Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[dnsmith35]

Predatory lending is imposing unfair and abusive loan terms on borrowers.
Angelo's specific contributions would require a trial.
Maybe that's what makes the rich different

Predatory lending is imposing unfair and abusive loan terms on borrowers.

There are laws which mandate the information that must be provided to borrowers.
So what is "unfair and abusive loan terms"? Any specifics?

Or is it whatever Jesse Jackson decides is wrong?

Angelo's specific contributions would require a trial.

You made a claim and can't back it up? That's surprising.

"In 2009, Time magazine named him one of the '25 people to blame for the financial crisis.'

"Last fall, he settled a lawsuit levied by the Securities and Exchange Commission over allegations that he misled investors. Mozilo paid a fine of $67.5 million — the largest-ever financial penalty against a public company’s senior executive, according to the SEC."

Rich people don't go to jail (or even trial)

Tell that to Berny Madoff. I am sure he will have a big laugh at your expense.

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/02/ex-countrywide-chairman-angelo-mozilo/

Like the man said, why make comments that on second though ever you know is incorrect.

 

[georgephillip]

Predatory lending is imposing unfair and abusive loan terms on borrowers.

There are laws which mandate the information that must be provided to borrowers.
So what is "unfair and abusive loan terms"? Any specifics?

Or is it whatever Jesse Jackson decides is wrong?

Angelo's specific contributions would require a trial.

You made a claim and can't back it up? That's surprising.

"In 2009, Time magazine named him one of the '25 people to blame for the financial crisis.'

"Last fall, he settled a lawsuit levied by the Securities and Exchange Commission over allegations that he misled investors. Mozilo paid a fine of $67.5 million — the largest-ever financial penalty against a public company’s senior executive, according to the SEC."

Rich people don't go to jail (or even trial)

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/02/ex-countrywide-chairman-angelo-mozilo/

Jeffrey Skilling.

Just proved you wrong, and required a massive 17 key strokes. Idiot. When you say stuff this dumb, you are just being an idiot. Bernard Madoff. Idiot.

Bernie stole from rich people, Moron.
Any fool knows that isn't allowed.
Skilling will be free and rich in less than five years.
Do you think your exceptions disprove the rule?
Do you think, at all?

 

[georgephillip]

We've already covered this. You are like a broken record for failed arguments.

Both Commercial and Retail Real Estate are dependent on the same underlining resource, that being land. When developers buy up land and make residential housing instead of commercial buildings.... the reduces the supply of commercial buildings. Supply down, demand stays the same, price goes up.

Economics 101, that anyone intelligent should know.

Once again, in yet another of dozens of posts, you prove Thomas Sowell right.

“I don’t mind debating smart people. They know the limitations of their position. It’s debating stupid people that’s hard.”

In fact, I'm going to make that quote my sig from now on, in memory of the biggest absolute fool on this forum.

Did you bother to read my link, Uncle Tom?

Well see, I can actually think for myself. I have the intellectual ability to consider the statements given, weight them against the facts, connect them to known fundamental laws of economics, and come to a logical rational conclusion.

Commercial real estate, is directly connected to residential real estate.

Both occupy the same underlining resource, called "land".

If one of those two, starts taking larger and larger shares of the "land", then logically the other must be reduced relative to the first.

Further, it is also very logical that the bubble in the commercial real estate would be delayed behind that of the residential bubble, because of something know as "zoning law". The process to have a commercial zoned land, rezoned for residential, takes years. Beyond that, the zoning process of new land, also takes years.

Thus the move away from commercial property, towards residential, would have a delayed action of lowering supply and increasing value, over a period of years. Much like exactly what we see in the data.

Lastly, it isn't surprising to me that lending standards were lowered across the board. Remember, before 1997, sub-prime mortgages were considered risky, and where a niche market.

Fannie and Freddie convinced the entire industry, that these loans were safe, because they were willing to securitize them.

If they were safe for residential, why not commercial? It's the same thing, a mortgage on a property that has increasing value.

Again, you just don't seem to know enough about this topic, to discuss it intelligently. Why else to you routinely rely on someone else who wrote their opinion that you agree with? All you do is post other people's opinion.

"The existence of the parallel commercial real estate bubble presents a strong challenge to explanations of the residential bubble that focus on government affordable housing policy, the Community Reinvestment Act, and the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"

That bold right there, is the fact. There was a parallel commercial real estate bubble.

"The existence of the parallel commercial real estate bubble presents a strong challenge to explanations of the residential bubble that focus on government affordable housing policy, the Community Reinvestment Act, and the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"

That bold there, is opinion. It is that authors opinion, that it presents a strong challenge to the explanation.

You posted this as if it was a fact. It is not a fact. That is an opinion.

You should know this. The fact you don't seem to, is why I have that Thomas Sowell quote in my sig.

"Well see, I can actually think for myself. I have the intellectual ability to consider the statements given, weight them against the facts, connect them to known fundamental laws of economics, and come to a logical rational conclusion."

Actually, you can't think effectively.
You don't know enough.
You apparently think all opinions are created equal.
They're not.
Your opinions are not equal to those of:

"Adam J. Levitin
Georgetown University Law Center
OR
Susan M. Wachter
University of Pennsylvania - Wharton School, Department of Real Estate"

when it comes to explaining the relationships between CREMs and RREMs.

Try again?

"This Article shows that the commercial real estate price bubble was accompanied by a change in the source of commercial real estate financing. Starting around 1998, securitization became an increasingly significant part of commercial real estate financing.

"The commercial mortgage securitization market underwent a major shift in 2004, however, as the traditional buyers of subordinated commercial real estate debt were outbid by collateralized debt obligations (CDOs)."

Try providing proof for your opinions, if you can find any and stop confusing yourself with anyone who's educated

The Commercial Real Estate Bubble by Adam J. Levitin, Susan M. Wachter :: SSRN

 

[dnsmith35]

"In 2009, Time magazine named him one of the '25 people to blame for the financial crisis.'

Gee, some idiot had an opinion and made a claim, and you, like a typically left wing extremist believed him. When you believe propaganda, that makes you the idiot.

"Last fall, he settled a lawsuit levied by the Securities and Exchange Commission over allegations that he misled investors. Mozilo paid a fine of $67.5 million — the largest-ever financial penalty against a public company’s senior executive, according to the SEC."

Are you suggesting that his settling our of court was anything more than his choosing to minimize his exposure? Are you that stupid?

Rich people don't go to jail (or even trial)

Bah humbug!

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/02/ex-countrywide-chairman-angelo-mozilo/

Jeffrey Skilling.

Another good example that the rich do go to jail when they commit crimes.

Just proved you wrong, and required a massive 17 key strokes. Idiot. When you say stuff this dumb, you are just being an idiot. Bernard Madoff. Idiot.

Your proof is another stupid idiot voicing the same stupid opinion as your stupid ideas.

Bernie stole from rich people, Moron.
Any fool knows that isn't allowed.
Skilling will be free and rich in less than five years.
Do you think your exceptions disprove the rule?
Do you think, at all?

I don't believe there is a rule. Your original assertion that the rich criminal does not go to trial or jail is moronic. It is obvious you hate the rich, no matter how honest and civil they are. People like you are to be pitied for their lack of ability to think.

 

[dnsmith35]

......

Did you bother to read my link, Uncle Tom?

I not only read your link, I have the material on my computer and last night I explained it to you as you obviously did not understand it. If you really want to read the paper and at least TRY to understand it, here is a good link. http://realestate.wharton.upenn.edu/research/papers/full/747.pdf

Actually, you can't think effectively.
You don't know enough.
You apparently think all opinions are created equal.
They're not.
Your opinions are not equal to those of:

"Adam J. Levitin
Georgetown University Law Center
OR
Susan M. Wachter
University of Pennsylvania - Wharton School, Department of Real Estate"

when it comes to explaining the relationships between CREMs and RREMs.

Try again?

"This Article shows that the commercial real estate price bubble was accompanied by a change in the source of commercial real estate financing. Starting around 1998, securitization became an increasingly significant part of commercial real estate financing.

"The commercial mortgage securitization market underwent a major shift in 2004, however, as the traditional buyers of subordinated commercial real estate debt were outbid by collateralized debt obligations (CDOs)."

The highlight is mine, but part of your post George. Do you understand the significance of that comment alone in Wachter's and Levitin's paper?

Try providing proof for your opinions, if you can find any and stop confusing yourself with anyone who's educated

The Commercial Real Estate Bubble by Adam J. Levitin, Susan M. Wachter :: SSRN

Now who is talking in confusion? You!

So that you may learn something I shall repost last nights lesson in CRE and its balloon.

Isn't it obvious that when loans have poor securitization there is a tendency to more wildly invest?

The question really is, how bad was the commercial real estate bubble and what was the subsequent result of that bubble?

Real estate professionals were all interested in selling real estate, and investors were ready to buy. Which brings me to Androw's logical statement, when there is more competition to buy finite resources those resources tend to go up in price. In both RRE and CRE land was there was more competition for the land, there was inflation in both types of real estate, and we all know that government fiscal and monetary policies were the most important cause of the RRE balloon and crash.

Does it come to mind that when the financial business was inundated with paper, much of it bad, and that heating up both the residential and the commercial caused both to inflate? Has it come to mind that when the Residential mortgage banks started buying up paper that it pushed commercial real estate buyers to other sources?

If you look at page 85 of the study you quoted, you will see that the commercial real estate bubble did not peak until Dec 2007/Jan 2008, almost 2 years after the residential bubble peaked. At about that time financial institutions were about to fall apart because of sub prime, low interest residential loans, and well into the great recession.

I would have found it strange had the commercial market not taken a nose dive. Both markets were severely inflated, even though the same identical issue may not have caused both deflations.

The closely synchronous parallels between the CRE and residential real
estate (RRE) bubbles present a conundrum. Despite some shared fundamentals
(and market overlap in the area of multi-family residential housing),
CRE and RRE have historically been separate markets.15 Thus, theories of
the RRE bubble that point to government intervention in the housing market
as the source of the bubble, be it through the Community Reinvestment Act
or through affordable housing goals for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the
government-sponsored enterprises or GSE), founder on the CRE bubble.
There is almost no government involvement in the CRE market, yet a parallel
bubble emerged.​

So what happened?

The most extensive exploration of the CRE bubble,
a Congressional Oversight Panel (COP) report, concluded that “faulty”
and “dramatically weakened” underwriting standards resulted in “riskier”
commercial real estate loans during the mid-2000s.

While there are many common characteristics to all real estate lending,
there are important distinctions between residential and commercial real estate
finance. First, any financing must look at the source of repayment. This
varies significantly between RRE and CRE.

Whereas voluntary payments on RRE loans come first from the
personal income and assets of the owner unrelated to the property, a CRE
loan is typically financed based on the rents from the property.

The option is only “in the money” if the property is worth less
than the amount owed on the loan (the LTV>100%), meaning that the property
is “upside down” or “underwater” or that there is “negative equity.”​

So here comes the next question, why would the rents from the property dry up? Has it come to mind that the RRE collapse led to a recession? Do you see the possibility that the CRE rents were no longer available to pay the mortgage? Has it occurred to you that if a property is no longer worth as much as the loan owed that a CRE customer is more likely to walk away from a property in which he only has an interest in that property as a profit maker?

So parallel bubble? Close, but not totally. Yet the one, the RRE bubble put lots of people out of work, so consider that at least part of the CRE crash was caused by the RRE bubble which goes back to bad government fiscal and monetary policies.
I could go on George, but look at the whole study, not just the abstract. Maybe if you try real hard you might be able to answer your own questions.

ONE OTHER THING, IT TICKLES ME WHEN IN YOUR ZEAL TO PROVE YOUR POINT, YOU POST LINKS TO AND QUOTE PASSAGES FROM A STUDY WHICH INCONTOVERTABLY PROOF YOU WRONG.

 

[bripat9643]

"In 2009, Time magazine named him one of the '25 people to blame for the financial crisis.'

"Last fall, he settled a lawsuit levied by the Securities and Exchange Commission over allegations that he misled investors. Mozilo paid a fine of $67.5 million — the largest-ever financial penalty against a public company’s senior executive, according to the SEC."

Rich people don't go to jail (or even trial)

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/02/ex-countrywide-chairman-angelo-mozilo/

Jeffrey Skilling.

Just proved you wrong, and required a massive 17 key strokes. Idiot. When you say stuff this dumb, you are just being an idiot. Bernard Madoff. Idiot.

Bernie stole from rich people, Moron.
Any fool knows that isn't allowed.
Skilling will be free and rich in less than five years.
Do you think your exceptions disprove the rule?
Do you think, at all?

Martha Stewart
Michael Milken
Ivan Boesky
Bernie Ebbers
Dennis Kozlowski
John Rigas
Sanjay Kumar
Wesley Snipes
Leona Helmsley
Paris Hilton
Al Pacino
Charlie Sheen
Daniel Baldwin
George Michael
Jane Fonda
Keanue reeves
Kelsey Grammer
Lindsey Lohan
Nick Nolte
O.J. Simpson
Robert Downey Jr.

 

[georgephillip]

"In 2009, Time magazine named him one of the '25 people to blame for the financial crisis.'

Gee, some idiot had an opinion and made a claim, and you, like a typically left wing extremist believed him. When you believe propaganda, that makes you the idiot.

"Last fall, he settled a lawsuit levied by the Securities and Exchange Commission over allegations that he misled investors. Mozilo paid a fine of $67.5 million — the largest-ever financial penalty against a public company’s senior executive, according to the SEC."

Are you suggesting that his settling our of court was anything more than his choosing to minimize his exposure? Are you that stupid?Bah humbug! Another good example that the rich do go to jail when they commit crimes.[/B]

Just proved you wrong, and required a massive 17 key strokes. Idiot. When you say stuff this dumb, you are just being an idiot. Bernard Madoff. Idiot.

Your proof is another stupid idiot voicing the same stupid opinion as your stupid ideas.

Bernie stole from rich people, Moron.
Any fool knows that isn't allowed.
Skilling will be free and rich in less than five years.
Do you think your exceptions disprove the rule?
Do you think, at all?

I don't believe there is a rule. Your original assertion that the rich criminal does not go to trial or jail is moronic. It is obvious you hate the rich, no matter how honest and civil they are. People like you are to be pitied for their lack of ability to think.

Are you a "Friend of Angelo"?
People like you often want to be.

"Referred to as the 'VIP program' or the 'Friends of Angelo' program -- after former Countrywide founder and CEO Angelo Mozilo -- this preferential treatment varied with the importance and influence of the borrowers and included such perks as lower loan rates, expedited loan processing and less stringent underwriting standards, the report said..."

"The House Oversight Committee started its investigation into the program in 2009, and has since discovered that these loans were extended to thousands of people, including almost a dozen lawmakers and former executive branch officials.

"In addition, thousands of Countrywide employees, as well as employees of Congress, the White House, Fannie Mae (FNM), Freddie Mac (FRE) and other government entities were also offered the special loans."

Countrywide issued VIP loans to buy influence, report says - Jul. 5, 2012

BTW, I not only think that Angelo's settling out of court by paying a $67.5 million fine had something to do with limiting his exposure to prison showers, but I also suspect Bank of America paying $8.7 billion to settle predatory lending charges filed against Countrywide by 11 state attorneys general confirmed his crimes.

Of course, the rich really are different, aren't they?

 

[dnsmith35]

"In 2009, Time magazine named him one of the '25 people to blame for the financial crisis.'

Gee, some idiot had an opinion and made a claim, and you, like a typically left wing extremist believed him. When you believe propaganda, that makes you the idiot.Are you suggesting that his settling our of court was anything more than his choosing to minimize his exposure? Are you that stupid?Bah humbug! Another good example that the rich do go to jail when they commit crimes.[/B]Your proof is another stupid idiot voicing the same stupid opinion as your stupid ideas.

Bernie stole from rich people, Moron.

So morons like you accept that?

Any fool knows that isn't allowed.
Skilling will be free and rich in less than five years.

Do you think they should execute him?

Do you think your exceptions disprove the rule?

What rule idiot? Your rule about hating the rich and assuming them guilty?

Your original assertion that the rich criminal does not go to trial or jail is moronic. It is obvious you hate the rich, no matter how honest and civil they are. People like you are to be pitied for their lack of ability to think.

Are you a "Friend of Angelo"? People like you often want to be.

No, but people like me believe people are innocent until proved guilty. Not like slugs like you who blame without grounds and find guilt because you hate.

"Referred to as the 'VIP program' or the 'Friends of Angelo' program -- after former Countrywide founder and CEO Angelo Mozilo -- this preferential treatment varied with the importance and influence of the borrowers and included such perks as lower loan rates, expedited loan processing and less stringent underwriting standards, the report said..."

"The House Oversight Committee started its investigation into the program in 2009, and has since discovered that these loans were extended to thousands of people, including almost a dozen lawmakers and former executive branch officials.

"In addition, thousands of Countrywide employees, as well as employees of Congress, the White House, Fannie Mae (FNM), Freddie Mac (FRE) and other government entities were also offered the special loans."

Countrywide issued VIP loans to buy influence, report says - Jul. 5, 2012

Was there a trial? Or was that our famously non corrupt congress? Like ISSA, Dodd, and Conrad? When was the trial? What was the verdict?

BTW, I not only think that Angelo's settling out of court by paying a $67.5 million fine had something to do with limiting his exposure to prison showers, but I also suspect Bank of America paying $8.7 billion to settle predatory lending charges filed against Countrywide by 11 state attorneys general confirmed his crimes.

Where was the trial held?

Of course, the rich really are different, aren't they?

Some rich are different, some aren't, some are honest, and some or not, just like all people; but until they are convicted of a crime, they are not guilty, your claims not withstanding.

In spite of all your attempts to divert attention from the cause of the housing balloon and subsequent crash you have produced not a single iota of proof to the contrary. Government fiscal and monetary are still the primary cause of the crash.

BTW, why don't you address your screw up using the ADAM J. LEVITIN AND SUSAN M. WACHTER study to prove your point when it did exactly the opposite? Maybe that'll teach you to read am abstract instead of reading the whole study, right?

 

[georgephillip]

"Bank of America Corp.’s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting..."

"The dispute goes back to 2011, when Bank of America BAC agreed to pay $8.5 billion to investors who said they were ripped off by mortgage securities the bank sold them in the run-up to the financial crisis.

"Bank of New York Mellon, BK acting as a trustee for the investors, agreed to the deal. But other investors, led by AIG, stepped in and said it wasn’t good enough. Nine weeks of court hearings, stretching from June to November last year, followed.

"Last month it appeared that the dispute was over, most of it anyway, when Justice Kapnick approved most of the deal. But then she got promoted, Justice Scarpulla took over the case, and AIG asked for another chance to air its grievances."

Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch

 

[Andylusion]

"Bank of America Corp.’s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting..."

"The dispute goes back to 2011, when Bank of America BAC agreed to pay $8.5 billion to investors who said they were ripped off by mortgage securities the bank sold them in the run-up to the financial crisis.

"Bank of New York Mellon, BK acting as a trustee for the investors, agreed to the deal. But other investors, led by AIG, stepped in and said it wasn’t good enough. Nine weeks of court hearings, stretching from June to November last year, followed.

"Last month it appeared that the dispute was over, most of it anyway, when Justice Kapnick approved most of the deal. But then she got promoted, Justice Scarpulla took over the case, and AIG asked for another chance to air its grievances."

Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch

Again, you posted something that didn't answer anything the prior poster said. Didn't have anything to do with the topic. Doesn't prove any of the claims you made.

You simply don't know, that what you said, didn't make a point. You are simply too ignorant of a person to conduct a rational debate with. The only people who think you have a point, are those who are also too ignorant to debate with.

You prove Thomas Sowell right, with every idiotic incoherent post you make.

 

[georgephillip]

"Bank of America Corp.’s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting..."

"The dispute goes back to 2011, when Bank of America BAC agreed to pay $8.5 billion to investors who said they were ripped off by mortgage securities the bank sold them in the run-up to the financial crisis.

"Bank of New York Mellon, BK acting as a trustee for the investors, agreed to the deal. But other investors, led by AIG, stepped in and said it wasn’t good enough. Nine weeks of court hearings, stretching from June to November last year, followed.

"Last month it appeared that the dispute was over, most of it anyway, when Justice Kapnick approved most of the deal. But then she got promoted, Justice Scarpulla took over the case, and AIG asked for another chance to air its grievances."

Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch

Again, you posted something that didn't answer anything the prior poster said. Didn't have anything to do with the topic. Doesn't prove any of the claims you made.

You simply don't know, that what you said, didn't make a point. You are simply too ignorant of a person to conduct a rational debate with. The only people who think you have a point, are those who are also too ignorant to debate with.

You prove Thomas Sowell right, with every idiotic incoherent post you make.

Actually, the prior poster asked where the trial that resulted in an $8.7 billion settlement against Bank of America was held, did you notice?

"Bank of America Corp.’s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting.

Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch

Learn to read.

 

[Andylusion]

"Bank of America Corp.’s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting..."

"The dispute goes back to 2011, when Bank of America BAC agreed to pay $8.5 billion to investors who said they were ripped off by mortgage securities the bank sold them in the run-up to the financial crisis.

"Bank of New York Mellon, BK acting as a trustee for the investors, agreed to the deal. But other investors, led by AIG, stepped in and said it wasn’t good enough. Nine weeks of court hearings, stretching from June to November last year, followed.

"Last month it appeared that the dispute was over, most of it anyway, when Justice Kapnick approved most of the deal. But then she got promoted, Justice Scarpulla took over the case, and AIG asked for another chance to air its grievances."

Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch

Again, you posted something that didn't answer anything the prior poster said. Didn't have anything to do with the topic. Doesn't prove any of the claims you made.

You simply don't know, that what you said, didn't make a point. You are simply too ignorant of a person to conduct a rational debate with. The only people who think you have a point, are those who are also too ignorant to debate with.

You prove Thomas Sowell right, with every idiotic incoherent post you make.

Actually, the prior poster asked where the trial that resulted in an $8.7 billion settlement against Bank of America was held, did you notice?

"Bank of America Corp.’s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting.

Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch

Learn to read.

No, I get that he asked a question, and you answer the question.

I'm talking about the entire focus of the discussion. We've come full circle back to BoA, and Countrywide.

Did you miss the fact that government pushed BoA to buy Countrywide?

If Countrywide had gone through normal bankruptcy proceedings, all of this crap you are complaining about, would have been taken care of in court. But leftards, like you, push for a buyout paid for by government, and now you are b!tching about it?

And what does this have to do with sub-prime loans? Nothing. What does this have to do with the cause of the price bubble? Nothing. What does this have to do with capitalism or inequality? Nothing.

What does this have to do with anything?

And worse, we've been over this already. You don't even remember, this is like that 3rd time we've covered this topic in this thread. You are like a broken record of bad arguments, repeated over and over, never realizing your own failure.

You want to talk about this, fine.

EVERY SINGLE TIME THAT GOVERNMENT GIVES OUT BUSINESS OR MONEY, PEOPLE WILL TRY TO INFLUENCE WHERE THAT MONEY GOES.

This is true in any social economic system. When government announces it plans to increase 'green-energy spending', thousands of companies start spending money to influence where that money goes, so they can get some.

The Freedom Car, is a perfect example. Dozens of company vying for a handout.

And you have failed to mention the most obvious examples, Fannie and Freddie both spent MILLIONS to influence government on their behalf.

The same is true in Pre-78 china and Soviet Russia. Government corporations spent money all the time to get influence for preferable treatment by the Kremlin and the Central Politburo of China.

So here you have Countrywide, who had deep ties with Fannie Mae, got special treatment, and you are shocked and surprised that Countrywide greased the hands that fed them?

Really? This is a surprise to whom? Leftards too dumb to know how socialism works?

The rest of us on the right, know this is how socialism always works. Government hands out goodies through Fannie and Freddie, and people will reciprocate. It's normal. Happens everywhere in the world.

You want to stop that, no amount of fines or trials, or legislation is going to do anything. The only way to stop it, is to eliminate government involvement in mortgages. Cut Fannie and Freddie off. Break them up, and never bailout them, or anyone else, again.

When companies realize there is no money to be had from government, they'll stop wasting their money on lobbying. End socialism. That's the solution.

 

[georgephillip]

As I'm sure many have noticed, I don't have a particularly well rounded understanding of the economics of inequality. As luck would have it, there's a test in the USMB Economy Forum that can provide all of us with a baseline for where we are starting from

I intend to take the test ASAP and will post my score when finished.

Anyone else?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/economy/357663-income-inequality-general-knowledge.html

Me and my BIG MOUTH.
I got 0%
Can you beat that, Homeschool?

 

[georgephillip]

Again, you posted something that didn't answer anything the prior poster said. Didn't have anything to do with the topic. Doesn't prove any of the claims you made.

You simply don't know, that what you said, didn't make a point. You are simply too ignorant of a person to conduct a rational debate with. The only people who think you have a point, are those who are also too ignorant to debate with.

You prove Thomas Sowell right, with every idiotic incoherent post you make.

Actually, the prior poster asked where the trial that resulted in an $8.7 billion settlement against Bank of America was held, did you notice?

"Bank of America Corp.’s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting.

Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch

Learn to read.

No, I get that he asked a question, and you answer the question.

I'm talking about the entire focus of the discussion. We've come full circle back to BoA, and Countrywide.

Did you miss the fact that government pushed BoA to buy Countrywide?

If Countrywide had gone through normal bankruptcy proceedings, all of this crap you are complaining about, would have been taken care of in court. But leftards, like you, push for a buyout paid for by government, and now you are b!tching about it?

And what does this have to do with sub-prime loans? Nothing. What does this have to do with the cause of the price bubble? Nothing. What does this have to do with capitalism or inequality? Nothing.

What does this have to do with anything?

And worse, we've been over this already. You don't even remember, this is like that 3rd time we've covered this topic in this thread. You are like a broken record of bad arguments, repeated over and over, never realizing your own failure.

You want to talk about this, fine.

EVERY SINGLE TIME THAT GOVERNMENT GIVES OUT BUSINESS OR MONEY, PEOPLE WILL TRY TO INFLUENCE WHERE THAT MONEY GOES.

This is true in any social economic system. When government announces it plans to increase 'green-energy spending', thousands of companies start spending money to influence where that money goes, so they can get some.

The Freedom Car, is a perfect example. Dozens of company vying for a handout.

And you have failed to mention the most obvious examples, Fannie and Freddie both spent MILLIONS to influence government on their behalf.

The same is true in Pre-78 china and Soviet Russia. Government corporations spent money all the time to get influence for preferable treatment by the Kremlin and the Central Politburo of China.

So here you have Countrywide, who had deep ties with Fannie Mae, got special treatment, and you are shocked and surprised that Countrywide greased the hands that fed them?

Really? This is a surprise to whom? Leftards too dumb to know how socialism works?

The rest of us on the right, know this is how socialism always works. Government hands out goodies through Fannie and Freddie, and people will reciprocate. It's normal. Happens everywhere in the world.

You want to stop that, no amount of fines or trials, or legislation is going to do anything. The only way to stop it, is to eliminate government involvement in mortgages. Cut Fannie and Freddie off. Break them up, and never bailout them, or anyone else, again.

When companies realize there is no money to be had from government, they'll stop wasting their money on lobbying. End socialism. That's the solution.

When you say "eliminate government involvement in mortgages" are you including the Federal Reserve? Why or why not?

 

[dnsmith35]

"Bank of America Corp.’s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting..."

"The dispute goes back to 2011, when Bank of America BAC agreed to pay $8.5 billion to investors who said they were ripped off by mortgage securities the bank sold them in the run-up to the financial crisis.

"Bank of New York Mellon, BK acting as a trustee for the investors, agreed to the deal. But other investors, led by AIG, stepped in and said it wasn’t good enough. Nine weeks of court hearings, stretching from June to November last year, followed.

"Last month it appeared that the dispute was over, most of it anyway, when Justice Kapnick approved most of the deal. But then she got promoted, Justice Scarpulla took over the case, and AIG asked for another chance to air its grievances."

Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch

I wonder if you will ever tell us how all of that crap relates to:
1.The RRE collapse
2.The CRE collapse
3. Criminality

 

[dnsmith35]

"Bank of America Corp.’s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting..."

"The dispute goes back to 2011, when Bank of America BAC agreed to pay $8.5 billion to investors who said they were ripped off by mortgage securities the bank sold them in the run-up to the financial crisis.

"Bank of New York Mellon, BK acting as a trustee for the investors, agreed to the deal. But other investors, led by AIG, stepped in and said it wasn’t good enough. Nine weeks of court hearings, stretching from June to November last year, followed.

"Last month it appeared that the dispute was over, most of it anyway, when Justice Kapnick approved most of the deal. But then she got promoted, Justice Scarpulla took over the case, and AIG asked for another chance to air its grievances."

Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch

Again, you posted something that didn't answer anything the prior poster said. Didn't have anything to do with the topic. Doesn't prove any of the claims you made.

You simply don't know, that what you said, didn't make a point. You are simply too ignorant of a person to conduct a rational debate with. The only people who think you have a point, are those who are also too ignorant to debate with.

You prove Thomas Sowell right, with every idiotic incoherent post you make.

Actually, the prior poster asked where the trial that resulted in an $8.7 billion settlement against Bank of America was held, did you notice?

"Bank of America Corp.’s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting.

Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch

Learn to read.

Still no tie in to my comments. There was no criminal trial, conviction and sentence.

Why don't you ever address the issues instead of going off on unrelated tangents.

 

[dnsmith35]

Actually, the prior poster asked where the trial that resulted in an $8.7 billion settlement against Bank of America was held, did you notice?

"Bank of America Corp.’s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting.

Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch

Learn to read.

No, I get that he asked a question, and you answer the question.

I'm talking about the entire focus of the discussion. We've come full circle back to BoA, and Countrywide.

Did you miss the fact that government pushed BoA to buy Countrywide?

If Countrywide had gone through normal bankruptcy proceedings, all of this crap you are complaining about, would have been taken care of in court. But leftards, like you, push for a buyout paid for by government, and now you are b!tching about it?

And what does this have to do with sub-prime loans? Nothing. What does this have to do with the cause of the price bubble? Nothing. What does this have to do with capitalism or inequality? Nothing.

What does this have to do with anything?

And worse, we've been over this already. You don't even remember, this is like that 3rd time we've covered this topic in this thread. You are like a broken record of bad arguments, repeated over and over, never realizing your own failure.

You want to talk about this, fine.

EVERY SINGLE TIME THAT GOVERNMENT GIVES OUT BUSINESS OR MONEY, PEOPLE WILL TRY TO INFLUENCE WHERE THAT MONEY GOES.

This is true in any social economic system. When government announces it plans to increase 'green-energy spending', thousands of companies start spending money to influence where that money goes, so they can get some.

The Freedom Car, is a perfect example. Dozens of company vying for a handout.

And you have failed to mention the most obvious examples, Fannie and Freddie both spent MILLIONS to influence government on their behalf.

The same is true in Pre-78 china and Soviet Russia. Government corporations spent money all the time to get influence for preferable treatment by the Kremlin and the Central Politburo of China.

So here you have Countrywide, who had deep ties with Fannie Mae, got special treatment, and you are shocked and surprised that Countrywide greased the hands that fed them?

Really? This is a surprise to whom? Leftards too dumb to know how socialism works?

The rest of us on the right, know this is how socialism always works. Government hands out goodies through Fannie and Freddie, and people will reciprocate. It's normal. Happens everywhere in the world.

You want to stop that, no amount of fines or trials, or legislation is going to do anything. The only way to stop it, is to eliminate government involvement in mortgages. Cut Fannie and Freddie off. Break them up, and never bailout them, or anyone else, again.

When companies realize there is no money to be had from government, they'll stop wasting their money on lobbying. End socialism. That's the solution.

When you say "eliminate government involvement in mortgages" are you including the Federal Reserve? Why or why not?

The government will always have to be involved or the number of people who buy houses will be limited only to those who have sterling credit records and sufficient income to justify a mortgage loan company to take the risk. It would completely eliminate any vestiges of CRA and the FHA and VA loan guarantees would not exist. Interest rates will fluctuate according to the profitability of the loan companies, and the 99%rs will be almost cut off from owning homes.

The government causes housing balloons and crashes, but the government also gives more people the opportunity to buy homes.

What the government needs to do, is step back and stop delaying recession recoveries with their Keynesian failures. The reason Keynesian economics delays recovery is very simple; all of the money the government throws at the economy, even if they throw it the right direction for the conditions of the moment, the money ALWAYS COMES FROM THE ECONOMY either from Taxes or Borrowing. If there was no overhead in the process it may turn out to be neutral, but the fact is, THERE ARE ALWAYS OVERHEAD EXPENSES IN ACQUIRING MONEY to throw at the economy, minus the overhead.

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

What the government needs to do, is step back and stop delaying recession recoveries with their Keynesian failures. The reason Keynesian economics delays recovery is very simple; all of the money the government throws at the economy, even if they throw it the right direction for the conditions of the moment, the money ALWAYS COMES FROM THE ECONOMY either from Taxes or Borrowing. If there was no overhead in the process it may turn out to be neutral, but the fact is, THERE ARE ALWAYS OVERHEAD EXPENSES IN ACQUIRING MONEY to throw at the economy, minus the overhead.

The government is not a business. The government is incapable, by definition, of making a profit. The government can only affect the money supply, instead of the concept of "making a profit".

If the government increases taxes such that it can create a new service which employs some otherwise unemployed people, your argument is that this is a net loss because some money collected by the government disappears into "overhead".

Where you suppose this "overhead" money goes, if not back into the national economy?

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Again, you posted something that didn't answer anything the prior poster said. Didn't have anything to do with the topic. Doesn't prove any of the claims you made.

You simply don't know, that what you said, didn't make a point. You are simply too ignorant of a person to conduct a rational debate with. The only people who think you have a point, are those who are also too ignorant to debate with.

You prove Thomas Sowell right, with every idiotic incoherent post you make.

Actually, the prior poster asked where the trial that resulted in an $8.7 billion settlement against Bank of America was held, did you notice?


Learn to read.

No, I get that he asked a question, and you answer the question.

Again, Androw, you posted something that didn't answer anything the prior poster said. Didn't have anything to do with the topic. Doesn't prove any of the claims you made.

You simply don't know, that what you said, didn't make a point. You are simply too ignorant of a person to conduct a rational debate with. The only people who think you have a point, are those who are also too ignorant to debate with.

You prove Thomas Sowell right, with every idiotic incoherent post you make.​

 

[georgephillip]

Again, you posted something that didn't answer anything the prior poster said. Didn't have anything to do with the topic. Doesn't prove any of the claims you made.

You simply don't know, that what you said, didn't make a point. You are simply too ignorant of a person to conduct a rational debate with. The only people who think you have a point, are those who are also too ignorant to debate with.

You prove Thomas Sowell right, with every idiotic incoherent post you make.

Actually, the prior poster asked where the trial that resulted in an $8.7 billion settlement against Bank of America was held, did you notice?

"Bank of America Corp.’s $8.5 billion settlement with mortgage-securities investors can go through after all, a New York state judge said Wednesday. But dissenting investors like American International Group Inc. plan to keep protesting.

Judge rules against AIG in Bank of America's $8.5 billion settlement - The Tell - MarketWatch

Learn to read.

Still no tie in to my comments. There was no criminal trial, conviction and sentence.

Why don't you ever address the issues instead of going off on unrelated tangents.

There's nothing unrelated about my response to your question of "where was the trial?" Here's where the trial was held:

"NEW YORK, Oct 23 (Reuters) - Bank of America Corp was found liable for fraud on Wednesday over defective mortgages sold by its Countrywide unit, a major win for the U.S. government in one of the few trials stemming from the financial crisis.

"After a four-week trial, a federal jury in New York found the bank liable on one civil fraud charge. Countrywide originated shoddy home loans in a process called 'Hustle' and sold them to government mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government said.

"The four men and six women on the jury also found former Countrywide executive Rebecca Mairone liable on the one fraud charge she faced.

"The U.S. Justice Department has said it would seek up to $848.2 million, the gross loss it said Fannie and Freddie suffered on the loans. But it will be up to U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff to decide on the penalty. Arguments on how the judge will assess penalties are set for Dec. 5.

"Any penalty would add to the more than $40 billion Bank of America has spent on disputes stemming from the 2008 financial crisis."

Bank Of America Liable For Fraud In Countrywide Mortgage Case: Jury

I wonder if you'll bitch about civil as opposed criminal conviction
Sure you will.
Bitch.