Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[gnarlylove]

What do you know about Rwanda that Human Rights Watch doesn't?

Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda (Human Rights Watch Report, March 1999)

There are some left wing sites, Human Rights Watch is one of them, whose propaganda tend to try to make capitalism the culprit. .

They (whoever give you information) did their job (meaning they deceived you thoroughly). HRW receives funding from corporate sponsors and listens to the concerns of their donors. Correspondingly, while it has produced many vital reports that I use, it has issued reports (or more accurately failed to report) on information so as to fit narratives of the US and their allies, indeed, of the western/global capitalist system in general. This flies in the face of your "anti-capitalist propaganda" analysis of HRW.

I know it's your nature to disagree because you obviously don't like asking "is what I believe true?" so here's a report on the bias of HRW, and we aren't talking about the bias of your favorite slander term "left wing extremists."

Far Beyond the Curve: HRW?s Bias and Lack of Credibility in 2012

 

[gnarlylove]

There are some left wing sites, Human Rights Watch is one of them, whose propaganda tend to try to make capitalism the culprit. The point is, what they say MAY have a smattering of truth, but their conclusions tend to be propaganda. Organizations like that look for even the smallest points against capitalism and then come on big time trying to prove (unsuccessfully) that capitalism is the entire cause, or major cause. In Rwanda tribal hatred was the primary issue. If some capitalist somewhere in the world tried to take advantage of this the likely hood it would have either started the slaughter or stopped in are slim to known. I have observed things like that to the point I automatically throw out conclusions made by those organizations. Reading their assertions proves ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

They prove you've managed to stick your head so far up your ass you'll need another 78 years to remove it.

Typical response from someone so totally defeated in debate he can't stand it. I am a liberal, not a left wing fanatic like George Phillips. The difference between us is massive. I don't accept the extremes of either end of the spectrum.

Truly your self-righteousness knows no limits. Even if you are right about everything in the world, I would expect such omniscience to be humble but instead you are a firecracker constantly taking the modest road while proclaiming it as loudly and as slanderously as you know how. You must sleep well at night in your smug sense of absolute rationality.

Just so you don't feel the need to throw mud at me for merely observing your behavior let me just state I know I am utterly incapable of rationality so spare me your decrees of righteousness and conversely of the idiocy of the person who dares challenge your absolute and eternal truths.

 

[georgephillip]

We not only have some real duds on this thread we have a few left extremes duds on this thread. I don't believe I have seen anyone so totally partisan to the extreme left as gnarley, phillips or indeependence any where else on the internet. Where do these duds get all their strange ideas about such easy to understand subjects? Anyone who believes that government policies were not the main cause of our housing crash and the recession in 2007/8/9 are complete fools.

"A pair of economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco added another piece of evidence to the case that the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act wasn’t the cause, or even a major contributor, to the subprime mortgage debacle.

"In a paper focused on California that was presented at a Fed conference on housing and mortgages in Washington, D.C., Elizabeth Laderman and Carolina Reid say the data 'should help to quell if not fully lay to rest the arguments that the CRA caused the current subprime lending boom by requiring banks to lend irresponsibly in low and moderate-income lenders.'

"Fed governor Randall Kroszner made a similar case earlier this week.

"Among the specific findings in 'Lending in Low- and Moderate-Income Neighborhoods in California: The Performance of CRA Lending During the Subprime Meltdown':

"Overall, lending to low and moderate income communities comprised only a small share of toal lending by CRA lenders, even during the height of the California subprime lending boom.

"Loans originated by lenders regulated under CRA in general were 'significantly less likely to be in foreclosure' than those originated by independent mortgage companies that weren’t covered by CRA.

"Loans made by CRA lenders within their geographic assessment areas covered by the law were 'half as likely to go into foreclosure' as those made by the independent mortgage companies.

"28% of loans made by CRA lenders in low income areas within their geographic assessment areas were fixed-rate loans, compared with 18.2% of loans made by independent mortgage companies in low income areas.

Don?t Blame CRA (The Sequel) - Real Time Economics - WSJ

If you're actually foolish enough to believe government doesn't work the way Wall Street wants, maybe you're too stupid to be here?

Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider

FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"

 

[bedowin62]

THERE ARE MORE people in Poverty than there were when Republicans ran things


16 MILLION more on food stamps

i'd say PROGRESSIVES gaurantee inequality; it's getting worse on their watch


idiots and hypocrites

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"A pair of economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco added another piece of evidence to the case that the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act wasn’t the cause, or even a major contributor, to the subprime mortgage debacle.

"In a paper focused on California that was presented at a Fed conference on housing and mortgages in Washington, D.C., Elizabeth Laderman and Carolina Reid say the data 'should help to quell if not fully lay to rest the arguments that the CRA caused the current subprime lending boom by requiring banks to lend irresponsibly in low and moderate-income lenders.'

"Fed governor Randall Kroszner made a similar case earlier this week.

"Among the specific findings in 'Lending in Low- and Moderate-Income Neighborhoods in California: The Performance of CRA Lending During the Subprime Meltdown':

"Overall, lending to low and moderate income communities comprised only a small share of toal lending by CRA lenders, even during the height of the California subprime lending boom.

"Loans originated by lenders regulated under CRA in general were 'significantly less likely to be in foreclosure' than those originated by independent mortgage companies that weren’t covered by CRA.

"Loans made by CRA lenders within their geographic assessment areas covered by the law were 'half as likely to go into foreclosure' as those made by the independent mortgage companies.

"28% of loans made by CRA lenders in low income areas within their geographic assessment areas were fixed-rate loans, compared with 18.2% of loans made by independent mortgage companies in low income areas.

Don?t Blame CRA (The Sequel) - Real Time Economics - WSJ

If you're actually foolish enough to believe government doesn't work the way Wall Street wants, maybe you're too stupid to be here?

Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider

FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"

Thanks for the link.

Too bad it doesn't show that the CRA didn't lower lending standards.

 

[georgephillip]

THERE ARE MORE people in Poverty than there were when Republicans ran things


16 MILLION more on food stamps

i'd say PROGRESSIVES gaurantee inequality; it's getting worse on their watch


idiots and hypocrites

"Choosing" between Democrat OR Republican for your congress-critters guarantees rising inequality.

 

[bedowin62]

THERE ARE MORE people in Poverty than there were when Republicans ran things


16 MILLION more on food stamps

i'd say PROGRESSIVES gaurantee inequality; it's getting worse on their watch


idiots and hypocrites

"Choosing" between Democrat OR Republican for your congress-critters guarantees rising inequality.

sorry leftard; see if you can run raul castro to run; or FARC in colombia

 

[georgephillip]

Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider

FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"

Thanks for the link.

Too bad it doesn't show that the CRA didn't lower lending standards.

"'Point in fact,' she said, 'only one in four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending. The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.'

"And 'Let me ask you,' she proceeded. 'Where in the CRA does it say to make loans to people who can't afford to repay? Nowhere.'

"The facts are simple, Bair said.

"The lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for more market share and revenue growth, not because the government encouraged certain lending practices."

FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"

 

[bedowin62]

FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"

Thanks for the link.

Too bad it doesn't show that the CRA didn't lower lending standards.

"'Point in fact,' she said, 'only one in four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending. The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.'

"And 'Let me ask you,' she proceeded. 'Where in the CRA does it say to make loans to people who can't afford to repay? Nowhere.'

"The facts are simple, Bair said.

"The lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for more market share and revenue growth, not because the government encouraged certain lending practices."

FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"

====================

the would not have been possible if the government didnt "encourage" them.
and it wasnt encouragement leftard; it was the LAW.
by the mid-2000s more than half of government-backed mortgages were required to be made in the name of "fairness" at sub-prime rates to people that couldnt afford to repay them

 

[georgephillip]

THERE ARE MORE people in Poverty than there were when Republicans ran things


16 MILLION more on food stamps

i'd say PROGRESSIVES gaurantee inequality; it's getting worse on their watch


idiots and hypocrites

"Choosing" between Democrat OR Republican for your congress-critters guarantees rising inequality.

sorry leftard; see if you can run raul castro to run; or FARC in colombia

You don't have to prove your ignorance with every post

"Largest (voter registration over 75,000)[edit]
Libertarian Party - Libertarianism, laissez-faire, pro-civil rights, anti-war
Green Party of the United States - Green politics, eco-socialism, progressivism
Constitution Party - Social conservatism, religious right, paleoconservatism
Smaller parties by ideology[edit]
Right-wing[edit]
This section includes any party that advocates positions associated with American conservatism, including both Old Right and New Right tendencies.
America First Party
Christian Liberty Party
America's Party
Independent American Party"

Third party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bedowin62]

"Choosing" between Democrat OR Republican for your congress-critters guarantees rising inequality.

sorry leftard; see if you can run raul castro to run; or FARC in colombia

You don't have to prove your ignorance with every post

"Largest (voter registration over 75,000)[edit]
Libertarian Party - Libertarianism, laissez-faire, pro-civil rights, anti-war
Green Party of the United States - Green politics, eco-socialism, progressivism
Constitution Party - Social conservatism, religious right, paleoconservatism
Smaller parties by ideology[edit]
Right-wing[edit]
This section includes any party that advocates positions associated with American conservatism, including both Old Right and New Right tendencies.
America First Party
Christian Liberty Party
America's Party
Independent American Party"

Third party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you're right leftard; i need only one to prove my ignorance; like you?

 

[gnarlylove]

The US ranks equal with Qatar and Kenya on labor rights and laws in place regarding unions. Their score was a 4 out of 5, 5 being the lowest ranking.

"Unions in countries with a rating of 4 have reported systematic violations against workers. The government and/or companies are engaged in a serious effort to crush the collective voice of workers putting fundamental rights under continuous threat."

New ITUC Global Rights Index - The world?s worst countries for workers - International Trade Union Confederation

 

[georgephillip]

Thanks for the link.

Too bad it doesn't show that the CRA didn't lower lending standards.

"'Point in fact,' she said, 'only one in four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending. The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.'

"And 'Let me ask you,' she proceeded. 'Where in the CRA does it say to make loans to people who can't afford to repay? Nowhere.'

"The facts are simple, Bair said.

"The lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for more market share and revenue growth, not because the government encouraged certain lending practices."

FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"

====================

the would not have been possible if the government didnt "encourage" them.
and it wasnt encouragement leftard; it was the LAW.
by the mid-2000s more than half of government-backed mortgages were required to be made in the name of "fairness" at sub-prime rates to people that couldnt afford to repay them

Point out the passage in the CRA that authorizes fraudulent lending practices or STFU, Bitch.

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rampant fraud in the mortgage industry has increased so sharply that the FBI warned Friday (2004) of an 'epidemic' of financial crimes which, if not curtailed, could become 'the next S&L crisis.'

"Assistant FBI Director Chris Swecker said the booming mortgage market, fueled by low interest rates and soaring home values, has attracted unscrupulous professionals and criminal groups whose fraudulent activities could cause multibillion-dollar losses to financial institutions.

"'It has the potential to be an epidemic,' said Swecker, who heads the Criminal Division at FBI headquarters in Washington. 'We think we can prevent a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis,' he said."

CNN.com - FBI warns of mortgage fraud 'epidemic' - Sep 17, 2004

 

[bedowin62]

"'Point in fact,' she said, 'only one in four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending. The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.'

"And 'Let me ask you,' she proceeded. 'Where in the CRA does it say to make loans to people who can't afford to repay? Nowhere.'

"The facts are simple, Bair said.

"The lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for more market share and revenue growth, not because the government encouraged certain lending practices."

FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"

====================

the would not have been possible if the government didnt "encourage" them.
and it wasnt encouragement leftard; it was the LAW.
by the mid-2000s more than half of government-backed mortgages were required to be made in the name of "fairness" at sub-prime rates to people that couldnt afford to repay them

Point out the passage in the CRA that authorizes fraudulent lending practices or STFU, Bitch.

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Rampant fraud in the mortgage industry has increased so sharply that the FBI warned Friday (2004) of an 'epidemic' of financial crimes which, if not curtailed, could become 'the next S&L crisis.'

"Assistant FBI Director Chris Swecker said the booming mortgage market, fueled by low interest rates and soaring home values, has attracted unscrupulous professionals and criminal groups whose fraudulent activities could cause multibillion-dollar losses to financial institutions.

"'It has the potential to be an epidemic,' said Swecker, who heads the Criminal Division at FBI headquarters in Washington. 'We think we can prevent a problem that could have as much impact as the S&L crisis,' he said."

CNN.com - FBI warns of mortgage fraud 'epidemic' - Sep 17, 2004

lol what an angry loser you are!!

there is no passage authorizing fraud

that said it's STRAW MAN.........................BITCH

 

[bedowin62]

THE ONLY thing capitalism seems to gaurantee is legions of angry, whining progressive losers butt-hurt over their failed agenda; and the record welfare and food stamps it has produced, crying like the bitches they are that corporations are making MORE MONEY ON PROGRESSIVE'S WATCH than they did under those mean ol Republicans!

lol why dont you go hang yourself idiot?

 

[georgephillip]

The US ranks equal with Qatar and Kenya on labor rights and laws in place regarding unions. Their score was a 4 out of 5, 5 being the lowest ranking.

"Unions in countries with a rating of 4 have reported systematic violations against workers. The government and/or companies are engaged in a serious effort to crush the collective voice of workers putting fundamental rights under continuous threat."

New ITUC Global Rights Index - The world?s worst countries for workers - International Trade Union Confederation

The US also saw much higher levels of violence, often state violence, used against labor organizers:

"Anti-union violence may be used as a means to intimidate others, as in the hanging of union organizer Frank Little from a railroad trestle in Butte, Montana.

"A note was pinned to his body which said, 'Others Take Notice! First And Last Warning!'

"The initial of the last names of seven well-known union activists in the Butte area were on the note, with the "L" for Frank Little circled.[26][27]

"Anti-union violence may be abrupt and unanticipated.

"Three years after Frank Little was lynched, a strike by Butte miners was suppressed with gunfire when deputized mine guards suddenly fired upon unarmed picketers in the Anaconda Road Massacre.

"Seventeen were shot in the back as they tried to flee, and one man died.[28]"

Anti-union violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[dnsmith35]

What do you know about Rwanda that Human Rights Watch doesn't?

Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda (Human Rights Watch Report, March 1999)

There are some left wing sites, Human Rights Watch is one of them, whose propaganda tend to try to make capitalism the culprit. .

They (whoever give you information) did their job (meaning they deceived you thoroughly). HRW receives funding from corporate sponsors and listens to the concerns of their donors. Correspondingly, while it has produced many vital reports that I use, it has issued reports (or more accurately failed to report) on information so as to fit narratives of the US and their allies, indeed, of the western/global capitalist system in general. This flies in the face of your "anti-capitalist propaganda" analysis of HRW.

I know it's your nature to disagree because you obviously don't like asking "is what I believe true?" so here's a report on the bias of HRW, and we aren't talking about the bias of your favorite slander term "left wing extremists."

Far Beyond the Curve: HRW?s Bias and Lack of Credibility in 2012

I disagree with those things that I believe to be in error. But in no way did HRW influence my decision as to what is and what is not correct. Left wing extremists, who prefer to some extent socialism, have for decades tried to beat capitalism down. They have failed because there is no better economic system which builds prosperity for the greatest number of people. Since I am a liberal/humanist I do believe in the welfare for the "least of his people."

Left wing extremists are what they are. Either you fall into that category or you don't. Obviously you don't fall into the simple "liberal" mode as your views are far to the left of that. It is my experience with left wingers that their solutions are all far to the left of simple liberalism or humanism. If you are not a left wing extremist, it is a mistake of what and how you post which makes you look that way. Either accept what you are, or get off your high horse about simple liberalism.

 

[dnsmith35]

They prove you've managed to stick your head so far up your ass you'll need another 78 years to remove it.

Typical response from someone so totally defeated in debate he can't stand it. I am a liberal, not a left wing fanatic like George Phillips. The difference between us is massive. I don't accept the extremes of either end of the spectrum.

Gnarley-

Truly your self-righteousness knows no limits. Even if you are right about everything in the world, I would expect such omniscience to be humble but instead you are a firecracker constantly taking the modest road while proclaiming it as loudly and as slanderously as you know how. You must sleep well at night in your smug sense of absolute rationality.

Obviously you can't stand the opportunity to have a discussion without nastiness. For a number of posts there was no nastiness at ll. I follow the example of those to whom I respond. When you were not insulting I answered in kind. Now that you have resorted to nastiness I have no alternative to answer in kind. YOU ARE FULL OF CRAP. I am what I am, a simple liberal trying to do good for all his people. You on the other hand in your typical left wing extremist manner have again chosen to attack me. If there is any self righteousness on this thread, it is coming from you and your compadres.

Just so you don't feel the need to throw mud at me for merely observing your behavior let me just state I know I am utterly incapable of rationality so spare me your decrees of righteousness and conversely of the idiocy of the person who dares challenge your absolute and eternal truths.

Many people challenge my opinions, and there is no negative give and take. I stand by my behavior as one of the good guys in the face of a bunch of extremist idiots trying to unfairly and inaccurately make capitalism the cause of all their failures. You are right, you are not rational. You look at propaganda and take it for fact, yet you are shown facts and you discard them because you don't like the truth.

I don't just make these things up. My opinions were supported by good factual concepts and studies. I eliminate the propaganda from both extremes by eliminating the editorialism in the article. As I did with the study by Diamond and Saez, I read the study, look at the data, recognize a fault in the study if one is obvious, and come to my own conclusions rather than accept the conclusions of the ones doing the study. If you do that, instead of accepting the conclusions premade for you, you might, just might learn how to throw out the fluff and propaganda and think for yourself.

 

[dnsmith35]

"A pair of economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco added another piece of evidence to the case that the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act wasn’t the cause, or even a major contributor, to the subprime mortgage debacle.

"In a paper focused on California that was presented at a Fed conference on housing and mortgages in Washington, D.C., Elizabeth Laderman and Carolina Reid say the data 'should help to quell if not fully lay to rest the arguments that the CRA caused the current subprime lending boom by requiring banks to lend irresponsibly in low and moderate-income lenders.'

"Fed governor Randall Kroszner made a similar case earlier this week.

"Among the specific findings in 'Lending in Low- and Moderate-Income Neighborhoods in California: The Performance of CRA Lending During the Subprime Meltdown':

"Overall, lending to low and moderate income communities comprised only a small share of toal lending by CRA lenders, even during the height of the California subprime lending boom.

"Loans originated by lenders regulated under CRA in general were 'significantly less likely to be in foreclosure' than those originated by independent mortgage companies that weren’t covered by CRA.

"Loans made by CRA lenders within their geographic assessment areas covered by the law were 'half as likely to go into foreclosure' as those made by the independent mortgage companies.

"28% of loans made by CRA lenders in low income areas within their geographic assessment areas were fixed-rate loans, compared with 18.2% of loans made by independent mortgage companies in low income areas.

Don?t Blame CRA (The Sequel) - Real Time Economics - WSJ

If you're actually foolish enough to believe government doesn't work the way Wall Street wants, maybe you're too stupid to be here?

Here's How The Community Reinvestment Act Led To The Housing Bubble's Lax Lending - Business Insider

FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"

All that really needs to be said here is, "Do you really believe a government agency is going to admit to any part of the problems they cause?"

Androw - Carter passed the Community Reinvestment act, believing that the problem with dropping home ownership rates, was caused by lack of investment into homes, rather than a problem societal family break down. It's much easier to regulate the banks, than to convince people to stay true to their wedding vows.

In 1977, the CRA was signed into law, promoting investment into home ownership, encouraging lending.

Now you tell me.... Does that look like home prices after World War 2, were 'fairly' stable and consistent.... until when? 1977. Look at the chart. In 1977, prices started climbing, until they crashed.

Because of this... the CRA was virtually ignored for a decade. Community groups were complaining that the CRA was not enforced. (and it wasn't... for good reason).

In 1990s, Clinton came along, and vowed to fix things. He instructed his government to start pushing banks.... which they did.

HowThe Democrats Caused The Financial Crisis Starring HUD Sec Andrew Cuomo & Barack Obama - YouTube

In 1998, the Clinton government sued in court, banks to give out $2.1 Billion in unqualified loans. Andrew Cuomo, at 3 minutes in, directly states they will be a higher risk, and higher default rate.

First Union Capital Markets Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Price Securities Offering... -- re> CHARLOTTE, N.C., Oct. 20 /PRNewswire/ --

But it doesn't end there.... In 1997, Freddie Mac agrees to Securitize Sub-prime loans, for the first time in American history.

First Union Capital Markets Corp.
and Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. have priced a $384.6 million offering of
securities backed by Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) loans - marking the industry's first public securitization of CRA loans.

The $384.6 million in senior certificates are guaranteed by Freddie Mac
and have an implied "AAA" rating. First Union Capital Markets Corp. is the investment banking subsidiary of First Union Corporation (NYSE: FTU).

People asked "how did these junk sub-prime mortgages get a 'AAA' rating? This is how. Freddie Mac, gave it to them.

Between the government directly suing banks to make sub-prime loans, and Freddie Mac securing them, what do you think that did to sub-prime lending?

and what do you think all those previously unqualified buyers flooding the market did to home prices?

From the prior picture.....

Notice the exact year that prices started spiking up? 1997.

Bottom line.... yes Bush did support more home ownership. That's true, and no one I know, denies it.

The problem is.... the price bubble, and sub-prime bubble, started in 1997. The facts clearly show this. It's not ambiguous in any way.

And by the way.... Obama himself, was involved in the lawsuits against banks, to force them to engage in sub-prime lending. We have court documents, with his name on them.

So Obama, was directly involved back in the late 90s, in what caused the crash in 2008.

It's just a fact.

 

[dnsmith35]

FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"

Thanks for the link.

Too bad it doesn't show that the CRA didn't lower lending standards.

"'Point in fact,' she said, 'only one in four higher-priced first mortgage loans were made by CRA-covered banks during the hey-day years of subprime mortgage lending. The rest were made by private independent mortgage companies and large bank affiliates not covered by CRA rules.'

"And 'Let me ask you,' she proceeded. 'Where in the CRA does it say to make loans to people who can't afford to repay? Nowhere.'

"The facts are simple, Bair said.

"The lending practices that are causing problems today were driven by a desire for more market share and revenue growth, not because the government encouraged certain lending practices."

FDIC's Bair Sets to Shatter CRA "Myth"

Whether you want to believe it or not, even those banks which were not covered by CRA started to follow CRA guidelines because of regulators pushing those standards and sub prime loans, even if not considered covered by CRA, were the over all reason BECAUSE OF SUPER LOW INTEREST RATES, prompted the inflationary housing prices because they over heated the market, along with other bad government policies, until the crash occurs. Instead of listening to the government defend its policies, why not do the research and figure it out for yourself? Are you than incapable of thinking?