Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
TheBreeze
ParticipantNo intelligent business person would have ever offered 110% interest-only loans. You will only see that type of ‘deal’ offered by banks who are using other people’s money and are backed by the state. That is where the socialism comes into play.
If the bank is sufficiently collateralized against your business loan, then it can be characterized as a business transaction. If it is not, then yes, you are feeding at the government trough. It’s the same thing that welfare queens do, but you somehow fashion yourself as a legitimate business person. I laugh at that characterization.
ParticipantNo intelligent business person would have ever offered 110% interest-only loans. You will only see that type of ‘deal’ offered by banks who are using other people’s money and are backed by the state. That is where the socialism comes into play.
If the bank is sufficiently collateralized against your business loan, then it can be characterized as a business transaction. If it is not, then yes, you are feeding at the government trough. It’s the same thing that welfare queens do, but you somehow fashion yourself as a legitimate business person. I laugh at that characterization.
ParticipantNo intelligent business person would have ever offered 110% interest-only loans. You will only see that type of ‘deal’ offered by banks who are using other people’s money and are backed by the state. That is where the socialism comes into play.
If the bank is sufficiently collateralized against your business loan, then it can be characterized as a business transaction. If it is not, then yes, you are feeding at the government trough. It’s the same thing that welfare queens do, but you somehow fashion yourself as a legitimate business person. I laugh at that characterization.
ParticipantNo intelligent business person would have ever offered 110% interest-only loans. You will only see that type of ‘deal’ offered by banks who are using other people’s money and are backed by the state. That is where the socialism comes into play.
If the bank is sufficiently collateralized against your business loan, then it can be characterized as a business transaction. If it is not, then yes, you are feeding at the government trough. It’s the same thing that welfare queens do, but you somehow fashion yourself as a legitimate business person. I laugh at that characterization.
ParticipantEven though I’ve heard Mish rail against fractional-reserve lending repeatedly, I’m not convinced that it is the ultimate problem. I think the mortgage market could work fine on fractional-reserve lending if everyone was forced to put 40% down on their mortgages. It would be easy to sell pretty much any mortgage at any time if there was a 40% equity cushion. Thus, even if a bank had all deposits withdrawn in a short time, it would likely be relatively easy for the bank to sell all of it’s mortgages in order to meet those withdrawals.
I think the real problem is ‘financial innovation’. It is likely that a decent financial system came into being after each of the financial panics and that banking lobbyists worked over time to weaken that system. In this most recent cycle, banking lobbyists were able to reduce the requirements for mortgage down payments from 20% to -10% on negatively amortizing loans. The Republicans led by Phil Gramm were also able to get Glass-Steagall repealed. There is no way a financial system can survive that type of chicanery regardless of whether fractional-reserve lending is used or not.
Besides, if banks can’t lend against deposits, what can they lend against? What is the alternative to fractional-reserve banking?
ParticipantEven though I’ve heard Mish rail against fractional-reserve lending repeatedly, I’m not convinced that it is the ultimate problem. I think the mortgage market could work fine on fractional-reserve lending if everyone was forced to put 40% down on their mortgages. It would be easy to sell pretty much any mortgage at any time if there was a 40% equity cushion. Thus, even if a bank had all deposits withdrawn in a short time, it would likely be relatively easy for the bank to sell all of it’s mortgages in order to meet those withdrawals.
I think the real problem is ‘financial innovation’. It is likely that a decent financial system came into being after each of the financial panics and that banking lobbyists worked over time to weaken that system. In this most recent cycle, banking lobbyists were able to reduce the requirements for mortgage down payments from 20% to -10% on negatively amortizing loans. The Republicans led by Phil Gramm were also able to get Glass-Steagall repealed. There is no way a financial system can survive that type of chicanery regardless of whether fractional-reserve lending is used or not.
Besides, if banks can’t lend against deposits, what can they lend against? What is the alternative to fractional-reserve banking?
ParticipantEven though I’ve heard Mish rail against fractional-reserve lending repeatedly, I’m not convinced that it is the ultimate problem. I think the mortgage market could work fine on fractional-reserve lending if everyone was forced to put 40% down on their mortgages. It would be easy to sell pretty much any mortgage at any time if there was a 40% equity cushion. Thus, even if a bank had all deposits withdrawn in a short time, it would likely be relatively easy for the bank to sell all of it’s mortgages in order to meet those withdrawals.
I think the real problem is ‘financial innovation’. It is likely that a decent financial system came into being after each of the financial panics and that banking lobbyists worked over time to weaken that system. In this most recent cycle, banking lobbyists were able to reduce the requirements for mortgage down payments from 20% to -10% on negatively amortizing loans. The Republicans led by Phil Gramm were also able to get Glass-Steagall repealed. There is no way a financial system can survive that type of chicanery regardless of whether fractional-reserve lending is used or not.
Besides, if banks can’t lend against deposits, what can they lend against? What is the alternative to fractional-reserve banking?
ParticipantEven though I’ve heard Mish rail against fractional-reserve lending repeatedly, I’m not convinced that it is the ultimate problem. I think the mortgage market could work fine on fractional-reserve lending if everyone was forced to put 40% down on their mortgages. It would be easy to sell pretty much any mortgage at any time if there was a 40% equity cushion. Thus, even if a bank had all deposits withdrawn in a short time, it would likely be relatively easy for the bank to sell all of it’s mortgages in order to meet those withdrawals.
I think the real problem is ‘financial innovation’. It is likely that a decent financial system came into being after each of the financial panics and that banking lobbyists worked over time to weaken that system. In this most recent cycle, banking lobbyists were able to reduce the requirements for mortgage down payments from 20% to -10% on negatively amortizing loans. The Republicans led by Phil Gramm were also able to get Glass-Steagall repealed. There is no way a financial system can survive that type of chicanery regardless of whether fractional-reserve lending is used or not.
Besides, if banks can’t lend against deposits, what can they lend against? What is the alternative to fractional-reserve banking?
ParticipantEven though I’ve heard Mish rail against fractional-reserve lending repeatedly, I’m not convinced that it is the ultimate problem. I think the mortgage market could work fine on fractional-reserve lending if everyone was forced to put 40% down on their mortgages. It would be easy to sell pretty much any mortgage at any time if there was a 40% equity cushion. Thus, even if a bank had all deposits withdrawn in a short time, it would likely be relatively easy for the bank to sell all of it’s mortgages in order to meet those withdrawals.
I think the real problem is ‘financial innovation’. It is likely that a decent financial system came into being after each of the financial panics and that banking lobbyists worked over time to weaken that system. In this most recent cycle, banking lobbyists were able to reduce the requirements for mortgage down payments from 20% to -10% on negatively amortizing loans. The Republicans led by Phil Gramm were also able to get Glass-Steagall repealed. There is no way a financial system can survive that type of chicanery regardless of whether fractional-reserve lending is used or not.
Besides, if banks can’t lend against deposits, what can they lend against? What is the alternative to fractional-reserve banking?
Participant[quote=sdnerd]
It’s extremely unfortunate the government/taxpayers/world are now backstopping bank losses. And I personally would need to sit down and ponder the moral issues handing in the keys now. I would still argue that under the original terms of the agreement, it is still a business decision.
[/quote]
No matter how you slice it, buying a house in this country is never a ‘business transaction’. It is socialism pure and simple. I don’t have a problem with people taking advantage of the housing socialism that is available just as a welfare queen would take advantage of welfare so that she didn’t have to get a job.
What I object to is some FB characterizing his/her decision to default as some type of ‘business transaction’. Like they skillfully got the better end of some business deal or something. If you are defaulting on a home loan today, just admit that you are feeding at the government trough. That’s all I ask. Stop pretending like you are Steve Jobs or some kind of legitimate business person.
Government has been propping up housing prices for years. It finally got so ridiculous in the later years that any one with a pulse could get an interest-only loan without having to put any money down. It didn’t take any type of ‘business’ skill to get this deal. Any one could have taken advantage of this socialism and it took no business skill whatsoever.
So just admit that if you are defaulting today that you are basically equivalent to a welfare queen. You’re not Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Maybe you could equate yourself to that scumbag Donald Trump who declared bankruptcy for about the third time just recently.
I guess what I’m saying is that U.S. banks are not capitalistic enterprises. They are backed by the state which means they are socialist, pinko, Marxist pseudo-corporations run by unscrupulous banksters who steal from taxpayers. Any transactions with them are inherently socialist and have nothing in common with authentic capitalistic business transactions.
Participant[quote=sdnerd]
It’s extremely unfortunate the government/taxpayers/world are now backstopping bank losses. And I personally would need to sit down and ponder the moral issues handing in the keys now. I would still argue that under the original terms of the agreement, it is still a business decision.
[/quote]
No matter how you slice it, buying a house in this country is never a ‘business transaction’. It is socialism pure and simple. I don’t have a problem with people taking advantage of the housing socialism that is available just as a welfare queen would take advantage of welfare so that she didn’t have to get a job.
What I object to is some FB characterizing his/her decision to default as some type of ‘business transaction’. Like they skillfully got the better end of some business deal or something. If you are defaulting on a home loan today, just admit that you are feeding at the government trough. That’s all I ask. Stop pretending like you are Steve Jobs or some kind of legitimate business person.
Government has been propping up housing prices for years. It finally got so ridiculous in the later years that any one with a pulse could get an interest-only loan without having to put any money down. It didn’t take any type of ‘business’ skill to get this deal. Any one could have taken advantage of this socialism and it took no business skill whatsoever.
So just admit that if you are defaulting today that you are basically equivalent to a welfare queen. You’re not Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Maybe you could equate yourself to that scumbag Donald Trump who declared bankruptcy for about the third time just recently.
I guess what I’m saying is that U.S. banks are not capitalistic enterprises. They are backed by the state which means they are socialist, pinko, Marxist pseudo-corporations run by unscrupulous banksters who steal from taxpayers. Any transactions with them are inherently socialist and have nothing in common with authentic capitalistic business transactions.
Participant[quote=sdnerd]
It’s extremely unfortunate the government/taxpayers/world are now backstopping bank losses. And I personally would need to sit down and ponder the moral issues handing in the keys now. I would still argue that under the original terms of the agreement, it is still a business decision.
[/quote]
No matter how you slice it, buying a house in this country is never a ‘business transaction’. It is socialism pure and simple. I don’t have a problem with people taking advantage of the housing socialism that is available just as a welfare queen would take advantage of welfare so that she didn’t have to get a job.
What I object to is some FB characterizing his/her decision to default as some type of ‘business transaction’. Like they skillfully got the better end of some business deal or something. If you are defaulting on a home loan today, just admit that you are feeding at the government trough. That’s all I ask. Stop pretending like you are Steve Jobs or some kind of legitimate business person.
Government has been propping up housing prices for years. It finally got so ridiculous in the later years that any one with a pulse could get an interest-only loan without having to put any money down. It didn’t take any type of ‘business’ skill to get this deal. Any one could have taken advantage of this socialism and it took no business skill whatsoever.
So just admit that if you are defaulting today that you are basically equivalent to a welfare queen. You’re not Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Maybe you could equate yourself to that scumbag Donald Trump who declared bankruptcy for about the third time just recently.
I guess what I’m saying is that U.S. banks are not capitalistic enterprises. They are backed by the state which means they are socialist, pinko, Marxist pseudo-corporations run by unscrupulous banksters who steal from taxpayers. Any transactions with them are inherently socialist and have nothing in common with authentic capitalistic business transactions.
Participant[quote=sdnerd]
It’s extremely unfortunate the government/taxpayers/world are now backstopping bank losses. And I personally would need to sit down and ponder the moral issues handing in the keys now. I would still argue that under the original terms of the agreement, it is still a business decision.
[/quote]
No matter how you slice it, buying a house in this country is never a ‘business transaction’. It is socialism pure and simple. I don’t have a problem with people taking advantage of the housing socialism that is available just as a welfare queen would take advantage of welfare so that she didn’t have to get a job.
What I object to is some FB characterizing his/her decision to default as some type of ‘business transaction’. Like they skillfully got the better end of some business deal or something. If you are defaulting on a home loan today, just admit that you are feeding at the government trough. That’s all I ask. Stop pretending like you are Steve Jobs or some kind of legitimate business person.
Government has been propping up housing prices for years. It finally got so ridiculous in the later years that any one with a pulse could get an interest-only loan without having to put any money down. It didn’t take any type of ‘business’ skill to get this deal. Any one could have taken advantage of this socialism and it took no business skill whatsoever.
So just admit that if you are defaulting today that you are basically equivalent to a welfare queen. You’re not Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Maybe you could equate yourself to that scumbag Donald Trump who declared bankruptcy for about the third time just recently.
I guess what I’m saying is that U.S. banks are not capitalistic enterprises. They are backed by the state which means they are socialist, pinko, Marxist pseudo-corporations run by unscrupulous banksters who steal from taxpayers. Any transactions with them are inherently socialist and have nothing in common with authentic capitalistic business transactions.
Participant[quote=sdnerd]
It’s extremely unfortunate the government/taxpayers/world are now backstopping bank losses. And I personally would need to sit down and ponder the moral issues handing in the keys now. I would still argue that under the original terms of the agreement, it is still a business decision.
[/quote]
No matter how you slice it, buying a house in this country is never a ‘business transaction’. It is socialism pure and simple. I don’t have a problem with people taking advantage of the housing socialism that is available just as a welfare queen would take advantage of welfare so that she didn’t have to get a job.
What I object to is some FB characterizing his/her decision to default as some type of ‘business transaction’. Like they skillfully got the better end of some business deal or something. If you are defaulting on a home loan today, just admit that you are feeding at the government trough. That’s all I ask. Stop pretending like you are Steve Jobs or some kind of legitimate business person.
Government has been propping up housing prices for years. It finally got so ridiculous in the later years that any one with a pulse could get an interest-only loan without having to put any money down. It didn’t take any type of ‘business’ skill to get this deal. Any one could have taken advantage of this socialism and it took no business skill whatsoever.
So just admit that if you are defaulting today that you are basically equivalent to a welfare queen. You’re not Bill Gates or Steve Jobs. Maybe you could equate yourself to that scumbag Donald Trump who declared bankruptcy for about the third time just recently.
I guess what I’m saying is that U.S. banks are not capitalistic enterprises. They are backed by the state which means they are socialist, pinko, Marxist pseudo-corporations run by unscrupulous banksters who steal from taxpayers. Any transactions with them are inherently socialist and have nothing in common with authentic capitalistic business transactions.
-
AuthorPosts
