Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
With the "funny money or statistics" of our Ux system; it may not matter as much. Normally, there would be less capital need for labor at a higher cost in the short-run, and greater demand from higher paid labor, in the long run.
LOL indeed! You made the claim that raising Seattle's MW would kill jobs. That claim is false, even your Op-Ed says so. We can debate whether or not raising the MW increased employment, but we cannot debate that raising the MW killed jobs because it didn't in Seattle when you all said it would.
Ummm...when the Fed raised rates, the index adjustable mortgages were based upon rose.
Moron.
No, the adjustable rates rose in addition to the Fed rates rising. The fed didn't raise interest rates to 20%.
They were forced to make crappy loans...or buy crappy loans made by others.
No they weren't! There is no line from any legislation that forces banks to make loans at all. Now, they got incentives for making loans, but it was wholly voluntary. Furthermore, the loans made that were backed by GSE's had delinquency rates no better or worse during the bubble as before it. And those delinquency rates were very low...particularly when compared to non-GSE backed loans that had deqlinquency rates much higher. Once again, here's the chart that you cannot debate or deny:
No banks were forced to make the Subprime ARMs or Subprime Loans. They chose to make those loans and as you can see in the above chart, those private label loans defaulted en masse first beginning in 2006. all other loans didn't start entering delinquency until after the private-label loans. Which means the private-label loans drove the mortgage bubble and caused it to pop.
GSEs were forced to buy crappy loans too.
GSE loans performed the same and/or better during the bubble than prior to the bubble, as the above chart shows. So the loans GSE's backed weren't crappy because what makes a crappy loan? The borrowers inability to repay it. The chart above indicates that it wasn't GSE's that made crappy loans.
Of the top 25 lenders during the subprime mortgage bubble, only 1 was subject to CRA rules
During a bubble, everyone gets into the action.
Nope! Magical thinking alert! Lazy man's thinking alert! It is wholly lazy and ignorant to throw your hands up in the air, make a generalized claim, and hope it sticks. That's what you're doing here. There was plenty of GSE-backed subprime lending prior to the bubble, and that lending was steady, consistent, and dependable. It wasn't until Conservatives took over that things went to shit. They went to shit because Conservative economic trickle-down policy didn't work, and Bush and the Conservatives had to make the economy look like it was growing when it wasn't, otherwise they would get hammered in the 2004 election. So they inflated a housing bubble, plunged the middle class into debt, and eventually collapsed the economy. All because their tax policy didn't deliver on any of the promises made of it.
LOL indeed! You made the claim that raising Seattle's MW would kill jobs. That claim is false, even your Op-Ed says so. We can debate whether or not raising the MW increased employment, but we cannot debate that raising the MW killed jobs because it didn't in Seattle when you all said it would.
Every index that ARMs were based on rose as the Fed raised rates.
Of course, in addition, teaser rates expired.
The fed didn't raise interest rates to 20%.
They didn't have to, raising FFs 4.25% was enough to burst the bubble.
Yup, the GSEs bought a better quality crappy loan. Still needed hundreds of billions from the government.
So the loans GSE's backed weren't crappy because what makes a crappy loan? The borrowers inability to repay it.
Yup, defaults on GSE MBS required hundreds of billions to rescue them.
There was plenty of GSE-backed subprime lending prior to the bubble, and that lending was steady, consistent, and dependable.
Sure, while the bubble inflated, even crappy loans performed well.
Every index that ARMs were based on rose as the Fed raised rates.
The increase of the rate separate from the Fed is what we are talking about. There's the Fed rate, which rose, but the adjustable rate was going to rise regardless of what the Fed did.
Of course, in addition, teaser rates expired.
Right, and those teaser rates expiring wasn't based on what the Fed rate was/is. Those teaser rates were going to expire anyway. In fact, that was the plan.
The fed didn't raise interest rates to 20%.
They didn't have to, raising FFs 4.25% was enough to burst the bubble.
The Fed raising interest rates had no bearing on the expiration of the teaser rates. Those expired separate and mutually exclusive of the Fed rate. As we saw in the chart, the mortgages that went into delinquency first were those from private labels (the ARMs). When those went delinquent, it had a waterfall effect on all other mortgages. That's why you see the delinquency rates for all other mortgages increase later, after the private-label ones. This was observable in the market as those homes that had ARMs defaulted, which caused values for the homes not bought with ARMs to go underwater. Add to that the job loss from a real estate bubble popping and that's how all other mortgages ended up being affected.
Yup, the GSEs bought a better quality crappy loan. Still needed hundreds of billions from the government.
Well, they are government-sponsored entities, after all. I don't deny that some mortgages from the GSE's defaulted, but those were after the fact. They only defaulted because of all the private-label subprimes that defaulted beginning in 2006, which drove down home prices, caused job loss which caused more delinquencies because people lost their jobs, and thus lost their ability to repay their mortgages. Again, you see GSE-backed loans rising in delinquency beginning mid-2008, whereas private label subprimes began rising in delinquency mid-2006.
So the loans GSE's backed weren't crappy because what makes a crappy loan? The borrowers inability to repay it.
Yup, defaults on GSE MBS required hundreds of billions to rescue them.
Only because the private-label subprimes caused the market to collapse, and the downstream effect on home prices hurt all mortgages. But GSE's didn't cause the private label market to collapse. That was the fault of private labels. GSE's loan defaults were the consequence of a housing market popping. It wasn't just GSE's that saw their delinquency rates rise after the private label bubble popped, it was all mortgages.
There was plenty of GSE-backed subprime lending prior to the bubble, and that lending was steady, consistent, and dependable.
Sure, while the bubble inflated, even crappy loans performed well.
GSE loans performed better than private-label loans, as the chart shows. So your attempt to pin the blame of the mortgage bubble, even partially, on GSE's is wrong.
It kills MW jobs. Obviously. As shown here.
It replaces MW jobs with better paying jobs. So why do you want only MW jobs?
'm talking about the Fed bursting the bubble by raising rates.
Plenty of people had adjustables with no teaser rates or adjustables where the teaser had already expired.
If your first "non-teaser rate" was 6% and then the Fed raised rates 4%, your adjustable, depending on how long it was between adjustments, was going to rise a decent amount.
And all their awesome crappy mortgages still required hundreds of billions in government funds.
'm talking about the Fed bursting the bubble by raising rates.
Which would be completely wrong. The bubble didn't burst because the Fed raised its interest rates. The bubble burst because the teaser ARM rates expired and the borrowers couldn't repay.
Plenty of people had adjustables with no teaser rates or adjustables where the teaser had already expired.
First of all, you're gonna need to prove this because it sounds to me like a bunch of made-up Conservative shit. Highly suspicious. Private-label Subprimes started entering delinquency around Mid-2006. Those loans were the ones issued from 2004-5, and 2006 is when the teaser rates on those mortgages expired. As we learned, most of the subprimes issued from 2004-6 were from private labels, and 24 of the top 25 subprime lenders weren't even subject to CRA rules. You keep trying to blame everyone but Conservatives for the mortgage bubble popping.
Here's what happened:
Private-Label subprimes jumped massively beginning in 2004 - these subprimes by and large were ARMs
By mid-2006, after the teaser rates on those ARMs expired, delinquency rates for subprimes shot up
The resulting foreclosures over the next two years negatively affected home prices, which resulted in borrowers being "underwater"
Because the housing bubble was the only driving force during Bush's years, as soon as the housing market cooled, the job loss started
The job loss led to foreclosures, which is why you don't start seeing delinquency rates for all non-private label subprimes climb until nearly 2 years after the subprime delinquency rate rose.
So that means all the other loans; GSE-backed, FHA, non-prime were affected by the defaulting in the private-label subprimes that started defaulting in 2006, as the friggin' chart below shows:
That's why you cannot compose an honest response to the above chart. It completely undermines every argument you are making about what was responsible for the housing bubble and its subsequent collapse.
The question now is, why are you ignoring the facts?
If your first "non-teaser rate" was 6% and then the Fed raised rates 4%, your adjustable, depending on how long it was between adjustments, was going to rise a decent amount.
LOL! Complete and total sophism here.
The GSE's awesome crappy mortgages were hurt by other mortgages? Weird.
But GSE's didn't cause the private label market to collapse.
Who said they did?
GSE purchases of crappy loans helped inflate the bubble, not surprising the collapse hurt the buyers of crappy loans.
GSE loans performed better than private-label loans, as the chart shows.
They bought a better class of crappy loans than some. So what?
So your attempt to pin the blame of the mortgage bubble, even partially, on GSE's is wrong.
50% or more of the GSE purchases were from the dodgy end of the pool, of course they contributed to the bubble.
Raise MW from $9/hr to $12/hour and you end up with fewer jobs.
Why do you want to harm young, unskilled minority workers by pricing them out of the job market?
It totally burst because the Fed raised rates.
First of all, you're gonna need to prove this because it sounds to me like a bunch of made-up Conservative shit.
Fine. What was a typical teaser rate period on a mortgage back in 2005-2006?
And all their awesome crappy mortgages still required hundreds of billions in government funds.
So you've moved the goalposts in what you're arguing. You used to argue that GSE's were responsible for the collapse. Then, your argument shifted that they were partially responsible for the collapse. Now, your argument is that they weren't responsible for the collapse, yet the government spent hundreds of billions in government funds. Well yeah, they had to because the GSE-backed loans started defaulting because the private-label loans defaulted first and caused housing prices to plummet, which cooled the housing market, which killed jobs, which led to foreclosures, which resulted in the GSE's having to get "bailed out". But they are not the ones that started that snowball, and just like regular loans, GSE-backed loans, FHA loans, etc. defaulted as the recession hit. Again, that's why you see the delinquency rate for all non-private labels loans grow nearly 2 years after the private-label loans grew in their delinquency rates. Here's the chart yet again. In all the posts in this thread, you have been unable to reconcile your argument with these facts:
The GSE's awesome crappy mortgages were hurt by other mortgages? Weird.
They weren't crappy mortgages. Delinquency rates were the same or better during the mortgage bubble. GSE's saw delinquencies the same that non-GSE, non-prime loans saw. The chart is the proof. Why are you so allergic to the chart? Why do you argue as a sophist? There's no reason to. At this point, you're doing more harm to your cause.
But GSE's didn't cause the private label market to collapse.
Who said they did?
YOU DID! Originally, you did. Then you shifted the goalposts as you became more informed. Now, I don't even think you know what argument you're making because every time you post, it just seems like you're flailing more and more, trying to land a punch of some kind. That's why you argue as a sophist, as I pointed out above.
So if GSE's didn't cause the collapse, what did?
GSE purchases of crappy loans helped inflate the bubble, not surprising the collapse hurt the buyers of crappy loans.
BULLSHIT! GSE market share was cut in half during the bubble years of 2004-7. They weren't inflating the bubble. They weren't even helping to inflate the bubble. GSE loans performed the same, or better, than they did prior to the bubble. They only entered delinquency as a consequence of the bubble burst, which was driven by those private-label subprimes. I'm going to keep posting this chart until you accept it, or reconcile it:
GSE loans performed better than private-label loans, as the chart shows.
They bought a better class of crappy loans than some. So what?
The loans they bought were no better or worse than the ones prior to the bubble. That's the point you are missing. You have this inherent belief that GSE loans were crappy. They weren't. Clearly, the chart above proves they weren't. In fact, the chart above shows GSE-backed loans performed the best, even before the bubble started. The chart goes all the way back to 1998. Since 1998, GSE-backed loans performed better than all other loans.
So your attempt to pin the blame of the mortgage bubble, even partially, on GSE's is wrong.
50% or more of the GSE purchases were from the dodgy end of the pool, of course they contributed to the bubble.
You sure about that? Because GSE loans defaulted at rates much, much lower than those of private labels. In fact, you allege the loans they bought were "dodgy", but those loans didn't default in 2006, like the private-label subprimes did. In fact, GSE loans defaulted at rates below 3% during the bubble while everyone else had much higher default rates. Again, this is in the chart. Not sure why you have such a hard time accepting it.
