France loses S&P's AAA

[kochman]

Might you have a better source that a crackpot site like maggie's notebook? They're still tie Obama to MUSLIM TERRORISM.

The graphic was posted in a crazy site, but the source was the former CCO of Fannie Mae

http://www.businessweek.com/investi...t_had_nothing_to_do_with_subprime_crisis.html

So I meet your crazy Oklahoma redneck rambling with a national magazine and a Brookings Institute law professor.

Whether 50% or 71%... that percentage was the percentage doomed to fail, even if the bubble hadn't burst, thus acting as a catalyst for the burst (maybe it was better to have it sooner though?)...
To say the CRA had "nothing" to do with the subprime crisis is utter nonsense.

A lot of the investment level subprimes were satisfied via early pay-off since people had flipped the houses (until the crash, where people got stuck with tons of houses that had lost value and then started defaulting as a result)...

So, I met your law professor (because he's so good with economics) NOT with the "crazy OK redneck", but the former CCO of Fannie Mae and a bit of common sense regarding the danger of default of two specific categories of loan recipients.

 

[emzie]

The graphic was posted in a crazy site, but the source was the former CCO of Fannie Mae[


Whether 50% or 71%... that percentage was the percentage doomed to fail, even if the bubble hadn't burst, thus acting as a catalyst for the burst (maybe it was better to have it sooner though?)...
To say the CRA had "nothing" to do with the subprime crisis is utter nonsense.

A lot of the investment level subprimes were satisfied via early pay-off since people had flipped the houses (until the crash, where people got stuck with tons of houses that had lost value and then started defaulting as a result)...

So, I met your law professor (because he's so good with economics) NOT with the "crazy OK redneck", but the former CCO of Fannie Mae and a bit of common sense regarding the danger of default of two specific categories of loan recipients.

Did I say CRA had nothing to do with the subprime mess? Let's see...

No more of one than what you originally said.

More than 50% of subprime loans were issued by mortgage companies not regulated by the Community Reinvestment Act. Banks considered CRA-regulated loans to not be overly risky but generally profitable. That's been attested to by a number of Federal Reserve officials (including the governor), Paul Krugman and a lot of other economists.

Now, you might be able to make a convincing case that CRA encouraged or exacerbated the sub-prime mess, but the idea that CRA directly caused it is something even Austrian nutjobs would have a hard time defending -- after all, as I pointed out, most sub-prime loans, and the riskiest among them, came from the least regulated mortgage companies.

It seems you're arguing against something I did not say, and then ignoring the bit where I conceded CRA might have had exacerbating effects. I'd recommend you actually comprehend posts before saying it's nonsense.

As for the law professor, he's a law professor now, but was formerly a US Treasury official and is currently a Brookings Institute fellow. He's supported by a former Federal Reserve governor.

 

[kochman]

Did I say CRA had nothing to do with the subprime mess? Let's see...

The headline of the article you posted...

Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with subprime crisis

 

[emzie]

The headline of the article you posted...

So did I say that?

 

[kochman]

Fair enough, I was refuting the point of the article.
You did concede that it was at least partially to blame.

 

[BasketCase]

No more of one than what you originally said.

I told you already--a straw man in my 2nd-previous post was not possible. A straw man is when you twist around what somebody else said. For example, President Obama says he wants to cut defense spending, and Romney replies "Obama, why do you want to emasculate our nation's defenses???" That is a straw man, because Obama did not say "I want to emasculate our nation's defenses".

I couldn't possibly have committed a straw man, because I didn't go "this other dude said this". I used the QUOTE function in the CFC text editor.

Now, you might be able to make a convincing case that CRA encouraged or exacerbated the sub-prime mess, but the idea that CRA directly caused it is something even Austrian nutjobs would have a hard time defending

Now, that IS a straw man. I never said the CRA encouraged or exacerbated the crash, nor did I ever say the CRA directly caused it.

I said Barney Frank did.

 

[emzie]

was not possible. ... did not ... IS ...Barney Frank

CFC has trained me to only ever read the bold sections of a quoted article. So your post doesn't make much sense to me.

 

[Bowsling]

CFC has trained me to only ever read the bold sections of a quoted article. So your post doesn't make much sense to me.

CFC ... Has taught ... You wrong...