- This topic has 45 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 1 month ago by
SD Realtor.
-
AuthorPosts
-
-
February 24, 2008 at 11:07 PM #11921
-
February 24, 2008 at 11:30 PM #159312
Deal Hunter
ParticipantWhat they are all missing is the fundamentals of capitalism. Consumption drives the captialisitic economy. So, some sort of debt cancellation HAS to happen. Whether it is a borrower bail out like the one being proposed above or a bank bail out like the one BofA is requesting, money freed up from debt will go back into hands of consumers to be put toward consumption and thereby reanimating the stagnant economy.
As unglam and undesireable a bail out sounds to us all, one cannot ignore the fundamentals of the American economy and that 70% of it is driven by consumption. So, as much as we want to teach foolish buyers and greedy banks a lesson, we can’t properly do it without scrapping capitalism.
It’s horrible, but like war, debt cancellation is great for business.
-
February 24, 2008 at 11:43 PM #159328
SD Realtor
ParticipantDealhunter…Not so sure I agree… Left to recover on it’s own devices one may argue that the following will occur:
1 – The market will correct much faster because the depreciation will be that much sharper.
2 – The sharper depreciation will lead to a much fast consumption. As you would agree, the amount of money currently on the sidelines is indeed staggering.
3 – You are also conveniently sidestepping the continuation of letting current homeowners continuing to live in the home that they never could afford to begin with.
4 – Nothing is free. Measures like this do one thing. They INCREASE RISK to lenders who lend money. There is no argument and to believe that this will not increase the risk premium of lending money is naive.
I am not proposing scrapping capitalism. In fact socialistic moves like this are very much contrary to capitalism wouldn’t you think? Measures like this do nothing to help markets, they simply will inhibit the free movement of markets. One should not forgive debt, one should let the market operate freely. Not only will this weed out inefficiencies, it will give birth to innovation, stronger companies, and insure that better more efficient entities survive. Otherwise you get what is known as the airline industry. An industry that suckles off subsidies for survival because it has not had to compete to survive.
Finally, make no mistake about it… these sorts of bailouts are as cosmetic as things get. It doesn’t matter who stays in a home and who does not. It doesn’t even matter if some lenders go belly up or not. What is more important is that there is so much investment in the secondary market… in cdos, mbs… that sort of thing, that basically we may have reached the point where we actually cannot let the market act efficiently. That the shock to pensions, 401ks, municipal and state government investments, etc… would be so harsh (because of their investments in these investments) that there would be problems like we have never seen…
So maybe you are right, but for the wrong reasons. Just my cynical opinion…
SD Realtor
-
February 24, 2008 at 11:44 PM #159331Participant
Thank you FLU… you got me to crack a good laugh before I crash…
SD Realtor
-
February 24, 2008 at 11:44 PM #159630Participant
Thank you FLU… you got me to crack a good laugh before I crash…
SD Realtor
-
February 24, 2008 at 11:44 PM #159644Participant
Thank you FLU… you got me to crack a good laugh before I crash…
SD Realtor
-
February 24, 2008 at 11:44 PM #159647Participant
Thank you FLU… you got me to crack a good laugh before I crash…
SD Realtor
-
February 24, 2008 at 11:44 PM #159722Participant
Thank you FLU… you got me to crack a good laugh before I crash…
SD Realtor
-
February 25, 2008 at 12:01 AM #159347Participant
Ah, there’s the rub. There’s no such thing as a free market. There hasn’t been in this country since the creation of the Federal Reserve. Why is it that when the government does a stimulus it is socialism countering captialism, but when the Fed lowers the rate it’s OK?
Not allowing markets to correct on their own is counter to capitalism whether it’s done by congress or the Fed lowering rates. You see, there’s no difference to me whether over leveraged homeowners are allowed to stay in their homes – the asset itself has lowered in value, so what is truly being lost is potential interest profit to the bank and equity wealth to the homeowner. The parallel with an individual homeowner is exactly that to the simultaneous fiscal and monetary stimulus done on the large scale. Both are “phantom” wealth/debt that when eliminated translates directly into cash MOVING hands.
Finally, you really hit the nail on the head about why the market cannot be allowed to act freely now. Too many pensions, 401ks and trillions in paper assets are tied up in the shadow banking system. And make no mistake, I am far more cynical than you about all of this.
