Nowadays, it became a commonplace practice among many American economists and politicians to suggest that it is specifically the Federal government’s failure to introduce regulatory measures, as the mean of preventing banks from providing financially non-credible citizens with mortgage loans, which created objective preconditions for the outbreak of 2007 financial crisis. The close analysis of such an idea, however, reveals it being essentially deprived of a rationale. The reason for this is quite apparent – it was namely the Democrats’ preoccupation with ‘combating poverty’ (under Carter and Clinton’s administrations) that resulted in passing of the infamous Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) and in reinforcing its provisions through the course of late nineties, which in turn gave banks a ‘green light’ to qualify socially-unproductive Americans for mortgage loans (Wallison, 2011). Moreover, the Federal government is being simply in no position to regulate dynamics on the American financial market de facto , since it has long ago delegated its monopoly on designing monetary emission-policies to the privately owned Federal Reserve System. Therefore, the suggestions that the government should pass additional bylaws, in order for the financial market’s dynamics to be more predictable, cannot be referred to as anything but the part of Democrats’ sophistically sounding but essentially meaningless rhetoric. In this paper, I will aim to substantiate the validity of this statement at length. Let us elaborate on the actual causes of the most recent financial crisis first. By the year 2006, the volume of so-called ‘non-standard’ and ‘alternative’ mortgage loans, provided by banks to Americans, accounted for 40%. In other words, almost a good half of mortgage loans were given to people that would not normally be qualified to receive them. Yet, even though that this particular financial policy did not make any rational sense, whatsoever, through years 2003-2006 American banks strived their best to cease the opportunity to simply ‘give away’ money to those citizens that were simply in no position to be able to afford repaying annual interest rates. Why was it the case? This was because, prior to the outbreak of 2007 financial crisis, the real estate market in America was experiencing a particularly dramatic growth. In its turn, this caused more and more Americans to realize that they could make utterly lucrative profits by the mean of buying houses with bank-loans, waiting for a year or two, without even being required to pay interest on the received loans, and then selling these houses for often twice as much. Thus, as time went on, a growing number of Americans were beginning to perceive mortgage loans not in terms of an opportunity to buy otherwise non-affordable real estate per se , but rather in terms of an opportunity to indulge in financial speculations. This, of course, caused the growth of the real estate market in America to attain an exponential momentum. Eventually, American bankers concluded that ‘non-standard’ and ‘alternative’ mortgage loans could also be provided to citizens for investment purposes. That is, banks started to sell mortgage agreements and potential profits (which were yet to be obtained in th