Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[Chris]

I wonder if the advocates of a state controlled economy believe we can really have freedom without the freedom to earn and trade as we see fit?

You are veritably fanatical about freedom. Fanaticism never leads to the truth. It shrouds you in a private language that only makes sense to you and other insiders.

So can you explain to an outsider how does free trade = freedom? Freedom is not achieved merely through being able to trade x for y freely. That just means free trade. Freedom is a variety of conditions, which includes free trade, but is not itself fully encompassed by free trade. There are other areas besides trade one must consider before determining the freedom.

In logic this would be written, "free trade is a necessary condition for freedom but is not a sufficient condition for freedom."

Do you think free trade is a sufficient condition for freedom meaning the only condition needed to call someone free?

When I address left wing extremism, I am talking about fanaticism. People who believe capitalism is worse for the people than socialism or communism are fanatics. Especially in the face of the economic facts that capitalism makes more people prosperous than any other system.

The business journal Bloomberg Businessweek points out that the country of Denmark has a minimum pay rate of the equivalent of about $20 an hour, but its business climate is sufficiently healthy for the World Bank to ranked it as the easiest place in Europe to do business in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Denmark is also "among the leading countries in income equality and national happiness." Denmark also had a lower unemployment rate (6.8%) and higher labor participation rate (64.4%) than the United States (7.4%, 63.6% as of September 2013) where the minimum wage is far lower ($7.25).

Minimum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dnsmith35]

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.

Yeah... people are mindless lemmings who can't choose anything for themselves, and thus are at the complete mercy of anyone on a phone saying "we have a mortgage for you!". Really?

Reminds me of this idiot that came to my high school way back when, and played a bunch of beer commercials, and explained that men were simply too stupid to not drink a beer when a commercial came on with girls on it.

To date, I have never had a beer. Apparently I am Super-Human Androw, the one and only human being able to say the magic complete sentence "no".

Similarly, back in 2006 to 2008, I paid off all my debts, cut up my credit cards, and to this day, am completely 100% debt free, owing no one anywhere anything.

Apparently my Super-Human ability protected me from the mind control of the mortgage lenders too.

Do you realize just how incompetent this post makes you look?

Really.... you and those like you, are so unbelievable stupid, so incredibly incompetent, that some doofus on a phone said you needed a sub-prime mortgage, and you idiotically just "dur dur ok! I need a mortgage!" and you and those like you crashed the entire economy???

Personally I don't think you are that stupid. I think you are just full of crap, making up whatever you can to try and cast blame.

But if what you say is actually true, and you mindless lemmings are so completely irresponsible that some doofus on a phone can convince you to crash the entire world economy, than I have a friendly helpful suggestion....... If you, and those like you, are such an absolute disaster to society, then for the social well being of all of humanity, you and those like you should gather together, and commit mass suicide.

If you people are so truly incompetent, then do one last good deed for the world. Take yourselves out of it.

And for the last time..... No one has ever yet suggested that Bush was not in favor of more home ownership. Bush continued the policies that Clinton continued, that Bush Sr continued, that Reagan continued, that Carter started, and that Obama is continuing TO THIS DAY.

Obama is pushing for more home ownership even as we speak.

Housing risk rising as FHA not compensating for high DTI loans | 2014-05-26 | HousingWire

Read it!

This month’s NMRI update shows about 22% of all purchase loans have a debt-to-income ratio greater than the QM limit of 43%.

It states that the Federal Housing Administration is not compensating for riskiness of high DTI loans; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are compensating only to a limited extent.

It also shows that the percentage of low-risk loans accounted for 41.8% of April activity, down from 46.5% in August 2013.

The FHA leads with 45% of purchase loans exceeding the 43% DTI limit.

Indices for Fannie/Freddie and FHA/RHS both hit new highs in April.

Fully 35% of FHA’s home purchase loans have a FICO score below 660 (the demarcation line for subprime credit); these have an average NMRI of 35%.

What's your excuse now? Is Bush the cause of FHA, Fannie and Freddie increasing sub-prime loans TODAY?!?

I want to hear it. What's your explanation?

I'M SO IMPRESSED that you weren't one of the MILLIONS who took the bait because until ONE DAY BEFORE THE CRASH the S&P stated that the "Sky was the limit!".
Actually, I really am impressed...By your frugality, not by your dismissing recent historical facts.

Paper approvals ruled the day and you're quoting me numbers from a document that has NOTHING to do with reality?
You think by insulting the MILLIONS who took out Jumbo Loans with Paper Approval, you are automatically whisking them into non-existence?
How desperate are you?

Just curious, what is a jumbo loan in your opinion?

 

[dnsmith35]

Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s. Too bad three decades wasn't long enough for financial markets to figure out CRA mortgages were riskier than other mortgages. Too bad you still can't explain why the mispricing of non-CRA risks didn't cause the meltdown; unless you believe this financial system has been broken for a long, long time?

Thanks for nothing.

Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s.

CRA didn't weaken lending standards in 1977 or the early 2000s? Link?

Sorry, Charlie...Requests for Negative Proof REJECTED!
If the CRA weakened the Lending Standards for, apparently, EVERYONE, please link to the document.

He has linked several times how the CRA weakened lending standards, by being pushed to get the less wealthy, without good credit, to buy homes. Are you illiterate such that you can't read? Or do you simply ignore facts so you can continue to blurt on nothings?

 

[Chris]

Glass-Steagall was repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Gramm, Leach, and Bliley were all Republicans and the legislation was passed by a Republican majority. What's more, the legislation was veto-proof. Even if Clinton were solely reponsible for the repeal (which is false), why would Republicans care? They're the ones who are always waving the deregulation banner, and it's the current crop of Republicans who are pushing for further deregulation.

When Republicans chastise Clinton over the Glass-Steagall repeal, what they are effectively saying is this: "How dare you sign off on Republican legislation! Don't you know we can't be trusted? Don't ever believe us again!"

 

[dnsmith35]

Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s.

CRA didn't weaken lending standards in 1977 or the early 2000s? Link?

Sorry, Charlie...Requests for Negative Proof REJECTED!
If the CRA weakened the Lending Standards for, apparently, EVERYONE, please link to the document.

Let's begin:
How could a piece of 1977 legislation be significant to the deterioration of mortgage standards 25 years later?

The CRA was not a static piece of legislation. It evolved over the years from a relatively hands-off law focused on process into one that focused on outcomes. Regulators, beginning in the mid-nineties, began to hold banks accountable in serious ways. Banks responded to this new accountability by increasing the CRA loans they made, a move that entailed relaxing their lending standards.

What about "No Money Down" Mortgages? Were they required by the CRA?

Actually, yes they were. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.



Read more: Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider

That was a very good link showing how the CRA prompted non-CRA institutions to follow suit and start concentrating on sub prime loans. Here is a great graph which Androw posted earlier which proves the inflation started in the late 90s.

 

[dnsmith35]

Sorry, Charlie...Requests for Negative Proof REJECTED!
If the CRA weakened the Lending Standards for, apparently, EVERYONE, please link to the document.

Let's begin:
How could a piece of 1977 legislation be significant to the deterioration of mortgage standards 25 years later?

The CRA was not a static piece of legislation. It evolved over the years from a relatively hands-off law focused on process into one that focused on outcomes. Regulators, beginning in the mid-nineties, began to hold banks accountable in serious ways. Banks responded to this new accountability by increasing the CRA loans they made, a move that entailed relaxing their lending standards.

What about "No Money Down" Mortgages? Were they required by the CRA?

Actually, yes they were. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.



Read more: Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider

The Housing Bubble was not only a free for all for the poor black communities experiencing Red Lining, it was a free for ALL.
I'd say "Nice try", but your postings are getting lamer by the minute.

You do know that lending institutions which started to lend money to build in Red Lined in areas, did not lend their money specifically to low wage/credit black people, right? many of the loans were for people with good credit building in redlined areas to provide decent homes for the people living there. As a result according to the Fed only 6% of those loans defaulted. Apparently you don't understand the issues at all.

 

[dnsmith35]

Bush's SEC let Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.

It wasn't the housing bubble.

Your take on the issue is absolutely left field bullshit. The issue which caused the great recession was all about the housing bubble and subsequent crash. You need to start to learn how to read. Bob and Nancy rode clip pity clop down the lane. Got it?

 

[dnsmith35]

You are veritably fanatical about freedom. Fanaticism never leads to the truth. It shrouds you in a private language that only makes sense to you and other insiders.

So can you explain to an outsider how does free trade = freedom? Freedom is not achieved merely through being able to trade x for y freely. That just means free trade. Freedom is a variety of conditions, which includes free trade, but is not itself fully encompassed by free trade. There are other areas besides trade one must consider before determining the freedom.

