-
^
By 0 Follow Mon, 6 Sep 2010, 12:10pm 10,769 views 109 comments
Watch (0) Share
Quote
Permalink Like Dislike « First « Previous Viewing Comments 70-109 of 109 Last » See most liked comments
|
0 is moderator of this thread. |
Follow
Befriend (1)
408 comments
Reston, VA
"And now come the excuses…………………..
Rents weren’t supposed to climb. They were supposed to drop like a rock. How many threads have been devoted to that premise over the last two years?"
Housing prices weren't supposed to fall, they were supposed to climb like a rockET... forever and at all times.
One difference between the renters' excuses and the owners' excuses: Our excuses don't take a trillion dollars of taxpayer money every few months or so to pay the banks to hold onto supply just to push up rents in the short term and slow down the collapse of sale prices.
Iwog, if there is a single thing that ought to push any remaining leftists on this blog off of utopian marxism is the fact that the government has blown trillions of dollars just to temporarily prop up the housing market and create this rental price increase side effect. All of that money could have gone to housing for the poor, alternative energy, public transit, etc. Do you see more of those things on the same scale, as, say, Europe? Apparently, the crooks who were elected to rob from others to benefit their constuencies turned out to be... crooks! Who would have thought? Tee hee. Howz that "free" healthcare coming along? Tee hee!
Follow
Befriend (48)
272 threads
12,445 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
PolishKnight says
Prices certainly don't rise forever but they don't fall forever either. This bear market in real estate has already exceeded every prior one in both magnitude and duration. Yet some of you are predicting further declines of 5 years and 50%. This cannot and will not happen.
This isn't true. Trillions of dollars went to prop up the banks and keep interest rates low, but most real estate investors now are paying cash. The reason the banks needed to be propped up is deregulation by Republicans and the total absolute failure of Republican administrations to enforce antitrust laws on the books created banks that were too big to fail and would have taken the entire economy with them had they crashed.
The utopian "Marxism" was FDR's New Deal which kept banks sound for 40 years. Reagan destroyed the Savings and Loans via deregulation while Clinton and congressional Republicans almost destroyed the banks.
Anyway NONE OF THIS addresses the fact that reality is not following the popular narrative of this board. First the stock market defied all the predictions of doom and gloom. Then the real estate market stopped dropping and actually gained in most areas. Finally rents are going up. Isn't it about time for a major re-evaluation?
Follow
Befriend (1)
408 comments
Reston, VA
"Prices certainly don’t rise forever but they don’t fall forever either. This bear market in real estate has already exceeded every prior one in both magnitude and duration. Yet some of you are predicting further declines of 5 years and 50%. This cannot and will not happen."
I think 50% is aggressive myself BUT not inconceivable. In addition, it depends upon how long the decline takes. The runup took about 10 years and we're only about 3 years into the decline. So 5 years is quite reasonable. In fact... I and most bubblers here would prefer to see prices collapse ASAP because we could buy in all that much sooner AND the recovery could begin.
Why is 50% impossible? If prices could RISE 50%, why can't they fall 50%? This is an indication of "real estate can only go up" thinking. They can rise in one direction easily, but not fall. Why not? It's easy to see why prices can RISE in a growth market fueled by exuberance and speculation thinking: "Prices are going up and others made money so I can't lose! I'll be priced out!" and this causes 50% growth in an even shorter period of time. Yet, it's inconceivable to you that people can't think: "Why should I buy now when prices have fallen, continue to fall, and there's plenty of inventory? How can I be priced out when there's almost a year's worth of supply?"
If this bear market has been unprecedented, so has the bull market as well. Once again, if a 100% increase is ok because, hey, it's based upon past performance then why not the opposite direction? That's like saying that an elevator going down 100 floors means it's impossible to go down further because that's such a big number but not seing that going up 300 floors just 5 years ealier might be cause for the "floor" to not be reached yet.
And that "floor" is going to hurt knife catchers almost as badly as falling down in a real elevator...
Hey, good for them actually. Let them spend their life's savings on the "bottom" because the tax break caused a few months of weak growth. That'll save the taxpayers and banks a lot of money. Speaking of rich bankers...
"This isn’t true. Trillions of dollars went to prop up the banks and keep interest rates low, but most real estate investors now are paying cash."
This doesn't change the fact that trillions of dollars are continuing to go to the banks in order for them to keep empty houses on the books.
"The reason the banks needed to be propped up is deregulation by Republicans and the total absolute failure of Republican administrations to enforce antitrust laws on the books created banks that were too big to fail and would have taken the entire economy with them had they crashed."
"Deregulation" by "Republicans" means Bill Clinton and Barney Frank requiring banks to buy sub-prime loans for their special racist constituency groups that wanted to get in on the "real estate boom". It was GW Bush who called for MORE regulation of Fannie and Freddie...
Regarding "too big to fail"... Indeed, so much for the hopes of getting rid of the Republican establishment. You see, these big corporations run by capitalists are now the primary constituencies of the socialist state. OH, wait, they were all along. You don't think these socialist fatcats really CARED about you did they? Hahahaha!
The New Deal kept the country in a great depression for a decade until FDR... got us into a war! Yeah! Here's to the great solution of blowing money on wars and getting people killed! All praise warmongers! Oh, and then FDR went and gave away Eastern Europe to a bigger butcher than Hitler, his "ally" and f-buddy Josef Stalin because FDR LIED to the American people about his illness.
FYI, Ronald Reagan didn't want to bail out the "deregulated" banks in the 1980's. That was the Democrats idea because they didn't want to see THEIR wall street buddies take the hit.
Regarding the stock market... indeed! So much for the notion that HOUSING is a SAFE investment and STOCKS are just "paper", eh? Yeah, how are all the knife catchers doing on THAT idea? "I bought this great investment property in early 2010 after cashing out my portfolio at half price because the 'bottom' was here! I can hardly wait to sell it this fall because we all know how great the real estate market will rise now the bottom is past us!"
Hahahaha!
Your claim that the RE market is "gaining" in most areas is totally contrary to widely accepted reality. On the contrary, even in markets such as NoVA, buyers are sitting on the sidelines waiting for the "shadow inventory" to be released.
Which leads us to... the rents. OK, as I said, go ahead and celebrate. Many people here did say that rents could rise in the short term as buyers needed someplace to sit out the market. I was one of them. However... a 20% rise in rents for a year sure makes it worth the easily predicted 20% fall in RE values (much less 50% as some are saying.) Hmmmm, 20% of a years rent versus saving 20% on a purchases. Guess which one is greater? And that leads us to:
Owner/landlords who try to "wait out the market" and hope to see that "bottom" come aren't necessarily just playing with the banks' money. Some of them may have real equity from the boom they could cash out. In the Wash Post article, for example, the owner had put in $800K and tried to sell for a million. Then lowered by $50K Then by another $50K. That's called chasing down the market... In the end, he may be left with nothing.
And you didn't disprove my main point: That government money is going to the banks, directly and indirectly, and "too big to fail" capitalists as directed by SOCIALISTS in their pockets. I love it. When you vote for crooks, they act like crooks. Sorry to break it to you. If you want to believe in a religion, don't go for Marxism. Go catholic. They at least serve wine!
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,606 comments
PolishKnight says
Really? This is the best you can come up with? I expected a little more...
Follow
Befriend (1)
408 comments
Reston, VA
Space requirements. :-) Do you REALLY want more?
Seriously though, I love how the real estate bubble is blamed on "deregulation" as defined by evil banks doing what the government told them to do. It's doublespeak.
I remember 5 years ago when these same people were chuckling about all their "preferential treatment" loans and how the "trashy, but overprivileged" conservatives were "missing out" on the real estate boom and special loans. Tee hee. Yeah, that really worked out well for them...
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,606 comments
PolishKnight says
That's utter nonsense. The government didn't tell them to do anything. Banks made the loans because they wanted to--pure and simple.
Follow
Befriend (48)
272 threads
12,445 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
PolishKnight says
Give me a reason why this paragraph shouldn't put you in the lunatic file.
I'm going to show you a relative graph of the GDP during the Great Depression. I want you to point out on the chart exactly where FDR "kept the country in a great depression". Lets start with this one single point then we can move on to others.
Follow
Befriend (48)
272 threads
12,445 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
PolishKnight says
Not one single loan written in the United States during the real estate boom was forced on the banks. Every penny was voluntary.
Follow
Befriend
5 comments
Scotia, CA
cab says
Sorry, cab. MIL = mother-in-law. In SF they're usually the bottom floor of a house, tricked out for independent living. Occasionally in SF there's an MIL unit behind a house.
The method you describe works when there are a lot of vacancies in town. I moved to SF at the beginning of the internet crash and there were lots of signs in windows. One thing I learned renting there is that the rent price asked is not necessarily non-negotiable. I rented a one-bedroom flat advertised for $1400 but ended up paying $1100 a month. The landlords were really tired of trying to rent the place and when I made the offer they jumped on it. Nice place, too.
Good luck to you.
Follow
Befriend (6)
5 threads
2,359 comments
iwog says
Iwog, they are going to drop like a rock where the jobs/wages dropped like a rock.
But I don't agree with you about places in close commute to the Bay Area dropping like a rock: modest neighborhoods in close commute to the Bay Area will continue to have high rents because those places are close to where the jobs are. Would not be surprised if you are right about rents doing down in Fortress communities, it could happen if the stream of wealthy immigrants gets shut off, but in nearby neighborhoods where the rents are more modest, the rents might even go up.
Follow
Befriend
16 threads
4,426 comments
sybrib says
That depends where you define your job at. No longer centered in Mt-View to Sunnyvale. Jobs are far too spread out across the 9 counties for landlords to have any upper hand.
Follow
Befriend (6)
5 threads
2,359 comments
For example Concord which is close to the East Bay, Walnut Creek, and BARTable to Frisco.
Follow
Befriend (1)
408 comments
Reston, VA
IWOG says: "Give me a reason why this paragraph shouldn’t put you in the lunatic file."
How about one of these? Freedom of speech, respect for the rights of others to hold opinions, the Soviet Union used to lock up dissidents in mental institutions...
"Not one single loan written in the United States during the real estate boom was forced on the banks. Every penny was voluntary."
I guess it's "voluntary" for me to drive in the speed limit too. I could exceed it if I don't think I'll get stopped...
Weaseling.
So now that you've both engaged in an ad-hominem attack AND weaseling, I will answer your question about the graph.
The graph is rather exaggerated compared to others I saw. I notice no URL or specific references. I concur that GDP did increase just as federal tax revenues, for example, did after Ronald Reagan cut taxes, eh? :-) But that's not the main point. Unemployment remained at 15% for the duration of the 1930's and only then went down when he started shipping off young men to their deaths.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,606 comments
PolishKnight says
Huh? You use a very poor analogy and then call it weaseling? Face it--you are just flat wrong.
Follow
Befriend (48)
272 threads
12,445 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
PolishKnight says
A depression isn't measured by unemployment, a depression is measured by GDP. GDP is the economic activity within a country. Unemployment is how effective the society is in distributing wealth creation to the public.
That being said, YOU made the argument that FDR extended the Great Depression so I posted a chart of the GDP. It doesn't look like FDR extended anything. It looks like FDR went to work digging us out of the depression the moment he took office.
Since you brought up unemployment, I'll point out that unemployment dropped every single year FDR was in office save one. 1937 is the year FDR decided to listen to fiscal conservatives and balance the budget. It was a mistake obviously, just like it would be a mistake today for Obama to listen to fiscal conservatives and reign in federal spending.
Follow
Befriend (48)
272 threads
12,445 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
Since you didn't like my GDP graph, here's another one. Please point out on the graph where FDR extended the Great Depression.
Most people would call this a V shaped recovery. I wonder why you don't?
Follow
Befriend
14 threads
1,118 comments
PolishKnight says
Most sub-prime lenders were not even commercial banks subject to regulation. They were specialty mortgage companies that wrote loans, sold them to wall street investment banks, where they were packaged up and sold as secuturies. Nowhere along the way was the government telling them to do this. That is just ridiculous nonsense.
Follow
Befriend (1)
408 comments
Reston, VA
MarkInSF, these "mortgage companies" are not banks. The banks ordered to buy the bad securities were ordered to do so for political reasons based upon race and gender. Perhaps the great irony of leftism is that the groups that suffer the most tend to be their constituencies. After all, if their special interest groups ever were to become wealthy or succesful, then they wouldn't need socialist preferential treatment anymore.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,606 comments
PolishKnight says
Wrong. This has been disproven mutliple times. There are several old threads on pat.net where it has been thoroughly debunked.
Follow
Befriend (48)
272 threads
12,445 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
PolishKnight says
Can you either prove your assertion or admit you're wrong?
I'm getting tired of seeing this same nonsense posted again and again and again. I think it's very sad that you refuse to prove it either way (even to yourself) and will continue being a mouthpiece for false propaganda.
Do some research. If you find a single case where a bank was forced to make a loan, post it here. Otherwise PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE grow a little bit and learn the truth.
Follow
Befriend (1)
408 comments
Reston, VA
"I think it’s very sad that you refuse to prove it either way"
Somehow... I don't believe you. I don't think you're really very sad that you think I "refuse" to prove you wrong and that this means you're right. It's probably not a wild guess that you treasure the idea that you're Right and I'm Wrong and that this notion is congruous with a notion of intellectual and personal superiority.
That's ok Iwog. That's what deeply held religious and ideological political convictions have in common: A human need to feel self-important while simultaneously part of an ideological crusade held by a group, or congregation, of people who think similarly. Ultimately, the presence of these feelings in addition to the fear of being in the disparaged outcast group drives the person to believe in the ideas or dogma are proven by definition. It also sets up a condition of cognitive dissonance where the believer feels both angry and frustrated the the non-believer or "climate change denier", for example, refuses to accept the truth and simultaneously excitement and happiness that the non-believers are inferior for not doing so.
That said, IWOG, you're probably right. "Proving" you wrong isn't as important to me as it is to you vice-versa. I accept that is a near impossible task. I also believe that it's important to allow people the right to their opinions not just for the sake of it being right to do so, or practical, but also because such an allowance puts the ball into their court. Believe what you like. You have my blessing. I'll admit I also derive a sense of pleasure and self-satisfaction from people believing in something due to some intellectual shortcoming and pointing this out to them. I prefer to be honest about it though. At least that's a step in the right direction.
Regarding the banks and what constitutes a "bank" or not. I think we all know what the basic facts are but they are irrelevent at this point. None of us REALLY care. It's like a heated debate over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Or transubstantiation. Go to Catholic church sometime and try the wafers and wine. They're quite good!
Follow
Befriend
2 threads
2,495 comments
PolishKnight, ignoring iwog's fanatic compulsion to be correct on every single point at all times at all costs, the CRA thing has been very thoroughly discredited many times over by many people with impeccable credentials. Banks (or whatever) weren't forced to write subprime, it just didn't happen.
Follow
Befriend (48)
272 threads
12,445 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
PolishKnight says
I couldn't care less if you proved me wrong or not.
I very much want you to prove it to yourself, that way you'll stop spreading lies.
You have a right to your opinions. The trouble with you however is that you want the right to your own facts as well.
Follow
Befriend (1)
408 comments
Reston, VA
"the CRA thing has been very thoroughly discredited many times over by many people with impeccable credentials"
I feel like I've stepped into the twilight zone. Patrick.net has tons of links and comments about how Freddie and Fannie helped cause the bubble in the first place due to the CRA and also the subsequent crash and how government is CONTINUING to prop up bad debt. You know, the one where Democrats control both houses and the presidency?
Yeah, sure. Keep on believing that. "The power of leftism (and the Koran) compels you! The power of leftism (and the Koran) compels you!" :-)
Follow
Befriend (1)
408 comments
Reston, VA
IWOG, you don't hold opinions. You like to hold "facts." Or holy truth.
If you went to church, maybe you'd be more tolerant outside of it.
Follow
Befriend (1)
104 threads
2,851 comments
PolishKnight says
I hear Obama was born in Kenya.
Follow
Befriend (1)
408 comments
Reston, VA
I hear that the climate is changing. It's changed in the last month and it's causing the leaves to change color. They may even fall in the next month...
Follow
Befriend (1)
104 threads
2,851 comments
PolishKnight says
Sweet, now you can have Al Gore over for a pre-game bbq this weekend.
If you want to believe that the CRA caused the housing crash, be my guest. Just don't expect it to gain any traction here, because the concept has been thoroughly debunked with facts and figures.
Follow
Befriend (48)
272 threads
12,445 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
PolishKnight says
The CRA has never forced a single institution to make a loan since its inception. Furthermore CRA banks actually wrote fewer toxic loans than non-CRA banks did.
If you were honest, you'd confirm these facts.
Follow
Befriend
485 comments
Los Angeles, CA
I could be way off, but aren't sales down YoY, MoM, and foreclosures and supply way up? Generally speaking, of course. I know SF and NYC are Different and Special. I've read too many articles and glossed too many charts, so maybe my hold on the facts is shakey here.
CNBC (for whatever they are worth) is right now on my boob tube telling me that the volume of housing sales were most definitely in a decline YoY.
Rents are more directly tied to wages. That's a fundamental. With unemployment at 12%, plus another 10-15% of UNDERemployment, I'm not convinced. However, given that a former homeowner was paying easily 50% more per month in a Big Fancy City than a renter would have paid for a similarly-appraised property, perhaps that 50% margin between renters and former homeowners is pulling rentals up in these Big Fancy Cities. It's the great downward squeeze.
Follow
Befriend (1)
408 comments
Reston, VA
Oh, you say that there are "facts and figures" somewhere. And that it's been "thoroughly debunked." And that you speak for a group that you claim agrees with you.
That settles it. You have to be right then.
Sheesh. High school never ends...
That said, I didn't say that the CRA caused the housing crash. I was responding to a claim that it was "Republican deregulation" that caused it and that it was the Republican administration's fault for not stopping it. That doesn't sound anything like a fact or even a supported opinion but rather raw rhetoric. Nevermind that Clinton (Hillary and Bill), Obama and other Democrats wildly signed off on everything. Nevermind Barney Franks' support for Fannie and GW's support for regulation and investation. And for the record, I'm not a big fan of either Bushes. I consider them both moderates. I also think the bubble was pushed by traditional notions of real estate always going up. People REALLY bought into it.
All that said, we can argue until we're blue in the face as to the real cause of the bubble but what's undeniable is that the government is doing everything in it's power, CURRENTLY, to keep it partially puffed up. Iwog is cheering that initiative on even as he blames the evil Republicans for it getting there in the first place. Hilarious.
I keep my faith in church and popularity contests in high school. They are both places I did not want to spend a majority of my time in.
Follow
Befriend (1)
408 comments
Reston, VA
"The CRA has never forced a single institution to make a loan since its inception. Furthermore CRA banks actually wrote fewer toxic loans than non-CRA banks did.
If you were honest, you’d confirm these facts."
Perhaps the source of your frustration is that your claimed facts don't, by themselves, make them facts.
For example, let's define your "facts": How many banks are "CRA"? How many are not? What percentage of bad loans are CRA and not? How many CRA banks exist compared to nonCRA banks? What IS a CRA bank?
Why is it a failure of my "honesty" for you to make unsupported claims? You sure don't seem in a rush to confirm where my "facts" are right.
Amazing.
Follow
Befriend (48)
272 threads
12,445 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
PolishKnight says
You're not going to believe a word I say on the subject which is why I want YOU to research it for yourself and discover how silly your beliefs are.
You know what's really odd about this? YOU said that FDR prolonged the Great Depression without one shred of support. Not only did you make this unsupported claim, when I posted FACTS AND EVIDENCE to the contrary, you ran away from the conversation.
THEN you came up with "The banks ordered to buy the bad securities were ordered to do so for political reasons based upon race and gender." As before it was a completely unsubstantiated claim lacking any support whatsoever.
So I guess my question is why you demand all kinds of evidence from me when you're totally 100% incapable of providing any evidence for anything you've said in this entire thread? Doesn't make a lot of sense does it.
Follow
Befriend (48)
272 threads
12,445 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
http://www.occ.treas.gov/ftp/release/2008-136.htm
Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan said he categorically disagrees with suggestions that the Community Reinvestment Act is partly responsible for the ongoing credit crisis.
“CRA is not the culprit behind the subprime mortgage lending abuses, or the broader credit quality issues in the marketplace,” Mr. Dugan said in a speech to the Enterprise Annual Network Conference.
“Indeed, the lenders most prominently associated with subprime mortgage lending abuses and high rates of foreclosure are lenders not subject to CRA,” he added. “A recent study of 2006 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data showed that banks subject to CRA and their affiliates originated or purchased only six percent of the reported high cost loans made to lower-income borrowers within their CRA assessment areas.”
Follow
Befriend (48)
272 threads
12,445 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
http://www.traigerlaw.com/publications/traiger_hinckley_llp_cra_foreclosure_study_1-7-08.pdf
Indications that the CRA Deterred Irresponsible Lending in the 15 Most Populous U.S. Metropolitan Areas
Summary Conclusions
Our study concludes that CRA Banks were substantially less likely than other lenders
to make the kinds of risky home purchase loans that helped fuel the foreclosure crisis.
Specifically, our analysis shows that:
(1) CRA Banks were significantly less likely than other lenders to make a high cost loan;
(2) The average APR on high cost loans originated by CRA Banks was appreciably lower
than the average APR on high cost loans originated by other lenders;
(3) CRA Banks were more than twice as likely as other lenders to retain originated loans in
their portfolio; and
(4) Foreclosure rates were lower in MSAs with greater concentrations of bank branches.
Follow
Befriend (1)
408 comments
Reston, VA
"You’re not going to believe a word I say on the subject which is why I want YOU to research it for yourself and discover how silly your beliefs are."
Think through what you just said. Let's pick it apart piece by piece:
You start out by saying I'm not going to believe a word you say. So by definition, arguing with me is pointless according to you (and also a great copout.) Smart people usually end it here.
But then you say that you expect me to go out and prove your argument for you. If only people were that helpful. Yet you just claimed that I'm anything but helpful.
Then you have the nerve to say I'm the one with silly beliefs.
Yeah, good luck with that method of argument.
You then turn around and engage in an argument of equivalence and redirection:
"So I guess my question is why you demand all kinds of evidence from me when you’re totally 100% incapable of providing any evidence for anything you’ve said in this entire thread? "
For starters, that's a loaded question. I disagree with you that I'm "100% incapable of providing any evidence for anything I've said in this entire thread." I just provided URL's. In any case, YOU are the one demanding I do YOUR research for you even as you just said I'm "100%" incapable of doing so.
Again, amazing.
Follow
Befriend (48)
272 threads
12,445 comments
47 male
Lafayette, CA
Premium
lol......you're really REALLY late!!!!
All the evidence you need is right above your post. I basically preempted EVERYTHING you said. Now please present your case. You think CRA is to blame? Prove it. I presented my case, so where is your case?
We're all waiting.
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,606 comments
PolishKnight says
You did?
Follow
Befriend (1)
408 comments
Reston, VA
Doh! Sorry Tatupu. I did compose a message with these URL's and for some reason they didn't go through. Nonetheless, to prove iwog wrong, here's some "evidence". Court cases of Obama suing because minorities weren't getting enough sub-prime loans:
http://www.mediacircus.com/content/uploads/2008/10/FH-IL-0011-9000.pdf
http://www.mediacircus.com/2008/10/obama-sued-citibank-under-cra-to-force-it-to-make-bad-loans/
Regarding Iwog's claim that he pre-empted everything I said. He was the one who demanded I go and research for him and now says that's not necessary and that I won't believe a word he says anyway. OK...
Nice to know he thinks "we're all" waiting. That's an appeal to group authority. I'm flattered, almost, that he thinks "we're all" waiting on what I write.
So here goes: From wikipedia, hardly a bastion of conservative opinion...
"In a 2002 study exploring the relationship between the CRA and lending looked at as predatory, Kathleen C. Engel and Patricia A. McCoy noted that banks could receive CRA credit by lending or brokering loans in lower-income areas that would be considered a risk for ordinary lending practices."
But this is kind of like demanding I produce a study to prove the nose on your face. A law that requires banks to consider race when making loans and threatens with punishment if performance goals are not met of course is going to have the effect of "making" such banks write such loans.
By the same token, nobody is "forcing" you to obey the speed limit either. You are perfectly free to go above it and get tickets...
Follow
Befriend (3)
15 threads
5,606 comments
No offense, but doesn't a case of Obama suing because minorities weren't getting loans prove exactly the opposite of what you are arguing? If the banks were writing these loans, there would be no lawsuits, right?
And your wiki quote says things "could" have happened. We're not interested in what "could" have happened. The bubble is over--what we need to find is what DID happen.