ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

You are ignoring the foundation of the housing collapse: government backed garbage mortgages given to people who cannot afford them, on the gamble that the house skyrockets in price and the equity could be leveraged to prevent bankruptcy.

If these risky loans weren't government backed, the banks wouldn't give them out to people who cannot afford them.

The deregulation COMBINED with risky, government backed loans led to the housing collapse.

Deregulation itself didnt cause the collapse.

Clinton forced these loans on banks with sticks & carrots. Reno and fake racist lawsuits being the biggest stick.

If there was no garbage government backed loans, there would have been no housing collapse.

On the other hand, no deregulation and the housing collapse wouldn't have been nearly as bad.

And you clearly haven't went back and read all my posts, your responses indicate you are skimming at best.

"

Khoranth wrote:

You are ignoring the foundation of the housing collapse: government backed garbage mortgages given to people who cannot afford them, on the gamble that the house skyrockets in price and the equity could be leveraged to prevent bankruptcy.

If these risky loans weren't government backed, the banks wouldn't give them out to people who cannot afford them.

The deregulation COMBINED with risky, government backed loans led to the housing collapse.

Deregulation itself didnt cause the collapse.

Clinton forced these loans on banks with sticks & carrots. Reno and fake racist lawsuits being the biggest stick.

Ok I think I'm communicating now with you, though I'm still grasping at straws.

When you say government backed loans, you mean GSEs like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (quasi-government entities knowns as GSE=government-sponsored-enterprises)?

And that when these super complicated low risk (false) derivative financial instruments were sold to GSEs, it was an unwritten rule that the government would bail them out?

Hence low risk, high yield?

Is this where you are going?

I mean, 'government backed' loans to me almost sounds like the government takes on all the risk, and pays for it...

But from wikipedia again (argh)

"

The majority report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, written by the six Democratic appointees, the minority report, written by three of the four Republican appointees, studies by Federal Reserve economists, and the work of several independent scholars generally contend that government affordable housing policy was not the primary cause of the financial crisis.[26] Although they concede that governmental policies had some role in causing the crisis, they contend that GSE loans performed better than loans securitized by private investment banks, and performed better than some loans originated by institutions that held loans in their own portfolios.[26]

"

Khoranth wrote:

I Actually answered your questions in my previous posts. Apparently you are not reading them in full.

You are clearly only here to troll.

Seriously, if you honestly want to do anything besides troll, the answers to your questions are in my posts the last few pages.

This guy's a new account, and posts on this thread almost exclusively. I would not be at all surprised to see another account's hand stuck up his backside. =^[.]^=

I'm talking about sub prime loans in general, not exclusively, Freddie Fanny ect

If I'm wrong, then explain how the housing collapse would have been possible if no subprime loans were being given out.

And there is no way to scientifically analyze just how devastating it was for Clinton to have Reno making up fake racist lawsuits. No business wants the president telling the country they are racist. This clearly impacted how many garbage loans were given out

"

Raycheetah wrote:

"

Khoranth wrote:

I Actually answered your questions in my previous posts. Apparently you are not reading them in full.

You are clearly only here to troll.

Seriously, if you honestly want to do anything besides troll, the answers to your questions are in my posts the last few pages.

This guy's a new account, and posts on this thread almost exclusively. I would not be at all surprised to see another account's hand stuck up his backside. =^[.]^=

Yeah, agreed.

The way he is baiting with Trump bashing, the same way a 20 something extremist leftist would is making it pretty obvious he is here to troll.

Yay!

Ganged up on with personal attacks due to something as trivial as politics!

Yay!

I don't think calling people names has anything to do with anything, but if you think that makes your argument stronger somehow, or you've lost all the points in the debate, go right ahead.

I reserve my ire towards the orange blob. You might have noticed I dislike him quite a bit, but I have little issue with Trumpets/Trumpettes. I'm sure they have a special place in hell reserved for them for voting mr. orange in, and I believe that place is called America in 2018.

There is only reason I make fun of him, and, possibly, actually hate him.

From the other side of the globe, he is jeopardising almost single-handedly my future offspring, likely for generations to come, due to his reckless short term wallet size, being in the pockets of Big Oil.

It's climate change, simple as that. Sure I have gripes with what he is doing to places like Iran, and Yemen and what he is not doing to Russia and Saudi-Arabia, but that's more politics, less action, that affects me.

Now that I needlessly had to explain myself personally in this matter, I expect absolutely nothing from you.

Nothing.

You have high expectations, boys and gals.

"

Khoranth wrote:

I'm talking about sub prime loans in general, not exclusively, Freddie Fanny ect

If I'm wrong, then explain how the housing collapse would have been possible if no subprime loans were being given out.

I think you are basing this off on the fact that sub-prime mortgages were only possible due to Clinton somehow, and that nowhere else in the world they traded in them. This is untrue of course. It's the scale with which they were traded in america, compounded with 42 other deregulatory inadequacies, all preventable, that made the financial markets collapse so dramatically, and affect the rest of the world.

It's so nice that I started this whole thing by stating correlation does not equal causality, and that I had no desire to delve (xd) any deeper into occult mysteries of economics soft social science, yet here I am typing this crap.

How I hate my life right now.

Thought I'd look into parallels between the Sun King and Trump, but turns out style wise isn't a great comparison.

"

The moment Donald Trump moved into the Oval Office, he replaced the subdued maroon draping with gaudy gold curtains, in keeping with his longstanding preference for the kind of gilded decor that exudes opulence.

A Canberra scholar has been studying the parallels between with the interior styling of Mr Trump and that of Louis XIV, the French king who built Versailles.
The seat of power for the French nobility from Louis XIV's accession in 1661 until the French Revolution in 1789, the 700-room palace is a study in ostentatious wealth.

Many original items from the palace are on display at the NGA as part of its current exhibition.

Dr Robert Wellington, a scholar of Versailles style and a lecturer in art history at the Australian National University, said the US President's penchant for glittering decor in the aristocratic French style was all part of the Trump brand.

The US President has long been disposed to glittering decor. His Manhattan apartment is decked out in golden furniture, and he reportedly spent $7 million on gilding in the ballroom at his Florida estate, Mar-a-Lago.

But while the decor references Versailles, it's more style than substance.

"Whereas in the past in the 19th century in America the rich industrialists bought antiques — they loved French Ancien Regime antiques — Donald Trump isn't buying antiques," Dr Wellington said.

"He's not buying the real thing, but he's spending a lot of money," he said.

"It is kitsch ... our traditional definition of kitsch is 'high art bought low' and in a sense it's bought low, it's not very good taste, but it is handmade and very expensive," he says...

The so-called Sun King built Versailles in a way that would benefit the French economy.

Dr Wellington points out that Trump doesn't use an American style to promote himself.

"He's spending a lot of money for display but perhaps without an understanding of the histories of design that he's quoting," he said.

article



Would Trump be even greater in your eyes if he did have a more proudly American style?

You cannot ignore how devastating it was for Clinton to send Reno out to make up fake racist lawsuits. That influenced how banks gave out garbage subprime loans.

No business wants the president telling the country they are racist, it was a big deal. The banks gave up resisting Clinton and went crazy giving out garbage subprime loans

The bottom line is: subprime loans are risky garbage. The government shouldn't back them period.

Fact:No govt backed subprime loans, no housing collapse.

"

Khoranth wrote:

You cannot ignore how devastating it was for Clinton to send Reno out to make up fake racist lawsuits. That influenced how banks gave out garbage subprime loans.

No business wants the president telling the country they are racist, it was a big deal. The banks gave up resisting Clinton and went crazy giving out garbage subprime loans

The bottom line is: subprime loans are risky garbage. The government shouldn't back them period.

Fact:No govt backed subprime loans, no housing collapse.

Rojimboo, if you are still wondering what Koranth is hinting at and is dispairing at you not commenting on it: For the 6th or 7th time now Koranth has suggested that the main reason (the only one, as he suggested once, that, if prevented, would have made the subprime crisis impossible.) for the subprime crisis is that the banks gave out loans to black people, and that those black people did not deserve to get those loans, predictably defaulted on those loans and thus took the loan-deserving white america down with them.

Of course, Khoranth did not write exactly that. Instead he wrote that pressure applied with fake racist lawsuits by Clinton basically forced banks to give out loans that they would not have had before. However, this implies that banks were forced to give loans to black people to demonstrate that they were not acting racist. It also implies that those people would not have gotten a loan before, meaning: they were black / non-white. It also implies that this inevitably led to the subprime crisis in which all suffered, implying that Clinton's help for the undeserving non-whites made all, read: the whites suffer.



But only something happens after another thing, it does not mean that the thing happening first is causal for the thing happening second. Khoranth failed to bring any proof for his argument. I believe it is pretty ridiculous.

a.) Companies spend millions on public relations every damn day. did Koranth look out of the window recently, or witness advertising somewhere on the internet? If the main goal of the banks was to display that they are not racist, they would have done so in the way they display themselves for every other reason: on billboards or through other means of advertising.

b.) As for legal action: Quite possibly, there were banks that, instead of making the effort of reworking their standards in order to be able to prove that their standards and lending was not racist, simply gave more loans, because, well, there was money to be made. Sustainable business would have been to rework the standards.

c.) Koranth's argument that the fear of being accused racist lead to hundreds of billions of dollars being invested is amazing. Because, you know, it ignores the fact that is was a fucking great business to throw a bunch of subprime loans in a pot, stirr a bit and sell the stew, after having paid the critic to praise the stew. Great business for banks, rating agencies, investment funds and people who simply wanted to save for their retirement. EARNING MONEY by knowingly selling worthless loans motivated banks, not fear of prosecution.

d.) Also, as you stated, by the time the crisis climaxed, the reps had been in control of the whole government for a long time. I am not exactly sure how the republicans not preventing the last and worst, lets say 6 years, frees them of any wrongdoing and making Clinton the big, bad guy in all this. Maybe Khorant will enlighten us?

f.) and I am not even starting to argue that the banks' previous behaviour was in all likelyhood not correct. While it is very unlikely that in each bank there was a circle of white-haired racist pricks that tried to come up with new ways to ensure white power all the time, prejudices do exist, and black people are likely to be treated worse than white ones, starting with algorithms that are not racist per se, how could they, but they have been fed by people with (unconscious) bias.

Maybe Khoranth will elaborate his "fake racist lawsuits"?

Repeating over and over again and emphasizing one argument - "fake racist lawsuits" - while ignoring or downplaying the criminal behaviour or banks / rating agencies is in my opinion ignorant. Khoranth is, in all likelyhood, not a victim of suppression and a generally unfair world. He should not pose as one. He is probably not a racist either. He should refrain from using their propaganda.

Also, when this is over, I would like to read why Ted Cruz is such a moral guy. :-)

(It is not lost on me that Khoranth's conclusion was "Fact:No govt backed subprime loans, no housing collapse.", and that this conclusion did not include Clinton or "fake racist lawsuits". The steps he took to reach that conclusion, and the apparrant weighing of the causes really bug me, though)

Here's a summary of this thread over the last few pages: Trying to have a fact based discussion with someone that refuses to accept facts and refuses to give the sources of their own outlandish assertions is not going to go anywhere.