banks - housing bubble

moreluck

golden ticket member
B of A is talking to State and Federal about forgiving some folk's mortgage principal in turn for no law suits being filed against B of A.

If you are one who pays your mortgage payment on time and you pay it every month........you'll not get a thing!!

But, if you ignore your house payment or pay it late all the time, you're the slouch who will probably get a lot of your principle forgiven by the bank.

Yeah, that's fairness !!! NOT!!!
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
Wednesday, November 2, 2011 @ 5:03 pm | [h=2]NYT’s Krugman Accuses Bloomberg of “Swallowing Right-Wing Propaganda Whole” After He Blames Congress For Mortgage Crisis…[/h]
paul-krugman.jpg

He’s a testy little troll.
(Krugman’s NY Times blog) — Via David Dayen, the favored candidate of those who believe we need a smart centrist to solve our nation’s problems reveals himself to be completely ignorant about the causes of our economic crisis, someone who just swallows right-wing propaganda whole:
“I hear your complaints,” Bloomberg said. “Some of them are totally unfounded. It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp. Now, I’m not saying I’m sure that was terrible policy, because a lot of those people who got homes still have them and they wouldn’t have gotten them without that.
“But they were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent, if you will. They were the ones that pushed the banks to loan to everybody. And now we want to go vilify the banks because it’s one target, it’s easy to blame them and congress certainly isn’t going to blame themselves.
You can read lots about how wrong this is; Mike Konczal has done it at great length, for example here. The fact is that for any public figure to go with the Congress-did-it argument at this stage is for him to reveal both that he is grossly ignorant about the central policy issue of the day and that he gets his “analysis” from right-wing flacks.
 

Catatonic

Nine Lives

I don't remember Clinton saying this but I do remember Bush Jr saying something like this.
I blame Bush as much as I do Barney Frank or Chris Dodd for the housing bubble but then there is plenty of blame to go around on this one.

The image of Bush standing up in front of the cameras saying the American dream was home ownership (something like that) sticks in my mind only behind the "Mission Accomplished" on the aircraft carrier.
 

brown bomber

brown bomber
let's see, I busted my ass..........to put 25% down on my home..........busted my ass to pay off my mortgage early.....put my kids through private schools, while still supporting public schools....and I'm supposed to pay for the failures of our GOV'T (thank you Frank and Dodd) and banks ..........I've done everything correctly.......and now I have to deal w/ these 99% slackers, who wouldn't work even if it paid more than government and public assistance........as I've said inthe past, we used to be the land of opportunities.....but, apparently now we are the land of guarantees
 

island1fox

Well-Known Member
I don't remember Clinton saying this but I do remember Bush Jr saying something like this.
I blame Bush as much as I do Barney Frank or Chris Dodd for the housing bubble but then there is plenty of blame to go around on this one.

The image of Bush standing up in front of the cameras saying the American dream was home ownership (something like that) sticks in my mind only behind the "Mission Accomplished" on the aircraft carrier.

Hoax,
I do not usually disagree with your posts but I would like to shed a little light on this subject. Your statement is correct that Bush openly bragged about the high number of minorities that owned homes during his Presidency. At the time of that speech this was just another politician taking credit for what happened before them.
The cartoon is alluding to the fact that it was Bill Clinton who strongly pushed banks to make risky loans while Glass/Steigel was a major regulation on banks that diappeared under the Clinton Presidency. With that being said the start of the "bubble" actually goes back over 60 years. Check out FDR and Fannie.
 

wkmac

Well-Known Member
One nice thing about the Internet age is that libertarians and other supporters of the free market have a platform to offer our own narratives on financial crisis and recession. This democratization of publishing means we can offer counter-narratives to the those of the elites, and do so contemporaneously and permanently in a way that we were unable to during and after the Great Depression. As a result, there is plenty of good free-market analysis out there and no excuse for anyone to think there’s only one (statist) side of the story.
However, I do think many of us who have written such analyses — and I very much include myself here — have not been consistent about making an important distinction, and this has left us unnecessarily open to a reasonable criticism. For example, I have used the analogy of traffic lights to explain why it’s wrong to blame the crisis on irrational behavior. Suppose someone turned all the traffic lights green. The obvious result would be a whole bunch of accidents. Would we blame those accidents on the drivers? Would we say they were acting irrationally? No, in fact we’d probably say they were behaving quite rationally given the signals they faced. A green light doesn’t just mean “go”; it also implies the light the other way is red and that going is safe.
Changing the Incentives
One way to view the housing boom is as the outcome of government’s turning all the lights green, changing the incentives facing market actors and causing their rational responses to distorted signals to produce irrational outcomes. The Austrian story of boom and bust is really a story of the unsustainable boom. Central bank-generated inflation (in this case combined with policies to subsidize housing) led to artificially low interest rates and excessive investment in long-term projects that cannot be sustained by the amount of real saving taking place.
So what’s the problem? Some have interpreted this argument as letting the bankers off the hook too easily. This and similar arguments seem to suggest the bankers were innocent in that they just responded rationally to signals generated by the central bank or Congress. The problem is that, as several critics of mine have rightly pointed out, many of the housing policies were not imposed on the bankers but rather were aggressively lobbied for. In many cases (such as Countrywide) it was the bankers themselves who asked Congress for policies making it easier to lend to marginal customers and for Fannie and Freddie to have access to the Treasury. They also favored the implicit bailout promise, which sustained the mortgage-backed securities market. And many bankers cheered on the Fed’s low interest rates during the middle of last decade.

Bankers, Not the Free Market, Bear Blame
 

island1fox

Well-Known Member
:wink2:This is a happening now example of Government interference in housing and social engineering.

Ron Simms a politician out of the State of Washington has been appointed to HUD.
In a suburb of New York Westchester county where Bill Clinton resides the homes are very expensive and the neighborhoods are mainly composed of White people.
Ron Simms feels that discrimination is involved. He wants Banks, real estate brokers etc investigated. He wants homes made available to minorities.
What will happen ? Who knows. I cannot buy a home in Chappaqua next to Clinton but I do not feel discriminated against--I just cannot afford it.
 
:wink2:This is a happening now example of Government interference in housing and social engineering.

Ron Simms a politician out of the State of Washington has been appointed to HUD.
In a suburb of New York Westchester county where Bill Clinton resides the homes are very expensive and the neighborhoods are mainly composed of White people.
Ron Simms feels that discrimination is involved. He wants Banks, real estate brokers etc investigated. He wants homes made available to minorities.
What will happen ? Who knows. I cannot buy a home in Chappaqua next to Clinton but I do not feel discriminated against--I just cannot afford it.
IMO, to check for discrimination in this would be to simply check the average income/wealth of the people living there. If anyone of a minority group has been refused a loan and are on equal level of income/wealth then there may be a case for discrimination. If Ron Simms wants the banks etc. investigated he's free to do it. No reason, without a little more evidence, for the government to get involved. BTW, I have no idea who Ron Simms is and don't really care.

oops, went back and re-read your post, I now know who Ron Simms is and I still don't care.
 

island1fox

Well-Known Member
IMO, to check for discrimination in this would be to simply check the average income/wealth of the people living there. If anyone of a minority group has been refused a loan and are on equal level of income/wealth then there may be a case for discrimination. If Ron Simms wants the banks etc. investigated he's free to do it. No reason, without a little more evidence, for the government to get involved. BTW, I have no idea who Ron Simms is and don't really care.

oops, went back and re-read your post, I now know who Ron Simms is and I still don't care.

trpinkl,
If it ended right there you are correct. How would you feel if the Westchester Banks are forced to make government backed risky loans to people who do not have the income to pay them. Just pass it on to the taxpayer ?
 

klein

Für Meno :)
Island, I have never heard about Banks being forced to do anything !
They did it for profit, they themselves came up with these so called derivites (or whatever they are called).
Meaning a lot of banks didn't personally hold the bad mortgage, but a piece of paper (like a stock or bond), that became junkbonds !

American Banks are mostly deregulated, they can do and gamble as they please. Up to 80% of YOUR money, I believe.
Canadian Banks on the other hand can only "gamble" with 15 or 20% (not quite sure), but very little. The rest is 100% secured.

That's why our Banks didn't fail, and others have, including those in the US.
 
trpinkl,
If it ended right there you are correct. How would you feel if the Westchester Banks are forced to make government backed risky loans to people who do not have the income to pay them. Just pass it on to the taxpayer ?
Then we would be right back where we were and still are, with lots of foreclosures and the banks screaming for another bail out.
 

island1fox

Well-Known Member
Island, I have never heard about Banks being forced to do anything !
They did it for profit, they themselves came up with these so called derivites (or whatever they are called).
Meaning a lot of banks didn't personally hold the bad mortgage, but a piece of paper (like a stock or bond), that became junkbonds !

American Banks are mostly deregulated, they can do and gamble as they please. Up to 80% of YOUR money, I believe.
Canadian Banks on the other hand can only "gamble" with 15 or 20% (not quite sure), but very little. The rest is 100% secured.

That's why our Banks didn't fail, and others have, including those in the US.

Klein,

June 6th ,1994 Chicago ACORN/Obama law firm sued Citybank for "redlining" or refusing to give loans to minorities because of finanacial standards. Result ---settlement --Citybank made risky loans.
As much as people want to you cannot ignore or re-write history.
 

moreluck

golden ticket member
When I was in real estate, loan applications did not come with pictures of the applicants. Loans should be given based on the financials of the people applying.................ONLY!!

I don't care what color they are, if they don't financially qualify, they don't get the loan. No exceptions, period!!
 

island1fox

Well-Known Member
moreluck,

Simple yet eloquent how you stated what would have been the entire preventor of what took place. People getting loans they could never afford that began with political pressure "red lining" See Janet Reno under Clinton Administration. If financial basics were followed --no bubble -no harm.
 

island1fox

Well-Known Member
Island, I have never heard about Banks being forced to do anything !
They did it for profit, they themselves came up with these so called derivites (or whatever they are called).
Meaning a lot of banks didn't personally hold the bad mortgage, but a piece of paper (like a stock or bond), that became junkbonds !

American Banks are mostly deregulated, they can do and gamble as they please. Up to 80% of YOUR money, I believe.
Canadian Banks on the other hand can only "gamble" with 15 or 20% (not quite sure), but very little. The rest is 100% secured.

That's why our Banks didn't fail, and others have, including those in the US.



Klein,

When banks were "holding the bag" and had to make sure people were able to pay them back--things were fine.

When the Government "backed " the loans or "took the bag" Banks gave loans to everyone and anyone. Enter fannie and freddie !! Seems pretty simple.

If I was going to give you a loan --I would make sure your income through your hot dog stand could enable you to pay me back.
If the government said Loan Klien money-do not check his financials --the loans will be backed by fannie and freddie.

No risk for me --of course I give out loans like candy --why not ?

If the Canadian Government sponsered sub prime loans backed by the government {the taxpayers} and Royal Bank issues millions of bad loans --Who is guilty ? The bank or the Dopey politicians ?

This is not rocket science.

On top of that --the Banks were also told that if they did not have enough "minorty" loans they would be subject to legal action. See Janet Reno under Clinton --" red lining" Where Banks drew a red line on people that could not afford loans.
 
