the FEDERAL RESERVE caused this economic crisis

[BmoreBrawler]

So basically the surcharge it put into an insurance "pot" for when people default. Maybe Canadian politicians are different in that possibly the don't rob Peter to pay Paul. You get a better interest rate on a loan depending on proof of income, down payment ability, credit rating, etc. Obviously certain types of loans have different rates. A construction loan to a builder is usually fixed at nine percent, a bit higher than home/car loans. Obviously I'm strictly comparing U.S lending processes to what you have listed. My point being that is doesn't seem too different. Again this whole economic clusterphuck comes from numerous variables and everyone has a different theory. Other than the housing market, because I know alot of builders and realtors, the rest is somewhat beyond me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9tzU...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfascZSTU4o

Accept the theory from the people that predicted this in the first place: Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, and most Austrian School economists. The Fed did it.

[squealpiggy]

Manipulating the economy to get votes isnt conservatism, its socialism

No it isn't. manipulating the economy to get votes is politics. Unless you think that Margaret Thatcher's Right To Buy policies were socialist. Basically Right To Buy meant that anyone living in long term rented council owned housing (which was almost all working class people at the time) had the right to purchase their homes for a small amount of money. Overnight it had two effects: Took local government out of the equation for a sizeable minority of homes and turned Labour voters into Conservatives.

And Thatcher was not any sort of socialist.

[Mizzou]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9tzU...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfascZSTU4o

Accept the theory from the people that predicted this in the first place: Peter Schiff, Ron Paul, and most Austrian School economists. The Fed did it.

Like all macro topics where noone ever has the real answer, I would have to guess it probably isn't that simple.

[BmoreBrawler]

Like all macro topics where noone ever has the real answer, I would have to guess it probably isn't that simple.

It seemed that simple 3 years ago when they predicted it to the sneers and jeers of the court economists.

[BmoreBrawler]

No it isn't. manipulating the economy to get votes is politics. Unless you think that Margaret Thatcher's Right To Buy policies were socialist. Basically Right To Buy meant that anyone living in long term rented council owned housing (which was almost all working class people at the time) had the right to purchase their homes for a small amount of money. Overnight it had two effects: Took local government out of the equation for a sizeable minority of homes and turned Labour voters into Conservatives.

And Thatcher was not any sort of socialist.

That sounds like privatizing public housing. Thats a free-market reform. That is much different than FDR/Bush's "Ownership society" socialism that has no basis in economic reality.

[Mizzou]

That sounds like privatizing public housing. Thats a free-market reform. That is much different than FDR/Bush's "Ownership society" socialism that has no basis in economic reality.

I think by council owned pig means government owned, meaning they sold them property for much less than market value, if I percieved it correctly. That is not a free market policy but a socialist subsidation to low income people which was not what Thatcher was in my limited knowledge of her.

[BmoreBrawler]

I think by council owned pig means government owned, meaning they sold them property for much less than market value, if I percieved it correctly. That is not a free market policy but a socialist subsidation to low income people which was not what Thatcher was in my limited knowledge of her.

True, good point. I guess it depends on how you look at it. The end result, the government getting rid of some land holdings, is far more free market than subsidizing the purchase of private homes, however.

[Mizzou]

True, good point. I guess it depends on how you look at it. The end result, the government getting rid of some land holdings, is far more free market than subsidizing the purchase of private homes, however.

Depends on the value of the subsidation. If people were living rent free or close to it like public housing here(pig did say they rented), then sold them the houses for nothing. Assuming they then owned the houses fully and could sell them at market value. That would be a massive subsidization, equivalent to giving away thousands and thousands of dollars. I guess I have crossed over into a hypothetical situation. I know "****all" about what Margaret Thatcher did with public housing.