This problem did start during the deregulation of the Reagan years has grown progressively worse over the past three decades and like everything else it is swept under the carpet until it is too late, then everyone screams blue murder.
Yeah, sitting tight is the best thing you can do, things will worsen before they improve. Stash it all under the mattress, it really is the only prudent thing to do and watch a once in a lifetime period in history explode. It will be ugly but very interesting. That's my bet anyhow. PS Watch the presidential candidates squirm, they have no idea of what needs to be done (nothing much can be done). They will ignore as much as possible and come up with the most banal tripe you are likely to hear, Bush will start to seem rational. On Sep 16, 10:31 pm, margareth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If my investments weren't already so badly jeopardized, i might look > at property in the sunbelt. BEcause of the rollercoaster at George's > Wall Street midway, I need to hang tight untlil the ride is over, or > risk some major losses. What has been systematically removed since the > beginning of the Reagan years is the safety net. That factor which > might help to keep many afloat, at least in the short term, has been > removed, and now the economy is in freefall. In that case, my piggy > banks, and stashes of coins around the house will turn out to be my > best investments.Nickle, and copper would still have value if all else > fails. The surprise I have noticed lately, is that a magnet now picks > up newer pennies, and nickels. . > > On Sep 16, 5:54 am, Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I am predicting a downturn like 1929 a complete systemic breakdown to > > the point of the expansion of war and mass social upheaval, while you > > are predicting a downturn, even a severe downturn, but not a systemic > > breakdown, followed by a strong upswing. > > > Time will tell. > > > On Sep 16, 6:57 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Understood. > > > > On those points we agree. > > > > But all that does is play right into the "cycles" I was talking about > > > earlier. > > > > If you look back at History, the most significant amount of money made > > > is right after such corrections, both in Real Estate as well as in the > > > Stock Market itself. > > > > On Sep 16, 1:53 am, Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > There is net worth. WE agree. But whoever has these packages is going > > > > to make a loss, because the net worth has dropped, say even 15%. On > > > > that we agree. A member of the public is likely to get a great deal. > > > > That's right, though it doesn't make up for the banks 15% loss, the > > > > winner is the buyer. > > > > > The problem which I did not cover adequately is that the banks are > > > > getting stuck with properties they can't sell. So even though they > > > > have the asset, they can't redeem anything for it. I can't remember > > > > the precise figures but there is a glut of unsold defaulted property > > > > on the market, as well as new unsold properties causing severe cash > > > > flow problems. > > > > > As i said I am only repeating figures and assessments mainly from > > > > bloombergs. > > > > > On Sep 16, 6:36 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > All I am saying is that there IS Net Worth there, regardless of how > > > > > you portray it, and someone is going to get a DEAL!!!! > > > > > > :-) > > > > > > I'm going SHOPPING soon. > > > > > > On Sep 16, 1:04 am, Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > You don't get it. It's part of the package. Yes, the home retains a > > > > > > good portion of its value on its own, but as part of a package, > > > > > > which > > > > > > is the only way it can be sold to other investors, it is affected by > > > > > > the unknowable value of the package itself, which are untouchable. > > > > > > No- > > > > > > one is buying them, no-one. Supply and demand. No buyers, no value. > > > > > > You can individualize the property itself on a purely market basis, > > > > > > and no doubt its value will be returned to whoever owns this > > > > > > property > > > > > > within the package they have purchased. But if they want to unload > > > > > > this property, they have to unload the entire package, which no-one > > > > > > will touch, so they are near worthless as an investment package. > > > > > > > Its like a car engine. If it works you buy it. If a couple of > > > > > > pistons > > > > > > are fucked, you won't buy. Some pistons are fine, but as an engine > > > > > > it > > > > > > isn't worth much. > > > > > > > This is not a matter of ideology, its just what is happening, causes > > > > > > and so forth are another issue all together. > > > > > > > On Sep 16, 5:49 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > And just who do you suppose owns the Home after the Mortgage goes > > > > > > > into > > > > > > > default? > > > > > > > > On Sep 16, 12:29 am, Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > No actually it was near worthless, worth pennies. Gaar, the > > > > > > > > houses > > > > > > > > have dropped by whatever amount, but the packages they are part > > > > > > > > of are > > > > > > > > quote "near-worthless subprime mortgage- > > > > > > > > backed securities", according to Wall St, not the WSWS, as > > > > > > > > no-one will > > > > > > > > buy them. Would you buy a package deal consisting of defaulting > > > > > > > > homes > > > > > > > > and those of unknown written down values? If you would let me > > > > > > > > know, I > > > > > > > > have a great deal for you. The credit crunch is caused by banks > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > lending to each other because they are worried they may loan to > > > > > > > > a bank > > > > > > > > that has heavily invested in these 'near worthless packages" > > > > > > > > and end > > > > > > > > up bankrupting. > > > > > > > > > Get it. This is what's happening Gaar. It's not a Socialist > > > > > > > > slant. > > > > > > > > Read bloomberg, thats where I get a lot of my information from. > > > > > > > > They > > > > > > > > just state the simple facts, nothing else. > > > > > > > > > On Sep 16, 5:10 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Falling 20, 30 or even 50% does NOT make them "Worthless". > > > > > > > > > > That was YOUR word, right? > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 16, 12:05 am, Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > You are such a dodo Gaar. Why are the banks in trouble? > > > > > > > > > > Because of sub- > > > > > > > > > > prime defaults and the devaluation in property values that > > > > > > > > > > NO longer > > > > > > > > > > cover the amounts borrowed from the banks. Property prices > > > > > > > > > > have fallen > > > > > > > > > > by up to 20% in some ares and will continue to fall as a > > > > > > > > > > glut of > > > > > > > > > > property comes onto the market pushing down values further. > > > > > > > > > > That's why > > > > > > > > > > they don't know the value of the bundled security packages, > > > > > > > > > > because > > > > > > > > > > they consist of defaulted properties and those that have > > > > > > > > > > fallen in > > > > > > > > > > value. The banks sell the property and still loose money. > > > > > > > > > > > There is already hundreds of thousands of homes the banks > > > > > > > > > > can't shift > > > > > > > > > > that have defaulted as well as new properties that buyers > > > > > > > > > > can't be > > > > > > > > > > found for, putting more downward pressure on prices. The > > > > > > > > > > IMF expects > > > > > > > > > > property prices to fall by up 30% > > > > > > > > > > > Today's lesson over. > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 16, 4:53 pm, Gaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Worthless? > > > > > > > > > > > > You understand that Mortgages are "Backed" by the very > > > > > > > > > > > property they > > > > > > > > > > > are Financing, right? > > > > > > > > > > > > Someone is going to get some Properties at some Fire Sale > > > > > > > > > > > prices... > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 15, 11:44 pm, Frank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > More US corporate bailouts on the way > > > > > > > > > > > > By Barry Grey > > > > > > > > > > > > 16 September 2008 > > > > > > > > > > > > > The US government, brushing aside its constant > > > > > > > > > > > > invocations of “private > > > > > > > > > > > > enterprise,” has dispensed hundreds of billions of > > > > > > > > > > > > dollars in cheap > > > > > > > > > > > > loans to prop up the banks. Last March, the Federal > > > > > > > > > > > > Reserve Board paid > > > > > > > > > > > > JP Morgan Chase $29 billion to take over the investment > > > > > > > > > > > > bank Bear > > > > > > > > > > > > Stearns when Bear was on the verge of declaring > > > > > > > > > > > > bankruptcy. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Only a week ago, the US Treasury committed at least > > > > > > > > > > > > $200 billion in > > > > > > > > > > > > taxpayer funds in the government takeover of Fannie Mae > > > > > > > > > > > > and Freddie Mac > > > > > > > > > > > > —a move that makes the government responsible for the > > > > > > > > > > > > two companies’ > > > > > > > > > > > > combined $5.3 trillion in mortgage liabilities. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The claims that the government, in allowing Lehman > > > > > > > > > > > > Brothers to > > > > > > > > > > > > collapse, has “drawn the line” on further taxpayer > > > > > > > > > > > > bailouts of failing > > > > > > > > > > > > corporations are false. The government decided to let > > > > > > > > > > > > Lehman fail, in > > > > > > > > > > > > part, to conserve the dwindling funds at the disposal > > > > > > > > > > > > of the Federal > > > > > > > > > > > > Reserve and calibrate hand-outs from the Treasury—which > > > > > > > > > > > > faces record > > > > > > > > > > > > budget and trade deficits and a soaring national > > > > > > > > > > > > debt—to be used to > > > > > > > > > > > > rescue more strategic companies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The Fed has reportedly agreed to widen its bailout of > > > > > > > > > > > > Wall Street by > > > > > > > > > > > > accepting, in return for low-cost loans to both > > > > > > > > > > > > commercial and > > > > > > > > > > > > investment banks, even more dubious forms of > > > > > > > > > > > > collateral, including > > > > > > > > > > > > shares of stock whose value has collapsed and > > > > > > > > > > > > mortgage-backed > > > > > > > > > > > > securities that can be sold on the market only for > > > > > > > > > > > > pennies on the > > > > > > > > > > > > dollar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are growing calls on Wall Street and in the > > > > > > > > > > > > financial press for > > > > > > > > > > > > the government to directly buy the near-worthless > > > > > > > > > > > > subprime mortgage- > > > > > > > > > > > > backed securities and other collapsing credit > > > > > > > > > > > > instruments that are > > > > > > > > > > > > undermining the balance sheets of major financial > > > > > > > > > > > > companies. With the > > > > > > > > > > > > government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—which > > > > > > > > > > > > was sanctioned > > > > > > > > > > > > in advance by the Democratic Congress—the legal and > > > > > > > > > > > > structural > > > > > > > > > > > > framework is in place for this wholesale government > > > > > > > > > > > > bailout of the > > > > > > > > > > > > banking system.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
