Journey with Confidence RV GPS App RV Trip Planner RV LIFE Campground Reviews RV Maintenance Take a Speed Test Free 7 Day Trial ×
 


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-22-2009, 11:06 AM   #21
3 Rivet Member
 
Larry in MO's Avatar
 
1957 22' Flying Cloud
Lone Jack , Missouri
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 180
Images: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrawfordGene View Post
I was saying you were wrong about Legal Aid. Then I went on and I can understand it looked like I was flaming you, but I wasn't. Sorry if it looked that way.
No, I wasn't offended. (Isn't that what we're supposed to be now? Offended?) Nope, don't worry about it--I didn't take it that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrawfordGene View Post
I want regulation that protects everyone, documents and disclosures that people can understand so they don't have to hire a lawyer or go to a properly funded Legal Aid office.
Here's an idea for the wording on the contract" "Your xxx costs $yyy. Pay us $fff per month for ccc months or we come tow it off. No BS!"

Or better yet: Thanks for purchasing your new '09 Whizbanger Motor Coach (w/ live animals in the hot tub and a rear facing video camera for the guest bedroom) Since you paid cash, here's the keys and thanks! Enjoy your coach and don't run over the dog on the way out.

Those are my ideas but you get to figure out out to figure taxes, subsidies, low incomes, mothers in law, bad timing, came from a broken home, and I didn't have enough toys when I was little factors for financing option #1.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrawfordGene View Post
And, Larry, how's your restoration project going?
I finished building and installing a 327-300 in my '55 Chevy and the hobby funds are a little tight for the rest of the month. I am tempted to dig into the tequila fund, however. I guess I could go get a home equity line of credit to buy a Tremec transmission or I could wait until the pension check gets here. It seems so un-American to wait until I can afford it though. Actually, I'm just waiting for the stimulus/bailout to get here to solve all of my problems.
And you?
__________________
Larry
"Turleen", the '57 Flying Cloud
Lone Jack, MO
Pop.528

"You better learn it fast; you better learn it young"-John Fogerty
Larry in MO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2009, 11:22 AM   #22
Rivet Master
 
hampstead38's Avatar
 
1967 26' Overlander
Owings Mills , MD
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,125
Blog Entries: 22
"I want regulation that protects everyone, documents and disclosures that people can understand so they don't have to hire a lawyer or go to a properly funded Legal Aid office."

And there we have it....

Before I discuss the folly of regulations protecting people from themselves, I have to chuckle a bit at the notion that the "first" thing conservatives do is cut the Legal Aid budget. I've been around local government and local politics for the past quarter century and in my experience, and honestly, Legal Aid is so far down the list of issues I'm not sure anyone remembers what it does.

And the reason we have disclosures no one can understand? Lawyers. Or perhaps more accurately, an advesarial legal system where a tremendous amount of time and energy is spent looking for contract loopholes, thus creating the need for additional clauses, thus creating more loopholes, and so on. You can throw in a healthy criticism of the tort system and an activist bench that doesn't mind trodding on the sanctity of the contract for the sake of imposing what the court feels is equitable.

You could write contract terms in crayon and people would still make foolish decisions. Now, I appreciate Gene's intelligence and his noblesse oblige. He thinks, in a charming yet Quixotic way, that we simply need better rules and better rule makers, a nanny state where the enlightened among us craft regulations so wise and insightful that we are prevented from acting against the better angels or our nature... or would that be the angelic nature of our betters?

I think people have an inalienable right to make foolish decisions. An RV may be silly. So might a double cheeseburger and fries. I want to have the right to decide for myself, and I don't want to interfere with the right of my fellow human beings to make their own decisions.
hampstead38 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2009, 12:32 PM   #23
Master of Universe
 
Gene's Avatar
 
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Grand Junction , Colorado
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 12,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by hampstead38 View Post

And the reason we have disclosures no one can understand? Lawyers. Or perhaps more accurately, an advesarial legal system where a tremendous amount of time and energy is spent looking for contract loopholes, thus creating the need for additional clauses, thus creating more loopholes, and so on. You can throw in a healthy criticism of the tort system and an activist bench that doesn't mind trodding on the sanctity of the contract for the sake of imposing what the court feels is equitable.

You could write contract terms in crayon and people would still make foolish decisions. Now, I appreciate Gene's intelligence and his noblesse oblige. He thinks, in a charming yet Quixotic way, that we simply need better rules and better rule makers, a nanny state where the enlightened among us craft regulations so wise and insightful that we are prevented from acting against the better angels or our nature... or would that be the angelic nature of our betters?
First of all, the legal system. There are two types of systems in the industrialized west—Anglo-American and Napoleonic Code. Ours is also called advesarial and the idea is that if well crafted arguments are made on all sides, the truth will always win out. Of course, few people can afford that kind of law. So, what is the solution? The Napoleanic Code countries rely on government investigators, hopefully objective, to uncover the truth and then present it to a judge who usually rules for the side presented by the investigator. There's less of a trial system and no juries (these are generalizations, of course). Those who study these things say the outcomes in both systems are about the same.

How to make the system work better? I believe wise and insightful regulators can protect us by creating situations where we don't have to resort to the system as often; it won't solve all problems, but can help. Americans are known for being litigious. In fact we have been litigious for more than 2 centuries and about at the same proportions. Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts was about court fees being too high and denying the citizens access to them. I think a litigious society is in some degree a reflection on our desire to protect our rights, redress grievances, compensate for damages. So I think a healthy democracy will always be litigious.

Loopholes—the pursuit of loopholes probably makes for better contract drafting. Every lawyer knows another lawyer is looking over his/her shoulder. I regret there's a lot of sloppy contract drafting out there, some of it done by non-lawyers. An activist judge is one who doesn't agree with you. The laws and constitutions cannot clearly cover every possible situation. The language is subject to many interpretations. Judges, like the rest of us, disagree what they mean. Unfortunately, subjectivity is rampant. Some judges get to reform contracts because of sloppy drafting, questions of the intent of the parties, clauses left out, statutes that render clauses illegal. Contract law sometimes seems bizarre and I have spent many hours explaining it to people; some of it looks like it contradicts itself. And some judges do a bad job—some are picked solely for their political bias and having practiced in NY and Colorado, I can say Colorado's system, which is far less political, provides better judges. NY may have reformed it's system since I left 30 years ago, but it used to be intensely political. The tort system is to allow those who have been damaged to get some sort of recovery, usually monetary. Some who want "tort reform" try to make sure there are no or little recovery for people damaged by their clients. Of course, there are some cases that have bad decisions. Maybe there would be fewer of those if we got rid of juries (I'm not advocating that). Proponents of "tort reform" like to cite a few cases, like the woman who was burned by very hot coffee. The damages were reduced a lot by an appellate court, but that is not mentioned. And would you like superheated coffee? That wasn't the only case against MacDonalds for superheated coffee.

Connecting my desire for enlightened rulemaking with a nanny state is reductionism. We need not have Big Brother to have a better system. I may be acting like Don Quijote in hoping that we can have a better system, but I'd rather be hopeful and not feel so negative about the prospects for a better world. I could connect a desire for fewer rules with anarchy, but will refrain from parellel reductionism.

Larry, getting onward with projects around the house. I built an arts and craft access panel for plumbing (about 3' x 4') and it came out really well. This is my high point for my carpentry skills and I'm thinking of eventually doing the same with kitchen cabinet doors and saving lots of money on a kitchen remodel. I installed French doors to our bedroom so I can keep the room cool and not lose all that heat we have lost for years. For some reason the previous owners never put in doors to the bedroom in what could be called a master suite (strange floor plan, whole 2nd floor is the "suite"). Next to box in some exposed plumbing that was done when the previous owners had a new roof put on the house—they did some things very well, and then did a Tobacco Road thing like that. That's why we got the house for a good price. Looking forward to Spring and trailer time. I will be doing more work on that too. I hope we can take the trips we have planned, but dividends are being cut and that's income disappearing.

Debating with Ken (Hampstead) and Larry is a joy because you guys, no matter how misinformed you are, debate like gentlemen (gentlepersons perhaps) and do not take things personally. The Forum is a better place for both of you. I now have to fix a vacuum and change the spark plugs in the 4Runner—this is retirement?

Gene
Gene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2009, 12:47 PM   #24
Moderator
 
Stefrobrts's Avatar

 
1968 17' Caravel
Battle Ground , Washington
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 12,253
Images: 50
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by hampstead38 View Post
I think people have an inalienable right to make foolish decisions. An RV may be silly. So might a double cheeseburger and fries. I want to have the right to decide for myself, and I don't want to interfere with the right of my fellow human beings to make their own decisions.
People have a right to make foolish decisions because what's foolish to me might be brilliant to someone else. But ultimately it's the bank's responsibility to use some caution in where they invest their money (and giving someone a loan is an investment - they're expecting to make money off the use of their money). Like any other investment, it can pay off, or it can disappear. Too many banks were willing to make high risk investments because they were selling them off to someone else who foolishly trusted that the people who wrote the loan had already made a good investment. Some of these home loans have been passed around so much that no one seems to know who actually holds the note on the house anymore. It's been a system gone crazy!

People can make foolish financial decisions, but it's up to the people with the money to say 'you're 72 years old with no income except your pension and you want to buy a million dollar motorhome? i don't think I want to invest in you.'
__________________
Stephanie




Stefrobrts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2009, 01:40 PM   #25
Rivet Master
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,177
We all have the right to make foolish decisions, no question. And there are a lot of people who do just that everyday. Should those people have unfettered access to money weather they have the ability to repay or not. Who is in charge of our access to loan funds?
Fifteen years ago I tried to buy my first house. I had enough money for a five percent downpayment and closing costs. I had a very steady income with a good employment history. I had a seller willing to carry part of the loan. I had everything except a bank that would loan me the balance. I was turned down numerous times by my own bank, saving and loans and credit unions. Even private financing was not available for me. I didn't buy that house even though I could afford it. I was not able to borrow money to buy a house.
Read that last sentence again.
In the last ten years all of this changed. I could have gotten a 120% loan without proving I had an income. I could have borrowed twice as much money as I could afford to repay and there would be no one there but me to stop myself from making a decision that would have absolutely, definitly bankrupted me. My bad decision would have eventually lead to forclosure. If it was only me doing this, it wouldn't make a bit of difference to any of you. The bank would resell the property for a fair value, and I would spend 7 to 10 years trying to rebuild my credit.
When this becomes the normal way of doing business though, it causes the whole economy to hiccup. Tens of thousands of people all losing their homes and credit and causing a complete lack of trust of our banking and financial systems is the result. Being that our entire monetary system is now based on credit rather than equity, when there is a lack of trust, there is a huge problem that will affect all parts of our financial lives.
The money lending institutions are the gatekeepers of our credit security, as they always have been, so to blame the current crisis on borrowers is to give the banks free reign to continue what got us to this place. There is cupability on both sides, but to say that the borrowers got us into this mess is far from accurate. If those people who obviously could not afford to buy those houses were told "NO" by the lenders, as I once was, we all would not be talking about this now.
The Banks that did engage in this bad lending were making money on this from both ends. They would sell you a loan larger than you could afford, knowing that you would eventually lose everything. The loan agent and the lender would make their money immediately, then sell the loan to another institution, who would package many of them together into a "security". These would be sold on the stock market for as much as thirty times the value of the properties they contained. These securities were never worth anymore than the value of the properties in them, but the banks portrayed them as rock-solid investments, so people bought them. This is, to my way of thinking, a ponzi scheme, made legal by our elected officials.
So, my "bad" list goes like this;
1) Elected officials: for recently making all of this possible!

2) Lenders who participated in the practice of seperating us from our money,using a business model designed to cause complete failure, eventually. I hope they spent our money on lots of really fun, cool things!

3) The borrowers, who mistakenly believed that the banks would not be soooo stupid as to lend them more than they could afford to repay. Life without credit, or homeownership for 7 to 10 is their reward.

4) All the rest of us, who don't over-extend ourselves or make bad choices with our money. We all have allowed this to happen by not holding anyone accountable in government, and by electing those who would look the other way while we were being fleeced.

Now would someone please take away this soapbox, before I cause any real trouble!

my2cents, Rich
VIKING is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2009, 01:43 PM   #26
Rivet Master
 
hampstead38's Avatar
 
1967 26' Overlander
Owings Mills , MD
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,125
Blog Entries: 22
I have no desire to regulate your behavior, Gene. I lack the necessary hubris to claim a level of "enlightenment" that would allow me to assert my rules for your behavior are superior to your own. I further suggest that to make such rules, even if I had the wisdom of Solomon, would deny you a fundamental human right... the right to err.

He who asserts bears the burden of proof. I cannot prove that rulemaking and regulation, no matter how well intention or cleverly wrought, is inherently superior to a system where people make their own decisions and bear full responsibility for doing so. Perhaps someone else can. I can make a few observations. Many bureaucracies, organized with the most noble of intent, inevitably produce unintended consequences. I also observe is that failure is how many of us learn. When the collective power of the state is used to separate us from our the responsibility of our mistakes, we don't learn. This is the lesson of welfare as income maintenance and a culture of dependence. If every time your brother-in-law loses his paycheck at the track, you bail him out, what exactly do you think is going to prompt him to change his behavior?

My grandmother is 86 years old. She has the right to buy an RV, even if it doesn't make sense to anyone else on the planet. The bank has an obligation to treat her fairly and legally. They do not have an obligation to act as her parent. Is this reductionism? From my perspective, every rule, regulation or law can and must be reduced to its impact on individual persons. That is the reductionism I'd like to see a bit more of.
hampstead38 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2009, 06:03 PM   #27
1972 Travelux Princess 25
 
Cobourg , Ontario
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,059
Speaking of contract law... somewhere around here I have a book by a prominent sports agent. Over the years he has represented some very well known athletes and his team of lawyers is second to none.

One day he interviewed an athlete who wanted him to be his agent. He asked the athlete if he had representation. The athlete said "yes" and handed him a contract.

The contract was one sheet of paper with a short paragraph in the middle. It said something like " (athlete) hereby appoints as his agent (agent) for a period of ten years, to represent him in all business matters for a commission of 25% of his income."

(signed)

(dated)

The agent said "No problem, our legal department will take care of this" but when he asked the lawyers how to get out of it they said "you can't. It's legal, it's binding and it's air tight".

So he asked the lawyers, "if this haiku is a contract how come yours are 40 pages long?" but he never did get an answer.
__________________
Living in the trailer park of sense, looking out the window at a tornado of stupidity.
Ganaraska is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2009, 06:31 PM   #28
Master of Universe
 
Gene's Avatar
 
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Grand Junction , Colorado
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 12,702
Quote:
Originally Posted by hampstead38 View Post
I have no desire to regulate your behavior, Gene. I lack the necessary hubris to claim a level of "enlightenment" that would allow me to assert my rules for your behavior are superior to your own. I further suggest that to make such rules, even if I had the wisdom of Solomon, would deny you a fundamental human right... the right to err.
I think you sum up an essential part of the problem of governing. How do you find a balance between regulating scummy behavior and letting people make their own mistakes so they can learn? Would you repeal laws prohibiting fraud, for example?

One of the differences between liberals and conservatives is what to regulate. Conservatives often want to regulate personal behavior in the name of morality (their morality) while liberals want to regulate economic behavior to provide equality of opportunity (another sort of morality). This simplifies it, but there isn't enough space to go further. And libertarians want to regulate nothing. I guess for another extreme, fascists want to regulate everything. Socialists want to protect everyone and have the state own some of the means of production. Communists are fascists pretending to be socialists. To further confuse things, the meanings of the words change over the years.

I think a lot of people want to regulate something despite their stated beliefs because they like some sort of order. And some people don't think things out and regulate something before they realize what the unintended consequences are.

(And, I think there are some ways to get that athlete out of that contract.)

Gene
Gene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2009, 07:03 PM   #29
New Member
 
Remdaddy's Avatar
 
1964 22' Safari
Easley , South Carolina
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by VIKING View Post
We all have the right to make foolish decisions, no question. And there are a lot of people who do just that everyday. Should those people have unfettered access to money weather they have the ability to repay or not. Who is in charge of our access to loan funds?
Fifteen years ago I tried to buy my first house. I had enough money for a five percent downpayment and closing costs. I had a very steady income with a good employment history. I had a seller willing to carry part of the loan. I had everything except a bank that would loan me the balance. I was turned down numerous times by my own bank, saving and loans and credit unions. Even private financing was not available for me. I didn't buy that house even though I could afford it. I was not able to borrow money to buy a house.
Read that last sentence again.
In the last ten years all of this changed. I could have gotten a 120% loan without proving I had an income. I could have borrowed twice as much money as I could afford to repay and there would be no one there but me to stop myself from making a decision that would have absolutely, definitly bankrupted me. My bad decision would have eventually lead to forclosure. If it was only me doing this, it wouldn't make a bit of difference to any of you. The bank would resell the property for a fair value, and I would spend 7 to 10 years trying to rebuild my credit.
When this becomes the normal way of doing business though, it causes the whole economy to hiccup. Tens of thousands of people all losing their homes and credit and causing a complete lack of trust of our banking and financial systems is the result. Being that our entire monetary system is now based on credit rather than equity, when there is a lack of trust, there is a huge problem that will affect all parts of our financial lives.
The money lending institutions are the gatekeepers of our credit security, as they always have been, so to blame the current crisis on borrowers is to give the banks free reign to continue what got us to this place. There is cupability on both sides, but to say that the borrowers got us into this mess is far from accurate. If those people who obviously could not afford to buy those houses were told "NO" by the lenders, as I once was, we all would not be talking about this now.
The Banks that did engage in this bad lending were making money on this from both ends. They would sell you a loan larger than you could afford, knowing that you would eventually lose everything. The loan agent and the lender would make their money immediately, then sell the loan to another institution, who would package many of them together into a "security". These would be sold on the stock market for as much as thirty times the value of the properties they contained. These securities were never worth anymore than the value of the properties in them, but the banks portrayed them as rock-solid investments, so people bought them. This is, to my way of thinking, a ponzi scheme, made legal by our elected officials.
So, my "bad" list goes like this;
1) Elected officials: for recently making all of this possible!

2) Lenders who participated in the practice of seperating us from our money,using a business model designed to cause complete failure, eventually. I hope they spent our money on lots of really fun, cool things!

3) The borrowers, who mistakenly believed that the banks would not be soooo stupid as to lend them more than they could afford to repay. Life without credit, or homeownership for 7 to 10 is their reward.

4) All the rest of us, who don't over-extend ourselves or make bad choices with our money. We all have allowed this to happen by not holding anyone accountable in government, and by electing those who would look the other way while we were being fleeced.

Now would someone please take away this soapbox, before I cause any real trouble!

my2cents, Rich
Could not have stated it better myself. Your Post summed it up nicely.
__________________
11 up and 3 down
My 64 Safari Blog
Remdaddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2009, 07:43 PM   #30
Rivet Master
 
hampstead38's Avatar
 
1967 26' Overlander
Owings Mills , MD
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,125
Blog Entries: 22
I think you are conflating anarchism and libertarianism, Gene. In practice, many libertarians are actually minarchists or, more poetically, classic liberals. To borrow from the Wiki article, "According to Anthony Quinton, classical liberals believe that "an unfettered market" is the most efficient mechanism to satisfy human needs and channel resources to their most productive uses: they "are more suspicious than conservatives of all but the most minimal government."

As to your question, classic liberals or minarchists generally agree that government should have the authority to protect to rights of persons against force and fraud. You might appreciate this nice little essay on the distinction between lying and fraud.

So how does this relate to RV buying? Well, let's look at the larger issue of the subprime mortgage meltdown. Was this the result of predatory lending or was there something else going on? While it is an easy morality play to blame banks or greedy finance companies... but clearly some borrowers were cheating. Frankly, I think RV purchasers come out of this a bit better. There was no speculative bubble in the RV market. I think most people understand that they are not going to "flip" an RV and make a ton of money. An RV is not normally going to appreciate in value like real property. It is, for many, a purely discretionary and recreational purchase.

Did some people make some poor financial decisions buying RVs. Sure... and some made poor decisions by using home equity loans to buy big screen televisions. So, what is the best response? Should we try to craft a regulatory system to stop people from making bad decisions... or is it, in the long run, more efficient to simply let people suffer the consequences of those decisions?
hampstead38 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2009, 07:59 PM   #31
3 Rivet Member
 
Larry in MO's Avatar
 
1957 22' Flying Cloud
Lone Jack , Missouri
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 180
Images: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by hampstead38 View Post
Should we try to craft a regulatory system to stop people from making bad decisions... or is it, in the long run, more efficient to simply let people suffer the consequences of those decisions?

Odd as it may sound and certainly a surprise to Gene, I'd opt for choice B.

Here's a little advice in life when you make your own financial decisions:
If a tiger is chasing your little group, you don't have to outrun the tiger--you just have to outrun the guy next to you.
__________________
Larry
"Turleen", the '57 Flying Cloud
Lone Jack, MO
Pop.528

"You better learn it fast; you better learn it young"-John Fogerty
Larry in MO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2009, 08:45 PM   #32
1972 Travelux Princess 25
 
Cobourg , Ontario
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,059
There is another angle on this that no one seems to notice. The whole mess came about because the federal government changed the rules to make the banks lend more freely while keeping FNMA and GNMA in place. So that the banks could make bad loans and palm them off on the government. No old time banker would have made such crazy loans without the government guarantees.

So it was actually bad government regulation NOT lack of regulation that caused the problem. If there was NO regulation the banks would not have taken the risk.
__________________
Living in the trailer park of sense, looking out the window at a tornado of stupidity.
Ganaraska is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2009, 05:19 AM   #33
"Cloudsplitter"

 
2003 25' Classic
Houstatlantavegas , Malebolgia
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 20,000
Images: 1
Fill up your Airstream with Hot verbosity and float away...Please
__________________
I’m done with ‘adulting’…Let’s go find Bigfoot.
ROBERT CROSS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2009, 05:41 AM   #34
Rivet Master
 
fastrob's Avatar
 
1976 25' Tradewind
. , Maine to Arizona
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 621
Wheeeee!!

Very enlightened posts.
Hang on kids, it is going to be a wild ride.
As the mighty Mogambo guru would say, " We are all friggin' doomed."
__________________
"Talk is cheap, Airstreams are expensive," Wally Byam.
25' Tradewind
'18 Promaster 1500 High Roof
fastrob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2009, 06:02 AM   #35
"Cloudsplitter"

 
2003 25' Classic
Houstatlantavegas , Malebolgia
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 20,000
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by fastrob View Post
" We are all friggin' doomed."
Great 'ism Rob
__________________
I’m done with ‘adulting’…Let’s go find Bigfoot.
ROBERT CROSS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2009, 06:15 AM   #36
3 Rivet Member
 
Larry in MO's Avatar
 
1957 22' Flying Cloud
Lone Jack , Missouri
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 180
Images: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ganaraska View Post
There is another angle on this that no one seems to notice. The whole mess came about because the federal government changed the rules to make the banks lend more freely while keeping FNMA and GNMA in place. So that the banks could make bad loans and palm them off on the government. No old time banker would have made such crazy loans without the government guarantees.

So it was actually bad government regulation NOT lack of regulation that caused the problem. If there was NO regulation the banks would not have taken the risk.
Oh, I noticed a long time ago--we just need to avoid the "political" end of this Airstream forum but facts, as they say, are facts.

Yep, the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was designed to "encourage" banks and thrifts to meet the needs of all borrowers regardless of their financial status. The term "encourage" might have been coerced since federal money would be withheld from lending institutions that did not participate. It was designed to aid low and moderate income people and was the result of a Civil Rights study alleging that minorities were forced into conditions different than non-minorities such as higher interest, higher down payments, etc. President Jimmy Carter was in office at the time.

It was adjusted under President Clinton-some say for the better and, accordingly, some say it made it worse.
__________________
Larry
"Turleen", the '57 Flying Cloud
Lone Jack, MO
Pop.528

"You better learn it fast; you better learn it young"-John Fogerty
Larry in MO is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
If you're thinking about doing it... flyfisher Towing, Tow Vehicles & Hitches 17 12-30-2007 08:20 PM
Thinking Rt 66 63air On The Road... 23 08-03-2007 11:07 PM
What was I Thinking ? knunut Off Topic Forum 6 12-03-2006 07:40 PM
Thinking About baysidegal Member Introductions 2 11-24-2006 06:48 PM
Just thinking about AS dolmsteadjr Member Introductions 6 10-03-2006 09:13 PM


Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Disclaimer:

This website is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Airstream, Inc. or any of its affiliates. Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.