>>No, you are wrong. I believe most of the institutional participants failed to realized that the system would come unglued during their watch. They were are all "trying to make hay while the sun shined", a very human endeavor. I've seen much of it.<<
so you are saying that ben bernanke never said housing was supported by strong economic fundamentals?
if he said it, that means i'm right and you, sir, are wrong, either due to arrogant ignorance or deception.
he said it and i will follow up with a youtube of it...
>>In my former life as a valuation consultant and real estate economist,<<
ok, this makes sense. you can't admit that you were part of the largest fraud perpetrated in peace time.
>>I saw many instances of developers cutting corners they knew would would eventually come back to damage the homes they sold - like disregarding required soils engineering reports. In many of these incidences, however, the homes began to fall apart while the developer was still active in the area. You see, they thought that IF problems developed, the would be dead of old age by that time, or retired and living out of state.<<
how does this not prove my point that BIG Capital (including the fed) misled the naive people into doing something THEY WOULD NOT HAVE DONE HAD THEY BEEN GIVEN FULL DISCLOSURE?
you make my point for me - and quite well.
>>Besides, they had insurance against such claims, so they were never personally hurt.<<
again, you make my point as well - the big banks had government insurance to cover their deceptions, too.
>>And, while some of these lawsuits were going on, owners in the tracts were selling sometime with full disclosure to people who, for whatever reason, discounted the information as unimportant. What that means is, sometimes you can disclosure all the risks inherent in a deal, and there can be people who merely shrug and proceed as if fair warning is just a matter of routine.<<
did bernanke say housing was supported by strong economic fundamentals? that wasn't FULL DISCLOSURE.
the media hype wasn't full disclosure.
the people were lied to - EXACTLY AS I STATED.
yes, there were people like me who knew the lies as they were occurring and didn't get caught up in the insanity. yes, i told some people not to buy homes in 2007 - one listened and one didn't. but the one who didn't was told by the media how housing was such a great investment with no discussion of how heads could be cut off or of the federal reserve BREAKING BLACK LETTER LAW AND BLOWING THE LARGEST CREDIT BUBBLE IN THE HISTORY OF THE PLANET!
market-ticker.org
>>So, and once again, there was fault all around in those things leading to the Financial Crisis - "victims" as much as the pushers.<<
this is true, but one side had all the cards and the phds behind them.
one side KNEW the other would default and bought 3 or 4 insurance policies betting on that default.
one side fraudulently rated trash as AAA.
one side committed securities fraud by misrepresenting MBSes.
one side committed insurance fraud by paying AAA rates on toxic financial waste they KNEW would default.
one side forged documents before the court.
one side illegally foreclosed on hundred of thousands of homes.
in fact, one side had the ability to FORCE default by constricting the money supply BECAUSE THEY CONTROL THE MONEY SUPPLY!
equating greedy, naive homeowners with CRIMINAL FINANCIAL TERRORISTS is absurd!
yes, the homeowners should lose the home - AS SOON AS THE BANKERS END UP IN JAIL FOR THEIR CRIMES.
In your view of the world, you would continue to punish drug pushers, but never the addicts, who all have plenty of warning about what the use of drugs can do to one's life.<< |
