Discuss my bitches:
Its called risk and reward. Not here's some money, give me more pls.
Printable View
Discuss my bitches:
Its called risk and reward. Not here's some money, give me more pls.
The media needs more outbursts like this, it's good for the ratings.
He should have hit her. I'd send him flowers.
His wife must be pretty damn edgy at home.
He's absolutely right.
I knew, I knew absolutely g0zen would come in here and...
rightfully agree with this guy
Its called capitalism. You can lose money in the markets. Newsflash?
This isn't capitalism. It's predatory lending. It tempts people who want to own a home with rates that are impossibly low, then when the bubble bursts (like it is now) they lose those homes because the rates jack-up sky high. It's a shame and while it isn't technically illegal it's scummy as fuck.
Cramer is funny.
It's also Capitalism to call bullshit like this out and try to change it. To put one side down for calling this bullshit out is just as bad as being the scum behind it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsKitten
Capitalism is predatory by nature. Thats how it works, the weaker entities make bad choices and fail or are taken advantage of while the smarter, stronger or better positioned profit and survive. The market isn't a zero sum game but everyone will take a loss eventually.
g0zen you of all people shouldn't be asking the government to coddle the dumb with this socialist bullshit. Variable rate loans have the inherit risk of going UP or SPIKING as well as going down. Thats why fixed rate loans exist, why we have credit scores and reviews.
Market up, market down, rate up rate down. Capitalism does not mean everyone makes money all the time. Also: who didn't see this bubble coming? Its been talked about for months, people wondering: "When o' when will the housing bubble burst?"
I don't recall anyone asking the government to coddle us here, it's moreso I think a call out to people to fucking get with it, and hopefully turn the public against these scum that are following in such acts. I thought of it as more of a cry to the people not the government to organize and do something.
Or in your terms, become a larger entity.
But if the government is going to interject into these businesses, and back them, shouldn't there be government backing to the people as well?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thief Silver
Implied call of: This should be illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
What does this even mean? Telling the fed to cut the rate at which lenders can advertise to stop them from doing this bullshit in the middle of a market downturn isn't socialism. It's what the fed is supposed to do in this situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsKitten
If you're implying that I personally think it should be illegal, then I'll just go ahead and say that yes I do. I don't want people duped and them and their families becoming homeless. I guess that makes me Lenin reborn, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsKitten
Its direct government control. The loan rates aren't the problem, its the fact that these lenders are making BAD FINANCIAL CHOICES by lending to people who would be able to repay at a higher rate should their VARIABLE (meaning it can change) rate loan go up too far.
Like we've been expecting, forever.
Its not Leninist, just uncharacteristically socialist for you g0zen. I haven't seen you call for the working masses to cast down their chains and rise up yet.
Can someone please explain it in laymen's terms? I didn't quite understand everything he was saying.
All I got was that companies are worried now that the people they've given loans to won't be able to pay back because the interest rate hike will put people into foreclosure.
The rate hike also affects the bond market too. The price of bond is dropping (fixed income he was ranting about).
Direct government control? LOL, have you been dating Ayn Rand's corpse lately or something? The financial market has plenty of regulation and has for decades. In fact the last time we had an unregulated market it totally collapsed and lead to a little thing you might have heard of, the Great Depression.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsKitten
I don't know where you got that I was ever a free-marketeer to begin with, because I'm definitely not. I'm not a socialist either, and neither is Kramer.
Variable interest rate loans are for suckers.
QFT. Seriously, the suckers are dying out there. BSC is one of them. I mean how are hard is this.Quote:
Originally Posted by K3V
Lender1: I can loan 300k for a house @ 4.7 variable
Lender2: Sure but I keep hearing about this housing bubble
Lender1: Sure but thats the risk of the low rate, should the bubble burst we maybe seeing rates as high as 10-11% (hypothetically) which would result in a minimum payment increase higher than my sucker's take homepay
Lender2: That sounds like a RISK, and possibly shadey.
Lender1: Lets do it anyway, we'll make tons of money through new loan opportunities that were not available before because these people were too prone to default before.
Lender2: Er, doesn't that mean they're prone to default if the rates go up?
and so on. And I'm a a complete moron with money.
that isn't true conceptually. Capitalism is just the buying and selling of goods and services by private individuals or corporations. It doesn't have to be predatory. It only becomes predatory when the people who participate in capitalism become predatory.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsKitten
Well here's the thing, its not like we're in a situation where we have contracts of adhesion that're the only game in town. Most banks offer fixed interest loans. Yes they're higher rates but thats how its should to be. An exchange of certainty and safety balanced against a lower and potentially volatile rate.
The fed sets the rates to which the gov't lends to banks, thats fine it control's the money supply. The government is the only game in town for new US currency. Banks don't have a real choice so I'm comfortable with this sort of control lest we devolve into a competing currency situation where every bank issues their own notes, banks didn't do things like KEEP MONEY ON HAND TO COVER WITHDRAWALS and such.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsKitten
or just flat-out refuse the money to people who were risky to begin with. The whole sub-prime lending debacle is a perfect example of it. Those morons - who didn't have the money to begin with - sought out loans for houses they couldn't afford. Now their rates are going up and defaulting on their loan.
This country has a big spending problem - spending money they DON'T have. Living beyond your means is a dangerous proposition and if you're not carefull you'll get burned.
These words uttered more often would save alot of lenders heart aches and ulcers.: I'm sorry, but you're not a good risk.
These words would save people alot of pain and suffering: "No we cannot afford that right now, we've better save up and look for a better deal in the meantime."
Then what are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
It's called the middle-ground; a regulated capitalist system with a social safety net. We've had it in this country for going on sixty years.
IAWTP. And it is 100% the individuals' responsibility to not get in that situation. It's not the lenders', and it sure as shit isn't the government's.Quote:
Originally Posted by Type Ryan
Haven't credit cards been allowing people to live beyond their means for decades?
Yes, and those are the responsibility of the individual too.
This dude is going to have an anyerism (sp?).
You guys can act all tough and look-at-me-I'm-a-rugged-individualist if you want, but if lenders are setting minimum payments above what people actually have, all those defaults will affect you directly too. None of you are economic islands.
How to profit.
Actually those defaults are wonderful for me as i can buy that land once I'm out of school at a discount from the bank forclosure sale. Wait for another sucker with a loan to front me the money. Then use that money to setup a liquor store or pawn shop to take advantage of the misery of others who are buckling under the payment pressure.
Seriously, a money making MACHINE, there is always a perfectly legal way to profit from bad decisions and human misery. Now if you're a socialist like me, you seek to play responsible parent by having safeguards in place and social programs to cushion those who make those bad choices.
Since I don't frame every decision I make on money and capital I'm sitting just fine. A house isn't something I think about in those terms. It's somewhere I live.
you fail at capitalism icarusfall. If your money isn't working for you you're losing money on your properties. Either by taxes, depreciation in market value or whatnot unless you're receiving subsidies or aid to stay there.
I love the fact they're called "sub-prime" loans, that speaks fucking volumes to me.
I understand how the system works fine - I just don't care.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsKitten
You're clearly being sarcastic at this point. You have no grasp of capitalism outside simple narrow ideological ideals that are Industrial Revolution anachronisms.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsKitten
Someday Gozen, I'll be standing with my comrades at my back, tearing down your opressive captialist chains.
But capitalism depends on making profit. Making profit has to be predatory, because you're by definition overcharging everyone who buys from you.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
You're attaching your own bias to the meaning of the word.
You are not by definition overcharging. You make a profit off of intangible quantities that go into the production of the good. You are paying for time. You are paying for skill. You are paying for quality. you are paying for labor.
Does it always work this way? No. especially not now. Modern products are a farce. The price you pay for most goods has nothing to do with any of the intangable qualities I preiviously described. The new goal is maximizing profit.
The question of modern consumer goods is not "will you buy my product?" but "how cheep and how shitty can I make a product AND what is the maxim you will pay for it AND what is the best ratio of the two for the highest gain on my part?"
And then we touch onto marketing and how you perceive things. You may or may not be aware of this, but quality, as you see it, is a lie. Take clothes for example. Most clothes are made in china by the same couple of companies. Most clothes cost the same price to make. But do you pay the same price for everything. No. The $65 designer mall tshirt is the exact same product as the $5 tshirt at walmart. Both Tshirts cost $.75 to make. Or better yet, compare the $45 shirt at the mall with the $15 shirt in the same store. Both cost $.75 to make with very little difference in quality. But the $15 price justifies the price of the $45 shirt and visa versa. They will make most of their money on the $15 shirts because most people are cheep. But some people will buy the $45 shirt because they assume it is better because of the higher price. And at the end of the year they will mark both down and still make money because the price will never actually drop down past $.75, and if it did, it wouldn't matter because the profit on the first couple of shirts has covered such a small loss.
This happens for all consumer goods. From vcrs, to batteries, to cars.
Well, absolutely. But I see no real way you can argue that this way of thinking on the part of the 'capitalist' is anything other than inevitable. Capitalism ensures that the rich have the power, and in any system those with power make the decisions. The quite laudable ideals of competition, egalitarianism and meritocracy are undone by those who have made plenty of money and would like to make more by undertaking ever more morally dubious profit-orientated schemes. Modern capitalism, even at grassroots level (my brother who's 17 recently started selling soup on a market stall) involves working out the maximum people will pay and the least amount of effort you can put in.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttcheeks
But I think we agree on this. I just think that if money and power are tied together, it's inevitable that legitimately charging for a service will turn into charging as much as the market can stand for not very much of a service at all. Therefore I see this is a part of capitalism that won't go away.
Aye. I do think that this will become more obvious over the coming decade; books like No Logo (much as I fucking hate that moral-high-ground bullshit) have brought more into the mainstream what a minority have known for years.Quote:
And then we touch onto marketing and how you perceive things. You may or may not be aware of this, but quality, as you see it, is a lie. Take clothes for example. Most clothes are made in china by the same couple of companies. Most clothes cost the same price to make. But do you pay the same price for everything. No. The $65 designer mall tshirt is the exact same product as the $5 tshirt at walmart. Both Tshirts cost $.75 to make. Or better yet, compare the $45 shirt at the mall with the $15 shirt in the same store. Both cost $.75 to make with very little difference in quality. But the $15 price justifies the price of the $45 shirt and visa versa. They will make most of their money on the $15 shirts because most people are cheep. But some people will buy the $45 shirt because they assume it is better because of the higher price. And at the end of the year they will mark both down and still make money because the price will never actually drop down past $.75, and if it did, it wouldn't matter because the profit on the first couple of shirts has covered such a small loss.
This happens for all consumer goods. From vcrs, to batteries, to cars.
As an aside, it will, of course, be obvious only to the consumerist middle-classes, which is another debate in itself. People who pay £4 for an organic chocolate bar and then decry profit-gouging corporations.
I think it is part of people that will not go away. It isn't capitalism that makes people desire maxium gain, it is human nature. capitalism is just trading your stuff for other stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by red_war_machine
See, the problem isn't capitalism, socialism, or hell, even horrid stuff like fascism or nationalism. It is human nature. People need to stop arguing the wonders/faults of ideologies and realize that the pain or joy of life pivots on people not being piles of crap.
It's the lenders job to make money. If they don't, especially if it's a public company they work for, they're negligent. Everyone has the information available to them to avoid risks like this. If they didn't read or check them out beforehand then they deserve what they got. Nobody likes to see families out on the street, but that's the individuals burden to avoid. Capitalism is predatory. It's not malicious like Ironplant seems to be implying but the point is to make money, not friends.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Kramer's awesome BTW.
I blame individuals for buying shit they can't afford. There will always be expensive houses for sale. That doesn't mean I'm going to go out and buy them when I can't afford them. That's what these people are doing, and while it does put more obstacles in my way, personally for purchases, I can't worry about it. I can't control it in a free market so I have to work with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
I'd rather these people get burned and learn their lesson then have them be coddled and learn nothing except the government will bail them out of their stupid decisions.
This is smart, regardless of the sarcasm. I've been noticing the advantages to foreclosures. Instead of buying things I can't currently afford in a high-priced market (such as 1 million dollar houses that clearly aren't worth 1 million dollars) I've just been saving diligently.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsKitten
But this is where we differ. I don't like seeing people on the street with children, it's terrible. But eventually things will start looking up and they'll be stronger for the lesson learned in the longterm -- especially the kids.Quote:
Now if you're a socialist like me, you seek to play responsible parent by having safeguards in place and social programs to cushion those who make those bad choices.
Old people are good with money. Ask them about living in the depression with a tub of butter having to last an entire month. They learned the hard way and it ingrained in to their minds from a young age.
Look there's always ways to profit from people's bad choices. Drug dealers, alcohol companies, weapons makers, financial institutions and fast food restaurants know this all too well. Taking advantage of this human weakness whether it be vice or merely poor business savvy. Offer someone a loan they're unlikely able to pay back, then they'll fail and set themselves up further failure with bad credit scores. Drug dealers slowly (or quickly) kill their customer bases, weapons makers accelerate the damage to civilization. Some of the damage is immediate some just damages family cohesion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
Is this ethical? Oh hell no. Is it profitable? Absolutely. Sin funds (porn, smokes, limited pharma, cheap weapons, low end alcohol) as i remember are always a safe bet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsKitten
I think I have said this a thousand times already, but here we go. In ideal capitalism, the government places taxes or such to reduce thier levels to that which it is helpful to society.
The issue here is, profitable or not, these companies are expending a societal commodity (our health, or whatever else), that has little value to them, for something that does have value to them (profit). The government, which represents us as a whole, should level this negligence by taxing the company to a level which the taxes benefit us to the level the corporation takes from us, as a whole. It's actually still within supply and demand terms, it just demands putting a monetary value to some of the things we traditionally do not think of as supplies.
Edit: Still, how the hell are you rationalizing lending someone a loan they will default on is profitable. That's no good for anyone, if more of them are still paying thier high loans and a very small number are defaulting, then its good.
The profit can be derived from several sources. If you increase business your stock folder will go up, sell at higher price, when the loans default and the company takes a non-fatal but public hit, buy the stock back a panic stricken lower price (like oh say last week BSC). Or a smart bank would negotiate with their lendees who are in default to make arrangements of a lower minimum payment at the same variable interest rate. Just expand the repayment life time of the loan, thus earning more interest.
How can you not see this as a profitable moment in time? So long as the borrows are honest (and financially dumb) and the banks willing to negotiate longer repayment terms that are even MORE profitable. Even if they default, the bank has the previous repayments plus whatever collateral the loan was up for. LIKE THE HOUSE, hopefully the combination of which mean profit.
Basically if the banks are smart about this they can induce a working lifetime or longer debt from these people and have them paying back the principle plus interest many times over. If profit above all else is your motive, you're sacrificing these people's dreams and financial stability on schemes that ultimate put them in near permanent debt where their repayment options leave them earning more interest than their payments remove, thus creating a permanent cash flow from these poor people until their economic fortunes turn up or they're finally forced to sell and liquidate their assets to clear their debts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsKitten
Actually this was exactly what I was thinking should be done in this situation. Although this isn't really the default being profitable, so much as the longer term loan.
Honestly it doesn't seem like too bad a deal to take a long long term loan, then reverse moragage near the end after you retire. At least it keeps these people from being homeless, even though they made a bad decision.
What's really separating them from being indentured servants at this point. The debt is endless, and with bankruptcy laws the way they are now, it seems futile.
But would it be better for them to be homeless? They take huge risks when they get variable rate morgages, at least they have the choice of not being homeless.
Let them be homeless. If anything, a growing number of homeless families in this country will open the eyes of politicians who ignore the fact that property value is way out of control and get them to regulate it. After all, you don't want middle-class families falling into poverty and causing all sorts of riots, do you?
I don't think the government should regulate property value. There are plenty of affordable housing all over USA, just not in San Fran, Boston or NYC/NJ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor Ramon
Woah Woah Woah. Preaching to the choir here, I was just trying to come up with a solution that pleased those with empathy. I am not one of those people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor Ramon
Don't be an ignorant ass. There's almost no housing available anywhere that can be afforded on the federal minimum wage.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingoffighters
? Get a better job instead of government handouts.Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
What about renting?Quote:
Originally Posted by icarusfall
Not evenyone can get a great job and you know this. There will always be those who get the shit end of the stick in this world. Instead of turning a blind eye to those people, however, we should do what we can to make sure they have affordable and decent housing even if it calls for government regulation.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingoffighters
You rent out property, right? I forgot if you did or didn't.
Renting falls under affordable housing. When I covered Hudson County and had to do an article about affordable housing in Jersey City itself, almost all of those buildings were deemed unlivable by the city and nothing was done about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Destin
Only one private company (which recieved public funding) actually built ONE new affordable housing building in Jersey City while all other monies were concentrated on the newly developing downtown area where rent is normally $2,500 a month.
When minimum living wages are stagnant and the cost of living is rising, it's hard to just say, "Well work harder."
The prices of housing in the states are RETARDED all over the fucking country. A 750,000 dollar home nowadays is basically a decent house with no bells and whistles. That's astronomically overvalued.
Which is why the housing market is starting to crash. All of the variable mortgages that artificially inflated the market value in certain area's was revealed to be hollow. Good. A crash is going to be a decent thing to happen for the economy in the long haul, even though in the short term a lot of people are fucked.
Yeah, the economist in me says don't fuck with it, because it will crash if it needs to. Also, I think the statistic was something like 90% of minimum wage laws only affect teenages, since they take by far most of those jobs. Illegal immigrants tend to work under it, and most adults work above it.
The minimum wage affects how much all of us are paid.
As much as it sucks, crashes are there for a reason. Plus it isn't really "crashing" per se. People are just being forced to eat their own shit. It's the same with the fat arguement. People blame themselves being fat on glands and gene's. There is no fat gene. You eat too much and don't excercise enough. Case closed I'm a fucking hero.
I'm going to use this sentence in a conversation soon.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewbacca
great read, maybe a little exaggerated on the impact, but definitely gets the point and the possibilities acrossQuote:
Originally Posted by kingoffighters
A comparison (we make about the same amount of $):
My younger brother: has worked for the last 7 years for the biggest home loan lender in the US
2 years ago he bought a house more than a normal person with his wages should own by doing an 80/20 full interest and getting qualified on a special program with variable rates, he also got auto loans for 2 cars.
he has empty rooms because he doesnt have $ to furnish the place
he doesnt run the AC (in TX)
he eats ramen noodles
he pays his real estate taxes on a credit card.
he traded his cars up to refinance the loans and now he is upside down.
not to mention the 10s of thousands of dollars in CC debt
the real estate market is so bust now he cant even afford the monthly payments on his home working the same position he has been in for years.
(even the mortgage is now going on credit cards.)
you figure he would be the smart one on the subject since he is in the industry, but he is in the same situation as the average sub-prime buyer
Me: have a single 30 yr fixed mortgage that will have payed off in 15 if we stay here. my house is half the price and half the size of my brothers. also have 2 cars fully paid and own the titles.
started 3 years ago with major CC debt, now have it all payed off and now have more than amount i owed saved up in the bank.
run my AC all day long, have tons of furniture, have extra money to spend on frivolous things and good food and investments (mainly mutual funds, 401k, and stocks, some of which are sufferring due to market conditions, but what the hey) . i could have more saved but i buy too much shit i dont need.
probably will look to buy a bigger place in the next year or 2 since the 2nd rugrat came along. with the equity built up in my home (which is retaining in my area),the money I saved up , and a couple of good investments, i will be able to have a house like my brothers, with none of the worries he has.
also P.S. Texas still has cheap real estate, blv dat
Working harder is for idiots, suckers and the desperately poor. The only way to get ahead in america is to get a degree in a useful major, a graduate degree in a hard science or law or have a brilliant idea/skill (Google/investing), and make a business of it. That means taking on a massive amount of debt or getting a job and working while you achieve that fortune. I'm on the law route.Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor Ramon
That or commit a great crime a la Bush family, Kennedys or the Rockefellers. Y
Otherwise be like every other single mother, immigrant or other lifetime failure and work 3 shitty, demeaning jobs to pay for your lifetime of mistakes.
Yes, I rent out properties. one in Brooklyn, one in Boston. I admit that I got lucky and bought our first place "cheap" back in 2003. It was cheap considering the insane prices now, but back then, it was probably the most we can afford. But guess what, 4 years later, I wouldn't be able to rent a place like mine with the mortgage I pay. It is great. I build equity and profitting from it by buying another place. So yah, it was luck but it wasn't like a bargain back then and who knows how the RE market would swing right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Razor Ramon
Yah, working harder is for people who have no other avenue. Work smart, save your money and invest. You think I just buy games and Transformers, HDTV, speakers, etc etc etc all the time? No way, we didn't buy much before our first house purchase. Only after that did we start to buy more "luxury" items (stuff that isn't crucial to our everyday lives).
I don't care if the RE market crash. There should be a correction in the next 5 years. But you know, it isn't going to be like the stock market bubble burst back in early 2000. Because unless you are one of those idiots who took a sub-prime loan, you can just stay put and live in your property. It will always have intrinsic value (assuming it is your primarily residence). As long as you don't have to sell in bad market, you aren't "losing" anything. You only lose if you sell it lower than you buy it. Basically, even if the market crash, you won't see houses drop 50% of the value, because people will just hold and move later.
Having the government step in to regulate the RE market is a scary proposition to me. Let the market dictates the prices, it will cool down some.
MK is so romantic. http://www.buckcash.com/images/icons/hearts.gif http://www.buckcash.com/images/icons/hearts.gif It's as if I'm reading Horatio Alger for the first time!Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsKitten
I'm going to get a suger momma.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsKitten
STC imo
I <3 u too Doc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
Unreliable, there's less sugar mommas than daddies due to the historical imbalance of wealth in men's favor. You'll do well to become bisexual and try for some daddies as well. If nothing else you can blackmail a "straight" one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Destin
there would be more sugar mommas if women weren't so damn lazy
Pay no attention, Mars only talks in quips she's heard before.
That is correct. I'm a collection of quips, witticisms and snappy replies. All style, no substance.
If I don't plan on making it past 27, I doubt I am going to pay attention to reliability.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarsKitten