Regarding that housing bubble:

This is from Dean Baker, one of the only economist who predicted the housing bubble and the devastation it would leave in its wake when it burst. He followed it for years warning others to be aware of what was happening in the inflating housing market.

Below are some snippets of his educated opinion of who shoulders the majority of the blame for the housing crisis, and subsequent economic downward spiral.

He wrote:

In Washington policy circles, money and influence can be used to make even the most simple and obvious things complicated and confusing. This is certainly the case with the housing bubble and its aftermath. Four years into the housing bubble downturn, much of the country remains hopelessly confused about what happened, why it happened and who is to blame.

First, what happened is very straightforward. We had a huge run-up in house prices that had no basis in the fundamentals of the housing market. After 100 years in which nationwide house prices just kept even with the overall rate of inflation, house prices began to sharply outpace inflation beginning in the late 90s. By 2002, when some of us first noticed the bubble, house prices had already risen by more than 30 percentage points in excess of inflation. By the peak of the bubble in 2006, the increase in house prices was more than 70 percentage points above the rate of inflation.

This was a huge problem because this bubble was driving the economy. It drove it directly by creating a boom in residential housing construction. We were building housing at a near-record pace in the years 2002-2006. This was in spite of the fact that we had an aging population and record levels of vacancies at the start of the period.

The other way in which the bubble was driving the economy was through its effect on consumption. The bubble created more than $8 trillion in ephemeral wealth in housing. Homeowners thought this wealth was real and spent accordingly. The result was a massive consumption boom that sent the saving rate down to zero in the years from 2004-2006.

When the bubble burst, the building boom went bust. Construction fell to its lowest levels since the 50s as the country waits to gradually work off a glut of housing. Consumption fell back to more normal levels as people came to grips with the fact that they had lost tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of dollars of equity in their home.

The combined impact of the plunge in construction and consumption spending together with the collapse of a bubble in non-residential real estate is to lower annual demand in the economy by more than $1.2 trillion.

The "why" in this story is simple: Businesses were making money. Many people acted poorly in this story -- almost everywhere the motivation was money and profit. Countrywide and Merrill Lynch were issuing and packaging fraudulent mortgages because they were making tons of money on them, not because they wanted to make moderate-income people and minorities homeowners.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac deserve plenty of blame in this story. Housing is all they do. They should have seen the bubble and tried to stop it. Instead they jumped on the bandwagon. But they were followers, not leaders. The worst loans were securitized by the Wall Street boys. Fannie and Freddie got into junk mortgages late in the game and they did so to regain market share as a profit-making business, not out of a concern to extend homeownership.

The government agency devoted to extending homeownership to moderate-income people, the Federal Housing Authority, became almost irrelevant. Its market share shrank to less than 2.0 percent at the peak of the bubble (compared with around 10 percent in more normal times), as its lending standards were far stricter than those of the subprime mortgage pushers.

Snip

Greenspan should have used his Congressional testimony and other public appearances to call attention to the bubble.

To maximize the impact of any rate increases, Greenspan could have announced that he was targeting the housing market. He could have said that he would continue to raise rates until house prices were brought back to a more normal level.

This surely would have gotten the attention of the mortgage industry and potential homebuyers. Would it have been an extraordinary action from a Fed chair? Sure, but so what. It might have prevented the economic devastation that is ruining tens of millions of lives.

For further reading:http://dailybail.com/home/dean-baker...ould-have.html

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

In the short term I think it did, at least in terms of middle class prosperity (at the expense of debt and the *start* of a long dilution of the social contract). Again, this was before the social contract was so devastated that the elites didn't immediately keep all the economic growth for themselves. Now they do, and then some. Thirty years of whittling away at it is what put us where we are today. They couldn't immediately get from the 1960s social contract to today's; people wouldn't stand for it. But like the proverbial frog in a pot, you turn up the heat very slowly so it doesn't realize it's being boiled alive.

Rachel Maddow pretty much demolishes the idea the trickle-down had "some" effect; did you see the video? The effect? "flat, nothin'!" I wouldn't say whittling away; I would say deliberate and unflagging assault, and getting worse.

Excellent post, Deb. Pretty well explains what happened. Now if people can just get past the obfuscation put out by the GOPPERs, who think the answer is more trickle-down economics.

Originally Posted by ASB65

And wouldn't that be rather ironic if the red states and areas recover from the recession faster than the blue states and areas recover under a Democratic president?

One other piece of good news today was that Caterpillar was returning jobs from overseas to a new plant in Arkansas. Thought you might be interested in that.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

One other piece of good news today was that Caterpillar was returning jobs from overseas to a new plant in Arkansas. Thought you might be interested in that.

James50

Yes, that really is good news. I'm overjoyed to hear someone is starting up manufacturing here.

Originally Posted by James50

One other piece of good news today was that Caterpillar was returning jobs from overseas to a new plant in Arkansas. Thought you might be interested in that.

James50

Oh another one. I've also heard rumors that about them closing down a plant in Mexico and bringing it back to Illinois, but I don't know how true that is. We shall see.

I know business is very, very good for their mining truck division these days. According to my husband, they are swamped with orders. But then I have heard good news recently regarding manufacturing in general being up in this country with several companies looking to hire.

Leave it to Bill Moyers to bring up the hot topics.

Next on Moyers & Company

Our country is more politically polarized than ever. Is it possible to agree to disagree and still move on to solve our massive problems? Or are the blind leading the blind — over the cliff?

This weekend on Moyers & Company, Bill and social psychologist Jonathan Haidt talk about the psychological underpinnings of our contentious culture, why we can’t trust our own opinions, and the demonizing of our adversaries.

“When it gets so that your opponents are not just people you disagree with, but... the mental state in which I am fighting for good, and you are fighting for evil, it's very difficult to compromise,” Haidt tells Moyers. “Compromise becomes a dirty word.”

EDIT: Excerpt from the interview.

BILL MOYERS: Welcome. People I meet on the left, on the right and in the middle agree on one thing: our country is in a mess, and our politics are not making it better. The problems seem insurmountable, three times last year congress came close to shutting down the government. In August, we almost defaulted on our more than $14 trillion debt, which could skyrocket even further if the Bush tax cuts are continued and spending is untouched at year’s end.

But as the ship of state is sinking, the crew is at each other’s throats, too busy fighting to plug the holes and pump out the water. And everything’s been made rotten by the toxic rancor and demonizing that have shredded civil discourse and devastated our ability to govern ourselves. Just look at the ugliness of the election campaign. So we’re left with paralysis, dysfunction, and a whole lot of rage.

On that cheery note, listen to this fellow. I first saw him on the website TED.com, that stands for “Technology, Entertainment, Design.” It’s the non-profit that brings together some of our most creative and provocative thinkers.

I am not Catholic. I am OK with first trimester abortions as long as we call it what it is. And I am certainly OK with contraceptives, and yet this makes me angry. Please think about what this means.

The president signed off on a Health and Human Services ruling that says under ObamaCare Catholic institutions—including charities, hospitals and schools—will be required by law, for the first time ever, to provide and pay for insurance coverage that includes contraceptives, abortion-inducing drugs and sterilization procedures. If they do not, they will face ruinous fines in the millions of dollars. Or they can always go out of business.

In other words, the Catholic Church was told this week that its institutions can't be Catholic anymore.

I invite you to imagine the moment we are living in without the church's charities, hospitals and schools. And if you know anything about those organizations, you know it is a fantasy that they can afford millions in fines.

There was no reason to make this ruling—none. Except ideology.

All of you who thought barring a reporter from a hearing violated the first amendment. That is nothing in violation compare to this. Nothing.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

I am not Catholic. I am OK with first trimester abortions as long as we call it what it is. And I am certainly OK with contraceptives, and yet this makes me angry. Please think about what this means.



All of you who thought barring a reporter from a hearing violated the first amendment. That is nothing in violation compare to this. Nothing.

James50

James, I have been hearing for at least 40 years from practicing Catholics that they resent the church's attitude about birth control and pay no attention to it. In addition, there are lots of non-Catholics who work in these institutions. I see no reason why regulation of the insurance industry should not include requiring what has to be covered.

This is a free country. The question of whether to use contraception or have an abortion is an individual decision. Contraception is a health care issue. I see no reason why some one should have to forego their right to a policy that provides it just because of whom they happen to work for. In fact, I can turn your argument around. Presumably a strictly observant Catholic won't use those services--but that is their choice, not their employers.' Your employer shouldn't be able to dictate your personal decisions on these questions.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

This is a free country.

In this case, this is the most ridiculous and completely false thing you could say.

James50

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

JI see no reason why regulation of the insurance industry should not include requiring what has to be covered.

Then you are missing the whole subject of freedom of conscience.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

I am not Catholic. I am OK with first trimester abortions as long as we call it what it is. And I am certainly OK with contraceptives, and yet this makes me angry. Please think about what this means.



All of you who thought barring a reporter from a hearing violated the first amendment. That is nothing in violation compare to this. Nothing.

James50

What's the source? That they use "ObamaCare" in the article makes that interpretation of the ruling questionable, with an anti-choice agenda.

Originally Posted by Odin

What's the source? That they use "ObamaCare" in the article makes that interpretation of the ruling questionable, with an anti-choice agenda.

Put "obama ruling catholic" into your google search. I am really late to the party. This happened over 2 weeks ago. The quote above was from Peggy Noonan.

Try this from WaPo: Obama ruling requires Catholic institutions to violate church teaching

As for calling it Obamacare, I have tried not to do that. I may start now. I absolutely will not vote for Obama if this stands and, if this is what Obamacare means, it will have to go. Even left wing Catholics are outraged. I was pretty sure he was going to win re-election. This ruling throws that into doubt.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Then you are missing the whole subject of freedom of conscience.

James50

Whose freedom of conscience? No one has to get birth control who doesn't want it!!!!!

Obama met with the president of the Catholic Health Association (who is a nun), when he was preparing the health care bill. He indicated that if they would buy into the bill and support it, he would respect the Catholic Hospital's beliefs.

The CHA does plan to confront this issue in the near future. To say the least, they feel betrayed.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Whose freedom of conscience? No one has to get birth control who doesn't want it!!!!!

You are blinded. I am sorry you cannot see what is happening here. I can only hope you will study the issue and reach an understanding. From the WaPo article:

The White House posted a blog item on its Web site that answers the criticism by pointing out that “churches are exempt.” Yes, but church-run schools, hospitals and social service agencies are not. And that’s where the feed-the-hungry work goes on. As Obama so aptly noted at the prayer breakfast, that work is precisely what Jesus called us to do, time after time, in the Gospels.

(The coup de grace, though, is that only outfits that serve their own kind are exempt from the requirement. As retired Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington has asked, are workers in soup kitchens supposed to start asking not “Are you hungry?” but “Are you Catholic?”)

The White House Web site also notes that “no one will be forced to buy or use birth control.” No, just to give it away, as part of employee health packages.

It notes, too, that “contraception is used by most women,” Catholics included. Again, true but not remotely the issue, which is the religious freedom guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Do you even remotely expect that nuns, priests, or Catholic laity who have given their lives to the church will bow to this pressure just because the government tells them to?

The more I think about, the angrier I get.

James50

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Originally Posted by James50

Then you are missing the whole subject of freedom of conscience.

James50

Whose freedom of conscience? No one has to get birth control who doesn't want it!!!!!

This is an amusing conversation. There's a better legal argument for defending religious sanctioned polygamy than this.

Cheers.

I know Shields and Brooks thought the Health secretary's edict was harmful to Obama's administration. I am a little surprised that there are so many Catholics who "as a matter of conscience" feel they must adhere to church teachings, including those the linked article said had fought for the Health Reform act, and who supposedly might now feel betrayed. Most Americans feel these teachings, especially about birth control, are out of date and don't obey them anyway, and rightly so. This is not abortion, at least. But I suppose the institutions must object, since the Church will object if they violate the bosses at the Vatican. It's not really a matter of conscience; it's a matter of conflict between authorities. The first and second estate if you will.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

This is an amusing conversation. There's a better legal argument for defending religious sanctioned polygamy than this.

Cheers.

I don't find this amusing at all and I do not agree with the Obama administration trying to force Catholics to violate their religious beliefs.
For these discussions , I think that the work of Jonathan Haidt is worth noting:

Home | Civil Politics.org
http://www.civilpolitics.org/

"By civility we do NOT mean politeness, decorum, agreement, bipartisanship, or unity. We think disagreement and debate are good things. We think America is well served when political parties represent different viewpoints and then compete vigorously to recruit voters to their side.
But we are disturbed by the increase in recent decades in demonization that characterizes American political debate, particularly among politicians and in the media. We are motivated by recent research in moral and political psychology showing what happens when disagreements activate the psychology of good-versus-evil."...

Originally Posted by radind

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

This is an amusing conversation. There's a better legal argument for defending religious sanctioned polygamy than this.

Cheers.

I don't find this amusing at all ...

It was a very amusing conversation between James and David. Framing a legal argument for Morman polygamy is much easier than a framing a legal argument for the Catholic right to deny (non-Catholic) women the right to equal medical care.

Best...

Originally Posted by James50

You are blinded. I am sorry you cannot see what is happening here. I can only hope you will study the issue and reach an understanding. From the WaPo article:



Do you even remotely expect that nuns, priests, or Catholic laity who have given their lives to the church will bow to this pressure just because the government tells them to?

The more I think about, the angrier I get.

James50

I had read the article. My perspective is very different from yours. People are claiming that the Catholic institutions have the right to impose certain behavior on their employees, Catholics and non-Catholics alike. I do not agree. This is not very different--your concept--from allowing the Marriott corporation (Mormon owned) to ban anyone from working for them who drinks. After all, they don't believe in it. Would you favor that? Should Jewish organizations be able to ban anyone who eats pork from working for them? I think these are highly relevant examples.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I had read the article. My perspective is very different from yours. People are claiming that the Catholic institutions have the right to impose certain behavior on their employees, Catholics and non-Catholics alike. I do not agree. This is not very different--your concept--from allowing the Marriott corporation (Mormon owned) to ban anyone from working for them who drinks. After all, they don't believe in it. Would you favor that? Should Jewish organizations be able to ban anyone who eats pork from working for them? I think these are highly relevant examples.

I don't see that your examples apply in this case. It seems to me that the Catholic Church does not want to provide services that end life. The employees have chosen to work for a Catholic organization. I don't see a ban on employment coming from the Catholic institution.



http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/obama-supporters-worried-he-may-grant-contraception-exemptions-to-catholic-hospitals/

..."The Catholic Church has been pushing the White House to allow Catholic hospitals to opt out of offering birth control coverage through their health insurance, contraception that the Church considers the termination of a life."...

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

It was a very amusing conversation between James and David. Framing a legal argument for Morman polygamy is much easier than a framing a legal argument for the Catholic right to deny (non-Catholic) women the right to equal medical care.

Best...

I think that the Catholic Church is making a moral argument. Does the state have right to force a church institution to violate the beliefs of that church?

Originally Posted by James50

The more I think about, the angrier I get.

Yeah, I get frustrated when I spend too long thinking about religious nuts, too. Best bet is to ignore them

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That's just what Reagan said in the 80s. It's all the same philosophy, and it's very simple and well-defined.

But the 1986 Tax Reform Act greatly increased the standard deduction and personal exemption, taking untold millions of the working poor off the income-tax rolls altogether - something the far right (Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann etc.) now wants to reverse. This also makes their complaints about the 47% of the population that didn't pay any federal income taxes in 2010, or whichever recent year it was, utterly disingenuous.

Originally Posted by radind

I don't see that your examples apply in this case. It seems to me that the Catholic Church does not want to provide services that end life. The employees have chosen to work for a Catholic organization. I don't see a ban on employment coming from the Catholic institution.

I acatually agree to a point, but the point stops where the Catholic Church has a dominant place in a critiacl market. If, for example, the Catholic Hospital is the only one in the area, then they have a monopoly on a secular service, and almost certaily receive large amounts of Medicaid and Medicare funding to support it. I also doubt that they would be wilingly to walk away from that. How would the community respond if they did? Everyone needs access to a hospital.

As you move away fror a monopoly position, where does that change? It does in a large city with many options, but the Federal funds are still there. Can we agree that some such institutions are de facto "public", while others could choose to be focused on a religous-based service to their community? How would you sort this? Should there be exceptions?

This is much more complicated than this thread implies.