PDA

View Full Version : Economics BTW, media bias on the financial mess?


banyon
09-19-2008, 06:36 PM
I mean has anyone heard any other POV the last few days other than "It's unfortunate, but we HAD to do the bailout"?

I've seen it, but not on corporate owned media.

***SPRAYER
09-19-2008, 06:41 PM
I wish the corporate media would ask Barney Frank a few questions.

banyon
09-19-2008, 07:05 PM
I wish the corporate media would ask Barney Frank a few questions.

What about?

***SPRAYER
09-19-2008, 07:08 PM
What about?

You just can't bring yourself to admit that Democrats are scumbags, can you?

:)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121677050160675397.html

Baby Lee
09-19-2008, 07:09 PM
Dunno about Lehmann, but the assumption about FM/FM all along was that, if the going got dicey, the govt had their backs. They WERE created at governmental behest to provide opportunity to those who wouldn't get it from the private sector.

banyon
09-19-2008, 07:15 PM
You just can't bring yourself to admit that Democrats are scumbags, can you?

:)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121677050160675397.html

I've voted third party 2 out of the 3 elections I've voted in and called Democrats the party of corporate complicity many times. Don't confuse me with a longtime party hack.

And this is why you had me waste 2 minutes of my life to read this:

He was soon told that not only could he hold no more hearings, but House Speaker Dennis Hastert was stripping his subcommittee of jurisdiction over Fan and Fred's accounting and giving it to Mike Oxley's Financial Services Committee. "It was because of all their lobbying work," explains Mr. Stearns today, in epic understatement. Mr. Oxley proceeded to let Barney Frank (D., Mass.), then in the minority, roll all over him and protect the companies from stronger regulatory oversight. Mr. Oxley, who has since retired, was the featured guest at no fewer than 19 Fannie-sponsored fund-raisers

So Republicans were in control of this committee and they let Frank steamroll all of them. And what over? What regulations do they claim he was opposing?

***SPRAYER
09-19-2008, 07:19 PM
And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum.

banyon
09-19-2008, 07:20 PM
Dunno about Lehmann, but the assumption about FM/FM all along was that, if the going got dicey, the govt had their backs. They WERE created at governmental behest to provide opportunity to those who wouldn't get it from the private sector.

Yeah, but the Bear and AIG bailouts were just as big/bigger.

banyon
09-19-2008, 07:22 PM
SHTSPRAYER, I'm not going to read anymore of your unsourced cut and pastes.

So either argue or provide a source.

***SPRAYER
09-19-2008, 07:23 PM
SHTSPRAYER, I'm not going to read anymore of your unsourced cut and pastes.

So either argue or provide a source.


OH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD IT'S THE WSJ

banyon
09-19-2008, 07:24 PM
Ok, I lied and read it. It sounds like you are trying to blame Frank for having the same poor foresight that everyone else had and encouraging risky loan behavior from Mae and Mac like Bush did directly starting in 2002. i don't see what the big deal is. You're acting like he embezzled funds from their vault and used it to build a castle made of gold bricks, but it's just not there.

banyon
09-19-2008, 07:26 PM
OH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD IT'S THE WSJ

Well post the link dammit. It's not rocket science. :cuss: :D

***SPRAYER
09-19-2008, 07:27 PM
Ok, I lied and read it. It sounds like you are trying to blame Frank for having the same poor foresight that everyone else had and encouraging risky loan behavior from Mae and Mac like Bush did directly starting in 2002. i don't see what the big deal is. You're acting like he embezzled funds from their vault and used it to build a castle made of gold bricks, but it's just not there.

I'm not trying to insinuate anything beyond GOOD INTENTIONS PAVE A ROAD TO HELL.

Was the government push to "help" low income people afford homes the catalyst behind the Mortgage/CMO debacle or not?

You yourself once posted a speech made by President Bush about this. Fine, you have the Republican complicity down pat, but you fail to acknowledge any and all politicians with a D after their name.

banyon
09-19-2008, 07:31 PM
I'm not trying to insinuate anything beyond GOOD INTENTIONS PAVE A ROAD TO HELL.

