Re: NAT:Dems Luxury Retreat

[Clyde Slick]

On 8 Feb, 22:10, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8 Feb, 19:19, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 8 Feb, 17:16, George M. Middius > wrote:
> > > > > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > > > > > > There's some kind of logic in there, I'm sure, but not being an
> > > > > > > > > unthinking bubba redneck I personally cannot fathom it. ;-)-
>
> > > > > > > > your views of me are way off base.
>
> > > > > > > But yours of me are not, I suppose. ;-)-
>
> > > > > > you post anonymously.
> > > > > > In reality, you could be a pimply
> > > > > > 14 year old nerd. Who knows?
>
> > > > > Not even you are that stupid.
>
> > > > > We all know about your views though. On some issues you're progressive
> > > > > and
> > > > > open-minded, and on others your mind could be a coffin that's sealed
> > > > > with
> > > > > shipwright's nails.
>
> > > > on the stimulus bill
> > > > it is little more than a funding source for the liberal agenda of
> > > > expanding
> > > > government programs. The jibs it creates are not susteianable in'
> > > > the economy, and are dependent upon contiunued government funding.
> > > > Even the infrastructure posrtion is non sustainable.
> > > > \We need a stimulus to kick start the economy woth
> > > > activities that can be sustained in the private scetor.
> > > > Many of these funded items are desirable, but dont'
> > > > be fooled into thinking it has anything to do with
> > > > stimulating the economy. It is just a temporary
> > > > blip that will disappear once funding is spent
> > > > or the project is completed.
>
> > > > I am all in favor of infrastructure and the expansion of
> > > > unemplyment insurance eligibility, but it is
> > > > not a stimulus for any sort of sustained activity.
>
> > > Doesn't have to be.
>
> > then it appears you are saying we don't need a stimulus
> > that kicks the economy into sustained growth.
>
> You guess wrong: it doesn't have to be exclusively enabled by "sustained
> activity."
>
>

if you put an unemployed person to work in
a road construction job that lasts six months, in six months
he is out of work again.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 14, 8:56*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 8 Feb, 22:10, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 8 Feb, 19:19, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> > > > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 8 Feb, 17:16, George M. Middius > wrote:
> > > > > > Clyde Slick said:
>
> > > > > > > > > > There's some kind of logic in there, I'm sure, but not being an
> > > > > > > > > > unthinking bubba redneck I personally cannot fathom it. ;-)-
>
> > > > > > > > > your views of me are way off base.
>
> > > > > > > > But yours of me are not, I suppose. ;-)-
>
> > > > > > > you post anonymously.
> > > > > > > In reality, you could be a pimply
> > > > > > > 14 year old nerd. Who knows?
>
> > > > > > Not even you are that stupid.
>
> > > > > > We all know about your views though. On some issues you're progressive
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > open-minded, and on others your mind could be a coffin that's sealed
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > shipwright's nails.
>
> > > > > on the stimulus bill
> > > > > it is little more than a funding source for the liberal agenda of
> > > > > expanding
> > > > > government programs. The jibs it creates are not susteianable in'
> > > > > the economy, and are dependent upon contiunued government funding..
> > > > > Even the infrastructure posrtion is non sustainable.
> > > > > \We need a stimulus to kick start the economy woth
> > > > > activities that can be sustained in the private scetor.
> > > > > Many of these funded items are desirable, but dont'
> > > > > be fooled into thinking it has anything to do with
> > > > > stimulating the economy. It is just a temporary
> > > > > blip that will disappear once funding is spent
> > > > > or the project is completed.
>
> > > > > I am all in favor of infrastructure and the expansion of
> > > > > unemplyment insurance eligibility, but it is
> > > > > not a stimulus for any sort of sustained activity.
>
> > > > Doesn't have to be.
>
> > > then it appears you are saying we don't need a stimulus
> > > that kicks the economy into sustained growth.
>
> > You guess wrong: it doesn't have to be exclusively enabled by "sustained
> > activity."
>
> if you put an unemployed person to work in
> a road construction job that lasts six months, in six months
> he is out of work again.

So you've fed a family for six months, they've bought things which
stimulates the economy and you have a new road.

Or you can give them unemployment benefits for six months, or you can
let them starve. What's a compassionate conservative to do? LoL.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> > > > > I am all in favor of infrastructure and the expansion of
> > > > > unemplyment insurance eligibility, but it is
> > > > > not a stimulus for any sort of sustained activity.
> >
> > > > Doesn't have to be.
> >
> > > then it appears you are saying we don't need a stimulus
> > > that kicks the economy into sustained growth.
> >
> > You guess wrong: it doesn't have to be exclusively enabled by "sustained
> > activity."
> >
> >
>
> if you put an unemployed person to work in
> a road construction job that lasts six months, in six months
> he is out of work again.

Brilliant. He's been paying his bills and spending for six months and a
road construction project will contribute to future economic activity.

If no one is spending, the government must.

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

I know I'll regret this, but I'm going to try to establish some context for
Clyde's low-wattage dogma.

> > > then it appears you are saying we don't need a stimulus
> > > that kicks the economy into sustained growth.
> >
> > You guess wrong: it doesn't have to be exclusively enabled by "sustained
> > activity."
>
> if you put an unemployed person to work in
> a road construction job that lasts six months, in six months
> he is out of work again.

What could possibly be the purpose of building up the infrastructure? Other
than providing paying jobs for unemployed people, that is.

Think really hard about that one, Sacky. It may come to you. (Especially if
you don't spend any time at Witless's house while thinking about it.)

[Clyde Slick]

On 14 Feb, 12:18, George M. Middius > wrote:

>
> What could possibly be the purpose of building up the infrastructure? Other
> than providing paying jobs for unemployed people, that is.
>
> Think really hard about that one, Sacky. It may come to you. (Especially if
> you don't spend any time at Witless's house while thinking about it.)

sure, it has purpose on its own merits, but the infrastructure
improvements are not a "road" to sustained economic recovery.

We should faciltate the creation of private sector jobs that will
permamanent jobs.

The stimulus package provides temporary funds to
fix some things that are needed and wrok on other things that are
not.
But most of it will not stimulate sustained growth or activity.

The one bright spot I see is talk about finally buying
up the bad loans and rewriting them into something
reasonable that owners can afford.
It should have been done months ago, before Obama came in.
This whole mess is mostly a credit, banking, equitry, and mortgage
crisis.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 14 Feb, 12:18, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> >
> > What could possibly be the purpose of building up the infrastructure? Other
> > than providing paying jobs for unemployed people, that is.
> >
> > Think really hard about that one, Sacky. It may come to you. (Especially if
> > you don't spend any time at Witless's house while thinking about it.)
>
> sure, it has purpose on its own merits, but the infrastructure
> improvements are not a "road" to sustained economic recovery.
>
> We should faciltate the creation of private sector jobs that will
> permamanent jobs.
>
> The stimulus package provides temporary funds to
> fix some things that are needed and wrok on other things that are
> not.
> But most of it will not stimulate sustained growth or activity.
>
> The one bright spot I see is talk about finally buying
> up the bad loans and rewriting them into something
> reasonable that owners can afford.
> It should have been done months ago, before Obama came in.
> This whole mess is mostly a credit, banking, equitry, and mortgage
> crisis.

You're hung up on the sustained thing. The point is to reduce the depths
of the downturn, quickening the recovery. Once that happens, the
"sustain" takes care of itself.

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

On 14 Feb, 16:03, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14 Feb, 12:18, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > What could possibly be the purpose of building up the infrastructure? Other
> > > than providing paying jobs for unemployed people, that is.
>
> > > Think really hard about that one, Sacky. It may come to you. (Especially if
> > > you don't spend any time at Witless's house while thinking about it.)
>
> > sure, it has purpose on its own merits, but the infrastructure
> > improvements are not a "road" to sustained economic recovery.
>
> > We should faciltate the creation of private sector jobs that will
> > permamanent jobs.
>
> > The stimulus package provides temporary funds to
> > *fix some things that are needed and wrok on other things that are
> > not.
> > But most of it will not stimulate sustained growth or activity.
>
> > The one bright spot I see is talk about finally buying
> > up the bad loans and rewriting them into something
> > reasonable that owners can afford.
> > It should have been done months ago, before Obama came in.
> > This whole mess is mostly a credit, banking, equitry, and mortgage
> > crisis.
>
> You're hung up on the sustained thing. The point is to reduce the depths
> of the downturn, quickening the recovery. Once that happens, the
> "sustain" takes care of itself.
>

there is no impetus for sustained recovery.
once a public works job is done, you are back
to where you were before. The only lasting thing
created is the infrastructure itself, and an improved road,
as necessary as it may be, does not contribute to sustained
recovery.

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

On 2009-02-14 15:54:53 -0500, Clyde Slick > said:

> On 14 Feb, 12:18, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
>>
>> What could possibly be the purpose of building up the infrastructure? Other
>> than providing paying jobs for unemployed people, that is.
>>
>> Think really hard about that one, Sacky. It may come to you. (Especially if
>> you don't spend any time at Witless's house while thinking about it.)
>
> sure, it has purpose on its own merits, but the infrastructure
> improvements are not a "road" to sustained economic recovery.
>
> We should faciltate the creation of private sector jobs that will
> permamanent jobs.
>
> The stimulus package provides temporary funds to
> fix some things that are needed and wrok on other things that are
> not.
> But most of it will not stimulate sustained growth or activity.
>
> The one bright spot I see is talk about finally buying
> up the bad loans and rewriting them into something
> reasonable that owners can afford.
> It should have been done months ago, before Obama came in.
> This whole mess is mostly a credit, banking, equitry, and mortgage
> crisis.

Clyde, there are multipliers at work here. Certain sorts of fiscal and
monetary policies can have what are known as multiplier effects. One of
the things you're trying to do is increase the velocity of the money
supply. Think of that as increasing the numbers of people who get to
":touch" the money."

The construction worker gets paid, buys groceries, goes to the mo vies,
maybe takes his family out to eat (and so on). Each of those activities
takes some of the money paid to the worker and passes it on t others,
who in turn pass that on to others, hence the multiplier effect.

Do enough of this and one actually increases the money supply. How?
Well, enough people buying from a supplier may cause that supplier to
borrow mony to finance new inventory, When that loan is processed, the
bank may literaly be creating new money to make that loan.

If you want a more detailed explanation, e-mail me. It can get fairly
complicated. If you're really intent on rewriting mortgages, you need
to explain what you mean by that. There is huge moral hazard lurking
here. Remember that there's no point in rewriting a mortgage if the
homeowner can't afford the new payments either. If you reduce the
principal thereby making payments smaller, not only will there will be
a huge tax bill due, but you're making fools out of all the people
struggling to pay off their mortgages the old fashioned way.

So what are you proposing? There are ideas out there, but I'd like to
hear yours.

Herbert

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 14 Feb, 16:03, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On 14 Feb, 12:18, George M. Middius > wrote:
> >
> > > > What could possibly be the purpose of building up the infrastructure?
> > > > Other
> > > > than providing paying jobs for unemployed people, that is.
> >
> > > > Think really hard about that one, Sacky. It may come to you.
> > > > (Especially if
> > > > you don't spend any time at Witless's house while thinking about it.)
> >
> > > sure, it has purpose on its own merits, but the infrastructure
> > > improvements are not a "road" to sustained economic recovery.
> >
> > > We should faciltate the creation of private sector jobs that will
> > > permamanent jobs.
> >
> > > The stimulus package provides temporary funds to
> > > *fix some things that are needed and wrok on other things that are
> > > not.
> > > But most of it will not stimulate sustained growth or activity.
> >
> > > The one bright spot I see is talk about finally buying
> > > up the bad loans and rewriting them into something
> > > reasonable that owners can afford.
> > > It should have been done months ago, before Obama came in.
> > > This whole mess is mostly a credit, banking, equitry, and mortgage
> > > crisis.
> >
> > You're hung up on the sustained thing. The point is to reduce the depths
> > of the downturn, quickening the recovery. Once that happens, the
> > "sustain" takes care of itself.
> >
>
> there is no impetus for sustained recovery.
> once a public works job is done, you are back
> to where you were before. The only lasting thing
> created is the infrastructure itself, and an improved road,
> as necessary as it may be, does not contribute to sustained
> recovery.

It doesn't matter on what the stimulus is spent, so long as it is spent.

http://www.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/fiscal_policy

Stephen

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Herbert Hoover said:

> When that loan is processed, the
> bank may literaly be creating new money to make that loan.

Guh?

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

> It doesn't matter on what the stimulus is spent, so long as it is spent.

Ten luxury cars vs. fifty regular cars? I'd say that makes a difference.

[Clyde Slick]

On 14 Feb, 21:39, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
> On 2009-02-14 15:54:53 -0500, Clyde Slick > said:
>
>
>
>
>
> > sure, it has purpose on its own merits, but the infrastructure
> > improvements are not a "road" to sustained economic recovery.
>
> > We should faciltate the creation of private sector jobs that will
> > permamanent jobs.
>
> > The stimulus package provides temporary funds to
> > *fix some things that are needed and wrok on other things that are
> > not.
> > But most of it will not stimulate sustained growth or activity.
>
> > The one bright spot I see is talk about finally buying
> > up the bad loans and rewriting them into something
> > reasonable that owners can afford.
> > It should have been done months ago, before Obama came in.
> > This whole mess is mostly a credit, banking, equitry, and mortgage
> > crisis.
>
> Clyde, there are multipliers at work here. Certain sorts of fiscal and
> monetary policies can have what are known as multiplier effects. One of
> the things you're trying to do is increase the velocity of the money
> supply. Think of that as increasing the numbers of people who get to
> ":touch" the money."
>
> The construction worker gets paid, buys groceries, goes to the mo vies,
> maybe takes his family out to eat (and so on). Each of those activities
> takes some of the money paid to the worker and passes it on t others,
> who in turn pass that on to others, hence the multiplier effect.
>

its like bouncing a ball, the bounce gets lower, and it ends.
the construction worker is out od a job again'in three or six months,
he stops buying stuff, the people who sold or made the stuff, there
income drops back down, and they stop buying stuff


> Do enough of this and one actually increases the money supply. How?
> Well, enough people buying from a supplier may cause that supplier to
> borrow mony to finance new inventory, When that loan is processed, the
> bank may literaly be creating new *money to make that loan.
>
\

so you have trouble with the concept tha a permanaent
increase in private sector activity is superior to temporary
government spending that incites a temporary ioncrease
in private sector activity.



> * * * * If you want a more detailed explanation, e-mail me. It can get fairly
> complicated. If you're really intent on rewriting mortgages, you need
> to explain what you mean by that. There is huge moral hazard lurking
> here. Remember that there's no point in rewriting a mortgage if the
> homeowner can't afford the new payments either. If you reduce the
> principal thereby making payments smaller, not only will there will be
> a huge tax bill due, but you're making fools out of all the people
> struggling to pay off their mortgages the old fashioned way.
>
> * * * * So what are you proposing? There are ideas out there, but I'd like to
> hear yours.
>


that's why it would have been better to start rewriting mortgages
three months
ago. the loans are a liability to the lenders, they are dragging the
institutions down.
Now, institutional and homeowner equity is even lower than it was
three months ago.

Oh, the people paying off their mortgages the old fashioned way are
also being hurt
by 20 to 25% loss in home values, on the margin, that means generally,
a range of 50 to 100%
loss of whatever home equity they HAD. Your argument is based on envy,
that someone gets
soemthing they don't. But not doing it drives everyone down.
Sort of like the idea behind communism, everyone has to suffer
greatly, so that nobody
has an advantage

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> MiNe 109 said:
>
> > It doesn't matter on what the stimulus is spent, so long as it is spent.
>
> Ten luxury cars vs. fifty regular cars? I'd say that makes a difference.

One can still choose more or less effective investments, which is why
stripping aid to states and unemployment assistance was particularly
insane.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> so you have trouble with the concept tha a permanaent
> increase in private sector activity is superior to temporary
> government spending that incites a temporary ioncrease
> in private sector activity.

That reads as if you're advocating permanent government ownership of
industry.

The stimulus is supposed to be temporary.

Stephen

[Clyde Slick]

On 14 Feb, 23:58, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > so you have trouble with the concept tha a permanaent
> > increase in private sector activity is superior to temporary
> > government spending that incites a temporary ioncrease
> > in private sector activity.
>
> That reads as if you're advocating permanent government ownership of
> industry.
>

put on your reading glasses.

> The stimulus is supposed to be temporary.
>

you are mixing up two different things, a temporary stimulus with a
stimulus
that has temporary results

what we should have is a temporary stimulus that begets long term
results.
That is, the thing to stimulate is long term activity, not short term
activity.

[Clyde Slick]

On 15 Feb, 00:01, MiNe 109 > wrote:
> In article
> >,
> Â*Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14 Feb, 21:48, MiNe 109 Â* > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > Â*Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 14 Feb, 16:03, MiNe 109 Â* > wrote:
> > > > > In article
> > > > > >,
> > > > > Â*Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 14 Feb, 12:18, George M. Middius > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > What could possibly be the purpose of building up the
> > > > > > > infrastructure?
> > > > > > > Other
> > > > > > > than providing paying jobs for unemployed people, that is.
>
> > > > > > > Think really hard about that one, Sacky. It may come to you.
> > > > > > > (Especially if
> > > > > > > you don't spend any time at Witless's house while thinking about
> > > > > > > it.)
>
> > > > > > sure, it has purpose on its own merits, but the infrastructure
> > > > > > improvements are not a "road" to sustained economic recovery.
>
> > > > > > We should faciltate the creation of private sector jobs that will
> > > > > > permamanent jobs.
>
> > > > > > The stimulus package provides temporary funds to
> > > > > > Â*fix some things that are needed and wrok on other things that are
> > > > > > not.
> > > > > > But most of it will not stimulate sustained growth or activity.
>
> > > > > > The one bright spot I see is talk about finally buying
> > > > > > up the bad loans and rewriting them into something
> > > > > > reasonable that owners can afford.
> > > > > > It should have been done months ago, before Obama came in.
> > > > > > This whole mess is mostly a credit, banking, equitry, and mortgage
> > > > > > crisis.
>
> > > > > You're hung up on the sustained thing. The point is to reduce the
> > > > > depths
> > > > > of the downturn, quickening the recovery. Once that happens, the
> > > > > "sustain" takes care of itself.
>
> > > > there is no impetus for sustained recovery.
> > > > once a public works job is done, you are back
> > > > to where you were before. The only lasting thing
> > > > created is the infrastructure itself, and an improved road,
> > > > as necessary as it may be, does not contribute to sustained
> > > > recovery.
>
> > > It doesn't matter on what the stimulus is spent, so long as it is spent.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 15, 1:40*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 14 Feb, 23:58, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > In article
> > >,
> > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > so you have trouble with the concept tha a permanaent
> > > increase in private sector activity is superior to temporary
> > > government spending that incites a temporary ioncrease
> > > in private sector activity.
>
> > That reads as if you're advocating permanent government ownership of
> > industry.
>
> put on your reading glasses.
>
> > The stimulus is supposed to be temporary.
>
> you are mixing up two different things, a temporary stimulus with a
> stimulus
> that has temporary results
>
> what we should have is a temporary stimulus that begets long term
> results.
> That is, the thing to stimulate is long term activity, not short term
> activity.

If I get 2% of the stimulus package I will spend my ass off for the
long term.

Meanwhile. aside from that what do you propose?

[Clyde Slick]

On 15 Feb, 01:54, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 1:40*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14 Feb, 23:58, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > >,
> > > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > so you have trouble with the concept tha a permanaent
> > > > increase in private sector activity is superior to temporary
> > > > government spending that incites a temporary ioncrease
> > > > in private sector activity.
>
> > > That reads as if you're advocating permanent government ownership of
> > > industry.
>
> > put on your reading glasses.
>
> > > The stimulus is supposed to be temporary.
>
> > you are mixing up two different things, a temporary stimulus with a
> > stimulus
> > that has temporary results
>
> > what we should have is a temporary stimulus that begets long term
> > results.
> > That is, the thing to stimulate is long term activity, not short term
> > activity.
>
> If I get 2% of the stimulus package I will spend my ass off for the
> long term.
>
> Meanwhile. aside from that what do you propose?-

a combination of the best of the Dem and Rep proposals

tax cuts, buying the toxic loans, moratorium on foreclosures,
extending unemploymnet benefits.

the market will bounce back up to some degree, restoring
soem of the ost individual and institutional equity losses.
a glut of homes will come off the market, housing
prices will increase somewhat, improving the owners'
equity positions, and the equity positions of lenders will be somewht
restored.
the equity positions and balance sheets of the finacial institutions
will look better, another force to drive
the market back up.

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:43:17 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>Herbert Hoover said:
>
>> When that loan is processed, the
>> bank may literaly be creating new money to make that loan.
>
>Guh?
>

It's a little hard to fathom, isn't it? Think of it this way: every
bank by virtue of its charter, is allowed to lend out a certain
multiple of its assets (i.e. desposits and equity).

Those loans represent "new" money that shows up on the bank's balance
sheet as liabilities and assets, but which have not been specifically
borrowed from the Fed, for example, or raised in a new equity
offering. These loans increase both the money supply and the velocity
of money


Increases in market cap, for example, can dramatically affect a bank's
ability to lend. In effect, it's an increase in the money supply
because increases in market cap allow the bank more room to make
loans.

It's also why the banks are in such trouble. Market caps go up, but
they also come down. When they come down, they throw the ratio of
assets to liabilities way out of whack, hence "technical insolvency."

It's not quite the same as The Treasury printing more money, but in
practice, it's pretty damn close.

Herbert Hoover 1928-1932
"It Was All Franklin's Fault"

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:55:08 -0800 (PST), Clyde Slick
> wrote:


<snipped for brevity>

>> Do enough of this and one actually increases the money supply. How?
>> Well, enough people buying from a supplier may cause that supplier to
>> borrow mony to finance new inventory, When that loan is processed, the
>> bank may literaly be creating new *money to make that loan.
>>
>\
>
>so you have trouble with the concept tha a permanaent
>increase in private sector activity is superior to temporary
>government spending that incites a temporary ioncrease
>in private sector activity.


er........?????????????

Sure. Fine. Now show me how you intend to increase private sector
investment and spending. No one's quibbling that private sector
spending ain't grand. They're quibbling that there's no effing way to
do it right now. Solve that, and we'll all love and respect you,
Clyde.
>
>
>
>> * * * * If you want a more detailed explanation, e-mail me. It can get fairly
>> complicated. If you're really intent on rewriting mortgages, you need
>> to explain what you mean by that. There is huge moral hazard lurking
>> here. Remember that there's no point in rewriting a mortgage if the
>> homeowner can't afford the new payments either. If you reduce the
>> principal thereby making payments smaller, not only will there will be
>> a huge tax bill due, but you're making fools out of all the people
>> struggling to pay off their mortgages the old fashioned way.
>>
>> * * * * So what are you proposing? There are ideas out there, but I'd like to
>> hear yours.
>>
>
>
>that's why it would have been better to start rewriting mortgages
>three months
>ago. the loans are a liability to the lenders, they are dragging the
>institutions down.
>Now, institutional and homeowner equity is even lower than it was
>three months ago.

What do you mean by "rewriting mortgages? If you'd like, I can post
statistics showing that foreclosures are increasing on rewritten
mortgages (it's sadly true). People are in foreclosure because they've
lost their jobs. At that point, it doesn't matter how you rewrite the
mortgage. They still can't pay it.
>
>Oh, the people paying off their mortgages the old fashioned way are
>also being hurt
>by 20 to 25% loss in home values, on the margin, that means generally,
>a range of 50 to 100%
>loss of whatever home equity they HAD. Your argument is based on envy,
>that someone gets
>soemthing they don't.

??????????????

Er.....no. It's based on the principle of Moral Hazard, and it's based
on political realities. You're beginning to shade over to the 2 pid
side of town now.



>But not doing it drives everyone down.
>Sort of like the idea behind communism, everyone has to suffer
>greatly, so that nobody
>has an advantage


?????????????????

So far you haven't explained what you mean by "rewriting mortgages."
Until you're clear on that, there's nothing to respond to.
Herbert Hoover 1928-1932
"It Was All Franklin's Fault"

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 15, 8:24*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 15 Feb, 01:54, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 1:40*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 14 Feb, 23:58, MiNe 109 * > wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
> > > > *Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > so you have trouble with the concept tha a permanaent
> > > > > increase in private sector activity is superior to temporary
> > > > > government spending that incites a temporary ioncrease
> > > > > in private sector activity.
>
> > > > That reads as if you're advocating permanent government ownership of
> > > > industry.
>
> > > put on your reading glasses.
>
> > > > The stimulus is supposed to be temporary.
>
> > > you are mixing up two different things, a temporary stimulus with a
> > > stimulus
> > > that has temporary results
>
> > > what we should have is a temporary stimulus that begets long term
> > > results.
> > > That is, the thing to stimulate is long term activity, not short term
> > > activity.
>
> > If I get 2% of the stimulus package I will spend my ass off for the
> > long term.
>
> > Meanwhile. aside from that what do you propose?-
>
> a combination of the best of the Dem and Rep proposals
>
> tax cuts, buying the toxic loans, moratorium on foreclosures,
> extending unemploymnet benefits.

Um, are you sure these are all the best?

> the market will bounce back up to some degree, restoring
> soem of the ost individual and institutional equity losses.
> a glut of homes will come off the market, housing
> prices will increase somewhat, improving the owners'
> equity positions, and the equity positions of lenders will be somewht
> restored.
> the equity positions and balance sheets of the finacial institutions
> will look better, another force to drive
> the market back up.

Has the CBO done an estimate on this? 2pid will need to know.

[Clyde Slick]

On 15 Feb, 18:25, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:55:08 -0800 (PST), Clyde Slick
>
> > wrote:
>
> <snipped for brevity>
>
> >> Do enough of this and one actually increases the money supply. How?
> >> Well, enough people buying from a supplier may cause that supplier to
> >> borrow mony to finance new inventory, When that loan is processed, the
> >> bank may literaly be creating new *money to make that loan.
>
> >\
>
> >so you have trouble with the concept tha a permanaent
> >increase in private sector activity is superior to temporary
> >government spending that incites a temporary ioncrease
> >in private sector activity.
>
> er........?????????????
>
> Sure. Fine. Now show me how you intend to increase private sector
> investment and spending. No one's quibbling that private sector
> spending ain't grand. They're quibbling that there's no effing way to
> do it right now. Solve that, and we'll all love and respect you,
> Clyde.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> * * * * If you want a more detailed explanation, e-mail me. It can get fairly
> >> complicated. If you're really intent on rewriting mortgages, you need
> >> to explain what you mean by that. There is huge moral hazard lurking
> >> here. Remember that there's no point in rewriting a mortgage if the
> >> homeowner can't afford the new payments either. If you reduce the
> >> principal thereby making payments smaller, not only will there will be
> >> a huge tax bill due, but you're making fools out of all the people
> >> struggling to pay off their mortgages the old fashioned way.
>
> >> * * * * So what are you proposing? There are ideas out there, but I'd like to
> >> hear yours.
>
> >that's why it would have been better to start rewriting mortgages
> >three months
> >ago. the loans are a liability to the lenders, they are dragging the
> >institutions down.
> >Now, institutional and *homeowner equity is even lower than it was
> >three months ago.
>
> What do you mean by "rewriting mortgages? If you'd like, I can post
> statistics showing that foreclosures are increasing on rewritten
> mortgages (it's sadly true). People are in foreclosure because they've
> lost their jobs. At that point, it doesn't matter how you rewrite the
> mortgage. They still can't pay it.
>
>
>
> >Oh, the people paying off their mortgages the old fashioned way are
> >also being hurt
> >by 20 to 25% loss in home values, on the margin, that means generally,
> >a range of 50 to 100%
> >loss of whatever home equity they HAD. Your argument is based on envy,
> >that someone gets
> >soemthing they don't.
>
> ??????????????
>
> Er.....no. It's based on the principle of Moral Hazard, and it's based
> on political realities. You're beginning to shade over to the 2 pid
> side of town now.
>
> >But not doing it drives everyone down.
> >Sort of like the idea behind communism, everyone has to suffer
> >greatly, so that nobody
> >has an advantage
>
> ?????????????????
>
> So far you haven't explained what you mean by "rewriting mortgages."
> Until you're clear on that, there's nothing to respond to.
> Herbert Hoover 1928-1932
> "It Was All Franklin's Fault"-

basically, 30 year fixed rate at market rates as if
the borrowers had a decent credit rating.
the mortgages have to be extinguished, and we
just can't give them their homes for nothting, the
indebtedness has to be replaced with new indebtedness that is not
toxic.
I know it gives them an undeserved break, but the much more
important matters are the equity positions of the lenders themselves,
and restoirng or stabilizong the equity positions of ALL homeowners in
the US.

foreclosures are kiliing the market, wiping out BOTH the owners
equity
position and the mortgage lenders institutional equity positions.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 16, 12:42*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 15 Feb, 18:25, Herbert Hoover > wrote:

> > What do you mean by "rewriting mortgages? If you'd like, I can post
> > statistics showing that foreclosures are increasing on rewritten
> > mortgages (it's sadly true). People are in foreclosure because they've
> > lost their jobs. At that point, it doesn't matter how you rewrite the
> > mortgage. They still can't pay it.

(This is two. I'm going to emphasize the second part of President
Hoover's statement, but it's still only two.)

"People are in foreclosure because they've lost their jobs. At that
point, it doesn't matter how you rewrite the mortgage. They still
can't pay it."

> > So far you haven't explained what you mean by "rewriting mortgages."
> > Until you're clear on that, there's nothing to respond to.

(This is also two. We now have two plus two.)

> basically, 30 year fixed rate at market rates as if
> the borrowers had a decent credit rating.
> the mortgages have to be extinguished, and we
> just can't give them their homes for nothting, the
> indebtedness has to be replaced with new indebtedness that is not
> toxic.
> I know it gives them an undeserved break, but the much more
> important matters are the equity positions of the lenders themselves,
> and restoirng or stabilizong the equity positions of ALL homeowners in
> the US.
>
> foreclosures are kiliing the market, wiping out BOTH the owners
> equity
> position and the mortgage lenders institutional equity positions.

(This equals five. Start over and show your work. If you have trouble
talk to 2pid. He's a 'genius' at everything.)

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2009 21:42:37 -0800 (PST), Clyde Slick
> wrote:

>> So far you haven't explained what you mean by "rewriting mortgages."
>> Until you're clear on that, there's nothing to respond to.
>> Herbert Hoover 1928-1932
>> "It Was All Franklin's Fault"-
>
>basically, 30 year fixed rate at market rates as if
>the borrowers had a decent credit rating.
>the mortgages have to be extinguished, and we
>just can't give them their homes for nothting, the
>indebtedness has to be replaced with new indebtedness that is not
>toxic.

I agree with this as far as it goes, Clyde. It's just that I think
this may be more importasnt politically than economically. The best
proposal of this sort I've seen proposes a new form of mortgage
combining both debt and equity provisions.

In such a deal, the lien holder will get a certain percentage of
equity in the home in return for lowering the principal and payments
of the foreclosed owner. When the home is sold, if the market has
recovered, the lien holder will get back some or all of the money
originally loaned. If not, the loss is no worse than it would have
been

>I know it gives them an undeserved break, but the much more
>important matters are the equity positions of the lenders themselves,
>and restoirng or stabilizong the equity positions of ALL homeowners in
>the US.
>

I support this as far as it goes. I'm not concerned with fairness so
much as I am in stabalizing the financial system and removing as much
as possible the looming threat of political instability.

Herbert Hoover 1928-1932
"It Was All Franklin's Fault"

[Clyde Slick]

On 16 Feb, 01:34, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 12:42*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 15 Feb, 18:25, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
> > > What do you mean by "rewriting mortgages? If you'd like, I can post
> > > statistics showing that foreclosures are increasing on rewritten
> > > mortgages (it's sadly true). People are in foreclosure because they've
> > > lost their jobs. At that point, it doesn't matter how you rewrite the
> > > mortgage. They still can't pay it.
>
> (This is two. I'm going to emphasize the second part of President
> Hoover's statement, but it's still only two.)
>
> "People are in foreclosure because they've lost their jobs. At that
> point, it doesn't matter how you rewrite the mortgage. They still
> can't pay it."
>
> > > So far you haven't explained what you mean by "rewriting mortgages."
> > > Until you're clear on that, there's nothing to respond to.
>
> (This is also two. We now have two plus two.)
>
> > basically, 30 year fixed rate at market rates as if
> > the borrowers had a decent credit rating.
> > the mortgages have to be extinguished, and we
> > just can't give them their homes for nothting, the
> > indebtedness has to be replaced with new indebtedness that is not
> > toxic.
> > I know it gives them an undeserved break, but the much more
> > important matters are the equity positions of the lenders themselves,
> > and restoirng or stabilizong the equity positions of ALL homeowners in
> > the US.
>
> > foreclosures are kiliing the market, wiping out BOTH the owners
> > equity
> > position and the mortgage lenders institutional equity positions.
>
> (This equals five. Start over and show your work. If you have trouble
> talk to 2pid. He's a 'genius' at everything.)

some people are in forclosures because of balloons and
ARMS. The foreclosure binge started before the job loss binge.
Foreclosures started hitting in the late summer/fall of 2007.
I was selling a house in California, I alot of foreclosures
hit the market just as I sold.in September.
BY then, the local market was already down 15%.

The Feds should have been liquidating mortgages months ago, before
all the layoffs of the past 30 days.

[Clyde Slick]

On 16 Feb, 08:08, Herbert Hoover > wrote:

> I support this as far as it goes. I'm not concerned with fairness so
> much as I am in stabalizing the financial system and removing as much
> as possible the looming threat of political instability.
>

that we can agree on.


> Herbert Hoover 1928-1932
> "It Was All Franklin's Fault"

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Herbert Hoover said:

> In such a deal, the lien holder will get a certain percentage of
> equity in the home in return for lowering the principal and payments
> of the foreclosed owner. When the home is sold, if the market has
> recovered, the lien holder will get back some or all of the money
> originally loaned. If not, the loss is no worse than it would have
> been

More Big Brotherism. What will the "free market" republicans say?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 16, 8:54*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 16 Feb, 01:34, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 12:42*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 15 Feb, 18:25, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
> > > > What do you mean by "rewriting mortgages? If you'd like, I can post
> > > > statistics showing that foreclosures are increasing on rewritten
> > > > mortgages (it's sadly true). People are in foreclosure because they've
> > > > lost their jobs. At that point, it doesn't matter how you rewrite the
> > > > mortgage. They still can't pay it.
>
> > (This is two. I'm going to emphasize the second part of President
> > Hoover's statement, but it's still only two.)
>
> > "People are in foreclosure because they've lost their jobs. At that
> > point, it doesn't matter how you rewrite the mortgage. They still
> > can't pay it."
>
> > > > So far you haven't explained what you mean by "rewriting mortgages."
> > > > Until you're clear on that, there's nothing to respond to.
>
> > (This is also two. We now have two plus two.)
>
> > > basically, 30 year fixed rate at market rates as if
> > > the borrowers had a decent credit rating.
> > > the mortgages have to be extinguished, and we
> > > just can't give them their homes for nothting, the
> > > indebtedness has to be replaced with new indebtedness that is not
> > > toxic.
> > > I know it gives them an undeserved break, but the much more
> > > important matters are the equity positions of the lenders themselves,
> > > and restoirng or stabilizong the equity positions of ALL homeowners in
> > > the US.
>
> > > foreclosures are kiliing the market, wiping out BOTH the owners
> > > equity
> > > position and the mortgage lenders institutional equity positions.
>
> > (This equals five. Start over and show your work. If you have trouble
> > talk to 2pid. He's a 'genius' at everything.)
>
> some people are in forclosures because of balloons and
> ARMS. The foreclosure binge started before the job loss binge.

True, but the point is that the situatioon has changed and it is still
changing.

Minnesota is officially creeping toward 8% unemployment. Since they
don't count those who have given up that number is actually more like
10-12% IMO.

> Foreclosures started hitting in the late summer/fall of 2007.
> I was selling a house in California, I alot of foreclosures
> hit the market just as I sold.in September.
> BY then, the local market was already down 15%.
>
> The Feds should have been liquidating mortgages months ago, before
> all the layoffs of the past 30 days.

Layoffs, buyouts and forms of job losses (delayed hiring,
cancellations and freezes, etc.) have been happening for much longer
than 30 days. Perhaps if they had done as you say then it may have
done some good. It appears that this is another sign of how
shortsighted and ignorant bushie's crew was.

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 12:38:48 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>Herbert Hoover said:
>
>> In such a deal, the lien holder will get a certain percentage of
>> equity in the home in return for lowering the principal and payments
>> of the foreclosed owner. When the home is sold, if the market has
>> recovered, the lien holder will get back some or all of the money
>> originally loaned. If not, the loss is no worse than it would have
>> been
>
>More Big Brotherism. What will the "free market" republicans say?
>

George, I don't think this qualifies as "big brotherism." It's a
perfect analogy to a frequent happening in capitalism. Bondholders are
often forced to accept equity in exchange for their bonds when a
company is threatened with liquidation. It is, IOW, a free market
solution.

No one likes it much, but then anything is better than *total* loss.

Herbert Hoover 1928-1932
"It Was All Franklin's Fault"

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:43:06 -0800 (PST), ScottW
> wrote:

>On Feb 15, 3:19*pm, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:43:17 -0500, George M. Middius
>>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Herbert Hoover said:
>>
>> >> *When that loan is processed, the
>> >> bank may literaly be creating new *money to make that loan.
>>
>> >Guh?
>>
>> It's a little hard to fathom, isn't it? Think of it this way: every
>> bank by virtue of its charter, is allowed to lend out a certain
>> multiple of its assets (i.e. desposits and equity).
>>
>> Those loans represent "new" money that shows up on the bank's balance
>> sheet as liabilities and assets, but which have not been specifically
>> borrowed from the Fed, for example, or raised in a new equity
>> offering. These loans increase both the money supply and the velocity
>> of money
>>
>> Increases in market cap, for example, can dramatically affect a bank's
>> ability to lend. In effect, it's an increase in the money supply
>> because increases in market cap allow the bank more room to make
>> loans.
>>
>> It's also why the banks are in such trouble. Market caps go up, but
>> they also come down. When they come down, they throw the ratio of
>> assets to liabilities way out of whack, hence "technical insolvency."
>
>A situation "mark to market" dramatically aggravates.
>
>ScottW

So what, you imbecile! What port of your liquified brain is so damned
eager to save the bankers at the expense of the country?

If you don't "mark-to-market" you let the same folk who managed their
way into this mess assign any damn value they want to their toxic
assets. You, of course, think this makes perfect sense. I hope you end
up buying all this gunk for your own retirement plan. I can't think of
a happier ending.

You are easily the dumbest Republican I've ever met.

There isn't one financial writer on the right making this
argument, all of whom want the banks to go bankrupt (as opposed to
Nationalization, although even here, some are beginning to see that's
the only sane course) There's not one on the left, either, for that
matter, who thinks taking away mark-to-market's a good thing. We can,
though, except all those who have some connection to the banks
including Goldman Sachs. They're desperate for such a switch. See
Robert Rubin for a prime example. We can depend on 2pid to go where
everyone else would be too humiliated to go.

Herbert Hoover 1928-1932
"It Was All Franklin's Fault"

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Herbert Hoover said:

> >> In such a deal, the lien holder will get a certain percentage of
> >> equity in the home in return for lowering the principal and payments
> >> of the foreclosed owner. When the home is sold, if the market has
> >> recovered, the lien holder will get back some or all of the money
> >> originally loaned. If not, the loss is no worse than it would have
> >> been
> >
> >More Big Brotherism. What will the "free market" republicans say?

> George, I don't think this qualifies as "big brotherism." It's a
> perfect analogy to a frequent happening in capitalism. Bondholders are
> often forced to accept equity in exchange for their bonds when a
> company is threatened with liquidation. It is, IOW, a free market
> solution.

Let's wait until the lenders who are also equity holders start demanding
home inspections every quarter.

> No one likes it much, but then anything is better than *total* loss.

Did you see Sununu on Stewart's show last week? What a bozo. He didn't even
make an effort to sugar-coat his party propaganda.

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 13:28:38 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>Herbert Hoover said:
>
>> >> In such a deal, the lien holder will get a certain percentage of
>> >> equity in the home in return for lowering the principal and payments
>> >> of the foreclosed owner. When the home is sold, if the market has
>> >> recovered, the lien holder will get back some or all of the money
>> >> originally loaned. If not, the loss is no worse than it would have
>> >> been
>> >
>> >More Big Brotherism. What will the "free market" republicans say?
>
>> George, I don't think this qualifies as "big brotherism." It's a
>> perfect analogy to a frequent happening in capitalism. Bondholders are
>> often forced to accept equity in exchange for their bonds when a
>> company is threatened with liquidation. It is, IOW, a free market
>> solution.
>
>Let's wait until the lenders who are also equity holders start demanding
>home inspections every quarter.
>
If that right is granted in the contracts, it's a free-market right.
Buyers and lenders usually require they have access to the books if an
installment contract of some kind is part of the deal.

>> No one likes it much, but then anything is better than *total* loss.
>
>Did you see Sununu on Stewart's show last week? What a bozo. He didn't even
>make an effort to sugar-coat his party propaganda.
>

I didn't. Fill me in. I was on the road and not watching any tv.



Herbert Hoover 1928-1932
"It Was All Franklin's Fault"

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
Herbert Hoover > wrote:

> >Did you see Sununu on Stewart's show last week? What a bozo. He didn't even
> >make an effort to sugar-coat his party propaganda.
> >
>
> I didn't. Fill me in. I was on the road and not watching any tv.

Here ya go!:

<http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=218381&title=john-
sununu>

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 11:07:12 -0800 (PST), ScottW
> wrote:

>On Feb 16, 10:11*am, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 09:43:06 -0800 (PST), ScottW
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >On Feb 15, 3:19*pm, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 22:43:17 -0500, George M. Middius
>>
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >Herbert Hoover said:
>>
>> >> >> *When that loan is processed, the
>> >> >> bank may literaly be creating new *money to make that loan.
>>
>> >> >Guh?
>>
>> >> It's a little hard to fathom, isn't it? Think of it this way: every
>> >> bank by virtue of its charter, is allowed to lend out a certain
>> >> multiple of its assets (i.e. desposits and equity).
>>
>> >> Those loans represent "new" money that shows up on the bank's balance
>> >> sheet as liabilities and assets, but which have not been specifically
>> >> borrowed from the Fed, for example, or raised in a new equity
>> >> offering. These loans increase both the money supply and the velocity
>> >> of money
>>
>> >> Increases in market cap, for example, can dramatically affect a bank's
>> >> ability to lend. In effect, it's an increase in the money supply
>> >> because increases in market cap allow the bank more room to make
>> >> loans.
>>
>> >> It's also why the banks are in such trouble. Market caps go up, but
>> >> they also come down. When they come down, they throw the ratio of
>> >> assets to liabilities way out of whack, hence "technical insolvency."
>>
>> >A situation "mark to market" dramatically aggravates.
>>
>> >ScottW
>>
>> So what, you imbecile! What port of your liquified brain is so damned
>> eager to save the bankers at the expense of the country?
>
> "You can't solve the banking crisis without solving the economic one
>and vice-versa. Each side will undermine the other unless they're
>reasonably in consonance."
>
> There has to another way to allow banks to fairly value their
>assetts perhaps based on cash flow rather than the valuations
>placed by an illiquid market.

Scott, how does one reach fair value if you're allowing the foxes to
price the chickens, so to speak?
>
>As many have written, the market currently has no way to value
>these securities either.
>
Which is why they're worthless right now, and why the banks are
insolvent. This is no different from you having used stocks as assets
to guarantee your loan, and the stocks' value goes down and the bank
hauls you in.

Neither you nor the bank should get a break here. That's what
capitalism is about.

>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122186515562158671.html
>
>"Yale finance Prof. Gary Gorton wrote in a paper presented last month
>at the Federal Reserve's summer symposium: "With no liquidity and no
>market prices, the accounting practice of 'marking-to-market' became
>highly problematic and resulted in massive write-downs based on fire-
>sale prices and estimates."
>
>These write-downs, based on accounting standards, can jeopardize
>balance sheets and solvency -- much like a spreading contagion. In
>effect, a single bank's fire sale can decrease the "regulatory
>capital" (or the total dollar value of assets that government
>regulations require banks and other financial institutions to keep as
>a reserve to immediately make good on their obligations to depositors
>and other creditors) of others. So "partly as a result of GAAP capital
>declines, banks are selling . . . billions of dollars of assets -- to
>'clean up their balance sheets,'" notes Mr. Gorton, creating a
>"downward spiral of prices, marking down -- selling -- marking down
>again."
>

Yes. So what? In fact, that's what deleveraging is all about.
>>
>> If you don't "mark-to-market" you let the same folk who managed their
>> way into this mess assign any damn value they want to their toxic
>> assets.
>
>And obviously all mortgage backed securities are not toxic.
>They are only toxic because they have no market for them
>in todays climate, but in reality the cash flow and equity behind
>them is down, but they aren't worthless.

Maybe. That's what nationalization is all about. If we have to buy
this junk, we should own the damn bank. We take the risk? We get the
equity.

Now, if you support that idea, we're in perfect agreement.
>
>> You, of course, think this makes perfect sense. I hope you end
>> up buying all this gunk for your own retirement plan. I can't think of
>> a happier ending.
>>
>> You are easily the dumbest Republican I've ever met.
>>
>> * * * * There isn't one financial writer on the right making this
>> argument,
>
> What does right or left have to do with this?

Well....actually a lot. The freshwater school (The Austrians
and the Milton Friedman Monetarists) economists have provided the
theoretical framework for Reagan's massive break with the previous
Democratic administrations (think Art Laffler and the supply siders).
The Sal****er economists (meaning the guys on the coasts) are pretty
much the liberal economic thinkers.

Financial analysts tend to flavor their arguments according to
their underlying principles, which only makes sense. Think of The WSJ
editorial page: pure monetarists a la Friedman.

What's been different about this crisis is that financial
writers are surprisingly in agreement on a lot of this stuff,
regardless of politics. However, the political groups are confounding
everyone and ignoring most of the analysts and economists to forge
their own "solution" (otherwise known as tossing the country into a
ditch).


> This is about the best way to resolve a crisis and
>mark to market continues to be an impediment to resolution
>and is, in fact, continuing to aggravate the problem.
>Meanwhile idiots continue to bitch that the government overpaid for
>bank assetts....well if the idea is to improve bank solvency,
>paying market price isn't going to do that.

You're missing the point, per usual. The government *did* overpay for
assets. Why should Buffet get a better deal than the taxpayers?

No. Paying market price won't make the banks solvent, which is why we
should simply buy them. Why should the taxpayers simply give money tyo
shareholders and protect the bondholders at the taxpayer's expense?

How is that a "free-market" solution?
>
>> all of whom want the banks to go bankrupt (as opposed to
>> Nationalization, although even here, some are beginning to see that's
>> the only sane course) *There's not one on the left, either, for that
>> matter, who thinks taking away mark-to-market's a good thing.
>
>You act like that taking away means leaving no regulation to
>replace it. Leaping to ridiculous conclusions is your operating mode.

Actually, no regulation is possible in any practical sense if you
simply recapitalize without taking ownership.


>Meanwhile, every bank firesale damages every other bank with
>mark to market consequences.
>
>ScottW

You're making the argument for nationalization very nicely.


Herbert Hoover 1928-1932
"It Was All Franklin's Fault"

[Clyde Slick]

On 16 Feb, 13:04, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 8:54*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 16 Feb, 01:34, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
>
> > > wrote:
> > > On Feb 16, 12:42*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 15 Feb, 18:25, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
> > > > > What do you mean by "rewriting mortgages? If you'd like, I can post
> > > > > statistics showing that foreclosures are increasing on rewritten
> > > > > mortgages (it's sadly true). People are in foreclosure because they've
> > > > > lost their jobs. At that point, it doesn't matter how you rewrite the
> > > > > mortgage. They still can't pay it.
>
> > > (This is two. I'm going to emphasize the second part of President
> > > Hoover's statement, but it's still only two.)
>
> > > "People are in foreclosure because they've lost their jobs. At that
> > > point, it doesn't matter how you rewrite the mortgage. They still
> > > can't pay it."
>
> > > > > So far you haven't explained what you mean by "rewriting mortgages."
> > > > > Until you're clear on that, there's nothing to respond to.
>
> > > (This is also two. We now have two plus two.)
>
> > > > basically, 30 year fixed rate at market rates as if
> > > > the borrowers had a decent credit rating.
> > > > the mortgages have to be extinguished, and we
> > > > just can't give them their homes for nothting, the
> > > > indebtedness has to be replaced with new indebtedness that is not
> > > > toxic.
> > > > I know it gives them an undeserved break, but the much more
> > > > important matters are the equity positions of the lenders themselves,
> > > > and restoirng or stabilizong the equity positions of ALL homeowners in
> > > > the US.
>
> > > > foreclosures are kiliing the market, wiping out BOTH the owners
> > > > equity
> > > > position and the mortgage lenders institutional equity positions.
>
> > > (This equals five. Start over and show your work. If you have trouble
> > > talk to 2pid. He's a 'genius' at everything.)
>
> > some people are in forclosures because of balloons and
> > ARMS. The foreclosure binge started before the job loss binge.
>
> True, but the point is that the situatioon has changed and it is still
> changing.
>
> Minnesota is officially creeping toward 8% unemployment. Since they
> don't count those who have given up that number is actually more like
> 10-12% IMO.
>
> > Foreclosures started hitting in the late summer/fall of 2007.
> > I was selling a house in California, I alot of foreclosures
> > hit the market just as I sold.in September.
> > BY then, the local market was already down 15%.
>
> > The Feds should have been liquidating mortgages months ago, before
> > all the layoffs of the past 30 days.
>
> Layoffs, buyouts and forms of job losses (delayed hiring,
> cancellations and freezes, etc.) have been happening for much longer
> than 30 days. Perhaps if they had done as you say then it may have
> done some good. It appears that this is another sign of how
> shortsighted and ignorant bushie's crew was.-

some reps tried to stop the bad loan practices een earleir, bit
were thwarted by Dems inc Frank and Waters

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Herbert Hoover said:

> >Let's wait until the lenders who are also equity holders start demanding
> >home inspections every quarter.
> >
> If that right is granted in the contracts, it's a free-market right.
> Buyers and lenders usually require they have access to the books if an
> installment contract of some kind is part of the deal.

If it did happen, wouldn't you agree Big Brother was indahouse?

> >Did you see Sununu on Stewart's show last week? What a bozo. He didn't even
> >make an effort to sugar-coat his party propaganda.

> I didn't. Fill me in. I was on the road and not watching any tv.

<http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/index.jhtml?episodeId=218376>

To see the Sununu interview, drag the slider to the halfway point. I'm not
saying it's edifying. The guy comes off as a dogmatic political hack.
(Scottie, if you're not too busy at "work", please don't bay too loudly when
you watch it.)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 16, 3:22*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 16 Feb, 13:04, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
> > wrote:
> > On Feb 16, 8:54*am, Clyde Slick > wrote:

> > > The Feds should have been liquidating mortgages months ago, before
> > > all the layoffs of the past 30 days.
>
> > Layoffs, buyouts and forms of job losses (delayed hiring,
> > cancellations and freezes, etc.) have been happening for much longer
> > than 30 days. Perhaps if they had done as you say then it may have
> > done some good. It appears that this is another sign of how
> > shortsighted and ignorant bushie's crew was.-
>
> some reps tried to stop the bad loan practices een earleir, bit
> were thwarted by Dems inc Frank and Waters

Even if so it would have been too late at that point.

I'm still waiting for the trickle-down of the earlier tax cuts. Have
you seen any?

[Arny Krueger]

"Herbert Hoover" > wrote in message


> What do you mean by "rewriting mortgages? If you'd like,
> I can post statistics showing that foreclosures are
> increasing on rewritten mortgages (it's sadly true).

True fact.

> People are in foreclosure because they've lost their
> jobs. At that point, it doesn't matter how you rewrite
> the mortgage. They still can't pay it.

Questionable hypothesis.

Mortgages are often rewritten because the person getting the mortgage has
been promised a significant cash-in-hand bonus if they let the agent rewrite
the mortgage. Of course the agent isn't really lending the money, he's just
collecting a commission for writing a *new* mortgage.

The core fault is the degree of separation of the functions of writing the
mortgage, approving the mortgage, and the providing the money.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> I'm still waiting for the trickle-down of the earlier tax cuts. Have
> you seen any?

Those were express-piped to Goose Puke.

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:09:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Herbert Hoover" > wrote in message

>
>> What do you mean by "rewriting mortgages? If you'd like,
>> I can post statistics showing that foreclosures are
>> increasing on rewritten mortgages (it's sadly true).
>
>True fact.
>
>> People are in foreclosure because they've lost their
>> jobs. At that point, it doesn't matter how you rewrite
>> the mortgage. They still can't pay it.
>
>Questionable hypothesis.

No. it's not.
>
>Mortgages are often rewritten because the person getting the mortgage has
>been promised a significant cash-in-hand bonus if they let the agent rewrite
>the mortgage. Of course the agent isn't really lending the money, he's just
>collecting a commission for writing a *new* mortgage.
>

I should shoot myself fopr responding, but.....

Those rewritten mortgages that you're describing have nothing to do
with foreclosures. You're describing the behavior that caused the
crisis in the first place.

These rewritings may have led to eventual foreclosure, but the sortsd
of rewritten mortgages you're referring to don't happen *after*
foreclosure.


>The core fault is the degree of separation of the functions of writing the
>mortgage, approving the mortgage, and the providing the money.

Amazingly wrong in every particular. That is *not* how it works (or
worked).

The originating bank write, approves, and pays the money. Period. End
of story. They may have used an outside salesforce to develop the
applicant and bring him thither to the crushing mill, but it's the
originating bank who approves the mortgage and releases the money.

*THEN* they get rid of the liability by securitizing and selling the
resulting paper, thus getting it off their books.


I'm *not* going to argue about this, Arnold. Feel free to cite
whatever the hell you want, but it had better be chapter and verse,
because what you've written is not how it happens. perhaps you just
misspoke........






>
Herbert Hoover 1928-1932
"It Was All Franklin's Fault"

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

<snipped for brevity>
>>
>> Layoffs, buyouts and forms of job losses (delayed hiring,
>> cancellations and freezes, etc.) have been happening for much longer
>> than 30 days. Perhaps if they had done as you say then it may have
>> done some good. It appears that this is another sign of how
>> shortsighted and ignorant bushie's crew was.-
>
>some reps tried to stop the bad loan practices een earleir, bit
>were thwarted by Dems inc Frank and Waters

Right.

Ole Barney stopped them dead in their tracks. It's the Democrats'
fault. Those reps and banks didn't want the money, the fees, the fancy
cars, the houses, the vacations, the millions in the bank. They were
ethically offended and going to stop until that old meany-pants Barney
Franks stopped them.

Right.

Of course.

Jeebus!!!

<sigh>



Herbert Hoover 1928-1932
"It Was All Franklin's Fault"

[hophead]

In article >, HHoover1928
@gmail.com says...

> I'm *not* going to argue about this, Arnold. Feel free to cite
> whatever the hell you want, but it had better be chapter and verse,
> because what you've written is not how it happens. perhaps you just
> misspoke........

C'mon Herbert. You're talking to the Krooborg: all The Beast wants to do
is argue. Best to ignore it and hope it goes away.

[Clyde Slick]

On 16 Feb, 17:49, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
> <snipped for brevity>
>
>
>
> >> Layoffs, buyouts and forms of job losses (delayed hiring,
> >> cancellations and freezes, etc.) have been happening for much longer
> >> than 30 days. Perhaps if they had done as you say then it may have
> >> done some good. It appears that this is another sign of how
> >> shortsighted and ignorant bushie's crew was.-
>
> >some reps tried to stop the bad loan practices een earleir, bit
> >were thwarted by Dems inc Frank and Waters
>
> Right.
>
> Ole Barney stopped them dead in their tracks. It's the Democrats'
> fault. Those reps and banks didn't want the money, the fees, the fancy
> cars, the houses, the vacations, the millions in the bank. They were
> ethically offended and going to stop until that old meany-pants Barney
> Franks stopped them.
>
> Right.
>
> Of course.
>
> Jeebus!!!
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * <sigh>
>
> Herbert Hoover 1928-1932
> "It Was All Franklin's Fault"

the committee hearings are on tape, look them up

[Clyde Slick]

On 16 Feb, 18:05, hophead > wrote:
> In article >, HHoover1928
> @gmail.com says...
>
> > I'm *not* going to argue about this, Arnold. Feel free to cite
> > whatever the hell you want, but it had better be chapter and verse,
> > because what you've written is not how it happens. perhaps you just
> > misspoke........
>
> C'mon Herbert. You're talking to the Krooborg: all The Beast wants to do
> is argue. Best to ignore it and hope it goes away.

or feed it a massive amount of Ex-lax and wait for the meltdown.
Enjoy!!!

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

hophead said:

> > I'm *not* going to argue about this, Arnold.

> C'mon Herbert. You're talking to the Krooborg: all The Beast wants to do
> is argue. Best to ignore it and hope it goes away.

Hear, hear. Ignore Turdborg and hope it goes away.



--

"Music is irrelavant to audio." -- A. Krooger, RAO, 2005

[hophead]

In article <b8990ecc-2ee2-4480-a92e-
>,
says...

> or feed it a massive amount of Ex-lax and wait for the meltdown.
> Enjoy!!!

Erm, doesn't that normally happen to The Beast with or without laxative?

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:34:05 -0800 (PST), Clyde Slick
> wrote:

>On 16 Feb, 17:49, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
>> <snipped for brevity>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> Layoffs, buyouts and forms of job losses (delayed hiring,
>> >> cancellations and freezes, etc.) have been happening for much longer
>> >> than 30 days. Perhaps if they had done as you say then it may have
>> >> done some good. It appears that this is another sign of how
>> >> shortsighted and ignorant bushie's crew was.-
>>
>> >some reps tried to stop the bad loan practices een earleir, bit
>> >were thwarted by Dems inc Frank and Waters
>>
>> Right.
>>
>> Ole Barney stopped them dead in their tracks. It's the Democrats'
>> fault. Those reps and banks didn't want the money, the fees, the fancy
>> cars, the houses, the vacations, the millions in the bank. They were
>> ethically offended and going to stop until that old meany-pants Barney
>> Franks stopped them.
>>
>> Right.
>>
>> Of course.
>>
>> Jeebus!!!
>>
>> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * <sigh>
>>
>> Herbert Hoover 1928-1932
>> "It Was All Franklin's Fault"
>
>the committee hearings are on tape, look them up

I don't need to. If the banks had wanted to stop lending, they could
have. It doesn't require an act of Congress, just better credit
management.


Herbert Hoover 1928-1932
"It Was All Franklin's Fault"

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:05:02 -0800, hophead > wrote:

>In article >, HHoover1928
says...
>
>> I'm *not* going to argue about this, Arnold. Feel free to cite
>> whatever the hell you want, but it had better be chapter and verse,
>> because what you've written is not how it happens. perhaps you just
>> misspoke........
>
>C'mon Herbert. You're talking to the Krooborg: all The Beast wants to do
>is argue. Best to ignore it and hope it goes away.

I know <sob>

Take me out and shoot me.



Herbert Hoover 1928-1932
"It Was All Franklin's Fault"

[Arny Krueger]

"Herbert Hoover" > wrote in message

> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 16:09:53 -0500, "Arny Krueger"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Herbert Hoover" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>> What do you mean by "rewriting mortgages? If you'd like,
>>> I can post statistics showing that foreclosures are
>>> increasing on rewritten mortgages (it's sadly true).
>>
>> True fact.

>>> People are in foreclosure because they've lost their
>>> jobs. At that point, it doesn't matter how you rewrite
>>> the mortgage. They still can't pay it.

>> Questionable hypothesis.

> No. it's not.

>> Mortgages are often rewritten because the person getting
>> the mortgage has been promised a significant
>> cash-in-hand bonus if they let the agent rewrite the
>> mortgage. Of course the agent isn't really lending the
>> money, he's just collecting a commission for writing a
>> *new* mortgage.

> I should shoot myself fopr responding, but.....

Yes Heeburt, I can see that the anxiety has dislocated your spelling
module...

> Those rewritten mortgages that you're describing have
> nothing to do with foreclosures.

Well, none that you can see, Heeburt. There are several connections. One is
that inability to pay off the monthly payments is one of the things that
entice people to refi. The cash-in-hand bonus is used to pay off the current
backlog of missed payments. Secondly, every refi costs money, and that money
comes from an increased unpaid balance. Thirdly, many of the refi agreements
have small "introductory" payments up front, which eventually morph into
either balloon payments or what turn out to be increased monthly payments in
the final analysis.

The ultimate consequence is foreclosure, but there's no need for the hapless
consumer to lose his job. He can't make the payments whether he's working 2
jobs, max overtime, just straight time, or no job at all. Too much is just
too much.

> You're describing the
> behavior that caused the crisis in the first place.

Well yes. The 3 point explanation is taken from real-world examples, some of
which you would know about since they were recently written up in business
periodicals like WSJ, Forbes, and BW.

>> The core fault is the degree of separation of the
>> functions of writing the mortgage, approving the
>> mortgage, and the providing the money.

> Amazingly wrong in every particular. That is *not* how it
> works (or worked).

> The originating bank write, approves, and pays the money.
> Period. End of story.

Nonsense. I have a personal friend who works for one of the largest mortage
writers in town, Rock Financial. The chain I described above is based on
what he tells me and the magazine articles listed above.

> They may have used an outside
> salesforce to develop the applicant and bring him thither
> to the crushing mill, but it's the originating bank who
> approves the mortgage and releases the money.

Now you're backtracking and modifying your story so it resembles mine.


> I'm *not* going to argue about this, Arnold.

LOL! you already *did* argue with me, told me I was wrong, confirmed my
story and then claimed that you weren't going to argue with me.

Heeburt, you're a real hoot. Thanks for playing and oh by the way: You Lose!

[Herbert Hoover[_3_]]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:19:45 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>> I'm *not* going to argue about this, Arnold.
>
>LOL! you already *did* argue with me, told me I was wrong, confirmed my
>story and then claimed that you weren't going to argue with me.
>
>Heeburt, you're a real hoot. Thanks for playing and oh by the way: You Lose!
>

Buh-Bye

Herbert Hoover 1928-1932
"It Was All Franklin's Fault"

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 16, 5:49*pm, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
> <snipped for brevity>
>
>
>
> >> Layoffs, buyouts and forms of job losses (delayed hiring,
> >> cancellations and freezes, etc.) have been happening for much longer
> >> than 30 days. Perhaps if they had done as you say then it may have
> >> done some good. It appears that this is another sign of how
> >> shortsighted and ignorant bushie's crew was.-
>
> >some reps tried to stop the bad loan practices een earleir, bit
> >were thwarted by Dems inc Frank and Waters
>
> Right.
>
> Ole Barney stopped them dead in their tracks. It's the Democrats'
> fault. Those reps and banks didn't want the money, the fees, the fancy
> cars, the houses, the vacations, the millions in the bank. They were
> ethically offended and going to stop until that old meany-pants Barney
> Franks stopped them.
>
> Right.
>
> Of course.
>
> Jeebus!!!
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * <sigh>

I met a republican (a die-hard republican no less) who started a
business that caters to veterans, firefighters and police and other
"heroes". He claimed it would be featured on the Sean Hannity show
soon. His long-term goal is to make enough money to bail to Costa
Rica.

When I told him that I was a vet (and he saw my ID card, Clyde) he
thanked me for my service and said he personally would never serve
because the "government would **** him". He wants to bail out on the
US because he has no interest in paying taxes and doesn't feel that he
owes the US anything. Apparently the taxes in Costa Rica are lower (I
didn't check this out). Also, he could recite anything that Sean, Glen
or Rush said as he "listened to them religiously".

So there's another republican who will probably make a pile of money
based on false patriotism and then say "**** the US" and leave. I
somehow don't think Dems would do that. And this guy wasn't even
related to cheney. LoL.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 16, 8:37*pm, Herbert Hoover > wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:19:45 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
> wrote:
>
> >> I'm *not* going to argue about this, Arnold.
>
> >LOL! you already *did* argue with me, told me I was wrong, confirmed my
> >story and then claimed that you weren't going to argue with me.
>
> >Heeburt, you're a real hoot. Thanks for playing and oh by the way: You Lose!
>
> Buh-Bye

So which is better: a non-discussion up front, such as 2pid lays out,
or a non-discussion on the backside, such as GOIA's?

PS to Clyde: there's another difference between 2pid and GOIA: they
format their non-discussions differently. LoL.

[Arny Krueger]

"Herbert Hoover" > wrote in message


> Herbert Hoover 1928-1932


You gotta answer me this, Hooburt. Why are you using the name of one of the
more mediocre presidents as your alias?

[Clyde Slick]

On 17 Feb, 07:55, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Herbert Hoover" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Herbert Hoover 1928-1932
>
> You gotta answer me this, Hooburt. Why are you using the name of one of the
> more mediocre presidents as your alias?

Answer me this, Arny, why do you use the name of one of
Detroits most mediocre automotive engineers and
failed recording engineers as your alias?
I would think that a better alias as the persona
of a retired assistant librarian would
"At least:" be one more notch up
the ladder of success.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
Clyde Slick > wrote:

> On 17 Feb, 07:55, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> > "Herbert Hoover" > wrote in message
> >
> >
> >
> > > Herbert Hoover 1928-1932
> >
> > You gotta answer me this, Hooburt. Why are you using the name of one of the
> > more mediocre presidents as your alias?
>
> Answer me this, Arny, why do you use the name of one of
> Detroits most mediocre automotive engineers and
> failed recording engineers as your alias?
> I would think that a better alias as the persona
> of a retired assistant librarian would
> "At least:" be one more notch up
> the ladder of success.

HH was an engineer, and had a relatively well-regarded post-presidency.

Stephen

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 17, 7:55*am, "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> "Herbert Hoover" > wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Herbert Hoover 1928-1932
>
> You gotta answer me this, Hooburt. Why are you using the name of one of the
> more mediocre presidents as your alias?

It's in the Google archive. Been there, done that.