I'm more or less a subject matter expert on the topic.

During that time period, I owned a mortgage bank (not a broker), we funded a variety of Fannie/Freddie/Ginnie products and sold them on the secondary market. I carried a $20 million line of credit from Lehman Brothers and they were our largest single customer (when they bellied-up we were basically out of business a second later because we ran out of money).

Well, OneWest was one of the 'adults in the room' and didn't have the exposure to the subprime mortgage business. He was asked (probably after considerable lobbying) to takeover (and consume) IndyMac and a few other banks. IndyMac was advertising stuff like "0-down up to $1 million" and "1 Day Out of Bankruptcy OK!"... People think of subprime as just people with a shitty credit score. No, it's very high-risk.

I think he also absorbed the portfolio from OneWorld, which was World Savings Bank. WSB was fine with up to 15 mortgages to the same borrower (14 rental properties plus 1 primary) - when the values collapsed in California, their entire clientele were upside millions (each). WSB kind of underwrote them better and looked at cashflow and how 'well run' the rentals were, but when faced with a $5 million upside-down picture, any 'smart' investor is going to walk from it and file bankruptcy. On top of that, World Savings didn't really look seriously at a credit score other than to score it for an interest rate, they looked more at cash-flow. The BK goes away in 7 years, but would take a lifetime to pay off the $5 million if the values didn't recover (and they really haven't yet and its been 9 years now). If the borrower had a 600 FICO, they also were very likely the type ethically to just lock the doors and walk away.

The media makes it sounds like he was throwing people out on the street that were scraping by with minimum wage jobs and 4 kids. Whatever, that was probably 1% of the cases. Normally, it was the guy that has 15 rental properties and hasn't made a mortgage payment in 12 months but has been pocketing the rent money completely with the intention of letting them go (but just skimming in the meantime).

Ultimately, it's contract law anyway. The bank gives you $350,000 or whatever, in return for monthly installments. If you don't make the installments, you are in breach of contract. Are we supposed to forgive that? And why the hell would the other 40 million people in California pay their payments? I already feel like a dumb-shit sitting at a stop light with 10 other cars and I'm the only one with current car registration on the license plate.

The wolves have owned the hen house since 1913.

With all due respect, fellow Gulchers, it would be difficult NOT to make the claim that almost anyone involved in the field of economics, modern banking, or finance in America, was "involved."

Modern Economics, and its siblings, particularly as “understood” by PHD’s and such, bears little semblance to unpoliticized "reality."

These economic "experts," usually represented as those most highly "credentialed," invariably seem to demonstrate themselves to be educated morons. I say this because through varied economic prescriptions, instead of "common sense," they routinely display uncommon senselessness. It and they are touted to embody established economic wisdom, but are, in reality, a catechism attempting to demonstrate, through mathematics, the aura of credibility enjoyed by the physical sciences.

My first example of such nonsense is they reverse cause and effect at its most fundamental level. They have been taught - and have accepted that, rather than production of "supply" with the "saving" of a portion of same representing wealth that then may be consumed at the discretion of the producer - or subsequent "owner," they instead claim wealth to be the result of "demand" that stimulates the production of wealth, and that any further increase in wealth will be the result of further increases in demand. This absurdity is then passed as economic insight then used to develop and "stimulate demand" by all manner of the next example of “uncommon senselessness.”

It is the idea that the proper solution for debt is credit. Whatever debt ensues through my first example, further credit, as needed, is the appropriate response. This is taken as economic "truth" without any distinction being made between credit provided for production, versus credit advanced for consumption, nor with reference to the distasteful fact that another word for credit is "debt."

I have other examples but I will get to what has become the primary reason the "science" of economics has instead become the "politicization" of economics. It is the marriage between politicians and bankers that gave birth to their "child," the Federal Reserve Central Bank. This marriage began when one of the betrothed "vowed" to the other, the right to create unlimited money and credit (debt). In exchange, the other "vowed" to provide the necessary amounts of money and credit to "finance" whatever political schemes might be fashioned by the other.

Further, this federal legislation/marriage was enacted to enable a political doctrine, now widely accepted, that begins with the premise that certain people (defined in whatever manner thought to be of political "use") are entitled to certain betterment's of life for which they are not financially able to themselves provide. Because they cannot do so, they are nevertheless entitled to them, and credit is to be used to enable for the provision of same. Why credit? Because direct taxation of those who are to provide them is politically unacceptable. Further, according to the evolving politicization of economics, that if these certain people's standard of living is to be raised by credit, as of course if may be for a while, then they will become better creditees, better customers, better to live with, and - able-at-last, able-at-last, good God almighty, able-at-last, to willingly pay their debts created by their "increased demand!"

You're on the right track. Mnuchin has been profiting as a Wall St. and Wachington crony for some time - at Goldman Sachs, at Soros, and apparently in using our tax dollars to acquire and "profit" from the sale of failed lender IndyMac. See "Trump’s Treasury: Still More Cronyism" by Richard Salsman at The Daily Capitalist. https://imfcinc.com/ifiblog/trumps-tr...

As for worrying, better to do what you're doing - becoming informed and spreading the truth.

Bill Clinton by repealing Glass Steagle act and G.W. Bush increasing investments banks ability to massively leverage were a big part of causing the bubble.

The business media (Forbes, Bloomberg, et al) love Trump's picks from Goldman and other bank cartel members (e.g., Wells Fargo.) They do not give any rational explanation for that bias, however.
Maybe Trump wants to keep his friends close and enemies closer, but imo Trump gave the wolves the keys to the peoples' hen house.

Most economists are liars and those that have degrees are credentialed liars. There are many different ways to parse the social economic lies that it is difficult to remain clear as to where it all began and why. Creating money that has no value is only create debt which cannot be paid by the fiat currency created. To create a dollar and loan it out automatically creates a debt that cannot be paid. If there is only one dollar in circulation and you owe a $1.10 with interest it is unpayable. So you borrow another $1.00 and pay the .10 cents interest and owe $2.19 for the money borrowed into circulation ($1.90) so you borrow more money an pay last years interest. It is a Ponzi scheme that cannot be paid. While the basis of this is the Federal Reserve I do not give any 'member banks' a pass on their involvement, they understand the scheme and want to profit from it. Consequently you can blame many banks, investment banks, stocks for their part but overwhelmingly it is the Federal Reserve that starts it and all others participate in their own way trying to unload the bad money before they get burned. It's like playing hot potato or musical chairs and blaming the person who was left out while really it is the person removing the chairs. I do not believe Trump will be any different than any past president except he will shift the chairs differently and blame someone else.