[GeneV]

The reason to look at comparisons is to see if what was happening in house prices was some thing that happened before and hence one should have expected it to happen again or is it a brand new thing.

Funny you should mention that. I came across this graph of inflation-adjusted home prices going back to 1890. The last crash in housing prices of this magnitude was the Great Depression. It is also interesting that there are fluctuations in price, but they are all pretty much in the same range for more than a Century, with the exception of the crash in the Depression, and the bubble of 2000-2007.

[GeneV]

And everyone knew it was. But a lot overextended anyway, and a lot of them got burned.

More than a lot, and it is too many to just be the greedy. One in three "prime" loans is underwater as well. Fitch: 1 In 3 Prime Mortgage Loan Borrowers Underwater - WSJ.com

[Jodokast96]

I'll say it one last time, even though I think I've said it in every post it seems to keep being ignored. Greedy homeowners were not the only ones to blame. But there are enough that they can't be ignored and not be considered a contributing factor.

[shooz]

It wasn't ignored.
Sorry you didn't notice. It was taken seriously and responded to with facts and logic.
Your statement was merely incorrect.
You provided no amount of either to back it up.
Greedy "house flippers" were a marginal part of the issue.
"Homeowners" got screwed.
Know the difference, it's huge.

Those individuals I've met that practice "house flipping", made improvements to the property and dealt with one at a time, in hopes of making a few grand.
However real-estate developers are the ones who buy property with the intent to profit without such improvements, buy much more property under corporate charter, and aim to make millions.
There's BIG difference.

So tell me, how many of those greedy homeowners do you know of, and where is some proof to back that up?
Please, also explain how they leveraged and packaged their mortgages as derivatives and sold them all over the world.

[Ratmagiclady]

One thing the corporate media ignores is how they themselves, along with Wall Street experts and even the home improvement industry were constantly bombarding people with the message that home ownership was the best investment, and that if you didn't extend a little, you'd fall behind in that investment.

(And, yes, while *now* it certainly makes a lot of sense to rent, for a lot of people, rent's risen to be such a percentage of income, and had been rising a great deal on that equation, especially, that what paying rent would do for you would be to simply end up spending half to two thirds of half to two thirds of your income *away,* never to be seen again, ...never mind having enough to save for a place to live in retirement, or something to live *on.* Consequently, people's retirement plans depended *on* the value of some real estate for the middle to lower classes, if you could have it. )

Anyway, Jodokast, you say this:

I'll say it one last time, even though I think I've said it in every post it seems to keep being ignored. Greedy homeowners were not the only ones to blame. But there are enough that they can't be ignored and not be considered a contributing factor.

I don't know how it is with you conservative bullies that 'blame' is your guiding star, and you think that if you can push the least bit onto anyone else, it doesn't mean that exactly what you demanded and continue to demand is the 'system' that everyone 'must keep up with' isn't, wasn't, and hasn't been *proven* to be the whole problem.

You blame 'greedy average people who had the temerity to want a home.'

And listened to *you.* Or those you support who claimed to be experts.

Who want to do the same things even harder and push off *blame.* For the results of what they, and you *still* try to sell.


I'm not a 'greedy' person, man.

But a *home* is about all I ever wanted. You can call me a lousy bookkeeper, and I *am,* but your very own agenda means I'm two thousand miles from a life-partner who *is.* A very good bookkeeper, as well as someone a lot better at biochem than I. And she wants home, too. I'm in fact down here so she can *be* home. And I'm not a greedy person. You call me a 'commie' for *not* being so.


But I want home. And if someone claiming to be an 'expert' wanted to sell me one, the only thing stopping me wouldn't be me 'deserving' to get suckered by all the 'experts,' but the fact that I *know better than to trust the likes of you and your promises and blame.*


Your type talk 'incentive,' but the fact is, if anything's disincentive, it's not greed or laziness, it's knowing that the moment I put something together, someone talking like *you* will take it away. Calling it 'morals' or 'Just business.' Or whatever. I'm still not sure I can't stay off the street next month. And you defend the ultra-rich and call people 'greedy?' Sweet Goddess, man.


