Please help us buy votes!!

[WorldTraveller]

Now it really is just repeating things already said to ask that. I've posted at length to this subject.

I'm asking who is getting shafted! And how? Its a simple question

 

Again I don't follow your logic, on one hand you're saying it's been discussed ad nauseum (I don't think much of the discussion at all has surrounded whether it made sense for Mr. DeMarco to not consider economic benefits and only consider F&F cost benefit analysis)..... but then on the other hand you're saying I'm making stuff up and that I can't know whether he said that. The original article which sparked this discussion and is quoted in my second post in this thread specifically made it clear that Mr. Demarco did not that he did not consider whether lower levels of debt might bolster the economic growth. Here is a link

 

Unless the reporting is false I stand by what I said. I am a big believer in free markets, but I also outlined reasons why markets sometime fail (in this case the housing market) and that results in sub-optimal outcomes for the economy as a whole.

 

Perhaps to narrow down the conversation I'll just ask you this question. Do you think it made sense for DeMarco to only consider F&F's bottomline and ignore any of the broader benefits of the economy as a whole? My viewpoint is that is a terrible way to conduct cost-benefit analysis.

No, the point is that demarco stated that he didn't believe that it would significantly reduce foreclosures and that he didn't believe that it wouldn't be a good deal for the tax payer. Key word "and"

 

He also specifically eluded to the issue of moral hazard

[dayman]

I'm asking who is getting shafted! And how? Its a simple question

 

I've talked about how I see the situation go read. Everyone in the economy b/c it forestalls the recovery and prevents any positive action F&F can bring to the help the spiraling mortgage crisis. All homeowners b/c their home value is through the floor. And yes, since this is what I know you are getting at, it would help those on the verge of default some of whom were irresponsible and some of whom were actually reasonable in taking the mortgage they took before the collapse despite their current situation. The point is I get the "I don't want to help people who can't afford mortgages they took out" argument and nobody is saying that isn't the obvious and ordinary position of everybody. This is not the time to get hung up on that for reasons stated over and over and over in this thread.

[3rdnlng]

More people should get on board with providing debt relief to the people to spur recovery. Are these bailouts of the F&F and while the people get the shaft not one of the original tea party gripes? (haha, just snarky comment there btw don't blow a load).

 

So there we have it.

 

So, propose an Occupy solution and mask it as a Tea Party ideal? Don't try to soften the R.E. blow. It needs to naturally hit bottom so it can recover. The people that tried to manipulate the real estate market to supposedly help out the downtrodden actually threw them under the bus. Who do you think will benefit from this giant correction in prices? It will be the people with cash that know when to step into the market and pay 150k for the 375k (circa 2008) condo. Who's at fault, the people who made good decisions or the people that bought a 300k property with a 50k income and the people that liked this idea?

[dayman]

So, propose an Occupy solution and mask it as a Tea Party ideal? Don't try to soften the R.E. blow. It needs to naturally hit bottom so it can recover. The people that tried to manipulate the real estate market to supposedly help out the downtrodden actually threw them under the bus. Who do you think will benefit from this giant correction in prices? It will be the people with cash that know when to step into the market and pay 150k for the 375k (circa 2008) condo. Who's at fault, the people who made good decisions or the people that bought a 300k property with a 50k income and the people that liked this idea?

 

 

Ok then I'll chalk you up to one of the many conservatives on this board waiting for the self feeding spiral to naturally fix itself who also complains about recovery that isn't booming.

Edited August 3, 2012 by TheNewBills

[WorldTraveller]

I've talked about how I see the situation go read. Everyone in the economy b/c it forestalls the recovery and prevents any positive action F&F can bring to the help the spiraling mortgage crisis. All homeowners b/c their home value is through the floor. And yes, since this is what I know you are getting at, it would help those on the verge of default some of whom were irresponsible and some of whom were actually reasonable in taking the mortgage they took before the collapse despite their current situation. The point is I get the "I don't want to help people who can't afford mortgages they took out" argument and nobody is saying that isn't the obvious and ordinary position of everybody. This is not the time to get hung up on that for reasons stated over and over and over in this thread.

Well, I think that it's unfortunate that many people hold this view, that any time we face a structural issue that the only solution that is offered is a bailout. And if we don't bail people or companies or countries or what have you, that somehow, people are getting shafted. I just think that this sort of dependency eventually leads us to one place and that is insolvency.

 

I live in Miami Florida, recently had 2 condos that we're foreclosed on. I never complained or bitched about not getting a principal reduction and certainly never played the roll of the victim crying aloud " I got shafted"

 

There is a noble concept called personal accountability. Wish that there were more people who valued such ideals.

 

Ok then I'll chalk you up to one of the many conservatives on this board waiting for the self feeding spiral to naturally fix itself who also complains about recovery that isn't booming.

The economy would be healing faster if we didn't have these robin hood policies

[dayman]

Well, I think that it's unfortunate that many people hold this view, that any time we face a structural issue that the only solution that is offered is a bailout. And if we don't bail people or companies or countries or what have you, that somehow, people are getting shafted. I just think that this sort of dependency eventually leads us to one place and that is insolvency.

 

I live in Miami Florida, recently had 2 condos that we're foreclosed on. I never complained or bitched about not getting a principal reduction and certainly never played the roll of the victim crying aloud " I got shafted"

 

There is a noble concept called personal accountability. Wish that there were more people who valued such ideals.

 

 

The economy would be healing faster if we didn't have these robin hood policies

 

Every bit the pragmatist I've come to know you as.

 

We're wasting each others time anyway, we don't even operate of the same set of facts. I get it, I'm not a pragmatist I'm just a socialist ideologue in disguise and the unemployment studies be damned none of the intervention kept us from prolonged contraction and we'd have a better recovery right now if we did nothing. I know...I'm bad. If only I believed in some personal accountability and contributed 2 dead condos to Miami personally I would be better off. (lol...cheap shot I know don't take it personally)

[3rdnlng]

Ok then I'll chalk you up to one of the many conservatives on this board waiting for the self feeding spiral to naturally fix itself who also complains about recovery that isn't booming.

 

 

You either are thinking I'm dumb or you are not thinking to the degree that your abilities would suggest. If you haven't noticed, Obama has been trying to soften the blow since gaining office. Softening the blow just extends the start of the recovery. What you don't realize is that the self feeding spiral would have been history if left to the natural course of events. Your guy thought he could alter that. He f'd up.

[WorldTraveller]

Every bit the pragmatist I've come to know you as.

 

We're wasting each others time anyway, we don't even operate of the same set of facts. I get it, I'm not a pragmatist I'm just a socialist ideologue in disguise and the unemployment studies be damned none of the intervention kept us from prolonged contraction and we'd have a better recovery right now if we did nothing. I know...I'm bad. If only I believed in some personal accountability and contributed 2 dead condos to Miami personally I would be better off. (lol...cheap shot I know don't take it personally)

Why would I get offended? Youre just some dude over the Internet that has a differing view than I do.

[JuanGuzman]

 

 

No, the point is that demarco stated that he didn't believe that it would significantly reduce foreclosures and that he didn't believe that it wouldn't be a good deal for the tax payer. Key word "and"

 

He also specifically eluded to the issue of moral hazard

 

 

This idea that it needs to naturally hit bottom argument is ludicrous. Principle write downs isn't trying to avoid the "real market price" the purpose of writedowns is try to achieve a more optimal result than the current death spiral of foreclosures and inability for families to move from an under performing part of the country to a part of the country that needs labour.

 

A lot of estimates actually think writedowns would benefit F&F books but I can see how some estimates show a significantly loss if there is a strong emphasis on Moral hazard. The reality is even assuming DeMarco's calculations are correct (Which many economist find dubious), there would be winners, e.g., those that saw there mortgage reduced, and there would be losers (F&F books). But and this is the crux of the argument -- debt reductionss would benefit the economy by having less homeowners underwater, so that they either sell there home and move to state that is doing well (I hear real-estate is booming in North Dakota)or have more coin in there pocket to stimulate private demand.

