| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-26 19:54:54 |
|
|
| Bac |
 |
 |
|
I had to post this video. Again, I'm not voting for McCain, but let it be known where much of these problems began. I think this video sums it up pretty well. The video goes by kinda quick, so pay attention!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5tZc8oH--o
Enjoy! |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-26 23:39:09 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
 |
|
Yes, that is interesting.
About the process that created the actual situation.
The documents is interesting for a second point.
Yes, probably you will tell "for the political question, the attitude of McCain and the attitude of Obama, this is very important".
Let's place this one as second point.
And I don't vote in the USA, so... others can speak about it more than I will.
There is a third point.
People got money when this system was working.
It was easier and more profitable to work in a bank than in an american car company. During 5 years or more.
In banks, people got pay rises, during years.
Can you reverse this process ? Can you cancel the pay rises ?
If the mortgages process was wrong, you must stop it. And also stop the "dream atmosphere" connected to this process.
And try to correct the consequences.
The pay rises (in the banks) are part of these consequences.
The rise of the stock market is also part of these consequences.
If you correct the process, the stock market must go lower, and the pays (in the banks) must go lower.
The plan of Bush (700 billions dollars) does not propose that. It tells to the country : help the banks.
It tells to the workers of car plants : you, who got no or small pay rises, during years, give money now to those who got high pay rises.
I know. That is horrible what I tell. Lower pays !!
It is not against communist ideas. It is maybe against socialist ideas (in Europe, democrat ideas in the USA), but not against communist ones. Communism is not made of dreams.. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-26 23:59:21 |
|
|
| Bac |
|
|
|
Yes, the bailout as it has initially been purposed by Bush and the Democrats is not very popular. There is an alternate one being proposed by the House Republicans that doesn't use tax payer money.
As far as undoing some of this mess, well, it's probably not going to happen (or very little.) It seems that some people did see this coming and tried to stop it, but ran into a political brick wall.
These stupid investment bankers and mortgage giants don't deserve tax payer help and some of the people (these highly paid CEOs) have cut and run and we will not see that money again.
At this point, about the best we can do is fix it for the future. And then we need to be very mindful of who we put in charge of our nation's economic issues and regulations.
We will most likely recover, but it will take time. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-27 05:43:03 |
|
|
| LORDHUMONGOUS |
|
 |
|
An obviously well edited piece of work. I'm really sick of the finger pointing. No one put a gun to these people's head's and said sign on the dotted line. Read the fine print people! The president has little power when it comes to the US economy. Congress has the power. And who had the congressional power during Clinton's term? You guessed it, the republicans. So who passed all those provisions and amendments? Let's face it both parties are to blame. And if your still finger pointing... The "subprime fiasco" started around 2000. Why wasn't it stopped? You had to wait til 2006 to realize it was a bad idea? What about the time in between? This whole thing is a mess. My head hurts just thinking about. It's really sad. I work for a bank and I've seen the horror stories. Now these unscrupulous lenders are getting off scott free. In the end the taxpayers will pay for it. There's no way around it. Where do you think the government gets it's money anyway? In my opinion the government is just another irresponsible debtor. Spending money it doesn't have and borrowing money to pay it's debt. All the while it's debt is getting bigger and it's borrowing money to pay the interest on that ever increasing debt. Vicious circle. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-27 11:40:05 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
I work for a bank and I've seen the horror stories.
So why did you not post about it ?
Why do you post about it just now ?
And which horror stories exactly ? Your pay going higher and higher ? |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-27 16:47:12 |
|
|
| LORDHUMONGOUS |
|
|
|
|
I work for a bank and I've seen the horror stories.
So why did you not post about it ?
Why do you post about it just now ?
And which horror stories exactly ? Your pay going higher and higher ? |
Post about what? In the end people are responsible for their own actions.
Like I said, no one put a gun to these people's head. You have to know/understand what your getting into. Especially something as big as buying a house. My bank is a small community bank. We made no subprime loans. Everyone knew it was a bad idea. But the dream of owning your own home was just too great I guess. The addage "if it's too good to be true.." really applies here. The CRA isn't a bad thing. We do CRA loans, sure. It's just a way to make sure you spread the wealth. But you don't just hand out loans to every Tom, Dick and Harry. We have company guidelines (bank guidelines not fed guidelines) to abide by. We're not gonna give you a loan if you can't afford it. It's the big mortgage houses that were doing this. And during all this time there were all kinds of stories/articles speaking against pursuing subprime loans. But people did it anyway. And you can't really blame the CRA. It wasn't just the lower class that was hurt by this. At the time any one could apply for a subprime loan. The prime rate was low at the time and the government doesn't set the rate the federal reserve does. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-27 18:34:07 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
The CRA isn't a bad thing. We do CRA loans, sure. It's just a way to make sure you spread the wealth. But you don't just hand out loans to every Tom, Dick and Harry. We have company guidelines (bank guidelines not fed guidelines) to abide by. We're not gonna give you a loan if you can't afford it. It's the big mortgage houses that were doing this.
And the big mortgage houses could do it much more after 1995.
When the CRA was modified.
That rather fits the video.
My bank is a small community bank. We made no subprime loans.
So you saw no horror stories concerning your own bank ?
And you saw what every person (who cared for it) could see, on TV or in newspapers ?
Or did you see more and how ? |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-27 23:34:17 |
|
|
| Bac |
|
|
|
|
| An obviously well edited piece of work. I'm really sick of the finger pointing. No one put a gun to these people's head's and said sign on the dotted line. Read the fine print people! The president has little power when it comes to the US economy. Congress has the power. And who had the congressional power during Clinton's term? You guessed it, the republicans. So who passed all those provisions and amendments? Let's face it both parties are to blame. And if your still finger pointing... The "subprime fiasco" started around 2000. Why wasn't it stopped? You had to wait til 2006 to realize it was a bad idea? What about the time in between? This whole thing is a mess. My head hurts just thinking about. It's really sad. I work for a bank and I've seen the horror stories. Now these unscrupulous lenders are getting off scott free. In the end the taxpayers will pay for it. There's no way around it. Where do you think the government gets it's money anyway? In my opinion the government is just another irresponsible debtor. Spending money it doesn't have and borrowing money to pay it's debt. All the while it's debt is getting bigger and it's borrowing money to pay the interest on that ever increasing debt. Vicious circle. |
I agree with you that the borrowers do share a stake in the blame. And for those individuals, they need to suck it up and take the loss. However, the banks ALSO need to take the loss and not be bailed out by the taxpayers. The banks were stupid for making loans to people that could not possibly afford them. But the CRA (which was a major contributing factor) had mandates that made it difficult for them to not want to make stupid loans. That's why Citibank got sued for not making these kinds loans.
When the CRA was expanded was 1995 because that's when the administrations proposals would take effect. Republicans took control of both houses after the Nov. '94 election. Bush did warn about the problems with Fannie and Freddie all the way back in 2001, then tried to get them regulated in 2003. They did NOT wait till 2006. The Democrats did block these reforms. So yes, I point my finger squarely at the likes of Sen. Frank and Dodd and their party for a good deal of this mess. They certainly have no business sitting up there in 2003 and saying that Fannie and Freddie are fine when they obviously were not.
Now the CRA is not the entire reason. The fact that Fannie and Freddie were govt. sponsored in and of itself was a problem. If the govt. is going to sponsor these big companies, then they need to keep them on a short leash. And they did not.
I agree with your sentiments about government irresponsibility. Wait till the Social Security bubble pops (yet another stupid socialist institution in our nation).
I say privatize, not subsidize, but DO regulate. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-29 16:56:12 |
|
|
|
|
Bac, the video was interesting, if a bit too quick to reach conclusions, especially the McCain bit at the end (I guess you didn't reach this conclusion either).
I also think it's a bit too simple to say it's the fault of some legislation in the 90s or some political ping-pong during the Bush administrations. It doesn't explain banks collapsing in Europe - in the UK for example, the more aggressive lenders have had to be bailed out.
For the past couple of decades, few politicians have been elected into power by promising more regulation. But they can no longer say that the market is best left to itself. It's a bit late now to be crying over lack of regulation - no one asked for it when the money was flowing eh?
But you're right - the market will settle again in a couple of years and this will also get forgotten until the financial markets devise the next greedy mechanism. Burn baby burn... |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-29 18:40:36 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
For the past couple of decades, few politicians have been elected into power by promising more regulation.
Yes..
Here, there was a tool for it, a bit old and not very effective.
It was called le "Commissariat général du Plan".
2 years ago, a great goverment decided to suppress. It was transformed into a "un centre d'analyse stratégique". That does not care at all for statistics.
I am a very nice person. I will quote one more name.
The last director of this Commissariat was a philosophy teacher called Etchegoyen. His level in economy was nearly 0. He was honest, he never tried to hide it. But he really didn't deserve this job. And he took it. Philosophy in France is close to arrivism. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-09-29 21:58:31 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
I am surprised, like probably many people.
But I think it is better like that.
Yes, the reaction of the stock markets is negative. Or rather maybe angry.
And ?
And these people have money and stocks. And when they sell their stocks, that has an influence.
Why don't these rich people create insurances ?
Most car drivers pay an insurance. If an economical activity is dangerous, just create insurances. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-10-07 23:39:45 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
It seems that Bernanke has a future as actor.
He will probably leave next year, after the elections.
Greenspan stayed after the elections of Bush. It was rather an exception, due to the "aura" he won through the internet boom.
Bernanke thinks "I must try to hold, and to hide the problems for some months".
Hiding the problems = lower rates.
Very low rates will create problems in one year, or two. But now, it is a bit better.
Today, Bernanke prepared his speech for that.
And he was very convincing. Specially in the part "that goes bad". A good actor. Fine, he will get a new job soon. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-11-01 13:12:32 |
|
|
| laaran |
|
|
|
According to Obama, McCain always supported Bush concerning the economical decisions.
Obama never watches youtube. |
|
|
|
| Author |
| Posted on 2008-11-04 03:57:47 |
|
|
|
|
lol - he (Obama) probably owns a youtube account!
and of course he's gonna say that. if McCain was running democrat & Obama republican, McCain would use the same line lol. |
|
|
|