Forum Post: The REAL question that should be asked to Wall Street!!!
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 12, 2011, 9:53 a.m. EST by studingthefed
(0)
from Plainfield, NJ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Both Alan Greenspan AND Ben Bernanki informed Congress prior to the fall of 2008 that THERE WAS NO HOUSING BUBBLE and that there was nothing to worry about! They claimed that what happened in 2008/2009 surprised them just as much as everyone else.
I BELIEVE THAT NOT ONLY DID THEY KNOW THERE WAS A HOUSING BUBBLE, BUT THAT THEY PURPOSELY CREATED IT AND THEN PURPOSELY TOOK IT DOWN. I believe that the current situation was planned out years ago by them!
The one Question I have for them:
FACT 1) Ben Bernanki was appointed to head the FED in FEB 2006. He did his PHD thesus on the Great Depression. FACT 2) Accourding to CASE-SHILLER, the housing market did not peak until July 2006. FACT 3)When appointing a new FED chief, it can take 6-12 months to review potential candidates, interview them, pick one and get CONGRESS approval.
So my question is, Why did the powers to be, decide almost one full year prior to the housing peak that housing would peak, decline and that the decline could be so severe that the US could head into the next great depression, and that having a FED Chairman who did his PHD on the Great Depression would be needed??????
ANSWER THAT!!! THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE AN ANSWER!!
Coincidence, and although I'm all in favor of taking down today's ineffective and inefficient Top 10% Management Group of Business & Government, there's only one way to do it – by fighting bankers as bankers ourselves. Consequently, I have posted a 1-page Summary of the Strategic Legal Policies, Organizational Operating Structures, and Tactical Investment Procedures necessary to do this at:
http://getsatisfaction.com/americanselect/topics/on_strategic_legal_policy_organizational_operational_structures_tactical_investment_procedures
Join
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/
if you want to support a Presidential Candidate – myself – at AmericansElect.org in support of the above bank-focused platform.
It is about damn time someone clarified this. But, they will call you a 'conspiracy theorist' now, won't they. I am a student of the Great Depression myself... and I have been trying to point out that our Government "orchestrated" this economic collapse... just like they "orchestrated" the Great Depression. The exact same events... 1,2,3... took place during the 1930's that are happening TODAY.
Do you know what the Final step is? When you load the GNP and GDP with DEBT... currently all national productivity statistics are secretly incurred and leveraged by DEBT... not CASH. And that is when it takes the whole Nation by surprise-- when the Consumer Infrastructure collapses in on itself overnight. Credit Cards, 2nd Mortgages, Ag-Loans, Student Loans, Auto Loans, Bank and Corporate bailouts... it is ALL designed to secretly load the GNP and GDP statistics with overwhelming DEBT.
This is why I have called Washington D.C. and the Financial District out for TREASON. They must be tried for TREASON-- for conspiring to bring about the demise of the United States of America.
good luck proving it. If you could take them to court you could put them through the process and force them to answer though questions but you can't at this point. We need more powerful legal standing.
Well said.. but if you REALLY want to know more... go to the web site for On Line Independent Investors.. THERE, you will find the facts to back you up about 'Greasepan' and 'Berstanky' !... From Paulson to Blankfeind.. all.. Goldman Sachs Good old Boys!.... Investors4Justice.net ..... ( and sign the petition .. link is on the message board)......... Marlow
I cannot believe that there was some sort of planned conspiracy. I believe that the "experts" were wrong.
Perhaps the 99% can get it right! Our country is in terrible shape. 1% buys their representation, 99% are left with the scraps. This is what must change.
They have now proven that the Great Depression was "orchestrated" in order to justify the creation of the Federal Reserve. It was literally pulling the wool over the public's eye. I have been concerned all along that the OWS Movement does not know just HOW orchestrated the current Depression really is. And, then, you have to ask yourself... WHAT are they planning to do next... when the System collapses entirely?
I think you give the government way too much credit when you say it was orchestrated. Can you provide some facts or infor for me to research about the Depression being orchestrated?
I do not believe the bubble and financial crises was orchestrated. I believe it was more like a perfect horrible storm.
OK. Go on Youtube. Search for Zeitgeist and Federal Reserve, Banking. I could give you a few books to read on the subject... but I think you will appreciate the 'clarity' of the Zeitgeist video related to this topic.
ok, I watched the 1st addendum. I am sufficiently disturbed. Are you trying to lead me to believe that the solution is to end the Fed?
Well, if you watch all the videos (I know they are long) you will come to the same conclusion that most people have come to. Even Ron Paul and Ralph Nader have preached it all their lives. A new national monetary structure based on gold or 'resource' instead of DEBT, will finally release you and me from a banking system controlled by the Elite and designed to put our children in DEBT from the day they are born.
How about if we achieve election reform first. When we all have fair and equal representation in our government again, then we vote and let the people decide about the Fed.
Don't get me wrong. I am a realist. And I realize that the idiots will probably only "modify" the Fed in 2013 just to appease the masses. And, as for your idea, you sound like a person who's views are based on 'fairness' and 'logic'. Unfortunately, no one in Washington D.C. is EVER going to let the People vote on ending the Federal Reserve. If Ron Paul was President... he would try... and he would fail. As someone mentioned earlier today, the Federal Reserve is now embedded in the IMF and World Bank... and it would take a Worldwide movement to end these mega-Institutions.
Why can't you believe it? Is it too terrible to believe, or do you think that our leaders are just plain incompetent? Why did both democrats and republicans clamour for the idea that "every American should own a home" - that idea is total nonsense. Not everyone is responsible enough or makes enough money to buy a home. But that's what they did - liar loans all over the place. Then they repackaged the loans (or put lipstick on the pig, as it were) into subprime toxic derivatives, slapped an 'AAA' rating on them, then stood back while all of the middle class who had played by the rules, owned mutual funds, lapped these things up at the advise of Wall Street 'experts'. Also, what happened way before the housing crisis? All of the high-paying manufacturing jobs were going overseas. For decades. This article says that over 3 million jobs were lost since 1998 alone.
Who allowed this to happen? The president? Congress?
What did they have to gain by purposefully creating the bubble?
Looking good to constituents by promoting home ownership, fat campaign contributions from the banks for lax regulations and looking the other way. Everybody was making money from signing these loans and the loans changing hands. After I bought my house in 2003, my loan was repackaged 3 times - from Lending Tree to Wash Mu to Wells Fargo. I was gainfully employed, and I was a good risk, but nevertheless - they were having a good time passing my loan around. Here's an excerpt from a good article explaining what happened:
How did the president, Congress, and federal regulators contribute to the housing bubble?
In an attempt to promote home ownership, particularly among low-income households, about three decades ago federal officials began encouraging and even requiring lenders to relax lending standards for underserved groups. Banks faced fines if they failed to lend enough to "nontraditional customers," such as those with no credit history. More recently, down-payment requirements declined and in some cases disappeared because borrowers could pay the down payments by taking out a second loan. This encouraged some people to buy houses they could not afford and to speculate in the housing market.
http://www.cengage.com/economics/mceachern/theteachingeconomist/issue_36/index.html
I agree that there were many contributing factors, including government regulation. Contributing factors is a different thing from purposefully creating the bubble. I do not think a bubble was their intent.
If you fine somebody for not lending to people who have no credit history? What do you think is going to happen? They'll lose their house, then we strap it all on the backs of the remaining taxpayers through Fanny and Freddy.
These guys are lawyers, they're not stupid.
You are entitled to your opinion, but I for one think they knew exactly what they were doing.
There were enormous abuses by bad loan originators that went way beyond lowering some threshholds in the underwriting standards. The bubble would have stopped growing and dried up pretty quickly if the bad loan originators did not have an outlet to flip those bad mortgages. The outlet was Wall Street.
I too think the current problem was engineered or the ppl (including Bill Clinton) did not understand what repealing the Glass-Steigall and enacting commodities futres modernization act would do. Greenspan should-have known, anyone who studied the Great Depression should-have known. There's a good video on 60-minutes explaining what "Bucket Shops" (allowed under CFMA) were, which led to the great Depression.
IMO: the plutocrats know what we have is unsustainable (peak oil, global warming, funny-money, geometric world population) so they looted the world and will pull the rug out from under us while the plutocrats flee in their jets & yachts to australia, new zealand and Paraguay where Bsh bought 100,000 acres.
It was pretty easy to predict that the housing market would crash. A law started by Carter and strengthened under Clinton flooded the market with tons and tons of money. Houses are worth what people are willing/able to pay. With more money available to the average person, the average price of a house will go up. When Joe Fireman can go down and get a $500,000 mortgage with zero down, you can imagine what will happen to the price of housing. And, just as predictably, when Joe Fireman can't pay his mortgage and defaults and loses the house while everyone else is in the same boat, housing prices will crash.
Same thing is going on with the cost of college. The average US family can probably scrape together about 5k a year to send a kid to college. The colleges know this. They also know that the kid can also take out $18,500 in student loans from the gov. They also know that the kid will do anything to go to college including take out private loans from the university. So what do you think happens to college tuition when there is more money available? Wait for it....wait for it .... check your student loan bill when it arrives in the mail this month. TAH DAH!
home owners have contracts with loan institutions that estimated their house to be more valuable than any will but it for.
the drop in housing prices leaves homeowners in debt that will never be paid off
Matt, home owners DO NOT have contracts with lenders that estimated their house value. There is no contract involving the appraisal other than it is required for the underwriting process.
houses have been estimated to be more valuable than people can afford
home owners have contracts with loan institutions based on these estimations
the drop in housing prices leaves homeowners in debt that will never be paid off
What the hell does "houses have been estimated to be more valuable then people can afford" have to do with anything? You act like there was some big conspiracy. There wasn't. It was the perfect storm of really dumb public policy that had been pushed for decades by the like of Chris Dodd and Barney Frank that met with a go-go economy that got increasingly based on residential real estate, and therefore the bubble. Contracts are two way streets. The borrower should be aware of the real estate, the loan, the mortgage and their obligations. Believe me, the lenders DO NOT want to foreclose. I have read where that was the intent of the lenders. Lenders lose money when they foreclose. That is why so many lenders got into trouble. You seem fixated on the appraisal. Sure there were some faulty appraisals, some accidental and some fraudulent. That is always the case when humans are involved.
"lenders DO NOT want to foreclose. " no, lenders would rather have their money back at gross interests rate
unfortunately, people have not received the pay increases they needed to do that.
"lenders DO NOT want to foreclose. " no, lenders would rather have their money back at gross interests rate
unfortunately, people have not received the pay increases they needed to do that.
gross interest rates? ummmm, they are pretty low by historical standards, unless you are talking about sub prime loans which deserve higher rates due to the increased risk. I ask you.....have you ever unerwritten a loan?
no.
but I know that 5% interest produces a 265% increase over 20 years
1.05^20 = 2.65329771
What does that have to do with anything? Of course the longer you have money borrowed, the more interest you pay. Gee, that is just simple math. Interest rates are set by establishing a spread between the cost of the money and the rate on the loan. The spread pays all expenses of the process and the profit for the lender. You referenced something that has absolutely nothing to do with whether an interest rate is high or not.
a member handling the loan and collection deserve some sort of compensation for their efforts.
for now, handling bigger numbers means receiving greater compensation without increasing the work load on the loaning institution
so pushing prices higher is a boon to the loaning institutions
That is why small loans are priced higher than larger loans. what do you mean by handling bigger numbers? larger loans or more loans. if its larger loans, that is already priced in, if its more loans, more loans take more work. you seem to think there are gross profits invoved. that's not true. Profit from lending is pretty average profit.
larger loans obviously
and I doubt this priced in lower interest rate for bigger numbered loans reduces the amount returned to the level a small numbered loan
I also doubt the procedures for housing loans has changed much
compared to the increase of loan returns due to the increase in the numbers juggled
if you are right, then there are excess profits. show me where they are.
among the bank owners and laundered to an elite through speculation gambling
what?????? I said show me where the excess profits are. "among the bank owners" means nothing. Show me where those profits are. If you know they are there, then you can show me where they are. Please share.
go ahead and find it
That's funny. When I hear people say that there is excess profit, I ask them to show it to me. No one has ever shown it to me. If they are there and you know where they are, then why not show them? EVERY time, I get a half baked, non-answer like you gave (I have to admit your speculative gambling thing was a new one, lol) And when I ask the question again, EVERY time I get something like you said..."go ahead and find it". You have the power to show the evil that you know exists. That would further your cause. But you don't. Why? Because, even though I asked thoughtful questions, assuming you knew what you were talking about, I find that you don't have a freaking clue what you are talking about. When someone says....go ahead and find it.....it's as intelligent as......Oh, yeahhhhh???? You just made my day, lololol
I have explained the mechanics of how the banks are taking more money from the people
that money has gone missing or has been hoarded
But if you can't show it, it is no more than an accusation. Anyone can do that. Without anything more than an accusation, you have nothing. Anyone can make shit up. And you have not explained any mechanics..........