 

 

Also another point, your either confusing the concept of "external benefits" or being deliberately vague because my last post showed that I wasn't "making stuff up" when I linked to the line in the article you were disputing. But once and for all, there are two parties directly involved are (1) homeowners who stand to see reductions in their mortgage and (2) F&F and so by extension the American tax payer. The external party that isn't accounted for right now by Mr. Demarco is the benefit to American economy if these homeowners are able to avoid foreclosure, stimulate private demand, or move to different parts of the country where there is more work. It's an error on his part not to consider this.

Edited August 3, 2012 by JuanGuzman

[TakeYouToTasker]

Ok then I'll chalk you up to one of the many conservatives on this board waiting for the self feeding spiral to naturally fix itself who also complains about recovery that isn't booming.

Not only shouldn't the government attempt to establish a price floor, but it can't do it in practice either.

 

Unless the government controls 100% of the supply, which it doesn't... not even close, it can't fix prices. By writing down the mortgages held by Fanny and Freddy, the government will simply tie the US tax-payer to a ton of non capitalizable debt, because the market will continue to recede until it finds it's natural equilibrium regardless of intervention. The problem is that we have too many houses. Supply was driven by a massive building boom and artificially cheap credit during the massive credit expansion under all Presidencies Reagan through Bush 43; and was drastically aided by left-wing "everyone deserves to own a home" policies.

 

There are miles and miles of vacant homes in building developments all over the country that were built for $130k each, and due to massive market saturation are now unable to be sold for even 60% of that value. These developments are largely held by speculators or the banks left holding the notes after the speculators failed and were unable to pay back their loans.

 

The market must be allowed to bottom out on it's own. And don't worry about the irrational actors, they will be cornered into rationality when the next wave of bank failures is upon us, and the depression either finally forces them out of their homes, or the banks call in the full principal of their loans.

 

The funny part is, that the market actually being allowed to work without tinkering will be exactly what allows more people to own a home than ever before, as once homes have been allowed to plummet to their actual market value, more people will be able to actually afford to buy them.

[WorldTraveller]

This idea that it needs to naturally hit bottom argument is ludicrous. Principle write downs isn't trying to avoid the "real market price" the purpose of writedowns is try to achieve a more optimal result than the current death spiral of foreclosures and inability for families to move from an under performing part of the country to a part of the country that needs labour.

 

A lot of estimates actually think writedowns would benefit F&F books but I can see how some estimates show a significantly loss if there is a strong emphasis on Moral hazard. The reality is even assuming DeMarco's calculations are correct (Which many economist find dubious), there would be winners, e.g., those that saw there mortgage reduced, and there would be losers (F&F books). But and this is the crux of the argument -- debt reductionss would benefit the economy by having less homeowners underwater, so that they either sell there home and move to state that is doing well (I hear real-estate is booming in North Dakota)or have more coin in there pocket to stimulate private demand.

 

 

Also another point, your either confusing the concept of "external benefits" or being deliberately vague because my last post showed that I wasn't "making stuff up" when I linked to the line in the article you were disputing. But once and for all, there are two parties directly involved are (1) homeowners who stand to see reductions in their mortgage and (2) F&F and so by extension the American tax payer. The external party that isn't accounted for right now by Mr. Demarco is the benefit to American economy if these homeowners are able to avoid foreclosure, stimulate private demand, or move to different parts of the country where there is more work. It's an error on his part not to consider this.

No, what's ludicrous is the idea that you can artificially place a bottom.

[dayman]

It really is just on and on and on in a circular discussion at this point. And it's good it's that time and eventually we can all go vote and be done with it. My hope is simply that whoever wins out this time, be it Obama or Romney...we all just go with their plan and encourage our representatives to at least not obstruct...they don't have to compromise themselves (and there is a place for the opposition party and minority views) but they will have to compromise issues in the end for the country and if they can't then don't vote for them. More than anything this endless jousting is what hurts us all the most. So we can all go vote for our guy as president but I would hope that there's an opportunity to vote for your guy in the congressional races that shares your views but also understands they owe a duty to work with other elected officials to govern.

 

In any event this election will be decided on the basis of who is the better singer, and who does and doesn't hate gay people, and who has a dancing horse, and who is a black foreign socialist, and who is a rich fat cat who fired the neighbor and so on...but whoever wins that nonsense (and in doing so will likely carry their party to the Presidency and at least 1 chamber of congress) wins. And while there will be compromise it shouldn't be filibuster mania and broken congress round 2.

 

It's easy to say this now while both sides think there's a chance they win...but I just hope as a nation we can move on after the election.

Edited August 3, 2012 by TheNewBills

[JuanGuzman]

No, what's ludicrous is the idea that you can artificially place a bottom.

 

welp, your responses lately have just be 1 line useless platitudes. I really don't think your making much a merit based case against the policy, I prefer substantive and cause and effect analysis but if you just want to throw generalities against the wall and see if any of them stick its hard to have a meaningful discussion.

[WorldTraveller]

welp, your responses lately have just be 1 line useless platitudes. I really don't think your making much a merit based case against the policy, I prefer substantive and cause and effect analysis but if you just want to throw generalities against the wall and see if any of them stick its hard to have a meaningful discussion.

Who cares what you think?

[dayman]

This "debate" has come to an end.

[WorldTraveller]

It really is just on and on and on in a circular discussion at this point. And it's good it's that time and eventually we can all go vote and be done with it. My hope is simply that whoever wins out this time, be it Obama or Romney...we all just go with their plan and encourage our representatives to at least not obstruct...they don't have to compromise themselves (and there is a place for the opposition party and minority views) but they will have to compromise issues in the end for the country and if they can't then don't vote for them. More than anything this endless jousting is what hurts us all the most. So we can all go vote for our guy as president but I would hope that there's an opportunity to vote for your guy in the congressional races that shares your views but also understands they owe a duty to work with other elected officials to govern.

 

In any event this election will be decided on the basis of who is the better singer, and who does and doesn't hate gay people, and who has a dancing horse, and who is a black foreign socialist, and who is a rich fat cat who fired the neighbor and so on...but whoever wins that nonsense (and in doing so will likely carry their party to the Presidency and at least 1 chamber of congress) wins. And while there will be compromise it shouldn't be filibuster mania and broken congress round 2.

 

It's easy to say this now while both sides think there's a chance they win...but I just hope as a nation we can move on after the election.

No, I won't go with obamas plan because it's wrong. And I will encourage my representative to block pretty much everything Obama does because he's incapable of crafting sound economic policy

[dayman]

No, I won't go with obamas plan because it's wrong. And I will encourage my representative to block pretty much everything Obama does because he's incapable of crafting sound economic policy

 

 

God bless you and God bless America. Country first! So long as country is "me and my view."

[WorldTraveller]

God bless you and God bless America. Country first! So long as country is "me and my view."

Says the hypocrite who called demarco a "douche" for seeing things differently than you

 

[Rob's House]

God bless you and God bless America. Country first! So long as country is "me and my view."

The difference is your view is to impose itself on all of us at the hand of your government. The view opposite yours asks for the freedom to live one's life without constantly having to assume liability for your feel-good "solution".

 

The argument that if you're not allowed to run your experiments that we all have to suffer from your inaction is is fundamentally different because you are claiming a positive right; worse yet, one that violates the negative rights of another. The irony is you see it as a way to free people when in actuality it casts them deeper into bondage.

[WorldTraveller]

The difference is your view is to impose itself on all of us at the hand of your government. The view opposite yours asks for the freedom to live one's life without constantly having to assume liability for your feel-good "solution".

 

The argument that if you're not allowed to run your experiments that we all have to suffer from your inaction is is fundamentally different because you are claiming a positive right; worse yet, one that violates the negative rights of another. The irony is you see it as a way to free people when in actuality it casts them deeper into bondage.

No!

 

Shut up and take your !@#$ing medicine.