In simple terms greed and fear drive markets. These broad generalizations provide easy categories for market events. Makes us quite dextrous when finger-pointing too. We can accuse while we recuse.

Maybe stock market crashes are not so simple-minded. Perhaps more complexity is involved especially when politicians stage their agenda.

Yesterday, I began wondering what reasons any legislator (Federal or State) might overlook sub prime transactions. Truck drivers heading down hinterland highways, llama farmers in Wisconsin, and the homeless sleeping on park benches on the New Haven Green knew about sub-prime mortgages.

Seems reasonable to think that the dinner conversation at the 701 Restaurant on Pennsylvannia Avenue where (according to the Washington Times), the menu delights include “an amuse bouche… finished with chocolate pave or rhubarb-and-strawberry compote surrounding a small almond cake” (just what we regular folk eat every day).

Between the delicate morsels (at tax payer expense), what did these folks discuss? Somebody must have noticed the economic fiasco on the horizon. Or, was there another agenda?

Is it likely that overlooking subprime transactions was part of a social agenda? Was there hope that permitting a disenfranchised class to own the “American dream” (even though unqualified) could change the social-cultural, and political structure of America? If they were having that conversation at McDonald’s or sitting on the Capital lawn with lunch bags, I might think so.

Housing does franchise the American dream; a family living in Lawrence, MA wants that dream as much as the family living in Manchester, MA. One family wins the social and economic lottery while the other suffers the fate of limited means.

If there were more Habitat For Humanity homes, and if more volunteers from places like Manchester, MA headed to Lawrence, MA, the desires of many would be met. The fulfillment of a dream would be kept. Of course, there’s one major rub. You don’t make big bucks building Habitat homes. The bank doesn’t earn a cent from the mortgage, and the homeowner just pays back the principle with a “sweat-equity” commitment. Not much of an economic incentive there; so greed prevails as the antagonist of hope.

For a more complex opinion, read “The Greed Fallacy” by Arthur MacEwan (Dollars & Sense, the magazine of economic justice).