Many kudos to J Money for shining the light upon those souls who didn't know Purdue had been national champions. In their defense, three quarters of a century is a bit of a pause. No thanks to John Benedict Arnold Wooden and domestic terrorist Karim Abdul-Jabbar, aka Lew Alcindor. I kid, I kid.
Look at it this way - maybe these things are cyclical. Our teams show up during great depressions. Breadlines, banruptcy, and Boilermakers #1.
Yeah, you can gauge the future of the stock market based upon our performance in the tournament. Boiler victory means we'll be partying like it's 1933 next year. Boiler defeat? Check the magic 8-ball.
I guess the only upside would be the Boiler victories. We could make a banner from old rags.
Can of worms or whoopass could come to into effect if we start talking politics, 'dowd. This is a Bush depression, and we've got the Repuglicans to blame for it. This is their mess signed, sealed, and delivered. Obama and Congress have 8 years of incompetence, malice and greed to rectify. This will take years to fix no matter who is in office.
My analogy is that it takes a lot more time to fix the windows in this busted up house than it it took the jackhole's throwing the rocks to break them.
Signed, a former member of the Purdue College Republicans, now desperately wishing that reference wasn't next to his name in the yearbook.
Hmmm... Carter and Community Reinvestment Act... Clinton expanding CRA... Barney Frank stating Fannie and Freddie are not in trouble as Bush and McCain are asking for reform... But, yeah, akak, this is all Bush's fault and those GREEEEEEDY Republicans. Don't worry, though, the Dems already have their eyes on expanding the CRA to now cover mortgage companies, et al. That, increased spending and increased taxes will have us out of this mess in no time.
This is an interesting article, but shouldn’t be construed as a smoking gun to contravene the obvious – that the Bush administration was/is/will forever be chiefly responsible for the blowup in the financial system that has landed the economy where it is at. This article points out the risk associated with looser lending standards, along with the flip side which is that looser standards, in certain circumstances, can really help minorities. That latter element is of course why Clinton was in favor of it. To say, though, that the current economy is Fannie and Freddie’s fault is incorrect, and to say that Clinton’s influence on those companies extended beyond January of 2001 is ludicrous.
A lot of people seem to think that you can and should cast Fannie and Freddie as the principal scapegoats of the subprime meltdown, but it is universally incorrect. Fannie and Freddie barely got a cup from the punch bowl during the party. They were tightly regulated by OFHEO during the bubble, and their standards were never relaxed in a material way. In fact, when the worst excesses of the bubble were talking place in 05 and 06, they were restricted from growing their portfolios due to accounting problems. So it’s not like these firms were fanning the flames of loose lending by buying up those Alt-A and subprime mortgages – far from it. They were restricted by both their regulators and their own incompetence from taking part in the majority of the frenzy.
I worked for a GSE as a consultant from 2003-2005, and I still remember a meeting where the concern was expressed that there weren’t many assets out there that they could buy, and those that were out there were being snatched up at a price that was unprofitable. The problem was that the competition, in a frenzy of buying these assets, had priced Fannie out of the market. Of course we’ve since found out that they overpaid, were sloppy in their risk management, and were really running fraudulent operations, and those companies (Countrywide, WAMU, among others) have since ceased to exist because they were forced to mark down their crappy assets to market value.
You have to understand that the vast majority of Fannie and Freddie assets, either held for sale or for investment, have always been “conforming” mortgages. Those are the mortgages that they are allowed to purchase. These companies have to follow fairly restrictive guidelines for purchase of assets.
Next time you are reading either Republican propaganda or the WSJ on this topic, keep something in mind. The WSJ and other business periodicals dislike Fannie and Freddie because those papers cater to Wall Street, and Fannie and Freddie aren't Wall St. companies, but they compete against them. The WSJ and others cater to the Goldman's, Citi's, Merrill's, etc. Fannie and Freddie are GSE's, (government sponsored entity) and as GSE's they are companies without a friend, hated by freemarketer's because their government sponsorship allows them to borrow at a rate others only dream of, and hated by political parties alike because they are not extreme enough for either side.
As GSE’s Fannie and Freddie were/are at the mercy of political winds. As long as they are set up the way they are they always will be. BUT they were/are not the reason for our financial systems’s demise. You can thank Countrywide, WAUM, Citi, and a hundred other firms with their crappy risk controls and nonexistent oversite for that.
