Wage growth in this country is hosed for another generation while the developing world catches up. We've only had the illusion of prosperity for the last 30 years as private and public debt have spiraled out of control to sustain increased consumer buying power. Yet any leader who suggests that we turn off the spigot and let our standard of living readjust gets tarred and feathered. My question is: do we really need all this plastic shit to be happy? Obviously these people think so.

>> ^Deadrisenmortal:

Is this what capitalism gets you?
The consumer reality...
Real wages have been frozen since the 70s, consumer debt and home foreclosures are at an all time high, and more than 10% of the population is unemployed.
The corporate reality...
Profits have never been higher, more money is spent on advertising than is donated to charities, executive bonuses are in the billions annually.
All of this is clearly evident and still people are more worried about getting $20 off an XBox than they are about the wellbeing of the people around them. We are being sold a lie, materialism is not what benefits the general population, community is what we are missing these days.

Is it some weird sort of *evolution of capitalism in culture, or is it *money, perhaps, that motivates people to act like this?

I'm a salesman in an electronics store. We specialize in cameras. My well-being depends on strong traffic. For every dollar I make the company probably makes 10--if not more. I need those dollars, but I would never want to see a rush of people behaving like this in my store.

>> ^Deadrisenmortal:

Is this what capitalism gets you?
The consumer reality...
Real wages have been frozen since the 70s, consumer debt and home foreclosures are at an all time high, and more than 10% of the population is unemployed.
The corporate reality...
Profits have never been higher, more money is spent on advertising than is donated to charities, executive bonuses are in the billions annually.
All of this is clearly evident and still people are more worried about getting $20 off an XBox than they are about the wellbeing of the people around them. We are being sold a lie, materialism is not what benefits the general population, community is what we are missing these days.

Is this what capitalism gets you?

The consumer reality...
Real wages have been frozen since the 70s, consumer debt and home foreclosures are at an all time high, and more than 10% of the population is unemployed.

The corporate reality...
Profits have never been higher, more money is spent on advertising than is donated to charities, executive bonuses are in the billions annually.

All of this is clearly evident and still people are more worried about getting $20 off an XBox than they are about the wellbeing of the people around them. We are being sold a lie, materialism is not what benefits the general population, community is what we are missing these days.

Your video, TDS: Foreclosure Crisis, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

my parents are getting screwed by this whole situation right now.

they were in escrow on an east coast foreclosure property when GMAC called to say that they're putting the sale on hold. they can get the deposit back but already had to pay for inspections and plane tickets (from california) for the closing.

Bush more than tripled unemployment and then skewed the numbers to cover his ass.

And don't forget the foreclosures.

Rougy, I'm not sure i see the relevance of your comment; "Every loan-shark in the world thanks you for that sentiment". I guess you are equating banks-which are legally bound to expose all costs and penalties before loaning you money-to back street thugs who have no legal constraints and who will resort to physical violence. Also, i am well aware, thank you, how banks-like insurance companies-cover themselves in the event of loss. Relating to the young ladies video,i'm, again, not sure of your comments relevance.
How naive of me not to realise that-as you say; "Debt is their real business. And foreclosure. And repossession". Ofcourse, how silly of me, banks are in the business of ruining any business or individusl they loan money to. They don't want them to succeed and grow. And they certainly don't want these people coming back to borrow more money.Thanks Rougy, you have helped me see that the banks want to kill off all the golden geese that line their pockets.How could i have possibly thought that banks were a necessary part of a growing economy! Forgive me, i was blind but now i see.
With your parting comment; "Yes, bring back the debtors' prisons". You appear to paint me as uncaring and ruthless regarding anyone who gets into debt.This is NOT so. There are many unscrupulous individuals acting in the loan field and they SHOULD be exposed. However, my original view remains intact. When you incur debt you MUST realise that the fates can conspire against you-redundancy/market collapse/illness or any other factors-so it is IMPERATIVE to shop around for the most suitable loan. Read the small print and, most of all, have a back up plan. In an ideal world this young lady should have been able to do what she did. We are NOT, however, in an ideal world. And, until a purely altruistic banking system is put in place-which ofcourse wouldn't work. ("Er, yes sir, my company has gone bust so i'd like another £250k interest free loan,thanks".)We have, sadly, a system which is flawed and imperfect. But, rather than using colourful language and rhetoric (rape. asshole) why don't you give us your solution?

>> ^A10anis:
"did the banks force you to get into debt? Was it their negligence, or yours, that you did not realise you did not have the ability to pay back your debt? and now you blame the bank for giving you the money you were asking for."

Every loan-shark in the world thanks you for that sentiment.

What you don't realize is that the banks do not loan real money. If they have a million dollars in assets, they are allowed to issue ten to thirty million dollars worth of loans. They also have insurance on that imaginary money, so that they can write off their imaginary losses.

Debt is their real business. And foreclosure. And repossession.

I mean, if they really wanted their money back, would they jack up interest rates to 29% on people who are already having trouble paying it back? No, it's just an excuse to rape someone legally.

After they rape people with 29% interest rates, causing them to file bankruptcy, they write off the loss and sell the debt to a collector, who buys the loan for about ten cents on the dollar and makes a living by being an asshole to people and trying to con them into paying him 50 to 80 percent of the original debt.

The credit card biz doesn't need any help. They need a collar on their throats and a boot in the ass.

"Let's not, as seems to be the case these days, have laws that stifle free enterprise because of ignorance and stupidity."

Yes, bring back the debtors' prisons.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'american casino, foreclosures, subprime, homes, pools, mosquitos, wall street, bailout' to 'american casino, foreclosures, subprime, homes, pools, mosquitoes, wall street, bailout' - edited by calvados

Tags for this video have been changed from 'subprime lending, mortgage crisis, financial collapse' to 'subprime lending, mortgage crisis, financial collapse, american foreclosure' - edited by kronosposeidon

You sir, are a FORMIDABLE OPPONENT! I'm flattered that you read my comments so closely and I agree that the term i use: "debt to equity conversion" applies to foreclosure.

I'll concede that I really don't know how much equity is generated by a foreclosure. But if we can't get credit, we need capital. We need clean energy, new infrastructure, competitive exports, but we ran out of borrowing capacity to fund these things. By we I mean the people of America.

Take care netrunner

To some degree we are doing debt to equity conversions to try to reduce the debt of some of our banks, but I don't think it really will help bring back capital for investment. The equity they're getting is in real estate whose prices are collapsing, and is already valued for less than the debt they used to be holding...

Really, I'm not sure what the difference is between "debt to equity conversion" and "foreclosure". They sound awfully similar to me.

Hopefully the no warning renter evictions when the bank forecloses on the mortgage holder should now be coming to an end. This week, Obama signed into law a bill giving tenants who pay their rent on time, the right to remain in their home until the end of their lease, unless the bank sells the property to someone who intends to make it his own residence. Even without a lease, renters must be allowed to stay in their home for 90 days after the foreclosure. The provision is scheduled to expire at the end of 2012.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/22/AR2009052201467.html

The 100-Day Assault on America

by Larry Elder

Has it really been 100 days?

Aided by an eagerly compliant Democratic-controlled Congress, a sycophantic media, and a bunch of squishy Republicans, President Obama has taken the country on a radical, mind-boggling leap into collectivism.

Obama -- to use one of his favorite expressions -- doubled down, no, tripled and quadrupled down on Bush's "stimulus" and "rescue" packages, spending trillions of dollars to "bail out" financial institutions, too-big-to-fail businesses, and even deficit-running states. Obama promises to use taxpayer money to rescue "responsible homeowners" -- whatever that means -- from foreclosure, thus artificially propping up prices that shut out renters who would love to buy now-much-cheaper houses.

