The eurozone crisis is now at its worst point with Italy’s interest rates at unsustainable rates and quite possibly past the point of no return.
Berkeley economist Brad DeLong says radical measures are required to stave off a second Great Depression:
I have been complaining for some time now that Reinhart and Rogoff think that the time is always 1931 and that we are always Austria—that the great fiscal crisis is about to erupt and send us lurching down toward Great Depression II.
Well, right now guess what? The time is 1931, and we are Austria.
The Federal Reserve needs to buy up every single European bond owned by every single American financial institution for cash before the increase in eurorisk leads American finance to tighten credit again and send us down into the double dip.
Meantime, the Journal notes that Italian bonds would have likely gone much higher were it not for the European Central Bank’s huge bond-buying program.
— Edward Harrison of Credit Writedowns has more on 1931 from the book “The World In Depression,” and Harvard’s Dani Rodrik warns of the devastating potential consequences of a European collapse:
The nightmare scenario would also be a 1930’s-style victory for political extremism. Fascism, Nazism, and communism were children of a backlash against globalization that had been building since the end of the nineteenth century, feeding on the anxieties of groups that felt disenfranchised and threatened by expanding market forces and cosmopolitan elites…
As in the 1930’s, the failure of international cooperation has compounded centrist politicians’ inability to respond adequately to their domestic constituents’ economic, social, and cultural demands. The European project and the eurozone have set the terms of debate to such an extent that, with the eurozone in tatters, these elites’ legitimacy will receive an even more serious blow.
Europe’s centrist politicians have committed themselves to a strategy of “more Europe” that is too rapid to ease local anxieties, yet not rapid enough to create a real Europe-wide political community. They have stuck for far too long to an intermediate path that is unstable and beset by tensions. By holding on to a vision of Europe that has proven unviable, Europe’s centrist elites are endangering the idea of a unified Europe itself.
— In happier news (I kid!), Matt Taibbi has more on Mayor Bloomberg’s false claim that “it was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis”:
You remember that notorious Abacus deal that Goldman Sachs was involved with, the one in which a pair of European banks, the Dutch bank ABN-Amro and the German Bank IKB, lost a billion dollars buying a portfolio of designed-to-fail mortgage-backed instruments hand-picked by a short selling billionaire named John Paulson?
Well, that portfolio that Goldman and Paulson dumped on those two banks was not, in fact, a portfolio of real subprime home loans. It was a synthetic CDO - a giant package of bets on subprime home loans.
Mike Bloomberg wants you to believe the banks didn’t want anything to do with those unworthy borrowers. Yet in reality, the banks not only went to every conceivable length to take on the home loans of those subprime borrowers, they actually invented new technology to make clones of those Barney Frank debtors.
And there were thousands upon thousands of those synthetic deals, meaning each and every one of those deadbeat subprime borrowers have been Xeroxed by the banks fifty or a hundred times over, and are flying around the globe to this day as toxic assets.

So DeLong is arguing for ANOTHER bank bailout .... radical indeed..
#1 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 10 Nov 2011 at 10:54 AM
The banks didn't put a gun to anyone's head and force them take out mortgages they couldn't afford.
This it just the latest iteration of the standard commie "people are too stupid to read contracts" baloney.
Commies would have us believe that people are too stupid to be permitted to enter into contracts to buy houses, finance education or even buy used cars on their own... But that these same simpletons should have an increased voice in public policy...
It's just silly... But that's the commie line...
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 10 Nov 2011 at 01:02 PM
"The banks didn't put a gun to anyone's head and force them take out mortgages they couldn't afford."
And nobody put a gun to the bankers' heads and forced them to make loans that could never be collected on. In fact, it's an essential part of their job is to make sure that they don't make loans that can never be collected on.
But as soon as you made the capital for loans someone else's money, as soon as you made derivative products that turned loans into someone else's risk, there was easy money to be made making defective loan securities for investors that were sure default bets at AIG.
And, in people like padi's minds, this is the fault of the home owner. It doesn't matter how much whiteout the brokers were using on contracts or how many times signatures were put on documents different to the ones aggreed upon or how often income and asset details were inflated by the brokers or how many times signatures were forged or ...
In libertarian land, coersion only takes place at the point of a gun. Getting lied to and/or lied about? That's no sin of the market, the consumer/investor is the sinner for believing what they're told. The liar's are never responsible for the consequences of their lies, they even get to keep the proceeds and the winings they made on rigging your forelosures.
At least with the gun to my head, the only thing I lose is my wallet. At least with a gun to my head, I can expect the police to do something. It's people like Padi who have turned wall street into a dark dangerous alley where you can expect thugs in Armani suits to do you violence. Don't be surprised if within a decade, people start avoiding that street altogether.
#3 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 10 Nov 2011 at 02:32 PM
Thimbles wrote: And, in people like padi's minds, this is the fault of the home owner.
padikiller responds: No it isn't. It is the fault of BOTH parties to the contract. BOTH are culpable... The only difference between them is that lenders had their asses covered on the taxpayers' dime.
#4 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 10 Nov 2011 at 05:01 PM
"padikiller responds: No it isn't. It is the fault of BOTH parties to the contract. BOTH are culpable... The only difference between them is that lenders had their asses covered on the taxpayers' dime."
The lenders make the terms of the loan and are responsible for the underwriting.
Sure, borrowers are responsible for the choices they make, but it used to be that lenders had an interest in making sure the loans they made got repaid. This translated into a situation where the borrower could rely on a lender not to lend them a loan that couldn't be repaid.
Lenders changed that with MBS and swaps to the point where originators no longer cared whether people paid their loans back.
Underwriting standards got chucked, and not because of the borrowers.
When bad loans are made, bad lenders will make them.
#5 Posted by Zeevus, CJR on Thu 10 Nov 2011 at 05:37 PM
Zeevus wrote: When bad loans are made, bad lenders will make them.
padikiller responds: And dumbass borrowers make them too...
Reading English in a contract isn't rocket science.
#6 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Thu 10 Nov 2011 at 09:12 PM
"padikiller responds: No it isn't. It is the fault of BOTH parties to the contract. BOTH are culpable... The only difference between them is that lenders had their asses covered on the taxpayers' dime."
Then you have nothing to bitch about since the taibbi article plainly states:
"A lot of people had to make bad decisions for the crisis to happen. People had to buy houses they couldn't afford. Ratings agencies had to give AAA ratings to junk securities. Regulators had to be asleep at the wheel. The GSEs had to lower their standards and provide billions of dollars of government-backed financing for dicey home loans. Nobody is denying that all of those things played roles in the crisis.
But the main driving factor was the simple fact that banks were able to make trillions of dollars selling defective products. You take away that simple market-driven reality, there's no bubble and no crash, no matter what people like Michael Bloomberg say. No one is insisting that they take the whole rap -- but don't insult us by trying to say they shouldn't take any at all."
Therefore the only possible reasons why you are bitching are because:
A) you didn't read the article
B) you want to put emphasis on the "dumbass" (your words) borrowers and not the defrauding banks.
The problem with that is, as taibbi says:
"Anyway, there's is a massive gap between making a bad decision with one's personal finances and committing criminal fraud in billion-dollar amounts. Morally, the two acts are not even in the same universe.
Homeowners who took on those bad loans did so for a variety of reasons. Some were coaxed into adjustable-rate loans when they qualified for fixed-rate loans, for the simple reason that the ARM loan garnered a bigger commission for the seller. Others were told by their brokers that if interest rates went up, or they couldn't make their payments, they could just sell their homes, or come back to the same broker for a refinance.
Some were flat-out defrauded, like the prison guard in Massachusetts I interviewed who was told he was buying a fixed-rate loan, and only found out (from Goldman subsidiary Litton) that he'd been sold an ARM when rates went up -- right around the time his wife developed cancer, incidentally.
And, yes, there were others who were just dumb and irresponsible, and still others who never even intended to live in their homes and simply bought properties with no cash down as a speculative gamble.
But from what I've seen, most foreclosures involve ordinary people with jobs who bought houses when the economy was good, but are caught now in the triple death-trap of an underwater home, rising costs of living, and declining wages and opportunity. And as far as personal responsibility goes, those people who bought that home-ownership ticket, if they missed payments, they're all taking the foreclosure ride right now.
What we have on the other hand, however, is a bunch of financial companies who consciously created huge volumes of bad loans, dumped them on retirees and foreigners and union stiffs, then doubled down on the problem by creating mountains of new liabilities based on those bad loans via synthetic derivatives. Then, when it all blew up, they came to us and asked us to buy the whole pile at full retail prices, clones and all."
Next time, read the article before going to bat for your banker buddies, Kay?
#7 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Thu 10 Nov 2011 at 09:56 PM
@Thimbles:
Nice!
#8 Posted by Zee is, CJR on Fri 11 Nov 2011 at 11:29 AM