From The Washington Post:
“It’s not that 99 percent of Americans want a revolution,” Ezra Klein wrote Tuesday. “It’s that 99 percent of Americans sense that the fundamental bargain of our economy — work hard, play by the rules, get ahead — has been broken, and they want to see it restored.”
Almost 15 days later, the submissions are appearing at a more rapid pace. At the same time, thousands of people can now protest in their home cities, as Occupy Wall Street has spread nationwide.
Voicing opposition to everything from corporate greed and bank foreclosures to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and unemployment, the Web site Occupy Together estimates there are now “Occupy” movements in 291 cities.
As the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations move across America, I am becoming more and more convinced that this is a unique movement and isn’t just your usual professional demonstrator and anarchists. Yes, some of them are there. They have to be somewhere. However, more and more people in that sea of folks seem to be Americans who are just frustrated by foreclosures, joblessness, political rhetoric that misses the point, and general malaise concerning their fate in their America.
It is in the interest of the tea parties, the GOP and some Democrats to dismiss these people as kooks, commies, pinkos, anarchists, and professional agitators (that’s what they used to call them back in the day). Why? Because Occupy Wall Street (OWS) could end up being a huge groundswell of EveryAmerican who lacks the face of any political party and who just wants to put a stop to the absurdities and obstructionism going on in this country. Obviously the tea parties want to be the new kid on the block, but they aren’t really. They are just another branch of very conservative Republicanism, despite protests to the contrary.
Obama gets it and for that, he will be further vilified. He may get some mud on him over it but in the long run, those propping up the 1% will be the losers. As various conservative media lambasted the president for not demonizing the protesters, conservative fear began to crystalize. The rules of the game are changing.
Trying to brand these demonstrators all as the great unwashed isn’t going to fly. We can’t blame it all on unions and on college kids. They are out there but they aren’t the whole enchilada. They have their grouses for sure. But so do people who have been gouged by the financial industry, the mortgage industry, immigration policy, and a host of other standards that kick the 99% rather than help them up. Basically, this group represents Americans who played by the rules only to get thrown under the bus and to find out the rules have changed and the goal posts have been moved.
I believe I have seen some boomers out there in the crowd also. Don’t expect this movement to fizzle out. Expect it to gather steam, sophistication and direction. Tea party, sleep with one eye open for sure. “Plurality is our strength,” is a very strong statement. Some of that lack of focus seems a little more intimidating now when viewed through the eyes of plurality.
@Censored bybvbl
@Morris Davis
I’ll have to answer without reading your link. Won’t open for me.
They did. But, since the banks hate bad publicity and lawsuits, and the feds threatened them with penalties, they decided that going along was cheaper. And since the Fed lowered interest rates, making housing more attractive, the banks went along with it and developed the derivatives to bundle the weak loans in with good and sold them as investment packages. You do remember the whole controversy over “red-lining”, ACORN, Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson, threatening legal action, right?
Did banks take advantage of making a profit where they could? Yep. Just like the borrowers that made out during the housing bubble too. Oh, and neo-cons? Really? To be a neo-con, one had to previously been a liberal.
@Cargosquid
Labels again. Is it possible to have a discussion without calling someone a leftist?
You don’t know what they all are. Hell, they don’t know what they all are. I expect many of them are apolitical.
The point I was making is that you left the GOP out of the list of bad guys…..again.
It would be ever so nice to have a discussion about that kind of movement is going across the nation. What is extreme but what is considered mainstream? I saw a few things that looked mainstream. Who was suggesting that? Once again, the tea party type are trying to drown out the discussion and paint everything as a communist leftist plot.
@Moon-howler
Once again the host is ignoring blunt statements BY THE ACTUAL PROTESTERS. I am not labeling them. I am REPEATING what THEY SAID.
I don’t think I’m getting you. Where should I have listed the GOP as bad guys when talking about the Occupy groups? They are not involved other than as a target in this. I have ALREADY STATED that not all of them are communist agitators, etc. The group is being ORGANIZED by the groups I listed. I also said that I even agreed with some of their more sane demands. But there was no author to the list. Furthermore, earlier demand were crazy.
How am I trying to drown out the discussion and and paint it as a plot when I am using their words, links, demands, signs, etc? I said that I hope they CONTINUE the protests. Let’s have more discussion about their goals, philosophies, procedures, etc. Where have I tried to shut down ANY discussion? The only difference that I see is that I went out, researched, and came back with specifics that concerned me and answered your question as to who they were. You don’t happen to agree with my assessment or discoveries.
But, if you want to believe that none of them are socialists, communists, anarchists, Democrat activists, assorted bigots and cop killer supporters; that all of them are mainstream Americans that just showed up a few weeks ago to camp out in various cities because they are mad at banks for doing what Congress told them was legal and lawful….more power to you.
So, what kind of movement is going across the nation? Other than a completely unorganized one that has people showing up to protest for…….what? Some have admitted that they don’t know why they are there. Some are there because they’ve been paid. Some are being paid by MoveOn at $25/hour. At that kind of money, I’LL carry a sign if there’s an OCCUPY Richmond. I mean, we do have a Federal Reserve Bank here.
OH, and why are these people mad at the BANKS for TARP instead of the gov’t? I mean…..a lot of them seem to want free money from the governent.
Here ya go. I found something about the Occupy Wall St. group from a different point of view.
From Althouse, http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/10/bostons-response-to-occupy-boston-if.html?showComment=1317995571839#c2588617503609388282
commenters stating that the Left is trying to infiltrate the protests and that its actually libertarian:
viator said…
OWS demos show a surprising Paulist libertarian streak. Across the country one of their targets are the regional Federal Reserve Banks.
“Libertarian Wall Street Protesters Demand End to the Fed
“Obama Is Not the Answer
Libertarians also point out that – while the Obama campaign and Democratic National Committee are trying to hijack the Wall Street protests – they have been part of the problem, not part of the solution.
They point out that Obama has appointed Wall Street insiders to all of his key economic posts, and accepted more money from Goldman Sachs and the other big Wall Street banks than anyone else (and is still raking it in). As such, despite his populist rhetoric, he’s with Wall Street, not the protesters. Indeed, he is Wall Street.
They point out that Obama has continued the process of turning the U.S. into a banana republic, and whether you call it communism, fascism or crony capitalism, Obama has been at least as bad as Bush.
They point out that Obama has been a wolf in sheep’s clothing, someone who thinks high levels of unemployment are good.
They point out that Obama has been more brutal than Bush and has destroyed our liberties even faster than Bush.
and here’s another reason for confusion among the protesters:
Shouting Thomas said…
The Obama administration has become a house of mirrors.
Wall Street is the wicked enemy.
Geithner is Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs is everywhere in the Obama admin.
Rise up against the evil bankers1
Pay off the evil bankers!
The evil bankers must direct our economy policy or we are doomed!
How’s that?
@Cargosquid
OH, and why are these people mad at the BANKS for TARP instead of the gov’t? I mean…..a lot of them seem to want free money from the governent.
Wouldn’t have anything to do with large bonuses after feeding at the government’s trough, would it?
It’s funny to hear the Commie slur applied to protestors. I thought Capitalism had won. Aren’t the Russians and Chinese using it to beat us at or own game. Neither system is apparently perfect. Capitalism has gotten us to the problems we have now – jobs shipped overseas for more profit, unions libeled, moderate standards of living slipping away, money at the top and poverty at the bottom…
@Censored bybvbl
It’s funny to hear the Commie slur applied to protestors.
You keep accusing me of “slurring” the protesters. I’m not. THEY have SELF-DESCRIBED themselves as communists. The Worker’s World Party helped organize the event. They carry signs demanding “End Capitalism NOW.” If the shoe fit’s, wear it. And besides, THEY don’t think its a slur.
“Capitalism has gotten us to the problems we have now – jobs shipped overseas for more profit, unions libeled, moderate standards of living slipping away, money at the top and poverty at the bottom…”
Please tell me of a system that does better than the Free Market system at advancing human conditions.
To address your comments:
Jobs shipped overseas: result of a) ending the Cold War, freeing up nations. B) high costs of doing business in the US. c) public demand for low costs.
Unions libeled: result of their own political overreach, dependence on the Democratic party, thuggery, fall back into socialism by the leadership (see Trumka and Stern), destruction of host companies, improvement of the labor market in right to work states
Moderate standards of living slipping away: And we got these how? Do you expect improved standards under a more socialistic society, ie Europe. Our standards have slipped as we have become more like Europe. Politicians have pushed us towards that model since Reagan.
Money at the top, poverty at the bottom: That’s always going to happen. No matter what. Money makes money. The poor are always at the bottom. The way to fix it is to make more of the poor richer instead of making more of the rich, poorer.
The workers world party show up at every event that might conceivably have a liberal side. You can go to the bank on it. Their presence means nothing.
Dependence on the democratic party? You sure you got that direction correct? Let’s see …who might depend on the Republican party? hmmmm…corporations?
Let’s at least be fair here.
You mean like the corporations like….GE? Goldman Sachs? Solyndra? the insurance companies? Law firms?
Don’t try to push the idea that corporations only favor one side. Obama’s administration is a perfect example of crony capitalism. That’s part of the complaint at Occupy Wall St.
Are you telling me that the unions ARE NOT working hand in glove with the Democratic party, that they are not lock step with the Democratic party? So..yeah. I got that right. Unions have a mutual co-dependence with the Democratic party.
And I am being fair. I was answering bullet points from Censored.
crony capitalism? Is this where I throw up my hands and swear allegiance to the Republican Party, swear by all that is holy that Republicans are good and democrats are bad? Hold your breath please….
Actually I was suggesting that the Democratic party was more dependent on unions than vice versa. But what do I know.
Most of corporate america doesn’t come flocking to the Democrats by the way. GS? Don’t believe it. Can we just declare Solyndra an outlier?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Here’s a perfect picture about the 99%.
http://mostlycajun.com/wordpress/?p=15491
and more “food for thought”
http://mostlycajun.com/wordpress/?p=15497
Moon,
This guy has a valid point. You might like it.
http://geroldblog.wordpress.com/2011/10/05/occupy-wall-street-%E2%80%93-idiots-hypocrites/
Excerpt:
But Occupying Wall Street or anywhere else is rather pointless unless you’re doing it just for fun. For one thing, the enemy is not Wall Street or Bay Street or any other bank street. Sure, the investment banks are a bunch of heartless, obscenely greedy sociopaths, but that’s their job and some of them, Goldman Sacs comes to mind, are extremely effective at separating the suckers from their money.
The real enemies are the faceless oligarchs behind the Federal Reserve and the other central banks of the world. The real enemies are the wealthy families who understand how the central banks are destroying the middle classes and concentrating more power in governments and more wealth unto themselves. The occupiers are idiots playing right into the oligarchs’ hands. The ultra-wealthy would like nothing more than a few token Wall Streeters marched off the plank or to the guillotine or doing the perp walk for the TV cameras because it would deflect attention away from the wealthy elites’ evil doings.
Form those occupiers into a voting block and you might be on to something, however.
The wealthy elite have always been out there and not playing by the rules. It is up to us to not let them get by with it quite as often.
I’ll wager that there are Europeans who wish their countries had never become involved in the EU because their form of “socialism” was working fine on their smaller scales.
It isn’t the splinter groups and fringe that you should worry about. It’s whether they strike that “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore” chord with a majority of Americans. Because, if they do, it takes some of the wind out of the Tea Party’s sails. It means we go into an election with the populace more evenly split on who has solutions and makes it harder for the right wing to muscle their candidates into the House and Senate. That’s why the right is so desperately trying to paint them as the great “unwashed” and “commies”. It’s just a smear campaign designed to scare people.
Very much agree with your assessment, Censored.
If they strike that chord, why should the Democrats feel any safer in office than the GOP did with the TP? This might the be Dem/liberal version of the TP. BUT, the movement’s face, so far, IS the unwashed and commies.
You keep saying that this is a smear. Are the communists involved/organizing/publicising the envent? Are they unwashed? Is there trash and are they allowing it to be cleaned up or cleaning up after themselves? The “right” isn’t trying to scare anyone. What would you call people that want to end capitalism, tear down the system, end banking, and end credit agencies, and demand free money?
I, and other bloggers like me, are only reporting what we see. I have made no judgments about them other than from what THEY have shown ME. When I see more sane/reasonable activity and demands, I’ve reported that too.
So….If they do get politically active in the elections, more power to them. The TP would welcome anybody to the fray that seeks to hold government accountable. That is what citizens do. The gov’t is supposed to enforce the laws and arrest criminals. So, if there is criminality in Wall St. and the gov’t does not enforce the laws….then gov’t should be the target of the citizenry.
@Cargosquid
I think the Dems shouldn’t take any support from the protestors for granted.
Tell me about this parroted term “unwashed”. I keep hearing it – particularly from posters who were service members or campers and who should be used to “roughing it”. How are campers supposed to look after camping out? I can guarantee you that those of us who camped in our tents or cars during music festivals in the Sixties were unwashed. It’s a temporary condition. (One of those stinkers I knew went on to become a millionaire who staunchly supports Vietnam vets. Others became lawyers, government workers, college professors, dentists, etc. Some have probably taken a bath in the stock market as well.)
@Censored bybvbl
Unwashed: to not be clean.
They are being called unwashed because a) they don’t seem to pick up their place of camping, b) some appear to be unwashed. 3) some appear to be the classical “hippy” that appears unkempt.
The Occupy DC group left their demonstration area a mess. They left signs touting how much they care for the Earth littering the public area and they left their trash alongside. Most of the left’s protests seem to end that way. This one does not appear to be any different.
Here’s a link to a description of the area by one of the business owners in the area of occupation.
http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2011/10/08/ny-08s-d22-ows-nimbyism/
If this group wants to camp out, its the organizer’s responsibility to provide waste disposal infrastructure. Apparently, they decided that other people would just “take care of them.”
I would love to know how these people are paying for food, water, etc. if they are so destitute as they state. I know that I don’t have time to go camp out for 3 weeks in NYC to protest banks.
The right wing isn’t saying “messy”, “litterbugs”, “rowdy”. They are parroting a particular word – “unwashed”. It’s the right’s equivalent of “teabagger”. Just a word to show contempt, but not a word about alternative ideas.
How clean did the TPers leave the mall? They were definitely an older crowd who should know better. I’ve seen plenty of litter left from July 4th. celebrations on the Mall…from old people as well as kids.
Let’s face it – the right is running scared or they wouldn’t be obsessed with OWS. The Dems need the young vote and these people are young for the most part. That may change as more people join them. We old folks may be more conservative than we were at twenty but the Repubs have threatened our SS and pensions so they’re on our radar and our s-lists. The middle-aged Reagan Repubs are being replaced by a more liberal generation. I love it!
@Cargosquid
That is a really hateful comment.
You are broadbrushing in a way that makes me very uncomfortable. Let’s see, the left is dirty and doesn’t clean up after itself. Nope, no bias there.
Have you ever been around after an Operation Rescue hit? 🙄
Its one thing to say that some members of a movement have particular habits. Its quite another to label the entire left as pigs.
I would say that it depends on who the audience is and where they are. Cleaning up after one’s self has little to do with political persuassion.
@Censored bybvbl
“I find this movement interesting because so far no one has been able to define or control it.”
You cannot control a mob. “Control” is kinda antithetical to anarchists. However, the kleptocrats…er, I mean Democrats are either aligning themselves with the OWS publically, or are staying quiet. The President has certainly indicated his “identification and sympathy” with the motivations of OWS (as incoherent as they are).
Of note: a survey of the various cable and broadcast media would show the talking heads posing the question: Is OWS the left’s TEA party? Compare and Contrast….I for one hope the OWS continue to do what they are doing, and I hope folks like Nancy Pelosi and the President continue to cast their lots with this bunch. I think these electeds, and thier most prominent supporters, believe that tapping into this anger, rage and frustration will provide the voter turnout needed to secure Obama’s reelection. If this is the “energized base” they were looking for, I say; go for it! I am sure Mr. & Mrs J. Public from Davenport Iowa, or suburban Cincinatti will really identify with the OWS.
One of the biggest messes I have ever seen was at the WWII Memorial that summer after it first opened up. Were the WWII-ers slobs? No. The trash wasn’t picked up frequently enough, therefore it was stacked all over the place near the cans, for blocks. I think the DC sanitation dept. had cut back hours.
It is a lot easier to keep things clean if all the infastructure is working and working on time.
@Steve Thomas
I’m going to discount what you have to say. “Mob”, “unwashed”, “kleptocrats” undercuts your argument. You’re scared. Mr. and Ms J. Public sure weren’t afraid to join demonstrations in Wisconsin. You’d probably just label them union commies. These folks are someone’s children and I doubt you’ll win their parents’ votes by calling them names. Work on a platform and skip the name-calling.
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Wall-Street-patrol-car.jpg
Pretty sure I never saw a dude take a dump on a police car at a TP rally. Actually, I’ve never even seen that at the outdoor mosh pits I frequent after everyone has funneled at least six beers from a two-story beer bong.
Cato, I don’t want my eyes burned by checking out your link, but do you know the background of this dude? Infiltrator? Paid agitator? Opposition? Or just plain asshat?
If they were just protesting the bullshit that the banks actually did I’d be out in the street with them. I mean, all that bailout cash and not one of them goes to jail or even gets indicted? Really? Wachovia laundered drug money, they even admitted it in court. Officials from Citi testified under oath that they knowingly sold defective loan products. Perjury is a felony in some circumstances, what about all the robosigning?
But no. What OWS has done here is take every kooky far left agenda item, put it in a blender, and hit the frappé button. Actually, the Republican in me is happy they’re taking that route, because if that actually kept it to a simple message like “we want a full scale investigation into the TBTF players and if they are found to have committed crimes (they did) we want them to go to jail and oh BTW if it’s not too much to ask try to see to it that this doesn’t happen again in the future” then that kind of thing would bring all kinds of people out of the woodwork in support of an idea like that (myself included).
The Tea Party left the Mall cleaner than when they showed up. They brought their own trash bags.
And I am describing what I’ve seen on the web, news, and with my own two eyes….every demonstration by the left leaves an area trashed. Period.
And the mess at the WWII Memorial was disgraceful. Apparently the people that turned out are also slobs. I’ve can tell the difference between having no place to put trash and not making an effort. When the trash cans are full, but the trash is placed next to it…..effort When its dropped where-ever…..slobs. I’ve been to demonstrations and if I can’t dispose of my trash, I bring it home.
But, ok….I withdraw any of MY usage of the term unwashed, which isn’t too hard to do, since my usage was in response to a question.
But, any group of people, uncontrolled or undisciplined, without a common goal other than protesting…something….is a mob, whether its the Tea Party, the Occupiers, or the Rotary Club. If they don’t ACT like a mob, then the label doesn’t apply.
Btw, did you bend over backwards this far to give the benefit of the doubt to the Tea Party?
Cato, I think there’s a strong possibility that more moderate folks would push for those inquiries you mentioned. It just might take a lot of attention-grabbing behavior to make anyone start the investigations. Nothing has nudged those inquiries forward yet. Frankly, I’m amazed that the sheeple have been so calm despite record foreclosures, robosigning, and bank fraud.
@Censored bybvbl
My money is on plain ol’ asshat. I don’t know how much you’d have to pay someone to do that, but I could post an ad on craigslist and find out. Actually the more I think about it the more I want to jump in the car and go downtown with my laundry list of stuff these guys admitted to under oath and got off scot free on (it’s OK – have some more bailout cash) and tell these kids they have it all wrong. This should be about ideology, it should be about the fact that we apparently have two systems of justice; one for major contributors and one for the rest of us.
*shouldn’t* be about ideology I meant to say
@Cato the Elder
Exactly. Those pushing an ideology are confusing the issue.
But, if they just want justice, they are re-inventing the wheel. The Tea Party already wants to reform the system.
I find it interesting that a bunch of peaceful protesters is a “Mob” and gun toten Tea Partiers are just”plain folks”
@Morris Davis
Mo,
This is a very interesting article, but I do not think it shows what you (or the author) thinks it does. It shows the dramatic expansion of mortgage companies to meet the demand for sub-prime mortgages. As that happened, the percentage of business that the banks did directly in low-income communities went down.
But the mortgage companies were almost certainly still doing business with low income/bad risk folks who could not get any other loan. Who else would be willing to pay for high-cost, sub-prime loans? The banks continued business with these communities, albeit indirectly, by purchasing sub-prime loans from the mortgage companies.
In short, the paper you cited does nothing to disprove the narrative that loans to risky, low-income applicants who later defaulted were the major cause of the crisis. If anything, it indicates the magnitude of the problem due to the dramatic growth of a new industry to make these loans.
@Kelly3406
Kelly – The specific comment that led me to post the Harvard study was this: “Congress requiring banks to make loans to people that were unable to pay were the cause of the housing bubble.” You’ve changed the narrative in your post and shifted from just banks to mortgage companies, too. I don’t dispute that bad loans were a major factor in bursting the bubble. What I dispute is the notion that Congress by virtue of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) deserves all the blame for causing the bubble. As the data show, the majority of sub-prime loans were unrelated to the CRA, which applies solely to banks. I believe Congress deserves a large chunk of the blame, but it’s for not requiring regulation and oversight.
@Morris Davis
I will not pretend to have any detailed understanding of the intricacies of the CRA. But were there not various changes to the initial Act that expanded the rules to financial institutions other than just banks? For instance, weren’t banks allowed to create new institutions for the express purpose of meeting CRA requirements?!?
The precise evolution still needs to be investigated in my opinion. It would seem that the CRA led to the growth of a new industry to meet the requirements of the Act, to find a way to make money, and to spread the risk. If Congress does not deserve all the blame, it was at least the catalyst that led to the chain of events.
@Kelly3406
I provided a link to a report by a reputable source citing hard data based on empirical facts. The CRA’s 34th birthday is next Wednesday. If you have similar sources showing the beginning of the end started 34 year ago then please cite them and we’ll discuss.
@ Morris – Actually, the claim is not false. The CRA of 1977 (and the expansion of it under Clinton and Bush) laid the framework for the housing bubble as it happens. I will not lay down tons of links, if you want them, feel free to ask.
As stated before, there were multiples of activities that supported this housing bubble. None of these on their own would have done it, but combined, they led to the perfect storm. Also, no matter how you look it at, it could have all been avoided, had the fed not injected itself.
The beefed up Community Reinvestment Act, required that 1. banks reinvest into the communities in which they were house 2. Lowered the standards by which loans were evaluated, thus loosening borrowing standards. These lowered standards for banks, but also for government sponsored entities (GSEs) of Freddie and Fannie.
Couple that with the historically low interest rates inacted by Greenspan post 9/11, gave way to cheap money to lend, with policies enacted to artificially increase homeowner ship, you saw many people start investing into mortgage backed securities (MBS) heavily, rather than more common investment opportunities.
Now the hammer, which was when Fannie and Freddie, as a government sponsored enitity (GSE), thru legislation, in support of these lowered standards, started buying up sub-prime mbs at an outstanding rate. In 2004-2005, these two GSEs purchased almost 44% of all subprimes. Once banks (and investment firms) saw that GSEs were buying up all the subprimes that they could get their hands on, a further loosening of standards and practices went into full tilt. It is this portion, that most leftists like to try and shift the blame for the meltdown on the free market. In a weird way, they are right, in that these banks started offering more and more mortgages with “less than optimal” review procedures. 0$ down, interest only loans, no income verification, etc. However, the part that is missed is that GSEs were continuing to buy them up as part of the fed’s “one house for everyone” policy directions.
So, if you were a bank, you could sell these mbs’s all day long, cause there was a fairly good chance (almost 50/50 in 2004) that a GSE (in effect, a corp with full backing of the govt and taxpayer) would buy them from you, why wouldn’t you? You get to personalize the profits while socializing the risk. You make the loan, you take the upfront (minimum) risk, sell it off, then if the loan goes to default, it’s backed by the full faith and credit of the US?
Was this wrong? Absolutely, but it’s a situation that would have never existed had the fed (and by proxy the GSEs) wouldn’t have pushed for lower lending standards and then proceeded to buy/back all these subprime options. Had the fed stayed out of it, many of these vehicles would have never come to the light of day, atleast not without some serious fallbacks like higher interest ratings, more down payments, etc. So, yes, Wall Street did a bad thing by taking advantage of the policies and practices set by the fed, but these conditions would have never been present had it not be for federal meddling in the loan vetting and buy up processes. Once the fed decided to fully back these standards, it became a free-for-all, with encouragement by artificially low interest rates, and with the fed buying these subprimes, the focus turning from direct investment to derivatives and “guessing” at how much the market would turn up.
So, I will go record as stating that the bubble and crash weren’t “solely” the fed’s fault, however, the faults of the market were allowed/encouraged/created by the fed pushing dangerous policy in the aim of increasing home ownership, even to those unable to do so.