Last edited:

Jones

fILE A GRIEVE!
Staff member
So here’s my question: If the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 effectively caused the Wall Street meltdown of 2007 by forcing banks to make bad home loans to improvident poor people (and we all know exactly who I mean), how come it took 30 years for the housing bubble to burst?
Next question: If fuzzy-thinking Democratic do-gooders enacted such laws in defiance of common sense and sound economics, why didn’t Republican Presidents Reagan, Bush I or Bush II do something? Was Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., secretly running the country?
Exactly how did the wealthiest and most powerful individuals in the United States — the investment bankers and corporate execs who host the $1,000-a-plate fundraisers, scoop up the Cabinet appointments and ambassadorships, and party down at White House galas — end up having less power over the U.S. economy than unskilled day laborers in Newark, N.J., or Oakland, Calif.?
Maybe some “resident scholar” at the American Enterprise Institute, or another of the comfortable Washington think tanks devoted to keeping Scrooge McDuck’s bullion pool topped-up, can teach us how things got so upside-down. Because under normal circumstances, the national motto is neither “e pluribus unum” nor “In God We Trust.”
It’s “Money Talks.”
Money was talking big-time last week. Clearly annoyed by the unkempt ragamuffins of Occupy Wall Street, New York’s dapper billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg delivered himself of a conspiracy theory so absurd that it had previously been confined to such dark corners of American life as the Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity programs and the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
“I hear your complaints,” Bloomberg said. “Some of them are totally unfounded. It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp … [T]hey were the ones who pushed Fannie and Freddie to make a bunch of loans that were imprudent, if you will … And now we want to go vilify the banks because it’s one target, it’s easy to blame them and Congress certainly isn’t going to blame themselves.”
Actually, “annoyed” is too mild to describe a sophisticated Wall Street player like Bloomberg resorting to so crude and poisonous a political lie. He can’t possibly believe it. For all its ragtag, hippie-dippie aspects, Occupy Wall Street must have people at Manhattan’s most elegant dinner parties running scared.
Here are some things Bloomberg certainly knows that make nonsense of this blame-the-victim tale:
First, there was no law forcing or even encouraging banks to make shaky loans. The Community Reinvestment Act merely required FDIC-insured institutions to apply the same standards to all borrowers — i.e., no more “redlining.” It worked fine for many years.
Second, the law applied only to retail banks, never to Wall Street investment houses or mortgage companies like Countrywide that led the 2007 meltdown. As the housing bubble fully inflated in 2006, 84 percent of subprime mortgages were written by private, totally unregulated lenders.
Is this the place to mention that Fannie and Freddie, the quasi-governmental mortgage underwriting companies, don’t actually make loans — as Bloomberg also surely knows? Did they buy worthless mortgage-backed securities along with other victimized investors? Yes, but too little and too late to have caused the crisis. Although far from pristine, they were more victims than perps.
Rolling Stone’s financial MVP Matt Taibbi reminds us how the whole scam worked.
“Bank A (let’s say it’s Goldman, Sachs) lends criminal enterprise B (let’s say it’s Countrywide) a billion dollars. Countrywide then … creates a billion dollars of shoddy home loans, committing any and all kinds of fraud along the way in an effort to produce as many loans as quickly as possible, very often putting people who shouldn’t have gotten homes into homes, faking their income levels, their credit scores, etc.
“Goldman then buys back those loans from Countrywide, places them in an offshore trust, and chops them up into securities … They then go out on the open market and sell those securities to various big customers — pension funds, foreign trade unions, hedge funds, and so on.”
And no, President George W. Bush, busy promoting what he called “the ownership society,” did nothing to restrain the action. Somebody named Bush discipline Wall Street? Get real. Even if he had, there wouldn’t have been anything a minority congressman like Barney Frank — whose actual views are almost the opposite of how Limbaugh describes them — could have done to stop him.
Then there are “resident scholars” like AEI’s Peter Wallison. Today, this guy composes tracts indicting government folly. In 2004, though, he wrote chiding federal bureaucrats for lagging behind the exciting new world of subprime lending. “Study after study,” he wrote, “has shown that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are failing to do even as much as banks and S&Ls in providing financing for affordable housing, including minority and low income housing.”
That’s money. Talking.
- Gene Lyons
 
Top