Fannie and Freddie: Hopelessly unproductive works

[davelj]

[quote=Arraya]Actually, just to clarify, Dave

Her stance on energy prices is that they will plummet in the coming years and create a glut as well as grind alt-energy projects to a halt.[/quote]

If energy prices are going to plummet… then what will be the cause of the collapse? (I apologize that I’m too lazy to read her entire thesis, as compelling as it might be. Most of the apocalyptos link the downfall of civilization to rising energy prices with all that implies.)

[quote=Arraya]
She just recently left her job and is lecturing and I believe looking for land in Peru.

Maybe you want to make a case that she is pursuing her life long dream of leaving a high paying job and fleeing to a third world country because of economic and social collapse by going around and lowering everybody’s confidence in the financial system.[/quote]

I doubt she was “highly paid” at the Agri-Energy Producers’ Association of Ontario. Their most recent conference had 80 attendees (mostly farmers), if memory serves from my brief readings. I doubt the Association has more than a few employees. Not that that should have any bearing on the quality of her argument… I’m just sayin’.

I think Ms. Foss is a dedicated environmentalist, not materially different from folks that work for the Sierra Club and other such outfits. Her worldview is set (she’s “all-in,” so to speak) and not subject to change. All of which is fine.

But her background is relevant when discussing the biases inherent in her point of view, just as anyone’s is. That’s my point. I wish her the best in Peru. I’ve never been there but I have a friend who has a home there. He tells me it’s quite lovely.

[Rich Toscano]

I will give her the benefit of the doubt as to her intentions, but I agree with garysears that a 90% nominal decline in home prices is “doomer fantasy.”

The Fed created a trillion and a half dollars out of nothing, on top of tax rebates and all the rest, in order to halt the housing decline. They only stopped because housing stabilized to some degree. Are we really to believe that these same people are going to sit back and let a 90% price decline play out?

There may be lags, but the printing press always wins. There’s no way these guys will let that (or anything close to it) happen.

[Rich Toscano]

I will give her the benefit of the doubt as to her intentions, but I agree with garysears that a 90% nominal decline in home prices is “doomer fantasy.”

The Fed created a trillion and a half dollars out of nothing, on top of tax rebates and all the rest, in order to halt the housing decline. They only stopped because housing stabilized to some degree. Are we really to believe that these same people are going to sit back and let a 90% price decline play out?

There may be lags, but the printing press always wins. There’s no way these guys will let that (or anything close to it) happen.

[Rich Toscano]

I will give her the benefit of the doubt as to her intentions, but I agree with garysears that a 90% nominal decline in home prices is “doomer fantasy.”

The Fed created a trillion and a half dollars out of nothing, on top of tax rebates and all the rest, in order to halt the housing decline. They only stopped because housing stabilized to some degree. Are we really to believe that these same people are going to sit back and let a 90% price decline play out?

There may be lags, but the printing press always wins. There’s no way these guys will let that (or anything close to it) happen.

[Rich Toscano]

I will give her the benefit of the doubt as to her intentions, but I agree with garysears that a 90% nominal decline in home prices is “doomer fantasy.”

The Fed created a trillion and a half dollars out of nothing, on top of tax rebates and all the rest, in order to halt the housing decline. They only stopped because housing stabilized to some degree. Are we really to believe that these same people are going to sit back and let a 90% price decline play out?

There may be lags, but the printing press always wins. There’s no way these guys will let that (or anything close to it) happen.

[Rich Toscano]

I will give her the benefit of the doubt as to her intentions, but I agree with garysears that a 90% nominal decline in home prices is “doomer fantasy.”

The Fed created a trillion and a half dollars out of nothing, on top of tax rebates and all the rest, in order to halt the housing decline. They only stopped because housing stabilized to some degree. Are we really to believe that these same people are going to sit back and let a 90% price decline play out?

There may be lags, but the printing press always wins. There’s no way these guys will let that (or anything close to it) happen.

[scaredyclassic]

i had faith in the printing presses, but how do you actually get the money to
t he people? is it possible that it just nevr makes it out?

[scaredyclassic]

i had faith in the printing presses, but how do you actually get the money to
t he people? is it possible that it just nevr makes it out?

[scaredyclassic]

i had faith in the printing presses, but how do you actually get the money to
t he people? is it possible that it just nevr makes it out?

[scaredyclassic]

i had faith in the printing presses, but how do you actually get the money to
t he people? is it possible that it just nevr makes it out?

[scaredyclassic]

i had faith in the printing presses, but how do you actually get the money to
t he people? is it possible that it just nevr makes it out?

[sreeb]

Elsewhere, I have read that only 1 trillion of the 5 represents bubble loans so most of their loans still have collateral. Given that, a trillion as a worst case doesn’t seem unreasonable.

[sreeb]

Elsewhere, I have read that only 1 trillion of the 5 represents bubble loans so most of their loans still have collateral. Given that, a trillion as a worst case doesn’t seem unreasonable.

[sreeb]

Elsewhere, I have read that only 1 trillion of the 5 represents bubble loans so most of their loans still have collateral. Given that, a trillion as a worst case doesn’t seem unreasonable.

[sreeb]

Elsewhere, I have read that only 1 trillion of the 5 represents bubble loans so most of their loans still have collateral. Given that, a trillion as a worst case doesn’t seem unreasonable.

[Author]

Posts