Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[dnsmith35]

THE ONLY thing capitalism seems to gaurantee is legions of angry, whining progressive losers butt-hurt over their failed agenda; and the record welfare and food stamps it has produced, crying like the bitches they are that corporations are making MORE MONEY ON PROGRESSIVE'S WATCH than they did under those mean ol Republicans!

lol why dont you go hang yourself idiot?

Here's the next guarantee capitalism has in mind for humanity
Don't forget to $wallow (if you can afford market price)

"The third wave of imperialist wars is currently being fought over nature’s most valuable commodity: water.

"Prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, CIA analysts reported on a prediction of a new theater of war: hydrological warfare, 'in which rivers, lakes and aquifers become national security assets to be fought over, or controlled'.

"These predictions became realized in quick succession, beginning with the recent wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria.

"It is now clear that the age of hydro-imperialism is upon us."

US Water Wars in the Middle East » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

You say facts, I say opinion, and not a very good opinion at that. CIA analysists have bungled
analysis as a matter of routine. Like yellow cake in Iraq? WMD in Iraq?

 

[dnsmith35]

"'Point in fact,' she said, 'only one in four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending. The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.'

"And 'Let me ask you,' she proceeded. 'Where in the CRA does it say to make loans to people who can't afford to repay? Nowhere.'

"The facts are simple, Bair said.

"The lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for more market share and revenue growth, not because the government encouraged certain lending practices."

FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"

Whether you want to believe it or not, even those banks which were not covered by CRA started to follow CRA guidelines because of regulators pushing those standards and sub prime loans, even if not considered covered by CRA, were the over all reason BECAUSE OF SUPER LOW INTEREST RATES, prompted the inflationary housing prices because they over heated the market, along with other bad government policies, until the crash occurs. Instead of listening to the government defend its policies, why not do the research and figure it out for yourself? Are you than incapable of thinking?

You're obviously incapable to posting the specific verbiage of any law that required FOR PROFIT LENDERS to engage in an "epidemic of mortgage fraud" in 2004.

Why is that?

Actually several of us did, with links, proving that the Mae/Mac and bank regulaters did in fact insist on sub prime loans, and our current left wing president sued to insure they did so as a lawyer in Illinois.

 

[dnsmith35]

You don't have to prove your ignorance with every post

"Largest (voter registration over 75,000)[edit]
Libertarian Party - Libertarianism, laissez-faire, pro-civil rights, anti-war
Green Party of the United States - Green politics, eco-socialism, progressivism
Constitution Party - Social conservatism, religious right, paleoconservatism
Smaller parties by ideology[edit]
Right-wing[edit]
This section includes any party that advocates positions associated with American conservatism, including both Old Right and New Right tendencies.
America First Party
Christian Liberty Party
America's Party
Independent American Party"

Third party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This comment should be pointed squarely at you.

You don't have to prove your ignorance with every post

The only point you've proven so far is that you're a legend in your own mind.

ROTFLMAO at your stupidity.

 

[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.

Go back and read the links you obviously passed over as several prove the point splendidly.

 

[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 really do need to learn something about economics. Every measurable change in an economic situation is reacting to a prior situation. That the government chose to pass a law did not make the actions or reactions take place immediately; they realistically follow by some time. As it tis, the housing bubble did start in 1997, and it advanced radically from 1999 all the way to 2006. That bubble and subsequent crash caused the great recession. The most important issues were low interest and no down payment loans, both pushed by government regulating agencies, but mostly Mae and Mac and the Fed, all related to fiscal and monetary policy.

 

[dnsmith35]

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.

There is one more thing to consider, summed up nicely in an old saying, "as GM goes, so goes the economy of our nation." There may actually be a power savings, but at what cost? How many jobs will be lost if we go to high speed rail?

As it is, every country which has rapid rail systems tend to be small and densely populated. When I was living in Europe I took their rail system when I did not need to transport large pay loads. They were not particularly high speed. In japan, I did travel on their high speed rail systems. The train originating in Tokyo going to Yokohama was a very high speed train. Just don't try to use it during the busy periods.

 

[dnsmith35]

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

Do you really believe that the government is going to admit fault of fraud? Do you really believe that regulators did not pressure banks to do sub prime loans?

Are you really that ignorant?

 

[dnsmith35]

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

THE GOVERNMENT, AND THE GOVERNMENT ALONE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FISCAL/MONETARY POLICIES WHICH WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT CAUSE OF THE HOUSING CRASH.

The form it took? LOW INTEREST AND NO DOWN PAYMENT LOANS.

This graph tracks ALL homes, not just new or old construction. What was happening in 1997 is not as evident as 1999 start of the housing bubble. The up cycle did start in 1997, but the inflation of price to value started in 1999 in spades. Trying to split hairs with what caused the recession is not very sensible on your part. The major cause of the housing spike was government fiscal and monetary policy. There can be no argument on that point because every single bit of proof tells us that. CRA may not have verbally tell us that the government regulators and the Mae and Mac were going to artificially push subprime loans at low interest and no down payment; but when the situation is examined and as all of Androw's and my Links categorically prove.

 

[georgephillip]

THE ONLY thing capitalism seems to gaurantee is legions of angry, whining progressive losers butt-hurt over their failed agenda; and the record welfare and food stamps it has produced, crying like the bitches they are that corporations are making MORE MONEY ON PROGRESSIVE'S WATCH than they did under those mean ol Republicans!

lol why dont you go hang yourself idiot?

Here's the next guarantee capitalism has in mind for humanity
Don't forget to $wallow (if you can afford market price)

"The third wave of imperialist wars is currently being fought over nature’s most valuable commodity: water.

"Prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, CIA analysts reported on a prediction of a new theater of war: hydrological warfare, 'in which rivers, lakes and aquifers become national security assets to be fought over, or controlled'.

"These predictions became realized in quick succession, beginning with the recent wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria.

"It is now clear that the age of hydro-imperialism is upon us."

US Water Wars in the Middle East » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

You say facts, I say opinion, and not a very good opinion at that. CIA analysists have bungled
analysis as a matter of routine. Like yellow cake in Iraq? WMD in Iraq?

The CIA's mistakes in Iraq had more to do with your fellow traveler Dick Cheney twisting their arms than with incompetence.

US Water Wars in the Middle East » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

"'Syrian control of half of our water poses more of a threat than Iran with one bomb', once remarked ex-Israeli intelligence head, Meir Dagan."

"Water is to the twenty-first century what oil was to the twentieth century: the commodity that determines the wealth and stability of nations."

 

[dnsmith35]

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Peter J. Wallison and coauthor Edward Pinto believed that the housing bubble and crash was due to federal mandates to promote affordable housing. These were applied through the Community Reinvestment Act and "government sponsored entities" (GSE's) "Fannie Mae" (Federal National Mortgage Association) and "Freddie Mac" (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation).[22] Journalist Daniel Indiviglio argues the two GSE's played a major role, while not denying the importance of Wall Street and others in the private sector in creating the collapse.[4]

The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 established an affordable housing loan purchase mandate for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that mandate was to be regulated by HUD. Initially, the 1992 legislation required that 30 percent or more of Fannie’s and Freddie’s loan purchases be related to affordable housing. However, HUD was given the power to set future requirements. In 1995 HUD mandated that 40 percent of Fannie and Freddie’s loan purchases would have to support affordable housing. In 1996, HUD directed Freddie and Fannie to provide at least 42% of their mortgage financing to borrowers with income below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. Under the Bush Administration HUD continued to pressure Fannie and Freddie to increase affordable housing purchases – to as high as 56 percent by the year 2008.[22] To satisfy these mandates, Fannie and Freddie eventually announced low-income and minority loan commitments totaling $5 trillion.[23] Critics argue that, to meet these commitments, Fannie and Freddie promoted a loosening of lending standards - industry-wide.[24]

Regarding the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charged the Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA.[25] American Enterprise Institute Scholar Edward Pinto noted that, in 2008, Bank of America reported that its CRA portfolio, which constituted only 7 percent of its owned residential mortgages, was responsible for 29 percent of its losses.[26] A Cleveland Plain Dealer investigation found that "The City of Cleveland has aggravated its vexing foreclosure problems and has lost millions in tax dollars by helping people buy homes they could not afford." The newspaper added that these problem mortgages "typically came from local banks fulfilling federal requirements to lend money in poorer neighborhoods." Min's contention that Fannie and Freddie did not buy a significant amount of high-risk mortgage backed securities must be evaluated in light of subsequent SEC security fraud charges brought against executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in December 2011. Significantly, the SEC alleged (and still maintains) that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reported as subprime and substandard less than 10 percent of their actual subprime and substandard loans.[44] In other words, the substandard loans held in the GSE portfolios may have been 10 times greater than originally reported. According to Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute, that would make the SEC's estimate of GSE substandard loans about $2 trillion - significantly higher than Edward Pinto's estimate.

Economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that banks undergoing CRA-related regulatory exams took additional mortgage lending risk. The authors of a study entitled "Did the Community Reinvestment Act Lead to Risky Lending?" compared "the lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month (the treatment group) to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that did not face these exams (the control group). This comparison clearly indicates that adherence to the CRA led to riskier lending by banks." They concluded: "The evidence shows that around CRA examinations, when incentives to conform to CRA standards are particularly high, banks not only increase lending rates but also appear to originate loans that are markedly riskier." Loan delinquency averaged 15% higher in the treatment group than the control group one year after mortgage origination.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bureau_of_Economic_Research"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bureau_of_Economic_Research[/URL]

 

[dnsmith35]

Here's the next guarantee capitalism has in mind for humanity
Don't forget to $wallow (if you can afford market price)

"The third wave of imperialist wars is currently being fought over nature’s most valuable commodity: water.

"Prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, CIA analysts reported on a prediction of a new theater of war: hydrological warfare, 'in which rivers, lakes and aquifers become national security assets to be fought over, or controlled'.

"These predictions became realized in quick succession, beginning with the recent wars in Iraq, Libya and Syria.

"It is now clear that the age of hydro-imperialism is upon us."

US Water Wars in the Middle East » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

You say facts, I say opinion, and not a very good opinion at that. CIA analysists have bungled
analysis as a matter of routine. Like yellow cake in Iraq? WMD in Iraq?

The CIA's mistakes in Iraq had more to do with your fellow traveler Dick Cheney twisting their arms than with incompetence.

US Water Wars in the Middle East » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

"'Syrian control of half of our water poses more of a threat than Iran with one bomb', once remarked ex-Israeli intelligence head, Meir Dagan."

"Water is to the twenty-first century what oil was to the twentieth century: the commodity that determines the wealth and stability of nations."

If you believe that Dick Cheney is one of my "fellow travelers" you are out of your mind. In addition, I doubt he had as much influence on CIA conclusions as you claim.

 

[georgephillip]

Whether you want to believe it or not, even those banks which were not covered by CRA started to follow CRA guidelines because of regulators pushing those standards and sub prime loans, even if not considered covered by CRA, were the over all reason BECAUSE OF SUPER LOW INTEREST RATES, prompted the inflationary housing prices because they over heated the market, along with other bad government policies, until the crash occurs. Instead of listening to the government defend its policies, why not do the research and figure it out for yourself? Are you than incapable of thinking?

You're obviously incapable to posting the specific verbiage of any law that required FOR PROFIT LENDERS to engage in an "epidemic of mortgage fraud" in 2004.

Why is that?

Actually several of us did, with links, proving that the Mae/Mac and bank regulaters did in fact insist on sub prime loans, and our current left wing president sued to insure they did so as a lawyer in Illinois.

Sub prime loans with or without loan standards like employment history, income, down payments, credit rating, and assets?

Do you agree with the following timeline?

"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..."

"2003-2007: The Federal Reserve failed to use its supervisory and regulatory authority over banks, mortgage underwriters and other lenders, who abandoned loan standards (employment history, income, down payments, credit rating, assets, property loan-to-value ratio and debt-servicing ability), emphasizing instead lender's ability to securitize and repackage subprime loans.[28]
2004:

"U.S. homeownership rate peaked with an all time high of 69.2 percent.[38]
HUD increased Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac affordable-housing goals for next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent, stating they lagged behind the private market; from 2004 to 2006, they purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans.[16]

"October:SEC effectively suspends net capital rule for five firms - Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Morgan Stanley. Freed from government-imposed limits on the debt they can assume, they levered up 20, 30 and even 40 to 1.[39]"

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

 

[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

Do you really believe that the government is going to admit fault of fraud? Do you really believe that regulators did not pressure banks to do sub prime loans?

Are you really that ignorant?

Are you indifferent enough to believe government wasn't acting for Wall Street's benefit? The fraud occurred because big government and big business collaborated to socialize risk and privatize profits; When Tim Geithner served as president of the New York Fed, was he acting on behalf of Washington or Warburg? The simple fact is that a looting 70 times larger than the S & L Crisis went unpunished, and will likely happen again.

 

[Andylusion]

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?

None. Dude, take your hand, and slap your forehead. New construction should logically be excluded. Otherwise the price numbers would be irrelevant.

New construction, should ALWAYS be cheaper than buying an existing house. Think about it..... if it wasn't..... no one would ever build a house.

What construction company would build residential housing...... if the cost of building the house, was higher than (or even equal to) the market price? What individual would ever build a home, if the cost to hire someone to build the home, was greater than the home would be worth on the market? If they could find a similar home, for the same or lower price, why would they build one?

So logically...... Construction is always going to be lower than the fair market value of the resulting home. In fact.... one of the reasons people knew there was a bubble, was because the market prices were so much higher than construction prices, they were saying you could build an empty lot, and build TWO homes for the cost of buying one existing home.

Two... how exactly would you suggest incorporating the 'market value' of a home, into the home price index..... WHEN THE HOME HAS NEVER BEEN ON THE MARKET?!?

The Index of American Housing prices, is built on the value of sold homes on the market..... which duh.... it should be. A house that doesn't exist yet, or is in the process of being built, has no real value, and certainly isn't sold on the market yet.

Come on!!!! This is so obvious, I feel like doing a high school remedial course.

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

What relevance does this factoid have, on anything?

"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]

What relevance does this have either? Also, I think it's wrong. Wiki is not doing too well today from what I've seen. The Section 121 exclusion was not repealed.... from what I've read.... it was enacted in 1997, to replace the 1034 Rollover.

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

No, actually not. The 1034 Rollover applied to all property, thus people could avoid paying capital gains on any investment property, if they rolled it to a new property.

The 121 Exclusion made is so your primary residence was completely exempt from taxes, but investment property was completely unprotected.

This is another example of bills labeled "tax payer relief" being an increase in taxes in reality.

"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]"

Wiki is wrong again. It was Freddie Mac, not Fannie Mae. But that's a minor error. The point is, Freddie Mac did exactly that above. They guaranteed sub-prime loans. Which started the sub-prime boom, and eventual crash.

Source "Inside Mortgage Finance", an industry trade magazine.

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.

Or maybe it's just you. Name one thing that I have said, that you can prove with evidence is wrong?

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

Which could come pretty soon given the leftists in government are still pushing sub-prime loans even as we speak.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You're obviously incapable to posting the specific verbiage of any law that required FOR PROFIT LENDERS to engage in an "epidemic of mortgage fraud" in 2004.

Why is that?

Actually several of us did, with links, proving that the Mae/Mac and bank regulaters did in fact insist on sub prime loans, and our current left wing president sued to insure they did so as a lawyer in Illinois.

Sub prime loans with or without loan standards like employment history, income, down payments, credit rating, and assets?

Do you agree with the following timeline?

"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..."

"2003-2007: The Federal Reserve failed to use its supervisory and regulatory authority over banks, mortgage underwriters and other lenders, who abandoned loan standards (employment history, income, down payments, credit rating, assets, property loan-to-value ratio and debt-servicing ability), emphasizing instead lender's ability to securitize and repackage subprime loans.[28]
2004:

"U.S. homeownership rate peaked with an all time high of 69.2 percent.[38]
HUD increased Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac affordable-housing goals for next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent, stating they lagged behind the private market; from 2004 to 2006, they purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans.[16]

"October:SEC effectively suspends net capital rule for five firms - Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Morgan Stanley. Freed from government-imposed limits on the debt they can assume, they levered up 20, 30 and even 40 to 1.[39]"

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

The Federal Reserve failed to use its supervisory and regulatory authority over banks, mortgage underwriters and other lenders, who abandoned loan standards

Standards were lowered? Sounds familiar.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Do you really believe that the government is going to admit fault of fraud? Do you really believe that regulators did not pressure banks to do sub prime loans?

Are you really that ignorant?

Are you indifferent enough to believe government wasn't acting for Wall Street's benefit? The fraud occurred because big government and big business collaborated to socialize risk and privatize profits; When Tim Geithner served as president of the New York Fed, was he acting on behalf of Washington or Warburg? The simple fact is that a looting 70 times larger than the S & L Crisis went unpunished, and will likely happen again.

The fraud occurred because big government and big business collaborated to socialize risk and privatize profits;

Banks lost hundreds of billions.

The simple fact is that a looting 70 times larger than the S & L Crisis went unpunished,

Looting? I know Main Street home buyers defaulted on massive amounts of mortgages, but I wouldn't call them looters.

 

[gnarlylove]

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.

I think you don't understand capitalism then. The reason the rich people are rich is because they earned it. SO what did they do to earn it? Outsourcing. They threatened and in many cases did leave the US to build factories in low wage areas. This allowed them to marginally reduce the price to consumers which was a bonus to the average person but given wages were 5-10 dollars less per hour, they were able to reap the obvious profits from such a move. Soon the overhead was paid for by the cheap labor and the profits never stopped rolling. Hence, outsourcing is a masterful success according to capitalism.

So in America if you want a job and a factory to hire you, you need to say, "our community is willing to work for bargain wages (far below minimum standards) so that our labor is competitive with the labor of China, Bangladesh and the like. Only if Americans accept lower wages will factories and industry return. So magically agreeing we should have higher wages and cheering for capitalism is like jeering at your ice cream cone because it tastes like shit when you fail to realize your ice cream literally is a pile of shit.

You are sadly inept at understanding your own creeds and how the interact but that's to be expected when you call anything that disagrees with your brainwashed mentality as "extremism" thereby effectively covering your ears to valid points about flaws that are inherent in capitalism.

btw, I would burst into tears if you could define my position and link it to extremism. I'd put myself in prison if you had such an argument. But I don't have to worry about that since you are more concerned about useful lies, not profound truths.

 

[georgephillip]

What part of this is too hard for you?

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?

None. Dude, take your hand, and slap your forehead. New construction should logically be excluded. Otherwise the price numbers would be irrelevant.

New construction, should ALWAYS be cheaper than buying an existing house. Think about it..... if it wasn't..... no one would ever build a house.

What construction company would build residential housing...... if the cost of building the house, was higher than (or even equal to) the market price? What individual would ever build a home, if the cost to hire someone to build the home, was greater than the home would be worth on the market? If they could find a similar home, for the same or lower price, why would they build one?

So logically...... Construction is always going to be lower than the fair market value of the resulting home. In fact.... one of the reasons people knew there was a bubble, was because the market prices were so much higher than construction prices, they were saying you could build an empty lot, and build TWO homes for the cost of buying one existing home.

Two... how exactly would you suggest incorporating the 'market value' of a home, into the home price index..... WHEN THE HOME HAS NEVER BEEN ON THE MARKET?!?

The Index of American Housing prices, is built on the value of sold homes on the market..... which duh.... it should be. A house that doesn't exist yet, or is in the process of being built, has no real value, and certainly isn't sold on the market yet.

Come on!!!! This is so obvious, I feel like doing a high school remedial course.



What relevance does this factoid have, on anything?



What relevance does this have either? Also, I think it's wrong. Wiki is not doing too well today from what I've seen. The Section 121 exclusion was not repealed.... from what I've read.... it was enacted in 1997, to replace the 1034 Rollover.



No, actually not. The 1034 Rollover applied to all property, thus people could avoid paying capital gains on any investment property, if they rolled it to a new property.

The 121 Exclusion made is so your primary residence was completely exempt from taxes, but investment property was completely unprotected.

This is another example of bills labeled "tax payer relief" being an increase in taxes in reality.



Wiki is wrong again. It was Freddie Mac, not Fannie Mae. But that's a minor error. The point is, Freddie Mac did exactly that above. They guaranteed sub-prime loans. Which started the sub-prime boom, and eventual crash.

Source "Inside Mortgage Finance", an industry trade magazine.

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.

Or maybe it's just you. Name one thing that I have said, that you can prove with evidence is wrong?

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

Which could come pretty soon given the leftists in government are still pushing sub-prime loans even as we speak.

How many compassionate conservatives on Wall Street are securitizing those sub-prime loans compared to 2006 when 84% of sub prime mortgages were issued by private lenders? Private lenders whose mouthpiece is "Inside Mortgage Finance". If you're actually gullible enough to believe their account, maybe you can work for the FBI.

Only one of the top 25 sub prime lenders in 2006 was subject to affordable housing laws; maybe you're convinced Countrywide was issuing "Nontraditional" mortgages to make Barney Frank happy and not to package them off to Wall Street?

Virtually all of government's contribution to the housing bubble and its collapse, from 1998's repeal of Glass-Steagall to 2004's federal preemption of state anti-predatory lending laws was done to advance the acquisition of private profit at public expense, and that's where your mistakes begin.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

None. Dude, take your hand, and slap your forehead. New construction should logically be excluded. Otherwise the price numbers would be irrelevant.

New construction, should ALWAYS be cheaper than buying an existing house. Think about it..... if it wasn't..... no one would ever build a house.

What construction company would build residential housing...... if the cost of building the house, was higher than (or even equal to) the market price? What individual would ever build a home, if the cost to hire someone to build the home, was greater than the home would be worth on the market? If they could find a similar home, for the same or lower price, why would they build one?

So logically...... Construction is always going to be lower than the fair market value of the resulting home. In fact.... one of the reasons people knew there was a bubble, was because the market prices were so much higher than construction prices, they were saying you could build an empty lot, and build TWO homes for the cost of buying one existing home.

Two... how exactly would you suggest incorporating the 'market value' of a home, into the home price index..... WHEN THE HOME HAS NEVER BEEN ON THE MARKET?!?

The Index of American Housing prices, is built on the value of sold homes on the market..... which duh.... it should be. A house that doesn't exist yet, or is in the process of being built, has no real value, and certainly isn't sold on the market yet.

Come on!!!! This is so obvious, I feel like doing a high school remedial course.



What relevance does this factoid have, on anything?



What relevance does this have either? Also, I think it's wrong. Wiki is not doing too well today from what I've seen. The Section 121 exclusion was not repealed.... from what I've read.... it was enacted in 1997, to replace the 1034 Rollover.



No, actually not. The 1034 Rollover applied to all property, thus people could avoid paying capital gains on any investment property, if they rolled it to a new property.

The 121 Exclusion made is so your primary residence was completely exempt from taxes, but investment property was completely unprotected.

This is another example of bills labeled "tax payer relief" being an increase in taxes in reality.



Wiki is wrong again. It was Freddie Mac, not Fannie Mae. But that's a minor error. The point is, Freddie Mac did exactly that above. They guaranteed sub-prime loans. Which started the sub-prime boom, and eventual crash.

Source "Inside Mortgage Finance", an industry trade magazine.



Or maybe it's just you. Name one thing that I have said, that you can prove with evidence is wrong?

At the very least, we should kick this around before the next economic collapse.[/B]

Which could come pretty soon given the leftists in government are still pushing sub-prime loans even as we speak.

How many compassionate conservatives on Wall Street are securitizing those sub-prime loans compared to 2006 when 84% of sub prime mortgages were issued by private lenders? Private lenders whose mouthpiece is "Inside Mortgage Finance". If you're actually gullible enough to believe their account, maybe you can work for the FBI.

Only one of the top 25 sub prime lenders in 2006 was subject to affordable housing laws; maybe you're convinced Countrywide was issuing "Nontraditional" mortgages to make Barney Frank happy and not to package them off to Wall Street?

Virtually all of government's contribution to the housing bubble and its collapse, from 1998's repeal of Glass-Steagall to 2004's federal preemption of state anti-predatory lending laws was done to advance the acquisition of private profit at public expense, and that's where your mistakes begin.

Virtually all of government's contribution to the housing bubble and its collapse, from 1998's repeal of Glass-Steagall

How did the repeal of Glass-Steagall contribute to the bubble or collapse?

Be as specific as you can.

 

[SAYIT]

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.

I think you don't understand capitalism then. The reason the rich people are rich is because they earned it. SO what did they do to earn it? Outsourcing. They threatened and in many cases did leave the US to build factories in low wage areas. This allowed them to marginally reduce the price to consumers which was a bonus to the average person but given wages were 5-10 dollars less per hour, they were able to reap the obvious profits from such a move. Soon the overhead was paid for by the cheap labor and the profits never stopped rolling. Hence, outsourcing is a masterful success according to capitalism.

Typically whiny socialist pap. Not all or even most wealthy peeps own factories and not all or even most American firms outsource to foreign countries.
Americans get wealthy by selling their services, skills and products competitively in the global market and no amount of socialist whining will make you wealthy.