if
this is somehow under the stewardship of federal government?
----
let private industry do it ... without our tax dollars, subsidies or
bailouts
the feds give the r&d away for free to the rest of the planet ... not
a good investment
On Dec 12, 9:38 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey PlainOl,
>
> So, you are opposed to space exploration? At any level, especially if
> this is somehow under the stewardship of federal government?
>
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:14 AM, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> > I also agree with a possible GSE based, type of format for space
> > exploration.....Especially compared to the Socialist-Elitist Democrats
> > who
> > have foregone ANY space exploration, and have left that to the
> > Chinese and
> > Russians.
> > ---
> > the roi is too low ... besides, just how much does the USA have to
> > invest right now? Borrowing from peter for paul to invest is insanity
>
> > From a free market standpoint, there is a gamut of wealth to be found
> > in
> > space exploration, from minerals, to just the tourism aspect, and this
> > is
> > only short term visions...
> > ---
> > short term visions? na ... fully blinded
> > we have all the resources we need
>
> > On Dec 11, 11:20 am, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I also agree with a possible GSE based, type of format for space
> > > exploration.....Especially compared to the Socialist-Elitist Democrats
> > who
> > > have foregone ANY space exploration, and have left that to the Chinese
> > and
> > > Russians.
>
> > > From a free market standpoint, there is a gamut of wealth to be found in
> > > space exploration, from minerals, to just the tourism aspect, and this is
> > > only short term visions...
>
> > > On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
>
> > > > Good Morning Bruce,
>
> > > > I suggest you read the whole interview, and understand Gingrich's
> > > > thinking and observation, which I totally agree with:
>
> > > >http://web.archive.org/web/20080909224217/http://www.freddiemac.com/c.
> > ..
>
> > > > A GSE can serve a purpose, and the whole structure of Fannie and
> > Freddie
> > > > were good ideas, but were totally abused, possibly with good
> > intentions,
> > > > but nevertheless it was socialist Democrats that took Fannie and
> > Freddie
> > > > and (probably for profit in the case of Frank, Pelosi, Raines and
> > Dodd)
> > > > nevertheless took a government backed program which was designed for
> > first
> > > > time home owners and/or lower socio-economic individuals who had saved
> > > > their money and could qualify for home ownership. The Socialist
> > > > Democrats, despite the Republicans warnings, (including Gingrich!)
> > > > literally lowered all standards, thereby totally wreaking havoc on not
> > > > only the American economy, but the global economy.
>
> > > > Back to Newt Gingrich, again, I believe in the concept of GSE's. A
> > > > number of the VA programs, the Crysler Bailout, as well as other
> > > > significant programs have worked well. It is when these programs
> > become
> > > > socialist boondoggles and for whatever reason this is allowed to
> > happen,
> > > > where we run into trouble. The Federal Government cannot maintain and
> > > > support 300 million people!
>
> > > > On Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
>
> > > >> Reason #1 why Newt Gingrich is a little bit frightening
>
> > > >> by RUSS ROBERTS on DECEMBER 8, 2011
>
> > > >> in HOUSING <http://cafehayek.com/category/housing>, POLITICS<
> >http://cafehayek.com/category/politics>
>
> > > >> By the title, I don't mean the most important reason. Not sure what
> > that
> > > >> is. This is just the first reason I'm listing. Maybe I'll list more.
> > And it
> > > >> turns out this reason is multi-faceted.
>
> > > >> Reason #1 comes from a blog post by Josh Barro<
> >http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/285056/newt-gingrich-gse-model-j...>
> > who
> > > >> digs up this interview with Gingrich<
> >http://web.archive.org/web/20080909224217/http://www.freddiemac.com/c...>.
> > > >> It's not exactly an interview. It was conducted by Freddie Mac
> > (whatever
> > > >> that means) and posted on Freddie Mac's website.
>
> > > >> There are many things that are frightening about Gingrich's remarks.
> > > >> First, they are for Freddie Mac who paid him something around $1.6
> > million
> > > >> for his "services." He described this work originally as being
> > payment for
> > > >> his historical knowledge of housing. Cue laughter, folks. This
> > interview
> > > >> gives you a glimpse of the real reason he was hired. He was hired, of
> > > >> course, to provide cover for Freddie Mac. Freddie Mac was a GSE, a
> > > >> government-sponsored enterprise. A GSE was quasi-private or
> > quasi-public,
> > > >> take your pick. Freddie (and Fannie Mae) bought mortgages from
> > originators
> > > >> and brokers. They provided "liquidity" for the housing market which
> > is a
> > > >> fancy way of saying that they increased the amount of credit
> > available. For
> > > >> a long while, they were relatively benign.
>
> > > >> Because they were thought to had an implicit guarantee of government
> > > >> support, they were able to issue bonds at relatively low rates of
> > interest.
> > > >> They were very eager to use that money to buy more mortgages. The
> > problem
> > > >> was that because of that implicit guarantee, they were constrained by
> > > >> regulation to only buy fairly safe mortgages with 20% downpayments.
> > > >> Starting in the mid-1990′s, Clinton (and then Bush) required them to
> > relax
> > > >> their standards. They didn't end up buying a lot of sub-prime, just a
> > lot
> > > >> of low down-payment mortgages that were very prone to end up
> > underwater if
> > > >> housing prices ever fell. This injection of credit into the market
> > pushed
> > > >> up the price of housing (starting around 1995) launched the housing
> > bubble
> > > >> and along with other government programs, helped make speculative
> > subprime
> > > >> lending.
>
> > > >> The alternative view is the animal spirits view that suddenly, around
> > > >> 1995, people began to believe that housing was a particularly good
> > > >> investment. But for this discussion, the cause of the bubble is
> > irrelevant.
> > > >> The important point is that Freddie and Fannie began to make
> > increasingly
> > > >> risky loans, encouraged by their regulators. (See Figures 6,7, and 8,
> > > >> here <http://mercatus.org/publication/gambling-other-peoples-money>.)
> > A
> > > >> number of economists on the left and right began to worry that the
> > taxpayer
> > > >> might end up on the hook for those loans if they ever blew up. They
> > did
> > > >> blow up. The bill is $150 billion and counting. But because political
> > > >> pressure began to build against Freddie and Fannie, they pushed back.
> > They
> > > >> hired people on the left (Stiglitz and the Orszags<
> >http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/stiglitzrisk.pdf>)
> > > >> to do research showing how safe the GSE's were. And they hired people
> > on
> > > >> the right like Newt Gingrich who could claim conservative credentials
> > and a
> > > >> really good Rolodex to reduce the pressure to reign in Freddie and
> > Fannie.
>
> > > >> So the first frightening thing about Newt is that he worked for
> > Freddie
> > > >> Mac at all. The second frightening thing is that he lied about it,
> > > >> pretending it was some sort of research position. But the really
> > > >> frightening thing is what he actually said in the name of making
> > people
> > > >> feel good about these so-called government-sponsored entreprises
> > which led
> > > >> to private gains and socialized losses. The worst kind of cronyism.
>
> > > >> Read the whole "interview."<
> >http://web.archive.org/web/20080909224217/http://www.freddiemac.com/c...>
> > It's
> > > >> short and you gives you a flavor of how Gingrich invoked conservative
> > > >> rhetoric to support Freddie Mac politically. But the highlight for me
> > is
> > > >> this part:
>
> > > >> *Q: A key element of the entrepreneurial model is using the private
> > > >> sector where possible to save taxpayer dollars and improve
> > efficiency. And
> > > >> you believe the GSE model provides one way to use the private sector.*
>
> > > >> *Gingrich:* Some activities of government – trash collection is a good
> > > >> example – can be efficiently contracted out to the private sector.
> > Other
> > > >> functions – the military, police and fire protection – obviously must
> > > >> remain within government. And then there are areas in which a public
> > > >> purpose would be best achieved by using market-based models. I think
> > GSEs
> > > >> provide one of those models. I like the GSE model because it provides
> > a
> > > >> more efficient, market-based alternative to taxpayer-funded government
> > > >> programs. It marries private enterprise to a public purpose. We
> > obviously
> > > >> don't want to use GSEs for everything, but there are times when
> > private
> > > >> enterprise alone is not sufficient to achieve a public purpose. I
> > think
> > > >> private enterprise alone is not going to be able to help the Gulf
> > region
> > > >> recover from the hurricanes, and government will not get the job done
> > in a
> > > >> very effective or efficient manner. We should be looking seriously at
> > > >> creating a GSE to help redevelop this region. We should be looking at
> > > >> whether and how the GSE model could help us address the problem of
> > > >> financing health care. I think a GSE for space exploration ought to be
> > > >> seriously considered – I'm convinced that if NASA were a GSE, we
> > probably
> > > >> would be on Mars today.
>
> > > >> Gingrich says that the GSE model "marries private enterprise to a
> > public
> > > >> purpose." What we have learned is that that doesn't work very well.
> > But
> > > >> that's not the most frightening part of the quote. And the most
> > frightening
> > > >> part isn't that this "interview" took place in April of 2007, when
> > Freddie
> > > >> and Fannie were totally out of control, lending out money to buyers
> > putting
> > > >> less than 5% down in record numbers, money that would not return as
> > > >> expected.
>
> > > >> <http://cafehayek.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/figure8s.jpg>
>
> > > >> No, the really frightening part of this interview is the
>
> ...
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment