114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
talk72000
 
  2  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 07:18 pm
@H2O MAN,
If the banks did not pass the bad certificates beyond their confines they themselves wouldn't have accepted the certificates so there would be no crisis.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 07:34 pm
@talk72000,
It was Frank and friends that forced the banks to make loans they would normally not make.
talk72000
 
  2  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 07:44 pm
@H2O MAN,
Ha, Ha. GWB was in charge. If there any forcing it was GWB.
okie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 07:59 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

okie wrote:

Its been backed up numerous times. You choose to ignore or pass them over as nothing.


No, it hasn't. And I will say again: if they were responsible, and you could show how, you could do so in no more then 2 or 3 sentences. I challenge you to do so here; I predict you will be completely unable to do this thing.

Cycloptichorn

When banks realized they could sell risky loans to Fannie and Freddie, then why not do it, after all there was money to be made, and besides, the government mandated making risky loans in areas chucked full of risky home sales and loans. Such practices helped drive home prices up all across the country. Home prices were fueled not only in risky home loan areas, but such conditions spilled over into higher priced neighborhoods, then into other areas, and regions. Neighborhood home prices do not exist in a vacuum. I am personally aware of Californians coming to states like Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico, and paying premium prices because they were comparing values with what they experienced back home, thinking they were getting bargains, thus driving prices up in the areas they were moving into. That was not the only factor, cyclops, but I believe it was a very important one.

Basically, it seems to me that when the risk was taken away from banks loan practices, their practices became less controlled by the actual market. It was the law of unintended consequences relative to government mandates and practices. If the same thing happened with automobiles, with the government mandating loans to people that could not otherwise purchase an automobile, and the government also set up loan companies which would purchase risky car loans, what do you think would happen to automobile prices, both new and used? And how many million lousy car loans would be made by banks if they knew they could resell the loans to the government sponsored loan companies? And what do you think would eventually happen to all of the car loans as they went sour, and then car prices following that?
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Tue 8 Jun, 2010 10:10 pm
House prices began to rise dramatically when the Baby Boom came of age. Many consumers were chasing scarce goods. At the same time, the divorce rate was rising. As houses became more expensive, bankers followed looking for ways to profit while the reagan administration began the process of loosening controls so the selfish bankers could seize all the properties.

Let's discuss the havoc being wreaked by chain stores.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 05:19 am
@talk72000,


GWB attempted to stop Frank and friend, but Pelosi, Reid and others on the left stopped his efforts while laughing at the American people.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 09:45 am
from www.care2.com:

In the fall of 2008, decades of finance-first, bankers-know-best economic policies coalesced to create one of the worst economic crises in history, one that the banks themselves could not survive without staggering levels of government support.

Yet astonishingly, nearly two years after the crash, Wall Street is still setting the economic agenda in Washington. As Congress begins to examine broader economic policy, lawmakers are under heavy Wall Street pressure to reduce the federal budget deficit -- even though that could mean deepening the jobs crisis without any substantive economic benefits.

Small-bore reforms

At the same time, the financial reform bill that Congress is on the verge of passing leaves quite a bit to be desired. As the editors of The Nation emphasize, that legislation includes several small-bore fixes to ease the damage caused by Wall Street excess, but almost nothing to actually curb the excesses themselves. The capital markets casinos will largely be left untouched. Congress still has time to improve the bill over the next month as the House and Senate iron out their differences, and many useful reforms remain in play.

Nevertheless, Wall Street's lobbyists have succeeded in taking the most important reforms off the table. We will not break up the biggest banks this year, nor will we tax reckless financial speculation. We aren't even banning economically essential banks from participating in risky securities businesses.

Et tu, Buffet?

As Annie Lowrey notes for The Washington Independent, the crisis has even discredited Warren Buffett, one the few financial superstars who previously had a reputation as a "straight-shooter" that invested in responsible enterprises.

Buffett was once a harsh critic of credit rating agencies, the firms who slapped top ratings on toxic mortgage-backed securities and derivatives. But Buffett himself is also a top shareholder in Moody's, one of the worst ratings agencies. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission had to compel Buffett's testimony at a recent hearing via subpoena after Buffett turned down multiple requests to appear. At the hearing itself, Buffett did everything he could to pass the buck from himself and Moody’s to any other possible target.

Slashing the deficit

Wall Street's ugly influence on economic policy extends far beyond the realm of bank regulation itself. Right now, financial elites are pushing hard on a right-wing plan to slash the federal budget deficit, and even many moderate Democrats are coming out in support of reduced government spending.

This strategy is a tremendous political blunder, as Steve Benen emphasizes for The Washington Monthly. It's true that the deficit does not poll very well -- but the deficit is only one side of the issue. Cutting the deficit means slashing federal support for jobs -- we can help the economy or we can slash the deficit, but we cannot do both at the same time.

Nearly everyone believes that creating jobs should be a top priority for the government, but if politicians only ask questions about the deficit, they won't hear answers about the economy. The political imperative is clear, as Benen notes:

This really shouldn't be complicated: invest in more job creation, help struggling states as they keep laying off workers, and make clear to voters that the economy is more important than the deficit. Do this immediately, without apology.

Replacing Social Security with credit cards?

Wall Street loves cutting social services in the name of deficit reduction. Every public good that can be efficiently provided for by the government can also be inefficiently provided by the private sector -- replacing public benefits with corporate profits. The bank lobby would like nothing more than to replace Social Security with credit cards for senior citizens. Wall Street doesn't make a dime on the government's Social Security payments -- but they can make a killing on a privatized market.

Weak job growth=Weak private sector

Lest there be any question about whether or not the government needs to take strong action to strengthen the labor market, take a look at Friday's jobs report. As Tim Fernholz notes for The American Prospect, this report was the most disappointing piece of economic news in months. While the economy gained 431,000 new jobs during the month, 411,000 of them were temporary hires by the U.S. Census, meaning the private sector is not able to support much new hiring.

There's a critical lesson there: The only serious engine of job growth in the month of May was the federal government. Absent government hiring, the economy is not improving at all. There is an almost bottomless supply of critical social needs that require work right now, but no private-sector momentum to meet those needs.

The BP oil catastrophe should underscore how important new, green energy is to the U.S. economy -- yet U.S. efforts to develop green energy solutions have fallen far behind those of China and other industrial powerhouse nations. Major federal investment into the research and implementation of green energy would be good for our environment and good for our economy.

Don't let social services suffer

But astoundingly, the advice on the world economy currently coming from top policymakers at the Federal Reserve, the International Monetary Fund and European central banks is echoing the bank lobby line: Slash social programs now, and let the job market fend for itself. As Dean Baker emphasizes for AlterNet, these are the exact same policymakers who missed the housing bubble, made the wrong calls on bank regulation and sent the global economy into freefall.

There has been little change in personnel and no acknowledgment of error at the central banks whose incompetence was responsible for the crisis . . . . their agenda seems to be the same everywhere, cut back retirement benefits, reduce public support for health care, weaken unions and make ordinary workers take pay cuts.

In short, Wall Street and the Wall Street policy agenda remain ascendant, despite economic catastrophe. In the Great Depression, the government actually learned its lesson -- we regulated the banks, created Social Security and put millions to work through government hiring programs. That same basic agenda is needed today. Failing to meet it could well mean decades of economic decline.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint.
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 07:44 pm
@H2O MAN,
GWB has been in the presidency for 8 years and it was HIS program pushing HOME OWNERSHIP as a way to do a pick up on the economy. Congress had no power till 2006 when they won a slim majority. GWB could veto anything he wanted. It is asinine to suggest that Helen Pelosi forced GWB. Pelosi always showed deference towards GWB.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 07:53 pm
@plainoldme,
Wall Street has that power thru the 'fractional reserve banking' which creates 15 times the actual cash (deposits of customers) in loans thus they have a lot of power even though it was not their money to begin with. They do not use their own or the shareholders' money which are only used to create the assets of the bank such as buildings, machinery, etc.

http://able2know.org/topic/145141-1
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Jun, 2010 11:58 pm
I don't normally like George Will's columns much, but this is the best line I have heard in a long time

Quote:
Concerning the job numbers from May, one can almost echo Henry James's exclamation after examining letters pertaining to Lord Byron's incest: "Nauseating perhaps, but how quite inexpressibly significant." Except that the May numbers' significance can be expressed: A theory is being nibbled to death by facts.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/09/AR2010060904786.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

It expresses what I have long felt about most of what comes out of Washington, especially from the "think tanks".
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2010 04:23 pm
Updating a story from a couple of months ago with new data out today for April:

Outstanding credit card debt fell $8.5Bn in April. That is the 19th straight month showing a decline. In October, 2008, total credit card debt was $976Bn. It is now $838Bn.
Part of that could be due to card issuers not passing cards out like candy. Part could be a decline in the price of gas.
In April, consumer spending slowed again and savings rose a bit. Perhaps consumers are learning a bit of discipline. That is good, in my mind.
The flipside, though, is that consumer spending comprises 70% of our economic activity. Creating jobs depends to some extent on people spending money.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 10 Jun, 2010 04:56 pm
Quote:
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2010 07:07 am
Quote:
Retail sales plunged in May by the largest amount in eight months as consumers reduced spending in many categories, including cars and clothing. The big drop raises new worries about the durability of the economic recovery.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/business/economy/12econ.html

Obama the wise somehow missed that the masses will not buy into the idea of a recovery when their home values continue to crash, and the job situation is not improving. The guy thinks he is a brainiac but he keeps. getting. it. wrong.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2010 07:58 am
Why should anyone buy things made in China from chain stores?
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2010 09:04 am
@plainoldme,
Why shouldn't anyone buy things made in China from chain stores?
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2010 09:38 am
@ican711nm,
A severe psychological disorder:

Criticizing others for the actions one's self actually takes.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2010 10:33 am
Quote:
TARP Repayments Surpass Loans

By DARRELL A. HUGHES

WASHINGTON""The Treasury Department on Friday said the money repaid to taxpayers for government funds used to bail out U.S. companies has for the first time surpassed the amount of loans.

The Treasury, in its May report to Congress on the Troubled Asset Relief Program, said TARP repayments reached $194 billion, $4 billion more than the outstanding debt of $190 billion.

In a statement, the Treasury's assistant secretary for financial stability, Herb Allison, described this as a milestone and said it is "further evidence that TARP is achieving its intended objectives: stabilizing our financial system and laying the groundwork for economic recovery."

The benchmark was reached in May when the Treasury completed its sale of 1.5 billion shares of Citigroup Inc., "a transaction that provided gross proceeds of $6.18 billion to taxpayers," the Treasury said.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703509404575300502253092016.html

That just about puts that to rest, doesn't it?

To Ican, and all others who said that TARP was a stupid waste of taxpayer moneys: you were completely wrong. Your ideologies were wrong. Your understanding of economics and the relationship between the government and private industry: wrong.

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2010 11:08 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:

That just about puts that to rest, doesn't it?
No, because we all know that the bank balance sheets were rebuilt by letting them use Fed money for nearly free, which cost those who have cash to loan because they could not get good interest payments for loaning money. We robbed peter to pay the banks, and then the bank employees called that handout profit and took a huge skim of it before it hit the banks balance sheet.

How the **** does this handout disguised as profit justify bailing out the banks? This is exactly the same as GM taking money from one public sector account to pay off another and claiming that it proves how well GM is doing....just how stupid are the American people supposed to be that we will not figure out the scam?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2010 11:11 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
This is exactly the same as GM taking money from one public sector account to pay off another


No, it isn't.

But you've never let facts or accuracy get in the way of a good denunciation of the current state of American affairs, so why would anyone be surprised?

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jun, 2010 11:14 am
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
No, it isn't.



What, you're God now so that is it??? What is your arguement or factual basis for telling me I am wrong? Where is the mistake?
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 10/07/2024 at 03:34:29