What do you have against the CRA? Not everyone grows up in nice neighborhoods - I sure didn't. People born into those situations really can be helped and become useful, productive citizens. Some of them even end up going to Purdue.
It's worth noting that Fannie wasn't and isn't insolvent, and didn't ask for assistance. Bush's treasury forced their way in. Having Paulson, a freakin' Goldman guy, running the show is like putting a piranha in charge of your goldfish. They were looking for any opportunity to jump in and take these companies apart. Treasury could have stood on the sidelines and just bought the MBS paper Fannie produced and there would have been no need to jump into the company and wipe out shareholders.
Regarding spending increases - yes, it is necessary. Some of the precepts of Keynesian economics actually do have a place in this world - like when you've exhausted all of monetary policy options (where is the Federal Funds rate today?) and you need to stimulate demand to prime the pump. The problem with these programs is they eventually need to be cut back, and politicians of both stripes have show little enthusiasm for that activity. Ironically, Clinton was one of the most effective - he balanced the budget and went out of office with a surplus. Which of course W fucked up immediately. Moron.
Acacia- This is a sports blog, but I will just respond with a few points and then I am done with political talk. This weekend is the best of the year and should not be polluted by discussion of political hacks.
Clinton's "surplus" was for the last 2 budgets of his presidency- there was still a huge federal deficit. Plus, he had a Republican Congress which helped keep his spending under control. The Repubs spent way too much without any obstruction when they controlled the WH and Congress.
Dumping trillions of dollars into programs and entitlements that will not stimulate the economy or create jobs will make things worse and we are going to pay for it for generations. The lefties on the hill are just using the "crisis" to push through each and every vote buying agenda that they can.
Some people are just not supposed to be homeowners. I find nothing wrong with growing up in a nice neighborhood, but some may have to rent to live there. Not everyone has the capability of paying off mortgages. Lowering credit standards to help "improve" home ownership numbers has caused this financial meltdown. If you can't afford it, you can't afford it. Plus, these bozos were taking out loans for 110-125% of the property value. But, you are right, it is all Bush's fault.
Fannie and Freddie were there to buy up these bundled bad loans. Do you really think all of these loans would have been made without these quasi-federal agencies there to buy up all the crap?
Bush and the Repubs are responsible in that they didn't take a stronger stand to fix Fannie and Freddie and reverse the CRA's lending restrictions when they had a chance.
The fact that these politicians are only out for themselves and future votes, this country will never survive. This is not what our founders intended and exactly what they tried to escape. Now that the voting public has now figured out that they can use the federal government to line their own pockets through wealth redistribution, this country will never become productive again. Constantly taxing the producers to give to the non-producers will cause our economy to come to a screaching halt.
And, if cap and trade goes through... bye bye industry and hello outrageous energy prices. I really don't see how anyone with any common sense can see how these things will work. I also don't see how anyone with an understanding of our Constitution- especially the 10th amendment, can agree with 95% of government spending and entitlements. Both of the major parties are all about vote buying and are ignoring the Constitution for power.
Boilergal -- as always, we love you more each day.
Acacia -- hope you've gotten this out of your system.
I'll say this one time -- this is NOT a political site. You're more than entitled to your opinions, and we appreciate good debate on these things more than you all realize. But that's not what this site is for. I cannot stress that enough.
Future political debate will be deleted as we see fit.
You first, since you hold the delete key in your hand - I'd like to point out (in a third grader kind of way) that you and boilerdowd started this ball rolling. Don't put politics in your posts and you don't get these kind of posts. You know, the well thought out, fact based, based upon sound academic theory, grounded in reality and first hand knowledge having posts from people who actually know this stuff, not from reporters regurgitating press releases, political party positioning, or corporations with an agenda. What a dismal problem you have to deal with.
Boilergal, it doesn't' look to me like you are responding to substance of my posting. I really wish you'd open you mind - just 3 minutes, I promise - and really read the posting. Fannie and Freddie could never buy over 100% LTV loans. They are scapegoats, not enablers. I called Shenanigans. Over and out.
11 comments:
Well played sir, well played.
Many kudos to J Money for shining the light upon those souls who didn't know Purdue had been national champions. In their defense, three quarters of a century is a bit of a pause. No thanks to John Benedict Arnold Wooden and domestic terrorist Karim Abdul-Jabbar, aka Lew Alcindor. I kid, I kid.
Look at it this way - maybe these things are cyclical. Our teams show up during great depressions. Breadlines, banruptcy, and Boilermakers #1.
Catchy.
Nice theory...Perhaps it's our year!
If Obama and this congress have their way, Purdue will dominate for a long, long time!!
Yeah, you can gauge the future of the stock market based upon our performance in the tournament. Boiler victory means we'll be partying like it's 1933 next year. Boiler defeat? Check the magic 8-ball.
I guess the only upside would be the Boiler victories. We could make a banner from old rags.
Can of worms or whoopass could come to into effect if we start talking politics, 'dowd. This is a Bush depression, and we've got the Repuglicans to blame for it. This is their mess signed, sealed, and delivered. Obama and Congress have 8 years of incompetence, malice and greed to rectify. This will take years to fix no matter who is in office.
My analogy is that it takes a lot more time to fix the windows in this busted up house than it it took the jackhole's throwing the rocks to break them.
Signed, a former member of the Purdue College Republicans, now desperately wishing that reference wasn't next to his name in the yearbook.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260
Acacia -- you couldn't be more wrong.
But that's what makes America great. We get to have different viewpoints.
Hmmm... Carter and Community Reinvestment Act... Clinton expanding CRA... Barney Frank stating Fannie and Freddie are not in trouble as Bush and McCain are asking for reform... But, yeah, akak, this is all Bush's fault and those GREEEEEEDY Republicans. Don't worry, though, the Dems already have their eyes on expanding the CRA to now cover mortgage companies, et al. That, increased spending and increased taxes will have us out of this mess in no time.
Go Boilers!!
This is an interesting article, but shouldn’t be construed as a smoking gun to contravene the obvious – that the Bush administration was/is/will forever be chiefly responsible for the blowup in the financial system that has landed the economy where it is at. This article points out the risk associated with looser lending standards, along with the flip side which is that looser standards, in certain circumstances, can really help minorities. That latter element is of course why Clinton was in favor of it. To say, though, that the current economy is Fannie and Freddie’s fault is incorrect, and to say that Clinton’s influence on those companies extended beyond January of 2001 is ludicrous.
A lot of people seem to think that you can and should cast Fannie and Freddie as the principal scapegoats of the subprime meltdown, but it is universally incorrect. Fannie and Freddie barely got a cup from the punch bowl during the party. They were tightly regulated by OFHEO during the bubble, and their standards were never relaxed in a material way. In fact, when the worst excesses of the bubble were talking place in 05 and 06, they were restricted from growing their portfolios due to accounting problems. So it’s not like these firms were fanning the flames of loose lending by buying up those Alt-A and subprime mortgages – far from it. They were restricted by both their regulators and their own incompetence from taking part in the majority of the frenzy.
I worked for a GSE as a consultant from 2003-2005, and I still remember a meeting where the concern was expressed that there weren’t many assets out there that they could buy, and those that were out there were being snatched up at a price that was unprofitable. The problem was that the competition, in a frenzy of buying these assets, had priced Fannie out of the market. Of course we’ve since found out that they overpaid, were sloppy in their risk management, and were really running fraudulent operations, and those companies (Countrywide, WAMU, among others) have since ceased to exist because they were forced to mark down their crappy assets to market value.
You have to understand that the vast majority of Fannie and Freddie assets, either held for sale or for investment, have always been “conforming” mortgages. Those are the mortgages that they are allowed to purchase. These companies have to follow fairly restrictive guidelines for purchase of assets.
Next time you are reading either Republican propaganda or the WSJ on this topic, keep something in mind. The WSJ and other business periodicals dislike Fannie and Freddie because those papers cater to Wall Street, and Fannie and Freddie aren't Wall St. companies, but they compete against them. The WSJ and others cater to the Goldman's, Citi's, Merrill's, etc. Fannie and Freddie are GSE's, (government sponsored entity) and as GSE's they are companies without a friend, hated by freemarketer's because their government sponsorship allows them to borrow at a rate others only dream of, and hated by political parties alike because they are not extreme enough for either side.
