patrick.net

Right now people are making tens of millions a year, making easy money.
There's schemes and niches where do you think all of that money goes on the DOW down days?
It doesn't simply evaporate and disappear. Somebody got rich today when the DOW went south 144 points.

But we wont learn how, until the spigot gets turned off.
But I'm sure there wont be any shortage of people paying hard money to beat what ever dead horse then, that is such a luscious cash Cow now.

What?!? Were people not hearing about the tech stock/dot com bubble bursting just a few years prior to the beginning of the RE bubble? Surely most people had heard of bubbles before the jump into RE began.

We know that those who didn’t speak a lot of English were thoroughly bamboozled.

Who is "we" kemosabi ?

Are these the same wealthy and well educated foreigners so many spoke about for the past 10 years. Are these the same buyers who received US based jobs over their US born counterparts because they are more smarter?

I havent seen any evidence to show these people didnt know what they were signing on, has anyone ? Has there been any deep investigation into this matter to provide such conclusion they lacked language skills or financial education ?

The answer is certainly .... NO!

schmitz_kris says

ROTFLOL! TONS of people knew it was a bubble. Peter Schiff, for instance, called that one in public (on TV) perfectly years before it happened. Go and look up his old videos on Youtube where he was literally being laughed at by realtors.

I cant count the number of times Robert Shiller made comments regarding the Housing Bubble during early part of the decade on CNBC and many shows. But he was the only one early enough to call on both the tech and housing bubble as many were drinking the toxic Kool Aid.

@GaryA, You may not buy it but it's a fact.

I don't "know" the sun is coming up tomorrow, but I have a pretty good idea it will. Sounds like you put too much stock in realtors and 'experts'. They are salespeople looking for a commish, nothing more. I certainly wouldn't look to the same people telling me to get an ARM and flip a $1 million house in 6 months to make 'equity' for guidance on prudent invesment and economic trends. You know, they were right for a short while - as is the case in manias bubbles and scams.

Does it help that I also told everyone I knew to get out of the 'internet' stocks before that bubble popped? Well, I'm not going to argue with you any further about what I knew in 2005. I predicted it, found it to be inherently obvious, and I am a 'regular person'.

I sort of wish I had played the bubbles more than I did, but sensing they will pop and not knowing exactly when - I found it too risky.

schmitz_kris says

GaryA says

I doubt if a regular guy with no background could have seen this.

ROTFLOL! TONS of people knew it was a bubble. Peter Schiff, for instance, called that one in public (on TV) perfectly years before it happened. Go and look up his old videos on Youtube where he was literally being laughed at by realtors. Well, he was right. I found out about Patrick.net from contacts at the Daily Reckoning (message board). Those contrarians over there were talking about a housing bubble in 2004-05. Ditto for the people that would post articles on financialsense.com. Talk of the housing bubble was widespread years before it popped.
Hell, I live in MINNESOTA, and I knew it was a bubble HERE, and we didn’t have but a fraction of the ridiculous “apprecation” you guys in California did. It was an obvious bubble. There was no real wage growth so there shouldn’t have been any RE appreciation either - it was all pure low interest-debt-based ponzi joking.
Random people on Youtube called things pretty darn well too. Look up VISIONVICTORY. Find the oldest video of his you can. He called the housing bubble busting, he called the DOW and economy busting after the bubble burst, etc. This stuff is all over.
The LAZY people didn’t look for any contrarian views because they wanted their free money and dream kept alive. Morons.

Peter Schiff was an investor and a professional money manager. Thanks for making my case.

pkowen says

@GaryA, You may not buy it but it’s a fact.
I don’t “know” the sun is coming up tomorrow, but I have a pretty good idea it will. Sounds like you put too much stock in realtors and ‘experts’. They are salespeople looking for a commish, nothing more. I certainly wouldn’t look to the same people telling me to get an ARM and flip a $1 million house in 6 months to make ‘equity’ for guidance on prudent invesment and economic trends. You know, they were right for a short while - as is the case in manias bubbles and scams.
Does it help that I also told everyone I knew to get out of the ‘internet’ stocks before that bubble popped? Well, I’m not going to argue with you any further about what I knew in 2005. I predicted it, found it to be inherently obvious, and I am a ‘regular person’.
I sort of wish I had played the bubbles more than I did, but sensing they will pop and not knowing exactly when - I found it too risky.

If you didn't play you really didn't know. People are sure puffing themselves up! If you knew in early 2005 people had already been writing about it who were very knowledgeable about real estate. Usually people have a tip of some kind if they aren't savvy about the market to begin with.

I quit watching the news shortly after we started invading Iraq and Afghan, it was just all too depressing. 911 and watching the war mongering machine that we became. In the name of fighting terrorist and protecting our freedom. I didn't need a reporter or a report to see things were out of whack.

I didn't start following the news again until 2006 that was when I heard that the ARMs and Jumbo toxic loans were about to reset. I expected a quick deflation. So I started watching the news. And found this site.

schmitz_kris says

What?!? Were people not hearing about the tech stock/dot com bubble bursting just a few years prior to the beginning of the RE bubble? Surely most people had heard of bubbles before the jump into RE began.

True, if you were sensitive to the connection between the stock market tech bubble and the ponzi housing bubble you could figure it out. Good point. However, think about it, since when in the history of mankind had two bubbles existed so closely together? Even some people who had a rough idea would have trouble with that.

I actually believe, because of Basel 2 and the repeal of Glass, that the financial leaders of the world anticipated the stock market crash and acted to start another bubble in real estate. This was a monumental scam against the average investor. And that is why no one is in the stock market except traders and machines.

GaryA says

pkowen says

@GaryA, You may not buy it but it’s a fact.

I don’t “know” the sun is coming up tomorrow, but I have a pretty good idea it will. Sounds like you put too much stock in realtors and ‘experts’. They are salespeople looking for a commish, nothing more. I certainly wouldn’t look to the same people telling me to get an ARM and flip a $1 million house in 6 months to make ‘equity’ for guidance on prudent invesment and economic trends. You know, they were right for a short while - as is the case in manias bubbles and scams.

Does it help that I also told everyone I knew to get out of the ‘internet’ stocks before that bubble popped? Well, I’m not going to argue with you any further about what I knew in 2005. I predicted it, found it to be inherently obvious, and I am a ‘regular person’.

I sort of wish I had played the bubbles more than I did, but sensing they will pop and not knowing exactly when - I found it too risky.

If you didn’t play you really didn’t know. People are sure puffing themselves up! If you knew in early 2005 people had already been writing about it who were very knowledgeable about real estate. Usually people have a tip of some kind if they aren’t savvy about the market to begin with.

Whatever. I knew I was not going to go out and get an ARM to buy something I couldn't afford. That's all I needed to know.

Pcowan, many had an uneasy feeling about these products and avoided them. My daughter avoided one. But, that doesn't mean that everyone had an exact understanding what was going on really early in the game. I think it was great that people avoided the heartache of losing one's home to a ponzi loan.

Technically, if you had known you needed to sell before the crash, you could have "afforded" it and made big money if you got out of the ponzi in time. :)

There was never a tech bubble, the tech market was sabotaged and hijacked. by old money.
If Greenspan (the most single authority on finances at the time) didn't take it upon him self to single handedly destroy the tech industry by persuading all of the 401K pensioners to pull all of their money out at once.

So that old money could swoop in and buy up all of the interelctual property code and technologies.
Then you would buying iPhone service from Bob's Cellular Shack and communications Co.
And Gretchen Smith an ex Secratary for a minimum wage job, would be the richest CEO in the country today. And we still would have never heard of all the ass bags that drove the banks into the ground later in the decade.

If there was a tech bubble, and it did indeed pop. Then ask your self, who is Google, and why are they on every browser and doodad known to man.

I mean Jesus there's computerized Toilets in Japan for Christ sakes!

Tech bubble, my ass.

Tenouncetrout says

There was never a tech bubble, the tech market was sabotaged and hijacked. by old money.

If Greenspan (the most single authority on finances at the time) didn’t take it upon him self to single handedly destroy the tech industry by persuading all of the 401K pensioners to pull all of their money out at once.
So that old money could swoop in and buy up all of the interelctual property code and technologies.

Then you would buying iPhone service from Bob’s Cellular Shack and communications Co.

And Gretchen Smith an ex Secratary for a minimum wage job, would be the richest CEO in the country today. And we still would have never heard of all the ass bags that drove the banks into the ground later in the decade.
If there was a tech bubble, and it did indeed pop. Then ask your self, who is Google, and why are they on every browser and doodad known to man.
I mean Jesus there’s computerized Toilets in Japan for Christ sakes!
Tech bubble, my ass.

Tenouncetrout says

There was never a tech bubble, the tech market was sabotaged and hijacked. by old money.

If Greenspan (the most single authority on finances at the time) didn’t take it upon him self to single handedly destroy the tech industry by persuading all of the 401K pensioners to pull all of their money out at once.
So that old money could swoop in and buy up all of the interelctual property code and technologies.

Then you would buying iPhone service from Bob’s Cellular Shack and communications Co.

And Gretchen Smith an ex Secratary for a minimum wage job, would be the richest CEO in the country today. And we still would have never heard of all the ass bags that drove the banks into the ground later in the decade.
If there was a tech bubble, and it did indeed pop. Then ask your self, who is Google, and why are they on every browser and doodad known to man.
I mean Jesus there’s computerized Toilets in Japan for Christ sakes!
Tech bubble, my ass.

There are three reasons I think it was a bubble. 1. It didn't bounce back. 2. big money pushed the prices up regarding many companies that were really useless. They were IPO's by Goldman and they were a scam. 3. Big money took away the leverage and got out. They got out very slowly.

My first thoughts when I saw this post was "this will not end well."

schmitz_kris summed it up well with: http://patrick.net/?p=507475#comment-690526

It is ending just fine, don't you think? And besides, Schmitz used the wrong analogy. Ponzi victims are not drunks. I suppose in a perverse way some people could blame the Madoff victims. But only the people who looked into a pattern of returns could see what was going on. Looking back, as many do on this board, many things look easy.

"1. It didn’t bounce back."

Sure it did tenfold.

There were far to many companies out there that shouldn't have been been publically offered let alone sold on the market. The biggest problem with the "Tech Bubble" if you want to call it that.
Was the people not having a clue what technology was and exactly what they were investing in as companies. Nor did they have a realistic vision of what is possible through simply having a URL, and what is just Fantasy fancy talk, that just because they had a web address they would make millions. PET.com and Etoys.com are great examples. On like retailing was relatively new and not as nearly taken for granted as the hundreds of millions of online transactions take place today.

Pet.com paid hundreds of millions in advertisement and staff, and the reality was there were no sales. Unlike companies that were burgeoning, technologies that were on the cuspid of changing drive technology, chip technology, OS technology programming languages. Technology that resulting technologies still standing incorporated. This was intellectual property that was basically hijacked though acquiring or destroying these companies, then buying up what was left wholesale. No different than the way the best houses are being reserved in shadow inventory now.

Was it hyped and over sold, definitely that makes it a bubble in the dumb consumer sense. But many of the goods that were casualty to the knee jerk response, were still good companies. And was the only real competition to many of the companies left standing. Which Ironically those prospective companies now own.

Tenouncetrout says

“1. It didn’t bounce back.”
Sure it did tenfold.
There were far to many companies out there that shouldn’t have been been publically offered let alone sold on the market. The biggest problem with the “Tech Bubble” if you want to call it that.

Was the people not having a clue what technology was and exactly what they were investing in as companies. Nor did they have a realistic vision of what is possible through simply having a URL, and what is just Fantasy fancy talk, that just because they had a web address they would make millions. PET.com and Etoys.com are great examples. On like retailing was relatively new and not as nearly taken for granted as the hundreds of millions of online transactions take place today.
Pet.com paid hundreds of millions in advertisement and staff, and the reality was there were no sales. Unlike companies that were burgeoning, technologies that were on the cuspid of changing drive technology, chip technology, OS technology programming languages. Technology that resulting technologies still standing incorporated. This was intellectual property that was basically hijacked though acquiring or destroying these companies, then buying up what was left wholesale. No different than the way the best houses are being reserved in shadow inventory now.
Was it hyped and over sold, definitely that makes it a bubble in the dumb consumer sense. But many of the goods that were casualty to the knee jerk response, were still good companies. And was the only real competition to many of the companies left standing. Which Ironically those prospective companies now own.

No the NasDaq went to five thousand. It has never even approached 3k since. So, no the dot com bubble did not cause the Nasdaq to rebound at all. Individual companies rebounded and Google wasn't even in the dot com crash. I remember companies with no viable products making near billionaires out of their owners. And they had nothing.

tts says

OCExRenter says

BOOHOO! I took out a loan for $500K when I make 50K and now I can’t pay for it! It’s the banks fault! It’s the brokers fault!

