Tuesday, February 21, 2012
On Ron Paul and the FED
He's apparently right. This, in that, if the FED hadn't a) distorted interest rates, b) printed money to an almost obscene level, and c) created a bailout culture on Wall Street (Greenspan's nickname actually WAS Mr. Bailout), there probably wouldn't have ever been a sub-prime lending crisis or especially a housing bubble. I mean, yeah, there no doubt would have been a correction eventually and all, but NOTHING like the calamity that actually happened.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
Will, are you crazy? Everyone knows that George Bush stopped regulating Wall Street and that's what caused the crisis. Come on!
Granted, he did it by adding 30,000 new regulations, but those new regulations gave Wall Street free rein. Everyone knows that.
I'd like to see your proof that Bush added 30,000 new regulations to Wall Street.
Will: Everyone knows that.
Obviously not, seeing as your comment is meant sarcastically.
Jerry: I'd like to see your proof that Bush added 30,000 new regulations...
Indeed. I think he should list them.
Hi Jerry,
The number I quoted came from an article on Real Clear Markets. A primary source isn't cited, but it's consistent with other data points I've seen.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute cites the same number. Wikipedia doesn't state a number but says, "Bush administration increased the number of new pages in the Federal Registry, a proxy for economic regulation, from 64,438 new pages in 2001 to 78,090 in new pages in 2007, a record amount of regulation. Economically significant regulations, defined as regulations which cost more than $100 million a year, increased by 70%." Heritage also documents it pretty well.
In short, anyone who thinks Bush deregulated before the economic crisis doesn't know what they're talking about.
I am not disputing that he added 30,000 total regulations, but you implied that he added 30,000 Wall Street regulations.
I would guess that most of those regulations had nothing to do with Wall Street.
Jerry, the budget on financial regulations skyrocketed under Bush. The budget for the SEC alone went from 200 something million to 629 million. The guy was hardly a free marketeer in any meaningful way.
Are you suggesting that Bush over-regulated the financial community? That too many restrictions were places on them?
I keep going back to Greenspan, Bernenke, Paulsen, and Geithner, with Bush being like the Peter Sellers character in "Being There".............I'm not a big czars guy, Jerry, but if I could have just one it would be a regulation czar (maybe a guy like Bloomberg). We need to somehow ferret out the stupid shit that basically helps the big boys (this, in that they're the ones who can hire the expensive lawyers and pay for compliance) at the expense of newer businesses from the necessary regulation that helps prevent oil spills, rotten tuna, etc.. Not that I'm holding my breath, mind you.
Heritage = Right-wing spin machine.
Heritage says, "...the regulatory burden on Americans has grown, not shrunk, during President George W. Bush's tenure. This growth was relatively slow during the first few years of the Administration, but it has been accelerating".
Gee, I wonder why the passage new regulations accelerated? Perhaps it had something to do with the major accounting scandals that brought down Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems and WorldCom? These scandals cost investors billions, but Heritage thinks the regulations to prevent it from happening again are bad?
This is a perfect example of liars figuring, IMO. Regulations going up means diddly squat... because the new regulations were in regards to corporations/accounting not financial institutions/mortgages. The deregulation that occurred under Clinton was NOT rolled back by bush.
In fact I'd argue bush started the subprime crisis with his "ownership society".
The SEC budget (which did deal with financial institutions) more than doubled under Bush, wd. Now, you can say that the regulators under Mr. Bush failed and, yes, that would be a plausible argument. But to say that there was LESS regulation isn't born out by the facts.............Speaking of the New York Times, they also said this about Mr. Bush back in 2003 - http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html............And, wd, you can't go around criticizing HR for quoting Heritage while at the same time going around quoting Thinkprogress yourself. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
WD, surely you can do better than that. Yes, I quoted Heritage, but I also pointed to Real Clear Markets, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Wikipedia. Hardly all conservative sources.
Second, the Heritage analysis would be considered an "admission against interest." It's a conservative group that supported Bush documenting the high number of regulations under Bush.
I wonder, how often do you quote liberal sources when they criticize liberals? Or do you only quote liberal sources when they are spouting the left's world view?
HR, Thinkprogress, Keith Olbermann, and Thom Hartmann - if wd doesn't hear it from them, he tends not to believe it, period.
Heathen Republican: ...surely you can do better than that.
Surely you can do better. That's a pretty weak dodge.
Heathen Republican: ...the Heritage analysis would be considered an "admission against interest".
No it isn't. Heritage is a Conservative think tank, not a Republican one. I can give examples of progressive groups criticizing Obama. I'd say they do it because it's *IN* their interest... to push Obama to be more progressive.
Will: Now, you can say that the regulators under Mr. Bush failed and, yes, that would be a plausible argument.
The regulators "failed". Although I don't know if you can use that word if they set out to do something and accomplished it. They had no interest in regulating. They thought they were "partners".
Will: if wd doesn't hear it from them, he tends not to believe it, period.
Yes, I trust the sources you listed... and others too. I don't believe Conservative spin, and you think that reflects badly on me? OK, I'll accept that "criticism" (although it sounds like a compliment to me).
Will: Speaking of the New York Times, they also said this about Mr. Bush back in 2003...
So why didn't Congress act? The Republicans were in control. Also, would it have made a difference? According to the NYT article I linked to, "the regulator Bush chose to oversee [F&F] - an old school buddy - pronounced the companies sound even as they headed toward insolvency".
So bush proposed the creation of a new agency to oversee F&F, that doesn't mean it would have been effective. I think the evidence shows otherwise.
wd, the Congress didn't act because there were more than enough cowards and pander-bears from BOTH parties to stonewall any administration initiative. Like I've said on many, many, occasions, this was a complete and total bipartisan screw-up.
Post a Comment