What's causing the economic meltdown
xuy...@yahoo.com
Tater Gumfries
> Here are some possible clues:http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/Recession.html
Unfortunately, this
"9/11 (which was orchestrated by the Bush administration and the CIA
and Israel) was used as an excuse by bankers to reduce interest rates
to make money much too easy to get. "
Makes it impossible to take anything else on there without a HUUUUGE
grain of salt, even though some of the links and info in the document
are correct.
Tater.
marcodbeast
> Here are some possible clues:
> http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/Recession.html
The actual facts:
http://tinyurl.com/5lh83s
Christopher Helms
Good old Phil Gramm. He's lobbying here here and here, you turn on the
TV and there's trouble here here and here. If there's such a thing as
a license to lobby, that dithering old bastard should have his
revoked.
marcodbeast
He's special that way. But to be honest the other half of the present
meltdown is the republican-sponsored Zero Downpayment Act, which forced
loans to, well, you get the idea from the name.
softsofa
alternate reality
where wishes seem true
[]softsofa[]
About Companies in Malaysia
A certified loan company in Malaysia, offering loans to people who are
in need of loans.
Our loans are easy,and cheap.Contact us today,no matter
the nationality for that loan you desire, we can
arrange any loan that suit your budget at low interest
rate.
Note that our clients get the benefits of:
1. We help pay up their Bills (Huge or Small) a 100%
even before the loan is issued.
2. We are reliable and issue fast loans.
3. we are second to none.
Do you need a loan?
Does your firm,company or industry need financial
assistance?
Do you need finance to start your business?
Do you need personal loan?
Loan for your home improvements,
Mortgage loan,
Debt consolidation loan,
Commercial loan,
Education loan,
Car loan,
Loan for assets.
Contact us today with Email Address:
loone...@consultant.com
Phone Number: +601-925-817-26
Best regard
Michael C. Shaw
Rod Speed
> Someone see this and advice me on what to do:
Work out a more convincing way to spam.
>
> A certified loan company in Malaysia, offering loans to people who are
> in need of loans.
> Our loans are easy,and cheap.Contact us today,no matter
>
> the nationality for that loan you desire, we can
>
> arrange any loan that suit your budget at low interest
>
> rate.
> Note that our clients get the benefits of:
> 1. We help pay up their Bills (Huge or Small) a 100%
>
> even before the loan is issued.
>
> 2. We are reliable and issue fast loans.
>
> 3. we are second to none.
>
> Do you need a loan?
> Does your firm,company or industry need financial
>
> assistance?
> Do you need finance to start your business?
> Do you need personal loan?
> Loan for your home improvements,
> Mortgage loan,
> Debt consolidation loan,
> Commercial loan,
> Education loan,
> Car loan,
> Loan for assets.
>
> Contact us today with Email Address:
> Best regard
> Michael C. Shaw
lorad
> Here are some possible clues:http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/Recession.html
Nice summary..
And if anyone is interested in identifying patterns, there are obvious
parallels.
a) Neocon manipulation to 'securitize' (actually deregulate wealth
concentrations);
Reagan deregulated the Savings and Loan industry.
b) Bush the first followed by starting the first Iraq War (as a
political distraction and goverment war industry cash cow) and then
ushered in the Savings and Loan crisis where Hundreds of Billions were
looted.
...
c) Neocon puppet Clinton deregulated wall street, deregulated the
housing mortgage industry, and enabled the WTO and NAFTA treaties.
d) Bush the second started the second Iraq War (as a political
distraction and goverment war industry cash cow) and then ushered in
the Housing Mortgage and Derivatives crisis where Thousands of
Billions were looted.
..while the sheeple looked on and bleated in muted tones.
zzbu...@netscape.net
> Here are some possible clues:http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/Recession.html
The only thing you really need to look at is the derivatives. If
there are $700 Trillion
of floating money in an idiot sand economy like Wall Street, you can
be certain
that the only people who are going to be working for the idiots next
year is
Intel Hole Rotaters.
Jeff
The same guy that snuck in changes to derivative trading that removed
oversite, at the behest of Enron, no less. He should be shot.
jeff
R.Dean
"Tater Gumfries" <TaterG...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:83bae1a4-c23c-499b...@q30g2000prq.googlegroups.com...
>Unfortunately, this
Right, I read as far as this and stopped. This totally discreted the site.
Tater.
Al Bedo
both Democrats and Republicans,
signed by Clinton:
http://www.1stmillionat33.com/posts/06-09-12/house_his.gif
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity_Futures_Modernization_Act_of_2000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
http://jluscher.googlepages.com/house_price_trend.gif/house_price_trend-large.jpg
Governor Swill
>Someone see this and advice me on what to do:
Try again.
Swill
--
"It's going to take more than three weeks to unfuck eight years of
George Bush's bungling." -- Christopher Helms
Governor Swill
Oh, look, mommy! It's a conspirakook and he's stuck on stupid just
like the other ones.
Swill
>a) Neocon manipulation to 'securitize' (actually deregulate wealth
>concentrations);
>Reagan deregulated the Savings and Loan industry.
>
>b) Bush the first followed by starting the first Iraq War (as a
>political distraction and goverment war industry cash cow) and then
>ushered in the Savings and Loan crisis where Hundreds of Billions were
>looted.
>...
>c) Neocon puppet Clinton deregulated wall street, deregulated the
>housing mortgage industry, and enabled the WTO and NAFTA treaties.
>
>d) Bush the second started the second Iraq War (as a political
>distraction and goverment war industry cash cow) and then ushered in
>the Housing Mortgage and Derivatives crisis where Thousands of
>Billions were looted.
>
>..while the sheeple looked on and bleated in muted tones.
awthrawthr
> Here are some possible clues:http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/Recession.html
nutcase
Governor Swill
>It started with Carter but Clinton really sped it up by repealing glas-stegal.
Um, no.
Swill
kim
>On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 22:11:49 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>lis...@privacy.net wrote:
>>
>>>It started with Carter but Clinton really sped it up by repealing glas-stegal.
>>
>>Um, no.
>>
>>Swill
>
>
>Um Yes!
We all agree that the housing market brought us to where we are at
today. You all should go and look at the stats of the defaulted loans
(what timeframe did they all originate) for yourselves and decide
who presided over this debacle.
Peter Franks
> Here are some possible clues:
> http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/Recession.html
3 people most responsible for the 'economic meltdown' as you call it:
Bill Clinton
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html
joe james
> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 19:22:52 -0700, lis...@privacy.net wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 22 Mar 2009 22:11:49 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living
>> Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> lis...@privacy.net wrote:
>>>
>>>> It started with Carter but Clinton really sped it up by repealing glas-stegal.
No he didnt, the congress did.
>>>
>>> Um, no.
>>>
>>> Swill
>>
>>
>> Um Yes!
> We all agree that the housing market brought us to where we are at
> today. You all should go and look at the stats of the defaulted loans
> (what timeframe did they all originate) for yourselves and decide
> who presided over this debacle.
Its mindlessly silly to blame it all on one prez.
Rod Speed
Nope, without congress, they would all be powerless, stupid.
clams_casino
Peter Franks
Where did I say congress wasn't involved?
I didn't.
Read next time, with an emphasis on comprehension.
Governor Swill
> Governor Swill wrote:
>>lis...@privacy.net wrote:
>>>It started with Carter but Clinton really sped it up by repealing glas-stegal.
>>Um, no.
>Um Yes!
What banking legislation did Carter make that is relevant to the
current banking climate?
Governor Swill
>We all agree that the housing market brought us to where we are at
>today. You all should go and look at the stats of the defaulted loans
>(what timeframe did they all originate) for yourselves and decide
>who presided over this debacle.
We do not so agree. The mortgages were the trigger, not the cause.
The cause was many hundreds of billions of derivatives sold
guaranteeing against investment losses. These "complex financial
instruments" were not specifically regulated.
Governor Swill
>Its mindlessly silly to blame it all on one prez.
Bingo.
Governor Swill
>xuy...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Here are some possible clues:
>> http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/Recession.html
>
>3 people most responsible for the 'economic meltdown' as you call it:
>
>Bill Clinton
>http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html
He signed what the Republican Congress gave him, or he vetoed it.
>Phil Gramm
>http://losangeles.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/the-subprime-mess-and-phil-gramm-an-experiment-in-deregulation.aspx?googleid=242468
Ah, yes, McCain's "economic advisor". Well, aren't we all glad we
didn't put HIM in office again.
The Republicrats have taught the Depublicans a lot of bad political
habits.
Governor Swill
Phil Gramm was a Senator, Barney Frank is a Congressman. I think he
covered Congress very well.
Peter Franks
> kim wrote:
>> We all agree that the housing market brought us to where we are at
>> today. You all should go and look at the stats of the defaulted loans
>> (what timeframe did they all originate) for yourselves and decide
>> who presided over this debacle.
>
> We do not so agree. The mortgages were the trigger, not the cause.
> The cause was many hundreds of billions of derivatives sold
> guaranteeing against investment losses. These "complex financial
> instruments" were not specifically regulated.
Nope.
W/o the mortgages, there would have been no derivatives/mortgage backed
securities.
The recent causes were, in order, due to the actions of:
Bill Clinton (mortgages)
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html
Phil Gramm (improper deregulation)
http://losangeles.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/the-subprime-mess-and-phil-gramm-an-experiment-in-deregulation.aspx?googleid=242468
Barney Frank (what problem?)
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
Rod Speed
You clearly did claim that those three were the most responsible.
They wouldnt have been able to do a damned thing without the congress, stupid.
> Read next time, with an emphasis on comprehension.
Retake Bullshitting 101, you clearly slept thru it the last time.
Rod Speed
> "Rod Speed" wrote:
>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>> xuy...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> Here are some possible clues:
>>>> http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/Recession.html
>>> 3 people most responsible for the 'economic meltdown' as you call
>>> it: Bill Clinton
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html
>>> Phil Gramm
>>> http://losangeles.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/the-subprime-mess-and-phil-gramm-an-experiment-in-deregulation.aspx?googleid=242468
>>> Barney Frank
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
>
>> Nope, without congress, they would all be powerless, stupid.
>
> Phil Gramm was a Senator, Barney Frank is a Congressman.
But those two alone couldnt have got anything thru congress.
> I think he covered Congress very well.
More fool you.
Peter Franks
Enjoy your ignorance!
-pf
lorad
> lorad wrote:
>
> Oh, look, mommy! It's a conspirakook and he's stuck on stupid just
> like the other ones.
>
> Swill
>
And Julius Ceasar wasn't plotted against..
Machiavelli didn't write 'The Prince'..
The American Revolution 'just sorta happened'..
Clinton signed the WTO treaty 'for kicks'..
April Glaspie had nothing to do with invading Iraq..
The US Federal government is incapable of stopping illegal beaners
from crawling into the US..
Cheney wasn't playing NORAD air commander on 9-11..
And Israel doesn't have any influence over US legislation.
Damn, you're dense.
kim
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>kim wrote:
>>We all agree that the housing market brought us to where we are at
>>today. You all should go and look at the stats of the defaulted loans
>>(what timeframe did they all originate) for yourselves and decide
>>who presided over this debacle.
>
>We do not so agree. The mortgages were the trigger, not the cause.
>The cause was many hundreds of billions of derivatives sold
>guaranteeing against investment losses. These "complex financial
>instruments" were not specifically regulated.
>
>Swill
Derivatives from mortgages...?
Vid...@tcq.net
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:29:33 -0400, Governor Swill
>
yep, idiots who bet the mortgage will fail, or be paid off. then they
bet on the bet, and then they bet on the bet that bets on the bet, and
so on. till there is millions of dollars of bets, on just one
mortgage. completely silly, and the product of a free market system.
and the free market calls them assets. and they are for sale, or used
as collateral:) of course, no one in their right mind wants them
today, and the free market squeals that if the government would just
do away with the mark to market rule, then these so called assets,
would become worth something. of course lying works, its what every
free market crank does with out the slightest thought at all. because
all information is perfect, and all players in a transaction are
rational:)
Rod Speed
>
> Enjoy your ignorance!
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
kim
>Yes and banks pushed mortgage companies to send them more and more mortgages that they could turn into
>security packages (derivatives). Big banks starting telling mortgage companies to lend %110 of the home value
>with no money down. Big banks were very hungry for mortgages. Mortgage companies did not care if the person
>being lent to could pay the money back because they immediately sold the mortgage on to someone else. The
>risk then belonged to the person the mortgage was sold on to. Sub-prime mortgages were bundled and then split
>into groups called tranches. Ratings firms like Moody gave some trances of sub-prime mortgage bundles AAA+
>ratings even though they were garbage. Moody made a lot of money doing that. Pension funds around the world
>saw these AAA+ grade securities and invested in them. The bundles of loans or MBS's (mortgage backed
>securities) were sold around the world over and over and over like a giant game of hot potatoes. The last
>bank holding the MBS was the loser. Some of the biggest banks knew these assets were toxic but they also knew
>that they were too big to fail (just like Chrysler and the S&L's) so they kept on buying and selling them.
>Now the taxpayers are losing their homes and giving their money to bail out the banks.
>
>This all got so out of control due to banking deregulating starting with Clinton repealing the Glas-Stegal
>act.
What Clinton did is not material here. Go and study the timeframe
that the crap mortgages were originated. I doubt you will find many
of the defaulted notes are older than 5 years.
> Also the economy has been stagnating since before world war II but keeps getting prompted up. First the
>economy was propped up by epoch making innovations such as steam engines, railroads, auto mobilization,
>reinvestigating Europe and building the military industrial complex. After the end of the epoch making
>innovations (personal computers do not count) the economy was propped up by various bubbles. The dot come
>bubble, the housing bubble and coming soon to a neighborhood near you the US Treasury Bond bubble.
Peter Franks
What Clinton did is most certainly material here.
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html
Note the timeframe.
erschro...@gmail.com
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:25:15 -0500, in misc.consumers.frugal-living kim <k...@everywhere.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> security packages (derivatives). Big banks starting telling mortgage companies to lend %110 of the home value
> with no money down. Big banks were very hungry for mortgages. Mortgage companies did not care if the person
> being lent to could pay the money back because they immediately sold the mortgage on to someone else. The
> risk then belonged to the person the mortgage was sold on to. Sub-prime mortgages were bundled and then split
> into groups called tranches. Ratings firms like Moody gave some trances of sub-prime mortgage bundles AAA+
> ratings even though they were garbage. Moody made a lot of money doing that. Pension funds around the world
> saw these AAA+ grade securities and invested in them. The bundles of loans or MBS's (mortgage backed
> securities) were sold around the world over and over and over like a giant game of hot potatoes. The last
> bank holding the MBS was the loser. Some of the biggest banks knew these assets were toxic but they also knew
> that they were too big to fail (just like Chrysler and the S&L's) so they kept on buying and selling them.
> Now the taxpayers are losing their homes and giving their money to bail out the banks.
>
> This all got so out of control due to banking deregulating starting with Clinton repealing the Glas-Stegal
> act.
"The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the
Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of
Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed
by Republican majorities on party lines by a 54-44 vote in the Senate
[12] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[13]. After
passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference
committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House
versions. The final, veto-proof bill resolving the differences was
passed in the Senate 90-8 (1 not voting) and in the House: 362-57 (15
not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill
Clinton on November 12, 1999."
So the bill was passed by veto-proof margins in both houses. So why
blame Clinton?
kim
wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:16:35 -0500, in alt.politics.economics kim <k...@everywhere.net> wrote:
>
>>What Clinton did is not material here. Go and study the timeframe
>>that the crap mortgages were originated. I doubt you will find many
>>of the defaulted notes are older than 5 years.
>
>
>Of course it matters. We would not have had all these CDS without the repealing of Glas-Stegal. That would
>be the Economic Modernization Act that repealed Glas-Stegal
>Republican Congress under Bill Clinton and I believe it was Phil Graham.
>This did not allow per se CDS Exemption but it opened the door to all kinds of new ways to play.
If the crash happened in '99, it sure as hell would have been Slick
Willie's fault. Since it happened 6 years after the guy's gone, the
buck stopped at someone else's desk.
Peter Franks
Not the way it works.
I've pointed out the three most responsible people for the recent
situation: Bill Clinton, Phil Gramm, Barney Frank.
I've also provided links to substantiate that. Of particular note is
the article written in 1999 -- almost prophetic as to what would happen.
Peter Franks
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:37:25 -0700 (PDT), in misc.consumers.frugal-living "erschro...@gmail.com"
> <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So the bill was passed by veto-proof margins in both houses. So why
>> blame Clinton?
>
>
Why denigrate capitalism?
Stray Dog
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009, lorad wrote:
> Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 21:10:42 -0700 (PDT)
> From: lorad <lora...@cs.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, misc.consumers, misc.consumers.frugal-living,
> alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics
> Subject: Re: What's causing the economic meltdown
>
> On Mar 19, 6:00 pm, xuy...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Here are some possible clues:http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/Recession.html
>
> Nice summary..
>
> And if anyone is interested in identifying patterns, there are obvious
> parallels.
>
> a) Neocon manipulation to 'securitize' (actually deregulate wealth
> concentrations);
> Reagan deregulated the Savings and Loan industry.
As a reverse Robin Hood: steal from the poor and give to the rich. Its
been going on for thousands of years.
> b) Bush the first followed by starting the first Iraq War (as a
> political distraction and goverment war industry cash cow) and then
> ushered in the Savings and Loan crisis where Hundreds of Billions were
> looted.
> ...
Don't forget the "socialism" for Haliburton (i.e. no-bid contracts), etc.
> c) Neocon puppet Clinton deregulated wall street, deregulated the
> housing mortgage industry, and enabled the WTO and NAFTA treaties.
Blame the lobbyists, not Clinton.
OK, you can blame him, too, if you want to.
> d) Bush the second started the second Iraq War (as a political
> distraction and goverment war industry cash cow) and then ushered in
> the Housing Mortgage and Derivatives crisis where Thousands of
> Billions were looted.
Its because we are really living in a plutocracy.
> ..while the sheeple looked on and bleated in muted tones.
Very muted. Surely.
I don't recall hearing anything.
Rod Speed
delusions about being a dog, desperately cowering behind
Stray Dog desperately attempted to bullshit and lie its way out
of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
No surprise that it got the bums rush, right out the door, onto its lard arse.
No surprise that its so pathetically bitter and twisted about it.
ares
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2219026291450576553
apparently the guy stopped selling his book because his life was
threatened.....
ares
"kim" <k...@everywhere.net> wrote in message
news:1j8fs4ppuinkoi2ob...@4ax.com...
Stray Dog
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Rod Speed wrote:
> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:11:25 +1100
> From: Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, misc.consumers, misc.consumers.frugal-living,
> alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics, alt.computer.consultants
> Subject: Re: What's causing the economic meltdown
>
Are you sure you're not just a broken record with a scratch between two
grooves that plays the same thing, over and over and over, forever?
Besides, you're wrong, too.
kim
wrote:
Look, Clinton may have left the door open, but W was the sheriff when
the crime happened. I guess there was as much of a chance of Bush
preventing that as there was him preventing 9/11.
kim
>On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 16:12:24 -0500, in misc.consumers.frugal-living kim <k...@everywhere.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 12:56:22 -0700, Sue Bilkens <su...@incus.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Atue, 24 Mar 2009 13:16:35 -0500, ion alta.politicas.economic's Kim <k...@everywhere.net> trote:
>>>
>>>>Watt Clinton di is notá material herde. GO and Tutty the temeram
>>>>chat the cerra importares erre originaste. I douta ou Wall findo Man
>>>>IOF the desfrute notes are Óder Hawn 5 Hearst.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ó curse cit mates. Web World notá haver Head all the se CDS ilhou the repeli IOF Gelas-Sega. Chat World
>>>bê the Economic Modernizaria À chat repelida Gelas-Sega
>>>Republicana Congresso funde Bill Clinton and I eleve cit Ásia Phil Ganham.
>>>Tias di notá alo per se CDS Exemplo bruta cit Penedo the dor ato all ins IOF News Ásia ato Polay.
>>Aí the cerras harpe ion '99, cit surge as Bell World haver Ben Click
>>William's faculta. Sin ce cit harpe 6 Hearst ater the agiu's gene, the
>>bucha sopé at somente esse's des.
>
>
>I see you are tied up in defending a politician rather than looking at the history of this situation. I voted
>for Clinton and Obama but I don't think much of either of them.
Lesser of the two evil ...?
Mason C
<erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
This well-posted paragraph we should all know well.
I hate long posts so snip snip to this:
>> This all got so out of control due to banking deregulating starting with Clinton repealing the Glass-Stegal
>> act.
>
>"The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the
>Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of
>Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed
>by Republican majorities on party lines by a 54-44 vote in the Senate
>[12] and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives[13]. After
>passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference
>committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House
>versions. The final, veto-proof bill resolving the differences was
>passed in the Senate 90-8 (1 not voting) and in the House: 362-57 (15
>not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill
>Clinton on November 12, 1999."
>
>So the bill was passed by veto-proof margins in both houses. So why
>blame Clinton?
The idea of de-regulating things started long before Clinton. History is too
easily forgotten. Why was there a Glass-Stegal law? Forgotten.
Why were there all those other regulations? Forgotten.
So end the regulations and learn again.
( The house price crash was a little bubble on the really
big bubble of banks et al becoming casinos.)
Mason Clark
*Greater America in the Age of Rebellion*
http://frontal-lobe.info/greateramerica.html
-- many excerpts you can see --
Governor Swill
>Governor Swill wrote:
>> kim wrote:
>>> We all agree that the housing market brought us to where we are at
>>> today. You all should go and look at the stats of the defaulted loans
>>> (what timeframe did they all originate) for yourselves and decide
>>> who presided over this debacle.
>>
>> We do not so agree. The mortgages were the trigger, not the cause.
>> The cause was many hundreds of billions of derivatives sold
>> guaranteeing against investment losses. These "complex financial
>> instruments" were not specifically regulated.
>
>Nope.
>
>W/o the mortgages, there would have been no derivatives/mortgage backed
>securities.
Then it's really all the fault of the contractors for building all
those houses.
>The recent causes were, in order, due to the actions of:
>
>Bill Clinton (mortgages)
>http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html
>
>Phil Gramm (improper deregulation)
>http://losangeles.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/the-subprime-mess-and-phil-gramm-an-experiment-in-deregulation.aspx?googleid=242468
>
>Barney Frank (what problem?)
>http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
And this is news how?
My point still stands. Without the derivatives market, the mortgage
crisis would have been easily handled. A trillion bucks would have
fully covered it.
There was more money lost in derivatives than in mortgages. AIG, that
one company alone, had to take three quarters of a trillion dollars
from the government just to cover *their* credit default swap
liabilities. Five Wall Street investment houses collapsed because of
their CDS liability. Citi, Bank of America and Indymac all got burned
on credit default swaps. Some of this paper got sold round and round
and borrowed against too. Out of the mortgage money, Wall Street
built a huge paper market worth trillions and trillions of dollars.
That entire market is gone and has taken with it 60T in global wealth.
The mortgage values are pocket change compared to the value of the
global derivatives market.
Swill
--
"It's going to take more than three weeks to unfuck eight years of
George Bush's bungling." -- Christopher Helms
Governor Swill
> Governor Swill wrote:
>>kim wrote:
>>>We all agree that the housing market brought us to where we are at
>>>today. You all should go and look at the stats of the defaulted loans
>>>(what timeframe did they all originate) for yourselves and decide
>>>who presided over this debacle.
>>We do not so agree. The mortgages were the trigger, not the cause.
>>The cause was many hundreds of billions of derivatives sold
>>guaranteeing against investment losses. These "complex financial
>>instruments" were not specifically regulated.
>Derivatives from mortgages...?
Not entirely and that's the problem. Financial institutions with AIG
in the vanguard bought and sold insurance to each other on stock
values, other types of loans including credit card packages, any sort
of debt or liability that could be incurred could be insured.
Like I said, it wasn't just the mortgages. There were a lot of credit
default swaps whipping around.
Governor Swill
>> Derivatives from mortgages...?
>
> yep, idiots who bet the mortgage will fail, or be paid off. then they
>bet on the bet, and then they bet on the bet that bets on the bet, and
>so on. till there is millions of dollars of bets, on just one
>mortgage. completely silly, and the product of a free market system.
> and the free market calls them assets. and they are for sale, or used
>as collateral:) of course, no one in their right mind wants them
>today, and the free market squeals that if the government would just
>do away with the mark to market rule, then these so called assets,
>would become worth something. of course lying works, its what every
>free market crank does with out the slightest thought at all. because
>all information is perfect, and all players in a transaction are
>rational:)
You could buy a mortgage security from a bank, insure it against loss
at AIG, borrow against it from another bank to buy another mortgage
package and insure that and then borrow on THAT package to buy stock,
insure your stock value with AIG too, sell the mortgage security, pay
off the loans and then borrow to buy some other financial instrument
you could insure.
Iow, if it hadn't been for the irresponsibility of Wall Street with
their derivatives markets, we'd still have had a mortgage crisis, but
it would never have turned into a *banking* crisis.
Governor Swill
>This all got so out of control due to banking deregulating starting with Clinton repealing the Glas-Stegal
>act. Also the economy has been stagnating since before world war II but keeps getting prompted up. First the
>economy was propped up by epoch making innovations such as steam engines, railroads, auto mobilization,
>reinvestigating Europe and building the military industrial complex. After the end of the epoch making
>innovations (personal computers do not count) the economy was propped up by various bubbles. The dot come
>bubble, the housing bubble and coming soon to a neighborhood near you the US Treasury Bond bubble.
Can't hang it on Clinton. It was Republican authored legislation
passed by veto proof majorities in both Houses. The Senate passed it
98-2 iirc.
They didn't call it the Reagan Revolution for nothing. Even the
Democrats came to embrace the economic and fiscal policies of
Republicans (except for their nasty habit of spending too much).
Reagan's election led to thirty years of Republican centered
government.
Clinton had an opposition Congress. He had to give up some things to
get others and any opposition to Gramm-Leach-Bliley would only have
hurt his relations with both parties.
The current administration could mark the first real departure from
Republican policies in decades.
Governor Swill
>What Clinton did is most certainly material here.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html
>
>Note the timeframe.
Bush continued those policies. Alas, my links to the appropriate
documents were posted on the White House site which no longer has
them.
Governor Swill
> Sue Bilkens wrote:
>> kim wrote:
>>>What Clinton did is not material here. Go and study the timeframe
>>>that the crap mortgages were originated. I doubt you will find many
>>>of the defaulted notes are older than 5 years.
>>Of course it matters. We would not have had all these CDS without the repealing of Glas-Stegal. That would
>>be the Economic Modernization Act that repealed Glas-Stegal
>>Republican Congress under Bill Clinton and I believe it was Phil Graham.
>>This did not allow per se CDS Exemption but it opened the door to all kinds of new ways to play.
>If the crash happened in '99, it sure as hell would have been Slick
>Willie's fault. Since it happened 6 years after the guy's gone, the
>buck stopped at someone else's desk.
Wall Street had a full decade to skim trillions off the US economy.
Governor Swill
>Not the way it works.
>I've pointed out the three most responsible people for the recent
>situation: Bill Clinton, Phil Gramm, Barney Frank.
>I've also provided links to substantiate that. Of particular note is
>the article written in 1999 -- almost prophetic as to what would happen.
I disagree with you to some extent. The current mess is not a
mortgage crisis, it's a banking crisis. It was not "caused" by bad
mortgages, but triggered by them. The credit default swaps that
blossomed after Gramm-Leach-Bliley are the reason we have a banking
crisis. But for those derivative products, we'd have only a mortgage
crisis and it wouldn't have been nearly as severe as it has been.
Derivatives were not sold merely on mortgage securities. They were
sold on stock values and credit card securities too. Virtually any
financial instrument could be insured against risk.
Phil Gramm is far more at fault than Frank and Clinton put together.
You also discount Bush's role in promoting minority home ownership
with billions in government subsidies and the invention of the zero
down payment mortgage.
There is plenty of blame to go around for lots of stuff. You can
point your fingers at Democrats all you want and most of the time
you'll be right, but there is a bottom line here that cannot be
refuted.
Gramm-Leach-Bliley and Freddie Mac were Republican creations and the
scam started unraveling on the Republicans' watch.
Let's not forget that Bush's last Treasury Secretary was a former CEO
at Goldman Sach's and that his first two left after disagreements with
administration fiscal policy.
Rod Speed
Rod Speed
> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:01:50 -0400, in misc.consumers.frugal-living
> Governor Swill <governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Iow, if it hadn't been for the irresponsibility of Wall Street with
>> their derivatives markets, we'd still have had a mortgage crisis, but
>> it would never have turned into a *banking* crisis.
>
>
> mortgage brokers to produce so many loans.
Wrong. There were never enough CRA loans written to have made any difference.
Even if a significantly higher percentage of them had defaulted, and they didnt,
the most that could have done was increase the cost of the non CRA loans.
Wikking
> josej...@ssnet.net wrote:
>
>> This all got so out of control due to banking deregulating starting with Clinton repealing the Glas-Stegal
>> act. Also the economy has been stagnating since before world war II but keeps getting prompted up. First the
>> economy was propped up by epoch making innovations such as steam engines, railroads, auto mobilization,
>> reinvestigating Europe and building the military industrial complex. After the end of the epoch making
>> innovations (personal computers do not count) the economy was propped up by various bubbles. The dot come
>> bubble, the housing bubble and coming soon to a neighborhood near you the US Treasury Bond bubble.
>
> Can't hang it on Clinton. It was Republican authored legislation
> passed by veto proof majorities in both Houses. The Senate passed it
> 98-2 iirc.
The senate should be abolished.
--
}(:
Stray Dog
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009, Rod Speed wrote:
> Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:40:41 +1100
> From: Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, misc.consumers, misc.consumers.frugal-living,
> alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics, alt.computer.consultants
> Subject: Re: What's causing the economic meltdown
>
"Popped your cork" again, eh, Rod?
Nah, your whole "fuckwit" post is a big lie. Totally predictable, totally
the same, totally knee-jerk, totally bipolar, totally out of your control,
totally reproducible, totally mentally ill.
But, I like my version better.....
********************
Rod Speed, the gutless fuckwit psychopath with pathetic psychotic
delusions about being a human being, desperately cowering behind
his over-inflated ego and desperately attempting to bullshit and lie his way
out of his predicament and fooled only himself, as always.
No surprise that gives himself the bums rush, right out the door, onto his
own lard arse, by almost everyone on the newsgroups.
No surprise that he is so pathetically bitter and twisted about it that he
posts these "copy and paste," knee-jerk, brain-fart, repetitious-neurotic,
"come-backs" as if he thinks he is accomplishing anything purposeful outside
of Rambo-style pulling the trigger on a machine gun.
Too bad he can't tell the difference between his mouth and a machine gun;
hot air comes out of one, bullets or blanks the other.
******************
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks wrote:
>> Governor Swill wrote:
>>> kim wrote:
>>>> We all agree that the housing market brought us to where we are at
>>>> today. You all should go and look at the stats of the defaulted loans
>>>> (what timeframe did they all originate) for yourselves and decide
>>>> who presided over this debacle.
>>> We do not so agree. The mortgages were the trigger, not the cause.
>>> The cause was many hundreds of billions of derivatives sold
>>> guaranteeing against investment losses. These "complex financial
>>> instruments" were not specifically regulated.
>> Nope.
>>
>> W/o the mortgages, there would have been no derivatives/mortgage backed
>> securities.
>
> Then it's really all the fault of the contractors for building all
> those houses.
No, it isn't.
It is the fault of the government for attempting to impose socialism.
Socialism doesn't work.
>> The recent causes were, in order, due to the actions of:
>>
>> Bill Clinton (mortgages)
>> http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html
>>
>> Phil Gramm (improper deregulation)
>> http://losangeles.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/the-subprime-mess-and-phil-gramm-an-experiment-in-deregulation.aspx?googleid=242468
>>
>> Barney Frank (what problem?)
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
>
> And this is news how?
>
> My point still stands. Without the derivatives market, the mortgage
> crisis would have been easily handled. A trillion bucks would have
> fully covered it.
That's the spirit. Socialism only costs us a trillion or so.
I'm not interested in paying $1 for socialism.
> There was more money lost in derivatives than in mortgages. AIG, that
> one company alone, had to take three quarters of a trillion dollars
> from the government just to cover *their* credit default swap
> liabilities. Five Wall Street investment houses collapsed because of
> their CDS liability. Citi, Bank of America and Indymac all got burned
> on credit default swaps. Some of this paper got sold round and round
> and borrowed against too. Out of the mortgage money, Wall Street
> built a huge paper market worth trillions and trillions of dollars.
> That entire market is gone and has taken with it 60T in global wealth.
>
> The mortgage values are pocket change compared to the value of the
> global derivatives market.
Yes, that is correct. And with the government implicitly guaranteeing
Federal National Mortgage Association mortgages, why would anyone
trading MBSs care? They wouldn't -- it was a gold rush based on
socialistic principles.
That's old news. But it is news that is never discussed.
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks wrote:
>> What Clinton did is most certainly material here.
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html
>>
>> Note the timeframe.
>
> Bush continued those policies. Alas, my links to the appropriate
> documents were posted on the White House site which no longer has
> them.
Wonderful.
Bush may have perpetuated (you haven't substantiated this claim), but
Clinton was largely the impetus (read: recent cause), which is what is
being discussed.
Have a good day.
Peter Franks
Clinton didn't open the door, he lit the match and started the fire. It
may have been smoldering when Bush took office, and some in his
administration saw that, but thanks to 'no problem here' Frank, not much
happened.
Bush is no angel, but he didn't cause the mess.
You want to blame people, I already pointed them out.
You want to blame ideologies, blame socialism.
Peter Franks
> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>> Not the way it works.
>> I've pointed out the three most responsible people for the recent
>> situation: Bill Clinton, Phil Gramm, Barney Frank.
>> I've also provided links to substantiate that. Of particular note is
>> the article written in 1999 -- almost prophetic as to what would happen.
>
> I disagree with you to some extent. The current mess is not a
> mortgage crisis, it's a banking crisis. It was not "caused" by bad
> mortgages, but triggered by them. The credit default swaps that
> blossomed after Gramm-Leach-Bliley are the reason we have a banking
> crisis. But for those derivative products, we'd have only a mortgage
> crisis and it wouldn't have been nearly as severe as it has been.
>
> Derivatives were not sold merely on mortgage securities. They were
> sold on stock values and credit card securities too. Virtually any
> financial instrument could be insured against risk.
>
> Phil Gramm is far more at fault than Frank and Clinton put together.
> You also discount Bush's role in promoting minority home ownership
> with billions in government subsidies and the invention of the zero
> down payment mortgage.
In terms of total $$ losses, Gramm leads the pack to be sure. But,
those derivatives were predicated on the presumption that the government
was covering potential losses from the MBSs. With that implicit
guarantee, derivatives were a sure bet/no lose proposition. Can you say
feeding frenzy?
Who except the most prudent of people wouldn't gamble on a sure thing
like that?
IF the feds EXPLICITLY chartered the Federal National Mortgage
Association in such a way (even presuming the feds have the authority to
create GSEs -- which they don't, but that is a different conversation)
so that there was no federal guarantee, the MBSs derivatives market
would have never reached the level that it did. No Wall Street investor
is going to invest in sub-prime anything, including mortgages.
> There is plenty of blame to go around for lots of stuff. You can
> point your fingers at Democrats all you want and most of the time
> you'll be right, but there is a bottom line here that cannot be
> refuted.
Gramm isn't a Democrat. I'm pointing out fact, my party likes/dislikes
is irrelevant and not part of this discussion.
> Gramm-Leach-Bliley and Freddie Mac were Republican creations and the
> scam started unraveling on the Republicans' watch.
>
> Let's not forget that Bush's last Treasury Secretary was a former CEO
> at Goldman Sach's and that his first two left after disagreements with
> administration fiscal policy.
Ok, so you aren't interested in pointing fingers at people, so be it.
Then let's look at the core cause: socialism.
The economic failures of recent are just another manifestation of the
failures of socialism. Funny how you never hear that discussed in the
MSM --
Dave Garland
> It is the fault of the government for attempting to impose socialism.
> Socialism doesn't work.
Yup. Capitalism is the answer.
Capitalism is a guy (we'll call him "Mr. Weasel") taking a bag of
money and going down to skid row, setting up a table. He'll loan
anybody $100, no questions asked, you pay back $200 in a year. Well,
there are a few questions, but he's a nice guy, he'll help you fill
out the form, you don't need to worry about it.
But he does worry that some small number of these bums might not
remember to pay him back in a year with interest. So he pays
somebody, let's call him "Mr. Goody", $5 apiece to "rate" the loans as
absolutely gold plated, reliable, safe as houses. Then he goes to a
wholesaler, "Sorg & Manley", points out how safe an investment they
are, and gives them a deal. For a mere $150 they can buy a loan.
Weasel makes $45, and BS will make $50 (plus get the principal back)
in a year. By the way, BS isn't the only wholesaler... Lame Brothers,
Barclay Gin & Banking, KittyBank, and others are buying too.
The only possible problem is that if all these guys failed, the
banking system would be toast and it'd be into the next century before
anyone would give out loans again (and a "just in time" economy needs
loans to keep things lubricated). And that the gummint bank insurance
would get stuck with paying off all those unhappy bank depositors who
the banks didn't have enough money to pay. But that's all crazy,
couldn't possibly happen, it would be like the Cubs winning the World
Series, or the earth getting hit by a big meteorite.
Weasel is happy, closes his office, and goes off to Costa Rica to lead
the good life.
SM wants to cover their butt against the loans going bad, even though
Weasel and Goody say they couldn't possibly, so SM buys insurance from
BIG Insurance for another $5. So now SM will only profit $45, but
they're absolutely positively safe.
Bonuses all around. Madoff was a piker.
Yep, capitalism is wonderful.
Of course, Weasel knew that half the loans were probably worthless,
Goody would say anything Weasel wanted so long as they got their $5,
SM didn't bother to do any due diligence in reviewing the loans, and
BIG was just pocketing the insurance payments without setting aside
any reserves to pay claims. After all, what could possibly go wrong?
Capitalism at its finest.
Rod Speed
Crash
> The actual facts:http://tinyurl.com/5lh83s
>
Technically it is unethical to suggest that any republican, nor any
form of deregulation, could possibly have contributed to the creation
of the big giant mess...
To do so would smack of "maybe it was a bi-partisan effort" and that
would make rush limbaugh's head explode and you would be labelled a
"whining American"...
And also you cannot suggest that invading the wrong country, NOT
confiscating any oil, and burrying the cost of the mis-adventure under
"off budget emergency spending" could have contributed either...
Stray Dog
On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, Rod Speed wrote:
> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 06:39:36 +1100
> From: Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.global-warming, misc.consumers, misc.consumers.frugal-living,
> alt.politics.democrats, alt.politics, alt.computer.consultants
> Subject: Re: What's causing the economic meltdown
>
I like my version better....
Rod Speed
Governor Swill
>Governor Swill wrote:
>> Peter Franks wrote:
>>> Governor Swill wrote:
>>>> kim wrote:
>>>>> We all agree that the housing market brought us to where we are at
>>>>> today.
<snip>
>>>> We do not so agree. The mortgages were the trigger, not the cause.
<snip>
>>> Nope.
>>> W/o the mortgages, there would have been no derivatives/mortgage backed
>>> securities.
>> Then it's really all the fault of the contractors for building all
>> those houses.
>No, it isn't.
It is using your logic. The derivatives collapsed the financial
system. You posit there would have been on derivatives without
mortgages, ignoring for the moment that mortgages were not the only
thing derivatives were sold for. The next step is that if there had
not been houses to sell, there wouldn't have been so many bad
mortgages. My statement follows perfectly.
The government and the media have sold us quite a bill of goods with
this mortgage business. It's race based to start with and wasn't the
real problem. Subprime was "a" problem but not "the" problem.
Credit default swaps were "the" problem. They were sold for all kinds
of stuff. Worried that million in stock you bought might do down?
Call AIG. For a modest fee now, they'll cover your losses if your
stock tanks.
Invest in a Chinese factory and not sure it's going well? Call your
bank and see if they'll work out a credit default swap so if you lose
money, they'll reimburse you.
Make a high interest, risky loan and don't want to lose your money? Do
a cds with Merrill Lynch in case the deadbeat skips.
The bank loans you money to buy a house. The sell this mortgage to
somebody else so they get back their capital and some profit
immediately. They continue to service the loan so the borrower often
doesn't even realize his bank doesn't hold his mortgage anymore.
The next step is to bundle mortgages into packages and then issue
securities based on their value to raise cash and get profit now.
Then you get your credit default swap into the game. You buy an
investment and for a fee, somebody else will cover any loss.
It's that last bit that was the problem. And it wasn't a problem when
the mortgages first started to default. It became a problem when the
"insurers" had to pony up to cover the "insured" who's stocks had been
tumbling steadily for six months following July, 2007.
Wamu didn't get into trouble with mortgages, they got in trouble with
credit default swaps.
>It is the fault of the government for attempting to impose socialism.
>Socialism doesn't work.
It was the very opposite. It was rampant capitalism completely
unfettered by regulation. The problem was not the mortgages, it was
the credit default swaps.
>>> The recent causes were, in order, due to the actions of:
>>>
>>> Bill Clinton (mortgages)
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/1999/09/30/business/fannie-mae-eases-credit-to-aid-mortgage-lending.html
>>>
>>> Phil Gramm (improper deregulation)
>>> http://losangeles.injuryboard.com/miscellaneous/the-subprime-mess-and-phil-gramm-an-experiment-in-deregulation.aspx?googleid=242468
>>>
>>> Barney Frank (what problem?)
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
>>
>> And this is news how?
>>
>> My point still stands. Without the derivatives market, the mortgage
>> crisis would have been easily handled. A trillion bucks would have
>> fully covered it.
>
>That's the spirit. Socialism only costs us a trillion or so.
You can invoke "socialism" all you want but it's not going to stop
this government from spending a whale of a lot more money trying to
fix the mess Bush left.
>I'm not interested in paying $1 for socialism.
You don't have any choice. You've been paying for it since before you
were born.
>> There was more money lost in derivatives than in mortgages. AIG, that
>> one company alone, had to take three quarters of a trillion dollars
>> from the government just to cover *their* credit default swap
>> liabilities. Five Wall Street investment houses collapsed because of
>> their CDS liability. Citi, Bank of America and Indymac all got burned
>> on credit default swaps. Some of this paper got sold round and round
>> and borrowed against too. Out of the mortgage money, Wall Street
>> built a huge paper market worth trillions and trillions of dollars.
>> That entire market is gone and has taken with it 60T in global wealth.
>>
>> The mortgage values are pocket change compared to the value of the
>> global derivatives market.
>
>Yes, that is correct. And with the government implicitly guaranteeing
>Federal National Mortgage Association mortgages, why would anyone
>trading MBSs care? They wouldn't -- it was a gold rush based on
>socialistic principles.
The risky mortgages that triggered the cds collapse were not Fannie
Mae mortgages. They were all private mortgages by private banks.
While Bush's FHA and Congress were more than happy to invent the zero
down payment rule for the banks, the banks were equally happy to make
loans without providing proof of income. These high interest loans
made for excellent mortgage security fodder. They broke the bank.
But they weren't Fannie Mae loans. Fannie Mae still required a
minimum down payment. So did Freddie Mac.
>That's old news. But it is news that is never discussed.
It should be discussed. Bush pushed hard to get minorities into
homes. He said he wanted to rewrite regulations for Fannie and
Freddie but did he ever state what exactly he wanted to do?
Zero down was eventually accomplished by FHA rules which opened the
private market just plain abuse of the government's regulations
intended to promote home ownership as the first step in wealth
creation.
Those regulations have lifted more people out of poverty than anything
the govt has ever done.
Governor Swill
If I had ovaries, I'd offer to have one of your babies.
Governor Swill
> Governor Swill wrote:
>>Iow, if it hadn't been for the irresponsibility of Wall Street with
>>their derivatives markets, we'd still have had a mortgage crisis, but
>>it would never have turned into a *banking* crisis.
>There would not be a mortgage crisis if Wal Street had not pushed mortgage brokers to produce so many loans.
There is that side too. Fannie and Freddie didn't do zero down
subprimes. They had regulations which the Republicans wanted to
remove that prevented them from doing so. The subprimes were a
private market creation sparked by the Republicans having invented the
zero down.
Governor Swill
>josej...@ssnet.net wrote:
>> Governor Swill wrote:
>>> Iow, if it hadn't been for the irresponsibility of Wall Street with
>>> their derivatives markets, we'd still have had a mortgage crisis, but
>>> it would never have turned into a *banking* crisis.
>> There would not be a mortgage crisis if Wal Street had not pushed
>> mortgage brokers to produce so many loans.
>Wrong. There were never enough CRA loans written to have made any difference.
What does CRA have to do with it?
>Even if a significantly higher percentage of them had defaulted, and they didnt,
>the most that could have done was increase the cost of the non CRA loans.
Exactly. It wasn't the loans that were the problem. It was the
trillions of dollars in bogus paper that was built on them.
Governor Swill
>> Bush continued those policies. Alas, my links to the appropriate
>> documents were posted on the White House site which no longer has
>> them.
>Wonderful.
>
>Bush may have perpetuated (you haven't substantiated this claim), but
>Clinton was largely the impetus (read: recent cause), which is what is
>being discussed.
Rather difficult for Clinton to be the (recent cause) when he's been
out of office for eight years. I'll bet you think people are actually
gullible enough to believe stuff like that don't you?
Oh! I geddit! You think the *mortgages* were the problem. Wamu's
foreclosure rate was lower than the national average. They only got
bought because they had good loans. Wamu went bust playing the
derivatives market. As has been pointed out elsewhere, bad loans
increase the cost of other credit. In and of itself, a housing bust
is not enough to break the financial system.
Governor Swill
>Clinton didn't open the door, he lit the match and started the fire.
No, he didn't. Phil Gramm and the 106th Congress passed the
legislation that repealed the remains of Glass-Steagall and caused
this mess.
The mortgage crisis was not the cause of the financial panic. It was
a trigger for a deeper and more corrupt problem. The abuse of credit
default swaps.
> It may have been smoldering when Bush took office, and some in his
>administration saw that, but thanks to 'no problem here' Frank, not much
>happened.
>Bush is no angel, but he didn't cause the mess.
No, but he didn't stop it either. Probably got that deer in
headlights look and didn't see it coming.
>You want to blame people, I already pointed them out.
>
>You want to blame ideologies, blame socialism.
You misspelled "capitalism". Unfettered capitalism caused this.
Poetic Justice
Tell me we have laws to stop this kind of inter species procreation....
Governor Swill
>> Phil Gramm is far more at fault than Frank and Clinton put together.
>> You also discount Bush's role in promoting minority home ownership
>> with billions in government subsidies and the invention of the zero
>> down payment mortgage.
>
>In terms of total $$ losses, Gramm leads the pack to be sure. But,
>those derivatives were predicated on the presumption that the government
>was covering potential losses from the MBSs. With that implicit
>guarantee, derivatives were a sure bet/no lose proposition. Can you say
>feeding frenzy?
It's what I've been pointing out. The government had an interest in
getting Americans into their own homes. Those bad loans were never
guaranteed by the government but certain assumptions were allowed to
be held.
>Who except the most prudent of people wouldn't gamble on a sure thing
>like that?
>
>IF the feds EXPLICITLY chartered the Federal National Mortgage
>Association in such a way (even presuming the feds have the authority to
>create GSEs -- which they don't, but that is a different conversation)
>so that there was no federal guarantee, the MBSs derivatives market
>would have never reached the level that it did. No Wall Street investor
>is going to invest in sub-prime anything, including mortgages.
The banks did that. They were so desperate to sell mortgages that
they overvalued homes. For them, it was a win-win scenario. They
resell the loan right away and get their capital and a smaller profit
back immediately so they can make another loan to sell. This sort of
thing has been going on since the seventies.
What's different is the 1999 banking changes and credit default swaps.
>> There is plenty of blame to go around for lots of stuff. You can
>> point your fingers at Democrats all you want and most of the time
>> you'll be right, but there is a bottom line here that cannot be
>> refuted.
>
>Gramm isn't a Democrat.
Well, DUH! Where did I say he was?
> I'm pointing out fact, my party likes/dislikes
>is irrelevant and not part of this discussion.
You've certainly pointed your finger at Clinton often enough. Clinton
did not write Gramm-Leach-Bliley, he did not pass Gramm-Leach-Bliley,
he signed it after the 106th Congress passed it with a veto proof
majority. He had no choice. Unless you consider pissing off an
opposition Congress a choice.
>> Gramm-Leach-Bliley and Freddie Mac were Republican creations and the
>> scam started unraveling on the Republicans' watch.
>>
>> Let's not forget that Bush's last Treasury Secretary was a former CEO
>> at Goldman Sach's and that his first two left after disagreements with
>> administration fiscal policy.
>
>Ok, so you aren't interested in pointing fingers at people, so be it.
*I* didn't say that. What I've been doing is listing causes and
naming some names. That's what any investigation is supposed to do.
Thing is, you have to have the right names.
>Then let's look at the core cause: socialism.
Capitalism. Remember, the credit defaults were the root of the
problem and they were sparked by the banking deregulation contained in
among other Congressional banking legislation of the period,
Gramm-Leach-Bliley.
The mortgages weren't the cause, they were the trigger. Just like the
credit default swaps were the charge and the stock markets were the
bullet.
>The economic failures of recent are just another manifestation of the
>failures of socialism. Funny how you never hear that discussed in the
>MSM --
Capitalism. Unfettered, under regulated, unsupervised capitalism.
Governor Swill
>> Can't hang it on Clinton. It was Republican authored legislation
>> passed by veto proof majorities in both Houses. The Senate passed it
>> 98-2 iirc.
>
>The senate should be abolished.
Go away little person.
Rod Speed
>>>> Iow, if it hadn't been for the irresponsibility of Wall Street with
>>>> their derivatives markets, we'd still have had a mortgage crisis,
>>>> but it would never have turned into a *banking* crisis.
>>> There would not be a mortgage crisis if Wal Street had
>>> not pushed mortgage brokers to produce so many loans.
>> Wrong. There were never enough CRA loans written to have made any difference.
> What does CRA have to do with it?
Those were the only loans pushed on anyone.
>> Even if a significantly higher percentage of them had
>> defaulted, and they didnt, the most that could have
>> done was increase the cost of the non CRA loans.
> Exactly. It wasn't the loans that were the problem. It was
> the trillions of dollars in bogus paper that was built on them.
Nope, that wasnt built on the CRA loans.
Rod Speed
> Peter Franks wrote
>> Clinton didn't open the door, he lit the match and started the fire.
> No, he didn't. Phil Gramm and the 106th Congress passed the legislation
> that repealed the remains of Glass-Steagall and caused this mess.
Nope, neither canada or australia had anything like Glass-Steagall
and not one of their retail banks imploded spectacularly or even
needed to be bailed out, so it cant have been that.
> The mortgage crisis was not the cause of the financial panic.
> It was a trigger for a deeper and more corrupt problem.
> The abuse of credit default swaps.
Those werent 'corrupt', they were perfectly legal.
Just terminally stupid in the way that only fuckwit yanks can be terminally stupid, twice now.
>> It may have been smoldering when Bush took office,
>> and some in his administration saw that, but thanks
>> to 'no problem here' Frank, not much happened.
>> Bush is no angel, but he didn't cause the mess.
> No, but he didn't stop it either. Probably got that
> deer in headlights look and didn't see it coming.
Neither did anyone else, including you.
>> You want to blame people, I already pointed them out.
>> You want to blame ideologies, blame socialism.
> You misspelled "capitalism". Unfettered capitalism caused this.
Yep. It aint unfettered, just not adequately regulated.
kim
<governo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Peter Franks wrote:
>>> Bush continued those policies. Alas, my links to the appropriate
>>> documents were posted on the White House site which no longer has
>>> them.
>
>>Wonderful.
>>
>>Bush may have perpetuated (you haven't substantiated this claim), but
>>Clinton was largely the impetus (read: recent cause), which is what is
>>being discussed.
>
>Rather difficult for Clinton to be the (recent cause) when he's been
>out of office for eight years. I'll bet you think people are actually
>gullible enough to believe stuff like that don't you?
>
>Oh! I geddit! You think the *mortgages* were the problem. Wamu's
>foreclosure rate was lower than the national average. They only got
>bought because they had good loans. Wamu went bust playing the
>derivatives market. As has been pointed out elsewhere, bad loans
>increase the cost of other credit. In and of itself, a housing bust
>is not enough to break the financial system.
>
>Swill
Imagine a pyramid built upside down. Once the first few stones crack
and crumble from the pressure, the entire stucture will collapse.
Mortgages were the base of this pyramid. Most of them are less than 5
years old.
Governor Swill
>Governor Swill wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> josej...@ssnet.net wrote
>>>> Governor Swill wrote:
>>>>> Iow, if it hadn't been for the irresponsibility of Wall Street with
>>>>> their derivatives markets, we'd still have had a mortgage crisis,
>>>>> but it would never have turned into a *banking* crisis.
>>>> There would not be a mortgage crisis if Wal Street had
>>>> not pushed mortgage brokers to produce so many loans.
>>> Wrong. There were never enough CRA loans written to have made any difference.
>> What does CRA have to do with it?
>
>Those were the only loans pushed on anyone.
Um, no. CRA is specifically targeted at low income and minority
borrowers who are required to prove income and have a down.
The subprimes that triggered the cds crisis was a different matter. It
was the private market that made loans with no down, not F&F. It was
the private banks that made loans without proof of income. Again F&F
had standards and required proof of income.
It was the private market, not any government agency that made zero
down loans without proof of income with exploding arms and sold them
as securities which were then insured by unregulated credit default
swaps.
When housing prices flattened, arms blew up and folks in those "e-z
cheap" loans discovered their mortgage wasn't payable, they dumped.
Securities holders started cashing in their swaps. As more and more
arms adjusted up, more and more new homeowners found out the bank was
wrong. They couldn't refi and they couldn't sell for enough to get
out of their mortgage. More hm securities got cashed in to swap
issuers. Add to this the stock market tumble. Stock buyers who also
bought swaps started making their claims.
It's because of credit default swaps, not subprime mortgages.
>>> Even if a significantly higher percentage of them had
>>> defaulted, and they didnt, the most that could have
>>> done was increase the cost of the non CRA loans.
>
>> Exactly. It wasn't the loans that were the problem. It was
>> the trillions of dollars in bogus paper that was built on them.
>
>Nope, that wasnt built on the CRA loans.
CRA mortgages are irrelevant to the crash. So are F&F mortgages.
"Sen. McCAIN: Absolutely, Larry. There were people who predicted that
the Community Reinvestment Act might lead to reckless and unsound
lending practices just to sort of fill a--you know, a amount of--I
don't like to use the word "quota," but certain percentages of a--of a
home--of the bank's lending practices. Yes, it has to be re-examined,
it has to be judged by its effect, and we need to find out how this
particular system affected the overall insolvency of the subprime
lending issue. And I think it--I'm not saying it needs to be repealed,
but it certainly needs to be re-examined and what its effects have
been. And we'll be able to figure that out."
Yet again McCains shows why he was not the best man for the job.
This comprehensive article critizes both sides for playing the blame
game.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1841981,00.html
It has become an article of faith for many on the left — and some from
other political precincts — that the 1999 repeal of the Depression-era
Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial banks from Wall Street,
is directly responsible for our current dire financial plight. Its
repeal, argued journalist Robert Kuttner in testimony before Congress
last year, enabled "super-banks ... to re-enact the same kinds of
structural conflicts of interest that were endemic in the 1920s."
Kuttner may be right about the conflicts, but it's awfully hard to see
how they brought on the current mess. In fact, Bank of America's
takeover of Merrill Lynch and JP Morgan Chase's of Bear Stearns
underscored a truth that was already becoming apparent on Wall Street
— super-banks (more commonly known as universal banks) are, for all
their flaws, a lot more stable and secure than un-super investment
banks.
"If you didn't have commercial banks ready to step in, you'd have a
vastly bigger crisis today," says Jim Leach, a Republican former
Congressman from Iowa (and current Barack Obama supporter) whose name
is on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that repealed Glass-Steagall. Leach
is no neutral observer, and there can be no proving that
Glass-Steagall repeal has made the world safer. But amid the
predictable debate now underway about how much new financial
regulation is needed, it just doesn't make a very convincing scapegoat
for the crisis.
Also unconvincing is the claim made by some conservatives that the
Clinton Administration's 1995 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)
regulations, which pushed banks to lend in poor communities, caused
the subprime mortgage lending binge that sparked the current troubles.
It's certainly conceivable that Washington's long-held obsession with
fostering home ownership helped fuel the housing bubble. But when the
subprime lending binge really took off from 2003 to 2006, financial
institutions subject to CRA weren't the ones leading the way. Neither
were government-sponsored behemoths Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
No, starting in 2003, as a long boom in house prices and mortgage
lending that had at least some foundation in economic reality (lower
interest rates, higher incomes) gave way to an orgy of ever-sharper
price increases fueled by ever-dodgier loans, the folks in the
drivers' seat were the mortgage brokers that made the loans and the
Wall Street investment banks that packaged them into private-label
mortgage-backed securities."
An excellent piece of logic here that exonerates F&F and CRA from the
current mess.
http://bayoustjohndavid.blogspot.com/2008/09/cra-caused-mortgage-crisis-meme.html
"Now, first, I am no fan of the CRA, and I do believe that it had the
effect that its attackers say it had, however, the effect is
significantly more limited than any of the conservative partisan make
it out to be. As such, while it may have had a corrossive effect on
lending standards, this effect was a small blip compared to other
factors.
...
To really prove that CRA was an insignificant factor, what one really
needs to do is identify those areas most helped by the real estate
boom and also those areas with the most foreclosures. If all these
Conservatives are correct, then the real estate boom would have
centered most of all in most of the poorest areas of the country and
the current crisis in foreclosures would also be the same. In other
words, the years 2003-2007 should have then seen an explosion in areas
like Bedford Stuyvesant in New York, Englewood in Chicago, and Compton
in California, and on the flip side those areas should be leading the
pack for foreclosures now.
Instead, the biggest concentrations of foreclosures can be found in
well to do areas like Boca Raton, Riverside County near San Diego, and
of course Las Vegas. Does anyone really believe that there was an
explosion of lending in Vegas because banks were attempting to meet
some sort of quota of lending to poor folks? In fact, the real estate
boom had a fairly negligible effect on the poorest areas of the
country. In fact, the same areas Boca, Phoenix, Miami, and Vegas that
boomed the most during the height of the real estate market are also
now the ones suffering the most now that it is over."
Governor Swill
>Imagine a pyramid built upside down. Once the first few stones crack
>and crumble from the pressure, the entire stucture will collapse.
>Mortgages were the base of this pyramid. Most of them are less than 5
>years old.
The banks drove the bad loans. The credit default swaps flipped the
pyramid.
Governor Swill
>> The mortgage crisis was not the cause of the financial panic.
>> It was a trigger for a deeper and more corrupt problem.
>> The abuse of credit default swaps.
>
>Those werent 'corrupt', they were perfectly legal.
There's a difference between legality and ethics.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Governor Swill wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> josej...@ssnet.net wrote
>>>>> Governor Swill wrote
>>>>>> Iow, if it hadn't been for the irresponsibility of Wall Street
>>>>>> with their derivatives markets, we'd still have had a mortgage
>>>>>> crisis, but it would never have turned into a *banking* crisis.
>>>>> There would not be a mortgage crisis if Wal Street had
>>>>> not pushed mortgage brokers to produce so many loans.
>>>> Wrong. There were never enough CRA loans written to have made any difference.
>>> What does CRA have to do with it?
>> Those were the only loans pushed on anyone.
> Um, no.
Fraid so.
> CRA is specifically targeted at low income and minority borrowers
> who are required to prove income and have a down.
They were however the only loans pushed on any mortgage brokers by anyone.
> The subprimes that triggered the cds crisis was a different matter.
> It was the private market that made loans with no down, not F&F.
Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
> It was the private banks that made loans without proof of income.
> Again F&F had standards and required proof of income.
Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
> It was the private market, not any government agency that made zero
> down loans without proof of income with exploding arms and sold them
> as securities which were then insured by unregulated credit default swaps.
Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
> When housing prices flattened, arms blew up
Plenty of them never did.
> and folks in those "e-z cheap" loans discovered
> their mortgage wasn't payable, they dumped.
Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
> Securities holders started cashing in their swaps. As more and more
> arms adjusted up, more and more new homeowners found out the
> bank was wrong. They couldn't refi and they couldn't sell for enough
> to get out of their mortgage. More hm securities got cashed in to
> swap issuers. Add to this the stock market tumble. Stock buyers
> who also bought swaps started making their claims.
Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
> It's because of credit default swaps, not subprime mortgages.
Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
>>>> Even if a significantly higher percentage of them had
>>>> defaulted, and they didnt, the most that could have
>>>> done was increase the cost of the non CRA loans.
>>> Exactly. It wasn't the loans that were the problem. It was
>>> the trillions of dollars in bogus paper that was built on them.
>> Nope, that wasnt built on the CRA loans.
> CRA mortgages are irrelevant to the crash. So are F&F mortgages.
What I said in different words.
> "Sen. McCAIN: Absolutely, Larry. There were people who predicted
> that the Community Reinvestment Act might lead to reckless and
> unsound lending practices just to sort of fill a--you know, a amount of--
> I don't like to use the word "quota," but certain percentages of a--of a
> home--of the bank's lending practices. Yes, it has to be re-examined,
> it has to be judged by its effect, and we need to find out how this
> particular system affected the overall insolvency of the subprime
> lending issue. And I think it--I'm not saying it needs to be repealed,
> but it certainly needs to be re-examined and what its effects have
> been. And we'll be able to figure that out."
Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
> Yet again McCains shows why he was not the best man for the job.
> This comprehensive article critizes both sides for playing the blame game.
> http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1841981,00.html
> It has become an article of faith for many on the left - and some from
> other political precincts - that the 1999 repeal of the Depression-era
> Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial banks from Wall Street,
> is directly responsible for our current dire financial plight. Its
> repeal, argued journalist Robert Kuttner in testimony before Congress
> last year, enabled "super-banks ... to re-enact the same kinds of
> structural conflicts of interest that were endemic in the 1920s."
Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
> Kuttner may be right about the conflicts, but it's awfully hard to see
> how they brought on the current mess. In fact, Bank of America's
> takeover of Merrill Lynch and JP Morgan Chase's of Bear Stearns
> underscored a truth that was already becoming apparent on Wall Street
> - super-banks (more commonly known as universal banks) are, for all
> their flaws, a lot more stable and secure than un-super investment banks.
Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
> "If you didn't have commercial banks ready to step in, you'd have a
> vastly bigger crisis today," says Jim Leach, a Republican former
> Congressman from Iowa (and current Barack Obama supporter) whose name
> is on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that repealed Glass-Steagall. Leach
> is no neutral observer, and there can be no proving that
> Glass-Steagall repeal has made the world safer. But amid the
> predictable debate now underway about how much new financial
> regulation is needed, it just doesn't make a very convincing scapegoat
> for the crisis.
Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
> Also unconvincing is the claim made by some conservatives that the
> Clinton Administration's 1995 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)
> regulations, which pushed banks to lend in poor communities, caused
> the subprime mortgage lending binge that sparked the current troubles.
> It's certainly conceivable that Washington's long-held obsession with
> fostering home ownership helped fuel the housing bubble. But when the
> subprime lending binge really took off from 2003 to 2006, financial
> institutions subject to CRA weren't the ones leading the way. Neither
> were government-sponsored behemoths Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
> No, starting in 2003, as a long boom in house prices and mortgage
> lending that had at least some foundation in economic reality (lower
> interest rates, higher incomes) gave way to an orgy of ever-sharper
> price increases fueled by ever-dodgier loans, the folks in the
> drivers' seat were the mortgage brokers that made the loans and the
> Wall Street investment banks that packaged them into private-label
> mortgage-backed securities."
Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
> An excellent piece of logic here that exonerates F&F and CRA from the current mess.
> http://bayoustjohndavid.blogspot.com/2008/09/cra-caused-mortgage-crisis-meme.html
> "Now, first, I am no fan of the CRA, and I do believe that it had the
> effect that its attackers say it had, however, the effect is
> significantly more limited than any of the conservative partisan make
> it out to be. As such, while it may have had a corrossive effect on
> lending standards, this effect was a small blip compared to other factors.
Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
> To really prove that CRA was an insignificant factor, what one really
> needs to do is identify those areas most helped by the real estate
> boom and also those areas with the most foreclosures. If all these
> Conservatives are correct, then the real estate boom would have
> centered most of all in most of the poorest areas of the country and
> the current crisis in foreclosures would also be the same. In other
> words, the years 2003-2007 should have then seen an explosion in areas
> like Bedford Stuyvesant in New York, Englewood in Chicago, and Compton
> in California, and on the flip side those areas should be leading the
> pack for foreclosures now.
Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
> Instead, the biggest concentrations of foreclosures can be found in
> well to do areas like Boca Raton, Riverside County near San Diego, and
> of course Las Vegas. Does anyone really believe that there was an
> explosion of lending in Vegas because banks were attempting to meet
> some sort of quota of lending to poor folks? In fact, the real estate
> boom had a fairly negligible effect on the poorest areas of the
> country. In fact, the same areas Boca, Phoenix, Miami, and Vegas that
> boomed the most during the height of the real estate market are also
> now the ones suffering the most now that it is over."
Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Governor Swill wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> josej...@ssnet.net wrote
>>>>> Governor Swill wrote
>>>>>> Iow, if it hadn't been for the irresponsibility of Wall Street
>>>>>> with their derivatives markets, we'd still have had a mortgage
>>>>>> crisis, but it would never have turned into a banking crisis.
>>>>> There would not be a mortgage crisis if Wal Street had
>>>>> not pushed mortgage brokers to produce so many loans.
>>>> Wrong. There were never enough CRA loans written to have made any difference.
>>> What does CRA have to do with it?
>> Those were the only loans pushed on anyone.
> Um, no.
Fraid so.
> CRA is specifically targeted at low income and minority borrowers
> who are required to prove income and have a down.
They were however the only loans pushed on any mortgage brokers by anyone.
> The subprimes that triggered the cds crisis was a different matter.
> It was the private market that made loans with no down, not F&F.
Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
> It was the private banks that made loans without proof of income.
> Again F&F had standards and required proof of income.
Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
> It was the private market, not any government agency that made zero
> down loans without proof of income with exploding arms and sold them
> as securities which were then insured by unregulated credit default swaps.
Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
> When housing prices flattened, arms blew up
Plenty of them never did.
> and folks in those "e-z cheap" loans discovered
> their mortgage wasn't payable, they dumped.
Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
> Securities holders started cashing in their swaps. As more and more
> arms adjusted up, more and more new homeowners found out the
> bank was wrong. They couldn't refi and they couldn't sell for enough
> to get out of their mortgage. More hm securities got cashed in to
> swap issuers. Add to this the stock market tumble. Stock buyers
> who also bought swaps started making their claims.
Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
> It's because of credit default swaps, not subprime mortgages.
Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
>>>> Even if a significantly higher percentage of them had
>>>> defaulted, and they didnt, the most that could have
>>>> done was increase the cost of the non CRA loans.
>>> Exactly. It wasn't the loans that were the problem. It was
>>> the trillions of dollars in bogus paper that was built on them.
>> Nope, that wasnt built on the CRA loans.
> CRA mortgages are irrelevant to the crash. So are F&F mortgages.
What I said in different words.
> "Sen. McCAIN: Absolutely, Larry. There were people who predicted
> that the Community Reinvestment Act might lead to reckless and
> unsound lending practices just to sort of fill a--you know, a amount of--
> I don't like to use the word "quota," but certain percentages of a--of a
> home--of the bank's lending practices. Yes, it has to be re-examined,
> it has to be judged by its effect, and we need to find out how this
> particular system affected the overall insolvency of the subprime
> lending issue. And I think it--I'm not saying it needs to be repealed,
> but it certainly needs to be re-examined and what its effects have
> been. And we'll be able to figure that out."
Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
> Yet again McCains shows why he was not the best man for the job.
It remains to be seen if some silver tounged half white lawyer is any better.
> This comprehensive article critizes both sides for playing the blame game.
> http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1841981,00.html
> It has become an article of faith for many on the left - and some from
> other political precincts - that the 1999 repeal of the Depression-era
> Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial banks from Wall Street,
> is directly responsible for our current dire financial plight.
And that mindless line cant explain why Australia and Canada, which
never had anything like Glass-Steagall, didnt see any of their retail
banks implode spectacularly or even need to be bailed out by govt.
> Its repeal, argued journalist Robert Kuttner in testimony before Congress
> last year, enabled "super-banks ... to re-enact the same kinds of
> structural conflicts of interest that were endemic in the 1920s."
And both Canada and Australia had much more concentration of retail
banking and STILL didnt see the spectacular implose of even one of
their retail banks, let alone any need to be bailed out by govt.
> Kuttner may be right about the conflicts, but it's awfully hard to see
> how they brought on the current mess. In fact, Bank of America's
> takeover of Merrill Lynch and JP Morgan Chase's of Bear Stearns
> underscored a truth that was already becoming apparent on Wall Street
> - super-banks (more commonly known as universal banks) are, for all
> their flaws, a lot more stable and secure than un-super investment banks.
Yes, but they do have the other problem of being too big to be allowed to fail.
> "If you didn't have commercial banks ready to step in, you'd have
> a vastly bigger crisis today," says Jim Leach, a Republican former
> Congressman from Iowa (and current Barack Obama supporter) whose
> name is on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act that repealed Glass-Steagall.
> Leach is no neutral observer, and there can be no proving that
> Glass-Steagall repeal has made the world safer. But amid the
> predictable debate now underway about how much new financial
> regulation is needed, it just doesn't make a very convincing scapegoat
> for the crisis.
> Also unconvincing is the claim made by some conservatives that the
> Clinton Administration's 1995 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)
> regulations, which pushed banks to lend in poor communities, caused
> the subprime mortgage lending binge that sparked the current troubles.
What I said in different words right at the top.
> It's certainly conceivable that Washington's long-held obsession
> with fostering home ownership helped fuel the housing bubble.
Nope, not when some other countrys have an even higher home ownership rate than the US does.
> But when the subprime lending binge really took off from 2003 to 2006,
> financial institutions subject to CRA weren't the ones leading the way. Neither
> were government-sponsored behemoths Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
And the default rate with CRA loans were no higher than with non CRA loans.
> No, starting in 2003, as a long boom in house prices and mortgage
> lending that had at least some foundation in economic reality (lower
> interest rates, higher incomes) gave way to an orgy of ever-sharper
> price increases fueled by ever-dodgier loans, the folks in the drivers'
> seat were the mortgage brokers that made the loans and the Wall
> Street investment banks that packaged them into private-label
> mortgage-backed securities."
Yes, but they werent FORCED on any mortgage broker.
They just got much higher commissions, essentially because
they were expected by the fuckwit lender to produce a much
higher return, essentially when the ARM rate hiked and they
were so stupid that they didnt realise that the real estate bubble
was absolutely guaranteed to burst sometime and that with the
terminally stupid US non recourse system, they would in fact
never come even close to producing a higher return.
> An excellent piece of logic here that exonerates F&F and CRA from the current mess.
> http://bayoustjohndavid.blogspot.com/2008/09/cra-caused-mortgage-crisis-meme.html
> "Now, first, I am no fan of the CRA, and I do believe that it had
> the effect that its attackers say it had, however, the effect is
> significantly more limited than any of the conservative partisan make
> it out to be. As such, while it may have had a corrossive effect on
> lending standards, this effect was a small blip compared to other factors.
What I said at the top in different words.
> To really prove that CRA was an insignificant factor, what one really
> needs to do is identify those areas most helped by the real estate
> boom and also those areas with the most foreclosures. If all these
> Conservatives are correct, then the real estate boom would have
> centered most of all in most of the poorest areas of the country
> and the current crisis in foreclosures would also be the same.
> In other words, the years 2003-2007 should have then seen
> an explosion in areas like Bedford Stuyvesant in New York,
> Englewood in Chicago, and Compton in California, and on the flip
> side those areas should be leading the pack for foreclosures now.
> Instead, the biggest concentrations of foreclosures can be found in
> well to do areas like Boca Raton, Riverside County near San Diego,
> and of course Las Vegas.
What I said at the top in different words.
> Does anyone really believe that there was an explosion
> of lending in Vegas because banks were attempting to
> meet some sort of quota of lending to poor folks? In
> fact, the real estate boom had a fairly negligible effect
> on the poorest areas of the country. In fact, the same
> areas Boca, Phoenix, Miami, and Vegas that boomed
> the most during the height of the real estate market are
> also now the ones suffering the most now that it is over."
What I said at the top in different words.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>>> The mortgage crisis was not the cause of the financial panic.
>>> It was a trigger for a deeper and more corrupt problem.
>>> The abuse of credit default swaps.
>> Those werent 'corrupt', they were perfectly legal.
> There's a difference between legality and ethics.
You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist swills ?
Peter Franks
> kim wrote:
>> Imagine a pyramid built upside down. Once the first few stones crack
>> and crumble from the pressure, the entire stucture will collapse.
>> Mortgages were the base of this pyramid. Most of them are less than 5
>> years old.
>
> The banks drove the bad loans. The credit default swaps flipped the
> pyramid.
The banks were driving bad loans ONLY because they had a guaranteed
buyer -- FNMA.
FNMA is a GSE that was implicitly, but now explicitly guaranteed by the
federal government. That's socialism.
Plain, simple, fact.
Governor Swill
>>>> What does CRA have to do with it?
>>> Those were the only loans pushed on anyone.
>> Um, no.
>Fraid so.
>> CRA is specifically targeted at low income and minority borrowers
>> who are required to prove income and have a down.
>They were however the only loans pushed on any mortgage brokers by anyone.
"Pushed?" Nobody was pushing anything at mortgage brokers. They were
stumbling all over themselves trying to sign people up to loans. When
the government turned folks down for a home loan, the private market
picked them up.
>> The subprimes that triggered the cds crisis was a different matter.
>> It was the private market that made loans with no down, not F&F.
>
>Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
What's this "pushed" thing you got going? What are you talking about?
>> It was the private banks that made loans without proof of income.
>> Again F&F had standards and required proof of income.
>
>Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
You need to start explaining and citing or shutting the fuck up.
>> It was the private market, not any government agency that made zero
>> down loans without proof of income with exploding arms and sold them
>> as securities which were then insured by unregulated credit default swaps.
>
>Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
What loans were pushed?
>> When housing prices flattened, arms blew up
>
>Plenty of them never did.
Oh, you're trolling. You don't know what an arm is. Motherfucker.
*plonk*
Governor Swill
>> The banks drove the bad loans. The credit default swaps flipped the
>> pyramid.
>
>The banks were driving bad loans ONLY because they had a guaranteed
>buyer -- FNMA.
They weren't buying. The banks weren't selling. Unless you're
prepared to cite where all the bad loans were guaranteed by the govt
in which case, why haven't they been covered?
Because the government never guaranteed them.
>FNMA is a GSE that was implicitly, but now explicitly guaranteed by the
>federal government. That's socialism.
Um, no. That's stupidity. The loans weren't guaranteed and the
bankers knew they weren't guaranteed. The "implicit" guarantee was no
such thing. It was an assumption the administration allowed to be
held without doing anything to disabuse them of their incorrect
notion. Iow, the Bush administration's culpability in the creation of
this mess.
>Plain, simple, fact.
Greed. That's the plain simple fact and there's nothing socialist
about greed.
joe james
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Governor Swill wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Governor Swill wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>> josej...@ssnet.net wrote
>>>>>>>> Iow, if it hadn't been for the irresponsibility of Wall Street with
>>>>>>>> their derivatives markets, we'd still have had a mortgage crisis,
>>>>>>>> but it would never have turned into a banking crisis.
>>>>>>> There would not be a mortgage crisis if Wal Street had
>>>>>>> not pushed mortgage brokers to produce so many loans.
>>>>>> Wrong. There were never enough CRA loans written to have made any difference.
>>>>> What does CRA have to do with it?
>>>> Those were the only loans pushed on anyone.
>>> Um, no.
>> Fraid so.
>>> CRA is specifically targeted at low income and minority borrowers
>>> who are required to prove income and have a down.
>> They were however the only loans pushed on any mortgage brokers by anyone.
> "Pushed?" Nobody was pushing anything at mortgage brokers.
Wrong. CRA loans were.
> They were stumbling all over themselves trying to sign people up to loans.
And were pushed to do CRA loans.
> When the government turned folks down for a home loan, the private market picked them up.
Not with the loans to 'minoritys'
>>> The subprimes that triggered the cds crisis was a different matter.
>>> It was the private market that made loans with no down, not F&F.
>> Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
> What's this "pushed" thing you got going?
HE was the one that brought them up. Still there in the quoting.
> What are you talking about?
What loans were PUSHED on anyone, stupid.
>>> It was the private banks that made loans without proof of income.
>>> Again F&F had standards and required proof of income.
>> Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
> You need to start explaining
Just did, fuckwit.
> and citing or shutting the fuck up.
You need to go and fuck yourself, again.
>>> It was the private market, not any government agency that made zero
>>> down loans without proof of income with exploding arms and sold them
>>> as securities which were then insured by unregulated credit default swaps.
>> Irrelevant to what loans were pushed on mortgage brokers by anyone.
> What loans were pushed?
CRA loans, fuckwit.
>>> When housing prices flattened, arms blew up
>> Plenty of them never did.
> Oh, you're trolling.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
The ones that didnt blow up were on property that was flipped, fuckwit.
> You don't know what an arm is.
You're lying, as always.
> Motherfucker.
Fuckwit.
> *plonk*
That wont save your bacon, fuckwit.
Poetic Justice
> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote:
>
>>> The banks drove the bad loans. The credit default swaps flipped the
>>> pyramid.
>> The banks were driving bad loans ONLY because they had a guaranteed
>> buyer -- FNMA.
>
> They weren't buying. The banks weren't selling. Unless you're
> prepared to cite where all the bad loans were guaranteed by the govt
> in which case, why haven't they been covered?
>
> Because the government never guaranteed them.
>
>> FNMA is a GSE that was implicitly, but now explicitly guaranteed by the
>> federal government. That's socialism.
>
> Um, no. That's stupidity. The loans weren't guaranteed and the
> bankers knew they weren't guaranteed. The "implicit" guarantee was no
And now GM is explicitly guaranteeing the GM products too.
Governor Swill
>> "Pushed?" Nobody was pushing anything at mortgage brokers.
>
>Wrong. CRA loans were.
>
>> They were stumbling all over themselves trying to sign people up to loans.
>
>And were pushed to do CRA loans.
No they weren't.