<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Are Debtors Rational Actors or Situational Characters? &#8211; Abstract</title>
	<atom:link href="http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/are-debtors-rational-actors-abstract/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/are-debtors-rational-actors-abstract/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 07:41:21 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Laura</title>
		<link>http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/are-debtors-rational-actors-abstract/#comment-16917</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Laura]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Apr 2010 18:56:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/?p=6233#comment-16917</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Regarding Robert&#039;s comment, please provide citations about who was promoting lending to minorities and who was actually making the decisions about lending. I do not see revisionist history as Robert claimed, but rather revisionism in terms of who was profiting without taking the risk&#039;s downside. Public bailout of lenders rather than borrowers?

It is now April 2010 and in China the common wisdom is that house prices will continue to rise and that it couldn&#039;t possibly be a bubble because all the major players are still involved.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding Robert&#8217;s comment, please provide citations about who was promoting lending to minorities and who was actually making the decisions about lending. I do not see revisionist history as Robert claimed, but rather revisionism in terms of who was profiting without taking the risk&#8217;s downside. Public bailout of lenders rather than borrowers?</p>
<p>It is now April 2010 and in China the common wisdom is that house prices will continue to rise and that it couldn&#8217;t possibly be a bubble because all the major players are still involved.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/are-debtors-rational-actors-abstract/#comment-14498</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Apr 2009 01:37:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/?p=6233#comment-14498</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If this article were written two years ago, it would have been called &quot;Are Banks Rational Actors or Situational Characters.&quot;

The fact is that when house prices were going up, social scientists were continually doing audit studies and experiments to argue for MORE lending to people with poor credit histories, especially minorities, thought to be responsible for over half the defaulted subprime dollars.

Now you&#039;re seeing revisionist history, and many of the same sociologists and psychologists pretending they were really concerned about banks pressuring borrowers to take on bad loans.  In reality these situationist experts were likely to be testifying in anti-redlining lawsuits that banks were irrationally ignoring potential borrowers because of hidden biases.   

At least Alan Greenspan has enough honor to admit he made a mistake.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If this article were written two years ago, it would have been called &#8220;Are Banks Rational Actors or Situational Characters.&#8221;</p>
<p>The fact is that when house prices were going up, social scientists were continually doing audit studies and experiments to argue for MORE lending to people with poor credit histories, especially minorities, thought to be responsible for over half the defaulted subprime dollars.</p>
<p>Now you&#8217;re seeing revisionist history, and many of the same sociologists and psychologists pretending they were really concerned about banks pressuring borrowers to take on bad loans.  In reality these situationist experts were likely to be testifying in anti-redlining lawsuits that banks were irrationally ignoring potential borrowers because of hidden biases.   </p>
<p>At least Alan Greenspan has enough honor to admit he made a mistake.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
