The Impeachment Thread

#24,301
#24,301
Mick said:
I just find it hard to point at Clinton's NAFTA for the resulting recession under his successor 12 years after ratification.
Click to expand...
NAFTA hurt small business but did not cause the recession. It was the folks in congress that believed that everyone deserved to be able to buy a house and the lenders more than willing to take advantage caused it.
 
#24,302
#24,302
Sandman 423 said:
I have a clue. It was the subprime that started it. Now there were a ton of factors that made it worse but it all began with subprime. There was even a President, who by all means wasn't "smart", that warned congress that something needed to be done and he was mocked by the talking heads for not understanding finance. Now if Obama or Trump were President at the time they may have made an executive order to fix it instead of following the constitution.
Click to expand...

And the subprime was caused by the derivatives which I labeled in my posts as credit default swaps. They were at the time an unregulated device. Their value exceeded the value of the mortagsges that were underwritten

I seems you googled it.

I lived it.

So I’m reciting my memory from all the news accounts and data of the day. M1 and M2 evaporated. Lehman brothers crashed. The banks tanked (1) because of the sub prime high risk credit default swabs. Restate that to greed

with the hindsight of look back over time I suppose it is possible that analysis has altered the sequence. In my mind there is no difference because it all happened essentially simultaneously very quickly and harshly

Ask yourself this question. If money was flowing why couldn’t profitable businesses meet payroll except for their large on hand cash balances?

I lived in an over 55 community at that time and the local banks experienced a run on their cash from those old enough to have been alive in the Great Depression. This aside comment is not a justification for what happened in 07/08

(1). Edited at 2:34 to change ranked to tanked
 
Last edited:
#24,303
#24,303
Sandman 423 said:
NAFTA hurt small business but did not cause the recession. It was the folks in congress that believed that everyone deserved to be able to buy a house and the lenders more than willing to take advantage caused it.
Click to expand...

“The folks in Congress”decided everyone had to be able to buy a house. Why? Because The economy was new house start driven at that time. Without more house sales the economy would not have grown. To sell more houses more people had to qualify for mortgages. Congress sold itself out to all the Housing PAC funds. What else is new? Dodd Frank was part of the problem. But it wasn’t the poor who defaulted as a bigger part of the problem it was the wealthier people defaulting, without consequence, in their second and third Macmansion purchases.

Just one more reason why people think Congress sucks
 
Last edited:
#24,304
#24,304
PointGuard said:
“The folks in Congress”decided everyone had to be able to buy a house. Why? Because The economy was new house start driven at that time. Without more house sales the economy would have tanked. To sell more houses more people had to qualify for mortgages.
Click to expand...

What is your source?
 
#24,314
#24,314
Sandman 423 said:
NAFTA hurt small business but did not cause the recession. It was the folks in congress that believed that everyone deserved to be able to buy a house and the lenders more than willing to take advantage caused it.
Click to expand...


Not entirely true. NAFTA also paved the way for manufacturing to head off shore, pay cheap labor and bring the goods right back. Georgia, and the Carolinas can tell you plenty about that. Hundreds of thousands of jobs lost. An entire industry almost wiped out.

The housing comment...that's prob 100% true.
 
#24,316
#24,316
hog88 said:
He could have been named King but declined. Lincoln and FDR would have wet themselves in joy for the opportunity.
Click to expand...
Would have made no difference to either seeing as how both died in office. Maybe a desire to be king is a bad omen.
 
#24,318
#24,318
McDad said:
Unnecessarily combative. It was a simple question for a simple man. If you choose not to answer, it will have no impact on my life.
Click to expand...

I interpreted your question as combative because you have been so in the past

Apologies if I was wrong. Of course My memory fails me on unimportant matters sometimes.

But 2007/2008 was my second highest earning period in my life and because of that economic meltdown I was unsure I was going to be able to collect what I had already earned. I was paying close attention to those events at the time and understood all the nuances of what was happening and why.
 
#24,321
#24,321
PointGuard said:
I would be surprised if the total debt in 1959 was not less than the interest on debt in 2019-2020
Click to expand...

My point is that a government only goes "bankrupt" when it's unable to tax or borrow enough to pay its obligations. And right now we're a long way from that. Thus, I do not see a disastrous recession on the horizon due to that (alone).

There are other factors out there which might cause a recession. But there's no obvious bubble that portends a worse one than 2008.
 
#24,323
#24,323
PointGuard said:
And the subprime was caused by the derivatives which I labeled in my posts as credit default swaps. They were at the time an unregulated device. Their value exceeded the value of the mortagsges that were underwritten

I seems you googled it.

I lived it.

So I’m reciting my memory from all the news accounts and data of the day. M1 and M2 evaporated. Lehman brothers crashed. The banks tanked (1) because of the sub prime high risk credit default swabs. Restate that to greed

with the hindsight of look back over time I suppose it is possible that analysis has altered the sequence. In my mind there is no difference because it all happened essentially simultaneously very quickly and harshly

Ask yourself this question. If money was flowing why couldn’t profitable businesses meet payroll except for their large on hand cash balances?

I lived in an over 55 community at that time and the local banks experienced a run on their cash from those old enough to have been alive in the Great Depression. This aside comment is not a justification for what happened in 07/08

(1). Edited at 2:34 to change ranked to tanked
Click to expand...

. I have worked in the construction industry for the last 25 years so trust me when I say that I have and continue to live it
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top