Skipster, the markets in general (not speaking of financial markets here) can be corrupted by undue political influence. And that's a function of large corporations and big bucks.

Financial markets are even worse. Greenspan was wrong regarding them. They must have oversite!!! I'm not enormored of the whole concept of financial markets with their main source of income, macro speaking, being "interest" and "fees". And their main source of income, micro speaking, being "commission" percents and more "fees".

I'd really love to do a whole position paper on this and offer it as THE ISSUE for a winning presidential campaign. But nobody (meaning politicians) will embrace it because they are beholden to the incredibly powerful financial lobby. I keep wiating for a populist to make hay over credit card companies getting an exemption for their customers being unable to write off credit card debt via a bankrupcy filing. This is an issue that could have incrdible legs on the campaign trail, yet we hear nary a peep from our candidates.

I have yet to hear a congressman call out the federal reserve for their role in the sub prime crises. I have yet to hear one take the bond ranking services to task for their myopically high ratings of bundled sub prime "paper".

This borders on criminal at the highest levels of financial market administration and oversite.

Originally Posted by LkwdSteve

Except that Big is disengenious in his thread title (a very frequent occurence). The government is looking to help the little people who can't pay their mortgages. The "housing market" as you call it, i fighting that every step of the way (at least, it seems this way to me).).

No Steve. The title of my thread is correct. You just have to read the article:

Paulson and federal regulators have been holding talks with some of the country's biggest banks, mortgage investors and consumer groups trying to strike a deal in an effort to prevent an avalanche of threatened foreclosures in the coming year from sinking the overall economy.


Banking industry executives generally praised the initiative. Daniel Mudd, chief executive at Fannie Mae, the nation's largest provider of home mortgages, called the proposal a ''positive step'' that would allow many borrowers to avoid foreclosure.

The administration has come under criticism from Democrats who have complained that the proposals put forward so far have been too modest in light of the crisis facing the housing industry and the threat that the housing slump could trigger a full-blown recession.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/A...in&oref=slogin

"But here is an interesting quote from the article: "The new program is being aimed at homeowners who have steady incomes and relatively clean repayment histories who could afford the lower introductory mortgage rates but cannot afford the higher adjusted rate."

"You have to read between the lines a little. This is essentially a talking point. "

What do you mean? It sounds like plain english to me. What are they trying to communicate that I'm not hearing?

"If you ever have the misfortune to be drug into a hospital emergency room for some risky behavior you took, and you don't have the means to pay for it, I hope no one near your family is so ugly, hateful, or stupid as to make a comment that you shouldn't be rewarded for your behavior"

Clone, that's not an apt analogy. This situation has to do with financial risk-taking. Lots of people have lost a ton of money shorting Google over the past year. Should the government step in to help these people, maybe limit their losses to 10 or 20%? Signing an ARM when the fixed teaser rate is the maximum you can afford is as bad of a bet as shorting Google.

In case it wasn't clear, I was objecting to the thoughtless rhetorical term "rewarded". You don't reward a drowing man by saving him from peril, you don't reward a speeder by letting him go without a ticket, and you don't reward poor people by offering needed public services.

Should the government step in to help these people, maybe limit their losses to 10 or 20%?

See, I knew you could make a real argument. To answer your question, one, this isn't just government acting, the private sector is heavily involved too. Second, yes, when severe economic damage is occuring or about to occur, it's appropriate to do something about it.

Clearly it's not just homeowners who are suffering, but you continue to focus on them as if they were the sole cause of the problem, and the sole beneficiaries of the proposed solutions. We're facing a potentially large financial crisis that could affect you, me, and everyone on this board, homeowner or not. I hear this in the news almost daily. What are you listening to?

"See, I knew you could make a real argument."

Uncalled for. I haven't seen much of an argument on the other side except for an abundance of bleeding hearts.

"To answer your question, one, this isn't just government acting, the private sector is heavily involved too."

Regardless of how you categorize it, the people who didn't make stupid choices are going to pay for people who did.

"Clearly it's not just homeowners who are suffering, but you continue to focus on them as if they were the sole cause of the problem, and the sole beneficiaries of the proposed solutions."

The homeowners should continue to suffer, and the lenders should continue to suffer.

"We're facing a potentially large financial crisis that could affect you, me, and everyone on this board, homeowner or not"

Maybe, maybe not. The market seems to have absorbed the losses (or projected writedowns) by Citi, Morgan, and others. Big writedowns are already priced into the market. The housing market isn't crashing, but it's adjusting downward. Home Depot, Lowe's, and others are losing value as well.

When bad things happen in the economy, it's called a correction. It's happened in the past, it will happen in the future. Why is everyone so afraid of it? In addition, why does anyone have faith that the feds will make the proper decision, and that they'll be able to blunt the downward move? Bernanke's predecessor made a career out of making the wrong moves with the overnight rates, but he had good intentions.

Originally Posted by Flop The Nuts

"See, I knew you could make a real argument."

Uncalled for. I haven't seen much of an argument on the other side except for an abundance of bleeding hearts.

X messages later, you REFUSE to acknowledge or comprehend my point about rhetoric, and CLOSE YOUR EYES to the problem. I don't know why I even REWARD you with a reply.

Regardless of how you categorize it, the people who didn't make stupid choices are going to pay for people who did.

No, the problem is more complex than people making stupid choices.

The market seems to have absorbed the losses (or projected writedowns) by Citi, Morgan, and others. Big writedowns are already priced into the market. The housing market isn't crashing, but it's adjusting downward. Home Depot, Lowe's, and others are losing value as well.

When bad things happen in the economy, it's called a correction. It's happened in the past, it will happen in the future. Why is everyone so afraid of it?

Dire consequences I presume. Bankers, investors, consumer groups, Treasury--that means something to me even if it means nothing to you.

In addition, why does anyone have faith that the feds will make the proper decision, and that they'll be able to blunt the downward move? Bernanke's predecessor made a career out of making the wrong moves with the overnight rates, but he had good intentions.

They're public servants whose job it is to deal with problems like these.

Flop's response to hearing no real arguments except bleeding hearts is spot on. No one else has used any economic constructs or models to explain why their proposal is better. Reading between the lines is not necessary and is not advantageous -- that only inserts the reader's own biases into the article. Read it for what it is. If the author meant something else, he would have said it!!

Matclone is right that what is happening now affects all of us in some capacity, which is why the government shouldn't trt to unduly influence the markets. All that would do is perpetuate the problems, as laid out in my first post of the thread.

As for this piece:
"If you ever have the misfortune to be drug into a hospital emergency room for some risky behavior you took, and you don't have the means to pay for it, I hope no one near your family is so ugly, hateful, or stupid as to make a comment that you shouldn't be rewarded for your behavior"

One option here is to die. It happens all the time. It will happen to each one of us. It's not a pleasant thing to think about, but it will happen. If we are to talk about issues and how to solve them, we must first remove emotion from the issue so that we may compare apples to apples. Emotion must be removed because we all have different values and make different emotional decisions based on those values. Once we remve emotion from the issue, we can make decisions based on fact and objective reasoning, which are the same regardless of emotion or bias (hence the term objective). If we put emotion into the mix, like the above statement, we are blocking the solution by making all arguments subjective, which turns into one's word against another's.

If we can not put emotion aside and talk objectively about the issue, we can never hope to see any common ground.

Bankers, investors, consumer groups, Treasury--that means something to me even if it means nothing to you.

None of these groups necessarily has the best interest of the economy in mind.

Bankers don't want the loans to fail. They want to continue making money on their loan.

Investors don't want to lose money in the short term if they are long banking institutions, index funds, or any number of other investments. A government bailout gives them time to unwind their positions.

Consumer groups that represent the innumerate homeowners on the verge of a loan reset are irrelevant. Obviously, they don't want the loans to reset.

The Treasury is terrified of anything bad happening on their watch. It's better for them to try and fail, no matter how harebrained the idea, than to not try at all. There is an election coming up, and the current administration would rather not have a blip occur during the last year of their reign. The D's will cry holy hell if the economy farts.