Who Caused the Economic Crisis?

Oct 13, 2008 20:15

The economic collapse is on everyone's mind and a major factor in the presidential election, and there are a lot of mistakes and distortions flying around especially with regard to how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were involved in the problems. The planetmoneymp3 podcast covered a lot of this ground this week. Here's my summary.
  1. If the collapse is the fault of ( Read more... )

economics

Leave a comment

Comments 32

chemicalpilate October 14 2008, 03:41:51 UTC

If you haven't already, I recommend listening to The Giant Pool of Money for some perspective on how it was simultaneously no one's and everyone's fault. What we're seeing is emergent from the tiny act of making things look slightly better than they actually are, repeated a very large number of times.

Reply


(The comment has been removed)

tongodeon October 14 2008, 03:58:47 UTC
Those of us who have been consistently warning about the looming financial meltdown while the asset bubbles were still inflating do not take any comfort at all in the knowledge that "pretty much everyone" is to blame for it.

This post was not written for the purposes of comforting you. If you seek comfort there are much better sources than my silly blog.

It would be nice, however, if the people who foresaw the crisis were on the short list of people we looked toward for observations about what else is foreseeable.

Like what? Is this about the IPv4 address space?

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

Where is your Faith In Great Leader.... drieuxster October 14 2008, 17:47:32 UTC
Don't you understand that congress has already given the CIC all the war winning powers he needs, Thus under the unitary executive principle Paulson was working the war winningist strategy EVER!!!

Granted, there is the question of whether or not the concept of Shock Capitalism might be a bit more amusing now - since there is a thin window that we may abandon the predator state.... restore the very regulatory oversight that radical left wingers like the AEI have been preaching that they have been trying to impose since 2005....

Or we may just be lucky enough to get enough suckers to buy the common stock so that we can crash these puppies and bring on the great new free market...

Reply


flwyd October 14 2008, 03:58:16 UTC
The Brookings Institute has a good list of what went wrong without pointing at specific individuals, referring to "policy makers" instead of "Obama and his cronies" or "George Bush supported by John McCain." They present it in the context of recommendations to solve the problems that have come to light. (via The Money Meltdown)

Reply


norabombay October 14 2008, 03:58:45 UTC
I spent 2004-2006 working for a major Mortgage Industry trade group. The MAJOR group.

And our members hated Fannie & Freddie. HATES THEM.

Because a confirming loan, that met their guidleines, tened to have a lower profit margin. And Freddie & Fannie refused to purchase loans that were utter utter shit- as of mid 2006, if you had a Zero down, zero documentation, interest only arm?

They would not go near it with a 30 foot pole.

We taught the underwriting courses, the ones that were an attempt to set standards & education for all of the kids in the back office. You have never seen anything so basic.

And people COMPLAINED. And FAILED. Despite the fact it was a completly open book course.

At the base level, it required far more education, effort and energy to be a hairdresser in most states than it did to write loans for millions of dollars- and the less you knew, the more you made.

I am going to be feeling guilty about this job for years.

Reply

tongodeon October 14 2008, 04:08:06 UTC
Because a confirming loan, that met their guidleines, tened to have a lower profit margin. And Freddie & Fannie refused to purchase loans that were utter utter shit- as of mid 2006, if you had a Zero down, zero documentation, interest only arm? They would not go near it with a 30 foot pole.

I'm confused. Your major mortgage industry trade group was in charge of purchasing loans or training people who traded them? Freddie and Fannie were hated because they refused to purchase bad loans? Because they were reluctant to act as irresponsibly as they could have? That's good(-ish), right?

Reply

norabombay October 14 2008, 05:09:16 UTC
Sorry ( ... )

Reply

norabombay October 14 2008, 05:13:48 UTC
Fannie and Freddie were, by the standards of the mortgage industry, very conservative. They had fairly good automated underwriting systems, required documentation, and would not accept the most "exotic" loan products.

This was good. But at the same time, they wound up loosening those standards, as the business- heavily into exotic loans, went elsewhere. What F and F were purchasing were the "good" loans. (1)

It is in some ways a shame to see them bear the brunt of the blame when there is so very very much to be spread around.

(1) They are going to uncover a whole lot of fraud in the evaluation and aprasial of what a property was worth- as well as in that internal to the mortgage brokers. The best automated underwriting in the world cannot stop you from loaning $300k on a $70k house, if the people in positions of trust are gaming the system.

Reply


epileptikitty October 14 2008, 04:28:24 UTC
Ya babee we niggatz be destroyin capitalism from the belly of the beast like jane fonda. We callin it Jungle Phynance! If only the sovietz nu.

Blaming this on the Community Reinvestment Act (passed in the 1970's) is total nonsense. A major force has been a lack of accountability: the mortgage originator had no responsibility once it was sold. At that point risk "laundering" becomes possible. Another lack of accountability is IBGYBG: I'll Be Gone, You'll Be Gone. When it all blows up.

Ian Welsh on Firedoglake and a fine crew on The Agonist have been very helpful background.

Reply

epileptikitty October 14 2008, 05:02:39 UTC
epileptikitty October 14 2008, 05:19:33 UTC
On the Panic of 1873: The Real Great Depression. (Courtesy of iyetlive)

They had crafted complex financial instruments that promised a fixed return, though few understood the underlying object that was guaranteed to investors in case of default. (Answer: nothing).

Can we start calling this the BushCrash(TM)? Please?

Reply

tongodeon October 14 2008, 05:22:44 UTC
Can we start calling this the BushCrash(TM)? Please?

I think that would be not just unfair, but running counter to my whole point I tried to make in my main post here. This isn't Bush's crash and it's not Clinton's crash, it's not the Republicans' crash or the Democrats' crash or even the Fed and Treasury's crash. You don't get a fuckup this huge without everyone being a part of the nightmare.

I am the the variable-rate financed purchaser of a bubble-inflated 2002 house, so it's partly my fault. You might as well call it the Tongodeon Crash.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up