Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Mama Grizzly Ferociously Defends Free Markets
After President
Obama's declaration last
week that:
I have always been a strong believer in the power of the free market.
...I'm taking everything I hear from politicians on this topic with a Bloomberg-sized helping of salt. But, for what it's worth, here's Mama Grizzly herself telling some Hong Kong businessmen what's what on the financial crisis from the Palin perspective:
Conservatives need to defend the free market system and explain what really caused last year’s collapse. According to one version of the story, America’s economic woes were caused by a lack of government intervention and regulation and therefore the only way to fix the problem, because, of course, every problem can be fixed by a politician, is for more bureaucracy to impose itself further, deeper, forcing itself deeper into the private sector.
I think that’s simply wrong. We got into this mess because of government interference in the first place. The mortgage crisis that led to the collapse of the financial market, it was rooted in a good-natured, but wrongheaded, desire to increase home ownership among those who couldn’t yet afford to own a home. In so many cases, politicians on the right and the left, they wanted to take credit for an increase in home ownership among those with lower incomes. But the rules of the marketplace are not adaptable to the mere whims of politicians....
Lack of government wasn’t the problem. Government policies were the problem. The marketplace didn’t fail. It became exactly as common sense would expect it to. The government ordered the loosening of lending standards. The Federal Reserve kept interest rates low. The government forced lending institutions to give loans to people who, as I say, couldn’t afford them. Speculators spotted new investment vehicles, jumped on board and rating agencies underestimated risks.
Relive the Palin moment here.
The Extispicator|9.23.09 @ 3:24PM|#
I want to hate her so much ... but I have to admit I like what she said.
Tim Cavanaugh|9.23.09 @ 3:35PM|#
The government forced lending institutions to give loans to
people who, as I say, couldn't afford them.
I'm behind on my Fannie and Freddie reading, but have there really
been any reported cases of the use of force in getting lenders to
take on probable deadbeats? I ask because it would be bad enough if
the government strongly encouraged relaxed lending
standards, and that is what seems to have happened.
I dealt with many loan officers in the first half of this decade,
and to paraphrase Concentration Camp
Erhardt, what they did to lending standards we are now doing to
Poland. They didn't need Fannie and Freddie to give them orders,
just to guarantee their loans.
And because everybody's so goddamn sensitive these days: I am not
comparing loan officers to Nazis, just alluding to an ancient
comedy movie because I like the movie.
Michael Ejercito|9.23.09 @ 3:35PM|#
What exactly is the marketplace supposed to do?
If it was supposed to guarantee that mortgage companies make
profits no matter what, then the marketplace has failed
spectacularly.
If it was supposed to give people the choice to freely enter into a
mortgage transaction, and bear the cost that goes with it, then the
marketplace worked perfectly.
|9.23.09 @ 3:42PM|#
Well she finally got something right. Maybe the time off has given her the opportunity to learn stuff.
Layman|9.23.09 @ 3:43PM|#
What exactly is the marketplace supposed to do?
Provide an environment for free people to succeed or fail on their
own merits, without undue government interference?
Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo|9.23.09 @ 3:54PM|#
The only problem I have with Sarah Palin was that she agreed to run as JOhn McCain's running mate.
|9.23.09 @ 4:08PM|#
Way OT:
Iain Banks new novel, Transition sounds deliciously
cracked.
There is a world that hangs suspended between triumph and catastrophe, between the dismantling of the Wall and the fall of the Twin Towers, frozen in the shadow of suicide terrorism and global financial collapse. Such a world requires a firm hand and a guiding light. But does it need the Concern: an all-powerful organization with a malevolent presiding genius, pervasive influence and numberless invisible operatives in possession of extraordinary powers?
Among those operatives are Temudjin Oh, of mysterious Mongolian origins, an un-killable assassin who journeys between the peaks of Nepal, a version of Victorian London and the dark palaces of Venice under snow; Adrian Cubbish, a restlessly greedy City trader; and a nameless, faceless state-sponsored torturer known only as the Philosopher, who moves between time zones with sinister ease. Then there are those who question the Concern: the bandit queen Mrs. Mulverhill, roaming the worlds recruiting rebels to her side; and Patient 8262, under sedation and feigning madness in a forgotten hospital ward, in hiding from a dirty past.
There is a world that needs help; but whether it needs the Concern is a different matter.
W|9.23.09 @ 4:09PM|#
She looks familiar... can't place her though. Who is she
again?
I think she's the governor of Guam.
Geotpf|9.23.09 @ 4:09PM|#
She also said in the same speech that she was Asian because her husband was part Eskimo.
Our $2 Trillion Bridge to Nowh|9.23.09 @ 4:11PM|#
"I'm behind on my Fannie and Freddie reading, but have there
really been any reported cases of the use of force in getting
lenders to take on probable deadbeats?"
Is coercion force?
Plant Imigration Rights Suppor|9.23.09 @ 4:15PM|#
"She also said in the same speech that she was Asian because her
husband was part Eskimo."
If SHE is park Eskimo this would actually make sense - at least as
much sense as someone who had ancestors brought over during the
1800s as slaves calling him or herself "African-American". An
Eskimo is just as much an "Asian-American" as Jesse Jackson is an
"African-American". Perhaps even more so from a cultural
perspective. If other Eskimos consider her Eskimo by marriage she
is actually correct.
|9.23.09 @ 4:16PM|#
The only problem I have with Sarah Palin was that she agreed
to run as JOhn McCain's running mate.
I have a few more. To be honest, I don't think she's very
smart.
|9.23.09 @ 4:18PM|#
is for more bureaucracy to impose itself further, deeper,
forcing itself deeper into the private sector.
Palin's totally got sex on her mind here ...
Plant Imigration Rights Suppor|9.23.09 @ 4:20PM|#
"I have a few more. To be honest, I don't think she's very
smart."
On what do you base your opinion of her intelligence?
|9.23.09 @ 4:22PM|#
No matter how much government encouraged it, it didn't force people to buy houses they couldn't afford. Even more, it didn't force people to buy houses when these people already had flat screen TVs, new cars and tech gadgets they couldn't afford. Government intervention can make things worse, but ultimately it was regular people who made bad decisions.
|9.23.09 @ 4:22PM|#
I think she's got some of the right ideas (and some of the wrong
ones), but she's not always great about communicating them.
She looks good, anyway. I bet world leaders would stumble over one
another trying to please her.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|9.23.09 @ 4:27PM|#
"but she's not always great about communicating them."
Obama has proven that the importance of having good communications
skills is very much overrated. I would rather have a mute person
with a love of liberty than a brilliant speaker who is a
tyrant-in-waiting.
|9.23.09 @ 4:27PM|#
That is a very down to earth, common sense explanation of the
mortgage crisis. It is sensible and put in a form that is
compelling and that people can understand. It further counters one
of the most insidious myths put out by the lefts.
I would only say to all of the geniuses on here who are so
convinced of Palin's stupidity, find me any other politician that
is making these points in such a cogent and accessible manner.
|9.23.09 @ 4:27PM|#
I am absolutley convinced this woman will be our next POTUS -
SARAH IN 2012!
This speech wasn't insignificant. Now she has credibility on
international financial matters and has come out clearer then ever
before on being for the free market. She is America's best shining
hope!
"Welcome to Galt's Gulch - where the men are strong, the women are
good looking, and the children are above average. THIS IS
SPAAARTAAA!"
Ayn Rand
|9.23.09 @ 4:28PM|#
"I think she's got some of the right ideas (and some of the
wrong ones), but she's not always great about communicating
them."
She seems pretty good here.
Jonas|9.23.09 @ 4:32PM|#
The picture just makes me think of the movie Juno:
"You're little girlfriend gave me the stinkeye in art class
yesterday."
"She's not my girlfriend, okay? And I doubt she gave you the
stinkeye, that's just the way her face looks."
|9.23.09 @ 4:34PM|#
Kudos to Sarah Palin for moving from "Educated people are
unamerican" to "Free markets, I guess." Given Palin's assertion
that macroeconomic governmental inputs could be the main driver of
the economic meltdown, I have to say she doesn't quite get
it.
People with a history of poor spending decisions continued to do so
until the bubble burst. She's playing on our anti-government
feelings. And she's full of shit. WE did this. WE bought houses we
couldn't afford. WE signed contracts without reading them. WE, not
Barney Frank, not Maxine Waters, none of them. If we still have any
concept of personal responsibility, we have to recognize it.
|9.23.09 @ 4:36PM|#
Awwwwwww crap! Couldn't they have gotten someone else to do
this?
Was everyone else busy?
Stormy Dragon|9.23.09 @ 4:38PM|#
I'll believe Sarah Palin's conversion on the road to Damascus
when she starts advocating the legalization of behavior she
personally objects to on limited government grounds (e.g.
legalizing online poker or ending the drug war).
Until then she's just another out of power Republican who's
'libertarianism' will only last until the next election they
win.
Geotpf|9.23.09 @ 4:39PM|#
Here's my cite for the Eskimo comment:
http://twitter.com/cellomonkey
This guy attended the speech and tweeted the juicy bits. Here's how
he put it:
"palin ties her lineage to asia by saying todd is part eskimo"
|9.23.09 @ 4:41PM|#
"WE did this. WE bought houses we couldn't afford. WE signed
contracts without reading them. WE, not Barney Frank, not Maxine
Waters, none of them. If we still have any concept of personal
responsibility, we have to recognize it."
Of course Barney and Maxine screaming about discrimination and
redlining had nothing to do with banks making loans that shouldn't
have been made. Yes, we borrowed the money, but that doesn't excuse
the government from strong arming the banks into giving it to us.
And, more importantly, the fact that people voluntarily took loans
that the government gaurenteed and encouraged banks to make,
doesn't refute her larger point that too much government
intervention caused this not too little.
|9.23.09 @ 4:50PM|#
"Until then she's just another out of power Republican who's
'libertarianism' will only last until the next election they
win."
Yeah she is just trying to steal the mojo of the 2% of the
electorate the vote Libertarian.
ben tej|9.23.09 @ 4:56PM|#
I have a few more. To be honest, I don't think she's very
smart.
I was wondering who her ghost writer was as I read her statement.
I'm also wondering if they took the excerpts from her written text
or actual speech transcripts. I've been a speechwriter for an
inarticulate mayor before, and the news always ran the actual
written text and not how he said it when they quoted him
extensively in print.
Of course, maybe she quit as governor so she could go to
Toastmasters full time and we're seeing that pay-off now.
Tim Cavanaugh|9.23.09 @ 4:57PM|#
doesn't refute her larger point that too much government
intervention caused this not too little.
It certainly doesn't refute her point, but you can lose a point by
exaggerating. For example, you can say the government forced banks
to make unwise loans, and the other party's operatives can prove
you wrong.
Beyond the factual question there's a political-skill question: Any
politician of any faction who isn't throwing dry brush on the
flames of anti-banker sentiment is just giving up a chance to put
points on the board. You can hate the government and also hate its
pets.
|9.23.09 @ 5:00PM|#
"WE bought houses we couldn't afford."
I didn't.
By the way, that winking picture of Saraph Palin is getting tired,
couldn't you guys find another one in the files to use once in a
while?
|9.23.09 @ 5:08PM|#
"WE, not Barney Frank, not Maxine Waters, none of them."
Speak for your self you little collectivist bitch.
|9.23.09 @ 5:11PM|#
Well she finally got something right. Maybe the time off has given her the opportunity to learn stuff.
Well, the speechwriter got something right anyway.
|9.23.09 @ 5:13PM|#
"Beyond the factual question there's a political-skill question:
Any politician of any faction who isn't throwing dry brush on the
flames of anti-banker sentiment is just giving up a chance to put
points on the board. You can hate the government and also hate its
pets."
That is a separate point. Fanning the anti-bank sentiment does
nothing to rebut the liberal point that this whole thing was caused
by the "free market" out of control. That point has to be rebutted.
And I think she did a pretty good job of it here.
Further, you can make the "we shouldn't have bailed out the banks"
point elswhere. I am sure she would agree with you. But that was
not the point she was making here.
In the end, Reason just hates her and will never conceed a point to
her, no matter how obvious or well made it is. I mean it is a
pretty big reach on your part to claim she was wrong not to score
cheap points against the bankers.
|9.23.09 @ 5:14PM|#
"Well, the speechwriter got something right anyway."
Yeah, but who drives the content of the speeches? By your logic,
Peggy Noonan was really the brains behind Reagan. Sorry I am not
buying that one. Speech writers help but they can only do so much
and they can only write what the speaker wants to say.
|9.23.09 @ 5:16PM|#
"By the way, that winking picture of Saraph Palin is getting
tired, couldn't you guys find another one in the files to use once
in a while?"
That would require the Reason staff passing up the opportunity to
take a cheap shot at her, which is something that is clearly beyond
their capability.
|9.23.09 @ 5:21PM|#
ben tej | September 23, 2009, 4:56pm
One thing Sarah Palin can do is deliver a speech.
She tends to falter on the of the cuff stuff (and that's being
charitable).
But I for one won't disparage what I recognize as a certain level
of intelligence in her. However during the campaign she came off as
woefully uninformed and extermely poorly briefed and
prepared.
John, Reagan wrote almost all of his own speeches before he
actually went for the presidency. And he hardly ever delivered an
important speech that he had not completely reviewed and comment
on.
Hardly any politician does that now.
For what it's worth, I'm not saying these things aren't in line
with her actual sentiments, I'm just saying she really
needs someone to write speeches for her. Reagan only
needed speechwriters because he didn't have the time, no because he
didn't have the ability.
SIV|9.23.09 @ 5:22PM|#
The only problem I have with Sarah Palin was that she agreed
to run as JOhn McCain's running mate.
I had no problem with that.All those people(left,right and
"libertarian") thought if McCain was elected he would succumb to
cancer and Sarah Palin would be the President.
Tim Cavanaugh|9.23.09 @ 5:26PM|#
In the end, Reason just hates her and will never conceed a
point to her, no matter how obvious or well made it is.
Like I said, everybody's so goddamn sensitive these days...
|9.23.09 @ 5:27PM|#
"Speak for your self you little collectivist
bitch."
If you ask me to speak for myself, I'd have to admit that I did
not purchase a house I could not afford.
Mad Max|9.23.09 @ 5:27PM|#
'a good-natured, but wrongheaded, desire . . .'
I marginally prefer the use of the term 'good-natured' rather than
'well intentioned' in describing the personal motives of those who
advocated wrongheaded policies. 'Well intentioned' seems to concede
too much - yeah, they were wrong, but their hearts were pure and
they really *cared.* But a subjective feeling of righteousness -
'I'm really helping people, and they better be grateful' - is not
necessarily well-intentioned. Good intentions ought to presuppose
at least *some* effort to research the issue and subordinate one's
ego to the public interest - which we don't always see with these
'well intentioned' initiatives.
'good-natured' conveys an image of the dumb guy from Of Mice and
Men - a moron who doesn't know the harm he's doing because he's
simply an imbecile. A much better image of those who advocate bad
policies.
|9.23.09 @ 5:44PM|#
John, Reagan wrote almost all of his own speeches before he actually went for the presidency. And he hardly ever delivered an important speech that he had not completely reviewed and comment on.
And his radio addresses as governor. The book Reagan in His Own
Hand makes this clear.
I'm behind on my Fannie and Freddie reading, but have there really been any reported cases of the use of force in getting lenders to take on probable deadbeats? I ask because it would be bad enough if the government strongly encouraged relaxed lending standards, and that is what seems to have happened.
It's going to depend on what you call "force." There were
investigations by regulators of banks for not lending to "probable
deadbeats" enough, and public praising of banks that did. When
"strong encouragement" is coming from the regulator that can shut
you down, it's hard to tell when coercion starts.
However, while some of that happened, it's definitely possible to
overstate its role in the crisis too.
They didn't need Fannie and Freddie to give them orders, just to guarantee their loans.
Ah, I see some of your confusion. Yes, you're right about Fannie
and Freddie's role. But Fannie and Freddie are not the government's
bank regulators that would coerce banks into loaning. They
handle money, originating some loans and buying up many others.
Fannie and Freddie didn't give orders; other parts of the
government did. Depending on bank or credit union, that could be
the FDIC, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Federal Reserve
Board, the National Credit Union Administration, or if the bank is
state-chartered a state agency.
Beyond the factual question there's a political-skill question: Any politician of any faction who isn't throwing dry brush on the flames of anti-banker sentiment is just giving up a chance to put points on the board.
Ok, sure. But Tim, would you say that (sometimes in other times or
places "Any politician of any faction who isn't throwing dry brush
on the flames of anti-gay sentiment (or anti-black, anti-Muslim,
anti-Arab) is just giving up a chance to put points on the board?"
Sometimes refraining from a chance to put points on the board is
admirable in a politician, even if not a good way to be
elected.
Tim Cavanaugh|9.23.09 @ 5:47PM|#
I'm not sure "well-intentioned" concedes so much. I've always treasured "well-intentioned" as one of those phrasings like "my very good friend," which tips the listener that you're about to eviscerate somebody. And I thought the source of the phrase was Samuel Johnson's line about hell being paved with good intentions (not "the road to hell," though the gloss may be better than the original). Johnson has another great line about intentions: "You can shoot a man in the head and say I intended to miss."
iamse7en|9.23.09 @ 5:48PM|#
There's no reason to doubt that Sarah Palin isn't a true
believer in the power of free markets.
Also read on what she said about the Fed and bubble-creation.
Sounds like she's been delving into austrian economics.
When you even read her WSJ op-ed on health care, she quotes the
Cato Institute in proposing free-market solutions to health care
reform.
She's always been a true believer in the power of free
markets.
Just because she inferred that Alaska's proximity to Russia gives
her foreign policy prowess, doesn't mean she is a huge defender of
free markets.
SIV|9.23.09 @ 6:02PM|#
didn't she support the bailouts?
The Governor of Alaska (like most Americans) didn't have a vote on
the matter.
iamse7en|9.23.09 @ 6:02PM|#
roo:
Yes she says she did, but she was a John McCain nominee then, and
had to puppet his talking points. She's been reading quite a bit on
austrian economics lately, so I'm hope she has the balls to say she
was WRONG in supporting TARP.
|9.23.09 @ 6:28PM|#
first off, it is ridiculous to suggest that NOW she is against
the bailouts...that would put her on the same track as Glenn
Beck...for them when it mattered, against them when she is trying
to become the leader of the tacobaggers.
She is pro-iraq war, pro-afghan war, pro-bailout, pro- drug war.
Dick Cheney would use CATO references if it was politically
convenient....when she starts recommending mises.org I'd be more
liekly to trust her.
|9.23.09 @ 6:50PM|#
I'm not sure "well-intentioned" concedes so much. I've always treasured "well-intentioned" as one of those phrasings like "my very good friend," which tips the listener that you're about to eviscerate somebody.
Yeah, but in a polite, not-gonna-get-censured-by-the-House kind of
a way.
I'd actually believe that she was against the bailouts. If only
because several of the McCain campaign aides who slagged off on her
used the fact that she argued against the bailouts in campaign
strategy as evidence that she was stupid. Because if you were
against the bailouts, that's only because you were stupid and
didn't understand how they were necessarily to save Civilization as
We Know It, don't you know?
LarryA|9.23.09 @ 7:28PM|#
I have a few more. To be honest, I don't think she's very
smart.
Unusually high intelligence in a politician is highly overrated,
just as it is in any other sales profession.
No matter how much government encouraged it, it didn't force
people to buy houses they couldn't afford.
Define "force." Government policies encouraged so many people to
purchase it nearly destroyed the rental market for decent homes. In
several situations, in several parts of the country, I found it
necessary to buy a house I knew I would only need for a year or two
because renting one wasn't an alternative.
Sean W. Malone|9.23.09 @ 8:20PM|#
Lamar:
Read the following
Crash Proof by Peter Schiff
Meltdown by Thomas Woods
The Housing Boom & Bust by Thomas Sowell
If you put those three together, you will gain a rather complete
picture of the causes of the housing crisis & subsequent
financial collapse. Blaming individual citizens for not being able
to do basic interest payment math is one thing... but it still
fails to answer the more primary question of; How was there so much
credit floating around that anyone could get a loan for a house in
the first plact? AND: Given that there was so much money
available to loan to people, why did it go into housing instead of
some other investment or industry?
Answer those two correctly and you have yourself a real
understanding of why and how the government was absolutely,
unequivocally and completely the root cause of the mess we're
currently in.
|9.23.09 @ 8:44PM|#
Lamar,
As Don Boudreaux put it:
"Saying that "greed" caused today's problems is like saying that
gravity caused the death of someone pushed from the top floor of
the Empire State building. Some things are sufficiently constant in
human affairs - and self-interest, even greed, is among them - that
they explain nothing."
People respond to incentives. Blaming PEOPLE for responding to the
incentives that government gave them does nothing, at all. If we
want to learn about this mess and how to prevent it from happening
again, you get to the ROOT causes. What CAUSED people to behave
this way? It wasn't free market capitalism. It was cheap money and
the push for 'affordable housing.'
Turnkey|9.23.09 @ 9:03PM|#
At the time of the housing boom, considering how many years it was fueled, it seemed logical that people would feel they had to buy a house asap (+50% appreciation in 1 year, etc).
Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo|9.23.09 @ 9:55PM|#
"Educated people are unamerican"
When did Palin ever say that?
Michael Ejercito|9.23.09 @ 10:06PM|#
Provide an environment for free people to succeed or fail on their own merits, without undue government interference?
A lot of people disagree, believing that the market is supposed to
guarantee double-digit rates of return on investment.
zoltan|9.24.09 @ 3:00AM|#
She's been reading quite a bit on austrian economics
lately
[Citation needed]
Just because Barney Frank thinks the U.S. should legalize drugs
doesn't mean he's a defender of liberty. Show me someone who
doesn't want to kill brown people for living in Iraq/Afghanistan,
doing drugs, and who actually has the balls to give an opinion on
police brutality and I'll listen (just as I'll listen to Barney
Frank when he abandons his socialist ways). Until then, Ron Paul
and his ilk it is.
robc|9.24.09 @ 8:31AM|#
Lamar,
Speak for your own fucking self. I didnt do any of those
things.
Dont corrupt me with your WE.
Sean Healy|9.24.09 @ 11:25AM|#
Cheap money had more to do with the boom and crash than some
social policy to make poor-ish people homeowners. With so much
credit coursing through the financial system, bankers had to find
someone to lend it to. Government incentives or not, they would
have moved down the value chain. Otherwise there wouldn't have been
enough warm bodies among the creditworthy to populate all the
speculative developments in Florida, California, Arizona, Nevade,
etc. - which, by the way, the banks financed in the first
place.
Palin wants to make the financial crisis seem simple because she is
capable of only simplistic analysis and, therefore, simplistic
solutions. In reality, the crisis has many, many sources:
overabundant credit, poor risk and governance oversight in banks,
lack of vigilance (or greed) among shareholders, yield-hungry
bond-investors, unsophisticated regulators, regulatory arbitrage
(and countries, like Ireland, which played this for short-term
gain)...I could go on.
Neu Mejican|9.24.09 @ 11:40AM|#
Well,
I don't think I buy the explanation of what "caused" the meltdown
that Palin suggests.
Here's a more reasonable take on it.
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/taleb08/taleb08_index.html
The fact that both bankers and regulators didn't understand the
tools they were using to gauge risk was at the root of the problem.
Essentially, they were ignoring common sense and basic good banking
practices because they believed in the idea that markets can be
"optimized" for efficiency. But optimized systems require
redundancies and safety nets and these are inefficient.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245