Gleichmacher-Ideologie als Ursache der Krise

Die linke Gleichmacher-Ideologie hat uns die Finanzkrise eingebrockt und nicht etwa die Spekulanten der Wallstreet. Man kann den Linken zwar nicht vorwerfen, diese bewusst herbeigeführt zu haben, deren Auslöser aber waren sie allemal.

Schon Carter zwang die amerikanischen Hypothekarbanken per Gesetz, das Hypothekarkredite nicht nur in bestimmten Gebieten vergeben werden dürfen. Damals erhielt ein Amerikaner in bestimmten Gebieten überhaupt keine Hypothek (z.B. in Ghettos). Dahinter steckte durchaus eine gute Absicht. Menschen, die sich sehr wohl eine Hypothek leisten konnten, mussten diese Gebiete verlassen, was die Verslumung noch verschlimmerte. In einigen Gebieten der USA führte dieses Gesetz dann auch tatsächlich zu einer Reduktion der Kriminalität.

Der eigentlichen Verbrecher waren aber die Clintons. Sie senkten die Kriterien für die Kreditvergabe auf 2,5% Eigenkapital ab (Schweiz 20%) und gestatteten den Banken, die Hypothekarkredite in Form von gebündelten Wertschriften (Inmoblienfonds) weiter zu verkaufen. Das Unheil fand damit seinen Anfang. Überall in den USA kaufte sich jeder McDonald-Fittierer ein Haus. Der Inmobilienmarkt boomte, was enorme Renditen auf Immobilienpapiere zur Folge hatte. 

Solange das System sich weiter aufblähte, war auch alles in Ordnung. Irgendwann aber kam die Wirtschaft ins Stocken. Als der Oelpreis dann noch durch die Decke ging, platzte die Blase. Den Rest kennen alle.

Die Boni-Show

Und nun erleben wir wieder klassische linke Politik: zuerst bringen sie den Patienten um und dann schreien sie nach staatlichen Massnahmen*). Zur Zeit konzentriert sich die Propagandawelle auf die Boni. 

Natürlich haben da einige ganz ordentlich abgesahnt - die Banken waren hoch profitabel und das Geld für solche astronomischen Batzen war da.  Doch wenn man die Presse liesst, meint man, dass jeder Schalterbänkler gleich noch eine Million Boni nach Hause getragen hat - dabei sind es 1000 Fr. (aufwärts).

Der Fehler ist nur, dass das Ding bei den Banken “Boni” statt “Grati” heisst. Doch letztlich ist das nur ein Verteilungsproblem innerhalb der Bank. Exzesse müssen die Aktionäre verhindern und nicht der Gesetzgeber. Denn wenn es jemandem am Säckel abgeht, dann eben den Aktionären.

Abzocker gegen das Abzocken

Die eigentlichen Abzocker der letzten Jahren waren auch bei uns die Linken: Gebühren hier, Steuererhöhungen und Abgaben dort. Die Schweiz ist heute alles andere als ein Steuerparadies - zumindest für die armen “Sieche”, die hier leben müssen. Die ganzen Jusos/Studenten der UNI Zürich, die untertags sich die Zeit gönnen, statt zu studieren, die Banken zu besetzen. Auf Kosten des Steuerzahlers.

Weitere Beiträge zum Thema

*) weitere Beispiele:
Zuerst nehmen sie ihre Psycho- und Aromatherapeuten in die krankenkassenpflichtige Leistungen auf, die Prämien steigen, dann schreien sie nach niedrigen Krankenkassenprämien

Zuerst fordern sie eine Busspur, nachher meckern sie wegen dem Stau

Zuerst holen sie via Asylstatut arbeitsfaule und kriminelle Balkanesen ins Land, dann wollen sie mehr Geld für die defizitäre IV

Reacties

The Mortgage Mess and its causes

It's popular to blame this on Clinton, Carter, Bush or whomever. But I - a decided partisan who absolutely loathes Bush - submit this mess is a result mainly of greed, which knows no party lines.

