Wednesday, December 19, 2007

Good Question Steve Sailer>..

Steve S. asks:

Is any Presidential candidate running on the issue: "No bailout for subprime lenders and borrowers"? This seems exactly like an issue where the public's moral prejudices are in sync with economic theory, yet the special interests seem likely to get bailed out at the taxpayer's expense.

Or, how about: "No bailout for fraudulent lenders and borrowers"? Is that too much to ask?

We've moved from the age of the Invisible Hand to the age of the Invisible Thumb on the Scale.

Answer. Ron Paul, of course.

Others wish to keep postponing the inevitable.

An astute commentator writes:
It's called moral hazard, Steve. Greenspan pushed ARMs as a legitimate means of financing a home. He did so to goose the economy, and to comply with the Administration's desire to have more minority (read: blacks and browns) home owners.

Why wouldn't he? After all George Bush is the master of socializing risks, and privatizing gains. That's what illegal immigration is all about.

note: Bruce Ratner could give George Bush a run for his money in 'socilizing risks, privatizing gains' category.

No comments: