Question:
What is the real cause of this economic disaster?
William R
2008-10-06 21:17:31 UTC
I have heard all the biased opinions (so please refrain from answering if that's all you have to offer). I am looking for an objective answer.
Obviously we are ALL to blame but I am looking for questionable policies that should have been a red flag (at inception, in past years and more so as the years passed). Obviously we have been had but I know there are many guilty and not one or two people or policies.
It seems there was abuse by many from borrowers, lenders, realtors, lawyers, bankers, brokerages...
Seven answers:
nothingconstant
2008-10-06 21:28:47 UTC
http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=355

You have to click on full episode.



Also.. be prepared. It is an hour long.



This is not any partisan mess. This is a straight forward discussion done by This American Life. I love Ira Glass and his way of discussing things like we are intelligent beings. It explains why everyone thought mortgage backed securities were such a good investment.



There was a second half that was on this weekend but it is not available yet. The second one talks about credit default swaps, money market funds and derivatives.





I lied.. the second half IS now available.

http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1263
majesticproductions
2008-10-07 04:35:18 UTC
Supply demand curve.



The economy goes in a preset curve based on supply and demand. When there is a high demand, supply is low. When the supply is high, there's a lower demand.



It over simplifies it, but let me put this another way so it's easy to grasp.



Let's say we have a bank here. We'll call it Bank 1.



Bank 1 comes into the housing market on the low end of the curve. Houses are selling left and right, and Bank 1 figures that it can make a bit of money. So, Bank 1 buys up all the property it can and then holds onto the money. By doing this, it causes the market in that area to fluctuate, with the demand for housing to go up, thus pushing the prices up. For the next few years or so (on average the curve takes five to six years to cycle) Bank 1 is sitting "high on the hog" making a ton of money.



In most cases, Bank 1 would stop there, paying attention to the curve and being careful for when the valley or slump would begin. Let's say though that Bank 1 doesn't do this.



So, making money left and right, Bank 1 starts spending it. After all, the market's high, so why shouldn't they enjoy some of their proceeds? Bank 1 spends a great deal, only to get caught at the top of the slump. Great, now they're spending more money than is coming in, and thus a problem begins. Bank 1 asks the Government for help, and President A obliges, giving a loan to Bank 1. For a year or two, even as the market drops, Bank 1 is steady, living off this loan. However, these things are never perfect, so one day, that loan comes due.



Now, with the market dropping steadily (caused by other banks and companies who mismanaged their funds) Bank 1 asks the government for help. Problem. Government says nope, since Bank 1 already owes them. So Bank 1's stock tanks. Many investors, sensing a possible buy-out or closure, start selling their stocks left and right. That doesn't help Bank 1 any, since it pushes their stock value down, and with it the value of the company. Now, no other company wants to buy them since with a worthless stock, the company is worthless.



When it all ends, bank 1 goes belly up, and the consumers are looking around trying to figure out what the heck just happened, and whom should they blame?



All this was based very loosely off what happened with Wachovia, and it's the cause of your economic problems. Had they managed their finances better, and had the larger banks paid more attention, we wouldn't be in this mess.
anonymous
2008-10-07 04:28:29 UTC
Vicky, he said unbaised...Fox does not qualify (neither does MSNBC BTW)



It was mainly due to predatory lending practices by the banks (whom we are footing the bill for)

They would bait poor people with high-risk loans with low interest that would spike after a set number of years, making them a hefty profit. The Democrats allowed for such practices to occur, naively believing that the bankers would be honest, in an effort to be compassionate.

Republicans have their fault in being for deregulation of banks that allows bankers to hide their books.

The people are at fault for not reading the fine print on their loans.



EDIT: Just because a bank is ALLOWED to make shitty loans doesn't mean they should. They gave out loans with reckless abandon, not thinking of possible inflation.
anonymous
2008-10-07 04:26:50 UTC
Lenders don't normally make loans to noncredit worthy people do they?



Try getting a loan for anything with a low credit score, let me know how that goes for you.



Obviously, these Banks were being forced to make bad loans and the loans were guaranteed by the government, what could be safer?
Vicky
2008-10-07 04:23:54 UTC
FOX News did an extensive piece of reporting on it over the weekend. Try to review it if possible, and you will see a lot of the people involved in the scandal.
anonymous
2008-10-07 04:25:21 UTC
Jimmy Carter signed into law a way of forcing banks to lend to people who can't afford loans.



Laws are binding.



Bad loans are THE heart of the matter. There's your cause.
abcdef
2008-10-07 04:25:41 UTC
her some info

http://www.keatingeconomics.com/


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...