@Gorgasal:
Ja, Ihren Beitrag hab ich gelesen. Und der wikipedia-Artikel dazu belegt für mich nur mal wieder, dass man sich die Argumentation so zurechtsuchen kann, dass sie zum eigenen gewünschten Ergebnis führt.
Wenn sie, wie Ron Paul, Libertarier sind, können sie die Auswirkung des CRA übertreiben und damit die staatliche Einmischung verteufeln, wenn Sie die Deregulierung kritisieren wollen, können sie seine Wirkung untertreiben und behaupten, dass die Lage nach der Lockerung des CRA erst richtig bedrohlich wurde. Hier einige Zitate dazu

In Antwort auf:

---

The effects of the Community Reinvestment Act on the housing markets are controversial. Some economists and financial experts have wondered if the CRA was - or at least had become - irrelevant, because it was not needed to force banks to make profitable loans to a variety of lenders. Economist Howard Husock writes that a CRA-connected community group The Woodstock Institute found in a survey in the Chicago-area that even banks not subject to CRA tended to loan in a variety of neighborhoods.[...]
A Bank for International Settlements ("BIS") working paper by economist Luci Ellis concluded that "Contrary to some media commentary, there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust."[16] Referring to CRA and abuses in the subprime market, Michael Barr stated that in his judgment "the worst and most widespread abuses occurred in the institutions with the least federal oversight".

Center for American Progress fellow Robert Gordon[20] noted that approximately half of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA and thus had no government obligation to offer credit to minorities. In the later part of the crisis, these mortgage companies made subprime loans at twice the rate of CRA banks. Another third of the major subprime lenders were regulated but had very little CRA involvement.[21] Gordon also makes the argument that the weakening of the CRA in 2004 was followed by intensified subprime lending.[21]

Statistics indicate that over 75% of subprime mortgages were issues by institutions not, or only partially, governed by the CRA.[22]

Ellen Seidman, former director of the US Office of Thrift Supervision during the Clinton administration, who also works at the New America Foundation,[23] has stated her belief that the CRA did not have an effect on the United States housing bubble.[24] She observes that CRA banks were particularly warned to make responsible investments, citing one of her own speeches as an example.[25]

---