On Mar 23, 8:37 am, "ruethe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
" <ruethe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> On Mar 23, 6:49 am, "sinister" <sinis...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > <ruethe...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
>
>news:f2e673fd-e06b-4e54-885e-160584ecb915@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Mar 22, 6:53 am, "sinister" <sinis...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> >
>http://www.wa****ngtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR200...
>
> > > "But the former Fed chairman said that the subprime boom would boost
home
> > > owner****p and was 'worth the risk.' Greenspan said that 'protection
of
> > > property rights, so critical to a market economy, requires a
critical mass
> > > of owners to sustain political sup****t.' "
>
> > > Of course, what would you expect from a Randoid?
> > > I always considered the homeowner****p rate statistic and the drive
to
> > > boost it, a little flaky. Particularly with the rise of negative
> > > amortization and interest only loans. The "homeowner" is
essentially
> > > a renter who pays his rent in the form of mortgage interest and pays
> > > it to a bank rather than a landlord. The only real owner****p going
on
> > > here is the bank's owner****p of the mortgage holder.
>
> > I assume you saw the re****ts that % of equity in homes has dropped to
a low.
>
> That was the reason for my last sentence. With equity falling and the
> market values of homes falling, even the bank doesn't own
> much.......except for the person obligated to pay the mortgage.
Which of course, many of them are choosing not to do.
You all do realize that subprime mortgages represent only 12% of all
mortgages do you not? The banking crisis != subprime. the main part
of the banking crisis is caused by the derivatives market. The
derivatives market is a 400 TRILLION dollar marketplace. To put it in
perspective, world gdp is 66 trillion, us money supply is 6
trillion. 400 trillion dollars is roughly the property value of the
entire earth at current rates, so there must be some rather serious
global hocus pokus going on which will need to be unravelled in the
near future.
Every time there's an economic problem, the demands for government to
"do something" crop up, and in most instances, the government does do
something. they put off the problem and make it worse later. the
list of crises that the fed and the federal government has bailed out
over the decades is *long* just to name a few, there was the S+L
crisis, the dot-com bust, the 70s oil shocks. the list goes on and
on, and regardless of which party is in office, the results are always
the same, the fed kicks out a whole lot of money and the capital moves
on to the next bubble. JM keynes said that it was possible for a
government to spend it's way out of a recession, but he also noted the
need to SAVE UP during the good times. Something that has been
woefully lacking.
Clinton left bush with an absolutely untennable situation, a
gutted economy saddled with nafta, untenable unions, the dot-com bust
and a record national debt (the "budget surplus" was predicated upon
the dot com bust NOT HAPPENING). In addition to this, Clinton left
the US utterly devoid of intelligence services, the result of which
was 9-11. Bush failed to improve on any of these situations, and
then, along comes peak oil. That ALSO wasn't bush's fault, in fact,
he several times proposed measures that would have vastly improved the
situation (anwr drilling, continental shelf drilling) but was
resoundingly shouted down for "environmental reasons". Bush has been
the most ineffectual president in US history, partly due to... his
own ineffectually, and partly due to rampant opposition on the
political front by those who view his failures as their own successes
regardless of the results to the nation (democrats). And all this at
a time when we desperately needed cooperation and... a hero. Pity
about the world, it was good while it lasted, but it's over now.
Stock up on ammunition people, you're pretty likely to need it.
|
