Government Distortions of Markets Led the Economy to Disaster, Not Unregulated Capitalism
From a recent column by Mona Charen:
In their new book "Reckless Endangerment," authors Morgenson and Rosner offer considerable censure for reckless bankers, lax rating agencies, captured regulators and unscrupulous businessmen. But the greatest responsibility for the collapse of the housing market and the near "Armageddon" of the American economy belongs to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and to the politicians who created and protected them. With a couple of prominent exceptions, the politicians were Democrats claiming to do good for the poor. Along the way, they enriched themselves and their friends, stuffed their campaign coffers, and resisted all attempts to enforce market discipline. When the inevitable collapse arrived, the entire economy suffered, but no one more than the poor.
Fannie Mae lied about its profits, intimidated adversaries, bought off members of Congress with lavish contributions, hired (and thereby co-opted) academics, purchased political ads (through its foundation) and stacked congressional hearings with friendly bankers, community activists and advocacy groups (including ACORN). Fannie Mae also hired the friends and relations of key members of Congress (including Rep. Barney Frank's partner).
"Reckless Endangerment" includes the Clinton administration's contribution to the home-ownership catastrophe. Clinton had claimed that dramatically increasing homeownership would boost the economy, instead "in just a few short years, all of the venerable rules governing the relationship between borrower and lender went out the window, starting with ... the requirement that a borrower put down a substantial amount of cash in a property, verify his income, and demonstrate an ability to service his debts."
"Reckless Endangerment" utterly deflates the perceived history of the 2008 crash. Yes, there was greed -- when is there not? But it was government distortions of markets -- not "unregulated capitalism" -- that led the economy to disaster."
41 Comments:
Just one question:
Okay, let's say it was Clinton who rigged home mortgage markets so losers could get loans.
Where was El Presidente Bush jr. 2000-2008? The GOP-controlled House, Senate and Supreme Court, from 2000-2006?
Did Bush jr. deliver any seminal speeches on this topic? Draw a line in the sand?
Did the GOP-controlled Congress fix this dastardly plot by Clinton to destroy our capital markets, they controlled everything for six years (2000-2006)?
Did men in Flying Saucers take over the GOP in that time frame?
Remember, our financial system collapsed in 2008---after eight years of Bush White House. The collapse appeared to catch Bush jr. by surprise--at least he said so. This is stewardship?
You mean Clinton inserted obvious time bombs into our financial system, and Bush jr. did nothing for eight years?
And, after the UFOs left the White House carrying Bush jr., Obama took over...and found Vincent Foster's body in the basement. Next to Jimmy Hoffa's. And his phony birth certificate.
Benjamin, try to think outside of your bifurcated universe. It doesn't matter if it was Democrats or Republicans, because they are the same thing. They are just different factions with their own fetishes. It's like arguing about the differences between the Bloods and the Crips. It is the power that matters, and the only way to control it is to destroy the monopoly of it.
"Where was El Presidente Bush jr. 2000-2008? The GOP-controlled House, Senate and Supreme Court, from 2000-2006?"...
Well pseudo benny how many times are you going to try to float inordinately stupid question that has been answered on multiple occassions?
You just can't accept the fact that your libtard heros in the Democrap party foisted this nonsense off as some sort quasi civil rights crapola...
Ask your boy Chris Dodd... Ask your Barney Frank... Ask Janet Reno...
benji-
yes. he did.
both bush and mccain tried to rein in freddy and fannie.
they were shot down by congressional democrats led by frank, dodd, pelosi etc.
bush started warning against F+F in 2001. in 2003 he called it a systemic risk.
in fall 2003 he tried to create an oversight body for the GSE's and their systemic dangers.
frank shut him down.
he called them "sound" and said they posed no risk and excoriated those claiming they were dangerous as "against affordable housing".
even bubble blind man greenspan was speaking out against them by 2005.
in 2006 mccain tried to regulate them and gave a major speech on the senate floor about it.
the bill barely made it out of the senate banking committee (pure party line vote) and never even went to the floor due to dem resistance.
as ever, you seem to have no command of the facts.
bush warned against the GSE's from the start, but he needed congress to agree in order to do anything. by the time congress woke up, the dems had taken over. even before then, the house was so closely split that there was no way to prevail. F+F were huge buyers of reps. 20 seats in the house are not hard to buy.
the dems had the senate until 2003, which blocked any reform.
there was a tiny window from 2005-7 where anything could have been done. mccain tried. he lost.
ps-
i have no love of george bush jr, but he called this one correctly.
Barney Frank = Wesley Mouch
Morgan-
Gee, funny me. I thought the GOP controlled the White House, the Senate and the House from 2000-2006.
So how did Dodd, or Frank,or men in flying saucers, stop them from altering our financial system in order to strengthen it?
Geoih:
You may be right. The hardcore right-wing authors Redleaf/Vigilante argue that Dems are just small-brained socialist do-gooders, and the GOP'ers are crony capitalists, not true free marketeers.
As I say, GOP stands for "Grifters On Parade."
The lending targets, which were to be implemented on a graduated scale (increasing year after year) were written into law by the Democrats during the Clinton years. The 1992 law required HUD's secretary to make sure housing goals were being met and, every four years, set new goals for Fannie and Freddie. The Republicans, though they tried several times, never had the votes to repeal this legislation or to reform the GSEs.
Bush Administration Tried to Reform Freddie and Fannie Five Years Ago
CBS News
February 19, 2009
Karl Rove, “We were briefed as far back as 2001 about the problems with Fannie and Freddie; in fact, we moved aggressively in 2004 to regulate Fannie and Freddie, actually got a bill through the Senate Banking and Finance Committee only to have it filibustered by [Sen.] Chris Dodd.”
Rove said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “accelerated their imprudent behavior after we attempted to regulate them. They bought almost as much mortgage debt from 2005 through 2008” as they bought in their first 30 years of their existence.
“In fact, in 2003, when we sent our first members of the Cabinet up to talk about this on Capitol Hill, Barney Frank had a hearing in which they basically beat up everybody we sent up there in pretty vociferous language. This is the famous hearing where one of the Democratic members literally says that he is ‘pissed off’ that the administration is even raising this issue,” Rove said.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Gee, funny me. I thought the GOP controlled the White House, the Senate and the House from 2000-2006"...
No pseudo benny, you're not funny, you're pathetic because you can't read and you have no desire to inquire...
There's no one here defending the Republicans, it just so happens that Bush and company were right on this particular situation and you know that since you've been given numerous video links showing how the whole thing spun apart...
Che-
Okay, by your lights and the selective memory of Karl Rove, even though the GOP controlled the House, Senate and White House from 2000-2006, and the House and WH until 2008, and even though they knew they were courting disaster or even a Great Depression, they just couldn't get around a Dodd or a Frank and reform Fannie and Freddie.
And the GOP was scared of those funny little men in Flying Saucers who forced Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to kow-tow to Dodd.
Your "history" does not hold water. You mean Rove knew that we were courting a financial disaster, and had Rove had working majorities in House, Senate and White House, but stood by and let Dodd run the show?
Kind of gives new meaning to the words "feeble and ineffective."
I guess Dick "Sure Shot" Cheney wanted to fix everything too, but Hubert Humphrey's bust in the Vice President mansion held him hostage on this topic.
Geez, it is not even up for debate that Bush tried to stop the GSE market manipulation.
I hope you get paid for all your posts Ben. That is the only explanation I have for your ignorance.
"Gee, funny me. I thought the GOP controlled the White House, the Senate and the House from 2000-2006"
that's because you are stupid.
"The Democratic Party controlled the 107th Congress from January 3 to January 20, 2001 (50/50 tie with Vice President Gore as the deciding vote) and from May 24, 2001 to January 3, 2003 (after Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party to become an Independent and caucus with the Democrats)."
as ever, you have no idea what you are talking about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses
do you even bother trying to get the facts before you spew your nonsense?
also:
as you would know if you had even a 5th grade education, just having a majority in the senate is not enough to get things done.
there are lots of nasty procedural tricks to keep a bill buried in committee or filibustered from a vote.
but you are occluding the real issue in your stupid, repetitive partisan framing of issues:
the government should not be in the mortgage business.
they made this mess, not free markets.
that's the key point.
bush was against this from the start. that is an unarguable fact.
clinton lit the fuse, and congress refused to put it out.
