ScottHall Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 I really don't think it matters much. The Fed moves the markets far more than any president can. With every episode of QE the Fed becomes less effective, which is why I somewhat support Clinton for her infrastructure spending plan. I've always thought it was appalling that we couldn't get it together and support the financial crisis with a little fiscal policy. It would make me comfortable to elect someone who isn't afraid to talk about it. That said, if Bloomberg ran, I'd vote for him in a heartbeat. The Fed moves markets quite effectively when it takes liquidity away too, not just when it adds it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoCitiesCapital Posted February 3, 2016 Share Posted February 3, 2016 The only Libertarian candidate: Rand Paul. Free markets are good for the market. Rand Paul is out Guess that means Gary Johnson... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wachtwoord Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 The only Libertarian candidate: Rand Paul. Free markets are good for the market. Rand Paul is out he had zero chance anyway. I guess as long as it's not Clinton or Sanders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gardener Posted February 4, 2016 Share Posted February 4, 2016 The only Libertarian candidate: Rand Paul. Free markets are good for the market. Source? I'd say there's a reasonable argument that 2008 was a contradictory indicator depending on your interpretation of events. Not to get sucked down into this argument, but I find it hard to blame 2008 on a free market when you're talking about the most regulated industry in the world and where government sponsored agencies, like FNMA and Freddie Mac, were also involved.... Not to say that greed, which is present in free markets, didn't play a factor, but you're really stretching here.... Agreed, when talking 2008 people often name greed as the sole reason why it all went the way it went. The "greed" of the mortgage lenders and the investment bankers that sold the securities were part of the problem. But an often overlooked cause of the crisis was the interference of the government in the mortgage market. The government wanted to make it easier for low-income/less-priviliged citizens to purchase real estate. Agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to have a minimum percentage of totale mortgage acquisitions for these categories. The agencies were partly allowed to do this by buying mortgage-backed securities issued against sub-prime mortgages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorsiacapital Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 The only Libertarian candidate: Rand Paul. Free markets are good for the market. Source? I'd say there's a reasonable argument that 2008 was a contradictory indicator depending on your interpretation of events. Not to get sucked down into this argument, but I find it hard to blame 2008 on a free market when you're talking about the most regulated industry in the world and where government sponsored agencies, like FNMA and Freddie Mac, were also involved.... Not to say that greed, which is present in free markets, didn't play a factor, but you're really stretching here.... Agreed, when talking 2008 people often name greed as the sole reason why it all went the way it went. The "greed" of the mortgage lenders and the investment bankers that sold the securities were part of the problem. But an often overlooked cause of the crisis was the interference of the government in the mortgage market. The government wanted to make it easier for low-income/less-priviliged citizens to purchase real estate. Agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had to have a minimum percentage of totale mortgage acquisitions for these categories. The agencies were partly allowed to do this by buying mortgage-backed securities issued against sub-prime mortgages. The gubmint did not require any bank to originate subprime loans. And I would imagine the banks were very happy and perhaps even encouraged the government intervention when it allowed them to make more loans while everything was going great. Fannie and Freddie loans also performed historically better than pure private lending: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marvin-meadors/fannie-mae-freddie_b_1549411.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Eriksen Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 The greed that is almost universally ignored, particularly by politicians, was the greed of the buyers. The banks definitely made stupid loans (no doc, negative amortization), but the losses were due to buyers being unable or unwilling to pay their mortgage and walking away because they were upside down. I recognize some lost their jobs and couldn't pay. The buyers realized that it was heads they win (prices keep going up) and tails they don't lose because they can walk away after probably living for 6-12 months without paying their mortgage. While philosophically the bailout bothered me, the alternative would have meant higher mortgage rates. Of course what is also ignored is that the government made a tidy profit on the bank bailout. It irks me that one candidate states that the middle class bailed out the big banks. That is a ridiculous lie. The middle class doesn't even pay for their own share of the cost of government. How many cover the true cost of their children's education, let alone the cost of national defense? The federal government spends $11,500 per person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 I'll have to disagree about the greed of the buyers. Sure, there were some house flippers and other like you me mentioned. However, I think most of the buyers didn't know any better. I'm willing to bet less than 1/10 of 1% of buyers actually read their whole mortgage contract. Even if they tried, mos wouldn't have understood it anyway. It wasn't about greed of the buyers - it was about taking advantage of people. It's kind of like student loans. Why in the world should an 18 year old kid be able to take out a loan for $50,000? Most have no idea what that means. Why should someone making $50,0000 buy a million dollar home? They also don't understand. That doesn't mean others, more intelligent people, should take advantage of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ERICOPOLY Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Anyone is welcome to take advantage of me in this manner -- please come and offer me 0 money down non-recourse loans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Anyone is welcome to take advantage of me in this manner -- please come and offer me 0 money down non-recourse loans. You're smarter than they are. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkbabang Posted February 5, 2016 Share Posted February 5, 2016 Anyone is welcome to take advantage of me in this manner -- please come and offer me 0 money down non-recourse loans. You're smarter than they are. ;) Are you proposing an IQ test be needed for borrowing money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now