• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Bankers Blame Greenspan

A

Anonymous

Guest
Bankers: Greenspan to Blame for Credit Crisis

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:27 AM


LONDON -- Greedy bankers are routinely blamed for the credit crisis but one British-based poll of -- well, financiers -- spreads the blame more widely.


Gary Jenkins, Head of Fixed Income Research at Evolution Securities, wanted a more specific scapegoat and ran a poll of about 200 mostly fund managers and investors asking them to pick their credit crisis culprit.


Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was the clear winner, picking up 35 percent of the votes. Once considered one of the world's greatest central bankers, he has been widely criticized over the past year for low interest rate policies that helped fuel the credit boom.
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Bankers: Greenspan to Blame for Credit Crisis

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:27 AM


LONDON -- Greedy bankers are routinely blamed for the credit crisis but one British-based poll of -- well, financiers -- spreads the blame more widely.


Gary Jenkins, Head of Fixed Income Research at Evolution Securities, wanted a more specific scapegoat and ran a poll of about 200 mostly fund managers and investors asking them to pick their credit crisis culprit.


Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was the clear winner, picking up 35 percent of the votes. Once considered one of the world's greatest central bankers, he has been widely criticized over the past year for low interest rate policies that helped fuel the credit boom.

Low interest rates had nothing to do with it. Bankers always give themselves a "spread" over and above cost of funds and the Fed has always raised and lowered fed funds rates and prime depending on the various situations..... Bad underwriting guidelines to even initiate and process the loans for unqualified borrowers was the beginning of the end. Now where did that order come from??
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TexasBred said:
Oldtimer said:
Bankers: Greenspan to Blame for Credit Crisis

Tuesday, June 30, 2009 8:27 AM


LONDON -- Greedy bankers are routinely blamed for the credit crisis but one British-based poll of -- well, financiers -- spreads the blame more widely.


Gary Jenkins, Head of Fixed Income Research at Evolution Securities, wanted a more specific scapegoat and ran a poll of about 200 mostly fund managers and investors asking them to pick their credit crisis culprit.


Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan was the clear winner, picking up 35 percent of the votes. Once considered one of the world's greatest central bankers, he has been widely criticized over the past year for low interest rate policies that helped fuel the credit boom.

Low interest rates had nothing to do with it. Bankers always give themselves a "spread" over and above cost of funds and the Fed has always raised and lowered fed funds rates and prime depending on the various situations..... Bad underwriting guidelines to even initiate and process the loans for unqualified borrowers was the beginning of the end. Now where did that order come from??

Eight years after arriving in Washington vowing to spread the dream of homeownership, Mr. Bush is leaving office, as he himself said recently, “faced with the prospect of a global meltdown” with roots in the housing sector he so ardently championed.

There are plenty of culprits, like lenders who peddled easy credit, consumers who took on mortgages they could not afford and Wall Street chieftains who loaded up on mortgage-backed securities without regard to the risk.

But the story of how we got here is partly one of Mr. Bush’s own making, according to a review of his tenure that included interviews with dozens of current and former administration officials.

From his earliest days in office, Mr. Bush paired his belief that Americans do best when they own their own home with his conviction that markets do best when let alone.

He pushed hard to expand homeownership, especially among minorities, an initiative that dovetailed with his ambition to expand the Republican tent — and with the business interests of some of his biggest donors. But his housing policies and hands-off approach to regulation encouraged lax lending standards.[/b]

Mr. Bush did foresee the danger posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage finance giants. The president spent years pushing a recalcitrant Congress to toughen regulation of the companies, but was unwilling to compromise when his former Treasury secretary wanted to cut a deal. And the regulator Mr. Bush chose to oversee them — an old prep school buddy — pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency.

As early as 2006, top advisers to Mr. Bush dismissed warnings from people inside and outside the White House that housing prices were inflated and that a foreclosure crisis was looming. And when the economy deteriorated, Mr. Bush and his team misdiagnosed the reasons and scope of the downturn; as recently as February, for example, Mr. Bush was still calling it a “rough patch.”

The result was a series of piecemeal policy prescriptions that lagged behind the escalating crisis.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/business/21admin.html?_r=3
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Everyone wanted home ownership and it had always been earned. CRA and repeal of Glass Stegall by Bill Clinton insured that mortgages were more easily obtained by minorities....only in the last few years when subprime ARM's came due did everything start caving in. Imagine now if the remaining 90% of us now revolt against Barracko and refuse to make mortgage payments.......what will solution be to that?? Blame Bush??
 

Tex

Well-known member
I think you are both right. Bill Clinton did go with the money and undo regulations like the Glass Stegall which prevented investment banks and commercial banks from virtually and actually combining. We had already been put through this before with the Great Depression. Greed will bring down the system and so will betting with other people's money which is exactly what Glass Stegall was supposed to prevent.

Clinton went with the money and the ill advice of Phil Gramm who claimed their self interests would keep the greedy in line. Unfortunately, when you gamble with other people's money (depositors), you don't have those same self interests.

The other big part that swept public money in was the too big to fail problem.

We allowed them to get too big to fail. There should be no company in existence that is too big to fail no matter what kind of "efficiencies" they claim in the short run. The risk is too great and the payout when they do fail too costly.

I personally am not happy that these commercial banks did not lose all their money and that the fed is allowing them to regain everything through their yield spreads. All managers who "broke the bank" should be barred from the industry and from being in management in companies. They should also find themselves stripped of the money they made with civil actions that efficiently strip them of the money they made during the boom time they helped paid off politicians create.

You just can't be allowed to gamble with other people's money the way they did. If you do that kind of gambling, you should have the assets that can be lost without taxpayers stepping in and saving butt.

We had a total sell out of short term gain for long term instability that included Clinton and republicans so it was bipartisan sell out of the public.

We should hold more people accountable but they have bought themselves get out of trouble cards from politicians who take their money rather than make sure government works in the public interest.

Greenspan kept interest rates low with the help of two (really three) big things that allowed him to do it:

1) Reduction of inflationary pressures through imports from countries with manipulated currencies and oppressed countries

2) Reduction of inflationary pressures through wage and labor pressures that the above allowed

3) Purchase of U.S. debt by the countries (and that earned dollars through the above two items that gave them huge trade surpluses.

The whole scam was not easily seen by the common man but helped undermine the economy and we have to deal with their long term consequences now.



Tex
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Since the Bush Bust began- and the Bush Bailout took place- along with all the taxmoney that was stuck in afterwards- it has proven the "free market capitalism" system (that hasn't truly existed in 200 years) can no longer exist without strong government regulation-oversight- and policing-- and it will (hopefully) take 70 years again before they trust the crooked GREEDY wallstreet and banking/financing/investing and insurance industries with an administration that just believes in looking the other way....
 

hopalong

Well-known member
BEAT IT BEAT IT ,dance to the music, BEAT IT BEAT IT lets all bash BUSH
Could it be oldtimer is mike jackson in drag???? He gets a tune in his head and BEATS IT!!!!!! :wink: :wink:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
At what point do people question the organization and not the individual.

Blaming Greenspan, without looking at the historical and present actions and policies of the FED, will do nothing to correct the problem.

And increasing the amount of oversight and control of the FED, without an independent audit, would most definitely be destructive.

Who's holding up the audit?

"To understand how unwise it is to have the Federal Reserve, one must first understand the magnitude of the privileges they have," Paul wrote in a recent Straight Talk commentary. "They have been given the power to create money, by the trillions, and to give it to their friends, under any terms they wish, with little or no meaningful oversight or accountability."

He's even said Congress should "reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy."


A couple dozen more members of Congress have signed on as co-sponsors to a plan from Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, that would subject the Federal Reserve to an audit, bringing to 245 the supporters so far.

That's well beyond the 218 who constitute a majority in the U.S. House, yet the bill remains in the House Judiciary Committee, where it was introduced with just a handful of supporters.
 

Lonecowboy

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
At what point do people question the organization and not the individual.

Blaming Greenspan, without looking at the historical and present actions and policies of the FED, will do nothing to correct the problem.

And increasing the amount of oversight and control of the FED, without an independent audit, would most definitely be destructive.

Who's holding up the audit?

"To understand how unwise it is to have the Federal Reserve, one must first understand the magnitude of the privileges they have," Paul wrote in a recent Straight Talk commentary. "They have been given the power to create money, by the trillions, and to give it to their friends, under any terms they wish, with little or no meaningful oversight or accountability."

He's even said Congress should "reassert its constitutional authority over monetary policy."


A couple dozen more members of Congress have signed on as co-sponsors to a plan from Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, that would subject the Federal Reserve to an audit, bringing to 245 the supporters so far.

That's well beyond the 218 who constitute a majority in the U.S. House, yet the bill remains in the House Judiciary Committee, where it was introduced with just a handful of supporters.

with 245 co-sponsors what is holding this up hypo??
who"s leading the house judicary committee??
who's leading the house??
What will it take for it to move foreward??
What can we do to see this move foreward??
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Since the Bush Bust began- and the Bush Bailout took place- along with all the taxmoney that was stuck in afterwards- it has proven the "free market capitalism" system (that hasn't truly existed in 200 years) can no longer exist without strong government regulation-oversight- and policing-- and it will (hopefully) take 70 years again before they trust the crooked GREEDY wallstreet and banking/financing/investing and insurance industries with an administration that just believes in looking the other way....

And that's why your boy brought in a crooked GREEDY Wall Street schmuck to run the treasury? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Top