Was he complaining about the loans before the meltdown when he had too much work to do?topal63 wrote:
Construction: building supervisor for a large National company.
Well, I know this isn't the "right" thing to do but...topal63 wrote:
For the most part construction starts didn't increase much, a little. What increased was the price; per home. When the speculation/flipping/investor driven price hit apex - housing-starts didn't fall back to some lower level - they stopped dead in their tracks. Most of the building starts (lately) have been spec.-homes; a tiny smattering; of homes that builder/developers build with-out a buyer in hopes of generating income... Lennar, DR Horton, etc. their regional starts (S.E. Florida) are not corrections; they're stoppages. 90% to 100% reductions in home-starts.
PS: The relocation thing, if he can quickly find a buyer for his home, is what his only option is. Else - he'll be forced to let it foreclose or maybe(?) dump-it in a short-sale.
Partly right, but not completely...Pug wrote:
Sure, lack of regulation was an issue, but ultimately living beyond your means is the cause.
Well I disagree with that, but that's ok. My stance is the same as lowing's in that regard - loans for people spending more than 30% of their salary on servicing a ARM loan are guilty. Its bullshit to believe they didn't understand what happens when the interest rates rise...when they signed the loan when the interest rates were the lowest they've ever been. And secondly, the consumer wanted the loans in the first place, which was why they were created.topal63 wrote:
I don't lay any blame at the feet of the American Public - the general average consumer. If anything they are unwitting participants in a devolved economic scheme - called consumerism. The market has become divorced from production that builds lasting wealth and value - hoping that credit (money-supply) expansions & consumer spending schemes can and will drive prosperity and the economy.
Last edited by Pug (2008-10-12 10:17:42)
Because the banking industry is intertwined with the financial industry due to deregulation. It's a cascading effect due to the importance of construction in the economy.Pierre wrote:
Partly right, but not completely...Pug wrote:
Sure, lack of regulation was an issue, but ultimately living beyond your means is the cause.
If is were only the people who purchased a loan beyond their means I wouldn't give a flying sh*t about it, and neither would the world. I don't care if the averige Joe Sixpack or Hockey Mom living beyond their means loose their home.
But following your logic, please tell me how the world economy is affected the way it is if it's only a problem caused by some american dipsh*t living beyond his means?
It's the same thing Obama's arguing about fixing the economy - fix the middle class and it has a trickle up effect. Well, if the crisis is screwing over the mortgages for the middle class...topal63 wrote:
But in many cases I showed you (example after example) it wasn't sub-prime mortgages; and the average consumer wasn't even involved. It was very wealthy people often leveraging massive amounts of money. And leverage - always has a huge risk both upside and on the downside.
We are now paying for the exposure to massively leveraged risk.
Irony really.IG-Calibre wrote:
time and again the most vulnerable in society are blamed for all its ills, while the super rich squander millions / billions / trillions and are paid hundreds of millions of pounds/dollars for destroying company's even, country's!! all the while screaming look its all welfare's fault!! or blame the poorest in society for wanting to own a home! yeah blame it all on sub prime morgages - what next? National socialism to deal with the problem of untermenchen?
& what of the repackaging of those debts and selling them on & on & on? was that the fault of the person who is working themselves to death to pay off the sub prime morgage just to keep a roof over their head (of a house that is now worth half of the morgage they are struggling to pay)Pug wrote:
Irony really.IG-Calibre wrote:
time and again the most vulnerable in society are blamed for all its ills, while the super rich squander millions / billions / trillions and are paid hundreds of millions of pounds/dollars for destroying company's even, country's!! all the while screaming look its all welfare's fault!! or blame the poorest in society for wanting to own a home! yeah blame it all on sub prime morgages - what next? National socialism to deal with the problem of untermenchen?
The sub prime mortgages were revised so the most vulnerable in a society could get a house...so you help out but fail...
Last edited by IG-Calibre (2008-10-12 11:39:46)
So wouldn't the deregulation be more important as a cause than the fact that averige Joe wants a home and takes on a loan that he can't afford?Pug wrote:
Because the banking industry is intertwined with the financial industry due to deregulation. It's a cascading effect due to the importance of construction in the economy.Pierre wrote:
Partly right, but not completely...Pug wrote:
Sure, lack of regulation was an issue, but ultimately living beyond your means is the cause.
If is were only the people who purchased a loan beyond their means I wouldn't give a flying sh*t about it, and neither would the world. I don't care if the averige Joe Sixpack or Hockey Mom living beyond their means loose their home.
But following your logic, please tell me how the world economy is affected the way it is if it's only a problem caused by some american dipsh*t living beyond his means?
Here's an example, as now this issue is trickling over into the derivatives/swaps industry: Cheasepeake recently got called on a $30M swap. So the CEO sold all of his shares to cover it. Guess what happens if he couldn't have covered the debt? Default...no one gets paid or the company merges with another...
Last edited by Pierre (2008-10-12 13:46:30)
I was talking about Congress approving ARMs the first time around...I have no idea why you think your point relates to Calibre'sIG-Calibre wrote:
& what of the repackaging of those debts and selling them on & on & on? was that the fault of the person who is working themselves to death to pay off the sub prime morgage just to keep a roof over their head (of a house that is now worth half of the morgage they are struggling to pay)Pug wrote:
Irony really.IG-Calibre wrote:
time and again the most vulnerable in society are blamed for all its ills, while the super rich squander millions / billions / trillions and are paid hundreds of millions of pounds/dollars for destroying company's even, country's!! all the while screaming look its all welfare's fault!! or blame the poorest in society for wanting to own a home! yeah blame it all on sub prime morgages - what next? National socialism to deal with the problem of untermenchen?
The sub prime mortgages were revised so the most vulnerable in a society could get a house...so you help out but fail...
"Who's getting the rough end of the stick out of all of this? The average tax payer who didn't do anything wrong"<-----------exactly right, people like me amd everyone else that can actually aford their homes and pay their bills.TheAussieReaper wrote:
You said it yourself though,Pug wrote:
Congress passed and Bush signed a law to give tax breaks for homeowners and to help with mortgage problems before the $700B, if you remember.Who's getting the rough end of the stick out of all of this? The average tax payer who didn't do anything wrong.Pug wrote:
But unfortunately, those who took the gamble now are going to be strapping those who do own houses with an increase in property tax, and a long period of watching their house values fall.
Last edited by lowing (2008-10-12 13:27:23)
My govt. subsdized job? Ya mean like policemen, firemen, postal workers, defense workers, aircraft manufacturers, hospital workers, steel workers, state employees, lawyers, teachers, etc.........and on and on and on. Ya mean people like that? I am just an aircraft mechanic, I pay taxes and everythingtopal63 wrote:
Are you dense... how is a speculator, investor or someone (sometimes even a convicted criminal given a mortgage broker license) looking to get rich quick and make money by treating a homestead like a commodity - anything like a consumer? Or did reality just pass you by again.
People who did NOT speculate are in jeopardy of loosing their homes - because now those people based in a declining purely private sector area (unlike your gov. subsidized job) are loosing their jobs - with little or no prospects in sight. Even people who bought well before the PRICE BUBBLE.
People who ARE NOT YOUR AVERAGE AMERICAN OR CONSUMER CAUSED THIS. A person somewhere far away from the market frenzy, even in a small town, can loose their home because real-estate became the new Wall-Street target; the stock market dot com money left the market and flowed into real estate schemes.
.........yeah and? How does any of this shield people from paying off debt they have taken on? It doesn't. I will not buy into the excuse that it is someone elses fault that you ( generally speaking) are a dumb fuck.topal63 wrote:
Sure some of those are gov. subsidized jobs (socialized jobs). Is yours? You are for socialism as long as it benefits you.lowing wrote:
My govt. subsdized job? Ya mean like policemen, firemen, postal workers, defense workers, aircraft manufacturers, hospital workers, steel workers, state employees, lawyers, teachers, etc.........and on and on and on. Ya mean people like that? I am just an aircraft mechanic, I pay taxes and everythingtopal63 wrote:
Are you dense... how is a speculator, investor or someone (sometimes even a convicted criminal given a mortgage broker license) looking to get rich quick and make money by treating a homestead like a commodity - anything like a consumer? Or did reality just pass you by again.
People who did NOT speculate are in jeopardy of loosing their homes - because now those people based in a declining purely private sector area (unlike your gov. subsidized job) are loosing their jobs - with little or no prospects in sight. Even people who bought well before the PRICE BUBBLE.
People who ARE NOT YOUR AVERAGE AMERICAN OR CONSUMER CAUSED THIS. A person somewhere far away from the market frenzy, even in a small town, can loose their home because real-estate became the new Wall-Street target; the stock market dot com money left the market and flowed into real estate schemes.
___________
On to more trivial things:
When I bought my house (16 years ago) the world was a different place... apparently (which & yet has little to do with how this mess that happened; nonetheless here goes):
I had to come up with 20% down.
I had to provide two years income tax returns.
I had to pay-out on any outstanding debt existing on my credit report - no matter how trivial or even if it was disputed.
I had to provide a letter of character (the owner and president of the firm, I worked for, vouching for my personal character).
The bank then followed up on that all that information; verifying it.
The housing market was falling off a previous and smaller bubble and the bank was very concerned.
Quite a bit different a system and much harder to exploit. Why would someone involved in risk leveraging do their job? Because it was in their self interest to do so. New regulations actually made it easier for the top earners to make more money than ever. So they acted in their self interest again and made more money than ever. If you think lower income persons, non experts in finance, average Americans, non-speculators, Wii buying iPod buying (one time minor purchases not investmetns) consumers - caused this mess you need your head examined. In fact the last time the consolidation of wealth was at theses levels was during the depression.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/wp-co … hart55.gif
http://i34.tinypic.com/ei5elk.jpg
I was watching a documentary about finance, parts involving the Bloomberg channel, and a top analyst says he thinks the stock market through equity share ownership has dispersed wealth among the people. His superior comes in and says thats not remotely true and points out who the major shareholders are and how much they actually own and corrects him by stating what I've stated, more or less. The concentration of wealth is clustered around the top 0.1% and it hasn't been this way since robber baron days of the early 1900's.
I don't get you at all. I'm posting WHY the regulations were changed and you continue to bang the drum showing stats which don't support your point of view. The point loving (oops lowing) is making is about how everyone is paying for the mistakes of people living beyond their means. Your argument is surrounding corporate greed...well, with the millions of banks that issued these loans, was it against the law? No.topal63 wrote:
Sure some of those are gov. subsidized jobs (socialized jobs). Is yours? You are for socialism as long as it benefits you.
___________
On to more trivial things:
When I bought my house (16 years ago) the world was a different place... apparently (which & yet has little to do with how this mess that happened; nonetheless here goes):
I had to come up with 20% down.
I had to provide two years income tax returns.
I had to pay-out on any outstanding debt existing on my credit report - no matter how trivial or even if it was disputed.
I had to provide a letter of character (the owner and president of the firm, I worked for, vouching for my personal character).
The bank then followed up on that all that information; verifying it.
The housing market was falling off a previous and smaller bubble and the bank was very concerned.
Quite a bit different a system and much harder to exploit. Why would someone involved in risk leveraging do their job? Because it was in their self interest to do so. New regulations actually made it easier for the top earners to make more money than ever. So they acted in their self interest again and made more money than ever. If you think lower income persons, non experts in finance, average Americans, non-speculators, Wii buying iPod buying (one time minor purchases not investmetns) consumers - caused this mess you need your head examined. In fact the last time the consolidation of wealth was at theses levels was during the depression.
It's a snowball effect. The deregulation is at the bottom of the hill, the loans are at the top.Pierre wrote:
So wouldn't the deregulation be more important as a cause than the fact that averige Joe wants a home and takes on a loan that he can't afford?
People buying gas are ruining the economy.mikkel wrote:
I'm trying to find a way to approach this topic, but it's just not based in anything other than an observation that people buy a lot of x, so that must be causing economic depression. Substitute x for anything equal to or more expensive than $200.
People buying HDTVs are ruining the economy.
People buying airline tickets are ruining the economy.
People buying laptops are ruining the economy.
People buying new cars are ruining the economy.
Can you help me out with some more examples, lowing?
CUOMO: To take a greater risk on these mortgages, yes. To give families mortgages that they would not have given otherwise, yes.
Q: [unintellible] … that they would not have given the loans at all?
CUOMO: They would not have qualified but for this affirmative action on the part of the bank, yes.
Q: Are minorities represented in that low and moderate income group?
CUOMO: It is by income, and is it also by minorities? Yes.
CUOMO: With the 2.1 billion, lending that amount in mortgages — which will be a higher risk, and I’m sure there will be a higher default rate on those mortgages than on the rest of the portfolio …Here, in fact, is the genesis of the problem, the ideology that created the monster. Cuomo, the Clinton administration, and Congress believed they had the right and the power to determine acceptable risk for the lenders, rather than lenders determining it for themselves in a free market. Even while imposing risk standards on lenders, Cuomo admits that he expects a higher default rate on the new loans — which is why the lenders didn’t want to write them in the first place.
In other words, the CRA didn’t get used to fight discrimination, but to force lenders to give money to high-risk borrowers for political purposes. And Cuomo knew it.
That was the political arrogance at the heart of the collapse. However, the CRA was more a sideshow than the actual problem. When Congress decided that enforcement alone wouldn’t generate enough mortgages to boost their political fortunes, they had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac eliminate the risk entirely for lenders through the purchase of the subprime loans. Without that risk and with almost-guaranteed short-term profits of subprime loans, lenders went wild while Fannie and Freddie repackaged them as quasi-government bonds for investors.
gj clintonKmarion wrote:
http://i34.tinypic.com/jg027m.jpg
CUOMO: To take a greater risk on these mortgages, yes. To give families mortgages that they would not have given otherwise, yes.
Q: [unintellible] … that they would not have given the loans at all?
CUOMO: They would not have qualified but for this affirmative action on the part of the bank, yes.
Q: Are minorities represented in that low and moderate income group?
CUOMO: It is by income, and is it also by minorities? Yes.
CUOMO: With the 2.1 billion, lending that amount in mortgages — which will be a higher risk, and I’m sure there will be a higher default rate on those mortgages than on the rest of the portfolio …Here, in fact, is the genesis of the problem, the ideology that created the monster. Cuomo, the Clinton administration, and Congress believed they had the right and the power to determine acceptable risk for the lenders, rather than lenders determining it for themselves in a free market. Even while imposing risk standards on lenders, Cuomo admits that he expects a higher default rate on the new loans — which is why the lenders didn’t want to write them in the first place.
In other words, the CRA didn’t get used to fight discrimination, but to force lenders to give money to high-risk borrowers for political purposes. And Cuomo knew it.
That was the political arrogance at the heart of the collapse. However, the CRA was more a sideshow than the actual problem. When Congress decided that enforcement alone wouldn’t generate enough mortgages to boost their political fortunes, they had Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac eliminate the risk entirely for lenders through the purchase of the subprime loans. Without that risk and with almost-guaranteed short-term profits of subprime loans, lenders went wild while Fannie and Freddie repackaged them as quasi-government bonds for investors.
This is the final and most important reason for the financial meltdown we know throughout the world today. If these loans would have stayed in the books of these companies, (a) you would have seen it coming sooner and (b) the whole world would not be in the mess it is in right now.Kmarion wrote:
? wrote:
while Fannie and Freddie repackaged them as quasi-government bonds for investors.
You're forgetting the last one: see my post above (@ Kmarion)Pug wrote:
It's a snowball effect. The deregulation is at the bottom of the hill, the loans are at the top.Pierre wrote:
So wouldn't the deregulation be more important as a cause than the fact that averige Joe wants a home and takes on a loan that he can't afford?