The Clinton administrations's National Housing Strategy had 100Actions. Action 35(page4-5):Home Mortgage Loan-to-Value Flexibility gives direction to the home loan industry. It states:
"Lending institution secondary market investors, mortgage insurers, and other members of the partnership should work collaboratively to reduce homebuyer downpayment requirements."
It looks like all concerned obeyed.
The picture gets ever murkier.
Daniel H. Mudd (born 1956) is the former President and CEO of Fannie Mae, a post he held from 2005-2008.[1]
Mudd was an Officer in the United States Marine Corps and was decorated for his combat service in Beirut.
"In 2000, because of a re-assessment of the housing market by HUD, anti-predatory lending rules were put into place that disallowed risky, high-cost loans from being credited toward affordable housing goals. In 2004, these rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals.[24]
The intent was that Fannie Mae's enforcement of the underwriting standards they maintained for standard conforming mortgages would also provide safe and stable means of lending to buyers who did not have prime credit. As Daniel Mudd, then President and CEO of Fannie Mae, testified in 2007, instead the agency's underwriting requirements drove business into the arms of the private mortgage industry who marketed aggressive products without regard to future consequences: "We also set conservative underwriting standards for loans we finance to ensure the homebuyers can afford their loans over the long term. We sought to bring the standards we apply to the prime space to the subprime market with our industry partners primarily to expand our services to underserved families.
"Unfortunately, Fannie Mae-quality, safe loans in the subprime market did not become the standard, and the lending market moved away from us. Borrowers were offered a range of loans that layered teaser rates, interest-only, negative amortization and payment options and low-documentation requirements on top of floating-rate loans. In early 2005 we began sounding our concerns about this "layered-risk" lending. For example, Tom Lund, the head of our single-family mortgage business, publicly stated, "One of the things we don't feel good about right now as we look into this marketplace is more homebuyers being put into programs that have more risk. Those products are for more sophisticated buyers. Does it make sense for borrowers to take on risk they may not be aware of? Are we setting them up for failure? As a result, we gave up significant market share to our competitors."[25]
Morgan-
Okay, for some brief moments in the 2000s, the Dems controlled the Senate.
Still, Bush jr. was president, and for most of his presidency he had both houses of Congress dominated by the GOP.
And we ran straight into the teeth of the worst financial collapse since the Great Depression. Despite the warnings of many--despite Rove claiming they knew all about the risk as early as 2001.
That's leadership?
But, hey let's blame Clinton.
"But, hey let's blame Clinton."
Yes, let's blame the guy who built the bomb and activated it. That's usually how it works.
Your argument boils down to, "Bush didn't work hard enough to stop the epic disaster created by the Democrats and the Clinton administration."
I'll agree to that, Benji boy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
It's a bubble only after it bursts. Few people predicted the bursting of the housing bubble.
The housing boom raised actual output towards potential output, i.e. closed the output gap around 2004.
A gradual tightening of lending standards, e.g. in 2004, would've led to slow and shallow, rather than sudden and sharp, adjustments in the housing market.
Typically, it's cheaper when imbalances correct slowly rather than suddenly.
benji-
once more, your logic is a joke.
if i put a bomb under your house set to blow up in 8 years, you're saying the explosion would be your fault?
get real.
either you know damn well that undoing a law is MUCH harder than putting it in place (especially if it passes out goodies) and are being totally disingenuous about senate procedures, or your understanding of politics is so limited that you really should not be talking about them at all.
Where was El Presidente Bush jr. 2000-2008? The GOP-controlled House, Senate and Supreme Court, from 2000-2006?
Have you ever heard the word "filibuster"? Dems hate it when they're in control, but they used it to their advantage to stop any attempts to reform Fannie Mae.
Craig-
By the statement of Rove, the Bush White and GOP Congressional leadership knew a huge threat to USA prosperity and security was lurking in our home mortgage markets, planted by the sinister Clinton.
The Bushies controlled all branches of the federal government for most of the 2000-2008 period.
And they let a filibuster get in the way? By one Senator?
BTW, I see no historical record of a filibuster--only second-hand GOP carnival-barkers saying there was a filibuster.
However you slice it, Bush Jr. led us into a financial collapse, intractable wars, and a Great Recession we may never shake off.
Frankly, I think we are going to do a Japan.
Thank you GOP. By your lights, you knew we would financially collapse, but just couldn't break a filibuster. You couldn't balance the federal budget. You couldn't prevent 9/11, you couldn't get bin Laden at Tora Bora, and you never got him.
Dick Cheney did shoot someone during the Bush jr. days, but it wasn't bin Laden.
Is there anything the GOP can do?
Yet another idiotic, fact-free rant from Benji.Unable to dispute the actual facts on the ground, he goes for bluster like his buddy Larry G.
Benji's only good around here for pure mockery.
Let's see.. the Republicans own the Presidency and both houses of Congress and they say Fannie/Freddie are running amok but they can't do a darn thing about it because of one minority Congressman and one minority Senator.
This pretty much sums up the Republican philosophy these days which is pretty much like an irresponsible lout.. who even when he has the power and authority chooses to blame others for what he won't do.
The housing meltdown COULD have been prevented by an ALL REPUBLICAN Presidency and Congress but those guys are fundamentally opposed to that hated "regulation" so they stood by and let the mortgage companies run amok because "regulation" was "wrong".
and now.. we want these same guys back in charge, right?
I LOVE the passive/aggressive blather here.. on one hand.. hammer Obama and praise those who hate regulation and then, of course, on the other hand.. it was minority Congressman Barney and Senator Dodd that stopped the President and both houses of Congress from reining in Fannie/Freddie.
Ya'll do live in a lovely little FAUX-libertarian world.
The authors have posited a premise that is not provable since we do not know what might have happened otherwise. We may have simply had a different disaster.
The Republicans under Bush had both houses of Congress and could have easily removed the "govt distortions" but they did not.
Instead, they ADDED to those distortions by passing govt-taxpayer-subsidized Medicare Part D which has higher unfunded liabilities than Social Security.
so if you listen to some folks here... the Republicans were baaaad under Bush.. but they're still better than Obama...
Lord. Lord.
Larry,
"Instead, they ADDED to those distortions by passing govt-taxpayer-subsidized Medicare Part D which has higher unfunded liabilities than Social Security."
Yeah, dumb move, I agree. The idea for the prescription drug plan came from the Clinton administration, endorsed by Clinton, and was a campaign position of Al Gore's. The final bill Bush signed was half as expensive as the one the Democrats pushed.
Bush should have bucked the benefit momentum generated by the Clinton administration, I totally agree.
Oh, that reminds me, I'm sure you were against "govt-taxpayer-subsidized" Obamacare, right? You aren't a monumental jackass hypocrite, correct?
The housing meltdown COULD have been prevented by an ALL REPUBLICAN Presidency and Congress but those guys are fundamentally opposed to that hated "regulation" so they stood by and let the mortgage companies run amok because "regulation" was "wrong". -- Larry G
Are you "Benji's" idiot twin?
The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.
Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.
The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.
The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.
"There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.
Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.
The New York Times, 2003
Sorry, that had to leave a welt.
The Republicans under Bush ... could have easily removed the "govt distortions" but they did not. Instead, they ADDED to those distortions by passing govt-taxpayer-subsidized Medicare Part D which has higher unfunded liabilities than Social Security. -- Larry G
[Medicare] Part D is now expected to cost taxpayers about 46% less than originally estimated for the period of 2004 to 2013. This is unprecedented in the history of entitlements. Premium costs for seniors are 43% lower than expected. In recent polls, 84% of enrollees say they are satisfied with their coverage, and 95% say their plans work well ...
Forbes
Let me guess, you are just "Benji" posting under another name. It's either that or you are closely related. After all, what are the odds of two people having exactly the same intellectual deficiencies? It has to run in the family.
Daniel H. Mudd (born 1956) is the former President and CEO of Fannie Mae, a post he held from 2005-2008. -- "Benji"
Hmmm, Daniel Mudd. Where have I heard that name before? Oh, that's right:
Internal Freddie Mac documents show that senior executives at the company were warned years ago that they were offering mortgages that could pose dangers to the firm, hurt borrowers and generate more risky loans throughout the industry.
At Fannie Mae, top executives were told it was necessary to develop "underground" efforts to buy subprime mortgages because of competitive pressures, although there were growing risks and borrowers often didn't understand the terms of the loans, documents show.
In a memo to former Freddie chief executive Richard F. Syron and other top executives, former Freddie chief enterprise risk officer David Andrukonis wrote that the company was buying mortgages that appear "to target borrowers who would have trouble qualifying for a mortgage if their financial position were adequately disclosed."
