By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Standard & Poor's made a tiny $2 trillion mistake when rating the US economy

Faxanadu on 11 August 2011

20 or 22 trillion debt. Who cares.



Any message from Faxanadu is written in good faith but shall neither be binding nor construed as constituting a commitment by Faxanadu except where provided for in a written agreement signed by an authorized representative of Faxanadu. This message is intended for the use of the forum members only.

The views expressed here may be personal and/or offensive and are not necessarily the views of Faxanadu.

Around the Network
ithis on 11 August 2011

What's a correct estimate? The one that suites the powers that be?



Kasz216 on 19 August 2011
Final-Fan said:
mrstickball said:
Final-Fan said:

The way I remember it is that the loans I believe you're referring to didn't fail at the rate you're implying and that the actual problem was securitizing all the loans until banks had no idea WTF they were even trading and couldn't effectively renegotiate to avoid defaults.  I guess you could blame government for allowing them to do that. 

You could also blame the governments for:

  1. Artificially inflating demand since the Community Reinvestment Act started & various acts in 1994 which not only drove up home ownership, but the price of homes as well (more demand = higher prices)
  2. Slashing the prime interest rate from 9% in 2000 to 4% in 2001, creating a culture ripe for all-time low interest rates
  3. Successively increasing rates from 4% to 8% from 2004 to 2005... Therefore when ARMs were re-negotiated (usually around 3 or 5 years), added on significant costs to homebuyers, making costs too high for them to continue the mortgages
  4. Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac which are government sponsored and were responsible for nearly 50% of home loans in 2008.

Government and business went hand in hand through the whole crisis. To ascribe 100% of the blame to lenders or the securitization of loans is crazy. It was a 50/50 proposition of government priming the pumps, businesses diving in and hiding toxic assets due to securitization tricks, and then stupid people buying into ARMs hook, line, and sinker.

I didn't mean it was 100% due to securitization, just that you are overweighting the impact of the CRA loans.  (Highly, I'd say.)  I agree on the rest of it, although you say 50/50 but name three things ...

Banks still new what they were trading.  The thing was, they were all banked on their not being a nationwide and in some cases global housing downturn, basically because there never had been in history.  Except maaaaaaybe the great depression but research tends to lean on the side of "not happened" from what I can tell.

The CRA loans ended up creating that global housing downturn, which the collapse.

The government made a seemingly impossible situation possible and it caused mass default.



Kasz216 on 19 August 2011
NJ5 said:
kowenicki said:

Can the US decide its own fiscal policy? can it control its own money supply? can it decide its own interest rates?

Ireland can't, Portugal can't, Greece can't, Spain can't, Italy can't

Again, what is the basis to say the US government will borrow its way to prosperity as Akvod was defending?

It worked in WW2 when everything got destroyed in Europe so demand for American based products greatly rose since noone else was able to supply any of it?

Really though, the effects of that were even greater before we entered the war ourselves when we were just playing arms dealer to Europe.

Of course i'm being sarcastic though... it really does show the difference.

Government made demand is no replacement for real demand.  You can't create demand, WW2 only helped because it got rid of competing suppliers.

So clearly we should borrow money to send our jets to bomb some other economic powerhouses.



MARCUSDJACKSON on 19 August 2011

hey now that you can do polls you should do them on other topic's. it would make them more interesting.

you'll be the greatest poll man ever.

 

ot: yea its tiny if your a trillionaire.



 Zarx's unofficial The Witcher 3    

Official Playstation Vita Thread!

write reveiws, articles, share thoughts, and expand on discussion like never before on gamewise.co/brainwaves

Around the Network
Final-Fan on 19 August 2011
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
mrstickball said:
Final-Fan said:

The way I remember it is that the loans I believe you're referring to didn't fail at the rate you're implying and that the actual problem was securitizing all the loans until banks had no idea WTF they were even trading and couldn't effectively renegotiate to avoid defaults.  I guess you could blame government for allowing them to do that. 

You could also blame the governments for:

  1. Artificially inflating demand since the Community Reinvestment Act started & various acts in 1994 which not only drove up home ownership, but the price of homes as well (more demand = higher prices)
  2. Slashing the prime interest rate from 9% in 2000 to 4% in 2001, creating a culture ripe for all-time low interest rates
  3. Successively increasing rates from 4% to 8% from 2004 to 2005... Therefore when ARMs were re-negotiated (usually around 3 or 5 years), added on significant costs to homebuyers, making costs too high for them to continue the mortgages
  4. Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac which are government sponsored and were responsible for nearly 50% of home loans in 2008.

Government and business went hand in hand through the whole crisis. To ascribe 100% of the blame to lenders or the securitization of loans is crazy. It was a 50/50 proposition of government priming the pumps, businesses diving in and hiding toxic assets due to securitization tricks, and then stupid people buying into ARMs hook, line, and sinker.

I didn't mean it was 100% due to securitization, just that you are overweighting the impact of the CRA loans.  (Highly, I'd say.)  I agree on the rest of it, although you say 50/50 but name three things ...

Banks still new what they were trading.  The thing was, they were all banked on their not being a nationwide and in some cases global housing downturn, basically because there never had been in history.  Except maaaaaaybe the great depression but research tends to lean on the side of "not happened" from what I can tell.

The CRA loans ended up creating that global housing downturn, which the collapse.

The government made a seemingly impossible situation possible and it caused mass default.

This prompted me to do a little poking around on the Internet, and what I've found is that the CRA is more responsible than I thought, but much less responsible than you say. 

What I gather from what I read here is that the CRA didn't really do much harm directly, but when people pressured the government to lower lending standards (to get poor people more CRA loans), it resulted in lots of bad loans, not just at the CRA level but across the board. 

It seems to me that my earlier view, that it wasn't bad CRA loans any more (perhaps even less) than bad middle class or upper middle class loans that caused the crisis; but the CRA played more of a role in the creating of that situation than I thought, because of CRA-related activism. 

Feel free to show me better sources. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Kasz216 on 20 August 2011
Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:
mrstickball said:
Final-Fan said:

The way I remember it is that the loans I believe you're referring to didn't fail at the rate you're implying and that the actual problem was securitizing all the loans until banks had no idea WTF they were even trading and couldn't effectively renegotiate to avoid defaults.  I guess you could blame government for allowing them to do that. 

You could also blame the governments for:

  1. Artificially inflating demand since the Community Reinvestment Act started & various acts in 1994 which not only drove up home ownership, but the price of homes as well (more demand = higher prices)
  2. Slashing the prime interest rate from 9% in 2000 to 4% in 2001, creating a culture ripe for all-time low interest rates
  3. Successively increasing rates from 4% to 8% from 2004 to 2005... Therefore when ARMs were re-negotiated (usually around 3 or 5 years), added on significant costs to homebuyers, making costs too high for them to continue the mortgages
  4. Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac which are government sponsored and were responsible for nearly 50% of home loans in 2008.

Government and business went hand in hand through the whole crisis. To ascribe 100% of the blame to lenders or the securitization of loans is crazy. It was a 50/50 proposition of government priming the pumps, businesses diving in and hiding toxic assets due to securitization tricks, and then stupid people buying into ARMs hook, line, and sinker.

I didn't mean it was 100% due to securitization, just that you are overweighting the impact of the CRA loans.  (Highly, I'd say.)  I agree on the rest of it, although you say 50/50 but name three things ...

Banks still new what they were trading.  The thing was, they were all banked on their not being a nationwide and in some cases global housing downturn, basically because there never had been in history.  Except maaaaaaybe the great depression but research tends to lean on the side of "not happened" from what I can tell.

The CRA loans ended up creating that global housing downturn, which the collapse.

The government made a seemingly impossible situation possible and it caused mass default.

This prompted me to do a little poking around on the Internet, and what I've found is that the CRA is more responsible than I thought, but much less responsible than you say. 

What I gather from what I read here is that the CRA didn't really do much harm directly, but when people pressured the government to lower lending standards (to get poor people more CRA loans), it resulted in lots of bad loans, not just at the CRA level but across the board. 

It seems to me that my earlier view, that it wasn't bad CRA loans any more (perhaps even less) than bad middle class or upper middle class loans that caused the crisis; but the CRA played more of a role in the creating of that situation than I thought, because of CRA-related activism. 

Feel free to show me better sources. 


From reading that I'm not sure where you got that opinion from it really.  They state the other factors but they primaritly base it on loans that only happened due to the CRA, and CRA byproducts... like artificially inflated home prices, which was a cause of the CRA and Borrowers getting loans they couldn't afford.

Why wouldn't you consider any loan that was made thanks to the new CRA regulations a CRA loan?

Seems like we have a difference of definiton here more then any thing else.

Government found a way to make a previously impossible situation possible.  The only funny thing is that looking back on it, we should of realized that this would of been the natural effect of the CRA... when the only people who were talking about it were the "economic crazies."

Guess they weren't crazy afterall.  While I don't agree with everything they propose, it seems that Hayek and his Austrian school was right in that the economy is far more complex then modern economists are willing to admit.

I can't help but feel that tax cuts, tax credits, goverment works projects... they're all nothing but the economic equivelent of blood letting.

Everyone basically agrees that the reason the economy is stalling now is because of a combo of new regulations making lending iffy, and nobody asking for loans or expansion money....

and yet nobody is actually studying why this is, but instead stating as always that they're particular way will work, because they're particular economic model says it will, even though their economic models are never right.



Final-Fan on 21 August 2011

I did not think the (paragraph 4) deregulation was specifically CRA; I thought it was general lowering of standards at Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. Wrong? The source I saw certainly does not specify.



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

thismeintiel on 21 August 2011
NJ5 said:
kowenicki said:

Can the US decide its own fiscal policy? can it control its own money supply? can it decide its own interest rates?

Ireland can't, Portugal can't, Greece can't, Spain can't, Italy can't


Fiscal policy, yes they can. Control the money supply / interest rates not as much as the US, but the US has been doing that for years, and so far there's no indication at all that the economy will grow due to the borrowing. Being able to control those things gives the US gov more wiggle room, but fundamentally it doesn't make any difference with regards to borrowing one's way out of the hole.

Japan could control all those things you mentioned and their economy has been in a slump for more than a decade. Borrowing didn't help them grow their economy, even though they borrowed and spent a lot more than any other developed country. Other countries have tried running large deficits and they ended up defaulting, not making economic miracles...

Again, what is the basis to say the US government will borrow its way to prosperity as Akvod was defending?

Some people use the analogy of kicking a can a little further down the road.  I say its more like kicking a grenade a little further.  Sure you're getting it further away from you, but it doesn't help when you're still walking slowly towards it.  Which means when it finally blows you're going to be in range of the blast.

And while the US could print enough money to just pay off its debt completely, as some seem to be suggesting, it would devalue the dollar to the point where it would be worth pennies.



 

Kasz216 on 21 August 2011
Final-Fan said:
I did not think the (paragraph 4) deregulation was specifically CRA; I thought it was general lowering of standards at Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. Wrong? The source I saw certainly does not specify.


I don't have time to look... but I thought the lowering of standards at Fannie/Freddie I'm pretty sure had to do with reforms in the CRA.  It was either reforms in the CRA, or heavy government pressue because the CRA didn't work as well as expected.

This more or less was the impetus behind the rise in liar loans as well.  A lot of people who are poorer wouldn't qualify for housing becuase often because of things like past employment history which is taken in consideration with how "stable" you are in your job.