I started posting on Kevin Baker's blog again. It's been fun so far. We've been discussing the current financial crisis and I wanted to share with a comment that was recently made to me.
Now, THINK, AT LEAST FOR ONE FUCKING MINUTE, DUDE. The gubmint requires the mortgage companies to make what both sides know are very bad investments. Thus, the reason for making such investments is not the expectation of realizing a profit, and in fact the expectation is that many, if not most, of such investments will realize a loss. (Wait for it ...) This is not capitalism, dude, it is socialism. The investment is made for a social purpose that is mandated by the gubmint, is without regard to issues of profit and loss, and is not the free choice of the lending entity involved.
So basically, the cause of our current crisis is...the government? Wow. I find myself wishing more and more that I was on the right side of the aisle. Things would be so much simpler...having the same answer to everything.
24 comments:
Who the fuck is this idiot?
Obviously, he's a complete dick who has no understanding at all of finance. He's probably a high ranking member of the Republican party.
If you think our current situation was all the fault of greedy bankers, you're not even as bright as the fellow you're putting down.
Having the same answer to everything describes many of the people here too. Tools.
If you were honest, you'd have posted a link to it, allowing people to read more than what you want to ridicule.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/khbaker/4052956117793022172/?src=hsn#596865
You also might want to link to further down the thread, where you accept DJ's challenge, and then back out:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/khbaker/4052956117793022172/?src=hsn#596901
Or you might have a good reason not to link to those.
"Having the same answer to everything describes many of the people here too. Tools."
said the hammer to the wrenches.
As far as I can tell, the Community Reinvestment Act is not the issue—the CRA only applies to banks and thrifts, and the vast majority of the subprime loans over the last 8 years did not originate from banks or thrifts, but nobody over there replied to the comment I left for some reason.
"According to the 2006 HMDA data, 19 percent of the conventional first lien mortgage loans originated by depository institutions were higher-priced, compared to 23 percent by bank subsidiaries, 38 percent by other bank affiliates, and more than 40 percent by independent mortgage companies."
Independent mortgage companies not not fall under CRA, and bank subsidiaries and affiliates mostly fall under limited CRA regulations. So were banks forced to make bad loans to satisfy CRA requirements, or did banks make bad loans to make money? The CRA changes made under Clinton facilitated abuse by allowing adjustable rate mortgages to be securitized, but it doesn't seem to have "forced" banks to make bad loans to risky borrowers.
Well said, Guav and welcome to the blog.
Unix, I am honored to see you posting here. I'll my readers determine whether or not I backed out of the challenge.
I read the link, Unix, and I'm happy to see that Mark didn't dignify that asshole's questions with answers. It's pretty clear that all of you suffer from herd mentality over there, patting yourselves on the back for being "intellectual" when all you really are is ideological to the greatest amount of fault. And anyone that doesn't agree with your pack is verbally berated.
Just out of curiosity, Mark, is anyone over there a financial expert?
Mark, why do you spend your time with such simple minded, angry people?
Their very goal in life is to vilify and abuse anyone who doesn't agree with them.
I can't believe that you take someone ever remotely seriously that uses the word "gubmint."
Its called having a sense of humor tom. you should try it sometime.
Well I see the great financial experts are on display over here today.
"he's a complete dick"
"didn't dignify that asshole's questions"
"such simple minded, angry people?"
"I can't believe that you take someone ever remotely seriously"
What insight.
Cliff notes version here because I'm heading out to go salsa dancing in a few minutes. Last night in my finance class we spent a great deal of time talking about what has happened in the markets in the last week or so. What we have is a liquidity crisis. These firms have assets, but not cash (which is more liquid than a receivable for example...you can't pay a bill with a receivable). One of the reasons Northwest Airlines has been able to stay afloat in recent years is because they have cash. There is plenty of blame to go around and to pin it all on any 1 person or political party isn't really the solution is it? You all know that dems, including Obama, took lots of money from Fannie and Freddie to keep things the way they were. You all know that McCain raised warning signs 2 years ago about Fannie and Freddie. You all know that democrats blocked reform and increased regulation of Fannie and Freddie. There was some enron style accounting going on at F&F. The goal of F&F, stated numerous times by them, was to help poor people get mortgages. F&F bought trillions of dollars in mortgages from mortgage companies and resold them to other companies (like Bear Stearns), thereby spreading bad mortgages throughout the system. That whole process created incentives for private mortgage companies to make riskier loans because they know F&F would just buy them. Companies quit thinking about 30 year mortgages and instead made "45 day" mortgages because they would just sell them to F&F after 45 days. I know my mortgage has been sold a couple times, never to F&F though. Even if the government didn't require companies to take on risky loans, it certainly was encouraged. I'm sure republicans encouraged the behavior also as long as people were making money. We all know Chris Cox at the SEC just looked the other way. We all know people got greedy. We all know people simply put all their credit card debt, their car loans, home equity loans etc etc into their mortgages because Sally and Jim got a new kitchen and by golly we need to have one now too right!! Drones.
There isn't 1 simple answer to all this. I'm sure I left a bunch out but I gotta go for now.
It's pretty clear that all of you suffer from herd mentality over there
What was that you said, I couldn't hear it over the baaaaaaaaaahk-ground noise.
Juris, I think we have a nice mix of people over here, don't you? You aren't the lone voice of conservatism here. There are plenty others. I, however, am the lone "liberal" on Kevin's blog.
M, you keep forgetting that I'm not a conservative (except in the fiscal sense, or the true etymological sense of the word). I can't speak to anyone else's politics, yours included (except what I perceive of them).
What I really dislike, and this blog is more representative of it then Kevin's, is mindless demonization. It is one thing to call the other side on a smear. It's a very different thing to use smears because 'the other guys do'. It happens most everywhere, but I prefer to find places it happens less.
"is mindless demonization"
Don't you think that goes on with me on Kevin's blog?
Nicely stated juris. I agree with you that mindless demonization of the opposition is beneath the discourse of reasonable people. I also agree that it's seemingly rampant in today's political climate.
There's an old story about a freshman legislator who wanted to "meet the enemy" referring to the opposition party. He is gently reminded by a senior legislator that "they are the opposition, not the enemy."
I hope you'll join me in calling for civility and intelligence in our discourse from here on out.
Don't you think that goes on with me on Kevin's blog?
Honestly M, you bring a lot on yourself. You say you have an open mind and then repeat some pablum - then up and accuse all and sundry of getting their talking points from Rush et al. Not sure of why the dynamic but you've thoroughly pissed me off there more then once. Trust me, you know more about Rush and the content of his show then I do. And contrary to the person(s) who snarked about that venue and the locals - you engage there rather than sniping from a safe distance. You're trying, even if you still have a tendency to assume things you would be better off not.
"Trust me, you know more about Rush and the content of his show then I do"
I take that as a compliment and proof that I am open minded enough to listen :)
I'm not impressed by anyone that listens to Rush - or pretty much any talk radio for that matter. It's a format designed to reach a pretty low common denominator (and hence his success). Also it would be more believable that you're open minded if you listened with the intent to learn, not merely to be familiar with what he says in order to deride those who repeat it. I think that's more the source of the hostility you get over at Kevin's place.
Not really...I do like to learn. My time on Kevin's blog helped me decide that Obama's health plan was more realistic than Hillary's or Edwards'. We simply can't have a single payer system in this country. It just isn't possible given how jobs are structured. With Canada moving towards a balance between public and private, I think that's the best way for us to go as well.
M, I'll take you at your word that you like to learn. But even with your example, you chose amongst a set of 'similar' (i.e. 'liberal') solutions. I don't really know what the 'conservative solution' to health-care is, but I think I can safely say it doesn't come from Obama, Edwards or Hillary. Not to mention that that leaves out of consideration any libertarian 'solution' - which is people figure it out for themselves. [Now in fairness you might argue that the libertarian solution is moot since libertarians are an increasingly ignored slice of the electorate.] That is why your "open mindedness" gets called into question.
"libertarians are an increasingly ignored slice of the electorate."
I actually find this to be a bummer. I voted for Harry Browne in 2000. There are many aspects to the libertarian platform that I agree with and wish were more mainstream. But then, that's where the media comes in...if it's not on TV then it must not exist.
Post a Comment