“I Cannot Afford To Live”: Americans Get Emotional As The U.S. Economy Goes Off The Rails

[AntonToo]

Additionally Andrew Cuomo sued banks to force them to make Sub-prime loans

I already addressed CRA, that you keep parroting about with FINANCIAL CRISIS INQUIRY COMMISSION findings:

"...the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loans -- a proxy for subprime loans -- had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law."

https://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/fcic_final_report_conclusions.pdf

Stop wating my time with already refuted garbage.

 

[AntonToo]

Freddie Mac under the direction of Bill Clinton's administration, guaranteed sub-prime loans in 1997, and gave them a "AAA" rating.

And what did Bush administration do about it for 7 years leading into real estate and finance collapse?

Since you can't be bothered to consider that on your own, lets read togather shall we?

In 2004, almost at the peak of the bubble, the Bush administration increased the ambitious targets for GSE lending of the Clinton Administration. It said that within four years, 56% of Fannie's and Freddie's mortgages should go to low-income households and 28% of the mortgages to those with a "very-low income."

The Mysterious Ways Of Fannie And Freddie

Why aren't any of the companies' agents at the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission?

www.forbes.com

Tell me again how Bush had nothing to do with anything happening in the economy while he was the president, tell me how it was all them Democrats.

 

[Andylusion]

Thats laughable. just because you are clueless and do not understand the evolution of investment mentality from .com bubble into real estate blow up doesn't mean it's off the table.

So, your claim is that the dot.com bubble caused real estate to blow up. Let's once again look at the facts.

Here's the housing price bubble. Notice housing prices were actually declining slightly before 1997.

Here's the dot.com bubble.

As you can see, prices were going up consistently from 1995 to 2000.

Now if you look at the housing bubble, housing prices were declining until 1997, where they started going up dramatically. And they didn't stop going up until 2008.

The dot.com bubble crashed in mid 2000.

So you can't show me any correlation at the time of the start of either bubble. They started at completely different times.

And you can't show any correlation at the end of either bubble. They ended at completely different times.

Further you can't even show me any evidence that the crash of the dot.com bubble, even affected the sub-prime bubble. Prices kept going up all during 2000 and 2001, when the dot.com bubble crashed.

Please show me what evidence you have that the dot.com bubble is connected to the sub prime bubble? What evidence do you have that either of those is related in any way?

And I find it odd that you find more connection between these two things, with zero evidence, than the connection between the sub-prime loans and government policies that directly promoted them.

I will agree with you that one of us is a "partisan politico" that refuses to see anything outside their bigotry, but I wager we disagree on who that is.

 

[AntonToo]

The dot.com bubble crashed in mid 2000.

Which is when real estate was in the upswing. It offered a "traditional" safe harbor with solid return rate to markets beat up by investing into novel tech it didn't really understand.

 

[Andylusion]

I already addressed CRA, that you keep parroting about with FINANCIAL CRISIS INQUIRY COMMISSION findings:

"...the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loans -- a proxy for subprime loans -- had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law."

https://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/fcic_final_report_conclusions.pdf

Stop wating my time with already refuted garbage.

Are you saying that Freddie Mac did not guarantee sub-prime loans? Because they openly said they did.
CRA doesn't matter. Red herring.

Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a
$384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment
Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of
CRA loans.
The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and
have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the
investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.

In 1997 did Freddie Mac guarantee sub-prime mortgage backed securities? Yes or no. Don't post me a link, unless you post a link that proves that Freddie Mac in 1997 did not give a "AAA" rating to sub-prime loans.

If you don't have evidence that proves Freddie Mac did not guarantee these loans in this press release, then you have refuted nothing.

My evidence is still factually correct.

 

[Andylusion]

Which is when real estate was in the upswing. It offered a "traditional" safe harbor with solid return rate to markets beat up by investing into novel tech it didn't really understand.

The sub-prime bubble started in 1997. There was already a bubble in 1997. Dot.com bubble is irrelevant.
Why did the sub-prime bubble start in 1997?

 

[Andylusion]

And what did Bush administration do about it for 7 years leading into real estate and finance collapse?

Since you can't be bothered to consider that on your own, lets read togather shall we?

In 2004, almost at the peak of the bubble, the Bush administration increased the ambitious targets for GSE lending of the Clinton Administration. It said that within four years, 56% of Fannie's and Freddie's mortgages should go to low-income households and 28% of the mortgages to those with a "very-low income."

The Mysterious Ways Of Fannie And Freddie

Why aren't any of the companies' agents at the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission?

www.forbes.com

Tell me again how Bush had nothing to do with anything happening in the economy while he was the president, tell me how it was all them Democrats.

So let's look at the data again....

The housing price bubble started in 1997. Not under Bush. Bush is not relevant to this conversation.

The sub-prime loan market exploded in 1997. Not under Bush. Bush is not relevant.

What caused the sub-prime market to explode in 1997? Not 2000, or 2001, or 2004, or any other time.

WHY DID THE SUB PRIME BUBBLE START IN 1997?
Here's a hint.....



Here's another hint....

Bear Stearns, the CRA, and Freddie Mac - Cafe Hayek

I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...

cafehayek.com

 

[AntonToo]

The sub-prime bubble started in 1997. There was already a bubble in 1997. Dot.com bubble is irrelevant.
Why did the sub-prime bubble start in 1997?

It was not a bubble in 1997 when the prices were bellow prior cycles. stop posting nonsense. It was headed for rebound just by simple supply and demand pressures, which was not the problem, the problem was just how astonomically hot it got during 2000s after .com bubble burst.

 

[AntonToo]

Are you saying that Freddie Mac did not guarantee sub-prime loans?

GSE backing subprime mortages through bundled securities had nothing to do with CRA, a program which BY IT'S VERY STANDARDS excluded sub-prime mortgages.

You have a conflated mess in your head and it's going to take many pages to get it right, just as I suspected.

 

[Ringo]

Our politicians are so eager to fund WW3, but cannot be bothered to fund anything that benefits their constituents. Until this mindset changes, the world will continue to fail, and full-scale global war will be our fate.

 

[Man With A Plan]

Thats nothing but ignorant rightwing FANTASY.

FINANCIAL CRISIS INQUIRY COMMISSION findings:

"...the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA. Research indicates only 6% of high-cost loans -- a proxy for subprime loans -- had any connection to the law. Loans made by CRA-regulated lenders in the neighborhoods in which they were required to lend were half as likely to default as similar loans made in the same neighborhoods by independent mortgage originators not subject to the law."

https://fcic-static.law.stanford.edu/cdn_media/fcic-reports/fcic_final_report_conclusions.pdf

There is litterally not a single respected economist that is stupid enough to try to pin the whole real estate and finance failures on some sort of litigation, instead far and away #1 underlying reason cited is general market over-exuberance and risk management failures.

You are bound for a huge bubble (and huge bubble burst) when everyone and ther mother belives that real estate investments are downside free. This was a system market failure at every point in the chain from consumers, to loan originators, to loan underwriters, to derivative market and of course regulators and risk managers.

Care to explain why Canada suffered far less from that crash than we did, Anton?

 

[AntonToo]

CRA doesn't matter. Red herring.

...what do you imagine Cuomo's litigation was about?

You are right it doesn't matter as to GSE's securities, you are wrong that it has nothing to do with what you are posting, because again, you seem to be conflating them.

 

[AntonToo]

View attachment 932588

Moron, stop spamming

 

[Andylusion]

...what do you imagine Cuomo's litigation was about?

You are right it doesn't matter as to GSE's securities, you are wrong that it has nothing to do with what you are posting.

What it was about is not relevant to the fact he forced banks to make loans, to unqualified borrower, and admitted openly they would default more.

Yeah, GSE securities were part of the crash. You do know that Freddie and Fannie required a larger bailout than any private bank, right?

They were directly involved in the sub-prime bubble, and were the biggest failures of the entire crash.

Which isn't surprising to those of us who understand they started the bubble to begin with.

 

[Andylusion]

Moron, stop spamming

Or what? You don't like facts? Don't reply. Every single time you reply with something that contradicts the evidence, I am going to post the evidence. If you don't want to see the evidence, don't say things that contradict facts.

 

[braalian]

If the economy’s tanking, I don’t see it

I’m doing just fine

And I still see “help wanted” signs everywhere. Any able bodied person who wants a job can get one

 

[Andylusion]

GSE backing subprime mortages through bundled securities had nothing to do with CRA, a program which BY IT'S VERY STANDARDS excluded sub-prime mortgages.

You have a conflated mess in your head and it's going to take many pages to get it right, just as I suspected.

That's not true.
GSE held tons of sub-prime loans, labeled as "Alt-A" loans. Freddie and Fannie were the biggest bailouts of the entire sub-prime crash.

 

[Papageorgio]

What it was about is not relevant to the fact he forced banks to make loans, to unqualified borrower, and admitted openly they would default more.

Yeah, GSE securities were part of the crash. You do know that Freddie and Fannie required a larger bailout than any private bank, right?

View attachment 932590

They were directly involved in the sub-prime bubble, and were the biggest failures of the entire crash.

Which isn't surprising to those of us who understand they started the bubble to begin with.

Facts are things the left denies when the facts disagree with their agenda.

 

[leftwinger]

Illegals in CA were given $750K homes with zero down under Congress rules (who watched and waited).

No way they could make $3000 payment washing dishes. They rented them out at $2500 and took rent until the bank came to reposess. Then Congress blamed GWB in the filthy MSM. Everyone knuws.

 

[AntonToo]

What it was about is not relevant to the fact he forced banks to make loans

Wrong, wrong again, it's DIRECTLY RELAVANT because as per FINANCIAL CRISIS INQUIRY COMMISSION findings loans under CRA that you are tlaking about had much lower default rates compared to unregulated market where most of the problems were.