AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Good summary, James.

Everything was Bush's fault according to Democrats, which is total and absolute hogwash. At least now you guys will have to admit that Bush is no longer in office, so that current problems cannot any longer be blamed on Bush. And it is becoming evident that Obama's and the Democrats' policies are responsible for numerous failures on many fronts, not the least of which is the economy.

So Fannie and Freddie (among others) are governmentally created creatures. But read carefully the last sentence in the quote and ask yourself: "How can the government decrease the cost of borrowing?" The answer lies in further government entanglements in the free financial markets that, somehow, bring forth the supposed magical economies of government intervention! But sadly there is no magic just real world economics. So how does the government do it? Remember when you wanted to buy your first car and the bank you went to required a 'co-signer' for your loan because of your iffy risk potential? Same thing here. However, in the sub-prime mortgage market the government (Fannie and Freddie) were the co-signers of sorts. In reality it has proved that the real co-signers were the American tax payers who implicitly backed this deal. When those mortgages defaulted the implied risk of the taxpayers became explicit and the magic of government efficiencies went poof!



One wonders what "market imperfections" had to be "overcome" to "improve the efficiency of capital markets"? I suspect that some in government interpreted financial due diligence as such and set out to have the ole "equality of outcome" that seems to still be in fashion with the political class.

The CRA had a noble goal of discontinuing lending practices where race or minority status automatically disqualified persons from obtaining loans that would be justified otherwise. However, it gave politicians and groups such as ACORN the power to threaten lending institutions with legal action even when those institutions were well within their rights to protect themselves and shareholders from overly risky individual contracts. Mix in securitization, government picked rating agencies (essentially only Moody’s, S&P, and Fitch were allowed), the bass ackwards payment method for that rating, and Dodd-Frank expansion of those GSEs (Fannie and Freddie) to buy up those mortgages and you had the perfect governmentally mixed cocktail for the financial meltdown. The further incompetence of government in this area is currently demonstrated by the Dodd-Frank financial 'reform' bill that says nada about Fannie and Freddie who, all indications now inform that further bailouts to them will be necessary.


Okie, your point is well taken.
Indeed, these are special 'companies" created by Congress that are run for the profit of individual private citizens including gigantic bonuses. These companies allow private profit while benefiting from transferring any risk to the public taxpaying sector, nice work if you can get it.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government-sponsored_enterprise

JM

I refuse to read any post that misrepresents history and the consensus of opinion.

You accuse me of not having courage after you misquoted me in a shameful way? I am tougher than you will ever be. If you knew what I really thought of you, I would hope you would be ashamed.

okie thinks it is perfectly acceptable to insult everyone whose politics he disagrees with. Make that, okie feels it is acceptable to insult everyone whose politics are beyond his ken.

More projection.

To quote you more accurately, you refuse to read any post that does not represent your slanted view of history and the consensus of leftist or liberal opinion.

The truth is that the Nazis and Communists were relatives, and folks like Hitler and Stalin were leftists. Great statesmen like Winston Churchill understood this. Perhaps radical liberal historians in Berkeley do not agree with that, as they would prefer to rewrite history to their liking. I am sorry, pom, but I am not going be spoon fed and be brainwashed by liberal interpretations of history as you apparently have been. I prefer the truth based upon simply using a little common sense. It doesn't take a whole lot of it to see the truth of it. If you had any intellectual honesty, you could recognize that the Nazi 25 points are leftist in nature, starting with the basic principle, COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD.

I dislike being misrepresented and misunderstood. it angers me when someone puts words in my mouth. What I said and what okie did not understand is that on the center to left side of the political spectrum, I am about 3/4 of the way from the center to the left. It is one thing to misunderstand something. when you are unclear about something said or written by another, you ask them about it. YOU DO NOT . . . LET ME RE-ENFORCE MY STATEMENT, YOU NEVER . . . MISREPRESENT WHAT THEY SAID.

The economic disaster we face now was initiated under the bush administration, do you reject this?

Your constant silly misrepresentation of history is becoming quite a point of comical relief for me and my friends. I wonder if you really believe your own farcical twisted views on history.

Find one mainstream book . . . not a right wing website meant to deceive . . . that supports your misguided notion that the Nazis were leftists.

BTW, that you would propose common sense as a solution, as you often do, is sheer hypocrisy. You are one of the least common sensical people I have ever run across. I told you that if you represented the center as zero and the range from left to right with numbers, that you would be at the extreme end of the right while I would be somewhere about 3/4 of the way to the end of the left. There are several posters here who are much to the left of me and many people I know in life.

I've wondered if okie actually believes what he spews as well. I have considered that, perhaps, his posts are satirical. However, he has posted in this way for years.

I had no idea you are British. It is good to hear the opinion of those on the other side of the pond. How long have you been posting here?

Hi xris, I've been a long time member of a2k, and have listened to okie's viewpoints on many things that seems operational only in his own mind; a very creative one at that! Trying to apply common sense or logic is futal, because he continues to spew stuff that isn't historical or contemporary; it's mostly his imagination. It's good that you can view his comments as comical; that's the only sane option.

I think he must be a computer generated hoax. He cant be for real. I think its about two years since I joined the philo forum.

He still gets under my skin but so do so many of natures parasites.

" consensus of opinion"

If that is your standard, then you have a problem.
Consensus of opinion said that the world was flat, that the sun revolved around the earth, that man would never be able to go to the moon, that flight was impossible, etc.

All of those things we know to be false, but the consensus of opinion said they were all true, at one time or another.
Would you have agreed with the consensus of opinion then, or do you believe that all of those opinions were wrong?

Why does the left fear greed for profit by business leaders more than they fear greed for power by government leadership?

Business leadership has to compete among themselves to obtain profits. Government leadership has to compete among themselves for votes to obtain power.

Of course, when government leadership obtains enough power, it no longer needs votes to sustain and further grow its power.

The Constitution of the USA was designed to limit the power of federal government leadership. Allowing federal government leadership to ignore more portions of the Constitution of the USA, invites gteater power for federal government leadership and less profit for business leadership.