The American Eviction Crisis: Countdown to Doomsday

[San Lumen]

the banks would fail and the global financial system would collapse. You'd bankrupt countless business and create even more homelessness and misery than any pandemic ever could.

But despite what any economic expert would tell you you'd deny it and say you know better.

I would love to hear how you think there could possibly be more homelessness if we make it so that everyone gets a home. When it costs $0 to keep your house, what do you think would happen to make people homeless?

If the banks fail where is money going to come from? Or where the 1930s a happy time for everyone?

[Ifreann]

Extremely confused that someone wants to help actual human people and doesn't care about non-human entities that exist only as paperwork, what could possibly motivate this bizarre behaviour?

have you been listening to what im saying? Your idea would completely destroy the global economy and a pandemic would be nothing compared to the misery it brings. But your too blinded by ideology to see that.

Me: "I don't want people to be made homeless"
Lumen: "Your blinded by ideology, you will hurt all the banks!"

[Juristonia]

For someone who regularly complains about hyperbole, he's definitely fond of the "any plan I don't like will implode everything everywhere forever" routine, isn't he?

[Ifreann]

I would love to hear how you think there could possibly be more homelessness if we make it so that everyone gets a home. When it costs $0 to keep your house, what do you think would happen to make people homeless?

If the banks fail where is money going to come from? Or where the 1930s a happy time for everyone?

When it costs $0 to keep your house, how do you become homeless from not having money?

[San Lumen]

If the banks fail where is money going to come from? Or where the 1930s a happy time for everyone?

When it costs $0 to keep your house, how do you become homeless from not having money?

Your plans are beyond impractical and delusional. Canceling all rent and mortgages would mean the banks fail and the global financial system collapses. What part of this do you not get?

[Ifreann]

When it costs $0 to keep your house, how do you become homeless from not having money?

Your plans are beyond impractical and delusional. Canceling all rent and mortgages would mean the banks fail and the global financial system collapses. What part of this do you not get?

The part where people become homeless when it costs them $0 to keep their house. What's going to make them homeless, Lumen?

[Genivaria]

When it costs $0 to keep your house, how do you become homeless from not having money?

Your plans are beyond impractical and delusional. Canceling all rent and mortgages would mean the banks fail and the global financial system collapses. What part of this do you not get?

Can you actually explain what the problem is instead of resorting to hysteria?

[Salandriagado]

When it costs $0 to keep your house, how do you become homeless from not having money?

Your plans are beyond impractical and delusional. Canceling all rent and mortgages would mean the banks fail and the global financial system collapses. What part of this do you not get?

Banking is not dependent on mortgages. Banks have plenty of other revenue sources to keep them going. Indeed, disenganging their activities from such risky things as mortgages seems like an excellent idea (and, indeed, is exactly what they've spent the last couple of decades doing an utterly shite job of doing for themselves).

[Region of Dwipantara]

Your plans are beyond impractical and delusional. Canceling all rent and mortgages would mean the banks fail and the global financial system collapses. What part of this do you not get?

Banking is not dependent on mortgages. Banks have plenty of other revenue sources to keep them going. Indeed, disenganging their activities from such risky things as mortgages seems like an excellent idea (and, indeed, is exactly what they've spent the last couple of decades doing an utterly shite job of doing for themselves).

To be fair, if there are to be significant reforms that will severely impact major financial institutions, this is a pretty bad year to do so.

[Thermodolia]

When it costs $0 to keep your house, how do you become homeless from not having money?

Your plans are beyond impractical and delusional. Canceling all rent and mortgages would mean the banks fail and the global financial system collapses. What part of this do you not get?

Actually it would do the opposite and free the banks from underwriting risky loans.

[San Lumen]

Your plans are beyond impractical and delusional. Canceling all rent and mortgages would mean the banks fail and the global financial system collapses. What part of this do you not get?

Actually it would do the opposite and free the banks from underwriting risky loans.

Why haven’t we done it then?

[Vetalia]

The part where people become homeless when it costs them $0 to keep their house. What's going to make them homeless, Lumen?

For starters, if they can't afford the property taxes or can't afford the repairs to keep the property in good condition.

[Ethel mermania]

Your plans are beyond impractical and delusional. Canceling all rent and mortgages would mean the banks fail and the global financial system collapses. What part of this do you not get?

Actually it would do the opposite and free the banks from underwriting risky loans.

secured loans are the least risky loans a bank writes. You don't pay it, they take the property.

[Vetalia]

secured loans are the least risky loans a bank writes. You don't pay it, they take the property.

Sort of, the problem is they decided to issue debt securities backed by those same loans to earn additional income and then, well, the rest is history.

And of course, if they take enough properties the value of all of them collapse while still being on the hook for the maintenance and property tax costs.

[Ethel mermania]

secured loans are the least risky loans a bank writes. You don't pay it, they take the property.

Sort of, the problem is they decided to issue debt securities backed by those same loans to earn additional income and then, well, the rest is history.

And of course, if they take enough properties the value of all of them collapse while still being on the hook for the maintenance and property tax costs.

That was the way they mixed the paper. If only good loans were in those bonds, the crises might not have happened.

[Fartsniffage]

Sort of, the problem is they decided to issue debt securities backed by those same loans to earn additional income and then, well, the rest is history.

And of course, if they take enough properties the value of all of them collapse while still being on the hook for the maintenance and property tax costs.

That was the way they mixed the paper. If only good loans were in those bonds, the crises might not have happened.

The bad paper still existed and bankers would have still bet on it. The only way to have prevented it was to make issuing bad loans illegal.

[Vetalia]

That was the way they mixed the paper. If only good loans were in those bonds, the crises might not have happened.

Sure, but that was never going to happen with the way things were set up, particularly after Slick Willie and the Republicans pushed through so much deregulation at the top of the bubble in 1999. When the Fed crushed yields in 2001-2004 due to an utterly over-exaggerated response to the collapse of the dot-com bubble/corporate scandals/9/11 the fuse was primed and lit and it was only a matter of time before it blew.

[Ethel mermania]

That was the way they mixed the paper. If only good loans were in those bonds, the crises might not have happened.

The bad paper still existed and bankers would have still bet on it. The only way to have prevented it was to make issuing bad loans illegal.

The paper was bad because the paper was mixed. They all had subprime loans in them, and those were the ones that primarily stopped paying The thing that makes you sorta right is the banks created these bonds to get these loans off their books.

The other way that it would have worked as if the loans were rated properly. If I remember they were a+ (if not aaa) rated bonds that should have been junk.

[Fartsniffage]

The bad paper still existed and bankers would have still bet on it. The only way to have prevented it was to make issuing bad loans illegal.

The paper was bad because the paper was mixed. They all had subprime loans in them, and those were the ones that primarily stopped paying The thing that makes you sorta right is the banks created these bonds to get these loans off their books.

The other way that it would have worked as if the loans were rated properly. If I remember they were a+ (if not aaa) rated bonds that should have been junk.

The privatisation of the ratings agencies did that. And yes, there were junk double and triple a bonds being issued.

[Vetalia]

The paper was bad because the paper was mixed. They all had subprime loans in them, and those were the ones that primarily stopped paying The thing that makes you sorta right is the banks created these bonds to get these loans off their books.

The other way that it would have worked as if the loans were rated properly. If I remember they were a+ (if not aaa) rated bonds that should have been junk.

The problem is the ratings agencies and issuers lied about the quality of the paper that was being sold.

It's not unusual to have multiple tranches in a CDO, even including subprime or garbage debt, but it had reached such an extreme it was outright criminal that the issuers would have ever attempted to pass off such garbage CDOs as even remotely investment grade, the ratings agencies notwithstanding.

[Vetalia]

The privatisation of the ratings agencies did that. And yes, there were junk double and triple a bonds being issued.

The ratings agencies were always privately owned, at least in the United States.

[Fartsniffage]

The privatisation of the ratings agencies did that. And yes, there were junk double and triple a bonds being issued.

The ratings agencies were always privately owned, at least in the United States.

Yes, I'm wrong about that.

[Ethel mermania]

The ratings agencies were always privately owned, at least in the United States.

Yes, I'm wrong about that.

I was going to ask that, is bond rating public or private on your side of the pond?

[Fartsniffage]

Yes, I'm wrong about that.

I was going to ask that, is bond rating public or private on your side of the pond?

I'm honestly not even sure that we have any, despite the size of the LSE. Certainly not any of the size of S&P, Moodys or Fitch.

[Ifreann]

The part where people become homeless when it costs them $0 to keep their house. What's going to make them homeless, Lumen?

For starters, if they can't afford the property taxes

costs them $0 to keep their house.

or can't afford the repairs to keep the property in good condition.

If someone's house becomes unfit for human habitation then we should probably just give them somewhere else to live, rather than force them out on the streets.