[lazide]

Pretty sure you’re blaming the wrong people. I’m not now and have never been in finance - but blaming banks or traders for the Fed’s actions is prima facia ridiculous.

And throwing in the whole ‘greed is good’ stereotype doesn’t help.

[nicoffeine]

Did the fed lobby for the end of regulations and then immediately tank the world economy with a pyramid scheme?

Blaming the fed for the bailout is like blaming firefighters for putting out a fire instead of the arsonist. That’s a pretty strange understanding of accountability.

While the world economy burned to the ground and families went hungry, the financial industry awarded their executives with billions of dollars in bonuses. If that isn’t greed, what is it?

[lazide]

Which ones exactly and how did they pull off this apparent massive conspiracy?

Near as I can tell, Greenspan pumping trillions of near free credit into the economy is nearly if not more culpable than the loose underwriting at these banks - after all, if they didn’t loosen them, they’d lose their market share in near free credit environments.

And what about the borrowers that were signing up for these completely unrealistic loans? How do they fit in?

And the poor bastards bidding crazy amounts trying to get a house, any house, and also way overpaying in any real sense because of these crazy bidding wars?

It’s easy to blame amorphous entities, it’s hard to really nail down what was actually happening - and point out that everyone in the US was playing a part in a spiraling out of control mess.

[nicoffeine]

> Which ones exactly and how did they pull off this apparent massive conspiracy?

Most of those details are in the findings of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission [1]:

"More than 30 years of deregulation and reliance on self-regulation by financial institutions, championed by former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan and others, supported by successive administrations and Congresses, and actively pushed by the powerful financial industry at every turn, had stripped away key safeguards, which could have helped avoid catastrophe. This approach had opened up gaps in oversight of critical areas with trillions of dollars at risk, such as the shadow banking system and over-the-counter derivatives markets. In addition, the government permitted financial firms to pick their preferred regulators in what became a race to the weakest supervisor."

...

"In the years leading up to the crisis, too many financial institutions, as well as too many households, borrowed to the hilt. ... [A]s of 2007, the leverage ratios [of the five major investment banks] were as high as 40 to 1, meaning for every $40 in assets, there was only $1 in capital to cover losses. Less than a 3% drop in asset values could wipe out a firm. To make matters worse, much of their borrowing was short-term, in the overnight market—meaning the borrowing had to be renewed each and every day. ... And the leverage was often hidden—in derivatives positions, in off-balance-sheet entities, and through "window dressing" of financial reports available to the investing public. ... The heavy debt taken on by some financial institutions was exacerbated by the risky assets they were acquiring with that debt. As the mortgage and real estate markets churned out riskier and riskier loans and securities, many financial institutions loaded up on them."

...

> Near as I can tell, Greenspan pumping trillions of near free credit into the economy is nearly if not more culpable than the loose underwriting at these banks - after all, if they didn’t loosen them, they’d lose their market share in near free credit environments.

None of the firms told Greenspan to stop. They pushed for more and more deregulations and continued to take the money.

> And what about the borrowers that were signing up for these completely unrealistic loans? How do they fit in?

> It’s easy to blame amorphous entities, it’s hard to really nail down what was actually happening - and point out that everyone in the US was playing a part in a spiraling out of control mess.

No, it's pretty well documented. Calling the financial industry "amorphous entities" is... well, just kind of humorous. It's your choice whether to hold the industry that spent decades eliminating regulations for themselves accountable, or the people the industry took advantage of once they were free of oversight.

In line with your argument, if our financial elite don't know more about finance than everyday citizens (why else hold them equally accountable), and they're too incompetent to regulate themselves (else they would have corrected the Fed's behavior), what is their purpose? Wouldn't it be cheaper for everyone if we gave practically interest free money directly to businesses that produce actual goods and services?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Crisis_Inquiry_Commi...

[lazide]

Your documentation literally backs it up as a wide scale failure of an industry resulting from many contributing factors slowly building up over time, not an explicit conspiracy, or caused by concrete players who had all the cards and knew the whole situation or had any historic examples that could show where what they were doing would go.

You can certainly go on about all the folks who didn't stand up and say 'Stop!' - but really, we've got a bunch of those brewing in tech, and no one listens to anyone saying stop there either. There are a million apocalypses predicted every day - and it's rare if any of them ever ACTUALLY happen.

In retrospect, you can find those doing it in Finance back then, but they couldn't stop this mess anymore than anyone else - and plenty of people easily papered over the possibility of the crash, the same as we paper over a million other issues in tech.

The regulators were in on all this too.

So you can blame 'finance', same as someone could blame 'tech' for the election. But it doesn't really mean anything and it won't change anything, because it doesn't provide any useful information or potential corrective action.

[nicoffeine]

> Your documentation literally backs it up as a wide scale failure of an industry resulting from many contributing factors slowly building up over time, not an explicit conspiracy, or caused by concrete players who had all the cards and knew the whole situation or had any historic examples that could show where what they were doing would go.

> You can certainly go on about all the folks who didn't stand up and say 'Stop!' - but really, we've got a bunch of those brewing in tech, and no one listens to anyone saying stop there either. There are a million apocalypses predicted every day - and it's rare if any of them ever ACTUALLY happen.

They built models on the basis that house prices do not go down, counter to lessons I learned in a 9th grade economics class about boom and bust cycles. They lobbied to remove regulations designed to reduce risk and over leveraging, and the risk increased and they became over leveraged. They continued to repackage bad loans from predatory lenders as AAA investments well after they understood the consequences. That's why the major firms offloaded those financial instruments to anyone they could find, even if it meant wiping out the life savings of millions of people by saddling pension funds with negative equity. It was not an apocalypse. It was history repeating itself.

> In retrospect, you can find those doing it in Finance back then, but they couldn't stop this mess anymore than anyone else - and plenty of people easily papered over the possibility of the crash, the same as we paper over a million other issues in tech.

It looks like we agree that they are incapable of regulating themselves. If they aren't competent enough to understand the regulations they dismantled, or to take boom and bust cycles into account for financial planning, what is their purpose? If they can't mitigate risk or provide liquidity in a crisis, what function do they serve in the economy?

> So you can blame 'finance', same as someone could blame 'tech' for the election. But it doesn't really mean anything and it won't change anything, because it doesn't provide any useful information or potential corrective action.

Nations like Canada did not remove the regulations, and did not have a similar liquidity crisis, although they did suffer economically because the US financial system crash was so severe. There was a wealth of information on the effectiveness of regulation and firewalls between banking institutions, and many economists predicted another financial crisis before Glass-Steagall was effectively repealed after decades of lobbying from the financial industry. Canada was able to apply this useful information and take corrective action which kept them out of the crisis.

Similarly, there was plenty of literature on why placing social media outside the regulatory environment for all other media was dangerous well before the election and QAnon. The tech industry could do something similar, but you and I both know they are lobbying to keep regulations out. They are purposefully avoiding corrective action, despite the severity of the consequences, because it means they may make less money and have more competition. They want all the profit from their monopolies, but they don't want to spend any money to moderate it or comply with regulations. It's nothing but greed and hubris, and it is just as contemptible as the same motivations in the financial industry.

The solution is not mysterious or unknown, it's effective regulation. Your hypothesis is that no one in the tech or financial industries are capable of understanding the effect of their actions, or accepting accountability for them. I believe they do understand the effects of billions of dollars in lobbying activity, and know that if their scheme fails, they can avoid accountability, keep their profits, and still get bailed out. In either case, the "potential corrective action" is the same: effective regulation.

[lazide]

My hypothesis is that when a system is large enough, you run across so many counter-examples and ‘that shouldn’t work’s that do for everything that it’s easy to lose the forest for the trees and have large scale systemic problems that seem simple in hindsight but no one has the ability or will to pull together or change at the time - until it blows up. Most of the firms Originating the shitty loans never lobbied Congress. Most of the people signing up for these impossible loans had no idea the rules changed, and just wanted to be rich(Er), and thought they had a sure thing.

You’re 8th grade economics class also probably didn’t cover some very real scenarios where prices don’t and can’t go down - hyperinflation.

It’s easy to say Effective Regulation, it’s harder to do it - especially when everyone is getting rich (including the average homeowner who sees the value of their home skyrocket). I lived through ‘08. I was in the market to buy due to life changes in ‘05 and it was already out of control. Of the literally hundreds of co-workers, investors, other buyers, etc I interacted with, only one other one actually didn’t get involved and avoided problems. Of the dozen friends who I’m close with, a quarter of them got in over their heads buying during this time (others sold, or wanted to buy but were priced out). I ended up buying in early ‘10 for literally half the price. Keeping a steady hand through the run up of prices literally had me crying myself to sleep a few times. It isn’t realistic to expect all but a tiny portion of people to see what is really going on in such a mass psychosis event.

And Canada has been having a similar crisis for a decade+, it just hasn’t blown up yet - see the Vancouver, Toronto, etc. housing markets. These are impending financial crises in the making - or not. They may not have had bank crises in ‘08, but a lot of investors still lost a ton of Money.

And you keep insisting on everyone getting rich off bailouts - when what really kicked off the collapse was when firms were allowed to implode to set an example, everyone lost massive amounts of money on their investments, banks were nationalized, and an entire industry (mortgage origination) went through a nuclear winter. The gov’t bailouts (that in many cases were forced on solvent firms so the few that were in trouble didn’t get pushed into bank runs) got paid back, with interest. Someone made money, but someone always makes money. On a whole, they lost way more, and if everyone knew it was going to play out this way, very few would have kept doing it.

That not every single financial firm went bankrupt is indeed a thing. That we didn’t enter a Great Depression spiral because of it is also probably a good thing for everyone. Unless you’re saying you are a ‘debt is evil’ person, in which case be aware the hangover from implementing THAT in the modern economy would make the Great Depression look like a blip.