-
February 25, 2008 at 12:01 AM #159642Participant
Ah, there’s the rub. There’s no such thing as a free market. There hasn’t been in this country since the creation of the Federal Reserve. Why is it that when the government does a stimulus it is socialism countering captialism, but when the Fed lowers the rate it’s OK?
Not allowing markets to correct on their own is counter to capitalism whether it’s done by congress or the Fed lowering rates. You see, there’s no difference to me whether over leveraged homeowners are allowed to stay in their homes – the asset itself has lowered in value, so what is truly being lost is potential interest profit to the bank and equity wealth to the homeowner. The parallel with an individual homeowner is exactly that to the simultaneous fiscal and monetary stimulus done on the large scale. Both are “phantom” wealth/debt that when eliminated translates directly into cash MOVING hands.
Finally, you really hit the nail on the head about why the market cannot be allowed to act freely now. Too many pensions, 401ks and trillions in paper assets are tied up in the shadow banking system. And make no mistake, I am far more cynical than you about all of this.
-
February 25, 2008 at 12:01 AM #159658Participant
Ah, there’s the rub. There’s no such thing as a free market. There hasn’t been in this country since the creation of the Federal Reserve. Why is it that when the government does a stimulus it is socialism countering captialism, but when the Fed lowers the rate it’s OK?
Not allowing markets to correct on their own is counter to capitalism whether it’s done by congress or the Fed lowering rates. You see, there’s no difference to me whether over leveraged homeowners are allowed to stay in their homes – the asset itself has lowered in value, so what is truly being lost is potential interest profit to the bank and equity wealth to the homeowner. The parallel with an individual homeowner is exactly that to the simultaneous fiscal and monetary stimulus done on the large scale. Both are “phantom” wealth/debt that when eliminated translates directly into cash MOVING hands.
Finally, you really hit the nail on the head about why the market cannot be allowed to act freely now. Too many pensions, 401ks and trillions in paper assets are tied up in the shadow banking system. And make no mistake, I am far more cynical than you about all of this.
-
February 25, 2008 at 12:01 AM #159664Participant
Ah, there’s the rub. There’s no such thing as a free market. There hasn’t been in this country since the creation of the Federal Reserve. Why is it that when the government does a stimulus it is socialism countering captialism, but when the Fed lowers the rate it’s OK?
Not allowing markets to correct on their own is counter to capitalism whether it’s done by congress or the Fed lowering rates. You see, there’s no difference to me whether over leveraged homeowners are allowed to stay in their homes – the asset itself has lowered in value, so what is truly being lost is potential interest profit to the bank and equity wealth to the homeowner. The parallel with an individual homeowner is exactly that to the simultaneous fiscal and monetary stimulus done on the large scale. Both are “phantom” wealth/debt that when eliminated translates directly into cash MOVING hands.
Finally, you really hit the nail on the head about why the market cannot be allowed to act freely now. Too many pensions, 401ks and trillions in paper assets are tied up in the shadow banking system. And make no mistake, I am far more cynical than you about all of this.
-
February 25, 2008 at 12:01 AM #159737Participant
Ah, there’s the rub. There’s no such thing as a free market. There hasn’t been in this country since the creation of the Federal Reserve. Why is it that when the government does a stimulus it is socialism countering captialism, but when the Fed lowers the rate it’s OK?
Not allowing markets to correct on their own is counter to capitalism whether it’s done by congress or the Fed lowering rates. You see, there’s no difference to me whether over leveraged homeowners are allowed to stay in their homes – the asset itself has lowered in value, so what is truly being lost is potential interest profit to the bank and equity wealth to the homeowner. The parallel with an individual homeowner is exactly that to the simultaneous fiscal and monetary stimulus done on the large scale. Both are “phantom” wealth/debt that when eliminated translates directly into cash MOVING hands.
Finally, you really hit the nail on the head about why the market cannot be allowed to act freely now. Too many pensions, 401ks and trillions in paper assets are tied up in the shadow banking system. And make no mistake, I am far more cynical than you about all of this.
-
-
February 24, 2008 at 11:43 PM #159622Participant
Dealhunter…Not so sure I agree… Left to recover on it’s own devices one may argue that the following will occur:
1 – The market will correct much faster because the depreciation will be that much sharper.
2 – The sharper depreciation will lead to a much fast consumption. As you would agree, the amount of money currently on the sidelines is indeed staggering.
3 – You are also conveniently sidestepping the continuation of letting current homeowners continuing to live in the home that they never could afford to begin with.
4 – Nothing is free. Measures like this do one thing. They INCREASE RISK to lenders who lend money. There is no argument and to believe that this will not increase the risk premium of lending money is naive.
I am not proposing scrapping capitalism. In fact socialistic moves like this are very much contrary to capitalism wouldn’t you think? Measures like this do nothing to help markets, they simply will inhibit the free movement of markets. One should not forgive debt, one should let the market operate freely. Not only will this weed out inefficiencies, it will give birth to innovation, stronger companies, and insure that better more efficient entities survive. Otherwise you get what is known as the airline industry. An industry that suckles off subsidies for survival because it has not had to compete to survive.
Finally, make no mistake about it… these sorts of bailouts are as cosmetic as things get. It doesn’t matter who stays in a home and who does not. It doesn’t even matter if some lenders go belly up or not. What is more important is that there is so much investment in the secondary market… in cdos, mbs… that sort of thing, that basically we may have reached the point where we actually cannot let the market act efficiently. That the shock to pensions, 401ks, municipal and state government investments, etc… would be so harsh (because of their investments in these investments) that there would be problems like we have never seen…
So maybe you are right, but for the wrong reasons. Just my cynical opinion…
SD Realtor
-
February 24, 2008 at 11:43 PM #159638Participant
Dealhunter…Not so sure I agree… Left to recover on it’s own devices one may argue that the following will occur:
1 – The market will correct much faster because the depreciation will be that much sharper.
2 – The sharper depreciation will lead to a much fast consumption. As you would agree, the amount of money currently on the sidelines is indeed staggering.
3 – You are also conveniently sidestepping the continuation of letting current homeowners continuing to live in the home that they never could afford to begin with.
4 – Nothing is free. Measures like this do one thing. They INCREASE RISK to lenders who lend money. There is no argument and to believe that this will not increase the risk premium of lending money is naive.
I am not proposing scrapping capitalism. In fact socialistic moves like this are very much contrary to capitalism wouldn’t you think? Measures like this do nothing to help markets, they simply will inhibit the free movement of markets. One should not forgive debt, one should let the market operate freely. Not only will this weed out inefficiencies, it will give birth to innovation, stronger companies, and insure that better more efficient entities survive. Otherwise you get what is known as the airline industry. An industry that suckles off subsidies for survival because it has not had to compete to survive.
Finally, make no mistake about it… these sorts of bailouts are as cosmetic as things get. It doesn’t matter who stays in a home and who does not. It doesn’t even matter if some lenders go belly up or not. What is more important is that there is so much investment in the secondary market… in cdos, mbs… that sort of thing, that basically we may have reached the point where we actually cannot let the market act efficiently. That the shock to pensions, 401ks, municipal and state government investments, etc… would be so harsh (because of their investments in these investments) that there would be problems like we have never seen…
So maybe you are right, but for the wrong reasons. Just my cynical opinion…
SD Realtor
-
February 24, 2008 at 11:43 PM #159643Participant
Dealhunter…Not so sure I agree… Left to recover on it’s own devices one may argue that the following will occur:
1 – The market will correct much faster because the depreciation will be that much sharper.
2 – The sharper depreciation will lead to a much fast consumption. As you would agree, the amount of money currently on the sidelines is indeed staggering.
3 – You are also conveniently sidestepping the continuation of letting current homeowners continuing to live in the home that they never could afford to begin with.
4 – Nothing is free. Measures like this do one thing. They INCREASE RISK to lenders who lend money. There is no argument and to believe that this will not increase the risk premium of lending money is naive.
I am not proposing scrapping capitalism. In fact socialistic moves like this are very much contrary to capitalism wouldn’t you think? Measures like this do nothing to help markets, they simply will inhibit the free movement of markets. One should not forgive debt, one should let the market operate freely. Not only will this weed out inefficiencies, it will give birth to innovation, stronger companies, and insure that better more efficient entities survive. Otherwise you get what is known as the airline industry. An industry that suckles off subsidies for survival because it has not had to compete to survive.
