Capitalism, The Fed and Economic Policy

Halifax2TheMax

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

The Juggler said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I thought we all agreed that the president has little to no results of an economy?

Absolutely do not agree.  

• Since World War II, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administration of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.
• This applies to economic variables including job creation, GDP growth, stock market returns, personal income growth and corporate profits.
• The unemployment rate has risen on average under Republican presidents, while it has fallen on average under Democratic presidents. 
• Budget deficits relative to the size of the economy were lower on average for Democratic presidents.
• Ten of the eleven U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under Republican presidents.
  

I generally believe that presidents have little to do with economic performance since we went to an independent Fed.  I know the stats you are quoting, but I think this is generally bad luck for the GOP.  For example, Trump's recession in 2020 was caused by the pandemic.  There was no policy that caused that.  Same with the recession that started in 2008.  I cannot point to any particular policy during the Bush era that would have had a direct cause of that one.  It was years in the making and driven by economic conditions and policy through the Clinton and Bush years.  

2008 was housing and a democratic bill.  I would say that was the leading factor.

It was the shrub administration’s lax oversight of the savings and loan and corporate banking industries bundling subprime loans as investment products on Wall Street. The housing market crashed in 2009 and Obama didn’t take office until1/20/09. This is why ‘Murica has gone to shit, shit for memories of what happened when, who was responsible and why. Shrub’s brother was responsible for a collapsed bank for crying out load. But dems and Obama, right?

Actually it started with Clinton if you remember. That was where the bill originated from but yeah, Obama.  That's why i didn't mention him...

And the Shrub administration’s regulatory agencies looked the other way via deregulation of banking and energy sectors. Reference the specific Clinton bill that lead to the housing crisis, please?

Sure can! Community Reinvestment Act.

Are you claiming that a bill passed and signed into law in 1977 is responsible for the housing crisis of 2009?

Hahaha....that was funny.

Clinton revised it in 1995....and then the Bush admin came along and deregulated everything to shit--that all opened the door for a lot of loose subprime lending...poof: housing crisis.

It's because of a lot of what happened during the Obama administration that has prevented another one from happening thus far though. 

What’s funny is that Tempo thinks it was the bill that was signed into law in 1977 and revised repeatedly up until 2009. It wasn’t the bill or the revisions that caused the housing crisis, it was the banks and savings and loans industry not doing their due diligence when issuing loans, the lack of oversight and regulation for said loans, and then the bundling of those shit loans into investment products for big banks and Wall Street to buy. But some keep believing the myth. Individual, small quantities of loans that go belly up at your local S&L don’t crater the economy and a huge sector of it. Concentrating that risk to the level that occurred does. Shrub’s administration looked the other way while this was occurring and like his pappy and Ronny Raygun before him, left a mess for a dem to clean up. Tax cuts while waging two wars, anyone?

edited to reflect who I was responding to.

No I think Tempo was likely thinking of the revisions in the 90's. Wouldn't shock me if he, like a lot of people, did not even realize that bill started 20 years earlier actually. 

Not acting like CRA played a role in lower lending standards is disingenuous. It is not the only reason for the housing crisis....obviously the next administration had a huge role. But this is an example of a time when both sides actually do share the blame. 

There is a laundry list of offenders.  95 is the catalyst for it and then spiraled down. Halifax did a half ass google job to catch up.

I remember reading extensively about the S&L industry failure and the housing bubble bursting as it happened. Multiple sources of information regarding the causes, who was responsible, etc. It’s not “my lame ass Google search job to catch up.”

Please put your big boy pants on and link to your source for your claim that the 1995 CRA was responsible for the housing crisis, housing bubble bursting or the now moved goal posts of “recession.” 95 was not the “catalyst” as you claim.

Heres one.  We can go back and forth on this as I strongly disagree that CRA isn't partly responsible.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

Ronnie rayguns is innocent on this one though. Can't blame him and I can't blame Hilarys emails for this.

John Carney, a reporter fired from business insider and works for Brietfart versus someone who works at the Federal Reserve Board. An article from 2009 versus a research paper published in 2023.

You keep your sources, I’ll keep mine. You keep your memory, I’ll keep mine. I’ll take a PhD in economics over a lawyer as it relates to this issue.
Do you blame Shrub?

tempo_n_groove

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

The Juggler said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I thought we all agreed that the president has little to no results of an economy?

Absolutely do not agree.  

• Since World War II, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administration of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.
• This applies to economic variables including job creation, GDP growth, stock market returns, personal income growth and corporate profits.
• The unemployment rate has risen on average under Republican presidents, while it has fallen on average under Democratic presidents. 
• Budget deficits relative to the size of the economy were lower on average for Democratic presidents.
• Ten of the eleven U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under Republican presidents.
  

I generally believe that presidents have little to do with economic performance since we went to an independent Fed.  I know the stats you are quoting, but I think this is generally bad luck for the GOP.  For example, Trump's recession in 2020 was caused by the pandemic.  There was no policy that caused that.  Same with the recession that started in 2008.  I cannot point to any particular policy during the Bush era that would have had a direct cause of that one.  It was years in the making and driven by economic conditions and policy through the Clinton and Bush years.  

2008 was housing and a democratic bill.  I would say that was the leading factor.

It was the shrub administration’s lax oversight of the savings and loan and corporate banking industries bundling subprime loans as investment products on Wall Street. The housing market crashed in 2009 and Obama didn’t take office until1/20/09. This is why ‘Murica has gone to shit, shit for memories of what happened when, who was responsible and why. Shrub’s brother was responsible for a collapsed bank for crying out load. But dems and Obama, right?

Actually it started with Clinton if you remember. That was where the bill originated from but yeah, Obama.  That's why i didn't mention him...

And the Shrub administration’s regulatory agencies looked the other way via deregulation of banking and energy sectors. Reference the specific Clinton bill that lead to the housing crisis, please?

Sure can! Community Reinvestment Act.

Are you claiming that a bill passed and signed into law in 1977 is responsible for the housing crisis of 2009?

Hahaha....that was funny.

Clinton revised it in 1995....and then the Bush admin came along and deregulated everything to shit--that all opened the door for a lot of loose subprime lending...poof: housing crisis.

It's because of a lot of what happened during the Obama administration that has prevented another one from happening thus far though. 

What’s funny is that Tempo thinks it was the bill that was signed into law in 1977 and revised repeatedly up until 2009. It wasn’t the bill or the revisions that caused the housing crisis, it was the banks and savings and loans industry not doing their due diligence when issuing loans, the lack of oversight and regulation for said loans, and then the bundling of those shit loans into investment products for big banks and Wall Street to buy. But some keep believing the myth. Individual, small quantities of loans that go belly up at your local S&L don’t crater the economy and a huge sector of it. Concentrating that risk to the level that occurred does. Shrub’s administration looked the other way while this was occurring and like his pappy and Ronny Raygun before him, left a mess for a dem to clean up. Tax cuts while waging two wars, anyone?

edited to reflect who I was responding to.

No I think Tempo was likely thinking of the revisions in the 90's. Wouldn't shock me if he, like a lot of people, did not even realize that bill started 20 years earlier actually. 

Not acting like CRA played a role in lower lending standards is disingenuous. It is not the only reason for the housing crisis....obviously the next administration had a huge role. But this is an example of a time when both sides actually do share the blame. 

There is a laundry list of offenders.  95 is the catalyst for it and then spiraled down. Halifax did a half ass google job to catch up.

I remember reading extensively about the S&L industry failure and the housing bubble bursting as it happened. Multiple sources of information regarding the causes, who was responsible, etc. It’s not “my lame ass Google search job to catch up.”

Please put your big boy pants on and link to your source for your claim that the 1995 CRA was responsible for the housing crisis, housing bubble bursting or the now moved goal posts of “recession.” 95 was not the “catalyst” as you claim.

Heres one.  We can go back and forth on this as I strongly disagree that CRA isn't partly responsible.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

Ronnie rayguns is innocent on this one though. Can't blame him and I can't blame Hilarys emails for this.

John Carney, a reporter fired from business insider and works for Brietfart versus someone who works at the Federal Reserve Board. An article from 2009 versus a research paper published in 2023.

You keep your sources, I’ll keep mine. You keep your memory, I’ll keep mine. I’ll take a PhD in economics over a lawyer as it relates to this issue.
Do you blame Shrub?

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

The Juggler said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I thought we all agreed that the president has little to no results of an economy?

Absolutely do not agree.  

• Since World War II, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administration of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.
• This applies to economic variables including job creation, GDP growth, stock market returns, personal income growth and corporate profits.
• The unemployment rate has risen on average under Republican presidents, while it has fallen on average under Democratic presidents. 
• Budget deficits relative to the size of the economy were lower on average for Democratic presidents.
• Ten of the eleven U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under Republican presidents.
  

I generally believe that presidents have little to do with economic performance since we went to an independent Fed.  I know the stats you are quoting, but I think this is generally bad luck for the GOP.  For example, Trump's recession in 2020 was caused by the pandemic.  There was no policy that caused that.  Same with the recession that started in 2008.  I cannot point to any particular policy during the Bush era that would have had a direct cause of that one.  It was years in the making and driven by economic conditions and policy through the Clinton and Bush years.  

2008 was housing and a democratic bill.  I would say that was the leading factor.

It was the shrub administration’s lax oversight of the savings and loan and corporate banking industries bundling subprime loans as investment products on Wall Street. The housing market crashed in 2009 and Obama didn’t take office until1/20/09. This is why ‘Murica has gone to shit, shit for memories of what happened when, who was responsible and why. Shrub’s brother was responsible for a collapsed bank for crying out load. But dems and Obama, right?

Actually it started with Clinton if you remember. That was where the bill originated from but yeah, Obama.  That's why i didn't mention him...

And the Shrub administration’s regulatory agencies looked the other way via deregulation of banking and energy sectors. Reference the specific Clinton bill that lead to the housing crisis, please?

Sure can! Community Reinvestment Act.

Are you claiming that a bill passed and signed into law in 1977 is responsible for the housing crisis of 2009?

Hahaha....that was funny.

Clinton revised it in 1995....and then the Bush admin came along and deregulated everything to shit--that all opened the door for a lot of loose subprime lending...poof: housing crisis.

It's because of a lot of what happened during the Obama administration that has prevented another one from happening thus far though. 

What’s funny is that Tempo thinks it was the bill that was signed into law in 1977 and revised repeatedly up until 2009. It wasn’t the bill or the revisions that caused the housing crisis, it was the banks and savings and loans industry not doing their due diligence when issuing loans, the lack of oversight and regulation for said loans, and then the bundling of those shit loans into investment products for big banks and Wall Street to buy. But some keep believing the myth. Individual, small quantities of loans that go belly up at your local S&L don’t crater the economy and a huge sector of it. Concentrating that risk to the level that occurred does. Shrub’s administration looked the other way while this was occurring and like his pappy and Ronny Raygun before him, left a mess for a dem to clean up. Tax cuts while waging two wars, anyone?

edited to reflect who I was responding to.

No I think Tempo was likely thinking of the revisions in the 90's. Wouldn't shock me if he, like a lot of people, did not even realize that bill started 20 years earlier actually. 

Not acting like CRA played a role in lower lending standards is disingenuous. It is not the only reason for the housing crisis....obviously the next administration had a huge role. But this is an example of a time when both sides actually do share the blame. 

There is a laundry list of offenders.  95 is the catalyst for it and then spiraled down. Halifax did a half ass google job to catch up.

I remember reading extensively about the S&L industry failure and the housing bubble bursting as it happened. Multiple sources of information regarding the causes, who was responsible, etc. It’s not “my lame ass Google search job to catch up.”

Please put your big boy pants on and link to your source for your claim that the 1995 CRA was responsible for the housing crisis, housing bubble bursting or the now moved goal posts of “recession.” 95 was not the “catalyst” as you claim.

Heres one.  We can go back and forth on this as I strongly disagree that CRA isn't partly responsible.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

Ronnie rayguns is innocent on this one though. Can't blame him and I can't blame Hilarys emails for this.

First, this article was written in 2009, before any real analysis had been done on the recession and causes.  The Fed article linked by H2M was from2023, where you had the benefit of all of the data from teh crisis being assessed over time.  

Second, the article makes the most obvious point in the world.  When you relax lending standards, your risk will increase.  Duh. 

 The Feds lowering and keeping of interest rates low over time was not designed to constantly stimulate home buying.  Sure, mortgage underwriting and delinquencies are an important factor, but so is M&A.  That has a huge impact on GDP and the Fed wants to stimulate that activity because of the significant economic upside of it.  

So as this article even stated, the CRA did not CAUSE the crisis, but like all of the things that happened in the mortgage and broader lending market, it had some effect.  In 2009, I was a senior credit officer at a top 10 bank.  That doesn't mean I was underwriting loans, that meant I had decision authority on multi-million dollar NPV strategies.  And we were crushed by the mortgage crisis even though 95% of our assets were credit card receivables.  The decisions I made on subprime lending strategies and recoveries had an effect on the crisis.  Literally.  So you can throw me personally into the pile of people who are responsible.  

Do I have to pull the Time article too? That was a good one with multiple sources of how and why.

I said it was a catalyst, not the smoking gun. It got the ball rolling.

mrussel1

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

The Juggler said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I thought we all agreed that the president has little to no results of an economy?

Absolutely do not agree.  

• Since World War II, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administration of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.
• This applies to economic variables including job creation, GDP growth, stock market returns, personal income growth and corporate profits.
• The unemployment rate has risen on average under Republican presidents, while it has fallen on average under Democratic presidents. 
• Budget deficits relative to the size of the economy were lower on average for Democratic presidents.
• Ten of the eleven U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under Republican presidents.
  

I generally believe that presidents have little to do with economic performance since we went to an independent Fed.  I know the stats you are quoting, but I think this is generally bad luck for the GOP.  For example, Trump's recession in 2020 was caused by the pandemic.  There was no policy that caused that.  Same with the recession that started in 2008.  I cannot point to any particular policy during the Bush era that would have had a direct cause of that one.  It was years in the making and driven by economic conditions and policy through the Clinton and Bush years.  

2008 was housing and a democratic bill.  I would say that was the leading factor.

It was the shrub administration’s lax oversight of the savings and loan and corporate banking industries bundling subprime loans as investment products on Wall Street. The housing market crashed in 2009 and Obama didn’t take office until1/20/09. This is why ‘Murica has gone to shit, shit for memories of what happened when, who was responsible and why. Shrub’s brother was responsible for a collapsed bank for crying out load. But dems and Obama, right?

Actually it started with Clinton if you remember. That was where the bill originated from but yeah, Obama.  That's why i didn't mention him...

And the Shrub administration’s regulatory agencies looked the other way via deregulation of banking and energy sectors. Reference the specific Clinton bill that lead to the housing crisis, please?

Sure can! Community Reinvestment Act.

Are you claiming that a bill passed and signed into law in 1977 is responsible for the housing crisis of 2009?

Hahaha....that was funny.

Clinton revised it in 1995....and then the Bush admin came along and deregulated everything to shit--that all opened the door for a lot of loose subprime lending...poof: housing crisis.

It's because of a lot of what happened during the Obama administration that has prevented another one from happening thus far though. 

What’s funny is that Tempo thinks it was the bill that was signed into law in 1977 and revised repeatedly up until 2009. It wasn’t the bill or the revisions that caused the housing crisis, it was the banks and savings and loans industry not doing their due diligence when issuing loans, the lack of oversight and regulation for said loans, and then the bundling of those shit loans into investment products for big banks and Wall Street to buy. But some keep believing the myth. Individual, small quantities of loans that go belly up at your local S&L don’t crater the economy and a huge sector of it. Concentrating that risk to the level that occurred does. Shrub’s administration looked the other way while this was occurring and like his pappy and Ronny Raygun before him, left a mess for a dem to clean up. Tax cuts while waging two wars, anyone?

edited to reflect who I was responding to.

No I think Tempo was likely thinking of the revisions in the 90's. Wouldn't shock me if he, like a lot of people, did not even realize that bill started 20 years earlier actually. 

Not acting like CRA played a role in lower lending standards is disingenuous. It is not the only reason for the housing crisis....obviously the next administration had a huge role. But this is an example of a time when both sides actually do share the blame. 

There is a laundry list of offenders.  95 is the catalyst for it and then spiraled down. Halifax did a half ass google job to catch up.

I remember reading extensively about the S&L industry failure and the housing bubble bursting as it happened. Multiple sources of information regarding the causes, who was responsible, etc. It’s not “my lame ass Google search job to catch up.”

Please put your big boy pants on and link to your source for your claim that the 1995 CRA was responsible for the housing crisis, housing bubble bursting or the now moved goal posts of “recession.” 95 was not the “catalyst” as you claim.

Heres one.  We can go back and forth on this as I strongly disagree that CRA isn't partly responsible.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

Ronnie rayguns is innocent on this one though. Can't blame him and I can't blame Hilarys emails for this.

John Carney, a reporter fired from business insider and works for Brietfart versus someone who works at the Federal Reserve Board. An article from 2009 versus a research paper published in 2023.

You keep your sources, I’ll keep mine. You keep your memory, I’ll keep mine. I’ll take a PhD in economics over a lawyer as it relates to this issue.
Do you blame Shrub?

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

The Juggler said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I thought we all agreed that the president has little to no results of an economy?

Absolutely do not agree.  

• Since World War II, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administration of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.
• This applies to economic variables including job creation, GDP growth, stock market returns, personal income growth and corporate profits.
• The unemployment rate has risen on average under Republican presidents, while it has fallen on average under Democratic presidents. 
• Budget deficits relative to the size of the economy were lower on average for Democratic presidents.
• Ten of the eleven U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under Republican presidents.
  

I generally believe that presidents have little to do with economic performance since we went to an independent Fed.  I know the stats you are quoting, but I think this is generally bad luck for the GOP.  For example, Trump's recession in 2020 was caused by the pandemic.  There was no policy that caused that.  Same with the recession that started in 2008.  I cannot point to any particular policy during the Bush era that would have had a direct cause of that one.  It was years in the making and driven by economic conditions and policy through the Clinton and Bush years.  

2008 was housing and a democratic bill.  I would say that was the leading factor.

It was the shrub administration’s lax oversight of the savings and loan and corporate banking industries bundling subprime loans as investment products on Wall Street. The housing market crashed in 2009 and Obama didn’t take office until1/20/09. This is why ‘Murica has gone to shit, shit for memories of what happened when, who was responsible and why. Shrub’s brother was responsible for a collapsed bank for crying out load. But dems and Obama, right?

Actually it started with Clinton if you remember. That was where the bill originated from but yeah, Obama.  That's why i didn't mention him...

And the Shrub administration’s regulatory agencies looked the other way via deregulation of banking and energy sectors. Reference the specific Clinton bill that lead to the housing crisis, please?

Sure can! Community Reinvestment Act.

Are you claiming that a bill passed and signed into law in 1977 is responsible for the housing crisis of 2009?

Hahaha....that was funny.

Clinton revised it in 1995....and then the Bush admin came along and deregulated everything to shit--that all opened the door for a lot of loose subprime lending...poof: housing crisis.

It's because of a lot of what happened during the Obama administration that has prevented another one from happening thus far though. 

What’s funny is that Tempo thinks it was the bill that was signed into law in 1977 and revised repeatedly up until 2009. It wasn’t the bill or the revisions that caused the housing crisis, it was the banks and savings and loans industry not doing their due diligence when issuing loans, the lack of oversight and regulation for said loans, and then the bundling of those shit loans into investment products for big banks and Wall Street to buy. But some keep believing the myth. Individual, small quantities of loans that go belly up at your local S&L don’t crater the economy and a huge sector of it. Concentrating that risk to the level that occurred does. Shrub’s administration looked the other way while this was occurring and like his pappy and Ronny Raygun before him, left a mess for a dem to clean up. Tax cuts while waging two wars, anyone?

edited to reflect who I was responding to.

No I think Tempo was likely thinking of the revisions in the 90's. Wouldn't shock me if he, like a lot of people, did not even realize that bill started 20 years earlier actually. 

Not acting like CRA played a role in lower lending standards is disingenuous. It is not the only reason for the housing crisis....obviously the next administration had a huge role. But this is an example of a time when both sides actually do share the blame. 

There is a laundry list of offenders.  95 is the catalyst for it and then spiraled down. Halifax did a half ass google job to catch up.

I remember reading extensively about the S&L industry failure and the housing bubble bursting as it happened. Multiple sources of information regarding the causes, who was responsible, etc. It’s not “my lame ass Google search job to catch up.”

Please put your big boy pants on and link to your source for your claim that the 1995 CRA was responsible for the housing crisis, housing bubble bursting or the now moved goal posts of “recession.” 95 was not the “catalyst” as you claim.

Heres one.  We can go back and forth on this as I strongly disagree that CRA isn't partly responsible.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

Ronnie rayguns is innocent on this one though. Can't blame him and I can't blame Hilarys emails for this.

First, this article was written in 2009, before any real analysis had been done on the recession and causes.  The Fed article linked by H2M was from2023, where you had the benefit of all of the data from teh crisis being assessed over time.  

Second, the article makes the most obvious point in the world.  When you relax lending standards, your risk will increase.  Duh. 

 The Feds lowering and keeping of interest rates low over time was not designed to constantly stimulate home buying.  Sure, mortgage underwriting and delinquencies are an important factor, but so is M&A.  That has a huge impact on GDP and the Fed wants to stimulate that activity because of the significant economic upside of it.  

So as this article even stated, the CRA did not CAUSE the crisis, but like all of the things that happened in the mortgage and broader lending market, it had some effect.  In 2009, I was a senior credit officer at a top 10 bank.  That doesn't mean I was underwriting loans, that meant I had decision authority on multi-million dollar NPV strategies.  And we were crushed by the mortgage crisis even though 95% of our assets were credit card receivables.  The decisions I made on subprime lending strategies and recoveries had an effect on the crisis.  Literally.  So you can throw me personally into the pile of people who are responsible.  

Do I have to pull the Time article too? That was a good one with multiple sources of how and why.

I said it was a catalyst, not the smoking gun. It got the ball rolling.

Catalyst?  Why wasn't the end of Glass-Steagall the catalyst?  Teh CRA had been in place with no heavy toxic securities being traded for 20 years before Glass was repealed.  Tell me the catalyst weight you are applying to that repeal in the GLB, compared to teh CRA.  One took 30 years to materialize, the other a decade.  

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

The Juggler said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I thought we all agreed that the president has little to no results of an economy?

Absolutely do not agree.  

• Since World War II, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administration of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.
• This applies to economic variables including job creation, GDP growth, stock market returns, personal income growth and corporate profits.
• The unemployment rate has risen on average under Republican presidents, while it has fallen on average under Democratic presidents. 
• Budget deficits relative to the size of the economy were lower on average for Democratic presidents.
• Ten of the eleven U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under Republican presidents.
  

I generally believe that presidents have little to do with economic performance since we went to an independent Fed.  I know the stats you are quoting, but I think this is generally bad luck for the GOP.  For example, Trump's recession in 2020 was caused by the pandemic.  There was no policy that caused that.  Same with the recession that started in 2008.  I cannot point to any particular policy during the Bush era that would have had a direct cause of that one.  It was years in the making and driven by economic conditions and policy through the Clinton and Bush years.  

2008 was housing and a democratic bill.  I would say that was the leading factor.

It was the shrub administration’s lax oversight of the savings and loan and corporate banking industries bundling subprime loans as investment products on Wall Street. The housing market crashed in 2009 and Obama didn’t take office until1/20/09. This is why ‘Murica has gone to shit, shit for memories of what happened when, who was responsible and why. Shrub’s brother was responsible for a collapsed bank for crying out load. But dems and Obama, right?

Actually it started with Clinton if you remember. That was where the bill originated from but yeah, Obama.  That's why i didn't mention him...

And the Shrub administration’s regulatory agencies looked the other way via deregulation of banking and energy sectors. Reference the specific Clinton bill that lead to the housing crisis, please?

Sure can! Community Reinvestment Act.

Are you claiming that a bill passed and signed into law in 1977 is responsible for the housing crisis of 2009?

Hahaha....that was funny.

Clinton revised it in 1995....and then the Bush admin came along and deregulated everything to shit--that all opened the door for a lot of loose subprime lending...poof: housing crisis.

It's because of a lot of what happened during the Obama administration that has prevented another one from happening thus far though. 

What’s funny is that Tempo thinks it was the bill that was signed into law in 1977 and revised repeatedly up until 2009. It wasn’t the bill or the revisions that caused the housing crisis, it was the banks and savings and loans industry not doing their due diligence when issuing loans, the lack of oversight and regulation for said loans, and then the bundling of those shit loans into investment products for big banks and Wall Street to buy. But some keep believing the myth. Individual, small quantities of loans that go belly up at your local S&L don’t crater the economy and a huge sector of it. Concentrating that risk to the level that occurred does. Shrub’s administration looked the other way while this was occurring and like his pappy and Ronny Raygun before him, left a mess for a dem to clean up. Tax cuts while waging two wars, anyone?

edited to reflect who I was responding to.

No I think Tempo was likely thinking of the revisions in the 90's. Wouldn't shock me if he, like a lot of people, did not even realize that bill started 20 years earlier actually. 

Not acting like CRA played a role in lower lending standards is disingenuous. It is not the only reason for the housing crisis....obviously the next administration had a huge role. But this is an example of a time when both sides actually do share the blame. 

There is a laundry list of offenders.  95 is the catalyst for it and then spiraled down. Halifax did a half ass google job to catch up.

I remember reading extensively about the S&L industry failure and the housing bubble bursting as it happened. Multiple sources of information regarding the causes, who was responsible, etc. It’s not “my lame ass Google search job to catch up.”

Please put your big boy pants on and link to your source for your claim that the 1995 CRA was responsible for the housing crisis, housing bubble bursting or the now moved goal posts of “recession.” 95 was not the “catalyst” as you claim.

Heres one.  We can go back and forth on this as I strongly disagree that CRA isn't partly responsible.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

Ronnie rayguns is innocent on this one though. Can't blame him and I can't blame Hilarys emails for this.

John Carney, a reporter fired from business insider and works for Brietfart versus someone who works at the Federal Reserve Board. An article from 2009 versus a research paper published in 2023.

You keep your sources, I’ll keep mine. You keep your memory, I’ll keep mine. I’ll take a PhD in economics over a lawyer as it relates to this issue.
Do you blame Shrub?

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

The Juggler said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

The Juggler said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mrussel1 said:

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

I thought we all agreed that the president has little to no results of an economy?

Absolutely do not agree.  

• Since World War II, the United States economy has performed significantly better on average under the administration of Democratic presidents than Republican presidents.
• This applies to economic variables including job creation, GDP growth, stock market returns, personal income growth and corporate profits.
• The unemployment rate has risen on average under Republican presidents, while it has fallen on average under Democratic presidents. 
• Budget deficits relative to the size of the economy were lower on average for Democratic presidents.
• Ten of the eleven U.S. recessions between 1953 and 2020 began under Republican presidents.
  

I generally believe that presidents have little to do with economic performance since we went to an independent Fed.  I know the stats you are quoting, but I think this is generally bad luck for the GOP.  For example, Trump's recession in 2020 was caused by the pandemic.  There was no policy that caused that.  Same with the recession that started in 2008.  I cannot point to any particular policy during the Bush era that would have had a direct cause of that one.  It was years in the making and driven by economic conditions and policy through the Clinton and Bush years.  

2008 was housing and a democratic bill.  I would say that was the leading factor.

It was the shrub administration’s lax oversight of the savings and loan and corporate banking industries bundling subprime loans as investment products on Wall Street. The housing market crashed in 2009 and Obama didn’t take office until1/20/09. This is why ‘Murica has gone to shit, shit for memories of what happened when, who was responsible and why. Shrub’s brother was responsible for a collapsed bank for crying out load. But dems and Obama, right?

Actually it started with Clinton if you remember. That was where the bill originated from but yeah, Obama.  That's why i didn't mention him...

And the Shrub administration’s regulatory agencies looked the other way via deregulation of banking and energy sectors. Reference the specific Clinton bill that lead to the housing crisis, please?

Sure can! Community Reinvestment Act.

Are you claiming that a bill passed and signed into law in 1977 is responsible for the housing crisis of 2009?

Hahaha....that was funny.

Clinton revised it in 1995....and then the Bush admin came along and deregulated everything to shit--that all opened the door for a lot of loose subprime lending...poof: housing crisis.

It's because of a lot of what happened during the Obama administration that has prevented another one from happening thus far though. 

What’s funny is that Tempo thinks it was the bill that was signed into law in 1977 and revised repeatedly up until 2009. It wasn’t the bill or the revisions that caused the housing crisis, it was the banks and savings and loans industry not doing their due diligence when issuing loans, the lack of oversight and regulation for said loans, and then the bundling of those shit loans into investment products for big banks and Wall Street to buy. But some keep believing the myth. Individual, small quantities of loans that go belly up at your local S&L don’t crater the economy and a huge sector of it. Concentrating that risk to the level that occurred does. Shrub’s administration looked the other way while this was occurring and like his pappy and Ronny Raygun before him, left a mess for a dem to clean up. Tax cuts while waging two wars, anyone?

edited to reflect who I was responding to.

No I think Tempo was likely thinking of the revisions in the 90's. Wouldn't shock me if he, like a lot of people, did not even realize that bill started 20 years earlier actually. 

Not acting like CRA played a role in lower lending standards is disingenuous. It is not the only reason for the housing crisis....obviously the next administration had a huge role. But this is an example of a time when both sides actually do share the blame. 

There is a laundry list of offenders.  95 is the catalyst for it and then spiraled down. Halifax did a half ass google job to catch up.

I remember reading extensively about the S&L industry failure and the housing bubble bursting as it happened. Multiple sources of information regarding the causes, who was responsible, etc. It’s not “my lame ass Google search job to catch up.”

Please put your big boy pants on and link to your source for your claim that the 1995 CRA was responsible for the housing crisis, housing bubble bursting or the now moved goal posts of “recession.” 95 was not the “catalyst” as you claim.

Heres one.  We can go back and forth on this as I strongly disagree that CRA isn't partly responsible.
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

Ronnie rayguns is innocent on this one though. Can't blame him and I can't blame Hilarys emails for this.

First, this article was written in 2009, before any real analysis had been done on the recession and causes.  The Fed article linked by H2M was from2023, where you had the benefit of all of the data from teh crisis being assessed over time.  

Second, the article makes the most obvious point in the world.  When you relax lending standards, your risk will increase.  Duh. 

 The Feds lowering and keeping of interest rates low over time was not designed to constantly stimulate home buying.  Sure, mortgage underwriting and delinquencies are an important factor, but so is M&A.  That has a huge impact on GDP and the Fed wants to stimulate that activity because of the significant economic upside of it.  

So as this article even stated, the CRA did not CAUSE the crisis, but like all of the things that happened in the mortgage and broader lending market, it had some effect.  In 2009, I was a senior credit officer at a top 10 bank.  That doesn't mean I was underwriting loans, that meant I had decision authority on multi-million dollar NPV strategies.  And we were crushed by the mortgage crisis even though 95% of our assets were credit card receivables.  The decisions I made on subprime lending strategies and recoveries had an effect on the crisis.  Literally.  So you can throw me personally into the pile of people who are responsible.  

Do I have to pull the Time article too? That was a good one with multiple sources of how and why.

I said it was a catalyst, not the smoking gun. It got the ball rolling.

Catalyst?  Why wasn't the end of Glass-Steagall the catalyst?  Teh CRA had been in place with no heavy toxic securities being traded for 20 years before Glass was repealed.  Tell me the catalyst weight you are applying to that repeal in the GLB, compared to teh CRA.  One took 30 years to materialize, the other a decade.  

Section 6, Conclusion, of the link I posted. It’s a dry read, I know.

And the CRA did not “get the ball rolling.”

Halifax2TheMax

6th paragraph in the Forward to the document linked below. From 2009:

https://www.frbsf.org/wp-content/uploads/revisiting_cra.pdf

But sure, give us Time. It was known in 2009 that the CRA wasn’t a catalyst or “got the ball rolling.” 

tempo_n_groove

Halifax2TheMax said:

Catalyst?  Why wasn't the end of Glass-Steagall the catalyst?  Teh CRA had been in place with no heavy toxic securities being traded for 20 years before Glass was repealed.  Tell me the catalyst weight you are applying to that repeal in the GLB, compared to teh CRA.  One took 30 years to materialize, the other a decade.  

Section 6, Conclusion, of the link I posted. It’s a dry read, I know.

And the CRA did not “get the ball rolling.”

Halifax2TheMax said:

6th paragraph in the Forward to the document linked below. From 2009:

https://www.frbsf.org/wp-content/uploads/revisiting_cra.pdf

But sure, give us Time. It was known in 2009 that the CRA wasn’t a catalyst or “got the ball rolling.” 

I read it. I'll need to reprocess this now as I am clearly wrong.  I need to find that Time article and see what they had said.

Halifax2TheMax

Dow average on 1/21/2005: 10,471

Dow average on 1/21/2009: 7,949

Dow average on 1/21/2013: 13,649

Dow average on 1/20/2017: 19,827

Dow average on 1/20/2021: 31,186

Dow average on 7/23/2024: 40,358

tempo_n_groove

Halifax2TheMax said:

Dow average on 1/21/2005: 10,471

Dow average on 1/21/2009: 7,949

Dow average on 1/21/2013: 13,649

Dow average on 1/20/2017: 19,827

Dow average on 1/20/2021: 31,186

Dow average on 7/23/2024: 40,358

Have we ever thought about where this growth is going?  I think we are still a ways away from these companies really giving back to the people.

The minimum wage was raised in 2009 and hasn't gone up since...  It's another can of worms I know but I wanted to bring this up to the group.

mrussel1

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Dow average on 1/21/2005: 10,471

Dow average on 1/21/2009: 7,949

Dow average on 1/21/2013: 13,649

Dow average on 1/20/2017: 19,827

Dow average on 1/20/2021: 31,186

Dow average on 7/23/2024: 40,358

Have we ever thought about where this growth is going?  I think we are still a ways away from these companies really giving back to the people.

The minimum wage was raised in 2009 and hasn't gone up since...  It's another can of worms I know but I wanted to bring this up to the group.

Yeah I think about where it's going all of the time.  Hopefully my retirement account.

tempo_n_groove

mrussel1 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Dow average on 1/21/2005: 10,471

Dow average on 1/21/2009: 7,949

Dow average on 1/21/2013: 13,649

Dow average on 1/20/2017: 19,827

Dow average on 1/20/2021: 31,186

Dow average on 7/23/2024: 40,358

Have we ever thought about where this growth is going?  I think we are still a ways away from these companies really giving back to the people.

The minimum wage was raised in 2009 and hasn't gone up since...  It's another can of worms I know but I wanted to bring this up to the group.

Yeah I think about where it's going all of the time.  Hopefully my retirement account.

HA!

CM189191

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Dow average on 1/21/2005: 10,471

Dow average on 1/21/2009: 7,949

Dow average on 1/21/2013: 13,649

Dow average on 1/20/2017: 19,827

Dow average on 1/20/2021: 31,186

Dow average on 7/23/2024: 40,358

Have we ever thought about where this growth is going?  I think we are still a ways away from these companies really giving back to the people.

The minimum wage was raised in 2009 and hasn't gone up since...  It's another can of worms I know but I wanted to bring this up to the group.

Don't worry, it'll trickle down any day now...




...yep, any day now....

Halifax2TheMax

CM189191 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Dow average on 1/21/2005: 10,471

Dow average on 1/21/2009: 7,949

Dow average on 1/21/2013: 13,649

Dow average on 1/20/2017: 19,827

Dow average on 1/20/2021: 31,186

Dow average on 7/23/2024: 40,358

Have we ever thought about where this growth is going?  I think we are still a ways away from these companies really giving back to the people.

The minimum wage was raised in 2009 and hasn't gone up since...  It's another can of worms I know but I wanted to bring this up to the group.

Don't worry, it'll trickle down any day now...




...yep, any day now....

USA! USA! USA! 

mickeyrat

US business activity edges higher; pricing power diminishing - https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-business-activity-edges-higher-pricing-power-diminishing-2024-07-24/

mickeyrat

fucking brandon. is it jan 2025 yet?

US weekly jobless claims fall more than expected - https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-weekly-jobless-claims-fall-more-than-expected-2024-07-25/

mickeyrat

haters....

In a Trump win, economists see revived inflation and a more wary Fed - https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/trump-win-economists-see-revived-inflation-more-wary-fed-2024-07-25/

mrussel1

mickeyrat said:

fucking brandon. is it jan 2025 yet?

US weekly jobless claims fall more than expected - https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-weekly-jobless-claims-fall-more-than-expected-2024-07-25/

Advanced GDP for Q2 was 2.8%.  That's really friggin' good.  

Fucking democrats. 

mickeyrat

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

fucking brandon. is it jan 2025 yet?

US weekly jobless claims fall more than expected - https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-weekly-jobless-claims-fall-more-than-expected-2024-07-25/

Advanced GDP for Q2 was 2.8%.  That's really friggin' good.  

Fucking democrats. 

why do these godless commies hate America so much?

mrussel1

mickeyrat said:

mrussel1 said:

mickeyrat said:

fucking brandon. is it jan 2025 yet?

US weekly jobless claims fall more than expected - https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/us-weekly-jobless-claims-fall-more-than-expected-2024-07-25/

Advanced GDP for Q2 was 2.8%.  That's really friggin' good.  

Fucking democrats. 

why do these godless commies hate America so much?

Because they are Marxists and hate you, specifically.  All they want is positive GDP growth and low unemployment.  And that's what we have.  It's killing us.  Do you realize that when GDP goes up, the cost of living will rise?  We need deflation NOW!  That's what's good for America!  Deflation and a shrinking economy.  

Halifax2TheMax

Tariffs, mass deportations, inflation, women out of the workforce and home, where they belong, and high unemployment. That’s what ‘Murica needs to show those libs.

Halifax2TheMax

Someone explain trickle down again, please?

https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/25/economy/wealth-tax-super-rich-oxfam-report/index.html