142802Re: [evol-psych] Re: Mitt Romney Explain How Jesus Will Reign for 1,000 Years When He Returns, in Jerusalem... and Missouri
- Nov 8, 2012clarence_sonny_williams wrote:
> Phil,Fannie Mae (and Freddie Mack) certainly played a role in the 2008-9
> You forget to take into account the Democrat-induced effort to provide
> mortgages to previously unqualified people. Why should only the "rich"
> live the American dream of a single-residency in a quiet suburb? That
> appeals to the egalitarian principles driving Democrat politics, a
> principle that takes primacy over individual earning and the resulting
> disparities. Let's get everyone to share the American dream, and
> government (via Fanny Mae et al) would pave the way...whether the
> individual could afford it or not.
collapse, but probably not in the straightforward manner a lot of
folks think. I've watched close to a dozen documentaries on the
collapse, and the one I found the most helpful was the CNBC DVD
'House of Cards'. According to this particular documentary, the
seeds were sown when Fannie Mae ran into management and accounting
problems and was temporarily put out of business. At that point in
time, Wall Street saw a vacuum and a golden opportunity to step
in and fill the void. Up to this point, mortgages were still being
done in a fairly responsible manner. But once Wall Street entered
the picture, the profit motive became the driving force, along with
lots of predatory lending ("the breath test") and in which things
really got crazy. Only after this initial foray into recklessness,
when Fannie Mae once again re-entered the market, and saw itself losing
market share, did it also begin to adopt some of these same tactics
simply to survive in a market that was now out of control.
So a case could be made that the problems arose because of an attempt
to privatize what was previously a fairly smooth running government
operation, and with the resulting company taking advantage of its unfair
position in the market (because of lingering IMPLICIT government
guarantees) with lots of attendant corruption and greed and mismanagement.
But as bad as it was, Fannie Mae was still being fairly
responsible with respect to mortgages. It was only after it was
put out of business for a while while Congress investigated "accounting
discrepancies", and then RE-ENTERED a radically transformed
market, that it too began to adopt some of these irresponsible lending
practices simply to survive.
Some of the other documentaries that I think are worth a watch (my
eyesight is so bad that reading is no longer an option) are:
Ten Trillion and Counting
Inside the Meltdown
Money, Power and Wall Street
Breaking the Bank
>Here is where we disagree, although I suspect things are murky enough
> Wall Street then took advantage of this build-up of unqualified
> house-owners and everything is fine...until house prices nudge down.
> When that happens, the house of cards begun by egalitarian Democrats
> falls down, quickly and with devastating results. Could regulations
> preventing the sale of mortgage bundling trading instruments have
> prevented the collapse? Possibly, but that still means you have
> forgotten the REAL driver behind the financial debacle of 2008: Democrat
for different interpretations. I think things started to go south
when they attempted to privatize a government operation, but in which
the break wasn't clean resulting in a privately held corporation with
an unfair implicit government guarantee resulting in rampant mismanagement
and corruption. But, in spite of this, lending was still fairly responsible.
It was only AFTER Wall Street usurped the market position formerly held
by Fannie Mae that lending practices became irresponsible.
- << Previous post in topic