Nobody asked for this.

Yeah, we *want* home. Someone sold it to some of us, but then took that home and all that was paid in, sold it for salvage, and tried to say they needed tax-rules-for-corporate-raiders-too, on promises they would do less of what they've been doing for decades.


'Class war?' My Gods, man, it's been on for a long time, and I think you 'identify' with the wrong side.


'Blame.' Gods. It's *obvious.* It's just some ideologies don't want to *admit it.* Cause it makes them *what.* More money.

Then you call the poor 'greedy' like the scapegoats you think we are.


I'm not greedy. I'm actually *terrible* at asking for even a small wage.


But I want home. I want *a* home. I want *my* home. Me and my dear one. Like we worked for all this time.

I'm not sure how you blame *me* for the doings of billionaires who fail at their own games. And still want more, and still have cars worth more than any house I ever lived in. For spares.

And you think you can spread the blame enough, even say, 'Why you bringing our LGBT-discrimination into this, I'm trying to blame you for greed and irresponsibility, even if you never borrowed a dime and I still advocate what took you r home from you, three times over. Took your child, took your family, took your future..... And blamed *you* for some character flaw about it. While I cashed in.'

That's what *you* say. But 99 percent don't believe you...Anymore. And guess what 1 percent you ain't, yourself.

Only top 1 percent I was ever in was on basis of IQ, and I assure you that ain't the same as 'merit.' Not by your standards, and not by mine.

And it's a funny thing about *having* an IQ supposedly-upstairs of Einstein, it seems what they'll have you do is either concoct messed-up derivatives or otherwise say, 'Do stupid things, really well,' ... What they *won't* hear is, 'If I'm such a fricking genius, listen to me. This isn't going to work. I'm going to try and do something else. ' That was my 1977.

In my 2011, I'm older, cranky, hurting, have been kicked in the head a lot, consider it a triumph if I can hold two phone numbers in my head at the same time, and I want to do something real for some people somewhere. Somewhere I can call home. And you're still in my way. (Or, more to the point, people you think you represent are.)

[shooz]

This is what you get when you repeal the fairness act. ( It was a republican did it)
The intent of that law was then left up to the free market.
Click around the AM dial some night and tell me what you hear?
There's a thousand little Limbaughs out there, repeating propaganda to the masses that are half asleep or drunk.
Maybe driving down the road in a trance.
Subliminal influence? Maybe, but it also plays to some of the deep seated crap the more intelligent among us have been trying to squelch for ages.
They then reinforce that crap in the bars, at the auto parts counter, at the weekly poker game.
Now they even do it in churches.
It spreads everywhere

Re-enacting the Fairness Doctrine would help, but take a while.
No one talks about it though.

Most of these folks never look for facts.
When facts are shown to them, they become petulant and afraid.
They will over Analyze and try and change the subject.
When facts are offered for their view, they simply refuse the experience.

Then they repeat themselves.
They are loud at times, but fewer are believing them.

Around here, I've found that when asked to answer a simple question, to help refine their view.
They won't answer. They can't I suppose. Fear of the truth?
They'll just bring up the same discredited stuff later, from a slightly different angle, or at a slightly different target.
It's the same old same old though.
mikemike is good at it.
I've asked him many questions that went unanswered.
Asked for a refinement of his view and been ignored.

There is a cure..........


They need to pull back the curtains behind the lords they blame this on to see the hidden kings.
The 1%
Only then will they realize, that they too are among the 99%.

[Ratmagiclady]

This is what you get when you repeal the fairness act. ( It was a republican did it)
The intent of that law was then left up to the free market.
Click around the AM dial some night and tell me what you hear?
There's a thousand little Limbaughs out there, repeating propaganda to the masses that are half asleep or drunk.
Maybe driving down the road in a trance.
Subliminal influence? Maybe, but it also plays to some of the deep seated crap the more intelligent among us have been trying to squelch for ages.
They then reinforce that crap in the bars, at the auto parts counter, at the weekly poker game.
Now they even do it in churches.
It spreads everywhere

Re-enacting the Fairness Doctrine would help, but take a while.
No one talks about it though.

Most of these folks never look for facts.
When facts are shown to them, they become petulant and afraid.
They will over Analyze and try and change the subject.
When facts are offered for their view, they simply refuse the experience.

Then they repeat themselves.
They are loud at times, but fewer are believing them.

They need to pull back the curtains behind the lords they blame this on to see the hidden kings.
The 1%
Only then will they realize, that they too are among the 99%.

Yeah, I've been saying that a lot. All along. Reagan sold our media ...the public airwaves owned by the people.... to the corporations. Like
Jello, some of us been screaming about it ever since. It killed journalism.

[larryinlc]

This is what you get when you repeal the fairness act. ( It was a republican did it)
The intent of that law was then left up to the free market.
Click around the AM dial some night and tell me what you hear?
There's a thousand little Limbaughs out there, repeating propaganda to the masses that are half asleep or drunk.
Maybe driving down the road in a trance.
Subliminal influence? Maybe, but it also plays to some of the deep seated crap the more intelligent among us have been trying to squelch for ages.

I thought I was the only one who noticed this. I used to love late night AM radio, but that was 35 years ago.

Larry

[shooz]

The truth doesn't sell very well.
There's more easy money in press releases and commercials.

Hmmmm, easy money. How come no one calls their CEOs, shiftless welfare queens?
Oh yeah, campaign donations, that we paid for.
Can I have my confiscated money back now?

[newarts]

I went back and read many of the entries in this thread. I think there has been a fair balance of discussing the players in the recent housing fiasco. I hesitate to apply the word "blame" to most players involved because they were in fact playing by the rules. Our society clearly applauds gathering wealth by exploiting the rules to game the system - by either side of the credit-debit arrangement.

Any blame should be ascribed to both the rules (or lack of rules) and the assumption that the goal of the game makes sense.

The big misfortune is that the little person, today's individual debtor, has little capacity to ride out financial storms. S/he is already maxed out credit wise and has no savings - except maybe for home equity or the ability to refinance at a low rate - and when that vanishes there is nothing to fall back on. A bank can easily withstand a few missed payments from a borrower; a borrower who has an income shortfall & no source of funds simply cannot make payments. This disparity in financial depth creates a ratchet effect that favors the big guy (who is just playing by the rules).

Society has conditioned the little guy with a moral obligation to pay debts - no reciprocal morality is attached to the lender who hides behind a corporate curtain. The debtor must pay or roast in hell - the lending machine (being a corporation) has no moral responsibility.

It is a weakness in the system that results in a net wealth transfer in one direction. It is not a new problem in western society but has recently been exacerbated by a combination of ridiculously easy credit and obscenely high effective interest rates for short term credit card borrowing.

Even in today's recession I get about 5 pre-approved credit card offers a week!

[Jodokast96]

It wasn't ignored.

Really? Because nobody seems to think there was any personal responsibility on their part when they couldn't pay up. Imagine that, you bite off more than you can chew and are surprised when you lose the house?

So tell me, how many of those greedy homeowners do you know of

My mother? My sister? My neighbor? My co-worker? Another co-worker's brother?

But I want home. I want *a* home. I want *my* home. Me and my dear one. Like we worked for all this time.

But I want home.

I'm not a 'greedy' person, man.
But a *home* is about all I ever wanted.

And if I'm reading you right, as much as you want it, you seem to have done the right thing and not bought it, because you know you'd end up in a bad situation. You have done what so many other's should have, but didn't. Doesn't sound like any amount of greed to me. And at what point did I defend anybody here? Hell, my original statement was about the apparent rip off higher education seems to have become.

Newarts, many good points there.

[GeneV]

It is interesting that, outside of the Depression, the median price of a home has hovered around what would currently be $150k for 120 years. There was a big spike in raw home prices from 1975 to 1990, but not adjusted prices. If you didn't account for inflation (sometimes in double digits), it would have been easy to create a graph which would fool one into thinking the kind of increases we saw from 2000-2006 were not as anomalous or dangerous as they really were.

Context is critical. What looks like a rise in prices in 1995, and the beginning of this bubble, was actually a drop in real prices.



Returning to the education question of the OP, one thing which education (not necessarily "training" for a job) should teach us is critical thinking and a value for history and context. The focus on how to make money does not necessarily do that.

[shooz]

Really? Because nobody seems to think there was any personal responsibility on their part when they couldn't pay up. Imagine that, you bite off more than you can chew and are surprised when you lose the house?

You yourself admitted that it was but one factor. It was the only factor you railed at.
How many of those shyster mortgage agents paid for their part of the problem with a bankruptcy? None.
You don't even factor them into your thinking.
In fact, it sounds like you are defending the mafia.
Wallstreet did use shylock style mortgage plans against those least able to pay them.
Not a word about that from you.




My mother? My sister? My neighbor? My co-worker? Another co-worker's brother?

You live among some very greedy people. I begin to see where you form your attitude.
However, you still can't paste that on everyone else.
But,you failed to show how they leveraged them. You failed to show how they knew it was coming and did it anyway.
Failed to say a word about the greed on wallstreet, Not a word.




And if I'm reading you right, as much as you want it, you seem to have done the right thing and not bought it, because you know you'd end up in a bad situation. You have done what so many other's should have, but didn't. Doesn't sound like any amount of greed to me. And at what point did I defend anybody here? Hell, my original statement was about the apparent rip off higher education seems to have become.

Newarts, many good points there.

Then there's fact you cherry picked from my statement.
Offered NO response to the lions share.
Then come back about rip offs in education.
You also didn't view the video, or you might have had a cogent comment.

So if you want to?
Go ahead and become an infomercial.
Encourage everyone you know to become an infomercial.
Become a self promoting huckster like Limbaugh, or Beck
Never tell the truth, never admit a mistake.
Get yourself a publicist and a stylist.
Just make sure to ignore those who are not so self promoting.
They could only be losers.

[shooz]

WOW!!!!!!!

Must be a whole lot of greedy home owners out there!
The "right" never asked or explained how the property "market" became so inflated.
Never made the tie in to leveraged derivatives and how it inflated that debt.

Wallstreet got bailed out. We got sold out.

Home Ownership Sinks To 1930s Levels - Money News Story - WDIV Detroit

[Nesster]

One of the ironies is that 'free market' capitalists are exactly the same as 'rational' liberals - both believe that market forces will produce the most efficient results. The difference is that "free marketers" either see the status quo as the Natural State - i.e. don't see all the 'intrusions' of government into markets... and usually call for more of the same, without really understanding. E.g. the tax cut thing is all from Keynes, just one of the tools Keynes explained... and Laffer himself got the idea from something Keynes wrote.

A 'rational' liberal believes in markets - however, also sees that the regulation / rules of a market are always essential; without rules and regulation there is no market at all! Also, there is a social value in addition to a profit value to consider, e.g. pollution or health hazards, which when correctly written into the rules allow the market to produce valued results (and companies still make money). The opposition to a carbon tax is strange, because of course we're currently supporting and incenting carbon based energy usage - and that, folks, is already a government distortion of markets!

Ditto with the banking stuff... yes, the policies of encouraging home ownership across demographics were done for good reasons... but the policies of hands off Wall St and the big banks was not. And that's where the major money and power in the bubble lay, that's therefore where the major blame lies: and in us, if we don't throw out the obstructionist bums in Congress who are in cahoots with status quo economic power. We've seen where that leads us, time and again, and we ought to see through their talking points...