noam chomsky vs milton friedman

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Once a bubble is created, the market is going to push that bubble until it pops. .

At least in the case of a govt induced bubble they had to " dance until the music stopped". If they didn't they would have had to sit back and watch their competitors grow and grow.

The risk appeared minimal since the liberal govt insured that housing prices always went up. The liberals, seemingly, took all the risk out of it with their magical soviet interference.

 

[Shanty]

. There was no deregulation. That's just flat out a lie.

yes the Fed was more active than ever in printing money to make it possible to buy and bid up prices of homes without which the crisis would have been 100 impossible!! Liberals don't kow what Fed is so cant understand.

Fanny Freddie were created to control entire market to get people into homes free market said they could not afford. This was cause but liberals lack IQ to understand it so alway revert back to their Marxist anti-business roots to cover their pure ignorance.

You're completely off your rocker, dude.
The Treasury Department prints money.
Fannie and Freddie being blamed is completely wrong. Subprime loans were made by mortgage companies, led by CEOs who were getting paid bonuses for the extra business they saw under their leadership, but never vetting the people they were loaning to. That was completely an overreach of Wall Street.

Again... Sub-prime loans have existed for decades before the boom and crash. What changed? What caused the banks to think sub-prime loans were safe?

Freddie Guaranteed sub-prime loans. That shifted the market.

Freddie and Fannie were both heavily involved in sub-prime loans. Alt-A loans, are sub-prime loans. CRA loans, are sub-prime loans.

You don't seem to grasp this. Once the GSEs gave their stamp of approval on loans that did not meet Prime-rate guidelines, then the rest of the market followed.

GSEs didn't guarantee subprime. They guaranteed prime, and Alt-A loans, but not subprime loans where credit scores were under 640, or no doc loans.

And CRA loans were not subprime. The law made banks extend credit to areas that were largely minority neighborhoods that were under served, but the credit scores were good, and were more easily found in other areas.

As I proved, GSEs didn't cause the housing bubble. Especially taking into account the loss in market share GSEs had in the bubble growth, as Wall Street bundled subprime into MBS.

 

[Shanty]

Wow, is this 'shanty' clown still here making a fool of himself? Talk about a mindless, partisan drone...

I like watching you guys squirm to cover up the logical fallacies and lies that conservatives need to hold their epistemic closure together.

 

[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.

 

[Shanty]

you say pure ignorance because that's what you promote as your ideology. It wasn't subprime. It was a grade below prime. By law, Fannie and Freddie are not allowed to back subprime loans, as those loans are made to people with credit ratings below 640. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Wall Street didn't have to get in on those "worst mortgages" at all. No one twisted their arms to make bad business decisions. You're blaming government for not stopping CEOs from being stupid? You're a real communist, ya know?

You are so dumb, you can't think outside the leftist dogma. All grades below prime, by definition.... are sub-prime.

Further, the fact that Fannie and Freddie owned loans they themselves called 'sub-prime' indicates apparently your CRAP about them not being able to back them legally, is unsupportable.

You people are so blind and dumb, it's amazing you can still breath without a machine.

The Last Trillion-Dollar Commitment - Economics - AEI

The AEI, citing a report by Fannie Mae itself.

There are few data available publicly on the dollar amount of junk loans held by the GSEs in 2004, but according to their own reports, GSE purchases of these mortgages and MBS increased substantially between 2005 and 2007. Subprime and Alt-A purchases during this period were a higher share of total purchases than in previous years. For example, Fannie reported that mortgages and MBS of all types originated in 2005–2007 comprised 49.8 percent of its overall book of single-family mortgages, which includes both mortgages and MBS retained in their portfolio as well as mortgages they securitized and guaranteed. But the percentage of mortgages with subprime characteristics purchased during this period consistently exceeded 49.8 percent, demonstrating that Fannie was substantially increasing its reliance on junk loans between 2005 and 2007. For example, in its 10-Q Investor Summary report for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, Fannie reported that mortgages with subprime characteristics comprised substantial percentages of all 2005–2007 mortgages the company acquired, as shown in table 1. Based on these figures, it is likely that as much as 40 percent of the mortgages that Fannie Mae added to its single-family book of business during 2005–2007 were junk loans.

http://www.aei.org/files/2008/09/30/20081001_FSOTable1.gif

Negative Amortization. When the loan monthly payment is lower than the amount of interest charged. So the borrower is getting deeper in debt every single month.

62% of Fannie Mae purchased or guaranteed loans were of this nature.

Interest only, where the borrower is paying monthly payments, but only on the interest, this they are never paying down the debt.

83% of loans purchased had this.

FICO less than 620. Clearly an unqualified buyer. 57% had this.

LTV, greater than 90%. Meaning the amount of money borrowed was more than 90% of the value of the house.

