From what I am reading, the market is not in quite as big of a bubble, but the long term outlook is that stocks won't quite be the long term investment they have been for the last 30 years (where it has been one big boom, basically, overall).
You're wrong. I was a mortgage broker years ago way back before the crash. Laws and regs going back to Reagan's era were put in place that led to all of the "corporate greed". I had to loan certain people money who I knew would likely not pay it back. Yes, corporate greed did factor in. But it was not the only thing by a long shot. Some people who the govt said I had to lend money to could only get approved with an ARM. And many of those people could not put any money down - so "no money down" became the only way, etc, etc. There have been tons of laws and regs passed in the last several decades that made it much easier for certain people to get money for a home, and for others who would otherwise never get into a home be able to do so. I don't really have the time to link or copy and paste them all here right now, but you can google them. Again, I was a mortgage broker and lender, I speak from experience. As for this: Per the mostly republican committee that reviewed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: "Only 4% of all loans purchased by Freddie between 2005 and 2008 were purchased 'specifically because they contributed to the [homeownership] goals.'", I'm not sure what that proves exactly, and not all loans made were purchased by Freddie.
Housing crash What rules did Clinton change? Clinton was in office from 1992-2000 anyway. GWBush was in office from 2000-2008. The housing bubble peaked in 2007. Assuming government had any role to play, it would have been Bush who was to blame.
Actually that is not how the CPI definition changed. It stopped comparing a apples to apples. So if NY strip prices surged, it said sirloin is a good substitute. Magically no price increase! I tried to post a link to a discussion of the CPI methodology in my original post but for some strange reason this website prohibited me from doing so. Very frustrating. I will try again here. Nope, still won't let me. If you are interested you can google, "Why the consumer price index is controversial."
Post the government rules that FORCED you to lend money to unqualified mortgage borrowers or they never existed (which is the case).
It proves that the government was not forcing banks to lend to unsound borrowers to promote home ownership. I focused on Fannie and Freddie because they are government sponsored enterprises.
Ok, I see - you're a Dem. It's got to be one or the other, and it can't be a Dem, correct? It's not simply a Bush or Clinton thing. If you read my post carefully, I said it started back during the Reagan days. It's not really a 100% Dem or Republican thing.
You don't know what you're talking about. I don't really have a lot of time right now, and I frankly don't waste what little time I have trying to help or even respond to those who come here thinking they know it all already and are the smartest guys in the room. You can google it.
Some members of government got the brilliant idea that everyone had a right to be a homeowner. People like me and the institutions I worked for and with had to lower standards to stay out of trouble. I'll give you a hint: "equal opportunity". From there, I'm sure a smart guy like yourself can find the answers.
Lol You continue to not post any facts. Until you do, I will assume my facts to be correct. The government had no policy that everyone should own a home based on the FACT I posted about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