I have explained the mechanics
the method of argument used against my task
amount to asking questions outside the reasoning
until I am tied up in answering them
No, you haven't. You said "among the bank owners and laundered to an elite through speculation gambling". That says nothing. I could say the Queen of England has a clandestine relationship with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia and that is why the price of tomatoes has gone up, but I would be just saying that and would not have shown why it is true. You have yet to show a single dollar of excess profit. So, far, you have nothing.
I said that loans using greater numbers
produced higher returns when based on interest
even though the work load in handling the loan is the same
Look, dude. I was a lender for over 20 years. I know how spreads work. The spread is based on the average cost of making the average loan. Each loan is not priced exactly to the costs associated with that one loan. That would be impossible. Actually, the smaller borrowers tend to get a better deal since their loans cost more, per dollar, to manage. It's the larger borrowers that inevitably subsidize the smaller borrowers. It's humorous how some people look at the lending process and think they know how it works. You have shown that you don't. Unless, of course, you can show those excess profits you were talking about. You allege there are, but you don't show them. There are tons of revenue and profit numbers out there for many large lenders and for the various lending industries. All public information. If you know what you are talking about, then you could show me the excess profits. Please do.
do not claim authority without claiming a name anonymous
if this is a loan officer that can present those records as asked for
I would much appropriate it I
What on earth does that mean? Are you still refusing to show the excess profits you said you know about?
I'm asking for your help with the presentation
I can't help you with showing excess profits, because I don't know where the excess profits are. You said you did, though. Please show them.
I said that loans using greater numbers
produced higher returns when based on interest
even though the work load in handling the loan is the same
the excess in profit is present
please, find where they have gone
I freaking told you. Loans are not individually priced bases solely on the costs of that specific loan. Remember when I said that? I said the loans in each category of similar loans are priced to the average cost of the average loan. Remember when I said that? I said that actually the smaller loans get a better deal relative to the larger loans because, due to the efficiencies you pointed out, because the larger borrowers subsidize the smaller ones within that pricing group. Remember when I said that? You claimed you knew where excess profit exists. Profits are dollars which are numbers. But all you have talked about are words. Generalities. Accusations. Since you said you know where excess profits reside, and profits are dollars, and dollars are numbers.....show the numbers of the excess profits that you have said that you know exist. If you know excess profits exist, then you can show the numbers that reflect those excess profits. If you know what you are talking about, then you can show the numbers. But you can't, can, you.
shorten the posted
use double line breaks
why? just wondering
easier and quicker for people to read and understand
I'm suffering from shell shock at the moment
I can find the numbers
if one takes a home loan a $100,000 with a 4% interest rate for 20 years,
they pay back $145 435 or $45 435 in interest
if one takes a home loan a $200,000 with a 4% interest rate for 20 years,
they pay back $290,870 or $90,870 interest
http://www.bankrate.com/calculators/mortgages/mortgage-calculator.aspx?mortgageamount=100000&mortgageterm=20&mortgagerate=4&
as the housing prices rose so did the banks revenue without the bankers having to do any extra work
You act as if the cost of the bank's money is free. The bank very little of its own money. It borrows almost all of the money it lends. Using your example, the bank's costs doubled.
I'm stating that the banks made a great deal of money when housing prices skyrocket
When the number representing housing prices doubled, the banks profits doubled
Profits went up because there was more business to be done. Their profits did not double simply because house prices went up. You are taking an entirely too simplistic view, which doesn't prove out.
If you want to protest someone who profited solely and purely because of the rising value of homes, then protest every government who levies a real estate tax who did not reduce its mill levy to keep from taking in more taxes simply because the taxed real estate gained value.
I am trying to create a state where human potential can prosper best
the current economic system has left 10% of the population unemployed
with no stability , no house to call their own, living check to check
no prospect for long term projects of tomorrow
a waste of human potential
And you are attempting that by defaming a bank? That makes no sense.
10% have no house to call their own? Do you mean there are 10% jp,e;ess
That isn't true. I suggest you look elsewhere than to criticize the spread of th
the lending industry.
I said nothing to defame the banks
I made an observation that effects our economic system
You said they made excess profits. Thats defaming the bank