FACTS on Dubya's great recession

[Dad2three]

You can call him a loon all you want, he was 100% correct and knew what was happening while morons like Krugman were pushing for a real estate bubble due to moribund investments. Regardless of that, the real estate bubble was pumped, as explained by Paul, when the NASDAQ bubble burst. That was 2000-2001. THAT is when the bubble was being pushed to the danger point, as was warned. And less than 5 years later it came true with 100% accuracy on why by Paul.

But anyone who isn't fucking retarded, must be a loon.





I'm done with you now, shit stain. You've proven to be too stupid to debate this issue with. Toro proved it before, I just did it again and yet you persist. You're insane.

Got it, you'll hang onto right wing bullshit and lies. Krugman didn't do that, BTW, ANOTHER right wing lie. I'm shocked

Another Day, Another Slander of Krugman


Subprime mortgage lending jumped dramatically during the 2004-2006 period preceding the crisis (source: Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Report



Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

 

[Dad2three]

You can call him a loon all you want, he was 100% correct and knew what was happening while morons like Krugman were pushing for a real estate bubble due to moribund investments. Regardless of that, the real estate bubble was pumped, as explained by Paul, when the NASDAQ bubble burst. That was 2000-2001. THAT is when the bubble was being pushed to the danger point, as was warned. And less than 5 years later it came true with 100% accuracy on why by Paul.

But anyone who isn't fucking retarded, must be a loon.





I'm done with you now, shit stain. You've proven to be too stupid to debate this issue with. Toro proved it before, I just did it again and yet you persist. You're insane.

Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up



The boom and bust was global. Proponents of the Big Lie ignore the worldwide nature of the housing boom and bust.

A McKinsey Global Institute report noted “from 2000 through 2007, a remarkable run-up in global home prices occurred.” It is highly unlikely that a simultaneous boom and bust everywhere else in the world was caused by one set of factors (ultra-low rates, securitized AAA-rated subprime, derivatives) but had a different set of causes in the United States. Indeed, this might be the biggest obstacle to pushing the false narrative.




CRA were less likely to default than Subprime Mortgages — Source: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.

Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards.

Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing laws overseen by either Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or the Community Reinvestment Act — Source: McClatchy


Examining the big lie: How the facts of the economic crisis stack up | The Big Picture

 

[Toro]

You've shown only that you don't understand the nature of bubbles. You have not shown how regulatory changes in the US could cause bubbles in multiple countries. You've shown an ignorance of what has happened in other countries.

That's because you are wrong.

By their own words, the Fed implicitly acknowledges their role in the housing crisis. Fed members today talk about setting monetary policy that doesn't destabilize asset markets in ways they never did in the past.

Got it dickweed you'll stick with AEI talking points despite EVIDENCE that Dubya policy allowed the subprime bubble to explode in the US as the Banksters created a WORLD WIDE CREDIT BUBBLE

The basic structure of the adjustable-rate mortgages that lenders used to grow the subprime market was premised on continued house appreciation. Once the housing bubble peaked subprime ARM loans suddenly became extremely prone to default.



NOT THE FED


I noted earlier that the most important source of lower initial monthly payments, which allowed more people to enter the housing market and bid for properties, was not the general level of short-term interest rates, but the increasing use of more exotic types of mortgages and the associated decline of underwriting standards. That conclusion suggests that the best response to the housing bubble would have been regulatory, not monetary. Stronger regulation and supervision aimed at problems with underwriting practices and lenders' risk management would have been a more effective and surgical approach to constraining the housing bubble than a general increase in interest rates. Moreover, regulators, supervisors, and the private sector could have more effectively addressed building risk concentrations and inadequate risk-management practices without necessarily having had to make a judgment about the sustainability of house price increases.

Chairman Ben S. Bernanke

Monetary Policy and the Housing Bubble

FRB: Speech--Bernanke, Monetary Policy and the Housing Bubble--January 3, 2010



Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?

According to research by Ambrogio Cesa-Bianchi and Alessandro Rebucci, the housing bubble was caused by "regulatory rather than monetary-policy failures":

Economist's View: Did the Fed Cause the housing Bubble?

Your inability to answer how an international housing bubble was caused by US subprime mortgages, your linking to sites which confuse you, and your Bush Derangement Syndrome are all noted.

 

[Toro]

And Bernanke saying his policies weren't responsible for the Housing Bubble?

Who would have thought?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You can call him a loon all you want, he was 100% correct and knew what was happening while morons like Krugman were pushing for a real estate bubble due to moribund investments. Regardless of that, the real estate bubble was pumped, as explained by Paul, when the NASDAQ bubble burst. That was 2000-2001. THAT is when the bubble was being pushed to the danger point, as was warned. And less than 5 years later it came true with 100% accuracy on why by Paul.

But anyone who isn't fucking retarded, must be a loon.





I'm done with you now, shit stain. You've proven to be too stupid to debate this issue with. Toro proved it before, I just did it again and yet you persist. You're insane.

Got it, you'll hang onto right wing bullshit and lies. Krugman didn't do that, BTW, ANOTHER right wing lie. I'm shocked

Another Day, Another Slander of Krugman


Subprime mortgage lending jumped dramatically during the 2004-2006 period preceding the crisis (source: Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Report



Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

so can you tell us what role Fed Fan Fred played in crisis? Cut and paste tells us you don't know. We could all cut and paste forever- right?

 

[Shanty]

You can call him a loon all you want, he was 100% correct and knew what was happening while morons like Krugman were pushing for a real estate bubble due to moribund investments. Regardless of that, the real estate bubble was pumped, as explained by Paul, when the NASDAQ bubble burst. That was 2000-2001. THAT is when the bubble was being pushed to the danger point, as was warned. And less than 5 years later it came true with 100% accuracy on why by Paul.

But anyone who isn't fucking retarded, must be a loon.





I'm done with you now, shit stain. You've proven to be too stupid to debate this issue with. Toro proved it before, I just did it again and yet you persist. You're insane.

Got it, you'll hang onto right wing bullshit and lies. Krugman didn't do that, BTW, ANOTHER right wing lie. I'm shocked

Another Day, Another Slander of Krugman


Subprime mortgage lending jumped dramatically during the 2004-2006 period preceding the crisis (source: Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Report



Regulators and policymakers enabled this process at virtually every turn. Part of the reason they failed to understand the housing bubble was willful ignorance: they bought into the argument that the market would equilibrate itself. In particular, financial actors and regulatory officials both believed that secondary and tertiary markets could effectively control risk through pricing.


http://www.tobinproject.org/sites/tobinproject.org/files/assets/Fligstein_Catalyst of Disaster_0.pdf

The right wing lie that Krugman called for a bubble is a zombie lie that keeps coming back from the dead, even after on target head shots are administered to right wing zombie liars.
When Someone Says Paul Krugman Called for Greenspan to Create a Housing Bubble Back in 2002, They are Trying to Say That They are Either a Fool or a Liar | Beat the Press

 

[Shanty]

And Bernanke saying his policies weren't responsible for the Housing Bubble?

Who would have thought?

He wasn't the Fed Chair when the bubble started. And most of the loans that were the cause of the bubble bursting were outside of the scope of theFederal Reserve, as it deals with banks.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Right. Trying to recover from the worst recession since the great depression. Suggestions???

OMG of course!! Eliminate corporate taxes so our corps will move back here. THe highest taxes rate in the world make it mandatory to move out. Thats another great liberal policy!!
Capitalism would have recovered economy in a year or less.

RECORD CORP PROFITS, LOWEST TAX BURDEN IN 40+ YEARS (ON US PROFITS)...


Yeah, taxes are driving them offshore *shaking head*


Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High

So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively, in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent, which is well below those existing in most of the industrialized countries around the world. So it is a myth that American corporations are paying 35 percent or anything like it…Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness.


When looking at the rate that corporations actually pay (as opposed to the statutory rate that only exists on paper), the U.S. has the second-lowest corporate tax rate in the developed world, and raises far less than other nations in corporate tax revenue.


Warren Buffett: 'It Is A Myth' That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High | ThinkProgress



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%

Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High

'corporate profits are at an all-time high as a percentage of the economy, wages are at an all-time low.'

'Last year, corporations made a record $824 billion, which didn’t stop conservatives from continually claiming that President Obama is anti-business.'
Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High | ThinkProgress

Lol@ Buffett on taxes when virtually all of his acquisitions are structured as tax free exchanges of stock.

Next up Hannibal Letter shares his favorite finger food recipe for unexpected summer visitors

 

[Toro]

And Bernanke saying his policies weren't responsible for the Housing Bubble?

Who would have thought?

He wasn't the Fed Chair when the bubble started. And most of the loans that were the cause of the bubble bursting were outside of the scope of theFederal Reserve, as it deals with banks.

He was on the Federal Reserve Board and supported the policies of Greenspan. They don't call him Helicopter Ben for nothing.

The Fed sets and influences the price of credit. The reason why so much subprime was created in the first place was because yield starved institutions needed higher income to meet liabilities. That subprime and alt-A made its way into the derivatives machine, which were purchased by banks, pensions, insurance cos, etc. because similarly- rated product paid 30-40 bps over, a chasm in fixed income land.

Yes, the market went haywire with all these garbage securities. But the source was the mispricing of credit.

 

[Rshermr]

I am glad you mentioned GDP.

Right. Trying to recover from the worst recession since the great depression. Suggestions???

OMG of course!! Eliminate corporate taxes so our corps will move back here. THe highest taxes rate in the world make it mandatory to move out. Thats another great liberal policy!!
Capitalism would have recovered economy in a year or less.

Problem is, me poor ignorant con tool, is you can not show a single time when lowering taxes has helped an economy with high unemployment. As you know. Because it has never happened. Yet, as you know, when reagan tried it, he ended up with the highest ue rate since the great republican depression of 1929.
You really need to stop lying.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The right wing lie that Krugman called for a bubble is a zombie lie

hardly a lie but perfectly consistent for Krugman who also called for a pretend war against space alien invaders to simulate WW2 spending. He really thinks that mass producing weapons and dumping them into the sea would stimulate the economy.

 

[Rshermr]

OMG of course!! Eliminate corporate taxes so our corps will move back here. THe highest taxes rate in the world make it mandatory to move out. Thats another great liberal policy!!
Capitalism would have recovered economy in a year or less.

RECORD CORP PROFITS, LOWEST TAX BURDEN IN 40+ YEARS (ON US PROFITS)...


Yeah, taxes are driving them offshore *shaking head*


Warren Buffett: ‘It Is A Myth’ That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High

So our corporate tax rate last year, effectively, in terms of taxes paid for the United States, was around 12 percent, which is well below those existing in most of the industrialized countries around the world. So it is a myth that American corporations are paying 35 percent or anything like it…Corporate taxes are not strangling American competitiveness.


When looking at the rate that corporations actually pay (as opposed to the statutory rate that only exists on paper), the U.S. has the second-lowest corporate tax rate in the developed world, and raises far less than other nations in corporate tax revenue.


Warren Buffett: 'It Is A Myth' That U.S. Corporate Taxes Are High | ThinkProgress



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%

Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High

'corporate profits are at an all-time high as a percentage of the economy, wages are at an all-time low.'

'Last year, corporations made a record $824 billion, which didn’t stop conservatives from continually claiming that President Obama is anti-business.'
Corporate Profits Are At An All-Time High | ThinkProgress

Lol@ Buffett on taxes when virtually all of his acquisitions are structured as tax free exchanges of stock.

Next up Hannibal Letter shares his favorite finger food recipe for unexpected summer visitors

Or next up we believe what you have to say as opposed to Warren Buffett.

 

[Rshermr]

The right wing lie that Krugman called for a bubble is a zombie lie

hardly a lie but perfectly consistent for Krugman who also called for a pretend war against space alien invaders to simulate WW2 spending. He really thinks that mass producing weapons and dumping them into the sea would stimulate the economy.

Prove Krugman said it. Simple enough, if true. Which it is not. Which is why you can not prove it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

you can not show a single time when lowering taxes has helped an economy with high unemployment.

of course thats 100% idiotic and perfectly liberal. Ireland reduced taxes to 10% and every corp in the world moved there and employment dropped to lowest in EU. We dropped luxury tax on yachts and entire industry bounced back over-night. When you drop taxes you drop prices, people can buy more, and so you need to employ more to produce more.

It pays to think before you post!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The right wing lie that Krugman called for a bubble is a zombie lie

hardly a lie but perfectly consistent for Krugman who also called for a pretend war against space alien invaders to simulate WW2 spending. He really thinks that mass producing weapons and dumping them into the sea would stimulate the economy.

Prove Krugman said it. Simple enough, if true. Which it is not. Which is why you can not prove it.

Dubya's Double Dip? - NYTimes.com

A few months ago the vast majority of business economists mocked concerns about a ''double dip,'' a second leg to the downturn. But there were a few dogged iconoclasts out there, most notably Stephen Roach at Morgan Stanley. As I've repeatedly said in this column, the arguments of the double-dippers made a lot of sense. And their story now looks more plausible than ever.

The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses? And a sober look at recent data is not encouraging.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You'll also notice he calls him Dubya. This is a rabid Liberal practice and shows what [MENTION=2926]Toro[/MENTION] called, Bush Derangement Syndrome.

 

[edthecynic]

hardly a lie but perfectly consistent for Krugman who also called for a pretend war against space alien invaders to simulate WW2 spending. He really thinks that mass producing weapons and dumping them into the sea would stimulate the economy.

Prove Krugman said it. Simple enough, if true. Which it is not. Which is why you can not prove it.

Dubya's Double Dip? - NYTimes.com

A few months ago the vast majority of business economists mocked concerns about a ''double dip,'' a second leg to the downturn. But there were a few dogged iconoclasts out there, most notably Stephen Roach at Morgan Stanley. As I've repeatedly said in this column, the arguments of the double-dippers made a lot of sense. And their story now looks more plausible than ever.

The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses? And a sober look at recent data is not encouraging.

Again we see how the Regressives can't comprehend simple English. The article may have been written by Krugman, but he was QUOTING someone else who called for a double-dip!!!!!

From your link:

''I must confess to being amazed at the venom my double dip call still elicits,'' Mr. Roach wrote yesterday at cbsmarketwatch.com.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Prove Krugman said it. Simple enough, if true. Which it is not. Which is why you can not prove it.

Dubya's Double Dip? - NYTimes.com

A few months ago the vast majority of business economists mocked concerns about a ''double dip,'' a second leg to the downturn. But there were a few dogged iconoclasts out there, most notably Stephen Roach at Morgan Stanley. As I've repeatedly said in this column, the arguments of the double-dippers made a lot of sense. And their story now looks more plausible than ever.

The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.

Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses? And a sober look at recent data is not encouraging.

Again we see how the Regressives can't comprehend simple English. The article may have been written by Krugman, but he was QUOTING someone else who called for a double-dip!!!!!

From your link:

''I must confess to being amazed at the venom my double dip call still elicits,'' Mr. Roach wrote yesterday at cbsmarketwatch.com.

He was using someone else's thought to validate is own argument, moron. It's pretty simple to comprehend that. He referred to what someone else said, he did not QUOTE him, imbecile. Or it would be in quotation marks.

 

[edthecynic]

Dubya's Double Dip? - NYTimes.com

Again we see how the Regressives can't comprehend simple English. The article may have been written by Krugman, but he was QUOTING someone else who called for a double-dip!!!!!

From your link:

''I must confess to being amazed at the venom my double dip call still elicits,'' Mr. Roach wrote yesterday at cbsmarketwatch.com.

He was using someone else's thought to validate is own argument, moron. It's pretty simple to comprehend that. He referred to what someone else said, he did not QUOTE him, imbecile. Or it would be in quotation marks.

No, he was merely saying that THEIR argument made sense. He clearly is not calling FOR a double dip, but just saying those who are predicting a double dip have a good argument!!!

Again from your link:

But there were a few dogged iconoclasts out there, most notably Stephen Roach at Morgan Stanley. As I've repeatedly said in this column, the arguments of the double-dippers made a lot of sense. And their story now looks more plausible than ever.
snip/
But wishful thinking aside, I just don't understand the grounds for optimism. Who, exactly, is about to start spending a lot more? At this point it's a lot easier to tell a story about how the recovery will stall than about how it will speed up. And while I like movies with happy endings as much as the next guy, a movie isn't realistic unless the story line makes sense.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The right wing lie that Krugman called for a bubble is a zombie lie

hardly a lie but perfectly consistent for Krugman who also called for a pretend war against space alien invaders to simulate WW2 spending. He really thinks that mass producing weapons and dumping them into the sea would stimulate the economy.

Prove Krugman said it. Simple enough, if true. Which it is not. Which is why you can not prove it.

keep trying and one of these times you wont make a fool of yourself!!


Paul Krugman: Fake Alien Invasion Would End Economic ...
www.huffingtonpost.com/.../paul-krugman-fake-alie...
The Huffington Post
Aug 15, 2011 - Paul Krugman is so frustrated by the lack of support for another round ... "If we discovered that, you know, space aliens were planning to attack