[aldante]

Most of the problems of the 2008 collapse could have, and probably would have, been avoided by more regulation (bigger government) not less. Especially closer regulation of the ratings agencies.

How?

Now you want the same government that allowed Madoff to happen (that was breaucrates not Republicans or Democrates agreed?) regulate the private rating agencies? Wow, that is a great one. Remember 2008 when the “smartest The free enterprise system does not guarentee anything. That is the difference. Yet the Government will guarentee the loans on toxic loans with our tax payer money? Get a grip.

As to the efficency of the Government takeovers- if there were not enough examples already, how is GM working out for you?

Sorry, big government makes big mistakes. The only reason trillions of dollars have been wasted is becasue the government is involved. Republican or Democrat.

[aldante]

You are right Arraya,

I the old days my reading of history tells me that very, very, ugly things would have already happened to this “upper-crust” and their families for that matter. But now that we are so much more civilized they will have to suffer with their conscious during their yacht ride to the Caymans.

[aldante]

[quote=briansd1][quote=aldante]

Its not the banks. That is the whole point. The guys in the government (who are supposed to be the regulators) did this. According to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act the Fed is the ultimate regulator of so many of these transactions.
[/quote]

Phil Gramm (R-Texas)
Jim Leach (R-Iowa)
Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia)

Granted, Bill Clinton signed the bill but the was facing a Republican Congress. And in 1998, the Lewinski scandal exploded and the House impeached Clinton.

[quote=aldante]
If you don’t have a fire hydrant you can’t access the water. Actually I like the drug analogy much better. No one wants less money. Of course that is not true becasue I do know one person…Ron Paul turned down his Congressional Retirment Benefits years ago.[/quote]

I applaud your support for Ron Paul.

I like his classical liberal views, his support for legalization of drugs, etc…[/quote]

Brian,
If it seems that I am emotional about this it is because I am. In the business I am in my competitors should have been wiped out in 2008. I should have been able to compete for their clients. Instead, those brokers received hundreds of thousands of, if not millions $$ from their “new”employer who was bailed out by the government. I paid a lot in taxes that year. so essentially my money went to bail out my competitors who were so frigging smart that they leveraged their business 40:1 on the “fact” that real estate only goes up in value.

So yes I take this very personally. These sh**bags who tout their IVY league eduation, but are really just common criminals trading on inside information. Then protected by the very “REGULATORs” that so many on this board believe will save us from the evils of greed.

By the way GM is wacking their business out of the ball park!!!

[aldante]

You miss the most important point. The “unlimited” comes from you and I the tax payer. The corporations need the unlimited taxing authority to screw us over with out limit. You have to know the source of the issue to solve the issue. Remove the “unlimited” part by limiting the size of government and the deck is less stacked.
By the way the real source of the problem is GREED. And I have meet plenty of people who do not have a lot of money that are greedy.
To solve that problem is not the job of the government sir.

[aldante]

Here is the arguement. Business has limited scope of influence. Businesses compete with each other.

When you get a small group of regulators who control virtually unlimited resources the corruption is much greater and much more harmful. Look at Madoff. $60 billion ripped off – all the while a citizen was pointing his finger but the SEC turned their head.

I agree that there will always be corruption. That is why we need to limit the resources available. The scope of corruption can only encompass the resources available.
Look at Bell California. Only a few deca millions taken from the government becasue that is all they could steal.

[aldante]

Brian,
I hope you are trying to be sarcastic but knowing you you may even have a staight face.

If someone offered you the ability to make untold billions of dollars for your shareholders in a no lose situation – legally (maybe with a slight “moral hazard”) you would turn them down?

Its not the banks. That is the whole point. The guys in the government (who are supposed to be the regulators) did this. According to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act the Fed is the ultimate regulator of so many of these transactions.

If you don’t have a fire hydrant you can’t access the water. Actually I like the drug analogy much better. No one wants less money. Of course that is not true becasue I do know one person…Ron Paul turned down his Congressional Retirment Benefits years ago.

[aldante]

[quote=walterwhite]He’s not delusional. It’s worth more because of his celebrity. I think I read there was talk of turning it into a museum. For reals.[/quote]

It may have a few gold coins hidden away. He says that he has been buying physical since the early 70’s.

And I am from Texas. While I am nowhere the expert on home prices as SDRealtor, homes out there are not as uniform as out here. I would question zillow.

Speaking of zillow they valued a clients house at 500k, and the apppraisal came back at 540k. That was here in Encinitas.

[aldante]

[quote=gandalf]Interestingly enough, Ron Paul is upside down on his house in Galveston.

He bought into the housing bubble expecting to flip and sell, but now he’s underwater and fucked like all the rest of you chimps.[/quote]

Gandalf,

Can you provide source for that?

[aldante]

[quote=SD Realtor]Campaigns funded by constituents is not the answer either. The solution is all quite simple:

Any campaign funds contributed by any individual shall be divided equally among all candidates. This includes funds from the candidates themselves.

This gaurantees everyone gets the same amount of money.

No contributions shall be allowed by corporations.

We should also do away with endorsements from any unions or other organization that may have an interest (or presumed interest) in any one candidate or party winning an election.

If we could strip away lobbying, contributions, and endorsements and put the advertising campaigns on equal footings I think we would have very interesting elections.

I think we would also do well to reduce the campaign season and compress the primaries and such so that politicians can spend more time governing and less time campaigning.[/quote]

Sounds pretty good. Attacks the idea that campaign contributions are attached to the first amendment……

[aldante]

I can’t stand all you cool people who think that we who think this is unacceptable are naive.

