Questions

A lot of questions that I'm thinking of after watching this film (but will only ask some as I'm doing this on my phone)

1) what would actually happen if the banks (any size) where required to have the liquid capital to cover all loans. So according to you or a statistic your aware of (not disputing, you just didn't source it) required banks to have 33x more capital. Or in theory give out 33x less loans (positive and negative)

2) why where the credit agencies not liable at least civilly (or where they but the film didn't really address it). Poor writing of the law by lawmakers? Curuption in the court system? Lawmakers not wanting to protect such individuals? Judges having no understanding of the law or argument plaintiff was bringing? Bizzare assumption of risk to fraud as an investor or just the fact that they obviously couldn't cover peoples loses and would declare bankruptcy

3) why when this was happening didn't any lawmakers pass a simple federal law (or designate certain areas where this was happening) as not eligible for relief in bankruptcy proceedings for discharge, and require claimant to renegotiate with lender or owner of such loan. So basically eliminates the benefit of bankruptcy for the stripper who didn't want to pay her loans
Leaving her in legal limbo but also anxious to resolve her debt as well as holder who didn't want to go bankrupt.

4) why didn't any of the banks renegotiate with individuals who had a adjustable rate loan who said they wouldn't pay? Was it really more profitable to have them default then have them became current and pay the mortgage with say a fixed rate or would the bank somehow lose on the principal (that makes no sense to me if bank actually lost on principal)

5) last but not least
Am I the only one shocked ? Or should I be the only one shocked that an 8% default rate ( I'm assuming that's real) causes an actual crisis. I would have never guessed its really that low of a number. B) is there a way that the Banks create a system where if there are people paying there mortgage out that they can at least not be losing money? Or say at least 50% of borrowers who payout there loan and the banks still can at least break even?
Is there a reason why this is not possible? I understand the interest rates would be substantially substantially higher but can a system like that work? It would lead to obviously less home owners but also people buying more with cash and borrowing a lot less (as well as borrowing more from friends and family) if they needed a loan. Obviously banks would be smaller, but savers could yield an astounding interest rate as liquidity would be in demand. How is that not sustainable? How is it not capitalistic?

Thanks to any responses. Don't think op I'm answering to will respond as its from IMDB but it's sure great to be on this message board after its closing

P.S. (completely unrelated) can someone give me a tip to how to access this on my computer (I hate doing it on my phone). I have windows XP still and chrome won't even open this site. I open it in Firefox but for some bizarre reason I can't click reply. And by clicking ctrl to let popupa I still see JavaScript:void(0)