On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 4:21 PM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> > I would have liked to see an example of Bush's deregulation. > Unfortunately, Bush was largely responsible for increasing government > spending and government interference. I forgot where I heard it, but > the joke is that Bush entered office as a social conservative, and is > leaving office as a conservative socialist. The problem isn't just deregulation, it is a failure to regulate, although there has been plenty of deregulation since the 1980s, led by those who cling to the same arguments you present here, that government is never the solution. That's the thinking that gave us the S&L collapses, the Keating Five, the sub-prime crisis, etc. This administration and Congress looked the other way, if they didn't actually cheer on, the insanity of predatory practices in the mortgage industry. They caved to lobbyists from the the banking industry, lobbyists who were championing the same hands-off policies that you have praised here. They ignored warning after warning that the sub-prime market was a house of cards. They failed to notice, or perhaps only failed to care, that a catastrophe was brewing. A sub-prime loan is little more than a way to trick home buyers into assuming far more risk than they can understand. When the government failed to act on this con game, it wasn't doing us any libertarian favors, it was failing in its fundamental responsibility to legislate and enforce laws that protect the citizenry. Con games are crimes, not economics. We do not, in this nation, respect a "freedom" to trick people. When we warn, "If it seems to be too good to be true, it probably isn't," we are not excusing the con man, no matter how much responsibility we assign to the victim. We prosecute con artists. Perhaps the Bush administration saw every bit of this and consciously decided that a catastrophe would not really be a problem, since it is how free markets correct themselves. By doing so, they permitted the world economy to enter a recession that is causing incalculable grief. Surely their inaction is unjustified, given the enormity of the resulting crisis and the effects that ripple out from it. The fellow who shot and killed three people about a mile from my house yesterday did so just after being laid off, which is not to say that government is to blame for the murders he committed, but to point out that an environment of economic uncertainly affects much more than just our wallets. Before sticking the blame on people who "shouldn't" have chosen to sign their loans, consider that a large but as-yet uncounted number of them ended up in foreclosure because they couldn't pay their medical bills. Only the hardest-hearted would argue that people choose to have medical problems. Thus, failure to address the mess that is health insurance is also clearly related to the mortgage crisis. Sub-prime and predatory mortgages. No medical safety net. If addressing these practices via regulation is socialism, bring it on. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
