Reagan Did It

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
source: New York Times

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: May 31, 2009

“This bill is the most important legislation for financial institutions in the last 50 years. It provides a long-term solution for troubled thrift institutions. ... All in all, I think we hit the jackpot.” So declared Ronald Reagan in 1982, as he signed the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act.

He was, as it happened, wrong about solving the problems of the thrifts. On the contrary, the bill turned the modest-sized troubles of savings-and-loan institutions into an utter catastrophe. But he was right about the legislation’s significance. And as for that jackpot — well, it finally came more than 25 years later, in the form of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

For the more one looks into the origins of the current disaster, the clearer it becomes that the key wrong turn — the turn that made crisis inevitable — took place in the early 1980s, during the Reagan years.

Attacks on Reaganomics usually focus on rising inequality and fiscal irresponsibility. Indeed, Reagan ushered in an era in which a small minority grew vastly rich, while working families saw only meager gains. He also broke with longstanding rules of fiscal prudence.

On the latter point: traditionally, the U.S. government ran significant budget deficits only in times of war or economic emergency. Federal debt as a percentage of G.D.P. fell steadily from the end of World War II until 1980. But indebtedness began rising under Reagan; it fell again in the Clinton years, but resumed its rise under the Bush administration, leaving us ill prepared for the emergency now upon us.

The increase in public debt was, however, dwarfed by the rise in private debt, made possible by financial deregulation. The change in America’s financial rules was Reagan’s biggest legacy. And it’s the gift that keeps on taking.

The immediate effect of Garn-St. Germain, as I said, was to turn the thrifts from a problem into a catastrophe. The S.& L. crisis has been written out of the Reagan hagiography, but the fact is that deregulation in effect gave the industry — whose deposits were federally insured — a license to gamble with taxpayers’ money, at best, or simply to loot it, at worst. By the time the government closed the books on the affair, taxpayers had lost $130 billion, back when that was a lot of money.

But there was also a longer-term effect. Reagan-era legislative changes essentially ended New Deal restrictions on mortgage lending — restrictions that, in particular, limited the ability of families to buy homes without putting a significant amount of money down.

These restrictions were put in place in the 1930s by political leaders who had just experienced a terrible financial crisis, and were trying to prevent another. But by 1980 the memory of the Depression had faded. Government, declared Reagan, is the problem, not the solution; the magic of the marketplace must be set free. And so the precautionary rules were scrapped.

Together with looser lending standards for other kinds of consumer credit, this led to a radical change in American behavior.

We weren’t always a nation of big debts and low savings: in the 1970s Americans saved almost 10 percent of their income, slightly more than in the 1960s. It was only after the Reagan deregulation that thrift gradually disappeared from the American way of life, culminating in the near-zero savings rate that prevailed on the eve of the great crisis. Household debt was only 60 percent of income when Reagan took office, about the same as it was during the Kennedy administration. By 2007 it was up to 119 percent.

All this, we were assured, was a good thing: sure, Americans were piling up debt, and they weren’t putting aside any of their income, but their finances looked fine once you took into account the rising values of their houses and their stock portfolios. Oops.

Now, the proximate causes of today’s economic crisis lie in events that took place long after Reagan left office — in the global savings glut created by surpluses in China and elsewhere, and in the giant housing bubble that savings glut helped inflate.

But it was the explosion of debt over the previous quarter-century that made the U.S. economy so vulnerable. Overstretched borrowers were bound to start defaulting in large numbers once the housing bubble burst and unemployment began to rise.

These defaults in turn wreaked havoc with a financial system that — also mainly thanks to Reagan-era deregulation — took on too much risk with too little capital.

There’s plenty of blame to go around these days. But the prime villains behind the mess we’re in were Reagan and his circle of advisers — men who forgot the lessons of America’s last great financial crisis, and condemned the rest of us to repeat it.
 
Don't trust this author, No mention of the Federal Reserve anywhere? Afterall, How was the $$$ introduced into the system that corrupted these "evil" institutions?
 
source: New York Times

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: May 31, 2009

“This bill is the most important legislation for financial institutions in the last 50 years. It provides a long-term solution for troubled thrift institutions. ... All in all, I think we hit the jackpot.” So declared Ronald Reagan in 1982, as he signed the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act.

