I tried making sense of your 2nd paragraph. You lost me (and others?).

Sorry. I ought to have been more specific. I was referring to making a law that made it compulsory to lend to an individual even if it was clear from assessing that particular individual that their likelihood of defaulting was unacceptably high.

That's precisely what caused the financial crisis of 2008. The Community Reinvestment Act (passed 1977, expanded in 1992 and 2002) led to severely reduced lending standards that brought about the failure of the financial system. Legislation along the lines of what you propose leads to systemic failure. The mechanisms for providing credit to risky individuals are unsavory (collateralized - pawn shops, uncollateralized - payday loans), but they adequately compensate for the risk associated with making the loans.

A cursory search yielded http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-...

I was not proposing such legislation, but condemning it on the grounds that such laws amounted to social engineering, an overreach that preempted and violated individual decision making. I am well aware of the inevitable consequences of such a law.

I was criticizing the position stated in the top comment of this thread which stated:

>There is a large and (warranted) initiative to bank minorities and other disadvantaged communities. Until the government created huge incentives to do this it didn't happen.

I read your comment in isolation and misinterpeted it, but thanks for providing the context. The government absolutely overstepped its mandate with such laws.

I think it's important to distinguish between all banking services and credit facilities. I feel as though improving access to banking services in otherwise under-banked groups is an important initiative. ~30% of Americans do not have access to a savings account. Ensuring that all communities have access to these basic services would likely be beneficial to individuals and the economy. However, access to credit should be decoupled from such considerations.

>At the behest of HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, Fannie and Freddie promised to buy $2 trillion of "affordable" mortgages.

That is a complete explanation in itself and it was not caused by the CRA legislation (it merely shared the same motivation). When you let mortgage brokers offload all the risk from writing stupid loans, you have altered all their incentives.

It should never be a law to compulsory lend money to anyone. Aside from being morally reprehensible, such a law would almost certainly be met with either A) widespread noncompliance or B) widespread closure of lending institutions.

I agree that it is wholly immoral to make such a law, yet it was done and led to the subprime mortgage crisis. Others on this thread have supported this law on the grounds of social justice, despite the consequences being inevitable, obvious, and harmful.

The problem lies in the fact that the fed gives essentially free money to banks in order to have them loan it out in the first place. If the government didn't supply this money, there would be less of a moral case for them to dictate how it should be used.

Outside of the 2008 the bailouts, the Fed doesn't give money to banks. That is not how the Fed works. I am not even sure what you are referring to. Fed overnight rate? The discount window? The Fed has a few tools at its disposal but none of them includes giving money to banks.

Artificially setting the fed funds rate at 0.25- 0.50% is essentially giving money for almost free. That rate was even lower before last fall.

The Fed funds rates is not money from the Fed. The Fed funds rate is the amount that banks charge to borrow from each other, bank to bank. And this money banks lend each other is NOT and can NOT be used for loans, it is used to cover their Federal Reserve obligations. Also the Fed does not actually set this rate, it can only try to influence it via Open Market Operations, so no it not the same thing at all, most certainly not "essentially."

Whether obtained as Discount or Fed Funds, the money allows the bank to loan out more money, because it increases the bank's reserve, no?

Does not the Fed effectively control banks' demand for money through reserve ratios?

I think they're talking about Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac.

But then, banks would need to solicit deposits from savers (the horror!), which would cause interest rates to go up, and the whole current economy based on debt could possibly collapse...

> The problem lies in the fact that the fed gives essentially free money to banks in order to have them loan it out in the first place.

The Fed R3serve or the Fed Gov?