Occupy Dunedin?

[mashman]

Assuming that you're advocating making it easier for people who can't currently afford a mortgage or don't qualify in terms of equity, then some sort of Govt. g'tee or input will be required. The fact is that it's cheaper to borrow housing finance than it has been for several generations, so the interest cost is unlikely to be the limiting factor. It is also worth remembering that the 2008 global financial meltdwon was started by US mortgage lenders dabbling in low/no equity housing finance.

Bloody money . @dabbling, that's one way to put it... didn't the Fed pretty much offer a free for all with almost 0% interest rates? ahhh self regulation

[Oscar]

Bloody money . @dabbling, that's one way to put it... didn't the Fed pretty much offer a free for all with almost 0% interest rates? ahhh self regulation

No.
It was the securitisation of mortgages (where dodgy ones were included with good ones) which relied on mortgage insurers like AIG which caused the problem.

[oneofsix]

No.
It was the securitisation of mortgages (where dodgy ones were included with good ones) which relied on mortgage insurers like AIG which caused the problem.

I didn't think they even included the good mortgages, they just watered down the risk by spreading it across multiple mortgages

[mashman]

No.
It was the securitisation of mortgages (where dodgy ones were included with good ones) which relied on mortgage insurers like AIG which caused the problem.

first linky off the googley thing... I've seen it mentioned several times over in various analysissssss'ss's'... interesting article though. Fascinating man if somewhat naive (tui?). AIG et al just took advantage of what was available, something we all do and always have... hence the tui?

[Oscar]

first linky off the googley thing... I've seen it mentioned several times over in various analysissssss'ss's'... interesting article though. Fascinating man if somewhat naive (tui?). AIG et al just took advantage of what was available, something we all do and always have... hence the tui?

Low rates are one thing (and we are living in a very low rate enviroment currently), but subprime mortgages are something else entirely.
Essentially, mortgage insurers like AIG took away the need for lenders to be cautious and were fooled into thinking that if the risky loans were spread across the market via securitisation things would be OK.

Actually, I'm not sure what AIG was thinking to get so exposed to subprime lending


The bottom line is that lending to people on the margins (either in terms of equity and/or income) is inherently risky, low rates or not.

[mashman]

Low rates are one thing (and we are living in a very low rate enviroment currently), but subprime mortgages are something else entirely.
Essentially, mortgage insurers like AIG took away the need for lenders to be cautious and were fooled into thinking that if the risky loans were spread across the market via securitisation things would be OK.

Actually, I'm not sure what AIG was thinking to get so exposed to subprime lending

The bottom line is that lending to people on the margins (either in terms of equity and/or income) is inherently risky, low rates or not.

Low rates are everything though aren't they? Doesn't everyone try to find the best rates, to then pass on to someone else at a slightly higher rate, rinse and repeat? As you say, securitisation (I looked it up) only goes so far in terms of mitigating risk, especially when you end up with the same debt in a different form and don't know it... which I assume happened more than they thought would?

The thing that cracks me up, and this is somewhat simplified, is that the sources lends at lowish rates, rinsing and repeating as the money flows through the system, until some group somewhere decides that borrowing is getting out of control (low interest rates for a prolonged period of time, who'da thought that would happen ), so they bump interest rates in an attempt to reign in borrowing (lending rates do affect mortgage rates). The bumping of the interest rate exposes the areas of "boom", and by default those who have borrowed when it was just affordable, be it subprime/stock market etc..., so they keep on pushing until it pops (I highly doubt that there is magical point of financial "equilibrium"). For me that's a huge irony, the irony being that those doing the initial lending are also the ones responsible for the control of setting interest rates (I know there are other factors such as bond value at any given point in time) and therefore they are also responsible for the recession. Blaming it on the point of failure on those who could once afford their debt, before interest rate rises, is nothing more than smoke and mirrors to deflect the responsibility on to borrowers who could once afford their debt. Wrong?

They probably believed that the good times were gonna roll forever.

[mashman]

Good on 'em...... if public opinion is remains divided, I'm assuming 99 : 1 (either way I care not, but secretly do), that can only be a good thing too. Maybe the folk doon soof ain't all dopey Scots throwbacks after all.

[jazfender]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...?newsfeed=true

An interesting comment and worth the read.

[mashman]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...?newsfeed=true

An interesting comment and worth the read.

Couple the above with this and it doesn't paint a pretty picture in any way, shape or form... I'd hate to be a US citizen at the moment. Good luck to them over there.

[oneofsix]

and like the frog sitting in the pot on the stove asking "what do you mean by it is getting hotter" there will still be those amongst us asking "what have I lost". the reply "Oh nothing important, just a little freedom here, a little right there, and a tiny bit of information over there, so nothing really" until you put it together. Home Land Security was always going to be monster for the USA, too KGB like not to be.

[oldrider]

and like the frog sitting in the pot on the stove asking "what do you mean by it is getting hotter" there will still be those amongst us asking "what have I lost". the reply "Oh nothing important, just a little freedom here, a little right there, and a tiny bit of information over there, so nothing really" until you put it together. Home Land Security was always going to be monster for the USA, too KGB like not to be.

Ahh, the old frog in the pot theory! .... Yep, that describes majority New Zealand to a tee!

The answers are there plain to see but unfortunately the moral majority can't see the wood for the trees!

Like most of the "free world" we still believe without question that "we" are still the good guys and "they" (the other side) are the bad guys!

The 1% are the guys holding the strings of both the good puppets and the bad puppets and the 1% is always at the top of the pyramid!

[avgas]

I wonder if we would consider them (occupy protesters) differently if they had inspirational speakers like Mario Savio or MLK?

[BoristheBiter]

I wonder if we would consider them (occupy protesters) differently if they had inspirational speakers like Mario Savio or MLK?

Ummmmm.........NO

[mashman]

I wonder if we would consider them (occupy protesters) differently if they had inspirational speakers like Mario Savio or MLK?

I think that's the whole point, imho, and the whole reason Occupy communicate the way they do. I've been wondering if anyone would post it, but they haven't, which is kinda disappointing in ways, so I'll let the cat out of the bag... obviously this is my perspective, but I see no other reason for the way Occupy have conducted themselves. Looking at it from the perspective of "What are they trying to achieve", "Why have they made no demands", "Why do they not have a leader" and variations of, all questions that have been posted here along with scathing remarks (thanks to those posters, you make my day), without any thought it would seem. They see chaos in the lack of structure, lack of direction, zero leadership etc... I see intelligence, and I have absolutely NO doubt at all that the 1% understand why Occupy have done things the way they have. Hence the response towards Occupy in the US.

So, from my perspective, and letting the cat out of the bag... the whole Occupy thing is not about railing against the 1% etc..., not strictly, it's about presenting an awareness of the 1% and their games for people to think about. I know, radical eh. They are not trying to tell people what to do or how to think. I know some will find that concept hard to get their heads around, kinda goes hand in hand with the whole thinking about it thing. Unfortunately, well kinda, I doubt many of Occupy understand that themselves, they are there to protest against the 1% first and foremost, but they have followed "the rules"... a collective of people with varying needs, wants and desires, but every single issue they highlight shows the 1%ers game for what it is.

Therefore, they don't need speakers. Word of mouth and a little bit of thought is good enough. We know that there's corruption that we will never find out about. How do you stop it when those in power make laws to protect themselves? How do you highlight the "invisible" corruption when those in power aren't accountable to anyone, and they know it? You can't, so go on, tin foil hat me and I shall ask for your address so that I can send you a bucket of sand... whilst laughing at you and laughing hard .

So there it is, answers to those all important questions of what the fuck are they doing and why aren't they doing it the same way protesters have been doing for years. Ever wonder why Occupy stand by the slogan that you can't evict an idea? Tis because the idea becomes yours because you haven't been spoon fed it, you have thought about it in the cold light of day.

I'm sure some will see that as an arrogant and idiotic view . If that's the case, prove me wrong, or type out a shit load of drivel in opposition so that I can laugh at you... go on, you know you want to.

So, I'll leave this post with some truth.

[mashman]

this could get interesting... fuckin good on 'em