Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:Dude, the 8 Ball is nothing more than a sign of Republican occultism.

You think that only because you're not wearing the proper aluminum hat, like me.

When Bob Dole reads from Necronomicon, it will be too late for us all.

dogma wrote:When Bob Dole reads from Necronomicon, it will be too late for the rest of you.[/quote]
Corrected your typo.

Bob Dole says he will place Frazzled high in his councils when the new age comes and the weiner legions purge Father Earth of the Unbeliever. then we shall have peace.

Nobody is worried how we are all in agreement nobody wants to talk about tarp because the American public is to simple or too lazy to care about it

sure. lets talk about it. I was for it then and I am now. you?

Yes, then as now. People Like to down Americans, but I don't think thats really fair. A lot of times A new family would come into a bank for a home loan and be directed to one of those "first time home buyer" agents, who would say. you don't have to get a little house, you family is gonna grow and there is no reason to keep moving. You canget a much nicer house in a better part of town for almost the same amount. It's safe and has good schools! Then after they scammed people they rolled thier BS up and sold it to each other. Banking on people's payments to go up so high they would have to default and lose everything, leaving the backs to resale the house to a new innocent young couple.

I hate these ass hats but Tarp was needed to keep them and the economy from failing. It worked and cost less than everybody thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

I don't think Americans knew just how close we came to a complete shut down. Hell I will give Bush props for it

Tarp was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It is the largest component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis. I'm sure they will find another way to trick people and we'll be in the same boat again

I'm not sure its so much tricking people, as people being willing to believe optimistic statements. It isn't easy to be critical of everything every moment of every, but you would think that people would be critical of signing something as big as a mortgage agreement.

For the record, I was against TARP and now feel that I was probably wrong.

I tend to agree with dogma, I don't think people were "tricked" by the mortgages, I think they simply didn't think things through or understand them as well as they should have.

It's one thing if people were lied to, and the terms of their mortgage were misrepresented to them. I don't think that happened very much at all.

Instead, I think people got into ARMs, didn't really think through what it meant, just assumed that it'd all be super great. Around 2004, there was an attitude that owning a house entitled you live there for free for 3 years, then sell it for a 40% profit.

No. Not how it works.

Honestly, why would you REALLY believe that the price of houses can go up 20% a year, every year, forever?

Buy a house in 2004 for $250,000, and it's worth $1,500,000 in 2014? Yeah, no. We wouldn't be able to have houses anymore. If you can't do that math, and see that it's not going to work out that way, I'm not sure you're entitled to victim status.

sexiest_hero wrote:Yes, then as now. People Like to down Americans, but I don't think thats really fair. A lot of times A new family would come into a bank for a home loan and be directed to one of those "first time home buyer" agents, who would say. you don't have to get a little house, you family is gonna grow and there is no reason to keep moving. You canget a much nicer house in a better part of town for almost the same amount. It's safe and has good schools! Then after they scammed people they rolled thier BS up and sold it to each other. Banking on people's payments to go up so high they would have to default and lose everything, leaving the backs to resale the house to a new innocent young couple.

I hate these ass hats but Tarp was needed to keep them and the economy from failing. It worked and cost less than everybody thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

I don't think Americans knew just how close we came to a complete shut down. Hell I will give Bush props for it

Tarp was signed into law by U.S. President George W. Bush on October 3, 2008. It is the largest component of the government's measures in 2008 to address the subprime mortgage crisis. I'm sure they will find another way to trick people and we'll be in the same boat again

quoted for truth.
I view the whole mortgage thing as a double swindle. did the banks know these guys couldnt afford the loan? sure. they just didnt think they'd be left holding the bag. did the home buyers know they couldnt afford the loan? errrr.... yeah I gotta think they did. they knew they couldnt pay that stuff back, but they thought "hey if the bank wants to throw their money away, sucks to be them." the whole thing was a farce. (if only) everyone involved (had) got what they deserved. Its the people who played by the rules and got caught up in the whole wreck that I feel sorry for. We ought to find the money to bail them out too, now that the jet set crowd is taken care of.

Incidentally the bail out shows the advantage of being so centrally located to our economy that other people have to rescue you if do stupid things. What tremendous power.
AF

All that being said, there is something to the idea that independent mortgage brokers, being insulated from default, had no incentive to actually examine the probability of any given family to make payments.

It was, and largely is, a very ugly system, as are all bubbles, but I think that the group most often exmepted from criticism (home owners) definitely needs more blame. At least in terms of future policy formation.

I think it's less calculating than you're suggesting AF. I think it's more a matter of competition. The banks didn't so much say "that guy can't afford that house, but oh well!" They said "the other banks are going to get that guy's business if I don't offer the same deals they are."

So they did.

Part of it was betting (unreasonably) on the future of the real estate market.

Part of it was the fact that the government was artificially expanding the marketplace by requiring that mortgages be given to lower income applicants.

All that adds up to groupthink, where the lenders are competing for business, and just assuming that they can cut things just a BIT closer.

In some cases, there's even pressure to keep up loan volumes, so you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Incidentally the bail out shows the advantage of being so centrally located to our economy that other people have to rescue you if do stupid things. What tremendous power.
AF

Uh, if the bailout hadn't gone through my parents would no longer be living in their home.

Uh, if the bailout hadn't gone through my parents would no longer be living in their home.

Why?

I never fully understood the threat to a homeowner with a loan in good standing. If the current lender defaults, fine... They transfer the mortgage to whomever buys out their assets. The terms can't be violated...

That depends on how the asset is split up. My parents' mortgage was owned by, at my last count, 5 different companies; all with different payment schedules.

The issue wasn't a lack of income, it was the inflexible holders that wouldn't allow them to reschedule their due dates.

Granted, they were an exceptional case given that their company defaulted (leaving them to pay out to 5 separate creditors), but I think it goes to illustrate the fact that the bailout wasn't merely about corporate interests (only mostly).

Phryxis wrote:I think it's less calculating than you're suggesting AF. I think it's more a matter of competition. The banks didn't so much say "that guy can't afford that house, but oh well!" They said "the other banks are going to get that guy's business if I don't offer the same deals they are."

So they did.

well as it turns out they probably should have let the other guy have it. Its true though, these things have their own momentum, and banks like other businesses thrive on competition. Every one of them wants to be the most aggressive, the most daring, etc. But I think a big part of this was also that they werent the ones holding the loan when it went sour. They've got no reason to make sure the other guy can pay back that $400,000 loan since, if they loan him that money today, they can sell that debt tomorrow for $405,000. Since they're just acting as a middle man and passing the debt on to a small town PTA or to the government of Norway or whatever, it really isnt their problem if the guy who took out that loan defaults. They made their $5,000, they've got no further attachment, they're fine. Under that circumstance it benefits them to pack those securities with as many rotten loans as they can.

Part of it was betting (unreasonably) on the future of the real estate market.

oh absolutely. I remember a friend of mine who was in real estate in 2005 and I said to him "how can people afford these houses, they're so expensive" and he came back with "well they dont care how much it costs - what they care about is their monthly payment. So if the monthly payment is $1000 for 30 years, they can afford a $300,000 house, but if its $1000 for 40 years, they can afford a $400,000 one. Most people will take the 40 year mortgage in that situation because they're going to sell the house and move on in any case before the 40 years are up." Well I told him that sounded an awful lot like selling your labor to the bank for the rest of your life, just so you can have a bigger living room. He didnt seem fazed at all by that. Whatever.

Part of it was the fact that the government was artificially expanding the marketplace by requiring that mortgages be given to lower income applicants.

well thats true. I dont really know how I feel about those programs....

All that adds up to groupthink, where the lenders are competing for business, and just assuming that they can cut things just a BIT closer.

In some cases, there's even pressure to keep up loan volumes, so you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.

yeah thats true.
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Incidentally the bail out shows the advantage of being so centrally located to our economy that other people have to rescue you if do stupid things. What tremendous power.
AF

Uh, if the bailout hadn't gone through my parents would no longer be living in their home.

I was talking about people like Ken Lewis and Vikram Pandit. Not homeowners per se. Some of them deserve what they got. Others didnt.

Granted, they were an exceptional case given that their company defaulted (leaving them to pay out to 5 separate creditors), but I think it goes to illustrate the fact that the bailout wasn't merely about corporate interests (only mostly).

Still don't really get it...

I mean, you can refi at any time, right? For about five years now (at least), ever day has been better than the last for mortgage rates, making a refi a "good idea" virtually every day of that timespan.

So, why can't they just refi with a new lender, pay off the five others, and be ok?

They decalred bankruptcy about a year before I graduated, so finding a creditor is difficult

I'm in the process of offering them money in order to facilitate closing one of the shares, but there is that whole psychological thing about taking money from your children.

"Part of it was the fact that the government was artificially expanding the marketplace by requiring that mortgages be given to lower income applicants."

data shows Minorites defaulted less than the majority. It wasn't the government programs or the millions of people of all races who have/will lose houses.

It was the banks who got so slick they tripped in their own slime. This whole era of hidden fees, wildly changing rates, and 20 pages of small print has to stop. A 20 year old E-2 in the Army and his 19 year old wife are easy prey for these loan sharks. We could blame each other or the Government, or we look at the fact that all this could have been avoided if banks gave upfront honest fair deals.

It wasn't the government programs or the millions of people of all races who have/will lose houses.

Not sure I understand what you're saying.

A 20 year old E-2 in the Army and his 19 year old wife are easy prey for these loan sharks.

There's no question that some people will be easily misled, but it's also very hard to legislate anything to prevent it. It's hard to tell if somebody made a decision because they were misled, or if they misled themselves, whatever.

It's one thing to say that a rate won't change, when the fine print says it will. That's just lying.

It's another to say "ahhh, don't worry about the rate changing, you're going to sell it for more than you paid in two years anyway!"

A post in this thread has been reported as racist.

I will remind forum members that making racist statements is against the posting guidelines.

Phryxis
well if our bankers can't behave like adults, maybe the government should just start making some decisions for them. You're right, preventative legislation can only do so much. Maybe we should have legislation that outlines what they can do instead of what they can't. Like "here's the 4 kinds of loans you can offer. these are the terms and conditions that wll apply. If you try to modify this in any way, you go fething jail. If you try to misrepresent this in any way, you go to fething jail. If we find out that loans coming out of your department have a mysteriously high number of defaults, you go to fething jail."

I'm sick of these rotten mobsters in New York, who apparently have the power to drive the whole country over the cliff if they want to do it. But will the govt do what's necessary to keep them in check? No. Not even close. Did they break up the gigantic banks who caused too big to fail? No. Did any CEOs go to jail for defrauding their customers? No. Nevermind that they're on record saying that they know what they're selling is garbage, never mind that their own money is on the other side of the deals they're selling, so when the deals collapse, which they know they will, they'll get rich, never mind that these guys are involved in massive criminal fraud. We'll just blame it on the market. feth that. These guys knew what they were doing, they ought to go to jail. Like..... all of them. But no real action is going to happen - just more of the same limpid, broken, ineffectual "oversight" that we had before. The CEOs know it wont fix it, the president knows it wont fix it, congress knows it wont fix it - its nothing but a rotten swindle on you and me, the dumb assed voters. Because your elected officials are bought and paid for by guys like Ken Lewis and Vikram Pandit - people who have more money than God and dont think twice to use it on "campaign finance" (bribery.) Every representative, senator and president for the last 50 years has been nothing but a wage slave, exactly like the clerk at walmart or the burger boy at McDonalds. They know damn well that if they dont please their corporate masters they'll just get turned out in favor of someone who will.

But hey.... vote. Its your patriotic duty. We the people are still in charge. According to John Roberts spending massive amounts of money to get your cronies elected isnt bribery. Its...... Free Speech. The whole thing is nothing but a sad, awful, monstrous farce.
AF

A post in this thread has been reported as racist.

Can we have a hint as to which one?

Also, in case it's of note, it's my understanding that sexiset_hero is black, which, according to esteemed diversity scholar Gailbreaiatheaehte means it's technically impossible for him to be racist.

well if our bankers can't behave like adults, maybe the government should just start making some decisions for them

I wouldn't exactly put it that way... I'd say that if you're going to tinker with the free market (Fannie and Freddie's low income programs), then you need to tinker with the free market to fix any damage you do. This is why tinkering with the free market is not to be done lightly. It creates even more tinkering.

Maybe we should have legislation that outlines what they can do instead of what they can't.

Meh, it's always very hard to legislate for all cases, no matter how you phrase things, inclusively, exclusively, otherwise.

For example, let's say you legislate that only four kinds of loans can be given. Ok, done. But then the banks can say "ok, but if you have one of the four loan options, AND you open a checking account with us, we'll give you [some random benefit] on your checking account!" And then somehow they find their way back to insolvency, or whatever.

I'm sick of these rotten mobsters in New York, who apparently have the power to drive the whole country over the cliff if they want to do it.

There will always be powerful people, and they will always have that ability to some degree.

You really can't get past it. You can ban the free market entirely, undermine capitalism. Then it just turns to cronyism, connections, etc. etc. There's always something that's of value, and if it's not capital, it's just something else.

The key isn't to try to solve the problem, once and for all, with some sweeping, monolithic solution. It's to be observant, aware and forward looking every day. When things get out of hand, act to fix them.

That's the thing with this whole mortgage crisis... People were being LOUDLY skeptical about it for YEARS before the bubble burst. Our leadership had PLENTY of time to avert the crisis. They just chose to join the lenders and lendees in being stupidly optimistic.

But we don't blame people like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd for totally failing to do their job. We instead give them the power to try to make the sweeping, monolithic solution that will "solve the problem" forever. Only it won't.

Which is mostly what you're saying, but I just had to mention two Democrats, because they are responsible, and because I'm partisan.

According to John Roberts spending massive amounts of money to get your cronies elected isnt bribery. Its...... Free Speech. The whole thing is nothing but a sad, awful, monstrous farce.

Meh. Again, too difficult to legislate this. Nobody likes bribery, but at the end of the day, you can't make smart enough laws to stop up all the ways that money can flow to a campaign, so you may as well just think on the bright side. "Hey, at least we're letting people express themselves freely!"

limpid

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/limpid

Word of the day.

You can't fix the world with legislation, it's true. But you can outlaw practices that are obviously destructive to democratic government. Like this fantasy John Roberts has that corporations are people and therefor have 1st amendment rights. What a bunch of fething nonsense. For constructionists those guys sure do like to play fast and loose with the constitution, don't they? And it's obvious who is going to benefit from this legal absurdity: people who already have way too much power and their stooges in Washington.

You're right banks are slippery beast. We ought to just nationalize the whole fething nest.
AF

Then the people with power will simply be the ones who tell the most pleasing lies.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:You can't fix the world with legislation, it's true. But you can outlaw practices that are obviously destructive to democratic government. Like this fantasy John Roberts has that corporations are people and therefor have 1st amendment rights. What a bunch of fething nonsense. For constructionists those guys sure do like to play fast and loose with the constitution, don't they? And it's obvious who is going to benefit from this legal absurdity: people who already have way too much power and their stooges in Washington.

You're right banks are slippery beast. We ought to just nationalize the whole fething nest.
AF

corporations as "people" has been around for a long, long time. I don't disagree with you though.

I don't know about US law. In the UK, the corporation as a separate entity was established as a principle in the late 19th century (Salomon vs Salomon, 1897).

It does not confer human rights on the corporation, it simply established that it is a separate entity to its owners and managers.

I wasn't aware Obama was the president when TARP was signed into law October 3rd, 2008.

gorgon wrote:I propose we start a new thread for Frazz to list his gambling hunches so we can all take the other side and get very wealthy.

Yea, I really miffed when I said that "wheel thing" was just a fad.

To be fair, they were still using square wheels at that time.

Note: as a corporate banker, I'm desperately trying to not comment on this thread other than to say: remember, a proper gentleman uses pre 1935 $100 bills to light his cigar. Don't listen to those youngins who say pre 1970s are just fine.