Page 6 of 6
Re:
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 2:25 pm
by Stephen Eisel
Stephen Calhoun wrote:Charlie, I will present soon some sources of information for those who are willing to invest the time to better inform themselves. I put a lot of stock in people making the behavioral investment in learning. Everybody has to decide for themselves whether such an effort is worthwhile.
For me, reading someone's uninformed opinion begs the question: what would said person opine if they were well informed?
Ask yourself what you would be willing to do to learn about a new subject matter that is--by definition--very complex. Where would you go?
Of course before one can go anywhere seeking information, one has to formulate some sort of crude or better set of questions which, in a sense, admits what is known and what is unknown and needs to be known.
You could do a lot worse than begin to scan the terminology of mortgage finance at Wikipedia. Because certified experts did coursework in finance, there's a huge academic resource available in the form of undergrad and grad level course syllabi. You have google scholar, and, at your world class local library you have at your finger tips enormous research databases.
It should be obvious, also, what are likely to be not very fruitful sources of information and, additionally, what materials CANNOT suffice as a foundation for even a modest 'lay' understanding.
My opinion is: it's a challenge for civic consciousness to become disenchanted with mere opinions, especially your own.
Did this dude leave planet earth? or was he just one Jimmy's minions running interference? 3 years
Re: "the bill is 93% spending and only 7% stimulation"
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 2:35 pm
by Stephen Eisel
http://www.examiner.com/article/new-stu ... ts_articleA new study from the widely respected National Bureau of Economic Research released this week has confirmed beyond question that the left's race-baiting attacks on the housing market (the Community Reinvestment Act--enacted under Carter, made shockingly more aggressive under Clinton) is directly responsible for imploding the housing market and destroying the economy.
The study painstakingly sorted through failed home loans that caused the housing market collapse and identified an overwhelming connection between them and CRA mortgages.
Again, let's review:
-President Bush went to Congress repeatedly for years warning them that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were going to destroy the economy (17 times in 2008 alone). Democrats continuously ignored him, shut down his proposals along party lines and continued raiding the institutions for campaign contributions on their way down.
Re: "the bill is 93% spending and only 7% stimulation"
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 2:36 pm
by Stephen Eisel
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorial ... htm?p=fullDemocrats and the media insist the Community Reinvestment Act, the anti-redlining law beefed up by President Clinton, had nothing to do with the subprime mortgage crisis and recession.
But a new study by the respected National Bureau of Economic Research finds, "Yes, it did. We find that adherence to that act led to riskier lending by banks."
Added NBER: "There is a clear pattern of increased defaults for loans made by these banks in quarters around the (CRA) exam. Moreover, the effects are larger for loans made within CRA tracts," or predominantly low-income and minority areas.
To satisfy CRA examiners, "flexible" lending by large banks rose an average 5% and those loans defaulted about 15% more often, the 43-page study found.
The strongest link between CRA lending and defaults took place in the runup to the crisis — 2004 to 2006 — when banks rapidly sold CRA mortgages for securitization by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and Wall Street.
Re: "the bill is 93% spending and only 7% stimulation"
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:26 am
by Thealexa Becker
It would be interesting if that paper were available for free online so that people could read it without having to get it second hand from news sources who might have bias.
Just because it is from the NBER does not mean that it should be taken as gospel. There have been plenty of papers out there written by well respected economists that get ripped apart by the economics community for having flaws in the logic.
And let's say that this paper is 100% correct, that is still only one small piece of the puzzle. Who were the fools that were buying all these bad assets? There is only a lot of supply if there is a lot of demand.
Re: "the bill is 93% spending and only 7% stimulation"
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:03 am
by Stephen Eisel
Who were the fools that were buying all these bad assets? There is only a lot of supply if there is a lot of demand.
http://www.ncsha.org/advocacy-issues/ho ... rises-gsesFannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banks (FHLBs) are government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) that help bring capital to the housing markets. Their regulator is the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA).
HFAs and the Housing GSEs
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchase and securitize loans from HFAs and other lenders who then use the proceeds to finance more mortgages. The FHLBs provide advances and other financial products to support their members’ affordable housing activities. The GSEs are critical in providing liquidity, stability and affordability to the mortgage market, particularly for long-term, fixed-rate mortgages.
Until recent years, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were large purchasers of Housing Bonds and Housing Credits. NCSHA is working with the Administration and Congress to encourage Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to support HFA bond issuance and liquidity needs. NCSHA supports a strong, healthy GSE system in order to ensure stability, liquidity, and affordability in the home mortgage market. One of NCSHA’s Legislative Priorities is to ensure the GSEs support HFAs with liquidity and capital, through the purchase of HFA Bonds and Housing Credits and other means.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yga7TlsA-1A The idiots were the Democrats who blocked GSE reform and the media.. The media blamed Bush after the fact for the collapsed but ignored the fact that Bush tried 36 times before the collapse to create a new regulatory strucutre.. watch the video.. typical dem debating...name calling and selective outrage.. Dems lied the economy died..
Re: "the bill is 93% spending and only 7% stimulation"
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:47 pm
by Thealexa Becker
Stephen,
If you think that ONLY the Democrats are to blame you are mistaken.
There is not a clean party out of anyone who was involved and only those with an agenda suggest that the blame falls squarely in one place.
I know that a number of people on this site don't understand/think the Federal Reserve is the work of demons, but the Federal Reserve cited one of the major causes for this mess as the mistaken belief by MOST PEOPLE that housing prices would always continue to rise, with decreases in one region's prices being offset by monumental gains in another region.
So, while your point of view is valuable and no one should be given a pass on this incident, it is a rather narrow look at a huge systemic problem that is still not fully understood.
Re: "the bill is 93% spending and only 7% stimulation"
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:06 am
by Peter Grossetti
"All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats." ~Groucho Marx

Re: "the bill is 93% spending and only 7% stimulation"
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:24 am
by Thealexa Becker
Peter Grossetti wrote:"All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats." ~Groucho Marx

Exactly.
Re: "the bill is 93% spending and only 7% stimulation"
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:09 pm
by ryan costa
massive budget deficits are endemic to reaganomics level income taxes and free trade.
calls for a debt ceiling are a farce, of no value.
Re: "the bill is 93% spending and only 7% stimulation"
Posted: Sat Jan 12, 2013 6:20 pm
by Thealexa Becker
Well apparently now you can just mint a trillion dollar coin and settle the whole thing.
Who knew the solution a 7 year old could have come up with was being seriously considered.
Re: "the bill is 93% spending and only 7% stimulation"
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 6:30 pm
by ryan costa
The United States passed a legal tender act back in the 1860s. they managed it well.
The Confederate States tried a similar act, but they were bad at all forms of management and lawmaking.
the federal deficits are intrinsically tied to Reaganomics and Free Trade.
Under an artificial or legally binding gold standard, we would simply be out of gold, in addition to owing foreign debt holders a lot of numbers on accounts. just like many southern plantation owners owed british merchants. Only nationally.
Re: "the bill is 93% spending and only 7% stimulation"
Posted: Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:37 am
by Thealexa Becker
ryan costa wrote:The United States passed a legal tender act back in the 1860s. they managed it well.
The Confederate States tried a similar act, but they were bad at all forms of management and lawmaking.
the federal deficits are intrinsically tied to Reaganomics and Free Trade.
Under an artificial or legally binding gold standard, we would simply be out of gold, in addition to owing foreign debt holders a lot of numbers on accounts. just like many southern plantation owners owed british merchants. Only nationally.
Are you saying that we never ran a deficit before Reagan? I'm completely baffled that you would suggest that since it was the highest during WWII. And I'm not sure what that war had to do with free trade either.
Unless you mean our current problem, in which case, please clarify because you are talking about the gold standard which we abandoned. This seems like an incongruous argument.
Re: "the bill is 93% spending and only 7% stimulation"
Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:34 pm
by ryan costa
World War II was a pretty big undertaking. and it recapitalized American industry and banks after most of them busted themselves on Wall Street...simply by printing a lot of money and ordering a lot of manufactured items. Bob Hope personally scored his brothers a lot of contracts.
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2971728-bob-hope legislators before then were psychologically and intellectually incapable of making such policies in the absence of war until then, but rolled them into suburbia and powerplants and water and sewers afterwards.
We have never been on more than a nominal or token gold standard.
the escalating super-deficits have been pretty much consistent for over thirty years. we have had pretty much the same economic policies for over thirty years.