4 ms·

I'm all for positive thinking, but it's a little early for partisan hacks to start crowing about how excellently the economy is functioning right now. Show me

I'm all for positive thinking, but it's a little early for partisan hacks to start crowing about how excellently the economy is functioning right now. Show me the data in 6 months time. I nearly fell off my chair on the part where they claimed lenders were forced against their will to make the bad loans for "Affirmative Action" reasons... Wow. Just wow.

anamax 18y ago
What definition of "force" are you using? Banks have been sued for failing to make "enough" loans in "predominantly minority" areas. Regulators have told banks "we're not going to approve your application to do {thing 1} unless your percentage of minority loans goes up."
- nsimpson 18y ago
  To prevent this from degenerating into partisan political BS, let me say that if anyone is interested in the macro environment and the economy, check out the Economist. This paper was established to advance free market and free trade principles, and it isn't beholden to any US party (it's a British publication). http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9988758 http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9...
  - DenisM 18y ago
    FWIW, their articles about Russia's invasion of Georgia were incredibly slanted. This makes me seriously doubt their "unbiased" status.
cypress-hill 18y ago
indeed, if anything, the real estate bubble illustrates the need for more regulation (which is on its way, regardless of who wins the election), not less. taxpayers have been bailing out the banks via lower interest rates and loan assurances (which inflate other parts of the economy). so therefore we have a right to regulate. disconnect mortgage banking from taxpayer insurance, and i will happily concede the free market argument.
gojomo 18y ago
This article, from tech investor Bill Burnham about what he learned consulting at Fannie Mae in the 90s, is instructive on the very real political pressures to loosen lending standards: http://billburnham.blogs.com/burnhamsbeat/2008/07/fannie-maes-gol.html http://billburnham.blogs.com/burnhamsbeat/2008/07/fannie-mae... (This got 71 upvotes when posted to News.YC about a month ago.)
- jorgeortiz85 18y ago
  I don't know what point you're trying to make. The article clearly explains that the political pressures came from Fannie Mae itself. It wanted to lower its lending standards, but was barred by Congress from doing so, presumably because the US Govt was implicitly guaranteeing Fannie's debt. According to the article, Fannie Mae's lobbyists came up with the "affordable housing" campaign to pressure Congress into letting Fannie lower its lending standards. Congress didn't "force" Fannie Mae to make bad loans. Fannie Mae "forced" Congress to change the law so that Fannie Mae could make bad loans.
  - DenisM 18y ago
    I think it's a brilliant hack. Now we know who ''they'' are.

anamax 18y ago

What definition of "force" are you using? Banks have been sued for failing to make "enough" loans in "predominantly minority" areas. Regulators have told banks "we're not going to approve your application to do {thing 1} unless your percentage of minority loans goes up."

nsimpson 18y ago
To prevent this from degenerating into partisan political BS, let me say that if anyone is interested in the macro environment and the economy, check out the Economist. This paper was established to advance free market and free trade principles, and it isn't beholden to any US party (it's a British publication). http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9988758 http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9...
- DenisM 18y ago
  FWIW, their articles about Russia's invasion of Georgia were incredibly slanted. This makes me seriously doubt their "unbiased" status.

cypress-hill 18y ago

indeed, if anything, the real estate bubble illustrates the need for more regulation (which is on its way, regardless of who wins the election), not less. taxpayers have been bailing out the banks via lower interest rates and loan assurances (which inflate other parts of the economy). so therefore we have a right to regulate. disconnect mortgage banking from taxpayer insurance, and i will happily concede the free market argument.

gojomo 18y ago

This article, from tech investor Bill Burnham about what he learned consulting at Fannie Mae in the 90s, is instructive on the very real political pressures to loosen lending standards: http://billburnham.blogs.com/burnhamsbeat/2008/07/fannie-maes-gol.html http://billburnham.blogs.com/burnhamsbeat/2008/07/fannie-mae... (This got 71 upvotes when posted to News.YC about a month ago.)

jorgeortiz85 18y ago
I don't know what point you're trying to make. The article clearly explains that the political pressures came from Fannie Mae itself. It wanted to lower its lending standards, but was barred by Congress from doing so, presumably because the US Govt was implicitly guaranteeing Fannie's debt. According to the article, Fannie Mae's lobbyists came up with the "affordable housing" campaign to pressure Congress into letting Fannie lower its lending standards. Congress didn't "force" Fannie Mae to make bad loans. Fannie Mae "forced" Congress to change the law so that Fannie Mae could make bad loans.
- DenisM 18y ago
  I think it's a brilliant hack. Now we know who ''they'' are.