Beck’s text is a near copy of this over at Bush’s archived “whitehouse.gov” site:
Just the Facts: The Administration’s Unheeded Warnings About the Systemic Risk Posed by the GSEs
That said, I’d expect the site to contain a copy of the relevent “OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02”. As far as I can tell, the letter is not there.
I could see the price of oil jumping up (starting 2005) causing already stretched budgets to faulter. I remember people getting very nervous as gas topped $2.00 then $3.00 then $4.00.
Prices of everything began going up (groceries, rents, utilities) and people started cutting back.
Sub prime mortgages started adjusting upward around this time and the economy snapped.
Now did 9/11 cause the rise in oil prices? Possibly the Iraq war had a contributing effect.
But wasn’t it the same wall street geniuses speculating on oil that caused the spike in price?
So I could see them being blamed for the spike in inflation that tipped the economy on it’s rear.
9/11 made the EXCUSE of oil prices spiking plauseable though.
Here’s a PBS transcript from March '08 making that point, at least as to Fannie and Freddie. Here’s the core quote:
Here’s a similar article from Bloomberg in September '07.
Basically, their contention is that the Bush people distrusted Fannie and Freddie and worked for years to restrict their operations, but then gave in when the housing market tanked. I don’t know enough to say whether the Bush opposition to Fannie and Freddie was principled or political.
There is a difference between what caused the bubble and what caused the bubble to pop. The price of oil may have been a contributor to the latter, but not the former.
I’m not following your comment.
While there was a housing bubble and free for all lending standards, the spike of oil and the resulting rapid inflation popped the bubble. Of course something else could have (and would have) come along instead to pop the housing bubble eventually.
The op asked if 9/11 caused the financial crisis.
I thought 9/11 might have contributed to the spike in oil; not directly, other than giving speculators a perspective reason to bid up the price of oil. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.
While it might be a matter of semantics, I don’t consider the factors contributing to the pop of the bubble a “cause,” though I see the argument for it. EDIT: Perhaps a better explanation is that I don’t think analyzing the precipitating cause is nearly as useful as analyzing the underlying cause.