Was the government push to "help" low income people afford homes the catalyst behind the Mortgage/CMO debacle or not?

You yourself once posted a speech made by President Bush about this. Fine, you have the Republican complicity down pat, but you fail to acknowledge any and all politicians with a D after their name.

The Republicans were in TOTAL control of the government for 6 years. You realize that, right?

Mecca
09-19-2008, 07:36 PM
The Republicans were in TOTAL control of the government for 6 years. You realize that, right?

That doesn't count....that's how it's being acted anyway.

***SPRAYER
09-19-2008, 07:36 PM
The Republicans were in TOTAL control of the government for 6 years. You realize that, right?


So it's all their fault? And Dem's are as pure as the driven snow?

banyon
09-19-2008, 07:39 PM
So it's all their fault? And Dem's are as pure as the driven snow?

No one said that. YOU said that the Dems were more to blame, remember?

***SPRAYER
09-19-2008, 07:41 PM
No one said that. YOU said that the Dems were more to blame, remember?

So who is more to blame?

banyon
09-19-2008, 07:45 PM
So who is more to blame?

The corporatist influence in both parties would be my target. And they're going to be to blame again soon, since they've won out against labor and industry in this game with our tax dollars.

RJ
09-19-2008, 07:56 PM
I'm not trying to insinuate anything beyond GOOD INTENTIONS PAVE A ROAD TO HELL.

Was the government push to "help" low income people afford homes the catalyst behind the Mortgage/CMO debacle or not?

You yourself once posted a speech made by President Bush about this. Fine, you have the Republican complicity down pat, but you fail to acknowledge any and all politicians with a D after their name.


I think at this point all thinking people would agree that there is plenty of blame to go around for this mess. What bothers me most is that no one said anything at the time. It was so obvious five years ago that things were way out of whack, you didn't need to work in banking or real estate to see it. But rich people were getting richer and middle class people were selling their homes at huge profits and some people were getting loans to buy homes that were way beyond their means and that they could never repay. So everything was peachy as long as the money kept rolling in.

***SPRAYER
09-19-2008, 07:58 PM
I What bothers me most is that no one said anything at the time.


Because the politicians who were supposed to be the watchdogs were receiving kickbacks and bribes from Fannie and Freddie.

And Raines walked away with $90 million dollars.

***SPRAYER
09-19-2008, 08:00 PM
and some people were getting loans to buy homes that were way beyond their means and that they could never repay

Let's not keep pretending "the poor" were vulnerable victims in all this. Alot of them were scheming to sell or flip the house for a profit, as well.

banyon
09-19-2008, 08:02 PM
Let's not keep pretending "the poor" were vulnerable victims in all this. Alot of them were scheming to sell or flip the house for a profit, as well.

Yeah, damn them. Damn Greedy poor bastards. Only the wealthy are supposed to take risks and then expect to get taken care of by the government.

RJ
09-19-2008, 08:32 PM
Let's not keep pretending "the poor" were vulnerable victims in all this. Alot of them were scheming to sell or flip the house for a profit, as well.


I wouldn't pretend that at all. That's why this McCain quote surprised me so much.

"These quasi-public corporations lead our housing system down a path where quick profit was placed before sound finance. They institutionalized a system that rewarded forcing mortgages on people who couldn't afford them,"

Now I'm a pretty liberal guy, but that's a little liberal even for me, so I'm surprised to read it coming from the Republican candidate.

"Forcing mortgages"?

Logical
09-19-2008, 09:07 PM
I don't know we have 2 cable networks that devote a large majority of their programming to how easy it is to make big money flipping houses. I cannot imagine how this would happen.

banyon
09-19-2008, 09:14 PM
I don't know we have 2 cable networks that devote a large majority of their programming to how easy it is to make big money flipping houses. I cannot imagine how this would happen.

Oh yeah, I kind of forgot there was actually a thread topic here before it was diverted and deflected. I have watched a lot of coverage on different networks and have not seen one person against the bailout, not one.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-19-2008, 09:15 PM
Paul Krugman was just on Real Time, saying that this crisis was Bush's economic plan coming to fruition.

It was "the worst crisis he's ever seen." He also assigned blame to Greenspan.

Logical
09-19-2008, 09:17 PM
Oh yeah, I kind of forgot there was actually a thread topic here before it was diverted and deflected. I have watched a lot of coverage on different networks and have not seen one person against the bailout, not one. I hear you. On the other hand I wonder what would have happened had these financial giant floundered. Either I think results in a similar disaster.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-19-2008, 09:17 PM
Naomi Klein: "The bomb has yet to detonate. They've merely shifted the bomb from Wall Street to Main Street. The real disaster is the debt that has yet to come on American taxpayers."

"Had to step in, but not the way that they did. Stocks went up because it was Xmas morning."

banyon
09-19-2008, 09:20 PM
Naomi Klein: "The bomb has yet to detonate. They've merely shifted the bomb from Wall Street to Main Street. The real disaster is the debt that has yet to come on American taxpayers."

"Had to step in, but not the way that they did. Stocks went up because it was Xmas morning."

What's Naomi Klein on? She is one of my favorite reads. I'd like to hear her on this topic.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-19-2008, 09:20 PM
Naomi Klein and Andrew Sullivan are having a pretty good debate on the genesis of this right now.

Logical
09-19-2008, 09:22 PM
Naomi Klein and Andrew Sullivan are having a pretty good debate on the genesis of this right now.
Where, on Bill Maher's show? If so I will see it on my DVR'd recording.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-19-2008, 09:22 PM
What's Naomi Klein on? She is one of my favorite reads. I'd like to hear her on this topic.

Real Time.

Sullivan is saying that this validated Ron Paul
Klein says "'where is this ideal capitalism?"

I'll upload this afterward. It's a pretty good policy debate, FWIW.

banyon
09-19-2008, 09:27 PM
Real Time.

Sullivan is saying that this validated Ron Paul
Klein says "'where is this ideal capitalism?"

I'll upload this afterward. It's a pretty good policy debate, FWIW.

Good I don't get the ol' HBO. Much obliged.

KILLER_CLOWN
09-19-2008, 09:36 PM
Let's not keep pretending "the poor" were vulnerable victims in all this. Alot of them were scheming to sell or flip the house for a profit, as well.

I guess this is akin to blaming the kid who was tricked into getting into the car but the killer was just claiming temporary insanity. The kid wouldn't be the victim here.

'Hamas' Jenkins
09-19-2008, 09:59 PM
Banyon, here is Krugman:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/OEKi9Su31Sw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/OEKi9Su31Sw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


Still waiting for the Klein upload:

tiptap
09-19-2008, 10:38 PM
I had a nice meal. I had a glass of wine. I had a friend tell me he realizes he is comfortable with being mortal and we are just another organism. But because we are pretty smart we can be more concerned than just survival. It was a good day.

So while we are in flux we have to understand that we will need more than ever to take the down times. Some will find that in religious trappings, ok. Just don't think you come close to understanding what the ultimate plan really is. Let that soothe you but not rule you. Let it produce good works.

So to the matter of securing the debt. Want to be known as the greatest generation. Want to trump the baby boomers and the WW2 crowd? Elect the young man that is the face of America's future and make it work and retire that debt and at the end, walk into a world that is of your making as well. The rest of the world wants the dream. The dream of justice, the dream of comfort with oneself and each other. Is there that depth in forging the task ahead. Please don't expect my generation to see that far. Grab your future.

tiptap
09-19-2008, 10:47 PM
I think Klein suggested that this melt down was meant to come after the election. That the next Republican President was suppose to have this crisis to turn around and say we have to privatize Social Security, we have to do completely away with welfare. That ownership is the right to govern. That it was planned so that the crisis would allow this thought to go forward. That is why the debt was allowed to go this way. She does question bailing out Wall street. She says you can see Christmas for Wall street in September in the stock rally after going so negative. They got their credit cards and houses turn right back to them with all debt gone. Maybe it is time to call you Congressmen and just go ahead and ask to them to Nationalize a Exxon or GE as a money maker while also doing the debt. That might make sense too.

***SPRAYER
09-20-2008, 09:26 AM
That doesn't count....that's how it's being acted anyway.


2000 Democratic platform:

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/whouse/dem-platform-text2.html

EXCERPT:

Part of that dream is home ownership. Under Democratic leadership, we have achieved an all-time high in home ownership, including among groups that have historically been left out. We are committed to continuing this progress, because home ownership is a foundation for building wealth and economic security for families, and it provides a vital anchor enabling neighborhoods to thrive. In too many communities, however, owning or renting an affordable home seems an impossible dream. Al Gore and Democrats have long defended the mortgage interest deduction and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, and believe we must reinvigorate our communities and support our families through partnerships and targeted investments and eliminating community redlining by lenders that will better harness the power of markets to create the housing we need. We must pay down the debt to keep interest rates low. We need to create a continuum of care for homeless people so that they get help in getting themselves off the streets and back on their feet. We must ensure that housing costs in thriving communities do not outpace the income of middle class families. We must expand the supply of life cycle housing. We must encourage the renovation and construction of affordable housing closer to places of work and to mass transit so workers can get to their jobs without being tied up in traffic for hours.

tiptap
09-20-2008, 09:42 AM
After sleeping on this overnight, I don't want Bush's fingerprints on a solution. I understand that many think that Money Market Account are under pressure. That that 3.5 trillion dollar source of credit is under assault by the collapse in the derivative market. That INSTITUTIONAL and CORPORATE funds are pulling out of the Money Market presence. Then why bail out the derivatives instead of bolstering the Money Market Funds protection. One could guarantee the MMA funds but doing so by saving speculative practices seems to be rewarding the process of speculating. I had some misunderstanding that there was some tangible asset involved but since the Feds haven't lifted a hand to make any determination on that account to rush to actually buy such (in)securities with tax money is not prudent. Don't rush to a solution now if the Bush administration has had since bailing out firms back in March to do real on the ground investigations and did nothing. Or is it that they have and the reality these securities are worthless and are too much on the books with MMA.

In either case these people don't get to run things.

banyon
09-20-2008, 09:44 AM
2000 Democratic platform:

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/politics/camp/whouse/dem-platform-text2.html

EXCERPT:

Part of that dream is home ownership. Under Democratic leadership, we have achieved an all-time high in home ownership, including among groups that have historically been left out. We are committed to continuing this progress, because home ownership is a foundation for building wealth and economic security for families, and it provides a vital anchor enabling neighborhoods to thrive. In too many communities, however, owning or renting an affordable home seems an impossible dream. Al Gore and Democrats have long defended the mortgage interest deduction and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, and believe we must reinvigorate our communities and support our families through partnerships and targeted investments and eliminating community redlining by lenders that will better harness the power of markets to create the housing we need. We must pay down the debt to keep interest rates low. We need to create a continuum of care for homeless people so that they get help in getting themselves off the streets and back on their feet. We must ensure that housing costs in thriving communities do not outpace the income of middle class families. We must expand the supply of life cycle housing. We must encourage the renovation and construction of affordable housing closer to places of work and to mass transit so workers can get to their jobs without being tied up in traffic for hours.


You really do think this whole financial crisis is the fault of greedy poor black people, don't you?

patteeu
09-20-2008, 10:30 AM
So Republicans were in control of this committee and they let Frank steamroll all of them. And what over? What regulations do they claim he was opposing?

Perhaps these Republicans weren't strong enough, but it's not hard to understand the sorts of demagoguery that they were threatened with in a scenario like this. That's not to say that Republicans don't deserve their share of the blame, but more important than blame is to figure out what to do next and to learn from the mistakes of the past. The danger, with so much blame to go around, is that the mistakes won't be honestly evaluated.

banyon
09-20-2008, 10:47 AM
Perhaps these Republicans weren't strong enough, but it's not hard to understand the sorts of demagoguery that they were threatened with in a scenario like this. That's not to say that Republicans don't deserve their share of the blame, but more important than blame is to figure out what to do next and to learn from the mistakes of the past. The danger, with so much blame to go around, is that the mistakes won't be honestly evaluated.

Agreed.

I also agree with this analysis of the defects in the bailout bill:

NOMI PRINS: It’s insane, actually. It’s bad math, and it’s a bad precedent, because they’re not simply bailing it out with putting taxpayers’ money through the Fed into taking on the risks of these companies; they’re taking on risks. They’re not bailing out and selling debt; they are taking on the risk. They’re becoming—the Fed is continuing to become a larger and larger hedge fund. And it’s doing it with taxpayer money, and it’s doing it with the future debt of the United States.


So, for the one thing, they’re not attaching any rules to these bailouts. You know, you bail out Bear Stearns, effectively you’re putting up $30 billion to take Bear Stearns’s junk and say, “Alright, we’ll back the junk. JPMorgan Chase, you take Bear Stearns. We’ll back whatever junk is there.” But there’s no decision to say, “But, you know, you’ve got to tell us what’s there. And JPMorgan, by the way, as you’re taking on this bank, you have to explain to us what you really have. And Bank of America, you have to explain to us what your risks are.”


I know that at Bank of America they were struggling with their own risks and trying to figure out what was going on in their own company, and now they have assumed Merrill Lynch. That creates a tremendous institution, where the Fed is now obligated, when that starts to have more and more trouble, which it will...

...NOMI PRINS: Well, yeah. Robert Rubin was at Goldman. So is the current Treasury secretary, Hank Paulson. So are a number of people in Washington. And you have that situation where you have people with speculative sort of minds running this concept of free market through Washington, which has created this complete catastrophe in the financial sector.


It will get worse, because the fact is these new conglomerates—the JPMorgan/Bear Stearns, the Bank of America/Merrill Lynch—they are larger, more risky entities than they were before the happening, and they have not disclosed the risks that they have. I worked in some of these companies. You cannot merge risk—you know, you cannot merge risk systems between the products within your own company. So when you start merging tremendously big companies, there is no hope in any sort of short timeframe the you are going to actually understand that risk. And there’s no need to report it to our government, because it’s not required. So it will get worse.

***SPRAYER
09-20-2008, 12:49 PM
You really do think this whole financial crisis is the fault of greedy poor black people, don't you?

Nope. I think the catalyst behind this whole financial crisis are liberal and socialist Democrats. The perpetual downtrodden black underclass is what they use to agitate for their agenda.

banyon
09-20-2008, 01:00 PM
Nope. I think the catalyst behind this whole financial crisis are liberal and socialist Democrats. The perpetual downtrodden black underclass is what they use to agitate for their agenda.

That's a pretty convenient and inaccurate view.

Guru
09-20-2008, 01:02 PM
Nope. I think the catalyst behind this whole financial crisis are liberal and socialist Democrats. The perpetual downtrodden black underclass is what they use to agitate for their agenda.

Yeah, its all black people. Get a clue.

***SPRAYER
09-20-2008, 04:20 PM
:hmmm:

Yeah, its all black people. Get a clue.

Can you elaborate?

Guru
09-20-2008, 04:50 PM
:hmmm:



Can you elaborate?
My point is there are tons of people in the lower class bracket. They are not all black. You seem to be generalizing black people as the majority of the lower class bracket.

there are a lot of people that abuse our social welfare system but there are also a large majority doing whatever they can to get out of it too.

***SPRAYER
09-20-2008, 04:52 PM
My point is there are tons of people in the lower class bracket. They are not all black. You seem to be generalizing black people as the majority of the lower class bracket.

there are a lot of people that abuse our social welfare system but there are also a large majority doing whatever they can to get out of it too.

You are correct. But it's the black underclass dem's exploit the most.

J Diddy
09-20-2008, 04:52 PM
My point is there are tons of people in the lower class bracket. They are not all black. You seem to be generalizing black people as the majority of the lower class bracket.

there are a lot of people that abuse our social welfare system but there are also a large majority doing whatever they can to get out of it too.

I agree with this to a T.

J Diddy
09-20-2008, 04:53 PM
You are correct. But it's the black underclass dem's exploit the most.


How so?

***SPRAYER
09-20-2008, 04:54 PM
How so?

You can't be serious? I won't post a smilie, but I want to.