.
.
A bit. Yes, I can be harsh. Usually it comes in the form of bluntly saying something. My women have not always liked how I do or say things. Sometimes I do so with purpose. I have little time, interest, or belief that tickling the right conclusion or an admission or understanding is possible. Like a surgeon, I look over the proposed topical field, I asses my vocabulary and logic, and I assert it. I am usually this way with men. For men, even if the debate gets hot, it is how we operate. We are not delicate, at least in the areas of ideas, save if we might have a huge pony in that race. Even then, with men, it is best to put on shield, armor, and helm, grab the sword, axe, and javelin, and go out and hit it. Well, save for those metrosexuals, reporters, educators, and such who have never been exposed to real debate, or even a fist fight. Though they, like the most recalcitrant of women, are not worth any efforts and I have written those types off.
I like to take my time with women. Many of them do not think... directly. Their ideas of fairness and softness really are a part of who they are. If those can be kneaded and coaxed, if their emotions can be dealt with to allow logic, and if a little time to allow them to grasp something new in the hardness of life, women do fine, perhaps even better than some men who simply think they are right, who do not have the capacity, for whatever reason, to turn that corner. Sometimes, however, time and patience are at a premium. And, again, sometimes I am simply not cognizant of the dissonance between us. (Women build up passive-aggressive tendencies in this phase like static electricity on carpets... luckily, I enjoy a surprise tingle once in a while... *zap* "Do it again, mommy!")
Though I believe in the law, I do not believe in it absolutely. That is a fools errand. I do believe more in the spirit of the law, both as a citizen and as a Christian. First their were prophets, then their was the word written for us, then there was the Living Word who excoriated those who worshiped the false idol of the absolute written word of law and ignored what that law meant. He killed that false religion by proving He was beyond it. He is an example, not an exception. Beyond, He proved we have nothing to fear. Nothing.
Have I no heart? Of course I have heart. I feel, bleed from it, and suffer for it. But I do not allow it to tempt my feet from the path I know to be true either. Just as with logic, a fine tool, but merely a tool. Do not get lost in that, or law, or pure justice, or anything. Choose wisdom and use these other tools on the path of wisdom. That should suffice my bit for the moment. Just... clearing the baffles.
Interesting you should suggest that some have lost their ability to reason when discussing what centuries of contract law and real property protections require, and then suggest here that reason and logic is not all it's cracked up to be when it doesn't *feel* right.
ReplyDeletePeople should not get free houses. Agreed, period.
However banks should not, no absolutely not be permitted to trash the very critical legal protections to ownership of private property that have been developed carefully over much time, dating from feudal times and before, and designed explicitly to protect the powerless from the predations of the powerful.
The bankers in this country shot themselves in the foot for the sake of expediency. They do not need to be protected from the consequences of their actions.
Read Jesus' condemnation of those who steal the houses of widows and orphans if you need a moral reference.
Quoting Denninger here:
ReplyDeleteSubmitting false witness testimony is a felony in most states. This is not just a matter of "not proving ownership", it is a matter of criminal conduct. And undertaking criminal conduct for the purpose of making it "easier", "faster" or "cheaper" to do something doesn't change the underlying issue one iota - indeed, it goes directly to motive all on it's own, and provides what is known in legal parlance as mens rea - that is, "the criminal mind."
We are right to point to the CRA as the catalyst that started the banks down this road, but we cannot dismiss, minimize, or overlook what they have done since then.
We have some things in common and some things not. Banks, absolutely, should be held accountable. The people who made the decisions and those who acted on those decisions who should have known better, should be punished. Further, politicians who made every effort to allow that and promised protection if the banks would become socialist tools should be prosecuted. This, for the most part, has nothing to do with owners. Few owners have been impacted by that, itself, other than having prices boom through the socialist tool loan practices of banks under the guidance of poor governance. The paperwork, for many of them, means nothing. They simply cannot pay. Who they should, could, or would pay is irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteAs for crippling the banks, while that sounds good, that is merely a nihilist's dream. Sure, stop the foreclosures. Create a bank holiday which would leave many without access to money, most of whom have no food stores, which would make even obtaining gasoline for travel or other methods of travel to somewhere to hold up impossible. You are asking for TEOTWAWKI. Unless, of course, that is the goal? Maybe that is the point?
What will be done is, these laws will be suspended and the legislation grandfathered. What else occurs depends on how much risk to complete social upheaval, economic collapse, or other dire situations would occur with any other plan. Perhaps some scape goats, guilty or not, will be sacrificed in various types of courts. Perhaps oversight will be implemented. Perhaps interest rates will be allowed to rise to where they should be. But do not expect any political group who gains power to do anything like completely bottle-necking the world economy because of even the most atrocious of paperwork issues. The cost is simply too high.
Like it? I don't have to like it. Prefer it? Maybe, given the real scope of things, and as I understand things. I don't think Christ ever supported anarchy. As I see it, that is the goal of closing almost every bank in the world.
So then you are a firm believer in the principle of "Too Big To Fail"?
ReplyDeleteI see.
Well at least we have established that.
The paperwork *is* the issue because in the bankster's frenzy to generate the missing paperwork they so carelessly shredded for the sake of expediency, many people who have paid off their mortgage or who owe very little remaining on it, some who are not in default per the terms of the missing note, and some who *never even had a mortgage from the foreclosing entity in the first place* are getting swept up in this mad orgy of fraud and have been losing their homes!
In this country, our system of jurisprudence is geared to ensure that no innocent person is unjustly punished, even at the cost of some of the guilty going free. The wholesale fraud being perpetrated by the banks is turning this principle on its head, and I for one would rather see some undeserving deadbeats keep their home than for a *single person* to be unjustly deprived of their property.
How would you reverse these laws? What lesser standard of proof would you accept to establish the obligation? Given the banks demonstrated willingness to commit wholesale forgery, how much injustice would you be willing to tolerate for the expedience of letting the TBTF skate for another day?
As for TEOTWAWKI, there is no need for that. A foreclosure freeze does not guarantee a bank holiday. Until the law is changed, the banks will continue to "mark to fantasy", keeping their books looking good In fact several major banks have voluntarily frozen their foreclosure proceedings because of the revelation of the depth of their fraud. Their stock is falling, as it should, but none of these have shuttered their doors yet.
Failing to shield the banks from the consequences of their actions only means that lawsuits against the banks from the MBS holders go forward, foreclosure proceedings continue to go against the banks whenever a freeze is lifted, and banks will have to, one by one, deal with the fallout. Some will go into receivership, some may have enough excess capital reserves to weather the storm. The depositors at those that are shut down are protected by FDIC, and usually have their accounts transferred to a different, solvent bank.
Now if they *choose to*, they could wreak the kind of havoc that you describe, and in fact it was in September 2008 they threatened that very thing in order to get their TARP bailout. Who is responsible then?
The main difference we have, to this point, is what we believe "too big" means, or what might cause it. You believe our economy can handle handing out houses. You do not think a 6 month to one year stoppage to foreclosures would crush the economy, let alone the rifling (just or not) of every home (or all?) loan that has occurred for... how far back? would not damage a fragile economy. Come now. By the way, what is too big for you? And, what do you think would trigger it?
ReplyDeleteWhat I predict I still hold to, whether I am fully for it or not. There will be a suspension of laws, grandfathered (but not going forward). I do believe a very rigorous system will be put in play for the falsely accused homeowners to litigate their claims. Some heads will roll, some rules will be changed, oversight will become strict (for a while), if I doubt any bank will go bankrupt. I do see mergers to change names and associations. Though all of that will not matter unless quotas for low-income and poorly qualified buyers is not eradicated from code. THAT WAS THE ROOT CAUSE.
What I see you proposing is the completion of that failed code. You seem to think that because banks were forced (read that last comment at Vox's for the codes, someone else did the legwork on that) to offer loans they knew were going to create losses, and then allowed (very probably guided by the politicians who forced the issues) to do wash their hands of the debt in a very dubious manner and make huge piles of tribute for their deeds. I still do not understand why you hate bankers when it was politicians who manipulated banking to it's ends?
Pelosi, Reid, and several others are pushing O for exactly what you are proposing. If that is not a warning that that is the wrong path, nothing else I can say will help. By the way, there are 20 government agencies and 50 or 70 attorney generals offices looking into the matter. Wanna bet the government you hope will do something won't find much? *sigh* I am simply being practical in an assessment of probable outcomes. There is very little of this world, from military, to political, to social that I find all that alluring. We live in a surface world where looks are everything, where you were educated is more than what you know, and who you know is more important than what you can do. Don't expect a lot here.
I used to toe the line that this is all the fault of the CRA and the banks are the victims. That has gradually changed as I have learned more of what the banks have actually been engaged in. And one Steve Sailer has apparently done a lot of background research that puts the lie to the notion that most of this is the result of the banks being forced. Apparently only a *tiny fraction* of this is the result of CRA requirements. I need to track this information down.
ReplyDeleteYou may be right that this will be swept under the rug. Too much crap is. But don't think it won't severely damage some of the things that conservatives hold dear. The land title system will suffer irreparable harm and this is one of the few things remaining that stands firm for individual property rights. Our entire system is deliberately designed with inefficiencies, checks and balances as a bulwark against abuse by the powerful of the powerless. This "arcane" system will function as intended if permitted to.
What I would rather see, *if* we had to clear this via conjuring deliberately shredded promissary notes, is that it happen *only* within the context of a Resolution Trust Corporation receivership, and *only* for this specific round of liquidation. That way no banker is rewarded for his lawlessness, and no deadbeat owner is rewarded for his failure to pay. Take over the banks, figure out who is supposed to pay what, based upon whatever photocopies, electronic scans, whatever still remains, foreclose the non-payers, sell the assets and distribute what is left to the defrauded MBS investors.
Banks that can weather the storm without filing for bankruptcy, will weather it. Those that can't, go into receivership. This way no precedent is set to permit banks to engage again in such wholesale destruction of the land title system as you are proposing.
What is too big, you ask? There is no "too big to fail". That is a profoundly anti-conservative concept, rooted in corporatist/fascist or socialist thinking. The big who fail must fail. Others will spring up in their place. It betrays a lack of faith in the free market to quail at the thought that they will not.
What, do you really believe that if JP Morgan Chase were forced into receivership, that there would not be a large group of investors waiting impatiently at the door to purchase the good parts of their empire at bargain prices and take off with new, healthy banking and investment enterprises? That won't ever happen because, as you know, I wear tinfoil headgear and am firmly convinced that they and their cohort own Congress.
And no, I don't believe a 6 month foreclosure freeze would crush the economy. I've read experts in the MBS industry who think it would be a good thing on balance. The banks have been permitted a carry trade courtesy of Uncle Ben's ZIRP, that is generating the funds they need to continue paying the MBS note rate, so no *real* hazard exists there. And those massive "excess reserves" are still there to cover at least the start of the unwinding of this mess.
What worries *me* for SHTF triggering is the FOREX market and an uncontrolled collapse of the dollar, and/or the uncontrolled collapse of the banking system. *Anything*, including foreclosure freezes that introduces a measure of stability (however dramatic the frozen posture of the participants), is a good thing for avoiding the meltdown scenario in the short term. And long term, legally unwinding the mess correctly via existing bankruptcy statutes.
Answer me this, if a foreclosure freeze were really so damaging, why has Bank of America voluntarily frozen the foreclosure process in all 50 states, and most other major players frozen the process in the 23 judicial foreclosure states? It is very much to their benefit to have done so at this time, else they would not have. Wednesday had me worried. By today I realize that TPTB are still in charge.
I am continuing to read on this matter. Being contrarian, no matter who is put up, I will find their most capable naysayer (don't worry, Krugmen is not among them). I will look for that writer you suggest when I have a bit more time and am in the swing. I see plenty of your points, if I am not completely sold. Sentiment, actually, versus practical. What to do with a broken down, badly rusted, legally troubling car you love albeit without a penny or skill to do a thing about it? I know, it is more than sentiment involved. It is rule of law that dates back, I would guess variously, to when man first reasoned that law trumped chaos regarding ownership and the wealth of nations. That is not lost on me. Then again, nor is the history of that law, and how it was and is implemented in real terms. Kings and governments have always held themselves in exception to it, as abusively as possible more than not.
ReplyDeleteBut of course. Which is why our Founding Fathers put such weight upon the importance of impeccable land ownership records.
ReplyDeleteIt is not the existing system that is rusted or broken. It is that the banks have attempted to bypass it these last ten years via MERS, which is only even a *voluntary* system of promissory note and mortgage tracking. That is to say, the alleged note owner listed in MERS is as likely not the current note holder. Therefore it fails even as a modern substitute, were it even legal.