|
Occupy Toronto (pg. 21)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
Moammar Gadhafi is dead |
Oh awesome mission accomplished and more Oil for the west. :) |
|
|
| GGM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Skipper
If you're a US citizen, I think there's something to lose. The kind of change these protesters want threaten the very financial structure that holds much of the country, and possibly the world, together. That structure may not be fair, but big changes to it are not going to go smoothly, don't you agree? Do they really want another liquidity crunch, another stock market crash, another jump in the unemployment rate when banks get sued, when corporations start paying more tax? |
I don't think the protesters even know themselves how they want to fix the system. I'm sure many have their own ideas, but collectively they have none at the moment. I think their main goal at this point is to get widespread acknowledgement of the system being broken.
My personal opinion is that the system does need to change. The bottom line role of the government in any country should be to protect and serve it's people and that unfortunately is not the situation in the States. Due to corporate lobbying, political donations and the executive rotating door BS the they have pulled in the last 20-30 years they've essentially wiped out many needed regulations and general policing of the industry. IMO the American government current serves it's corporations more than the actual population, and this is what needs to change before anything else. The effect that would have on the system and market as a whole doesn't need to be a shock as you describe (and I do agree with you any drastic change to the system would hurt them much more than help).
Humans (and the corporations they control) often run on emotion and greed. If those 2 things are not kept in check by one method or another, then you will always continue to live in an economy that is constant bubbles. Years of bull markets of rampant growth followed by the bear markets and recessions to bring the curve back to where it belongs in reality. Regulations in my opinion are the best method to fix this, introduced gradually and over time to avoid any shocks. Nationalization of certain things could also achieve the same results assuming you got the government back on the side of the people. This has worked in many different situations (Brazil comes to mind) but I'd say there's a zero percent chance of it happening in the States due to their unarguable love of capitalism. |
|
|
| 1dawoman |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Poor decisions by INDIVIDUALS are what is "tearing the Western world apart" not any structure or system.
This is a perfect example of some people's (including the Occupy folks) refusal to take personal responsibility for their own (and other's) situation.
Blame the system, blame the structure, blame the corporations, blame the 1%, blame the man, blame the (elected or not) government, blame, blame, blame, blame, blame.
Nobody forced anybody to take out mortgages they couldn't afford (caveat emptor). Nobody forced people to over-extend themselves and forget about saving for a rainy day. Nobody forced people into "buy now, pay later" mentality. Nobody forced anybody to go to Harvard on student loans. Nobody forced people into being greedy. Funny how greed only exists when talking about others vs. oneself - point proven.
I think what is becoming apparent is the world's general lack of personal responsibility for anything and an apathy and expectation that things should be "easy" or "simple" just because one wants them to be.
Unfortunately the real world requires hard work, risk, sacrifice and investment to get something out of it (to get anything out of it); it's much easier to blame others than to take ownership over your situation and make something out of it. |
Unfortunately, not all people are well informed about financial options and they often are pressured into things they know little about because they trusted their bankers or financial planners. I dont think the public is solely to blame for the problems we see developping in the US like you stated.
Should consumers be accountable for their decisions? Yes of course however, when they turn to a mortgage broker for assistance, and are "assured" that a mortgage/home equity line on a house they really can't afford is "a great investment", what do you expect will happen?
I majored in bio/health science in university. I've never taken a business or economics class in my life. When I turned to a trusted mortgage specialist at my bank, I was offered WAY more money to purchace a home than I thought was necessary based on my income. I was urged to put as little down as possible because I could take out a 30 year mortgage and therefore didn't need to "live on such a tight budget". This is the kind of BS that was fed to me by numerous employees at a number of financial institutions. I didn't listen to them luckily but I can see how a lot of vulnerable people would. And that's just scary.
The greed makes me sick to my stomach and I think it will only get worse. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| I may be mistaken but wasn't the biggest problem people had was the housing market crashed in the states and the value of the houses dropped significantly leaving people owing more then the house was worth? If this is the case then how is this the mortgage brokers fault? |
|
|
| GGM |
| quote: | Originally posted by 1dawoman
Unfortunately, not all people are well informed about financial options and they often are pressured into things they know little about because they trusted their bankers or financial planners. I dont think the public is solely to blame for the problems we see developping in the US like you stated.
Should consumers be accountable for their decisions? Yes of course however, when they turn to a mortgage broker for assistance, and are "assured" that a mortgage/home equity line on a house they really can't afford is "a great investment", what do you expect will happen? |
Absolutely, and what makes this even worse is that for the longest time you actually COULD count on the average financial institution employee's advice because they were simply not allowed to give you loans you couldn't afford. But in the last 30 years due to deregulation, and especially in the last 10 with Bush and his "everyone should own a home" dream these checks and balances were wiped out. Employees began giving crap advice due to pressure from the top and people still took this advice as information they could trust because that's what they were used to.
| quote: | I majored in bio/health science in university. I've never taken a business or economics class in my life. When I turned to a trusted mortgage specialist at my bank, I was offered WAY more money to purchace a home than I thought was necessary based on my income. I was urged to put as little down as possible because I could take out a 30 year mortgage and therefore didn't need to "live on such a tight budget". This is the kind of BS that was fed to me by numerous employees at a number of financial institutions. I didn't listen to them luckily but I can see how a lot of vulnerable people would. And that's just scary.
The greed makes me sick to my stomach and I think it will only get worse. |
That's what I was saying earlier in the thread, the BS had already begun in Canada and if the recession happened later on down the road we'd have been doing the same as our neighbours. Banks were encouraging putting as little down as possible, longer term mortgages to lower your monthly payments (thus increasing the total amount you could spend), and the lovely "credit line" mortgages where you can borrow up to a certain maximum amount without having to get approved or questioned. All these are products offered because it earns more money for the corporations (greedy shareholders/execs) and people took the bait because it let them accumulate more stuff (greedy borrowers). Greed has unfortunately been a human trait for as long as history has been recorded. Anyone who ignores this or says "people should know better" is only arguing against our true nature (unfortunately). |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| hmm wait a minute now aren't we constantly being told that our Banking system is regulated and that we'll never have to worry about our Banks going through the same ordeal as the American banks did in 2008?:o |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
For those that believe the Canadian government didn't bail out the banks you may want to read this:
| quote: |
No Canadian bank bailouts? Says who?
Institutional brokerage staff at Canada’s bank-owned investment dealers are in line for a record payday this month. And I see in my morning DTM offering that one of the justifications of this largess is that the public pursue was not used to keep our large financial institutions afloat during the recent global financial crisis, unlike the USA or United Kingdom:
"Government officials noted yesterday that the situation in Canada is very different from that in Britain, adding there was no need for a bank bailout here."
It is a matter of some national honour that Canada’s bank’s didn’t receive direct capital injections from the government. That much is true.
But what isn’t true is that the banks survived the past twelve months without extradordinary financial support from the federal government and the Bank of Canada.
Between September 2008 and March 2009, Canadian banks reduced their holdings of domestic residential mortgages from $486.1 billion to $434.9 billion according to Bank of Canada stats; on a net basis.
Where did those mortgages go, you ask? Did 10% of Canadian homeonwers sell their homes and move into rental accomodation enmasse during a six month period?
Of course not. The federal government created a unique program through CMHC specifically targeted at allowing Canadian chartered banks to move tens of billions of dollars of assets off of their balance sheets. The reason? Canadian banks couldn’t raise sufficient and/or cost-effective funding from their traditional sources – primarily other global financial institutions – and needed Crown intervention to keep the wolf from the door. By mid-November 2008, the federal government had agreed to take $75 billion of mortgages from Canadian banks.
Assuming the risk-weighting of these assets was 20%, the feds essentially put $15 billion of capital into the Canadian banks that participated in the $75 billion CMHC program. Even Finance Minister Jim Flaherty agrees:
“At a time of considerable uncertainty in global financial markets, this action will provide Canada's financial institutions with significant and stable access to longer-term funding,” said Minister Flaherty.
How is “stable” “long term funding” from CMHC any different than the pref share offerings via the American TARP program, other than the fact that Canadian taxpayers didn’t receive any purchase warrants on Canadian bank shares as compensation? Let’s not forget, the TARP was originally designed to take assets off U.S. bank balance sheets so as to free up capital.
The Canadian government also took steps in October 2008 to guarantee medium term lending in an effort to underpin the inter-bank lending market (see prior post “Political expediency trumps free market” Nov 3-08).
I’m all for paying teams what the market will bear (see prior post “Media new battle ground in I-bank bonus season war” Nov 25-09). But this heads I win, tails you lose bonus madness can’t be justified by the “lack” of a federal bank bailout.
There is ony a subtle distinction between injecting capital into a bank and relieving it of assets so that it can avoid a capital injection. Kind of like your Dad temporarily buying your bike from you when you ran out on money in University, and then selling it back to you six months later when you were flush from a summer job.
The notion that Canada’s “free market” took care of itself over the past 15 months is poppycock.
MRM |
http://www.wellingtonfund.com/blog/.../#axzz1bKxYv9ta |
|
|
| Inrush |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
WTF....let me guess President Bush was behind 9/11 |
i dont understand how you drew that conclusion from what i said. I did not speak of 911 once...?!?????
let me guess Obama is going to save the world... |
|
|
| Yohan |
| Cant wait for more rain and cold to come. Lets see whos hardcore |
|
|
| GGM |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
I may be mistaken but wasn't the biggest problem people had was the housing market crashed in the states and the value of the houses dropped significantly leaving people owing more then the house was worth? If this is the case then how is this the mortgage brokers fault? |
It's the mortgage lenders fault because mortgages being made much easier to get and in higher amounts lead to people being able to "afford" to spend much more. Being able to spend much more than they could afford in reality lead to house prices that were well above where they would be in a realistic market. House worth $300k thus sold for $400k and when the bubble popped the value went even below reality to $250k. Due to deregulation and bad advice that person easily could have borrowed the money with no/little money down, so stuck with an almost $400k loan on a $250k house.
What sucks is the bubble burst so hard that even people who made smart decisions on loans got screwed. Say you were sensible and had put 25% down ($100k) on that inflated $400k house so you only had a $300k loan. Well when it all burst that house is then $250k, you owe $300k, and you're out the $100k down payment. The guy who went ahead with the ridiculous no money down mortgage is way ahead of the sensible guy who had saved money in this scenario and that's the saddest part about the housing bubble imo. |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by rabbitjoker
Blame the system, blame the structure, blame the corporations, blame the 1%, blame the man, blame the (elected or not) government, blame, blame, blame, blame, blame. |
there is only so much blaming yourself when at every step someone s you in the ass.
| quote: | | Nobody forced anybody to take out mortgages they couldn't afford (caveat emptor). |
I don't think you have read enough about the tactics that were used on these people to sign these horrible mortgages. It was bull. Sales people twisting the contracts, not explaining, bullying. yes, we are all supposed to be aware of every little thing that is written down, but . there comes a point where it's too much pressure on the individual to sign. you are into sales, and getting people to buy, you know the tactics to do that. this was done to these people with no oversight and control (in the US). people were sold a bad deal just because of commission. no one in the banked cared if these loans were ever paid off. as long as they got some dumb schmuck to sign. that's bull. sub-prime and variable loans were basically forced (sold to) on these people. these people were SCAMMED on a large level. SCAMMED. and don't tell me you have never been scammed, cuz i know for a fact that's not true. so imagine that happening to a large population of people.
| quote: | | Unfortunately the real world requires hard work, risk, sacrifice and investment to get something out of it (to get anything out of it); it's much easier to blame others than to take ownership over your situation and make something out of it. |
there comes a point where no matter what hard work you do, how much you plan, what you prepare for, there is someone/something working against you and will overpower you. you can take all the ownership you want, it doesn't change the fact that you got SCAMMED. sometimes IT IS someone else's fault or something else's fault.
you think people in hurricanes should blame themselves for causing the winds and total destruction too? or should you blame yourself if your family member dies. |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by GGM
It's the mortgage lenders fault because mortgages being made much easier to get and in higher amounts lead to people being able to "afford" to spend much more. Being able to spend much more than they could afford in reality lead to house prices that were well above where they would be in a realistic market. House worth $300k thus sold for $400k and when the bubble popped the value went even below reality to $250k. Due to deregulation and bad advice that person easily could have borrowed the money with no/little money down, so stuck with an almost $400k loan on a $250k house.
What sucks is the bubble burst so hard that even people who made smart decisions on loans got screwed. Say you were sensible and had put 25% down ($100k) on that inflated $400k house so you only had a $300k loan. Well when it all burst that house is then $250k, you owe $300k, and you're out the $100k down payment. The guy who went ahead with the ridiculous no money down mortgage is way ahead of the sensible guy who had saved money in this scenario and that's the saddest part about the housing bubble imo. |
But does it really matter if the value of the house drops if you are still living in it and paying the mortgage assuming the person could afford the monthly mortgage payment in the first place. |
|
|
|
|
