Why, you always help the ones at the top, because they're the geese who lay the golden eggs, some of those golden eggs which I'm sure we'll find real soon, because these are starting to be some damn expensive geese.

I'm not so sure it's wise to intervene on anyone's behalf.

Banks need to live with their bad decisions and individuals also need to live with the consequences of their bad decisions.

Why should I pay for someone else's poor poor decision? Are they willing to pay for some of mine?

The Fed's interventions, so far, seem to be lifting the markiets. And some analysts even see signs of bottoming, due in large part to a report showing a surprising increase in new home sales.

Does anyone 'see' things differently? Or is the worst still to come?

Excuse me. EXISTING homes sales.

Enquiring mind,

January is traditionally the slowest month of the year, so the february/january comparison is misleading. February almost always represents an increase over January.

That's why people usually use a year over year number.

February 2008 is still down 23.8% compared to February 2007.

El Vaijero,
I will gladly bear some of your risk if you bear some of mine. What a novel idea? Gives one the sense of community support. Maybe we could even do this on a broad scale with the young supporting the old in retirement and the healthy supporting the sick. Wait those policies would enforce the mantra "do unto others as they would do unto you". I think that enforcement makes one contagious with communism. Nevermind, El Viajero you get no love from me.

ddt,

I saw you got chastised on Economists View for using the correct terminology by the housemarm.

It's too bad that more people aren't as forthcoming. EV has been too deferential for years, excusing egregious economics on polite manners and civilized discourse. People should be ridiculed in the harshest, most unprofessional way, considering their impact on us and their continual half-assedness and quality of work.

Don't know where we'll get our etiquette lessons in the quonset world of the future.

I'm thankful that Dean doesn't enforce the same type of discourse orthodoxy here.

jfv411,

So where helping out bankers because they are just like everyone else?

"do unto others as they would do unto you"

We've seen what the bankers and flippers have done unto us. It's time we do unto them.

I will gladly bear some of your risk if you bear some of mine.

Why don't you just take responsibility for your actions? Of course if you did that, you couldn't blame others for your own dumbass financial decisions.

Can't one take responsibility for their own actions AND for society as a whole. I don't recall any earlier posts where I was blaming others for my own dumbass financial decisions. But once again, thanks for the compassionate conservatism. It never fails to teach the world the family values that america represents.

Why do I even carry around this troll food?

Ted wrote, EV has been too deferential for years, excusing egregious economics on polite manners and civilized discourse.

It's like doctors refusing to testify against other doctors, or cops against cops.

Brad DeLong is particularly bad on this score.

jfv411 wrote, Why do I even carry around this troll food?

While El Viajero is often, or even usually, full of right-wing nonsense, he's absolutely right on this issue.

There should be no expectation that society will protect people against making foolhardy financial decisions, particularly when they're motivated by greed.

Of course, there really are people who IMHO are innocent victims of the housing disaster. The Washington Post gave the example of a guy in DC who was constantly badgered by a mortgage broker into refinancing his home, and because the new mortgage had really risky features he'll probably lose it.

The problem is that there's almost certainly no effective way to sort out those who were victims from those who weren't, and I don't think it's likely that most homeowners caught in the trap were victims.

Any scheme to sort the two would be liable to abuse.

The only possible reasonable argument for bailouts is that if we don't do something, the greater economy could suffer great harm. Even there, Dean has proposed taking failing banks into receivership (and wiping out shareholder equity and firing all senior executives) and ways to keep homeowners in their own homes (at least for now) as tenants.

thank Ted,

I doubt anyone was actually offended besides her. I mean it was Mr. Dow 36,000, after all.

I too find the sort of will to ineffectuality there discouraging. Part of that is an unwillingness to hold a lot of questionable economists accountable. Mankiw is another who seems to have a reusable get out of jail free card.