Spend the whole movie explaining how giving loans to poor people and immigrants is causing a housing bubble

>spend the whole movie explaining how giving loans to poor people and immigrants is causing a housing bubble
>finish the movie by saying people are going to blame poor people and immigrants and that's bad

hmmmm, what were they trying to say here?

Other urls found in this thread:

nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

The poor and the immigrants are given the loans by banks that convinced them that they can pay it back

That was the loan brokers not the banks.

Banks knowingly gave junk loans to people knowing they couldn't pay it back and that the inflated market was about to crash. I didn't watch the shitty movie because it made conmen look like heroes but that is what happened in reality.

That's blaming a lion for being a lion.

Don't take a loan if you can't pay it. The banks had no responsibility in this, it lies solely on the poor people+immigrants and the government.

You are the people that the movie laughs at

There's THREE parties at fault here;

- The banks for actually giving loans to those people with awful credit and zero collateral
- The borrowers who should've known better
- The government who pressured the banks to loan to the at-risk borrowers

No crimes are really crimes then.

>Society cant function the post.

>That scene where Steve Carell meets the strip dancer who has like 3 houses

The bank exists to make money, they have no moral duty to do anything. It's the governments failure to regulate them so they don't do it.

They said it quite clear. You don't give junk loans to people who can't afford it, then bundle it all together and continue to sell the shit loans, and then on top of that hide from investors and pretty it up as AAA/AA/A/etc. bonds.

The same shit is going on in Student Loan market.

It's not a crime.

>I didn't watch the shitty movie because it made conmen look like heroes

It actually didn't. It took on a pretty somber note at near the three-quarters mark of the film and no celebration was really given. Handled the material really well.

>Criminals make their crime legal.
>We are just supposed to accept it and move on.

Cuck much?

>make their crime legal.
Then it's not a crime.
Please stop posting.

>the banks had no responsibility
>literally loan hundreds of thousands of dollars to laquisha and tyrone/cletus and suzy
>knowing they don't and can't pay the loans eventually
>dem banks gud bois dey didn't do nuffin it's do gubments fault da free hand ain't got dat power dey jus wants to survive

Lol who do you think lobbys for deregulated banks? The fucking banks.

Thanks Bill Clinton.

>She could have paid them off anyway

>willingly giving loans to people who couldn't afford them whne you have all the information that the loan will fail and you'll be propped up because the government won't let you fail and it's not your fault.

Nah m8, you're wrong or being edgy.

This is the most accurate post in the thread.

Whenever I see posts like this I'm reminded of just how severely simple rationality is demonized on Sup Forums. And the retards here cry about SJWs as if to imply that they're different.

>Thanks Bill Clinton.
In fact the biggest part of deregulation was done under Reagan and Tatcher during the 80s.

I've been a bit more inactive on Sup Forums but it's incredibly stupid to believe that the standard Sup Forums posters are anyway different to the boogiemen SJWs.

Conservative white male bank owners (I mean, look at the cast) wanted to do what banks do and make money in any way possible, Liberals wanted to help those who they viewed as disenfranchised so they looked the other way when banks handed tons of money to dumb poor minorities who would never be able to pay it back. This movie represents the classic liberal conundrum - are we all created equal or some people (particularly minorities and poor people) incapable of being successful. It's a conundrum, and this movie obviously didn't resolve it, it just harped back to the fallacy of "white privilege" and blamed the banks for taking advantage of people, while completely ignoring the fact that if those people weren't incapable of success they wouldn't have allowed themselves to be taken advantage of.

The government didn't pressure them. When the Bush administration made the changes that allow banks to give those shitty loans, they saw it as an opportunity.

The loans were complicated product with changing rates which explained why most people couldn't pay at the same time and lost their house.

The banks didn't care if the borrowers could give them back their money because the housing market had been growing for the last 40 years and was considered a no risk investment.
So when the borrowers couldn't pay, they were selling the houses at a higher price than the one it was bought for. Until the market was saturated, price start to fall, and its mattered again if the borrower could pay.

You clearly haven't watch this movie.

Both parties werey at fault though. You should know you can't afford something as a borrower but as a smart business owner you should know not to put houses out and then allow people to throw 5 thousand down on a fucking 200k house. It's just bad business.

The banks were more at fault because they then tried to cover it up and fool investors on top of that shit sundae by lumping it into sums and reselling it other investors. The banks knew it was coming and did nothing to stop it.

>When the Bush administration made the changes that allow banks to give those shitty loans
KEK

Bush tried to restrict the banks' ability to give out said shitty loans and Democrats called him racist because muh minorities.

>''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''
>Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.
>''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.
nytimes.com/2003/09/11/business/new-agency-proposed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html

The fault of poor people for taking the loans

Fault of the government for being susceptible to lobbying

Fault of the government for bad regulation and making things too big to fail.

>The fault of poor people for taking the loans
>basically hand money to a retail worker and advertise it
>SHAME ON YOU, POOR DUMBASS WHY DIDN'T YOU PAY THE LOAN

Come on now. Blame can be spread but they've the least to be had. It's like blaming the idiot child and not the liberal/conservative parents that praise it/profit off of it.

are you retarded?

It's not the banks job to tell people what they can and can't do. The bank wants to make profit that is all.

Yes but if they knew they can fail they wouldn't take such unprofitable risks as granting loans to unreliable clients.

>the bank wants to make profit that is all

And as a smart entity in the financial world you don't hand out 200 thousand dollar properties to people who can meet a few thousand in a downpayment and look no further into it.

Blind investments are idiocy. Educated men making bigger blunders than a man down on his luck, little money, and being offered free money is far more stupid and disappointing.

That's the governments fault for interfering in the free market. You either regulate things that are too big to fail to stop them from needing bail outs, or you don't make things too big to fail.

>And as a smart entity in the financial world you don't hand out 200 thousand dollar properties to people who can meet a few thousand in a downpayment and look no further into it.

But they made money.

> not the banks job to tell people what they can and can't do

by the law, it is in EU

I'm sorry was this movie about the EU?

It affected the entire globe and EU banks rolled with scummy shit.


Banks should clearly be goverment institution. Too much at stake for privates to handle

Why did he shoot heroin when I gave him the needle and the 8-ball?

In this thread we established that at least half the blame lies with the government. And now you want to giver more responsibility to the government?

Jog on commie.

>But they made money.

Which financial company came out on top by doubling down on this practice?

Because he's a bad decision maker. If you gave me heroin and a needle I wouldn't use it, I'd sell it.

get shot in a war for your Israeli-Saudi overlords, retard

The ones biggest enough to ride the initial crash and then get the free government handouts.

This is why we are where we are at today, people like you eat dog shit and smile.

>something should be illegal because i don't like it
hmmm

since when did Sup Forums go full commie

>people not understanding the movie

lel

It explains as well as it can what happened while being a hollywood movie.

Want more details? Read the book.

Great movie desu, top 5 this year.

>trying to equate simple drug dealing with hundred thousand dollar investments and loans through major corps

Okay, I'm done here. I knew you were baiting hard but I'm past my leash here.

>moving goalposts, the infinite posting

Those companies didn't profit during those years. They were ruined from the ground up. Propped up by the US government and paraded around.

I'd never invest in them at this point. The housing market is STILL shit due to them and they'll never make good money again. They're back to basics.

>>Those companies didn't profit during those years. They were ruined from the ground up. Propped up by the US government and paraded around.
>>I'd never invest in them at this point. The housing market is STILL shit due to them and they'll never make good money again. They're back to basics.

Companies are comprised of people and for the people at the top they are richer than ever. It was profitable for them. They don't give a shit about the small fries.

banks were literally selling adjustable rate mortgages as "the interest rate adjusts to your lifestyle!" Which to poor people is saying "when life fucks you, not if, as it has a hundred times before, you won't be homeless!"

>The same shit is going on in Student Loan market.

The government directly insures all student loans. So if anyone ever defaults on them, the government instantly pays the balance but the bank is still entitled to collections.

>con artistry is okay when really really rich people do it

wtf i hate banks now