B
Braunwyn
Guest
I realize this was the case for some but from what I've been reading a good majority of people were refinancing to pay other debt (credit cars, vacations, etc). eta: I see you mention this!The mechanics are the same. A large money supply and lax regulation allowed banks to take riskier positions in loans. The loans weather sub-prime or not were lax, and they lead to a rapid increase in what people were willing to pay in principle for a house, in a time when jobs in general were not paying any more money. People were speculating, and most thought that the housing market would only go up, so they were willing to pay a somewhat ridiculous amount now, thinking they would be able to sell it later in life for an even more ridiculous price.
Afterward of what? I'm still not clear where an increased demand for homes comes in and how that correlates with refinacing to lead a blame towards actual home buyers.Sub-prime refinancing was done afterward for people to pay other expenses, and this becomes much more popular as the cost of living goes up but wages do not, the refinancing was done based upon the value of the home, so the market run up still causes the sub-prime mess.
This makes sense.If lax loans are given, underestimating the risk involved, markets inflate.
Great point. And again, I'm left with the feeling that people were lead astray and even swindled by folk that should have known better. Perhaps some did know better and didn't care.It’s a general rule for any market, if the US government eased lending standards to let people leverage more so that they could buy stocks, people would inflate the stock market (this also happened in our history).
Last edited:
Upvote
0