Post: #26

The guy on the left has a wealthy look to him. Guy on the right looks like a total dork.

Post: #27

Is Puerto Rico still viable for business?

I ask thks since Puerto Rico is imploding. Its debt has enough volume to sink the mainland and Washington will have to bail itnout and put in heavy restraints onto the island. I don't know how much longer it will be a casino as it has been known for. Supposedly its debts and pension liabilities make the Detroit mess look like nothing, and if I recall correctly is more or less the same scale as the mess Greece is dealing with.

Post: #28

(10-07-2015 11:42 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 11:30 AM)Phoenix Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 10:27 AM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  To me this type of situation raises the age-old debate about ethics: at what point does normal self-interest become exploitation?

There's never been any difference. Business is always a competition. The smart men profit more from deals than the stupid men. Not just in loans, but everything. The more savvy the businessman, the more he can move contracts closer to his advantage. It's like chess - if the other guy doesn't spot what you have in mind, you'll win, and vice versa.

This is why education is so important. It's easy to view this story merely in its narrow context, tailored by the author to fit the tone he wants it to have, but the question is "why did the counter-parties accept?". Why did they chose that option instead of just closing shop? Had they done so, they would've kept the remaining money that the loan sharkers received instead. Why weren't they taught in school about basic business practices, instead of worthless crap they'll never use?

Education is the ultimate defence against the sharks. For so long as your contracts with them are voluntary, it's ultimately your choice if you get eaten.

I still think that there are some things that are just immoral. Good businessmen--and good men in general--know the difference between scamming and fraud, and honorable practices.

This is not the type of behavior that a good man should engage in. It's trafficking in debt slavery.

I don't subscribe to the idea that it's OK to exploit someone just because they are desperate, stupid, or uneducated.

What these two guys were doing is immoral and unethical, in my opinion. There are inherent principles of justice, fairness, and decency that every man in society is bound by. These guys violated those principles.

There's nothing wrong with healthy competition. There is nothing wrong with normal business "puffery" up to a point. But at some point, lines can get crossed.

Where that line is drawn, is the the provenance of ethical debate.

What these guys don't yet know is that there will be a heavy price to be paid for all this. And the wages are extracted from one's soul.

You sound like one of these people who say that is not ok to sleep with girls who are drunk, that whoever does that is taking advantage of them.

People have been taking advantage of each other all the time. If you are ignorant about something, people will take advantage of you. I don't do it, it's not right, it's not fair but that's how most people operate.

If I am lending people money, I will charge them whatever interest rate I want to charge them, it's up to them to take it or leave it. If they are stupid enough to accept 400% interest rates, what's the guy who is lending them money supposed to do? Tell them that he is overcharging them and that they shouldn't accept it?

Also,I don't believe in those life fairy tales that if you do something bad to someone, you will always pay for it down the road. Bad things happen to everybody, to good or bad people.

The world is ran by bad men, good people hardly ever took control of the world.

Post: #29

I'm not going to hate too much. Seems like they found a loophole to bamboozle hard working americans and enrich themselves so they can live out their dreams. Afterall, people should be more careful with their money especially around certain types of people and the "services" offered by those types of people who have historically been known to do things like this. Caveat Emptor.

However I will point out that if these guys were any other ethnicity Bloomberg wouldn't be writing about these two shitbirds in such an adoring celebratory fashion.

Got one over the goyim..we get it.

Post: #30

Not sure it matters if they were White, Black, Indian, Portenias or Cariocas or Slovaks...

There's a reason they aren't in jail and they are getting offers from major banks...
They are providing a service that stupid, greedy people want....
Nothing wrong with that...

Taking advantage of the greed and stupidity of others is a long standing tradition in the world of finance and economics...

If they didn't provide a viable service then they would go out of business....

This isn't a scam no matter how Jewey their names are...
Jews have the minds of champions...

Post: #31

(10-07-2015 02:09 PM)Abelard Lindsey Wrote:  Its actually worse than that. In the 80's, someone became wealthy because the developed a new computer or new kind of semiconductor device. Today, you read about guys becoming wealthy because the developed a better method of "business finance" which is little more than loan-sharkary.

The turning point was the late 90's, when the from something real to business services and the like occurred.

You must be a late Millennial. The '80s were the junk bond years – Michael Milken, Ivan Boesky. The decade was full of high-flown financial misdeeds.

Post: #32

(10-08-2015 06:03 AM)pitt Wrote:  You sound like one of these people who say that is not ok to sleep with girls who are drunk, that whoever does that is taking advantage of them.

People have been taking advantage of each other all the time. If you are ignorant about something, people will take advantage of you. I don't do it, it's not right, it's not fair but that's how most people operate.

If I am lending people money, I will charge them whatever interest rate I want to charge them, it's up to them to take it or leave it. If they are stupid enough to accept 400% interest rates, what's the guy who is lending them money supposed to do? Tell them that he is overcharging them and that they shouldn't accept it?

Also,I don't believe in those life fairy tales that if you do something bad to someone, you will always pay for it down the road. Bad things happen to everybody, to good or bad people.

The world is ran by bad men, good people hardly ever took control of the world.

I believe that you are wrong. I think that morality and character do matter. You may think not, but you may change this view with the passage of the years.

Of course there's nothing wrong with business and with making money. But it's all a matter of degree.

The business model that these guys had was a predatory lending model, pure and simple. It was based totally on the exploitation of the poor, the weak, and the desperate. It's parasitism, pure and simple.

And the fact that these guys came from religious backgrounds makes it even more shameful. They should have known better.

This is immoral. This is not something that good men do.

These guys will have their comeuppance in life. I don't see them as living good, healthy lives right now. Looks like they're ruining their health with overindulgence in alcohol, cigarettes, and women. This is how evil reaps its rewards.

These are not men to be emulated; these are not men with a solid foundation of character.

And I do believe there is such a thing as Fate, or Fortune, or Karma, or whatever you want to call it.

The souls of these guys are slowly being poisoned.

We as men should shun this sort of life. It has nothing to offer but anxiety, depression, guilt, and darkness.

Post: #33

If you are opposed to this type of business, let me ask you - do you own an iPhone or any Apple Product?

You realize that these are made by Chinese children in brutal conditions making pennies per hour....

You realize that Steve Jobs signed off on this shit...

He's doing what some would consider immoral...to keep his costs down...add profit to the bottom line...
They make movies about the guy and laud him as a futurist genius....his company is the most profitable in the history of mankind...

No one actually gives a shit...just a lot of crocodile tears...

If you are stupid enough to borrow at horrific interest rates - you are a fool with your money - we all know how they get parted....

How do you fix this?
Make Finance 101 a MANDATORY class in High School...
Too many people enter the real world with absolutely ZERO knowledge of how interest works, how to balance a checkbook, etc...

Post: #34

You are missing the point mate.

I am actually not a bad person and I believe in having a good character but I can make my character flexible, I don’t believe in having a fixed, permanent view about the world.

Also, I know that there is a reality out there and that reality is different from my perspective and beliefs. I will be naïve if I just look at the world for how I want to see it and ignore how everybody sees it. This is like being a fat girl and expect guys to find you attractive because you are intelligent and call men foolish for judging women based on their looks. Fat women need to accept reality for what it is.

The world is immoral by nature. Look at the animal world, sharks during the embryo phase will eat their siblings, they are evil before they even arrive to this world, by ignoring evil, you are ignoring nature.

Let me take this further, we actually need to debunk that ‘’having a good character thing’’ in the manosphere. The good character thing pushed to an extreme will make you not be aware of obvious things in game. Guys won’t push for sex when a woman shows little resistance, they will believe in dinner dates before bangs, they will see girls as saints and will never say anything sexual to them before the sex because they will assume that this will offend them. The religious influence, discipline at school and Hollywood influence was so strong on them that they refuse to see reality for what it is.

Too much character will also make you less egoistic, you will be more altruistic with everybody and we all should know how this is negative in dealing with women.

My dad is a great example for this subject. He had several opportunities to become rich during the 70s and 80s era, however, he refused to engage in unethical acts. Today he is living an average life while many of his friends became multi-millionaires. I will tell you something, the children of my dad’s friends are certainly not paying for their fathers unethical deeds, matter fact, they are living a better life than I am today.

Read the book work the system, YMG recommended me few years ago, it was a great book, the writer touched a lot on this subject..

Post: #35

(10-08-2015 06:11 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  I'm not going to hate too much. Seems like they found a loophole to bamboozle hard working americans and enrich themselves so they can live out their dreams. Afterall, people should be more careful with their money especially around certain types of people and the "services" offered by those types of people who have historically been known to do things like this. Caveat Emptor.

