The Debate the just ended......

[REIMktg]

I think you are missing the whole point. For many decades now we've deflated our currency (by lowering interest rates) to pretend we are offering stability. In fact we've been really fucking up as a country and now it's home to roost.
It stops working when you can't lower that value any more -- and that's where we are at.

Low interest rates stimulate investment and growth. Yes it makes your money worth less but that is counterbalanced with growth. The problem is that we are spending too much and crowding out that growth. When you are at the lowest rates you can cut Govt spending and have growth.

The dollars real value is based off that interest rate. When we print money it's supposed be backed by debt. Basically the reserve says, o.k. these people want to borrow 10 billion dollars at x percent. Print it - and as we get paid back it increases the value of the next set of money we print off. Sure there will be some defaults but not more than the interest rate we are charging.

If there is a return off the debt then it was a successful investment.

Now what we are doing is just printing money not even backed up by interest. That's what causes inflation. It also causes us as a country to go way deeper in debt because our dollars go way down.

Inflation can be caused by too much in the money supply but there are also other factors. Let me ask you this, if there is too much money in the money supply then how are you accounting for the massive money supply contraction caused by the asset devaluation of housing? Isn't that a multi trillion dollar decrease in the money supply once everything is marked to market?

2.) A new U.S. government dollar backed by gold/silver/real wealth. Our country benefits from interest instead of a bank. It's our ass on the line for the fed reserve money - this way we benefit.

The gold standard restricts true growth - do you think we would have had the massive expansion of the internet and even housing (which you can argue was good for poor communities) without a floating currency? The Gold standard shuts down many massive business cycles but it also restricts productivity and quick allocation of investment resources.

I think a lot of WF is stuck in a bubble of not seeing past this current crisis. I mean look at this chart - does it look like the end of the world?

We can cut spending and grow our way out of the problem - no need for draconian changes in our currency.

 

[REIMktg]

Just a few rebuttals for other readers because it looks like your mind is made up

Actually I am not trolling - I am seriously having this discussion. I could support RP - every candidate has problems. But I see such blind allegiance I thought I would question WF why they love him so much.

Besides, put him in a debate with Obama and I'm pretty sure RP won't be the one leaving the stage in tears.

Not certain about this. The charismatic person can win with quips even without substance. It would be like the nerd against the quarterback - nerd loses even if he is right. He loses because he is a nerd and no one likes him.

He's a smart ass because they've been laughing for 30 years while he's been right. Besides, I think the smartest person in the country should lead. I'd vote for Einstein and I'm sure he was one quirky fuck.

This is wrong. There are number crunchers and then their are leaders - RP may be a number cruncher but he is not a leader. Rarely is the number cruncher a leader - just a fact.

As far as bank profits go, the inflation is irrelivant because 90% of the loan costs them nothing. You buy a house for $100k and get a loan from the bank. The bank puts up $10k. If you default, the bank writes that $90k off and takes the deed for your house ... who won here?

Actually there is a monetary loss to the bank. That is why banks fail. They lend out on fractions and then take hits for the full $90K. The borrower holds the responsibility for committing to a deal they could not keep. That's the banks fault?

Banks, appraisers, markets, lenders, and borrowers were all culpable in the housing crisis. The borrowers knew they were lying on their applications.

Rand is a better "politician" (read: slick speaker) than his father. So there is hope for the future even if you do think the gentile doctor is too harsh on the people who have frauded the American people for decades.

I do not think he is too harsh - I would be much harsher - but I would say it with finesse and charisma - RP cannot pull that off. He should know that - people need to understand their strengths and weaknesses - RP should have a charismatic front person to push his ideas - but he is a narcissist and wants all the glory for himself.

Hmmm, talk about a cocky dumb ass jerk

Greenspan: US Can Pay Any Debt It Has Because It Can Print Money To Pay It - YouTube

Just like the video I mentioned about RP making the point with Bernake about gold being money - the point is lost.

Greenspan is correct in what he is saying - but yes Greenspan is not a leader nor a charismatic person either.

But Greenspan was wrong - the Tea Party almost forced the default by not allowing the extra printing - now that was leadership (right or wrong it was leadership) and would have been interesting

 

[ericchristopher]

I think you are missing the whole point. For many decades now we've deflated our currency (by lowering interest rates) to pretend we are offering stability. In fact we've been really fucking up as a country and now it's home to roost.

It stops working when you can't lower that value any more -- and that's where we are at.

- actually, you can just print more, which was oddly greenspan's response on meet the press last week when deflecting any concern over an ability to pay off debt. could we have a "run" on the national bank if debtors asked to be cashed out all at once? sure. but they'd tank the global economy, and in reality, they (japan, china, etc) probably aren't interested in civic unrest of that nature.

The dollars real value is based off that interest rate. When we print money it's supposed be backed by debt. Basically the reserve says, o.k. these people want to borrow 10 billion dollars at x percent. Print it - and as we get paid back it increases the value of the next set of money we print off. Sure there will be some defaults but not more than the interest rate we are charging.

- the dollar is a fiat currency. it only has relative value. there is no real value.

Now what we are doing is just printing money not even backed up by interest. That's what causes inflation. It also causes us as a country to go way deeper in debt because our dollars go way down.

- it's an effort to stabilize assets and bridge the trade gap, which is fucking huge.

Now the real question is why are we doing this. It's possible that our leaders are just selfish idiots or it's just as possible they are trying to destroy this nation. That destruction gives democrats power, bankers more money, the military/industrial complex big bucks, etc...

So when you need 400 dollars to buy a loaf of bread you lose. BUT the government wins.

BECAUSE

While the dollar is worthless they will do a massive "new deal" type thing. And using debt they will flood trillions into the economy (making that bread 600 a loaf). Then they will jack the interest rates up for borrowing and slash spending.

- you lost me on this part with hearsay, etc, but i appreciate reading your points.

Here is an alternative for you - and what Ron Paul's direction heads.

1.) The federal reserve can stuff it - it's dollar type 1. They can tweak that interest rate and do what they want. We don't control them now either - it's NOT a branch of our government. It's a bank that SOUNDS like it's part of the government. You however MUST spend this money to buy anything. You can't spend peso's or gold.

2.) A new U.S. government dollar backed by gold/silver/real wealth. Our country benefits from interest instead of a bank. It's our ass on the line for the fed reserve money - this way we benefit.

- decent idea. we once had a standard. (channel Nixon, repubs). now we have monopoly. but in truth we have maintained our position in the world, and with a slightly lower 'average wage' would probably be able to return manufacturing to the states. i think the fed and gov would argue just this -- and it's going to piss people off to hear it, but it is what it is. i think much of what the repubs are saying is bullshit scaremongering, and that means i think much of the political banter on this site is bullshit.

but i could be wrong, and i appreciate reading the thoughts here.

some smart cats here, but all in all i think there's an air of 'anti-establishment' in the niche/forum (probably comes with being an entrepreneur), and that bitching is pretty much a constant.

 

[erect]

If there is a return off the debt then it was a successful investment.

The fed bought toxic assets which any sane accountant would just write off.

if there is too much money in the money supply then how are you accounting for the massive money supply contraction caused by the asset devaluation of housing?

As of 4 November 2009 the Federal Reserve reported that the U.S. dollar monetary base is $1,999,897,000,000. This is an increase of 142% in 2 years.[25] The monetary base is only one component of money supply, however. M2, the broadest measure of money supply, has increased from approximately $7.41 trillion to $8.36 trillion from November 2007 to October 2009, the latest month-data available. This is a 2-year increase in U.S. M2 of approximately 12.9%.

Our debt is: $14+ trillion
QE2: $2+ trillion

To answer your question, there was no real contraction. the money supply contracted some because of lost mortgages .. but they printed more than the difference.

Synopsis of the aftermath of the housing bubble: The banks did an accounting write off for the housing bubble (no real money lost, possibly gained due to resell of house and equity stolen), the foreclosed upon lost their equity (real money) and we the people ate the whole thing (dollar devaluation thanks to printing).

If anything above allows you to sleep well at night please say it loud and proud.

Isn't that a multi trillion dollar decrease in the money supply once everything is marked to market?

And now this whole conversation all makes sense. Marked to market is a fraudulent accounting principal made famous by enron which deals with taking estimated profits on long term question marks immediately. Sure a few million of these toxic assets will find their way back into the money supply ...certainly not trillions.

The way out of our fiscal issue isn't complex accounting entries, that's what got us into the problem. Hit the books big daddy, your learning curve is about to get fun.

Actually there is a monetary loss to the bank. That is why banks fail. They lend out on fractions and then take hits for the full $90K. The borrower holds the responsibility for committing to a deal they could not keep. That's the banks fault?

This is inaccurate, that $90k is not real money ... If the loan was $100k and the equity they stole from teh owner was $30k then the banks would have access to $300k to loan out ... and they'd own the house.

Banks have an account at the fed and have access to 10x the amount of this deposit to loan out. If a house forecloses, the bank lost an accounting record, but gained a house. They can choose to do whatever they want (sell for a loss) with that asset but still have access to 10x the amount in their fed account ... which if they chose to deposit teh other $20k just grew.

True, every house didn't have $30k in equity ... enough did that this looting of the american people was very profitable.

the Tea Party almost forced the default by not allowing the extra printing - now that was leadership (right or wrong it was leadership) and would have been interesting

:action-smiley-052:

that's straight from the media my friend. no logical citizen actually thinks that way. There was no chance for a default as greenspan pointed out. It was DC BS and you deepthroated it.

 

[MSTeacher]

we don't have a crystal ball that shows how the economy would react to a RP presidency

Our haste to get some extreme change into play may well be a worse go at things than our current path to ruin. Some of RP's economics are simply antihistorical and spell destruction in the current economic climate. Then again others sound pretty good. Not saying there's anyone better kicking around.

We can look at history to see the failure of our current system. Pay close attention to US post Nixon taking us off of the gold standard.

I hear this a lot and people seem to think this is a be all end all event. If there is any single thing to note in this regard it is the ending of gold settlements by central banks around the world, tying international currencies to a set of fixed parities. This implementation proved very stable for world economic development for many decades.

We'll never get the fed on any kind of standard, it's impossible, the only solution is competition and let the people decide which holds more value.

No offense but this sounds like crazy talk. On the one hand, nationalize the Fed and put the power of currency and credit back into the hands of Congress where it belongs and this problem no longer exists. On the other hand, maybe you can point me to a reasoned exposition of how competing private? currencies could solve the current economic depression. I would love to see how this would work without either an enormously elaborate transition plan or a genocidal flip of the switch which would disrupt the vast majority of world markets. And I'm guessing it would have to take some serious Constitutional amendments. Not saying it can't be done, just don't see how it would work or help given our current time and place.

The currency issuing banks of the Fed are unconstitutional after all...

The Congress shall have Power To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

In one hand we have a failing currency, and we all know it

In the other we have something else......

Which has the best chance for survival? If this were evolution, fed bucks would be extinct.

From a pure market perspective, the Fed's bucks are definitely detrimental to market productivity. Believe me, I hate the Fed. But our currency itself isn't failing just because the Fed controls it. It's in large part because zombie bankers and hedge fund derivatives mongers have turned our economic worth into a fairy tale about credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations and no one's stopped them.

Bring back Glass Steagall, ban derivatives, seize JPM/Citi/BoA/Goldman/etc. and delete the couple quadrillion dollars of derivative dollar exposure and you'd be well on your way to saving the greenback. And that's with no economic policy at all. That's just telling the zombie bankers to take a hike.

Then you can force the Fed to issue zero percent credit for job creation.

Or better yet nationalize the Fed like it's supposed to be and Congress can maybe do their job a bit better. Imagine that.

If there is a return off the debt then it was a successful investment.

Yup. If you invest in the right shit. A seriously large chunk of our country was built in exactly this way. Zero percent credit issued directly for productive jobs. No zombie bankers, no speculation, just put the money to work. Pays itself back every time - and imagine, you actually get something worthwhile for your investment instead of Wall Street digi-dollars.

The gold standard restricts true growth

Absolutely. Economic development should not be tied to the fetish of this particular metal or that particular metal. Issue the credit, build some factories, put people to work, make some cool shit and the world's markets won't care if your dollars are backed by marshmallows and jelly beans.

 

[REIMktg]

The fed bought toxic assets which any sane accountant would just write off.

Actually our investment group tries to buy these everyday. They are far from worthless. You are simply wrong.

To answer your question, there was no real contraction. the money supply contracted some because of lost mortgages .. but they printed more than the difference.

I have yet to see anyone explain the contraction in money supply due to the mortgage write down - I actually do not know the answer - but I know you are wrong in your answer.

Consider this chart - there is a $8 trillion dollar contraction.

Synopsis of the aftermath of the housing bubble: The banks did an accounting write off for the housing bubble (no real money lost, possibly gained due to resell of house and equity stolen), the foreclosed upon lost their equity (real money) and we the people ate the whole thing (dollar devaluation thanks to printing).

If anything above allows you to sleep well at night please say it loud and proud.

I am not certain what you are saying. It was real money lost. Firms closed down, stock holders lost investments, etc - a lot of real money was lost. You are not correct in saying it was not real money.

And now this whole conversation all makes sense. Marked to market is a fraudulent accounting principal made famous by enron which deals with taking estimated profits on long term question marks immediately. Sure a few million of these toxic assets will find their way back into the money supply ...certainly not trillions.

The way out of our fiscal issue isn't complex accounting entries, that's what got us into the problem. Hit the books big daddy, your learning curve is about to get fun.

Mark to market is the practice of marking down assets to true value "market value" and not to book value. Mark to market has is an accounting tool that thrust this crisis upon us - once it was suspended then we were able to slow the bleeding. Look up mark to market accounting and see how it disrupts markets historically.

This is inaccurate, that $90k is not real money ... If the loan was $100k and the equity they stole from teh owner was $30k then the banks would have access to $300k to loan out ... and they'd own the house.

Who stole what? The owner bought an overpirced asset - if they could not make the payment they should not have gotten the loan. Everyone - all parites entered this with open eyes. When we were selling 1000 sq ft mobile homes homes on 5,000 sq ft lots for $205K we knew what was happening - the owners did too as they had their lenders ordering false income papers etc. The appraisers would joke about it too - and the bankers knew also . Everyone had a hand in this mess.

But now that same person can lose their home, and move into one next door for $40K - the fact is that they can now have a $40K nice house that was built because of the housing bubble - otherwise they would be living in a $40K crappy ass house with lead, asbestos, and a faulty septic - its a win for the poor.

Banks have an account at the fed and have access to 10x the amount of this deposit to loan out. If a house forecloses, the bank lost an accounting record, but gained a house. They can choose to do whatever they want (sell for a loss) with that asset but still have access to 10x the amount in their fed account ... which if they chose to deposit teh other $20k just grew.

True, every house didn't have $30k in equity ... enough did that this looting of the american people was very profitable.

Just because you have a neat credit card for $1B does not mean that you are not accountable to pay back any amount charged. The money lost is real money - not just an account at the fed - the bank has to account for it and take it from earnings - there are real dollars here.

that's straight from the media my friend. no logical citizen actually thinks that way. There was no chance for a default as greenspan pointed out. It was DC BS and you deepthroated it.

Nice that you think so. Yes, Obama had a contingency plan to pay the debt - but the fact is that for the first time there were people that just may have causes business as usual to not happen. I am not a Tea Partier in any way - but that is what they did.

 

[Rage9]

The gold standard restricts true growth

You're right it would restrict true growth, if your definition of true growth is excessive leveraging which got us in this huge mess in the first place.

However we don't have true growth, we have artificial growth right now (and in the past). At the end of the excessive leveraging someone has to lose, you can not make money out of thin air without consequences. Whether the excessive artificial growth was worth it, won't be answered for a long time, but at this point and time it doesn't seem like it is.

0% interest? Wasn't that another reason shady banks where able to blow the shit up even more? They where getting loans at like .5% which severely reduced their risk. So you could using fractional reserve banking, get 10x the money you had collateral on and get it at .5% interest. Sounds like a recipe to disaster to me.

 

[Rage9]

Who stole what? The owner bought an overpirced asset - if they could not make the payment they should not have gotten the loan. Everyone - all parites entered this with open eyes. When we were selling 1000 sq ft mobile homes homes on 5,000 sq ft lots for $205K we knew what was happening - the owners did too as they had their lenders ordering false income papers etc. The appraisers would joke about it too - and the bankers knew also . Everyone had a hand in this mess.

But now that same person can lose their home, and move into one next door for $40K - the fact is that they can now have a $40K nice house that was built because of the housing bubble - otherwise they would be living in a $40K crappy ass house with lead, asbestos, and a faulty septic - its a win for the poor.

Hey something we can agree on. I'd be lying if I didn't think most people buying houses where out of their fucking minds! I've never had any real sympathy for them, the math never worked out. But that was just me.

However the banks showed no signs of slowing until shit blew up, they where in to leverage and take as much money in as they could before it all went to hell. They still net win as they are still in business. Some business took a hit and went under but overall the banks came out ahead. Hence the term, not real money is what I think erect is getting at.

 

[mgtarheels]

Hey something we can agree on. I'd be lying if I didn't think most people buying houses where out of their fucking minds! But that was just me.

However the banks showed no signs of slowing until shit blew up, they where in to leverage and take as much money in as they could before it all went to hell. They still net win as they are still in business. Some business took a hit and went under but overall the banks came out ahead. Hence the term, not real money is what I think erect is getting at.

I'll disagree.

A lot of people fell to the hands of predatory lenders. False and incorrect paperwork, statements, and valuations misled a lot of buyers into what they thought they could afford.

Then the first bill came in...

 

[REIMktg]

I'll disagree.

A lot of people fell to the hands of predatory lenders. False and incorrect paperwork, statements, and valuations misled a lot of buyers into what they thought they could afford.

Then the first bill came in...

That's an acceptable argument. They are bad investors - they bought thinking the house would go up in value indefinetly and they would re-fi their troubles away - they knew they could not afford $2,000 on their $4,000 income.

Now those bad investors have lost their homes and can rent the home next door for less than their previous mortgage. In a few years they can buy another home with 3% down and not be worse for wear. They took a risk, it temporarily hurt, and they can buy again soon enough. Crap many are doing this with intent, they see the house down the street for $200K when they owe $450K they buy it as a rental, move in, then allow their old primary residence to be taken by the bank. A few years later their credit will be full repaired and they are on top again.

On the macro scale it is a win for so many people - an easy recovery from their mistakes.

It is the people without jobs that I feel for because their recovery is more problematic without income but that is a different story.

 

[Rage9]

I'll disagree.

A lot of people fell to the hands of predatory lenders. False and incorrect paperwork, statements, and valuations misled a lot of buyers into what they thought they could afford.

Then the first bill came in...

I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but you make it sound like no one buying a house had any idea of the terms and conditions of said loan.

It's not necessary the responsibility of the lender to make sure that people could or could not afford said loan (as long as in the long term on average they are #winning). You get lengthy contracts with the terms spelled out in it. It is the responsibility of the borrower to read, understand, and sign off on said terms. People being socked in a few years when their adjustable rate mortgage interest rate gets jacked through the roof, did not do their due diligence and took on more than was feasible. It's not a surprise that the average person loves to borrow/leverage themselves, in their minds it's a necessity. Why live within your means when you can get shit for free - or what seems free at the time?

I've seen plenty of these sob stories, but the underlying cause is typically poor due diligence by the borrower. As shady as the system is, as broken and fucked up it is, you still need to put your signature on the line.

So to say the borrowers had no fault in this is a bit ridiculous. No one was holding a gun to their head to buy houses.

 

[erect]

Outstanding MST ... I'd vote for someone with your positions. Nationalizing teh fed is an option, POTUS should definitely look into that.

In one hand we have a failing currency, and we all know it

In the other we have something else......

This qualifies as the later and would work for me.

If there is any single thing to note in this regard it is the ending of gold settlements by central banks around the world, tying international currencies to a set of fixed parities. This implementation proved very stable for world economic development for many decades.

Decades is very short term and fall into the time period I mentioned. Even cocaine produces short term gains.

I would love to see how this would work without either an enormously elaborate transition plan or a genocidal flip of the switch which would disrupt the vast majority of world markets.

The market is into quick and painless. An example ...

Paypal comes up with PPbux, a new currency tied to 100% assets on hand (any currency or asset). This is a non-fractional system so the printing of our currency is not in paypal's back pocket.

Paypal can do what it wants with it's money, but when you log in it shows PPbux balance. When you spend in any country, the currency translation is done on the spot.

That's totally virtual, but pushed to market using pp debit cards and/or bank transfers ... what more do we need? After some time paypal can mint coins or whatever to start to make a push to take over.

/end example

If I were ebay/paypal, this is exactly what I'd do then make paypal bucks attached to it's reserve amount. Similar to a mutual fund, paypal gets to invest the balance and take some off the top. If they do well, my fruits multiply because when the conversion to USD happens I win. I guarantee my balance will follow a company that gives a return.

We're a looooooong way away from buying apples with anything but paper, but the transition doesn't have to be painful. And if companies are competing, they'll do a better job for everyone than a monopoly.

Absolutely. Economic development should not be tied to the fetish of this particular metal or that particular metal. Issue the credit, build some factories, put people to work, make some cool shit and the world's markets won't care if your dollars are backed by marshmallows and jelly beans.

Gold is a good example because it's been used for centuries, in reality backing it with anything is good enough as long as the accountability to not print more exists.

I'm a fan of backing up our money supply with our population. $xx,xxx for each citizen. This gives the gov't new money every year to print and spend as long as they're doing a good job. If not, they retract and fail as they should.

What the buck is backed in is irrelevant, but something (anything) is a necessity as long as cartels and/or politicians are in control.

 

[erect]

That's a chart showing the housing market, not the monetary supply

That's an acceptable argument. They are bad investors

So I guess it comes down to whether the drug dealer is worse or the addict. Both answers are probably right to an extent. The people are dumb and teh banks are evil.

 

[REIMktg]

That's a chart showing the housing market, not the monetary supply.

the point was to illustrate the contraction in the money supply - most of the homes were leveraged 100% with no money down - it was an illustration for argument sake - this is STS not a term paper.

 

[mgtarheels]

I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but you make it sound like no one buying a house had any idea of the terms and conditions of said loan.

It's not necessary the responsibility of the lender to make sure that people could or could not afford said loan (as long as in the long term on average they are #winning). You get lengthy contracts with the terms spelled out in it. It is the responsibility of the borrower to read, understand, and sign off on said terms. People being socked in a few years when their adjustable rate mortgage interest rate gets jacked through the roof, did not do their due diligence and took on more than was feasible. It's not a surprise that the average person loves to borrow/leverage themselves, in their minds it's a necessity. Why live within your means when you can get shit for free - or what seems free at the time?

I've seen plenty of these sob stories, but the underlying cause is typically poor due diligence by the borrower. As shady as the system is, as broken and fucked up it is, you still need to put your signature on the line.

So to say the borrowers had no fault in this is a bit ridiculous. No one was holding a gun to their head to buy houses.

Doesn't look like you've any idea what a mortgage broker's job entails.

You also missed the part about how predatory lenders were using fake contracts with false numbers.

 

[mgtarheels]

That's an acceptable argument. They are bad investors - they bought thinking the house would go up in value indefinetly and they would re-fi their troubles away - they knew they could not afford $2,000 on their $4,000 income.

Now those bad investors have lost their homes and can rent the home next door for less than their previous mortgage. In a few years they can buy another home with 3% down and not be worse for wear. They took a risk, it temporarily hurt, and they can buy again soon enough. Crap many are doing this with intent, they see the house down the street for $200K when they owe $450K they buy it as a rental, move in, then allow their old primary residence to be taken by the bank. A few years later their credit will be full repaired and they are on top again.

On the macro scale it is a win for so many people - an easy recovery from their mistakes.

It is the people without jobs that I feel for because their recovery is more problematic without income but that is a different story.

I don't see how someone falling prey to a scam from legitimate companies, at the time, are deemed "poor investors". Again, the numbers and documents were falsified to lead the borrowers to believe they could afford it with their income.

 

[REIMktg]

I don't see how someone falling prey to a scam from legitimate companies, at the time, are deemed "poor investors". Again, the numbers and documents were falsified to lead the borrowers to believe they could afford it with their income.

I do not see how you could say this. I never say papers that did not fully disclose payment structure. Never.

 

[mgtarheels]

I do not see how you could say this. I never say papers that did not fully disclose payment structure. Never.

I've no idea what you just tried to say, tbh.

 

[REIMktg]

I've no idea what you just tried to say, tbh.

I was saying that I never saw documents that had falsified numbers that mislead - every document laid out the payments very clearly - the borrowers entered into the contracts with full knowledge and disclosure.

 

[mgtarheels]

I was saying that I never saw documents that had falsified numbers that mislead - every document laid out the payments very clearly - the borrowers entered into the contracts with full knowledge and disclosure.

So just because you haven't seen them means they don't exist?


We'll act like people haven't been jailed for fraud for inflated appraisals, falsified loan applications, etc.