- Over the weekend a 7.2 magnitude earthquake struck Eastern Turkey. The search for survivors continues, but already over 200 people have been reported dead.
- In Tunsia, citizens went to the polls in the first free and fair election in the country ever and the first for any Arab Spring country. Counting is underway, but results aren't likely to be released until Tuesday. Meanwhile, in Libya, the country formally declared independence yesterday following the killing last week of Qaddafi. Already the hand wringing in the West has become over how Islamist is too Islamist.
- In Syria, the US ambassador has returned to Washington, but has not been formally recalled. There is some speculation this temporary recall is for the ambassador's safety.
- In Mexico, as police are re-tasked to deal with violence, drug crops are allowed to flourish.
- Following President Obama's announcement that all combat troops will withdraw from Iraq by the holidays, Secretary Clinton warned Iran not to misread American resolve.
Domestic
- Obama's policies haven't done as much to help struggling homeowners, in part because he hasn't spent enough or gone big enough. Meanwhile, none of the GOP presidential hopefuls could articulate what they'd do, let alone what they'd do different from Obama, to abate the housing crisis.
- The Department of Defense is leading the way in trying to utilize green technology and is helping some start-ups further develop products. Meanwhile, the Center for a New American Security's National Security blog has been giving a lot of ink to alternative energy.
- Many expensive drugs are about to pass their patent limit so generics could be close on the horizon.
- After bailouts and attempts at reform, it's business as usual on Wall Street. But we really need to repeal Dodd-Frank?
- The Tea Party is losing some of its vigor on the Hill.
3 comments:
Hasn't spent enough or gone big enough? Why should Obama be spending *any* taxpayer money on this? It is bizarre to read Obama's quote that the administration tried "to start lifting home values up."
Why is raising home prices -- i.e. making housing less affordable -- a public policy goal? Why is that something to be embraced? Should the administration also push for higher prices of other necessities such as food, clothing or transportation? One could be forgiven for thinking the chief aim of this program is simply to buy votes.
Further, why should those of us who were prudent with our money during the housing bubble have to subsidize those who bought more home than they can afford? Granted, the government played a big role here by stupidly encouraging the housing bubble through the mortgage interest deduction, Freddie, Fannie, the FHA, etc. but that shouldn't let people off the hook.
This is not a problem for government to solve, but rather an issue for the homeowners and bankers to figure out.
The fact that Wall Street remains a mess, meanwhile, despite the heavy regulation of the sector (since 1980, Congress has passed four new sets of regulations for every one deregulatory act) is a good argument for repealing Dodd-Frank and removing other nonsensical government interventions in the sector.
One might also think the chief aim of the program might be to keep people in their homes, though clearly you'd prefer homeowners & bankers "figure out" what to do, even if that means millions more people foreclosed on and potentially homeless, right? That's pure market forces at work.
Lest we forget that banks were soaking up mortgage-backed securities like a Sham-wow, and then they found themselves over leveraged when the bottom came out, but that's the government's fault too, right?
One might also think the chief aim of the program might be to keep people in their homes, though clearly you'd prefer homeowners & bankers "figure out" what to do, even if that means millions more people foreclosed on and potentially homeless, right? That's pure market forces at work.
Right, because the alternative to living in a home you can't afford is homelessness? Render unto me a break.
And why should people be able to stay in homes that they could never afford? If I buy a Mcmansion I can't afford I should still be able to stay in it? Why should their greed be rewarded? What about the costs to others through reduced housing affordability (which actually can lead to homelessness). Further, is rewarded stupidity and greed (through government transfers) while punishing prudence and delayed gratification (taking money from those who didnt buy homes they couldnt afford) wise public policy?
If we went by pure market forces we wouldn't have had this ridiculous bubble in the first place. But it is instructive that neither the government's role in inflating the bubble nor its ineffective response (as detailed by the WashPost article) is deterring you from advocating further government involvement.
Lest we forget that banks were soaking up mortgage-backed securities like a Sham-wow, and then they found themselves over leveraged when the bottom came out, but that's the government's fault too, right?
You are aware, correct, that Freddie and Fannie have been issuing MBSs since the early 1980s, and that these are widely understood to have the backing of the US govt? And further than Freddie and Fannie were responsible for more than half of the MBSs issued from 1998-2008? You are also aware that the SEC, as part of the Basel Accords, allowed securities given a high rating from Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations (basically a government regulated oligopoly) can be used to satisfy capital reserve requirements, thus encouraging their purchase?
Yeah, I would say the government bears a big part of the blame.
Post a Comment