Sorry OS, posting what you learned at Wikipedia only kills your “expertise” claim. I do have to chuckle that you think your history lesson on the repeal of Glass Steagall proves anything. What Wikipedia didn’t tell you is that Glass Stegall existed in name only and had nothing to do with mortgages. And here’s the best part, it actually helped mitigate the Bush Financial Crisis. Yep, that’s right, when two investment banks collapsed, banks with money were able to buy them up and mitigate the fallout. I just cant believe that you didn’t come across any of this during your “research”.
Speaking of investment banks collapsing, in all your “research “ did you ever come across Bush reducing the capital requirements of investment banks? In 2004 (there’s that year again) Bush allowed investment banks to increase their leverage and that newfound borrowed money went into the mortgage market. That helped fuel demand for mortgages. Now if Bush hadn’t preempted all state laws against predatory lending and Bush’s regulators did their job instead of encouraging the banks, the investment banks wouldn’t have been buying toxic mortgages with borrowed money. But they did. Yet another Bush policy that helped create the Bush Mortgage Bubble and made the Bush Financial Crisis worse. Again, no bad mortgages, no Bush Mortgage Bubble, no Bush Financial Crisis. It really is that simple.
Again OS, I’m not looking for you to post “nuh uh, it was a bunch of stuff” with a lot of words. I’m asking you to explain the connection to the documented timeframe and cause of the Bush Mortgage Bubble : “dramatically lower lending standards starting late 2004”. So far you haven’t. Hey I’ll make this easy for you. See this bubble. That's what a bubble looks like. That’s exactly what you get when you flood the mortgage market with borrowed money and unqualified buyers. “something something Glass Stegall” doesn’t explain it.
View attachment 67209109