Illegal Immigration

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homer13j

Allow me to set you straight on what really happened:

---

Yeah, take a complex issue and distill it down to one action that conservatives can use to blame the whole thing on liberal policy. Then wait thirty plus years for this problem to suddenly bring down the system and make it appear that was the whole issue...or even the most significant part...or even a piece of the issue.

With that amount of lead time between cause and effect in a chaotic system, you might as well blame the whole crisis on ME, as you would be entirely as justified in doing so, mathematically.

About the Community Reinvestment Act described, due to the lag between cause and effect, one or both of these statements are true, and the inverse of both of them are definitely false:


1) The Community Reinvestment Act had nothing to do with the current financial crisis.

2) We have no possible way to determine whether the Community Reinvestment Act had any measurable impact on the current financial crisis.

It doesn't matter whether you are right or left. This is just math. As much as people desperately want to believe otherwise, those two statements are the only ones you can viably choose from regarding the impact of the Community Reinvestment Act. You can have one, the other, or both, but that's all.

The actual law

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12..._12_10_30.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbasnett

The actual law

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/12..._12_10_30.html

---

12 USC 30 2905 is just a holding spot for other agencies to fill in the blank. Here is the link for the FDIC's interpretation

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...45_main_02.tpl

Nothing like facts to clog up the pipes.

THOSE facts will certainly clog pipes. From those links, could you narrow down a few parts that are pertinent? How many hours can we spend reading that stuff before we find something relevant?

I used to read bills when my mother was in the legislature. In general, they make drying paint interesting, but there is always a portion that is of interest, as long as you can wade through the chaff to get to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

Yeah, take a complex issue and distill it down to one action that conservatives can use to blame the whole thing on liberal policy. Then wait thirty plus years for this problem to suddenly bring down the system and make it appear that was the whole issue...or even the most significant part...or even a piece of the issue.

---

Critics of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had been sounding the alarm for nearly three decades and were ignored, impugned and ridiculed by the media and powerful government interests.

You make it out like it took thirty years for the situation to come to light when in reality there were plenty of people out there warning of the impending crisis but nobody paid any attention. Heck, even Bill Clinton himself placed the blame on corrupt Democrats.

The main reason it took so long was the influx of new home buyers reduced or eliminated the regular cyclical downturns in the housing market that would normally expose such shoddy economics but as long prices kept spiraling upward the self-regulating market forces were very limited in effectiveness until the bubble grew so big it burst in a huge calamity and the inevitable finger-pointing began.

And so I edited down what was a much-too-lengthy post to include only the pertinent facts of the root cause of the crisis. I wasn't about to write a novel about it and so that is now being used to discount the facts I presented above. Nice try though...

Another example of how to piss off a liberal by simply speaking the truth.

The fact that things were complained about for thirty years is irrelevant to the point. You are trying to assert long term downstream causality in a chaotic system. It doesn't matter which side you stand on, saying that was the cause is simply false. Instead, you could say "I think this was the cause." or "I think this was one of the factors." Either one would be sound, but they are both weak tea.

You may be as sure of that cause as you are of lolcats, but from a mathematical perspective, you are simply wrong. In a chaotic system you can only infer causality if the effect is dramatic and immediate. This may have been dramatic, but it was anything but immediate, and without immediacy any inference is nothing but a guess...unless you are god.....are you? I sure hope not, that would suck.

The fact that people were crying about it for thirty years has no bearing. When the collapse didn't happen within a few years of the act, its impact became completely lost.

On the other hand, this is a battle I have been fighting for decades. I have known otherwise highly intelligent post-docs who would say, "Ok I recognize that chaos math means that this inference is invalid, but I am going to pretend that chaos doesn't exist because I am invested in my inference." Others would say something more like, "Ok, so I can't make that inference, what am I supposed to do?"

That second question is actually a pretty fundamental one. Humans are good at only one thing: Pattern recognition. We infer cause and effect at the drop of a hat, right or wrong. Now that we have a situation where we can prove that inferring causality is invariably wrong under well defined criteria, it causes us to flounder. Most people get around the floundering by simply choosing an inference, asserting that it is TRUTH, and generally accusing anybody who doesn't agree with them of having an ideological bent, as you have suggested.

