Libertarians Are The True Political Moderates

[Quantum Windbag]

Is it a requirement to be a pretentious asshole to be a libertarian or is it a coincidence that you all are?

tapatalk post

I am not pretentious. If I were I wouldn't resort to calling you a fucking idiot, I would be condescending and subtly arrogant when I put you down. You know the type, they are the ones that are constantly whinging about people who resort to profanity in a debate. I am sure they have said the same thing to you that they do me. The difference me and them is that, since I am actually well informed, semi intelligent, and know how to think, I can argue circles around them even without using profanity. I just use the profanity because it makes my point more succinct.

 

[Bfgrn]

So if free markets don't exist, then how are you blaming free markets for our endless economic woes exactly?

I am blaming it on "Marketists" like you, the twin sister of Marxists. People who believe in a 'religion' of 'invisible hands, magic, and voodoo, instead of logic, prudence and common decency.

Yet, for some reason, you failed to address the fact that I pointed to markets that actually work that way when they are completely outside government control. Is that because you hate facts?

Another "Marketist"...a religion based on dogma, invisible hands, magic, voodoo and emotions, not facts or logic.

You are already an exclusive member of the idiot hall of fame. Are you trying to pass Rabbi, Cecilie and bripat?

Jesus used physical force and beat the crap out of people that offended him, would you prefer that approach?

"People are not on unemployment for 2 years because there are no jobs. There are no jobs because people are on unemployment for 2 years."

No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate.

Freedom includes the freedom to discriminate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

[Very telling, you decided to ignore the evidence and respond to a comment. Now THAT shows you really are a thinking man...LOL

I have two modes, serious and fun. The choice is up to you. When you started telling me that conservative Fox is programming my libertarian views, you chose fun. If you want me to take what you say seriously, don't start your posts by being a dumb ass.

As for your oratory, it's half truths and slanted points and redefinition of what happened. Here's basic logic for you to ask questions when you're confronted with leftist propaganda.

1) In functioning markets, there are winners and losers, wise choosers and poor choosers. The market fixes that by rewarding the winners and punishing the losers.

2) In government controlled markets, players act according to skewed rules determined by government because only government can use force to skew markets.

You're arguing that the entire market got greedy at the same time and simultaneously made the same stupid decisions. While they followed government relaxed lending policy and using government money.

A critical mind would question the leftist politicians making that claim...

Bfgrn has an incredible ability to ignore facts that do not support his dogma. I actually explained the whole process of how the CRA, and Fannie and Freddie policies, led to the market going bonkers. I even used left leaning websites to support my argument, and he dismissed them all as Faux News propaganda.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I am blaming it on "Marketists" like you, the twin sister of Marxists. People who believe in a 'religion' of 'invisible hands, magic, and voodoo, instead of logic, prudence and common decency.

Yet, for some reason, you failed to address the fact that I pointed to markets that actually work that way when they are completely outside government control. Is that because you hate facts?

Another "Marketist"...a religion based on dogma, invisible hands, magic, voodoo and emotions, not facts or logic.

You are already an exclusive member of the idiot hall of fame. Are you trying to pass Rabbi, Cecilie and bripat?

No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate.

Freedom includes the freedom to discriminate.

Why are you afraid of the truth?

 

[Bfgrn]

[Very telling, you decided to ignore the evidence and respond to a comment. Now THAT shows you really are a thinking man...LOL

I have two modes, serious and fun. The choice is up to you. When you started telling me that conservative Fox is programming my libertarian views, you chose fun. If you want me to take what you say seriously, don't start your posts by being a dumb ass.

As for your oratory, it's half truths and slanted points and redefinition of what happened. Here's basic logic for you to ask questions when you're confronted with leftist propaganda.

1) In functioning markets, there are winners and losers, wise choosers and poor choosers. The market fixes that by rewarding the winners and punishing the losers.

2) In government controlled markets, players act according to skewed rules determined by government because only government can use force to skew markets.

You're arguing that the entire market got greedy at the same time and simultaneously made the same stupid decisions. While they followed government relaxed lending policy and using government money.

A critical mind would question the leftist politicians making that claim...

Bfgrn has an incredible ability to ignore facts that do not support his dogma. I actually explained the whole process of how the CRA, and Fannie and Freddie policies, led to the market going bonkers. I even used left leaning websites to support my argument, and he dismissed them all as Faux News propaganda.

