Did you seriously not like the interview?I actually did my homework and listened to it. That’s 90 minutes I’ll never get back
Was there a realistic alternative to the financial bailouts?
“Throwing people out of their homes” was the inevitable result of the headlong rush to have many people own a home which led to reckless loan approvals in which federal agencies played a significant role.
In a free market, yeah, there is. You let all the companies that recklessly made those loans pay for it. In a nation of laws, you go after the people who intentionally defrauded investors by packaging up crappy loans and calling them AAA (while then betting agaisnt them!). You jail the people who fucked around on bond pricing, some shown in the Big Short.Was there a realistic alternative to the financial bailouts?
“Throwing people out of their homes” was the inevitable result of the headlong rush to have many people own a home which led to reckless loan approvals in which federal agencies played a significant role.
Or . . .
You bailout the institutions with no control over who they give bonuses to, and see the people who cause the whole mess made richer.
Was there a realistic alternative to the financial bailouts?
“Throwing people out of their homes” was the inevitable result of the headlong rush to have many people own a home which led to reckless loan approvals in which federal agencies played a significant role.
If you let the market take care of the homeowners, then you should let the market take care of the lenders.
If you're going to bail out the lenders, you should bail out the homeowners.
Could have done both, easily. Could have bailed out the homeowners, the money for which would have then trickled up to, and by extension bailed out, the lenders. If we were going to do a bailout, this was the correct way to do it. But no one even considered it.
In a free market, yeah, there is. You let all the companies that recklessly made those loans pay for it. In a nation of laws, you go after the people who intentionally defrauded investors by packaging up crappy loans and calling them AAA (while then betting agaisnt them!). You jail the people who fucked around on bond pricing, some shown in the Big Short.Was there a realistic alternative to the financial bailouts?
“Throwing people out of their homes” was the inevitable result of the headlong rush to have many people own a home which led to reckless loan approvals in which federal agencies played a significant role.
Or . . .
You bailout the institutions with no control over who they give bonuses to, and see the people who cause the whole mess made richer.
Absolutely blows my mind that CO.H seems to view both bailing out banks and evicting homeowners as the inevitable results of the crisis. I can't imagine how that level of cognitive dissonance is even sustainable.
Absolutely blows my mind that CO.H seems to view both bailing out banks and evicting homeowners as the inevitable results of the crisis. I can’t imagine how that level of cognitive dissonance is even sustainable.
It makes my head hurt to think about it, but it doesn't surprise me in the least that's what COH thinks.
IIRC the situation was a real crisis, (as opposed to the crisis du jour we see now) and action was immediately necessary. I don’t know enough or recall enough to comment on all the reasons why the financial markets were in a crisis situation. But I do know, people more knowledgeable than me, and smarter than me agreed about the course of action. This included Obama and his advisors, and McCain and his advisors. There simply wasn’t time to allow the markets run their course.
@bradstevens I thought the conversation was going to be more centered around economics than the book. It's my fault for not knowing🤣
I was listening to Stephen Dubner being interviewed on EconTalk yesterday. It's the 20th anniversary of Freakonomics. It's a really good listen and I recommend it to everyone.
One thing Dubner said that struck true with me is that we are now living in a time we haven't really seen for at least a 100 years: where people are questioning both our economic and political systems. We have people disillusioned with capitalism, spurred most obviously by the 2008 Great Recession and aftermath. And we have people now disillusioned with the liberalism in the classic sense, that truth wins out in a free market exchange of ideas, and the very idea of democracy itself. I'd also argue we have more people disillusioned with the Constitution than ever before.
I think we are in for another bumpy 25 years. I wonder how much will change on one or both of these fronts over that time.
https://www.econtalk.org/twenty-years-of-freakonomics-with-stephen-dubner/
Here are a couple of links which I believe are inextricably intertwined with your point. The broad brush stroke is that we are seeing the results of feminization of our institutions and culture. Yes, this necessarily implies, and I believe, that there are fundamental differences to the masculine and feminine view of the world and behavior. Of course this doesn’t mean there are individual differences, but it does mean if you aggregate millions of men and women into groups the differences become obvious.
For example
Women tend to value safety over risk
Women tend to value cohesion over competition.
Women tend to value empathy over objectively judging
The feminization of culture is deeply imbedded in K-12 education where boys are held to girl behavior standards. This has consequences, more women than men in higher ed, more emotion imbedded with public policy, more sensitivity and speech restrictions and on and on.
I think the idea that wokeness is the product of feminism also has merit.
Finally, I’m not, in this post, arguing that feminization is a bad thing, just pointing out that the issues raised in this thread probably have a lot to do with feminism.
https://www.sashastone.com/p/did-the-great-feminization-cause
https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-great-feminization/
I find it ironic that in a thread, where we are talking about the great recession and what caused it and what could have been done to solve it, you are complaining about feminization – the desire for safety instead of risk.I was listening to Stephen Dubner being interviewed on EconTalk yesterday. It's the 20th anniversary of Freakonomics. It's a really good listen and I recommend it to everyone.
One thing Dubner said that struck true with me is that we are now living in a time we haven't really seen for at least a 100 years: where people are questioning both our economic and political systems. We have people disillusioned with capitalism, spurred most obviously by the 2008 Great Recession and aftermath. And we have people now disillusioned with the liberalism in the classic sense, that truth wins out in a free market exchange of ideas, and the very idea of democracy itself. I'd also argue we have more people disillusioned with the Constitution than ever before.
I think we are in for another bumpy 25 years. I wonder how much will change on one or both of these fronts over that time.
https://www.econtalk.org/twenty-years-of-freakonomics-with-stephen-dubner/
Here are a couple of links which I believe are inextricably intertwined with your point. The broad brush stroke is that we are seeing the results of feminization of our institutions and culture. Yes, this necessarily implies, and I believe, that there are fundamental differences to the masculine and feminine view of the world and behavior. Of course this doesn’t mean there are individual differences, but it does mean if you aggregate millions of men and women into groups the differences become obvious.
For example
Women tend to value safety over risk
Women tend to value cohesion over competition.
Women tend to value empathy over objectively judging
The feminization of culture is deeply imbedded in K-12 education where boys are held to girl behavior standards. This has consequences, more women than men in higher ed, more emotion imbedded with public policy, more sensitivity and speech restrictions and on and on.
I think the idea that wokeness is the product of feminism also has merit.
Finally, I’m not, in this post, arguing that feminization is a bad thing, just pointing out that the issues raised in this thread probably have a lot to do with feminism.
https://www.sashastone.com/p/did-the-great-feminization-cause
https://www.compactmag.com/article/the-great-feminization/
Relying on experts to tell you it’s a crisis. Hmmm. Experts who missed the initial problem and who all had ties to the investment and banking industries.IIRC the situation was a real crisis, (as opposed to the crisis du jour we see now) and action was immediately necessary. I don’t know enough or recall enough to comment on all the reasons why the financial markets were in a crisis situation. But I do know, people more knowledgeable than me, and smarter than me agreed about the course of action. This included Obama and his advisors, and McCain and his advisors. There simply wasn’t time to allow the markets run their course.
Maybe they were right. But if so, I guess we can put to bed the laissez-faire free market ideology, right? And with it, maybe practice more skepticism towards people arguing for creative destruction of capitalism?
IIRC the situation was a real crisis, (as opposed to the crisis du jour we see now) and action was immediately necessary. I don’t know enough or recall enough to comment on all the reasons why the financial markets were in a crisis situation. But I do know, people more knowledgeable than me, and smarter than me agreed about the course of action. This included Obama and his advisors, and McCain and his advisors. There simply wasn’t time to allow the markets run their course.
There were plenty of experts in real time screaming that our plan was the wrong one.
The more I think about it, the more I agree with the original proposition. Our response to the recession did more damage to faith in capitalism and the government than probably anything else in recent times.
How can they not? They watched (as it appeared from the regular guy’s POV) the elite destroy the global economy, then get bailed out by the government, while the rest of us got stiffed.
How much of the welfare state of mind contributed to the implosion? Subprime was directly driven by liberal policies and priorities.
How can they not? They watched (as it appeared from the regular guy’s POV) the elite destroy the global economy, then get bailed out by the government, while the rest of us got stiffed.
How much of the welfare state of mind contributed to the implosion? Subprime was directly driven by liberal policies and priorities.
The loans weren't the problem. It was the packaging of them into fraudulent AAA products that brought everything down.