Tim Hanrahan, at WSJ.com, collates opinion and summarizes where we are at with the mortgage agencies.
“Whatever is Needed”
Previous post: Taliban v. Coase
Our Books
Modern Principles of Economics
Launching The Innovation Renaissance
The Great Stagnation: How America Ate All the Low-Hanging Fruit of Modern History, Got Sick, and Will(Eventually) Feel Better
Create Your Own Economy: The Path to Prosperity in a Disordered World
Discover Your Inner Economist
Good and Plenty: The Creative Successes of American Arts Funding
Judge and Jury: American Tort Law on Trial
Markets and Cultural Voices: Liberty vs. Power in the Lives of Mexican Amate Painters (Economics, Cognition, and Society)
The Voluntary City: Choice, Community, and Civil Society (Economics, Cognition, and Society)
Creative Destruction: How Globalization Is Changing the World's Cultures
Changing the Guard: Private Prisons and the Control of Crime
What Price Fame?
In Praise of Commercial Culture
Entrepreneurial Economics: Bright Ideas from the Dismal Science
Contact Us
Best Case
Fan and Fred reduce lending, interest rates for mortgages go up .5% , home values decline by additional 20%, Fan and Fred need more money, Federal government pumps more money to them, expectations about future inflation raises interest rates 2%, inflation at 6.5%, mortgages near 10%, in real terms home values continue to drop but inflation gives illusion of higher prices. Fed tries to sort out bad loans but transaction cost are much higher then S&L bailouts. Market for housing remains illiquid. Some communities see dramatic disinvestment in housing stock. Fed announces community renewal program (Something President Obama failed at early in his career.) Total housing stock and quality of housing stock declines. Prices go up. 12 years later markets begin to recover. Some communities left in shambles.
This is likely to be a mess; it’s pretty much a bipartisan mess now since FM^2 can hardly be blamed in their entirety on Bush (or Greenspan for that matter).
At some point, don’t Treasuries become risky [not top-rated]? What point would that be?
Those with mortgage debt and negative equity are probably not worrying too much about the necessity of adding an extra ‘at’ or not.
Mike says “…and summarizes where we are _ with the mortgage agencies. The at is not necessary.”
Bull****–read Tense Present by David Foster Wallace before correcting someone’s grammar. To wit:
“For a dogmatic Prescriptivist, “Where’s it at?” is double-damned as a sentence that not only ends with a preposition but whose final preposition forms a redundancy with where that’s similar to the redundancy in “the reason is because” (which latter usage I’ll admit makes me dig my nails into my palms). Rejoinder: First off, the avoid-terminal-prepositions rule is the invention of one Fr. R. Lowth, an eighteenth-century British preacher and indurate pedant who did things like spend scores of pages arguing for hath over the trendy and degenerate has. The a.-t.-p. rule is antiquated and stupid and only the most ayatolloid SNOOT takes it seriously. Garner himself calls the rule “stuffy” and lists all kinds of useful constructions like “the man you were listening to” that we’d have to discard or distort if we really enforced it.
Plus the apparent redundancy of “Where’s it at?” [31] is offset by its metrical logic. What the at really does is license the contraction of is after the interrogative adverb. You can’t say “Where’s it?” So the choice is between “Where is it?” and “Where’s it at?”, and the latter, a strong anapest, is prettier and trips off the tongue better than “Where is it?”, whose meter is either a clunky monosyllabic foot + trochee or it’s nothing at all.”
Michael:
And the more cheap mesos is very good for you.
it is interesting
Comments on this entry are closed.