[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Trump Is Planning to Send Kill Teams to Mexico to Take Out Cartel Leaders

The Great Falling Away in the Church is Here | Tim Dilena

How Ridiculous? Blade-Less Swiss Army Knife Debuts As Weapon Laws Tighten

Jewish students beaten with sticks at University of Amsterdam

Terrorists shut down Park Avenue.

Police begin arresting democrats outside Met Gala.

The minute the total solar eclipse appeared over US

Three Types Of People To Mark And Avoid In The Church Today

Are The 4 Horsemen Of The Apocalypse About To Appear?

France sends combat troops to Ukraine battlefront

Facts you may not have heard about Muslims in England.

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Economy
See other Economy Articles

Title: Krugman's Rightful Victory Lap - Mone Too...
Source: The NY Times
URL Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/opinion/03krugman.html?_r=1
Published: Jun 3, 2011
Author: Paul Krugman
Post Date: 2011-06-03 12:10:35 by war
Keywords: None
Views: 140943
Comments: 159

Earlier this week, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York published a blog post about the “mistake of 1937,” the premature fiscal and monetary pullback that aborted an ongoing economic recovery and prolonged the Great Depression. As Gauti Eggertsson, the post’s author (with whom I have done research) points out, economic conditions today — with output growing, some prices rising, but unemployment still very high — bear a strong resemblance to those in 1936-37. So are modern policy makers going to make the same mistake?

Mr. Eggertsson says no, that economists now know better. But I disagree. In fact, in important ways we have already repeated the mistake of 1937. Call it the mistake of 2010: a “pivot” away from jobs to other concerns, whose wrongheadedness has been highlighted by recent economic data.

To be sure, things could be worse — and there’s a strong chance that they will, indeed, get worse.

Back when the original 2009 Obama stimulus was enacted, some of us warned that it was both too small and too short-lived. In particular, the effects of the stimulus would start fading out in 2010 — and given the fact that financial crises are usually followed by prolonged slumps, it was unlikely that the economy would have a vigorous self-sustaining recovery under way by then.

By the beginning of 2010, it was already obvious that these concerns had been justified. Yet somehow an overwhelming consensus emerged among policy makers and pundits that nothing more should be done to create jobs, that, on the contrary, there should be a turn toward fiscal austerity.

This consensus was fed by scare stories about an imminent loss of market confidence in U.S. debt. Every uptick in interest rates was interpreted as a sign that the “bond vigilantes” were on the attack, and this interpretation was often reported as a fact, not as a dubious hypothesis.

For example, in March 2010, The Wall Street Journal published an article titled “Debt Fears Send Rates Up,” reporting that long-term U.S. interest rates had risen and asserting — without offering any evidence — that this rise, to about 3.9 percent, reflected concerns about the budget deficit. In reality, it probably reflected several months of decent jobs numbers, which temporarily raised optimism about recovery.

But never mind. Somehow it became conventional wisdom that the deficit, not unemployment, was Public Enemy No. 1 — a conventional wisdom both reflected in and reinforced by a dramatic shift in news coverage away from unemployment and toward deficit concerns. Job creation effectively dropped off the agenda.

So, here we are, in the middle of 2011. How are things going?

Well, the bond vigilantes continue to exist only in the deficit hawks’ imagination. Long-term interest rates have fluctuated with optimism or pessimism about the economy; a recent spate of bad news has sent them down to about 3 percent, not far from historic lows.

And the news has, indeed, been bad. As the stimulus has faded out, so have hopes of strong economic recovery. Yes, there has been some job creation — but at a pace barely keeping up with population growth. The percentage of American adults with jobs, which plunged between 2007 and 2009, has barely budged since then. And the latest numbers suggest that even this modest, inadequate job growth is sputtering out.

So, as I said, we have already repeated a version of the mistake of 1937, withdrawing fiscal support much too early and perpetuating high unemployment.

Yet worse things may soon happen.

On the fiscal side, Republicans are demanding immediate spending cuts as the price of raising the debt limit and avoiding a U.S. default. If this blackmail succeeds, it will put a further drag on an already weak economy.

Meanwhile, a loud chorus is demanding that the Fed and its counterparts abroad raise interest rates to head off an alleged inflationary threat. As the New York Fed article points out, the rise in consumer price inflation over the past few months — which is already showing signs of tailing off — reflected temporary factors, and underlying inflation remains low. And smart economists like Mr. Eggerstsson understand this. But the European Central Bank is already raising rates, and the Fed is under pressure to do the same. Further attempts to help the economy expand seem out of the question.

So the mistake of 2010 may yet be followed by an even bigger mistake. Even if that doesn’t happen, however, the fact is that the policy response to the crisis was and remains vastly inadequate.

Those who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it; we did, and we are. What we’re experiencing may not be a full replay of the Great Depression, but that’s little consolation for the millions of American families suffering from a slump that just goes on and on.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 132.

#21. To: war (#0)

Mr. Eggertsson says no, that economists now know better

Economists know better, but the GOP is listening to the teahadist minority. Just today Boehner said that the jobs report was evidence that further spending cuts are needed, ignoring the fact that he claimed to have passed "historic" spending cuts not long ago - and the result is falling job growth. And then of course we had the extension of the Bush tax cuts plus additional tax cuts in December.

Never let facts get in the way of ideology though.

go65  posted on  2011-06-03   22:42:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: go65 (#21)

Just today Boehner said that the jobs report was evidence that further spending cuts are needed, ignoring the fact that he claimed to have passed "historic" spending cuts not long ago - and the result is falling job growth.

You're blaming falling job growth on spending cuts?

We The People  posted on  2011-06-03   22:54:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: We The People (#24)

You're blaming falling job growth on spending cuts?

Cutting spending will slow the economy. Economics 101 - See U.S. 1937, UK 2011

go65  posted on  2011-06-03   22:57:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#78. To: go65 (#26)

You're blaming falling job growth on spending cuts?

Cutting spending will slow the economy. Economics 101 - See U.S. 1937, UK 2011

Increasing spending when you're broke will do what?

What brought us to this point?

Keynesians Gone Wild!

Film at 11:00.

We The People  posted on  2011-06-04   11:30:02 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#81. To: We The People (#78) (Edited)

What brought us to this point?

Bankers stole the treasury by lending it out according to policies they lobbied for?

mininggold  posted on  2011-06-04   11:41:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#88. To: mininggold (#81)

Bankers stole the treasury by lending it out according to policies they lobbied for?

That isn't true at all.

Over the years the "The Community Reinvestment Act" of 1977 maintained an increasing perspective on local banks portfolios requiring the banks to reinvest at larger rates into their same communities. This, in turn, required lowering the standards for real estate loans (first time home buyers with the idea of their own family occupation).

The banks were literally PUSHED into this issue by the federal government even by GWBush.

buckeroo  posted on  2011-06-04   11:58:04 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#91. To: buckeroo (#88)

Over the years the "The Community Reinvestment Act" of 1977 maintained an increasing perspective on local banks portfolios requiring the banks to reinvest at larger rates into their same communities. This, in turn, required lowering the standards for real estate loans (first time home buyers with the idea of their own family occupation).

Right.

Lenders, who invest hundreds of millions of dollars in politicians, meekly went along with this oppressive and destructive policy.

Sure, I buy that - not.

lucysmom  posted on  2011-06-04   12:04:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#94. To: lucysmom (#91)

Lenders, who invest hundreds of millions of dollars in politicians, meekly went along with this oppressive and destructive policy.

Often, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (both federal entities) purchased the loans, so why not? Do as the government dictates and make a bundle in the process, correct?

buckeroo  posted on  2011-06-04   12:12:18 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#97. To: buckeroo (#94)

Often, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (both federal entities) purchased the loans, so why not? Do as the government dictates and make a bundle in the process, correct?

You just made the case for regulation and oversight.

lucysmom  posted on  2011-06-04   12:26:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#99. To: lucysmom (#97)

You just made the case for regulation and oversight.

Particularly for and about the US government to lower banking standards so as to achieve some arbitrary quota system as a political feather in someone's hat. I am a strong proponent of laissez-faire. What we saw (and are in fact still experiencing) was government intrusion into the otherwise free markets causing ALL of the problems we see today.

buckeroo  posted on  2011-06-04   12:35:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#100. To: buckeroo (#99)

Particularly for and about the US government to lower banking standards so as to achieve some arbitrary quota system as a political feather in someone's hat. I am a strong proponent of laissez-faire. What we saw (and are in fact still experiencing) was government intrusion into the otherwise free markets causing ALL of the problems we see today.

There are no free markets nor have there ever been.

