Pages:
1
2
3
4 |
Cypress
Elite Nomad
    
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
J.P., Not a democrat? You're one of those "independent/libertarian" voters? And
I'm most certain who you voted for during the last presidential election.
|
|
J.P.
Super Nomad
  
Posts: 1673
Registered: 7-8-2010
Location: Punta Banda
Member Is Offline
Mood: Easy Does It
|
|
Quote: | Originally posted by Cypress
J.P., Not a democrat? You're one of those "independent/libertarian" voters? And
I'm most certain who you voted for during the last presidential election. |
I didn't vote tor that Tratior Mc Cain
    
|
|
Pescador
Ultra Nomad
   
Posts: 3587
Registered: 10-17-2002
Location: Baja California Sur
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: | Originally posted by Cypress
J.P., Not a democrat? You're one of those "independent/libertarian" voters? And
I'm most certain who you voted for during the last presidential election. |
I suspect that we need to do an independent study, I am sure a lot of these folks never had the chance to "Breast Feed" and were relegated to "Formula
Babies" with "Pampers".
|
|
DavidE
Ultra Nomad
   
Posts: 3814
Registered: 12-1-2003
Location: Baja California México
Member Is Offline
Mood: 'At home we demand facts and get them. In Mexico one subsists on rumor and never demands anything.' Charles Flandrau,
|
|
Yo? I am a steeking anarchisto! Plata o Plomo! Andele!
A Lot To See And A Lot To Do
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
  
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: | Originally posted by Pescador
Well, Mitchman, this topic has gotten completely away from the original post which was about Mexico and how well they are doing financially. The
system in the United States was functioning quite well when it was pretty clearly understood that not everyone would qualify for purchasing a home and
that the banks had a system in place that worked pretty well which was basically that you had sufficient income and at least 20% down payment. It was
when the progressives started to play with that system and wanted to make "housing available for everyone" that things began to go downhill. You can
do lots of manipulation of ideas and thought but that is still the basic root of where the problem began.
My original point was that Mexico is in a position of strength financially due to the fact that did not get caught up in the lending frenzy of the
subprime market and therefore stayed in a position of strength with way less toxic assets. |
Remember that you initiated the change in the thread’s focus away from Mexico’s economy by expressing your incorrect insinuation that, by contrast,
the US’s melt down was caused by our government’s “thinking that everyone deserved a house and changed lending strategies to reflect the socialistic
thinking that sent our market crashing down. You doubled down with your incorrect implication that Fannie and Freddie played the causal role in the
sub prime debacle. Two major, major right wing promulgated fallacies …that I refuted with verifiable fact….not counter opinions, like you employ.
BTW, 10%, 5% and 0% down residential mortgage loans have been available since the mid 80s. It is clear, Pescador, you simply do not know what you are
talking about. Also, what government did was to prevent REDLINING. I have already informed you of that.
And again, since you can’t get this through your head, it was private commercial banking that acted on their own to 1)ignore and violate underwriting
guidelines, 2) deliberately ignore income requirements, 3)invented sub prime loans 3)engage in predatory lending. It was private Wall Street
investment banks, ON THEIR OWN, that wantonly engaged in risky investments, the offshore shadow banking system, the fatal use of derivatives, inside
dealing, and hedge gambling on MBS and on sub primes and even on derivatives on derivatives (a Goldman Sachs invention). NOT the government! NOT the
Progressive Agenda!
What is the matter with you, Pescador? How can you ignore these truths. For God’s sake, man, this stuff is common knowledge. You do know that AIG
blew up because of its use of derivatives on derivatives that required that initial bailout of $85 Billion, don’t you? Right? Your assertions make
no sense in view of common knowledge facts. You need to read more.
It’s one thing to have differing opinions on subjective issues, but to be mistaken on the facts and thereby draw unsupported false conclusions on
objective issues is quite another. Blaming progressives for the lending debacle is just plain false quantitatively and qualitatively. You do not
know what you are talking about. In fact, I suspect you suffer from massive ignorance on the matter.
One of the big differences between your statements and my statements is that you state your conclusions and opinions as if they were the objective
factual conclusions of these macroeconomic objective issues. What I have done is to declare your incorrectness and support my declaration by
submitting pertinent verifiable facts that disprove your erroneous statements….each one of your statements. I cite your statements and disprove them
with relevant and pertinent verifiable detail and evidence. You have not refuted nor disproved any of my statements, you have not challenged any of
my facts, nor have you proven and supported any of your own statements with verifiable detail…never. Huge difference, Pescador.
What I find very amusing is that every time you right wingers are soundly trounced and proven wrong, as happens here time and time again, and because
you do not refute the facts that repudiated your false and inaccurate assertions, you all engage what I will call (from now on) the ultimate
Barry-ism. You guys simply state, “Must be a difference of opinion”…and that’s your usual final response when you fail to back up
what you say. Happens almost everytime.
Cypress, generally and most frequently, when two individuals look at the same adequate and sufficient list of pertinent facts and they come to
opposite conclusions, one individual is usually wrong. In the instant case in this thread, when you look at the wrong-headed assertions made by
Pescador, and counterbalancing on point verifiable facts that I posited to discredit everything he said and the fact that he did not refute or
disprove any of the facts I mentioned, how can anyone persist in continuing to believe the unproven and that which has been discredited? Where is the
repudiation of any of my facts, where are the support/detail/proof of his assertions? Pescador has only compounded his folly with more inaccuracies,
every time.
The reason I am spending the time on this is not because of the economic issue, per se, (it’s an old one and much has already been written about it),
but because it exemplifies and serves as a classic case of faulty right wing reasoning and the usual tactics employed by the right wing Nomads in this
forum. It’s classic, and it keeps interfering with truth itself.
[Edited on 5-31-2012 by MitchMan]
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
    
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
Mitchman. Trounce on this. In 1996 HUD directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to issue 42% of their mortages to borrowers with household incomes below
the median for their area. This was increased to 50% in 2000 and upped to 52% in 2005. The HUD directives opened the floogates. Not right wing, not
leftwing, just facts.
|
|
DianaT
Select Nomad
     
Posts: 10020
Registered: 12-17-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: | Originally posted by MitchMan
BTW, 10%, 5% and 0% down residential mortgage loans have been available since the mid 80s. It is clear, Pescador, you simply do not know what you are
talking about. Also, what government did was to prevent REDLINING. I have already informed you of that.
|
The no income verification loans were also around then. They required 25% down and no documentation. They really were very good loans especially for
self-employed people whose Income Tax statements often did not reflect reality as they had so many deductions including things like depreciation.
With 25% down they were quite safe loans as no one, including me, wanted to walk away from that 25%. And these loans were usually warehoused by the
original lender. One of the first companies to offer these was Great Western Savings and Loan.
Then came the derivities (sp) scam where the lending agents could break up the loans into little pieces and sell the bits and pieces----thus, the
lender had no liability so they changed the rules to even lending 105% of the value with no income documentation.
The attempt to end redlining did not cause the disaster. MitchMan, you present it all quite well. Thank You!
|
|
Bajaboy
Ultra Nomad
   
Posts: 4375
Registered: 10-9-2003
Location: Bahia Asuncion, BCS, Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: | Originally posted by Cypress
Mitchman. Trounce on this. In 1996 HUD directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to issue 42% of their mortages to borrowers with household incomes below
the median for their area. This was increased to 50% in 2000 and upped to 52% in 2005. The HUD directives opened the floogates. Not right wing, not
leftwing, just facts. |
I find this all bs....everyone was partying like the money machine would never end....from local politicians to Realtors to lenders to....you name it.
I find it folly now that people think only one entity is to blame.
I do realize though that the Bush tax cuts were even less effective than advertised as his economy was primarily based on the bubble and nothing else.
It's time to mop up and move on. Plenty of blame to go around including most of us here who benefited in one way or another and then likely got
P-nched, too.
|
|
DavidE
Ultra Nomad
   
Posts: 3814
Registered: 12-1-2003
Location: Baja California México
Member Is Offline
Mood: 'At home we demand facts and get them. In Mexico one subsists on rumor and never demands anything.' Charles Flandrau,
|
|
My parents purchased a home in 1949 with a down payment of ONE DOLLAR. But back then I believe the lenders did not have hallucinations of becoming
quadrillionaires in the process.
Some acquaintances think renting of their homes allows them to increase rent out of hand higher than inflation, taxes, improvements, etc. A lot of
people do this. "Charge What The Market Will Bear". Welcome to five dollar loaves of bread, Fast food burgers for nine dollars, ten dollar a gallon
gasoline, twenty dollar a pound round steak, and tomatoes at five dollars a pound. Now, all one has to do is sit down and figure out how to pay those
prices. You can charge twelve thousand a month for rental of a dump, and a Ford Taurus could inflate to eighty thousand dollars. Who gains and who
loses? This is a disease and I know of no cure, except for an all-out depression. What a tragedy.
A Lot To See And A Lot To Do
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
    
