Sub Prime thinking

Thomas Sowell:

IT'S remarkable how many political "solutions" today are dealing with problems created by previous political "solutions." Three examples that come to mind immediately are the housing-market crisis, the wildfires in southern California and the water shortages in the west.

Congress and the Bush administration are vying with each other to come up with a solution to the housing crisis, brought on by widespread defaults on home-mortgage loans - especially defaults by those who took out risky "subprime" loans.

Why were borrowers taking out risky loans in the first place? And why were lenders willing to lend to risky borrowers? In both cases, the government was a prime factor in "subprime" loans.

Many people took out risky mortgage loans because housing prices were so high that this was the only way they could own a home. Where housing prices were highest, the most people took out risky loans.

In the San Francisco Bay area, where housing prices are the highest in the nation, risky interest-only loans went from being 11 percent of all new mortgages in 2002 to being 66 percent of all new mortgages in 2005.

Studies have shown that housing prices are highest where government restrictions on building are the most severe. That's the ugly result of pretty words like "open space."

Why were lenders lending to people whose prospects of repaying the loans were below average - that is, "subprime"?

Government laws and policies, especially the Community Reinvestment Act, pressured lenders to invest in people and places where they wouldn't invest otherwise. Government also created the temporarily low interest rates that made the mortgages seem affordable.

Now that politicians have created this mess, they are ready to play heroes riding to the rescue.

...

In Texas where there are few building restrictions and no shortages of open space, there were apparently relatively few sub prime mortgages and the housing market has not experienced the steep declines that it has elsewhere. It is in fact the restrictions on building that drive up the cost of housing and therefore drive up the need for "innovative" financing. Remove the restrictions and there would be more affordable housing, but those who have already invested at the inflated rate have already invested in the restrictions so they will look for someone else to bail them out.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t...
Read more

Is the F-35 obsolete?

Headline USA: Pentagon Fires Back after Musk Calls Its Most Expensive Project ‘Obsolete’ 'Yeah, as I'm sure you can appreciate, Mr. Musk is, currently, a private citizen, I'm not going to make any comments about what a private citizen may have to say about the F-35....'   ... ... Drones appear to be replacing jets for many operations.  The Russia-Ukraine war is an example of that.  Drones are often hard to detect and can be used for intelligence operations as well as for attacking enemy targets.  It would not surprise me to see drones engaging other drones in combat.  They also cost much less than manned fighters.  
Read more