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 Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChanceIs who wrote (96374)	12/6/2007 9:21:03 AM
From: donc	Respond to of 306849

..to remember another episode..in the 60's or 70's when the Hunt brothers tried to corner the silver market(futures)..and were near to do it,,the CFTC changed the rules in the middle of the game..causing the Hunts to go bankrupt.. donc

To: ChanceIs who wrote (96374)	12/6/2007 10:15:33 AM
From: GraceZ	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

YOU ARE VERY SERIOUSLY MISTAKEN IF YOU THINK OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GIVES A RAT'S ASS ABOUT THE SANCTITY OF CONTRACTS. There are few holdouts for sanity and the rights of private property - about 15 or so. The Pubs and Dems trample all over contracts for their immediate ST political gains. You are right. When they get into their protecting the little guy from the evil corporations mode, nothing is safe. The way I see it there are lots of little guys on the other side of those mortgage notes. Like I've said numerous times on this thread mortgage securities are in everything, including your breakfast cereal. Why is it that they see individuals who buy a home as naive in need of protection and a guy who buys a CDO as greedy? It could easily be the other way around. The guy buying the house could very well be aware that he can't pay that mortgage reset with his income unless the house appreciates at some astronomical rate (or he wins the lottery) and the guy buying the mortgage backed might be naive enough to think that reset rate is a given, just trying to save for his retirement. Why is one person more deserving than the other? They aren't, it's all about looking like they are doing something to save and protect the little guy in order to get re-elected. Voters are more sympathetic to some family losing their home than they are to some guy losing his retirement savings. Fair laws are based on not knowing who they will effect in the future, that they will effect everyone equally, that the law is blind to the person. When you start getting into changing the law ex post facto in order to only protect one class of people over another, laws become inherently unfair.