to bail or not to bail

Who's right?

Daniel Larison or Robert Miller? Or maybe this guy?

I honestly don't know on this one. I prefer Larison's argument because he stands on principle but I'm not entirely sure he's right. He may be slightly hyperbolic. And Miller seems too quickly dismiss the heretofore unseen collusion between government and business that this $700 billion dollar project is.

Or do I find myself agreeing with Prof. Miron of Harvard?
So what should the government do? Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending.

The right view of the financial mess is that an enormous fraction of subprime lending should never have occurred in the first place. Someone has to pay for that. That someone should not be, and does not need to be, the U.S. taxpayer.
Seems sensible.


Dave said...

I am inclined to be agree with Prof. Miron.

Besides the Supreme Court (which is obviously a huge concern), I am now no longer worried of an Obama presidency. I have confidence the House Republicans for stopping or slowing down Obama. And I think the next President will have a hard time regardless. So, (again besides the SCOTUS) it is almost better to have Obama elected, so that a strong conservative can win the White House back in 2012.

Ol' Blue said...

I'm inclined to agree with Prof. Miron also. interesting take on the election dave, let me think about that for a moment and get back to you.