In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
That's not to say regulation and oversight are always perfect (especially when one party fights them at practically every turn), but it's obvious that right leaning economists like Greenspan and his ilk could not have been more epically wrong about institutions like Lehman Brothers. And those problems unquestionably preceded the run, and had they been addressed when they were pointed out (they were unbelievable obvious to anyone who wanted to look), the entire crisis could of been averted, or at minimum, less harmful.
To use another analogy it's like saying the main reason a house burned down was because a child set fire to it. Well DUH!? But how did we get to a position where the child got to be unsupervised, got the fire source, and had time to make a fire bad enough that the whole house had to burn down instead of just where the fire started?
That's not to say regulation and oversight are always perfect (especially when one party fights them at practically every turn), but it's obvious that right leaning economists like Greenspan and his ilk could not have been more epically wrong about institutions like Lehman Brothers. And those problems unquestionably preceded the run, and had they been addressed when they were pointed out (they were unbelievable obvious to anyone who wanted to look), the entire crisis could of been averted, or at minimum, less harmful.
To use another analogy it's like saying the main reason a house burned down was because a child set fire to it. Well DUH!? But how did we get to a position where the child got to be unsupervised, got the fire source, and had time to make a fire bad enough that the whole house had to burn down instead of just where the fire started?
That's not to say regulation and oversight are always perfect (especially when one party fights them at practically every turn), but it's obvious that right leaning economists like Greenspan and his ilk could not have been more epically wrong about institutions like Lehman Brothers. And those problems unquestionably preceded the run, and had they been addressed when they were pointed out (they were unbelievable obvious to anyone who wanted to look), the entire crisis could of been averted, or at minimum, less harmful.
To use another analogy it's like saying the main reason a house burned down was because a child set fire to it. Well DUH!? But how did we get to a position where the child got to be unsupervised, got the fire source, and had time to make a fire bad enough that the whole house had to burn down instead of just where the fire started?
Yes he sounds like you do now: "This is different." "You don't know what you are talking about." Now we have it figured out so 2008 won't happen again.
The mere fact that your proposal is well-liked by the banking sector should raise eyebrows. "This is different in a trivial way" and "the fed is making a minor amount of interest by providing liquidity over the last five years" aren't very convincing arguments.
That's not to say regulation and oversight are always perfect (especially when one party fights them at practically every turn), but it's obvious that right leaning economists like Greenspan and his ilk could not have been more epically wrong about institutions like Lehman Brothers. And those problems unquestionably preceded the run, and had they been addressed when they were pointed out (they were unbelievable obvious to anyone who wanted to look), the entire crisis could of been averted, or at minimum, less harmful.
To use another analogy it's like saying the main reason a house burned down was because a child set fire to it. Well DUH!? But how did we get to a position where the child got to be unsupervised, got the fire source, and had time to make a fire bad enough that the whole house had to burn down instead of just where the fire started?
Fannie/Freddie never had a greater ally (well, besides Chris Dodd). The political scene is neck deep in the run-up to the crisis. Democrats (and some Republicans) accused banks of redlining low-income applicants. The mighty hammer of discrimination allegations and threats of lawsuit alongside the CRA came down on these banks, and they lended more and more. I don't absolve the banks in any means (the intertwining CDS & MBS etc etc). I think IgnE's simplification of the atmosphere before crisis oversimplifies the forces opposing averting changes. Maybe the coming collapse was obvious in some respects, just like to some politicians banks refusing loans to the poor was obviously racism and discrimination. Nobody bit the political bullet and stepped in to highlight the problem and address the problem, right or left.
On May 28 2014 11:18 oneofthem wrote: the risk aggregation 'calculation' used in the valuation of securitization behind the ABCP's made them both attractive and able to be 'manufactured' from dangerous loans which were produced enmass to feed that market.
Sure and for the most part those securities performed fine (afaik).
clearly they did not perform fine based on how the market reacted. problem with this derivative thingy is that different pay priority/schedules were different products altogether. the problem was with the actual high risk but still AAA stuff, which is not all of the securitization in question. so you should clarify what actually performed well
Actual default rates for structured finance 'AAA' securities was quote low:
I think a lot of the price action was due to fear and forced selling.
Edit: When the reserve primary fund broke the buck, it's NAV fell all the way to $0.97 on the dollar. That's not a big move...
given the leverage involved and what risk of AAA is supposed to be these numbers are far from acceptable. fragility due to leverage and tight interconnectedness plus the more important problem of systemic faulty info will grind the banks to a halt. you are like the guy citing absolute self combustion rate of dynamite sticks without noting the millions of sticks around each one
You're like the guy complaining about the combustibility of cooking oil in a room full of dynamite.
thx for only replying to the throwaway analogy. problem was not knowing cooking oil from dynamite and when that happens there is no interbank lending. liquidity depends on trust and knowledge which the aaa securities thus manufactured lacked
That's not to say regulation and oversight are always perfect (especially when one party fights them at practically every turn), but it's obvious that right leaning economists like Greenspan and his ilk could not have been more epically wrong about institutions like Lehman Brothers. And those problems unquestionably preceded the run, and had they been addressed when they were pointed out (they were unbelievable obvious to anyone who wanted to look), the entire crisis could of been averted, or at minimum, less harmful.
To use another analogy it's like saying the main reason a house burned down was because a child set fire to it. Well DUH!? But how did we get to a position where the child got to be unsupervised, got the fire source, and had time to make a fire bad enough that the whole house had to burn down instead of just where the fire started?
Fannie/Freddie never had a greater ally (well, besides Chris Dodd). The political scene is neck deep in the run-up to the crisis. Democrats (and some Republicans) accused banks of redlining low-income applicants. The mighty hammer of discrimination allegations and threats of lawsuit alongside the CRA came down on these banks, and they lended more and more. I don't absolve the banks in any means (the intertwining CDS & MBS etc etc). I think IgnE's simplification of the atmosphere before crisis oversimplifies the forces opposing averting changes. Maybe the coming collapse was obvious in some respects, just like to some politicians banks refusing loans to the poor was obviously racism and discrimination. Nobody bit the political bullet and stepped in to highlight the problem and address the problem, right or left.
jonny's default rate graph actually puts the blame not on le loan fail rate but the way banking system acted. completely well priced risk is no poison so le poor blacks are ok
WASHINGTON -- Republican governors in seven states -- Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Nebraska, Texas and Utah -- are either ignoring or refusing to comply with national standards meant to prevent sexual assault in prisons, according to new information from the Justice Department.
The Justice Department gave the governors of all 50 states until May 15 to either say they are in compliance with national standards to prevent prison rape or certify that at least 5 percent of the federal grant funds they receive will go toward bringing them into compliance. Just two states, New Hampshire and New Jersey, certified that they were in compliance, while 46 states or territories promised to dedicate at least 5 percent of their grant funds to meeting the federal standards.
In all, out of the 56 jurisdictions where it applies (50 states plus the District of Columbia and five territories), 48 are in compliance with the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), which was first passed in 2003. The national standards associated with PREA were finalized in 2012. The eight entities that are not in compliance -- those seven states plus the Northern Marianas Islands -- will lose 5 percent of their grant funds in the coming year.
Deputy Attorney General James Cole said on Wednesday that the 85 percent overall compliance rate left him "very encouraged," and that it was clear states and territories were taking this issue seriously.
"The enactment of PREA 11 years ago signaled an unequivocal rejection of the outdated -- and morally unconscionable -- acceptance of rape as part of the sentence being served by an adult or juvenile in the American correctional system," Cole said. "The PREA standards have led us closer to ending the culture of violence in our nation's prisons, jails and juvenile facilities."
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Justice Programs Mary Lou Leary said it has been difficult to change the prison system's attitude towards sexual assault.