However I will point out that if these guys were any other ethnicity Bloomberg wouldn't be writing about these two shitbirds in such an adoring celebratory fashion.

Got one over the goyim..we get it.

Yeah, no shade, but Jewish guys making money in finance isn't breaking news.

Post: #36

(10-07-2015 09:16 AM)Cr33pin Wrote:  

(10-07-2015 09:08 AM)ThrustMaster Wrote:  Guess which guy is banging which chick...

Honestly from what I have seen I would be more inclined to believe the guys are banging each other.

Yeah thought the same thing. You could easily take the photos from this article and put them in an article title "Two Jewish gay guys explore life together in Puerto Rico" and it would fit perfectly. Even the picture with the two girls fits, it looks like the guys are getting away from them.

Post: #37

Basically you resent the fact that you don't get to "live it up" (like the children of your father's friend) because your father stood by his principles.

This is a disappointing attitude.

I actually have a father like yours. I grew up in a corrupt country and my father refuse to take any bribes or cut any corners. It was a long, difficult years growing up. Especially, since there are serious consequences for not taking bribes and doing shady deals like "the rest of the boys". You don't want to stand out.

Despite all this, my father stood firm and strong and weather many dangerous currents that came his ways. We had economic hardships and we get to see the wealth and luxury of my father's friends.

But we(my mother, myself and my siblings) were also EXTREMELY proud of my father for standing on his principles. In fact, we were contemptuous of others ill-gotten gains.

My mother in particular never stop expressing her admiration and boastfully talking about my father's steadfast principles.

More importantly, there is nothing really stopping you from becoming wealthy on your own, Pitts; if you badly want it enough.

It is your father's life, it is his decision.

Who knows, you may become wealthy and your son may resent the fact that you didn't give it all to the poor.

(10-08-2015 12:15 PM)pitt Wrote:  You are missing the point mate.

I am actually not a bad person and I believe in having a good character but I can make my character flexible, I don’t believe in having a fixed, permanent view about the world.

Also, I know that there is a reality out there and that reality is different from my perspective and beliefs. I will be naïve if I just look at the world for how I want to see it and ignore how everybody sees it. This is like being a fat girl and expect guys to find you attractive because you are intelligent and call men foolish for judging women based on their looks. Fat women need to accept reality for what it is.

The world is immoral by nature. Look at the animal world, sharks during the embryo phase will eat their siblings, they are evil before they even arrive to this world, by ignoring evil, you are ignoring nature.

Let me take this further, we actually need to debunk that ‘’having a good character thing’’ in the manosphere. The good character thing pushed to an extreme will make you not be aware of obvious things in game. Guys won’t push for sex when a woman shows little resistance, they will believe in dinner dates before bangs, they will see girls as saints and will never say anything sexual to them before the sex because they will assume that this will offend them. The religious influence, discipline at school and Hollywood influence was so strong on them that they refuse to see reality for what it is.

Too much character will also make you less egoistic, you will be more altruistic with everybody and we all should know how this is negative in dealing with women.

My dad is a great example for this subject. He had several opportunities to become rich during the 70s and 80s era, however, he refused to engage in unethical acts. Today he is living an average life while many of his friends became multi-millionaires. I will tell you something, the children of my dad’s friends are certainly not paying for their fathers unethical deeds, matter fact, they are living a better life than I am today.

Read the book work the system, YMG recommended me few years ago, it was a great book, the writer touched a lot on this subject..

Post: #38

Taking bribes is illegal...
lending money at obscene rates is not...

big difference...

Post: #39

(10-08-2015 06:03 AM)pitt Wrote:  The world is ran by bad men, good people hardly ever took control of the world.

To me, avarice seems a sure sign of weakness; mercy and justice are the prerogatives of the strong.

One's perspective on this changes, I think, if one has lived in a country crippled by corruption: where garbage clogs the streets, where children go without schooling, where people live in squalor...all because some government ministers decided that they deserved billions in public funds more than the people to whom they belong. And of course you hear all the same rationalizations from those who benefit:

"Everybody does it so it's OK"..."life is unfair so I should be too"..."they'd do it to me if they could"..."at least I don't take as much as others"..."I'm just looking after myself"...

Unethical men create failed societies, and I believe people would be far less blithe about the prospect of rampant immorality if it was they who had to endure its unalloyed consequences.

Post: #40

Fools and their money - there's no shame in separating them.

Post: #41

(10-08-2015 04:00 PM)Lacesoutray Wrote:  Taking bribes is illegal...
lending money at obscene rates is not...

big difference...

Pitts said *unethical acts*. Bribery is unethical. Where i grew up, bribery is soo common place it is not consider illegal, just mildly unethical. Some eastern european countries make corrupt Gotham looks positively shiny. I won't split hairs about the semantics because i think the point stands. The core argument is standing on principles.

(10-08-2015 12:15 PM)pitt Wrote:  ....
My dad is a great example for this subject. He had several opportunities to become rich during the 70s and 80s era, however, he refused to engage in unethical acts. Today he is living an average life while many of his friends became multi-millionaires. I will tell you something, the children of my dad’s friends are certainly not paying for their fathers unethical deeds, matter fact, they are living a better life than I am today.....

Nobody is stopping you from living *a better life*. It is all in your hands.

Post: #42

(10-08-2015 04:28 PM)Saga Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 06:03 AM)pitt Wrote:  The world is ran by bad men, good people hardly ever took control of the world.

Unethical men create failed societies

Excuse me? Do you consider slavery and colonialism something ethical? What about invading other countries and extracting their resources against their will?

Let me just quote xsplat and one of his last posts here, I think it's a crucial post to add to this discussion:

''Principles. What are principles? Unchanging beliefs. What good are unchanging beliefs? Well, they make you feel like you live in a safe, secure world, where you have some bedrock of SOMETHING to hold on to.

That's not a useful feeling.

It's better to be flexible and adaptable.

The main principles, the foundational principles, are extremely broad. Truth and happiness. All else must fall in line and change when they are not in accord with truth and happiness.

Views change, and if not, the man is too stiff and trying to solidify Truth and then rest satisfied with that solidification forever. Even Newton couldn't solidify Truth, and he was a big wig. What makes you think any one else should try to solidify Truth? It's a fools errand. We must adapt and change our views and principles, as new information and even as new opportunities arise.

Wanting to have a bedrock of solid beliefs is for the religiously inclined, not for seekers of truth and happiness.''

Post: #43

PR Tax Act 20 and 22 the last place an American can have a legal Tax shelter haven without giving up their passport and expatriating. At 4% Tax versus Obama IRS Federal 38.5 % Top bracket plus AMT and State income taxes so attracting a lot of Sharks who do biz on the mainland. Peter Schiff reportedly shut down his California brokerage offices with their multiple wealth taxes and moved his operations to the PR and is planning same on his high taxed Connecticut home and operations.

This was to help offset the $80 Billion budget deficit and very possible default the island US territory is staring at due to enormously generous government welfare and pensions over the past few decades. Default is still likely but Tax act 20 and 22 guaranteed in writing for 10 years last I read so forward looking since Obama told PR NO bailouts.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/puerto-...2014-04-22

The two laws the government is actively promoting are Act 20 and Act 22., both of which were created in 2008. The laws aim to promote the export of services from the Caribbean island and to encourage the ‘import’ of wealthy individuals.

Act 20 seeks to incentivize businesses to come to Puerto Rico by taxing companies at a flat 4% on earnings, as well as offering them 100% tax exemption on dividends or profit distributions from export services. To qualify, a company has to employ at least 3 people.

Act 22 is the real gold mine, said Alex Daley of Casey Research, who commissioned a report called “Puerto Rico’s New Tax Advantages”, after moving to the island to take advantage of the new incentives.

“This is mostly geared towards U.S. citizens,” said Prouty. “It lets them take advantage of a new tax system.”

A local greek guy - construction laborer and house rehabber - looks for HUD/FHA foreclosures that have been stripped of copper and bids like $100K for the lot, foundation, hookups and shell and invests $70K to rehab and sells for $350K+/- quick sale - uses a private "hard money" lender that charges him 12% a month on the $100K with first liens against the property and he works like a dog to complete the rehabs and flips in 90 to 120 days and pays the vig at the closing ...

He is at the point now where he just borrows the $100K+/- and self funds the rehab costs so $100K at 4 months 12% is $48k deductible business cost so 100 + 70 + 48 = 218K costs ... $350K sale price minus $218K = $132 typical gross profit at 45% Obama IRS and State LLC taxes Nets around $70K per rehab - so the point is 12% a month is much less than 400% annual biz loans which I find hard for the average business to ever repay... I would think the default rate would be quite high - New Hampshire passed laws that outlawed 400% vig payday lenders that sprung up after the 2008/09 financial collapse and they all went out of business - and how many have property that they could put liens against so suspect there are some aggressive collectors (leg breakers) working with these 400% guys.

Even the mob does not charge that high a vig - usually 10% or so if they can place liens on the business property. Bank CDs less than 2% and SBA loans require 50% equity and a personal signature. So hard money lenders do quite well at 8% to 12% a month.

A seasonal Camper Park in So Maine borrowed $2M to buy out and upgrade the park hookups and paid back the $2M plus 10% vig in two years ($200K) and so I can't imagine any legit businesses that can pay 400% per year... unless it is a MaryJane Dispensary and even then 400% is huge.

Better off to go into the hard money rehabs and flips biz rather than get on the hook for 400% imho.

Post: #44

(10-08-2015 04:52 PM)pitt Wrote:  Excuse me? Do you consider slavery and colonialism something ethical? What about invading other countries and extracting their resources against their will?

You claim to reject ethics because you find certain practices unethical, which proves my point in and of itself.

The societies you refer to promoted those practices largely because they conceived of political rights as only extending to those with legal standing within their particular states, something universal in their day. Therefore it's a question of the limits to which they extended their ethics, which is not at all the same as being generally unethical. Regardless of this I have the basis upon which to consider them ethical or unethical, whereas you do not. In essence, you are criticizing practices that you've denied yourself the very instruments to criticize.

But if you wish to talk history let's do so with some accuracy. Do you even know why the Atlantic slave trade developed as it did? It's because several European governments decided that it was unethical to impose forced labor on their own subjects (Amerindians under Spanish rule after the mainly religious arguments of Bartolome de las Casas, to be precise). Therefore, due to this decision drawn from debates on ethics, they needed a source of forced labor outside of those bounds, and found it on the west coast of Africa. The entire project was bound up in the ethical codes of the day.

So you're conflating different issues. Applying one's ethics to certain people, or applying them differently to different people, is a very separate thing from tossing aside ethics entirely. The ethical path retains a sense of propriety and therefore the potential to achieve a just society...the nihilist option does not.

Quote:''Principles. What are principles? Unchanging beliefs. What good are unchanging beliefs? Well, they make you feel like you live in a safe, secure world, where you have some bedrock of SOMETHING to hold on to.

That's not a useful feeling.

It's better to be flexible and adaptable.

You have it wrong, because principles deal less with objective truth than with our reaction to what is true. We can both agree with the external facts of a situation, but what we think is the right and virtuous course of action, and what is not, is governed by ethics.

If two men see a child in danger, and one immediately goes to effect a rescue while the other keeps on walking because he doesn't care...the difference in action is not due to a difference in perception of truth, but a difference in ethics. Obviously it's of paramount import.

And of course, being "flexible and adaptable" would mean that you would happily engage in the selling of slaves (not vastly different from what many financial sharks do today, in fact) if the option was open to you, therefore rendering moot your prior arguments.

Lastly, flexibility and ethics are not incompatible, and principled people absolutely take circumstances and conditions into account. If someone punches you, it is ethical for you to punch them back in self-defense; if someone pronounces your name wrong, it is unethical for you to punch them in response. Having principles doesn't make one blind to the immediate situation and how it varies from others.

Quote:The main principles, the foundational principles, are extremely broad. Truth and happiness. All else must fall in line and change when they are not in accord with truth and happiness.

Views change, and if not, the man is too stiff and trying to solidify Truth and then rest satisfied with that solidification forever. Even Newton couldn't solidify Truth, and he was a big wig. What makes you think any one else should try to solidify Truth? It's a fools errand. We must adapt and change our views and principles, as new information and even as new opportunities arise.

Wanting to have a bedrock of solid beliefs is for the religiously inclined, not for seekers of truth and happiness.''

The entire point of truth is that it is unchanging, a quality antithetical to everything you've argued. You might as well declare that you seek sobriety through the use of tequila.

More to the point, again, ethics isn't about grasping the entirety of truth, it's about using what we know to do good, and to necessarily then answer the question of what is good. If we avoid these central questions merely because we don't like other people's answers or because it seems like a drag, then we can do little else except flail around for gold coins in the darkness.

Study history and you will soon encounter one obvious truth: without a bedrock of principles, nothing of substance can ever be built, and as a result no enduring happiness can ever be achieved. We must choose wisely.

