Mischaracterization. Did exploited consumers have an appetite for a little expropriation? No doubt. Isn't that how cons work? This was a systemic, professional, con which ended up exploiting not only the small-timers but just about everyone else.
Each of those leading questions is not credible. C'mon, fess up. It was undercooked devil advocacy, no?
They don't need such assistance.
> I think Jordan actually says it better when he says,
> "It's not clear to me that you have to actually know that you're doing
> this in order to have taken advantage of it. "
a) Again, the apparent advantage played on their greed. Collectively, the unaware (and others) were taken advantage of. b) "reinscribing their own oppression" does not go far enough. The amplification of venality is a tactic of financialization. c) This scheme ensnares just about everyone, including those worthy of escaping their oppression and those trying not to oppress.
The attitude is too cynical.
> ...These results suggest the possibility that subprime lending did
> serve as a positive supply shock for credit in locations with higher
> unemployment rates and minority residents."
>
> Sounds like subprime did for some what credit cards did for others:
> provided credit to make up for stagnating wages.
Another example of privatized Keynsianism gone wrong.