On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 9:55 AM, John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

>
> Actually, bad government regulation contributed to all of those, Dems and
> Reps
> both. And no one has consistently predicted such things. You can't
> preempt what you can't predict.


There have been many warnings and predictions; consistency in predictions is
not a precondition for learning and acting.  Consistency in predictions is a
pipe dream.  Your comments about both parties being involved are
irrelevant.  Both parties are involved in every act of Congress, even when
they vote "present" or choose not to vote.

The clearest recent example of failing to regulate at the behest of the
industry is the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2007,
which, in its original version, would have addressed many of the issues.
However, the Mortgage Bankers Association and the American Banking
Association lobbyists convinced the House majority to permit lenders to
continue the insidious practice of giving larger fees to brokers for putting
borrowers into higher cost sub-prime mortgages. It also bars borrowers whose
predatory loans have been sold from suing investors for relief until they
are facing foreclosure. This forces borrowers into foreclosure as a
condition for asserting their rights, which is outrageous.  The industry
persuaded government to leave them alone and look what happened.

You keep saying that bad government contributed to all these things.  I have
no doubt that you can demonstrate some such contributions, but you have
failed to offer any argument that would show that the net impact of
regulation was to bring these problems about.  You can't prove something
simply by asserting it over and over.

>
> Did you make any posts predicting the housing crisis before, say,
> 2004?


Irrational argument.  It is not all up to me, of course.

>
>  It is a good thing we have you (and politicians) to look out for the
> all those people who can't understand a mortgage.


The fact that people are responsible for their choices does not grant
legitimacy to those who would fleece them, does it?

Shall we excuse con artists by blaming their victims, in the name of "free"
markets?  If so, then how can economics becomes anything more than figuring
out the best ways to cheat?

Nick
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l

Reply via email to