T Nation

Daniel Gross: Subprime Suspects

This one is for dhickey, themage, orion, lifticus, rainjack and all.

Cool. The government shouldn’t be involved with (or pressuring others into) lending money to anyone.

[quote]Gael wrote:

This one is for dhickey, themage, orion, lifticus, rainjack and all. [/quote]

Playing the race card? Please. A bad credit risk is a bad credit risk regardless of skin color. I think the real racists are the stupid motherfuckers crying racism when someone points a finger at the problem.

If the bad loans had never been made, or forced to have been made - we would not have a subprime mess, and the MBS’s would not exist nearly to the extent that they do right now.

Had S-O never been passed, no one would have to be using mark to market.

Government intervention into the markets is the real culprit, but excusing morons who bought more house than they could afford is just stupidity.

“The right blames the credit crisis on poor minority homeowners. This is not merely offensive, but entirely wrong.”

Where has this happened, by the way? I’ve seen plenty of blame fall on government intervention, based upon good intentions. But I haven’t seen anyone say it’s the fault of minorities or the poor themselves.

“On the Republican side of Congress, in the right-wing financial media (which is to say the financial media)…”
He conceedes his is the minority opinion within the financial media? But, that’s be expected becaused the financial media is right wing…

“The subtext: If only Congress didn’t force banks to lend money to poor minorities…”

I wonder why those seeking profit would have to be forced. Gee, I don’t know, because it was RISKY maybe!

“Poor Congressional oversight was part of the problem.”

Um, I’ve got a video of Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, and etc., this fool might want to take a look at. Who’s outraged for questioning Fannie and Freddie? Looks like Dems to me.

“Banks that sought to meet CRA requirements by indiscriminately doling out loans to minorities may have been part of the problem.”

Oh gee, you think? By making banks have to meet these requirements, they might have acted in a risky manner? No crap, genius. There’s no might about it.

In sum: “I know the entier financial media is saying one thing, but they’re all right wing.”

Heads - we win. Tails - you lose.

Of course, the people getting the loans bear part of the responsibility also - they signed the paper. No one put a gun to their head and said, “Sign!” There’s not such thing as “responsibility” in the minds of the Democrat establishment (Frank, Waters, et al), though. Everyone’s a puppet.

I actually started refuting the article line by line but got bored. Key points:

CRA, FNMA, FHLMC, and prodding from ACORN and Libs created a housing bubble.

CRA - “Encouraged” lending to people that were credit risks so they could own homes.

ACORN with Barry’s help pressured lending institutions to do the same.

Libs pressured FNMA and FHLMC to buy up these mortgages and create a market for high risk mortgages to people who may not be able to pay them off.

Article states, and I agree, that lending institutions created product to sell to this new massive market of potential home buyers.

Was there greed? Absolutely. Did these companies knowingly take insane risks? Absolutely.

Guess what? They have every right to do so.

Blame the idiots on Washington for creating the market for this shit. Don’t blame those that legally sought ways to fill the demand the idiots in Washington created. Blame the idiots in Washington for bailing out those that legally, but foolishly, sought ways to fill the new market for risky loans they created.

Oh, and all those foreclosures…excess inventory. Just like every bubble.

Some people on this forum need to stop posting stupid shit. You know who you are and you need to spend some time actually thinking through some of this. It is not that hard. This is business cycle 101.

Don’t hate the player, hate the game. Who created the game?

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Um, I’ve got a video of Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, and etc., this fool might want to take a look at. Who’s outraged for questioning Fannie and Freddie? Looks like Dems to me.

Heads - we win. Tails - you lose.

Of course, the people getting the loans bear part of the responsibility also - they signed the paper. No one put a gun to their head and said, “Sign!” There’s not such thing as “responsibility” in the minds of the Democrat establishment (Frank, Waters, et al), though. Everyone’s a puppet. [/quote]

People getting the loans only bear the responsibility of their own mortgage and financial situation. They did not create the game. They just played and lost like many lending institutions. Problem is big brother using our money to bail them out. So now the winners (people paying taxes and their mortgage) are the losers. Mind boggling really.

From what I’ve gathered back in the day if you wanted a house you needed 20% down, no matter what your race was. Why? Because you were less likey to default on the loan. Retards like BO led ACORN cryed racism. The rest is history. Now we’re fucked.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Gael wrote:

This one is for dhickey, themage, orion, lifticus, rainjack and all.

Playing the race card? Please. A bad credit risk is a bad credit risk regardless of skin color. I think the real racists are the stupid motherfuckers crying racism when someone points a finger at the problem.

If the bad loans had never been made, or forced to have been made - we would not have a subprime mess, and the MBS’s would not exist nearly to the extent that they do right now.[/quote]

Yes, I know what your opinion is. You do not need to restate it. I was hoping you would defend it in light of:

  1. Most subprime mortgages were not made by CRA regulated banks. CRA regulated banks only issued 25% of the subprime mortgages, and in general, used much lower interest rates when they did.

  2. Many of the failing institutions did not target minority and lower income markets.

  3. Government did not force financial institutions to issue loans with 0% down, to run debt to equity ratios of 30:1, and a myriad of insane lending practices. Actually, practices like this would hurt the banks CRA rating.

  4. Timing. The CRA has been in effect since 1977, and banks were able to comply without the high foreclosure rates. It was not government that forced banks to make these bad loans. It was the profit motive.

  5. And by the way, the CRA did not force banks to do anything at all. Read it for yourself.

Some of the other causes cited by the right are a bit more believable. Blaming it on the CRA, however, is absurd.

Sloth, see my above post. You quibble over some small points but avoid the big picture.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
“The right blames the credit crisis on poor minority homeowners. This is not merely offensive, but entirely wrong.”

Where has this happened, by the way? I’ve seen plenty of blame fall on government intervention, based upon good intentions. But I haven’t seen anyone say it’s the fault of minorities or the poor themselves.[/quote]

Are you serious? In this thread alone, we have two examples, from Rainjack and PRCaldude.

[quote]“On the Republican side of Congress, in the right-wing financial media (which is to say the financial media)…”
He conceedes his is the minority opinion within the financial media? But, that’s be expected becaused the financial media is right wing…

“The subtext: If only Congress didn’t force banks to lend money to poor minorities…”

I wonder why those seeking profit would have to be forced. Gee, I don’t know, because it was RISKY maybe![/quote]

You misunderstand. In the sentence you quote, Gross was describing the right wing view, not his own. The government did not force these bad loans. The profit motive did. In times of economic boom, it is in the lenders interest to have as many foreclosures as possible. They WANT the loans to go bad. As long as housing prices keep rising, that’s a good thing for them. And housing prices, as a whole, have never fallen in the history of this country.

[quote]“Poor Congressional oversight was part of the problem.”

Um, I’ve got a video of Barney Frank, Maxine Waters, and etc., this fool might want to take a look at. Who’s outraged for questioning Fannie and Freddie? Looks like Dems to me.[/quote]

This is an issue of stupidity, and/or corruption, not ideology.

[quote]“Banks that sought to meet CRA requirements by indiscriminately doling out loans to minorities may have been part of the problem.”

Oh gee, you think? By making banks have to meet these requirements, they might have acted in a risky manner? No crap, genius. There’s no might about it.[/quote]

And did you even read the part of the article where he refutes this? This was the main part of the article and you didn’t even address it. It seems like you stopped reading right here.

I do not believe it is true that the right blames black people for the housing market collapse. There were many other people taking out home equity loans to make over their homes believing they would not lose value; there were plenty of other people buying second, third, and fourth homes to flip believing they would only go up up in value.

Take home point: it takes two to trade and when an investment falls through the blame lies on both sides.

A man betting on a lame horse cannot just blame the horse or the rider for losing – he is the idiot that made the bet when all is said and done.

[quote]Gael wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Gael wrote:

This one is for dhickey, themage, orion, lifticus, rainjack and all.

Playing the race card? Please. A bad credit risk is a bad credit risk regardless of skin color. I think the real racists are the stupid motherfuckers crying racism when someone points a finger at the problem.

If the bad loans had never been made, or forced to have been made - we would not have a subprime mess, and the MBS’s would not exist nearly to the extent that they do right now.

Yes, I know what your opinion is. You do not need to restate it. I was hoping you would defend it in light of:

  1. Most subprime mortgages were not made by CRA regulated banks. CRA regulated banks only issued 25% of the subprime mortgages, and in general, used much lower interest rates when they did.
    [/quote]

Irrelavent

irrelavent

Irrelavent

wrong

wrong, unless you’re playing semantics with “force”.

Wrong. timeline:
CRA
ACORN
Clinton
Libs in the senate
Fannie
Freddie
Anyone that voted for the bailout.

We’ve been through this so many times. I am amazed that people are still confused.

LOL dude, that was weak as hell.

Your idea of an argument is spelling “irrelevant” incorrectly three times in a row?

LOL. I came here hoping someone would be able to offer a rebuttal. Oh well.

[quote]Gael wrote:
LOL dude, that was weak as hell.

Your idea of an argument is spelling “irrelevant” incorrectly three times in a row?

LOL. I came here hoping someone would be able to offer a rebuttal. Oh well.[/quote]

The entire financial media has a rebuttal. But, they get written off as right wingers. So, what’s the point?

“On the Republican side of Congress, in the right-wing financial media (which is to say the financial media)…”

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
LOL dude, that was weak as hell.

Your idea of an argument is spelling “irrelevant” incorrectly three times in a row?

LOL. I came here hoping someone would be able to offer a rebuttal. Oh well.

The entire financial media has a rebuttal. But, they get written off as right wingers. So, what’s the point?

“On the Republican side of Congress, in the right-wing financial media (which is to say the financial media)…”
[/quote]

I have seen a number of articles in which state the right wing view. I have not seen articles that rebut the points in my list. Please link to a specific article that addresses the 5 points in my list. At least several of them would be nice.

[quote]Gael wrote:
LOL dude, that was weak as hell.

Your idea of an argument is spelling “irrelevant” incorrectly three times in a row?

LOL. I came here hoping someone would be able to offer a rebuttal. Oh well.[/quote]

All you have to do is scroll up. You need help with that too?

[quote]Gael wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
LOL dude, that was weak as hell.

Your idea of an argument is spelling “irrelevant” incorrectly three times in a row?

LOL. I came here hoping someone would be able to offer a rebuttal. Oh well.

The entire financial media has a rebuttal. But, they get written off as right wingers. So, what’s the point?

“On the Republican side of Congress, in the right-wing financial media (which is to say the financial media)…”

I have seen a number of articles in which state the right wing view. I have not seen articles that rebut the points in my list. Please link to a specific article that addresses the 5 points in my list. At least several of them would be nice.[/quote]

you don’t need an article. you just need common sense.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Gael wrote:
LOL dude, that was weak as hell.

Your idea of an argument is spelling “irrelevant” incorrectly three times in a row?

LOL. I came here hoping someone would be able to offer a rebuttal. Oh well.

All you have to do is scroll up. You need help with that too?[/quote]

You did not address anything in the article in your first post.

Your second post was not a rebuttal.

You aren’t arguing. You are stating your opinion.

Substance, please.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Gael wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
LOL dude, that was weak as hell.

Your idea of an argument is spelling “irrelevant” incorrectly three times in a row?

LOL. I came here hoping someone would be able to offer a rebuttal. Oh well.

The entire financial media has a rebuttal. But, they get written off as right wingers. So, what’s the point?

“On the Republican side of Congress, in the right-wing financial media (which is to say the financial media)…”

I have seen a number of articles in which state the right wing view. I have not seen articles that rebut the points in my list. Please link to a specific article that addresses the 5 points in my list. At least several of them would be nice.

you don’t need an article. you just need common sense.[/quote]

Common sense says you can’t blame the explosion in subprime mortgages on a piece of legislation that didn’t cause most of them.

[quote]Gael wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
LOL dude, that was weak as hell.

Your idea of an argument is spelling “irrelevant” incorrectly three times in a row?

LOL. I came here hoping someone would be able to offer a rebuttal. Oh well.

The entire financial media has a rebuttal. But, they get written off as right wingers. So, what’s the point?

“On the Republican side of Congress, in the right-wing financial media (which is to say the financial media)…”

I have seen a number of articles in which state the right wing view. I have not seen articles that rebut the points in my list. Please link to a specific article that addresses the 5 points in my list. At least several of them would be nice.[/quote]

There you go, the “right wing view.” Anything I would post, would be part of the conspiracy.