No, it wasn't. Regulations didn't force credit rating agencies to give AAA ratings to securities backed by subprime mortgages[1]. Greed did.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the...
No, it wasn't. Regulations didn't force credit rating agencies to give AAA ratings to securities backed by subprime mortgages[1]. Greed did.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_rating_agencies_and_the...
The regulatory framework for credit ratings created a serious moral hazard out of whole cloth, and then actively shielded bad actors from scrutiny. It was a clear and obvious case of regulatory malfeasance, and while the subprime mortgage issue was a manifest consequence of that malfeasance, they did not cause it.
The government allowed this regulatory capture by credit agencies to occur because it directly benefitted the government as well, as they are required to rely on these same credit agencies for their own debt instruments.
So if regulations made X profitable, I'd blame regulation for X.
In my mind, greed is a human character trait that exists regardless of the political environment, much like breathing.
To people like OP, it seems to be... something else. I can't quite understand what.
So I think it's fine to reward greed when it does good things - even though it's not from the noblest motive.
Or that punishing robbing banks makes people do it less?
Bank robbing is an activity where punishment actually moves the needle on the risk of doing it. When you try punishing marijuana use you find out that the risk of getting caught is so low that even extremely steep punishments don’t affect people’s willingness to do it. Same with jaywalking.