Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It will be "wildly cost effective" if, and only if, it is used in the close together large metropolitan areas; certainly not as a "cross country" system.A system like that would probably cost about $20 trillion dollars.
Hardly cost effective.
How much did you think about what you said? I guess you shat on your keyboard and that's what was typed. Hardly intelligible. Let me correct your turd's estimates.
1. The budget estimate is 500 billion by 2030. You were off by about 19.5 trillion, not much though. A non-educated guess. It will have speeds between 110-220 mph. That's not faster than traveling in a car. Oh wait. It is. US High Speed Rail Map
2. Second, the whole reason it's proposed is it's wildly cost effective. Also it's revitalizing to an economy, creating millions of jobs, sharply reducing the inefficiency of car/truck based transport where less than 1% of the fuel used is actually propelling the passengers. Moreover, it will reduce pollution of inefficient vehicles.
I guess you never thought for one second to actually learn about what such systems bring to countries that already have them (decades ago) in order to make an informed post.
So I determine that you are incredibly thoughtless. I will pray for your mental infirmary to heal rapidly and for you to think more about how to actually make an informed post.
'Free Market' Capitalism is basically a cycle of boom and bust. It gives the appearance of rising living standards and prosperity. If a society fails to save and prepare for a bust, just like not preparing for a storm, it ends up worse off. Social welfare is the safety net of capitalism, remove enough, and it results in revolution or a dictatorship by a military junta.Social security. What would die hard, free market republicans and libertarians do if it were stopped tomorrow? Have the old folks live with them? Sure.
I just LOVE that "Overheated Market" phrase.
How about?...
People being called left and right by Mortgage Bankers and Brokers offering The Sky at Basement Rates?
Please stop using vague language and simply admit that GW's overtly stated desire for a nation of home owners resulted in Lenders bypassing Vendor software and reaping the associated Fees and Commissions.
First Union Capital Markets Corp.
and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of
securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac
and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation (NYSE: FTU).
Just waiting the next great depression around the corner, might be this decade or the next.
If people think any sort of regulation or stabilizer has been put in place to stop it happening again with derivatives and bad debt, they are in for a rude awakening. None of the underlying causes of the current recession have been fixed, and the bailouts are just delaying the inevitable collapse.
The future isn't bright for the neo liberal brand of capitalism, as you can't have your cake and eat it too, without major long term consequences.
'Free Market' Capitalism is basically a cycle of boom and bust. It gives the appearance of rising living standards and prosperity. If a society fails to save and prepare for a bust, just like not preparing for a storm, it ends up worse off. Social welfare is the safety net of capitalism, remove enough, and it results in revolution or a dictatorship by a military junta.Social security. What would die hard, free market republicans and libertarians do if it were stopped tomorrow? Have the old folks live with them? Sure.
What caused parallel bubble-bust cycles occurring outside residential housing markets (commercial real estate and consumer credit) as well as similar financial crises in other countries which did not have analogous affordable housing policies?You are correct that the law has not been changed substantively. But, Clinton and Bush policies forced bank regulators to pressure mortgage lenders to push loans to less credit worthy people. The mortgage fraud follows bad fiscal/monetary policy and the misuse of the CRA a distant 3rd. We know that the CRA as it dealt with financing multi family dwellings in red lined areas was not a problem. It was the push for more single family homes in the lower wage families that did help heat up the market. It was not even those who lost their homes, but the sheer quantity of new buyers, and speculators taking advantage of cheap loans that caused the bubble. The bubble was not caused by mortgage fraud.The current crisis is rooted in poor performing mortgage loans made between 2005-07. The CRA was passed decades ago and hadn't been changed substantively since 1995. Nothing in CRA legislation required banks to make loans to people incapable of repaying the loans. Independent nonbank lenders like Ameriquest and Countrywide originated a substantial share of subprime mortgages yet were not directly influenced by CRA obligations. The CRA was not the cause of the current crisis; an epidemic of mortgage fraud at the behest of Wall Street banks was.The government's fiscal and monetary policy CAUSED the crash. GrammLeachBliley Act did not cause the problem. I do believe that lack of oversight did cause problems, but mostly after the fact of the crash. As lending institutions tried to mitigate their loses by doing things such as bundling toxic loans and selling them as "good" investments.
The CRA was more of a cause, along with the fiscal/monetary policies, than the GrammLeachBliley Act. Attempting to put more people into privately owned homes, many of which did not have adequate credit, coupled with low interest which lured unsuspecting people into buying more home than they could afford. All of the bad fiscal/monetary policies caused the market to over heat and inflate significantly, starting in 1999 and continuing to its peak of price over value.
