GDP Expands in Q4
The U.S. economy grew at a faster-than-expected 5.7 percent pace in the fourth quarter, the quickest pace in more than six years, as businesses reduced inventories less aggressively, the Commerce Department said on Friday.
The first estimate put fourth-quarter gross domestic product growth at its fastest pace since the third quarter of 2003. The economy expanded at a 2.2 percent annual rate in the third quarter.
Umnnnhhhh….yah….
But GDP measures include Gummint spending.
It’s a good sign, but not necessarily as good as it looks.
Posted by dad29 on January 29, 2010 at 0904 hrs
Now would be a perfect opportunity for the administration to score some badly needed points with the public. Recall the remaining stimulus and TARP dollars, begin focusing on deficit reduction…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 0927 hrs
Yeah, Doug that sounds like a great idea. I mean, it worked in 1937 didn’t it?
Oh, wait.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 1222 hrs
Hey Owen…
Outstanding?
Hardly.
Two of the leading sectors – namely residential investment and personal consumption expenditures slowed in the fourth quarter.
The consumer has been clobbered so hard that they’re saving money so as to rebuild their personal balance sheet. That is going to continue to be a drag on consumption – maybe for years.Residential investment isn’t going to increase until all of the excess housing inventory is soaked-up.
Stick to blogging about something you know about.
Posted by Swamp Gas on January 29, 2010 at 1223 hrs
Gas is perhaps a bit harsh, though I’d hardly call it an outstanding announcement. We are in big trouble. The GDP number often varies wildly from quarter to quarter, and the breakdown of the gain shows many economic weaknesses.
We continue to increase our debt limit, and the market for that debt is shrinking. Borrow, print or tax, we are going to have to finance our spending addiction somehow. All three options will result in economic problems. The only possible solution, reduction of spending, is off the table. Much like the credit card abuser, there will be hell to pay eventually… probably sooner than later.
I’m afraid the only thing outstanding these days is our unpaid bills.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 1328 hrs
Yes, the details are not so good, but not horrible either. The other big problem is that the initial Q3 numbers were so drastically inflated that everyone is taking this number with a grain of salt.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 1348 hrs
Yeah, Doug that sounds like a great idea. I mean, it worked in 1937 didn’t it?
Oh, wait.
It’s not 1937… To compare our current downturn to the Great Depression is hyperbolic at best. However, since you did it… The 1937 downturn was a result of the money supply being tightened by the fed, something I also would support right now. Deficit reduction and tightening the money supply would serve as an advantage to us in the long term… Inflation is far worse than deflation or recession. I guess we’ll just have to wait five years for the “stagflation” to start, before we have someone willing to put their neck on the line ala Volcker.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 1741 hrs
Inflation is far worse than deflation
Why?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 1747 hrs
While declining salaries and prices could be bad, we have seen such massive inflation in this country over the last 50 years that it would take quite a bit to really hurt. I would venture to guess that the deflation seen over the course of the last few years has been beneficial to more Americans than not.
If you’d like me to give you a rundown of the good and bad of both inflation and deflation, may I suggest you enroll in Economics 102 at UWM?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 1757 hrs
The 1937 downturn was a result of the money supply being tightened by the fed
Are you seriously trying to claim that slashing the Public Works Administration budget, the Works Progress Administration budget and increasing taxes had nothing to do with it? Seems kind of dishonest.
Deficit reduction and tightening the money supply would serve as an advantage to us in the long term
Exactly, in the long term. In the short term, the reduction in demand caused by government spending cuts would do exactly what it did in 1937, i.e. destroy our nascent recovery.
Inflation is far worse than deflation or recession.
Of course, it’s silly to worry about inflation in the short term, due to, you know, the recession. And it’s pretty silly to worry about it in the medium term as well since the fed funds rate is effectively 0%, there’s plenty of room to raise it in order to reduce inflation.
And even though our debt is a problem in the long term, US treasury rates are still low because investors still see them as a safe investment, and they will continue to do so until the economy improves and they can get a better return without taking on a lot of risk.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 2026 hrs
Worrying about the deficit now is like taking a starving person out to dinner at a restaurant, and telling him that he shouldn’t eat desert because he needs to watch his calories.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 2030 hrs
Are you seriously trying to claim that slashing the Public Works Administration budget, the Works Progress Administration budget and increasing taxes had nothing to do with it? Seems kind of dishonest.
It would seem dishonest to a subscriber of Keynes. Increasing taxes always has a negative effect on the economy, I think we should lower taxes.
Exactly, in the long term. In the short term, the reduction in demand caused by government spending cuts would do exactly what it did in 1937, i.e. destroy our nascent recovery.
No. I’m sorry, but the $400B or so that the government has spent in stimulus (2009) is not what is growing the economy, capital investments by business owners is. People like me are buying while prices are down, those of us who were smart enough to have a rainy day fund, that is. The government spending is creating VERY little demand, and what demand it does create is momentary at best.
Of course, it’s silly to worry about inflation in the short term, due to, you know, the recession. And it’s pretty silly to worry about it in the medium term as well since the fed funds rate is effectively 0%, there’s plenty of room to raise it in order to reduce inflation.
And even though our debt is a problem in the long term, US treasury rates are still low because investors still see them as a safe investment, and they will continue to do so until the economy improves and they can get a better return without taking on a lot of risk.
Worrying about the deficit now is like taking a starving person out to dinner at a restaurant, and telling him that he shouldn’t eat desert because he needs to watch his calories.I am not worried about inflation in the short term, however to argue that we should ignore its looming detriment in order to fix the woes of the moment is shortsighted at best…
Yes, treasury rates are low, but all it would take is for China or India to say the word and our economy could be turned to dust. We are throwing ourselves at the feet of nations who’s regard for our best interests are dubious.
Worrying about the deficit now is nothing like taking a starving person out to dinner. It is like we are taking a morbidly obese person out to dinner, and force feeding them everything on the menu, then when their stomach is about to burst convincing them that an apple pie isn’t too much for desert. This nation is not starving, the economy is bad, but it is not horrific. Sometimes we need to expect people to do things for themselves when times are tough, rather than always falling back on the legacy that FDR has cursed us with…
Our economy was overheated for a long time, and we are not allowing it to reset itself for fear that some people may lose their homes… We have forgone the notion of long term security just to allow some beggars and panhandlers to remain in homes they never should have been allowed to purchase to begin with. This whole mess lies on the shoulders of the government, to expect the government to be able to get us out of it smacks of naivete.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 2055 hrs
No. I’m sorry, but the $400B or so that the government has spent in stimulus (2009) is not what is growing the economy,
No, I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to take the word of the CBO over yours - http://business.theatlantic.com/cbostimulus1.png
I am not worried about inflation in the short term, however to argue that we should ignore its looming detriment in order to fix the woes of the moment is shortsighted at best…
Unless fixing “the woes of the moment” will also contribute to fixing the “looming detriment”, which, of course, it will.
Yes, treasury rates are low, but all it would take is for China or India to say the word and our economy could be turned to dust.
Of course, they hold so much of our debt already that for them to do so would be economic suicide. I really think that they are more pragmatic than that.
Worrying about the deficit now is nothing like taking a starving person out to dinner. It is like we are taking a morbidly obese person out to dinner, and force feeding them everything on the menu, then when their stomach is about to burst convincing them that an apple pie isn’t too much for desert.
Perhaps my analogy wasn’t clear. The person is the economy, specifically economic growth. The food is the deficit. You are arguing that we shouldn’t “feed” the starving man (economy) too much because you are worried about his calorie intake (deficit). The recession was caused by a lack of demand. The government is the only entity that is large enough to step in and act countercyclically to increase demand when consumers have scaled back.