More Americans identify themselves as conservative than as liberal on economic and social issues, but the gap has shrunk to the smallest in the 14 years Gallup has been conducting its annual Values and Beliefs research, the polling company revealed on Wednesday.
According to the poll, which was conducted in early May, 34 percent of Americans said they were conservative on social issues, while 35 percent said they were moderate and 30 percent liberal.
That 4 percent difference between conservative and liberal stands in stark contrast to the where the country stood a half decade ago. In both 2009 and 2010, the conservative advantage on social issues stood at 17 percent, according to Gallup poll data.
Gallup said that while Republican views on social issues have been steady the past four years, Democrats are now more likely to identify as socially liberal, especially regarding same-sex marriage and legalization of marijuana.
“Because Republicans have stayed where they were on social issues while Democrats have shifted in a more liberal direction, overall the country is significantly more liberal on social issues than it was,” said William Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former policy adviser to President Bill Clinton. “If you look at Democrats on social issues, they have shifted very sharply since Obama’s election."
With respect to economic issues, 42 percent identified as conservative, 34 percent said they were moderate and 21 percent identified as liberal. While conservative economic identification remains dominant, the 21 percent advantage over liberals is much lower than in 2010, when the conservative advantage was 36 percent.
That's not to say regulation and oversight are always perfect (especially when one party fights them at practically every turn), but it's obvious that right leaning economists like Greenspan and his ilk could not have been more epically wrong about institutions like Lehman Brothers. And those problems unquestionably preceded the run, and had they been addressed when they were pointed out (they were unbelievable obvious to anyone who wanted to look), the entire crisis could of been averted, or at minimum, less harmful.
To use another analogy it's like saying the main reason a house burned down was because a child set fire to it. Well DUH!? But how did we get to a position where the child got to be unsupervised, got the fire source, and had time to make a fire bad enough that the whole house had to burn down instead of just where the fire started?
Yes he sounds like you do now: "This is different." "You don't know what you are talking about." Now we have it figured out so 2008 won't happen again.
The mere fact that your proposal is well-liked by the banking sector should raise eyebrows. "This is different in a trivial way" and "the fed is making a minor amount of interest by providing liquidity over the last five years" aren't very convincing arguments.
I'd like to move on from this topic but it's hard not to respond to this.
Frank was arguing that there wasn't a problem (no housing bubble), and even if there was, there wouldn't be a crisis. I'm arguing something completely different: there is a problem in the financial system and it absolutely needs to be fixed. I'm also arguing for a solution to the problem.
My argument has never been "this is different". My argument was that shadow banking has similar risks to traditional banking and that the solution we used to stop banking runs (Fed as lender of last resort) should be more or less extended to shadow banking.
I have no idea if the banking sector likes my proposal. This seems to be an assumption on your end based upon a misinterpretation of what I'm arguing for.
That's not to say regulation and oversight are always perfect (especially when one party fights them at practically every turn), but it's obvious that right leaning economists like Greenspan and his ilk could not have been more epically wrong about institutions like Lehman Brothers. And those problems unquestionably preceded the run, and had they been addressed when they were pointed out (they were unbelievable obvious to anyone who wanted to look), the entire crisis could of been averted, or at minimum, less harmful.
To use another analogy it's like saying the main reason a house burned down was because a child set fire to it. Well DUH!? But how did we get to a position where the child got to be unsupervised, got the fire source, and had time to make a fire bad enough that the whole house had to burn down instead of just where the fire started?
Yes he sounds like you do now: "This is different." "You don't know what you are talking about." Now we have it figured out so 2008 won't happen again.
The mere fact that your proposal is well-liked by the banking sector should raise eyebrows. "This is different in a trivial way" and "the fed is making a minor amount of interest by providing liquidity over the last five years" aren't very convincing arguments.
I'd like to move on from this topic but it's hard not to respond to this.
Frank was arguing that there wasn't a problem (no housing bubble), and even if there was, there wouldn't be a crisis. I'm arguing something completely different: there is a problem in the financial system and it absolutely needs to be fixed. I'm also arguing for a solution to the problem.
