Unemployment Rises

[FaninAma]

www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/01/July-Jobs-Report
Although this is another government manipulated number it contradicts
Sooner8th's rosy economic assertions.

The equity markets are reversing. UE is going up. Let's see what the Fed
does. They haven't left themselves any wiggle room.

[Sooner8th]

www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/01/July-Jobs-Report
Although this is another government manipulated number it contradicts
Sooner8th's rosy economic assertions.

The equity markets are reversing. UE is going up. Let's see what the Fed
does. They haven't left themselves any wiggle room.

How good are things when 209,000 jobs is disappointing?

Dubya LOST 825,000 private sectors jobs in 8 years while adding 1.9 million government jobs.

Be happy we have obama and not bush.

[pphilfran]

If we were at full employment 200k would be fine...too bad we are not...

200k is about the break even point...covers those new to the workforce but does little to lower the unemployment rate....

Data supports that simple fact...

Prior to the recession the participation rate was at 66.0%....last month the participation rate sat at 62.9%....3% less workers...

Unemployment prior to 2008 was 4.5%...last month 6.2%

U6 prior at 8.5%...last month 12.2%

200k a month isn't going to cut it...

[Sooner8th]

If we were at full employment 200k would be fine...too bad we are not...

200k is about the break even point...covers those new to the workforce but does little to lower the unemployment rate....

Data supports that simple fact...

Prior to the recession the participation rate was at 66.0%....last month the participation rate sat at 62.9%....3% less workers...

Unemployment prior to 2008 was 4.5%...last month 6.2%

U6 prior at 8.5%...last month 12.2%

200k a month isn't going to cut it...

I just heard on the news six straight months of jobs added at over 200k per month - first time since 1997.


Unemployment was 4.5% in April 2007. Yeah, lets go back almost 2 years to make the comparison. When OBAMA took office it was 7.8, now 6.2.

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
2010 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.4
2011 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.5
2012 8.2 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.9
2013 7.9 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.7
2014 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.2


Bush left office in January 2009, losing 779,000 jobs in January 2009 ALONE - dubya's last month in office. Unemployment was was going up about a year and a half before Obama took office.

Bottom line - Obama is kicking bush's *** in jobs.

[FaninAma]

Bush was worse. Bush sucked. Obama is better than Bush Did I mention Bush sucked? Bush is the devil. Bush ..... blah, blah blah, blah!.

Did I get the gist of your reply? Did I miss anything?

Bob, Bush sucked! You are not winning any debate points by comparing Obama to Bush. Playing the low expectations card is weak.

[pphilfran]

I don't give a damn about Bush's poor performance....his policy was not backed by much economic genius...

We are talking about job creation....and 200k a month is not enough to drop the true unemployment rate...

Unemployment has dropped 3.5% since it's peak...a good thing

Labor participation has dropped 3% from it's peak....a bad thing

We have created enough jobs to absorb the new workers coming into the workforce....

The unemployment rate has dropped primarily due to the drop in participation...

The numbers are damn sure better than Bush but they aren't what we need in our current economic state...

[BoulderSooner79]

I don't give a damn about Bush's poor performance....his policy was not backed by much economic genius...

We are talking about job creation....and 200k a month is not enough to drop the true unemployment rate...

Unemployment has dropped 3.5% since it's peak...a good thing

Labor participation has dropped 3% from it's peak....a bad thing

We have created enough jobs to absorb the new workers coming into the workforce....

The unemployment rate has dropped primarily due to the drop in participation...

The numbers are damn sure better than Bush but they aren't what we need in our current economic state...

Pretty much agree across the board. And Bush's performance wasn't bad if taken in the proper context: he didn't care about all these metrics. His policy was strictly designed for the government to borrow money and distribute it to the very wealthy and it was extremely effective. Employment? Labor participation? Phffft… jobs are for poor people.

[olevetonahill]

I just heard on the news six straight months of jobs added at over 200k per month - first time since 1997.


Unemployment was 4.5% in April 2007. Yeah, lets go back almost 2 years to make the comparison. When OBAMA took office it was 7.8, now 6.2.

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
2010 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.4
2011 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.8 8.6 8.5
2012 8.2 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.9
2013 7.9 7.7 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.0 6.7
2014 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.3 6.3 6.1 6.2


Bush left office in January 2009, losing 779,000 jobs in January 2009 ALONE - dubya's last month in office. Unemployment was was going up about a year and a half before Obama took office.

Bottom line - Obama is kicking bush's *** in jobs.

All these wonderful jobs= Can I super size that for you? and Thank you for shopping Wally Weird.

[Sooner8th]

All these wonderful jobs= Can I super size that for you? and Thank you for shopping Wally Weird.

Is there nothing obama does that you don't bag on him about? I just showed you how the guy most of you voted for TWICE did ten times worse than Obama is doing. Since when are republicans interested in good jobs? You guys do everything you can to keep the wages down, unless of course you are a CEO.

[olevetonahill]

Is there nothing obama does that you don't bag on him about? I just showed you how the guy most of you voted for TWICE did ten times worse than Obama is doing. Since when are republicans interested in good jobs? You guys do everything you can to keep the wages down, unless of course you are a CEO.

I aint "Baggin" on Obammy at all. Im baggin on YOU ya ****in Moran.

[yermom]

so are there any numbers with the "participation rate"?

how many of those are boomers retiring, etc...?

[BoulderSooner79]

so are there any numbers with the "participation rate"?

how many of those are boomers retiring, etc...?

I did read a recent article on that, but sorry, I don't have a link. The data had it broken down between retirees, disabilities and the unemployed/underemployed. The bottom line conclusion was actually positive - discouraged workers data was turning towards the positive, but only slightly and very recently. The other positive data I saw was that the job gains in the last few month were of better quality - again small gains and only recently, but maybe a corner being turned. Now if we can only avoid starting some stupid war somewhere….

[Sooner8th]

so are there any numbers with the "participation rate"?

how many of those are boomers retiring, etc...?

How it has been calculated has not changed since 1994. The right is always talking about the participation rate, if there are not enough jobs so that people are discouraged to look for work, why are republicans saying unemployment insurance shouldn't be extended because it makes people lazy and not look for work?

[Sooner8th]

Pretty much agree across the board. And Bush's performance wasn't bad if taken in the proper context: he didn't care about all these metrics. His policy was strictly designed for the government to borrow money and distribute it to the very wealthy and it was extremely effective. Employment? Labor participation? Phffft… jobs are for poor people.

good one.......

[Sooner8th]

I don't give a damn about Bush's poor performance....his policy was not backed by much economic genius...

We are talking about job creation....and 200k a month is not enough to drop the true unemployment rate...

Unemployment has dropped 3.5% since it's peak...a good thing

Labor participation has dropped 3% from it's peak....a bad thing

We have created enough jobs to absorb the new workers coming into the workforce....

The unemployment rate has dropped primarily due to the drop in participation...

The numbers are damn sure better than Bush but they aren't what we need in our current economic state...

I'm talking about job creation too. You bring up the true unemployment rate - sure people have dropped out of the force, i can't seem to find anywhere a list of why and i don't know if they do or not. I have heard that it is a lot of boomers retiring since the market has gone up they can afford to retire now, or stop working to take care of an aging parent. I agree we don't have enough jobs being created, nor are they good enough, but what i do know is cuttin' taxes won't create them. I do firmly believe republicans don't want a strong recovery on a dem presidents watch, they don't want a repeat of dems being in almost majority like what happened after the depression.

[Sooner8th]

Did I get the gist of your reply? Did I miss anything?

Bob, Bush sucked! You are not winning any debate points by comparing Obama to Bush. Playing the low expectations card is weak.

I see republicans reaching back for examples of how things worked for your positions, kennedy tax cuts, regean tax cuts, how bad it was under carter, but when i compare obama to bush you blow it off.

If you would like to discuss it without blowing off what the same policies that republicans want are the same policies that bush used, i would welcome that.

That is my point.

[SCOUT]

I see republicans reaching back for examples of how things worked for your positions, kennedy tax cuts, regean tax cuts, how bad it was under carter, but when i compare obama to bush you blow it off.

If you would like to discuss it without blowing off what the same policies that republicans want are the same policies that bush used, i would welcome that.

That is my point.
You remind me of Don Quixote. You are constantly tilting at windmills. Despite your gnashing of teeth, more often than not the big bad giant is just a windmill.

[pphilfran]

so are there any numbers with the "participation rate"?

how many of those are boomers retiring, etc...?

You ask and you shall receive...good stuff just released this month....much more at link

Bad link on PDF ...Whitehouse document labor participation report

The turmoil of 2008 inflicted tremendous pain on millions of families, overshadowing the fact that 2008 also marked a unique milestone in U.S. economic history. That year, the first baby boomers (those born in 1946) turned 62 and became eligible for Social Security early retirement benefits. This second force—the demographic inflection point stemming from the retirement of the baby boomers—was felt far less acutely than the Great Recession, but will continue to have a profound influence on the economy for years to come, well after the business cycle recovery from the Great Recession is considered complete.

In this report, the Council of Economic Advisers estimates that this 3.1 percentage point decline can be attributed to three main sources:

About half of the decline (1.6 percentage point) is due to the aging of the population.
Because older individuals participate in the labor force at lower rates than younger workers, the aging of the population exerts downward pressure on the overall labor force participation rate. While older workers today are participating in the labor force at higher rates than older workers of previous generations, there is still a very large drop-off in participation when workers enter their early 60s.

About a sixth of the decline in the overall participation rate (0.5 percentage point) is a cyclical decline in line with historical patterns in previous recessions.
While the unemployment rate has come down from a peak of 10.0 percent in October 2009 to 6.1 percent in June 2014, it has remained elevated for the last several years. Historically, elevation in the unemployment rate is associated with a decline in labor force participation, as potential workers may decide to defer looking for a job until the economy improves. A portion of the most recent decline in the participation rate reflects this historical pattern, which this report refers to as the “cyclical” effect.

About a third of the decline (1.0 percentage point) arises from other factors, which may include trends that pre-date the Great Recession and consequences of the unique severity of the Great Recession.
In particular the two elements of this “residual” not explained by the standard factors are:
 The fact that participation rates conditional on age were declining for many groups in the run-up to 2008, including for prime-age men from the 1950s and for prime-age women from the late 1990s, may also have contributed to the decline in participation. This would have been expected to result in a decline in the participation rate above and beyond the pure aging effect even in the absence of a recession. Note, these effects were partly offset by other pre-existing trends, like a rise in the participation rate for older workers.
 The severity of the Great Recession, which has resulted in an unusual pattern of a very large share of long-term unemployed relative to total unemployment, may have lowered the participation rate more than would have been expected through normal channels. In fact, we find that a declining participation rate is historically correlated with the elevation of long-term unemployment, suggesting that both issues have a common cause or cause each other.

[pphilfran]

This report says half the loss is due to aging and not as a result of the recession...they show data that shows their conclusions fall in the middle of several other reports..

If this is the case then it seems these retirees left jobs and were replaced (a new hirer somewhere down the chain)....which should have helped he unemployment rate...and if it had any affect then the stimulus did even less to reduce unemployment then I previously thought...

Then again, I might be all screwed up....

[Sooner8th]

You ask and you shall receive...good stuff just released this month....much more at link

Bad link on PDF ...Whitehouse document labor participation report

The turmoil of 2008 inflicted tremendous pain on millions of families, overshadowing the fact that 2008 also marked a unique milestone in U.S. economic history. That year, the first baby boomers (those born in 1946) turned 62 and became eligible for Social Security early retirement benefits. This second force—the demographic inflection point stemming from the retirement of the baby boomers—was felt far less acutely than the Great Recession, but will continue to have a profound influence on the economy for years to come, well after the business cycle recovery from the Great Recession is considered complete.

In this report, the Council of Economic Advisers estimates that this 3.1 percentage point decline can be attributed to three main sources:

About half of the decline (1.6 percentage point) is due to the aging of the population.
Because older individuals participate in the labor force at lower rates than younger workers, the aging of the population exerts downward pressure on the overall labor force participation rate. While older workers today are participating in the labor force at higher rates than older workers of previous generations, there is still a very large drop-off in participation when workers enter their early 60s.

About a sixth of the decline in the overall participation rate (0.5 percentage point) is a cyclical decline in line with historical patterns in previous recessions.
While the unemployment rate has come down from a peak of 10.0 percent in October 2009 to 6.1 percent in June 2014, it has remained elevated for the last several years. Historically, elevation in the unemployment rate is associated with a decline in labor force participation, as potential workers may decide to defer looking for a job until the economy improves. A portion of the most recent decline in the participation rate reflects this historical pattern, which this report refers to as the “cyclical” effect.

About a third of the decline (1.0 percentage point) arises from other factors, which may include trends that pre-date the Great Recession and consequences of the unique severity of the Great Recession.
In particular the two elements of this “residual” not explained by the standard factors are:
 The fact that participation rates conditional on age were declining for many groups in the run-up to 2008, including for prime-age men from the 1950s and for prime-age women from the late 1990s, may also have contributed to the decline in participation. This would have been expected to result in a decline in the participation rate above and beyond the pure aging effect even in the absence of a recession. Note, these effects were partly offset by other pre-existing trends, like a rise in the participation rate for older workers.
 The severity of the Great Recession, which has resulted in an unusual pattern of a very large share of long-term unemployed relative to total unemployment, may have lowered the participation rate more than would have been expected through normal channels. In fact, we find that a declining participation rate is historically correlated with the elevation of long-term unemployment, suggesting that both issues have a common cause or cause each other.

What this is saying is you can attribute one point to workers not in the workforce because they are discouraged with half of that is normal. That would raise the unemployment rate by .5% to 6.7%, which is lower than what it was when Obama took office - 7.8%. Other factors keeping unemployment high is the 850,000 government workers who lost jobs, the first time government workforce decreased in a recession. Add in debt ceiling fights and cutting spending and we would be on a much better situation.

[pphilfran]

What this is saying is you can attribute one point to workers not in the workforce because they are discouraged with half of that is normal. That would raise the unemployment rate by .5% to 6.7%, which is lower than what it was when Obama took office - 7.8%. Other factors keeping unemployment high is the 850,000 government workers who lost jobs, the first time government workforce decreased in a rescission. Add in debt ceiling fights and cutting spending and we would be on a much better situation.

I agree with your half percent...it should be somewhere near that number...

I hope the number would be lower....he had trillions upon trillions of dollars to work with...

6.7 or 6.2%...it doesn't matter...both are terrible numbers that won't get better with 200,000 monthly job creation...

Hell, he was dealt a hell of a mess....the problem is that we still have a hell of a mess on our hands...

The participation rate change over the long term is a significant problem.....less people working means less revenue....also means more people are drawing benefits of one type or another...

That PDF, if you can get to it, is a heck of a read talks about using legal immigration to help increase the participation rate...it also breaks it down by every demographic imaginable...

[pphilfran]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/magazine/17obama-t.html?_r=4&ref=magazine&pagewanted=all%22&

Interesting nugget...

During our hour together, Obama told me he had no regrets about the broad direction of his presidency. But he did identify what he called “tactical lessons.” He let himself look too much like “the same old tax-and-spend liberal Democrat.” He realized too late that “there’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects” when it comes to public works. Perhaps he should not have proposed tax breaks as part of his stimulus and instead “let the Republicans insist on the tax cuts” so it could be seen as a bipartisan compromise.

[Sooner8th]

I agree with your half percent...it should be somewhere near that number...

I hope the number would be lower....he had trillions upon trillions of dollars to work with...

6.7 or 6.2%...it doesn't matter...both are terrible numbers that won't get better with 200,000 monthly job creation...

Hell, he was dealt a hell of a mess....the problem is that we still have a hell of a mess on our hands...

The participation rate change over the long term is a significant problem.....less people working means less revenue....also means more people are drawing benefits of one type or another...

That PDF, if you can get to it, is a heck of a read talks about using legal immigration to help increase the participation rate...it also breaks it down by every demographic imaginable...

This recession is different than others and it had to be handled differently. We have never had credit markets total shut down like they did, first and secondary markets. We have never had government employment cut while in a recession. We have never had a fight over the debt limit before. We have never had one of the two parties actively work to ensure failure, so a recovery would not happen under the other parties president. This dones not even cover the new ruling class of corporate executives who have a huge sense of entitlement to get massive pay while driving down labor costs.

[pphilfran]

Excuses...Obama set goals and he has missed them....

Every recession is different....economies change...tax breaks work in recession A but fail to produce in recession B....tax rates at 100% would limit expansion...tax rates at 0% won't produce much revenue...somewhere between those two points is the sweet spot...a moving target based on economic strength...

The early 80's recessions were equally brutal...instead of debt concerns we had inflation through the roof....instead of derivatives we had the S$L meltdown...higher unemployment rate (it got there much slowly over many years while 2008 was a steep drop off)...and was slow to recover....

Looking for reasons why it didn't work is not going to solve our problem of increasing debt...low revenue....massive overall spending...

We are bleeding out due to high unemployment....

The same old solutions aren't going to cut it...

[Sooner8th]

Excuses...Obama set goals and he has missed them....

Every recession is different....economies change...tax breaks work in recession A but fail to produce in recession B....tax rates at 100% would limit expansion...tax rates at 0% won't produce much revenue...somewhere between those two points is the sweet spot...a moving target based on economic strength...

The early 80's recessions were equally brutal...instead of debt concerns we had inflation through the roof....instead of derivatives we had the S$L meltdown...higher unemployment rate (it got there much slowly over many years while 2008 was a steep drop off)...and was slow to recover....

Looking for reasons why it didn't work is not going to solve our problem of increasing debt...low revenue....massive overall spending...

We are bleeding out due to high unemployment....

The same old solutions aren't going to cut it...

They are not excuses, they are the reality. s&l was a cakewalk compared to the banking melt down we had. 1980 recession was a small dip compared to the last one. Of course he sat goals and when you do you sometimes miss them, every president does, regean sat goals and missed them. In the 80's recovery the dems didn't vote down everything he wanted - he worked together with them. Government employment was not reduced it was increased, no one fought over debit ceiling limits, no government shut downs, no cutting off extended unemployment before the rate was much lower than it is today, hell bush started the extensions when it was under 5%.

None of the gloom and doom warnings about the debt have some true. No business is not opening up or expanding because of the federal governments debt. They don't expand because demand is weak. I agree the same old solutions aren't going to cut, especially the ones that got us into this situation to begin with.

