- This topic has 110 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 1 month ago by
SHILOH.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 26, 2008 at 1:39 AM #247536July 26, 2008 at 12:22 PM #247442
Aecetia
ParticipantHere is another suggestion from bubbletracking:
http://bubbletracking.blogspot.com/2008/07/mighty-mike-to-rsf-triumvirates-rescue.html
July 26, 2008 at 12:22 PM #247598Aecetia
ParticipantHere is another suggestion from bubbletracking:
http://bubbletracking.blogspot.com/2008/07/mighty-mike-to-rsf-triumvirates-rescue.html
July 26, 2008 at 12:22 PM #247604Aecetia
ParticipantHere is another suggestion from bubbletracking:
http://bubbletracking.blogspot.com/2008/07/mighty-mike-to-rsf-triumvirates-rescue.html
July 26, 2008 at 12:22 PM #247660Aecetia
ParticipantHere is another suggestion from bubbletracking:
http://bubbletracking.blogspot.com/2008/07/mighty-mike-to-rsf-triumvirates-rescue.html
July 26, 2008 at 12:22 PM #247666Aecetia
ParticipantHere is another suggestion from bubbletracking:
http://bubbletracking.blogspot.com/2008/07/mighty-mike-to-rsf-triumvirates-rescue.html
July 26, 2008 at 2:26 PM #247487urbanrealtor
Participantwow.
Two good points (short sales regulation and loan protection), 2 good references (Caddyshack and Batman), and one long rant about how you love western capitalism.
Responding:
Shorts:
The government can do whatever the people will let it do (and vice versa). Sad but true. I suspect that the people will let the government do quite a lot considering the current climate.Loan protection:
You are dead on that protective regulations won’t be needed for newer originations. That is a point that I think is lost on most people.References:
Well played sir. However if you cite “batdance” or any other Prince single from the last series of films, I will hunt you down. I am mean that way.Capitalism:
We agree that it is a good way of distributing wealth. However, I do not think that it was ever created. I think it is organic and that sometimes that organic competition could benefit from help. China is a good example of getting competition going with beneficial (for the Chinese) governmental intervention. Bear in mind most forms of government are a response to wealth building and capitalism. That is as true of communism as it is of democracy. However, democracy is (in my opinion) better and more fair. It is also, why the speech you want will not happen much during this current finacial crisis.July 26, 2008 at 2:26 PM #247642urbanrealtor
Participantwow.
Two good points (short sales regulation and loan protection), 2 good references (Caddyshack and Batman), and one long rant about how you love western capitalism.
Responding:
Shorts:
The government can do whatever the people will let it do (and vice versa). Sad but true. I suspect that the people will let the government do quite a lot considering the current climate.Loan protection:
You are dead on that protective regulations won’t be needed for newer originations. That is a point that I think is lost on most people.References:
Well played sir. However if you cite “batdance” or any other Prince single from the last series of films, I will hunt you down. I am mean that way.Capitalism:
We agree that it is a good way of distributing wealth. However, I do not think that it was ever created. I think it is organic and that sometimes that organic competition could benefit from help. China is a good example of getting competition going with beneficial (for the Chinese) governmental intervention. Bear in mind most forms of government are a response to wealth building and capitalism. That is as true of communism as it is of democracy. However, democracy is (in my opinion) better and more fair. It is also, why the speech you want will not happen much during this current finacial crisis.July 26, 2008 at 2:26 PM #247647urbanrealtor
Participantwow.
Two good points (short sales regulation and loan protection), 2 good references (Caddyshack and Batman), and one long rant about how you love western capitalism.
Responding:
Shorts:
The government can do whatever the people will let it do (and vice versa). Sad but true. I suspect that the people will let the government do quite a lot considering the current climate.Loan protection:
You are dead on that protective regulations won’t be needed for newer originations. That is a point that I think is lost on most people.References:
Well played sir. However if you cite “batdance” or any other Prince single from the last series of films, I will hunt you down. I am mean that way.Capitalism:
We agree that it is a good way of distributing wealth. However, I do not think that it was ever created. I think it is organic and that sometimes that organic competition could benefit from help. China is a good example of getting competition going with beneficial (for the Chinese) governmental intervention. Bear in mind most forms of government are a response to wealth building and capitalism. That is as true of communism as it is of democracy. However, democracy is (in my opinion) better and more fair. It is also, why the speech you want will not happen much during this current finacial crisis.July 26, 2008 at 2:26 PM #247706urbanrealtor
Participantwow.
Two good points (short sales regulation and loan protection), 2 good references (Caddyshack and Batman), and one long rant about how you love western capitalism.
Responding:
Shorts:
The government can do whatever the people will let it do (and vice versa). Sad but true. I suspect that the people will let the government do quite a lot considering the current climate.Loan protection:
You are dead on that protective regulations won’t be needed for newer originations. That is a point that I think is lost on most people.References:
Well played sir. However if you cite “batdance” or any other Prince single from the last series of films, I will hunt you down. I am mean that way.Capitalism:
We agree that it is a good way of distributing wealth. However, I do not think that it was ever created. I think it is organic and that sometimes that organic competition could benefit from help. China is a good example of getting competition going with beneficial (for the Chinese) governmental intervention. Bear in mind most forms of government are a response to wealth building and capitalism. That is as true of communism as it is of democracy. However, democracy is (in my opinion) better and more fair. It is also, why the speech you want will not happen much during this current finacial crisis.July 26, 2008 at 2:26 PM #247710urbanrealtor
Participantwow.
Two good points (short sales regulation and loan protection), 2 good references (Caddyshack and Batman), and one long rant about how you love western capitalism.
Responding:
Shorts:
The government can do whatever the people will let it do (and vice versa). Sad but true. I suspect that the people will let the government do quite a lot considering the current climate.Loan protection:
You are dead on that protective regulations won’t be needed for newer originations. That is a point that I think is lost on most people.References:
Well played sir. However if you cite “batdance” or any other Prince single from the last series of films, I will hunt you down. I am mean that way.Capitalism:
We agree that it is a good way of distributing wealth. However, I do not think that it was ever created. I think it is organic and that sometimes that organic competition could benefit from help. China is a good example of getting competition going with beneficial (for the Chinese) governmental intervention. Bear in mind most forms of government are a response to wealth building and capitalism. That is as true of communism as it is of democracy. However, democracy is (in my opinion) better and more fair. It is also, why the speech you want will not happen much during this current finacial crisis.July 26, 2008 at 11:27 PM #247602Shadowfax
Participant[quote=temeculaguy]It makes some sense to go after that component or that particular breakdown in the system but you can’t interfere with an existing legal contract between two parties. [/quote]
Courts can re-write contracts but only under very limited circumstances. More likely in this context, judiciaries enact laws that nullify the terms or prohibit performance of certain types of contracts. Also possible is the voluntary amendment of existing contracts. Mortgages are contracts–bank gives X money, X promises to pay. I know there would be huge ramifications but it seems to me that maybe a simple–tho perhaps not economically educated solution–is to have the banks and the buyers rework the terms of the loans? Foreclosure will not compensate the banks in a down market. Why not allow the buyers to renegotiate loans for something they can actually afford plus a little extra (10-20%) to keep the banks from folding and create a little necessary tension for the buyers (who should have known better to begin with). The banks get at least a portion of the loan back and the buyers don’t walk en masse.
The banks will have to declare losses, but soon I think they won’t be able to help it either way (assuming they DO report them).
I am sure there are holes in this approach–an economic ripple effect that I am not seeing. Thoughts?
July 26, 2008 at 11:27 PM #247758Shadowfax
Participant[quote=temeculaguy]It makes some sense to go after that component or that particular breakdown in the system but you can’t interfere with an existing legal contract between two parties. [/quote]
Courts can re-write contracts but only under very limited circumstances. More likely in this context, judiciaries enact laws that nullify the terms or prohibit performance of certain types of contracts. Also possible is the voluntary amendment of existing contracts. Mortgages are contracts–bank gives X money, X promises to pay. I know there would be huge ramifications but it seems to me that maybe a simple–tho perhaps not economically educated solution–is to have the banks and the buyers rework the terms of the loans? Foreclosure will not compensate the banks in a down market. Why not allow the buyers to renegotiate loans for something they can actually afford plus a little extra (10-20%) to keep the banks from folding and create a little necessary tension for the buyers (who should have known better to begin with). The banks get at least a portion of the loan back and the buyers don’t walk en masse.
The banks will have to declare losses, but soon I think they won’t be able to help it either way (assuming they DO report them).
I am sure there are holes in this approach–an economic ripple effect that I am not seeing. Thoughts?
July 26, 2008 at 11:27 PM #247762Shadowfax
Participant[quote=temeculaguy]It makes some sense to go after that component or that particular breakdown in the system but you can’t interfere with an existing legal contract between two parties. [/quote]
Courts can re-write contracts but only under very limited circumstances. More likely in this context, judiciaries enact laws that nullify the terms or prohibit performance of certain types of contracts. Also possible is the voluntary amendment of existing contracts. Mortgages are contracts–bank gives X money, X promises to pay. I know there would be huge ramifications but it seems to me that maybe a simple–tho perhaps not economically educated solution–is to have the banks and the buyers rework the terms of the loans? Foreclosure will not compensate the banks in a down market. Why not allow the buyers to renegotiate loans for something they can actually afford plus a little extra (10-20%) to keep the banks from folding and create a little necessary tension for the buyers (who should have known better to begin with). The banks get at least a portion of the loan back and the buyers don’t walk en masse.
The banks will have to declare losses, but soon I think they won’t be able to help it either way (assuming they DO report them).
I am sure there are holes in this approach–an economic ripple effect that I am not seeing. Thoughts?
July 26, 2008 at 11:27 PM #247820Shadowfax
Participant[quote=temeculaguy]It makes some sense to go after that component or that particular breakdown in the system but you can’t interfere with an existing legal contract between two parties. [/quote]
Courts can re-write contracts but only under very limited circumstances. More likely in this context, judiciaries enact laws that nullify the terms or prohibit performance of certain types of contracts. Also possible is the voluntary amendment of existing contracts. Mortgages are contracts–bank gives X money, X promises to pay. I know there would be huge ramifications but it seems to me that maybe a simple–tho perhaps not economically educated solution–is to have the banks and the buyers rework the terms of the loans? Foreclosure will not compensate the banks in a down market. Why not allow the buyers to renegotiate loans for something they can actually afford plus a little extra (10-20%) to keep the banks from folding and create a little necessary tension for the buyers (who should have known better to begin with). The banks get at least a portion of the loan back and the buyers don’t walk en masse.
The banks will have to declare losses, but soon I think they won’t be able to help it either way (assuming they DO report them).
I am sure there are holes in this approach–an economic ripple effect that I am not seeing. Thoughts?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.