Alt-A. Low-doc, no-doc loans.

All of these are Sub-prime loans.

A massive chunk of Fannie and Freddie's loans, were sub-prime. There is no way, short of absolute stupidity, someone can say Fannie and Freddie were prevented by law, from getting millions of loans that they in fact got.

Jesus.. Was stupid beat into you, or did you just eat the lead paint chips. The difference still comes down to GSEs guaranteed safer loans, and the subprime market Wall Street saw blow up in their faces were not safe.

And AEI? Yeah... Koch funded lead paint chips are what you ate your whole life. Stick to facts, and I'll won't make fun of you for being a ******* dunce. Until then, put the funny cap back on and get in your usual place in the corner, so the other kids can snicker at you.

The Big Picture

Fannie has been around since 1938, Freddie since 1968, the CRA has been around since 1977 -- suddenly, all of housing goes to hell in 2005, and then credit collapses 2 years after -- and the best explanation some people can come up with is Fannie, Freddie and CRA? Gee, isn't that rather odd -- especially after 70 years?

 

[Shanty]

During the bubble, loan originators backed by Wall Street capital began operating beyond the Fannie and Freddie system

why?? Because Fanny Freddie took all the good loans first!!

Moron liberal defeats himself without even knowing it!!

You're the only moron beating off, jagoff.

You have proven yourself too stupid to even talk on this forum, let alone accuse others of being morons. Glass house dude.

I totally meant to break the glass your home is made of.

 

[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!"

 

[Unkotare]

Wow, is this 'shanty' clown still here making a fool of himself? Talk about a mindless, partisan drone...

I like watching you guys squirm to cover up the logical fallacies and lies that conservatives need to hold their epistemic closure together.

Everyone but you recognizes what a fool you're making of yourself, you ridiculous partisan drone.

 

[Andylusion]

GSEs didn't guarantee subprime. They guaranteed prime, and Alt-A loans, but not subprime loans where credit scores were under 640, or no doc loans.

And CRA loans were not subprime. The law made banks extend credit to areas that were largely minority neighborhoods that were under served, but the credit scores were good, and were more easily found in other areas.

57.5% of all mortgages purchased by Fannie Mae between 05 and 07, had FICOs lower than 620.

You are wrong. You have been proven wrong. You are an idiot.

Wow, is this 'shanty' clown still here making a fool of himself? Talk about a mindless, partisan drone...

I like watching you guys squirm to cover up the logical fallacies and lies that conservatives need to hold their epistemic closure together.

You have been proven wrong, and an idiot a hundred times. We are squirming all over the place... laughing at you.

The difference still comes down to GSEs guaranteed safer loans, and the subprime market Wall Street saw blow up in their faces were not safe.

And AEI? Yeah... Koch funded lead paint chips are what you ate your whole life. Stick to facts, and I'll won't make fun of you for being a ******* dunce. Until then, put the funny cap back on and get in your usual place in the corner, so the other kids can snicker at you.

The Big Picture
Fannie has been around since 1938, Freddie since 1968, the CRA has been around since 1977 -- suddenly, all of housing goes to hell in 2005, and then credit collapses 2 years after -- and the best explanation some people can come up with is Fannie, Freddie and CRA? Gee, isn't that rather odd -- especially after 70 years?

[/QUOTE]

You are proving your idiocy again. You say "stick to the facts" and yet the facts we presented came straight from Fannie Mae itself, and you deflect that by b!tching about AEI and Koch and something or other.

Practice what you preach Baptist boy. The facts have been posted to you, with citation. Either you can't read, or as I suspected earlier, you are simply too dumb to carry on a conversation on this topic.

Again, the delinquency and default rate of the so-called 'safer' CRA loans, was double that of traditional prime rate loans.

So apparently, they were not quite as safe as you mindlessly parrot.

Additionally, given the fact that Fannie and Freddie both, were the biggest crashes of the entire sub-prime melt down.... clearly they were not buying such safe loans, unless you are brainless parrot of the leftwing on a forum somewhere.

You are the dumbest person on this forum right now. At least other leftards know when they are making themselves look more stupid with every post. You are such and idiot, that even when half the forum is laughing at you, you keep digging your hold deeper.

Please continue moron. Just keep making yourself look more foolish with every post.

 

[Andylusion]

During the bubble, loan originators backed by Wall Street capital began operating beyond the Fannie and Freddie system

why?? Because Fanny Freddie took all the good loans first!!

Moron liberal defeats himself without even knowing it!!

You're the only moron beating off, jagoff.

You have proven yourself too stupid to even talk on this forum, let alone accuse others of being morons. Glass house dude.

I totally meant to break the glass your home is made of.

Everyone knows you are an idiot. You talk and talk, and we laugh and laugh. Even leftists know you are an idiot. You don't see anyone here defending your stupidity do you?

 

[Shanty]

Wow, is this 'shanty' clown still here making a fool of himself? Talk about a mindless, partisan drone...

I like watching you guys squirm to cover up the logical fallacies and lies that conservatives need to hold their epistemic closure together.

Everyone but you recognizes what a fool you're making of yourself, you ridiculous partisan drone.

If people reject reality, they might think as you.

 

[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.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It couldn't be more obvious that the federal government was up to its neck in the sub-prime mortgage business."

yes, 54 agencies and programs plus 6500 pounds of regulations all designed to get people into homes the free market said they could not afford, and when they actually could not afford them it had nothing to do with the 54 liberal agencies programs and regulations that thought they knew better than the free market.

The banana market has virtually no agencies programs or regulations, but housing, health care and the USSR had plenty. Guess which collapsed?

 

[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.

 

[Andylusion]

Wow, is this 'shanty' clown still here making a fool of himself? Talk about a mindless, partisan drone...

I like watching you guys squirm to cover up the logical fallacies and lies that conservatives need to hold their epistemic closure together.

Everyone but you recognizes what a fool you're making of yourself, you ridiculous partisan drone.

If people reject reality, they might think as you.

The only reality here, is that you are not a part of it. The only place where anyone thinks your opinion is anything more than laughable, is that mythical place in your own mind, where your reflection in a mirror, keeps telling you how great you are.

Everyone else, knows you are a moron. You have prove that to us over and over.

 

[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.

CRA loans failed at almost double the rate of all prime rate loans. CRA loans, in fact are sub-prime loans, by definition.

A prime rate loan, does not need the community reinvestment act, to cause it to happen. No one is denied prime rate loans.

If a borrower qualified for a prime rate loan, they wouldn't call it a CRA loan. They would call it "a conventional mortgage". The entire purpose of the CRA as to get people who DID NOT qualify of a prime rate mortgage, a mortgage. By definition, that would mean a .... sub.... prime.... loan.

And Alt-A loans were also bad loans. When you talk about low-doc, no-doc loans, that's what Alt-A was. Go look it up, you ignorant fool. What moron you have proven to be.

 

[Andylusion]

Wow, is this 'shanty' clown still here making a fool of himself? Talk about a mindless, partisan drone...

I like watching you guys squirm to cover up the logical fallacies and lies that conservatives need to hold their epistemic closure together.

Every single person here, has shown repeatedly, with evidence, that you are an idiot of the highest level. Ukotare has made you look stupid. Bripat has made you look stupid. Edward has made you look stupid. Heck, Forest Gump, makes you look stupid.

And only person on this thread that makes you look more stupid than all of us pointing out the idiocy of your comments... is YOU!
"It wasn't subprime. It was a grade below prime."

No one could say something this absolutely moronic, and still think they are 'winning the argument', than a brainless delusional leftard like you.

I have often laughed at leftards who said that Hilliary Clinton is brilliant. My response was always "compared to who?". Clearly I'm wrong. Compared to *YOU* the claim Hilliary is brilliant suddenly does have merit. That's about the only value you have. You make all the DNC candidates look like Einstein compared to your stupidity. Even Barney Frank figured out how badly he screwed up with Fannie and Freddie, and decline to run for office again. Obviously, that level of intelligence is far beyond yours.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Where do you get off claiming "CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets?"

CRA was one of 36 programs the liberal govt used to get people into homes that the free market said they could not afford. The programs existed to subvert the free market so when it turned people really could not afford the homes as the free market said it is the height of ignorance not to blame the govt programs.

 

[bripat9643]

Where do you get off claiming "CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets?"

CRA was one of 36 programs the liberal govt used to get people into homes that the free market said they could not afford. The programs existed to subvert the free market so when it turned people really could not afford the homes as the free market said it is the height of ignorance not to blame the govt programs.

Blaming capitalism for the problems created by government interference in the market is classic leftwing strategy. They've been doing it ever since the Civil War.

 

[Andylusion]

Where do you get off claiming "CRA loans were minimal in the housing markets?"

CRA was one of 36 programs the liberal govt used to get people into homes that the free market said they could not afford. The programs existed to subvert the free market so when it turned people really could not afford the homes as the free market said it is the height of ignorance not to blame the govt programs.

Blaming capitalism for the problems created by government interference in the market is classic leftwing strategy. They've been doing it ever since the Civil War.

Yeah, but this guy isn't just leftwing. He's a grade below leftwing. [/sarcasm]. Most leftwingers know enough to shut up when they have so clearly been proven wrong by absolutely everyone, with facts they can't even attempt to contest. This guy really does make Hilliary look smart.