Patrick
"Wake up America! Having a cozy, never-inconvenient, always rescuable way of life is NOT A RIGHT!!!"
I don’t see anything particularly right wing about that statement, it’s a true statement, nobody has a right to those things, only the right to pursue them for yourself.
Greg
[quote=strabes]
But that’s an accounting fiction.
It’s already on their books at full value. The economic reality is
that their asset is 50 cents if they sell it. If they could negotiate
down to 75, that’s good for them.
Unless I’m missing something behind your question. [/quote]
I know it’s economic fiction. That usually does not get in the way of banks.
I think their modus-operandi is to foreclose. Their internal machinery is not set up for a collapsing, the-perfect-storm-size real estate bubble. It’s set up for business as usual, and when business is as usual, foreclosing makes sense.
Put yourself in the bank’s shoes, for one disgusting moment: The borrower isn’t paying. If you renegotiate, you have to write down the asset. That’s a very difficult thing to do right now as any decrease in assets translates into a huge amount of lost leverage, which means they have to borrow more from the Fed or sell shares to Uncle Sam. If you foreclose and hold onto the property (don’t sell it), you continue to not benefit from any sort of income stream, but at least you didn’t have to write down the asset. Now you can rent, get some sort of income stream going, and keep the asset at full value. Again, that’s only true if I’m right about my suspicion that foreclosing results in not writing-down the asset.
This does not have any effect on what I said earlier. Either way, the best thing for all parties is for the houses to be foreclosed upon and become part of the rental pool, which is experiencing increasing demand due to all the foreclosures.
[quote=Sam]1. Get educated[/quote]
I agree, but unfortunately what counts as education today is just government dumbed-down mind control, so people who think they’re educated are actually just officially stupid. 
And I agree on most everything you said. We start to part ways on things like the drug/alcohol addiction as if we all have ability to live by rational free will. I used to be a total believer in that. I used to believe all my achievements were a result of my free will…finally I’ve become humble…God played a big role in what brain I was given, my early environment was formative, the people around me were important, the country I was born in, etc. Everybody has an addiction of some sort, some are just more socially acceptable, and the dirty ones like drugs allows society to bucket them as "the addicted people" so everybody else feels better about themselves because they aren’t one of "those people." After 2 successful careers and going to top education institutions, blah blah blah, I’ve learned how addicted I was to power, achievement, the need to decimate others and feel important. Our corrupt banker society loves that addiction…narcissists are handsomely rewarded…they make money for bankers. But it was really tied to my need for an external sense of power/achievement because I had no internal sense of strength. So I don’t want to go off the deep end here into psychology, my new career, but there’s more to human behavior than rational free will.
This website loves science, facts, evidence. Well some of the most well-proven facts of human behavior are 1) the power of social/group dynamics, and 2) different personality types. Science/evidence folks tend to be more on the schizoid end of the personality spectrum…they’re able to intrapsychically isolate and focus on the data, the problem, etc (it can be spun as a mild addiction to the impersonal aspects of life or a tendency to be distant from others). Most people are not that way, so it’s important to remember that, even though in our minds we can analyze a problem like a PhD, not to assume that everybody else can do that. I continue to be shocked now that I’ve departed the high-achievement world how many people actually don’t have much ability to synthesize, rationalize, digest facts, and dwell on problems/solutions. Most people live for relationship and data is just an annoyance. If history proves anything, it proves herd behavior and social dynamics like cliques are an inherent aspect of the human condition. So saying on this website that people should be able to stand strong as an individual within the greater storm of social behavior like an asset bubble is rejecting our best psychological science. It’s ignoring a HUGE piece of evidence.
[quote]So saying on this website that people should be able to stand strong as
an individual within the greater storm of social behavior like an asset
bubble is rejecting our best psychological science.[/quote]
I think you’re missing the point.
Nobody is saying individuals should not have family/friends/community. What "individualists" believe is that gorvernment cannot function as the social saftey net. Only one’s personal web of social connections can serve that purpose, and the most basic one is family. After that, it’s friends.
When the government makes promises it cannot possibly keep, and those promises supposedly provide what comfort or security only family/friends can provide, then any individual who fell for the original lie is pretty well screwed.
Completely agree with that…government can’t be a safety net.
What I’m talking about is how people were saying that every borrower should’ve been able to see the housing bubble for what it was, used rational analysis to prove it to themselves, and then avoided getting in over their heads by going against the societal trend. That’s just not true. If that were possible, we’d never have bubbles. 80% of people are driven by social psychology. It’s a rare person who can stand aside like a PhD and analyze a situation despite what other people are doing. But of course, even most of the PhDs were clueless about the bubble…all of them were saying it was a justified change in risk valuation due to securitization taking place on the back end.
Strabes,
There is one solution to all these problems, and I mean all: bubbles, booms/busts, ever-expanding debt, borrowing beyond means (collectively or individually), senseless governmental largess, inflation and deflation. And, we don’t even have to hire a psychologist.
It’s called commodity-based money, and no more fraudulent, double-claim banking (i.e., fractional-reserve lending).
Now, figure out a way of explaining these concepts so that both Joe 6-pack and Theodore McBookreader understand and agree, and we’ll have ever-lasting peace and prosperity!
I totally agree with what Chris is saying. Almost any government action will likely reward some & punish others in some way. It could be rich & powerful are benefitted in some way at the expense of the rest of us. On the other hand it could be the poor that are benefitted at others’ expense. I value the freedom for us to tell the truth to one another about who benefits & who loses from a government program. Overall one might still conclude that a certain government program is either "good" or "bad." Having said this we can still restrain ourselves from instigating class warfare. Nevertheless, I also recognize it is easy to get pretty emotional about these issues.
I’m looking from a long way away here but; If I was in power in the US and I saw that people were organising to stay living in foreclosed houses I would feel rather threatened. The thin edge of the wedge.
Maybe the important people are simply trying to wrest back the intiative and control.
Don
7 billion people can be wrong, very wrong
I like this idea:
The government offers 40-year, 4% fixed rate mortgages to everybody, not just deadbeats and knuckleheads, for their home’s appraised value, and protects the lenders by issuing them equity participation certificates for the difference, which the lenders use for regulatory capital.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1041787898&play=1
Hoover screwed us up and hastened the Great Depression by being more concerned with not "rewarding" the incompetent instead of staying focused on saving the system from collapse.
At least Obama seems less concerned with pointing the finger than with trying to fix things. He may, or may not, have ideas that might work, but Chris’ post seems more Hooverish than usual. That really bugs me. I’ve come to see Chris’ work as being forward-thinking, intelligent, rational, and providing a direction for us to go - this particular post seems like an anomaly to me. I wish he would re-write it, remove the focus on "punishment," and instead post indepth on what the Obama adminstration could do, both short term and long term, to deal with both the existing foreclosures, and the upcoming Wave II.
[quote=Patrick]It’s called commodity-based money, and no more fraudulent, double-claim banking (i.e., fractional-reserve lending).[/quote]
Totally agreed. I’ve been screaming about that on many posts…it’s the only solution. The banking oligarchy, the Fed, and the fractional reserve framework needs to be guillotined. The solution is not to complain about individuals who went along with groupthink in a bubble and borrowed money for a house, since that will always be a part of human behavior.
[quote=skylight]and instead post indepth on what the Obama adminstration could do, both short term and long term, to deal with both the existing foreclosures, and the upcoming Wave II.[/quote]
But that’s a huge part of the problem…assuming that a president can do anything to fix this. A president interfering to avoid a downcycle is a MAJOR problem and it’s going to ensure we see a major depression rather than just a painful recession. Presidents don’t run economies…we need to get rid of that notion or we’ll recover. Again, I post Jim Rogers explanation which is far more effective than anything I could write. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTQ4zVWt1wQ
Throwing $10 trillion down the tubes as the govt and Fed have done since Sep is a serious destruction of productive wealth and purchasing power which would’ve been really helpful to have around after the recession bottomed. But now that $10T has basically gone into private Swiss accounts owned by the bankers, or it’s just been used by big banks to buy up smaller banks, so there’s far less productive wealth available to drive an upcycle out of a recession…a cause of a depression.
Here’a a new comic strip.
A small lad rushes to his Mother and loudly exclaims, "mom, mom I’m so glad Obama was elected!"
"Why, dear?" queries his mother.
"Because, I’ve finally discovered an honorable profession for when I grow up. I’m so excited!"
"Well, dear, what is your chosen profession?" asks his mother.
"Professional Deadbeat!" exclaims the lad, as he nods his head with proud glee.
Just stop servicing your debts…
‘They’ can’t bankrupt 100+ million Americans, now can they
Yes they can because all those debts are court enforceable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxiTbrlGJGs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h22UjKwI7rI
Thomas,
I’m not sure why you keep posting these same video links in all the forums. I’ve watched them and all he does is explain how interest works. There is nothing about "home and business foreclosures" as stated in the link. Am I missing something?
i have looked high and low and have yet to find it in the constitution where it says it is the resppnsibilty of the president to ":fix things"
the enumerated powers seem to be pretty specific. obama is not a king he is not god he is a member of the club. he is not only continuing but expanding the failed policies which got us in this situation. he has no intention of coming up with ideas which "work " for you me or anyone else unless you happen to own a major bank.
the foreclosures are inevitable it is the way the markets work currently. you have a bubble it bursts then things level off.
any attempt by gov. to "fix" things will make things worse, thereby punishing those of us who were responsible and did not overextend ourselves.
btw i suggest you not look to chris to provide a direction for you to go. it is not his job. it is your job.
i agree.
but i dont think it is possible to explain any of it to joe six pack and mr mcbookreader. there happen to be a few obots and progressives on this site who i would have thought would have "gotten" it by now. but alas.
i am afraid the welfare state has been too deeply ingrained in the psyche of this country. we are living in a hamiltonian paradise and it will have to be completely dismantled.
we simply need more ron pauls
I agree and not only because I’m a Ron Paul fan.
I respect and admire his integrity and open mindedness to unpopular beliefs. He is a very well-educated, principle oriented, and honest statesman - truly one of a kind. I would feel much happier if there were other leaders of his caliber in Washington.
And I don’t even care if the other leaders all share his ideals - you have to have intelligence and integrity before you can lead and there is a dearth of those values in the District of Corruption.
Joe -
More Ron Pauls is only half the equation.
You need listeners that function at a level higher than the average uniniformed, self-entitled no load that makes up the majority of the population.
I guess that’s why we doggedly pursue the slow but sure dissemination of CMCC material???
Yes Dogs, you’ve hit the nail on the head.
It’s a chicken and eggs scenario, I think. If there were more Ron Paul types, then perhaps more of the popualation would be inspired. Likewise, if the population were inspired, perhaps they would demand better leaders. Unfortunately, one aspect of Ron Paul’s message is historically unpopular - there’s no such thing as a free lunch.
To one degree or another, all of us have been inspired by the few courageous leaders out there: CM, Ron Paul, etc. I view it is not only my responsibility, but also in my best interest to educate as many as I can. Distrust of Washington and the banks is at a high point now and people are reasonable receptive to the message, I’ve found.
Unfortunately, I am forced to compete with Obama, who not only shoots hoops and dances for the cameras better than I do, but also tells people about personal responsibility while spending Trillions bailing out irresponsible individuals and institutions thereby implying that these approaches are somehow compatible. Sorry for the run on.
Mike
Mike, you just wrote: "Unfortunately, one aspect of Ron Paul’s message is historically unpopular - there’s no such thing as a free lunch."
I’d like to add to that.
1.) It’s more than one aspect of his message but a handful.
2.) Possibly the most unpopular of his messages is that America can be wrong, has been wrong, has gone far astray, and is, at this point in time, deeply flawed. Many on the right half of the modern American political graph are frequently chafed by this feature of his broader thought as it challenges strong cultural notions of American exceptionalism and infallibility. Instead of seeing it as frank self-assessment born of a concern for one’s country they misconstrue it as a predisposition towards criticism and pessimism. This is where he doesn’t interface well with the modern American right.
As I become exposed to Jefferson quotes I hadn’t come acrsoss before courtesy of your posts, I realize how much of a trouble maker Jefferson would be thought of by today’s government and mass media.