Quote:
Originally Posted by sheltiedave
ZJ, once again, you get the progression, and therefore, the root cause, wrong.
If the banks, which are almost all owned and/or operated by wealthy Republicans, were not deregulated, they would have never been able to make nonconventional unsecured loans.
If the banks' mortgage departments not directed to make unsecured loans by management, there would have been little adverse loan risk exposure.
If the federal laws had not been subverted, allowing banks to bundle and sell these unsecured loans as a derivative commodity in the marketplace, the general public would never had been exposed to enormous high risk bad debt.
All three of these planks had to exist in all their unique glory to allow the pyramid scheme to falter.
The home buyers who bought on 100% credit did what any sane person with no skin in the game would do - they walked when the bear futures commodity market put them underwater. Those who could and needed to hold on to the property, due to equity in their house, got a second job, put off retirement, or put off selling the house until market forces restored them to a position above water.
Again, the housing bubble recession was brought on by bank greed, bank deregulation, and bad business decisions by banks and lenders.
|
I can't say that I disagree with that. It is the part where the borrowers were victims that bothers me. I think for the most part they knew what they were doing and took advantage of the situation. Either buying hoping to flip it , or knowing that they could at worst live in it for a few months if things didn't work out.
So, putting 100% on the backs of the banks is a liberal message that I just don't buy in to.