Metal Reviews

Loans were defaulted on during an economic crisis. Surprise.

The article starts off with an anecdotal pole. It's a fucking introduction to an article not a pronouncement of some trendNaming your children a name from the country you're ancestors were torn from is reflective of that child being a bad worker? Discriminating based on name is just as racist given that race simply isn't skin color.
Point taken. I am totally in agreement with you on the perception of poor white folk in America. People can't imagine that there are still people who live in Appalachia with no access to running water or public education still.
Proof of racism would be for someone to be explicitly racist and admit it? C'mon.

And metalstorm, suck a dick till it cums blood you fuck.

Truth hurts doesn't it jackass. Why don't you take your Marxism and politically incorrect ass and leave the board because you're nothing but a damn troll.

I'm not gonna waste anymore time on the race stuff, because it's pointless.


But this:



is just wrong... the economic crisis really didn't happen until the housing bubble burst, so no. And lastly (I hope!) the loans were defaulted on because... drum roll... the lendees were never qualified for the loans they were granted in the first place. Why? They had bad / no credit, no income (look up NINA), not enough income, some were on welfare, and so on... and the interest rates were very high (to offset the applicants' lack of loan-friendly qualities)... jesus, man, is this really that complicated?

I think that usage of name-blank job application forms is going to be increased over here in the public sector (apparently common in parts of the private sector already). Sounds like it could be useful for you guys too...

That just sounds bizarre... how do you adress the applicant? Applicant # 21457?

I mean, where's the warmth? Where's the humanity?

Where is the LaQueeshaeena!

Depends... day of the month, time of day, etc, are all factors to be considered...

Yes, by looking at skills etc rather than name or background. Warmth and humanity come from knowing what an applicant for a job is called? Warmth and humanity have a lot to do with picking the best applicant for a job?

No it's not that complicated V but to guys who have no clue on what reality is bringing it sure seems complicated to them so they spout off at the mouth with no awareness of what is really going on.

Actually, yes.
Part of the interview process is assessing personality traits, demeanor, personal bearing, grooming, etc.
They want a team player and that means someone that fits well with the existing team and it's collective personality.
It's not the sole factor, obviously, but it is a factor.

Well, that's the interview process - I wasn't saying they should be without individual identity then! Just the initial application forms themselves, sorry that wasn't clearer.

I'm nothing if not a very patient man...

haha

It really isn't complicated, though... I guess if you look at every aspect of life through a blindly ideological lens (where everybody but white hetero males are oppressed, natch), it gets that way, I don't know. I try to look at things pragmatically and honestly.

Ah, I see. Well, I don't think it is necessarily a bad thing, but it still seems bizarre.
And how else are they going to filter out the Laqueeshas and the Cletus's of the world?

Time is money, after all.

But none of this is captured in or reflected by a name.

As for the economic crisis, it can be traced back to 2002; it was postponed by the boom from the war economy. To claim that the loan defaults caused the crisis I think is making too broad of a claim. Not only were the lowest classes foreclosing on homes but even upper middle class families, partly because the lack of regulation let everyone, not just black and latinos like you're claiming, have mortgages they could not afford. I think many of these foreclosures can be related to job losses at the times and not just the fact that the mortgages were out of their relative price range. Did these banks not fuck themselves over by their own greed, slapping huge interest rates on people which it was already risky to loan to? And by luring these people in by framing it as affordable when months down the road the interest rate was going to jack up? Yes, these people should have known better but banks, who people expected to be able to trust for its own well-being, encouraged this practice. I think this is really complicated and you're trying to just pin it on blacks and latinos so you can claim govt is repeating the cycle when it is a wholly different economy which a similar policy to before is being implemented in.

@MetalStorm: It's funny that you call me a troll when your post is in no way contributing anything except that for some reason, according to you, I'm just wrong. You are fucking worthless, my friend.

Where did I claim that it was "just blacks and latinos" that couldn't afford their mortgages?

There may have been a dip in the economy in 2002, but it pales in comparison to what happened after the housing bubble burst...


http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputSer ... N_cpsbref3

the highest unemployment during the Bush years was just over 6%.
Hardly a crisis.


bottom line, regardless of the economy, if you can't afford a home, don't apply for home ownership.
Whatever happened to prudence and personal responsibility?

There is a portion of society whose mantra is gimme gimme gimme where all da free stuff at? Is it any wonder they failed on their end of the bargain?

Oh and you're right it's a wholly different economy... it's actually much worse now.

The crisis was postponed through military spending.

The economy may be worse but people buying up homes would surely help with that.

What difference does that make?
Seriously first you blame the "economic crisis" of 02 for people making stupid decisions, then when shown that there really wasn't a crisis in 02, you claim it was postponed due to military spending (we are still spending like there is no tommorrow, why isn't the economy doing well now? we are still at war, yes?)... regardless, how does that justify taking out a mortgage that you can't possibly dream of paying off? And when the results of that policy are a global financial crisis, turning around and trying it again (only this time with a racist angle thrown in for good measure) is a sane idea?!?

Twilight zone shit, right there.




ONLY IF THEY CAN MANAGE TO PAY THEIR MORTGAGE.
And loaning massive amounts of money (homes are generally in the hundreds of thousands of dollars range) to people on welfare, without a job, without any assets, bad credit, etc. kind of indicates that they will default pretty quickly... I mean seriously WTF?

I agree that people were given loans that they shouldn't have, and this in large part caused the economic crisis, but you can't totally blame it on the people. The BANKS approved loans which never should have been given, and in many cases duped people into taking out loans that they shouldn't have. Housing prices were rising, so banks allowed people to borrow against them to pay off previous debt, but of course, as soon as housing prices stopped rising, then everything was fucked and people had to start defaulting.

But yeah, basic point: it just doesn't make sense to blame Americans who, in many cases, are not extremely knowledgeable in fiscal matters over people whose goddamn job it is to make sure this shit doesn't happen.

EDIT: Also, for the record, Bush is quite culpable for this happening with all of the deregulation of the bank and mortgage industries that went about under his watch.

Also also for the record, as far as I know, 2001 recession (caused by the burst of the tech bubble), isn't really connected to the 2008 recession (caused by the burst of the housing bubble).

Well, trapt was actually the one that mentioned the 2002 dip. Was it a recession? Didn't seem like it, but maybe... all this by the wayside though.
Of course the banks approved them; they stood to make a killing. Doesn't make it right, but what do you exoect from banks?

The real point is, that they are talking about doing the whole thing again. I linked an article about a page or two back.

And actually, Clinton was the one that repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, which for 55 years had prevented banks, the nation's lenders, to get into the so-called "investment banking" business (stock brokers).

So, again I know it's the thing to do to blame Bush but not this time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%8 ... Act#Repeal

Sadly, that is the job of regulators and lenders. Human DNA hasn't changed. Up here, anyhow, there are strict rules (and getting stricter) on who can be granted a mortgage and under what terms, and the banks simply won't lend you the money if your debt service to income ratio is too high. And they look at ALL of your debt obligations. Funnily enough, it has worked.