Friday, February 14, 2014

top drives the global political-economic suffering on the deck of the titanic...,

theatlantic |  Take one look at this graph, and you'll think you recognize the story: Yeah, yeah, yeah, the 1 percent blasts into the stratosphere while the 99 percent languishes in stagnation, moving on... 




Simple, right? Except this graph doesn't tell that story, at all. Because you see that languishing green line at the bottom? That's the 1 percent.

Now let's add labels (the income data lives here if you wanna play at home) and voila, you can see this isn't a picture of the rich and the rest. It's the 40-year history of the rich, the truly rich, and the truly filthy stinking rich—the 1 percent, the 0.1 percent, and the 0.01 percent.

50 comments:

woodensplinter said...

The poor are the waste by-product of the lifestyles of the wannabe rich
and famous...You and the rest of the spoiled beyond rotten brats of
society.

BigDonOne said...

"You have transcended poster child this morning and gone on to the next
metamorphic phase of your life-cycle as pure oxygen thief BD."

ROTFL...BD will take that as a Thumbs-Up Vote....

Vic78 said...

I think Iceland may may have the smartest people in the world. Iceland looks like they made the right choice. What else needs to happen...
This one's for the big bankers and media:

http://youtu.be/XXEkRz6ABVs

Dale Asberry said...

Don, I don't think this was verbal sparring with the intent to belittle you. He's been informing you as to how you can keep you and yours away from the maw of the very quickly approaching cull. If it's a Thumbs-Up vote, then I suspect it's a vote to shove you into the maw...

CNu said...

Just looking at Icelandic GDP vs. external debt - it's not out of line with our own situation i.e., GDP vs. current federal debt - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008%E2%80%9311_Icelandic_financial_crisis - just that it's at 1/1000th the scale. It's clearly the right thing to do, which is why we have so many clear indications that there's not a chance in hell we'll ever willingly do it.

anti coon said...

oh my

CNu said...

Nah, don't even bother. I've extended him the benefit of the doubt and played along under the occasionally useful pretense that he suffers from unshakeable superstitious negrophobia. But the simple fact of the matter is that even if EVERY black person in America was somehow culpable for the fuckery BD alleges, it wouldn't come close to being sufficient to engender the economic consequences that are pending. He's a retired engineer which guarantees he knows enough simple math to know better.

So what does that mean? It means that this "bout to be potato-famished peasant" is actively declaring that instead of trying to figure out how to secure a spot on the deck of the titanic for his'n, better still, trying to right the ship before it hits the iceberg, he's exclusively preoccupied with trying to deny a spot to me and mine.

I consider banning commenters a punk-move. But, if by your commentary - you make clear that your only intention is to give offense or go to war, and,if by your commentary you're not even remotely capable of holding up your end of the argument you obsessively attempt to make (Tom's repeated and unanswered challenges) - then I'm more than delighted to take your monkey-ass straight into the deepest, darkest recesses of rhetorical conflict. Triumph the insult dog got nothin on me!!!

anti coon said...

"he's exclusively preoccupied with trying to deny a spot to me and mine".
this line encompasses most caucasoids in this babylon we call america.

John Kurman said...

Wait, we get a choice? Well, then, I'll take a berth on the iceberg. http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/info_sheets_Habbakkuk.htm

CNu said...

lol, you always got a choice, (not too sure the furthest reaches of weird alternative science roads not taken will be among these.) Personally, I've made my decision to go full-on Cormac Fitzgeoffery simply because most people don't have the intestinal and testicular fortitude to handle their business dark ages style when the shit goes down and like you, I've done my stint in the slaughterhouse - with a stretch in the anatomy lab to complete the seasoning - and it doesn't particularly bother me.

John Kurman said...

Well, I doubt I'll end up in the end sword business... more likely the piss and shit business. You know, saltpeter.

John Kurman said...

...unless things go really pear-shaped, in which case, the grubbing for radioactive worms business is gonna be a really tight labor market.

BigDonOne said...

IQ-75 Federal Judge appointed by The First Fuzzlim in 2010 confuses Declaration of Independence with the Constitution... http://www.prisonplanet.com/federal-judge-confuses-declaration-of-independence-with-constitution-in-court-ruling.html

Vic78 said...

You starting to finally melt down?

http://youtu.be/mhvaI07jmkA

BigDonOne said...

Happy Valentine's Day!! We were at the local Dollar Store yesterday (got some good paint brushes 3 for a dollar), they had an awesome marketing ploy ongoing, a zillion heart-shaped red Mylar helium balloons (dollar each) floating on the ceiling near the checkout, with ribbon hanging down from each, all you had to do was grab a ribbon. Going like hotcakes. The IQ-75 in line ahead of BD bought about 6 of them and swiped his EBT...........

CNu said...

They sell Depends at the Dollar Store?

Vic78 said...

Here's a well known scholar's message for the people that call themselves progressives: http://www.blackagendareport.com/content/where-obamaism-seems-be-going?page=2

BigDonOne said...

Don't bore BD with the details. In a *Nutshell*, Administration's forced loans to LOOZerz, circa year 2000, got the ball rolling. When it became clear what was possible homewise, regardless of justifiable purchasing power, the full spectrum of buyers got on board until the collapse.......

CNu said...

No Jane. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttqgwlCsXZM&feature=share&list=PLFsIAzuKjwZNp2Kh8XkuyQolExkKah1tR

CNu said...

To state that the CRA is responsible for the
increase in financial risk - is a lie. This makes you Big Don, yet again, a serial liar or just an ignorant slut bucket repeating a viral load you've acquired in suspect places. So, let's get your gamy legs closed and get you up off your back, shall we? http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/what-caused-the-financial-crisis-the-big-lie-goes-viral/2011/10/31/gIQAXlSOqM_story_1.html

The community reinvestment act CRA explicitly states with regard to
red-lining "you shall not discriminate against anyone based on
race, sex, ethnicity, etc within the bounds of sound lending practices".

Clearly any private lender who interpreted this legislation as forcing
them to lend to unqualified borrowers is also lying. The CRA stopped lenders
from using zipcode and as a matter of fact, CRA loans performed better
than
non-covered loans.

Here ends the lesson for today....,

CNu said...

fyi, Kurman's got one on Tom Perkins doubling down yet again with the argument/claim that the progressive income tax rates which more heavily soak the rich define progressivism. Here's Perkins making his fat cat argument http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/02/tom-perkins-commonwealth-1-percent-nazis-san-francisco and then Kurman taking down the whole shooting match with contextualization http://johnkurman.blogspot.com/2014/02/tom-perkins-quadruples-down-on-stupid.html

Tom said...

Don't bore BD with data. Black people control the economy, and if the economy does poorly it's their fault. Just like Reagan said.

BigDonOne said...

Headz up...!! -- The Feds will soon have a handle on directly tracking down IQ-75z
( from today's Drudge ) http://www.wnd.com/2014/02/feds-want-to-track-your-dna-like-a-license-plate/

BigDonOne said...

Oh yes, CNu. Federal laws, in addition to CRA, also dictate who can be in this country legally, or what 'substances' can be legally smoked. You can see how well those regulations worked....ROTFLMAO....

CNu said...

and of course, from a cost-to-value perspective, THAT's where they'll direct their resources and effort Jane? You should go ask Mrs. Don to read the xkeyscore piece to you slowly tonight so you can get a sane and sober handle on where exactly the Feds will focus the security state's attention.

CNu said...

I'm quite sure that in that prion-infested brain pan of yours, that had some kind of stand-alone internal logic and made perfectly good sense to you. But to the rest of us, out here in the reality-based community, and on this specific topical thread, well..., we're all scratching our heads and wondering exactly what the flying phuk you call yourself talking about?


actually, that's me talking from the perspective of atypical poster-child collector. From an objective and impartial perspective, probably very few people give even the barest hint of a phuk about whatever it is you're gibbering about now.

ken said...

It is always a little suspect when somebody tries to make a point and then says, if you believe differently, you are just like those global warming deniers or as stupid as someone who doesn't believe in evolution.. case and point- "A Big Lie is so colossal that no one would believe that someone could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. There are many examples: Claims that Earth is not warming, or that evolution is not the best thesis we have for how humans developed."

Perhaps a counter balance to the Washington Post guy who wanted to make it clear he is only talking to his fan base, maybe an article like this might give a better understanding than WP article which is pressuring us to believe him lest we become as stupid as the global warming denying creationist.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/13/housing-bubble-subprime-opinions-contributors_0216_peter_wallison_edward_pinto.html

CNu said...

No. That's not a counterbalance, that's a Gish Gallop instance of the exact same Big Lie I'm slapping down. The federal government did.not.compel,anyone to make subprime loans - period That, is plainly and simply a lie. Greedy, unethical slimeballs made up all kinds of dubious products in order to participate in the boom on subprime lending, period. The government failed to adequately and aggressively regulate these lenders, period.

Anyone saying differently is a liar attempting to promote a narrative agenda at odds with the truth. In the specific case of Big Don, to promote an aggressively negrophobic racist agenda.

Climate change deniers and creationists are stupid, scientifically ignorant, and promoting a political agenda that's at odds with the truth. That's been firmly established hereabouts over the past two weeks.

BigDonOne said...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-vampire-squid-strikes-again-the-mega-banks-most-devious-scam-yet-20140212?print=true
Was the full-boogie story cited on Subrealism 2 days ago. Anyway, really great detailed article which shows how interpretation of a few casual words obscurely stuffed into a legislation can have *huge* consequences.


Now, if CRA actually contains the words, "sound lending practices," that is something Wide_Open to interpretation. See the article link cited above. It may mean "any practice that makes money for the lender." And, since primary real estate lenders usually sell the loans in packages to secondary investors, the primary lender (and real estate sales folks) get their commissions whether or not the loans perform, so they all make money regardless. Sound lending practices......yeah !!

ken said...

"Anyone saying differently is a liar attempting to promote a narrative agenda at odds with the truth." Have you ever seen this 1995 information article on the "new rules for Fannie and Freddie"?

http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/80/fanny.html

We certainly can't expect this article to be trying to create the big lie about the 2008 crisis from an article from 1995. And I would say this is coming pretty close to the government compelling someone to make sub-prime loans.

"In return for the GSEs' competitive advantages, Congress demanded that they undertake certain public purpose activities, notably promoting access to mortgages in underserved urban and rural communities, in minority communities, and to low- and moderate-income families. The GSEs were also expected to help end discrimination in the lending industry.".....

The proposed regulations set minimum acceptable activity in numerical terms for housing goals in each of the three categories. Goals are set in each category for both single family homeownership and multi-family mortgages. In each case, the proposed rule increases from the previous two years the level of affordable housing business each GSE must set.

The proposed regulations differ from the interim regulations in three significant ways: the definition of an underserved area; a requirement that the GSEs inform HUD of fair housing violations by lenders; and an expanded interpretation of when the GSEs are required to take new business activity for review and approval to the Secretary of HUD."

ken said...

"Anyone saying differently is a liar attempting to promote a narrative agenda at odds
with the truth."

Here is an interesting article from 1995, well before the "big lie" was being made for the 2008 crisis, it was an info article describing the new rules for Fannie and Freddie:

http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/80/fanny.html

A strong statement by you indeed.."The federal government
did.not.compel,anyone to make subprime loans - period That, is plainly and
simply a lie." However it still, like your other statements in the post
above, doesn't necessarily make them factual. Here are some highlights:

"In return for the GSEs' competitive advantages, Congress demanded that
they undertake certain public purpose activities, notably promoting access to
mortgages in underserved urban and rural communities, in minority communities,
and to low- and moderate-income families. The GSEs were also expected to help
end discrimination in the lending industry.....

The proposed regulations set minimum acceptable activity in numerical terms for
housing goals in each of the three categories. Goals are set in each category
for both single family homeownership and multi-family mortgages. In each case,
the proposed rule increases from the previous two years the level of affordable
housing business each GSE must set.

The proposed regulations differ from the interim regulations in three
significant ways: the definition of an underserved area; a requirement that the
GSEs inform HUD of fair housing violations by lenders; and an expanded
interpretation of when the GSEs are required to take new business activity for
review and approval to the Secretary of HUD."



I think that gets pretty close to the federal government compelling someone to make loans to people who may have difficulty maintaining a repayment schedule.

ken said...

"Anyone saying differently is a liar attempting to promote a narrative agenda at odds with the truth."
Here is an interesting article from 1995, well before the "big lie" was being made for the
2008 crisis, it was an info article describing the new rules for Fannie and Freddie:
http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/80/fanny.html

A strong statement by you indeed.."The federal government did.not.compel,anyone to make subprime loans - period That, is plainly and simply a lie." However it still, like your other statements in the post
above, doesn't necessarily make them factual. Here are some highlights:

"In return for the GSEs' competitive advantages, Congress demanded that they undertake certain public purpose activities, notably promoting access to mortgages in underserved urban and rural communities, in minority communities, and to low- and moderate-income families. The GSEs were also expected to help end discrimination in the lending industry.....

The proposed regulations set minimum acceptable activity in numerical terms for
housing goals in each of the three categories. Goals are set in each category
for both single family homeownership and multi-family mortgages. In each case,
the proposed rule increases from the previous two years the level of affordable
housing business each GSE must set.

The proposed regulations differ from the interim regulations in three significant ways: the definition of an underserved area; a requirement that the GSEs inform HUD of fair housing violations by lenders; and an expanded interpretation of when the GSEs are required to take new business activity for
review and approval to the Secretary of HUD."

I think that gets pretty close to the federal government compelling someone to make loans to people who may have difficulty maintaining a repayment schedule.

CNu said...

Name the private commercial bank that was compelled by the Federal government to violate its basic lending standards and practices? If you can't do it, STFU and get out of here with your extraneous Gish Gallop Gas Ken.



I wouldn't be at all surprised if you haven't by now concocted some or another cockamamie justification for the singular clusterfuck that was the GWOT and the invasions and destruction of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya - those used to be major headings in your generalized, uncritical defense of evil as originated and administered by the Bush Administration.

ken said...

"Name the private commercial bank that was compelled by the Federal government to violate its basic lending standards and practices? If you can't do it, STFU."

How about they felt the pressure?

http://www.nber.org/digest/may13/w18609.html

The researchers use loan-level data on mortgage originations and performance for 1999 to 2009 from the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, collected by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council, and data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago that contains information on CRA exams. They find that in the six quarters surrounding a CRA exam, lending by banks undergoing a CRA exam is 5 percent higher on average than lending by control-group banks.

Using data that track loan performance, the authors also show that loans originated by treatment-group banks around CRA exams are 15 percent more likely to be delinquent one year after origination than loans originated by control-group banks. Thus the evidence shows that around CRA examinations, when incentives to conform to CRA standards are particularly high, banks not only increase lending rates but also appear to originate loans that are markedly riskier.

ken said...

This Craig seem like a guy that has done quite a lot of research, this one, I am jumping out on a limb here might be acceptable to both of us.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6

CNu said...

No. Lenders were yield-seeking period. The Federal government categorically.did.not.require.a.single.commercial.lender to make risky loans and anyone who says they did is flatly and simply a liar. That is the truth of the matter, and no amount of galloping suffices to elicit a "compromise" interpretation on my part.

