The Observation Deck

Stephen, on Feb 7 i this thread you wrote:

It was not the Bush tax cuts that caused the mortgage meltdown or the credit markets to freeze. It was the dems in congress who prevented republicans from putting tougher regulations on Fannie and Freddie that caused this financial meltdown.

This is your hypothesis. Now back it up with quantitative evidence from a credible scholarly or studious source.

Your appeal to your own authority, and, to various incidental assertions, chronologies, propaganda (Glenn Beck!!!) has not moved you an inch toward backing up your assertion.

On my end I understand that the various instrumentalities of our financial system present to the observer a complicated system of dependencies. So, for example, I understand that Fannie/Freddie's role and their portfolios do have a substantial position in this system. However, viewed as a factor that causes effects within said system, I would expect any argument about the ramifications of the effects to sort out the magnitude of the dynamics of those effects. You've gone much further than this in implying that the cause of the financial mess is singular and found at the doorstep of Fannie/Freddie.

You haven't begun to take even a freshman's social scientific step toward presenting a SINGLE piece of material evidence in support of your hypothesis.

I doubt you will ever do so; I doubt you possess the education, experience, or chops to do so; I fully expect you to react with lots of irrelevant clicky and fallacious appeals and illogic and reams more polemics and jejune propaganda. Well, this is your standard operating procedure here on the deck, right?

In other words, it would appear you know close to nothing about macroeconomics and mortgage finance.

Prove me wrong, Stephen. Bring here something smart and cogent and rational.

Gracias.

Well if you really want to assign blame, blame Wall Street and the lobbyists who helped get rid of the regulations.

That should make the problem easier.

Now, I wonder how Mr. Call, you can realistically justify that the Dems had control over the economy throughout the entire Bush administrations since a great deal of regulations were removed, which is against Democratic policy. It seems to me like both you and Mr. Eisel are using a problem that affects everyone and blaming them on a party you dont like at the moment.

And I agree with Mr. Calhoun. Show some statistics. Quoting news reports is nice. But a lot of things make it into the news. Thus I reiterate, other than someone calling loudly to get 15 minutes of fame, DID ANYONE DO ANYTHING? Saying there is a problem is NOT doing something.

And I also wonder if the both of you were saying there was a problem years ago, or did this just start in 2007 like everyone else? I highly doubt that you were more informed than Washington D.C.

I believe that you are just trying to argue with everyone to prove that you have a greater knowledge of financial issues. That's fine, I don't think anyone else is making an effort to prove otherwise. But I think what other people are asking is that you be slightly more reasonable in your accusations. More people are willing to listen if you don't hurl blame at the same people all the time.

When did the subprime crisis receive it's first head's up? Any guesses? Here's a name to google: Edward M. Gramlich.

***

It would seem that Mr. Call believes the increases in Federal outlays is required to be a liberal motive/intent/execution, thus perforce when it happens the blame can be assigned even to rascally big-spending "liberal" Republicans such as George Bush and his free-spending 'liberal' Republican co-conspirators in the congress.

I would name this appending liberal to "Cheney Incorporated" the most laughable assertion Mr. Call has offered amongst his hundreds of similar assertions here. But even saint Reagan was a big spend-and-borrow Republican. It's funny to observe the minority now claiming small government principle after they've lost their majority and claim to the feeding frenzy.

But historically viewed, for me, the Republican ethic is centered on being the party of the robber barons. This harkens back to Karl Rove's favorite president, William McKinley. Our economy was 'enronized.'

As far as I can tell the Republican Party would like nothing more than to push the economy into a depression and let it all sort itself out in a social darwinian fashion. What do they call it? "Creative destruction."

Fortunately, with the US headed toward minorities aggregating to a political majority, the Republican Party plutocracy is likely to become kaput. The white minority can't come about soon enough. Good riddance.

Yes we can.

Stephen Calhoun wrote:Stephen, on Feb 7 i this thread you wrote:

It was not the Bush tax cuts that caused the mortgage meltdown or the credit markets to freeze. It was the dems in congress who prevented republicans from putting tougher regulations on Fannie and Freddie that caused this financial meltdown.

This is your hypothesis. Now back it up with quantitative evidence from a credible scholarly or studious source.

Your appeal to your own authority, and, to various incidental assertions, chronologies, propaganda (Glenn Beck!!!) has not moved you an inch toward backing up your assertion.

On my end I understand that the various instrumentalities of our financial system present to the observer a complicated system of dependencies. So, for example, I understand that Fannie/Freddie's role and their portfolios do have a substantial position in this system. However, viewed as a factor that causes effects within said system, I would expect any argument about the ramifications of the effects to sort out the magnitude of the dynamics of those effects. You've gone much further than this in implying that the cause of the financial mess is singular and found at the doorstep of Fannie/Freddie.

You haven't begun to take even a freshman's social scientific step toward presenting a SINGLE piece of material evidence in support of your hypothesis.

I doubt you will ever do so; I doubt you possess the education, experience, or chops to do so; I fully expect you to react with lots of irrelevant clicky and fallacious appeals and illogic and reams more polemics and jejune propaganda. Well, this is your standard operating procedure here on the deck, right?

In other words, it would appear you know close to nothing about macroeconomics and mortgage finance.

Prove me wrong, Stephen. Bring here something smart and cogent and rational.

Gracias.

This is not a science experiment. This is common sense. It does not take any type of formal education to understand credit practices or what GSE bond is. As far as exprience, I worked in the subprime mortgage industry for several years.

Steve C wrote: a SINGLE piece of material evidence in support of your hypothesis.

What is a hypothesis?

1 a: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b: an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement

Let us take a look at my hypothesis

It was not the Bush tax cuts that caused the mortgage meltdown or the credit markets to freeze. It was the dems in congress who prevented republicans from putting tougher regulations on Fannie and Freddie that caused this financial meltdown. The Bush tax cuts gave most working people more of the money that they earned!

quantitative evidence from a credible scholarly or studious source.

Why would I need to that? Do you not understand why Fannie and Freddie failed? Do you not understand why President Bush took the following actions?

2001
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."


2002
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02



2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83

Well if you really want to assign blame, blame Wall Street and the lobbyists who helped get rid of the regulations.

Are you sitting down?


Yes, part of the blame should go to Wall Street and lobbyist.

oops I prematurely posted


Let us take a look at my hypothesis

It was not the Bush tax cuts that caused the mortgage meltdown or the credit markets to freeze. It was the dems in congress who prevented republicans from putting tougher regulations on Fannie and Freddie that caused this financial meltdown. The Bush tax cuts gave most working people more of the money that they earned!

The Bush tax cuts did not impact GSEs or the accounting practices of Fannie and Freddie. I have shown that Bush and the republicans wanted tougher regualtions / slower growth on the GSEs. The Youtube clips definitely show the dems attitude about tougher regualtions on Fannie and Freddie.

Blazingly hilarious you are Mr. Eisel.

More appeal to your own authority and, egads, 'common sense.' Again, tis a fallacy of argumentation to think giving yourself props makes any case except one for your willingness to nakedly parade on the deck.

But you won't do it because you are unable to, thus cannot make the case for your hypothesis.

You may have worked for a bank, but you have proven to me beyond any shadow of a doubt that you know nothing about mortgage finance and macroeconomics. How do I know this? Because all you have done is drag worn out right wing talking points and anti-intellectual canards to the table.

Of course you could prove me wrong by bringing to the table anything intelligently rendered and scientific and rational. If you know "so much" this should be easy for you to do.

ha! but it is impossible for you to do, right? Why is that?

I dare you to do so.

You may have worked for a bank, but you have proven to me beyond any shadow of a doubt that you know nothing about mortgage finance and macroeconomics.

Yes, my knowledge of mortgage finance and macroeconomics is limited. But judging from your post, I would say that you even have less knowledge on the subject than me. I would also question why you would hold me to such a high standard when you yourself do not practice what you preach... just sayin

ha! but it is impossible for you to do, right? Why is that?

I dare you to do so.

It is not completely impossible. The Fannie and Freddie bailout forced the government to print hundreds of billions of dollars. I am only guessing but this printing probably had a negative impact on the stockmarket, price indices and inflation. Long term, the printing will probably impact the GNP, consumer debt, unemployment and the value of the dollar. Again, I am only guessing. But please, practice what you preach and counter this argument with quantitative evidence from a credible scholarly or studious source and all of that other stuff that you preached about.. thanks!

edit I should wave wrote "than I" not less knowledge on the subject than me..

Mr. Eisel, would it be possible for you to be a little more courteous instead of sarcastic?

It seems like all you are doing is bludgeoning everyone with your points without being willing to accept any other rationales or perspectives. It is very difficult to hold any kind of conversation with a person who doesn't seem to care about other people's opinions.

This I find highly ironic since the people you are blaming for this economic crisis would have had the same attitude towards those who you claim knew what was going on. They too probably aggressively pushed them to the side and insisted they were wrong.

And again I ask, how long have you known about this crisis? Because it seems like you just jumped on the bandwagon of people hurling blame after the fact.

Stephen Eisel wrote:

Mr. Eisel, despite the lengthy list of statistics you have provided and the fact that you are quick to assert that anyone who disagrees with you must get their information from bad sources,

Where did I assert that anyone who disagrees with me got their infor for a bad source?

Again, please give me an example where I asserted that anyone who disagrees with me got their info from a bad source. Thanks

Thealexa Becker wrote:Mr. Eisel, would it be possible for you to be a little more courteous instead of sarcastic?

It seems like all you are doing is bludgeoning everyone with your points without being willing to accept any other rationales or perspectives. It is very difficult to hold any kind of conversation with a person who doesn't seem to care about other people's opinions.

This I find highly ironic since the people you are blaming for this economic crisis would have had the same attitude towards those who you claim knew what was going on. They too probably aggressively pushed them to the side and insisted they were wrong.

And again I ask, how long have you known about this crisis? Because it seems like you just jumped on the bandwagon of people hurling blame after the fact.

We live in an imperfect world and I perfectly reflect that world. Accept me for who I am or ignore me

Stephen Eisel wrote:

Stephen Eisel wrote:

Mr. Eisel, despite the lengthy list of statistics you have provided and the fact that you are quick to assert that anyone who disagrees with you must get their information from bad sources,

Where did I assert that anyone who disagrees with me got their infor for a bad source?

Again, please give me an example where I asserted that anyone who disagrees with me got their info from a bad source. Thanks

You said that people shouldn't trust the media or the Observer for their information very early in the thread.

Stephen Eisel wrote:

Thealexa Becker wrote:Mr. Eisel, would it be possible for you to be a little more courteous instead of sarcastic?

It seems like all you are doing is bludgeoning everyone with your points without being willing to accept any other rationales or perspectives. It is very difficult to hold any kind of conversation with a person who doesn't seem to care about other people's opinions.

This I find highly ironic since the people you are blaming for this economic crisis would have had the same attitude towards those who you claim knew what was going on. They too probably aggressively pushed them to the side and insisted they were wrong.

And again I ask, how long have you known about this crisis? Because it seems like you just jumped on the bandwagon of people hurling blame after the fact.

We live in an imperfect world and I perfectly reflect that world. Accept me for who I am or ignore me

Which is probably the biggest cop-out in the history of the world, shifting blame for how you are acting to the world being imperfect. Not a very good excuse. And I would not argue that you are a very good representation of the "world". Not everyone insists on being so narrow-minded.