Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I really don't know where you're coming from. Are you saying you can just block out anything that doesn't fit your ideology-based narrative?
I do know where you are coming from. You deflect and don't respond to what I've posted because your dont have the ability to recognize the causes of our economic collapse.
The sad thing is the easy lending caused the housing bubble, the dot com bubble, as well as the stock market bubble and it happens often but you don't understand that simple concept? To busy trying to be right instead of looking for the truth. A twisted agenda will do that. That you deflect from easy lending is laughable and is disgraceful all at the same time.
You know who agrees with me? The same ones who told us ahead of time to expect a stock market crash, to expect a crash in the dot com industry, to expect a housing crash. All for the same reason, easy lending. Yet you ignore them. You ignore the ones who have been right about the economy and their reasons. Why listen to you?
Why yes lets all listen to the Cleveland Browns on how to build a championship franchise and ignore the New England Patriots.
What’s laughable is claiming anything that refutes your argument is either “made up”, deflection, or against your “rules”. Let me know when you’re ready to have a grown up style debate. You’re essentially sticking your fingers in your ears every tine someone threatens your confirmation bias. You’re way out of your depth here and the sad part is you don’t even know it.
More deflection. Why listen to you when you've been wrong and don't have the guts to address what I've posted?
I listen to ones who saw the bubble coming because it was obvious. The same ones who told us ahead of time that same easy lending would cause the dot com bubble, the same ones who told us the same easy lending that caused the stock market crash.
Yes lets ignore those people and listen to someone like you, who cannot identify the cause of the collapse. Doesn't make you a bad person, just a horrible problem solver.
What interested party kicked off the easy lending?
Government
Quote:
Originally Posted by J746NEW
There were no protests or cries from the population for easy loans.
From the knowledgible ones there was. But yes, from the general public there really wasn't, especially those who wanted to own a home and those in the real estate industry. I wasn't paying attention until 2007.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J746NEW
Protests never work anyways as we saw with wars.
At times. I think it had a part in getting out of Vietnam but it doesn't work fast enough. That's for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by J746NEW
Research shows politicians do not listen to the majority of Americans but only to banking and big businesss.
This tells us all we need to know.
Agreed. It's become party over policy. It's always about policy. Not that you're saying otherwise.
The Libertarian Alan Greenspan when questioned after the more recent global financial imbroglio:Quote:
“You had the authority to prevent irresponsible lending practices that led to the subprime mortgage crisis. You were advised to do so by many others,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman of California, chairman of the committee. “Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?”
Mr. Greenspan conceded: “Yes, I’ve found a flaw. I don’t know how significant or permanent it is. But I’ve been very distressed by that fact.”
"For years, a Congressional hearing with Alan Greenspan was a marquee event. Lawmakers doted on him as an economic sage. Markets jumped up or down depending on what he said. Politicians in both parties wanted the maestro on their side."
The no nothing sheep doted on him. The informed ones like Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul knew better and both went after Greenspan.
you keep talking about the 00's without looking at the 90's...….
----------------------------
---snip--
I cut this down, since mets thinks the NYT is a crazy manifesto
all of these BEFORE 2000, all talk about subprime...in the high 100's of billions to nearly 2 trillion....by The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)
I understand the bottom fell out in the mid 00's... but the erosion of the foundation...happened in the 90's...by the government no less
Its the volume of the loans that was different.
From FCIC report.
Overall mortgage indebtedness in the United States climbed from $5.3 trillion in 2001
to $10.5 trillion in 2007.The mortgage debt of American households rose almost as much in the six years from 2001 to 2007 as it had over the course of the country’s more than 200-year history. The amount of mortgage debt per household rose from $91,500 in 2001 to $149,500 in 2007.
...
In an environment of minimal government restrictions, the number of nontradi-
tional loans surged and lending standards declined. The companies issuing these
loans made profits that attracted envious eyes. New lenders entered the field. In-
vestors clamored for mortgage-related securities and borrowers wanted mortgages. The volume of subprime and nontraditional lending rose sharply. In 2000, the top 25
nonprime lenders originated $105 billion in loans. Their volume rose to $188 billion
in 2002, and then $310 billion in 2003.
...
In 2006, $600 billion of subprime loans were originated, most of which were
securitized. That year, subprime lending accounted for 23.5% of all mortgage
originations
So in 6 years subprime went from just over 100 billion representing less than 10% of the market to over 600 billion representing 23.5% of the market.
Clearly something different was occurring in the 2000s. What changed? As you have pointed out the subprime market existed prior to the 2000s. Why did it explode?
The answer is the investment banks and the creation of CDOs using residential mortgages. They believed the MBS would offer them the stability they needed to make the CDOs attractive and the subprime mortgages would offer a higher income stream.
Overall mortgage indebtedness in the United States climbed from $5.3 trillion in 2001
to $10.5 trillion in 2007.The mortgage debt of American households rose almost as much in the six years from 2001 to 2007 as it had over the course of the country’s more than 200-year history. The amount of mortgage debt per household rose from $91,500 in 2001 to $149,500 in 2007.
...
In an environment of minimal government restrictions, the number of nontradi-
tional loans surged and lending standards declined. The companies issuing these
loans made profits that attracted envious eyes. New lenders entered the field. In-
vestors clamored for mortgage-related securities and borrowers wanted mortgages. The volume of subprime and nontraditional lending rose sharply. In 2000, the top 25
nonprime lenders originated $105 billion in loans. Their volume rose to $188 billion
in 2002, and then $310 billion in 2003.
...
In 2006, $600 billion of subprime loans were originated, most of which were
securitized. That year, subprime lending accounted for 23.5% of all mortgage
originations
So in 6 years subprime went from just over 100 billion representing less than 10% of the market to over 600 billion representing 23.5% of the market.
Clearly something different was occurring in the 2000s. What changed? As you have pointed out the subprime market existed prior to the 2000s. Why did it explode?
The answer is the investment banks and the creation of CDOs using residential mortgages. They believed the MBS would offer them the stability they needed to make the CDOs attractive and the subprime mortgages would offer a higher income stream.
you mention 2006 and 600 billion yet
125% Loan: Blessing Or Bane?
By JAY ROMANO
Published: July 13, 1997
''This rule will greatly expand the supply of affordable housing across the country,'' said [b]Housing Secretary Andrew M. Cuomo.
The companies(fannie/freddie) buy mortgages for homes and apartment buildings from banks, savings and loans and other mortgage lenders, and package and sell the loans to investors. When Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae buy mortgages from lenders, they provide the lenders with cash to issue new mortgages.
Under the higher goals, the companies would buy an additional $488.3 billion annually in mortgages over the next 10 years for seven million more low- and moderate-income families. The new mortgages would be added to the $1.9 trillion in mortgages for about 21 million families that would have been helped by the current standards.
Mr. Cuomo said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were directing federal regulators on this issue.
============
the said it in 97 ….. buy an additional $488.3 billion annually, over the next 10 years
More deflection. Why listen to you when you've been wrong and don't have the guts to address what I've posted?
I listen to ones who saw the bubble coming because it was obvious. The same ones who told us ahead of time that same easy lending would cause the dot com bubble, the same ones who told us the same easy lending that caused the stock market crash.
Yes lets ignore those people and listen to someone like you, who cannot identify the cause of the collapse. Doesn't make you a bad person, just a horrible problem solver.
Again more babble and claiming deflection when the facts don’t support your preconceived narrative . Listen I get it, you’re not interested in actually learning about the issues at all play. You just want to wallow in your confirmation bias. You are so gung ho with your little theory you literally can’t see the forest for the trees. It’s fine. I’ve addressed your silly point time and time again and refuted you argument with the actual facts from the events in question. But anything that doesn’t feed your confirmation bias you call deflection, making things up, or against your rules. It’s akin to debating a third grader. I’m frankly tired of it. Please go back and read the info I’ve given to you, you may learn something. However I doubt that’s your goal. Sadly you’ll go on thinking you have a clue. You’ve conflated numerous events across decades, attributed quotes and articles from a decade prior to 08 as proof of your point and highlighted your only knowledge base in the topic is something you probably heard in Fox News or read on Brietbart.
As to your middle paragraph, I’m not quite sure what that has to do with anything except that it’s yet another silly detail you think backs up your non existent point. Btw the real danger of the 08 collapse was the death of the credit market not so much the stock market, but again I don’t expect you to know this bc you don’t really understand the topic.
Just curious: What other words/phrases are banned here? Besides the de rigueur "Wall Street” "shadow banking” “interconnection” & "deregulation".
Likely de facto decriminalization for one more !banned! Perish the thought! Moral hazard, systemic risk, desupervision, & the list goes on.
Basically anything the can be used to support the actual facts of what happened in 08 aka anything that doesn’t feed the confirmation bias of two posters specifically.
125% Loan: Blessing Or Bane?
By JAY ROMANO
Published: July 13, 1997
''This rule will greatly expand the supply of affordable housing across the country,'' said [b]Housing Secretary Andrew M. Cuomo.
The companies(fannie/freddie) buy mortgages for homes and apartment buildings from banks, savings and loans and other mortgage lenders, and package and sell the loans to investors. When Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae buy mortgages from lenders, they provide the lenders with cash to issue new mortgages.
Under the higher goals, the companies would buy an additional $488.3 billion annually in mortgages over the next 10 years for seven million more low- and moderate-income families. The new mortgages would be added to the $1.9 trillion in mortgages for about 21 million families that would have been helped by the current standards.
Mr. Cuomo said that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were directing federal regulators on this issue.
============
the said it in 97 ….. buy an additional $488.3 billion annually, over the next 10 years
that was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac GOAL...…
Do you realize that low and moderate income =/= subprime. Also do you realize that 24 of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 were non bank lenders (aka shadow banking system I have been referencing which you clearly don’t comprehend) who were not subjected to federal housing affordability standards?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I really don't know where you're coming from. Are you saying you can just block out anything that doesn't fit your ideology-based narrative?
