|Subject:||[socialcredit] RE: OWNERSHIP: Ownership transfer|
|Date:||Saturday, December 4, 2004 07:47:55 (-0800)|
|From:||william_b_ryan <william_b_ryan @.....com>
I do not know how Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac are
subsidized. Can you briefly explain please.
I refer you to an official U. S. Government source.
I referred to them as "quasi-governmental." The
government refers to them as "government sponsored."
You might note that the Federal Reserve System is
itself "government sponsored."
"HUD regulates the two housing government-sponsored
enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the GSEs),
which were chartered by Congress to create a
secondary market for residential mortgage loans.
"These GSEs are the largest source of housing finance
in the United States. They are considered to be
'government sponsored' because Congress authorized
their creation and established their public purposes.
Their Congressional charters require each corporation
to achieve public purposes that include providing
stability and liquidity in the secondary mortgage
market, providing secondary market assistance
relating to mortgages for low-and moderate-income
families, and promoting access to mortgage credit
throughout the Nation, including underserved areas.
"In exchange for carrying out these public purposes,
the GSEs are accorded various privileges that provide
them with some advantages not available to other
private corporations, including an implicit benefit
that allows them to borrow money at rates which are
lower than rates competitors must pay..."
--- Radu Seserman <email@example.com> wrote:
> Yes, you did not mention 'high interest'.
> Do you think that a credit union or a cooperative
> is similar in effect to the regulation you want for
> Even if operating expenses can be unreasonably high
> and interest can be at minimum limit (to cover
> operating expenses), I still think there is a
> conceptual difference.
> I do not know how Fanie Mae or Freddie Mac are
> subsidized. Can you briefly explain please.
> Radu Seserman,
> PS I hope you do not mind I reply directly to you.
> --- firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > I am curious, Radu, from specifically what was it
> > that I wrote did you come to the conclusion that I
> > favor "high interest." I think you jumped to a
> > conclusion from your preconceived ideas about
> > interest. Anyone who does not favor the
> > of interest must therefore favor "high interest,"
> > some such logic.
> > Inasmuch as the financial sector and banking in
> > particular is a natural monopoly, it is my opinion
> > that it needs to exist in a regulated (not
> > "deregulated") environment so that those in
> > administrative control of various aspects of it do
> > not abuse their positions to the detriment of the
> > general public. And regulation (in the sense I
> > the term) does not mean merely rules and dictats
> > oversight boards, but the implementation of policy
> > objectives.
> > Radu, think a little, please, about this
> > demarcation between "interest" and "operating
> > You see it all the time in the crank literature,
> > it can be called literature. In the instances you
> > cite, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, etc., interest
> > hasn't been reduced but shifted from the specific
> > borrower to the public at large. The real costs
> > supplying financial services have not gone away.
> > Various institutions subsidize the costs to the
> > borrower, because it is thought that home
> > is a good thing, not just for the specific
> > homeowner,
> > but society in general.
> > Bill
> > email@example.com wrote:
> > Bill wrote:
> > In the United States it usually works like this:
> > construction of the home is financed by a
> > loan to the builder, which is paid off when it is
> > sold to the final consumer, who finances his
> > purchase
> > through a long-term mortgage.
> > The process enables homes to be built and consumed
> > that would otherwise have never been built. Or
> > you argue that it doesn't? You don't see that
> > happening in places with antiquated financial
> > systems, primitive ideas about "usury," etc. Those
> > places are permanently condemned to poverty, are
> > they
> > not?
> > Bill
> > Radu replies:
> > It seems to me you are an advocate for high
> > interest.
> > The facts from the US, you refer to, actually
> > demonstrate an inverse relation between interest
> > new constructions: more houses are built as
> > gets lower. If you really analyze what determined
> > the
> > significant increase in home ownership in the US,
> > is not the interest on the mortgage, it is not
> > the availability of funds - there were always been
> > money available. The cause is the 'support from
> > community', in this case the federal government
> > through low interest programs and through its
> > agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which back the
> > mortgages by buying them from primary lenders,
> > the lowering the risk and the interest. Modern
> > financial systems can exist with virtually no
> > interest, just an operating fee.
> > My best wishes,
> > Radu
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
The Most Complete Mailing Lists, Groups and Newsletters System on the Net