.
.
.
Reprinted in its entirety with permission from Eddie’s Corner, the blog of Eddie Rose, at www.eddierose.org
Yes, some of the “Occupy” protesters may seem dirty (but no dirtier than BIG OIL and their lobbyists). Yes, some of the “Occupy” protesters may look scary (but no scarier than the views of most of the Republican Presidential candidates). Yes, some of the “Occupy” protesters may have hidden agendas (but no more hidden than the agendas of our elected “leaders”).
Nevertheless, the message of the “Occupy” protesters is right on point—namely, that the Wall Street insiders, the big banksters, the mega-corporations, are destroying America with their deceit, their greed, and their lust for power.
But this is still America. We have the constitutional right to peacefully assemble, to air our grievances, and to seek an end to injustice, whenever and wherever it may exist.
So long as the “Occupy” protesters do not block traffic or necessary ingress and egress to public and private facilities, so long as they don’t interfere with the flow of legal commerce, so long as they do not create a risk to public health and safety—they have every right to protest. It’s a dirty job, but someone’s got to do it!
The Honorable Eddie Rose
Former Laguna Niguel City Councilman
“A Voice—Not an Echo”
The message of the “Occupy” protesters misses the point—namely, that Big Government is destroying America with it’s stupidity, it’s ignorance, it’s deceit, it’s greed, it’s perverse logic and it’s lust for power.
http://dreamdogsart.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c192953ef010536b5a7a2970b-pi
Apart from your complete misunderstanding of where our problems come from, skallywag, you could’ve also saved yourself six apostrophes.
I do know from whence our economic problems flow – and I have plenty of apostrophes to spare.
In Post-Keynesian economics, real estate bubbles are seen as an example of credit bubbles (or speculative bubbles), because property owners use borrowed money to purchase property, in the form of mortgages. These then cause financial and hence economic crises. Numerous real estate bubbles have been followed by economic slumps, and there is a cause-effect relationship between these.
Property owners not only feel richer but borrow to consume against the increased value of their property — by taking out a home equity line of credit for instance; or speculate by buying property with borrowed money in the expectation that it will rise in value.
When the bubble bursts, the value of the property decreases but not the level of debt. The burden of repaying or defaulting on the loan depresses aggregate demand, and constitutes the proximate cause of the subsequent economic slump.
Yes, we had a housing bubble. But the housing bubble did not force financial institutions to create mortgage backed securities, collateralized debt obligations, credit default swaps, and synthetic collateralized debt obligations…in otherwords, taking crap and selling it as gold. Wall Street did that on their own, APART from a housing bubble, and drove the entire freakin’ global financial market to the brink.
Yes, Mr. Rose would present a more compelling, balanced case by mentioning the complicity of Washington politicians. And you, Mr. Skallywag, would present a more compelling, balanced case by mentioning the complicity of Wall Street.
I remember A Choice-Not an Echo, a booklet authored by Phyllis Schlafly that touted Barry Goldwater’s philosophy and readiness to be President circa his 1964 campaign for that office. Mr. Rose has apparently bastardized that historical document by posting his a voice not an echo slogan. So much for creativity.
LOL totally. I would not have picked that up, having been about 1/2 when Barry ran.
But our two cranky old conservatives growling at each other? Priceless.
“Bastardized”? Sir, that’s homage!
guillotine
A Tale of Two Cities 1935 I like better than the newer versions.
I suggest that the “occupiers” watch the movies or read the book by Charles Dickens.
The question in France at the end of the 18th century is the same one current occupiers are asking today. What can the people do about the ruling class abuse of the people (the 99 percent)?
I suggest that most of us already have — although right now we’re more in the realm of Oliver Twist than TOTC. You don’t hear knitting needles clicking on our side, eh?
It is with regret that I pronounce the fatal truth. Barack, through the power of the people’s vote, ought to be removed from power that the country may live.
And replaced with — well, are you for Romney or Gingrich as your “life preserver”?
anon said:
“.. the housing bubble did not force financial institutions to create mortgage backed securities, (etc.) ..” Actually it was the other way around anon.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac served the mortgage market through their purchase of home loans from major lending institutions. Once purchased, these loans are securitized by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac by issuing bonds (mortgage backed securities) which are then sold to investors.
Big government was an ardent supporter of having Fannie and Freddie loosen their underwriting standards to provide mortgage funds to what was referred to as the under served and disadvantaged segments of the housing markets. Needless to say Fannie and Freddie followed Big Government’s advice with a passion.
Government has supported Fannie & Freddie beyond reason, purportedly to make home ownership possible for people otherwise unable to share the American Dream. Yet Fannie and Freddie have only increased home ownership by 4 percent over the past 30 years. By contrast, in many countries, home ownership increased by 12 percent Lenders who worked for the liar loan mortgage companies often felt they were doing a service to the community by making home ownership available to those who couldn’t financially qualify for a mortgage.
Liberals, it seems, will never learn that avoiding the truth causes huge problems. If people can’t qualify for a mortgage – if they cannot make required payments – lenders have absolutely no reason to give them a mortgage loan. If borrowers cannot afford the payment, they will eventually lose the property. Many people, not just the borrower, get hurt.
Liberals, it seems – will never learn there is no such thing as a free lunch – except perhaps at the Federal Reserve.
Give me a break. Fannie and Freddie were a PART of the problem…but Fannie and Freddie did not control the financial markets. You can bury your head as deep in the sand as you’d like, but your apparent willingness to absolve Wall Street of any excesses is laughable.
anon,
Of course you could see this coming, the only surprise is that skallywag didn’t mention Barney Frank … wait for it.
Skallywag “knows” what he’s “learned” from Fox “News” and Rush, but as we really know, those that watch Fox “know” less than those who don’t watch the news at all.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/21/news/la-pn-fox-news-poll-20111121
The right LOVES to blame the CRA and Fannie and Freddie for the mortgage meltdown, but that SIMPLISTIC explanation flies in the face of the facts and expert opinion.
From McClatchy;
Federal Reserve Board data show that:
More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by PRIVATE lending institutions.
PRIVATE firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that’s being lambasted by conservative critics. …
Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.
During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data. …
Fannie and Freddie, however, didn’t pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.
What’s more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don’t, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.
These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren’t subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#ixzz1g9Xb0ZNV
From MotherJones;
… Now to Barry Ritholtz. An financial expert and wildly popular blogger, Ritholtz has written time and time again about the lunacy of blaming Fannie and Freddie. He’s so sure of his position that he’s offered $100,000 to anyone who can prove him wrong. Here’s Ritholtz debunking the Fannie and Freddie meme:
The origination of subprime loans came primarily from non-bank lenders not covered by the [Community Reinvestment Act, a law pushing the two GSEs to purchase more loans in the secondary markets and thus expand access to housing loans to low-income neighborhoods];
The majority of the underwriting, at least for the first few years of the boom, were by these same non-bank lenders;
When the big banks began chasing subprime, it was due to the profit motive, not any mandate from the President (a Republican) or the Congress (Republican controlled) or the GSEs they oversaw;
Prior to 2005, nearly all of these sub-prime loans were bought by Wall Street—NOT Fannie & Freddie;
In fact, prior to 2005, the GSEs were not permitted to purchase non-conforming mortgages;
The change in FNM/FRE conforming mortgage purchases in 2005 was not due to any legislation or marching orders from the President (a Republican) or the the Congress (Republican controlled). It was the profit motive that led them to this action.
That’s Ritholtz’s perspective, which he backs up in more detail in his book, Bailout Nation.
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/05/dear-gop-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-cause-financial-crisis-subprime-mortgage-gse
Quotes from the bankers themselves;
What Did NOT Cause the Crisis?
CHRISTOPHER COX (SEC CHAIRMAN), ALAN GREENSPAN, JOHN SNOW (FORMER TREASURY SECRETARY)
When questioned in a House Oversight Committee meeting on October 23, 2008, all three agreed that All agreed that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were NOT the primary cause of the subprime meltdown.
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/23/mica-waxman/
JOHN DUGAN, COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY
“CRA [the Community Reinvestment Act, a longstanding program for encouraging more lending in minority neighborhoods] is NOT the culprit behind the subprime mortgage lending abuses, or the broader credit quality issues in the marketplace.”
Press release issued on November 19, 2008, quoting Mr. Dugan in a speech to the Enterprise Annual Network Conference
RANDALL KROZNER, FORMERLY ON THE FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD, NOW A PROFESSOR OF ECONOMICS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
“The very small share of all higher-priced (home) loans originated that can reasonably be attributed to CRA makes it hard to imagine how this law could have contributed in any meaningful way to the current subprime crisis.”
Speaking at a conference, as quoted in a Reuters article
http://www.responsiblelending.org/mortgage-lending/tools-resources/what-caused-the-financial-crisis-quotes-from-bankers.html
Damn, Anonster. That’s some pretty persuasive stuff.
there is a lawsuit making its way through the federal court system that provides hope for small business and the middle class. “Citrus El Dorado v Stearns Bank” was tried before a jury in Santa Ana about two months ago and is now up on appeal in the 9th circuit. small businesses can fight back and they can win
*When Jeff Skillings….the darling Enron Wonderkind…stated after President Clinton and the Republican Controlled Congress passed the removal of Glas-Steagal……in 1998! “We are starting a new Hedge Fund next year with $3 Billion dollars of start-up money….” The Economic Reporters with bated breath what is will it be about Jeff?:
“How many sunny days will Washington D.C. have next year!”….You’re kidding they said…..”No, not at all…..it is going to be very big!”
Symptoms of dirty behavior? Freddie-Mac, Barney Frank and Newt Gingrich pay-offs by the big banks? Where do you start? The only way they could inflate the real estate market fast enough was to open the buyer pool to every illegal immigrant, every unqualified and unsupportable dumbie…that thought they could own a million dollar property, making $27,500 a year…….”cause God is good…and so is the Government!”
Mr. Rose is right on……there wasn’t even ONE Global or Wall Street Banker that stepped up and said: “How did that dumbass law pass….with all these great minds at work in Washington D. C.?”