bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,170
- 47,438
- 2,180
You must believe the Soviet Union was a smashing success. The state run economy doesn't work either, and for the same reason the government intervention doesn't work.
Krugman rips von Mises up one side & down the other
- Thread starter Dot Com
- Start date
You must believe the Soviet Union was a smashing success. The state run economy doesn't work either, and for the same reason the government intervention doesn't work.
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,174
- 1,100
Liberal participant instigators of course. They were created to subvert the Republican capitalist free market and get people into homes the free market said they could not afford. They had cheaper money because of the implied lliberal govt guarantee so wrote or underwrote most of the better mortgages thus forcing the rest of the industry into subprime. They controlled the market.
Then of course, there is the liberal Fed which printed the money 100% necessary to buy and bid up the prices on millions of homes into a bubble in order to stimulate the economy. Its pointless to talk to liberals about this aspect of crisis however since they have no idea that the Fed exists, let alone what monetary policy is or what its role in the housing crisis was.
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,174
- 1,100
100% pefectly stupid as usual!! The liberal govt had always made housing prices go up so everyone was always protected. If you couldn't pay your mortgage so what. You'd sell or the bank would sell and both would still make a profit on the ever inflating price of the home.
See why we say 100% perfectly??
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
See what happens when someone provides the facts that bripat's beloved Wall Street banksters were the cause of the financial meltdown. THEN, the ONLY conclusion is to run out the polarized argument...the ALL or NONE, black or white...either TOTAL deregulation or TOTAL government control...no moderate position can be accepted.
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,174
- 1,100
or that China was a smashing failure when it switched to capitalism and instantly eliminated 40% or the world's poverty.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
You are a true MORON. You are making pea brain bripat look like Einstein.
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,174
- 1,100
dear, Wall Street is not Fed Franny Freddie SEC HUD CRA FDIC or any of the 100 liberal creations designed to subvert the free market so those who couldn't afford homes suddenly could!
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,174
- 1,100
of so you would not be so afraid to say why. What does your fear teach you?
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
Hey PEA BRAIN...PLEASE explain HOW did Fed Franny Freddie SEC HUD CRA FDIC forced bankers to lend to deadbeats in Iceland, Ireland, Spain and Romania?
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,174
- 1,100
dear, by convincing them that housing prices would always go up!! See why we say liberalism is based in pure 100% ignorance!! Does Perry Mason want to ask another "intelligent" Socratic question?
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
Absurd. Tell me PEA BRAIN, are Wall Street banksters THAT ******* stupid? They were making $$$$$$$$$$$$ hand over fist, do you REALLY believe they were controlled by anything but greed?
This crisis was a PERFECT example of how the market works when unchecked. These banksters and speculators were looking out for their own self interest. And their actions took down EVERYONE with it.
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,174
- 1,100
dear, everyone in American was that stupid. Almost no one saw it coming( including liberal economists) which of course is why it happened!
Keynes: Lenin was certainly right. There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose.
Last edited:
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
Lets do a little thought experiment.
Let's Assume that the CRA was a prime cause of the mortgage, credit and housing related crises.
Assume arguendo that CRA legislation forced banks into making high risk, ill advised loans. And, let’s further assume a huge percentage of these government mandated mortgages have gone bad. The buyers who could not legitimately afford these homes or otherwise qualify for other mortgages have defaulted, and these houses are either in default, foreclosure or REOs.
What would this alternative nation look like?
Given the giant US housing boom and bust, this thought experiment would have several obvious and inevitable outcomes from CRA forced lending:
1) Home sales in CRA communities would have led the national home market higher, with sales gains (as a percentage) increasing even more than the national median;
2) Prices of CRA funded properties should have risen even more than the rest of the nation as sales ramped up.
3) After the market peaked and reversed, Distressed Sales in CRA regions should lead the national market downwards. Foreclosures and REOS should be much higher in CRA neighborhoods than the national median.
4) We should have reams of evidence detailing how CRA mandated loans have defaulted in vastly disproportionate numbers versus the national default rates;
5) CRA Banks that were funding these mortgages should be failing in ever greater numbers, far more than the average bank;
6) Portfolios of large national TARP banks should be strewn with toxic CRA defaults; securitizers that purchased these mortgages should have compiled list of defaulted CRA properties;
7) Bank execs likely would have been complaining to the Bush White House from 2002-08 about these CRA mandates; The many finance executives who testified to Congress, would also have spelled out that CRA was a direct cause, with compelling evidence backing their claims.
So much for THAT thought experiment: None of these outcomes have occurred.
Zero.
In reality, the precise opposite of what a CRA-induced collapse should have looked like is what occurred. The 345 mortgage brokers that imploded were non-banks, not covered by the CRA legislation. The vast majority of CRA covered banks are actually healthy.
The biggest foreclosure areas aren’t Harlem or Chicago’s South side or DC slums or inner city Philly; Rather, it hs been non-CRA regions — the Sand States — such as southern California, Las Vegas, Arizona, and South Florida. The closest thing to an inner city foreclosure story is Detroit – and maybe the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler actually had something to do with that.
Let's Assume that the CRA was a prime cause of the mortgage, credit and housing related crises.
Assume arguendo that CRA legislation forced banks into making high risk, ill advised loans. And, let’s further assume a huge percentage of these government mandated mortgages have gone bad. The buyers who could not legitimately afford these homes or otherwise qualify for other mortgages have defaulted, and these houses are either in default, foreclosure or REOs.
What would this alternative nation look like?
Given the giant US housing boom and bust, this thought experiment would have several obvious and inevitable outcomes from CRA forced lending:
1) Home sales in CRA communities would have led the national home market higher, with sales gains (as a percentage) increasing even more than the national median;
2) Prices of CRA funded properties should have risen even more than the rest of the nation as sales ramped up.
3) After the market peaked and reversed, Distressed Sales in CRA regions should lead the national market downwards. Foreclosures and REOS should be much higher in CRA neighborhoods than the national median.
4) We should have reams of evidence detailing how CRA mandated loans have defaulted in vastly disproportionate numbers versus the national default rates;
5) CRA Banks that were funding these mortgages should be failing in ever greater numbers, far more than the average bank;
6) Portfolios of large national TARP banks should be strewn with toxic CRA defaults; securitizers that purchased these mortgages should have compiled list of defaulted CRA properties;
7) Bank execs likely would have been complaining to the Bush White House from 2002-08 about these CRA mandates; The many finance executives who testified to Congress, would also have spelled out that CRA was a direct cause, with compelling evidence backing their claims.
So much for THAT thought experiment: None of these outcomes have occurred.
Zero.
In reality, the precise opposite of what a CRA-induced collapse should have looked like is what occurred. The 345 mortgage brokers that imploded were non-banks, not covered by the CRA legislation. The vast majority of CRA covered banks are actually healthy.
The biggest foreclosure areas aren’t Harlem or Chicago’s South side or DC slums or inner city Philly; Rather, it hs been non-CRA regions — the Sand States — such as southern California, Las Vegas, Arizona, and South Florida. The closest thing to an inner city foreclosure story is Detroit – and maybe the bankruptcy of GM and Chrysler actually had something to do with that.
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,174
- 1,100
dear, everyone is always greedy all the time. Dozens of industries plus the home buyers were all greedy all the time and all making money off housing! Capitalism is the only system that can control greed in a way that maximizes economic growth.
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,174
- 1,100
now you know why capitalist regulation produced 10 times more growth than liberal soviet regulation. Still over your head?
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,174
- 1,100
liberal low life trying to change the subject while getting clobbered in debate
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
And without adequate rules, regulations and safeguards, it can come crashing down. And it DI
Pea,brain, you don't even know WHAT the debate is.
Bfgrn
Gold Member
- Apr 4, 2009
- 16,829
- 2,496
- 245
Communism is not liberal. It is conservative.
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,174
- 1,100
dear, you got killed trying to pin housing crisis on banksters as Marxists always do. Want to try to change subject again and hope no one notices you running away with your liberal tail between your legs?
EdwardBaiamonte
Platinum Member
- Nov 23, 2011
- 34,612
- 2,174
- 1,100
dear, did conservatives spy for Stalin and elect Obama, a guy who voted to left of Bernie Sanders.
Dear, don't you want to debate about Banksters anymore?? Why is Perry Mason trying so hard to change subject?
New Topics
-
-
-
Louisiana Governor Landry set to suspend primary after voting rights ruling- Started by 1srelluc
- Replies: 0
-
-