I certainly have a well known ideological bent. It has nothing to do with this. The assertion you are making is demonstably false on mathematical grounds.

Quote:

---

Another example of how to piss off a liberal by simply speaking the truth.

---

You still haven't explained how Banks around the world have become involved in the crisis, and how it has effected most of the world economy ?

Most of the worlds banks have nothing to do with the American housing market apart from the fact the current regulation says they can gamble on risky financial products as much as they want without any payback.

And you still haven't explained how in a global financial market we are supposed to guard against risk. You cant guard against the policies of other countries (because i can damn well tell you that there hasn't' been the same mis-selling of sub-prime mortgages in the UK) so how do you stop Banks behaving the same thing again if something similar happens in China or India or one of the other big developing nations ?

Oh and if it is the US government that is at fault for this crisis and not the banks then should the rest of the world be compensated by the US government ?

"You are trying to assert long term downstream causality in a chaotic system."

And then Paulsen, Bernake, et al, took that to new heights, asserting that they knew what would happen if we did not bail them out.

I would guess that the "climate change is our fault" drum beaters don't like that either.

Quote:

---

And then Paulsen, Bernake, et al, took that to new heights, asserting that they knew what would happen if we did not bail them out.

---

There is a slight difference between a 30 year gap and what would have happened if we hadn't bailed out the banks which we would have experienced probably within 6 months.

Do you believe that we shouldn't have bailed out the banks then ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

There is a slight difference between a 30 year gap and what would have happened if we hadn't bailed out the banks which we would have experienced probably within 6 months.

Do you believe that we shouldn't have bailed out the banks then ?

---

No I don't. Do you really think they could predict the future of one of the most chaotic systems ever devised by man? What was a fact was that their buddies were going under if they didn't bail them out.

And before you ask, yes they should have bailed out GM, they make Corevettes. ;)

Quote:

---

No I don't

---

You do understand the consequences of that don't you ?

If the banks had been allowed to fail, because all the high street banks were involved as well, all our personal savings, mortgages, banks accounts would have gone to the wall with them. There is no separation between Investment bank and retail bank any more they are all gambling on the market, and as for Businesses they would have been in the same situation, if a business had millions of pounds in a bank then if the bank failed they would lose all their money !

Personally i would have liked us to not have had to bail out the banks, but under the current system if the banks fail, virtually everything else goes with them too.

If you want to be able to allow banks to fail then at the very minimum you have to have something in place that says peoples saving and deposits are safe so that the bank can fail without hurting the average citizen and the average business, currently there is very little in place to protect businesses and the consumer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

You do understand the consequences of that don't you ?

If the banks had been allowed to fail, because all the high street banks were involved as well, all our personal savings, mortgages, banks accounts would have gone to the wall with them. There is no separation between Investment bank and retail bank any more they are all gambling on the market, and as for Businesses they would have been in the same situation, if a business had millions of pounds in a bank then if the bank failed they would lose all their money !

Personally i would have liked us to not have had to bail out the banks, but under the current system if the banks fail, virtually everything else goes with them too.

If you want to be able to allow banks to fail then at the very minimum you have to have something in place that says peoples saving and deposits are safe so that the bank can fail without hurting the average citizen and the average business, currently there is very little in place to protect businesses and the consumer.

---

I am certain that is one opinion. I am also certain that if anyone could ACTUALLY predict the future we would have a name for them.

I agree we need reform.

Wasn't the Government already "regulating" financial institutions? Wasn't there an economist that testified before the SEC about Bernie Mad-off-with-your-money.

I vote, but have stopped voting for the incumbent. If we all did so we would get real reform. It is actually harder on lobbyist when there are new people.

I've always taken the view that my government has a responsibility to protect me from everyone except myself. From that viewpoint I'll throw my two-pennorth in on the trhee main discussion points (which, strangely, no longer includes immigration)

1. Talking on mobile phones in cars - hell yes we need legislation. That can lead someone else to kill me and I see nothing in the private markets that would lead manufacturers to pursue a solution without legislation.
2. Smoking in bars/restaurants - I'd like to leave this to the market but the evidence shows it just doesn't work. Before smoking bans were introduced I wasn't aware of a single bar or restaurant that banned smoking in my city. I suspect this is to do with the nature of addiction combined with the social nature of those outlets. If me and six of my freinds are planning to go out and just one of us smokes we will go to a smoking venue because his addiction will mean he insists on it. That means there is a much bigger market for a smoking venue than for a non-smoking venue, even if that market is made up mostly of non-smokers.
3. Legislating banks - Yes we need legislation. Banks are businesses and businesses are not motivated by the public good, they are motivated solely by profit. The public good is often a means to an end because it tends to attract business (and the private market works well as its own arbiter when the two naturally align) but it is never the end in and of itself. Given the impact a banks failure can have on the wider public it is simply too risky to leave unregulated. How you frame and implement that legislation is a massivle complex question that I wouldn't even try to answer.



On the whole 'Mexico was nicked' thing: yes, historically it was. However, after a couple of hundred years, anyone trying to protest that it should be given back is like us Brits trying to demand Calais and Aquitaine back from the French.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FunkyDexter

I've always taken the view that my government has a responsibility to protect me from everyone except myself. From that viewpoint I'll throw my two-pennorth in on the trhee main discussion points (which, strangely, no longer includes immigration)

1. Talking on mobile phones in cars - hell yes we need legislation. That can lead someone else to kill me and I see nothing in the private markets that would lead manufacturers to pursue a solution without legislation.
2. Smoking in bars/restaurants - I'd like to leave this to the market but the evidence shows it just doesn't work. Before smoking bans were introduced I wasn't aware of a single bar or restaurant that banned smoking in my city. I suspect this is to do with the nature of addiction combined with the social nature of those outlets. If me and six of my freinds are planning to go out and just one of us smokes we will go to a smoking venue because his addiction will mean he insists on it. That means there is a much bigger market for a smoking venue than for a non-smoking venue, even if that market is made up mostly of non-smokers.
3. Legislating banks - Yes we need legislation. Banks are businesses and businesses are not motivated by the public good, they are motivated solely by profit. The public good is often a means to an end because it tends to attract business (and the private market works well as its own arbiter when the two naturally align) but it is never the end in and of itself. Given the impact a banks failure can have on the wider public it is simply too risky to leave unregulated. How you frame and implement that legislation is a massivle complex question that I wouldn't even try to answer.



On the whole 'Mexico was nicked' thing: yes, historically it was. However, after a couple of hundred years, anyone trying to protest that it should be given back is like us Brits trying to demand Calais and Aquitaine back from the French.

---

1 - The technology exists to know where a phone is at any time, so it shouldn't be hard to just have them disconnect calls / text while the vehicle is in motion. I suspect not enough people have died for us to really want that.

2 - You need new friends. I went to a lot of places, including the State of CA, and never insisted.

3 - Could we start with monitoring the monitors? How about a restriction on taking private jobs in the industry you regulate for some period of time after you leave, 5-10 years.

My personal opinion is that the government lost track of the common citizen. I am almost 100% certain that their motto is "Show me the money...".

Vote for the Not Incumbent Party. Imagine what it would be like if every incumbent lost, would they get the message then?

Quote:

---

1. Talking on mobile phones in cars - hell yes we need legislation. That can lead someone else to kill me and I see nothing in the private markets that would lead manufacturers to pursue a solution without legislation.
2. Smoking in bars/restaurants - I'd like to leave this to the market but the evidence shows it just doesn't work. Before smoking bans were introduced I wasn't aware of a single bar or restaurant that banned smoking in my city. I suspect this is to do with the nature of addiction combined with the social nature of those outlets. If me and six of my freinds are planning to go out and just one of us smokes we will go to a smoking venue because his addiction will mean he insists on it. That means there is a much bigger market for a smoking venue than for a non-smoking venue, even if that market is made up mostly of non-smokers.
3. Legislating banks - Yes we need legislation. Banks are businesses and businesses are not motivated by the public good, they are motivated solely by profit. The public good is often a means to an end because it tends to attract business (and the private market works well as its own arbiter when the two naturally align) but it is never the end in and of itself. Given the impact a banks failure can have on the wider public it is simply too risky to leave unregulated. How you frame and implement that legislation is a massivle complex question that I wouldn't even try to answer.

---

Right could resist replying,

1, Not that i am in disagreement but how the hell are you gonna police it ?

As for -

Quote:

---

The technology exists to know where a phone is at any time, so it shouldn't be hard to just have them disconnect calls / text while the vehicle is in motion

---

i suspect that this would be a hard sell to pass as law, most law abiding people don't want there phone companies recording and checking where they are at all times. Yes they do log some data currently about the phone mast you are connected too, but this would be far more information.

2, I totally agree with Mr Funky on this, Pubs and bars on there own if given the choice there would be Zero non-smoking establishments. The Smoking establishment would get greater custom as both smokers & non-smokers would go to them, but for a non-smoking establishment you cut out half your market. The non-smoking establishments would be committing commercial suicide. And anyway smoking is a public health issue and the smoking ban is in the public interest.

3, i have already commented on this so i wont repeat myself.

4, Immigration (well that what the thread was about originally), It seems to me that all the developed countries now have a problem with immigration. Immigration has always happened and the US in particular is a nation of (fairly recent in historical terms) immigrants, i don't know that US issues nearly so well but in the UK we do have a problem with the sheer numbers of immigrants.

I am actually normally in favour of a more relaxed immigration policy but at the moment i think that we should probably be letting a lesser percentage into the country than we are.

1 - the problem with that, is not policing it... but how do you know if a phone is in a vehicle or not? If it's in motion, it could be by bus, train or even walking... And then you have passengers. What? Everyone is cut off? Hardly seems fair.

2 - Bars - I've got no issue with allowing smoking at bars... isn't that part of their very essence? Oddly, when the local muni banned smoking at such establishments, there was a huge uproar, people claiming that their bars would lose business and they would be forced to close. Two years later and the only bars that have shut are ones that had their liquor license pulled due to fights and other police-involving incidents. To the best of my knowledge, none have closed because they lost their smokers. Just goes to show that people will want to get drunk no matter what.

3 - And then who is going to monitor those monitoring the monitors watching the banks? Where does it end? That's part of the problem now. Too much oversight and not enough accountability. Want to straighten things out? Let a few firms fail and fail miserably... Then maybe the rest of the industry will wake up and go "OH carp! Maybe we shouldn't be doing that." As it is now, these firms are acting with impunity since the gov't will save their sorry butt.

4) I say militarize the borders... that's the job of the military, isn't it? To defend the borders of the country from invaders? Seems harsh, but so far nothing else has worked. Maybe it's time for a little kick butt.

-tg

Quote:

---

Want to straighten things out? Let a few firms fail and fail miserably...

---

I agree, but currently if they fail they would take all our cash with them. I would like something in place first that meant the the public would still get there money if the bank failed.

That's what the FDIC and the NCUIC (I think that's right) ... in a bank, my deposits are federally insured up to a certain max amount... so that's covered... what isn't is any investments in the stock market... which as far as I am concerned is part of the game.

-tg

Like I said, we haven't killed enough people off yet.

Banking:
The problem with the current system, as NeedSomeAnswers pointed out, is that a single bank can have many arms (retail, commercial, investment). This led to banks like JP Morgan, Bank of America, and Citibank to gamble with actual deposits from retail and commercial banking deposits.

The problem wasn't that the banks were too big to fail, the problem was that too many of regular people's REAL money was gambled away to beef up profits for shareholders and pay outrageous bonuses.

They should have never, EVER, repealed the Glass–Steagall Act. No sooner than the ink from President Clinton's signature dried on the paper to repeal the act, Citibank was full speed ahead selling mortgage backed securities and collateralized debt obligations, among other "exotic" financial instruments. It also helped that GWB and every other federal agency (namely the lame SEC) spent 8 years looking the other way.

Immigration:
AZ is doing what they have to do to fight a growing problem. I agree with the idea of militarizing the border. This is something our troops should be doing, instead of fighting in the interests of companies like Halliburton.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbasnett

"You are trying to assert long term downstream causality in a chaotic system."

And then Paulsen, Bernake, et al, took that to new heights, asserting that they knew what would happen if we did not bail them out.

I would guess that the "climate change is our fault" drum beaters don't like that either.

---

No, they don't, nor do they, like most people, understand it.

However, I left out a key word in that. It should be long term DELAYED downstream causality. You can infer causality with considerably better confidence (better than zero, that is) if the effect happens immediately after the causal agent. After all, chaotic systems are oscillating around an irregular space known as the strange attractor. If you shift the strange attractor, you will see the same oscillations, but around a different location. The point behind climate change is that people feel that the strange attractor has been shifted.

In other words: There has always been long, short, and very short, cycles of temperature fluctuations. There are record colds, extreme colds, cold, warm, extreme heat, and record heat. These always happen. Eventually, if the strange attractor never moved, there would never be another record set, though that could take infinite time. With global warming, there will still be the oscillations that we have always had, they will just be oscillating around a different point (actually not a point, but you get the idea).

So global warming doesn't violate what I MEANT to say, had I not left out that one word, but that doesn't change the fact that very few people seem to both understand chaos, and accept the implications. Some understand it, and choose to ignore the implications as far as causality is concerned, while the vast majority don't even understand it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dbasnett

No I don't. Do you really think they could predict the future of one of the most chaotic systems ever devised by man? What was a fact was that their buddies were going under if they didn't bail them out.

And before you ask, yes they should have bailed out GM, they make Corevettes. ;)

---

I agree with the first part, but not the second. That car isn't worth it.

I do think we had to bail out the banks just a little, but not the way we did or to the extent that we did. Should have made them feel the pain in exchange. The way we have it now, they screwed up in a MAJOR way...and got richer for it. What did we just reinforce?


As for immigration, militarizing the border would only work if the people don't want the immigrants. Plenty of people don't, but as I tried to point out earlier, plenty of people DO, too. The business interests in this state have solidly prevented ANY action on immigration, no matter how tepid. AZ is trying to push them out, ID is trying to pretend to push them out while actually looking the other way.

Sorry for the delay - been out dirtbiking in central PA all week...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

The fact that things were complained about for thirty years is irrelevant to the point. You are trying to assert long term downstream causality in a chaotic system. It doesn't matter which side you stand on, saying that was the cause is simply false. Instead, you could say "I think this was the cause." or "I think this was one of the factors." Either one would be sound, but they are both weak tea.

---

How about the fact that the provisions in the Community Reinvestment Act were pretty much ignored by the Reagan/GHB administrations until enforcement was kicked into high gear when Clinton took office in 1993?

And yes, perhaps I should have added "this was one of the factors" but I will also go as far to say he Community Reinvestment Act was the single biggest factor and what touched the whole thing off.

Now it's perfectly true that critics of FM&FM were ignored by the powers that be on both sides of the aisle. However it is also true that FM&FM's critics only came from one side of that aisle while those who defended the system only came from the other side (I'll let you figure out which) including a certain high-ranking member of the House Banking Committee who also just happened to be involved in a homosexual relationship with a certain high-ranking Fannie Mae executive... But naw, none of that could have anything to do with it, right? ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

You still haven't explained how Banks around the world have become involved in the crisis, and how it has effected most of the world economy ?

---

The foreign banks got involved (and screwed) when Fannie & Freddie began buying up these bad loans and repackaging them as bonds on the world financial markets backed by the full faith & trust :lol: of the U.S. government. D'oh!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedSomeAnswers

If the banks had been allowed to fail, because all the high street banks were involved as well, all our personal savings, mortgages, banks accounts would have gone to the wall with them.

---

Here in the states we have the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - a federal government entity which insures all bank accounts up to $250,000. Not sure how it handles mortgages if a bank fails, but I'm sure the taxpayers are on the hook for this as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

That car isn't worth it.

---

Blasphemy! :D

Quote:

---

The foreign banks got involved (and screwed) when Fannie & Freddie began buying up these bad loans and repackaging them as bonds on the world financial markets backed by the full faith & trust of the U.S. government. D'oh!

---

It was the Banks that actually created the Credit Default Swaps financial products, rather then the mortgage companies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by homer13j

How about the fact that the provisions in the Community Reinvestment Act were pretty much ignored by the Reagan/GHB administrations until enforcement was kicked into high gear when Clinton took office in 1993?

---

No, even if this was true, which I have no idea about, it makes no difference to the point. Had you said that it was ignored until some time in the early part of the Bush administration, that would make a difference as there would be a continuity between cause and effect. Instead, it remained non-existent for some length of time then surfaced. While it makes the relationship slightly more plausible, such that it might be provable, it could only be done with multiple replicates, which you can never have in economic systems.

Quote:

---

And yes, perhaps I should have added "this was one of the factors" but I will also go as far to say he Community Reinvestment Act was the single biggest factor and what touched the whole thing off.

---

You would be going too far, but you would be in good company there.

Quote:

---

The foreign banks got involved (and screwed) when Fannie & Freddie began buying up these bad loans and repackaging them as bonds on the world financial markets backed by the full faith & trust :lol: of the U.S. government. D'oh!

---

That was a part of it. There was also the reason that the global pool was seeking such things due to the very low interest rates, the fact that the rating agencies were over-rating the bonds created by the banks (not just Fannie & Freddie, they are mostly being attacked by the right because they are what they are), and the bit that several groups were pumping up the bad bonds because they were betting heavily against them. There is one large bank that has been blamed fairly publicly for that, but they weren't actually the worst actors.

There was a very good way to make money on loans and a few groups took advantage of it. That's capitalism. All the rest of that is kind of silly. When you have a few funds that are saying "We will buy as much of this debt as you can create, as long as it is bad enough." Then why bother blaming the bad debt on some act of Congress? There was a willing buyer. Under capitalism, there will generally become a willing seller.

Quote:

---

Here in the states we have the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - a federal government entity which insures all bank accounts up to $250,000. Not sure how it handles mortgages if a bank fails, but I'm sure the taxpayers are on the hook for this as well.

---

Not necessarily. It depends considerably on what the mortgage is and how it is performing. For a bank, a mortgage in good standing is income, so nobody is "on the hook" for it. If the mortgage is not in good standing...then it is not in good standing. What happens after that is pretty complicated. What does NOT happen is that the borrower doesn't get the property as a free gift just because the bank crashed. In fact, they can suffer worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker

What does NOT happen is that the borrower doesn't get the property as a free gift just because the bank crashed. In fact, they can suffer worse.

---

Funny you should say that. I just recently saw / read ??? a story about a woman who got her mortgage balance reduced to 0 because the bank, that bought the bank, that bought the bank, kept refusing her mortgage payments. She believe her paperwork was lost and the judge said fine, your home is yours.

That's different. That didn't happen as a result of the bank going under. that's a result of a paperwork snafu. It's something that could have just as easily happened in better times.

-tg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techgnome

That's different. That didn't happen as a result of the bank going under. that's a result of a paperwork snafu. It's something that could have just as easily happened in better times.

-tg

---

When I said bought I meant acquired the assets of the failed bank. Sorry for not being clear.

It's an indirect result of the bank failing... some one lost paperwork along the way... happens. And it could still happen, even with out a failing bank. In short, the bank failed to produce documentation that the woman still owed them money. So the judge did the only logical thing.

-tg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techgnome

It's an indirect result of the bank failing... some one lost paperwork along the way... happens. And it could still happen, even with out a failing bank. In short, the bank failed to produce documentation that the woman still owed them money. So the judge did the only logical thing.

-tg

---

It was just funny that Shaggy said what he did.

I was aware of that situation, though not of that exact case. One of the side effects of the packaging and selling of mortgages during the runup (I actually bought a house in 2003, before the rise, but while the packaging and selling was happening) was that individual mortgages could get lost. The paper had been bought and sold so many times that there were cases where people thought they held the note when they didn't, actually, and nobody could determine who really did have the note. If a non-holder demanded payment from a homeowner, they certainly can't enforce that claim (or else anybody could demand payment). If the real note holder couldn't be identified, there were cases, such as the one you cited, where the courts declared the mortgage void.

It's kind of like that old Monopoly card: Bank error in your favor. Collect one house.

Still, that has more to do with bungling than bank failures, but I do see your point. There's a worse case playing out up here. A bank failed while holding the note for a very expensive piece of property that was part of a seasonal business. The bank had recognized the seasonal nature of the business and adjusted payments accordingly (nothing in the winter, plenty in the summer). Once the bank failed, the new owner (FDIC lines up a buyer before the actual failure) refused that mortgage (for no clear reason that I can see), so FDIC called the loan.

Sometimes you win...