Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 38

Thread: Loan Penetration by Banks destroys home ownership rates worldwide.

  1. #1

    Loan Penetration by Banks destroys home ownership rates worldwide.

    THIS IS HOW BANKERS MURDER A HEALTHY SOCIETY.

    Countries that they have not yet exploited with their predatory banking enjoy much higher home ownership rates.
    How can people afford the homes they live in so much when they are financially poor? Because the homes and land were not financialized. Long-term financialization has taken America from a country where 6 months of work could buy a nice home in cash to a country where it takes decades to finish buying a home for most people.

    Housing Loan Penetration by Country
    Descending Order:
    50%+ Swe, Den
    40-50%: Lux, NZ, Australia, Neth
    30-40%: Ire, Belg, US, Spa, UK, Can, Fin
    20-30%: Fra, Cyp, Au, Por, SK, Ger, Kuw, UER, Sing, Mal, Qat
    10-20%: Est, Oman, Jap, Isr, Iraq, Mala, SA, Iran, Hun, HK, Ita, Pan, Slovenia
    5-10%: Belarus, Afg, Lat, Cze, Slovak, Gre, Pal, Alg, Soma, Lith, Nep, Swaz, Malaw, Sud, Dji, Chad, Moro, Maur, Leb, Syr, Mauritius
    *African countries are recent additions as banks penetrate
    under 5% (many under 2%): all other countries
    openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/16821

    Home Ownership by Country
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate

    Many top countries by home ownership rate very low for mortgages.
    What does this mean ? A lot of things. Rising home values = inflation occurs
    when houses are owned by banks, not by people. This is seen in a graphic in
    the first link (the first chart) which shows Mortgage Depth and Loan Origination
    run hand-in-hand. Where the banks own houses, the banks drive prices upward.
    Where the banks do not own houses, and do not loan, people own houses and
    prices are naturally static or depend on other non-financialized factors.

    There was a time in the US when a non-skilled laborer could work a few months
    and buy land and build a house just like that. No loan. As banks penetrated the
    housing market post-WW2, prices continually rose, with rapidly progressing levels,
    and wages in real terms stagnated. Home ownership dropped precipitously, in direct
    proportion to the proliferation of loans being necessary to buy property, a condition
    only made possible by penetration of the housing market by banks.

    Lesson: Bank mortgages drive homelessness. Bank mortgages drive inflation.
    In real terms, people are not better off, just the numbers are bigger from inflation.
    Many Americans did not keep their money in banks, again, until post-WW2. This is
    partially due to distrust of banks, but it is moreso because they did not need to borrow.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    THIS IS HOW BANKERS MURDER A HEALTHY SOCIETY.

    Countries that they have not yet exploited with their predatory banking enjoy much higher home ownership rates.
    How can people afford the homes they live in so much when they are financially poor? Because the homes and land were not financialized. Long-term financialization has taken America from a country where 6 months of work could buy a nice home in cash to a country where it takes decades to finish buying a home for most people.

    Housing Loan Penetration by Country
    Descending Order:
    50%+ Swe, Den
    40-50%: Lux, NZ, Australia, Neth
    30-40%: Ire, Belg, US, Spa, UK, Can, Fin
    20-30%: Fra, Cyp, Au, Por, SK, Ger, Kuw, UER, Sing, Mal, Qat
    10-20%: Est, Oman, Jap, Isr, Iraq, Mala, SA, Iran, Hun, HK, Ita, Pan, Slovenia
    5-10%: Belarus, Afg, Lat, Cze, Slovak, Gre, Pal, Alg, Soma, Lith, Nep, Swaz, Malaw, Sud, Dji, Chad, Moro, Maur, Leb, Syr, Mauritius
    *African countries are recent additions as banks penetrate
    under 5% (many under 2%): all other countries
    openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/16821

    Home Ownership by Country
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate

    Many top countries by home ownership rate very low for mortgages.
    What does this mean ? A lot of things. Rising home values = inflation occurs
    when houses are owned by banks, not by people. This is seen in a graphic in
    the first link (the first chart) which shows Mortgage Depth and Loan Origination
    run hand-in-hand. Where the banks own houses, the banks drive prices upward.
    Where the banks do not own houses, and do not loan, people own houses and
    prices are naturally static or depend on other non-financialized factors.

    There was a time in the US when a non-skilled laborer could work a few months
    and buy land and build a house just like that. No loan. As banks penetrated the
    housing market post-WW2, prices continually rose, with rapidly progressing levels,
    and wages in real terms stagnated. Home ownership dropped precipitously, in direct
    proportion to the proliferation of loans being necessary to buy property, a condition
    only made possible by penetration of the housing market by banks.

    Lesson: Bank mortgages drive homelessness. Bank mortgages drive inflation.
    In real terms, people are not better off, just the numbers are bigger from inflation.
    Many Americans did not keep their money in banks, again, until post-WW2. This is
    partially due to distrust of banks, but it is moreso because they did not need to borrow.

    Banking and even mortgages would work fine without interference from a central bank. If banks had to pay interest to savers to have funds to lend out, and would have to charge real rates for loans, things would be different. People always ask me if I want mortgage rates at 12% and I always say yes. Prices wouldn't be artificially high and you would have real savings rates. I remember CDs over 10% as a kid.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt4Liberty View Post
    Banking and even mortgages would work fine without interference from a central bank. If banks had to pay interest to savers to have funds to lend out, and would have to charge real rates for loans, things would be different. People always ask me if I want mortgage rates at 12% and I always say yes. Prices wouldn't be artificially high and you would have real savings rates. I remember CDs over 10% as a kid.
    I agree. Although I do think there has to be a legislative limit on banking operations and their scope. This country had such a legislative limit
    but unfortunately it is a most fatal error of the founders to place the public trust into hands of so-called representatives.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt4Liberty View Post
    Banking and even mortgages would work fine without interference from a central bank. If banks had to pay interest to savers to have funds to lend out, and would have to charge real rates for loans, things would be different. People always ask me if I want mortgage rates at 12% and I always say yes. Prices wouldn't be artificially high and you would have real savings rates. I remember CDs over 10% as a kid.
    Central banks don't directly determine interest rates by price fixing. Central banks control inflation. And the rate of inflation determines interest rates.

    12% mortgage rates implies double digit inflation. So you basically are demanding super easy money from the Fed. And if you are having trouble comprehending this you should move to Argentina. You can get 40% CDs there. You would really be in heaven.
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 04-15-2021 at 03:17 PM.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Central banks don't directly determine interest rates by price fixing. Central banks control inflation. And the rate of inflation determines interest rates.

    12% mortgage rates implies double digit inflation. So you basically are demanding super easy money from the Fed. And if you are having trouble comprehending this you should move to Argentina. You can get 40% CDs there. You would really be in heaven.
    You have drank too much MMT kool aid. The central bank most certainly does control interest rates. 12% mortgage rates resulting from 10% CD rates are different than 12% mortgage rates caused by the central bank printing money. You are only taking the latter scenario into consideration. If the central bank didn't provide any loans to the banks, those banks would have to barrow that money from you, the saver. This isn't some bizarre concept like people with short memories like to believe. It was reality a few decades ago. I'm not that old. This is how it has worked for a long time, before MMT. Now the central bank just prints all the banks want, and running your savings account is actually a hassle for most banks. They just lend the FED's money. Much easier.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt4Liberty View Post
    You have drank too much MMT kool aid.

    Your view is the MMT view on interest rates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern...te_maintenance

    The high interest rates of the of the late 70s were caused by a dramatic increase in the money supply.

    High interest rates= easy money

    Low interest rates = tight money

    Also helpful reading. https://www.econlib.org/library/Colu...restrates.html

  8. #7
    Fixed income essentially doesn't exist in the US anymore. There is no competitive market in debt instruments. Try to find a CD or bond that pays a reasonable rate. You won’t.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

    Proponent of real science.
    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Your view is the MMT view on interest rates. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern...te_maintenance

    The high interest rates of the of the late 70s were caused by a dramatic increase in the money supply.

    High interest rates= easy money

    Low interest rates = tight money

    Also helpful reading. https://www.econlib.org/library/Colu...restrates.html
    So money is "tight" right now? That's news to me. The only time it was easier to get a loan was 2007. High interest rates in the 80s were caused by Paul Volker understanding that MMT would cause the whole fiat house of cards to collapse. I personally would prefer no interference from the central bank, but at least that made some levels of sense. Today we have exponentially expanding money supply and artificially low rates.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt4Liberty View Post
    So money is "tight" right now? That's news to me. The only time it was easier to get a loan was 2007. High interest rates in the 80s were caused by Paul Volker understanding that MMT would cause the whole fiat house of cards to collapse. I personally would prefer no interference from the central bank, but at least that made some levels of sense. Today we have exponentially expanding money supply and artificially low rates.
    Money is loose now. M2 grew at 28% over the last year. Inflation and higher interest should follow as more people leave their house.

