Click to enlarge.Notice:
1) The Date.
2) Whodunnit?
3) Whocouldanode?
They knew the consequences and did it anyways.
Leading the sheeple to the slaughter is so easy...
Posts
Deciphering Trumponomics 2.0
19 hours ago
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
And, the republicans had six years in full control of the house, senate and presidency to fix it.
But Ben. Didn't you get the memo? This is a crisis of CAPITALISM. If the facts say it's actually a problem created by socialism, well then the facts must be wrong.
Nick
Actually, the CONS tried, but the RATS would have none of it. And look who made some heavy money at FNM and FRE, a lot of conflict of interest there. Capitalism works as long as it is transparent and the rules are straight and don't favor either side. The media should be the ones leading this with investigative reporting, but they also have a conflict of interest too! This was government overstepping it's bounds.
Bloomberg online article, a couple of months ago, named the ONE man who decided, over Chinese takeaway and weekly poker, how to go after and exploit the subprime market.
Maybe his first name was Mark? I didn't save or bookmark the article, but I thought it was a strange ground zero "here is THE person responsible, coming from Bloomberg.
You're familiar with the US term "redline." If a banker or loan officer sees a mortgage application from a city "bad address" neighborhood, he...you can finish the rest. Part of the bill was to fix automatic discrimination based on address.
Thank God SOMEBODY is pointing out Clinton is also responsible.
Not that I care about American politics, but people are beginning to make him out as a saint.
Sure it was Clinton...lol...link to the real story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/business/03sec.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1223032773-vRsIW4m99FavSlX8YRrvyA
Freeing up reserves, indeed.
Words from another blog:
"How much of this is result of the Community Reinvestment Act, and it's various revisions? ... Had the Act really been about affordable housing it would have required that housing being built fell with-in and affordable price range, not that the banks should abandon responsible loan sizes."
Let's be clear about one thing: The CRA did not require anyone to abandon responsible lending practices.
From the Federal Reserve: "Neither the CRA nor its implementing regulation gives specific criteria for rating the performance of depository institutions. Rather, the law indicates that the evaluation process should accommodate an institution's individual circumstances. Nor does the law require institutions to make high-risk loans that jeopardize their safety. To the contrary, the law makes it clear that an institution's CRA activities should be undertaken in a safe and sound manner."
Stop listening to right-wing shills trying to get the banks off the hook for what they did. The CRA had nothing to do with this mess.
In other words, the "redline" I mentioned above was based in various cities. The loans were a local phenomenon, and should have remained at local banks. If buyers defaulted, they may have gotten the idea to change their education level in order to move up the economic ladder. Maybe local banks would have failed, as part of the natural business cycle. But the phenomenon would have been local only.
The NYC investment banks got involved, when they shouldn't have, in local banking business.
Post a Comment