Obama proposes spending billions (or trillions?) more on "creating or saving" -- whatever that means -- 4 million, 3.5 million or 2.5 million jobs. Pick a number. Given the government's vast business expertise, Obama proposes spending gobs of money to "invest" in green jobs. And he's just warming up. He wants taxpayers to guarantee, presumably to all who request it, a "world-class education" -- whatever that means.

Firmly in charge of much of the domestic car industry, Obama effectively fired the CEO of General Motors. He threatens to fire still more executives in the parts of the financial services industry currently under the management, direction or control of Uncle Sam -- that eminent, well-regarded banker.

Obama blames the financial crisis on "greed" and the "lack of regulatory oversight." Funny thing about greed. Celebrated investor-turned-Obama-supporter/adviser Warren Buffett says, "Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful." Apparently, some practice good greed, while others engage in greedy greed.

As for regulation, the SEC already heavily regulates most of the troubled financial institutions. The world's largest insurer, AIG, operated under heavy regulation. The government-sponsored entities Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae -- blamed for irresponsibly buying, packaging and selling bad mortgages -- are regulated by a government agency, called the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. Its sole responsibility is to oversee those two agencies. OFHEO, shortly before the government takeover of Freddie and Fannie, gave them two thumbs up.

Did the President, after campaigning against pork and earmarks, really sign bills that include both? Yes. Will the President's new budget really triple and quadruple the annual deficit? Yes. Will the President's budget really double the national debt within a few years and then increase still more beyond that? Yes. Do the President and members of Congress, many of whom never operated so much as a T-shirt concession booth, really believe that they can "modernize" health care, thus "saving" taxpayers buckets of money? Yes.

America traditionally represents the greatest possibility of someone's going from nothing to something. Why? In theory, if not practice, the government stays out of the way and lets individuals take risks and reap rewards or accept the consequences of failure. We call this capitalism -- or, at least, we used to.

Today's global downturn reflects too much borrowing and too much lending. But would borrowers and lenders -- at least in America -- have engaged in the same kind of behavior but for artificially low interest rates under the Federal Reserve System? Would borrowers and lenders have acted as precipitously but for the existence of Fannie and Freddie, which bought up their mortgages? Would banks have so readily lent money to those who clearly could not repay it but for the Community Reinvestment Act? That law pressured banks into relaxing their normal lending standards to help low-income borrowers.

Now let's turn to Job No. 1 -- national security. We no longer call the War on Terror the "War on Terror." We no longer call Islamofascist enemy detainees "enemy detainees." The President embarked on an I'm-not-Bush and we're-sorry-for-being-arrogant international tour. To the receptive, admiring G-20 nations, the President flogged America, calling us domineering and overbearing. What did the swooning leaders give in return? Virtually nothing. He wanted more assistance in fighting the war in Afghanistan. The NATO members offered more advisers and trainers, all, mind you, out of harm's way and only on a temporary basis.

The President offered a new relationship with Iran, provided Iranians "unclenched their fist." The President even sent a shout-out video to the Iranians on one of their holidays. What did he get in return? Iran promised to continue its march toward the development of a nuclear weapon and called Israel the "most cruel and racist regime."

Obama offered North Korea a kinder, gentler foreign policy. What did he get in return? The North Koreans, in violation of a United Nations resolution, attempted to launch a long-range missile. The President condemned the act. The United Nations Security Council convened an emergency session. What happened? Nothing. Well, not exactly nothing. North Korea kicked out the U.N.'s nuclear inspectors and announced the resumption of its nuclear weapons program. And North Korea, along with Iran, arrested and imprisoned American journalists.

On the other hand, Washingtonian magazine graced us with a spiffy, Photoshopped cover of a fit and toned swimsuit-wearing President Obama. So all is not lost.

At least he looks good.

How can the Department of Justice threaten the land lord with foreclosure? Is there some kind of connection between the D.o.J. and Banks?