![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-411505-100x100.png\")
Suprise.....no
1 replies
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-2350-100x100.png\")
Surprise.....yes
Suprise.....no
Surprise.....yes
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
Government needs to stay out of the free-market
@Ninja007: That's the truth. Let the free markets fail, there will be others with better business practices to take their place. This IS how the free market works. Some will fail and be replaced and others will grow and prosper.
@Oranges w/ Cheese:
No, stupidity got us into this mess, not the free market, but the fools who thought that they could get whatever they wanted without paying for it.
@Oranges w/ Cheese: Actually govt intervention got us into this, decreeing to the banks that they must lend to people of questionable financial stability. You can thank the last Democrat president for that one.
@aftercancer: Lending to people who should have never been lent to 1)you make a profit, 2)its the law. Its kinda win-win for the short term.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-91598-100x100.png\")
@Ingram81: You're talking about the old Community Reinvestment Act, which some would like to pretend is the cause of the current problem so they can blame the liberals. I found this article which explains why that notion is incorrect.
The ability to pawn off bad loans to other market players with no consequences is what allowed bad loans to occur. That would be greed, not force.
@Ingram81: I've yet to see blame of the CRA even mentioned outside of hate-filled conservative talking point blogs like the one you linked.
@Ingram81: You are basing your argument off of an editorial?
I don't have enough knowledge to know one way or another what the cause is, but I am certain it is much more involved than anyone here can elucidate in an editorial that makes spurious connections between unrelated facts.
@Ninja007: Even Alan Greenspan knows this is false. Without governments there are no markets. The government makes the rules that allow markets to exist and to function. What we are seeing now is the result of the government neglecting its responsibilities regarding a market it created. These problems will be solved by, and future episodes prevented by, far greater government involvement. The economy doesn't take care of itself. That's just a myth. There must be rules and they must be enforced.
@Skybolt: Greenspan was one of those responsible for blowing up the bubble in the first place! Without governments there are no markets? Are you kidding me? One person can't trade their goods with another person unless there is a third person named \"government\" there?
@Oranges w/
Cheese: There hasn't been a \"Free Market\" since 1912 in the US. Do you have any idea how many regulatory agencies have been setup in the USA? You've had a rather heavily regulated market, with regulations set up to stop the exact same thing they are facilitating now. They've worked really well so far, why don't you just pile on some more?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-68654-100x100.png\")
@sirellyn: i tend to agree with you, but a big difference between 1912 & now is that most companies were not corporations back then. the way things stand now, without the transparency that EYEBROWS refers to & regulation by gov't, corporations would tramp all over society. think about it - the rights of a person without worrying about any of the responsibilities. how can you believe that they'll play fairly without reigns? especially when they prove time & time again that the chase of the almighty dollar rules EVERY time, regardless of what rules need to be broken to obtain that goal.
@mac-phisto: reins not reigns...you know what? forget i even said anything at all. i think i'll quit while i'm behind.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-258636-100x100.png\")
@Skybolt: What Greenspan called a free market was still government controlled. There are too many kickbacks from the government to call it free. Company scratches the government's back while lobbying and their product or service gets special treatment in the FDA/EPA/FCC/etc. A truly free market would work. There are just too many smokes and mirrors in ours, which is really too bad, because it creates a sense of misplaced failure.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-6173-100x100.png\")
@formatc: yeah, that, except:
\"A truly free market would work.\"
Not one this big. A TRULY free market has to have transparent information -- everything from no patents, trademarks, or trade secrets to completely open financial statements, readily available information about how satisfied consumers are, etc. That's simply not ever going to happen in a market as enormous and complex as ours (and removing the IP restrictions would probably HURT the economy, even while making the market more free). A free market in a modern economy is a myth; it's simply too large and complex a system to self-correct because consumers can't get the information they need to force the market TO self-correct.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-16563-100x100.png\")
@Eyebrows McGee: Clap clap clap!
Adding to your cogent reply, these unicorn-driven Free Markets require a globe populated by the mythical Economic Man, who bases all of his decisions on a binary, rational basis and keeps up (to the millisecond) with the totality of all pertinent information available.
...It's as reliable of a model as Communism, in other words. To each according to his need, with just normal folks running things to iron out the temporary kinks - what could possibly go wrong?
Tho, at least Communists have the good sense to admit their cant is theoretical: the same can't be said for the Free Market Fundamentalists. Pity, that.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-246704-100x100.png\")
Let's lend the banks taxpayer money to lend to the taxpayer, what a brilliant move.
Shut these f***ing banks down already, new banks with actual reserves will pop-up to replace them in no time
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-287896-100x100.png\")
You were expecting them to maybe do with the money what they were given the money to do with?
Y'all had more faith than I ever did.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-87429-100x100.png\")
Should have just given that money to taxpayers. \"Instead of lending money to banks and credit agencies so they can give their overpayed executives 5 million dollar bonuses, while increasing customer credit card interest rates 100%, and denying people loans, we have decided to give every working American $2,000!\".
Combined it with a tax-free day, and you'd see tons of spending.
@Saboth: $2K wouldn't do any good for people who need a mortgage or small business owners who need a credit line.
Paulson and gang f***ed up. They gave the money out without any conditions.
That's true, but then again, they are getting 0 loans now, and people are getting 0 mortgage help, so I think they'd rather have the 2k!
@Saboth: I find it funny that setting aside $700 billion in taxpayer-produced funds that from the start was not properly documented, legitimized, or handed out, was a great idea and needed IMMEDIATE approval. Yet, Obama's plan for tax holidays and another taxpayer stimulus is \"too expensive and ineffective\".
Community college economics professors would perform a better job than these apes.
Do you really think people are as credit-worthy now as they were six months ago? If unemployment is up, a big recession is underway, and consumer confidence is low, then do you think that people's credit-worthiness is up, down, or unchanged?
Assuming creditworthiness is lower, do you really expect banks to make MORE bad loans? Isn't that what caused a lot of these problems in the first place? Banks making bad loans?
@tankertodd: The problem is that money is unavailable to pretty much everyone now, regardless of credit-worthiness.
@Shadowman615: My brother has a perfect credit score, has been employed by the same employer for 7 years, and had a $300K down payment for his house (aside from the savings, 401K, and other assets he has). HE had trouble getting a loan for the $200K he wanted to finance.
It's not an issue of creditworthiness, and anyone who's paying attention knows that.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-219008-100x100.png\")
Honeys, this was never about helping out homeowners or consumers. It was just Bush helping giving your money to his buddies in big business as he meant it to be. You hear he carping on how they are using it? Nope. Average Americans mean nothing to this administration. They are all loot the treasury for as much as they can get before they leave.
@savdavid: Don't forget our new lord and savior Obama not only voted for, but was a vocal supporter of the bailout.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-562864-100x100.png\")
@dtmoore: Good point.
I happen to like Bush, and enjoy my unpopularity status as a result :)
Let's hope Obama doesn't keep taking our money, I sure as heck don't need more taxes or bailouts.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-160819-100x100.png\")
@savdavid: I don't think Freddie/Fannie are friends of anyone but Barney Frank and his closet full of goons. Stop that partisan hating and own up to the fact that both parties are royally fucking up these days.
@savdavid:
Bush did not do this alone. The entire US Congress is responsible for this. How many times do people have to explain this to you Bush haters?
@TecmoTech: The problem is everyone likes their OWN Congresscritter while hating Congress in general. It's everyone ELSE who needs to boot their asshole out. MY guy is fine.
(*MY* guy is an idiot, but the general principle stands.)
My guy (Jon Porter) was voted out of office. The people of Southern Nevada are smarter than most I suppose.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1037-100x100.png\")
@TecmoTech: Yeah I'm no Bush fan, but this is far greater than just he could fuck up alone. No this is pretty much a complete and total failure of our government and the American people who took loans they knew they couldn't afford.
I think Kent Brockman said it best \"Democracy simply doesn't work\"
Don't worry, we hate congress just as much, but Bush has shown such blatant cronyism during his administration, it is hard not to point fingers at him right off the bat.
Conservatives are right again.
@coold8:
Bush et al a$$f%cked us all for 8 yrs straight.
Now my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will be paying for it by slaving for their Mandarin overlords.
@coold8: That's like being the guy who left the barn door wide open and was right in predicting the horse wouldn't run back in. No points for being right about the remedy failing when you created problem.
(Okay, that's not fair, SOME points for being right. But I really don't think conservatives should be trying to make bragging points on this because people are just going to keep pointing at conservative policies that got us here. It's bad politics.)
@Eyebrows McGee: Conservative policies would actually dictate that you dont give loans out to people who dont deserve them. Liberals think everyone should be treated equally. So if anything liberal policies of treating everyone equally and just giving out loans to everyone is what caused this mess.
@Ingram81: Interesting claim, but it fails. \"Liberal\" policies banned racist redlining, not lending standards. In North Carolina, the mortgage lender with the highest repayment rate was Self Help Credit Union, which did a far larger proportion of lending in the \"subprime\" market than other lenders did. Self Help did careful vetting of applicants and required subprime applicants to take classes on what the mortgage meant. It's a ragingly \"liberal\" organization, and yet they're the most stable bank in the state.
It's not \"liberals\" that got us in this mess -- it's unregulated stupid and unbridled greed and unchecked fraud that got us in this mess.
@Eyebrows McGee: Just read this...Investors Daily And your example is a credit union...
\"Q: Is Self-Help a bank?
A: Self-Help is not a bank. Self-Help is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit community development financial institution (CDFI) that includes a credit union. Self-Help Credit Union raises market rate deposits from members to make commercial and home loans to members. Its members include nonprofit and religious organizations and other socially responsible individuals and institutions.\"
They are not under the same rules and regulations as an FDIC insured institution, although credit unions have a similiar entity that ensures deposits. FDIC banks were required to comply with the CRA...p.
What is redlining btw?
@Ingram81: Sorry, but asking, \"What's redlining\" is an insta-disqualification for actively participating in conversations about lending practices to minority populations. It's that fundamental to the topic.
Learning IS good, though. I'd suggest the Google, or Wiki. It's a good start. :)
@Trai_Dep: Im sorry I never heard it referenced in that term, and that I asked before Wiki'ing. All hail the ALL KNOWING Trai_Dep.
And quite honestly, you reply was quite A-hole'ish.
@Ingram81: Redlining is fundamental to the topic at hand. It'd be different if someone asked out of the blue, someone not reciting Limbaugh talking points verbatim asked, or someone not suggesting that, if only banks were allowed to racially discriminate, the sub-prime meltdown wouldn't have happened. If any of those sorts of people asked, I'd have happily, humbly pitched in to help the conversation along.
And, it's not that I know much. It's that before I offer an opinion about something, I read up on the subject. All sides. Don't you? Why wouldn't anyone want to be informed before airing an opinion? I don't get that...
@Trai_Dep: Actually I don't listen to Rush, I think he's a pompous tool. You and him might get along fabulously.
For the record I'm not proposing racial discrimination at all, and I'm quite offended that you would infer that. I'm proposing banks should do whats in their best interest without the law forcing them to do otherwise. Its a sad and unfortunate fact that a good number of those individuals who wouldn't have been given loans without CRA are minorities. You cant blame the banking institutions for minorities being poor, that's more a result of many years of social inequality and other things.
@Ingram81: Yeah, but stripped away from its varnish, that's what the position is saying. The CRA says, don't use racially discriminatory practices when giving loans (but other, legal, common-sense factors are okay).
There are a swath of indicators showing F&F and the CRA was a symptom of the problem, not the cause: they were swept up in the madness, not the source. And fundamentally, it's the bank's job to reject bad candidates, not to open the floodgates to maximize quarterly bonuses.
So, the CRA says, \"Don't be racist,\" not \"If he's Black, give him any loan he wants.\" The CRA was a symptom, not cause. Attacking the CRA on this basis is racist, even if unknowingly. Which is a position: embrace it. Sorry if its implications sting. Perhaps you'd have avoided this if you read up on redlining and connected the dots before pontificating other's talking points?
Regards GreenFootballs, Drudge, Fox, Limbaugh, Freepers: they move in lock-step. They pass around the same talking points like middle schoolboys sharing the same tattered \"ladies magazine\" over lunch recess. C'mon, you know that, right?
Or, put back on you, what difference do they have on this topic? If none, why not embrace your internal ditto-head? Stand tall?
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-87239-100x100.png\")
@Ingram81: Trai did give you an asshole reply. Can we all respect each other within this discussion please?
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-529488-100x100.png\")
@coold8: Common Fucking Sense is right again. I'm as liberal as it gets and I was shouting against this from all the rafters I could find.
![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-350350-100x100.png\")
Can't some government entity step in and say \"uh hey fellas, if you don't start using this money for what it was meant for, you won't get any more help from us...EVER\"??
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-320639-100x100.png\")
The credit markets aren't \"frozen.\" In fact, the credit markets are far healthier than the mainstream has made it out to be, according to independent reports. One of these, done by a large Financial Consultancy called Celent, has been reported on by news sources but largely ignored by many.
A few sources:
[www.reuters.com]
[www.cbsnews.com]
And some notable excerpts:
\"Exhibit A...is a report published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. It evaluates these claims: bank lending and so-called commercial paper declined sharply; bank-to-bank lending evaporated; and rates rose to unprecedented levels. The surprise is that, using the Fed's own data, the authors conclude that those 'claims are myths' perpetrated by politicians and an uncritical press.\"
\"[The Celent report] notes that household credit is very close to its all-time high, that short-term credit has become cheaper in the last year thanks to lower interest rates, and that bank lending is at or close to a record high.\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-159929-100x100.png\")
I think I'd rather have the banks be cautious about who they lend to than force them to make loans to people who can't pay them back.
If by \"not lending\" they mean \"not giving $700,000 mortgage to someone making $30,000 a year\" or \"refusing to give a new credit card to someone who already has $50,000 in credit card debt\", then maybe the banks are right. Excessive lending is what got us into trouble anyway.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-334332-100x100.png\")
@Oleg Chetverikov: I agree with other responders here. I have some CC debt, but nothing overwhelming, and a nice little mortgage. Wells Fargo (my current mortgage broker) bugs me every week about refinancing the mortgage, and I get pre-approved CC offers in the mail every day. Plus Amex has raised my limit so high that, even with everything on the card, there's still room for a fairly nicely-appointed Mercedes.
Banks are doing what they should -- even if it is a touch knee-jerk. They've stopped lending money to those that won't be able to pay it back. Unfortunately, our economy depends on everyone SPENDING money. Our economy was doing so \"well\" in the boom because everyone was allowed to spend money they didn't have.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-224192-100x100.png\")
@Oleg Chetverikov: Myself and most people I know who have good credit aren't having any problems getting lending. They've recently raised my credit lines, and other people I know have gotten mortgages. So I think it's just people with poor or marginal credit that are having problems, and I don't have a huge problem with that.
@johnva: I agree. I just received a continuing education loan for grad school and an auto loan to buy a car out of a lease. I also got a mortgage in July.
And Citi raised my credit limit last week.
Why? Because I live within my means. I agree with you and Oleg 100%.
@SabreDC: same here. since high school have always paid off my CCs each cycle, I live within my means and actually save money each month, I'm always on time with my bills and credit/mortgage payments, I just had 3 CC limits raised and I recently got a home mortgage with absolutely no problems whatsoever. People with poor histories and low incomes and existing credit debt SHOULD have problems getting credit/loans. Live within your means. If that's not good enough for you, get some further education so you can potentially get a pay raise.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-371007-100x100.png\")
I'd have to say that as a consumer who bought a home within my means and that has not been laid off ... this is a good time.
I am refinancing 2 homes. I have 1 rental that was our families first home 9 years ago, and the one we live in now. We're saving $400/month on these refi's.
And FTR I never bought into the whole VAR fad ... stable predictable standard 30 year mortgages FTW!
@TakingItSeriously: Preach it, brother! I have a 30 year fixed rate. A buddy of mine who got his house at about the same time went for the ARM (adjustable rate mortgage). I'm sitting pretty, and he's having trouble making payments because they've raised his rate to the cap for each of the past 4 years.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-373896-100x100.png\")
If it turns out this is the case, screw them. Pull their corporate charters and confiscate their assets. Do it to the most egregious offender, and see how quickly the rest scramble to fall in line.
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-659387-100x100.png\")
Lol... Im sorry but. How is it that a person wants to get a house, so they go to the loan office and get a loan for what they need. They are promised a fixed rate or a flux rate of no more than a certain %, but when the loan holders change their stance and make them pay more and more and more, how is that the consumers fault? These companies over extended themselves plain and simple. If i gotta explain the effects of the loan to the people im taking it from then they shouldnt be in business.
... And they aren't required to. The bailout bill was passed with no stipulations in it whatsoever. They can use the money for new snack machines if they want to.
The Associated Press has been trying to determine where the money is going at some of the banks that received the largest bailouts. Most are not disclosing the information.
Next time I need a loan for a home, car, whatever... I'm going to do a little experiment to see how far along in the process I can get without telling the lender what the money is for or how I intend to spend it.
We're doing a refinance. We bank with RBC Centura and this has all been handled on the phone and through the e-mail. We have good credit and it's been easy. Anyone know what he RBC stands for? Royal Bank of Canada! 30 years fixed at 4.675%.
I wrote about this a week or so ago. They aren't lending because the government won't let them. Yes the same government that gave them the money is holding them back. All the calls for new regulation are making it difficult to lend at all these days. If your credit is above 700, you might get approved for loans. But with all the hub-bub of layoffs people are skeptical to lend.
I hate to plug my on writings, but I've written on the subject extensively.
@aftercancer
RBC Centura is just owned by RBC, they have very little input on policy and strategy. A lot RBC Centura's success comes from it's regional presence. The southeast is more conservative and has not been hit by the recession nearly as hard.
RBC also saves a lot of money by using very old systems and has problems with tracking customer actions. How do I know all this? I work for a bank in the SE and also have friends at RBC Centura.
That being said great job on the refi and great rate!
So they learned their lesson to not loan to questionable people and got a pretty little bonus for their lesson. Perhaps we should look at it like giving children icecream. But then I've always want to SHOVE THAT CONE RIGHT UP THEIR SNOTTY LITTLE NOSE!
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-390449-100x100.png\")
![\"user-pic\"](\"http://consumerist.com/assets_c/userpics/userpic-384699-100x100.png\")
Assholes!
@midwestkel: