Obama admin pushing banks to offer sub-prime mortgages again...

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh,



I was going to say that. Yes, there is a fact that there is a forecast. The forecast may indeed be a factual thing... But it is still a forecast.



A weatherman can't with full credibility say: "Based on weather models tomorrow's forecast is for rain, with 100% likelihood in our viewing area. There will be rain tomorrow. That is a fact!"



We know that no matter how likely the chance of rain, it still might not rain.



Again, I am not saying your opinions are wrong and mine are right. I'm not saying what I believe is factual. I am simply asking that you differentiate fact from theory.



TJR

 

[H D]

If I don't believe my theory is fact, then what am I doing wasting my time with such theories?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh,



No theory, belief or opinion is a waste of time, IMHO. Feel free to keep reading and pontificating on what the future holds given the events of the past and what you know (and think) to be true.



But, remember one thing: past events, experiences and results are not 100% accurate predictors of future events. For that very reason, what we think will happen is not a fact. Once it happens, it becomes fact. There is still value... Just not certainties.



TJR

 

[H D]

My predictions on history hold a little more water than predictions based on hope, IMO. Perhaps there is no certainty, but there is definitely observable behaviors I can look to.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh,



Who said anything about hope?



TJR

 

[H D]

If it's not hope, then what is it? Using your logic, neither of us is basing our predictions on fact. So, I'm using history; what is it that leads to the opposing idea?



To use your weather example. I am observing weather patterns that have happened before and based on what has happened in the past, I predict rain. You see the same weather patterns I do, but you say no rain because there is a possibility this time will be different. What are your predictions based on other than recognition of alternative possibilities?

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Hugh,



I'm not basing anything on hope.



I am basing my belief that there will not be a resurgence in bad sub-prime loans in the near future regardless of any action or inaction of various agencies or the Obama administration based on one simple thing.



That thing is that the conditions that caused sub-prime abuse in the first 3/4 of this past decade are no longer in place.



There were two major conditions that made the sub-prime crisis happen, and they are:



1) The proliferation of CDOs that were infused with sub-prime lending, with these CDOs sold by and offered by leading financial institutions.



2) The AAA (triple-A) credit rating of these CDOs by Moodys, and other ratings agencies who essentially just rubber-stamped them without looking at the mortgages within, and whether or not there was any risk within.



Essentially, it was more than just the fact that people were asleep at the wheel. Greed took over and lenders figured out that they could essentially just "move paper" and make tons and tons of money without taking on any risk. It was because of CDOs that they could do this. CDOs both masked the risk, and also provided for a way for others to profit on failure (which often happens when there is great risk).



In the first 7 years of 2000, a lender would provide a toxic sub-prime mortgage to a buyer one-day then sell it to another lender (or credit holding company) another, it would get bundled into a CDO, and given a AAA rating. Then, the CDO would be invested in, and there were investors HUNGRY to buy them. Who wouldn't want to buy into one of the greatest booms of recent history, especially in what appear to be AAA, low risk funds? However, many financial institutions absolutely knew that the CDOs were a bad, risky investment; so much so that many sold/bought derivatives betting on their failure...some while still selling them.



That dynamic is now gone.



Lenders trying to sell their mortgages, especially those that are risky are now "stuck with them", as no one wants to buy them. No one wants to buy them because there is no channel to push them along anymore to get the risk off their books. Companies selling CDOs won't package the bad mortgages within, because the rating agencies like Moodys have stopped the insanity of rubber stamping and are starting to do their job. When people want to believe that something is low-risk, valuable, and will return on their investment, then that belief is contagious and ratings agencies often simply tell people what they want to hear. However, today, CDOs are not the darlings they once were. They are the 2000s equivalent of junk bonds.



We have an old saying in business, and that is that: "The good times mask all ills." The corollary is that "bad times uncover what is wrong." When the housing market was booming it fed into a viscous cycle of greed and corruption. Now that that market has busted, it has uncovered the bad things, making thost things, for the time being, in the current bust market very, very unlikely to happen again.



That's not hope, IMHO. That's a "system" correcting itself.



Few if any are selling sub-prime now, especially not bad sub-prime loans, because, frankly, they are stuck with them and their risk if they do.



