Obama Drowning Business in a Sea of Red Tape

Because Moodys S&Ps etc apparently thought the risk, even though more risky than prime loans, was still low.

And in the years before the bubble burst, it was rather low.

Everyone seems to be forgetting that AAA is not a guarantee, just an outlook of expected performance.
 
Adoucette,

Those industries you speak of sell primarily to the MIDDLE CLASS.

Shows how short sighted and greedy many of them have become. It's become more a matter of how much they are willing to pay the average employee against how much they want to stuff in their own pockets then it is creating a long term purchasing power of a middle class.

They don't care who they sell to as long as there is a buyer. If they can get labor cost down elsewhere and it boosts their overall bottom line that is the direction they will go.

They couldn't care a less about creating a strong middle class here, they have been doing everything they can to weaken the average workers ability to have stability in their lives, a desparate worker will work for less and will do more to maintain their job.

To be fair, I am not sure just how much of this direction is the result of trying to compete in the world market or just pure greed, I suspect it is a combination of both.
 
Because Moodys S&Ps etc apparently thought the risk, even though more risky than prime loans, was still low.

And in the years before the bubble burst, it was rather low.

Just like the Titanic was unsinkable, right up until it wasn't.
 
Why were bundles filled in part with sub-primes rated AAA?

Bundles are created and sold at different interest rates.

For instance,

In 2000 the spread between D type Subprime loans and A type Prime loans was ~3%, with B and C loans in between.

(These figures are approximate, I'm using them as a way of explanation)

A package of all A Prime Loans would go for around 10%
Packages of all B Sub Prime loans would be about 11%
Packages of all C Sub Prime loans would be about 12%
A package of all D Sub-Prime loans would go for a little over 13%

But one could also package 1/3 As, 1/3 Bs and 1/3 Cs and sell it for 11% as well.
In the buying frenzy of the mid 2000s, packages were made up like that to meet DEMAND.

But the packages would always disclose the contents of the package.
The idea that bad loans were mixed with good loans, FRAUDULENTLY (as you suggested) has never been the issue.

Everyone wants to blame this on the banks, the SELLERS but the BORROWERs were buying whatever they could, however they were packaged.

It's not unlike realizing that the growth of Cocaine in Columbia is driven by the demand of Coke users in the US.

You can say it's all the Growers fault, but you know that's not the whole story.

Arthur
 
Last edited:
Can we agree the whole industry would benefit from more appropriate legal guidelines?

I'd say more regulatory guidelines to constrain risk are in order.

Companies like AIG and Bear-Stearns were VASTLY over-extended and were allowed to do so simply because they weren't banks

I also think people have to be realistic about the ability of the government to stop this IRRATIONAL EXUBERANCE.

Consider the problem from the position of regulators:

Consider the number of Mortgage Brokers, at the peak there were well over 60,000 Mortgage Broker Companies that had over half a million employees and were originating over 60% of the nations loans, and nearly 10,000 sub-prime loans each work day.

They DWARFED the size of the bank regulators.

Here's the growth of Sub-Prime Loans:

Code:
Year	FRM	ARM	Total
1998	51.3	48.7	 253,264 
1999	38.9	61.1	 369,424 
2000	32.6	67.4	 399,368 
2001	31.7	68.3	 498,494  <== ~5% of mortgage market
2002	28.4	71.6	 755,578 
2003	33.6	66.4	 1,265,769 
2004	23.8	76.2	 1,922,451 
2005	18.7	81.3	 2,266,502 <== ~25% of mortgage market
2006	20.0	80.0	 1,776,422 
2007	27.6	72.4	 330,901

Notice that the number of loans are going up, but not that fast in the late 90s, so regulatory angencies were probably hiring a bit, but mainly working more overtime, but in 2002 the demand litterally explodes and there would be no way for the government to keep up because there would be no way to hire and train and get enough regulators in the field when the volume of loans nearly doubles year after year after year. At the same time the other parts of the financial world are adapting, on the fly, to handle this demand and creating novel new financial instruments which neither the creators nor the regulators fully understood.

The fact is they didn't keep up because in a bubble like this you can't.

Which is one of the reasons I keep reminding everyone it was this huge growth in demand for these loans, THE BUBBLE, that was at the heart of the problem.

Arthur
 
Last edited:
I also think people have to be realistic about the ability of the government to stop this IRRATIONAL EXUBERANCE.

Glass-Stegal did a pretty good job of it for nearly a century.
Consider the problem from the position of regulators:

Consider the number of Mortgage Brokers, at the peak there were well over 60,000 Mortgage Broker Companies that had over half a million employees and were originating over 60% of the nations loans, and nearly 10,000 sub-prime loans each work day.

They DWARFED the size of the bank regulators.

Here's the growth of Sub-Prime Loans:

Code:
Year	FRM	ARM	Total
1998	51.3	48.7	 253,264 
1999	38.9	61.1	 369,424 
2000	32.6	67.4	 399,368 
2001	31.7	68.3	 498,494  <== ~5% of mortgage market
2002	28.4	71.6	 755,578 
2003	33.6	66.4	 1,265,769 
2004	23.8	76.2	 1,922,451 
2005	18.7	81.3	 2,266,502 <== ~25% of mortgage market
2006	20.0	80.0	 1,776,422 
2007	27.6	72.4	 330,901

Notice that the number of loans are going up, but not that fast in the late 90s, so regulatory angencies were probably hiring a bit, but mainly working more overtime, but in 2002 the demand litterally explodes and there would be no way for the government to keep up because there would be no way to hire and train and get enough regulators in the field when the volume of loans nearly doubles year after year after year. At the same time the other parts of the financial world are adapting, on the fly, to handle this demand and creating novel new financial instruments which neither the creators nor the regulators fully understood.

The fact is they didn't keep up because in a bubble like this you can't.

Which is one of the reasons I keep reminding everyone it was this huge growth in demand for these loans, THE BUBBLE, that was at the heart of the problem.

Arthur

It is amazing that some people think this makes any kind of sense. The problem is to big, so we cannot regulate. Pure BS. I would love to see some evidence to support this claim. But we both know it doesn't exist.

How you manage to keep ignoring reality is amazing. The cause of the financial crisis has been well documented and explained to you many times, but it just keeps going over your head Arthur.
 
Some good news!

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama on Friday scrapped his administration's controversial plans to tighten smog rules, bowing to the demands


Obama overruled the Environmental Protection Agency — and the unanimous opinion of its independent panel of scientific advisers — and directed administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the proposed regulation to reduce concentrations of ground-level ozone, smog's main ingredient. The decision rests in part on reducing regulatory burdens and uncertainty for businesses at a time of rampant uncertainty about an unsteady economy.
The announcement came shortly after a new government report on private sector employment showed that businesses essentially added no new jobs last month — and that the jobless rate remained stuck at a historically high 9.1 percent.
"The president's decision is good news for the economy and Americans looking for work. EPA's proposal would have prevented the very job creation that President Obama has identified as his top priority," said Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute.
The withdrawal of the proposed EPA rule comes three days after the White House identified seven such regulations that it said would cost private business at least $1 billion each. The proposed smog standard was estimated to cost anywhere between $19 billion and $90 billion, depending on how strict it would be.
 
Which is one of the reasons I keep reminding everyone it was this huge growth in demand for these loans, THE BUBBLE, that was at the heart of the problem.

Arthur

What was the reason behind the huge growth in demand? Was it that no one was making money actually making things anymore? Wages compared to the cost of living have been stagnant. The gap between rich and poor has been growing. The housing bubble was just a symptom of a larger problem.
 
What was the reason behind the huge growth in demand? Was it that no one was making money actually making things anymore? Wages compared to the cost of living have been stagnant. The gap between rich and poor has been growing. The housing bubble was just a symptom of a larger problem.

I suspect it was what was at the heart of all the other bubbles, irrational exhuberance, or what I would say is the pervasive feeling that you couldn't lose money on buying a house, no matter how extended you were.

The prevaling thought was that the appreciation rate of the houses was such that even if you only held on to the house for a relatively short time (a year or so) you could still make a decent bundle when you sold it, and selling it would be no problem.

If you'll notice the markets that really went up like rockets were in the predominately higher priced markets and people were turning over houses and making big chuncks of change when doing so.

Arthur
 
I suspect it was what was at the heart of all the other bubbles, irrational exhuberance, or what I would say is the pervasive feeling that you couldn't lose money on buying a house, no matter how extended you were.

The prevaling thought was that the appreciation rate of the houses was such that even if you only held on to the house for a relatively short time (a year or so) you could still make a decent bundle when you sold it, and selling it would be no problem.

If you'll notice the markets that really went up like rockets were in the predominately higher priced markets and people were turning over houses and making big chuncks of change when doing so.

Arthur

Again, where is your proof that a bubble was to blame for the crisis? You have none. :) You ignore what people have been telling you and the evidence and reason in favor of partisan nonsense.
 
RegHiringBoom-081911.gif

Despite the fact that our economy is teetering on the brink of a double dip recession, there is one job sector that is booming like never before: Federal Regulators! As the above image shows, federal regulators have enjoyed strong job growth (nearly four times that of the private sector) while the private sector sputters along. If the federal regulatory apparatus were a business, it would be the third largest in the country in terms of number of employees (and climbing).

Some might question the wisdom of increasing the regulatory burden on business at a time of such stagnant growth and rampant unemployment. Indeed, there are currently more than 4,000 new regulations in the pipeline and an all time record 81,405 new pages were added to the federal register last year.

In the first half of 2011 over $38 billion in new regulatory costs were added to US businesses, more than any other comparable period in US history. The total cost of regulations is estimated to be $1.75 trillion or about 12% of GDP.

Small businesses, which typically create about 70% of new jobs in the US, are hit much harder than large ones. They lack the staff and deep pockets to efficiently deal with this sea of red tape and federal regulations are estimated to cost them over $21,000 per employee.

When you consider all of this and then throw in the looming cost of Obamacare hanging over the heads of business like the Sword of Damocles, suddenly their reluctance to take on new employees doesn't seem so puzzling. As the French industrialist told Jean-Baptiste Colbert, "Leave us alone!" (laissez-faire)

You're absolutely correct, making sure jobs are safe for the people who work them is TERRIBLE!!!! LOL what a joke. If the businesses in question were not trading the safety of their workers and the health of the environment for $$$$$$$$ the result of these regulations would be $0, because they would already be doing them.
 
Some good news!

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama on Friday scrapped his administration's controversial plans to tighten smog rules, bowing to the demands


Obama overruled the Environmental Protection Agency — and the unanimous opinion of its independent panel of scientific advisers — and directed administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the proposed regulation to reduce concentrations of ground-level ozone, smog's main ingredient. The decision rests in part on reducing regulatory burdens and uncertainty for businesses at a time of rampant uncertainty about an unsteady economy.
The announcement came shortly after a new government report on private sector employment showed that businesses essentially added no new jobs last month — and that the jobless rate remained stuck at a historically high 9.1 percent.
"The president's decision is good news for the economy and Americans looking for work. EPA's proposal would have prevented the very job creation that President Obama has identified as his top priority," said Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute.
The withdrawal of the proposed EPA rule comes three days after the White House identified seven such regulations that it said would cost private business at least $1 billion each. The proposed smog standard was estimated to cost anywhere between $19 billion and $90 billion, depending on how strict it would be.

Good news everyone, that clean air you wanted to breath is not going to happen!!!
 
Some good news!

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama on Friday scrapped his administration's controversial plans to tighten smog rules, bowing to the demands


Obama overruled the Environmental Protection Agency — and the unanimous opinion of its independent panel of scientific advisers — and directed administrator Lisa Jackson to withdraw the proposed regulation to reduce concentrations of ground-level ozone, smog's main ingredient. The decision rests in part on reducing regulatory burdens and uncertainty for businesses at a time of rampant uncertainty about an unsteady economy.
The announcement came shortly after a new government report on private sector employment showed that businesses essentially added no new jobs last month — and that the jobless rate remained stuck at a historically high 9.1 percent.
"The president's decision is good news for the economy and Americans looking for work. EPA's proposal would have prevented the very job creation that President Obama has identified as his top priority," said Jack Gerard, president and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute.
The withdrawal of the proposed EPA rule comes three days after the White House identified seven such regulations that it said would cost private business at least $1 billion each. The proposed smog standard was estimated to cost anywhere between $19 billion and $90 billion, depending on how strict it would be.
only you would call the over ruling of experts to do what a bunch of righties wants as a good thing
 
A nice summary of the anti-business climate created by Obama:
In the last 30 months, the Obama administration has created a psychological landscape that finally just seemed, whether fairly or not, too hostile to most employers to risk new hiring and buying. Each act, in and of itself, was irrelevant. Together they are proving catastrophic and doing the near impossible of turning a brief recovery into another recession.

Here is the lament I heard: the near $5 trillion in borrowing in just three years, the radical growth in the size of the federal government and its regulatory zeal, ObamaCare, the Boeing plant closure threat, the green jobs sweet-heart deals and Van Jones-like “Millions of Green Jobs” nonsense, the vast expansion in food stamps and unemployment pay-outs, the reversal of the Chrysler creditors, politically driven interference in the car industry, the failed efforts to get card check and cap and trade, the moratoria on new drilling in the Gulf, the general antipathy to new fossil fuel exploitation coupled with new finds of vast new reserves, the new financial regulations, an aggressive EPA oblivious to the effects of its advocacy on jobs, the threatened close-down of energy plants, the support for idling thousands of acres of irrigated farmland due to environmental regulations, the constant talk of higher taxes, the needlessly provocative rhetoric of “fat cat”, “millionaires and billionaires,” “corporate jet owners,” etc. juxtaposed, in hypocritical fashion, to Martha’s Vineyard, Costa del Sol, and Vail First Family getaways — all of these isolated strains finally are becoming a harrowing opera to business people.

Despite enormous opportunity for many cash-rich firms to take advantage of the down cycles (low interest, plentiful potential employees, discounted prices, etc.), they are taking a pass, almost as if to collectively sigh, “This bunch doesn’t like me much and I’m going to hunker down, hoard my cash, and sit out the next year and a half until they are gone.” And the administration’s efforts to counteract these symbols and impressions by courting a high-profile, hyper-capitalist Warren Buffett, or a GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt have proven even more ironic: the former calls for higher taxes that his firms seek to avoid, or targets his post-mortem wealth to (more efficient?) private foundations that rob the Treasury of billions in lost inheritance taxes, or knows higher taxes won’t much matter to his tens of billions in net worth; the latter’s firm paid no 2010 U.S. income taxes on many of its profits and outsourced jobs overseas.
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/job-killing-101/
And another example of an Obama's hostility to business:

The Justice department bullies Gibson without filing charges

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Gov’t says wood is illegal if U.S. workers produce it

Thursday, August 25, 2011

The Federal Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. has suggested that the use of wood from India that is not finished by Indian workers is illegal, not because of U.S. law, but because it is the Justice Department’s interpretation of a law in India. (If the same wood from the same tree was finished by Indian workers, the material would be legal.) This action was taken without the support and consent of the government in India.

On August 24, 2011, around 8:45 a.m. CDT, agents for the federal government executed four search warrants on Gibson’s facilities in Nashville and Memphis and seized several pallets of wood, electronic files and guitars. Gibson had to cease its manufacturing operations and send workers home for the day, while armed agents executed the search warrants. Gibson has fully cooperated with the execution of the search warrants.

• Raid shut down Gibson factories and cost company money
This is the second time that federal agents have raided Gibson facilities and disrupted production – this time causing lost productivity and sales.

• Wood seized was Forest Stewardship Council Controlled
The wood the Government seized on August 24 is from a Forest Stewardship Council certified supplier and is FSC Controlled, meaning that the wood complies with the standards of the Forest Stewardship Council, which is an industry-recognized and independent, not-for-profit organization established to promote responsible management of the world’s forests. FSC Controlled Wood standards require, among other things, that the wood not be illegally harvested and not be harvested in violation of traditional and civil rights. See www.fsc.org for more information. Gibson has a long history of supporting sustainable and responsible sources of wood and has worked diligently with entities such as the Rainforest Alliance and Greenpeace to secure FSC certified supplies. The wood seized on August 24 satisfied FSC standards.

• Nearly two years later, no charges have been filed
In 2009, more than a dozen agents with automatic weapons invaded the Gibson factory in Nashville. The Government seized guitars and a substantial amount of ebony fingerboard blanks from Madagascar. To date, 1 year and 9 months later, criminal charges have NOT been filed, yet the Government still holds Gibson’s property. Gibson has obtained sworn statements and documents from the Madagascar government and these materials, which have been filed in federal court, show that the wood seized in 2009 was legally exported under Madagascar law and that no law has been violated. Gibson is attempting to have its property returned in a civil proceeding that is pending in federal court.

The Justice Department has asked the judge to stop the court case indefinitely.

• Information sought in raid was already made available
Since 2009, Gibson has fully cooperated with the Government’s investigation of wood and has provided substantial documentation regarding Gibson’s wood-buying activities over the years. Yet, the Federal Government raided Gibson’s facilities on August 24, 2011, without warning or communication of any kind. Had the Government simply communicated with Gibson, Gibson would have cooperated without having to stop its production and send workers home.

• Not about illegal logging, not about conservation, not about the environment
The U.S. Lacey Act does not directly address conservation issues but is about obeying all laws of the countries from which wood products are procured. This law reads that you are guilty if you did not observe a law even though you had no knowledge of that law in a foreign country. The U.S. Lacey Act is only applicable when a foreign law has been violated.

• Gibson is innocent and will fight to protect its rights
Gibson has complied with foreign laws and believes it is innocent of ANY wrong doing. We will fight aggressively to prove our innocence.
http://www.gibson.com/en-us/Lifestyle/News/gibson-0825-2011/
 
A nice summary of the anti-business climate created by Obama:

No it is a nice summation of Republican/Tea Party lies. God forbid we should have the temerity to stand up for ourselves lest we offend the all knowing and and all powerful special interests than run our nation.

Another outright lie. In the case of the Gibson Corporation, the US government is not investigating them for violation of foreign laws as stated in the opinion piece you referenced. US government is not enforcing foreign law as the article you referenced claimed. Rather the US government in the Gibson case is investigating violation of US law- specifically the Lacey Act, an law that is over a hundred years old.

Interestingly, the Lacey Act was amended in 2008 to include plants. George II was president at that time, not Obama - one of those minor details again. :) George II, the then leader of the Republican Party signed the amendment to the Lacey Act that is being used to investigate Gibson.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/therecord/...n-guitar-was-raided-by-the-justice-department

You may not like the law. And if that is the case, the solution is to change the law through congress - not to blame Obama for enforcing the law of that land as the POTUS is required to do by this little document called the Constitution. And by the way, what percentage of American business would be touched by this law? There are not a whole lot of companies specializing in the use of exotic woods.

Much to the chagrin to the Republican/Tea Party the Obama administration and the Dems have taken an economy that was shrinking at an annual rate of 9 percent to an economy that has been consistently growing at a modest rate since since mid 2009 - shortly after taking office.

Republicans/Tea Partiers everywhere no doubt will be and remain gleeful over the coming economic contraction they created by taking the nation to the very brink of devastation (threatening to cause the nation to intentionally and unnecessarily default). You want to talk about uncertainty, how about the US government defaulting on its debt wholly because of the stupidity/self interests of the Republican/Tea Party? The political risk in the US induced soley by the hands of the Republican/Tea Party, is incredible. Political risk is something we often associate with under developed countries - not The United States of America. It seems the fiscal iresponsiblity of the Republican/Tea Party knows no bounds. It seems they want to finish what they started in the last Republican administration - to run the nation into fiscal chaos.
 
Last edited:
One problem with big business, is it gobbles up small businesses and then tries to control the marketplace using methods that often need checks. True, there are economies of scale, but there is also a human cost.

If we look at the Federal Government, in the same way as big business, it too gobbles up the rights of the independent states, which are analogous to small business. There is also a human cost,even if there are economies of scale. The debate between government and business often the pot calling the kettle black.

I am not anti-government but there needs to be checks on their power. Who gets to check the government by creating regulations to control its behavior and practices? This is left to the government. If that is optimized, why not leave regulation of business to business? How about business gets to regulate government so the pot and kettle have the same playing field. Would business cheat, like government, to help stack their own deck?

I would treat both as big entities that devour the small. Government can not regulate itself, since it will not sacrifice power for what is right, anymore than business would sacrifice profit for what is right. If government can check business maybe business can check government to make it less wasteful.

Would business regulating government impact its operation?
 
One problem with big business, is it gobbles up small businesses and then tries to control the marketplace using methods that often need checks. True, there are economies of scale, but there is also a human cost.

That indeed is one of the problems with big business. There comes a time when businesses/industries cross that threshold and become trusts (monopolies/oligopolies) and no longer need to be efficient or competitive.

But industries/businesses have learned that a few well placed dollars can buy them exemptions from the nation's anti-trust laws. Just as in the previous centuries, this has again become a problem for the nation.
If we look at the Federal Government, in the same way as big business, it too gobbles up the rights of the independent states, which are analogous to small business. There is also a human cost,even if there are economies of scale. The debate between government and business often the pot calling the kettle black.

I am not anti-government but there needs to be checks on their power. Who gets to check the government by creating regulations to control its behavior and practices? This is left to the government. If that is optimized, why not leave regulation of business to business? How about business gets to regulate government so the pot and kettle have the same playing field. Would business cheat, like government, to help stack their own deck?

I would treat both as big entities that devour the small. Government can not regulate itself, since it will not sacrifice power for what is right, anymore than business would sacrifice profit for what is right. If government can check business maybe business can check government to make it less wasteful.

Would business regulating government impact its operation?

I think you are missing a major point of the Constitution. The Constitution is very clear about the division of powers, the judicial, administrative and legislative branches of government. And the ultimate check on all branches of government are the people of this nation - the people who elect congress and the chief executive of our government. So our government already has checks in place. The voter is the chief regulator of our government. If voters don't like the way their government is working it is their duty to vote them out.

One can however make a good case that voters have not been doing a very good job in the election booth especially for the first 8 years of this century. I think we need to understand why that has been the case. In my opinion, there has been too much misinformation spread on the nations airwaves creating voter confusion in abundance. Voters need good honest and accurate information if they are going to make the decisions required for good governance. Unfortunately our friends in industry have learned how to manipulate information disseminated to voters and learned it well. The recent supreme court decision in the Citizens United case further extends the power of the monied few to spread misinformation. Money now buys unlimited and secret intervention in our political system, further degrading the ability of voters to make well informed decisions in the election booth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

But back to the topic at hand, when looking at legislation/regulation one must look at not only the cost but the benefits as well. Republicans/Tea Partiers and the Koch brothers like to only look at the cost side of the equation. I am not suprised the Koch brothers (funders and organizers of the Tea Party) are not fond of government regulation as the EPA has forced them to pay tens of millions for pollution over the course of the years. The Koch brothers have had a number of run ins with the Justice Department including a little episode where a jury found them guilty of stealing oil from Indian reservations. Now the Koch brothers are holding secret meeting with our government officials (e.g. Tea Party favorites supreme court justices Scalia and Thomas).

Given the history of the Koch brothers one can easily understand why they do not want regulation of any sort or a justice department that reigns in their greed.

http://www.forbes.com/2001/01/04/0104faces.html

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/03/01/147376/koch-polluter-bailout/

http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1996/b3469090.arc.htm
 
Last edited:
Back
Top