2008-09-07 — webofdebt.com
A thoughtful article with new suggestions. I am less confident that a new HOLC could manage to actually turn a profit, since the original one benefitted from one-way home price appreciation as 30 year mortgages became standard. But it does seem ridiculous to try to have it both ways with regards to public/private status.
source article |
permalink |
discuss |
subscribe by:
|
RSS |
email 
Comments:
Anthony M. Freed at 07:36 2008-09-08 said:
Either way we are getting screwed. They are robbing us blind while we watch football - Go Ducks! See, I am just as guilty. We just sit here and watch, and type, and try to impress eachother with inconsequential conjecture and supposition. Why for? The Barbarians have breached the gate folks, they arte burning and looting the city - our homes, our savings, our retirements, our childrens educations, and our viability as a Soverign Nation. They are robbing us blind, burning our lives to the ground while we twiddle our thumbs and wonder if we should vote for Obama or McCain. we should not vote for either - or any Democrat or Republican again. They fucking blew it, They gave it away, they sold it off, they lined their pockest and now they mock us. Mock us for being so stupid. Mock us for being so lazy. They mock us for being so comfortable in our big comfy-chairs with our remote controls and wifis. Too comfortable to get off our asses and fight for ourselves. [quote:8aa207d2cc]“[N]ationalisation . . . would bring the whole of Fannie’s and Freddie’s debt onto the federal government’s balance sheet. In terms of book-keeping this would almost double the public debt, but that is rather misleading. It would hardly be like issuing $5.2 trillion of new Treasury bonds, because Fannie’s and Freddie’s debt is backed by real assets. Nevertheless, the fear that the taxpayer may have to absorb the GSEs’ debt . . . . That suggests yet another irony; the debt of the GSEs has been trading as if it were guaranteed by the American government, but the debt of the government was not trading as if Uncle Sam had guaranteed that of the GSEs.â€[/quote:8aa207d2cc] We are not looking at a simple balance sheet transaction as the article would lead you too beleive. We are covering the debts and recapitalizing the GSE's - that's like double duty. Plus losses cost money - they are more expensive than the dollar amount the acturaies use in their risk calculations. All of thos so called "assets" cost billions of dollares - either to maintain or in lost value from lack of maintanance, plus taxes, forclosure, court fees, title fees, new appraisals in some cases, attorneys, and on and on - all of this costs money and whittles away the tru value of the GSE's assets. It is a sad day for sure. Permalinkadd a comment | go to forum thread
Note: Comments may take a few minutes to show up on this page. If you go to the forum thread, however, you can see them immediately.
