|
|
Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
I'm watching "Nightline," and apparently, folks think the "government"
ought to get involved to somehow help folks who overborrowed on too-large houses at over-inflated prices because the lenders were too lenient in lending...AFAIAC, let the lenders go under and the yuppie ****s live in boxes eating recalled dogfood.... Doubting this will help much, R ....and if anyone with any sense wonders about why the US "public" ought not to be trusted with much at all, here's gonna be Ayer answer... |
Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
wrote in message ... I'm watching "Nightline," and apparently, folks think the "government" ought to get involved to somehow help folks who overborrowed on too-large houses at over-inflated prices because the lenders were too lenient in lending...AFAIAC, let the lenders go under and the yuppie ****s live in boxes eating recalled dogfood.... Doubting this will help much, R ...and if anyone with any sense wonders about why the US "public" ought not to be trusted with much at all, here's gonna be Ayer answer... agree with the overall sentiment. My suspicion is that the folks ending up getting bailed-out will be the idiots who lent out the cash. An equally stupid remedy, IMO. Tom |
Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
|
Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
Tom Littleton wrote:
wrote : I'm watching "Nightline," and apparently, folks think the "government" ought to get involved to somehow help folks who overborrowed on too-large houses at over-inflated prices because the lenders were too lenient in lending...AFAIAC, let the lenders go under and the yuppie ****s live in boxes eating recalled dogfood.... Doubting this will help much, R ...and if anyone with any sense wonders about why the US "public" ought not to be trusted with much at all, here's gonna be Ayer answer... agree with the overall sentiment. My suspicion is that the folks ending up getting bailed-out will be the idiots who lent out the cash. An equally stupid remedy, IMO. The ones who lent out the cash at usurious rates have already cashed out. For the most part they sold those mortgages to unsuspecting investment houses under misrepresented circumstances and it's those investment houses who are gonna get stuck holding the bag. As for the yuppies being kicked out of their houses to live in Frigidaire boxes and eat Alpo, they're more the victims of loan sharks than anything else and they're not yuppies. As for what to do, I'd say nothing beyond making it harder to sell bad mortgages disguised as good ones. -- Ken Fortenberry |
Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
On 21 Mar 2007 12:12:12 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote: wrote in news:mvd1039k7ac2kv9al7hlcqqhr5pdlunoqk@ 4ax.com: I'm watching "Nightline," and apparently, folks think the "government" ought to get involved to somehow help folks who overborrowed on too-large houses at over-inflated prices because the lenders were too lenient in lending...AFAIAC, let the lenders go under and the yuppie ****s live in boxes eating recalled dogfood.... Doubting this will help much, R ...and if anyone with any sense wonders about why the US "public" ought not to be trusted with much at all, here's gonna be Ayer answer... Yeah-- the S&L bailout was a bad precedent. The way it was handled, it absolutely was - the waste was incredible, all to bail out, at best unsuited and at worst, greedy and criminal S & L "investors." And yeah, that includes Neil Bush and company, who damned near managed a real hat trick - definitely unsuited and greedy and probably criminal. But in the long run, at least that bailout was good for the overall economy. I don't think this, given the facts thus far known, would be, but it would depend on how large/bad it is. TC, R |
Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
On Mar 20, 9:50 pm, wrote:
I'm watching "Nightline," and apparently, folks think the "government" ought to get involved to somehow help folks who overborrowed on too-large houses at over-inflated prices because the lenders were too lenient in lending...AFAIAC, let the lenders go under and the yuppie ****s live in boxes eating recalled dogfood.... Doubting this will help much, R ...and if anyone with any sense wonders about why the US "public" ought not to be trusted with much at all, here's gonna be Ayer answer... Along the same lines why are we bailing out those idiots who built houses where they know sooner or later a hurricane is going to wipe the thing out. If you build a "McMansion" on the beach in Mississipppi don't be looking for my money. |
Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 09:35:02 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote: wrote in message .. . I'm watching "Nightline," and apparently, folks think the "government" ought to get involved to somehow help folks who overborrowed on too-large houses at over-inflated prices because the lenders were too lenient in lending...AFAIAC, let the lenders go under and the yuppie ****s live in boxes eating recalled dogfood.... Doubting this will help much, R ...and if anyone with any sense wonders about why the US "public" ought not to be trusted with much at all, here's gonna be Ayer answer... agree with the overall sentiment. My suspicion is that the folks ending up getting bailed-out will be the idiots who lent out the cash. An equally stupid remedy, IMO. Tom And it got better - someone mentioned "predatory" mortgage lending...supposedly, one was left to guess, somehow "preying" on people who were overborrowing on too-large houses at over-inflated prices... So far, in this "subprime scandal" news coverage, I've seen couples whining that the adjustable rate on the home equity loan on their McMansion is already up so high they can only afford to go to Staryucks twice a week, and if it goes up any more, they might lose their house, as well as folks who were poor credit risks to begin with whining because they can't afford the homes they bought...and most are claiming it's anyone and everyone's fault but their own... As to bailing out the companies, at least the subprime lenders, I'm not so sure - several have already gone under, and most (real) analysts say that it appears from the current data that the percentage of loans, subprime or otherwise, likely to go to foreclosure isn't that large a percentage of the total mortgage picture. TC, R |
Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
and they're not yuppies. I think we need a new word to be used for people caught up in what is .... to me.... an obvious cultural surge of consumption, for the sake of consumption. Sure, all humans have always liked nice things and comfortable surroundings but, at least where I live and observe the world, there has been a big change in the last couple generations. IMHO, for large numbers of people in our culture, "owning" is replacing ( or an attempt to replace ) traditional spiritual and social aspects of human life. That is, people are trying to buy things to fill the empty places inside that real chats ( not cell phone stuck receiver stuck Borg-like to ear or e-mails ) with other people and with "god" have filled for most people in the past. It is very easy to find people now that can put no deeper meaning on their own lives than what they recently bought. The word "yuppie" never seems quite right for them but we need one as they are a big and getting bigger part of our world and why that world is going the current directions. |
Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
|
Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:47:48 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Tom Littleton wrote: wrote : I'm watching "Nightline," and apparently, folks think the "government" ought to get involved to somehow help folks who overborrowed on too-large houses at over-inflated prices because the lenders were too lenient in lending...AFAIAC, let the lenders go under and the yuppie ****s live in boxes eating recalled dogfood.... Doubting this will help much, R ...and if anyone with any sense wonders about why the US "public" ought not to be trusted with much at all, here's gonna be Ayer answer... agree with the overall sentiment. My suspicion is that the folks ending up getting bailed-out will be the idiots who lent out the cash. An equally stupid remedy, IMO. The ones who lent out the cash at usurious rates have already cashed out. For the most part they sold those mortgages to unsuspecting investment houses under misrepresented circumstances and it's those investment houses who are gonna get stuck holding the bag. As for the yuppies being kicked out of their houses to live in Frigidaire boxes and eat Alpo, they're more the victims of loan sharks than anything else and they're not yuppies. Uh, OK...and just how does any company, good, bad, or otherwise, force someone into a mortgage, "usurious" or otherwise, on an overly-large, over-valued/mortgaged, or otherwise inappropriate-to-the-borrower's-situation home? Mortgages on "solid" deals for folks buying appropriately were, and still are, easy to get. Subprimes are, were, and always have been, well, subprime, and for a reason. And keep in mind that much of the "in the news" cases are folks with iffy credit (which in itself should make a point), limited payback ability, and many were taking out home equity loans to pay off other "shopping"/"lifestyle" debt. And yeah, I'm sure that someone knows or read about some poor couple who had to mortgage the house to pay for junior's heart transplant or something, but that type of situation would be a _rare_ occurrence. The great majority of this is, simply, people attempting to live wa-a-a-a-y beyond their means. TC, R As for what to do, I'd say nothing beyond making it harder to sell bad mortgages disguised as good ones. |
Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
Larry L wrote:
and they're not yuppies. I think we need a new word to be used for people caught up in what is .... to me.... an obvious cultural surge of consumption, for the sake of consumption. Sure, all humans have always liked nice things and comfortable surroundings but, at least where I live and observe the world, there has been a big change in the last couple generations. IMHO, for large numbers of people in our culture, "owning" is replacing ( or an attempt to replace ) traditional spiritual and social aspects of human life. That is, people are trying to buy things to fill the empty places inside that real chats ( not cell phone stuck receiver stuck Borg-like to ear or e-mails ) with other people and with "god" have filled for most people in the past. It is very easy to find people now that can put no deeper meaning on their own lives than what they recently bought. The word "yuppie" never seems quite right for them but we need one as they are a big and getting bigger part of our world and why that world is going the current directions. "Liberal" or "progressive" seems to fit your analysis. |
Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
"Cessna 310" wrote "Liberal" or "progressive" seems to fit your analysis. Two of the most abused and misused words in America http://tinyurl.com/26dmwp |
Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
Cessna 310 wrote:
Larry L wrote: ....... That is, people are trying to buy things to fill the empty places inside that real chats (not cell phone stuck receiver stuck Borg-like to ear or e-mails) with other people and with "god" have filled for most people in the past. It is very easy to find people now that can put no deeper meaning on their own lives than what they recently bought...... "Liberal" or "progressive" seems to fit your analysis. Interesting reflex. Nicely illustrates the degree to which today's conservatives, well, aren't. - JR |
Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
On 21 Mar 2007 07:48:12 -0700, "BJ Conner"
wrote: On Mar 20, 9:50 pm, wrote: I'm watching "Nightline," and apparently, folks think the "government" ought to get involved to somehow help folks who overborrowed on too-large houses at over-inflated prices because the lenders were too lenient in lending...AFAIAC, let the lenders go under and the yuppie ****s live in boxes eating recalled dogfood.... Doubting this will help much, R ...and if anyone with any sense wonders about why the US "public" ought not to be trusted with much at all, here's gonna be Ayer answer... Along the same lines why are we bailing out those idiots who built houses where they know sooner or later a hurricane is going to wipe the thing out. If you build a "McMansion" on the beach in Mississipppi don't be looking for my money. Absolutely, except that I disagree that anyone who built on the beach was an idiot simply because of where they built. If they planned for it or were otherwise willing to take the risk without forcing or expecting others to share the risk after the fact, that's fine by me. My family has had homes in "danger zones" for generations, but they are properly insured and part of the risk is accepted by us. I personally don't want to live in such a home because I don't want to lose my home in such a fashion. Anyone who builds on the beach (or in a flood zone, be it on the beach of MS, the Ninth Ward of NO, or anywhere in the country, or builds in an earthquake, fire, or in any other "danger zone") and doesn't obtain and pay for insurance or otherwise mitigate their risk, or simply assume that risk themselves, has no standing to complain or expect a bailout, IMO. TC, R |
Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 15:07:09 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: wrote: On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 13:47:48 GMT, Ken Fortenberry wrote: Tom Littleton wrote: wrote : I'm watching "Nightline," and apparently, folks think the "government" ought to get involved to somehow help folks who overborrowed on too-large houses at over-inflated prices because the lenders were too lenient in lending...AFAIAC, let the lenders go under and the yuppie ****s live in boxes eating recalled dogfood.... Doubting this will help much, R ...and if anyone with any sense wonders about why the US "public" ought not to be trusted with much at all, here's gonna be Ayer answer... agree with the overall sentiment. My suspicion is that the folks ending up getting bailed-out will be the idiots who lent out the cash. An equally stupid remedy, IMO. The ones who lent out the cash at usurious rates have already cashed out. For the most part they sold those mortgages to unsuspecting investment houses under misrepresented circumstances and it's those investment houses who are gonna get stuck holding the bag. As for the yuppies being kicked out of their houses to live in Frigidaire boxes and eat Alpo, they're more the victims of loan sharks than anything else and they're not yuppies. Uh, OK...and just how does any company, good, bad, or otherwise, force someone into a mortgage, "usurious" or otherwise, on an overly-large, over-valued/mortgaged, or otherwise inappropriate-to-the-borrower's-situation home? Mortgages on "solid" deals for folks buying appropriately were, and still are, easy to get. Subprimes are, were, and always have been, well, subprime, and for a reason. And keep in mind that much of the "in the news" cases are folks with iffy credit (which in itself should make a point), limited payback ability, and many were taking out home equity loans to pay off other "shopping"/"lifestyle" debt. And yeah, I'm sure that someone knows or read about some poor couple who had to mortgage the house to pay for junior's heart transplant or something, but that type of situation would be a _rare_ occurrence. The great majority of this is, simply, people attempting to live wa-a-a-a-y beyond their means. I don't disagree with any of that but loans were made to people with iffy credit and then those mortgages were sold as if they were loans to people with good credit. As I understand it this was an aggregate deal, that is the buyers thought they were buying, just for an example, 75% good credit mortgages and 25% iffy credit mortgages but ended up with more iffy credit mortgages than good. And just how does two institutional traders of negotiable paper have the slightest thing to do with the homeowners/mortgagors? If XYZ Corp. simply accepted whatever ABC Corp. said about the paper that the face of which indicated something contrary to what ABC was claiming, they were negligent. And anyone with just a smattering of walking-around sense could and can see that if a mortgage created in the last 3-4 years is above about 6%, something is up with the borrower/mortgagor, at least insofar as to indicate a little due diligence is in order. And if someone is selling bundles of 8-10-12% paper, they ain't selling low-risk/good risk paper and no institutional trader would fall for some bull**** indicating it was anything but subprime; institutional traders can easily get a fair (in both senses) idea of what they are buying simply by the interest rate. The main reason for this is just like the old oilfield bumpersticker, "Please God, let there be another oil boom...I promise I won't **** it all away next time..." or the "dotcom" bust: greedy "yuppies" who don't have a clue and who think it'll all last forever...or at least until they make their money... And this was, and is, all somehow legal. Why in the hell would or should it be _illegal_? You might want to do a little research on what "liberal" really means (and no, I don't mean "libertarian"). I don't believe an S & L type bailout is warranted, like you say the percentage of the market involved with iffy credit mortgages is small, but I do think it should be illegal to misrepresent what you're selling. TC, R |
Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:48:32 GMT, "Larry L"
wrote: "Cessna 310" wrote "Liberal" or "progressive" seems to fit your analysis. Two of the most abused and misused words in America http://tinyurl.com/26dmwp I saw nothing to do with the actual definition of "liberal." TC, R ....who actually is a liberal...because I know what it means... |
Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
Here is is a link an interesting, albeit a bit long, video about money
as debt, and it applies to the current housing situation. It might change the way you think about our whole monetary system. For me, it gave proof to a theory/question I had about why we as a society are must have growth, not sustainability. Why we are bound to profit and not simple comfrotable provision. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...=money+as+debt |
Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
On Mar 21, 6:47 am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote: Tom Littleton wrote: wrote : I'm watching "Nightline," and apparently, folks think the "government" ought to get involved to somehow help folks who overborrowed on too-large houses at over-inflated prices because the lenders were too lenient in lending...AFAIAC, let the lenders go under and the yuppie ****s live in boxes eating recalled dogfood.... Doubting this will help much, R ...and if anyone with any sense wonders about why the US "public" ought not to be trusted with much at all, here's gonna be Ayer answer... agree with the overall sentiment. My suspicion is that the folks ending up getting bailed-out will be the idiots who lent out the cash. An equally stupid remedy, IMO. The ones who lent out the cash at usurious rates have already cashed out. For the most part they sold those mortgages to unsuspecting investment houses under misrepresented circumstances and it's those investment houses who are gonna get stuck holding the bag. As for the yuppies being kicked out of their houses to live in Frigidaire boxes and eat Alpo, they're more the victims of loan sharks than anything else and they're not yuppies. As for what to do, I'd say nothing beyond making it harder to sell bad mortgages disguised as good ones. -- Ken Fortenberry- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The ones that originated the loans factored them off as soon as they could. The people that own those big MacMansions are Quiwait, Saudi, China, Japan and some are in Europe ( not as many as there use to be). When they come over to collect on the Treasury bonds they hold they can probably move into one of the hundreds of thousands of houses they will own. If you have toured one on the track MacMansions you know the jokes on them. For the most part they are cheap and built to have square footage with quality second. I am not sure what the cost ratio is for material/selling price in a new house is but it's gotta be low. If I was young and wanted a house these days I think the smart thing to do would be to take six months off and build one. |
Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
wrote I saw nothing to do with the actual definition of "liberal." I can't accept that you honestly believe I sat out to "define" liberal, several years back when I wrote the piece. In case you are not intentionally being dense G .... it was "about" how and, I believe why, the word has come to be used in some circles almost as a curse word. FWIW, the effectiveness of the tactic has diminished the last few years and it's not as often now that we here people branded "liberal" as an attack and easy way to dismiss everything they say or think ... regardless TC, R ...who actually is a liberal...because I know what it means... I seldom agree with much you write here, and I'd bet you sometimes don't either G But both halves of the sentence quoted above ring true to me. Larry L ( who likes being called liberal by people that have some idea what it really means, but who knows that doesn't include a great many people that love to use the word without that benefit of knowledge .... thus my "abused and misused" statement ) |
Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
On Mar 21, 7:59 am, "Larry L" wrote:
and they're not yuppies. I think we need a new word to be used for people caught up in what is .... to me.... an obvious cultural surge of consumption, for the sake of consumption. Sure, all humans have always liked nice things and comfortable surroundings but, at least where I live and observe the world, there has been a big change in the last couple generations. I agree and have noticed this as well. I wonder if it isn't a normal thing which feels exaggerated due to a couple demographic abnormalities. - The depression generation was abnormal. What they went through changed the way they thought about money and possessions. My grandparents just couldn't spend money. They scrimped and saved even though they had a considerable amount of money. - The huge baby boomer generation is in that point of their lives where they are comfortable, have money and are enjoying what they have earned. I think the stark contrast between these two groups is why things seem so unbalanced. I think the availability and abuse of credit is a contributing factor, but I don't the change is in the generations following the boomers. Eh, just my lunchtime ramblings...we now return you to your regularly scheduled catfight on "hauling" already in progress, - Ken |
Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
No time for a complete "join-the-thread" reply, but...
On Mar 21, 2:26 pm, " wrote: - The depression generation was abnormal. I've gotta disagree...what they went through is entirely normal for the vast majority of people who have lived, and even for a majority of people alive today. It's the mcmansion-starbucks-twiceaday-chargeit lifestyle that is abnormal (and won't last for long). Jon. |
Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
On Mar 21, 2:18 pm, wrote:
No time for a complete "join-the-thread" reply, but... On Mar 21, 2:26 pm, " wrote: - The depression generation was abnormal. I've gotta disagree...what they went through is entirely normal for the vast majority of people who have lived, and even for a majority of people alive today. It's the mcmansion-starbucks-twiceaday-chargeit lifestyle that is abnormal (and won't last for long). Jon. I should have specified "within the United States". I have to admit to being curious about what will happen when the boomers start to die off. My MIL tries to justify her "antiques" habit by saying that it's our inheritance when she dies. I enjoy telling her that when all the "antiques" get dumped on the market from all the estate sales they won't be worth what she paid for them. - Ken |
Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
wrote in message ... that it appears from the current data that the percentage of loans, subprime or otherwise, likely to go to foreclosure isn't that large a percentage of the total mortgage picture. TC, R I don't know about that one. I do know that the more conservative banks haven't picked up a lot of the subprime residential loans due to obvious risks, but I did read a recent article stating that the number of late payers on mortgage loans is ticking upward. Apparently, they track the figure of late-payment percentage on a rolling three-month basis, and it is starting to creep up towards 4% of all mortgage-holders. This could reflect a real problem down the road, or it could merely be a short-term thing, reflecting people re-tooling their personal finances. I do know a few of the more conservative banking institutions bailed out of the unsecured credit business a couple years back, and that might signal a real economic fear of sorts. This has been an interesting thread. I agree with the overall consensus that we have evolved into a society that "consumes" at an alarming pace, in a very irresponsible fashion. Sadly, the trend for "possessions" has trended ever upward. I put "possessions" in quotes as we all know that the true possessors of those oversized, overpriced homes, the SUV's, boats and all, are actually the lenders, not the fools who purchased them. Tom |
Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 19:31:20 GMT, "Larry L"
wrote: wrote I saw nothing to do with the actual definition of "liberal." I can't accept that you honestly believe I sat out to "define" liberal, several years back when I wrote the piece. I had no idea you wrote the piece at the link. I saw your reply and thought it was in response to my suggestion of researching what "liberal" meant. In case you are not intentionally being dense G I'm never "dense," intentionally or otherwise...OTOH, I am sometimes, with intent and purpose, um, "Socratically obtuse"...SEE! SEE! .... it was "about" how and, I believe why, the word has come to be used in some circles almost as a curse word. FWIW, the effectiveness of the tactic has diminished the last few years and it's not as often now that we here people branded "liberal" as an attack and easy way to dismiss everything they say or think ... regardless TC, R ...who actually is a liberal...because I know what it means... I seldom agree with much you write here, and I'd bet you sometimes don't either G But both halves of the sentence quoted above ring true to me. Larry L ( who likes being called liberal by people that have some idea what it really means, but who knows that doesn't include a great many people that love to use the word without that benefit of knowledge .... thus my "abused and misused" statement ) Ah. TC, R |
Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
On 21 Mar 2007 11:32:00 -0700, "Ethan" wrote:
Here is is a link an interesting, albeit a bit long, video about money as debt, and it applies to the current housing situation. It might change the way you think about our whole monetary system. For me, it gave proof to a theory/question I had about why we as a society are must have growth, not sustainability. Why we are bound to profit and not simple comfrotable provision. http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...=money+as+debt If you care to summarize, I'll read that summary, but I'm not saying debt is bad, I'm saying bad debt is not good. Debt can actually net a person or company money as long as it is appropriate debt that can be properly serviced. Buying a McMansion that one doesn't need and can't really afford is not "debt," it's financial stupidity. The fact that someone can arrange a loan to accomplish (temporarily) such a thing doesn't make it any better nor does it shift from the mortgagor the responsibility in the action. TC, R |
Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
On 21 Mar 2007 12:08:30 -0700, "BJ Conner"
wrote: On Mar 21, 6:47 am, Ken Fortenberry wrote: Tom Littleton wrote: wrote : I'm watching "Nightline," and apparently, folks think the "government" ought to get involved to somehow help folks who overborrowed on too-large houses at over-inflated prices because the lenders were too lenient in lending...AFAIAC, let the lenders go under and the yuppie ****s live in boxes eating recalled dogfood.... Doubting this will help much, R ...and if anyone with any sense wonders about why the US "public" ought not to be trusted with much at all, here's gonna be Ayer answer... agree with the overall sentiment. My suspicion is that the folks ending up getting bailed-out will be the idiots who lent out the cash. An equally stupid remedy, IMO. The ones who lent out the cash at usurious rates have already cashed out. For the most part they sold those mortgages to unsuspecting investment houses under misrepresented circumstances and it's those investment houses who are gonna get stuck holding the bag. As for the yuppies being kicked out of their houses to live in Frigidaire boxes and eat Alpo, they're more the victims of loan sharks than anything else and they're not yuppies. As for what to do, I'd say nothing beyond making it harder to sell bad mortgages disguised as good ones. -- Ken Fortenberry- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The ones that originated the loans factored them off as soon as they could. The people that own those big MacMansions are Quiwait, Saudi, China, Japan and some are in Europe ( not as many as there use to be). When they come over to collect on the Treasury bonds they hold they can probably move into one of the hundreds of thousands of houses they will own. If you have toured one on the track MacMansions you know the jokes on them. For the most part they are cheap and built to have square footage with quality second. I am not sure what the cost ratio is for material/selling price in a new house is but it's gotta be low. If I was young and wanted a house these days I think the smart thing to do would be to take six months off and build one. Er, yeah...it's them ragheads (and them cameljockeys from Quiwait is especially bad), gooks, and a smattering of assorted Eurotrash...lemme guess: you do nothing but live, eat, and sleep economics and finance, 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, and regularly explain things to the greatest experts in world...or you have a PhD in economics from Harvard... Y'all is all Kenyans now, (Tricky) Dickie ....who never was much of a Keynesian... |
Unbelievable...Oh, yeah, it's OT as hell...
On Mar 21, 10:07 pm, wrote:
On 21 Mar 2007 12:08:30 -0700, "BJ Conner" wrote: On Mar 21, 6:47 am, Ken Fortenberry wrote: Tom Littleton wrote: wrote : I'm watching "Nightline," and apparently, folks think the "government" ought to get involved to somehow help folks who overborrowed on too-large houses at over-inflated prices because the lenders were too lenient in lending...AFAIAC, let the lenders go under and the yuppie ****s live in boxes eating recalled dogfood.... Doubting this will help much, R ...and if anyone with any sense wonders about why the US "public" ought not to be trusted with much at all, here's gonna be Ayer answer... agree with the overall sentiment. My suspicion is that the folks ending up getting bailed-out will be the idiots who lent out the cash. An equally stupid remedy, IMO. The ones who lent out the cash at usurious rates have already cashed out. For the most part they sold those mortgages to unsuspecting investment houses under misrepresented circumstances and it's those investment houses who are gonna get stuck holding the bag. As for the yuppies being kicked out of their houses to live in Frigidaire boxes and eat Alpo, they're more the victims of loan sharks than anything else and they're not yuppies. As for what to do, I'd say nothing beyond making it harder to sell bad mortgages disguised as good ones. -- Ken Fortenberry- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - The ones that originated the loans factored them off as soon as they could. The people that own those big MacMansions are Quiwait, Saudi, China, Japan and some are in Europe ( not as many as there use to be). When they come over to collect on the Treasury bonds they hold they can probably move into one of the hundreds of thousands of houses they will own. If you have toured one on the track MacMansions you know the jokes on them. For the most part they are cheap and built to have square footage with quality second. I am not sure what the cost ratio is for material/selling price in a new house is but it's gotta be low. If I was young and wanted a house these days I think the smart thing to do would be to take six months off and build one. Er, yeah...it's them ragheads (and them cameljockeys from Quiwait is especially bad), gooks, and a smattering of assorted Eurotrash...lemme guess: you do nothing but live, eat, and sleep economics and finance, 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, and regularly explain things to the greatest experts in world...or you have a PhD in economics from Harvard... Y'all is all Kenyans now, (Tricky) Dickie ...who never was much of a Keynesian...- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Are you taking your pickle proffits and moving to Dubai with the rest or the thieve? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter