"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
When in the future you find yourself in a soup line, be sure to
"thank" the Republican standing next to you that made it all possible.

The Bush Recession...where were you when you lost everything?

TMT

Recession will be worst since 1930s, Greenspan says
By Kristina Cooke Kristina Cooke Tue Feb 17, 9:14 pm ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) – Former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan
Greenspan said on Tuesday the current global recession will "surely be
the longest and deepest" since the 1930s and more government rescue
funds are needed to stabilize the U.S. financial system.

"To stabilize the American banking system and restore normal lending,
additional TARP funds will be required," Greenspan said in a speech to
the Economic Club of New York. The U.S. Treasury's Troubled Asset
Relief Program designed to help bail out banks has been partially
successful, he said.

Despite his prognosis on the current downturn, Greenspan said the pace
of economic deterioration "cannot persist indefinitely."

He reiterated, however, that a housing recovery is a necessary
condition for the end of the financial crisis, and said that "the
prospect of stable home prices remains many months in the future."

The stock market, meanwhile, is being suppressed by "a degree of fear
not experienced since the early 20th century," Greenspan said.
"Certainly by any historical measure, world stock prices are cheap.
But as history also counsels, they could get a lot cheaper before they
turn."

A recovery in the equity market driven by lessening fear could be "a
seminal turning point of the current crisis," he said.

Citing the Japanese experience of the 1990s, Greenspan said U.S.
authorities need to assure the repair of the financial system before
major fiscal stimulus takes hold.

"Unless we are successful at that, in my judgment, the positive impact
of a fiscal stimulus will peter out after its scheduled completion,"
he said.

He said the real test of fiscal stimulus is whether it "primes the
pump" for private demand.

Greenspan said the Federal Reserve's myriad emergency lending programs
and the Treasury's TARP funds have the potential of being unwound
eventually without leading to inflation or great cost to the taxpayer.

He warned, however, that politics could be an obstacle.

"At the first signs of stabilization and a flattening of the
unemployment rate, I presume the Federal Reserve will start to rein in
much of its credit extension," Greenspan said.

"However, Congress is likely to strongly object to any tightening of
credit prior to full employment being restored. Policy reversals on
the fiscal front are nearly certain to meet stiff resistance," he
said.

The U.S. Treasury will have to heavily issue debt to fund its stimulus
package, and while at the moment the Treasury is having no difficulty
finding buyers for it, there is a limit to the expansion of the
federal debt, he said.

Greenspan, a proponent of self-regulation, said he was "deeply
dismayed" when in August 2007 the premise that firms had the
enlightened self interest to monitor their own risk exposure "failed."

"I see no alternative to a set of heightened federal regulatory rules
for banks and other financial institutions," he said.

"Even with the breakdown of self regulation, the financial system
would have held together had the second bulwark against crisis, our
existing regulatory system functioned effectively. But under crisis
pressure it, too, failed," Greenspan said.

That said, he still believes self-regulation is a first line of
defense for market effectiveness.

"We need not rush to reform. Private markets are imposing far greater
restraint at the moment than would any of the current sets of new
regulatory proposals."

Answering a question after his speech on whether he would have done
anything differently during his tenure as Federal Reserve chairman to
try and prevent the housing bubble, Greenspan said, "I think it would
be desirable to find a way to suppress asset bubbles.

"But I am skeptical that it can be done."

(Editing by Leslie Adler)

On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:38:46 -0600, "Libby Loo"
wrote:
snip
Answering a question after his speech on whether he would have done
anything differently during his tenure as Federal Reserve chairman to
try and prevent the housing bubble, Greenspan said, "I think it would
be desirable to find a way to suppress asset bubbles.

"But I am skeptical that it can be done."
snip
So the answer is to do nothing and watch the economy be driven
over the cliff????
-------------
(1) Currently under FRB control. Set the margin rate at 100%,
i.e. no stock buying on credit through your broker, 100% cash up
front.

(2) Under Congressional control -- Raise the capital gains tax
rate to and as required above regular income rates, possibly time
graduated so the day trading short term rate, e.g. 10 days, is
much higher than regular income tax rates or for assets held for
3-5 years.

(3) Under Congressional control. Impose the so called Tobin tax
of 0.10% on every exchange transaction including foreign
exchange. This is so small that it will have no effect on the
few legitimate trades as these seldom occur, but will rapidly
eliminate any profit on securities/commodities "turned over" or
churned tens or 100s of times a day.

(4) Try enforcing the existing banking regulations, especially
the loan reserve requirements, i.e. no 30:1 to 90:1 leverage in
regulated/insured banks.

(5) If it quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, swims like a
duck,etc. it's a duck. If it acts like a bank, if it looks like
a bank, if it lends money like a bank, it's a bank. Regulate
accordingly.

(6) Under SEC control. Mandate that all corporations required to
file annual/quarterly reports include their taxable earnings as
reported to the IRS on their annual stockholder reports adjacent
to their claimed EBIDTA or EBBS earnings, and explain the
difference in one or two paragraphs.

(7) Under the SEC or Congressional mandate reinstate the "uptick
rule."

(8) Get control of the hedge funds. If it has the potential to
collapse the economy [e.g. Long Term Capital Management] then is
should be monitored/regulated, and the special tax
exemptions/provisions for the managers' eliminated, e.g. "carry
interest."

(9) Prohibit the payment of bonuses or dividends from borrowed
funds. Require that these be made only from current earnings, or
at the very least cash on hand.

And a whole bunch more.

What a bunch of whiners and no-loads.... This was the same
excuse that the FRB had in 1929.

They are right in a way "nothing can be done when you can do
nothing."


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Feb 19, 3:23 am, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:38:46 -0600, "Libby wrote:

snip Answering a question after his speech on whether he would have done
anything differently during his tenure as Federal Reserve chairman to
try and prevent the housing bubble, Greenspan said, "I think it would
be desirable to find a way to suppress asset bubbles.

"But I am skeptical that it can be done."

snip
So the answer is to do nothing and watch the economy be driven
over the cliff????
-------------
"

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
Greenspan may have been skeptical of Congress passing any legislation
to suppress asset bubbles. The housing bubble was at least in part
due to Congress trying to increase the numbers of poor that owned
houses.

Dan

Libby Loo wrote:


"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
When in the future you find yourself in a soup line, be sure to
"thank" the Republican standing next to you that made it all possible.

The Bush Recession...where were you when you lost everything?


Bush may or may not own the the recession, but Obama, Pelosi and Reid
will surely own the 2nd Depression, along with everyone that voted for
that gang

On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 05:19:37 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Feb 19, 3:23 am, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:38:46 -0600, "Libby wrote:

snip Answering a question after his speech on whether he would have done
anything differently during his tenure as Federal Reserve chairman to
try and prevent the housing bubble, Greenspan said, "I think it would
be desirable to find a way to suppress asset bubbles.

"But I am skeptical that it can be done."

snip
So the answer is to do nothing and watch the economy be driven
over the cliff????
-------------
"

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
Greenspan may have been skeptical of Congress passing any legislation
to suppress asset bubbles. The housing bubble was at least in part
due to Congress trying to increase the numbers of poor that owned
houses.

Dan
=============

I am assuming you are referring to the Community Reinvestment
Act.

For the facts see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
and
http://www.ffiec.gov/cra/
http://www.ffiec.gov/cra/examinations.htm

As in so many areas the banks brought this upon themselves by
opening branches in the poorer urban areas, accepting deposits at
these branches, and then telling the residents of these
economically depressed areas to go pound sand when they applied
for mortgages and other credit en bloc, frequently referred to as
"red lining." The deposits were being transferred out of the
area and invested in other more affluent areas, with the effect
that the already depressed areas were being stripped of capital
and further depressed.

Nothing in the CRA mandated that *ANY* loans had to be made, only
that the people living in the area and depositing their money at
the bank had to have a fair shot at getting a loan, i.e. no
redlining or zip code underwriting.

What was new was that the applications across all branches of the
banks were being checked, and questions raised when an
application for a loan in one area was refused, but an
application in an other service area, with essentially identical
information such as employment history, current income, etc.
approved. Even when such arbitrary loan policies were detected,
the only real penalty was the possible refusal to be allowed to
open more branches, which was almost always granted.

Of course, the institutions were named and shamed by the
community action groups, and it appears in hindsight that banks
are like vampires in several ways including an allergy to
sunlight.

If there are enough deposits in an area to justify the
establishment and maintenance of a branch bank, then it is
reasonable to assume there is enough economic activity in the
area to justify at least some loans using reasonable and accepted
standards and criteria.

The proliferation of the branch banks, and the need for a CRA
were largely the result of an earlier wave of deregulation
limiting branch banking, resulting in the elimination of many
smaller community banks that had serviced these poorer urban
areas for years, much as Wal-Mart and Target eliminate the small
local stores when they move in to a community. Indeed, much of
the same rationale and excuses are used, even as more of the
community money is being vacuumed up and exported. When the
small community banks were eliminated, so were the people that
knew the area, knew who was a good credit risk, along with the
good jobs re circulating the money back into the community in
addition to making loans.

In the current context the CRA is simply a wonderful excuse for
the bad underwriting that resulted in huge amount of sub-prime
and alt-a lending that was done, aided and abetted by Freddie and
Fannie. This is one way those multimillion dollar bonuses for
the bankers were generated -- "just look at all the mortgage
business I generated …" [but not too closely]


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Feb 19, 4:11*pm, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2009 05:19:37 -0800 (PST), "





wrote:
On Feb 19, 3:23 am, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:38:46 -0600, "Libby wrote:

snip Answering a question after his speech on whether he would have done
anything differently during his tenure as Federal Reserve chairman to
try and prevent the housing bubble, Greenspan said, "I think it would
be desirable to find a way to suppress asset bubbles.

"But I am skeptical that it can be done."

snip
So the answer is to do nothing and watch the economy be driven
over the cliff????
-------------
"

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
Greenspan may have been skeptical of Congress passing any legislation
to suppress asset bubbles. *The housing bubble was at least in part
due to Congress trying to increase the numbers of poor that owned
houses.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

=============

I am assuming you are referring to the Community Reinvestment
Act.

For the facts seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act
andhttp://www.ffiec.gov/cra/http://www.ffiec.gov/cra/examinations.htm

As in so many areas the banks brought this upon themselves by
opening branches in the poorer urban areas, accepting deposits at
these branches, and then telling the residents of these
economically depressed areas to go pound sand when they applied
for mortgages and other credit en bloc, frequently referred to as
"red lining." *The deposits were being transferred out of the
area and invested in other more affluent areas, with the effect
that the already depressed areas were being stripped of capital
and further depressed.

Nothing in the CRA mandated that *ANY* loans had to be made, only
that the people living in the area and depositing their money at
the bank had to have a fair shot at getting a loan, i.e. no
redlining or zip code underwriting. *

What was new was that the applications across all branches of the
banks were being checked, and questions raised when an
application for a loan in one area was refused, but an
application in an other service area, with essentially identical
information such as employment history, current income, etc.
approved. *Even when such arbitrary loan policies were detected,
the only real penalty was the possible refusal to be allowed to
open more branches, which was almost always granted. *

Of course, the institutions were named and shamed by the
community action groups, and it appears in hindsight that banks
are like vampires in several ways including an allergy to
sunlight.

If there are enough deposits in an area to justify the
establishment and maintenance of a branch bank, then it is
reasonable to assume there is enough economic activity in the
area to justify at least some loans using reasonable and accepted
standards and criteria.

The proliferation of the branch banks, and the need for a CRA
were largely the result of an earlier wave of deregulation
limiting branch banking, resulting in the elimination of many
smaller community banks that had serviced these poorer urban
areas for years, much as Wal-Mart and Target eliminate the small
local stores when they move in to a community. *Indeed, much of
the same rationale and excuses are used, even as more of the
community money is being vacuumed up and exported. *When the
small community banks were eliminated, so were the people that
knew the area, knew who was a good credit risk, along with the
good jobs re circulating the money back into the community in
addition to making loans.

In the current context the CRA is simply a wonderful excuse for
the bad underwriting that resulted in huge amount of sub-prime
and alt-a lending that was done, aided and abetted by Freddie and
Fannie. *This is one way those multimillion dollar bonuses for
the bankers were generated -- "just look at all the mortgage
business I generated …" [but not too closely]

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Good discussion George.

And accurate.

TMT

On Feb 19, 10:11 pm, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:

I am assuming you are referring to the Community Reinvestment
Act.


Actually no. Although that is one of the things congress did that
encouraged high risk loans.

Dan

wrote in message
...
On Feb 19, 10:11 pm, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:

I am assuming you are referring to the Community Reinvestment
Act.


Actually no. Although that is one of the things congress did that
encouraged high risk loans.

No it didn't.

JC

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:01:15 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:
snip
Greenspan may have been skeptical of Congress passing any
legislation to suppress asset bubbles. The housing bubble was at
least in part due to Congress trying to increase the numbers of
poor that owned houses.
snip
-----------
On Feb 19, 10:11 pm, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:

I am assuming you are referring to the Community Reinvestment
Act.

Actually no. Although that is one of the things congress did that
encouraged high risk loans.

Dan
------------
What then? Be specific.

I see no reason that increasing the number of homes owned by
lower income families should have resulted in the housing bubble.

This appears to be another case where the road to hell was paved
with good intentions, exacerbated and amplified by the sharpies
that gamed the system and abused their customers.

If anything the only likely result of a significant shift from
rental to owned residences would be a depression in the low cost
rental markets because of a lack of tenants.

A survey of the homes that were actually constructed during the
bubble indicate a proliferation of unnecessary and ostentatious
features such as granite counter tops and home theaters that are
incompatible with low cost "starter" homes suitable for entry
buyers. In many cases the house prices were further padded with
the major appliances, drapes, rugs, etc. being included in the
sales price. The problem being that top dollar was paid for the
appliances, etc, then this price is more than doubled because of
interest over the live of the 30 year loan, and the home owner is
still paying for these items long after these have been worn out
and replaced.

In spite of the impression we are being force-fed by the media of
the bubble being caused by the low-income first-time home buyer,
many if not most of the problems are entirely due to the
speculators that bought several houses, with the intent to "flip"
for a quick profit, pyramiding their profits from earlier
"flips," and who got caught when the bubble burst.

To be sure many of the recent low income buyers are now losing
their new homes to foreclosure but this is more due to the loss
of their jobs caused by the general economic contraction, the
sale of unsuitable homes and/or the writing of unsuitable
mortgages, by a combination of unethical real estate agents and
mortgage brokers than any vague Congressional mandate.

One of the primary factors in creating and inflating the housing
bubble was the collusion of the banks and bond rating companies
to conjure up residential mortgaged backed collateralized debt
obligations with AAA ratings out of sub-prime and alt-a paper,
most of which was generated by the speculators, and not the low
income first time buyers, which were then sold to the insurance
companies, pension funds, foreign investors, etc. to keep the
money coming in [and the grift going].

An equally important factor was the active participation of the
GSEs [Freddie and Fannie] in this scam by their in discriminant
purchase of the rotten paper generated to keep the money coming.
While the excuse is that they were "just following orders," these
were independent public corporations, and in hindsight, it can be
seen the actual motivation was to keep the transaction volume up
and those big bonuses coming for the executives. At no time did
Congress give instructions to these executives to "loot the
company, wreck the economy, and make yourself rich."

FWIW -- the next tidal wave set to wash over the real estate
market appears to be the so called 'Jumbo" loans that are too big
for governmental backing [417k$US or 625k$US in select areas],
and nothing to do with the entry-level buyer.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...Nqs&refer=home

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aRH2S0KvOEF8


Yes, identifiable people are responsible/accountable for the
allowing the housing bubble to grow to a disastrous size before
it popped, and helping to inflate it, but the low income
individual buying a house for his family to live in isn't on that
list. Congress is more accountable, but only because they kept
believing the administrators and bankers when they said "not to
worry, things are fine," when asked about possible problems.

== Until the foundational problems are identified [and fixed]
and the accountable people named [jailed, and their assets
confiscated], bubbles will keep occurring as there is simply too
much [easy/quick] money to be made.==

KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE BALL, AND YOUR HAND ON YOUR WALLET.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

" wrote:

Greenspan may have been skeptical of Congress passing any legislation
to suppress asset bubbles. The housing bubble was at least in part
due to Congress trying to increase the numbers of poor that owned
houses.

Let us not leave out those that bought second homes as an investment thus driving the
overall home prices up. If you are going to mail the keys in, it would seem reasonable it
would be a home you are not living in.

The people that mailed the keys in are living somewhere. Think about it.

Wes

It forced making loans to normally not able to make a loan type.

It was a total farce. Some of these young people got seconds and thirds
slapped on them in the process.

Heard a guy on TV today talking about his $2K First loan and then second, third...

My wife pointed out - some of the buy a home shows on TV have the couple
get rated at the bank for what they can leverage. Then find a house
near that or under and upgrade the house to that.

Should have been upgrade over years...

Martin

John R. Carroll wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Feb 19, 10:11 pm, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:
I am assuming you are referring to the Community Reinvestment
Act.


Actually no. Although that is one of the things congress did that
encouraged high risk loans.

No it didn't.

JC

"Martin H. Eastburn" wrote in message
...
It forced making loans to normally not able to make a loan type.

No it didn't.
CRA money only went to qualified borrowers.
That was the law.
This entire CRA bruhaha is nonsense.


JC

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:38:46 -0600, "Libby Loo"
wrote:
snip
Answering a question after his speech on whether he would have done
anything differently during his tenure as Federal Reserve chairman to
try and prevent the housing bubble, Greenspan said, "I think it would
be desirable to find a way to suppress asset bubbles.

"But I am skeptical that it can be done."
snip
So the answer is to do nothing and watch the economy be driven
over the cliff????
-------------
(1) Currently under FRB control. Set the margin rate at 100%,
i.e. no stock buying on credit through your broker, 100% cash up
front.

(2) Under Congressional control -- Raise the capital gains tax
rate to and as required above regular income rates, possibly time
graduated so the day trading short term rate, e.g. 10 days, is
much higher than regular income tax rates or for assets held for
3-5 years.

(3) Under Congressional control. Impose the so called Tobin tax
of 0.10% on every exchange transaction including foreign
exchange. This is so small that it will have no effect on the
few legitimate trades as these seldom occur, but will rapidly
eliminate any profit on securities/commodities "turned over" or
churned tens or 100s of times a day.

(4) Try enforcing the existing banking regulations, especially
the loan reserve requirements, i.e. no 30:1 to 90:1 leverage in
regulated/insured banks.

(5) If it quacks like a duck, flies like a duck, swims like a
duck,etc. it's a duck. If it acts like a bank, if it looks like
a bank, if it lends money like a bank, it's a bank. Regulate
accordingly.

(6) Under SEC control. Mandate that all corporations required to
file annual/quarterly reports include their taxable earnings as
reported to the IRS on their annual stockholder reports adjacent
to their claimed EBIDTA or EBBS earnings, and explain the
difference in one or two paragraphs.

(7) Under the SEC or Congressional mandate reinstate the "uptick
rule."

(8) Get control of the hedge funds. If it has the potential to
collapse the economy [e.g. Long Term Capital Management] then is
should be monitored/regulated, and the special tax
exemptions/provisions for the managers' eliminated, e.g. "carry
interest."

(9) Prohibit the payment of bonuses or dividends from borrowed
funds. Require that these be made only from current earnings, or
at the very least cash on hand.

And a whole bunch more.

What a bunch of whiners and no-loads.... This was the same
excuse that the FRB had in 1929.

They are right in a way "nothing can be done when you can do
nothing."


Unka' George [George McDuffee]


If you listen to the free market fans all they have to offer to solve the
current problem is guess what? Let the market fix the problems by itself.
Get the government out of it. Where have we heard that before? I mean it's
positively crazy the way the business types think. They seem to have no
grasp that it is the free market that has destroyed everything and it's the
"top talent" at the big firms that have made all the mistakes that have
nearly ruined us. I heard it today that all the "best talent" was leaving
the name firms and going elsewhere so they could get higher salaries than
they could at the institutions that were taking TARP money and had to follow
government rules on pay. I say good riddance. The free market ideologues
that have run the business world are the people to blame for the size of the
problems. Had all these "smart" guys not been working where they were we'd
all be a lot better off. If ordinary guys with good old fashioned values had
been running our financial system we'd not be where we find ourselves today.
It's time to send all the big shots packing and get some regular folks in
authority for a change. It's clear that the "best and brightest" haven't
been good for anyone but themselves, and isn't it always that way?

Hawke

wrote in message
...
On Feb 19, 3:23 am, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:38:46 -0600, "Libby wrote:

snip Answering a question after his speech on whether he would have
done
anything differently during his tenure as Federal Reserve chairman to
try and prevent the housing bubble, Greenspan said, "I think it would
be desirable to find a way to suppress asset bubbles.

"But I am skeptical that it can be done."

snip
So the answer is to do nothing and watch the economy be driven
over the cliff????
-------------
"

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
Greenspan may have been skeptical of Congress passing any legislation
to suppress asset bubbles. The housing bubble was at least in part
due to Congress trying to increase the numbers of poor that owned
houses.

Dan


Who told you that? Because it's completely wrong. Most of the troubled
housing is from homes bought between 2004 and 2006 and most of them have
nothing to do with poor people who bought houses at the urging of congress.
Why don't you at least try to find out the facts instead of repeating what
someone else said? And why say something someone else said when you have no
idea if it's true or not? You are a pinhead.

Hawke

On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 20:19:00 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:
snip
It's time to send all the big shots packing and get some regular folks in
authority for a change. It's clear that the "best and brightest" haven't
been good for anyone but themselves, and isn't it always that way?
snip
---------
The problem is that they live in a parallel universe.

Most likely what they did and their suggestions that the best
thing to do is let nature take its course are correct, but for
that universe.

For the 99.9% of humanity that lives in this universe, this is
not the correct solution at all. Take for example their
assurances that things will be better in 6 or 9 months. Most
people can't go 6 months without a paycheck. In six months they
will have starved to death, lost the car, been foreclosed, etc.

10 or 20 million in a judgement proof trust fund does make a
difference in ones outlook.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:41:59 -0800 (PST), Too_Many_Tools
wrote:

10 or 20 million in a judgement proof trust fund does make a
difference in ones outlook.

snip

Or all those Swiss bank accounts that are now starting to be exposed?

UBS warns of dire consequences from U.S. tax battle
Fri Feb 20, 6:52 pm ET
MIAMI (Reuters) =96 UBS AG (UBSN.VX) (UBS.N) warned Friday that it could
go out of business if it complied with an order to reveal the names of
thousands of suspected U.S. tax dodgers with secret offshore accounts
at the Swiss bank.
--------------
Indeed.

Even if these individuals are not prosecuted for tax evasion, I
would like to see their names and addresses published to compare
with the campaign donor lists.

This is another facet of living in the parallel universe. In
that universe, as the great humanitarian, Leona Helmsly said,
"Laws are made for the little people," and "Only little people
pay taxes."


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

"Too_Many_Tools" wrote in message
...
On Feb 20, 3:27 pm, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:01:15 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

snip Greenspan may have been skeptical of Congress passing any
legislation to suppress asset bubbles. The housing bubble was at
least in part due to Congress trying to increase the numbers of
poor that owned houses.

snip
-----------On Feb 19, 10:11 pm, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:

I am assuming you are referring to the Community Reinvestment
Act.

Actually no. Although that is one of the things congress did that
encouraged high risk loans.

Dan

------------
What then? Be specific.

I see no reason that increasing the number of homes owned by
lower income families should have resulted in the housing bubble.

This appears to be another case where the road to hell was paved
with good intentions, exacerbated and amplified by the sharpies
that gamed the system and abused their customers.

If anything the only likely result of a significant shift from
rental to owned residences would be a depression in the low cost
rental markets because of a lack of tenants.

A survey of the homes that were actually constructed during the
bubble indicate a proliferation of unnecessary and ostentatious
features such as granite counter tops and home theaters that are
incompatible with low cost "starter" homes suitable for entry
buyers. In many cases the house prices were further padded with
the major appliances, drapes, rugs, etc. being included in the
sales price. The problem being that top dollar was paid for the
appliances, etc, then this price is more than doubled because of
interest over the live of the 30 year loan, and the home owner is
still paying for these items long after these have been worn out
and replaced.

In spite of the impression we are being force-fed by the media of
the bubble being caused by the low-income first-time home buyer,
many if not most of the problems are entirely due to the
speculators that bought several houses, with the intent to "flip"
for a quick profit, pyramiding their profits from earlier
"flips," and who got caught when the bubble burst.

To be sure many of the recent low income buyers are now losing
their new homes to foreclosure but this is more due to the loss
of their jobs caused by the general economic contraction, the
sale of unsuitable homes and/or the writing of unsuitable
mortgages, by a combination of unethical real estate agents and
mortgage brokers than any vague Congressional mandate.

One of the primary factors in creating and inflating the housing
bubble was the collusion of the banks and bond rating companies
to conjure up residential mortgaged backed collateralized debt
obligations with AAA ratings out of sub-prime and alt-a paper,
most of which was generated by the speculators, and not the low
income first time buyers, which were then sold to the insurance
companies, pension funds, foreign investors, etc. to keep the
money coming in [and the grift going].

An equally important factor was the active participation of the
GSEs [Freddie and Fannie] in this scam by their in discriminant
purchase of the rotten paper generated to keep the money coming.
While the excuse is that they were "just following orders," these
were independent public corporations, and in hindsight, it can be
seen the actual motivation was to keep the transaction volume up
and those big bonuses coming for the executives. At no time did
Congress give instructions to these executives to "loot the
company, wreck the economy, and make yourself rich."

FWIW -- the next tidal wave set to wash over the real estate
market appears to be the so called 'Jumbo" loans that are too big
for governmental backing [417k$US or 625k$US in select areas],
and nothing to do with the entry-level
buyer.http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...yhJ_n2Nqs&refe...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aRH2S0KvOEF8

Yes, identifiable people are responsible/accountable for the
allowing the housing bubble to grow to a disastrous size before
it popped, and helping to inflate it, but the low income
individual buying a house for his family to live in isn't on that
list. Congress is more accountable, but only because they kept
believing the administrators and bankers when they said "not to
worry, things are fine," when asked about possible problems.

== Until the foundational problems are identified [and fixed]
and the accountable people named [jailed, and their assets
confiscated], bubbles will keep occurring as there is simply too
much [easy/quick] money to be made.==

KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE BALL, AND YOUR HAND ON YOUR WALLET.

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

Again a good analysis George.

One common thread is that there was no or if it existed minimal
regulation.

That deficiency can be laid directly at the feet of the Republicans.

Pro business was given the keys to the Nation's assets...and they ran
with them.

TMT


You are so partisan that you can not admit the Dem's were also guilty.

On Feb 21, 6:01 pm, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

LOL...yet again you are correct.

No lending, no one buying houses...just the cash one has on hand now.

2009 is going to be a long hard year in America.

TMT

http://www.absolutemortgageco.com/default.aspx


Dan

On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 12:26:03 -0800, "Calif Bill"
wrote:


Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

Again a good analysis George.

One common thread is that there was no or if it existed minimal
regulation.

That deficiency can be laid directly at the feet of the Republicans.

Pro business was given the keys to the Nation's assets...and they ran
with them.

TMT

And when the Republicans attempted to regulate at least 3 times..the
Demos voted it down.

Seems the Dems wanted a new serf class of homeless


"Upon Roosevelt's death in 1945, H. L. Mencken predicted in his diary
that Roosevelt would be remembered as a great president, "maybe even
alongside Washington and Lincoln," opining that Roosevelt "had every
quality that morons esteem in their heroes.""

On Feb 19, 10:11 pm, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:

I am assuming you are referring to the Community Reinvestment
Act.

Actually no. Although that is one of the things congress did that
encouraged high risk loans.

Dan
------------
What then? Be specific.

I see no reason that increasing the number of homes owned by
lower income families should have resulted in the housing bubble.

This appears to be another case where the road to hell was paved
with good intentions, exacerbated and amplified by the sharpies
that gamed the system and abused their customers.

If anything the only likely result of a significant shift from
rental to owned residences would be a depression in the low cost
rental markets because of a lack of tenants.

A survey of the homes that were actually constructed during the
bubble indicate a proliferation of unnecessary and ostentatious
features such as granite counter tops and home theaters that are
incompatible with low cost "starter" homes suitable for entry
buyers. In many cases the house prices were further padded with
the major appliances, drapes, rugs, etc. being included in the
sales price. The problem being that top dollar was paid for the
appliances, etc, then this price is more than doubled because of
interest over the live of the 30 year loan, and the home owner is
still paying for these items long after these have been worn out
and replaced.

In spite of the impression we are being force-fed by the media of
the bubble being caused by the low-income first-time home buyer,
many if not most of the problems are entirely due to the
speculators that bought several houses, with the intent to "flip"
for a quick profit, pyramiding their profits from earlier
"flips," and who got caught when the bubble burst.

To be sure many of the recent low income buyers are now losing
their new homes to foreclosure but this is more due to the loss
of their jobs caused by the general economic contraction, the
sale of unsuitable homes and/or the writing of unsuitable
mortgages, by a combination of unethical real estate agents and
mortgage brokers than any vague Congressional mandate.

One of the primary factors in creating and inflating the housing
bubble was the collusion of the banks and bond rating companies
to conjure up residential mortgaged backed collateralized debt
obligations with AAA ratings out of sub-prime and alt-a paper,
most of which was generated by the speculators, and not the low
income first time buyers, which were then sold to the insurance
companies, pension funds, foreign investors, etc. to keep the
money coming in [and the grift going].

An equally important factor was the active participation of the
GSEs [Freddie and Fannie] in this scam by their in discriminant
purchase of the rotten paper generated to keep the money coming.
While the excuse is that they were "just following orders," these
were independent public corporations, and in hindsight, it can be
seen the actual motivation was to keep the transaction volume up
and those big bonuses coming for the executives. At no time did
Congress give instructions to these executives to "loot the
company, wreck the economy, and make yourself rich."

FWIW -- the next tidal wave set to wash over the real estate
market appears to be the so called 'Jumbo" loans that are too big
for governmental backing [417k$US or 625k$US in select areas],
and nothing to do with the entry-level buyer.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...Nqs&refer=home

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aRH2S0KvOEF8


Yes, identifiable people are responsible/accountable for the
allowing the housing bubble to grow to a disastrous size before
it popped, and helping to inflate it, but the low income
individual buying a house for his family to live in isn't on that
list. Congress is more accountable, but only because they kept
believing the administrators and bankers when they said "not to
worry, things are fine," when asked about possible problems.

== Until the foundational problems are identified [and fixed]
and the accountable people named [jailed, and their assets
confiscated], bubbles will keep occurring as there is simply too
much [easy/quick] money to be made.==

KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE BALL, AND YOUR HAND ON YOUR WALLET.


What caused this crisis is really pretty simple. It's not the fault of
borrowers or poor people or the government. The cause of the crisis was
credit. What we really had was a credit bubble. Way too much was loaned to
way too many people. The people behind this were the people that were able
to extend credit. These were businesses and some government agencies. But it
was mainly greedy businesses that abused the credit markets. By lending so
much to so many and then selling the debt obligations as if they had no risk
caused the problems. You can blame this on the lenders. If they didn't lend
foolishly we wouldn't be in this mess. Try getting a loan today. It's almost
impossible. Why? Because the lenders are now not lending to anyone who has
any chance of not repaying. So that's it. When they lend to anyone and don't
care about being repaid this is what we get. This is a great example of
closing the barn door after the horses are gone. Now that we are financially
ruined lenders decide that they should only lend to the most qualified
borrowers. If they had anywhere near that attitude between 2001 and 2006 we
wouldn't be in such a mess. The bottom line is the usual. Business got us
where we are today. We are after all a country that is dominated by the
business community. So when things go wrong we know who to blame. Unless
you're a republican then everything is the fault of workers, unions, and
Democrats.

Hawke

snip Greenspan may have been skeptical of Congress passing any
legislation to suppress asset bubbles. The housing bubble was at
least in part due to Congress trying to increase the numbers of
poor that owned houses.

snip
-----------On Feb 19, 10:11 pm, F. George McDuffee gmcduf...@mcduffee-
associates.us wrote:

I am assuming you are referring to the Community Reinvestment
Act.

Actually no. Although that is one of the things congress did that
encouraged high risk loans.

Dan

------------
What then? Be specific.

I see no reason that increasing the number of homes owned by
lower income families should have resulted in the housing bubble.

This appears to be another case where the road to hell was paved
with good intentions, exacerbated and amplified by the sharpies
that gamed the system and abused their customers.

If anything the only likely result of a significant shift from
rental to owned residences would be a depression in the low cost
rental markets because of a lack of tenants.

A survey of the homes that were actually constructed during the
bubble indicate a proliferation of unnecessary and ostentatious
features such as granite counter tops and home theaters that are
incompatible with low cost "starter" homes suitable for entry
buyers. In many cases the house prices were further padded with
the major appliances, drapes, rugs, etc. being included in the
sales price. The problem being that top dollar was paid for the
appliances, etc, then this price is more than doubled because of
interest over the live of the 30 year loan, and the home owner is
still paying for these items long after these have been worn out
and replaced.

In spite of the impression we are being force-fed by the media of
the bubble being caused by the low-income first-time home buyer,
many if not most of the problems are entirely due to the
speculators that bought several houses, with the intent to "flip"
for a quick profit, pyramiding their profits from earlier
"flips," and who got caught when the bubble burst.

To be sure many of the recent low income buyers are now losing
their new homes to foreclosure but this is more due to the loss
of their jobs caused by the general economic contraction, the
sale of unsuitable homes and/or the writing of unsuitable
mortgages, by a combination of unethical real estate agents and
mortgage brokers than any vague Congressional mandate.

One of the primary factors in creating and inflating the housing
bubble was the collusion of the banks and bond rating companies
to conjure up residential mortgaged backed collateralized debt
obligations with AAA ratings out of sub-prime and alt-a paper,
most of which was generated by the speculators, and not the low
income first time buyers, which were then sold to the insurance
companies, pension funds, foreign investors, etc. to keep the
money coming in [and the grift going].

An equally important factor was the active participation of the
GSEs [Freddie and Fannie] in this scam by their in discriminant
purchase of the rotten paper generated to keep the money coming.
While the excuse is that they were "just following orders," these
were independent public corporations, and in hindsight, it can be
seen the actual motivation was to keep the transaction volume up
and those big bonuses coming for the executives. At no time did
Congress give instructions to these executives to "loot the
company, wreck the economy, and make yourself rich."

FWIW -- the next tidal wave set to wash over the real estate
market appears to be the so called 'Jumbo" loans that are too big
for governmental backing [417k$US or 625k$US in select areas],
and nothing to do with the entry-level

buyer.http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...yhJ_n2Nqs&refe.
...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aRH2S0KvOEF8

Yes, identifiable people are responsible/accountable for the
allowing the housing bubble to grow to a disastrous size before
it popped, and helping to inflate it, but the low income
individual buying a house for his family to live in isn't on that
list. Congress is more accountable, but only because they kept
believing the administrators and bankers when they said "not to
worry, things are fine," when asked about possible problems.

== Until the foundational problems are identified [and fixed]
and the accountable people named [jailed, and their assets
confiscated], bubbles will keep occurring as there is simply too
much [easy/quick] money to be made.==

KEEP YOUR EYE ON THE BALL, AND YOUR HAND ON YOUR WALLET.

Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).

Again a good analysis George.

One common thread is that there was no or if it existed minimal
regulation.

That deficiency can be laid directly at the feet of the Republicans.

Pro business was given the keys to the Nation's assets...and they ran
with them.

TMT


You are so partisan that you can not admit the Dem's were also guilty.


Not me though. I can be fair. I'll admit the Democrats were also partially
responsible. Here's the breakdown. The Democrats were 2% to blame.
Unfortunately, this leaves 98% of the blame to fall on the republicans, who
were in control of all branches of the country for at least 6 straight
years.

Hawke

On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 14:33:46 -0800, "Hawke"
wrote:
snip
Try getting a loan today. It's almost
impossible.
snip
-------------
Actually this is not the case. Most of the stronger regional and
local banks are lending at 5% give or take for home mortgages
*IF* the borrower qualifies for the loan. There are even some
zero down loans available. Whats not available is a 500,000
dollar loan for the borrower with a 35k$/year income.

The national banks most likely won't lend because they can't lend
as they are insolvent and they know it even if the auditors don't
[yet] know.


Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?

Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).