The Credit Crisis Visualized

When action goes acerbic, no seek, and tax payers are on the claw, label or concealed taxes equal inflation etc. Bankers eff way to bottomless supplying of liquidity (chewy money furnish), and we're all on the lure, time the banking cartel ensures profits for the banking elite
polo

I was obnoxious as a person expatiate how gov't needs help with the crisis, but to get the facts supported the Act. Balance is silly but more to say, you have a corporate soul-titled, as you have the barrel out montty as criminals and their drug and Chris Dodd. If the Republican organization denotive I do not cognise what to do.
polo

Your readers might also like a couple of videos Enspire Learning produced last fall:

Understanding the Financial Crisis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF6LbFDjvW0

The Mortgage Banking Meltdown
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSjEyOp2dEM

That was a really precient article! It just about predicted the future 10 years ago.

We all know the old expression, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." This appears to be the case here, as the goals of the regulations were admirable: extend home ownership to demographics that are currently underrepresented in that department. Why? Because home owners take more pride and care in their communities, which therefore leads to better cared-for neighborhoods and upward mobility for traditionally poorer Americans. Maybe it just makes sense in boom times like 1999 and it was bound to go bust.

However, I take umbrage with the statement that banks were "forced to make bad loans". Nowhere in the CRA or any other regulation does it say you need to loan to people that have no income. Nowhere does it say you need to loan a half-million dollars to someone that should only be borrowing $200K. Nowhere does it say that banks or mortgage broker should be pushing these ARMs that start at 4% and then skyrocket, or tell buyers that there will always be Refi opportunities so don't worry about signing for a mortgage that will be out of reach next year.

I don't think we're ever going to agree completely with one another, but we should agree that the banks and lenders are neither innocent nor victims of overregulation. I agree with you that hard quotas are usually a bad thing; guidelines tend to work better. But the banks took all sorts of risks that were not written into regulation because there was quick and dirty cash available. I won't say the gov't is absolved of their responsibility in this matter but I definitely won't say the banks are either.

It's been an enlightening conversation. Good talking with you too.

Gov't regulations have a place in business only to the extent that they prevent illegal activity, etc.

Gov't interference in the private markets lead to problems each and every time that they are tried.

I approach the Free Market in the same fashion that the Founding Fathers did. They believed that the gov'ts only role was to prevent monopolies and ensure competition.

Here's a NY Times article from 1999 which pointed out the problems which were already evident regarding this issue.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260

You indicate that you feel that there was not sufficient oversight during the past eight years. I disagree. Too much oversight and gov't intervention is what forced the banks to make the bad loans.

President Bush made multiple attempts to reform F&F but each time his efforts were rebuffed by those in Congress who were blowing smoke about the stability of those two entities.

Again, there is no possible way that the people who led us into this tar pit should be the ones who are trusted to lead us out.

I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this issue with me in a rational fashion. So many people here aren't up to that task.