patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,245,258 comments by 14,872 users - Al_Sharpton_for_President online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 43 - 82 of 239 Next » Last » Search these comments
HARM, do the 'cia1is' posts go to the moderation queue, or to the bit bucket? Don't want to retype :(
Eliza Says:
> Big “L†Libertarianism always strikes me as a bit
> solipsistic. How did so many people get that way?
Most Libertarians are self reliant, but they are not solipsists…
The world would be a much better place if we had more Libertarians (who take care of themselves and never blame anything on anyone else). As a kid I often blamed others for my problems. I think it was around the year that I struggled through Atlas Shrugged for the first time that I stopped blaming others and took full responsibility for everything that happens in my life…
P.S. Since Libertarians generally all have the “teach a man to fish†outlook on life they tend to be not only generous with their time and money but will actually “solve†problems…
Different Sean Says:
> George Bush is a Stalinist…
I’m betting that he would not agree with you (at least in a televised interview)…
Then SFWoman Says:
> DS, W isn’t a Stalinist. I agree that he represses
> dissent and opposing viewpoints and tends toward
> dictatorship
I’m no GW fan, but come on what does he do to actually “repress†opposing viewpoints. I just typed Bush and Idiot in to Google and got 1.8mm hits…
how many 'self-reliant' Libertarians rely on income from investment properties or jobs, paid by others? so-called big L Libertarians as put forward overlook the network of interdependencies that props them up...
e.g.
"Dr. Anna Yeatman rejects the traditional liberal theory, stemming from John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, that individuals exist naturally and that the goal of the state must be to enable individuals to express their own nature.
"The individual isn't just already 'there'. A self-determining individual is a complex achievement on the part of government, society, and the individual. In this sense, the individual has to be made. There has to be an entire infrastructure of support that prompts, prods, and facilitates you to become a self-determining individual," Yeatman said."
SFWoman Says:
> Who is the guy with the orange Man Tan
> in the top left photo on this thread?
He is Angelo R Mozilo the CEO of Countrywide.
He is smiling since he will soon make more than $100mm over a 5 year period (most of us would have a big smile if we made half that much)..
http://www.forbes.com/static/pvp2005/LIR7G33.html
P.S. What is the difference between an “Orange Man Tan†and the “Orange Glow†that “tanorexic†women have?
Alright, George W is a failed imperialist then... and a laissez-faireist...
I'm just playing here -- I wrote a reply to put this stalinist nonsense to bed, but it got sucked up into the moderation queue, so I'll take a moment to rewrite it if necessary. I know full well what Bush is, don't worry...
I’m no GW fan, but come on what does he do to actually “repress†opposing viewpoints.
One university where GWB was going to speak told their students that if anyone protested or did anything to upset the prez while he was there, they would be de-enrolled.
There is so much stage-management going on in politics it's not funny, overtly and covertly. There are assumptions and understandings and alliances and old boy networks that are played on, not to mention outright threats. Look how 'press conferences' are managed, or how journalists are 'embedded'. The so-called 'liberal media' is owned and managed by crony Republican interests more often than not. What about Ronald Reagan running press conferences at 200 yards remove? How does Bill O'Reilly handle opposing viewpoints?
Then there's Repub rottweilers like Coulter who was actually PAID to speak at the 'University' [sic] of Texas, and any protestors were arrested and charged for the slightest thing...
Punchbowl,
It's a gray area depending on your specific licensing but recent changes in securities law during Harvey Pitt's tenure have firmed fiduciary responsibility considerably. If you're a 7 AND 65 whichever has the higher fiduciary burden is the one that applies.
The CFP (TM) (CERTIFIED Financial Planner) community raised an unholy stink b/c a lot of 7's were putting "Financial Planner" or "Financial Consultant" on their business cards. They sued to get them off. Only the mighty wirehouses (Merrill, SSB) were able to keep them tied up in court while they MANDATED everyone have their 65 or CFP (TM) designation within ___ months/years of hire. This internally driven additional fiduciary burden was designed to render the CFP (TM) legal case obsolete!
For even MORE boring details see the broker forms at www.rrmag.com. Bill Singer is the recognized authority in registered representative/broker dealer law. The big difference between the NASD and NAR is that where the NASD is concerned you are presumed GUILTY until proven innocent. Securities litigation is enormously expensive so it's just too easy for the firm to CTC (cut the check) to the client and let the stockbroker go. Once your U-4 is in any way tainted you are considered "radioactive". No employer will even go near you.
HARM,
Excellent thread btw.
When we look at the actions yesterday coming from BofA and CitiGroup offering to re-fi over extended "loanowners" into fixed rate mortgages it really sends mixed signals.
Again it isn't my intent to lean to heavily on securities analogies but one of the cornerstones of securities law is that "I" (as a stockbroker) can *not* participate in your profit NOR cushion your loss! It's always been that way. Isn't BofA's actions kind of like saying "Oh, you're going to continue to incur margin calls with the stocks we sold you so why don't we "exchange" them for less volatile stocks, at no charge of course!"
WTF?
When you sign a margin account agreement you are certifying that you are able to COVER those calls. If you can't even cover ONE it's pretty obvious that you, your broker (or both) are fibbing.
To me (and I could be dead wrong here) this is being done by the banksters to forestall intensified scrutiny they saw us go through! I don't know if you guys are aware of this but stockbrokers went went from being the top of the financial services food chain to the absolute bottom. Too much easy money to be made elsewhere w/ 1/10th the hassle! You have no idea how many guys I know that have left the sec. business over the last 5 years specifically b/c of the scrutiny. Not that they had anything to hide, they just couldn't deal w/the whole "presumed guilty" attitude. You have to be able to justify virtually every decision you make THAT DAY! They can hold up your commissions for the SLIGHTEST paperwork infraction.
Unfortunately I think most people still have this "wild west" impression of the industry b/c they rented "Wall Street" w/Charlie Sheen (the 80's) or "Boiler Room" (the 90's) w/Vin Diesel.
Go to the NASD web-site and check out "Monthly Enforcement Actions". It's so bad (and so obvious) that a lot of these guys are more the victims of office politics than taking a client's money! It's such a witch hunt that dropping a dime on somebody to get "their book of clients" has never been easier!
DinOR,
In the old days, a form ADV and $100 was enough to register as an investment adviser. Now they make you pass a 65 exam. In any case, you're a fiduciary.
Except in unusual fact situations, a 7 registrant has no fiduciary duty. A 7 is a salesman. HARM's complaints about realtors getting a free pass by comparison are, I think, a little naive. I believe there are 7s all over the country who routinely tell customers that XYZ is a sure thing. They're not stupid enough to put it in writing but not all that many realtors put their assurances of sure things in writing either.
I admit that there are laws that forbid front running a customer. I suppose HARM could want similar restrictions on realtors front running their customers but that's much harder to enforce. Besides, I'm going to take much guilty pleasure in coming years as realtors end up holding the bag on property that they "cleverly" picked up before any member of the public was given a shot.
HARM, aren't there already laws about fraud and lying and breach of contract and whatnot? What more do you need?
If the existing common sense laws are applied, that alone would take care of the crooks involved.
The rest is caveat emptor. As tempting as it might be, the government is not the solution. In fact, it is the problem.
Redeveloping govt land ... Putting on price covenants ... Using low or not for profit developers ...
At which stage are you planning to liquidate the kulaks?
I Said:
> I’m no GW fan, but come on what does he do
> to actually “repress†opposing viewpoints.
Then Different Sean Says:
> One university where GWB was going to speak
> told their students that if anyone protested or did
> anything to upset the prez while he was there,
> they would be de-enrolled.
Wow, One (1) University threatens to kick out kids that protest Bush (for the hour or so that he was actually on campus). Almost every University in the US has left leaning speech codes that will kick out kid for saying things that are not PC to the left.
> There is so much stage-management going on
> in politics it’s not funny, overtly and covertly.
True, but “Stage-Management†is done on both sides of the aisle.
> The so-called ‘liberal media’ is owned and managed
> by crony Republican interests more often than not.
There are Republicans with ownership and management jobs in the mainstream media, but most (way over 50%) of the people that own and run the mainstream media (even if you include Fox the only major network that leans to the right) are registered Democrats.
Since the students could have held a “Bush is Evil†rally every day after he left the campus, started their own Bush is Evil BLOGs, and rented billboard space that said “we have an opposing viewpoint to the President†I don’t see how the school (or GW) actually “repressed†any opposing viewpoints…
I’m no GW fan, but come on what does he do to actually “repress†opposing viewpoints.
That was poor phrasing. I'd say that W's administration has encouraged a culture of Freedom of Speech suppression.
Using the Secret Service to screen out people people with opposing views is one example.
But here's an example that's near and dear to my heart - because I've been tempted to do this as well:
http://www.flyertalk.com/showthread.php?p=6440005
Yesterday, while discussing the new rules a fellow Flyertalker suggested we write "Kip Hawley is an Idiot" on the outside of our clear plastic quart bags. So I did just that.
At the MKE "E" checkpoint I placed my laptop in one bin, and my shoes, cell phone and quart bag in a second bin. The TSA guy who was pushing bags and bins into the X-ray machine took a good hard look, and then as the bag when though the X-ray I think he told the X-ray operator to call for a bag check/explosive swab on my roller bag to slow me down. He went strait to the TSA Supervisor on duty and boy did he come marching over to the checkpoint with fire in his eyes!
He grabbed the baggie as it came out of the X-ray and asked if it was mine. After responding yes, he pointed at my comment and demanded to know "What is this supposed to mean?" "It could me a lot of things, it happens to be an opinion on mine." "You can't write things like this" he said, "You mean my First Amendment right to freedom of speech doesn't apply here?" "Out there (pointing pass the id checkers) not while in here (pointing down) was his response."
At this point I chuckled, just looking at him wondering if he just realized how foolish that comment was, but I think my laugh pushed him over the edge as he got really angry at this point. A Milwaukee County Sheriffs deputy was summoned - I would have left at this point, but he had my quart bag with my toothpaste and hair gel.
When the deputy got over the TSA supervisor showed him the bag and told him what had happened to that point. After he had finished I started to remind him he had left out his statement that my First Amendment rights didn't apply "here" but was cut off by the deputy who demanding my ID. I asked if I was under arrest, and his response was "Right now you are not under arrest, you are being detained." I produced my passport and he walked off with it and called in my name to see if I had any outstanding warrants, etc. The TSA supervisor picked up the phone about 20 feet away and called someone? At this point two more officers were near by and I struck up a conversation with the female officer who was making sure I kept put. I explained to her who Kip Hawley was, why I though he was an idiot, and my surprise that the TSA Supervisor felt my First Amendment rights didn't' apply at the TSA checkpoint. She didn't say much.
After he was assured I didn't have any warrants out the first office came back and I had my first chance to really speak, I explained that I was just expressing my opinion and my writing should be protected my by First Amendment rights. When he didn't respond, I then repeated that the TSA Supervisor stated my First Amendment rights didn't apply at the TSA check point and I asked if he (the deputy) agreed that was the case. He responded by saying "You can't yell fire in a crowed theater, there are limits to your rights.
At this point I chucked again
I asked how this was even remotely like shouting "Fire" in a crowd, and his answer was "Perhaps your comments made them feel threatened."
At about this point the TSA Supervisor finished up his phone call, and summoned the officer back over. They talked for about 2 minutes, and then both came back over. The officer pulled out his pad and asked for my address and I asked why he needed it. "For the report I have to file since I was summoned here" I started to give it, when I noticed the TSA Supervisor was writing it down as well, so I stopped and asked why he needed it. He said he needed to file an incident report too, and I took the opportunity to ask what the resolution of the incident was, did I do anything wrong? Are you going to ask the officer to arrest me? He said no, I was free to go, but he was going to confiscate my bag. I asked "If I did nothing wrong, why would you take my bag" He pointed to a posted sign that said something about reusing plastic bags (the MKE TSA was providing quart sized zipper bags to pax today) I let him know that I had brought my bag from home and would not be letting him take it. He then asked for permission of photograph it, which I agreed too.
While he walked away to get the camera I finished giving my address to the deputy, and he told my "You're free to go" Total time, about 25 minutes
After the TSA Supervisor took the photo I followed him back to his desk - he had a pretty shocked look on his face when he turned around and saw me there, and we talked for about 5 minutes, but when he rolled his eyes at me I quickly realized that he wasn't going to listen to anything I said.
I am libertarian but also a cynic. Give ill-prepared people enough freedom, and the rest of us wind up paying for their mistakes. We'd all be better off if every high school included as part of its curriculum mandatory classes on personal finance and other practical life skills. Sure such classes would not prevent all the financial stupidity that occurs around us, but it is a shame that folks are sent into the adult world without much preparation to make adult decisions.
B.A.C.A.H.
2007 Jan 25, 2:51pm
I don't know what they mean when they say FB, but I can tell in the context that it is sarcastic.
Well I suppose that the ultimate buyer is the person who buys the income stream when he sells the money that's borrowed for the house. He is the buyer who oughta beware. If those mortgages are insured then maybe its not even the lender who's on the hook. Maybe it's the taxpayers. And in that case if there's too many broken FB's (whatever FB means) then it'll be the non-FB's who will wind up paying the extra taxes. So we oughta buyerbeware when we vote.
HARM :
Excellent rant. Very difficult questions to tackle.
I would first break the responsibility into 2 groups legal and ethical. even as per current laws, legal responsibilities were broken and various frauds have happened. How many would be prosecuted, and how many will be made to pay, is still unclear.
As far as ethical responsibilities, hardly anyone behaves as if there is any. Lenders, appraisers, brokers, realtors don't have any notion of ethics and many buyers/sellers were willing participants. This is where we can say that current laws are inadequate. They definitely need to be changed as it affects life of innocent bystanders like us.
Question is what can we do about making a change ? We are in complete minority.
Dear Sweet Amerika Hating HARM,
What about all that new cock length equity I've heard about?
No matter who *should* have done what, the buyers MUST be blamed. I really have no sympathy for stupid people - especially when their actions have negatively affected my life.
Remember the story posted a couple of threads back ? The couple which had a house, multiple vacation time-share properties, 100K income and still facing bankruptcy ? After being offered a plan to get out of debt, +ve net worth and a plan to start saving decent money - the wife "was not as enthused" ! She said "We won't have the house and only 3K" !! That summed up the cause of the bubble for me. I don't think I have come across any story more disgusting than this.
To some extent this bubble was necessary to separate the fool (like this horrible woman) from the money. I know a lot of well-intentioned people will also be in financial trouble. But some like those in the story very much deserve what they are getting.
OK. One part is assigning the blame. Other part is how this mess will be cleared ? Will we finally let the free market take care of this on its own at its own pace in its own way ?
Sometimes I wonder if the "bailout" bloggers keep mentioning is not just a doom and gloom conspiracy theory.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070125/congress_credit_cards.html?.v=1
Democratic lawmakers challenged credit card executives Thursday over rising late fees and other penalties and marketing practices they portrayed as predatory.
...
This is about credit card debt. I think most people would dismiss this by blaming the people who abuse their credit cards. But the story is alarming. It won't be that difficult to stroke a sympathy wave for "honest hard-working American people, who just want to realize their American dream". Especially, if they are in majority.
What kind of bail-outs might be proposed and what can we do to defeat it ?
Punchbowl Says:
Redeveloping govt land … Putting on price covenants … Using low or not for profit developers …
At which stage are you planning to liquidate the kulaks?
What's wrong with that? Those things are already being done, including in SF I might add -- see how the Fisherman's Wharf project was implemented -- and similar things in Oz and UK. The govt at the very least can do what it wants with its own property, thanks very much... The greatest tragedy is when govt sells off its land holdings to developers at the height of the boom to cash in...
Those approaches produce affordable housing for people who need it. It's better than just sitting back and watching and waiting to see what's going to happen next...
Punchbowl is increasingly looking like some sort of RE specuvestor troll in it for the money...
DinOR,
I've been wondering (from afar) about those BofA/Citigroup offers also.
Perhaps they are smelling the political winds, and are concerned that there could be a legislative "solution" to the reset problem.
Sriram Gopalan Says:
January 25th, 2007 at 9:19 pm e
HARM, aren’t there already laws about fraud and lying and breach of contract and whatnot? What more do you need?
What I "need" is for the existing laws to be enforced, not willfully ignored with a nod and a wink --and this includes prosecuting fraudulent buyers (e.g., Casey Serin getting a nice cozy bunk and boyfriend at Club Fed). I'd also like to see stronger/better laws that apply fiduciary responsibility to mortgage lenders and realtors, similar to the current securities laws. Not too much to ask of my state and federal lying shitbags, is it?
If the existing common sense laws are applied, that alone would take care of the crooks involved.
Yes and no. While there's no way of knowing *for sure* (since the existing laws clearly aren't being enforced), it doesn't appear that Realtors and mortgage brokers are held to anywhere near the same standards as securities brokers (see DinOR's excellent posts). IMO, we need tougher enforcement of existing anti-fraud laws AND tougher laws designed to discourage it before it happens.
The rest is caveat emptor. As tempting as it might be, the government is not the solution. In fact, it is the problem.
On the latter part, we can agree wholeheartedly. However I don't think the opposite of shitty government is NO government. I think the opposite of shitty government is GOOD government.
I DON'T want more government subsidies for banksters or more taxpayer RE risk underwriting --I want a lot LESS of it. The only things I want MORE of from the government is: (a) fraud prosecution, and, (b) re-coupling risk with the originating lenders and fraudulent borrowers. "(b)" alone would quickly result in the return of sane lending standards, including "quaint" practices like requiring down-payments, PMI, and full-doc loans. The government could also increase reserve requirements and outlaw negatively-amortizing mortgages. I would welcome all of these.
SP,
I had to manually approve your post, so something's up. Maybe your IP is being blocked --I'll check.
FYI: Sorry to any who got stuck in moderation. The queue is a nightmare these days (1,000+ spam posts per day). Most of the time, it's easier to just flush it and start clean.
Holy crap, Sid --I'm getting the same thing! Could it be a temporary setback, or has the long ARM of the law finally caught up with our favorite specuvestor-savant?
Stay tuned... :-)
Or has something else happened to Young Casey?
The creditors may have swooped in and closed up shop on everything -- no ifs, no buts.
They simply stop all of his expenditures -- including hosted websites, even basic ISP access. They simply freeze all his outgoings to pay the creditors, anything that is an inessential expense. It would be debtors prison for him in the old days -- now he will just be paying off his debts out of earnings for years to come... the RE guru seminars he did don't come highly recommended...
Punchbowl,
Yeah, the "good" old days! LOL! It may come as a shock but there was a time when stock firms actually hired guys that were loud, obnoxious and aggressive (but couldn't come close to passing "the 7" exam). So...... they paid somebody else to "stand-in" and take the exam for them!
Now there's finger printing and background checks among a lot of other things. You can check out any RP (registered person) through the NASD's web-site. You just need their CRD Number or full name and firm and you can see if they've had a DUI, bankruptcy and obviously any customer complaints. Again your first complaint, will be your LAST complaint.
What's frustrating is that NAR is still in the "production covers all" mode. As long as they're generating those huge 6% comm. for their broker there's nothing local RE associations can't work around!
I don't think HARM is naive in the least. When I first got registered we were only expected to have a basic understanding of front running, free-riding and churning. Only the most basic aspects of regulatory code. Now? Pffft, I'm practically a securities litigation attorney! At least once a week we get a "Compliance Bulletin" also accompanied by an e-mail version that requires you to send back a receipt to your branch manager or directly to your compliance officer.
Just keeping your license is a major hassle with continuing education every year and if you're an independent we're now registered as NASD Branch Offices. Anything we wish to use as advertisement HAS to be pre-approved by the legal dept. before you can run it. Our corporate AND personal e-mails are monitored.
Compliance has become an industry. Firms like Smarsh create software programs that allow brokerages to search for things like "guarantee" or "15% is in the bag" etc. Firms have the legal right to randomly record broker/client phone calls as does the NASD. They even have "leads cards" that are actually phone numbers where NASD "plants" pretend to be prospective clients! If you haven't been around for awhile, you wouldn't recognize the industry. There's no earthly good reason NAR can't implement the same.
Sid Finster,
Some time back I actually gave old Casey a call. You've got to imagine that guy has a fair amount of "mechanical screening" complete with answering machine and caller I.D! I suppose b/c I wasn't a mortgage broker promising free money to bail him out of his jam or a reporter, my call (along w/many others I'm sure) was not returned.
Is Sid Finster a play on San Francisco?
FAB,
The W campaign requirement that you sign a statement of loyalty and support to W in order to attend a political rally actually seemed rather Stalinistic to me. This administration has used intimidation, threats, oh, the outing of your CIA agent wife, attacks by media personnel (not just Fox, I saw Paula Zahn accuse a critic weapons inspector (Scott Ritter) of being disloyal to his country because he found no evidence at all of any WMDs program before the invasion of Iraq.) This administration has famously traded access for towing the line.
I'm not a fan of the left's cult of victimization, but I am terrified of this administration's crushing of dissent. I'm not too happy with Gonzales' assertion that habeas corpus is not protected in the Constitution either.
FAB,
Man Tan was out when I was a little kid. It was just a fake tanner marketed to men, and it turned you orange.
Supposedly the spray tanning booths don't turn you orange. I went to one on Union Street before going on a winter beach weekend a couple of years ago, and there is definitely an orange tone to the stuff.
"Clown Prince of Real Estate" LOL!
Yeah I kind of like that one. It should be used in acronym form and added to the glossary.
My old man had a million "Sid" references. One of his favorites was "Fletcher Brown" (F@cking B@stard!) and he used it freely. Mom always seemed to frown on it, can't imagine why?
Sid Finster,
One of my favorites is "Lou Minnati" the guy is hysterical. He does shorts on the housing bust from Houston featured on youtube and his own site. The man's grasp of the obvious is truly remarkable!
SFWoman,
It isn't Angelo's fake tan that concerns me. Doesn't he look like a cast member from the Soprano's though? He'd fit right in.
Hey everybody! Uncle Angelo's come by to pay his respects, bada-bing!
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/16551266.htm
Congress may push for loan "suitability"
Nice pickup this week by Athena on her Sonoma blog. (Well, it was news to me. :))
Apparently Dataquick include foreclosures (I.e. returns to lenders) in their sales statistics. Presumably the "price" in this case is the loan amount.
Now that the pace of said foreclosures is quickening . . .
ajh,
Your earlier comment was spot on! Please read lunarpark's link above for some very informative news. I NEVER thought I'd say this BUT...... I'm w/Barney Frank on this one!
Steve O'Conner and Roy DeLoach (both VP's w/the MB Assoc.) portraying the implmentation of a federally mandated "suitability standard" as being "vague and subject" is exactly what they should *not* be saying. It's coming and they can't fight it! It was dumb on their part not to take the same pre-emptive measures that BofA and CitiGroup took. Guys? (Hint o.k?) EMBRACE regulation! (Cause you DESERVE it!)
« First « Previous Comments 43 - 82 of 239 Next » Last » Search these comments
Quite a lot of debate among us Amerika-and-success-hating Patrick.netters has focused on where to lay the responsibility for the current housing bubble crash (which doesn't exist, btw). For most of us, it's not a strictly either/or binary choice between sellers or buyers, or lenders vs. regulators. There is plenty of blame to go around, and sometimes it seems very hard to sort out exactly who was responsible for what part of this slow-motion train wreck we've been spectators to.
However, I've noticed a recurring theme among some of the big-"L" Libertarians* here and elsewhere: the belief that most (if not all) of the blame and responsibility deserves to be lain at the feet of f@cked borrowers. (*disclaimer: I consider myself a small-"l" libertarian who thinks some regulation of the right kind is not only desirable, but necessary for "free markets" to function in a way that benefits everyone --not just banksters and crooks).
Now, I'm as pro-caveat emptor as the next guy, and I sure as hell do not have much sympathy for lazy, greedy clowns like Casey Serin or Howmuchamonth retards who "can't" even try to understand the terms of a mortgage before signing their names. But somehow, the idea that the banksters, bubble-blowing Federal Reserve, fly-by-night mortgage brokers, hit-the-number appraisers, "it only goes up" Realtwhores, and assorted other professional crooks and lying scumbags have NO responsibility whatsoever beggars belief.
No one put a gun to anyone's head --this is true. But it's also true that no one asked ME whether or not it was *good idea* to start handing out unsecured $million-dollar neg-am loans to unemployed 24-year-old con artists. It's also true that if I choose to buy in the current market, I have *no choice* but to compete against unemployed 24-year-old con artists with unsecured $million-dollar neg-am loans. And guess who's more likely to win that bidding war? Anyone...?
Oh, and thank God for renting. Without it, my only other "free will choice" for shelter would be pitching a tent in the local park or living out of my car.
I completely agree that I, as a prospective buyer, have a certain responsibility to educate myself about any deal --and the risks-- before entering into it. And I agree that there is no risk-free transaction. However, I --like most people-- am not a professional real estate expert nor a financial wizard. Don't I have *some right* to expect that the people who are legally employed as market "professionals" behave in a marginally professional and lawful way (i.e, not trying to anally rape me at every opportunity)? Don't I, as a citizen, have *some right* to expect that the people who I've voted into office and whose salaries I'm paying (Congress, President, state legislators, etc.) will "regulate" on my behalf occasionally ? At the very least, shouldn't I be able to expect them NOT to rig the system to reward my being ass-raped and then hand a jar of Vaseline to my attacker? Am I being ridiculously naive here?
In any voluntary transaction, there are always at least two parties involved --a buyer and seller-- whose actions (ethical or otherwise) will affect the outcome. And when it comes to most mortgage transactions, there often is as many as 5 directly interested parties:
(1) MBS-NAAVLP retail broker/lender (sub-contractor),
(2) realtwhore (acting as seller's agent),
(3) hit-the-number appraiser,
(4) seller,
and lastly, (5) the buyer.
Add to that 3 additional parties that --while not directly involved in any particular RE transaction-- largely determine how the macro-liquidity game is rigged, and in whose favor:
(1) rate-manipulating, bubble-blowing Fed,
(2) MBS investors and foreign central banksters (who front NAAVLP money to retail lenders),
(3) complicit and/or asleep-at-the-wheel Congress & state government.
Consider your average American. Consider your own brother or sister. Do you think think bro/sis really has the financial prowess and intellect to single-handedly defeat a game systematically rigged over decades to favor all the other parties against them? When all the "experts" are using huge marketing budgets, FUD, blatantly manipulated data and government backing that "proves" what a sweet deal the American Dreamâ„¢ is vs. "being priced out forever", what chance does s/he stand on her own? I mean, you're the only one saying otherwise, and your opinions don't count because you're a lowly JBR, right?
Let's be realistic. I'm always rooting for David, but when he's facing 7 Goliaths and God's taking a siesta, his odds don't look so good.
Come to think of it, should I be responsible for policing my own neighborhood, too? Or running my own court system and jails? Have we grown so jaded about being being raped by the very pols and "regulators" (supposedly elected to serve our interests and uphold the law) that we've forgotten WHY they're supposed to be there in the first place?
I forget --aside from lining their own pockets, what exactly is the purpose of government again?
Just wondering aloud...
HARM
#housing