There was an interesting exchange on subprime mortgages between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton during their last debate. Hillary argued for a mortgage freeze (hat tip: Instapundit):
I think it’s imperative that we approach this mortgage crisis with the seriousness that it is presenting. There are 95,000 homes in foreclosure in California right now. I want a moratorium on foreclosures for 90 days so we can try to work out keeping people in their homes instead of having them lose their homes, and I want to freeze interest rates for five years.
Obama pointed out a serious flaw in her proposal:
On the mortgage crisis, again, we both believe that this is a critical problem. It’s a huge problem in California and all across the country. And we agree that we have to keep people in their homes.
I have put forward a $10 billion home foreclosure prevention fund that would help to bridge the lender and the borrower so that people can stay in their homes.
I have not signed on to the notion of an interest rates freeze, and the reason is not because we need to protect the banks. The problem is, is that if we have such a freeze, mortgage interest rates will go up across the board and you will have a lot of people who are currently trying to get mortgages who will actually have more of a difficult time.
Obama is right to point out that Hillary's proposed mortgage freeze would create perverse incentives. But his own proposal for a bailout has a similar weakness. If the government bails out subprime borrowers and lenders who made bad decisions, that will create incentives for future borrowers and lenders to take unjustified risks of their own. The end result will be a serious moral hazard that leads to overinvestment in overvalued real estate - drawing funds away from potentially more productive uses elsewhere. Both borrowers and lenders will expect the government to bail them out if future risky morgages go into default.
In addition, as I emphasize in this post, a bailout would impose large costs on innocent third parties: the taxpayers. If we genuinely want to prevent unwise mortgage borrowing while simultaneously protecting the interests of future homebuyers and innocent third parties, the right strategy may well be for government to do little or nothing. If both lenders and borrowers have to pay the price for their mistakes, they will be less likely to repeat them.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Property Rights Three Years after Kelo, Part IV - What the Feds Have Done:
- Property Rights Three Years After Kelo, Part III - A New Cross-Ideological Coalition for Property Rights?
- Property Rights Three Years After Kelo, Part II - The State of the States:...
- Is Eminent Domain Turnabout Fair Play?
- Obama vs. Hillary on Subprime Mortgages:
- Goldstein v. Pataki and the Shortcomings of Kelo:...
- Political Ignorance and Post-Kelo Eminent Domain Reform:
- "Victims" of Subprime Mortgages and Victims of Eminent Domain:
- The State of Post-Kelo Eminent Domain Reform:
If there was fraud involved, the borrowers can sue and collect damages if they win their case. However, I'm skeptical of claims that fraud accounted for more than fraction of all defaults.
Sadly, they are not all that rare, and Obama's proposal - if enacted - would be an important step toward making them more common. A bailout may not lead people to assume that risky behavior is "perfectly" safe. But it will certainly lead them to assume that it is a lot safer than it would be without the prospect of a bailout.
How does that work if the company is no longer around or in business anymore?
What do Obama and Clinton think happens to houses that get foreclosed on, anyway? They get bulldozed and their occupants become homeless? No. They get sold, to someone else who can now get the chance to own their own home, and the previous occupants end up having to rent. As a current renter with (what used to be) a good down payment saved up, I can assure everyone it's not the end of the world.
First, Obama's definition of "no fault of their own" seems very broad - including people who can't repay because property values have fallen in the area where they live. Second, subsidizing people's efforts to sell their homes is also a form of bailout. It too defrays the costs of those people's own mistaken decisions (in this case to buy a home beyond their means).
An interesting question. IN some cases, it may be possible to sue the firm while it is in bankruptcy. If it truly has disappeared, the fraud victim may be out of luck. But it doesn't follow that they should be compensated by the taxpayers. The taxpayers are not forced to compensate victims of other types of fraud in cases where the perpetrators can't be found. Mortgage fraud should not be treated any differently.
It's ideologically pure to say that people are individuals who should be responsible for their own decisions, whether they be overstretched mortgagors or reckless mortgagees. But we will all suffer if it puts this country into a serious recession or even depression. This situation is a great example of why just "leaving it to the market" can lead us all into the toilet.
What I don't want to see happen is banks "writing off" 30% of the value of a CDO because it contains high-risk mortgages, then realize large profits as people do what they can to avoid going into foreclosure by emptying out their kids college funds and retirement accounts -- and/or with governmental help.
the idea that Obama's proposal would create a perverse incentive is weak, though appealing in the abstract.
the key weakness lay in the final paragraph of Ilya's post, in which he describes borrowers as "unwise" and suggests that, were these "unwise" borrowers left to "pay the price for their mistakes, they [would] be less likely to repeat them."
there are two problems with this idea:
(1) borrowers who would have lost their homes but for the fortuitous intervention of the federal government are probably the least likely to speculate in the future on assets as substantial as the family home; and, more obviously,
(2) "unwise" borrowers are probably the least likely borrowers to undertake the economic/political calculus that would result in their gaming the "moral hazard" created by a federal bailout.
no need to scapegoat the po' folk, Ilya. financial institutions are the parties most likely make good on the "perverse incentives" created by the proposed bailout.
is anyone aware of the candidates' respective positions on any potential legislation aimed at curtailing abusive and predatory lending practices?
Anyway, didn't the Fed's jerking around with interest rates have something to do with the whole mess in the first place? Maybe if we had sound, stable money instead of overworked printing presses and monetary adrenaline shots, people wouldn't be faced with so many false incentives.
“... Barack Obama will establish policies to help Americans currently facing foreclosure through no fault of their own. For instance, in communities where there are many foreclosures property values of innocent homeowners are often also negatively impacted, driving them toward foreclosure, too.” (From Obamas website)
Evidently Obama thinks that a drop in the market value of your home forces you into foreclosure. I don’t see how this follows. A borrower gets forced into a foreclosure when he can’t make his mortgage payments. Why should your ability to pay your mortgage depend on the market value of your home unless you were counting on a refinance when your payment resets to an amount beyond your ability to pay? Such a borrower is hardly “innocent.” This type of borrower made a bet on the direction of interest rates (down) and the price of homes (up). There are also borrowers who decide to walk away from their property when they go “upside down” even though they could meet mortgage payments. Again hardly an “innocent.”
“I want a moratorium on foreclosures for 90 days so we can try to work out keeping people in their homes instead of having them lose their homes, and I want to freeze interest rates for five years.”
How would legislation to accomplish a freeze on foreclosures and interest rates not violate the contracts clause in the US Constitution?
Of course in 1934 the Supreme Court upheld a Minnesota law that temporarily restricted the ability of mortgage holders to foreclose (Home Building &Loan Association v. Blaisdell 290 U.S. 398) under the bizarre notion that Minnesota the law was a valid exercise of the state’s “police power.” One should realize that in 1934 mortgages were a lot different than today. Your mortgage lasted only a year with a balloon payment due for any outstanding interest and principal. You were expected to refinance after a year. Moreover in those days the lender could get a deficiency judgment against you should a sale of the foreclosed property fail to cover the outstanding principle.
Does anyone know the current law on the ability of Congress to change the terms of a private contract?
Huh? Lender failure isn't grounds for forclosure.
If a lender goes out of biz, someone else ends up owning the loan. As long as the lendee keeps paying the mortgage, no foreclosure occurs.
Huh?
When they write off part of the value, they get a deduction. If it turns out that they wrote off too much, they get taxed on the difference. They end up exactly where they'd have been if they wrote off the correct amount.
How does that lead to "large profits"?
Many of these foreclosures are the result of increased mortgage payments that begin when interest-only period ends. Those borrowers have no equity in the property. They're just renters with a bank for a landlord. These houses are not "their homes."
Will either of these plans differentiate between borrowers who bought houses for habitation, and those who bought houses to repair and flip? If not, will the Federal government be helping investors who lose money when the stock market declines?
And what does Obama mean those who can't pay "by no fault of their own?" Does he mean borrowers who were duped or defrauded? Or does he mean those who get laid off from their jobs?
“Huh? Lender failure isn't grounds for forclosure.”
I’m trying to make sense out of that one too. Here’s a guess. A failed lender situation might force a defaulted borrower into foreclosure because the new owner of the loan can’t or won’t negotiate. With securitized loans, the new owner might even be hard to determine. In this case the servicing agent presses the foreclosure.
Obama seems to have a very general and loose concept of an “innocent borrower.”
It doesn't have to be a conscious effort. If the Federal government prevents foreclosures through some sort of bailout, unwise borrowers won't take an enormous hit to their credit rating, and they'll be able to get future loans that they ordinarly wouldn't be entitled to.
correct. but, offhand, the number of borrowers who might consciously choose to avoid the risks of a second "unwise" investment is likely greater than the number of borrowers who might unconsciously choose to do otherwise.
the day our elected representatives begin to found public policy on their perceived interpretations of the collective unconscious is the day we'd all better ... ... ... move to Canada?
Excellent. By keeping those people "in their homes," you are also ensuring that financially stable renters, who would be able to afford those homes on a market not artificially inflated by easy access to credit, are kept out of homes they can afford.
Unless you're talking about building more homes, which seems silly in this market, home ownership is a zero-sum game. Helping one group to "stay in their homes" necessarily puts those costs onto other people and, simultaneously, decreases the available inventory for those who could afford homes without government intervention.
I remember reading about all of this about two years ago. People signed up for mortgages, with monthly payments that exceeded their income. Well, no kidding it's a problem.
In the last month I've had several clients come to me saying they plan to walk away from their properties that are worth $50,000 or $100,000 less than the mortgages. Some have 6 or 7 properties.
Seems to me the lenders will learn a lesson and change their ways and there is no need for the goverment to do anything.
I agree with this statement. The government needs to stay out of the economy when adults screw up, which is what this problem is all about. Adults screwing up.
The market forces need to play out, which means that there will be some losers. However, some of those "losers" had the opportunity to live in a house beyond their means for a while. They should consider themselves lucky.
Bailouts are likely to prop up housing prices, so that folks not currently in "their own" houses, i.e. renters, will be less likely to have an opportunity to buy a house. Third parties, like tax payers, are likely to be stuck footing the bill. The phenomena of people living beyond their means and viewing a house as an investment needs to go away. Personally, I have seen too many folks fall into this trap. A house should be a place where you live, not where you invest.
Suckers.
"A large wave of foreclosures doesn't do anyone any good", etc. This is true. And it is exactly why banks have an incentive not to foreclose if they can reasonably avoid it. Given everything that went on during the boom, that's easier said than done. And the devil is in the details. There is no generalized legislation that will improve the situation.
I was quoted 6.25% on my 30-year mortgage that I applied for 90 days ago. Two days ago I locked in at 5.75% for 30 years. But since I'm only borrowing an amount equal to one year's salary and paying 20% down, the mortgage company loves me.
Property values here haven't doubled or tripled in the last 10 years though.
We didn't bail out those who lost millions in the tech stock bubble. No reason to bail out these guys either.
Hillary is crazy with her 5 year freeze scheme. If you ever needed to know how far off the mark she is in her understanding of economic matters, sheesh. There is one sure thing that will occur if she is ever able to institute that plan : further collapsing home prices for at least 5 more years.
The problem now is that the loans have been sold to a third party. The loan servicer has no incentive and more importantly, no authority to renegotiate terms to avoid foreclosure. The problem is that loans from San Jose have been sold to someone in Helsinki and even if the mortgage holder in Helsinki wants to negotiate, there is no way t do it. The servicing agency in Des Moines might know it would be to both ends of the mortgage to renegotiate, both ends might know it is in the best interests of both parties to renegotiate, but there is no-one that has authority to do anything except foreclosure.
If the parties did have some mechanism to negotiate changes to the agreement, many foreclosures could be avoided, and both parties to the agreement would bear their own negotiated losses. Just as in the olden days.
This argument was used from 1929 to 1933 to explain why the government (including the Federal Reserve) shouldn't intervene to "bail out" failing banks. Back then, it carried the day; and the resulting bank failures underlay the Great Depression. Since then, it's been in bad odor.
What's wrong with it? Basically, it's unrealistically narrow.
On one hand, it under-estimates the costs of non-intervention. Specifically, leaving the banks to suffer their just desserts could bring on a recession. And a significant recession's cost to society can easily dwarf the possible future costs of over-investment.
And anyway, it also over-estimates these possible future costs. Perhaps they'd be horrendously high if the government simply bailed out the lenders and borrowers, and sent them back out to party. More likely, the government will also impose tighter regulation of the lending institutions.
Now if somebody wants to argue that requiring tighter mortgage-lending standards and more-transparent securitizations will impose greater costs on our society than a full-blown recession, then I'd like to see their evidence.
I haven't yet heard of anyone actually screwed over by a bank. Banks gave ridiculously low rates to people who didn't have the income to deserve them. Now the people can't pay. Banks are losing money they shouldn't have loaned, people are losing homes they shouldn't have bought. Stupid banks, stupid people. Someone please provide some examples of someone who was actually screwed over by a bank, as opposed to having been given a low initial rate that they knew would rise later.
More precisely, little or nothing to rescue distressed lenders or borrowers in particular. General measures to offset the negative economic impact of the crisis--such as the Fed's recent interest rate moves--are a perfectly reasonable way to help those hit by the crisis while avoiding moral hazard problems.
When I said people were "genuinely screwed over by banks," I should have qualified that by including the mortgage brokers in with the banks.
Your assumption in all of this "free market" discussion is that we really had a functioning market here. But we didn't. If I remember my macro/micro economics courses in college correctly, one of the hallmarks of a fully functional market is full acess and appraisal of all relevant information. Without these, actors cannot make rational decisions. But that didn't happen here--there was nothing to encourage access to information for borrowers. From an LA Times story on October 24, 2005:
This was because there was no legal requirement on the part of mortgage brokers, and the banks who dealt with them, to actually inform their customers of other deals that may have been out there. Why would they? Prepayment pentalties, high loan origination fees, and huge interest payments provided all the economic incentives to screw individual borrowers. Instead, these banks lent money to people often on a stated income basis, without any sort of due diligence on the part of the lender to see whether the borrower could actually pay back the loan when the rates would reset. Why? Because many of these loans were bundled into CDOs, which just passed the risk onto stary-eyed investors and removed any way of sorting out the mess in the event that a massive downturn in the housing market forced hundreds of thousands of homes to go on the market due to forclosure--there is no negotiation here so that at least the lenders can get something on their investment, instead everyone loses.
Getting to my point. Of course, there were a lot of bad actors. But certainly, it can't be debated that these mortgage brokers, without any fiduciary duty to their clients, screwed a lot of people, with the banks acting as enablers, by not giving all of the information of possible alternative mortgages, or fully informing the borrower of the effect of adjustable rate mortgages or prepayment penalties. If someone can show that this was the case, I don't have a problem with them receiving a benefit. On the other hand, a speculator who is bound to walk away from nine or ten mortgages that are worth more than the collateral should not get a dime.
Lastly, this isn't too outlandish a position. Article IX has a lot of different policies when "ordinary people" are involved because they are in a less sophisticated position than the other side (see provisions on consumer goods, disposition of collateral, failure to comply with provisions of Art. IX, etc.). There's certainly a distinction to be made between consumer goods and a home, but the distinction isn't all that relevant when the arguemnt is 'they should have known what they were getting into.'
Can somebody tell me how the typical homebuyer should have smelled a rat, when the nice realtor tm and the nice mortgage broker and the nice bank said to them, "Yes, you can afford this dream house, and here's how!" The typical homebuyer should assume that the bank knew the risk it was taking because the bank created the loan, set the requirements, reviewed the borrowers' application, and originated the loan. Therefore it was a risk the bank could live with, because the bank makes loans all the time (in fact, that is the bank's business), while the typical homebuyer buys a home only once a decade, and knows jack squat about loans. Fraud enters when the bank knowingly makes loans to people they know won't be able to keep up the payments.
Reading the comments together there's something else I don't understand: Subprime mortgages are being blamed for artificially raising the price of houses. Borrowers with subprime mortgages are being blamed for spending more money on houses than they can afford. Wouldn't the absence of subprime mortgages lower home prices to the point where the (now former) subprime borrowers could afford them?
I also don't understand why the concept of initial period interest-only loans surprises people. The initial payments of even conventional loans are almost entirely interest — that's how mortgages work. Each payment is for the same dollar amount, so the first payments are all interest, while the last payments are all principal.
Eliminating subprime loans eliminates the moral hazard because if banks tell would-be homebuyers clearly and simply, "You can't afford to buy this house. We will not lend you the money," almost no one will persist.
Here is how mortgage applicants could have smelled at rat. A very old rule of thumb on how much house you can afford is 2.5 to 3.0 times your annual earnings not 5 or 10.
I don’t think a bank or a mortgage broker has a fiducial responsibility to an applicant for a loan. He must follow the law as to disclosures, but he does not have to tell you the best deal or what his competitors offer. Why would anyone think any differently? When you buy a car, do you think the salesman has to offer you the best deal? Why would anyone think that buying a loan is any different than buying anything else?
Most of the people in or facing foreclosure have none of their own money at stake. They borrowed without any down payment, and in many cases they borrowed for the closing costs. So how are they screwed? The people who are getting screwed are the investors who bought the loans. Everybody else made out well.
I doubt that she believes it, either. She's looking for lots of Tuesday votes. She must know better -- Yale Law and many years in and around government.
In your example, the car salesman is clearly an agent of the retailer. But when you approach Joe Mortgage Broker about a mortgage and he tells you he'll get you the best deal on your mortgage, it is unclear whether this is an agent or just a middleman for the banks. If the mortgage broker is unaffiliated with a bank and makes that clear, it would appear that he or she was working to provide a service on your behalf. If he does that, he is an apparent agent. It doesn't matter that he's actually just a middleman peddling these for his own profit, what matters is whether his conduct rose to the level of creating an implied or apparent agency relationship to a reasonable third person.
A lot of markets saw multiple years of 20%+ appreciation before sub-prime loans became popular. A return to older practices would likely lop off only a portion of the recent increases, leaving the average house still expensive compared to average incomes. A high number of foreclosures, on the other hand...
The typical homebuyer should assume...
When signing papers obligating me to repay the largest amount I'll ever owe, the only assumption I make is that a court will enforce the letter of the contract. It would be *nice* if everyone in the mortgage/realty business were scrupulous but it is foolish to think so. You can't legislate good intentions.
It is dangerous to trust when money is involved. If we could do so, we'd sure need a lot less lawyers :)
“In your example, the car salesman is clearly an agent of the retailer.”
You bring up some good points.
It would seem that a car salesman is an agent of the dealer under the legal theory of “Ostensible Agency.” But as a practical matter you don’t negotiate with a salesman unless he is authorized to bind the dealer to an agreed price. He must be an agent of the dealer, and the wise consumer asks first before he wastes his time.
An independent mortgage broker is similar to an insurance broker who is supposed to get you the “best deal” in regards to insurance. This issue came up in the Oakland Firestorm in 1991. Many homeowners didn’t have “guaranteed replacement insurance” (no longer available I think). At that time guaranteed replacement was only slightly more expensive. Thus many brokers failed their clients and got sued. I don’t know the outcome.
I don’t know if an independent mortgage broker has a legal duty to act in your behalf, but I doubt it. He is going to steer you to the product that brings him the biggest fee, just like a stockbroker. Moreover he’s not your financial advisor, so the “best deal” might not include affordability. I’ll guess that that the contracts the borrowers sign absolve the broker of any responsibility. Of course borrowers don’t read the contracts.
Homebuyers should be able to expect that banks, rationally acting in their own self-interest, would not intentionally make loans they knew could not be repaid. I mean, how do the banks benefit by owning a bunch of foreclosed houses? Unless perhaps they knew that the big investment banks would gladly take a bunch of probably worthless paper if the interest rate were only high enough. I could see how this demonstrates the unscrupulousness of the loan origination banks, as well as the greed-motivated blindness of the investment banks.
1. Look at monthly income.
2. Look at monthly payment.
3. Is 2 > 1? Don't take the loan.
Seriously, there's no mystery here. You know better than the bank how much disposable income you have every month. So you know better than the bank whether you can afford it.
In addition, you know, better than the bank, how much you actually make. If the loan documents you sign have a false number in the 'income' slot, you know there's something wrong.
Something like that (only much milder) has already been suggested and met stiff opposition from advocates for minority groups. The advocates claimed it was a plot to deny minorities the opportunity for home ownership.
Since lenders lose money on loans that aren't repaid, the above assumes that the lenders in question intentionally tried to lose money. I'd like to see some serious evidence.
Yes, they made bad loans, but that's very different from intending to make bad loans.
As to whether middlemen sold bad loans, harming both sides, that's a different matter, but it looks more like they colluded with borrowers to defraud lenders.
That being the case, the borrowers and lenders should still lose, the former for borrowing what they couldn't repay and the latter for making bad loans, intentionally or not.
There are plenty of sophisticated businesspeople who have relied on the advice of professionals, i.e., attorneys, accountants, and made bad business deals.
Should they have smelled a rat? Sure. But they were relying on what they thought was competent advice. Why can't we give gullible homeowners who rely on the advice of relators and mortgage brokers the same benefit of the doubt. If the advisors, the ones with knowledge, say I can afford the loan, and I do not have the wherewithal to figure out they are wrong, should I not rely on them?
Hillary's proposal would reward these fraudsters by allowing them to keep their ill-gotten gains rather than lock them for their mortgage fraud.
Hillary has not in any way justified why we should have a policy such as that.
Obama's proposal makes a lot more sense.
They sure should have. How can anyone think he can afford a house that’s five times his yearly salary?
“Why can't we give gullible homeowners who rely on the advice of relators and mortgage brokers the same benefit of the doubt.”
What should they get any benefit? They gambled on the real estate market landed in foreclosure. But with no money down and piggyback loans to cover closing costs they only lost other peoples’ money.
His proposal would cause less damage than Hillary’s, but it’s still based on a flawed assumption. He said:Why is it so important that people “stay in their homes?” These are homes that they can’t afford. Moreover I don’t understand what foreclosure prevention fund would do, or what it means to “bridge the lender and the borrower.” How can we make millions of non-performing loans into performing loans with a mere $10 billion?
Hillary’s proposal does make more sense in that it would actually halt foreclosures. It’s hard to tell what Obama proposes. This is his basic MO, happy talk and no substance.
Because people in the business of selling houses and making mortgage loans told him he could. How could any woman think taking a little white tablet every day would prevent pregnancy? Because people in the business of treating women and selling pills told them it could.
And how were they supposed to know they were gambling? When I lose a dollar in a bill changer, telling me after the fact it was really a slot machine doesn't help.
But with no money down and piggyback loans to cover closing costs they only lost other peoples’ money.
Ummm... because, like a lawyer or accountant, a doctor is being paid by his patient for rendering his professional opinion to that patient, hence he owes her a duty. On the other hand, realtors and loan officers are salesmen, fluffing a product to prospective customers, and whose duty runs to their employers. Can I sue the Yugo dealership because I listened to the salesman telling me "this car is a great fit for you," despite the well-publicized problems with that particular make? After all, he is "in the business of [selling cars] and told [me] it [w]ould." Or should we not hold individuals responsible when they fail to do ANY diligence (let alone DUE diligence) in what is likely the largest purchase they will ever make?
The law shouldn't protect people from their own stupidity. A casin0 isn't any less a casin0 because some guy at work told you that he has a system, you can't lose, and it would make a great investment.
How about a 90-day moratorium on politicans spewing economic nonsense? I suggest we start in early August, and go through early November.
I must admit, I never thought that a bank giving me a loan was "telling me" what I could afford. I thought a bank was telling me what they were willing to give me. It was my job to decide whether I could afford it.
“Because people in the business of selling houses and making mortgage loans told him he could.”
You know better what you can afford than anyone else. After all you know all your expenses. Besides a mortgage broker is not your personal financial advisor.
“And how were they supposed to know they were gambling?”
When you take out an ARM you make a gamble on the direction of interest rates. When interest rates are at a historical low, the chances are they will go up in the future. So it’s not only a gamble, it’s a bad gamble because the odds are against you. The second gamble was on housing prices. Here you have to believe that housing prices will continue to rise beyond the rate of inflation indefinitely. Another really bad gamble.
This slogan was catchier the first time I heard it, when it was "There's a sucker born every minute."
DMN: I have heard of lenders who make loans they are fairly certain their customers cannot afford to pay off. They are "Buy Here, Pay Here" used car lots, and they will sell, repossess, and resell the same car many times over the course of a year. Are you advocating this model for the real estate business?
Doctors, pharmacists, accountants, and lawyers are licensed by the state because they (i) have a job that requires a significant degree of competence, and (ii) involves a fiduciary duty. Real estate brokers don't need much competence, and their fiduciary duty is to the seller, not the buyer - in the vast majority of states, there is no such thing as a buyer's real estate agent. Regulation of mortgage brokers I don't know much about; in the case of banks, however, the regulation generally isn't by the state, and certainly isn't for the protection of the consumer.
As for the law protecting people from their own stupidity, I personally resent having a politician limit my choices in the marketplace (or raise the cost of my mortgage) so that some guy an IQ of 72 and an income of $30K/year is "protected" from trying to buy a $500K home. I also resent my tax dollars being used to bail out an equally stupid business. What happened to a smidgen of personally responsibility? Where there was actual fraud, sue away - that remedy even covers the Yugo salesman.
Only if you discount the role that government dickering with the economy (money supply) had in both triggering and prolonging the Great Depression. See these remarks by then-Governor Ben Bernanke. Left alone, the economy will right itself, albeit painfully. Ill thought-out but politically popular "solutions" have the power to make the situation worse... much worse.