Wednesday, January 28, 2009

The economic crisis: Who is to blame?




As the world economic crisis deepens, the media is pointing its finger at those it believes are responsible.

Top of the list is the bankers, but the politicians are getting a mention too.


His mismanagement of Britain's economy over the past 12 years, which included 11 years as finance minister until last year, being a major factor.

His actions in recent months have hardly instilled confidence either.

The leftist Guardian also looks at people it believes responsible. Gordon Brown is mentioned too, as indeed is George Bush, so mo surprise there.

But surprisingly for a leftist paper, it also mentions Bill Clinton!

"Clinton shares at least some of the blame for the current financial chaos. He beefed up the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act to force mortgage lenders to relax their rules to allow more socially disadvantaged borrowers to qualify for home loans.
In 1999 Clinton repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, which ensured a complete separation between commercial banks, which accept deposits, and investment banks, which invest and take risks. The move prompted
the era of the superbank and primed the sub-prime pump. The year before the repeal sub-prime loans were just 5% of all mortgage lending. By the time the credit crunch blew up it was approaching 30%. "

How very delicious now we are in the age of the ObamaMessiah, with a new presidency containing so many Clintonites! And while it seems blasphemy, what of The One himself?

Well, first let us look at Clinton and the Democrats. Here's a piece from the Australian blaming the Democrats, Gerald Warner blames Clinton, . Indeed, as this blog noted before, there is much we can blame Clinton and the Democrats on for the crisis.

The ObamaMessiah is also to blame too , as I noted in October, through his works as a lawyer and Community Organiser, and pushing banks to give loans to minorities they could ill-afford, meaning political correctness is to blame.

So, will be see the media looking at their new Global superhero with fresh eyes? I somehow doubt it. But he can be fingered with the others.

And as for New Zealand? What about our own Uncle Helen and Michey Cullen? With the way they pushed a boom on credit and housing, while taxing us all too much, any analysis of New Zealand's economic situation cannot ignore that gruesome twosome!

9 comments:

Psycho Milt said...

Your repeated attempts to make govts to blame for financial managers' crimes and incompetence remind me of the liberal squawking that increased crime in the 90s was the fault of the govt, not the criminals.

Anonymous said...

Let's see - crime in the 90s made criminals rich.

Clinton/Brown/Cullen rorts in the naughties made leftist politicians rich.

Your point it.

ISeeRed said...

Psycho, governments issue fiat monopoly currencies, have sole control over interest rates, tightly or erratically regulate the banking and finance industries and even establish chimera public-private institutions like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, yet some blame the "free market". Democrat presidents Carter and especially Clinton tell banks, "Lend money to poor minorities with bad credit and no income OR ELSE!", but some put 100% of the blame on George W. Bush and the Republicans - and of course those "greedy" bankers and Wall Street. I hope you're not one to ignore inconvenient truths in service to some political ideology or comforting fantasy, which is what you apparently think of those who have defended Israel lately.

Incredibly, after the credit-fuelled spending binge of the last decade, some think the answer is even more credit, more borrowing and more spending! Obama has used "trillion" even more since inauguration than "hope" and "change" during his entire campaign trail. It's becoming about as common in usage as the silent "e" now. The amount and degree of economic ignorance and wishful thinking in the world's halls of power terrifies me beyond words.

Psycho Milt said...

I hope you're not one to ignore inconvenient truths in service to some political ideology or comforting fantasy...

No - but that's exactly what I think this "all the govt's fault!" stuff that Fairfacts is peddling is about.

ISeeRed said...

Psycho, the banks were basically following orders.

Anonymous said...

Governments set the agenda for private enterprise to work in.
If government pressures or forces them to make dodgy loans, then there will be trouble.
So yes, Clinton is to blame and the arm twisting of Obama , when he was a lawyer for ACORN, means Obama is also guilty.

SDP ranger

Jan Baker said...

It's not bankers or government spending! It's abortion! We have killed fifty million US citizens in the last forty years, since Roe v Wade. This is a moral problem, to be sure. But otherwise astute scholars, deadened by the political climate, cannot seem to understand that it's an economic problem as well.

Imagine what the graph of the purchases of that missing fifty million would look like! Every year 1,300, 000 babies more, had they survived, would enter the consumption game. It starts with all the little swings and bouncers and formula and teethers and little socks and baby strollers and car seats. Then it's hotwheels, and then bicycles, and before you know it they're turning the key of their first Buick. But no!

And American business won't pay (and probably shouldn't pay, because the skill levels don't warrent it) the workers (who have aborted their children in the unholy deal Roe made possible) what they would have paid the offspring. In fact, as part of the recent bailout, auto workers, who had achieved almost a middle class income, got knocked back into the lower class, hourly pay in the single digits, mickey mouse health care.

And imagine the graph of their productivity as those lost babies matured! Imagine American-born doctors and chemists and programmers!

And we're actually doing the best in a bad field, compared to Europe and Asia. The US has been barely holding on, but holding on nevertheless, to producing two new babies for every two existing people. That's with the help of the Mexicans, who still have more than a couple of kids, until they learn the new way north of the border, that is.

That's just replacement, two for two, not the gentle growth the economy needs, but at that it is the highest in the western world. Greece has 1.3, Hong Kong has fewer than one child per every two people living there now, and the bright future economists once predicted for the region has disappeared. All those aborting and contracepting and leading- the- high -life Europeans have been selling to us, the US, since their own populations are reduced every single day. They live on exports. But we tanked--and look what happened to Europe and Asia. Face to face with the crime.

We ourselves can't consume any more, here in the US. Lord, we don't need to consume any more! We're eating as many hamburgers as we can, but it's just not enough! We just can't fit another car in the garage. We don't need another television! They're afraid to give us the stimulus money for fear we'll --gasp--save the sucker. We're so played out.

I wish it weren't true and that Barack could do both things, fix the economy and promise every girl in the world a free abortion when she oops makes that "mistake," but every time I hear a report that cries about "stagnant demand" and "the failure of the internal markets" I know they're talking about our failure to grow because we insist on killing our unborn. And I know he won't be able to do it. And we'll spend our last centavo chasing the impossible.

We must stop abortion to save the economy. Do the math and start writing letters. Don't be bothered by the idea that there will still be illegal abortions. Yes, there probably will. Better that than millions without a nestegg. But the girl who probably wouldn't do it unless her boyfriend insisted, would have a back-up: it's illegal, honey. And the rest would just have to grow up and face the natural consequences of sex. The survival of our society depends on it. We managed it all the centuries before, and population rebound pulled our buns out of the fire many times.

We're way under the carrying capacity of Earth. Overpopulation is not our problem. Underpopulation and subsequent underconsumption is.

Psycho Milt said...

Psycho, the banks were basically following orders.

This is of course why it was vitally important that they be paid such ridiculously inflated salaries - guys who can basically follow orders don't come cheap, ya know.

Jan Baker: your credit crunch hobby horse makes Fairfacts' one look credible.

Janet Baker said...

Well, Psycho, cute put down and all, but what about my point? What would those missing fifty million consumers do for our economy? And can we recover without dealing with it? (Pelosi is planning the next round of deaths right now, in the only legitimate alternative to real growth: further real contraction.)

In Japan, companies are now sending workers home "early" with the instruction to make a baby. But they're too late--they're past the tipping point. Once you fall below 1.3, it's over, according to demographers. No society has ever recovered. Not enough time--you can lose everything with one non-reproducing generation. Even if Japan could convince its women to accept again their culture's crappy geisha-version of love, which apparently they cannot, they can't catch up now. The men are hooked on porn, anyway (a condon did a large survey, to explain their lack of sales in Japan).

We still have a chance.

Or what's your solution? Think we can just go back to business as usual when this is over, "growth" based on the illusion of speculation?

I sound sane, dear heart.