The New York Times posted a Paul Krugman article “Sanders Over the Edge” criticizing Bernie Sanders that is obviously politically (and Wall Street) driven propaganda. What Krugman and the majority of politicians fail to realize is that the Wall Street banks created a new “non-traditional’ mortgage “securitization” that has directly affected over 180 MILLION Americans and indirectly affected 180 million more folks across the United States of America.
With that said the biggest failure that Krugman and his pals overlook is that American homeowners are wising up and researching exactly what has happened to their properties and precisely who was behind the scheme.
Let’s first clarify the fact that as Judge Peck of the bankruptcy court in the Southern District of New York observed, mortgage-backed securities are “unique creatures of Wall Street . . . and it is the rare ordinary human being who understands them.”
Krugman, like most politicians, is not among the “rare ordinary human(s)” that have researched, investigated, pulled court records and depositions and read USPTO patents and trademarks enough to recognize how far and in what directions the corruption stems.
The new securitization scheme began with deregulation back in the 1980s (thanks to President Reagan) and escalated in the 1990s with more deregulation and repeal of Glass-Steagall (thanks to President Bill Clinton) in order to accomplish the mission of the procurement of collateral for the purpose of securitization. It is doubtful that Presidents Reagan or Clinton were among the “rare ordinary humans” either.
Most homeowners know that they were scammed and that the current administration helped the banks by “foaming the runway” with a half-assed HAMP program. Million of Americans lost their homes, lost their entire savings and retirement pensions and lost loved ones from stress and fear.
Mr. Krugman states, as he berates Bernie Sanders:
“The easy slogan here is “Break up the big banks.” It’s obvious why this slogan is appealing from a political point of view: Wall Street supplies an excellent cast of villains. But were big banks really at the heart of the financial crisis, and would breaking them up protect us from future crises?
Many analysts concluded years ago that the answers to both questions were no. Predatory lending was largely carried out by smaller, non-Wall Street institutions like Countrywide Financial; the crisis itself was centered not on big banks but on “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers that weren’t necessarily that big. And the financial reform that President Obama signed in 2010 made a real effort to address these problems. It could and should be made stronger, but pounding the table about big banks misses the point.”
Mr. Krugman, you obviously have no clue who the players are at the top of the monkey bars. The investment banks, as well as Fannie and Freddie, have been hall of framers in the design and computer software programs that run the securitization scam. The smaller pretender lenders used software platforms that had to incorporate and license the big bank patents in their own proprietary software programs. For many years, until about 2008, pretender lenders would issue their proprietary software programs to brokers and loan officers who would upload directly to the pretender lenders which ultimately uploaded to the investment banks.
The investment banks had designed software to detect fraud, yet failed to utilize that portion of the program. It may have made the software patent-able but it appears it was never intended to be used in order that the bulk of homeowners could be captured in the new scheme. And Mr. Krugman, just who do you think created these egregious ARM financial products that were sold to American homeowners with refinancing promises that were never intended to be honored??
Trillions of dollars were sucked out of state, federal and union pension funds, corporate 401ks and other retirement accounts that filled the investment banks’ coffers. If Krugman had read The Big Short or BAILOUT and researched the software patents he’d probably better understand the corruption and the scheme… and certainly the intention.
The smaller pretender lenders reported to the investment banks. Their credit lines were provided by Wall Street banks and funded even before the borrower signed. New Century Mortgage (now bankrupt), for example, had pre-existing agreements with Lehman Brothers, as well as Sutton Funding LLC – a U.S. shell corporation for Barclays Bank (among a host of other big banks) to procure homeowner collateral for the purpose of securitization. There was no disclosure to homeowners who unwittingly entered into off-handed securities transaction.
Mr. Krugman’s brown-nosing take on the current administration’s effort, when he states: “And the financial reform that President Obama signed in 2010 made a real effort to address these problems” is truly propaganda. Read BAILOUT and BULL BY THE HORNS from real people who worked under this Obama administration and it is obvious that the only effort that exerted was protectionism for the TBTF big banks.
Dear Mr. Krugman – Big Banks have annihilated this country. They have used homeowner collateral as their new gold standard. Look at the rehypothecation of assets and the OVER $700 TRILLION of derivative debt these scumbags have accumulated.
Lehman Brothers was just the tip of the iceberg. What makes you even remotely think that anything has ever changed?! The patented software programs are still rolling along as investment banks (aka “Big Banks”) pay a pittance in fines and settlements for their wrong doing. They have not changed their ways and won’t without some protection in place like reinstating Glass-Steagall – and your pet politician, Hillary Clinton (Ms. Goldman Sachs), is not about to push for that reform because her husband and his pals were the ones sent in to open the flood gates.
The bottom-line is that Homeowners that have been fighting back are more aware of the scheme and corruption that neither Krugman or any of his political compadres want to recognize. The American people pack the stadiums for Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump because they want a revolution to eliminate the corrupt status quo “fat cat” political regimes.
It all over one way or another. The TBTF big banks will either get reorganized, nationalized or bankrupted in order to correct the corruption – and yes, its going to hurt America for a while. But we can’t go on starting wars and killing leaders because they lost their investments on Wall Street and want to behead Lloyd Blankfein and his minions due to a corrupt unregulated industry or because the elite wants to profit from destruction.
Bernie Sanders is talking about the problems – addressing them loud and clear. Donald Trump is pointing fingers and taking names and one thing for sure Trump is going to flat out tell it like it is and just who is buying Congress so that nothing worthwhile gets done.
So, when you see Paul Krugman on the street – just tell him “I know”. Maybe if he hears that enough times he’ll realize Americans are not as naive as he’d like to believe.
Deadly Clear 
Krugman is certainly showing his true colors. He is certainly positioning himself for a job in the next Administration and it is certainly not a Sanders Administration.
Paul Krugman’s fundmental problem is that he’s a proponent of the Englishman John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) school of thought. “Keynesian economics” has never worked & it never will. It accepts “boom & bust cycles” as unavoidable, but postulates that govenment can control them. Ooops — wrong answer.
“In 1999, Time magazine included Keynes in their list of the 100 most important and influential people of the 20th century, commenting that: “His radical idea that governments should spend money they don’t have may have saved capitalism.” (Wikipedia, Robert Reich (29 March 1999). “The Time 100: John Maynard Keynes”. Time magazine).
In order to spend $$$ you don’t have & keep getting away with it you have to be able to create it out of thin air & as I’ve said before, the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 gave both the Fed & banks the ability to do that “legally”. Ronald Reagan was 2 years old back then. He would have been 22 when F.D.R. declared “the Bank Holdiay of 1933” (look it up) & took the U.S. off the gold standard.
You can point fingers @ Reagan (who earned a degree in Econ. & actually did understand economics), if you want, Nixon (for taking the U.S. off the gold standard in international trade) & others, but the fundamental problem started in 1913, and made much worse in 1933. And if you want to choose a Republican / Democrat side of the fence (I’m an Indpendent), Democrats have done far more damage.
Opposing “Keynesian economics” is the “Austrian school” of Economics, accredited to Ludwig von Mises (1881–1973). “He is best known for his work on praxeology, a study of human choice and action.” (Wikipedia). There’s a Mises Institute in Auburn, Al, which advances “the Misesian tradition of thought through the defense of the market economy, private property, sound money, and peaceful international relations, while opposing government intervention.”
The (open) market is like water — it will always find it’s own level — wages, prices, et al. Where both Krugman & Sanders fail is in believing government can control that — no it can’t. Slow the process down, yes, stop it, no.
However, as much as I hate gov’t. regulation, it certainly is necessary for financial institutions & I believe that ‘derivatives’ should be outlawed. And that Gov’t. needs to stay OUT of the the banking / finance business — put limits on it, but not be in it. Which entities were the major force behind the creation of “MERS” & the rest of the “mortgage-backed security” scam? Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac — Gov’t.-sponsored corporations that should not even exist. And if we followed the Constitution they wouldn’t.
Don’t focus on the symptoms of the problem, focus on the cause. Paul Krugman doesn’t know what it is, but neither does Bernie Sanders.
@ArtNJr,
Your analysis fails in what appears your notion the “600 Trillion” are some twisted “Keynesian”, “Deficits don’t matter”, or equally bogus, “unfunded liabilities”. They are neither, while they are, in fact, money owed to criminal behaviors (Notional Derivatives) as inter-bank debts. First, it was sub-prime, then it became phony insurance swaps. To suggest these dollars are owed to some government scam, a la, F&F, is to conceal the point altogether: the GSEs were a privately-owned and operated business prior to 2008. The same bankers that have rendered our currency insolvent, are those that stand to gain the most through that insolvency: “obfuscation of a multitude of criminal behaviors”. Krugman is an “establishment” thug, no less than Trump is an intentional, phony foil to Hillary Clinton. Senator Sanders has excoriated the banks since Jesus first saved and Moses invested. He is right to demand accountability, investigations, prosecutions and reform. Google: “HSBC Bank”, “Bank of America”, “Wells Fargo” and combine those with, “Terrorist and drug Cartel money”. You got it partially correct- Wall Street is cast as stone in criminals. You err however, when you attempt to paint government as villain. It is the banks and their phony politicians: the Bush Family (LTCM, S&Ls, Neil Bush; war crimes, Prescott, little George) and the Clintons (as but one example: as an acting secty of state, Clinton thwarted a criminal investigation into 52,000 individual tax cheats) that have been elected to ransom and destroy “Capitalism” while the Tea Party Cuckoo is now fashioned as “Corporatist Nestling”. Trump is not an answer anyone beside the “Imbecile-from-Wasilla-Ville” could ever long sustain.
Art – I don’t see Trump as a Clinton ally. He has said in numerous press conferences that Hillary’s investigation may disable her from completing her candidacy. The Bernie campaign is running too tight and Trump dropping the “f” bomb innuendo is enough to drive fence sitters over the edge. And Trump hasn’t stayed away from from critizing Hillary. It isn’t helping her.
I wish some journalist would have the courage to ask Trump how he would handle Wall Street. Notice that the issue is never raised in any interview. The media asks him stupid questions and wastes precious opportunities. His answers will either end him or put him on top of the cake.
If it’s Trump and Bernie – he’ll have to deal with the TBTF issues.
I think Trump & the Clintons have only been “allies” @ certain times when it suited some business deal beneficial to them @ the time — nothing more. And without being asked directly what Trump would do with the gawd-awful Wall Street mess, I think he’s already made himself pretty clear — he doesn’t want or need financial support from the likes of Goldman Sachs, hates the BS that goes on daily & thinks the CEO’s, CFO’s et al. get paid WAY too much. I haven’t read “The Art of the Deal”, but I’d bet when he’s making some major deal with bankers he’s telling them what the deal is going to be, not the other way around. And of course when the big banks tell Hillary to jump she’ll ask how high on the way up 😉 You’ll NEVER see Trump pander to ’em like she does.
It remains to be seen if the new people that just came into the Trump campaign can get it back on track & get him to not only focus on issues, get that temper under control. Tapping into the long-standing undercurrents of anger in this country has been a good thing — Hillary won’t even admit they exist — but a lesson to be learned from professional boxing is that when you get your opponent to operate only on emotion, you win — even if he is physically a much better fighter. If he’d stay concentrated on the task @ hand & use his skills he’d beat you, but — just get him really mad & you’ve got him.
And regarding the previous reply to my comments, I always have been @ always will go by the mantra expressed by Reagan — Gov’t. IS the problem. As much as I hate Gov’t. regulation, obviously it is necessary regarding things like the conduct of financial instutions & if Gov’t. had ever gotten it right in the last 150 years, there would be no such thing as a “too big to fail” bank, insurance co., etc. But Gov’ts. function is not to tell a businesses (of any type) how to do things, just limit how far they can go. People in any given business will ALWAYS know a great deal more about that business than anyone in Gov’t. does, but when business does things like create “deriviatives”, Gov’t. (especially CONgress) needs to step up & say no, we’re let you get away with that anymore.
On a final note, I used to drag race @ NHRA sanctioned events & the Founders intended the Constitution to be applied the same way the NHRA rule book is — if it doesn’t say you CAN do it then you CAN’T do it. If you can read on the level the Constitution was written on (Grade Level 24), that ideal is quite clear. But since politicians, lawyers & the vast majority of judges can’t read on that level they take the opposite approach — if it doesn’t say we can’t do it then we can. And that’s why we get horrible decisions like Citizens United.