However, of course, some of that stuff was just bad luck, and was nobody’s fault.

Do you think any repeal of a regulation caused the crash?

I haven’t done enough specific research into the regulations present to really have an answer

De Beers was mining decades before South Africa was independent

The real culprit was the CRA ( community reinvestment act) this act created by the dems forced banks into giving loans to people who couldn’t pay it back. This causes the real boom then bust. The CRA evolved through times and got hard pressed by regulators over the years until in 2008 it all popped.

The CRA was not a static piece of legislation. It evolved over the years from a relatively hands-off law focused on process into one that focused on outcomes. Regulators, beginning in the mid-nineties, began to hold banks accountable in serious ways. Banks responded to this new accountability by increasing the CRA loans they made, a move that entailed relaxing their lending standards.

All this combined with the FEDs contractionary policy caused the crash.

@Anon365 I’ll read more on it later

But the article I posted above

Ok

@Leo (BillNyeLand) banks wouldn’t have done those sorts of acts if the CRA did not exist

Glass Steagal and the CMFA was unrelated as most people like to believe

Just looking at the Wikipedia article

Ye

“The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission formed by the US Congress in 2009 to investigate the causes of the 2008 financial crisis, concluded ‘the CRA was not a significant factor in subprime lending or the crisis’.”

yeah propaganda

they always say something along the lines of

“According to Yellen, former Chair of the Federal Reserve, independent mortgage companies made risky "higher-priced" loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the "higher-priced" loans that have contributed to the current crisis.”

“Independent mortgage funds weren’t subject to CRA”

yep

Called it

What about them?

“In 2015, Federal Reserve Board economists Neil Bhutta and Daniel Ringo released a summary of available studies on both sides of the debate. They found that any impact of the CRA on risk was mitigated by the extraordinarily small market share that CRA eligible loans held in comparison with non-CRA eligible mortgage lending”

Yep

Basically

It is highly misleading to claim that just because mortgage companies were not technically under the CRA that they were not required by regulators to meet similar tests. In fact, regulators threatened that if the mortgage companies didn't step up to the plate by relaxing lending standards they would be brought under the CRA umbrella and required to do so.

What's more, many smaller mortage service companies hoped to be acquired by larger banks. Increasing their CRA lending made them more attractive for a take over.

the Clintons threatened to subject the mortgage companies to the CRA if they didn't comply voluntarily. They agreed to increase their CRA lending in order to escape the kind of public scrutiny that comes with official CRA regulated status.

I gtg

Sorry

Pce

In short there may have been less loans subject to CRA

But CRA type loans were made more due to the threat of regulation, trying to look good to be acquired by a bank

Which is what the 2009 report mises

@Anon365 Publically owned own companies mined diamonds through state corporations and they chose to use DeBeers as their distributor.

It’s more of a cartel than a monopoly

Cartels really do exist due to state intervention

for example, the FED

They had a monopoly before South Africas independence

Lol why does white guilt exist?

If you removed all the whites from history you would get African tribes.

In 2019 we would have the tech of 1000.

So thank white people that were not tribes anymore.

@Anon365 It wasn't only SA

the mines were publically owned