To an extent mistakes were made. As I understand it Clinton attempted to make it easier to give loans to people who couldn't pay it back. But the financial institutions bundled them up and sold them because there was no rsik to them if they got rid of debts - in fact they would already have their returns from giving out the loan. Had that system been better regulated, particularly in relation to the ratings those loans recieved and the ability of Americans to walk away from their debts, the problem would have been smaller.I was under the impression that the existence of such sub-prime markets was a result of policy of the Clinton Administration. I can assure you that not many in the financial sector would provide such high risk loans without some form of state protection.
Intervention not market decisions resulted in the sub-prime issue.
If I'm wrong I'll gladly accept it, but that's what I thought the deal was.
But still just because one intervention in the market failed that doesn't mean all market intervention is therefor bad. Its like saying that Hitler was bad, Hitler was human and hence humans are bad. Its failed logic.