Well, yes but there are a few other things such as Alt-A and sub-prime loans that really helped. People started to make a lot of money off of flipping houses by buying them with little to no money down. In other words, with really high leverage. So that when they sell the house in a couple of years when the house has appreciated, they make a high rate of return. This works great, as long as houses appreciate. If home prices stagnate or decline, you're in deep shit my friend on a loan with high leverage. You lose everything. And many of these loans with low interest/no money down had a super high interest rate that kicked in after 2 years. So now you're stuck with a depreciating asset, you owe more than it's worth and your interest rate is impossibly high (let's say 20%).
Not only are you in it deep but the bank sold off your loan and opened it up to the market to investors in these complicated investments (not sure what they're called). Essentially, your loan, as well as many others are cut up and sold off when they're sold off to investors. Basically, the investors lose big on this too.
Back to Alt-A and sub-primes. Alt-A loans didn't require income documentation so you could get a massive loan without having any source of income. My Econ prof said there was a case of a strawberry picker who made ~$14,000/year and got a loan for $800,000. The kicker is that it's loan fraud to lie on your app for a loan so not only were people in huge debt, they could face legal trouble too.
Sub-primes were just loans given to people with bad credit and many of those just defaulted.
So there were a bunch of toxic assets and the TARP Bailout was suppose to buy up all the toxic assets.
Well, the thing is that what you're doing is essentially to say that the problem with a flu patient isn't
just the influenza virus, but also fever, cough, headaches etc.
When there's a credit expansion, lending standards fall, since a creditor would first lend to the most reliable borrowers, so when additional money is available for lending, the reliability of debtors generally falls.
When there's a credit expansion, the structure of production is distorted and investment is misled into higher-order goods, a bubble must pop up somewhere. This time, it was in housing, due to policies whose aim was to stimulate activity in housing, but if it hadn't been that, it would have been another market.
Of course, things like Fannie&Freddie and other moral hazards, the CRA etc. intensified/affected the situation, but a credit expansion (artificial lowering of interest rates) alone necessitates a correction (recession).
I really don't see a solid GOP plan. There's Ryan's plan but I mentioned that before. And many GOP members seem scared to back it. Not to mention it's not going to cut anymore than Obama's plan is scheduled to cut. And the GOP wants to cut unemployment benefits, which are the most direct form of stimulus because it is all spent right away since those people don't have any money. Giving tax cuts to rich people doesn't ensure that money will be put into the economy. It gets saved. Trickle down economics vs direct injection. This may be a generalization but even if you give tax cuts to everyone, it's not all going into the economy.
Money that is
saved is generally
loaned out. Money that is loaned out is generally
invested. This generally leads to
capital accumulation and
economic growth. The "spending" will still be there, it's just deferred: consumers save their money and delay their consumption (although, not necessarily so with fractional reserve banks and associated credit expansion), so resources can be moved from the later stages of production to earlier ones, making increased economic output possible.
How about this example: imagine a considerable amount of people in a community decide that they want to go... live in cabins in the woods (the specifics aren't important, lol), and consequently need to cut back their spending to afford it. They save money by not going to restaurants as often. Of course, this is a setback for the restaurants affected, who need to lay off workers etc. However, at the same time, interest rates are lowered due to more savings, which encourages investment in long-term projects, for example, a savvy businessman would start building cabins. Thus, the loss in jobs in the restaurant sector is regained by more jobs in the cabin building sector. In essence, this is no different from a scenario in which the consumers decided to eat more Italian food: non-Italian restaurants lose, but this is counter-acted by the gain made by Italian restaurants. It's important to realize that savings aren't a decrease in spending per se, rather, it's a shift in demand, but an inter-temporal one.
You feel me?
(Damn, I yapped again. Okay, no more for realsies now)