Frank, you really have to do better than just make an unsubstantiated statement like that. I did NOT say there was NO greed in DC, but to say the problem started there, without credible evidence, is simply irresponsible.

I notice you did not react to my pointing out documented examples of greed in the private sector though. Here's another for you to try to get your mind around: Countrywide Mortgage.

And, since my Stepson flies for United, I can tell you HIS opinion of deregulation: "It sucks!"

Would you propose the Government STOP inspecting the meat industry? What was it, 800,000 pounds of hamburger that had to be recalled due to E. colli? I suppose Cargill can't be faulted at all here, can they? Surely, it's not greed that drives their feedlot practices that have cattle standing around in their own feces while they're waiting to be slaughtered. Would YOU have wanted to eat that meat? Would you want your Wife, Daughter, Son to have eaten it? (By the way, that's a lot of meat wasted - let's hear it for private industry and their "efficiency").

Finally, since I just can't seem to get anything across to you: Would you care to defend the constant cost overruns and missed deadlines in the aircraft production industry? And, would you like to comment on the grounding of the entire F-22 fleet that was built by your vaunted "private industry"?

Maybe I need to get more "personal". You've said you are a contractor. As such, you are in a unique position to help your fellow man by offering him work.You can, of course lie, if you answer all these latter questions, and we'd simply have to believe you. My guess is though, you'll ignore them and change the subject like you often do.

- Jack

 

What I'm trying to tell you is that it is very difficult to have a coherent conversation with you because you jump from one extreme to another. Answering all of your questions and/or keeping you on point is like playing a game of whack-a-mole as the game is moving.

I will answer your Countrywide question in saying that the Community Reinvestment Act was a HUGE reason why we had the housing bubble. And it is a direct result of elected officials' greed for power. If we had term limits, you wouldn't see elected officials doing things that benefit some of the huge corporations interests.

Elected officials create the moral hazards that 'some' corporations take advantage of. And the source is the greed for power and maintenance of power in D.C.

 

I can only laugh at you saying I "jump from one extreme to another". You don't, of course.

While some people have said the CRA was responsible for the housing bubble, there is no widespread agreement from economists on this hypothesis. Nothing in the CRA forced institutions to make high-risk loans that could result in losses. In fact, the CRA required that loan activities should be undertaken in a sound manner. And, just so that you can't accuse me of making this up, here's a quote from the CRA:That seems pretty clear to me.

No, it was Countrywide's predatory lending practices that show the greed within that financial institution. The internal memos that surfaced are very clear in this respect. That is all I was saying. You keep saying the "private sector is to be trusted more than government". Such a blanket statement only needs one counterexample to prove it false. I've given you several.

I'm sorry you can't keep up with me Frank. I'll try to slow down to accommodate you.

But, since you brought up "term limits" as the "cure", please consider the downside: It would force constant "reinvention of the wheel", and, you would lose the services of many GOOD officials, just to limit the ill effects of the bad. Why not simply educate voters properly so they would vote the bad ones out?

- Jack

 

It does'nt matter who you vote for or what freakin' political affiliate is in the white house. They all want the American people to bow down to goverment and control you. We are losing our sovereignty in this country. Shortly this country we be under foreign control, China frreakin owns us. Laugh at this comment but you'll see, possibly in our children's lifetime.

 

Read Peter Schiff, John Rubino, Ron Paul, etc. for what really happened to cause the housing bubble. Cheap and easy money via the Federal Reserve (it's as 'Federal' as Federal Express) made possible failures like the CRA, Fanny and Freddie possible in the first place. One other thing, you single out "Countrywide". Guess who is associated with Countrywide? Your buddy, Barack Hussein Obama and many many other Democrats. http://www.portfolio.com/news-market...-Loan-Scandal/

And now--thanks to bond purchases by the Federal Reserve--there is another bubble in Treasuries. And we are seeing how that is playing out with higher prices for almost everything we buy. It's wise to study the root cause and not the corollary. Next time you go to the store and are furious with those 'evil corporations' over higher prices and/or smaller portions, you can thank your government for printing/borrowing.

 

Instead of editing my last post, let me ask you something. Sure, Countrywide mortgage did some unscrupulous things. We both can agree on that. But how exactly does a mortgage company make 'predatory' loans? NINJA type loans are only possible if someone willingly applies for a loan under false pretenses. No one held a gun to an applicants head and forced him/her to apply for a loan and then sign on the dotted line. The quotes from the CRA you post makes no mention whatsover of loan companies being required by law to adhere to any established norms, ethics, or morals. The only thing the government was concerned about was to: "ENCOURAGE" such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions."

Notice how the government saves themselves some wiggle room for when it blows up they can have someone to blame. Pretty slick.

Keep in mind most people that 'qualified' for NINJA and LIAR type loans had bad credit scores and would not EVER have gotten a home loan without that "encouragment" from the federal government.

 

What do you guys think of Rick Perry

 

Oh, dear - wouldn't it be more accurate to say these people were encouraged by realtors and the loan companies that funded those loans? Don't forget, both these "private sector" groups got a piece of the action, and once the loans were funded, the realtors had their money and when the funding company sold the loan, they had their profit and were off the hook too.

I'm in no way saying the people who were encouraged to take out these loans were "qualified", but is it their fault they were told they were (by the realtors and funding companies)?

Remember, the people you are talking about here (unqualified ones) come from the poorest, least educated segment of our society. Of course, there were certainly people who ARE educated and who had good incomes who were convinced they wouldn't lose everything too, since, after all, doesn't real estate always appreciate? ...Except when it doesn't...

So, to answer your question at the top of this post, a mortgage lender engages in predatory practices when it sees and acts on the chance to make a quick profit, regardless of the possible consequences for the customer. It's no different than a company selling any other defective product for a quick profit.

But, Frank, when you say something like this: "The quotes from the CRA you post makes no mention whatsover of loan companies being required by law to adhere to any established norms, ethics, or morals.", it sounds like you're arguing in favor of MORE government control. Which is it? Do you want to give private enterprise free reign, or are you in favor of regulation?

And as far as your previous post, when you quote people like Peter Schiff, John Rubino, Ron Paul, etc., you're simply buying their opinion because it suits yours. I've already said there was no "widespread agreement" on the CRA hypothesis. I was clearly admitting there are people of varying backgrounds and education who feel the Government IS responsible for all of this.

Frank, when you actually READ that link you posted to "Countrywide's Many Friends", it sure looks like a private sector corporation was trying to curry favor with members of the Government, not the other way around, maybe to receive favors in return? Isn't this morally unconscionable? In fact, didn't that article say that unless the customer asked, they were not told they were getting "special consideration"? Do YOU ever ask, "Is this legal or morally right?" when YOU get a good deal somewhere?

Finally, Frank, in no way have I ever excused members of the Democratic party from misdeeds. There are bad actors everywhere. But, where do you draw the source for this unsubstantiated statement: "Guess who is associated with Countrywide? Your buddy, Barack Hussein Obama..."? And, I hardly think President Obama is "my buddy". I doubt he knows I exist! YOU"RE more of a "buddy" than he is!

- Jack

 

No fair hijacking this thread!!!

- Jack

 

You believe that all of these people that applied for LIAR and NINJA loans were just ignorant, uneducated poor people? Really?

Why would I be a proponent for more government regulations when they were responsible for the housing bubble? It's difficult to understand why you cannot see this if you read more than the New York Times or watch more than CNN.


As far as what you said about Schiff, Paul, etc., they are the ones that helped form my opinion. I did not know much about how the Federal Reserve operated or how the housing bubble was inflated until I read their writings. In fact, Ron Paul was preaching that housing was in a bubble as far back as 2003 and that Fanny and Freddie would be in trouble later. So for you to say that I only "buy" their opinion because it suits mine is a lie. A lie is something that is false.

I would suggest reading other sources besides what agrees with your own personal worldview. Keeping an open mind and reading both sides of an issue can't hurt.

Can we at least agree on that?

 

lolz its a valid topic!!

 

I guess I have to respond, even though, Frank, all you do is keep repeating your same, tired old arguments.

Let's see - First, I DO read, quite a lot in fact and, I tend to watch very little televised news. I certainly read "both sides of an issue", and maybe ones that are not so polarized too. I don't dismiss anything out of hand, but tend to attach credence to an argument that is backed by documented fact, and not opinion.

I also try to not let my prejudices get in the way of making an informed opinion.

Frank, I notice that you seem to ignore certain things you have to have read. For example, I said there is no widespread agreement on the cause of the housing bubble, which clearly shows I am aware of at least two sides to this argument. Yet, you refuse to acknowledge this. So, for you to suggest that I don't keep an open mind, only shows your own bias.

And when YOU say: "You believe that all of these people that applied for LIAR and NINJA loans were just ignorant, uneducated poor people?" And that was in response to what I said: "Remember, the people you are talking about here (unqualified ones) come from the poorest, least educated segment of our society. Of course, there were certainly people who ARE educated and who had good incomes who were convinced they wouldn't lose everything too, since, after all, doesn't real estate always appreciate? ...Except when it doesn't..." Again shows just how prejudiced your opinions are. You totally ignored the fact that I SAID educated people with good incomes were sucked in too, concentrating instead on the earlier statement where I was responding to a comment YOU said about, "...most people that 'qualified' for NINJA and LIAR type loans had bad credit scores and would not EVER have gotten a home loan without that "encouragment" from the federal government."

And here is a link which I'm sure you will ignore: http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/06...overed-by-cra/ since it discredits your argument that the CRA was responsible for all the trouble. And another: http://www.alternet.org/economy/1011...ncial_crisis_/ One that quotes Paul Krugman: http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=7073 Finally this one: http://www.businessweek.com/investin...ity_reinv.html

And yes, Frank, I know you can post many links to contrary opinions. I've read quite a number of them already, so don't bother, it will just waste our time. YOU always post opinions that support only your position, without even acknowledging there may be an equally valid contrary opinion. I don't do that. While I stick to my opinion, until it's shown to be wrong, I DO readily admit there can be counter arguments. I've never seen you do this. That is why I can say, with reasonable confidence, that you only "buy someone's opinion when it suits yours". But, perhaps I should have said: "You only buy someone's opinion when it suits your prejudices." That way, you can say, "Those opinions helped me form mine", and you'd be right!

- Jack

 

Come on Jack, you agree with what supports your own personal worldview, then accuse me of agreeing with what supports my opinion. That's hypocritical don't you think?



Ahh, I'm glad you brought up the ultra-liberal New York Time's favorite economist: Paul Krugman. Enjoy:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...massive-defens

That's all we need to know about him !

 

Private industry is greedy. That is a GOOD thing. If industry wasn't greedy they wouldn't try to make more money that results in more jobs, more taxes being paid, and a better economy. This government and most on the left are getting upset because industry is greedy. THAT is what makes industry successful not giving their money away. If everyone approached industry keeping the fact they are greedy in mind they wouldn't get burned. People seem to think industry is some benevolent section out there to give free stuff away and help to their last dollar. Unless the industry is a charity it is in it for the money. That is the only reason it is in existence to make money.

 

Don't think you'd recognize humor if it squirted you with a seltzer bottle, would you? I DID enjoy the piece on Paul Krugman, thanks!

But, when you accuse me of only agreeing with what supports my own worldview, well, "There you go again". Thanks for not disappointing me.

By the way, Frank, I did not "accuse" YOU of anything. I don't have to. I simply stated a fact which YOU have amply demonstrated proof of in post after post, just as you did here by not acknowledging anything that sheds light on the constant misquoting and misdirection you engage in.

Enjoy your reflection, Frank!

- Jack