I would like to know what percentage of dollars loaned on sub-prime terms went to poor folks trying to buy and occupy a home, and what percentage went to investors and housing-market speculators whose intention was to "flip" the house. Before sub-prime payments ballooned, there was a 9-month housing surplus because builders/speculators over-reacted to the demand, and they were stuck with unsold houses on which they held such "temporary" mortgages with highly volatile and explosive interest rates. Maybe a way of getting at this answer would be to plot the loan-amounts, adjusted for regional cost-of-living, and look at the distribution. My hunch is that only a small fraction of the total dollars lent on sub-prime terms was for modestly priced inner-suburb and urban homes. Regards Tim Romano [log in to unmask] wrote: > Dear Poundians, > > I do not usually read the NYTimes business section with my literary eyes > open, but I think Pound would have been pleased to be quoted in an article > by Ben Stein about the recent subprime lending problems: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/10/business/10every.html?_r=1&ex=1360386000&en=b576a27d7ff9655f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&st=cse&sq=unending+allure+of+the+free+lunch&scp=1&oref=slogin > > I hope this message finds you all well, > Catherine Paul > > Associate Professor > Department of English > Clemson University > Clemson, SC 29634-0523 > [log in to unmask] > > >