noam chomsky vs milton friedman

[Andylusion]

Fannie and Freddie are barred from underwriting those loans.

yes they had cheaper money thanks to liberal GSE status so got all the best loans forcing the others to take more and more of the lower quality loans.

That's not what happened at all. GSEs guaranteed the better loans, so banks had the ability to make more loans to those with good credit that they'd never have the ability to make. Wall Street saw a way to move into a market that had been ignored for decades, but was far riskier.

So, GSEs in no way forced wall street into what was almost like a new market.

GSEs didn't "force" wall street into sub-prime mortgages. They just took the risk out of it. The CRA and lawsuits by groups like ACORN are what forced the banks into it.

Talk about "squirming." It couldn't be more obvious that the federal government was up to its neck in the sub-prime mortgage business. You're sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you!"

CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets. And those loans had a low rate of failure. Subprime was where it was failing, in the loans that were sub-Alt-A, with credit ratings of borrowers below 640. It's ridiculous to try to pin the blame on the CRA loans, when they were a tiny part of the market, and had low rates of failure.

You're just spewing one lie after another. Where do you get off claiming "CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets?" Anton posted the evidence that they had a high rate of failure. CRA loans were all "sub-prime," so you attempt to make a distinction between the two is laughable.

I keep knocking down the lies that Androw keeps posting, because they just aren't true.

No Marco Rubio government did not cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

Welcome back stupid. We were waiting for your foolish idiocy to give us something to laugh at.

The article is wrong. I have already on this thread, refuted the claims this article makes, numerous times. If you are not willing to listen to reality then, then you are certainly far too intellectually damaged to grasp if I refute it again.

Interestingly, the article directly refutes claims YOU have made. You claimed the Fannie and Freddie were prevented by law from having mortgages with FICOs lower than 670. That's interesting given that the article *YOU LINKED TO*.... refers to Freddie Mac loans with FICO scores between 620 and 659.

So now, you are actually citing references that disprove YOUR OWN CLAIMS.

How dumb does a person have to be, to post an article that directly contradicts his own claims? Apparently Shitty dumb, is the level one needs to reach.

Claiming you refuted the facts with fallacies isn't doing you or your ignorant ideologue pals any good.

Go back to the data, and it shows how subprime was the cause of the housing bubble, not GSEs or the CRA loans.

Again, we've been over the data a hundred times, and you are just simply too stupid to grasp the implication of the data. You've posted your irrelevant facts over and over, and half the people on the forum have pointed out that it doesn't make your case, thus proving you simply are not bright of a person to get the argument. You have your head shoved so far up your own ideology, that you couldn't see reality, if someone beat you on the head with it.

You are just not intelligent enough to grasp what everyone else on this thread grasps. You just don't have the brain power to understand. It's sad, but some like you just can't be educated.

 

[Andylusion]

Fannie and Freddie are barred from underwriting those loans.

yes they had cheaper money thanks to liberal GSE status so got all the best loans forcing the others to take more and more of the lower quality loans.

That's not what happened at all. GSEs guaranteed the better loans, so banks had the ability to make more loans to those with good credit that they'd never have the ability to make. Wall Street saw a way to move into a market that had been ignored for decades, but was far riskier.

So, GSEs in no way forced wall street into what was almost like a new market.

GSEs didn't "force" wall street into sub-prime mortgages. They just took the risk out of it. The CRA and lawsuits by groups like ACORN are what forced the banks into it.

Talk about "squirming." It couldn't be more obvious that the federal government was up to its neck in the sub-prime mortgage business. You're sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you!"

CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets. And those loans had a low rate of failure. Subprime was where it was failing, in the loans that were sub-Alt-A, with credit ratings of borrowers below 640. It's ridiculous to try to pin the blame on the CRA loans, when they were a tiny part of the market, and had low rates of failure.

You're just spewing one lie after another. Where do you get off claiming "CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets?" Anton posted the evidence that they had a high rate of failure. CRA loans were all "sub-prime," so you attempt to make a distinction between the two is laughable.

I keep knocking down the lies that Androw keeps posting, because they just aren't true.

No Marco Rubio government did not cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

Androw is kicking your ass all over the stadium. It's painful to watch the spectacle.

I guess if you are a right winger believing right wing fairy tales that the trolls of the right could actually bring valid evidence...

Androw is still fact challenged all over on this. The evidence shows he's telling a lie. It may not be his lie, and just some lies squirted into his mouth by some dude promising to trickle down on him. But it's still not reaching even the lowest levels of evidence.

When a complete idiot "They are not sub-prime! They are a grade below prime!" says that I am telling lies..... that's when we all start laughing at you. You are a joke. You have made yourself the dumbest moron on the forum, and are still too stupid grasp that.

 

[Andylusion]

He

Fannie and Freddie are barred from underwriting those loans.

yes they had cheaper money thanks to liberal GSE status so got all the best loans forcing the others to take more and more of the lower quality loans.

That's not what happened at all. GSEs guaranteed the better loans, so banks had the ability to make more loans to those with good credit that they'd never have the ability to make. Wall Street saw a way to move into a market that had been ignored for decades, but was far riskier.

So, GSEs in no way forced wall street into what was almost like a new market.

GSEs didn't "force" wall street into sub-prime mortgages. They just took the risk out of it. The CRA and lawsuits by groups like ACORN are what forced the banks into it.

Talk about "squirming." It couldn't be more obvious that the federal government was up to its neck in the sub-prime mortgage business. You're sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you!"

CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets. And those loans had a low rate of failure. Subprime was where it was failing, in the loans that were sub-Alt-A, with credit ratings of borrowers below 640. It's ridiculous to try to pin the blame on the CRA loans, when they were a tiny part of the market, and had low rates of failure.

You're just spewing one lie after another. Where do you get off claiming "CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets?" Anton posted the evidence that they had a high rate of failure. CRA loans were all "sub-prime," so you attempt to make a distinction between the two is laughable.

I keep knocking down the lies that Androw keeps posting, because they just aren't true.

No Marco Rubio government did not cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

Welcome back stupid. We were waiting for your foolish idiocy to give us something to laugh at.

The article is wrong. I have already on this thread, refuted the claims this article makes, numerous times. If you are not willing to listen to reality then, then you are certainly far too intellectually damaged to grasp if I refute it again.

Interestingly, the article directly refutes claims YOU have made. You claimed the Fannie and Freddie were prevented by law from having mortgages with FICOs lower than 670. That's interesting given that the article *YOU LINKED TO*.... refers to Freddie Mac loans with FICO scores between 620 and 659.

So now, you are actually citing references that disprove YOUR OWN CLAIMS.

How dumb does a person have to be, to post an article that directly contradicts his own claims? Apparently Shitty dumb, is the level one needs to reach.

Claiming you refuted the facts with fallacies isn't doing you or your ignorant ideologue pals any good.

Go back to the data, and it shows how subprime was the cause of the housing bubble, not GSEs or the CRA loans.

He refuted your claims with the sources you provided. Where's the fallacy? You're obviously too stupid to stop digging the whole you're in. It's hard to watch the humiliation you are enduring.

He didn't refute shit.

CRA still wasn't a cause of the housing bubble.

What Does the New Community Reinvestment Act CRA Paper Tell Us Next New Deal

But go ahead and make yourself look like a fool by ignoring evidence proving your belief system is flawed.

Dude.... let me give you a hint.... when absolutely EVERYONE says that you are being humiliated, and you are the only dumbass that still thinks you are making great points...... 'psst'... (you are being mocked stupid. You made a fool of yourself, and you are the one that hasn't gotten the memo on it)

 

[Shanty]

Fannie and Freddie are barred from underwriting those loans.

yes they had cheaper money thanks to liberal GSE status so got all the best loans forcing the others to take more and more of the lower quality loans.

That's not what happened at all. GSEs guaranteed the better loans, so banks had the ability to make more loans to those with good credit that they'd never have the ability to make. Wall Street saw a way to move into a market that had been ignored for decades, but was far riskier.

So, GSEs in no way forced wall street into what was almost like a new market.

GSEs didn't "force" wall street into sub-prime mortgages. They just took the risk out of it. The CRA and lawsuits by groups like ACORN are what forced the banks into it.

Talk about "squirming." It couldn't be more obvious that the federal government was up to its neck in the sub-prime mortgage business. You're sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you!"

CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets. And those loans had a low rate of failure. Subprime was where it was failing, in the loans that were sub-Alt-A, with credit ratings of borrowers below 640. It's ridiculous to try to pin the blame on the CRA loans, when they were a tiny part of the market, and had low rates of failure.

You're just spewing one lie after another. Where do you get off claiming "CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets?" Anton posted the evidence that they had a high rate of failure. CRA loans were all "sub-prime," so you attempt to make a distinction between the two is laughable.

I keep knocking down the lies that Androw keeps posting, because they just aren't true.

No Marco Rubio government did not cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

Androw is kicking your ass all over the stadium. It's painful to watch the spectacle.

I guess if you are a right winger believing right wing fairy tales that the trolls of the right could actually bring valid evidence...

Androw is still fact challenged all over on this. The evidence shows he's telling a lie. It may not be his lie, and just some lies squirted into his mouth by some dude promising to trickle down on him. But it's still not reaching even the lowest levels of evidence.

When a complete idiot "They are not sub-prime! They are a grade below prime!" says that I am telling lies..... that's when we all start laughing at you. You are a joke. You have made yourself the dumbest moron on the forum, and are still too stupid grasp that.

You're really a dope aren't you?

When the grades of loans below prime are different, and you can't seem to grasp the big differences in them, then you're so fucking retarded, you probably have to have your mommy take your helmet off of your head every night so you don't sleep in it, right Corky?

 

[Shanty]

When you're version of "everyone" are a bunch of dumbasses who can't go to the data, like you, the more they say I'm wrong, the more they show they are blind to reality.

Here's the facts: GSEs and the CRA had very little to do with the housing bubble, as the data shows. I don't care how much stupidity goes into your ideology that prevents you from being able to acknowledge reality. If a hundred of your retarded buddies said they thought Big Bird was a better President than Ronald Reagan, I'm sure you'd be proud to step in line to denounce Reagan.

 

[Shanty]

Yet another destruction of the rightwingtarded CRA/GSE narrative. Great links to real data.

Republican Truth and Real Truth GSEs and the Housing Bubble David Coates

 

[bripat9643]

Fannie and Freddie are barred from underwriting those loans.

yes they had cheaper money thanks to liberal GSE status so got all the best loans forcing the others to take more and more of the lower quality loans.

That's not what happened at all. GSEs guaranteed the better loans, so banks had the ability to make more loans to those with good credit that they'd never have the ability to make. Wall Street saw a way to move into a market that had been ignored for decades, but was far riskier.

So, GSEs in no way forced wall street into what was almost like a new market.

GSEs didn't "force" wall street into sub-prime mortgages. They just took the risk out of it. The CRA and lawsuits by groups like ACORN are what forced the banks into it.

Talk about "squirming." It couldn't be more obvious that the federal government was up to its neck in the sub-prime mortgage business. You're sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you!"

CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets. And those loans had a low rate of failure. Subprime was where it was failing, in the loans that were sub-Alt-A, with credit ratings of borrowers below 640. It's ridiculous to try to pin the blame on the CRA loans, when they were a tiny part of the market, and had low rates of failure.

You're just spewing one lie after another. Where do you get off claiming "CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets?" Anton posted the evidence that they had a high rate of failure. CRA loans were all "sub-prime," so you attempt to make a distinction between the two is laughable.

I keep knocking down the lies that Androw keeps posting, because they just aren't true.

No Marco Rubio government did not cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

Androw is kicking your ass all over the stadium. It's painful to watch the spectacle.

I guess if you are a right winger believing right wing fairy tales that the trolls of the right could actually bring valid evidence...

Androw is still fact challenged all over on this. The evidence shows he's telling a lie. It may not be his lie, and just some lies squirted into his mouth by some dude promising to trickle down on him. But it's still not reaching even the lowest levels of evidence.

When a complete idiot "They are not sub-prime! They are a grade below prime!" says that I am telling lies..... that's when we all start laughing at you. You are a joke. You have made yourself the dumbest moron on the forum, and are still too stupid grasp that.

You're really a dope aren't you?

When the grades of loans below prime are different, and you can't seem to grasp the big differences in them, then you're so fucking retarded, you probably have to have your mommy take your helmet off of your head every night so you don't sleep in it, right Corky?

All grades of loans below prime are "sub-prime," by definition. You have to be a fucking moron not to understand that simple irrefutable fact.

 

[Andylusion]

You're really a dope aren't you?

When the grades of loans below prime are different, and you can't seem to grasp the big differences in them, then you're so fucking retarded, you probably have to have your mommy take your helmet off of your head every night so you don't sleep in it, right Corky?

When you're version of "everyone" are a bunch of dumbasses who can't go to the data, like you, the more they say I'm wrong, the more they show they are blind to reality.

Here's the facts: GSEs and the CRA had very little to do with the housing bubble, as the data shows. I don't care how much stupidity goes into your ideology that prevents you from being able to acknowledge reality. If a hundred of your retarded buddies said they thought Big Bird was a better President than Ronald Reagan, I'm sure you'd be proud to step in line to denounce Reagan.

Yet another destruction of the rightwingtarded CRA/GSE narrative. Great links to real data.

Republican Truth and Real Truth GSEs and the Housing Bubble David Coates

Again, you post yet another link, with all the same ignorant claims we've already refuted.

Claim 1: The CRA was passed in 1977, and the bubble started in 1997, therefore the CRA can not be blamed.

That would be true, except it doesn't matter when it was passed, but rather when it was enforced and pushed. Carter pushed it originally, and guess what? There was a boom and bust in the late 70s.

Reagan, didn't push the CRA. Nor did Bush Sr. Clinton did. And shockingly there was another boom and bust.

Claim 2: The GSEs didn't hold the majority of loans, and by the end of the bubble had a lower market share than the private market, therefore GSEs can not be blamed.

Again.... all true, and irrelevant. The whole point of the GSEs, their very reason for existing, is to influence the private market. So here they have influenced the private market, and the market crashes, and you say they didn't cause it.

It does not matter what percentage the GSEs have of the market. Once the bubble was started, the private market will run with it. It's called speculation. Once the housing prices starting rising, making sub-prime loans profitable even if they defaulted, the private market is going to jump on that win-win scenario, with or without GSE prodding.

Claim 3: The GSEs were 'late' to the game, thus they can not be blamed.

Now this one, is just flat out a lie. The way in which people claim the GSE were not involved, is by look exclusively at the mortgage Assets. Mortgage assets being the specifically Mortgage Backed Securities, that Freddie and Fannie directly bought.

If you look only at those, then you would be right. Freddie and Fannie were very late. But directly purchasing MBSs on the market, is actually only a fraction of Freddie and Fannies business. Most is guaranteeing MBS.

Guaranteeing is when a private company makes a bunch of mortgages, bundles them together into an MBS, and shows it to Fannie or Freddie, who look it over, and stamp it with their guarantee. Neither of the GSEs ever OWNS the Mortgage Backed Security, or the mortgages contained therein, but they 'securitize' that MBS. If the MBS defaults, Freddie and Fannie cover the loss.

For example, Freddie Mac in 2007, only had $80 Billion dollars in actual Mortgages, but had $630 Billion in guarantees in the market.

So what the left does, is ignore the $630 Billion in guarantees, and looks exclusively at the $80 Billion in mortgage assets, and says "see? They didn't have sub-prime mortgages until way way late".

But Freddie Mac was guaranteeing sub-prime mortgage backed securities in 1997. Fail.

Claim 4: The GSE were simply not involved in the high-risk, sub-prime loans.

You've been saying that over and over. Yet the numbers don't support that.

Alt-A loans accounted for only 11% of Fannie and Freddies combined assets (including guarantees).

Yet, almost half of the losses, which was $47 Billion dollars, was attributed to Alt-A loans.

And lastly....... I had completely forgotten about this.

SEC Charges Former Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Executives with Securities Fraud Release No. 2011-267 December 16 2011

Washington, D.C., Dec. 16, 2011 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged six former top executives of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) with securities fraud, alleging they knew and approved of misleading statements claiming the companies had minimal holdings of higher-risk mortgage loans, including subprime loans.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives told the world that their subprime exposure was substantially smaller than it really was," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Enforcement Division. "These material misstatements occurred during a time of acute investor interest in financial institutions' exposure to subprime loans, and misled the market about the amount of risk on the company's books. All individuals, regardless of their rank or position, will be held accountable for perpetuating half-truths or misrepresentations about matters materially important to the interest of our country's investors."

So apparently, even the government is saying the government was buying and guaranteeing high risk loans.

Now as for you... I've changed my mind.

I thought you were being a jerk, just to be a jerk. I have now come to the conclusion, that you really honestly are not bright enough to know you have failed to make a valid argument.

So, I'm not going to kick you around anymore. I pity you. It's sad, but I realize that kicking around someone mentally deficient is wrong. So, no more insults. No more smack downs.

I'll just prove your claims wrong, and move on.

 

[hipeter924]

Of course we would. He's right. Licensing hasn't prevented a single bad doctor for killing a patient.
Just like licensing hasn't stopped a single auto fatality.

That's such a silly statement I don't even know where to begin. Licensing standards are only as good as the people who make them, and the doctors who try to follow them. Licensing has the capacity to stop cars being on the road that are unsafe, it isn't always fair and overcharging takes place, but to suggest that we should allow cars on the road without headlights or without airbags and seat-belts, is a fatality waiting to happen. In case of accidents it is easy to measure how many lives have been saved by seat-belts and airbags. However, the medical practice is more difficult to measure, but if the doctor isn't licensed and doesn't know all the rules and guidelines of his profession, it would be worrying.

James E. Mann, here in Ohio, practiced medicine for 20 years, before he was caught. Didn't harm anyone. Didn't cause any deaths. They just found he didn't have a license.

Just because someone was a good doctor without a license, doesn't imply that all doctors that work outside of the license structure don't commit malpractice. What you are arguing, is that because a driver didn't have a license and didn't crash, everyone doesn't need a license.

By the way... do you people know what sparked the Arab Spring?

A corrupt military dictatorship supported by the US government and neoliberal economists let the economy turn to crap, till the people got sick of it and revolted.

He didn't have a permit, or license to sell from his vegetable cart.

Mohamed Bouazizi was selling food from a wooden cart. Because he couldn't afford the license / permit to sell from a cart, the police confiscated his stuff and cart. With no other way to earn money, he set himself on fire, sparking the Arab Spring.

The entire Arab Spring was started as a protest of government regulation on business.

Point you are missing here, is that the Egyptian government followed the IMF and World Bank economic plan, and that government corruption alongside that plan messed up Egypt. Though the economic ideology of Milton Friedman has always gone hand in hand with government corruption. The Muslim Brotherhood departed little from the IMF and World Bank plan under Mubarak, thus the economy continued to flop and they got turfed out. The current Egyptian government is probably going to survive for now, simply because the military arrested all its political opponents in the Muslim Brotherhood, and began a campaign of political repression.

 

[hipeter924]

. Most people wouldn't admit to following him these days, as he was as radical an economist as they come - apart from the soviet economists that believed in collectivization.

dear, Red China just elected to follow him and it immediately eliminated 40% of world poverty.
Isn't thinking fun?

Actually, it was opening up the Chinese economy to foreign investment and trade under the capitalist system that allowed that economic transformation, and that would have resulted in economic growth irrespective of whether you were following a mixed-economy model or the robber baron economics advocated by Milton Friedman which took place in China and Russia.

The Chinese economy is highly inefficient, and the government is filled with top level corruption much like Russia is. Just because a train goes, doesn't mean everyone can come aboard or afford the ticket - most Chinese are still in poverty or low-income and suffer from the negative health effects of heavy industry and pollution from that transformation.

When people think of China and say 10% gdp growth is a big number, you have to take in the fact that China has 1.3 billion people, and 10% would take decades to get even a small fraction of those people out of poverty or low-income. This is why the US economy is still better than China's economy, as the US still follows a mixed-economic model, with a welfare state for the hardest hit.

 

[Shanty]

You're really a dope aren't you?

When the grades of loans below prime are different, and you can't seem to grasp the big differences in them, then you're so fucking retarded, you probably have to have your mommy take your helmet off of your head every night so you don't sleep in it, right Corky?

When you're version of "everyone" are a bunch of dumbasses who can't go to the data, like you, the more they say I'm wrong, the more they show they are blind to reality.

Here's the facts: GSEs and the CRA had very little to do with the housing bubble, as the data shows. I don't care how much stupidity goes into your ideology that prevents you from being able to acknowledge reality. If a hundred of your retarded buddies said they thought Big Bird was a better President than Ronald Reagan, I'm sure you'd be proud to step in line to denounce Reagan.

Yet another destruction of the rightwingtarded CRA/GSE narrative. Great links to real data.

Republican Truth and Real Truth GSEs and the Housing Bubble David Coates

Again, you post yet another link, with all the same ignorant claims we've already refuted.

Claim 1: The CRA was passed in 1977, and the bubble started in 1997, therefore the CRA can not be blamed.

That would be true, except it doesn't matter when it was passed, but rather when it was enforced and pushed. Carter pushed it originally, and guess what? There was a boom and bust in the late 70s.

Reagan, didn't push the CRA. Nor did Bush Sr. Clinton did. And shockingly there was another boom and bust.

Claim 2: The GSEs didn't hold the majority of loans, and by the end of the bubble had a lower market share than the private market, therefore GSEs can not be blamed.

Again.... all true, and irrelevant. The whole point of the GSEs, their very reason for existing, is to influence the private market. So here they have influenced the private market, and the market crashes, and you say they didn't cause it.

It does not matter what percentage the GSEs have of the market. Once the bubble was started, the private market will run with it. It's called speculation. Once the housing prices starting rising, making sub-prime loans profitable even if they defaulted, the private market is going to jump on that win-win scenario, with or without GSE prodding.

Claim 3: The GSEs were 'late' to the game, thus they can not be blamed.

Now this one, is just flat out a lie. The way in which people claim the GSE were not involved, is by look exclusively at the mortgage Assets. Mortgage assets being the specifically Mortgage Backed Securities, that Freddie and Fannie directly bought.

If you look only at those, then you would be right. Freddie and Fannie were very late. But directly purchasing MBSs on the market, is actually only a fraction of Freddie and Fannies business. Most is guaranteeing MBS.

Guaranteeing is when a private company makes a bunch of mortgages, bundles them together into an MBS, and shows it to Fannie or Freddie, who look it over, and stamp it with their guarantee. Neither of the GSEs ever OWNS the Mortgage Backed Security, or the mortgages contained therein, but they 'securitize' that MBS. If the MBS defaults, Freddie and Fannie cover the loss.

For example, Freddie Mac in 2007, only had $80 Billion dollars in actual Mortgages, but had $630 Billion in guarantees in the market.

So what the left does, is ignore the $630 Billion in guarantees, and looks exclusively at the $80 Billion in mortgage assets, and says "see? They didn't have sub-prime mortgages until way way late".

But Freddie Mac was guaranteeing sub-prime mortgage backed securities in 1997. Fail.

Claim 4: The GSE were simply not involved in the high-risk, sub-prime loans.

You've been saying that over and over. Yet the numbers don't support that.

Alt-A loans accounted for only 11% of Fannie and Freddies combined assets (including guarantees).

Yet, almost half of the losses, which was $47 Billion dollars, was attributed to Alt-A loans.

And lastly....... I had completely forgotten about this.

SEC Charges Former Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Executives with Securities Fraud Release No. 2011-267 December 16 2011

Washington, D.C., Dec. 16, 2011 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged six former top executives of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) with securities fraud, alleging they knew and approved of misleading statements claiming the companies had minimal holdings of higher-risk mortgage loans, including subprime loans.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives told the world that their subprime exposure was substantially smaller than it really was," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Enforcement Division. "These material misstatements occurred during a time of acute investor interest in financial institutions' exposure to subprime loans, and misled the market about the amount of risk on the company's books. All individuals, regardless of their rank or position, will be held accountable for perpetuating half-truths or misrepresentations about matters materially important to the interest of our country's investors."

So apparently, even the government is saying the government was buying and guaranteeing high risk loans.

Now as for you... I've changed my mind.

I thought you were being a jerk, just to be a jerk. I have now come to the conclusion, that you really honestly are not bright enough to know you have failed to make a valid argument.

So, I'm not going to kick you around anymore. I pity you. It's sad, but I realize that kicking around someone mentally deficient is wrong. So, no more insults. No more smack downs.

I'll just prove your claims wrong, and move on.

Keep trying, moe. I'm still waiting for you to bring evidence showing the GSEs or CRA caused the housing bubble. Once it's put to a timeline,and the small percentages of bad loans coming from either are shown, your argument falls apart from stupid.

I don't blame you for running your stupid ass away. If I had as little understanding of reality as you, I'd be embarrassed to post the nonsense you do. But, I guess if I was as stupid as you, I wouldn't know to be embarrassed by being as stupid as you.

Run along, and let the adults discuss what you can't.

 

[Shanty]

Fannie and Freddie are barred from underwriting those loans.

yes they had cheaper money thanks to liberal GSE status so got all the best loans forcing the others to take more and more of the lower quality loans.

That's not what happened at all. GSEs guaranteed the better loans, so banks had the ability to make more loans to those with good credit that they'd never have the ability to make. Wall Street saw a way to move into a market that had been ignored for decades, but was far riskier.

So, GSEs in no way forced wall street into what was almost like a new market.

GSEs didn't "force" wall street into sub-prime mortgages. They just took the risk out of it. The CRA and lawsuits by groups like ACORN are what forced the banks into it.

Talk about "squirming." It couldn't be more obvious that the federal government was up to its neck in the sub-prime mortgage business. You're sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you!"

CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets. And those loans had a low rate of failure. Subprime was where it was failing, in the loans that were sub-Alt-A, with credit ratings of borrowers below 640. It's ridiculous to try to pin the blame on the CRA loans, when they were a tiny part of the market, and had low rates of failure.

You're just spewing one lie after another. Where do you get off claiming "CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets?" Anton posted the evidence that they had a high rate of failure. CRA loans were all "sub-prime," so you attempt to make a distinction between the two is laughable.

I keep knocking down the lies that Androw keeps posting, because they just aren't true.

No Marco Rubio government did not cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

Androw is kicking your ass all over the stadium. It's painful to watch the spectacle.

I guess if you are a right winger believing right wing fairy tales that the trolls of the right could actually bring valid evidence...

Androw is still fact challenged all over on this. The evidence shows he's telling a lie. It may not be his lie, and just some lies squirted into his mouth by some dude promising to trickle down on him. But it's still not reaching even the lowest levels of evidence.

When a complete idiot "They are not sub-prime! They are a grade below prime!" says that I am telling lies..... that's when we all start laughing at you. You are a joke. You have made yourself the dumbest moron on the forum, and are still too stupid grasp that.

You're really a dope aren't you?

When the grades of loans below prime are different, and you can't seem to grasp the big differences in them, then you're so fucking retarded, you probably have to have your mommy take your helmet off of your head every night so you don't sleep in it, right Corky?

All grades of loans below prime are "sub-prime," by definition. You have to be a fucking moron not to understand that simple irrefutable fact.

Well, moron... There's still the fact that those Alt- A loans from Fannie and Freddie didn't default like the subprime Wall Street was dealing in. Wall Street backed subprime made up close to 85% of the failed loans, dumbass. Not to mention that Fannie and Freddie were moving away from the market because of the accounting scandals during the early 2000s, Wall Street moved in and was making loans with no cares to whether they could be repaid or not, as the corporate execs were getting their bonuses for loans made, not loans made that could show a repayment history a few years down the road. The whole subprime mortgage debacle still comes down to lowering the limits of loans made by lenders. If you dopes could make the case that 85% of the failed loans were Fannie, Freddie or CRA, then you might have a point.

 

[Andylusion]

You're really a dope aren't you?

When the grades of loans below prime are different, and you can't seem to grasp the big differences in them, then you're so fucking retarded, you probably have to have your mommy take your helmet off of your head every night so you don't sleep in it, right Corky?

When you're version of "everyone" are a bunch of dumbasses who can't go to the data, like you, the more they say I'm wrong, the more they show they are blind to reality.

Here's the facts: GSEs and the CRA had very little to do with the housing bubble, as the data shows. I don't care how much stupidity goes into your ideology that prevents you from being able to acknowledge reality. If a hundred of your retarded buddies said they thought Big Bird was a better President than Ronald Reagan, I'm sure you'd be proud to step in line to denounce Reagan.

Yet another destruction of the rightwingtarded CRA/GSE narrative. Great links to real data.

Republican Truth and Real Truth GSEs and the Housing Bubble David Coates

Again, you post yet another link, with all the same ignorant claims we've already refuted.

Claim 1: The CRA was passed in 1977, and the bubble started in 1997, therefore the CRA can not be blamed.

That would be true, except it doesn't matter when it was passed, but rather when it was enforced and pushed. Carter pushed it originally, and guess what? There was a boom and bust in the late 70s.

Reagan, didn't push the CRA. Nor did Bush Sr. Clinton did. And shockingly there was another boom and bust.

Claim 2: The GSEs didn't hold the majority of loans, and by the end of the bubble had a lower market share than the private market, therefore GSEs can not be blamed.

Again.... all true, and irrelevant. The whole point of the GSEs, their very reason for existing, is to influence the private market. So here they have influenced the private market, and the market crashes, and you say they didn't cause it.

It does not matter what percentage the GSEs have of the market. Once the bubble was started, the private market will run with it. It's called speculation. Once the housing prices starting rising, making sub-prime loans profitable even if they defaulted, the private market is going to jump on that win-win scenario, with or without GSE prodding.

Claim 3: The GSEs were 'late' to the game, thus they can not be blamed.

Now this one, is just flat out a lie. The way in which people claim the GSE were not involved, is by look exclusively at the mortgage Assets. Mortgage assets being the specifically Mortgage Backed Securities, that Freddie and Fannie directly bought.

If you look only at those, then you would be right. Freddie and Fannie were very late. But directly purchasing MBSs on the market, is actually only a fraction of Freddie and Fannies business. Most is guaranteeing MBS.

Guaranteeing is when a private company makes a bunch of mortgages, bundles them together into an MBS, and shows it to Fannie or Freddie, who look it over, and stamp it with their guarantee. Neither of the GSEs ever OWNS the Mortgage Backed Security, or the mortgages contained therein, but they 'securitize' that MBS. If the MBS defaults, Freddie and Fannie cover the loss.

For example, Freddie Mac in 2007, only had $80 Billion dollars in actual Mortgages, but had $630 Billion in guarantees in the market.

So what the left does, is ignore the $630 Billion in guarantees, and looks exclusively at the $80 Billion in mortgage assets, and says "see? They didn't have sub-prime mortgages until way way late".

But Freddie Mac was guaranteeing sub-prime mortgage backed securities in 1997. Fail.

Claim 4: The GSE were simply not involved in the high-risk, sub-prime loans.

You've been saying that over and over. Yet the numbers don't support that.

Alt-A loans accounted for only 11% of Fannie and Freddies combined assets (including guarantees).

Yet, almost half of the losses, which was $47 Billion dollars, was attributed to Alt-A loans.

And lastly....... I had completely forgotten about this.

SEC Charges Former Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Executives with Securities Fraud Release No. 2011-267 December 16 2011

Washington, D.C., Dec. 16, 2011 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged six former top executives of the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) with securities fraud, alleging they knew and approved of misleading statements claiming the companies had minimal holdings of higher-risk mortgage loans, including subprime loans.

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives told the world that their subprime exposure was substantially smaller than it really was," said Robert Khuzami, Director of the SEC's Enforcement Division. "These material misstatements occurred during a time of acute investor interest in financial institutions' exposure to subprime loans, and misled the market about the amount of risk on the company's books. All individuals, regardless of their rank or position, will be held accountable for perpetuating half-truths or misrepresentations about matters materially important to the interest of our country's investors."

So apparently, even the government is saying the government was buying and guaranteeing high risk loans.

Now as for you... I've changed my mind.

I thought you were being a jerk, just to be a jerk. I have now come to the conclusion, that you really honestly are not bright enough to know you have failed to make a valid argument.

So, I'm not going to kick you around anymore. I pity you. It's sad, but I realize that kicking around someone mentally deficient is wrong. So, no more insults. No more smack downs.

I'll just prove your claims wrong, and move on.

Keep trying, moe. I'm still waiting for you to bring evidence showing the GSEs or CRA caused the housing bubble. Once it's put to a timeline,and the small percentages of bad loans coming from either are shown, your argument falls apart from stupid.

I don't blame you for running your stupid ass away. If I had as little understanding of reality as you, I'd be embarrassed to post the nonsense you do. But, I guess if I was as stupid as you, I wouldn't know to be embarrassed by being as stupid as you.

Run along, and let the adults discuss what you can't.

It's ok shanty. I won't beat on you anymore. You asked for the timeline again. Here you go.

Housing price bubble started 1997.

Sub-prime mortgage backed securities less than 1% of the market until 1997, and was over 10% by 1998.

First Union Capital Markets Corp. Bear Stearns Co. Price Securities Offering... -- re CHARLOTTE N.C. Oct. 20 PRNewswire --

First Union (Wachovia), and Bear Stearns, anounce deal with Freddie Mac to securitize sub-prime CRA Mortgage Backed Securities. The deal is signed 1997.

