16

New Study Shows Democratic Policies of the Clinton Era Caused the Financial Crisis

Posted by khalling 9 years, 1 month ago to Economics
49 comments | Share | Flag

Added NBER: “There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts,” or predominantly low-income and minority areas.

To satisfy CRA examiners, “flexible” lending by large banks rose an average 5% and those loans defaulted about 15% more often, the 43-page study found.
SOURCE URL: http://prepperchimp.com/2015/03/13/new-study-confirms-economy-was-destroyed-by-democrat-policies/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by PeterAsher 9 years, 1 month ago
    15% more default on 5% of loans increases the default rate by only 1%

    The real culprit in the mortgage debacle was thae ability of loan granters to make their money packaging the loans and then sell them and be free from any loss or liability when they defaulted.

    The below was on db’s post two months ago.

    • Posted by PeterAsher 2 months ago to 2008 Financial Crisis Caused by too Much Regulation
    The rarely pointed out factor in borderline qualifiers going under is maintenance.

    People who have not been raised in or owned a home have little awareness of the chores and expenses that are not encountered as renters. The best example is when the furnace goes, the owner has no funds to replace it and walks away.

    When one tallies up all the time and money needed from lawn mowing to routine repair cycles up to big sticker items it can readily be seen that basing an already flawed budget analysis on ability to pay without having a line item for anticipating those costs was foolish.

    Nevertheless; the mortgage debacle was just one of the factors contributing to “The perfect (debt) storm.”

    My observations, back in early 2009 were that the root cause of this actual depression was the policies of credit card lending.

    "This recession was not caused by a credit crunch and it was not caused by the sub-prime crisis. The cause was that the economy was built on a debt bubble that expanded to a level of unsustainable debt service. The capability to produce goods and services expanded to the money supply allotted to it, but an economy that attains equilibrium on the advancement of purchasing power must inevitably contract when that advancement can no longer be maintained. . Defaulting mortgage debt was the proverbial last-straw-on-the-camel’s-back, the final load on this unsustainable debt.

    Debt service now claims a substantial portion of overall purchasing power. The portion remaining to drive the economy is therefore now less than it would be even on a no-credit, spend-it-as-you-earn-it basis. The economy that has expanded to fulfill the demand of earnings-plus-advanced-payment, must contract to the demand of earnings-minus-cost-of-debt-service. What for decades was an economy built on, “Buy now, pay later,” has become, “Pay now, buy later!”

    http://takeamericaforward.com/economy/st......

    This was further exacerbated by their ability to contractually raise interest rate to astronomical amounts. No additional economic growth is created out of consumer’s spending money being sent elsewhere as interest payment unless that money results in its receivers spending into the domestic economy.

    Joe six-pack’s cash flow being transferred to a buyer of a custom wooden speed boat built at Lake Lugano doesn’t cut it!
    -----------------------------------------
    Of course it was not “just” the debt bubble.

    There are factors affecting the production of goods and factors that drain that wealth.

    Government service, welfare, higher prices paid for X amount of corporate shares due to the premiums of hedge fund activities, etc. Any activity that enables one to obtain purchasing power without producing goods or services of useful value diminishes the ability of the economy to sustain itself.

    Rather than call it a debt bubble. Let’s call it an artificially expanded production facility.

    I like to call this “The Starbucks” syndrome.

    In the period of artificial abundance, created by lending “Printed money” that was not “backed” by someone else’s foregone purchasing power; people experienced a level of affluence in which they were willing to purchase things they could otherwise do without. More Starbucks opened up. When the artificially expanded purchasing power contracted, that kind of purchase is the first to go. Back to; make it at home, take a thermos to work. Many Starbucks closed.

    We are on the Oregon Coast. The first business to go in the nearby small town on #101 was the hardware store; a year later, the small supermarket. Then last year, the pharmacy and this year, up the road, the only gift shop and restaurant on a twenty mile stretch. The Bobcat equipment sales and rental up in Tillamook is also gone.

    Top-end, view-home activity is a small fraction of what it was before. The two design/build projects we have been doing were financed by the owner’s savings, earnings and borrowing against equity in other properties as construction loans are almost non-existent.

    Where does the financial energy come from to turn this around? It would seem to require a “Sea change” across the economic spectrum:

    Eliminate most of the welfare state by putting idle hands to work, rolling back government services to only what was essential (and only one agency per need), reversing the tax policies that drives production off-shore, eliminate all formal exchanges that trade “Betting paper” not backed by a physical asset and more that aren't coming to mind at this late hour.

    Follow that up with revising the whole concept of bank lending to have credit directed much more to financing means of production and without leveraging via fractionalization.

    I don’t see it happening other than “Rising from the ashes.”

    Got Gulch?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 1 month ago
      Without the banking cartel given the government granted (under coersion/corruption from the banking industry) power to create legal tender credit from nothing (with no responsibility for downside risk taken by banking) there would have been no possibility for such a bubble to happen. No nationwide (or worldwide) crashes ever occurred (in modern era) prior to the power of the federal reserve act. Banking and Wall Street could cause regional pain, but widespread depression was not possible as a result of credit bubble.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 9 years, 1 month ago
        there was a financial crisis at the end of Jackson's Presidency. There was another one in the 1880s in both the US and Great Britain. I was curious so I thought I would check wiki. here's a more complete list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_eco...
        am I missing a caveat here?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 1 month ago
          The "crisis" of the late 1830's was neither national or a crisis except in the balance sheets of the money center of New York and industries dependent upon money center bank financing. It was caused by the central bank of England restricting credit, and the NY banks that followed suit. The wiki-history is written during the era of the fed and you can easily see the slanted view in the text, blaming the lack of central banking power for excesses in the American west. If you read the details of each "crisis" you can decide for yourself. War or natural disaster destruction of capital is usually the cause and the crises are painful especially in the areas of destruction. (Look at the result of war in Europe vs US in 1946-1960 for example.) No central bank control would have had any positive effect (based upon the history of central banking.) Bankers make mistakes and they always will, but only a centrally controlled system forces the errors to a wide scale. The "crisis" was not a depression because the economy was not so concentrated nor dependent on debt. The central banks purposely create as much debt as they can because it increases profits. Then when a natural cooling of industrial production due to slower demand or due to lower production from mines (silver and gold in particular) the banks who have issued far more credit than they have assets reduce credit and demand specie payments when they have just had a reduced supply. Central control by a banking cartel always does the opposite of what is promised when it is authorized with government backing.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 1 month ago
      1. why did we not have growth in the 2000s? It starts with lending, we had many other bad policies keeping us from having even the economic growth seen during the Great Depression. (we destroyed the tech sector with policies unfavorable to VC involvvement in startups)
      2. Why did the banks make so many bad loans in the first place? they were pressured by the govt to do so. Another, they were probably making reasonable assumptions about economic growth and the growth in people's incomes, that did not happen.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 1 month ago
      Amen to that. I used to live in Appalachia West as we fondly called and still call Oregon. The state does have a history of turning away businesses true but it also has a history of being screwed over. Carter's luxury tax put more than a few business on the coast out of business. The buyers simply started buying foreign. At present I suspect nothing much has changed since I left high school in the early sixties. Since the death of lumber and power production Oregon's number one export is not pot but high school seniors. The number one, two and three imports are California retirees, moochers and power. Beautiful state to grow up in but a death sentence unless you have a job, preferably for the government, or are independently wealthy.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 1 month ago
      I'm still reading the rest of your comment, but lets start here:
      "15% more default on 5% of loans increases the default rate by only 1% " At lower interest rates, it takes a very small default rate to wipe out earnings and start wiping out capital.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by teri-amborn 9 years, 1 month ago
      Beautifully articulated.
      The only items that I would add to your list of contributing factors would be: Endless, nonsensical wars of attrition with created enemies who view death as the ultimate good...and the deaths and disabling of our soldiers who would have been productive members of society.
      People create demand. Productive people create supply. Destruction eliminates both.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 9 years, 1 month ago
    Agree with khalling.
    Blaming the Clinton administration is slight of hand and misdirection.
    One group has controlled Treasury for decades: the banking cartel.
    They have been obviously bribing both the Dems and the GOP since the 80s (prior to that they were less obvious.)
    Suggest everyone listen to the audio interview I linked to last week for good insights from Paul Craig Roberts:
    http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/26...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ KSilver3 9 years, 1 month ago
      I wouldn't say blaming Clinton is slight of hand, but would agree with khalling that there is more to it. CRA certainly was a major contributor along with Sarbannes.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 1 month ago
      I don't separate the banking industry from the congressional industry. Nor do I separate the Dems and Reps who have either been for sale or were always bought and paid for or more likely are part of the same group from the get go. Sec Treas Ruben is a classic example of the establishment class holding the reins of power from the same drivers seat. One horse marked government and the other big business. Socialist Corporatist and Socialist Statist. The Government Party ,.

      You keep voting for the same politicians you get more of the same treatment.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Ben_C 9 years, 1 month ago
    Two personal observations:
    -during the height of the "no income verfication" edict from federal government my mortage maker friend told me that they were instructed to make mortages regardless of the person's ability to pay. Otherwise. the lender would face federal penalities.
    - I would drive by huge homes in Novi Michigan with a car in the driveway and no furniture inside. These were the first homes forclosed by the banks.
    As per usual, its the long term effects of federal programs that create the hailstorm of adverse consequences. The "windfall profit tax" on the oil industry is another example.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by LaMuse 9 years, 1 month ago
      This was also the case in my Georgia neighborhood. Large homes were sold to people with no jobs or income, a down payment was not required, and people moved in droves from high tax states. It didn't take long for the foreclosures to begin. It always irked me that people wanted a better standard of living with lower tax rates, but once they moved here started complaining that the area was too conservative and started voting for democrats/leftists with their high tax policies. Some of them have no idea how to maintain a home, complain about having to pay for trash pick-up because where they moved from it was "free." I'm getting off subject a bit - just a little venting.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by XenokRoy 9 years, 1 month ago
    I have said this to friends for years, now I get to share this article with them all. Especially those that did not agree with me :) and that's a big evil grin with laughing in the background.

