Take control of your brain health with Staying Sharp! Try it today.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
33
Views

Re: Recession

33 Views
Message 1 of 44

@gruffstuff wrote:

And, after all this time of posters blaming Bush, Frank's input to the problem comes out.

 

 

Frank didn't make loans, encourage or accept bogus appraisals, bundle risky products in deceptive securities, or encourage or accept bogus ratings for ratings companies for those securities.

 

 

The government didn't either, the bankers did, and bankers is a generic term. The small town regional banking corporation with a dozen branches didn't do it, they saw it coming and hunkered down.

 

 

Frank didn't profit from the destruction of lives, marriages, and families, the bankers did.

 

 

People like to gamble, you can make a lot of money, you can lose a lot too. Ill advised, but if it's their money, well fools and their money are soon parted.

 

 

Working the system and  gambling with other people's money, or Main Street's money is another matter, particularly for the rugged individualism types.

 

 

Privatize the profits of the 1% or the 10% , socialize their losses.

 

 

Fair enough? 

 

 

I say we return to the New Deal tax rates, pay down some debt, build some new roads and bridges, try to cope with climate change.

 

 

That would be fair enough.

 

 

But hey I used to be a liberal, I'll compromise, I'll settle for the JFK tax rates.

 

 

 

 

 


No, Frank didn't make loans. If you read the article, you will see how his actions enabled them.

 

How anyone can think that "tax the rich" would solve problems created by people taking out loans they can't pay is strange.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
33
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
41
Views

Re: Recession

41 Views
Message 2 of 44

And, after all this time of posters blaming Bush, Frank's input to the problem comes out.

 

 

Frank didn't make loans, encourage or accept bogus appraisals, bundle risky products in deceptive securities, or encourage or accept bogus ratings for ratings companies for those securities.

 

 

The government didn't either, the bankers did, and bankers is a generic term. The small town regional banking corporation with a dozen branches didn't do it, they saw it coming and hunkered down.

 

 

Frank didn't profit from the destruction of lives, marriages, and families, the bankers did.

 

 

People like to gamble, you can make a lot of money, you can lose a lot too. Ill advised, but if it's their money, well fools and their money are soon parted.

 

 

Working the system and  gambling with other people's money, or Main Street's money is another matter, particularly for the rugged individualism types.

 

 

Privatize the profits of the 1% or the 10% , socialize their losses.

 

 

Fair enough? 

 

 

I say we return to the New Deal tax rates, pay down some debt, build some new roads and bridges, try to cope with climate change.

 

 

That would be fair enough.

 

 

But hey I used to be a liberal, I'll compromise, I'll settle for the JFK tax rates.

 

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
41
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
55
Views

Re: Recession

55 Views
Message 3 of 44

@Olderscout66 wrote:

@gruffstuff wrote:

O.K. - you know more than Forbes, the Atlantic, and the Boston Globe. If you say so, I'll just have to take your word for it.

 

 

You can prove me wrong by showing me the law that requires lenders to lend money to borrowers that are not credit worthy.


And of course rk cannot prove you wrong because the law he tries to blame for the Republican inspired meltdown of World financial markets SPECIFICALLY FORBIDS lenders to use the law as an excuse to lower their standards for lending. For decades banks had used "red-lining" to prevent money from moving in to non-white neighborhoods, so those found guilty of doing this were required to lend more money to people in such neighborhoods.

 

But the total lent to these areas was less than 6% of the total mortgages that defaulted to cause the crisis. Kinda hard to explain how 6% of anything is the "driving force", so Republicans never mention this part of their story. Knowing their lofo base will never bother to read the legislation or look into the details of the jrbush Depression, they just keep regurgitating their Zombie Lies about Social Justice causing the problem.


Did you take the trouble to read the articles about how the actions of Barney Frank helped create the environment that allowed those evil banksters to do their thing?

 

For discussion purposes it would be more useful than just posting bumper stickers about "Zombie Lies" and "Social Justice".

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
55
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
62
Views

Re: Recession

62 Views
Message 4 of 44

@rk9152 wrote:

@gruffstuff wrote:

O.K. - you know more than Forbes, the Atlantic, and the Boston Globe. If you say so, I'll just have to take your word for it.

 

 

You can prove me wrong by showing me the law that requires lenders to lend money to borrowers that are not credit worthy.


If you'll read the items I believe you will see "permit" not "require". 


