Obama Now Supports Disastrous policy he reprimanded Clinton over

Charver's Handy Cut Out And Keep World Economic Timeline

February 2008 - Not collapsed

October 2008 - Collapsed

Perhaps this explains Obama's change of heart?
 
charver said:
Charver's Handy Cut Out And Keep World Economic Timeline

February 2008 - Not collapsed

October 2008 - Collapsed

Perhaps this explains Obama's change of heart?
Click to expand...
No Obama was right the first time, the bailout is a disaster that will add to debt and make the inevitable downturn that much harder.
 
KingCondanomation said:
No Obama was right the first time, the bailout is a disaster that will add to debt and make the inevitable downturn that much harder.
Click to expand...

The market lost trillions over the past few weeks; it really puts $700 billion in perspective.

I don't know whether the bailout will work or not, but many are giving world gov't intervention & the decision to infuse an instant $250 billion in the U.S. credit for the global rally we've seen in the market the past couple of days. That's not small thing; I do tend to believe that without any intervention, the markets would completely lose confidence, and we could have gone past the tipping point.
 
Onceler said:
The market lost trillions over the past few weeks; it really puts $700 billion in perspective.

I don't know whether the bailout will work or not, but many are giving world gov't intervention & the decision to infuse an instant $250 billion in the U.S. credit for the global rally we've seen in the market the past couple of days. That's not small thing; I do tend to believe that without any intervention, the markets would completely lose confidence, and we could have gone past the tipping point.
Click to expand...

And when the next bailout is called for? I don't dispute it was always likely good for the short term.
 
KingCondanomation said:
And when the next bailout is called for? I don't dispute it was always likely good for the short term.
Click to expand...

I think it's kind of crazy to assume that practices in the loan/credit industry will just continue "as usual" now.

We're headed for a completely different America in that department, from housing loans to credit cards & everything in between. This is one area where deregulation did NOT work; expect more regulation now, and much more oversight of industry practices.
 
Onceler said:
I think it's kind of crazy to assume that practices in the loan/credit industry will just continue "as usual" now.

We're headed for a completely different America in that department, from housing loans to credit cards & everything in between. This is one area where deregulation did NOT work; expect more regulation now, and much more oversight of industry practices.
Click to expand...

Let's split things up here.

Reasons for bad loans
Fannie and Freddie were government backed entities and so they had less incentive to worry about giving out bad loans when they were being backed. Other banks less so but still along the same lines. The CRA contributed by implcitly forcing companies to open more branches in poor neighborhoods where more bad loans were assured to be given, which increased the problem.

Reasons for more loans
All deregulation did was increase the competition and providers of loans, it did not increase bad loans, but all loans.
The fed maintained a policy of low interest rates which encouraged lending and borrowing.
Government is principally to blame and yet more regulation is not going to help. SOME companies do deserve blame on their own but instead of failing as they should for their actions, we bail them out.

All I ask is that you do not join in with the cypress's of the site and blame the free market and lack of regulation, there was anything but.
 
KingCondanomation said:
Let's split things up here.

Reasons for bad loans
Fannie and Freddie were government backed entities and so they had less incentive to worry about giving out bad loans when they were being backed. Other banks less so but still along the same lines. The CRA contributed by implcitly forcing companies to open more branches in poor neighborhoods where more bad loans were assured to be given, which increased the problem.

Reasons for more loans
All deregulation did was increase the competition and providers of loans, it did not increase bad loans, but all loans.
The fed maintained a policy of low interest rates which encouraged lending and borrowing.
Government is principally to blame and yet more regulation is not going to help. SOME companies do deserve blame on their own but instead of failing as they should for their actions, we bail them out.

All I ask is that you do not join in with the cypress's of the site and blame the free market and lack of regulation, there was anything but.
Click to expand...

It's not the "Cypress's of the site," Dano. No rational human being thinks deregulation was a good idea at this point, even the GOP standard-bearer right now.

Deregulation is not always the answer. Capitalism is good, but unrestrained capitalism is governed only by profit. Because of that, greed tends to trump any other consideration; that's just the way it is. We have seen the results with the banks, and they have been disastrous. There is no more clear example of how wrong you are when it comes to a basic philosophy that less gov't intervention is ALWAYS the solution. It is not, and a wide range of political ideologies now almost unanimously agree on that.
 
Onceler said:
It's not the "Cypress's of the site," Dano. No rational human being thinks deregulation was a good idea at this point, even the GOP standard-bearer right now.

Deregulation is not always the answer. Capitalism is good, but unrestrained capitalism is governed only by profit. Because of that, greed tends to trump any other consideration; that's just the way it is. We have seen the results with the banks, and they have been disastrous. There is no more clear example of how wrong you are when it comes to a basic philosophy that less gov't intervention is ALWAYS the solution. It is not, and a wide range of political ideologies now almost unanimously agree on that.
Click to expand...

I would agree for the most part. Some regulation is needed and a part of the problem was the removal of regulations that were in place to try to prevent this type of situation. That said, government policies of trying to promote more home ownership also played a large part in this mess. As did the Fed decisions on rates earlier this decade.

There has to be a balance to be certain, but I fear the idiots in DC will now skew things too far to the regulated side.
 
The "government policies of trying to promote more home ownership" played a very small part if by that you mean the CRA.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top