[aldante]

Markmax, here’s the difference between you and me. You’re an idealogue with a manichean thought process. You’re a believer, and any evidence in conflict with the belief, you reject, dismiss or ignore. And worse, you treat all criticism as the enemy of your truth, regardless of how benign.

My world is not so black and white. I have no emotional ties to my opinions. I don’t see absolutism, purity or consistency as virtues. I’m not bound by ideologies. I don’t believe or believe in anything. I research and evidence leads to conclusions, not beliefs. End of story. If you have evidence that is better than mine, I win. Because I end up smarter. Unfortunately, I doubt that’s going to happen in this conversation.[/

Sk,
So as your logic goes your argument can necessarily only be as good as your research. Yes or no?
If so are you telling us that you have done exhaustive research on each of your counterpoints? Or are you simply implying your research is far superior to the rest of us who would hold a different view? What happens if you don’t feel motivated to do the research? Does that mean the point is won?
No, sadly my opinion of your arguments on this blog is someone indeed that has a whole lot to protect and defend, against any reasonable counterpoint. And that is that you must be a egotist of the highest order. I think for you to ever believe that you could be wrong would never fit into your “logic”

[aldante]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=aldante]

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=2839&type=0

Sk this is a report by CBO in 2001.

Here is an exerpt

Fannie Mae asserts that intense competition forces the housing GSEs to pass through all subsidies. As evidence, it cites its estimate that, as of December 31, 2000, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac together held only 22.7 percent of the fixed-rate single-family mortgages outstanding in the United States. However, adjusting for other government mortgage guarantees, GSE-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities, and jumbo mortgages, CBO estimates that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have at least a 71 percent share of the market. That share is growing, which suggests that they have significant market power.[/quote]

What does that have to do with the housing bubble that began and burst years later?

Subsequent to 2002, the bubble began to grow in ernest, the absolute size of the GSE portfolios were basically stagnant, and their share of the entire mortgage market shrank, until after the bubble burst, prices began to fall, and the GSE’s entered the sub-prime market. The mortgage market changed so drastically between the time of that statement and 2004 that it renders it’s usefulness in identifying the cause of the bubble/bust nil. It was not the same market in 2001 as 2004, different again by 2007, and yet different again today.

The clearest evidence is seen in the first chart at this link:

http://blogs.wsj.com/marketbeat/2011/02/11/fannie-and-freddie-the-saga-in-charts/

The Fannie/Freddie share of the market spiked downward at the exact same time the private lender share spiked upwards, and then after the bubble began to burst, the trends reversed. Nothing that happened between 2000 and the end of 2003 is really relevant.[/quote]

Sk,
Wow you just proved Ron Paul’s whole point. The government forced the banks into the position of taking risk to compete with the government.
The article from the CBO which I posted clearly states that the GSE as early as 2001 had up to 71% of the mortgage market in conforming and jumbo fixed products.
Your article states (from WSJ Marketebeat) states that the GSEs, “began losing market share in the profitable business of buying up loans, packaging them up into securities and selling them off to investors.” to the private banks.
It your own article which shows the competition between the two. The only way left for the banks to compete was quality. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT”.
First the FNMA and Freddie take over the mortgage market….while Barney Frank and crew put through the Coomunity Reinvestment Act and the banks, if they want to stay in business have to lower their own lending standards. We should never have to compete against the immensely deep pockets of the government. Because those deep pockets are created by the threat of violence.
If you want to figure out what I mean, tell the IRS you will not not pay your taxes. You will end up in jail.
Just to underscore, I will point out that a bank has (had) to compete for capital.

Thank you for proving Ron Paul’s point.

[aldante]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=aldante][quote=SK in CV][quote=aldante]SK,
I notice that you did not address that GSE graph that Markmax asked you about. That seems to take your arguement down like hard.[/quote]

No I didn’t. Which graph?[/quote]

This one:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gsLSecmB4no/TA%5B/quote%5D

No, not in the least. It’s unlabeled. I don’t even know what it is supposed to represent. If I did, and I knew which argument it’s supposed to take down, I would be glad to address it.[/quote]

http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=2839&type=0

Sk this is a report by CBO in 2001.

Here is an exerpt

Fannie Mae asserts that intense competition forces the housing GSEs to pass through all subsidies. As evidence, it cites its estimate that, as of December 31, 2000, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac together held only 22.7 percent of the fixed-rate single-family mortgages outstanding in the United States. However, adjusting for other government mortgage guarantees, GSE-guaranteed mortgage-backed securities, and jumbo mortgages, CBO estimates that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have at least a 71 percent share of the market. That share is growing, which suggests that they have significant market power.

[aldante]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=aldante]SK,
I notice that you did not address that GSE graph that Markmax asked you about. That seems to take your arguement down like hard.[/quote]

No I didn’t. Which graph?[/quote]

This one:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gsLSecmB4no/TA

[aldante]

[quote=sdrealtor]Is the City of LA bankrupt? Thats where he worked. In the City of Encinitas (not bankrupt either) most firefighters bring home gross wages well above 100K and have rich health and retirement benefits.

My point was they can do it here as they are well paid. In most parts of the US you can buy a home and send your kids to state colleges with 1 working parent. You have just chosen to live in one of the more expensive places in the country where it is much harder.[/quote]

Not sure if that arguement holds water here SDrealtor….by far most housholds in the country are two income….and most people in the country do not live here so therefore……

[Author]

Posts