Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Biden’s economy
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Yes, because you leftists insisted on giving mortgages to people who had no ability to pay them which crashed the housing market throughbsubprime lending. See Barney Frank, Franklin Raines and Maxine Waters. |
Anonymous
No, that's entirely wrong and not the reason for the GFC. It was the deregulation of the financial markets/big banks that started under Clinton (repeal of Glass-Steagall) and accelerated under Bush by not regulating derivatives or raising interest rates sooner under Greenspan or regulating the big banks. Your memory is really short. |
Anonymous
When Trump took office in 2016, the National Debt was $19T. When he left office in 2020, the Debt was $28T a rise of just over 43% in his term of office. When Biden took office in 2020, the Debt was $28T and now, 90% of the way though his term of office the Debt has risen to $35T a rise of about 25%. So, both of them have been bad, but who was worse? Trump's term is office was the I'll take option C, which is someone other than Biden or Trump. So, guess who that means in this election? |
Anonymous
I don’t understand any of that mathematical reckoning that your doing there but I know that Trump will be better for regular american men like me than sleepy Joe will be. |
Anonymous
The UK and Europe notably never had Glass Steagall type rules. And in many ways, the GFC was fueled by European's insatiable demand for U.S. mortgage-backed securities. The demand was filled by investment banks buying up any mortgages state-regulated mortgage banks made. Investment banks securitized these mortgages in their unregulated subsidiaries; the SEC regulated only their broker/dealers. And yes, the idea that home ownership was a positive social good and should be expanded played a role. Derivatives were regulated, but there was under-realization of the need for credit valuation adjustments to account for credit deterioration in a derivative counterparty, losses from which accounted for two-thirds of all derivative losses in the GFC. Interest rates were not a factor in the GFC. |
Anonymous
You're totally wrong. Interest rates were a huge factor. Being artificially low drastically increased real estate prices to unsustainable levels. It was a classic Minsky Moment - a speculative credit driven bubble driven by the scramble for yield. And no, derivatives were NOT regulated when it came to credit default swaps. It's the reason AIG failed as did Bear as did Lehman, among others. Let's also not forget that the credit rating agencies were handing out IG ratings like a fake IDs at a college bar. The Landesbanks would've never bought that garbage if they hadn't been rated AAA. FWIW, I had a front row seat to all of this. |
Anonymous
I guess we can agree to disagree. Mortgage rates were in the 5.5% to 6.75 range in the early 2000s to the eve of the of GFC. It is quaint today to view that as low. The problem was making the mortgages with little to no review of the borrower's financials and very low down payments because the investment banks would buy the mortgages regardless of credit quality, securitize them, and sell the securities to willing European banks, who did no due diligence, relying solely on ratings. The mortgages were largely made by lightly state-regulated mortgage banks and bought by unregulated subsidiaries of investment banks like Bear, Merrill Lynch, and Lehmans. European banks were buying them to fill their newly set up structured investment vehicles so they could issue shorter-term paper that money market funds could buy. The credit rating agencies did fine on their traditional ratings of corporations but they totally missed the boat on the much newer product of securitizations (and European SIV paper), where they greatly overestimated the role of diversity of pools in mitigating losses and even worse on securitizations of securitizations. AIG committed many sins, but its greatest ones were out of its French subsidiary that sold guarantees through CDSs and other products to European banks and insurance companies that ultimately provided little to no credit protection to the buyers. And without proper credit valuation adjustments made through profit and loss on CDSs (and other swaps), none of the derivative users were valuing them appropriately on their balance sheets. |
Anonymous
First of all, they're GSEs, not GFCs. Bush tried to regulate them and democrats blocked that regulation again and again and again. Here in painful detail for your stellar memory................. Setting the Record Straight: Six Years of Unheeded Warnings for GSE Reform Over the past six years, the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of failure to reform GSEs but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties. In fact, it was Congress that flatly rejected President Bush's call more than five years ago to reform the GSEs. Over the years, the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems with the GSEs. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081009-10.html And also https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/09/20080919-15.html |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
|
|
Anonymous
??? the banks gave those loans and the GOP was in the white house the entire time. but its always the democrats fault, LOL. |
Anonymous
The GFC stands for Great Financial Crisis, moron. I'm well aware of the role that the GSE played in the recession from 2007-2009. |
Anonymous
They were REQUIRED to give the loans or they would be sued by the government. The government was inserting itself in lending decisions to maximize home ownership (such as NINJA loans and zero money down loans) rather than sound lending. |
Anonymous
You might want to rethink what you said and remember that this was a Bush initiative. But to be fair, every president since the early seventies has used FHA and housing to extort votes from their constituents. |
Anonymous
You might want to read the links posted above instead of firing from the hip. This was not a Bush initiative. The initiative was created by Bill Clinton and none other than Andrew Cuomo, who was Bill Clinton's HUD Secretary at the time. He pushed the "Community Reinvestment Act" and it took years to build momentum to the crash. It's time for you to stop rewriting history. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/heres-what-really-caused-housing-crisis/ |