    Thanks for the post.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by plusaf 9 years, 1 month ago
      So have I and I just forwarded the link to a ton of folks who have disagreed with me since I recognized the premiere of the Bill and Barney "Everyone MUST OWN A HOME show."

      Add to that the absurd 'mark to market' crap and the die was cast to kill the already overblown housing market.

      I have described "mark to market" of that time as analogous to "ok, what's your house worth? Oh, wait, I'm going to kill you and all of your family if you don't sell it by noon tomorrow. NOW what's your house worth?"

      My observations and conclusions have been vindicated by reports like that one, and unfortunately, the actions of many others caused untold damage to thousands, if not millions of US citizens.

      THAT pisses me off!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by samrigel 9 years, 1 month ago
    Thank You for that "khalling" I have been vindicated. I have been saying since 2008 - 2009 that the actual cause of the crash was the furtherance of Carter's Community ReInvestment Act by Bill Clinton and not by GW!!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by JaxGary 9 years, 1 month ago
      Every administration since Carter made the situation worse - none of them are innocent! The really bad part of it all was the bank's ability to securitize their high-risk loans and sell them to the government via Fannie and Freddie. That means the banks can privatize their profits and socialize their losses. The people get slapped on both cheeks! Only bankers, politicians, and their "friends" come out of this mess ahead; the rest of us pay a huge price for their gains!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Mamaemma 9 years, 1 month ago
    I'm convinced that the economic growth that occurred during Clinton was the result of Reagan's presidency. I cringe when I hear people say what a wonderful president Clinton was.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 1 month ago
    The pattern of loan defaults is attributable primarily to the bankers and mortgage companies, and to the three politicians who received the most graft from them as congressmen and senators (Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and Barack Obama) from the banks and mortgage companies.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Crushmore 9 years, 1 month ago
    Always the same characters. Advancing their power at the expense of the taxpayers and the country.
    We will suffer the "Death of a 1000 cuts" and this is a deep one.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 1 month ago
    I watched the offerings of Spin Films called "To Big To Fail." As expected the individuals most responsible got a pass, a free ride, and were re-elected. Really? Can you imagine an air head like Pelosillynni crafting anything involving that much mathematics. Coupled with the ethanol scam and true to form it failed but we paid the price generally in higher prices through devalued buying power but specifically in the worth of the retirement accounts of those now to old to work except at WalMart.

    The forced evaluation of the banks housing portfolios and the subsequent change in that method smacked of collusion between institutions seeking to drive out the smaller competition and a feckless untrustworthy government. However give the devil it's due. They won and were re-elected three times so far. Who says the Government Party method of blaming the other half of their own group doesn't work? Establishment got what it wanted. We got what we deserved . I'l lay you heavy odds the Government Party wins a with 95% plus of votes cast this time too. No change there.

    I almost forgot. You must accept your losing ticket in the lottery of life. George bought all the winning numbers.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by waytodude 9 years, 1 month ago
    Didn't take me that long to figure that out. Any time you commit to an industry that makes no products and produces so much misinformation while also teaching so many that money is made easily without their labor is sure to bring down more than itself.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 1 month ago
    Another part of the scam that resulted in the US going bankrupt (add in ethanol to drive up the cost of food to the housing scam run by Congress, to the huge overspending which of course was more than one president but most of which was the current one) and you get the financial version of Cycle Of Repression.

    The sick part was the constant litany of 'the poor homeowner.' No homeowner went broke and lost their home UNTIL the failed economy closed up or businesses downsizing. At that point most government levels raised taxes to the point where they couldn't be paid or other bills such as college, weddings, and new vehicles - formerly affordable - crushed them. But initially no homeowners went broke not one. However a huge amount of home buyers lost their homes

    There is a distinct difference between owning and buying and mortgaging your paid for house just makes you a home buyer again.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by woodlema 9 years, 1 month ago
    Actually here is the irony.
    Jimmy Carter actually started it with this law.
    Housing and Community Development Act of 1980 Remarks on Signing S. 2719 Into Law.
    Regan could have done away with this new agency and policy set but did not.
    Clinton, expanded HUD to a point that went so far it was unbelievable.
    Fannie and Freddy (started in 1938 by Democrat FDR) and Barney Frank, started blowing up the bubble. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd helped banks created "virtual" investments based on derivatives based on mortgages permitted by HUD, Fannie and Freddie., Pres. G.W. Bush expanded HUD again until the bubble finally burst.

    5 Democrats and One Republican are really at fault when you perform a Root Cause.

    The biggest problem with GOP and Republicans is they unwillingness to roll-back the DUMBASS policies, they just try to pander to the same looters as the Democrats.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo