Who's to blame for the financial crisis? Why ...
-
I disagree. If the consumers were at fault we could foreclose their properties and write off $120 billion to be done with it, because that is the total amount of all mortgages currently in foreclosure. But consider this: All of the mortgages in the United States, both performing and non-performing ones, total $7 trillion. The amount insured by credit default swaps is $49 trillion. So there is only $1 of actual asset to secure each $7 of funny money, much of which is now at risk. How can you blame that on the consumers? Please explain your reasoning as to how consumers with $120 billion US (120,000,000,000) of debt are at fault for a financial crisis involving $49 trillion US (49,000,000,000,000). Maybe I'm stupid or something, but ....
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Please explain your reasoning as to how consumers with $120 billion US (120,000,000,000) of debt are at fault for a financial crisis involving $49 trillion US (49,000,000,000,000).
Because the mortgage situation is only one reason the markets have been massivly over valued for years. If people had the brains to not spend what they cant afford to repay there wouldnt be the bad debt to repackage and sell on as good debt. You're not only paying for the bad debt, you've also indirectly paying for the profit people made out of the housing boom.
-
In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups. The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants. [^] sort of shines some light on teh subject - note the publication date in the article.
Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.
So you're saying the credit problem is because colored people were allowed to buy houses? How many porch monkeys bought houses, and how many of them are in default or foreclosure? Must be an awful lot of heebie-jeebies sitting on the corner who used to be sitting on porches. C'mon, Mike. I'm not going to call you a racist, but consider this: There are only $120 billion worth of mortgages in foreclosure. Our government wants to hand out $700 billion to Wall Street and odds are that it won't be close to enough. The math don't add up, so throwing out accusations without facts to back them up is beneath you.
-
So you're saying the credit problem is because colored people were allowed to buy houses? How many porch monkeys bought houses, and how many of them are in default or foreclosure? Must be an awful lot of heebie-jeebies sitting on the corner who used to be sitting on porches. C'mon, Mike. I'm not going to call you a racist, but consider this: There are only $120 billion worth of mortgages in foreclosure. Our government wants to hand out $700 billion to Wall Street and odds are that it won't be close to enough. The math don't add up, so throwing out accusations without facts to back them up is beneath you.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
So you're saying the credit problem is because colored people were allowed to buy houses? How many porch monkeys bought houses, and how many of them are in default or foreclosure? Must be an awful lot of heebie-jeebies sitting on the corner who used to be sitting on porches. C'mon, Mike. I'm not going to call you a racist, ...
You're a real ass (or really, really, really stupid); you'll fit in with "the community" swimmingly.
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Please explain your reasoning as to how consumers with $120 billion US (120,000,000,000) of debt are at fault for a financial crisis involving $49 trillion US (49,000,000,000,000).
Because the mortgage situation is only one reason the markets have been massivly over valued for years. If people had the brains to not spend what they cant afford to repay there wouldnt be the bad debt to repackage and sell on as good debt. You're not only paying for the bad debt, you've also indirectly paying for the profit people made out of the housing boom.
Josh Gray wrote:
If people had the brains to not spend what they cant afford to repay there wouldnt be the bad debt to repackage and sell
The Savings & Loan mortgage bubble of the 1980s morphed into the tech stock bubble of the 1990s which morphed into the housing bubble of the 2000s which morphed into the commodities bubble of 2007 - 2008. Rampant credit-fueled speculation and massive, systemic over-valuation of assets is what the world's economy has run on the past 30 years. If governments and businesses and people had the brains to not spend what they can't affort to repay, we'd still be wearing loincloths and living in caves.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
If people had the brains to not spend what they cant afford to repay there wouldnt be the bad debt to repackage and sell
The Savings & Loan mortgage bubble of the 1980s morphed into the tech stock bubble of the 1990s which morphed into the housing bubble of the 2000s which morphed into the commodities bubble of 2007 - 2008. Rampant credit-fueled speculation and massive, systemic over-valuation of assets is what the world's economy has run on the past 30 years. If governments and businesses and people had the brains to not spend what they can't affort to repay, we'd still be wearing loincloths and living in caves.
-
True. But America in general has developed this mentality that debt is not only OK, but the normal thing to do. That coupled with a strong desire for instant gratification and a complete lack of not only restraint but any concept or thought to restraint, and you have lots of problems we're now seeing. 400 lbs inconsiderate people trading in their SUV every two years for a brand new one, with a cell phone in one hand and a large fries and a jumbo milkshake in the other. The lifestyle we've fashioned for ourselves really is destructive, and now that that's finally evident, it's way too late. And I don't know what made us this way, but it's something I fight with daily even knowing that it's an issue. I know a lot of people who have no clue that it's even an issue, they grew up with it and don't know any other way to be. Maybe Rome really is a good analogy for where we are headed...
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
And I don't know what made us this way, but it's something I fight with daily even knowing that it's an issue. I know a lot of people who have no clue that it's even an issue, they grew up with it and don't know any other way to be. Maybe Rome really is a good analogy for where we are headed...
I honestly dont think the situation is as bad as the media would like to make out. 10 years ago the Dow Jones industrial index was around 8500, today its 11015. Some people seem to be of the opinion that the markets should not go down at all.
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
So you're saying the credit problem is because colored people were allowed to buy houses? How many porch monkeys bought houses, and how many of them are in default or foreclosure? Must be an awful lot of heebie-jeebies sitting on the corner who used to be sitting on porches. C'mon, Mike. I'm not going to call you a racist, ...
You're a real ass (or really, really, really stupid); you'll fit in with "the community" swimmingly.
Er, there's this thing called user profiles. You might want to learn how to check them out.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
And I don't know what made us this way, but it's something I fight with daily even knowing that it's an issue. I know a lot of people who have no clue that it's even an issue, they grew up with it and don't know any other way to be. Maybe Rome really is a good analogy for where we are headed...
I honestly dont think the situation is as bad as the media would like to make out. 10 years ago the Dow Jones industrial index was around 8500, today its 11015. Some people seem to be of the opinion that the markets should not go down at all.
I hope you're right. And watching the coverage I get the feeling that 98% of the story is being hidden from us. But I can't tell if it's being exagerated or down-played. I certainly hope it's exageration. I guess we'll find out soon enough. But the Rome analogy was referring more to our wasteful mentality and lack of understanding of even recent past as a culture in general. I certainly don't believe that this market problem is the end of the world. Even if the entire market cratered, we'd all still be left with a need to do something. Things would change, but life would continue.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Er, there's this thing called user profiles. You might want to learn how to check them out.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Er, there's this thing called user profiles. You might want to learn how to check them out.
There is this thing called "taking others at their word" ... part of which involves assuming that people really do mean to say what they actually say (and this happenes, incidentally, to be a different thing from your apparent tendency to assume that you can misrepresent what others have said and the misrepresention becomes the fact). This is what you said[^]:
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
So you're saying the credit problem is because colored people were allowed to buy houses? How many porch monkeys bought houses, and how many of them are in default or foreclosure? Must be an awful lot of heebie-jeebies sitting on the corner who used to be sitting on porches. C'mon, Mike. I'm not going to call you a racist, but consider this: There are only $120 billion worth of mortgages in foreclosure. Our government wants to hand out $700 billion to Wall Street and odds are that it won't be close to enough. The math don't add up, so throwing out accusations without facts to back them up is beneath you.
You are either: 1) The Second Coming of Oakman (and the First is still with us); or 2) Barely able to function independently in a modern society. Take your pick, it's all the same to me.
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
Er, there's this thing called user profiles. You might want to learn how to check them out.
There is this thing called "taking others at their word" ... part of which involves assuming that people really do mean to say what they actually say (and this happenes, incidentally, to be a different thing from your apparent tendency to assume that you can misrepresent what others have said and the misrepresention becomes the fact). This is what you said[^]:
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
So you're saying the credit problem is because colored people were allowed to buy houses? How many porch monkeys bought houses, and how many of them are in default or foreclosure? Must be an awful lot of heebie-jeebies sitting on the corner who used to be sitting on porches. C'mon, Mike. I'm not going to call you a racist, but consider this: There are only $120 billion worth of mortgages in foreclosure. Our government wants to hand out $700 billion to Wall Street and odds are that it won't be close to enough. The math don't add up, so throwing out accusations without facts to back them up is beneath you.
You are either: 1) The Second Coming of Oakman (and the First is still with us); or 2) Barely able to function independently in a modern society. Take your pick, it's all the same to me.
- I've known Mike Gaskey longer than you have been alive. 2) Mike can defend himself if need be. Your "assistance" is not required.
-
Oakman wrote:
Agreed, but if that mortgage broker knows or even strong suspects that your abi;lity to pay down the loan is non-existent and he sells the mortage to someone else - who is to blame then? And when that third party - who is just as aware of the chicanery as the original broker - in turn sells that loan and many more like it. . .well you get the idea. Ultimately a whole bunch of crooks were allowed to pull their scams, because the cops (Treasury, Federal Reserve, Congress) were being paid off.
When did risk become a commodity to be profited from? There are many people in many positions that have contributed to this situation. What I would like to know is how these debts, when repackaged as various derivative products were able to be classified as investment grade rather than speculative securities. To my mind that is where the regulators have let the market down.
Josh Gray wrote:
What I would like to know is how these debts, when repackaged as various derivative products were able to be classified as investment grade rather than speculative securities.
That is exactly what I don't understand either, Josh, and nobody can give me a satisfactory answer. I've heard that somewhere down the line, it is hedge funds that do this, and they are able to do it since they are relatively unregulated. I must admit I don't find that very convincing.
Cheers, Vıkram.
"You idiot British surprise me that your generators which grew up after Mid 50s had no brain at all." - Adnan Siddiqi.
-
- I've known Mike Gaskey longer than you have been alive. 2) Mike can defend himself if need be. Your "assistance" is not required.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
- I've known Mike Gaskey longer than you have been alive.
Doubtful. And quite irrelevant, in any case.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
- Mike can defend himself if need be. Your "assistance" is not required.
I'm not defending him; I'm mocking your intellectual dishonesty. It's a hobby.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
What I would like to know is how these debts, when repackaged as various derivative products were able to be classified as investment grade rather than speculative securities.
That is exactly what I don't understand either, Josh, and nobody can give me a satisfactory answer. I've heard that somewhere down the line, it is hedge funds that do this, and they are able to do it since they are relatively unregulated. I must admit I don't find that very convincing.
Cheers, Vıkram.
"You idiot British surprise me that your generators which grew up after Mid 50s had no brain at all." - Adnan Siddiqi.
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
That is exactly what I don't understand either, Josh, and nobody can give me a satisfactory answer.
Because of the implicit (and sometimes explicit) promise that the taxpayers of the US would pick up the tab when the inevitable happened. Government is *rarely* the answer and is almost always the problem.
-
Vikram A Punathambekar wrote:
That is exactly what I don't understand either, Josh, and nobody can give me a satisfactory answer.
Because of the implicit (and sometimes explicit) promise that the taxpayers of the US would pick up the tab when the inevitable happened. Government is *rarely* the answer and is almost always the problem.
-
Ilíon wrote:
promise that the taxpayers of the US would pick up the tab
And those of us outside the US that make a crust from the derivatives markets thank you kindly ;P
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
- I've known Mike Gaskey longer than you have been alive.
Doubtful. And quite irrelevant, in any case.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
- Mike can defend himself if need be. Your "assistance" is not required.
I'm not defending him; I'm mocking your intellectual dishonesty. It's a hobby.
Ilíon wrote:
I'm not defending him; I'm mocking your intellectual dishonesty. It's a hobby.
Your arrogance is awe-inspiring.
-
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
- I've known Mike Gaskey longer than you have been alive.
Doubtful. And quite irrelevant, in any case.
Ed Gadziemski wrote:
- Mike can defend himself if need be. Your "assistance" is not required.
I'm not defending him; I'm mocking your intellectual dishonesty. It's a hobby.
-
Ed, absolutely everything you linked to is true - on the other hand, in 2005 John McCain tried to move heaven and earth to rein in Fannie and Freddie - he was totally stymied by Chris Dodd (D) Chairman of the Banking Comittee.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
Agreed, but if that mortgage broker knows or even strong suspects that your abi;lity to pay down the loan is non-existent and he sells the mortage to someone else - who is to blame then? And when that third party - who is just as aware of the chicanery as the original broker - in turn sells that loan and many more like it. . .well you get the idea. Ultimately a whole bunch of crooks were allowed to pull their scams, because the cops (Treasury, Federal Reserve, Congress) were being paid off.
When did risk become a commodity to be profited from? There are many people in many positions that have contributed to this situation. What I would like to know is how these debts, when repackaged as various derivative products were able to be classified as investment grade rather than speculative securities. To my mind that is where the regulators have let the market down.
Josh Gray wrote:
When did risk become a commodity to be profited from?
:laugh: You're joking, right? What do you think the futures markets are for?
Josh Gray wrote:
There are many people in many positions that have contributed to this situation. What I would like to know is how these debts, when repackaged as various derivative products were able to be classified as investment grade rather than speculative securities. To my mind that is where the regulators have let the market down.
That's where the bulk of the problem lies. The other problem is that the culture of "living on credit" and "keep up with the Joneses" in the U.S. desperately needs to change. Yet another phenomenon that needs change in the U.S. financial industry is the idea that when the market convulses the government is there to effect a bail-out at the expense of the taxpayers.
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.
-
Josh Gray wrote:
If people had the brains to not spend what they cant afford to repay there wouldnt be the bad debt to repackage and sell
The Savings & Loan mortgage bubble of the 1980s morphed into the tech stock bubble of the 1990s which morphed into the housing bubble of the 2000s which morphed into the commodities bubble of 2007 - 2008. Rampant credit-fueled speculation and massive, systemic over-valuation of assets is what the world's economy has run on the past 30 years. If governments and businesses and people had the brains to not spend what they can't affort to repay, we'd still be wearing loincloths and living in caves.
Ed, it's nice to talk about over-valuation and speculation, but then I'm going to ask you what's the fair market price of all these assets? How do you propose to value them? Furthermore, studies on speculation (and I mean, really, what is excessive speculation while we're at it?) usually are inconclusive which leaves you with one of several choices: 1. Speculation isn't excessive 2. Speculation has marginal effects at best 3. Our definition of excessive speculation is wrong The thing you are forgetting is that speculators are needed in order to maintain proper operation of the futures and stock markets. Indeed, the futures market requires them in order to function.
...that mortally intolerable truth; that all deep, earnest thinking is but the intrepid effort of the soul to keep the open independence of her sea; while the wildest winds of heaven and earth conspire to cast her on the treacherous, slavish shore.