How would you allocate said points and why? I am making this thread to get a better and more well-informed idea as to what exactly caused the crisis and who is most at fault for it.
People blame Wall Street or rating agencies, others blame Fannie Mae. Some blame the American consumer, some blame Bush and others Clinton. Some blame Obama, others blame Reagan. Some blame regulators, others blame lenders or voters.
Who all would you blame and how much would you blame them, and why?
Phil Gramm, Jim Leach and Thomas Blilely, for repealing Glass-Steagall.
That’s not enough to go around. There’s a thousand points of darkness in this problem.
20 pts. Reagan
10 pts. Clinton
10 pts. Bushe the elder
20 pts. Greenspan
40 pts. Bush the younger
How do you suppose Reagan was 1/5 responsible for the financial crisis? I can see a decent argument for clinton and bush jr, but Reagan and Bush sr I can’t see.
If we’re only allowed to name individuals, I’d say 10pts Clinton for overseeing the change in lending culture allowing home loans to less qualified borrowers with less money down, 50 pts Greenspan for convincing everyone that creative mortgages were a good idea (mostly because of everyone involved, he should have known better), and 40 pts Bush jr for overseeing the deregulation of federally insured banks, putting the final nail in the coffin.
30 pts to share between the Clinton Administration and the Congress of the same era, for doing away with Glass Steagall. I know it was introduced by three republicans, but it passed by a huge margin, with a huge majority of the Democrats supporting it as well. Same for the CFMA which set the stage for the CDO meltdown.
30 pts for the Bush Administration and the Republican let congress of the 2000-2006 era who cut taxes and spent like mad.
30 pts for the Financial “Services” industry for buying off enough politicians to make all this happen.
10 points for the clueless American public, who bid up the prices of homes like it was going out of style, and the real estate industry who cheerled the whole mania. In 2004 our Realtor got really mad with me, when I said in her office that if we were not willing to lose $100k on the house we were buying, we should not buy.
I don’t believe in numerically allocating blame for something. When juries do so, the results are often ridiculous. Moreover, it ignores the interrelationship between all the parties responsible for the mess.
Over many years leading up to the crisis, the United States steadily built up a financial system that was unethical and immoral, with practices that would normally be considered fraud and deceit becoming the standard. The big banks made loans on false premises, bundled the loans into complicated securities, and sold the securities on other false premises. Individuals took out huge loans when they should have known better. The ratings agencies stamped AAA ratings onto securities that didn’t deserve them. Insurance companies played along with the entire scheme. Congress and Presidents rolled back laws that might have prevented this crime spree, ignored it until it became a crisis, and hamstrung the agencies charged with regulating Wall Street. The media, particularly those organs focused on the financial world, reported the wonderful growth of the real estate market without lifting the curtain to see what was really going on. Business schools produced graduates who thought that fraud was standard and ethics was old-fashioned. And so forth.
Every part of the system shares responsibility. There’s no way to draw a dividing line between one party and another and say how much blame lies in one institution and how much in another. If one group had chosen to do the morally right thing, it would have created cascading consequences for all the others and it might have changed the outcome. But nobody stepped forward: not the banks, not the ratings agencies, not the media, not the regulators, not the public.
It is difficult to blame people when the unnamed lobbyists, pushed by tons of Wall Street money, pressured congress and the senate into signing on to the idea that deregulation was going to make everybody rich.
Reagan gets 10 points for starting it all off. I remember his speech about getting the foot of regulation off the neck of business. He made it acceptable to allow bankers to do whatever they wanted.
Greenspan 20 points for his Libertarian beliefs that business was self regulating and would eventually do the public good. He sold it to politicians , businessmen and eventually the people. He is one stupid SOB to have all that power for so long.
Phil Gramm 20 points for being the frontman pushing all kinds of deregulation . He was the architect of Gramm/Leach overthrowing financial safety rules. He spearheaded the Modernization Act that was a gutting of protection for the economy and exempted Swaps from regulation. he should not be walking around free.
Paulson 15 points. He came up with TARP which saved the banks to continue their greedy ways on public expense. He was and is a Goldman banker doing Goldmans work from the inside.
