Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[RKMBrown]

The biggest problem that arises in a crash, is the parties in charge of our government taking actions to ensure their constituents benefit from the crash at the expense of the opposing constituents.

 

[Contumacious]

Yo retard...

Tell me when in our nations history did we off-shore thousands of factories, invite 3 million business visas to replace US citizens and have our White House administration look the other way when everyone making less than 50K/year was being handed a mortgage for 600K?

Prior to the retard GW, it never happened.

And your hero, Rush, was LAUGHING about what a GENIUS GW was!

Once again, please link to the legislation.
But you CAN'T...It DOESN'T exist.

Again, retards

tell me when in our nations history , prior to the enactment of The Community Reinvestment Act (1977) did events like these occur.

To be fair, it would seem we have a housing bubble or some other major correction about once every generation.

The Complete History Of US Real Estate Bubbles Since 1800 - Business Insider

We are talking about the Subprime Mortgage Meltdown NOT real state bubbles.

BTW , even your article states that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was involved in those transactions.

.

.

 

[RKMBrown]

Again, retards

tell me when in our nations history , prior to the enactment of The Community Reinvestment Act (1977) did events like these occur.

To be fair, it would seem we have a housing bubble or some other major correction about once every generation.

The Complete History Of US Real Estate Bubbles Since 1800 - Business Insider

We are talking about the Subprime Mortgage Meltdown NOT real state bubbles.

BTW , even your article states that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was involved in those transactions.

.

.

Your question was when in history have events like these occurred. I answered the question with it happens once in nearly every generation. In response you say sub-prime real-estate loans have nothing to do with real-estate bubbles. Huh? You lost me cowboy.

Yes, the feds are involved in all real-estate transactions.

 

[Contumacious]

To be fair, it would seem we have a housing bubble or some other major correction about once every generation.

The Complete History Of US Real Estate Bubbles Since 1800 - Business Insider

We are talking about the Subprime Mortgage Meltdown NOT real state bubbles.

BTW , even your article states that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was involved in those transactions.

.

.

Your question was when in history have events like these occurred. I answered the question with it happens once in nearly every generation. In response you say sub-prime real-estate loans have nothing to do with real-estate bubbles. Huh? You lost me cowboy.

Yes, the feds are involved in all real-estate transactions.

Well. let me clarify , when in our nations history , prior to the enactment of The Community Reinvestment Act (1977) did thousands of mortgage defaults and foreclosures occur?

The 1935 market crashed was also the result of the progressive created Federal Reserve Board. It flooded the market place with paper money and easy credit. The nation went belly up, it had to off the gold standard.

When were bankers forced to create a "subprime" housing market (i.e., mortgage holders with poor credit ratings) ?

 

[Andylusion]

This isn't rocket science. Your graph clearly demonstrates the presence of sharp increases in prices in the 70's and the 80's. There isn't anything surprising based on your graph that a boom happened in 1997. What is surprising is that it kept going instead of stopping when the economy stopped growing around 2001. Right where one would expect the increase to have stopped and right about when interest rates started to go low.

There was bad information because EVERYONE thought those MBS were AAA. Companies make their own decisions. It is like you think they let Freddie Mac make their decisions for them and then take the profit but don't hold any responsibility for failure.

The fact is that the economy could have handled the CRA mortgages perfectly fine. Nothing you have said even comes close to demonstrating those loans had anything to do with the crisis. Nor have you said anything that has disputed what I have said.

Now you are being willfully ignorant.

We're going to camp out right here, until you either admit that the data clearly shows the housing price bubble started in 1997, or you will admit you are choosing to be ignorant, and refusing to look at the facts.

Make your choice. Which is it? Does the data clearly show that housing prices were fairly stable from 1992 until 1997, at which point housing prices drastically increased year over year until 2006?

Or are you choosing to be ignorant, and refuse to look at the data?

Answer now, so I'll know whether or not to put you on my ignore list. I'll debate with anyone who will honestly and with Integrity debates the facts. But I have no time whatsoever for:

Make your choice. There are more than enough decent adults on this forum that I can talk to, without having to deal with the people like the picture above. I'll just ignore you, and you cease to exist for the rest of my life. Up to you. Grow up, or grow ignorant.

 

[Andylusion]

Once again, find me documentation where the lending standards were lowered.

Mortgage Brokers and Bankers had automated systems which denied loans; they then had to whip out PAPER to bypass the standards.

So once again, find me documentation where the lending standards were lowered.

We find that adherence to the act led to riskier lending by banks

Is English your second language?

An ad hominem is a sign that you have lost the exchange.
You are stating that because individuals behaved in an underhanded manner in order to profit that this behavior was sanctioned by legislation.

You've got to be kidding.

No, we are stating that legislation pushed bad loans, and people used the system government setup, to their advantage.

 

[Bombur]

This isn't rocket science. Your graph clearly demonstrates the presence of sharp increases in prices in the 70's and the 80's. There isn't anything surprising based on your graph that a boom happened in 1997. What is surprising is that it kept going instead of stopping when the economy stopped growing around 2001. Right where one would expect the increase to have stopped and right about when interest rates started to go low.

There was bad information because EVERYONE thought those MBS were AAA. Companies make their own decisions. It is like you think they let Freddie Mac make their decisions for them and then take the profit but don't hold any responsibility for failure.

The fact is that the economy could have handled the CRA mortgages perfectly fine. Nothing you have said even comes close to demonstrating those loans had anything to do with the crisis. Nor have you said anything that has disputed what I have said.

Now you are being willfully ignorant.

We're going to camp out right here, until you either admit that the data clearly shows the housing price bubble started in 1997, or you will admit you are choosing to be ignorant, and refusing to look at the facts.

Make your choice. Which is it? Does the data clearly show that housing prices were fairly stable from 1992 until 1997, at which point housing prices drastically increased year over year until 2006?

Or are you choosing to be ignorant, and refuse to look at the data?

Answer now, so I'll know whether or not to put you on my ignore list. I'll debate with anyone who will honestly and with Integrity debates the facts. But I have no time whatsoever for:

Make your choice. There are more than enough decent adults on this forum that I can talk to, without having to deal with the people like the picture above. I'll just ignore you, and you cease to exist for the rest of my life. Up to you. Grow up, or grow ignorant.

I looked at the data. I explained myself to you. You chose to ignore that. I will explain myself again.

There are a lot of reasons why the prices will go up in 1997 including a growing economy. This FACT is demonstrated in YOUR OWN GRAPH. In fact your graph rather clearly demonstrates that price spikes are not unusual. What it does show is that it is unusual that the spike did not stop. So I looked at reality with the question in mind and by golly there are rather clear reasons why it did not stop. There are also rather clear reasons why it kept rising so high and then crashed.

See in the real world when presented with data people don't assume an answer and match data to an answer. Your analysis is about as intellectual as creationism.

 

[Iceweasel]

My mindless drivel was elucidating Americans use of the mass media as their main and only source for news.

I agree with that but don't recall that being your thesis. Maybe it was worded in a way that went by me.

Moreover I argued it narrows parameters of what is acceptable and what is not: it necessitates the triumph of capitalism at every turn and masks overt flaws. Of course you don't think there are flaws or they are dismissable. I get it, you don't live in the part of the social strata that makes you regret having needs and being human.

Now that's more like what I remember. First, you know nothing about me or what I have endured and worked for. Second, you assume "flaws" in capitalism are a byproduct of capitalism. Capitalism is not synonomous with "let's turn this pristine mountain lake into a bubbling cesspool of toxic waste so we can make a buck'.

I know of no one that wants to dismiss government's role or function in the marketplace. There are things only government can do. Capitalism isn't innocent or corrupt by nature. The flaw is human not ideological. Of course we need some oversight because there are people that would wreck the environment to make a buck.

The argument crops up when government gets too involved and stifles business. Over taxation and over regulation do not help business and thereby economies.

In which case I'll assume your parameters match those of American media. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I am above reproach or socialism is but with attitudes precisely like yours, we will always trample good human beings under foot because we don't give two shits about them. This is not the society for liberty and justice for all. You and your ilk are the vast majority of people who have a stake in the success of capitalism. Very few people step outside this mainstream to see if its working for people other than themselves--that's what mainstream is--egos the size of states. Captialism is fueled by selfish pursuits. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, it's an observational fact.

LOL. You are a nut. Capitalism made this country great and malcontents like you offer insults, lies, slander and false hope. There's nothing selfish about working hard and making money. People that make money spend money so some other greedy guy gets to sell his goods. And so forth. It works and is proven.

Killing incentive works too. It spreads misery around. The type your "ilk" apparently thrive on.

I guess on every single post I need put a disclaimer that capitalism has benefited billions and billions of brats like yourself who assume they know everything about a person from one single post. Get your head out of your ass.

Irony. Look it up.

I read elsewhere you noted the existence of hate and how you distanced yourself from it. HA! Read your own post! I see you forget to scrutinize your own language because it's obvious you think poor humans are to be treated like dogs with no rights to food, housing and love. I hope you don't complain there's a "entitlement problem." Why? If you treat people like dogs,

I gotta hop in right there. I don't know what you're babbling about but I treat my dogs pretty damned good. They are dependant though. I feed and house them. So it's YOU who would treat people like dogs. Back to your rant...

how can you expect their efforts and achievements to match those of the upper middle class or even middle class people? Treating people like shit will result in shit: not allowing humans to sleep indoors or forcing them to cram into homeless shelters where drugs and disease are rampant--which you wouldn't know because you've never had to stay in those places. Or taking handouts from food pantries which have skyrocketed all over America because more people are in need. Never had to stand in those long lines huh? Never had to eat old meat from a can that you are thankful to have?

Sounds like you don't like Obamanomics either. Unfortunately America needs to relearn history, we are in Jummy Carter II mode.

Your attitudes are selfishness and a total lack of heart. It OK because everyone you know is this way, except towards one another. Among your own ilk you are friendly, but poor people and opposition brings out the worst in you, or best, I'm not sure. I don't care if you give to charity, if you treat them like shit you are not being charitable. Charity involves a spirit of compassion and empathy.

So I'm selfish, greedy treat my own kind good and you don't care if I gave to charity? You're insane. And I'll bet I've given much more than you. You sound more like a taker. Entitled, arrogant, demanding, bigoted, etc.

Workers do have the right to own production IF they buy the goddamn company.

The right and the ability are two separate things. Although it's not entirely the case, most capitalists owners are not about the hand over control to their drivel workforce. It would be a major shift in the balance of power wouldn't it? Money isn't the only issue at play here. See the work of Gar Alperovitz regarding worker owned industry in northern Ohio. It details what you seem to lack in understanding regarding this topic.

What I do understand is that you would not start a business only to hand it over. You're a sponge. Sponges absorb. They don't create, take chances, persevere through all odds, fight competition, government and slackers marching around their property demanding that the keys be turned over.

You do not have the right to a house, food or sex. It isn't in the Constitution.

If it's a matter of the Constitution, it says ALL AMERICANS are given the inalienable right to pursue their life liberty and happiness. Do you think this excludes the need for housing and food? Do you think people can pursue liberty without food? Without support? Give me a break.

You apparently do not understand what persue means. The right to persue is not the right to a favorable outcome.

Do you live in a gated community? I know the answer: Yes. And if not, what the hell is wrong with you? Can't you work harder and be born with a father that had more inheritance to give? Tsk tsk...you should have done better in the happenstance department. Oh wait, no one gets to decide where their born? Hmmm....

Wait a second. The peasants are pounding on the drawbridge.

I'm back. Boiling oil solved the problem.

To you ALL AMERICANS' inalienable right include you and your immediate family and fuck the rest of the world. It excludes people disproportionately of color because my homeless compatriots tend to be racial minorities and to you they must be low-life *******. Way to be on the cutting edge! I'm sure they roundly agree with you, too bad they can't express that on this highly honorable and credible message board.

Jeeze, last I checked we had a black president. How did he slip through the cracks?

To think inalienable rights for all Americans mean only those who earn above poverty wages...what a new spin on the Constitution.

Again, I know capitalism has done great things. It has also turned our democracy into a plutocracy. All American individuals are covered in the Constitution except those who were born into the wrong class. And give me a break on success stories. These are not the norm and will never be.
Noam Chomsky: America Hates Its Poor | Alternet

Noam Chomsky? Mystery solved.

 

[P@triot]

Yo retard...

Tell me when in our nations history did we off-shore thousands of factories, invite 3 million business visas to replace US citizens and have our White House administration look the other way when everyone making less than 50K/year was being handed a mortgage for 600K?

Prior to the retard GW, it never happened.

And your hero, Rush, was LAUGHING about what a GENIUS GW was!

Man, this is so absurd, I don't even know where to begin here. Deep breath and.....go!

First of all, since when is it the responsibility of the White House to monitor mortgages? I've seen some stupid fuck'n posts on USMB before, but this is one for the ages.

Second, in you're infinite left-wing stupidity, did you ever realize the mind-numbing contradictions of your failed ideology? If a person goes to the bank making $50k a year and is turned for a $600k mortgage, you people have a fuck'n aneurysm that "the average man can't get a loan and is locked out of the inner circle". And God forbid if that person is black!!! Christ Almighty will the thunder roar and the earth shake if a black person is turned down for the loan! And you'll find a Republican president to blame for that.

But......if that irresponsible person is granted that loan and the irresponsible person fails to pay it back, well then the banks were "predatory" and "taking advantage" of that person. And then you'll find a a Republican president to blame for that. Do see you how insanely fuck'n stupid you sound now? Whether they get the loan or they don't get the loan, either way you cry like a little itty-bitty fucking bitch and then randomly find the name of a Republican president to blame it on.

But wait - there's more! Third, and most importantly out of all of this, you're too fuck'n stupid to even realize that you and your fellow Dumbocrats are to blame for all of the "off-shoring". You demonize the wealthy. You punish success. You raise taxes on business. You implement crushing regulations. You make it very clear that you hate the business owner, their business, and the jobs that result from both. And then you stand there scratching your head trying to figure out why businesses are fleeing the U.S.? Really? This is literally as fuck'n stupid as a Nazi scratching their head trying to figure out why all of the Jews are fleeing from Auschwitz.

Look, I realize you are a serious dick. But for 10 seconds can you stop being such a dick and answer one serious question honestly? If it cost $60 million per year to move operations overseas and you could actually save $40 million per year to keep your business in the U.S., do you think anyone would ever move their business overseas? No, really - would they?

With as much vile and contempt that you assholes could muster, you have told corporate America to go fuck themselves. And so they said "ok - I'll take my ball over to that playground over there where I'm actually wanted and where I'm treated nicely". Until you realize that whoever makes doing business the best deal for business will get all of the businesses - and the subsequent jobs that go with it - you continue the "off-shoring" that you libtard's created. But sadly, Dumbocrats are just too damn dumb and brainwashed by their failed ideology to ever figure it out.

Banks are regulated.
The software denied the loan, so the paper was whipped out of the draw.
Based on Sarbanes/Oxley, signed into law by GW post dot com crash, the transaction was ILLEGAL.

Are you drunk, stoned, are just plain stupid? All of the above? You don't even make coherent sentences. The "paper was whipped out of the draw"? Were you trying to say drawer? If so, are you really this fuck'n stupid? Banks were not "regulated" during this period as to what loans they could make (they were regulated on what loans they could deny). Sarbanes/Oxley wasn't even for banks you fuck'n moron - it was for ALL corporations due to the "cook the books" scandals to increase the cost of stocks. You're so fuck'n clueless and you literally make shit up as you go. What is wrong with you that you'll make stuff up rather than just admit you were wrong? Is your ego that fragile junior? Did not making your high school football team effect you this profoundly?

Furthermore - you didn't answer any of the questions. Is this because you realize how fuck'n stupid you look when you have to answer? If a person is turned down for the loan, you cry like a little itty-bitty baby bitch that the "average" person is denied access to a good life by the "inner circle". If the person is given the loan, once again you cry like a little itty-bitty baby bitch that the banks were "predatory" by giving irresponsible asshole liberals like you the loans that you asked for / demanded. So which is it, dick? The fact is, a person went into a bank asking for a loan. They signed legal documents promising to pay it back. If they didn't, they are fuck dirt-bag asshats like you. You're inability to budget your own finances properly like an adult is not the problem of the American people or their government.

You are stating that until post 9/11 all US businesses were unable to exist because of onerous wages, taxation and regulations. So until post 9/11, Wall Street and all major corporations that existed in the US for DECADES either were an ILLUSION, running at a SEVERE LOSS (in which case, why didn't they simply go out of business) or SUDDENLY were being manned by the most incompetent CEOs in history.

Once again - queen ignorant here is making incoherent statements. Where did I ever mention 9/11, stupid? The FACT is - more outsourcing occurred under Bill Clinton than any other president in U.S. history! Ooops! Looks like someone just got exposed for being ignorant (again).

Clintonomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And, and who but those very same corporations could muster the money to eliminate those pesky little factors. But no, CEOs and Directors want Cheap, 24/7 and no benefits.

Gasp! You mean captains of industry don't want high taxes, costly regulations, and expensive payrolls?

Are you serious?!?! They want to keep costs down? Gasp! Noooooo! Fuck'n moron. It's no wonder you're a socialist. You're clearly too dumb and too lazy to ever have run a small business. Hell, you can't even grasp the basics of business, much less actually run one.

And you still haven't answered a very clear, concise question. Would any business move their operations overseas if it were cheaper to keep their operations here? Come on stupid - try it just once. Guess if you don't know the answer.

So sit back and watch your country crumble along with the EMERGING ASIAN MARKET that ISN'T EMERGING because their pay can't buy the products.
MORON!

My country is crumbling because greedy, lazy Dumbocrats like you want to use the same failed communist policies here that were used to collapse the former U.S.S.R., Cuba, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Vietnam, Greece, Spain, England, France, etc.

You are so stupid and disingenuous it's amazing.

