Thomas Sowell is the man!

[cawacko]

Ummm, Wack? He didn't exactly say what you accused him of in your first sentence. "Black ownership" incorporates business, homes, apartments. Minimum wage is part of the deal to a small extent, but not the WHOLE deal.

That you would refer to the right wing lie that the CRA was the culprit of the financial crisis and not large bank chicanery shocks me. You know better (or should).

That's all.

This is what he wrote:

"The best method, over time, to cut poverty is homeownership. The Dems have been fighting to help black ownership."

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but it sure reads to me based on his first sentence that he's saying Dems have been fighting to help black "home" ownership. (he just left the word home out) And the premise that they are doing this by increasing the minimum wage is assinine.

We had an almost two decade period where we pushed strongly for increased home ownership. The result was crazy loans were created to help those who couldn't really afford a home purchase a home and we see how that all ended.

On one hand I'm very pro home ownership. At the same time I recognize that for a multitude of reasons it's not right for everyone and it can't be forced.

 

[cancel2 2022]

The best method, over time, to cut poverty is homeownership. The Dems have been fighting to help black ownership. Repubs fight it.The Dems have always fought for raising the min wage. Even rightys on this board can figure out how that will impact those at the bottom of the food chain. Rightys stop it from raising.Sowell is full of shit.

Forcing the likes of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to hand out loans to people that couldn't repay them was one of the primary reasons for the 2007 subprime crisis. Not that you will ever acknowledge that!

 

[cancel2 2022]

You might want to look in the mirror before calling someone else full of sh*t based on what you just wrote. Can you point to any study that shows home ownership increasing because of minimum wage increases?

And have you completely forgotten the driver of the financial crisis, loans to low income people who couldn't really afford them to buy houses?

And what's most laughable, since you made your post partisan, is the most progressive areas have the highest costs of housing because of the NIMBYism. Who do you think gets hurt most when well to do, and largely white, communities block new development? Working class folks which includes a good number of black folks. Raising the minimum wage means nothing when housing costs are sky high.

You want to increase home ownership? Build more housing to bring costs down.

He's a nutter pure and simple, I have no time for the fool!

 

[cancel2 2022]

You might want to look in the mirror before calling someone else full of sh*t based on what you just wrote. Can you point to any study that shows home ownership increasing because of minimum wage increases?

And have you completely forgotten the driver of the financial crisis, loans to low income people who couldn't really afford them to buy houses?

And what's most laughable, since you made your post partisan, is the most progressive areas have the highest costs of housing because of the NIMBYism. Who do you think gets hurt most when well to do, and largely white, communities block new development? Working class folks which includes a good number of black folks. Raising the minimum wage means nothing when housing costs are sky high.

You want to increase home ownership? Build more housing to bring costs down.

Wouldn't be surprised if Slo Jo and Heels Up try to do the same shit again.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Ummm, Wack? He didn't exactly say what you accused him of in your first sentence. "Black ownership" incorporates business, homes, apartments. Minimum wage is part of the deal to a small extent, but not the WHOLE deal.

That you would refer to the right wing lie that the CRA was the culprit of the financial crisis and not large bank chicanery shocks me. You know better (or should).

That's all.

This is what he wrote:

"The best method, over time, to cut poverty is homeownership. The Dems have been fighting to help black ownership."

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but it sure reads to me based on his first sentence that he's saying Dems have been fighting to help black "home" ownership. (he just left the word home out) And the premise that they are doing this by increasing the minimum wage is assinine.

We had an almost two decade period where we pushed strongly for increased home ownership. The result was crazy loans were created to help those who couldn't really afford a home purchase a home and we see how that all ended.

On one hand I'm very pro home ownership. At the same time I recognize that for a multitude of reasons it's not right for everyone and it can't be forced.

Again, this is what I wrote, "Black ownership" incorporates business, homes, apartments. Minimum wage is part of the deal to a small extent, but not the WHOLE deal."

He just pointed to ONE aspect that keeps people from any type of savings or maintaining whatever rent/mortgage situation they have.

And again, the "crazy loans" were illegal acts by large banks....the CRA act just enforced the rule that THE SAME TYPES OF LOANS GIVEN TO WHITE FOLK MUST BE GIVEN TO ALL FOLK. What happened afterward was essentially bitter resentment by folks forced to stop their racists practices. That almost led to major an economic depression.

 

[cawacko]

Again, this is what I wrote, "Black ownership" incorporates business, homes, apartments. Minimum wage is part of the deal to a small extent, but not the WHOLE deal."

He just pointed to ONE aspect that keeps people from any type of savings or maintaining whatever rent/mortgage situation they have.

And again, the "crazy loans" were illegal acts by large banks....the CRA act just enforced the rule that THE SAME TYPES OF LOANS GIVEN TO WHITE FOLK MUST BE GIVEN TO ALL FOLK. What happened afterward was essentially bitter resentment by folks forced to stop their racists practices. That almost led to major an economic depression.

We’re kind of going in two different directions here and away form what I responded to Nordberg about. Regarding the CRA there were multiple factors that contributed to the financial crisis but the lax lending standards were in place to comply with the CRA’s ‘mandate’ to increase home loans to lower income people and that certainly played a role in what we saw.

But again, that’s a separate discussion

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Think he means not a lot Left!

LOL

Where is your king, Tom? Maybe Sowell would be better than King Rama X.

https://www.ucanews.com/news/hunger-rife-among-thai-poor-as-covid-19-batters-economy/89639
Hunger rife among Thai poor as Covid-19 batters economy
Starvation a looming prospect for millions driven to the edge of dire poverty
Numerous low-income earners and newly unemployed people are going hungry in Thailand as a result of a nationwide economic slump brought on by the Covid-19 pandemic.

After going for months without regular incomes or any incomes at all, millions of locals and migrant workers have been driven to the edge of dire poverty.

“I made only 120 baht [US$4] yesterday and I’ve had no customers so far today,” lamented Suchida Uttapan, a middle-aged woman who sells flower garlands on a street in central Bangkok.

“My husband is sickly and can’t work. We aren’t starving yet, but our situation is very bad.”

For many other underprivileged Thais, starvation is a looming prospect.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Again, this is what I wrote, "Black ownership" incorporates business, homes, apartments. Minimum wage is part of the deal to a small extent, but not the WHOLE deal."

He just pointed to ONE aspect that keeps people from any type of savings or maintaining whatever rent/mortgage situation they have.

And again, the "crazy loans" were illegal acts by large banks....the CRA act just enforced the rule that THE SAME TYPES OF LOANS GIVEN TO WHITE FOLK MUST BE GIVEN TO ALL FOLK. What happened afterward was essentially bitter resentment by folks forced to stop their racists practices. That almost led to major an economic depression.

We’re kind of going in two different directions here and away form what I responded to Nordberg about. Regarding the CRA there were multiple factors that contributed to the financial crisis but the lax lending standards were in place to comply with the CRA’s ‘mandate’ to increase home loans to lower income people and that certainly played a role in what we saw.

But again, that’s a separate discussion

PLEASE stop this revisionist bullshit about the CRA and the economy! Bottom line: once forced by law to stop their discriminatory lending practices, the banksters put forth a scheme where they PURPOSELY gave loans to bad prospects in minority communities. Then they incorporated those bad loans with good ones in "packages" that they put on the "market" to be sold to other banks and lending institutions. What followed was a near collapse of the American economy. This was fraud on a major scale, yet hardly anyone of note went to jail, as they belonged to institutions "too big to fail". A matter of fact, a matter of history that I defy you to disprove using valid, documented sources.

Other than that, I've said my piece and you've said yours regarding the Nordberg response. 'Nuff said.

 

[Nordberg]

This is what he wrote:

"The best method, over time, to cut poverty is homeownership. The Dems have been fighting to help black ownership."

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but it sure reads to me based on his first sentence that he's saying Dems have been fighting to help black "home" ownership. (he just left the word home out) And the premise that they are doing this by increasing the minimum wage is assinine.

We had an almost two decade period where we pushed strongly for increased home ownership. The result was crazy loans were created to help those who couldn't really afford a home purchase a home and we see how that all ended.

On one hand I'm very pro home ownership. At the same time I recognize that for a multitude of reasons it's not right for everyone and it can't be forced.

I did not say that elevating the min wage was connected to homeownership, but it is. I understand you guys have no knowledge of economics. Forced? What does that mean? What mechanism exists to force people to buy homes if they do not want them? https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...s-fueling-wealth-gap-report-finds/3244738001/

 

[cawacko]

I did not say that elevating the min wage was connected to homeownership, but it is. I understand you guys have no knowledge of economics. Forced? What does that mean? What mechanism exists to force people to buy homes if they do not want them? https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...s-fueling-wealth-gap-report-finds/3244738001/

Glad to see you backing off the claim the minimum wage increases home ownership (while still claiming others don't understand economics).

I explained in the second to last paragraph what was occurring. Increasing home ownership rates isn't a bad thing if it happens organically but it can't be forced.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
I did not say that elevating the min wage was connected to homeownership, but it is. I understand you guys have no knowledge of economics. Forced? What does that mean? What mechanism exists to force people to buy homes if they do not want them? https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...ds/3244738001/

Glad to see you backing off the claim the minimum wage increases home ownership (while still claiming others don't understand economics).

I explained in the second to last paragraph what was occurring. Increasing home ownership rates isn't a bad thing if it happens organically but it can't be forced.

I'll let Nordberg answer for himself, but let me comment on one major point;

MONEY IS AN AGREED UPON CONCEPT, THERE FORE, ARTIFICIAL IN NATURE. To coin an old phrase, "money doesn't grow on trees".
Thus, home ownership rates follow suit....there is nothing "organic" about them.

That's my 2 cents.

My, we're really off the OP topic.

 

[cawacko]

I'll let Nordberg answer for himself, but let me comment on one major point;

MONEY IS AN AGREED UPON CONCEPT, THERE FORE, ARTIFICIAL IN NATURE. To coin an old phrase, "money doesn't grow on trees".
Thus, home ownership rates follow suit....there is nothing "organic" about them.

That's my 2 cents.

My, we're really off the OP topic.

I work in CRE and have invested in residential real estate so it's a topic I'm passionate about. For a number of years I was all-in on 'we need to increase home ownership in this country'. Since the great recession I've had a slight change of heart. I still think home ownership is good and especially with the Fed's low interest rates this pass decade inflating asset values home owners have benefitted. And I think its good to help lower income people who want to move into home ownership. But the easing of lending standards allows for abuse from banks/lenders and can push people who aren't financially ready into ownership, when it would be advantageous for them to build up more personal equity first. So that's where I'm coming from (at a 30K ft level).

 

[Dutch Uncle]

We’re kind of going in two different directions here and away form what I responded to Nordberg about. Regarding the CRA there were multiple factors that contributed to the financial crisis but the lax lending standards were in place to comply with the CRA’s ‘mandate’ to increase home loans to lower income people and that certainly played a role in what we saw.

But again, that’s a separate discussion

It's a complex issue. Offering low interest loans is one thing, but giving loans to people who have no ability to pay them back is stupid. There's blame on both sides for the banking crisis; multiple factors and decades in the making.

BTW, the laws allowed middle class families to buy huge fucking houses with ARM loans, loans they couldn't afford when the balloon payments came due. They speculated they'd either get promotions or, mostly, speculated the value of the house would rise before the balloon payment and they'd sell for a big profit. Speculation ballooned the prices. Many "invested", but it was gambling. It was a game of musical chairs. When the music stopped, a lot of people found they'd fucked themselves. I had a few coworkers in that position. ARMs always spooked me and I refused them when offered. My plan was a house I could afford with a straight 15 year mortgage and planned to be paid off by the time I hit mandatory retirement. I own my own house and retired debt free. Others believed the sales pitch and got screwed.

I'm sorry they fucked themselves, but I didn't support bailing them out anymore than I would some idiot who gambled his kid's college money in Vegas.

 

[anonymoose]

Again, most Democrats/liberals work and acquire wealth.

That's actually funny!

The 0.01% who are hollywierd and silicon Valley limousine liberals do but most of the rest depend on welfare and burn and loot their neighborhoods.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
I'll let Nordberg answer for himself, but let me comment on one major point;

MONEY IS AN AGREED UPON CONCEPT, THERE FORE, ARTIFICIAL IN NATURE. To coin an old phrase, "money doesn't grow on trees".
Thus, home ownership rates follow suit....there is nothing "organic" about them.

That's my 2 cents.

My, we're really off the OP topic.

I work in CRE and have invested in residential real estate so it's a topic I'm passionate about. For a number of years I was all-in on 'we need to increase home ownership in this country'. Since the great recession I've had a slight change of heart. I still think home ownership is good and especially with the Fed's low interest rates this pass decade inflating asset values home owners have benefitted. And I think its good to help lower income people who want to move into home ownership. But the easing of lending standards allows for abuse from banks/lenders and can push people who aren't financially ready into ownership, when it would be advantageous for them to build up more personal equity first. So that's where I'm coming from (at a 30K ft level).

Again, THAT WAS NOT THE CASE as I referred to. FYI:

In the early 2000s, the government and GSE share of the mortgage market began to decline as the purely private securitization market, called the private label securities market, or PLS, expanded. During this period, there was a dramatic expansion of mortgage lending, a large portion of which was in subprime loans with predatory features.21 The majority of this mortgage lending was existing homeowners refinancing, with many believing that they were taking advantage of lower interest rates to extract home equity. Instead, they often were exposed to complex and risky products that quickly became unaffordable when economic conditions changed.22 Linked with the expansion of predatory lending and the growth of the PLS market was the repackaging of these risky loans into complicated products through which the same assets were sold multiple times throughout the financial system.