You really need to provide a link. The FACTS will never back up those claims. HOW the hell could the CRA, and Fannie and Freddie policies cause a GLOBAL meltdown? And HOW could the CRA, and Fannie and Freddie policies cause a glut of foreclosures in exclusive housing areas.

If the CRA was to blame, the housing boom would have been in CRA regions; it would have made places such as Harlem and South Philly and Compton and inner Washington the primary locales of the run up and collapse. Further, the default rates in these areas should have been worse than other regions.

What occurred was the exact opposite: The suburbs boomed and busted and went into foreclosure in much greater numbers than inner cities. The tiny suburbs and exurbs of South Florida and California and Las Vegas and Arizona were the big boomtowns, not the low-income regions. The redlined areas the CRA address missed much of the boom; places that busted had nothing to do with the CRA.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have two modes, serious and fun. The choice is up to you. When you started telling me that conservative Fox is programming my libertarian views, you chose fun. If you want me to take what you say seriously, don't start your posts by being a dumb ass.

As for your oratory, it's half truths and slanted points and redefinition of what happened. Here's basic logic for you to ask questions when you're confronted with leftist propaganda.

1) In functioning markets, there are winners and losers, wise choosers and poor choosers. The market fixes that by rewarding the winners and punishing the losers.

2) In government controlled markets, players act according to skewed rules determined by government because only government can use force to skew markets.

You're arguing that the entire market got greedy at the same time and simultaneously made the same stupid decisions. While they followed government relaxed lending policy and using government money.

A critical mind would question the leftist politicians making that claim...

Bfgrn has an incredible ability to ignore facts that do not support his dogma. I actually explained the whole process of how the CRA, and Fannie and Freddie policies, led to the market going bonkers. I even used left leaning websites to support my argument, and he dismissed them all as Faux News propaganda.

You really need to provide a link. The FACTS will never back up those claims. HOW the hell could the CRA, and Fannie and Freddie policies cause a GLOBAL meltdown? And HOW could the CRA, and Fannie and Freddie policies cause a glut of foreclosures in exclusive housing areas.

If the CRA was to blame, the housing boom would have been in CRA regions; it would have made places such as Harlem and South Philly and Compton and inner Washington the primary locales of the run up and collapse. Further, the default rates in these areas should have been worse than other regions.

What occurred was the exact opposite: The suburbs boomed and busted and went into foreclosure in much greater numbers than inner cities. The tiny suburbs and exurbs of South Florida and California and Las Vegas and Arizona were the big boomtowns, not the low-income regions. The redlined areas the CRA address missed much of the boom; places that busted had nothing to do with the CRA.

Feel free to go back and reread the previous threads where you ranted about your delusions.

After you do that, feel free to explain how the global meltdown had anything to do with sub prime mortages when other countries recovered from the minor recession and why we are still mired in it.

 

[Bfgrn]

Bfgrn has an incredible ability to ignore facts that do not support his dogma. I actually explained the whole process of how the CRA, and Fannie and Freddie policies, led to the market going bonkers. I even used left leaning websites to support my argument, and he dismissed them all as Faux News propaganda.

You really need to provide a link. The FACTS will never back up those claims. HOW the hell could the CRA, and Fannie and Freddie policies cause a GLOBAL meltdown? And HOW could the CRA, and Fannie and Freddie policies cause a glut of foreclosures in exclusive housing areas.

If the CRA was to blame, the housing boom would have been in CRA regions; it would have made places such as Harlem and South Philly and Compton and inner Washington the primary locales of the run up and collapse. Further, the default rates in these areas should have been worse than other regions.

What occurred was the exact opposite: The suburbs boomed and busted and went into foreclosure in much greater numbers than inner cities. The tiny suburbs and exurbs of South Florida and California and Las Vegas and Arizona were the big boomtowns, not the low-income regions. The redlined areas the CRA address missed much of the boom; places that busted had nothing to do with the CRA.

Feel free to go back and reread the previous threads where you ranted about your delusions.

After you do that, feel free to explain how the global meltdown had anything to do with sub prime mortages when other countries recovered from the minor recession and why we are still mired in it.

I have provided fact. Yoy have provided faux news parrot mimicking. You have not brought one single fact to this thread...

Game, set match...Bfgrn...

 

[kaz]

[Very telling, you decided to ignore the evidence and respond to a comment. Now THAT shows you really are a thinking man...LOL

I have two modes, serious and fun. The choice is up to you. When you started telling me that conservative Fox is programming my libertarian views, you chose fun. If you want me to take what you say seriously, don't start your posts by being a dumb ass.

As for your oratory, it's half truths and slanted points and redefinition of what happened. Here's basic logic for you to ask questions when you're confronted with leftist propaganda.

1) In functioning markets, there are winners and losers, wise choosers and poor choosers. The market fixes that by rewarding the winners and punishing the losers.

2) In government controlled markets, players act according to skewed rules determined by government because only government can use force to skew markets.

You're arguing that the entire market got greedy at the same time and simultaneously made the same stupid decisions. While they followed government relaxed lending policy and using government money.

A critical mind would question the leftist politicians making that claim...

One of the guys making these claims is not a 'leftist politician', he is a conservative economist on leave from a teaching post at the University of Chicago Booth Graduate School of Business.

Greed has been with us since man began walking upright. And the market did EXACTLY what would be predicted. LOOK at the foreclosure map. People were severely punished.

Your problem is the banks you claim were pressured to issue loans to lower income families were NOT the lenders issuing the sub-prime loans. It was PRIVATE 'free market' practitioners who provided a get rich quick gimmick for wealthy speculators and investors to get in, then get OUT of an INVESTMENT with a bundle of cash. These people were not buying a 'homestead'. It was merely an investment that went south, so they all walked away. THAT is why there was a sudden bust and not a slow deflation of the housing market.

60% of higher-priced loan originations — the technical definition of subrpime — went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods who aren’t targeted by CRA. More than 20% of the higher-priced loans were extended to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income areas by institutions that aren’t banks — and aren’t covered by CRA.

• Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.

Check the mortgage origination data: The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie. Indeed, these firms had no deposits, so they were not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp or the Office of Thrift Supervision. The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06.

• Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006

Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing laws overseen by either Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or the Community Reinvestment Act.

These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.” They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages — the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.

Consider a study by McClatchy: It found that more than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. And McClatchy found that out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.

A 2008 analysis found that the nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

Hey Bfgrn, since you honored my point and didn't include the silliness with the question, I will review and reply to this in more detail. It will be late in the week though. I'm heading to the beach for vacation in a couple hours until Wednesday night. I don't have time to do the question justice, but I will get to it when I'm back. As a business owner, I don't get a lot of vacations, going to enjoy it.

 

[Bfgrn]

I have two modes, serious and fun. The choice is up to you. When you started telling me that conservative Fox is programming my libertarian views, you chose fun. If you want me to take what you say seriously, don't start your posts by being a dumb ass.

As for your oratory, it's half truths and slanted points and redefinition of what happened. Here's basic logic for you to ask questions when you're confronted with leftist propaganda.

1) In functioning markets, there are winners and losers, wise choosers and poor choosers. The market fixes that by rewarding the winners and punishing the losers.

2) In government controlled markets, players act according to skewed rules determined by government because only government can use force to skew markets.

You're arguing that the entire market got greedy at the same time and simultaneously made the same stupid decisions. While they followed government relaxed lending policy and using government money.

A critical mind would question the leftist politicians making that claim...

One of the guys making these claims is not a 'leftist politician', he is a conservative economist on leave from a teaching post at the University of Chicago Booth Graduate School of Business.

Greed has been with us since man began walking upright. And the market did EXACTLY what would be predicted. LOOK at the foreclosure map. People were severely punished.

Your problem is the banks you claim were pressured to issue loans to lower income families were NOT the lenders issuing the sub-prime loans. It was PRIVATE 'free market' practitioners who provided a get rich quick gimmick for wealthy speculators and investors to get in, then get OUT of an INVESTMENT with a bundle of cash. These people were not buying a 'homestead'. It was merely an investment that went south, so they all walked away. THAT is why there was a sudden bust and not a slow deflation of the housing market.

60% of higher-priced loan originations — the technical definition of subrpime — went to middle- or higher-income borrowers or neighborhoods who aren’t targeted by CRA. More than 20% of the higher-priced loans were extended to lower-income borrowers or borrowers in lower-income areas by institutions that aren’t banks — and aren’t covered by CRA.

• Nonbank mortgage underwriting exploded from 2001 to 2007, along with the private label securitization market, which eclipsed Fannie and Freddie during the boom.

Check the mortgage origination data: The vast majority of subprime mortgages — the loans at the heart of the global crisis — were underwritten by unregulated private firms. These were lenders who sold the bulk of their mortgages to Wall Street, not to Fannie or Freddie. Indeed, these firms had no deposits, so they were not under the jurisdiction of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp or the Office of Thrift Supervision. The relative market share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dropped from a high of 57 percent of all new mortgage originations in 2003, down to 37 percent as the bubble was developing in 2005-06.

• Private lenders not subject to congressional regulations collapsed lending standards. Taking up that extra share were nonbanks selling mortgages elsewhere, not to the GSEs. Conforming mortgages had rules that were less profitable than the newfangled loans. Private securitizers — competitors of Fannie and Freddie — grew from 10 percent of the market in 2002 to nearly 40 percent in 2006. As a percentage of all mortgage-backed securities, private securitization grew from 23 percent in 2003 to 56 percent in 2006

Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing laws overseen by either Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac or the Community Reinvestment Act.

These firms had business models that could be called “Lend-in-order-to-sell-to-Wall-Street-securitizers.” They offered all manner of nontraditional mortgages — the 2/28 adjustable rate mortgages, piggy-back loans, negative amortization loans. These defaulted in huge numbers, far more than the regulated mortgage writers did.

Consider a study by McClatchy: It found that more than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. And McClatchy found that out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations.

A 2008 analysis found that the nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

Hey Bfgrn, since you honored my point and didn't include the silliness with the question, I will review and reply to this in more detail. It will be late in the week though. I'm heading to the beach for vacation in a couple hours until Wednesday night. I don't have time to do the question justice, but I will get to it when I'm back. As a business owner, I don't get a lot of vacations, going to enjoy it.

Enjoy...

 

[kaz]

One of the guys making these claims is not a 'leftist politician', he is a conservative economist on leave from a teaching post at the University of Chicago Booth Graduate School of Business.

Does he have a name?

Just so you know, I'm an MBA in finance and I spent a large chunk of my career in financial services, quite a few of those in New York on Wall Street both working for banks and consulting companies to banks. You throw out a lot of factoids, and it's a rat hole to argue each one. I don't dispute the stats themselves from what I saw, though they aren't really integrated into a story so much as they seem to imply a lot of different things that aren't strongly supported.

There were a lot of reasons for the meltdown. However, there is one reason for the bubble, government. Government flooded the market with free cash and pressed banks to lend to sub prime and everyone else. Your argument who they intended to target is irrelevant since the cash was not restricted to that. If you are intending to bomb Dresden and bomb the countryside, you don't get to say, doesn't count, I was aiming for Dresden...

So, with cash and lower standards, what happened is that people bid up the price of housing. Sub prime are also sub prime because they don't make the best financial decisions. They had the money, they bid up housing. With government funding it and people writing off interest on their mortgages and people leveraging ARMs to get lower rates and qualify for more $$$, housing shot even higher. It wasn't a market price, hence the accurately selected term "bubble." Government caused that, no one else.

Now with the meltdown, how it happened, I totally agree there are a lot of valid fingers to point, though your reluctance to point one of them at government is ridiculous. But in the end, arguing which loans defaulted is irrelevant, because there was such an incredible bubble which could only exist as long as the economy zoomed, at some point there would be a slowdown, and at some point it would burst.

Clinton started the policy, W continued it, they were both to blame. The Fed, which is an organized crime syndicate the government uses to steal from the American people, was right there with the politicians in setting up the American people. A true liberal would hate the Fed, they are a regressive tax. But liberals aren't liberals, you are authoritarian leftists, which is why you will blame everyone but government.

And my post you didn't address:

1) In functioning markets, there are winners and losers, wise choosers and poor choosers. The market fixes that by rewarding the winners and punishing the losers.

2) In government controlled markets, players act according to skewed rules determined by government because only government can use force to skew markets.

You're arguing that the entire market got greedy at the same time and simultaneously made the same stupid decisions. While they followed government relaxed lending policy and using government money.

A critical mind would question the leftist politicians making that claim...

 

[Bfgrn]

One of the guys making these claims is not a 'leftist politician', he is a conservative economist on leave from a teaching post at the University of Chicago Booth Graduate School of Business.

Does he have a name?

Just so you know, I'm an MBA in finance and I spent a large chunk of my career in financial services, quite a few of those in New York on Wall Street both working for banks and consulting companies to banks. You throw out a lot of factoids, and it's a rat hole to argue each one. I don't dispute the stats themselves from what I saw, though they aren't really integrated into a story so much as they seem to imply a lot of different things that aren't strongly supported.

There were a lot of reasons for the meltdown. However, there is one reason for the bubble, government. Government flooded the market with free cash and pressed banks to lend to sub prime and everyone else. Your argument who they intended to target is irrelevant since the cash was not restricted to that. If you are intending to bomb Dresden and bomb the countryside, you don't get to say, doesn't count, I was aiming for Dresden...

So, with cash and lower standards, what happened is that people bid up the price of housing. Sub prime are also sub prime because they don't make the best financial decisions. They had the money, they bid up housing. With government funding it and people writing off interest on their mortgages and people leveraging ARMs to get lower rates and qualify for more $$$, housing shot even higher. It wasn't a market price, hence the accurately selected term "bubble." Government caused that, no one else.

Now with the meltdown, how it happened, I totally agree there are a lot of valid fingers to point, though your reluctance to point one of them at government is ridiculous. But in the end, arguing which loans defaulted is irrelevant, because there was such an incredible bubble which could only exist as long as the economy zoomed, at some point there would be a slowdown, and at some point it would burst.

Clinton started the policy, W continued it, they were both to blame. The Fed, which is an organized crime syndicate the government uses to steal from the American people, was right there with the politicians in setting up the American people. A true liberal would hate the Fed, they are a regressive tax. But liberals aren't liberals, you are authoritarian leftists, which is why you will blame everyone but government.

And my post you didn't address:

1) In functioning markets, there are winners and losers, wise choosers and poor choosers. The market fixes that by rewarding the winners and punishing the losers.

2) In government controlled markets, players act according to skewed rules determined by government because only government can use force to skew markets.

You're arguing that the entire market got greedy at the same time and simultaneously made the same stupid decisions. While they followed government relaxed lending policy and using government money.

A critical mind would question the leftist politicians making that claim...

So, you did no research on the subject I see.

A critical mind would understand the only way there would be a massive burst or hemorrhage of the housing market is if a huge amount of people all defaulted on their mortgages at the same time. Those people did not "simultaneously make the same stupid decisions." They made a shrewd, cold, calculated business decision. They jettisoned a bad investment. Plain and simple. They were not buying a homesteaded. They already had a 'home' or mansion. Wealthy people are not concerned with 'credit scores', they have something that trumps credit score, it is called money. If you look at the map of the foreclosure concentration, it is all in high priced, exclusive areas. No matter what the government did or didn't do, those were never areas were CRA loans would exist.


Let's critically think about who would desire subprime loans? Someone buying a homestead, would want a mortgage. The word “mortgage” comes from the French “mort-gage”, literally death-pledge. Did some poor folks get scammed by lenders...sure. But not by government backed lenders. So WHO would really want subprime loans? If you put yourself in the shoes of a speculator, you would understand they would salivate over any loan that had low or no down payment, deferred payments or any 'gimmick' that would attain their SHORT term goals. To buy and SELL. Not buy and move in.

The lenders who made the bulk of subprime loans weren’t even covered by government laws to encourage homeownership. 94 percent of high-cost loans were totally unconnected from government homeownership laws.

http://www.responsiblelending.org/mortgage-lending/policy-legislation/congress/cra-not-to-blame-for-crisis.pdf

 

[Quantum Windbag]

One of the guys making these claims is not a 'leftist politician', he is a conservative economist on leave from a teaching post at the University of Chicago Booth Graduate School of Business.

Does he have a name?

Just so you know, I'm an MBA in finance and I spent a large chunk of my career in financial services, quite a few of those in New York on Wall Street both working for banks and consulting companies to banks. You throw out a lot of factoids, and it's a rat hole to argue each one. I don't dispute the stats themselves from what I saw, though they aren't really integrated into a story so much as they seem to imply a lot of different things that aren't strongly supported.

There were a lot of reasons for the meltdown. However, there is one reason for the bubble, government. Government flooded the market with free cash and pressed banks to lend to sub prime and everyone else. Your argument who they intended to target is irrelevant since the cash was not restricted to that. If you are intending to bomb Dresden and bomb the countryside, you don't get to say, doesn't count, I was aiming for Dresden...

So, with cash and lower standards, what happened is that people bid up the price of housing. Sub prime are also sub prime because they don't make the best financial decisions. They had the money, they bid up housing. With government funding it and people writing off interest on their mortgages and people leveraging ARMs to get lower rates and qualify for more $$$, housing shot even higher. It wasn't a market price, hence the accurately selected term "bubble." Government caused that, no one else.

Now with the meltdown, how it happened, I totally agree there are a lot of valid fingers to point, though your reluctance to point one of them at government is ridiculous. But in the end, arguing which loans defaulted is irrelevant, because there was such an incredible bubble which could only exist as long as the economy zoomed, at some point there would be a slowdown, and at some point it would burst.

Clinton started the policy, W continued it, they were both to blame. The Fed, which is an organized crime syndicate the government uses to steal from the American people, was right there with the politicians in setting up the American people. A true liberal would hate the Fed, they are a regressive tax. But liberals aren't liberals, you are authoritarian leftists, which is why you will blame everyone but government.

And my post you didn't address:

1) In functioning markets, there are winners and losers, wise choosers and poor choosers. The market fixes that by rewarding the winners and punishing the losers.

2) In government controlled markets, players act according to skewed rules determined by government because only government can use force to skew markets.

You're arguing that the entire market got greedy at the same time and simultaneously made the same stupid decisions. While they followed government relaxed lending policy and using government money.

A critical mind would question the leftist politicians making that claim...

So, you did no research on the subject I see.

A critical mind would understand the only way there would be a massive burst or hemorrhage of the housing market is if a huge amount of people all defaulted on their mortgages at the same time. Those people did not "simultaneously make the same stupid decisions." They made a shrewd, cold, calculated business decision. They jettisoned a bad investment. Plain and simple. They were not buying a homesteaded. They already had a 'home' or mansion. Wealthy people are not concerned with 'credit scores', they have something that trumps credit score, it is called money. If you look at the map of the foreclosure concentration, it is all in high priced, exclusive areas. No matter what the government did or didn't do, those were never areas were CRA loans would exist.


Let's critically think about who would desire subprime loans? Someone buying a homestead, would want a mortgage. The word “mortgage” comes from the French “mort-gage”, literally death-pledge. Did some poor folks get scammed by lenders...sure. But not by government backed lenders. So WHO would really want subprime loans? If you put yourself in the shoes of a speculator, you would understand they would salivate over any loan that had low or no down payment, deferred payments or any 'gimmick' that would attain their SHORT term goals. To buy and SELL. Not buy and move in.

The lenders who made the bulk of subprime loans weren’t even covered by government laws to encourage homeownership. 94 percent of high-cost loans were totally unconnected from government homeownership laws.

http://www.responsiblelending.org/m...tion/congress/cra-not-to-blame-for-crisis.pdf

Damn, you still can't think.

Question, if it is impossible for the housing market to collapse as the result of multiple bad decisions, why the fuck did multiple people make bad decisions at the same time?

 

[Bfgrn]

Does he have a name?

Just so you know, I'm an MBA in finance and I spent a large chunk of my career in financial services, quite a few of those in New York on Wall Street both working for banks and consulting companies to banks. You throw out a lot of factoids, and it's a rat hole to argue each one. I don't dispute the stats themselves from what I saw, though they aren't really integrated into a story so much as they seem to imply a lot of different things that aren't strongly supported.

There were a lot of reasons for the meltdown. However, there is one reason for the bubble, government. Government flooded the market with free cash and pressed banks to lend to sub prime and everyone else. Your argument who they intended to target is irrelevant since the cash was not restricted to that. If you are intending to bomb Dresden and bomb the countryside, you don't get to say, doesn't count, I was aiming for Dresden...

So, with cash and lower standards, what happened is that people bid up the price of housing. Sub prime are also sub prime because they don't make the best financial decisions. They had the money, they bid up housing. With government funding it and people writing off interest on their mortgages and people leveraging ARMs to get lower rates and qualify for more $$$, housing shot even higher. It wasn't a market price, hence the accurately selected term "bubble." Government caused that, no one else.

