[001sky]

To give just one example, bankers gave housing loans even to people who couldn't afford them. Then they foreclosed on those homes. A "nice" banker would have said "Sorry, you can't afford that house.

The counter point to this is that it was (political) public policy that spurred the bankers to lend to 'sub-prime- credits. The policy that led to the housing bubble was a pernicious trade, basically politicians bribing the bankers (for votes) with allures of money, and bribing the lower-middle classes (for votes) with allures of new credit. In the political sense, it was a bout power and social position, not money (although they are undoubtedly interlinked). This special interest legacy was then followed by similar moves (same motives) in to promote the lending to students (promises of easy credit) and promote the expansion of Academia (promises of larger budgets), again for political gain. Similarly, the repeal of Glass-stegall (under the Deomocrats with Clinton) and the foistering of the Universal banking model on Congress (through both its own actions and the WTO treaty), in another nod to secure the support of the Banks (with promises of greater CEO pay) and the lower middle classes (continued expansion of easy credit).