>>> Sorry, the military is exactly a part of the society, it is not something distinct from society.
It is distinct from society. Generally speaking, it lives apart and is governed by a different system of laws and oversight.
>>> While it is primarily thought of and written about as an economic system in history, the overall principle of pooling resources and sharing for the greater good is still the same.
By that reasoning our roads and our government are "socialist."
>>> And no, the government did not think up bundling mortgages or credit default swaps, nor did it think up loan originators, brokers, home inspectors, etc. Those are all market creations, and the market made a boatload of money - until two years ago.
Oh, ok...three little words..."Community Reinvestment Act."
So you disagree our propensity to pool resources is socialist in terms of the military, though the very root of the word suggests otherwise. In the classical economic sense it would not be, but in the broader sense, yes it is.
In any case, I don't care about that... talk to me on why you think this economic crisis is all the fault of government.
I watch the right run around for 3 decades or more, screaming the evils of regulation to the winds. I see cries for 'let market forces work,' when time and time again we see that financial markets are inherently incapable of self-regulation.
Folks, hold tight memories of the events of this year... 30 years from now, you can use it against the next round of deregulation advocates.
>>> So you disagree our propensity to pool resources is socialist in terms of the military, though the very root of the word suggests otherwise. In the classical economic sense it would not be, but in the broader sense, yes it is.
If one were to accept your premise, and definition, then anything and everything that is paid for by tax dollars would be socialist.
>>> In any case, I don't care about that... talk to me on why you think this economic crisis is all the fault of government.
I believe I mentioned the Community Reinvestment Act. Liberal policies like this as well as pressure and protection from people like Barney Frank have pushed the idea that home-ownership is a "right." Granted, there were plenty of businesses who saw dollar signs, especially with Fannie and Freddie implying that they would guarantee all of the "bad loans," just as there were irresponsible people buying homes they couldn't afford, but the beginning...the policy...and the end game...the oversight...lies with the government...and in particular, with the Democrats.
>>> I watch the right run around for 3 decades or more, screaming the evils of regulation to the winds. I see cries for 'let market forces work,' when time and time again we see that financial markets are inherently incapable of self-regulation.
Propaganda. The markets are very capable of self-regulation. In a free-market...and by "free" I mean free of government interference, the sub-prime loans would have never been made. Business isn't in the business of taking risks to help people own homes. And even if you'd like to argue that some business somewhere would engage in that kind of risky policy, without the government propping it up, it would have failed long ago and that one business would have been bitten in the a$$...$$ literally. It might have hurt that company, but it probably wouldn't have been debilitating and certainly wouldn't be resonating throughout the economy like this current crisis is.
>>> Folks, hold tight memories of the events of this year... 30 years from now, you can use it against the next round of deregulation advocates.
I think the left's policy of all regulation all of the time is foolish and damaging.
I believe I mentioned the Community Reinvestment Act. Liberal policies like this as well as pressure and protection from people like Barney Frank have pushed the idea that home-ownership is a "right." Granted, there were plenty of businesses who saw dollar signs, especially with Fannie and Freddie implying that they would guarantee all of the "bad loans," just as there were irresponsible people buying homes they couldn't afford, but the beginning...the policy...and the end game...the oversight...lies with the government...and in particular, with the Democrats.
Can you show me where government forced lenders to adopt bad policies? Can you show me where changes made originated with politicians who forced the market to say... keep less capital in reserve? I would guess that Republicans
In 2002 Kathleen C. Engel and Patricia A. McCoy published a study of the predatory lending implications of the CRA, noting that by the late 1990s, predatory high cost mortgages to “gullible borrowers” were leading to foreclosures against low-income people of color and the elderly. They found evidence of such lending practices by CRA covered banks, both directly in their own lending and indirectly in buying other parties’ predatory loans as investments or to help them obtain CRA compliance credit. They criticized CRA regulators for not punishing such predatory lending and recommended changes to make it do so. Other analysts and community groups also complained about this problem in the early 1990s.
The FDIC, which enforces CRA compliance, now states that "predatory lending can have a negative effect on a bank's CRA performance.
Relation to 2008 financial crisis
See also: Subprime mortgage crisis
In an article for the New York Post, economist Stan Liebowitz writes that the CRA encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry despite warnings of default. Banks were allowed to loan to consumers who were not credit worthy with "no verification of income or assets; little consideration of the applicant's ability to make payments; no down payment." He notes that the Fannie Mae Foundation singled out Countrywide Financial, whose commitment to low-income loans had grown to $600 billion by early 2003, as a "paragon" of a nondiscriminatory lender who works with community activists, following "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." The chief executive of Countrywide is said to have "bragged" that in order to approve minority applications, "lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit."
A recent Wall Street Journal editorial on the current mortgage crisis argued that "Washington is as deeply implicated in this meltdown as anyone on Wall Street" because politicians "promoted housing and easy credit". The editorial lists the CRA as as one of the subsidies and policies, and stated that it "compels banks to make loans to poor borrowers who often cannot repay them".
In a piece for CNN, Congressman Ron Paul, who serves on the United States House Committee on Financial Services, partially attributed the current "economic downturn" to the Community Reinvestment Act, charging it with "forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks."
Others dispute CRA's relation to the crisis.
In congressional testimony in 2008, University of Michigan law professor Michael S. Barr stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately half of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA. Twenty-five to thirty percent came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. He states that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps" one in four sub-prime loans. Referring to CRA and abuses in the subprime market, Michael Barr stated that in his judgment "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight".
A 1997 research paper by economists at the Federal Reserve also found that " lenders active in lower-income neighborhoods and with lower-income borrowers appear to be as profitable as other mortgage-oriented commercial banks".
A Bank for International Settlements ("BIS") working paper by economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust."
According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. She states most CRA loans have been responsibly made, and are not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis.
Ellen Seidman, former director of the US Office of Thrift Supervision during the Clinton administration, who works at the New America Foundation, has stated that the CRA did not have an effect on the United States housing bubble. She observes that CRA banks were particularly warned to make responsible investments, citing one of her own speeches as an example.
In 2008, Traiger and Hinckley, a law firm that specializes on compliance to US housing laws, conducted a study of loans made by institutions covered under the CRA. The study found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans to other parties.
Pages
http://llhaesa.org/
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
>>> Sorry, the military is exactly a part of the society, it is not something distinct from society.
It is distinct from society. Generally speaking, it lives apart and is governed by a different system of laws and oversight.
>>> While it is primarily thought of and written about as an economic system in history, the overall principle of pooling resources and sharing for the greater good is still the same.
By that reasoning our roads and our government are "socialist."
>>> And no, the government did not think up bundling mortgages or credit default swaps, nor did it think up loan originators, brokers, home inspectors, etc. Those are all market creations, and the market made a boatload of money - until two years ago.
Oh, ok...three little words..."Community Reinvestment Act."
So you disagree our propensity to pool resources is socialist in terms of the military, though the very root of the word suggests otherwise. In the classical economic sense it would not be, but in the broader sense, yes it is.
In any case, I don't care about that... talk to me on why you think this economic crisis is all the fault of government.
I watch the right run around for 3 decades or more, screaming the evils of regulation to the winds. I see cries for 'let market forces work,' when time and time again we see that financial markets are inherently incapable of self-regulation.
Folks, hold tight memories of the events of this year... 30 years from now, you can use it against the next round of deregulation advocates.
http://llhaesa.org/
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
"claim a fair contribution on my part."
the stupidity or something else?
http://llhaesa.org/
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
>>> So you disagree our propensity to pool resources is socialist in terms of the military, though the very root of the word suggests otherwise. In the classical economic sense it would not be, but in the broader sense, yes it is.
If one were to accept your premise, and definition, then anything and everything that is paid for by tax dollars would be socialist.
>>> In any case, I don't care about that... talk to me on why you think this economic crisis is all the fault of government.
I believe I mentioned the Community Reinvestment Act. Liberal policies like this as well as pressure and protection from people like Barney Frank have pushed the idea that home-ownership is a "right." Granted, there were plenty of businesses who saw dollar signs, especially with Fannie and Freddie implying that they would guarantee all of the "bad loans," just as there were irresponsible people buying homes they couldn't afford, but the beginning...the policy...and the end game...the oversight...lies with the government...and in particular, with the Democrats.
>>> I watch the right run around for 3 decades or more, screaming the evils of regulation to the winds. I see cries for 'let market forces work,' when time and time again we see that financial markets are inherently incapable of self-regulation.
