Will America recover?

[Guest]

On 6/14/2018 at 5:19 AM, Bullneck said:

From Forbes:

How much did the total deficit rise by each President since Reagan

Again using data from the St. Louis Federal Reserve, these are starting and ending federal debt numbers since President Reagan. I’ve computed the total percentage increase and the compounded yearly rate.

What the numbers show is that the total debt increased the most at 184% over 8 years and at the fastest rate under President Reagan at almost 14% per year. In fact, the three Republican presidents had the fastest growing debt on a yearly basis.

Reagan

• Started Presidency: $965 billion
• Ended Presidency: $2.74 trillion
• Increased 184% or 13.9% per year

H.W. Bush

• Started Presidency: $2.74 trillion
• Ended Presidency: $4.23 trillion
• Increased 54% or 11.5% per year (only in office for four years)

Clinton

• Started Presidency: $4.23 trillion
• Ended Presidency: $5.77 trillion
• Increased 36% or 4.0% per year

W. Bush

• Started Presidency: $5.77 trillion
• Ended Presidency: $11.1 trillion
• Increased 93% or 8.5% per year

Obama

• Started Presidency: $11.1 trillion
• Ended Presidency: $19.85 trillion
• Increased 78% or 7.5% per year

President Obama’s debt actually grew at a slower annual rate than any of the Republican presidents even though there were events that negatively impacted the deficit that started before he became President. The Great Recession is probably the biggest of them as can be seen in the yearly deficit numbers. While all politicians use data to support their positions, the sound bite that the debt doubled under Obama is very misleading.

I think the better metric would be to look at the increase in debt as a percentage of GDP, not the increase of debt as a percentage of existing debt.  It doesn't seem very useful to look at debt increase as a percentage of existing debt.  For example, if one makes $100k per year and is in debt for $1k and throughout the year his debt increases to $2k, then this not a very big deal even though it is a Δdebt/debt increase of 100%; but it is not a big deal because it is debt increase compared to earning income of only 1%.  Now if his existing debt is $100k and he increases that to $200k, then this a much more significant concern even though it is the same Δdebt/debt increase of 100% compared to the $1k to $2k debt increase scenario.  But the reason it is a bigger concern is because it is a Δdebt/income increase of 100%.

So what are the Δdebt/GDP increases for these presidents?  Not trying to assign you with work, just genuinely curious and figured you may have them.  If you have a good source for the numbers (including GDP our some other metric that is a good indicator of income/earning power) I'll crunch the numbers when I get the time.  

 

[XR4ticlone 122]

18 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

No more mortgages, no more research, no more colleges, so more neighborhoods, etc.

You think you want something that you really don't want. The state is necessary to fill the vacuum left by the market. It's responsible for making the United States economy the largest in the world. 

One thing is extremely clear, your understanding of economics is...remedial (I'm being generous here).  

You honestly think that without the Gov there would be no more mortgages?  Or colleges?  Or neighborhoods?

The MARKET fills the voids left in the market.  The problem is the Gov has also been 'filling'...let's look at colleges for example.

Were there colleges before GSL's?  YES.

What is the inflationary rate of colleges vs the rest of the economy? 

Why do you think that is?  Hint...it's the Gov loaning money like meth heads to anyone who wanted a college education.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you misread my 'filling the void' portion of my prior post.  But yes, at this point Gov stepping out of college education would indeed have dramatic impact on that market.  Colleges would dry up and tuition would plummet.  Billions of campus buildings and other expenditures would be left abandoned.  Why were they built?  Because it made sense with the Gov throwing trillions at education.  Now those expenditures would be unsustainable. 

Does that mean it would be a mistake for Gov to get out of the college biz?  NO.  I think it would be a positive as easy money and GSL's have put tens of millions in indentured servitude for worthless degrees...or worse yet...partial college educations that they'll pay on for decades. 

No one is currently asking..."Is a East Asian Women's Studies degree worth $100k?" because...

A. The Gov will finance it.   B.  Everyone has been brainwashed into thinking a college degree = life success.  C. Everyone thinks they must go to college.  D.  No one is doing the math or looking at the pay off because the Gov will fiance it...it MUST be a good deal right???  (No...no it's not). 

The Gov has created a (Trillion dollar) education bubble...just like they did with housing...and everything else they get involved with since the dawn of time.  It's only going to get worse from here...the market has been bastardized, but it cannot be defied forever. 

 

 

[Bullneck 19166]

11 hours ago, SKJ said:

Entitlements is a word solely used to describe mandatory spending items vs discretionary spending items.

Social security, Medicare, and Medicaid are the top 3.

I figured someone would take the bait:

 

Quote

How is Social Security financed?

Social Security is financed through a dedicated payroll tax. Employers and employees each pay 6.2 percent of wages up to the taxable maximum of $118,500 (in 2016), while the self-employed pay 12.4 percent.

In 2015, $795 billion (85 percent) of total Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Disability Insurance income came from payroll taxes. The remainder was provided by interest earnings ( $93 billion or 10 percent) and revenue from taxation of OASDI benefits ( $32 billion or 3 percent), and $325 million in reimbursements from the General Fund of the Treasury - most resulting from the 2012 payroll tax legislation.

 

[Bullneck 19166]

1 hour ago, Aphelion said:

I think the better metric would be to look at the increase in debt as a percentage of GDP, not the increase of debt as a percentage of existing debt.  It doesn't seem very useful to look at debt increase as a percentage of existing debt.  For example, if one makes $100k per year and is in debt for $1k and throughout the year his debt increases to $2k, then this not a very big deal even though it is a Δdebt/debt increase of 100%; but it is not a big deal because it is debt increase compared to earning income of only 1%.  Now if his existing debt is $100k and he increases that to $200k, then this a much more significant concern even though it is the same Δdebt/debt increase of 100% compared to the $1k to $2k debt increase scenario.  But the reason it is a bigger concern is because it is a Δdebt/income increase of 100%.

So what are the Δdebt/GDP increases for these presidents?  Not trying to assign you with work, just genuinely curious and figured you may have them.  If you have a good source for the numbers (including GDP our some other metric that is a good indicator of income/earning power) I'll crunch the numbers when I get the time.  

 

You're overthinking this thread.  Half of the post are from people who didn't even go to college and have their TV permanently set to Fox News.  

Edited June 16, 2018 by Bullneck

[SKJ 1311]

What bait?

Social security is an "entitlement"

It is mandatory spending.

I don't understand

 

[David Dennison 18921]

1 hour ago, XR4ticlone said:

One thing is extremely clear, your understanding of economics is...remedial (I'm being generous here).  

You honestly think that without the Gov there would be no more mortgages?  Or colleges?  Or neighborhoods?

The MARKET fills the voids left in the market.  The problem is the Gov has also been 'filling'...let's look at colleges for example.

Were there colleges before GSL's?  YES.

What is the inflationary rate of colleges vs the rest of the economy? 

Why do you think that is?  Hint...it's the Gov loaning money like meth heads to anyone who wanted a college education.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you misread my 'filling the void' portion of my prior post.  But yes, at this point Gov stepping out of college education would indeed have dramatic impact on that market.  Colleges would dry up and tuition would plummet.  Billions of campus buildings and other expenditures would be left abandoned.  Why were they built?  Because it made sense with the Gov throwing trillions at education.  Now those expenditures would be unsustainable. 

Does that mean it would be a mistake for Gov to get out of the college biz?  NO.  I think it would be a positive as easy money and GSL's have put tens of millions in indentured servitude for worthless degrees...or worse yet...partial college educations that they'll pay on for decades. 

No one is currently asking..."Is a East Asian Women's Studies degree worth $100k?" because...

A. The Gov will finance it.   B.  Everyone has been brainwashed into thinking a college degree = life success.  C. Everyone thinks they must go to college.  D.  No one is doing the math or looking at the pay off because the Gov will fiance it...it MUST be a good deal right???  (No...no it's not). 

The Gov has created a (Trillion dollar) education bubble...just like they did with housing...and everything else they get involved with since the dawn of time.  It's only going to get worse from here...the market has been bastardized, but it cannot be defied forever. 

 

 

The market does not fill the void left by the market. You are mistaken. You probably wouldn't own a home but for government subsidized mortgages. The government is one of the reasons our middle class is as large as it is. You know this. You just don't like it because it goes against the myth of rugged individualism. But make no mistake, the American middle class as we know it was created, in large part, by the government.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Aphelion said:

I think the better metric would be to look at the increase in debt as a percentage of GDP, not the increase of debt as a percentage of existing debt.  It doesn't seem very useful to look at debt increase as a percentage of existing debt.  For example, if one makes $100k per year and is in debt for $1k and throughout the year his debt increases to $2k, then this not a very big deal even though it is a Δdebt/debt increase of 100%; but it is not a big deal because it is debt increase compared to earning income of only 1%.  Now if his existing debt is $100k and he increases that to $200k, then this a much more significant concern even though it is the same Δdebt/debt increase of 100% compared to the $1k to $2k debt increase scenario.  But the reason it is a bigger concern is because it is a Δdebt/income increase of 100%.

So what are the Δdebt/GDP increases for these presidents?  Not trying to assign you with work, just genuinely curious and figured you may have them.  If you have a good source for the numbers (including GDP our some other metric that is a good indicator of income/earning power) I'll crunch the numbers when I get the time.  

 

 

6 hours ago, Bullneck said:

You're overthinking this thread.  Half of the post are from people who didn't even go to college and have their TV permanently set to Fox News.  

I did some number crunching to determine the debt increase to GDP ratio per year from 1980 to present.  I used the total US debt at the end of each year from the link Bullneck posted and the nominal GDP numbers for each year from here:  https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543.  

Here are how the presidents stack up for average Δdebt/GDP per year in office:

Reagan:  5.74% 

HW Bush:  6.12% 

Clinton:  2.48% 

W Bush:  5.12% 

Obama:  6.83% 

Trump:  6.24% (only 2017 considered)

Republican presidents: 5.43% 

Democrat presidents: 4.66%

Here is what it looks like charted per year:

 

There may be better metrics to consider, but I think this one is far better than the debt increase as percentage of debt; that metric is terrible for a number of reasons.

[wildcat09 29355]

5 hours ago, David Dennison said:

The market does not fill the void left by the market. You are mistaken. You probably wouldn't own a home but for government subsidized mortgages. The government is one of the reasons our middle class is as large as it is. You know this. You just don't like it because it goes against the myth of rugged individualism. But make no mistake, the American middle class as we know it was created, in large part, by the government.

You’re arguing with someone who thinks the first day of Econ 101 is all there is.

[kopp0e 1135]

Well, if a person buy into the fact that the NWO & marshall law must be imposed over a failing United States government, then eventually there has to be a collapse of America to make that agenda become successful... If you believe that kind of "pre planned" destiny that was decided decades ago in a cloak & dagger event by about 8 elite families that are all related...

Quote

 

 

The reverse side of the Great Seal of the United States (1776). The Latin phrase "novus ordo seclorum", appearing on the reverse side of the Great Seal since 1782 and on the back of the U.S. one-dollar bill since 1935, translates to "New Order of the Ages"^[1] and alludes to the beginning of an era where the United States of America is an independent nation-state; conspiracy theorists claim this is an allusion to the "New World Order".^[2]

 

 

[XR4ticlone 122]

4 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

You’re arguing with someone who thinks the first day of Econ 101 is all there is. 

😂😂😂

Bitch I forgot more econ & finance than you'll hope to know.

 

[XR4ticlone 122]

10 hours ago, David Dennison said:

The market does not fill the void left by the market. You are mistaken. You probably wouldn't own a home but for government subsidized mortgages. The government is one of the reasons our middle class is as large as it is. You know this. You just don't like it because it goes against the myth of rugged individualism. But make no mistake, the American middle class as we know it was created, in large part, by the government.

So you're contending that the market wouldn't provide mortgage lending if the Gov didn't?

Now I won't argue that there wouldn't be the loose, stupid, bubble building, mortgage lending that caused the housing crisis.  That's 100% not happening without the Gov's involvement.  

I'd also tell you that McMansions wouldn't have existed, and housing prices would be lower...just like the Gov's involvement in college, their involvement in housing has also lead to higher prices and excess. 

And you're right, we wouldn't have the middle class we have today, as we know it, without the Gov.  We'd have one with much less debt, more modest housing, but by no means would we not have mortgages, colleges, or city streets.

[Brew 3049]

You both can be wrong and right, but much like every other debate neither side actually reads and considers what the other side is saying.

Government backing has clearly influenced housing and college. Non government entities would still be involved if the government backed out, but things would look drastically different than they do now. That may not be such a bad thing.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

12 minutes ago, Brew said:

You both can be wrong and right, but much like every other debate neither side actually reads and considers what the other side is saying.

Government backing has clearly influenced housing and college. Non government entities would still be involved if the government backed out, but things would look drastically different than they do now. That may not be such a bad thing.

I'd disagree on listenig to the other side.  I may still disagree, but try to listen, I think many others here do as well.  

It's chicken and the egg stuff sort of.  Our gov't started as a small, weak central power established to get out of the way of people trying to make a living. Today Gov't has become it's own self interest group.

We don't have a middle class because of gov't.   We've had the seeds for one since the rise of the merchant class in Europe. What our gov't has benefitted/helped/ coddled are millionaires and corporations.  The middle class has little to no access as a group to gov't, whereas individuals and corporations with money do have almost unlimited access to gov't.  

So please tell me again , someone , anyone how the middle class is benefitting by or was created by gov't.  The middle class is the vast pool of folks with money who do more top keep the economy humming than any other group, without any real organized power or access.

Edited June 17, 2018 by Onboard 2.0

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

9 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'd disagree on listenig to the other side.  I may still disagree, but try to listen, I think many others here do as well.  

It's chicken and the egg stuff sort of.  Our gov't started as a small, weak central power established to get out of the way of people trying to make a living. Today Gov't has become it's own self interest group.

We don't have a middle class because of gov't.   We've had the seeds for one since the rise of the merchant class in Europe. What our gov't has benefitted/helped/ coddled are millionaires and corporations.  The middle class has little to no access as a group to gov't, whereas individuals and corporations with money do have almost unlimited access to gov't.  

So please tell me again , someone , anyone how the middle class is benefitting by or was created by gov't.  The middle class is the vast pool of folks with money who do more top keep the economy humming than any other group, without any real organized power or access.

The middle class also votes.  In fact, they’re probably the largest voting block in the country.  The government has plenty to do with creating the middle class.  Just imagine what the United States would look like economically without the interstate system.

Whatever grievances you have with government, just remember we CHOSE that.

[pyrohornIII 4815]

The GI bill backed a lot of what is now the middle class.  Followed by The Great Society. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

14 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

The middle class also votes.  In fact, they’re probably the largest voting block in the country.  The government has plenty to do with creating the middle class.  Just imagine what the United States would look like economically without the interstate system.

Whatever grievances you have with government, just remember we CHOSE that.

The interstate system was a military first development much like Hitlers Autobahns.  It certainly has benefitted the middle class thru the use of the taxes it took it to build it.

Like I said its chicken and egg stuff. The gov't needs money to run and it gets much of it from the top earners in the country (middle class is part of that top earner group by pop. numbers in that group). The real top earners have access the vast majority of the middle class simply does not.

And while the middle class may be the largest class, it has little actual actual access to gov't after pulling the lever.

My grievances with gov't stem primarily from the abject waste and abuse of the middle class thru that waste.  Manage the money better, and socially beneficial projects can be paid for. 

Edited June 17, 2018 by Onboard 2.0

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, pyrohornIII said:

The GI bill backed a lot of what is now the middle class.  Followed by The Great Society. 

GI bill yes, it benefitted those guys and their families.   WWII and the industry it generated during and  after the war did as much if not more for the rise of a middle class than the GI Bill.

 Great Society ?  Not IMO. It institutionalized poverty at a national level .

 

[DixonHur 11338]

9 hours ago, XR4ticlone said:

their involvement in housing has also lead to higher prices and excess. 

How do you figure?  While housing prices might be lower for the wealthy, they would likely be higher for the 90% because supply would be much lower. 

The "suburbs" were only created because of access to government backed mortgages.  With the suburbs came spending on furniture, cars, appliances, etc.

We might not be as in debt, but we also wouldn't have the largest economy in the world without easy access to government backed capital...i.e., mortgages, and student loans.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

How do you figure?  While housing prices might be lower for the wealthy, they would likely be higher for the 90% because supply would be much lower. 

The "suburbs" were only created because of access to government backed mortgages.  With the suburbs came spending on furniture, cars, appliances, etc.

We might not be as in debt, but we also wouldn't have the largest economy in the world without easy access to government backed capital...i.e., mortgages, and student loans.

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

10 hours ago, XR4ticlone said:

 

Now I won't argue that there wouldn't be the loose, stupid, bubble building, mortgage lending that caused the housing crisis.  That's 100% not happening without the Gov's involvement.  

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/22/5086/#41f8fd41f92f

It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2018/05/06/the-lie-that-wont-die-poor-borrowers-caused-the-financial-crisis/#f3e6d6d783d7

 

Research has shown — as noted by law professor and author Jennifer Taub — that only 6% of high-cost loans had any connection to CRA lending. In fact, loans from CRA-connected lenders were half as likely to default as those made in the same neighborhoods by other mortgage lenders that didn't come under the CRA.

[Hornius Emeritus 12470]

57 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The interstate system was a military first development much like Hitlers Autobahns.  It certainly has benefitted the middle class thru the use of the taxes it took it to build it.

 

 

But it also gave us Applebees.  

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

10 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:

 

But it also gave us Applebees.  

And people wonder why some have a problem with gov't intrusion.......

[WhatTheBuck 28788]

53 minutes ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/22/5086/#41f8fd41f92f

It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2018/05/06/the-lie-that-wont-die-poor-borrowers-caused-the-financial-crisis/#f3e6d6d783d7

 

Research has shown — as noted by law professor and author Jennifer Taub — that only 6% of high-cost loans had any connection to CRA lending. In fact, loans from CRA-connected lenders were half as likely to default as those made in the same neighborhoods by other mortgage lenders that didn't come under the CRA.

From that Forbes article, describing the different types of deniers:

The Innumerates, the people who truly disrespect a legitimate process of looking at the data and making intelligent assessments. They are mathematical illiterates who embarrassingly revel in their own ignorance.

Innumerates. I'm going to have to start using that term. 

[GSU&UT 1798]

10 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

From that Forbes article, describing the different types of deniers:

 

 

Innumerates. I'm going to have to start using that term. 

Innumerati, the Surly Trumpkin Bunch.

Edited June 17, 2018 by GSU&UT

[XR4ticlone 122]

1 hour ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/22/5086/#41f8fd41f92f

It is clear to anyone who has studied the financial crisis of 2008 that the private sector’s drive for short-term profit was behind it. More than 84 percent of the sub-prime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending. These private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year. Out of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006, only one was subject to the usual mortgage laws and regulations. The nonbank underwriters made more than 12 million subprime mortgages with a value of nearly $2 trillion. The lenders who made these were exempt from federal regulations.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2018/05/06/the-lie-that-wont-die-poor-borrowers-caused-the-financial-crisis/#f3e6d6d783d7

 

Research has shown — as noted by law professor and author Jennifer Taub — that only 6% of high-cost loans had any connection to CRA lending. In fact, loans from CRA-connected lenders were half as likely to default as those made in the same neighborhoods by other mortgage lenders that didn't come under the CRA.

 

That's a very disingenuous argument for the simple fact that none of these private lending institutions held on to any of this paper.  Issued does not equal held.

Much of that paper ended up in CBO's or 'Gov' bonds via Fannie & Freddie with defacto Gov backing.  The vast majority of the worst offending loans were only written because there was an endless supply of 'Gov insured' investment money to cover them.  Turn off the Gov backed securities that funded these shitty mortgages and NONE of them get written.

The problem with OPM...(Other Poeple's Money) is no money will ever get mistreated, wasted, and pissed away more readily that OPM.   Gov is the worst of OPM as there is no one to account to...the OPM they blow through will never have a face or name attached to it.  Too many believe it's an endless supply (fucking financially illiterate dip shits that sadly also can vote) of Gov money.  And on whole, we've bastardized money...forgetting what it really is...OUR TIME & OUR EFFORTS.  If the Gov came and asked for another 10% of your time you'd rightfully tell them to go get fucked.   But because we ask for money...it's somehow not as bad to most Americans.

 

I'd add...that even for those loans not backed by the US Gov, there was an insane amount of pricing pressure by all the Gov guaranteed loans & community reinvestment act bull shit loan programs.  IE..housing prices were much higher due to all these poorly devised loan programs. 

https://www.rstreet.org/2018/01/04/what-have-the-massive-guarantees-of-mortgages-by-the-u-s-government-achieved-2/

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

8 minutes ago, XR4ticlone said:

 

That's a very disingenuous argument for the simple fact that none of these private lending institutions held on to any of this paper.  Issued does not equal held.

Much of that paper ended up in CBO's or 'Gov' bonds via Fannie & Freddie with defacto Gov backing.  The vast majority of the worst offending loans were only written because there was an endless supply of 'Gov insured' investment money to cover them.  Turn off the Gov backed securities that funded these shitty mortgages and NONE of them get written.

 

Yes. The private issuers of these loans did so knowing they weren't going to be holding onto the IOUs when the shit hit the fan. Fannie Mae and the concept of gov backed mortgages wasn't the new variable introduced into the housing marking. Fannie had been around for the better part of a century. It was the newly emerging credit default swap market that was the new variable, a market virtually free of regulation that was codified, without debate, as unregulated in the final omnibus bill of the Clinton administration thanks to Phil Gramm.

 

https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=102325715

[Washpark 176]

 

1 hour ago, XR4ticlone said:

 

That's a very disingenuous argument for the simple fact that none of these private lending institutions held on to any of this paper.  Issued does not equal held.

Much of that paper ended up in CBO's or 'Gov' bonds via Fannie & Freddie with defacto Gov backing.  The vast majority of the worst offending loans were only written because there was an endless supply of 'Gov insured' investment money to cover them.  Turn off the Gov backed securities that funded these shitty mortgages and NONE of them get written.

The problem with OPM...(Other Poeple's Money) is no money will ever get mistreated, wasted, and pissed away more readily that OPM.   Gov is the worst of OPM as there is no one to account to...the OPM they blow through will never have a face or name attached to it.  Too many believe it's an endless supply (fucking financially illiterate dip shits that sadly also can vote) of Gov money.  And on whole, we've bastardized money...forgetting what it really is...OUR TIME & OUR EFFORTS.  If the Gov came and asked for another 10% of your time you'd rightfully tell them to go get fucked.   But because we ask for money...it's somehow not as bad to most Americans.

 

I'd add...that even for those loans not backed by the US Gov, there was an insane amount of pricing pressure by all the Gov guaranteed loans & community reinvestment act bull shit loan programs.  IE..housing prices were much higher due to all these poorly devised loan programs. 

https://www.rstreet.org/2018/01/04/what-have-the-massive-guarantees-of-mortgages-by-the-u-s-government-achieved-2/

You must work in the back office near the mailroom in finance 

Edited June 17, 2018 by Washpark

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Lost my sister to net neutrality repeal — I mean how did we ever manage before that was created in 2015.  And my brother to the tax cuts. People are dying in the streets y’all. 

[seven 1367]

Are they racists like you? 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

12 minutes ago, seven said:

Are they racists like you? 

According to fucktards like you, I’m sure they are. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

And by the way, I’m not certain because I don’t know you, but odds are that I’ve done more actual good with my own funds and time for blacks in the last 15 years for blacks than you’ve ever done or ever will do.  You kick my ass at internet virtue signaling. 

[seven 1367]

That's great, do you tell these blacks that you're selflessly helping that you believe they are animals pre-disposed to crime? Or is that just your message board tough guy act? 

Edited June 17, 2018 by seven

[XR4ticlone 122]

5 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

Yes. The private issuers of these loans did so knowing they weren't going to be holding onto the IOUs when the shit hit the fan. Fannie Mae and the concept of gov backed mortgages wasn't the new variable introduced into the housing marking. Fannie had been around for the better part of a century. It was the newly emerging credit default swap market that was the new variable, a market virtually free of regulation that was codified, without debate, as unregulated in the final omnibus bill of the Clinton administration thanks to Phil Gramm.

  

https://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=102325715

I don't disagree that CBO's were a major part of the issue. But once again, people bought them based on the perception of safety of the US housing markets...much of that was based off ratings agencies (who were clearly bribed or asleep at the wheel) and the idea that the US Gov backed much of the housing mortgages here.

The Community Reinvestment Act was a huge driver in the housing crisis...and sadly I'm not sure we learned anything from 2008.

I worked in the retail finance industry for 7 years out of college, having my series 7 and working with retail investors.  I can tell you most of the people in that industry are not, IMHO all that sound when it comes to finance & investments.  Clearly compared to the average person, they've got some knowledge, but many don't fully understand the investments they're selling especially when it comes to more complex investments.  Heck watch 'The Big Short'...which would be completely unbelievable if it wasn't for the reality that they were all balls deep in that mess and got caught holding the bag.

My brother is a banker and I can tell you we talk about that industry as well on a regular basis.  There's a real lack of financial awareness and discipline in that industry as well.

I'm fully aware that I have a very conservative economic viewpoint.  Driven partially by growing up on a farm when nothing is promised, and partially from hearing stories my grandfather had told my mother about pre-WWII Germany and the hyperinflation from Germany monetary policy (printing the shit out of money).   When you hear a story of being so hungry that you steal a potato out of a pot of boiling water through a kitchen window....that shit isn't something you forget.  Boil some water and drop a potato in, then think how hungry you'd have to be to put your arm in there. 

We're repeating a lot of the same sins here now.  Printing via the Fed buying US Treasuries (same impact) and out of control debt (personal and Gov) with no signs of anyone getting it under control.   History is full of examples of how this turns out...it has NEVER been good.  The center cannot hold.

I understand that no one wants to hear that.  Myself included.  That doesn't make it any less true.

Edited June 17, 2018 by XR4ticlone

[Washpark 176]

Lulz. You were a bank teller

 

[Satchel 6938]

On June 16, 2018 at 12:41 PM, SKJ said:

What bait?

Social security is an "entitlement"

It is mandatory spending.

I don't understand

 

It's an earned benefit.

[XR4ticlone 122]

2 hours ago, Washpark said:

Lulz. You were a bank teller

 

No, you clearly cannot read or do not know what a Series 7 license is, but allow me to help educate you.  A Series 7 is the General Securities Representative Exam, IE Investment Broker / Stock Broker securities license under the SEC. (Security Exchange Commission...not the South East Conference...preemptive point there to clear up further confusion and save a future reply). 

That covers all levels of investments from equity offerings (stocks), debt investments (bonds), mutual funds, as well as futures trading on non-commodities.  During that time I also had my insurance licenses for life and health. 

My brother is a bank VP.   I give him shit about 'Who isn't a VP at a bank?...besides the janitors?'  But he's actually the manager of AG lending for 6 branches of a regional bank.   So he's not a teller either.

Sorry to disappoint you.

[wildcat09 29355]

4 hours ago, XR4ticlone said:

I don't disagree that CBO's were a major part of the issue. But once again, people bought them based on the perception of safety of the US housing markets...much of that was based off ratings agencies (who were clearly bribed or asleep at the wheel) and the idea that the US Gov backed much of the housing mortgages here.

The Community Reinvestment Act was a huge driver in the housing crisis...and sadly I'm not sure we learned anything from 2008.

I worked in the retail finance industry for 7 years out of college, having my series 7 and working with retail investors.  I can tell you most of the people in that industry are not, IMHO all that sound when it comes to finance & investments.  Clearly compared to the average person, they've got some knowledge, but many don't fully understand the investments they're selling especially when it comes to more complex investments.  Heck watch 'The Big Short'...which would be completely unbelievable if it wasn't for the reality that they were all balls deep in that mess and got caught holding the bag.

My brother is a banker and I can tell you we talk about that industry as well on a regular basis.  There's a real lack of financial awareness and discipline in that industry as well.

I'm fully aware that I have a very conservative economic viewpoint.  Driven partially by growing up on a farm when nothing is promised, and partially from hearing stories my grandfather had told my mother about pre-WWII Germany and the hyperinflation from Germany monetary policy (printing the shit out of money).   When you hear a story of being so hungry that you steal a potato out of a pot of boiling water through a kitchen window....that shit isn't something you forget.  Boil some water and drop a potato in, then think how hungry you'd have to be to put your arm in there. 

We're repeating a lot of the same sins here now.  Printing via the Fed buying US Treasuries (same impact) and out of control debt (personal and Gov) with no signs of anyone getting it under control.   History is full of examples of how this turns out...it has NEVER been good.  The center cannot hold.

I understand that no one wants to hear that.  Myself included.  That doesn't make it any less true.

The Community Reinvestment Act sure as hell didn't have anything to do with the commercial real estate bubble in America or any of the residential and commercial real estate bubbles in Europe.

[XR4ticlone 122]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The Community Reinvestment Act sure as hell didn't have anything to do with the commercial real estate bubble in America or any of the residential and commercial real estate bubbles in Europe.

They didn't happen in a vacuum.   You can't just dismiss the impact the Gov's influence had on the entire market. 

That's like saying the gold rush didn't drive up the prices of tents or shovels.

[Washpark 176]

 

[Thetexashammer 1062]

The Forbes report, on its face, is irrelevant.

The transfer mechanism occurred thusly. The regulatory agencies, due to their very reasonable desire to help out the less fortunate, wanted to help black people get loans. But because we all agree that racism is bad, they couldn't just say "give black people lower rates" because that just what the College Republicans do on the West Mall with the "Cookies $1, $0.25 for black people" thing. 

So the regulators said "you have to lower your lending standards for everyone. In exchange, they agreed to reduce capital requirements as well and to continue the easy money. But then it all blew up, as bubbles usually do.

If a single mortgage pool faired better than others, it is irrelevant. That was never the mechanism of transmission for the lower lending standards. The regulators were the prime movers in all of this.

Edited June 18, 2018 by Thetexashammer

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

The Forbes report, on its face, is irrelevant.
The transfer mechanism occurred thusly. The regulatory agencies, due to their very reasonable desire to help out the less fortunate, wanted to help black people get loans. But because we all agree that racism is bad, they couldn't just say "give black people lower rates" because that just what the College Republicans do on the West Mall with the "Cookies $1, $0.25 for black people" thing. 
So the regulators said "you have to lower your lending standards for everyone. In exchange, they agreed to reduce capital requirements as well and to continue the easy money. But then it all blew up, as bubbles usually do.
If a single mortgage pool faired better than others, it is irrelevant. That was never the mechanism of transmission for the lower lending standards. The regulators were the prime movers in all of this.

Link.

[Brew 3049]

12 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

And by the way, I’m not certain because I don’t know you, but odds are that I’ve done more actual good with my own funds and time for blacks in the last 15 years for blacks than you’ve ever done or ever will do.  You kick my ass at internet virtue signaling. 

Your self awareness is somewhat lacking. 

[SKJ 1311]

11 hours ago, Satchel said:

It's an earned benefit.

And it's an entitlement.

And it's failing.

And people are getting much more out of it than they paid in.

And I'll supposedly never see any of it.

So yeah, I guess.

[Guest]

Lol y’all leave the Wells Fargo teller who sells loans alone. 

[wildcat09 29355]

10 hours ago, XR4ticlone said:

They didn't happen in a vacuum.   You can't just dismiss the impact the Gov's influence had on the entire market. 

That's like saying the gold rush didn't drive up the prices of tents or shovels.

It's very easy to explain why the gold rush would have increased the prices of tents and shovels. I eagerly await your explanation for how the Community Reinvestment Act led to a commercial real estate bubble in Spain.

[David Dennison 18921]

1 hour ago, SKJ said:

And it's an entitlement.

And it's failing.

And people are getting much more out of it than they paid in.

And I'll supposedly never see any of it.

So yeah, I guess.

The fix is so easy it's laughable. Which is why when push comes to shove, the income limit will be raised or eliminated completely. So don't worry about SS. You'll get everything you have coming to you.

[SKJ 1311]

Well, fuck me running.

The supreme Court is a shithole

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5afee029e4b0463cdba14419/amp

[Brisketexan 105154]

24 minutes ago, SKJ said:

Well, fuck me running.

The supreme Court is a shithole

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5afee029e4b0463cdba14419/amp

While I may not like the ultimate RESULT, the reasoning is sound, and reasoning and the rule of law remain important.  Standing is important, and limited judicial reach is important.  Not only is all not lost with respect to these cases, a clearer roadmap has been provided for how to proceed in the future:

Quote

“Remedying each plaintiff’s vote dilution injury ‘requires revising only such districts as are necessary to reshape [that plaintiff ’s] district—so that the [plaintiff] may be unpacked or uncracked, as the case may be,’” Kagan wrote. “But with enough plaintiffs joined together—attacking all the packed and cracked districts in a statewide gerrymander—those obligatory revisions could amount to a wholesale restructuring of the State’s districting plan.” 

Each voter only has standing to contest his or her own district.  But if you bring a case with a representative voter from EVERY district, you can challenge the statewide map.  Indeed, the evidence and proof would look quite similar to a single claim against the statewide map.

[bernorange 8362]

Not sure if this is more a reflection of Trump's trade policies, or a point on a larger trend line of the waning petrodollar:

Quote

Foreign governments pulled back their purchases of longer-term U.S. debt as trade tensions escalated around the world.

The declines are relatively small so far for notes and bonds — just shy of $5 billion each for March and April, the most recent months for which Treasury data are available — but it signals a potentially troubling trend.
...
One of the most glaring declines has come from Russia, which sliced its holdings of U.S. debt nearly in half from March to April, from $96.1 billion to $48.7 billion. Russia's Treasury ownership peaked at $108.7 billion in May 2017.

In all, foreigners held $6.17 trillion of the total $14.84 trillion of Treasury debt outstanding through April. The national debt including intragovernmental holdings has swelled to more than $21 trillion.

Russia isn't the only country cutting back in its U.S. holdings.

China, the largest owner of U.S. debt, reduced its level by $5.8 billion in April to $1.18 trillion, while Japan, the second largest, cut its holdings by $12.3 billion to $1.03 trillion. Ireland, the U.K. and Switzerland also pulled back.

When counting all securities (including T-bills), the April decline came to $47.6 billion, a 0.8 percent reduction from March.

Finding buyers for government debt has become increasingly important since the Federal Reserve halted its bond-buying program in October 2016 after swelling its holdings to more than $4.2 trillion.
...

More:  https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/18/russia-cuts-treasury-holdings-in-half-as-foreigners-start-losing-appetite-for-us-debt.html

[Murfdogg21 4413]

Will America Recover?