Posted on 04/07/2010 5:53:20 PM PDT by dangthis
At least I’m not laughing at the thought of Russia being wealthy enough to manipulate a vulnerable US economy. I’ll take my one error over your’s any day.
I had mentioned this about Greenspan for over ten years, and no one corrected me prior to today.
We could have been friends if you had been more polite, but by your manner, it is clear you have other purposes, and I doubt I’ll ever enjoy reading your posts in the future. I would have respected your knowledge. But since you are the way you are, I’ll take what knowledge I’ve gained from you without a word of thanks — just this — yes, Russia was rich enough to trigger an economic meltdown if its target were leveraged several times over. I forget exactly how much Fannie/Freddie were leveraged, but it was outrageous.
I have yet to find that Kanjorski is the source of this:
Paulson claims Russia tried to foment Fannie-Freddie crisis
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2440456/posts
Financial Times ^ | Published: January 29 2010 21:06 | By Krishna Guha in Washington
Posted on Friday, January 29, 2010 4:06:54 PM by lwd
Russia proposed to China that the two nations should sell Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds in 2008 to force the US government to bail out the giant mortgage-finance companies, former US Treasury secretary Hank Paulson has claimed.
The allegation is in his memoir On the Brink in which he also suggests that Alistair Darling, the UK chancellor, blocked a rescue takeover of Lehman Brothers by Barclays Bank when he refused to support special treatment by UK regulators.
“Russian officials had made a top-level approach to the Chinese, suggesting that together they might sell big chunks of their GSE holdings to force the US to use its emergency authorities to prop up these companies,” he said.
Fannie and Freddie are known as GSEs or government sponsored enterprises.
“The Chinese had declined to go along with the disruptive scheme, but the report was deeply troubling,” he said. A senior Russian official told the Financial Times that he could not comment on the allegation.
Separately, Mr Paulson makes it clear that he believes that Mr Darling prevented a takeover of Lehman by Barclays out of fear that it would endanger the UK bank.
Mr Paulson said that Mr Darling telephoned him on Friday September 12 – as the US authorities were scrambling to find a buyer for Lehman – to express concern about a possible Barclays deal. Mr Paulson said that he did not realise at the time that this was a “clear warning”.
(Excerpt) Read more at ft.com ...
You think Russia selling some Fannie Mae bonds could hurt our economy? How exactly would that work?
I had mentioned this about Greenspan for over ten years, and no one corrected me prior to today.
What did you mention? His imaginary loan to Goldman in the 90s?
We could have been friends if you had been more polite
If only you knew anything about economics or finance, for instance what an arb is, I'm sure we could have had useful discussions.
it is clear you have other purposes,
Trying to dispel ignorance on FR.
and I doubt I’ll ever enjoy reading your posts in the future.
I don't know how I'll carry on.
Agreed. There were four culprits here that set the system up for a crash.
a) Greenie and Rubin allowing unregulated derivatives trading that Born opposed (see article)
b) Repeal of Glass-Steagall by Clinton, Rubin, and Phil Gramm and the GOP
c) Bush’s SEC commissioner in 2004 allowing the Wall Street firms to leverage up their firms past the previously allowed 12 to 1 ratio. This resulted in places like Lehman being levered 40 to 1.
d) Liberals at Freddie and Fannie realizing they needed to be part of the bubble for the average and below average guy, thus allowing and promoting federal guarantees on mortgages for all sorts of non-qualifiers.
Part D was simply the match that helped light the fuse. A-C was the dynamite being laid all over the city.
Vested interest.
Still grasping for straws.
You quibble over a word or two, scour for a shaky assumption or fact and nitpick that into oblivion with the incessant snarking and questioning. It’s classic thread disruption, and you offer nothing in return.
You’ve never, not once, criticized anything done by your employer. Your criticism is exclusively directed at FReepers who have the temerity to question that employer.
As I said before, you are the very epitome of a tout. Financial boards are filled with them, but at least they’re in the private sector and hoping to profit. You, on the other hand, are in the public sector.
Yep. Vested interest.
Like Greenspan saying people may benefit from adjustable mortgages. "May" is your idea of tout? LOL!
You’ve never, not once, criticized anything done by your employer.
I don't work for the Fed. I don't work for the government. Now if you'd like to get back to the facts, feel free.
And you devolve yet again into the silly word games. I provided you with a web search result showing 18,700 hits for Greenspan+touted+adjustable-rate+mortgage. I cited several articles on thread for you, since you seemingly refused to look at any of the results I provided.
Nitpick, snark, question, question, question, ridicule. That’s your consistent method with FReepers.
Everything’s coming up roses with Bernanke and Greenspan, though, as far as you’re concerned.
Do you participate in any other sort of thread? Any interests outside of your narrow specialty? You don’t appear to have any.
You’ve also clearly indicated that you are an economist working with the government.
Quibble away. It’s your reason for being here.
And as far as I could tell, they all referenced a single speech he made. I'd think a "tout" would attempt multiple times to get people to do as he wished.
Nitpick, snark, question, question, question, ridicule. That’s your consistent method with FReepers.
Only with ignorant FReepers.
You’ve also clearly indicated that you are an economist working with the government.
No. Never have. Not once. But don't let my clear statement interfere with your fantasy.
This vid should be played at the hearings...let em defend their own words! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs
Bingo!..the banks would have never made those bad loans but for the fact Fannie and Freddie would take them off their hands....once that was made clear, the banks had a field day making “bad loans” and pocketing the fees before passing them along....No risk for the banks!
Remember the “redlining” threat banks were held hostage with??.... Congress solved that!...Dumb a$$es!
I’m hearing rumors that Barney Frank is positioning himself for a private sector banking job. Perfect timing. It will probably be a bank that has already paid back the TARP money forced on them.
“If only you knew anything about economics or finance, for instance what an arb is, I’m sure we could have had useful discussions.”
I think you are the one having difficulty comprehending, as usual. I’m sure you know the word: “Arbitrageurs are short-term investors driven only by economic motives”. I said Putin was seeking the equivalent of arbs. Although I agree that the “hostile takeover” element doesn’t fit with lawyeristic precision — the meaning is pretty clear for people who think.
Further, I said from the outset this is not my element — I research scandals, and in this case, I had politely posted with clear qualifiers to let people know it was not quotable information but rather something to discuss, based largely on memory.
You are really good at lobbing insults. I confess I let you prod me to a level of foolishness that I hadn’t reached in a long time. So you thought, “Ah, here’s an easy punching bag — no proof.”
This isn’t a court of law. When I first posted on this thread, I was only seeking to piece information. You, on the other hand, have an agenda. I foolishly “took the bait”. I thought maybe your prodding would goad me to a little more research, but you are wasting my time more than anything else.
“Trying to dispel ignorance on FR.”
Yeah, right. You’re trying to suppress something that bothers you — clearly. If you were trying to dispell ignorance, you wouldn’t be so insulting.
“I don’t know how I’ll carry on.”
I expected that kind of remark from a cross examiner. Congrats. You passed “badgering the witness” with flying colors. It’s been years since I’ve been so aggravated with someone.
As opposed to short-term investors driven by rainbows and unicorns? Here's the real definition:
One who attempts to profit by exploiting price differences of identical or similar financial instruments, on different markets or in different forms.
Further, I said from the outset this is not my element
You then proceeded to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.
You, on the other hand, have an agenda.
You bet. I'm trying to reduce the amount of economic idiocy that Freepers blindly swallow from the MSM.
I thought maybe your prodding would goad me to a little more research, but you are wasting my time
Yes, the "research" you did was a waste of time.
I know what you mean. According to Thomas Sowell, no one is capable of knowing 1% of everything anymore. In light of that undeniable truth — being rude can backfire. If someone is rude, it would him to also have superior comprehension skills and perfect reading skills.
My own two cents — I’m glad that Greenspan is coming out against the Fannie-Freddie defenders — high time. I think Rush has a good bead on this matter.
I did read one book that described arbs. It was about the hostile takeover of Marrietta. Arbs pile on, expecting to exploit a sudden shift in profits. Their added investment adds muscle to a price manipulator’s goal.
‘Yes, the “research” you did was a waste of time.’
That is the kind of encouragement this forum needs.
That is the kind of encouragement this forum needs.
If you post economic "research" from Rolling Stone magazine, I will taunt you repeatedly.
I sometimes even quote the New York Slimes, CNN, and the Washington Compost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.