[REDREX]

The US economy will always recover from downturns on its own if Gov't does not try and help too much. The country has enjoyed prosperity due to capitalism not due to gov't planning or gov't spending. Gov't consumes wealth it does not create it

[Curly Bill]

Yup, our economy has survived, sometimes even thrived... in spite of government - surely not because of it.

[BoulderSooner79]

The US economy will always recover from downturns on its own if Gov't does not try and help too much. The country has enjoyed prosperity due to capitalism not due to gov't planning or gov't spending. Gov't consumes wealth it does not create it

The government is overhead, but it's role in an economy is critical. Just like brakes on a car are just as important as the engine. You're statement is slanted to make it sound as if any government involvement is a bad thing and that's simply not true. Bad government is bad thing just as unfettered capitalism is a bad thing. Government and markets must both exist and work together to have a viable system. The fact that there is tension between them is just the nature of the beast, but to take sides of one against the other is being naive.

[Curly Bill]

The government is overhead, but it's role in an economy is critical. Just like brakes on a car are just as important as the engine. You're statement is slanted to make it sound as if any government involvement is a bad thing and that's simply not true. Bad government is bad thing just as unfettered capitalism is a bad thing. Government and markets must both exist and work together to have a viable system. The fact that there is tension between them is just the nature of the beast, but to take sides of one against the other is being naive.

Someone likes em some government.

[Curly Bill]

...and I know governments have forever and ever played a role in any given economy. But I feel the role of government in this day and age is considerably too big, very often more harmful than it is helpful, and when good things do happen in an economy the role of government in that usually overrated so as to make those in power look better than they actually are.

[REDREX]

The government is overhead, but it's role in an economy is critical. Just like brakes on a car are just as important as the engine. You're statement is slanted to make it sound as if any government involvement is a bad thing and that's simply not true. Bad government is bad thing just as unfettered capitalism is a bad thing. Government and markets must both exist and work together to have a viable system. The fact that there is tension between them is just the nature of the beast, but to take sides of one against the other is being naive.---If you have ever had to deal with not only the Fed gov't but state and local govt's and wade through the worthless crap that they put you through to run a business you would think that we need a lot less gov't

[BoulderSooner79]

Someone likes em some government.

Not at all, I just understand both roles are required and our own history bears that out many times over. Yes, the government has done its share of damage, but unregulated market forces are even more predictably harmful. The purist form of capitalism is displayed by the mob, drug dealers and pimps. No rules at all, just prophet motive. And companies naturally do local optimization for their own situation. They don't worry about the big picture and we can't expect them too. This last recession that we are still digging out of is a perfect example. It was a failure of government to regulate mortgage lending properly. It allowed risky leverage on an enormous scale and the damage was huge when the dice came up the wrong way. So do we blame the financial system or the regulators? I say the regulators because the banks are going to act that way *every time*. It's human nature and to trust they will use prudence in their dealings is just ignorant. So the government can mess up getting too involved, but in this case it was clearly from being too arms length.

[Curly Bill]

Not at all, I just understand both roles are required and our own history bears that out many times over. Yes, the government has done its share of damage, but unregulated market forces are even more predictably harmful. The purist form of capitalism is displayed by the mob, drug dealers and pimps. No rules at all, just prophet motive. And companies naturally do local optimization for their own situation. They don't worry about the big picture and we can't expect them too. This last recession that we are still digging out of is a perfect example. It was a failure of government to regulate mortgage lending properly. It allowed risky leverage on an enormous scale and the damage was huge when the dice came up the wrong way. So do we blame the financial system or the regulators? I say the regulators because the banks are going to act that way *every time*. It's human nature and to trust they will use prudence in their dealings is just ignorant. So the government can mess up getting too involved, but in this case it was clearly from being too arms length.

Failure of government to regulate it? More like they encouraged it.

[CK Sooner]

http://i.imgur.com/hQoJ5nC.gif

[Sooner8th]

The government is overhead, but it's role in an economy is critical. Just like brakes on a car are just as important as the engine. You're statement is slanted to make it sound as if any government involvement is a bad thing and that's simply not true. Bad government is bad thing just as unfettered capitalism is a bad thing. Government and markets must both exist and work together to have a viable system. The fact that there is tension between them is just the nature of the beast, but to take sides of one against the other is being naive.

Funny how conservatives don't want government around and not to regulate but in the last couple of days they have tried to blame the meltdown on clinton for taking regulations off of derivatives. Lets get government out of the way and see how the recovery soars - more of what got us into this mess to begin with.

[Curly Bill]

Not at all, I just understand both roles are required and our own history bears that out many times over. Yes, the government has done its share of damage, but unregulated market forces are even more predictably harmful. The purist form of capitalism is displayed by the mob, drug dealers and pimps. No rules at all, just prophet motive. And companies naturally do local optimization for their own situation. They don't worry about the big picture and we can't expect them too. This last recession that we are still digging out of is a perfect example. It was a failure of government to regulate mortgage lending properly. It allowed risky leverage on an enormous scale and the damage was huge when the dice came up the wrong way. So do we blame the financial system or the regulators? I say the regulators because the banks are going to act that way *every time*. It's human nature and to trust they will use prudence in their dealings is just ignorant. So the government can mess up getting too involved, but in this case it was clearly from being too arms length.

And this is what I mean by saying you like you some government. You try to look reasonable by saying government can cause harm, but then don't fail to suggest that the "unregulated market" would be more harmful. Gotta give the ol government the benefit of the doubt right? And why not? That's the liberal point of view: Government is good, and if it's not perfect at least it's better than "unregulated markets" & true capitalism, and all those other evil non-government things.

In other words: In the end liberals believe in the role of government to make things if not perfect, at least better. Those of us on the other side believe in the likelihood that anything government is involved in it will largely f*ck up, or at least make it worse. And as a student of history, I have no doubt that history has proven my side to be correct.

[Sooner8th]

And this is what I mean by saying you like you some government. You try to look reasonable by saying government can cause harm, but then don't fail to suggest that the "unregulated market" would be more harmful. Gotta give the ol government the benefit of the doubt right? And why not? That's the liberal point of view: Government is good, and if it's not perfect at least it's better than "unregulated markets" & true capitalism, and all those other evil non-government things.

In other words: In the end liberals believe in the role of government to make things if not perfect, at least better. Those of us on the other side believe in the likelihood that anything government is involved in it will largely f*ck up, or at least make it worse. And as a student of history, I have no doubt that history has proven my side to be correct.

You can directly trace the last recession and the depression on lack of government regulation of our financial markets. Letting the market take care of its self ignores simple old fashion greed, people will lie, cheat and steal for money.

[Curly Bill]

Government is your infallible lord and master. Kneel down you lowly, lying, cheating, stealing, pathetic citizens to the greatness that is government. Government is all-knowing, kind and benevolent. Turn over all your worldly goods, your hopes and dreams. Let government take care of you. Praise government! AMEN

Thanks for summing up the liberal view for us.

[REDREX]

You can directly trace the last recession and the depression on lack of government regulation of our financial markets. Letting the market take care of its self ignores simple old fashion greed, people will lie, cheat and steal for money.---And they should go to jail-----How many people went to jail from the last financial problem?-----But for Freddie and Fannie the problem would have been much smaller if it would have happened at all

[Curly Bill]

---And they should go to jail-----How many people went to jail from the last financial problem?-----But for Freddie and Fannie the problem would have been much smaller if it would have happened at all

Yep, but wasn't Barney Frank in large part behind that? Jail would have been a reward for him! bahahahahahaha

[Sooner8th]

---And they should go to jail-----How many people went to jail from the last financial problem?-----But for Freddie and Fannie the problem would have been much smaller if it would have happened at all

YEP - but too much revolving door between the government and wall street along with too much money being spread around by them to campaigns.

[Sooner8th]

---And they should go to jail-----How many people went to jail from the last financial problem?-----But for Freddie and Fannie the problem would have been much smaller if it would have happened at all

The real killer of the economy was when Lehman Brothers collapsed, things went south in a hurry after that.

[pphilfran]

Funny how conservatives don't want government around and not to regulate but in the last couple of days they have tried to blame the meltdown on clinton for taking regulations off of derivatives. Lets get government out of the way and see how the recovery soars - more of what got us into this mess to begin with.

You aint' got balls enough to watch The Warning on PBS....I goes into great detail on the involvement of Clinton's hand picked Economic Working Group....and people involved with the 1998 disaster continued to keep their jobs and even worked for the Obama administration..

LTCM went down due to it's involvement in derivatives...it cost billions to control this one companies failures...Clinton's hand picked economic team refused to believe the problem would ever happen again...and it did....same thing 10 years later...Clinton and his team ignored the warning...bush and his team ignored the warning...

Your problem is you refusal to accept any fact that does not meet your utopian beliefs....

I am done with your sorry *** and you backhanded remarks...

[REDREX]

YEP - but too much revolving door between the government and wall street along with too much money being spread around by them to campaigns.---- ----Freddie and Fannie are GSE's-----The country does not need the gov't to be involved in this activity----Its just like the Federal Flood insurance program----the Gov't selling insurance at far below what should be charged. So what happens people build where they should not they buy cheap govt insurance and they have a flood and the federal govt gets stuck with the bill--- The unintended consequences of gov't actions many times are beyond stupid.

[REDREX]

Well put Phil

[Sooner8th]

Quote Originally Posted by Sooner8th View Post
Government is your infallible lord and master. Kneel down you lowly, lying, cheating, stealing, pathetic citizens to the greatness that is government. Government is all-knowing, kind and benevolent. Turn over all your worldly goods, your hopes and dreams. Let government take care of you. Praise government! AMEN



Thanks for summing up the liberal view for us.

I'm trying to get along here and you got to start that crap again. It does again just prove my point, I can't have a reasonable discussion with you, you just make stuff up.

Let me sum up the conservative view for you - unfettered markets, if you get hosed too bad you are not as smart as the person who cheated you, good for him. You want clean water to drink - go buy some from the store. You want fresh air? Tough. You want a tank or machine gun? Go buy it at the corner store. You can discriminate against anyone, anytime, anywhere. Christianity is the office government religion and that would be evangelical Christianity. Wealthy pay no taxes at all and poor and middle class pay them all. Corporations are people with religious views and first amendment rights and of course pay no taxes. No unions, you should be able to make as much money as you possibly can - if you are a CEO. Praise the all mighty dollar the wealthy. AMEN!

[REDREX]

Quote Originally Posted by Sooner8th View Post
Government is your infallible lord and master. Kneel down you lowly, lying, cheating, stealing, pathetic citizens to the greatness that is government. Government is all-knowing, kind and benevolent. Turn over all your worldly goods, your hopes and dreams. Let government take care of you. Praise government! AMEN




I'm trying to get along here and you got to start that crap again. It does again just prove my point, I can't have a reasonable discussion with you, you just make stuff up.

Let me sum up the conservative view for you - unfettered markets, if you get hosed too bad you are not as smart as the person who cheated you, good for him. You want clean water to drink - go buy some from the store. You want fresh air? Tough. You want a tank or machine gun? Go buy it at the corner store. You can discriminate against anyone, anytime, anywhere. Christianity is the office government religion and that would be evangelical Christianity. Wealthy pay no taxes at all and poor and middle class pay them all. Corporations are people with religious views and first amendment rights and of course pay no taxes. No unions, you should be able to make as much money as you possibly can - if you are a CEO. Praise the all mighty dollar the wealthy. AMEN!----No that is the MSNBC view

[pphilfran]

In The Warning, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk unearths the hidden history of the nation's worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. At the center of it all he finds Brooksley Born, who speaks for the first time on television about her failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008.

Greenspan, Rubin and Summers ultimately prevailed on Congress to stop Born and limit future regulation of derivatives. "Born faced a formidable struggle pushing for regulation at a time when the stock market was booming," Kirk says. "Alan Greenspan was the maestro, and both parties in Washington were united in a belief that the markets would take care of themselves."

Now, with many of the same men who shut down Born in key positions in the Obama administration, The Warning reveals the complicated politics that led to this crisis and what it may say about current attempts to prevent the next one.

[BoulderSooner79]

And this is what I mean by saying you like you some government. You try to look reasonable by saying government can cause harm, but then don't fail to suggest that the "unregulated market" would be more harmful. Gotta give the ol government the benefit of the doubt right? And why not? That's the liberal point of view: Government is good, and if it's not perfect at least it's better than "unregulated markets" & true capitalism, and all those other evil non-government things.

