I've read it.. the credit markets were all but forced to loan against their better judgment, and congress was warned by the Bush administration on many occasions ..Time for you to read "the Big short" if you want to know what really happen!
I've read it.. the credit markets were all but forced to loan against their better judgment, and congress was warned by the Bush administration on many occasions ..Time for you to read "the Big short" if you want to know what really happen!
I would explain how all of it really worked, but I have posted it before.. There is plenty of guilt to go around. they were regulated into making bad loans..Ridiculous! They were not FORCED to do anything. . .they CHOSE to make bad loans, because every loan brought them CASH, and they knew they could sell many of those bad loans oversea. . .even BET on their bad loan, and made "insurance" on those bad loans, with "insurance" on those worthless insurances!
And when the bubble burst, It is the banks, again, who made money. . .by repossessing the home of people who had been fooled by the brokers, the bankers in taking those loans that they couldn't afford. It went all the way down to the real estate agents! They made more money selling a $300,000 home to people who couldn't afford more than a $200,000 home, and they always were able to "give them a good deal" on a loan. . .because they had "a friend" who would arrange the mortgage for them. . .and at each level of the transaction, those greedy bastards took their cuts. . .not worrying at all about what the poor young couple would do once the "second mortgage" had to be paid. . .and even less when the bread winner lost his job due to the 2008 economic disaster. . .triggered by the same banks who had started the whole process!
Maybe you read that book. . .but you don't seem to have read it for comprehension!
I would explain how all of it really worked, but I have posted it before.. There is plenty of guilt to go around. they were regulated into making bad loans..Standards were lowered..Ridiculous! They were not FORCED to do anything. . .they CHOSE to make bad loans, because every loan brought them CASH, and they knew they could sell many of those bad loans oversea. . .even BET on their bad loan, and made "insurance" on those bad loans, with "insurance" on those worthless insurances!
And when the bubble burst, It is the banks, again, who made money. . .by repossessing the home of people who had been fooled by the brokers, the bankers in taking those loans that they couldn't afford. It went all the way down to the real estate agents! They made more money selling a $300,000 home to people who couldn't afford more than a $200,000 home, and they always were able to "give them a good deal" on a loan. . .because they had "a friend" who would arrange the mortgage for them. . .and at each level of the transaction, those greedy bastards took their cuts. . .not worrying at all about what the poor young couple would do once the "second mortgage" had to be paid. . .and even less when the bread winner lost his job due to the 2008 economic disaster. . .triggered by the same banks who had started the whole process!
Maybe you read that book. . .but you don't seem to have read it for comprehension!
I would explain how all of it really worked, but I have posted it before.. There is plenty of guilt to go around. they were regulated into making bad loans..
perhaps.... although maybe the original algorithms were flawed and the ratings agencies were unable to understand the securitised instruments that the algorithms described and therefore applied false ratings which caused faulty market making that exacerbated bad ART solutions into the insurance and reinsurance markets which went back into the financial markets as flawed Cat Bonds where the whole cycle started again… If only the ratings agencies had the bollocks to stand up and say "we don't know what these ares o how can we rate them!" then maybe the damage would have been limited to some extent.Standards were lowered..
Like I said , there is a lot of blame to go around..No they were not. . .they took advantage of people who had little knowledge of economics, and trusted their realtors and their brokers. The recession created by the deregulations in the banking arena made things worse by provoking so much lay offs, which affected even those who didn't extend their finances too far, but didn't expect to lose their job.
Think what you wish. . .but it is NOT the well intentioned law to allow lower income people to obtain REASONABLE loans that created the bubble. If that were true, only low income or average income housing would have been affected, when in fact, many wealthy people got stuck with huge loans (first mortgage, second mortgage, and home equity loans) and lost their mansions.
I would explain how all of it really worked, but I have posted it before.. There is plenty of guilt to go around. they were regulated into making bad loans..Standards were lowered..
The standards were lowered via regulation, this is fact.perhaps.... although maybe the original algorithms were flawed and the ratings agencies were unable to understand the securitised instruments that the algorithms described and therefore applied false ratings which caused faulty market making that exacerbated bad ART solutions into the insurance and reinsurance markets which went back into the financial markets as flawed Cat Bonds where the whole cycle started again… If only the ratings agencies had the bollocks to stand up and say "we don't know what these ares o how can we rate them!" then maybe the damage would have been limited to some extent.
The whole bloody mess thing was based on greed and ignorance.
I don't think that happened, at least not to the extent you mentioned..WE have just had a TV program that shows many Americans low wage earners are living in tents. Wages are kept low by business moving to low wge states. General Electric has just sacked 1000workes in a high wage state and move to Texas. This just to increase profits.
Amy scheme to help low wage earners must provide an increase wage and a minimum wage for all states
Schemes to help the poor may not suit classic economic theory but no stimulate spending and therefore growth. Between 1800 and 1860 the territory expanded and produce growth American productivity in creased from 1859 to 1950 , Real hourly earnings increased during this period (American Economic History Seymour Harris0n)0 wages have not increase much in recent years .Wages have increased from 20.17 in April 2015 to 20.65 in January 2017.
Businesses relocated out of high tax states. Six figure salary people are living in tents in Silicon Valley due to taxes and general cost of living.WE have just had a TV program that shows many Americans low wage earners are living in tents. Wages are kept low by business moving to low wge states. General Electric has just sacked 1000workes in a high wage state and move to Texas. This just to increase profits.
Amy scheme to help low wage earners must provide an increase wage and a minimum wage for all states
Schemes to help the poor may not suit classic economic theory but no stimulate spending and therefore growth. Between 1800 and 1860 the territory expanded and produce growth American productivity in creased from 1859 to 1950 , Real hourly earnings increased during this period (American Economic History Seymour Harris0n)0 wages have not increase much in recent years .Wages have increased from 20.17 in April 2015 to 20.65 in January 2017.
Nah.... I don't buy into that theoretical utopian economic ideal. The libertarian mantra of laissez-faire capitalism is based on a flawed set of assumptions aimed at achieving a specific behavioural model - effectivley an unrealistic modelling of society which even Coarse couldn't get his head round.Free markets work fir everyone who wants a better life.
errmm.... no it wasn't. I'd be interested to know how you came to that assumption.Securitization was the result of rules Fannie & Freddie had that conflicted with the new regulations.
That was half of all mortgages. Of these, over 70% (19.2 million) were on the books of government agencies like Fannie and Freddie, so there is no doubt that the government created the demand for these weak loans; less than 30% (7.8 million) were held or distributed by the banks, which profited from the opportunity created by the government.
When these mortgages failed in unprecedented numbers in 2008, driving down housing prices throughout the U.S., they weakened all financial institutions and caused the financial crisis.
Second, we examined the role of the GSEs, with Fannie Mae serving as the Commission’s case study in this area.......We conclude that these two entities contributed to the crisis, but were not a primary cause. Importantly, GSE mortgage securities essentially maintained their value throughout the crisis and did not contribute to the significant financial firm losses that were central to the financial crisis.
In conducting our inquiry, we took a careful look at HUD’s affordable housinggoals, as noted above, and the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA)....... The Commission concludes the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis. Many subprime lenders were not subject to the CRA.