And most government intrusion is either lobbied for by one capitalist entity or another, or created by citizen complaint due to poor business practices. Too bad businesses have proven they are unable to police themselves.

mininggold  posted on  2011-06-04   12:41:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#101. To: mininggold (#100)

There are no free markets nor have there ever been.

That is only a matter of relative degree. By the way, not all banks are federally chartered and did not have to comply with federal CRA rules. Then again, those same banks are often considered "shady" or "risky" to investors. They have their place though in an otherwise free market.

But we are discussing CRA requirements that are ludicrous and were the reason for the issues we see today for added federal stimulus or less into the economy.

In fact, that is the "tug-of-war" on this thread. More stimulus or less stimulus? Both John Keynes and Arthur Laffer are idiots and they are somewhat at opposites poles of thought.

buckeroo  posted on  2011-06-04   12:51:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#126. To: buckeroo (#101)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_United_States_housing_bubble

`Criticism of mandated loans as the cause of the crisis

However, government-mandated loans did not cause the boom in subprime mortgages. [10] More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages came from private lending institutions in 2006[10] and share of subprime loans insured by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac also decreased as the bubble got bigger (from a high of insuring 48 percent to insuring 24 percent of all subprime loans in 2006).[10] The Community Reinvestment Act also only affected one out of the top 25 subprime lenders.[10] Despite conservative criticism for government lending programs as the main cause of the crisis,[11][12][13][14] much of the crisis was independent of government home loan programs.

In 2008, Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner, said the CRA wasn’t to blame for the subprime mess, "First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations are related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together… we believe that the available evidence runs counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis,". Only 6% of subprime loans were handed out by CRA-covered lenders to lower income people (the people the CRA is responsible for, CRA-covered banks can technically lend subprime loans to anyone).[15] Others have also concluded that the CRA did not contribute to the financial crisis, for example, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Chairman Sheila Bair,[16] Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan,[17] Tim Westrich of the Center for American Progress,[18] Robert Gordon of the American Prospect, [19] Ellen Seidman of the New America Foundation,[20] Daniel Gross of Slate,[21] and Aaron Pressman from BusinessWeek.[22]

NewsJunky  posted on  2011-06-04   16:57:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#129. To: NewsJunky, war, all (#126)

And here is an article written by Edward Pinto, a consultant to the mortgage-finance industry, was the chief credit officer at Fannie Mae in the 1980s.

Yes, the CRA Is Toxic So why is Congress thinking about expanding it? Did the Community Reinvestment Act—the 1977 federal law pressing banks to lend to low- and moderate-income borrowers—fuel toxic lending and thus play a significant role in causing the financial meltdown? “CRA was not the cause of the crisis,” Comptroller of the Currency John Dugan maintained this past August. Though he had little quantitative detail about the performance of CRA-related loans, Dugan claimed that they had performed better than loans made by lenders not subject to the CRA. Further, he contended, borrowers of CRA loans had defaulted at much lower rates than borrowers of subprime mortgages. Other defenders of the act assert that almost all CRA loans originated at “prime” interest rates, rather than the higher rates that lenders offered risky “subprime” borrowers. And they add that the mortgages made under CRA were almost entirely fixed-rate, not the notorious adjustable-rate mortgages with quick rate resets and high payment shock that led so many borrowers to default.

The question of how well CRA loans have performed is of vital importance because of the trillions of dollars in such lending. During the first 15 years of the act’s existence, total announced commitments under the CRA totaled $9 billion. But starting in 1992, volume exploded. Over the next 16 years, from 1992 to 2008, announced CRA commitments totaled $6 trillion. And incredible though it may seem, the same federal regulators who forced the CRA on banks have neglected to track the performance of trillions of dollars of loans made to satisfy it. But there is a strong prima facie case that they constitute toxic lending—that is, lending that leads to unsustainable loans, resulting in an unacceptable level of foreclosures.

To begin with, the CRA defenders’ claim that CRA lending mostly wasn’t subprime is highly misleading. It would be more accurate to say that 90 percent of CRA lending wasn’t classified as subprime. CRA lenders, along with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—the two government-sponsored entities that bought loans from lenders, enabling them to make more loans—commonly classified CRA loans as “subprime” only if they contained such features as high fees, high rates, or low initial payments with adjustable interest rates. But approximately 50 percent of CRA loans for single-family residences were nevertheless made to borrowers who made down payments of 5 percent or less or had low credit scores—characteristics that indicated high credit risk. Whether or not anyone called these loans “subprime,” in other words, the chances are good that many of them have defaulted or remain at high risk of doing so.

Though the feds, again, haven’t collected figures for CRA loans’ performance as a whole, we do have statistics from a few lenders that are troubling indeed. In Cleveland, Third Federal Savings and Loan has a 35 percent delinquency rate on its CRA-mandated “Home Today” loans, versus a 2 percent delinquency rate on its non–Home Today portfolio. Chicago’s Shorebank—the nation’s first community development bank, with largely CRA-related loans on its books—has a 19 percent delinquency and nonaccrual rate for its portfolio of first-mortgage loans for single-family residences. And Bank of America said in 2008 that while its CRA loans constituted 7 percent of its owned residential-mortgage portfolio, they represented 29 percent of that portfolio’s net losses.

Whatever the precise magnitude of the CRA’s role, there is no question that as the government pursued affordable-housing goals—with the CRA providing approximately half of Fannie’s and Freddie’s affordable-housing purchases—trillions of dollars in high-risk lending flooded the real-estate market, with disastrous consequences. Over the last 20 years, the percentage of conventional home-purchase mortgages made with the borrower putting 5 percent or less down more than tripled, from 8 percent in 1990 to 29 percent in 2007. Adding to the default risk: of these loans with 5 percent or less down, the average down payment declined from 5 percent to 3 percent of the loan’s value.

As for Fannie and Freddie, most of the loans with 5 percent or less down that they had acquired by 2005 had down payments of 3 percent or even no down payment at all. From 1992 to 2007, the two entities acquired over $3.1 trillion in low-down-payment or credit-impaired loans and private securities backed by credit-impaired loans—and these are performing horribly: the delinquency rate on Fannie’s and Freddie’s remaining $1.1 trillion in such high-risk loans is 15.5 percent as of this past June 30, about 6.5 times the rate on the entities’ traditionally underwritten loans. All this risky lending, of course, drove the nation’s homeownership rate up and inflated a housing-price bubble.

Taxpayers deserve to know why not one regulator had the common sense to track the performance of CRA loans. They also deserve to know why the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, and other regulators appear to have no idea how trillions of dollars in CRA loans are performing now. But above all, they deserve to know that the damage done by the CRA won’t happen again. Incredibly, the House Financial Services Committee is considering legislation that would broaden the scope of the CRA. Before it takes any action on HR 1479—which would expand the CRA’s mandates from banks to bank subsidiaries, mortgage bankers, credit unions, insurance companies, and other nonbank financial institutions—the committee should demand that regulators request detailed CRA performance data from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as from the four banks that have announced 94 percent of the nation’s $6 trillion in CRA commitments: Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, and Bank of America. These six institutions should be able to provide performance information for an estimated 70 percent of outstanding CRA loans.

The pain and hardship that CRA has likely spawned are immeasurable. What is measurable, though, is exactly how the trillions in past CRA loans are performing and what we can learn from this debacle.

http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_4_snd-cra.html

buckeroo  posted on  2011-06-04   18:33:38 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#130. To: buckeroo (#129)

It wasn't the CRA that forced banks to make all of those sub-prime loans. It was the sub-prime loans that lead to the meltdown.

NewsJunky  posted on  2011-06-04   18:56:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#132. To: NewsJunky (#130)

It wasn't the CRA that forced banks to make all of those sub-prime loans. It was the sub-prime loans that lead to the meltdown.

In a sense I agree with you. Again, both the CRA (increasing the banks percentage of overall loans for homes, small businesses and small farms for those with credit scores of 620 or below) AND the GSEs created the issue.

The article I posted for your review demonstrates what happened beginning in 1992 under Bill Clinton.

Here is what Clinton did in concert with CRA requirements:

That one move by Clinton - inspired by the CRA - shifted to the tax payers ALL moral hazard associated with originating ANY bad subprime loan - whether directly covered by the CRA or not. From that day forward, ANYBODY could originate an excessively risky subprime loan, book the origination profits and then sell that risky loan to Fannie Mae or have Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac or any other “too big to fail” entity insure that risky loan.

He basically fueled markets based on high risk with government mandates.

buckeroo  posted on  2011-06-04   19:18:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 132.

        There are no replies to Comment # 132.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 132.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com