« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: GOP Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans Favor Richest 1 Percent

By: Cactus Flower in ALEA | Recommend this post (0)
Sat, 14 Jan 12 4:52 AM | 71 view(s)
Boardmark this board | The Trust Matrix
Msg. 06494 of 54959
(This msg. is a reply to 06490 by Cactus Flower)

Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

By the way, clo, Paul Krugman agrees with you.

Even so, he admits he didn't foresee the severity of the crisis or the flimsiness of the financial system in 2006.

And making better decisions in hindsight is so much easier. I think many people saw that there was a housing bubble. But a vanishingly small number of people foresaw the catastrophe which lay ahead.

For myself, I saw the problem with sub-prime fairly early. But it never occurred to me that the whole thing was such a house of cards that was mortgaged against reality. So the extent of the failure of the whole financial and economic neighbourhood was a surprise.

That's the second crisis in a row in which that has been true for me. The inter-connectness of everything makes prediction of scope - beyond the cause of failure - fairly much impossible.


- - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: GOP Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans Favor Richest 1 Percent
By: Cactus Flower
in ALEA
Fri, 13 Jan 12 5:57 PM
Msg. 06490 of 54959

Hi clo,

Howdie.

I'm maybe a bit more forgiving of economists' predictions than you here. Yes, they got the future wrong. But it's easier to say so in hindsight.

Unpack what you are saying: house prices were in a bubble; they were worried about inflation.

If you include house prices in inflation numbers, which folks have done sometimes, one might properly have concluded there was an issue with over-priced assets in the economy. And the Fed was trying to figure how to address it.

At the same time, they wanted to preserve the credibility of the Federal Reserve in maintaining a sound currency. Perhaps they felt that by keeping a brake on money they could gently deflate the housing bubble. I don't know.

I daresay they might have unleashed inflation if they hadn't continued to combat it. And then we'd be facing a different monster. Once you go down different branches of reality, you don't know how the machine would have functioned.

But the origin of the problem was not with the inflation policy. It was that unregulated banks were accommodating people with weak credit; and they did so because they figured they'd found a way to limit their risk via the securitisation and sale of bundles of mortgages.

They were wrong, of course. Someone should have noticed and nipped the practice in the bud. But in a Republican policy framework, the US diminishes regulation and thinks it is a harm. Dominoes fall when given a push. The financial industry collapsed and the Fed was forced to flush money into the system to keep it operating.

So you get what you vote for.

I don't think the Fed's policy re inflation leading up to the crisis had much of an impact on that. I don't think they should have been more accommodating, inflation-wise. The US government should not have created a permissive, laisser-faire environment. But it did. And the taxpayers, aka the voters, reaped the consequences.

And here we are again, with the same principles which created the mess dressed up as if they are new and presented for election. I don't believe the US population is dumb enough to go down the same road. Sure hope so anyway.


« ALEA Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next