tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077080.post1369182655932367455..comments2023-08-18T10:14:37.977-05:00Comments on WhenEvilProspers: Quite a stink...John Washburnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04182558340478176184noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077080.post-22488546319450523722009-12-30T04:16:37.810-06:002009-12-30T04:16:37.810-06:00If the Gov protects the poor from predatory lender...If the Gov protects the poor from predatory lenders instead of forcing those lenders to grant loans to the poor (as it would be unconstitutional) then there would be less of a mess.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077080.post-89504632040925698812008-09-10T14:46:00.000-05:002008-09-10T14:46:00.000-05:00Mike,Sorry, but blaming Clinton of this one is a d...Mike,<BR/><BR/>Sorry, but blaming Clinton of this one is a dog that won't hunt except that he did sign into law the statute that repealed certain ptrovisions of the the Glass-Steadman Act. That would be the Garmm-Leach-Bliley Act (No other than Phil Gramm economic adviser to John McCain).<BR/><BR/>In essence, the Gramm-Leach-Bliliey Act gutted the provisions of the Glass-Staedman Act that prohibited commercial banks from acting like investment banks.<BR/><BR/>Check out the stick figure explanation of the subprime mortgage mess that has been circulating for months on the internet.<BR/><BR/>Castigate the poor all you want. I agree that people w/o money are more likely to make bad decisions about money than people w/ money. But none of the people who defaulted on their mortgages would have been in that position had predatory mortgage brokers not acted as middlemen for lending institutions willing to loan money to bad credit risks.<BR/><BR/>John likes to talk about individual responsibility. How about the individual responsibility of mortgage brokers who arranged loans to people who they knew could not pay them? What about the institutional responsibility of the banks that funded the loans? I won't go upstream from there but there is plenty of fault upstream also.<BR/><BR/>"Hey John. Let me take your life savings and loan it to a person who I know can't pay the loan or who I do not even check to see if he can pay the loan."<BR/><BR/>"Loop. No thanks."<BR/><BR/>See?<BR/><BR/>TLGKAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077080.post-61675765325607095882008-09-09T14:59:00.000-05:002008-09-09T14:59:00.000-05:00Excellent point, Mike. I was not aware of this, t...Excellent point, Mike. I was not aware of this, thanks for bringing it to light.John Washburnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04182558340478176184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21077080.post-13271027800668490462008-09-09T12:22:00.000-05:002008-09-09T12:22:00.000-05:00Excellent analysis. However, as a former mortgage...Excellent analysis. However, as a former mortgage broker, I need to point out a factor you forgot to mention.<BR/><BR/>Yes, lenders wanted to make more money. Obviously. But that's not the whole story as to why the lending guidelines were relaxed to absurd levels. "The Government" is on the hook there, too.<BR/><BR/>In the Clinton-led nineties, lenders were told that they *had to* loan money to the poor because not doing so was discriminatory. Liberals won't ever concede this point, but there is actually a pretty good link between being poor and making poor financial decisions. So, Big Brother says, in effect, that lenders must loan money to people who have a history of bad financial decisions, or else. The lenders gladly went along with the rouse, laughing all the way to the bank. They're culpable in all of this, but so is the government who told them to ignore centuries of data about money lending and default.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15303712982672888531noreply@blogger.com