Occupy Detroit...

Originally posted by no1marauder
Here's the answer: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/24/gretchen-morgenson-reckless-endangerment_n_865809.html?page=1

That's exactly what I've been saying. Not one, but many government, or quasi governmental agencies were responsible.

Originally posted by rwingett
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y170/rwingett/occupy_detroit.jpg

Hey, look, it's me again (in the bull's-eye).

Congratulations sir, not only have you won the revolution, but you have managed to put a horse's ass in the middle of a bull"s eye.


GRANNY.

Originally posted by normbenign
That's exactly what I've been saying. Not one, but many government, or quasi governmental agencies were responsible.

So you agree with the author of RE that the concept "The belief that the free market could police itself better than any government regulator" is a flawed one?

Originally posted by no1marauder
So you agree with the author of RE that the concept "The belief that the free market could police itself better than any government regulator" is a flawed one?

I agree with the author's repeated factual evidence that the regulators and regulations could be easily manipulated and sidestepped by as skilled a manipulator as Jim Johnson. You are free, as am I, to agree or disagree with any individual conclusions of the author. That's what objective reading is about.

Whether a market could police itself under such circumstances is not the issue. The issue is that no amount of regulation and policing is adequate when the law becomes so muddled and discriminatory that almost nobody understands, follows or respects it. This is the lesson Bastiat teaches in his short book "The Law".

Once Johnson was at the helm of Fannie, with at least the appearance of government authority, he did just about as he pleased, and repeatedly the author describes how Johnson faced crisis after crisis of legislators and regulators with campaign contributions, massive lobbying, and even threats. This doesn't in any way resemble laissez fair. Instead the law, the regulations, the regulators and the police agencies all became complicite in the fraud, and in the slippery slope.

This business is represented in Atlas Shrugged by Wesley Mooch and James Taggert, and others whose corrupt business practices were approved and supported by government.

Originally posted by normbenign
I agree with the author's repeated factual evidence that the regulators and regulations could be easily manipulated and sidestepped by as skilled a manipulator as Jim Johnson. You are free, as am I, to agree or disagree with any individual conclusions of the author. That's what objective reading is about.

Whether a market could police itself under ...[text shortened]... ert, and others whose corrupt business practices were approved and supported by government.

So what? At best, you are claiming that Johnson was able to put his company in the same position he would have been in absent ANY regulations. How does that support a laissez faire position?

The people like Greenspan who were letting the banks and others do as they please agreed 100% with you, Bastiat and Rand. How'd that work out?

Originally posted by no1marauder
So what? At best, you are claiming that Johnson was able to put his company in the same position he would have been in absent ANY regulations. How does that support a laissez faire position?

The people like Greenspan who were letting the banks and others do as they please agreed 100% with you, Bastiat and Rand. How'd that work out?

Greenspan by accepting the position at the Fed rejected all of his Objectivist ideals.

"At best, you are claiming that Johnson was able to put his company in the same position he would have been in absent ANY regulations."

Not at all. First it was laws and regulations which forced banks to relax underwriting of mortgages. Second, it was Congress which created Fannie and gave it the appearance of being a part of the government when in truth it was not. Minus those regulations, Johnson would have had a tough time making Fannie the powerhouse it became.

The first chapter of Reckless ...... names the acronym agency which spawned Fannie Mae, and it had existed since the depression without growing out of control. Johnson with the help of the Clinton administration and Congress saw to it that Fannie got the power Johnson desired.

Not in the slightest laissez fair.

Originally posted by normbenign
Greenspan by accepting the position at the Fed rejected all of his Objectivist ideals.

"At best, you are claiming that Johnson was able to put his company in the same position he would have been in absent ANY regulations."

Not at all. First it was laws and regulations which forced banks to relax underwriting of mortgages. Second, it was Congress w ...[text shortened]... ess saw to it that Fannie got the power Johnson desired.

Not in the slightest laissez fair.

LMAO! A "No True Scotsman" argument. How predictable.

Fannie Mae WAS around since 1938. It's existence didn't cause the collapse of the financial system. Morgenstern gave you the reasons for that collapse i.e. the failure to regulate in the manner that was the norm before the mid-1990's (and which misfeasance rapidly accelerated after the repeal of Glass-Stegall and the onset of the Bush administration), but because it clashes with your religion you cannot accept it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
LMAO! A "No True Scotsman" argument. How predictable.

Fannie Mae WAS around since 1938. It's existence didn't cause the collapse of the financial system. Morgenstern gave you the reasons for that collapse i.e. the failure to regulate in the manner that was the norm before the mid-1990's (and which misfeasance rapidly accelerated after the rep ...[text shortened]... f the Bush administration), but because it clashes with your religion you cannot accept it.

"Fannie Mae WAS around since 1938. It's existence didn't cause the collapse of the financial system."

"In 1968 LBJ changed the company from an agency of the government into a partially private entity that issued common stock to public invewstors." RE

"It still had lose ties to the government and perquisites that other finance companies could only dream of, but by the 1980s, Fannie Mae was a financial colossus that had to please both shareholders and the government. Its shares were first offered to the public in 1989." RE

This is a bit puzzling to me, in that Morgenstern says the company was public as of 1968 but first sold the stock to the public in 1989? In any case the company "Fannie" in 1989 hardly resembled the powerless federal agency formed in the 30s.

" the failure to regulate in the manner that was the norm before the mid-1990's "

Under Johnson, and the Clinton administration, Fannie systematically demolished every regulator, whether agency or Congress that stood in his way. And yes repeal of Glass-Stegall was a part of that, but it was mainly friends of Fannie, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Barrak Obama who stood in the way or regulatory reform proposed by McCain and Breaux. This isn't a partisan thing, it's a big government thing, with administrations in both parties stoking the fires to keep the economy artificially humming. You can't spin it any other way. It was a failure of government, and of government regulations and regulators.

Try actually reading RE, instread of cherry picking passages that seem to support your notions. It really is a revealing look at contemporary politics and business, and nobody involved comes out looking good.

Originally posted by normbenign
"Fannie Mae WAS around since 1938. It's existence didn't cause the collapse of the financial system."

"In 1968 LBJ changed the company from an agency of the government into a partially private entity that issued common stock to public invewstors." RE

"It still had lose ties to the government and perquisites that other finance companies could only d ...[text shortened]... contemporary politics and business, and nobody involved comes out looking good.

Fannie's privatization was just another example of the anti-government philosophy you parrot over and over and over again.

But the point remains and cannot be stressed enough; Fannie's market share rapidly declined after Glass-Stegall and both it and Freddie were extremely reluctant to embrace the Alt-A and other type of subprime mortgage schemes that the Wall Street banks embraced in order to increase the number of mortgages they could bundle into MBS and CDOs. They eventually decided to "meet the market where the market is" as stated in Fannie's "Strategic Crossroads" presentation of June 27, 2005. Continuing to try to blame the financial crisis on this tail when Wall Street and its non-regulators were the dog is misplaced.

I went with Occupy Detroit to a Bank of America protest today. While protesting outside the bank, I was interviewed by a local news station. I just watched the news and saw they used part of it. I got about five seconds of air time. I'm pleased to report that I sounded fairly coherent.

Was that my 15 minutes (5 seconds) of fame?

http://www.clickondetroit.com/video/29522138/index.html

Look at that dashing fellow at the 0:53 mark.

Originally posted by no1marauder
So what? At best, you are claiming that Johnson was able to put his company in the same position he would have been in absent ANY regulations. How does that support a laissez faire position?

The people like Greenspan who were letting the banks and others do as they please agreed 100% with you, Bastiat and Rand. How'd that work out?

" At best, you are claiming that Johnson was able to put his company in the same position he would have been in absent ANY regulations. How does that support a laissez faire position?"

The very first chapter of RE debunks that notion. It was Johnson's (Fannie's) relationship to the government that allowed him to do a lot of things he otherwise would not have been able to do.

Alan Greenspan left his ideals at the door when he accepted the position at the Federal Reserve. I love the company you put me in, Bastiat and Rand. If I had my druthers, the Fed would be abolished, FDIC insurance, and bank bailouts would never happen, and they would be on their own as to underwriting mortgages, car and business loans.

You are totally predictable. Take a situation created and enhanced by restrictive government actions. Watch it blow up, and then blame free markets and capitalism. Or if things go well, give praise to labor unions, or government programs.

Originally posted by normbenign
" At best, you are claiming that Johnson was able to put his company in the same position he would have been in absent ANY regulations. How does that support a laissez faire position?"

The very first chapter of RE debunks that notion. It was Johnson's (Fannie's) relationship to the government that allowed him to do a lot of things he otherwise would n ...[text shortened]... and capitalism. Or if things go well, give praise to labor unions, or government programs.

We already tried the 19th Century, norm. Poverty was rampant, life expectancy low and economic growth a small fraction of what it was in the 20th Century. Your type of capitalism doesn't work.

You really should stop quoting a book whose author's conclusions are the polar opposite of yours.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Fannie's privatization was just another example of the anti-government philosophy you parrot over and over and over again.

But the point remains and cannot be stressed enough; Fannie's market share rapidly declined after Glass-Stegall and both it and Freddie were extremely reluctant to embrace the Alt-A and other type of subprime mortgag ...[text shortened]... al crisis on this tail when Wall Street and its non-regulators were the dog is misplaced.

"Fannie's privatization was just another example of the anti-government philosophy you parrot over and over and over again. "

No, it was a cynical move by LBJ to get Fannie off the books. He was having a little problem with an expensive war at the time.

The rest of your story doesn't square with RE. Fannie led the pack at every crossroad.