yes, but that would be a false narrative created by Republicans, which actually doesn't reflect the facts of the time.
the crisis was the result of excessive and risky lending, plus the selling of derivatives on the strength of that lending - a house of cards that relied on the dependability of the ratings agencies to stay upright.
the federal government agencies didn't do sub-prime lending. not at all. it was against their remit.
the banks were creating all of the sub-prime loans for people - for people without good credit. the banks were bundling those loans and transforming them into AAA securities via the ratings agencies. the banks were selling them to the poor fool investors. and they were making huge amounts of money every step of the way.
unfortunately, all housing prices rose due to these securitisation practices, meaning even homes for which there was equity (eg federal loans) got caught up in the downturn.
the ratings agencies looked away, not for virtuous reasons, but because they were making oodles of money.
the regulators looked away because the politics of the time argued that markets self-regulate so government regulation was more-or-less unnecessary.
i get that the republicans argue something different, but you can't ignore the facts and have it be an honest argument.
i agree that the model of making student debt easily available is a problem. all it seems to do is raise tuition fees. this is why i suggested to clo that bernie's strongest argument is over education.
| 