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
Bajaboy, Facts are BS? Time to move on? It's always time to move on when the facts don't fit the liberal agenda.
|
|
Bajaboy
Ultra Nomad
   
Posts: 4375
Registered: 10-9-2003
Location: Bahia Asuncion, BCS, Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: | Originally posted by Cypress
Bajaboy, Facts are BS? Time to move on? It's always time to move on when the facts don't fit the liberal agenda. |
Post some facts with some sources and I'd be happy to read up. I don't follow anyone's agenda unless I'm at a meeting. I normally prefer to think
for myself...you might try doing the same
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
    
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
I posted some facts. Wikipedia isn't a good enough source? You can think what ever you want, but I would suggest doing a little research. Facts? Yea,
they can be a problem. You'll probably continue to ignore them.
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
  
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Cypress, Trounce on This
Quote: | Originally posted by Cypress
Mitchman. Trounce on this. In 1996 HUD directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to issue 42% of their mortages to borrowers with household incomes below
the median for their area. This was increased to 50% in 2000 and upped to 52% in 2005. The HUD directives opened the floogates. Not right wing, not
leftwing, just facts. |
Cypress, I appreciate your supplying some verifiable substance. Great improvement over Pescador. But, you are wrong about the HUD directives opening
the flood gates. I can see, if you only have the info you cited, how you might wrongfully leap to that conclusion.
Now, you trounce on this.
The flood gates were actually started in 2003-2004 (the acknowledged start of the sub prime crisis itself), when the market shifted
away from selling their loans to Fannie and Freddie and radically toward MBS’s issued by unregulated private-companies operated by investment
banks and the shadow banking system. The GSE’s (e.g., Fannie and Freddie or “F&F”) were required to use tougher/tighter underwriting standards
for all their loans, monitor and control the private originators and their loan product from whom F&F bought their loans including their types of
sub primes, not so for private MBS’s. The private originators who sold to non F&F, well, their loans were not controlled or monitored, therefore
they did not have much in the way of underwriting regulation or oversight. Those originators made the worst toxic loans in the crisis.
The floodgates were already open and they were PRIVATE MBS’s, not F&F’s MBS’s. The PRIVATE floodgates went nuts because they could because loan
originators selling their loans to non-F&F private MBS’s couldn’t be monitored or regulated for underwriting. Also, competition for loans to buy
from lenders further weakened GSE’s ability to regulate better underwriting in the country and therefore to keep track as to what the overall
condition of the market was turning into. It was the unmonitored, unregulated, and uncontrolled radical growth in the private sector
supply of mortgage money from private MBS’s by Wall Street Investment Banks and offshore shadow banking system that were responsible for the drastic
decline in underwriting standards in the private sector and the over supply of loans to the housing market that was a major cause of the financial
crisis.
Investment Banks realized little risk from their MBS’s unlike F&F’s because F&F guranteed their MBS’s performance (Investments didn’t) and
usually had more of their own money invested in their MBS’s than the Investment Banks had in their MBS’s.
BTW, you do know that former CEO’s of Fannie are in grave legal trouble, right? During the Crisis, these PRIVATE managers of the publicly owned
privatized F&F and their cohorts misrepresented and understated the content of sub primes and toxic sub primes in the F&F portfolio by up to 8
fold to HUD and other regulators in the federal government. Also they cheated on accounting to maximize their bonuses. It was not progressive agenda
that committed those malfeasances to “hoodwink” the government, it was “private” managers’ self-interest and greed.
Also, Cypress, I looked up and found in Wikipedia where you got and quoted your above-mentioned stats. Why didn’t you quote any of the paragraph
immediately above your stats where it said that detailed analyses of mortgage data by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Federal Reserve
Economists, and independent academic researchers suggest that the pundit claim that government policies designed to promote affordable housing were an
important cause of the financial crisis was probably not correct? Please note that Community Reinvestment Act loans outperformed other "subprime"
mortgages, and GSE mortgages performed better than private label MBS’s. Aslo, why didn’t you quote the passage three paragraphs down from your stats
that said that the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported in 2011 that Fannie & Freddie "contributed to the crisis, but were not a primary
cause." That was and has been my point.
I applaud your taking at least some time to gather facts, a vast improvement over Pescador and Barry who are loathe to do that. But, you’ve got to do
the whole job. Cherry picking facts and ignoring others and not integrating your thinking will keep you stuck in right wing la la land of perpetual
denial.
Try reading the entirety of the “Subprime Mortgage Crisis” in Wikipedia and then tell us where you stand on this issue. You will be glad you did.
[Edited on 6-1-2012 by MitchMan]
|
|
Bajaboy
Ultra Nomad
   
Posts: 4375
Registered: 10-9-2003
Location: Bahia Asuncion, BCS, Mexico
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: | Originally posted by Cypress
I posted some facts. Wikipedia isn't a good enough source? You can think what ever you want, but I would suggest doing a little research. Facts? Yea,
they can be a problem. You'll probably continue to ignore them.
|
Did you mention something
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
    
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
It's clear that there's enough blame to spread around. Both the public and the private sector have contributed to the crash in the housing market,
thus the overall decline in the economy. Govt. policies haven't helped. The stimulus money? Shovel ready jobs?
|
|
DavidE
Ultra Nomad
   
Posts: 3814
Registered: 12-1-2003
Location: Baja California México
Member Is Offline
Mood: 'At home we demand facts and get them. In Mexico one subsists on rumor and never demands anything.' Charles Flandrau,
|
|
You are all sadly missing one issue. When people, especially poor people own their own land, their own home, cities are less likely to burn, cynicism
does not prevail, and worker productivity skyrockets. The problem, the one and only, this means solitary, problem, is, that was not and is now not
possible.
A Lot To See And A Lot To Do
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
      
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Excellent discussion ... best of luck to all... as it is not looking to good at the moment ...
|
|
MitchMan
Super Nomad
  
Posts: 1856
Registered: 3-9-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
Aside from the usual give and take here on this forum between liberals and conservatives, we all have to keep our eyes on the ball. More knowledge is
always better than less. The financial and economic world is changing for us Americans and our country is going to face brand new challenges in the
form of two giant emerging countries in China and India for competition and leadership and control economically. Also, we face competition for
resources and leadership and control from the surge toward prominence by other groups of smaller emerging economies.
We as a country have to find our new niche, our new comparative advantange in the global economy, and we have to do the things now that need to done
by us now as Americans...we are falling behind while our competition is moving ahead. That means we have to get our house in order. We have to do
something about education FOR EVERYONE, about the exhorbitant out of control cost of healthcare FOR EVERYONE, and we have to start serious and big
investment in our country's infrastructure.
Without being too partisan here, I suggest that we go back to majority rule in congress by engaging in true compromise and in the cessation of
filibuster 60%+ votes to get legislation passed and go back to rarer "appropriate" uses of the filibuster and back to the 51% MAJORITY RULE voting of
the past. We need to get money out of politics by overturning Citizens United, pulling back most of the lobby industry, and getting rid of the
"revolving door" in politics. Lastly, we need to do something about the criminal disparity of income and wealth in this country....it's getting
worse, not better, since the crash of 2008! Working class earnings have remained flat since 1980 while the GDP has grown from about $1 trillion to
about $15 Trillion today and top 1 and 2% income and wealth has soared by a multiple!
Now, the last two sentences of my last paragraph are just plain verifiable facts. Virtually all economists on both sides of the aisle agree that our
disparity of income and wealth is not economically healthy for the country.
There it is. Now, we need to keep our eyes on the big picture, deal with objective facts...all the facts, stop making mistakes of the past, and start
working on our major problems....in unison using 51% majority rule.
[Edited on 6-1-2012 by MitchMan]
|
|
DavidE
Ultra Nomad
   
Posts: 3814
Registered: 12-1-2003
Location: Baja California México
Member Is Offline
Mood: 'At home we demand facts and get them. In Mexico one subsists on rumor and never demands anything.' Charles Flandrau,
|
|
The United States is going to fail, the way it is going. One cannot burn the furniture by outsourcing, and shifting domestic capital and assets
overseas and not sit on the floor.
Greed is destroying our skilled work force, our education system, transportation, and energy sectors. China may soon have a full blown civil war on
its hands. We are not hearing one ten thousandth of what is actually happening at the moment to industrial output, GDP and exports, across the globe.
I hope the individuals that have looted this economy learn to love living in armed camps, and be transported in armored vehicles.
A Lot To See And A Lot To Do
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
    
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
MitchMan, The usual give and take, which has been more give on the conservative side of the equation, has resulted in a major cluster "F". The
conservatives should just ignore the liberals. It's silly to try to appease someone who's agenda is your demise.
|
|
Pages:
1
2
3
4 |