He was, as it happened, wrong about solving the problems of the thrifts. On the contrary, the bill turned the modest-sized troubles of savings-and-loan institutions into an utter catastrophe. But he was right about the legislation’s significance. And as for that jackpot — well, it finally came more than 25 years later, in the form of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

For the more one looks into the origins of the current disaster, the clearer it becomes that the key wrong turn — the turn that made crisis inevitable — took place in the early 1980s, during the Reagan years.

Attacks on Reaganomics usually focus on rising inequality and fiscal irresponsibility. Indeed, Reagan ushered in an era in which a small minority grew vastly rich, while working families saw only meager gains. He also broke with longstanding rules of fiscal prudence.

On the latter point: traditionally, the U.S. government ran significant budget deficits only in times of war or economic emergency. Federal debt as a percentage of G.D.P. fell steadily from the end of World War II until 1980. But indebtedness began rising under Reagan; it fell again in the Clinton years, but resumed its rise under the Bush administration, leaving us ill prepared for the emergency now upon us.

The increase in public debt was, however, dwarfed by the rise in private debt, made possible by financial deregulation. The change in America’s financial rules was Reagan’s biggest legacy. And it’s the gift that keeps on taking.

The immediate effect of Garn-St. Germain, as I said, was to turn the thrifts from a problem into a catastrophe. The S.& L. crisis has been written out of the Reagan hagiography, but the fact is that deregulation in effect gave the industry — whose deposits were federally insured — a license to gamble with taxpayers’ money, at best, or simply to loot it, at worst. By the time the government closed the books on the affair, taxpayers had lost $130 billion, back when that was a lot of money.

But there was also a longer-term effect. Reagan-era legislative changes essentially ended New Deal restrictions on mortgage lending — restrictions that, in particular, limited the ability of families to buy homes without putting a significant amount of money down.

These restrictions were put in place in the 1930s by political leaders who had just experienced a terrible financial crisis, and were trying to prevent another. But by 1980 the memory of the Depression had faded. Government, declared Reagan, is the problem, not the solution; the magic of the marketplace must be set free. And so the precautionary rules were scrapped.

Together with looser lending standards for other kinds of consumer credit, this led to a radical change in American behavior.

We weren’t always a nation of big debts and low savings: in the 1970s Americans saved almost 10 percent of their income, slightly more than in the 1960s. It was only after the Reagan deregulation that thrift gradually disappeared from the American way of life, culminating in the near-zero savings rate that prevailed on the eve of the great crisis. Household debt was only 60 percent of income when Reagan took office, about the same as it was during the Kennedy administration. By 2007 it was up to 119 percent.

All this, we were assured, was a good thing: sure, Americans were piling up debt, and they weren’t putting aside any of their income, but their finances looked fine once you took into account the rising values of their houses and their stock portfolios. Oops.

Now, the proximate causes of today’s economic crisis lie in events that took place long after Reagan left office — in the global savings glut created by surpluses in China and elsewhere, and in the giant housing bubble that savings glut helped inflate.

But it was the explosion of debt over the previous quarter-century that made the U.S. economy so vulnerable. Overstretched borrowers were bound to start defaulting in large numbers once the housing bubble burst and unemployment began to rise.

These defaults in turn wreaked havoc with a financial system that — also mainly thanks to Reagan-era deregulation — took on too much risk with too little capital.

There’s plenty of blame to go around these days. But the prime villains behind the mess we’re in were Reagan and his circle of advisers — men who forgot the lessons of America’s last great financial crisis, and condemned the rest of us to repeat it.


Liberals citing liberals. Tell me this where has liberalism ever worked? Russia? The whole nation collapsed under your idol Mikhail Gorbachev. Whose policies and ideology won the cold war.I think Reagan did. Point to me a nation who doesn't practice free trade and capitalism and are thriving under liberal policies? There are reasons why small countries like Japan are thriving and nations three time their size suck.
Anyway Reagan had to deal with a large number of democraps and Tip O'Neal as speaker. Krugman was even considered for a post in Bill Clinton's Cabinet!!!
Dude, he wrote a book entitled below.:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Paul Krugman

The Conscience of a Liberal

This wholly original new work by the best-selling author of The Great Unraveling challenges America to reclaim the values that made it great.

With this major new volume, Paul Krugman, “the heir apparent to Galbraith” (Alan Blinder) and, today’s most widely read economist, studies the past eighty years of American history, from the reforms that tamed the harsh inequality of the Gilded Age to the unraveling of that achievement and the reemergence of immense economic and political inequality since the 1970s. Seeking to understand both what happened to middle-class America and what it will take to achieve a “new New Deal,” Krugman has created his finest book to date, a work that weaves together a nuanced account of three generations of history with sharp political, social, and economic analysis. This book, written with Krugman’s trademark ability to explain complex issues simply, will transform the debate about American social policy in much the same way as did John Kenneth Galbr’s deeply influential book, The Affluent Society.

Paul Krugman writes a twice-weekly column for the op-ed page of the New York Times. A winner of the John Bates Clark Medal who was also named Columnist of the Year by Editor and Publisher magazine, he teaches economics at Princeton University.
 
Your point?? Where has liberalism worked. I hate to be frank, but you have no platform. Your ideology is dependent upon productive citizens in order to take care of you and the other non-productive parasites who feast off of a worthless mindset. You are an intellectual lightweight. You don't even read half of the garbage you post. I'm calling it a night its been fun.
 
This shows that you don't know shit about the subject.

QueEx

Your point?? Where has liberalism worked. I hate to be frank, but you have no platform. Your ideology is dependent upon productive citizens in order to take care of you and the other non-productive parasites who feast off of a worthless mindset. You are an intellectual lightweight. You don't even read half of the garbage you post. I'm calling it a night its been fun.

Hit a nerve?
 
This shows that you don't know shit about the subject.

QueEx

Your point?? Where has liberalism worked. I hate to be frank, but you have no platform. Your ideology is dependent upon productive citizens in order to take care of you and the other non-productive parasites who feast off of a worthless mindset. You are an intellectual lightweight. You don't even read half of the garbage you post. I'm calling it a night its been fun.

Hit a nerve?:lol:
 
Don't evade the question!!! The family is waiting. Point to me a place on earth where your ideology flourishes. Defend your thoughts once and for all!!! Stop with the crappy posting of blacks as victims. Just like with your post regarding wells Fargo. Are you saying that we as a people do not have the mental capacity to fill out a fricking form? From this point on I'm going to make you defend your position. I bet you're from Florida, you know that little county that held up the presidential election because they were confused on how to punch a voter card.
 
Your point?? Where has liberalism worked. I hate to be frank, but you have no platform. Your ideology is dependent upon productive citizens in order to take care of you and the other non-productive parasites who feast off of a worthless mindset. You are an intellectual lightweight. You don't even read half of the garbage you post. I'm calling it a night its been fun.

Canada
 

Canada's current prime minister is in the conservative party. They also signed a treaty with the US similar to NAFTA. ( Free Trade Agreement ) a capitalist principle! If I may recall you despise capitalist principles. They touted liberalism for a moment. It looks good but sooner or later you have to eat the spinach. Their citizens are crossing the boarders daily to escape the "greatest health care on earth". They have a conservative and liberal party just like us. Both parties have traded power over the years. As I aforementioned, Clinton had a surplus with a republican congress. Nice try Mr. Castro.
 
Canada's current prime minister is in the conservative party. They also signed a treaty with the US similar to NAFTA. ( Free Trade Agreement ) a capitalist principle! If I may recall you despise capitalist principles. They touted liberalism for a moment. It looks good but sooner or later you have to eat the spinach. Their citizens are crossing the boarders daily to escape the "greatest health care on earth". They have a conservative and liberal party just like us. Both parties have traded power over the years. As I aforementioned, Clinton had a surplus with a republican congress. Nice try Mr. Castro.

Jimmy Carter had a surplus under a democratic congress.

National single payer health care Check
Gays in the military openly Check
Regulated Banking system Check

Sounds liberal to me, at least more liberal than the US over the last 30 years.


KNOW YOUR SUBJECT!:lol: Lightweight
 
Jimmy Carter? Double digit interest rates Jimmy Carter. Gas ration Jimmy Carter?Long lines at the gas station Jimmy Carter? One of the highest ever unemplyment rates Jimmy Carter. Proof positive the the average American has an average education. Check all of your liberal boxes. Were still living under FDR liberal policies. Do some research and see where most of the US budget goes. I take it you didn't see the elections in Europe this weekend. The people were tired of big governent and government takeover of companies. The messiah us still blaming bush. It's getting old Mr. Thought. If you would have said Bill Clinton. I would have digressed. Jimmy was the worst democratic president ever.
 
Liberals citing liberals. Tell me this where has liberalism ever worked? Russia?

Basically, the US, Canada, and Western Europe are societies of liberalism.

Russia, Cuba, North Korea are communist societies (opposite of liberalism).

If a society respects individual rights and private property it is a society of liberalism.

If a society believes in individuals serving the state and state property, it is communal (communistic).

Are you saying you believe in communist socieities? :confused:
 
Basically, the US, Canada, and Western Europe are societies of liberalism.

Russia, Cuba, North Korea are communist societies (opposite of liberalism).

If a society respects individual rights and private property it is a society of liberalism.

If a society believes in individuals serving the state and state property, it is communal (communistic).

Are you saying you believe in communist socieities? :confused:

You can't be serious. If I must opine. It's a habit, I participate in several forums. Most of the boards infer that you mean communist. I don't think Mr. Thought is a communist. It's almost like saying Bush is akin to Hitler it's a far stretch. To many con- law classes. I believe in the notion of breivity is the soul of wit. I try to attack the premise of ideologies of communist (liberal) thinkers.
 
Jimmy Carter had a surplus under a democratic congress.

National single payer health care Check
Gays in the military openly Check
Regulated Banking system Check

Sounds liberal to me, at least more liberal than the US over the last 30 years.


KNOW YOUR SUBJECT!:lol: Lightweight

its official, Thought feels that Jimmy Carter was the best president since Kennedy.

I guess I need to start taking you seriously huh? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
You can't be serious. If I must opine. It's a habit, I participate in several forums. Most of the boards infer that you mean communist. I don't think Mr. Thought is a communist. It's almost like saying Bush is akin to Hitler it's a far stretch. To many con- law classes. I believe in the notion of breivity is the soul of wit. I try to attack the premise of ideologies of communist (liberal) thinkers.

Liberalism

Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Within liberalism, there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for constitutional liberalism, which encompasses support for: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property, and a transparent system of government.

Are you saying Liberalism is bad for the United States?

Communism

Communism (from Latin: communis = "common") is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general.

If most boards you visit equate Liberalism with communism, what value do you get from them?

It appears they can't get the simple terms right.
 
The term is used in various ways, social and political. I do agree with the way you defined the term. From now on I will use the term commie!!! :D
 
Jimmy Carter? Double digit interest rates Jimmy Carter. Gas ration Jimmy Carter?Long lines at the gas station Jimmy Carter? One of the highest ever unemplyment rates Jimmy Carter. Proof positive the the average American has an average education. Check all of your liberal boxes. Were still living under FDR liberal policies. Do some research and see where most of the US budget goes. I take it you didn't see the elections in Europe this weekend. The people were tired of big governent and government takeover of companies. The messiah us still blaming bush. It's getting old Mr. Thought. If you would have said Bill Clinton. I would have digressed. Jimmy was the worst democratic president ever.

You always seem to recall half history. GOP talking points no doubt.

Didn't Carter inherit oil problems and inflation from Ford?

Remember:

340x.jpg
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-tPePpMxJaA&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-tPePpMxJaA&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

In case you don't understand the first photo, President Ford launched an Ad campaign called "Whip Inflation How."

"In his book The Age of Turbulence, Alan Greenspan as the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors recalled thinking "This is unbelievably stupid" when Whip Inflation Now was first presented to the White House."
 
In his book The Age of Turbulence, Alan Greenspan as the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors recalled thinking "This is unbelievably stupid" when Whip Inflation Now was first presented to the White House[/URL]."

Now you wanna quote Greenspan? :lol: You obviously don't undertand the magnitude of the privilege of issuing currency, 'printing money'.

Instead of this thread being called "Reagan did it", it should be called "Greenspan did it"!! The definition of inflation should be looked at as: The expansion of the money supply. Instead, the media tells us that inflation is "rising prices", which is totally wrong, Rising prices are the result of the inflating the money supply!!

How you think Greenspan has any credibility is beyond me.
 
Back
Top