|
thechris38
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Chris Country: United States State: Kentucky Metro: Lexington Birthday: 8/18/1982 Gender: Male
Interests: Physics, theology, religion, philosophy, duct tape, fire, economics, epistemology, fried chicken, politics, ancient history, deep-fried oreos, sports, etc. Expertise: Physics Occupation: Student Industry: Education/Research
Message: message me MSN: just ask
Member Since:
6/16/2005
|
|
SubscriptionsSites I Read
|
|
|
|
| Obama has recently being saying we need to reject the policies of the past eight years in trying to gain support for the stimulus bill. So in response to massive government debt and overly loose monetary policy, we're suggesting even larger government debt in addition to our current monetary policy which is as loose as it can go. Interesting.
| | |
| I found this article from Reason to be rather interesting. I just copied and pasted a portion, but follow the link to read it in its entirety.
John Berlau | November 21, 2008 ...
In the presidential debates, Obama charged
that McCain "believes in deregulation in every circumstance" and
claimed, "That's what we've been going through for the last eight
years."
And as a contrast to the last eight years, Obama said in a speech
that his administration would go back to the "shared prosperity...when
Bill Clinton was president." When campaigning for the first time with
Bill Clinton at a Florida rally in late October, Obama gushed that, "in
case all of you forgot, this is what it's like to have a great
president."
But now that he has won the presidency and must, as
the cliché goes, shift from campaigning to governing, Obama and his
economic team will have to face up to a paradox that most of the media
overlooked during the campaign. Namely, the Obama campaign's twin
messages of bashing deregulation and embracing the Clinton years were
inherently contradictory. Bill Clinton signed nearly every deregulatory
measure that John McCain backed—the same measures that are now being
blamed (wrongly) for helping cause the current crisis. What's more,
Clinton administration officials have credited these policies for
contributing to the ‘90s economic boom—the very "shared prosperity"
that Obama says he wants to go back to....
| | |
| Read the full text here.
JOINT ECONOMIC COMMITTEE CONGRESSMAN JIM SAXTON RANKING REPUBLICAN MEMBER RESEARCH REPORT #110-26 October 2008
GOVERNMENT POLICY BLUNDERS LARGELY CAUSED THE GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS
Macroeconomic and microeconomic policy blunders by both the U.S. government and foreign governments inflated an unsustainable housing bubble in the United States and other developed economies. When this bubble inevitably popped, a global financial crisis ensued. Although misaligned private incentives, methodological errors in rating structured credit products, and the recklessness of some private financial institutions and investors did play a contributory role in the recent financial turmoil, individuals and firms could not have created and sustained such a large housing bubble over so long a time without major macroeconomic and microeconomic policy mistakes. These policy mistakes were:
1. The exchange rate policy of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the shadow exchange rate policies of governments in other Asian economies caused large and persistent international trade imbalances, suppressed price increases on tradable goods and services, and channeled monetary inflation in the United States and other developed countries with floating exchange rates disproportionately into housing prices;
2. The Federal Reserve pursued, at least in retrospect, an overly accommodative monetary policy after 2000 that kept U.S. interest rates too low for too long. Moreover, central banks in the PRC and other Asian economies invested most of their surging foreign exchange reserves in U.S. Treasury, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac debt securities, flatting the long-end of the yield curve in the United States. These policies combined to produce extremely low long-term interest rates that stimulated housing demand.
3. Financial regulators in the United States and other developed economies failed to exercise adequate prudential supervision over highly leveraged non-depository financial institutions in the alternative financial system;
4. Regulations mandating the use of value-at-risk models to determine the capital adequacy of financial institutions (1) caused both these institutions and their regulators to underestimate risk exposure, and (2) encouraged these institutions to increase their leverage;
5. Regulations mandating the use of “fair value” accounting (also known as “mark-to-market” accounting) for illiquid financial assets exacerbated liquidity problems at financial institutions after the housing bubble burst.
6. The strengthening of affordable housing regulations governing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in October 2000 had the unintended consequence of creating a large regulatory-induced demand for subprime residential mortgage loans that mortgage banks proceeded to satisfy.
| | |
| I saw this article from the New York Times from September 1999 to be interesting. I realize the Fed has probably been the primary culprit in the current financial mess, but this certainly didn't help matters any. You can read the whole thing; I've copied the first part of it here.
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999
In a move that could help increase home
ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie
Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will
purchase from banks and other lenders. The action, which will
begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including
the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to
extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good
enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they
hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring. Fannie
Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under
increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage
loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock
holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits....
| | |
|
After reading Ron Paul's response to Bush's speech regarding the recent attempts for the "bailout legislation", I thought I should share it.
Dear Friends:
The financial meltdown the economists of the
Austrian School predicted has arrived.
We are in this crisis because of
an excess of artificially created credit at the hands of the Federal Reserve
System. The solution being proposed? More artificial credit by the Federal
Reserve. No liquidation of bad debt and malinvestment is to be allowed. By doing
more of the same, we will only continue and intensify the distortions in our
economy - all the capital misallocation, all the malinvestment - and prevent the
market's attempt to re-establish rational pricing of houses and other
assets.
Last night the president addressed the nation about the financial
crisis. There is no point in going through his remarks line by line, since I'd
only be repeating what I've been saying over and over - not just for the past
several days, but for years and even decades.
Still, at least a few
observations are necessary.
The president
assures us that his administration "is working with Congress to address the root
cause behind much of the instability in our markets." Care to take a guess at
whether the Federal Reserve and its money creation spree were even
mentioned?
We are told that "low interest rates" led to excessive
borrowing, but we are not told how these low interest rates came about. They
were a deliberate policy of the Federal Reserve. As always, artificially low
interest rates distort the market. Entrepreneurs engage in malinvestments -
investments that do not make sense in light of current resource availability,
that occur in more temporally remote stages of the capital structure than the
pattern of consumer demand can support, and that would not have been made at all
if the interest rate had been permitted to tell the truth instead of being toyed
with by the Fed.
Not a word about any of that, of course, because
Americans might then discover how the great wise men in Washington caused this
great debacle. Better to keep scapegoating the mortgage industry or "wildcat
capitalism" (as if we actually have a pure free market!).
Speaking about
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the president said: "Because these companies were
chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal
government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market
for questionable investments, and put our financial system at
risk."
Doesn't that prove the foolishness of chartering Fannie and
Freddie in the first place? Doesn't that suggest that maybe, just maybe,
government may have contributed to this mess? And of course, by bailing out
Fannie and Freddie, hasn't the federal government shown that the "many" who
"believed they were guaranteed by the federal government" were in fact
correct?
Then come the scare tactics. If we don't give dictatorial powers
to the Treasury Secretary "the stock market would drop even more, which would
reduce the value of your retirement account. The value of your home could
plummet." Left unsaid, naturally, is that with the bailout and all the money and
credit that must be produced out of thin air to fund it, the value of your
retirement account will drop anyway, because the value of the dollar will suffer
a precipitous decline. As for home prices, they are obviously much too high, and
supply and demand cannot equilibrate if government insists on propping them
up.
It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the
Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a
decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally
devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a
year.
The president also tells us that Senators McCain and Obama will
join him at the White House today in order to figure out how to get the
bipartisan bailout passed. The two senators would do their country much more
good if they stayed on the campaign trail debating who the bigger celebrity is,
or whatever it is that occupies their attention these days.
F.A. Hayek
won the Nobel Prize for showing how central banks' manipulation of interest
rates creates the boom-bust cycle with which we are sadly familiar. In 1932, in
the depths of the Great Depression, he described the foolish policies being
pursued in his day - and which are being proposed, just as destructively, in our
own:
Instead of furthering the inevitable liquidation of the
maladjustments brought about by the boom during the last three years, all
conceivable means have been used to prevent that readjustment from taking place;
and one of these means, which has been repeatedly tried though without success,
from the earliest to the most recent stages of depression, has been this
deliberate policy of credit expansion.
To combat the depression by a
forced credit expansion is to attempt to cure the evil by the very means which
brought it about; because we are suffering from a misdirection of production, we
want to create further misdirection - a procedure that can only lead to a much
more severe crisis as soon as the credit expansion comes to an end... It is
probably to this experiment, together with the attempts to prevent liquidation
once the crisis had come, that we owe the exceptional severity and duration of
the depression.
The only thing we learn from history, I am afraid, is
that we do not learn from history.
The very people who have spent the past several
years assuring us that the economy is fundamentally sound, and who themselves
foolishly cheered the extension of all these novel kinds of mortgages, are the
ones who now claim to be the experts who will restore prosperity! Just how
spectacularly wrong, how utterly without a clue, does someone have to be before
his expert status is called into question?
Oh, and did you notice that the bailout is now being
called a "rescue plan"? I guess "bailout" wasn't sitting too well with the
American people.
The very people who with somber faces tell us of
their deep concern for the spread of democracy around the world are the ones
most insistent on forcing a bill through Congress that the American people
overwhelmingly oppose. The very fact that some of you seem to think you're
supposed to have a voice in all this actually seems to annoy them.
I continue to urge you to contact your
representatives and give them a piece of your mind. I myself am doing
everything I can to promote the correct point of view on the crisis. Be sure
also to educate yourselves on these subjects - the Campaign for Liberty blog is
an excellent place to start. Read the posts, ask questions in the comment
section, and learn.
H.G. Wells once said that civilization was in a race
between education and catastrophe. Let us learn the truth and spread it as far
and wide as our circumstances allow. For the truth is the greatest weapon we
have.
In liberty,

Ron Paul
| | |
|