Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

EScroogeJr (< 20)

Are people capable of understanding what their interests are?

Recs

11

May 28, 2008 – Comments (8)

TMF Bent has this to say about Hussein O$ama in a comment to this post:

"He doesn't really want more bank regulation, because if he gets it, home prices will drop even more, loans will be harder to get, and more expensive, and more of his constituency (smug youngsters and urbanites who believe an inexperienced Chicago politico who's never passed a piece of bipartisan legislation can somehow be the new concensus builder) will be locked out of home debtorship than before -- at least until they manage to scrape together a down payment and a credit history.
He's probably smart enough to realize that this plan is worth zilch as far as fixing anything, and its only worth is as a way for him to pretend he cares more than McCain, and just as much as bailout Hillary -- whose poorer, blue-collar fans would be even worse off if banks actually asked for down payments and proper compensation for credit risk. (The end of subprime is going to put those folks back into renting forever, which is good, because there will be plenty to rent.)"

Well, the truth is that everybody who wants to become a homedebtor should be PRAYING for tougher bank regulation. A 20% down payment is good, but 30% would be better, and 100% would be still better. 6% mortgages is affordable enough, but 9% would be more affordable than 6% and 12% would be more affordable than 9%, and (infinity sign)% would be the most affordable. Why is it so? For the same reason that a marathon runner does not get any advantage when new better shoes appear on the market for $100. If EVERYBODY can buy these shoes, the list of winners will be unchanged, except EVERY participant will now be $100 poorer. The same goes for mortgages. Whatever advantage you think you're getting from lax qualification standards and low rates is imaginary because every other buyer is getting the same advantage. And this means the price of houses will rise until they become unaffordable to the same number of people as before. So who will be able to afford a house with better mortgage availability? The answer: exactly the same people that were able to afford it when mortgages were not available. But now both the winners and the losers are screwed because the winners get the same house for a higher price, and the losers see the gap between prices and their purchasing power get even wider in dollar terms. If "smug youngsters and urbanites" and "blue-collar fans" are REALLY going to ask Hussein O$ama and Billary for easy mortgages, that defienes the average American voter as someone who is always ready to tighten the noose around his neck. 

8 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On May 28, 2008 at 1:12 PM, LordZ wrote:

Smartest thing I read from you...

good post...

Report this comment
#2) On May 28, 2008 at 1:41 PM, joeykid13 wrote:

Bullseye!

Report this comment
#3) On May 28, 2008 at 1:47 PM, AnomaLee (28.85) wrote:

"Smartest thing I read from you...

good post..."

LOL - Good post...

Report this comment
#4) On May 28, 2008 at 7:14 PM, mandrake66 (96.44) wrote:

It's kinda scary when the guy who writes provocative stuff just to get peoples' panties in a twist (EScrooge) gets seconded (just because he said "Hussein O$ama") by a racist lightweight with martyr syndrome (LordZ) who thinks his juvenile screeds get deleted due to 'reprisal', and he gets seconded by an even lighterweight (joeykid) who believes the Civil War wasn't about slavery.

I feel like I was just punched in the brain. 

Report this comment
#5) On May 28, 2008 at 8:18 PM, EScroogeJr (< 20) wrote:

mandrake66, the Civil War wasn't about slavery, and it's a historical fact. The good outcome resulted accidentally from a war that was fought for the wrong reason.

Report this comment
#6) On May 28, 2008 at 9:49 PM, mandrake66 (96.44) wrote:

The war was solely about slavery, first and last. I find it difficult to even imagine a rational reason for supposing otherwise (not that I haven't heard the silly ones offered), so I'm not even clear on what to argue against. So I'll try my best...within 10 years of the war being over, when there was no economic reason to do so, the South re-instituted slavery in all but name (Jim Crow laws, segregation, lynchings, removing blacks from political power and from any ownership of the land). This persisted for decades. It had nothing to do with secession, economics, or anything but notions of racial superiority. If the war hadn't been about slavery, this wouldn't have happened. Nor would the South have seceded for no other reason than that a man had been elected president who they mistakenly thought was going to free the slaves, despite Lincoln explicitly saying he wouldn't.

Arguing that the war wasn't about slavery is just indefensible and irrational. It was the fundamental cause. Everything else was just window dressing. The South wanted to secede to preserve slavery -- not for any other reason. 

Report this comment
#7) On May 28, 2008 at 9:56 PM, mandrake66 (96.44) wrote:

And whoever wishes to argue an idiotic position that was lost more than a century ago, feel free, I will not dignify it with any further response.

Report this comment
#8) On May 28, 2008 at 11:19 PM, EScroogeJr (< 20) wrote:

mandrake66, you can take whatever position you choose, but the fact is a stubborn thing. And the fact is, Lincoln always said very clearly and in plain English that he didn't give a s..t about slavery when it comes to preserving the Union. Another fact is that Lincoln did not abolish slavery until the war reached a turning point. For the first two years, the soldiers of the Potomac Army were told to die for the Union, and when they bit the sod, they had no idea that they they were dying for the abolition of slavery.  The third fact is that when the South  "reinstituted slavery" as you put it, it never occurred to anyone in the North to re-fight the war as long as the Union was still intact. These facts indicate to me that slavery was an issue of secondary importance to the warrying parties.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement