on that.


Look it's real simple.

US workers
1) Work longer then any European country (Asia has us beat)
2) Produce more per hour (Norway is the single exception and they're skewed because of oil revenue which, for some inexplicable reason, it considered "manufacturing")
3) Produce more total then anyone else.

The "evidence" is a straightforward statistic. GDP / Employees.

The US also has a much lower unemployment rate then most of Europe.

If you want to look specifically at manufacturing (i.e. the producing of goods)
The difference is much less pronounced in the United States, where a manufacturing employee produced an unprecedented $104,606 of value in 2005.

This isn't debatable. That your direct experience doesn't agree (as if you've ever ran a business in another country to compare it to anyways) doesn't really matter.

I can only suggest

1) Your pay scale is out of whack with similiar businesses, meaning you get the bottom of the talent pool
2) Your industry is a bottom-feeder industry to begin with
or
3) You're an inept employer/boss and have poor hiring practices and are unable to motivate/train your employees

Either way, your experience is not indicative of the incredible lead the US has on other nations in worker productivity.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom