adolph nuttin up :)
Economics
-
@stuka:
@Cmdr:
Give me a hard number on the MASSIVE fore closures.
enjoy.http://realestate.msn.com/buying/Article2.aspx?cp-documentid=5658441
Wow, 100% foreclosure rate!
Oh wait, 80%, oh, they changed it again…
Ya know what, NO WHERE in that article, unless i missed it, does it say X% of homes were foreclosed.
Why? Because it’s barely a single percentage point of all homes that are mortgaged that have been foreclosed on and sold at auction. Why? Because banks DO NOT WANT TO FORECLOSE! They lose money that way! It’s much more profitable to work out deals with the owners, putting them on fixed rates at 8 or 9% and then give them 50 year notes. A thing that is happening very often to avoid foreclosures.
The whole “Everyone is homeless, we’re all going to die! Women and Children hardest hit!” is a product of the headlines. It’s not a reality.
The article says foreclosures up 30%. Okay. 30% of WHAT! 30% of 10 foreclosures is 3 foreclosures. So we went from 10 to 13? Whoopi!
Well, at the very end, they say 500-1000 home owners a month. That means that from a few years ago to today (they claim 100% increase, that means double) we’ve gone from 250-500 a month to 500-1000 a month.
We buy and sell loads more then that WEEKLY! Not to mention, we have millions and millions of families in this country. 500-1000 out of millions is what? That’s right, tenths of a percent, like I said.
-
Jen, I was drawing a parallel with your PHRASING about “most people are employed, most people are paying their mortgage” etc.
The reason I pooted as I did was to show that REVERSING the normal method of stating those figures creates a bogus appearance. Sure, unemployment may still be below 5%, but it IS 25% HIGHER than it was this time last year…
-
Okay here since you need a closer look.
http://www.boston.com/realestate/news/articles/2008/01/19/thousands_in_mass_foreclosed_on_in_07/
and: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080123-9999-1n23default.html
and: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8U5UM800.htm
still more: http://www.modbee.com/business/story/188604.html
But you see this as nothing? Okay. You’re right Jen… the economy and housing slump is a figment of our imagination. Hell, it’s even foolin’ your president.
-
Jen, if you do not realize what effect 1 in 100 mortgages being in foreclosure means, then I have not the time, desire, nor the space on this site to attempt to educate you on the detriment to the US Economy from such a statistic…
But when the PMI companies start to go belly up in the coming weeks, causing an insurance crisis to add to the housing crisis, the banking crisis, the stock market crisis, the lending capital crisis…
You figure it out… :roll:
4th Qtr Profits:
Bank of America: down 95%
Wachovia: down 97% -
@ncscswitch:
Jen, if you do not realize what effect 1 in 100 mortgages being in foreclosure means, then I have not the time, desire, nor the space on this site to attempt to educate you on the detriment to the US Economy from such a statistic…
1% of 300 million is 3 million. I’m not sure how many mortgages there are but since % of our population is 3 million people my guess is that 1% of our homes are over 1 million. and its absurd to say that over 1 million houses foreclosed isn’t bad.
-
And the Federal Reserve has slashed interest rates (again) in an “emergency move”:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aEgwdDHD5Fbs&refer=home
Gee, must be 'cause the Federal Reserve are such nice guys and decided to make less money… surely not to stave off impending economic doom. /sarcasm
-
More homes foreclosing means . . .
MORE STRIPPERS IN VEGAS!!!
Come on people, think about what’s important here!
-
That’s just it.
The NUMBER of mortgages went up to INSANE levels when the Fed was slashing interest rates to recover from the 2000 recession under the President in 2000.
They made BAD choices.
They are having issues getting people to repay now.
This is NOT an indicator of the economy. Why? Because there is a HUGE percentage of people who ARE paying their mortgages down.
Yea, it sucks for the 1 guy in 1000 who loses his home. Oh well. It sucks for the 1 guy in 1000 that mortgages his house in Vegas and loses everything too. Bad choices have bad consequences.
-
Yeah, bummer what happened to people in 2000 under that particular presidents watch.
So… that means this one can be blamed on the current president’s watch since you are so inclined of pinning someone’s name to it.
Can’t have your cake and eat too, Jen.This situation cannot be back dated to anyone before Bush. It’s near the end of his second term. Just short of a decade. Remember that.
-
Yup. The current president should have made government warnings more forceful to the citizens warning them of the predatory practices of disreputable financial institutions.
Many of the more intelligent people in this nation KNEW that ARMs only go up and Interest Only Payments make no sense because you have no financial stack in your home. If the property DEPRECIATES, then you are upside down in your mortgage and it’s easier for the bank to foreclose.
Currently it’s a lack of public knowledge. Previously it was a lack of governmental over sight.
-
We are up to 1 in 100 based on the media reports I am hearing, not 1 in 1000.
And as much as my libertarian mind hates to admit it, there are factors that relate to MY wealth and wellbeing as a result of this… if a bunch of my neighbor’s homes go into foreclosure, MY home value declines.
But hey, we removed the standards from lending… mortgages, credit cards, personal loans, 0% APR car loans… you name it, the standards disappeared over the past several years. And we ended up with “false” economic growth since 2000. We robbed Peter to pay Paul, and now Paul has shown up with a civil lawsuit to get his money back…
-
If your home’s value is declining, then perhaps your home is not worth as much as the papers say?
However, if you look at the long run, what is going to make your home worth more? Government bail outs of people who make poor decisions and bankruptcies in the banking industry, or a brief period of time (say 5 years for argument’s sake, I honestly think 2009 will see a booming housing market again) of correction in the housing market?
-
I did not say I was in favor of a government bail-out (point of fact I think this check scheme is as much of a joke now as it was in 2001).
What I AM saying is that perhaps some formal standards need to be put in place regarding lending to get rid of the problem children in the system (those that survive this debacle)… the pay day lenders (that are already banned from peddling their wares with service men and women), the loan shark credit cards, the title loans, the no-equity home loans, the no-document home loans, etc.
I mean, if we are going to allow Loan Sharking, then lets be honest and above board about it and let the Mob legally get back in the business… broken knee caps are less of a detriment to the national economy the sub-prime backed loan investment vehicles :-D
-
But we do have standards for lending. If you are a prime candidate you get a reduced interest rate. If you are a sub-prime candidate (high debt, poor payment history, etc) you get a much higher rate. Also, sub-prime loans are not backed up by Sallie Mae but are instead backed by the bank and/or high risk investors.
If you don’t want to take the risk of losing it all, DO NOT LEND THE MONEY. Do I get a bail out for my CompUSA stock? (In case you are unaware, CompUSA is out of business.) No. Why? There are at least as many share holders of the now worthless CompUSA stock as there are people losing their homes! Maybe more!
Because it is NOT the government’s job to regulate the banks or the stocks. If you want the government to back your high risk loan, then enlist for a couple of years and get your VA Home Loan certificate. Give something to the country before you ask something from the country for a change.
Screw em. It’s harsh, but common. These are people who allegedly hold a high school diploma (or GED) so they should be expected to be able to handle basic arithmetic. They should be able to take their income and subtract their bills from it to determine if they can make the payments, right? We have such a thing as bankruptcy which will secure your house at an interest rate set by the government, right?
These people have options. They just don’t like them. Well, guess what. If I eat nothing but doritos, oreos, ice cream and sugared soda I’ll have options too, deal with obesity, change my diet and/or go to the gym. I may not like the options, but then they are the consequence of poor life choices. (BTW, that is NOT my diet. I live on almost nothing but vegetables and fruits now. Though, I do eat a lot of fish for the protein. And no, I will not come begging you to pay for my medical expenses if I get heavy metal poisoning from the fish either!)
-
@Cmdr:
Because it is NOT the government’s job to regulate the banks
Actually, this IS one of the defined powers of our Government and goes all the way back to Alexander Hamilton.
-
No. It is the government’s job to print the money. I don’t remember seeing anywhere in the Constitution that states, specifically, that the US Government will run the banks and make sure they play nice.
Unless you can point to one specifically. In which case, I’ll admit I was wrong and no longer view President Jackson as a hero for crippling the Bank of America or United States Bank or whatever the one bank was in his day.
-
Originally it was derived from the melding of the Commerce and Treasury clauses, and dates from 1791 (with the Constitution being ratified only 2 years earlier) That of course is at a Federal level.
State level regulation of banking pre-dates the Constitution by many, many years.
New York since 1782 as an example. -
But it’s not actually in the Constitution. So it’s a job they kinda adopted, but not a duty that they were assigned. So let’s get them out of it. If the people want the Feds to run the banks, let them pass an amendment to the constitution!
-
You make it seem so simple Jen. Remember that most of our nation doesn’t even know what is needed for an amendment to the Constitution, their too busy playing their Nintendo wii and watching American idol to care.
-
@Cmdr:
No. It is the government’s job to print the money.
Not after 1913. ~ZP
Suggested Topics
