kimmy

I don't really need to post anything about the subprime mortgage situation because dre has all that covered, but I will anyway. Your version of history is false. This has been covered repeatedly, but for your benefit we'll summarize the key points again. -from 2002 to 2005, the share of all mortgages securitized through Fannie and Freddie fell from 50% to 30%, and private-label securitization went from 10% to 40% of all mortgages. -in 2004, Fannie and Freddie held 48% of sub-prime mortgages that existed, and by 2006 Fannie and Freddy held just 24% of sub-prime mortgages that existed. -in 2006, 84% of sub-prime mortgages issued were securitized through private institutions. The very years that the housing bubble was forming were the years that Fannie and Freddie's share of the market shrank and private mortgage securitization went through the roof. So attempting to blame it on Fannie and Freddie just doesn't work. It's completely contradicted by the facts. The housing bubble formed during the years when private institutions were securitizing mortgages so fast that Fannie and Freddie's share of the market shrank dramatically. And Fannie and Freddie's share of subprime mortgages shrank even more dramatically than their share of overall mortgages. Those are the facts. The facts are that private institutions aggressively pursued sub-prime mortgages, not because Clinton or Congress made them do it, but because that was a business decision they made. Again, this is laughable. Here are the Team Free Market guys-- the guys who say government ought to step back and let businesses decide how to make money-- saying that the government ought to have told the private banks to stop. It's especially hilarious coming from you, a guy who has continuously argued that business makes better decisions than government. If Ron Paul and George Bush were "concerned" in 2006, why weren't the investment banks? What makes Ron Paul and George Bush more knowledgeable about investment banking than investment bankers?? (I believe you about Ron Paul, because he's always concerned. I'm skeptical that George Bush was concerned, however, because I remember him on my TV talking about how great it was for lower-income people to own homes-- how pride of ownership would transform poor communities, and things like that. Growth of home ownership during his tenure was something he was proud of.) And we all know-- all of us know-- what the reaction from the bankers and their lobbyists would have been in 2006 if somebody from the government had gone out and said "the subprime mortgage market is growing too fast and we as a government have to take action to slow it down." And we all know what you Team Free Market guys would have said about that at the time as well. What I am doing is attempting to confront this fiction that Shady and Seinfeld and Kraychik have been spreading, that the government made the housing bubble and the subprime mortgage crisis and the Wall Street collapse happen. "b-b-but they made banks give subprime mortgages to minorities!" "b-b-but they lowered the standards!" "b-b-but they *enabled* it!" All revisionist history that attempts to deny the role the banks had in choosing their own demise. -k

After the 1st presidential debate, it was easy to tell who won. Republican supporters were pumping their fists, Democrat supporters were complaining about the moderator and complaining that Romney lied. After the vice presidential debate, it's just as easy. Democrats are stoked, and Republican supporters are complaining about the moderator and complaining that Biden was rude and disrespectful to Ryan. Luckily for Republicans, a vice presidential debate probably means next to nothing to voters who are still trying to decide who to support. Democrats are mostly just excited because Biden did all the things Obama ought to have done during the first debate-- he was forceful, authoritative, and most importantly challenged directly Ryan on falsehoods. Unfortunately for Obama, he can't really do it the same way... it's just not in his character. It's just impossible to picture Obama shouting "mullarkey!" or laughing at his opponent while he's talking, or interrupting his opponent to call out a lie. It's just a personality thing. -k

I imagine it would go something like this: "Before 1978 many of us in the Mormon faith were doubtful that this was the correct interpretation of our scripture. Many of us worked to convince the elders to reconsider the church view on this topic. I was among those who championed those efforts. Also, I have many African-American friends. In fact, the butler at my 4th house is an African-American. We often talk." -k

I learned everything I know about gypsies from the movies "Snatch" and "Drag Me To Hell", so I certainly don't have much to offer on that issue, specifically. But I notice this discussion seems to be drifting back and forth between immigration and refugee claims, which are two different topics. Immigration is something we do with a goal of improving our country. We're allowed and supposed to be greedy-- take the ones we think will be best for Canada, turn down the losers. That's the whole point. Refugees are something we agree to as part of our duty to the international community and our values. I agree with Argus that not every hard-luck story is a legitimate refugee claim and that we could hold to more traditional idea of what constitutes a refugee. I kind of had the opposite reaction, Michael... there's been this persistent charge that the bias is about race, not culture. I think the concern about the Roma demonstrates otherwise. I'd also like to say that Argus and Black Dog have had a great discussion in this thread. Higher-quality of discussion than has been the norm on this board for a while. -k

You've been shown again and again and again that the large majority of sub-prime loans had *nothing* to do with CRA. The majority of the institutions dishing out sub-prime mortgages weren't even under requirements of the CRA. Yes, Shady, they did. The banks absolutely did want to give out these mortgages. The fact that you don't understand that, and that you don't understand the reasons why sub-prime mortages were highly desirable for these institutions, makes you ill-equipped to label anybody else an "economic illiterate." -k

If he's being kept out for a legitimate reason, then so be it. But if he's being kept out because people don't want him to deliver his crappy message, I'm opposed. I didn't approve of George Galloway being kept out, and I don't approve of this either. -k

That's your explanation? The banks decided to give out far more sub-prime mortgages than any regulation required them to, and your explanation is that they did it because the government "enabled" it? The government "enabled" it? Since when do you Hero Of The Free Markets talk about private enterprises as if they were helpless alcoholics? "I didn't want to start drinking again, but the beer was there and I couldn't stop myself..." -k

You're the one being obtuse-- not sure if it's pretend or not. Look, dude, the argument you're making-- that the government is to blame because they lowered the standards-- depends on the idea that lenders needed the government to tell them that some mortgages were too risky. The rest of Team Free Enterprise would take you out behind the woodshed for making that argument, because it's the exact opposite of the principles you guys believe in. "The government knows better than private lenders what loans are too risky? Preposterous! Remove those regulations and let private industry decide what risks to take!" (As for whether any standards were actually lowered, you ought to take that up with dre, who has challenged you on that issue.) Once again, the large majority of sub-prime mortgages were not issued to comply with CRA regulations, they were issued voluntarily by companies who viewed them as a great way to make money. Maybe instead of running around calling people "economic illiterates", you should do a bit of reading on why private lenders were so excited about sub-prime mortgages. -k

Several times in this thread, I've posted about Republicans who are fighting back against the President's "War On Religion". Arkansas state representative Loy Mauch has become the latest Republican to take a stand against President Lincoln's war against Chri-- wait-- Lincoln? ...well, yes. Rep. Mauch is still damned upset about the War Of Northern Aggression, or "the Civil War", as us foreigners call it. The Arkansas Times, possibly prompted by a couple of other outrageous comments from Arkansas Republicans, went looking through Mauch's past letters to the editor, and came up with some of his greatest hits. Highlights include: What else is there to say about that? The two other Arkansas Republicans in the news recently: Charles Fuqua wants parents to have the authority to have their unruly children put to death, because it says so in Deuteronomy 21:18-21. and Jon Hubbard says that slavery was actually good for blacks because getting into the greatest country on earth as a slave was better than life in sub-Saharan Africa. Hubbard also says that desegregation of schools is turning white-kids dumb, and compares Christians who accept desegretation to Germans who stood idly by as Hitler rose to power. What is going on in Arkansas?! -k

The large majority of sub-prime mortgages were given *voluntarily*, not as a requirement of the CRA or any other "do-gooder" requirements. Many of the largest lenders of sub-prime mortgages were not evey subject to CRA. The large majority of sub-prime mortgages were given because the lender saw an opportunity to make money. But you're blaming the US government for not having standards in place to prevent the avalanche of sub-prime mortgages. And you're praising the Canadian government for applying tougher standards to CMHC-insured mortgages. It sounds as if you're saying the government ought to have regulations in place to keep the banks from acting recklessly. Is that what you're trying to say? If so, then congratulations! You've joined the side of sanity. -k

I just posted a long message to Shady on this subject here so I'll just repeat it for your benefit: We're all aware that Fannie Mae was directed by the government to increase loans to poor people. The point that you've been challenged on, again and again, and that your article doesn't address at all, is that private lenders gave out sub-prime mortgages at a far greater rate than any law or quota required them to. The reality is that the CRA and Fannie and Freddie didn't cause the housing bubble. The housing bubble occurred when private lenders plunged into the market in a huge way, giving out risky mortgages that Fanny and Freddie weren't allowed to. During 2002 to 2006, Fannie and Freddie's market share shrank dramatically as subprime mortgages from private lenders *exploded*. By 2006, 84% of subprime mortgages were lent by private lenders, not Fannie and Freddie. And it wasn't the CRA that made private lenders do it, either: 24 of the 25 biggest lenders of sub-prime mortgages weren't even *subject* to the requirements of the CRA. During the housing bubble, Fannie and Freddie were actually *reducing* their subprime mortgages. Paul Krugman: Private lenders' share of the mortgage market went through the roof: The Bush administraction actually *reduced* the requirements of the CRA in 2004: The Private Label Securitizers (PLS) also backed far riskier mortgages than the Government Sponsored Enterprices (GSEs... Fannie and Freddie): To summarize: Private lenders were the ones who had the lowest standards. Private lenders were the ones who put the subprime mortgage market into high gear between 2002 and 2006. Mortages required to meet CRA quotas constitute a tiny fraction of the subprime mortgages given out during that time. The idea that you can blame it on the CRA or Fannie and Freddie is laughable. Private institutions jumped on subprime mortgages with both feet. So why? The only explanation you've offered as to why the private lenders dove so heavily into sub-prime mortgages was this: Which is hilarious! Because up until yesterday, your story has been that banks never wanted to lend to these people at all! Congress made them do it! Congress made the banks give mortgages to people who shouldn't have had mortgages! Barack Hussein Obama and the courts made them do it! The banks had no choice! You've gone from telling us that the banks didn't want to be in that business at all, to telling us that banks *needed* to compete for this business. It's a fascinating 180-degree reversal that really illustrate your credibility. You're right about this much, though: the banks didn't want to compete with Fannie and Freddie for sub-prime loans... they wanted that business for themselves. Here is an interesting read on that subject: somebody compiled speeches and testimony from the American Enterprise Institute from the early 2000s on the subject, all of them pushing the argument that the GSEs weren't needed because private securitization was doing way more to help minorities and poor-people get mortgages. -k

Looks interesting. -k

I know a couple of people here are regular readers of "The Friendly Atheist" blog, so they probably saw this already. For everybody else, I'd like to present this video by Nina Paley, illustrating the stupidity of over 3 millennia of people killing each other over a piece of land the size of Vancouver Island because they believe God promised it to them. Youtube link for the lazy... ...and Nina's page, which includes an illustrated guide to "who's killing who", because as Nina puts it, "you can't tell the players without a pogrom!" -k

This is a 2009 animated feature made by independent animator Nina Paley, and it was recommended on a blog I often read, which featured another of Nina's videos today. It blends an ancient Hindu myth about star-crossed lovers Sita and Rama, a modern-day story based on Nina Paley's own divorce, and the songs of 1920s jazz star Annette Hanshaw. If that sounds like a weird mix ... it is. And yet it's strangely wonderful. The film blends a variety of styles of animation. Scenes set in ancient India resemble ancient Indian art... Sita's song-and-dance numbers resemble Golden-Age cartoons (Sita herself looks a lot like Betty Boop... except with larger Boops.) The modern-day scenes involving Paley are drawn in a sparse style that looks a lot like a 4-panel newspaper comic strip. The shadow-puppet narrator scenes have yet another distinct style. Then there are musical interludes that are like an LSD trip or something. One of the highlights is the three ... shadow-puppets, the blurb calls them, who explain and editorialize about Sita's story. They are voiced by modern-day Hindus who have apparently ad-libbed discussion on plot-points and bicker with each other over the details of the story, and they're hilarious. Another highlight is the "Intermission", which ... well, I can't even begin. Roger Ebert declared this one of the best films of 2009. I don't recall what movies I watched in 2009, but this was definitely a treat. It's 80 minutes I hadn't planned on spending, but decided to watch a few minutes, and then couldn't stop watching. Paley has made the whole thing available for free on Youtube. -k

Do you really think Romney adjusted his plan? Came up with a new policy to make sure people with pre-existing conditions can get coverage... and forgot to tell his campaign? Eric Fehrnstrom, Romney's top campaign official, was doing interviews the day *after* the debate, clarifying that Romney's "plan" actually doesn't include anything about protecting people with pre-existing conditions. Do you think Romney came up with a new plan and just forgot to tell his top guy? And that the Romney campaign has in the days since the debate somehow forgotten to announce this exciting new policy or post it on their website, or do anything to publicize it other than have Eric Fehrnstrom running around telling the media that there isn't actually a new policy? Of course not. You'd have to be an idiot to believe that's the case, and I know you're not an idiot. We all know what happened. Romney knew that his real position is unpopular, so he misrepresented his position, and had his advisor go around clarifying the real position the day after, when 67 million people weren't paying attention. -k

Good for you, Shady, you found an article and used the hyperlink function correctly. Special congratulations on your use of red, bold, and font-size. That really looks impressive. Too bad the article doesn't make the point you want it to. We're all aware that Fannie Mae was directed by the government to increase loans to poor people. The point that you've been challenged on, again and again, and that your article doesn't address at all, is that private lenders gave out sub-prime mortgages at a far greater rate than any law or quota required them to. The reality is that the CRA and Fannie and Freddie didn't cause the housing bubble. The housing bubble occurred when private lenders plunged into the market in a huge way, giving out risky mortgages that Fanny and Freddie weren't allowed to. During 2002 to 2006, Fannie and Freddie's market share shrank dramatically as subprime mortgages from private lenders *exploded*. By 2006, 84% of subprime mortgages were lent by private lenders, not Fannie and Freddie. And it wasn't the CRA that made private lenders do it, either: 24 of the 25 biggest lenders of sub-prime mortgages weren't even *subject* to the requirements of the CRA. During the housing bubble, Fannie and Freddie were actually *reducing* their subprime mortgages. Paul Krugman: Private lenders' share of the mortgage market went through the roof: The Bush administraction actually *reduced* the requirements of the CRA in 2004: The Private Label Securitizers (PLS) also backed far riskier mortgages than the Government Sponsored Enterprices (GSEs... Fannie and Freddie): To summarize: Private lenders were the ones who had the lowest standards. Private lenders were the ones who put the subprime mortgage market into high gear between 2002 and 2006. Mortages required to meet CRA quotas constitute a tiny fraction of the subprime mortgages given out during that time. The idea that you can blame it on the CRA or Fannie and Freddie is laughable. Private institutions jumped on subprime mortgages with both feet. So why? The only explanation you've offered as to why the private lenders dove so heavily into sub-prime mortgages was this: Which is hilarious! Because up until yesterday, your story has been that banks never wanted to lend to these people at all! Congress made them do it! Congress made the banks give mortgages to people who shouldn't have had mortgages! Barack Hussein Obama and the courts made them do it! The banks had no choice! You've gone from telling us that the banks didn't want to be in that business at all, to telling us that banks *needed* to compete for this business. It's a fascinating 180-degree reversal that really illustrate your credibility. You're right about this much, though: the banks didn't want to compete with Fannie and Freddie for sub-prime loans... they wanted that business for themselves. Here is an interesting read on that subject: somebody compiled speeches and testimony from the American Enterprise Institute from the early 2000s on the subject, all of them pushing the argument that the GSEs weren't needed because private securitization was doing way more to help minorities and poor-people get mortgages. As for this... ...I must have missed when that happened. Actually I don't think I can recall any time on this forum, ever, where you've kicked anybody's teeth in in a debate. Huge hubris from a guy whose usual M.O. is to post some troll comments and then duck out when people start debating them. And as for this stuff... ...I'm pretty surprised that you can post garbage like this while so many other people have been sent to the cooler lately. -k

I gather "economic illiterates" is the generic term for everybody who doesn't swallow the "rah-rah deregulation!" horseshit. The claim that the government made banks lend out all those risky mortgages has been debunked so many times on this board that it's getting to be like the "who's on first?" routine. You (or Seinfeld or Pliny) spout this crap, then the facts are presented and you abandon thread and make the same claim 2 days later in a new thread. It's like Whack-A-Mole. -k

Do you disagree that the policies Romney talked about during the debate are different from the ones that he has been campaigning on all year? -k

No it isn't. Apple is an example of why-- they've willingly sacrificed market share in exchange for charging a higher price for a premium product (a strategy typical of makers of premium products, by the way. Lower market share, but higher margins.) I read an interesting example last week: Sealy mattresses. Sealy was once the biggest maker of mattresses in America. They were bought by a "private equity firm" that proceeded to arrange the finances so that the purchase cost became a liability on Sealy's ledger. To erase this liability, the equity firm then proceeded to lean on Sealy to increase profits: the "no-flip mattress" was the result. Cut production costs by only putting a sleeping-surface on one side of the mattress. The consumer gets a product that only lasts half as long, because you can't turn it over and use the other side when the top is worn out. Meanwhile an upstart mattress company, TempurPedic, was also doing some innovation. While Sealy was researching the cheap-ass no-flip mattress, TempurPedic was researching ways to use NASA foam materials to make high-end mattresses. To make a long story short, TempurPedic just bought Sealy. Sealy had the larger market share (just passed by Serta for #1, apparently) but they were a money-losing, debt-ridden company, that just got bought by a company with a much smaller market share. In the early days, iOS trailed Symbian and Blackberry and Windows Mobile. As those 3 faded into the sunset, Android rocketed into the lead. iOS has never led market share. It's not even the fastest growing-- Android is. Again, you're really just clinging to this one metric because it's the only thing you can find to support the case you're trying to build. You make it sound as if government bureaucrats are sitting in the corner office (well... those towers are round, they don't really have corner offices, but I digress) telling the businessmen how to run the company. That isn't the case. And the above example with Sealy illustrates another point: private shareholders may not necessarily know know what is good for a business either. If a "private equity firm" buys a company and says "we don't give a crap whether the product is good, you have to reduce costs", then the result is "no-flip mattresses" instead of NASA foam mattresses. How about Blackberry? They come out with a terrible quarterly report, and the share price goes down, and the company response is: "we have to cut costs to make the shareholders happy." So they go out and lay off half the programmers and engineers that are making their new product. And then next quarter there's another terrible report, and analysts say that the reason the sales are falling is that the product is falling behind its competitors, and the new Blackberry products have been delayed. Why were the new products delayed? Well, because they fired half the development team earlier in the year. -k

They're shaking the infamous "Etch-A-Sketch" hard right now. They've realized that the message they had been peddling was a complete flop, and they're trying to come up with a message people will like better. Old message: a 20-percent tax cut for everybody! End the estate tax and inheritance tax! Lower corporate taxes! Lower capital gains tax! Painful realization: nobody believes you can give everybody a 20 percent tax cut without raising the deficit or ending tax deductions that will impact lower and middle-class people a lot more than they'll impact millionaires. New message: I won't implement any tax cut that increases the deficit! Old message: regulations are hurting the economy! I'm going to kill Dodd-Frank and get the economy rolling again! Painful realization: After what happened in 2008, promising to get rid of Wall Street regulations is about as popular as a turd in a punch-bowl. New message: I oppose Dodd-Frank because it's the biggest kiss Wall Street has ever gotten! Old message: Obamacare is a socialist takeover of the healthcare industry! It's an assault on religious freedom! People who can't get insurance can get medical care if they go to an emergency room. Painful realization: a lot of voters support many aspects of Obamacare. New message: I'm going to repeal Obamacare because it's hurting businesses, but trust me, I care deeply about people who can't get insurance. I have a plan! And people with pre-existing conditions are going to be protected, trust me. And then you have Eric Fehrnstrom go out and explain the fine print on news shows the next day when 67 million voters aren't watching. "Welll, when Gov. Romney said his plan protects people with pre-existing conditions, what he really means is that people with pre-existing conditions can't get dropped if they change jobs and maintain continuous coverage. And, you know, even though we're going to end the protections provided by Obamacare, individual states could still come up with their own plans that might protect citizens..." -k

One that I sometimes read is called Zen Pencils. The artist picks some quote and comes up with a comic strip that illustrates the meaning behind it. Some of them are really great. http://zenpencils.com/comic/81-richard-dawkins-the-lucky-ones/ I also like The Oatmeal. http://theoatmeal.com/comics/hotel_pool http://theoatmeal.com/comics/cat_vs_internet http://theoatmeal.com/comics/cat_kill http://theoatmeal.com/comics/cat_know -k

Definitely a good debate for Willard. Although, expectations were set so low that I think that anything short of spontaneously combusting on stage would have been considered a good night for Willard. I think he won the debate. However, there was no "John Turner moment". I don't think there was anything tonight that really made that big an impression. -k

Yeah, mentally ill ones... In this century I don't know of a place on earth where there are Christians or Jews who still perceive a duty to kill rebellious children; the same can't be said of Muslims. Well, that certainly has a different sound to it than the statements reported by the National Post. I wonder if it's because selective quoting by the Post, or because she got some advice from a lawyer? -k

Not really facetious. I really do think Omar sucks. I just didn't see much to talk about beyond that. He sucks, but unless he and the rest of his clan decide to get lost, they're Canadian citizens and entitled to due process. Ultimately, to me, the rule of law and due process is the most important thing. So as much as Omar sucks, I would not wish to see due process abused any further to keep him off the street. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. I'm not really that big of a fan of "the glorious authority of the state". And I wouldn't put him in the sort of people who are usually lined up against the state, either. Are you comparing Omar to people like the G20 protestors or the Occupy protestors? If you are, that's ludicrous. Omar wasn't in Afghanistan to oppose the authority of our state, he was in Afghanistan to support a far more authoritarian regime than our own. Yes, I realize that Omar had little chance, being raised by such a wretched family (although, I recall one of his brothers did leave the family behind.) Still, there are lots of horrible people who probably turned out horrible because they were raised by horrible parents. It's certainly tragic that these people were raised in such a manner, but at the end of the day they're still horrible people regardless of whatever made them horrible. -k

Debating whether this is an "honor killing" seems pretty pointless. It is obvious that religion and culture are an undeniable factor in this attack, whether or not the term "honor killing" fits. I think that the use of terms like "heat of the moment" and "crime of passion" in this case is also inaccurate. I think that in the context of the law, those terms have a connotation of immediacy that doesn't really fit the sequence of events described here. If she'd grabbed the knife off the table and swung before she had a chance to think about what she was doing, that's one thing. But she left the room to get the knife, concealed it, asked her husband to leave, asked her daughter to lie down... she had plenty of time to reconsider what she was doing. From reading her statements, it seems that her only regret is that she didn't use a sharper knife. She seems convinced she was doing the right thing. She wanted to "give her the peace she needed." She's clearly got beliefs that just aren't compatible with Canadian values and laws. Whether that's a "culture" thing or a "religion" thing is a tough question because the two are closely linked for a lot of people from the ultra-conservative parts of the Muslim world. The Old Testament says to execute disobedient children too, but Christians and Jews have evolved to a point where they know that's a stupid idea. Sadly, in some parts of the Muslim world, they haven't evolved much. -k