- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 5,418
- Reaction score
- 1,903
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Again, that had little or nothing to do with the problem. The vast majority of the bad loans were given out by private lenders who were not subject to affordable housing regulations. In fact the crisis would have been worse without CRA as low income folks would instead have gone to private lenders who were performing NO credit checks and handing out loans that were more expensive and had less disclosure.
Because the govenrment creates a securitization scheme when it was coopeted by banks pleading to address the initial dysfunction brought about by government meddling in the market. government interference cobined with corporatism was the problem.
eone who claims to agree with Keynsian theory, you don't really seem to undertand the theory. The purpose of economic stimulus is precisely to push demand forward to fill the gap in aggregate demand. Of course it results in some slack later on, but the idea is to get past past the crisis. Once the crisis has passed the economy can handle a little slack. In this country, cash for clunkers was generally considered a successful program.
I understand a great deal. Cash for clunkers was a mess and a pure redistribution to those able to take advantage of it. If you look at the data, it didn't really stimulate demand for new product at all. All it did was transfer moeny to people to allow them to forward shift a replacement that would have occurred anyways within a reasonable time horizon, while at the same time driving up the price of used vehicles as it artificially reduced vehicle stock.
As for filling the gap in aggregate demand, if the finger isn't big enough for the hole, temporally speaking, like cash for clunkers was, it doesn't do much of anything except waste taxpayer money.
As for money to the states, the states should have borrowed the money then if they wanted it.
And fact is, you're still in a crisis, with very little left to do about it except ratchet back spending and consumption. Cause it's going to get a whole lot worse, precisely because of this out of control spending.
And once again, these were all part of the original stimulus bill. But you're not going to get a whole lot of home renovation when millions of people are already under water and facing foreclosure. It's that reality vs theory problem.
then the incentives were not big enough. Spending to improve capital stock can be justified. Spending that does other things cannot - the money would be better directed through tax relief and particularly the elimination (which is much better than temporary forebearance, which just shifts wealth rather than impacting behaviour) of distortative taxes.
RealClearPolitics - Regulatory Cost Battle Flares Anew Between Obama, House GOP
You're citing a right wing website doesn't really convince. Is the article biased? Well, they talk about the potential cost of a smog regulation (my word!), but they don't make a single mention of the projected SAVINGS that the regulation would generate in reduced health care costs (estimated $13 - $100 billion). You also failed to mention that Obama reversed course and canceled the proposed regulations.
Sorry, I paid attention to RCP during the last election and they seemed pretty non-partisan to me.
As for forecasted benefits of regulation, like various ways of manipulating deficit projections, i put very little faith in those sorts of statistuics (about as much as in "jobs saved and created" based on artificial multipliers applied without any empirical evidence).
It was a LACK of free market regulation that tanked the world's economy. It's lunacy to suggest that solution is even less regulation.
It was both. It was the lack of important regulation, combined with the existence of regulation that made it harder for a correction to happen. It's not like you can say "we need 100 regulations and everything will be ok". If they are not the right regulations, it ain't gonna help. Obama is not advancing the right regulations.
ZZZzzzz. He's acting like he's responsible for keeping the world's largest economy from slipping back into recession, or worse.
Yes, by bankrupting it. That will work really, really well.
No, that's not true. Perhaps he wasn't as vocal as you would like, but what difference did it make? None.
it is entirely true.
It is no worse or better than its been for the last 60 years. In order for there to peace the Palesineans have to give up their rhetoric about Israel AND the Israelies have to quit behaving in an intentionally inflammatory manner every time there is a whisp of a possibility of improvement. It takes two to Tango.
Yes, but one isn't even interested in showing up at the dance studio. Israel may be reluctant to put on its shoes, but it has done so on multiple ocassions in the past and only taken them off when the Palestinians used the dance as an excuse to try to step on Israel's feet. By contrast, the Palestinians have never had any intention of dancing. Their entire purpose in being as a political entity is to break Israel's feet.