User Tag List

View Poll Results: Do you support the housing bailout legislation?

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    6 25.00%
  • No

    15 62.50%
  • Other (explain)

    3 12.50%
First 4567 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 65

Thread: Housing bailout

  1. #51
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Enyo View Post
    It was on the verge of a nose dive before the housing crisis. Let it all go to hell in a handbasket. It will make for a few tough years, but it will correct itself faster if the government just keeps their fingers out of it and lets the market correct itself.

    I refer to the New Deal actually extending the Great Depression, which I believe that we are once again on the verge of.
    In that case, you are, plain and simply, [edit : a fluffy kitten].

    Tough for a "few" years? Funny. It took a WORLD WAR to bail us out of the Great Depression, and that's when creating military hardware STIMULATED the economy, as opposed to destroyed it.

    And moreover, the Dow Jones did not return to its 1929 value until 1954. A few tough years? Try 25.

    I suggest you [edit : are lovely]. I am baffled as to how someone who is both blatantly ignorant of economics AND history could say something as [edit : huggable] as this.

    Edited by Geoff. let's play nicely, now.
    I am an ENTJ. I hate political correctness but love smart people ^_^

  2. #52
    Senior Member Enyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    xNTJ
    Posts
    443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IlyaK1986 View Post
    In that case, you are, plain and simply, an imbecile of epic proportions.

    Tough for a "few" years? Funny. It took a WORLD WAR to bail us out of the Great Depression, and that's when creating military hardware STIMULATED the economy, as opposed to destroyed it.

    And moreover, the Dow Jones did not return to its 1929 value until 1954. A few tough years? Try 25.

    I suggest you retake the MBTI test. I am baffled as to how someone who is both blatantly ignorant of economics AND history could say something as dumb as this.
    You feel the need to personally attack me to try to "impress" us with your intellect? You failed. I could just as easily attack you personally for your posts, but I follow the rules, which read:

    Flaming: Flaming and personal attacks are not allowed. This includes non-jocular attack-threads as distinct from flame-wars in The Graveyard. A Personal Insult, or Flame, is:

    * A post with the sole apparent intent to enrage another user of the forum.
    * A personal attack or name-calling based upon lies and/or subjective statements.


    So, with that in mind, I will content myself with attacking your ideas.

    1.) Define "a few years". My special area of interest is in ancient cultures that lasted centuries. With that in mind, 25 years is only a few.

    2.) I didn't say that the economy would be as good as it was before the bubble burst. I said that it would correct itself. Perhaps you need to read what is written, instead of what you think you see.

    3.) Some sources state that the economy was actually on its way back in the late 1930's, which would be before the United States entered WWII. While the war machine *helped* restore our economy, that does not mean that it would not have eventually restored itself on its own. There are also those who believe that the Depression would have lasted a shorter time than it did if the government had not attempted to "help".
    "If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning." Catherine Aird

  3. #53
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IlyaK1986 View Post
    Tough for a "few" years? Funny. It took a WORLD WAR to bail us out of the Great Depression, and that's when creating military hardware STIMULATED the economy, as opposed to destroyed it.
    Stimulated, but wasted, I suppose. Military spending for waging war is always wasted, and it certainly didn't "help" create wealth...

    And moreover, the Dow Jones did not return to its 1929 value until 1954. A few tough years? Try 25.
    And not terribly relevent now, because there is no stock market boom right now... The problem here is very local to the financial system (due to real estate boom).

    I suggest you retake the MBTI test. I am baffled as to how someone who is both blatantly ignorant of economics AND history could say something as dumb as this.
    MBTI says absolutely nothing about ignorance or 'dumbness', btw.


    Quote Originally Posted by Enyo View Post
    1.) Define "a few years". My special area of interest is in ancient cultures that lasted centuries. With that in mind, 25 years is only a few.
    25 years of depression is gigantic, considering the basic definition of depression. Having said that, the great depression ranged only from a few years (which is very long) to 10 years. Either way, however, that's a pretty long depression and caused a huge amount of misery, considering it wasn't just a contraction but a failure of (then-called) modern banking.

    2.) I didn't say that the economy would be as good as it was before the bubble burst. I said that it would correct itself. Perhaps you need to read what is written, instead of what you think you see.
    'Correct' doesn't mean 'optimal', or even better. If you are measuring by hundreds of years, forgive me for worrying more about finding a better way to deal with problems.

    3.) Some sources state that the economy was actually on its way back in the late 1930's, which would be before the United States entered WWII. While the war machine *helped* restore our economy, that does not mean that it would not have eventually restored itself on its own. There are also those who believe that the Depression would have lasted a shorter time than it did if the government had not attempted to "help".
    One of the major issues, either cause or effect, was the failure of the banking system and the following liquidity traps. That's what is trying to be prevented here, because if it does happen, it's going to be ugly. This isn't so much about the bubble and the crash, which caused its own set of problems... it's about the ability for business to carry on at all.

    I don't want to save the economy - I want to save the financial system. It's like the grease that keeps the economy going, even if the economy is doing poorly. No grease and it seizes up - a literal dead stop to the flow of money in the economy.

  4. #54
    The Unwieldy Clawed One Falcarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    COOL
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    Dino None
    Posts
    2,565

    Default

    I voted 'other' as I don't really see any other 'sensible' option.

    The banking system is flawed, banks should have been never allowed to lend so much money. I am certainly no economist but there should some of limit to lending depending on a banks assets. That said, no 'bailout' and the whole economy would get even more messed up.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thalassa View Post
    Oh our 3rd person reference to ourselves denotes nothing more than we realize we are epic characters on the forum.

    Narcissism, plain and simple.

  5. #55
    Senior Member Enyo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    xNTJ
    Posts
    443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Falcarius View Post
    I voted 'other' as I don't really see any other 'sensible' option.

    The banking system is flawed, banks should have been never allowed to lend so much money. I am certainly no economist but there should some of limit to lending depending on a banks assets.
    I'm not so convinced that it was so much the amount of money being lent, but rather who it was being lent to. People who didn't have sufficient income to afford the 1 million dollar McMansion were getting interest only loans, for example. On one of the CNN shows, there was a couple who bought a $350k house, when the husband was on disability and the wife was making $10/hr.

    Not, I suppose, that it matters (beyond "let's hope they never to *that* again"), because we're already screwed.
    "If you can't be a good example, you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning." Catherine Aird

  6. #56
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    I don't think this is going to save the economy in the end. I think it's harnessing the taxpayer into the role of enabler, bringing on an even bigger crash down the road.

  7. #57
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Falcarius View Post
    I voted 'other' as I don't really see any other 'sensible' option.

    The banking system is flawed, banks should have been never allowed to lend so much money. I am certainly no economist but there should some of limit to lending depending on a banks assets. That said, no 'bailout' and the whole economy would get even more messed up.
    There is a minimum amount banks have to have on hand in the United States. This is called a required reserve ratio. It is currently 10%, which is low by modern American standards, but some countries have no minimum at all, (such as the UK, Canada, and Mexico). The central banks in those countries do have their own reserve ratios, though. Raising or lowering the ratio is an uncommon, but occasionally, employed monetary policy tactic. This crisis wasn't caused by an artificially low reserve ratio, though (I still think it could be a little higher, however; I'd prefer my bankers to keep it higher voluntarily).
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  8. #58
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Enyo View Post
    I'm not so convinced that it was so much the amount of money being lent, but rather who it was being lent to. People who didn't have sufficient income to afford the 1 million dollar McMansion were getting interest only loans, for example. On one of the CNN shows, there was a couple who bought a $350k house, when the husband was on disability and the wife was making $10/hr.

    Not, I suppose, that it matters (beyond "let's hope they never to *that* again"), because we're already screwed.
    This was a failure of poor oversight, idiots in the federal and state governments, and greed by both lenders who wanted to make more money by making more loans at adjustable rates and prospective homeowners who had no business taking on loans at those rates. If you make $50,000 a year, you can't afford to buy a $500,000 house. You should know that, and, more importantly, a bank should know that.

    Man, I really wish that economics and basic accounting and finance were requirements in high school. I know people my age (26) who have college degrees, but who don't know how to use credit cards without racking up insane debt.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  9. #59
    The Unwieldy Clawed One Falcarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    COOL
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Socionics
    Dino None
    Posts
    2,565

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Enyo View Post
    I'm not so convinced that it was so much the amount of money being lent, but rather who it was being lent to. People who didn't have sufficient income to afford the 1 million dollar McMansion were getting interest only loans, for example. On one of the CNN shows, there was a couple who bought a $350k house, when the husband was on disability and the wife was making $10/hr.

    Not, I suppose, that it matters (beyond "let's hope they never to *that* again"), because we're already screwed.
    Well I am not American so my view is probably skewed. I most likely understand less than most people about this subject here at MBTIc.

    I think you are right about 'aggressive lending' being a big part of the problem. I feel it was not the only problem, if the banks had enough assets or 'good debit' they would able to back the defaulting loans up either totality or at least much more easy than now. In short, the banks would not have been able to make so many 'subprime' loans as they would have had to been backed up better. I am unsure the best way of doing this.

    I am British, we don't as far as I am aware have British equivalent Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. If we want a mortgage we go directly to the bank rather than go through a brokerage like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. I would have to look in to how they work more but I am inclined to think Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae should have been done a way with ages ago. The idea of have not much else of a choice other than going through two brokerages, and and US mortgage lenders relying on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so much, seems like an extremely cack-handed system; Surely they were near monopolies?

    The main problem we have had here in the UK was the fifth largest mortgage lender, Northern rock, had to apply for emergency funding from our central bank, the Bank of England, as other banks stopped lending to each other due to the US subprime crisis. Northern rock had a flawed business model what relied on loans from other banks as it did not have the ready cash. Clearly the loans dried up, when the public found out they got worried and caused the first run on a British bank in 140 years or so. Also, our banks lost a load of money in the US subprime crisis as well.

    Maybe, I just have a bias against any companies that have names more resembling of that one would more expect of a porn star.


    Edit:

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    There is a minimum amount banks have to have on hand in the United States. This is called a required reserve ratio. It is currently 10%, which is low by modern American standards, but some countries have no minimum at all, (such as the UK, Canada, and Mexico). The central banks in those countries do have their own reserve ratios, though. Raising or lowering the ratio is an uncommon, but occasionally, employed monetary policy tactic. This crisis wasn't caused by an artificially low reserve ratio, though (I still think it could be a little higher, however; I'd prefer my bankers to keep it higher voluntarily).
    I was unaware the United States had a minimum amount banks had to have on hand. I still wonder if it made things a lot worse.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thalassa View Post
    Oh our 3rd person reference to ourselves denotes nothing more than we realize we are epic characters on the forum.

    Narcissism, plain and simple.

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Look, it isn't a question of whether or not this is bad. Right now, the only question that's being asked is this:

    Bad, or A HELL OF A LOT FUCKING WORSE?

    Yes, there is the issue of moral hazard. Hank Paulson knows that.

    The fact that this poll is a predominant "no" just shows how economically retarded people are. If credit gets tightened, it's like your blood vessels constricting. Yes, the good taxpayer is footing the bill for the idiocy of morons that borrowed more than they can pay, and the thievery of corrupted Wall Streeters.

    The alternative was that we get screwed a HELL of a lot worse. Think massive unemployment, lowered standards of living, systemic collapse here in the states and beyond, and a general financial catastrophe of epic proportions.

    Look, you guys think you know better than Hank Paulson, who was the CEO of Goldman Sachs for 8 years and did EXTREMELY well? By the way, if you think GS is "corrupt" and are "thieves" and "criminals", Warren Buffet just invested $5 billion with them.

    Hank Paulson > you.

    In Hank I Trust

    And so should you.
    I am an ENTJ. I hate political correctness but love smart people ^_^

Similar Threads

  1. What type is House?
    By RansomedbyFire in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 1046
    Last Post: 11-23-2015, 07:15 PM
  2. Hogwarts Houses...
    By arcticangel02 in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 129
    Last Post: 07-24-2014, 11:22 PM
  3. House Bailout Vote Fails!
    By Oberon in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 194
    Last Post: 10-07-2008, 05:16 AM
  4. Housing market cartoons
    By darlets in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 10-03-2007, 11:05 PM
  5. Do you feel embarrassed by your friends house
    By Sona in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 97
    Last Post: 09-13-2007, 10:41 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO