StupidNation Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 In 1999 Congressman Ron Paul put the following in the congressional record: "Government policy and the increase in securitization are largely responsible for this bubble. In addition to loose monetary policies by the Federal Reserve, government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have contributed to the problem. The fourfold increases in their balance sheets from 1997 to 1998 ....reduce risk for individual institutions while increasing risk for the system as a whole." In the same congressional record Paul actually opposed the "deregulation" of the financial industry with changes to Glass Steagall in 1999. He put a statement in the congressional record citing the moral hazard evident to him after the bailout of Long Term Capital Management. "My main reasons for voting against this bill are the expansion of the taxpayer liability and the introduction of even more regulations. The entire multi-hundred page S. 900 that reregulates rather than deregulates the financial sector..." http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/co...110899-glb.htm In 2003 Paul makes this most prescient point: "Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government's interference in the housing market, the government's policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 In 1999 Congressman Ron Paul put the following in the congressional record: "Government policy and the increase in securitization are largely responsible for this bubble. In addition to loose monetary policies by the Federal Reserve, government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have contributed to the problem. The fourfold increases in their balance sheets from 1997 to 1998 ....reduce risk for individual institutions while increasing risk for the system as a whole." In the same congressional record Paul actually opposed the "deregulation" of the financial industry with changes to Glass Steagall in 1999. He put a statement in the congressional record citing the moral hazard evident to him after the bailout of Long Term Capital Management. "My main reasons for voting against this bill are the expansion of the taxpayer liability and the introduction of even more regulations. The entire multi-hundred page S. 900 that reregulates rather than deregulates the financial sector..." http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/co...110899-glb.htm In 2003 Paul makes this most prescient point: "Despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government's interference in the housing market, the government's policy of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing." IIRC--one of the financial instruments at the center of this mess-credit default swaps-were brought before legislation in the waning months of 1999, only to be glossed over and forgotten. I wonder what Paul's involvement with that particular issue at that particular time was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UBinVA Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 IIRC--one of the financial instruments at the center of this mess-credit default swaps-were brought before legislation in the waning months of 1999, only to be glossed over and forgotten. I wonder what Paul's involvement with that particular issue at that particular time was. So this whole mess started in the Clinton Administration!!!!!! So Bush is not the evildoer of economic crises after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 So this whole mess started in the Clinton Administration!!!!!! So Bush is not the evildoer of economic crises after all. Wasn't it a Republican House/Senate then? Ultimately the point is moot. No ONE is to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Wasn't it a Republican House/Senate then? Ultimately the point is moot. No ONE is to blame. Except Citigroup, for trying to take possession of an airplane they paid for years ago. Evil bastards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 Except Citigroup, for trying to take possession of an airplane they paid for years ago. Evil bastards. Do I need to clarify? No ONE person/group/company/bank/policy/tax/home buyer/predatory lender/politician/political party is to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bills_fan Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 No, but lets elevate our discussion a bit. Gramm-Leach Bliley Act, which repealed Glass Stegal, basically codified existing court decisions relating to the breaking down of barriers between commercial and investment banks. Essentially, since Glass Stegal was passed, the commercial banks had been chipping away at it to try and get access to the more profitable investment banking activities (which they assumed they could do better, due to their larger balance sheets). So, at the time the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act was passed there was precious little new activities that banks (commercial or investment) could do. The biggest changes in that law related to merchant banking, not separation of commercial and investment banking (which had largely been done away with via 70 years of court decisions). Now, one could argue (rightly, IMHO) that the codification cemented the need for investment banks to go public and consolidate, to create larger balance sheets to compete with commercial banks. This shifting of risk, from the partners of the bank to the shareholding public, it could be argued, contributed to excessive leverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 27, 2009 Share Posted February 27, 2009 No, but lets elevate our discussion a bit. Gramm-Leach Bliley Act, which repealed Glass Stegal, basically codified existing court decisions relating to the breaking down of barriers between commercial and investment banks. Essentially, since Glass Stegal was passed, the commercial banks had been chipping away at it to try and get access to the more profitable investment banking activities (which they assumed they could do better, due to their larger balance sheets). So, at the time the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act was passed there was precious little new activities that banks (commercial or investment) could do. The biggest changes in that law related to merchant banking, not separation of commercial and investment banking (which had largely been done away with via 70 years of court decisions). Now, one could argue (rightly, IMHO) that the codification cemented the need for investment banks to go public and consolidate, to create larger balance sheets to compete with commercial banks. This shifting of risk, from the partners of the bank to the shareholding public, it could be argued, contributed to excessive leverage. Never mind the big irony - most of the criticisms against repeal of GS were about worries of commercial banks tripping up in investment bank activities. Of course, we're in the current mess because the opposite happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 No, but lets elevate our discussion a bit. Gramm-Leach Bliley Act, which repealed Glass Stegal, basically codified existing court decisions relating to the breaking down of barriers between commercial and investment banks. Essentially, since Glass Stegal was passed, the commercial banks had been chipping away at it to try and get access to the more profitable investment banking activities (which they assumed they could do better, due to their larger balance sheets). So, at the time the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act was passed there was precious little new activities that banks (commercial or investment) could do. The biggest changes in that law related to merchant banking, not separation of commercial and investment banking (which had largely been done away with via 70 years of court decisions). Now, one could argue (rightly, IMHO) that the codification cemented the need for investment banks to go public and consolidate, to create larger balance sheets to compete with commercial banks. This shifting of risk, from the partners of the bank to the shareholding public, it could be argued, contributed to excessive leverage. Please post more often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chump Change Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Anyone who wants to understand why we're here and how the Gov't is !@#$ing us should read the Book "Meltdown" by Thomas E. Woods Jr. Great read! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted February 28, 2009 Share Posted February 28, 2009 Any thread featuring Ron Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts