|
|
Post by aztec70 on Sept 16, 2012 8:12:47 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Sept 16, 2012 12:04:07 GMT -8
I could not decide if I should just ignore this because it is Reich or go ahead and read it. This is actually a little better than his usual offering in that he identifies the big banks as obvious bad guys. The rest of his piece makes little to no sense. This printing of more money just insures inflation down the road. It rewards folks who buy things (gold, stock, houses, etc.) and imposes the cruelest tax of all on the poor. That would be inflation. He has no idea of who creates jobs or the engine behind job creation. This guy is not quite as dumb as Krugman but he is giving him a run for his money. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Oct 4, 2012 14:28:02 GMT -8
I could not decide if I should just ignore this because it is Reich or go ahead and read it. This is actually a little better than his usual offering in that he identifies the big banks as obvious bad guys. The rest of his piece makes little to no sense. This printing of more money just insures inflation down the road. It rewards folks who buy things (gold, stock, houses, etc.) and imposes the cruelest tax of all on the poor. That would be inflation. He has no idea of who creates jobs or the engine behind job creation. This guy is not quite as dumb as Krugman but he is giving him a run for his money. Banks the bad guys? Under Clinton and continuing under Bush a little program to increase home ownership forced banks, against their will, under threat of lawsuit, to make home loans to those who would not otherwise qualify. That was the cause of all the bad paper that eventually caused problems when the housing bubble burst. Then, as they do, government blamed everyone else, and placed strict regulations so they wouldn't do what the government forced them to do before. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 4, 2012 15:40:55 GMT -8
I could not decide if I should just ignore this because it is Reich or go ahead and read it. This is actually a little better than his usual offering in that he identifies the big banks as obvious bad guys. The rest of his piece makes little to no sense. This printing of more money just insures inflation down the road. It rewards folks who buy things (gold, stock, houses, etc.) and imposes the cruelest tax of all on the poor. That would be inflation. He has no idea of who creates jobs or the engine behind job creation. This guy is not quite as dumb as Krugman but he is giving him a run for his money. Banks the bad guys? Under Clinton and continuing under Bush a little program to increase home ownership forced banks, against their will, under threat of lawsuit, to make home loans to those who would not otherwise qualify. That was the cause of all the bad paper that eventually caused problems when the housing bubble burst. Then, as they do, government blamed everyone else, and placed strict regulations so they wouldn't do what the government forced them to do before. Part of the deal was that the big banks knew they had been singled out as too big to fail. They were the bad guys in the sense that they not only made bad loans, but also created financial investment instruments that we so complicated that nobody knew what was in them. Loans of all different sizes and quality were bundled and sold both long and short. Now the fall out is that the regulation has become so onerous and complicated that the banks, although flush with money are very hesitant to loan. Maybe calling the banks the "bad guys" when Fannie and Freddie with government prodding were making those bubble loans is a little too much painting them all with the same brush. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecBill on Oct 5, 2012 12:36:19 GMT -8
Banks the bad guys? Under Clinton and continuing under Bush a little program to increase home ownership forced banks, against their will, under threat of lawsuit, to make home loans to those who would not otherwise qualify. That was the cause of all the bad paper that eventually caused problems when the housing bubble burst. Then, as they do, government blamed everyone else, and placed strict regulations so they wouldn't do what the government forced them to do before. Part of the deal was that the big banks knew they had been singled out as too big to fail. They were the bad guys in the sense that they not only made bad loans, but also created financial investment instruments that we so complicated that nobody knew what was in them. Loans of all different sizes and quality were bundled and sold both long and short. Now the fall out is that the regulation has become so onerous and complicated that the banks, although flush with money are very hesitant to loan. Maybe calling the banks the "bad guys" when Fannie and Freddie with government prodding were making those bubble loans is a little too much painting them all with the same brush. Once the government forces them to make bad loans what would you have them do? The government also had the carrot of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac who helped the banks package the loans. That was the carrot and the threat of lawsuits was the stick. The banks were middle men for the governments big plans. It is bad politics to stand up for the banks, so everyone gets a one sided view of the bubble and its consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 5, 2012 13:58:16 GMT -8
The reason for the mortgage mess was the way that mortgage originators were compensated. They were compensated by quantity of loans, not quality of their loans. That is a recipe for making bad loans.
|
|
