Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[dnsmith35]

As I told you before, I will send what money I can to take care of little old ladies pounding big rocks into little ones, or destitute children in India before I throw money at the higher paid groups in America simply because I live here. (The least of his people)

I read your Mister A-D example and I know the point you have been driving at. If one can help only through sending money, then I suppose your principle holds and thus I agree.

However, if one can assist a human being face to face whether having made them food/buying it and distributing it (soup kitchens, on the street encounters) or simply offering a smile, hello, perhaps some dignity goes a longer way than impersonal bills that afford the recipient the choice to spend it to harm themselves.

I agree with that, and as I said once before, I live my life in that manner.

But if you don't find yourself doing these things, ask yourself why not? If the answer is it is difficult for you to do so, then I suppose assisting the poorest in India is justifiably a top priority over those who live beyond your neighborhood therefore may have a shot at some other person helping them more than those in India.

Like I said above, I do that and live my life in that manner.

But it should be duly noted that humanitarian aide can go to monsters. Examples include some who run refugee camps siphoning funds to support their excesses, to support military aide under the guise of humanitarian causes/stopping genocide etc., and can simply be mismanaged without malicious intent. It is a risk that is preventable through action in your community; but barring that opportunity, it may be worth the risk.

I presume if you don't check out your charity, or if you have never seen it up close, that possibility could exist. I have visited the children's home (some orphans or who have parents who can't feed them). I have met the Catholic Priest who is the chief cook and bottle washer, and the Nun who helps school the kids with Padre, and the Amah who cares for the kids personal needs. I made this selection over 28 years ago and use the Catholic Near East organization to channel my funds directly to the people who do the work. Over the years, starting with $50 a month and now sending over $1,000 a month as I acquired more income from being a university professor then a business consultant helping business learn how to keep their employees happy financially and with reasonable benefits, I was able to significantly increase that particular donation. I really don't see the need to explain this over and over, as I have once before. Even now, I am sending them out of my excess, not out of my substance, and I so support other charities in the US. Catholic Charities, Salvation Army, local food banks and the Wiregrass Emergency Pregnant service. I suggest you drop this subject as it gets old when you consistently accuse me of being misled as to whom I should help.

 

[dnsmith35]

By any objective measure, the New Deal policies are what dragged out the recession, into the great depression.

How does paying people to destroy food, during a hunger crisis, result in great economic growth? If you look at the standard of living under the New Deal, and World War 2, the standard declined at best. There was no great economic growth.

He will probably never admit that the new deal did little to end the Depression. That was ended by the Mobilization of our Armed forces, creating huge industrial out put building ships, tanks, weapons, and other military requirements. 16 million men were in uniform, many having to save (the Army pushed pay deductions for savings, mostly bonds, but others as well), hiring millions of women for factory work making soldier family two earner families, many for the first time, but at a higher wage than ever before. Rationing of food items, gasoline, and other goods needed for the war effort curtailed consumer demand and created huge savings never seen before. That is what ended the depression. My dissertation for my MBA/Economics degree was based on the end of the recession, and I read history and economics books about the era until my head hurt.

Left wingers don't like to hear their "boy" being shot down, but facts are facts. I do agree with social security FDR started, I just don't agree with how it is funded. In my opinion the cap on personal income from which FICA/MC is collected should be removed, and the program will meet actuarial conditions very well.

 

[dnsmith35]

I specifically stated "reducing" the demands on energy. The plans are to power them via electricity, which is mostly fossil fuels at present.

And assuming you are right about concerns of the environment being largely made up, then you are right. But how accurate is your assessment? It could be true, partially so or false. What does the Bible, I mean Jesus, I mean scientists say?

There's about 2% of people who study this issue with a alleged scientific lens and agree with you; there's another segment that says it will matter increasingly (usually identified as 97-8%); but there's another group among scientists that assert the cost to the environment and hence to humanity is much more disastrous a situation then any of the mainstream reports like IPCC. Notably an MIT group of scientists among many others: MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change

Just based on intelligent guesses we can determine your accusation that climate concern is largely made up is itself made up--for what creature besides man actually thinks he can survive without utmost concern for his habitat? Only people bent towards personal excess and greed can ignore the most fundamental truth about humans: that we are of this earth and depend on its providence alone. But when all your peers agree with you and ignores this truth, it makes you feel like you have a valid point. Don't let groupthink deceive you into invalid views. Do your own homework and think about it.

I think that goes both ways Gnarley. I think it reasonable to assume that burning fossil fuels enhances the pollution problem. Is it the main cause of global warming? Maybe, but maybe not. The earth has gone through much more warming than we are sensing now, then turned colder into a Glacial age. The important point is to determine how much or little we are helping mother nature along. I have read articles which say global warming is being driven to a great extent by use of fossil fuels, and those same reports say that many things will be affected: sea levels rising, moving the prime growing areas to the north et al. Then it went on to say the Gulf Stream will likely be altered such that the stream will no loner keep northern Europe as warm as it is now. So we heat up, and northern Europe gets cooler. It went on to say that all of this will precipitate a reversal after a point of heating takes place and the climate will reverse itself. Of course we are dealing with hundreds or thousands of years, and it stipulated that eventually we will end up in another glacial age. Some speculation!

So given all the predictions, mostly opinions by so called experts bolstered by some real scientist, let us presume they are right. The next question is, can we alter the progress? And if we can, how will we produce the energy we need to live? More nuclear energy? Or hopefully ambient temperature fusion power. Or maybe wave power. I don't know, and it does disturb me, but I hope our scientific world can figure it all out and do something.

The issue with some of the predictions are, the experiments did not all pan out. They can test ancient sediment, but that doesn't always predict the outcome.

This link is to a very interesting article I have recently read. No, It’s Not ‘Global Warming’

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I specifically stated "reducing" the demands on energy. The plans are to power them via electricity, which is mostly fossil fuels at present.

And assuming you are right about concerns of the environment being largely made up, then you are right. But how accurate is your assessment? It could be true, partially so or false. What does the Bible, I mean Jesus, I mean scientists say?

There's about 2% of people who study this issue with a alleged scientific lens and agree with you; there's another segment that says it will matter increasingly (usually identified as 97-8%); but there's another group among scientists that assert the cost to the environment and hence to humanity is much more disastrous a situation then any of the mainstream reports like IPCC. Notably an MIT group of scientists among many others: MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change

Just based on intelligent guesses we can determine your accusation that climate concern is largely made up is itself made up--for what creature besides man actually thinks he can survive without utmost concern for his habitat? Only people bent towards personal excess and greed can ignore the most fundamental truth about humans: that we are of this earth and depend on its providence alone. But when all your peers agree with you and ignores this truth, it makes you feel like you have a valid point. Don't let groupthink deceive you into invalid views. Do your own homework and think about it.

What does the Bible, I mean Jesus, I mean scientists say?

 

[crisismangement]

We not only have some real duds on this thread we have a few left extremes duds on this thread. I don't believe I have seen anyone so totally partisan to the extreme left as gnarley, phillips or indeependence any where else on the internet. Where do these duds get all their strange ideas about such easy to understand subjects? Anyone who believes that government policies were not the main cause of our housing crash and the recession in 2007/8/9 are complete fools.

 

[Zmrzlina]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

Tell that to the family slaughtered by Congolese rebel groups fighting for control of the resources used in the production of consumer electronics that allowed you to post such an ignorant opinion online.

 

[dnsmith35]

Another tidbit about commercial loan issues:

Other analysis calls into question the validity of comparing the residential loan crisis to the commercial loan crisis. After researching the default of commercial loans during the financial crisis, Xudong An and Anthony B. Sanders reported (in December 2010): "We find limited evidence that substantial deterioration in CMBS [commercial mortgage-backed securities] loan underwriting occurred prior to the crisis." Other analysts support the contention that the crisis in commercial real estate and related lending took place after the crisis in residential real estate. Business journalist Kimberly Amadeo reports: "The first signs of decline in residential real estate occurred in 2006. Three years later, commercial real estate started feeling the effects. Denice A. Gierach, a real estate attorney and CPA, wrote:


...most of the commercial real estate loans were good loans destroyed by a really bad economy. In other words, the borrowers did not cause the loans to go bad, it was the economy.​

 

[dnsmith35]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

Tell that to the family slaughtered by Congolese rebel groups fighting for control of the resources used in the production of consumer electronics that allowed you to post such an ignorant opinion online.

We have been discussing Capitalism in the US and on some occasions the rest of the industrialize world.

What happens in the 3rd world is important, but not relevant to our discussion of capitalism, which does give us the prosperity to help the needy the world over but more important to the subject you brought up, elevated the standards of living for the poor in the US such that our relative poor live better than most laborers in the third world. About 5 billion people in the world live in abject destitution. That is why I choose to give my charity to some of them rather than to the relatively poor in the US.

 

[bedowin62]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

Tell that to the family slaughtered by Congolese rebel groups fighting for control of the resources used in the production of consumer electronics that allowed you to post such an ignorant opinion online.

the moronic Left refuses to acknowelge people are responsible for their actions. capitalism didnt make people kill that family

libs are absolute morons

 

[Zmrzlina]

What happens in the 3rd world is important, but not relevant to our discussion of capitalism, which does give us the prosperity to help the needy the world over but more important to the subject you brought up, elevated the standards of living for the poor in the US such that our relative poor live better than most laborers in the third world. About 5 billion people in the world live in abject destitution. That is why I choose to give my charity to some of them rather than to the relatively poor in the US.

Sorry to break it to you but we live in a globalized economy and economic activities (and their consequences) are not contained within the borders of a single nation.

 

[bedowin62]

What happens in the 3rd world is important, but not relevant to our discussion of capitalism, which does give us the prosperity to help the needy the world over but more important to the subject you brought up, elevated the standards of living for the poor in the US such that our relative poor live better than most laborers in the third world. About 5 billion people in the world live in abject destitution. That is why I choose to give my charity to some of them rather than to the relatively poor in the US.

Sorry to break it to you but we live in a globalized economy and economic activities are not contained within the borders of a single nation.

sorry to break it to you but killers will kill.
moron leftist

 

[gnarlylove]

I think that goes both ways Gnarley.

Absolutely it does! And it takes insight to recognize it and courage to take measures to prevent such a natural tendency!

So given all the predictions, mostly opinions by so called experts bolstered by some real scientist, let us presume they are right. The next question is, can we alter the progress? And if we can, how will we produce the energy we need to live? More nuclear energy? Or hopefully ambient temperature fusion power. Or maybe wave power. I don't know, and it does disturb me, but I hope our scientific world can figure it all out and do something.

The technology exists now. IT existed decades ago. However, it is far too profitable to continue using fossil fuels for extremely powerful corporations to simply let countries do the sensible thing for our children and grand children.

This link is to a very interesting article I have recently read. No, It’s Not ‘Global Warming’

Appreciate the link but do take note of the date it was published. Not saying it's false, just that it has not accounted for the last 15 years. The main reason climate change confusion exists is because addressing human agency in climate change overturns centuries of industry and profit that won't take it without a fight. We know what it takes to curb and secure our future as a species but we are not capable of doing so because such decisions are made by those whose interests lie with maintaining precisely the same way of life we have--which happens to line their pockets with gold AND wreck the planet, literally.

The way to mitigate the natural human inclination of caring for earth is to outsource the pollution and this was done in the 70s onward in America. So we had no idea what our part was in piling up garbage, buying products x, y and z made in other countries at massive costs to foreign territory and populations. Next, once science got too pushy for business in the last 8 years, the result was massive campaigns to confuse the public: stifling popular dissent through false claims over "the science." After 2-3 yrs of such funding by Heartland Institute and others, popular opinion had reversed to becoming climate deniers. The science is not confusing about the fundamental facts (that fossil fuels contribute massively to pollution and environmental degradation, human health hazards and the [ame="http://www.amazon.com/the-sixth-extinction-unnatural-history/dp/0805092994"]6th extinction[/ame] happening RIGHT NOW as a result of HUMANS).

But dollars matter more now than life does in the future because money has a voice today while the humans and trillions of other creatures in the future are absolutely ignored and without a voice.

 

[dnsmith35]

What happens in the 3rd world is important, but not relevant to our discussion of capitalism, which does give us the prosperity to help the needy the world over but more important to the subject you brought up, elevated the standards of living for the poor in the US such that our relative poor live better than most laborers in the third world. About 5 billion people in the world live in abject destitution. That is why I choose to give my charity to some of them rather than to the relatively poor in the US.

Sorry to break it to you but we live in a globalized economy and economic activities (and their consequences) are not contained within the borders of a single nation.

Obviously you have not read much of this thread and your response was based on ignorance. The global economy you speak of is basically the combined industrialized nations in the world. Economic activities in the 3rd world will gradually improve ONLY when the industrialized world stops hoarding their jobs and global natural resources. We see this happening now, as over the last 30 years we can see an emerging middle class involving more people than the US's entire population. As they (and other third world nations) begin to have their economic evolutions, they will become a huge market for our goods and services. So tell me, who are the people crying the most about a few labor intensive jobs being offshored? The left tards, some of whom are on this thread. So tell me, how do you see some of our jobs going to 3rd world countries? Are you willing to allow the natural flow of labor as a prospective of improving the lot of the 5 billion? Or do you selfishly believe we should give those jobs to Americans, most of whom do not want to do that kind of work, or their wages are too high (even our minimum wage) to compete on a world market?

 

[dnsmith35]

..

I think that goes both ways Gnarley.

Absolutely it does! And it takes insight to recognize it and courage to take measures to prevent such a natural tendency!

So given all the predictions, mostly opinions by so called experts bolstered by some real scientist, let us presume they are right. The next question is, can we alter the progress? And if we can, how will we produce the energy we need to live? More nuclear energy? Or hopefully ambient temperature fusion power. Or maybe wave power. I don't know, and it does disturb me, but I hope our scientific world can figure it all out and do something.

The technology exists now. IT existed decades ago. However, it is far too profitable to continue using fossil fuels for extremely powerful corporations to simply let countries do the sensible thing for our children and grand children.

The only technology which would give us that power in sufficient quantities, about which we have known, is Nuclear Power, something many of our left wing extremist brethren do not want to consider. Solar energy of which I am a big proponent (I built a house with 16 flat plate collectors in 1979/80) and was very pleased with the results. The issue is, solar energy and wind energy are not sufficient to run our country's grid.

This link is to a very interesting article I have recently read. No, It’s Not ‘Global Warming’

Appreciate the link but do take note of the date it was published. Not saying it's false, just that it has not accounted for the last 15 years. The main reason climate change confusion exists is because addressing human agency in climate change overturns centuries of industry and profit that won't take it without a fight. We know what it takes to curb and secure our future as a species but we are not capable of doing so because such decisions are made by those whose interests lie with maintaining precisely the same way of life we have--which happens to line their pockets with gold AND wreck the planet, literally.

If you read the entire article, you would know that most of it agrees with global warming trekkies, and does criticize our over use of fossil fuel.

The way to mitigate the natural human inclination of caring for earth is to outsource the pollution and this was done in the 70s onward in America. So we had no idea what our part was in piling up garbage, buying products x, y and z made in other countries at massive costs to foreign territory and populations. Next, once science got too pushy for business in the last 8 years, the result was massive campaigns to confuse the public: stifling popular dissent through false claims over "the science." After 2-3 yrs of such funding by Heartland Institute and others, popular opinion had reversed to becoming climate deniers. The science is not confusing about the fundamental facts (that fossil fuels contribute massively to pollution and environmental degradation, human health hazards and the 6th extinction happening RIGHT NOW as a result of HUMANS).

One thing I have learned over my 78 years, is POPULAR OPINION seldom follows reasonable science.

But dollars matter more now than life does in the future because money has a voice today while the humans and trillions of other creatures in the future are absolutely ignored and without a voice.

Another observation is, money is not the whole story, or even the most important story. Governments, ours and others across the globe tend to go the route with the least resistance, IE THE PATH which improves the prosperity of the individual countries.

I do not believe we have the technology today to furnish the world non-polluting power, and I don't believe private enterprise has the where with all to fund the research which can provide us with that power. When will our government (left or right) choose to do the right thing? I believe ONLY WHEN the fossil fuel is virtually used up.

When I retired from my first career, I came back to the US and researched water power, solar power (both flat plate heat collectors and photo electric cells) and wind power. We do not have sufficient wind in our part of the country to work. Photo electric cells are so expensive (even the more recent silicon strip cells). As I said earlier, I did build a house with flat plate dry heat collectors which did most of the warming of the house in winter, but nothing to help cool the house in summer. I also had a commercial device which was actually a closed loop hot water loop which got its heat from a special built in water heat exchanger on the external coils of my air conditioning unit preheating the water in a separate 100 gallon tank before that water got into my standard water heater.

Unfortunately it was a 2 story house, in which my wife fell on the stairs, and we were put into the position of selling that house and buying one all on a single floor. The we went to the extreme of increasing insulation over the entire house to reduce heat loss.

I researched a closed loop UNDERGROUND PLENUM system until it was obvious that was a very difficult and costly endeavor for an already built house. If you want information about any of those systems I will be happy to provide it to you.

 

[georgephillip]

Well first off, the idea that regulation can prevent or stabilize anything, is a joke.

Glass–Steagall was no joke, we wouldn't have had a severe recession as we did with it in place.

Mr Hipeter, I am not trying to insult you in any way, but in truth, you don't appear to know what you are talking about.

For historical accuracy, there is no Glass-Steagal Act. In reality, it's the 1933 Banking Act. People call it the "Glass Steagal Act" because the sponsors of the 1933 Banking Act were Carter Glass, and Henry B. Steagall.

Ironically, the 1933 Banking Act contained several key provisions for FDIC and Federal Deposit Insurance, which people claim to be part of the New Deal.

The provision of the 1933 Banking Act, that people call the Glass-Steagal Act, is the provision for separation of Retail banks, Commercial bank, Investment Banks, and Insurance Companies. Investment, Retail, Commercial and Insurance, were prohibited from operating together.

The claim that these prohibitions would have prevented the melt down are just simply not true.

First, the rest of the world does not have these prohibitions, and most never did. Canada didn't, and never has. They have not had a problem.

Second, the vast majority of the banks that failed in the recent crash, would not have been covered under the Glass-Steagal prohibitions. Countrywide Financial would not. Bear Stearns would not. Indymac would not. The vast majority of the bank failures, had Glass Steagall been enforced, would have not been affected in any way.

Third, the majority of the 'fixes' that government pushed, were only allowed with Glass-Steagal repealed. Bank of America buying out Countrywide, would have been illegal under GSA. JP Morgan Chase buying Bear Stearns, would have been illegal under GSA.

So this idea that "repealing Glass Steagal Act caused everything" in just flat out bogus. If anything, getting rid of that regulation helped solve the crisis.



By any objective measure, the New Deal policies are what dragged out the recession, into the great depression.

How does paying people to destroy food, during a hunger crisis, result in great economic growth? If you look at the standard of living under the New Deal, and World War 2, the standard declined at best. There was no great economic growth.



Ah, I don't buy it. Most of the Canadian government programs existed before the crisis in the US every happened. Further, there was no sub-prime melt down in Canada, which would have caused the need for a bailout. No one can even point to a bank that was at risk of bankruptcy.

The basic argument I've read thus far, is that 'banks had taken advantage of money the government gave out..... thus they were bailed out'. Sorry, that's not true. If you provide a program today, to hand out money to people like me, I'm going to ask for your address and come get some cash. Doesn't mean you bailed me out... just means I was more than happy to take your money.



That doesn't change the point. Yes, if you tie bad investments to good investments, that doesn't make the bad investments good. If the Carpathia had reached the Titanic before she sank, and tied itself to the hull, that would not have kept the Titanic afloat, it would have just sank the Carpathia too.

Again, the problem wasn't derivatives. The problem was the sub-prime loans. If the sub-prime loans had not been sold to begin with, or had not been bundled into the derivatives, there would never have been a problem with derivatives.

And again.... it was government that pushed sub-prime loans, and it was government that pushed them to be bundled into derivatives. If you watched the video, Obama himself says the whole point of bundling those loans, was to get more investment. The government pushed this whole thing.

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.

Yes, property values could dive without warning, even without sub-prime lending. But in this case, it was directly because of sub-prime loans that values went up, and it was directly because of sub-prime melt down, that they went down.

Just because X can happen without Y, doesn't mean X did happened without Y.

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.

Yes, AFTER the bubble got started, banks found they could make risky loans, and if the buyer defaulted, they could get the house back, which had a higher value than when it was purchased. Thus the risky loan was considered very safe, because if the buyer paid back the loan, they win. If the buyer defaults, and they get back a house worth more than the original loan, they win.

It was a win-win for the banks.

But here's the problem.... that situation was only true AFTER the bubble got started.

What started the bubble? Answer? Government through Freddie Mac, encourage banks to make sub-prime loans that Freddie Mac would guarantee.

This was a win-win for the banks, because of government. If the buyer paid back, the bank wins. If the buyer defaults, Freddie Mac pays back, and the bank wins. Win-win for the bank BEFORE the bubble started.

Government started the bubble. Yes, the banks continued the bubble. But Government created the bubble to begin with.

When did government first require private lenders to solicit appraisal fraud?
Thanks.

"Only lenders and their agents can cause a substantial amount of appraisal fraud;
They did so through extorting appraisers to inflate appraisals by blacklisting the most ethical appraisals;

"No honest lender would induce appraisal fraud;
Lenders engaged in accounting control fraud find widespread appraisal fraud an optimal strategy;

"Fraudulent mortgage lenders engage in appraisal fraud because it aids their overall strategy of making fraudulent loans;

"No honest lender would permit widespread appraisal fraud;
Honest lenders can prevent widespread appraisal fraud in the loans they make;
No honest secondary market purchaser would knowingly purchase loans with inflated appraisals;

"Competent secondary market purchasers could have avoided purchasing large numbers of loans with inflated appraisals;The appraisers warned the Nation publicly of the widespread appraisal fraud and that it occurred through extortion and blacklisting by the lenders and their agents;

"The appraisers took special efforts to warn the mortgage lending industry and U.S. government beginning in 2000, and continued those efforts through 2007, about these facts and warned that it would cause a crisis;

"Eventually, over 11,000 appraisers signed the profession’s petition warning about the epidemic of appraisal fraud driven by the lenders and their agents."

Global Economic Intersection

 

[georgephillip]

As was posted earlier, just because two similar things happen does not mean they were all caused by the same issue."What caused parallel bubble-bust cycles outside of the housing markets?" You should ask me something difficult, this question is simpleton in nature. The housing crash occurred and a huge number of construction workers lost their jobs. It became a chain reaction causing building material vendors and suppliers to go bust as well. Taking that many employed people out of jobs then caused a chain reaction in all of the industries depending on the demand from those people. I would have thought that a person like who has posted so many assertions about economics would understand such a simple situation.Yep! I like it too. Low interest and pushing for more housing in the poor sectors.
Glad you like the link:

"Excessive consumer housing debt was in turn caused by the mortgage-backed security, credit default swap, and collateralized debt obligation sub-sectors of the finance industry, which were offering irrationally low interest rates and irrationally high levels of approval to subprime mortgage consumers because they were calculating aggregate risk using gaussian copula formulas that strictly assumed the independence of individual component mortgages, when in fact the credit-worthiness almost every new subprime mortgage was highly correlated with that of any other because of linkages through consumer spending levels which fell sharply when property values began to fall during the initial wave of mortgage defaults.[133][134]

"Debt consumers were acting in their rational self-interest, because they were unable to audit the finance industry's opaque faulty risk pricing methodology.[135]

It didn't really matter what the industry's risk pricing methodology to the consumer. The consumer could either buy or not buy what they wanted at low interest rates and with a lack of acceptable credit.Yep! If you look back I have stated all of that, yet the biggest culprit was low interest which heated up the market forcing HIGH HOME PRICES inflated about value. Thanks for proving my point (which one of you called a rant.)Yep, all part of the government's push to get more relatively poor people to buy their own homes. Sounds like you have chosen to paraphrase my past assertions.It has already been posted in spades by Androw.

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.

HowThe Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis Starring HUD Sec Andrew Cuomo & Barack Obama - YouTube

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.



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.

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 sell

According to Androw:

"People asked 'how did these junk sub-prime mortgages get a 'AAA' rating? This is how. Freddie Mac, gave it to them.'"

When did Freddie Mac give any "junk sub-prime mortages" a AAA rating?

 

[Indeependent]

We not only have some real duds on this thread we have a few left extremes duds on this thread. I don't believe I have seen anyone so totally partisan to the extreme left as gnarley, phillips or indeependence any where else on the internet. Where do these duds get all their strange ideas about such easy to understand subjects? Anyone who believes that government policies were not the main cause of our housing crash and the recession in 2007/8/9 are complete fools.

Please explain why, starting in 2004, people who were not seeking out Mortgages or Home Equity Loans were being deluged by calls from Mortgage Brokers and Lenders who were approving, ON PAPER, and not via the Software, Loans to anybody who could breath.

Starting somewhere in 2006, when GW KNEW he was going to leave a legacy of an economy in the doldrums, Jumbo Mortgages became the norm, NOT because people were seeking out Loans, but because people were being AGGRESSIVLY pursued to accept Loans for which they were ABSILUTELY unqualified.

Now I have read DNSMITH using the catchy phrase, "The Market Heated Up" and I'd like a CLINICAL (you know, STEP BY STEP) explanation of how "The Market Heated Up".

I know how the "The Market Heated Up"...Institutions generating Fees and Commissions by bypassing the Vendor supplied Data Tables that would have resulted in a massive number of Rejections.

Until you Knee-Jerkers can explain, IN DETAIL, the events that ACTUALLY occurred, in THE ORDER in which they occurred, you can all cut it with your bullshit.

 

[Zmrzlina]

No one has benefitted more from capitalism more than poor people. Their quality of life is a million times better than it used to be.

Tell that to the family slaughtered by Congolese rebel groups fighting for control of the resources used in the production of consumer electronics that allowed you to post such an ignorant opinion online.

the moronic Left refuses to acknowelge people are responsible for their actions. capitalism didnt make people kill that family

libs are absolute morons

That's the difference between the left and the right. The left doesn't try to extract all context from events and recognize indirect factors.

 

[dnsmith35]

Tell that to the family slaughtered by Congolese rebel groups fighting for control of the resources used in the production of consumer electronics that allowed you to post such an ignorant opinion online.

the moronic Left refuses to acknowelge people are responsible for their actions. capitalism didnt make people kill that family

libs are absolute morons

That's the difference between the left and the right. The left doesn't try to extract all context from events and recognize indirect factors.

Much more correctly, the far left listens to extremist propaganda and believes crap.

 

[georgephillip]

We not only have some real duds on this thread we have a few left extremes duds on this thread. I don't believe I have seen anyone so totally partisan to the extreme left as gnarley, phillips or indeependence any where else on the internet. Where do these duds get all their strange ideas about such easy to understand subjects? Anyone who believes that government policies were not the main cause of our housing crash and the recession in 2007/8/9 are complete fools.

"A pair of economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco added another piece of evidence to the case that the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act wasn’t the cause, or even a major contributor, to the subprime mortgage debacle.

"In a paper focused on California that was presented at a Fed conference on housing and mortgages in Washington, D.C., Elizabeth Laderman and Carolina Reid say the data 'should help to quell if not fully lay to rest the arguments that the CRA caused the current subprime lending boom by requiring banks to lend irresponsibly in low and moderate-income lenders.'

"Fed governor Randall Kroszner made a similar case earlier this week.

"Among the specific findings in 'Lending in Low- and Moderate-Income Neighborhoods in California: The Performance of CRA Lending During the Subprime Meltdown':

"Overall, lending to low and moderate income communities comprised only a small share of toal lending by CRA lenders, even during the height of the California subprime lending boom.

"Loans originated by lenders regulated under CRA in general were 'significantly less likely to be in foreclosure' than those originated by independent mortgage companies that weren’t covered by CRA.

"Loans made by CRA lenders within their geographic assessment areas covered by the law were 'half as likely to go into foreclosure' as those made by the independent mortgage companies.

"28% of loans made by CRA lenders in low income areas within their geographic assessment areas were fixed-rate loans, compared with 18.2% of loans made by independent mortgage companies in low income areas.

Don?t Blame CRA (The Sequel) - Real Time Economics - WSJ

If you're actually foolish enough to believe government doesn't work the way Wall Street wants, maybe you're too stupid to be here?