Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GraceZ who wrote (51040)	1/23/2006 6:46:22 PM
From: shades	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

42% have no money down because lenders will loan them 100% and more. If the lender wouldn't lend them 100% then they'd be forced to buy a cheaper house (like I was when I bought my first house). If a lot of people were forced to buy a cheaper house than houses would be cheaper. Ahh - we have crackheads because the crack is there to get - if we would reduce the SUPPLY of crack - no more crack heads - but this is in defiance of your MARXIST hatred eh? The problem is not the bankers and lenders - it is the dumb sucker people taking thier crack loans and not CHOOSING to live a life that leads to a dead end right? See how it is all circular Grace? you cant escape. Instead of believing them or me, why not do what I do and go to the original data and come to your own conclusion? I am not so smart Grace - I go outside - I look at the people and how much they work and how much life, liberty or happiness they think they have, and dont have to look at much data to see it I dont think. their financial houses in order. The only way is to live on less than you make and invest the difference. What you If the payday lenders had never come to the towns where I used to live - the people would have been better off - just like if the meth dealers had not come to town - just like you say above the lenders are the problem - I agree Grace - the people would be served with more protection - but that is too marxist for you eh? Didnt marx say effective capitalism will ultimately lead to a socialist state - in HEAVEN - everyone has genderless bodies and live in perfect harmony - no quintiles up there eh? invest in matters less than that you invest. Investing How about we invest in some nukes and take out any country that sends us drugs? hehe And anyone that gets a drug conviction - we send them to an island - like australia. I can live on almost nothing and be happy, so I've always re-invested back into improving my situation. I wish more could live in your small trailer that is energy cheap, walk or bicycle to work like you do and only buy at the local farmers market, and not do drugs - but so many need a big energy expensive house, and a big car, and lots of red lobster and crack to be happy - hehe.

To: GraceZ who wrote (51040)	1/25/2006 2:35:44 PM
From: bond_bubble	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 110194

42% have no money down because lenders will loan them 100% and more. If the lender wouldn't lend them 100% then they'd be forced to buy a cheaper house (like I was when I bought my first house). If a lot of people were forced to buy a cheaper house than houses would be cheaper. So you say, it is OK to replace the invisible hand with govt hand? i.e When the invisible hand says, go and buy smaller house, the govt hand comes in and hands money candy and says buy a bigger house (I'll keep the interest rate low by printing money!!). So, you say, Consumers are free to choose if they want that govt money or not - decide if they can afford or not etc. Nice theory. How about these wonderful proposals along these lines: 1) Govt will build $1 hospitals - for the public to come in - Ofcourse it is upto the patients to choose if they want it. Govt does not force them if they go to private hospitals!! Ofcourse the hospital is build based on taxes or printing money!! Ofcourse, the treatment might be better or not better than private clinics!! A tough decision on risks to be made by the patients!! 2) Govt builds cars, provides Gasoline at few cents. Ofcourse, it is upto the consumer to choose if he buys these from the govt at cheap price or if he goes and buys it from private car manufacturers or from private refineries!! Ofcourse the govt is able to do this by tax or printing money!! And the consumers have the "liberty" to chose govt provisions or not!!! Ofcourse, the car might be lousy, or oil might be poor quality OR who knows it could be better than private enterprises. Ofcourse the consumer has the "Freedom" to choose the risk. Wow, I'm amazed at your "Alice in the Wonderland discovery". Why is the govt not doing this? There is "Liberty" and "Free Market" in this system right as the founding fathers wanted isnt it?