 

[Andylusion]

Fannie and Freddie are barred from underwriting those loans.

yes they had cheaper money thanks to liberal GSE status so got all the best loans forcing the others to take more and more of the lower quality loans.

That's not what happened at all. GSEs guaranteed the better loans, so banks had the ability to make more loans to those with good credit that they'd never have the ability to make. Wall Street saw a way to move into a market that had been ignored for decades, but was far riskier.

So, GSEs in no way forced wall street into what was almost like a new market.

GSEs didn't "force" wall street into sub-prime mortgages. They just took the risk out of it. The CRA and lawsuits by groups like ACORN are what forced the banks into it.

Talk about "squirming." It couldn't be more obvious that the federal government was up to its neck in the sub-prime mortgage business. You're sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "I can't hear you!"

CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets. And those loans had a low rate of failure. Subprime was where it was failing, in the loans that were sub-Alt-A, with credit ratings of borrowers below 640. It's ridiculous to try to pin the blame on the CRA loans, when they were a tiny part of the market, and had low rates of failure.

You're just spewing one lie after another. Where do you get off claiming "CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets?" Anton posted the evidence that they had a high rate of failure. CRA loans were all "sub-prime," so you attempt to make a distinction between the two is laughable.

I keep knocking down the lies that Androw keeps posting, because they just aren't true.

No Marco Rubio government did not cause the housing crisis - The Washington Post

Androw is kicking your ass all over the stadium. It's painful to watch the spectacle.

I guess if you are a right winger believing right wing fairy tales that the trolls of the right could actually bring valid evidence...

Androw is still fact challenged all over on this. The evidence shows he's telling a lie. It may not be his lie, and just some lies squirted into his mouth by some dude promising to trickle down on him. But it's still not reaching even the lowest levels of evidence.

When a complete idiot "They are not sub-prime! They are a grade below prime!" says that I am telling lies..... that's when we all start laughing at you. You are a joke. You have made yourself the dumbest moron on the forum, and are still too stupid grasp that.

You're really a dope aren't you?

When the grades of loans below prime are different, and you can't seem to grasp the big differences in them, then you're so fucking retarded, you probably have to have your mommy take your helmet off of your head every night so you don't sleep in it, right Corky?

All grades of loans below prime are "sub-prime," by definition. You have to be a fucking moron not to understand that simple irrefutable fact.

Well, moron... There's still the fact that those Alt- A loans from Fannie and Freddie didn't default like the subprime Wall Street was dealing in. Wall Street backed subprime made up close to 85% of the failed loans, dumbass. Not to mention that Fannie and Freddie were moving away from the market because of the accounting scandals during the early 2000s, Wall Street moved in and was making loans with no cares to whether they could be repaid or not, as the corporate execs were getting their bonuses for loans made, not loans made that could show a repayment history a few years down the road. The whole subprime mortgage debacle still comes down to lowering the limits of loans made by lenders. If you dopes could make the case that 85% of the failed loans were Fannie, Freddie or CRA, then you might have a point.

We don't have to make that case, because it's not relevant. Once Freddie and Fannie created the bubble, the private market followed. Of course they are going to make a ton of sub-prime loans during the bubble, because it was a win-win situation. The GSE created bubble, caused housing prices to rise fast enough, that even if the loan defaulted, the asset (the home) was worth more than the original loan.

If the borrower paid the loan, they win. If the borrow defaults, they have a house worth more than the loan, and they win.

It's a win-win. So yes, of course the private market drastically increased sub-prime lending, as any market would.

The question isn't who had the most loans at the end. The question is, who started it. Freddie Mac started it in 1997.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Wall Street backed subprime made up close to 85% of the failed loans, dumbass

Dear, as long as the Fed Fan Fred were pumping up the market to stimulate the economy there was no danger. Wall Street was betting on liberalism or govt interference in the free market as were all the folks who got sub prime mortgages!

And, that is not to mention that Wall Stree took a lot of sub prime because Fan Fred stole all the good mortgages!

Still over your head?

 

[Andylusion]

Here is Bill Clinton himself, praising the CRA, and boasting that although the CRA was signed into law 20 years ago, 85% of the CRA loans have been during his presidency. AND he also says they are loans to people who otherwise wouldn't qualify.

The evidence supporting our view is endless. Every time I turn around, I kick over another example.

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

Barack Obama, openly claiming that sub-prime loans were a good idea.

The examples just never end. You either have the ability to grasp the evidence, or you don't. That's all there is too it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The examples just never end
.

yes, there were about 50 programs to get people into houses the free market said they could not afford and when they actually could not afford them it had nothing to do with the 50 programs .........according to liberals!!

Clinton said in the video: "CRA was to get money to people who otherwise would not get it" Thank God for govt intervention!!!