I can tell you from professional experience that "GW's" Housing Bubble and Crash are going to occur again.
I can tell you the dregs of society , god's '
special children' ie corn-struction workers are all expecting a crash Indeep
I know for a fact that these people earn in the lower 20-30Ks and I am convinced that the Lenders are Rubber Stamping these Loans "Approved".
Just as in the GW years, there is no way the Tables in the software provided by the Municipalities, States and Federal levels of Government are allowing people who work in Pizza Shops to take out Home Equity Loads in the 600K range.
a recipe for another housing disaster
Everybody loves a great economy, but everyone wants to jump aboard before they're capable of earning and paying their own way.
true, but don't you sense the constant revaluation via fiscals such as the derivatives market a factor InDeep?
~S~
Institutional Trading should be
Illegal.
I'm tired of
egotistical assholes with a
bullshit degree in Finance from a "prestigious" University that their daddy's bribe got them into, determining from
thin air how a much a given piece of a
MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given
second.
HOW THE FUCK DO THEY KNOW????
It's a
fucking game that they
never lose at!
I explained it last week to a naive person here who wants to believe all people on Wall Street are honest.
I will now calm down...nah!
how a much a given piece of a MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATION, with an almost infinite amount of physical Assets & Liabilities alone, is worth at any given second.
If they're overpricing it, don't buy from them.
If they're underpricing it, don't sell to them.
I get the impression
you were on the up and up.
Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.
The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.
Are investors really pulling in and out of the
same deal all day long?
No way.
It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.
In fact, with today's technology, crashes should
never happen because we found out something that happened last year was suddenly discovered.
Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.
Not so the Institutional Traders who are baiting the small guy.
Again... as I pointed out before, your 401K is run by institutional traders. Union pension funds, are run by institutional traders. The trust fund of schools like Yale and Harvard, are run by institutional traders. Annuities for old people retiring, are run by institutional traders.
Basically every single retirement, or investment program in the world, is run by institutional traders.
The small guy.... benefits specifically from institutional traders. I've doubled my money in the stock market, through an IRA..... run by institutional traders.
The Market rides like a roller coaster all day long...there's no way that would happen if the data being fed to the masses were honest.
Of course it would go up and down, with or without accurate information.
Just like there are hundreds of factors involved in the value of a stock, there are also hundreds of factors involved in investor choices.
Simple example: Had an idiot years ago, who during the sub-prime crash, sold all his stocks. He was convinced, the market was going to completely tank, and he was going to magically lose all his money.
So he sold all his stocks.
I on the other hand, I bought every single stock I could buy. Every single spare dollar I could grab, I purchased stocks with it.
The information we had was identical. He didn't have any more information than I did, and I didn't have any more information than him. Yet both of us had completely opposite reactions to the market.
Warren Buffet supposedly said (I've heard this from multiple sources, but I still can't confirm it), when he was asked by a reporter how much money he lost in the Sub-prime stock market crash, responded "None. I didn't sell my stocks".
So you have 3 different people, and each had different reactions to the same exact information. One guy sold all his stocks (which would drive prices down), one guy bought every stock he could be (which would drive prices up), and one guy did absolutely nothing.
Do you see the problem with your logic? You act like if everyone had perfect information, that we'd all do the exact same thing, and the market would be completely static.
Not so. People react differently to perfect information all the time.
So.... No. The market should naturally go up and down, constantly. It would be ridiculous to think otherwise.
It's like a big flashing advertisement, but when it fails, it destroys an entire economy.
Um... no. The stock market reflects the economy. Not the other way around. A stock market crash, can't somehow magically cause the economy to crash.
Just think about that logically for a moment. Say you are a company, like oh.... Apple Computer. Say the stock market hits a bump and crashes.
How does that affect you?
It doesn't. If people are still buying iPhones, you are still going to sell them. If people are still buying your computers, you are still going to sell them. If products are still being sold, you are still going to have them made.
How does the dropping of your stock price, cause Apple computer, or any other company you might work for, have any problems? It doesn't.
Let's take the 1929 Crash. Did that crash cause any companies to go under? No. In fact, the unemployment rate in 1929, even after the stock market crash, was still just 3%.
But why did the stock market crash? Because investors saw that Smoot Hawley tariffs were going to cash business to crash. In 1930, the Smoot Hawley tariff was imposed, and unemployment from all those businesses forced back into the US (that was sarcasm) jumped up to 8.7%. Then you had the dust bowl, unemployment hit 15%, and the Hoover tax increases to pay for all the government programs, and unemployment hit 23%, and then FDR's new deal, and unemployment hit 24%.
The unemployment rate has fluctuated greatly since 1929. Learn how GDP, inflation, economic events, and other policies have historically impacted unemployment.
www.thebalance.com
Again, did the crash in 1929 cause businesses to close? No. It was the Smoot-Hawley protectionism that caused businesses to close. The investors saw that coming, that's why the stock crash happened in 1929, when the bill to impose protectionism was introduced.
But none of the economic decline happened after the stock market crash. It happened as tariffs and retaliatory tariffs were placed against the US, which killed the economy, and people lost their jobs.
The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash.
You are trying to put the cart in front of the horse.
Just look at the Housing Crash...who didn't really know the Loans were BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD!
But everybody's got a dream.
Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?
Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?
Government didn't know the loans were bad. They pushed bad loans, throughout the entire sub-prime bubble.
Uh huh...Yeah.
By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.
The rest of your comments are
pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.
Who didn't know the loans were bad? Government. You want me to post videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank saying that everything was great? You want me to post the news articles where Freddie Mac signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, two of the largest crashes.... to make bad sub-prime loans?
Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans. You really do live in Kansas, don't you?
Half of the Lenders in my community were hired by the Obama Administration to investigate these Papers stamped "Approved" because they were among the few Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.
"
The stock market reacted to future implications. It didn't cause anything. Stock markets do not "cause" the economy to fail. The future information that the economy would fail, caused the markets to crash."
I hope you're
kidding...Stock markets
can, and
have, turned wealthy people into paupers in mere moments.
In fact, this happened a few months before Trump's tax cuts.
Or how about Obama who said openly, that sub-prime loans were a good idea?
You didn't listen to Rush back then, did you?
Rush loved sub-prime Loans and claimed the GW was a genius!
The Loans themselves were only a fraction of the issue as nobody cares if minorities lose their home and wind up homeless.
After all, there were no Smart Devices back then to storm Wall Street and hand the MBAs.
The Rubber Stamped Loans were packed into other projects, almost all doomed to fail, and then sold to Financial Firms in the Eastern Hemisphere.
Why? Because no firm here cared if a Bank in Asia could collect on the loan because the bankers here would conjure up another scheme to raise that money.
But ****** made a mistake which I understood because I was taking Karate and understood the Asian mentality...
You owe me $1.00 this month, I'm not accepting $.99.
Sounds funny, doesn't it, but Asians back then, before we tainted them, work on real numbers, not American vapor.
I could go on but you already bought the Rush Limbaugh horse crap.
GW, The Rs and the Ds and every Financial Firm in the US caused a deficit that will never be paid off.
But Obama!..
Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.
You're so Lilly White...
Send your bank account and every check you get to the Fed.
But I work for my check!
You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a
penny!
I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.
Look, you're a really smart guy but so damned Yankee Doodle.
Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).
By the way, The Great Depression, as defined by Milton Freidman in one of his last videos, was caused by excessive off-shoring of assets and the lack of technology to know those assets were wasted on parties. Yep, MF says it and every Conservative who hears that sentence blocks it out because Conservatives are just as mentally ill as Liberals.
Thomas Rustici of George Mason University and author of Lessons from the Great Depression talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the impact of the Smoot-Hawley Act on the economy. The standard view is that the decrease in trade that followed Smoot-Hawley was not big enough to be a...
www.econtalk.org
Economist Rustici, clearly documents the effects of the Smoot Hawley tariff, and how it caused the crash. One clear example, is the Pittsburgh steel industry. The Smoot Hawley tariff, drastically increased the cost of raw iron ore from Canada. Of course Canada equally put in place a retaliatory tariff against steel imported from the US.
Do tell sparky... if you were a steel company, which would cause you more problems: A drop in your company stock price, or the price of your raw steel going up dramatically at the exact same time the price of your finished product steel dropping dramatically?
The rest of your comments are pure nonsense as you have not spent any time in any Wall Street firm at a meeting attended and run by 20 MBAs who didn't care about anything else other than selling an idea or an actual product, regardless of the viability of the product.
That is not a counter argument to anything I said.
Grow up already; every Loan Officer Rubber Stamped Loans.
Does not change anything I said. Not a counter argument to anything.
Again, if you want me to post the videos of Maxine Waters, and Barnie Frank both praising sub-prime loans, and Obama calling it a good idea, and Andrew Cuomo suing banks to make bad loans.... I will do so. But your statement, changes nothing.
Lenders who followed the Government provided software that Rejected the Loan; these Lenders lost their careers because there weren't enough Borrowers who listened to their advice and buy a less expensive home.
Robot Check
John A. Allison was CEO of BB&T bank, when regulators under the Clinton administration showed up, and required that they lower lending standards.
This is well documented.
But Obama!..Saved you from starving by borrowing against the future.
Bull crap. A number of countries did not bailout out their banks, and were just fine.
Plus, Obama was part of the group pushing sub-prime loans to being with. Only a brainless idiot, sees someone create a problem, and then present themselves as a solution to a problem they created, and claim they saved us.
You are dumbest moron on the face of the planet, if you honestly believe that.
You know why your boss has a business?
Obama borrowed against the future.
I was there, I saw business owners begging the banks for a penny!
My boss was not there. Nor did anything that created that company, or the products that company sold, ever come from Obama.
I could write a book on your delusions, but what the heck, every RWer in my community still denies this GW farce.
My delusions? Which one of us right now, is sitting around justifying government taking your tax money, and giving it to wealthy people?
Stop responding to what you consider nonsense (since you weren't there and can only rely on Fox and The Wall Street Journal of Bullshit for your knowledge base).
Well because I'm right. I know I'm right. You are wrong, and I can prove it. So why should I stop responding, when you are the one making insane claims?
Just out of curiosity, do you realize you didn't
directly address anything I posted?
Why do you mention Europe when the I stated Obama had to bail out the
world.
Why are you referencing some other video when MFs video is on YouTube?
Why are you blaming sub-primer loans alone when they were less than 3% of the crash?
Not to mention that the men who engineered the entire Lending Bubble, Alan Greenspan, Dick Cheney and Warren Buffet, made billions off the crash.
To be honest, you are so honest I wish you would run for office.
Yes, because you did not make any real points.
Because Obama didn't have to bail out the world. That is opinion. That is not a fact. It's opinion. We didn't bail out Lehman Brothers. It didn't doom the world.
Now I get it that banks claimed Obama had to bail out the world.... well of course they did. Those CEOs jobs are to save the company. If the only way to save the company is to get money from government, they are going to go to government ask for money.
And if the only way to convince government to give you money, is to claim that if you don't bail them out, that the world will end... then they are going to say you have to bail us out or the world will end.
But it's not true. That's just a bunch of rich people, saying whatever they have to say, to get cash.
No, Obama didn't have to bail out the world. The world would have been just fine, with zero bailouts. Iceland didn't bailout a single bank, and their big three banks that all failed, were a far larger percentage of their economy, then our banks were.
Iceland not only did not implode, but they recovered faster, and were recording great economic growth, while we were still in a recession.
Estonia years ago, also refused to bailout their banks, and their banks all went bankrupt and closed, and they recovered just fine, no problem.
Why are you referencing some other video when MFs video is on YouTube?
Because my videos are directly relevant to the topic at hand. Milton Friedman was not relevant to the topic at hand.
Why are you blaming sub-primer loans alone when they were less than 3% of the crash?
Because that is not true?
Sub-prime loans were almost 25% of the market by the end. And you'll notice, as I said before, that sub-prime loans were a niche market before 1997, when Bill Clinton, and his administration pushed Sub-prime loans into the main stream.
Not to mention that the men who engineered the entire Lending Bubble, Alan Greenspan, Dick Cheney and Warren Buffet, made billions off the crash.
People are always going to invest in ways that make a profit. People are going to invest in ways to make a profit, whether the economy is good, or the economy is bad.
Complaining that people made a profit, is pointless. They are always going to make a profit. That's like complaining it's sunny in Arizona, during a depression. Yeah, that's going to happen.
The question isn't "did people make a profit during....." We always answer that with.... yeah. That's what investors do. Investors make wise investments, that return a profit. They would not be investors, if they didn't make investments that returned a profit.
I myself, am an investor. In 2009, I was buying stocks even while the market was crashing. That's what wise investors do.
Even this year. When the market crashed back on Feb 20th, I started buying stocks. I've been buying stocks on the market since the beginning of this crash too. Because that's how you make wise investments, is by buying up stocks that are on sale.
So that is not a valid point. Pointing out that wise investors were investing wisely during the sub-prime crash, is not a valid point of anything. That's like saying "duh". Yeah, investors invested. Duh.
The only valid question is, why did sub-prime loans go from being a niche market, where they should have stayed... to being mainstream and taking up almost 1/4th of the market?
The answer is.... government. Freddie Mac in 1997, signed a deal with First Union (wachovia) and Bear Stearns, to give Sub-prime mortgages a AAA rating.
I keep hearing that the subprime crisis was caused by people willing to buy stuff they couldn't evaluate. Why would smart people do that? One answer is that they were stupid. In an era of rising home prices, it's hard...
cafehayek.com
CHARLOTTE – First Union Capital Markets Corp. and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of securities backed by Community Reinvestment
Act (CRA) loans – marking the industry’s first public securitization of
CRA loans.
The affordable mortgages were originated or acquired by First Union
Corporation and subsidiaries. Customers will experience no impact –
they will continue to make payments to and be serviced by First Union
Mortgage Corp. CRA loans are loans targeted to low and moderate income
borrowers and neighborhoods under the Community Reinvestment Act of
1977.
"The securitization of these affordable mortgages allows us to redeploy
capital back into our communities and to expand our ability to provide
credit to low and moderate income individuals," said Jane Henderson,
managing director of First Union’s Community Reinvestment and Fair
Lending Programs. "First Union is committed to promoting home ownership
in traditionally underserved markets through a comprehensive line of
competitive and flexible affordable mortgage products. This transaction
enables us to continue to aggressively serve those markets."
The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac and
have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the
investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation.
Again, this is well documented.
And at the same time, Andrew Cuomo was suing banks to force them to make bad loans.
Andrew Cuomo admitted openly, that this would force the bank to make loans to people who otherwise would not qualify. Meaning, people who did not qualify for prime rate mortgages.... AND Cuomo equally admitted that the default rate would be higher.
Again, government forced banks to make bad loans, and rewarded sub-prime loans, and encourages sub-prime loans by giving them a AAA rating. This is well documented.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/unemployment-rate-by-year-3305506_colorfinal-9d4c100f9b424e13819e9d56873422a8.gif)
