If the government shouldn’t press its thumb on the scale at the start (fair to argue!) then it shouldn’t press its thumb on the scale when they demand a bailout.
Now bailing out somebody who over-invested in Nvidia but also holds the world's retirement savings... now that's something I can believe.
> Notably, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC), tasked by Congress with investigating the causes of the financial crisis, cited moral hazard as a component of the crisis, arguing that many factors, including deregulation in the derivatives market in 2000, reduced federal oversight, and the potential for government bailout of "too big to fail" institutions all played a role in increasing moral hazard in the years leading up to the collapse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard#Connection_to_the...
Acting like the only people who had these loan obligations were actively doing something wrong is a total myth.
Meanwhile Wells Fargo, who gave loans to dead people to meet quotas, was made whole and then fined a few token dollars.
The people who defaulted on their mortgages did so because they couldn't afford them. The reason they got a loan that they couldn't afford was because they lied about either their income or their debts while getting the no-doc loans.
The failures in process that led yo the industry allowing people to lie to them without verification is another part of the story but it's completely dishonest to act like the people getting the loans they defaulted on had no agency.
No, they were offered loans at incredibly low rates that would be unaffordable if they rose at all. A large part of the scandal was about how the banks were offering loans to people that couldn't really afford them not that people were lying to get those loans.
Still... something strikes me as just... well... morally wrong about that.
(sarcasm marker, because there really are people who think like that)
Didnt the US govt cause the crisis by refusing to regulate derivatives because their donors didnt want it to be regulated.
The actual problem wasn't really regulatory, it was that they made a change to a complex system and nobody noticed what the implications were until it was already a Problem.
What happened was, mortgages were always considered safe loans, because if the borrower defaults then you repossess the house and sell it to recover the principal. Meanwhile banks would only make loans to people with good credit, because even if you can repossess the house, doesn't mean you want the trouble. So if you looked at the past, holding mortgages was a good investment.
Then they started allowing the banks to sell the mortgages to investors and for the investors to buy insurance against defaults. Which is fine if the investors/insurers are doing their homework and buying loans that are going to be paid back, but mortgages were considered safe, so they were basically not paying attention. There was a thing where they had some bundles of mortgages rated as AAA when they shouldn't have been, but that was more of a scapegoat for the institutional investors who should have known better to blame somebody else after things started going south.
The actual cause was this: Once the banks started selling mortgages to investors, they no longer cared if the borrower would pay it back, because now that's the investor's problem -- and the investors weren't paying attention. Meanwhile as soon as the bank sells the mortgage, they have the principal back from the investor and can go loan it out again and then sell that mortgage. And while this is happening the government is encouraging it because look at all of these new home owners. So now you have the banks giving mortgages to everybody regardless of creditworthiness, and that's what really caused it.
Because doing that creates a housing bubble, as all the people who can't actually afford a house can now bid up the prices by taking out a loan they won't be able to pay back. And the housing bubble in turn invalidates the assumption that if the borrower defaults you can recover the principal by repossessing the house, because now when the bubble pops, people end up underwater on their mortgages. The value of the house crashes and is now less than the loan principal. So when those borrowers start to default, the investors holding those mortgages and the insurers insuring them were lined up to get smashed. Oops.
Mortgages were given to people with no documentation allowed people to lie about their income and get loans they couldn't afford. That was alright because they had low introductory rates/payments they could afford. The market was getting more expensive and you could refinance to a better loan when you're LTV was more favorable before the balloon payments hit.
Those were the loans that were rated AAA.
Once the market growth slowed just enough to not allow the refinancing before the balloon payments, the defaults started, at first slowly then all at once.
If you're going to make a point of it then don't leave out the part about how it happened.
What they were doing was, they'd take a block of subprime mortgages and split them up into tiers. Basically they'd agree to wait to see who defaulted and then the top tiers would get all the mortgages people actually paid back and the bottom tiers got the ones they didn't. If 10% of the mortgages defaulted then anyone who bought at the 10th percentile tier gets all the defaults and everybody else gets paid. If 20% of them defaulted then the ones who bought the 20th percentile tier lose too, but the 30th percentile tier still gets paid.
The highest tiers were rated AAA, because for them to lose you'd have to have preposterously high default rates.
Then we started seeing preposterously high default rates.
People forget why the retail banks were bailed out: because they're an essential service that is used on a daily basis! Imagine if you woke up one day and heard that Amazon was bankrupt, and therefore all AWS storage was going to be offline for 30+ days, and if a buyer could not be found the hard disks would be sold off at auction with no opportunity to retrieve your data.
(a much smaller version of that happened: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49285418 )
And, yes, from this we can infer which tech companies are "too big to fail" and therefore would be bailed out if ever at risk of imminent bankruptcy and shutdown: the cloud companies. AWS, Google, Microsoft, and probably Cloudflare as well.
The Intel "bailout" was more like the General Motors one, good old fashioned manufacturing protectionism.
Americans should also note that almost all other countries with bank failures had comparable bailouts. A few exceptions: Iceland (failure of Kaupthing forced the UK government to bail out some local authorities who were banking with them!), and Cyprus ("bail in" with loss of money in high value accounts, basically because the EU deemed the country to be too deep in dodgy foreign money to be worth saving).
Although I'm sure this is mostly predicated on my political bias, I'm also reasonably confident that your analysis is as well. I'm not sure you're as aware of it though
Destruction isn't the opposite of bail out, it's just destruction. The government is obligated to do what society wants. From this destruction would come creation by freeing up capital to do more productive things than waste money chasing fantasy rather than providing free school lunches or free university instead (you know the actual things that would generate economic value).
Not how the rule of law works!
Literally nobody said this.
Let's not act like the VC world is against creative destruction when it comes to enriching themselves, there's no reason why the public can't destroy things to benefit society either.