Post: #45

A mutual friend of mine was approached by one of the Gentlemen in the article to join his startup. He told me that the idea sounded fishy and declined.

Post: #46

(10-08-2015 06:03 AM)pitt Wrote:  If I am lending people money, I will charge them whatever interest rate I want to charge them, it's up to them to take it or leave it. If they are stupid enough to accept 400% interest rates, what's the guy who is lending them money supposed to do? Tell them that he is overcharging them and that they shouldn't accept it?

Pitt, this is the same type of behavior that led to the 2008 financial collapse.

Banks giving out loans to people who couldn't pay it back. You say it isn't the bank's fault the person borrowed the money without understanding the terms. Have you ever got a loan and went through all the documentation that needed to be signed?

The banks then sold those loans as grade A loans. You may say it is the fault of the secondary market for trusting the banks, but there is no way this type of volume can be tracked.

Banks then purchased insurance knowing those loans would be bad. Shame on the insurance companies for writing the insurance policies.

This type of behavior screwed the world and will continue to do so if left unchecked.

Post: #47

Puerto Rico makes sense once you start hitting that 1 mill an year if you are going to start a business under act 20.

You need to employ at least 3 people. You also need to pay yourself a salary up to 250k. Income tax is, I believe, much higher there. From my understanding, you do count as one of the 3 employed people.

Act 22 is a good deal, but you still pay American taxes on all investments you own prior to moving.

Puerto Rico has a 11.5% sales tax now. They are also looking into a implementing a VAT tax. It's become very expensive to live there.

Post: #48

(10-08-2015 06:44 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

(10-08-2015 06:03 AM)pitt Wrote:  If I am lending people money, I will charge them whatever interest rate I want to charge them, it's up to them to take it or leave it. If they are stupid enough to accept 400% interest rates, what's the guy who is lending them money supposed to do? Tell them that he is overcharging them and that they shouldn't accept it?

Pitt, this is the same type of behavior that led to the 2008 financial collapse.


Banks giving out loans to people who couldn't pay it back. You say it isn't the bank's fault the person borrowed the money without understanding the terms. Have you ever got a loan and went through all the documentation that needed to be signed?

The banks then sold those loans as grade A loans. You may say it is the fault of the secondary market for trusting the banks, but there is no way this type of volume can be tracked.

Banks then purchased insurance knowing those loans would be bad. Shame on the insurance companies for writing the insurance policies.

This type of behavior screwed the world and will continue to do so if left unchecked.

It was government intervention that caused the collapse. Barney Frank almost single-handedly forced Fannie and Freddie to accept subprime debtors. That program was expanded and expanded until the collapse happened - then, 5 years later they tried to start the same programs again.

The banks never wanted to get involved in the loans but had constant regulatory pressure from Washington to do it - from both sides of the isle.

Frank admitted this:

Quote:In a recent meeting with the Council on Foreign Relations, Barney Frank–the chair of the House Financial Services Committee and a longtime supporter of Fannie and Freddie–admitted that it had been a mistake to force homeownership on people who could not afford it. Renting, he said, would have been preferable. Now he tells us.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/13/housing...pinto.html

That's just one article, Google it, there are hundreds more.

Post: #49

Thread title reminds me of the film "Boiler Room". Good movie. I remember Ben Affleck's speech. Not as good as Baldwin's in Glengarry Glen Ross, but close.

Post: #50

(10-08-2015 07:58 PM)Captainstabbin Wrote:  It was government intervention that caused the collapse. Barney Frank almost single-handedly forced Fannie and Freddie to accept subprime debtors. That program was expanded and expanded until the collapse happened - then, 5 years later they tried to start the same programs again.

The banks never wanted to get involved in the loans but had constant regulatory pressure from Washington to do it - from both sides of the isle.

Frank admitted this:

Quote:In a recent meeting with the Council on Foreign Relations, Barney Frank–the chair of the House Financial Services Committee and a longtime supporter of Fannie and Freddie–admitted that it had been a mistake to force homeownership on people who could not afford it. Renting, he said, would have been preferable. Now he tells us.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/13/housing...pinto.html

That's just one article, Google it, there are hundreds more.

Which banks didn't want to participate?

Are you saying the credit rating companies and banks had nothing to do with the collapse? Obviously government relaxing requirements was part of the reason, I'm just trying to understand how you can overlook all the other stuff that contributed.