And if you read the actual LAW, you will see it FORBIDS such reckless lending, and in no way shape or form "permits" it.

 

THE MARKET and the rapacity of Republicans COMPELLED the Banksters to write worthless loans to people who had NO CHANCE of ever repaying them because they knew the gutting of Government regulatory agencies by Republican legislaters made getting caught virtually impossible.

 

They even had a near-garenteed market for their bogus paper bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities - the foreign Central Banks who were holding all those hundreds of billions of dollars they earned from selling us more stuff than we sold to them who could not put the money into Government Guarenteed Treasury issues BECAUSE CLINTON BALANCED TWO BUDGETS, so they went for "the next best thing" - American Home Mortgages.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
62
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
66
Views

Re: Recession

66 Views
Message 5 of 44

@gruffstuff wrote:

O.K. - you know more than Forbes, the Atlantic, and the Boston Globe. If you say so, I'll just have to take your word for it.

 

 

You can prove me wrong by showing me the law that requires lenders to lend money to borrowers that are not credit worthy.


And of course rk cannot prove you wrong because the law he tries to blame for the Republican inspired meltdown of World financial markets SPECIFICALLY FORBIDS lenders to use the law as an excuse to lower their standards for lending. For decades banks had used "red-lining" to prevent money from moving in to non-white neighborhoods, so those found guilty of doing this were required to lend more money to people in such neighborhoods.

 

But the total lent to these areas was less than 6% of the total mortgages that defaulted to cause the crisis. Kinda hard to explain how 6% of anything is the "driving force", so Republicans never mention this part of their story. Knowing their lofo base will never bother to read the legislation or look into the details of the jrbush Depression, they just keep regurgitating their Zombie Lies about Social Justice causing the problem.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
66
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
73
Views

Re: Recession

73 Views
Message 6 of 44

@mandm84 wrote:

rk9152 says"There were no Trump deregulations involved in the housing market boom/burst."

------------------------------

No kidding , so with Trump's Deregulations we are heading for the same. Do you learn anything from past Republican mess ups ?


What deregulation has President Trump done or proposed comparable to what this topic is about?? It appears they may, in fact, learn.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
73
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
76
Views

Re: Recession

76 Views
Message 7 of 44

@gruffstuff wrote:

Yes, it started with helping poor people get homes. But, as the boom "boomed" the numbers got a lot bigger and the income of those involved did increase quite a bit.

 

 

It wasn't the defaults of the poor people that caused the crash, they were priced out of the market, eleven years later they're still priced out of the market.

 

 

It was avarice, which is what capitalism is based on. That is why we need New Deal strong regulation to control the avarice of capitalism.

 

 

Too much government regulation wasn't the problem, to little was.


And, after all this time of posters blaming Bush, Frank's input to the problem comes out.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
76
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
98
Views

Re: Recession

98 Views
Message 8 of 44

rk9152 says"There were no Trump deregulations involved in the housing market boom/burst."

------------------------------

No kidding , so with Trump's Deregulations we are heading for the same. Do you learn anything from past Republican mess ups ?

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
98
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
106
Views

Re: Recession

106 Views
Message 9 of 44

Yes, it started with helping poor people get homes. But, as the boom "boomed" the numbers got a lot bigger and the income of those involved did increase quite a bit.

 

 

It wasn't the defaults of the poor people that caused the crash, they were priced out of the market, eleven years later they're still priced out of the market.

 

 

It was avarice, which is what capitalism is based on. That is why we need New Deal strong regulation to control the avarice of capitalism.

 

 

Too much government regulation wasn't the problem, to little was.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
106
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
129
Views

Re: Recession

129 Views
Message 10 of 44

@gruffstuff wrote:

If you'll read the items I believe you will see "permit" not "require".

 

Any bank or lender is permitted to lend money, the bank decides if the borrower is credit worthy, and if the collateral, the property,  exceeds the value of the  loan. Generally speaking the loan can't exceed 80% the value of the property. My old time bank has their own appraiser. 

 

 

This was fraud by the lender, appraisers, rating agencies like Moodys.

 

 

These lenders weren't holding the paper, they were fine with bogus appraisals, and bogus ratings on bundled mortgage securities.  They weren't the ones who were going to be left without a chair when the music stopped.

 

 

It wasn't low income " takers " the  " government "  " forced "  " banks " to issue loans to,  the majority of the loans went to middle and high income borrowers.

 

 

https://www.fuqua.duke.edu/duke-fuqua-insights/adelino-subprime

 

 

A decade after it began, the Great Recession is now commonly blamed on a subprime mortgage crisis – banks extending too many loans to low-income borrowers with high risk of default.

 

 

But Professor Manuel Adelino found that narrative doesn’t fit the facts.

 

 

Adelino, a finance professor at Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business, along with co-authors Antoinette Schoar of MIT and Felipe Severino of Dartmouth, reviewed nationwide income, home sales and mortgage data from the years before and during the financial crisis. They found the banking collapses that sparked the recession were the result of spiking loan defaults among buyers with higher incomes.

 

 

The resulting research, The Role of Housing and Mortgage Markets in the Financial Crisis,was recently published in the Annual Review of Financial Economics.

 

 

Adelino discusses the findings in this Fuqua Q&A.

 

 

You found low-income buyers weren’t to blame for the financial collapse that led to the recession. How did you conclude that?

 

 

The subprime crisis argument is that the supply of credit to low-income households fueled increasing house prices, and was the source of the crash. We studied data on all mortgages originated in the United States between 2002 and 2006. We could see the size of the mortgage and the income reported by the buyers. We also had ZIP code-level data from the IRS, and we had access to a sample of mortgages for which we could see whether they were still current on their payments or had defaulted.

 

 

 

We found there was no explosion of credit offered to lower-income borrowers. In fact, home ownership rates among the poorest 20 percent of Americans fell during the boom because those buyers were being priced out of the market. Instead, we found credit was expanded across the board. Everybody was playing the same game. But credit expanded most drastically in areas where house prices were rising the most, and these were markets that were beyond the reach of lower-income borrowers.

 

 

 

The overwhelming majority of mortgages were going to middle income and relatively high income households during the boom, just as they have always done.

 

 

Even if low-income households weren’t getting more credit, defaults caused the recession. Don’t lower income borrowers default more often?

 

 

 

That is usually the case. You become a subprime borrower by having a low credit score, and you get a low credit score by defaulting on your debt obligations. It’s not surprising that mortgages that go to subprime borrowers have higher default rates because that’s how they became subprime in the first place.

 

 

 

But what caused the financial crisis was that middle- and high-income borrowers – including speculators who bought up homes to sell for profit – began defaulting at unprecedented rates. We had a crisis because non-subprime borrowers defaulted, where previously they very rarely had.

In 2003, 71 percent of delinquent mortgages were held by subprime borrowers. But by 2006, subprime borrowers were holding only 39 percent of delinquent mortgages. Not only that, there just aren’t enough low-income borrowers to bring down the financial system, it’s too robust for that.

 

 

Why does it matter if people get this wrong about the recession?

 

 

 

Because regulators responded based on the belief that there had been an explosion of credit given to low-income borrowers. They restricted mortgage credit to subprime borrowers based on the belief those loans had put the banking system at risk. This made it more difficult for people with lower incomes to get credit for several years, just as house prices were lower, when first-time buyers and those with less money would otherwise have been able to enter the market and help it recover. Home ownership rates among low income borrowers have collapsed since the crisis because of the active limiting of credit to those borrowers. This did not add any stability to the banking system as intended.

 

 

 

The financial crisis changed the way we do research in economics and finance. We now think there’s a link between the massive increases in default and foreclosures, and losses in long term economic growth. A deeper understanding of the housing market’s boom and bust can lead to better understanding for regulators and business when a similar situation occurs in the future.

 

 

So now what?

 

 

The " government "  " forced " " banks " to lend money to middle and high income borrowers so they could speculate in a over priced unsustainable market, and then when that market collapsed the " government "  " forced"  them to walk away from their underwater mortgage?

 

 

I can understand how it's so much more desirable for you to blame the " takers " and not the lenders,  but when all this was going on my little bank wasn't issuing mortgages, they knew better, they saw it coming, we all did.

 

No one said anything about the government forcing the banks to make loans, they merely set up circumstances where risky loans were no longer a risk. 

 

Yes, it started with helping poor people get homes. But, as the boom "boomed" the numbers got a lot bigger and the income of those involved did increase quite a bit.

 

I seem to recall much negativity about the sub-prime concept being expressed here, but now that it is tied to Frank, it is ignored as a problem.

 

 

 

 


 

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
129
Views