Solar,

My educational background is Economics and Finance, but my professional career experience is in Construction and commercial real estate. 

Basel III is beyond my comprehension, but my what little understanding of Basel III I do have is that it relies heavily on derivatives and other synthetic instruments to prop up the balance sheet and provide liquidity to the system.

The transparent solution to solve the Banks balance sheet problem and introduce liquidity into the system would have been to reinstate the measures that were introduced during the Resolution Trust days, and that was to allow the banks to gradually recognize the loan losses over 10 or 20 year period. 

The big question is how do we ever reintroduce positive real interest rates without collapsing the system?

I had a pretty good idea it was mere window dressing to disguise more manipulation.
Glad to have new insight into an ongoing problem...

Blind allegiance?  If that were the case, couldn’t you cut and paste something I’ve posted that is not true?  Couldn’t you cut and paste something I’ve posted that you feel leaves out some important ‘context’ that changes the meaning of what I’ve posted?  couldn't you cut and paste something that I've conveniently 'mis paraphrased'? 

Mmmm, strangely you silly cons have only whined about or conveniently ‘mis paraphrase’ what I’ve posted in a way convenient to your blind hatred of President Obama.  I post clear simple points and back them up.  You guys repeat bumper stickers, chants and slogans.   So yea, there are ‘blind people’ around here. 

case in point,  kram’s inability to see UE going up in 2008 and then taking off like a rocket in Q4.  his blind hatred of President Obama makes him (and others) pretend it started under President Obama

Amazing, such a disconnect form reality. Nearly every post is pro Husein, anti Bush, yet you question when someone points out your blind allegiance?
Might I remind you, we have been blaming both sides, yet you only see it as Bush's fault, even your link which you claim supports your contention that Bush is solely to blame, exposes your blind allegiance and hypocrisy.

From your link:

In this report, we detail the events of the crisis. But a simple summary, as we see
it, is useful at the outset. While the vulnerabilities that created the potential for crisis
were years in the making, it was the collapse of the housing bubble—fueled by
low interest rates, easy and available credit, scant regulation, and toxic mortgages—
that was the spark that ignited a string of events, which led to a full-blown crisis in
the fall of . Trillions of dollars in risky mortgages had become embedded
throughout the financial system, as mortgage-related securities were packaged,
repackaged, and sold to investors around the world. When the bubble burst, hundreds
of billions of dollars in losses in mortgages and mortgage-related securities
shook markets as well as financial institutions that had significant exposures to
those mortgages and had borrowed heavily against them. This happened not just in
the United States but around the world. The losses were magnified by derivatives
such as synthetic securities.
The crisis reached seismic proportions in September  with the failure of
Lehman Brothers and the impending collapse of the insurance giant American International
Group (AIG). Panic fanned by a lack of transparency of the balance sheets of major
financial institutions, coupled with a tangle of interconnections among institutions
perceived to be “too big to fail,” caused the credit markets to seize up. Trading ground
to a halt. The stock market plummeted. The economy plunged into a deep recession.
The financial system we examined bears little resemblance to that of our parents’
generation. The changes in the past three decades alone have been remarkable.

We conclude widespread failures in financial regulation and supervision
proved devastating to the stability of the nation’s financial markets. The sentries
were not at their posts, in no small part due to the widely accepted faith in the selfcorrecting
nature of the markets and the ability of financial institutions to effectively
police themselves. More than 30 years of deregulation and reliance on self-regulation
by financial institutions, championed by former Federal Reserve chairman Alan
Greenspan and others, supported by successive administrations and Congresses, and
actively pushed by the powerful financial industry at every turn, had stripped away
key safeguards, which could have helped avoid catastrophe. This approach had
opened up gaps in oversight of critical areas with trillions of dollars at risk, such as
the shadow banking system and over-the-counter derivatives markets. In addition,
the government permitted financial firms to pick their preferred regulators in what
became a race to the weakest supervisor.

no solar.  Every single post I've posted has been factual and has been backed up by solid factual links.   I cant help it the facts dont support your 'conservative' narratives.   And no one has pointed out anything about me. they just keep whining.    And I documented what blind hatred looks like when kram falslely claimed UE shot up after Obama took over. 

And I posted Financial Crisis Commission to point out testimony and facts.    And you arent even reading what you keep posting.  Read this slolwly :"the vulnerabilities that created the potential for crisis were years in the making,"  but it didnt start until "—fueled by
low interest rates, easy and available credit, scant regulation, and toxic mortgages" .
when did the 'scant regulation', toxic mortgages and low interest rates start?   

See how your blind hatred of anything I post prevents you from reading it.   and I even
accused the report of spinning the Lehman thing.  the lehman collapsed triggered the panic not the lehman collapse with concern about AIG.  AIG got bailed out and the panic continued. 

Here's some more spin (more or less)

"among institutions  perceived to be “too big to fail,” caused the credit markets to seize up. Trading ground to a halt. The stock market plummeted. The economy plunged into a deep recession.."    Nope, credit markets seized up early 2007.  Trading did ground to a halt and we were already in a recession. 

And just the like the Bush Working Group on financial markets. I didnt just post that. I posted the Fed saying the exact same thing as Bush's group and I posted the rocketship rise in No Docs and Subprime in 2004.  Neither of those rockets take off without Bush's regulators letting it. Hence, he's responsible.  I read what they said and verified it. 

so you keep worrying about the next mortgage bubble.  the facts say otherwise.

Interesting how you claim I have blind hatred, and use someone else' post to prove it.

Now how about sticking to the facts, I posted facts backing my claim that it was solely Bush's fault, facts from your link.
Now read it again and tell me your facts are wrong.

More than 30 years of deregulation and reliance on self-regulation
by financial institutions, championed by former Federal Reserve chairman Alan
Greenspan and others, supported by successive administrations and Congresses

Interesting how you claim I have blind hatred, and use someone else' post to prove it.

 

Solar, see how you cant follow a simple point.  I was addressing supsales’s false assertion that I have blind allegiance to Obama.  (I used the quote function so how could you not follow the point) .  I then said all you cons have such blind hatred of President Obama.  I then used the example of kram lying about UE. He’s not that stupid so he was obviously lying or blinded by hatred. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.  I then accused you of having blind hatred of everything I post.  What else explains your inability to understand what I post, follow a simple point or you repeatedly accusing me of posting something I didn’t. 

Now how about sticking to the facts, I posted facts backing my claim that it was (NOT) solely Bush's fault, facts from your link.
Now read it again and tell me your facts are wrong.
 

See how your blind hatred makes the connection that I posted it so therefore I ‘own’ every opinion in it.  You posted the ‘opinion’ of the Financial Commission.  I posted an  opinion from it to show they thought it was the Lehman collapse and the impending AIG collapse caused the market crash and sent the economy deeper into recession.   I even disputed the part about AIG when I posted it in conjunction with another link.  and when I find it, I’m going to ‘quote’ you saying you don’t trust ‘gubment links’ but boy oh boy you sure are married to this one.   


“it was the collapse of the housing bubble—fueled by low interest rates, easy and available credit, scant regulation, and toxic mortgages— that was the spark

And this is why I dispute  it  (Now read this slowly) low interest rates and anything Carter, Reagan or Clinton did not allow banks to lower their lending standards in late 2004 and low interest rates and anything Carter, Reagan or Clinton did not prevent Bush’s regulators from stopping it.   

Why not blame the invention of mortgages? If they hadn’t been invented, bush’s regulators couldn’t have pretended not to see the increase from 10 % to  40 % of all mortgages being subprime and the increase  from 4.3 % to over 50% of all mortgages were No Docs.  And when did the increase start? That’s right, late 2004. 

This article indicates it all began in the mid nineties when banks were encouraged to lend to folks who previously could not obtain mortgages. The banks were more than willing to go along when they knew they could dump these mortgages on Fannie and Freddie. Since they are "for profit" organizations this was a win-win situation. That receive all the fees and shift the risk to another entity. That is good business.

oh subsale, your 'editorial' says it all began in the mid 90s.  Its what makes it a lying editorial.  Again, you and your 'editorial' have to ignore that

Bush told it started in late 2004
the fed told you it started in late 2004
the facts about subprime and No Doc loans told you it started in late 2004
Bush stopped GSE 'reform' in 2003
GSE 'reform' in 2003 had nothing to do with subprime
Bush told Barney there was nothing wrong with Freddie and fannie
(all the following were in 2004)
Bush reversed the clinton rule that 'reined in' Freddie and Fannie's subprime purchases
Bush forced freddie and fannie to buy more low income home loans
Bush gave away 40,000 free downpayments
Bush allowed 150,000 people to have zero downpayments
Bush said he wanted 5.5 million new minority home owners
Bush PROTECTS PREDATORY LENDERS
Bush relaxes net capital rule for investment banks

and guess what subsale, if you post any of those statements with the link to prove it in the comment section Mr Hancock deletes the post.  So when he says "freedom of speech" he means freedom of his speech.

Solar, see how you cant follow a simple point.  I was addressing supsales’s false assertion that I have blind allegiance to Obama.  (I used the quote function so how could you not follow the point) .  I then said all you cons have such blind hatred of President Obama.  I then used the example of kram lying about UE. He’s not that stupid so he was obviously lying or blinded by hatred. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.  I then accused you of having blind hatred of everything I post.  What else explains your inability to understand what I post, follow a simple point or you repeatedly accusing me of posting something I didn’t. 


See how your blind hatred makes the connection that I posted it so therefore I ‘own’ every opinion in it.  You posted the ‘opinion’ of the Financial Commission.  I posted an  opinion from it to show they thought it was the Lehman collapse and the impending AIG collapse caused the market crash and sent the economy deeper into recession.   I even disputed the part about AIG when I posted it in conjunction with another link.  and when I find it, I’m going to ‘quote’ you saying you don’t trust ‘gubment links’ but boy oh boy you sure are married to this one.   


“it was the collapse of the housing bubble—fueled by low interest rates, easy and available credit, scant regulation, and toxic mortgages— that was the spark

And this is why I dispute  it  (Now read this slowly) low interest rates and anything Carter, Reagan or Clinton did not allow banks to lower their lending standards in late 2004 and low interest rates and anything Carter, Reagan or Clinton did not prevent Bush’s regulators from stopping it.   

Why not blame the invention of mortgages? If they hadn’t been invented, bush’s regulators couldn’t have pretended not to see the increase from 10 % to  40 % of all mortgages being subprime and the increase  from 4.3 % to over 50% of all mortgages were No Docs.  And when did the increase start? That’s right, late 2004.

My blind hatred for whom? I have no love for either party, they both are taking us to Hell using different roads, but both lead to Hell in the end.

I posted proof from your link that stated they believe both party's were responsible.
The fact that Bush tried to stop the impending doom mans nothing to you, because it was the Dims who had Congress and blocked his initiatives, not to mention, Bush doesn't write Bills, so Bush could only do what Congress allowed him to do.
Yes, it happened on Bush' watch, he could have handed it off to Husein and let him deal with it, then we could say it was Husein's fault, but that is just as dishonest, it was both Party's.
Damn you're one seriously biased individual.

I posted proof from your link that stated they believe both party's were responsible.

You posted an opinion from the Financial Crisis Commission. And you dont even know what it says. Its definitely trying to spread the blame but I've disputed their 'opinion' even when I posted it.  What makes you a hypocrite is you ignore every other link that I post and cling to this convenient 'opinion' from a 'gubment link'.  I use the FCC for facts and quotes.  Their opinions are flawed and political.   

The fact that Bush tried to stop the impending doom mans nothing to you, because it was the Dims who had Congress and blocked his initiatives, not to mention, Bush doesn't write Bills, so Bush could only do what Congress allowed him to do.
Yes, it happened on Bush' watch, he could have handed it off to Husein and let him deal with it, then we could say it was Husein's fault, but that is just as dishonest, it was both Party's.

Solar, I've proven that bush absolutely did not try to stop the bubble.  I've proven he stopped the magic reform bill that you think would have prevented the bubble.  I've posted the Bush policies that encouraged, funded and protected the Bush Mortgage Bubble.  Now solar, read this repeatedly and slowly: Dems did not control congress in 2003 or 2004.

so you have proven that you will cling to a narrative even after it has been proven false.  What interest rates, Carter, Reagan and Clinton had no effect on Bush's regulators letting banks literally stop checking people's income.

The fact that Bush tried to stop the impending doom mans nothing to you, because it was the Dims who had Congress and blocked his initiatives, not to mention, Bush doesn't write Bills, so Bush could only do what Congress allowed him to do.
Yes, it happened on Bush' watch, he could have handed it off to Husein and let him deal with it, then we could say it was Husein's fault, but that is just as dishonest, it was both Party's.

kram, see what solar posted.  remember when you used to believe that?  again, stop posting editorials that dont tell you the truth.  I posted the toxic bush policies that encouraged, funded and protected the Bush Mortgage bubble. Why doesnt your 'editorial' even mention them? Now that you know about them, how come you dont whine at your editorial that they are just Clinton haters or whine about their blind allegiance to Bush?   

When Bush's regulators noticed the 1000 % increase in No Doc loans, do you think they fretted about what Carter, Reagan or Clinton did?