A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travel Regions » Europe
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

While the US is focused on its own domestic dramas, Europe as the Economist (UK) puts it, is bleeding out. Silently, exsanguinating below the fold, but bleeding all the same.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 2nd, 2013, 08:36 PM posted to alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,soc.retirement,rec.travel.europe
ПЈö'Донован
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default While the US is focused on its own domestic dramas, Europe as the Economist (UK) puts it, is bleeding out. Silently, exsanguinating below the fold, but bleeding all the same.

While the US is focused on its own domestic dramas, Europe as the
Economist (UK) puts it, is bleeding out. Silently, exsanguinating
below the fold, but bleeding all the same.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee.../euro-crisis-5
  #2  
Old May 2nd, 2013, 10:19 PM posted to alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,soc.retirement,rec.travel.europe
Nickname unavailable[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default While the US is focused on its own domestic dramas, Europe as the Economist (UK) puts it, is bleeding out. Silently, exsanguinating below the fold, but bleeding all the same.

On May 2, 2:36*pm, ПЈö'Донован wrote:
“While the US is focused on its own domestic dramas, Europe as the
Economist (UK) *puts it, ‘is bleeding out.’ Silently, exsanguinating
below the fold, but bleeding all the same.”

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee.../euro-crisis-5


Of all the zombie ideas that have been reanimated in the wake of the
global financial crisis, austerity is the most dangerous. austerity
created the disasters of the 1930s, and contributed to the descent of
the world into global war. European austerity policies have prevented
any recovery from the crisis of 2009, while rescuing and protecting
the banks and financial institutions that created the crisis. An
essential guide for anyone who wants to understand the current
depression.

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/genera.../Political/?vi...

Austerity
The History of a Dangerous Idea
Mark Blyth

ISBN13: 9780199828302ISBN10: 019982830X Hardcover, 304 pages
Mar 2013, In Stock
Price:
$24.95 (02)

Governments today in both Europe and the United States have succeeded
in casting government spending as reckless wastefulness that has made
the economy worse. In contrast, they have advanced a policy of
draconian budget cuts--austerity--to solve the financial crisis. We
are told that we have all lived beyond our means and now need to
tighten our belts. This view conveniently forgets where all that debt
came from. Not from an orgy of government spending, but as the direct
result of bailing out, recapitalizing, and adding liquidity to the
broken banking system. Through these actions private debt was
rechristened as government debt while those responsible for generating
it walked away scot free, placing the blame on the state, and the
burden on the taxpayer.

That burden now takes the form of a global turn to austerity, the
policy of reducing domestic wages and prices to restore
competitiveness and balance the budget. The problem, according to
political economist Mark Blyth, is that austerity is a very dangerous
idea. First of all, it doesn't work. As the past four years and
countless historical examples from the last 100 years show, while it
makes sense for any one state to try and cut its way to growth, it
simply cannot work when all states try it simultaneously: all we do is
shrink the economy. In the worst case, austerity policies worsened the
Great Depression and created the conditions for seizures of power by
the forces responsible for the Second World War: the Nazis and the
Japanese military establishment. As Blyth amply demonstrates, the
arguments for austerity are tenuous and the evidence thin. Rather than
expanding growth and opportunity, the repeated revival of this dead
economic idea has almost always led to low growth along with increases
in wealth and income inequality. Austerity demolishes the conventional
wisdom, marshaling an army of facts to demand that we recognize
austerity for what it is, and what it costs us.
Features
• Tackles one of the most important topics in world
politics and
economics in clear, trenchant language
• One of the only accounts that successfully links
together the
political and economic aspects of the current crisis.
Reviews
"Austerity is an economic policy strategy, but is also an ideology and
an approach to economic management freighted with politics. In this
book Mark Blyth uncovers these successive strata. In doing so he
wields his spade in a way that shows no patience for fools and
foolishness." 
--Barry Eichengreen, George C. Pardee and Helen N.
Pardee Professor of Economics and Political Science University of
California, Berkeley
"Of all the zombie ideas that have been reanimated in the wake of the
global financial crisis, austerity is the most dangerous. Mark Blyth
shows how austerity created the disasters of the 1930s, and
contributed to the descent of the world into global war. He shows how
European austerity policies have prevented any recovery from the
crisis of 2009, while rescuing and protecting the banks and financial
institutions that created the crisis. An essential guide for anyone
who wants to understand the current depression." 
--John Quiggin,
author of author of Zombie Economics
"Most fascinating is the author's discussion of the historical
underpinnings of austerity, first formulated by Enlightenment thinkers
Locke, Hume and Adam Smith, around the (good) idea of parsimony and
the (bad) idea of debt. Ultimately, writes Blyth, austerity is a
'zombie economic idea because it has been disproven time and again,
but it just keeps coming.' A clear explanation of a complicated, and
severely flawed, idea." 
-- KIRKUS REVIEW
"Mark Blyth's fascinating analysis guides the reader through 'the
historical ideology which has classified debt as problematic.' In
doing so he outlines the relevance of century-old debates between the
advocates and opponents of laissez faire, and explains why, after a
brief reemergence in 2008-09, and despite the lack of evidence
supporting austerity, the world turned its back on Keynesian
policies." 
--Robert Skidelsky, author of Keynes: The Return of the
Master
"Among all the calamities spawned by the global financial crisis, none
was as easily avoidable as the idea that austerity policies were the
only way out. In this feisty book, noted political scientist Mark
Blyth covers new territory by recounting the intellectual history of
this failed idea and how it came to exert a hold on the imagination of
economists and politicians. It is an indication of the sorry state of
macroeconomics that it takes a political scientist to expose so
thoroughly one of the economics profession's most dangerous
delusions." 
--Dani Rodrik, Rafiq Hariri Professor of International
Political Economy, The John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
University
"Essential reading... The economy is much too important to leave to
economists. We need to understand how ideas shape it, and Blyth's new
book provides an excellent starting point."--Washington Monthly
"An important polemic... valid and compelling."--Lawrence Summers,
Financial Times 

"splendid new book". Martin Wolf, Financial Times
Product Details
304 pages; 5-1/2 x 8-1/2; ISBN13: 978-0-19-982830-2ISBN10:
0-19-982830-
X
About the Author(s)
Mark Blyth is Professor of International Political Economy at Brown
University. He is the author of Great Transformations: Economic Ideas
and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century.
  #3  
Old May 2nd, 2013, 10:39 PM posted to alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,soc.retirement,rec.travel.europe
Nickname unavailable[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default While the US is focused on its own domestic dramas, Europe as the Economist (UK) puts it, is bleeding out. Silently, exsanguinating below the fold, but bleeding all the same.

On May 2, 4:35*pm, ПеаБраин wrote:


snicker, amity shales, snicker.


here is what really happened before and during the great depression,
and hayek, freidman, rand, greenspan, or any other revisionists seem
not to be able to lie away,

http://www.aliveness.com/kangaroo/Timeline.htm


TIMELINES OF THE GREAT DEPRESSION: 

This page features two timelines:
the first for general events of the Roaring 20s and the Great
Depression, the second for leading economic indicators.

The
importance of these timelines cannot be emphasized enough. Seeing the
order in which events actually occurred dispels many myths about the
Great Depression. One of the greatest of these myths is that
government intervention was responsible for its onset. Truly massive
intervention began only under the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt in
1933, who was sworn in after the worst had already hit. Although his
New Deal did not cure it, all the leading economic indicators improved
on his watch. 

But don't take my word for it -- here is the raw
data: 

TIMELINE OF GENERAL EVENTS 

1920s (Decade)
• During World War I, federal spending grows three times larger than
tax collections. When the government cuts back spending to balance the
budget in 1920, a severe recession results. However, the war economy
invested heavily in the manufacturing sector, and the next decade will
see an explosion of productivity... although only for certain sectors
of the economy.
• An average of 600 banks fail each year.
• Agricultural, energy and coal mining sectors are continually
depressed. Textiles, shoes, shipbuilding and railroads continually
decline.
• The value of farmland falls 30 to 40 percent between 1920 and 1929.
• Organized labor declines throughout the decade. The United Mine
Workers Union will see its membership fall from 500,000 in 1920 to
75,000 in 1928. The American Federation of Labor would fall from 5.1
million in 1920 to 3.4 million in 1929.
• "Technological unemployment" enters the nation's vocabulary; as
many as 200,000 workers a year are replaced by automatic or semi-
automatic machinery.
• Over the decade, about 1,200 mergers will swallow up more than
6,000 previously independent companies; by 1929, only 200 corporations
will control over half of all American industry.
• By the end of the decade, the bottom 80 percent of all income-
earners will be removed from the tax rolls completely. Taxes on the
rich will fall throughout the decade.
• By 1929, the richest 1 percent will own 40 percent of the nation's
wealth. The bottom 93 percent will have experienced a 4 percent drop
in real disposable per-capita income between 1923 and 1929.
• The middle class comprises only 15 to 20 percent of all Americans.
• Individual worker productivity rises an astonishing 43 percent from
1919 to 1929. But the rewards are being funneled to the top: the
number of people reporting half-million dollar incomes grows from 156
to 1,489 between 1920 and 1929, a phenomenal rise compared to other
decades. But that is still less than 1 percent of all income-earners.
1922
• The conservative Supreme Court strikes down federal child labor
legislation.
1923
• President Warren Harding dies in office; his administration was
easily one of the most corrupt in American history. Calvin Coolidge,
who is squeaky clean by comparison, becomes president. Coolidge is no
less committed to laissez-faire and a non-interventionist government.
He announces to the American people: "The business of America is
business."
• Supreme Court nullifies minimum wage for women in District of
Columbia.
1924
• The Ku Klux Klan reaches the height of its influence in America: by
the end of the year it will claim 9 million members. It will decline
drastically in 1925, however, after financial and moral scandals rock
its leadership.
• The stock market begins its spectacular rise. Bears little relation
to the rest of the economy.
1925
• The top tax rate is lowered to 25 percent - the lowest top rate in
the eight decades since World War I.
• Supreme Court rules that trade organizations do not violate anti-
trust laws as long as some competition survives.
1928
• The construction boom is over.
• Farmers' share of the national income has dropped from 15 to 9
percent since 1920.
• Between May 1928 and September 1929, the average prices of stocks
will rise 40 percent. Trading will mushroom from 2-3 million shares
per day to over 5 million. The boom is largely artificial.
1929
• Herbert Hoover becomes President. Hoover is a staunch individualist
but not as committed to laissez-faire ideology as Coolidge.
• More than half of all Americans are living below a minimum
subsistence level.
• Annual per-capita income is $750; for farm people, it is only $273.
• Backlog of business inventories grows three times larger than the
year before. Public consumption markedly down.
• Freight carloads and manufacturing fall.
• Automobile sales decline by a third in the nine months before the
crash.
• Construction down $2 billion since 1926.
• Recession begins in August, two months before the stock market
crash. During this two month period, production will decline at an
annual rate of 20 percent, wholesale prices at 7.5 percent, and
personal income at 5 percent.
• Stock market crash begins October 24. Investors call October 29
"Black Tuesday." Losses for the month will total $16 billion, an
astronomical sum in those days.
• Congress passes Agricultural Marketing Act to support farmers until
they can get back on their feet.
1930
• By February, the Federal Reserve has cut the prime interest rate
from 6 to 4 percent. Expands the money supply with a major purchase of
U.S. securities. However, for the next year and a half, the Fed will
add very little money to the shrinking economy. (At no time will it
actually pull money out of the system.) Treasury Secretary Andrew
Mellon announces that the Fed will stand by as the market works itself
out: "Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate real estate… values
will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wreck from
less-competent people." (More)
• The Smoot-Hawley Tariff passes on June 17. With imports forming
only 6 percent of the GNP, the 40 percent tariffs work out to an
effective tax of only 2.4 percent per citizen. Even this is
compensated for by the fact that American businesses are no longer
investing in Europe, but keeping their money stateside. The consensus
of modern economists is that the tariff made only a minor contribution
to the Great Depression in the U.S., but a major one in Europe. (More)
• The first bank panic occurs later this year; a public run on banks
results in a wave of bankruptcies. Bank failures and deposit losses
are responsible for the contracting money supply.
• Supreme Court rules that the monopoly U.S. Steel does not violate
anti-trust laws as long as competition exists, no matter how
negligible.
• Democrats gain in Congressional elections, but still do not have a
majority.
• The GNP falls 9.4 percent from the year before. The unemployment
rate climbs from 3.2 to 8.7 percent.
1931
• No major legislation is passed addressing the Depression.
• A second banking panic occurs in the spring.
• The GNP falls another 8.5 percent; unemployment rises to 15.9
percent.
1932
• This and the next year are the worst years of the Great Depression.
For 1932, GNP falls a record 13.4 percent; unemployment rises to 23.6
percent.
• Industrial stocks have lost 80 percent of their value since 1930..
• 10,000 banks have failed since 1929, or 40 percent of the 1929
total.
• About $2 billion in deposits have been lost since 1929.
• Money supply has contracted 31 percent since 1929.
• GNP has also fallen 31 percent since 1929.
• Over 13 million Americans have lost their jobs since 1929.
• Capital growth investments have dropped from $16.2 billion to 1/3
of one billion since 1929.
• Farm prices have fallen 53 percent since 1929.
• International trade has fallen by two-thirds since 1929.
• The Fed makes its first major expansion of the money supply since
February 1930.
• Congress creates the Reconstruction Finance Corporation. (More)
• Congress passes the Federal Home Loan Bank Act and the Glass-
Steagall Act of 1932. (More)
• Top tax rate is raised from 25 to 63 percent.
• Popular opinion considers Hoover's measures too little too late.
Franklin Roosevelt easily defeats Hoover in the fall election.
Democrats win control of Congress.
• At his Democratic presidential nomination, Roosevelt says: "I
pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people."
1933
• Roosevelt inaugurated; begins "First 100 Days" of intensive
legislative activity. (More)
• A third banking panic occurs in March. Roosevelt declares a Bank
Holiday; closes financial institutions to stop a run on banks.
• Alarmed by Roosevelt's plan to redistribute wealth from the rich to
the poor, a group of millionaire businessmen, led by the Du Pont and
J.P. Morgan empires, plans to overthrow Roosevelt with a military coup
and install a fascist government. The businessmen try to recruit
General Smedley Butler, promising him an army of 500,000, unlimited
financial backing and generous media spin control. The plot is foiled
when Butler reports it to Congress. (More)
• Congress authorizes creation of the Agricultural Adjustment
Administration, the Civilian Conservation Corps, the Farm Credit
Administration, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal
Emergency Relief Administration, the National Recovery Administration,
the Public Works Administration and the Tennessee Valley Authority.
(More)
• Congress passes the Emergency Banking Bill, the Glass-Steagall Act
of 1933, the Farm Credit Act, the National Industrial Recovery Act and
the Truth-in-Securities Act. (More)
• U.S. goes off the gold standard.
• Roosevelt does much to redistribute wealth from the rich to the
poor, but is obsessed with a balanced budget. He later rejects Keynes'
advice to begin heavy deficit spending.
• The free fall of the GNP is significantly slowed; it dips only 2..1
percent this year. Unemployment rises slightly, to 24.9 percent.
1934
• Congress authorizes creation of the Federal Communications
Commission, the National Mediation Board and the Securities and
Exchange Commission. (More)
• Congress passes the Securities and Exchange Act and the Trade
Agreement Act. (More)
• The economy turns around: GNP rises 7.7 percent, and unemployment
falls to 21.7 percent. A long road to recovery begins.
• Sweden becomes the first nation to recover fully from the Great
Depression. It has followed a policy of Keynesian deficit spending.
(More)
1935
• The Supreme Court declares the National Recovery Administration to
be unconstitutional.
• Congress authorizes creation of the Works Progress Administration,
the National Labor Relations Board and the Rural Electrification
Administration. (More)
• Congress passes the Banking Act of 1935, the Emergency Relief
Appropriation Act, the National Labor Relations Act, and the Social
Security Act. (More)
• Economic recovery continues: the GNP grows another 8.1 percent, and
unemployment falls to 20.1 percent.
1936
• The Supreme Court declares part of the Agricultural Adjustment Act
to be unconstitutional.
• In response, Congress passes the Soil Conservation and Domestic
Allotment Act. (More)
• Top tax rate raised to 79 percent.
• Economic recovery continues: GNP grows a record 14.1 percent;
unemployment falls to 16.9 percent.
• Germany becomes the second nation to recover fully from the Great
Depression, through heavy deficit spending in preparation for war.
1937
• The Supreme Court declares the National Labor Relations Board to be
unconstitutional.
• Roosevelt seeks to enlarge and therefore liberalize the Supreme
Court. This attempt not only fails, but outrages the public.
• Economists attribute economic growth so far to heavy government
spending that is somewhat deficit. Roosevelt, however, fears an
unbalanced budget and cuts spending for 1937. That summer, the nation
plunges into another recession. Despite this, the yearly GNP rises 5.0
percent, and unemployment falls to 14.3 percent.
1938
• Congress passes the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 and the
Fair Labor Standards Act. (More)
• No major New Deal legislation is passed after this date, due to
Roosevelt's weakened political power.
• The year-long recession makes itself felt: the GNP falls 4.5
percent, and unemployment rises to 19.0 percent.
• Britain becomes the third nation to recover as it begins deficit
spending in preparation for war.
1939
• GNP rises 7.9 percent; unemployment falls to 17.2 percent.
• The United States will begin emerging from the Depression as it
borrows and spends $1 billion to build its armed forces. From 1939 to
1941, when the Japanese attack Pearl Harbor, U.S. manufacturing will
have shot up a phenomenal 50 percent!
• The Depression is ending worldwide as nations prepare for the
coming hostilities.
• World War II starts with Hitler's invasion of Poland.
1945
• Although the war is the largest tragedy in human history, the
United States emerges as the world's only economic superpower. Deficit
spending has resulted in a national debt 123 percent the size of the
GDP. By contrast, in 1994, the $4.7 trillion national debt will be
only 70 percent of the GDP!
• The top tax rate is 91 percent. It will stay at least 88 percent
until 1963, when it is lowered to 70 percent. During this time,
America will experience the greatest economic boom it has ever known.
ECONOMIC TIMELINE

The following timeline shows the order of economic events during the
Great Depression. Notice the effect that deficit spending had on
economic growth:

Receipts: Tax receipts as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product

Spending: Federal spending as a percentage of the Gross Domestic
Product

GNP: Percent change in the Gross National Product

Unemp.: Unemployment rate

Tax Federal GNP Unemp.
Year Receipts Spending Growth Rate
-------------------------------------------------
1929 -- -- -- 3.2% Hoover era, Great
Depression begins
1930 4.2% 3.4% - 9.4% 8.7
1931 3.7 4.3 - 8.5 15.9
1932 2.9 7.0 -13.4 23.6
1933 3.5 8.1 - 2.1 24.9 FDR, New Deal begins;
contraction ends March
1934 4.9 10.8 + 7.7 21.7
1935 5.3 9.3 + 8.1 20.1
1936 5.1 10.6 +14.1 16.9
1937 6.2 8.7 + 5.0 14.3 recession begins, May
1938 7.7 7.8 - 4.5 19.0 recession ends, June
1939 7.2 10.4 + 7.9 17.2
1940 6.9 9.9
1941 7.7 12.1
1942 10.3 24.8
1943 13.7 44.8
1944 21.7 45.3
1945 21.3 43.7
As you can see, Roosevelt began relatively modest deficit spending
that arrested the slide of the economy and resulted in some
astonishing growth numbers. (Roosevelt's average growth of 5.2 percent
during the Great Depression is even higher than Reagan's 3.7 percent
growth during his so-called "Seven Fat Years!") When 1936 saw a
phenomenal record of 14 percent growth, Roosevelt eased back on the
deficit spending, overly worried about balancing the budget. But this
only caused the economy to slip back into a recession, as the above
chart shows.

I have been unable to find reliable economic growth
figures from World War II, but as a generalization it is safe to say
the economy exploded, experiencing it’s greatest growth in U.S.
history. Between 1940 and 1945, the GDP nearly doubled in size, from
$832 billion to $1,559 billion in constant 87 dollars. And this
occurred as deficit spending soared, to levels Keynes had earlier and
unsuccessfully recommended to Roosevelt.

Next Section: Summary
Return
to The Great Depression Homepage

Sources:

T.H. Watkins, The Great
Depression: America in the 1930s (New York: Little, Brown and Company,
1993)

Kevin Phillips, Boiling Point (New York: HarperCollins, 1993)
Kevin Phillips, The Politics of Rich and Poor (New York: Random House,
1990)

The 1995 Grolier Encyclopedia (Entries: New Deal, Depression of
the 30s, Roosevelt, Coolidge.)

The Encyclopedia Brittanica Online
(Entries: New Deal, Great Depression.)

Donald Barlett and James
Steele, America: What Went Wrong? (Kansas City: Andrews and McMeel,
1992)

Donald Barlett and James Steele, America: Who Really Pays the
Taxes? (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994)

James MacGregor Fox,
Roosevelt: The Lion and the Fox (New York: Konecky and Konecky, 1956)
Elaine Schwartz, Econ 101½ (New York: Avon Books, 1995)

Peter Pugh
and Chris Garratt, Introducing Keynes (Cambridge, England: Icon Books,
Ltd., 1993)

Paul Krugman, Peddling Prosperity (New York: W..W. Norton
and Company, 1994)

Online sources:

History lecture notes:
http://www.marshall.edu/history/mcca...ure/greatdep.1
Gary H. Stern (President, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis),
"Achieving Economic Stability: Lessons From the Crash of 1929," 1987
Annual Report Essay, http://woodrow.mpls.frb.fed.us/pubs/ar/ar1987.html
Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States
Government, Fiscal Year 1997, Historical Tables 1.2 and 10.1,
http://www.doc.gov/BudgetFY97/histtoc.html




  #4  
Old May 2nd, 2013, 11:53 PM posted to alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,soc.retirement,rec.travel.europe
BIG BIRD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default While the US is focused on its own domestic dramas, Europe as the Economist (UK) puts it, is bleeding out. Silently, exsanguinating below the fold, but bleeding all the same.


"??'???????" wrote in message
...
While the US is focused on its own domestic dramas, Europe as the
Economist (UK) puts it, is bleeding out. Silently, exsanguinating
below the fold, but bleeding all the same.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee.../euro-crisis-5


won't be long before they recognize what the conservative tactics do, and they
switch to socialism and go after them rich *******s with
torches and pitchforks,


  #5  
Old May 3rd, 2013, 01:33 AM posted to alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,soc.retirement,rec.travel.europe
Nickname unavailable[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default While the US is focused on its own domestic dramas, Europe as the Economist (UK) puts it, is bleeding out. Silently, exsanguinating below the fold, but bleeding all the same.

On May 2, 5:53*pm, "BIG BIRD" wrote:
"??ö'???????" wrote in message

...
“While the US is focused on its own domestic dramas, Europe as the
Economist (UK) *puts it, ‘is bleeding out.’ Silently, exsanguinating
below the fold, but bleeding all the same.”

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee.../euro-crisis-5

won't be long before they recognize what the conservative tactics do, and they
switch to socialism and go after them rich *******s with
torches and pitchforks,


could be. lets remember, the world saw the new deal for what it was,
and many countries not only embraced it, and emulated it, but even
expanded on it. this is what happens with education. and the results
were staggering. in america we went form a country ruled by wealthy
parasites with a very small middle class of around 15%, to a almost
all middle class population, other countries did even better.
that is why you see "THE CONSERVATIVES" desperate attack on schools,
"THE CONSERVATIVES" embrace fascism, and of course as the fascists
say, give me the schools, i will get the country. but it might not be
so easy these days. keynes spectacular achievement in economics, means
that in the modern world, demand for goods and services is wage
driven, and so far not one "CRANK CONSERVATIVE" has found a way around
that. so taking away today may not be so easy as time passes, and will
effect the wealthy parasites that "THE CONSERVATIVES" so feverishly
serve.
the youth of the world seem to despise "CONSERVATISM", and in the
u.k., they say ding dong the witch is dead))


no wonder the worlds youth despise "CONSERVATISM" the Anglo-American
model, with a migration from manufacturing to finance and a big bet
placed on unfettering private sector titans, Young Britons (and young
Americans as well) have a lifetime of part time hustling for low pay
to look forward to. As one London fellow put it to me, “being born
next to the Baltic is like winning life’s lottery.”
The second model has been the Northern European one (by which I
include Germany and Holland), with a big bet placed on the wisdom of
massive long term investments in human capital by government. And
taxes high enough to pay for that human capital bet.
It is looking like the Norse/Teutonic instincts were better. Both
models have their problems, but in terms of business competitiveness,
health, and most importantly in terms of measured human happiness and
confidence in tomorrow, the Thatcher model has brought only tidings of
woe.


yea, she is so loved, even by that left wing bastion forbes. lets be
polite about a monster that destroyed her country.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/eamonnfi...the-iron-lady/


Eamonn Fingleton, Contributor
My beat is East Asia - and history's biggest industrial revolution

4/14/2013 @ 10:46AM |93,734 views
Thatcher's Last Wish: Another Clunker From The Iron Lady
The news today is that a group of supporters of Margaret Thatcher are
pushing a plan to build a museum and library as a permanent memorial
to her. It is clear that the plan, which would establish a first in
British politics, has been long in the making and that it not only had
Thatcher’s approval but she herself largely instigated the idea. This
is another clunker from the Iron Lady – a final terrible idea from a
woman who, pace all current hagiography, will *be remembered as one of
the worst political leaders in modern British history.
Let’s be clear first on the larger politics. As someone who served as
a Fleet Street commentator in the late 1970s, I fully recognize that
she made progress on some issues, not least trade union dominance of
the economy. But her predecessor Jim Callaghan would undoubtedly have
continued to focus on these same issues had he been reelected and he
would have dealt with them in a perhaps more effective, and certainly
less divisive, way.

The voters who elected Thatcher in 1979 were motivated powerfully by
humiliation at the UK economy’s constant loss of position in global
competition since the early 1950s. So how did Thatcher do in reversing
the trend and what in particular did she do to improve the UK’s trade
position? The eulogizers are quiet on the subject. Advisedly so. *The
fact is that under Thatcherism the UK’s trade position went from the
merely weak to the totally disastrous. The UK ran a current account
surplus of 0.6 percent of GDP in 1978, the last full year before
Thatcher came to office. As of 1989, the last full year before she was
ousted by her own party in May of 1990, the current account DEFICIT
had reached an appalling 3.9 percent of GDP. In the meantime Thatcher
presided over a savage program to destroy the UK’s core exporting
industries and, with wholesale financial deregulation, laid the
groundwork for *the catastrophic financial bubbles of more recent
times. She was smitten by the *erroneous notion that *advanced nations
should leave “rust bucket” industries behind and move to a
postindustrial model. Not a view shared by Germany, which has now long
eclipsed the UK as Europe’s premier economy. It is not shared either
in any of the most successful economies of East Asia (though they are
delighted if the English-speaking world continues to believe in
postindustrialism). *I have consistently attacked the
postindustrialist fallacy since the 1980s and indeed I devoted a whole
book to in 1999 (In Praise of Hard Industries: Why Manufacturing, Not
the Information Economy, Is the Key to Future Prosperity).
As for the Thatcher museum and library, this is a characteristically
egotistical Thatcherite project at odds with British tradition. *The
British after all put a high value on modesty — or at least the
appearance of it — and even the most capable of them have
traditionally left it to others to sing their praises.
The fear now is that she has established a precedent that *future
British political leaders will feel compelled to follow, and in so
doing will render politics in London as dysfunctionally money-ridden
as politics in Washington already is.
Thatcher apparently was much impressed with the Reagan Presidential
Library. But why? Such memorials typically involve pandering to
wealthy donors and transnational corporations — and the pandering
typically begins long before the honoree leaves office. Not the least
of the problems is that many of the corporations involved have at best
no loyalty to the nation and some are indeed foreign and almost by
definition have a clear conflict of interest.
What we know for sure is that the Reagan library was made possible in
large measure by *General Electric. Although it is not yet apparent to
most Americans, General Electric has played a starring role in the
enfeeblement of the United States. A key charge is that GE has led
corporate America in the torching of America’s once peerless
industrial base on the funeral pyre of globalism.* It has done this
principally by transferring many of America’s most advanced production
technologies, including aerospace technologies, to foreign production
partners. These partners, located mainly in East Asia, have undertaken
to low-ball their prices and have thereby boosted GE’s quarterly
earnings, but at the cost of hollowing out the American industrial
base. You may not have seen much written about this subject in recent
years but the trend is acutely apparent in U.S. trade figures. With
its industrial base almost gone, America has consistently in recent
years run a current account deficit of 4 to 6 percent of GDP – the
weakest trade performance of any major nation in history. The
geopolitical consequences could hardly be more disastrous as the
United States has come increasingly to depend on funding from such
creditor nations as*China and Japan. It is not an exaggeration to say
that America’s role now has been reduced to borrowing *from China to
save the world from China.
The concept of presidential libraries is actually quite modern. The
first was built by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was a relatively
modest affair and, more important, he had the decency to do it with
his own money. *In recent decades succeeding presidents have vied with
one another for the title of largest and most impressive presidential
library. For the record the title now seems to be held by Bill
Clinton.
As Winston Churchill once said, “The price of greatness is
responsibility.” Would Churchill be better regarded today had he run
around drumming up support for a memorial to himself?*For that that
matter, would George Washington?

POSTSCRIPT
As of this writing , this blog has already generated more than 170
comments, not all of them friendly….
I am the first to acknowledge that Margaret Thatcher’s legacy, in
common with that of most other human beings, is a mixed bag. Some of
the things she did were good but the further you are from the UK –and
the less you know about British politics — the more likely you are to
take a favorable view. Even David Cameron, the current Prime Minister
and central casting’s idea of a traditional British Conservative, is
not a Thatcherite. Hardly anyone else is either. The fact is that she
was ousted by her own senior colleagues, and they had good reason to
rise up against her.
Many readers of my commentary seem to think she played a vital role in
winning the Cold War. This gives no credit to the Soviets, who had
long known their system was not working. She and Ronald Reagan were
pushing on an open door. If Jim Callaghan and Jimmy Carter had been in
charge in 1989, the outcome in the East Bloc would have been the same.
Thatcher’s rhetoric may have been particularly shrill but what
demolished the Berlin Wall was a sober realization in Moscow that the
dogma-driven societies it had created were totally dysfunctional.
The point that concerns me most — and I happen to have the benefit of
*a special understanding of the facts — is that the British economy is
almost as hollowed out as the American one.*Remarkably virtually none
of *my critics has made any reference to this point. Just like the
United States, the UK must constantly borrow abroad — principally from
China and Japan. In an earlier era, British leaders would have
considered this an appalling fate. In a future era, when the East
Asians finally stop propping up the pound (they have good strategic
reasons for doing so for a few more years), it will be obvious to
everyone that Thatcher’s trade policy was catastrophic.
My larger point stands: it is at best unseemly for political leaders
to go around canvassing support for their memorials.
Below are three reader comments which I believe deserve wider
circulation. Unsurprisingly they happen to be favorable to my point of
view. But if my critics have a cogent argument against my thesis, they
have yet to make it.
From logic001 [9/4+ Member: logic001]
75.48.104.187 
Submitted on
2013/04/14 at 3:10 pm
The article is correct on the major points.
Since the 1980′s I’ve witnessed up close and personally the paths
taken by two very different models for Western Civilization. One is
the Anglo-American model, with a migration from manufacturing to
finance and a big bet placed on unfettering private sector titans.
2
The second model has been the Northern European one (by which I
include Germany and Holland), with a big bet placed on the wisdom of
massive long term investments in human capital by government. And
taxes high enough to pay for that human capital bet.
It is looking like the Norse/Teutonic instincts were better. Both
models have their problems, but in terms of business competitiveness,
health, and most importantly in terms of measured human happiness and
confidence in tomorrow, the Thatcher model has brought only tidings of
woe.
This is most apparent over the course of decades. In the 1980s, the
life and dreams of a young man in the U.K. were broadly on par with
those of a young man in West Germany or Sweden. Today, it is not even
close. Young Britons (and young Americans as well) have a lifetime of
part time hustling for low pay to look forward to. As one London
fellow put it to me, “being born next to the Baltic is like winning
life’s lottery.”

That is Thatcher’s legacy.
From gladpick Marks [1/0+ Member: gladpick]
  #6  
Old May 3rd, 2013, 02:06 PM posted to alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,soc.retirement,rec.travel.europe
Old Pif
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default While the US is focused on its own domestic dramas, Europe as the Economist (UK) puts it, is bleeding out. Silently, exsanguinating below the fold, but bleeding all the same.

On May 3, 8:24*am, ПЈö'Донован wrote:

Democrat
politicians forced banks to make such loans to their poor risk
constituents who probably wouldn't be able to pay the loans back.


They forced them how? What was exactly the actual instrument of
alleged coercion?

Did those villains Democrats beat the banks directors to pulp for
refusing the loans. Or may be they weatherboarding them?
  #7  
Old May 3rd, 2013, 03:00 PM posted to alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,soc.retirement,rec.travel.europe
ПеаБраин[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default While the US is focused on its own domestic dramas, Europe as the Economist (UK) puts it, is bleeding out. Silently, exsanguinating below the fold, but bleeding all the same.

On May 3, 9:06*am, Old Pif wrote:
On May 3, 8:24*am, ПЈö'Донован wrote:

Democrat
politicians forced banks to make such loans to their poor risk
constituents who probably wouldn't be able to pay the loans back.

.................................................. ....................
They forced them how? What was exactly the actual instrument of
alleged coercion?

.................................................. .................................................. ..................

Community Reinvestment Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95–128, title VIII of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1147, 12
U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to
encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the
needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including
low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the
Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-
income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]
The Act instructs the appropriate federal financial supervisory
agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet
the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered,
consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.) To enforce the
statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for
CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when
approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or
acquisitions (Section 804.)[6]

Enforcement

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 seeks to address discrimination
in loans made to individuals and businesses from low and moderate-
income neighborhoods.[7] The Act mandates that all banking
institutions that receive Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the
bank offers credit (in a manner consistent with safe and sound
operation as per Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)) in all communities
in which they are chartered to do business.[3] The law does not list
specific criteria for evaluating the performance of financial
institutions. Rather, it directs that the evaluation process should
accommodate the situation and context of each individual institution.
Federal regulations dictate agency conduct in evaluating a bank's
compliance in five performance areas, comprising twelve assessment
factors. This examination culminates in a rating and a written report
that becomes part of the supervisory record for that bank.[8]....."

  #8  
Old May 3rd, 2013, 04:29 PM posted to alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,soc.retirement,rec.travel.europe
Nickname unavailable[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default While the US is focused on its own domestic dramas, Europe as the Economist (UK) puts it, is bleeding out. Silently, exsanguinating below the fold, but bleeding all the same.

On May 3, 9:00*am, ПеаБраин wrote:
On May 3, 9:06*am, Old Pif wrote: On May 3, 8:24*am, ПЈö'Донован wrote:

Democrat
politicians forced banks to make such loans to their poor risk
constituents who probably wouldn't be able to pay the loans back.


.................................................. ................... They forced them how? What was exactly the actual instrument of
alleged coercion?


.................................................. .................................................. .................

