Zipp0 1 #26 February 20, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote Huh? As I understand it, it was an investigation that revealed what was going wrong at that plant in California to begin with, so...um... You understand it wrong, then. The investigation was done by the humane society, not food inspectors. It was the first they did and uncovered all these issues. They were shocked at how bad things were at the very first investigative look. So a non-government organization discovered the inadequacies of the government...and you think government is the solution. See earlier post about unfilled inspector jobs at USDA. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #27 February 20, 2008 QuoteQue? Queso. even better than butter ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #28 February 20, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Huh? As I understand it, it was an investigation that revealed what was going wrong at that plant in California to begin with, so...um... You understand it wrong, then. The investigation was done by the humane society, not food inspectors. It was the first they did and uncovered all these issues. They were shocked at how bad things were at the very first investigative look. So a non-government organization discovered the inadequacies of the government...and you think government is the solution. See earlier post about unfilled inspector jobs at USDA. You're only reinforcing my point.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #29 February 20, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Huh? As I understand it, it was an investigation that revealed what was going wrong at that plant in California to begin with, so...um... You understand it wrong, then. The investigation was done by the humane society, not food inspectors. It was the first they did and uncovered all these issues. They were shocked at how bad things were at the very first investigative look. So a non-government organization discovered the inadequacies of the government...and you think government is the solution. See earlier post about unfilled inspector jobs at USDA. You're only reinforcing my point. If your point is that the Bush admin doesn't want these positions filled so their Agribusiness buddies can run amok, then yes, I am. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #30 February 20, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Huh? As I understand it, it was an investigation that revealed what was going wrong at that plant in California to begin with, so...um... You understand it wrong, then. The investigation was done by the humane society, not food inspectors. It was the first they did and uncovered all these issues. They were shocked at how bad things were at the very first investigative look. So a non-government organization discovered the inadequacies of the government...and you think government is the solution. See earlier post about unfilled inspector jobs at USDA. You're only reinforcing my point. If your point is that the Bush admin doesn't want these positions filled so their Agribusiness buddies can run amok, then yes, I am. Ah, yes... the contemporary version of "Socialism hasn't worked yet because the *right people* haven't been in charge"...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #31 February 20, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Huh? As I understand it, it was an investigation that revealed what was going wrong at that plant in California to begin with, so...um... You understand it wrong, then. The investigation was done by the humane society, not food inspectors. It was the first they did and uncovered all these issues. They were shocked at how bad things were at the very first investigative look. So a non-government organization discovered the inadequacies of the government...and you think government is the solution. See earlier post about unfilled inspector jobs at USDA. You're only reinforcing my point. If your point is that the Bush admin doesn't want these positions filled so their Agribusiness buddies can run amok, then yes, I am. Ah, yes... the contemporary version of "Socialism hasn't worked yet because the *right people* haven't been in charge"... Don't put words in my mouth. And this has NOTHING to do with socialism. We are talking about oversight of the US food supply and regulation of certain unregulated financial marikets. Sometime I don't know where you guys come up with this shit. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #32 February 20, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Huh? As I understand it, it was an investigation that revealed what was going wrong at that plant in California to begin with, so...um... You understand it wrong, then. The investigation was done by the humane society, not food inspectors. It was the first they did and uncovered all these issues. They were shocked at how bad things were at the very first investigative look. So a non-government organization discovered the inadequacies of the government...and you think government is the solution. See earlier post about unfilled inspector jobs at USDA. You're only reinforcing my point. If your point is that the Bush admin doesn't want these positions filled so their Agribusiness buddies can run amok, then yes, I am. Ah, yes... the contemporary version of "Socialism hasn't worked yet because the *right people* haven't been in charge"... Don't put words in my mouth. And this has NOTHING to do with socialism. We are talking about oversight of the US food supply and regulation of certain unregulated financial marikets. Sometime I don't know where you guys come up with this shit. If your point is that the Bush admin doesn't want these positions filled so their Agribusiness buddies can run amok, then yes, I am We wonder the same thing about y'all, a LOT more often...y'all are able to discern exactly how/what all these 'discoveries' mean...but can't seem to provide any proof or get an impeachment... More gov't running more and more things *is* the contemporary equivalent of my remark, above.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #33 February 20, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Huh? As I understand it, it was an investigation that revealed what was going wrong at that plant in California to begin with, so...um... You understand it wrong, then. The investigation was done by the humane society, not food inspectors. It was the first they did and uncovered all these issues. They were shocked at how bad things were at the very first investigative look. So a non-government organization discovered the inadequacies of the government...and you think government is the solution. See earlier post about unfilled inspector jobs at USDA. You're only reinforcing my point. If your point is that the Bush admin doesn't want these positions filled so their Agribusiness buddies can run amok, then yes, I am. I'm not saying that, and you're still making my point.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #34 February 20, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote Huh? As I understand it, it was an investigation that revealed what was going wrong at that plant in California to begin with, so...um... You understand it wrong, then. The investigation was done by the humane society, not food inspectors. It was the first they did and uncovered all these issues. They were shocked at how bad things were at the very first investigative look. So a non-government organization discovered the inadequacies of the government...and you think government is the solution. See earlier post about unfilled inspector jobs at USDA. You're only reinforcing my point. If your point is that the Bush admin doesn't want these positions filled so their Agribusiness buddies can run amok, then yes, I am. Ah, yes... the contemporary version of "Socialism hasn't worked yet because the *right people* haven't been in charge"... Don't put words in my mouth. And this has NOTHING to do with socialism. We are talking about oversight of the US food supply and regulation of certain unregulated financial marikets. Sometime I don't know where you guys come up with this shit. If your point is that the Bush admin doesn't want these positions filled so their Agribusiness buddies can run amok, then yes, I am We wonder the same thing about y'all, a LOT more often...y'all are able to discern exactly how/what all these 'discoveries' mean...but can't seem to provide any proof or get an impeachment... More gov't running more and more things *is* the contemporary equivalent of my remark, above. Who is this y'all that you refer to? And socialism has NOTHING to do with government oversight and regulation. ZERO. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #35 February 20, 2008 QuoteIf they're dumb and get themselves locked into a loan they can't make payments on, whose fault is that? Let's run down the checklist to see: a) Government's: No Many economists believed when it was being done that the fed was lowering interest rates when it shouldn't. Those same economists predicted a housing bubble. So yes, the government shares in the blame. Quotec) The bank's: No The banks share a very large portion of the blame. As FDIC insured creditors, they had a responsibility to their owners, their customers, and the nation as a whole to make sure that the people receiving mortgages could afford those mortgages. In many cases, the lenders were only concerned that the customer could afford the payments until the bank was able to resell the mortgages. Quoted) Their own: YES! Yes, the borrowers also share in the blame. However, to claim that they are the only ones to blame shows a lack of understanding of the situation.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #36 February 20, 2008 QuoteAh, yes... the contemporary version of "Socialism hasn't worked yet because the *right people* haven't been in charge"... To be fair, that's no more illogical than to claim that the government doesn't do task X very well, so the government can't be effective or efficient at any task.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #37 February 20, 2008 QuoteQuoteIf they're dumb and get themselves locked into a loan they can't make payments on, whose fault is that? Let's run down the checklist to see: a) Government's: No Many economists believed when it was being done that the fed was lowering interest rates when it shouldn't. Those same economists predicted a housing bubble. So yes, the government shares in the blame. Quotec) The bank's: No The banks share a very large portion of the blame. As FDIC insured creditors, they had a responsibility to their owners, their customers, and the nation as a whole to make sure that the people receiving mortgages could afford those mortgages. In many cases, the lenders were only concerned that the customer could afford the payments until the bank was able to resell the mortgages. Quoted) Their own: YES! Yes, the borrowers also share in the blame. However, to claim that they are the only ones to blame shows a lack of understanding of the situation. Sorry, but as a believer in personal responsibility I do not accept your rationale.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #38 February 20, 2008 QuoteSorry, but as a believer in personal responsibility I do not accept your rationale. Having listened to 6-8 different actuaries (all very well respected in their field) in the past few months talk extensively about the topic, not one of which has seen the causes as you see them, I'm not inclined to be very concerned with whether or not you accept my (their) rationale.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #39 February 20, 2008 Just to add: > Sorry, but as a believer in personal responsibility So why is it you feel (unless I am misunderstanding your comments) that only borrowers should be personally responsible for their actions, while lenders and government servants should not be personally responsible for theirs? (For the record, Greenspan has said that their were political pressures to not raise the interest rates, so some of the fed's responsibility might be better placed with those doing the pressuring.)Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #40 February 20, 2008 QuoteQuoteSorry, but as a believer in personal responsibility I do not accept your rationale. Having listened to 6-8 different actuaries (all very well respected in their field) in the past few months talk extensively about the topic, not one of which has seen the causes as you see them, I'm not inclined to be very concerned with whether or not you accept my (their) rationale. Well, I consider myself well-respected in the field of common sense. If people are dumb enough to get themselves locked into a loan they cannot pay for, it's their fault. Of course, your actuaries would be out of the job if they admitted it was that simple.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #41 February 20, 2008 QuoteJust to add: > Sorry, but as a believer in personal responsibility So why is it you feel (unless I am misunderstanding your comments) that only borrowers should be personally responsible for their actions, while lenders and government servants should not be personally responsible for theirs? (For the record, Greenspan has said that their were political pressures to not raise the interest rates, so some of the fed's responsibility might be better placed with those doing the pressuring.) It sounds like the lenders were being responsible. When the ARM adjusted, they raised the mortgage costs on the borrowers, just as they said they would.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #42 February 20, 2008 QuoteSo mortgage brokers were able to sell mortgages to low-income financially-unsavvy people which could be serviced with their current income, but could not as soon as the low teaser rate reset. So, in other words, banks came up with programs to try to help out the poor and unsavvy. Ironically, we've been hearing from the left for decades about how financing options for the poor need to be made available. So they do it, and now they should be made to pay for these. The other option is to keep them all in apartments and projects. QuoteYou might say, stupid people, their fault, however, mortgage brokers told these financially unsavvy people not to worry, they could always refinance. Yep. they all took risks on the market continuing to appreciate. QuoteAnd these mortgage products were entirely new; never before had mortgage brokers sold mortgages that could not be serviced (paid by the holder) after a set period of time. In prior years, mortgage brokers would not give someone a mortgage if they were not able to pay it due to near-term rate adjustments. Yep. And the banks kept offering, and the banks kept buying the servicing. And the people kept on applying. And houses kept getting sold. And sellers were making a lot of money, and putting that money into inflated homes. QuoteAnd what wasn't disclosed to the buyers were the high risks of these debt instruments. So, the Truth in Lending Disclosures weren't made? I have never seen a loan package (and in my line, I've probably seen hundreds by complaining people) that DIDN'T spell it right out. Yet another example of government regulations and laws that were complied with - people just didn't care enough to trust them. I'll put it this way - ou can educate people all you want, and they make choices. "SMoking bad." People still smoke. "Wear a condom." People still screw without them. They know the risks. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. QuoteBut guess what happens when a bond insurance company has insurance obligations of $60 billion in bonds yet only $500 million in cash to cover those obligations. Yep. So the insurer and the surety (don't confuse the two) did not account for all of these things. QuoteSo you could pay a small premium, for example, on a corporate, muni, or other type of bond in a bet that the entity will not be able to pay it back. You would then collect the full price of the bond should that happen. This type of speculation does not exist in the stock market, for example, because it is regulated. Actually, you cannot because stock are not bonded! Stocks are not insured. Surety operates under the assumption that the risk is secured - much like a mortgage. If a surety must pay, the surety has a collateralized asset that can be collected upon. The differences between "surety" and "insurance" are subtle, but huge! Both are "insurance" of a sort. Insurance shifts the risk of loss to the insurer. Surety shifts the risk of loss to the principal - and can get indemnity from the principal to protect the third party. This means that the principal is interested in the claim resolution, and moral hazard is limited. You can't secure stocks - their value fluctuates too much. That's why there is a separate "bond" market. I think you are doing much to confuse the surety industry with the insurance industry. BUT - allow me to point out just a little something that most people are unaware of. See, this regulation that you were talkign about USED to be far greater. When the stock market crashed in 1929, the Glass Steagall Act authorized government and commercial paper in the federal reserve. The second Glass Steagall Act (the Banking Act of 1933) created the FDIC and required that investment banks and commercial banks be separate. Then came the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. It repealed Glass-Steagall. It unified the government oversight. Instead of having separate tiers to report for insurance, investment and commerical banking, they unified to report under the same bureaucracy. The economic reason was that all three (insurers, banks and investment) wanted to unify to create more stability. It dramatically changed the banking front. I highlighted 1999 because many in the know (myself included) believe that this law has as much to do as anything with the real estate bubble and the bursting of it. I also note that George W. Bush had NOTHING to do with it. Take a look here for a summary: http://banking.senate.gov/conf/grmleach.htm The picture is much, much bigger than what you are ascribing. There WAS a great deal of federal oversight and regulations. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #43 February 20, 2008 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If they're dumb and get themselves locked into a loan they can't make payments on, whose fault is that? Let's run down the checklist to see: a) Government's: No -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Many economists believed when it was being done that the fed was lowering interest rates when it shouldn't. Those same economists predicted a housing bubble. So yes, the government shares in the blame. Was government oversight necessary in the dot com bubble? QuoteThe banks share a very large portion of the blame. As FDIC insured creditors, they had a responsibility to their owners, their customers, and the nation as a whole to make sure that the people receiving mortgages could afford those mortgages. In many cases, the lenders were only concerned that the customer could afford the payments until the bank was able to resell the mortgages. Resell them to whom? That's right - OTHER BANKS! And banks are taking hits now. Shareholders are taking hits. All of these entities are taking hits. And local governments are taking big hits, too - because of the decline in property taxes. NOBODY was happier with the housing boom than county assessors and county Boards of Supervisors. My thoughts are that the foloowing have blame in this: 1) Mortgage Brokers for making these loans and getting commissions on them. However, the mortgage brokers would not have been able to make these loans had they been checked by the banks actually loaning the money and the borrowers being more honest and realistic. 2) Banks - for actually funding and buying these notes, which enabled the brokers and the borrowers to do things they shouldn't have been able to do 3) Borrowers - for not checking the mortgage brokers by taking loans they had no business receiving and, in many cases, outright lying about their income; 4) The govt - for not taking a position of "calm down." From federal right down to city. The governments were rollign in the dough in this. It is not like the governments were not interested in the great flow of tax dollars coming from these transactions. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #44 February 20, 2008 Quote Sorry, but as a believer in personal responsibility I do not accept your rationale. Should we all be personally responsible for testing our food for e-coli, salmonella, listeria, or prion contamination?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lefty 0 #45 February 20, 2008 QuoteQuote Sorry, but as a believer in personal responsibility I do not accept your rationale. Should we all be personally responsible for testing our food for e-coli, salmonella, listeria, or prion contamination? Nice try. If I eat food I know is contaminated (or take out a loan I know I cannot afford) I should not blame others for my choices.Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful. -Calvin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #46 February 20, 2008 QuoteHow many million of pounds of tainted beef do we have to feed to our kids at lunch . . . None. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #47 February 20, 2008 QuoteIt sounds like the lenders were being responsible. When the ARM adjusted, they raised the mortgage costs on the borrowers, just as they said they would. This is where the lenders were irresponsible. They offered loans with the knowledge that they could not be afforded by the borrower when the loans adjusted. The lenders simply bet that the property values would continue to increase - as did the borrowers. And the servicers. There is enough blame to go around. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zipp0 1 #48 February 20, 2008 QuoteQuoteSo mortgage brokers were able to sell mortgages to low-income financially-unsavvy people which could be serviced with their current income, but could not as soon as the low teaser rate reset. So, in other words, banks came up with programs to try to help out the poor and unsavvy. Ironically, we've been hearing from the left for decades about how financing options for the poor need to be made available. So they do it, and now they should be made to pay for these. The other option is to keep them all in apartments and projects. QuoteYou might say, stupid people, their fault, however, mortgage brokers told these financially unsavvy people not to worry, they could always refinance. Yep. they all took risks on the market continuing to appreciate. QuoteAnd these mortgage products were entirely new; never before had mortgage brokers sold mortgages that could not be serviced (paid by the holder) after a set period of time. In prior years, mortgage brokers would not give someone a mortgage if they were not able to pay it due to near-term rate adjustments. Yep. And the banks kept offering, and the banks kept buying the servicing. And the people kept on applying. And houses kept getting sold. And sellers were making a lot of money, and putting that money into inflated homes. QuoteAnd what wasn't disclosed to the buyers were the high risks of these debt instruments. So, the Truth in Lending Disclosures weren't made? I have never seen a loan package (and in my line, I've probably seen hundreds by complaining people) that DIDN'T spell it right out. Yet another example of government regulations and laws that were complied with - people just didn't care enough to trust them. I'll put it this way - ou can educate people all you want, and they make choices. "SMoking bad." People still smoke. "Wear a condom." People still screw without them. They know the risks. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. QuoteBut guess what happens when a bond insurance company has insurance obligations of $60 billion in bonds yet only $500 million in cash to cover those obligations. Yep. So the insurer and the surety (don't confuse the two) did not account for all of these things. QuoteSo you could pay a small premium, for example, on a corporate, muni, or other type of bond in a bet that the entity will not be able to pay it back. You would then collect the full price of the bond should that happen. This type of speculation does not exist in the stock market, for example, because it is regulated. Actually, you cannot because stock are not bonded! Stocks are not insured. Surety operates under the assumption that the risk is secured - much like a mortgage. If a surety must pay, the surety has a collateralized asset that can be collected upon. The differences between "surety" and "insurance" are subtle, but huge! Both are "insurance" of a sort. Insurance shifts the risk of loss to the insurer. Surety shifts the risk of loss to the principal - and can get indemnity from the principal to protect the third party. This means that the principal is interested in the claim resolution, and moral hazard is limited. You can't secure stocks - their value fluctuates too much. That's why there is a separate "bond" market. I think you are doing much to confuse the surety industry with the insurance industry. BUT - allow me to point out just a little something that most people are unaware of. See, this regulation that you were talkign about USED to be far greater. When the stock market crashed in 1929, the Glass Steagall Act authorized government and commercial paper in the federal reserve. The second Glass Steagall Act (the Banking Act of 1933) created the FDIC and required that investment banks and commercial banks be separate. Then came the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999. It repealed Glass-Steagall. It unified the government oversight. Instead of having separate tiers to report for insurance, investment and commerical banking, they unified to report under the same bureaucracy. The economic reason was that all three (insurers, banks and investment) wanted to unify to create more stability. It dramatically changed the banking front. I highlighted 1999 because many in the know (myself included) believe that this law has as much to do as anything with the real estate bubble and the bursting of it. I also note that George W. Bush had NOTHING to do with it. Take a look here for a summary: http://banking.senate.gov/conf/grmleach.htm The picture is much, much bigger than what you are ascribing. There WAS a great deal of federal oversight and regulations. Since I don't have time right now to respond to all this strp by stp... I'll just say... BULLSHIT. Maybe I'll have time later for a more thoughtful response. -------------------------- Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #49 February 20, 2008 QuoteQuote Sorry, but as a believer in personal responsibility I do not accept your rationale. Should we all be personally responsible for testing our food for e-coli, salmonella, listeria, or prion contamination? This is a different story. I compare it to eating food after the expiration date on the chance that it will still be good. If there was a disclosure statement on the food that said, "This food is presently safe and affordable. But, in three days, this food will be bad and your system may not be able to tolerate it and it will make you sick. So, think clearly about whether you will be eating it later on." The loans, and the terms, are all disclosed. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #50 February 20, 2008 QuoteBULLSHIT. Even the parts where I agreed with you? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
