Where did the credit crisis of today get it's start?
-
This article from Sept. 30, 1999 spells it out nicely: New York Times[^]
Fuzzy Llama Creative Solutions, Inc. Wordles LLC Pachuko Boy
-
This article from Sept. 30, 1999 spells it out nicely: New York Times[^]
Fuzzy Llama Creative Solutions, Inc. Wordles LLC Pachuko Boy
Nice find. Thanks. I liked this paragraph from 1999: "In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's."
...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.
-
This article from Sept. 30, 1999 spells it out nicely: New York Times[^]
Fuzzy Llama Creative Solutions, Inc. Wordles LLC Pachuko Boy
Here's a video from the UK version of you Tube. This was taken down from the US site the oher day, suppoedly a result of copyright infringement. 10 minutes that'll give a pretty solid understanding. the cause of the "crisis"[^]
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.
-
This article from Sept. 30, 1999 spells it out nicely: New York Times[^]
Fuzzy Llama Creative Solutions, Inc. Wordles LLC Pachuko Boy
Excellent find. It virtually forcasts the future: "If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out" Hey, la centraliste, this is exactly the sort of government interference Zepplin called socialism (and I called Thatcherism). This section states that cause, but also it reinforces somehting you wrote, that a free market in this sense is freedom to be greedy: "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits." So, fuck the shareholders not the tax payer. ie, dont pass the Bush plan and let the financial institutions and all their stock holders go to the wall. Oh, and fuck that prick Clinton too. What a stupid thing to do. Lend money to the poorest, least capable people at a higher interest rate. Dear oh christ, what a fucking recipe for disaster.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Here's a video from the UK version of you Tube. This was taken down from the US site the oher day, suppoedly a result of copyright infringement. 10 minutes that'll give a pretty solid understanding. the cause of the "crisis"[^]
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.
"GAs prices rose, food prices shot up"... due to Global Warming! Global Warming alarmism was the pin that burst the subprime mortgage bubble that caused the worlds markets to collapse thus ensuring noone would have anything to spend on Kyoto. Justice.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Excellent find. It virtually forcasts the future: "If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out" Hey, la centraliste, this is exactly the sort of government interference Zepplin called socialism (and I called Thatcherism). This section states that cause, but also it reinforces somehting you wrote, that a free market in this sense is freedom to be greedy: "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits." So, fuck the shareholders not the tax payer. ie, dont pass the Bush plan and let the financial institutions and all their stock holders go to the wall. Oh, and fuck that prick Clinton too. What a stupid thing to do. Lend money to the poorest, least capable people at a higher interest rate. Dear oh christ, what a fucking recipe for disaster.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
The measure is probably the source of the problem, but it could have succeeded too. It works in other countries, like the one I live in. The equivalent here is the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It works very well. So, what is the difference that make it fail in the US? I may have an answer here: rich people in the US don't want to hear of any form of program that would help the less fortunate. When they are imposed to do so, they turn it into a fiasco on purpose and say: "Hey look, it does not work." Btw, do you own a house?
-
The measure is probably the source of the problem, but it could have succeeded too. It works in other countries, like the one I live in. The equivalent here is the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. It works very well. So, what is the difference that make it fail in the US? I may have an answer here: rich people in the US don't want to hear of any form of program that would help the less fortunate. When they are imposed to do so, they turn it into a fiasco on purpose and say: "Hey look, it does not work." Btw, do you own a house?
What crap. Americans are among the most charitable people in the world. We do believe that it is more important to help a person help himself through training and fair opportunity than it is to simply dole out cash. Give a man a fish and you feed him for one day, teach a man to fish, and you feed him for life... You really believe that wealth is evil don't you? Do you realize that that belief alone condemns you to be poor all your life? Do you realize how silly and prejudiced you sound? Please change your nome de plume to le Socialiste or le Communiste, for you most certainly are not a centrist, but rather a classist and socialist.
-
Excellent find. It virtually forcasts the future: "If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out" Hey, la centraliste, this is exactly the sort of government interference Zepplin called socialism (and I called Thatcherism). This section states that cause, but also it reinforces somehting you wrote, that a free market in this sense is freedom to be greedy: "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits." So, fuck the shareholders not the tax payer. ie, dont pass the Bush plan and let the financial institutions and all their stock holders go to the wall. Oh, and fuck that prick Clinton too. What a stupid thing to do. Lend money to the poorest, least capable people at a higher interest rate. Dear oh christ, what a fucking recipe for disaster.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Oh, and f*** that prick Clinton too.
Don't forget Carter, who signed the bill that started the whole stinking mess[^].
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
What crap. Americans are among the most charitable people in the world. We do believe that it is more important to help a person help himself through training and fair opportunity than it is to simply dole out cash. Give a man a fish and you feed him for one day, teach a man to fish, and you feed him for life... You really believe that wealth is evil don't you? Do you realize that that belief alone condemns you to be poor all your life? Do you realize how silly and prejudiced you sound? Please change your nome de plume to le Socialiste or le Communiste, for you most certainly are not a centrist, but rather a classist and socialist.
[Edit: corrected a typo.]
Rob Graham wrote:
You really believe that wealth is evil don't you?
Absolutely not. In fact, I would like to be rich, but not by sucking other people's money dry.
Rob Graham wrote:
Do you realize that that belief alone condemns you to be poor all your life?
Earning 150K a year does not make me poor, even if it is in Canadian dollars. I own a house, which is half-paid. I am not in debt over my head.
Rob Graham wrote:
Please change your nome de plume to le Socialiste or le Communiste
No, because I am not, although I am probably more on left than you are. You have to understand that everything is not black or white. There are lots of other options between the two. Unfortunately, for you, everything that is not capitalist is communist. This is a false dichotomy.
-
"GAs prices rose, food prices shot up"... due to Global Warming! Global Warming alarmism was the pin that burst the subprime mortgage bubble that caused the worlds markets to collapse thus ensuring noone would have anything to spend on Kyoto. Justice.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
due to Global Warming!
You cannot help it, rat_toy.
-
[Edit: corrected a typo.]
Rob Graham wrote:
You really believe that wealth is evil don't you?
Absolutely not. In fact, I would like to be rich, but not by sucking other people's money dry.
Rob Graham wrote:
Do you realize that that belief alone condemns you to be poor all your life?
Earning 150K a year does not make me poor, even if it is in Canadian dollars. I own a house, which is half-paid. I am not in debt over my head.
Rob Graham wrote:
Please change your nome de plume to le Socialiste or le Communiste
No, because I am not, although I am probably more on left than you are. You have to understand that everything is not black or white. There are lots of other options between the two. Unfortunately, for you, everything that is not capitalist is communist. This is a false dichotomy.
Le Centriste wrote:
Unfortunately, for you, everything that is not capitalist is communist.
No, not at all. I do recognize that there are shades of gray, and that pure capitalism fails (usually because of excess or the achievement of monopoly position) just as does pure socialism or communism (the Chinese have also recognized this). However, it really think that a statement like "rich people in the US don't want to hear of any form of program that would help the less fortunate. " is such a sweeping (and wrong) generalization that it suggests the person quoted has a very distorted view of the wealthy. Certainly some are selfish and greedy. Others, like Gates, Buffet, and many many more are quite charitable and actively working to help solve the world's problems. Your statement does not sound like someone who believes in shades of gray, but rather like someone who buys into the idea of class warfare, and identifies the rich as the enemy.
-
"GAs prices rose, food prices shot up"... due to Global Warming! Global Warming alarmism was the pin that burst the subprime mortgage bubble that caused the worlds markets to collapse thus ensuring noone would have anything to spend on Kyoto. Justice.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Actually, the defeat of the bailout bill has saved the world from Global warming. By depressing the economy to the point that the demand for fossil fuels is severely diminished, it has single handedly accomplished more than Kyoto ever did. Al Gore is so furious he can hardly stand it... no more need for carbon credits... how will he live...:rolleyes:
-
[Edit: corrected a typo.]
Rob Graham wrote:
You really believe that wealth is evil don't you?
Absolutely not. In fact, I would like to be rich, but not by sucking other people's money dry.
Rob Graham wrote:
Do you realize that that belief alone condemns you to be poor all your life?
Earning 150K a year does not make me poor, even if it is in Canadian dollars. I own a house, which is half-paid. I am not in debt over my head.
Rob Graham wrote:
Please change your nome de plume to le Socialiste or le Communiste
No, because I am not, although I am probably more on left than you are. You have to understand that everything is not black or white. There are lots of other options between the two. Unfortunately, for you, everything that is not capitalist is communist. This is a false dichotomy.
Le Centriste wrote:
although I am probably more on left than you are
:omg: - you talk the talk of the far left, but you are indeed a blood-sucking capitalist who feathers his own nest while letting his brothers and sisters freeze to death in the cold dark Canadian winter.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Le Centriste wrote:
Unfortunately, for you, everything that is not capitalist is communist.
No, not at all. I do recognize that there are shades of gray, and that pure capitalism fails (usually because of excess or the achievement of monopoly position) just as does pure socialism or communism (the Chinese have also recognized this). However, it really think that a statement like "rich people in the US don't want to hear of any form of program that would help the less fortunate. " is such a sweeping (and wrong) generalization that it suggests the person quoted has a very distorted view of the wealthy. Certainly some are selfish and greedy. Others, like Gates, Buffet, and many many more are quite charitable and actively working to help solve the world's problems. Your statement does not sound like someone who believes in shades of gray, but rather like someone who buys into the idea of class warfare, and identifies the rich as the enemy.
Rob Graham wrote:
However, it really think that a statement like "rich people in the US don't want to hear of any form of program that would help the less fortunate. "
I am glad you point it out, because you are right. But I often hear the reverse "It does not work because of the communists". That is a good illustration of the misunderstanding of people of the situation (including myself). If we put our objectivity spectacles and look at it, how do you think this happened? Only because of the Democrats law? Only because of the rich bankers? I think both. Here, in Canada (a country many people in the USA love to hate), such a measure exists since 60 years and it is a success. All of my friends own a house, thanks to the CMHC (the equivalent of Fanny Mae in Canada). For an amount of about 3% of the amount of the loan, it is guaranteed by them, if you abide to certain rules. For instance, the house must not be overpriced and you must put a 5% cash down (they dropped that one some time ago, but brought it back lately, probably because of what is happening right now). Do you think that is what was missing in the Democrats plan?
-
fat_boy wrote:
Oh, and f*** that prick Clinton too.
Don't forget Carter, who signed the bill that started the whole stinking mess[^].
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Le Centriste wrote:
although I am probably more on left than you are
:omg: - you talk the talk of the far left, but you are indeed a blood-sucking capitalist who feathers his own nest while letting his brothers and sisters freeze to death in the cold dark Canadian winter.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I don't talk the talk of the far left. Educate yourself of the far left and their crimes to the humanity then we can have a decent talk. In the meantime, go back to your hole.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
However, it really think that a statement like "rich people in the US don't want to hear of any form of program that would help the less fortunate. "
I am glad you point it out, because you are right. But I often hear the reverse "It does not work because of the communists". That is a good illustration of the misunderstanding of people of the situation (including myself). If we put our objectivity spectacles and look at it, how do you think this happened? Only because of the Democrats law? Only because of the rich bankers? I think both. Here, in Canada (a country many people in the USA love to hate), such a measure exists since 60 years and it is a success. All of my friends own a house, thanks to the CMHC (the equivalent of Fanny Mae in Canada). For an amount of about 3% of the amount of the loan, it is guaranteed by them, if you abide to certain rules. For instance, the house must not be overpriced and you must put a 5% cash down (they dropped that one some time ago, but brought it back lately, probably because of what is happening right now). Do you think that is what was missing in the Democrats plan?
Le Centriste wrote:
a country many people in the USA love to hate
While I am sure there are some Canada haters besides Ilion, I think you would find, if you stopped getting your news from anti-American newspapers, that most American have a very positive opinion of northern neighbors - although many of us do wish you'd stop cluttering up our doctor's offices and would silence Celine Dion and Anne Murray :-D
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I don't talk the talk of the far left. Educate yourself of the far left and their crimes to the humanity then we can have a decent talk. In the meantime, go back to your hole.
Le Centriste wrote:
Educate yourself of the far left and their crimes to the humanity then we can have a decent talk. In the meantime, go back to your hole.
I must have struck a nerve - feeling a little guilty about the way you are sucking the life blood of your bretheren and sistren in your drive to become rich?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
This article from Sept. 30, 1999 spells it out nicely: New York Times[^]
Fuzzy Llama Creative Solutions, Inc. Wordles LLC Pachuko Boy
Damn!!!!! That was my 27th birthday.....noooooo!!!!
Sovereign ingredient for a happy marriage: Pay cash or do without. Interest charges not only eat up a household budget; awareness of debt eats up domestic felicity. --Lazarus Long
-
Rob Graham wrote:
However, it really think that a statement like "rich people in the US don't want to hear of any form of program that would help the less fortunate. "
I am glad you point it out, because you are right. But I often hear the reverse "It does not work because of the communists". That is a good illustration of the misunderstanding of people of the situation (including myself). If we put our objectivity spectacles and look at it, how do you think this happened? Only because of the Democrats law? Only because of the rich bankers? I think both. Here, in Canada (a country many people in the USA love to hate), such a measure exists since 60 years and it is a success. All of my friends own a house, thanks to the CMHC (the equivalent of Fanny Mae in Canada). For an amount of about 3% of the amount of the loan, it is guaranteed by them, if you abide to certain rules. For instance, the house must not be overpriced and you must put a 5% cash down (they dropped that one some time ago, but brought it back lately, probably because of what is happening right now). Do you think that is what was missing in the Democrats plan?
Certainly some unscrupulous (greedy, over enthusiastic, who knows) bankers took advantage of the situation. Certainly there were abuses of the system by both borrowers and lenders. The law changes (and the Democrats do not deserve sole blame here, Republicans contributed some "deregulation" that compounded the mess) created the environment that allowed the abuse and lead to the collapse. Some abusers hid the true value (or rather lack thereof) of the "investment vehicles" that were tied to these mortgages. As Zep has said, the real cause was lack of transparency - no one could easily tell what was going on, so some were able to game the system for a while. Now someone gets to pay the price of that gaming, and I, for one don't think it should be people like you or me, but rather those who created the problem with flawed investment vehicles and bad lending practice. Even at the expense of some short term economic pain for all of us, I think we should let the market punish those who played this corrupt game, rather than take from all to avoid their suffering along with a small amount on our own. I think the politicians (all flavors) and media are being "chicken little" here, trying to frighten us into taking their buddies off the hook. The sky is not falling.
Last modified: after originally posted -- I can't type or spell...