IT IS ELEMENTARY

With respect to the current economic pain it is elementary that:

A. If a nation-state with a democratic governance structure is going to create an economy based on consumer consumption (much less claim to lead the world in creating democracies with market economies) then:

1) Agencies of that nation-state must insure that the market benefits the vast majority who are expected to consume. The market cannot be tilted in favor of a tiny minority who have an appetite for luxury goods but consume only an insignificant fraction of the total goods and services no mater how much they waste.

2) When the economy depends on consumer consumption, Agencies cannot ask those at the top of the Ziggurat what they want, they must determine what those who are expected to consume need to be prosperous, happy and safe.

3) Agencies cannot create a system of governance that privatizes profit and socializes risk, and above all,

4) Agencies must make sure that the rate of consumption is sustainable and that consumer expectations are rational and that the vast majority benefit.

Any alternative to these Elementary Rules are unsustainable for a democracy with a market economy. The last 60 years of consumer-driven economic “growth” in the US of A has not been sustainable as evidenced by the current “meltdown.” Both political parties have violated all four Elementary Rules of governance sustainability.

Right wing nuts are harping on the transgressions of ACORN and similar groups. Illegal and fraudulent actions are wrong. However, with an obscene and widening Wealth Gap, ACORN- like groups are exactly what citizens can expect to happen. The next step is radical populism as documented by nearly a century of experience in South and Central American, Caribbean and African attempts at democracies with market economies.

No nations-state can:

1) Import energy and cheaper labor

2) Burn up natural capital, and

3) Subsist on loans from those who sell Citizens, Enterprises and Agencies the energy, goods and services they need to survive.

B. If a nation-state is going to create an economy that depends on trust, enterprise, intelligence, saving and investment then Agencies must manage the money supply such that the cost of money (interest) allows savers to can make a reasonable return from investing and are not forced into:

1) Speculating on the true value of land

2) Gambling on stock and commodity markets, or

3) Swapping valueless definitives of tangible assets.

If financial Enterprises are to have money to loan, Agencies must ensure that interest rates encourage savings not tax breaks that encourage Global short-term profit seeking, aka Supercapitalism.

C. If a nation-state desires to evolve a stable economic system it must create a system that:

1) Does not rely on unsustainable “growth”, and

2) Reflects the organic structure of human economic, social and physical activity, the first step is a Fundamental Transformation in governance structure.

There is a need for several strong, competitive Regional banks in every New Urban Region, not MegaBanks and MegaSpeculators – Enron, WorldCom, Lehman, AIG, Citi and all the rest – that have lost touch with the role of banking and investment in a society.

D. If a nation-state wants to expand dwelling ownership then:

1) The dwellings must be near Jobs and Services rather than encouraging the Wrong Size House in the Wrong Location.

2) Agencies must discourage speculation on home value.

Over the last 60 years owner occupied dwellings have increased in value at about the rate of inflation. When the current wave a write downs is complete the values will be below inflation. This means that the internal rates of return on many investment strategies are much higher than on real estate, especially owner occupied dwellings.

To paraphrase the current VW ad (“Have a baby for love, not for German engineering), “Buy a house for living, do not buy a house for speculation.” You hear about the bonanzas is house speculation hyped by real estate agents that is not what you learn from careful analysis of regional data.

While dwelling speculation is bad, far more money is lost than is made in raw land speculation. Raw land speculation loses were the major component of the REIT recession and the Savings and Loan recession. Loans on badly located and inefficient sized dwellings are the lynchpin of the mortgage meltdown. In the end citizens pay for the bail outs of speculators.

Both D 1) and 2) are directly related to that fact that there is too much land held for urban land uses and that which is developed is dysfunctional because the total location variable costs are not fairly allocated.

This is the first of four posts on Elementary Rules and Realities, the others will focus on “The Role of the Media,” “Swift Boating the Mortgage Crisis” and “The Bottom Line.”

As you can guess, all Elementary Rules and Realities relate to Agency, Enterprise and Institutional actions that generate dysfunctional human settlement patterns.

EMR


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

31 responses to “IT IS ELEMENTARY”

  1. Anonymous Avatar

    Only thing that is better about October 2008 than October 1929 is that party in power when things collapsed has to stand for reelection. The first national election after October 1929 was in November of 1932.

    The nationally syndicated cartoon Non Sequitur by Wiley says it all: Outside the “Incumbent Party Headquarters” is a sign reading “You Want Change? Vote for us!” A portly ‘everyman’ says: “Wee, this answers our question on just how stupid they think we are…”

  2. Anonymous Avatar

    Wiley is good but Tom Toles in The Washington Post does a good job too:

    5 Oct:

    Three dinosaurs watching an asteroid head towards earth: “Lets hope the Asteroid’s impact is confined to the Subprime mortgage area.”

    9 Oct:

    To circus trapezes fliers labeled “consumer” and “economy” both having let go of the trapeze are expecting the other to catch them.

    And how about todays?

  3. Anonymous Avatar

    The DOW is down 300 to 700 depending on when you look.

    The Elephant Clan leader says “trust us to solve this problem” that we caused.

    How do you trust someone who said Iraq had WMD and knew he was lying when he said it?

  4. Anonymous Avatar

    “The market cannot be tilted in favor of a tiny minority who have an appetite for luxury goods but consume only an insignificant fraction of the total goods and services no mater how much they waste.”

    “Waste” or donate to one of the two political parties.

  5. Anonymous Avatar

    “With respect to the current economic pain it is elementary that: “

    What economic pain?

    http://boomerang.blogs.com/optimist/2008/10/the-rumor-about.html

    What we have is a re-evaluation of prices – downward.

    What really is your problem? When prices go up it is because of short term profit seeking speculators. When prices go down it is “economic pain”.

    Why can’t we import energy, if it is cheaper than making it at home? We import bananas don’t we? Sure, we could put a huge tariff on bananas and eventually someone would grow them here in greenhouses. We would be poorer as a result. (Buying energy from our mortal enemies is a different issue. Maybe we should ask why they hate us so.)

    We can and will always burn up some natural capital. Some of it we can replace, some not. How much of eternity are we really willing to “save” for?

    Believe it or not, the economy does depend on loans. Without some loans we cannot live as well as we might – with too much loans we risk the enterprise. But an all cash economy would be a hardship resulting in death for millions. Those who rail against loans do not know what they are talking about – period. Besides, it is those that MAKE the loans who are at risk. They make the loans here because they cannot manage their own investments as well as we do.

    Every purchase of property is a matter of speculation.

    Purchasing stock and bonds in well run, dividend paying, companies of long standing is not gambling.

    Some deriviatives are not valueless, and have been used successfully for decades. stock and commodity options are one example. Variable annuities are another.

    More sophisticated derivatives are only for the strong of heart and sophisticated invetors, and even they can screw up, as we have seen. That is the nature of risk, without which there can never be any rewards.

    Which is the root problem with your idiotic steady state economy idea: there is no room for rewards, and therfore no incentive.

    You cannot have long term profits without short term profits.

    We live on a petri dish. How do you have sustainable growth, given your outlook? We can have slower growth, but all growth must eventually outstrip our natural capital, No? It is only a question of hundreds of years or tens of thousands.

    I don’t know about you, but I’m not too worried about tens of thousands.

    ————————-

    “Agencies must discourage speculation on home value.”

    So much for a free market, I see.

    —————————

    “Buy a house for living, do not buy a house for speculation.”

    The one good piece of advice in this post is borrowed, I see. Anyway, what’s wrong with living in a house you are speculating on?

    ———————-

    “While dwelling speculation is bad, far more money is lost than is made in raw land speculation.”

    I take it back, you have two good pieces of advice. On the other hand, if so many people are losing money on land speculation, why do we need to regulate it?

    ———————————

    “there is too much land held for urban land uses and that which is developed is dysfunctional because the total location variable costs are not fairly allocated. “

    This is total nonense and your allocation of costs is most likely backwards.

    What is really dysfunctional is holding asie land as agriculturally zoned when there is NO PROSPECT that it can be profitably used as such.

    I can suggest a few good books on natural economics and commercial economics if you like.

    RH

  6. Anonymous Avatar

    Don’t buy a car for german engineering. You can wind up buying a constant velocity joint ( a known wear part) for $980, plus installation.

    Forget about American cars and stick to Japan and Korea. We can import tham better and cheaper than we can build them.