Now with the meltdown, how it happened, I totally agree there are a lot of valid fingers to point, though your reluctance to point one of them at government is ridiculous. But in the end, arguing which loans defaulted is irrelevant, because there was such an incredible bubble which could only exist as long as the economy zoomed, at some point there would be a slowdown, and at some point it would burst.

Clinton started the policy, W continued it, they were both to blame. The Fed, which is an organized crime syndicate the government uses to steal from the American people, was right there with the politicians in setting up the American people. A true liberal would hate the Fed, they are a regressive tax. But liberals aren't liberals, you are authoritarian leftists, which is why you will blame everyone but government.

And my post you didn't address:

So, you did no research on the subject I see.

A critical mind would understand the only way there would be a massive burst or hemorrhage of the housing market is if a huge amount of people all defaulted on their mortgages at the same time. Those people did not "simultaneously make the same stupid decisions." They made a shrewd, cold, calculated business decision. They jettisoned a bad investment. Plain and simple. They were not buying a homesteaded. They already had a 'home' or mansion. Wealthy people are not concerned with 'credit scores', they have something that trumps credit score, it is called money. If you look at the map of the foreclosure concentration, it is all in high priced, exclusive areas. No matter what the government did or didn't do, those were never areas were CRA loans would exist.


Let's critically think about who would desire subprime loans? Someone buying a homestead, would want a mortgage. The word “mortgage” comes from the French “mort-gage”, literally death-pledge. Did some poor folks get scammed by lenders...sure. But not by government backed lenders. So WHO would really want subprime loans? If you put yourself in the shoes of a speculator, you would understand they would salivate over any loan that had low or no down payment, deferred payments or any 'gimmick' that would attain their SHORT term goals. To buy and SELL. Not buy and move in.

The lenders who made the bulk of subprime loans weren’t even covered by government laws to encourage homeownership. 94 percent of high-cost loans were totally unconnected from government homeownership laws.

http://www.responsiblelending.org/m...tion/congress/cra-not-to-blame-for-crisis.pdf

Damn, you still can't think.

Question, if it is impossible for the housing market to collapse as the result of multiple bad decisions, why the fuck did multiple people make bad decisions at the same time?

Hey, the street lights are on. All children should be in bed.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Nothing makes the left cringe more than libertarianism. Freedom and liberty is the last thing the left wants.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Nothing makes the left cringe more than libertarianism. Freedom and liberty is the last thing the left wants.

And a government that is actually accountable to the people and The Constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

Nothing makes the left cringe more than libertarianism. Freedom and liberty is the last thing the left wants.

And a government that is actually accountable to the people and The Constitution.

Have libertarians ever heard of the vote?

 

[Bfgrn]

Nothing makes the left cringe more than libertarianism. Freedom and liberty is the last thing the left wants.

Freedom and liberty are the cornerstones of liberalism. But within a representative democracy where We, the People are the government. That is what our founding fathers created.

Libertarianism and free markets on the other hand sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection. Libertarianism does not support democracy; taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.


"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government."
Thomas Jefferson to the Republican Citizens of Washington County, Maryland" (March 31, 1809).

The selfish spirit of commerce knows no country, and feels no passion or principle but that of gain.
Thomas Jefferson - Letter to Larkin Smith (1809).

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Freedom and liberty are the cornerstones of liberalism.

Which is why modern day "liberals" aren't liberal at all. They are authoritarians. Claiming forcing people to do things is freedom and liberty.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Libertarianism and free markets on the other hand sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection.

Libertarianism does not support democracy;

taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.

That's right. Mob rule is an ugly and failed business. That's why this is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

 

[rightwinger]

Libertarianism and free markets on the other hand sound pretty, but they cannot withstand even a cursory inspection.

Libertarianism does not support democracy;

taken to an extreme, it entails the law of the jungle. If government never interferes, we could all get away with murder. Alternatively, if the libertarian position is not to be taken to an extreme, where should it stop? What is the difference between no government and minimal government? Attempts to justify libertarianism, even a less than extreme position, have failed. Laissez faire, or free market economics, characterized by minimal or no government intervention, has a history that is long but undistinguished. Just as the negative effects of a high fever do not certify the health benefits of the opposite extreme, hypothermia, the dismal failure of communism, seeking complete government control of the economy, does not certify the economic benefits of the opposite extreme, total economic non-intervention.

That's right. Mob rule is an ugly and failed business. That's why this is a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

A constitutionally elected government is not mob rule