Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree but the government decided to lack that oversight and even encouraged sub prime lending.
I'm just drilling it down further. Don't be nice. Tell it like it is. Our government is a result of right wing ideologues able to convince enough stupid Americans to vote for them. They championed deregulation and bad Democrats went along with it.
Would you support the elimination of Freddie/Fannie knowing that millions of Americans might never own a home without the government underwriting the paper? I would.
As is, those are the worst institutions ever conceived. I would certainly destroy them.
What I would do is convert the entire mortgage industry into a land value tax and eliminate all other taxes.
If I could not do that, then the next best thing is to annihilate those institutions and any fractional reserve lending ponzi schemes aimed at fixed assets like land.
I'm just drilling it down further. Don't be nice. Tell it like it is. Our government is a result of right wing ideologues able to convince enough stupid Americans to vote for them. They championed deregulation and bad Democrats went along with it.
Yeah that's about it. We went from a progressive government to one resembling British merchantilism which is the one Adam Smith was attacking.
I'm just drilling it down further. Don't be nice. Tell it like it is. Our government is a result of right wing ideologues able to convince enough stupid Americans to vote for them. They championed deregulation and bad Democrats went along with it.
Which party, through regulation, forced the private bankers to write mortgages to borrowers they knew couldn't repay, and put the taxpayer on the hook in the event of default.
As my son like to say, "that's a rhetorical question, dad."
Which party, through regulation, forced the private bankers to write mortgages to borrowers they knew couldn't repay, and put the taxpayer on the hook in the event of default.
As my son like to say, "that's a rhetorical question, dad."
I don't think you comprehended Hawkeye's post at all.
In econ class back in the 70's, they taught us all about Keynes. Countercyclical deficit government spending in periods like 1974 would be paid back with surpluses when times got better. I was young, but I wasn't stupid. We spent into deficits in the bad times, then times got better...and we spent into deficits. For at least four decades, "Keynes" is a code word for spending money we don't have.
First of all, yes I did understand Hawkeye's post. And you're right to an extent. Keynes would have proffered that an expansionary position would have been the proper course of action. However, that's not all. Keynes would have also proffered that when recovery occurred savings would have been paramount. The fact that politicians NOT economists chose to continue to spend using cherry-picked information.
A lot of people continue to also attempt to pigeon hole Keynes' work as the only information in association with his work. There are also Neo-Keynesian and Post Keynesian work(s) with which his founding work is expanded upon. A few should check out these works.
First of all, yes I did understand Hawkeye's post. And you're right to an extent. Keynes would have proffered that an expansionary position would have been the proper course of action. However, that's not all. Keynes would have also proffered that when recovery occurred savings would have been paramount. The fact that politicians NOT economists chose to continue to spend using cherry-picked information.
A lot of people continue to also attempt to pigeon hole Keynes' work as the only information in association with his work. There are also Neo-Keynesian and Post Keynesian work(s) with which his founding work is expanded upon. A few should check out these works.
Its main failure as applied, like most modern theory, is the abandonment of what inspired economic theory in the first place. The phillips curve completely leaves resource rents out of the picture. You can exhaust the means of production before you can exhaust labor. Modern economics has failed twice to address the root cause of stagflation which is what all the classical economists were talking about and that is "economic rent" when the resource is priced too high or withheld from the market. Now real estate is priced too high instead of oil.
Last edited by gwynedd1; 12-19-2011 at 09:44 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