Did the CRA cause the mortgage market meltdown? - Community Dividend - Publications & Papers | The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
Detroit bankruptcy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaUS taxpayers handed over $11.2 billion to the board of directors and major shareholders of GM. Are you mad the majority of Americans got nothing in return?The "hole" exists mainly because TARP funds were used to bailout GM, Chrysler and the UAW.
The handed over more than that when you consider the loss they took on the purchase of GM stock.
What did they get in return?
And yet, every economist of note has called the inflation fueled by an overheated market, driven by low interest and the desire to make even many less wealthy people homeowners (not an evil in itself) all of which caused the crash.
Economists use what every profession use...nomenclature.
Sometimes referred to as reverse engineering what actually occurred.
Economists also have a concern called "being published"...tell the dirty truth and stop getting calls to write articles and speaking engagement.
Sorry, I lived through the era and know hundreds of people who got the "cold" call to receive their "gift".
The polite explanation doesn't pass muster because it completely fails to explain why the software rejected the majority of the applications and the Loan had to be "Approved" on paper.
Please attempt to explain the plethora of manual Rubber Stamp Approvals that are to this day being examined by Auditors.
I just LOVE that "Overheated Market" phrase.
How about?...
People being called left and right by Mortgage Bankers and Brokers offering The Sky at Basement Rates?
Please stop using vague language and simply admit that GW's overtly stated desire for a nation of home owners resulted in Lenders bypassing Vendor software and reaping the associated Fees and Commissions.
No one is denying that GWB supporting more home ownership. In fact, every president including the current one, has supported more home ownership, all the way back to Carter.
In the 1970s, Americans lost their minds, and bought into the idea of 'free love' and the sexual revolution.
As one would expect, divorce rates shot up to the sky.
Divorce drastically lowered the home ownership rate very quickly, because you take one family, with two people living in one home they own, and split them into two separate families, each renting.
Carter passed the Community Reinvestment act, believing that the problem with dropping home ownership rates, was caused by lack of investment into homes, rather than a problem societal family break down. It's much easier to regulate the banks, than to convince people to stay true to their wedding vows.
In 1977, the CRA was signed into law, promoting investment into home ownership, encouraging lending.
Now you tell me.... Does that look like home prices after World War 2, were 'fairly' stable and consistent.... until when? 1977. Look at the chart. In 1977, prices started climbing, until they crashed.
Because of this... the CRA was virtually ignored for a decade. Community groups were complaining that the CRA was not enforced. (and it wasn't... for good reason).
In 1990s, Clinton came along, and vowed to fix things. He instructed his government to start pushing banks.... which they did.
[ame=http://youtu.be/gpj4gcdm_JQ]HowThe Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis Starring HUD Sec Andrew Cuomo & Barack Obama - YouTube[/ame]
In 1998, the Clinton government sued in court, banks to give out $2.1 Billion in unqualified loans. Andrew Cuomo, at 3 minutes in, directly states they will be a higher risk, and higher default rate.
First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering... -- re> CHARLOTTE, N.C., Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ --
But it doesn't end there.... In 1997, Freddie Mac agrees to Securitize Sub-prime loans, for the first time in American history.
First Union Capital Markets Corp.
and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of
securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac
and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation (NYSE: FTU).
People asked "how did these junk sub-prime mortgages get a 'AAA' rating? This is how. Freddie Mac, gave it to them.
Between the government directly suing banks to make sub-prime loans, and Freddie Mac securing them, what do you think that did to sub-prime lending?
and what do you think all those previously unqualified buyers flooding the market did to home prices?
From the prior picture.....
Notice the exact year that prices started spiking up? 1997.
Bottom line.... yes Bush did support more home ownership. That's true, and no one I know, denies it.
The problem is.... the price bubble, and sub-prime bubble, started in 1997. The facts clearly show this. It's not ambiguous in any way.
And by the way.... Obama himself, was involved in the lawsuits against banks, to force them to engage in sub-prime lending. We have court documents, with his name on them.
So Obama, was directly involved back in the late 90s, in what caused the crash in 2008.
It's just a fact.
GlassSteagall was no joke, we wouldn't have had a severe recession as we did with it in place.Well first off, the idea that regulation can prevent or stabilize anything, is a joke.
Hardly, the biggest time of economic growth was during the 1940s to 1960s period. This took place under Dirigisme (or state-directed economics) in Europe and the New Deal policies in America. China to some extent still follows Dirigisme.Regulation is the cause of instability and crashes, not the solution to it.
But not in the right areas. A banking system doesn't have to have heavy regulation to manage the banking system - but it does need the right kind of regulations to keep it under control. Though both the US and European banking system both struggled and had to be bailed out to keep them afloat, an expense that tax payers couldn't really afford. That doesn't suggest that deregulation is the answer, rather it just proves that had the right sort of regulations been in place, that were relevant (and not out of date) with financial activities, the recession would have been a lot less severe.A lot of people don't understand this, but our banking system is the most highly regulated system in the world. Europe doesn't have the regulations that we do.
Not true, during the financial crisis Canadian banks were shored up by $114 billion in liquidity; it just implies better planning. But China, Australia, and New Zealand didn't have substantial banking collapses either, because again they had the right regulations in place.In fact, Canada is one of the least regulated banking systems in the world, and has been for almost a century. Canada didn't have a massive bank failure back in the 1930s, when our highly regulated banks crashed. Canada didn't have a bank failure in 2009 when our highly regulated banks were crashing left and right.
Yet, deregulation policies ironically got rid the best parts of regulation, notability Glass-Steagall, and corporations lobbied for regulation to suit their interests. We don't have a 'free market', rather a state-capitalist economy, so the 'deregulation fits all' strategy doesn't work - the trick is balancing the right amount of regulation with right amount of deregulation.Deregulation is the best way to prevent a future catastrophe. Regulation to try and 'prevent a crash' is the best way to end up with a crash.
Would beg to differ, as even sound investments are indirectly tied into bad ones, as was proven when even reputable and conservative banks were hit.Moreover, there is nothing wrong with derivatives. There are millions of derivatives throughout the world. The derivatives based on sound investments, have worked well, are working well, and will continue to work well.
Yet, none of that trading on bad-sub primes and so forth has stopped, would counter that it has probably increased, but at a much lesser rate as it did during the 2000s. You can't stop bad loans, as property values and the like can dive without warning.Only the derivatives based on bad sub-prime loans directly pushed for by our government, didn't work well... not because they were derivatives, but because sub-prime loans were bad. Stop making banks give out bad loans, and derivatives are not a problem.
If they lose their jobs or fall into bankruptcy they can't, and if the value of their property dives, a previously easily repayable debt becomes impossible to pay. The banks got greedy, and actually went out of their way to encourage loans to people that could't afford them, but at the same time a lot of houses went under that were owned by people that re-mortgaged their house knowing they were in good financial state at the time. There is no way for a bank to truly prepare, it can only limit the fallout.The best way to stop customers from taking out bad loans, is to make absolutely sure they pay every penny they borrow, back.
No, the reason it didn't have issues. was a massive $114 billion dollar shore up of liquidity in 2008, some of which by the US Federal Reserve. There were bank failures, and issues with Canadian banks, but they were bailed out before they reached a state of technical collapse.One of the reason Canada had almost no massive housing bubble, and no sub-prime crash, and no bank failures because of it..... is simply because in Canada they have full recourse mortgages by law. There is no 'foreclosure' and walk away from the debt.
So do most other countries, but even under non-bust conditions, if a house goes from $400,000 to $380,000 in value, it makes borrowing for that house more expensive. There is always going to be bankruptcy and the like, and the reality is that there will always be bad loans.In Canada, if you sign a mortgage for $100,000... you pay back the entire note down to the penny.
Saying there is a boom and bust cycle is a neutral statement, a better question would be (if you are going to make that argument): What country has had a constant increase in economic growth and a stable unemployment and poverty rate? None.You show me what economic system doesn't have a cycle of boom and bust? What country, and what economy, doesn't have boom periods and bust periods?
Trying to make my statement out like a bone of contention doesn't really work, as this thread is about capitalism, if it was about communism, I would have said it has a boom and bust cycle. So basically I don't agree or disagree with that statement.Boom and bust is natural to all economies throughout all history.
I have been to Europe, and have friends who live in Europe. I have seen how people live, before the recession Greek garbage workers were striking over wages. Poverty and inequality is still as bad (if not worse) than the so-called regulatory dark ages of the 1950s-1960s, and continues to increase.As for the "appearance" of rising living standards..... Yeah I should say so... Have you been to Europe? I have. Have you seen how people live there? I have.
I stated 'free market' capitalism, not 'capitalism' as a general term - meaning that there is no evidence that state directed capitalism is no better or worse than the pseudo 'free market'. This is not an argument over capitalism vs communism, but 'free market' capitalism vs state directed capitalism. Most of those advances took place during state-directed capitalism, and without the technological advances we have today - excluding China of course, that continues to have a form of state-directed capitalism.It would most certainly 'appear' that those living in Capitalist economies have a higher living standard, when they actually own cars, and the vest majority of the world doesn't have electricity and indoor plumbing.
Well, actually there has been a lot of currency inflation over the years, and in increase in living costs. $31,000 today gets you a lot less than it did 50 years ago, which is why it is necessary for wage and salary growth to keep pace with living costs and inflation, but it hasn't so we have a substantial rise in GDP, without the benefits filtering through. So in reality, while population and GDP may increase, most of that GDP growth comes from property, the finance industry and corporations, rather than private individuals (who could even have declining GDP growth).When a mere $31,000 puts you in the top 1% of wage earners world wide.... yeah it 'appears' that capitalism has increased our living standards.
Hardly. The French revolted because they couldn't even afford a loaf of bread (hyperinflation), high debt, and high unemployment. Not because the French King gave them welfare, in fact the reverse - as war veterans were denied social welfare. The Russian Revolution was a lot more complex, as social democrats, communists, and the anti-war movement, had varying motivations for revolt. There has never been a state that has fallen because people had been given 'too much welfare', instead because their economy had major flaws due to other external and internal factors i.e. like massive debt, wars, hyperinflation,etc.Social welfare is the cause of revolution or a dictatorship. When people think they are owed something, by other people who are working... eventually that system fails when the people working, refuse to pay for those who are not, and the result is revolution or dictatorship.
The Roman Republic welfare system, largely consisted of free grain in the city of Rome, and was very limited by modern standards. The Roman Republic economy had crises, but never actually collapsed. And at the time riots and mobs were commonplace, much like they are in modern cities.That's EXACTLY what happened to the Roman republic. The people started demanding government give them stuff, and eventually those working, got tired of paying for everyone who wasn't. When the system fell apart, the mobs in the streets engaged in violence to get what they wanted, and eventually a tyranny under the ceasars was born.
I am glad you love it because it was how economists and real estate professionals refer to it. Overheated Real Estate Markets Are Due for a 2006 Slowdown. - National Mortgage News | HighBeam ResearchI just LOVE that "Overheated Market" phrase.
Bankers and brokers offer low interest rates based on the Federal Reserve, which offered basement rates.How about?...
People being called left and right by Mortgage Bankers and Brokers offering The Sky at Basement Rates?
Why admit something that is not true? LOW INTEREST RATES DETERMINED BY FISCAL AND MONETARY POLICY WAS THE DIRECT CAUSE OF THE OVER HEATED REAL ESTATE INFLATION.Please stop using vague language and simply admit that GW's overtly stated desire for a nation of home owners resulted in Lenders bypassing Vendor software and reaping the associated Fees and Commissions.
Start here:US taxpayers handed over $11.2 billion to the board of directors and major shareholders of GM. Are you mad the majority of Americans got nothing in return?The "hole" exists mainly because TARP funds were used to bailout GM, Chrysler and the UAW.
GM shareholders got bailed out? Can you prove it?
I made no such implication.Straw man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaSo you believe only capitalist countries harm the environment? Apparently you aren't familiar with the environmental record of communist countries.
Environmental disaster in eastern Europe - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition
You don't know what a straw man is, Georgie. The example of Eastern Europe is clearly relevant to your implied claim socialism is the solution to environmental problems. Socialism is an environmental disaster.
YES, YES, YES, and socialism destroys prosperity instead of lifting people out of poverty it makes more people poor.You don't know what a straw man is, Georgie. The example of Eastern Europe is clearly relevant to your implied claim socialism is the solution to environmental problems. Socialism is an environmental disaster.Not one of the countries you listed (or any other of consequence) are socialist. They are not a MIX of capitalism and socialism. They are capitalist countries with more social programs than we have, and social programs do not socialism make. The most important factor you look for when judging a country's economic system is, "does the government OWN production and DISTRIBUTION and PRICE of goods; or, at the very least, totally control those situation. None of the countries listed fit that bill.But there are countries with some socialist policies that are doing quite well. Sweden, Norway, Switzerland to name a few. They have national health care (which ACA isn't) strong unions, some socialist countries like Norway use their nation's resources to fund education instead of our corporate democrats and republicans letting corporations export our resources to other countries. Actually, a mix of socialism and capitalism is best I think. Social security. What would die hard, free market republicans and libertarians do if it were stopped tomorrow? Have the old folks live with them? Sure.
Socialism Defined by Merriam Webster
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
.....
If you don't believe, "]"Too spread out" is such an uninformed statement I won't waste my time commenting on it." is rude, you are much more stupid than I already thought you were."Too spread out" is such an uninformed statement I won't waste my time commenting on it." [/COLOR][/SIZE][/B]I take it then, it is ok if you mock or insult me, but it is wrong for me to respond in kind?You were rude, and my assertion that the distance by which the US is spread out is not conducive to rapid train system, and they would only be practical in the large metropolitan areas, and between them if they are close together.You made the assertion the distance in America is too great for rail. I said your assertion was uninformed. So uninformed that I figured the map spoke for itself and I didn't need to comment.
If you consider this a personal attack, then you are delusional.
You will have to produce a link to prove the practicality of the Chicago/Denver link. I have travelled Amtrak on that route, and it will only justify 1 train load a day, which will make Rapid/high speed train service too expensive to be practical on that run. As it is, during the summer, trains have to slow down to 30MPH because the heat warps the tracks; and yes, I know new and much more improved tracks must be installed for high speed. Another issues is, the current rail system is private enterprise, and if a freight train is coming the Amtrak passenger train must pull off onto a side track while it passes. It would be a great way to travel, far better than current train travel or air travel, but it will have to pay for itself or the American people won't stand for it.You are quoting me, and I did not put a price tag on it. Get your stories straight.How much did you think about what you said? I guess you shat on your keyboard and that's what was typed. Hardly intelligible. Let me correct your turd's estimates.Not my comment!1. The budget estimate is 500 billion by 2030. You were off by about 19.5 trillion, not much though. A non-educated guess. It will have speeds between 110-220 mph. That's not faster than traveling in a car. Oh wait. It is. US High Speed Rail MapIt works in small areas, that is true. And it will also work when it connects a chain of small communities where few people own personal transportation.Some of what you said is true, and where practical, for short distances between nearby metropolitan areas, it would be good.2. Second, the whole reason it's proposed is it's wildly cost effective. Also it's revitalizing to an economy, creating millions of jobs, sharply reducing the inefficiency of car/truck based transport where less than 1% of the fuel used is actually propelling the passengers. Moreover, it will reduce pollution of inefficient vehicles.
I guess you never thought for one second to actually learn about what such systems bring to countries that already have them (decades ago) in order to make an informed post.Again, you are either quoting someone else's post or you are being your typical rude self with me. It will be "wildly cost effective" if, and only if, it is used in the close together large metropolitan areas; certainly not as a "cross country" system.So I determine that you are incredibly thoughtless. I will pray for your mental infirmary to heal rapidly and for you to think more about how to actually make an informed post.
I agree you need to consider where the most traffic flows. But you are unaware of the traffic and its dispersement in this country. Tens of thousands per day travel across great lengths from say Denver to Chicago and countless other destinations along heavily trafficked roads like I-70 and other long interstates. The efficiency of use will become more and more cost effective as time goes on.
There is no such thing as "free market capitalism." In our world all capitalism is heavily regulated. I agree it should be. But your suggestion that the boom and bust cycle only occurs in "free market capitalism" is wrong. The difference between capitalism and Marxist, is even "free market capitalism" would have boom cycles. In Marxism all of the cycles are down and their is no boom, while only the commissars have any prosperity.'Free Market' Capitalism is basically a cycle of boom and bust. It gives the appearance of rising living standards and prosperity. If a society fails to save and prepare for a bust, just like not preparing for a storm, it ends up worse off. Social welfare is the safety net of capitalism, remove enough, and it results in revolution or a dictatorship by a military junta.Social security. What would die hard, free market republicans and libertarians do if it were stopped tomorrow? Have the old folks live with them? Sure.
This was a great post. However, if you believe the left wing extremists will accept the FACTS you posted, I have a bridge over the Atchafalaya Swamp to sellI just LOVE that "Overheated Market" phrase.
How about?...
People being called left and right by Mortgage Bankers and Brokers offering The Sky at Basement Rates?
Please stop using vague language and simply admit that GW's overtly stated desire for a nation of home owners resulted in Lenders bypassing Vendor software and reaping the associated Fees and Commissions.
No one is denying that GWB supporting more home ownership. In fact, every president including the current one, has supported more home ownership, all the way back to Carter.
In the 1970s, Americans lost their minds, and bought into the idea of 'free love' and the sexual revolution.
As one would expect, divorce rates shot up to the sky.
Divorce drastically lowered the home ownership rate very quickly, because you take one family, with two people living in one home they own, and split them into two separate families, each renting.
Carter passed the Community Reinvestment act, believing that the problem with dropping home ownership rates, was caused by lack of investment into homes, rather than a problem societal family break down. It's much easier to regulate the banks, than to convince people to stay true to their wedding vows.
In 1977, the CRA was signed into law, promoting investment into home ownership, encouraging lending.
Now you tell me.... Does that look like home prices after World War 2, were 'fairly' stable and consistent.... until when? 1977. Look at the chart. In 1977, prices started climbing, until they crashed.
Because of this... the CRA was virtually ignored for a decade. Community groups were complaining that the CRA was not enforced. (and it wasn't... for good reason).
In 1990s, Clinton came along, and vowed to fix things. He instructed his government to start pushing banks.... which they did.
[ame=http://youtu.be/gpj4gcdm_JQ]HowThe Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis Starring HUD Sec Andrew Cuomo & Barack Obama - YouTube[/ame]
In 1998, the Clinton government sued in court, banks to give out $2.1 Billion in unqualified loans. Andrew Cuomo, at 3 minutes in, directly states they will be a higher risk, and higher default rate.
First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering... -- re> CHARLOTTE, N.C., Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ --
But it doesn't end there.... In 1997, Freddie Mac agrees to Securitize Sub-prime loans, for the first time in American history.
First Union Capital Markets Corp.
and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of
securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.
The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac
and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation (NYSE: FTU).
People asked "how did these junk sub-prime mortgages get a 'AAA' rating? This is how. Freddie Mac, gave it to them.
Between the government directly suing banks to make sub-prime loans, and Freddie Mac securing them, what do you think that did to sub-prime lending?
and what do you think all those previously unqualified buyers flooding the market did to home prices?
From the prior picture.....
Notice the exact year that prices started spiking up? 1997.
Bottom line.... yes Bush did support more home ownership. That's true, and no one I know, denies it.
The problem is.... the price bubble, and sub-prime bubble, started in 1997. The facts clearly show this. It's not ambiguous in any way.
And by the way.... Obama himself, was involved in the lawsuits against banks, to force them to engage in sub-prime lending. We have court documents, with his name on them.
So Obama, was directly involved back in the late 90s, in what caused the crash in 2008.
It's just a fact.
Another great post!Just waiting the next great depression around the corner, might be this decade or the next.
If people think any sort of regulation or stabilizer has been put in place to stop it happening again with derivatives and bad debt, they are in for a rude awakening. None of the underlying causes of the current recession have been fixed, and the bailouts are just delaying the inevitable collapse.
The future isn't bright for the neo liberal brand of capitalism, as you can't have your cake and eat it too, without major long term consequences.
Well first off, the idea that regulation can prevent or stabilize anything, is a joke.
Regulation is the cause of instability and crashes, not the solution to it.
A lot of people don't understand this, but our banking system is the most highly regulated system in the world. Europe doesn't have the regulations that we do.
In fact, Canada is one of the least regulated banking systems in the world, and has been for almost a century. Canada didn't have a massive bank failure back in the 1930s, when our highly regulated banks crashed. Canada didn't have a bank failure in 2009 when our highly regulated banks were crashing left and right.
Deregulation is the best way to prevent a future catastrophe. Regulation to try and 'prevent a crash' is the best way to end up with a crash.
Moreover, there is nothing wrong with derivatives. There are millions of derivatives throughout the world. The derivatives based on sound investments, have worked well, are working well, and will continue to work well.
Only the derivatives based on bad sub-prime loans directly pushed for by our government, didn't work well... not because they were derivatives, but because sub-prime loans were bad. Stop making banks give out bad loans, and derivatives are not a problem.
Lastly, the best way to get banks to stop giving out bad loans, is to stop suing them, and demanding that they do it.
The best way to stop customers from taking out bad loans, is to make absolutely sure they pay every penny they borrow, back.
One of the reason Canada had almost no massive housing bubble, and no sub-prime crash, and no bank failures because of it..... is simply because in Canada they have full recourse mortgages by law. There is no 'foreclosure' and walk away from the debt.
In Canada, if you sign a mortgage for $100,000... you pay back the entire note down to the penny.
As a result, this shockingly causes citizens to be more prudent on what mortgages they sign up for.
The phrase "Strategic Default" doesn't exist in Canada. We'd be wise to follow their example.
