Another Benefit of Affirmative Action - Page 6 - New England Patriots Forums

Real World · #51 03-27-2008, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PressCoverage

I love how you try to act so "above it all" at times, yet you antagonize on a daily basis with personal, juvenile gems like this. Hypocrite.

C'mon man. Where's your sense of humor?

***Patters*** · #52 03-27-2008, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by a.paul

I didn't read between the lines. It's right there IN THE FREAKIN' ARTICLE!
I even quoted it for you so you wouldn't have to look for it yourself OR rely on me.

Good grief what's with you guys?

This is what the articles said the Justice Dept. did: "others faced direct legal challenges by the Justice Department." Those legal challenges should only be threatening if the lenders are doing something wrong, such as discriminating.

Quote:

Originally Posted by a.paul

No, I really don't. Apparently I don't view everything through glasses tinged with racial inequality. And yes, I'd say the mortgage companies were victims, just as I said the people who should never have qualified for loans but were given them under pressure from the government were victims. Both bank and borrower, victims of the same government you want to give more oversight authority to.

How were the lenders victims if they made huge profits for their shareholders up until now? Are you really so naive as to believe that if the lenders didn't think more lending wasn't in their interest, they would have launched a public campaign? Can you provide any evidence that they did so? The government said, Loosen your lending policies and make them non-discriminatory. The lenders did this in such a way that netted them huge short-term profits, and calculated there would be enough people like you who would feel sorry for them and support government bailouts. The lenders are not stupid or naive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by a.paul

As the article says, the company that was leaned on the most and in turn provided the most loans it shouldn't've is also the one that's essentially out of business, Countrywide. I'd say that makes them a victim, wouldn't you? And the shareholders?

I'm sure many shareholders did just fine. Only those who bought late or held on too long suffered. Meanwhile,

http://www.forbes.com/wallstreet/200...untrywide.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by a.paul

Step out of your template for a moment and look at what the article actually says, and what I'm actually saying.

I know what you're saying, but it tells me you have a very short term knowledge of the lending industry. The same sort of thing is happening now as happened in the 1970s when cities were on the verge of bankruptcy. The lenders played a two-pronged game, getting the government to promote borrowing by cities and then getting the government to bail out the cities. A lot of this happened during the Ford and Carter administrations. It's an old game, and I suggest you read some history about lenders, starting in the 1920s. There's a pattern that you're obviously unaware of, and the lenders like you that way.

Real World · #53 03-27-2008, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

The article, written with a clear bias, doesn't really say exactly what the government did or did not do, but you can be sure the mortgage industry had a hand in the opportunity to expand its short term interests dramatically. Besides, loosening up the regulations so that lenders could lend to more people is not regulation, and changing the rules to promote homeownership by lower income people does not mean that the mortgage company should have saddled people with loans they could not rationally afford.

Anyone whose worked with a broker has noticed how often brokers will push properties that are slightly higher than your budget. Doing that with educated middle class people may be okay, but doing it with less educated poorer people is riskier. Further, with the real estate boom, I'm sure that lenders counted on the unaffordable home quickly accruing equity to allow borrowers to borrow more, and keep them at the mercy of the lender.

Strict government regulation and monitoring of the lending industry would have averted this crisis.

I think there's blame on both sides here. Ultimately though, isn't it up to the individual to know what they can, and cannot afford? Should we regulate Circuit City & Best Buy for allowing no interest till 2012 or whatever? People can show up and buy a $7,000 entertainment center they can't afford afterall. Should credit cards be restricted too? This is the problem you get into when you start implementing government controls on everything. I'm responsible with my money. Why should I be penalized for someone elses stupidity? Now, that doesn't mean that I don't think there should be some common sense benchmarks for lending. However, I'm more inclined to leave it as free as possible. A free market self regulates. If the companies giving out awful loans went out of business, or suffered the losses, then others would learn not to give stupid loans. What I might do is require a down payment. Be it 5%, 10%, or maybe 20% down. At least such people would generically show an ability to save money, if they had such coin available.

