將房利美和房地美私有化會意味著更高的抵押貸款利率嗎？

@SamoyedsAreFluffy
Privatize the profits but still have taxpayers on the hook if things go wrong? Where's the upside to this?
 
把利潤私有化，但如果出了問題，還是讓納稅人來承擔(dān)？這種做法有什么好處？
 
@ViolaBradford
Few wealthy individuals will make large profits; taxpayers will bear the cost.
Profits are privatized, while losses are socialized. That is the American way!
 
少數(shù)富人會賺取巨額利潤；納稅人將承擔(dān)成本。
利潤私有化，損失社會化。這就是美國的方式！
 
@bakerkawesa
Socialism for the rich. Capitalism for the poor.
 
富人享受社會主義，窮人享受資本主義。
 
@forg5025
Bad idea... especially wirh how untrustworthy companies and CEOs are these days. It'll make things worse. Consumer credit isnt the issue for the economy.
 
這是個壞主意……特別是現(xiàn)在公司和CEO如此不可信。會讓情況更糟。消費者信貸才不是經(jīng)濟問題的根源。
 
@TM-zp1dc
When this thing blows up again, will the voters remember who to blame? That’s the problem in this country.
 
當(dāng)這一切再次崩潰時，選民們會記得該怪誰嗎？這就是這個國家的問題。
 
@reybigg811
To think I sold my house 2022 3.7% rate, paid 190k, 4bed/3bath on 3 acres. Bought it with a 70k salary. Those were the days.
 
想想看，我在2022年以3.7%的利率賣掉了我的房子，花了19萬美元買了一個4臥3衛(wèi)、3英畝的房子。那時我的年薪是7萬美元。真是美好的日子。
 
@rok1475
Few rich people will make huge profits, taxpayers will foot the bill.
Privatize the profits, socialize the losses. That’s the American way!
 
少數(shù)富人會賺取巨額利潤，納稅人將為此埋單。
利潤私有化，損失社會化。這就是美國的方式！
 
@andrewsalmon100
Fascinating. A formerly private oligopolistic housing hedge fund which gets bailed out and its supervisory functions soon to be hobbled and then privatised.
 
令人著迷。一家曾經(jīng)是私營的寡頭壟斷型房地產(chǎn)對沖基金得到了救助，隨后其監(jiān)管職能將被削弱，然后私有化。
 
@keylanph
The housing affordability crisis is pretty simple. Rates aren’t the issue, the home price is the issue. Tax primary residences low, secondary homes at 50% more and then double that tax rate for each additional property. Apply this same logic to any corporation who owns single family or multi family units and leave no loopholes. Housing was never meant to be an investment class asset aside from your primary home. We need to get ahold of this before we’re in a situation like China.
 
住房負擔(dān)危機其實很簡單。利率不是問題，房價才是問題。對主要住宅征低稅，對第二套房征收50%的稅，再對每增加一套房的稅率翻倍。對任何擁有單戶或多戶住宅的公司也適用這個邏輯，且不能有任何漏洞。住房從來不應(yīng)該是一個投資類資產(chǎn)，除了你的主要住宅。我們必須控制住這個問題，否則我們會陷入像中國那樣的困境。
 
@headfirst6227
Any talk about mortgage backed securities reminds me of credit default swaps and what a fiasco that was.
Edit: You did cover that part and I thank you for that. I sent my comment as soon as I was triggered.
 
任何關(guān)于抵押貸款支持證券的討論都讓我想起信用違約掉期，以及那場災(zāi)難。
編輯：你確實提到了這一部分，謝謝你。我是在被觸發(fā)后立即發(fā)的評論。
 
@desiv1170
Higher mortgage rates are NOT the problem.
Yes, they are painful.  Especially now...  
But the problem is the crazy home prices.
If the prices were somewhat reasonable, then bouncing mortgage rates would just be what they are...  Normal...
People fixating on those PAINFUL HIGH RATES are distracting us from the real problem.  High home prices.
My parents paid an 18% interest rate for a while on their home.  It was painful, but it wasn't a problem.  Because rates go up and down.  And they should.
But housing prices shouldn't be what they are..  That's the problem!
 
更高的抵押貸款利率并不是問題。
是的，它們很痛苦，尤其是現(xiàn)在...
但問題是瘋狂的房價。
如果房價合理一些，那么抵押貸款利率波動就會像它們本來應(yīng)該的那樣……正常…
人們把注意力集中在那些痛苦的高利率上，忽略了真正的問題。高房價。
我父母曾在他們的房子上支付過18%的利率，雖然痛苦，但那不是問題。因為利率是會上下波動的，這本來就該如此。
但房價不應(yīng)該是現(xiàn)在這個樣子... 那才是問題！
 
@jakeoreilly9627
watching millionaires talk about housing
 
看著百萬富翁討論住房問題
 
@dukelynch6973
It doesn't matter, starter homes are still too expensive to purchase for first-time home buyers
 
這沒關(guān)系，首套房對于首次購房者來說依然太貴了
 
@giovanni4304
Sure go private but if things go belly up they better leave the tax payers out of it this time.
 
當(dāng)然可以私有化，但如果事情崩盤了，這次最好不要讓納稅人來買單。
 
@kevoreilly6557
Yes - strictly speaking you can’t actually “privatize”as both are GSCs that underwrite the debt with government securitization / it’s why the aid is one of the few places in the world with 30 year fixed loans.
Just look at the student loan market and you can see the myth of privatization
 
是的，嚴格來說你實際上不能完全“私有化”，因為兩者都是政府資助企業(yè)（GSE），它們通過政府證券化來承保債務(wù)/這也是美國少數(shù)幾個能提供30年固定貸款的地方之一。
看看學(xué)生貸款市場，你就能看到私有化的神話。
 
@EdwardsGambit
Things will only get worse if they become private again
 
如果它們重新變成私有的，情況只會變得更糟。
 
@GetCedar
Fascinating insights into the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the U.S. mortgage market. The potential shift from government oversight to private markets could have significant implications on mortgage rates. Definitely a space to watch closely as policy discussions unfold!
 
關(guān)于房利美和房地美在美國抵押貸款市場中的角色，真是令人著迷。政府監(jiān)管轉(zhuǎn)向私人市場的潛在變化，可能會對抵押貸款利率產(chǎn)生重大影響。隨著政策討論的展開，這絕對是一個值得關(guān)注的領(lǐng)域！
 
@Pyrrhic.
So in good times, the private sector benefits. Run the organization to extract maximum profits then ask government for a bailout when it goes to crap.
 
在好時光里，私營部門受益。把組織經(jīng)營到最大化利潤，然后在情況糟糕時向政府求救。
 
@thetrustysidekick3013
The oligarchs are salivating. You’re in for a ride, Americans. You voted for this.
 
寡頭們正在垂涎三尺。美國人，你們準備好迎接挑戰(zhàn)了嗎？你們選的就是這個結(jié)果。
 
@rawnet101
Privatisation ALWAYS leads to higher prices. Replacing the service motive with a profit motive means service goes down and prices go up because CEOs are obliged to act in the companies best interests. It legally diverts public money into private hands, and we shouldn’t continue to be fooled by it.
 
私有化總是導(dǎo)致價格上漲。將服務(wù)動機替換為利潤動機意味著服務(wù)質(zhì)量下降，價格上漲，因為CEO必須代表公司的最佳利益行事。這實際上把公共資金轉(zhuǎn)移到了私人手中，我們不應(yīng)該繼續(xù)被這種情況蒙蔽。
 
@Geovannyguzman88
There can be no doubt that this year is shaping up to be harder. When I look back, I see I made poor choices with money last year because I was focused on my investments. I had to decide between adding to my portfolio or buying a house. Selling my things made me realize the house needed more repairs than I had planned for. I’m struggling to keep going.
 
毫無疑問，今年將會更艱難。當(dāng)我回頭看時，我意識到去年我在金錢上的選擇很差，因為我專注于投資。我必須在增加投資組合和買房之間做出選擇。賣掉我的東西讓我意識到房子比我預(yù)想的需要更多修理。我正在努力堅持下去。
 
@skyak4493
The conservatorship simply comes from the implicit government backing.  There is nothing stopping anyone from creating their own lender with their own insurance.  The fact they don’t is proof that the Fannies must not retain the implicit insurance if they leave conservatorship.
 
托管權(quán)實際上源于隱性政府支持。沒有什么能阻止任何人創(chuàng)建自己的貸款公司和保險。事實是，他們沒有這么做，證明了如果房利美和房地美脫離托管，它們就不能繼續(xù)保持隱性保險。
 
@fluxcapacitor1621
Privatizing anything results in a higher cost to consumer.  Shareholders add overhead without providing any value.
 
私有化任何東西都會導(dǎo)致消費者成本增加。股東增加了開銷，卻沒有提供任何價值。
 
@chaunceem
Just relocate the US government to Wall Street already. We did this before. We got  receipts from the last time they were privatized.
 
干脆把美國政府搬到華爾街吧。我們之前就做過這件事。我們有上次私有化的賬單。
 
@ft9kop
Post WW2 communities are overwhelmingly zoned single family detached with large setbacks. It's illegal for a family to even add an addition to their house, say for parents to move in or give more space to a growing family because it would violate the setback. The township would likely reject the variance application too
 
二戰(zhàn)后，社區(qū)通常都被劃定為單戶住宅，并且有很大的退縮要求。即使是為了讓父母搬進來或者給成長中的家庭提供更多空間，家庭也無法對房子進行擴建，因為這會違反退縮規(guī)定。鎮(zhèn)政府很可能也會拒絕變更申請。
 
@kibble-net
We already have a private mortgage industry. The point of these agencies was to be a public service to help low income homebuyers. Privatize profits, socialized losses, it's the Republican way.
 
我們已經(jīng)有了私人抵押貸款行業(yè)。這些機構(gòu)的存在本應(yīng)是為了作為公共服務(wù)，幫助低收入購房者。私有化利潤、社會化虧損，這就是共和黨的做法。
 
@albertoserrano67
In California fire prone areas no longer eligible for insurance will lose out on being able to afford a mortgage to begin with.
 
在加利福尼亞州，火災(zāi)高風(fēng)險區(qū)不再符合保險資格的人，將無法負擔(dān)得起抵押貸款。
 
@CastleWall117
All this talk and it reeks of pre 2008. Get more MBS out to market investors, raise BS capital from risky predatory loans, easy shareholder returns and boost to a Freddie and Fannie Stock Price. Private Equity would jump into this with water foaming in their mouths leading to even more expensive starter homes, and higher cost of borrowing for middle class.
 
這一切討論讓我想起了2008年之前的情形。更多的MBS（抵押貸款支持證券）推向市場投資者，籌集不靠譜的資本，靠高風(fēng)險掠奪性貸款，輕松給股東帶來回報，推高了房利美和房地美的股價。私募股權(quán)公司會蜂擁而至，貪婪地搶占市場，導(dǎo)致入門級住房更加昂貴，中產(chǎn)階級借貸成本也更高。
 
@ericeven4090
My friend is buying a new house and is proud he has a 5% arm loan.  I thought those werent allowed anymore but i guess i was wrong.  Because he is younger and its his first house he doesnt recall what happened in 2008.  I wished him luck lol
 
我的朋友正在買一棟新房，他很自豪自己拿到了5%的可調(diào)利率貸款。我本以為這種貸款已經(jīng)不允許了，但看來我錯了。因為他年輕，這是他的第一套房子，所以他記不得2008年發(fā)生的事。我祝他好運，哈哈。
 
@tracyalan7201
People forget the mortgage debacle of several years ago impacting not just Americans but worldwide.  Where mortgages were sold as bundled on the stock market and when it was learned of overvalued properties and purchases with little capital to continue paying collapsed, leaving huge debts.  If education, consumer protection, and a scale of government agencies are collapsed, what protects the consumer from fraud, from greed, corruption, negligence, incompetence of individuals, businesses, corporations.   Housing market will collapse, dropping prices of properties when panicked sellers sell for pennies. Only the carpet baggers (wealthy/greedy) will benefit on gaining more property, control businesses and rents.
 
人們忘記了幾年前的抵押貸款危機，這不僅影響了美國，也影響了全球。當(dāng)時抵押貸款被捆綁出售到股市，而當(dāng)過高估值的房產(chǎn)和幾乎沒有資本支付的貸款崩潰時，留下了巨額債務(wù)。如果教育、消費者保護以及政府機構(gòu)的規(guī)模被削減，誰來保護消費者免受欺詐、貪婪、腐敗、疏忽、無能的個人、企業(yè)和公司的傷害？住房市場將崩潰，房價將在賣家恐慌拋售時大幅下跌。只有那些投機分子（富人/貪婪者）會從中獲利，獲取更多房產(chǎn)，控制企業(yè)和租金。
 
@peterponcedeleon3368
Get government out of the business of subsidizing home loans. And the federal reserve needs to set rates at a market rate. These are part of the solution and they must be done in order for us to fix this mess.
 
讓政府退出補貼住房貸款的業(yè)務(wù)。美聯(lián)儲需要將利率設(shè)定為市場利率。這些是解決問題的一部分，必須執(zhí)行才能修復(fù)當(dāng)前的局面。
 
@rocaverde2829
The government gets involved initially to help people attain what many cannot afford.  However in the long run much of this becomes unaffordable.  Housing, health care, education, day care, etc. ?
 
政府最初介入是為了幫助許多人實現(xiàn)他們無法負擔(dān)的事情。然而從長遠來看，這些變得越來越無法負擔(dān)。住房、醫(yī)療、教育、托兒所等問題呢？
 
@jordankendall86
If they actually run like an actual private company, then yes rates will go up for sub prime borrowers.  However the mortgages are backed by the government so no matter if they are private or not, the government will dictate what underwriting they are allowed to do.  These private companies were created by the government, so the government can easily shut them down or do whatever they want.  The fact the government easily took them over during the financial crisis should tell you all you need to know.  Therefore rates won't change under private ownership.  The real solution is not allowing these government sponsored organizations to securitize low or no down payment mortgages.  But that will never happen either.
 
如果它們真的像真正的私營公司那樣運作，那么是的，次貸借款人的利率會提高。然而，這些抵押貸款是由政府擔(dān)保的，所以無論它們是私營的還是公營的，政府都會決定它們可以做的承保標準。這些私人公司是由政府創(chuàng)建的，所以政府可以輕松關(guān)閉它們或做任何它們想做的事情。事實上，政府在金融危機期間輕松接管了它們，這應(yīng)該告訴你一切。因此，利率在私人擁有下不會改變。真正的解決辦法是不允許這些政府資助的組織將低首付或無首付的抵押貸款證券化。但這也永遠不會發(fā)生。
 
@drew1913
Imagine if in 2008 the mortgage companies saw their deferred interest rates destroying American’s lives, and they decided to keep the mortgage rates where they were originally when the banks sold the loans to the borrowers. We could’ve completely avoided the 2008 housing crash, but better to have our government give these banks the money to lend so then the banks can can repossess our homes and keep the tax money given to the them.
 
想象一下，如果在2008年，抵押貸款公司看到了他們的遞延利率摧毀了美國人的生活，而他們決定保持銀行最初出售貸款時的利率。我們本可以完全避免2008年的住房危機，但更好的做法是讓政府給這些銀行提供資金，讓它們可以收回我們的房子，并保留給予它們的稅款。
 
@keiththoma2559
Why not keep them as an independent federal agency similar in structure to USPS? Their charter could require them to hold liquidity in reserves in case of downturns. Excess profits it generates can be paid into a sovereign wealth fund similar to what Trump wants to create.
 
為什么不將它們保持為一個獨立的聯(lián)邦機構(gòu)，結(jié)構(gòu)類似于美國郵政服務(wù)？它們的章程可以要求它們在經(jīng)濟下滑時持有流動性儲備。它們所產(chǎn)生的多余利潤可以支付進主權(quán)財富基金，類似于特朗普想要創(chuàng)建的那種。
 
@jacquelynharper3659
The reason why housing is so expensive is because of supply and demand. The house your paying for sits on land owned by the government. The other issues are not just because of not enough housing but all the new regulations that now all new housing must be smart, echo efficiency, electrified etc which has also cost more money from these government regulations tgat have been enacted due  to the EPA. The other reason why housing is expensive is because the economy now is only in tech or life science in which these 20 to 30 something year olds are making between 200k to 400k annually in which if you are only making 80k a year but you've owned your home for two decades well everything now is expensive and csusing your taxes to rise. People then think by moving from an expensive housing market to a low cost housing market that somehow they imagine that their taxes will forever be lower and thatbit will be more affordable when it doesn't. There is no way out of this mess. This housing crisis is global not just a USA problem.
 
住房如此昂貴的原因是供需關(guān)系。你所支付的房子所在的土地是由政府擁有的。其他問題不僅僅是因為住房不足，還有所有新的規(guī)定，要求所有新建住房必須具備智能、節(jié)能、電子化等特點，這也增加了政府因環(huán)保局（EPA）實施的規(guī)定而產(chǎn)生的額外成本。住房昂貴的另一個原因是，現(xiàn)在經(jīng)濟主要集中在科技和生命科學(xué)領(lǐng)域，這些20到30歲的人年薪在20萬到40萬美元之間，而如果你每年收入只有8萬美元，但已經(jīng)擁有房產(chǎn)20年，那么現(xiàn)在一切都變得更加昂貴，導(dǎo)致稅收上升。人們會認為，通過從昂貴的房地產(chǎn)市場搬到低成本的房地產(chǎn)市場，稅收會一直保持較低，且住房會更實惠，但實際上并非如此。這個問題沒有解決辦法。住房危機是全球性的問題，不僅僅是美國的問題。
 
@yudhistiramahendradani5902
I bet the investor from other country will decrease as USA put the tariff.
Higher price in supplies make high price houses, only small number of peoples in USA that can buy them
Higher price mean higher risks to sell in the market while the USA president cut their works and left with lesser money to spend
 
我敢打賭，由于美國征收關(guān)稅，來自其他國家的投資者將減少。
供應(yīng)成本的提高導(dǎo)致房價上漲，只有少數(shù)美國人能買得起。
更高的價格意味著更高的市場風(fēng)險，而美國總統(tǒng)削減了他們的工作，導(dǎo)致他們的錢更少。
 
@toastranger72
We need to make renting out single family homes an unattractive investment. If companies want to get into real estate, buy multi-family only.
High mortgage rates make it more appealing to companies by reducing competition. Many people cannot get a mortgage, so companies come in and pay cash, cheaper than before because of the lack of demand.
 
我們需要讓單戶住宅出租成為一個不具吸引力的投資。如果公司想進入房地產(chǎn)領(lǐng)域，只能購買多戶住宅。
高利率使公司更有吸引力，因為它減少了競爭。許多人無法獲得抵押貸款，因此公司以現(xiàn)金購買，因需求下降而比以前便宜。
 
@cleopatrajones2024
Do all of that without messing with people personally. You just can't go in and just totally eradicate what has been built. But we know what all of this is about. This is to make the few people who are billionaires, trillionaires.
 
做這些事情時不要干擾到個人。你不能隨便去摧毀已經(jīng)建立的東西。但我們都知道這一切背后的目的。這是為了讓那些極少數(shù)的億萬富翁，甚至萬億富翁受益。
 
@beatgreens9530
I don’t even have to watch this, of course the prices will go up once it’s privatized. That’s what happens every single time we privatize something that was once government run.
 
我根本不用看這個，當(dāng)然價格會漲，一旦私有化就是這樣。每次我們把曾經(jīng)由政府運營的東西私有化，結(jié)果都是如此。
 
@tallest4eva
Privatize the profits, socialize the losses. American oligarchy at its best! Americans have the memory of goldfishes and vote for this time and time again.
 
私有化利潤，社會化虧損。美國寡頭政治的最佳體現(xiàn)！美國人記性像金魚一樣，一次又一次投票支持這種做法。
 
@PizzieNizzie
Everyone without a 30 year mortgage is subsidizing those with due to these government guarantees no market participant would ever underwrite. Literally ridiculous regressive taxation. Anyone with a 30 year mortgage should have their rate reset every few years to market or those without should receive tax credits. Let the market clear. All we have now is rent seeking behavior by speculators and people using their home as an ATM that collapses aggregate demand if there is even a minor retraction. They are lying as well in this video about subprime. PRIME borrowers defaulted just as much as sub prime borrowers and led to the most significant losses. They are lying about getting the "money" back as well for taxpayers. They got the same dollar value back 5 years later after they debased the currency for those 5 years. So in purchasing power terms they got back half.
 
沒有30年抵押貸款的人正在為那些有的人提供補貼，原因是政府的擔(dān)保，沒有市場參與者會承擔(dān)這種風(fēng)險。簡直是荒謬的倒退稅收。所有有30年抵押貸款的人應(yīng)該每隔幾年把他們的利率調(diào)整為市場利率，或者那些沒有的人應(yīng)該獲得稅收抵免。讓市場自行調(diào)整。我們現(xiàn)在看到的只是投機者的尋租行為以及一些人把房子當(dāng)作ATM，導(dǎo)致整體需求萎縮，如果經(jīng)濟有任何小幅下滑。視頻里他們也在撒謊，關(guān)于次貸的事情。事實上，優(yōu)質(zhì)借款人的違約率和次貸借款人一樣高，甚至導(dǎo)致了最嚴重的損失。他們也在撒謊，說納稅人拿回了“錢”。實際上他們五年后才拿回相同的金額，而這五年間貨幣貶值了，所以從購買力角度來看，他們拿回的錢只是原來一半。
 
@alrxandersmiths242
I’m really not sure we should go messing with this one it’s got very little upside and whole lot problems I don’t want mortgages to be any more complicated than they are and adding a profit motivate that doesn’t exist now would be bad
 
我真不確定我們應(yīng)該去動這個問題，它幾乎沒有什么好處，反而有很多麻煩。我不想讓抵押貸款變得比現(xiàn)在更復(fù)雜，添加一個現(xiàn)在沒有的利潤動機會很糟糕。
 
@DarkHorseParatrooper
this is propaganda. Competitive market. Bs. Nobody can afford a house. People that can already have them, and ain't selling, cause they can't afford a new one. Not Competitive. Everyone's a hostage.
 
這就是宣傳。競爭市場，胡說八道。沒有人能買得起房子。那些已經(jīng)有房子的人，不賣，因為他們買不起新房子。這不是競爭市場。每個人都是人質(zhì)。
 
@gamesnstuff657
To potential home buyers may I offer this piece of advice to anchor you in this crazy housing market.  Run the numbers of home ownership and know your number of what you can responsibly afford.  Live below your means and save your money.  Don't let FOMO knock you off course.  The housing market has a big math problem, and one way or another it will correct in many markets.  If you live in California or New York, it probably won't correct any time soon, so you may need to get real with yourself and move.
 
給潛在購房者的建議是：在這個瘋狂的房地產(chǎn)市場中，跑一下數(shù)字，了解你能負擔(dān)得起的房屋價格。量力而行，省錢。不要讓FOMO（錯失恐懼癥）把你從正軌上拉偏。房地產(chǎn)市場有個大數(shù)學(xué)問題，無論如何，很多市場都會糾正過來。如果你住在加州或紐約，那可能很長時間內(nèi)都不會糾正，所以你可能需要面對現(xiàn)實，考慮搬家。
 
@RobertoMartinez-vs4yt
How many houses are still in forbearance or about to run out of it? Stop lying about the numbers. We have alot of houses that should of been forclosed on and also most homes are completely unaffordable today.
 
現(xiàn)在有多少房子仍處于延期付款中，或者即將到期？別再撒謊了?，F(xiàn)在有很多房子本該被止贖，今天大多數(shù)房子完全無法負擔(dān)。
 
@anthonyellis9804
Prices rise and fall based on the marketplace, labor, construction materials, land and mortgage rates.  Except right now it's not a marketplace if the government meddles with the free marketplace.  So government and non-investing taxpayers are continuing to throw honest investors in the GSE'S under the bus for a socialist idea that rates will be affordable forever, which is a pie in the sky notion.
 
價格上漲和下跌是由市場、勞動力、建筑材料、土地和抵押貸款利率決定的。除非現(xiàn)在政府干預(yù)了自由市場，否則這根本不是市場。所以政府和非投資納稅人繼續(xù)把誠實的投資者推向政府擔(dān)保的企業(yè)（GSE），為了一個社會主義的想法——利率永遠會是負擔(dān)得起的，這是個空想。
 
@Steven-xf8mz
At a high level; lenders made money by loaning out money to people, then sell them to FM for a profit. FM sells the good loans back to the market and keep the highest risky loan because govt can pick up the remaining tab if stuff goes wrong. it doesn't matter whether it's private or public, it's the same story where govt is just funneling money to the biggest lenders and banks, rich gets richer, poor get poorer. There is a lack of real business cycle due to collaboration between rich people and govt. the govt is the backer of all rich, these people may suffer monetary loss during hard times, but their share as % of overall wealth goes higher every crisis, thus, leading to their exponential wealth gain post crisis through govt rescue.
 
從高層次看，貸款人通過借錢給人賺取利潤，然后賣給二級市場獲利。二級市場把好的貸款賣回市場，保留最有風(fēng)險的貸款，因為如果出問題，政府可以承擔(dān)剩下的部分。無論是私有還是公有，都是一樣的故事，政府只是將資金輸送給最大的貸款機構(gòu)和銀行，富人越來越富，窮人越來越窮。由于富人和政府的合作，真正的商業(yè)周期缺失。政府是所有富人的后盾，這些人在困難時期可能會遭受貨幣損失，但他們在整體財富中的份額在每次危機后都會增加，從而通過政府的救助實現(xiàn)財富的指數(shù)級增長。
 
@travellingslim
Now that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been axed, lenders can start offering 40 or 45 year mortgages just to get the monthly payments within reach so Americans can be in debt forever! Isn't that exciting!
 
現(xiàn)在消費者金融保護局已經(jīng)被裁撤，貸款人可以開始提供40年或45年的抵押貸款，只為了讓每月還款額變得更加可接受，這樣美國人就可以永遠背負債務(wù)了！這不是很激動人心嗎！