There are two main causes that blamemeisters point to: the CRA, and Clinton's housing initiative in the late '90's. Let me show you how neither one of those is the reason for where we are now.

THE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT ACT ("CRA")
This Act was passed in 1977 during the Carter Administration. Its aim was to get banks to quit "redlining", which means avoiding lending any money to areas of town that were deemed too high a risk. These areas were always areas of minority concentration, so it meant that even those with good credit or good business plans in the redlined area couldn't get credit.

Some would have you believe that banks lent responsibly under this Act for almost 30 years, and then somehow the CRA suddenly mandated that banks make $$$billions of bad mortgages. I think anyone can see the idiocy of that position.

Some would have you believe that changes to the CRA over the years led to these problems. But what they don't tell you is that the CRA's requirements never changed. All that changed in the CRA updates was how the effects of the law were monitored.

In other words, the CRA was never changed to make banks lend more money in low-income areas than they had been required to lend before.

So, if the requirements were never changed, the whole "THE CRA MADE ME DO IT!" line of BS falls apart.

But wait - there's more!

Some will tell you the CRA hurts banks. But the Federal Reserve begs to differ with you. They did a comprehensive study that was released in 1997, and it concluded, "[CRA] lenders active in lower-income neighborhoods and with lower-income borrowers appear to be as profitable as other mortgage-oriented commercial banks". And Ben Bernanke said just last year that "managers of financial institutions found that these loan portfolios, if properly underwritten and managed, could be profitable" and that the loans "usually did not involve disproportionately higher levels of default".

But wait - there's even more!

Even if you grant that the CRA made banks make bad loans, the fact is that only 20% of subprime loans were made by institutions covered by the CRA.

So 80% of subprime loans were made by entities that couldn't care less what the CRA said, because it didn't apply to them.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...stment_Act
http://www.house.gov/apps...021308.pdf

Case closed.

CLINTON'S HOUSING INITIATIVE
In the late '90's, President Clinton urged Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to open up lending and make home ownership possible for more Americans. This, say the uninformed, is what really led to the mess we're in today.

Only one problem...well, several problems, actually. But the main problem with that flawed logic is this:

Most of the defaulted subprime loans were made in 2006 and 2007. If Bill Clinton did something in 1999, why would it take seven years for the problem to manifest?

If Bill Clinton REALLY made Fannie and Freddie make bad loans in 1999, why didn't mortgage defaults rise in 2000? Or 2001? Or 2002? Or 2003? Or 2004? Or 2005?

Again - the vast majority of the defaulted subprime loans that have caused this mess were made within the last two years.

This makes sense, because if someone gets a loan they can't afford, the likelihood they can pay on it for several years before going into default just doesn't exist.

Now, if you REALLY want to place the blame on this mess on Clinton's initiative, then you have to give just as much blame - if not more - to George Bush. After all, he didn't repeal or cancel Clinton's mandate. He let it continue. And most, if not all, of the defaulted loans were made under HIS watch.

But I don't blame Bush for most of this, and neither should you.

Source:

http://online.wsj.com/art...12611.html

WHO DO WE BLAME?
Or more accurately, WHAT do we blame?

Greed.

Investment banks figured out they could make fees buying and selling mortgage portfolios. So, they increased their appetite and demand for mortgages at an exponential rate throughout the mid 2000's.

Mortgage brokers could only make so many "good" loans. In order to keep up with Wall Street's demand, they had to loosen credit standards. And Wall Street said, "Fine with us!"

Before long, there weren't any credit underwriting standards at all. And Wall Street said, "Fine with us! Inflation will solve any default problems, and if it doesn't, we bought insurance with credit default swaps, so we're covered!"

I think you can see the flaw in their logic.

But greed clouds the minds of good men and women. They never considered that home prices might go down, making it impossible for homeowners in a pinch to get out of the mortgage by selling the home.

That led to foreclosures, and you know the rest.

Reageren

Naam   E-mail Mijn url
Voer onderstaande code hiernaast in:
c5ff42
Onthoud mijn gegevens!