Why not lynch the borrowers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
“Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?”


I'd rather think that a man of such savvy ..and experience ...such heralded competence....was influenced to keep his mouth shut while the party was in full swing (SHHH!!!! ..If you blab now there will be **** to pay. Just wait and apologize later in the aftermath)

Only the passengers were in denial as the Titanic went under the water line. The captain, the engineer, the ship's officers ..all were resigned to the obvious well in advance of the final death throws.
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo


http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=310173877357981


Ahhhhhhhh, so now it's the New deal that created the mortgage crisis 80 YEARS LATER.
smirk2.gif


Nice objective article there Pabs. Backbone? Maybe, for someone hunched over to the right.
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Just giving a complete history.....you can believe what you want. Like your belief that the "free market" caused this!
LOL.gif



All the "backbone" you throw out to the dogs still doesn't discount the fact that the vast majority of foreclosed homes are not CRA homes or low income slum homes. The vast majority are middle to upper income homes. If you think that a low number of CRA and low income homes in the ghettos of Cleveland caused the housing bubble to burst and collapse 500K+ homes, then I've got some real nice beach front property in Park County CO I'd like to sell to you!
LOL.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20081031a.htm


As I skim through that Pabs, I keep seeing those who controlled the tap blaming the false perception of "risk". If you're worth your paycheck ..you can reason this out very simply and limit the supply of money.

You just don't allow that much paper to be written. You can leave the same template of qualifications ..with all the percentages for the losers that are surely the whole reason for all of our ills ..
 
Originally Posted By: oilyriser
Even if a bank is totally objective, they will discriminate against minorities, since the minorities have a lower average income, which correlates with higher risk.

Another problem with minorities is that being a minority is non-objective. You choose your racial status, in a check off box, to some extent. Nobody goes around measuring your skin colour.


oilyriser- I don't think you understand my point. The banks should be making these decisions color-blind, meaning that they only look at the financial risk of the applicant, not the ethnic group to which he/she happens to belong. If they can show, regardless of what % of what ethnic group is low-income, that they deny/approve loans equally based on the financial risk of the applicant, then they are in the safe. If, on the other hand, 2 applicants of identical financial risk and different ethnic groups get treated differently, the banks will have a problem on their hands, as they should.
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo

I guess anything goes to protect the poor and downtrodden? First of all no one, not one person is saying this is the ONLY (sole) reason for the mess we are in.

I forget nothing. It seems like you put the straw man up with not much backbone. Lenders can show complete equality and still be strong armed. Especially when the data is fudged. And please, before you go shields up to protect the poor, I will acknowledge discrimination happens in all forms and manners.

I suggest you read this:

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=310173877357981


Pablo- please reference some cases where lenders show complete equality and yet are "strong armed" and "data is fudged" and baseless court cases end up wih the lenders losing. Such cases would never hold up in court. You seem to think otherwise, so now pony up and let's see a few examples. I eagerly await your response.
 
Last edited:
What's amusing and difficult to understand is how people can(rightly) slam the government as inept, greedy, power-hungry, etc,and yet go on about the "free Market" (should I say MARKET?) as if it were holy, instead of also being made up up ...PEOPLE. Same as the government.
People chasing money. Why the assumption or belief that it's so perfect?
 
Originally Posted By: moving2

Pablo- please reference some cases where lenders show complete equality and yet are "strong armed" and "data is fudged" and baseless court cases end up wih the lenders losing. Such cases would never hold up in court. You seem to think otherwise, so now pony up and let's see a few examples. I eagerly await your response.


Quote:
With the mechanisms in place, the community organizing groups began developing directed strategies to exert more and more pressure on the lending industry in the cloak of complicity with CRA.

[deletia]



With the prospect of expansions and mergers threatened, banks settled cases and, significantly, increasingly made loans they would not have normally made. The net effect, as [deletia] litigation increased, was that credit standards lowered.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Originally Posted By: MarkC
What's amusing and difficult to understand is how people can(rightly) slam the government as inept, greedy, power-hungry, etc,and yet go on about the "free Market" (should I say MARKET?) as if it were holy, instead of also being made up up ...PEOPLE. Same as the government.
People chasing money. Why the assumption or belief that it's so perfect?


I don't think anyone is saying the free market is perfect. But free exchange is apparently better than a business-government consortium for home loans.
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo


Community organizer XXXXXXXXXX worked closely with [deletia]


Don't have enough balls to state his name?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So ..out of all the things you've posted (I'm trying to draw an image here) ..am I still expected to blame the lower dwellers ..or the ivory tower dwellers ..or their servile slaves (the "officials") in the machinery??

Can I blame the Exxon Valdez on the ship's cook or dishwasher??
 
I would say blame the top people who set it up and blame the people who worked the system and blame the people who never had to get their [censored] together enough to realize they shouldn't borrow more than they can handle (I'll let you insert your favorite measure for in too deep).....and blame their parents for not training them on money.....blame the schools.....

Spread the manure baby. I know it's easy just to say "nasty rich bankers"....but it's just not (completely) so.

Really just another example of when the responsibility is combined, no one is responsible!
 
The free market is not bad. People are forgetting that, the free market is what gave us the booming economy in 2002-2006 and along with it, the millions of jobs in contruction, real estate, banking, lending, retail, etc. People complain now that many of these jobs are disappearing, but if not for the free market these jobs never would have existed to begin with!

If the industry were more regulated years ago, we wouldn't be shedding jobs now because there wouldn't be all these jobs to shed (because we wouldn't have experienced the housing boom).
 
Originally Posted By: tonycarguy
People are forgetting that, the free market is what gave us the booming economy in 2002-2006 and along with it, the millions of jobs in contruction, real estate, banking, lending, retail, etc.



I'd submit that the economy from 2002-2006 was based primarily on the housing bubble, ie inflated home equity..............ie a figment of your imagination that has just gone POOF. All the industry's you sight benefited from nothing but a housing bubble (created by a number of different things as pointed out here).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top