Stock-market decline accelerates after big drop in home builder confidence

[tinfoil]

Irrational exuberance was the phrase Greenspan used.

[Althea]

The problem with most of what cawacko argues is that he hasn't bothered to do the necessary research to support his arguments. So he ends up repeating nonsense he's gleaned off message boards because it's easier and safer for him than actually doing the work.

During the Bush Mortgage Bubble, interest rates started rising in 2004, which was the same year the subprime mortgage bubble started. It wasn't the interest rates that made subprimes go from 133,000 issued a year to 266,000 issued a year, it was the relaxing of lending standards that did that. And the only reason those standards were weakened was because Bush wanted to artificially inflate a housing market to make the economy look like it was growing as a result of his tax cuts, when it was really growing as a result of debt.

Which artificially inflated the market, with a corresponding crash when reality reared its ugly head.

[Althea]

They dont raise them just to raise them Homer. There has to be a reason which is normally inflation. Up until recently there was no inflation to speak of. Get an elfin clue to what you are talking about.

You know he drunk posts a lot of the time?

[LV426]

He did it by pushing rates to almost zero to help push the economy of recession and the effects of 9/11

But that doesn't have anything to do with the increase in subprime lending that started in 2004, and it was the subprime lending that caused the bubble which led to the collapse.

That was the impetus for it all.

Jesus fucking Christ...

I thought the impetus was Clinton repealing G-S, according to you! Now you're changing the reasons for why a subprime bubble appeared years after the thing you say caused it. The subprime lending bubble wasn't caused by interest rates (those rates were rising during the bubble), it was caused by the weakening of lending standards. The interest rate has nothing to do with the lending standards that were weakened. Lower interest rates don't mean anything when you have no one willing to borrow. Lowering the interest rate doesn't make lending volume increase defacto. If that was the case, then subprime lending would have slowed, not increased as interest rates rose from 2004-6.

All you're doing here is making shit up as you go, and using the same, tired Conservative excuses for why their policy never works. You just blame the Fed for housing even though as the bubble was growing, the Fed was raising rates. So your entire premise, that lower interest rates lead to more lending, is entirely fucking false, isn't it?

So since your premise is fucking wrong, doesn't that pretty much invalidate the rest of your shitty argument?

[Althea]

You are incorrect. The Fed started raising rates 3 years ago, not four. Even then, the fed funds rate was still 0.75% when Obama left office.

Currently it is back up to 2%. Also, he is not confusing the housing market with the stock market. He is correct in what he stated. Lower borrowing costs boosted the markets... both housing and stock markets. As you see debt become more expensive, it slows the growth rate of both.

But thanks for showing who the neophyte actually is.

In theory. In actuality, banks pocketed the profits while refusing to pass the low interest rates on to borrowers. That drove the market as the financial sector boomed.

But thanks for playing.

[cawacko]

But that doesn't have anything to do with the increase in subprime lending that started in 2004, and it was the subprime lending that caused the bubble which led to the collapse.




Jesus fucking Christ...

I thought the impetus was Clinton repealing G-S, according to you! Now you're changing the reasons for why a subprime bubble appeared years after the thing you say caused it. The subprime lending bubble wasn't caused by interest rates (those rates were rising during the bubble), it was caused by the weakening of lending standards. The interest rate has nothing to do with the lending standards that were weakened. Lower interest rates don't mean anything when you have no one willing to borrow. Lowering the interest rate doesn't make lending volume increase defacto. If that was the case, then subprime lending would have slowed, not increased as interest rates rose from 2004-6.

All you're doing here is making shit up as you go, and using the same, tired Conservative excuses for why their policy never works. You just blame the Fed for housing even though as the bubble was growing, the Fed was raising rates. So your entire premise, that lower interest rates lead to more lending, is entirely fucking false, isn't it?

So since your premise is fucking wrong, doesn't that pretty much invalidate the rest of your shitty argument?

Can't remember what you wrote two minutes ago? You claimed deregulation caused it yet you won't mention Clinton and his deregulation. I didn't claim Clinton caused it. Reading is fundamental.

[LV426]

Which artificially inflated the market, with a corresponding crash when reality reared its ugly head.

Exactly. Conservatives deliberately inflated a housing bubble to make their tax cuts look like they were growing the economy, in time for the 2004 election. Bush even campaigned on his tax cuts creating the housing bubble:

Bush Ties Policy to Record Home Ownership
Touting his tax cuts as the economy's savior — and pointing to the strong housing market as proof — Bush said "more people own their own home now than ever." More than 50 percent of minorities owned their own homes in the last three months of 2003 for the first time ever, the president said.
https://www.foxnews.com/story/bush-t...home-ownership

So you even have Bush telling his supporters that the reason the housing market was doing so well was because of his tax cuts.

So conversely, that means the housing collapse was also caused by his tax cuts. After all, he's saying in 2004 that it was thanks to his tax cuts that the housing market was booming.

[cawacko]

In theory. In actuality, banks pocketed the profits while refusing to pass the low interest rates on to borrowers. That drove the market as the financial sector boomed.

But thanks for playing.

In theory? No, these bubbles are very real.

But thanks for jumping in and being wrong while having an attitude.

[Althea]

Today's stock market is shitty and flat YTD. That's not because of Housing, QE or the Fed; it's because your shitty tax cut didn't deliver on the promises made of it.




If repealing G-S did what you claim it did, then the subprime bubble that crashed the economy would have appeared immediately. But it didn't until 2004. So it wasn't the repeal of G-S that caused the subprime mortgage bubble to appear, it was your deregulation that did that.

So please explain where in G-S repeal it said banks could lower lending standards for subprime loans?

He still thinks there's a housing bubble! LMAO

[LV426]

In theory. In actuality, banks pocketed the profits while refusing to pass the low interest rates on to borrowers. That drove the market as the financial sector boomed.

But thanks for playing.

The Fed was raising rates during the housing bubble. So the premise that lowering the interest rates leads to increased volume lending is bullshit, since volume of lending was increasing while the Fed was simultaneously raising rates.

[Althea]

Poor baby, markets do adjust they make take days weeks or a couple of months, but not a fucking year. You NEVER saw this horrendous performance during the Obama administration. Making this far worse, is the tax cut which was supposed to spur the economy. The stock market tells us it did nothing.

The stock market tells us it did nothing to create jobs. As intended, it increased dividends and stock buybacks. No jobs. No pay raises.

[Althea]

But that doesn't have anything to do with the increase in subprime lending that started in 2004, and it was the subprime lending that caused the bubble which led to the collapse.

Bingo. Subprime rates are higher than prime rates, but they were being pushed on everyone...even those with A+ credit.


"Just pay the interest, and you'll save enough money to invest in the market"

[LV426]

Can't remember what you wrote two minutes ago? You claimed deregulation caused it yet you won't mention Clinton and his deregulation.

Now you're being deliberately obtuse because I said that the impetus was Clinton's repeal of G-S according to you. And furthermore, I asked you, point blank, where in the repeal of G-S it said banks could lower lending standards for subprime loans?

So you make another fucking lazy defense of your lazy argument because you're a lazy piece of shit.

What else is new in the world?

I didn't claim Clinton caused it. Reading is fundamental.

Yes you did! You said the repeal of G-S is what caused this. You said it right here:

But it's quite ironic that you blame deregulation for the '08 crash yet can't bring yourself to mention Bill Clinton who signed the partial repeal of Glass-Steagal and the deregulation of derivatives.

I asked you, from this stupid quote, where in the G-S repeal it said anything about banks lowering lending standards? You just ignored that question because answering it would completely unravel your entire premise of "both sides" are to blame, and you do that so you don't have to admit that you're full of shit, and you beliefs are full of shit too.

[cawacko]

Now you're being deliberately obtuse because I said that the impetus was Clinton's repeal of G-S according to you. And furthermore, I asked you, point blank, where in the repeal of G-S it said banks could lower lending standards for subprime loans?

So you make another fucking lazy defense of your lazy argument because you're a lazy piece of shit.

What else is new in the world?




Yes you did! You said the repeal of G-S is what caused this. You said it right here:



I asked you, from this stupid quote, where in the G-S repeal it said anything about banks lowering lending standards? You just ignored that question because answering it would completely unravel your entire premise of "both sides" are to blame, and you do that so you don't have to admit that you're full of shit, and you beliefs are full of shit too.

Can you not understand the words that were written. What if you sat down and took a deep breath and read what I wrote. You are blaming deregulation but you won't acknowledge who did the deregulating. It's because you're a absolute hack. It's one thing to be partisan, most of us are that, you are a hack. This is just another example of it.

[LV426]

You are blaming deregulation but you won't acknowledge who did the deregulating

Where in G-S repeal did it say banks could lower their lending standards for subprime loans?

(Third time I've asked this question)