Another Good Month On The Jobs Front...unemployment Drops To 5.9%

[bigrebnc1775]

Economy gains 248 000 jobs as hiring rebounds

The labor market rebounded sharply in September as employers added 248,000 jobs, the second largest gain for any month this year.
The unemployment rate fell to 5.9% from 6.1%, lowest since July 2008, the Labor Department said Friday.

What types of jobs? Are they requiring people to take up more than one job to make a decent living?

THE TYPE THAT GAWWDDDAM 'FREE MARKET' PROVIDES.


The Republican Myth of Obama’s ‘Part-Time America’ Gets Destroyed With One Graph

The president's critics love this talking point. But since 2010, full-time jobs are up 7.6 million, and part-time jobs have declined by more than 900,000.


Here s What Obama s Part-Time America Really Looks Like - The Atlantic

You know what's amusing to me, Dad? You look at that graph as "proof" that ObamaCare didn't cause an increase in part-time employment based on the fact that the ACA went into effect AFTER the huge rise in part-time employment! What that shows ME is that American businesses saw the ACA coming and went to part-time jobs instead of full-time jobs in advance of the start of ACA regulations kicking in.

Only a dumb ass would not see it that way.

Or someone with a brain and sees the actual RESULTS

HERE IS BLS TO BACK IT UP

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Here is from the same people dumb ass
Don't stumble and hurt yourself trying to make more shit up.

 

[TooTall]

It peaked under Clinton. And then started falling. Congress didn't change.

Congress changed in 2007 you miserable asshole.

Pelosi took over in 2007, and the unemployment rate was 4.6 percent.

You stupid illiterate dick.

Just ONE bill that substantially changed Dubya's policies? lol

MORON


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”
FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This actually started on Clintons watch. And, what did anything that Bush did cause a decline in home prices?

The U.S.subprime mortgage crisis was a nationwide banking emergency that coincided with the U.S. recession of December 2007-June 2009. It was triggered by a large decline in home prices, resulting in mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures and the devaluation of housing-related securities.

Subprime mortgages grew from 5% of total originations ($35 billion) in 1994,to 20% ($600 billion) in 2006

In 1998 Brooksley E. Born, head of theCommodity Futures Trading Commission, put forth a policy paper asking for feedback from regulators, lobbyists, legislators on the question of whether derivatives should be reported, sold through a central facility, or whether capital requirements should be required of their buyers. Greenspan, Rubin, and Levitt pressured her to withdraw the paper and Greenspan persuaded Congress to pass a resolution preventing CFTC from regulating derivatives for another six months — when Born's term of office would expire.Ultimately, it was the collapse of a specific kind of derivative, the mortgage-backed security, that triggered the economic crisis of 2008.

Exactly. I wish more people grasped this. It wasn't all derivatives. The types of derivatives that do not have capital requirements, are the types that did not crash.

The types that crashed were mortgage backed securities, and specifically, sub-prime mortgage backed securities. And those securities do have capital requirements. All the requirements in the world, would not have prevented the crash.

A lot of people don't get this either. Capital requirements in Europe and Canada, are *LOWER* than they are here.... and yet the crash stated HERE. The problem was not a lack of regulation. The problem was regulation that pushed bad loans.

MORE garbage. I'm shocked, no really I am

PLEASE tell me what regulations Dubya/GOP passed that required this to happen:

It would've been 2003?

YOU KNOW WHERE WE WENT FROM ABOUT $200 TO OVER $600 BILLION A YEAR IN SUBPRIMES?

One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.


It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.

More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.

The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion.

The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.


Lest We Forget Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

You post this. "One president controlled the regulators............"

and then you post this. "The lenders who made these (loans) were exempt from federal regulations."

If the lenders were exempt from regulation, what good did it do to have control of the regulators?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Economy gains 248 000 jobs as hiring rebounds

The labor market rebounded sharply in September as employers added 248,000 jobs, the second largest gain for any month this year.
The unemployment rate fell to 5.9% from 6.1%, lowest since July 2008, the Labor Department said Friday.

46% of college grads are underemployed at jobs that don't require a degree.

September employment numbers indicate 7.1 million are involuntarily working part-time for economic reasons (little change from a month ago)

Household income of American families is lower now, adjusted for inflation, than when efforts for a recovery began.

How exactly is the economy getting better?



sources:
College grads are underemployed but a degree is still worth it - Sep. 4 2014

Employment Situation Summary

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/2...about-economic-good-times.html?referrer=&_r=0

 

[edthecynic]

No matter how many times you pretend not to know the difference between people and a %, you were still lying when you claimed there were "MORE PEOPLE" in the labor force under Bush when he left office than now.

Moron people make up the participation rate. fewer PEOPLE means less participation meaning the numbers will drop,
Naturally being a dumb ass obama supporter you will never comprehend that. Try to say something else and say you won doesn't work with me dumb ass.

Obviously not always as the number of people in the labor force increased and the LPR fell. Again, demographics can have a greater effect on the LPR than economic conditions, as is happening now, which is why the LPR cannot be considered without taking into account the effect of demographics.

DUMB FUCK
fewer PEOPLE WORKING MEANS THE PARTICIPATION RATE WILL DROP
WHAT IS 2+2?

Here we go again, you still don't know what a "person" is! You probably think a corporation is a "person."

When Bush left office there were 142,152,000 people working and there are 146,600,000 people working now. That's more people working as the LPR drops. In fact there are more people working now then at any time in our history and yet the LPR drops. This is exactly why the LPR is such a lousy economic indicator, DEMOGRAPHICS can cause the LPR to drop whether the number of people working is increasing or decreasing. That is why nobody made a peep while the LPR fell and there were 80 million not working under Bush.

Stupid there is no here we go again it's all you dumbass it's all you. You are to god damn stupid to understand the participation rate REPRESENTS PEOPLE.

No. it represents a %. People are not %s.

 

[Dad2three]

Congress changed in 2007 you miserable asshole.

Pelosi took over in 2007, and the unemployment rate was 4.6 percent.

You stupid illiterate dick.

Just ONE bill that substantially changed Dubya's policies? lol

MORON


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”
FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This actually started on Clintons watch. And, what did anything that Bush did cause a decline in home prices?

The U.S.subprime mortgage crisis was a nationwide banking emergency that coincided with the U.S. recession of December 2007-June 2009. It was triggered by a large decline in home prices, resulting in mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures and the devaluation of housing-related securities.

Subprime mortgages grew from 5% of total originations ($35 billion) in 1994,to 20% ($600 billion) in 2006

In 1998 Brooksley E. Born, head of theCommodity Futures Trading Commission, put forth a policy paper asking for feedback from regulators, lobbyists, legislators on the question of whether derivatives should be reported, sold through a central facility, or whether capital requirements should be required of their buyers. Greenspan, Rubin, and Levitt pressured her to withdraw the paper and Greenspan persuaded Congress to pass a resolution preventing CFTC from regulating derivatives for another six months — when Born's term of office would expire.Ultimately, it was the collapse of a specific kind of derivative, the mortgage-backed security, that triggered the economic crisis of 2008.

Exactly. I wish more people grasped this. It wasn't all derivatives. The types of derivatives that do not have capital requirements, are the types that did not crash.

The types that crashed were mortgage backed securities, and specifically, sub-prime mortgage backed securities. And those securities do have capital requirements. All the requirements in the world, would not have prevented the crash.

A lot of people don't get this either. Capital requirements in Europe and Canada, are *LOWER* than they are here.... and yet the crash stated HERE. The problem was not a lack of regulation. The problem was regulation that pushed bad loans.

MORE garbage. I'm shocked, no really I am

PLEASE tell me what regulations Dubya/GOP passed that required this to happen:

It would've been 2003?

YOU KNOW WHERE WE WENT FROM ABOUT $200 TO OVER $600 BILLION A YEAR IN SUBPRIMES?

One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.


It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.

More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.

The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion.

The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.


Lest We Forget Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

You post this. "One president controlled the regulators............"

and then you post this. "The lenders who made these (loans) were exempt from federal regulations."

If the lenders were exempt from regulation, what good did it do to have control of the regulators?

Weird you don't get that the REGULATORS were the FBI SEC, Fed Res, etc. The regulation I'm talking about is CRA, HUD, etc. It was a Bankster created WALL STREET WORLD WIDE BUBBLE AND BUST. Why?

The old loan and leave it it on the books was replaced with SECURITIZATION (Not by Fannie/Freddie who dominated UNTIL Dubya's 2004-2007 ponzi scheme)...


Abstract:

U.S. policymakers often treat market competition as a panacea. However, in the case of mortgage securitization, policymakers’ faith in competition is misplaced.

Competitive mortgage securitization has been tried three times in U.S. history - during the 1880s, the 1920s, and the 2000s - and every time it has failed. Most recently, competition between mortgage securitizers led to a race to the bottom on mortgage underwriting standards that ended in the late 2000s financial crisis.


This article provides original evidence that when competition was less intense and securitizers had more market power, securitizers acted to monitor mortgage originators and to maintain prudent underwriting. However, securitizers’ ability to monitor originators and maintain high standards was undermined as competition shifted market power away from securitizers and toward originators.

Although standards declined across the market, the largest and most powerful of the mortgage securitizers, the Government Sponsored Enterprises (“GSEs”), remained more successful than other mortgage securitizers at maintaining prudent underwriting.

Competition and Crisis in Mortgage Securitization by Michael Simkovic SSRN

This link explains it well

Lest We Forget Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

 

[Dad2three]

What types of jobs? Are they requiring people to take up more than one job to make a decent living?

THE TYPE THAT GAWWDDDAM 'FREE MARKET' PROVIDES.


The Republican Myth of Obama’s ‘Part-Time America’ Gets Destroyed With One Graph

The president's critics love this talking point. But since 2010, full-time jobs are up 7.6 million, and part-time jobs have declined by more than 900,000.


Here s What Obama s Part-Time America Really Looks Like - The Atlantic

You know what's amusing to me, Dad? You look at that graph as "proof" that ObamaCare didn't cause an increase in part-time employment based on the fact that the ACA went into effect AFTER the huge rise in part-time employment! What that shows ME is that American businesses saw the ACA coming and went to part-time jobs instead of full-time jobs in advance of the start of ACA regulations kicking in.

Only a dumb ass would not see it that way.

Or someone with a brain and sees the actual RESULTS

HERE IS BLS TO BACK IT UP

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Here is from the same people dumb ass
Don't stumble and hurt yourself trying to make more shit up.

Weird you start 3 years into Dubya's term? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Is it 'job creators' that create jobs or the Prez?




Hell, IF the 'job creators' don't do it, why are their effective tax rates less than half of what they were in the 1940-'s and 1950's? Yes, Dubya lost over 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years, Obamaa has had over 6.6 million NET created under him, so of course it's the socialists who is the problem, lol

Job creators create jobs presidential policy can kill jobs. Like obamacare If a job creator is being forced to pay for helthcare coverage he'll start laying off employees

Yes, thats why Dubya/GOP policies for 8 years, since the Dems couldn't change ANYTHING, woprked so well, they lost over 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs. Under Obama, SINCE Obamacares has passed OVER 10+ MILLION private sector jobs have been created. Horrible

ACA PASSED FEB 2010

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

DUMB PUSSY
Using the chart I posted people losing their jobs didn't happen until after obama and the democrats took control of the government.
You are one ignorant bastard.

Cool, NOW IF you had just ONE bill the Dems pased that caused Dubya's ponzi scheme to fail? lol

Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”


FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



PERHAPS IT'S NOT TO LATE TO GROW A BRAIN BUBBA?

I keep telling you that you have no god damn facts. You do understand this correct?

Let me guess, poor people of color and Barney caused it right? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Household wealth rises 1.7 to record level

"But the wealth gains are flowing mainly to affluent Americans. Broad stock market averages have jumped more than 150% from their trough in the spring of 2009. But roughly 10% of households own about 80% of stocks."

The rich got richer...and the Middle Class continues to get screwed by this Administration. Remember that the next time you see Barry waxing eloquent on how much he's THERE for the Middle Class! It's all political theater!

lol

80% of the population owns 5% of the wealth.

Who Rules America Wealth Income and Power

The middle class has been eviscerated.

Neo-Liberalism/Conservatives is/has destroyed the
American Economy in favor of the so called "Job Creator"... In reality are "Job Exporters"...


"We crashed the economy but we don't like the way you tried to fix it." - GOP.

Dude, the Middle Class has been "eviscerated" by the Obama Administration not by the GOP! Under Barack Obama the richest Americans got much richer and the Middle Class got poorer.

Jobs are being exported because the US has the highest Corporate tax rate in the world and you Progressives are too stubborn to admit that not lowering it is costing the US jobs and business growth.

Did ANY of you liberals take economics in college? It's obvious that Barry didn't...

Grow a brain

30+ years problem, one Obama inherited, remember fall 2008? Remember 2001-2009? ANYTHING?

Highest Corp tax rate? Oh you mean that thing almost any comp that COULD move out of the US DOESN'T pay? You know since it's the EFFECTIVE rate that matters, and it hit 40+ year lows around 12% ON RECORD CORP INCOME!!!

BTW, Obama proposed lowering it to 28% and getting rid of loopholes, what did the party of NO say again? lol

Weird IF jobs were moving overseas, why, when the GOP had the Congress for MOST of 15 years, they did NOTHING with the 'highest corp tax rate' in the world? Oh because it's more important to look at EFFECTIVE rates!

Do you even think about this nonsense you post? If the "effective" rate was low then companies WOULDN'T be moving overseas to escape the US corporate tax rate.

Read the following and see why they ARE!

The U.S. Corporate Effective Tax Rate Myth and the Fact Tax Foundation

Reality Check: Effective U.S. Corporate Tax Rate Much Lower Than Most Other Developed Nations


U.S. corporate taxes that were actually paid (the effective rate) fell to a 40 year low of 12.1 percent in fiscal year 2011, despite corporate profits rebounding to their pre-Great Recession heights. The U.S. both taxes its corporations less and raises less in revenue from corporate taxes than its foreign competitors:

As billionaire investor Warren Buffett has said, “it is a myth” that U.S. corporate taxes are high. “Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness,” Buffett added.

Of course, it is theoretically possible to lower the U.S. corporate income tax rate while simultaneously raising revenue to help reduce the federal deficit by closing loopholes and cracking down on tax havens. But Republicans have absolutely no interest in that.

Reality Check Effective U.S. Corporate Tax Rate Much Lower Than Most Other Developed Nations ThinkProgress


July 2013


GAO U.S. corporations pay average effective tax rate of 12.6%

GAO U.S. corporations pay average effective tax rate of 12.6 - Jul. 1 2013


Expert debunks claim U.S. corporate taxes are too high


The 35 percent statutory U.S. corporate tax rate is the highest in the world. But according to a paper published earlier this month by University of Southern California law professor Edward Kleinbard, many companies don't pay anywhere near that much due to the plethora of loopholes in the tax code.


"It is true of course that the federal corporate tax rate -- nominally, 35 percent -- is too high relative to world norms, and that the ersatz territorial system requires firms to waste money in tax planning and structuring, but effective marginal tax rates and overall effective tax rates reach the level of the U.S. headline rate only when firms studiously ignore the feast of tax planning opportunities laid out before them on the groaning board of corporate tax expenditures," he wrote in the 32-page paper.

Other tax experts have made the same point as Kleinbard. A report by the advocacy group Citizens for Tax Justice noted that 111 of the 288 companies it examined paid zero or less in federal taxes in at least one year from 2008 and 2012.


Expert debunks claim U.S. corporate taxes are too high - CBS News


Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of Federal Revenue

1955 . . . 27.3%
2010 . . . 8.9%

Corporate Taxes as a Percentage of GDP

1955 . . . 4.3%
2010 . . . 1.3%

Individual Income/Payrolls as a Percentage of Federal Revenue

1955 . . . 58.0%
2010 . . . 81.5%

Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High

 

[Oldstyle]

Dude, you just cited Think Progress...do you not understand that they are a laughably biased source that would tell you the sun rises in the west and sets in the east if it suited their political agenda?

 

[Oldstyle]

People that still have W's picture as their avatar six YEARS after he left the Oval Office amuse me. I'm sorry, little camper but it's not W's fault at this point if it ever WAS! What's taking place in the country and around the world right now are the direct results of Barack Obama's policies or lack thereof.

If Barry was a CEO of company brought in to replace an outgoing CEO and six years later he was still blaming a lack of performance on the man he took over for...he would definitely be getting replaced himself.

 

[Dad2three]

Or this article...

The U.S. Ranks 32nd Out Of 34 OECD Countries In Tax Code Competitiveness - Forbes

Bernie Sanders Is Right and the Tax Foundation Is Wrong: The U.S. Has Very Low Corporate Income Taxes


Effective Tax Rates vs. Nominal or Statutory Tax Rates

The U.S. statutory tax rate of 35 percent is almost entirely irrelevant. The effective corporate tax rate (what corporations actually pay as a percentage of their profits) is what matters, and it’s far lower than the statutory corporate tax rate because of the loopholes that allow corporations to avoid taxes. The U.S. effective corporate tax rate is also far lower than the Tax Foundation claimed in a written response to Senator Sanders.

While the statutory corporate income tax rate for the U.S. may be high compared to those of other countries, the total federal corporate income tax collected in the U.S. in 2010 was equal to just 1.3 percent of our gross domestic product — in other words, 1.3 percent of our total economic output — according to the Treasury Department. The figure is 1.6 percent of GDP when state corporate income taxes are included

...In addition, effective corporate tax rates (on non-pass-through corporations) are very low in the United States, as CTJ has demonstrated in its comprehensive corporate tax reports.
.
...The Tax Foundation Relies on Flawed Research

Bernie Sanders Is Right and the Tax Foundation Is Wrong The U.S. Has Very Low Corporate Income Taxes CTJReports



The Myth of High Corporate Taxes. Again.

In reality, the U.S. is near the bottom of the developed world in the taxes that are actually paid by corporations. American corporate tax revenue is about 25% lower than the OECD average and the average corporate tax rate is among the five lowest of the OECD countries — and less than half that of the UK and Australia.


The Myth of High Corporate Taxes. Again.

 

[Dad2three]

People that still have W's picture as their avatar six YEARS after he left the Oval Office amuse me. I'm sorry, little camper but it's not W's fault at this point if it ever WAS! What's taking place in the country and around the world right now are the direct results of Barack Obama's policies or lack thereof.

If Barry was a CEO of company brought in to replace an outgoing CEO and six years later he was still blaming a lack of performance on the man he took over for...he would definitely be getting replaced himself.

You mean the size and depth of the hole Dubya/GOP drove US into doesn't matter? The FACT that under Obama, over 10+ million PRIVATE sector jobs have been created since Obamacares passed in Feb 2010? While Dubya lost over 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years?

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

I guess the owners of the comp didn't like either Gramps or Mittens and decided to stick with the guy who pulled US out of Dubya's/GOP great recession instead right? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Dude, you just cited Think Progress...do you not understand that they are a laughably biased source that would tell you the sun rises in the west and sets in the east if it suited their political agenda?

You realize there are at least 5 different links in there about it? And really? Ad homs is what you have? lol

 

[Dad2three]

Economy gains 248 000 jobs as hiring rebounds

The labor market rebounded sharply in September as employers added 248,000 jobs, the second largest gain for any month this year.
The unemployment rate fell to 5.9% from 6.1%, lowest since July 2008, the Labor Department said Friday.

46% of college grads are underemployed at jobs that don't require a degree.

September employment numbers indicate 7.1 million are involuntarily working part-time for economic reasons (little change from a month ago)

Household income of American families is lower now, adjusted for inflation, than when efforts for a recovery began.

How exactly is the economy getting better?



sources:
College grads are underemployed but a degree is still worth it - Sep. 4 2014

Employment Situation Summary

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/08/2...about-economic-good-times.html?referrer=&_r=0

Glad you agree the 'job creators' aren't doing what they promised with their lowest SUSTAINED tax burden for 80+ years, time to get back to getting them to pay their fair share if they get less than half the effective tax rates they had 1in the 1940's and 1950's on 300%+ more share of the pie!!!
'

 

[Dad2three]

Congress changed in 2007 you miserable asshole.

Pelosi took over in 2007, and the unemployment rate was 4.6 percent.

You stupid illiterate dick.

Just ONE bill that substantially changed Dubya's policies? lol

MORON


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”
FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This actually started on Clintons watch. And, what did anything that Bush did cause a decline in home prices?

The U.S.subprime mortgage crisis was a nationwide banking emergency that coincided with the U.S. recession of December 2007-June 2009. It was triggered by a large decline in home prices, resulting in mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures and the devaluation of housing-related securities.

Subprime mortgages grew from 5% of total originations ($35 billion) in 1994,to 20% ($600 billion) in 2006

In 1998 Brooksley E. Born, head of theCommodity Futures Trading Commission, put forth a policy paper asking for feedback from regulators, lobbyists, legislators on the question of whether derivatives should be reported, sold through a central facility, or whether capital requirements should be required of their buyers. Greenspan, Rubin, and Levitt pressured her to withdraw the paper and Greenspan persuaded Congress to pass a resolution preventing CFTC from regulating derivatives for another six months — when Born's term of office would expire.Ultimately, it was the collapse of a specific kind of derivative, the mortgage-backed security, that triggered the economic crisis of 2008.

Exactly. I wish more people grasped this. It wasn't all derivatives. The types of derivatives that do not have capital requirements, are the types that did not crash.

The types that crashed were mortgage backed securities, and specifically, sub-prime mortgage backed securities. And those securities do have capital requirements. All the requirements in the world, would not have prevented the crash.

A lot of people don't get this either. Capital requirements in Europe and Canada, are *LOWER* than they are here.... and yet the crash stated HERE. The problem was not a lack of regulation. The problem was regulation that pushed bad loans.

MORE garbage. I'm shocked, no really I am

PLEASE tell me what regulations Dubya/GOP passed that required this to happen:

It would've been 2003?

YOU KNOW WHERE WE WENT FROM ABOUT $200 TO OVER $600 BILLION A YEAR IN SUBPRIMES?

One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.


It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.

More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.

The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion.

The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.


Lest We Forget Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

You post this. "One president controlled the regulators............"

and then you post this. "The lenders who made these (loans) were exempt from federal regulations."

If the lenders were exempt from regulation, what good did it do to have control of the regulators?

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html

FBI saw threat of loan crisis

It has the potential to be an epidemic,"

A top official warned of widening mortgage fraud in 2004, but the agency focused its resources elsewhere

"We think we can prevent a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis,"

They ended up with fewer resources, rather than more.

FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times

Again, the Bush Administration gutted the White Collar Crime Division after 911.

(1,800 agents out of 'white collar' criminal division)


More from the NYtimes:

During these years, the bureau asked for an increase of $800 million, but received only $50 million more. In the 2007 budget cycle, the F.B.I. obtained money for a total of one new agent for criminal investigations.


In 2004, one senior F.B.I. official, Chris Swecker, warned publicly that a flood of fraudulent mortgage deals had the potential to become “an epidemic.”
Yet the next year, as public warnings about fraud in the subprime lending markets began to approach their height, the F.B.I. had the equivalent of only 15 full-time agents devoted to mortgage fraud out of a total of some 13,000 agents in the bureau.
That number has grown to 177 agents, who have opened 1,522 cases. But the staffing level is still hundreds of agents below the levels seen in the 1980s during the savings and loan crisis.


Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:


Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

 

[Oldstyle]

People that still have W's picture as their avatar six YEARS after he left the Oval Office amuse me. I'm sorry, little camper but it's not W's fault at this point if it ever WAS! What's taking place in the country and around the world right now are the direct results of Barack Obama's policies or lack thereof.

If Barry was a CEO of company brought in to replace an outgoing CEO and six years later he was still blaming a lack of performance on the man he took over for...he would definitely be getting replaced himself.

You mean the size and depth of the hole Dubya/GOP drove US into doesn't matter? The FACT that under Obama, over 10+ million PRIVATE sector jobs have been created since Obamacares passed in Feb 2010? While Dubya lost over 1,000,000+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years?

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

I guess the owners of the comp didn't like either Gramps or Mittens and decided to stick with the guy who pulled US out of Dubya's/GOP great recession instead right? lol

Barack Obama has "led" the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression. We've spent trillions of dollars on his progressive economic agenda and it created so few jobs that he was forced to come up with a new economic statistic "jobs created or saved" to hide how bad it was!

You continue to use misleading statistics to hide the ineptness of this Administration when it comes to economics. The following is from FactCheck.Org:

"The economy as of June had gained just over 4.8 million jobs since Obama took office in January 2009. The unemployment rate has declined to 6.1 percent, which is 1.7 points lower than when he took office and 3.9 points lower than it was at its worst point during October 2009."

 

[TooTall]

Just ONE bill that substantially changed Dubya's policies? lol

MORON


Q When did the Bush Mortgage Bubble start?

A The general timeframe is it started late 2004.

From Bush’s President’s Working Group on Financial Markets October 2008

“The Presidents Working Group’s March policy statement acknowledged that turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007.”
FACTS on Dubya s great recession US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This actually started on Clintons watch. And, what did anything that Bush did cause a decline in home prices?

The U.S.subprime mortgage crisis was a nationwide banking emergency that coincided with the U.S. recession of December 2007-June 2009. It was triggered by a large decline in home prices, resulting in mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures and the devaluation of housing-related securities.

Subprime mortgages grew from 5% of total originations ($35 billion) in 1994,to 20% ($600 billion) in 2006

In 1998 Brooksley E. Born, head of theCommodity Futures Trading Commission, put forth a policy paper asking for feedback from regulators, lobbyists, legislators on the question of whether derivatives should be reported, sold through a central facility, or whether capital requirements should be required of their buyers. Greenspan, Rubin, and Levitt pressured her to withdraw the paper and Greenspan persuaded Congress to pass a resolution preventing CFTC from regulating derivatives for another six months — when Born's term of office would expire.Ultimately, it was the collapse of a specific kind of derivative, the mortgage-backed security, that triggered the economic crisis of 2008.

Exactly. I wish more people grasped this. It wasn't all derivatives. The types of derivatives that do not have capital requirements, are the types that did not crash.

The types that crashed were mortgage backed securities, and specifically, sub-prime mortgage backed securities. And those securities do have capital requirements. All the requirements in the world, would not have prevented the crash.

A lot of people don't get this either. Capital requirements in Europe and Canada, are *LOWER* than they are here.... and yet the crash stated HERE. The problem was not a lack of regulation. The problem was regulation that pushed bad loans.

MORE garbage. I'm shocked, no really I am

PLEASE tell me what regulations Dubya/GOP passed that required this to happen:

It would've been 2003?

YOU KNOW WHERE WE WENT FROM ABOUT $200 TO OVER $600 BILLION A YEAR IN SUBPRIMES?

One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.


It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.

More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.

The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion.

The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.


Lest We Forget Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

You post this. "One president controlled the regulators............"

and then you post this. "The lenders who made these (loans) were exempt from federal regulations."

If the lenders were exempt from regulation, what good did it do to have control of the regulators?

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html

FBI saw threat of loan crisis

It has the potential to be an epidemic,"

A top official warned of widening mortgage fraud in 2004, but the agency focused its resources elsewhere

"We think we can prevent a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis,"

They ended up with fewer resources, rather than more.

FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times

Again, the Bush Administration gutted the White Collar Crime Division after 911.

(1,800 agents out of 'white collar' criminal division)


More from the NYtimes:

During these years, the bureau asked for an increase of $800 million, but received only $50 million more. In the 2007 budget cycle, the F.B.I. obtained money for a total of one new agent for criminal investigations.


In 2004, one senior F.B.I. official, Chris Swecker, warned publicly that a flood of fraudulent mortgage deals had the potential to become “an epidemic.”
Yet the next year, as public warnings about fraud in the subprime lending markets began to approach their height, the F.B.I. had the equivalent of only 15 full-time agents devoted to mortgage fraud out of a total of some 13,000 agents in the bureau.
That number has grown to 177 agents, who have opened 1,522 cases. But the staffing level is still hundreds of agents below the levels seen in the 1980s during the savings and loan crisis.


Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:


Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

I repeat:

The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion.

The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

 

[JWBooth]

Economy gains 248 000 jobs as hiring rebounds

The labor market rebounded sharply in September as employers added 248,000 jobs, the second largest gain for any month this year.
The unemployment rate fell to 5.9% from 6.1%, lowest since July 2008, the Labor Department said Friday.

Now if the rest of the formerly employed would drop out of the job market, Boiking could report 0 percent unemployment

 

[Dad2three]

This actually started on Clintons watch. And, what did anything that Bush did cause a decline in home prices?

The U.S.subprime mortgage crisis was a nationwide banking emergency that coincided with the U.S. recession of December 2007-June 2009. It was triggered by a large decline in home prices, resulting in mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures and the devaluation of housing-related securities.

Subprime mortgages grew from 5% of total originations ($35 billion) in 1994,to 20% ($600 billion) in 2006

In 1998 Brooksley E. Born, head of theCommodity Futures Trading Commission, put forth a policy paper asking for feedback from regulators, lobbyists, legislators on the question of whether derivatives should be reported, sold through a central facility, or whether capital requirements should be required of their buyers. Greenspan, Rubin, and Levitt pressured her to withdraw the paper and Greenspan persuaded Congress to pass a resolution preventing CFTC from regulating derivatives for another six months — when Born's term of office would expire.Ultimately, it was the collapse of a specific kind of derivative, the mortgage-backed security, that triggered the economic crisis of 2008.

Exactly. I wish more people grasped this. It wasn't all derivatives. The types of derivatives that do not have capital requirements, are the types that did not crash.

The types that crashed were mortgage backed securities, and specifically, sub-prime mortgage backed securities. And those securities do have capital requirements. All the requirements in the world, would not have prevented the crash.

A lot of people don't get this either. Capital requirements in Europe and Canada, are *LOWER* than they are here.... and yet the crash stated HERE. The problem was not a lack of regulation. The problem was regulation that pushed bad loans.

MORE garbage. I'm shocked, no really I am

PLEASE tell me what regulations Dubya/GOP passed that required this to happen:

It would've been 2003?

YOU KNOW WHERE WE WENT FROM ABOUT $200 TO OVER $600 BILLION A YEAR IN SUBPRIMES?

One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.


It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.

More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.

The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion.

The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.


Lest We Forget Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

You post this. "One president controlled the regulators............"

and then you post this. "The lenders who made these (loans) were exempt from federal regulations."

If the lenders were exempt from regulation, what good did it do to have control of the regulators?

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html

FBI saw threat of loan crisis

It has the potential to be an epidemic,"

A top official warned of widening mortgage fraud in 2004, but the agency focused its resources elsewhere

"We think we can prevent a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis,"

They ended up with fewer resources, rather than more.

FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times

Again, the Bush Administration gutted the White Collar Crime Division after 911.

(1,800 agents out of 'white collar' criminal division)


More from the NYtimes:

During these years, the bureau asked for an increase of $800 million, but received only $50 million more. In the 2007 budget cycle, the F.B.I. obtained money for a total of one new agent for criminal investigations.


In 2004, one senior F.B.I. official, Chris Swecker, warned publicly that a flood of fraudulent mortgage deals had the potential to become “an epidemic.”
Yet the next year, as public warnings about fraud in the subprime lending markets began to approach their height, the F.B.I. had the equivalent of only 15 full-time agents devoted to mortgage fraud out of a total of some 13,000 agents in the bureau.
That number has grown to 177 agents, who have opened 1,522 cases. But the staffing level is still hundreds of agents below the levels seen in the 1980s during the savings and loan crisis.


Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:


Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

I repeat:

The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion.

The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

YES, ONCE MORE

Things like COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT

About 70% of loans 2004-2007 were made by MORTGAGE BROKERS not traditional banks, who had to reach GOALS AND UNDERWRITING STANDARDS!


That sentence is in DIRECT refutation of this type of comment

"It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp."


Lest We Forget Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes


CONTEXT? lol. Nope, not from you.


Failure to regulate the non-depository banking system (also called the shadow banking system) has also been blamed

The non-depository system grew to exceed the size of the regulated depository banking system, but the investment banks, insurers, hedge funds, and money market funds were not subject to the same regulations


Get the Report Conclusions Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission

 

[Dad2three]

This actually started on Clintons watch. And, what did anything that Bush did cause a decline in home prices?

The U.S.subprime mortgage crisis was a nationwide banking emergency that coincided with the U.S. recession of December 2007-June 2009. It was triggered by a large decline in home prices, resulting in mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures and the devaluation of housing-related securities.

Subprime mortgages grew from 5% of total originations ($35 billion) in 1994,to 20% ($600 billion) in 2006

In 1998 Brooksley E. Born, head of theCommodity Futures Trading Commission, put forth a policy paper asking for feedback from regulators, lobbyists, legislators on the question of whether derivatives should be reported, sold through a central facility, or whether capital requirements should be required of their buyers. Greenspan, Rubin, and Levitt pressured her to withdraw the paper and Greenspan persuaded Congress to pass a resolution preventing CFTC from regulating derivatives for another six months — when Born's term of office would expire.Ultimately, it was the collapse of a specific kind of derivative, the mortgage-backed security, that triggered the economic crisis of 2008.

Exactly. I wish more people grasped this. It wasn't all derivatives. The types of derivatives that do not have capital requirements, are the types that did not crash.

The types that crashed were mortgage backed securities, and specifically, sub-prime mortgage backed securities. And those securities do have capital requirements. All the requirements in the world, would not have prevented the crash.

A lot of people don't get this either. Capital requirements in Europe and Canada, are *LOWER* than they are here.... and yet the crash stated HERE. The problem was not a lack of regulation. The problem was regulation that pushed bad loans.

MORE garbage. I'm shocked, no really I am

PLEASE tell me what regulations Dubya/GOP passed that required this to happen:

It would've been 2003?

YOU KNOW WHERE WE WENT FROM ABOUT $200 TO OVER $600 BILLION A YEAR IN SUBPRIMES?

One president controlled the regulators that not only let banks stop checking income but cheered them on. And as president Bush could enact the very policies that caused the Bush Mortgage Bubble and he did. And his party controlled congress.


It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it.

More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.

The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion.

The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.


Lest We Forget Why We Had A Financial Crisis - Forbes

You post this. "One president controlled the regulators............"

and then you post this. "The lenders who made these (loans) were exempt from federal regulations."

If the lenders were exempt from regulation, what good did it do to have control of the regulators?

The "turmoil in financial markets clearly was triggered by a dramatic weakening of underwriting standards for U.S. subprime mortgages, beginning in late 2004 and extending into 2007," the President's Working Group on Financial Markets OCT 2008


DUBYA FOUGHT ALL 50 STATE AG'S IN 2003, INVOKING A CIVIL WAR ERA RULE SAYING FEDS RULE ON "PREDATORY" LENDERS!

Dubya was warned by the FBI of an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud in 2004. He gave them less resources. Later in 2004 Dubya allowed the leverage rules to go from 12-1 to 33-1 which flooded the market with cheap money!

Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime

Predatory lending was widely understood to present a looming national crisis.

What did the Bush administration do in response? Did it reverse course and decide to take action to halt this burgeoning scourge?

Not only did the Bush administration do nothing to protect consumers, it embarked on an aggressive and unprecedented campaign to prevent states from protecting their residents from the very problems to which the federal government was turning a blind eye

In 2003, during the height of the predatory lending crisis, the OCC invoked a clause from the 1863 National Bank Act to issue formal opinions preempting all state predatory lending laws, thereby rendering them inoperative

washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html

FBI saw threat of loan crisis

It has the potential to be an epidemic,"

A top official warned of widening mortgage fraud in 2004, but the agency focused its resources elsewhere

"We think we can prevent a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis,"

They ended up with fewer resources, rather than more.

FBI saw threat of loan crisis - Los Angeles Times

Again, the Bush Administration gutted the White Collar Crime Division after 911.

(1,800 agents out of 'white collar' criminal division)


More from the NYtimes:

During these years, the bureau asked for an increase of $800 million, but received only $50 million more. In the 2007 budget cycle, the F.B.I. obtained money for a total of one new agent for criminal investigations.


In 2004, one senior F.B.I. official, Chris Swecker, warned publicly that a flood of fraudulent mortgage deals had the potential to become “an epidemic.”
Yet the next year, as public warnings about fraud in the subprime lending markets began to approach their height, the F.B.I. had the equivalent of only 15 full-time agents devoted to mortgage fraud out of a total of some 13,000 agents in the bureau.
That number has grown to 177 agents, who have opened 1,522 cases. But the staffing level is still hundreds of agents below the levels seen in the 1980s during the savings and loan crisis.


Shockingly, the FBI clearly makes the case for the need to combat mortgage fraud in 2005, the height of the housing crisis:


Financial Crimes Report to the Public 2005

The Bush Rubber Stamp Congress ignored the obvious and extremely detailed and well reported crime spree by the FBI.

I repeat:

The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion.

The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

The non-depository banking system grew to exceed the size of the regulated depository banking system. However, the investment banks, insurers, hedge funds, and money market funds within the non-depository system were not subject to the same regulations as the depository system, such as depositor insurance and bank capital restrictions. Many of these institutions suffered the equivalent of a bank run with the notable collapses of Lehman Brothers and AIG during September 2008 precipitating a financial crisis and subsequent recession.[

The FCIC report explained how this evolving system remained ineffectively regulated: "In the early part of the 20th century, we erected a series of protections—the Federal Reserve as a lender of last resort, federal deposit insurance, ample regulations—to provide a bulwark against the panics that had regularly plagued America’s banking system in the 19th century. Yet, over the past 30-plus years, we permitted the growth of a shadow banking system—opaque and laden with shortterm debt—that rivaled the size of the traditional banking system.

In a June 2008 speech, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, then President and CEO of the NY Federal Reserve Bank, placed significant blame for the freezing of credit markets on a "run" on the entities in the "parallel" banking system, also called the shadow banking system.

These entities became critical to the credit markets underpinning the financial system, but were not subject to the same regulatory controls.


Further, these entities were vulnerable because they borrowed short-term in liquid markets to purchase long-term, illiquid and risky assets.
Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia