Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Bankrupt "Exploiters": Part II
by Thomas Sowell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


We don't look to arsonists to help put out fires but we do look to politicians to help solve financial crises that they played a major role in creating.

How did the government help create the current financial mess? Let me count the ways.

In addition to federal laws that pressure lenders to lend to people they would not otherwise lend to, and in places where they would otherwise not invest, state and local governments have in various parts of the country so severely restricted building as to lead to skyrocketing housing prices, which in turn have led many people to resort to "creative financing" in order to buy these artificially more expensive homes.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve System brought interest rates down to such low levels that "creative financing" with interest-only mortgage loans enabled people to buy houses that they could not otherwise afford.

But there is no free lunch. Interest-only loans do not continue indefinitely. After a few years, such mortgage loans typically require the borrower to begin paying back some of the principal, which means that the monthly mortgage payments will begin to rise.

Since everyone knew that the Federal Reserve System's extremely low interest rates were not going to last forever, much "creative financing" also involved adjustable-rate mortgages, where the interest charged by the lender would rise when interest rates in the economy as a whole rose.

In the housing market, a difference of a couple of percentage points in the interest rate can make a big difference in the monthly mortgage payment.

For someone who buys a house costing half a million dollars-- which can be a very small house in many parts of coastal California-- the difference between paying 4 percent and 6 percent interest would amount to more than $7,000 a year.

For people who have had to stretch to the limit to buy a house, an increase of $7,000 a year in their mortgage payments can be enough to push them over the edge financially.

In other words, government laws and policies at federal, state and local levels have had the net effect of putting both borrowers and lenders way out on a limb.

Yet, when that limb began to crack, the first reaction in politics and in the media has been to look to government to solve this problem because-- as always-- it was called the market's fault, the lenders' fault and everybody's fault except those politicians who created this dicey situation in the first place.

Markets often get blamed for conveying a reality that was not created by the market.

For example, the fact that "the poor pay more" for what they buy in stores in low-income neighborhoods is often blamed on those who run these stores, rather than on those who create extra costs through crime, vandalism and riots.

If the store owners were making big profits, the big chain stores would be rushing in to share in the bonanza, instead of avoiding low-income neighborhoods like the plague.

Markets were also blamed for the Great Depression of the 1930s and New Deal politicians were credited with getting us out of it. But increasing numbers of economists and historians have concluded that it was government intervention which prolonged the Great Depression beyond that of other depressions where the government did nothing.

The stock market crash of 1987 was at least as big as the stock market crash in 1929. But, instead of being followed by a Great Depression, the 1987 crash was followed by 20 years of economic growth, with low inflation and low unemployment. The Reagan administration did nothing in 1987, despite outrage in the media at the government's failure to live up to its responsibility, as seen in liberal quarters. But nothing was apparently what needed to be done, so that markets could adjust. The last thing politicians can do in an election year is nothing. So we can look for all sorts of "solutions" by politicians of both parties. Like most political solutions, these are likely to make matters worse. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com. COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Oops!
Somebody lost a tag at the "end" of the column!

Personal responsibility
I enjoyed both parts of this article. One bit of the equation that I missed in this was personal responsibility.

Are we so foolish today to think that we can purchase that 500,000 home on a 200,000-home salary? We can blame the government for forcing or encouraging banks and lenders to extend credit to fools, we can blame the banks for lending to fools - but we can't seem to find it in our hearts to blame the fools who buy what they can't pay for.

I live in a small (almost paid for) house. I drive an inexpensive car. I pay my bills. I buy inexpensive clothing - but only when I need to replace something that is worn out. I grow a garden and have fruit trees in my yard. I still work, even though I 'qualified' for retirement more than eight years ago. I have no credit card debt... and I actually have some money in savings and a pension fund.

In spite of all of the offers to get 'deals' on cars, vacations, new homes, furniture, low interest credit... I haven't done so.

It is called personal responsibility (although my children thought I was just a cheapskate when they were young.) Best of all, it works.

Government and housing
I have spent my life in Mass. and R.I. A half century ago I would see foundations roofed with tar paper and people living there. As time went on, the residents would frame the house and then apply siding and so on. Using his own time (venings and weekends)and sweat (along with his wife's), man would build a house for his family as he accumulated the money. Some would start with a mobile home and add on to it as time and money allowed.

This behavior is no longer allowed as the leftie elitists who dominate politics in this area demanded more and more "standards" for housing and land use.

Democrats as the party of the people? Bah!!!

American fascism
Fascism is a system which allows the illusion of private ownership of businesses and other property so long as government retains control over all important policies and procedures. When the inevitable something goes wrong, the fascist voters and their representatives scapegoat the "evil" "owners".

Anyone see any examples of American fascism on issues relating to big oil, mortgage companies, oil speculators, nuclear power, zoning restrictions, the destroyed S&Ls, minimum wages, maximum salaries, windfall profits...?

Thomas Sowell knows absolutely nothing
.. about economics.

This is laughable. Here is a quote from Thomas Sowell that strikes right at his ignorance of free markets and capitalism.

Thomas Sowell writes: "The Reagan administration did nothing in 1987, despite outrage in the media at the government's failure to live up to its responsibility, as seen in liberal quarters."

Sam writes" The Reagan administration did everything in 1987 after the stock market crash". IT CREATED THE PLUNGE PROTECTION TEAM, WHICH ALLOWS THE FEDERAL RESERVE TO INTERVENE IN THE MARKETS TO PUMP MORE LIQUIDITY IN THE STOCKS IF THERE WAS A DROP".

Just like the good old Clinton years when you thought the economy was good (all driven by inflation, not real Price / Earnings)

What a joke the US Economy is. You can do better by owning companies by becoming a shareholder in New Zealand, Australia, and Switerland that are limited partnerships or LLC's than owning stocks in the US.

Heck if you owned foreign currency (fiat) in Swiss Francs, Australian Dollars, and New Zealand Dollars you would have doubled your money over the last 7 years. Sure beats US Stocks.

So much for the idea of having a Plunge Protection Team after the 1987 stock crash. So much for using other phony instruments that the Fed Pumps into fraudulent asset classes (US Stocks, US Bonds, Housing Market, etc.) to make US consumers out of suckers.


Affordable Housing
People don't seem to realize that when you borrow $500K for your home that you actually have to pay it back, with interest. The idea of 'paying off the house' doesn't seem to be the goal any more.

In fact, most financial advisors advise against it. Mine did. I still paid off the house and I have never slept better. And now when we seem to be entering a period of economic uncertainty, I am sleeping better than ever.


Thomas Sowell is an economic genius
Questioning Sowell's economic prowess? That's crazy--this man is a brilliant economist and conservative columnist. It is Obama who knows nothing about economics, thinking we can tax our way out of tough times.

Another reason Obama is not WRIGHT for America! BTW, check out this website I stumbled on, http://www.notwrightforamerica.com. It's great!

Poorgrandchildren...
...What is a "windfall profit?"

Just asking.

The math of quoted losses is wrong.
Let us not forget, behind every house loan there is a house that has value. There often is a PMI company that covers the top 20% of losses.

Greedy realtors, builders,land owners, originators, mortgage brokers, mortgage companies and on up the ladder are the scumbags, but the door was open so who can blame them. Greed is not a crime.

Anyway these billion and billions in losses are paper losses. They are not assuming 75-80% of the loan is secured by a home.

I don't get it unless crying like this will get more government aid. Get a nationl movement to sell these homes and then cry. The tears will not be so big.

Don Jones

how to get out of a vicious cycle
Given where we are, banks are plagued with foreclosures which in certain places have not seen the worst yet. These foreclosures become non-performing loans, and the asset value is written down or written off. Then those banks have liquidity problem. Then Uncle Sam steps in (print more $) to bail out.

But that bailing out weakens US$ and drive up inflation, which is already bad.

Then gasoline and food get more expensive, and people spend less, airlines cut back flying, banks and other companies lay off workers, and... more foreclosures - a vicious cycle.

In the long term, housing market will recover when prices bottom out and people again view real estate as inflation hedge. How to hurry that stage and how to hold the banking sector together without aggravating the inflation problem?

If the banks are waived liquidity ratio at least for a year or 2, how would that hurt things? (Shareholders will get taken to the laundry which will force management change, rightly so.) Then foreclosed properties may not get dumped by banks desparately trying to raise capital and the downward property price spiral may halt? If real estate is perceived to have bottomed out because banks are less desparate, the market recovery would start.

Legal immigrant

Sam
Apparently, you know less about ecnomics than does Dr. Sowell (surprise, surprise). Not only does he correctly assess the cause of the credit crisis (primarily Fed infusions of liquidity) which has a great deal to do with the inflationary pressures you mention, but he also correctly discusses the ECONOMIC and practical impact of actions taken in during the Reagan years(unlike the massive interentions by FDR - an economic disaster - the economic impact od the so-called circuit breakers put in place was essentially nil).

Nordoes Dr. Sowell overstate (as you do) the inflationary pressures or attribute (incorrectly) all - or most - international currency variability to it.

At least you didnotincorrectly assert that most of the losses experienced in the financial sector are paper losses. It doesn't take complete writeoffs toput a comany in jeopardy when their assets are tied up in long term financial instruments like mortgages.

The Government will bury us
Does anybody remember ALan Greenspan suggesting American consumers were wasting their money on 30 YR fixed rate mortgages around March 2004? How about when the Treasury stopped selling 30 year bonds in 2003, when rates were at a 50 year low? Gee, I thought it was good to lock in low. How about the performance of FHA loans over history, anybody look at that before allowing them to take on more risk? Just look at the bozos that allowed Fannie adn Freddie to take onmore risk just a few months ago? How about how too many people do not fund IRA's and 401k's, instead spending the money on cars, Plasma TV's and houses they can't afford. Are they doing anything different than the Federal government when it comes to our social security money, money not being put away, frittered away on programs we can't afford?
Is is any wonder that the people act the way they do when the Federal Government acts in the exact same stupid way?
Can anyone be surprised that we have some very real serious problems confronting us?
Our government is the problem.

The Answer is No Fed Intervention
This is painful but there should be no Federal Intervention . In order for this to be a" MARKET DRIVEN ECONOMY " !
Yep ... But Way?
When you put too much salt in the Soup you have to thin out the Soup or it stays salty .
In other words those that could only pay "INTEREST CHARGES -CURRENT RATES " even after a Invention are only BUYING TIME.. BUILDING UP MORE DEBT .
WE ARE LOOKING AT A DOWN ECONOMY FOR SEVERAL YEARS SO THE CHANCES OF THEM INCREASING THEIR INCOME 25-40 % IS NOT REALISTIC IN THOSE SAME YEARS .
But sooner rather than later they have to pay the FULL LOAD OF INTEREST PRINCIPLE AND POINTS FOR BAD CREDIT .
This can be fixed in at least "HALF " THE TIME IF THE FED DOES NOT DO THE BAILOUT .
Remember those Banks are owned by TAX PAYERS and the BAILOUT IS TAX PAYER PAID .
PLUS INTEREST RATES ARE NOT DONE BY THOSE ''HATED SPECTATORS " IT IS DONE BY MANY MARKET CONDITIONS AND THE $$$$ CONDITION OF HE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT !YOU CAN TAX YOUR WAY TO PROFIT OR A SOUND GOVT. POLICY .

Perhaps what we need to do...
is take all the Federal retirement and/or wages from the representatives and senators who voted for the bill that made banks extend unwise credit and give that money to the people who are having trouble making those payments. May not cover all the costs but should be all that our government should do.

Very Good T.S.
I would like to fold into the scene two other factors. One is the CFR and IMF mentality, the ideology that is part of the glue that makes the US politicians and industry stick together to cause havoc in our commerce and finances. Our money system and manufacturing have been doomed to a third world status by globalism and trading our souls for imported goods while shipping our technology to other countries -- and toss in a torrent of immigration. A second factor is the liberal version of who should buy or own a home. Everyone! You deserve a home just as much as the rich. I can help you if you will only vote for me.

Personal responsibility ...
The liberals and Dumbocratic party think they are responsible for everyone, including me! Hey you! This ain't no Nanny-State! Read teh Constitution and Bill of Rights you, you .... well for loss of a better word - idiots stay out of my life except for what the Constitution & Bill of Rights says you can! I am personally responsible for ME NOT YOU!

Pt One Total BS, Part II partial BS
Part one's premise was that redlining somehow was responsible, that was nonesense. Local zoning laws restricted availibility of housing BS. Farms became McMansions, Beach front hotels- Condos.

The Federal Reserve was driving the enconomy with low interest rates. But that was pure conservative economic policy Recall Conservative Fed Chairman Greenspan encouraging home buyers to consider adjustable rate mortages. Most people has the sense not to listen.

The truth: Everyone got the bug, prices were rising and it looked like this would last forever. The regulators were aleep and so all of the financial controls were ignored. People were given credit who did not qualify. If these people defaulted, the bank or investor could recoup their money on the appreciated home.

The profit model was turned on its head. Instead of making money on interest spread, banks, brokers, and eventually wall street were deriving their money from upfront fees.

As long as housing prices were on the rise everything was fine. Even the slightest adjustment in prices and the system collapses.

Were their unsavory practices? Some like steering people to risky subprime Arms with low teaser rates when they qualified for safer FHA loans. Those people should be prosecuted if you can find them. They made their millions and are know probably working in some other bait and switch jobs. Wall street and banking executives who should have known better lost their jobs retiring with Golden Parachutes. Don't expect their replacements to do any differently in the future. In fairness to them market pressures would have made it difficult for anyone of them to resist the tide.

Sowell is a fool.

Gov't tweaking is the root of evil
Another issue of the current crisis and one not mentioned very often is how the IRS tax deduction of mortgage interest but not credit card and car payment interest has added to the problem. Frequently in home improvement (windows, siding, etc) sales part of the pitch to low income families was to refi the house and combine the new stuff with credit cards and car into one DEDUCTABLE account. How many unwise shoppers took the no interest car financing instead of the $3000 rebate and then merged it into paying interst via the refi or home equity loan programs? Since their spending/savings habits never changed - they got into worse trouble in a few years.
Great articles as usual Mr Sowell!
Paul
Cincinnati, OH

Reality Check
Don't buy something you can't possibly afford...

and

Everything the Govt. touches turns to crap.

Libs and other excuse mongers, What part of this don't you understand?

Feb Booms and Busts.
To have a housing boom in which we sell more homes that the increase in population justifies, you must find buyers. And since people who have the necessary income and credit already own homes, that means we push the market out to people who don't have enough income or credit. That, after all, is the only group one can "sell" loans to that enables you to write more loans and sell more houses than you were writing and selling. And, of course, you can spur sales through speculation involving a more rapid turnover of the homes due to inflation. The paper created over the period of 2002 to 2006, as a result, was primarily targeted to these two groups. And this became the "consumer recovery" the Fed wanted, promoted, and talked about. It was a short term fix, of course. And, predictably, it is being followed by a longer term "correction". Home values will fall back to the level of 2002 plus the difference in inflation. At the same time, buyers who lacked the credit and income will all have to leave the market and go back to renting. And, because we over-built to supply this second group, we'll have a surplus of homes sitting on the market until that excess housing can be purchased. In the interim, builders will have to build fewer homes than they did yearly prior to 2002, in order for the market to absorb the excess they built for an unqualified buyer group from 2002 to 2006. In a practical sense, if the do this, and say build only 1/2 the number that they were building, then it would take 4 years for the excess inventory to be sold off, and for the markets to return to normal.


Cont'd.
So, we pay our dues. In the interim, we will wash trillions of dollars of paper value and an estimated $900 billion in loan losses out of the system. All of which was paper.

Thank you Mr. Fed. It was a brilliant strategy. You exploited the lower income people in this country to create the facade of a recovery, and, it is they that will bear much of the responsibility. Very Good Thinking.

Now, of course, the weak dollar promoted by the Fed is creating a "commodity" boom. This is the next boom and bust. So, let's see, we've had stocks, housing, and now commodities. What's after that?

Waiting for the liberal myths
1) It was all a scheme by the lenders to make a fortune before the bubble burst.

2) Economic growth was has been driven largely by housing (and it was all an illusion).

3) It was all caused by “rampant capitalism” and “greed”, unhindered supply and demand, or a “dismantling of regulation”

4) The losses aren’t real; it’s all paper/accounting nuances

5) The CRA didn’t force banks to do anything

6) “Redlining” or “predatory lending” are real problems

7) There are “facts” that contradict the notion that “government intervention to help poor/minorities” cause the “social and economic ills of our society”

8) “[Fill in the blank] need regulation to protect themselves from themselves” … “It’s the actions of that industry that made the regulation necessary”

9) The Great Depression was caused by business practices and “rationality” was put in place in its wake

10) It’s just the cyclical market which is a function of capitalism

There isn’t a connection to reality in ANY of those positions. Every last one is pure economic nonsense, but inevitably those spouting such completely uneducated positions find it necessary to engage in name calling aimed at those who had the audacity to become better educated on these issues.

JMO51 doesn't know what he is saying!
Prof. Sowell is right on.

1. Wall Street Golden Parachutes.
2. Congressional & Political ineptitude on important issues - while working on only making themselves wealthy by collecting large campaign chests.
3. Individuals wanting a "Free Lunch" or a "Government Handout". etc

These are the real reasons for the problems. Read the book Fleeced and educate yourself.

Keep up the good work Dr. Sowell.

JMO51

I would like to read some of your books on Economics.

Please list the titles for us.

You seem to know more than Dr. Sowell who has been acclaimed all over the world as an 'Economic Genius'.


Surely your books have hit best seller lists worldwidw.

Don't worry
No one with any actual grounding in economics, finance, etc. will take anything that JM has said at all seriously. His "truth" is pure fantasy. Lenders almost NEVER make money on foreclosed properties (even in an appreciating market) because the whole foreclosure process is so costly (and often homes built to suit are less attractive to someone else).

He almost gets it when blaming the Fed for low interest rates (and then mischaracterizes this classic Keynesian manipulation of the economy as "conservative" which merely serves to undermine his credibility still further) but then pretends that this merely pushes market greed ("getting the bug") rather than radically distorting market signals with inevitably dire results.

It wasn't regulators that were asleep that were the problem. It is far more likely that that was the condition one would find JM in if he could ever have been found in an Econ classroom.

He calls Sowell a fool. Fine. Rational individuals call that "projection".

#8
A windfall profit is an invention of fascists to gain and hold control. If there is a system in place where government can make unlimited mistakes and avoid accountability by blaming "evil and greedy" capitalists, it is far better for politicians than a system (socialism) where the government actually owns things and its failures are harder to obfuscate.

Examples of socialism include our government monopoly school systems, and the failures of government there are more obvious than in the areas being discussed on this thread and by my choice for President--Thomas Sowell.

Liberal Ideal.
Liberal Ideal.

Everybody should own a house in America. To make this a reality the Clinton Administration and Congress created an environment in which unqualified buyers were allowed into the housing market through the vehicle of no money down, no doc loans and adjustable rate mortgages. When housing values stopped going up and interest rates started going up something had to give, and what gave was the so called sub-prime crisis. Dr. Sowell is right in predicting that the response to this so called crisis will be more government intervention. Exactly the wrong response.

Caveat Emptor....
Let the buyer beware! Not a concept that Americans understand anymore.

Everyone understands what "new car smell" does to a person. It causes rationalization to overtake common sense. Couple that with a good car salesman pointing out all the positives and the negatives become unimportant.

I recently had a bout of "car fever". I put my 3 day rule into effect. I went home, waited three days. The heat of my fever was gone and I could see the reality of the situation. The car in question was finally bought by someone else and I felt no remorse.

A good credit rating can be a terrible thing to have. If everyone followed the advise of Dave Ramsey, we would have a nation of successful people who pay in full at the point of purchase and have terrible credit ratings.

Buying a home is the one thing that stays out of reach for most people without long term financing, but if we practiced pay as you go for everything else the term wouldn't need to be as long. As Mr. Ramsey says, becoming "debt free" would become the status symbol of choice.

Government's purpose is not to "give" us anything. It should be only to preserve and defend national sovereignty and constitutionality so that we ALL live and breath free providing us the equal opportunity through that freedom to succeed or fail.

We would never go to our neighbor and say, "Since you made good decisions and are doing so well, you should help me out because of my bad decisions". Yet that is what we do through our middle man, the government.

Caveat Emptor!

POGO WAS RIGHT
When the comic strip figure POGO said "I have found the problem and he is us". We elect these congress people because they deliver us a "bowl full of promises'. We then find out the bowl was full of "EMPTY" promises, but we do not vote them out because it is the other guy from X state.

We voters are the problem because we do not hold elected officials responsible for their failures. Just look at the energy crisis, for 30+ years congress has blocked nuclear power, drilling for gas and oil in over 90% of our public lands. They stopped damn construction for hydoelectric, they stopped coal and oil shale mining, in fact they closed down the American energy machine we now import 70%+ of out oil.

KICK THE ENERGY BLOCKERS OUT !

my 2 cents
President Bush's approval ratings are around 28%-30% after a 7 1/2 years in office

The (Democratic) Congress' ratings are less than half that after about 18 months

People are upset

The electorate is getting more and more volatile and

this is going to be an interesting election on ALL levels - local state and federal

Only in America




DC
Personal responsibility

what a concept

It's Simple
What Dr. Sowell is talking about is simple. Smaller government intervention and more common sense would solve many problems facing America today. Knowing your limits on what you can afford or having someone on the other side of the table tell you that you can't afford this particular house is the "common sense" that is missing in America.

I try to teach this basic ecomonic model every year to my high school students, and many have thanked my later on when faced with these tough decisions. Thanks for the articles Dr. Sowell, both will be read by my students this next year.

Banks and shareholders
To immigrant:

You said "Shareholders will get taken to the laundry".

Perhaps you will feel differently when the value of YOUR 401-K or pension drops to zero.

my 2 cents
I am retired with a few pensions and S.S. - I was a union construction worker and worked in different parts of the country during my 36 years, hence the multiple pensions.

I am better off now by close to $15K per year than my best year while I was working.

The reasons?

1) I am blessed and
2) I started getting ready for my retirement about 2 years prior - I DIDN'T just take the word of the yahoos down at the hall - I DID MY HOMEWORK. Same as when I built my house - I DID MY HOMEWORK.

Do you sense a parable? You're right

Remember the seven P's

Proper
Prior
Preparation
Prevents
Pi++
Poor
Performance

Jim
In response to reply 19

'Government by the people, for the people...'
That's why the founders established our Republic as a representative democracy with limits and expectations on those who could participate in the decision making. Why would anyone be surprised by this mess we call government? Look at the current candidates running for office. Can there be anyone less qualified than BO? Look at the Congressional representatives. It reads like a Who's Who of morons. (yes, that means you Speaker Pelosi).
Toaday we even hear yearnings for the good 'ol days of FDR. Good grief, what happened to my beautiful country? I want it back from the Marxist who stole it away from us.

Visit the Blog for More! Click my name!
From the song by Burke/Van Heusen: 'Swingin' on a Star'

Would you like to swing to the Left
Barry O. has plans for more theft
And his voters seem so obsessed
Or would you rather vote for John?

Old John's just like Barry but without funny ears
That fool seems to echo what he hears
When he thinks economy - his brain is weak
He's just a maverick - with a liberal streak

And by the way, while you think that John's a fool
Don't think his heart is miniscule!

Would you like to swing to the Right
Only John will continue the fight
But more amnesty is a blight
Or would you rather vote for Dems?

Those Dems are pathetic, they just spend all our dough
I wish they would get a clue, you know?
They've got no manners, and they blame 'Big Oil'
But drilling here will Opec profits spoil!

But if you don't think the blame is all on them
You might decide to vote for Dems

Would you like to swing to the Right
Barry O. will be No Delight
And some coat-tails might help a mite
Or would you rather just give up?

If we just surrender what will happen to us?
Gas climbing, I guess I'll take the bus!
If we give up now, and listen to those Dems
Those Carter years - We'll get to try again!

But if you think to surrender will be good
The facts you have misunderstood!

Surrender-monkeys aren't in the zoo
In our Congress there's quite a few
So you see, it's all up to you
We could be better than we are
No more Incumbents, that's a start!

We could be swingin' But we aren't!

Bailouts
If we can ever get rid of the polititions bought & paid for by the lobbyists, which I doubt will ever happen until we get some folks with morals and a spine this type of legislation will continue. Plus the feeling in America that I have a 'right' to this or that because a 'politico' looking for votes, or some other con-artist looking for power and prestige can be stopped, it won't be stopped.

Aniother Bailout.
They say there's a "better than even chance" the $25 b in the bill to rescue Freddie and Fannie won't be needed. Sure. I wonder what the odds are we end up with the entire $5 trillion mortgager portfolio those two carry. Whatever, we've just insured them - or, I should say, the taxpayers have insured them against failure.

Let's see, we started the year out with a $3.1 trillion budget proposal whose deficit of under $400 B was projected on the income from economic growth of 2.2% - which has turned into 1.5%. We then added the first bailout of $150 B. Then we had the "supplemental defense appropriation of just over $100 B - up from the first of year projection of $60 B. Now we have this bailout.

So far, not including the fact that revenues are lower than predicted, we're about $650 B or more in deficit spending, and have just insured $5 trillion in mortgages. Which those first rate economic predictors who haven't been right yet are saying we shouldn't worry about.

This the Alfred E. Neumann school of economics. "What, me Worry?" Why would I do that?

We've become a full throated social/socialistic democracy - and no matter who we elect or what we do, we won't be turning back this clock any time soon.

Points of order
1. We started as a republic (Article 4, Section 4).

2. We have degenerated into a representative democracy. Uncontrolled democracies allow the left and right wings of Control Freaks Unanimous to cram anything they choose down all our throats just by buying 50.01% of the votes.

3. We are now degenerating further into fascism but not very far into socialism. Fascism has no problem with the illusion of private ownership of businesses and other property so long as government controls all important policies and procedures.

Sowell right on target, as usual.
Thanks.

Re: Points of Order
One small correction. The imbecilic rhetoric of the Left notwithstanding, fascism has been recognized as merely another form of socialism (as the capitalist labels used are ENTIRELY illusory - the claim that fascism was run by capitalists amounts to nothing less than historical and economic delusion). It's just the same whore in a different dress.

Beyond that, keep up the good work.

Tip of the iceberg
As if Congress couldn't behave any worse, has anyone heard about Pelosi's plan to put a "windfall profit" tax on those who have retirement accounts over and above what they will receive social security, ie. deferred compensation retirement accounts? If this is true, it is one of the primary reasons Dems should never see the inside of the Capital building, except on a tour.

Sam
Why do you yell so much? In case you are not aware, all caps is yelling. Why are you commie pinkoes always so angry?

the untold part of the story
Mr. Sowell tells the untold part of the story. The MSM and politicians seem to love the welfare state and it takes them a LONG time to learn of the problems and flaws of those systems.

The complete story (in my view) is:
-The govt tinkered with markets which caused serious distortions (like Sowell says)
-Banks / investment firms / investors lost thier minds while stupidly ignoring risks
-Home buyers behaved like children while overbuying and over extending

Lots of people deserver a spanking because of this fiasco. It is truly embarrasing!

Loan sharks
"creative financing" with interest-only mortgage loans enabled people to buy houses that they could not otherwise afford."

What you forget to include in your column is that the lenders are making big bucks for every loan they close. So the lenders are making their commissions. The more loans they write the more money they make. They didn't let the little fact that these folks could not make their payments stop them. Now you tell me government is responsible for that! Its plain old fashioned greed that got us in this mess. Plus many of those loans were passed on to other institutions. Financial houses in the US and even other countries ended up with those loans. So the loan shark, is skating free and clear enjoying their plush condo in Hawaii while their banks fail. Many of those loans were also passed on to other institutions, like Freddie and Fannie and the whole US system will falter badly if they fail. That leaves the tax payers holding the bill, the loan sharks have their cake and eat it too. All on our buck.


Government Subsidies I know this is a st
I know this is a stupid idea but lets just call it venting. How about we give congressmen a farm subsidy like the ones they so freely hand out. We will give you a nice pasture (office) and tractor (company car) and if you promise to do nothing with either of them, you’ll be rewarded with a big fat check. I figure paying a mob boss to do nothing is better than watching them waste billions upon billions of dollars that belong to us, out here in the real ‘free market’, anyway.

What really irks me about the “Stimulus” idiocy is; if you (Congress politician trying to buy votes) really wanted me to have $1200 free dollars, instead of borrowing it from the Chinese, why can’t you just let me keep $1200 more of what I’ve already earned. The end result is the same: I have $1200 bucks in my pocket, but the macroeconomic effect isn’t quite as punitive to our struggling economy. I feel like I was just forced to take a $1200 dollar high interest loan just so I could pay my property taxes which are what they will be going for. How did that stimulate me again?

A Government that governs best governs least.

Mongo-because I love McCain & Obama
I like being a commie pinko. I am for LaRaza baby.... Me gets a job at the GOP with McCain.. I am like Ben Stein now.., me likes tax increases and the rich paying their fair share.


I love Washington D.C.









Government Takeovers
If you break it and the government takes it,they own it. Everytime the government bails another financial institution out,we slde further into fascism.


chicaree
"What you forget to include in your column is that the lenders are making big bucks for every loan they close. So the lenders are making their commissions. The more loans they write the more money they make. They didn't let the little fact that these folks could not make their payments stop them."

Dr. Sowell didn't "forget" anything. He didn't include that little tidbit, because it is factually wrong. While it is certainly true that brokers and originators (and real estate agents) earned fees and commissions that allowed them to make money on however many transactions they undertook, LENDERS faltly DO NOT make enough money on up front and transaction fees to offset the costs of collection/foreclosure/resale even in a booming market. Enless repetition of the mantra that lenders didn't care if people could make their payments any less completely wrongheaded.

Similarly wrongheaded is the notion that it "didn;t matter" because lenders frequently bundle real estate loans into convertible assets for resale. The problem with that "theory" (if such an absurdity deserves the term) is that the practice is undertaken to spread risk and the primary buyers of that paper are the lending institutions themselves.

It doesn't change the fact that government intervention is DIRECTLY responsible for the distortions in the marketplace (too-free followed abruptly by too-expensive liquidity) that precipitated the crisis.

The (inevitably) poor management of pseudo-private public companies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is not the fault of lenders, nor is the possibility of a bailout by similarly wrongheaded politicians.

Educate yourself.

Sowell's economics don't work
Free market mavins like Sowell have invented a Utopian fiction based on a market transaction between two people with equal knowledge and economic leverage who are not sinful. This is pure fiction.

Government is absolutely necessary and mandatory to correct the human sinfulness inherent in a free market.

Sowell never gets and will never get it.

SUCH A DEAL

.....JOB OPERTUNITIES ...

.....Be a politician ...you get to write laws that tell other people what they can or cannot do ...if the law creates harmful results you find someone to blame and then write new laws to fix the problems caused by the old laws ...make sure to get plenty of press coverage so that the voters will recognize your name when they go to vote ...great job security and many perks that can be charged off to the taxpayers ...apply now ...many new opening in an ever expanding job market ...no intelligence required .....COLOSSUS

PROUD SOCIALIST

.....And Governments are never sinful? ...your ignorance is exceeded only by your lack of intelligence .....COLOSSUS

Chicaree
You've got it backwards, Chicaree. "Loan Sharks" did not create these "creative financing" opportunities. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created these financing options and pushed brokers (your loan sharks) to sell them. Borrowers didn't need to take the bad loans, but they did. Brokers didn't need to sell the bad loans, but they did. Banks didn't need to buy the bad loans, but they did. I don't expect the average consumer to understand how risky these bad loans were. I don't expect brokers to pass up an opportunity to make money, especially when they need to feed their families just as much as the next guy, and if they don't sell the bad loans, some other broker will. I don't expect banks not to buy the loans when they know they can package them up and sell them to someone else.

If you want to go to the source of the problem, you have to trace your way back to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Where did these institutions come from? They were started by the government. Why would they engage in such risky behavior? The government gives them special treatment in the form of tax incentives, encourages them to make loans to people that can't afford them to encourage an "ownership society", and offers them credit at ridiculously low rates.

Chicaree, still backwards
Fannie and Freddie would not have the power they do if it wasn't given to them by the government. They wouldn't have taken such large risks if they hadn't been given incentives by the government to take these risks.

Are people greedy? Absolutely. Greed, however, does not always translate into risky behavior. Greedy people are just as likely to try to avoid losing their money as they are likely to make more.

So, the question is: "What causes people, who are all greedy by nature, engage in risky behavior?"

Answer, when you give them someone else's money to make more money with. They were given taxpayer money to go out and make more money. Cut off the Fed, you cut off the flow of taxpayer money. Cut off the flow of taxpayer money, and (as if by magic) banks will only issue loans to people that have adequate income, reservers, and a 20% down payment.

Of course, there's a downside. Folks without savings have to rent. Folks with low incomes have to rent. Folks that live in high crime areas have to rent. The government has to balance their budget. The government can't spend as money as they want on welfare and entitlement programs. The government can't spend as much money as they want going to war.

Proud Liberal's...
lack of economic knowledge is glaring.

It is a common attack of liberals whose grasp of economics doesn't get past the ads for X-ray specs and sea monkeys on the back of comic books that the marketplace, in order to function properly, must have people with "equal knowledge and economic leverage who are not sinful." THAT is pure fiction.

The marketplace works even if knowledge is just another commoditiy (it is), economic leverage is based upon competition (which it must be in the absence of government intervention - the CAUSE of harmful monopolies) and if everyone is merely looking out for their own interests (which, of course, they are).

Only a willing slave believes that freedom is so evil that "[g]overnment is absolutely necessary and mandatory to correct the human sinfulness inherent in a free market." Such a position is so completely at odds with human history that one wonders that anyone no longer soiling themselves can even entertain it.

Or, perhaps, that's the problem...


Proud Liberal
There's a problem with your logic PL. It's certainly true that two free market agents are indeed sinful. It's certainly true that neither free market agents possess perfect and equal knowledge.

It's also true that the government is not sinful. It's also true that the government does not possess perfect knowledge.

No free market evangelist believes that capitalism will create a utopia. Free markets do not create perfect societies. They create the best society available.

The problem with socialism, among many things, is that socialism is not risk diversified. It puts all the power and responsibility in the hands of a handful of agents. When these people screw up, they screw up the whole economy. This is what we just saw happen. A handful of agents with government backing screwed up the housing market. When you leave power in the hands of millions of agents, none of them contain enough power to wreck the economy.

effect of immigration on housing prices
There is an effect of immigration, both legal and illegal, on housing prices. The population has been growing, largely through immigration.

Increasing city violence has been pushing people out of cities and into suburbs. The effect is snowballing now, as violence is spreading into suburbs in some parts of the country.

This creates huge demand for housing in safe suburbs, driving the prices way up.

And building in some suburbs ires the environmentalists, leading to building restrictions and yet higher prices.

Why does no one think that curbing immigration would help with these issues.

The Legacy of Liberalism
One of the many plagues that springs from liberalism is the insulation of people from the laws of natural consequences. Liberals fail to understand that such consequences are how we learn life’s valuable lessons. So instead of learning that we should be wise consumers and live within our means, Americans are taught that there is always a way to blame the government for our failings and to make other people cover our losses. This follows years of lost opportunities for other important lessons. Instead we’ve learned:

-That it’s okay to spill hot coffee on yourself and sue the coffee maker.

-That it’s okay to build your home on a cliff prone to mudslides and not have proper insurance – liberals will make other taxpayers rebuild your home.

-That it’s okay to smoke two packs of cigarettes a day and expect to be paid millions when you get cancer.

-That it’s okay to come here illegally without the means to support yourself or your family – liberals will make others support you.

-That it’s okay to commit crimes against other people – the ACLU will be there to protect your ‘rights.’

With each passing year more and more people are seduced by the liberals’ message that it’s okay to make others pay for your mistakes. Only true conservatives still have the conscience to believe in personal responsibility

Connecting the dots...
The stock market crash that precipitated the Great Depression occurred in 1929, the same year that Hoover took office. FDR didn't take office until 1933. And most agree that he Depression was ending by 1937. So we were already 3 years into the Depression when FDR was elected. And Hoover did nothing (which was one of FDR's talking points). How did doing nothing help?

And what would a Sowell column be without the seemingly obligatory complaints about the restricted building / housing cost relationship? While that may be a contributing issue in CA, the metro DC area also has some of the highest home prices in the nation.

Finally, to lay the blame for the housing crisis at the feet of government regulation does nothing mor ethan reveal the conservative mindset that businesses and the markets are never wrong. In fact, the driving impetus was lenders who wanted to rake in ever-increasing profits quarter over quarter so that Wall Street would reward them with increased stock prices. On the face of it, there is nothing worng with this if the underlying causes for such growth are sound. But realistically, absent the creative financing methods, the housing market probably would have lost steam in mid to late 2004. But the Fed under Bush appointee Bernanke kept rates low to avoid an economic slowdown, and lenders took advantage of these reduced rates to offer attractive teaser loans to those with risky credit.

Too much money, too few homes

I guess I lived in a different world than the most of you. I keep coming up with what I think the real problem is, but no one else has mentioned it.

Everything I read here, makes this sound like a problem that started 5 or even 10 years ago. WRONG.

It most likely started before I got involved, but I can tell you what happened in the past few years. When I was born in 1928, there were 128,000,000 people in the USA. Now there are over 300,000,000, and they each need a place to live. Whose fault is that? And is it a complete surprise?

Now tell me, if you were looking for a house 50 years ago, for example, and you found the area, the style of homes, the price range, that you wanted. Now in that neighborhood of 1,000 homes, only three are for sale, so you pay what seems like an acceptable price.

Someone else, with needs and wants similar to yours finds a home he likes in a neighborhood he likes, and there are 300 homes for sale of the 1,000 homes there. So he pays a much lower price for his home.

Surprise, surprise, it’s supply and demand, or rather it’s demand and supply. A developer will not spend millions building homes unless there are people to buy them. And look what he had to go through to get permission to build on that parcel. People, from neighbors, to top government officials, put up every road block, then wondered why there are not enough homes for people to buy, and are too dumb to see that is why the price sky-rockets.

Remember, if there were enough homes for all to buy, the price would remain reasonable. Same with prices of everything, if supply fills, or exceeds demand, prices stay reasonable.


CW
The purpose of civilization is to protect its citizens. Societies reward positive behaviors and punish negative ones. Government should protect its citizens from corrupt business practices whether they be mines that are unsafe or child labor or air quality. It should regulate the markets to protect investors, it should make sure there is no lead paint in your kids toys. What it should not do is reward bad decisions. That means if you choose to ride a motorcycle and get into an accident you should not be able to sue the manufacterer unless the motorcycle is defective. You should not be able to sue the helmet maker for not putting in big writing the words you need to wear this.

Personal responsibility should also extend to corporations who come to the government looking for bailouts or no bid contracts. When businesses fail the CEO's should not be able to walk away from their incompetence with golden parachutes provided to them by their hand picked Board.


We need more houses

As an example, in 1955 I went to the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles, and bought a brand new 4 bedroom house for $16,500. I made
improvements, then sold it for $22,500, 3 or 4 years later.

Fifty years later I drove that neighborhood, found several homes for sale, and of all things, my former home was in very bad disrepair. Just for fun, I checked the price of some of the for-sale signs, and found homes going for $600,000 to $700,000 each.

Now don’t tell me those homes have a value as a home, that increased 35 or 36 times more than it was 50 years ago. It is the lack of housing, and the laws that prevent homes from being built, that have caused the problem, so when money became available, and interest was needed to encourage investment, but additional homes were not built, loans became easy to get at any amount, and a simple supply and demand situation got out of hand.

Using a Cost of living calculator, it says my then excellent monthly pay of $500 would now have the buying power of $4,000.

An 8 times multiplier for my wage, a 36 times multiplier for the house. So the root of this evil is the lack of homes, not the excess of money to lend.

And the laws on each end of the stick need changed. And isn’t it a shame that it must be a law, rather than the reasonable actions taken by the people involved.


Whoops, a mistake

I said we need more houses, I meant to say we need less people.

Somehow we managed, ...
Somehow, despite buying a house just at the crest of the wave before things broke, we managed to sail through just fine.

First, we actually read the terms of the various mortgage options offered and asked questions until we understood all the short and long-term implications of each arrangement.

Second, we got competitive bids from several financial institutions.

Third, we considered the fact that the unexpected happens in life and set our top price well below our maximum approved amount.

Fourth, we searched carefully and found an undervalued house in need of sweat equity and have put a year and a half of work into it.

Result, though average house prices in this neighborhood have dropped a certain percentage in a slower market the value of our house has improved about twice that percentage anyway. And even though the unexpected did happen in the form of employment issues and increases gas prices, we're able to make our payments without hardship.

Dr. Sowell is 100% right that it is each person's own responsibility to exercise due dilligence when making major purchases that will affect their lives for years and that it is each business's responsibility to make their decisions according to how it will affect their bottom line both now and in the future.

Maybe all that government money spent first forcing businesses to adopt risky practices and then bailing out people who made bad decisions would have been better spent educating people on how to think and plan for the responsibilities of home ownership.

Maybe, even more radically, that money would have been best left in the hands of the taxpayers themselves instead of ever being turned over to the government.

Sowell is so full of it on this one.
Sowell is full of it on this one. I don't know if he notice or not but the mortage industry marketed the hell out of ARM's and Interest only mortages. You couldn't turn on T.V without seeing one of those ads. If you went to get a mortage they would push those solutions first and foremost. You had to ask for a fixed mortage and had to make sure they did switch the paper work on you when it came to time to signed. That's not including them targeting the poor and elderly for refinancing and switching those people from fixed 30 year mortages to ARM and interest only.

The government should regulate the industry better. They should also regulate the credit card industry more. They should put a cap on how much interest a company can charge above the prime rate. 15 percentage points above prime is plenty enough interest for anybody to make money. They should also cap fees.

These companies push this stuff because they could sell off the mortages and take the profits and run or at least more the property when they foreclosure. They can't do either now which well they are all failing.

I don't think they should get a bail out.

Voteright
Sowell twists and contorts the truth so that it neatly fits conservative ideology and people like you lap it up.

Try thinking on your own for a moment. Greenspan was a conservative, He ran the Fed.

Sure Politicians are awash in money and where do you think it came from Wall Street, the Banks, etc. What that money bought them was relaxed regulations, poor oversight and the freedom to do as they pleased. Since the 1980's virtually every restriction on banks and brokerage houses has been eliminated and new unregualted markets have been created. It started under Reagan and yes it continued under Clinton and accelerated under GWB. Everyone loved it when it was working, but know when the bill came due we are all going to have to pick up the tab.

Capitalism is like a adolescent, it is passionate and innovative but it needs the guidance of a parent to keep it from getting killed and when its in trouble it runs to mommey and daddy to bail it out. (BEAR STERNS)


Vote Rights
Imagine row after row of luxury beach front condos in Florida cause my anti Redlining rules.

It IS the Government's Fault
Thank God, I now know the real reason behind the housing collapse. And I better understand ARM's. In other words, the reason we have no housing is that local governments opposed creation of more housing, then the Feds wanted more deadbeats (don't criticize; I am a deadbeat)to own houses, they really could not afford. This sounds to me like the Liberals not allowing drilling off-shore or in ANWR , for fear of impotent caribou, then blaming it on a President, who almost from day One of his administration didn't care if a caribou was not making it. Got it. This is the reason we must not elect Barry Obama, and throw out every Democrat in congress. And the Republicans need to change. I want to know one thing the Democrats have advocated that has improved the country. I'll give you twenty years to find one; I'll wait

Enough Already
The stock market crash DID NOT precipitate the Great Depression. It was a SYMPTOM, not the CAUSE. The underlying cause was a decision by the Fed years earlier to drastically expand the money supply. When the (inevitable) contraction began, banks, hampered by interstate banking laws, began failing and the Fed responded by cutting liquity still further, exacerbating the problem.

Hoover had nothing to do with it though he did make matters worse by attempting (as FDR did to a much greater extent later) to artificially support wages.

FDR did not CAUSE the downturn either, but it can EASILY be argued that he caused the Great Depression by, in every instance, making matters worse - manipulating currency, artificially supporting wages (which spiked unemployment), interfering with industry, expanding government charity. By several orders of magnitude, the cure was worse than the disease.

The EXACT SAME Fed mismanagement is what caused this crisis and the continued attempt to pretend that lenders deliberately advanced funds that they should never have expected to get back remains completely nonsensical. That the Fed chairman was appointed by the current president makes this no less true (or the policy anything resembling "conservative") any more than the "stimulus package" was either effective or conservative.


Greed
When a wealthy businessman exploits a poor working person, taking his life savings and leaving him with nothing, we can easily call that greed.

But what about someone who decides that they must own a house, even though they do not earn enough money to pay for it? Isn't that greed?

The Enron debacle displayed the level of greed of the leadership of that corporation. But what of their investors? Many of them put all of their money into Enron stock, because Ken Lay and others promised them record profits. So they made a very foolish business decision (putting your eggs in one basket) because they got greedy.

Real greed is demanding things that you did not earn.

Childish
...is the belief (in contrast to essentially ALL of human history) that governmental intervention to "protect" (as if such were the case) the public from the depredations of business actually ever accomplished that instead of precisely the opposite. Welfare, social security, medicaid, minimum wage laws, etc. have all HARMED the very people they were ostensibly designed to protect. The Left is pushing windfall profits taxes and curbs on oil speculation that can only INCREASE prices (while still restricting supply). Sarbanes-Oxley responded to direct fraud (so rare in the marketplace that incidents like Enron are repeated for years while hundreds of thousands of companies operate unblemished) by creating regulations that cost the economy more each and every year than all the scandals to which it responded COMBINED.

Corrupt actions SHOULD be punished, but outside of the liberal fairy tale, that was NOT what caused the problem. It was unequivocally Fed mismanagement (and not, absurdly, "conservative" policies) and governmental regulation.

Even child labor laws did not appear until private enterprise (and capitalist prosperity) had already eliminated most child labor in this country. And I assume the "no bid" comment was another ill-informed swing at Halliburton but I can't be sure.

The diatribe against those nasty businesses and in favor of those "sensible" governmental actions that benefit everyone is based a reading of history less in tune with reality than "The Lord of the Rings".

Proud Liberal,
And just where did you find the perfectly sinless people to run the government?

Free-Market Capitalism is the best system for a fallen, sinful man because its the very "greed" of the desire to get yourself the best deal that offsets and balances the desire of others to take advantage of you.

As for equal knowledge, ...

Anyone too lazy to expend the effort of ensuring his/her own well-being deserves to be fleeced. The consequences will teach him/her to be a more responsible person.

Anyone who dumb enough to sign an agreement that he/she doesn't understand deserves to be fleeced. The consequences will teach him/her to be a more responsible person.

Laziness and foolishness should be painful so as to teach people to be diligent and thoughtful.

The process of getting competitive bids and exercising due diligence about major purchases is not rocket science. I learned it from my great-uncle, who dropped out of eighth grade to work in the railroad yards during the Great Depression. He was neither brilliant nor educated but his common sense served him well. He died debt-free and my small share of his estate paid for nearly 2 years of college.

PS -- Equal economic leverage? My money is just as green and spends just the same as Bill Gates's money. A dollar is a dollar no matter whose pocket its in.

My problem with Sowell
My problem with Sowell is this. The Housing situation is complex. There is alot of blame to go around.

No everyone in the indutry was a crook in fact few were. But a lot of people chased the money down a dark whole because they forgot an essential truth everything that goes up will eventually go down.

I think that the people sho pryed in the elderly and poor should be locked up and if there are no laws to do that we should create some. I think that shareholders alone should not bear the burden while the corporate CEOS from failed companies walk away with Millions.

I believe we need more regulation of the industry. I think speculator should get no protection and homeowners should only get refinancing options at market rates.

Finally, I think conservative economic policy should be shown for the fraud that it is. It is simply corporate interest packaged to look like economic theory. That is why deficits mattered a lot when Dems are in office but not a lot when Republicans do it or when reducing the deficit would come at the expense of tax cuts which are the sole Holy Grail of conservative Economic thinkers.

Mother of 4
I like you bought a modest home with a fixed mortage at a reasonable rate given my high credit score. But I will suffer because of the expense that the taxpayers will bear bailing out the banks. I agree we need to do this but I am not satisfied that the people running the banks are assuming any "Personal Responsibility."

I have also noticed that the interest rates on my credit cards have also risen even as my credit score rises as well. Whats up. We were promised that if the banks got what they wanted in the Bankrupsy bill that good payers would pay less. Oh Well.


Debonair,
"the mortage industry marketed the hell out of ARM's and Interest only mortages. You couldn't turn on T.V without seeing one of those ads. If you went to get a mortage they would push those solutions first and foremost."

And this somehow FORCED people to sign the papers on those mortgages?

As I said, we bought a house during the crest of that wave. I'm sitting in its living room right this moment. No one ever put a gun to our heads and said, "You MUST accept this mortgage or else!"

No one ever locked us inside the first financial institution we walked into until we signed something.

No one ever taped our eyeballs open and tied us up in front of the TV to watch endless Ditech and countrywide commercials. We had full control of our on/off button and channel change buttons through the entire process.

No one is responsible for home buyers' bad decisions except those home buyers themselves.

No one is responsible for the lenders' decisions to offer risky loans to minimally qualified borrowers except where the government FORCED them to do so for politically correct reasons.

Oops,
Edit of the last paragraph in my most recent post:

No one is responsible for the lenders' decisions to offer risky loans to minimally qualified borrowers except the lenders themselves. The only exception is when the government FORCED them to do so for politically correct reasons.

Sorry, a kid interrupted me mid-sentence.

JMO51
In re: post 74,

What exempts the elderly and the poor from the responsibility to make wise decisions?

What exempts the elderly and the poor from the responsibility to exercise due diligence when they spend their money?

Does intelligence vanish once someone is over 65? Is there a minimum income level for being a responsible person?

All mentally adults who can live without a keeper are responsible for the decisions they make regardless of age or income level. It is not my responsibility to care for the elderly except for within my own family nor is it my responsibility to support people who won't work to support themselves.

It is especially not my responsibility to keep others in large, luxurious houses nicer than mine when they should have known from the start that they couldn't make their payments unless everything in the future worked out in the best-case scenario.

Not so fast
I don't think the gov't should get a pass on this one. At one time, housing finance was largely the province of S&Ls. FNMA and FHLMC were clean institutions whose purpose was to provide additional liquidity to mortgage lenders when money was tight. Availability, not the price, of money determined how much went into the housing market. Home loans were all "shelf" loans. After deregulation, disintermediation proceeded apace and rates were allowed to "float". Usury limits were abolished. Everybody got into the mortgage business and S&Ls went under when the cost of money exceeded the return on it. All that stuff was governmental. Not wanting to go through adverse rate risk again, lenders totally depended on the mortgage market and no longer kept home loans on the "shelf", safer though they are than most other loans. Since nobody kept their loans, they didn't care what kind of poison they fed FNMA and FHLMC. Government kept the "implicit guarantee" of FNMA and FHLMC in place, leading investors to have more confidence in their securities than they otherwise would have had.

Government has insisted on encouraging home ownership, and merely changed the means by which it encouraged it, causing a lot of losses, poor underwriting and crises since. The simultaneous attempt to maximize home ownership and to let the marketplace determine the price and value of mortgages is fundamentally inconsistent. It must either return to "Mr. Potter" days and have a truly free mortgage market and greatly reduced home ownership, or it must take responsibility for its past interventions and bail out Fannie and Freddie.

Enough Liberalism Already!
“…we were already 3 years into the Depression when FDR was elected. And Hoover did nothing (which was one of FDR's talking points). How did doing nothing help?”

Typical liberal logic: The crash of 1929, followed by the great depression, did not resolve itself instantaneously, and this is seen as proof that letting the economy correct itself was the wrong way to go.

If the great depression lasted 10 years with the government’s intervention, but would have lasted only 5 years without such intervention, wouldn’t that indicate that doing nothing was the better way to go? We don’t know that this would have been the case, but certainly the fact that the economy did not turn itself around in just 3 years does not prove anything.

“…the metro DC area also has some of the highest home prices in the nation.”

And why is that so? Because of a shortage of available building space – which is exactly Sowell’s point. Whether a shortage of space is real (i.e. most of the land is already built on) or artificial (building is restricted), the result is the same: high housing costs.

“the driving impetus was lenders who wanted to rake in ever-increasing profits quarter over quarter so that Wall Street would reward them with increased stock prices.”

It should be no surprise to anyone but a liberal that businesses want to make money (just as liberals do, btw). While there has been plenty of ‘greed’ to go around (greedy borrowers looking to cash in on the real estate boom as well as greedy lenders), Sowell is absolutely right about gov’t regulation that encourages banks to lend to minorities who might otherwise not qualify. Having worked in banking years ago I remember the struggle banks faced trying to meet the conflicting goals of lending proportionately in minority neighborhoods even while these borrowers had lower incomes and credit worthiness.

Debonair
Maybe you should have spent a little more time reading a book (a suggestion-Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell) or researching topics than watching too much TV with all the commercials directed at fools like you to eat up. What's next? Are you going to make us bail out your recent bridge purchases or was is a 'nice piece of property in a swamp' that you bought? Where did you get your education- The Ron Popeil School of Stupidity? You, madame, are the reason Madison Ave exists! BTW,that ring in your nose is there for a reason.

Debonair
Ever hear of "Let the buyer beware"?

If not ever hear of "There's a sucker born every minute"? Because that is you.

JMO51
That is some serious idealogical spin you have got there!

Your problem with Sowell
...is a lack of basic (not conservative) economic understanding.

People respond to incentives. Brokers and loan originators make money on TRANSACTIONS so they have every incentive to market as much as possible. Lenders DON'T (no matter how many fools posit otherwise) make their money in up front fees. They (and borrowers) respond to the market for liquidity and expected returns. When the Fed prices liquidity too low (it did) it pumps money into the lending markets. When it then swings the other way (it did) it creates a credit crunch.

The issue isn't complex at all – it’s just that the straightforward economic conclusion of what precipitated it isn’t what you wish to believe. That’s NOT Sowell's fault. For that matter, the whole cyclicality of the marketplace (what goes up must come down) is driven by government monetary policy.

The dishonest notion that the circumstance is driven by people "preying" on the elderly and the poor is completely unfounded. Certainly there are individual examples of corruption (as with any endeavor involving human beings) but the attempt to portray it as a corporate norm is pure bovine fecal matter.

As usual, it was the government regulations that fed the problem in the first place, just as interstate banking laws drove the Great Depression and the semi-deregulation of the S&Ls (what was left was the problem) precipitated that crisis.

NOTHING repealed over the last 30 years had ANYTHING to do with creating the current situation. It can’t be rationally argued that more regulation has benefited the general public.

As for the economics of public policy, it’s not deficits, per se, that are economically detrimental. It’s government spending of ANY KIND that is detrimental in and of itself, because either directly (taxes) or indirectly (inflation) it is paid for by sapping productive private activities.

re: enough already! @ 12:07
"The stock market crash that precipitated the Great Depression occurred in 1929, the same year that Hoover took office. FDR didn't take office until 1933. And most agree that he Depression was ending by 1937. So we were already 3 years into the Depression when FDR was elected. And Hoover did nothing (which was one of FDR's talking points). How did doing nothing help?"

While Hoover not doing anything may have been an FDR talking point, it is hardly factual. Hoover gave us wage controls, price controls, increased taxes, public works projects and attempted to create commodities cartels. All the while, the Fed handled monetary policy by keeping it too loose for too long.

As for 1937 being the end of the depression...

In 1938 the stock market "re-crashed"
In 1938 the unemployment rate jumped from 12% to 19%
in 1938 GDP fell 3.5%
Our unemployment rate remained well into the double-digits until WW2 broke out.

FDR did such a bad job that he lost 6 senate seats and 71 house seats in 1938. Most of the losses were among pro-New Deal democrats. FDR wrecked this country and was saved by WW2.

Proud Liberal
"Human Sinfulness"?

Debonairhead
You still haven't grasped the difference between brokers and lenders; you have bought into the utter nonsense of the conspiracy to harm the elderly and the poor (not to mention the COMPLETE FICTION that the loan type would be swithced on you) and the pure idiocy that lenders make a bundle off of foreclosed properties. And your "solutions" are the worst kind of twaddle.

The cap on interest rates has already been tried. It inevitably results in HIGHER interest rates because those who would otherwise charge lower rates must finance the risk that rates will at somepoint rise higher than the cap and lose them money. In fact, EVERY time that price caps have been implemented they have harmed the consumer and the economy, either by driving prices up (as in the case mentioned) or by creating shortages that prevent people from getting what they wish (Econ 101).

No one should get a bailout but, again, that is GOVERNMENT action ... which ... is ... the ... problem.

Easy Things First
Why do lenders lend the money for home loans?
Its for the interest! When the loan is paid off, they simply lend the money to someone else
for the INTEREST PAYMENTS.

With a conventional mortgage, a portion of the monthly payment is to reduce the principal. Therefore, in cases where these borrowers get
delinquent, the lender could extend the maturity
date by two or three years and give the borrower the option of paying interest only until the economic slowdown/high energy prices is past. It would cost the lenders nothing to do this.

It is truly in the interest of everyone to have
as many homeowners as possible.

F1etch
Thanks for banging the drum in a clear, concise and logical manner. Your explanations are helping many to understand basic Fed fiscal policy and its consequenses. Don't bother with the Libturds. To them, if it ain't all touchy feely, help the poor, the elderly, the kids, dogs... blah, blah, blah then it's not important. The bottom line is...Personal responsibility and accountability. None of this is beyond the comprehension of anyone entertaining the thought of buying a house, but then again nearly 50% of the electorate supports BO so maybe I am overestimating my fellow citizens. Oh, God. Now I've depressed myself. I guess I'll jump in my gas guzzlin' SUV, drive needlessly around town spewing CO2 into the atmosphere with my second ammendment protected firearms searching out real estate bargains from foreclosures by idiots like Debonaire while I still can. That always cheers me up.

Congress
Foxes in the hen house!
PS Drill Drill Drill Drill Drill Drill and go nuclear

Funny how
those loudest about nature fail to recognize a nutural process. Supply and demand works except when the government gets involved.

Thanks, Doc
The reason for my stances (beyond a decades-long passion for economic history) is one that either stops the libs in their tracks or indces them to resort to ad hominem attacks: I oppose liberal policies because I care about the poor and, without exception, liberal economic policies flatly do not work.

Welfare incents dependency and INCREASES poverty; minimum wage laws do not fight poverty and instead eliminate jobs for those with the fewest skills; socialized medicine results in the rationing of (inferior) care and kills AT LEAST as many people than lack of insurance; price ceilings create shortages (and inferior products and deteriorating housing); price floors create surpluses that get wasted at taxpayer expense; social security gives a raw deal to its recipients while transferring (due to demograhics) resources from poor black men to affluent white women.

Even the liberal complaints are wrong. Commodity specualtion - including for oil - actually DECREASES prices; the conditions that permit "outsourcing" or "offshoring" result in more and better paying jobs here; and so on.

These are not difficult concepts to grasp, but the Left refuses to even make the attempt, instead believing that greedy businessmen set out to shaft the working man when, in almost every case, such action means acting against their own best interests (a premse which is absurd on its face).

One wonders if they'll ever learn. Of course, if they did, they would no longer be modern liberals.

Austin
I don't know, it doesn't sound like such a stupid idea anymore - you may be on to something.

I hope there is a Part III
Dr. Sowell has made some great points in these two columns and I agree with just about everything that he is saying. But the reason I say 'just about' and am wishing for a part 3 is that I see no mention of the rating agencies that contributed to this mess and seem to get very little press. They may have agreed to review and reform their policies moving forward, but that isn't going to replace the billions in write downs that the banks have taken or the additional billions that might be required should the Govt have to step in to stabilize Fannie and Freddie. The Govt may have put pressure on lenders to relax their lending guidelines, but nobody put a gun to their heads to write all these bad loans. The demand for that debt was huge and it was driven by the fact that these bonds were given investment grade ratings. Without that demand, lenders would have tightened up, as they have now, without any government intervention required.

A few posters here,....
...the usual suspects, have predictably attempted to confuse Dr. Sowell's simple economic lessons with a distorted, untrue and/or convoluted undertanding of economic history as well as economic principles.

The government has never created wealth. In the free market and in domestic life, the government has hurt more people than it has ever helped, the latter, if at all.

These usual suspects are still looking for a life without consequences, that which the Democrats promise. These kids fear life, and they're self-destructive. These future serfs also demand company as they insist on a mandate that all must worship at the altar of government.

I has never worked in history, and it has destroyed millions of lives, but, well, this time for sure.

It's true that the poor will always be with us. So will these liberal idiots.

Grievance over the Gov't bailout...
Our newspaper's headlines last week said the government, i.e., taxpayers would have to pay an extra tax to help those who are losing their homes. So who are the taxpayers? Many of us who are already trying to stay afloat in an ever increasing economy. I am sorry for them, but many of those houses were so far superior to my own, and with my limited income, it grieves me to think my taxes will go up so that they can have the finer homes while we struggle to make ends meet with what we have. We denied ourselves many things in order to pay for our home, a modest duplex. There is an old maxim: "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." Many of us lived by that so we could buy our homes, and now, we must help others pay when some of those home owners have not done that. The restaurants are full with people who eat out, have the latest fashions in clothing, take nice trips or vacations, do many things we could not afford. It is not fair to expect us to help them out by taxing us. When we use up our savings and become down and out, who will help us? I doubt if they will be able to.

Proud Liberal
In a free and fair market, the government's role is to ensure the "fair" part, nothing more, nothing less. That means making sure the market is competitive and that both parties to the transaction deliver what they promise.

The problem comes when government interferes with the "free" part, by dictating rates, mandating quotas of loans to those with poor credit, or providing implicit or explicit guarantees against failure, in effect rewarding bad judgment.

In my opinion, the utopian fiction is the fundamental assumption that both parties to the transaction are looking out for their own best interests. I think we've become so accustomed to government holding our hands that we've forgotten how to look after ourselves. Back in the days when people were put in prison for not paying their debts, do you think you would have millions of people who "didn't realize" their adjustable rate mortgage was going to adjust? Now, we have the nanny government saying, "I know you didn't pay yet for that mortgage ice cream cone you dropped, but we're going to keep getting you better and better ones and make sure the mean ice cream man gets it right."

The pro from dover...

"These usual suspects are still looking for a life without consequences, that which the Democrats promise."
-------------------------------------------

Nicely Put! What else to say, you're right.


Karl B.

You have created a straightforward, logical, and honest assessment of proper government involvement in the free markets.

In other words... King Liberal won't understand a single word you typed :)

federal govt
this is the same federal govt that most idiot liberals want to trust to run our healthcare system,no thanks,i can think of no program that the federal govt runs well

federal govt
this is the same federal govt that most idiot liberals want to trust to run our healthcare system,no thanks,i can think of no program that the federal govt runs well,i will be for national health insurance when congress has the same type of healthcare that they want the rest of us to have

Obama will fix it
Everything will be OK. Obama will make it all better. He will kiss the country's booboo and make all better.

F1etch
Great chapter in Sowell's latest book, Economic Facts and Fallacies, which documents exactly what you say about poverty. Why is it so obvious that those who profess to 'care' and want to 'save' the 'unfortunate' are in fact making the problem and situation for those exact people worse to everyone but the Libs.

I'll spend my time, money and energy teaching my brothers to fish. But I'll be damned if I am going to sit idly by and let the do-gooder schmucks (aka Libs) steal (appropriate) my hard earned money in some misguided redistribution program giving away the fish. If 40+% of MY EARNINGS isn't enough for them, they'll never get another nickel.
Someone please tell me why 3+ Trillion dollars is somehow not enough of OUR money for the government to spend. When will it be enough?

Not just Democrats
Granted, the Dems are further over to the left in general than the GOP. But unfortunately this has become (as I think Sowell indicates) not just a Dem vs Republican matter. While we acknowledge that there are some good people in Congress, in general Congress as a whole has sold out the Country. I noticed on today's news even GWB is caving in on the latest bailout. The Fannie/Freddie thing is a government disgrace from top to bottom and we the taxpayers are going to pay for it.

Mel
One small correction. Only the responsible taxpayers will pay for it. The rest of the irresponsible people who got caught in this 'give-away' will benefit from our hard work.

Kinda like the stimulus package- aka welfare boost. For those of us who made more than some arbitrarily determined amount (and by the way paid in considerably more) we got nothing. But those who don't even pay any taxes get $600. Does anyone wonder why after this mortgage debacle? The reason they gave it to low income earners is because these people will spend it in whatever mindless manner grabs them at the moment (just like they did with insane mortgages they couldn't pay). This is what the Fed geniuses hope will boost our 11 Trillion dollar economy. What a bunch of dopes. Do me a favor in the future. Just send me a letter and tell me to write the check and give it to my neighbor. Short of holding me up at gun point, how have they not stolen from me?

FDR
Franklin D. Roosevelt got us out of the Great Depression by dying.

Bankrupt exploiters
Let the Banks fold and the housing market close up. People to stupid to read or write get what they deserve, and those that lend then the money, are not exception to the rules of 'Buyer beware'.
There is a ton of wisdom in what was said by some long ago business and comedic wise guys.
'There is a fool born every Second', said P.T.Barnum, 'Never place your faith in a man that smiles a lot, for he has his hand on your wallet', my Grandfather.
'Only fools rush in, where Angles dare not enter', and as fools, Congress has rushed in and given away money, to those that created it in the first place.
PS. That stimulus check you got had better appear on your 1040/1040A next year.

SHELL GAME
This pack of thieves we call Congress is doing nothing but hiding the pea under the walnut shell with each and every bailout they perform. The debt continues to pile up, your tax money is again wasted into perpetuity and it is like an overused credit card debt, you can never pay it off but you can be bankrupted.

These lardbutts fear the people and the free enterprise system, the idea is to wrap all the burden you can around capitalism, suffocate it and it will cease to flourish, only then can we have socialisitic communism and the spirit of freedom will be like that in N. Korea....

I'm in favor
of about 10 million of us marching on Washington DC and making several hundred citizens arrests for high crimes and treason.

The Fleecing of America
Really shocking- the "men in the grey flannel suits" (aka "congress") have sold us down the river. Another multi-billion dollar "bailout" to cover the rear sides of their rich buddies, at the cost of the American people and future generations. Just tack it on to the 9 trillion and rapidly growing debt. Who is going to pay for it?? Not the pashas in the grey flannel suit bunch, with their million dollar retirment plans, and their self-serving 'executive club' buddies. These folks are looting this country's treasury, and mortaging its future to hopeless unpayable debt. Wake up, America!

Condescension
...and old rattler would be the pig.....

Well Robert,
I'd rather have their help than that of a fat old blowhard such as yourself.

Condescendingly Smug
...and of course,you being so superior to the rest of us, are worthy to mock others.

That's what rats do...play with the mice.

Andy
I know you have a burn on for Congress. But it was the federal reserve thar engineered the bailout of Bear Sterns. And it was Paulson at the treasury department a part of the executive branch that engineered the loag guarantees Fanny and Freddie. You can brame a lot on Congress but not this one. Although the Fed is independent from the executive branch, Bush selected the Fed Chairman Ben Bernackie.

Why give Bush a pass? Could it be cause he is a Republican?

Mac
Congress had nothing to do with the Fanny/Freddy Bailout it was treasury. Congress was advised by this was an executive branch decision.

Lolo1
No. What Sowell gave you was spin. Capitalism is the engine of our society. But it does need regulation to function effectively. Not too much regulation but enough. We need the SEC, Federal Reserve and Yes, EPA. These are not entitlement agencies. Entitlements are an ideological matter but regulatory agencies are necessary to protect both the Public and Industry and every time the regulators some doing their jobs we have a crisis and a bailout.

Can regulations be overdone or over restrictive or biased in favor of one groups economic interest over another. Sure they can and those are bad regulations and worthy of scrutiny. But no regulation or lax enforcement is also terrible.


Mother of 4
Let the Buyer beware is certainly the way of capitalism, but how far are you willing to take that should you have to have you kids toys tested for lead paint before they can play or should you be able to rely on your government to consumer protections.

Tthe role of regulation is not to eliminate risk, that is bad for society, but people should not have to become experts when they but a car or take out a mortgage. Some people know better and did not care and they should not have any recourse. People who were lied to or steered to Arms when they were eligible for Fix loans with good terms should be able to sue everyone up the line who participated in this deception.

These were the exceptions not the rule.

JMO51 -- irt caveat emptor

"... people should not have to become experts when they but a car or take out a mortgage. "

That's why you go to third party experts. E.g., when you want to buy a car, you consult the AAA, the Consumers Report, the auto magazines (taken with a grain of salt due to advertising, but useful nevertheless).

These third party experts have been around for a long time, and many people have made use of their services in their buying decisions. And in this day of the all-pervasive Internet, there is absolutely no excuse for a buyer to remain ignorant.

OH!!! F1etch makes a Joke!
"Educate yourself."

OH, THAT'S A GOOD ONE, FLETCH!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

(wait a sec -- you weren't serious were you?)

I mean, it was all over YouTube
Uh Dr,

I know that you're the Grand Pooh-bah of Conservative Social/Economic Theology but...Did you not see the Video? You know, the one with our president candidly admitting (after having the "cameras turned off") that "Wall Street got Drunk"?...As a Mortgage Professional, formerly enployed by a Wall St Inv Bank, I'll ask that please stop the "blame it on the minorities and poor people" campaign. I LOVE our Capitalistic freedom but what's happened here is simple. It's the Fed (who is Lender of last resort) bailing out Wall St after WE chased after the $$$$ based on a flawed and unregulated ponzi scheme. I'm not big on gov't regulation but it ridiculous to advocate Capitalism policing itself with regards to banking. It won't work. Wall St will ALWAYS sacrifice integrity for $$$ by pushing the envelope to establish a competitive advantage. The "lenders" here, ARE the culprits and they should have been allowed to fail when the market dictated. The biggest fiscal decision over the last 20 years is when the Fed bailed out Bear Sterns. THAT is the where the "government" stepped in and made things worse. Investment Banks don't "produce" anything but money. If they use questionable financial vehicles (mortgage backed securites)to produce capital, they should bear the risk associated with this. That's Fiscal Conservatism.

Stock Market history & current loan mess
Amen to your articles. I've been telling everyone about the stupid legislation regarding giving loans without proper financial history is like inviting the wolf to dinner.

It's amazing how many people still don't understand that the crash of 1929 didn't cause the depression. They never take a look at Hoover's tariff or that great brainstorm called "The New Deal" that took so much money out of the private sector for a bunch of stupid jobs and projects. Yes, we have a beautiful lodge on Mt. Hood, but private enterprise could have done so much better. If we could just dump Capitol Hill in Chesapeake Bay until after the election, we'd all be better off.

Mortgage Lenders Responsible
I have to disagree here. As someone with years of experience in the mortgage industry, I'd like to point out the difference between the government mandated "Community Reinvestment Act" (CRA) loans and the general credit policies of mortgage lenders. The government did not mandate that lenders loosen their lending policies to the level that they have over the past several years--greed did. The major mortgage lenders competed based on who could be the most lax with their credit guidelines. Also, don't forget that just because a lender is servicing a loan, it doesn't mean that they own that loan. They could have sold it off to an investor such as Fannie or Freddie.

It's hardly surprising...
...that those making such demonstrably false statements choose to ignore it when they are demonstrated to be so – particularly by those who wish to pretend that the problem is one of “conservative” economics. The question is asked: why is Bush being let off the hook? He is not. He is subject to severe criticism when he adopts failed liberal positions as well, such as the Daschle-Leiberman $300 tax rebate checks (the one portion of the tax cuts that didn’t help), the non-stimulating “stimulus checks” and, now, the Paulson bailout plan (which Dems have been eager to pass and which has drawn staunch criticism from House Republicans - according to that right wing bastion … The Washington Post). It isn’t even an issue of party, liberal economic policies have NEVER worked regardless of who promoted them.

The simple unadorned fact is that there is not a single set of regulations (banking laws, Sarbanes-Oxley, the EPA, the SEC, the FDA and on and on that cannot be shown to have done considerably more harm than good. It isn’t a question of expecting bankers (or anyone else for that matter) to “police themselves”. The un-interfered with MARKET polices them. In fact, it is the PRESUMED (and largely illusory) protection provided by government intervention that convinces people that they needn’t take any responsibility for their own decision making. That’s why morons feel that they are entitled to huge cash payouts because they couldn’t figure out that cigarettes aren’t good for you or that coffee is hot and shouldn’t be spilled in your lap or that eating three Big Macs a day just might cause you to be stalked by Captain Ahab.

People have more need of protection from GOVERNMENT and their own obvious misconceptions.

Disconnects
The bottom line is that when you disconnect risk from reward you are going to eventually have a catastrophe.

First off Dr. Sowell is correct. When we push banks to provide loans that they otherwise wouldn't, they follow the law and look for ways to reduce (i.e. push to someone else) the associated additional risk. So being business men and women, they invent CDOs, package up the garbage loans in a pretty package and thereby unload that at least some of that risk to less savvy investors. This has the affect of once again disconnecting risk from reward. And this all of a sudden looks pretty good to the banks so they extend the practice to other types of credit risks they shouldn’t take on.

The watchdogs – Moody’s S&P et al -- go to sleep (or go on the take) and call this junk 'investment grade'. Greed steps in and investment houses see these CDOs as a new avenue to sell products.

Finally one day, the people who got these loans are unable to pay them and the vicious cycle begins. The market realizes (all at once as the market is wont to do) these bags of garbage stink. The market plummets the banks can't sell these 'investment vehicles' and are stuck with all this brand new garbage. The investment houses are holding their own bags of garbage. And now in steps the government to make sure stupid businesses and stupid investors and people who should have never had such credit feel no pain.

And thus will begin a new cycle of catastrophe.

hey oh!
Well, I think this sums it up nicely.

"The last thing politicians can do in an election year is nothing. So we can look for all sorts of "solutions" by politicians of both parties. Like most political solutions, these are likely to make matters worse."

The market economy will always outproduce the non-market or public sector. Government is a major part of our problems today. If they didn't regulate energy out of this country, our energy crisis would be non-existent. Many other such examples are readily available as well. Social Security, Welfare programs, public education...the list goes on

I saw this one coming!
I have been saying for years that people were buying homes they COULD NOT AFFORD, that if they would stop giving loans to people who want to buy a 1/2 million dollar home, or million dollar home, etc., that the prices would come down. I kept saying this cannot last, people getting interest only loans, ARM, that the bubble would have to break. It did. I have a friend who got a loan, interest only, 1 or 2%. ARM. So in a couple of years she will be right back where she was last year - foreclosure. She almost lost her house, she didn't make payments for months. She didn't pay property taxes for years. These people do not deserve to be bailed out. She wanted me to loan her the money. If you keep bailing these people out, they will NEVER learn!

ARM'S And Foolish Buyers
An ARM is not something to connect the hand to the shoulder. It is not a body part.

If a buyer is too naive to know that an Adjusted Rate Mortgage means your payment will fluctuate,they do not need to purchase a house.

Fluctuate means payments can go up or down. Murphy's law does not apply. They will NOT GO DOWN. Thay will only go up.

A buyer who thinks they can buy a $500,000 house and only pay interest on it,without a day of reckonibg,does not need to buy a house.

A lender who lends to the naive or uneducated person,should not expect taxpayers to bail their arses out when they collapse. They deserve to lose.

Bravo!
As always, Dr Sowell is right on the money (pardon the pun). If the government really wants to perform a public service via legislation, they would make "Basic Economics" and "Black Rednecks & White Liberals"required reading and courses in every school system in the land.

DC -- Education
"If the government really wants to perform a public service via legislation, they would make "Basic Economics" and "Black Rednecks & White Liberals"required reading and courses in every school system in the land."

Heck with that.

I'd be happy if we could as little as ten percent of Congress and the "mainscream media".

I'd be happy if we could get ten percent to take ANY college-level economics class. Just so they'd have AT LEAST sense enough to know you can't just print more money then throw it at problems.

F1etch
I have seen some very good explanations of the cause of the failure of the market system. Truth hurts and JMO51 have described the facts much more accurately than Mr. Sowel. Mr. Sowell solution for everything is elimination of "Local, State and Federal Regulations". While I agree that it is complicated and frustrating to conform to a variety of these requirement, they have put in place because of previous abuses.

F1etch #2
Your comment "banking laws, Sarbanes-Oxley, the EPA, the SEC, the FDA and on and on that cannot be shown to have done considerably more harm than good." is patently ridiculous. The EPA rules have dramatically helped clean the environment. Yes they are a pain but so is polluted drinking water. The FDA? Lead poisoning. Center for Disease control monitoring and stopping the spread of Asian Flu and countless other potential epidemicks (sp?).
SEC? Illegal shares trading by insiders. Enron.
Please stop your ranting and look at some facts.

Nice try pablo
The causal effect of a cleaner environment resultant from FDA regulations (as opposed to the HUGE positive corellation between economic prosperity and a cleaner environment is difficult to discern at best. The EPA policy against DDT (based on bad science) and the policy internationally that resulted in preventing US aid to countries using DDT has literally killed millions (mostly children and the elderly). In addition, the economic costs of EPA regulations have actually hampered development of other (potentially better) environmental solutions.

It must be remembered that the SEC DID NOT PREVENT ENRON. Deliberate fraud by the owners of a company is essentially undetectable until a collapse occurs and is overwhelmingly prevented by MARKET forces that prevent companies from sacrificing their future market credibility (and therefore earnings capability) for short term gain. The SEC also had a great deal of input into Sarbanes-Oxley which has cost the economy hundreds of billions (perhaps more than a trillion) while not actually enacting ANYTHING that would have prevented any of the scandals that preceded it (and which combined cost the economy tens of billions).

Meanwhile, every time the FDA tells you that after 10 years of consideration, they have approved a drug that will save 30,000 lives a year, they are explicitly telling you that their imposed delay KILLED 300,000 people. The CDC, btw, isn;t a regulating body.

Your embrace of JM's "explanation" over Dr. Sowell's comes from the same lack of basic economic knowledge and a desire to believe an explanation consistent with one's personal worldview rather than on research and appliance of economic laws. That failing on your part is neither Dr. Sowell's fault nor my own.

Still more, pablo
"Insider trading laws" are essentially an American invention that don't exist elsewhere. Thier apparent benefit (like anti-trust laws) is illusory. To give a well publicized example, Martha Stewart (not that I am a fan of any of her products, but that's just me) went to jail for supposedly benefiting by $60,000 from insider training. The aggressive prosecution of now-disgraced Elliot Spitzer cost shareholders MILLIONS.

Your reliance on regulations is based on the (completely baseless) assumption that greedy businessmen will harm consumers if regulatory bodies aren't there to reign them in. The whole premise is absurd on its face. That would require businessmen to act against their own interests and put themselves out of business.

To give a perfect example, last year contamination appeared in a number of pet foods using ingredients from China. While China has been ever so slowly embracing more capitalism, their productive capacity is still overwhelmingly socialist and not restrained by market forces (or its likely the contamination would not have occurred in the first place). The contamination was of a type literally NO ONE would have expected or tested for (even by the FDA in human foods).

When a problem was detected, pet food manufacturers, in order to protect their reputations and future sales VOLUNTARILY recalled huge amounts of product (including much that was not contaminated) in order to protect their customers and their reputations.

Similarly, when some nutjob tampered with Tylenol bottles, the company VOLUNTARILY recalled their product for the same reason. In neither case was regualtory action involved.

pablo, conclusion
It was Fed mismanagement and interstate banking laws (that concentrated risk in localized areas) that CAUSED the Great Depression and forced so many banks to fail, exacerbating the problem. It was the PARTIAL deregulation of S&Ls - penned primarily by Fernand St. Germain (D-FL) - which attempted to make them capable of competing with other lending institutions while, at the same time, keeping them in their tradityional role (an impossibility) that CAUSED the S&L crisis. It was the PARTIAL deregulation of energy (that still left price caps in place) that CAUSED the electricity crisis in California (not Enron despite liberal mythology).

Put simply, as someone once said to me, you should "[p]lease stop your ranting and look at some facts."

pablo - addendum
Perhaps the real problem is the liberal (and absolutely imbecilic) belief that the mortgage crisis that has come into being, or so very many other examples that liberals paint with the same brush (all the way back to the the tulip craze in the 1600s) is "failure of the market system" when the facts - the real ones as opposed to liberal mythology - demonstrate that the only "failure" was one of government policy.

F1etch
I agree with a lot of the points that you made but I have to take slight issue with the conclusion of your final post to pablo. There are many factors that led to this situation, many of them easily tied back to government intervention. However, you cannot deny that the rating agencies played a big role in this mess and there is no oversight or government regulation involved when it comes to assigning credit ratings. The fact that the credit markets have tightened as a result, not of new government regulations but of the collapse of value and then demand for the CDO's, should show that. Unca Alby made a good point about Consumer Reports and similar third party 'experts' that consumers turn to when making important purchasing decisions. Investors are doing the same thing when they turn to S&P or Moody's to assure them of the level of risk they are taking and price they are willing to pay for it. But when those third parties are actually involved not only in the rating of these products but are compenstated by the producers to help them contruct them, how can you trust them to truly be an independent voice? These loans were written because the lenders knew they had a robust secondary and tertiary market for them. Who doesn't love high yield returns with investment grade risk?
I'm not endorsing the idea that government should step in and rescue anybody, or that we should do away with the free market system that has made us the most powerful economic power in the history of civilization. I'm only saying that it is disengenous to put the blame squarely on the shoulders of government when there were certainly market factors involved in this mess as well.

LeftRudyRight
I am not arguing in favor of governmental rescue either, but I STILL must place the blame squarely on the shoulders of government.

Your perceptions are largely correct, but that you need to dig a little deeper to get from symptom to cause. In the case of both the behavior of those ultimate lenders and of the various rating agencies to which you refer, it is relatively easy to say, in hindsight, that their decisions and evaluations of creditworthiness were in error. Further, it is also correct that there is no regulatory intervention that caused that particular error (the effect of regulations that induced lenders to select borrowers under CRA or similar guidelines did not involve a miscalculation about their general creditworthiness).

Both the lenders and the ratings agencies made the decisions that they did based upon the signals that the marketplace – specifically the marketplace for liquidity – was sending them. It is essentially what they do and, under ordinary circumstances, this causes no problems whatsoever. But the circumstances were NOT ordinary. By manipulating the credit markets – pricing liquidity far well below market levels – the Fed was drastically altering the market signals that the lenders and rating agencies were responding to. By then curtailing liquidity – rapidly, in market terms, raising the cost of liquidity ABOVE market levels, the Fed made the results of those earlier decisions even worse.

The failure was not in the “market factors” themselves because the crisis could never have come into being if the Fed (an agency of government) had not manipulated them in the first place. Blaming the market is like blaming an elementary school kid’s performance in a race because for a while some adult carried him and then that same adult sat on him.

One more point
The great flaw in the argument that lenders made decisions to lend to uncreditworthy borrowers because of the "robust secondary and tertiary market for them" runs into the problem that, overwhelmingly, the purchasers of this paper were other mortgage lenders. The primary purpose of the secondary mortgage market is for such lenders to spread their risk. If, as is typically the case, local or regional banks make many of their loans in a relatively confined marketplace, they are at significant risk that a localized downturn could cripple them. For this reason, they sell these loans to other lenders in other markets AND buy mortgage paper written for other locales in order to diversify their portfolio.

If the lenders believed that the loans they were writing were not sound, they would not have purchased the paper from other lenders operating in the same national marketplace.

In addition, the returns on such paper were not tremendous - as pointed out even by my detractors, much of the return for some of the creatively financed instruments was collected in up front payments (often to loan originators or brokers rather than final lenders). The bundled loans were sold with a return based upon the long-term payment streams of the underlying notes. Again, neither the lenders nor the rating agencies would have regarded these instruments as they did had the liquidity markets been allowed to function normally.

F1etch
Again, I think most of what you say is spot on, but I think some of what I was trying to say may have been lost in how quickly I was trying to say it. Your assesment of the Fed's involvement as one of, if not the most critical of underlying causes is absolutely correct. But the role of the rating agencies in first using faulty methodology to rate the creditworthiness of these securities and then pulling the rug out by downgrading the stuff en masse when defaults started to pick up while basically saying 'our bad' is what turned this from a correction in the credit markets to a full blown credit crisis. The fall in home prices and tightening of credit then continued to fuel each other to make matters even worse. If this debt had been rated and priced correctly, the demand simply would not have been as high as it was. Rates would have been raised by the lenders in order to attract buyers in the secondary markets causing a drop in demand from borrowers, all done with no government intervention. People with bad credit will pay off debts and get cash out when the rates are lower than their credit cards, car loans, etc, but with higher rates, the demand just wouldn't have been there. The Fed built the fire and the rating agencies and banks doused it with lighter fluid. Now they've got a $485B 5 alarmer and we all get stuck trying to put out the flames.

F1etch
For some reason, the second part of your post to me was not visible when I was typing my reply. I've got a few issues with this part of your argument. What exactly do you mean by "overwhelmingly, the purchasers of this paper were other mortgage lenders"? What is overwhelming, because I need a number to either help support your claim or refute it. Just consider that somewhere close to 75% of subprime loans were securitized. If lenders were simply buying other loans to diversify their credit risk, they could do that without paying the premiums to investment banks required to structure that debt. UBS alone has written down more than $35B. Are you trying to tell me that they were purchasing US subprime CDO's to offset subprime loans they were underwriting elsewhere? Please take a look at this list and tell me how many of these were purchasing subprime debt to offset the risk of loans that they themselves were underwriting.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aK4Z6C2 kXs3A&refer=home

As far as the 'tremendous returns'. On a risk adjusted basis (based on the faulty ratings), yes, many of these CDO's offered tremendous returns. If you go back and look at the coupons being paid out on those offerings vs their comparably rated investment grade debt, you would see why the demand for them was so high. The returns made by the banks had nothing to do with loan origination fees or broker commissions. They charge a premium for structuring that debt as well as a commission to the purchaser of the debt. Your diagnosis of the Fed's role was great, but I'm not so sure you have a handle on structured debt and its role in this mess.

But that's just it
The decisions of the ratings agencies were not "their bads" when they were made; they were completely consistent with the market conditions AT THE TIME. The en masse downgrading of the securities coincided with the CHANGE in market conditions as the Fed shifted from a too-free money policy to a too-expensive one. Both the nature AND the degree of the correction were inevitable (as opposed to being fueled by the altered behavior of investors and rating agencies that resulted). There is no way to create a “soft landing” in the wake of malinvestments resulting from altered market signals. That is, in fact, the underlying cause of the entire boom and bust cycle that some attribute to capitalism. The Fed actually attempts to create such mythical “soft landings” (and they’re at it again now to a significant extent) but that only serves to delay the inevitable and, invariably, make the magnitude of the correction even worse.

The fall in home prices and the tightening of credit are direct results of the cost of liquidity in the marketplace. Higher interest rates increase the cost of housing which forces down housing values even when all other things are held equal. Much of the tightening of credit is really nothing more than a lack of availability of credit for housing assets that have decreased in value and thus cannot support the financing. At the bank where I work (with microscopic losses in our lending portfolio) the percentage of declined applications has quadrupled with no change in underwriting criteria at all.

Thus, I would argue that the economic fire always exists, but that the Fed initially handed out buckets of gasoline in the form of excess liquidity and, when the fire got sufficiently hot, stole everyone’s water buckets by not merely raising rates to market levels (which still would have left a mess – there ain’t no free lunch) but by going beyond them.

F1etch
Sorry if this ends up as a double post. While I'm glad that you're bank is doing well, I would have to guess that it is a retail bank as opposed to an I bank and that you do not work in structured debt. If you did, I feel that you would not be so easy on the rating agencies. "The decisions of the ratings agencies were not "their bads" when they were made; they were completely consistent with the market conditions AT THE TIME." How could they assess a market that had not previously existed? It's just not possible, they had to compare apples (traditional mortgages and their historic defalut rates) with oranges (subprime, NINA, etc). When structured products and derivatives (which is what put DRCM under) are issued, investors depend on the rating agencies and issuers to do the due diligence on the underlying investments held in those portfolios. If they had the ability to do it on their own they wouldn't pay the premiums to the I banks that they do to structure these investments and the I banks would never hire the rating agencies. They would both be obsolete. In this case it just didn't happen. I promise you that I'm not making this stuff up. If you have a minute, please take a quick look at the links below. When hedge fund managers, who are not exactly the biggest oversight or regulation proponents, are going after these guys, I have to think something wasn't right.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601170&refer=home& sid=ajdL7eUHeUro
http://www.cnbc.com/id/22811165/
http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/11699984/c_2984347/?f=archiv es
http://money.cnn.com/2007/08/20/magazines/fortune/ratings_a gencies.fortune/index.htm


F1etch
Btw, I would still like to see evidence that "overwhelmingly, the purchasers of this paper were other mortgage lenders". I have not found any documentation to support that assertion. While you could say that some of the banks on the Bloomberg list I linked earlier owned either retail or wholesale mortgage lenders, many of those had a national presence (Nat City, ETrade), others did not operate subprime lending operations, and still others are foreign banks with no lending operations in the US at all. That would seem to directly contradict your assertion that they "sell these loans to other lenders in other markets AND buy mortgage paper written for other locales in order to diversify their portfolio." Many of these financial institutions had either loans to buy or sell, but not both. I'm not saying that the transactions that you describe don't happen, but they don't require securitization and as I mentioned in an earlier post something like 75% of subprime loans ended up securitized.
Thanks for the dialogue, have a nice weekend.

Common thread in all Liberal actions
Where you have noticed it or not the Libs, without fail, seek methods to make America look bad and fail at every venture. Why you might ask...It's simple. If America fails as it is currently set up the Libs can remake it in their own twisted way. Get a clue folks, Liberals of every stripe want to turn this country into a Communist state...with themselves in charge of everything. That is why many of us will never turn over our guns!

Ignorant article Ignores the truth
Let wise old slacker enlighten you on the real issue. This article doesn't even come close to articulating it.

Blaming the government for all the worlds problems is no different than blaming lenders, mortgage brokers and the nebulous but nefarious "wall street".

Government didn't come up with the slicing and dicing of mortgages into "structured investment vehicles" that the people who bought them didn't understand. Or even try to understand as long as they seemed immensely profitable.

Government didn't force lenders to make "interest only loans" with incrediblly low teaser rates that only a very sophisticated home buyer or speculator should take out. Nor did it force lenders to make such loans to first time home buyers that had no chance of keeping their homes when the rates reset.

Lenders make loans when they think they can make a profit on them. They don't make loans when they believe they will lose money. They don't give a rats @ss about vague government policies for increasing loan rates to minorities in blighted inner cities.

In my next post I will explain the root of the problem. It is not what Sowell claims it is.

The TRUE Origin of the Crisis
THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM is that lenders were able to make loans and book them as assets without assuming any of the risk that the loans may never be repaid. This is only possible when two conditions exist:

1) People are willing to take out loans for homes which they are unlikely to pay back, placing themselves in grave danger of losing their home and all the mortgage payments they make on it.

2) there are fools willing to buy the risk that lenders would default from the banks so the bank doesn't care whether people pay the loans back or not.

How could these two things happen?

Take condition 2 first. The financial whizes in the industry came up with the idea of massing these mortgages into packages, along with a smattering of good mortgages, and selling slices of the packages to hedge funds and investment banks offering a high rate of return. Because the financial models underlying the way in which risk was assessed in these packages, the investors who bought them thought they were getting a great return with a level of risk they were comfortable with. Nothing, in fact, could be further from the truth.

Next decades of experience had led home buyers to believe that housing prices always go up, but never go down. Second home owners have been accustomed to thinking their home is their biggest and most secure investment. Thus they believe they HAVE to own their home and the bigger the better as long as it is financed with other people's money.

The consequence of these two factors is the root cause of our current crisis.

Thought experiment
To prove my analysis is correct, perform the following thought experiement.

Imagine a couple renting an apartment that is too small for the family and they dream of owning a house with a yard and all the trimmings. They go to their bank and ask for a mortgage to buy a house.

Now imagine you are the loan officer at the bank. You are measured and depend for salary and promotion on making good loans that don't cause problems for the bank. You look at the mortgage the couple is asking for. They can afford at most $1500 a month. A 30 year fixed at current interest rates will cost them $1900 a month. You KNOW they can't afford this house and will default in a year or two. Do you risk your job and make the loan? Obviously not.

Now the whiz kid VP of the bank comes to you and says I can sell any loan you make to Bear Stearns or some other investment bank and get my money back immediately for you to loan again to someone else. Even better I will let you bring the interest rate down to 1% for the first year and allow them to only pay interest for the first year. It will only cost the couple $1100 a month for the first year. After that the interest rates will reset, but what do we care, we have already sold the loan and don't care if they can make the payments which will be $2200 a month by then even if interest rates don't go up.

Do you make the loan now? Of course you do. And the couple will sign for it with greatful tears in their eyes. After all, they think, this house will double in value in 2 years. Even if we can't make the payments we can sell and get a hefty profit out of it. In the mean time we live like kings and queens!

Thought Experiment Concluded
Wait, you think. Slacker's thought experiment does make sense, but who would be STUPID ENOUGH to buy that lame mortgage off that mortgage broker or local bank? They would be the fool holding the bag when the couple defaults and take all the losses. In addition they would be stuck with the house which probably won't be worth what they paid for it after they have lived in it and trashed it for 2 years. They can't affort the mortgage, much less keep up with the repairs and upkeep.

The trick is this: The person or fund that buys the loan NEVER SEES THE CONDITIONS THAT UNDERLIE IT. NOR DO THEY SEE ANY OF THE RISK THEY ARE ASSUMING WHEN THEY BUY THE MORTGAGE.

What they buy is a "structured investment vehicle" that is made up of hundreds or thousands of loans. This bad loan is burried in it. There are many other loans that are halfway decent, but this loan is mis-represented by the investment bank and the rating agencies that rate the package as a "good" though not excellent loan for inclusion in a package.

So the person or fund that is buying all or a piece of the "structured investment vehicle" is assured that they are getting a package of "good and excellent" loans. The rating agency rating says there is little risk they will lose any money. Because the package is rated "good" and not "excellent" they get a very high return on their investment. But the rating tells them their risk is that they may not get as HIGH a return as promised. They believe the rating tells them there is no chance they will lose any of their principal.

If by chance they look into the formulas that calculate the rating and their risks they are overwhelmed by equations people with advanced degrees from major financial institutons cannot fully comprehend or validate. But the people who made the equations are raking in money hand over fist and are the most respected people in the industry.

Of course they buy.

So now you know
There is no easy answer to this mess.

I am not advocating any agenda. But its not just "the governments's fault" or "just the idiot homeowner's fault" or just the "fault of nefarious people on wall steet" or "the rating agencies". They all had a hand in this mess, but without all of them closing their eyes and participating, it would not have been possible.

However, you can fool all the investors some of the time, and you can fool some of the investors all of the time, but you can't fool all of them all the time. Sooner or later someone wakes up and claims the sky is falling.

And this time they are right.

Now the issue is how do you fix this going forward, knowing this exact scenario will never occur again. People will be too smart for it.

What you really have to worry about is the next get rich scheme that will be thought up by mostly well intentioned whiz kids and sophisticated financial institutions. So Sowell is partly right. If you try to set up regulations to protect against this scheme, they won't save you from the next. But the answer is not to throw up your hands and give up.

As the Fed and the Bush administration says, the boys holding the bag now, the big investment banks, Fannie Mae etc are "too big to fail."

But they are also too big to allow a free hand to create a similar crisis in the next decade or so.

Whence came this creative solution?
I don't believe Thomas Sowell's perspective is that government can't do anything, so it should "throw it's hands and give up." I believe his position is that intervention in the market is not the proper role of government, that government distorts the market, and that market corrections are either delayed or defeated when government intervenes.

This is the classic rivalry between the idea that the economy is best managed through the decisions of millions of individual actors with specific knowledge of their particular situations and varying degrees of expertise versus management through some sort of central planning, with the expectation that a handful of individuals are ingeniously "expert enough" to know everything about everything and anticipate all possible downstream effects of their decisions beforehand. History has not worked out well for the latter worldview and the scenario is repeating itself yet again.

As far as the creative bundling of high risk debtors with medium and low risk debtors in a debt instrument sold to a third party, I've been aware of this practice, but was under the impression that it was originally a creative solution designed to turn the bad risk loans that lenders were being pressured/encouraged to make in the name of fairness into something that could be profitable. The early success of this practice and the strong encouragement from government got this ball rolling. Countrywide was hailed by government officials for quite some time for handing out precisely the sort of loans that got it into trouble.

Yes, nearly everyone involved shares part of the blame for the eventual results, but it was the governments initial market distortions -- forcing creditors to behave as if their reasons for denying certain loans were not valid -- that provided the initial push and incentive for starting and continuing this bad practice.

And also...
One of the key problems with government intervention in the market is that decisions are made that have nothing to do with business principles. A bureaucrat who saw minority neighborhoods not getting loans would see the entire sitution through the lens of their idea of "social justice" and would honestly think of the businesses involved as entities with bottomless pools of cash who would be rich regardless of how they behaved. Such is the nature of bureaucrats who have never had to meet a payroll.

dang I wish you were required reading!
As most always you have it nailed! I just need to find a way to slip you under my public school teacher friend's nose. congrats Mr. Sowell

Ridiculous Analysis!Repulicans to Blame!
Blaming the subprime lending crisis on the Democrats because they overturned Redlining practices is like blaming the lynching of free black men in the late 1800s on Abraham Lincoln.

The problem began because the Republican administration relaxed the usury laws enabling greedy loan companies to establish predatory lending practices. They deliberately targeted borrowers who may not have understood what they were signing or lending to people who could never meet the terms of their loans. Many of these loans included exorbitant fees and hidden terms and conditions, and they frequently led to default, seizure of collateral, and foreclosure. The bottom line is, we are here due to their GREED!!!
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.