    RH

  7. It appears to me that a lack of credit is at the root of this.

    The “free market” had decided that there were certain areas inside of the clear edge in urban enclaves where they did not want to loan money – even if the applicant was qualified and had 20% down.

    The practice was called redlinning.

    The unfetterred free market when given the choice – chose not to invest in these areas.

    A direct consequence of that was the decay of urban cores, accelerated by renters instead of owner-occupied dwellings.. and eventually crime and bad schools as people who were qualified for loans – moved – where they could get a loan – outside of the redlined area.

    EMR should pay attention here – because this dynamic is a potent enabler of sprawl and dysfunctional settlement patterns.

    Depending on whose version of history one wants to believe – attempts to remedy this situation resulted in changes in the law that forced the free market to make loans that they did not want to make.

    Some say that the changes were made to force the mortgage companies to loan to QUALIFIED applicants INSIDE of the redlinned areas.

    Others say that the changes forced the mortgage companies to make risky loans – period – to anyone – whether they were trying to buy property inside or outside of the redlinned areas.

    I strongly suspect that the INTENT of the law was NOT to force companies to make risky loans.. but apparently it was not restricted when the same law said that Fannie and Freddie would insure such loans.

    From that point on – it was history… for sure..

    but my point here is that despite the blather about consumption and sustainability, et al, etc, etc…

    here is a situation where the free market and not the government – would play a big role in refusing to invest money in the urban enclaves if they were left alone to make that decision.

    And it is my assertion – that more than any other government policy or not properly allocating location costs…

    ….. that if the free market does not wish to loan money to folks who want to build inside of the clear edge – that such urban enclaves can and do waste away…..

    In other words – the free market would prefer to make loans for $500K second-home beach properties than modest 200K row houses inside the clear edge.

    The “free-market” … not “agencies” plays a dominant role in dysfunctional settlement patterns.

    So .. once all of this mess eventually resolves itself –

    here’s my question –

    Should Government force the “free market” mortgage industry give loans to applicants in areas that the free market will redline if left alone?

    answers please.

  8. Anonymous Avatar

    “Depending on whose version of history one wants to believe – attempts to remedy this situation resulted in changes in the law that forced the free market to make loans that they did not want to make.

    Some say that the changes were made to force the mortgage companies to loan to QUALIFIED applicants INSIDE of the redlinned areas.

    Others say that the changes forced the mortgage companies to make risky loans – period – to anyone – whether they were trying to buy property inside or outside of the redlinned areas.”

    I think it started off as the first, but then when that didn’t work more force and arm twisting was applied (by well meaning liberals). Then the rules escaped from the redlined districts, and after that, it was, as you say, history.

    RH

  9. Anonymous Avatar

    It seems to me that this is another case of cross subsidy. The suburbs are “exporting” the cost of supporting and educating poor people into the inner cores.

    There being no money there, you wind up with substandard housng and schools, insufficient work, and unsafe conditions.

    While the populated areas are not adequately paying for the environmental services from outside the clear edge, they are also not paying the inner core for the service of protecting them from human pollution.

    (I know that is going to be interpreted wrong, but is sounded good.)

    RH

  10. is it true that the mortgage companies were forced by the government to make risky loans to unqualified people outside of the redlined areas for upscale homes…second homes…spec homes that were going to be flipped?

    so.. the government did force the mortgage companies to make these kinds of loans?

  11. Anonymous Avatar

    No, I don’t think that is what happened. There was arm twisting and relaxation of the rules to beat the redlining problem.

    But that opened the gates for others to game the system. With government primateur.

    RH

  12. Anonymous Avatar

    Only thing that is better about October 2008 than October 1929 is that party in power when things collapsed has to stand for reelection. The first national election after October 1929 was in November of 1932.

    So which party’s in power right now – the one controlling Congress or the White House?

    Come to think of it, most of the Great Depression actually occurred after the Democrats swept to power. The economic downturn of 1937 was nearly as steep as the original plunge into the depression, after huge tax increases to pay for the New Deal. What was the main economic legacy of the new party in power? The general idea that government should keep expanding to solve every problem, resulting in things like Fannie Mae, and Social Security and medicare, which are now ticking time bombs that may make the current economic crisis semi-permanent.

    Now I guess we’re poised to create another great experimental period of government expansion, just as the previous era’s huge expansions are coming home to roost. The results should be truly chaotic and will probably change the country beyond recognition.

  13. Groveton Avatar

    Why would a banker redline a neighborhood? Why would a banker walk away from the profits that couldbe realized by loaning money to qualified borrowers – just because those borrowers live in a certain neighborhood? The unspoken theory is that the bankers were such racists that they would rather forgo profits than loan to people from ethnic or racial groups they dislike. In fact, if you follow the argument closely – all bankers were racists because none would make loans inside the redlined neighborhood.

    Hmmmm…

    Let me put forth an alternative theory. Well meaning regulation created redlining, not racist bankers. In most states banks operate on a non-recourse or one recourse basis. What does that mean? When a borrower defaults on a home loan (espically a primary home loan) most states give the lender two choices – foreclose in a more-or-less straight forward manner and forgo the right to pursue the personal assets of the borrower or go through a lengthy process to essentially force the borrower into bankruptcy and then try to get at personal assets beyond the home (like retirement funds). The regulations were intended to keep a home borrower from losing everything in a foreclosure. In effect, the regulations made it easier to walk away from a home loan.

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions and this particular byway was especially shiny.

    Banks redlined neighborhoods where there was a higher than average chance that home values would fall by more than the amount required as a downpayment on the loan. Why? Because the bank (practically) had no recourse other than to foreclose on the loan and sell the property at a loss. Most qualified borrowers would walk away from an upside down loan. So, the banks demanded higher deposits in volitile neighborhoods or refused to make loans.

    And historically (repeat: historically) – what neighborhood had a higher than average chance of home values declining by more than the downpayment of qualified borrowers? Mostlt inner city neighborhoods suffering from what has been termed “urban decay”. Even during the run up to the housing bubble there were some neighborhoods and areas where housing prices were in decline. These were the areas that were redlined.

    Various government entities decided that redlining was not in society’s best interests. The belief was that broader home ownership would arrest the decline of decaying neighborhoods and (potentially) turn those neighborhoods around. In a perfect world that would have been fine. But the world is not perfect and many politicans can be counted on to catalyze naturally occurring imperfection into tradgedy. The first question, of course, revolved around choosng the neighborhoods deserving of government support. Then came the realization that neighborhoods in decline have a legitimate dearth of qualified borrowers. The millions of low to no value added financial industry paper shufflers saw a chance to make a few extra bucks and the big financial companies saw a chance to make a few billion extra bucks. What started as an effort at (mostly) urban renewal became an unregulated greed fest.

    In my opinion, more of the current problem was caused by a combination of incompetence and greed at some financial institutions than the anti-redlining legislation. Certainly the government neither insisted on credit default swaps being created nor demanded that executives ignore the obvious lack of capitalization of the credit default swap issuers as they pretended that their risky loans were now adequately insured. However, the government does provide legislation that allows a mortgage borrower to walk away from their home loan with much less pain than would be incurred in a personal bankruptcy. And in so doing they sowed the seeds for the present crisis.

    Having rambled on for quite a while let me finish with two points that have been ignored. The Japanese economy suffered from a real estate bubble, a credit crisis and many banking failures in the early 1990s. This did not happen because of liberal anti-redlining statutes nor because of a uniquely American level of greed in the financial services industry. And the dot com bubble came and went without anti-redlining laws too. Not every problem can be neatly packaged into a single area with a convienient set of villains.

  14. re: “So which party’s in power right now – the one controlling Congress or the White House?”

    you mean the majority in Congress for the last 2 years of 8 years?

    So all the bad stuff that happened in the first 6 years with both houses and the President all of the same party – whatever they did or did not to – is not relevant compared to the last 2 years that the other party controlled Congress?

    I find that pretty hard to believe.

    Where was the Administration during this 8 years?

  15. re: redlinning

    I’m not sure I agree or disagree with Groveton but I’ll offer this.

    In an urban area – you can have a neighborhood that is not in the best of condition… perhaps owned by absent landlords for years.

    And you have some folks who while of modest means have a good job and have the 20% who qualify to buy one of the homes but the bankers are leery that just one house out of 20 or so is going to “make it” as an owner-occupied home – and over the longer run – the guy with the job and good credit may well decide to move elsewhere and just turn that house back into a rental.

    What it boils down to is that if you, as an investor, have a range of opportunities to invest your money – this type of investment is just not as good an opportunity as others.

    BUT .. it’s pretty clear that if an area – ANY area – urban or suburban cannot attract investment -that it will wither.

    And this is what often happens to the urban enclaves.

    Put simply – most are not attractive investments – and these areas, without investment, will spiral down into economic basket cases – with crime and bad schools – and the folks who are economically able – will flee them to better, safer, locales.

    So – the Dems and others of like minds (includes Republican mayors of these urban areas) decided that as long as these areas were redlinned – they were doomed – and they made a law that said if a bank was going to enjoy government assistance ( in the form of loan insurance, FHA, etc) that they could not “discriminate” on a basis that ignored the individual persons credit worthiness – that if he had good credit -he should get the loan – no matter where geographically.

    and so it was…

    but the reality is that about 80% of the bad loans were VOLUNTARY and had nothing to do with redlinning and everything to do with properties OUTSIDE of the redlined areas to folks with BAD CREDIT.

    So you take a law that says you must give a loan to a guy with good credit inside of a redlinned area

    .. and you interpret it to mean that you must give loans to folks ANYWHERE with bad credit.

    and .. oh-by-the-way, you can charge really high interest rates also….

    So … the part we don’t agree on is who told the bankers that they had no choice but to make loans to those who were no qualified OUTSIDE of the redlinned areas?

    I’m not looking for villians.

    I’m trying to understand what happened .. and once we get out of this mess – what mistakes do we NOT want to REPEAT?

    And my take away from all of this is that the Government basically agreed to insure loans to people with bad credit – and companies who made profits from high interests rates were just fine with making bad loans – because they could sell those bad loans – essentially to the government.

    On a scale of 1 to 10 – having the government require loans to QUALIFIED applicants in Redlinned areas is a 1 compared to a policy that REQUIRES companies to make loans to unqualified applicants EVERYWHERE which would be a 10.

    Is it possible to have a redline law that applies ONLY to QUALIFIED applicant INSIDE of redlined areas and NOT to unqualified applicants outside of the redlinned areas?

    I think this is a no-brainer.,

    It IS POSSIBLE.

    You CAN separate the two by obvious criteria.

    Why did we not do this?

  16. re: “In my opinion, more of the current problem was caused by a combination of incompetence and greed at some financial institutions than the anti-redlining legislation.”

    If you really believe this – then why did this not happen long ago…. and more important, how would you keep it from happening in the future?

    I don’t think you can outlaw greed and incompetence.

    If you agree… with that and you, at the same time, do not believe there is any other way to prevent bad loans then are we not doomed to repeat?

    What exactly should we do to keep this kind of thing from happening?

    I’m sorry, I just don’t buy the idea of greed and incompetence being the reason.

    We ALWAYS have greed and incompetence.

    What distinguishes this particular version?

  17. Anonymous Avatar

    Larry – during the current Bush Admnistration, the GOP controlled Congresss (both houses) for only four years (plus). Vermont Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican caucus in May 2001, as I recall. This put the Democrats back in control of the Senate & made Tom Daschle majority leader.

    The Republicans retained control of the House.

    TMT

  18. Groveton Avatar

    Larry:

    Why did the dot com bubble build and then burst in 2001?

    Why did the Japanese bubble build and then burst in 1990?

    Why did the Dutch tulip bulb bubble build and then burst in the 1600s?

    The promise of capitalism is that it builds the most wealth for the most people faster than any other approach. The tragedy is that capitalism attracts greedy people and those people periodically cause problems.

    Somewhere on the spectrum from pure communism to radical free markets is the right balance. It’s closer to the radical free market pole but it’s not at the pole. Over the past 10 – 15 years we’ve allowed the fulcrum of the economic spectrum to get too close to pure free enterprise. This was a mistake. We need to move the needle back a bit. More regulation, more oversight, better dissemenation of information, less free markets.

    And that’s the problem with Republican market hyperbole. There has never been truly free markets. Nowhere in the world. And “letting the markets decide everything” is no better an answer than “letting the government decide everything”. The markets should be more powerful than governemnt but neither can monopolize economic power.

  19. re: "More regulation, more oversight, better dissemenation of information, less free markets."

    TMT – are you saying that had the Republicans been in full control that they would have done what Groveton says is needed?

    Bonus Question:

    What exactly will Maverick McCain do …DIFFERENTLY than the prior and current Republican free-market dogma suggests? What CHANGE does Maverick McCain promise on this issue?

    Would McCain essentially follow the course that Bush has on this issue?

    Bonus Bonus Question – What legislation reigning in Fannie & Freddie was delivered to Bush when he had a majority in both houses?

  20. Anonymous Avatar

    Larry – my point was only to correct your statement. I tend to see both parties, at the national level, tied heavily to special interests – some different and some the same. At some level, really big business, there is not a dime’s worth of difference between most national Democrats and Republicans. For example, who is a bigger protector of Bechtel on its no-bid contract for Dulles Rail? Answer, impossible to say; both parties strongly protect Bechtel. Can you imagine Mark Warner taking a public stand and saying, we shouldn’t spend federal money on the no-bid Dulles Rail contract?

    I tend to agree with Groveton in that there are few truly free markets. I do believe that, generally, markets are more efficient and effective than government in making economic decisions. I also believe that government has a role to play in ensuring that markets work and are not manipulated.

    The very creation of Freddie and Fannie (in reverse order) were giant steps away from a free market. Most of what happens in Washington is an attempt to steer the market in one way or another.

    I just tend to favor the devils on the right more than the devils on the left. Perhaps, it’s more accurate to say I fear the left devils more. I have a long-standing hatred of labor unions that stems from my youth in Minnesota where I had to join the Teamsters (closed shop). I had to pay union dues even when I was laid off or resign and pay initiation fees again. As a high school or college student, I couldn’t afford to pay the $75 initiation fee more than once.

    We part-timers (who paid full union dues) were regularly laid off in early February and not called back until late March or early April. At which point, most of my first few pay checks went to pay back union dues. That is simply wrong, and I resent it today.

    I also see the union featherbedding in Fairfax County Public Schools — the staff is never cut; outsourcing of support functions is opposed or sabotaged. Special programs go on forever, regardless of their results. New, cost-saving technologies are implemented, but no one loses a job. That doesn’t happen in the private sector. Meanwhile real estate taxes increase much faster than personal income and class size increases.

    TMT

  21. I don’t disagree with 98% of what you say.

    I think support of Fannie/Freddie insuring/buying risky mortgages was supported by both parties but for different philosophical reasons.

    The Dems/Liberals supported it as a way for more folks on the margins to become homeowners and the Packyderms saw it as a win-win for business interests.

    It’s pretty clear that most banks who actually had to keep a risky mortgage in their own portfolio would not – because they knew that too many of them could hurt their profits if the default rate went up.

    But because Fannie/Freddie and their proxies would buy those mortgages – it was no skin off the local bank to make the initial loan…

    .. after all.. every new house in a locality generates jobs for a host of local workers… so it was a win – win….

    no muss, no fuss.. give the Feds or some company that insured them.. the loans and let them deal with the defaults.

    I think what this proves is that greed and corruption will find a way to game the system unless safeguards are put into place to keep the from doing it.

    and that means that the regulators have to keep up with new wrinkles.. which they don’t do… obviously…

    the security guard – fell asleep at the desk – and woke up as the thieves were departing the scene….

    but … what should we expect from mere politicians to start with…???

    the job description is basically – “makes us believe that you are doing what we want you to do”.

    So – they do….

    why did we expect?

    🙂

    my only real disagreement is that greed and avarice cannot be outlawed ..so when we say that greed and avarice caused the meltdown… I just had to ask.. what was it about this particular version that was different from other/previous versions?

    🙂

  22. Anonymous Avatar

    Excellent discussion, gentlemen.

    I thought Grovetons analysis was a good explanation of what happened, along with Larry’s additions.

    Meanwhile, we are where we are.

    What next?

    RH

  23. Anonymous Avatar

    Here is what I’d like to know.

    Nerly every morning on Rte 66 I see one or more trucks carrying trusses and panaelized house parts heading toward Fairfax from factories out in the valley.

    Who is building and who is buying? Where?

    RH

  24. Groveton Avatar

    Larry:

    Here’s some of the evidence –

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

    Pretty sad, no?

  25. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    You left out the part where we signed away banking regulation to the World Trade Organization. The Financial Services Agreement did a whole lot more than just allow foreign banks to open up shop in America. It opened up consolidation of financial services under one roof, while limiting regulation to systemic issues only. Thats why the bailout covered all banks, including foreign. Bet the people are going to wish they had paid more attention to these fast track approved globalization agreements before they became law.

  26. re: the you tube video..

    I presume you guys noticed the guy who started speaking and his job title?

    HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES: SUBCOMMITTEE ON
    CAPITAL MARKETS, INSURANCE AND GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED
    ENTERPRISES HOLDS A HEARING ON FANNIE MAE OVERSIGHT

    U.S . REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD H. BAKER (R-LA) CHAIRMAN “

    Now notice two things:

    first the word – Chairman

    and then the word – (R)

    Now that means that the Republicans held the majority who traditionally appoints the Chairman of the committees as was the case here.

    That means we had a Republican President and a Republican Congress – calling for regulation.

    What’s the rest of the story?

    The President and his Republican Congress passed a load of legislation opposed by the Dems but to no avail because they were the minority.

    How come in this case – the legislation did not pass?

  27. I really don’t have a partisan axe to grind here – but the reality of what is going on – are obvious attempts to revise the historical record.

    The game plan is that if you say the same lie over and over – that eventually it will be perceived as fact.

    The TRUTH is that we had a Republican President and a Republican Congress at the time the Fannie/Freddie GSE hearings were being held.

    and yet.. what we hear is that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd – who have held their chairs only in the last two years and were not chairs at the time of the hearings.. are at fault for not acting…

    There’s plenty of blame to go around – but I’m a stickler about truth…

  28. Anonymous Avatar

    The TRUTH is that we had a Republican President and a Republican Congress at the time the Fannie/Freddie GSE hearings were being held.

    and yet.. what we hear is that Barney Frank and Chris Dodd – who have held their chairs only in the last two years and were not chairs at the time of the hearings.. are at fault for not acting…

    What happened at the hearings? The Democrats like Frank, Meeks etc. all attacked an auditor who said they were headed for disaster. They all said there was no problem. Dodd also attacked the claim there was something wrong The Republicans all said there was a problem.

    Here’s a remarkable video:

    Democrats insist “nothing wrong” at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac in 2004

    Why wasn’t anything passed? Well for one it could never have passed the Senate. There’s something called a filibuster. Not all Republicans might have supported reining in the GSE’s, BUT NONE OF THE DEMOCRATS WOULD HAVE. People who were calling for something to be done were ALL REPUBLICANS. Like McCain, who signed a letter that 19 other Republicans and 0 Dems signed warning of exactly what happened.

  29. how much legislation was passed by the Republicans over the objections of the Dems?

    How much stuff was ram-rodded through no matter what the minority opposition said?

    So.. the Republican had both houses and the Presidency and routinely passed legislation opposed by the minority but they decide to only “warn” about this?

    What’s the truth?

    If the Republicans were so prescient in their concerns – where was the action that they alone had the ability to take?

    How much legislation did the all Republican Congress and Administration pass to deal with the problem that they said they saw coming?

  30. Anonymous Avatar

    How much stuff was ram-rodded through no matter what the minority opposition said?

    So.. the Republican had both houses and the Presidency and routinely passed legislation opposed by the minority but they decide to only “warn” about this?

    So.. the Republican had both houses and the Presidency and routinely passed legislation opposed by the minority but they decide to only “warn” about this?

    They did not simply warn. There was actual legislation proposed, in 2003 and again in 2005. The 2003 bill came from the Bush admin. The 2005 bill was started in the Senate and had McCain as a sponsor.

    The reality is that there is something called a fillibuster in the Senate. If one party has at least 41 Senators and they are united in opposition to something, it won’t pass. Period. The Republicans did not routinely pass legislation opposed by a united block of Democrat Senators. That’s simply wrong. In order to get things past a fillibuster some Democrats had to be on board. Often to get them there were deals made – often some kind of spending or some other thing.

    The irony is the Democrats may be poised to ride a wave of misplaced voter anger against Republicans for not getting things passed to a 60 seat fillibuster proof Senate majority, in large part over anger at Republicans for not getting stuff passed against united Democrat opposition.

  31. E M Risse Avatar

    Boys, Boys,

    You are fussing about a dysfunctinal system controled by two political parties that seek to win 50.5% “victories.”

    Lets talk Fundamental Transformation.

    EMR

Leave a Reply