Rightwing: Housing Bubble Opportunity to Fleece "Stupid"
They're saying it's time to cash in!
Here's what Freepers are saying about the housing bubble and folks taking on unsustainable debt:
It is time for the greedy and the stupid to suffer. I'll be right their to cash them out of their debt and take their property for a HUGE discount.These are the vultures circling, knowing that the coming bursting of the housing bubble means big profits buying out folks who won't be able to turn to the bankruptcy courts for help.Bankruptcy laws were changed just on time!
Exactly. Now people will have to pay what they owe.
I have a friend that did just that when property prices collapsed in the late 80's here in Austin. Bought Condo's with his credit cards.
He's a rich man.
Don't let anyone say after it happens that this wasn't the deliberate plan by the GOP to help out their investor class vulture constituency.
Advertisement
Well, would it be possible for us to do the same, but you know, for the side of good? Meaning when this happens, cobble together a progressive alliance to start massive housing and land trusts for affordable housing? Could we just hook together moveon, unions, progressive investors, and some of those mega-rich liberal speculators on this, and just directly improve housing opportunities? Maybe make some large real estate investment fund for the express purpose of building either affordable housing and sound urban policy?
November 20, 2005 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know this is not a very constructive comment but it would probably be cheaper and more satisfying to simply lynch the vultures.
On a more serious note, perhaps this is the sort of issue around which a religious left, progressives of faith, could coalesce and shame Congress into protecting the least of us.
November 21, 2005 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is time for the greedy and the stupid to suffer.
Immoral as it may be, there is no inherent hypocrisy in the Right-wing wanting to fleece the stupid.
Conversely however, a gleeful intent to fleece the "greedy" seems completely contradictory to what is surely a central tenet of conservatism.
After all, as we have been told since the 80s (at least) "Greed is good." Isn't it?
November 21, 2005 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
The point of the law was to prevent the "stupid" who charge thousands of dollars of debt on credit cards and live beyond their means and hold them accountable for irresponsible actions. What the Neanderthals don't realize is that they will be taking homes from people who had good jobs and lost them due to downsizing or severe medical illness, and fortunately, things like unemployment, cancer, car accidents, etc. are non-discriminatory....the Freeps will be able to feed greed off each other.
(sigh)
you're only Republican until it happens to you....
November 21, 2005 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I feel sorry for the people getting fleeced, but having said that it is their fault to a certain extent isn't it? Anytime someone takes a loan for something as valuable as a $500K-1M home in the SF Bay Area I'd expect them to have heard of the real estate bubble or take some time to inform themselves of the issues of finance.
Deregulation did help inflate the bubble, and for that part of the blame government and particularly those too cozy with the finance industry are culpable. But anyone buying in the last several years should have informed themselves. I find most people buying have at least heard of the bubble, and know if they're taking a chance, how stable their income is, etc.
It's worth mentioning that anyone who has a fixed rate mortgage will probably be ok, even if their property value depreciates. It's taking a rather stupid chance to finance variable with rates as low as they've been, they can only go up so why not lock in fixed?
It's also true that people in the SF Bay Area for example have been buying as much home as they can afford, and some buying more then they can afford, with the idea that it will continually increase in value. That sort of speculative buying includes risk, and anyone who thought their returns were a sure thing might be rudely surprised.
I have little sympathy for anyone buying a home beyond their means and who doesn’t inform themselves about financing, especially speculative buyers. Similarly, those who complain about the reality of the world but have no solutions, like Newman, I find pathetically whiney. Newman’s basic theme seems to be that he wants prosperity to rain down from heaven. How would Newman make home financing work better? How would Newman help home buyers? Other than consolatory whining of course.
November 21, 2005 5:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
San Francisco has had ways of financing homes similar to what you mention. The problem is that they are essentially community banking, have little capital, and can't keep up with housing prices. thier rate of growth is very slow and have almost no liquidity. They make only a very small number of loans, and one has to wait on a long list.
November 21, 2005 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
To claim people have been irresponsible in the light of the fact that the wage gap is growing at an astonishing rate is silly. If I got the same raise in pay as a CEO has over the last 25 years, I'd have no problems even with the inflated real estate values.
I think what Newman would do, indeed what we all NEED to do, is replace these bought and paid for politicians, outlaw corporate lobbying, and get back to writing financial policies
November 21, 2005 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who has the sack to follow:
"I have little sympathy for anyone buying a home beyond their means and who doesn’t inform themselves about financing, especially speculative buyers."
With:
"Similarly, those who complain about the reality of the world but have no solutions, like Newman, I find pathetically whiney."
One of the realities of the this world is that a significant number of people will make bad decisions. Society as a whole gets to decide if we bail them out smart, or bail them out stupid.
I universally reject the "If you don't have a solution, you can't complain about the problem" argument. It's just another crutch for people who just can't believe (the poor dears) that someone would possibly (oh, what a beast) criticise them, their worldview or their way of doing things.
I gotta say, too, NickDoe, the weirdness of posting that Newman is unrealistic on every one of his comment threads that I've read is pretty pronounced to me. Why? It seems possibly as irrational as plunking down a $1.5 million for a 4 bedroom home on an adjustable rate in 2005, with admittedley lower down sides. If say, Tom Friedman, had comment threads, I'd give up after a few.
November 22, 2005 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right, but that's my point exactly. The housing costs will be cheaper, and this will become a drastic political issue.
Here's the thing. We see this coming. They see it coming too. They're getting ready to pounce and profit on it. When the bust happens, it will be a major political issue, major. People will be enraged, but if you look at the regions that will be hardest hit, they already tilt pretty liberal, so unless we have something good to offer beforehand, we might not be able to pull off something successful.
These housing prices are going to drop, and people will be thrown out of their homes unless there's a different plan to jump to. If we don't ave something, and if we don't have something that involves a broad array of participation from civil society, they're just going to do something corrupt and incompetent. People who've been engaging in essentially housing speculation will get any bailouts, and those hard-working people who get hurt by this will get nothing.
If we all see this coming can't we develop some sort of plan for the ethical members of civil society to intervene?
November 22, 2005 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW Nick, if you want links to ideas on making housing more affordable, you might check here.
November 22, 2005 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Don't let anyone say after it happens that this wasn't the deliberate plan by the GOP to help out their investor class vulture constituency."
Let's be clear about what "this" is. You're absolutely right to say that changes in bankruptcy laws were intended to benefit creditors - most prominently, those who lend to consumers - and to insulate them from the risks they took on by pushing their products to people who could not afford them.
But any implication that the administration or the Fed would welcome a collapse of the housing market is just silly. There are too many countervailing interests, economic and political, for that to make sense. Banks would rather issue new loans than foreclose on them. Builders want to keep building - as do the companies who supply them with raw and manufactured materials. And no politician wants to face voters who have seen vast sums of paper equity in their homes disappear, who are underwater on their mortgages, or who have lost their homes.
November 28, 2005 6:09 AM | Reply | Permalink