In logic this would be written, "free trade is a necessary condition for freedom but is not a sufficient condition for freedom."

Do you think free trade is a sufficient condition for freedom meaning the only condition needed to call someone free?

When I address left wing extremism, I am talking about fanaticism. People who believe capitalism is worse for the people than socialism or communism are fanatics. Especially in the face of the economic facts that capitalism makes more people prosperous than any other system.

The business journal Bloomberg Businessweek points out that the country of Denmark has a minimum pay rate of the equivalent of about $20 an hour, but its business climate is sufficiently healthy for the World Bank to ranked it as the easiest place in Europe to do business in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Denmark is also "among the leading countries in income equality and national happiness." Denmark also had a lower unemployment rate (6.8%) and higher labor participation rate (64.4%) than the United States (7.4%, 63.6% as of September 2013) where the minimum wage is far lower ($7.25).

Minimum wage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yep, and it is one of the proofs of capitalism working. Thanks for reminding me. We do need higher wages for our less wealthy in my opinion.

 

[georgephillip]

Thanks for the link.

Too bad it doesn't show that the CRA didn't lower lending standards.

Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s. Too bad three decades wasn't long enough for financial markets to figure out CRA mortgages were riskier than other mortgages. Too bad you still can't explain why the mispricing of non-CRA risks didn't cause the meltdown; unless you believe this financial system has been broken for a long, long time?

Thanks for nothing.

Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s.

CRA didn't weaken lending standards in 1977 or the early 2000s? Link?

CRA required liars loans?

 

[bedowin62]

record welfare and food stamps in YEAR 8 of Progressive majority rule

left-wing Failurecrats are the ones ensuring inequality

 

[Andylusion]

Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s. Too bad three decades wasn't long enough for financial markets to figure out CRA mortgages were riskier than other mortgages. Too bad you still can't explain why the mispricing of non-CRA risks didn't cause the meltdown; unless you believe this financial system has been broken for a long, long time?

Thanks for nothing.

Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s.

CRA didn't weaken lending standards in 1977 or the early 2000s? Link?

Sorry, Charlie...Requests for Negative Proof REJECTED!
If the CRA weakened the Lending Standards for, apparently, EVERYONE, please link to the document.

No, the housing bubble started in 1997, and I have specific proof of that, which has been reposted numerous times.

Second, there was a housing bubble that started right at 1977 when the CRA was passed. And I gave proof of that, which has been reposted numerous times.

Now I will grant you that I can't find direct specific evidence linking the 1977 housing price bubble, with the CRA. I freely admit this.

However, it does seem suspicious that a housing bubble just happens to start on the very year the CRA was put into law. Especially since the 1997 bubble, I can directly link it to the CRA.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Bush's SEC let Wall Street run a derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.

It wasn't the housing bubble.

What is a derivatives Ponzi scheme?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s. Too bad three decades wasn't long enough for financial markets to figure out CRA mortgages were riskier than other mortgages. Too bad you still can't explain why the mispricing of non-CRA risks didn't cause the meltdown; unless you believe this financial system has been broken for a long, long time?

Thanks for nothing.

Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s.

CRA didn't weaken lending standards in 1977 or the early 2000s? Link?

CRA required liars loans?

No.
CRA didn't weaken lending standards?

 

[Andylusion]

You make innumerable claims that are generally suspect. So just for shits and giggles, why don't you offer some evidence for this "by far" statement. I'm willing to believe lite rail uses more energy to travel the same distance as one car but one car doesn't transport 800 people either.

Again..... if you can prove that every rail, or even the majority, or even a significant fraction, are fully loaded.... you might have a point.

But they are not. And those numbers you are using to show that energy usage, do not include all of the hundreds of millions of megawatts of power used in support of those light rails. All the lights, all the ticket systems, turn styles, the fresh air systems, the track systems, switches, signals, and the monitoring system, the control units, the Control center with hundreds of computers and system running 24-hours a day.

Again, there is even energy bleed just from powering the hundreds of miles of tracks with 1,200 amps worth of electricity. Power is used (lost) even if not a single train is moving.

Now if you want to believe blindly that all those nearly empty trains running all day long, is still energy efficient over a car, fine. Believe whatever myths you want. But you are the one making the claim they are. The burden of proof is on you to prove your claim. So you show me an efficiency report, that includes all those costs I just listed, and compares it to the average Sedan.

If you want to see how this works, just look how it functions in all the other developed nations around the world.

Saying they run all day without passengers shows you are not being careful. I am not talking about metro elevated trains like Chicago, DC, Denver, SLC, BART etc. I'm talking real fast travel across the US. That is what lite rail means. But as far as things go, I think we agree on some basic points here and I don't want to detract from that.

BTW, thanks for the InfoLinks signature.

No problem. No one should be bothered by adware.

FYI... generally speaking, when people refer to Light Rail, they mean subways, streetcars, and Elevated trains. If you mean city-to-city rail service, generally those are referred to as Rapid Rail, or High Speed Rail. This denotes the average speed of 33 MPH for light rail, and over 100 mph for city-to-city Rapid Rail. (and the fact that city-to-city trains are anything but 'light')

Second, my Grand Marquis can get 30 miles per gallon of gas running highway from state to state. That's with a V-8. A smaller car, I'm sure easily gets much better than that. Now if city light rail can't compete with autos getting city gas mileage (and I know they can't), then I doubt that long distance light rail can compete with cars getting highway mileage.

But it's possible I'm wrong.

The real kicker though, is that this is the wrong comparison anyway. Research has shown that most of the people who travel long distance rapid rail, are not people who would have driven a car. They are people who would have flown.

And then the problem continues because what's the first thing people do when they get to the new city? Generally, it's rent a car. Why do you think the airport is surrounded by a half dozen car rental agencies?

Same is true of Rapid Rail service. You can find car rental agencies in all the main Europe stations. I can post pictures if you like.

Point being, how much energy is really being saved, when the first they people do when they get to the city they are going to, is rent a oil burning car to drive around in?

Now I absolutely will grant you this.... it's entire possible, perhaps even likely, that there is energy savings between a Rapid Rail car, and an airplane.

Possible. But when you compare the direct costs to society, in the tens of billions spent to build and operate such a system, it's not even close.

And as far as clean energy goes.... not going to happen. One single Eurostar passenger rail, uses 16 Mega Watts of power per hour. Just one.

For comparison, the recently opened Wyandot Solar Facility, here in Ohio, uses 80 acres of land, over 159,000 solar panels, in order to create a maximum out put of 12 Mega Watts. That's ideal situation, no clouds, bright sun, no haze. Of course when the sun goes down, all the trains stop.

So just to sum up... you are not going to save the environment going all 'green-energy', with Rapid Rail service. Not going to happen. Not even close.

Now, you may be saving energy over air transport. I don't know. I haven't seen energy consumption comparisons between the two.

However, the cost to society for rapid rail is horrendous, compared to air travel. We're talking multiple billions in difference.

 

[georgephillip]

Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s.

CRA didn't weaken lending standards in 1977 or the early 2000s? Link?

Sorry, Charlie...Requests for Negative Proof REJECTED!
If the CRA weakened the Lending Standards for, apparently, EVERYONE, please link to the document.

No, the housing bubble started in 1997, and I have specific proof of that, which has been reposted numerous times.

Second, there was a housing bubble that started right at 1977 when the CRA was passed. And I gave proof of that, which has been reposted numerous times.

Now I will grant you that I can't find direct specific evidence linking the 1977 housing price bubble, with the CRA. I freely admit this.

However, it does seem suspicious that a housing bubble just happens to start on the very year the CRA was put into law. Especially since the 1997 bubble, I can directly link it to the CRA.

But you can't link to any CRA mandate for mortgage fraud:

"1997–2005:Mortgage fraud increased by 1,411 percent.[32]
2000–2003: Early 2000s recession (exact time varies by country).
2001–2005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).
2001: US Federal Reserve lowers Federal funds rate eleven times, from 6.5% to 1.75%.[33]
2002–2003: Mortgage denial rate of 14 percent for conventional home purchase loans, half of 1997.[18]
2002: Annual home price appreciation of 10% or more in California, Florida, and most Northeastern states."Annual home-value growth at highest rate since 1980". Retrieved 2008-10-06.
June 17resident G.W. Bush sets goal of increasing minority home owners by at least 5.5 million by 2010 through tax credits, subsidies and a Fannie Mae commitment of $440 billion to establish NeighborWorks America with faith-based organizations.[34]"

Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Andylusion]

Sorry, Charlie...Requests for Negative Proof REJECTED!
If the CRA weakened the Lending Standards for, apparently, EVERYONE, please link to the document.

Let's begin:
How could a piece of 1977 legislation be significant to the deterioration of mortgage standards 25 years later?

The CRA was not a static piece of legislation. It evolved over the years from a relatively hands-off law focused on process into one that focused on outcomes. Regulators, beginning in the mid-nineties, began to hold banks accountable in serious ways. Banks responded to this new accountability by increasing the CRA loans they made, a move that entailed relaxing their lending standards.

What about "No Money Down" Mortgages? Were they required by the CRA?

Actually, yes they were. The regulators charged with enforcing the CRA praised the lowering of down payments and even their elimination. They told banks that lending standards that exceeded that of regulators would be considered evidence of unfair lending. This effectively meant that no money down mortgages were required. A Treasury Department study published in 2000 found that the CRA had successfully lowered down payments not just for CRA loans, but for all mortgages.



Read more: Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider

The Housing Bubble was not only a free for all for the poor black communities experiencing Red Lining, it was a free for ALL.
I'd say "Nice try", but your postings are getting lamer by the minute.

It's posts like this, that convince me you have your head shoved so far up your politics, that you couldn't see truth if someone beat you on the head with it.

No one said the housing bubble was only for one group or another.

Further, it is exactly because of this attack on red lining that spawns all of our trouble. Red lining was never about "poor blacks" to begin with. It wasn't racism.

Racism is not denoted by a geographical location, that includes a dozens races, including whites.

Red lining was about banks not wanting collateral that was losing value.

If you want to give your buddy a loan, and you want something as collateral for the loan, to make sure he pays you back, are you going to take all his DVDs as collateral? Of course not, they are dropping in value by the minute. Everyone has NetFlix now.

You want collateral that has value, and is gaining in value.

Neighborhoods go up and down in value together. If you have an area where crime is going up, or employment is moving out, the value of the homes in that area start to drop. Red Lining was the bank saying "we don't want to give out loans in these areas that are dropping in value, because we'll end up with high default rates."

This is exactly what the government pushed with CRA loans. And just like the banks knew, the default rate was massive on CRA loans.

You people on the left thought you knew better than the banks, what was good for people, and you pushed them to make bad loans. So the banks ended up making bad loans to everyone, and it crashed the system.

You can twist and spin, and try and deny it all you want, and come up with your fifty excuses, the fact remains you pushed this, and you crashed us. Your fault. End of story.

 

[Andylusion]

Sorry, Charlie...Requests for Negative Proof REJECTED!
If the CRA weakened the Lending Standards for, apparently, EVERYONE, please link to the document.

No, the housing bubble started in 1997, and I have specific proof of that, which has been reposted numerous times.

Second, there was a housing bubble that started right at 1977 when the CRA was passed. And I gave proof of that, which has been reposted numerous times.

Now I will grant you that I can't find direct specific evidence linking the 1977 housing price bubble, with the CRA. I freely admit this.

However, it does seem suspicious that a housing bubble just happens to start on the very year the CRA was put into law. Especially since the 1997 bubble, I can directly link it to the CRA.

But you can't link to any CRA mandate for mortgage fraud:

"1997–2005:Mortgage fraud increased by 1,411 percent.[32]
2000–2003: Early 2000s recession (exact time varies by country).
2001–2005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).
2001: US Federal Reserve lowers Federal funds rate eleven times, from 6.5% to 1.75%.[33]
2002–2003: Mortgage denial rate of 14 percent for conventional home purchase loans, half of 1997.[18]
2002: Annual home price appreciation of 10% or more in California, Florida, and most Northeastern states."Annual home-value growth at highest rate since 1980". Retrieved 2008-10-06.
June 17resident G.W. Bush sets goal of increasing minority home owners by at least 5.5 million by 2010 through tax credits, subsidies and a Fannie Mae commitment of $440 billion to establish NeighborWorks America with faith-based organizations.[34]"

Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What part of this is too hard for you?

2001–2005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).

This is absolutely, totally false. And I proved this already. You are wrong. Thus everything else you said, was wrong too.

The bubble did NOT start in the 2000s. You are wrong. It started in 1997. The facts prove that. It's not up for debate.

Now are you going to admit this truth, or are you going to shove your head so far up your politics you can't see anything that contradicts your per-determined answer?

 

[Andylusion]

Too bad the CRA existed since 1977 and the US housing bubble didn't exist until the early 2000s.

CRA didn't weaken lending standards in 1977 or the early 2000s? Link?

CRA required liars loans?

No.
CRA didn't weaken lending standards?

This is so childish on their part. And so pathetic relative to everything else they believe.

How many times have we heard from leftists about how 'people don't have a choice' when it comes to working for minimum wage for example? How many times do we hear 'we have to regulate companies because people don't have a choice in (insert whatever fad claim of the day is)"?

We hear that all the time.

Now when it comes to mortgages, and Freddie and Fannie which were designed from the start to directly influence the mortgage market, when it come to the CRA which was designed from the start to influence the mortgage market, when it comes to the Clinton administration directly suing banks to make bad loans, and ACORN suing banks to make bad loans, with the full intention of influencing the mortgage market.....

All of a sudden.... "did the law require it? If not then they had a choice and it can't possibly be government's fault"

The hypocrisy and double standard just grates on my nerves sometimes. These people on the left are pathetic children sometimes... always twist their views to fit whatever argument is at hand. Never consistent on anything. It's so immature.

 

[Andylusion]

The Housing Bubble was not only a free for all for the poor black communities experiencing Red Lining, it was a free for ALL.
I'd say "Nice try", but your postings are getting lamer by the minute.

LOL.... I just realized the absolute stupidity of this post, so I had to respond again....

He's complaining about racist red lining of poor blacks.

Then he complains that the housing bubble effected everyone...... that it didn't just affect poor blacks.

Hey stupid.... if the banks ONLY gave bad loans to blacks.... that would be racist. They would be engaging in the racism you were just complaining about.

Leftard: "Dur it's racist to not give bad loans to black people! Dur it's horrible they gave everyone bad loans, and not just black people! DUR!"

You are hereby given leave to get the heel of your shoe surgically removed from your mouth.

Try and at least act smarter, next time you're on the forum.

 

[georgephillip]

No, the housing bubble started in 1997, and I have specific proof of that, which has been reposted numerous times.

Second, there was a housing bubble that started right at 1977 when the CRA was passed. And I gave proof of that, which has been reposted numerous times.

Now I will grant you that I can't find direct specific evidence linking the 1977 housing price bubble, with the CRA. I freely admit this.

However, it does seem suspicious that a housing bubble just happens to start on the very year the CRA was put into law. Especially since the 1997 bubble, I can directly link it to the CRA.

But you can't link to any CRA mandate for mortgage fraud:

"1997–2005:Mortgage fraud increased by 1,411 percent.[32]
2000–2003: Early 2000s recession (exact time varies by country).
2001–2005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).
2001: US Federal Reserve lowers Federal funds rate eleven times, from 6.5% to 1.75%.[33]
2002–2003: Mortgage denial rate of 14 percent for conventional home purchase loans, half of 1997.[18]
2002: Annual home price appreciation of 10% or more in California, Florida, and most Northeastern states."Annual home-value growth at highest rate since 1980". Retrieved 2008-10-06.
June 17resident G.W. Bush sets goal of increasing minority home owners by at least 5.5 million by 2010 through tax credits, subsidies and a Fannie Mae commitment of $440 billion to establish NeighborWorks America with faith-based organizations.[34]"

Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What part of this is too hard for you?

2001–2005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).

This is absolutely, totally false. And I proved this already. You are wrong. Thus everything else you said, was wrong too.

The bubble did NOT start in the 2000s. You are wrong. It started in 1997. The facts prove that. It's not up for debate.

Now are you going to admit this truth, or are you going to shove your head so far up your politics you can't see anything that contradicts your per-determined answer?

Your graph "...is based on sale prices of standard existing houses, not new construction, to track the value of housing as an investment over time."

What significance do you attach to that?

"1997: Mortgage denial rate of 29 percent for conventional home purchase loans.[18]

"July: The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 repealed the Section 121 exclusion and section 1034 rollover rules, and replaced them with a $500,000 married/$250,000 single exclusion of capital gains on the sale of a home, available once every two years.[19]

"This encouraged people to buy more expensive first homes, as well as invest in second homes and investment properties.

"November: Fannie Mae helped First Union Capital Markets and Bear, Stearns & Co launch the first publicly available securitization of CRA loans, issuing $384.6 million of such securities. All carried a Fannie Mae guarantee as to timely interest and principal.[20][21]"

It's possible we are both letting our political inclinations blind us to the fact that big government (CRA) and big business (Wall Street) conspire to privatize profit and socialize cost through fraud.

The unspoken understanding is that when the $hit hits the fan, only government will be blamed.

At the very least, we should kick this around before the next economic collapse.

Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia