The banks put people tied to govt officials on their Board. They paid those people. They all lobbied the govt to get laws passed which allowed them to make loads with little oversight.
They made huge profits during the boom time. That is all they cared about. Look at Countrywide, once they collapsed the guys moved on to the next fraud. Meanwhile the govt hires some of the other leaders of the fraud and make them Sec of Treasury or executives in the Fed.
ok, I understand where you’re coming from now. Sorry ‘bout my last comment, I had an emergency, had to take mother to hospital (she’s fine).
I still think CRA had a very large initial effect, especially on the housing bubble. But I also realize that there was more to it — i.e., shady, too-close relations between the gov’t and some of the larger banks that pushed things to a head. I just don’t know (can’t know?) exactly what all of the shady dealings were, or exactly what effect they had. The effects of the CRA and pressuring banks to make Federally guaranteed loans to bad risks, is something I understand. Something I can get my head around.
I always believed there was more to it; it’s simply that I don’t know/ don’t understand what that “more” was. And that’s the stuff you’re speaking of.