- This topic has 135 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 3 months ago by
peterb.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 23, 2008 at 7:58 PM #292426October 23, 2008 at 8:45 PM #292064
patientrenter
ParticipantSDR,
DaC and you are correct:
1. Most voters are homeowners, and want their loans, or their neighbors’ loans, forgiven.
2. Most voters see themselves as borrowers, not savers, and are OK with programs that transfer wealth from savers to borrowers.
3. A minority of the population are very concerned about fairness. Enough lip service is being paid to moral hazard to fool the majority of this minority into believing that people in power are trying hard to avoid moral hazard.
4. The wealth transfers from savers to borrowers who own homes will cause home prices to be materially higher than they would be in a free market.
And, BTW, SDR, last year I was posting on this site that there would be massive govt efforts to keep home prices high and benefit borrowers at the expense of savers. It was obvious from day 1. I recall DaC agreeing.
October 23, 2008 at 8:45 PM #292387patientrenter
ParticipantSDR,
DaC and you are correct:
1. Most voters are homeowners, and want their loans, or their neighbors’ loans, forgiven.
2. Most voters see themselves as borrowers, not savers, and are OK with programs that transfer wealth from savers to borrowers.
3. A minority of the population are very concerned about fairness. Enough lip service is being paid to moral hazard to fool the majority of this minority into believing that people in power are trying hard to avoid moral hazard.
4. The wealth transfers from savers to borrowers who own homes will cause home prices to be materially higher than they would be in a free market.
And, BTW, SDR, last year I was posting on this site that there would be massive govt efforts to keep home prices high and benefit borrowers at the expense of savers. It was obvious from day 1. I recall DaC agreeing.
October 23, 2008 at 8:45 PM #292416patientrenter
ParticipantSDR,
DaC and you are correct:
1. Most voters are homeowners, and want their loans, or their neighbors’ loans, forgiven.
2. Most voters see themselves as borrowers, not savers, and are OK with programs that transfer wealth from savers to borrowers.
3. A minority of the population are very concerned about fairness. Enough lip service is being paid to moral hazard to fool the majority of this minority into believing that people in power are trying hard to avoid moral hazard.
4. The wealth transfers from savers to borrowers who own homes will cause home prices to be materially higher than they would be in a free market.
And, BTW, SDR, last year I was posting on this site that there would be massive govt efforts to keep home prices high and benefit borrowers at the expense of savers. It was obvious from day 1. I recall DaC agreeing.
October 23, 2008 at 8:45 PM #292424patientrenter
ParticipantSDR,
DaC and you are correct:
1. Most voters are homeowners, and want their loans, or their neighbors’ loans, forgiven.
2. Most voters see themselves as borrowers, not savers, and are OK with programs that transfer wealth from savers to borrowers.
3. A minority of the population are very concerned about fairness. Enough lip service is being paid to moral hazard to fool the majority of this minority into believing that people in power are trying hard to avoid moral hazard.
4. The wealth transfers from savers to borrowers who own homes will cause home prices to be materially higher than they would be in a free market.
And, BTW, SDR, last year I was posting on this site that there would be massive govt efforts to keep home prices high and benefit borrowers at the expense of savers. It was obvious from day 1. I recall DaC agreeing.
October 23, 2008 at 8:45 PM #292461patientrenter
ParticipantSDR,
DaC and you are correct:
1. Most voters are homeowners, and want their loans, or their neighbors’ loans, forgiven.
2. Most voters see themselves as borrowers, not savers, and are OK with programs that transfer wealth from savers to borrowers.
3. A minority of the population are very concerned about fairness. Enough lip service is being paid to moral hazard to fool the majority of this minority into believing that people in power are trying hard to avoid moral hazard.
4. The wealth transfers from savers to borrowers who own homes will cause home prices to be materially higher than they would be in a free market.
And, BTW, SDR, last year I was posting on this site that there would be massive govt efforts to keep home prices high and benefit borrowers at the expense of savers. It was obvious from day 1. I recall DaC agreeing.
October 23, 2008 at 8:52 PM #292074kewp
Participant[quote=jpinpb]
Another thing: This economy was booming until recently.
[/quote]That’s kind of like saying a guy with a million dollars in debut was rich until recently.
October 23, 2008 at 8:52 PM #292397kewp
Participant[quote=jpinpb]
Another thing: This economy was booming until recently.
[/quote]That’s kind of like saying a guy with a million dollars in debut was rich until recently.
October 23, 2008 at 8:52 PM #292425kewp
Participant[quote=jpinpb]
Another thing: This economy was booming until recently.
[/quote]That’s kind of like saying a guy with a million dollars in debut was rich until recently.
October 23, 2008 at 8:52 PM #292434kewp
Participant[quote=jpinpb]
Another thing: This economy was booming until recently.
[/quote]That’s kind of like saying a guy with a million dollars in debut was rich until recently.
October 23, 2008 at 8:52 PM #292471kewp
Participant[quote=jpinpb]
Another thing: This economy was booming until recently.
[/quote]That’s kind of like saying a guy with a million dollars in debut was rich until recently.
October 24, 2008 at 9:17 AM #292263jimmyle
ParticipantI have a friend who is planning to have his wife getting paid in cash (and not reporting her income) so he could get gov’t help if this homeowners bailout plan goes through. He bought a house in Temecula for $400K in 2004 with zero down and I believe he might have pulled out more cash in 2005.
October 24, 2008 at 9:17 AM #292586jimmyle
ParticipantI have a friend who is planning to have his wife getting paid in cash (and not reporting her income) so he could get gov’t help if this homeowners bailout plan goes through. He bought a house in Temecula for $400K in 2004 with zero down and I believe he might have pulled out more cash in 2005.
October 24, 2008 at 9:17 AM #292615jimmyle
ParticipantI have a friend who is planning to have his wife getting paid in cash (and not reporting her income) so he could get gov’t help if this homeowners bailout plan goes through. He bought a house in Temecula for $400K in 2004 with zero down and I believe he might have pulled out more cash in 2005.
October 24, 2008 at 9:17 AM #292624jimmyle
ParticipantI have a friend who is planning to have his wife getting paid in cash (and not reporting her income) so he could get gov’t help if this homeowners bailout plan goes through. He bought a house in Temecula for $400K in 2004 with zero down and I believe he might have pulled out more cash in 2005.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.