On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:40 PM, David B. Shemano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You go too far. The CRA is an example of how the rules of the game were > changed to expand homeownership to people who could not obtain loans under > traditional standards (like the ability ot make a 20% downpayment, a solid > credit history, sufficient income, etc.). So while I agree nobody forced > anybody to make a subprime loan, there was certainly a lot of political and > economic pressure to relax standards, as exemplified by the CRA. As the > unfairly maligned Mr. Liebowitz points outs, companies like Countrywide that > played the new game the best enjoyed the most applause. >
This may sound plausible and fit nicely with free-market ideas, but as I pointed out earlier, there is exactly zero evidence to back it up. I am afraid even the most elegant theory is useless if it doesn't agree with the facts. Countrywide was not run for the maximization of applause or anything else other then profits and thats just a fact. > I would point out the irony of arguing that poor peope don't have the > capacity to understand the mortgage process, but believing the exact same > people are fully capable of owning a home and performing all of the > responsibilities that entails. > I never said anything about "capacity to understand the mortgage process". I said poor people are easier to coerce and intimidate because they have so few options. The capitalist process is not designed to serve their needs because they have very little money to convert those needs into "demand". If you look at the HUD study I linked to, you'll find many concrete instances of this. -raghu. -- Dyslexics of the world, UNTIE! _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
