Final answer:
To evaluate whether it was better to be a borrower or a lender during various years, one needs to compare the mortgage interest rates with the inflation rates for those years, favoring borrowers when interest rates are below inflation and lenders when above. Securitization of loans changed the landscape, reducing the lender's risk.
Step-by-step explanation:
The determination of whether it would have been better to be a borrower or a lender in various years, considering the mortgage interest rate and the rate of inflation, requires examining a table with historical rates. If the mortgage interest rate in a given year is lower than the rate of inflation, it implies that the real cost of borrowing was reduced, making it advantageous for the borrower. Conversely, when the mortgage interest rate exceeds the rate of inflation, it favors the lender who earns a higher real rate of return on the loan.
Analyzing the data from the table (which is not provided), one would look for years where the mortgage interest rate was below the rate of inflation, suggesting those were good years for borrowers to take a mortgage. Meanwhile, lenders would prefer years where the mortgage interest rate was above the rate of inflation, bolstering their profits through greater real interest earnings. This fundamental economic principle was disrupted by the innovations in finance that led to the securitization of mortgage loans, allowing banks to sell off risky loans and avoid the financial repercussions of defaults. These practices were partly responsible for the 2008 financial crisis.
Without the specific data from Table 6.11 or Table 19.11, a direct comparison cannot be made. However, the principle stands that evaluating the better position between borrower and lender in each year would be based on a comparative analysis of the listed mortgage interest rates relative to inflation rates for those years.