Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[georgephillip]

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.​

So what wrecked the economy, Stupid?

"It's telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA.

"That's because CRA didn't bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance.

"And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA -- or any federal regulator.

"Law didn't make them lend. The profit motive did.'"

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/10/misunderstandin.html

 

[crisismangement]

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.​

So what wrecked the economy, Stupid?

The housing crash which was primarily caused by bad government policy; especially the low interest rates. Then the CRA did have some affect on liquidity of many sub prime loans as pushed by Clinton and Bush, all of which created the major difference between prices and value of real estate. There have been posted in the last two days by at least 2 members with citations which show how it all came about. Are you so mentally dull you can't transpose what facts have been posted and what you think is the case? Are you that stupid.

"It's telling that, amid all the recent recriminations, even lenders have not fingered CRA.

"That's because CRA didn't bring about the reckless lending at the heart of the crisis. Just as sub-prime lending was exploding, CRA was losing force and relevance.

Wrong! Your propaganda source is lying to you.

"And the worst offenders, the independent mortgage companies, were never subject to CRA -- or any federal regulator.

Wrong, proof has been posted but you are too stupid to understand.

"Law didn't make them lend. The profit motive did.'"

You listen to left wing propaganda too much, and you believe government entities too much.

There have been many pieces of evidence which categorically proves the CRA WAS a cause of the crash, and that Fanny and Fredie Mac both pushed bad credit loans from poorpeople as part of their regulation of CRA. When you stop reading left wing propaganda and read what the real estate experts and the economists say, you might learn something. Obviously you have learned nothing about our great recession which was totally caused by the housing crash which was caused by bad government policies. Sure, mortgage lenders were more than happy to accommodate those policies in the hopes of making big bucks. That was a natural and reasonable response to bad government policies.

 

[georgephillip]

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.

The subject of this thread, Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality", is entirely relevant to imperialism in Africa and elsewhere.

How else would good capitalists expand their markets and exploit the natural resources of others?

"In 'King Leopold's Ghost,' journalist Adam Hochschild chronicles the depredations of Belgian rule of the Congo (today's Zaire) between the 1880s and 1909, when Leopold, the king of Belgium, died.

"During this period, 5 million to 10 million people were killed, or died of starvation, disease and being worked to death.

"All of this for rubber, harvested from the thick vines that contained that precious gelatinous sap.

"Hochschild understandably wanted to know why so few of us have ever heard about the atrocities of Leopold's rule."

History of Capitalism in the Congo

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Translation: The right expects claims to be rational and supported by the facts rather than some lame-assed theory from Cloud Cuckoo land.

 

[georgephillip]

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.​

The housing crash which was primarily caused by bad government policy; especially the low interest rates. Then the CRA did have some affect on liquidity of many sub prime loans as pushed by Clinton and Bush, all of which created the major difference between prices and value of real estate. There have been posted in the last two days by at least 2 members with citations which show how it all came about. Are you so mentally dull you can't transpose what facts have been posted and what you think is the case? Are you that stupid. Wrong! Your propaganda source is lying to you.
Wrong, proof has been posted but you are too stupid to understand.You listen to left wing propaganda too much, and you believe government entities too much.

There have been many pieces of evidence which categorically proves the CRA WAS a cause of the crash, and that Fanny and Fredie Mac both pushed bad credit loans from poorpeople as part of their regulation of CRA. When you stop reading left wing propaganda and read what the real estate experts and the economists say, you might learn something. Obviously you have learned nothing about our great recession which was totally caused by the housing crash which was caused by bad government policies. Sure, mortgage lenders were more than happy to accommodate those policies in the hopes of making big bucks. That was a natural and reasonable response to bad government policies.

Are you still here, Stupid?
It all came about because of an epidemic of mortgage fraud, 80% by lenders, the FBI warned about in 2004.

Maybe this will help:

More CRA Idiocy | The Big Picture

 

[dnsmith35]

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.

That has been explained several times on this thread. Low interest rates made too many people try to buy too much real estate causing a rush to buy while interest was low. That is called by professionals (economists) an over heated demand driving inflation of price over value, then the market crashed. It was almost totally government policy which caused it.

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.

Businesses were all to happy to sell loans when pushed by the Fanny and Freddie Macs. The Macs promised to insure or buy every loan regardless of quality. Market Heating up is a standard term for more demand than supply and the demand is over chasing that supply.

Signs the housing market is heating up - USA Today

www.usatoday.com/story/.../11/ozy-housing-market.../7590243 Cached
Signs the housing market is heating up. The private mortgage industry is bouncing back, which is good news for first time home buyers.




Housing Market Heats Up, Mortgage Rates Fall - 24/7 Wall St.

247wallst.com/housing/2014/05/22/housing-market-heats-up... Cached
Recent Posts. GameStop Gets Some of Its Mojo Back; HP Turnaround Debacle – Thousands of More Layoffs; Housing Market Heats Up, Mortgage Rates Fall




Southern California housing market slowly heating up

www.dailynews.com/business/20140513/southern-california... Cached
Southern California’s housing market improved a bit in April, with sales rising more than usual from March while slipping below the 2013 level by the smallest ...




Housing market heating up | Peninsula Clarion

peninsulaclarion.com/.../housing-market-heating-up Cached
In his 20 years in real estate, Redoubt Realty owner Dale Bagley has never seen a more active winter. Bagley, the President of the Kenai Peninsula ...
​

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".

That is not a catchy phrase. Only ignorant people are unaware of what it means.

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.[/QUOTE]It is so simple, and has been explained in detail in responses to you and others on this thread.

The order in which this occurred:

During the Carter Administration CRA was enacted, but not used to any degree, until Clinton came along.

At first, Clinton made efforts to get CRA to be helpful for less wealthy to buy homes. He was successful to the extent that multi-family housing was introduced in Red Lined areas. This did not hurt the market and only 6% of them ever get foreclosed on. (When you look at the Minnesota Federal Reserve comment, this is what they are referring to, and that did not cause the Market to Heat up.

In 1997/8 Clinton told his regulators to insure that CRA guidelines were better enforced, which when taken at face value Fanny Mae and Freedie Mac started pusing loans to less wealth individual home buyers who were less wealthy, informing all major lenders that they would insure or buy all the mortgages whether good credit or subprime.

All of that OVER HEATED THE REAL ESTATE MARKET(IE there was more demand than supply and home buyers caused the market to inflate price over value) which is the classic economic definition of MARKET OVER HEATING. All but total dumb bells understand what that means.

 

[dnsmith35]

The housing crash which was primarily caused by bad government policy; especially the low interest rates. Then the CRA did have some affect on liquidity of many sub prime loans as pushed by Clinton and Bush, all of which created the major difference between prices and value of real estate. There have been posted in the last two days by at least 2 members with citations which show how it all came about. Are you so mentally dull you can't transpose what facts have been posted and what you think is the case? Are you that stupid. Wrong! Your propaganda source is lying to you.
Wrong, proof has been posted but you are too stupid to understand.You listen to left wing propaganda too much, and you believe government entities too much.
Are you still here, Stupid?

I am here stupid!

It all came about because of an epidemic of mortgage fraud, 80% by lenders, the FBI warned about in 2004.

No one denies that the FBI warned about fraud, but that fraud is not what caused the housing market to heat up to the extent it did, and most of what they called fraud was not really fraud or they would have been charged with a crime. Most of what the FBI called fraud was lack of transparency and some possibly shady activity, mostly on the part of the Macs, both quasi government instruments charged with using their power to insure, buy or deny loans. They failed to deny $trillions of subprime loans.

Maybe this will help:[/B]

More CRA Idiocy | The Big Picture

No help at all. Your link simply agrees with my continuous assertions that the most important failure was government fiscal/monetary policy, mostly excessively low interest rates which called loudly to everyone and his brother they needed to buy. In addition ARMS sucked house flippers into the game with low initial interest and when the interest went up at the first review period they could not sell the homes fast enough and they too were foreclosed upon.

It is obvious that you have failed to read the last few days of posts with citations and links which disprove the left wing extremists propaganda. You have learned nothing. You have suggested that much of this came from RWers.
Well, I am a liberal, I just educated in economics and want the same thing for the least of our people (the world over) that we provide for in the US.

 

[dnsmith35]

United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While bubbles may be identifiable in progress, bubbles can be definitively measured only in hindsight after a market correction,[28] which in the U.S. housing market began in 2005–2006.[29][30][31][32][33][34] Former U.S. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan said "We had a bubble in housing",[35][36] and also said in the wake of the subprime mortgage and credit crisis in 2007, "I really didn't get it until very late in 2005 and 2006."[37]

The mortgage and credit crisis was caused by the inability of a large number of home owners to pay their mortgages as their low introductory-rate mortgages reverted to regular interest rates. Freddie Mac CEO Richard Syron concluded, "We had a bubble",[38] and concurred with Yale economist Robert Shiller's warning that home prices appear overvalued and that the correction could last years, with trillions of dollars of home value being lost.[38] Greenspan warned of "large double digit declines" in home values "larger than most people expect."[36]


Many contested any suggestion that there could be a housing bubble, particularly at its peak from 2004 to 2006,[49] with some rejecting the "house bubble" label in 2008.[50] Claims that there was no warning of the crisis were further repudiated in an August 2008 article in The New York Times, which reported that in mid-2004 Richard F. Syron, the CEO of Freddie Mac, received a memo from David Andrukonis, the company's former chief risk officer, warning him that Freddie Mac was financing risk-laden loans that threatened Freddie Mac's financial stability.
(Significantly caused by pushing CRA subprime loans.)Observers and analysts have attributed the reasons for the 2001-2006 housing bubble and its 2007-10 collapse in the United States to "everyone from home buyers to Wall Street, mortgage brokers to Alan Greenspan".[3] Other factors that are named include "Mortgage underwriters, investment banks, rating agencies, and investors",[4] "low mortgage interest rates, low short-term interest rates, relaxed standards for mortgage loans, and irrational exuberance"[5] Politicians in both the Democratic and Republican political parties have been cited for "pushing to keep derivatives unregulated" and "with rare exceptions" giving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac "unwavering support".[6]

The government did not want to admit that when talking about the sub-prime mortgages that they were encouraged by the CRA. That does not change the facts of the issue.

 

[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.

That has been explained several times on this thread. Low interest rates made too many people try to buy too much real estate causing a rush to buy while interest was low. That is called by professionals (economists) an over heated demand driving inflation of price over value, then the market crashed. It was almost totally government policy which caused it.Businesses were all to happy to sell loans when pushed by the Fanny and Freddie Macs. The Macs promised to insure or buy every loan regardless of quality. Market Heating up is a standard term for more demand than supply and the demand is over chasing that supply.

Signs the housing market is heating up - USA Today

www.usatoday.com/story/.../11/ozy-housing-market.../7590243 Cached
Signs the housing market is heating up. The private mortgage industry is bouncing back, which is good news for first time home buyers.




Housing Market Heats Up, Mortgage Rates Fall - 24/7 Wall St.

247wallst.com/housing/2014/05/22/housing-market-heats-up... Cached
Recent Posts. GameStop Gets Some of Its Mojo Back; HP Turnaround Debacle – Thousands of More Layoffs; Housing Market Heats Up, Mortgage Rates Fall




Southern California housing market slowly heating up

www.dailynews.com/business/20140513/southern-california... Cached
Southern California’s housing market improved a bit in April, with sales rising more than usual from March while slipping below the 2013 level by the smallest ...




Housing market heating up | Peninsula Clarion

peninsulaclarion.com/.../housing-market-heating-up Cached
In his 20 years in real estate, Redoubt Realty owner Dale Bagley has never seen a more active winter. Bagley, the President of the Kenai Peninsula ...
​

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".

That is not a catchy phrase. Only ignorant people are unaware of what it means.

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.

It is so simple, and has been explained in detail in responses to you and others on this thread.

The order in which this occurred:

During the Carter Administration CRA was enacted, but not used to any degree, until Clinton came along.

At first, Clinton made efforts to get CRA to be helpful for less wealthy to buy homes. He was successful to the extent that multi-family housing was introduced in Red Lined areas. This did not hurt the market and only 6% of them ever get foreclosed on. (When you look at the Minnesota Federal Reserve comment, this is what they are referring to, and that did not cause the Market to Heat up.

In 1997/8 Clinton told his regulators to insure that CRA guidelines were better enforced, which when taken at face value Fanny Mae and Freedie Mac started pusing loans to less wealth individual home buyers who were less wealthy, informing all major lenders that they would insure or buy all the mortgages whether good credit or subprime.

All of that OVER HEATED THE REAL ESTATE MARKET(IE there was more demand than supply and home buyers caused the market to inflate price over value) which is the classic economic definition of MARKET OVER HEATING. All but total dumb bells understand what that means.[/QUOTE]

Wow!
You REALLY like typing generalizations and avoiding the 2004-2008 Bubble/Crash, don't cha?
Enough with your intellectual bullshit...
Loans were NOT being granted prior to 2004 to every human that breathed.
AND NOBODY driving a bus EVER got a Jumbo Loan prior to 2006.

But go ahead and revise history if it pleases your dementia.

 

[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.

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.

The subject of this thread, Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality", is entirely relevant to imperialism in Africa and elsewhere.

How else would good capitalists expand their markets and exploit the natural resources of others?

"In 'King Leopold's Ghost,' journalist Adam Hochschild chronicles the depredations of Belgian rule of the Congo (today's Zaire) between the 1880s and 1909, when Leopold, the king of Belgium, died.

"During this period, 5 million to 10 million people were killed, or died of starvation, disease and being worked to death.

"All of this for rubber, harvested from the thick vines that contained that precious gelatinous sap.

"Hochschild understandably wanted to know why so few of us have ever heard about the atrocities of Leopold's rule."

History of Capitalism in the Congo

The relevance of 3rd world conditions are entirely different today than they were between the 1880s and 1909 and even 40 or 50 years later. The big relevance today is mostly the cries and whines by some people who don't want the relative labor intensive jobs to be off shored. It is that type of job which has helped India to achieve a new middle class greater than the population of the US. The relevance to the 3rd world swirls around the industrialized world to allow some of their jobs escape to the third world.

You can back off your childish rants based on left wing propaganda.

 

[Chris]

The 2008 crash was caused by Wall Street's derivatives based Ponzi scheme, not the housing crisis.

 

[dnsmith35]

That has been explained several times on this thread. Low interest rates made too many people try to buy too much real estate causing a rush to buy while interest was low. That is called by professionals (economists) an over heated demand driving inflation of price over value, then the market crashed. It was almost totally government policy which caused it.Businesses were all to happy to sell loans when pushed by the Fanny and Freddie Macs. The Macs promised to insure or buy every loan regardless of quality. Market Heating up is a standard term for more demand than supply and the demand is over chasing that supply.

Signs the housing market is heating up - USA Today

www.usatoday.com/story/.../11/ozy-housing-market.../7590243 Cached
Signs the housing market is heating up. The private mortgage industry is bouncing back, which is good news for first time home buyers.




Housing Market Heats Up, Mortgage Rates Fall - 24/7 Wall St.

247wallst.com/housing/2014/05/22/housing-market-heats-up... Cached
Recent Posts. GameStop Gets Some of Its Mojo Back; HP Turnaround Debacle – Thousands of More Layoffs; Housing Market Heats Up, Mortgage Rates Fall




Southern California housing market slowly heating up

www.dailynews.com/business/20140513/southern-california... Cached
Southern California’s housing market improved a bit in April, with sales rising more than usual from March while slipping below the 2013 level by the smallest ...




Housing market heating up | Peninsula Clarion

peninsulaclarion.com/.../housing-market-heating-up Cached
In his 20 years in real estate, Redoubt Realty owner Dale Bagley has never seen a more active winter. Bagley, the President of the Kenai Peninsula ...
​

That is not a catchy phrase. Only ignorant people are unaware of what it means.

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.

It is so simple, and has been explained in detail in responses to you and others on this thread.

The order in which this occurred:

During the Carter Administration CRA was enacted, but not used to any degree, until Clinton came along.

At first, Clinton made efforts to get CRA to be helpful for less wealthy to buy homes. He was successful to the extent that multi-family housing was introduced in Red Lined areas. This did not hurt the market and only 6% of them ever get foreclosed on. (When you look at the Minnesota Federal Reserve comment, this is what they are referring to, and that did not cause the Market to Heat up.

In 1997/8 Clinton told his regulators to insure that CRA guidelines were better enforced, which when taken at face value Fanny Mae and Freedie Mac started pusing loans to less wealth individual home buyers who were less wealthy, informing all major lenders that they would insure or buy all the mortgages whether good credit or subprime.

All of that OVER HEATED THE REAL ESTATE MARKET(IE there was more demand than supply and home buyers caused the market to inflate price over value) which is the classic economic definition of MARKET OVER HEATING. All but total dumb bells understand what that means.

Wow!
You REALLY like typing generalizations and avoiding the 2004-2008 Bubble/Crash, don't cha?
Enough with your intellectual bullshit...
Loans were NOT being granted prior to 2004 to every human that breathed.
AND NOBODY driving a bus EVER got a Jumbo Loan prior to 2006.

But go ahead and revise history if it pleases your dementia.

None of your assertion is relevant to our discussion. I have not typed generalizations, and I have not avoided any time period. The bubble started in 1999 and burst when the inflation of price over value peaked and started its rapid fall. Getting a jumbo loan has little or no relevance to the bubble or the crash. It was government fiscal and monetary which was the major culprit.

 

[Chris]

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.

It is so simple, and has been explained in detail in responses to you and others on this thread.

The order in which this occurred:

During the Carter Administration CRA was enacted, but not used to any degree, until Clinton came along.

At first, Clinton made efforts to get CRA to be helpful for less wealthy to buy homes. He was successful to the extent that multi-family housing was introduced in Red Lined areas. This did not hurt the market and only 6% of them ever get foreclosed on. (When you look at the Minnesota Federal Reserve comment, this is what they are referring to, and that did not cause the Market to Heat up.

In 1997/8 Clinton told his regulators to insure that CRA guidelines were better enforced, which when taken at face value Fanny Mae and Freedie Mac started pusing loans to less wealth individual home buyers who were less wealthy, informing all major lenders that they would insure or buy all the mortgages whether good credit or subprime.

All of that OVER HEATED THE REAL ESTATE MARKET(IE there was more demand than supply and home buyers caused the market to inflate price over value) which is the classic economic definition of MARKET OVER HEATING. All but total dumb bells understand what that means.

Wow!
You REALLY like typing generalizations and avoiding the 2004-2008 Bubble/Crash, don't cha?
Enough with your intellectual bullshit...
Loans were NOT being granted prior to 2004 to every human that breathed.
AND NOBODY driving a bus EVER got a Jumbo Loan prior to 2006.

But go ahead and revise history if it pleases your dementia.

None of your assertion is relevant to our discussion. I have not typed generalizations, and I have not avoided any time period. The bubble started in 1999 and burst when the inflation of price over value peaked and started its rapid fall. Getting a jumbo loan has little or no relevance to the bubble or the crash. It was government fiscal and monetary which was the major culprit.

No, it wasn't.
It was Wall Street's derivatives based Ponzi scheme.

 

[Indeependent]

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.

It is so simple, and has been explained in detail in responses to you and others on this thread.

The order in which this occurred:

During the Carter Administration CRA was enacted, but not used to any degree, until Clinton came along.

At first, Clinton made efforts to get CRA to be helpful for less wealthy to buy homes. He was successful to the extent that multi-family housing was introduced in Red Lined areas. This did not hurt the market and only 6% of them ever get foreclosed on. (When you look at the Minnesota Federal Reserve comment, this is what they are referring to, and that did not cause the Market to Heat up.

In 1997/8 Clinton told his regulators to insure that CRA guidelines were better enforced, which when taken at face value Fanny Mae and Freedie Mac started pusing loans to less wealth individual home buyers who were less wealthy, informing all major lenders that they would insure or buy all the mortgages whether good credit or subprime.

All of that OVER HEATED THE REAL ESTATE MARKET(IE there was more demand than supply and home buyers caused the market to inflate price over value) which is the classic economic definition of MARKET OVER HEATING. All but total dumb bells understand what that means.

Wow!
You REALLY like typing generalizations and avoiding the 2004-2008 Bubble/Crash, don't cha?
Enough with your intellectual bullshit...
Loans were NOT being granted prior to 2004 to every human that breathed.
AND NOBODY driving a bus EVER got a Jumbo Loan prior to 2006.

But go ahead and revise history if it pleases your dementia.

None of your assertion is relevant to our discussion. I have not typed generalizations, and I have not avoided any time period. The bubble started in 1999 and burst when the inflation of price over value peaked and started its rapid fall. Getting a jumbo loan has little or no relevance to the bubble or the crash. It was government fiscal and monetary which was the major culprit.

Other than the fact that Chris is correct, how can a Bubble occur in 1999 when we had a crash in 3rd Quarter 2000?
Dementia is NOT pretty.

 

[dnsmith35]

.....

The housing crash which was primarily caused by bad government policy; especially the low interest rates. Then the CRA did have some affect on liquidity of many sub prime loans as pushed by Clinton and Bush, all of which created the major difference between prices and value of real estate. There have been posted in the last two days by at least 2 members with citations which show how it all came about. Are you so mentally dull you can't transpose what facts have been posted and what you think is the case? Are you that stupid. Wrong! Your propaganda source is lying to you.

Are you still here, Stupid?
It all came about because of an epidemic of mortgage fraud, 80% by lenders, the FBI warned about in 2004.

Proof has been posted but you are too stupid to understand. You listen to left wing propaganda too much, and you believe government entities too much.

Maybe this will help:[/B]

More CRA Idiocy | The Big Picture

That blog is BS of the worst kind.

 

[dnsmith35]

It is so simple, and has been explained in detail in responses to you and others on this thread.

The order in which this occurred:

During the Carter Administration CRA was enacted, but not used to any degree, until Clinton came along.

At first, Clinton made efforts to get CRA to be helpful for less wealthy to buy homes. He was successful to the extent that multi-family housing was introduced in Red Lined areas. This did not hurt the market and only 6% of them ever get foreclosed on. (When you look at the Minnesota Federal Reserve comment, this is what they are referring to, and that did not cause the Market to Heat up.

In 1997/8 Clinton told his regulators to insure that CRA guidelines were better enforced, which when taken at face value Fanny Mae and Freedie Mac started pusing loans to less wealth individual home buyers who were less wealthy, informing all major lenders that they would insure or buy all the mortgages whether good credit or subprime.

All of that OVER HEATED THE REAL ESTATE MARKET(IE there was more demand than supply and home buyers caused the market to inflate price over value) which is the classic economic definition of MARKET OVER HEATING. All but total dumb bells understand what that means.

Wow!
You REALLY like typing generalizations and avoiding the 2004-2008 Bubble/Crash, don't cha?
Enough with your intellectual bullshit...
Loans were NOT being granted prior to 2004 to every human that breathed.
AND NOBODY driving a bus EVER got a Jumbo Loan prior to 2006.

But go ahead and revise history if it pleases your dementia.

None of your assertion is relevant to our discussion. I have not typed generalizations, and I have not avoided any time period. The bubble started in 1999 and burst when the inflation of price over value peaked and started its rapid fall. Getting a jumbo loan has little or no relevance to the bubble or the crash. It was government fiscal and monetary which was the major culprit.

Other than the fact that Chris is correct, how can a Bubble occur in 1999 when we had a crash in 3rd Quarter 2000?
Dementia is NOT pretty.

It didn't. The inflation bubble STARTED IN 1999 but did not burst until 2006. But we all note your dementia, and you are right, it is not pretty.

Here is the graph explaining what you obviously do not understand.

If you look at the big red line, you will se that it starts to separate from the straight red line in 1999, and continues going up until it peaks in 2006 then falls rapidly. The fall in price IS THE BUBBLE BURSTING from an over heated housing market. It has been explained to you in many ways. If you go into the graph a little more deeply, you will see that the people who lost equity in their homes were those who bought while the market was inflated. The red curve represented inflation adjusted dollars and the blue curve represents the nominal dollars. Only an absolute idiot could not understand what happened. You must be that idiot.

 

[dnsmith35]

.....

It is so simple, and has been explained in detail in responses to you and others on this thread.

The order in which this occurred:

During the Carter Administration CRA was enacted, but not used to any degree, until Clinton came along.

At first, Clinton made efforts to get CRA to be helpful for less wealthy to buy homes. He was successful to the extent that multi-family housing was introduced in Red Lined areas. This did not hurt the market and only 6% of them ever get foreclosed on. (When you look at the Minnesota Federal Reserve comment, this is what they are referring to, and that did not cause the Market to Heat up.

In 1997/8 Clinton told his regulators to insure that CRA guidelines were better enforced, which when taken at face value Fanny Mae and Freedie Mac started pusing loans to less wealth individual home buyers who were less wealthy, informing all major lenders that they would insure or buy all the mortgages whether good credit or subprime.

All of that OVER HEATED THE REAL ESTATE MARKET(IE there was more demand than supply and home buyers caused the market to inflate price over value) which is the classic economic definition of MARKET OVER HEATING. All but total dumb bells understand what that means.

Wow!
You REALLY like typing generalizations and avoiding the 2004-2008 Bubble/Crash, don't cha?
Enough with your intellectual bullshit...
Loans were NOT being granted prior to 2004 to every human that breathed.
AND NOBODY driving a bus EVER got a Jumbo Loan prior to 2006.

But go ahead and revise history if it pleases your dementia.

None of your assertion is relevant to our discussion. I have not typed generalizations, and I have not avoided any time period. The bubble started in 1999 and burst when the inflation of price over value peaked and started its rapid fall in 2006. Getting a jumbo loan has little or no relevance to the bubble or the crash. It was government fiscal and monetary which was the major culprit.

No, it wasn't.

You know nothing but what you read on left wing propaganda sites.

It was Wall Street's derivatives based Ponzi scheme.

It is obvious that you are ate up with the dumbass stick and know nothing about economics or real estate financing.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Lawless thugocracy ≠ capitalism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

However, it is far too profitable to continue using fossil fuels for extremely powerful corporations

Not to mention more affordable for people to heat their homes, instead of freezing to death to please environmorons.

But dollars matter more now than life does in the future

Environmoron wants you to die now, instead of in the future. You owe it to Gaia.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

the result was massive campaigns to confuse the public: stifling popular dissent through false claims over "the science."

Don't knock those false claims, spreading them made Al Gore hundreds of millions of dollars.