The Housing Bubble

Who left the flyer?

“Who left the flyer?”

Some realtor, not sure which one.

My next-door neighbor got evicted about two-months-or-so ago and left the house full of trash. It’s a three bedroom, one bath, 1,066 square feet with a pool.

Zillo has it valued at $393,000.

Lol.

flg_az
I think you’re right. I believe I heard a talk radio guest out of San Diego state it.
The same R E guy told the truth about DataQuick stats. They count an REO as a sale, and the amt of the loan becomes the purchase price, regardless of how many refi’s were in the balance. A dirty little secret. This guy was a “truthiness” type.

The Israelis and Palestinians have been going at it for much longer than 2,000 years. Did you ever hear of David (Israeli) vs. Goliath (Philistine i.e. Palestinian)?

I read that the Pals were kicked out of their Arab country for being rebel rousers, since they weren’t willing to part of a productive society. While the Arabs and Jews have been less than friendly, many Arabs live in Israel, and the Pals are even a problem for many Arab countries, including Egypt.

I have seen no evidence that the majority of the problem was caused by illegal fraud, nor have you supplied any. Those buying houses at insane prices even had rosier views of expected appreciation than the crappy modeling programs.

“National Ponzi Scheme”

That term is reserved for Social Security. All other Ponzi schemes are small potatoes by comparison.

I have seen no evidence that the majority of the problem was caused by illegal fraud,

“fraud and potential criminal conduct were at the heart of the financial crisis.”

Lessons from the Lehman report mcclatchy newspaper
2010-03-22 12:00 AM

Last week’s comprehensive and uncompromising report by bankruptcy examiner Anton Valukas on the demise of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. has put into sharp relief what many of us have long expected: that fraud and potential criminal conduct were at the heart of the financial crisis.

What lessons should we take from this 2,200-page report, which with meticulous detail lays bare “accounting gimmicks” designed to mislead investors and the public about the true state of Lehman’s financial health?

First and foremost, we must return the rule of law to Wall Street. And that means we must undo damage wrought by decades of irresponsible deregulation; by financial institutions that are, as former FDIC Chairman Bill Isaac has called them, “too big to manage and too big to regulate”; by a “wild west” attitude on Wall Street; and by the colossal failures by accountants and lawyers who misunderstood or disregarded their role as gatekeepers.

http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1208564&lang=eng_news&cate_img=140.jpg&cate_rss=news_Opinion

One way to fix Social Security: Stop SSDI! Anyone can march into the SSDI office and be set for life simply for being obese, depressed, or some other self-inflicted or made-up disorder.

Rio - you do understand that that Lehman report was written by attorneys to be used for litigation purposes and is currently being used for political maneuvering don’t you?

So you are using books written during the time of slavery to discuss morality of financial games? I think you are the one that fails to see the irony. It is not lost one me.

That’s a real comeback Natalie? That was more like an Eddy.

I quoted three people’s views expressed in Forbes on capitalism’s needed moral restraint factor. (something that is new to you?)

One of these respected proponents of capitalism just died and one is alive, but to go along with your thought pattern, I do think one of these people was born the same year something immoral was happening in Botswana.

Your brand of capitalism saw its high-water mark in 2008 no matter what the spin people spin.

That’s a real comeback Natalie? That was more like an Eddy.

Speaking of which, I’m starting to remember how reasonable Eddie seemed to me…at first. By the end, I started to suspect PB was right about why he was here. His disappearance only makes that suspicion stronger. Which makes me wonder about why I’m starting to get that feeling again.

I was discussing reality and you were discussing philosophy. Come back from what? Nothing was really offered.

Yes. If you can blame it all on criminal conduct, it is easy to not accept any responsibility for one’s own bad decisions. I have never said all actions by all people were legal. What I am saying is that it is childish and just flat out wrong to think that those that worked on Wall Street were generally engaged in a criminal enterprise. Those damn city slickers, send them all to hell. Life must be so simple in your closed little world.

Exactly. I have always respected his insight.

Buffet has a 20% ownership of a rating agency ,do you respect his statement now ?

What were the dates of acquistion. He has been known to buy on the cheap and fix from the inside. I can imagine there are several deals out there given the screw ups they made and the corresponding loss of faith.

Ummm. I’m a liberal Jew that hated Bush. Please try to pay attention.

Not really, I couldn’t stand Bush. You are falling into the black and white trap again, thinking that only Bush fans dislike Obama. Try to examine facts without anger and prejudice.

When you post some facts, we’ll be happy to discuss. Your anger and contempt for Obama is somehow my anger? Explain yourself.

You were not discussing facts. You assumed I was a Bush fan with no legitimate basis to do so, making some bizarre comment. What do you want me to explain?

What facts are you looking for to establish that I don’t believe that most of the people involved were engaging in criminal conduct? I thought you needed to facts to allege illegal activity, not vice versa.

You really dont understand what I am saying and just seem confused. I am for regulating lending and credit default swaps. I just dont think think most of the actions were illegal.

I guess I am confused because I could have sworn you were defending Wall St.

On regulation, I agree. NO part of large financial transactions should EVER be unregulated.

But Natalie, someone was making those naked puts, and using insider trading knowledge, and misrepresenting Level 3 assets, and misrepresenting those security ratings and approving those liar loans. Was is the tooth fairy?

Oh ,the government allowed these Fat Cats to self-regulate and assumed they wouldn’t shoot the Country in the foot by their
greedy crimes that I could go on and on about . It’s pretty idealist to actually trust that these crooks wouldn’t abuse every
freedom to operate without transparency they were given .
The regulation laws that were set up with the New Deal ,including Glass-Steagall , were the right response to Investment Brokers thinking they could be lenders .
It wasn’t the stock market that had a melt down so to speak ,it was the Lending sector of the economy and thats where the
losses are . Wall Street investment firms can never be lenders because they will abuse that role every time . They started by mis-rating securities to get the money to lend to begin with ,and than all the other breaches of duty followed ,including crimes .

Slavery, was only one of the causes of the civil war. There were many infractions, into the south by the feds, which in total led to sucession. Yes, the south lost, but, here again , the feds are creating the enviroment all over again.

Are you predicting that the passage of a health care bill will ultimately result in a civil war?

The primary cause of the war for Southern Independence was the Tariff of 1828. By imposing a protective tax of 40% on all imports, the Northern manufacturing elite effectively took on England’s 18th century role of Mercantilist masters. In other words, the primary motivation for Southern independence was the same as the primary motivation for the American Revolution.

History records George Washington’s frustration at selling his agricultural goods in England only to receive third-rate manufactured goods at inflated prices. Indeed, that is the purpose of the protective tariff. If Northern manufacturers were competitive with Europe, they wouldn’t need protection. Another way to look at it is that the Northern money interests wanted to keep even more than their fair share of the profits from slavery.

While most Americans are kept ignorant of the power grab by the Northern elite, the developing world has exhaustively studied, and copied, it. It follows from Von Thunnen’s model of industrial location theory that the economic center will grow wealthier as the periphery is impoverished. It’s that dynamic that made Tariff’s a mainstay of dependent industrialization programs throughout the 20th century. Mind you the motivation is not eliminate the exploitation; It’s to redirect the benefits to those who wish to seize power by imposing the tariff.

Think about this: many on this blog are [ rightfully ] enraged by the taxes they have to pay the federal government. Imagine if you had to pay 40% of your economy to effectively fund government expansion that your grandparents fought [and died] to prevent. By the way, it’s that government that the South fought against to which you pay your taxes today. Do you enjoy enriching New England?

And God bless Virginia. Sic Semper Tyrannus.

Slavery, was only one of the causes of the civil war.

Not to discount your other points but slavery was by far and away the main cause of the Civil War.

The primary cause of the war for Southern Independence was the Tariff of 1828.

That helped get the ball rolling but the primary cause of the Civil war was immoral slavery. Bleeding Kansas didn’t bleed because of tariffs and John Brown didn’t raid Harpers Ferry because of George Washington’s frustration at selling his agricultural goods in England.

Apologists for the south like to say it was about “states rights” to which I reply:

Yes, states have the “right” to get their butt’s whipped badly when they condone something so wrong such as slavery.

Even Ulysses S. Grant, the Civil War’s greatest general, wrote that the war was about slavery.

For Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee, slavery was not the cause of the Civil War. They seceded after Abraham Lincoln called for those states to raise troops to invade and attack those states in rebellion. Prior to that act of aggression by Lincoln, those states still sought a political compromise that would prevent the war. Lincoln’s decision to resort to violence was viewed as the act of a dictator, and in any event, forced those states to choose sides.

As for Abraham Lincoln himself, he made it clear as often as he could in public that the war was about secession, not slavery. As commander and chief, I would tend to believe him on that topic.

Finally, you’ll come to find that much of the leadership of the confederate army argued for freeing the slaves at the onset of the war. That would include Robert E. Lee. Indeed, many Southerners ( certainly not all ) saw the war as a means to finally end slavery by enlisting slaves in the Army as a condition for granting freedom. Abraham Lincoln, rather shrewdly, pointed out that enlisting blacks in the army would not benefit the South’s chances since slaves couldn’t pick cotton and fight at the same time.

As we try to understand contemporary American politics, it’s wise to understand that we are watching the end game of events set in motion by the War between the states. The aim of that war was to centralize power in the hands of the Northern manufacturing elite. It did. That is our government today, a government imposed by force, not consent of the governed, and not for the benefit of the governed.

New England dictated for a long time, but is no longer the sole power center. Indeed, in order to maintain power, it has to co-opt other economic power-centers, such as CA. That’s ultimately the nature of the Red state - Blue state divide today. It’s those who have benefitted from the centralization of power that our founding fathers tried to prevent, versus those who are harmed by it.

That’s not to say that the Red states are perfect, or that there are not many corrupt individuals in conservative clothing. It’s to say that a new order will have to emerge to replace the order established by the war between the states. New orders tend to emerge out of catastrophe and conflict, and these cycles tend to take about 150 years ( 3 k-waves). So all and all, we’re pretty much right on schedule.

–paul

I don’t know about all of your facts or opinions but I enjoyed reading it. Thank you.

Thanks for the encouragement. This area is a great passion of mine. I view it not only as history, but as present.

Here’s an example of these issues are relevant right now:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100321/us_nm/us_usa_states_healthcare

–paul

Paul,
I’m aware of those points, the history, and Lincoln’s political framing of the arguments but the existence of slavery was the root, central and main cause of the Civil War.

1. Every state that seceded from the Union had slavery.

2. Not one state that didn’t have slavery seceded from the Union.

Why? Because slavery was the underlying, main issue.

“founding fathers”…. lmao.

The clowns were slave owning thugs.

Slavery was, indeed the underlying.

It was a problem on 2 fronts and I’m often surprised at how many people try to separate them when in fact, it’s the same problem.

Slavery is not only immoral, but it creates an economic system that cannot compete with industrial automation and innovation.

So the Civil War was fought not only on moral ground but economic as well. As for states rights, the southern states weren’t not going to ever get rid of slavery, thus showing contempt for morality while perpetuating a dangerous economic condition for the United States. No state has the right to endanger the Union.

“…underlying cause…”

Geez *sigh*

“founding fathers”…. lmao. The clowns were slave owning thugs.

That’s a very cheap shot to take. A classic liberal inflamatory remark, I might add. No doubt, you got a fair and balanced education at Exeter.

There’s this story in the book of Genesis about Adam and Eve and original sin. It basically says that mankind is corrupt and always has been. It’s a good shorthand for what makes Southerners different from Northerners.

The Puritans thought they could root out all evil. Their descendants are today’s Blue state liberals. Southerners, to this day, view such attitudes as hubris. At the same time, a notion that the world has always been imperfect has always led some to tolerate unjust social conditions. Slavery is a good example of that. It explains why some in the VA aristocracy were both against slavery and slaveholders at the same time. Thomas Jefferson is the ultimate example of that. In his view, England forced slavery on America and that act was one of the justifications for the declaration of independence.

So why was he a slaveholder? My guess is that he couldn’t imagine a system that would replace it and feared the motives of those who claimed that they did. No doubt he also had a certain sense of misplaced paternalism. It wasn’t uncommon. No doubt, he was as appalled at the treatment of Northern factory workers as his fellow Southerners. No Southerner would condone such appalling inhumanity. Not even slaveholders.

BTW, I spent 7 years at his University. I like to think it was one of Thomas Jefferson’s greatest of many achievements. He believed it was his greatest. Certainly, not the act of a thug.

For me, the biggest difference between today’s Liberals and men like our founding fathers was Noblesse Oblige. Unlike the left, whose motto is “Being a liberal means never having to say you’re sorry,” they held themselves accountable for their own actions. They believed that they should personally sacrifice in order to achieve whatever small advancement mankind was capable of.

Few would argue that Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, or Carter Braxton did not personally and substantially sacrifice to create this country. Few, outside of Ivy league Universities, would argue that their revolution did not make mankind more free.

Perhaps, one might forgive them for not being as perfect and effective as today’s New England liberals. Perhaps, some will understand why their grandchildren fought to protect the legacy of that revolution against Abraham Lincoln and the elite cabal of Northern manufacturing interests.

–paul

When confronted with historical fact, the favorite hobgoblins and buzzwords get wheeled out.

So predictable but so worn out and lame.

No Paul, the south fought to maintain the status quo. Period.

Much as they do today. The plantation mentality is alive and well. And yes, I’m a southerner. And no I’m not a liberal. I’m the last of the Mohicans… a moderate.

For me, the biggest difference between today’s Liberals and men like our founding fathers was Noblesse Oblige. Unlike the left, whose motto is “Being a liberal means never having to say you’re sorry,” they held themselves accountable for their own actions.

“Never having to say you’re sorry” is the mantra of unrepentant NeoCon thugs in the Cheney / Addington mold — you have left and right mixed up.

Slavery is a good example of that. It explains why some in the VA aristocracy were both against slavery and slaveholders at the same time. Thomas Jefferson is the ultimate example of that.

That’s a rather reductionist view. Most men (the women don’t count, right?) in the “VA aristocracy” circa 1800-1860 did not experience this conflict; if they did, they were typically swayed to convention by matters of political, social, and economic expediency — Jefferson included (IMO). The economics of slavery in the southern states played a large role in the gentry’s continued acceptance of it, both implicitly and explicitly.

BTW, I spent 7 years at his University. I like to think it was one of Thomas Jefferson’s greatest of many achievements. He believed it was his greatest. Certainly, not the act of a thug.

Jefferson was certainly no thug, and he accomplished many great things. But that does not excuse his slaveholding. He was yet another great but flawed man.

(I spent four years at Jefferson’s University, and grew up in the state.)

Sorry Diogenes, that comment will make you mad, and I meant it to, but I wish I hadn’t typed it.

True. Even so, it’s still quite a leap to assume I was suggesting that government expansion was a solution to our problems. You won’t find many people on this blog suggesting that.

Stop by for a drink and we’ll hug. I hope you like Jack Daniels.

‘Apologists for the south like to say it was about “states rights” ‘

Apologists for the North try to paint all Southerners as slaveholders who would give up anything to protect slavery. The fact is that fewer than 2% owned any slaves at all. Indeed, many poor white Southerners [ who fought for the confederacy] generally resented slaveholders because they saw them as the “aristocratic elite”. It’s also the case that generally, attitudes in the upper South favored slavery to end in it’s due course. Indeed, it was increasingly ending peacefully elsewhere in the world at that time. Indeed, many slaveholders in the upper South didn’t dislike abolishionists over the notion of freeing slaves; many saw them as irresponsible for advocating the immediate end of slavery as it would lead to the immediate breakdown of their society. They felt that such a breakdown would lead to widespread chaos and suffering. You can argue all you want about whether or not that was self-serving, but that is how many of them saw it. Instead, they believed that slaveholders should free their slaves in a manner that guaranteed that they could support themselves. They also believed that gentle moral persuasion should be used to convince other slaveholders to work towards freeing their slaves.

In the cotton South, by contrast, slavery still provided an economic advantage to those wealthy elite able to afford slaves. No doubt, there were radicals amongst them that were motivated by the desire to protect the economic benefit that they derived from owning slaves. It’s a major leap, that is sadly often made, to claim that that view was a majority opinion. It was not.

“States rights” were not about protecting slavery; it was about limiting the power of the federal government. Our founding fathers knew that strong central authority would necessarily lead to tyranny. It did. That is what many on this blog are lamenting. One simply can not have it both ways. Either the central government has limited power and the rights of individuals in their communities are protected, or their is a powerful central government that dictates to people in their communities. That is states rights in a nutshell.

Finally, I would strongly encourage anyone wishing to understand why our founding fathers insisted on the limitation of the federal government through states rights to study two things. First, the English civil war. Second, the Scottish National covenant. The great cavalier descendants from VA who were so instrumental in founding this republic had deep family memories of both. Indeed, the reason that they were in VA in the first place was that their ancestors were forced to flee Cromwell’s dictatorship after he murdered their king. As such, they feared strong central authority. They feared mob rule. They feared the aristocracy using it’s power to enrich themselves at the people’s expense. That is why they sought a constitution that would provide checks and balances.

–paul

This revisionist history is some of the lamest of read in my 40something years. Hopping down the bunny trail of exceptions and suggesting the even a small number from the south fought against the confederacy as something that was mainstream is so deluded it’s beyond laughable.

Paul, whatever your stock in trade is, stay with it and leave history to written documentation.

Further… labeling slave owning revolutionaries as “founding fathers” is likely the most worn out and lame attempt at giving these guys legitimacy. They were revolutionaries who ultimately succumbed to the the very system they revolted against.

“States rights” were not about protecting slavery; it was about limiting the power of the federal government.

If that were true then the South made a big strategic mistake. Southern leaders should have sincerely tried cut a deal to eliminate slavery over time in exchange for money and increased state autonomy in other areas. I know there were some feeble attempts to do this but nothing real.

The North probably would have gone for a deal in order to avoid War.

The South fighting an unnecessary war for slavery dealt a devastating blow for states rights.

As far as a lesson for our times. Proponents of states rights should look towards the South’s tragic actions as what not to do to in order to promote the cause.

p=mv

Sorry, the above was a response for NYCboy’s post about the Spanish Steps. Didn’t see the thread had got crossed with the Civil War thread.

Many of us have compiled huge amounts cash knowing the bubble burst. I pulled out near the top and made over 100% returns last year by not being scared to invest near the bottom. Those with cash and work full time have few choices to where to park cash. No not all companies are worthless. If you live in fear with your money under the mattress at a time that stocks in solid companies are at 13 year or more lows, then you will be destroyed by inflation. Also, stocks comprise a huge part if not the majority of 401k investments, and most ppl’s retirement depends on it, so ya - it is an enormous part of the economy. I could go on and on about consumer confidence, etc., but it would never post because I could write a book on the subject.

The economy is supposed to drive the stock market.

The cabal in charge is hoping that the stock market can drive the economy.

Cart and Horse?

The recent stock market rally is being led by financials, REITs and retail. Does anybody want to take a stab at that one? We now have insolvent institutions, collapsing commercial real estate (and yes it is collapsing) and the tapped out consumer leading us forward.

I think this will end well.

Also, stocks comprise a huge part if not the majority of 401k investments, and most ppl’s retirement depends on it, so ya - it is an enormous part of the economy.

Current S&P P/E ratio is 21.35. The historical mean is 16.36. In the 72-74 bear market the P/E ration fell to 7. source: multpl.com

But we can all be market timers now…

Last 10 years a ‘lost decade’ for most investors 3/09/10

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/6905635.html

Many now call the last 10 years a “lost decade.” The immediate reference is to 10 years of going nowhere, or worse, in the stock market.

Fortunately, the stock market isn’t a good barometer of wealth for most people.

When you look at the big picture, our new millennium is off to a truly medieval start.

Household net worth, adjusted for inflation, is flat to slightly down for the decade. Collectively, we treaded water.

Who got richer?…Some are the well-publicized wealth gainers — like partners at Goldman Sachs, hedge fund managers and others who measure their compensation by the million.

YES. Of course a big part of the problem is that a large part of the valuation of stocks is simply because people want to put their money in stocks. And even though many are struggling, there ARE may Boomers nearing retirement with significant savings. And the banksters and the Chinese have big piles of money that they have to put SOMEWHERE.

Equities are like houses. Higher prices are good for sellers and bad for buyers.

Natalie is right about the opporutnity to make money in the last year. Wished I bought some Ford stock among others.

Unfortunately, I’m one of the casualties of this recession. In fact, I never recovered from the 2001 recession.

Agree with you terry .

Actually Terry, while the stock market is rigged and gamed, you CAN make money if you take some time to observe its actions.

My preference is to study a stock over a period of time (1+years) and follow the news (as well as the symbol) about it. Not to closely, or you get caught up in the mind numbing minutiae. Pretty soon, a trend emerges above all gaming and manipulations.

You can make money, but like everything else, you have to put some due diligence into it. And there are plenty of free tools and news sources for doing do so.

Casino? Blackjack is my game. I’m OK at poker, but I kill at blackjack.

Wall St. = “TrueDeceiver’s ™” = act accordingly

“No not all companies are worthless” = yep, look how many folks around you now have “bid” cards.

It’s not against the law to buy & hold…nor, to hold your breath

Am I a cheerleader because I don’t villanize ammoral conduct, but believe it should be regulated? For a decade or more I have been saying the government should stop crappy loans and fight housing appreciation (obviously not announcing such policy directly, but indirectly by cracking down on faulty rating agency modeling, mark-to-market, subprime and no skin in the game). If you rely on those on the opposite side of a trade to protect you, you will always be killed. You have to take personal responsibilty for your decisions, and if you dont understand the transactions you are entering into you need to hire an expert or not engage in it. In addition, the government has to play a responsible watch-dog role. To just say that everyone should just not do things that in the aggregate could hurt others really doesn’t do anyone any good as people will do what they do. Always have, and always will.

Natalie ,what you are doing is rationalizing out right crimes
that the regulators just didn’t bust ,and your able to say this because the crooks got bailed out so they don’t have to face those crimes ,that you call amoral behavior .Its funny that a
Wall Street person like yourself is blaming the watch dog rather than the criminal who went outside the law . My mommy didn’t catch me taking the cookies so Mommy is the bad guy .

Wall Street will continue to try to deceive the public as to how many crimes they did commit ,but don’t ever say that Wall Street was made to face the standing law that was on the books when their crimes were committed because the bail outs
and the lack of transparency prevents this.

Perhaps this is just due to my jaundiced and cynical eye, but I view the Fed’s attempt to amass additional regulatory power as a move towards covering up the misdeeds that led up to the Fall 2008 meltdown and the perpetrators who planned them. I do not claim to have the truth on this — simply stating a hypothesis which I believe merits investigation by an independent* regulatory authority with sufficient power to get the job done.

*Outside of the Fed and outside any other government agency with a critical mass of Goldman Sachs alumni in high positions.

Not everyone can be a day-trader on Wall Street playing with the ebb and flow of money movements .

It seems to me that day-trading is a great way to transfer wealth to insiders. During the tech bubble, for a while, I knew a few “day traders”. Relatively small time folks, regularly making a few hundred dollars on trades.

All of them wound up losing significantly more than they gained. Rather quickly too.

Here is the key - by the time the information becomes available to the general public, it is already known and acted upon by insiders.

Getting in at the bottom last year and making a 100% gain. I didn’t hear the bell at the bottom or else I may have made the same bet.

No one predicts things exactly. There were many threads on here about dollar cost averaging in or buying on the dips. If stocks below 12 year lows are not a bell, I dont know what else is needed, it was actually front page headlines on all the papers when C and F hit their lows. Things like this happen maybe once in a lifetime. I made over 100% not because I timed the low exactly right but because I wasnt scared of the financials (well at least not horrified). If I timed everthing right I would have made 400% or more.

I made over 100% not because I timed the low exactly right but because I wasnt scared of the financials

Of course you did.

Don’t be childish. The point was a simple one. Things are not always as black and white as you portray them but are usually complex shades of gray. You have a tendency to fall into the us v. them pitch fork camp (pointing fingers at groups rather than individuals), and then slip back into personal responsibility when it suits your needs. My intent is not to fight with you, but to point out that you have a tendency to do what you profess to condemn. This mess is not properly viewed as a war of classes, but an illustration of the ramifications of unregulated personal greed in contemporary society which exists in every class.

I think we’d all benefit if you’d call off the dogs. I don’t think anyone has said anything that warrants the attacks you’ve been throwing out lately. I made a simple one sentence comment above and you ascribed all sorts of absurd opinions to me. Perhaps we should take some advice from 2001, take a stress pill and think things over.

Where are these shades of gray of which you speak when it comes to The Treasury, The Federal Reserve and Goldman Sachs? Where is there any gray in the world of Geithner, Paulson, Blankfein, Bernanke, Rubin, Summers, etc? These people have chosen to act like criminals, with no regards for our nation or its laws. The fact that the bulk of these people were educated in our “finest universities” is simply a fact.

If we had a group of colleges cranking out scores of serial killers we would stop and say, “what the heck is going on there?” These men are serial killers when it comes to the death of the American economy and our nation. They are the criminal heads that are leading the Bust Out of America.

I believe in accountability for EVERYBODY, starting at the top. An FB is small potatoes next to Bernanke or Paulson or Geithner or Rubin or Bush or… That doesn’t mean I don’t think FBs should be held accountable. I make excuses for neither Left or Right, rich or poor, black or white, male or female. I don’t discriminate. Maybe that confused you.

At times, the blog has become somewhat complacent as those with different views are attacked and driven off. I miss those that challenged those on here on substantive grounds. I can always tell ppl everything that everything they say is right, but then the blog would not be the educational tool that it is meant to be.

“Perhaps we should take some advice from 2001, take a stress pill and think things over.”

I don’t have any stress. Thank you.

I can not respond to questions about the morality of people lumped into groups, as such questions are uniquely personal and have to be decided on a case by case basis in light of the actual facts. With respect to backgrounds -as one would expect, those in the highest positions of power in finance and politics usually came from good graduate schools (as there is a correlation between drive and intelligence, and career advancement), thus, when there is a problem and you look at their resumes there appears to be a correlation, but such correlation is a red herring. If you looked at the resumes of who you think acted the best in positions of high power in the world of politics and finance, you would find out that they too came from equally “fine” schools.

“If you looked at the resumes of who you think acted the best in positions of high power in the world of politics and finance”

That is one lonely club, Natalie. Yes, blaming the Ivy Leaguers is easy. It’s fun, too. There is so much blame to go around in this mess that you can almost throw a dart blind-folded and hit a guilty party.

How do we start cleaning this mess up? The first thing would be to have people at the highest level of government that want to see the law applied to the people that committed criminal acts during the boom and the bust. Sadly, the top job is filled by a Harvard trained lawyer that doesn’t seem to have any interest in seeing to it that the laws of our country are being applied.

Oops, there I go again. I will try to stop the Harvard bashing and just bash the individuals involved. Jail Hank Paulson and we will have a good start in the healing process. That would be individual justice.

None of the guys we’re talking about have resumes that say “….graduated from (name of state-university here).”

Much less “…….graduated from Community College”.

As far as “correlations” are concerned, the only one I’ve personally seen is the correlation between the Ivy League school and the size of the parent’s checking account balance.

The Ivy League school doesn’t make you any smarter, unless you consider buying yourself into a better circle of friends smarter.

Those in the “highest positions of power and finance” had a duty to either keep their mercenary companies under control, or honestly report to their shareholders what they were doing. Neither happened; they either knew what was going on and approved (which makes them crooks, IMO), or had no idea what was going on (which makes them idiots, and tells me that their vaunted “Ivy League Educations” aren’t worth squat).

Either way, the damage they have caused to the economy/people/country is currently not reflected by their paychecks. By your definition, I guess this makes them successful.

“The Ivy League school doesn’t make you any smarter. . . Either way, the damage they have caused to the economy/people/country is currently not reflected by their paychecks. By your definition, I guess this makes them successful.”

Putting aside affirmative action programs, to get into an Ivy League graduate school you usually have to have an A average in undergraduate school and score in the top 2% of standardized testing. Thus, per se you have to be much smarter than average or harder working and more driven than average, or both. As to success - success can be defined in many ways. If you define success as accomplishing your financial goals - then yes; if you define it as making the World a better place - then probably not. Please don’t make any assumptions about what I regard as personal success without knowing me or even asking me - the only thing that you can be assured by doing so is that you are probably wrong.

“These people have chosen to act like criminals, with no regards for our nation or its laws.”

Can someone who operates above the rule of law technically commit a crime?

“I miss those that challenged those on here on substantive grounds.”

Please remind us of the names of these straw man caricaturists of whom you speak.

So, lets have it…….do you admire these people?

From your posts, I get the feeling your view is that what they did was “legal”, so there’s nothing “wrong” with what happened. Especially when you lobby the government to change the laws to make what you are doing “legal”.

After all, Hitler did a lot of “good things” too, if you can ignore what his government did to the Jews, and it’s actions between 1939-1945.

I’m old fashioned, and believe that those in a position of power/authority have a duty to use it for the common good. Haven’t seen much of that behavior coming out of Wall Street lately.

As hard as you are defending “Ivy League Graduates school” graduates, you must either be one, or are related to one.

I’d love to sit here and do a cost/benefit analysis on the “value” that Ivy League grads have brought to the country, but some of us have to work on Sundays for a living (one of the benefits of being a newly-minted “Independent Contractor”).

I am horrible with names so I do not want to compile a list out of fear that omission would indicate intentional exclusion. There were many on this board that were talking about dollar cost averaging into the stock market and buying equities on the dips last year, even some day traders. Also there were a few ppl in the securization and investment banking fields that have come and gone as they were characterized as inherently evil. I would love to have more lawyers, insiders and even realtors on this board. Hell, I even miss Eddie. He instigated for instigations sake, but at least he was thought provoking at times. I think we need the balance of those that will affirmatively state that they think it is time to jump into the stock market or housing market, rather than just having all pessimistic people. Given the events of the last 14 months, many of the more optimistic people were exactly right. I also guess I should not make sweeping assumptions as to why each one left. I am sure that many made money in the stock market, or finally bought the house they were waiting for, so no longer see a need to make many visits anymore.

NYCB …Natalie is so full of shit and her arguments are so
unconvincing because she relies on not acknowledging facts
that blow the basis of her arguments , Than she just says
some BS like “I miss those that challenge those on here on substantive grounds .” Oh I suppose that means that Natalie’s
statements are substantive and have not been defeated by
grounds with merits because her choice is to not acknowledge any ones that were thrown at her ,or defeat them by any substantive counter-points . Most of her points are based on
accepting her analysis that Wall Street operated inside the law ,and bail outs didn’t change what would of happened in terms of liability.

Natalie reminds me of the banker bonus people flaunting their commissions after they knew that they were going to prosper even more ,rather than getting thrown in jail or having their ill-gotten gains taken back by full execution of
standing law ,instead of the unfair Obstruction of Justice that they got lucky with .

I hear these same types of arguments here in NYC. I know a person going through an “Executive” MBA program at Columbia. We have gotten in heated arguments. He contends that the insiders were innocent and did not commit crimes. They just didn’t know. Yeah, right. The first requirement to be an insider in the Wall Street club is to leave your soul at the door. Everything can be justified after that is done.

“…she relies on not acknowledging facts that blow the basis of her arguments…”

Small wonder she misses Eddie, as he was the master of that polemic technique.

C’mon guys….. you haven’t figured out who “Natalie” is yet? It’s the same apologistic, ideological pandering for the wealthy elite we heard on this blog by another female user between years 2005-late 2007.

Housing Wizard, I happen to know the people you claim were engaged in fraud but have never met or talked to. If someone attaches you to a bs meter it would off the charts. I never said I admired them. I just understand them better than you do.

Natalie is so full of shit and her arguments are so
unconvincing because she relies on not acknowledging facts
that blow the basis of her arguments

Uncalled for. You can disagree with a fellow poster without getting nasty. God forbid that we ever become an echo chamber in here because we run off anyone with an unpopular point of view or who challenges our assumptions.

You don’t understand them better than me Natalie ,I have run into them my whole life and I know what sneaky scum they are
and how aloof they can be to the destruction they cause .That’s why we have the rules in Society ,to protect against the rationalizers and crooks stepping on everybody else . They are beyond greedy . You act like they had no legal or social responsibility to not only keep their own host Companies solvent
but not destroy the wealth of their customers . I suppose you think the act of supplying funny money obtained by securities
misrepresentation to the unqualified FB’s of the world was
OK ,and blame it all on the FB’s,who I know you like to be critical of . You can see how those FB’s were amoral and greedy but you can’t see how the dope supplier is even more so.

They cheated on the duties of being a lender with the Nations deposits of which some where pension funds and all sorts of needed funds of people and they didn’t even give the correct higher interest rates that would of been required for that risk ,so they could fleece more .

Funny ,when the meltdown hit they said in essence they were re-pricing risk . How about their whole market dried up when their pawns found out they had been conned . They were saved from insolvency of their host Companies only to live another day to rip off again . Must be nice having bribed
Politicians in your pocket and Fed Chairmans and Treasury Sec. using public funds bailing them out. The moral hazard of that is that they are getting more cocky ,almost smirking.
going on to have some of the biggest bonus years of their lives . So go ahead with your Gordon Geko speeches ,but
you don’t fool me .

Sammy ,you don’t see how Natalie attacks first because you must of missed some of her posts .
Maybe I should not of used the expression that she is full of
sh—t, and that would be uncalled for . These apologist for the
crimes of the biggest financial Pozi -Scheme and the destruction that followed are annoying and I have read similar PR pieces
put out by Wall Street culprits that are similar to what Natalie peddles . Sorry if I offended you Sammy ,I should not of called
her the piece of shit that she is .

I never once justified any particular actions, I only said that it is unfair to assume that most Wall Street people were engaged in illegal activity.

I guess you better go back and review your posts Natalie and see what you justified and what your assertions were . Since the selling of trillions of dollars worth
of CDO’s, credit default swaps ,and many transactions tied to real estate lending was the main money maker of Wall Street from 200 to 2007 ,one can only assume that the major Wall Street firms were engaged in activities that most would consider a con job. .I think the commissioned sales people and the people who were responsible for their acts would be the culprits ,not the clerks and office workers and a number of jobs on Wall Street .

Are you drunk?

I never once justified any particular actions,

Yes you did. Are you spinning?

Please cut and paste my quote that you are referring to as evidence for your accusation, and I will tell you how you misread it. If you read carefully, you will see that all I said was that I believe many if not most of their actions were legal and thus need to be curtailed through governmental action (e.g., laws, regulation, etc.).

Hey now, don’t bring hockey players into this!

No kidding Mr. Bubble. That was an insult to hockey players.

I will check it out. Thank you.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/10/oecd-uk-worst-social-mobility#

The top 3 countries with the poorest social mobility are, in order, UK, Italy, USA.

“Would-be Horatio Algers are finding it no easier to climb from rags to riches, while the children of the privileged have a greater chance of staying at the top of the social heap.”

I could have told them this 25 years ago.

With regard to how we’re doing in Salt Lake price-wise (and in general, for that matter) I’d say we’re running the same cycle as the big for states, probably 1/2 to 2/3 the magnitude in terms of price swings, with a two-year time lag.

St. George in the SW. corner of the state crashed along with LV and AZ because it has more in common demographically with those areas than it does with the Wasatch Front.

And our own little out-of-the-way corner of the world in Torrey (where we’re keeping a place but no longer live nor work) is running about 4-5 years behind. We had a run-up in the late 90’s, no run-up at all during the peak of the bubble, and now things are just starting to soften.

I’m just not sure you are with the program here. That is exactly why you will get all of this 10 years hence; the statute of limitations will run out.

Roidy