Mr Clinton certainly had plenty of company on this, I don't know if he led or followed on the matter, but his hands are dirty.
The difficulty of the system (and I have no solution) is those of the greatest risk get the worst loans, effectively securing their high risk status.
Indeed on consumer debt in the event a person starts to slip, rates are unilaterally increased at the discretion of the lender, again effectively securing default.
One is having trouble with a $100 payment, the response of the current system is to make that a $200 payment. The outcome is less than surprising.
The politics on the left that soughrt universal home ownership, and the politics in the right that wanted unfettered speculation opportunities by banks combined to form the situation. Home collateralized loans (normal among the most secure) were made available without down payments (the left) bundled and derivatized (the right's notion of risk mitigation) all while the most sensible component was absent (building significantly more modest houses).
Given the performance of the market on this matter, one could imagine a place for centralized planning.
The fact is (as proven repeatedly) banks, in the absense of a the big heavy hand of government, will eventually over leverage their portfolios and take on risk inconsistent with deposit security.
They did it in the 20s, and the second the rules were relaxed they did it again.
While the video you posted earlier paints this as a conspiracy of homosexuals, feminists, communists and manipulatable idiots ... it really seems it is the output of none of those ... it is the output of free market businessmen (perhaps jewish ones I do not know) competing for the highest margins using bank deposits as operating capital.
They were not forced to make bad loans, they relished it. They lobbied to be able to do it, they lobbied to be able to exercise unbridled speculation with bank deposits, they became "growth stocks", they awarded themselves massive salaries and bonuses, and they voted Republican.
PCH
| 