Quote:
Originally Posted by onelifecrisis
Anyway, as I was saying, it seems strange to me that people should look for hope in that book. Isn't it capitalism that got us into this economic mess in the first place? Is this just a case of the American people "running home to mama"?
|
It seems that way on the face of it, doesn't it? However, that is not the case, imo.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were the first to go under, and Fannie Mae actually created the secondary mortgage market as we know it today. Some point to the fact that they became publicly-traded companies in the late 70's as evidence that they are no longer GSE's, but they are. They are still very much in the thrall of Government management, and are still accountable to the same, hence their promotion of "affordable" housing loans ( by purchasing subprimes from banks)
Of course, if you're a bank, and there is a huge market for risky subprimes, and some idiot offers to buy any subprime deals you close, what reason would you have for not pursuing that market? Fiscally, it would be foolish not to do so. It's like free money.
The state artificially created a market, and private industry siezed upon it when the time was right (influx of low-income families). As with many crises, the fault resides with the state for messing around with the market system to accomplish political objectives. In this case, the desire to use the market to make housing affordable for low-income citizens created an investment bubble that could not be sustained. After all, what happens when those low-income families default?
Normally, banks would avoid high-risk loans, because they aren't worth the risk, even though the interest rates are higher. But once you add in the magic of GSEs that guarantee those loans, they become a lot more attractive, and a lot more dangerous to the taxpayers.
The free market works because it relies upon the direct input of consumers and generates the appropriate output. Usually, it cannot do otherwise, because if it does the offending entities are driven from the market. Government is supposed to plug the widest gaps in the system; fraud and harmful monopoly. When it oversteps those bounds, and becomes involved with the market in a more direct capacity, it creates this kind of harm. In some cases, business takes advantage of legislative authority to eliminate competition. In others, the government is simply incompetent and creates problems that would not otherwise exsist.
The market cannot be controlled or eliminated. It will always find a way because it is a product of the indestructible human quality of self-interest.
This is beneficial, because a normal market requires mutually beneficial exchange. The state does not require such an exchange. It works in the same capacity as a street thug; "Your money or your life". Sure, you have a choice, but it isn't much of one, is it? Worse yet, the state is not immune to self-interest, at any level.
Utilized properly(read very limited, in writing), this kind of force monopoly can serve a constructive purpose; "Only engage in mutually beneficial trade or be destroyed"
Unfortunately, it has been perverted in many cases to read "Engage in socially constructive behavior or be destroyed", with "socially constructive" left to the open interpretation of politicians. Liars by trade. What they can do with that kind of policy to serve their self-interest is limited only by how well they can lie. Their policies not only have the potential to make business less competitive, they can help to give it legislative power, which is decidedly undesireable.
Quite simply, the market is preferable to the state wherever possible, and the state is not to be trusted or left to its' own devices. Wherever there are gross inequities or problems with the market, the state can be found. It destroys competition and distorts the market process.
Those states which embrace free trade are almost always more proseprous than those that do not, and amongst them, the states that regulate the least tend to produce higher GDP per capita, PPP, and higher living standards.
I could go on, but I trust the point is made, or at least sufficiently clear to warrant discussion.