T Nation

Daniel Gross: Subprime Suspects

[quote]Gael wrote:
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.

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]

before we can have an intelligent discussion you are going to aquire a basic understanting of the following:
-The business cycle
-What FNMA and FHLMC do
-How they are influenced buy gov’t and who did the influencing.

I look forward to talking with you in a couple of years.

[quote]Gael wrote:

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

I do not see the point of this article.

Yes, people make bad decisions all the time, for all kinds of reasons.

However, if you build a game that actually rewards bad decisions at the cost of the taxpayer that is an entirely different ballgame.

One can point the finger at Wall Street, minorities, overspending middle class or whoever else, but neither created that game and it was foreseeable what would happen.

If Democrats that think Wall Street is full of greedy assholes (which is probably true) decide to put a law into effect that rewards the most stupid kinds of greed, what did they expect?

That the lion would not go for the antelope?

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Gael wrote:
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.

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

before we can have an intelligent discussion you are going to aquire a basic understanting of the following:
-The business cycle
-What FNMA and FHLMC do
-How they are influenced buy gov’t and who did the influencing.

I look forward to talking with you in a couple of years.[/quote]

This thread is about the CRA.

I conceded earlier (see above) that other talking points have more credibility.

I wanted to see if there was anyone who could defend the idea that the CRA is to blame.

Apparently not.

Again, this thread, and the original article was about the CRA.

Unfortunately, you cannot stay on topic.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gael wrote:
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.

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

C’mon sloth. From what I’ve seen, you are capable of debating in good faith. I have been searching for someone who can defend the idea that the CRA caused the crash, but apparently no such person exists. I think the reason that no one can offer a rebuttal is because the CRA did not cause the crash.

[quote]orion wrote:
Gael wrote:

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

I do not see the point of this article.

Yes, people make bad decisions all the time, for all kinds of reasons.

However, if you build a game that actually rewards bad decisions at the cost of the taxpayer that is an entirely different ballgame.

One can point the finger at Wall Street, minorities, overspending middle class or whoever else, but neither created that game and it was foreseeable what would happen.

If Democrats that think Wall Street is full of greedy assholes (which is probably true) decide to put a law into effect that rewards the most stupid kinds of greed, what did they expect?

That the lion would not go for the antelope?

[/quote]

the youngins and the libs in here just can’t seem to understand this. No matter how many times it is spoon fed to them. All they can do is piece together irrelevant facts. Common sense and logic never enter into the equation.

[quote]Gael wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gael wrote:
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.

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

before we can have an intelligent discussion you are going to aquire a basic understanting of the following:
-The business cycle
-What FNMA and FHLMC do
-How they are influenced buy gov’t and who did the influencing.

I look forward to talking with you in a couple of years.

This thread is about the CRA.

I conceded earlier (see above) that other talking points have more credibility.

I wanted to see if there was anyone who could defend the idea that the CRA is to blame.

Apparently not.

Again, this thread, and the original article was about the CRA.

Unfortunately, you cannot stay on topic.[/quote]

I understand exactly what you are wanting to do. IF you want to understand why CRA is a significant part of the mess we are in, you must first understand the business cycle. This has been discussed several times in here already and I have detailed why CRA is a part of the problem.

When you understand what causes the business cycle you will understand the situation we are in and what part CRA played.

[quote]Gael wrote:
C’mon sloth. From what I’ve seen, you are capable of debating in good faith. I have been searching for someone who can defend the idea that the CRA caused the crash, but apparently no such person exists. I think the reason that no one can offer a rebuttal is because the CRA did not cause the crash.[/quote]

Can you prove that CRA did not in part cause it? Regardless, it is like questioning which straw was it that broke the camel’s back.

What does one expect might happen if homeownership is encouraged by government – even for people who clearly should not have been given the responsibility?

[quote]orion wrote:
Gael wrote:

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

I do not see the point of this article.

Yes, people make bad decisions all the time, for all kinds of reasons.

However, if you build a game that actually rewards bad decisions at the cost of the taxpayer that is an entirely different ballgame.

One can point the finger at Wall Street, minorities, overspending middle class or whoever else, but neither created that game and it was foreseeable what would happen.

If Democrats that think Wall Street is full of greedy assholes (which is probably true) decide to put a law into effect that rewards the most stupid kinds of greed, what did they expect?

That the lion would not go for the antelope?

[/quote]

Yes, but the question is whether the CRA “rewards bad decisions.” Bad decisions were made, yes, but is the CRA the culprit? I do not think so. Most of the bad decisions were not incentivized by government.

Again:

  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.

[quote]Gael wrote:
orion wrote:
Gael wrote:

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

I do not see the point of this article.

Yes, people make bad decisions all the time, for all kinds of reasons.

However, if you build a game that actually rewards bad decisions at the cost of the taxpayer that is an entirely different ballgame.

One can point the finger at Wall Street, minorities, overspending middle class or whoever else, but neither created that game and it was foreseeable what would happen.

If Democrats that think Wall Street is full of greedy assholes (which is probably true) decide to put a law into effect that rewards the most stupid kinds of greed, what did they expect?

That the lion would not go for the antelope?

Yes, but the question is whether the CRA “rewards bad decisions.” Bad decisions were made, yes, but is the CRA the culprit? I do not think so. Most of the bad decisions were not incentivized by government.

Again:

  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. [/quote]

I read teh Slate article, and to be honest, I find it sort of absurd.

Whether the CRA is to blame or not is hardly the issue. Standards were loosened, and underperforming minorities were lent money:

In the article above, it shows the seamless integration of the bureaucracy and the financial sector.

Clinton apparatchik Cisneros left his government position and immediately joined Countrywide and KB Home, where he proceeded to give away money to his fellow Mexicans based on loose standards.

This report says the same thing and is replete with citations:

http://www.independent.org/pdf/policy_reports/2008-10-03-trainwreck.pdf

Here’s a quantification of the meltdown:

Lastly, if you don’t believe what I’ve just linked, I’d be happy to take you for a ride around Los Angeles and we can take collect our own data. As soon as you’re east of the 405 freeway (read: where it’s mostly black and hispanic), you see several foreclosures on every block.

For the author at Slate to somehow absolve the minorities who signed the loan paperwork is completely absurd. Of course, the meltdown is not entirely their fault any more than it’s entirely anyone else’s fault. There’s plenty of blame to go all the way around.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
orion wrote:
Gael wrote:

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

I do not see the point of this article.

Yes, people make bad decisions all the time, for all kinds of reasons.

However, if you build a game that actually rewards bad decisions at the cost of the taxpayer that is an entirely different ballgame.

One can point the finger at Wall Street, minorities, overspending middle class or whoever else, but neither created that game and it was foreseeable what would happen.

If Democrats that think Wall Street is full of greedy assholes (which is probably true) decide to put a law into effect that rewards the most stupid kinds of greed, what did they expect?

That the lion would not go for the antelope?

the youngins and the libs in here just can’t seem to understand this. No matter how many times it is spoon fed to them. All they can do is piece together irrelevant facts. Common sense and logic never enter into the equation.[/quote]

Agreed. Orion’s post is about the best concise encapsulation of this so far.