View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
john p
Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 1820
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
john p
Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 1820
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
john p
Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 1820
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
john p
Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 1820
|
Posted: Wed Oct 01, 2008 4:11 am GMT Post subject: |
|
|
I am shocked that the Globe printed this:
http://www.boston.com/ ...truncated...
Editor's Note: This post was edited to abbreviate a URL which was widening the page due to the way that the forum software lays out posts. No other changes have been made, and the URL still points to the original destination - only its display has been shortened. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
john p
Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 1820
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
john p
Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 1820
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
john p
Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 1820
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
samz
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 Posts: 102 Location: Medford, MA
|
Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 1:54 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting video. I'm not sure, but I think I detected a hint of partisanship in there.
I guess my question is this: is CRA really at the root of the whole thing?
What makes me uneasy about this explanation is that it sounds like Wall St bankers were somehow innocent victims (exploited by low-income folks trying to buy a house?).
On the face of it, I would think that being forced to lend to "subprime" borrowers is not a profitable enterprise. Like being forced to offer auto insurance to bad drivers. So, clearly, a key part of this problem was that Wall St alchemists ("genuises") figured out how to turn lead into gold.
My feeling is that a bunch of things had to happen at the same time -- a kind of perfect storm -- for this problem to reach these proportions.
Anyone? John P? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 3:46 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
THE GIANT POOL OF MONEY
Clarence Nathan was a man with three part-time jobs who earned about $45,000 a year, and yet a bank loaned him $540,000. The bank never checked his income.
"I wouldn't have loaned me the money, and nobody that I know would have loaned me the money," Nathan said. "I mean, I know guys who are criminals who wouldn't lend me that money, and they'd break your kneecap."
But this kind of lending happened, over and over again since 2003, leading to the mortgage crisis that has disrupted the global economy.
How did this mess happen? Through the news media you can pick up bits and pieces. But how many people really understand the housing crisis, why Bear Stearns went under, or sub-prime mortgages, or why the rest of the world was pulled under too?
These questions have bugged This American Life producer Alex Blumberg since early 2006 when someone told him about a NINA mortgage loan -- no income, no assets needed.
Hour-long podcast: http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1242 |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
john p
Joined: 10 Mar 2006 Posts: 1820
|
Posted: Fri Oct 03, 2008 6:44 pm GMT Post subject: |
|
|
I support your notion of the "Perfect Storm". I may be reactive on this blog lately because this is a major contributor that I hadn't factored in. This video had 200,000 hits on youtube yesterday morning; today it is up to close to 1 million hits.
After last night's debate, Charles Krauthammer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/03/24/LI2005032401690.html
said that it was "remarkable" that McCain wasn't bringing up this point about the Community Reinvestment Act and that McCain tried to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When Couric asked Palin about any reform in the form of regulation that McCain ever put forth, I was floored that she couldn't think of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform in 2005. Can you imagine it being your job to defend your boss and the biggest issue of the day your boss is on good footing and you don't know you have the case closed point to offer?
I really think that this subprime mess torpedoed our economy and the Community Reinvestment Act was the button that was pushed to send it on course. For the Democrats to get political capital out of this is remarkable.
I do think that there are plenty of reasonable reasons to vote Democrat, i.e. Haliburton, etc., but let's be fair when we keep score, this is not something that the Democrats ought to be gaining on. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|