Big Don was spreading a Big Lie and you've spent the better part of today aiding and abetting his serial lying.

CNu said...

Had banks operated in good faith from the 1970's forward, and not practiced redlining, not engaged in merely token engagement with the communities in which they were chartered, then this would all be a moot point. Instead, banks spent decades engaging in racist lending practices and when the law permitted it, and when their yield seeking made it attractive for them to do it, they violated their own lending standards drawn by the allure of securitization and dumping bad loans they had knowingly originated off their own books.

The banks were racist, greedy, lazy, and unethical - and their own bad faith activities with regard to communities they should have served in good faith over the course of decades - finally brought the chickens they had cultivated back home to roost.

How about a little historical accuracy and putting the blame squarely at the feet of the business practices of those who exercised agency and control over the same business practices before, during, and after the crises.

ken said...

Here's the money point you missed late in the article...

As for the “why” part of your question, the answer is a bit ironic. Banks making CRA loans initially expected that defaults would be higher due to lax lending standards. When they discovered the low-income borrowers had an unexpected propensity to pay their mortgages. After years of data poured in showing that borrowers were paying mortgages despite high LTVs, low down payments and unconventional income measures, bankers began to believe that many of the traditional measure of credit worthiness were overly conservative. Recall what I said earlier about how mortgage service providers started pursuing low-income borrowers in part because of the CRA.

What they didn’t take into account was that different types of borrowers may behave differently, and that much of the data on those lax lending mortgages was warped by increasing home prices. Wealthier, more sophisticated borrowers ruthlessly default when their mortgage goes underwater, for example. What’s more, the reversal of housing prices meant that defaults across all borrower classes increased.

Making matters worse, President Bush pushed hard for lax lending standards. He wanted to expand minority and low income home ownership far beyond what the CRA required. So he pushed even harder for the broadening of these lending standards...

In part. Ironically, the low income lending practices, particularly when undertaken on a limited basis in a low-securitization and rising house price period, seemed safe. This led to the practices being spread across the much broader category of loans. In a sense, you can look at the mortgage mess as what happens when CRA lending was applied much more broadly. If we'd confined the lax lending standards to just the geographical areas and low-income borrowers directly targeted by the CRA, our mortgage crisis would be far more manageable.

Studies have suggested that only 6 percent of subprime loans were extended by CRA-regulated lenders to either lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in the lenders' CRA assessment areas. Since these loans suffer from outsized losses (for reasons not yet clear), we'd still have a major problem. But it would probably be only about 1/4 of the size of the current mortgage mess.

BigDonOne said...

@Ken - BD will see your, "unexpected propensity to pay their mortgages" and raise you Detroit....

CNu said...

Why are we several articles and several thousand cited words into this without your acknowledgement of the simple truth that BD is a serial liar and negrophobe - and - that the federal government didn't force a single bank to lend to low income black folks - and - that black folks defaults' on any of the mortgages in question were not a significant factor in the mortgage crisis?

BigDonOne said...

@CNu "categorically.did.not.require.a.single.commercial.lender" When you are The_Administration you don't have to *require* to get your way. All you have to do is let it be known what you *want,* and grapevine a few threats of potential federal lawsuits down the road,, and the players will quickly all into line....(BD's mysteriously-deleted post yesterday referenced Subrealism's Rolling Stone article 3 days ago, showing how vague language in the law can be manipulated to allow powerful entities to do anything that makes money)

CNu said...

lol, there are no mysterious delays BD. I've blacklisted selected terms of which you're inordinately fond, terms which add nothing to the discussion, and only serve to stoke your trollbido. Having previously banned a couple of your incarnations, and subsequently found your determination to bask in my IQ-187 attentions indefatigable, this time I elected to invoke disqus' elementary content filters to discipline your utterances and encourage you to engage your mind instead of touching yourself when you comment hereabouts. You remain my poster child for the peculiar phenomenon of belief being a higher priority than knowledge.

As for liar loans, that came from the mortgage brokers who were churning out fraudulent paper like you churn out pinheaded racist chum. During this period, my wife was an active realtor and I had first hand knowledge of and acquaintance with a fair number of shysters involved in this business. They put a premium on loan origination volume and the quality of the loans was of no consequence to them because the onus fell on the bank who carried the paper and on the borrower who made fraudulent representations to obtain the loan.

Bottomline, this whole business would not have happened and would not exist absent the conscious and intentional subversion of traditional lending practices on the part of professionals in pursuit of volume and yield. Those folks knew exactly what they were doing and their incentive was the almighty dollar.

If one were to extend the benefit of the doubt to anybody involved in this fiasco, it would be to folks whose primary motivation was home ownership, folks who were ruthlessly abusing the system to flip houses and would walk away from their debts legally in a heartbeat, folks grinding out loans they knew contained fraudulent representations, folks carrying and selling securitized mortgage paper known to them to be of dubious provenance, etc..., who seems least at fault in all of this chicanery?

Given the above facts and direct personal knowledge of what was going on, I give benefit of the doubt to folks motivated by the desire for home ownership. All the other conscious actors involved in this mess who were knowingly abusing an excessively relaxed system, knew exactly what they were doing, and did it for a quick and easy buck. The volume of activity coming from these perpetrators completely dwarfs the volume of activity coming from the people you want to vilify and scapegoat.

An IQ-75 is all that's required to distinguish between the truth and the outright horse shit you've been peddling. So, what am I to conclude about the your motivations for the scapegoating narrative you've been peddling BD? Is your game, your street smarts, your knowledge of how the world works really so decrepit that you honestly didn't know what was going on, or, are you just an intentionally lying negrophobe, mendaciously peddling lies and slander?

Tom said...

Yeah, this is where the "poor people wrecked the economy" story goes from name-calling to outright con artistry.


Folks hear "reaching for yield" and I guess to them it just sounds like the parents on Charlie Brown. Finance apparently isn't relevant to ... finance. The invariable past annihilation of lenders who reached for yield? Irrelevant.


So investors who begged to be sodomized, investment banks who openly referred to the "Bernanke Put" (free insurance from taxpayers), and serial homebuyers who bought strings of houses with almost no money down because "real estate always goes up" ... all that was caused by the CRA. Yeppers!

makheru bradley said...

The story of these women who became and those who refused to become subprime lending whores tells us a much as we need to know about the subprime lending crisis.

http://buswk.co/1f68MGr

Nevertheless, mortgage defaults by only 10 percent of borrowers could not have caused the damage done by 9/15 without the bundling of subprime mortgages into CDO’s and other derivatives by the Victor Frankenstein's of Wall Street. They created monsters--financial weapons of mass destruction per Buffett--they could not control, only to be bailed out by the FED while main street took it on the chin. The next bubble may be too big for the FED to control. Martial Law is on the horizon.

BigDonOne said...

@CNu -- Look, Dude, BD is not lying. Perhaps lending institutions were not *REQUIRED* to lend to minorities, but they seized on the CRA *LANGUAGE* to make money It is all in the official Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission report http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-FCIC/pdf/GPO-FCIC.pdf excerpt below:

"Former comptroller John Dugan told FCIC staff that the impact of the CRA had been lasting, because it encouraged banks to lend to people who in the past might not have had access to credit. He said, “There is a tremendous amount of investment that goes on in inner cities and other places to build things that are quite impressive. . . . And the bankers conversely say, ‘This is proven to be a business where we can make some money; not a lot, but when you factor that in plus the good will that we get from it, it kind of works.’”

Lawrence Lindsey, a former Fed governor who was responsible for the Fed’s Division of Consumer and Community Affairs, which oversees CRA enforcement, told the FCIC that improved enforcement had given the banks an incentive to invest in technology that would make lending to lower-income borrowers profitable by such means as creating credit scoring models customized to the market. Shadow banks not covered by the CRA would use these same credit scoring models, which could draw on now more substantial historical lending data for their estimates, to underwrite loans. “We basically got a cycle going which particularly the shadow banking industry could, using recent historic data, show the default rates on this type of lending were very, very low,” he said. Indeed, default rates were low during the prosperous 1990ss, and regulators, bankers, and lenders in the shadow banking system took note of this success.

CNu said...

...you *DO* realize, of course, the fundamental underlying cause of
banking problems is the wimpy sobbing liberal destructive pressures,
beginning in the Clinton Administration, to equalize the outcomes for
IQ-75 LOOZerz by giving them home loans violating traditional secure
lending standards.

The fundamental underlying cause of banking problems was the rapacious greed and yield-seeking by banksters. Any other spin on this narrative is a lie. A spin which conduces to victim-blaming is a dangerous and racist lie and I won't tolerate it. If you fail to comprehend that the vampire squid is your enemy, not po folk victimized by the vampire squid, then you're just as big a part of the problem as the Cathedral which aids and abets, rationalizes and excuses the dysgenic behaviors of po folk.

In fact, you're just the other end of the pendulum of stupid distraction which misdirects peoples attention away from the common source of their misery and suffering. Look, Dude, BD is not lying. Perhaps lending institutions were not *REQUIRED* to lend to minorities, but they seized on the CRA *LANGUAGE* to make money It is all in the official Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission report http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/G... excerpt below:This is grown folk bidnis and I won't equivocate...,

John Kurman said...

"trollbido", well, girls like BD just want to have fun: http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/climate_desk/2014/02/internet_troll_personality_study_machiavellianism_narcissism_psychopathy.html

makheru bradley said...

I supposed the CRA is responsible for this sudden spike in foreclosure starts. “California with its 57% jump in foreclosure starts now suddenly seems tame: In New Jersey, they soared 79%, in Connecticut 82%, and in Maryland 126%!” -- Mike Whitney

http://mikewhitneysgraspingatstraws.blogspot.com/

The story of these women who became and who refused to become subprime lending whores tells us a much as we need to know about the subprime lending crisis.

http://buswk.co/1f68MGr

Nevertheless, mortgage defaults by by only 10 percent of borrowers could not have caused the damage done by 9/15 without the bundling of subprime mortgages into CDO’s and other derivatives by the Victor Frankensteins of Wall Street. They created monsters--financial weapons of mass destruction per Warren Buffett--they could not control, only to be bailed out by the FED. The next bubble may be too big for the FED to control. Martial Law is on the horizon.

ken said...

How does Detroit conflict with "unexpected propensity to pay their mortgages"? Do you have data that shows if low income defaults overshadowed high income defaults in terms of dollar value. And if you do, do you consider Detroit to be a proper representation of the country in terms of job loss and alternative opportunity. Currently, for me I would not consider Detroit a proper representation of the country.

ken said...

My argument was against your statement: "To state that the CRA is responsible for the increase in
financial risk - is a lie." And also choosing an article so blatantly
narrow minded and preaching to the choir. Government intervention caused
a housing bubble through the CRA, that finally popped, and the caused a
collapse. My argument is government involvement, in this case mortgages, generally causes inflation, whether its education, or medicine. So the CRA had a hand in creating the bubble, and the bubble in housing and the pop, was a big part of the crisis.

As for low income black folks, or low income in general in targeted areas, there was pressure and quotas to make sure loans were processed, that's obvious by the study, but it turns out the majority of money value of the defaulted loans sub prime loans were not to low income.

As for BD he should consider: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights... Oh yeah that's stupid talk here, yeah that's a toughy, after we get rid of the self-evident truths we can just about tell ourselves anything, well maybe this fits: Psalm 14: Fools say in their hearts, There is no God.
They are corrupt and do evil things; not one of them does anything good.