- Joined
- Jul 30, 2011
- Messages
- 7,017
- Reaction score
- 2,980
- Location
- The greatest planet in the world.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I agree, many other politically popular entities, like those using union labor (auto industry and state/local gov'ts), got included in the spending binges known as TARP and the "stimulus" packages, but the initial justification for this economic madness was mostly the mess caused DIRECTLY BY the "housing bubble" popping and the economic instability created by "sub-prime" mortgages; without that factor much of the rest would never have happened, as it was neither the emphasis of nor the largest part of the bail-out/stimulus craze.
I additionally have to point out that I was a design engineer in the computer industry. I had enough income etc., as you point out, to participate in the housing bubble. Many of my peers did.
I guess I should add that I'm participating in the housing bubble, sold one near the top, bought three near the bottom. Freedom.
Partisan blame - when it's true - doesn't bother me in the least.Interesting theory, and one that should be quite easy to "prove". Which members of congress voted for these changes, how much did they get in campaign cash (or other favors) from the banking industry and why do their district/state voters not care about these "corrupt" voting patterns? Perhaps they may include the likes of Barney Frank or other solid blue dudes that have no fear of being denied re-election? That would be "shocking" would it not? That it was the very liberals that cried the loudest about those "greedy bankers" that were the very folks that allowed these "compassionate" and "less discriminatory" lending laws to be "abused" by those mean old greedy bankers. ;-)
I think it is the height of naivety to say special interests don't write laws, Medicare part B comes to mind. Insurance companies keeping their anti-trust exemptions, and a slow drip drip drip of undercutting the banking firewalls.
FYI by the time the crash hit most of those in Congress responsible for the unspooling had retired to big fat payday jobs as guess what, consultants/lobbyists/fund managers. A bit too late to vote the bums out of office.
And those who write the laws do get turned out, to become one of the consultant/lobbyist/ fund managers mentioned above. Once more it is naive to think government and big business have a very incestuous relationship. (remember the 'conservative' stink over Obama using lobbyists/consultants in his administration?) While it is possible to find a needle in a haystack as well as a good fed chairman, treasury sec, chief of staff who never worked for a major corporation/financial institution/stock brokerage house/shadow banking firm/ you get the idea....
I don't think it is a zero sum game that it is all government or all special interest capitalism... nor greedy consumers and poor loan applicants.
It is very telling some think it is...
Links?Quite a clever cop-out, to assert that they (in congress) all do it, when the discussion surrounded WHO, by name, supported the "sub-prime" mortgage lending laws that led DIRECTLY to the housing bubble and need for the bail-outs. Barney Frank led the charge and MOSTLY liberals wanted these housing lending law changes in the name of "fariness" and "helping minorities" get more into the home ownership market. After the mess that it created (the housing bubble) finally collapsed, the cry was that "greedy bankers" caused it, not that well meaning liberal politicians, who simply failed to see (or intentionally ignored) that lending money to those very likely unable to repay it was at the root of the problem. The next, very similar case, is with gov't backed student loans; I predict that bubble will soon burst as well.
Partisan blame - when it's true - doesn't bother me in the least.
The Republican Congress wanted to let the banks merge and Clinton signed the bill. That doesn't change the facts of the situation now, does it?!? The banks pushed for that change or Congress wouldn't have given a rats ass. It was a mistake that needs correcting as quickly as possible.
I don't know what the other crap you posted is about. The Pres pulls the strings at Freddie/Fannie as much as anyone. He also pulls the strings at the SEC.
Once more it is naive to think government and big business have a very incestuous relationship. (remember the 'conservative' stink over Obama using lobbyists/consultants in his administration?) While it is possible to find a needle in a haystack as well as a good fed chairman, treasury sec, chief of staff who never worked for a major corporation/financial institution/stock brokerage house/shadow banking firm/ you get the idea....
I'm sorry, what are those links again - I seem to have missed your first posting.WOW. So now we change the subject to an entirely different banking law change (conveniently involving the GOP congress), rather than stick to the point at hand, adding the "sub-prime" mortgage lending laws, which was done by a demorat congress.
I have pointed out that a large portion of the loans didn't need the change in regulations to allow them. The short sale house we hope to sign on today had a 1st and 2nd mortgage. We are pretty certain that the second was used to buy a 'new' car. It was granted not because it was legalized or required by law, but rather because the 'bank' thought the value of the house was going up over the term of the loan. I'm sure there were rewards, e.g. bonuses at the bank for getting the loans. This is positive feedback on a time base that is not long enough for actual control. No regulation change was needed to allow the 2nd mortgage. I suspect that no regulation change was needed for the first. It was the second that pushed the seller over the edge.We had just such regulation PRIOR TO the legalization of "sub-prime" mortages. This "private" industry is regulated as much, if not more, than any other, and with good reason. You can not have it both ways here, either the regualtions were changed for the worse (as I assert) or the banks broke the law (as you seem to assert). I wonder who is rght?
Quite a clever cop-out, to assert that they (in congress) all do it, when the discussion surrounded WHO, by name, supported the "sub-prime" mortgage lending laws that led DIRECTLY to the housing bubble and need for the bail-outs. Barney Frank led the charge and MOSTLY liberals wanted these housing lending law changes in the name of "fariness" and "helping minorities" get more into the home ownership market
Links?
Or is this just copy/paste from a right-wing website?
Then you simply made a bad bet, nobody to blame for it but, yourself. If a deal sounds too good to be true, then it usually is. Many buy bad "investments" but that is simply salesmanship. 15% of the folks will not ever buy anything new, 15% of the folks will buy darn near anything and the rest (70%) is simply salesmanship. ;-)
There is a significant federal regulatory system already in place for banks and investment houses. Has been since the beginning of our nation. Every time the government builds a mouse trap, the mouse gets smarter and figures his way out, leading the government to design and build an improved mouse trap, rinse, repeat.
A series of politicians wanted to make it easier for Americans to own their own homes. Surprise, they went overboard and opened the flood gates a little too far. The housing bubble was as a result of some (good intentioned? greedy?) politicians who mis-designed the regulatory environment to allow more homes for the people. At the very least, they all should have been fired on the spot and replaced, as it is, we're trying to fix the problem with the same crop of fools who created the problem.
Everything I see in there is how I remember it - nothing new for me. I have no clue what kind of "sub-prime legislation" you are talking about and I've read quite a bit of stuff surrounding this issue. It would take a full-time job to read it all, so I'm no "expert", but I've never read anything about these "sub-prime mortgage lending laws" you've been yakking about ---- so cough up with the links because Wiki isn't backing up your claim. In fact ...Wikipedia "sub-prime mortgage crisis" is the most comprehensive and least politically biased link that I can offer (for now). ;-)
Although a number of politicians, pundits, and financial industry-funded think tanks have claimed that government policies designed to promote affordable housing were an important cause of the financial crisis, detailed analyses of mortgage data by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Federal Reserve Economists, and independent academic researchers suggest that this claim is probably not correct. Community Reinvestment Act loans outperformed other "subprime" mortgages, and GSE mortgages performed better than private label securitizations.
The bailouts were not a necessity, we could have suffered through it much more without the bailouts. The reward systems in business operate much faster than the screw-ups become apparent. We can operate in a 'natural' unregulated environment that oscillates significantly, or we can try to regulate to reduce the magnitude of of the oscillations. Note that with the unnatural introduction of computers and the internet we have a system that has a feedback loop time that beats the physical world. Building is faster but slower than what computers are allowing. New regulation is very slow.I can agree with that. My whole thing is, if the government doesn't entangle itself where it shouldn't be in the first place, **** like these bailouts wouldn't become a necessity.
That system had been in place and working just fine for 30 years under three different presidents before GB and his "let the banks govern themselves" policy came on the scene. Let business run itself and it's like a stampede - this time right over a cliff.There is a significant federal regulatory system already in place for banks and investment houses. Has been since the beginning of our nation. Every time the government builds a mouse trap, the mouse gets smarter and figures his way out, leading the government to design and build an improved mouse trap, rinse, repeat.
A series of politicians wanted to make it easier for Americans to own their own homes. Surprise, they went overboard and opened the flood gates a little too far. The housing bubble was as a result of some (good intentioned? greedy?) politicians who mis-designed the regulatory environment to allow more homes for the people. At the very least, they all should have been fired on the spot and replaced, as it is, we're trying to fix the problem with the same crop of fools who created the problem.
Everything I see in there is how I remember it - nothing new for me. I have no clue what kind of "sub-prime legislation" you are talking about and I've read quite a bit of stuff surrounding this issue. It would take a full-time job to read it all, so I'm no "expert", but I've never read anything about these "sub-prime mortgage lending laws" you've been yakking about ---- so cough up with the links because Wiki isn't backing up your claim. In fact ...
The bailouts were not a necessity, we could have suffered through it much more without the bailouts. The reward systems in business operate much faster than the screw-ups become apparent. We can operate in a 'natural' unregulated environment that oscillates significantly, or we can try to regulate to reduce the magnitude of of the oscillations. Note that with the unnatural introduction of computers and the internet we have a system that has a feedback loop time that beats the physical world. Building is faster but slower than what computers are allowing. New regulation is very slow.
If you don't trust government financial data - and I mean BLS, IRS, etc type data - then you're completely gone as far as talking about ANYTHING financial in this country. Everyone trusts the government numbers because in most cases the government is the only entity that collects that kind of data.Surprise of all surprises, the gov't claims that the gov't is not at fault, and can prove it using gov't data. LOL.
[x] They should be allowed to fail.
Everything I see in there is how I remember it - nothing new for me. I have no clue what kind of "sub-prime legislation" you are talking about and I've read quite a bit of stuff surrounding this issue. It would take a full-time job to read it all, so I'm no "expert", but I've never read anything about these "sub-prime mortgage lending laws" you've been yakking about ---- so cough up with the links because Wiki isn't backing up your claim. In fact ...
Everything I see in there is how I remember it - nothing new for me. I have no clue what kind of "sub-prime legislation" you are talking about and I've read quite a bit of stuff surrounding this issue. It would take a full-time job to read it all, so I'm no "expert", but I've never read anything about these "sub-prime mortgage lending laws" you've been yakking about ---- so cough up with the links because Wiki isn't backing up your claim. In fact ...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?