Economics is more complicated than the joke of a field that you study. There are, in fact, economists who predicted the crisis. One is Nouriel Roubini.

"Clinton was most definately in favour of the repeal of Glass-Steagal , that much is clear."

So where all the Republicans. Is Clinton bashing part of your contrarian shtick? Or are you now on the payroll of the Conservative Party?

*were

More on Iceland from the maker of that excellent film Inside job here:
http://blogs.ft.com/economistsforum/2010/10/the-director-of-inside-job-replies/#axzz1eNk7vvsn

ANOTHER question for TC:

do you do parties?

I'm amused by that article Draug posted. I'm not sure if it's the "Wall Street Democrats" part or the part where the high risk loans were all about a minority appointee trying to hook up other minorities. But something in it makes me LOL.

I won't say there are no Democrats on Wall Street, but I think we all know that it isn't exactly a core Democratic demographic.

@SD - Draug meant the Congressmen who represent the Congressional districts of NYC and the surrounding suburbs, almost all of whom are Democrats....they stink up Albany with their filth, pretty sure they stink up DC too.

"Economics is more complicated than the joke of a field that you study. There are, in fact, economists who predicted the crisis. One is Nouriel Roubini. "
But there's also Thomas Sowell, and one whose not even an economist, Glenn Beck. I think the other talk show hosts pretty much nailed it too, but I don't listen to them very often.

Both houses of Congress controlled by Republicans between 95-07 except for the senate which was split from 01-03. Yes, Draug, Clinton is partly at fault due to the repeal of Glass Steagall (though the bill that repealed it in Congress was drawn up by Gramm, Leach, and Bliley, all Republicans, so that kind of defeats the idea that this was a NY democratic scheme).

My point is that the Republicans had total control of the government from 2001-2007 and did nothing but look the other way when warning signs were becoming clearer and clearer. By perhaps 2004, the housing market bust was inevitable, but doing nothing whatsoever to regulate the banks who were propping the market up is what has led to a near depression and what is more and more looking like a second recession.

My question is still to Tettleton's Chew who promotes the glory and infallibility of the free market and the right wing. Why did this happen under Republicans who had 6 years to do something about it? Were they night conservative enough?

Also, Schummer proposing to save the people that were actually in the homes rather than the banks themselves- I prefer that much more than the bullshit bailout that saved the banks and put everyone else out in the street.

Yeah Adam that's a perfect example thanks. First pick your politics and then pick an economist who agrees with you. What a wonderful and rigerous discipline it seems! ;-)

Have you seen Inside Job?

@ Adam Bomb - Wow, Glenn Beck? Either you sincerely believe that lying, propagandizing, far right blowhard, and really do think that invoking his name will bring your argument credibility in which case, I think I'll just ignore you until you go away, or you recognize that he has about as much credibility as a...thing or person with very little credibility, and you mention him, knowing that we'll all get worked up about him. Which is it?

I believe Clinton has admitted he was wrong on enthusiastically supporting repeal of Glass Steagall. Apparently he now wishes he had used/threatened to use the veto, even if this was to be largely symbolic. Also Paitz I believe that the Democrats, at least in the House, supported the repeal too.

Here is a good example of some economists at work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5msVl3oZl4U&feature=relmfu

"Also Paitz I believe that the Democrats, at least in the House, supported the repeal too."

It has been said over and over again that the repeal had bipartisan support. You keep harping on this as if you're producing insightful new information. I guess that's why you're in the hard sciences. You people think banal points are earth shattering. I guess the Tories told you to keep repeating yourself while ignoring inconvenient facts like the Republicans controlling every inch of our government for 6+ years. I guess your idea of rigorous academic work is ignoring inconvenient information like that.

"Here is a good example of some economists at work:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5msVl3oZl4U&feature=relmfu"

What do you study that's remotely as complicated as the world economy? You are the same person who thinks intelligent design is a rigorous academic field, so why should we be surprised that continually spit on actual academic fields?

Glass Steagall's repeal had solid support from both sides of the aisle so much so that the votes were extremely lopsided. And Clintpon could have vetoed it to have it overridden, but he was pushing for it as well.

Every president has his pitfalls that will haunt him throughout history. This was one of Clintons (NAFTA being another I think). Dubya had Iraq and the first round of bailouts. GHW Bush had "Read my lips. No new taxes." followed by a tax increase almost as soon as he got in office. Reagan has "Reaganomics" which forced GHW Bush to do the tax increase. Carter had a lousy foreign affairds record and a hostage crisis. Obama may have to deal with claiming we were out of the recession a weeeeee bit to early and a second round of bailouts.

They all have 'em.

When will you acknowledge that Glass Steagal was irrelevant to the problems of Lehman, Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Bear Stearns, AIG, as they were never covered by Glass Steagall? Derivative regulation had nothing to do with Glass Steagal. Derivative trading on currency and interest rates has been going on since the 1970s, and has been going on with credit since 1993. Citibank was underwriting mortgage securities by 1987. You can't pin the blame for this crisis on Glass Steagal repeal anymore than you can pin it on Fannie & Freddie, whose guarantees weren't governed by the taxpayer.

Somebody come up with another "explanation" of the financial crisis with an Ann Coulter rag, as this one clearly is way off the mark. Also, can't really claim you're a moderate or non-partisan when you're plagiarizing the Human Events line on this thing.

*covered, not governed.

"@ Adam Bomb - Wow, Glenn Beck? Either you sincerely believe that lying, propagandizing, far right blowhard, and really do think that invoking his name will bring your argument credibility in which case, I think I'll just ignore you until you go away, or you recognize that he has about as much credibility as a...thing or person with very little credibility, and you mention him, knowing that we'll all get worked up about him. Which is it?"
Who are you to talk, may I ask?
"we'll"
Who is we?

And I listen to him a total of once a month. But I used his name to identify someone who saw this all coming, and you seem to deny that. I absolutely do not believe everything he says, and I think a lot if things he says are rather exaggerated, but I refuse to deny that there is a host of sound clips of him predicting various occurrences.

But I see we're back to name-calling?

Know what I'm saying before you respond.

"If everyone thought about everything for three minutes the world would be a heck of a lot better of a place." -- Anonymous