Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Paul Krugman, Nobel winning economist calls Michael Bloomberg an ignoramus. Matt Taibbi calls Bloomberg an asshole and tells him what to do

Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 8, 2011, 4:36 a.m. EST by alouis (1511) from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

8 Comments

8 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 13 years ago

Lolz Krugman. I can tell what season it is by which previous article of his he is contradicting.

[-] 0 points by Frankie (733) 13 years ago

lol. Uh huh... I'm about tired of Krugman's bs.

[-] 0 points by JohnnyO (119) 13 years ago

Bloomy, yes an asshole, is correct. Banks were content making everyone who wanted a mortgage to put at least 20% down. Enter government under Bill Clinton who forced banks to make risky loans under the threat of discrimination law suits.

"Everyone should own a home" "Everyone should go to college"

How's that working' out???

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 13 years ago

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinvestment_act_had_nothing_to_do_with_subprime_crisis.html

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis Posted by: Aaron Pressman on September 29, 2008

Email this PostBusiness Exchange Fresh off the false and politicized attack on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, today we’re hearing the know-nothings blame the subprime crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act — a 30-year-old law that was actually weakened by the Bush administration just as the worst lending wave began. This is even more ridiculous than blaming Freddie and Fannie.

The Community Reinvestment Act, passed in 1977, requires banks to lend in the low-income neighborhoods where they take deposits. Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA. University of Michigan law professor Michael Barr testified back in February before the House Committee on Financial Services that 50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision and another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”

[-] 0 points by JohnnyO (119) 13 years ago

Yeah, ill go with a leftist blogger like Pressman.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 13 years ago

Go with the facts. Simple. You attack the messenger because the message leaves you speechless.

[-] 0 points by JohnnyO (119) 13 years ago

Provide facts, not opinions.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 13 years ago

50% of subprime loans were made by mortgage service companies not subject comprehensive federal supervision. Another 30% were made by affiliates of banks or thrifts which are not subject to routine supervision or examinations. As former Fed Governor Ned Gramlich said in an August, 2007, speech shortly before he passed away: “In the subprime market where we badly need supervision, a majority of loans are made with very little supervision. It is like a city with a murder law, but no cops on the beat.”

Just the idea that a lending crisis created from 2004 to 2007 was caused by a 1977 law is silly. But it’s even more ridiculous when you consider that most subprime loans were made by firms that aren’t subject to the CRA.