News   Jul 15, 2024
Sculptural Pre-Cast Panels Now Adorning ANX near Dupont Station
 447     3 
News   Jul 15, 2024
Resubmitted Agincourt Condo Proposal Bumps Height, Reduces Parking
 587     0 
News   Jul 15, 2024
News Roundup for July 15, 2024
 571     0 

St. James Park Re-Sodded By Volunteers

Those who were lead to believe that they could afford the homes that they were buying
Click to expand...

Only an idiot can be 'lead to believe' that they can afford something they don't have the income for.
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
Many people who shouldn't have qualified for home purchases in the US (but were qualified) were greatly mislead by the lending institutions and often, documents falsified. Forget about all those lenders for a moment because the sh*t flows from the top, and not a single big banker or Wall Street executive has been tried, let alone gone to jail three years after the mess began to unravel which nearly brought down the world's economy. There was no respect to "shareholders" here, it was a greedy, criminal act and it inevitably had to collapse which is why the banks took out insurance against the bundled mortgage packages. Those who were lead to believe that they could afford the homes that they were buying have borne the responsibility from being scammed, they lost their homes in the time that followed and many are living with friends, family or in their cars now. Yes, some took advantage of the system and they paid the same price.
Click to expand...

Actually, the 'credit' expansion originated from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac programs initiated by the government. It was originally intended to allow middle/lower class invididuals to afford homes they would otherwise not qualify for. Individual greed by the 100% lead them both to bankrupcy. But as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

FYI, EVERYONE benefited from the boom. From 'blue collar' home builders and car makers, I bbankers, and individual speculators and those invested in the Market during the boom. And everyone has since paid the price.

You're example of lost homes has a counter part in the form of a collapsed bank (Bear Stearns, Leahman Bros) or retirement savings substantially reduced (Bay street Partners that could no longer 'retire' due to lost captial). One could argue that nominally, the the 1% lost substantially more in comparison to those tha lost their homes - but it's a little tougher political sell from a PR angle.


There comes a point when people need to take responsibility for their own actions. Those that bought overleveraged, just like the bankers, and paid a hefty price.
 
Last edited:
doug said:
Only an idiot can be 'lead to believe' that they can afford something they don't have the income for.
Click to expand...

can't agree more.
No one can convince me, for example, that I should buy a penthouse in Aura or the Shangrila. If one is stupid enough to be "led to believe" so, he is probably stupid enough to sit in poverty for his entire life.

The banks are not responsible for deciding whether you will be able to make the payment in 3 years and if interest rate climbs, it is the buyer who is supposed to do the math.

I don't deny the greed of banks but they are profit driven organizations and are not supposed to care about the humanity or whether you kids are well fed - that's the government and charity's job.

There are many easy ways to avoid being gauged by banks - for example, always pay the full amount of your credit card bills to avoid that 21.99% APR. (I have never paid 1 cent of credit card interest in my life) If you don't think you can afford to do so next money, don't buy the damn thing unless your life depends on it. I have heard many stories about people keeping paying only the minimum of their bills and the debt end up piling up and destroy their lives, and they complain how cruel the banks are. All I can say is : why were you so stupid to buy that much stuff you couldn't afford in the first place? Shouldn't you know what 21.99% APR means??
 
kkgg7 said:
True.
The 99% should be blamed as well for their own reckless spending. Last time a survey shows a high percentage of tpeople (50% or something? don't remember) will have trouble paying bills etc if their payroll is a few days late. And if mortgage rate increases by 1%, many will find it difficult to make payments.

I mean, are we supposed to spend money like that? You can't spend more than you should, and when something bad happens, you accuse the banks for lending you too much. that's ridiculous.

If when the mortgage rises by 2% (it is very likely to), you are cash strapped, that means only one thing: you should buy a cheaper house!
Click to expand...

No, the 99% shouldn't be blamed for reckless spending. That is how I make money.
Why should the poor people live within their means instead of me making more money off of them? Let them borrow to buy things. Our economy is based on consumption - we need as many people buying things as possible. It is good for business if you buy a car every 3 years instead of every 9 years. If you horde and save money, you aren't contributing anything.

Since there are so many low paying jobs and no one wants to pay workers more, let them borrow to make up their shortfall. Realistically, not everyone can be a manager or a lawyer or a doctor. I still need people to clean my stuff up, or to berate at the store. These workers need to spend money too!

As long as I get money in hand - I don't care where it came from, I am happy. If the government has to pick-up the pieces because of their recklessness, let them. I pay little in taxes anyways, so I don't care, and the government isn't going to hold me to task either, if anything I will get a subsidy or another tax break.
 
The last two posts are clearly written to egg people on, presumably to get hysterical reactions. Me - I'm not playing.
Happy holidays.
 
Thanos said:
That would be NBC.
I'm not saying Alberta is not a good place and I've always said that it's a lot easier to move provinces then most people think.
However, the consensus on this forum is that you can't just walk up and move elsewhere that easily.
Click to expand...

Uhhhh... OK. I have to ask. 'That would be NBC.' NBC? What's that?

As for your equivocation on Eng jobs -- if you want a skilled job, you have to go where it's located. If you want just any job, you have to take what's given (or go the entrepreneur route.) There really are any other choices, are there?
 
js97 said:
Actually, the 'credit' expansion originated from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac programs initiated by the government.
Click to expand...

No, it didn't, or it wouldn't have affected anywhere but poor neighbourhoods in inner US cities. See NYT or Barry Ritholtz' blog for long, definitive refutations of the crap you're pulling out of your butt.
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
Uhhhh... OK. I have to ask. 'That would be NBC.' NBC? What's that?

As for your equivocation on Eng jobs -- if you want a skilled job, you have to go where it's located. If you want just any job, you have to take what's given (or go the entrepreneur route.) There really are any other choices, are there?
Click to expand...

I believe NBC = National Bank of Canada (6th largest bank in Canada)
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
No, it didn't, or it wouldn't have affected anywhere but poor neighbourhoods in inner US cities. See NYT or Barry Ritholtz' blog for long, definitive refutations of the crap you're pulling out of your butt.
Click to expand...

Okay I'll play, where did it originate from? I'm not saying it was limited to the two lenders, at the end of the day, every bank and lender in the U.S. jumped on the band wagon and expanded their lending policy

Whether it was a banker that packaged the concept, and made credit more available to those lenders, which then passed it to their clients, or whether it was the lenders, that requested more credit,and the Ibankers managed to think of a way... the chicken or the egg... at the end of the day, everyone drank the cool-aid and no one wanted to acknowledge the out of hand bubble. Kinda like in Canada right now.
 
Okay I'll play, where did it originate from? I'm not saying it was limited to the two lenders, at the end of the day, every bank and lender in the U.S. jumped on the band wagon and expanded their lending policy

Whether it was a banker that packaged the concept, and made credit more available to those lenders, which then passed it to their clients, or whether it was the lenders, that requested more credit,and the Ibankers managed to think of a way... the chicken or the egg... at the end of the day, everyone drank the cool-aid and no one wanted to acknowledge the out of hand bubble. Kinda like in Canada right now.
Click to expand...

An after the fact suggestion, the lenders should have been required to hold the mortgages they granted long enough ( 3-5 years ) to fail before wrapping them up in shiny paper and peddling them to some poor shmuck. Most of said shmucks should have known better unless their intent was to re-package this stuff, add a point or so and re-gift them.
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
As for your equivocation on Eng jobs -- if you want a skilled job, you have to go where it's located. If you want just any job, you have to take what's given (or go the entrepreneur route.) There really are any other choices, are there?
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you. I've moved cities twice and I'm financially a lot more well off because of that. Some will tell you being financially well off is not worth the move. Don't know. But from what I've been reading here, people think that staying put and waiting for the perfect job is the way to go. Even if you have families that are already set up here it would not be the end of the world to move somewhere where they have better opportunities.
I always thought Toronto's construction boom would have created a need for engineering work. How come that's not the case?

EMP1729 said:
I believe NBC = National Bank of Canada (6th largest bank in Canada)
Click to expand...

Or as I'd like to call it "the forgotten bank".
 
Thanos said:
I always thought Toronto's construction boom would have created a need for engineering work. How come that's not the case?".
Click to expand...
Because engineers don't construct buildings; they design them, or when an architect is involved they verify the designs. The design work can be done anywhere in the world regardless of the site location.
 
js97 said:
Okay I'll play, where did it originate from? I'm not saying it was limited to the two lenders, at the end of the day, every bank and lender in the U.S. jumped on the band wagon and expanded their lending policy

Whether it was a banker that packaged the concept, and made credit more available to those lenders, which then passed it to their clients, or whether it was the lenders, that requested more credit,and the Ibankers managed to think of a way... the chicken or the egg... at the end of the day, everyone drank the cool-aid and no one wanted to acknowledge the out of hand bubble. Kinda like in Canada right now.
Click to expand...

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac actually jumped on the bandwagon late. Alan Greenspan, and his cockamamie ultra-low interest rate policies, and the other central bankers around the world that leaped on that bandwagon, is one major culprit. The other is, most definitely, the bankers that co-opted their regulators in the US and were allowed to push leverage from 12:1 to 40-50:1.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top