LyrArc Article Gist
A study by the Pew Research center shows minorities are the ones hardest hit in the millions of foreclosures taking place in the US. Counties with black or Latino majorites and the New York region are hit severely. What appeared to be a boon five years ago as black home ownership rose sharply after decades of discriminatory lending and zoning practices, has now turned into a curse with families losing homes to foreclosure, neighborhoods seeing increasing crime and declining house values, and renters being evicted. Lenders like Mozilo's Countrywide and other similiar lenders simply used the idea of home ownership as a flag to get political support for a wild west in lending practices, which allowed predatory lending to take place in the deregulatory atmosphere of the time. See the link to the impact on minorities. Nowhere has it been shown more pointedly that prudence and character in leaders in all areas is the essential conditon for progress, making free enterprise a necessary condition but subject to this essential condition, than in the way the housing and foreclosure crisis is hitting the American and the world economy in so many ways. This is evident in neighborhoods like this one on 145th st. in Jamaica, Queens, whaere black households making more than $68,000 a year are five times as likely to hold high interest subprime mortgages as whites of similiar incomes. Defaults occur three times as often in minority census tracts as mostly white ones. And 85% of the worst hit neighborhoods have majority of black and Latino homeowners. Which may also explain why there is not agroundswell of support for serious government foreclosure prevention measures like bankruptcy legislation and other legislation such as that suggested by Martin Feldstein and others for homeowners nearly or already under water, when faced with fierce lobbying by the banks and financial institutions. Consumer advocates say years ago many banks drew red lines around black neighborhoods and refused to lend, then as deregulation became the rage five years ago, these banks under unscruplous leaders targeted these neighborhoods for subprime lending. A dozen banks and lending companioes that made big profits from subprime loans accounted for half the loans given to the New York region'sblack middle -income borrowers in 2005 and 2006, a case of reverse redlining that the N.A.A.C.P. says in its lawsuit against these lenders. Housing and Urban Development Sec. Shaun Donovan, in aspeech to New York University said that 33% of the subprime mortgages given out in New York City in 2007, went to borrowers with credit scoresthat should have qualitifed them for conventional prevailing-rate loans. For anyone taking out a $350,000 mortgage, says the NYT, a difference of three percentage points - a typical spread between conventional and subprime loans- tacks on $272,000 in additional interest over the life of a 30 year loan. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Jim Dwyer discusses proposed legislation in the New York City Council in November 2011, to set a "living wage" of $10 per hour, plus benefits, for workers at new developments receiving more than $1 million in public money. Under this legislation employers who do not include benefits would pay an hourly wage of $11.50. Discussion in the City Council has led to questioning this legislation on the grounds that the developments would not be built under the new rules. Dwyer points to San Francisco, which has set the minimum wage at $10.24 for January 2012, plus mandatory contributions to health insurance funds. The number of low wage workers in New York City with some college education has increased by 70%, according to the Fiscal Policy Institute. Wages at the bottom were $10.85 an hour, adjusted for inflation in 1990, in 2010 the wages were $10. What this does is further increase the income disparities and inequality in the U.S. Because of the demographic changes in America with Hispanic children representing a large proportion of young children, and the high rate of dropouts from highschool in the Mexican American community in New York, this means more children in New York City growing up below the poverty line....

LyrArc Article Gist
An analysis by Credit Suiss analysts shows that borrowers who have their principal reduced are less likely to default. But mortgage companies have been reluctant to take down loan balances. One study shows that47% of loan modifications completed in November 2009 resulted in higher payments for borrowers, typically because unpaid interest and fees were added to the loan balance. It is critical to make loan payments significantly affordable, as many people have other loans such as credit car loans, home equity loans, car loans, and these obligations make even a lower payment unaffordable.

LyrArc Article Gist
Will the long awaited Obama plan do enough to reduce foreclosures and help the economy? $75 billion will go to help homeowners facing foreclosure. But it continues the earlier course of letting it be voluntary for banks and lending institutions to decide if they in fact want to reduce the mortgage payment to 38% of the borrower's income. If they do the government provides an incentive of $1000 for every loan modified, and more payments if the borrower stays current. If the lender decides that its not in its interest to make concesssions to reduce the payments to 38% of the borrower's income, in exchange for the $1000 incentive, it could well decide to do nothing, and even continue the current practice of adding on interest and penalties that actually increase the mortgage payment in many cases. Is it enough? Clearly no, if Mark Zandl, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com is right, and helps only 1 million of the estimated 14 million people who are under water, and the homes are worth much less than the outstanding mortgage. As Martin Feldstein has pointed out for the last year since early 2008, its these people who are under water that need to be helped, and not in a piecemeal or voluntary way as Obama is suggesting. It only goes to show that after all the rhetoric, Government both Republican and Democratic, differ only in degrees in the way they are responding to the foreclosure crisis, that is at the root of the financial crisis. The tidal wave of foreclosures, the other 13 million borrowers that are not helped by this plan but are under water, with growing numbers because of growing layoffs, suggest a serious failure to tackle the problem, with serious consequences for 2009 and beyond....

LyrArc Article Gist
The graph tell the story, in early 2007 there were close to 4 million homes under water, in early 2008 closer to 8 million homes and in early 2009 closer to 16 million homes under water, close to doubling the number of homes under water. This is why more of the morgage securities become bad assets with each passing year, as their underlying assets the mortgages become high risk for default. During the third quarter the number of homeowners under water, or owing more than their homes were worth, were 11.8 million, and by the end of 2008, 13.6 million, according to Moody's Economy.com They are growing at close to 1.8 million every quarter, or at the rate of over 7 million a year. Which at this rate would reach 21 million homes under water by early 2010, if one assumed that government help only worked to offset the impact of further deterioration of housing prices, by lowering payments for some homeowners. A new housing rescue plan was announced March 4, 2009. This will supplement the $75 billion announced earlier. This plan announced March 4, 2009, is expected by the Obama administration to cover 9 million homeowners. Borrowers who face severe financial hardship that may cause them to lose their homes, are required under this plan to sign affidavits attesting to this. They will in then see their loans modified, payment periods lengthened, and interest rates dropped to as low as 2%, to bring the monthly payment down to 31% of income, the number that experts say is appropriate for sustainable payments. Only first lien mortgages, and homeowners who live in these homes and not homeowners who use them as investments, will qualify. The outstanding principal balance cannot be over $729,750. As incentives loan-servicing companies will get upto $3500 from the government, and the government will also match a portion of the ender's costs dollar for dollar. Homeowners get $5000 in government money to reduce their outstanding balances, as an incentive to them to stay current on these modified mortgages. The administration plans to announce plans to those holding second mortgages on their homes, who have difficulty modifying them. The other component of the plan is for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to refinance loans for borrowers who are under water, owing more than their homes are worth, even if they are wealthy enough to afford current payments. There is no income ceiling for this part of the plan. And these mortgages have to be held or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, with homeowners not owing more than 105% of the current value of their homes. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
On October 30, Sheila Bair heading the FDIC, the main advocate for reducing foreclosures by reducing the mortgage payments is in discussions with Treasury officials for a plan whose details are still being worked out. A key part of it is for the government to assume half of the losses on home loans that are incurred if mortgage companies agree to lower monthly payments for at least 5 years. The cost to the government is about $50 billion that would come from the $700 billion bailout fund. Right now loan companies are reluctant to reduce monthly payments because homeowners might defaul again or the owners of mortgage securities might file law suits. The funds would go to shoulder half of any future losses on default. For example if under a loan modification program 40% redefault and losses on loans are 55%, and $500 billion in loans are modified under the program, the total losses government would bear are $55 billion. This scenario is possible in a deep and prolonged housing and economic slump. This would be a gradual program if mortgage companies or companies with home loans or servicers of loans have to decide if they want to take advantage of this program, and time is critical as the foreclosures are accelerating and thisputs downward pressure on prices....

