3 ms·

I'm confused by this response. Are you trying to argue against me here? It seems like you are, but you're talking about a bunch of unrelated things to my statem

by floor2 5y ago

I'm confused by this response. Are you trying to argue against me here? It seems like you are, but you're talking about a bunch of unrelated things to my statement (which I agree with you on). The initial fraud happened at the level of people lying on mortgage applications. I'm not suggesting there weren't all sorts of failures of regulators and credit rating agencies, nor that many of the financial institutions involved in trading these assets weren't complicit in perpetuating the fraud. I'm just pointing out that "bailing out" a person who committed fraud when taking out a loan isn't a good thing for society to do. I'm not trying to let anyone else off the hook for their roles in the systemic problem.

naasking 5y ago
> I'm just pointing out that "bailing out" a person who committed fraud when taking out a loan isn't a good thing for society to do. Ok, and bailing out the financial institutions and traders that perpetuated that fraud "isn't a good thing" either, AND you said that what the home buyers did was "worse" for "reasons". Except all of the reasons you listed are exactly what those traders and financial institutions also did, and arguably they have professional duties not to do those things and to in fact report them. You're also neglecting that home buyers aren't professionals in this, they're supposed to be guided by the professionals, but the mortgage lenders were encouraging people to inflate their assets as standard practice. Where you lay the most of the blame on this issue honestly blows my mind.