Propaganda. The markets are very capable of self-regulation. In a free-market...and by "free" I mean free of government interference, the sub-prime loans would have never been made. Business isn't in the business of taking risks to help people own homes. And even if you'd like to argue that some business somewhere would engage in that kind of risky policy, without the government propping it up, it would have failed long ago and that one business would have been bitten in the a$$...$$ literally. It might have hurt that company, but it probably wouldn't have been debilitating and certainly wouldn't be resonating throughout the economy like this current crisis is.
>>> Folks, hold tight memories of the events of this year... 30 years from now, you can use it against the next round of deregulation advocates.
I think the left's policy of all regulation all of the time is foolish and damaging.
I believe I mentioned the Community Reinvestment Act. Liberal policies like this as well as pressure and protection from people like Barney Frank have pushed the idea that home-ownership is a "right." Granted, there were plenty of businesses who saw dollar signs, especially with Fannie and Freddie implying that they would guarantee all of the "bad loans," just as there were irresponsible people buying homes they couldn't afford, but the beginning...the policy...and the end game...the oversight...lies with the government...and in particular, with the Democrats.
Can you show me where government forced lenders to adopt bad policies? Can you show me where changes made originated with politicians who forced the market to say... keep less capital in reserve? I would guess that Republicans
Full length fiction: worlds undone
"You have no power over my body..." ~ Anne Hutchinson
I had posted this excerpt of an
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
As does this...
Predatory Lending
In 2002 Kathleen C. Engel and Patricia A. McCoy published a study of the predatory lending implications of the CRA, noting that by the late 1990s, predatory high cost mortgages to “gullible borrowers” were leading to foreclosures against low-income people of color and the elderly. They found evidence of such lending practices by CRA covered banks, both directly in their own lending and indirectly in buying other parties’ predatory loans as investments or to help them obtain CRA compliance credit. They criticized CRA regulators for not punishing such predatory lending and recommended changes to make it do so. Other analysts and community groups also complained about this problem in the early 1990s.
The FDIC, which enforces CRA compliance, now states that "predatory lending can have a negative effect on a bank's CRA performance.
Relation to 2008 financial crisis
See also: Subprime mortgage crisis
In an article for the New York Post, economist Stan Liebowitz writes that the CRA encouraged a loosening of lending standards throughout the banking industry despite warnings of default. Banks were allowed to loan to consumers who were not credit worthy with "no verification of income or assets; little consideration of the applicant's ability to make payments; no down payment." He notes that the Fannie Mae Foundation singled out Countrywide Financial, whose commitment to low-income loans had grown to $600 billion by early 2003, as a "paragon" of a nondiscriminatory lender who works with community activists, following "the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted." The chief executive of Countrywide is said to have "bragged" that in order to approve minority applications, "lenders have had to stretch the rules a bit."
A recent Wall Street Journal editorial on the current mortgage crisis argued that "Washington is as deeply implicated in this meltdown as anyone on Wall Street" because politicians "promoted housing and easy credit". The editorial lists the CRA as as one of the subsidies and policies, and stated that it "compels banks to make loans to poor borrowers who often cannot repay them".
In a piece for CNN, Congressman Ron Paul, who serves on the United States House Committee on Financial Services, partially attributed the current "economic downturn" to the Community Reinvestment Act, charging it with "forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks."
Others dispute CRA's relation to the crisis.
In congressional testimony in 2008, University of Michigan law professor Michael S. Barr stated that a Federal Reserve survey showed that affected institutions considered CRA loans profitable and not overly risky. He noted that approximately half of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA. Twenty-five to thirty percent came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates. He states that institutions fully regulated by CRA made "perhaps" one in four sub-prime loans. Referring to CRA and abuses in the subprime market, Michael Barr stated that in his judgment "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight".
A 1997 research paper by economists at the Federal Reserve also found that " lenders active in lower-income neighborhoods and with lower-income borrowers appear to be as profitable as other mortgage-oriented commercial banks".
A Bank for International Settlements ("BIS") working paper by economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust."
According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. She states most CRA loans have been responsibly made, and are not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis.
Ellen Seidman, former director of the US Office of Thrift Supervision during the Clinton administration, who works at the New America Foundation, has stated that the CRA did not have an effect on the United States housing bubble. She observes that CRA banks were particularly warned to make responsible investments, citing one of her own speeches as an example.
In 2008, Traiger and Hinckley, a law firm that specializes on compliance to US housing laws, conducted a study of loans made by institutions covered under the CRA. The study found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans to other parties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act#Controversies
Pages