LyrArc Article Gist
It took a long time for the banks to understand what is in their best interests is in the best interests of the country's economy and homeowners, something Sheila Bair has been saying since the beginning of this year and implementing at IndyMac. Its just too costly for banks to use the foreclosure process to recover their money and it makes much better financial sense on the bottomline of banks and for the economy to make home payments affordable. Because the worse home prices get the worse the economy and banks do and nothing drives home prices down like foreclosures. The Bank of America settlement for Countrywide with state attorney generals to modify loans for 400,000 homeowners because of predatory lending practices also set the direction. Chase Bank is now using the Bair template to get the monthly payments down to an affordable level which is about 40% of the current payment by reducing interest rates and using a smaller loan balance and keep homeowners in their homes. Chase's plan will help 400,000 homeowners and will also help homeowners who are having difficulty making payments. It will put a 90 day hold on foreclosures till the program is put in place. Yet there is one problem. Only $350 billion of the 1.5 trillion in home mortgage it services are owned by Chase, the rest are owned by investors in the form of mortgage securities. It can do little for homeowners covered by these securites that are owned by hedge funds and other funds as a few of these funds oblivious of the overall interest including their own have threated to sue if loans are modified, and it would take some time to figure out who owns each security and what the terms are for modifying loans for that security. Its this part of mortgage securitiization that has slowed down a rational process of unwinding this problem throughout housing by making homeowners monthly payments affordable. And Fed's Bernanke did not come to grips with this point in his talk about mortgage securitization to UC Berkeley on October 31,2008, that mortgage securitization done in a way that make loan modification difficult is dangerous as it is today, and makes a crisis bigger than it otherwise would be, and turn a USA crisis into a global crisis through ricotcheting effects and a series of bad decisons....

LyrArc Article Gist
Some figures on the foreclosure situation. 2.3 million Americans faced foreclosure proceedings in 2008, 81% increase over 2007. 860,000 properties were repossessed by lenders, more than double the 2007 level, according to RealtyTRac a foreclosure listing firm in Irvine,, California. Moody's Economy.com predicts the numbers to go up 18% in 2009 before slowing through 2011. That is 2.71 million foreclosures in 2009. To prevent the foreclosure levels from getting much worse as unemployment drops, the new administration plans to use upto $100 billion of the remaining $350 billion TARP funds to help homeowners. The 4 states hardest hit are Nevada, Arizona, California and Florida. More than 1.1 million properties there received foreclosure notices, almost half the total nationwide. The hardest hit areas are in California, with the metro areas worst hit in order are Stockton, California, Las Vegas, Nevada, Riverside and Bakersfield, California, and Phoenix. In December more than 303,000 properties nationwide received foreclosure notices, up 40% from year ago month, and 17% above November 2008. At 303,000 the yearly rate is 3.6 million foreclosures or higher for 2009, so the Moody's estimate for 2009 must take into account acceleration of steps to help homeowners with the new administration. Are the rather modest steps taken upto now helping? RealtyTrac analysts estimate that without a state law requiring lenders to give borrowers a 30 day warning before starting the foreclosure process, the foreclosures in California would be 10% higher. There are similiar state laws in Massachusetts and Maryland. Throughout 2008 few steps were taken by the Bush administration to slow foreclosures, even though Republican economists like Martin Feldstein repeatedly advocated this. See links to Feldstein and Sheila Bair of the FDIC who also advocated aggressive action, and providing the numbers to show that it was costlier for lenders to see borrowers go into foreclosure compared to reducing principal and interest payments significantly. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
How bankruptcy courts can offer a solution to the foreclosure crisis or at least mitigate its effects on the economy and on people. Senator Durbin of Illinois is expected to introduce legislation to put this into effect. It was adopted as a Chapter 12 provision to save farmowners in distress in Iowa in the 1980's, and helped keep many farming families on the farm in that situation. Not all families would be helped as some will not be able to make even the reduced payments given by a bankruptcy judge. But it gives bankruptcy courts the authority to cut through all the red tape and reluctance of bankers and mortgage securities owners to take the initiative and reduce payments, and in the end may actually generate more money for lenders than foreclosure, which has high costs on several dimensions. One cost and one dimension that is not considered is the cost to the economy and to all businesses, from retail to other products, as foreclosures lead to declines in housing prices. This leads in a downward spiral to more homeowners going under water with their homes being worth less than the mortgage, and this in turn leading to foreclosures that lead to further house price declines. The decline in housing prices adds to the incentive to save and reduce spending, which leads to inventory buildup and layoffs. This is why the situation cannot be seen in isolation, and becomes an area where interests of individual parties like lenders and securities holders tend not to be maximized when they follow their personal interest. And there is no party that can take the collective interest in this case except the federal government. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Applebaum talks to two researchers at the University of Chicago and Princeton, Prof. Sufi and Prof. Mian, on the record of U.S. president Obama and Fed chairman Bernanke in helping homeowners facing foreclosure and underwater borrowers, comparing that record with their record in helping the banks. The issue is relevant as the policy and handling of homeowners had to be part of an overall effective plan for recovery in the U.S. economy, because ultimately without the U.S. consumer any recovery would be weak in the long run- a situation the U.S. faces in early 2014. The response to the issue of irresponsible homeowners borrowing beyond the limit without an equally robust response to irresponsible bank management that allowed wildly excessive leveraging of assets, and successful aggressive lobbying by banks in a shortsighted policy of going through with a wave of foreclosures; besides creating questions of fairness and equitable handling of the problem, also had major ramifications for the future of the U.S. and global economic growth. Here Christina Romer and other administration advisors say Bernanke was right in tackling the problem from the perspective of the banks needing to be recapitalized. Thoughtful advisors looking at the entire problem, Martin Feldstein and Sheila Bair strongly pushed for providing the same help to homeowners without getting caught up in the issue of who was responsible home buyers or the banks, and looking at the interests of the U.S. economy and the U.S. people. Proposals by Feldstein and Bair were equally robust in helping banks as they were in helping homeowners, only the banks understood their interests narrowly and had more access to policymakers in the Bush, as well as the Obama administration, Paulson as well as Geithner. This leaves us with the ultimate irony of the Obama administration pushing for the minimum wage, even to the point of electoral posture, when lasting damage had been inflicted on homeowners from the weaker portions of America's middle class by a policy that went against what two respected financial and economic experts from the Reagan period, Sheila and Bair had strongly advocated. See links and groups on Feldstein and Bair. Applebaum has followed most aspects of this problem closely and continues to provide exceptional reporting including the piece on the thinking of new Fed chairman, Janet Yellen. Private enterprise rules that require management at banks just as for other companies to take responsibility for failures, and be replaced with new management, was largely avoided leading to a fundamental failure in how a free market economy such as the U.S. and western European economies are supposed to function. Rules aggressively pushed by Geithner's mentor Treasury Secretary Rubin for a vigorous cleanup at banks in South Korea during a similiar situation in 1997, were not followed in any way here, also setting wrong precedents for the long run. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
As the graph vivdly shows in 2005 and 2006 there is surge in subprime lending to Hispanics and blacks, with almost as many subprime loans to Hispanics and Black people as to whites. It slows down in 2007 by which time foreclosures were starting to take shape. WaMu, Countrywide, Ameriquest and other lenders who pushed subprime lending were backers of an initiative called Hogar which worked to spread lending to redline areas, in what an organization for responsible housing lending calls reverse redlining- in which high cost loans were pushed on those least able to sustain payments for a long time. Previously these areas did not get much lending because of the lack of good credit history.

LyrArc Article Gist
U.S. President Obama's 2013 State of the Union address focussed on the problems facing the U.S. middle class, calling it "our generation's task" to tackle this problem. Economic changes have changed the patterns of economic growth and jobs, growth, income growth, that prevailed from the end of the Second World War to about 1989. But he offered few solutions beyond increasing the minimum wage to $9.00 from $7.25 to reduce poverty.

