Contributors

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Shocked (Not)

Well, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission report is in. The collapse of 2008 was caused by:
  • Excessive borrowing and risk-taking by households and Wall Street.
  • Systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels.
  • Corporate Mismanagement, Ineptitude and Greed
  • Widespread failures in financial regulation.
  • Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance.
  • Policy makers who were ill prepared for the crisis.
The best part, though? The report definitively proves through undeniable facts that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac  were not the cause of the problem and, in fact, followed Wall Street and the sum prime companies into their maze of greed and insanity.

Of course, this didn't stop Peter Wallison from offering up his lone dissent, described quite eloquently by Joe Nocera in a recent New York Times article.

Or that Peter Wallison, the American Enterprise Institute scholar and the fourth Republican F.C.I.C. commissioner, had already released his own, one-man dissent — a lonely, loony cri de coeur that placed the blame for the financial crisis entirely on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and federal home ownership policies, a position so contrary to the facts that even his fellow Republican commissioners did not agree with him.

The commission’s analysis of the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — a hotly contested battleground — is utterly persuasive. You may recall a few months ago, when I scoffed at Mr. Wallison’s contention that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were ground zero for the financial crisis, he told me that he had seen internal documents that would prove him right. His dissent does not deliver the goods. Instead, it is the report itself that is chock-a-block with internal documents conclusively showing that the two government-sponsored entities followed Wall Street and the subprime companies off the cliff, rather than the other way around.

I'm certain that we will continue to hear cries of Fannie/Freddie for years to come. No doubt we will also continue to hear the mouth foaming about  the Community Reinvestment Act as being the problem. Both of these canards are rooted in the anaphylaxis about entitlements and illustrate a clear denial of what caused the problem which is so eloquently detailed in the report.

None of this is anything new to me, of course. I've been saying it for months if not years now. And I don't really hold out much hope, even if Elizabeth Warren does, that the new finreg bill will help. Until there are real consequences for greed (jail and/or liquidation of all assets) and a decided shift in how our country defines success (intrinsically as opposed to extrinsically), we don't be getting anywhere.

I do take heart, though, that Inside Job was nominated for an Academy Award.

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

What is that name they give the last guy picked in the NFL draft? It's right on the tip of my tongue.....

juris imprudent said...

Anyone who believes that bipartisan, national policy in support of home ownership had no part in this is either a) a partisan scumbag covering his party's ass (and in the process licking the ass of the other party), or b) dumber than a box of rocks.

Though it does occur to me that those two are not mutually exclusive choices.

Mark Ward said...

Funny that you bring up the NFL, anon. Stay tuned for my post on super bowl sunday...:)

Juris, what drove the run up to the collapse was not a government policy but greed. It's just that simple. People could make more money off of risky loans to people that had no chance on paying them back. There is so much evidence for this that I'm not certain what else you would need to convince you.

And it wasn't lower income people owning homes that drove this market into the ditch. It was the people who made 500K a year that wanted a 10 million dollar home. These are the loans from Las Vegas and Los Angeles where the sub prime boom began. You can't look at the lower income loans as any sort of significance because the numbers simply don't add up. The real money was always in the higher end loans and that's what really caused the flood, if you will.

But it was the lower income people that ended up paying dearly for it by losing their homes and ending up on the street. It was all due to the shenanigans of people who can never have enough money.

juris imprudent said...

Juris, what drove the run up to the collapse was not a government policy but greed.

There were many factors, and sure, greed was one. Arrogance and stupidity factors in there too. I don't deny any of that. But you deny any policy angle at all. You cannot criticize the govt - it isn't in you (except when Republicans are running the show).

And it wasn't lower income people owning homes that drove this market into the ditch. It was the people who made 500K a year that wanted a 10 million dollar home.

You are just barking mad. First you lie outrageously and now you deny simple and incontrovertible reality. Repubs and Dems pushed home ownership as THE American Dream, but you just have to blame the evil rich. Plenty of middle class people were flipping homes in the hope of becoming rich, but people who actually had money didn't need to throw it into real estate speculation. Hey by the way, when did you or your family become qualified investors? You know, part of that class of people you hate so ferociously.

GuardDuck said...

4 of 10 committee members dissented.


Yup, sounds definitive to me too.....

Anonymous said...

I do take heart, though, that Inside Job was nominated for an Academy Award.

That's hardly surprising. Ever since "An Inconvenient Truth", the "Best Documentary" category has morphed into "Best Propaganda Film".

Mark Ward said...

Have you seen it yet? Just because I like it doesn't mean it's a propaganda piece. Last in Line saw it and called it "House of Cards on steroids." No one is spared from criticism and it is a very factual and reasoned film. The hardest hit are the academics, Wall Streeters, and a lot of the folks from the Clinton era...Rubin, Greenspan. President Obama is criticized for hiring Geithner and Sommers-both of whom are ripped two new ones.

Go see it and judge for yourself.

Anonymous said...

No, I haven't. Nor am I likely to, unless I can see it for free. I read the Wikipedia entry on it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_%28film%29

"rip-snorting [and] indignant [with] support from interviews with Nouriel Roubini, Barney Frank, George Soros, Eliot Spitzer, Charles R. Morris and others."

Let me ask you, Mark. If you saw a review for a film about the financial meltdown produced by Glenn Beck, featuring interviews with Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Paul Ryan, Darrell Issa and Michael Savage, would you assume it must be factual and objective? And would you be willing to pay them to tell you only their side of the story?

No, just because you like it doesn't mean it's a propaganda piece. But just because all of its featured people are liberal Democrats, with no input from the other side, does make its objectivity doubtful in the extreme.

I'd find it much easier to believe the Boston Globe (hardly a conservative news source) when they say "Barney Frank's fingerprints were all over the financial meltdown", simply because you know they'd support him if they felt like they had the choice.

And regardless of whether it's a propaganda piece, ever since Inconvenient Truth" won an Academy Award that bit of information does zilch for its credibility.

Mark Ward said...

Well, then by your refusal to see it, that essentially makes me more knowledgeable on the matter. I check for bias on everything I read and, while everything is biased, this film is pretty straight up about its points. All administrations from Reagan to Obama are equally blamed. The other side of this (which I will be talking about in a post soon) is how there was clearly illegal activity and yet not a single prosecution. Not one.

I've heard the Beck-Palin-Limbaugh side and I didn't have to pay to see it. They think the meltdown was caused by government entitlements. They are factually wrong.

And more beating on Al Gore, eh? He just can't be right, can he? It would mean the end of the world.

GuardDuck said...

Here's as good as summary as any...


https://rwcg.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/pretending-and-the-financial-crisis/

juris imprudent said...

I check for bias on everything I read

For example he predominately uses very biased sources like politifact and TPM.

this film is pretty straight up about its points.

What did they have to say about the housing bubble M? Anything?

how there was clearly illegal activity and yet not a single prosecution

That's pretty damning of the current Administration, isn't it? Of course, they wouldn't want to prosecute people they employ, would they? Still hoping for some Change?

They think the meltdown was caused by government entitlements.

Really, I've never heard that theory - got a link?

It would mean the end of the world.

Funny, but isn't that exactly what Gore preaches - the end of the world? Sinners, repent!!!

Anonymous said...

I check for bias on everything I read...

You do? So in other words, you knew that politifact's "Biggest Lie of 2010" story about "government controlled healthcare" was based on the opinion of someone who thinks a single payer system does not qualify as "government controlled healthcare" and posted it as "proof" anyway?

That's a very revealing admission.

Anonymous said...

You've basically just admitted that you define "factual" = "agrees with your personal prejudices".

Mark Ward said...

Interesting read, Guard Duck. I think I'm going to use it for an upcoming post on the financial crisis and the lack of prosecutions.

Juris-There is a difference between Politifact and TPM. The former is unbiased and presents just as many measurements of Democrats as Republicans. The latter is a left leaning biased site.

They had a lot to say about the housing bubble. Go see the film. It is damning of the current administration. Sommers and Geithner are revealed to have an enormous role in what went down. They should be held accountable just like everyone else. As I said, every administration from Reagan to Obama (especially Clinton's) is shown to be at fault. That's why I chuckle at the howls of liberal bias.

Go read Kevin's posts and comments on the CRA and Fannie/Freddie. HotAir and Big Government have dozens of posts as well. Fox News, Limbaugh and all of them have said the same thing with no blame whatsoever on the financial sector.

juris imprudent said...

M if you believe politifact is unbiased, say like factcheck, then you don't even know what bias is.

They had a lot to say about the housing bubble. Go see the film.

Funny, but I haven't read that from anyone who's reviewed the film. I may go see it - I had friend who also highly recommended it, besides, I don't mind picking apart the Riefenstahl-esque elements.

Go read...

As usual, no specific link - just a general wave of the hands in the direction of the Internet. If you don't understand, or more likely refuse to accept, how home ownership was pushed by both parties over many years then you will never understand the nature of the housing bubble and how that was the source of 80% of the problem.

Mark Ward said...

Well, you'll have to show me how it is biased, juris, because they put a ton of posts up about the Democrats as well. Remember, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's biased.

Since Kevin has changed his site, I find it hard to link to things there and, honestly, I don't spend that much time reading it anymore. It's the same thing over and over again with zero reflection. Since I think you still do, just wait until the topic comes up again and you'll see what I'm talking about.

I do understand that home ownership was pushed by both parties but that's not why our economy went in the shitter in 2008. It's factually wrong to say that it was 80 percent of the problem. 100 percent of the problem was unchecked greed. Fannie and Freddie followed the market not the other way around. The loans that did the most damage were the ALT A loans that were from higher income folks, not lower income folks.

Here was my post on it back in 2008.

http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2008/10/usual-crap.html

In essence, it was the wealthy that gambled with our money and, as of today, have not seen a single day of jail time.

Anonymous said...

Well, you'll have to show me how it is biased...

Well let's look at their "independent health care experts" for their "Lie of the Year: Government Run Health Care" story.

Uwe Reinhardt, $2,300 Obama donor:

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/November/29/Fiscal-Times-Reinhardt.aspx

Jonathan Oberlander, "Professor of Health Policy"... only he's actually a political scientist. The fact that he thinks single payer doesn't qualify as "socialized medicine" tells you his political viewpoint, no?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16962482

Maggie Mahar:

http://www.healthbeatblog.org/2007/10/universal-cover.html

Definitely a healthcare expert, huh? Um, no, actually her specialty is English Lit.:

http://www.healthbeatblog.org/about-maggie-mahar.html

And of course, the Century Foundation is absolutely objective, it's neither liberal nor conservative, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_Foundation

Wrong.

Meanwhile they dismiss completely the positions of the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute. Cato is Libertarian rather than "conservative", but perhaps they're color blind in that range. They chose not to include the thoughts of, say, Michael Cannon:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10576

The closest they have to a Republican, let alone a conservative, on their interview list, is Gail Wilensky:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America%27s_Affordable_Health_Choices_Act_of_2009#Medicare_issues

"These changes would save $196 billion from Medicare over 10 years and removing wasteful subsidies to insurers for Medicare Advantage pland would save a further $156 billion according to the CBO.[68] Gail Wilensky, a deputy assistant to President Bush Snr advising him on health and welfare issues from 1992–1993 and previously a director of Medicare and Medicaid has expressed concern that this might affect seniors access to health care if the changes are made too quickly..."

Politifact declines to quote her, though. What a coincidence.

Bias? What bias?

Anonymous said...

Apparently you consider them "unbiased" because they do what you so often do: Declare opinions that agree with your own to be "facts", and opinions that disagree with yours to be "lies".

juris imprudent said...

I do understand that home ownership was pushed by both parties but that's not why our economy went in the shitter in 2008.

If you don't think the housing bubble wasn't a huge factor (maybe not 80%, maybe more), then you are just being wilfully blind.

The loans that did the most damage were the ALT A loans that were from higher income folks, not lower income folks.

Yep, you've got your narrative, and no evidence is going to convince you otherwise. Keep it up Fred.

Mark Ward said...

Well, juris, now we are playing the word smithing game again. The Housing Bubble was a factor...I agree...but not the forced ownership by government angle. The market drove that due to the high end payoffs. You could make a lot more money predatory lending.

And it's not a narrative. It's not my responsibility to read the facts for you. That's on you. The information is there if you want to read it. If not, your opinion is not as informed as mine is.

Mark Ward said...

Anonymous,

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/feb/07/fact-checking-bill-oreillys-interview-barack-obama/

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/jan/25/fact-checking-obamas-state-union-speech/

http://factcheck.org/2011/02/obamas-tax-tale/

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/01/obamas-state-of-the-union-address/

Should I go on? Actually, do you ever read either site? It seems that you don't. More likely, you also have heard a few things on there you don't like (re: health care) so now you think they are biased.

juris imprudent said...

The Housing Bubble was a factor...I agree...but not the forced ownership by government angle.

No one said the govt forced ownership - any more than mortgages companies forced people to take loans. Sheesh. The point is about the many incentives, supported by both parties, and selling the American Dream.

The market drove that due to the high end payoffs.

What? The housing market went up because lots (arguably too many) people were chasing the housing stock. Everyone wanted to get into a home either as part of the American Dream(tm), or to get rich because real estate was only going up, up, UP! I suppose you could say both, since getting rich quick (and easy) is a time honored Amercan scam, er I mean tradition.

Given that bubbles burst - and usually cause a fair amount of pain when they do, there's your story. You prefer to believe in nefarious plots by evil, cigar smoking robber barons. If that is what you want to believe, so be it.

Just like you believing that some rich person took $40K out of your investments. Life is hard when there isn't someone to be blamed.

Mark Ward said...

I don't think that a rich person took my 40K. The facts are that the rich person (to use your term) used my money to gamble, in a fit of insatiable greed, which resulted in a lost of 20 trillion dollars (including my 40K).

And your other questions betray your lack of knowledge which is why you need to do more research. The financial sector...specifically the people that came up with products like the CDO...made more money off of the higher risk loans.

Anonymous said...

I should know better than to argue with someone who can't distinguish between facts and opinions.

To take an example, in your first link, the part where it says that yes, Obama has too raised taxes... those are factual accounts. Not because I say so, but because they are matters of public record, they are known taxes, stated as such when they were enacted, that yes, Obama's signature is on. You don't need an "expert" to tell you whether or not those things happened, you only need to have the ability to read.

Compare and contrast with the "government health care" story. That one takes the opinions of people who agree with Obama and presents them as if they were fact. To be sure, they do have facts supporting their opinions, but so do Cato and Heritage.

Apparently you've decided that they are unbiased based on the fact that they don't always fall in line with the Obama Administration, and whether they use actual facts or not in any given instance is completely beside the point.

I really do wish I could say I was surprised by that, I really do.

brendan said...

Anonymous, go fuck yourself. Mark's too polite to say it so I will.

You are describing yourself when it comes to facts and opinions, not him. You don't like the government being involved in health care so that's why you think they are opinions. Your link above from the Cato institute is from a libertarian and very biased source. These are dismissed completely because they are opinions that are geared towards a biased conclusion. What's more is Mark has also proved you wrong by showing that Politifact and Factcheck are unbiased in that each calls out Democrats as well as Republicans. You just happen to agree with the lies Republicans are telling because they suit you and that's why you are acting like a complete cock right now.

Aren't you also one of several who accuse Mark of engaging in genetic fallacies? What a hypocrite.

Mark Ward said...

Hey, this post is off the page and people are still commenting on it. Weird. Maybe they were smart enough to set up the notification for email:)

Not telling people to fuck off has no relation to politeness, brendan. When someone is as deluded as our anonymous friend here, it's pointless and cruel. It's pointless because they will never change. The word reflection isn't in their vocabulary. In their minds, they are never wrong. It might be nice someday to see them admit failure on the part of some conservative ideas but their brains just aren't wired that way.

And it's cruel in the same way it would be cruel to make fun of someone who is mentally challenged. It doesn't make them stupid if their brains don't work that way. It's actually pretty fucking sad. Of course, they could just be willfully ignorant or be engaging in childish games but I've been assured by the commenters here that neither is the case. So, the only logical conclusion is that they have some sort of disability which leads them to such a mental pathology.

I could be wrong, of course, but I can't honestly see any other explanation. It's like making fun of Bush because he can't speak very well. I used to do it and I was wrong to do so. He has dyslexia and if someone makes fun of him...calling him "Chimpy" etc. then that person is no worse than someone else calling a black man a nigger. Or a person with a disability a retard.

So, making fun and getting angry isn't my bag anymore. If there isn't willful ignorance, than there must be some sort of disability. Asperger's maybe?

juris imprudent said...

What's more is Mark has also proved you wrong by showing that Politifact and Factcheck are unbiased in that each calls out Democrats as well as Republicans.

M rarely consults factcheck which is not biased. He frequently runs to politifact which is a partisan hackery wet-dream.

Poor brendan is unable to distinguish the two, whereas M is smart enough to only use the one that reliably backs up liberal positions.