Conferences Series Events
SPACE   |   EVOLUTION   |   PHYSICS   |   SOCIAL SCIENCES   |   NATURAL SCIENCES   |   DNA   |   PSYCHOLOGY   |   BIOTECH   |   MEDICINE   |   ANTHROPOLOGY   |   ASTRONOMY
INTERNET   |   NEW MEDIA   |   START-UPS   |   PERSONAL TECHNOLOGY   |   WIRELESS   |   COMPUTING   |   ENGINEERING   |   CEOS
RELIGION   |   GAMING   |   FILM   |   FASHION   |   SEX   |   PHILOSOPHY   |   EDUCATION   |   HISTORY   |   ARTS   |   MUSIC   |   TRAVEL   |   PHOTOGRAPHY
Watch Now

After the Financial Crisis: Consequences & Lessons

2
Likes
0
Dislikes
RATE
5,466 Views

  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Highlights
  • Transcript
  • Download
  • More
Please or register to post a comment.

catcrumb Avatar
catcrumb
Posts: 1
Posted: 02.13.10, 06:34 PM
It is nonsense that somehow the US government forced mortgage lenders to make loans to borrowers who were not credit worthy and that this caused the crisis. Yet in spite of all the evidence to the contrary and plain common sense, this misleading myth continues in the right-wing media and blogs.

To mention just a few pieces of evidence:

The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was enacted to stop redlining. It did not force banks to make loans to anyone. Rather, it required them to apply the same criteria for mortgages-- such as income, credit score, assets, and debt servicing ability--to people in all the neighborhoods where they had banks. If someone was not credit worthy, these banks were unlikely to give them a mortgage.

The initial wave of foreclosures was not in the lower income and minority neighborhoods covered by the CRA but rather suburban, middle class communities and condos.

Most of the sub-prime loans were not originated by banks covered by the CRA. Rather, they were made by mortgage companies. Few if any of the mortgage originators that went bankrupt were covered by the CRA.

The CRA started in 1977. Why was there no mortgage/housing crisis in urban areas for 30 years?

How could the CRA have caused this mess when many other countries have gone through a similar housing boom and bust?

To blame the government for all of this is to be willfully blind to what really happened. The government was at fault for not having the will/courage/ability to regulate but the underlying cause clearly lay within a largely unregulated private sector.
drmz Avatar
drmz
Posts: 8
Posted: 02.12.10, 01:57 AM
i see..so there is a mortage broker running after poor people, selling them a mortage which they are not going to repay (because of the increasing interest rates/no job = NINJA & Sub Prime Mortages) just because the mortage broker can sell his shit and his risk to wall street banks. So that's step 1, the mortage broker only wants to sell as many as mortages as possible. He bears no risk..so who cares about the quality.

The wallstreet banks bundle the mortages in MBS's, they pay the rating agencies to play the game along (if not FORCE them to play along)giving every product a AAA rating. After that the banks sell the AAA MBS's getting rid of their risk as well. So the banks also didn't care about the quality of the shit they were producing. So the mortage broker, the wallstreet bank and the rating agencies were all players in the same orgy. The whole game drove up the prices, until the bubble bursted.

There is no central coordination needed for such irrational rationality. The coordination is done by the $ and the ability to sell the risk. Wallstreetbanks are just like parrots. Like the CEO of CIT said: As long as the music plays you have to get up and dance, and the music is still playing. At Lehman they were short and long at the same time on the housingmarket as the bursting moment approached. One department was shorting and the other was trying to sell as much MBS's as possible.

At the end of the chain are the buyers of such products who were, obviously not aware of the risk they were taking. The MBS got a AAA rating so everything seemed ok to them.....
They got screwed by the wallstreetbanks and the rating agencies....

The invisible hand was never applicable to the financial markets. That's the BIG misinterpretation.
TreeLuvBurdpu Avatar
TreeLuvBurdpu
Posts: 43
Posted: 02.07.10, 09:52 PM
Stieglitz dismisses Adam Smith's "invisible hand" after mis-interpreting it, and then acts as if the real hand of the US government is invisible. He says that they made risky loans to unqualified individuals but ignores that it was government policy. It is hard to believe that all these bankers could have acted with such coordination without central organization. And they had it in the form of FNMA and Freddie Mac and the redevelopment program. Barney Frank was a predatory lender.

It is time to stop talking about governments role in the economy as if governments create economies. It is quite the other way around.
Advertisement
NO ADS + DOWNLOADS + HQ VIEWING
UPGRADE TO FORA.tv PLUS
Advertisement