THANK YOU, MR PRESIDENT
New York October 14, 2008
Now that there has been a respite in the financial tsunami sweeping the globe, finger-pointing is sure to begin. The chief culprit for this near-death experience must be the star-crossed Bush administration and its reckless financial policies.
The roots of the current financial crisis began before President Bush took office.  During the Clinton years, finance had already become America’s primary industry, accounting for 23% of all economic activity (GDP) while manufacturing slipped to a mere 12%.  Finance, let us recall, consists of paper-passing and manipulation rather than creation of anything tangible or productive.  

But once Bush and the Republicans came to power, the Wall Street titans of finance and money lenders were allowed to run amok.  In return, America’s financial industry became the largest contributor to the nation’s politicians.  Republicans and Democrats alike were bought lock, stock, and barrel.
 
By 2007, America had become so addicted to running on borrowed money (known as `leverage’) that the nation owed twice its net worth.  Americans ceased saving, plunging instead into wild consumerism funded by loans on their homes.  All of this was encouraged by the White House which was determined to keep the credit-fuelled good times rolling after the dot.com crash.
 
In 2008,  in an act of supreme idiocy, the US Security and Exchange Commission bowed to pressure from the big five Wall Street banks and, after a mere 55 minutes of discussion, according to a New York Times investigation, changed the `net capital rule’ regulating the financial industry. 
 
Hailed as a brilliant act of deregulation, the new rules allowed banks to lend out $30 for every $1 they had in reserves, almost doubling their ability to lend.  Monitoring of their financial security was left to the banks themselves.  In other words, the wolves were let into the sheep pen.
 
An orgy of reckless lending followed as banks vied to see who could make the more risky loans.  No one cared as long as their profits and huge commissions kept rolling in.  Sales of $40 million yachts and $50 million beach houses in the Hamptons surged.
 
The collapse of Lehman Brothers and ensuing world market panic marked the end of this era of financial debauchery.  Wall Street’s export of fraudulent financial instruments in the form of sub-prime mortgages repackaged as AA quality binds undermined the world banking system and brought it close to collapse.  
 
Last week, outspoken former US President Jimmy Carter squarely blamed the Bush administration for the disaster.  Carter charged the world crisis was caused by Bush’s `profligate spending’  and dangerous tax cuts at a time when the US was spending nearly $1 trillion on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. He is absolutely right.  President Carter, by the way, is the most respected American abroad, according to recent surveys. 
 
Carter warned that Bush’s massive foreign borrowing
- $1 trillion from China and at least $500 billion from Japan – had fatally undermined the US economy.  When Carter  was president from 1977-1981, he inherited a dangerous inflation crisis caused by President Lyndon Johnson’s refusal to raise taxes to pay for the unpopular Vietnam War. Johnson preferred to borrow to finance the war, setting off a storm of inflation that Carter had to deal with as president.
 
President Bush did the same thing with his failed wars. Instead of raising taxes to pay for the war, the Bush administration chose to finance them through emergency appropriation and loans from abroad while cutting taxes at home and creating massive farm subsidies.  American taxpayers will repay these Bush loans in coming years either through higher taxes or through inflation – which is a form of indirect, hidden taxation.
 
The Bush administration inherited a $236 billion surplus from the Clinton presidency, low inflation, and a booming economy.  Eight years later, the deficit stands at $407 billion and growing. That is a $643 billion swing to the negative.  Under Bush, government spending rose 16% and military spending by 50%.  The size of government under Bush grew more than under any president since Democrats Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and Roosevelt’s New Deal.
 
While President Bush and the real power behind the throne, Vice President Dick Cheney, were obsessed waging war against Muslims, they ran the US economy onto the rocks.  Under their disaster-plagued tenure, the US plunged into huge deficits and waged two wars costing $1 trillion in Afghanistan and Iraq, invaded Somalia, and got whipped by Russia in Georgia. 
 
Just when it seemed the hapless Bush White House could not create another disaster in its final days in office, the Panic of 08 erupted that may mark the beginning of the end of America’s decline as a super-power. This is the Bush legacy.
 
What else will this administration do in its final days?  Well, there’s always Iran…..
 
Market Socialist
Tuesday, October 14, 2008 4:47 PM
What does one expect from someone who's blue blooded lineage in oil lead to 2 failed oil companies that were bailed out by Saudi money. Mr. Bush is a dissaster of epic proportions. Mr. Shakespear could not write a tragedy of equal worth. The Americna people will have to bare the brunt of this disaster of man.

After 53 trillion dollars worth of combined governement debt, everyone had better get used to having the Amero as his/her new currency.
oldfan1
Tuesday, October 14, 2008 8:38 PM
Forget about McCain and Obama, lets just bring back Bush and company for another eight years.
Robert
Wednesday, October 15, 2008 12:08 AM
The executive and conservative legislature is under dictatorial control of media. In order to stay in power they give into the liberal mafia that threatens with acts of racism and discrimination. It is the liberals who forced banks to give loans to illegals and thugs. They have gotten away with blaming conservatives for the fiasco. . The only thing conservatives are guilty of is allowing power to trump principle.
chatman
Wednesday, October 15, 2008 3:48 AM
Robert:

You have to be joking. The issue is not one of liberals or conservatives; it's one of mischaracterizing risk. Those are the consequences of de-regulation, something both sides of this problem are guilty of. The economic crisis, as Eric explains in part, is not strictly about giving loans to people who could not pay them back; it was about failing to consider what might happen if NO ONE could pay them back. The riskiness of any given debtor is typically accounted for in the interest rate of the loan. What Wall Street was able to do is atomize millions of bad loans (at high interest rates) into extremely complex derivative products; the idea was that, even if one debtor couldn't make the payments, another one would; imagine a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) asset, worth $200,000, which was based on $1 owed by 200,000 separate debtors paying an interest rates between 8 and 12%. The likelihood of EVERY ONE of these 200,000 debtors defaulting on their loans was obviously quite small; if even half of them paid their debts, the asset would be worth at least $100,000 plus the massive compounded interest.

Enter artificially depressed interest rates; those were introduced by conservative appointees to the treasury and the federal reserve to prevent a dot.com implosion. While men like Greenspan were hailed as brilliant economists at the time, lowering the prime rate has the undesirable effect of artificially depressing the value of currency. Money isn't free, but a lower interest rate makes borrowing it cheaper. As a result, both foreign and domestic entities started buying things using "cheap" money lent by US banks at rates lower than the "real" interest rate. That led to the housing bubble, which ultimately had to burst. Consider this example: when the non-recourse loan mortgaged against one's home is worth a lot more than the home itself, it makes more sense for the homeowner to let the bank foreclose on the house; the difference between the mortgage and the home value vanishes into the ether, and a systemic failure to pay off mortgages triggers the current crisis, where trillions of dollars in ephemeral assets literally evaporate.

Now banks are stuck with mortgage backed securities whose value is unknown. Being unable to sell these things, the banks' asset value drops, their liabilities remain the same, and the overall equity of the banks dips. When a bank has no equity, it makes no loans. And when banks stop making loans, the lifeblood of a capitalist economy is stopped; entire segments of it start to wither and die.

The problem is not loans to thugs, as you so blithely express it. Indeed, it's a great deal more complex than GOP boilerplate can make it. Adding to the malaise is George W. Bush's extraordinarily expensive imperial overreach into Iraq and Afghanistan. That's not a liberal or conservative issue... it's just stupidity of the highest order. Lyndon B. Johnson (a 1960's pro-Vietnam democrat) would've been humbled by the big government overreach of these expeditionary operations into the sands of Central Asia. No cost-balancing when it comes to "fighting terrorism," right? You can print more money or sell more treasury bonds to China, but that also devalues currency, and leaves us precariously indebted to another country; if at any point the Chinese decide to drop U.S. treasury bonds, this most recent economic crisis will look like a spring drizzle.

And as for your de-riguer "conservative" whine that liberal media is out to "getcha," don't you have supposedly reliable sources of news and commentary like FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh? Looks like the conservative solution to "unfair liberal" bias in the media is to manufacture institutions with an "unfair conservative bias." That's a heck of a way to solve your media disinterestedness problem...

I would recommend RealClearPolitics, which rounds up the best liberal, conservative, and mainstream commentary.
rayyan
Thursday, October 16, 2008 7:05 AM
Few points about the article:

1--The US acts the as world's bully and gangster..Saudi Arabia,GCC,S. Korea and Japan HAVE to buy US T-Bonds because the US provides them with Security through its armed Forces..

2--China Sells 20% of its exports in the US..The US & EU are the 2 biggest trading partners with China..The Chinese also cannot see their main trading partner go under because they themselves will be affected..

3--Most OIL Producing Countries are FORCED to sell their oil in US dollars..As a result the Central Banks in the World keep large reserves of the Green Back in their vaults..65% of the Foreign Reserves are in dollars..

4--The US has the Mightest armed forces on the Globe..Most Countries want to APPEASE the Americans and avoide confrontation with them...


As a result,the US CAN afford huge deficits because it will always kow-tow others to buy its loans..
If Gangsterism and Blackmail worked with Al Capone,it is ALSO working with the Super-Bully pretty well...

After all MIGHT IS RIGHT...
chatman
Thursday, October 16, 2008 9:27 AM
Without a doubt, American bayonets prop up currency values. Of course, maintaining such valuation requires a continued showing or illusion of absolute military strength. However, the Iraq and Afghan wars both work to undermine the credibility of American military might, even as China's military spending is on the rise. It's fascinating how these things are all interrelated.
Jefferson
Thursday, October 16, 2008 3:22 PM
As Much as I would like to blame George Bush, he can't help it, he was an idiot from birth. The real culprit here is the American electorate who re elected him for a second term.!!! They are the one's responsible ultimately for this and the abysmal destruction of the American image around the world. It may take 200 years to reverse the world's view of the U.S. . IF EVER!.
Now the real test of American I Q. will be if they elect another Republican govt. if they do, America is beyond help they obviously want the status Quo. The democrats should be able to field a Pit Bull and a Yorkshire Terrier and defeat Mc Cain. God help them if they go republican again.
carolt
Saturday, October 18, 2008 1:12 PM
Is it even possible that SEC, Paulsen and his other banker pals really had no idea what they were doing when they gave themselves carte blanche to manipulate the markets? These guys aren't dumb, they know how the stock market works better than anyone. And there's Warren Buffett congratulating Paulsen on his great bailout plan. Buffett will own half the US by the time this is all over so I guess he would be pleased with what Paulsen and his cronies got away with.
ThinkinOutLoud
Saturday, October 18, 2008 1:16 PM
Bailing out the banks is like giving Molotov cocktails to an arsonist. America's houses are burning down, and what's needed is a Intercontinental Common Sense Firehose in the form of real consequences: when regular people don't pay their bills, they lose their stuff. When rich people don't pay their bills, they want communism for billionaires. This is like the man who kills his parents and asks the court for leniency because he's an orphan. The difference is, the man has actuallly stashed his parents away on a private golf club overlooking the ocean. (Everyone loves an extended metaphor, right? Ha ha.)Will any banking execs be removed from their homes over this? Not likely. The gettin' was good, and now they're getting out. I find it stunning that they have money for greedy bankers, but teachers are still woefully underfunded. No wonder half the Republicans think Obama is an Arab. Like I saw on TV the other day, people are going to go back to saving responsibly like they did 50 years ago.
Niceguy
Saturday, November 01, 2008 9:20 PM
Not only were Mortgages a problem but the Default Credit Swaps were in fact much more dangerous. This is something which the average American is just now beginning to realize.
There are currently 10 comments
Comments Commentaries Commentaries by Category