Its a well throught … Its a well throught transition by mastermind who did not care about anyone but themselves. Its a big scam put up together by bankers, rating housing , audditors and government officials who allow such thinsg to happen. There should be a way to sue the rating conmpanies and others responsible HANG them.
now i understand … now i understand why in the location were i moved you can see people with very low income owning huge houses…..and rusted cars parked on the driveway!
Because people get … Because people get a false sense of self worth from owning a home, even if its 95% indebt, thats especially true for minorities with lower self esteem.
IF your political … IF your political economy is structured in such a way as to make home ownership advantageous, AND IF your political economy is structured in such a way as to make home ownership require leverage, THEN you have to ensure that there is no racial barriers to obtaining leverage.
So given the current American political economy, yes, you need equal protection acts to prevent racism in mortage origination.
OTOH, I think that the way the American political economy is structured is rather stupid…
So if renting is ok … So if renting is ok then why the urgency in increasing ownership among minorities? Are you for the community reinvestment act or is your beef only with the banks?
Fire the CEOs AND make healthy loans.
Lets do more than fire the CEOs, lets trim ALL the fat. In a fiat currency, banks are merely accountants. Give me a computer and the authority to make loans, and I can leverage my $100,000 in my own personal savings 10 times to create $1,000,000 of loans at 2% interest very profitably.
In a properly … In a properly managed political economy, most of the population does not own its house: It rents.
But as an aside the banks would not have needed to substantially change front-end operations. They could just have fired a handful of CEOs, and the accumulated savings (both from their ridiculous bonus schemes (scams?) and from their bad decisions) would’ve provided plento of cash cushion.
I took those … I took those numbers from RonDuane’s comment starting with ACORN. Look up the real number and my point is the same.
On to your real point. I hear what you are saying. Bottom line is banks need to keep their balance sheets healthy. I agree.
So passing on loans to safe white people is necessary to make sure you can cover your bad bets with minorities. Where do the rejected white people go for a loan then? Maybe they can rent from the minorities.
Yeah, burn the … Yeah, burn the witch. And the commie. *Yawn* I’ve seen that movie before.
What you describe is not communism by any stretch of the imagination. Although providing sound and affordable housing for all *is* a sound policy, it is not one that communists – or even socialists or social democrats – can lay exclusive claim to.
But hey, if you’re so ideologically clueless as to be unable to tell a conservative from a communist, why do I even bother…
Charity, however, … Charity, however, is not an objective for a sound socity: A significant impact of charity on your political economy signifies either that you’re a third world country or that your government isn’t doing its job.
And if pigs could … And if pigs could fly, they’d be an air traffic hazard. You need a citation on both those numbers.
And once more for Crown Prince Knud: If the banks know that they have bad loans on their books – irregardless of how they got there – they are supposed to set aside capital to cover future losses. That they failed to do so is nobody’s fault but their own.
absolutely awesome. … absolutely awesome. ive never understood economics and financial systems, the housing market etc that im starting to now, thanks to you!!
That cushion you … That cushion you are talking about doesn’t exist so banks can make bad loans. Ideally the cushion is never used, just because there is one, doesn’t mean we should look for a way to use it, please. Also, here’s a reality check, what if the percentage of colored people that have good credit and are seeking loans is only 10 percent of all the loans available. Forcing a 20 percent of the mortgages to be given to colored people forces banks go give bad mortgages simply to fill a quota.
… Furthermore, … … Furthermore, what ever happened to good will. When you make good will and charity law, it replaces people’s consciences, not only do people have less desire to give, they also have a lessen sense of responsibility to give, AND they have less ability to give.
If you break it … If you break it down scientifically and use a handicapping system similar to the way they do in sports, then a tall, handsome, intelligent, responsible, hardworking, well connected, charismatic white male would have no handicap. Then based on a scoring system, the government could supplement the purchase of your home. Race could be rated heavily because you can’t choose your race and responsibility could have almost no weight since you determine that. Sarcasm intended. Can you say Communism?
That’s what Alan ” … That’s what Alan “Bubbles” Greenspan thought too, when he obstructed proper regulation of credit default swaps. We know how well *that* worked out.
Why did lending standards become more and more lax from 2000 to 2006?
November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Its a well throught …
Its a well throught transition by mastermind who did not care about anyone but themselves. Its a big scam put up together by bankers, rating housing , audditors and government officials who allow such thinsg to happen. There should be a way to sue the rating conmpanies and others responsible HANG them.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
simple and easy, …
simple and easy, thank you
November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
now i understand …
now i understand why in the location were i moved you can see people with very low income owning huge houses…..and rusted cars parked on the driveway!
November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Because people get …
Because people get a false sense of self worth from owning a home, even if its 95% indebt, thats especially true for minorities with lower self esteem.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
I don’t have a pet, …
I don’t have a pet, so I can eat meat.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
just because you …
just because you married a minority doesn’t mean your not a racist.
didn’t you marry a person, not a minority?
did you marry her just because she was a minority?
marrying a minority doesn’t make you a racist either, it really doesn’t mean anything.
“FYI I’m a vegetarian because i have a pet made of meat.”
it just doesn’t fly.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Yeah, well… I’m …
Yeah, well… I’m not gay either. I married a minority woman. So there.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
isn’t saying “FYI- …
isn’t saying “FYI- I’m not racist, I married a minority.”
sorta like saying “I’m not gay, i married a woman?”
November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Nice try. Keep it …
Nice try. Keep it up check out esteembpo + com for social media marketing. m,m
November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Nice work. keep it …
Nice work. keep it up. mean time come for social media marketing for esteembpo**com rytry
November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
amazing…great job …
amazing…great job !
November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Well said my friend …
Well said my friend, Very well said.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
IF your political …
IF your political economy is structured in such a way as to make home ownership advantageous, AND IF your political economy is structured in such a way as to make home ownership require leverage, THEN you have to ensure that there is no racial barriers to obtaining leverage.
So given the current American political economy, yes, you need equal protection acts to prevent racism in mortage origination.
OTOH, I think that the way the American political economy is structured is rather stupid…
November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
So if renting is ok …
So if renting is ok then why the urgency in increasing ownership among minorities? Are you for the community reinvestment act or is your beef only with the banks?
Fire the CEOs AND make healthy loans.
Lets do more than fire the CEOs, lets trim ALL the fat. In a fiat currency, banks are merely accountants. Give me a computer and the authority to make loans, and I can leverage my $100,000 in my own personal savings 10 times to create $1,000,000 of loans at 2% interest very profitably.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
In a properly …
In a properly managed political economy, most of the population does not own its house: It rents.
But as an aside the banks would not have needed to substantially change front-end operations. They could just have fired a handful of CEOs, and the accumulated savings (both from their ridiculous bonus schemes (scams?) and from their bad decisions) would’ve provided plento of cash cushion.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
I took those …
I took those numbers from RonDuane’s comment starting with ACORN. Look up the real number and my point is the same.
On to your real point. I hear what you are saying. Bottom line is banks need to keep their balance sheets healthy. I agree.
So passing on loans to safe white people is necessary to make sure you can cover your bad bets with minorities. Where do the rejected white people go for a loan then? Maybe they can rent from the minorities.
FYI- I’m not racist, I married a minority.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Yeah, burn the …
Yeah, burn the witch. And the commie. *Yawn* I’ve seen that movie before.
What you describe is not communism by any stretch of the imagination. Although providing sound and affordable housing for all *is* a sound policy, it is not one that communists – or even socialists or social democrats – can lay exclusive claim to.
But hey, if you’re so ideologically clueless as to be unable to tell a conservative from a communist, why do I even bother…
November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Charity, however, …
Charity, however, is not an objective for a sound socity: A significant impact of charity on your political economy signifies either that you’re a third world country or that your government isn’t doing its job.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
And if pigs could …
And if pigs could fly, they’d be an air traffic hazard. You need a citation on both those numbers.
And once more for Crown Prince Knud: If the banks know that they have bad loans on their books – irregardless of how they got there – they are supposed to set aside capital to cover future losses. That they failed to do so is nobody’s fault but their own.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
absolutely awesome. …
absolutely awesome. ive never understood economics and financial systems, the housing market etc that im starting to now, thanks to you!!
November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
That cushion you …
That cushion you are talking about doesn’t exist so banks can make bad loans. Ideally the cushion is never used, just because there is one, doesn’t mean we should look for a way to use it, please. Also, here’s a reality check, what if the percentage of colored people that have good credit and are seeking loans is only 10 percent of all the loans available. Forcing a 20 percent of the mortgages to be given to colored people forces banks go give bad mortgages simply to fill a quota.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
… Furthermore, …
… Furthermore, what ever happened to good will. When you make good will and charity law, it replaces people’s consciences, not only do people have less desire to give, they also have a lessen sense of responsibility to give, AND they have less ability to give.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
If you break it …
If you break it down scientifically and use a handicapping system similar to the way they do in sports, then a tall, handsome, intelligent, responsible, hardworking, well connected, charismatic white male would have no handicap. Then based on a scoring system, the government could supplement the purchase of your home. Race could be rated heavily because you can’t choose your race and responsibility could have almost no weight since you determine that. Sarcasm intended. Can you say Communism?
November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Wait so why did …
Wait so why did financing get easier in the first place again?
November 11th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
That’s what Alan ” …
That’s what Alan “Bubbles” Greenspan thought too, when he obstructed proper regulation of credit default swaps. We know how well *that* worked out.