6 ms·

No I'm saying that the lenders needed no government encouragement at all - they were making the loans because they were making money hand over fist. Simple. T

No I'm saying that the lenders needed no government encouragement at all - they were making the loans because they were making money hand over fist. Simple. The government didn't force them, greed did. Are you arguing that Countrywide made all of their so-called liar-loans based on the threat of government sanction? If yes, what percentage of loans were forced, by the government, under enforcement threat? Where's your data?

anamax 15y ago
Govt had a big part in making things so that so that subprime loans made money. The standards for regulated assets, which is what banks really need, are established by govt. Those standards favored Fannie and Freddie. Those standards also rely on govt-chosen rating agencies. As to the "encouragement", W was the "ownership" president, so he was looking for ways to encourage lending.
inthewoods 15y ago
Since I can't reply any more to the thread: >Govt had a big part in making things so that so that subprime loans made money. So you're no longer arguing that the government forced banks and mortgage companies to lend? >The standards for regulated assets, which is what banks really need, are established by govt. Those standards favored Fannie and Freddie. Those standards also rely on govt-chosen rating agencies. Yes, they are set, but it was a lack of regulation that caused the problems, not too much regulation. Those standards had nothing to do with Fannie and Freddie. The government rating agencies is completely separate issue. >As to the "encouragement", W was the "ownership" president, so he was looking for ways to encourage lending. Again, are you no longer saying that the government forced lenders to lend?
anamax 15y ago
> So you're no longer arguing that the government forced banks and mortgage companies to lend? Not at all. The govt actions to make subprime profitable merely meant that there wasn't as much reason to say "i'm not sure that this makes sense".
- inthewoods 15y ago
  Very different assertion from saying that the government forced them to lend via a policy which used discrimination as its basis. I'll take it that you've given up on that point?
  - anamax 15y ago
    As I said, no. Govt said that if your loan portfolio doesn't contain enough loans to certain people, you'll be shut down. Govt then tried to make those loans make economic sense. Yes, some folks arguably would have made those loans otherwise, but some wouldn't.
    - inthewoods 15y ago
      So if it had such a big impact, it should be easy to show data to support such a claim. Where is your data? And you're attempting to move the goal posts once again here - by merging the two categories. Face it, you have zero evidence to back up the idea that the government actually EVER forced a bank or mortgage company to make loans. Trying to now say "the govt then tried to make these loans make economic sense" is just a junk argument.

anamax 15y ago

Govt had a big part in making things so that so that subprime loans made money. The standards for regulated assets, which is what banks really need, are established by govt. Those standards favored Fannie and Freddie. Those standards also rely on govt-chosen rating agencies. As to the "encouragement", W was the "ownership" president, so he was looking for ways to encourage lending.

inthewoods 15y ago

Since I can't reply any more to the thread: >Govt had a big part in making things so that so that subprime loans made money. So you're no longer arguing that the government forced banks and mortgage companies to lend? >The standards for regulated assets, which is what banks really need, are established by govt. Those standards favored Fannie and Freddie. Those standards also rely on govt-chosen rating agencies. Yes, they are set, but it was a lack of regulation that caused the problems, not too much regulation. Those standards had nothing to do with Fannie and Freddie. The government rating agencies is completely separate issue. >As to the "encouragement", W was the "ownership" president, so he was looking for ways to encourage lending. Again, are you no longer saying that the government forced lenders to lend?

anamax 15y ago

> So you're no longer arguing that the government forced banks and mortgage companies to lend? Not at all. The govt actions to make subprime profitable merely meant that there wasn't as much reason to say "i'm not sure that this makes sense".

inthewoods 15y ago
Very different assertion from saying that the government forced them to lend via a policy which used discrimination as its basis. I'll take it that you've given up on that point?
- anamax 15y ago
  As I said, no. Govt said that if your loan portfolio doesn't contain enough loans to certain people, you'll be shut down. Govt then tried to make those loans make economic sense. Yes, some folks arguably would have made those loans otherwise, but some wouldn't.
  - inthewoods 15y ago
    So if it had such a big impact, it should be easy to show data to support such a claim. Where is your data? And you're attempting to move the goal posts once again here - by merging the two categories. Face it, you have zero evidence to back up the idea that the government actually EVER forced a bank or mortgage company to make loans. Trying to now say "the govt then tried to make these loans make economic sense" is just a junk argument.