Thread in which the world laughs at America

[The Mad Monk]

Fixed term mortgages are viewed as "safer" for the borrowers here.

[The Mad Monk]

Subprime loans were a horrid idea perpetrated for greed and cloaked with "fulfilling the American Dream" of home ownership.

Both sides had their hand in it.

A push for home ownership by the poor from the left coupled with deregtulation of lending rules from the right combined to produce a lethal cocktail for the economy at large.

[Dauphin]

Subprime loans were a horrid idea perpetrated for greed and cloaked with "fulfilling the American Dream" of home ownership.

Comment on the "American dream". Jump to 1:10 onwards.

[ColdWizard]

Both sides had their hand in it.

A push for home ownership by the poor from the left coupled with deregtulation of lending rules from the right combined to produce a lethal cocktail for the economy at large.

Yeah, too many people saw that as a chance for free money, lenders and borrowers and everyone between.

[Hauldren Collider]

What no one seemed to realize was the obvious truth that real estate is both volatile and illiquid, which makes for a terrible investment. The obviousness of the housing bubble is I think a key argument against kuci's semi-strict EMH arguments.

[Asher]

We have fixed rate programs where the rate is fixed for the entire term of the loan (10, 15, 20, etc years). We also have adjustable rate programs where the rate is fixed for X number of years and then adjusts (yearly) according to the index of the particular program for the remainder of the term (generally 30 years in total). 3/1, 5/1, and 7/1 are the most common ARM programs. ARMs are also capped in the amount that the rate can increase in any single year and a maximum increase over the life of the loan.

We have fixed rates (fixed for 1/2/3/4/5/7/10 years typically) and variable rates (change monthly(?) based off the Bank of Canada Prime rate)

[Asher]

You can get a variable rate for Prime - 0.9% today in Alberta, which is 2.1%

But as prime changes, so does your rate.

[Jon Miller]

What no one seemed to realize was the obvious truth that real estate is both volatile and illiquid, which makes for a terrible investment. The obviousness of the housing bubble is I think a key argument against kuci's semi-strict EMH arguments.

Even ignoring Bubbles real estate is often a very good investment.

JM

[Dinner]

Both sides had their hand in it.

A push for home ownership by the poor from the left coupled with deregtulation of lending rules from the right combined to produce a lethal cocktail for the economy at large.

I don't get your claim that it's part the "left's" fault when the few government agencies targetting the poor have some of the highest repayment rates and lowest default rates in the industry. There have been several reports that the folks with the highest default rates were middle class people who didn't qualify for FHA loans (and so didn't get the big subsidies) and the wealthy who were most likely to "strategically default" when prices took a dump. If it's not the poor defaulting (mainly because they got great deals thanks to subsidies and they know if they screw it up they won't get a second chance) then how can you claim it's the poor's fault that the middle class and wealthy are defaulting?

[Tupac Shakur]

Healthcare is not the the reason they are against the wall.

It's part of the reason.

[stevesingh]

Pray to god the world does not go to recession because of america again .

[The Mad Monk]

No worries, it's probably Europe this time.

[Zevico]

Corrections of Asher's summary and points he neglected to mention follow.

Recap of Zevico's positions:
1) Positions in this debate cannot be "heartless".

Correct. You argued otherwise.

I leave aside the exceptional cases of a person unconcerned with the good of society who expressly bases his views on personal greed--e.g. the person who hopes to gain from universal health care and praises its reasons without concern for others, or on the other hand, personally loses income from the taxes that arise from it and therefore decries it notwithstanding its alleged or apparent overall benefit.

But this is speculative, and in any case, we can never read the minds of those who put forward such arguments.

What's more, their motives are also irrelevant to whether their positions are right or wrong--so calling a person heartless for supporting or opposing a policy is, in a sense, a pointless distraction, an ad hominem.

2) Universal health care has nothing to do with morality.

Absolutely correct.

3) It is an example of religious bigotry and a hate crime to use the phrase "Jesus Christ" (further nonsene follows)

First, that's not what I said. I said that you condemned me, morally, for merely requesting that you prove an assertion. I informed you that as a newly-converted "Satanist", my religious faith demands that I put others to proof when they make assertions. I further informed you that your condemnation was therefore an act of "hatespeech." Second, what I said was a joke that you needn't concern yourself with any further.

4) It is logically inconsistent to say it is a moral duty to provide health care to all citizens in rich, developed countries, but to say there are details in the economic implementation of this that can be debated

Incomplete explanation.
The means of implementation are so diverse, and include practically everything from outright government non-intervention, to total governmental control over health care, that there is no real position in this debate which, if your dictum were applied, would be rendered immoral. It's all a matter of degree, in other words.

And additionally, I argued and maintain that:
5) There is no fixed definition of what a rich or developed country is and therefore no need to consider what "moral obligations" apply to such countries. If it is morality you wish to discuss, what does it matter if the country is poor or rich?
6) There is no substance to your wishy-washy moralising.

[Hauldren Collider]

Zev

[giblets]

Oh, lol. Not offering help to a sick person when you're perfectly capable of doing that isn't a moral failing now? Because... uh... it wouldn't be a moral failing if you were poor and didn't have the means to help... yeah, that's really logical.