What’s the center of the debate about whether the Community Reinvestment Act caused the housing “crisis”?
I don’t know as much about economics as I would like to. I just know Ron Paul and Tom DiLorenzo have indicated the CRA was a significant factor in the housing “crisis”. Others, like Jacob Weisburg and Clarence Page, think it’s just plain wrong to point the finger at the CRA.
Go through this: http://mises.org/daily/3128
What I was saying here was that the article you linked to is too complicated for my shallow knowledge of economics.
Then read Callahan’s Economics for Real People, followed by Hazlitt’s Economics in One Lesson, followed by Menger’s Principles of Economics.
I’ve read much of the first two books you mentioned. I can understand basic economics, and based off it I think the Austrian School is correct. It’s that supply and demand stuff that really loses me.
Go for Menger’s book then, Gordon has a really easy but helpful read called An Introduction to Economic Reasoning, once you’ve read of all that you’re easily in a position to tackle a book like Man, Economy and State.
Because it is hardly all there is to it. Without the Fed supplying cheap, abundant credit, the CRA would not be as much of an issue.
Can someone explain why the CRA is blamed for much of the housing mess in light of what Wikipedia says about it? (I realize Wikipedia is not a source to cite in a research paper, but I suppose it’s all right if I cite it in this context.)
I suppose because it’s a good scapegoat for those who can’t point the finger at the fed.
What about Paul and DiLorenzo?
Well, they’re both Austrians (although, Paul isn’t an economist) so I’m sure that they understand that the fed credit expansion is partly to blame. I’m not really sure though. Nobody here is denying that the CRA is partly to blame, it’s just that it can’t be said to be the sole cause of the crisis.