Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Bailout blame: The Government

I still find myself too swamped to make my own comments. But I thought I'd point out this article by an Harvard economist who argues from the same position I laid out earlier.

The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies.

So what should the government do? Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending.

The right view of the financial mess is that an enormous fraction of subprime lending should never have occurred in the first place. Someone has to pay for that. That someone should not be, and does not need to be, the U.S. taxpayer.
Let's toss in a column by the ever-erudite Thomas Sowell, who also calls out Barney Frank and points out that the Bush administration tried, unsuccessfully, to reign in Fannie and Freddie.
If Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were free market institutions they could not have gotten away with their risky financial practices because no one would have bought their securities without the implicit assumption that the politicians would bail them out.

It would be better if no such government-supported enterprises had been created in the first place and mortgages were in fact left to the free market. This bailout creates the expectation of future bailouts.

Phasing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would make much more sense than letting politicians play politics with them again, with the risk and expense being again loaded onto the taxpayers.

No comments:

Is power needed to "implement principles"?

A "progressive" WSJ commenter stated What is the point of principles if you have no power to implement them? My response: Pri...