Where you punks at! Here's someone and his stupid liberal arguments, regarding the economy nonetheless! You got nothin?!
I had a hard time to figure out who you were arguing with but here it goes: As far as I'm concerned the main cause is greed. Which is also the main cause of our country's success. Its a 2 edged sword. I just like busting conservative balls, especially on here. How are you busting conservatives balls? Regardless of what you wrote about the whole situation primary cause is a political class. Remember you didn't say Republican you said conservative. Republican and conservative is not the same thing. How the whole mess promotes the liberal ideas for more government control over economy when the political class is so completely rotten and without any principles? More regulation? (Makes me think of Maddof vs. SEC for example.) You are partisan bitching about partisans on the other side of political spectrum.
I see that no points relevant to the argument were brought up, but who cares. The reason for the ball busting comment is because the argument that I refuted is one I hear from conservatives all over the place, especially here. That's why. I think you would have a tough case to make in saying one side is more 'rotten' than the other, but I don't really care. This particular view isn't that liberal really, its just refuting a conservative argument...so maybe it is. Also, the proliferation of subprime loans was caused, in large part, to deregulation-which is obviously flies in the face of the conservative notion that free markets never work against us. About who I'm arguing with, well that's easy. All you have to do is go through any one of these pointless threads and you will see ten losers say something along the lines of "just another stupid liberal argument' or 'I've never even heard a proper liberal case' etc etc. When in fact I presented something applicable to our current economic state (with detailed and logical deduction and haven't had single real rebuttal yet) which is liberal in the sense that it refutes a conservative argument, yet no one says a word. Why? Because they don't have shit to say (that's how it works on ET). Yet you all go back pretending that anti-conservative arguments make no sense etc etc. The reason I hate conservatives like the above mentioned it because you all are what fucks the republican party. You think because some guy (read the following in redneck accent) "used to to a hard day's work with a chainsaw down in texas" that he's somehow more suited to be a good leader. You think being conservative is just (same accent) plain ole' common sense, and by golly, Jesus was a republican." There are some of us who empathize with the other side and can discuss our views rationally without ideological bias. we believe in small government, but don't believe in all the other BS that so many conservatives get tied to.
Amazing. How many times have I heard this argument on ET? How many talk radio hosts have brought it up? There's no one here to defend it?!? Even here on ET?? Wow. I guess that must mean that the argument that FNMA, the CRA, and Dems caused the financial crisis is, well, wrong. ha
Jon Your argument has already been thrashed, and on this very thread, and by me. You're apparently not bright enough to figure it out. It would also explain your defense of a certain smoke blower that runs a trading chat room around here. You just don't seem to be smart enough to discern the obvious. All that is necessary to make a mockery of your argument is the knowledge that congress first harrassed, then codified regulations, to force financial institutions to make loans they didn't want to make. Those loans have now defaulted on a massive scale. That is your proof. That you would need more proof shows your lack of intelligence. That other loans have also failed is beside the point. Meaningless. Fnm and Fre went down <b>first</b>. They were the enablers of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd's meddling in the mortgage market to "stop the redlining" of low income neighborhoods. They were the present day architects of the structuring of phony loans. The cdo's and cds and aig and banks failed <b>after</b> the gse's. When the phony loans mandated by democrats into gse's went bad, it brought down the entire real estate market and, thus, the cdo's (with the higher income loans) and cds's and everyone that held them. Most around ET don't need to be taught about the cascading effects of what we're witnessing in the real estate markets and how it is filtering through to commercial real estate and credit cards and many other parts of our economy. They already understand it. Maybe when you grow up and become <i>slightly</i> more informed in the ways of the world, you'll be a better opponent on ET. Until then, most will simply ignore. Bye
lol oh ok we'll see. If you are talking about Anek, then you have no idea how hilarious that sounds to those who trade with him (which I don't anymore). I'm not going to talk about him, besides to say he's the best trader I've ever seen trade in front of me. Let me guess, MACD told you to short today? lol. My lack of intelligence? lol after you bring this weak shit? What does that prove dumbass? Think about what your saying before you say it to me. That a butt load of FNMA's loans are in default? No shit. FNMA is just as bad if not worse than all the other financial companies. Let me make sure this is the point you are making. The 10% of subprime loans that FNMA was responsible for, were far worse, and defaulted BEFORE all the other subprime loans? Is that seriously what you just said? after reading my second point in the beginning of this thread? Go back and read it again smart guy. No? Fine. I guess I have to make them again for the slower ones (you). Conforming loans-the only loans that FNMA can buy/sell-are subject to stricter underwriting guidelines than allllll the other subprime loans are. That is not my opinion, that is FACT. That is why they are called CONFORMING. The reason FNMA only held 10% of the market is because UNDERWRITING RESTRICTIONS WERE FAR LESS EVERYWHERE ELSE. Don't believe me? Ok, go look it up. Did you not catch that I was a mortgage broker? I never funded conforming loans, it was too much easier elsewhere. But the CRA loans started the decline.. This HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED. Try to keep up. The hardest and FIRST hit places were not minority/ low income neighborhoods. Just look at the first states hit: FL,CA, AZ, NV. Have you ever been to AZ or NV? Oh yea, real minority/ low income hotspots. Show me a correlation between low income/minorities and those who defaulted first or defaulted at all. Its not there. READ MY POINTS. That other loans have also failed is beside the point. Meaningless. Fnm and Fre went down The cdo's and cds and aig and banks failed <b>after</b> the gse's. When the phony loans mandated by democrats into gse's went bad, it brought down the entire real estate market and, thus, the cdo's (with the higher income loans) and cds's and everyone that held them. <b>first</b>. [/b] Ohh I see. Yea you're right. Oh wait a second...Merril Lynch wrote down 8.4 billion in November 2007. Bank of America wrote down 3 billion after the 4th quarter of 2007. Goldman wrote down 3 billion in march of 08. Bank of America bought Merril in September of 2008. In that same month WAMU filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy. Lehman filed for the largest bankruptcy ever that same month. Fannie and Freddi recieved federal funds in September of 2008, a year after Merril and bank of america wrote down billions. Point being, failure happened pretty simultaneously, FNMA was hardly first. They were the enablers of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd's meddling in the mortgage market to "stop the redlining" of low income neighborhoods. They were the present day architects of the structuring of phony loans. Oh the subprime loan proliferation started with them? Really? I suppose its just coincidence that CDS market increased 1000% between 2002 and 2007, the SAME time the number of subprime loans originated also went up like crazy. Let me anticipate your response "the reason subprime loans increased is b/c of FNMA, the reason CDS increased is b/c the poor, poor financial institutions wanted to hedge themselves." Explain to me how FNMA, with a market share of less than 10% of subprime loans, can be responsible for the 350% increase in subprime loans originated from 2002-2006. This was my first point. I don't mind if you dont get it the first time, really I don't mind re-explaining it. But the fact that you talk shit and then need it to be re-explained to you is pretty funny. Now if you want to say that Frank and FNMA had this brilliant and corrupt idea about subprime loans and CDS's and everyone else followed suit, I wouldn't be able to say if that was true or not. Most around ET don't need to be taught about the cascading effects of what we're witnessing in the real estate markets and how it is filtering through to commercial real estate and credit cards and many other parts of our economy. They already understand it. Maybe when you grow up and become <i>slightly</i> more informed in the ways of the world, you'll be a better opponent on ET. Until then, most will simply ignore. lol. maybe one day I will be smart and old enough to participate in the "Obama is lame" threads like you do between your MACD oscillations... I just refuted everything you wrote with the points that I already made. You talk shit to me about not being smart, when you didn't even grasp what was already written. lol, only on ET.
You sound like you work or worked in the mortgage field, so I am curious if you did the math and added it up - If ALL the subprime lenders defaulted on their loans, how much would that total. Versus - the total liability of all the securitized CDO's, CMO's etc, etc. This would be the amount of leveraged bets placed on the financially re-engineered subprime loans. Just to see how much damage the subprime lenders (deadbeats) created vs what happened to the loans after they were "transformed".
Whew, it would be tough to know. I don't pretend to understand the real complexities of the leveraged, bought and insured CDO's versus how much money was lent out and, God knows, how much of it is actually secured by something real.
Where you at FHL? I challenge you to actually rebuke my points, one by one. No need to talk shit. Construct a real rebuttal of my points. I'm such an idiot, it should be easy