Steve Sailer's thesis on the diversity recession is that the government colluded with the banksters to give mortgages to undeserving (not "underserved") blacks and hispanics that didn't have the FICO scores, down payments, and income to ever hope to repay these mortgages. Most of this lending took place in the "Sand States" of California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Florida. Subprime mortgages in California (with its ridiculous housing prices) composed the bulk of the bad debt, and most of the subprime loans went to hispanics. Why did the banksters shred centuries of good banking practices to collude with the government? Basically, the CRA and its government cheerleaders told the banks that lent to minorities that they were allowed to acquire other banks. Banks that made only solid loans were not allowed to do so. This reversed the normal course of natural selection for banks, in which banks making bad loans would naturally go under. The banks also found that they could package these loans up with normal, AAA loans and sell the entire package under a AAA credit score to fools overseas. Of course, these packages were sold on the margin, so there was a lot of leverage to go along with it. Also, the banksters and government (composed of guys like Angelo Mozilo) believed that everyone deserved to own a home and that give-aways to "underserved" blacks and hispanics was a Good Thing, regardless of how responsible the people receiving giveaways were with their money.

Karl Denninger reports on a case in Germany involving the kidnapping of a bankster by vigilantes who'd lost money buying properties in Florida (an increasingly-hispanic Sand State). Note, also, that they were buying properties with 10:1 leverage. That's a smoking gun, as far as I'm concerned. Though I only have N=1 data points right now, we know that this happened on a wide-scale. The MSM lets the truth slip through the cracks accidentally, sometimes.