LyrArc Article Gist
Harold Meyerson poses some difficult questions for those who like Mitt Romney say America's choice is between the merit based society Romney sees and the "European social democratic vision." In Romney's words- "a merit-based opportunity society- an American-style society- where people earn their rewards based on their education, their work, their willingness to take risks and their dreams." Meyerson cites several studies to show that European societies today are more dynamic on several measures of performance than America's. In intergenerational mobility he cites a Brookings Institution study by Julia Isaacs, that shows incomes are three times more likely to remain the same in America compared to Denmark, Norway and Finland, and one and a half times more frequently than in Germany. Another measure evident from Germany's experience is the degree of union-company-government cooperation to worker retraining, corporate boards that have representatives of workers and management, the "kurzarbeit" program of retaining employees to smooth out impact of cyclical swings in the economy on workers and companies, and worker's willingness to show restraint on wages especially because management wages are not way out of line as in America. Meyerson reminds readers that the U.S. had a more merit based society in terms of upward intergenerational mobility, distribution of rewards of work between workers in manufacturing and service sectors and management, educational mobility with the G.I. bill, in the first 30 years after the Second World War. In a separate article in the Washington Post on Jan. 5, 2012, David Ignatius poses questions about the effects of globalization in shrivelling the middle class. The access to lower wage manufacturing in China, India, Mexico, and other countries, and lowering of wages in the U.S. to be competitive, was part of globalization. The two tier wage structure in the U.S. automobile industry is one example, making middle class wages a thing of the past. Globalization opened up new markets for American companies. Yet many of the gains in employment were made in emerging markets, as the example of GM's expansion in China showed, with automobile manufacturing expansion inside China....

LyrArc Article Gist
One big concern says Nancy Keates of the WSJ about the National Association of Realtors, is that the organization collects and puts out objective data about home sales, and at the same time provides a commentary on the statistics. It also has a mission to advance the interests of its members. There are 2.6 million licensed real estate agents, and NAR represents about 1.3 million of these real estate agents. Would the real estate agents and the NAR tolerate an economist who raised concerns about the boom in lending? David Lereah, is former chief economist for the NAR ,and worked there from 2000 to April 2007. He remained upbeat throughout these years, even when the market was headed downwards. And the way he sees it he was doing for 7 years everything the NAR wanted him to do, and he was pressured to issue these upbeat reports. Critics called him "Baghdad Dave", after a Iraqi information minister for his false upbeat reports even when the war on the Iraqi side was lost. And a Credit Suisse analyst called him Liar-eah for some of these upbeat assesments, when things were clearly going wrong. The way Nancy Keates sees it this economist was eager to profit himself in the boom years. He was an economics Professor at Rutgers, at the University of Virginia, and later an economist and regulator at the Federal Deposit and Insurance Corporation. He himself bought condos 2 in Washington in 2003 and 2004, and one each in Tampa, Richmond, Va. and Alexandria, Va. and Naples, Florida. Owning by 2006 six condos worth between $150,000 and $400,000 a condo. He had an expensive lifestyle says his wife, with a big house worth $780,000, a country club, sports fishing boat. So in some ways suggests this reporter, he was caught up in the boom himself with his investments and the demands of a expensive lifestyle, with little room left for independent opinion and analysis. This is a striking example of things gone wrong, with all the meticulousness and comprehensiveness with which data is collected having its value destroyed by the lack of strict objectivity in the analysis. And the intrusion of strong personal interest bias in one direction making the destruction of objectivity complete. Looking at the economists at companies and associations, there is a subtle bias in operation that needs to be discounted by CEO's and association heads, a bias for giving the CEO's better and optimistic assessments on a consistent basis. An example is the way a large number of economists see the recovery taking place in 2009. Another related example is the sales forecasts for the Detroit auto companies that continued to assume sales in the 16-17 million a year rate into the latter half of 2008, even after the Bear Stearns collapse in March and the increasing foreclosures suggested something was amiss. All with horrendous consequences for the companies or industries involved, and the US and global economies....

LyrArc Article Gist
How 13% unemployment is affecting Lawrence, Massachusetts, with a heavy Latino population, heavier concentration of foreclosures and poorly managed finances, and high rate of unemployment that affects those with high school diplomas, and younger people. Unemployment nationwide is 7.3% among whites and 10.9% among Latinos. And places like Lawrence have a young and undereducated population, with the unemployment rate for teenagers at 21.6% and for those without a highschool diploma at 12.6%. Surprising as it may sound the town was going through a revival before this happened suddenly without warning. It was a fading industrial city 25 miles northwest of Boston. A new $110 million high school, three new grade schools, and a renovated city hall. And a developer refurbished several abandoned mills along the Merricmack River, and leased out 1.4 million square feet to some 200 companies employing 2000 workers.

LyrArc Article Gist
The median net worth of Hispanic and Black families has been severely affected by the recession. Because minorities hold a much larger part of their assets in household equity the foreclosure crisis and the recession have had a devastaing impact on both minority groups. The median net worth of Hispanic families dropped by two thirds and black families by half after the 2008 recession from the 2005 figures, and was around $6000 for 2009 for both groups, according to data from the Pew Research Center. The Pew report shows median net worth of a white family is 20 times that of a black family, and 18 times that of a Hispanic family, with the gap between these minorities and whites twice as large in 2009 compared to the period before the recession in 2005. This was even true for Asian American families, whose median net worth dropped by half from 2005 to 2009, to $78,000. The figure for whites dropped much less from $135,000 to $113,000 during the same period. Another significant finding is that within each group the share of the wealthiest 10% of the people increased between 2005 and 2009, for all households this went up from 49% to 56%, for Hispanics from 56% to 72%, for Blacks from 59% to 67%....

LyrArc Article Gist
The impact of foreclosure in one Detroit neighborhood called Boston-Edison, where Henry Ford once lived and how the residents who have a neighborhood association going back many years to the 1920's are coping. The human consequences of foreclosures for a neighborhood. How could either side win, the lenders or the borrowers in a foreclosure situation and the need for the government to step in and bring some sense to the whole thing before it sinks both and blights towns and neighborhoods across America. One home bought for $179,000 in April 2006 was sold in the Boston-Edison area for guess how much, $6,500. Which shows that by the time thieves who for the copper and metal mining of these homes can destroy tens of thousands of dollars in value in minutes, and the deterioration of the neighborhood with crime and boarded up looks, and the very presence of foreclosures on each street destroys enormous amounts of value so that in this case the bank and its lenders got how much, less than $6500 or less than 4% of its original price. Repeated all across America this just does not make sense. Just as it never made sense for those who benefitted from the housing boom to say that subprime lending was a good thing because it brought home ownership to the less well off. Only lending that is at rates that are reasonable and considers the borrowers true finances, and on ethical and fair terms can be good lending and only government regulation designed to be easily enforceable and keeps lenders responsible, can ensure that this happens, as a free market is not good for this sort of thing. And this is all the more true for lending to those who are less well of because their ability to screen these contracts and their wording is not adequate and their own understanding of their finances inadequate. Barclay's Capital estimates that there are 811,000 bank owned homes in the USA, up from 129,000 in 2006, and predicts that it will grow by 60% before peaking in late 2009. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
Feldstein says that the $700 billion plan to buy impaired assets will not prevent an overshooting downward in house prices, as more people have negative equity in their homes, rising to 40% of all mortgages at some point; and leading to a cycle of foreclosure and further price declines. This will only decrease the value of the mortgage securities that Treasury seeks to take off the hands of banks. And without direct government help in form of lowcost loans, say 2%, the cost of capital for the government, for 20% of the loan upto $80,000; more and more homeowners will have negative equity in their homes. This will lead to more foreclosures as housing loans are not full recourse, so that only the house is lost and the homeowner can move to an apartment and carry on from there. Thw size of this program would be $1 trillion but it gives the government income from the loans made and these would be full recourse loans so the taxpayer is protected. In Feldstein's view the current plan does not address declining house prices which is the root of the problem. ...

LyrArc Article Gist
An analysis done for the Wall Street Journal by real estate portal Zillow.com, shows the median down payment in nine major U.S. cities rose to 22% in 2010 on properties purchased with conventional mortgages. Banks favor higher down payments today because it reduces the chances of delinquencies. Median down payments were at about 20% in 1990, then the payments declined in the nine cities Zillow looked at: Chicago, Stockton, Las Vegas, Miami, Phoenix, San Diego, San Francisco and Tampa. The drop went as far as 4% in 4th quarter 2006, and in some places close to zero. Experts say these are the markets where more home buyers are under water. A 2009 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St Louis shows that buyers with smaller down payments are more likely to default in unfavorable economic situations. A contributing cause of the 2008 sub-prime mortgage crisis was the very low down payments. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation chairwoman Sheila Bair, says she supports minimum 20% down payments....

LyrArc Article Gist
What is happening here appears to be that the whole American system of government as it operates today has some serious weaknesses, which if exposed in a critical situation- and with some life threatening situation for an industry group- can subvert the whole system and the economic life of the country. The serious weaknesses are the lobbying of Congress that is legal, and the financing of Congressmen and Senators election campaigns by industry groups which is legal. The life threatening situation for an industry group are the accounting rules and nuances that require that the banking and financial industry that holds these mortgage home loans, if they change one loan to lower payments in one geographic area, have to then show the lowered value of that loan in their books on all other loans of that type in that geographic area. Without this the banks and financial institutions were already or close to insolvent with losses of over $1 trillion. With that accounting change the industry losses would make large parts of the industry insolvent. This becomes incentive enough to fight loan modifications at all costs for the industry, and explains why Hope for Homeowners has generated only 25 loan modifications when it was advertised to generate 400,000. This creates a once in a lifetime or once in a hundred year chance of the whole system of democratic government working to destroy the economic life of the country. How? By providing a big enough reason for the banking and financial industry to fight loan modifications almost to the death, against even their better judgement when in late 2008 and January 2009 this would mean suicide for the economic life of the country, and the chance that they would both go down into the depths, the industry and the boat that is the American economy. This is what this story tells us, all key Congressmen and Senators were taken into their fold by the lobbying groups with large donations to their election funds, both Republican and Democrat, Shelby, Frank, Dodd, Durbin, and their aides. After Hope for Homeowners program failed, the new Hope Now program was again designed with the connivance of lawmakers in both parties by the banking industry representatives. It was designed so it would largely fail by not doing enough to keep homeowners in their homes. The industry faced with a life threatening situation did the wrong thing. Instead of saying lets get the government to help to change the accounting rule, and advocating that the government join the industry to share the losses and go out aggressively to restructure the loans in a three way loss sharing arrangement with homeowners, government and the industry, the industry instead decided to stick its head in the sand and let nobody do anything period. To do this it had to create the illusion that somehow the problem would fix itself with housing recovering on its own. In addition to the donations many Republicans like Preston, Secretary of HUD with oversight of FHA, and others in the Bush administration, may have had the mistaken notion that somehow the housing industry would recover without much help, that the economy was basically still healthy, that the crisis was not as bad as it appeared, that freemarket principles were still the best guide, and that toxic assets of banks and foreclosures were two entirely different things, with foreclosures for those who had borrowed recklessly not a bad thing....

LyrArc Article Gist
Kristof says social ills- the lack of stable marraiges, drug use, poor day care resources- compound the problems of lack of education beyond high school in America's white underclass. The lack of good manufacturing jobs and lower wages have hit people with only a high school education the hardest. Two decades of decline in good manufacturing jobs with globalization have hit this part of the population in the U.S. hard creating increasing inequality in America. He sounds a Moynihan type call to the plight of America's poorest white communities.

LyrArc Article Gist
Krugman points out that the federal tax rate for the top 1% is 34% in 2013, according to the Congressional Budget Office, because president Obama let the high end Bush tax cuts to expire. It is the number to remember says Krugman- 34. In 2008 the figure was 28.2. Under Hillary Clinton the average tax rate for the top 1% would go up by 3.4 percentage points, according to the Tax Policy Center. Some of this would help pay for the tution plan to provide access to the middle class to public universities. Under populist Trump, Krugman points to the elimination of the inheritance tax and tax rates going down substantially, and no such programs to promote the upward mobility that everyone is talking about, and no way to pay for a big infrastructure building effort for growth and jobs- upward mobility that is the focus of every candidate's election campaign including Sanders, Trump in appealing to older white working class families, Clinton, Ryan, Bush, and others in both parties.   ...

LyrArc Article Gist
The resistance to serious government assistance to make a large impact on foreclosures stems from arguments like these. They only tell one side of the story, as the mortgage industry and politicians pushed high cost loans on minorities like Hispanics and Black people who did not understand the risks, and dispensed with even the basic requirements for ability to pay on a sustained basis. Instead pushing them into higher amount loans which raised the chances of aquick default on the loan. See the link to this, a detailed article on Hispanics experience in the WSJ, with a graph that shows that more subprime loans were made to minorities than whites in 2004 and 2005, and especially to Hispanics. The other thing about this is that its a very shortsighted approach and one that will end up costing more money. Its also ending up having effects on the global economy which comes back to affect US exports, and make this a severe prolonged downturn that could last anywhere upto ten years if its not tackled in its most serious dimensions, with this one being crucial. Its crucial because the bank bailouts which are approaching a trillion dollars as the bill mounts after each passing month, and the lack of lending thats crimping businesses and leading to huge job losses of 500,000 a month are directly a result of the inability to fix this problem. Its like trying to find out who started the fire when irresponsible borrowers, speculators, the mortgage industry, the credit rating agencies who signed off on irresponsible securtization, the regulators who fell asleep on the job, and central bankers and treasury secretaries who lauded the innovation and the depth and sophistication of the US financial system ignoring the risks of too much liquidity in markets, all lit the matches that got the fire going. The longer the fire burns and bigger it gets, the harder it becomes to put it out the and more fire fighting resources it will take....

LyrArc Article Gist
David Stockman was Budget Director under President Reagan and known for his prodigous grasp of statistics in the national budget. Here he takes on what he describes as disproportionately large and destructive banking system for the U.S. economy, which he says the nation desperately needs less of. He supports the small tax of 0.15% of the debts other than deposits of financial conglomerates. His words are some of the strongest yet to come from one of the most prominent people on Reagan's economic team about how the nation's banking system has beome unproductive in supporting economic activity which is its reason for existence. The destructive effects on social cohesion and the middle class is emphasized. He says for years the Fed has run an insanely loose monetary policy that has encouraged this behaviour and socially detrimental profit seeking by the banks and other companies. He sees the big banks as dangerous institutions in today's economy engaged in a bull market culture which believes in entitlement and profitseeking behaviours regardless of its detrimental nature for the national economy. The recent profits of the banks in 2009 and the resulting bonuses are a result of the Fed's easy money policy and bank's gambling at the Fed's monetary casino as he puts it, with money obtained at little cost from Fed-controlled money markets. This article helps to eliminate the distorted perspective in today's climate that paints criticism of splitting up the banks, or otherwise restricting banks in engaging in proprietary trading and risky behaviours, as government interference. As Stockman puts it these banks are already in some sense wards of the state and not private enterprises and this issue is not relevant. The question now is how to set things right and this involves possible solutions such splitting up banks that are too big to fail, restricting risky behaviours and preventing proprietary trading, and other actions as unusual steps for unusual times to get things working back to normal. In other times Stockman would not have said this in an op-ed piece if this were not so....