***BelichickFan*** · #54 03-27-2008, 10:57 AM

I guess my wording was bad by using "affirmative action", all I was actually trying to point out is (the obvious) that I've pointed out before that people who are walking away aren't going to get another load in a few years like last decade, and poor people aren't going to get subprime loans again for a long, long time. Subprime used to be a way to get lower qualifiers into starter homes to get them going with home ownership; subprime loans probably won't exist for years now. But everything is cyclic and down the road this will all be forgotten and politicians will start campaigning on how unfair it is that the poor (read minorities if you insist) are shut out of the housing market by mortgage companies.

***Patters*** · #55 03-27-2008, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Real World

I think there's blame on both sides here. Ultimately though, isn't it up to the individual to know what they can, and cannot afford?

No, of course not. That's generally not true. That's why we rely on specialists, whether hiring a plumber, a doctor, an accountant, or a lender. They know more than us, so we are supposed to trust them. That's why most professionals subscribe (in theory) to a code of ethics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Real World

Should we regulate Circuit City & Best Buy for allowing no interest till 2012 or whatever? People can show up and buy a $7,000 entertainment center they can't afford afterall. Should credit cards be restricted too? This is the problem you get into when you start implementing government controls on everything. I'm responsible with my money. Why should I be penalized for someone else's stupidity?

Circuit City does not pretend to employee financial professionals. But, the credit card companies certainly claim to use well vetted methods to determine one's credit line. So, credit cards are restricted, actually.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Real World

Now, that doesn't mean that I don't think there should be some common sense benchmarks for lending. However, I'm more inclined to leave it as free as possible. A free market self regulates. If the companies giving out awful loans went out of business, or suffered the losses, then others would learn not to give stupid loans. What I might do is require a down payment. Be it 5%, 10%, or maybe 20% down. At least such people would generically show an ability to save money, if they had such coin available.

Of course, a company could issue risky mortgages with the aim of expanding its porffolio and driving up its stock values. There's a substantial upside to that.

***Harry Boy*** · #56 03-27-2008, 11:03 AM

Affirmative Action:
A cruel demeaning insulting slap in the face to all African Americans.

No Further Comment

Real World · #57 03-27-2008, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patters

No, of course not. That's generally not true. That's why we rely on specialists, whether hiring a plumber, a doctor, an accountant, or a lender. They know more than us, so we are supposed to trust them. That's why most professionals subscribe (in theory) to a code of ethics.

I see. So when a plumber screws someone the government should get involved? I understand your point, and ethics are something that are important to me, but I don't think the government is the answer. I'd be ok with some common sense rules of thumb, like down payments %, and maybe maximum borrowing limit according to income. However, I'd prefer a freer market to a more regulated one.

Circuit City does not pretend to employee financial professionals. But, the credit card companies certainly claim to use well vetted methods to determine one's credit line. So, credit cards are restricted, actually.

You lose me here. Circuit City absolutely has financial professionals working for them. Just cuz they're not the people in the store, it doesn't mean that they're not playing a key role in their business plan. Oh, and crdit cards are restricted? LOLOLOLOL. They are restricted only by design. They restrict you to keep you afloat. If you, the client, goes out of business, then you're not paying $50 a month for 15 years to pay off $1,000 original balance. They give you enough to fukc you real good. It would be a net negative to give you inlimited borrowing ability when they know you wouldn't be able to pay anything in return. They'd lose the upfront money given, plus any revenue potential. I was in college at age 19 and had a handful of credit cards. How's that restricted? What was I earning? Still, as evil as those loser companies are, and as much as I'd paid them through college, I still think that it's a priveledged service, and thus, up to them to lay the rules. If we don't like them, we don't have to have them.

Of course, a company could issue risky mortgages with the aim of expanding its porffolio and driving up its stock values. There's a substantial upside to that.

Increase it's stock values for what? To see them disintegrate?

***Harry Boy*** · #58 03-27-2008, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Real World

C'mon man. Where's your sense of humor?

Sense Of Humor:

He Laughed When Bambi's Mother Got Shot

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode