1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/8529/op-ed-opposition-to-fannie-and-freddie-seizure/

Op Ed Opposition to Fannie and Freddie Seizure

September 16, 2008 by

(I think that word “seizure” is so much more arresting than “bailout” or even “takeover.”)

In last Sunday’s Philadelphia Inquirer, they ran my op ed “Let the markets find their own recovery.” The people at PRI tell me that on Sundays this newspaper has the 7th highest circulation in the nation, so I’ve got that going for me, which is nice.

Here’s an excerpt:

If Congress defangs the alternative minimum tax, as it did last year to prevent a large increase on the middle class, the latest Congressional Budget Office forecast projects a record deficit of more than $500 billion for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1. Making the federal government ultimately responsible for roughly half of the nation’s mortgages will make it impossible for the next president to take other measures to help a sputtering economy, such as tax relief.

In exchange for these potentially huge costs, the takeover of Fannie and Freddie offers few benefits. On Monday, the stock market rallied, indicating that investors were reassured by the move. Yet these gains were more than erased the next day. Not only has the mortgage move failed to fix the financial markets, but it will arguably make things worse.

In a vicious cycle during the last year, investor behavior has been based less and less on fundamentals and more on government announcements. If Paulson’s secret strategy has been to show that throwing around billions of dollars won’t fix a broken economy, taxpayers can only hope this was the final demonstration of the rule. This is hardly the path to economic recovery.

{ 3 comments }

Bruce Koerber September 16, 2008 at 8:59 pm

I agree that ‘bailout’ is innocuous. ‘Takeover’ and ‘seizure’ are very similar but the nature of the act is more sinister with the word seisure.

‘Nationalization’ is another term that is good since it has been criticized as a common practice in socialist systems.

Whichever arouses the most revulsion wins!

Paul S. Nofs September 17, 2008 at 9:24 am

The Federal government took out a loan from the Federal Reserve with interest. The Federal Reserve creates the money out of thin air, so it gets money for nothing and gets the government to pay interest on it.

When you own a dollar, it represents a share of the nation’s wealth. When the fed creates new money, your share of that wealth is debased. That means your dollar is worth less.

So, the government now owns a broken down failing company, your savings are worth less, your paycheck doesn’t go as far, and our children are liable for paying the loan with interest.

Did I miss anything? Are you disgusted yet?

Vote 4 Principles!

George smith September 17, 2008 at 7:31 pm

# the takeover of Fannie and Freddie offers few benefits.

No, there was one huge benefit (but perhaps not to me or you) that the US can still sell bonds and all those F&F bonds don’t come back/crash.

So the game of pushing paper is still on (for a bit longer which is all some care about).

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: