Big Fed, Democrats, and the meltdown

Nothing personal, but you don't know what you are talking about. Let's play jeopardy. I'll give the answers

Who is Brooksley Born? Please find her story first. You can try PBS Frontline.... The Warning...

Who is Bill Clinton?
Who is Larry Summers?
Who is Robert Reubin?
Who is Barney Frank?
Who is Christoper Dodd?

Thanks for playing

 

Exactly my point. akphidelt seems to think that banks were just loaning money to random homeless people because it was a great way for them to make money. Obviously, though, it wasn't a very profitable enterprise since many of them ended up failing or getting bailed out.

 

That's how Government's speak. It's a projection. Just like "We want to decrease unemployment to 6%", or "We want to lower the deficit". Blah blah blah blah... they always say whatever they want to say. That does not negate the fact that it was Wall St and the banks making it happen and profiting tremendously in doing so. Tell your wealthy masters I say hi. I'm not sure if they'll hear you though in their ivory towers! I'm sure they appreciate the support though!

 

Who cares. If the Government pioneers jumping off a bridge are we supposed to follow? Is this really your reasoning for what Wall St did?? LOL!!! This is even embarrassing for you, and that says a lot.

Because they got caught with their pants down. Do you not understand any of this? Have you ever heard of books or the Internet? There's like millions of details on exactly what the banks and Wall St did to collapse themselves. It's really easy to understand with just middle school level education.

Please get smarter quick!!

 

Oh wow, you must be one of those conservative geniuses that think they know what they are talking about by listing names. Great job, you have proved so much!! LOL!! You guys are beyond embarrassing... but it does provide a lot of laughs to see dumb people try to deal with complicated matters. Thanks for the afternoon laugh!!

 

"Greed" .............. what a cop-out.

Look, greed is not new. It is a constant in society, but even more importantly, the basis for successful economics, and quite predictable.

Just about everything you point out is not the fault of "greed", anymore than air is to blame for keeping us alive so as to be greedy. Whatever it was that changed the system, so as to create artificial demand, and then uber-inflation, are what created the monster. That it then behaved as it did should surprise no one. But to blame "greed" ........... was it a factor ? Hell yes ! But it is a constant ! Forgive my strawman, but it would be to blame a high rate of bastard kids on sex feeling good, and not on a lack of self control. The diffrence being, sex feels just as good in those cultures that do not have high rates of bastard kids.

It was the 5-fold increase in Fannie and Freddie in the 90's, and to then underwrite the subprimes that it told banks to make, that created this monstor. In a feeding frenzie of piranha, do you blame the fish, or the dumbass who chummed the water ? Government caused it, then government did not put the brakes on it. Just as our massive current debt. Government created it, and now cannot put the brakes on it.

 

Typical clueless fratboy's daily trolling routine. In case you don't know, those wealthy masters not only they ripped off the system and profit from it during the housing boom, they were the same ones that benefited from Bernanke's toxic assets purchasing or printing scheme when the housing bubble burst, yet uninformed, uneducated and mindless loons like you keep worshiping the Chair-Satan. You're one classic brainwashed liberal loon.

 

Going to add one more, and forgive me if another already has.

Andrew Cuomo.

 

Yea, and the reason for many abuses of humans and the system in order to get more of it. Face it, greed and profit motive were at the core of the collapse. What Wall St and the banks did was criminal and it was all in the name of greed. I'm glad you support your wealthy masters!! They greatly appreciate it.

Yes, credit default swaps, cdo's, mortgage back securities, ARM Loans, NINA loans, etc were all created in the name of greed. So if those things are the "air" you need to survive than you have major problems.

No it wasn't. It was the massive increase of subprime dirt lending between 2000-2003 that was the result of the massive increase in home prices and the result of the collapse. I suggest you get a little smarter and actually use this thing we call the Internet. You might actually be surprised at what you find.

LOL!! You guys are pretty embarrassing!

 

Here, maybe a little cartoon will help you guys. Even this dude who draws pictures understands it better than you guys. It's very simple unless you have a hidden agenda.... like hating the Government.

[video=youtube;N9YLta5Tr2A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9YLta5Tr2A[/video]

 

This is incorrect. Banks were averse to making sub-primes until 1997, when they were pushed by HUD, a major lawsuit, and then a settlement which compelled that they make the sub-primes, but also that FF would underwrite them all.

It was not WS that took away accountability in the first few years. It was FF ......... Government.

GS was 1999. It was the pet-project of the Bill Clinton Administration. Robert Ruben to be exact.

 

Keep your chin up fellow sentient beings (See my sig V V V)

American collectivists will never admit to their REQUIRED authoritarian, confiscatory/redistributive, crony capitalist central planner's heavy hand in the meltdown.

They are REQUIRED (by progressive leftist law, apparently) to deflect blame from them...and lay all blame on an economic system they despise....free market capitalism.

It's an undeniable, self-evident truth.

 

Who cares, that has nothing to do with what WS did between 2000-2005. That is an objective fact, there is nothing you can say to deny the massive increase in private mortgage lending and the massive increase in funny loans made by the private sector and the massive increase in private sector securitization of these mortgages.

That's something no one can deny no matter how bad they want to push their anti-Government agenda.

But you guys seem to not care one bit about data and are only here for one reason and that is to push your uneducated irrational fear of Government. Great job, your wealthy masters love your support and vote!

 

Blah blah blah... your wealthy masters love people like you!! All uneducated and brainwashed. They can't wait for your vote this November!!

 

Greed and profit motive are constant forces. Even so, a bank was not going to make a loan to some bum to buy a house if the bank was liable for any loss. But when government comes along and says "Make the loan. We'll underwrite it", then who is at fault ? Government, or the bank ?

But they were enabled by 1) The Housing bubble, already started; and 2) Having FF underwrite half the friggin market.

Bubble started in '98. I have already said that uber-inflation is what made all that nonsense possible. The cause of the artificial uber-inflation is they key.

Don't tell me about getting smarter. If you cannot post without the insults, then my next reply will be to suck my dick.

 

Insults in every post ? Whassup with dat ?

 

That's what frat does when his stupidity is exposed. Nothing is new here.

 

It's no ones fault as long as the underlying loan was safe. The Government didn't have many problems for decades with mortgage backed securities because they were regulated on what mortgages they could take. Mortgage backed securities are not a bad thing. What's bad is ARM loans, NINA loans, and banks giving money to anyone they wanted because someone would take those mortgages off them. Primarily Wall St. It wasn't until 2005 when F&F lost almost 50% of their market share that F&F changed their regulations in order to take on riskier loans. These are undeniable facts. Only true conservatives deny facts like these.

It was a very minimal amount of loans that created the mess. There has been plenty of studies of how these subprime loans (which FF couldn't underwrite) lead to the crisis. FF played the game no doubt, but they were not the cause. They did not cause Wall St and the banking system to collapse. They did that on their own.

The bubble did not start in 1998. You just made that up. And it wasn't an insult. What you are saying is not very smart and I was just pointing that out. Especially since it's been over 4 years since it happened and there has been countless studies, books, and data presented that show a completely different picture than what you are saying.

Here, here is what the private sector does to destroy economies. Almost tripling the amount of subprime mortgages between 2003-2005. What more proof do you guys need, or do you guys not care about proof?

 

Been dealing with these guys for months. They aren't looking for actual debates, they are looking to push their ridiculous anti-Government agendas. And they do plenty of insulting themselves. I have solid debates with people who are looking at data objectively and not pushing their ridiculous party politics. The fact you guys just ignore blatant data that contradicts what you are saying is an insult to everyone's intelligence.

 

To be able to look at these graphs and still come to the conclusion that the bubble started in 1998 and it was F&F's fault or the Government's is insane. Literally the definition of insane.

 

I mean insane, there is literally no way you can possible believe what you guys are saying. I understand your wealthy masters are telling you to say this stuff, but when do you guys think for yourselves? Do you really want to be just a peon in your wealthy masters lives?

 

FF began underwriting bad loans en masses in 1997. It made bad loans very profitable. Do I have to explain that any further ?

MBS's were a product of the beast, that then accelerated the beast. But they did not create it.

FF did lose market chare as the bubble grew. Know why ? Because their own rules precluded them to make the very profitable crazy loans which they had enabled. Once FF got the bubble going, crazy loans were money-makers. So FF changed their rules to get back in on the action.

I somewhat agree with this. It doesn't take much to start a feeding frenzy such as a housing bubble. But with FF underwriting half the market by about 2001, from only having been 5% 12 years earlier, something is very different. As noted, FF then lost market share to banks that could not lose money on a loan. The key was just to not be holding the loan when the bubble popped.

Yes it did ! The red line is the inflation adjusted line. The impetus actually began in early '97, but its an acceleration. It's slope increased above infaltion in '98. And it was not going to come down until it popped. It grew so much larger this time because FF were pumping the money into it.

Wait a minute. Subprimes triple because you could not lose at that time. Inflation covered everything, even bad loans. The issue is what created that "no lose" environment.

This is not rocket science. Everything that I have stated explains every graph you have put up. And it all begins with FF underwriting subprimes in excess starting in '97, and going from 5% of the market in the 80's, to 50 % by the early 00's.

 

Do you not understand the causes of an explosion in subprimes ? In an uber-inflationary market, they were completely predictable. And as your graph shows, FF got back into it just as soon as they changed their by-laws so as to pursue the same profits. It was a wave that all wanted to ride. The question is, how did it get started ? It did not begin with GS.

 

Do you even know who are those wealthy masters that you're talking about? It's the bankers that own US Banking system, they made hundreds of billions of profit if it's not a trillion during the housing boom, then they made hundreds of billions more from government bailout when the housing bubble burst. As far as everyone concerns, you're the only person on this forum worshiping Ben Bernanke while at the same time complaining about super wealthies are being protected. Pretty clueless eh. I doubt you would even realize your own stupidity....

Take my advice, stick with something that you do best, like shooting Halo with your Chinese friend or something like that. Refraining from discussing any econ topics, that would save you some embarrassment.

 

The GSEs are responsible for the practice of mortgage securitization, the same practice you say allowed banks to profit off of bad loans. The existence of these GSEs only serves to distort the market.

What you're saying makes no sense. You claim the banks made bad loans in order to increase their profits, but the bad loans ultimately caused their insolvency. Why would the banks base their business models on something so outlandishly risky as loaning money to bums?