[EconProf]

This provision, and several others that Piggs are calling attention to, have the effect of limiting the real applicability of the “bailout”, and thus lowering its immediate cost to the government. These provisions also show little real good will accrue to the FBs. Several observations:
1. Us critics have had the salutory effect of watering down the impact of the bill until it is practically toothless.
2. Home prices will continue their downward correction.
3. Politicos, and the vast army of supporters of the bailout, will be able to claim they did their best to help FBs.
Notice how each provision of the bill is amenable to sound bites and slogans. Yet, as the Piggs have pointed out, they are so loaded with exceptions, long run costs, and limitations that the impact of the bill will be nil.
4. Since little of substance has happened to arrest the fall of real estate, the GSEs, now formally backed by taxpayers, will cost us dearly over time.

[EconProf]

This provision, and several others that Piggs are calling attention to, have the effect of limiting the real applicability of the “bailout”, and thus lowering its immediate cost to the government. These provisions also show little real good will accrue to the FBs. Several observations:
1. Us critics have had the salutory effect of watering down the impact of the bill until it is practically toothless.
2. Home prices will continue their downward correction.
3. Politicos, and the vast army of supporters of the bailout, will be able to claim they did their best to help FBs.
Notice how each provision of the bill is amenable to sound bites and slogans. Yet, as the Piggs have pointed out, they are so loaded with exceptions, long run costs, and limitations that the impact of the bill will be nil.
4. Since little of substance has happened to arrest the fall of real estate, the GSEs, now formally backed by taxpayers, will cost us dearly over time.

[EconProf]

This provision, and several others that Piggs are calling attention to, have the effect of limiting the real applicability of the “bailout”, and thus lowering its immediate cost to the government. These provisions also show little real good will accrue to the FBs. Several observations:
1. Us critics have had the salutory effect of watering down the impact of the bill until it is practically toothless.
2. Home prices will continue their downward correction.
3. Politicos, and the vast army of supporters of the bailout, will be able to claim they did their best to help FBs.
Notice how each provision of the bill is amenable to sound bites and slogans. Yet, as the Piggs have pointed out, they are so loaded with exceptions, long run costs, and limitations that the impact of the bill will be nil.
4. Since little of substance has happened to arrest the fall of real estate, the GSEs, now formally backed by taxpayers, will cost us dearly over time.

[EconProf]

This provision, and several others that Piggs are calling attention to, have the effect of limiting the real applicability of the “bailout”, and thus lowering its immediate cost to the government. These provisions also show little real good will accrue to the FBs. Several observations:
1. Us critics have had the salutory effect of watering down the impact of the bill until it is practically toothless.
2. Home prices will continue their downward correction.
3. Politicos, and the vast army of supporters of the bailout, will be able to claim they did their best to help FBs.
Notice how each provision of the bill is amenable to sound bites and slogans. Yet, as the Piggs have pointed out, they are so loaded with exceptions, long run costs, and limitations that the impact of the bill will be nil.
4. Since little of substance has happened to arrest the fall of real estate, the GSEs, now formally backed by taxpayers, will cost us dearly over time.

[EconProf]

This provision, and several others that Piggs are calling attention to, have the effect of limiting the real applicability of the “bailout”, and thus lowering its immediate cost to the government. These provisions also show little real good will accrue to the FBs. Several observations:
1. Us critics have had the salutory effect of watering down the impact of the bill until it is practically toothless.
2. Home prices will continue their downward correction.
3. Politicos, and the vast army of supporters of the bailout, will be able to claim they did their best to help FBs.
Notice how each provision of the bill is amenable to sound bites and slogans. Yet, as the Piggs have pointed out, they are so loaded with exceptions, long run costs, and limitations that the impact of the bill will be nil.
4. Since little of substance has happened to arrest the fall of real estate, the GSEs, now formally backed by taxpayers, will cost us dearly over time.

[EconProf]

They can legally require a payoff quote only if it is in the original loan documents.
Some lenders ask for it even though it is not in the loan docs. Best to check all the fine print.

[EconProf]

They can legally require a payoff quote only if it is in the original loan documents.
Some lenders ask for it even though it is not in the loan docs. Best to check all the fine print.

[EconProf]

They can legally require a payoff quote only if it is in the original loan documents.
Some lenders ask for it even though it is not in the loan docs. Best to check all the fine print.

[EconProf]

They can legally require a payoff quote only if it is in the original loan documents.
Some lenders ask for it even though it is not in the loan docs. Best to check all the fine print.

[EconProf]

They can legally require a payoff quote only if it is in the original loan documents.
Some lenders ask for it even though it is not in the loan docs. Best to check all the fine print.

[EconProf]

There is a reason tax hikes never bring in the predicted government revenues touted by their advocates. The politicians use static analysis, which assumes people will not change their behavior when their incentives change. A 10% hike in tax rates is supposed to generate a 10% increase in tax revenues.
In reality, people respond to incentives. The rich can work less, invest differently, hire a more creative accountant, move to a lower tax state (or nation), substitute leisure for work (e.g., europeans), etc.
Taking changes in behavior into account in predicting the impact of changes in tax rates is called dynamic analysis, and is infinitely more accurate historically than static analysis. Of course, tax-raising politicians do not want to use it. Nor does the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is famous for being wrong in their predictions.

[EconProf]

There is a reason tax hikes never bring in the predicted government revenues touted by their advocates. The politicians use static analysis, which assumes people will not change their behavior when their incentives change. A 10% hike in tax rates is supposed to generate a 10% increase in tax revenues.
In reality, people respond to incentives. The rich can work less, invest differently, hire a more creative accountant, move to a lower tax state (or nation), substitute leisure for work (e.g., europeans), etc.
Taking changes in behavior into account in predicting the impact of changes in tax rates is called dynamic analysis, and is infinitely more accurate historically than static analysis. Of course, tax-raising politicians do not want to use it. Nor does the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is famous for being wrong in their predictions.

[EconProf]

There is a reason tax hikes never bring in the predicted government revenues touted by their advocates. The politicians use static analysis, which assumes people will not change their behavior when their incentives change. A 10% hike in tax rates is supposed to generate a 10% increase in tax revenues.
In reality, people respond to incentives. The rich can work less, invest differently, hire a more creative accountant, move to a lower tax state (or nation), substitute leisure for work (e.g., europeans), etc.
Taking changes in behavior into account in predicting the impact of changes in tax rates is called dynamic analysis, and is infinitely more accurate historically than static analysis. Of course, tax-raising politicians do not want to use it. Nor does the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is famous for being wrong in their predictions.

[EconProf]

There is a reason tax hikes never bring in the predicted government revenues touted by their advocates. The politicians use static analysis, which assumes people will not change their behavior when their incentives change. A 10% hike in tax rates is supposed to generate a 10% increase in tax revenues.
In reality, people respond to incentives. The rich can work less, invest differently, hire a more creative accountant, move to a lower tax state (or nation), substitute leisure for work (e.g., europeans), etc.
Taking changes in behavior into account in predicting the impact of changes in tax rates is called dynamic analysis, and is infinitely more accurate historically than static analysis. Of course, tax-raising politicians do not want to use it. Nor does the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is famous for being wrong in their predictions.

[EconProf]

There is a reason tax hikes never bring in the predicted government revenues touted by their advocates. The politicians use static analysis, which assumes people will not change their behavior when their incentives change. A 10% hike in tax rates is supposed to generate a 10% increase in tax revenues.
In reality, people respond to incentives. The rich can work less, invest differently, hire a more creative accountant, move to a lower tax state (or nation), substitute leisure for work (e.g., europeans), etc.
Taking changes in behavior into account in predicting the impact of changes in tax rates is called dynamic analysis, and is infinitely more accurate historically than static analysis. Of course, tax-raising politicians do not want to use it. Nor does the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which is famous for being wrong in their predictions.

[Author]

Posts