(12-08-2017, 10:29 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote:

(12-08-2017, 10:12 PM)hb1148 Wrote: Reaching? No. The bank and investment deregulation was the cause of the crash, there's really no longer any debate about that. Subprime lending should have never led to the problems it led to. If market forces had driven lending, the excesses and predatory lending would never have happened. But due to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act, the ability of financial companies to package those loans as investments and sell them to unsuspecting buyers (thus giving them the ability to cash in while pushing risk off to mom and pop) which led subsequently to excessive subprime lending which then led to an unsustainable bubble ultimately resulting in the panic of 2008. In spite of what Rush Limbaugh might have told you, the CRA didn't force banks to make subprime loans, quite the contrary it was simply a measure of a financial institutions performance based on their participation in local community development activities. Corporate greed led to the subprime lending crisis.

I guess if you say so...

I understand what you're saying; I just disagree with the conclusion. The lending happened before the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, and that's proven through the CRA lending numbers.

They were pressured by Clinton to hand out more loans. Those loans faulted more often. Yes, the mortgages were gambled, but that isn't why the money was negligently distributed to people unable to pay the loan. If the money had never been force out, it wouldn't have become a problem in the first place. You think the problem started in 1999, but it was already a predicted problem by late-2000. The numbers how that subprime mortgage skyrocketed after 1992 and the Clinton-led enforcement of the CRA.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.