Dallas Fed Admits to Manipulating housing market

[Djshakes]

[quote=briansd1]I believe it’s time that we recognize that in America, we intervene in the economy just as much as the socialist countries of Europe.

We just don’t call it what it is to obfuscate the issues. We bail out the banks, but our government is too timid to take them over and throw out the executives.

Our brand of socialism is for the very richest. It creates periods of exhuberance in boom and bust cycles. Only the most entrepreneurial and best connected people can take advantage of those cycles.[/quote]

Under a Socialist model the government owns the means of production. When SHTF the people rise up and blame the government…much like what is happening in Europe.

Under a Facist model the means of production remains under private ownership often directed by the government. This is a much more politically viable model. When the economy takes a turn for the worse politicians parade the business owners in front of a congressional hearing condemning them for the economies ails while all along the business owners were simply following the legislation bestowed upon them by the condemning political body.

What type of model seems more indicative in the US right now? Think Dood and Frank.

[briansd1]

I think the comparison to fascism is a stretch.

In USA, the politicians work for the business owners, not the other way around.

People should want financial managers punished rather than be outraged by it. Being paraded in Congress is very tiny punishment for the riches they got away with.

[briansd1]

I think the comparison to fascism is a stretch.

In USA, the politicians work for the business owners, not the other way around.

People should want financial managers punished rather than be outraged by it. Being paraded in Congress is very tiny punishment for the riches they got away with.

[briansd1]

I think the comparison to fascism is a stretch.

In USA, the politicians work for the business owners, not the other way around.

People should want financial managers punished rather than be outraged by it. Being paraded in Congress is very tiny punishment for the riches they got away with.

[briansd1]

I think the comparison to fascism is a stretch.

In USA, the politicians work for the business owners, not the other way around.

People should want financial managers punished rather than be outraged by it. Being paraded in Congress is very tiny punishment for the riches they got away with.

[briansd1]

I think the comparison to fascism is a stretch.

In USA, the politicians work for the business owners, not the other way around.

People should want financial managers punished rather than be outraged by it. Being paraded in Congress is very tiny punishment for the riches they got away with.

[Djshakes]

Often your arguments revolve around the greed of these big bad corporations, bankers, business owners, etc. Greed is simply pursuing one’s self interest. Under this definition, most people are greedy because we all pursue our self interests as opposed to the interests of some stranger. I think it is fair to say that “greed” is a constant. Man will always and has pursued his self interests. Because it is a constant it can’t be a cause. You can’t explain why something changed (economic crisis) by pointing to something that hasn’t (greedy bankers). You need to point to something that changed, like the CRA which compelled banks to make bad loans, etc. I’m not saying this is the cause of the financial crisis, but merely a part of it. However, greed, which you progressives love to spew, is not. If it were, there would be no boom times as there is always greed. “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest.”

You mention that the government works for the business owners like it is a bad thing. As a big government person, you fail to realize that this country was founded on limited government. The citizens were believed to have inalienable rights, in which they borrowed some of these rights to the government, like defending the borders, so they could pursue happiness. It was never intended for the government to over reach, which it has now done in many areas in my opinion. So yes, the government works for business owners who are citizens of this country. I know you progressives would rather have the citizens working for the government but unfortunately and thankfully that isn’t the case.

I’m not an anti-government person. It has its purpose. People often argue from both ends of the spectrum when a common ground needs to be reached.

[Djshakes]

Often your arguments revolve around the greed of these big bad corporations, bankers, business owners, etc. Greed is simply pursuing one’s self interest. Under this definition, most people are greedy because we all pursue our self interests as opposed to the interests of some stranger. I think it is fair to say that “greed” is a constant. Man will always and has pursued his self interests. Because it is a constant it can’t be a cause. You can’t explain why something changed (economic crisis) by pointing to something that hasn’t (greedy bankers). You need to point to something that changed, like the CRA which compelled banks to make bad loans, etc. I’m not saying this is the cause of the financial crisis, but merely a part of it. However, greed, which you progressives love to spew, is not. If it were, there would be no boom times as there is always greed. “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest.”

You mention that the government works for the business owners like it is a bad thing. As a big government person, you fail to realize that this country was founded on limited government. The citizens were believed to have inalienable rights, in which they borrowed some of these rights to the government, like defending the borders, so they could pursue happiness. It was never intended for the government to over reach, which it has now done in many areas in my opinion. So yes, the government works for business owners who are citizens of this country. I know you progressives would rather have the citizens working for the government but unfortunately and thankfully that isn’t the case.

I’m not an anti-government person. It has its purpose. People often argue from both ends of the spectrum when a common ground needs to be reached.

[Djshakes]

Often your arguments revolve around the greed of these big bad corporations, bankers, business owners, etc. Greed is simply pursuing one’s self interest. Under this definition, most people are greedy because we all pursue our self interests as opposed to the interests of some stranger. I think it is fair to say that “greed” is a constant. Man will always and has pursued his self interests. Because it is a constant it can’t be a cause. You can’t explain why something changed (economic crisis) by pointing to something that hasn’t (greedy bankers). You need to point to something that changed, like the CRA which compelled banks to make bad loans, etc. I’m not saying this is the cause of the financial crisis, but merely a part of it. However, greed, which you progressives love to spew, is not. If it were, there would be no boom times as there is always greed. “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest.”

You mention that the government works for the business owners like it is a bad thing. As a big government person, you fail to realize that this country was founded on limited government. The citizens were believed to have inalienable rights, in which they borrowed some of these rights to the government, like defending the borders, so they could pursue happiness. It was never intended for the government to over reach, which it has now done in many areas in my opinion. So yes, the government works for business owners who are citizens of this country. I know you progressives would rather have the citizens working for the government but unfortunately and thankfully that isn’t the case.

I’m not an anti-government person. It has its purpose. People often argue from both ends of the spectrum when a common ground needs to be reached.

[Djshakes]

Often your arguments revolve around the greed of these big bad corporations, bankers, business owners, etc. Greed is simply pursuing one’s self interest. Under this definition, most people are greedy because we all pursue our self interests as opposed to the interests of some stranger. I think it is fair to say that “greed” is a constant. Man will always and has pursued his self interests. Because it is a constant it can’t be a cause. You can’t explain why something changed (economic crisis) by pointing to something that hasn’t (greedy bankers). You need to point to something that changed, like the CRA which compelled banks to make bad loans, etc. I’m not saying this is the cause of the financial crisis, but merely a part of it. However, greed, which you progressives love to spew, is not. If it were, there would be no boom times as there is always greed. “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest.”

You mention that the government works for the business owners like it is a bad thing. As a big government person, you fail to realize that this country was founded on limited government. The citizens were believed to have inalienable rights, in which they borrowed some of these rights to the government, like defending the borders, so they could pursue happiness. It was never intended for the government to over reach, which it has now done in many areas in my opinion. So yes, the government works for business owners who are citizens of this country. I know you progressives would rather have the citizens working for the government but unfortunately and thankfully that isn’t the case.

I’m not an anti-government person. It has its purpose. People often argue from both ends of the spectrum when a common ground needs to be reached.

[Djshakes]

Often your arguments revolve around the greed of these big bad corporations, bankers, business owners, etc. Greed is simply pursuing one’s self interest. Under this definition, most people are greedy because we all pursue our self interests as opposed to the interests of some stranger. I think it is fair to say that “greed” is a constant. Man will always and has pursued his self interests. Because it is a constant it can’t be a cause. You can’t explain why something changed (economic crisis) by pointing to something that hasn’t (greedy bankers). You need to point to something that changed, like the CRA which compelled banks to make bad loans, etc. I’m not saying this is the cause of the financial crisis, but merely a part of it. However, greed, which you progressives love to spew, is not. If it were, there would be no boom times as there is always greed. “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest.”

You mention that the government works for the business owners like it is a bad thing. As a big government person, you fail to realize that this country was founded on limited government. The citizens were believed to have inalienable rights, in which they borrowed some of these rights to the government, like defending the borders, so they could pursue happiness. It was never intended for the government to over reach, which it has now done in many areas in my opinion. So yes, the government works for business owners who are citizens of this country. I know you progressives would rather have the citizens working for the government but unfortunately and thankfully that isn’t the case.

I’m not an anti-government person. It has its purpose. People often argue from both ends of the spectrum when a common ground needs to be reached.

[briansd1]

Greed is not bad. It needs to be channelled to productive uses.

The government didn’t need to force to banks to make bad loans. The bankers did that on their own because they get commissions up front, regardless of how the loans perform. The banks figured that by the time the loans default, they would have stashed fortunes away already.

I thought that the CRA canard had be killed already.

CRA is targeted to underserved established areas. It has nothing to do with brand new tracts of houses like those in Temecula, Murietta, Las Vegas, or Forida — areas that have been hit hardest by defaults and foreclosures.

About affordable loans, I have been following Smart Corner, downtown, and La Boheme in North Park. Those buildings had units targeted to those with limited income. Those income-restricted units are doing well, with few foreclosures, compared to the market-rates units, in the same buildings, which are falling one after the other.

You should look at the Housing Commission website to see what it takes to quality.
http://www.sdhc.net/Real-Estate/First-Time-Homebuyers/

The difference between a good loan and bad loan, it not the income of the borrower, but the quality of the underwriting and the loan-to-value ratio. The stated-income loans and the low-docs, no-docs loans are the most likely to default.

[briansd1]

Greed is not bad. It needs to be channelled to productive uses.

The government didn’t need to force to banks to make bad loans. The bankers did that on their own because they get commissions up front, regardless of how the loans perform. The banks figured that by the time the loans default, they would have stashed fortunes away already.

I thought that the CRA canard had be killed already.

CRA is targeted to underserved established areas. It has nothing to do with brand new tracts of houses like those in Temecula, Murietta, Las Vegas, or Forida — areas that have been hit hardest by defaults and foreclosures.

About affordable loans, I have been following Smart Corner, downtown, and La Boheme in North Park. Those buildings had units targeted to those with limited income. Those income-restricted units are doing well, with few foreclosures, compared to the market-rates units, in the same buildings, which are falling one after the other.

You should look at the Housing Commission website to see what it takes to quality.
http://www.sdhc.net/Real-Estate/First-Time-Homebuyers/

The difference between a good loan and bad loan, it not the income of the borrower, but the quality of the underwriting and the loan-to-value ratio. The stated-income loans and the low-docs, no-docs loans are the most likely to default.

[briansd1]

Greed is not bad. It needs to be channelled to productive uses.

The government didn’t need to force to banks to make bad loans. The bankers did that on their own because they get commissions up front, regardless of how the loans perform. The banks figured that by the time the loans default, they would have stashed fortunes away already.

I thought that the CRA canard had be killed already.

CRA is targeted to underserved established areas. It has nothing to do with brand new tracts of houses like those in Temecula, Murietta, Las Vegas, or Forida — areas that have been hit hardest by defaults and foreclosures.

About affordable loans, I have been following Smart Corner, downtown, and La Boheme in North Park. Those buildings had units targeted to those with limited income. Those income-restricted units are doing well, with few foreclosures, compared to the market-rates units, in the same buildings, which are falling one after the other.

You should look at the Housing Commission website to see what it takes to quality.
http://www.sdhc.net/Real-Estate/First-Time-Homebuyers/

The difference between a good loan and bad loan, it not the income of the borrower, but the quality of the underwriting and the loan-to-value ratio. The stated-income loans and the low-docs, no-docs loans are the most likely to default.

[briansd1]

Greed is not bad. It needs to be channelled to productive uses.

The government didn’t need to force to banks to make bad loans. The bankers did that on their own because they get commissions up front, regardless of how the loans perform. The banks figured that by the time the loans default, they would have stashed fortunes away already.

I thought that the CRA canard had be killed already.

CRA is targeted to underserved established areas. It has nothing to do with brand new tracts of houses like those in Temecula, Murietta, Las Vegas, or Forida — areas that have been hit hardest by defaults and foreclosures.

About affordable loans, I have been following Smart Corner, downtown, and La Boheme in North Park. Those buildings had units targeted to those with limited income. Those income-restricted units are doing well, with few foreclosures, compared to the market-rates units, in the same buildings, which are falling one after the other.

You should look at the Housing Commission website to see what it takes to quality.
http://www.sdhc.net/Real-Estate/First-Time-Homebuyers/

The difference between a good loan and bad loan, it not the income of the borrower, but the quality of the underwriting and the loan-to-value ratio. The stated-income loans and the low-docs, no-docs loans are the most likely to default.

[Author]

Posts