Fannie and Freddie declined to comment, as did Andrukonis. Syron's lawyer did not respond to messages left with his secretary and an e-mail message sent to him. Daniel H. Mudd, Fannie's former chief executive, declined to comment as well.
The documents suggest than Fannie and Freddie knew they were playing a role in shaping the market for some types of risky mortgages. An e-mail to Mudd in September 2007 from a top deputy reported that banks were modeling their subprime mortgages to what Fannie was buying.
Washington Post
Daniel - Let's load up on all this shit, but keep it "underground" - Mudd. And if we do get caught with our pants down, well, it's the private sectors fault.
Che, you're the man!
Good stuff!
Thanks for the links and the work to get them...
"as you would know if you had even a 5th grade education, just having a majority in the senate is not enough to get things done.
there are lots of nasty procedural tricks to keep a bill buried in committee or filibustered from a vote."
And for the most part, we should all be very thankful that it's so difficult for Congress to get things done.
Larry says: "we want these same guys (Republicans) back in charge, right?"
If the Republicans were in charge, they wouldn't have moved to the left.
larry-
you may be even dumber than benji.
so the democrats make a mess and you are going to blame the rebliblicans for not cleaning it up.
yup, that's the left wing philosophy in a nutshell.
blame the right and free markets for our stupidity.
hey, you shudda stopped us, it's your fault.
by your logic, it's your fault if i burn your house down. hey, you should have seen it coming and made sure i didn't.
seriously, can you guys think at all?
Paul.. the "idea" came from Clinton?
How LAME can you get boy?
Tell me how the vote took place and tell me if the Republilcan House or the Republican Senate or the Republican President voted against it?
and you say Clinton make them do it?
and Dodd and Frank made the majority Republican Congress and Presidency not do something about Fannie/Freddie.
You guy are total losers when you get down to blaming what the Republiclans did or did not do on someone else.
re: Obamacare
Hey GUY - do you know WHO advocated the Individual Mandate Health Care Plan in 1993?
Folks like Newt and DeLay and others were in favor it - before they were opposed to it.
The biggest threat to our economy is health care costs going up, on average twice as fast as inflation.
Clinton, then Obama TRIED to do SOMETHING about it but the idiot Republicans, your buddies, said it was baaaaaddd.. and they would repeal and REPLACE it but guess what.. just like their non-existent balanced budget "plan", their health care plan is also AWOL.
total hypocrites.
Where was El Presidente Bush jr. 2000-2008? The GOP-controlled House, Senate and Supreme Court, from 2000-2006?
Why do you expect the party of evil to be any different than the party of stupid on this issue?
" Why do you expect the party of evil to be any different than the party of stupid on this issue?"
... because they CLAIM to be the party of fiscal conservatism?
... because they CLAIM to be the party of fiscal conservatism?
Both parties make false claims about helping individuals but both are all about acquiring and wielding power.
both parties?
Nope. We all know and most Democrats support taxes for more services and are traditionally more tolerant of deficit and debt.
Only Clinton really dealt with that.
TRADITIONALLY, Republicans have claimed the high ground on fiscal conservatism until Bush II where they went haywire and messed up.
and they are STILL messed up...
STILL Yammering about a "spending problem not a revenue problem" even though they cheerfully contributed their share to the deficit and debt and NOW.. REFUSE to want to pay for the DEBTl and REFUSE to provide a list of cuts that total 1.5 trillion even though they have the tea party breathing down their necks.
If the Republicans had any real scruples - they would have done what the Tea Party wanted - and then promptly voted out of office at the next election but at least you could say that they stood by their principles.
You basically have hypocrites in the Republican party these days.
You really can't call the Dems hypocrites because they never claimed to be fiscal conservatives to start with.
If the Republicans had any real scruples - they would have done what the Tea Party wanted - and then promptly voted out of office at the next election but at least you could say that they stood by their principles.
Correct. Republicans are just as intellectually and morally bankrupt as Democrats.
You basically have hypocrites in the Republican party these days.
You really can't call the Dems hypocrites because they never claimed to be fiscal conservatives to start with.
I am not calling them hypocrites for that. I am calling them hypocrites for the damage they have done to the poor and minorities that they profess to care about.
Post a Comment
<< Home