This sums it up pretty well

Desh said:
Where had the law proven a problem which needed to be corrected before this time Damo?
Click to expand...
Yes, just as with the zit, if you deal with it before the head appears it is still a zit.

Bad policy is bad policy no matter how long it runs, even if it was passed for "benevolent" reasons. We blame everybody for continuing it, everybody. Especially those trumpeting the "massive success" because more <insert group here> owned homes than ever before!
 
I dont see why it is bad policy?

It was bad actions by the lenders which made this law a problem. If they had treated the law like they had the previous 10 years this owuld have not been a problem. They chose to hoodwink prosepective buyers and other institutions who they then sold the Packed loans off to that made the law a problem.
 
You see marriage is not a bad thing but the pervert who thought up polygamy created a new problem the law then had to deal with.
 
Desh said:
I dont see why it is bad policy?

It was bad actions by the lenders which made this law a problem. If they had treated the law like they had the previous 10 years this owuld have not been a problem. They chose to hoodwink prosepective buyers and other institutions who they then sold the Packed loans off to that made the law a problem.
Click to expand...
It is bad policy to force banks to give loans that they otherwise wouldn't give because of credit issues.

It is not "free market" to do that, and it caused the zit that currently has come to a head. It started the game of kick the ball you described earlier. Each successive time they extended the bad policy hoping that the head wouldn't appear until they were out of office...
 
Damo where is the proof that they used this law to cover what they were really doing with the loans and their packaging of them?

I have yet to see or hear that mentioned in any way?
 
Desh said:
Damo where is the proof that they used this law to cover what they were really doing with the loans and their packaging of them?

I have yet to see or hear that mentioned in any way?
Click to expand...
Proof? The result is enough to know that bad policy makes for bad action.

Even if they hadn't hid stuff, the policy was bad. In the end we now get to hear about how <insert group here> are now in more foreclosures than ever before. There is a reason the banks had the policy they had previous to this. It was because it kept people from defaulting as often.
 
Desh said:
What was inherently bad about the policy?
Click to expand...
It forced the banks to give loans that they wouldn't otherwise previous to the law because of the default rates.

In this case, it began the game of kick the ball. You hope you aren't the one it lands at. It is bad policy to disregard default rates and force banks to give loans against their better judgement.

That some banks got stupid and started taking advantage and playing the kick the ball game too... Well, that just cements it.

It was stinking policy that began it. It was stinking policy when they continued it, it still stank when they did it again. Everybody had their hand in the grease ready to rub it on the face of the US.
 
Damocles said:
It forced the banks to give loans that they wouldn't otherwise previous to the law because of the default rates.

In this case, it began the game of kick the ball. You hope you aren't the one it lands at. It is bad policy to disregard default rates and force banks to give loans against their better judgement.

That some banks got stupid and started taking advantage and playing the kick the ball game too... Well, that just cements it.

It was stinking policy that began it. It was stinking policy when they continued it, it still stank when they did it again. Everybody had their hand in the grease ready to rub it on the face of the US.
Click to expand...
While rep is a bad idea, we agree on that, this is rep worthy.
 
Stiglitz is a very smart guy and the average person probably wouldn't read into his lines of reasoning his theory for more government intervention and regulation which is counter to our current model.

or to be more clear. he would prefer more socialism in our economy.


yes hes smart.. yes hes an authority.. but from one point of view. Their are others on the free market side with differing opinions and just as convincing argument.. lets not forget economics is theory in many ways.
 
It was a policy set to help more people quailfy to buy a home. It did not seem to hurt the companies who were effected.

This overuse was not forced on them in the least by this law. It seems to me they used the Idea when it suited those running the industry when they saw a way to quick profit.

This law did nothing towards FORCING them to give these loans now did it?

This is why blaming this law as if it forced anything on the companies if just ludicrous.
 
Chapdog said:
Stiglitz is a very smart guy and the average person probably wouldn't read into his lines of reasoning his theory for more government intervention and regulation which is counter to our current model.

or to be more clear. he would prefer more socialism in our economy.


yes hes smart.. yes hes an authority.. but from one point of view. Their are others on the free market side with differing opinions and just as convincing argument.. lets not forget economics is theory in many ways.
Click to expand...

So he doesnt agree with you?

You see not all have to agree with you.

Fire depts, police depts, schools, DOT and other sytem work better than freemarket.

There are certain asspects of society that its just a fact. You accept them as well as the vast majority of Americans who now also want to have our healthcare changed because the free market system we have is raping us and giving us sub standard care.


He agrees with the vast majority does that make his economic credentials disapear?
 
Desh said:
It was a policy set to help more people quailfy to buy a home. It did not seem to hurt the companies who were effected.

This overuse was not forced on them in the least by this law. It seems to me they used the Idea when it suited those running the industry when they saw a way to quick profit.

This law did nothing towards FORCING them to give these loans now did it?

This is why blaming this law as if it forced anything on the companies if just ludicrous.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it always starts with a benevolent meaning. What do you think the truism comes from?

The path to Hell is paved with good intentions.

What they wanted was for "more people" to qualify for homes. What they got was a nice fat housing bubble that seems to be popping as we type. They stuck their tongue in and got the air a-flowing. Then it was extended, then again. Now it is this ugly nasty bubble ready to pop and get all over in our hair.
 
Desh said:
I dont see why it is bad policy?

It was bad actions by the lenders which made this law a problem. If they had treated the law like they had the previous 10 years this owuld have not been a problem. They chose to hoodwink prosepective buyers and other institutions who they then sold the Packed loans off to that made the law a problem.
Click to expand...

Yes, the lenders share the blame. As do those that borrowed more than they could afford. But it was the politicians that destroyed Glass Steagall that allowed and ENCOURAGED lenders to take on this practice. It was the politicians in BOTH parties that cheered them on because that way the idiotic politicians in BOTH parties could chant "more people own their own homes".
 
Desh said:
I dont see why it is bad policy?

It was bad actions by the lenders which made this law a problem. If they had treated the law like they had the previous 10 years this owuld have not been a problem. They chose to hoodwink prosepective buyers and other institutions who they then sold the Packed loans off to that made the law a problem.
Click to expand...

By the way desh... those packaged loans began long before Bush came to office. It was the interest rate environment that caused it to come to a head and blow up. But again, in your fantasy world the borrowers are simply far too ignorant to understand simple math. The problem just magically appeared after Bush took office. Right Desh?

Tell me desh.... what new lending practice took place after 2000? ARMs have been around for a very long time. Even the ARMs with teaser rates and jumbo payments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top