Bush JR. - 10 points He was a believer while permitting all the crap to develop on his watch. he was a know nothing, do nothing, space filler that allowed this shit to come down.
Clinton 5 points. Gramm /Leach was a last minute lame duck bill at the end of his presidency. He should not have signed on. I suppose he was a believer too.
Cox-10 points. He was the head of the SEC. He did nothing. that is the problem. Maddoff was handed to him on a platter and he did nothing about it. He oversaw the gutting of his department while closing his eyes to all the messes.
S & P 10 points. These assholes were rating the mortgages and CDOs Internal Emails said they would have AAA rated a CDO if it were written by cows. They have a regulatory function which they totally failed on due to their greed.
Who elected the crooks? People deserve some blame. It is the way democracy works. We all have to accept some of the blame for every mistake made. It’s supposed to be a disincentive to making mistakes, but it hasn’t worked very well that way.
I blame Reagan, because a) he was a tax cut and spend conservative who exploded our national debt (federal debt as a percentage of G.D.P. fell steadily from the end of World War II until 1980); b) he pushed through catastrophic deregulation of the financial and the mortage industries; c) he created a climate in which government regulation was a scapegoat, so that any attempts to fix the problem through government intervention were discredited; d) he manipulated racist leanings in white working poor to convince them that the real threat to their well being was black ‘welfare queens’ as opposed to unfettered corporate greed.
I blame Bush I and Clinton because they largely continued these failed policies. Bush II took Reagan’s policieis to their logical and catastrophic end.
50 points to AIG who invented the consolidated debt securities that essentially created the housing bubble. They can spread these points around with Lehmen brothers, et al if the poor guys feel like they are getting picked on.
25 points to the people in office who watched this happen, despite a small group of people desperately trying to warn them of the disaster looming.
15 points to the American public who took on loans that anyone with a brain would know were extremely risky.
10 post-hoc points to Obama, who instead of actually holding people accountable for their actions in the mess, rewarded them with posts in his administration
If anyone with a brain knew these loans were extremely risky, shouldn’t the lending agencies who, you know, have a lot more experience with financial matters than Joe Q. Public, have avoided making the loans in the first place? Why blame the public rather than the lenders? There are two sides to every transaction, after all, and the lenders had, by far, the preponderance of information about the loans and their ramifications.
20 to the legislators who repealed controlling legislation
20 to those who took out homes for far more than they could afford
10 to those pushing expensive homes and overly risky mortgages to those same people
25 to ratings agencies making up bogus ratings for cash
25 to the banks repackaging securities and CDOs
OK I will split up my 15 points among the lenders too. Ill give them 3 points, and the public 12 points. In general, I don’t blame the lenders because it is every person’s responsibility to manage their transactions. I don’t blame a casino because it gives me a chance to bet my life savings on 23 red. It is my job to understand the risks, probabilities, and fine print to make an intelligent decision.
Good call, I forgot about Standard & Poor’s slimy involvement. Man there was a lot of sleaze in this whole thing.
Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
Elves = John Q. Public
Dwarfs = Congress and Presidents
Mortal Men = Wall Street
Dark Lord = Greenspan
John Mace, I hate you, as I was just about to paste and post that!
Limbaugh is the Witch King (I leave the exercise of determining which rightwing radio and TV hosts the other 8 Nazgul are). Gollum = Dubya?
I can’t believe I snuck in under the wire!
30 points to the home buyers that treated homes like tulip bulbs.
30 to the banks that designed, packaged and sold MBSs (not CDOs- those were OK. I mean, if the CDOs were based on, say, Sears refrigerators instead of homes, none of this would’ve happened!)
35 to the ratings agencies that failed to accurately rate these things. Without that, the MBSs would’ve been treated like junk bonds or penny stocks, not T-bills.
5 to the various congressmen that loosened regulations on banks.
Why would you blame the public, who sought and followed the advice of people they reckoned to be experts, more than the experts who gave them this advice? A lot of people turn financial advisors or bankers for direction in an effort to help them better educate themselves, but if the advice turns out to be (un)intentioally poor, they should still be assigned 80% of the blame?