    Money was extremely tight coming out of 2008 and stayed fairly tight throughout the last 10 years. M2 grew slowly. Rates were not artificially low. If you are going to talk about interest rates like they are a price, rates were artificially high and the zero lower bound acted as a price floor like minimum wages act as a price floor and prevent markets from clearing. https://macromarketmusings.blogspot....marketers.html


    High interest rates in the 80s were caused by Paul Volker understanding that MMT would cause the whole fiat house of cards to collapse.
    That is factually wrong.

    As far as Paul Volcker, the most commonly known thing about his monetary policy is that he abandoned the Keynesian/MMT idea of focusing on interest rates and focused entirely on the money supply growth. Literally written in his obituary.

    "To underscore the Fed’s determination, Mr. Volcker announced a significant change in the conduct of monetary policy. Historically, the Fed had aimed to control interest rates — the price of money. Under the new policy, he said that the Fed would instead aim to control the supply of money. Limiting the money supply would cause interest rates to rise, but the Fed would no longer aim for a specific increase. The central bank would determine how much money was available; markets would set the price."
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 04-20-2021 at 11:53 AM.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Money is loose now. M2 grew at 28% over the last year. Inflation and higher interest should follow as more people leave their house.

    Money was extremely tight coming out of 2008 and stayed fairly tight throughout the last 10 years. M2 grew slowly. Rates were not artificially low. If you are going to talk about interest rates like they are a price, rates were artificially high and the zero lower bound acted as a price floor like minimum wages act as a price floor and prevent markets from clearing. https://macromarketmusings.blogspot....marketers.html




    That is factually wrong.

    As far as Paul Volcker, the most commonly known thing about his monetary policy is that he abandoned the Keynesian/MMT idea of focusing on interest rates and focused entirely on the money supply growth. Literally written in his obituary.

    "To underscore the Fed’s determination, Mr. Volcker announced a significant change in the conduct of monetary policy. Historically, the Fed had aimed to control interest rates — the price of money. Under the new policy, he said that the Fed would instead aim to control the supply of money. Limiting the money supply would cause interest rates to rise, but the Fed would no longer aim for a specific increase. The central bank would determine how much money was available; markets would set the price."
    So I'm factually wrong when you literally provided an excerpt that backed up my point?

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt4Liberty View Post
    So I'm factually wrong when you literally provided an excerpt that backed up my point?
    Your quote

    High interest rates in the 80s were caused by Paul Volker
    Quote from Volcker's obituary

    To underscore the Fed’s determination, Mr. Volcker announced a significant change in the conduct of monetary policy. Historically, the Fed had aimed to control interest rates — the price of money. Under the new policy, he said that the Fed would instead aim to control the supply of money.

    Volcker didn't cause high interest rates. Inflation caused high interest rates. And interest rates fell ultimately because money became tight enough to slow inflation. A 12% CD isn't inherently helping savers. Venezuela has a short term interest rate of 59% right now. The inflation rate is 500%. High interest rates have no direct connection to whether money is loose or tight. That said, it is usually correct to say high interest rates mean policy is extremely inflationary.
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 04-20-2021 at 06:06 PM.

  14. #12
    There's also local governments charging you 'property tax' for services you might not be using.

    Let people build whatever home they want, and only pay a user fee for schools, roads, water, sewage.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by merkelstan View Post
    There's also local governments charging you 'property tax' for services you might not be using.

    Let people build whatever home they want, and only pay a user fee for schools, roads, water, sewage.
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Your quote



    Quote from Volcker's obituary




    Volcker didn't cause high interest rates. Inflation caused high interest rates. And interest rates fell ultimately because money became tight enough to slow inflation. A 12% CD isn't inherently helping savers. Venezuela has a short term interest rate of 59% right now. The inflation rate is 500%. High interest rates have no direct connection to whether money is loose or tight. That said, it is usually correct to say high interest rates mean policy is extremely inflationary.
    Volker tightened up lending from the FED. High interest rates were caused by banks barrowing from savers instead of the FED. This was the result of Volker's policies. What you're claiming would be the same thing as claiming it's the gun that killed a person instead of the shooter. (Actually that explains a bunch of your opinions)

    Interest rates need to be market set period. The Venezuela example only further proves the point because they have unlimited money printing. 60% is probably in affect a negative interest rate with their inflation. At least we have something to look forward to.