As GSE’s Fannie and Freddie were/are at the mercy of political winds. As long as they are set up the way they are they always will be. BUT they were/are not the reason for our financial systems’s demise. You can thank Countrywide, WAUM, Citi, and a hundred other firms with their crappy risk controls and nonexistent oversite for that.
Hey Boilergal,
What do you have against the CRA? Not everyone grows up in nice neighborhoods - I sure didn't. People born into those situations really can be helped and become useful, productive citizens. Some of them even end up going to Purdue.
It's worth noting that Fannie wasn't and isn't insolvent, and didn't ask for assistance. Bush's treasury forced their way in. Having Paulson, a freakin' Goldman guy, running the show is like putting a piranha in charge of your goldfish. They were looking for any opportunity to jump in and take these companies apart. Treasury could have stood on the sidelines and just bought the MBS paper Fannie produced and there would have been no need to jump into the company and wipe out shareholders.
Regarding spending increases - yes, it is necessary. Some of the precepts of Keynesian economics actually do have a place in this world - like when you've exhausted all of monetary policy options (where is the Federal Funds rate today?) and you need to stimulate demand to prime the pump. The problem with these programs is they eventually need to be cut back, and politicians of both stripes have show little enthusiasm for that activity. Ironically, Clinton was one of the most effective - he balanced the budget and went out of office with a surplus. Which of course W fucked up immediately. Moron.
Acacia-
This is a sports blog, but I will just respond with a few points and then I am done with political talk. This weekend is the best of the year and should not be polluted by discussion of political hacks.
Clinton's "surplus" was for the last 2 budgets of his presidency- there was still a huge federal deficit. Plus, he had a Republican Congress which helped keep his spending under control. The Repubs spent way too much without any obstruction when they controlled the WH and Congress.
Dumping trillions of dollars into programs and entitlements that will not stimulate the economy or create jobs will make things worse and we are going to pay for it for generations. The lefties on the hill are just using the "crisis" to push through each and every vote buying agenda that they can.
Some people are just not supposed to be homeowners. I find nothing wrong with growing up in a nice neighborhood, but some may have to rent to live there. Not everyone has the capability of paying off mortgages. Lowering credit standards to help "improve" home ownership numbers has caused this financial meltdown. If you can't afford it, you can't afford it. Plus, these bozos were taking out loans for 110-125% of the property value. But, you are right, it is all Bush's fault.
Fannie and Freddie were there to buy up these bundled bad loans. Do you really think all of these loans would have been made without these quasi-federal agencies there to buy up all the crap?
Bush and the Repubs are responsible in that they didn't take a stronger stand to fix Fannie and Freddie and reverse the CRA's lending restrictions when they had a chance.
The fact that these politicians are only out for themselves and future votes, this country will never survive. This is not what our founders intended and exactly what they tried to escape. Now that the voting public has now figured out that they can use the federal government to line their own pockets through wealth redistribution, this country will never become productive again. Constantly taxing the producers to give to the non-producers will cause our economy to come to a screaching halt.
And, if cap and trade goes through... bye bye industry and hello outrageous energy prices. I really don't see how anyone with any common sense can see how these things will work. I also don't see how anyone with an understanding of our Constitution- especially the 10th amendment, can agree with 95% of government spending and entitlements. Both of the major parties are all about vote buying and are ignoring the Constitution for power.
Boilergal -- as always, we love you more each day.
Acacia -- hope you've gotten this out of your system.
I'll say this one time -- this is NOT a political site. You're more than entitled to your opinions, and we appreciate good debate on these things more than you all realize. But that's not what this site is for. I cannot stress that enough.
Future political debate will be deleted as we see fit.
As you were.
J Money,
You first, since you hold the delete key in your hand - I'd like to point out (in a third grader kind of way) that you and boilerdowd started this ball rolling. Don't put politics in your posts and you don't get these kind of posts. You know, the well thought out, fact based, based upon sound academic theory, grounded in reality and first hand knowledge having posts from people who actually know this stuff, not from reporters regurgitating press releases, political party positioning, or corporations with an agenda. What a dismal problem you have to deal with.
Boilergal, it doesn't' look to me like you are responding to substance of my posting. I really wish you'd open you mind - just 3 minutes, I promise - and really read the posting. Fannie and Freddie could never buy over 100% LTV loans. They are scapegoats, not enablers. I called Shenanigans. Over and out.
Go Boilers!
Post a Comment