I'm "disingenuous"? Bwhahahahahah! I've been consistent, honest, and dead-on in our entire exchange. Meanwhile, you have no response for your repulsive contradiction of demanding that people get loans, then you're crying like a bitch when they actually get them. You have no response for a simple question - would any business move their operations out of the U.S. if it were cheaper to keep their business in the U.S.? Oh - and lets not forget how you just make shit up (which is really humiliating because you're showing yourself to not only be completely ignorant of the topic at hand, but also a liar). Sarbanes/Oxley was not for banking regulation. It was to curb the trend of corporations "cooking the books" to increase the price of the stock for all of their executives and shareholders. And further still, even if it had been a banking regulation, the fucking White House does not monitor stuff like that. It would be the justice department which would bring charges you fuck'n moron.

You have non idea how your own government operates, much less how basic economics or basic business operates. You're just an asshat partisan hack desperate to blame anything on Bush.

 

[RKMBrown]

This isn't rocket science. Your graph clearly demonstrates the presence of sharp increases in prices in the 70's and the 80's. There isn't anything surprising based on your graph that a boom happened in 1997. What is surprising is that it kept going instead of stopping when the economy stopped growing around 2001. Right where one would expect the increase to have stopped and right about when interest rates started to go low.

There was bad information because EVERYONE thought those MBS were AAA. Companies make their own decisions. It is like you think they let Freddie Mac make their decisions for them and then take the profit but don't hold any responsibility for failure.

The fact is that the economy could have handled the CRA mortgages perfectly fine. Nothing you have said even comes close to demonstrating those loans had anything to do with the crisis. Nor have you said anything that has disputed what I have said.

Now you are being willfully ignorant.

We're going to camp out right here, until you either admit that the data clearly shows the housing price bubble started in 1997, or you will admit you are choosing to be ignorant, and refusing to look at the facts.

Make your choice. Which is it? Does the data clearly show that housing prices were fairly stable from 1992 until 1997, at which point housing prices drastically increased year over year until 2006?

Or are you choosing to be ignorant, and refuse to look at the data?

Answer now, so I'll know whether or not to put you on my ignore list. I'll debate with anyone who will honestly and with Integrity debates the facts. But I have no time whatsoever for:

Make your choice. There are more than enough decent adults on this forum that I can talk to, without having to deal with the people like the picture above. I'll just ignore you, and you cease to exist for the rest of my life. Up to you. Grow up, or grow ignorant.

I looked at the data. I explained myself to you. You chose to ignore that. I will explain myself again.

There are a lot of reasons why the prices will go up in 1997 including a growing economy. This FACT is demonstrated in YOUR OWN GRAPH. In fact your graph rather clearly demonstrates that price spikes are not unusual. What it does show is that it is unusual that the spike did not stop. So I looked at reality with the question in mind and by golly there are rather clear reasons why it did not stop. There are also rather clear reasons why it kept rising so high and then crashed.

See in the real world when presented with data people don't assume an answer and match data to an answer. Your analysis is about as intellectual as creationism.

IOW people jump off cliffs all the time, and liberals assume the government's job is to make sure we have bungee cords on ... not to cut the cord as we are on the way down.

 

[Andylusion]

Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"CPA Joseph Fried wrote that there is a paucity of CRA loan performance data, based on a response by only 34 of 500 banks surveyed.[105] Nevertheless, estimates have been attempted.

"Edward Pinto, former Chief Credit Officer of Fannie Mae (1987–89) and Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, estimated that, at June 30, 2008, there were $1.56 trillion of outstanding CRA loans (or the equivalent). Of this amount, about $940 billion (about 6.7 million loans) was, according to Pinto, subprime.[106]

"Economist Paul Krugman notes the subprime boom 'was overwhelmingly driven' by loan originators who were not subject to the Community Reinvestment Act.[107]

"One study, by a legal firm which counsels financial services entities on Community Reinvestment Act compliance, found that CRA-covered institutions were less likely to make subprime loans (only 20-25% of all subprime loans), and when they did the interest rates were lower.

"The banks were half as likely to resell the loans to other parties."

That is in fact true. All of that is true.

The prior poster which claimed that "all CRA loans are sub-prime" is not actually true.

Not all CRA were sub-prime. Some were loans given to specific communities. A community that normally had some reason that banks were not giving loans too.

So say for example you have a house in South Linden, Columbus, OH. South Linden, is one of the worst areas of Columbus Ohio. High crime, poor schools, very few jobs, very poor condition homes.

So some guy decides he wants to buy a house there, and needs a mortgage. The bank may refuse to make a mortgage for this area, because with the community in such bad condition, even if the borrower, builds up his own house, the condition of the neighborhood will keep the value of the home low.

The crime may drive the borrower out, and without many people wanting a house in that neighborhood, he will likely not be able to sell it, resulting in default, and the bank loses money.

Now if the Bank decided to make the loan anyway, to meet CRA requirements, that loan would not be sub-prime, but would not have been made without the CRA.

But that doesn't mean those loans were good loans. Many still went bad. Forcing banks to make loans in known high-risk areas, is just as dangerous as making them give loans to high risk borrowers.

That's why CRA portfolios were all money losing, regardless of the ratio of sub-prime.

Also, the fact that CRA loans were half as likely to sell, really doesn't mean much. The whole purpose of making the CRA loans was to show regulators, and community activist groups that they were following the CRA, by having CRA loans on their books. Many banks made loans, knowing they would likely lose money, because it kept them from getting sued by the government.

Regardless, CRA loans were nearly all bad. The bottom line is, banks know more than government, what loans are safe, and which are not safe. Any attempt to force banks to change their standards, is inherently going to be more risky.

 

[Andylusion]

This isn't rocket science. Your graph clearly demonstrates the presence of sharp increases in prices in the 70's and the 80's. There isn't anything surprising based on your graph that a boom happened in 1997. What is surprising is that it kept going instead of stopping when the economy stopped growing around 2001. Right where one would expect the increase to have stopped and right about when interest rates started to go low.

There was bad information because EVERYONE thought those MBS were AAA. Companies make their own decisions. It is like you think they let Freddie Mac make their decisions for them and then take the profit but don't hold any responsibility for failure.

The fact is that the economy could have handled the CRA mortgages perfectly fine. Nothing you have said even comes close to demonstrating those loans had anything to do with the crisis. Nor have you said anything that has disputed what I have said.

Now you are being willfully ignorant.

We're going to camp out right here, until you either admit that the data clearly shows the housing price bubble started in 1997, or you will admit you are choosing to be ignorant, and refusing to look at the facts.

Make your choice. Which is it? Does the data clearly show that housing prices were fairly stable from 1992 until 1997, at which point housing prices drastically increased year over year until 2006?

Or are you choosing to be ignorant, and refuse to look at the data?

Answer now, so I'll know whether or not to put you on my ignore list. I'll debate with anyone who will honestly and with Integrity debates the facts. But I have no time whatsoever for:

Make your choice. There are more than enough decent adults on this forum that I can talk to, without having to deal with the people like the picture above. I'll just ignore you, and you cease to exist for the rest of my life. Up to you. Grow up, or grow ignorant.

I looked at the data. I explained myself to you. You chose to ignore that. I will explain myself again.

There are a lot of reasons why the prices will go up in 1997 including a growing economy. This FACT is demonstrated in YOUR OWN GRAPH. In fact your graph rather clearly demonstrates that price spikes are not unusual. What it does show is that it is unusual that the spike did not stop. So I looked at reality with the question in mind and by golly there are rather clear reasons why it did not stop. There are also rather clear reasons why it kept rising so high and then crashed.

See in the real world when presented with data people don't assume an answer and match data to an answer. Your analysis is about as intellectual as creationism.

Last time........... yes, or no.... did the housing price bubble that burst in 2007, start in 1997. Look at the graph. Yes or no.

I want a yes or no, answer. If you can't answer that, then you shouldn't be talking about a subject you are too ignorant to comment on. Answer the question.

Yes or no. The housing price bubble that burst in 2007, started in 1997.

 

[RKMBrown]

We are talking about the Subprime Mortgage Meltdown NOT real state bubbles.

BTW , even your article states that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was involved in those transactions.

.

.

Your question was when in history have events like these occurred. I answered the question with it happens once in nearly every generation. In response you say sub-prime real-estate loans have nothing to do with real-estate bubbles. Huh? You lost me cowboy.

Yes, the feds are involved in all real-estate transactions.

Well. let me clarify , when in our nations history , prior to the enactment of The Community Reinvestment Act (1977) did thousands of mortgage defaults and foreclosures occur?

The 1935 market crashed was also the result of the progressive created Federal Reserve Board. It flooded the market place with paper money and easy credit. The nation went belly up, it had to off the gold standard.

When were bankers forced to create a "subprime" housing market (i.e., mortgage holders with poor credit ratings) ?

Like I said, every generation has a supper bubble that collapsed, wherein the bubble was caused, primarily, by government manipulation of one of the primary markets. Here is a decent treatise on the subject:

Law Enforcement and the History of Financial Market Manipulation - Jerry W. Markham - Google Books

 

[RKMBrown]

Now you are being willfully ignorant.

We're going to camp out right here, until you either admit that the data clearly shows the housing price bubble started in 1997, or you will admit you are choosing to be ignorant, and refusing to look at the facts.

Make your choice. Which is it? Does the data clearly show that housing prices were fairly stable from 1992 until 1997, at which point housing prices drastically increased year over year until 2006?

Or are you choosing to be ignorant, and refuse to look at the data?

Answer now, so I'll know whether or not to put you on my ignore list. I'll debate with anyone who will honestly and with Integrity debates the facts. But I have no time whatsoever for:

Make your choice. There are more than enough decent adults on this forum that I can talk to, without having to deal with the people like the picture above. I'll just ignore you, and you cease to exist for the rest of my life. Up to you. Grow up, or grow ignorant.

I looked at the data. I explained myself to you. You chose to ignore that. I will explain myself again.

There are a lot of reasons why the prices will go up in 1997 including a growing economy. This FACT is demonstrated in YOUR OWN GRAPH. In fact your graph rather clearly demonstrates that price spikes are not unusual. What it does show is that it is unusual that the spike did not stop. So I looked at reality with the question in mind and by golly there are rather clear reasons why it did not stop. There are also rather clear reasons why it kept rising so high and then crashed.

See in the real world when presented with data people don't assume an answer and match data to an answer. Your analysis is about as intellectual as creationism.

Last time........... yes, or no.... did the housing price bubble that burst in 2007, start in 1997. Look at the graph. Yes or no.

I want a yes or no, answer. If you can't answer that, then you shouldn't be talking about a subject you are too ignorant to comment on. Answer the question.

Yes or no. The housing price bubble that burst in 2007, started in 1997.

Dude, he said yes.

 

[gnarlylove]

This is why it's so important to understand what the term "inalienable right" actually means. It's not the same thing as "need". The Constitution doesn't guarantee us that our needs will be met, and it doesn't assign government the role of providing them.

I think you forgot to finish you sentence. Inalienable right is an assurance to each citizen they will be born with the ability to choose life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Unfortunately America is not 100% this way. Gated communities, suburbs, North Side of cities etc. are were these rights are inalienable.

When you are born into a situation where you can't get the food you need, this stunts development in kids (1 in 7 kids in America today experience hunger insecurity--not knowing where their next meal is coming from.) Furthermore, we can't put 100% blame on parents who happened to have good jobs who were laid off etc.

I'm not saying people will always choose what's best for themselves or the economy. I'm not saying that everyone must be provided anything they want or need. I'm saying we fail to give the widespread opportunity to pursue liberty and happiness. drug addicts often choose that life because there are no options for them.

Your rights and how you are treated depends on what family you were born into, not what country you live in. Just because a person was born in the good olde USA doesn't mean you automatically can pursue you happiness. often survival is the first and only consideration of many of my fellow sojourners.they aren't pursuing liberty because they can't since there are so few opportunities for so many people.

 

[Andylusion]

I looked at the data. I explained myself to you. You chose to ignore that. I will explain myself again.

There are a lot of reasons why the prices will go up in 1997 including a growing economy. This FACT is demonstrated in YOUR OWN GRAPH. In fact your graph rather clearly demonstrates that price spikes are not unusual. What it does show is that it is unusual that the spike did not stop. So I looked at reality with the question in mind and by golly there are rather clear reasons why it did not stop. There are also rather clear reasons why it kept rising so high and then crashed.

See in the real world when presented with data people don't assume an answer and match data to an answer. Your analysis is about as intellectual as creationism.

Last time........... yes, or no.... did the housing price bubble that burst in 2007, start in 1997. Look at the graph. Yes or no.

I want a yes or no, answer. If you can't answer that, then you shouldn't be talking about a subject you are too ignorant to comment on. Answer the question.

Yes or no. The housing price bubble that burst in 2007, started in 1997.

Dude, he said yes.

Yes, but he's trying to deny that it was because of anything that started in 1997, which if you look at the graph, prices were stable from 1992 to 1997.

Which indicates that it wasn't some random spike somewhere.

He won't just admit that hey "the housing price bubble started in 1997, and therefore, something likely caused it".

It wasn't a gradual increase from economic growth. It wasn't because of interest rates.

A market caused spike, would have happened over time. This was a complete reversal of prices, from a slow stead decline over 5 years, to a drastic increase.

This guy doesn't want to admit to anything, and seems to be making up qualifiers for his answers.

 

[Bombur]

Now you are being willfully ignorant.

We're going to camp out right here, until you either admit that the data clearly shows the housing price bubble started in 1997, or you will admit you are choosing to be ignorant, and refusing to look at the facts.

Make your choice. Which is it? Does the data clearly show that housing prices were fairly stable from 1992 until 1997, at which point housing prices drastically increased year over year until 2006?

Or are you choosing to be ignorant, and refuse to look at the data?

Answer now, so I'll know whether or not to put you on my ignore list. I'll debate with anyone who will honestly and with Integrity debates the facts. But I have no time whatsoever for:

Make your choice. There are more than enough decent adults on this forum that I can talk to, without having to deal with the people like the picture above. I'll just ignore you, and you cease to exist for the rest of my life. Up to you. Grow up, or grow ignorant.

I looked at the data. I explained myself to you. You chose to ignore that. I will explain myself again.

There are a lot of reasons why the prices will go up in 1997 including a growing economy. This FACT is demonstrated in YOUR OWN GRAPH. In fact your graph rather clearly demonstrates that price spikes are not unusual. What it does show is that it is unusual that the spike did not stop. So I looked at reality with the question in mind and by golly there are rather clear reasons why it did not stop. There are also rather clear reasons why it kept rising so high and then crashed.

See in the real world when presented with data people don't assume an answer and match data to an answer. Your analysis is about as intellectual as creationism.

Last time........... yes, or no.... did the housing price bubble that burst in 2007, start in 1997. Look at the graph. Yes or no.

I want a yes or no, answer. If you can't answer that, then you shouldn't be talking about a subject you are too ignorant to comment on. Answer the question.

Yes or no. The housing price bubble that burst in 2007, started in 1997.

It is like you want me to think you are a clown.

I have explained what I thought about the price increases in 1997 like 3 times now and you don't know if I know the prices increased in 1997.

 

[Bombur]

Last time........... yes, or no.... did the housing price bubble that burst in 2007, start in 1997. Look at the graph. Yes or no.

I want a yes or no, answer. If you can't answer that, then you shouldn't be talking about a subject you are too ignorant to comment on. Answer the question.

Yes or no. The housing price bubble that burst in 2007, started in 1997.

Dude, he said yes.

Yes, but he's trying to deny that it was because of anything that started in 1997, which if you look at the graph, prices were stable from 1992 to 1997.

Which indicates that it wasn't some random spike somewhere.

He won't just admit that hey "the housing price bubble started in 1997, and therefore, something likely caused it".

It wasn't a gradual increase from economic growth. It wasn't because of interest rates.

A market caused spike, would have happened over time. This was a complete reversal of prices, from a slow stead decline over 5 years, to a drastic increase.

This guy doesn't want to admit to anything, and seems to be making up qualifiers for his answers.

Just because prices started to increase in prices in 97 that doesn't mean something didn't happen in 98 or 99 or 00 or 01 or 02 or 03 etc that kept the prices increasing. YOUR OWN GRAPH shows that price increases are not uncommon.

Bah whatever this is the 4th time I have explained this to you.

 

[RKMBrown]

This is why it's so important to understand what the term "inalienable right" actually means. It's not the same thing as "need". The Constitution doesn't guarantee us that our needs will be met, and it doesn't assign government the role of providing them.

I think you forgot to finish you sentence. Inalienable right is an assurance to each citizen they will be born with the ability to choose life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Unfortunately America is not 100% this way. Gated communities, suburbs, North Side of cities etc. are were these rights are inalienable.

When you are born into a situation where you can't get the food you need, this stunts development in kids (1 in 7 kids in America today experience hunger insecurity--not knowing where their next meal is coming from.) Furthermore, we can't put 100% blame on parents who happened to have good jobs who were laid off etc.

I'm not saying people will always choose what's best for themselves or the economy. I'm not saying that everyone must be provided anything they want or need. I'm saying we fail to give the widespread opportunity to pursue liberty and happiness. drug addicts often choose that life because there are no options for them.

Your rights and how you are treated depends on what family you were born into, not what country you live in. Just because a person was born in the good olde USA doesn't mean you automatically can pursue you happiness. often survival is the first and only consideration of many of my fellow sojourners.they aren't pursuing liberty because they can't since there are so few opportunities for so many people.

While you are correct that life is great for many in this country and shitty for others, you are incorrect in saying there are few opportunities for so many people. That's just not true. People can make their own heaven or hell on this Earth. There is no law forcing you to live with a den of thieves, you are free to move about the country to find and make your opportunities.

 

[Contumacious]

This is why it's so important to understand what the term "inalienable right" actually means. It's not the same thing as "need". The Constitution doesn't guarantee us that our needs will be met, and it doesn't assign government the role of providing them.

I think you forgot to finish you sentence. Inalienable right is an assurance to each citizen they will be born with the ability to choose life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

.

HUH? WTF?

HOW can anyone be assured of anything?


It would be nice if parents ---BEFORE SCREWING -- made sure that they can afford to feed and clothe their progeny.

But the welfare state tells parents not to worry about it - according to welfare state purveyors - that is the taxpayers and producers' concern.

.