Blaming People for the Financial Crisis for Fun and Profit

Well, that was fun.
_
The only problem is that voters don't seem to discriminate between people who did bad stuff that had no real bearing on the crisis (like madoff), and the people whose actions were instrumental to the crisis (Kathleen Corbet should get an "11" for that -- had the ratings agencies done their jobs, none of this would have happened.)
_
btw, any chance that time could add a decimal place or two to the "average" ratings?
_
Finally, you should be ashamed of yourself for your characterization of Clinton's actions. The repeal of Glass Steagall based both the House and Senate by overwhelming margins (house 343-86, senate 90-9), and the CFMA was added at the last minute by Gramm and company to an omnibus spending bill without any hearings or debate. To blame Clinton for signing a bill that kept the government running, and to blame him for a bill that had veto proof majorities, is nonsense.
Congress, not Clinton, should be held responsible for those mistakes.
_
You should also have included "stockholders" as a group if you include consumers -- it was the demand of stockholders for increased profits and ever-higher stock prices that is at the heart of this mess. This is especially true with Raines, whose decision to change Fannie Mae's policies was driven by stockholder demand -- Fannie Mae was losing market share (resulting in lower p/e ratios, and lower profit margins) in the mortgage bundling business because it did not bundle sub-prime mortgages. Fannie Mae's stockholders demanded a change in that policy -- and had Raines not responded to that pressure, he would have been replaced by someone who would change the policy.

WIth pluk, I must concur in full.

This article in Time Magazine is an example of sheer partisan propaganda. There isn't a trace of journalistic objectivity. I call this shameful journalism, if one could call it journalism at all. I didn't realize Time magazine could stoop so low. There is more honesty and objectivity in Rush Limbaugh's newsletter than in Time. The difference is Limbaugh readily admits his partisan viewpoint, while Time still pretends to be objective journalism.

Partisan liberal Democrats are desperate not to own up to their responsibility for this economic mess. From the failure to extend Bush's tax cuts, to the F&F meltdown, to Barack Obama's ill advised threat to raise the capital gains tax, this economic mess has Democrat written all over it.

I Loved the project, but think that we are so far past the point of laying blame, that it only becomes a way to justify the actions of those whom we don't blame for this mess.

As long as people have the propensity for greed and for getting something for nothing, or on someone else's dime these events will occur. Not to put a biblical spin to it, but this reminds me of the story about the woman adulter in the book of John who was about to be stoned for her discressions, Jesus stepped in and asked the crowd that now famous quote: 'Let him who is without sin cast the first stone'.

We are all to blame for this mess, if not directly then indirectly. Yes, some are to blame more than others and make easier targets, but who in America didn't borrow more than they should; who accepted the sub-prime mortgages even though they could't pay, who built the houses to fill the demand; who wrote about it and promoted it; who put the leaders on a pedestal and in such a position of power that they were able to create this mess in the first place? We the people, that's who.

Yeah, stockholders would have been a good addition. I did nominate a particularly influential institutional investor—as a reminder that everyone in the marketplace just had to have another 10 basis points no matter where it came from—but he didn't make the final cut.

-

As for pointing a finger back at ourselves, you might want to check out what Time's very own Jim Poniewozik has to say about that. In one of our meetings, I did suggest we put "the media" on the list. I also suggested picturing Jim specifically, and everyone kind of laughed. The problem with having a dry sense of humor is that sometimes you're being serious and people think you're just joking around.

Why aren't any corporate boards on here? I mean, smart corporate boards are the ones who gave Rick Wagoner a raise last year even though GM's stock has gone from $60 to $2.97 during his tenure. I know GM isn't a bank or financial company (except that it actually is through GMAC), but that's a good example of boards that have across the entire big corp world gotten things horrifically wrong and then just given out raises in response.
-
Also, you left off the non-Phill Gramm senators like John McCain who just never bothered to understand the economy. Also missing are felons like Nick Cosmo who peddled and scammed all sorts of people into ponzi schemes (contributing to excess capital in the market) and ARMs that they didn't understand or even want to sign up for.
-
Finally, as I mention in the Swampland thread on this, I beat you guys to this two days ago.
-
http://www.124monkeys.com/business/2009/02/markets-dont-just-collapse-people-make-them-collapse/
-
Go me and my self promotionalism.

Justin -- in 1996, Greenspan effectively gutted Glass-Steagall by allowing "bank holding companies to own investment bank affiliates with up to 25 percent of their business in securities underwriting (up from 10 percent)." Then in September 1998, Greenspan approved the merger of Citibank & Travellers, despite the fact that it would violate Glass-Steagall. (Citigroup had to either divest itself of some of Travellers operations, or get the law changed.)
_
The Clinton administration did not support the repeal of Glass Steagall until a deal was reached in a house/senate conference committee right before final passage that made these institutions subject to the Community Reinvestment Act (as the CRA was originally written, the banks involved in these mergers were subject to CRA, but the merged institutions would not be. The Clinton administration did not want CRA rendered pointless thanks to the repeal.)
_
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html
_
(Clinton can be blamed for re-appointing Greenspan, but one suspects that Greenspan's reappointment was part of the deal Clinton made with Greenspan that kept interest rates low enough to create the 8 years of record real growth under Clinton).
_
As for Clinton's supposed support for CFMA, I've been looking to find some evidence for your statement, and can find none.