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt4Liberty View Post
    Volker tightened up lending from the FED. High interest rates were caused by banks barrowing from savers instead of the FED. This was the result of Volker's policies. What you're claiming would be the same thing as claiming it's the gun that killed a person instead of the shooter. (Actually that explains a bunch of your opinions)



    "Instead of relying on Keynesian policies such as interest rate targeting, Volcker had the Fed directly reduce the growth rate of the money supply, and let interest rates go as high as market forces dictated."

    https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/...amed-inflation



    Interest rates need to be market set period.
    Exactly. Which is what I advocate. Markets setting interest rates not central planners. You support a Soviet style system where central planners target interest rates.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt4Liberty View Post
    People always ask me if I want mortgage rates at 12% and I always say yes. Prices wouldn't be artificially high and you would have real savings rates. I remember CDs over 10% as a kid.
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 04-21-2021 at 07:58 PM.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by merkelstan View Post
    There's also local governments charging you 'property tax' for services you might not be using.

    Let people build whatever home they want, and only pay a user fee for schools, roads, water, sewage.
    I totally oppose property tax . Not going anywhere where I live though ( 1 percent on primary residence) it is how they fund that school system you mentioned .
    Last edited by oyarde; 06-17-2021 at 05:15 PM.
    Do something Danke

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    "Instead of relying on Keynesian policies such as interest rate targeting, Volcker had the Fed directly reduce the growth rate of the money supply, and let interest rates go as high as market forces dictated."

    https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/...amed-inflation





    Exactly. Which is what I advocate. Markets setting interest rates not central planners. You support a Soviet style system where central planners target interest rates.
    Your reading comprehension is very bad if you think I support central planners setting interest rates. The only thing I support is elimination of the central bank and a stable currency backed by precious metals. One that is redeemable in it's specified weight on demand.

    That being said, the central bank isn't going away anytime soon, and I would at least prefer Volker's reserved management style compared to the current and recent FED chairmen that just go "Money printer go better"



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    I totally oppose property tax . Not going anywhere where I live though ( 1 percent on primary residence) it is how the fund that school system you mentioned .
    I was looking to see if there's any place that doesn't have property tax. Couldn't find one. There are a few countries however where it's a flat fee at the time of purchase. I would prefer that over constantly paying tax on the same property. At least you can pay off the government and then really own the place.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt4Liberty View Post
    Your reading comprehension is very bad if you think I support central planners setting interest rates.
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt4Liberty View Post
    People always ask me if I want mortgage rates at 12% and I always say yes.

    You, interest rate central planner, pulled the number 12% out of thin air for some reason. It seems like your statement is pretty clear. 12% because..... Well.... Who knows... You want 12% because there is something magical about it and something about Paul Volcker.

    I. free marketer, do not care what the rate of interest is. Ever. Because interest rates are not monetary policy. Interest rates are a market response to monetary policy.
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 04-21-2021 at 08:19 PM.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    You, interest rate central planner, pulled the number 12% out of thin air for some reason. It seems like your statement is pretty clear. 12% because..... Well.... Who knows... You want 12% because there is something magical about it and something about Paul Volcker.

    I. free marketer, do not care what the rate of interest is. Ever. Because interest rates are not monetary policy. Interest rates are a market response to monetary policy.
    Again, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I said that when people ask me if I want 12% interest rates on mortgages that would result from market rates, I say yes. That doesn't mean that I want interest rates set at 12% by central planners. I could be speaking Sri Lanken though, because this concept won't compute anyway.

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt4Liberty View Post
    I said that when people ask me if I want 12% interest rates on mortgages that would result from market rates, I say yes. That doesn't mean that I want interest rates set at 12% by central planners.
    Sorry I misunderstood. So you want the Federal Reserve to pursue an extremely loose policy to get inflation to double digits so you can have double digit mortgage rates.

    Makes a lot of sense. Smart take.

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Sorry I misunderstood. So you want the Federal Reserve to pursue an extremely loose policy to get inflation to double digits so you can have double digit mortgage rates.

    Makes a lot of sense. Smart take.
    ඔබට පැහැදිලිවම ඉංග්*රීසි තේරුම් ගත නොහැකි බැවින් අපි සිංහල උත්සාහ කරමු. මට අවශ්*ය වන්නේ ෆෙඩරල් මහ බැංකුව කිසිවක් නොකර එයින් stay ත් වී සිටීමයි.

  25. #22
    Homeownership is the American Dream. It is the chance for all Americans to put down roots and begin making value for themselves and their families. Homeownership has been the way to building abundance for ages of Americans. Furthermore, it has been the way to guaranteeing stable networks, great schools, and safe roads.

    Banks loaded up on subprime contracts. When resource costs fell, the banks needed to record the worth of their subprime protections. Presently, banks expected to loan less to ensure their liabilities weren't more prominent than their resources.

    The country's biggest credit association by resources, Navy FCU, saw vehicle advance entrance decrease 0.3 rate highlight 11.3% as of Dec. 31, 2018. The organization expanded its charge card credit infiltration by 0.7 rate highlight 32.1%.
    Last edited by howdynichol34; 06-15-2021 at 01:16 AM.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt4Liberty View Post
    I was looking to see if there's any place that doesn't have property tax. Couldn't find one. There are a few countries however where it's a flat fee at the time of purchase. I would prefer that over constantly paying tax on the same property. At least you can pay off the government and then really own the place.
    I'm curious where the flat fee places are.

  27. #24
    Inflation of Assets is the true driver of wealth disparity, because wealth today is simply an affect of asset accumulation then inflation.
    When the working man has to borrow to buy, the working man works for the bank.
    Our system is a system of indentured servitude and the total debasement of morality in economics, it is the philosophical split
    that ripped ethics out of economics since Adam Smith was paid to write the Wealth of Nations by the bankers.

    SCAM from DAY ONE.



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Snowball View Post
    I it is the philosophical split
    that ripped ethics out of economics since Adam Smith was paid to write the Wealth of Nations by the bankers.

    SCAM from DAY ONE.
    Adam Smith emphasized morals and ethics more than just about any economist ever.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Th...ral_Sentiments

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Lindsey View Post
    I'm curious where the flat fee places are.
    There are a decent amount. Fiji, Seychelles, Cayman islands, Thailand, Georgia, Dominica. If you're in a position where this is important to you, spend some time researching. I found this info by searching for no property tax.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Central banks don't directly determine interest rates by price fixing. Central banks control inflation. And the rate of inflation determines interest rates.

    12% mortgage rates implies double digit inflation. So you basically are demanding super easy money from the Fed. And if you are having trouble comprehending this you should move to Argentina. You can get 40% CDs there. You would really be in heaven.
    You'd be right if the Fed wasn't buying treasuries and mortgages. But they are and so of course they are fixing prices on interest rates.

    Do you really think in a free market private individuals would be loaning the US govt money for 10 years at 1.5%? It's not even remotely possible.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    You'd be right if the Fed wasn't buying treasuries and mortgages. But they are and so of course they are fixing prices on interest rates.
    Buying Treasuries does create demand and demand for a bond means a lower yield. So it is technically incorrect to say the Fed has no effect on interest rates but it is a very good approximation of reality. The effect is not as simple as more buying equals lower yield. More buying could = higher yields in some scenarios. If more buying is inflationary and raises nominal GDP then yields would rise.

    Nominal GDP growth is the most important part of interest rates. It is productivity growth + population growth +inflation. So when meathead above says interest rates should be 12% in a free market it makes no sense. Nominal GDP growth has been 4% with a super active pumping money in. Why would interest rates ever be 8% higher than nominal GDP growth?


    Do you really think in a free market private individuals would be loaning the US govt money for 10 years at 1.5%? It's not even remotely possible.
    Maybe. It is entirely possible rates would be lower. We faced a Great Depression scenario last year. Had the government done nothing nominal GDP would have collapsed like the Great Depression. Interest rates went to zero in the Great Depression when the Fed let the money supply collapse.

    Interest rates are always going to be very low in a low nominal GDP environment. 1.5% *seems* low to me. But it isn't wildly off. Historically based on nominal GDP maybe 3-4% is about right.
    Last edited by Krugminator2; 06-17-2021 at 02:32 PM.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Adam Smith emphasized morals and ethics more than just about any economist ever.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Th...ral_Sentiments
    he was a snake oil salesman.

  34. #30
    property tax almost $900 a month here, renting my own house
    A savage barbaric tribal society where thugs parade the streets and illegally assault and murder innocent civilians, yeah that is the alternative to having police. Oh wait, that is the police

    We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.
    - Edward R. Murrow

    ...I think we have moral obligations to disobey unjust laws, because non-cooperation with evil is as much as a moral obligation as cooperation with good. - MLK Jr.

    How to trigger a liberal: "I didn't get vaccinated."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. US number one in gun ownership worldwide. Not in top ten of gun deaths.
    By Anti Federalist in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2016, 11:34 PM
  2. Replies: 41
    Last Post: 11-30-2011, 11:33 PM
  3. Credit Card Rates: Banks Plan To RAISE Rates, Annual Fees
    By bobbyw24 in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-12-2009, 02:37 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-10-2009, 09:34 AM
  5. Interest Rates Down, Loan rates Up?
    By Jagwarr in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-31-2008, 05:24 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •