Seriously? A law designed to keep banks from categorically denying loans based on region caused the housing bust?
It wasn't, say, the mortgage-backed securities that allowed banks to roll their crap loans in with good ones and sell the lot for quick profit (not to mention negating their risk for those crap loans) on the assumption that the good loans will outweigh the bad?
And it wasn't the regulations allowing ARM loans in the first place, loans that were designed so people could get bigger loans than they otherwise could afford?
And I guess the deregulation of background checks and income verification, so a person could just claim whatever income they wanted without the loan officer being required to verify that amount also had nothing to do with it?
I also suppose the fact that the majority of subprime loans made weren't even regulated by that mean old CRA you claim was the root of the problem means nothing as well?
But hey, you're right about those people. There is a lot of blame on the people who ignored all sense and went for loans they knew they couldn't afford. But here's the thing: was it applicants who approved those loans?
Silly me, I see now, of course it's the poor people's fault. They were the ones who were too greedy, not the banks/mortgage companies. And the continual loosening of lending standards made under the assumption that the market will self-adjust had nothing to do with it. Yes, that must be it. It's the poor people's fault that banks and mortgage companies created for themselves a system that allowed them to make all kinds of loans - good, bad, whatever - then bundle them up and sell and resell them for quick profit, just like a game of hot potato. Damn those poor people, damn them!
No, I'm pretty sure I'll stand by my original statement that regulation should be made to limit corporate greed, and the market should not have total control of itself. Someone's gotta be the referee.