Ignorance is not a valid excuse.

The gov. and banks and credit agencies do bear some responsibility in these situations. As has been already said, they were supposed to be making sure that the loans were actually practical and affordable to the buyer and met ratings standards. You also can’t forget that the bubble went on for a long time and people were bombarded daily by the news and their friends/family about buying homes.
People bear some fault for just blindly trusting what they were told, but the key point is that THEY WERE TOLD IT WAS OK BY PEOPLE IN AUTHORITY!!
**WARNING** CAR ANALOGY AHEAD:
I don’t know crap about cars, sure I drive one everyday, but I don’t know the first thing about fixing it. If it breaks and I take it to a repair man who says x,y, and z are broken on it, but they really aren’t but he charges me to fix them anyways.
Now maybe I’m interpreting/projecting here but it sounds like you’d blame me for being stupid/naive enough to trust the 1st repair man I went to and got my “just desserts” or “learned my lesson”, etc. And maybe it’d be true enough about me being naive/stupid, but that doesn’t excuse the repair man’s actions.
The repair man knew exactly what he was doing when he lied and ripped me off, and that is a crime. By blaming only the victim you allow the one who instigated the crime to walk away scott free, with the money too boot.

Nah, wrong analogy. Who decided to buy that car in the first place ? The fraudulent repairman did not make you buy it. The original poster is making the argument that you were duped into buying that car, therefore it is the fault of those who duped you, rather than your fault for getting duped. but you are the one who opened your pocket book which you have 100% reposnsibility for. I say it is 100% your fault for buying that car.

schmitz_kris says

tatupu70 says

Of course some people bought houses thinking they’d make money. Is that wrong? I thought that’s how things worked in a free market.

Keep strongly in mind THOSE INDIVIDUALS ALREADY HAD SHELTER. They were not homeless. They were fine - probably had plumbling, electricity, all the essentials.
It’s wrong to assume something that DEPRECIATES in quality, like a used house, ought to APPRECIATE in value. It’s ridiculous, in fact. They buy no other consumer good with that notion.

The land is increasing in value... Not the home so much. Land does appreciate with age/inflation!

marko says

Nah, wrong analogy. Who decided to buy that car in the first place ? The fraudulent repairman did not make you buy it. The original poster is making the argument that you were duped into buying that car, therefore it is the fault of those who duped you, rather than your fault for getting duped. but you are the one who opened your pocket book which you have 100% reposnsibility for. I say it is 100% your fault for buying that car.

So if i go to a doctor and he prescribes me poison (a toxic asset) and i take the pill that im told will make me healthy in 30 years and instead it paralyzes me... The doc says sorry. But keep buying and taking the pills and u should be able to walk again in 15-20 years.... Or u could say fuck u to the doctor... Stop taking the poison pills and walk the next day. See my stupid analogies work too

So, your premise is that the Tea Party only blames the customer and any other party? That unlike you, who does acknowledge that customers get some of the blame, though it has to be "shelled out carefully," the Tea Party does not give anyone other than the customers any of the blame?

Nomograph says

You mean those deadbeat losers who think they’ll get rich quick by day-trading on technicals instead of working?

A deadbeat is someone who does not pay their bills. A growing number of Americans fit this criterion. It is also growing in acceptance among the general American culture.

A loser is someone who loses.

I am neither. If I were I wouldn't have the time to spend my days on forums like this one interacting with all of you fine folks - I'd be at a 9 to 5 with a JOB (just over broke). That, like so much of mainstream culture, is propaganda for feeble-minded hamsters incapable of contemplating life outside of their wheels.

Working is NOT the way the wealthy get wealthy. INVESTING is the way the wealthy get wealthy. It's true the wealthy (I'm talking realistic, attainable wealth such as that portrayed in books like The Millionaire Next Door) live far beneath their means, but over the course of their lifetimes it's the INTEREST AND DIVIDENDS AND CAPITAL GAINS that propel them into that category, not the slaving away at some ridiculous job.

PPete says

Maybe Indebtedness can be re-classified as a disease, like with Alcoholism.

You cut off your ear Van Gogh and you are telling us about disease classifications? Just kidding.

schmitz_kris says

It’s true the wealthy (I’m talking realistic, attainable wealth such as that portrayed in books like The Millionaire Next Door) live far beneath their means, but over the course of their lifetimes it’s the INTEREST AND DIVIDENDS AND CAPITAL GAINS that propel them into that category, not the slaving away at some ridiculous job

And where exactly do you get the MONEY to invest? Unless you are born with a silver spoon in your mouth, you need to work. You get rich by working, living below your means, and investing. You need all 3.

Paralithodes says

So, your premise is that the Tea Party only blames the customer and any other party? That unlike you, who does acknowledge that customers get some of the blame, though it has to be “shelled out carefully,” the Tea Party does not give anyone other than the customers any of the blame?

The Tea Party primarily blamed the subprime borrower. The basis of the Tea Party movement was the Rick Santelli rant against the bailout of subprime. Hennessey, founder of the real Tea Party, not the Tea Party express, was on Kudlow numerous times, had the opportunity to call out the banksters and did not do so.

This is a divide-Republicans-with-money-from-Dems-who-owe-money movement. That is all the Tea Party is about. It is a more mainstream Republican in tactic than you know. Wall Street and CNBC support the Tea Party. That is pretty mainstream. Wall Street also wants social security money because many boomers are boycotting stocks forever. But that is another issue.

My point in all this is that the majority blame for the ponzi goes to Wall Street and the central banks of the west.

schmitz_kris says

Nomograph says

You mean those deadbeat losers who think they’ll get rich quick by day-trading on technicals instead of working?

A deadbeat is someone who does not pay their bills. A growing number of Americans fit this criterion. It is also growing in acceptance among the general American culture.
A loser is someone who loses.
I am neither. If I were I wouldn’t have the time to spend my days on forums like this one interacting with all of you fine folks - I’d be at a 9 to 5 with a JOB (just over broke). That, like so much of mainstream culture, is propaganda for feeble-minded hamsters incapable of contemplating life outside of their wheels.
Working is NOT the way the wealthy get wealthy. INVESTING is the way the wealthy get wealthy. It’s true the wealthy (I’m talking realistic, attainable wealth such as that portrayed in books like The Millionaire Next Door) live far beneath their means, but over the course of their lifetimes it’s the INTEREST AND DIVIDENDS AND CAPITAL GAINS that propel them into that category, not the slaving away at some ridiculous job.

No offense Schmitz, but you are a bit of a loser. You lack compassion for people who were swindled by the ponzi and you are not outraged by the facilitators of the ponzi. People can lose without even knowing it.

But don't take it personally, because your attitude is a product of a mainstream media caused scam upon you. I blame the media which is tightly controlled by Wall Street, bought by Wall Street, more than I blame you. The mainstream media wants you to divert blame from those who own it. And it obviously is working. :)

GaryA says

The Tea Party primarily blamed the subprime borrower.

So back to my question, you believe that the "Tea Party" only blames the customer/borrower and not any other parties?

GaryA says

The basis of the Tea Party movement was the Rick Santelli rant against the bailout of subprime.

Bailout of the subprime what ??? The subprime borrowers?

GaryA says

My point in all this is that the majority blame for the ponzi goes to Wall Street and the central banks of the west.

That was certainly *one* of your points. Another appears to be that the "Tea Party" (as defined by you) blames the customer/borrower and does give any blame to other parties. I'm trying to clarify whether you are in fact arguing against a degree of blame, or creating an illogical strawman by claiming the "Tea Party" holds a particular position that you cannot show it holds. Of course since they are "stupid," who knows why you would try to convince them, whoever "they" are, of anything anyway?

tts says

The gov. and banks and credit agencies do bear some responsibility in these situations. As has been already said, they were supposed to be making sure that the loans were actually practical and affordable to the buyer and met ratings standards. You also can’t forget that the bubble went on for a long time and people were bombarded daily by the news and their friends/family about buying homes.
People bear some fault for just blindly trusting what they were told, but the key point is that THEY WERE TOLD IT WAS OK BY PEOPLE IN AUTHORITY!!

I would say a majority of the people who bought and are in trouble bought under the assumption that they would be able to sell the property in a few years and make a huge profit. [GREED]

Yes the banks should not of loaned the money out, but the liars should not have applied for it.

I bought my home as shelter. I don't expect it to provide me an income or my retirement.

I knew it was a bubble in 2005 when I first started looking for a house. Look at the prices and ask yourself what supports this price and these huge price increases? It was the same in the dot com bubble, how were these comanies making money?

One thing I live by is never blindly trust anyone who has a financial interest in what you are doing.

When I buy a car I research it. I don't trust the salesperson. If it needs repaired and seems unreasonable i'll get a second opinion.

What is the Sharon Angle take on this issue?

Paralithodes says

GaryA says

The Tea Party primarily blamed the subprime borrower.

So back to my question, you believe that the “Tea Party” only blames the customer/borrower and not any other parties?
GaryA says

The basis of the Tea Party movement was the Rick Santelli rant against the bailout of subprime.

Bailout of the subprime what ??? The subprime borrowers?
GaryA says

My point in all this is that the majority blame for the ponzi goes to Wall Street and the central banks of the west.

That was certainly *one* of your points. Another appears to be that the “Tea Party” (as defined by you) blames the customer/borrower and does give any blame to other parties. I’m trying to clarify whether you are in fact arguing against a degree of blame, or creating an illogical strawman by claiming the “Tea Party” holds a particular position that you cannot show it holds. Of course since they are “stupid,” who knows why you would try to convince them, whoever “they” are, of anything anyway?

There were ideas floated to bail out subprime borrowers. It never happened, but the Santelli rant was not just opposed to bailing them out, but set a tone that the big banks were not really to blame in the first place. He is paid by Wall Street, and will go the way of Dillon Ratigan if he were to disc the big banksters too much.

I will say this again: Hennessey, the founder of the real tea party, not the express, goes on Kudlow from time to time and has never called out the banksters for their major role in this.

Listen, you all are brainwashed if you believe that the majority fault rests with the borrowers. You are brainwashed by the Wall Street controlled media.

If you can't see this then you aren't trying hard enough.

GaryA says

Listen, you all are brainwashed if you believe that the majority fault rests with the borrowers. You are brainwashed by the Wall Street controlled media.

Who forced the hand of the borrower to sign?

If I went and spent all my money on lottery tickets is it the states fault for advertising that I can become a millionaire?

Personally I think the banks/wall street/government sucks. Bush sucked and so does Obama. I don't trust the media. We need another revolution to clear all this crap out.

OCExRenter says

GaryA says

Listen, you all are brainwashed if you believe that the majority fault rests with the borrowers. You are brainwashed by the Wall Street controlled media.

Who forced the hand of the borrower to sign?
If I went and spent all my money on lottery tickets is it the states fault for advertising that I can become a millionaire?
Personally I think the banks/wall street/government sucks. Bush sucked and so does Obama. I don’t trust the media. We need another revolution to clear all this crap out.

It is well known that the lottery is gambling. It was not well known that buying a house was gambling as well. Why do people always come up with examples that don't fit?

If you don't blame the banksters, they get away with it. I don't mean that you should be racists, or anti this or that, but in general the bankers who control the central banks are at fault and should be called out. Our government should, and if it where sovereign it would, protect the middle classes from these financial thugs who are the richest people in the world.

And read what I wrote here: http://seekingalpha.com/article/207622-why-australia-needs-the-perpetual-loan

Turns out that ING was once owned by Lambert of Drexel Burnam Lambert fame. It is no doubt in the family still. And Lambert was great grandson of Barron Rothschild. This bank wants to ponzi profit shamelessly in Australia with the perpetual loan.

GaryA says

OCExRenter says

GaryA says

Listen, you all are brainwashed if you believe that the majority fault rests with the borrowers. You are brainwashed by the Wall Street controlled media.

Who forced the hand of the borrower to sign?

If I went and spent all my money on lottery tickets is it the states fault for advertising that I can become a millionaire?

Personally I think the banks/wall street/government sucks. Bush sucked and so does Obama. I don’t trust the media. We need another revolution to clear all this crap out.

It is well known that the lottery is gambling. It was not well known that buying a house was gambling as well. Why do people always come up with examples that don’t fit?
If you don’t blame the banksters, they get away with it. I don’t mean that you should be racists, or anti this or that, but in general the bankers who control the central banks are at fault and should be called out. Our government should, and if it where sovereign it would, protect the middle classes from these financial thugs who are the richest people in the world.
And read what I wrote here: http://seekingalpha.com/article/207622-why-australia-needs-the-perpetual-loan
Turns out that ING was once owned by Lambert of Drexel Burnam Lambert fame. It is no doubt in the family still. And Lambert was great grandson of Barron Rothschild. This bank wants to ponzi profit shamelessly in Australia with the perpetual loan.

Well I agree that banksters have done fraudulent things and they are to blame for that.

OCExRenter says

I would say a majority of the people who bought and are in trouble bought under the assumption that they would be able to sell the property in a few years and make a huge profit. [GREED]
[..]
I knew it was a bubble in 2005 when I first started looking for a house. Look at the prices and ask yourself what supports this price and these huge price increases? It was the same in the dot com bubble, how were these comanies making money?
One thing I live by is never blindly trust anyone who has a financial interest in what you are doing.
When I buy a car I research it. I don’t trust the salesperson. If it needs repaired and seems unreasonable i’ll get a second opinion.

Thank you! My thoughts exactly. When I moved to the bay area in 2005 EVERYONE was telling me how to "get rich" by buying a house, condo, anything. Flip it. Get equity. Take out a HELOC to buy a new car. Move up. "That's how it works". I smelled a rat and refused. Then they said, "you just don't get the market, it's different here".

Yes, I could have ridden the bubble/ponzi scheme for a while but I am not that much of a gambler. Besides, I didn't want to live in Crackton, even for 6 months.

GaryA says

If you don’t blame the banksters, they get away with it. I don’t mean that you should be racists, or anti this or that, but in general the bankers who control the central banks are at fault and should be called out.

So how do you blame the "banksters" on prices doubling from 1998-2000 ?

pkowen says

Thank you! My thoughts exactly. When I moved to the bay area in 2005 EVERYONE was telling me how to “get rich” by buying a house, condo, anything. Flip it. Get equity. Take out a HELOC to buy a new car. Move up. “That’s how it works”. I smelled a rat and refused. Then they said, “you just don’t get the market, it’s different here”.

Of course you are correct. You are telling the truth, but you need to realize the philosphy was across the entire English-speaking world, not just in the Bay Area. It's much the same in Minnesota, Australia, the UK, etc. Heck, folks in Ireland and Spain too for that matter.

They were/are all just gambling, speculating. There's nothing wrong with that, but what I can't stand is now that some of them have lost, they're unwilling to put up with the loss - they're sticking it to the public sector/taxpayer instead. They should have to face their losses like a real man/woman. Instead, we learn that delinquent HELOC debt and the like is difficult to recover even a portion of, and the Feds pass legislation to shield them from taxes due to forgiven debt.

We've ALREADY bent over backwards to kiss the butts of these pathetic, deadbeat, loser homedebtors - let them crash and burn already. That's what can happen when you invest in a leveraged market like real estate. Hopefully, they'll learn something from all of this and become smarter, more responsible citizens in the future.

How can anybody blame one faction of this mess more than the other? Every one of us, less renters like my girlfriend, partied hard and were more than willing to [recklessly] accept the [irresponsible] terms. I think we should put the scale away.

schmitz_kris says

We’ve ALREADY bent over backwards to kiss the butts of these pathetic, deadbeat, loser homedebtors - let them crash and burn already. That’s what can happen when you invest in a leveraged market like real estate. Hopefully, they’ll learn something from all of this and become smarter, more responsible citizens in the future.

Here's what I don't understand. What exactly are you complaining about? That they don't have to pay the tax on their forgiven loss? I agree that it's not a good policy.

But, otherwise, they are paying. Their credit is taking a hit. That's how it works.

no one in banking understood the macro economic forces causing asset inflation, let alone lay people who just wanted to buy a house. The only thing to blame is peoples greed and herd mentality. its easy to look back now and say you bought a house for half a million dollars? you were crazy, but no that was the market price, and if you didn't cough it up you were renting, period.

How can anybody blame one faction of this mess more than the other?
I've always said that every party in the securitization chain bears some responsibility -- from the home buyer all the way through to the buyer of the MBSes (and their derivatives). Any one party in this chain could have refused to participate and we would not be in this mess.
We have met the enemy and he is us. -Pogo

That said, near the bitter end, I think there was influence pedaling involving those who plied the Magnetar trade, making a bad situation even worse...