Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Tony Perkins: If Prop 8 is defeated, the next step—Christians will be jailed Previous entry: Gay Is Apparently The New White Male Christian

Wingnuts look to favorite scapegoat

Economy

Yeah, a little less than a year ago it was obvious that when the crash came, the wingnuts would blame it on the minorities—-here’s my take from November 2007.  And lo and behold, here we go—-time to blame our crisis on the minorities!

Credit Is Not a Civil Right   [Mark Krikorian]

I have no way of judging whether the Wall Street bailout is a necessary evil or an impending disaster. But we’re in this mess, ultimately, because our political elites thought it was good social policy to encourage banks to give mortgages to uncreditworthy people, resulting in what Sailer months ago called the “Diversity Recession” (if this doesn’t work, make that the Diversity Depression). In other words, if poor people in general, or blacks or Hispanics in particular, were less likely to be approved for a mortgage, the only possible reason was racism or classism or whatever. Thus “creditworthiness” was an illegitimate, dead-white-male concept, like middleclassness. Because, after all, isn’t everyone entitled to credit? Therefore, I propose any bailout bill start with these words: “It is the sense of Congress that credit is not a civil right.”


This idea is just getting started, I predict, because it suits a peculiar form of right wing populism to believe that the banking industry—-which has the nerve to have their Bushie proxies demand $700 billion, no strings attached as a bailout—-is at the mercy of a bunch of liberal do-gooders will get a lot of traction.  The reality, of course, is that liberal do-gooders know that the banking industry will drink your milkshake known as “everything you own”, and so tend to work not by guilt-tripping anyone about diversity so much as regulating. And a lack of regulation is more the issue here.  But Krikorian and his white supremacist buddy Steve Sailer are working off the fact that risky, subprime loans were largely given to racial minorities, who they automatically assume are shiftless and looking for a handout, and that the only motivation working here was Librul Stoopid. 

The only part of that logic train that is remotely true is the part where racial minorities were a disproportionate chunk of the high risk loans.  But what they’d have you believe—-that bankers were desperate to reach non-existent racial quotas, so they took on high risk loans they were otherwise reluctant to hand out—-is 100% bullshit.  Back in July 2007, In These Times had an article on the coming crisis that explains how wrong-headed this excuse was long before it was trotted out.  The first thing to remember is that the subprime industry exploded for no other reason that base greed.  It seemed like handing out these loans was like printing free money for a time.  The other thing to remember is that, contrary to the stereotype, only a small percentage of these loans were for home purchase—-only 9%, in fact, were first time buyers.  Mostly you’re looking at refinancing, much of it done to pay down other debts.*

But most importantly, don’t forget the part that predatory lending played into this situation. Lenders wanted to write subprime loans because they made so much money off the high interest rates.  And they wanted very often to use variable rate mortgages to do this, so that the customers got the bait and switch—-thinking they’re signing up for one low interest rate, only to see it rise and rise and rise some more in a few months.  And guess what communities get targeted by these schemes, and not out of liberal do-gooder feelings, but because they see these communities as full of sitting ducks? 

Predatory lending is a particularly widespread problem in low-income and minority communities, where a complex history of housing discrimination, racial segregation and a lack of access to affordable credit have left borrowers with few options. Though redlining, blockbusting and other discriminatory practices were banned in stages between 1968 and 1977, most banks are reluctant to open branches in black neighborhoods, a vacuum that is filled by currency exchanges, payday lenders and now subprime mortgage companies.

“Subprime lenders,” says Smith, “are taking advantage of the fact that they’re the only game in town.” Individual brokers and loan officers make money by taking “points”—that is, charging percentage points of the loan amount, which are added to the borrower’s closing costs—giving them an incentive to maximize the loan amount, regardless of the borrower’s ability to pay for it.

So, really, we’re talking the opposite of liberal do-gooderism, but actually, what’s the word for it?  Oh yeah.  Racism.  And even if the lenders aren’t operating under the racist belief that communities of color are somehow especially gullible,** they were still exploiting the structural racism that allows white communities to have access to banking institution but not so much black communities.  But let’s not fool ourselves.  Open discrimination was actually going on—-the higher you went up the income scale, the higher the percentage of risky loans were awarded to black and Hispanic families.

Let’s try to put to bed the rumors that this entire crisis has ridden in on the backs of liberal do-gooderism.  The last thing we liberal do-gooders want is for fucking housing bubbles that put the price of owning a decent home out of the hands of working class Americans.  Seriously, duh.  The people who have been sounding the alarm about the housing issues from the beginning were liberals, and from all angles—-it was was irresponsible, it undermined the middle class and class mobility, it was a classic neocon scheme to magic money into the air through bullshit, it encouraged the mega-growth of the suburbs.  Conservatives keep turning around and finding that they’re responsible for yet another catastrophe, and in their desperation, are turning to racism to get out of it.  Draw your own parallels with the election.

*Considering how many people go into bankruptcy trying to pay off medical bills, it’s worth wondering how much our health insurance crisis fed this housing crisis.
**It’s easy to believe black people are gullible when the only gullible people you talk to are black.  That’s called “confirmation bias”. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 07:57 PM • (119) Comments

Some days, I feel like I could do the world a lot of good if I could develop a way to reach through my computer and punch idiots just for being stupid, but then I’d never get anything else done.

Comment #1: Incertus, Nacho Daddy  on  09/23  at  08:14 PM

I wonder how many Health Insurance Companies have these exotic investments (CDO’s, CDS’s, SIV’s, etc) on their books. How long before insurance premiums rise more because of losses in the investments these companies make with the premiums collected from their customers. After all, a Health Insurance Company is really nothing more than an Investment Bank funded by insurance premiums.

Comment #2: Isopluvial  on  09/23  at  08:16 PM

Oh, the right wingers have been pedalling this nonsense for a few days now.  Must’ve came through on the latest email blast.  Some stupid wingnut tried to peddle this stuff on the weather blog I read—storm2k.  I think he got pm’ed to shut up though…

Comment #3: shah8  on  09/23  at  08:36 PM

I have no way of judging whether the Wall Street bailout is a necessary evil or an impending disaster. But we’re in this mess, ultimately, because our political elites thought it was good social policy to encourage banks to give mortgages to… Teh Knee-grow!  Bring Back Redlining!  Look, an ocelot!

Comment #4: The Opoponax  on  09/23  at  08:45 PM

In particular, the usual sane people have found that minorities were steered to subprime loans even when they clearly qualified for lower interest rates and less onerous terms. (Remember, a lender can screw you with a prepayment penalty, so that even if you do find a lower rate, refinancing can cost you more than you would save in payments.) And subprime loans in part are more likely to default because they have higher payments for the same principal.

Which makes a mockery of the whole “It was because we lost money marketing to poor people” crap. Because, y’know, when you’re in an even vaguely competitive sector, products aimed at lower incomes cost less. It’s only when there’s some kind of constraint in acces to services, as inbanking or payday lending or grocery stores, that you get to market stuff to poor people that costs more than the same thing sold to the middle class and the rich.

Comment #5: paul  on  09/23  at  08:54 PM

You know another form of lending that’s very prevalent and visible in black and Hispanic neighborhoods? Payday loans. You know, the legal loan sharking where they get to charge 300% or more. I used to think that they were taking advantage of people who had few if any other options, but now I know that the big mean evil scary libruls made them do it.

Comment #6: Bitter Scribe  on  09/23  at  09:02 PM

A few days?  They’ve been peddling this bullshit for years.  Impoverished minorities get magically scapegoated for exploding deficits in the budget, the high price of various forms of insurance, excessively high or low prices in homes, cars, food, tickets to sporting events, whatever, the cost of crime prevention and drug enforcement, the need to invade foreign countries who haven’t technically done anything to us…

This is just another rendition of “it’s everyone’s fault but mine”.  That said, these guys aren’t doing themselves any favors by basking in their own ignorance.  And I’m of the opinion that racist bigots like this eventually get what they deserve in one form or another.  People who constantly blame minorities for their own deficiencies aren’t the ones we really need to worry about. 

It’s the sensible but apathetic folks who look at a $700 billion bailout and say, “I don’t know how much money that is, but if the government says its necessary to protect my economy, I’ll support it.”  No one has any clue what is going on.  They aren’t just getting robbed, they’re getting robbed blind.  America just doesn’t have the education infrastructure necessary to produce voting citizens who can follow all this bullshit.  And the Congressmen who represent them aren’t - generally - interested in filling in that gap.

Blatant destructive racism isn’t the problem here.  It’s the general economic ignorance.

Comment #7: Zifnab25  on  09/23  at  09:02 PM

Well then!

Slap down the dough!

While we’re at it, we’ll see this bailout, and raise the monetorization of the debt by providing free TVs and a free cars (preferably BMWs, as Ford and GM are tanking out).

....and the fact that merely working at Boo Boo Burger shall henceforth no longer be an impedement from those nasty rich white folk on the golf course is a bonus!

Everyone on the Left should be popping champagne corks right about now. 

They got what they wanted in the Hegelian upturn, in a wild, roundabout way.  The Government now owns the whole means of production thanks in no small part to idiotic loans where the banks are not allowed to make money from people who never had much of it in the first place.

Damn, that whole “redlining” crap worked out pretty well after all.

Congratulations.  Moreover, congrats on now having to take a second job to pay for all this, which could have been avoided in the first place.

—The Godfather

Comment #8: The Godfather  on  09/23  at  09:11 PM

America just doesn’t have the education infrastructure necessary to produce voting citizens who can follow all this bullshit.

Well, to tell the truth, it doesn’t really matter if the voters can understand it, because it’s not being put up to a popular vote.  This is the point of the legislative branch—rather than have every American vote on every issue, regardless of their ability to understand the issue in question, you elect a group of people whose job it is to understand this stuff and vote on your behalf. 

The problem, of course, is that our legislative branch is composed of a bunch of halfwits who have not even the slightest interest in doing right by the people.

Comment #9: The Opoponax  on  09/23  at  09:11 PM

They aren’t just getting robbed, they’re getting robbed blind.  America just doesn’t have the education infrastructure necessary to produce voting citizens who can follow all this bullshit.  And the Congressmen who represent them aren’t - generally - interested in filling in that gap.

Exactly Zifnab25.
It’s just one more step into the largest highway robbery in HISTORY.
Anyone else worried about NO oversight (apparently they are trying to make it so that any “judgement” handed down or buying of whatever ruined corporation can’t be reviewed by a court of law- oh and of course the CEOs and stockholders that made out like bandits aren’t going to be made to give back millions in “bonuses” or stock options…

One of the main reasons that they’re trying to ram this up America’s backside so quickly is just another aspect of the “shock and awe” Shock Doctrine. “OMG it’s seriously bad!!111 Help us! forget those minority and other homeowners that got screwed! We- the giant corporations need help! Your economy will FAIL!!11”


This is so goddamn annoying to see poeple yet again blinded by fear.
but then that’s been the M.O. of the Bush Crime Family for a long, long time.

Comment #10: Danica Lefse Queen  on  09/23  at  09:14 PM

This is pretty sad.  The blame goes about three ways. 
One, the government that is supposed to protect us from ourselves.
Two, the greedy citizens who tried to buy things they could not afford.
Three, the industry that also got greedy and lent to people they knew were not good for the money.

Since I dont fit into any of these groups, and are only slightly hurt by the problems…

I have to say: “HAH!  You reap what you sow.”

