Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 81 to 89 of 89
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bujin View Post
    I'm surprised you want him to redistribute his wealth..
    That should be the "comment of the day."

    Nice...

    I'd guess ben won't get it. lol
    01000010 01100001 01101110 00100000 01010100 01101000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01100100 00100000 01000011 01110010 01100001 01110000 01110000 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100001
  2. #82  
    Quote Originally Posted by bclinger View Post
    Life will continue. I take it everyone here is aware of Obama's relatives living in the Boston area - their life style being poverty level. Some light watching:
    I really really am surprised you posted the outright racist stuff in that video.

    You are claim in antisemitism by people Obama was at a party with (as if McCain hasn't been) and then promote here a racist rant?
  3.    #83  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    I really really am surprised you posted the outright racist stuff in that video.

    You are claim in antisemitism by people Obama was at a party with (as if McCain hasn't been) and then promote here a racist rant?
    Absolutely outrageous.

    Why this guy isn't banned yet is beyond me.

    C'mon mods...how can this be viewed as remotely civil discourse?

    Note: I should add that I am upset about Ben's post http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...4&postcount=76 and not aero's
    Last edited by moderateinny; 10/31/2008 at 07:20 PM.
  4. #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    Maybe I'm wrong.

    Maybe BARYE, in his usual hyperbolic way, is misunderstanding, misreading what you said.

    Perhaps others can assist me to correctly interpret your post.

    You were not blaming borrowers
    Borrowers played their active role in the mess. But no, I'm not blaming them. The primary blame belongs elsewhere.


    you were not blaming organizations like ACORN that lobbied on behalf of a few disadvantaged neighborhoods that were being denied fair market mortgages because of a formerly rampant practice called “Red Lining”.
    ACORN certainly does some good. But they were a big part of the sub-prime ecosystem, which I do blame. They used CRA to force banks to make billions of dollars in lending commitments to low-income communities so they could get approval for inter-state mergers.


    In my self-reverential reverie, I saw your earlier silence in reaction to what I wrote as a scream of grudging assent -- as a reluctant acknowledgment of a principle so obvious as to be irrefutable -- yet so profound in its insight that you were simultaneously struck mute by the realization that you had not, until now, understood it.

    Please samkim -- do not be so cruel as to deny BARYE his moment of self referential reverie -- please just acknowledge his truth -- you will feel so much the better for it ...
    Sorry, I ignored that part because it seemed pointless to argue about the details. But since you insist, I disagree with just about all of it.

    Demand is no more infinite than supply. You might argue that if the price at which lenders are willing to lend drops towards zero, the number of consumers willing to pay will rise rapidly. But the reverse is also true. If the price that consumers are willing to pay rises, then the amount available for borrowing will rise rapidly.

    This is what finance experts like to call a "market."

    If lenders had the market power that you claim, then they'd be able to raise their prices without consequence. But in the real world, they can't do that because consumers have alternatives - other forms of investing, and other options for housing.

    The second problem with your economic model is that by assuming that consumers are dumb cows - completely dependent variables - you remove all accountability for their actions. Anything that happens is necessarily someone else's fault. This is built into your assumptions, so of course, this will be part of your conclusion.



    I do understand your argument, though. You believe that the causal chain traces back to Wall St. - the "infinite" source of funds that drove the lending spree.
  5. #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    The CRA is not responsible for the majority of defaults. the majority are middle class suburban and exurban. The CRA did not create the Wall street leveraged debt instruments that could not be valued except through mark to market, which is what precipitated the problem.

    The CRA has almost nothing to do with the current crisis.
    Why do you keep quoting that post? Do you agree with Bujin that "Legislation didn't set out to turn poor people into homeowners"? Is that your main point? Because my only point with that post was his claim was false. If you think that my explanation in that post of what CRA did is incorrect, please be more clear.

    Nothing you said about CRA contradicts anything I've said. But I do disagree, so here goes...

    First, it's been widely claimed that CRA has nothing to do with the sub-prime crisis. One of the main arguments was that much of the sub-prime mortgage lending was originated by institutions not covered by CRA.

    The problem with that argument is that the major mortgage lenders, like Countrywide, complied with CRA in order to securitize and sell them to CRA-covered banks. So the reach of CRA extended well beyond the banks it directly covered.

    The other problem is that Freddie and Fannie drove a lot of the low-income lending as well, and since they're not banks and they don't actual sell mortgages, they're not covered by CRA. If you read my posts, you'll see that I blame government legislation, which CRA is a subset of.


    Next, I've seen your claim that "the majority [of defaults] are middle class suburban and exurban" in a lot of articles, but I've never seen any real evidence to back it up - just a lot of anecdotes about speculation and mcmansions. Do you have a source for this claim?

    And your claim that CRA has "almost nothing to do with the current crisis" is baseless.

    Quote Originally Posted by aero View Post
    Lastly you seem to insist the housing bubble is local only to the US. Sorry to "burst your bubble" but that is incorrect. Housing all over Europe underwent a simultaneous bubble and burst as it did in elsewhere in the World. Kind of hard to blame Barney Frank for that.
    Do you actually think that the problems in the rest of the world were not caused by the US markets? Do you believe the real estate markets across the world are independent of each other, and that it's just a coincidence that they happened to see problems after we did? Do you believe that the market crashes across the world were not triggered by our economic troubles?

    Actually banks in the US bought securities tied to foreign mortgages as well. So by your logic, it was caused outside the US?
    So you're actually disagreeing with my claim that our sub-prime crisis triggered market crashes around the world? Do you believe that banks and corporations across the world did not write off hundreds of billions of dollars in losses due to the US real estate market?
  6. #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Sigh. Okay, what were his "actions" and what were the corresponding "effects"? This whole thing started because I thought that a Fox News hack made it seem as though Franks was solely to blame for Freddie Mac. But since you want to debate this, break it down for me. And please use non-partisan sources if possible.
    Sorry, I neglected to respond.

    I heard about O'Reilly's interview with Frank, but I didn't see it. But Frank was in the spotlight long before O'Reilly came around. I first saw a very long YouTube video a while back of debates in Congressional committees about Fannie, and then I did some research into what Frank did.

    I think factcheck.org (the left-leaning "non-partisan" organization) provided a good summary of Frank's role without offering any defense.


    Not really. They could have done something. If Franks were in a bus full of passengers, sitting in the back seat, chanting "faster faster faster" and the bus driver breaks the law and speeds and then wrecks, would Frank's be "directly" responsible? You see, I think the Republicans were in the driver seat and as such only they had their foot on the gas pedal. Sure, Franks was a moron for yelling "faster faster", but he can hardly be blamed for the actions of the driver when he was sitting in the back of the bus.
    The driver was trying to hit the brakes, but Frank taped his legs to the seat with duct tape. Then later, Frank took over as driver.
  7.    #87  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    Sorry, I neglected to respond.

    I heard about O'Reilly's interview with Frank, but I didn't see it. But Frank was in the spotlight long before O'Reilly came around. I first saw a very long YouTube video a while back of debates in Congressional committees about Fannie, and then I did some research into what Frank did.
    Do tell. What did your research reveal and what were the sources?

    I think factcheck.org (the left-leaning "non-partisan" organization) provided a good summary of Frank's role without offering any defense.
    I don't think he should be defended. He played a role, but wasn't the primary reason for the failure. We're off on some tangent because I took offense to a characterization from some whacko Col. on Fox News - again, what are we debating again?

    The driver was trying to hit the brakes, but Frank taped his legs to the seat with duct tape. Then later, Frank took over as driver.
    LOL. Sorry, I don't agree. I'm not as interested in defending Barney as much as you may think. I'm simply not willing to let the many Republicans - particularly those in power from 1996-2006 and Bush from 2000-2008 - off the hook so easily with something as simple as making Barney Frank the fall guy for their equally - if not more- reprensible lack of governance.
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Do tell. What did your research reveal and what were the sources?



    I don't think he should be defended. He played a role, but wasn't the primary reason for the failure. We're off on some tangent because I took offense to a characterization from some whacko Col. on Fox News - again, what are we debating again?



    LOL. Sorry, I don't agree. I'm not as interested in defending Barney as much as you may think. I'm simply not willing to let the many Republicans - particularly those in power from 1996-2006 and Bush from 2000-2008 - off the hook so easily with something as simple as making Barney Frank the fall guy for their equally - if not more- reprensible lack of governance.
    My research basically told me the same thing that factcheck.org did - that there were big problems, and Frank opposed any corrective action repeatedly for many years.

    This is a good article from September 9 from the editorial page of the conservative WSJ:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html

    And this is a list of their editorials on Fannie and Freddie for the last seven years:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121599777668249845.html
  9.    #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim View Post
    My research basically told me the same thing that factcheck.org did - that there were big problems, and Frank opposed any corrective action repeatedly for many years.

    This is a good article from September 9 from the editorial page of the conservative WSJ:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122091796187012529.html

    And this is a list of their editorials on Fannie and Freddie for the last seven years:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121599777668249845.html
    Yes, I'm sure he did oppose it. Again, I don't like the characterization by the right that Franks was "the" reason this whole thing unraveled.

    Here is one of my favorite articles from WSJ from way back in May 2005 it's a classic, really: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1115...html#printMode

    We hope the Bush Administration and Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee don't flinch the way House Republicans have. If Mr. Oxley insists on weak reform, then better to pass nothing and leave Fan and Fred to cope with continuing political risk, including the consequences of whatever new accounting surprises emerge. Maybe by then House Republicans will figure out their own political risk from doing nothing.
    Guess what? They did nothing. And did they accept "personal responsibility?" No. They blamed Barney Frank.
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions