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.

Politics : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (144302)	10/30/2008 7:30:03 PM
From: PartyTime	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Economist Magazine has endorsed Obama: economist.com

To: TimF who wrote (144302)	10/30/2008 10:15:48 PM
From: geode00	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 173976

Facts not in evidence. I have heard that as much as 65% of subprime loans should have been regular loans without all the onerous fees and bad structures. There was tremendous fraud and out right stupidity on the part of the PROFESSIONALS in the housing market. The right wing always wants to blame the poor amateur for being greedy and stupid while dismissing the actual fraud from mortgage brokers, loan officers, bank management and real estate companies and developers. Loan companies in California (and elsewhere I assume) were making loans for 750% of income. That is more than twice the maximum of 300% of income that used to be in place. Since they could securitize the loans and get rid of risk of default, they made these kinds of stupid decisions right and left...that is the FREE market acting as stupidly as it often does. If you believe that the financial crisis in the US and beyond was caused by the subprime market in the USA then saving that market a year or two ago would have prevented the meltdown of Lehman, BS, Fannie, etc. It would have been much, much cheaper to remake those loans to fit market realities than it has been to save the banks, the MMFs, the insurance companies, etc. If, OTOH, you believe that there has been tremendous gambling by PROFESSIONALS on CDOs loosely based on the subprime market and on other forms of debt using excessive amounts of borrowed money then it would have been morally correct to let BS et al fail. After trillions have been promised or lent or given to these PROFESSIONALS, it is simply silly to refuse to help the original mortgage holders particularly if this may help prevent more expensive failures of corporations in the future. It is always an option to let everyone fail. As I said, I did not like the bailout, I do not trust Paulson and Kashkari, I am not convinced that the abyss was actually an abyss. I don't know and apparently no one else does either what the consequences of letting these people fail would be to those of not involved in the problem. If you are going to be a libertarian then be one for goodness sakes. Why aren't there libertarian communities where it's everyone for themselves?