Matt Yglesias

22 Responses to “Regulation Moving Forward”

1. Al Says:
   October 1st, 2008 at 5:27 pm

   According to the linked commentary:

   Had Federal policymakers in both the Congress and the Administration not pressed so hard on “affordable housing goals” that encouraged lenders to extend and borrowers to take out loans that could not be reasonably serviced unless home prices continued to rise, and which Fannie and Freddie began to buy in large volumes in the last several years, Fannie and Freddie may have escaped the fate that has befallen them.

   Matthew should inform the authors that Matthew has debunked this nasty rumor! The Brookings Institute blaming the meltdown on black folks – for shame!

2. James Gary Says:
   October 1st, 2008 at 5:40 pm

   I can’t see the “affordable housing goals” rhetoric as ever having been anything other than a fig leaf for a complete laissez-faire policy toward the finance industry.

   Brookings needs to hire some clearer-eyed analysts.

3. James Robertson Says:
   October 1st, 2008 at 5:40 pm

   Left unstated by Matt is that the regulations that went lax were on the mortgage requirements end of things. You can thank the enormous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from people like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Maxine Waters to create “affordable” housing. Given the way those outfits operated, what else could they do but drop the credit requirements to below ground level? Say what you will about Republicans, but making stupid loans to lower income people isn’t one of the sins they happen to be guilty of.

   It should be fascinating to see what kind of regulations Matt comes out in favor of. It will be even more fascinating to watch him be stunned when bailouts simply engender more of the same kind of ridiculous lending practices.

4. James Robertson Says:
   October 1st, 2008 at 5:46 pm

   Matt could learn a lot by reading the New York Times.

   The “perfect storm” was combining dumb loans with mortgage backed securities – the latter being a somewhat rational response by banks to spread the obvious risk around.

5. cmholm Says:
   October 1st, 2008 at 6:13 pm

   This seems pretty straight forward: since Glass-Steagall wasn’t broken in the first place, unbreak it. Start by repealing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

   Sure, a few of the money boys will have to spend some time uncoiling the corporate snakes that Gramm allowed. But, if they aren’t up to the task, the public sector can take them over and do it for them.

6. James Gary Says:
   October 1st, 2008 at 6:15 pm

   Start by repealing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

   That’s a lot of work. It’s much easier to just blame the niggers.

7. Al Says:
   October 1st, 2008 at 6:37 pm

   This seems pretty straight forward: since Glass-Steagall wasn’t broken in the first place, unbreak it. Start by repealing the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

   I presume you mean then that JPMChase would be required to divest Bear Stearns and BofA would be required to divest Merrill, right? After all, those takeovers were only permitted because of GLB. What, if I may ask, would you have happen to the divested Bear Stearns and Merrill? Bankruptcy?

8. kafka Says:
   October 1st, 2008 at 7:04 pm

   FROM: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4185/is_20040109/ai_n10178046

   A recent study released by the Federal Reserve Board questions the benefits provided to homebuyers by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, while noting that the two mortgage engines, known as Government Sponsored Enterprises, rack up billions of dollars in earnings for their investors….
   

   Go to open secrets and look at how much Fannie & Freddie gave to D.C. whores like Barney Frank.

9. James Robertson Says:
   October 1st, 2008 at 7:54 pm

   Matt, and too many people on the left, have decided that the intention to help lower income people was sufficient. Never mind that said intention actually impoverished them; Frank, Waters, Dodd (et. al.) were all trying to help.

   They never, ever apply that standard when judging Republicans

10. cmholm Says:
    October 1st, 2008 at 9:06 pm

    Al (8) said: I presume you mean then that JPMChase would be required to divest Bear Stearns and BofA would be required to divest Merrill, right? After all, those takeovers were only permitted because of GLB. What, if I may ask, would you have happen to the divested Bear Stearns and Merrill? Bankruptcy?

    Let them eat Phil Gramm. Seriously, JPMChase, BofA, etc, would ideally be given a generous deadline to close up, sell, or spin off the accounts that comprise of those lines of business. Whether some fictitious entities that trace back to BS/ML/whoever are thereafter run through bankruptcy court is really besides the point.

11. Glaivester Says:
    October 1st, 2008 at 9:06 pm

    The best regulation, in my opinion, if we must have a regulation, would be to ban mortgages that do not include a down payment of a certain percentage. and/or to require that all mortgages have a minimum percentage of principal payment every month (i.e. no more “interest-only” or “negative amortization” loans). That would have stopped housing prices from rising so fast (as people would not have been able to afford homes over a certain price) and would have prevented the housing bubble that led to the derivative, etc. bubble.

12. Peter Vince Says:
    October 2nd, 2008 at 10:19 am

    A gem from Byron Dorgan 9 years ago:
    

13. levitra Says:
    March 2nd, 2009 at 11:05 am

    levitraI bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!

14. zyban Says:
    March 13th, 2009 at 6:55 am

    Great site. Good info

15. xanax Says:
    March 14th, 2009 at 11:29 am

    Incredible site!
    xanax

16. tramadol Says:
    March 17th, 2009 at 3:52 am

    Great site. Good info
    tramadol

17. tramadol Says:
    March 22nd, 2009 at 8:09 am

    tramadol
    It is the coolest site,keep so!

18. cheap viagra Says:
    April 8th, 2009 at 6:59 am

    I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
    viagra