Hillary’s modest proposal (to wreck the housing market)

[nostradamus]

Free market capitalism brought us here.

Yup, and it will get us out too.  The foolish lenders and buyers will be eliminated.  The wise will survive.  Just let it correct itself.

[Eugene]

Yup, and it will get us out too. The foolish lenders and buyers will be eliminated. The wise will survive. Just let it correct itself.

Just like the bubble itself could have been prevented if anyone were paying attention, pains of the correction can be mitigated with wise government intervention. Mixed economy is often better than anarchistic free market capitalism.

[Eugene]

Yup, and it will get us out too. The foolish lenders and buyers will be eliminated. The wise will survive. Just let it correct itself.

Just like the bubble itself could have been prevented if anyone were paying attention, pains of the correction can be mitigated with wise government intervention. Mixed economy is often better than anarchistic free market capitalism.

[Eugene]

Yup, and it will get us out too. The foolish lenders and buyers will be eliminated. The wise will survive. Just let it correct itself.

Just like the bubble itself could have been prevented if anyone were paying attention, pains of the correction can be mitigated with wise government intervention. Mixed economy is often better than anarchistic free market capitalism.

[Eugene]

Yup, and it will get us out too. The foolish lenders and buyers will be eliminated. The wise will survive. Just let it correct itself.

Just like the bubble itself could have been prevented if anyone were paying attention, pains of the correction can be mitigated with wise government intervention. Mixed economy is often better than anarchistic free market capitalism.

[Eugene]

Yup, and it will get us out too. The foolish lenders and buyers will be eliminated. The wise will survive. Just let it correct itself.

Just like the bubble itself could have been prevented if anyone were paying attention, pains of the correction can be mitigated with wise government intervention. Mixed economy is often better than anarchistic free market capitalism.

[robson]

Are you suggesting that running an additional one-time deficit of 1% of GDP is worse than a recession?

If you wanna speak in absolutes, I would suggest a one-time deficit of 1% of GDP coupled with a recession is worse than a recession.

Personally, I doubt it will stave off recession, but I believe it might make it a slightly weaker recession. My question is whether the benefit outweighs the cost, which I doubt.

[robson]

Are you suggesting that running an additional one-time deficit of 1% of GDP is worse than a recession?

If you wanna speak in absolutes, I would suggest a one-time deficit of 1% of GDP coupled with a recession is worse than a recession.

Personally, I doubt it will stave off recession, but I believe it might make it a slightly weaker recession. My question is whether the benefit outweighs the cost, which I doubt.

[robson]

Are you suggesting that running an additional one-time deficit of 1% of GDP is worse than a recession?

If you wanna speak in absolutes, I would suggest a one-time deficit of 1% of GDP coupled with a recession is worse than a recession.

Personally, I doubt it will stave off recession, but I believe it might make it a slightly weaker recession. My question is whether the benefit outweighs the cost, which I doubt.

[robson]

Are you suggesting that running an additional one-time deficit of 1% of GDP is worse than a recession?

If you wanna speak in absolutes, I would suggest a one-time deficit of 1% of GDP coupled with a recession is worse than a recession.

Personally, I doubt it will stave off recession, but I believe it might make it a slightly weaker recession. My question is whether the benefit outweighs the cost, which I doubt.

[robson]

Are you suggesting that running an additional one-time deficit of 1% of GDP is worse than a recession?

If you wanna speak in absolutes, I would suggest a one-time deficit of 1% of GDP coupled with a recession is worse than a recession.

Personally, I doubt it will stave off recession, but I believe it might make it a slightly weaker recession. My question is whether the benefit outweighs the cost, which I doubt.

[patientlywaiting]

The problem is intervention begets more intervention, and more intervention, ad infinitum.

What got us here is Greenspan thinking that what he could fine-tune the economy and do away with the business cycles.

A one-time additional 1% of GDP deficit will not avoid a recession. The Bush rebate money will be squandered on Chinese imports and will do nothing to help our economy, long term.

[patientlywaiting]

The problem is intervention begets more intervention, and more intervention, ad infinitum.

What got us here is Greenspan thinking that what he could fine-tune the economy and do away with the business cycles.

A one-time additional 1% of GDP deficit will not avoid a recession. The Bush rebate money will be squandered on Chinese imports and will do nothing to help our economy, long term.

[patientlywaiting]

The problem is intervention begets more intervention, and more intervention, ad infinitum.

What got us here is Greenspan thinking that what he could fine-tune the economy and do away with the business cycles.

A one-time additional 1% of GDP deficit will not avoid a recession. The Bush rebate money will be squandered on Chinese imports and will do nothing to help our economy, long term.

[patientlywaiting]

The problem is intervention begets more intervention, and more intervention, ad infinitum.

What got us here is Greenspan thinking that what he could fine-tune the economy and do away with the business cycles.

A one-time additional 1% of GDP deficit will not avoid a recession. The Bush rebate money will be squandered on Chinese imports and will do nothing to help our economy, long term.

[Author]

Posts