The Worst President Ever?
262 RepliesJump to last post
gabe,
For an analyst that is commenting on the mortgage meltdown, you aren't very informed of the history. You either A)did not know about the CRA of 94 or B) did not understand the implications. I mention this because your statement about the 'lax lending standards that Clinton Supposedly Signed' is clearly misinformed. After I pointed it out, you did not respond and began critiquing Shania's grammar and commenting on your own role as an analyst. If you are indeed an analyst you will want to probably start looking more thoroughly into the subjects you analyze. The CRA of 94 is probably the single biggest catalyst to the mortgage meltdown. We can discuss this further if you wish.Back to the OP…
All I hear is how every damn thing done in congress is to create jobs. Is our prez trying to create "The New Deal II" I heard a story about paying 50m per year to every person close to retirement to resign from their job to open the position to someone younger and in search of work. It sounds good in theory. What do you see as the pros and cons? I am sure the final bill will be over one trillion but we will use that number for example. $1,000,000,000,000/$50m= 20mm jobs I am sure this number can be played around a little such as 24m for one year, 45m for two years, etc. and if the 50m per year was annuitized for monthly payments it would spread the cost out for uncle sam. Why would this not put people to work almost instantly and pump money into the economy?[quote=NYCTrader] [quote=Conrad Dobler][quote=NYCTrader]
By LIZ SIDOTI, AP National Political Writer
WASHINGTON – Budget deficits are in the stratosphere. Unemployment has hit 10 percent. The health care overhaul is incomplete.
Still, Americans appear to like President Barack Obama and the way he's doing his job.
The latest Associated Press-Gfk poll shows the president's popularity holding steady, with 56 percent of those polled approving of the way he's taking care of the country's business. His marks for handling the 8-year-old war in Afghanistan have jumped by double digits, with more than half now approving, since he capped a three-month strategy review by announcing a big troop increase.
[/quote] You found the one poll where Obama's in positive numbers. Here's the rest; http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html [/quote]Actually, the only poll I see on Real Clear Politics that has a significant negative opinion on Obama is from Rasmussen, which normally skews right. So I'm not sure I see your point.
[/quote] NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 12/11 - 12/14 1008 A 47 46 +1 Associated Press/GfK 12/10 - 12/14 1001 A 56 42 +14 USA Today/Gallup 12/11 - 12/13 1025 A 49 46 +3 ABC News/Wash Post 12/10 - 12/13 1003 A 50 46 +4 Pew Research 12/9 - 12/13 1504 A 49 40 +9
The point is you selected the ONLY poll that has Obama with strong numbers. I'm not buying the "Obama's numbers look like Reagans" because it never seems to have a chart along with it and it hinges on inflated Obama numbers (like selecting the ONE poll showing Obama at 56%). Polls aren’t the end of the world and it’s early to call him the “worst president ever”.
You really think it "remains to be seen if Obama's polices will work out"? I don't. Obama is empowering government, Reagan empowered commerce.
Given how you seem to not understand Glass-Steagal (and how the repeal of it actually made it possible for Merrill, MS and GS to be saved) and have the details of TARP wrong, I doubt your "analyical work" has anything at all to do with finance or markets.Shania,
there’s a reason you get paid to do retail sales and I get paid to do analyical work.
[quote=gabe]Shania, there’s a reason you get paid to do retail sales and I get paid to do analyical work.
Given how you seem to not understand Glass-Steagal (and how the repeal of it actually made it possible for Merrill, MS and GS to be saved) and have the details of TARP wrong, I doubt your “analyical work” has anything at all to do with finance or markets.[/quote]
Either I’m completely unclear or you can’t read.
I’ll go with the second!
I AGREE with you that, if anything, the repeal of Glass-Steagall helped deal with the crisis. But some here think that the repeal was one of the main causes of the crisis. So, if I was unclear let me be clear this time. I agree with you on this point.
As for the details of TARP I got wrong, which are those?
[quote=Conrad Dobler] . I’m not buying the “Obama’s numbers look like Reagans” because it never seems to have a chart along with it and it hinges on inflated Obama numbers (like selecting the ONE poll showing Obama at 56%). Polls aren’t the end of the world and it’s early to call him the “worst president ever”.
You really think it “remains to be seen if Obama’s polices will work out”? I don’t. Obama is empowering government, Reagan empowered commerce.
[/quote]
Here it is:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/obama_as_reagan.php
In a nutshell, the whole point of the thread and cogently stated. If you can say this is the worst presidency (or that you can already tell the policies won't work out), then by definition you believe his philosophy is ruinous. And only one outcome could have resulted from his election.You really think it “remains to be seen if Obama’s polices will work out”? I don’t. Obama is empowering government, Reagan empowered commerce.
[quote=Conrad Dobler]You really think it “remains to be seen if Obama’s polices will work out”? I don’t. Obama is empowering government, Reagan empowered commerce.
In a nutshell, the whole point of the thread and cogently stated. If you can say this is the worst presidency (or that you can already tell the policies won’t work out), then by definition you believe his philosophy is ruinous. And only one outcome could have resulted from his election.[/quote]
That was my very original point, now since lost in all the back and forth. And it’s that the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE is very strong that the economy and the stock market do better when a Democrat is in the White House. I’m not arguing cause and effect, just noting the fact. Given that, it’s surprising to me that people who depend so much on the market doing well bash Democrats so much.
[quote=gabe] [quote=Conrad Dobler] [quote=gabe]Shania, there’s a reason you get paid to do retail sales and I get paid to do analyical work.[/quote]
Given how you seem to not understand Glass-Steagal (and how the repeal of it actually made it possible for Merrill, MS and GS to be saved) and have the details of TARP wrong, I doubt your "analyical work" has anything at all to do with finance or markets.[/quote]
Either I'm completely unclear or you can't read.
I'll go with the second!
I AGREE with you that, if anything, the repeal of Glass-Steagall helped deal with the crisis. But some here think that the repeal was one of the main causes of the crisis. So, if I was unclear let me be clear this time. I agree with you on this point.
As for the details of TARP I got wrong, which are those?
[/quote] The repeal of the GS act did NOT help them to be saved. If anything it contributed to the debacle in the first place with firms like Citi and BofA running into the problems in the first place. Not only has it not contributed to the 'recovery' but it's likely to be reenacted in some form or fashion in the regulatory reform (and many support this). The CRA of 94 created the lax lending standards and the repeal of the GS act in 98 allowed more to participate in this.
[quote=gabe] [quote=Conrad Dobler] [quote=gabe]Shania, there’s a reason you get paid to do retail sales and I get paid to do analyical work.
Given how you seem to not understand Glass-Steagal (and how the repeal of it actually made it possible for Merrill, MS and GS to be saved) and have the details of TARP wrong, I doubt your “analyical work” has anything at all to do with finance or markets.[/quote] Either I’m completely unclear or you can’t read. I’ll go with the second! I AGREE with you that, if anything, the repeal of Glass-Steagall helped deal with the crisis. But some here think that the repeal was one of the main causes of the crisis. So, if I was unclear let me be clear this time. I agree with you on this point. As for the details of TARP I got wrong, which are those? [/quote]
The repeal of the GS act did NOT help them to be saved. If anything it contributed to the debacle in the first place with firms like Citi and BofA running into the problems in the first place. Not only has it not contributed to the ‘recovery’ but it’s likely to be reenacted in some form or fashion in the regulatory reform (and many support this).
The CRA of 94 created the lax lending standards and the repeal of the GS act in 98 allowed more to participate in this.[/quote]
Well, LSU, it seems you disagree with me and Conrad. I think the repeal was a mild positive for some banks, since it allowed them to diversify a bit. But I’d say mild at best. I can’t see how it made anything ‘worse’. Do you mean that the Citi’s of the world would not have run into problems if it had not been repealed?
In the end what stopped this crisis from becoming even worse was that governments across the whole world (not just the US) made clear they would bail out the financial systems. Of course we will be paying the fiscal cost of that bailout for years.
I’m not particularly interested in re-debating the CRA, since no one here seems to want to debate that seriously, but if you do care read back on all the problems with the "CRA as a cause of the crisis’ approach.
Among others:
1) Most of the subprime lenders were not even subject to CRA (mortgage companies)
2) The CRA mandates more lending in poor neighborhoods (eliminating redlining) , but the real esatte bubble and mortgage defaults were not concentrated in poor neighborhoods.
3) CRA did not mandate or push for zero-down or interest-only loans. That came afterwards.
4) Many countries across the world had similar real estate boom busts and did not have CRA, meaning there was probably a common cause.
5) Growing problems in CMBS (which has zero CRA impact) also show that there was a bigger, common cause.
6) CRA loans were perfectly OK for decades. The crisis exploded in the mid-late 2000s. It was those mortgage cohorts that bega defaulting way above their historical records.
I've read your line for a couple of pages now, and I know why it gets to me. You think that we're salesman and not analysts. The best of us are in fact, analysts, handcreating solutions that fit our clients like bespoke tailoring. All you've done is made some cloth. We make of our clients, kings. But let me ask: do you understand why you exist in this world - and why we don't write your reports? If you can restate why, I'd love to hear it as I'm sure others might.…wants something to back up what you say you need the stuff people like me write… people like me get paid for our analysis and people like you don’t…
[quote=gabe]…wants something to back up what you say you need the stuff people like me write… people like me get paid for our analysis and people like you don’t…
I’ve read your line for a couple of pages now, and I know why it gets to me. You think that we’re salesman and not analysts. The best of us are in fact, analysts, handcreating solutions that fit our clients like bespoke tailoring. All you’ve done is made some cloth. We make of our clients, kings.
But let me ask: do you understand why you exist in this world - and why we don’t write your reports? If you can restate why, I’d love to hear it as I’m sure others might. [/quote]
Well, that was to jerk your chain, which appears to be pretty common around here!
But you ARE salesmen!
[quote=gabe]Here it is:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/obama_as_reagan.php [/quote] Remove Ronald Reagan and JFK from your chart and they Reds looks better at the end of their term then the Blues. Does that mean typically at the mid term election, the majority of Americans are happier with a Republicans term? Thanks for finding this chart.
Or maybe they are happier that they are about to leave?
Actually, the graph only goes out to the first midterm, which is why W has high ratings. Remember he finished his presidency with almost record low approval. He was popular in 2002 (due to 9/11) by by 2008 not so much.
I’ll take that as a failure to respond.
You can take it as a bagel with cream cheese if it makes you happy!
gabe - I am willing to debate CRA seriously. I have created the scenario and you did not respond. I will attempt to make it more visual.
After the new CRA was given it’s fangs, here is what happens
Bank A
Lend (Sub-prime) Don’t Lend (sub-prime)
Lend (sub-prime) (+10, +10) (-3, +14)
Bank B
Don’t Lend (sub-prime) (+14, - 3) (+5, +5)
Now, obviously it gets a little more complicated given that there are several banks involved. But it is obvious, that it is in the banks best interest to make the sub-prime loans. The difference in lending and not lending could be huge. If you are in charge of bank A, you will make the assumption that Bank B is going to lend, and if bank B is going to lend, then you will too.
Of course, you could collude with bank B and agree not to lend, but two problems exist there: 1) Collusion is illegal and 2) How do you know bank B won’t renege?
Please discuss.
Moraen,
That’s what’s called ‘begging the question’ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)
You are simply assuming the result you are arguing. It’s a circular argument. Why, for example, do you have the Lend, Lend scenario as +10 for both. In fact the real result was -2000 for each! In other words, your argument works because of the values you assume for each scenario but you provide no proof or support why those values are correct.
Look at how it changes if i change the values:
Lend A, Lend B (-200,-200)
Lend A, No Lend B (-100, 100)
No Lend A, Lend B (100, -100)
No Lend A, No Lend B (200, 200)
Now, maybe at the time some thought that lending to subprime was a good idea because they expected to be repaid. But that has nothing to do with CRA. or, at least, I’d ask you what you think the relationship is.
The values are percentages, but used for the sake of argument. The values don’t matter. What matters is the difference in the values… If I used accurate values, they would be similar.
Economists use placeholders all of the time. I am not going to sit down and do the research to figure out exact values.
The argument is not circular. By showing that it was more profitable for both banks to lend, it shows that it was the only possible rational outcome. Now, if you want to throw the fact that irrationality is present in everyone, you can. But it still doesn’t matter.
If you are the CEO of either bank, it is in your best interest to make sub-prime loans. Why? Because CEOs live and breathe by share price.
Do you think that had some lenders NOT made those loans, and the boards watched the profits of other banks skyrocket, that those CEOs would still have jobs?
You have also not used ‘real’ values to back up your arguments, only opinion pieces by journalists. I have used your sides numbers to show that CRA is in fact a cause, by a paper written by one of CRAs biggest apologists. The 6% of high-dollar loans that were CRA-related and sub-prime. That 6% figure is misleading because it ignores, mid-dollar and low dollar loans.
***Edit - Ok, we need to set some ground rules.
1) I will agree that LONG-term the banks lose money by lending.
2) However, SHORT-term the banks make money by lending.
Thus, my argument holds because CEOs live and breathe by SHORT-term stock price.