- This topic has 95 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 11 months ago by
kev374.
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 17, 2007 at 12:38 AM #118990December 17, 2007 at 2:09 AM #118801
Eugene
ParticipantActually this statement is taken out of context.
Here’s what he is saying.* Home prices must go down and housing sell-off must exhaust itself before this credit crisis resolves
* Government should not directly interfere with workings of free markets and must allow the system to cleanse itself
* IF there is a desire to reduce the stress among troubled homeowners, fiscal solution (giving away cash, presumably via tax cuts) is preferable to messing with free marketsDecember 17, 2007 at 2:09 AM #118935Eugene
ParticipantActually this statement is taken out of context.
Here’s what he is saying.* Home prices must go down and housing sell-off must exhaust itself before this credit crisis resolves
* Government should not directly interfere with workings of free markets and must allow the system to cleanse itself
* IF there is a desire to reduce the stress among troubled homeowners, fiscal solution (giving away cash, presumably via tax cuts) is preferable to messing with free marketsDecember 17, 2007 at 2:09 AM #118967Eugene
ParticipantActually this statement is taken out of context.
Here’s what he is saying.* Home prices must go down and housing sell-off must exhaust itself before this credit crisis resolves
* Government should not directly interfere with workings of free markets and must allow the system to cleanse itself
* IF there is a desire to reduce the stress among troubled homeowners, fiscal solution (giving away cash, presumably via tax cuts) is preferable to messing with free marketsDecember 17, 2007 at 2:09 AM #119009Eugene
ParticipantActually this statement is taken out of context.
Here’s what he is saying.* Home prices must go down and housing sell-off must exhaust itself before this credit crisis resolves
* Government should not directly interfere with workings of free markets and must allow the system to cleanse itself
* IF there is a desire to reduce the stress among troubled homeowners, fiscal solution (giving away cash, presumably via tax cuts) is preferable to messing with free marketsDecember 17, 2007 at 2:09 AM #119030Eugene
ParticipantActually this statement is taken out of context.
Here’s what he is saying.* Home prices must go down and housing sell-off must exhaust itself before this credit crisis resolves
* Government should not directly interfere with workings of free markets and must allow the system to cleanse itself
* IF there is a desire to reduce the stress among troubled homeowners, fiscal solution (giving away cash, presumably via tax cuts) is preferable to messing with free marketsDecember 17, 2007 at 4:32 AM #118807trex
ParticipantAre modest bailouts so bad?
I think most people should face the music.
But at some point, could it be so damaging for the economy, that we are all better off if *some* homeowners get a little help? I don’t mean that we pay off the mortgage for the receptionist who falsified documents and said s/he makes $300k/year. But if someone can afford a fixed rate with a little help, it might not be so bad.
If there is a TOTAL meltdown, we will ALL feel it.
December 17, 2007 at 4:32 AM #118940trex
ParticipantAre modest bailouts so bad?
I think most people should face the music.
But at some point, could it be so damaging for the economy, that we are all better off if *some* homeowners get a little help? I don’t mean that we pay off the mortgage for the receptionist who falsified documents and said s/he makes $300k/year. But if someone can afford a fixed rate with a little help, it might not be so bad.
If there is a TOTAL meltdown, we will ALL feel it.
December 17, 2007 at 4:32 AM #118972trex
ParticipantAre modest bailouts so bad?
I think most people should face the music.
But at some point, could it be so damaging for the economy, that we are all better off if *some* homeowners get a little help? I don’t mean that we pay off the mortgage for the receptionist who falsified documents and said s/he makes $300k/year. But if someone can afford a fixed rate with a little help, it might not be so bad.
If there is a TOTAL meltdown, we will ALL feel it.
December 17, 2007 at 4:32 AM #119014trex
ParticipantAre modest bailouts so bad?
I think most people should face the music.
But at some point, could it be so damaging for the economy, that we are all better off if *some* homeowners get a little help? I don’t mean that we pay off the mortgage for the receptionist who falsified documents and said s/he makes $300k/year. But if someone can afford a fixed rate with a little help, it might not be so bad.
If there is a TOTAL meltdown, we will ALL feel it.
December 17, 2007 at 4:32 AM #119035trex
ParticipantAre modest bailouts so bad?
I think most people should face the music.
But at some point, could it be so damaging for the economy, that we are all better off if *some* homeowners get a little help? I don’t mean that we pay off the mortgage for the receptionist who falsified documents and said s/he makes $300k/year. But if someone can afford a fixed rate with a little help, it might not be so bad.
If there is a TOTAL meltdown, we will ALL feel it.
December 17, 2007 at 7:18 AM #118821bsrsharma
Participantif *some* homeowners get a little help?
Actually, for anyone with that kind of financial distress, the best help is U.S. Bankruptcy Code that helps to wipe the slate clean and start all over. It is legal, humane and protects taxpayers. It mainly hurts stupid investors. The ex-homeowner gets out fairly unscathed. With millions of bankruptcies, it has already lost much of its stigma. It will almost become "fashionable", if another, say, 10 million people file.
BTW, that Bloomberg link works for me { but I use Linux! }
December 17, 2007 at 7:18 AM #118955bsrsharma
Participantif *some* homeowners get a little help?
Actually, for anyone with that kind of financial distress, the best help is U.S. Bankruptcy Code that helps to wipe the slate clean and start all over. It is legal, humane and protects taxpayers. It mainly hurts stupid investors. The ex-homeowner gets out fairly unscathed. With millions of bankruptcies, it has already lost much of its stigma. It will almost become "fashionable", if another, say, 10 million people file.
BTW, that Bloomberg link works for me { but I use Linux! }
December 17, 2007 at 7:18 AM #118987bsrsharma
Participantif *some* homeowners get a little help?
Actually, for anyone with that kind of financial distress, the best help is U.S. Bankruptcy Code that helps to wipe the slate clean and start all over. It is legal, humane and protects taxpayers. It mainly hurts stupid investors. The ex-homeowner gets out fairly unscathed. With millions of bankruptcies, it has already lost much of its stigma. It will almost become "fashionable", if another, say, 10 million people file.
BTW, that Bloomberg link works for me { but I use Linux! }
December 17, 2007 at 7:18 AM #119029bsrsharma
Participantif *some* homeowners get a little help?
Actually, for anyone with that kind of financial distress, the best help is U.S. Bankruptcy Code that helps to wipe the slate clean and start all over. It is legal, humane and protects taxpayers. It mainly hurts stupid investors. The ex-homeowner gets out fairly unscathed. With millions of bankruptcies, it has already lost much of its stigma. It will almost become "fashionable", if another, say, 10 million people file.
BTW, that Bloomberg link works for me { but I use Linux! }
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