This nation is not starving, the economy is bad, but it is not horrific. Sometimes we need to expect people to do things for themselves when times are tough, rather than always falling back on the legacy that FDR has cursed us with
The reason that people organize themselves into entities like governments is to increase security and decrease risk. Contrary to the myth that conservatives have propagated for decades, countries with a better social safety net outperform the US on just about every metric other than GDP. We all expect people to “do things for themselves”, but insuring a basic level of security for all citizens leads to greater social stability, greater opportunity for everyone, more egalitarianism and a better quality of life.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 2157 hrs
Deficit spending does not feed the economy. It simply robs from the private sector and devalues existing currency in an effort to game a statistic, GDP, pretending that the statistic maintains meaning when it is being gamed and all the while ignoring the costs of the spending.
Contrary to your belief, djheru, recessions have become more prolonged and recoveries less robust since we have pretended to “manage” the economy. Lack of demand as a cause of the recession is simply an utterly indefensible position. It is simultaneously a trivial argument (able to be applied as an excuse to the inability to sell anything at anytime) and also refuted by data, namely the increase in household savings rates.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 2218 hrs
No, I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to take the word of the CBO over yours - http://business.theatlantic.com/cbostimulus1.png
That’s impressive. Now, too bad they aren’t comparing that lovely 1.1-3.2% estimated increase in GDP to the total cost of the bill from signature to payoff…. I bet it will be alot more than 1.1-3.2% of GDP. Wanna bet? Keynesian economics is a real bugger for me, but you clearly buy it, so I guess were at an impass there.
Again, we can turn this into a cyclical argument, but by borrowing that money from our future we are doing nothing but guaranteeing that it isn’t there should we need it then. This recession hurt alot of people, but it has not been nearly as bad as the President would have you believe.
Of course, they hold so much of our debt already that for them to do so would be economic suicide. I really think that they are more pragmatic than that.
It would be economic suicide if their economies were not growing. There will come a time when China has the ability to be a consumer for its own production…. As standard of living increases there and in the third world, and US debt becomes more and more risky there will be less and less incentive for them to finance our reckless spending. What would the US do if China called in 1.5 Trillion dollars in bonds tomorrow? Print the money? What if they demanded payment in gold? This is a position we as a nation should not put ourselves in simply for the comfort of those Americans who behaved recklessly with their money. If you leveraged your $75K a year income to purchase a $300K house and two $35K cars, and got yourself in a bind when the economy fell apart, you deserved it. It is not the role of the government to pick up the pieces for you. Don’f forget, that is how we got here.
The reason that people organize themselves into entities like governments is to increase security and decrease risk. Contrary to the myth that conservatives have propagated for decades, countries with a better social safety net outperform the US on just about every metric other than GDP. We all expect people to “do things for themselves”, but insuring a basic level of security for all citizens leads to greater social stability, greater opportunity for everyone, more egalitarianism and a better quality of life.
This paragraph perfectly illustrates why our opinions are diametrically opposed. We do insure a basic level of security…. Quite alot more than “basic” as a matter of fact. The majority of America’s “poor” are obese. The majority of America’s poor have cable television, and high speed internet. The majority of America’s poor have a car or other form of transportation. The majority of America’s poor can afford to dine out once a week….. Taking money from me, to insure that another, less productive, individual has high speed internet does not make for greater opportunity or prosperity.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 2223 hrs
If you leveraged your $75K a year income to purchase a $300K house and two $35K cars, and got yourself in a bind when the economy fell apart, you deserved it.
Of course, you would ignore the person who did nothing wrong, but who still lost all of their equity due to the foreclosures of the irresponsible borrowers.
More importantly, you also ignore the circumstances that made it possible for the irresponsible borrower to become overleveraged to such an extent, namely the excessively expansionist monetary policy and the deregulation of collateralized debt obligations that eliminated the risk of mortgage originators and distorted the market far more than any government action could’ve. That’s right, a lack of regulation led to massive distortions in the market that, except for timely government action, would’ve likely crashed the world economy.
As standard of living increases there and in the third world, and US debt becomes more and more risky there will be less and less incentive for them to finance our reckless spending.
Yes, I agree 100% that we must address our deficits before they lead to catastrophe. You can’t really pay down your debt during a recession. By taking steps to spur economic growth, the government is acting to ensure that we will be in a position to return to the balanced budgets of the Clinton administration, and undo the damage of George W, sooner rather than later.
The majority of America’s “poor” are obese.
- Of course, that is due to the lack of availability of nutritious food, and the abundance of foods with processed and refined sugars. Have you tried to find produce in the hood? There’s no Whole Foods markets there, I can assure you. If obesity is a sign of wealth, why does it correlate inversely with income?
Taking money from me, to insure that another, less productive, individual has
That, I think, illustrates our differences even better. In your worldview, there is an absolute correlation between social value and wealth. In reality, however, many of those who you label “more productive” (which really just means wealthier) contribute little or nothing to the level of prosperity and opportunity in our country. In fact, the wealthy benefit far more from government action than the poor.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2010 at 2259 hrs
@dj Sometimes I think that you must be writing in from another country because the things you say and believe are so far from the reality that I see with my own eyes that I just have to assume you’ve never been near my neighborhood.
Have you tried to find produce in the hood? There’s no Whole Foods markets there, I can assure you.
I shop in parts of “the hood” that would probably make you soil yourself and the Walmart there has produce…. so does the other food store. Not many are buying it though. I see families where no adult works, but the kids have nothing but processed food to eat because no one in the house bothers to cook either. I’ve never understood why you are allowed to buy junk food on food assistance, but there it is. People are fat because they eat too much and do too little. Your liberal excuses that obesity in not the fault of the obese are rather lame. People choose not to buy healthy foods. Oh, and by the way, not everyone is an elitist snob who shops at whole foods…
the deregulation of collateralized debt obligations that eliminated the risk of mortgage originators
Again, do they have capitalism where you live? The reason the banks got involved with so much bad debt was government (Fannie, and Freddie supported by Dodd and Frank). Pressure to offer loans to people who could not afford them was applied. How in your wildest dreams can you believe that banks decided to scam people by giving them money that the bank knew might not be repaid. Yeah, that’s a clever scam, now isn’t it.
those who you label “more productive” (which really just means wealthier) contribute little or nothing to the level of prosperity and opportunity in our country
You have that backwards. More productive people become wealthier. Less productive people do not. The less productive ones are kept that way by people who provide them a subsistence living that punishes them financially when they try to become productive and steals any hope of the achieving the American dream. The wealthy are hurt by the confiscatory taxes (not helped, silly fellow) and so are the folks that the stolen wealth is redistributed to.
By taking steps to spur economic growth, the government is acting
The steps taken by government have massively increased unemployment rather than reduced it. Remember, stimulus was going to get us no more than 8% and 7% by 2010. The economy is foundering in the storm now, and rather than bail, the Democrats keep filling the hold with more cement in the form of unsustainable spending and debt. Eventually the ship will sink. Trillions in spending… wasted with nothing to show for it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2010 at 0009 hrs
Again, do they have capitalism where you live? The reason the banks got involved with so much bad debt was government (Fannie, and Freddie supported by Dodd and Frank). Pressure to offer loans to people who could not afford them was applied.
Your snotty attitude belies the fact that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
-The community reinvestment act only applied to one of the 25 largest subprime lenders.
-Fannie and Freddie only insured conforming loans. The definition of a subprime loan is a loan that didn’t meet Fannie Mae’s guidelines for repurchase. You obviously don’t know anything about the mortgage industry
-Loans offered under the community reinvestment act had a far lower rate of default than averageHow in your wildest dreams can you believe that banks decided to scam people by giving them money that the bank knew might not be repaid. Yeah, that’s a clever scam, now isn’t it.
Most people would be embarrassed to express such a strong opinion on a subject that they knew so little about, but I guess you aren’t. Let me educate you.
The way that banks “scammed” people by “giving them money that the bank knew might not be repaid” was as follows:
1. Due to the extremely low interest rates, the amount of money available to lend exceeded the demand for normal, conforming loans.
2. Lenders decided that they could make more profits by lending money to people who normally couldn’t qualify for a loan, so they reduced or eliminated the lending guidelines that made borrowers prove that they were able to repay the loans.
3. In order to mitigate the risks of borrowers defaulting, lenders started packaging together loans with similar characteristics (loan amounts, borrower credit scores and debt to income ratios, etc) and selling shares of them to investors to disperse the risk. (that’s how the bank could make risky loans and not be exposed if the borrower defaulted)
4. The companies that issued these securities were able to secure AAA ratings from agencies like Moodys, which means that a wide range of institutional investors started buying them
5. At the same time, investors started buying insurance on these investments, in case they decreased in value. They were able to insure these repackaged mortgages for much more than they were worth. That’s why AIG, who wasn’t really in the business of selling mortgages, was in so much trouble after the housing collapse.And that is a quick summary of the house of cards that collapsed. And for all your insults about me not knowing what I’m talking about, your obvious ignorance of the simple facts that underlie the near collapse of the financial sector a year and a half ago really destroys your credibility to opine on anything related to economics.
More productive people become wealthier. Less productive people do not.
Again, more simple minded ignorance.
The wealthy are hurt by the confiscatory taxes
Taxes are lower now than under Reagan. Our effective corporate tax rates are much lower than other countries that provide more to their citizens.
The steps taken by government have massively increased unemployment rather than reduced it.
Just because Glenn Beck says it doesn’t make it true. Why don’t you quote an actual economist that says that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2010 at 0048 hrs
dj,
You failed to mention the Community Reinvestment Act when in your ‘banks are evil’ diatribe…
imagine that
-Fannie and Freddie only insured conforming loans. The definition of a subprime loan is a loan that didn’t meet Fannie Mae’s guidelines for repurchase
You obviously don’t know anything about the mortgage industry
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2010 at 0854 hrs
Getting back to the inflation/deflation question.
I guess it depends on your perspective.
Inflation is generally caused by an imbalance in supply and demand in which demand outstrips supply.
Deflation is generally caused by an imbalance in supply and demand in which supply exceeds demand.
Depending on your position in the market (raw material producer, manufacturer, reseller, consumer) the time frame (as dj and Doug have already mentioned) will certainly be part of your calculus in determining which benefits you the most.
Doug seems to have the micro based perspective of a reseller or consumer in the short term.
On the other hand, dj is making the case from a macro based perspective in the long term.
At least that’s what I understood until it degenerated to the whose to blame finger pointing.
Thanks for answering my question Doug.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2010 at 0932 hrs
You failed to mention the Community Reinvestment Act when in your ‘banks are evil’ diatribe…
Your snotty attitude belies the fact that you have no idea what you’re talking about.
-The community reinvestment act only applied to one of the 25 largest subprime lenders.
-Fannie and Freddie only insured conforming loans. The definition of a subprime loan is a loan that didn’t meet Fannie Mae’s guidelines for repurchase. You obviously don’t know anything about the mortgage industry
-Loans offered under the community reinvestment act had a far lower rate of default than averageYou obviously don’t know anything about the mortgage industry
I was only a loan officer for about 4 years. And then the web application developer for a mortgage processing company for another two years. Yeah, I don’t know anything about the mortgage industry, mortgage backed securities, collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2010 at 1005 hrs
But regarding the CRA specifically, I particularly enjoyed this quote:
These arguments are generally made by people who read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal and ignore the rest of the paper—economic know-nothings whose opinions are informed mostly by ideology and, occasionally, by prejudice.
http://www.slate.com/id/2201641
-The community reinvestment act applied to BANKS. The vast majority of subprime loans were made by BROKERS and funded by MORTGAGE COMPANIES that were not subject to the CRA-As the Fed Governor Elizabeth A. Duke said
I would like to dispel the notion that these problems were caused in any way by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) lending. The CRA is designed to promote lending in low- to moderate-income areas; it is not designed to encourage high-risk lending or poor underwriting. Our analysis of the data finds no evidence, in fact, that CRA lending is in any way responsible for the current crisis…. In fact, the analysis found that only 6 percent of all higher-priced loans were made by CRA-covered lenders to borrowers and neighborhoods targeted by the CRA. This very small share makes it hard to imagine how CRA could have caused, or even contributed in a meaningful way, to the current crisis.
Also, the peak of CRA enforcement activity was under Clinton in the 90’s, during which time subprime loans performed well. The subprime crisis didn’t occur until after Bush had slashed enforcement of the CRA under his administration.
Perhaps this quote from the Bankers Association of America can shed some light on your utter ignorance (this is the same group that lobbies congress to REDUCE regulations like the CRA - surely they wouldn’t defend it if it were to blame)
Bob Davis, executive vice president of the American Bankers Association, which lobbies Congress to streamline community reinvestment rules, said “it just isn’t credible” to blame the law CRA for the crisis.
“Institutions that are subject to CRA – that is, banks and savings associations – were largely not involved in subprime lending,” Davis said. “The bulk of the loans came through a channel that was not subject to CRA.
Or how bout this quote from the Minneapolis Fed:
Two basic points emerge from our analysis of the available data. First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations is related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Taken together, the available evidence seems to run counter to the contention that the CRA contributed in any substantive way to the current mortgage crisis.
Here’s more facts to dispel your ignorant rants
Federal Reserve Board data show that:
* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critics…
Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.
During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data…
What’s more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don’t, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.
These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren’t subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html
You obviously don’t know anything about the mortgage industry
I hope you feel as stupid as you look after that comment.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2010 at 1022 hrs
-The community reinvestment act applied to BANKS. The vast majority of subprime loans were made by BROKERS and funded by MORTGAGE COMPANIES that were not subject to the CRA
... and then consequently purchased by banks. I’m surprised you did not know that…. of course, you are the one saying Fannie and Freddie had no subprime mortgages in their portfolio…
Posted by Smeety on January 30, 2010 at 2320 hrs
... and djzealous, if I may… I really don’t understand the purpose of your posts about the CRA. My comment is merely that the gov’t holds a portion of the responsibility as well, whether it is Bush or Clinton or whoever… the gov’t, the banks, the brokers, the home inspectors/appraisers, and ultimately the borrowers….. this blame game you play with sympathy to the borrowers is reedick…. I know plenty of ‘forclosees’ and none of them deserve sympathy
... but then, what do I know about being a responsible consumer… I’m 37, moved into my home in 03, and consequently paid off my mortgage…
Posted by Smeety on January 30, 2010 at 2340 hrs
I know plenty of ‘forclosees’ and none of them deserve sympathy…I’m 37, moved into my home in 03, and consequently paid off my mortgage…
“I got mine so fuck everybody else” - Typical republican mindset.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2010 at 0023 hrs
“I got mine so fuck everybody else” - Typical republican mindset.
Damn, that is funny. I guess being responsible, and expecting others to act similarly, means being a jerk ... ah, yes, liberalism… don’t worry, Uncle Barack has no issue stealing from me to feed your comrades (in return for their votes)...
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2010 at 0841 hrs
Here’s a great idea: Why don’t you “go galt” and we’ll see how much we non-productive leeches miss you.
Seriously.
Like, now.
I know plenty of ‘forclosees’ and none of them deserve sympathy
I think you’ve shown conclusively on this thread that you don’t know as much as you think. Too bad you are the only one that doesn’t see it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2010 at 0958 hrs
I really don’t understand the purpose of your posts about the CRA.
Yeah, you don’t understand a lot of things. The “purpose” of my comments about the CRA was to refute morons like you who think that poor people are to blame for the mortgage meltdown/recession. Of course, you are too brainwashed to ever see the truth, but there’s a chance that some intellectually honest person who honestly believes your right wing bs will read it and learn something.
The vast majority of subprime loans were made by BROKERS and funded by MORTGAGE COMPANIES that were not subject to the CRA
... and then consequently purchased by banks
You seem to have this compulsive need to look like an idiot. The mortgage backed securities were not purchased by banks, they were purchased by investors, but what does that have to do with your idiotic point that the CRA is to blame for the subprime crisis?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2010 at 1006 hrs
The vast majority of subprime loans were made by BROKERS and funded by MORTGAGE COMPANIES that were not subject to the CRA…
- - - - - - - - -
The mortgage backed securities were not purchased by banks, they were purchased by investors…
- - - - - - - - -
@djzealous: note I referred to the loans themselves and not the securities…(insert vulgar demeaning comment here)
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - -
The “purpose” of my comments about the CRA was to refute morons like you who think that poor people are to blame for the mortgage meltdown/recession. Of course, you are too brainwashed to ever see the truth…maybe you should reread my comments:
My comment is merely that the gov’t holds a portion of the responsibility as well, whether it is Bush or Clinton or whoever… the gov’t, the banks, the brokers, the home inspectors/appraisers, and ultimately the borrowers…..
- - - - - - - - -
but by all means, continue to be overzealous, vulgar, demeaning, and wrong. It seems to be your strength…and I promise few agree with your intellectually ignorant comments since they lack the notion of personally responsibility…Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2010 at 1035 hrs
note I referred to the loans themselves and not the securities
You apparently are the type of person that can’t ever accept that they are wrong. The loans were packaged into investment vehicles and sold to investors, not sold to banks
My comment is merely that the gov’t holds a portion of the responsibility as well
The comment I was responding to was
You failed to mention the Community Reinvestment Act when in your ‘banks are evil’ diatribe…imagine that
You didn’t say that the government holds a portion of the responsibility. Nobody would disagree with that. The government should’ve been taking a more active regulatory role to ensure that things didn’t get out of control, as they always do in an unregulated market.
What you implied was that the
Community Reinvestment Act
is responsible, parroting talking points from the propaganda outlets that you apparently consume. That is simply not true, as I illustrated above.
the gov’t, the banks, the brokers, the home inspectors/appraisers, and ultimately the borrowers
No, ultimately the blame rests with the monetary policy of the Fed under Clinton and especially Bush. Consumers should be able to expect that licensed professionals (like mortgage brokers) are acting ethically. That is why government licensing exists. You shouldn’t have to be a lawyer and a financial analyst to buy a home. Obviously, many borrowers acted irresponsibly, and they are to blame. But in just as many, if not more cases, unethical people mislead consumers and encouraged them to act against their best interests. Markets cannot function properly when some participants are acting dishonestly and others lack the necessary information to make rational decisions.
Also, I would like to apologize for the tone of my last few comments. The name calling was not necessary and very uncivilized, and I’m sorry.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2010 at 1114 hrs
You didn’t say that the government holds a portion of the responsibility.
I say again:
My comment is merely that the gov’t holds a portion of the responsibility as well, whether it is Bush or Clinton or whoever… the gov’t, the banks, the brokers, the home inspectors/appraisers, and ultimately the borrowers…..
- - - - - - - - - - -
No, ultimately the blame rests with the monetary policy of the Fed under Clinton and especially Bush.
We’re not going to agree on this, but I take personal responsibility for my actions, up to and including buying a house. (I’m definitely not implying that people weren’t shady).... There is NO WAY I’d have made such a purchase and not do research and dictated the terms. I had a very close friend do my mortgage in 03, and was trying to push me into a 30-year FHA… after research I told him I wanted a 20-year with 20% down. I also bought something I could unquestionably afford…..(but enough about me)...
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2010 at 1338 hrs
I take personal responsibility for my actions, up to and including buying a house
Now, if Similac sold a batch of contaminated infant formula, they could make the following claim: “Yeah, we sold the formula, but if the consumers had done a simple chemical analysis they would’ve seen that the formula was contaminated. They should’ve been responsible consumers”. I mean, ultimately it’s the parents’ responsibility to keep their child safe, right? That is the same thought process you are using here.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2010 at 1511 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134035
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 08:52 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 90
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 10:35 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).