RSS Feed for This PostCurrent Article

Understanding the Economic Collapse

If you want to understand the roots of the 2008 economic collapse start with the book by Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera, All the Devils Are Here: The Hidden History of the Financial Crisis.

The New York Times Book review offered well deserved praise:

Two of our finest business journalists have written a thorough account of the origins of the financial crisis of 2008. More than offering just a backward look, it helps explain the most troubling business headlines of the moment, as well as those that are certain to come. For starters, there is the unfolding foreclosure-paperwork fiasco. Next up will be a clash over whether big banks should be forced to take back billions of dollars in contaminated mortgages they sold. Down the road, we will no doubt confront the danger of the next asset bubble inflating as a result of the Federal Reserve’s use of extreme monetary policy to stimulate the economy. These continuing and future problems are all symptoms of a larger syndrome whose origins Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera ably chronicle in “All the Devils Are Here: The Hidden History of the Financial Crisis.”

The title alludes to a line in “The Tempest” (“Hell is empty, and all the devils are here”), and fiends surely abound: subprime sleaze kings; bonus-happy Wall Street plutocrats; and, of course, Alan Greenspan, the fallen maestro of the Federal Reserve, whose see-no-evil free-­market ideology made a virtue of unchecked financial recklessness.

For those readers who have not immersed themselves in the murky tale of the way dubious housing finance became entangled with Wall Street’s casino culture, McLean and Nocera offer as legible an overview as exists. McLean, a former Goldman Sachs employee, writes for Vanity Fair and was the author, with Peter Elkind, of an insightful book about the Enron scandal called “The Smartest Guys in the Room.” Nocera is a business columnist for The New York Times and, like McLean, a former longtime staff member at Fortune.

This is no hyperbole. Trying to understand the economics of the collapse can be mind boggling.

But McLean and Nocera make it comprehensible and shy away from technocrat economic speak. You will come to a quick conclusion–there is plenty of blame to go around. Republicans and Democrats alike. But there also some heroes. Actually, a heroine to be precise. Brooksley Born. She was profiled in a 2009 Frontline documentary:

In The Warning, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk unearths the hidden history of the nation’s worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. At the center of it all he finds Brooksley Born, who speaks for the first time on television about her failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008.

“I didn’t know Brooksley Born,” says former SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, a member of President Clinton’s powerful Working Group on Financial Markets. “I was told that she was irascible, difficult, stubborn, unreasonable.” Levitt explains how the other principals of the Working Group — former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin — convinced him that Born’s attempt to regulate the risky derivatives market could lead to financial turmoil, a conclusion he now believes was “clearly a mistake.”

Born’s battle behind closed doors was epic, Kirk finds. The members of the President’s Working Group vehemently opposed regulation — especially when proposed by a Washington outsider like Born.

“I walk into Brooksley’s office one day; the blood has drained from her face,” says Michael Greenberger, a former top official at the CFTC who worked closely with Born. “She’s hanging up the telephone; she says to me: ‘That was [former Assistant Treasury Secretary] Larry Summers. He says, “You’re going to cause the worst financial crisis since the end of World War II.”… [He says he has] 13 bankers in his office who informed him of this. Stop, right away. No more.’”

Greenspan, Rubin and Summers ultimately prevailed on Congress to stop Born and limit future regulation of derivatives. “Born faced a formidable struggle pushing for regulation at a time when the stock market was booming,” Kirk says. “Alan Greenspan was the maestro, and both parties in Washington were united in a belief that the markets would take care of themselves.”

Now, with many of the same men who shut down Born in key positions in the Obama administration, The Warning reveals the complicated politics that led to this crisis and what it may say about current attempts to prevent the next one.

“It’ll happen again if we don’t take the appropriate steps,” Born warns. “There will be significant financial downturns and disasters attributed to this regulatory gap over and over until we learn from experience.”

Born not only was ignored, she was viciously attacked by Robert Rubin, Larry Summers and Alan Greenspan. After you watch this film you will be enraged by the conduct of those three men in particular. Just awful what they did.

If you have some time this holiday weekend, take time to watch this important program on-line (click here).

  • Anonymous

    Rubin should be in an orange jumpsuit and stripped of all his ill gotten gains.
    Thanks, Larry, I will get this book. Just finished reading “Reckless Endangerment” by Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner but much preferred Peter Schweizer’s “Architects of Ruin.”
    The crimes these scum committed cannot be allowed to go unpunished.
    Happy Independents Day!

    • Wbboe

      The timing of the collapse suggests a Soros link but to date I have not been able to find it.  It was easy enough to connect him to the collapse of the British pound in 1992, the Asian crisis in 1998, and the predations in the former Soviet Republic–in particular the Orange Revolution (Ukraine) and the Rose Revolution (Georgia)–his Open Society and media cronies were all over it.  So much so that he bragged to a reporter that the old Soviet Empire is now the Soros Empire–his words, not mine. 

      It is counter-intuitive that he would go to all that work getting Obama the nomination, only to see him lose the General Election.  Not when he is pass master at de-stabilizing governments and markets as history has amply demonstrated. McCains was leading in the polls prior to the September crash, but thereafter they swung decisively to Obama.  I have seen evidence connecting Soros to the September crash but it was all circumstantial and at the end of the day unpersuasive.  We need to dig deeper.

      • MG

        I thought the same..it was to circumstantial that the economy crashed to the convience of obozo..the man with no background.

      • Docelder

        Well, I am a big libertarian ordinarily. A persons liberties end where they would deprive another of their liberties. A persons right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness ends where that would deprive another of that same right. So, I find myself in a bit of a dilemma morally concerning people like Soros who are in the unique positions that the exercise of their own liberties can adversely affect so many others. Ordinarily, a persons conscience would take care of this. Ordinarily. 

    • Cynic

      NY Times columnist, David Brooks, wrote a great article about Fannie & Freddie and this book.  It’s a good article and worth reading.
       
      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/17/opinion/17brooks.html
       
      While reading the comments after this article, someone linked another NY Times story by Steven A. Holmes (published 9-30-99) titled “Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending”.  As I was trying to link, the NY Times deleted the comment!!!  Luckily, I knew enough of the address to Google it and find it. 
       
      Isn’t it amazing that the NY Times wouldn’t want us reading about how they thought Fannie, easing credit requirements on loans that it would purchase from banks and other lenders
      would be, “taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times.  But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980′s.”
       
      Read what the Times doesn’t want you to read!

      http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html

      I’m so tired of the “Blame Bush” for the economic collapse when it clearly was caused under the Clinton administration!  We must educate ourselves as the “Left” is constantly rewriting history.
       
       

      • Ferd_Berfle

        Good catch, cynic.

  • Wbboe

    Larry, forgive me but I am inherently suspicious of an explanation
    proffered by a New York Times writer and a Forbes magazine writer, which
    portray the collapse in terms which are best suited to a Hollywood
    movie, i.e. the fearless heroine vs the evil cabal.  Or Cassandra
    revisited. However, I freely admit that I have not read the book, and
    perhaps I should withhold any final judgment.

    For now, I have
    far more faith in the comprehensive explanation tendered by Judge
    Posner in The Crisis of Capitalist Democracy.  Among the many
    explanations which have been advanced for this crisis–from the
    insistence on home ownership, to the failure of Fanny May to irrational
    exuberance, etc. this tome provided the most lucid explanation for why
    on the eve of the 2008 election the banking system collapsed like a
    light bulb shattered by an electrical overload.

    To be sure,
    Posner deals with the failure of banking regulation, as these authors
    do.  But he also describes the systemic conditions which set the stage
    for all that followed, in these terms.

    “It was low interest
    rates that caused the housing, stock market and credit bubbles. The
    bursting of those bubbles brought on the DEPRESSION (notice he uses the
    same word you do Larry). Had banking been safe, the bursting of those
    bubbles would not have brought down the banks  and we would have been
    spared a depression.

    Banking used to be safe. Made safe in the
    reaction to the Great Depression of the 1930s.  Banking became unsafe as
    a result of the  financial deregulation movement which began in the
    1980s and culminated in 1999 with the repeal of the  Glass Steagall Act,
    which was succeeded by a brief disastrous era of lax regulation,
    regulatory  complacency, regulatory inattention, and inadequate banking
    regulations which proved lethal.”  (The Calm Before The Storm).

    • Wbboe

      Based on Posner[s explanation you may wonder why Glass Steagall was not re-instituted in the Financial Reform Act.  There as a move to do so spearheaded by a small bi-partisan group, i.e. Maria Cantwell (D-Wa), John McCain (R-Az), Tom Harkin (D-Ia), and Russ Feingold (D-Wi).  But Dodd, and Obama killed it.  The bill they produced was written in part by Goldman Sachs, who were part of the financial coalition who supported Obama.  He is, as they say, a politician who stays bought.  I called a number of senators and urged them to vote in favor of Glass Steagall, but the fix from the White House was already in.

      • Ferd_Berfle

        But Dodd, and Obama killed it.
        ==============
        Who would have thunk it?

  • Craig Della Penna

    Larry:

    You are right on here, as are the commentors – the problem is that all the people who caused this catastrophe are still in power and absolutely nothing has been done to regulate or curb the future excesses we know will happen. Worse, Grover Norquist, Phil Gramm, Paul Ryan and all the other AynRandite acolytes are still spouting her insanity as though it was received wisdom from the hand of God. If Brooksley Born was in government today pushing for reform – she’d still be tarred and feathered and ridden out of town on a rail.

    We are living the classic definition of insanity in this country: doing exactly the same thing we did before… and expecting different results.
    It’s really time to throw out Reaganomics and fire anyone who tells us to ‘rely on the wisdom of the marketplace’. Magical thinking has no place in economics, you’d think we’d have learned that by now. 

    • Onofres arm

      What else would you expect to hear from a cock-sucking Marxist?

    • Wbboe

      Don’t be naive.  The problem is bi partisan. You say Norquist, I say Kahn–Professor Alfred Kahn, Carter’s deregulation Czar. You say.  You say Phil Graham, I say Felix Rohatten–the democratic money man who turned the party away from Roosevelt and toward Wall Street.  You say Republicans like Greenspan, I say Democrats like Robert Rubin and Larry Summers.  The honors are about equal.  What you call Reaganomics began before Reagan became president and is as much a democratic as a republican party construct.  I carry no brief for Norquist–although I do like his motto defund the left.  I carry no brief for Phil Graham who is in bed with agri business.  But the truth is the dems are in pare delicto.  Failing to realize this, the Left has lost whatever credibility it once had.  It supports a man who has curtailed civil liberties, prosecuted wars which they opposed when a republican was in the White House, gone to bed with big pharma, played them for suckers on the public option, etc.  At some point it becomes a joke. Why do they support him?  I think it has less to do with values, or god forbid performance.  I think it is a matter of identity.  They wish to be thought of as socially conscious, etc. and they believe supporting Obama proves this to the world.

      • Ferd_Berfle

        Why do they support him?  I think it has less to do with values, or god
        forbid performance.  I think it is a matter of identity.
        =================
        Indeed. More of the group-think mentality. Until the democrats own up to their part in this damnable mess, nothing will ever change. But they won’t as it is easier to point fingers, much as That One constantly does.

    • Peggy Sue

      Hear, hear, Craig.  We haven’t learned the lessons of 1998 when what Born predicted nearly brought the house down, nor have we learned the lesson of 2008.  The ideologues are still chanting the nonsense that markets will regulate themselves.  Even Greenspan admits now that he was wrong, that his entire world view was flawed, dangerously so. 

      Is anyone listening?  I think not.

      Btw, Larry, the Frontline piece is excellent.  I read of Born’s heroic but sadly unsuccessful attempt to avert financial disaster shortly after the meltdown 2+ years ago. That’s when everyone was claiming they never saw it coming.  I also agree with Craig that if Born were in DC now she’d be put on the rack, made to look like an alarmist and quickly run out of town. William Black among others [Poppy Bush's regulator-in-chief] has been ringing the alarm bell loudly, consistently and unapologetically.  For the most part, he and others have been ignored.

      We’ve learned nothing.  Which means we’ll see the same sad spectacle repeat itself until the country is entirely looted by the same actors in the same rotten play.

      • Onofres arm

        Oh my, another Marxist chimes in. What a surprise!

      • Anonymous

        Agreed Craig and Peggy Sue. There is no place to hide.
        I suggest that anyone who thinks there should be no regulations try it in their local public school.
        Nice to see you again Craig.

      • Cynic

        I watched the Frontline/Born piece for the second time last week.  Actually, Born was put on a rack and made to look like an alarmist by the Clinton men; Summers, Rubin, Greenspan, and Timothy Geithner! 

        She wanted to ring the alarm bells and they attacked her!   They should have been held accountable and instead, many were given jobs in the Obama Administration! 

        Everyone need to watch the Frontline piece.

        • Ferd_Berfle

          Spot on–what does this say about democrats? Hmm?

      • Anonymous

        Craig was right about Born were she still in DC today. But that’s about ALL Craig was right about, Peggy Sue. His misrepresentations are just reiterations of old talking points smearing free market advocates. Don’t buy it. Craig’s sweeping generalizations are the result of his ideological perspective only. 

    • Anonymous

      Still caught up in the old reinvention myths.

      This mortgage situation was and is the creation and executive production of liberals going back to Jimmy Carter and most recently supported and pushed by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

      The financial instrument that banks and Wall Street were forced to create by the policies of liberals and their lawyers were done not out of greed but out of necessity.

      The fables created by liberals about these economic problems are not based on facts and history – only gross distortions of both.

    • Ferd_Berfle

      It’s really time to throw out Reaganomics and fire anyone who tells us to ‘rely on the wisdom of the marketplace’.
      ===============
      Reaganomics did not include giving mortgages to people who didn’t have the financial means to make the required payments. Much of this is the democrats’ fault to keep their base on the damnable plantation.

    • Anonymous

      Craig, that’s patently ludicrous. You always go straight for the sweeping generalizations. It’s annoying. Paul Ryan isn’t an Ayn Randite acolyte; he’s just a realist trying to find a way to deal with our very real fiscal disaster. Moreover, your misrepresentative lumping of Ayn Rand in with people like Phil Gramm, shows you don’t know the first thing about Rand. 

  • Jwrjr

    Obama has made money more expensive (interest rates for loans .. if a business can get one) and made energy more expensive (and he is just getting started).  Is there anything that he can do to wreck the Economy that he hasn’t done or isn’t doing?

    • yttik

      Yes, unfortunately there are still several things he can do to finish off the economy. One is to dig up all the roads and sidewalks in front of shops because of his job creation ideas. Extended road work projects can be very hard on businesses because it makes it too hard for customers to get to you. The second he can do is create a hostile business environment where people are subjected to so many audits, regulations, and paper work that they just give up. His 1099 requirement hidden in Obamacare is one example.

      • Dorinda

        He’s already started the road project and tearing up of sidewalk access.  Several small but long time businesses just featured on the news.  They can’t hang on another year waiting for the DOT to finish improving the roads.  Now we’ll have great roads lined with shuttered businesses.

        • yttik

          That’s what it’s like where I live already, beautiful sidewalks and new streets, but nothing but empty storefronts and no jobs. Believe it or not, my city council is already celebrating all the new tax revenue they’re supposedly going to get from the “economic stimulus” the street repair has brought to our town. They’ve even proudly posted their “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act” sign. The locals around here, Obots and conservatives alike, are just shaking their heads.

      • Docelder

        I think the companies that won the contracts used the first money to just tear everything up… that way they were guaranteed to be able to repair it back. The problem becomes what if there is no money to do that with?

      • Anonymous

        Another war would do just as well,  How about taking on, say, Iran?

        • Docelder

          Already in the works I think. Plus something to really tear at Americas heart strings and make everybody feel sorry for little Barry all over again. The orchestrated crisis machine has a plan I am sure of that.

  • elaine

    Why won’t these clowns put a 50 cent tax on every derivatives trade? It won’t slow down their markets & it’d bring in much needed revenue painlessly. Oh I forgot they don’t like pain free solutions & ofcourse it goes without saying I want to see rates on savings inch up to match the rate of inflation & have been advocating to bring back Glass-Steagall here @ N.Q. for years.

    I’m not buying the idea of Robert Rubin getting over on Clinton, if I saw it coming you know Bill did too. How else could it have possibly come down? (noone ever wants to answer this)  Especially with Janet Reno & Bill threaghtening the banks if they didn’t give loans to everyone “in the community” reguardless of their credit worthiness.

    Next they’ll go hog wild for a lousey V.A.T. to further screw the middle classes & probably rebate it back to the “poor” in a manner similiar to how they dole out $$ in the form of the earned income tax credit.

    Gotta love it: ship the jobs out of the country,  over build  housing, run the borders wide open, degrade the currency, punish savings & reward debt & then feign surprise. These holier than thou One Worlders are just too much fun. 

    • elaine

      Remember the “value” of the derivatives markets far, far exceeds the total value of all the real assets in the world & the FED is NOT a government agency, it’s just a bunch of international private bankers & spare me it’s a “quasi-government agency” BS, it’s just a bunch of private bankers.

      • Docelder

        TARP and TARP2 were bailouts of these derivatives markets… because they were too big to fail. But what if they could fail and governments just made new actual money based on some real actual measurable asset and we just started over. Would it have been so bad really? Would the pain have been worth it. Maybe it would have been. Now that scares me thinking of it really… as I write this I think of carbon as that asset and a new global currency to go with it… Things that  make you go hmmm.

    • Betty

      Gotta love it: ship the jobs out of the country,  over build  housing, run the borders wide open, degrade the currency, punish savings & reward debt & then feign surprise. These holier than thou One Worlders are just too much fun
      I think I’ll try to make a bumper sticker out of that.  Only in case “the people behind me don’t know who One Worlders” are I’ll say: “our government is just too much fun”.

      Gotta love it: ship the jobs out of the country,  over build  housing, run the borders wide open, degrade the currency, punish savings & reward debt & then feign surprise.  Our government is just too much fun.

  • Rrtyvt

    A very good book. Also read Matt Taibbi’s book “Griftopia”.

    Brooksley Born was dead on with regard to the dangers of derivatives. She has since been appointed by the Obama Adminstration, particularly Pelosi made sure she was on the the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC).

    If you had to boil it down to one villian that helped to create this mortgage mess, you would have to say that was Ayn Rand disciple Greenspan. Not only did he not recognized their was a housing bubble, but he actively promoted the housing bubble. He also directly lobbied for changes for three pieces of legislation or deregulation that resulted in the larger crash of the financial system. He lobbied hard for the dropping of Glass-Steagall, which lead to to-big-to-fail, he pushed for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which deregulated the derivatives market and finally Greenspan pushed for an increase in bank borrowing limits rules so they could raise their debt-to-equity ratios (40x for Merrill), which increased the risks and made it impossible for the banks to deal with problems as they developed. WIthout these changes pushed by Greenspan we would only being dealing with a simple housing downturn and not a massive collapse of the financial system. 

    • Anonymous

      What was offered up here is a cut-and-paste explanation of an enormous problem that had its roots years and years before.

      First, let’s separate what are naturally recurring events in free market capitalism – that being a recession. They happen about every 6 to 8 years depending on the prior recovery and growth cycle. Presidents do not create them and do not solve them but can make recessions more expansive.

      The other are systemic problems that become pronounced during a recession while can be swept unde the rug during times of economic growth.

      The  mortgage problem was not the creation of GW Bush or of Bill Clinton. It did have its roots in the Carter era Community Reinvestment Act whose intent was to get everyone into a house particularly those among lower income groups and among  minorities. This utopian idea direcly led to civil rights groups suing in court to force mortgage companies and banks to change their credit standards in order to give mortgage loans to people they considered normally not to be worthy. As these banks were being forced to issue these mortgages over time, they needed to create financial instruments to make sure the banks could deal with these loans without losing money.

      This problem, decades in the making, was NOT a Wall Street invented scheme but a political and legal issue forced on the financial community who were forced to find a way to deal with it. Over this time, the Fed did have to find ways to sugar coat this and the liberals used Fannie and Freddie to further entrench this problem in order to secure their base of votes.

      By the time you get to the story posted by Larry this was already a run-away train and few had the political courage to try and stop it – certainly no Democrats. By the time GW Bush tried to deal with this later in his tenure, he had lost control of Congress and if successful it might have been too little too late.

      The gross distortion created by Democrats and Obama that this somehow was the fault of the GOP and fat cat Wall Street  people is flat out false. This was created and produced liberal Democrats over decades.

      • Ferd_Berfle

        Excellent response, Hokma. Thank you.

        • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

          Onofres
          You are absolutely wrong.  I suggest you read the book before you insert your foot further into your mouth.  There is a role for Government regulation, particularly when it comes to punishing and preventing insider trading, for example.  Or, requiring banks to maintain certain reserves.  The Community Reinvestment Act had very little to do with the activities of companies like the Money Store, Primerica, Washington Mutual and Countrywide.  It was not the CRA that encouraged the bottom feeders in the mortgage industry to make NO DOC loans and to actually fabricate info in order to sale costly loans to dumb buyers.

          Again, read the book first.

          • Onofres arm

            UPDATE–Larry, cattily stating that I should remove my foot from my mouth isn’t exactly a cordial way to begin your response, is it? And don’t fucking lecture me on civility and personal attacks, you’ve launched far worse attacks, far more often, with much less provocation, than I ever have; don’t be a damned hypocrite.

            And if YOU had a shred of intellectual honesty, you wouldn’t provide tiny snippits of a damn book, and expect everyone else to accept, without question, YOUR take on the matter. YOU are the one who hasn’t adequately addressed, in a direct manner, the issues and arguments that a number of us have posted on this thread, and it’s YOU who are dodging the argument by telling anyone who doesn’t agree with you to read the damn book. If you can’t afford to spend the time to outline your OWN arguments here, and if your slippery defense of your position is simply to refer us to a book, then you shouldn’t invite debate, because the rules for your debate are skewed and idiotic. We’ve laid out our arguments in this debate with the support of quotes, references, names, dates, and other FACTS, and when we should expect a reasonable rebuttal from you, we get a “you’re absolutely wrong, I suggest you read the book”. I can’t debate with a fucking book Larry, and I guess you’re not up to the debate yourself, since “read the book” is your only defense.

            I directly challenged YOUR statement, Larry, that, “The Republicans were cheerleading the moves all along the way.  None of the leaders in either party were advocating responsibility and accountability” with specific, and compelling examples, that proved your stupid statement to be a big fat lie, and then you accuse ME OF INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY!?

            It’s your site, and you can write whatever the hell you want to, but that doesn’t grant you sole ownership of the truth, which you’ve now so dramatically demonstrated.

            • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

              Fuck you and fuck off.  I’m not going to read the goddamn book to you.  I made a simple request, read the book and then come back and have an intelligent discussion.  You are incapable of that.

            • Oa

              You don’t have to read the goddamn book to me, Larry, just a few relevant quotes that directly rebut some of my arguments would suffice. Do you even have the book, Larry? Did you even read the book yourself, Larry. Or are you possibly relying completely on the glowing New York Times review of it?

              And the last time someone told me “fuck you and fuck off” was immediately after I had eaten their lunch. 

            • Rrtyvt

              Onofres,

              Lives in a fact free world of fantasy! I agree read the book and come back and have an intelligent discussion.

              As for you Republican buddies, go Google “graham deregulation”.

            • Anonymous

              Ok brain surgeon, let’s start with Republican Senator Phil Gramm, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee starting in 1994.  What did he do to rein in or promote accountability of Fannie and Freddie?  NOTHING.  That counts as cheerleading in my book.

              Then you have the case of Brooksley Born, who testified more than 15 times before Congress and was savaged by Republicans who lined up to back Rubin, Greenspan and Summers.  The list includes Jim Leach. 

              Republicans controlled the Congress when Glass Steagal was repealed.

              The list goes on and on.  But what you are too fucking stupid and obtuse to understand is that the book equally assigns blame to everyone and every party and documents it.

              So read the book or shut the fuck up.

        • Anonymous

          Larry – Companies like Countrywide and Ameriquest were created as a direct result of the products that were created because banks were being forced to change their standards on approving loans which led to banks creating instruments to deal with loans that could be defaulted on in greater number than under normal circumstances. Fast forward and you get subprime mortgages and the derivatives.

          The problem throughout were gutless politicians who never had either the intelligence to foresee what these policies would create or the courage to confront them and risk votes. You could say that it was government regulation (the wrong kind) that did create this.

          This mortgage chapter should remain a lesson that government cannot legislate utopia.

        • Onofres arm

          Well Larry, when you extract your head from your ass, your vision might reveal to you that I don’t have my foot in my mouth. As I stated elsewhere, while the CRA may not have been directly involved with inflating the housing bubble, it acted as a catalyst (do I need to give you the definition of “catalyst”, Larry) that drove the reaction, it fueled the machine that was inflating the bubble, by causing lending standards to fall ACROSS THE INDUSTRY!! Much to the delight of liberal lawmakers. Your villains, The Money Store, Primarica, WaMu, and Countrywide were all practicing lending policies that were the predictable response to a market that had been contaminated with unnatural toxins (no doc loans, subprime lending, etc.) that were generated originally by the CRA, and their activities were heavily ENCOURAGED by liberal government leadership. 

            ”The [Clinton] administration announced the bold new homeownership strategy which included monumental loosening of credit standards and imposition of subprime lending quotas. HUD reported that President Clinton had committed “to increasing the homeownership rate to 67.5 percent by the year 2000.” The plan was “to reduce the financial, information, and systemic barriers to homeownership” which was “amplified by local partnerships at work in over 100 cities.”"

          Right out of the horse’s ass!

          Adding greatly to the inevitable crisis, was the government’s guarantee to cover the toxic loans:

          “1968As part of President Johnson’s Great Society reform plan, much of Fannie Mae became a private owned yet government chartered company, a government sponsored enterprise (GSE) providing authority to issue mortgage-backed securities (MBS). Fannie Mae buys home mortgages in order to preserve liquidity in the secondary mortgage market. Though private, it remained backed by the Federal government.”

          When “risk” is arbitrarily eliminated from the market by government fiat, then there’s no restraint on the activities of lenders, because there’s no fear of the consequences of risky lending. If the housing bubble bursts, so what, the government (the taxpayers) will be forced to bail everyone out.

          You’re blaming the guys who were stuck in the middle of a looming, government created, financial mess. Sure, they were trying to make a buck, and sure, they weren’t the most ethical bunch around, but they were only playing by the rules that liberal lawmakers had written for them, and they were playing on the field that the government provided. I’m sure the book does a good job of detailing the activities and mishaps of Banks and Wall Street, but it sounds like it only strips away the first few layers of the crisis, but stops short of getting to the core of the onion, the government. 

          And from what you’ve cited from the “book”, it indicates to me that it’s probably a monumental effort to re-wright the entire crisis from a false premise (that private financial institutions CAUSED the economic collapse), with the intent to shift the blame away from the real culprits; a bunch of misguided liberal lawmakers who’ve been destroying the free market, for many years, with constant corrosive government intrusion in order to achieve the ridiculous goal of social justice. I’ve read many books like this, and I end up spending so much time exposing the well crafted lies, or waiting for the other shoe that never falls, that I rarely need to get more than a chapter into them before it’s apparent that they’ve lost all credibility. It’s like watching Algore’s “Inconvenient Truth”, I spotted obvious lies before I even got through the opening credits, so why should I waste my time watching the rest of it, knowing it to be a litany of lies? The only reason I would finish watching it (and I did) was for the purpose of informing myself of the ridiculous assumptions and arguments that the warm-mongers cling to, so that I might explain the error of their ways. 

      • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

        The Republicans blind embrace of deregulation, particularly the roll back of Glass Steagall, laid one of the cornerstone’s for the ensuring debacle.  But, as you point out, what happened during the Clinton Presidency sealed the deal.  What is clear from the history, once you review it, is that the Clinton Administration made every wrong decision that ultimately made the crisis inevitable.

        But don’t kid yourself.  The Republicans were cheerleading the moves all along the way.  None of the leaders in either party were advocating responsibility and accountability.  All pandered to cheap money and seemingly free housing and were more than happy to accept the campaign contributions from those profiting from the madness.

        • Onofres arm

          “The Republicans were cheerleading the moves all along the way.  None of the leaders in either party were advocating responsibility and accountability”

          Ummmmm, that’s not exactly accurate Larry:

          “July 2003

          Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), Elizabeth Dole (R-North Carolina) and John Sununu (R-New Hampshire) introduced legislation to address Regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill was blocked by Democrats.”

          This is just ONE example of countless efforts by Republicans to correct the looming problem. While they were attempting various ways to reign in Fannie and Freddie, the Democrats were blocking them all the way:

          “June 1995Republicans had won control of Congress and planned CRA reforms. The Clinton Administration, however, allied with Rep. Frank, Sen. Kennedy (D-Massachusetts) and Rep. Waters (D-California), did an end-around by directing HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo to inject GSEs into the subprime mortgage market.”

          Look at the date. And yet, the genesis of the housing bubble goes back even further, to Carter, and the good old CRA. The monkey business that your article focuses on, Larry, did NOT cause  the burst of the housing bubble, it was rather an attempt by the banks to address the problematic mess that is ALWAYS caused when the government fucks with free market capitalism in another boneheaded program of social engineering. When the government clumsily tries to arbitrarily shove the market in a desired direction, the act itself completely destroys the market forces that naturally buffer and balance economic activities. In order to correct the mayhem that the government created, lending institutions needed to develop various ways to deal with the intrusion of that unnatural wild card. You’ve only critically focused on the response of institutions that were trying to adapt to the handicap that the government gave them, Larry, not the cause of the problem in the first place.

          If you cripple an entire soccer team by locking a ball and chain to each of their legs, they might look pretty pathetic trying to overcome the handicap you’ve given them, and they might even attempt to adapt in creative ways. But when they predictable lose the match, Larry, are going to blame the players for their failure, or are you going to blame the balls and chains?

          Here’s an excellent, and very detailed timeline (from which I’ve quoted) that gets to ROOT of the problem, Larry, not the RESPONSE to the problem, that you’ve attempted to blame as the CAUSE.

          http://ricksmiley.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-mortgage-crisis-happened.html

        • Ferd_Berfle

          The Republicans were cheerleading the moves all along the way.
          ===============
          In some ways, yes–the unbridled greed was manifest. That being said, however, no Republican that I am aware of wanted to destroy the system because it would gain them el zilcho. Some democrats (progressives), on the other hand, seem to be just the sort who would want such a collapse–they could blame the Republicans for the problems created by their own policies AND get their Neomarxist dystopia all at the same time. Our feckless leader, an alleged democrat, is no capitalist of any sort by a long shot and he was pushed by these progressives who could conveniently use his race as an excuse to put him in office. What a fickle plan they set into motion.

        • Anonymous

          And you claimed to be a guy who voted Republican?
          Liar.You face is so far up the Clinton asses that it’s embarrassing. What is it with them?  The only reason that Clinton was successful at anything(besides whoring with women) was that the Congress was taken over by Republicans.  You were in the CIA?  And your company does forensic work?  Really?  

      • Rrtyvt

        The problem with blaming the 35 year old Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) for the subprime mortgage bubble and meltdown is that it does not fit the facts of what actually happened.

        First, the CRA only applies to banks and thirfts and not to mortgage companies. Mortgage companies were responsible for generating more than 50% of the mortgages.

        Second, many of the mortgages that were originated under the CRA were done in the 90s, well before subprime mortgages were created in the period between 2002 and 2007, which were the mortgages that largely defaulted.

        Third, studies have shown the mortgage under the CRA were less likely to default versus mortgages that did not fall under the CRA.

        http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinvestment_act_had_nothing_to_do_with_subprime_crisis.html

        • Onofres arm

          The CRA acted as a catalyst, Rrtyvt, it directly fueled the machine that was inflating the housing bubble across the industry, even though it may not have significantly added to the failure with it’s own toxic mortgages.

          Your argument here, is a deceitful obfuscation and it intentionally diverts attention away from the principle scoundrel responsible for the financial crisis, THE GOVERNMENT (the Progressives IN government, to be more precise), in another of it’s disastrous programs of social engineering.

          • Anonymous

            You know what is so weird?  That Onofres arm does the research, and a former CIA agent DOESN”T. 

            Congrats, Onofres arm for speaking to TRUTH.

          • Rrtyvt

            The CRA acted as a “catalyst”. That is a new one. So now when presented with the facts you are stepping off your statement that the CRA directly caused the housing crisis to it was an influence or “catalyst”. So you want us to believe that a 35 year old program was the “catalyst” to the massive fraud and greed of the housing bubble and collapse of 2002 to 2008?

            What about the fact that 75% of all defaulting mortgages did not fall under the CRA or that more than 50% of the companies involved in mortgage origination also did not fall under the CRA or that 75% of all mortgage defaults were with people earning over $35,000 per year; ie. it was not low income people defaulting?

            How does that work? How does the CRA become a “catalyst” for all the very big risk taking that occured on Wall Street, all unregulated no transparency derivatives or the leveraging up of the banks, etc. etc.

            Nonsense. You need a little more perspective on what actually happened.

            The CRA has been around for 35 years. Why did we not have a housing crisis in the first 35 years? Why was it only the morgages that were underwritten between 2002 and 2007 that had high default rates? Why did Lehman Brothers fail?

        • Onofres arm

          This is what I’m referring to, Rrtyvt:

          “The [Clinton] administration announced the bold new homeownership strategy which included monumental loosening of credit standards and imposition of subprime lending quotas. HUD reported that President Clinton had committed “to increasing the homeownership rate to 67.5 percent by the year 2000.” The plan was “to reduce the financial, information, and systemic barriers to homeownership” which was “amplified by local partnerships at work in over 100 cities.”

          Kurtz concludes, “Urged on by ACORN, congressional Democrats and the Clinton administration helped push tolerance for high-risk loans through every sector of the banking system — far beyond the sort of banks originally subject to the CRA. So it was the efforts of ACORN and its Democratic allies that first spread the subprime virus from the CRA to Fannie and Freddie and thence to the entire financial system. Soon, Democratic politicians and regulators actually began to take pride in lowered credit standards as a sign of ‘fairness’ — and the contagion spread.”

          Attorney General Janet Reno, with a number of bank lending discrimination settlements already, sternly announces, “We will tackle lending discrimination wherever it appears.” With the new policy in full force, “No loan is exempt; no bank is immune.” “For those who thumb their nose at us, I promise vigorous enforcement,” reiterated Reno.”

        • Anonymous

          Rrtyvt – You said: “First, the CRA only applies to banks and thirfts and not to mortgage companies. Mortgage companies were responsible for generating more than 50% of the mortgages.”

          ALL mortgages require a bank to back the mortgage. Mortgage companies may write mortgages but they require underwriters who are financial institutions. Mortgage companies like Countrywide and Ameriquest wrote mortgages and serviced mortgages but sold off the mortgages to whatever banks would take them.

          You also need a better history lesson in the CRA. What happened int he 1990′s under Clinton did not sudden appear. There was a progression that started in court actions and constant changes in bank loan standards required by those liberal judges.

          The subprime mortgages were a result of these changes not a cause.

        • Onofres arm

          Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU HOKMA!!!!

          It’s comforting to know that someone else “gets it”.

          And Ferd, I know you “get it” also! Wink

        • Rrtyvt

          Yeah.. i am sure all those houses that are defaulting their loans in foreclosure hotspots like Arizona, Florida and California all fell under the CRA. Bullshit. The majority of foreclosure are not in low income housing.

          “At the FDIC, Chair Sheila Bair delivered remarks noting that the majority of subprime loans originated from lenders not regulated by the CRA, calling it a “scapegoat” and declaring it “NOT guilty.”

          Some legal and financial experts note that CRA regulated loans tend to be safe and profitable, and that subprime excesses came mainly from institutions not regulated by the CRA. In the February 2008 House hearing, law professor Michael S. Barr, a Treasury Department official under President Clinton,stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA, and another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. Barr noted that institutions fully regulated by CRA made “perhaps one in four” sub-prime loans, and that “the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight”.

          According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made risky “high-priced loans” at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis.

          A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans.

          Emre Ergungor of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland found that there was no statistical difference in foreclosure rates between regulated and less-regulated banks, although a local bank presence resulted in fewer foreclosures.

        • Onofres arm

          Your statement Rrtyvt……
          “Yeah.. i am sure all those houses that are defaulting their loans in foreclosure hotspots like Arizona, Florida and California all fell under the CRA. Bullshit. The majority of foreclosure are not in low income housing.”….clearly indicates that you are far too stupid to understand what Hokma and I have just explained to you. We very clearly explained the CRA’s role in the mess, and it has very little to do with the defaulted loans that were, as you call them, “CRA regulated”, whatever the hell that means. The CRA was the contagion that infected the entire industry, because the entire industry needed to adopt the lax lending policies in order to compete. Go to the back of the fucking class!

        • Rrtyvt

           new research study on foreclosures in the state over a three year period (March 2006 – February 2009) found that 20 percent undergoing foreclosure have annual income of $100,000 or more.

          Another 20 percent have annual income between $50,000 to $75,000, while just 27 percent have income of $35,000 or less.

          http://www.thetruthaboutmortgage.com/20-percent-of-florida-foreclosure-victims-have-income-of-100000-or-more/

        • Ferd_Berfle

          Your argument here, is a deceitful obfuscation and it intentionally
          diverts attention away from the principle scoundrel responsible for the
          financial crisis, THE GOVERNMENT (the Progressives IN government, to be
          more precise), in another of it’s disastrous programs of social
          engineering.
          ================
          Well, OA, isn’t this the MO of retrogressives and obamabots–ignore facts, create a diversion, shift blame, and when all else fails to convince–lie. They must have an assembly line where they create these automatons by the thousands.

        • Anonymous

          Rrtyvt – what you keep missing is root cause.
          Wall Street and financial institutions did not invent subprime mortgages out of thin air. These were created as a means for lower income people to get into a home. The intent was low income people.
          However, in practice it was abused and used for higher income people to speculate in cities places like Las Vegas, Phoenix, and South Florida. Take a mortgage at almost no interest on a  property for less than a year and flip it and walk away with $50,000 to $100,000 or more.
          The heart of this problem was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – both government created and protected mortgage institutions who have controlled the mortgage market. Both either need to be dismantled or severely reformed.

    • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

      Matt Taibbi is a complete ass.  I wouldn’t recommend anything he writes.  He is incapable of original thought and panders to the lowest common denominator.

  • Ferd_Berfle

    If one were a conspiracy theorist one might think that the retrogressives took advantage of loopholes in the system to reap enormous benefits for themselves AND crash the system at the same time. They got rich while fulfilling their dream of destroying the economy.

    If one were a conspiracy theorist….

    • Onofres arm

      “1998

      By falsifying signatures on Fannie Mae accounting transactions, $200 million in expenses was shifted from 1998 to later periods, thereby triggering $27.1 million in bonuses for top executives. James A. Johnson received $1.932 million; Franklin D. Raines received $1.11 million; Lawrence M. Small received $1.108 million; Jamie S. Gorelick received $779,625; Timothy Howard received $493,750; Robert J. Levin received $493,750.”
      Also:

      “October 2003Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.”

      And:

      “January 2005-July 2006Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), co-sponsored by Sens. Sununu and Dole and later Sen. McCain, re-introduced legislation to address GSE regulation.”The bill prohibited the GSEs from holding portfolios, and gave their regulator prudential authority (such as setting capital requirements) roughly equivalent to a bank regulator. In light of the current financial crisis, this bill was probably the most important piece of financial regulation before Congress in 2005 and 2006,” reports the Wall Street Journal.Greenspan testified that the size of GSE portfolios “poses a risk to the global financial system. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to bail out the lenders [GSEs] . . . should one get into financial trouble.” He added, “If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency and crisis . . . We put at risk our ability to preserve safe and sound financial markets in the United States, a key ingredient of support for homeownership.”Greenspan warned that if the GSEs “continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road . . . We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.”Bloomberg writes, “If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. . . . But the bill didn’t become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn’t even get the Senate to vote on the matter. That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then.”"

      And finally:

      “September 2008Rep. Arthur Davis, whose testimony is found above in October 2004, now admits Democrats were in error: “Like a lot of my Democratic colleagues I was too slow to appreciate the recklessness of Fannie and Freddie. I defended their efforts to encourage affordable homeownership when in retrospect I should have heeded the concerns raised by their regulator in 2004. Frankly, I wish my Democratic colleagues would admit when it comes to Fannie and Freddie, we were wrong.”"

      http://ricksmiley.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-mortgage-crisis-happened.html

      Yes Ferd, it’s a conspiracy; a many decades long conspiracy of Progressive/Marxist assholes who foolishly believe that they can create Utopia.

      • Docelder

        They want to create Utopia from the ashes of what “was” America OA. They gave up  trying to change America from within and now want to change it from without. This has somehow gone from being political to being treasonous.

  • Anonymous

    In a report released on Friday, the White House Council of Economic Advisors advised that the jobs created to date under the 2009 stimulus package cost $278,000 per job.  Pretty much all of Obama’s economic advisors have quit, with Timothy Geithner begging to be let go.  One wonders why, with the record of such an economic miracle turnaround to their credit, they want to slip out of the back door instead of taking the well-deserved credt for what their advice has wrought?

    • Anonymous

      Because Keynesian economics never worked in the 1960′s and and it did not work now.

    • Anonymous

      Because Keynesian economics never worked in the 1960′s and and it did not work now.

      • Onofres arm

        And it didn’t work in the ’30′s either, Hokma!

        Have you read Schlaes’ “The Forgotten Man”?

        • elaine

          Onofres, I really like your mind & please note I “get it.” I think you & I are on the same page about the damage Clinton did & now he just wants to say, Whoopsie Daisy I made a little mistake & Robert Rubin got over on me…

          None of Clinton’s supporters ever want to answer my question, that being, How could it have ever worked???? Since I can’t imagine any way it could have ever worked I conclude it was al intentional & if that relegates me to tin foil hat conspiracy nut case I don’t give a damn.

          When Obama ran against Hillary he even addressed there were abuses in the CRA but he never attempted to correct them.

        • Onofres arm

          Obama has been a player in this mess going way back, when he worked with ACORN in the “shake-down” game of lending institutions that was blessed by Clinton and Janet Reno. Did you know that, even though Obama was only a US Senator for a brief three years, he was the second highest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie? He was second, behind…………….Chris Dodd……of course. Bawney Fwank only got $42,350. Poor Bawney.

          • Ferd_Berfle

            Obama has been a player in this mess going way back, when he worked with ACORN in the “shake-down” game
            ================
            Well, in their “defense”, ACORN did have to assist assorted pimps and pedophiles, OA.

        • Anonymous

          I have read it, and it’s well worth reading for all Americans. But of course, most won’t bother. Too busy feeding their brains with ‘reality tv.’ It’s so sad. 

          http://maristpoll.marist.edu/71-independence-day-dummy-seventeen-seventy-when/

  • elaine

    OMG I must be a really bad communicator if anyone thought I was defendind Obama in this CRA/Glass-Steagall mess

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    Well, I just bought Reckless Endangerment, so your rec will have to wait, Larry. So many books, so little time. But I will put it on my to do list, and appreciate the information, being the information junkie I am! It’s a curse that, apparently, most americans aren’t burdened with, unfortunately. 

    http://www.vdare.com/sailer/110605_reckless_endangerment.htm