the FEDERAL RESERVE caused this economic crisis

[Mizzou]

In Canada mortgages with less than 25% down payment have a slight upcharge added to the mortgage which insures lenders against defaulters. The insurance is backed by the government. The net result is that we don't have anything close to the same level of credit trouble but most people can afford to get on the property ladder. This is a good example of how government intervention can facilitate the free market without having to dictate or censure it.

How does a slight upcharge on top of a normal fee prevent defaults?

[Kojak]

Ben Bernacke is a brilliant guy who was chosen to head the FED. The President doesn't appoint anyone to the Federal Reserve. That's a show for the public. Bernacke studied the Great Depression and knows it inside out. He's there for damage control. This was carefully plotted and they knew it was coming. This was too big for Greenspan and that's why he left.
What's going on is the biggest transfer of wealth in the history of man. They're transferring Billions!!! They're setting everything up in Dubai. That's where a third of the worlds construction equipment is and Haliburton moved their headquarters from Texas to Dubai.
They're setting up a one world government. The best way to do it is through economics. That way it will be done without firing a single shot. Wake up we've been manipulated. Read the link I left in the other post.

[BmoreBrawler]

Or...we could not print more money than ever before in history and therefore make socialist regulations unnecesary.

[BmoreBrawler]

It is a conservative ideal to have as many people as possible owning their homes.

Ben Bernacke is a brilliant guy who was chosen to head the FED. The President doesn't appoint anyone to the Federal Reserve. That's a show for the public. Bernacke studied the Great Depression and knows it inside out. He's there for damage control. This was carefully plotted and they knew it was coming. This was too big for Greenspan and that's why he left.
What's going on is the biggest transfer of wealth in the history of man. They're transferring Billions!!! They're setting everything up in Dubai. That's where a third of the worlds construction equipment is and Haliburton moved their headquarters from Texas to Dubai.
They're setting up a one world government. The best way to do it is through economics. That way it will be done without firing a single shot. Wake up we've been manipulated. Read the link I left in the other post.

I sort of agree with you and sort of dont. Check out this thread I started that deals with the pros and cons of this theory:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=162697

[Jim Jeffries]

It is a conservative ideal to have as many people as possible owning their homes.

The other thing that would help us a great deal right now is to suspend the mark-to-market accounting method that banks are using to keep track of their assets, at least for a few months. The more people that own their own homes the better if those people can afford the payments. A lot of banks were forced into making extremely bad loans, housing prices were artificially inflated and predatory lenders made a killing. Housing prices still need to come down a bit before they can start increasing again like they had the 30 years or so in a row prior to the last couple of years. People can then start feeling like property is a good investment and banks will be more willing to loan on an appreciating asset.

[squealpiggy]

How does a slight upcharge on top of a normal fee prevent defaults?

It doesn't, the small upcharge is an insurance payment. The insurance is backed by the government to lower the risks to the lender resulting in a freer flow of credit to individuals. Essentially anyone making a down payment of 25% or greater is making enough of a down payment to make the risk to the bank basically nil. With the insurance the government will top up the 25% in the event of foreclosure.

Foreclosures still happen of course but the bank has to sustain less of the associated costs.

By and large mortgages are a safe investment for lenders. Most people will pay off their homes regardless of what else they default on. Part of the problem is that US lenders were issuing mortgages with very small amounts of money down to the minority of people who really shouldn't be getting them.

The real issue though has multiple causes.

[squealpiggy]

The other thing that would help us a great deal right now is to suspend the mark-to-market accounting method that banks are using to keep track of their assets, at least for a few months. The more people that own their own homes the better if those people can afford the payments. A lot of banks were forced into making extremely bad loans, housing prices were artificially inflated and predatory lenders made a killing. Housing prices still need to come down a bit before they can start increasing again like they had the 30 years or so in a row prior to the last couple of years. People can then start feeling like property is a good investment and banks will be more willing to loan on an appreciating asset.

Always better for conservatives. People who own property are more likely to be fiscally conservative and will vote accordingly.

[BmoreBrawler]

Always better for conservatives. People who own property are more likely to be fiscally conservative and will vote accordingly.

Manipulating the economy to get votes isnt conservatism, its socialism(at least in the USA). I guess the sort of right wing faith/family/flag European Burkean Conservatism allows for such meddling.

[Mizzou]

It doesn't, the small upcharge is an insurance payment. The insurance is backed by the government to lower the risks to the lender resulting in a freer flow of credit to individuals. Essentially anyone making a down payment of 25% or greater is making enough of a down payment to make the risk to the bank basically nil. With the insurance the government will top up the 25% in the event of foreclosure.

Foreclosures still happen of course but the bank has to sustain less of the associated costs.

By and large mortgages are a safe investment for lenders. Most people will pay off their homes regardless of what else they default on. Part of the problem is that US lenders were issuing mortgages with very small amounts of money down to the minority of people who really shouldn't be getting them.

The real issue though has multiple causes.

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.

[Mizzou]

Always better for conservatives. People who own property are more likely to be fiscally conservative and will vote accordingly.

Fiscally conservative=better money manager=more likely to be financially successful. I don't know if I will ever be classified as fiscally conservative unfortunatley. My brother is the opposite.