My argument has never been "this is different". My argument was that shadow banking has similar risks to traditional banking and that the solution we used to stop banking runs (Fed as lender of last resort) should be more or less extended to shadow banking.
I have no idea if the banking sector likes my proposal. This seems to be an assumption on your end based upon a misinterpretation of what I'm arguing for.
Well the Fed acting as the lender of last resort for traditional banks doesn't come without stipulations. Are you advocating those same stipulations be placed on any institution that wants the Fed to act as LoLR?
That's not to say regulation and oversight are always perfect (especially when one party fights them at practically every turn), but it's obvious that right leaning economists like Greenspan and his ilk could not have been more epically wrong about institutions like Lehman Brothers. And those problems unquestionably preceded the run, and had they been addressed when they were pointed out (they were unbelievable obvious to anyone who wanted to look), the entire crisis could of been averted, or at minimum, less harmful.
To use another analogy it's like saying the main reason a house burned down was because a child set fire to it. Well DUH!? But how did we get to a position where the child got to be unsupervised, got the fire source, and had time to make a fire bad enough that the whole house had to burn down instead of just where the fire started?
Yes he sounds like you do now: "This is different." "You don't know what you are talking about." Now we have it figured out so 2008 won't happen again.
The mere fact that your proposal is well-liked by the banking sector should raise eyebrows. "This is different in a trivial way" and "the fed is making a minor amount of interest by providing liquidity over the last five years" aren't very convincing arguments.
I'd like to move on from this topic but it's hard not to respond to this.
Frank was arguing that there wasn't a problem (no housing bubble), and even if there was, there wouldn't be a crisis. I'm arguing something completely different: there is a problem in the financial system and it absolutely needs to be fixed. I'm also arguing for a solution to the problem.
My argument has never been "this is different". My argument was that shadow banking has similar risks to traditional banking and that the solution we used to stop banking runs (Fed as lender of last resort) should be more or less extended to shadow banking.
I have no idea if the banking sector likes my proposal. This seems to be an assumption on your end based upon a misinterpretation of what I'm arguing for.
Well the Fed acting as the lender of last resort for traditional banks doesn't come without stipulations. Are you advocating those same stipulations be placed on any institution that wants the Fed to act as LoLR?
Well, shadow banking is different so I would think the stipulations would have to be different. But basically, yeah.
Sorry if this is repost, but has anyone been talking about this yet?
Should there be a separate thread for this alone?
He says a lot of important shit finally and I think he prepared and killed this interview. He's a martyr/hero for the constitution and American people's rights. I really don't see how anyone can see otherwise.
He says a lot of important shit finally and I think he prepared and killed this interview. He's a martyr/hero for the constitution and American people's rights. I really don't see how anyone can see otherwise.
The fact that he ran away to Russia makes him so much less than a hero/martyr. So much more could have been done if he had stayed and faced trial, so much more brought to light, and much more outrage. Now you just have emblazoned conspiracy theorists throwing around allegations about the NSA/US gov't doing all kinds of unlikely/impossible shit because part of their theory was vindicated, and people (and news orgs) are believing them.
But yes, there is another topic for that, but this isn't a bad place for the discussion either.
He says a lot of important shit finally and I think he prepared and killed this interview. He's a martyr/hero for the constitution and American people's rights. I really don't see how anyone can see otherwise.
The fact that he ran away to Russia makes him so much less than a hero/martyr. So much more could have been done if he had stayed and faced trial, so much more brought to light, and much more outrage. Now you just have emblazoned conspiracy theorists throwing around allegations about the NSA/US gov't doing all kinds of unlikely/impossible shit because part of their theory was vindicated, and people (and news orgs) are believing them.
But yes, there is another topic for that, but this isn't a bad place for the discussion either.
Yes like kept in solitary confinement then been granted a secret trial by the same Justice Department that has yet to prosecute anyone involved in the NSA scandal including those that lied under oath in front of Congress.