Community Reinvestment Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95–128, title VIII of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1147, 12
U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to
encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the
needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including
low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the
Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-
income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]
The Act instructs the appropriate federal financial supervisory
agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet
the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered,
consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.) To enforce the
statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for
CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when
approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or
acquisitions (Section 804.)[6]

Enforcement

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 seeks to address discrimination
in loans made to individuals and businesses from low and moderate-
income neighborhoods.[7] The Act mandates that all banking
institutions that receive Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the
bank offers credit (in a manner consistent with safe and sound
operation as per Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)) in all communities
in which they are chartered to do business.[3] The law does not list
specific criteria for evaluating the performance of financial
institutions. Rather, it directs that the evaluation process should
accommodate the situation and context of each individual institution.
Federal regulations dictate agency conduct in evaluating a bank's
compliance in five performance areas, comprising twelve assessment
factors. This examination culminates in a rating and a written report
that becomes part of the supervisory record for that bank.[8]....."



"CONSERVATIVES" have absolutely no credibility at all.


that is a lie. back it up with real facts, and you will be the first
to collect a $100,000.00 reward that has been offered for proof of
your conservative lie. go ahead liar, i will give you the info, go
collect the money, then get back to me liar.
Get Me ReWrite! 
By Barry Ritholtz - May 13th, 2010, 7:20AM 
My
approach to everything I have written, studied and analyzed in 
this
space is pretty straight forward: Start with the data and 
evidence
and 
go forward from there. Figure out what the “Truth” is; 
try to
get as 
close to the objective reality beneath the noise in 
order to
make 
intelligent investing decisions for myself and my 
clients.
There are others who do not share this objective. Their goals are
either political (winning the next election) or ideological (having
their belief system become dominant). Truth is irrelevant to these
people. 
Not surprisingly, these folks — many of whom contributed to
the 
crisis 
in a might way — are desperately trying to duck
responsibility 
for 
what happened. Those who helped cause the crisis
are engaged in 
an 
ongoing effort to rewrite its history. 
Their
goal? Exonerate their own bad behavior, throw off any 
responsibility
to the collapse, blame anything but their own ideology 
and horrific
decision making. They want to keep pushing their tired 
political
agendas, despite the damage they may have caused. 
When writing
Bailout Nation, I tried to steer clear of partisan 
finger 
pointing.
I kept the focus on what actually occurred, what 
could be 
proven
mathematically. I blamed Democrats and Republicans — 
not 
equally,
but in proportion to their what they did. Unsupported 
theories,
tenuous connection, loose affiliations were not part of the 
analysis.
Every legislative change, each regulatory failure, all 
corporate
actions, to be blameworthy, had to manifest themselves in 
actual
mathematical proof. 
This led me to ascertain the following 30 year
sequence: 
* * -Free market absolutism becomes the dominant
intellectual 
thought. 
* * -Deregulation of markets, investment
houses, and banks 
becomes a 
broad goal: This led to Glass Steagall
repeal, Derivative 
exemptions, 
Investing house leverage exemptions,
and a new breed of 
unregulated 
non bank lenders. 
* * -Legislative
actions reduce or 
eliminate much of the regulatory 
oversight; SEC
funding is weakened. 
* * -Rates come down to absurd levels. 
* * -
Bond managers madly 
scramble for yield. 
* * -Derivatives, non-bank
lending, leverage, 
bank size, compensation 
levels all run away from
prior levels. 
* * - 
Wall Street securitizes whatever it can to
satisfy the demand for 
higher yields. 
* * -”Lend to securitize”
nonbank mortgage writers 
sell enormous 
amounts of subprime loans to
Wall Street for this 
purpose. 
* * -To meet this demand, non bank
lenders collapse lending 
standards, 
leading to a credit bubble. 
* *
-The Fed approves of this 
innovation. 
* * -Housing booms, then
busts 
* * -Credit freeze, 
market collapse recession. 
You will note
that the CRA is not part of this sequence. I could find 
no evidence
that they were a cause or even a minor factor. If they 
were, the
housing bubbles would not have been in California or S. 
Florida or Ls
Vegas or Arizona — Harlem and South Philly and parts of 
Chicago and
Washington DC would have been the focus. 
Nor do I blame Fannie and
Freddie. Now understand, there is no love 
lost between myself and the
GSEs. For years, I have called them 
“Phoney and Fraudy.” *Since
George Bush and Hank Paulson nationalized 
them, I have accused the
government of using these two as a backdoor 
bailout for banks — a
hidden PPIP/TARP used to buy all the garbage 
mortgages that banks are
desperate to get off their balance sheets. 
Longtime readers will
recall we very publicly shorted Fannie based 
upon their fraudulent
practices and horrific balance sheet. 
But even I cannot reconcile the
movement to place all of the world’s 
troubles at the feet of the
GSEs. Not, at least, according to the 
data. 
That lack of evidence,
however, doesn’t stop ideologues from making 
the attempt. Consider
this attempt at rewriting the causes of the 
credit crisis by Kevin
Hassett: 
* * “The worst financial crisis in generations was set off
by a 
massive government effort, led by the two mortgage giants, to
make 
loans to homebuyers no matter whether they could make the
payments. 
Lenders were willing to lend money to just about all
comers, no 
matter 
how low their income. Why? Because the lenders
knew Fannie and 
Freddie 
would purchase the loans from them for a
high price before 
bundling 
them into securities to sell to
investors.” 
Now, this makes for a fascinating narrative that plays
into a number 
of different ideological beliefs. It exonerates the
radical free 
market deregulators, it ignores what the private sector
did, and it 
somehow ignores the fact that Congress was controlled by
a very 
conservative GOP from 1994 to 2006 — the prime period of time
covered 
leading up to and including the beginning of the crisis. 
But
worse than all of that, the data supporting Hassett’s position 
simply
isn’t there. 
Over the past 2 years, I have repeatedly asked the
people who push 
this narrative to provide some evidence for their
positions. I have 
offered a $100,000 if they could prove their case.
Specifically, I have requested some data or evidence that DISPROVED
the following facts: 
* * -The origination of subprime loans came
primarily from non bank 
lenders not covered by the CRA; 
* * -The
majority of the underwriting, at leats fro the first few 
years of the
boom, were by these same non-bank lenders 
* * -When the big banks
began chasing subprime, it was due to the 
profit motive, not any
mandate from the President (a Republican) or 
the the Congress
(Republican controlled) or the GSEs they oversaw. 
* * -Prior to 2005,
nearly all of these sub-prime loans were bought 
by 
Wall Street — NOT
Fannie & Freddie 
* * -In fact, prior to 2005, the GSEs were not
permitted to purchase 
non-conforming mortgages. 
* * -After 2005,
Fannie & Freddie changed their own rules to start 
buying these non-
conforming mortgages — in order to maintain market 
share and compete
with Wall Street for profits. 
* * -The change in FNM/FRE conforming
mortgage purchases in 2005 was 
not due to any legislation or marching
orders from the President (a 
Republican) or the the Congress
(Republican controlled). It was the 
profit motive that led them to
this action. 
These are data supported facts I pounded on in BN. 
Of
course, folks like Hassett hate this factual history, as it 
conflicts
with their goals and politics. Rather than produce 
evidence, 
they
create story lines unsupported by facts. *But Monkeys 
love a good
narrative, and so they give that to them. 
However, as an investor, I
demand evidence, data and facts. The blame 
Fannie & Freddie crowd
have managed to remain blissfully data free. 
They have steadfastly
ignored all calls for proof. 
Its way past the time to call out their
intellectual dishonesty. If 
you cannot show any data, if you cannot
prove what you are alleging 
with actual facts, you need to be called
out for what it is you 
actually a Proponents of a failed
philosophy. 
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/05...es-of-the-cred...

  #9  
Old May 3rd, 2013, 04:35 PM posted to alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,soc.retirement,rec.travel.europe
:ПеаБраин
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 101
Default While the US is focused on its own domestic dramas, Europe as the Economist (UK) puts it, is bleeding out. Silently, exsanguinating below the fold, but bleeding all the same.

On May 3, 11:29*am, Nickname unavailable
wrote:
On May 3, 9:00*am, ПеаБраин wrote:

On May 3, 9:06*am, Old Pif wrote: On May 3, 8:24*am, ПЈö'Донован wrote:


Democrat
politicians forced banks to make such loans to their poor risk
constituents who probably wouldn't be able to pay the loans back.


.................................................. ................... They forced them how? What was exactly the actual instrument of
alleged coercion?


.................................................. .......................... .........................................


Community Reinvestment Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, Pub.L. 95–128, title VIII of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1147, 12
U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to
encourage commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the
needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including
low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] Congress passed the
Act in 1977 to reduce discriminatory credit practices against low-
income neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining.[4][5]
The Act instructs the appropriate federal financial supervisory
agencies to encourage regulated financial institutions to help meet
the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered,
consistent with safe and sound operation (Section 802.) To enforce the
statute, federal regulatory agencies examine banking institutions for
CRA compliance, and take this information into consideration when
approving applications for new bank branches or for mergers or
acquisitions (Section 804.)[6]


Enforcement


The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 seeks to address discrimination
in loans made to individuals and businesses from low and moderate-
income neighborhoods.[7] The Act mandates that all banking
institutions that receive Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
insurance be evaluated by Federal banking agencies to determine if the
bank offers credit (in a manner consistent with safe and sound
operation as per Section 802(b) and Section 804(1)) in all communities
in which they are chartered to do business.[3] The law does not list
specific criteria for evaluating the performance of financial
institutions. Rather, it directs that the evaluation process should
accommodate the situation and context of each individual institution.
Federal regulations dictate agency conduct in evaluating a bank's
compliance in five performance areas, comprising twelve assessment
factors. This examination culminates in a rating and a written report
that becomes part of the supervisory record for that bank.[8]....."


"CONSERVATIVES" have absolutely no credibility at all.

that is a lie. back it up with real facts, and you will be the first
to collect a $100,000.00 reward that has been offered for proof of
your conservative lie. go ahead liar, i will give you the info, go
collect the money, then get back to me liar.
Get Me ReWrite! 
By Barry Ritholtz - May 13th, 2010, 7:20AM 
My
approach to everything I have written, studied and analyzed in 
this
space is pretty straight forward: Start with the data and 
evidence
and 
go forward from there. Figure out what the “Truth” is; 
try to
get as 
close to the objective reality beneath the noise in 
order to
make 
intelligent investing decisions for myself and my 
clients.
There are others who do not share this objective. Their goals are
either political (winning the next election) or ideological (having
their belief system become dominant). Truth is irrelevant to these
people. 
Not surprisingly, these folks — many of whom contributed to
the 
crisis 
in a might way — are desperately trying to duck
responsibility 
for 
what happened. Those who helped cause the crisis
are engaged in 
an 
ongoing effort to rewrite its history.. 
Their
goal? Exonerate their own bad behavior, throw off any 
responsibility
to the collapse, blame anything but their own ideology 
and horrific
decision making. They want to keep pushing their tired 
political
agendas, despite the damage they may have caused. 
When writing
Bailout Nation, I tried to steer clear of partisan 
finger 
pointing.
I kept the focus on what actually occurred, what 
could be 
proven
mathematically. I blamed Democrats and Republicans — 
not 
equally,
but in proportion to their what they did. Unsupported 
theories,
tenuous connection, loose affiliations were not part of the 
analysis.
Every legislative change, each regulatory failure, all 
corporate
actions, to be blameworthy, had to manifest themselves in 
actual
mathematical proof. 
This led me to ascertain the following 30 year
sequence: 
* * -Free market absolutism becomes the dominant
intellectual 
thought. 
* * -Deregulation of markets, investment
houses, and banks 
becomes a 
broad goal: This led to Glass Steagall
repeal, Derivative 
exemptions, 
Investing house leverage exemptions,
and a new breed of 
unregulated 
non bank lenders. 
* * -Legislative
actions reduce or 
eliminate much of the regulatory 
oversight; SEC
funding is weakened. 
* * -Rates come down to absurd levels. 
* * -
Bond managers madly 
scramble for yield. 
* * -Derivatives, non-bank
lending, leverage, 
bank size, compensation 
levels all run away from
prior levels. 
* * - 
Wall Street securitizes whatever it can to
satisfy the demand for 
higher yields. 
* * -”Lend to securitize”
nonbank mortgage writers 
sell enormous 
amounts of subprime loans to
Wall Street for this 
purpose. 
* * -To meet this demand, non bank
lenders collapse lending 
standards, 
leading to a credit bubble.
-The Fed approves of this 
innovation. 
* * -Housing booms, then
busts 
* * -Credit freeze, 
market collapse recession. 
You will note
that the CRA is not part of this sequence. I could find 
no evidence
that they were a cause or even a minor factor. If they 
were, the
housing bubbles would not have been in California or S. 
Florida or Ls
Vegas or Arizona — Harlem and South Philly and parts of 
Chicago and
Washington DC would have been the focus. 
Nor do I blame Fannie and
Freddie. Now understand, there is no love 
lost between myself and the
GSEs. For years, I have called them 
“Phoney and Fraudy.” *Since
George Bush and Hank Paulson nationalized 
them, I have accused the
government of using these two as a backdoor 
bailout for banks — a
hidden PPIP/TARP used to buy all the garbage 
mortgages that banks are
desperate to get off their balance sheets. 
Longtime readers will
recall we very publicly shorted Fannie based 
upon their fraudulent
practices and horrific balance sheet. 
But even I cannot reconcile the
movement to place all of the world’s 
troubles at the feet of the
GSEs. Not, at least, according to the 
data. 
That lack of evidence,
however, doesn’t stop ideologues from making 
the attempt.. Consider
this attempt at rewriting the causes of the 
credit crisis by Kevin
Hassett: 
* * “The worst financial crisis in generations was set off
by a 
massive government effort, led by the two mortgage giants, to
make 
loans to homebuyers no matter whether they could make the
payments. 
Lenders were willing to lend money to just about all
comers, no 
matter 
how low their income. Why? Because the lenders
knew Fannie and 
Freddie 
would purchase the loans from them for a
high price before 
bundling 
them into securities to sell to
investors.” 
Now, this makes for a fascinating narrative that plays
into a number 
of different ideological beliefs. It exonerates the
radical free 
market deregulators, it ignores what the private sector
did, and it 
somehow ignores the fact that Congress was controlled by
a very 
conservative GOP from 1994 to 2006 — the prime period of time
covered 
leading up to and including the beginning of the crisis. 
But
worse than all of that, the data supporting Hassett’s position 
simply
isn’t there. 
Over the past 2 years, I have repeatedly asked the
people who push 
this narrative to provide some evidence for their
positions. I have 
offered a $100,000 if they could prove their case.
Specifically, I have requested some data or evidence that DISPROVED
the following facts: 
* * -The origination of subprime loans came
primarily from non bank 
lenders not covered by the CRA; 
* * -The
majority of the underwriting, at leats fro the first few 
years of the
boom, were by these same non-bank lenders 
* * -When the big banks
began chasing subprime, it was due to the 
profit motive, not any
mandate from the President (a Republican) or 
the the Congress
(Republican controlled) or the GSEs they oversaw. 
* * -Prior to 2005,
nearly all of these sub-prime loans were bought 
by 
Wall Street — NOT
Fannie & Freddie 
* * -In fact, prior to 2005, the GSEs were not
permitted to purchase 
non-conforming mortgages. 
* * -After 2005,
Fannie & Freddie changed their own rules to start 
buying these non-
conforming mortgages — in order to maintain market 
share and compete
with Wall Street for profits. 
* * -The change in FNM/FRE conforming
mortgage purchases in 2005 was 
not due to any legislation or marching
orders from the President (a 
Republican) or the the Congress
(Republican controlled). It was the 
profit motive that led them to
this action. 
These are data supported facts I pounded on in BN. 
Of
course, folks like Hassett hate this factual history, as it 
conflicts
with their goals and politics. Rather than produce 
evidence, 
they
create story lines unsupported by facts. *But Monkeys 
love a good
narrative, and so they give that to them. 
However, as an investor, I
demand evidence, data and facts. The blame 
Fannie & Freddie crowd
have managed to remain blissfully data free. 
They have steadfastly
ignored all calls for proof. 
Its way past the time to call out their
intellectual dishonesty. If 
you cannot show any data, if you cannot
prove what you are alleging 
with actual facts, you need to be called
out for what it is you 
actually a Proponents of a failed
philosophy. 
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/05...es-of-the-cred...


For objectivity free of political agenda on this fiasco one has to
look north of the American
border:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...27.COWENT27/TP...

"..In fact, no one wants to level with the people. If they did,
they'd
have to explain that everybody had a hand in creating the credit
crisis - even Democrats. In fact, it was the Republicans who pushed
for tighter regulations on Fannie and Freddie, the government
mortgage
lenders, and the Democrats who opposed them. "These two entities ...
are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Democratic
congressman Barney Frank back in 2003. "The more people exaggerate
these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the
less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Mr. Frank is now a
central figure in the bailout talks.

Both the Republicans and Democrats enthusiastically endorsed the idea
of using government power to expand home ownership to people who had
been shut out of the market....."

Big Brother always knows what is good for us.
  #10  
Old May 3rd, 2013, 05:02 PM posted to alt.horror,alt.politics.socialism,alt.politics.economics,soc.retirement,rec.travel.europe
Nickname unavailable[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default While the US is focused on its own domestic dramas, Europe as the Economist (UK) puts it, is bleeding out. Silently, exsanguinating below the fold, but bleeding all the same.

On May 3, 10:35*am, :ПеаБраин wrote:


For objectivity free of political agenda on this fiasco one has to
look north of the American
border:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...27.COWENT27/TP...

"..In fact, no one wants to level with the people. If they did,
they'd
have to explain that everybody had a hand in creating the credit
crisis - even Democrats. In fact, it was the Republicans who pushed
for tighter regulations on Fannie and Freddie, the government
mortgage
lenders, and the Democrats who opposed them. "These two entities ...
are not facing any kind of financial crisis," said Democratic
congressman Barney Frank back in 2003. "The more people exaggerate
these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the
less we will see in terms of affordable housing." Mr. Frank is now a
central figure in the bailout talks.

Both the Republicans and Democrats enthusiastically endorsed the idea
of using government power to expand home ownership to people who had
been shut out of the market....."

Big Brother always knows what is good for us.


gee, why are you not taking your credible empirical evidence, and
collect the reward?

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims, not culprits
Posted by: Aaron Pressman on September 26, 2008
http://www.businessweek.com/investin...hives/2008/09/...


There s a dangerous and misleading argument making the rounds about
the causes of our current credit crisis. It s emanating from
Washington 
where politicians are engaging in the usual blame game but
this time the 
stakes are so high that we can t afford to fall victim
to political 
doublespeak. In this fact-free zone, government
sponsored mortgage 
giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the real
estate bubble and 
subprime meltdown. It s completely false. Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac 
were victims of the credit crisis, not culprits.
Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5
trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or
Freddie. That s right most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or
Freddie s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no
interest 
for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made
without checking a 
borrower s income or employment history? All made
in the private sector, 
without any support from Fannie and Freddie..
Look at the numbers. While the credit bubble was peaking from 2003 to
2006, the amount of loans originated by Fannie and Freddie dropped
from 
$2.7 trillion to $1 trillion. Meanwhile, in the private sector,
the 
amount of subprime loans originated jumped to $600 billion from
$335 
billion and Alt-A loans hit $400 billion from $85 billion in
2003. 
Fannie and Freddie, which wouldn t accept crazy floating rate
loans, 
which required income verification and minimum down payments,
were left 
out of the insanity.
There s a must-read study by staff members of the Federal Reserve
Bank 
of New York analyzing the roots of the subprime crisis that came
out in 
March. I don t think it got much attention then as the
conclusions 
seemed uncontroversial at the time. But now that
Washington politicians 
are trying to rewrite history, it should be
mandatory reading for every 
American interested in knowing how we got
here.
The study identifies five causes of the subprime meltdown: 
-
Convoluted loan products that consumers didn t understand. 
-Credit
ratings that didn t do a good job highlighting the risks 
contained in
subprime-backed securities. 
-Lack of incentives for institutional
investors to do their own research 
(they just relied on the credit
ratings). 
-Predatory lending and borrowing (which I think means fraud
perpetrated 
by borrowers). 
-Significant errors in the models used by
credit rating agencies to 
assess subprime-backed securities.
You ll note in the Fed s five causes that there s some culpability
for 
lenders, borrowers, investors and credit raters. There s no blame
for 
Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae which had little or nothing to do with
the 
entire situation.
It s certainly fair to criticize Fannie and Freddie over real issues
that contributed to their downfall. The companies had numerous
accounting problems and inadequate safeguards covering their own
investment portfolios. Those weaknesses came home to roost when the
real 
estate market cratered. Fannie and Freddie purchased billions of
dollars 
of subprime-backed securities for their own investment
portfolios and 
got hit just like every other investor. But it s some
kind of crazy, 
politically inspired CYA to blame for the mess we re
in.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Another one of those typical bleeding heart 'compassionate'LeftWingWhacko fanatics arrested for death threats against top Republicancongressional leader Tis PJ Odonovan Europe 4 March 30th, 2010 04:25 PM
Government hand-outs that undermine the economy. Sovereign debt and politics inability to stop the bleeding. ODONOVAN, Himself Europe 12 March 14th, 2010 08:13 PM
Wash and Fold services in Paris and London? poldy Europe 2 April 27th, 2006 09:56 PM
Cruise Website focused on Port Info Mike Travel Marketplace 0 September 19th, 2003 05:04 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.