« previous   misc   next »

Bernanke Says Fed Will Do What It Can to Cause Inflation in Housing


By Mark D   Follow   Thu, 15 Nov 2012, 3:53am PST   2,712 views   32 comments
Watch (0)   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike  

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-15/bernanke-says-fed-will-do-what-it-can-to-support-housing.html

"Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said the Fed will use its policy tools to speed economic growth and a recovery in housing, which faces obstacles ranging from too-tight lending rules to racial discrimination."

Comments 1-32 of 32     Last »

Nobody   Thu, 15 Nov 2012, 3:56am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 1

Of course, it is never their policy failing or Greenspan being the biggest idiot of the century.

lostand confused   Thu, 15 Nov 2012, 4:48am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 2

Huh? This guy is a doofus.

bmwman91   Thu, 15 Nov 2012, 4:54am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (6)   Dislike     Comment 3

Yeah, lending rules are too tight. I mean really, how can anyone expect Real Americans (TM) to come up with a 3.5% down payment while also doing their job to get properly fucked in the ass via other credit instruments for shit they don't actually need?

BobMSN   Thu, 15 Nov 2012, 5:09am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 4

Great idea!

Looks like, we need an "Affirmative Action on Housing".

Why don't we just socialize all housing and distribute the footages based on your family size and rank in the government. We can certainly learn a lot from North Korea. Unfortunately, China gave up the great idea 20 years ago.

Scagnetti   Thu, 15 Nov 2012, 6:41am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 5

Mark D says

"Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said the Fed will use its policy tools to speed economic growth and a recovery in housing, which faces obstacles ranging from too-tight lending rules to racial discrimination."

I agree...it's too hard for white folks to get loans. That is racial discrimination.

bmwman91   Thu, 15 Nov 2012, 7:31am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (4)   Dislike     Comment 6

Actually, there is racial discrimination in mortgage lending. The government has mandated that poor minorities should be made into debt slaves by making it painfully easy to borrow unwise amounts of money if you are not white. "Equal opportunity lending" my ass. Textbook racism, preying on a group of people like that.

BobMSN   Thu, 15 Nov 2012, 7:43am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 7

Bank should use need-based mortgage approval standard. It is racial discrimination to issues loans based on income.

Better idea: the loan should be approved with a quota system, just like the admission standard of many universities.

PockyClipsNow   Thu, 15 Nov 2012, 10:54am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (6)   Dislike     Comment 8

If u deny a loan to them its racism.
If you give them a loan they default and claim predatory lending and racism.

So all lending and non lending is racist.

bmwman91   Thu, 15 Nov 2012, 10:58am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 9

PockyClipsNow says

If u deny a loan to them its racism.

If you give them a loan they default and claim predatory lending and racism.

So all lending and non lending is racist.

THEM?! Racist!

EastCoastBubbleBoy   Thu, 15 Nov 2012, 11:09am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike     Comment 10

wait.. isn't the idea that "everyone should own a home" what got us INTO this mess in the first place.

Scagnetti   Thu, 15 Nov 2012, 12:38pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 11

bmwman91 says

The government has mandated that poor minorities should be made into debt slaves by making it painfully easy to borrow unwise amounts of money if you are not white.

Are you referring to the fair housing act, the equal credit opportunity act, and the community reinvestment acts? Don't those laws simply prohibit the banks from denying minorities loans that they would otherwise qualify for?

bmwman91   Thu, 15 Nov 2012, 12:49pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 12

Scagnetti says

Are you referring to the fair housing act, the equal credit opportunity act, and the community reinvestment acts? Don't those laws simply prohibit the banks from denying minorities loans that they would otherwise qualify for?

Yeah, referring to those. They do a bit more than say, "you can't deny a creditworthy person because they are brown." Banks don't care what color their vassels are. I believe that they set lending quotas, which is an obviously bad idea.

Scagnetti   Thu, 15 Nov 2012, 1:20pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 13

bmwman91 says

Scagnetti says

Are you referring to the fair housing act, the equal credit opportunity act, and the community reinvestment acts? Don't those laws simply prohibit the banks from denying minorities loans that they would otherwise qualify for?

Yeah, referring to those. They do a bit more than say, "you can't deny a creditworthy person because they are brown." Banks don't care what color their vassels are. I believe that they set lending quotas, which is an obviously bad idea.

I also agree that quotas are a terrible idea. Although I view the situation differently in regards to minorities being discriminated against.

Think about this....

At the time of inception of these laws, America was undergoing Lyndon B. Johnsons' quest for the "great society". The civil rights act of 1964 was passed, segregation was ended in public schools, affirmative action was coming about, and the above "housing" acts were passed.

All of these laws were intended to uplift the minority community which in some ways, on the surface, they did. Although unfortunately some of the laws went past access for minorities, and into preferential treatment. These laws were not passed to "enslave" minorities but to elevate them. Especially the "housing" acts we are talking about.

If minorities were disproportionately affected by the housing bust, that does not necessarily mean that the banks and the government is racist against minorities.

bmwman91   Thu, 15 Nov 2012, 1:56pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 14

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don't dispute the intentions of the various laws in question, but the results speak for themselves. Lots of welfare programs also came out of the 1960's to appease various groups, and they seem to have led to those groups being fed-and-complacent rather than hungry and angry enough to affect meaningful change. This subject probably belongs in a different sub-forum though.

Anyway, the housing lending rules did, IMO, put minority groups in a bad position where they were encouraged to sign up for things that they did not, and were not given a chance to understand. It obviously was not some ploy by old white bankers to damage minorities deliberately. They were just another easy target, and bankers know as well as anyone that you can make up all sorts of shit in the name of "racial equality." Just plain old apathy and greed. Poor whites were probably targeted just as much, if not more since there are more poor white people in the US than any other group, but nobody makes a fuss about that since they are white. White people taking advantage of white people isn't news; it has been going on since recorded history began.

Scagnetti   Thu, 15 Nov 2012, 2:12pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 15

agree...+1 for you

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch   Thu, 15 Nov 2012, 8:33pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (4)   Dislike     Comment 16

Right on, Ben! There is no reason a 3/2 in Stockton should not be be worth $10 million a year from now and enjoy 50% increases in valuations thereafter for 1000 years.

BobMSN   Thu, 15 Nov 2012, 10:53pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 17

bmwman91 says

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Yes. Spoiled child tends to be an underperformer when they grow up. That’s why welfare states tend to have more “poor” people.

CaptainShuddup   Fri, 16 Nov 2012, 12:16am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 18

He also said Blacks and Latinos are discriminated against because the banks wont loan a Lawn maintenance worker, and a School custodian a mortgage. In other News FHA is going under.

It really makes you wonder, does Ben Bernanke even read the News?
Well on second though, perhaps he does.

Call it Crazy   Fri, 16 Nov 2012, 12:26am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 19

CaptainShuddup says

He also said Blacks and Latinos are discriminated against because the banks wont loan a Lawn maintenance worker, and a School custodian a mortgage. In other News FHA is going under.

What are you, a racist???

Don't they deserve the American dream and should be "given" a $400K mortgage to buy a house??

It's only fair you know.......

FortWayne   Fri, 16 Nov 2012, 12:28am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (3)   Dislike     Comment 20

PockyClipsNow says

If u deny a loan to them its racism.

If you give them a loan they default and claim predatory lending and racism.

So all lending and non lending is racist.

You refuse to lend money to a white guy because he is a deadbeat it is fine.
You refuse to lend money to a black guy because he is a deadbeat and you are a racist.

That's how the new left leaning government does it to pander to minorities just to get votes.

taxee   Fri, 16 Nov 2012, 3:02am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 21

Operation Hope Global Financial Dignity Summit = high housing prices and property taxes and everlasting mortgage dept?

taxee   Fri, 16 Nov 2012, 3:13am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 22

Lets face it. The financial sector, in the guise of 'helping', has degenerated to laundering funny money through government programs and insurance fraud. If they can somehow actually find a fresh crop of debt slaves along the way they pay themselves an extra bonus.

CaptainShuddup   Fri, 16 Nov 2012, 3:19am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 23

Fun with then and now...

http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/2001.html
Cost of Living 2001
How Much things cost in 2001
Average Cost of new house $136,150.00
Average Median Income $42,350.00
Cost of a gallon of Gas $1.46

http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/2002.html
Cost of Living 2002
How Much things cost in 2002
Average Cost of new house $228,700.00
Average Median Income $42,409.00
Cost of a gallon of Gas $1.61

Michinaga   Fri, 16 Nov 2012, 3:28am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 24

Back in more enlightened times, a government official who proposed to deliberately destroy the value of the currency of his own nation would have been tarred and feathered, if not hung for treason.

Speaking as someone who has several years' salary saved in this fiat currency, may those times come back some day.

taxee   Fri, 16 Nov 2012, 10:57am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 25

When you're in charge, having all the bennies/carrots/promises to offer is sweet. Those confiscated homes, inflated loans, or brand new fiat currency to pay to a new crop of workers coming up (with clean credit reports!!) really work wonders. Screw those old workers that didn't die on the job or soon after. Serves them right for living past their usefulness.

Homeboy   Fri, 16 Nov 2012, 11:11am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 26

"including a plan to buy $40 billion a month of mortgage-backed securities, aiming to spur growth and reduce a 7.9 percent unemployment rate."

How does buying MBS create jobs?

The Professor   Fri, 16 Nov 2012, 11:28am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 27

Homeboy says

How does buying MBS create jobs?

It doesn't create jobs it helps bankers.

The Professor   Fri, 16 Nov 2012, 11:31am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 28

E-man says

It courages lenders to loosen their lending standards. More lending = higher home prices. Higher home prices =

higher rent and mortgage = less consumer spending = fewer jobs.

drew_eckhardt   Fri, 16 Nov 2012, 2:07pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (2)   Dislike     Comment 29

EastCoastBubbleBoy says

wait.. isn't the idea that "everyone should own a home" what got us INTO this mess in the first place.

No.

We got into this mess because the bankers earned their mortgage origination fees regardless of whether the borrowers paid or defaulted and lost nothing in the later case because they packaged the loans as securities and passed the risk onto someone else. Laxer standards allowed them to write more mortgages for higher profits .

The bond ratings agencies rubber stamping AAA to keep the fees coming helped speed things along.

The National Association of Realtors also benefited from the resulting run-up in prices, sales volume, and commissions. With the largest PAC ranked in terms of contributions to candidates for every election cycle since at least 1998 they had the politicians' ears and were in a position to keep the gravy train running on schedule. The bankers and homebuilders' PACs were also in the top 20.

The Republicans want us to blame the Democrats for this so we're not looking as closely at them when they keep taking the PACs' money (55% of the Realtors' money in 2012) and encourage the same things to happen (like Bush appointee Bernanke with his $40B a month purchase of mortgage backed securities).

Democrats want us to blame the Republicans for this which is also wrong because they're doing the same things (they took 56% of the Realtors' money in 2010 and Obama kept Uncle Ben).

Neither wants us to notice that we have a corporatist government that's acting on behalf of powerful economic interests who usually benefit at our expense - the real-estate industry, the teachers' unions, defense contractors, the prison guards union, farmers, etc.

The average successful senate campaign was running $10M (or about $1.7M/year for the six year term) before the 2012 elections for a job paying about $170K a year which is 1/10th that. The arithmetic works because regardless who wins the people paying for the election get something more valuable after it's over.

It's not Democrat vs. Republican, 99 vs 1% of individuals, or Liberal vs Conservative which is doing this. It's powerful economic interests paying both parties to favor their concerns over ours.

The American people are doomed unless we recognize that and choose neither.

thomaswong.1986   Fri, 16 Nov 2012, 10:10pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 30

PockyClipsNow says

If u deny a loan to them its racism.
If you give them a loan they default and claim predatory lending and racism.

So all lending and non lending is racist.

Andrew Cuomo for President 2016

During Cuomo's tenure as HUD Secretary, he called for an increase in home ownership. He also pushed government-sponsored lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy more home loans issued to poor homeowners, in an attempt to end discrimination against minorities. Some believe that this helped lead to the current subprime mortgage crisis.

thomaswong.1986   Fri, 16 Nov 2012, 10:19pm PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like (1)   Dislike     Comment 31

drew_eckhardt says

We got into this mess because the bankers earned their mortgage origination fees regardless of whether the borrowers paid or defaulted and lost nothing in the later case because they packaged the loans as securities and passed the risk onto someone else.

Bubba Clinton said.. Looks good to me, its all part of CRA anyway.. and good for my Legacy.

drew_eckhardt says

The bond ratings agencies rubber stamping AAA to keep the fees coming helped speed things along.

Ultimately it was the Govt impliedly backing mortgages securities which gave it a AAA rating.

drew_eckhardt says

The National Association of Realtors also benefited from the resulting run-up in prices, sales volume, and commissions.

Yes, I agree and certainly no one in Govt bothered to eliminate the commissions on RE sales as they were eager to do with Wall Street Firms stock transaction fees at the end of the 70s, which led to discount broker boom. The NAR needs to banned from Washington DC.

toothfairy   Sat, 17 Nov 2012, 8:30am PST   Share   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike     Comment 32

Nothing like a good housing bubble to get the economy moving again.

Mark D is moderator of this thread.

Email

Username

Watch comments by email

home   top   questions or suggestions? write p@patrick.net