Quote from bigarrow:
First the article talks about how marginally qualified borrowers will borrow more due to the low interest rates. Then he says the banks are wary of loaning to marginal borrowers.
âAt 1%, marginal borrowers (the kind who are most likely to default) qualify for loans.â
âTalk about unintended consequences. The Fed's ZIRP punishes the prudent and rewards financier gamblers and encourages marginal borrowers who are tomorrow's defaulters.â
âThe top 5% have improved their debt-income ratios, but the lower 95% don't qualify for new loans or refinancing. Now that the banks are weighed down with bad debt and writedowns, they are wary of loaning more to marginal borrowers.â
Just because you cut and paste your question a second time, doesn't make it any more valid, you know. It was answered already. Now, if that's all you got, well by all means, spam it over and over again in the hopes someone with an IQ under yours (you can always hope) will think the point is still relevant.
But debate (or in your case the inability to do so) is about back and forth. So you posted what you thought was a contradiction. I addressed it. And instead of replying to my answers, you ignore them and pretend they never happen.
I get why you did it - because you honestly have no grasp of the topic. But it would be better to fade away instead of make it so obvious as to post the same comment over again, and make it so clear to everyone.