I tend to forgive the house buyers who took out the loans for houses they couldn't afford, because the housing market was tremendously puffed up by the selling of the derivatives. Folks were seeing everyone all around them making money on their home equity increases, and if greed overcame their ability to set a reasonable financial plan for themselves, it is quite understandable, but the banks are the ones who pushed these thousands of homeowners-to-be to trust the equity-profit-trends even though they knew they were ballooned out of all proportion and that the prices these folks were paying for a house was ALREADY INFLATED BEYOND ALL PROPRIETY. The banks just churned the suckers.
They say there's 19,000,000 VACANT houses right now on the market. When the boom began, a good portion of those houses were on the market then too -- supply was way beyond demand, but housing prices increased because the derivative market puffed them up. I think Obama is dealing with the devil and doing stuff he'd rather not do but it's a triage situation. I think he's just now getting traction and clarity about what he can reasonably expect to accomplish. I keep waiting for Obama to really test his political clout; waiting for him to support marijuana legalization, taking away tobacco and alcohol subsidies, passing disgorgement laws, increasing gas-guzzler surtaxes, etc. I want him to really have a good old fashioned tiff and hold his breath until he gets what he wants. "Hold his breath" means getting his true believers politically active and hounding the ass of any congress person or senator who stands in the way. I think the real test of Obama is coming with the elections of 2010 -- there is where we'll see if the residual repugs are tossed out of office for being such bastards for Obama to contend with in his first year of office. That, or Jim Bunning turns Democrat and Steward Smally finally gets declared MN's senator -- if Obama gets control of the Senate, maybe then he'll come out with far more controversial stances. Edg --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jst...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, grate.swan <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > The main reason we are told that we need to bailout > > the banks is that the economy will tank (more) and > > unemployment will skyrocket. We are told we must > > spend trillions to bail out companies, management, > > investors and imprudent / flipping home buyers. > > Minor point: We're not told we must bail out imprudent/ > flipping home buyers. In fact, Obama said explicitly > in his NSOTU speech that this wasn't going to happen. > > However, it probably is going to happen, simply > because it's too difficult and time-consuming to pick > these people out of the group of candidates for > assistance. At least some who "don't deserve it" may > end up getting it anyway, as the price for getting it > to everyone who *does* deserve it in a timely manner. > > > If we let these complex debt instruments and credit > > swaps to naturally resolve themselves -- giving bad > > management, bad investment decisions, bad loan > > practices, bad judgments by home-buyers a huge -- but > > mostly deserving hit -- we are told we must instead > > bail them out and spend massively on questionable > > things that we will be paying back for over many > > decades -- or else unemployment will be at depression > > levels -- and all that cames from that. > > The thing of it is, these instruments can't resolve > themselves in a vacuum. The whole problem is that > they're so intimately tied to so many other aspects > of the financial system--not just in the U.S. but > globally--that letting them resolve themselves would > bring down the entire worldwide financial structure. > > Unemployment has many consequences, but it would itself > be the consequence of such a collapse, which would > basically strangle commerce across the board. Trying to > start the economy up again after it has definitively > been destroyed would be vastly *more* expensive and take > much longer than the approaches that have been taken and > are being contemplated now. The misery that ensued in > the meantime would be unimaginable. > > And these approaches may not work. But very, very few > economists think it would be better just to let things > "naturally resolve themselves." > > That CNBC program Curtis recommended isn't called > "House of Cards" for nothing. It's already fallen > partway. If we just stand back and let it go instead > of trying everything we can think of to shore it up, > we'll be left with a pile of useless cards and no > house at all, for any of us. > > Who "deserves" to be bailed out and who doesn't is > fundamentally irrelevant, because if those who don't > are allowed to fall, they'll bring the rest of us-- > around the world--down with them. > > Being furiously angry at these people is entirely > reasonable and fully justified. What's not reasonable > is to let that anger get in the way of saving > *ourselves*. >
