Economic News

[prole]

Kojak sure picked the wrong time to bail, didn't he?

[bradleym]

Should anyone really be surprised by all this?

 

Although the Democratic party maybe nearly as capable of fucking up the economy as the Republicans, the difference is that the Democratic party leadership would (and will always) be held accountable in particular by its idealist constituency as that is its nature (being still the party of the common folk).

 

On the other hand, the Republican party is mostly made up of (a) neo-aristocrats (b) religious fundamentalists © reactionary cynics who (have swallowed the koolaid) just want to vote against anything and anyone "democrat" because they are simply bitter and intellectually short sighted.

 

What is the economic vision of the Democrats? It's that "we can do things better and with a little foresight, we can improve the lives of all of us". If they fail to live up to that, the people let them know and they pay a price (usually in the form of Republicans getting elected).

 

On the other hand, what is the economic vision of the Republicans? It is "no need for foresight, oversight or any kind of sight. If you someday make enough money and own enough stuff, you will get to join our higher ranks and can then look down from on high towards the struggling masses". If they (Republicans) fail and their economic "vision" breaks, it only serves to prove their point that "life is a struggle", and every man be for himself. In other words, the repubs can always claim that they "get a pass" because they really never offered much in the first place.

 

The reason the Republican party is more accurately termed the "repugnant" party is because people recognize the rotting facade of the Right wing promise - and it's just fucking repugnant when your continuously being sold a line of bull. (Their so good at it though!)

 

The "free market" is one such facade that really it doesn't mean an equilibrium of supply and demand. Free market (as it turns out under the repubs) = unrestrained greed = imbalance = collapse. Katrena exposed the facade that every one starts out with the same chance to succeed in our society. Enron, the energy "shortage", the mortgage melt down, the oil price "crisis" shows that money is basically nothing less than a drug, and that when under the influence people do not always do the moral or right thing. They might even jump through hoops to sell you something they know you'll never be able to hold on to. The terrorist "crisis" has become a way to control the populace and is sold to them in the form of "be afraid, be very afraid!"

 

Everything Republican is a lie! It is a sham. It is a smoke screen, a big fat show with nothing behind it. WMD's? Where? Alqaida in Iraq? When? Oh after we showed up. Binladin? "We'll smoke you out and bring you to justice"... Really? From fake health insurance to fake loans to fake tax cuts and fake "diplomacy". From fake FDA oversight to fake and doctored "scientific" reports - its just oh so fitting that McCain would finally pick a fake VP candidate with fake credentials and fakey painted lips.

 

I for one am not surprised in the least that this phony,fake, bullshit economy built under a repugnant republican administration would end up in a state of near total collapse. And I am equally not surprised that they would attempt to "bail out" the situation with a big government "socialist" solution - one that the working class will end up paying for of coarse.

 

What I would be surprised by is that anyone in their right (ahemm.."correct") mind would ever under any circumstance vote to put these lying snake oil salesmen (and a woman) back into power for another four years.

 

I generally agree with what you are saying here, but i would warn against responding to extremism by allowing yourself to be pushed into an extreme position.

 

someone earlier on this thread mentioned his view that free markets are generally a positive thing, and he was lambasted, which appeared a bit knee-jerk to me.

 

given what we know about humans, (greedy, selfish, myopic), especially humans in groups, in my view the invisible hand is not such a bad guiding principle.

 

unrestrained markets, however, or 'unfettered capitalism', bring out the worst, and are ultimately self-destructive. the past 150 years of economic history have demonstrated that. and the panglossian view that we live in a meritocracy where hard work and playing by the rules results in success, is a sham as the poster above pointed out. we don't all begin in the same place.

 

societies (even our own) have recognized these facts of life, in spite of what their prevailing mythology might hold dear, and have developed various mechanisms to restrain the worst tendencies of free markets. they come in the form of such simple things as roads and common defense, on up to transfer payments and public education (wish we could get to public healthcare, sigh...), as well as active regulation of the various markets.

 

republicans like to pretend that 'big government' is a tax on innovation and a hindrance to wealth creation, and for some it probably is. for society as a whole, however, such things represent necessary checks on the self-destructive tendencies of capitalism and, contrary as this might seem given the common mythology, they actually support and boost the economy. imagine an economy where all roads are private, for example, and then imagine an economy where workers are freed from worrying about employer-provided healthcare. there would be real and impressive economic benefits for all if that constraint were to be removed.

 

it seems like a little rational thought should lead all reasonable people to these conclusions. if the field of economics were the only realm claimed by the republicans, then they would probably fail, but they have cleverly laid claim to, and boosted incredibly, the so-called culture and morality wars, which by their nature shut down rational thought. they have reduced all conversation to 'small government!', 'remove taxes!', 'socialism is evil!', 'national healthcare is socialist!', and other such specious junk.

 

hence the guy driving from his hovel to his crummy job in a beat-up pinto, but with a 'W' sticker on the back bumper. go figure....

 

anyway, don't let their extremism push you into an extremist position. that is another of their rhetorical tricks, like cherry-picking, diversion and the deliberate confusion of assertion with real thinking.

[Buckaroo]

dude...its obvious. GW was a sleeper cell communist plant. think Manchurian candidate. soon we will be %100 Chinese owned.

 

And what has the Democrat congress been doing these past two years?

 

Uhhh.... Being filibustered to death by the repugnicunts in the Senate?

[STP]

It's all in your head, you whiner.

 

"You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession."

 

"We have sort of become a nation of whiners, you just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline."

--Senator Phil Gramm ®

 

Here's some of the actions taken by Phil Graham:

 

Assisted in sponsorship of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. One provision of the bill was referred to as the "Enron loophole" because the House Agriculture Committee drafted it and it was later applied to Enron. Some critics blame the provision for permitting the Enron scandal to occur.[4] At the time, Gramm's wife was previously on Enron's board of directors.

 

Later in his Senate career, Gramm spearheaded efforts to pass banking reform laws, including the landmark Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, which served to reduce government regulations in existence since the Great Depression separating banking, insurance and brokerage activities.

 

Years later, critics of Gramm point out that this same legislation may have been pivotal in encouraging the corporate practices that led to the 2008 mortgage crises in America.[5]

 

Between 1995 and 2000 Gramm, who was the chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, received $1,000,914 in campaign contributions from the Securities & Investment industry.[6]

 

We used to have a name for people like him

[prole]

However - I don't expect the number of slumlords to increase unless someone institutes rent controls, or other measures that guarantee that rental yields can't cover the total cost of owning the units that the bottom feeders buy at foreclosure auctions. You may, however, take some comfort in the fact that the distinction between "bottom-feeder" and "knife-catcher" will be a rather fuzzy one for quite some time. The only unknown is how many billions of dollars in welfare payments that the government will shell out to homeowners in an effort to put an artificial floor under prices.

 

I'm calling bullshit on that. Unless you're saying that the millions of Americans who've had their home foreclosed are going to turn around and get loans to buy another home, we're looking at a whole generation of American renters, new concentrations in real estate, and a new class of parasites to administer it. Remember those property management bastards you had to deal with as a college student? That's the future of American housing.

[j_b]

In these times of election demagoguery almost nobody is discussing how much more than the financial sector has been fatally affected by the myth of the free market and deregulation. Let's not forget that in the past 30 years, free-marketeers have gutted every piece of consumer, environment, worker and investor protection they could get their hands on in the name of the supposed efficiency of the free market. Whole industries have slashed wages and benefits, filed for bankruptcy to default on their obligations such as pension plans to pass the buck to the taxpayer, consolidated into quasi-monopolies to manipulate "supply and demand", etc .. all in a drive to bottom costs and maximize profits with vast negative implications for consumers, workers, farmers, and the environment. I could bore you with nasty examples but it shouldn't be difficult for anyone to think of the horrors that can be perpetrated, as it has throughout history, in the name of economic efficiency.

[olyclimber]

-450

 

ouch

[olyclimber]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ao0BD9Zuhy3E&refer=home

 

SHOOP DA WOOOOOP

[olyclimber]

ALL UR ECONOMY IS BELONG TO CHINA

[Hugh Conway]

ALL UR ECONOMY IS BELONG TO CHINA

 

good to know there's still suckers in this world

[Buckaroo]

The $85 Billion bailout of AIG just cost every individual American another $900 added to their share of the debt.

[Hugh Conway]

The $85 Billion bailout of AIG just cost every individual American another $900 added to their share of the debt.

 

that was congress stinking their finger in Americas sphincter before they ram the $1 trillion to $500 billion up there

[Mal_Con]

Some interesting language in the "bailout package" 8D

 

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

[tvashtarkatena]

The $85 Billion bailout of AIG just cost every individual American another $900 added to their share of the debt.

 

Not me. I just spent that $900 on heroin. It's all part of my early retirement package.

Edited September 21, 2008 by tvashtarkatena

[JayB]

However - I don't expect the number of slumlords to increase unless someone institutes rent controls, or other measures that guarantee that rental yields can't cover the total cost of owning the units that the bottom feeders buy at foreclosure auctions. You may, however, take some comfort in the fact that the distinction between "bottom-feeder" and "knife-catcher" will be a rather fuzzy one for quite some time. The only unknown is how many billions of dollars in welfare payments that the government will shell out to homeowners in an effort to put an artificial floor under prices.

 

I'm calling bullshit on that. Unless you're saying that the millions of Americans who've had their home foreclosed are going to turn around and get loans to buy another home, we're looking at a whole generation of American renters, new concentrations in real estate, and a new class of parasites to administer it. Remember those property management bastards you had to deal with as a college student? That's the future of American housing.

 

The decline in home prices will probably bring at least as many people into the market for homes as foreclosures eject from them, so I don't expect net home-ownership percentages to drop substantially over the long term.

 

As an aside, there's no convincing data to support the notion anything inherently negative about renting, especially when you can do so for considerably less than it would cost to cover the mortgage, taxes, insurance, and upkeep on the same property. The financial and social benefits of home-ownership have been vastly overstated.

 

As far as the folks being foreclosed on are concerned, I don't think that many of them will be able to shoehorn their way into a 105% LTV neg-AM, I/O, pay-option-ARM for a property that's 8X their gross-income ever again in their lifetimes, which is a net positive for all concerned. After home-prices mean-revert to the point where their rental yield covers the cost of owning them, they'll probably be able to qualify for a loan at 2-3X their gross income if they can muster the discipline necessary to save the 20% downpayment that any sane lender should require of them before approving the loan. Those that can't will be substantially better off renting, whether they realize it or not.

 

 

[JayB]

In these times of election demagoguery almost nobody is discussing how much more than the financial sector has been fatally affected by the myth of the free market and deregulation. Let's not forget that in the past 30 years, free-marketeers have gutted every piece of consumer, environment, worker and investor protection they could get their hands on in the name of the supposed efficiency of the free market. Whole industries have slashed wages and benefits, filed for bankruptcy to default on their obligations such as pension plans to pass the buck to the taxpayer, consolidated into quasi-monopolies to manipulate "supply and demand", etc .. all in a drive to bottom costs and maximize profits with vast negative implications for consumers, workers, farmers, and the environment. I could bore you with nasty examples but it shouldn't be difficult for anyone to think of the horrors that can be perpetrated, as it has throughout history, in the name of economic efficiency.

 

Posting from a rotary phone that you've leased from AT&T? No?

 

Bore me with examples.

[JayB]

Uno Mas.

 

"September 11, 2003

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

By STEPHEN LABATON

 

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

 

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

 

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

 

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

 

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

 

Mr. Snow said that Congress should eliminate the power of the president to appoint directors to the companies, a sign that the administration is less concerned about the perks of patronage than it is about the potential political problems associated with any new difficulties arising at the companies.

 

The administration's proposal, which was endorsed in large part today by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, would not repeal the significant government subsidies granted to the two companies. And it does not alter the implicit guarantee that Washington will bail the companies out if they run into financial difficulty; that perception enables them to issue debt at significantly lower rates than their competitors. Nor would it remove the companies' exemptions from taxes and antifraud provisions of federal securities laws.

 

The proposal is the opening act in one of the biggest and most significant lobbying battles of the Congressional session.

 

After the hearing, Representative Michael G. Oxley, chairman of the Financial Services Committee, and Senator Richard Shelby, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, announced their intention to draft legislation based on the administration's proposal. Industry executives said Congress could complete action on legislation before leaving for recess in the fall.

 

''The current regulator does not have the tools, or the mandate, to adequately regulate these enterprises,'' Mr. Oxley said at the hearing. ''We have seen in recent months that mismanagement and questionable accounting practices went largely unnoticed by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight,'' the independent agency that now regulates the companies.

 

''These irregularities, which have been going on for several years, should have been detected earlier by the regulator,'' he added.

 

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, was created by Congress in 1992 after the bailout of the savings and loan industry and concerns about regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy mortgages from lenders and repackage them as securities or hold them in their own portfolios.

 

At the time, the companies and their allies beat back efforts for tougher oversight by the Treasury Department, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or the Federal Reserve. Supporters of the companies said efforts to regulate the lenders tightly under those agencies might diminish their ability to finance loans for lower-income families. This year, however, the chances of passing legislation to tighten the oversight are better than in the past.

 

Reflecting the changing political climate, both Fannie Mae and its leading rivals applauded the administration's package. The support from Fannie Mae came after a round of discussions between it and the administration and assurances from the Treasury that it would not seek to change the company's mission.

 

After those assurances, Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chief executive, endorsed the shift of regulatory oversight to the Treasury Department, as well as other elements of the plan.

 

''We welcome the administration's approach outlined today,'' Mr. Raines said. The company opposes some smaller elements of the package, like one that eliminates the authority of the president to appoint 5 of the company's 18 board members.

 

Company executives said that the company preferred having the president select some directors. The company is also likely to lobby against the efforts that give regulators too much authority to approve its products.

 

Freddie Mac, whose accounting is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a United States attorney in Virginia, issued a statement calling the administration plan a ''responsible proposal.''

 

The stocks of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae fell while the prices of their bonds generally rose. Shares of Freddie Mac fell $2.04, or 3.7 percent, to $53.40, while Fannie Mae was down $1.62, or 2.4 percent, to $66.74. The price of a Fannie Mae bond due in March 2013 rose to 97.337 from 96.525.Its yield fell to 4.726 percent from 4.835 percent on Tuesday.

 

Fannie Mae, which was previously known as the Federal National Mortgage Association, and Freddie Mac, which was the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, have been criticized by rivals for exerting too much influence over their regulators.

 

''The regulator has not only been outmanned, it has been outlobbied,'' said Representative Richard H. Baker, the Louisiana Republican who has proposed legislation similar to the administration proposal and who leads a subcommittee that oversees the companies. ''Being underfunded does not explain how a glowing report of Freddie's operations was released only hours before the managerial upheaval that followed. This is not world-class regulatory work.''

 

Significant details must still be worked out before Congress can approve a bill. Among the groups denouncing the proposal today were the National Association of Home Builders and Congressional Democrats who fear that tighter regulation of the companies could sharply reduce their commitment to financing low-income and affordable housing.

 

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

 

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

 

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said."

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E3D6123BF932A2575AC0A9659C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print

[Buckaroo]

""The only unknown is how many billions of dollars in welfare payments that the government will shell out to homeowners in an effort to put an artificial floor under prices. ""

 

Do you think it will be less or more than the $700 BIL corporate welfare being proposed to "bail out" the lenders that intentionally created this mess in the first place? And who pays the welfare for either the corps or the people? Just the worker or do the golden parachute boys kick in anything from their offshore tax havens?

 

""The decline in home prices will probably bring at least as many people into the market for homes as foreclosures eject from them, so I don't expect net home-ownership percentages to drop substantially over the long term. ""

 

So is this just a POTA figure or you got some kind of study/survey to back this up?

 

""As an aside, there's no convincing data to support the notion anything inherently negative about renting, especially when you can do so for considerably less than it would cost to cover the mortgage, taxes, insurance, and upkeep on the same property.""

 

Good luck saving enough to equal the value of a home you own outright after 20 or 30 years. What do you do invest those savings in the stock market? LOL!

 

""As far as the folks being foreclosed on are concerned, I don't think that many of them will be able to shoehorn their way into a 105% LTV neg-AM, I/O, pay-option-ARM for a property that's 8X their gross-income ever again in their lifetimes, which is a net positive for all concerned.""

 

So in a round about way you're admitting it was a large negative to allow these types of loans. Now why don't you go on to admit who's responsible, who profited? Of course it's the crooks you elected into office.

 

"" After home-prices mean-revert to the point where their rental yield covers the cost of owning them, they'll probably be able to qualify for a loan at 2-3X their gross income if they can muster the discipline necessary to save the 20% downpayment that any sane lender should require of them before approving the loan.""

 

once again admitting these people were not sane IF they were trying to do the right thing. But they weren't, they were just new world record crooks. They're the experts, they knew the loans would fail when the ARM's went up, it worked just like it was planned.

 

It doesn't bother you all the fees collected (stolen)? How much is the average mortgage in fees now, about $5G's?

 

Pretty good scam. Collect the fees, transfer the loan, the first several years of payments are on the interest only, so no equity, even if there was some it would be lost on foreclosure. So fees, plus interest payments, then when foreclosed you get the home back to sell again. You might lose a bit on falling values, but then you get the "bail-out" on the taxpayers dime. It's a win win (GIGANTIC RIPOFF) for the suits no matter how you look at it.

 

So JayB, concerning the $700 Billion. What amount of that is your personal share to pay back? Is it true that 100% of your federal withholding goes just to pay the interest on the national debt? In other words your federal income tax doesn't buy you anything, it's merely a transfer of wealth from the worker to the rich.

 

[Buckaroo]

Uno Mas.

 

"September 11, 2003

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

By STEPHEN LABATON

 

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

 

 

BWAHA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!

 

"The foxes today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the hen house industry since they totally raped and pillaged the place just one bush generation ago""

 

The bush crime family can "fix" any savings and loan or mortgage industry scandals, after all they created them in the first place.

[Buckaroo]

""Treasury Seeks Asset-Buying Power Unchecked by Courts (Update2)

 

By Alison Fitzgerald and John Brinsley

 

Sept. 21 (Bloomberg) -- The Bush administration sought unchecked power from Congress to buy $700 billion in bad mortgage investments from financial companies in what would be an unprecedented government intrusion into the markets.

 

Through his plan, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson aims to avert a credit freeze that would bring the financial system and the world's largest economy to a standstill. The bill would prevent courts from reviewing actions taken under its authority.

 

``He's asking for a huge amount of power,'' said Nouriel Roubini, an economist at New York University. ``He's saying, `Trust me, I'm going to do it right if you give me absolute control.' This is not a monarchy.''

 

As congressional aides and officials scrutinized the proposal, the Treasury late yesterday clarified the types of assets it would purchase. Paulson would have authority to buy home loans, mortgage-backed securities, commercial mortgage- related assets and, after consultation with the Federal Reserve chairman, ``other assets, as deemed necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets,'' the Treasury said in a statement.

 

The Treasury would also have discretion, after discussions with the Fed, to make non-U.S. financial institutions eligible under the program.

 

The plan would raise the ceiling on the national debt and spend as much as the combined annual budgets of the Departments of Defense, Education and Health and Human Services. Paulson is asking for the power to hire asset managers and award contracts to private companies.""

 

LINK

 

In other words they want the power to dole out corporate welfare, even to foreign banks, after all 7 of the 10 private banks that own the "fed" are foreign. And they want this power with no court oversite.

 

LOL JayB, you're tax dollars are going to bail out foreign banks. "award contracts to private companies" where have we heard that before LOL?, no bid probably to boot.

[prole]

Now-now Buckaroo, those of us that have been around for a while know that a real true-believer with their head in theory's clouds would never advocate for the trampling of "free-market" principles as the people with real stakes in the game (Wall St. and Washington) are now doing. These jesuits are willing to ride the unfettered dragon they've cheerleaded for all the way to a 21st century Great Depression, slitting the throats of middle and working classes on the altar of equilibrium and sending the players they've enabled into an early albeit very comfortable retirement. "Are You Ready For The Great Reset?"

[Buckaroo]

Exclusive: Foreign banks may get help

By MIKE ALLEN | 9/21/08 7:24 AM EDT

 

In a change from the original proposal sent to Capitol Hill, foreign-based banks with big U.S. operations could qualify for the Treasury Department’s mortgage bailout, according to the fine print of an administration statement Saturday night.

 

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson confirmed the change on ABC's "This Week," telling George Stephanopoulos that coverage of foreign-based banks is "a distinction without a difference to the American people."

 

"If a financial institution has business operations in the United States, hires people in the United States, if they are clogged with illiquid assets, they have the same impact on the American people as any other institution," Paulson said.

 

"That's a distinction without a difference to the American people. The key here is protecting the system. ... We have a global financial system, and we are talking very aggressively with other countries around the world and encouraging them to do similar things, and I believe a number of them will. But, remember, this is about protecting the American people and protecting the taxpayers. ...

 

The legislative outline that went to Capitol Hill at 1:30 a.m. Saturday had said that an eligible financial institution had to have “its headquarters in the United States.” That would exclude foreign-based institutions with big U.S. operations, such as Barclays, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Royal Bank of Scotland and UBS.

 

But a Treasury “Fact Sheet” released at 7:15 Saturday night sought to give the administration more flexibility, with an expanded definition that could include all of those banks: “Participating financial institutions must have significant operations in the U.S., unless the Secretary makes a determination, in consultation with the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, that broader eligibility is necessary to effectively stabilize financial markets.”

 

LINKY

 

ROTFLMFAO!!!! "protecting the American people and protecting the taxpayers" these guys have super tanker loads of lies and deceit.

 

Here's my guess. They cooked up this mortgage scam to bilk new homeowners and taxpayers. It's gone a little overboard and starting to affect the entire market. The Fed has stepped in to bail out failing banks.

 

Note here that the "Federal Reserve" is neither federal nor a reserve. It's made up of about 10 private banks 7 of which are offshore. So they have to make this bailout applicable to the offshore segment because they are having to try and save the market due to the unexpected blowup of this manufactured crisis.

[Buckaroo]

Uno Mas.

 

"September 11, 2003

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae

By STEPHEN LABATON

 

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

 

 

Hurry hurry, close the door to the barn(that their own dereg opened), AFTER the $$ ONE TRILLION TAXPAYER DOLLAR horses have left.

[jiaofu aba]

http://www.nowpublic.com/tech-biz/lawsuit-filed-stop-aig-bailout-tax-wealthy-instead

[prole]

I'm calling bullshit on that. Unless you're saying that the millions of Americans who've had their home foreclosed are going to turn around and get loans to buy another home, we're looking at a whole generation of American renters, new concentrations in real estate, and a new class of parasites to administer it. Remember those property management bastards you had to deal with as a college student? That's the future of American housing.

 

The decline in home prices will probably bring at least as many people into the market for homes as foreclosures eject from them, so I don't expect net home-ownership percentages to drop substantially over the long term.

 

Yeah Jay, let us know when the Martians land to purchase the homes whose only reason for existing was the home construction boom based on consumer access to junk credit! These vast tracts for the moment are serving as unintentional wildlife refuges.