What Caused the Financial Crisis?

 

HuffPo’s Shahien Nasiripour has a great story today on the turmoil that’s engulfing the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), the bipartisan panel charged with investigating the causes of the financial crisis. Nasiripour reports that the GOP members of the commission are planning to issue their own report blaming the government for causing the collapse. But that’s not the scariest part. This is:

During a private commission meeting last week, all four Republicans voted in favor of banning the phrases “Wall Street” and “shadow banking” and the words “interconnection” and “deregulation” from the panel’s final report, according to a person familiar with the matter and confirmed by Brooksley E. Born, one of the six commissioners who voted against the proposal.

As I noted on Twitter, this little item is so absurd that it seems like it can’t be true.

It seems pretty clear that the government did play a role in exacerbating the crisis. Liberals and conservatives alike can find many things to criticize in the government’s response to the collapse of Bear Sterns and Lehman and the backdoor Goldman Sachs bailout that was the AIG rescue. But according to Nasiripour, the GOP members of the commission aren’t focused on the bank bailouts. Instead, they’re embracing the idea that the crisis was caused by the sinister combination of (1) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government-backed mortgage lenders and (2) a 1970s-era law encouraging lending to blacks and Hispanics. In this story, Wall Street, shadow banking, and deregulation had nothing to do with the meltdown. Republicans have been pushing this fairy tale for years.

According to the version of the story the GOP side of the FCIC seems poised to embrace, Fannie and Freddie’s moves to buy up huge numbers of subprime mortgages caused the market for subprime and derivative products to explode. As my colleague Andy Kroll has explained, the myth of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac causing the financial crisis is just that: a myth. Sure, Fannie and Freddie stupidly bought a lot of subprime loans towards the end of the mortgage boom. But they weren’t leading the charge—they were trying to keep up with their Wall Street competitors. Edmund Andrews explains the problem simply: Fannie and Freddie “weren’t pushing their private sector rivals to roll the dice. They were late to the craps table and desperately trying to make up for lost time.”

The Community Reinvestment Act, a law passed in the 1970s to encourage lending to minorities, is the second piece of the puzzle for the Republicans on the panel. If you’ve been paying attention since the crash, you’ve heard this story before: the poor Wall Street banks couldn’t help but make risky loans to underqualified borrowers because the government was making them do it! Of course, in 2006, just SIX PERCENT of sub-prime-type loans were issued by institutions subject to the CRA. But nevermind that. The GOP insists that letting minorities borrow money caused the economy to collapse, and they’re not going to let pesky things like facts get in the way. 

Look: there’s room in the FCIC inquiry to criticize government and its response to the crisis. There’s room to criticize how banks were regulated and how they were bailed out. There’s room to criticize decisions taken during both Democratic and Republican administrations. After all, neither party displayed much backbone over the past few decades when it comes to financial regulation and economic management. The FCIC report could help people really understand what happened: how both parties played a role in the disaster; how government, private business, rich bankers, and ordinary people were all at least partially at fault; and, most importantly, how we can try to prevent similar debacles from plunging the country into economic peril. In that context, seeing supposedly super-serious, top-level Republicans like Douglas Holtz-Eakin (a former CBO head!) and Keith Hennessey (who ran the National Economic Council!) embracing the worst kind of fact-free nonsense about the financial crisis is a profound disappointment. 

 

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate