Monthly Archives: August 2013

In Which I Agree with President Obama

Posted on by
1

…mostly.

In a speech Tuesday in Phoenix, Obama call[ed] for transitioning the business model of Fannie and Freddie into a system where “private capital must be wiped out before the government pays on any form of catastrophic guarantee,” a senior administration official said.

If he really wants to, this is mostly good.  Those taking the risks should be the ones to reap the rewards—and the only ones to suffer the loss.  Taxpayers should not be dragged into a failure at all.

And that’s the “mostly” part: “before the government pays on any form of catastrophic guarantee” should not be a player at all.  This is what private insurance in a free market is for.

Obama will also renew his calls for sweeping mortgage refinancing legislation when he travels to Phoenix Tuesday.

Here, not so much.  The only sweeping legislation necessary is the repeal of the Community Reinvestment Act, a high-minded sounding idea that in the realization has been used only to browbeat lenders into making bad loans to poor credit risks.

…a call for expanding refinancing eligibility for homeowners who do not have government-backed mortgages.

In particular, there’s no need for a government determination of “refinancing eligibility.”  The market will determine that, just fine.  Government distortions from the market do no good at all; they only destroy the pricing information extant.

Keynesian Stimuli

Posted on by
Reply

If the point of Keynesian spending is to inject money into the economy to make up for diminished private demand, then an equally valid Keynesian stimulus would be to reduce taxes and leave the money in the private economy in the first place.

Which, in fact, Keynesians actually recommend: Galbraith, John K, The Great Crash 1929.  And as that Evil Republican (!?) John Kennedy actually did in the early ’60s, that Evil Republican Ronald Reagan did again in the ’80s, and that Evil Republican George Bush the Younger did yet again in the early 2000s.

Spend more, tax less—either one produces the deficit spending that is actually what Keynes thought appropriate.  Except that taxing less—eliminating the government as (inefficient) middleman in the deficit spending—produces the more efficient stimulus, to the extent that government stimulus can have any beneficial effect at all.  And spending more is how politicians buy votes.

Hmm….

Some Thoughts on the Times’ Sale of the Globe

Posted on by
Reply

In no particular order, and…reasonably…disjointed.  Recall that in 1993, The New York Times bought the Boston Globe for $1.1 billion.  Last week, the NYT sold the Globe to the Boston Red Sox owner for $70 million.

In 2001/2002, the current Red Sox owner bought the team, and 80% of the New England Sports Network, for $695 million; today the market values the business at a skosh over $1.3 billion.

In 2011, the Red Sox owner signed a 7-year contract worth $136 million with a pretty solid outfielder (plus some signing and performance bonuses that only amount to jingle money).

In a free market, we set our own priorities and values, individually and as a group, all without need of government oversight.  These purchases and sale, and the contract, show how much our free market values the NLMSM.   They also show how much our free market values the sports form of entertainment relative to the NLMSM form of entertainment.

A Good Little Republican

Posted on by
Reply

Here‘s Iowa Governor Terry Branstad (R) on Obamacare and Obamacare state “insurance” exchanges:

My approach is not to complain about things, but to get it done best we can.  It’s our responsibility.

There’s a good little, courteously compliant Republican.

No, Governor, it’s your responsibility to act against the irresponsible, never to meekly accept it as your lot.  You work for the people of Iowa, not the Progressives of DC.

Messaging

Posted on by
Reply

Power Line quoted, the other day, a Rasmussen poll that had, among other things, this table:

What John Hinderaker said in that post was this:

This is what I really want to highlight: the issues that Democrats have played on most heavily over the last year or so, and which some view as a mortal threat to the GOP, are doing little or nothing for the Dems.  Specifically, the parties are tied on immigration (39/40), and Republicans lead slightly on gun control (43/41).  Social Security, which the Democrats have been demagoguing for, what?—seventy-five years or more?—has come to rest dead even, at 40/41.  The Democrats lead on the traditional soft issues of the environment and education; those are areas where the Republicans should be able to make up ground with a little marketing.  But what is most striking about these data is that the Democrats’ current scare campaigns over guns and immigration have made little impression on the voters.

Progressive demagoguery (or anyone’s demagoguery) doesn’t work.  Republicans and Conservatives lead on the important matters and are tied on the Progressives’ demagogued items.

The voters will listen, and the Conservatives have to stop being afraid of their own message and get out among the folks where they live.  As others and I have said many times.