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?
Unlike Vern's blind allegiance to Obama most on this board have quite a few disagreements with Bush. This is one of those areas that I don't believe anyone will find much support for Bush.
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.
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 bylow 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 (NOT) solely Bush's fault, facts from your link.Now read it again and tell me your facts are wrong.
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.
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 sparkAnd 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.
I have stayed out of this debate between Vern and Solar as Solar can take care of himself. However, Vern referred to my post and continues to rant on blindly so I will chime in.http://tjhancock.wordpress.com/housing-bubble-financial-crisis-detailed-comprehensive-assessment/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.Now I am gone from this thread as Vern enjoys going around in circles and I don't like chasing my tail.
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.