ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax
SHARE
They lost market share until they were allowed into the subprime market. They had more competition than some thought.
Steve
Doesn't Krugman's position assume that people/society cannot learn. I would not worry about another realestate bubble anytime soon and I would certainly not worry about people 40 years form now. Who knows what kind of technology will be available 40 years from now.
For a group of people who like to say "in the long run we are all dead" they seem to worry too much about what will happen many years from now. The bust should cause more caution and it should lead to some evolution in the Finance independent of Gov. regulation.
Steve,
They had no viable competition in the market for high-quality mortgages. They lost market share in a market that they should have stayed out of.
It also was the only market a mortgage lender could make that much money in.
Doesn't Krugman's position assume that people/society cannot learn. I would not worry about another realestate bubble anytime soon and I would certainly not worry about people 40 years form now.
How could society learn in this sense? Bubbles seem to come from unpredictable corners. People thought a global real estate bubble was impossible....hundreds of years after a famous bubble in tulips! Yes tulips! It's the idea that society can learn that is the problem. People think bubbles were impossible today because we are smart, unlike those fellows a few centuries ago who bet the farm on tulips! Hahah, silly Dutch people!
But I think Krugman's point is valid. We've had a virtual deregulation of the banking sector as 'non-bank banks' have found methods to dodge things like deposit insurance, reserve ratios and such because they aren't technically taking deposits but simply 'borrowing short and lending long'. We seem to have seen quite a few frothy bubbly things happen (see Michale Lewis's Collapse) It's not clear to me that since our 'virtual deregulation' made banking less boring that the massive profits generated by finance has been coupled with better asset allocation.
"They lost market share in a market that they should have stayed out of."
Agreed, and FTR, I would like to see them go. Still, they were relatively late to the subprime action. Was it a bad management decision or rational behavior considering the markets at that time? Maybe we can get rid of the home mortgage deduction when we get rid of Fannie and Freddie. Besides the government guarantees, they would also seem to be a beneficiary of Too Big To Fail.
Steve
Yes, there will be economic crisis with or without reform.