Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Bush suspends capitalism, stocks soar
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
huffdaddy



Joined: 25 Nov 2005

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thepeel wrote:

Wouldn't 5 years place the issue towards the end of the 2012 election cycle? Is Bush throwing the Democrats a economic problem in the hopes that the republicans can point to Obama/Clinton as the cause of the problem?


And here I thought you were implying it was a "5-year plan". Freudian?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Not be so naive Ya-Ta. We all know what a "5-year plan" proves.


[Insert picture of me slapping myself in the head.]

Of course! All totalitarians like 5-year plans and we know that Bush is a totalitarian.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Octavius Hite



Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Sorry hite, but the only way that this can be fixed is for many people to lose their homes at ones and for home prices to then come back down to reality. These loans that have been securitized can't be saved. Most investors had no idea what they had bought and it would likely be impossible to unpackage them all.

If you were earning 40-60k/year and living in a bank-owned 400k house, and treating the equity in your house like an ATM and by this increasing the amount you owe on your house, then yes, you are going to lose your house.


I agree with you in so far as people who went out and bought 400k plus houses deserve to lose them.

However

There is no way the government should have allowed the Banks (and others) to make many of the loans they did.

Why?

Despite the fact that it sounds Communistic, its not, because now we have Companies who screwed the pooch looking to the government for help (see Northern Rock).

So if the US govt had outlawed many of these practices we probably wouldn't being in the situation we are in right now.

So the moral is regulate now or pay later. The Banking industry is a key industry that cannot be allowed to collapse so its the Government's duty to protect it from this irrational drive to make excessive profits via dangerous methods.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thepeel



Joined: 08 Aug 2004

PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hite:

The underlining problem here is that there was too much credit in the system. No matter how you regulated the industry, loop holes would have been found and naive, dishonest or otherwise uninformed consumers would have had access to too much credit. I don't think you can regulate this away.

This is Greenspan's fault. He created too much money which lead to asset bubbles and the financing that fed off it.

I don't think that there is a regulatory fix to this beyond sanity in the Fed/BOC.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The underlining problem


The

underlining

problem

Idea
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thepeel



Joined: 08 Aug 2004

PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote





How will I go on. I make spelling mistakes. Man.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Octavius Hite



Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The question Peel is how do we fix this?

Again, I agree the middle class people who wanted to look rich should lose their homes.

But

IN places like Cleveland we are seeing whole neighborhoods being abandoned. SO not only are people losing their homes but neighbors are collapsing, cities are losing their tax bases, cities are being stuck with huge demolition bills (I have heard 300 million in Cleveland alone), American banks are turning to places like Abu Dabi for financing (which are just loaning back the oil dollars we give them cause of the dependence on middle east oil), foriegn lenders are going bust (Northern Rock), and the entire global economy is on the verge of a slowdown/downturn/recession/whatever-the-f*ck you wanna call it.

A solution needs to be found for everybody's sake.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thepeel



Joined: 08 Aug 2004

PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think that a fix is available that will not make the situation worse. A recession is needed and a shift back to manufacturing and production. Housing prices are coming down and rents with them. A long, deep recession should clear all this up and ultimately help re-industrialize places like Cleavland (unless the $ actually does collapse).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Czarjorge



Joined: 01 May 2007
Location: I now have the same moustache, and it is glorious.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 3:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, it would never happen, but the rich could be taxed appropriately, and that money could be used bail out the people who deserve to be helped.

And lets be clear, the vast majority of people were not middle class folk using equity to live as upper middle class. The majority of sub prime loans were issued to people in low income areas. These loans were the only option available to poor people who worked hard but couldn't break the cycle of poverty, and who wanted to purchase a home.

This blow up happened in Chicago while I was living there two, three years ago. Essentially lenders presented the loans as the only option available. You could drive through poorer neighborhoods and the only banking institutions were the subprime lenders. It was messed up, and in Illinois they tried to stop it, I moved before I heard anything specific about what ending up happening. You should be able to find some good stories on it in the Chicago papers online.

The real villains in this are lenders who were trying to make money while exploiting the poor. The new the loans were going to be defaulted on eventually, and the lender would end up in with the property and all the interest they had earned up to that point.

This time it blew up in their faces. Boo freaking hoo. This is more about helping the lenders than the people who might lose their homes. If someone should sacrifice it should be the nefarious bankers. The profit motive is way out of control in the US.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ya-ta Boy



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 5:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
How will I go on. I make spelling mistakes. Man.


I see punctuation is not your stong point either.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

thepeel wrote:
Octavius Hite wrote:
The title is so FOXnoise, when I was in Boracay last summer (when this whole subprime nonsense started) FOX and its nuts were running programs yelling about how good it was that people would lose their houses.

I would love to watch FOX now and watch Brit Hume's head explode.


Sorry hite, but the only way that this can be fixed is for many people to lose their homes at ones and for home prices to then come back down to reality. These loans that have been securitized can't be saved. Most investors had no idea what they had bought and it would likely be impossible to unpackage them all.

If you were earning 40-60k/year and living in a bank-owned 400k house, and treating the equity in your house like an ATM and by this increasing the amount you owe on your house, then yes, you are going to lose your house.


Maybe not saved, but foreclosure sales on mortgage security pools can be scrutinized. In 30 states, non-judicial foreclosure sales are allowed. So, of course, legal challenges will be harder to make. But even in such jurisdictions, the foreclosing lender has to hold the promissary note to foreclose.

Quote:
On Oct. 10, Judge Boyko, 53, ordered the lenders� representative to file copies of loan assignments showing that the lender was indeed the owner of the note and mortgage on each property when the foreclosure was filed. But lawyers for Deutsche Bank supplied documents showing only an intent to convey the rights in the mortgages rather than proof of ownership as of the foreclosure date.

Saying that Deutsche Bank�s arguments of legal standing fell woefully short, the judge wrote: �The institutions seem to adopt the attitude that since they have been doing this for so long, unchallenged, this practice equates with legal compliance. Finally put to the test, their weak legal arguments compel the court to stop them at the gate.�

Lawyers who represent troubled borrowers complain that trustees overseeing home loan pools often do not produce proof, usually in the form of a mortgage note, that their investors own a foreclosed property. And a recent study of 1,733 foreclosures by Katherine M. Porter, an associate professor of law at the University of Iowa, found that 40 percent of the creditors foreclosing on borrowers did not show proof of ownership. Such proof gives a creditor standing to foreclose against a borrower and is required by law.


Anyone who knows about foreclosure sales understands that lenders rarely make a profit on them. Not even do banks manage to benefit when equity gained on the house is leveraged against the unpaid principal on the loan (of course, in the rare case where banks *might* profit on a foreclosure, they are obligated by law to return the profits to the defaulted mortgagor).

The plan hopes to incentivize lenders from foreclosing on borrowers when the risk for renegotiating the loan is less than the risk of coming short on a foreclosure sale.

Quote:
The administration�s theory is that there is a �sweet spot� in the market where it makes more financial sense for lenders to offer some relief than it does to foreclose on homeowners.

Most analysts agree there is a sweet spot of some sort. Investors typically lose 40 percent or 50 percent on homes that go into foreclosure, and the cost of shielding borrowers from a big jump in rates can be much less.

�I think there is a sweet spot,� said Bert Ely, a banking consultant in Alexandria, Va. �But I worry that the sweet spot is much smaller than people think it is. And as housing prices continue to decline and debts pile up, I fear the sweet spot will shrink.�


One of the goals of the plan is to head-off the judicial nightmare that is about to ensue when lawyers start challenging foreclosures and the mortgage pools lack the necessary note to foreclose.

What shocks me about all this is not how sloppy the mortgagors were, but just how frighteningly sloppy the investing pools have been.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
thepeel



Joined: 08 Aug 2004

PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:


What shocks me about all this is not how sloppy the mortgagors were, but just how frighteningly sloppy the investing pools have been.

Quote:

Innovating Our Way to Financial Crisis
By PAUL KRUGMAN

The financial crisis that began late last summer, then took a brief vacation in September and October, is back with a vengeance.

How bad is it? Well, I�ve never seen financial insiders this spooked � not even during the Asian crisis of 1997-98, when economic dominoes seemed to be falling all around the world.

This time, market players seem truly horrified � because they�ve suddenly realized that they don�t understand the complex financial system they created.

Before I get to that, however, let�s talk about what�s happening right now.

Credit � lending between market players � is to the financial markets what motor oil is to car engines. The ability to raise cash on short notice, which is what people mean when they talk about �liquidity,� is an essential lubricant for the markets, and for the economy as a whole.

But liquidity has been drying up. Some credit markets have effectively closed up shop. Interest rates in other markets � like the London market, in which banks lend to each other � have risen even as interest rates on U.S. government debt, which is still considered safe, have plunged.

�What we are witnessing,� says Bill Gross of the bond manager Pimco, �is essentially the breakdown of our modern-day banking system, a complex of leveraged lending so hard to understand that Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke required a face-to-face refresher course from hedge fund managers in mid-August.�

The freezing up of the financial markets will, if it goes on much longer, lead to a severe reduction in overall lending, causing business investment to go the way of home construction � and that will mean a recession, possibly a nasty one.

Behind the disappearance of liquidity lies a collapse of trust: market players don�t want to lend to each other, because they�re not sure they�ll be repaid.

In a direct sense, this collapse of trust has been caused by the bursting of the housing bubble. The run-up of home prices made even less sense than the dot-com bubble � I mean, there wasn�t even a glamorous new technology to justify claims that old rules no longer applied � but somehow financial markets accepted crazy home prices as the new normal. And when the bubble burst, a lot of investments that were labeled AAA turned out to be junk.

Thus, �super-senior� claims against subprime mortgages � that is, investments that have first dibs on whatever mortgage payments borrowers make, and were therefore supposed to pay off in full even if a sizable fraction of these borrowers defaulted on their debts � have lost a third of their market value since July.

But what has really undermined trust is the fact that nobody knows where the financial toxic waste is buried. Citigroup wasn�t supposed to have tens of billions of dollars in subprime exposure; it did. Florida�s Local Government Investment Pool, which acts as a bank for the state�s school districts, was supposed to be risk-free; it wasn�t (and now schools don�t have the money to pay teachers).

How did things get so opaque? The answer is �financial innovation� � two words that should, from now on, strike fear into investors� hearts.

O.K., to be fair, some kinds of financial innovation are good. I don�t want to go back to the days when checking accounts didn�t pay interest and you couldn�t withdraw cash on weekends.

But the innovations of recent years � the alphabet soup of C.D.O.�s and S.I.V.�s, R.M.B.S. and A.B.C.P. � were sold on false pretenses. They were promoted as ways to spread risk, making investment safer. What they did instead � aside from making their creators a lot of money, which they didn�t have to repay when it all went bust � was to spread confusion, luring investors into taking on more risk than they realized.

Why was this allowed to happen? At a deep level, I believe that the problem was ideological: policy makers, committed to the view that the market is always right, simply ignored the warning signs. We know, in particular, that Alan Greenspan brushed aside warnings from Edward Gramlich, who was a member of the Federal Reserve Board, about a potential subprime crisis.

And free-market orthodoxy dies hard. Just a few weeks ago Henry Paulson, the Treasury secretary, admitted to Fortune magazine that financial innovation got ahead of regulation � but added, �I don�t think we�d want it the other way around.� Is that your final answer, Mr. Secretary?

Now, Mr. Paulson�s new proposal to help borrowers renegotiate their mortgage payments and avoid foreclosure sounds in principle like a good idea (although we have yet to hear any details). Realistically, however, it won�t make more than a small dent in the subprime problem.

The bottom line is that policy makers left the financial industry free to innovate � and what it did was to innovate itself, and the rest of us, into a big, nasty mess.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/opinion/03krugman.html?pagewanted=print
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
venus



Joined: 25 Oct 2006
Location: Near Seoul

PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

blaseblasphemener wrote:
Czarjorge wrote:
It's not so much about helping the people keep their homes. Rather, the government is trying to prevent the banking conglomerates, the majority of which have a large amount of money invested in the sub-prime market, from folding or taking large hits. If they go the US would likely face another depression.

The US government doesn't actually help people anymore, just business.


For the love of god, pleeeease change your avatar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Damn it. I've actually fantasised about having s3x with the 'person' in your avatar twice now....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mindmetoo



Joined: 02 Feb 2004

PostPosted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The government has previously bailed out Chrysler, the airlines, Savings and Loans. Oh well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
yawarakaijin



Joined: 08 Aug 2006

PostPosted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

blaseblasphemener wrote:
Czarjorge wrote:
It's not so much about helping the people keep their homes. Rather, the government is trying to prevent the banking conglomerates, the majority of which have a large amount of money invested in the sub-prime market, from folding or taking large hits. If they go the US would likely face another depression.

The US government doesn't actually help people anymore, just business.


For the love of god, pleeeease change your avatar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



I would agree. It has to be the WORST avatar I have ever had the misfortune of viewing. I always thought he was a little "off", this avatar merely confirms my suspicions
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International