You say facts, I say opinion, and not a very good opinion at that. CIA analysists have bungled
analysis as a matter of routine. Like yellow cake in Iraq? WMD in Iraq?
Last edited:
Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality
- Thread starter georgephillip
- Start date
analysis as a matter of routine. Like yellow cake in Iraq? WMD in Iraq?
Actually several of us did, with links, proving that the Mae/Mac and bank regulaters did in fact insist on sub prime loans, and our current left wing president sued to insure they did so as a lawyer in Illinois.
ROTFLMAO at your stupidity.The only point you've proven so far is that you're a legend in your own mind.This comment should be pointed squarely at you.You don't have to prove your ignorance with every post
"Largest (voter registration over 75,000)[edit]
Libertarian Party - Libertarianism, laissez-faire, pro-civil rights, anti-war
Green Party of the United States - Green politics, eco-socialism, progressivism
Constitution Party - Social conservatism, religious right, paleoconservatism
Smaller parties by ideology[edit]
Right-wing[edit]
This section includes any party that advocates positions associated with American conservatism, including both Old Right and New Right tendencies.
America First Party
Christian Liberty Party
America's Party
Independent American Party"
Third party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You don't have to prove your ignorance with every post
Go back and read the links you obviously passed over as several prove the point splendidly.
You really do need to learn something about economics. Every measurable change in an economic situation is reacting to a prior situation. That the government chose to pass a law did not make the actions or reactions take place immediately; they realistically follow by some time. As it tis, the housing bubble did start in 1997, and it advanced radically from 1999 all the way to 2006. That bubble and subsequent crash caused the great recession. The most important issues were low interest and no down payment loans, both pushed by government regulating agencies, but mostly Mae and Mac and the Fed, all related to fiscal and monetary policy.
There is one more thing to consider, summed up nicely in an old saying, "as GM goes, so goes the economy of our nation." There may actually be a power savings, but at what cost? How many jobs will be lost if we go to high speed rail?
As it is, every country which has rapid rail systems tend to be small and densely populated. When I was living in Europe I took their rail system when I did not need to transport large pay loads. They were not particularly high speed. In japan, I did travel on their high speed rail systems. The train originating in Tokyo going to Yokohama was a very high speed train. Just don't try to use it during the busy periods.
Do you really believe that the government is going to admit fault of fraud? Do you really believe that regulators did not pressure banks to do sub prime loans?But you can't link to any CRA mandate for mortgage fraud:
"1997–2005:Mortgage fraud increased by 1,411 percent.[32]
2000–2003: Early 2000s recession (exact time varies by country).
2001–2005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).
2001: US Federal Reserve lowers Federal funds rate eleven times, from 6.5% to 1.75%.[33]
2002–2003: Mortgage denial rate of 14 percent for conventional home purchase loans, half of 1997.[18]
2002: Annual home price appreciation of 10% or more in California, Florida, and most Northeastern states."Annual home-value growth at highest rate since 1980". Retrieved 2008-10-06.
June 17resident G.W. Bush sets goal of increasing minority home owners by at least 5.5 million by 2010 through tax credits, subsidies and a Fannie Mae commitment of $440 billion to establish NeighborWorks America with faith-based organizations.[34]"
Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Are you really that ignorant?
Your graph "...is based on sale prices of standard existing houses, not new construction, to track the value of housing as an investment over time."But you can't link to any CRA mandate for mortgage fraud:
"1997–2005:Mortgage fraud increased by 1,411 percent.[32]
2000–2003: Early 2000s recession (exact time varies by country).
2001–2005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).
2001: US Federal Reserve lowers Federal funds rate eleven times, from 6.5% to 1.75%.[33]
2002–2003: Mortgage denial rate of 14 percent for conventional home purchase loans, half of 1997.[18]
2002: Annual home price appreciation of 10% or more in California, Florida, and most Northeastern states."Annual home-value growth at highest rate since 1980". Retrieved 2008-10-06.
June 17
Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What part of this is too hard for you?
This is absolutely, totally false. And I proved this already. You are wrong. Thus everything else you said, was wrong too.
The bubble did NOT start in the 2000s. You are wrong. It started in 1997. The facts prove that. It's not up for debate.
Now are you going to admit this truth, or are you going to shove your head so far up your politics you can't see anything that contradicts your per-determined answer?
What significance do you attach to that?
"1997: Mortgage denial rate of 29 percent for conventional home purchase loans.[18]
"July: The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 repealed the Section 121 exclusion and section 1034 rollover rules, and replaced them with a $500,000 married/$250,000 single exclusion of capital gains on the sale of a home, available once every two years.[19]
"This encouraged people to buy more expensive first homes, as well as invest in second homes and investment properties.
"November: Fannie Mae helped First Union Capital Markets and Bear, Stearns & Co launch the first publicly available securitization of CRA loans, issuing $384.6 million of such securities. All carried a Fannie Mae guarantee as to timely interest and principal.[20][21]"
It's possible we are both letting our political inclinations blind us to the fact that big government (CRA) and big business (Wall Street) conspire to privatize profit and socialize cost through fraud.
The unspoken understanding is that when the $hit hits the fan, only government will be blamed.
At the very least, we should kick this around before the next economic collapse.
Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
THE GOVERNMENT, AND THE GOVERNMENT ALONE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FISCAL/MONETARY POLICIES WHICH WAS THE MOST IMPORTANT CAUSE OF THE HOUSING CRASH.
The form it took? LOW INTEREST AND NO DOWN PAYMENT LOANS.
This graph tracks ALL homes, not just new or old construction. What was happening in 1997 is not as evident as 1999 start of the housing bubble. The up cycle did start in 1997, but the inflation of price to value started in 1999 in spades. Trying to split hairs with what caused the recession is not very sensible on your part. The major cause of the housing spike was government fiscal and monetary policy. There can be no argument on that point because every single bit of proof tells us that. CRA may not have verbally tell us that the government regulators and the Mae and Mac were going to artificially push subprime loans at low interest and no down payment; but when the situation is examined and as all of Androw's and my Links categorically prove.
Last edited:
georgephillip
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #3,949
The CIA's mistakes in Iraq had more to do with your fellow traveler Dick Cheney twisting their arms than with incompetence.
US Water Wars in the Middle East » CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names
"'Syrian control of half of our water poses more of a threat than Iran with one bomb', once remarked ex-Israeli intelligence head, Meir Dagan."
"Water is to the twenty-first century what oil was to the twentieth century: the commodity that determines the wealth and stability of nations."
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission Peter J. Wallison and coauthor Edward Pinto believed that the housing bubble and crash was due to federal mandates to promote affordable housing. These were applied through the Community Reinvestment Act and "government sponsored entities" (GSE's) "Fannie Mae" (Federal National Mortgage Association) and "Freddie Mac" (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation).[22] Journalist Daniel Indiviglio argues the two GSE's played a major role, while not denying the importance of Wall Street and others in the private sector in creating the collapse.[4]
The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 established an affordable housing loan purchase mandate for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that mandate was to be regulated by HUD. Initially, the 1992 legislation required that 30 percent or more of Fannie’s and Freddie’s loan purchases be related to affordable housing. However, HUD was given the power to set future requirements. In 1995 HUD mandated that 40 percent of Fannie and Freddie’s loan purchases would have to support affordable housing. In 1996, HUD directed Freddie and Fannie to provide at least 42% of their mortgage financing to borrowers with income below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. Under the Bush Administration HUD continued to pressure Fannie and Freddie to increase affordable housing purchases – to as high as 56 percent by the year 2008.[22] To satisfy these mandates, Fannie and Freddie eventually announced low-income and minority loan commitments totaling $5 trillion.[23] Critics argue that, to meet these commitments, Fannie and Freddie promoted a loosening of lending standards - industry-wide.[24]
Regarding the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charged the Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA.[25] American Enterprise Institute Scholar Edward Pinto noted that, in 2008, Bank of America reported that its CRA portfolio, which constituted only 7 percent of its owned residential mortgages, was responsible for 29 percent of its losses.[26] A Cleveland Plain Dealer investigation found that "The City of Cleveland has aggravated its vexing foreclosure problems and has lost millions in tax dollars by helping people buy homes they could not afford." The newspaper added that these problem mortgages "typically came from local banks fulfilling federal requirements to lend money in poorer neighborhoods." Min's contention that Fannie and Freddie did not buy a significant amount of high-risk mortgage backed securities must be evaluated in light of subsequent SEC security fraud charges brought against executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in December 2011. Significantly, the SEC alleged (and still maintains) that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reported as subprime and substandard less than 10 percent of their actual subprime and substandard loans.[44] In other words, the substandard loans held in the GSE portfolios may have been 10 times greater than originally reported. According to Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute, that would make the SEC's estimate of GSE substandard loans about $2 trillion - significantly higher than Edward Pinto's estimate.
Economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that banks undergoing CRA-related regulatory exams took additional mortgage lending risk. The authors of a study entitled "Did the Community Reinvestment Act Lead to Risky Lending?" compared "the lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month (the treatment group) to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that did not face these exams (the control group). This comparison clearly indicates that adherence to the CRA led to riskier lending by banks." They concluded: "The evidence shows that around CRA examinations, when incentives to conform to CRA standards are particularly high, banks not only increase lending rates but also appear to originate loans that are markedly riskier." Loan delinquency averaged 15% higher in the treatment group than the control group one year after mortgage origination.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bureau_of_Economic_Research"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bureau_of_Economic_Research[/URL]
The Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 established an affordable housing loan purchase mandate for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and that mandate was to be regulated by HUD. Initially, the 1992 legislation required that 30 percent or more of Fannie’s and Freddie’s loan purchases be related to affordable housing. However, HUD was given the power to set future requirements. In 1995 HUD mandated that 40 percent of Fannie and Freddie’s loan purchases would have to support affordable housing. In 1996, HUD directed Freddie and Fannie to provide at least 42% of their mortgage financing to borrowers with income below the median in their area. This target was increased to 50% in 2000 and 52% in 2005. Under the Bush Administration HUD continued to pressure Fannie and Freddie to increase affordable housing purchases – to as high as 56 percent by the year 2008.[22] To satisfy these mandates, Fannie and Freddie eventually announced low-income and minority loan commitments totaling $5 trillion.[23] Critics argue that, to meet these commitments, Fannie and Freddie promoted a loosening of lending standards - industry-wide.[24]
Regarding the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charged the Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA.[25] American Enterprise Institute Scholar Edward Pinto noted that, in 2008, Bank of America reported that its CRA portfolio, which constituted only 7 percent of its owned residential mortgages, was responsible for 29 percent of its losses.[26] A Cleveland Plain Dealer investigation found that "The City of Cleveland has aggravated its vexing foreclosure problems and has lost millions in tax dollars by helping people buy homes they could not afford." The newspaper added that these problem mortgages "typically came from local banks fulfilling federal requirements to lend money in poorer neighborhoods." Min's contention that Fannie and Freddie did not buy a significant amount of high-risk mortgage backed securities must be evaluated in light of subsequent SEC security fraud charges brought against executives of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in December 2011. Significantly, the SEC alleged (and still maintains) that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reported as subprime and substandard less than 10 percent of their actual subprime and substandard loans.[44] In other words, the substandard loans held in the GSE portfolios may have been 10 times greater than originally reported. According to Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute, that would make the SEC's estimate of GSE substandard loans about $2 trillion - significantly higher than Edward Pinto's estimate.
Economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research concluded that banks undergoing CRA-related regulatory exams took additional mortgage lending risk. The authors of a study entitled "Did the Community Reinvestment Act Lead to Risky Lending?" compared "the lending behavior of banks undergoing CRA exams within a given census tract in a given month (the treatment group) to the behavior of banks operating in the same census tract-month that did not face these exams (the control group). This comparison clearly indicates that adherence to the CRA led to riskier lending by banks." They concluded: "The evidence shows that around CRA examinations, when incentives to conform to CRA standards are particularly high, banks not only increase lending rates but also appear to originate loans that are markedly riskier." Loan delinquency averaged 15% higher in the treatment group than the control group one year after mortgage origination.[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bureau_of_Economic_Research"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bureau_of_Economic_Research[/URL]
If you believe that Dick Cheney is one of my "fellow travelers" you are out of your mind. In addition, I doubt he had as much influence on CIA conclusions as you claim.
georgephillip
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #3,952
Sub prime loans with or without loan standards like employment history, income, down payments, credit rating, and assets?
Do you agree with the following timeline?
"1997–2005:Mortgage fraud increased by 1,411 percent.[32]
2000–2003: Early 2000s recession (exact time varies by country).
2001–2005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).
2001: US Federal Reserve lowers Federal funds rate eleven times, from 6.5% to 1.75%.[33]
2002–2003: Mortgage denial rate of 14 percent for conventional home purchase loans, half of 1997..."
"2003-2007: The Federal Reserve failed to use its supervisory and regulatory authority over banks, mortgage underwriters and other lenders, who abandoned loan standards (employment history, income, down payments, credit rating, assets, property loan-to-value ratio and debt-servicing ability), emphasizing instead lender's ability to securitize and repackage subprime loans.[28]
2004:
"U.S. homeownership rate peaked with an all time high of 69.2 percent.[38]
HUD increased Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac affordable-housing goals for next four years, from 50 percent to 56 percent, stating they lagged behind the private market; from 2004 to 2006, they purchased $434 billion in securities backed by subprime loans.[16]
"October:SEC effectively suspends net capital rule for five firms - Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns and Morgan Stanley. Freed from government-imposed limits on the debt they can assume, they levered up 20, 30 and even 40 to 1.[39]"
Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
georgephillip
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #3,953
Are you indifferent enough to believe government wasn't acting for Wall Street's benefit? The fraud occurred because big government and big business collaborated to socialize risk and privatize profits; When Tim Geithner served as president of the New York Fed, was he acting on behalf of Washington or Warburg? The simple fact is that a looting 70 times larger than the S & L Crisis went unpunished, and will likely happen again.Do you really believe that the government is going to admit fault of fraud? Do you really believe that regulators did not pressure banks to do sub prime loans?But you can't link to any CRA mandate for mortgage fraud:
"1997–2005:Mortgage fraud increased by 1,411 percent.[32]
2000–2003: Early 2000s recession (exact time varies by country).
2001–2005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).
2001: US Federal Reserve lowers Federal funds rate eleven times, from 6.5% to 1.75%.[33]
2002–2003: Mortgage denial rate of 14 percent for conventional home purchase loans, half of 1997.[18]
2002: Annual home price appreciation of 10% or more in California, Florida, and most Northeastern states."Annual home-value growth at highest rate since 1980". Retrieved 2008-10-06.
June 17
Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Are you really that ignorant?
Andylusion
Platinum Member
Your graph "...is based on sale prices of standard existing houses, not new construction, to track the value of housing as an investment over time."But you can't link to any CRA mandate for mortgage fraud:
"1997–2005:Mortgage fraud increased by 1,411 percent.[32]
2000–2003: Early 2000s recession (exact time varies by country).
2001–2005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).
2001: US Federal Reserve lowers Federal funds rate eleven times, from 6.5% to 1.75%.[33]
2002–2003: Mortgage denial rate of 14 percent for conventional home purchase loans, half of 1997.[18]
2002: Annual home price appreciation of 10% or more in California, Florida, and most Northeastern states."Annual home-value growth at highest rate since 1980". Retrieved 2008-10-06.
June 17
Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What part of this is too hard for you?
This is absolutely, totally false. And I proved this already. You are wrong. Thus everything else you said, was wrong too.
The bubble did NOT start in the 2000s. You are wrong. It started in 1997. The facts prove that. It's not up for debate.
Now are you going to admit this truth, or are you going to shove your head so far up your politics you can't see anything that contradicts your per-determined answer?
What significance do you attach to that?
None. Dude, take your hand, and slap your forehead. New construction should logically be excluded. Otherwise the price numbers would be irrelevant.
New construction, should ALWAYS be cheaper than buying an existing house. Think about it..... if it wasn't..... no one would ever build a house.
What construction company would build residential housing...... if the cost of building the house, was higher than (or even equal to) the market price? What individual would ever build a home, if the cost to hire someone to build the home, was greater than the home would be worth on the market? If they could find a similar home, for the same or lower price, why would they build one?
So logically...... Construction is always going to be lower than the fair market value of the resulting home. In fact.... one of the reasons people knew there was a bubble, was because the market prices were so much higher than construction prices, they were saying you could build an empty lot, and build TWO homes for the cost of buying one existing home.
Two... how exactly would you suggest incorporating the 'market value' of a home, into the home price index..... WHEN THE HOME HAS NEVER BEEN ON THE MARKET?!?
The Index of American Housing prices, is built on the value of sold homes on the market..... which duh.... it should be. A house that doesn't exist yet, or is in the process of being built, has no real value, and certainly isn't sold on the market yet.
Come on!!!! This is so obvious, I feel like doing a high school remedial course.
What relevance does this factoid have, on anything?
What relevance does this have either? Also, I think it's wrong. Wiki is not doing too well today from what I've seen. The Section 121 exclusion was not repealed.... from what I've read.... it was enacted in 1997, to replace the 1034 Rollover.
No, actually not. The 1034 Rollover applied to all property, thus people could avoid paying capital gains on any investment property, if they rolled it to a new property.
The 121 Exclusion made is so your primary residence was completely exempt from taxes, but investment property was completely unprotected.
This is another example of bills labeled "tax payer relief" being an increase in taxes in reality.
Wiki is wrong again. It was Freddie Mac, not Fannie Mae. But that's a minor error. The point is, Freddie Mac did exactly that above. They guaranteed sub-prime loans. Which started the sub-prime boom, and eventual crash.
Source "Inside Mortgage Finance", an industry trade magazine.
Or maybe it's just you. Name one thing that I have said, that you can prove with evidence is wrong?
Which could come pretty soon given the leftists in government are still pushing sub-prime loans even as we speak.
Last edited:
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
The Federal Reserve failed to use its supervisory and regulatory authority over banks, mortgage underwriters and other lenders, who abandoned loan standards
Standards were lowered? Sounds familiar.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
Are you indifferent enough to believe government wasn't acting for Wall Street's benefit? The fraud occurred because big government and big business collaborated to socialize risk and privatize profits; When Tim Geithner served as president of the New York Fed, was he acting on behalf of Washington or Warburg? The simple fact is that a looting 70 times larger than the S & L Crisis went unpunished, and will likely happen again.Do you really believe that the government is going to admit fault of fraud? Do you really believe that regulators did not pressure banks to do sub prime loans?But you can't link to any CRA mandate for mortgage fraud:
"1997–2005:Mortgage fraud increased by 1,411 percent.[32]
2000–2003: Early 2000s recession (exact time varies by country).
2001–2005: United States housing bubble (part of the world housing bubble).
2001: US Federal Reserve lowers Federal funds rate eleven times, from 6.5% to 1.75%.[33]
2002–2003: Mortgage denial rate of 14 percent for conventional home purchase loans, half of 1997.[18]
2002: Annual home price appreciation of 10% or more in California, Florida, and most Northeastern states."Annual home-value growth at highest rate since 1980". Retrieved 2008-10-06.
June 17
Timeline of the United States housing bubble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Are you really that ignorant?
The fraud occurred because big government and big business collaborated to socialize risk and privatize profits;
Banks lost hundreds of billions.
The simple fact is that a looting 70 times larger than the S & L Crisis went unpunished,
Looting? I know Main Street home buyers defaulted on massive amounts of mortgages, but I wouldn't call them looters.
gnarlylove
Senior Member
I think you don't understand capitalism then. The reason the rich people are rich is because they earned it. SO what did they do to earn it? Outsourcing. They threatened and in many cases did leave the US to build factories in low wage areas. This allowed them to marginally reduce the price to consumers which was a bonus to the average person but given wages were 5-10 dollars less per hour, they were able to reap the obvious profits from such a move. Soon the overhead was paid for by the cheap labor and the profits never stopped rolling. Hence, outsourcing is a masterful success according to capitalism.
So in America if you want a job and a factory to hire you, you need to say, "our community is willing to work for bargain wages (far below minimum standards) so that our labor is competitive with the labor of China, Bangladesh and the like. Only if Americans accept lower wages will factories and industry return. So magically agreeing we should have higher wages and cheering for capitalism is like jeering at your ice cream cone because it tastes like shit when you fail to realize your ice cream literally is a pile of shit.
You are sadly inept at understanding your own creeds and how the interact but that's to be expected when you call anything that disagrees with your brainwashed mentality as "extremism" thereby effectively covering your ears to valid points about flaws that are inherent in capitalism.
btw, I would burst into tears if you could define my position and link it to extremism. I'd put myself in prison if you had such an argument. But I don't have to worry about that since you are more concerned about useful lies, not profound truths.
Last edited:
georgephillip
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #3,958
How many compassionate conservatives on Wall Street are securitizing those sub-prime loans compared to 2006 when 84% of sub prime mortgages were issued by private lenders? Private lenders whose mouthpiece is "Inside Mortgage Finance". If you're actually gullible enough to believe their account, maybe you can work for the FBI.Your graph "...is based on sale prices of standard existing houses, not new construction, to track the value of housing as an investment over time."What part of this is too hard for you?
This is absolutely, totally false. And I proved this already. You are wrong. Thus everything else you said, was wrong too.
The bubble did NOT start in the 2000s. You are wrong. It started in 1997. The facts prove that. It's not up for debate.
Now are you going to admit this truth, or are you going to shove your head so far up your politics you can't see anything that contradicts your per-determined answer?
What significance do you attach to that?
None. Dude, take your hand, and slap your forehead. New construction should logically be excluded. Otherwise the price numbers would be irrelevant.
New construction, should ALWAYS be cheaper than buying an existing house. Think about it..... if it wasn't..... no one would ever build a house.
What construction company would build residential housing...... if the cost of building the house, was higher than (or even equal to) the market price? What individual would ever build a home, if the cost to hire someone to build the home, was greater than the home would be worth on the market? If they could find a similar home, for the same or lower price, why would they build one?
So logically...... Construction is always going to be lower than the fair market value of the resulting home. In fact.... one of the reasons people knew there was a bubble, was because the market prices were so much higher than construction prices, they were saying you could build an empty lot, and build TWO homes for the cost of buying one existing home.
Two... how exactly would you suggest incorporating the 'market value' of a home, into the home price index..... WHEN THE HOME HAS NEVER BEEN ON THE MARKET?!?
The Index of American Housing prices, is built on the value of sold homes on the market..... which duh.... it should be. A house that doesn't exist yet, or is in the process of being built, has no real value, and certainly isn't sold on the market yet.
Come on!!!! This is so obvious, I feel like doing a high school remedial course.
What relevance does this factoid have, on anything?
What relevance does this have either? Also, I think it's wrong. Wiki is not doing too well today from what I've seen. The Section 121 exclusion was not repealed.... from what I've read.... it was enacted in 1997, to replace the 1034 Rollover.
No, actually not. The 1034 Rollover applied to all property, thus people could avoid paying capital gains on any investment property, if they rolled it to a new property.
The 121 Exclusion made is so your primary residence was completely exempt from taxes, but investment property was completely unprotected.
This is another example of bills labeled "tax payer relief" being an increase in taxes in reality.
Wiki is wrong again. It was Freddie Mac, not Fannie Mae. But that's a minor error. The point is, Freddie Mac did exactly that above. They guaranteed sub-prime loans. Which started the sub-prime boom, and eventual crash.
Source "Inside Mortgage Finance", an industry trade magazine.
Or maybe it's just you. Name one thing that I have said, that you can prove with evidence is wrong?
Which could come pretty soon given the leftists in government are still pushing sub-prime loans even as we speak.
Only one of the top 25 sub prime lenders in 2006 was subject to affordable housing laws; maybe you're convinced Countrywide was issuing "Nontraditional" mortgages to make Barney Frank happy and not to package them off to Wall Street?
Virtually all of government's contribution to the housing bubble and its collapse, from 1998's repeal of Glass-Steagall to 2004's federal preemption of state anti-predatory lending laws was done to advance the acquisition of private profit at public expense, and that's where your mistakes begin.
Toddsterpatriot
Diamond Member
How many compassionate conservatives on Wall Street are securitizing those sub-prime loans compared to 2006 when 84% of sub prime mortgages were issued by private lenders? Private lenders whose mouthpiece is "Inside Mortgage Finance". If you're actually gullible enough to believe their account, maybe you can work for the FBI.
None. Dude, take your hand, and slap your forehead. New construction should logically be excluded. Otherwise the price numbers would be irrelevant.
New construction, should ALWAYS be cheaper than buying an existing house. Think about it..... if it wasn't..... no one would ever build a house.
What construction company would build residential housing...... if the cost of building the house, was higher than (or even equal to) the market price? What individual would ever build a home, if the cost to hire someone to build the home, was greater than the home would be worth on the market? If they could find a similar home, for the same or lower price, why would they build one?
So logically...... Construction is always going to be lower than the fair market value of the resulting home. In fact.... one of the reasons people knew there was a bubble, was because the market prices were so much higher than construction prices, they were saying you could build an empty lot, and build TWO homes for the cost of buying one existing home.
Two... how exactly would you suggest incorporating the 'market value' of a home, into the home price index..... WHEN THE HOME HAS NEVER BEEN ON THE MARKET?!?
The Index of American Housing prices, is built on the value of sold homes on the market..... which duh.... it should be. A house that doesn't exist yet, or is in the process of being built, has no real value, and certainly isn't sold on the market yet.
Come on!!!! This is so obvious, I feel like doing a high school remedial course.
What relevance does this factoid have, on anything?
What relevance does this have either? Also, I think it's wrong. Wiki is not doing too well today from what I've seen. The Section 121 exclusion was not repealed.... from what I've read.... it was enacted in 1997, to replace the 1034 Rollover.
No, actually not. The 1034 Rollover applied to all property, thus people could avoid paying capital gains on any investment property, if they rolled it to a new property.
The 121 Exclusion made is so your primary residence was completely exempt from taxes, but investment property was completely unprotected.
This is another example of bills labeled "tax payer relief" being an increase in taxes in reality.
Wiki is wrong again. It was Freddie Mac, not Fannie Mae. But that's a minor error. The point is, Freddie Mac did exactly that above. They guaranteed sub-prime loans. Which started the sub-prime boom, and eventual crash.
Source "Inside Mortgage Finance", an industry trade magazine.
Or maybe it's just you. Name one thing that I have said, that you can prove with evidence is wrong?
Which could come pretty soon given the leftists in government are still pushing sub-prime loans even as we speak.
Only one of the top 25 sub prime lenders in 2006 was subject to affordable housing laws; maybe you're convinced Countrywide was issuing "Nontraditional" mortgages to make Barney Frank happy and not to package them off to Wall Street?
Virtually all of government's contribution to the housing bubble and its collapse, from 1998's repeal of Glass-Steagall to 2004's federal preemption of state anti-predatory lending laws was done to advance the acquisition of private profit at public expense, and that's where your mistakes begin.
Virtually all of government's contribution to the housing bubble and its collapse, from 1998's repeal of Glass-Steagall
How did the repeal of Glass-Steagall contribute to the bubble or collapse?
Be as specific as you can.
Typically whiny socialist pap. Not all or even most wealthy peeps own factories and not all or even most American firms outsource to foreign countries.
Americans get wealthy by selling their services, skills and products competitively in the global market and no amount of socialist whining will make you wealthy.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
How much of a difference does Daylight Savings Time actually make?- Started by JOSweetHeart
- Replies: 1
-
If Trump Didn't Sign Off on $220M In Ads, Shouldn't Someone Be Prosecuted?- Started by candycorn
- Replies: 3
-
scientist programing brain cells like a biological computer!- Started by Slyhunter
- Replies: 2
-
Trump slammed for wearing golf hat at slain soldiers dignified transfer ceremony.- Started by ElmerMudd
- Replies: 10
Latest Discussions
-
Trump slammed for wearing golf hat at slain soldiers dignified transfer ceremony.- Latest: Harry Dresden
-
-
-
If Trump Didn't Sign Off on $220M In Ads, Shouldn't Someone Be Prosecuted?
- Latest: shockedcanadian