In other words: In the end liberals believe in the role of government to make things if not perfect, at least better. Those of us on the other side believe in the likelihood that anything government is involved in it will largely f*ck up, or at least make it worse. And as a student of history, I have no doubt that history has proven my side to be correct.

I am not a liberal at all, but I am a realist. An unregulated market will cause harm and has every time. But the tendency toward bad behavior is very predictable because it is based on greed and local optimization. Predictability is *good* because that makes proper regulation possible. The government side of the equation is less predictable and based on politics and whim, so ensuring good governance is harder and relies on educated citizens to make wise election decisions. (The cynic in me says that is no longer possible due to the $$ in the system).

The wall street guys who came up with mortgage backed derivatives were not thinking this is risky and could bring down the whole system. They were trying to come up with a new way to optimize their capitol in order to make a boat load of money quickly and legally. Greed and local optimization. It was up to regulators to recognize the risks involved if everyone did it and to come up with new regulations to put boiler plates on the practice in order to contain the global risks. There were plenty of financial experts raising the warning flags both in industry and academics well ahead of the meltdown, but the government failed to response. My claim is the financial guys did nothing wrong or at least acted predictably. And they *will* do it again when they find another corner in the rule book no one has explored yet. And I'm just talking about the financial market because it is huge, extremely vulnerable to greed, and impacts everyone. There are analogies in any industry.

So I'm not saying government is good or bad or that capitalism is good or bad. I'm saying they are both incomplete pieces that are both needed to make a full system. If either one gets the upper hand bad things are going to happen - there needs to be a standoff based on principles that benefit society. Things break down for multiple reasons - sometimes just ignorance because the system is so complicated and ever changing. But the biggest problem that is always looming is corruption and the corrupt back channels that develop between regulators and the regulated. That's a tough one to crack because there are humans on both sides of the fence and there is so much $$ to be had by cheating.

[pphilfran]

Excellent write up, Boulder

[BoulderSooner79]

In The Warning, veteran FRONTLINE producer Michael Kirk unearths the hidden history of the nation's worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. At the center of it all he finds Brooksley Born, who speaks for the first time on television about her failed campaign to regulate the secretive, multitrillion-dollar derivatives market whose crash helped trigger the financial collapse in the fall of 2008.

Greenspan, Rubin and Summers ultimately prevailed on Congress to stop Born and limit future regulation of derivatives. "Born faced a formidable struggle pushing for regulation at a time when the stock market was booming," Kirk says. "Alan Greenspan was the maestro, and both parties in Washington were united in a belief that the markets would take care of themselves."

Now, with many of the same men who shut down Born in key positions in the Obama administration, The Warning reveals the complicated politics that led to this crisis and what it may say about current attempts to prevent the next one.

That definitely looks like a program I should watch. Thanks for the reference!

[pphilfran]

That definitely looks like a program I should watch. Thanks for the reference!

It is fantastic...lot's of facts and interviews with all involved...you can watch online..

Watch here... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/etc/synopsis.html

[Curly Bill]

I am not a liberal at all, but I am a realist. An unregulated market will cause harm and has every time. But the tendency toward bad behavior is very predictable because it is based on greed and local optimization. Predictability is *good* because that makes proper regulation possible. The government side of the equation is less predictable and based on politics and whim, so ensuring good governance is harder and relies on educated citizens to make wise election decisions. (The cynic in me says that is no longer possible due to the $$ in the system).

The wall street guys who came up with mortgage backed derivatives were not thinking this is risky and could bring down the whole system. They were trying to come up with a new way to optimize their capitol in order to make a boat load of money quickly and legally. Greed and local optimization. It was up to regulators to recognize the risks involved if everyone did it and to come up with new regulations to put boiler plates on the practice in order to contain the global risks. There were plenty of financial experts raising the warning flags both in industry and academics well ahead of the meltdown, but the government failed to response. My claim is the financial guys did nothing wrong or at least acted predictably. And they *will* do it again when they find another corner in the rule book no one has explored yet. And I'm just talking about the financial market because it is huge, extremely vulnerable to greed, and impacts everyone. There are analogies in any industry.

So I'm not saying government is good or bad or that capitalism is good or bad. I'm saying they are both incomplete pieces that are both needed to make a full system. If either one gets the upper hand bad things are going to happen - there needs to be a standoff based on principles that benefit society. Things break down for multiple reasons - sometimes just ignorance because the system is so complicated and ever changing. But the biggest problem that is always looming is corruption and the corrupt back channels that develop between regulators and the regulated. That's a tough one to crack because there are humans on both sides of the fence and there is so much $$ to be had by cheating.

How about we just say government should keep bad people from doing bad things to good people, and beyond that stay the hell outta the way?

[Sooner8th]

I am not a liberal at all, but I am a realist. An unregulated market will cause harm and has every time. But the tendency toward bad behavior is very predictable because it is based on greed and local optimization. Predictability is *good* because that makes proper regulation possible. The government side of the equation is less predictable and based on politics and whim, so ensuring good governance is harder and relies on educated citizens to make wise election decisions. (The cynic in me says that is no longer possible due to the $$ in the system).

The wall street guys who came up with mortgage backed derivatives were not thinking this is risky and could bring down the whole system. They were trying to come up with a new way to optimize their capitol in order to make a boat load of money quickly and legally. Greed and local optimization. It was up to regulators to recognize the risks involved if everyone did it and to come up with new regulations to put boiler plates on the practice in order to contain the global risks. There were plenty of financial experts raising the warning flags both in industry and academics well ahead of the meltdown, but the government failed to response. My claim is the financial guys did nothing wrong or at least acted predictably. And they *will* do it again when they find another corner in the rule book no one has explored yet. And I'm just talking about the financial market because it is huge, extremely vulnerable to greed, and impacts everyone. There are analogies in any industry.

So I'm not saying government is good or bad or that capitalism is good or bad. I'm saying they are both incomplete pieces that are both needed to make a full system. If either one gets the upper hand bad things are going to happen - there needs to be a standoff based on principles that benefit society. Things break down for multiple reasons - sometimes just ignorance because the system is so complicated and ever changing. But the biggest problem that is always looming is corruption and the corrupt back channels that develop between regulators and the regulated. That's a tough one to crack because there are humans on both sides of the fence and there is so much $$ to be had by cheating.

First off you are missing a couple of key points. One is wall street lobbied HARD to get them unregulated - they were regulated before but the gramms pushed HARD to get them unregulated, with mainly greenspan's backing, so how could it be up to regulators to "recognize the risks"? He carried a lot of weight back then. They knew they were risky and when they started to go bad - they knew. There is evidence they knew they were going bad, but they continued to sell them, meaning dumping them onto someone else. It was pure and simple greed. They didn't care if it was legal - meaning fraud - or not. No morals.

[Sooner8th]

You aint' got balls enough to watch The Warning on PBS....I goes into great detail on the involvement of Clinton's hand picked Economic Working Group....and people involved with the 1998 disaster continued to keep their jobs and even worked for the Obama administration..

LTCM went down due to it's involvement in derivatives...it cost billions to control this one companies failures...Clinton's hand picked economic team refused to believe the problem would ever happen again...and it did....same thing 10 years later...Clinton and his team ignored the warning...bush and his team ignored the warning...

Your problem is you refusal to accept any fact that does not meet your utopian beliefs....

I am done with your sorry *** and you backhanded remarks...

Here I am trying to be civil and not get into hyperbole, I stupidly thought you guys would do the same. Just attacking the liberal on here. I should have known.

You seem to forget or ignore that Alan Greenspan was the leader in blowing her off. Greenspan was appointed by REAGAN, reappointed by clinton. Greenspan seemed to be reasonable even to me, little did we know.

Alan Greenspan (/ˈælɨn ˈɡriːnspæn/; born March 6, 1926) is an American economist who served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve of the United States from 1987 to 2006. He currently works as a private adviser and provides consulting for firms through his company, Greenspan Associates LLC. First appointed Federal Reserve chairman by President Ronald Reagan in August 1987, he was reappointed at successive four-year intervals until retiring on January 31, 2006 after the second-longest tenure in the position.

[Sooner8th]

You aint' got balls enough to watch The Warning on PBS....I goes into great detail on the involvement of Clinton's hand picked Economic Working Group....and people involved with the 1998 disaster continued to keep their jobs and even worked for the Obama administration..

LTCM went down due to it's involvement in derivatives...it cost billions to control this one companies failures...Clinton's hand picked economic team refused to believe the problem would ever happen again...and it did....same thing 10 years later...Clinton and his team ignored the warning...bush and his team ignored the warning...

Your problem is you refusal to accept any fact that does not meet your utopian beliefs....

I am done with your sorry *** and you backhanded remarks...

What backhanded remarks?

[Sooner8th]

And this is what I mean by saying you like you some government. You try to look reasonable by saying government can cause harm, but then don't fail to suggest that the "unregulated market" would be more harmful. Gotta give the ol government the benefit of the doubt right? And why not? That's the liberal point of view: Government is good, and if it's not perfect at least it's better than "unregulated markets" & true capitalism, and all those other evil non-government things.

In other words: In the end liberals believe in the role of government to make things if not perfect, at least better. Those of us on the other side believe in the likelihood that anything government is involved in it will largely f*ck up, or at least make it worse. And as a student of history, I have no doubt that history has proven my side to be correct.

We have proof of what happens when there is no govenrment regualtaion and you seem to pretend it didn't happen. Then you get caught up in trying to blame clinton. TOTALLY forgetting bush had six years to fix re-regulate it.

Funny how are you arguing VEHEMENTLY AGAINST regulations then try to blame clinton for not regulating? Which is it?

[Curly Bill]

We have proof of what happens when there is no govenrment regualtaion and you seem to pretend it didn't happen. Then you get caught up in trying to blame clinton. TOTALLY forgetting bush had six years to fix re-regulate it.

Funny how are you arguing VEHEMENTLY AGAINST regulations then try to blame clinton for not regulating? Which is it?

WTF are you talking about? Show me a post where I blamed Clinton for whatever you're going on about now? You're either on drugs, or have me confused with someone else who might give a sh*t what you're talking about.

Hell, show me a post where I've even mentioned Clinton in the past 6 months.

[Sooner8th]

WTF are you talking about? Show me a post where I blamed Clinton for whatever you're going on about now? You're either on drugs, or have me confused with someone else who might give a sh*t what you're talking about.

Hell, show me a post where I've even mentioned Clinton in the past 6 months.

My bad - I have a tendency to use you for conservatives. I'll try to be more careful in the future. :)

[BoulderSooner79]

First off you are missing a couple of key points. One is wall street lobbied HARD to get them unregulated - they were regulated before but the gramms pushed HARD to get them unregulated, with mainly greenspan's backing, so how could it be up to regulators to "recognize the risks"? He carried a lot of weight back then. They knew they were risky and when they started to go bad - they knew. There is evidence they knew they were going bad, but they continued to sell them, meaning dumping them onto someone else. It was pure and simple greed. They didn't care if it was legal - meaning fraud - or not. No morals.

I'm not painting the walls street gang as good guys. But lobbying HARD to get their way is predictable behavior and they will always do that. It's easy and doesn't cost much and the potential gains are huge. Greenspan was on the regulators side and should not have gone along with it. Now whether he did it based on incompetence or corruption, I don't know. And yes, there was fraud late in the game, I was just simplifying the example. They didn't start with fraud in mind, just easy money and that is again, predictable behavior. And no one institution was going to bring down the system - it took many companies jumping in the game to get the leverage into the trillions. So each one wanted to optimize their piece, but we needed someone in a global position protect the system and change the game.

And it's not just the multi-billion dollar wall street guys that caused this cascade failure, it went all the way down the line. There was a local example profiled out here in the SF bay area. Home prices were going up so fast that a local realtor came in a bought a whole block of new homes under construction because she knew they would sell for a much higher price 5 months later when they were finished. She stood to make $500k+ in just a few months by using the easy credit with almost no down payment. She had already done this before and cleared almost a million the year before. Well, the meltdown hit mid-construction and she was stuck with a dozen homes that wouldn't sell for near what she "paid". And since she borrowed almost 100% of the money, she really didn't "pay" anything. She eventually walked away and gave the keys to the bank which now had millions more in bad debt on their books and who, no doubt, got bailed out by us tax payers. And if this one women added millions to the problem, you can bet the same thing was going on all across the country.

So this is an example of the government trying to do too much with bad side effects. The easy lending was designed to try to increase home ownership which is a noble cause - up to a point. The government can tip the scales a bit, but putting someone in a house they can't afford is not going to end well. And this particular example shows a system out of control. This realtor was already wealthy and had her own home as well as nice vacation properties. So this had nothing to do with making homes more available and in fact, she was just a middle man feeding the frenzy of price increases. If the program had the correctly regulation it could have been positive. For example, it could say only one home per buyer using easy credit and they would have to be their principal residence for a year or pay a huge tax bill on any capitol gains. A few simple rules would have prevented all those empty homes in FL and NV that ended up under water and foreclosed. But everyone was in feeding frenzy making $$ while there was a total failure of the regulator system.

The thing that irks me about all this is that the folks that do the right thing get hurt the most. People that work, pay their taxes, pay their mortgage on time and save a little along the way got hammered. I'm sure the greedy realtor that dumped millions in bad inventory on the banks declared bankruptcy, protected a bunch of her assets until it blew over and is out doing her thing like nothing happened.

[pphilfran]

Another excellent post, Boulder...

It took decades of missteps to get to 2008....

Interest rates left too low for too long
Everyone needs to own a home (reminds me of the current college situation, but that is a completely different debate)
Deregulation and self monitoring (happened across the board in all economic sectors)
House flipping
Complicated security packages with little regulation and leveraged to the hilt
People buying complicated security packages not realizing what they have actually purchased
Too big to fail (they are still too big to fail, repeal of Glass–Steagall was a mistake)

Corruption? I like to hope that it is less then what we are led to believe :)

[okie52]

Yep, but wasn't Barney Frank in large part behind that? Jail would have been a reward for him! bahahahahahaha

Heh heh

[Sooner8th]

I'm not painting the walls street gang as good guys. But lobbying HARD to get their way is predictable behavior and they will always do that. It's easy and doesn't cost much and the potential gains are huge. Greenspan was on the regulators side and should not have gone along with it. Now whether he did it based on incompetence or corruption, I don't know. And yes, there was fraud late in the game, I was just simplifying the example. They didn't start with fraud in mind, just easy money and that is again, predictable behavior. And no one institution was going to bring down the system - it took many companies jumping in the game to get the leverage into the trillions. So each one wanted to optimize their piece, but we needed someone in a global position protect the system and change the game.

And it's not just the multi-billion dollar wall street guys that caused this cascade failure, it went all the way down the line. There was a local example profiled out here in the SF bay area. Home prices were going up so fast that a local realtor came in a bought a whole block of new homes under construction because she knew they would sell for a much higher price 5 months later when they were finished. She stood to make $500k+ in just a few months by using the easy credit with almost no down payment. She had already done this before and cleared almost a million the year before. Well, the meltdown hit mid-construction and she was stuck with a dozen homes that wouldn't sell for near what she "paid". And since she borrowed almost 100% of the money, she really didn't "pay" anything. She eventually walked away and gave the keys to the bank which now had millions more in bad debt on their books and who, no doubt, got bailed out by us tax payers. And if this one women added millions to the problem, you can bet the same thing was going on all across the country.

So this is an example of the government trying to do too much with bad side effects. The easy lending was designed to try to increase home ownership which is a noble cause - up to a point. The government can tip the scales a bit, but putting someone in a house they can't afford is not going to end well. And this particular example shows a system out of control. This realtor was already wealthy and had her own home as well as nice vacation properties. So this had nothing to do with making homes more available and in fact, she was just a middle man feeding the frenzy of price increases. If the program had the correctly regulation it could have been positive. For example, it could say only one home per buyer using easy credit and they would have to be their principal residence for a year or pay a huge tax bill on any capitol gains. A few simple rules would have prevented all those empty homes in FL and NV that ended up under water and foreclosed. But everyone was in feeding frenzy making $$ while there was a total failure of the regulator system.

The thing that irks me about all this is that the folks that do the right thing get hurt the most. People that work, pay their taxes, pay their mortgage on time and save a little along the way got hammered. I'm sure the greedy realtor that dumped millions in bad inventory on the banks declared bankruptcy, protected a bunch of her assets until it blew over and is out doing her thing like nothing happened.

You will never be able to convince me that there was no corruption in "hard lobbying". The primary cheerleader for deregulating them was Phil Gramm who actually held up the house passed deregulation bill to ensure that the CFTC couldn't regulate the defaults. Gramm was immediate employed by UBS AG, Swiss global financial services company, when he retired from the senate and is now a vice chairman of the Investment Bank division. I think the PWG was more of incompetence and they were just too tight with wall street and banks to be objective.

As for the easy money and the action people take, I think it would be very tough to regulate origination of the loans, which is where the fraud happens. Banks did turn a blind eye knowing they could sell them off. The whole zeal for deregulation ignores basic greed. Like I said before people will lie, cheat and steal to make a buck. That is why we need regulations.

[BoulderSooner79]

You will never be able to convince me that there was no corruption in "hard lobbying". The primary cheerleader for deregulating them was Phil Gramm who actually held up the house passed deregulation bill to ensure that the CFTC couldn't regulate the defaults. Gramm was immediate employed by UBS AG, Swiss global financial services company, when he retired from the senate and is now a vice chairman of the Investment Bank division. I think the PWG was more of incompetence and they were just too tight with wall street and banks to be objective.

As for the easy money and the action people take, I think it would be very tough to regulate origination of the loans, which is where the fraud happens. Banks did turn a blind eye knowing they could sell them off. The whole zeal for deregulation ignores basic greed. Like I said before people will lie, cheat and steal to make a buck. That is why we need regulations.

I think I mentioned all those points, so I don't see where I'm trying to convince you of anything
- politics and whim
- corrupt back channels
- predictable behavior based on greed

[Sooner8th]

I think I mentioned all those points, so I don't see where I'm trying to convince you of anything
- politics and whim
- corrupt back channels
- predictable behavior based on greed

I guess i misunderstood what you ment by - But lobbying HARD to get their way is predictable behavior and they will always do that.

My bad.