Home
> The Economy > US mortgage delinquencies and forclosures 2005 -2011: chart of the day
US mortgage delinquencies and forclosures 2005 -2011: chart of the day
Leave a comment
—– look inside —– $5.94 / $20.00
—– look inside —– $4.90 / $8.00
—– look inside —– $15.99
—– look inside —– $5.99 / 12.99
—– look inside —– $5.93 / $12.99
—– look inside —– $4.97 / $9.90
—— Ugarteche, Puyana and Madi ——
Gerson Lima / Maria Alejandra Madi
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
————— Michael Hudson ————–
Maria Alejandra Madi / Jack Reardon
————- Edward Fullbrook ————-
—————— Steve Keen —————–
————— Richard Smith —————
————– Gustavo Marques————
– Victor Beker and Beniamino Moro –
————– Lars Pålsson Syll ————-
—————– Stuart Birks —————-
Edward Fullbrook and Jamie Morgan
———— Armando Ochangco ———-
Shimshon Bichler / Jonathan Nitzan
————— Mauro Gallegati ————–
————— Herman Daly —————-
————— Asad Zaman —————
—————– C. T. Kurien —————
————— Robert Locke —————-
Real-World Economics Review Blog 
Guess thats a whole swag of peoples homes now owned by the banks. In every major wave (bubble and bust in history) banks seemed to have ended up owning more of what people used to own. In the 1890s in Australia they ended up owning most of the wool clip after the crash, probably by the mid 1960s they owned most of the farms, now it seems the banks are going to own most of urban dwellers households both here and in Australia. When will the transfer of wealth to the financial sector stop exactly? What will it take finally?
Id advocate a move – a general strike on share activity until the banks who are bleeding real production dry – actually fall in value. A conscientious decision by people with morals not to prop up their sharemarkets from which they profit excessively. Oh and legislate against mandatory super which is helping overinflate share values and is keeping the banks at their own private party of fees, charges, gouging and gambling.
Banks are the main beneficiaries of property/land bubbles, collecting a high proportion of inflated rents. The majority of loans are backed by land which makes them virtually risk-free (provided sensible lending policies are adopted). Why do we allow banks to collect rent, which should be for public benefit? If this were done the banks could not use land as collateral because its market price would tend to zero. Then banks would have to learn to do their job properly, of assessing the real risks of making loans for investment or consumption, not property speculation.
Carol, you might be interested in the this:
To my surprise, the Dutch ‘Centraal Planbureau’, the main economic think tank, starts to take Henry George serious (though they did need the help of geographers to do this):
http://www.mejudice.nl/artikel/622/de-waarde-van-grondprijzen-als-richtsnoer-voor-gemeentebeleid
I’m not going to (try to) translate the article, but they do suggest a genuine land tax (as opposed to taxing the value of buildings). It’s in fact the second time in a short span that the CPB publishes an article which takes Henry George serious, the former one being one on the history of local taxes by Frits Bos.
Fun fact: Georgism has to feminize: one of the most important factors adding to the value of land is the availability of luxury fashion stores (explains 11% of 77% of explained variance, only motorized acces to jobs is more important, table 1)