05-24-2017, 04:39 PM
(05-24-2017, 03:16 PM)Goalpost Wrote: I am for Dodd Frank staying in place. It basically ensures that Banks have provable assets on their balance sheets. I am not for more government regulation. A big part of the housing crisis was the government....Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They couldn't even regulate themselves.
The problem wasn't regulation, the problem was that they (the government beyond Fannie and Freddie) wanted people to buy houses and pushed the idea of these subprime mortgages. Another issue there lies in the accountability issues inherent with the type of organizational structure those two have. The ability to have the government backing their liabilities gives Fannie and Freddie more ability to be risky with their investments. This makes them an unfair competitor in the market and has the potential to blow up in their face. If anything, tighter regulations on them and the rest of the financial sector could have prevented things from going as far as they did. But, because the neo-liberal economic movement since Reagan has been all about playing nice with Wall Street and letting them babysit themselves, it's no surprise it happened the way it did.
It should be noted that a commission on the recession found that the impact these activities from Fannie and Freddie played on the recession was minimal, but I remain skeptical of that.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
