Log in

View Full Version : Regulators Started Housing Crisis


BMT (RIP)
05-18-2009, 14:05
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/sowell_housing_crisis/2009/05/17/215234.html

MSM will not be happy with this.

:munchin


BMT

Defender968
05-18-2009, 14:58
http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/sowell_housing_crisis/2009/05/17/215234.html

MSM will not be happy with this.

:munchin


BMT

I don't think it will matter to them one way or the other, the truth doesn't have a place in the MSM it doesn’t fit into their strategy, after all many people have been saying the same thing Mr. Sowell is saying for months now, and their cries have fallen on deaf ears. The fact that he's a "respected economist" won't make a difference IMO.

Sigaba
05-18-2009, 15:20
During his speech of acceptance for the Republican Party's 2004 presidential nomination, Bush the Younger said:
Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.

Thanks to our policies, home ownership in America is at an all- time high.

(APPLAUSE)

Tonight we set a new goal: 7 million more affordable homes in the next 10 years, so more American families will be able to open the door and say, "Welcome to my home." *


______________________________________________
* Source is here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57466-2004Sep2.html).

nmap
05-18-2009, 16:14
From the original article:

This is the worst housing crisis we've had but it is not the first. This very same drive to increase home ownership occurred under the Republicans in the '20s. It occurred under the Democrats in the '30s, and it occurred under both parties in the '40s and '50s.


Ahh, yes. Home ownership. The ultimate good, with no possible adverse side-effects. :rolleyes:

I wonder...if someone went to unsophisticated people who had no history of investment, few assets, and limited income, and sold them on commodity futures trades, would that be morally and ethically "good"?

They could put down maybe 5%. And everyone knows that prices always go up, right? So by promoting ownership of commodities, we help the poor accumulate wealth. We bring them out of poverty and into the middle class. It's the right thing to do! Isn't it?

The preceding biting sarcasm is, of course, not intended to promote commodity futures. But the arguments are similar to those used to promote mass home ownership. So is the leverage involved.

Rhetorical questions: Oil went up today, closing near $60 per barrel. If and when we see $4 gas someday, what happens to all those houses out in the suburbs? And the families that owe on them? And the banks that loaned money to purchase them?

GratefulCitizen
05-18-2009, 19:57
Another priority for a new term is to build an ownership society, because ownership brings security and dignity and independence.


Bush the younger got this wrong.

It is exactly backwards.

Behaviors which bring security, dignity and independence tend to also bring stable home ownership.