Main Page | Report this Page
Politics Forum Index  »  Election Politics Forum  »  BLOOMBERG will RAISE YOUR RENT if re-elected!...
Page 1 of 1    

BLOOMBERG will RAISE YOUR RENT if re-elected!...
Author Message
Freedom Man...
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 2:23 pm
Guest
Over Billionaire Bloomberg's years of landlord-developer favoritism,
stabilized rents in NYC have increased about 30%. Do you think that if
re-elected he will not practice more such favoritism, for which we New York
City tenants will pay dearly? But what does Republican Billionaire Bloomberg
care? - he bought the support of the media he's spent million of dollars
with, and can always buy yet another term in office as long as people
believe his big-money deceptions and vote for him.

Last June, the NYC Rent Guidelines Board issued an edict that effective this
October 1st the landlords of rent-stabilized buildings can increase the rent
on a 1-year lease by 3%, and on a 2-year lease by 6%.
This affects about a million rent-regulated dwellings in New York City.

But regardless of the 3% - 6% ruling, many tenants will pay FAR BIGGER
INCREASES than these figures indicate. If you've been in your regulated
apartment for 6 years or more, or have been paying less than $1000 per month
in rent, landlords can and will give you an increase of $30 on a 1-year
lease even if it is more than 3% of what you now pay, and likewise a $60
increase on a 2-year lease.

Note that in most cases it is far better in the long run to take one year
leases.

Prior to the board's decision Bill Thompson, the Democratic candidate for
mayor of New York, called for NO increases - a freeze on rents due to the
economic hardship now faced by many tenants. Even Christine Quinn, often a
supporter of Republican Billionaire Bloomberg, called for such a rent
freeze.

Bloomberg claimed that he stays out of the board's operations because the
board exists to keep politics out of the decision-making process. But as
with his misleading ticket-trap parking signs, that's just another Bloomberg
deception. BLOOMBERG APPOINTED ALL NINE MENBERS OF THE RENT GUIDELINES
BOARD.

It's down to the wire now. Our future is in the hands of those that vote
intelligently in the interests of all New Yorkers, not just the wealthy and
privileged.

END RULE BY THE RICH FOR THE RICH IN NEW YORK
GIVE THE CITY BACK TO ITS CITIZENS
RESTORE DEMOCRACY
VOTE DEMOCRAT BILL TOMPKINS FOR MAYOR!
Back to top  
Werner...
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:15 am
Guest
On Nov 2, 2:23 pm, "Freedom Man" <libe... at (no spam) once.net> wrote:
Quote:
...

END RULE BY THE RICH FOR THE RICH IN NEW YORK
GIVE THE CITY BACK TO ITS CITIZENS
RESTORE DEMOCRACY
VOTE DEMOCRAT BILL TOMPKINS FOR MAYOR!


Why should you, or anyone, deserve to pay lower rent by decree? If
this is possible then you deserve to have your income regulated lower
as well.

A "right" as envisioned by the Founders meant that the government
was not permitted to interfere with your pursuit of them, i.e.,
your pursuit of happiness was to be unhindered by government. 

The "right" of free speech means that government cannot interfere
with your free speech. The "right" of gun ownership means that the
government cannot infringe your gun ownership. What does "right"
to health care mean? It means that the government cannot stand in
the way of your pursuit of health care, or impede your
obtaining health care. The "right" to an attorney means that the
government cannot prevent you obtaining an attorney to represent
you.

Of course, "right" has incorrectly come to mean that someone must
supply you with something. If your "right" to housing means that
some slave must supply you with housing, and your "right" to health
care means that some slave must supply you with health care, and your
"right" to an attorney means that some slave must supply you with an
attorney, does your "right" to free speech mean that some slave must
supply you with a loudspeaker, or TV air time? Does your "right" to
own guns mean that some slave must supply you with guns?


http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/Rights.shtml
Back to top  
Freedom Man...
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:51 pm
Guest
"Werner" <whetzner at (no spam) mac.com> wrote in message
news:4f03adab-5d4a-49af-85ce-ddd9297796b8 at (no spam) s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 2, 2:23 pm, "Freedom Man" <libe... at (no spam) once.net> wrote:
Quote:

END RULE BY THE RICH FOR THE RICH IN NEW YORK
GIVE THE CITY BACK TO ITS CITIZENS
RESTORE DEMOCRACY
VOTE DEMOCRAT BILL TOMPKINS FOR MAYOR!

Why should you, or anyone, deserve to pay lower rent by decree? If
this is possible then you deserve to have your income regulated lower
as well.
--
I do not expect that any rent CUTS will be allowed, except in cases where
landlord fraud was used to increase rents, or unrepaired violations exist.
What I DO expect is that the Rent Guidelines Board will act in the interests
of the tenants as well as the landlords, and not allow increases based on
dubious information supplied by those landlords.
--

A "right" as envisioned by the Founders meant that the government
was not permitted to interfere with your pursuit of them, i.e.,
your pursuit of happiness was to be unhindered by government.
--
But it most definitely IS! - thanks mostly to the Republican-Conservatives.
--

The "right" of free speech means that government cannot interfere
with your free speech.
--
They do it indirectly nowadays, as through control of the mass media.
--

The "right" of gun ownership means that the government cannot infringe
your gun ownership.
--
I agree, but they do.
--

What does "right"
to health care mean? It means that the government cannot stand in
the way of your pursuit of health care, or impede your
obtaining health care. The "right" to an attorney means that the
government cannot prevent you obtaining an attorney to represent
you.

Of course, "right" has incorrectly come to mean that someone must
supply you with something. If your "right" to housing means that
some slave must supply you with housing, and your "right" to health
care means that some slave must supply you with health care, and your
"right" to an attorney means that some slave must supply you with an
attorney, does your "right" to free speech mean that some slave must
supply you with a loudspeaker, or TV air time? Does your "right" to
own guns mean that some slave must supply you with guns?
--
Not "right," but ENTITLEMENT. Certain essential things such as food, water,
clean air, education, and health care should be financed through reasonable
taxation IF AND WHEN the essential product or service cannot be acceptably
provided through private enterprise. I agree with some of the Libertarians'
views, but far too many would allow wealthy white-collar criminals run amuck
and rape the public with even less restrictions than the RepubliKKKan$
imposed on them.
Back to top  
Werner...
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 6:25 pm
Guest
On Nov 3, 1:51 pm, "Freedom Man" <libe... at (no spam) once.net> wrote:
Quote:
...
--
Not "right," but ENTITLEMENT. Certain essential things such as food, water,
clean air, education, and health care should be financed through reasonable
taxation IF AND WHEN the essential product or service cannot be acceptably
provided through private enterprise. I agree with some of the Libertarians'
views, but far too many would allow wealthy white-collar criminals run amuck
and rape the public with even less restrictions than the RepubliKKKan$
imposed on them.


There seem to be too many such criminals in government. You must have
noticed the debt. And all the essential things you list can be
provided by private enterprise. Everyone has a different notion of
'acceptable' and 'reasonable'. What is acceptable to me should not be
imposed on you and visa versa.
Back to top  
Freedom Man...
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:22 pm
Guest
"Werner" <whetzner at (no spam) mac.com> wrote in message
news:c3a16f56-3cd6-4620-ba60-b8778b794274 at (no spam) b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 1:51 pm, "Freedom Man" <libe... at (no spam) once.net> wrote:
Quote:
...
--
Not "right," but ENTITLEMENT. Certain essential things such as food,
water,
clean air, education, and health care should be financed through
reasonable
taxation IF AND WHEN the essential product or service cannot be acceptably
provided through private enterprise. I agree with some of the
Libertarians'
views, but far too many would allow wealthy white-collar criminals run
amuck
and rape the public with even less restrictions than the RepubliKKKan$
imposed on them.


There seem to be too many such criminals in government. You must have
noticed the debt. And all the essential things you list can be
provided by private enterprise. Everyone has a different notion of
'acceptable' and 'reasonable'. What is acceptable to me should not be
imposed on you and visa versa.

BWAHAHAHA!
Greedy PROFIT-MOTIVATED "private enterprise" POISONS our environment, and
government laws and intervention alone has worked to reverse the problem.
Back to top  
Werner...
Posted: Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:57 pm
Guest
On Nov 4, 2:22 pm, "Freedom Man" <libe... at (no spam) once.net> wrote:
Quote:
"Werner" <whetz... at (no spam) mac.com> wrote in message

news:c3a16f56-3cd6-4620-ba60-b8778b794274 at (no spam) b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 1:51 pm, "Freedom Man" <libe... at (no spam) once.net> wrote:

...
--
Not "right," but ENTITLEMENT. Certain essential things such as food,
water,
clean air, education, and health care should be financed through
reasonable
taxation IF AND WHEN the essential product or service cannot be acceptably
provided through private enterprise. I agree with some of the
Libertarians'
views, but far too many would allow wealthy white-collar criminals run
amuck
and rape the public with even less restrictions than the RepubliKKKan$
imposed on them.

There seem to be too many such criminals in government. You must have
noticed the debt. And all the essential things you list can be
provided by private enterprise.  Everyone has a different notion of
'acceptable' and 'reasonable'. What is acceptable to me should not be
imposed on you and visa versa.

BWAHAHAHA!
Greedy PROFIT-MOTIVATED "private enterprise" POISONS our environment, and
government laws and intervention alone has worked to reverse the problem.


Actually, government laws and intervention has worked to exacerbate
this problem.
Back to top  
Freedom Man...
Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:08 pm
Guest
"Werner" <whetzner at (no spam) mac.com> wrote in message
news:a2f8fb25-d1df-4254-9c1c-30bc21b616b3 at (no spam) p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 4, 2:22 pm, "Freedom Man" <libe... at (no spam) once.net> wrote:
Quote:
"Werner" <whetz... at (no spam) mac.com> wrote in message

news:c3a16f56-3cd6-4620-ba60-b8778b794274 at (no spam) b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 1:51 pm, "Freedom Man" <libe... at (no spam) once.net> wrote:

...
--
Not "right," but ENTITLEMENT. Certain essential things such as food,
water,
clean air, education, and health care should be financed through
reasonable
taxation IF AND WHEN the essential product or service cannot be
acceptably
provided through private enterprise. I agree with some of the
Libertarians'
views, but far too many would allow wealthy white-collar criminals run
amuck
and rape the public with even less restrictions than the RepubliKKKan$
imposed on them.

There seem to be too many such criminals in government. You must have
noticed the debt. And all the essential things you list can be
provided by private enterprise. Everyone has a different notion of
'acceptable' and 'reasonable'. What is acceptable to me should not be
imposed on you and visa versa.

BWAHAHAHA!
Greedy PROFIT-MOTIVATED "private enterprise" POISONS our environment, and
government laws and intervention alone has worked to reverse the problem.

Actually, government laws and intervention has worked to exacerbate
this problem.
--
Really? How?
I suppose the corpserate polluters had our best interests in mind, by
decreasing the surplus population?
The MOB is a perfect example of "private enterprise" that goes unregulated!
You Libertarians need to face the real world!
Back to top  
Werner...
Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 3:24 pm
Guest
On Nov 5, 3:08 pm, "Freedom Man" <libe... at (no spam) once.net> wrote:
Quote:
"Werner" <whetz... at (no spam) mac.com> wrote in message

news:a2f8fb25-d1df-4254-9c1c-30bc21b616b3 at (no spam) p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 4, 2:22 pm, "Freedom Man" <libe... at (no spam) once.net> wrote:





"Werner" <whetz... at (no spam) mac.com> wrote in message

news:c3a16f56-3cd6-4620-ba60-b8778b794274 at (no spam) b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com....
On Nov 3, 1:51 pm, "Freedom Man" <libe... at (no spam) once.net> wrote:

...
--
Not "right," but ENTITLEMENT. Certain essential things such as food,
water,
clean air, education, and health care should be financed through
reasonable
taxation IF AND WHEN the essential product or service cannot be
acceptably
provided through private enterprise. I agree with some of the
Libertarians'
views, but far too many would allow wealthy white-collar criminals run
amuck
and rape the public with even less restrictions than the RepubliKKKan$
imposed on them.

There seem to be too many such criminals in government. You must have
noticed the debt. And all the essential things you list can be
provided by private enterprise. Everyone has a different notion of
'acceptable' and 'reasonable'. What is acceptable to me should not be
imposed on you and visa versa.

BWAHAHAHA!
Greedy PROFIT-MOTIVATED "private enterprise" POISONS our environment, and
government laws and intervention alone has worked to reverse the problem.

Actually, government laws and intervention has worked to exacerbate
this problem.
--
Really? How?



Role of government and regulators
Economist Robert Kuttner has criticized the repeal of the Glass-
Steagall Act as contributing to the subprime meltdown. [58] A taxpayer-
funded government bailout related to mortgages during the Savings and
Loan crisis may have created a moral hazard and acted as encouragement
to lenders to make similar higher risk loans.[59]Additionally, there
is debate among economists regarding the effect of the Community
Reinvestment Act, with detractors claiming it encourages lending to
uncreditworthy consumers[60] [61] and defenders claiming a thirty year
history of lending without increased risk.
....
A contributing factor to the rise in home prices was the lowering of
interest rates earlier in the decade by the Federal Reserve, to
diminish the blow of the collapse of the dot-com bubble and combat the
risk of deflation.[69]. From 2000 to 2003, the Federal Reserve lowered
the federal funds rate target from 6.5% to 1.0%.[72]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1V5iu715rc&feature=related

also
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Further information: 2008 GSE support plan
The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), two large government-
sponsored enterprises, are the two largest single mortgage backing
entity in the United States. Between the two corporations, they back
nearly half of all mortgages, around $12 trillion as of 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_meltdown#Role_of_government_and_regulators

Fannie and Freddie are private companies where the profits go to
shareholders and losses go to taxpayers. There are a lot of people
(including your humble analyst) who have complained about the current
set-up. Basically, they were allowed to leverage their capital beyond
what even your most leveraged hedge fund would think prudent. How
could the value of homes go down? Leverage up and show huge profits,
pay monster salaries and bonuses to management who did nothing but
increase risk, and spend $170 million on lobbyists to make sure that
no one changes the rules.
http://reason.com/blog/show/130670.html

'In analyzing the mortgage crisis, economist Walter E. Williams has
written: “Starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, that
was 
given more teeth during the Clinton administration, Congress
started 
intimidating banks and other financial institutions into
making loans, 
so-called sub-prime loans, to high-risk homebuyers and
businesses.
“The carrot offered was that these high-risk loans would be purchased
by 
the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac..
Anyone 
with an ounce of brains would have known that this was a
prescription 
for disaster but there was a congressional chorus of
denial,” he added.
“The financial collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not a
failure 
of the free market because lending institutions in a free
market would 
not have taken on the high-risk loans,” said Williams.
“They were forced 
to by the heavy hand of government.” '
"In 1992, Congress mandated that Fannie and Freddie increase their
purchases 
of mortgages for low-income and medium-income borrowers.
Operating under 
that requirement, Fannie Mae, in particular, has been
aggressive and 
creative in stimulating minority gains."
"The two companies are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios
to 
loans for low- and moderate-income borrowers"
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0
and

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYz1rbB5V1s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usvG-s_Ssb0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALAIEYq5Y00
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjYDzyQNqX8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CcFdjXvjvE&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6ZHOxJLUGI&NR=1
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575A...
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575A...
http://americanfuturefund.com/2008/09/25/barney-frank-blocks-reform-a...
• 1) Securitization for residential mortgages was invented in 1970 by
Ginnie Mae. It was expanded by government sponsored enterprises (e.g.,
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and private institutions through the 1980s
and '90s to include a wide range of financial assets. 2) Congress has
consistently eliminated regulatory obstacles to securitization with
the Secondary Mortgage Market Enhancement Act (SMMEA), Real Estate
Mortgage Investment Conduits (REMICs), Financial Asset Securitization
Investment Trusts (FASITs), and Riegle Community Development and
Regulatory Improvement Act. 
3) The Riegle Act also instructed federal
regulators to reduce risk-based capital requirements for bank holdings
of small business loan securities.
http://www.nado.org/loansales/securitization1.html

regulation derivatives
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/edcut/370925
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syN3rdpFqaQ&feature=related
Find out moe about the CRA
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv17n4/vmck4-94.pdf
--
The CRA tells a financial institution that if
it moves into such an area, financial regu
latory agencies and community groups will
dictate how its “community” will be
defined, how its performance will be
judged, and most importantly, how it will
make its lending decisions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivmL-lXNy64&feature=PlayList&p=361DB6BCAD6E0D19&playnext=1&index=2

http://www.subprimemortgageplan.com/Community_Reinvestment_Act_Subprime_Mortgage_Crisis.php


Some economists, politicians and other commentators have charged that
the CRA contributed in part to the 2008 financial crisis by
encouraging banks to make unsafe loans. Others however, including the
economists of the Federal Reserve, dispute this contention. The
Federal Reserve holds that empirical research has not validated any
relationship between the CRA and the 2008 financial crisis.[56]
Economist Stan Liebowitz wrote in the New York Post that a
strengthening of the CRA in the 1990s encouraged a loosening of
lending standards throughout the banking industry. He also charges the
Federal Reserve with ignoring the negative impact of the CRA.[51] In a
commentary for CNN, Congressman Ron Paul, who serves on the United
States House Committee on Financial Services, charged the CRA with
"forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad
credit risks."[57] In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Austrian
school economist Russell Roberts wrote that the CRA subsidized low-
income housing by pressuring banks to serve poor borrowers and poor
regions of the country.[58] Jeffrey A. Miron, a senior lecturer in
economics at Harvard University, in an opinion piece for CNN, calls
for “getting rid” of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as policies
like the Community Reinvestment Act that “pressure banks into subprime
lending.”[59]
However, others dispute the involvement of the CRA in the crisis. San
Francisco Federal Reserve Bank Governor Randall Kroszner has stated
that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim
that "the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk
mortgage lending".[5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act

Unfortunately, the Boston Fed study, though thoroughly debunked, led
federal regulators to put more pressure on banks to lend to people
with weak credit histories and sketchy employment prospects.

“Failure to comply with the Equal Credit Opportunity Act or Regulation
B can subject a financial institution to civil liability for actual
and punitive damages in individual or class actions. Liability for
punitive damages can be as much as $10,000 in individual actions and
the lesser of $500,000 or 1 percent of the creditor’s net worth in
class actions,” the Boston Fed stated in a manual for lenders based on
its own study.

The term for the new lending criteria that the Boston Fed was pushing
was “flexible underwriting standards.”

In an incredibly prescient statement in their 1998 article, Day and
Liebowitz wrote, “After the warm glow of ‘flexible underwriting
standards’ has worn off, we may discover that they are nothing more
than standards that led to bad loans.”

Of course, that is what exactly what we have discovered.
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=Article_C&cid=1224089072661&pagename=Zone-English-Muslim_Affairs%2FMAELayout

extortion

Rent Seeking Opportunity for Activists. In addition to its negative
effect on the
financial stability of small lenders, the CRA has created
opportunities for rent seeking
and financial and logistical burdens for all lenders. The Act forces
lenders to spend
money, time, and resources on documentation, PR, and other compliance
costs.23

Moreover, the examination process to determine the level at which a
bank is meeting its
CRA obligations can sometimes take several months.24 This has become a
major point of
leverage—and source of funding—for “community” activist groups.
Lending institutions,
rather than face the increased expense of a slowed deposit facility
application due to a
CRA challenge, have committed over $7 billion to such groups and $23
billion to
community development lending projects since 1977.25 Some companies
seek to mitigate
the threat by funding activist groups’ projects, instead of reforming
their overall approach
to community reinvestment, according to Jonathan Macey of Yale Law
School.26

Groups like the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now
(ACORN),
aware that even small delays in approval can result in substantial
losses of money for
financial institutions, have been exploiting such a strategy for
years. For example, Chase
Manhattan and J.P. Morgan donated hundred of thousands of dollars to
ACORN around
the time that they applied for permission to merge.27
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/Michelle%20Minton%20-%20CRA%20-%20FINAL_WEB.pdf
---
The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities
http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html
----

Financial guru Porter Stansfield was outraged by the
bailouts. “Whether we like to admit it or not, the entire
market for housing in the United States has been corrupted
by government involvement. By subsidizing the availability
of credit and by granting huge tax incentives to home
speculators, the government helped finance the biggest
bubble of all –– the biggest bubble in history. It won't be
unwound without serious disruptions to our economy and,
unfortunately, a tremendous amount of pain.
http://www.worldaffairsbrief.com/pdfbrief/World%20Affairs%20Brief%2018%20July%202008.pdf
We
find that the housing “crisis” is heavily concentrated among one
subset of the
population—poor renters.
We then examine two of the most likely potential causes. First, low
incomes lead
households to spend most of their income on necessities, like
housing. Second,
government regulation, in part designed to improve quality, can
increase the cost of
housing so that it is unaffordable. The costs imposed by land-use
regulation can be
particularly pronounced for the lowest-cost units.
http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/bsdpapers/housing.pdf


“The idea that you can fix a period of excess borrowing and excess
consumption by more borrowing and more consumption to me is just
ludicrous,”
Jim Rogers, an American 
investment guru
"...government and the banking system have deliberately created
financial bubbles to shore up the economy, engender profits, and
maintain tax revenues."
http://www.rense.com/general85/chall.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h2x7R8pxUs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt4VLX96VLM
The same people who complained about the widening wealth gap now
think
the new money printing and borrowing is such a wonderful and
necessary
policy forget it helps the rich the most. The policies are intended
to
avoid depressing asset prices which has the effect of shrinking the
wealth gap. Who owns most of the assets if not the wealthy? How do
you
stop asset price deflation? By inflation. Who suffers most from
inflation? Poor people. Who benefits most from inflation? Rich people
who own assets.
Evidently change we can believe in is no change. The rich get richer
and the poor get poorer by government policy, just like always.





Quote:
I suppose the corpserate polluters had our best interests in mind, by
decreasing the surplus population?

The majority of the chemicals were pesticide waste and chemical
weapons research (e.g. Manhattan project).
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/Environment.shtml




Quote:
The MOB is a perfect example of "private enterprise" that goes unregulated!


The MOB depends of force, just like the government.


Quote:
You Libertarians need to face the real world!


We are.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/

are you?
Back to top  
Werner...
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:52 am
Guest
On Nov 6, 8:21 am, Obwon <Ob... at (no spam) real.com> wrote:
Quote:
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 17:24:38 -0800 (PST), Werner

whetz... at (no spam) mac.com> wrote:
...

  What fueled the rise in home prices was deregulation,
since banks no longer had gov't agencies looking over their
shoulder,  to ensure that the banks were properly
capitalized and that the loans they were making were sound.



When government does something it regulates. When it regulates lower
taxes it does not regulate taxes away. It regulates differently. It
doesn't do it to lower tax revenue. It does it to increase business
and therefore to increase tax revenue. Either way it regulates. In
this case it regulated to juice the banking business and tax the banks
and bankers and capital gain etc. It regulated to maximize revenue.





Quote:
In theory,  we were told,  banks did not want to make bad
loans!  Thus,  we could be sure that gov't oversight was a
waste of time and was getting in the way of the financial
industry,  by wasting time and increasing red tape,  that
hamstrung financial industry performance.  After all,  why
would it be necessary to pervent businesses from doing what
they already did not want to do?

  We found out really fast!  Uninspected food industries
quickly cut dangerous corners in the effort to enhance
profits,  spinach,  tomatoes,  beef all fell to disease
scares!  


How many times was Madoff inspected by the SEC? Banks were regulated.
The food industry is highly regulated, just as finances. When food is
bad people stop buying it fast - irrespective of government action or
inaction. That is exactly what happened. The spinach plant and peanut
plant went bankrupt. Customers stopped buying. Same with finances.
Customers stopped buying toxic debt as fast as they stopped buying
toxic food irrespective of government action or inaction.


....

Naturally,  crooks and liars
Quote:
began to notice how easy it was to get loans,  so they began
using fake buyers and fake sellers  to buy and sell homes,
keeping the difference for themselves.


Fraud is a crime. It is against the laws. Evidently regulations
existed. But they were ignored by sellers, buyers, bankers, lawyers,
and regulators.




Quote:

  As you can see,  in the effort to gain short term profits
the financial sector placed itself at enormous risks.  


According to risk models, there was no risk. An elegant equation
removed it.



....
Quote:

So,  you can see that the housing market would have
eventually crashed like a ponzi scheme on it's own,  being
dependant on new money and buyers constantly coming in,  to
pay off the buyers already in,  who are looking to cash out.
Very soon you run out of either new cash or buyers coming in
and at that point everyone loses.  


The Fed provided the cash and the regulation. Fannie and Feddy
provided the market. All regulated into existence and encouraged to do
more of their good work by bankers and politicians.

....


And curiously enough, similar shit is happening again.

“The idea that you can fix a period of excess borrowing and excess
consumption by more borrowing and more consumption to me is just
ludicrous,”
Jim Rogers, an American 
investment guru
"...government and the banking system have deliberately created
financial bubbles to shore up the economy, engender profits, and
maintain tax revenues."
http://www.rense.com/general85/chall.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h2x7R8pxUs&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt4VLX96VLM
The same people who complained about the widening wealth gap now
think
the new money printing and borrowing is such a wonderful and
necessary
policy forget it helps the rich the most. The policies are intended
to
avoid depressing asset prices which has the effect of shrinking the
wealth gap. Who owns most of the assets if not the wealthy? How do
you
stop asset price deflation? By inflation. Who suffers most from
inflation? Poor people. Who benefits most from inflation? Rich people
who own assets.
Evidently change we can believe in is no change. The rich get richer
and the poor get poorer by government policy, just like always.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nU3fNh-PRk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfoToPyae0s&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSqhrHIfJV0&NR=1&feature=fvwp
Back to top  
Obwon...
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 8:21 am
Guest
On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 17:24:38 -0800 (PST), Werner
<whetzner at (no spam) mac.com> wrote:

Quote:
On Nov 5, 3:08 pm, "Freedom Man" <libe... at (no spam) once.net> wrote:
"Werner" <whetz... at (no spam) mac.com> wrote in message

news:a2f8fb25-d1df-4254-9c1c-30bc21b616b3 at (no spam) p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 4, 2:22 pm, "Freedom Man" <libe... at (no spam) once.net> wrote:





"Werner" <whetz... at (no spam) mac.com> wrote in message

news:c3a16f56-3cd6-4620-ba60-b8778b794274 at (no spam) b18g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 3, 1:51 pm, "Freedom Man" <libe... at (no spam) once.net> wrote:

...
--
Not "right," but ENTITLEMENT. Certain essential things such as food,
water,
clean air, education, and health care should be financed through
reasonable
taxation IF AND WHEN the essential product or service cannot be
acceptably
provided through private enterprise. I agree with some of the
Libertarians'
views, but far too many would allow wealthy white-collar criminals run
amuck
and rape the public with even less restrictions than the RepubliKKKan$
imposed on them.

There seem to be too many such criminals in government. You must have
noticed the debt. And all the essential things you list can be
provided by private enterprise. Everyone has a different notion of
'acceptable' and 'reasonable'. What is acceptable to me should not be
imposed on you and visa versa.

BWAHAHAHA!
Greedy PROFIT-MOTIVATED "private enterprise" POISONS our environment, and
government laws and intervention alone has worked to reverse the problem.

Actually, government laws and intervention has worked to exacerbate
this problem.
--
Really? How?



Role of government and regulators
Economist Robert Kuttner has criticized the repeal of the Glass-
Steagall Act as contributing to the subprime meltdown. [58] A taxpayer-
funded government bailout related to mortgages during the Savings and
Loan crisis may have created a moral hazard and acted as encouragement
to lenders to make similar higher risk loans.[59]Additionally, there
is debate among economists regarding the effect of the Community
Reinvestment Act, with detractors claiming it encourages lending to
uncreditworthy consumers[60] [61] and defenders claiming a thirty year
history of lending without increased risk.
...
Defenders also have on their side the fact that the

subprime loans were mainly given/taken by people who were
not CRA eligible borrowers! The records support this fact,
so CRA lending could not have been the source of the massive
failures that crippled the markets. Looks like the
"defenders" win the argument hands down, there being no
countervailing evidence. The CRA claims are a dog that
won't hunt. Without any evidence to show that any
significant CRA eligible borrowers actually obtained a
great number of sub prime loans and then defaulted on them,
the CRA issue is false! Since this information has been
known for a very long time, at this late date, wording the
issues as though the CRA issue might have some credibility,
is suspicious!

Quote:
A contributing factor to the rise in home prices was the lowering of
interest rates earlier in the decade by the Federal Reserve, to
diminish the blow of the collapse of the dot-com bubble and combat the
risk of deflation.[69]. From 2000 to 2003, the Federal Reserve lowered
the federal funds rate target from 6.5% to 1.0%.[72]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1V5iu715rc&feature=related

also
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

The dotcom collapse was already far behind us when Greenspan
began lowering rates. Towards the end of Bill Clintons
adm., interest rates were moving up as Clinton paid down
the national debt. The Treasury had retired the 30 year
bond, since it was no longer needed.

What fueled the rise in home prices was deregulation,
since banks no longer had gov't agencies looking over their
shoulder, to ensure that the banks were properly
capitalized and that the loans they were making were sound.

In theory, we were told, banks did not want to make bad
loans! Thus, we could be sure that gov't oversight was a
waste of time and was getting in the way of the financial
industry, by wasting time and increasing red tape, that
hamstrung financial industry performance. After all, why
would it be necessary to pervent businesses from doing what
they already did not want to do?

We found out really fast! Uninspected food industries
quickly cut dangerous corners in the effort to enhance
profits, spinach, tomatoes, beef all fell to disease
scares! The financial industry also dispensed with best
practices in the effort to enhance their profit margins.
They brought up exchanges, which, there-to-fore, would
not trade debt securities without subjecting them to
seriously high levels of testings. Now that the banks
owned the exchanges, they could simply order the brokers
to trade whatever securities they provided sans any testing
at all.

This allowed them to market the loans they would write.
Thus they no longer needed to concern themselves with the
longer term possiblities of the loans they were writing,
since that would become a matter for the investors who
unsuspectingly purchased the loans on the now bank owned
exchanges. The banks already had analysts on their
payrolls, so it was a simple matter to get the ratings they
needed for the securities they issued. Thus investors were
easily mislead into buying over rated securities.

Once banks found they could sell any loan they could
write, no matter how tenuous, all manner of loan writing
schemes were thought up, to maximize the number of loans
that could be written. Eventually "the race to the bottom"
involved throwing all caution to the wind and writing
"stated income" loans, where the stated income was never
checked. Nothing down loans, where the borrower had
little if any stake in the performance of the loan, beyond
holding title to the property. Naturally, crooks and liars
began to notice how easy it was to get loans, so they began
using fake buyers and fake sellers to buy and sell homes,
keeping the difference for themselves. For example, a
person could get a "stated income" mortgage on a 200,000
dollar home. Then find a homeless person, get their name
and pose them as a new buyer of that same home, at an
inflated 300,000 dollar price. Using a stated income loan,
the home would be transfered via mortgage to the homeless
person, and the seller would then settle his 200,000
mortgage and pocket the 100,000 dollar difference.

The bank now held a mortgage on a homeless persons promise
to perform. The bank, then took that mortgage, packaged
it with other mortgages, had their analysts give the
package a triple A rating, and sold it to unsuspecting
investors on the bank owned exchanges. Thus the bank that
wrote the mortgage got it's money back and a handsome
profit, in just a few weeks time, even though the mortgage
may have had thirty years to run. The man on the street,
would not see these machinations, what they would see is,
homes rapidly selling for ever more money day by day, week
after week. Since housing prices are set by reviewing
previous sales, obviously if selling prices are increasing,
everyone's house is becoming more valuable.

If your 200,000 dollar home is in a nabe where the last sale
of the same kind of house, recently sold for 300,000, you
could go to the bank and figure that you had another 100,000
in equity in your home. Base on that the bank would write
you a new loan, that would allow you to take that extra
100,000 dollars out of the house. ...And, next year you
could do the same thing! Refinance the newly appreciated
home and take another few tens of thousands out.

What a party it was! Worse yet, when the banks sold those
packages of mortgages on their exchanges, the huge profits
they reaped weren't enough. They decided they could make
even more money selling insurance on them. But, those
pesky insurance regulations were hamstringing them, by
requiring that they set aside enough money to pay a good
chunk of the claims that might result from the sale. Aha,
they said, "But what if we don't call it "insurance"?" Then
the rules don't kick in, and we don't have to set aside any
money for the payment of any claims. So they called the
insurance "swaps", and sold them to the investors buying
the loans on their exchanges.

As you can see, in the effort to gain short term profits
the financial sector placed itself at enormous risks. Such
that even a modest failure rate, if sufficent to turn off
investors, would stop the entire machine from producing the
cash that allowed the banks to keep lending. If the banks
couldn't raise cash they couldn't lend it. If the banks
couldn't lend, then the buying of houses at ever increasing
prices would slow or cease. If the buying of houses at
ever increasing prices slowed or ceased, the prices of
houses would not rise and might very well fall. If housing
prices stopped rising or fell, it would become more
difficult for buyers and seller to raise cash. In any
event a slowing market would leave many people unable to
refinance, just when they needed to do so very badly,
because their sub prime mortgage interest rates would begin
rising.

A 300,000 dollar mortgage produces some 600,000 dollars in
payments over a thirty year life at about 6%. Your monthly
mortgage payment reflects that, so you're paying some
2,500/mo. (not using exact figures or even doing the math,
just setting out a simplistically, highly styilized
example). If your interest rate climbs to say 7% that same
mortgage gets increased to some 800,000 over it's 120 month
life. the 200,000 additional money gets amortized into your
monthly payment pushing it up some 800 to 1,000 dollars per
month. Some sub primes escalated within two to three years
to 9, 10 and 11%, so you can easily see what trouble that
would cause. Monthly payments were escalating by hundreds
and thousands of dollars per month, easily pushing people
out of their homes and throwing more houses on to the
market, at the very time when people couldn't get loans to
buy them.

So, you can see that the housing market would have
eventually crashed like a ponzi scheme on it's own, being
dependant on new money and buyers constantly coming in, to
pay off the buyers already in, who are looking to cash out.
Very soon you run out of either new cash or buyers coming in
and at that point everyone loses. The investors lose
because the securities they hold don't represent the
necessary payments coming in. The banks lose because they
insured the securities that are declining in value, payments
they must make eat into their cash, making it all but
impossible for them to make addtional loans. Homeowners
lose because the value of their houses decline, meaning
their houses no longer have the value their mortgages state.
Meaning they can no longer borrow against their homes.
Worse yet, all of this hubris is preventing them from
shopping, so businesses are suffering and laying off.
Making it harder to earn cash to pay mortgages.

Unfortunately the housing market never survived to the point
where investor cash ran out. Instead things took another,
unexpected turn. Fraudulent mortgages were discovered! In
those packages of 'A' rated mortgages that banks were
selling on their exchanges, the word fraud, chilled
investor confidence in the securities, long before the
investors ran out of cash! Investors slowed down buying
these securities, expecting the banks would be forthcoming
with information about exactly which and where the
fraudulent securities were to be found.

Well, to make a long story short, (ha!) because the
banks had escaped so many regulations, no one had been
keeping any counts. So no one knew or could separate the
good from the bad. Without answers investors stayed away,
and the entire market froze up! No credit for anyone
anywhere! Everyone was to frightened to lend. And so the
spiral downward went. These industries had done exactly
what we were told they would not do! Engaged in bad
business practices that caused them to ruin themselves!

Quote:
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Further information: 2008 GSE support plan
The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal
Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), two large government-
sponsored enterprises, are the two largest single mortgage backing
entity in the United States. Between the two corporations, they back
nearly half of all mortgages, around $12 trillion as of 2008.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_meltdown#Role_of_government_and_regulators

Fannie and Freddie are private companies where the profits go to
shareholders and losses go to taxpayers. There are a lot of people
(including your humble analyst) who have complained about the current
set-up. Basically, they were allowed to leverage their capital beyond
what even your most leveraged hedge fund would think prudent. How
could the value of homes go down? Leverage up and show huge profits,
pay monster salaries and bonuses to management who did nothing but
increase risk, and spend $170 million on lobbyists to make sure that
no one changes the rules.
http://reason.com/blog/show/130670.html

Fannie and Freddie were forced to get aboard and do what
the entire industry was doing of be left behind as
underperforming stooges! And why not? There were no
industry regulators there to prohibit such conduct! So what
reason could they give that would be listened to? Of course
they could have "blown the wistle" on what was going on, but
as you say, they're private industries themselves, why
should the eschew the easy profits just up ahead and get
themselves embroiled in a conroversy over re-regulation?
Most especially with a White House that would have been
highly resistant to it?

Quote:
'In analyzing the mortgage crisis, economist Walter E. Williams has
written: “Starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, that
was ?given more teeth during the Clinton administration, Congress
started ?intimidating banks and other financial institutions into
making loans, ?so-called sub-prime loans, to high-risk homebuyers and
businesses.

Once your economist begins citing CRA, he loses all
credibility! He has no record to show that "high risk
homebuyers" got most of the loans that cause the problems.
So then, what is he basing his speculations upon? Economist
are not supposed to simply dream up answers, they're
supposed to be looking at the records and interpreting the
data there. Since there is no data for him to look at,
he's simply making things up! It's like a person paying a
50 dollar monthly electric bill, while earning 12,000
dollars per month, and trying to explain to you that his
electric bill undid all of his finances. Is that really
what econimist do? I thought not!

I took the liberty of snipping the rest, because,
predicated on error and misinformation, it doesn't need to
be read.
Back to top  
 
    Display posts from previous:  
Page 1 of 1    
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:03 pm
Politics Forum Index
 

Powered by phpBB & ML | Privacy Policy / Disclaimer



Contact Us