JayB Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 And somebody'd better reign in this guy.... "Freedom Means Responsibility By GEORGE MCGOVERN March 7, 2008; Page A15 Nearly 16 years ago in these very pages, I wrote that "'one-size-fits all' rules for business ignore the reality of the market place." Today I'm watching some broad rules evolve on individual decisions that are even worse. Under the guise of protecting us from ourselves, the right and the left are becoming ever more aggressive in regulating behavior. Much paternalist scrutiny has recently centered on personal economics, including calls to regulate subprime mortgages. With liberalized credit rules, many people with limited income could access a mortgage and choose, for the first time, if they wanted to own a home. And most of those who chose to do so are hanging on to their mortgages. According to the national delinquency survey released yesterday, the vast majority of subprime, adjustable-rate mortgages are in good condition,their holders neither delinquent nor in default. There's no question, however, that delinquency and default rates are far too high. But some of this is due to bad investment decisions by real-estate speculators. These losses are not unlike the risks taken every day in the stock market. The real question for policy makers is how to protect those worthy borrowers who are struggling, without throwing out a system that works fine for the majority of its users (all of whom have freely chosen to use it). If the tub is more baby than bathwater, we should think twice about dumping everything out. Health-care paternalism creates another problem that's rarely mentioned: Many people can't afford the gold-plated health plans that are the only options available in their states. Buying health insurance on the Internet and across state lines, where less expensive plans may be available, is prohibited by many state insurance commissions. Despite being able to buy car or home insurance with a mouse click, some state governments require their approved plans for purchase or none at all. It's as if states dictated that you had to buy a Mercedes or no car at all. Economic paternalism takes its newest form with the campaign against short-term small loans, commonly known as "payday lending." With payday lending, people in need of immediate money can borrow against their future paychecks, allowing emergency purchases or bill payments they could not otherwise make. The service comes at the cost of a significant fee -- usually $15 for every $100 borrowed for two weeks. But the cost seems reasonable when all your other options, such as bounced checks or skipped credit-card payments, are obviously more expensive and play havoc with your credit rating. Anguished at the fact that payday lending isn't perfect, some people would outlaw the service entirely, or cap fees at such low levels that no lender will provide the service. Anyone who's familiar with the law of unintended consequences should be able to guess what happens next. Researchers from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York went one step further and laid the data out: Payday lending bans simply push low-income borrowers into less pleasant options, including increased rates of bankruptcy. Net result: After a lending ban, the consumer has the same amount of debt but fewer ways to manage it. Since leaving office I've written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I've come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society. Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don't take away cars because we don't like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don't operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life. The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else. Mr. McGovern is a former senator from South Dakota and the 1972 Democratic presidential candidate." Quote
j_b Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 This version is much closer to the truth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ_qK4g6ntM Quote
j_b Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 allright, here is my parting shot, because I don't know how long till I'll be back. So, Jay-B claims he isn't a free marketeer but to him the fact that we need government intervention on an unprecedented scale, after all these years of deregulation and several speculative bubbles, to prevent market collapse, is just the public helping the market "function better" .... Orwell would be proud! It's all good and fun to try to reinvent oneself but what does Jay-B own up to exactly? Bush as president? the Iraq war? trickle down that is in fact trickle up? is it too much to ask for a little honesty? Quote
olyclimber Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 and btw, yes, it is too much to ask for honesty. we're all trying to survive in the free market, and honesty is simply too expensive right now. Quote
olyclimber Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 honesty in reality is charity but don't qoute me on that. i may be hedging my bets. Quote
Fairweather Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 Honesty is such a lonely word... Everyone is so untrue... Quote
olyclimber Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 except for the wheels on my mtb. freshly trued. Quote
Fairweather Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 Honesty is such a lonely word... Everyone is so untrue... But mostly what I need from you... Quote
Dechristo Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 honesty in reality is charity honesty in a realm of misperceived reality is Hell hmmm...looks like somebody's sig line Quote
JayB Posted March 20, 2008 Posted March 20, 2008 allright, here is my parting shot, because I don't know how long till I'll be back. So, Jay-B claims he isn't a free marketeer but to him the fact that we need government intervention on an unprecedented scale, after all these years of deregulation and several speculative bubbles, to prevent market collapse, is just the public helping the market "function better" .... Orwell would be proud! It's all good and fun to try to reinvent oneself but what does Jay-B own up to exactly? Bush as president? the Iraq war? trickle down that is in fact trickle up? is it too much to ask for a little honesty? Yes - anyone who argues on behalf of an economy driven by voluntary exchanges between consenting parties must be irrevocably opposed to things like...enforceable contracts, the notion of patents, and all of the rest of it. Everyone from Smith to Hayek saw no role for the legislature, the judiciary, or law enforcement in the social orders that they were contemplating. Yawn. It's hard for me to tell if you are being mendacious or obtuse here. Since this is your parting shot, my homophonic doppleganger, I suppose I'll never know. Have fun in the compound. Toodles, Quote
j_b Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 j_b = prole Nope. Nice to see you, j_b. Likewise, Off_White. Quote
j_b Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 Yes - anyone who argues on behalf of an economy driven by voluntary exchanges between consenting parties must be irrevocably opposed to things like...enforceable contracts, the notion of patents, and all of the rest of it. Everyone from Smith to Hayek saw no role for the legislature, the judiciary, or law enforcement in the social orders that they were contemplating. Yawn. Why don't you stop regurgating the free market bible, and address what is being said to you? No "enforceable contracts, notion of patents, and all of the rest of it" were broken in this case, yet we have to pump trillions of dollars (in one form or another) of public money to bail out the greed pirates or they'll take us down with them. Your quasi-religious incantation to "volontary exchanges" won't change any of it, so quit pretending that this situation resulted from someone breaking the existing rules or that "helping the market function better" and getting rid of a few bad apples will take care of it. Quote
JayB Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 I guess we disagree here. I'd argue modifying the rules that govern mortgage lending, the securitization process, and tax policy associated with real-estate assets will go a long way towards preventing a melt-down like the one we're in the middle of from occurring again. Get the rules right and you diminish, rather than expand the government's participation in the real estate market and limit it's role to that of a rule maker, rather than a participant, and limit the risks to the rest of the economy at the same time. Since this is apparently a matter in which you're claiming some expertise, let's talk specifics. You lay out the particular causes of the housing bubble as you understand them, in as much detail as you can muster, and then we can debate the merits of a particular set of policies associated with each, and discuss whether they'll increase or decrease the government's participation in the real-estate market, and whether the said changes will increase or decrease the risks to public finances. I'll be gone climbing this weekend, so take your time. Knock yourself out. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 I'll be gone climbing this weekend, so take your time. Knock yourself out. bastard! post a tr! Quote
tomtom Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 Yes - anyone who argues on behalf of an economy driven by voluntary exchanges between consenting parties must be irrevocably opposed to things like...enforceable contracts, the notion of patents, and all of the rest of it. Everyone from Smith to Hayek saw no role for the legislature, the judiciary, or law enforcement in the social orders that they were contemplating. Yawn. Why don't you stop regurgating the free market bible, and address what is being said to you? No "enforceable contracts, notion of patents, and all of the rest of it" were broken in this case, yet we have to pump trillions of dollars (in one form or another) of public money to bail out the greed pirates or they'll take us down with them. Your quasi-religious incantation to "volontary exchanges" won't change any of it, so quit pretending that this situation resulted from someone breaking the existing rules or that "helping the market function better" and getting rid of a few bad apples will take care of it. And you haven't answered the question "Why do you want Bush running the economy?" As head of the executive branch of the gov't, that would be his responsibility. Quote
j_b Posted March 21, 2008 Posted March 21, 2008 I guess we disagree here. I'd argue modifying the rules that govern mortgage lending, the securitization process, [..] estate market, and whether the said changes will increase or decrease the risks to public finances. I didn't claim any expertise but I don't need any to know that you are trying to spin the facts: the housing bubble is just another layer to the crisis. It is in fact a gigantic castle of cards that is teetering after decades of rampant speculation and growing debt, all enabled by lack of transparency, and government credit policy. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.