This spread the danger of risky mortgage loans, systematizing the housing market’s risks throughout the global financial system.23 These developments occurred in an environment characterized by minimal government oversight and regulation and depended on a perpetually low interest rate environment where housing prices continued to rise and refinancing remained a viable option to continue borrowing. When the housing market stalled and interest rates began to rise in the mid-2000s, the wheels came off, leading to the 2008 financial crisis.


The Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 did NOT a lowering of standards....it merely mandated that the same loan scrutiny and approval given to white applicants apply to minorities as well. A matter of fact, a matter of history. If you can find the language within the act that states otherwise, please show it to me. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2017/04/13/430424/2008-housing-crisis/

 

[cawacko]

Again, THAT WAS NOT THE CASE as I referred to. FYI:

In the early 2000s, the government and GSE share of the mortgage market began to decline as the purely private securitization market, called the private label securities market, or PLS, expanded. During this period, there was a dramatic expansion of mortgage lending, a large portion of which was in subprime loans with predatory features.21 The majority of this mortgage lending was existing homeowners refinancing, with many believing that they were taking advantage of lower interest rates to extract home equity. Instead, they often were exposed to complex and risky products that quickly became unaffordable when economic conditions changed.22 Linked with the expansion of predatory lending and the growth of the PLS market was the repackaging of these risky loans into complicated products through which the same assets were sold multiple times throughout the financial system.

This spread the danger of risky mortgage loans, systematizing the housing market’s risks throughout the global financial system.23 These developments occurred in an environment characterized by minimal government oversight and regulation and depended on a perpetually low interest rate environment where housing prices continued to rise and refinancing remained a viable option to continue borrowing. When the housing market stalled and interest rates began to rise in the mid-2000s, the wheels came off, leading to the 2008 financial crisis.


The Community Reinvestment Act in 1977 did NOT a lowering of standards....it merely mandated that the same loan scrutiny and approval given to white applicants apply to minorities as well. A matter of fact, a matter of history. If you can find the language within the act that states otherwise, please show it to me. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2017/04/13/430424/2008-housing-crisis/

I said nothing about the CRA of 1977 lowering standards. You keep bringing that up when I didn’t speak about it. In the ‘90’s and ‘00’s there was a push by our gov’t to increase home ownership rates and in attempting to achieve that there was a loosening of lending standards. It’s why the in post crash legislation they increased lending standards. There are articles out now asking if we’re currently lowering standards again.

 

[Taichiliberal]

I said nothing about the CRA of 1977 lowering standards. You keep bringing that up when I didn’t speak about it. In the ‘90’s and ‘00’s there was a push by our gov’t to increase home ownership rates and in attempting to achieve that there was a loosening of lending standards. It’s why the in post crash legislation they increased lending standards. There are articles out now asking if we’re currently lowering standards again.

Okay, I stand corrected! Sorry about that.
Can you give me some google words to check out these articles? Thanks.

 

[blackascoal]

Again, this is what I wrote, "Black ownership" incorporates business, homes, apartments. Minimum wage is part of the deal to a small extent, but not the WHOLE deal."

He just pointed to ONE aspect that keeps people from any type of savings or maintaining whatever rent/mortgage situation they have.

And again, the "crazy loans" were illegal acts by large banks....the CRA act just enforced the rule that THE SAME TYPES OF LOANS GIVEN TO WHITE FOLK MUST BE GIVEN TO ALL FOLK. What happened afterward was essentially bitter resentment by folks forced to stop their racists practices. That almost led to major an economic depression.

From my perspective, this is exactly how I see it. The CRA mandates equality in the same TYPES of loans, not that people should be given loans they didn’t qualify for. No surprise that the banks would find a way to take advantage of that simple mandate.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

From my perspective, this is exactly how I see it. The CRA mandates equality in the same TYPES of loans, not that people should be given loans they didn’t qualify for. No surprise that the banks would find a way to take advantage of that simple mandate.

Agreed, which is why both sides take hits for this.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Okay, I stand corrected! Sorry about that.
Can you give me some google words to check out these articles? Thanks.

It's easy enough to determine the factors behind the sub-prime crisis assuming that you have a degree of objectivity and are not just a left wing partisan hack determined to blame one side only!

The subprime mortgage crisis was the collective creation of the world's central banks, homeowners, lenders, credit rating agencies, underwriters, and investors.

Lenders were the biggest culprits, freely granting loans to people who couldn't afford them because of free-flowing capital following the dotcom bubble.

Borrowers who never imagined they could own a home were taking on loans they knew they may never be able to afford.

Investment banks, ratings agencies, and hedge funds also had a role to play in the subprime mess.

Investors hungry for big returns bought mortgage-backed securities at ridiculously low premiums, fueling demand for more subprime mortgages.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/07/subprime-blame.asp