McCain pointed the finger at a few of the parties responsible (curiously leaving out the Federal Reserve and George Bush, who both have some culpability.) He blames the homeowners who bought more house than they could afford, and the mortgage companies that loaned them the money. I agree with his assessment that those two groups are partially to blame.
He then goes on to say:
The other part of what happened was an explosion of complex financial instruments that weren't particularly well understood by even the most sophisticated banks, lenders and hedge funds. To make matters worse, these instruments -- which basically bundled together mortgages and sold them to others to spread risk throughout our capital markets -- were mostly off-balance sheets, and hidden from scrutiny. In other words, the housing bubble was made worse by a series of complex, inter-connected financial bets that were not transparent or fully understood.
While his explanation of the mortgage-backed securities scam is not complete, it will suffice. The important part is where he says these instruments "were mostly off-balance sheets, and hidden from scrutiny." And the part about "financial bets that were not transparent..." The problem is that the convoluted mechanisms that banks used to turn high-risk loans into triple-A rated securities was hidden from view and understood by very few people.
So far, I'm with him.
But then he said, "Let's start with some straight talk," so I knew the BS was to follow.
His plan to help homeowners is to do nothing to help homeowners. Any assistance that the government offers to people with mortgages must be limited to those who didn't act irresponsibly. So he wants to give aid only to those people who don't need it, because if someone signed on to a mortgage they didn't understand or couldn't afford, then they should lay in the bed they made (which will probably be in a refrigerator box under a viaduct.) "Central to those reforms," he says, "should be transparency and accountability." He wants people to be accountable. There's some straight talk.
So how would Saint McCain handle the banking industry, which has brought our economy to the very brink of collapse, requiring a several-hundred-billion dollar bailout by the Fed?
Our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital.
The financial institutions that a few minutes earlier he was lambasting for using unregulated, hidden tactics to spread massive risk throughout the economic foundation of America should be allowed to do whatever they want to make money.
So to sum up: after very nearly destroying the economy (and really, the jury is still out on that) these titans of greed should be trusted to do whatever they feel is appropriate to increase their bottom line. Remember when McCain said, "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should"? Well, this is what he was talking about.
.
8 comments:
Hey there! Hey I was thinking...are you going to focus on McCain for the duration of the election? If you were I was thinking I would do a special link to your blog for a contrasting point of view. What do you think? It would be like a hannity and colmes deal...of course I am the better looking Hannity one...haha jk...I could put it at the top and call it something like "for the other side" or something like that. Tell me what you think...:)N
Hey, Nikki. I've noticed that McCain is all I've written about for the past couple weeks. It wasn't a conscious decision, he just provides a lot of material (kind of like you and Obama, I suspect.) I certainly wouldn't mind the extra traffic a link would generate, but who knows, McCain might not give me anything else to write about. Ha ha, that's not very likely. I'm sure I'll even be posting about Obama when he does something to irritate me (and he's bound to sooner or later.)
I'll do a link at the top tomorrow, I'll try to think of something catchy. if you think of something let me know, I think an election commentary would be good to generate some more readers, it is a good time to bait hook some readers. I get a lot of traffic from people googling current news stuff...:)N
I love the Hannity and Colmes idea. I love that show because you get both sides. Great idea.
I also like the idea of opposing opinions on my blog. It's good to have discussions and to try to find common ground.
(i got here from nikkis blog)i look forward to the nikki vs mike debate. it has to be better than any of the worthless debates we have seen so far this year.
im all about girl-power, so go nikki! (and im a mccain supporter!) i do have to say and i know people will be mad...alot of the blame goes to the people who wanted a house and didnt think it thru and to the bank (banks=lenders in this case) who knew that they wouldnt have the loan when the people defaulted because the loans are sold. i dont think it is the governments resp to help those who werent being responsible. im all for some kind of oversite in the future so this doesnt happen again, but if you got yourself in this mess, get yourself out. (and yes, i was very poor growing up. and im a stay at home mom (so, poor again) now. and we make alot of sacrafices so that we can secure our future incase something bad happens.
anyhow mike-good blog. i look towards the fall with some interesting reading!
Freadom: It's almost always more interesting to have two opposing views instead of everyone agreeing. Though I'm not sure I like being compared to Colmes. :)
Ba: I get what you're saying about people taking responsibility for their actions. It would be interesting to know what sort of sales tactics were used to get so many people to buy beyond their means. The main problem wasn't with banks, though, but rather with non-bank lenders. Places like Countrywide and Quicken Loans and all of the mortgage brokerage firms that sprouted up during the bubble. These companies were not subject to the same regulatory scrutiny that banks are. Still, I don't know how anyone could have thought that an interest-only loan, or a zero-down loan would be a good idea.
Thanks for stopping by, guys. I look forward to sparring with Nikki through the election (and beyond).
mike, good post. the bottom line is this is a convoluted mess that has been snow-balling for the last ten years. i don't think any reasonable solutions are coming any time soon no matter what lip service is given. the one good thing that will come out (we hope) is a more scrutinize check and balance system over these greedy lending institutions.
Post a Comment