• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Did deregulation cause the economic crisis?

Maybe they weren't lining up to make those loans because if they had done so previously they would have been in trouble with the regulators.
If that's the case, you'll have no problem showing which regulations were changed regarding lending standards banks use to determine the credit-worthiness of the buyer.

I see lots of blame here placed on regulatory changes regarding mergers and such but the fact remains the only reason this is a crisis is because too many people had loans they couldn't repay. And I've already pointed out what the forces driving this were.
 
Why did the same type of crisis occur in other countries that didn't have similiar legislation that you say caused the USA's problem.
Banking is an international business. Many of those failing European banks were also operating in the US, or had mortgage-backed securities from the US. Probably other factors as well, but I'm not real up on what's going on in Europe wrt their banking crisis.
 
MIKILLINI: Thanks for the history of the Glass-Steagal Act. I only skimmed it so far, but I did find something I take exception to:
Over the past 20 years, both parties have been so ‘in thrall’ to market fundamentalism that they have repealed the key protections put in place by the New Deal. As a result, today’s economy looks too much like the economy of the late 20s and early 30s.
Neither party, except maybe the Republicans under Reagan, have been "‘in thrall’ to market fundamentalism", if by that you mean free market ideas. Bush Sr. and W. Bush didn't do much to limit government spending. Clinton expanded the CRA and urged the market to find "creative financing" techniques, as well as pushed the GSE's to make more subprime loans. W. Bush signed a protectionist steel tariff bill and expanded medicare coverage to pay for prescription drugs. Not since Reagan have we had any real serious deregulation, except the Glass-Steagal act.

And Glass-Steagal isn't where I would begin to deregulate the economy. From what little I understand, it was made necessary by all sorts of other regulations, such as the Federal Reserve, Smoot-Hawley, the abandonment of the gold standard, high taxes, governemtn issuing bonds to cover deficit spending, and so on, all causing inflation. This all led to unwarranted speculation, which Glass-Steagal may or may not have helped control.
GR_PR_080410_21Big2.jpg

From the above graph, it doesn't look to me like anyone was "‘in thrall’ to market fundamentalism".
 
Last edited:
If the economy grows (in real terms) between now and then, he may eventually have more income than you with which to pay it, and the reason why he has more income may be because your country borrowed/spent on his behalf today.

If I believed that for a minute, then I could forgive a deficit. Certainly all the debt wrung up in WWII was necessary, and better than the alternatives. Likewise, the money spent, and borrowed, to rebuild after the war seemed like a good investment. Heck, the stuff going on right now to relieve the financial crisis might be money well spent, although I'm less convinced.

However, we in the US have had one balanced budget in 40 years*. You can't tell me that the economy of the US would have shrunk during that time if only we had actually paid the bills.

*and even that one required a few accounting gimmicks, but for a brief period the national debt clock did indeed run backwards.
 
MIKILLINI: Thanks for the history of the Glass-Steagal Act. I only skimmed it so far, but I did find something I take exception to:

Neither party, except maybe the Republicans under Reagan, have been "‘in thrall’ to market fundamentalism", if by that you mean free market ideas. Bush Sr. and W. Bush didn't do much to limit government spending. Clinton expanded the CRA and urged the market to find "creative financing" techniques, as well as pushed the GSE's to make more subprime loans. W. Bush signed a protectionist steel tariff bill and expanded medicare coverage to pay for prescription drugs. Not since Reagan have we had any real serious deregulation, except the Glass-Steagal act.

And Glass-Steagal isn't where I would begin to deregulate the economy. From what little I understand, it was made necessary by all sorts of other regulations, such as the Federal Reserve, Smoot-Hawley, the abandonment of the gold standard, high taxes, governemtn issuing bonds to cover deficit spending, and so on, all causing inflation. This all led to unwarranted speculation, which Glass-Steagal may or may not have helped control.
[qimg]http://www.usnews.com/dbimages/master/4362/GR_PR_080410_21Big2.jpg[/qimg]
From the above graph, it doesn't look to me like anyone was "‘in thrall’ to market fundamentalism".


Neoliberal Democrats voted for the repeal, virtually matching the Republicans. Vote tallies indicate just how much they agreed to repeal the Act:

38 of 45 Senate Democrats voted for the repeal (which passed 90-8).

DEMOCRATS FOR (38): Akaka, Baucus, Bayh, Biden, Bingaman, Breaux, Byrd, Cleland, Conrad, Daschle, Dodd, Durbin, Edwards, Feinstein, Graham (Fla.), Hollings, Inouye, Johnson, Kennedy, Kerrey (Neb.), Kerry (Mass.), Kohl, Landrieu, Lautenberg, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Lincoln, Moynihan, Murray, Reed (R.L), Reid (Nev.), Robb, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, Schumer, Torricelli and Wyden.
REPUBLICANS FOR (52): Abraham, Allard, Ashcroft, Bennett, Brownback, Bond, Bunning, Burns, Campbell, Chafee, Cochran, Collins, Coverdell, Craig, Crapo, DeWine, Domenici, Enzi, Frist, Gorton, Gramm (Tex.), Grams (Minn.), Grassley, Gregg, Hegel, Hatch, Helms, Hutchinson (Ark.), Hutchison (Tex.), Inhofe, Jeffords, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, Mack, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Roberts, Roth, Santorum, Sessions, Smith (N.H.), Smith (Ore.), Snowe, Specter, Stevens, Thomas, Thompson, Thurmond, Voinovich and Warner.

REPUBLICANS AGAINST(1): Shelby.

DEMOCRATS AGAINST(7): Boxer, Bryan, Dorgan, Feingold, Harkin, Mikulski and Wellstone.

NOT VOTING: 2 REPUBLICANS (2): Fitzgerald (voted present) and McCain.

The House Democrats were no less enthusiastic in their endorsement, the repeal passed there by a margin of 343-86, with the Democrats favoring the measure by a two-to-one margin, 138-69. Current House speaker Nancy Pelosi managed not to register a vote on this one.

Once Glass-Steagall was rendered ineffective, many variations of greed, mixed with conflicting, reactionary regulation, became the catalyst which drove directly into the leveraged sub-prime mortgage market.

ETA: Perhaps a look at those who benefited from all these ill-advised loans need to be spotlighted. One good example is Henry Paulson, the former Goldman Sachs CEO and current Secretary Of The Treasury:

Paulson was compensated to the tune of $30 million in 2004 and took home $37 million in 2005. In his career at Goldman Sachs, it's estimated he built up a personal net worth of over $700 million.

After Paulson’s ascension to the treasury, his colleagues at Goldman Sachs carried on the bonanza. At the end of 2006, Paulson’s successor Lloyd Blankfein was handed over a $53.4 million year-end bonus, while 11 other Goldman Sachs executives raked in $150 million in year-end bonuses combined. That year, the top investment firms Goldman Sacks, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, and Bear Stearns handed out $36 billion in bonuses. At the end of 2007, the executives of the same firms, excepting Merrill, were handed another $30 billion.
So what would be the motivation for pushing bad loans? Big paydays for executives. They made their money whether those loans defaulted or not.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that info :)

Your welcome. :)
Even though I don't consider myself an expert of the banking industry, I gained considerable knowledge of it through my grandfather.
Beginning as a teller/cashier at a small community bank, he then moved up the ladder until becoming bank president after 14 years and remained at that position for another 31 years before retiring.
 
However, we in the US have had one balanced budget in 40 years*. You can't tell me that the economy of the US would have shrunk during that time if only we had actually paid the bills.
I am of the opinion that it would not have grown as fast without it. And there have been very few years out of the last 20 when Europe or Japan has grown faster than the US, and what's more they mostly have higher quantities of outstanding public debt (as a fraction--or multiple--of GDP) to show for that.
 
This programme tends to confirm you point, Mikillini. The latest edition deals with the current law suits against some of these firms and there is at least reason to believe that the companies continued to trade after they knew there were significant problems: that is the basis for the class actions and I gather Merrill Lynch has already settled.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/default.stm
 
MIKILLINI: Yeah, they voted to repeal ONE act, while passing hundreds more, and constantly urging banks to give more mortgages in order to promote more home ownership.

They repealed ONE law, and, according to that graph I posted, added another 20,000 pages to the Federal Register. That doesn't sound like they really believed in free markets.
 
Last edited:
I am of the opinion that it would not have grown as fast without it. And there have been very few years out of the last 20 when Europe or Japan has grown faster than the US, and what's more they mostly have higher quantities of outstanding public debt (as a fraction--or multiple--of GDP) to show for that.

Since 1980, US debt has grown faster then US GDP under every president other then Clinton. So while the debt may have accelerated growth, GDP still isn’t growing fast enough to absorb the debt being taken on.
 
MIKILLINI: Yeah, they voted to repeal ONE act, while passing hundreds more, and constantly urging banks to give more mortgages in order to promote more home ownership.

They repealed ONE law, and, according to that graph I posted, added another 20,000 pages to the Federal Register. That doesn't sound like they really believed in free markets.

They wanted to get in all markets without any restrictions between markets.
 
Last edited:
This programme tends to confirm you point, Mikillini. The latest edition deals with the current law suits against some of these firms and there is at least reason to believe that the companies continued to trade after they knew there were significant problems: that is the basis for the class actions and I gather Merrill Lynch has already settled.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/file_on_4/default.stm

Fiona, we have seen just the tip of the iceberg here and Congress should be more forward about the details.
 
Very good subject for a thread. I've wondered about this quite a bit myself. I've seen Democrats such as Pelosi claiming that Bush is responsible for this but they haven't been clear on the specifics. They just seem to be more interested in the finger pointing.

They're never clear, and it's for a myriad of reasons. I have links from approx. 4 years ago with Pelosi and Barney (the purple dinosaur) Franks fighting select Republicans who were ringing the alarm bells, again. Franks stated that there were no bubbles, no debt issues.... He thought the whole warning topic being broached was ridiculous. It was not then, and it sure as hell is not now.

P.S. I'm not affiliated with any party. I was a Republican in a past life, and believe uber minimal government should exist; laws are key and a few regulations are key with oversight from randomly selected auditors hired by the public.
 
Last edited:
SaulOhio said:
MIKILLINI: Yeah, they voted to repeal ONE act, while passing hundreds more, and constantly urging banks to give more mortgages in order to promote more home ownership.

They repealed ONE law, and, according to that graph I posted, added another 20,000 pages to the Federal Register. That doesn't sound like they really believed in free markets.
They wanted to get in all markets without any restrictions between markets.
Their motives are irrelevant. Its what they did that matters. They repealed ONE regulation, and imposed many others.
 
Their motives are irrelevant. Its what they did that matters. They repealed ONE regulation, and imposed many others.


After the S&L crises of the 80's, at different stages of the crisis, and at many different levels from bank executives through to regulators and politicians, a formalistic reporting of the financial condition of S&Ls was deliberately selected by interested parties to cover up the true economic extent of the unfolding disaster. It was a risk-reporting failure on a grand scale.
Some of the effects of this was still felt by those who chose to repeal the G-S Act, except this time the brokerage firms operated on low interest-long term markets. Virtually opposite the S&L crises.

But just like the S&L crises, not enough regulator oversite or available human resources to keep up with the quick moving of money.
 
Last edited:
If you would like to see the effects of deregulation in one state, this is a great example of how politics and large brokerage firms converge together and provide revelations of what we see now.

"In modern Montana history, there is one defining moment,
and that defining moment is deregulation."

Cal Sweet, founder of Kalispell Electric.
February 18, 2001

http://www.counterpunch.org/corr01122006.html
 

Back
Top Bottom