Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: I have a question. If all that bad mortgage money had not been lent out that means all those homes and shopping malls would not have been built. Then there would have been higher unemployment earlier. No?

Posted 7 years ago on Dec. 1, 2011, 3:13 p.m. EST by alouis (1511) from New York, NY
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Anyway, are there really too many homes in existence? - I didn't say "too many homes for the market to sustain" I said too many homes. Aren't there millions of people either living on the streets, in shelters, and doubled up often in illegal arrangements?

36 Comments

36 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 7 years ago

in a real market economy the bank would not be able to destroy the property. Creative destruction is why we tolerate a free market. when investors over invest and blindly pursue their interests, the nation benefits. over influx of homes should create lower rents and mortgages. if the banks are allowed to liquidate those assets then it becomes destruction of creation.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 7 years ago

"in a real market economy the bank would not be able to destroy the property" Why? Who would forbid it? By what mechanism?

I agree homes should not be empty, they should be occupied.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 7 years ago

the market through republican mechanisms would put en ex-nay on the destruction, ay. that is why markets work best when the gov't is not controlled by a faction of the people , but by a majority of them

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 7 years ago

"the market through republican mechanisms would put en ex-nay on the destruction, ay'

Oh, now I get it. Not.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 7 years ago

In my opinion, the government created the situation for the housing crisis since they were spending so much money themselves. If the focus of creating debt is on the people then we could not blame them entirely since before the amendments to reduce the requirements for obtaining a mortgage the banks would never have allowed it.

Before this, our system was strict on lending so public debt could not rise too much to be a problem. The government needed a diversion so the blame could be shifted to the public. Its a well thought out strategy.

[-] 1 points by joewealthyhahaa (2) 7 years ago

Let me guess, you have a degree in economics? (idiot)

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 7 years ago

Wrong!

Artificial demand created by a credit bubble siphons credit and manufacturing capacity from real consumer demand. Had industry been using credit less and their industrial capacity more to improve the job growing engine of America, our middle-class consumer base, the economy would have been stronger and there would not have been a credit bubble to burst.

Government budgets would have been stronger with a larger healthy consumer tax base.

Banks would have been stronger with higher savings deposits on their books.

Consumers would be organically growing demand as their middle-class wages continue to grow.

Wall Street and right-wing libertarian short term capital gains based thinking, for the past thirty years, put an end to America's healthy long term growth based economy.

[-] 1 points by UncleKennyD (7) 7 years ago

Interest rate decreases, government suborning poor buisness practices by buying bundled debts and reduced personal incentives for saving have debilitated economic growth and personal wealth. Allowing monopolies and not doing their actual job in a free market economy is government's primary fault, industry took advantage and that is their primary fault. In the end, taxing sucess in investment will be a bigger penalty to middle class and small investors than any type of penalty to those who can easily afford to differ or pay outright from existing wealth.

[-] 1 points by RogerDee (411) from Montclair, NJ 7 years ago

No because the banking crisis triggered a worse situation.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 7 years ago

what is the OWS position on debt? what is the OWS position on banks?

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 7 years ago

I am a odd duck perhaps but I have only had one loan for $1500.00 in my whole life. It was a horrible choice. I became a SLAVE to that debt. I owe my own house and paid cash for it, no loan. I did not have a great job but I always lived UNDER my means, not over them, falling for the "have it now" pay for it tomorrow shirt, promoted my lenders. I live under my means and I have cash at most times because I do not have loans.

consider this clip, I did, it changed my mind about a lot and explains some thing to me. .. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKRKZqdgBXg&feature=related

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 7 years ago

Good for you. You're a good man!

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 7 years ago

ty ty ty don't hear that enough....

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 7 years ago

the BANKS are the MAIN problem

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 7 years ago

so by the gov bailing out the banks really were not the friends of the CITIZENS of this country, but rather the bankers.

It is time for each and every person with cash in the bank to remove it and put it in a better place, which would be almost any other place. Then destroy your credit cards, can't fly or rent a car? the same will be true for everyone else who follows. If enough people do so the car rental and airline industry will have to find a different way to get money so to stay in business. A bunch of sheep with no leader, is just lunch for the wolves. OWS needs its leaders to step forward with GOOD IDEAS. This needs to go from a "moment" to a movement with a set of demands to make the country better.

Time for a conference of interested people, on line, to get a list of possible demands for specific changes this country and government needs to make to satisfy its citizens. OWS needs to put forward something people (average) can ALL get behind.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 7 years ago

if the banks had been allowed to fail who would own the mortgaged properties? If the buyer fails to do his part of the mortgage contract the bank "wins" and gets the land. If the bank fails then the people who took the loan should own the land free and clear. The rules are made to benefit the bank, and never the buyer. If the banks had failed many people would own their homes outright instead of being thrown out of them because the Gov bailed out the banks.

It goes back to that saying... never be a borrower or lender. So many people did ignore that "suggestion" now look where they are.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 7 years ago

My point is empty houses, homeless people, should not compute.

[-] 1 points by thesystemisrigged (10) 7 years ago

The Banks own those empty houses. Homeless = not profitable. Computes just fine for banks.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 7 years ago

Today OW announced a plan to start occupations of foreclosed homes by families that need places to live. this is the greatest thing I've seen in a long time.

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 7 years ago

yer missing the point that the banks are in control thru debt. And only the banks MAKE money by making loans with money they do not have. no-debt = no money

you all would be well advised to never borrow money for any reason. Find a different way. The bankers are in control for get wall street, look to the bankers. I suggest that to fix the money problem we need to nationalize the banks, all of them and let the interest go to the government (us) instead of bankers. The gov could use the interest to pay for programs we don't have today.

[-] 1 points by 99thpercentile (94) 7 years ago

The employment caused by the housing boom was employment that would have existed in other industries had there not been artificial incentives for housing development. You see the houses that were built but what you don't see is the economic development that didn't occur as a result of the resources diverted away from more productive endeavors to go to creating a housing surplus that was not in sufficient demand to be warranted. The reason that the prices for those homes won't go down so that more people can afford them is because the government tries to keep propping up housing prices that are artificially high.

[-] 2 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 7 years ago

There is sufficient demand. The problem is that the people who demand it are broke and in debt over their eyeballs.

[-] 1 points by 99thpercentile (94) 7 years ago

Demand is a combination of the desire and ability to pay. Not just the desire to have something. Otherwise everything would be in massive demand. But again the housing prices should be falling because people aren't buying due to low demand but the government does everything it can to artificially prop up this asset and the stock market at the expense of our dollar.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 7 years ago

Just about everything IS "in massive demand." I would agree that housing prices should just fall until people who need houses can afford them.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by eyeofthetiger (304) 7 years ago

also banks love reverse mortgages cause all the homes original value goes right to the banksters and the home owner is left all that money in the red nice plan huh?? otherwise you lose your home

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 7 years ago

the banks like to enslave with debt the world is being conquered by the banks the richest 1% in the world are running the banks

[-] 0 points by eyeofthetiger (304) 7 years ago

we have lost half our freedom every little thing that was Free 10 years ago now costs an arm and a leg no more american dream more like american nightmare

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 7 years ago

if you forsake debt the banks will shrivel up and stop being the problem. Stop trying to keep up with the Jones. Don't take out a loan for that new car, save your money and buy a new car with cash, until then drive a old used car, and swallow your pride, you are not rich don't try to look like tit. Get your government to go to a "CASH BASIS" AND MAKE IT ILLEGAL FOR GOVERNMENT TO BORROW MONEY. They have clearly shown us that they can not be trusted with borrowed money.

[-] 0 points by eyeofthetiger (304) 7 years ago

no one has good credit anymore

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 7 years ago

wake up!!!! no one needs good credit. It is one of the lies the bankers have in place to achieve their goals. Credit makes bankers rich. Living within your means makes bankers broke. It is your choice, you want to make bankers rich or not?

[-] 0 points by eyeofthetiger (304) 7 years ago

everyone is taking a reverse mortgage and losing their ass

[-] 1 points by jjuussttmmee (607) 7 years ago

everyone that makes a deal with a bank and agrees to pay interest will lose their ass. Those that save and invest in themselves and start their own business will prosper.

[-] 0 points by Thinkdeer (250) 7 years ago

I once read 29 vacant homes for ever 1 homeless person in america.

[-] 0 points by alouis (1511) from New York, NY 7 years ago

show me

[-] 1 points by Thinkdeer (250) 7 years ago

http://www.trulia.com/blog/jodi_summers/2011/02/how_many_homes_in_the_u_s_are_vacant

states that the census reports: 18.8 million vacant homes

http://cflhomeless.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/how-many-are-homeless-in-america/

states that there are 672,000 homeless on any given night in the u.s.

This means 18800000/672000=27.976 so that is less then the video states...but I am guessing there are different statistics. Even if 27 is an If even 2 of 27 vacant homes are truly abandoned, there is zero excuse for homelessness for people who are willing to settle down in a home (vagrants, nomads, and the truly mentally ill aside). Of course most states don't have squatters rights, and so side with banks on this issue.

[-] 1 points by Thinkdeer (250) 7 years ago

I read it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jldsB4LeRtY

i'll track down their sources as I can.