Finally, make no mistake about it… these sorts of bailouts are as cosmetic as things get. It doesn’t matter who stays in a home and who does not. It doesn’t even matter if some lenders go belly up or not. What is more important is that there is so much investment in the secondary market… in cdos, mbs… that sort of thing, that basically we may have reached the point where we actually cannot let the market act efficiently. That the shock to pensions, 401ks, municipal and state government investments, etc… would be so harsh (because of their investments in these investments) that there would be problems like we have never seen…
So maybe you are right, but for the wrong reasons. Just my cynical opinion…
SD Realtor
-
February 24, 2008 at 11:43 PM #159717Participant
Dealhunter…Not so sure I agree… Left to recover on it’s own devices one may argue that the following will occur:
1 – The market will correct much faster because the depreciation will be that much sharper.
2 – The sharper depreciation will lead to a much fast consumption. As you would agree, the amount of money currently on the sidelines is indeed staggering.
3 – You are also conveniently sidestepping the continuation of letting current homeowners continuing to live in the home that they never could afford to begin with.
4 – Nothing is free. Measures like this do one thing. They INCREASE RISK to lenders who lend money. There is no argument and to believe that this will not increase the risk premium of lending money is naive.
I am not proposing scrapping capitalism. In fact socialistic moves like this are very much contrary to capitalism wouldn’t you think? Measures like this do nothing to help markets, they simply will inhibit the free movement of markets. One should not forgive debt, one should let the market operate freely. Not only will this weed out inefficiencies, it will give birth to innovation, stronger companies, and insure that better more efficient entities survive. Otherwise you get what is known as the airline industry. An industry that suckles off subsidies for survival because it has not had to compete to survive.
Finally, make no mistake about it… these sorts of bailouts are as cosmetic as things get. It doesn’t matter who stays in a home and who does not. It doesn’t even matter if some lenders go belly up or not. What is more important is that there is so much investment in the secondary market… in cdos, mbs… that sort of thing, that basically we may have reached the point where we actually cannot let the market act efficiently. That the shock to pensions, 401ks, municipal and state government investments, etc… would be so harsh (because of their investments in these investments) that there would be problems like we have never seen…
So maybe you are right, but for the wrong reasons. Just my cynical opinion…
SD Realtor
-
-
February 24, 2008 at 11:30 PM #159606Participant
What they are all missing is the fundamentals of capitalism. Consumption drives the captialisitic economy. So, some sort of debt cancellation HAS to happen. Whether it is a borrower bail out like the one being proposed above or a bank bail out like the one BofA is requesting, money freed up from debt will go back into hands of consumers to be put toward consumption and thereby reanimating the stagnant economy.
As unglam and undesireable a bail out sounds to us all, one cannot ignore the fundamentals of the American economy and that 70% of it is driven by consumption. So, as much as we want to teach foolish buyers and greedy banks a lesson, we can’t properly do it without scrapping capitalism.
It’s horrible, but like war, debt cancellation is great for business.
-
February 24, 2008 at 11:30 PM #159624Participant
What they are all missing is the fundamentals of capitalism. Consumption drives the captialisitic economy. So, some sort of debt cancellation HAS to happen. Whether it is a borrower bail out like the one being proposed above or a bank bail out like the one BofA is requesting, money freed up from debt will go back into hands of consumers to be put toward consumption and thereby reanimating the stagnant economy.
As unglam and undesireable a bail out sounds to us all, one cannot ignore the fundamentals of the American economy and that 70% of it is driven by consumption. So, as much as we want to teach foolish buyers and greedy banks a lesson, we can’t properly do it without scrapping capitalism.
It’s horrible, but like war, debt cancellation is great for business.
-
February 24, 2008 at 11:30 PM #159626Participant
What they are all missing is the fundamentals of capitalism. Consumption drives the captialisitic economy. So, some sort of debt cancellation HAS to happen. Whether it is a borrower bail out like the one being proposed above or a bank bail out like the one BofA is requesting, money freed up from debt will go back into hands of consumers to be put toward consumption and thereby reanimating the stagnant economy.
As unglam and undesireable a bail out sounds to us all, one cannot ignore the fundamentals of the American economy and that 70% of it is driven by consumption. So, as much as we want to teach foolish buyers and greedy banks a lesson, we can’t properly do it without scrapping capitalism.
It’s horrible, but like war, debt cancellation is great for business.
-
February 24, 2008 at 11:30 PM #159702Participant
What they are all missing is the fundamentals of capitalism. Consumption drives the captialisitic economy. So, some sort of debt cancellation HAS to happen. Whether it is a borrower bail out like the one being proposed above or a bank bail out like the one BofA is requesting, money freed up from debt will go back into hands of consumers to be put toward consumption and thereby reanimating the stagnant economy.
As unglam and undesireable a bail out sounds to us all, one cannot ignore the fundamentals of the American economy and that 70% of it is driven by consumption. So, as much as we want to teach foolish buyers and greedy banks a lesson, we can’t properly do it without scrapping capitalism.
It’s horrible, but like war, debt cancellation is great for business.
-
February 24, 2008 at 11:32 PM #159317
patientrenter
ParticipantSDR, I think that the amount of wealth transfer to existing homeowners (through forgiven debt) will be close to that $1 trillion amount we’ve seen bandied about, but the pain will be split between taxpayers (=govt) and bond investors. Bond investors will be made to pay their part with some defaults, but mostly higher future inflation. Non-homeowning taxpayers who save are going to get…. a really bad deal.
I feel like it’s 1968 all over again, before everyone realized fully how much Johnson’s war and Great Society cost, and what that would do. The 1970’s were a lousy time to be responsible.
Patient renter in OC
-
February 24, 2008 at 11:36 PM #159323
Coronita
ParticipantSDR, I think that the amount of wealth transfer to existing homeowners (through forgiven debt) will be close to that $1 trillion amount we've seen bandied about, but the pain will be split between taxpayers (=govt) and bond investors. Bond investors will be made to pay their part with some defaults, but mostly higher future inflation. Non-homeowning taxpayers who save are going to get…. a really bad deal.
I feel like it's 1968 all over again, before everyone realized fully how much Johnson's war and Great Society cost, and what that would do. The 1970's were a lousy time to be responsible.
Goddamit…That does it. I'm going to get my $350+ digital camera instead of the cheaper $250 one. There. I'm contributing to the GDP.
You think I can still open up a Heloc to finance this?
[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]
—– Sour grapes for everyone!
-
February 24, 2008 at 11:36 PM #159616Participant
SDR, I think that the amount of wealth transfer to existing homeowners (through forgiven debt) will be close to that $1 trillion amount we've seen bandied about, but the pain will be split between taxpayers (=govt) and bond investors. Bond investors will be made to pay their part with some defaults, but mostly higher future inflation. Non-homeowning taxpayers who save are going to get…. a really bad deal.
I feel like it's 1968 all over again, before everyone realized fully how much Johnson's war and Great Society cost, and what that would do. The 1970's were a lousy time to be responsible.
Goddamit…That does it. I'm going to get my $350+ digital camera instead of the cheaper $250 one. There. I'm contributing to the GDP.
You think I can still open up a Heloc to finance this?
[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]
—– Sour grapes for everyone!
-
February 24, 2008 at 11:36 PM #159635Participant
SDR, I think that the amount of wealth transfer to existing homeowners (through forgiven debt) will be close to that $1 trillion amount we've seen bandied about, but the pain will be split between taxpayers (=govt) and bond investors. Bond investors will be made to pay their part with some defaults, but mostly higher future inflation. Non-homeowning taxpayers who save are going to get…. a really bad deal.
I feel like it's 1968 all over again, before everyone realized fully how much Johnson's war and Great Society cost, and what that would do. The 1970's were a lousy time to be responsible.
Goddamit…That does it. I'm going to get my $350+ digital camera instead of the cheaper $250 one. There. I'm contributing to the GDP.
You think I can still open up a Heloc to finance this?
[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]
—– Sour grapes for everyone!
-
February 24, 2008 at 11:36 PM #159640Participant
SDR, I think that the amount of wealth transfer to existing homeowners (through forgiven debt) will be close to that $1 trillion amount we've seen bandied about, but the pain will be split between taxpayers (=govt) and bond investors. Bond investors will be made to pay their part with some defaults, but mostly higher future inflation. Non-homeowning taxpayers who save are going to get…. a really bad deal.
I feel like it's 1968 all over again, before everyone realized fully how much Johnson's war and Great Society cost, and what that would do. The 1970's were a lousy time to be responsible.
Goddamit…That does it. I'm going to get my $350+ digital camera instead of the cheaper $250 one. There. I'm contributing to the GDP.
You think I can still open up a Heloc to finance this?
[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]
—– Sour grapes for everyone!
-
February 24, 2008 at 11:36 PM #159712Participant
SDR, I think that the amount of wealth transfer to existing homeowners (through forgiven debt) will be close to that $1 trillion amount we've seen bandied about, but the pain will be split between taxpayers (=govt) and bond investors. Bond investors will be made to pay their part with some defaults, but mostly higher future inflation. Non-homeowning taxpayers who save are going to get…. a really bad deal.
I feel like it's 1968 all over again, before everyone realized fully how much Johnson's war and Great Society cost, and what that would do. The 1970's were a lousy time to be responsible.
Goddamit…That does it. I'm going to get my $350+ digital camera instead of the cheaper $250 one. There. I'm contributing to the GDP.
You think I can still open up a Heloc to finance this?
[img_assist|nid=5962|title=selfportrait|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=100|height=80]
—– Sour grapes for everyone!
-
February 25, 2008 at 7:44 AM #159401
bsrsharma
Participantwealth transfer to existing homeowners (through forgiven debt) will be close to that $1 trillion
Does anyone else see the irony that it may happen on Dubya's watch? Largest transfer payments from rich to not-so-rich under an administration that is decidedly fat cat friendly!
-
February 25, 2008 at 8:35 AM #159461Participant
Sorry bsr but this has nothing to do with dubya…
Dealhunter good counter… I have alot to come back atya with but gotta run to my day job.
SD Realtor
-
February 25, 2008 at 8:35 AM #159760Participant
Sorry bsr but this has nothing to do with dubya…
Dealhunter good counter… I have alot to come back atya with but gotta run to my day job.
SD Realtor
-
February 25, 2008 at 8:35 AM #159774Participant
Sorry bsr but this has nothing to do with dubya…
Dealhunter good counter… I have alot to come back atya with but gotta run to my day job.
SD Realtor
-
February 25, 2008 at 8:35 AM #159777Participant
Sorry bsr but this has nothing to do with dubya…
Dealhunter good counter… I have alot to come back atya with but gotta run to my day job.
SD Realtor
-
February 25, 2008 at 8:35 AM #159852Participant
Sorry bsr but this has nothing to do with dubya…
Dealhunter good counter… I have alot to come back atya with but gotta run to my day job.
SD Realtor
-
-
February 25, 2008 at 7:44 AM #159700Participant
wealth transfer to existing homeowners (through forgiven debt) will be close to that $1 trillion
Does anyone else see the irony that it may happen on Dubya's watch? Largest transfer payments from rich to not-so-rich under an administration that is decidedly fat cat friendly!
-
February 25, 2008 at 7:44 AM #159713Participant
wealth transfer to existing homeowners (through forgiven debt) will be close to that $1 trillion
Does anyone else see the irony that it may happen on Dubya's watch? Largest transfer payments from rich to not-so-rich under an administration that is decidedly fat cat friendly!
-
February 25, 2008 at 7:44 AM #159718Participant
wealth transfer to existing homeowners (through forgiven debt) will be close to that $1 trillion
Does anyone else see the irony that it may happen on Dubya's watch? Largest transfer payments from rich to not-so-rich under an administration that is decidedly fat cat friendly!
-
February 25, 2008 at 7:44 AM #159792Participant
wealth transfer to existing homeowners (through forgiven debt) will be close to that $1 trillion
Does anyone else see the irony that it may happen on Dubya's watch? Largest transfer payments from rich to not-so-rich under an administration that is decidedly fat cat friendly!
-
-
February 24, 2008 at 11:32 PM #159611Participant
SDR, I think that the amount of wealth transfer to existing homeowners (through forgiven debt) will be close to that $1 trillion amount we’ve seen bandied about, but the pain will be split between taxpayers (=govt) and bond investors. Bond investors will be made to pay their part with some defaults, but mostly higher future inflation. Non-homeowning taxpayers who save are going to get…. a really bad deal.
I feel like it’s 1968 all over again, before everyone realized fully how much Johnson’s war and Great Society cost, and what that would do. The 1970’s were a lousy time to be responsible.
Patient renter in OC
-
February 24, 2008 at 11:32 PM #159629Participant
SDR, I think that the amount of wealth transfer to existing homeowners (through forgiven debt) will be close to that $1 trillion amount we’ve seen bandied about, but the pain will be split between taxpayers (=govt) and bond investors. Bond investors will be made to pay their part with some defaults, but mostly higher future inflation. Non-homeowning taxpayers who save are going to get…. a really bad deal.
I feel like it’s 1968 all over again, before everyone realized fully how much Johnson’s war and Great Society cost, and what that would do. The 1970’s were a lousy time to be responsible.
Patient renter in OC
-
February 24, 2008 at 11:32 PM #159631Participant
SDR, I think that the amount of wealth transfer to existing homeowners (through forgiven debt) will be close to that $1 trillion amount we’ve seen bandied about, but the pain will be split between taxpayers (=govt) and bond investors. Bond investors will be made to pay their part with some defaults, but mostly higher future inflation. Non-homeowning taxpayers who save are going to get…. a really bad deal.
I feel like it’s 1968 all over again, before everyone realized fully how much Johnson’s war and Great Society cost, and what that would do. The 1970’s were a lousy time to be responsible.
Patient renter in OC
-
February 24, 2008 at 11:32 PM #159707Participant
SDR, I think that the amount of wealth transfer to existing homeowners (through forgiven debt) will be close to that $1 trillion amount we’ve seen bandied about, but the pain will be split between taxpayers (=govt) and bond investors. Bond investors will be made to pay their part with some defaults, but mostly higher future inflation. Non-homeowning taxpayers who save are going to get…. a really bad deal.
I feel like it’s 1968 all over again, before everyone realized fully how much Johnson’s war and Great Society cost, and what that would do. The 1970’s were a lousy time to be responsible.
Patient renter in OC
-
February 25, 2008 at 8:12 AM #159436
DoJC
Participant…allow judges to cut interest rates and reduce what’s owed on troubled borrowers’ mortgages.”
Wow, let’s take the banks and borrowers out of the equation and let judges step in and bail someone out of a situation they never should have been involved in in the first place. Man, what’s next? Can I find a sympathetic judge to make my payments for me too?
– Doug
-
February 25, 2008 at 8:12 AM #159735Participant
…allow judges to cut interest rates and reduce what’s owed on troubled borrowers’ mortgages.”
Wow, let’s take the banks and borrowers out of the equation and let judges step in and bail someone out of a situation they never should have been involved in in the first place. Man, what’s next? Can I find a sympathetic judge to make my payments for me too?
– Doug
-
February 25, 2008 at 8:12 AM #159749Participant
…allow judges to cut interest rates and reduce what’s owed on troubled borrowers’ mortgages.”
Wow, let’s take the banks and borrowers out of the equation and let judges step in and bail someone out of a situation they never should have been involved in in the first place. Man, what’s next? Can I find a sympathetic judge to make my payments for me too?
– Doug
-
February 25, 2008 at 8:12 AM #159752Participant
…allow judges to cut interest rates and reduce what’s owed on troubled borrowers’ mortgages.”
Wow, let’s take the banks and borrowers out of the equation and let judges step in and bail someone out of a situation they never should have been involved in in the first place. Man, what’s next? Can I find a sympathetic judge to make my payments for me too?
– Doug
-
February 25, 2008 at 8:12 AM #159827Participant
…allow judges to cut interest rates and reduce what’s owed on troubled borrowers’ mortgages.”
Wow, let’s take the banks and borrowers out of the equation and let judges step in and bail someone out of a situation they never should have been involved in in the first place. Man, what’s next? Can I find a sympathetic judge to make my payments for me too?
– Doug
-
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.