Krugman eviscerates Austrian school, hack, cranks

[Rshermr]

How did Paul Krugman Get It So Wrong?

Like YOU, he's a fukng moron

"The centerpiece of our crash was not the relatively free stock or real estate markets, it was the highly regulated commercial banks."

lol

the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

..As the FCIC staff reports released so far in the run up to the final report have demonstrated, the primary fuel of the financial crisis was a hands-off approach to regulation. This ideologically driven lack of regulatory oversight allowed tremendous growth of the "shadow banking system," a largely unregulated web of complex financial transactions that essentially served the same functions as the existing banking system—attracting short-term funds from those seeking safe, liquid investments and using these to finance long-term loans, particularly residential mortgages—but without government oversight to ensure that these activities were being done safely and soundly.

As the FCIC staff reports demonstrate fairly conclusively, it was the shadow banking system’s unregulated private securitization of mortgages that caused the financial crisis, not affordable housing policies.


Politics Most Blatant | Center for American Progress



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.


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.


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

NOT a right winger? lol

Derp2three

I agree with many of Krugman's comments. I do believe that modern economics failed massively during the financial crisis.

However, Cochrane rightly called Krugman out for acting like a douchebag when he wrote his article, like Krugman often does in his blog, including the OP.

Odd you picked cochrane, a member of CATO. Now, if you are a cato kind of economist, you are by definition a libertarian. And libertarians from CATO pretty much always criticize economists who see things in a different way. Pretty much 24/7.
Imagine what it would be like if conservatives could use impartial sources. This was simply another conservative hit piece published in another con rag. Ever heard of impartial sources??? Just wondering.

 

[Rshermr]

How did Paul Krugman Get It So Wrong?

Like YOU, he's a fukng moron

"The centerpiece of our crash was not the relatively free stock or real estate markets, it was the highly regulated commercial banks."

lol

the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

..As the FCIC staff reports released so far in the run up to the final report have demonstrated, the primary fuel of the financial crisis was a hands-off approach to regulation. This ideologically driven lack of regulatory oversight allowed tremendous growth of the "shadow banking system," a largely unregulated web of complex financial transactions that essentially served the same functions as the existing banking system—attracting short-term funds from those seeking safe, liquid investments and using these to finance long-term loans, particularly residential mortgages—but without government oversight to ensure that these activities were being done safely and soundly.

As the FCIC staff reports demonstrate fairly conclusively, it was the shadow banking system’s unregulated private securitization of mortgages that caused the financial crisis, not affordable housing policies.


Politics Most Blatant | Center for American Progress



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.


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.


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

NOT a right winger? lol

Fannie and Freddie "No Income No Asset" Standards were "unregulated" private lender standards?

LOL

You really are as dumb as Krugman

Provide proof from an impartial source, me boy.
Here, me boy, is some proof you are full of shit.

 

[Dot Com]

Like YOU, he's a fukng moron

"The centerpiece of our crash was not the relatively free stock or real estate markets, it was the highly regulated commercial banks."

lol

the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

..As the FCIC staff reports released so far in the run up to the final report have demonstrated, the primary fuel of the financial crisis was a hands-off approach to regulation. This ideologically driven lack of regulatory oversight allowed tremendous growth of the "shadow banking system," a largely unregulated web of complex financial transactions that essentially served the same functions as the existing banking system—attracting short-term funds from those seeking safe, liquid investments and using these to finance long-term loans, particularly residential mortgages—but without government oversight to ensure that these activities were being done safely and soundly.

As the FCIC staff reports demonstrate fairly conclusively, it was the shadow banking system’s unregulated private securitization of mortgages that caused the financial crisis, not affordable housing policies.


Politics Most Blatant | Center for American Progress



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.


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.


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

NOT a right winger? lol

Derp2three

I agree with many of Krugman's comments. I do believe that modern economics failed massively during the financial crisis.

However, Cochrane rightly called Krugman out for acting like a douchebag when he wrote his article, like Krugman often does in his blog, including the OP.

Odd you picked cochrane, a member of CATO. Now, if you are a cato kind of economist, you are by definition a libertarian. And libertarians from CATO pretty much always criticize economists who see things in a different way. Pretty much 24/7.
Imagine what it would be like if conservatives could use impartial sources. This was simply another conservative hit piece published in another con rag. Ever heard of impartial sources??? Just wondering.

[MENTION=2926]Toro[/MENTION] 's subjectivity is sooo transparent.

 

[Dad2three]

How did Paul Krugman Get It So Wrong?

Like YOU, he's a fukng moron

"The centerpiece of our crash was not the relatively free stock or real estate markets, it was the highly regulated commercial banks."

lol

the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

..As the FCIC staff reports released so far in the run up to the final report have demonstrated, the primary fuel of the financial crisis was a hands-off approach to regulation. This ideologically driven lack of regulatory oversight allowed tremendous growth of the "shadow banking system," a largely unregulated web of complex financial transactions that essentially served the same functions as the existing banking system—attracting short-term funds from those seeking safe, liquid investments and using these to finance long-term loans, particularly residential mortgages—but without government oversight to ensure that these activities were being done safely and soundly.

As the FCIC staff reports demonstrate fairly conclusively, it was the shadow banking system’s unregulated private securitization of mortgages that caused the financial crisis, not affordable housing policies.


Politics Most Blatant | Center for American Progress



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.


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.


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

NOT a right winger? lol

Derp2three

I agree with many of Krugman's comments. I do believe that modern economics failed massively during the financial crisis.

However, Cochrane rightly called Krugman out for acting like a douchebag when he wrote his article, like Krugman often does in his blog, including the OP.

Sorry, economics didn't fail, it was Dubya's lack of regulator actions, like Reagan's with the S&L crisis that happened


The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.
P. J. O'Rourke

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Like YOU, he's a fukng moron

"The centerpiece of our crash was not the relatively free stock or real estate markets, it was the highly regulated commercial banks."

lol

the financial markets freeze in the fall of 2008, occurred predominantly among those parts of the financial system that were least regulated, or where regulations existed but were largely unenforced.

..As the FCIC staff reports released so far in the run up to the final report have demonstrated, the primary fuel of the financial crisis was a hands-off approach to regulation. This ideologically driven lack of regulatory oversight allowed tremendous growth of the "shadow banking system," a largely unregulated web of complex financial transactions that essentially served the same functions as the existing banking system—attracting short-term funds from those seeking safe, liquid investments and using these to finance long-term loans, particularly residential mortgages—but without government oversight to ensure that these activities were being done safely and soundly.

As the FCIC staff reports demonstrate fairly conclusively, it was the shadow banking system’s unregulated private securitization of mortgages that caused the financial crisis, not affordable housing policies.


Politics Most Blatant | Center for American Progress



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.


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.


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

NOT a right winger? lol

Fannie and Freddie "No Income No Asset" Standards were "unregulated" private lender standards?

LOL

You really are as dumb as Krugman

Provide proof from an impartial source, me boy.
Here, me boy, is some proof you are full of shit.

What the fuck are you even talking about????

An impartial sources for what, that F/F took NINA loans?

 

[Dot Com]

Fannie and Freddie "No Income No Asset" Standards were "unregulated" private lender standards?

LOL

You really are as dumb as Krugman

Provide proof from an impartial source, me boy.
Here, me boy, is some proof you are full of shit.

don't hold your breath

 

[Dot Com]

Repubs don't police wall St. & put an "out to lunch" sign on SEC, Dept's of Labor, OSHA, & EPA every time they're elected. Hopefully, their days of getting Presidents elected is over.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were victims, not culprits

Start with the most basic fact of all: virtually none of the $1.5 trillion of cratering subprime mortgages were backed by Fannie or Freddie. That’s right — most subprime mortgages did not meet Fannie or Freddie’s strict lending standards. All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.

FactWatch: Fannie and Freddie were followers, not leaders, in mortgage frenzy

GOP.gov, the official website for Republicans in the House of Representatives, says flatly: “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the main cause of the nation's current financial turmoil.” Many critics — including Republican appointees to the federal Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission — blame the two government-chartered mortgage underwriters for pushing lenders to make riskier loans and leading the way into the financial crash.

There’s a problem with this narrative: The numbers tell a different story.

The evidence indicates Fannie and Freddie contributed to the mortgage meltdown, but they played a secondary role to Wall Street. Wall Street firms and the mortgage lenders they bankrolled led the growth of the market for subprime loans and other risky mortgages.

Facts are pesky things rw'ers
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

reminder ^

 

[Dad2three]

.[/B] All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.

of course thats 100% stupid or a big lie. Fanny/Freddie had big advantage over private sector because they had govt support and lower rates. So, they took many of the good customers and forced the other to take the bad customers. Nevertheless Fan Fred bought tons of bad mortgages too! You are little better than a liar.



For instance, as George Mason University economist Russ Roberts explains in his paper “Gambling with Other People’s Money”:

Fannie and Freddie bought 25.2% of the record $272.81 billion in subprime MBS [mortgage-backed securities] sold in the first half of 2006, according to Inside Mortgage Finance Publications, a Bethesda, MD-based publisher that covers the home loan industry.

In 2005, Fannie and Freddie purchased 35.3% of all subprime MBS, the publication estimated. The year before, the two purchased almost 44% of all subprime MBS sold.

In addition, lawmakers in both parties enacted policies directed at increasing home ownership rates, resulting in lower mortgage underwriting standards for Fannie and Freddie. Roberts notes that from 2000 on, Fannie and Freddie bought loans with low FICO scores, loans with very low down payments, and loans with little or no documentation

LIAR. You are using Ed Pinto's (AEI) 'math' the one NO ONE with a brain believes, EXCEPT his cohort in the lie, Peter Wallison, and the AEI/KOCH RELATED GROUPS


" Russ Roberts. Mercatus Center at George Mason University "


Center for Public Integrity reported in 2011, mortgages financed by Wall Street from 2001 to 2008 were 4½ times more likely to be seriously delinquent than mortgages backed by Fannie and Freddie


December 24, 2011

The Big Lie About The Financial Crisis: The Professors Who Promote It



A lot of prestigious "academics" who promote the lie about Fannie and Freddie causing the financial crisis are paid by right wing think tanks.

In his New York Times column, "The Big Lie," referring to The Big Lie about Fannie and Freddie causing the financial crisis, Joe Nocera writes:

"You begin with a hypothesis that has a certain surface plausibility. You find an ally whose background suggests that he’s an “expert”; out of thin air, he devises “data.” You write articles in sympathetic publications, repeating the data endlessly; in time, some of these publications make your cause their own...Soon, the echo chamber you created drowns out dissenting views; even presidential candidates begin repeating the Big Lie.

Thus has Peter Wallison, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, and a former member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, almost single-handedly created the myth that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the financial crisis. His partner in crime is another A.E.I. scholar, Edward Pinto."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/opinion/nocera-the-big-lie.html?hp

Pinto's work was thoroughly debunked by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. The FCIC did what Wallison, Pinto and their advocates consistently refuse to do; they refuse to look at loan performance--delinquencies, defaults, losses on liquidation--on a comparative basis.

http://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu...ata and Comparison with Ed Pinto Analysis.pdf

It's worthwhile to mention the "academics" at some of America's most prestigious institutions, who lend a veneer of credibility to the Big Lie by citing Wallison's and Pinto's "research" as an authoritative source:

Columbia University, Charles Calomiris
Berkeley, Dwight Jaffee
University of Chicago, Raghuram Rajan
Harvard, Gregory Mankiw
NYU, Lawrence J. White
NYU, Viral V. Acharya
NYU, Matthew Richardson
NYU, Stijn Van Nieuwerburgh
Boston University, Laurence Kotlikoff
University of Texas, Austin, Jeffrey Friedman
George Mason University, Anthony Sanders

Many of these "scholars" get paid to agree with one another. Sanders, White, and Jaffee, along with Peter Wallison, are colleagues at the Mercatus Center,

Economists Sound Off on GSE Reform | Mercatus

which was founded and funded by the Koch Brothers.

Mercatus Center - SourceWatch

Calomiris and Mankiw are also colleagues of Wallison at the American Enterprise Institute.

You have to feel sorry for the students who pay thousands and thousands of dollars to take classes from these guys.

Other academics are colleagues of Wallison's at the AEI who, though they don't specifically cite his work, support the false narrative that Fannie and Freddie were the central cause of the financial crisis:

University of Chicago, Ray Ball
University of Chicago, Kenneth W. Dam
University of Chicago, Christian Leuz
Loyola University Chicago, George G. Kaufman
University of Pennsylvania, Richard J. Herring
University of Pennsylvania, Marshall E. Blume
Stanford, Kenneth E. Scott
Carnegie Mellon, Chester Spatt"

And there was a contemporaneous bubble in commercial real estate AND SUBPRIME AUTO LOANS that F&F had nothing to do with.


Moreover the UK, Iceland, Ireland, Spain, and Denmark crises have no government institutions analogous to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Ginnie Mae.

On the other hand Canada does have an institution very similar to Fannie/Freddie/Ginnie (the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation), and high levels of government support in the mortgage markets. And yet Canada, unlike the United States and other countries that experienced housing bubbles, did not have a major surge in unregulated lending and new product types, as private-label securitization remained negligible:

http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2010/08/pdf/canadian_banking.pdf


No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data)




1. Private markets caused the shady mortgage boom:


Here’s some data to back that up: “More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions… Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.”

As Center For American Progress’s David Min pointed out to me, the timing doesn’t work at all: “But from 2002-2005, [GSEs] saw a fairly precipitous drop in market share, going from about 50% to just under 30% of all mortgage originations. Conversely, private label securitization [PLS] shot up from about 10% to about 40% over the same period. This is, to state the obvious, a very radical shift in mortgage originations that overlapped neatly with the origination of the most toxic home loans.”

2. The government’s affordability mission didn’t cause the crisis:


3. There is a lot of research to back this up and little against it



4. Conservatives sang a different tune before the crash: Conservative think tanks spent the 2000s saying the exact opposite of what they are saying now...




5. Expanding the subprime loan category to say GSEs had more exposure makes no sense: Some argue that the GSEs had huge subprime exposure if you create a new category that supposedly represents the risks of subprime more accurately. This new “high-risk” category is associated with a consultant to AEI named Ed Pinto, and his analysis deliberately blurs the wording on “high-risk” and subprime in much of his writings. David Min broke down the numbers, and I wrote about it here. Here’s a graphic from Min’s follow-up work, addressing criticism:

Even this “high risk” category isn’t risky compared to subprime and it looks like the national average. When you divide it by private label, the numbers are even worse. Private label loans “have defaulted at over 6x the rate of GSE loans, as well as the fact that private label securitization is responsible for 42% of all delinquencies despite accounting for only 13% of all outstanding loans (as compared to the GSEs being responsible for 22% of all delinquencies despite accounting for 57% of all outstanding loans).” The issue isn’t this fake “high risk” category, it is subprime and private label origination.


6. Even some Republicans don’t agree with this argument: The three Republicans on the FCIC panel rejected the “blame the GSEs/Congress” approach to explaining the crisis in their minority report. Indeed, they, and most conservatives who know this is a dead end, tend to take a “it’s a whole lot of things, hoocoodanode?” approach.

Peter Wallison blamed the GSEs when he served as the fourth Republican on the FCIC panel. What did the other three Republicans make of his argument? Check out these released FCIC emails from the GOP members. They are really fun, because you can see the other Republicans doing damage control and debating whether Wallison and Pinto were on the take for making this argument — because the argument makes no sense when looking at the data.

There are lots of great quotes: “Re: peter, it seems that if you get pinto on your side, peter can’t complain. But is peter thinking idependently [sic] or is he just a parrot for pinto?”, “I can’t tell re: who is the leader and who is the follower,” “Maybe this email is reaching you too late but I think wmt [William M. Thomas] is going to push to find out if pinto is being paid by anyone.” And then there’s the infamous event where Wallison emailed his fellow GOP member: “It’s very important, I think, that what we say in our separate statements not undermine the ability of the new House GOP to modify or repeal Dodd-Frank.”


lmaorog


Hey Mayor Bloomberg! No, the GSEs Did Not Cause the Financial Meltdown (but thats just according to the data) | The Big Picture


“The idea that they were leading this charge is just absurd,” said Guy Cecala, publisher of Inside Mortgage Finance, an authoritative trade publication. “Fannie and Freddie have always had the tightest underwriting on earth…They were opposite of subprime.”

 

[Dad2three]

.[/B] All those no money down, no interest for a year, low teaser rate loans? All the loans made without checking a borrower’s income or employment history? All made in the private sector, without any support from Fannie and Freddie.

of course thats 100% stupid or a big lie. Fanny/Freddie had big advantage over private sector because they had govt support and lower rates. So, they took many of the good customers and forced the other to take the bad customers. Nevertheless Fan Fred bought tons of bad mortgages too! You are little better than a liar.



For instance, as George Mason University economist Russ Roberts explains in his paper “Gambling with Other People’s Money”:

Fannie and Freddie bought 25.2% of the record $272.81 billion in subprime MBS [mortgage-backed securities] sold in the first half of 2006, according to Inside Mortgage Finance Publications, a Bethesda, MD-based publisher that covers the home loan industry.

In 2005, Fannie and Freddie purchased 35.3% of all subprime MBS, the publication estimated. The year before, the two purchased almost 44% of all subprime MBS sold.

In addition, lawmakers in both parties enacted policies directed at increasing home ownership rates, resulting in lower mortgage underwriting standards for Fannie and Freddie. Roberts notes that from 2000 on, Fannie and Freddie bought loans with low FICO scores, loans with very low down payments, and loans with little or no documentation

What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral



One group has been especially vocal about shaping a new narrative of the credit crisis and economic collapse: those whose bad judgment and failed philosophy helped cause the crisis.

Rather than admit the error of their ways — Repent! — these people are engaged in an active campaign to rewrite history. They are not, of course, exonerated in doing so. And beyond that, they damage the process of repairing what was broken. They muddy the waters when it comes to holding guilty parties responsible. They prevent measures from being put into place to prevent another crisis.

Here is the surprising takeaway: They are winning. Thanks to the endless repetition of the Big Lie.

A Big Lie is so colossal that no one would believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. There are many examples: Claims that Earth is not warming, or that evolution is not the best thesis we have for how humans developed. Those opposed to stimulus spending have gone so far as to claim that the infrastructure of the United States is just fine, Grade A (not D, as the we discussed last month), and needs little repair.



Wall Street has its own version: Its Big Lie is that banks and investment houses are merely victims of the crash. You see, the entire boom and bust was caused by misguided government policies. It was not irresponsible lending or derivative or excess leverage or misguided compensation packages, but rather long-standing housing policies that were at fault.

Indeed, the arguments these folks make fail to withstand even casual scrutiny. But that has not stopped people who should know better from repeating them.


What caused the financial crisis? The Big Lie goes viral - The Washington Post



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


Here are key things we know based on data. Together, they present a series of tough hurdles for the big lie proponents.

•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

\


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


Check the mortgage origination data: The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie. Indeed, these firms had no deposits, so they were not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp or the Office of Thrift Supervision. The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06.

•Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006




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

These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.” They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages — the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.



A study by the Federal Reserve shows that more than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions. The study found that the government-sponsored enterprises were concerned with the loss of market share to these private lenders — Fannie and Freddie were chasing profits, not trying to meet low-income lending goals.

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



Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge.

 

[Rshermr]

Fannie and Freddie "No Income No Asset" Standards were "unregulated" private lender standards?

LOL

You really are as dumb as Krugman

Provide proof from an impartial source, me boy.
Here, me boy, is some proof you are full of shit.

What the fuck are you even talking about????

An impartial sources for what, that F/F took NINA loans?

Yup. Though I suspect the problem with my wording is when I said impartial.

 

[Avorysuds]

STOP DEFLECTING!!!

As to the last post, Waxman(D) was/is right- today's Republicans are basically terrorists holding the American people hostage in order to get concessions (tax dollar redistribution of wealth) to their defense contractor paymasters

lol, you said terrorist.

 

[Toro]

Odd you picked cochrane, a member of CATO. Now, if you are a cato kind of economist, you are by definition a libertarian. And libertarians from CATO pretty much always criticize economists who see things in a different way. Pretty much 24/7.
Imagine what it would be like if conservatives could use impartial sources. This was simply another conservative hit piece published in another con rag. Ever heard of impartial sources??? Just wondering.

Odd you picked krugman, a self-described liberal. Now, if you are an liberal kind of economist, you are by definition an ideological leftist. And ideological leftists pretty much always criticize economists who see things in a different way. Pretty much 24/7.
Imagine what it would be like if liberals could use impartial sources. This was simply another liberal hit piece published in another lib rag. Ever heard of impartial sources??? Just wondering.

 

[Toro]

[MENTION=2926]Toro[/MENTION] 's subjectivity is sooo transparent.

Of course it is. But only when I'm not agreeing with you. Right?

When I'm criticizing conservative hacks, you think I'm being "objective" and you're cheering me on. When I'm criticizing liberal hacks, you think I'm being "subjective" and you whine and complain.

 

[Dot Com]

Toro, you've changed man

No you haven't, you've ALWAYS been an economic conservative (AKA- voodoo economics) supporter.

You're given all the facts, ESPECIALLY the one to debunk your people's out of context swipe, at Krugman & you don't even acknowledge that you were wrong

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Its like shooting fish in a barrel for him:

Economics and Politics by Paul Krugman - The Conscience of a Liberal - NYTimes.com

James Pethokoukis and Ramesh Ponnuru are frustrated. They’ve been trying to convert Republicans to market monetarism, but the right’s favorite intellectuals keep turning to cranks peddling conspiracy theories about inflation. Three years ago it was Niall Ferguson, citing a bogus source. Ferguson was widely ridiculed, by moderate conservatives as well as liberals — but here comes Amity Shlaes, making the same argument and citing the same source. The “reform conservatives” have made no headway at all.

discuss Austrian failure(s)...

Just a couple of things. First, where does Krugman discuss Austrian Scholars? You mean because he cites monetarists, and that Austrian scholars aren't fans of inflation? Is that what you have there?

And Krugman DID re-iterate PIMPCO calls for a housing bubble to replace the NASDAQ bubble.

I'll ask the OP moron again. Where does Krugman discuss Austrian scholars in the article?

 

[Dot Com]

Its like shooting fish in a barrel for him:

Economics and Politics by Paul Krugman - The Conscience of a Liberal - NYTimes.com


discuss Austrian failure(s)...

Just a couple of things. First, where does Krugman discuss Austrian Scholars? You mean because he cites monetarists, and that Austrian scholars aren't fans of inflation? Is that what you have there?

And Krugman DID re-iterate PIMPCO calls for a housing bubble to replace the NASDAQ bubble.

I'll ask the OP moron again. Where does Krugman discuss Austrian scholars in the article?

Its a "given". Glad to help.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

IN other words, you're far too stupid to discuss this topic.

Thanks.

 

[itfitzme]

Clever manipulation of the CPI formula has masked the rise in inflation that everyone else (including Janet Yellen) knows is already happening.

You know, I've never heard anybody who claimed that the CPI was manipulated who actually understood anything about it. All the claims about manipulation I've ever heard are based on misunderstandings, false claims, and simple assertions.

Of course the CPI isn't perfect and it does have many issues and problems. But it's certainly not "manipulated."

It is idiocy like these;

Let's not count food, energy, housing, interest rates, etc. After all, ping pong balls are very affordable and come in a variety of color...

The Following User Says Thank You to jwoodie For This Useful Post:
Avorysuds (Yesterday)

that stand as evidence to how out of touch with realty that people are.

I am grateful to them for making it so clear that they can be summarily ignored.

 

[Dot Com]

Krugman slams the Austrian school for their myopic and unscientific method(s):


Fine Austrian Whines

Substance aside — not that substance isn’t important — Austrian economics very much has the psychology of a cult. Its devotees believe that they have access to a truth that generations of mainstream economists have somehow failed to discern; they go wild at any suggestion that maybe they’re the ones who have an intellectual blind spot. And as with all cults, the failure of prophecy — in this case, the prophecy of soaring inflation from deficits and monetary expansion — only strengthens the determination of the faithful to uphold the faith.

It would be sort of funny if it weren’t for the fact that this cult has large influence within the GOP.

 

[Toro]

Toro, you've changed man

No you haven't, you've ALWAYS been an economic conservative (AKA- voodoo economics) supporter.

You're given all the facts, ESPECIALLY the one to debunk your people's out of context swipe, at Krugman & you don't even acknowledge that you were wrong

I defended and will continue to defend Obama and the "You didn't build that" quote taken out of context. I have also said on here that I don't recall hearing Krugman say we should create a housing bubble. What I thought I remember him saying on Meet the Press was that the Fed should inflate the housing market. Perhaps I'm wrong on that, but I remember someone posting the clip here, though I haven't been able to find it.

Having said that, he's a still hack and a bitter little man. His arrogant and incendiary behavior belies the titles that he has earned, and he debases public discourse in the same way that a Rush Limbaugh does.

A guy who calls others "hacks" while also saying "there are no reasonable Republicans" is the quintessential definition of hack but with little self-awareness.

As for me "always supporting voodoo economics," you're just demonstrating what I wrote about you earlier.