Anler Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 26 minutes ago, Momorider said: Yup the media the government it's bullshit, sub 2% growth is basically going backwards when you add in inflation and population growth Funny because I dont pretend to know everything or anything about where you work or live but that doesnt stop you from preaching to us. Listen it is not in my best interest to be myopically focused on political BS when speculating about my market strength. Honestly I dont really give a shit who is in the white house or the mayors office. If there is demand for my services I am there, if there is not I need to re-evaluate and go where they are needed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted July 22, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted July 22, 2016 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Anler said: The economy was pretty good under Bush but in hindsight I think it was fueled by cheap, easy access to credit. And Illinois has had a republican governor for most of my life. Its wasnt until George Ryan (republican governor) was under criminal investigation that a dem was able to get into the governor's mansion. I have thrived under both repub and dem admins. However, the absolute worst economy of my lifetime was the 2008 fallout from the end of the Bush Administration. And right now it is far better, like leaps and bounds better, than it was in 2008/2009. Wonder what the construction market in Chicago metro would be with normal interest rates? Lots of players caused the recession of 2008. The list goes on and on to create a perfect storm like that. No party is exempt but IMHO individual greed was as evident as corp greed. I never will believe an economy is strong with fed rates below 3% no matter what unemployment or GDP shows as those numbers have ways of being manipulated. Somewhat the same could be said about the Clinton boom. Plenty of the economy was falsely fueled by the .com boom. Slowest we ever got was after the .com burst. It wasn't all economy driven but that's the last time we laid people off and when we did for those that were coming back we made sure to get them back to equal pay with bonus'. Think about how the hundreds of billions of QE effected GDP? Edited July 22, 2016 by Highmark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 I live in NEPA things are as busy here as they have ever been, we have many new and expanded businesses on main street, the country just had record all time auto sales, air travel, and people driving to vacation destinations, somebody is making money somewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Catalina Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 Back to the subject - I'm pretty sure there were close to 200,000 Verizon people on strike in May (resulting in very low numbers), and they came back in June (add 200K back in). No real big swings of you take them out of the picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 It took awhile before billys housing bubble popped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 Toronto has over 100 skyscrapers under construction, been that way for over a decade. While that all sounds great and keeps some gainfully employed it's hardly an overall measure of how good things are. How are companies like p&g, Boeing, shell etc spending? That is a better indication of how things are going. It's ok but not stellar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 9 minutes ago, Highmark said: Wonder what the construction market in Chicago metro would be with normal interest rates? Lots of players caused the recession of 2008. The list goes on and on to create a perfect storm like that. No party is exempt but IMHO individual greed was as evident as corp greed. I never will believe an economy is strong with fed rates below 3% no matter what unemployment or GDP shows as those numbers have ways of being manipulated. Somewhat the same could be said about the Clinton boom. Plenty of the economy was falsely fueled by the .com boom. Slowest we ever got was after the .com burst. It wasn't all economy driven but that's the last time we laid people off and when we did for those that were coming back we made sure to get them back to equal pay with bonus'. Think about how the hundreds of billions of QE effected GDP? Not just the .com boom.. I saw the effects of NAFTA first hand as once it was passed there was a mass exodus here for big manufacturers as they were abandoning their facilities to head to Mexico. there was a boom in work for us in the short term but it took a lot of good paying jobs with it. Lot of contractors got rich in the 90's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 3 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said: It took awhile before billys housing bubble popped. Yeah it's always someone else's fault, had nothing to do with the fact that regulators let SOME lenders get away with shady deals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 Just now, 1jkw said: Yeah it's always someone else's fault, had nothing to do with the fact that regulators let SOME lenders get away with shady deals. yeah..the biggest lenders were fannie mae/mac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 Just now, Capt.Storm said: yeah..the biggest lenders were fannie mae/mac. Wrong again but you go with that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 Just now, 1jkw said: Wrong again but you go with that. well certainly reg banks were told to finance people that should not have been also. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mileage Psycho Posted July 22, 2016 Author Share Posted July 22, 2016 9 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said: It took awhile before billys housing bubble popped. Actually it was Bush's bubble, the link is his 2002 speech to HUD where his idea was that everyone should own a home. http://archives.hud.gov/remarks/martinez/speeches/presremarks.cfm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 2 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said: well certainly reg banks were told to finance people that should not have been also. Dont kid yourself, many got rich off of that also. And most of the banks that were hit have bounced back stronger than ever. Thats what happens when we let the rich folks tell us whats best of US.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 2 minutes ago, Mileage Psycho said: Actually it was Bush's bubble, the link is his 2002 speech to HUD where his idea was that everyone should own a home. http://archives.hud.gov/remarks/martinez/speeches/presremarks.cfm Yeah but it started with Billy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 6 minutes ago, 1jkw said: Wrong again but you go with that. Well were both kinda right. In the years before the crisis, the behavior of lenders changed dramatically. Lenders offered more and more loans to higher-risk borrowers,[6][84] including undocumented immigrants.[85] Lending standards deteriorated particularly between 2004 and 2007, as the government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) mortgage market share (i.e. the share of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which specialized in conventional, conforming, non-subprime mortgages) declined and private securitizers share grew, rising to more than half of mortgage securitizations Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArcticCrusher Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 18 minutes ago, Catalina said: Back to the subject - I'm pretty sure there were close to 200,000 Verizon people on strike in May (resulting in very low numbers), and they came back in June (add 200K back in). No real big swings of you take them out of the picture. Would that even count towards stats? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 1 minute ago, Capt.Storm said: well certainly reg banks were told to finance people that should not have been also. No, that's where you are wrong, no one forced any lender to give money to anyone, lenders and regulators allowed people to do things they should not have, period. If you don't think so please tell me why every lender didn't have problems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 (edited) 3 minutes ago, 1jkw said: No, that's where you are wrong, no one forced any lender to give money to anyone, lenders and regulators allowed people to do things they should not have, period. If you don't think so please tell me why every lender didn't have problems. BS..the gov under Bill wanted the economy to grow at the expense of the poor. The banks were more or less told they better lend out some money. So they did that, then what they did was to bundle the bad loans in with the good ones and then resale them to get rid of them. It was a fawked up mess. Edited July 22, 2016 by Capt.Storm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 3 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said: Yeah but it started with Billy. No the bulk of the bad deals were made in 2004--2005 billy was long gone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 1 minute ago, Capt.Storm said: BS..the gov under Bill wanted the economy to grow at the expense of the poor. The banks were more or less told they better lend out some money. So they did then what they did was to bundle the bad loans in with the good ones and then resale them to get rid of them. It was a fawked up mess. No you are wrong, again please explain why every bank didn't have problems. What year did the first CDS appear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 1 minute ago, 1jkw said: No you are wrong, again please explain why every bank didn't have problems. What year did the first CDS appear? Some of the banks did stay out of it ..or were slick enough to pass the crap off fast enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 oh and credit default swaps are very dangerous really..tricky. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1jkw Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 Just now, Capt.Storm said: Some of the banks did stay out of it ..or were slick enough to pass the crap off fast enough. No, most banks stayed out of it, the shady ones didn't and were responsible for the crash. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mileage Psycho Posted July 22, 2016 Author Share Posted July 22, 2016 9 minutes ago, Capt.Storm said: Yeah but it started with Billy. Because I'm sure you didn't read at the link I'm going post it, reading the whole thing would be best but if your attention span is to short pay attention to the bold Quote We are here in Washington, D.C. to address problems. So I've set this goal for the country. We want 5.5 million more homeowners by 2010 -- million more minority homeowners by 2010. (Applause.) Five-and-a-half million families by 2010 will own a home. That is our goal. It is a realistic goal. But it's going to mean we're going to have to work hard to achieve the goal, all of us. And by all of us, I mean not only the federal government, but the private sector, as well. And so I want to, one, encourage you to do everything you can to work in a realistic, smart way to get this done. I repeat, we're here for a reason. And part of the reason is to make this dream extend everywhere. I'm going to do my part by setting the goal, by reminding people of the goal, by heralding the goal, and by calling people into action, both the federal level, state level, local level, and in the private sector. (Applause.) And so what are the barriers that we can deal with here in Washington? Well, probably the single barrier to first-time homeownership is high down payments. People take a look at the down payment, they say that's too high, I'm not buying. They may have the desire to buy, but they don't have the wherewithal to handle the down payment. We can deal with that. And so I've asked Congress to fully fund an American Dream down payment fund which will help a low-income family to qualify to buy, to buy. (Applause.) We believe when this fund is fully funded and properly administered, which it will be under the Bush administration, that over 40,000 families a year -- 40,000 families a year -- will be able to realize the dream we want them to be able to realize, and that's owning their own home. (Applause.) The second barrier to ownership is the lack of affordable housing. There are neighborhoods in America where you just can't find a house that's affordable to purchase, and we need to deal with that problem. The best way to do so, I think, is to set up a single family affordable housing tax credit to the tune of $2.4 billion over the next five years to encourage affordable single family housing in inner-city America. (Applause.) The third problem is the fact that the rules are too complex. People get discouraged by the fine print on the contracts. They take a look and say, well, I'm not so sure I want to sign this. There's too many words. (Laughter.) There's too many pitfalls. So one of the things that the Secretary is going to do is he's going to simplify the closing documents and all the documents that have to deal with homeownership. It is essential that we make it easier for people to buy a home, not harder. And in order to do so, we've got to educate folks. Some of us take homeownership for granted, but there are people -- obviously, the home purchase is a significant, significant decision by our fellow Americans. We've got people who have newly arrived to our country, don't know the customs. We've got people in certain neighborhoods that just aren't really sure what it means to buy a home. And it seems like to us that it makes sense to have a outreach program, an education program that explains the whys and wherefores of buying a house, to make it easier for people to not only understand the legal implications and ramifications, but to make it easier to understand how to get a good loan. http://archives.hud.gov/remarks/martinez/speeches/presremarks.cfm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 Derivatives are what you're actually taking about. The EU is hot on them now it seems. http://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-accepts-commitments-by-isda-markit-on-credit-default-swaps-1469010651 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.