Raghu writes:

>> This is all completely irrelevant to the main question of this thread:
>> did political pressure (specifically the CRA) force lenders into
>> making even a single loan that was otherwise considered unprofitable
>> or uneconomic by the lender? There is zero, repeat ZERO, evidence to
>> suggest this ever took place. Lenders made subprime loans because they
>> were enormously profitable. Period.

Agreed.  Nobody was forced to make a loan.

>> The poor and the minorities, as always, make convenient scapegoats
>> after the fact, for problems created by rich bankers.

Yes, but.  Nobody forced the bankers to make the loans, but nobody forced the 
borrowers to take the loans.

>> Whether or not increased homeownership is a desirable political goal
>> is a completely different question that should be discussed on its own
>> merits. Lets not confuse two different issues here.

You can't.  Political goals manifested themselves in the rules of the game.  
 
>> >  and policymakers continue to repeat the mantra that the "problem" is that 
>> > housing
>> prices are too low and all we need to do to solve the mess is prop up home 
>> prices
>> (while at the same time we apparently need to bailout homebuilders to ensure 
>> MORE
>> home construction, because those are jobs, jobs, jobs).  This is insanity.
>> 
>> Can you provide some sources for the above? I don't know of any
>> politician or policymaker who said we need to prop up homeprices or
>> that we need to bailout homebuilders. Many politicians and other have
>> said foreclosures need to be stopped. That is a completely different
>> thing.

Hard to pick just one.  Let's try a statement from the esteemed Senators Baucus 
and Grassley on April 2, 2008.  You can find the statement through this link:  
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_berry&sid=aBAqIZIOUWf4.
  This was their statement in support of the "Foreclosure Prevention Act of 
2008," which proposed to change the tax laws to permit the homebuilders to 
carryback their present losses to the bubble years when they made their 
profits, at an estimated cost of $25 billion.   Bauchus:  "These tax provisions 
will keep property values up, keep folks in their homes, and keep businesses 
afloat, and those are all keys to handling the housing crisis."  Grassley: 
"It's appropriate to use the tax code to help people buy homes and to help the 
many businesses that are tied to the housing industry recover from losses.  
Those businesses create jobs.  The economy should benefit from this shot in the 
arm."

David Shemano

_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l

Reply via email to