As for the weather example, I am saying there won't likely soon be a resurrgence of bad sub-prime loans because the "climate" has changed. The conditions that allowed it to happen, that actually were conducive to past abuse are now gone. The pressure system, so to speak, has changed. Forecast is for clear skys.



TJR

 

[Robert Thomas]

You guys just cause more questions.



Is it going to rain or not.



If the boat, house, and Trac are paid for do I really care if I can't get a loan.



Why did Social Security start mailing me $125.00 a month then want to take $135 a month out for Medicare part B.



Is their really anything that can be stated a 100%, Black and White "Fact"



:banghead::banghead:

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Redfish,



Good questions.



As for your last one, yes, there are many things that can be stated as facts. That doesn't mean that people won't question them or believe them. But a truly introspective person can usually avoid the use of the term "fact" when presenting an opinion.



It is a "fact" that I think I am a good person. The fact there is that "I think" a certain thing. Now, one can argue whether or not I am a good person, but they can't really argue with what I think. Only I know what I think or don't think. So, that still makes the fact that I am a good person debateable, but the fact that I think I am a good person rather impossible to debate.



Facts, to me, are those things that are simply true, without the need for nor the ability to debate. They are not open for interpretation. They don't bend or change based on POV or perspective.



If they are open for debate, if they are based on belief, if they are subjective, then they are NOT facts...by that defintion (by all customary definition of the term, I submit).

Definition of FACT - from Merriam Webster



1: a thing done: as a obsolete : feat

b : crime (accessory after the fact)

c archaic : action



2: archaic : performance, doing



3: the quality of being actual : actuality (a question of fact hinges on evidence)



4a : something that has actual existence (space exploration is now a fact)

b : an actual occurrence (prove the fact of damage)



5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality in fact

Note how the definitions above fit with what I have been saying. A fact is something that has come to pass. It has happened. It is an occurence. It cannot be something that has YET to happen, as that has not yet been proven; not not yet exist.



Also, it is something objective, not subjective. It is based on actual existence, not on supposition, intuition, or belief.



TJR

 

[Kevin Lang]

TJR, it still sounds like you're prognosticating. You have info to corroborate your predictions, but they still sound like predictions to me. Doesn't that still put you on the same boat as Hugh? To illustrate what I mean, though I'm sure you already realize this, I've quoted you below.

I am basing my belief that there will not be a resurgence in bad sub-prime loans in the near future regardless of any action or inaction of various agencies or the Obama administration based on one simple thing.

BTW TJR, if you define a fact as something that has come to pass, than could it ever be a fact that the Obama Administration did not push banks to offer subprime mortgages again?

The pressure system, so to speak, has changed. Forecast is for clear skys.

But that doesn't mean it won't rain. Weather is a capricious beast. As was said here, the forecast is far from a certainty.

But, remember one thing: past events, experiences and results are not 100% accurate predictors of future events.

 

[H D]

I cannot see the Eiffel Tower right now, from where I am sitting. My objective position would require that the existence of the Eiffel Tower is not a fact, but rather a subjective belief. You do not exist as a fact from my objective position. Neither do these banks, the agencies citing them, or the people affected. How far do you want to go with the definition of facts, TJR? We can get into the philosophical arguments about how one knows things, but I don't think that is going to help this discussion very much.

 

[Robert Thomas]

TJR,



Although you haven't offered much help with the weather or my Social Security, I am very thankful for the information on "Facts".



With the answer to a couple of questions I might get it totally.



1. Can one argue with what you think if. One thinks that what you think is not really what you think. IE : what if you were to say something like "I hate my Sport Trac", I think that you don't really hate the Trac, that your just mad because you need the tires replaced. Can I question you hate.



2. How do I know that something is simply true.



3. I read the definition of fact in Websters Dictionary and I take this as fact. How do I know that Websters is the true presenter of a factual definitions? We know that definitions of words change with time. What if the definition of the word "fact" changes in the future. A fact today may not be a fact if the definition changes.



4. So history/time establishes facts. What if time travel is a possibility and your great grand kid changes history? Then what is a fact today may change, really screwing up established facts. IE. we once were comfortable saying "fact is the stars shine bright" now we find out that most stars, if not all, are dead and not shining at all and it's just light traveling through space.



5. Are we sure a fact can't have happen yet. IE: am I going to die. Now, I believe that to be true and a fact, it is also my opinion based on the fact that every living thing on earth has die. I don't think there are enough extension cords in the world to keep me plugged in until the end of time. So is it a good idea to get part B?



Thanks for your help.

 

[TrainTrac]

Just an observation: Out of 92 responses to this thread thus far, the most recent ~44 posts have been completely



fftopic:



and



:banghead: :btddhorse: <-- (Not claiming these two to be facts, but merely my opinion based on observation. :cheeky







[Broken External Image]:

 

[H D]

Just because that has happened in 44 posts doesn't mean that is what will happen in the next post. Based on the history of this thread, I have a pretty good idea what the next post will be about, but I dare not call it a fact. I may be surprised by an on-topic post.:bwahaha:



Lunch break over, back to pressure washing...

 

[Bill V]

TJR, it still sounds like you're prognosticating. You have info to corroborate your predictions, but they still sound like predictions to me. Doesn't that still put you on the same boat as Hugh? To illustrate what I mean, though I'm sure you already realize this, I've quoted you below.

KL, correct, he's prognosticating. He's not stating nor at any point has he stated that his predictions are fact. He's stating that all forward looking prognostications, including both his own and Hugh's, are NOT fact, unless/until they come to pass.

I cannot see the Eiffel Tower right now, from where I am sitting. My objective position would require that the existence of the Eiffel Tower is not a fact, but rather a subjective belief. You do not exist as a fact from my objective position. Neither do these banks, the agencies citing them, or the people affected. How far do you want to go with the definition of facts, TJR? We can get into the philosophical arguments about how one knows things, but I don't think that is going to help this discussion very much.

No, you cannot see the Eiffel Tower--but you do have means available to you to objectively ascertain its existence. You can go to France and view it. You can contact a trusted objective source to verify it. Etc. Further, once those means are undertaken, they are means which cannot be logically and reasonably argued as being either untrue, unknown, or subjective. For example, you could not state factually that it doesn't exist, as that's untrue. You can't say factually that it will still be standing tomorrow, as that's unknown. You can't say factually that it's beautiful, as that's subjective.



Yes, you can go down the path of whether things you observe or evidence provided is an accurate indication of the Eiffel Tower's existence. You don't see it, but are the statements of millions of viewers objective evidence? If you see it yourself, is your eyesight of sufficient quality to be considered objective evidence? Does this world really exist, or is it a "Matrix"-like illusion? Etc. But that's where you get into the logical and reasonable analysis of the evidence provided. Things in the future don't have objective evidence--yet. Opinions don't have objective evidence.



Here's another example. Look at how these statements differ:



"Mr. Smith spoke at 7:00pm." Assuming that this actually happened, it is a fact. It is verifiable through objective means.



"Mr. Smith is scheduled to speak at 7:00pm." Assuming an actual schedule exists, this is also verifiable fact. You need only look at the schedule to confirm it.



"Mr. Smith spoke well." This is straightforward personal opinion. Not fact.



"I think Mr. Smith spoke well." This is generally a fact, assuming that there's no intent (consciously or unconsciously) to deceive. Yes, it could be a lie. But it's still either a fact or it isn't; it isn't a matter of personal opinion.



"Mr. Smith will speak at 7:00pm as scheduled." This is not a fact. It involves conjecture and prognostication. If Mr. Smith has a medical emergency, or the previous speaker runs long, or the event is cancelled, it might not come to pass. To me, it's also not really an "opinion", in the most common sense of that word, as that typically has more to do with personal beliefs/impressions.

BTW TJR, if you define a fact as something that has come to pass, than could it ever be a fact that the Obama Administration did not push banks to offer subprime mortgages again?/quote]

No, simply because the definition of what constitutes a "push to offer subprime mortgages" can be so subjective. (i.e., is moving to block the "redlining" practices described in the article considered to be such a push?) Without a more objectively-assessable definition being provided, such a question would always be in the realm of opinion, either way.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

KL said/asked:

TJR, it still sounds like you're prognosticating. You have info to corroborate your predictions, but they still sound like predictions to me. Doesn't that still put you on the same boat as Hugh? To illustrate what I mean, though I'm sure you already realize this,

Not the same boat because I never said that I wasn't prognosticating. I am predicting based on what I have seen on the current financial climate. But what is different is that I'm not the one calling my beliefs of what will happen "facts", or saying that they "will" happen.



I've given sound reason why I what I think will happen (actually, what I think won't happen) is likely to transpire as predicted.



KL also said:

BTW TJR, if you define a fact as something that has come to pass, than could it ever be a fact that the Obama Administration did not push banks to offer subprime mortgages again?

Good question. A past occurrence, or non-occurrence for that matter are facts. It would be a fact that it did not rain yesterday at a certain locale. The absence of rain would therefore be a factual event. A non-occurence fact. Not a textbox definition, I know, but I would be inclined to call that a fact. However, some will say that the "absence of something is never really the prove of anything", and I understand the root of that saying. But the absence of something is factual prove of one thing (I submit), and it is the absence of that thing.





Redfish asked:

1. Can one argue with what you think if. One thinks that what you think is not really what you think. IE : what if you were to say something like "I hate my Sport Trac", I think that you don't really hate the Trac, that your just mad because you need the tires replaced. Can I question you hate.

Arguing what one person thinks, or doesn't think is like calling someone a liar IMHO. It is uncalled for and serves no real useful purpose. You could debate all day what you think I think, or whether or not I actually thought what I was saying was untrue, but it proves nothing. We can't read each others minds, so why debate that which can't be verified?

2. How do I know that something is simply true.

Good question. You don't, not always anyways. I think we know those things that are indisputable when we see them. For example: If someone says: "It is raining", and you actually feel and see the rain. I think we would recognize the occurence and take that as a fact. Or, "that car is red!"...again, you can observe and based on what you know to be true you agree to the fact implicitely. Now, that's not to say that facts aren't debateable, and that different people won't agree and disagree as to the validity of various so-called facts. They will, and it happens all the time.

3. I read the definition of fact in Websters Dictionary and I take this as fact. How do I know that Websters is the true presenter of a factual definitions? We know that definitions of words change with time. What if the definition of the word "fact" changes in the future. A fact today may not be a fact if the definition changes.

A definition is more like an opinion. There are many such definitions and authorities for the word "fact." There is no single authority, and there is not necessarily one definition better than another. The fact is that THERE IS a definition supplied by Webster's dictionary. Again, note that pesky "occurrence" theme. It exists. What is inarguable is that it exists.

4. So history/time establishes facts. What if time travel is a possibility and your great grand kid changes history? Then what is a fact today may change, really screwing up established facts. IE. we once were comfortable saying "fact is the stars shine bright" now we find out that most stars, if not all, are dead and not shining at all and it's just light traveling through space.

Yes, those things that occur have "in fact" occured. If time travel is one day possible, then the factual events that have happened may (in fact) be changed by time travelers.



As for the phrase "the fact is the stars shine bright", to me...that is not a fact. It is an opinion. It is subjective. The word bright means different things to different people. Now, if someone says: "the fact is that star right there shines", well, then if we agree to what "shine" means, then that is most likely a very easily, agreed to fact (assuming that "shine" means gives of, or has given off, light which now reaches my point of observation).

5. Are we sure a fact can't have happen yet. IE: am I going to die. Now, I believe that to be true and a fact, it is also my opinion based on the fact that every living thing on earth has die. I don't think there are enough extension cords in the world to keep me plugged in until the end of time. So is it a good idea to get part B?

I never said that a fact, or at least meant to say that a fact isn't a fact until it happens. There are certainties in life that most would call facts. Is it a fact that we are all going to one day die? Sure, that's a safe fact to assume. We can assume facts, but they aren't really facts if we assume them, now are they? Do I know for a fact that if I jump off a 40 story building without a parachute or other aid to protect me that I will die? Not for a fact. Pretty safe to say I will though.





Bill said:

KL, correct, he's prognosticating. He's not stating nor at any point has he stated that his predictions are fact. He's stating that all forward looking prognostications, including both his own and Hugh's, are NOT fact, unless/until they come to pass.

Bill gets it. I'm not the one claiming opinion and beliefs of what will happen to be facts.



Hugh said:

I cannot see the Eiffel Tower right now, from where I am sitting. My objective position would require that the existence of the Eiffel Tower is not a fact, but rather a subjective belief. You do not exist as a fact from my objective position. Neither do these banks, the agencies citing them, or the people affected. How far do you want to go with the definition of facts, TJR? We can get into the philosophical arguments about how one knows things, but I don't think that is going to help this discussion very much.

Hugh, in your example above the facts are:



a. That you cannot see the Eiffel Tower (you said that).



b. That because of your inability to see the Eiffel Tower you cannot personally use sight to verify the existence of the Eiffel Tower (logical conclusive fact given sight as method of verification)



c. The existence of the Eiffel Tower by you, at that time, cannot be verified, by sight, but the Eiffel Tower may very well still exist...or not. Could be either, from your POV.



Beyond that, there are no other facts. The above example does not "in fact" indicate that the Eiffel Tower does, or does not exist. It just sets up your ability (inability, actually) to verify its existence visually. Those are the facts.



The facts are simply what they are. No more, no less.



All is much better if people stop calling what they think, and what they think may happen "facts!". It's arrogant, if nothing else.



TJR

 

[Richard L]

TrainTrac,

I fear that you may be right.



It sounds like we maybe witnessing a war of words...Everybody break out their Webster's Unabridged Dictionaries and seek cover as things are about to get real ugly :bwahaha:



And who the hell is Mr. Smith?? and how did he become part of this thread?



TranTrac,

If you have time to count the threads that are on and off the subject...you have way too much time on your hands. It sounds like it's time you got yourself a life. :bwahaha: Just teasing you.



...Rich

 

[Robert Thomas]

TJR - I got it. I had hoped that you would disagree and say I was going to live forever, but..



Train Trac - You are the only truly brilliant one posting, take that as a fax.



Rich - :bwahaha:



I shall have to retire to my previous position, floating in the pool, and since the ipad isn't waterproof y'all shall be free of me for the day. Thanks for the entertainment.



Beer for the dog, Rum for me. Where is that pool girl?



Hugh - The screens on my pool cover could use a little pressure washing also. Thanks

 

[H D]

My last post was sarcasm. I guess that got lost over the interwebs. Just poking fun at the word games we have gotten into. I was referring to a disagreement with a philosophy professor in which I ended up stating that I did not care if the chair I was sitting in actually existed over the weekend, because I would be in a sea of red and black cheering on the Dawgs and it would not be important to me whether the chair actually existed outside of my observation of it. He didn't find my rebuttal very worthy or funny. Philosophers like to get caught up in such discussions as this one has turned into. I get bored with word games and describing how I know what I know, if I truly know something or simply believe it to be true ,or whether it even can be known.



Similarly, this thread is starting to bore me. Subprime mortgages will be given. That is a fact.



I cannot see the Eiffel Tower, so I resorted to a good authority and I now accept as fact (is that allowed?) that it does exist. I also contacted an expert in the financial realm. He thinks sub-prime mortgages will be the result of these investigations and citations. It must be fact, now.



Redfish, I too ended up laying in the pool after pressure washing got boring. I got a little more color to my skin now and shant be burning in Jamaica in June, I think. That may not be a fact. I'll report back to y'all on that one June 11.



And this reminds me of why all the grumpiness from our northern friends. The weather still sucks in the great white north. :cheeky::bwahaha:

 

[Kevin Lang]

Wow. If this forum has a maximum character limit per post, it must be insanely high.



Once again, we've learned that Sarcasm + Argument + Internet = complete cluster$%*!



The weather still sucks in Maryland. :angry:



Well, at least it isn't hot yet. I'll take the predicted "cooler, wetter summer" over the high heat and ridiculous humidity that was last year's.



So, if banks are forced to give out some presumed number of loans in areas where the banks would rather not, as they have found that the average credit rating is too low to be worth the risk, who is going to cover the inevitable losses the banks will incur? The obvious, and only answer--which I'll submit as the closest thing we're going to get to a "fact" here in this thread, is that we--the people--will.



I'm still waiting for some return on my "investment" as a taxpayer in GM. I don't care that GM is paying back all of the money--they took my money for an extended period of time, and I demand recompense for that. The government having to kick cash over to GM furthers the debt, which furthers my "burden" as a taxpayer, thus the recompense is justly deserved. Banks charge interest on loans, and I my "interest rate" certainly wasn't 0%! :grin:



So here's a question. There's a 2011 Chevy, and two groups of people claim ownership: the lone guy with the title, and 5 guys who have been life-long US taxpayers. All of the same age. Which group has greater "ownership" of the Chevy?



(BTW, this whole bit has been massively tongue-in-cheek, facetious if you will.)