Pretty sure him staying in America would be very counter productive to him being able to tell anything else about what the NSA is doing, being they would make sure he's never heard from again.
He says a lot of important shit finally and I think he prepared and killed this interview. He's a martyr/hero for the constitution and American people's rights. I really don't see how anyone can see otherwise.
The fact that he ran away to Russia makes him so much less than a hero/martyr. So much more could have been done if he had stayed and faced trial, so much more brought to light, and much more outrage. Now you just have emblazoned conspiracy theorists throwing around allegations about the NSA/US gov't doing all kinds of unlikely/impossible shit because part of their theory was vindicated, and people (and news orgs) are believing them.
But yes, there is another topic for that, but this isn't a bad place for the discussion either.
Yes like kept in solitary confinement then been granted a secret trial by the same Justice Department that has yet to prosecute anyone involved in the NSA scandal including those that lied under oath in front of Congress.
Pretty sure constitutional rights would have trumped a lot of the claims that he would be essentially squelched. There's a lot of grey area around NSA spying, there's much less about detaining and trials of US citizens.
On May 30 2014 00:14 hunts wrote: Pretty sure him staying in America would be very counter productive to him being able to tell anything else about what the NSA is doing, being they would make sure he's never heard from again.
Life isn't like a movie/TV show where important people just "disappear." The fact that he was able to leak the information is a testament to this fact.
He says a lot of important shit finally and I think he prepared and killed this interview. He's a martyr/hero for the constitution and American people's rights. I really don't see how anyone can see otherwise.
The fact that he ran away to Russia makes him so much less than a hero/martyr. So much more could have been done if he had stayed and faced trial, so much more brought to light, and much more outrage. Now you just have emblazoned conspiracy theorists throwing around allegations about the NSA/US gov't doing all kinds of unlikely/impossible shit because part of their theory was vindicated, and people (and news orgs) are believing them.
But yes, there is another topic for that, but this isn't a bad place for the discussion either.
Yes like kept in solitary confinement then been granted a secret trial by the same Justice Department that has yet to prosecute anyone involved in the NSA scandal including those that lied under oath in front of Congress.
Pretty sure constitutional rights would have trumped a lot of the claims that he would be essentially squelched. There's a lot of grey area around NSA spying, there's much less about detaining and trials of US citizens.
Yes, its not like Manning spend years in an isolated prison, nope not at all.
He says a lot of important shit finally and I think he prepared and killed this interview. He's a martyr/hero for the constitution and American people's rights. I really don't see how anyone can see otherwise.
The fact that he ran away to Russia makes him so much less than a hero/martyr. So much more could have been done if he had stayed and faced trial, so much more brought to light, and much more outrage. Now you just have emblazoned conspiracy theorists throwing around allegations about the NSA/US gov't doing all kinds of unlikely/impossible shit because part of their theory was vindicated, and people (and news orgs) are believing them.
But yes, there is another topic for that, but this isn't a bad place for the discussion either.
Yes like kept in solitary confinement then been granted a secret trial by the same Justice Department that has yet to prosecute anyone involved in the NSA scandal including those that lied under oath in front of Congress.
Pretty sure constitutional rights would have trumped a lot of the claims that he would be essentially squelched. There's a lot of grey area around NSA spying, there's much less about detaining and trials of US citizens.
Isn't that bradley manning or whatever guy that helped wiki leaks still locked up without a trial, many years later now? Sorry if I'm wrong about that.
On May 30 2014 00:22 farvacola wrote: It is worth noting that Manning was a soldier; slightly different rules apply.
This. He was bound by military rules of conduct and thus was subject to military courts and proceedings. Snowden was straight up a US citizen, and the only loopholes that could have given him special circumstances would have been allegations of espionage on behalf of foreign governments, a case that would have fallen flat if he hadn't fled to them.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.standardandpoors.com/spf/fgr_articles/950068/6750010.gif)