R2K

Comment #11: R2K  on  09/23  at  09:36 PM

It’s the sensible but apathetic folks who look at a $700 billion bailout and say, “I don’t know how much money that is, but if the government says its necessary to protect my economy, I’ll support it.”

If it’s any consolation, there are far fewer of those people than you seem to think.  More than half the country is saying, “WTF are you sending our tax dollars to Wall Street for?”

Comment #12: Mnemosyne  on  09/23  at  09:47 PM

Oh, and here’s what’s going on in Congress:

Dire warnings fail to sway senators on big bailout

At this point, the only people who still think it’s a great idea to write Hank Paulson a $700 billion blank check are George Bush and Hank Paulson.  Even House Republicans are pushing back against a bailout.

Comment #13: Mnemosyne  on  09/23  at  09:49 PM

They got what they wanted in the Hegelian upturn, in a wild, roundabout way.  The Government now owns the whole means of production thanks in no small part to idiotic loans where the banks are not allowed to make money from people who never had much of it in the first place.

Yes, the poor, poor corporations who were forced to give tricky loans at punitive rates to scammers.  So hard done by!  Let’s send them all of our tax money so they don’t have to give up their private jets!

Comment #14: Mnemosyne  on  09/23  at  09:53 PM

“the industry that also got greedy and lent to people they knew were not good for the money. “

Seems to me this is pretty much what happened and I think what I’m just beginning to understand and a lot of my friends are still grappling with just like me is that these lending institutions lost the incentive to care whether it was a good loan or not. simply processing loans became incredibly profitable and a separate thing of its own, if you can securitirize (is that a word) the new mortgage you just made thousands or more in profit with zero risk to yourself, hence all the re-fi’s and the problems we have now.

As far as predatory loans, during my time in the military there came to be a problem with payday loans and the like until the rates they could charge were capped and a lot of them were forced away from bases, rare instance of something good actually happening. A lot of people will struggle with the predatory loan vs personal responsibility thing but most people dont frame it the way Amanda has, in order to even try to understand the complexities of the situation for large groups of Americans.

thats the main problem here for me, the complexity, I am a shareholder and make money off the system and I cant even begin to really understand whats happening here beyond the initial basics. This isnt missiles in cuba or towers falling in NYC, I’m sad to say that 99% of the people in this country dont understand whats really going on but what makes me sadder is as of yet they arent crying out for someone to explain it in anything other than 30 second cable news channel soundbytes. Amazing how we’ve outsmarted oursevles.

Comment #15: dananddanica  on  09/23  at  10:05 PM

<i>Yes, the poor, poor corporations who were forced to give tricky loans at punitive rates to scammers.  So hard done by!  Let’s send them all of our tax money so they don’t have to give up their private jets!<i>

The banks will almost always find creative ways to get as much money as they can before the inevitable happens. This does always work. And they generally don’t like being in the real estate business. Which in turn means they don’t profit that much from foreclosure. That is an iron law that cannot be voided by social policy madates from government. That’s why they have the ARM, for example. Back in the old days you had to plunk down 20 percent. Or bust. You do one of these as a bank, or you roll the dice and hope and pray that promises made is the same thing as money made.

Yes. The check is always in the mail. My brother’s momma,s nephews half-sister will have it to the teller by noon.  Promise. Of course.

Its ugly yes, but then….YES, the fact is that the banks were told in no uncertain terms that you do the bidding of social justice and void the redlining, or ELSE. 


Home flipping is not so much the problem as is the fact that you can’t sustain portfolios (and its more than just the big money bag rich who have investments in FDMAC and FNMAE) on such.

Now having said that, I certainly think there is culpability from some of these tophats on Wall Street who made a killing off this crap.  Handcuffs is a better fit than these golden parachuts from these well-heeled sharks.

Comment #16: The Godfather  on  09/23  at  10:06 PM

This does always work.

Geesh….

Meant to say this does NOT always work….

Comment #17: The Godfather  on  09/23  at  10:08 PM

Send them all our money?

Well—that’s not really a noble goal, no.

But forget about the damned jets for a moment.  And let’s make sure buying a nice car is still a viable option after all this blows over.  K?

No one is crying so much as croc tears for the scammers. But then I think,  Hmmm…OK..Let’s take that advice and say that one poison (bailout) is no worse than the other (economic collapse). 

In principle I agree. We’ll have to monetorized the debt. Yep. These are loans, technically, not givaways, but still—we know this is not going to happen.  I hate it too. But then think over the implications of no bailouts. So granny loses her insurance and her pensions are shot—-completely. Nice bold letter in the mail to this effect.  Nice touch, eh?  Then we find teachers, civil servants, industrial workers, average Joe Six Packs (as Clinton called them) and the Bitter Americans who DON’T live in Manhatten and have kids in the local Tech college (having more than the designer brat at age 39), enjoy buying things and like shooting beer cans off of fenceposts and still breed once in a while, and work in rather plain jobs with plain incomes but have 401Ks stuffed away with Net monitored monies?  Let this all fall to pieces?

Think better of that, my friend.

Comment #18: The Godfather  on  09/23  at  10:17 PM

“Congratulations.  Moreover, congrats on now having to take a second job to pay for all this, which could have been avoided in the first place.”

...hey, don’t thank us.  We didn’t do it.  Thank the people actually responsible...

Comment #19: MikeEss  on  09/23  at  10:18 PM

There was also a large demand for “safe” bonds by investors and institutions. How do you get these bonds? You create them. Out of what? Mortgages… are the mortgages safe? No, not really, but you can perform all this mojo on the mortgages to create mortgage bonds that are “safe” that investors want to buy. When investors are willing to give you all that money to buy bonds, you’ll lend out money in the form of mortgages to anyone willing to sign on the dotted line, and out of those mortgages, you can create those “safe” bonds.

The CRA didn’t create the market for CDOs. In fact CRA-based mortgages were LESS likely to get repackaged as CDOs than all other types of mortgages.

However, you can’t argue with people who believe otherwise: they want to blame poor minorities, because that is whom they’ve been told to blame. And if you do argue with them, and show them that they’re wrong, they’ll just get angry at you and become MORE convinced of their correctness, because they feel insulted when someone tells them they’re wrong.

Comment #20: Tyro  on  09/23  at  10:25 PM

Godfather, you jackass, banning redlining didn’t mean banks were required to give loans to people with no credit.  It just meant that they couldn’t automatically disqualify an applicant because they came from the wrong neighborhood.

If you actually think 700 billion dollars in damage was done just because some minorities got loans, you’re an idiot.  Plain and simple.

Comment #21: Jrod  on  09/23  at  10:34 PM

Godfather, nobody forced the banks to make these loans. Nobody. The implication here is that the reason for this mess is that everyone was lying to the poor innocent lenders who didn’t know any better. The big guys and the investment firms figured out how to securitize loans. Then they repackaged them in a way that they could basically sell them as very safe investments, even though everyone knew that they weren’t. Everyone knew it was a house of cards, but they were getting rich, everyone was getting a bonus and nobody wanted to be the trader who stopped doing it because the other guy would make the deal and get the bonus.

The front line lenders had no incentive to care about the quality of a loan because they were sure to sell it no matter what. No risk, big reward. There is an unlimited supply of people who will lie to get a mortgage or a refi, thats life. But that wasn’t the problem. The problem was that traders on wall st were making so much money off these worthless securities everyone had an incentive to create ways to get consumers into bigger and bigger loans. The bigger the loan, the bigger the payout for the lender, and the bigger the commission for the trader who was packaging something they knew to be worthless as something of value.

The way Godfather puts it the banks were doing there best to make money in a bad situation where they had to make loans to people who couldn’t afford it. At best making subprimes at the beginning in this context is what gave banks the idea that they could make a lot of money of these things, way more money than they ever made with safe mortgages.

Here’s an analogy for you. Lets assume that everyone that got one of these bad loans was acting in bad faith (I don’t think so, but for the analogy, they are):

The consumers borrowing the money are like a bunch of kids that break into a quarry and steal some rocks. They then sell those rocks to some other people who are buying them, claiming that they are actually gold ore. The buyers suspect this is shady so they give the kids a pretty bad price, but they don’t complain because they stole the rocks anyway.

Then the people that buy the rocks (the front line lenders) sold them at an immediate profit to a mining company that paid the rate they normally paid for gold ore for rocks that probably weren’t. But nobody bother to check the rocks to make sure they had gold in them at all. Now, at this point the kids have cheated the middle men. But the middle men didn’t bother to check because the mining company would pay for the rocks anyway. Now, at this point we can just claim that the mining company (big finance) was just not being diligent. But when this whole thing turned from a systemic problem of people not doing their homework to a massive criminal enterprise is when the mining company took those rocks and painted them gold. Then they went to some investors, showed them all the gold rocks and asked the investors to give them their money in exchange for owning a piece of the whole gold pile (and the investors were sure it was safe because respected assayers verified that it was all pure gold). Now, the miners took some of the investor’s money (which was a lot, because this was a huge pile of pure gold, right?) and paid themselves a commission for doing their investors this big favor of buying all this gold.

Now, as you can see this was pretty much fraud. But it gets worse. The miners took the investors money. Then, they went off to a bank and got a huge loan which they secured with the gold pile. Then they took the loan and the investors money and used it to buy even more worthless rocks.

The middle men are making good money selling rocks at inflated prices, and the kids that stole the rocks got free money. But are you really going to tell me that when the mining company can’t pay back their loan or their investors, its because those kids were lying to them?

Comment #22: Stephen  on  09/23  at  10:45 PM

Shorter Wingnutosphere: The brown people who needed homes are irresponsible.  The white people who wanted granite countertops are patriots.  Trillion-dollar banks are run by socialist lefties.  And ... wait for it ... up is down.

Comment #23: Loneoak  on  09/23  at  11:25 PM

A post to the blog of Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn:

If you have ever seen the old movie “Its a Wonderful Life,” you can understand what happened. The old cautious (Republican) banker, Mr. Potter, was replaced by the generous (liberal Democrat) George Bailey who believed in giving subprime loans. Now we see the results.

You simply. Cannot. Make this shit up.

Comment #24: Bitter Scribe  on  09/23  at  11:33 PM

Seems to me this is pretty much what happened and I think what I’m just beginning to understand and a lot of my friends are still grappling with just like me is that these lending institutions lost the incentive to care whether it was a good loan or not. simply processing loans became incredibly profitable and a separate thing of its own, if you can securitirize (is that a word) the new mortgage you just made thousands or more in profit with zero risk to yourself, hence all the re-fi’s and the problems we have now.

Yep.  Idiots like the Godfather can blame the borrowers until they turn blue, but the fact remains that EVEN IF the banks had been “forced” to make sub-prime loans to minorities, those loans could not possibly have tanked the economy without all of the financial vehicles that were built around them.

Wall Street picked up a flat tire and built an entire car around it.  Now they can’t figure out why the car won’t drive right.

Comment #25: Mnemosyne  on  09/24  at  12:05 AM

Its ugly yes, but then….YES, the fact is that the banks were told in no uncertain terms that you do the bidding of social justice and void the redlining, or ELSE.

The banks were told in no uncertain terms that they had to bundle mortgages together and sell them as securities?  Or are you such an idiot that you really think that the problem is people defaulting on their mortgages and not all of the complicated financial instruments that meant those mortgages were being traded at 30 times their actual value?

Comment #26: Mnemosyne  on  09/24  at  12:08 AM

In particular, the usual sane people have found that minorities were steered to subprime loans even when they clearly qualified for lower interest rates and less onerous terms.

This. I have read several places that the majority of people who got subprime loans actually qualified for prime loans. So it wasn’t that they weren’t creditworthy, but that they were pressured/encouraged to get less favorable loans, that over time they couldn’t keep up with as the interest rate ballooned. This makes the whole thing that much more evil, that much more unnecessary and absolutely nothing to do with pressure to lend to black people.

Mortgage brokers wanted to sell these subprime loans because they got higher commissions. It’s that simple. When we (we’re white and have excellent credit) bought our house in 2005, the mortgage broker tried very hard to sell us an interest only mortgage. At the time, it seemed like housing prices were going to go up up up, and he made it sound like a really good deal and like we were wasting our money by putting it to something as silly as principle on our house.

Comment #27: chingona  on  09/24  at  12:16 AM

Yes you CAN make it up, Bitter One.

You see, in the Hollyweird version of reality, outside of pressure groups and “community organizer” heavies, angels fall from the sky and rescue bedraggled men looking over the edges of bridges:
Men who probably should have bailed out of banking and become a nice guy who runs a boutique shop or charity rather than try and muscle out the big top hat Potter.  Of course in Hollywood, Mr. Potter wants to turn the whole town into a partytime, hoochie-coochie gal saloon.

Which I ‘ve hardly noticed is the usual intent of most hard-nosed businessmen.  And of course Potter is always trying to buy up everything. That’s certainly possible, but far more likely now that the Federal government is spending like a 3-day pass and then blames the shortfall on not enough taxation at Swedenic rates, then bitches about the unpatriotic moments of the average taxpayer, then we get bought up by the Chinese and Europeans. Never mentioning on the side (and nor does Hollywood’s take on evil rich men on a larger scale than Potter) that the US has the highest corporate tax rates in the industrialized world other than Japan.  And she ain’t lookin’ to bloomin’ good either.

So much for charming Christmas tales of elderly angels, popping a drink Nick’s Place and going back in time to see how rotten things are under Pottersville.  Though to be sure we’re not told just how certain kinds of loans to Papa and his family pouring the vino get paid back.  Maybe the CRA.
Who knows. Scriptwriters have the freedom to void reality.  Banks tried and fried.


And yes, Mike, thanks for the handy heads up. 

Yeah, I have to say they all have culpability in all this.  You bet.  If you have the ability to halt something in its tracks, you are partly responsible. So Bush is also.  And to his credit Chuck Shumer is asking some very good questions right about now on those payouts.

NOW: Though I don’t like John McCain, now that he thinks the nation is OK to turn over into a giant roach motel and gave us the middle finger over illegal MIGRATION (often confused with the media term “immigration”, or perhaps sometimes the more proper ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION), to his CREDIT, McCain DID try and head off some of this at the pass.  Not only has MR. NO EARMARKS (again, to his credit) make commentary, he stood in the way. Or Tried

Tell the Messiah to give a whoop whoop, baby. Oh that’s right. He was involved in some this community action crap in Chicago.  (SAAAY! Take a peek at that link below!)

And thanks to those not telling the complete, So Help You Zeus Truth, and snickering about the alleged working rules on the books vs. the reality of how these things go down with the CRA.  Gee wiz.

So yeah. You can mock the granite countertops, the tiled backsplash, the koi ponds, and the other fripparies that some of my clients have also. But they also have big checkbooks and say things on the golf course like “How’s yer game today, Worthington?”

And Worthington responds, thusly:  “It’s like my broker says, ‘we’re operating at PAR value’”!

Nyuck nyuck. 

**hearty bellyroll laughter while both burp on their 8th beer and waddle around like penguins looking for the ball**

But they are good for the bankroll.

And the point is that when social “activist” pressure is there, it is not just about giving loans across those red lines. Though the extortion was there.  The problem is that the very nature of appraisal (real ones, not drive bys) is that some neighborhoods—for whatever reason—are outside the safety zone of big wallets even if some individuals homeowners are.  And these areas suppress the values for an entire zone.  Sorry. Rules of the house.  Banks know it better than most.  But they’ll make the numbers work, which is why I have NOT let them off the hook in my book.  Which is why they used to pester me and so I don’t do mortgage loan appraisals anymore. Got tired of hearing “can you adjust your figures to make this work?”

And I say “no—that’s against the USPAP regulations, the market has to determine the value and the market is saying that…..” 

Which they don’t care about, so they cut me off in mid sentence and let me know what is at stake. Hmm. 


So.  If you truly have the dough to avoid having to use onlinescambank.com, then you need to pack up and move out of those areas.

Comment #28: The Godfather  on  09/24  at  12:37 AM

Its ugly yes, but then….YES, the fact is that the banks were told in no uncertain terms that you do the bidding of social justice and void the redlining, or ELSE.

The banks were told in no uncertain terms that they had to bundle mortgages together and sell them as securities?  Or are you such an idiot that you really think that the problem is people defaulting on their mortgages and not all of the complicated financial instruments that meant those mortgages were being traded at 30 times their actual value?

—————————————————-

That is not what I meant.  I was not talking about repackaging, rebundling, or anything of the sort. But taking the origination of these lousy loans in the first place.  And I have NOT absolved the banks of responsibility for their own internal workings that worsened the situation.

Comment #29: The Godfather  on  09/24  at  12:41 AM

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980’s.

’‘From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,’’ said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ‘‘If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.’‘

Stupid wingnuts. Bailout, shmailout. What ridiculous scaremongering. Everyone knows they just hate the poor.

Comment #30: CTD  on  09/24  at  12:45 AM

NYT, September 30, 1999, FYI

Comment #31: CTD  on  09/24  at  12:48 AM

CTD:

Yeah I saw that too. Another flashback to warnings unheaded. Mortgages undeeded. Just like the year 2000 article on the CRA.

Now like poor Mr. Bailey in Pottersville, I guess you CAN go back in time on the Net.

Thanks.

(Luciano, get me another kitty cat….this one’s dead….)

Comment #32: The Godfather  on  09/24  at  12:59 AM

That is not what I meant.  I was not talking about repackaging, rebundling, or anything of the sort.  But taking the origination of these lousy loans in the first place.

You mean to the greedy, white middle class borrowers from Orange County, right?

That’s where the problem IS. NOT from the CRA or social activism (those loans are actually LESS problems for bank.

You might make more sense if you knew what you were talking about.

Comment #33: gwangung  on  09/24  at  01:03 AM

Just like the year 2000 article on the CRA.

Nope.

You got your blinders on, I see.

Comment #34: gwangung  on  09/24  at  01:03 AM

There’s enough blame to go around.

Greedy middle class house speculators who count on being able to “flip” a house fast, and thus buy more house than they can afford given present salaries and assets.

Naive first time home buyers of modest means, the opposite of the middle class house speculators, in that the naive buyers don’t have a clue about the real estate market and legal issues, and buy their home to live in for the long term. They too buy more house than they can afford, simply because they can’t afford to buy any house in the first place.

Desperately in debt home owners, who refinance, sometimes for logical and unavoidable reasons (medical debt that can’t be negotiated), sometimes for items that are good if you can afford them (house maintenance and upgrades) but might be put off, sometimes to help family (eg, help their child with college tuition), sometimes to pay off dumb-ass credit card loans taken for consumer items that depreciate fast relative to their initial cost.

All homeowners or first time buyers who don’t understand that you have to hire your own lawyer and appraiser widely regarded as reputable and honest, not the ones suggested by the loan officer or real estate agent.

Greedy fraudulent loan officers and house appraisers - the sorts who collude to overvalue a house, then offer a larger mortgage to the house owner than the owner can handle, and/or persuade the owner to lie about salary and assets on the loan application. These actions are all criminal fraud, but if the loan officers manage to get the owner to commit fraud as well, there’s little chance that the fraud will be prosecuted - the one that would testify against officers and appraisers can’t do so, and the fraudulent conspiracy is verbal, of course.

Greedy loan officers that seek out and sell mortgages to less sophisticated elderly people on fixed incomes; many of the elderly targeted may be just a hair away from being declared legally incompetent.

Bundlers riding the wave in what anyone sensible realizes is a bubble, a Ponzi scheme.

Money market managers and others buying bundled subprime loans without detailed information on the individual loans made - people who ought to know better, being gullible.

Elected representative politicians taking big donations from the banking and financial services sector and the real estate sector to forget about regulating and to ignore the fact that if humans can find out a way to swindle, they will.

CEOs more interested in the next quarter’s performance than in the longevity of the institution, and who manage to kill the corporation while taking obscene golden parachutes.

President and Presidential appointees who are more interested in the next election and in the next quarter’s performance than in the fiscal health of the USA.

Comment #35: NancyP  on  09/24  at  01:30 AM

That is not what I meant.  I was not talking about repackaging, rebundling, or anything of the sort.

I’ll say this very slowly for you:

We do not have a mortgage crisis.  We have a credit crisis.  The reason we have a credit crisis is that we let bankers create a bunch of complicated financial instruments that used mortgages as their base to borrow more money than those mortgages were worth.

When mortgages started going bad—and it was by no means only “minorities” who started defaulting—the banks suddenly realized that all of these financial instruments might be completely worthless.  So they panicked.

It’s like having a unopened pack of trading cards.  That pack is worth far more UNopened because the buyer can still have the illusion that there may be a rare card inside.  Once s/he opens the pack, it immediately loses value, because now the contents are known.

All of these mortgage-based securities were unopened packs of trading cards.  They looked great from the outside, but once you opened them up, you saw that there was nothing there.

Comment #36: Mnemosyne  on  09/24  at  02:21 AM

As for the CRA allegations:

A study of CRA loans shows:

  * CRA loans constituted only 23% of all loans and 9.2% of high-cost loans.
  * CRA loans were twice as likely to be retained in the originating bank’s portfolio than loans made by other institutions.
  * CRA loans were less likely to be foreclosed upon than other loans.

Comment #37: The Dark Avenger and Guardian of 10 Gold Chow Mein  on  09/24  at  02:34 AM

gwangung said:

That’s where the problem IS.

You mean to the greedy, white middle class borrowers from Orange County, right?

That’s where the problem IS.

_________________________

THAT’s where the problem lies?  Greedy white folks in a particular county out of a land mass that stretches almost 3000 miles?

Oh for the love of Pete, you poppinjay. Now in any event, I never said middle class homeowners were not part of this or that bad credit issues are confined to certain groups.

But certainly they are NOT the main component.

The common accusation is that fatcats blame the poor, low, and lower-middle classes and racial minorities as some kind of handy catch-all scapegoat.  When in fact the issue IS CREDIT—or lack thereof—and thus the rather unwise piddling with these kinds of loans in the first place.  The issue is that credit ratings are not all that good for some people, and it happens for whatever reason that unfortunately many poor and minorities ARE in this category.  I could forward you an analysis of stats going back to Great Society pitches that actually demonstrates that big government is actually a negative influence on upward mobility, as it saps will and takes paternalistic control of certain primal life functions. But I’ll leave that for later. 

For our present nettlepatch, some people have taken the easy-does-it route of claiming that large segments of the nation are turning on minorities and the poor for creating this mess. But in fact, I AND quite a few others have said before the issue is easy credit, and yes some really BAD banking rules that got softened up during the rolling 90’s of Clinton’s New Camelot. Before Dark Bush Age/Night of Holy Terror.  I thought it was very clear by now this being a credit issue, more than the poor and minoritiesinvolved per se.  I also told you who at least attempted to put the brakes on this and demand more oversight for all the funny money banking in the new competitive environment, didn’t I?

This is the moment you need to be VERY careful in YOUR accusations here.  Don’t fall into the muck pit of your compadres and cry racism, when in fact just under your post another comrade affirmed this is about credit—-as have I already.

Too, I thought that issue of the less than wise decisions to make loans to lousy credit in defiance of economic reality and common sense was rather curtly settled by the articles linked to so far, but now it seems that just as you chimed in we have the return of Mnemosyne, who is correct insofar as credit goes (though blames this on internal banking follies), but apparently chose to interpret my “lousy loans” statement as one of evil snideness rather than the lack of creditworthiness it truly is.  He is correct in saying those instruments using mortgages as a base for borrowing is part of our probem. Though I had something else in mind. 

I don’t recall claiming it was only minorities who had horrid credit or that it is merely a “mortgage” crisis. And while I stated about four times now the banks are certainly culpable here, as is the lack of governing oversight, this person insists the problem with credit is the complexity of the gears involved at the bank level, and not the issue of whether certain questionable, creaky wheels even need be attached in the first place.

Yes, banks—-like cars—-are complex things and it can be hard to pinpoint that noise under the hood. The gears alone can give that helpless “ah crap, I took the clock apart” look. But no car moves without the wheels.  If you don’t like this missive then take a gander at the article posted before from CTD; said article not by some blogger in Mom’s basement, but an actual economist.

As to the Avenger’s handy link on the CRA, I find it interesting we can breeze past those numbers. After all, ONLY 25% of all federal prison inmates are illegal aliens. ONLY 33% of all ER visits to Grady Hospital here in Atlanta are illegals, and the hospital is at the breaking point. Only 10% of bear attacks are fatal, as some claim.  Radical Islam is now heavily involved in the politics of only about 25% of all nations on Earth. Comforting to the last at casket lowering time. As to the rest about CRA, my point, as was the article writer’s, was not that this kind of loan in and of itself is the prime factor in the current credit crisis, but that the mentality was there—and the pressue—to make loans not on par with credit realities in many cases.

Comment #38: The Godfather  on  09/24  at  03:42 AM

Godfather just keeps getting less and less coherent, while his comments grow longer and longer.

Comment #39: Jrod  on  09/24  at  04:05 AM

chingona said:

This. I have read several places that the majority of people who got subprime loans actually qualified for prime loans. So it wasn’t that they weren’t creditworthy, but that they were pressured/encouraged to get less favorable loans, that over time they couldn’t keep up with as the interest rate ballooned. This makes the whole thing that much more evil, that much more unnecessary and absolutely nothing to do with pressure to lend to black people.

Mortgage brokers wanted to sell these subprime loans because they got higher commissions. It’s that simple. When we (we’re white and have excellent credit) bought our house in 2005, the mortgage broker tried very hard to sell us an interest only mortgage. At the time, it seemed like housing prices were going to go up up up, and he made it sound like a really good deal and like we were wasting our money by putting it to something as silly as principle on our house.

________________________________________________

Maybe so.  But how common was that?  In general, usually the better your credit is (and we know this, since this fact is castigated as yet another one of those unfair things in life, just like mortgage interest deductions on taxes that of course can’t apply to renters, etc.) the better your terms, regardless of the the wild products banks come up with. 

Sounds like a high risk for a bank in this case to try and front-end load that kind of thing.  Subprime products are generally offered to the marginally creditworthy.  If not you need to shop around.  If if you qualify for those delicious prime loans, then why NOT shop until you steer yourself to a better loan officer or past the scam artists?  Are you required to marry your first love too?

Pressured?  “Encouraged”?  By what means, and how strong?

Is this a sales pitch of the strong arm type you see when you visit a condo-on-the-beach promotion in order to win a free steak pack? Or the kind of “pressure” that some deny ever takes place when government agencies lean on the elbows of banks?

A brother in law once told me he’d “force” me to divide up some land we owned in common for a Life Estate we’d set up for another relative—-and sic a lawyer on me.  I told him to nick off, and that was the end of that.  Pressure? 

You have to know the area, the law, and whom you’re dealing with before that becomes a good excuse.  And as far as that last part—geez louise. Have prospective homeowners DO check out the amortization tables in a high shcool economics text.  Assuming public schools teach that anymore…..

I’m sure there is some truth in the Netlore, but we need some better information/numbers on this.

Comment #40: The Godfather  on  09/24  at  04:16 AM

First hand mortgage shark story: We were trying to buy a $130,000 house, I was a receptionist at the time, my husband was a teacher. 

The mortgage industry was full of sharks as soon ago as 2006 when spouse and I were buying our first home.  We had a 30 day deadline on our home offer to try to work out the details on our mortgage before the offer would expire.  We diligently checked up with our mortgage officer twice a week, then several times a week, then every day, then several times a day until 7:30 PM!! on the 30th day of the offer, when our loan officer finally deigned to call us back.  The Wachovia loan officer told us that all she could get for us was a 9.25% 2 year A.R.M. with no restrictions on how much the rate would go up in 2 years.  This loan officer waited until the 11th hour to try to force us into this loan, or risk losing our dream first home.

Luckily, we had the priviledge of being familiar with Suze Orman’s body of work, and we knew that this could not be right.  Within 48 hours, we dumped Wachovia, signed up with the teacher’s credit union, and got a fabulous 6.25% 2 year ARM, which just went down to 5.75% at its adjustment.

However, we almost took that 9.25%.  I thought- “hey, I have an advanced degree- surely I’ll be at a better, fulfilling job in two years and when the rate goes up we can handle it,” and also, “this lady is so nice, she wouldn’t deliberately do anything to screw us, she just must be very busy and slightly disorganized to have waited so long to get back to us.” 

The very definition of predatory lending.  I’m so sick of f’n conservatives saying we’re in this because of a bunch of minorities buying houses they can’t afford because of- wait for it- a sense of entitlement.

Comment #41: Babs  on  09/24  at  08:27 AM

Greedy white folks in a particular county out of a land mass that stretches almost 3000 miles?

Yes, though Orange County is being used as one example among many of the typical profile of real estate speculation. Major centers of the housing implosion have been the exurbs of Las Vegas and Phoenix, as well as condo-flippers around Florida. Why was there so much speculation? Well, as I said, there was a huge amount of money available to be lent out because of the use demand for these loans to be repackaged as mortgage bonds, so they’d just lend out money to anyone.

CRA-originated mortgages were not the ones being used in real estate speculation which, as has been pointed out, were less likely to get repackaged as mortgage bonds.

I’m also curious how many people were in Babs position and got an over-inflated ARM they didn’t need.

Comment #42: Tyro  on  09/24  at  09:21 AM

I’m impressed at how easily Godfather pretends to be skeptical that people who may buy a house once or twice (three times?) in a lifetime could be exploited by those who make a dozen+ loans a day. 

Have you ever thought about taking your acting skills to Broadway?...

Comment #43: MikeEss  on  09/24  at  09:49 AM

Hey, instead of bailing out the banks with that $700 billion, how about splitting it up among the homeowners in the country and bailing them out?  Seriously.  Wouldn’t that be better for the economy in the long run?  And isn’t it our money to begin with?

Comment #44: speedbudget  on  09/24  at  10:13 AM

Not only that, speedbudget, but in theory at least, once the homebuyers had the money to make the payments on their houses, all the currently-underwater financial instruments piled on top would magically resurrect themselves.

But nah, that would undermine personal responsibility.

Comment #45: paul  on  09/24  at  10:25 AM

Because, as we all know, there is a goodly sum to be made by making loans to people whom you know to be unable to repay said loan.

Comment #46: Horace Rumpole  on  09/24  at  10:48 AM

The morons putting this all on the borrowers fail to remember that a lot of these were ARMs.  So people COULD afford the INITIAL payment they were TOLD was their payment.  They just couldn’t afford it when it tripled.  Duh.  I bet the moral scolds couldn’t pay three times their current house payment or rent either.  Morons.

Comment #47: Amanda Marcotte  on  09/24  at  10:53 AM

Amanda, you like that word moron.

Maybe it’s because you’ve never had a mortgage loan, but:

ARM means adjustable rate mortgage.  The name tells you it’s adjustable.  A minimum of due diligence would tell you that they mostly go UP.

Way before the closing lenders are required to give disclosure papers which all include the adjustable feature and how it works. 

At the closing, additional disclosures are required.  In addition, generally, adjustable rate notes say Adjustable Rate Note at the top.  The adjustable feature is there in black and white. 

People like to think the rate won’t go up.  That is foolish.  It usually does; that goes double for those with initial teaser rates, which also must be disclosed.

In a small percentage of cases, I’m sure the disclosures weren’t made or that fraud was involved.  That’s a small part of this.  There’s plenty of blame to go around.  One aspect of that is the people who took these loans.  I’ve seen plenty, and closed my share.  All you can do is explain to people what the papers mean.  Then it’s their choice.  Unfortunately, in a rising market, people believe it will only continue to rise.  When it does not, disaster.

But the borrowers are only one aspect of this.  There are many others.  For people who like bipartisan working together, they should love this.  Lots of different people from different parties did their part.

Um, not Ron Paul and other sound money advocates, who used to be laughed at.  The laughers are not laughing at him any more.

Comment #48: Libertarian  on  09/24  at  11:09 AM

The very definition of predatory lending.  I’m so sick of f’n conservatives saying we’re in this because of a bunch of minorities buying houses they can’t afford because of- wait for it- a sense of entitlement.

____________________________________________

Well then go to the can and vomit. Let not your heart be troubled, babs,
as no one has really said that.  That is the Left’s demon on their shoulder giving them yet one more reason to snarl at people.  But that’s your problem. Not mine.

Comment #49: The Godfather  on  09/24  at  11:16 AM

“Hey, instead of bailing out the banks with that $700 billion, how about splitting it up among the homeowners in the country and bailing them out?  Seriously.  Wouldn’t that be better for the economy in the long run?  And isn’t it our money to begin with?”

Well technically it’s the top 10% of earners in this country’s money, not yours.

Comment #50: Dr T  on  09/24  at  11:20 AM

And then THIS:

“The mortgage industry was full of sharks as soon ago as 2006 when spouse and I were buying our first home.”

It was—and is—full of sharks as LONG ago as the 1990s, and even before that. You think this is new?
If bankers were so GD evil as some claim, I’d take it as given they’ve cooked these ARM things up before.  The problem is that during the Clinton years—as the article referenced that no one bothered to read—pointed out.  Oversight was zapped when other long range visions took hold. The attempt by both Republicans and many Democrats to restore oversight and better regulation was blown out of the sky by some others.

Now as we know, there is no more “right” to EZ Credit than a right to have a Porche Carrera or a week’s vacation at Martha’s Vineyard.  You start by making sure you can afford Holiday Inn first.

Comment #51: The Godfather  on  09/24  at  11:21 AM

Godfather just keeps getting less and less coherent, while his comments grow longer and longer.

JROD.
_________________________________________

Well jrod, I’m not a writer by trade. So mea culpa.

So glad that we have schoolmarms here slapping wrists with rulers and other grammarian instincts. 
That’s the one constant in life we seem to depend on.

Good show.

You’re right. It was late and I didn’t make the case well. 

But then again, I linked to those professionals who did, and so did one other person—- and no one read it. So what the hell is the difference?

Comment #52: The Godfather  on  09/24  at  11:25 AM

“Because, as we all know, there is a goodly sum to be made by making loans to people whom you know to be unable to repay said loan.”

Actually, there IS a goodly sum to be made.  Points, “loan origination fees”, “document fees”, etc.  The people originating the loans quickly figured out how to make their profit up front, and therefore didn’t care in the least whether the buyer was capable of paying off the loan or not.  After they sold the loan packaged as part of a CDO, the next guy was stuck with the issue…

Comment #53: MikeEss  on  09/24  at  11:30 AM

I’m impressed at how easily Godfather pretends to be skeptical that people who may buy a house once or twice (three times?) in a lifetime could be exploited by those who make a dozen+ loans a day. 

Have you ever thought about taking your acting skills to Broadway?…

_________________________________


No. I think—and do—take it to the banks, however.

I don’t buy cars that often either. Nor for that matter TVs or computers. On the latter I found out how to repair and network and fix the stinkers myself rather than relying soley on call centers in New Delhi with someone calling himself “Frank.”

“Veddy veddy guuut day” 

All without turning over SS numbers to teenaged strangers, network drivers lists, confidential lists of pals, pints of blood from the firstborn and account numberrs.

If you have trouble working this out, you can always defer to guys like Clark Howard,  who is an affible chap who enjoys shooting scam artists right out of the sky on a daily basis.

www.clarkhoward.com

The site is not working now due no doubt to questions about the latest meltdown flooding the server.

Access and questions: Free.  Information on how to NOT get ripped off; be it mortages, reverse mortages for Grandma, computers for Junior so he can download nakedteenchicks.com without spyware attached, or just the best cell phone and airline rates: Priceless

So yes, we have pros working the crowd over who claim they can sell advanced freezer systems to Eskimos.

Yeah. Well there’s an answer for those jackals too.

Comment #54: The Godfather  on  09/24  at  11:39 AM

GOP flow chart:
1.  It’s the niggers’ fault.
2.  It’s the poor people’s fault.
3.  It’s the fault of anybody who might be against screwing the niggers or the poor.
4.  It’s your fault.
5.  Profit!

One chart, fits all situations.

Comment #55: seeker6079  on  09/24  at  11:42 AM

“The people originating the loans quickly figured out how to make their profit up front, and therefore didn’t care in the least whether the buyer was capable of paying off the loan or not.”

And those people would not be the investment banks and others receiving the “bail out.” 

And this still does not explain why anyone with a single wit would make such a loan in the first place, unless there is another force at work.  Banks are simply not in the business of owning depressed residential real estate.

Comment #56: Horace Rumpole  on  09/24  at  11:46 AM

Godfather compares immigrants to cockroaches and sneers at mortgage scam victims for living in “those areas.” I’d say his approach to racial matters is every bit as enlightened as his movie criticism (Potter as the good guy in “It’s a Wonderful Life”).

Comment #57: Bitter Scribe  on  09/24  at  11:54 AM

Banks are simply not in the business of owning depressed residential real estate.

—Horace.


_____________________


Yep.  And they’ll dump it fast, even if it makes other people in the neighborhood mad as hell that property values are now depressed due to these bad comparables on the market. Its the last thing they wish to fool with. Banks cannot make much money on foreclosure and their actuartians have known this since the earth’s crust began to cool.  And what people understand is that there are carrying costs to any agency—bank, a relocation company, or the parent company doing such relos, to any property.  It can range from a half percent to 1.5 percent per month of the property’s appraised value.  So a bank (or anyone) attempting to get the “full” market value out of a property by letting it collect cobwebs for months on end—especially in a declining market—is not a good idea.

**CLICK**

I think Horace just helped turn the lights back on.

Comment #58: The Godfather  on  09/24  at  11:57 AM

“Hey, instead of bailing out the banks with that $700 billion, how about splitting it up among the homeowners in the country and bailing them out?  Seriously.  Wouldn’t that be better for the economy in the long run?  And isn’t it our money to begin with?”

Well technically it’s the top 10% of earners in this country’s money, not yours.

So my company is lying to me when they claim that the 1/3rd of my paycheck that they keep is going to the government for taxes?  I can stop filling out my income tax forms every year because it’s just an illusion that I pay taxes?

Nice to know that only the top 10% of earners pay any taxes in this country.  Where’s my waiver letter that gets me out of paying sales tax since I don’t get taxed since I’m not a top 10% earner?

Comment #59: Mnemosyne  on  09/24  at  11:59 AM

From libertarian Radley Balko’s blog, “The Agitator”: “Everything you need to know about the mortgage crisis, presented in stick-figure.”
http://docs.google.com/TeamPresent?docid=ddp4zq7n_0cdjsr4fn&skipauth=true&pli=1

Seriously, very worth a look.  The only thing it doesn’t have is the current beg-a-than and steal-a-thon farce going on as they look to have the taxpayers correct their failures while still receiving billions in bonuses.

Comment #60: seeker6079  on  09/24  at  12:05 PM

First off, Horace, if you haven’t read this, you probably don’t have enough understanding of what went on to even begin to make sense of it: “Three Times is Enemy Action

Second, it wasn’t your bank, or any normal understanding of a bank that was making those loans.  They were/are being made by companies/divisions/etc. that made the loans and then immediately sold the loans to gain more leverage to make more loans.  Typically whoever bought the loans sold them again.  etc. etc. etc.

A house of cards was constructed that looked huge and impressive, but was hollow and made of cardboard.  The “housing boom” has basically been a huge example of the Greater Fool Theory.

One cannot act surprised when it comes to an end.  I suspect Wall Street was perfectly aware but counted on a bailout to keep things going.  And they may very well be correct…

In the end, those Mai Tai’s getting sipped on the beach in some exotic location on the obscene profits made off the backs of ordinary people taste just as good as those earned through old-fashioned hard work.  Maybe even better…

Comment #61: MikeEss  on  09/24  at  12:05 PM

“Because, as we all know, there is a goodly sum to be made by making loans to people whom you know to be unable to repay said loan.”

Damn straight, in a rising hoursing market.  The borrower can’t make the payments; you foreclose him and sell the house at a profit.  And before he crashes and burns, you get to extract a bunch of penalties and fees from him.

Comment #62: rea  on  09/24  at  12:06 PM

“Damn straight, in a rising hoursing market.  The borrower can’t make the payments; you foreclose him and sell the house at a profit.  And before he crashes and burns, you get to extract a bunch of penalties and fees from him.”


Well, I’ll have you know as someone who has been present at bank board meetings, you couldn’t be further from the truth.  A bank holding a mortgage will generally work to keep the borrower in the house and making some payment, because banks are in the business of fractional reserve lending, not holding residential real estate.

Comment #63: Horace Rumpole  on  09/24  at  12:11 PM

CRA was enacted in 1977.  If CRA were really the problem, then the problem would have surfaced sometime during the Reagan Adminstration.

Comment #64: rea  on  09/24  at  12:11 PM

“Godfather compares immigrants to cockroaches and sneers at mortgage scam victims for living in “those areas.” “

-Bitter Scribe

___________________________

NO—what I’ve said was that this nation is going to turn into a roach motel if social services, schools, hospitals, and sundry other foundations continue to be pushed to the breaking point. By ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.  Walking across the border with no input as to who the hell you are and what your purpose is and getting handouts and goodies by default is illegal. That’s Federal law.  Funny now how the word is transmogrified into ...just….simply….....“immigration.”

When Elian Conzolez was “captured” by his Miami relatives the Left could not wait to knock his arse back to Cuba so fast it would have caused a warp in space time.  As everyone knows, 6 year old just can’t get enough of cigar chomping dictators who look like Bigfoot in camo garb.  They told us “we can’t take on the whole world’s poor anyhow.”


Well hell if we ain’t trying.  And to make matters worse, having 1/3 of Mexico and not too shabby proportions of Central America living in the lower one third of the contiguous US absolves the Mexican government from making necessary reforms for their own economy.  Is that wise?  Especially seeing the latest current events?  More santuary cities in defiance of federal law then?

Enviro wackos actually whine about the “um, dude, its all UNsustainable, um, like UNSUSTAINABLE”—and yet we’re told that borders is optional.  Border patrol agents get nailed for shooting dope peddlers, ERs are all fine and dandy if the waiting line at Grady Memorial is 12 hours because workers are handling sore throats and gooey noses, and over one-third of the entrants are illegal, but now this is suddenly economically….sustainable?  Now free education and college truition credits? 

The Left knows the supposed value of everything and every piety, but the price of nothing.


AS to the mortgage “victims”, what I said (since context matters not on this site, but still) is that if you have the means and the credit to hightail it out of those areas banks disdain (areas that even cops fear to tread without high powered weaponry), then you should.

Comment #65: The Godfather  on  09/24  at  12:12 PM

Ooh, predatory lenders.  Here’s one close to home, Jesse, so I’ll know you like it.

Predatory lenders were hitting the Cleveland area hard.  So, about six years ago, the city decided to do something about it and got their regulation on.  Alas, the lenders took their case to the Republican-led state supreme court.  One slap down of the city later and it was back to the races. 

This is the end result.

Of course, the first line of defense was the borrowers themselves, of course.  Just like Derek Anderson’s first line of defense is for the Ravens not to rush him.

Comment #66: Doug H. (Fausto no more)  on  09/24  at  12:16 PM

“If CRA were really the problem, then the problem would have surfaced sometime during the Reagan Adminstration.”

rea, come on!  You know better than that!  St. Ronnie’s incredible sense of morality, awesome force of will, and grandfatherly demeanor prevented abuses of all kinds. 

It was only when Clinton’s Penis was president that the breakdown of society took hold…

Comment #67: MikeEss  on  09/24  at  12:17 PM

So my company is lying to me when they claim that the 1/3rd of my paycheck that they keep is going to the government for taxes?  I can stop filling out my income tax forms every year because it’s just an illusion that I pay taxes?

_______________________

If you saw just how far your sum (or mine) of taxes would NOT go, you’d be very dissapointed.

The bailout is the lesser of the poisons, and keeps grandma’s pension plan in place along with the steelworker’s 401k and people’s houses.

That is, in effect, the net result of the “10%” zone’s influence on tax revenue.

Comment #68: The Godfather  on  09/24  at  12:17 PM

I said my bit at the Agitator, [some editing for posting here]:

Look at it this way.

Western Europe, Canada and the like have balanced financial systems in which the government is a consistent, predictable and integrated player. They aren’t subject to constant free market maximalist ideological pressures (a la the Chicago school) within their systems like America is; they don’t have rapacious corporate maximalists like America does; they haven’t had and don’t have massive deregulation like America; they haven’t largely defanged their securities, banking and fiscal regulatory agencies, as America has. I’d wager that their bankers, investment houses, investors and consumers aren’t significantly smarter or dumber than America’s.

Two easy questions: Is it America or its counterparts that is suffering a “once in a century” massive real estate, banking and investment meltdown? And why is that?

You can sit on a purist economic libertarian argument all you want. Even if you believe in it the fact is that unregulated markets are the same as unregulated streets: small, selfish groups of the population will take advantage of the lack being restrained to take whatever they can to their sole benefit, and everybody else be damned. And if the same people who would do this also control the government then they can maximize their thievery; that too has happened in America as what we can call the apex class (the Bushes and the like) game the system to their benefit.

A common libertarian counterargument is that if we remove the government as a player in the market then the market will solve the problems. Sorry, but that is arrant and disproven nonsense. To continue with the example I gave above it does not stop wild looting, it merely means that the looters aren’t wearing cop uniforms. If you have lost everything to such thieves then the distinction between the two types of loss probably means nothing to you, nor should it.

Libertarian thought is perhaps one of the best and analytical tools and starting points for social organization out there: leave everybody alone to do whatever the hell they want unless it hurts others or there is a very compelling social reason justifying the intervention of the state. But the notion that we can have economic, social and political order based on purist laissez faire notions has been discredited. Face up to that.

The notion that libertarian arguments are restricted to the apple-pie notion of individual/market allocation is wrong. The notion that regulation itself is harmful is a well-established one in American economic libertarian thought, going back to Coase and Stigler, to name just two. (I’ll cheerfully concede in advance that Stigler’s “capture” theory is exceptionally significant here because it describes the Bush 43 administration to a “T”. The most significant gap in the theory is its inadequate recognition that the lack of a regulatory framework can lead to consequences even more disastrous as the biggest economic actors and interests exert their interests and distortions directly on the market without the restraining impact of having to operate indirectly through systems designed to inhibit their operations.)

America’s current massive mess is due to its own fiscal extremism. (Gramm, for example, is an excellent example of a corporate kleptocracy enabler who derives his drive from purist libertarian principles and language.) America could have saved itself by use of a more balanced, judicious and restrained governmental role rather than the wildly changing and very weird fiscal speedball of deregulation mixed with corporate welfare/kleptocracy that it created this problem.

[Someone else in the thread said that] “Obviously, this can’t in any meaningful way be considered a failure of the markets. …”

You’re making one of my points for me, Alex: that economic libertarianism can’t permit itself into a perfectionist ideology and quasi-faith wherein every market failure is explained away by pooh-poohing that it wasn’t really a failure of the market it was a distortion of the market. Despite the fact that it shouldn’t go down that route there is always somebody, like you, arguing that tired cliche.

We heard decades of that nonsense from the grimier side of the Iron Curtain: failure X or Y or Z wasn’t really a failure of communism but rather was a distortion of true communism. It’s silly. It puts libertarianism in the same Platonic Ideal Magic Pony Land of a never-realized Truth, like communism, or religions’ view of the infallibility of their sky fairy of choice, or Andrew Sullivan’s notion of conservatism: no failure is ever accepted as evidence of failure of the concept itself, or any key part thereof; the failure can only be in the execution because the concept is without flaw and can never be in error.

Comment #69: seeker6079  on  09/24  at  12:18 PM

Well, I’ll have you know as someone who has been present at bank board meetings, you couldn’t be further from the truth.  A bank holding a mortgage will generally work to keep the borrower in the house and making some payment, because banks are in the business of fractional reserve lending, not holding residential real estate.

Horace is right on this one.  Its why, unless you have plenty of time to kill in your current residence, stay clear of short sales.  Not to mention what a rash of foreclosures will do to the property values of the area.  (See the PDF I linked to above.)

Comment #70: Doug H. (Fausto no more)  on  09/24  at  12:19 PM

Have prospective homeowners DO check out the amortization tables in a high shcool economics text.  Assuming public schools teach that anymore…..

Nope. Does not fall under the testing standards of No Child Can Ever Read Again.

I think Godfather IS Mr. Potter. He does sound like he last checked in with the culture in 1949.

Comment #71: Well, what?  on  09/24  at  12:20 PM

I love all the trolls who keep insisting that the current crisis can’t possibly be the fault of the banks because they just good-heartedly gave out money to any minority who walked in the door.  Because everyone knows that banks are in the business of handing out free money to anyone who asks.

Whatever happened to due diligence?

Comment #72: Mnemosyne  on  09/24  at  12:24 PM

“CRA was enacted in 1977.  If CRA were really the problem, then the problem would have surfaced sometime during the Reagan Adminstration.”

But it is enforced by an Agency under the Executive Branch, which sets the policy.  The policy of enforcement was a quite bit different under President Clinton, if you would care to look into such things.

Comment #73: Horace Rumpole  on  09/24  at  12:25 PM

“NO—what I’ve said was that this nation is going to turn into a roach motel if social services, schools, hospitals, and sundry other foundations continue to be pushed to the breaking point. By ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.  Walking across the border with no input as to who the hell you are and what your purpose is and getting handouts and goodies by default is illegal. That’s Federal law.  Funny now how the word is transmogrified into ...just….simply….....“immigration.”“

...and the mask slips off a little more…

It’s interesting how, in the original German, Godfather would have been referring to rats and vermin as comparisons to “immigrants” and “outsiders”, instead of cockroaches.  Of course they were also obsessed with der Juden, who had been transformed in the perfect nemesis of society, while we only have a few poor and powerless Mexicans and other struggling immigrants (legal and otherwise) to work with…

Of course, god help you if you have the temerity to suggest a real solution that doesn’t involve a brown scapegoat — like maybe Donald Trump should be taxed enough that he has to put off upgrading his fleet of limousines until next year…

Comment #74: MikeEss  on  09/24  at  12:29 PM

“The policy of enforcement was a quite bit different under President Clinton, if you would care to look into such things.”

...thanks Horace.  I was feeling a little out of sorts without a blame-Clinton comment to reinforce the absurdity…

Comment #75: MikeEss  on  09/24  at  12:34 PM

Western Europe, Canada and the like have balanced financial systems in which the government is a consistent, predictable and integrated player. They aren’t subject to constant free market maximalist ideological pressures (a la the Chicago school) within their systems like America is; they don’t have rapacious corporate maximalists like America does; they haven’t had and don’t have massive deregulation like America; they haven’t largely defanged their securities, banking and fiscal regulatory agencies, as America has. I’d wager that their bankers, investment houses, investors and consumers aren’t significantly smarter or dumber than America’s.

____________________________

They have Government Nannystatism, with what I call “bitskrieg” laws—pan European fluff that dictates all areas of life. It has come to the attention of more than one person that a government system this powerful is powerful enough to take more away from you than it can promise. And on the latter, Europe is about to be extinct. When government is no longer responsive(and we thinik this is our problem—more fool us!), when the citizens themselves complain and itch NOT to be, say, part of the New Euro Constitution and the leaders respond with ideology and say “nayha nyaaa can’t hear you”, and the main arguments are over 8 weeks of vacation vs. 6, the gig is up.  Big Government is a liability, not an asset. And the Euros are finding out that as with overexhuberance in the market (which is solved by recession, and can be a good thing) that they are living on borrowed time.  You can’t do it all. European governments have stripped people of primal responsibilities like family and home and sapped their productivity.  They demand choice on 150 cable stations by defer to government on health care, grannies care, and believe that sleeping in and sumptious benefits trump economics prowess. When this happens oddly you get (for all your free time) not involvement in civic activities, or childrearing, or other life concerns, but defiance of demographic reality.  Busy nursing homes, and relatively empty maternity wards.

Europeans pride themselves on their adcvanced settings. Unfortunately this includes advanced leaps over the waterfall demographically.  Its no good having societal benefits when you can’t replenish your society to pay for all these unaffordable luxeries.  But their populace seems oblivious, as do their leaders.  Like Charles Murray said, when life is an extended vacation, the harder responsibilities of life and greater ideas, become mere irritants.  The Muslim population of Rotterdam is now 40%, and cops are advised not to be seen in Malmo during Ramadan. A new tart on the scence named “sharia” is now law in Britain.  Nothing to see here, they see. Move along. Move along.  Call me when I get back from the beach. Pour du vin!

Europe can bask in the glow of post-moernism and disdan for Yankee economics and cutthroat capitalism.  But their own folly of having government control just about everything will soon just make them Post-European.  Its kinda funny, in a way: The aging, graggly, old chicken-neck hen is running out of eggs and bold roosters; her secular social services welfare state smugly insisting the Way of Progress all the while losing civilizational confidence—and the will to even breed—against those proclaiming “Allah be blessed” in the delivery rooms all over the Continent.  (which is now most of who’s being born these days in most European cities).

Since everything begins—and ends—with demographics, that is their future.

Comment #76: The Godfather  on  09/24  at  12:40 PM

Godfather, you’re like our own little personal Rush Limbaugh.  Care to regail us with your thoughs about black quarterbacks, Obama’s status as covert mooslim, and the merits of Oxycontin vs. Vicodin?...

Comment #77: MikeEss  on  09/24  at  12:48 PM

Nice try, Mike.

There is then the Hitler Hit rule, which is never far from true. The rule that message boards or commentary only goes so far without someone accusing, against all context, someone else of being neo-Hitlerite. 

Now you’ve gone from suspect to losing all real world credibility.

Comparing ILLEGAL immigration—and having no answer at the moment to whether Federal law can be violated ad infinitum without consequence on either side—to the Old World’s continental hatred of the Jews and other groups, qua groupings, is asinine at the least.

In the past we had governments like Wiemar whip up this hysteria over “immigrants”, yes, but also citizens who went through the proper channels and without regard to income or their personal station in life. 

Context is a magical thing, Mike.  The Jews of Europe were certainly scapegoated, but didn’t just appear in a fortnight of 2 decades. They were usually working members of whatever society until such time they got chased somewhere else and DID (unlike our current problem) assimilate for the most part into the larger society.


Also, if you’re concerned about their plight and compassion is your goal, understand this is not the function of our government.  It is the function of the Mexican government and other banana tinhorns who’ve used the “scientific” input of socialist and semi-socialist Revolution Theology slop to turn their nations into dumps.  I understand fully the urge to move out of those dumps. I’ve seen them. I’ve been to the NON-tourist areas of Mexico and advise all whiners about economic downturns to see people itching for so much as a loaf of bread per week per family in some of the outlying indian controlled areas in the mountains.  I appreciate their need to move.  That does not make it legal.  And it only worsenes the problem of the Mexican government postponing the day of reckoning and much neede reforms.

Comment #78: The Godfather  on  09/24  at  12:50 PM

“So my company is lying to me when they claim that the 1/3rd of my paycheck that they keep is going to the government for taxes?  I can stop filling out my income tax forms every year because it’s just an illusion that I pay taxes?”

No they aren’t lying.  It’s just that you don’t really contribute much to the economy or the tax base.  But thanks for playing!

I guess I should have said the top 20% since they pay about 75% of all income taxes and a pretty darn sizeable portion of small business taxes as well.  It’s always funny to me that those of us who are not in that group call it “our money” when “our money” is less than a 4th of it.  Just sayin’.

Comment #79: Dr T  on  09/24  at  12:56 PM

Babs sed: “Luckily, we had the priviledge of being familiar with Suze Orman’s body of work, and we knew that this could not be right. “

I have to wonder how often this happens; lack of information (or consumers’ understanding of it) plus desperation leads to getting screwed. When my spousal-unit and I “bought” our first and only house in 2001, we had NO IDEA what was going on. We generally knew what a good rate was and we had a mortgage broker who wasn’t a crook, but that was about all we “knew”.  We got the word-of-mouth recommendation for this broker from some other priviledged white people of our same socio-economic status, one of whom worked in the industry.  Sometimes it’s good to be a cracka with a degree.

Comment #80: Tim  on  09/24  at  12:59 PM

Shorter Dr T: “All hail or glorious millionaire overlords!”

Meanwhile, given Godfather’s nom de plume, I don’t think its too hard to imagine that he’s of some Italian descent.  Which makes his spiels all the more hilarious.

Comment #81: Doug H. (Fausto no more)  on  09/24  at  01:00 PM

Dude, when the first thing out of your mouth is how The Immigrants OMG! are ruining America, while ignoring the raping and pillaging by the Fine Upstanding Americans of the Financial Community, you need some grounding.

We are in the process of throwing away enough money, between Wall Street and Iraq, to pay for services provided to every immigrant to this country for the next century.  Which still ignores that overall we get more from them than we pay out.

If you think what I said is nothing more than a Godwin, you aren’t paying attention…

Comment #82: MikeEss  on  09/24  at  01:01 PM

...referring to “Godfather”...

Comment #83: MikeEss  on  09/24  at  01:02 PM

Care to regail us with your thoughs about black quarterbacks, Obama’s status as covert mooslim, and the merits of Oxycontin vs. Vicodin?…
__________________


I have no insights into black quarterbacks. 

Obama’s religion—like many pols—is opportunistic only.  Though if we had to pin it down and if it went beyond Street Cred in Chicago I suppose that attending that ratbag pastor’s sermons for over 1,100 sundays might bring him closer to Liberation Theology gobblygook (think Jesus with a red beret).
Revenge via politics. Or as one general said, “warfare by other means.”  In this case, class warfare.

As to drugs, my understanding is that Rush never pontificated on drugs all that much and only has one statement to his credit about illegal street dope ruining people. Which, come to think of it—it does.
Anyone can fall into addiction, as millions of Americans do each year to prescription drugs. But now this is different in intent from street dope.  (for the pusher it is about money and not relief from pain)

Perhaps you’ll now regale us about whether honest guys like Clark Howard can help people navigate the banking maze.

Comment #84: The Godfather  on  09/24  at  01:11 PM

Godfather, you’re little heavy on the hyperbole and stream-of-conciousness, but we all are sometimes. You had me reading up until about 10:30 or so..then the hyperbole went into AM radio territory.

Comment #85: Tim  on  09/24  at  01:12 PM

The Godfather:

First, and your frothing aside, you do remember that assertions are not evidence, right? 

Second, you can call the functioning systems of America’s allies “bitskreig” [which doesn’t even have the saving grace of wit] all you want.  You can call them Harvey The Cheese Danish System for all I care.  The fact is their regulatory systems have prevented a meltdown and yours haven’t.  I note that in expanding out to a bitchfest (it ain’t a critique) of the whole European system you avoid having to deal with the unanswerable point being made against you: that a balanced regulatory system would have prevented this catastrophe.  In taking refuge with free market nostrums you are basically just replicating the stupidity of the surgeons of centuries past: if bleeding is killing the patient then the solution must be to bleed him some more.

Third, about that race critique of the Canadians and Europeans: what the hell does that have to do with American investment firm buyouts and nightmarishly bad fiscal decisions made by American executives?  Third and half: if you are going to bring race into it, how do you address the fact that these cataclysmic stupidities were created and implemented by a class who are possibly the to be the whitest guys on the planet?

Fourth, I notice that you leap immediately to the same nonsense that Alex did over at The Agitator:  When an American example fails, and a functioning/better First World system is offered by way of an alternative, do not address the First World example but rather leap immediately to comparisons to Third World countries.  We note Canada, you want to talk about Mexico.

Comment #86: seeker6079  on  09/24  at  01:15 PM

Yeah. Funny.

No, my ancestors came from England.

I just used the nom du vin for chuckles.

Comment #87: The Godfather  on  09/24  at  01:16 PM

“Shorter Dr T: “All hail or glorious millionaire overlords!”

The average income of the top 20% in 2006 was $181,250.  Millionaire overloards?

Comment #88: Dr T  on  09/24  at  01:24 PM

Godfather’s long-winded missives are just tiresome John Bircher paranoia crossed with fearmongering about European race suicide, wrapped in rhetorical fluorish.

‘Europeans are groaning under the oppression of good infrastructure and universal health care’ sounds much better than ‘Europeans are being outbred by swarthy Muslim invaders,’ but in the end, he just couldn’t help himself.

Comment #89: Sour Kraut  on  09/24  at  01:28 PM

The average income of the top 20% in 2006 was $181,250

That is the most weasely use of statistics I’ve ever read. If you take the average of the top 20%, you have the result tilted towards those at the very end of the distribution.

The top quintile of earners starts at $97,000. The top 5% is 174,000 and above.

(src)

Comment #90: Tyro  on  09/24  at  01:35 PM

Put a wiener next to that sourkraut:

“Europeans are groaning under the oppression of good infrastructure and universal health care’ sounds much better than ‘Europeans are being outbred by swarthy Muslim invaders,’ but in the end, he just couldn’t help himself. “

Come to think of it, both statemets are accurate.

Comment #91: Godfather  on  09/24  at  01:42 PM

You had me reading up until about 10:30 or so..then the hyperbole went into AM radio territory.

Well said. It’s bizarre how some people seem to appear our of nowhere and decide to use the comments section as an excuse to basically write their own blog rather than starting their own.

You get bet that Godfather is a charmer around the Thanksgiving dinner table, regaling the family with whatever he heard on Rush that week.

Comment #92: Tyro  on  09/24  at  01:43 PM

Couple other thoughts:

Many people took ARM’s thinking they would refi when it came time for the first adjustment.  Then the market slid back, and they were trapped without enough equity, and with tighter credit.

You can definitely make money selling loans to people who can’t pay.  Take the upfront points, fees, etc. and pass the loan along.  It’s up to each buyer of these loans to do their own due diligence.  Many did not.  I don’t want to bail them out with my money.

Banks don’t want to foreclose.  Most of the time, as soon as they open the file back up, they lose money.  They want to make the loan, then do nothing but collect, until it’s time to discharge, refi, or payoff.

But the idea that the same group of bankers, wall streeters and politicians who got us into this can get us out ... well, no.

Comment #93: Libertarian  on  09/24  at  01:52 PM

No they aren’t lying.  It’s just that you don’t really contribute much to the economy or the tax base.

Great, so I can stop paying my taxes.  After all, it’s the top 10 percent of earners who are doing the real good, so what does the government need my measly contribution for.

I never knew you were such a socialist, Dr. T, calling for only the top 10 percent of earners to have to pay taxes since everyone else’s contribution is so piddly by comparison anyway.

Comment #94: Mnemosyne  on  09/24  at  01:53 PM

Seeker:

I addressed the regulation boogeyman and red herring earlier, as did CDT:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122212948811465427.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

And many of these chinanigans evolved during the roaring 90s anyhow. Before the Night of Terror under Bush.

As to the comments on Mexico, you can be sure its a safe bet that when responding to someone about OUR particular immigration problem (though the Canadians certainly have their own, just of a different nature) that Mexico is far more proximate to the topic.

As to the Euros, “bitskrieg” is more than fair if not creative—-not that it matters for their economics much longer, but I took your scold of free market economics and the bruha as evidence of their ever-so-worldly wise assumptions. Which are wrong.  And THEY are not “bitskrieg”—their overprotective Nanny Statism is.  A collection of soft-core tyranny that saps initiative. Overregulation destroys.  That’s not a good model.  That’s what better demographers have pointed out also. See Phillip Longman, for example. And the reasons for this are to be found in what overregulation and sumptious benefits do to a society long term.  You started all the crap about the wonderous Vunderkinder the Euros are using to assure the world they won’t be around circa 2050.

Comment #95: The Godfather  on  09/24  at  02:01 PM

I have to agree with you, Libertarian, on your 12:52 post. Basically, everyone from top to bottom thought there was “no risk.” Mortgage brokers had no risk because their compensation was tied only to selling clients the most exotic mortgages possible. Borrowers and lenders thought there was no risk because they figured it would be easy to refinance or sell the home at a higher price. For the banks there was no risk because they weren’t even holding the mortgages themselves—they were repackaging them off as bonds. And the bond-buyers were flush with money and looking for no-risk investments, and figured the bonds were no-risk because they were supposedly AAA-rated. And the bond insurers figured that there was no risk because it was already accounted for, based on the assumption that a failure of one group of bonds was an independent event that would not influence the odds of failure of other bonds.

Plenty of people thought that buying pets.com was no-risk, too.

Comment #96: Tyro  on  09/24  at  02:16 PM

(Laughing hilariously.)

You seriously expect me to take the liars and misleaders and corporate kleptomania enablers of the WSJ editorial page as having anything valid to say?  Get real.  I’m not going to get accuracy there any more than I am going to get it from the Daily Worker.  The WSJ’s op-ed pages have been a bad-and-getting-worse torrent of misinformation for years; they are the house organ for the top microfragment of US earners and will say anything, anything at all, to benefit that group the GOP, its majority-owned subsidiary.  Moreover as the mouthpiece for free market maximalists it is no more reliable on the infallibility of markets and the evils of government oversight than L’Osservatore Romano is on papal infallibility and the evils of abortion.

“Overregulation destroys.”  Even if we take that as a given it reinforces that you haven’t addressed the a real point being made against your arguments: we are talking about regulation, not over-regulation.  America’s financial and real estate systems are in the middle of a meltdown; your allies’ aren’t.  America’s markets in these areas were wildly under-regulated and under-monitored; your allies’ weren’t.  These two facts are connected.

If you mean that any regulation of the market is bad, then kindly grow yourself a pair and say so.

Comment #97: seeker6079  on  09/24  at  02:32 PM

BTW, if Canada is so nannied that we can’t innovate, then ya wanna explain to me, for example, why McCain’s campaign is so impressed with the Blackberry that they lie that he was responsible for it.

Also, when I write a post talking about the need for a “balanced, judicious and restrained governmental role ” in a market economy, kindly don’t bullshit the thread by saying that I’m speaking against markets.
Shorter seeker: Referees are a good thing.
Shorter Godfather: Why do you hate sports?

Comment #98: seeker6079  on  09/24  at  02:36 PM

So true, and one group not being mentioned much are the dopes who supposedly rated these securities.  If they had been rated for what they are, no one would have bought them.  All those guys are part of “the Club.”  Corporate Incest.

Guy I know has a son who was a young guy working for a smaller investment house.  His boss, as a routine matter, before going ahead on these mortgage securities (which everyone was buying and thought were great), had the young guy evaluate it, really as an exercize.  He did real due diligence, and came back and told his boss “these things are crap,”  why is anyone buying them?  They didn’t.  That kid is lookin good.

Comment #99: Libertarian  on  09/24  at  02:40 PM

If we take Tyro’s 1316h post as correct, (i.e.: that there is blame from top to bottom), then we are left with some questions arising out of that:

1.  Why are the people who actually had the potential to stop this, at a macro level, (the regulators, the government, the executive classes)? so quiescent?
2.  Given that corporate America had the power and authority and responsibility to stop this, why should they not share the largest part of the blame?
3. If they didn’t have the power and authority and responsibility, why have they been receiving (and continue to demand, even in the face of their failure!) untold billions in salary which is predicated on them holding that authority and responsibility?
4. Why is the public expected to bear the entire cost?
5. Why is the public being denied an equity stake?

If the people on the right want to take the position that Socialism Is Bad, then fine.  Nobody gets it.  Thousands of unemployed and bankrupt CEOs and Boards; they will have paid the price for their failure.

Comment #100: seeker6079  on  09/24  at  02:43 PM

Oh, poor 20th-century Rumpole. No bank worth its stock options holds onto a mortgage a minute longer than they have to. Not when they can sell it on and use the proceeds to do more business. And the mortgage service company that eventually ends up holding the failing paper has no idea who the homebuyer is, and little interest in finding out.

Every time our payment is a few days late (and it’s electronic, so not our problem) the phone calls and letters threatening foreclosure come in. Then they stop until the next time.

Comment #101: paul  on  09/24  at  02:51 PM

Seeker: while there is blame from top to bottom, I should have noted that blame isn’t apportioned equally.

The hedge funds speculating with billions or trillions of dollars on these worthless bonds at 50:1 leverage and the corrupt people involved in rating the bonds bear a lot more of the blame than Joe Homeowner who got a no-money-down ARM for a $200,000 house that’s now only worth $150,000. If the bank was still holding on to that mortgage loan, it would have been better equipped to dealing with it, and we wouldn’t have seen this vicious cycle to as large a degree as we do.

Comment #102: Tyro  on  09/24  at  02:53 PM

SEEKER.  “In taking refuge with free market nostrums you are basically just replicating the stupidity of the surgeons of centuries past: if bleeding is killing the patient then the solution must be to bleed him some more. “


My Allah Preserve you.

If such metaphorical hue is to color our observations, then I should point out that the REAL reason Medieval physicians bled patients out had to do with their primitivist beliefs—almost animistic—that the Foul Humours (a kind of infectious fluid) needed to be let out of the arms.  It had nothing to do with this cheapjack stuff about extroplating a little harm helps the big harm.

Comment #103: The Godfather..of the souls, brother.  on  09/24  at  02:59 PM

Who said I hate sports, seeker?


I hate this idiotic obsession with every day filled with adulation of people making millions for popping balls around.  I’m sure I can get some help here from the Greens.  In fact, say goodbye to dangerous chemicals, baits, diesel fuel carbon emissions if we just turn over the golf courses to pastures.

Comment #104: Godfather  on  09/24  at  03:03 PM

Godfather:

First, if you feel the need to write long, stream-of-consciousness thoughts bereft of facts having little to do with the topic at hand, then please do yourself a favor and get your own blog.

When writing such thoughts on your own blog, do not do so while drunk.

Comment #105: Tyro  on  09/24  at  03:18 PM

Is it just me or is Libertarian actually ... making sense in this thread?

They must be making some great snowmen in Hell right about now.

Comment #106: Mnemosyne  on  09/24  at  03:40 PM

I can’t help it. 

The NEA did this to me.  I’ll see your spread on victimology and raise you to the educrat establishement (where there’s actually a case)

Sorry I wouldn’t knuckle under, though, on the “rich white folk be takin’ us down” mantra.
I noticed its still false, and will remain so regardless of whether or not you think I properly addressed the crumbum charge of bankers as racists.

Comment #107: Godfather  on  09/24  at  03:41 PM

“Sorry I wouldn’t knuckle under, though, on the “rich white folk be takin’ us down” mantra.
I noticed its still false, and will remain so regardless of whether or not you think I properly addressed the crumbum charge of bankers as racists.”

...yeah!  Everybody knows racism officially ended in the 1960’s, right Godfather?  That’s why after Tony Snow said that they conspired to kill him.  We libruls just can’t handle the truth!...

...or maybe, having minds unclouded by chronic Wingnut Koolaid consumption, we can actually see the way things ARE, instead of the way you want them to be…

Comment #108: MikeEss  on  09/24  at  03:53 PM

Mnemosyne :  It ain’t just you.  Sensible through and through here.  A good example of the virtues of sticking to facts and evidence.

Comment #109: seeker6079  on  09/24  at  03:54 PM

What Tyro said at 1440h.

Comment #110: seeker6079  on  09/24  at  03:56 PM

Many of those loans were given to people who didn’t know better and who could have qualified for traditional fixed rate loans.  So much for blaming minorities, eh?

Comment #111: keshmeshi  on  09/24  at  04:16 PM

“Many of those loans were given to people who didn’t know better and who could have qualified for traditional fixed rate loans.  So much for blaming minorities, eh? “

“Many” of them were, just as there was a “lot” of outright fraud and lies. For me I only try and assign blame when I believe it will do some good, in this case there is plenty to go around and I just can’t understand why some people would say either its all the banks fault or all the peoples/minorities fault.

I would imagine there were “many” poor people taking out mortgage loans they couldnt realistically hope to repay, either because they were just naive or being unrealistic about their situation. I’m sure there are a lot of people involved in speculation, using their equity to buy ridiculous things and a million other things. The banking system and the people, all kinds of people, are at fault. Is one at fault more than the other? I think so but I have no way of proving it. No one makes the banks make the loans, no one makes the person sign the loan. I’ve seen many cases of speculators getting burned and simply walking away because they think its unfair it didnt work out the way they thought it would, are there more of those types than the ones who were really deceived? If you’re buying a house, at either a 9.25% rate or 6.25% do you actually have to do either? I come down harder on the banks and the loan system but I also hold the people responsible and its hard for me to internalize the full argument of predatory loans as there is a push and pull for me between the banks responsibility and the persons. If one is in a position to buy a 60-90,000 dollar house, as one can do where I live, then one is also in a position to look some things up on a public library computer for an hour during the month or longer process of looking for/buying a home.  I know there are many other factors but I don’t see anyone as blameless, children dont buy homes, adults do. Harsh but i’m having a hard time getting around it.

Lastly on this I dont even get why people feel entitled to a detached, single family home. Why is that the standard? Because its the American dream? I find my time in the military instructive for this, in the enlisted rankes, no one is entitled to single detached housing except for the highest rank. The standard ranges from a 1 bedroom apartment for a single private up to townhomes for those most senior. That makes a lot more sense to me and has a lot of benefits for society as a whole as opposed to a nation of 300 million living in 200 million detached homes. Sorry to just go off on a tangent, I just feel this drive to have that single family home causes a lot of problems, some of which we see manifested now.

Comment #112: dananddanica  on  09/24  at  04:41 PM

The proles should be happy with row homes, only the Inner Party is worthy of detached, single family homes.

Comment #113: Shorter DanandDanica  on  09/24  at  05:44 PM

The comment at 1640h is pretty stupid.  dananddanica said nothing more than having the detached single family home as the alpha and the omega of how you have to live your life is a flawed construct.  Nothing wrong with it per se; a disproportionate emphasis on it is wrong.

Comment #114: seeker6079  on  09/24  at  05:51 PM

“The proles should be happy with row homes, only the Inner Party is worthy of detached, single family homes.”

...I heard they can turn their telescreens down.  And they can get real sugar and coffee too!...

Comment #115: MikeEss  on  09/24  at  05:53 PM

You think *row homes* are cheap?

Try $200,000 for a three-bedroom row home in an area of Baltimore City (not exactly the epicenter of the real estate bubble) with good school districts.

None of you people who want to blame “minorities” or “borrowers” have read “The Two Income Trap”, have you? Schools get money based on local property tax (local *local*, like in “the houses that send kids to X school pay into the fund for X school”). So when local property values are high, the schools are good. This causes a spiral, as people want to move into the homes where the schools are good (most people trying to buy homes have kids.) Then that’s also where all the educated people concentrate, so the businesses with good white-collar jobs move to that region, making the area even *more* desirable… and other areas less so.

Good jobs, good schools, expensive homes. That’s the way it is.

So, you’re tired of renting—it builds no equity and you can’t get your own plumbing fixed. You want to buy a house. Well and good. But the home value bubble that was caused, in part, by the widespread speculation on real estate, was even *worse* in the areas that are best to live in. Do you want to commute 2 hours one way to work every day, or take a much crappier job? No? Then buy an expensive house. Do you want your kids to actually *learn* in school? Yes? Then buy an expensive house. Few people have the kinds of jobs where they can literally move anywhere—a friend of my daughter’s has a dad who’s a trucker, so he was able to move out to Nowhere, Pennsylvania and get his family a 4-bedroom house with a large back yard for $30K. The same house, transplanted to my area, would have cost $300K. The same house, transplanted to San Francisco, Los Angeles or New York City, would have cost $1.5 million dollars.

Did you watch “The Adam Corolla Project”? Probably not, it was on the DIY network. Adam Corolla buys his dad’s house so he can fix it up as a reality TV project. His dad sells it to him for almost $800K and he wants to turn it around for $1 million. *MY* house is bigger than this thing, my duplex in Baltimore, and I paid $220K for mine. The house is about the size of my elderly grandma’s. But it’s in Los Angeles so it’s a million dollar house for 1500 square feet. If you have a job in Los Angeles, you’re kind of fucked, aren’t you? No one’s got the scratch to buy a 1500 sq ft house for a million dollars. And yet, he sold it! So, who bought it, and who gave the buyer their mortgage?

You’re all (and by “you” I mean the infestation of libertarians, republicans and racists) assuming that people were blowing their paychecks on mini-mansions in swank neighborhoods. A MILLION DOLLARS FOR 1500 SQ FT. Write that on your *foreheads*. Crappy tiny houses can cost a *lot*, and if your job is in a specific area and so is your family, what are you gonna do? You can do research on an area of the country you don’t live in? Find a job, while you *have* a job, halfway across the country? Yeah, in your copious free time, right? Again, most of these people are two-income parent families. People who work and have kids will find it very difficult to find the time to do the extensive research required, and the interviewing, and all that jazz to go live in a completely different area of the country. So if you’re in an area with high property values, you’re boned.

Now, can it be done? Yes, people can do it. If I needed to move somewhere that was a lot cheaper, I could do it. I also have a job that allows me to sit at a computer all day long *and* make free long distance calls on my cell phone. What if I was a teacher? A nurse? Hell, a doctor or lawyer? When would I have time to do this shit?

Borrowers committed the sin of believing that their pay was stable (often, if it depends on two people’s income, it’s not, because only *one* has to be laid off), that they wouldn’t suffer catastrophic medical bills, that the rates wouldn’t go up *too* much, and that their middle-class wages were enough to buy them a decent house in the area where they work. Because of the housing bubble, they were wrong. But you know, usurious interest rates for borrowers just make them *more* likely to default on their payments; and when you consider that at the same time, the job markets have been bad and more and more people are becoming uninsured and credit cards can charge you up to 33% interest because you missed one payment on a different card and you can’t escape with bankruptcy nearly so easily… how did this *not* happen?

Comment #116: Alara Rogers  on  09/24  at  06:17 PM

I simply said that a single family detached home shouldnt be the be all end all as that has many negative effects. Row houses, duplexes, triplexes, quads, apartments can all be very expensive. I’ve lived in areas where houses were 900,000 for a nice 1940’s 2/1 with 800 square feet. I’ve also lived in places where a 3,000 square foot home sold for 30 dollars a square foot. Again I wasnt getting into a cost comparison, was just venting a little at the destruction I see caused by people being so single mindedly focused on that 3/2 1400sqft job on .2acres with a little patch of grass out front.

Comment #117: dananddanica  on  09/24  at  07:14 PM

gu5zegztsl4wyoyn <a > zy8ornvnpfge28 </a> [URL=http://www.640281.com/416013.html] wtyx9jin [/URL] 65po0a0t

Comment #118: 6tzb8xsz55  on  09/30  at  02:07 PM

7pxes4gaifm2xb0ll <a > u77rpdqc39n6c2m </a> [URL=http://www.225745.com/708345.html] 78ddi81nu6 [/URL] 57vy4vsm0sbsyj8m

Comment #119: 7kqgi56j8f  on  09/30  at  02:07 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.