JohnLockesGhost Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Agreed, they are simply helping to keep the home prices artificially inflated( and naturally collecting higher taxes as a result) Speaking of which... Anyone catch this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/business_world.html (apparently the article has been since edited (realizing how incredibly stupid it was), but I had quoted this part before, so...) Relevant part: Let us step back. A great deal of housing debt was created in the last few years to give speculative buyers nominal title to homes that they no longer want. Any postmortem will also show that too much government subsidy for the creation of housing debt was an original sin at the root of today's mess. The result is not unlike pollution -- a market "externality" that imposes unfair costs on others as a result of some people's over-speculation in now decaying, market-depressing, neighborhood-degrading housing. When politicians understand this, they may finally have something useful to contribute. The shortest road back from this perdition, as improbable as it may sound, would be to foreclose on and demolish some of the least-wanted houses, with taxpayer money if necessary. At least this approach would be relatively moral hazard-free: Banks would receive only the market value of their foreclosed homes; reckless borrowers wouldn't receive a benefit at the expense of taxpayers who continue to pay their mortgages. The alternative, favored by many in Congress, of trying to bribe subprime borrowers into keeping up their payments would be an insult to responsible homeowners and only teach other borrowers to treat their obligations as optional too. That's a recipe for more financial chaos down the road. A rather curious part of modern economics is this idea of keeping prices inflated because falling prices is equated with recession. So many are willing to destroy homes (i.e. real wealth) to maintain high prices (i.e. imaginary wealth). But, as zoony said earlier, economics has come a long way since the days of the founding. /sarcasm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Who is "they"?Property taxes are collected by local governments ... the federal government is the one trying to help settle the bad loans. :whoknows: Are you gonna try to bring rationality and facts into a philosophical question and answer thread? Your one of "them"...aren't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 So if banks made the mistake and want to continue to be in business, why does the tax payer who didn't make the mistake have to flip the bill?It is in their best interest to work out a deal and not foreclose. It's expensive to take and resell somebodies home. If part of the solution is for the banks and borrowers to came to an agreement then we won't have to pay, that is exactly what McCain wants to do. The thing is we will be paying for the unemployment on all the people that will be getting laid off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Maybe some of you righties here can help me come to grips with the scenario, but it is something I have a hard time understanding. Why is it that people from the right side of the fence tend to focus on the small person abusing the system, while turning a blind eye to the big person abusing the system?In other words, they seem more concerned about a welfare mother getting free butter and food from the Federal Government then when a large corporation gets billions from the government. Case in point, the oil companies have $18Billion dollars in tax breaks going to them from the federal government currently. They have made record profits for the past what, 12 quarters or something like that, and yet they still deserve a big tax break of $18 Billion dollars. Why is it that the welfare mom draws the ire of republicans, but the oil company executive who is raping the American public and making more money then god could have possibly imagined draws not a whimper from the crowd? Free money is free money, it should go the same both ways no? Why are they not up in arms about an $18Billion dollar check to big oil, yet they are concerned about money the money going to help out people who need a little help in life. Can someone help me come to grips with this conundrum? Is it just greed that goes through people's mind? Why is one side good and the other bad? Well first, your assumption in the first part where you talk about welfare moms, you have republicans mistaken with Democrats. You are correct Republicans tend to favor big buisness, becuase it is only logical. The BIG guy as you put it, is who employs everyone else, if you force thier hand, you lose jobs. The you know what trickles down. To be truthful, I kinda see both as mooches. (oil and welfare moms) IMO the vast majority of welfare is lazy shiftless people mooching off the system. I'm not saying, there aren't legit needs for some, but IMO the majority are mooches. I do believe that you need to be a little more flexable with big business as they employ. If you hurt those who employ, you won't have jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Speaking of which...Anyone catch this article: http://online.wsj.com/article/business_world.html (apparently the article has been since edited (realizing how incredibly stupid it was), but I had quoted this part before, so...) Well, this guy doesn't seem to have an economics degree: Born in Philadelphia, Mr. Jenkins received a bachelor's degree from Hobart and William Smith Colleges and a master's degree in journalism from Northwestern University. He was a 1991 journalism fellow at the University of Michigan. http://www.opinionjournal.com/bios/bio_jenkins.htmlA rather curious part of modern economics is this idea of keeping prices inflated because falling prices is equated with recession. So many are willing to destroy homes (i.e. real wealth) to maintain high prices (i.e. imaginary wealth).I don't think it's as much a part of economics as it is a part of fiscal politics. No politician wants to preside over a "recession" so we fudge the numbers to avoid it.But, as zoony said earlier, economics has come a long way since the days of the founding. /sarcasmEconomics has come a very long way ... politics hasn't changed much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Happy Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Ok, I am not trying to defend all CEO's but do feel they get a bad rap at times. All I am going to say is at the level I am at and what I know many CEO's do great things for their companies. They take the brunt of a lot of class envy. It's a tough job. Nobody argues that. You're not going get that kind of salary for sitting with your thumb up your butt for 8 hours a day. Some CEOs are worth their weight in gold to the company. Some aren't. Like anything else in business, it's an investment. That's money that could be used to expand the business. When that much money is invested into the CEO, it better pay off as much or more than the other ways it could be spent. Too often the rate of return on that investment is not what it should be. That's when there's a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 If part of the solution is for the banks and borrowers to came to an agreement then we won't have to pay, that is exactly what McCain wants to do.The thing is we will be paying for the unemployment on all the people that will be getting laid off. How does McCain factor into anything between sellers and buyers? I don't completely understand how unemployment works, but isn't there only so many allotments for it? Basically, you're making the point that we are going to pay for it one way or another, so we might as well just keep the ball rolling, even if it's wrong fundamentally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 :laugh::laugh::laugh: @ Stryper.:laugh::laugh::laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 How does McCain factor into anything between sellers and buyers?I don't completely understand how unemployment works, but isn't there only so many allotments for it? Basically, you're making the point that we are going to pay for it one way or another, so we might as well just keep the ball rolling, even if it's wrong fundamentally. He can force lenders to work with the home owners on agreeing to solutions that work. Who knows maybe they will waive the ability to refinance to longer loans, like the 40 year i mentioned etc... I believe currently those type of loans are not allowed in a refi. I think the best case is get as many people to work out a deal so they will not have to foreclose. Now for those who are just way over their head that is a different story. People can be creative though this one lady decided to do a raffle for her home. It was such a good story that CNN put it on and she ended up making over $700k and donated everything extra to charity. A guy won the house with only spending I think $100, now that is smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 He can force lenders to work with the home owners on agreeing to solutions that work. Who knows maybe they will waive the ability to refinance to longer loans, like the 40 year i mentioned etc... I believe currently those type of loans are not allowed in a refi. A- Why would he have to force if it's in the best interest of the banks to allow this, but..B- Doesn't your home have to be worth 10% more (I definitly don't know all the facts) to refi in the first place? With the housing bubble blowing up and over valueing all the homes bought, people have a need to refinance homes that aren't worth buying in the first place, hence the core of the problem. I don't think it's the people without money buying a $100k home they can't afford, it's the people who can afford a $350k home buying one for $750k. I think the best case is get as many people to work out a deal so they will not have to foreclose. Now for those who are just way over their head that is a different story. It's just as much in the banks best interest to not foreclose, they lose twice on this. It hurts the banks who got us into this, more than the consumers who made the foolish decisions in the first place.People can be creative though this one lady decided to do a raffle for her home. It was such a good story that CNN put it on and she ended up making over $700k and donated everything extra to charity. A guy won the house with only spending I think $100, now that is smart.Better lucky than good, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I am a little confused about someone sayiing that thanks to this current crisis they can not buy a house??? Exacty how is that not possible. Right now IS the time to buy if you have a good job and you have money saved up. With prices dropping to levels we have not seen since the early 2000's etc... now is the time to buy. If you wait till the market hits the bottom you might wait too long. I know in the DC area gettiing inside the beltway is now more realistic then it has been in the past 5 to maybe 10 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeknows Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 So in Chomerics bizarro-world, someone who collects welfare contributes as much to society as a multi-billion dollar corporation that employees 100k people. Good question. Can't say I know the answer. since when is a company more important than a person being able to make the most out of the one life they have on this planet? since when did corps get treated as human? undoubtadly the oil companies contribute more but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. when republicans learn that what is good for me is good for you and vice versa then all will be much better. trickle down..... heh ..... thats just the rich pissin on us.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outbaksean Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 since when is a company more important than a person being able to make the most out of the one life they have on this planet? Since one company = 100k employees liveliehoods Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I am a little confused about someone sayiing that thanks to this current crisis they can not buy a house???Exacty how is that not possible. Right now IS the time to buy if you have a good job and you have money saved up. With prices dropping to levels we have not seen since the early 2000's etc... now is the time to buy. If you wait till the market hits the bottom you might wait too long. I know in the DC area gettiing inside the beltway is now more realistic then it has been in the past 5 to maybe 10 years. Because even if you have a good job and savings, the banks reportedly have become very skittish about approving loans and almost no one has enough savings to buy a house outright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 There's actually an interesting question here: Are Republicans really cool with giving tax incentives to corporations to outsource their work? Is this a welfare that the federal government should promote and in effect subsidize? Are Republicans having second thoughts about the basket of goodies that was the Bush Energy Bill passed during his first term? Do Energy companies need these extra incentives and tax breaks when they are breaking profit records every quarter and not showing the least restraint in their pricing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gougean excessive or improper exaction : extortion You don't need me to define excessive do you? I asked you to define gouging. Not go onto google dot com and zombie up an answer. How much profit is too much profit. Be specific. Dollars or percentages. "excessive" tell me diddly squat about how you feel about the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 There's actually an interesting question here:Are Republicans really cool with giving tax incentives to corporations to outsource their work? Is this a welfare that the federal government should promote and in effect subsidize? Are Republicans having second thoughts about the basket of goodies that was the Bush Energy Bill passed during his first term? Do Energy companies need these extra incentives and tax breaks when they are breaking profit records every quarter and not showing the least restraint in their pricing? Remove the tax incentive and you raise the price of gas further. No? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Remove the tax incentive and you raise the price of gas further. No?So what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 So what? The answer is either yes or no.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Remove the tax incentive and you raise the price of gas further. No? And the tax incentives are to promote DOMESTIC exploration and refining. How is that outsourcing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 The answer is either yes or no..The answer is Yes. So what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outbaksean Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 The answer is Yes. So what? Because I don't want to pay more for gas... duh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 And the tax incentives are to promote DOMESTIC exploration and refining.How is that outsourcing? How do we/they know that is where it's going? And why is that the important part? What I'm trying to say is, if we would allow them to build refineries here and drill in the Dakotas, wouldn't it be more profitable to do so, regardless of how much tax money we give them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinSkins Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Not nearly qualified. Few of us are. NONSENSE :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Because I don't want to pay more for gas...duh "duh", that's brillant conversation technique you have there. Why not just do this :doh:? Anyway, if we didn't give the Oil companies tax money and prices went up, do you think we might be more inclined as consumers to put more money into alternitive energy who would be on a more fair playing field? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.