[lbo-talk] Dean Baker's Senate testimony: own-to-rent

[Eric Draitser]

I do so wish this proposal were feasible but i just cant see how it can be.
I don't believe that banks "don't want to be landlords", in fact it seems to
me to be exactly the opposite.  Now i certainly dont want to oversimplify a
complex issue but in very basic terms this is a land grab in the same way
the property foreclosures were at the onset of the Depression.  Sure, many
many banks also went under but they were consolidated into larger, more
central banks (i.e. Chase Manhattan/JP Morgan - both of which made a killing
gobbling up equity).  Now please correct me if you think im mistaken here,
but the central banks that pumped liquidity into the housing market allowing
other banks to dole out the subprime mortgages are going to be able to reap
benefits here by keeping any equity and also foreclosing and taking
ownership of property.  This is classic predatory capitalist tactics the
blueprint for which was 1930-1935 when the filthy rich got filthier.  Though
i readily admit im not an expert on mortgage lending, the historical
precedent seems clear enough.

On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 4:26 PM, Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:


>
> On Apr 11, 2008, at 4:19 PM, Shane Taylor wrote:
> > While providing a rental option, the "own-to-rent"
> > plan is actually likely to lead to a situation in
> > which many homeowners are able to stay in their homes
>
> "Stay in their *houses*," please! Hasn't he ever read Fussell's Class?
>
> This is a good proposal - it even attracted Goldman Sachs's notice
> the other week. I wonder if any of those hacks in the Senate will
> take it up.
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>