The NYT had a piece on Mozilo telling Fannie or Freddie it would become extinct if it did not start buying Countrywide originations.

I had long thought Fannie and Freddie should be private companies, but federal agencies are now gaining so much mortgage market share, I wonder if they were private, would they now be nationalized.

The same way, if we had private social security, would we be starting it all over again to bail out seniors.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell Senator McCain that buying up mortgages at the asking price will do nothing to stop the housing bubble from collapsing. He actually insisted last night that we need to "raise the value of homes." What, dude, what?

A good article in today's N.Y. Times which actually acknowledge the "Housing Bubble" and downward pressure on house prices. And it actually quotes Dean, so financial and economic catastrophe has a silver lining.

Here's the link to the NYT article.

I blame the people with seven houses driving up prices, myself...

Dean the Economist/Housing Oracle,

Are you serious your salary is not six-figures? Ok, how about total compensation since you are the co-director?

I am shocked and impressed by your commitment, not just lip service.

AKA Joe Six Pack

The GOP revisionists would have excelled in the Kremlin during the Soviet era.

My recollection is that Fannie and Freddie originally had by far the greatest market share. The GOPpers wanted to limit the ability of Fannie and Freddie to compete with private firms on and off Wall Street as a part of their deregulation scheme. The subprime mortgage market grew out of private firms' efforts to compete with Fannie and Freddie. McCain's "warnings" actually had nothing to do with preserving Fannie and Freddie an much to do with enhancing the ability of private firms to compete with Fannie and Freddie.

These are not matter that I followed closely. So is my recollection accurate and, if so, when will the GOPpers be challenged on the facts underlying their arguments?

oh, how i was waiting for Obama to channel Dean Baker and knock that one out of the park... but it seemed that he passed up repeated opportunities to take the air out of McCain's economic baloney in order to state his program clearly, which was, I'm sure, The Plan... these guys have limited time in their debates, etc etc. But yeah, if the ground wasn't shifting so frequently under our feet, I'm sure we'd have seen even more 'blame Freddie, blame Fannie' deflections from the conservatives.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell Senator McCain that buying up mortgages at the asking price will do nothing to stop the housing bubble from collapsing.

Unfortunately, McCain is just one of many prominent people calling for some form of this lunacy.

Whenever someone talks about how we need to "put a floor" under house prices, how do you suppose they intend to do that? You can't do it by buying homes/mortgages at their true value, you're forced to overpay. Being that prices must and will fall to affordable levels regardless of whatever we do, we may as well spare the taxpayers from these ridiculous price fixing schemes.

Of course there's a border between Iraq and Afghanistan.

It's called Iran ... as in "bomb bomb bomb ..."

Dean's salary from CEPR is public record.

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/990.php?ein=522204029&yr=200612&rt=990&t9=A

Under 80,000 from CEPR in 2006.

Dean,

Whether government intervention in the housing market is to blame for the bubble is a debated issue in many countries right now.

It would be great if you or the CEPR could provide us with "solid" references; which report, which agency, which database the figures you are mentioning on this blog (F&F's market share, who the big actors on the subprime markets were which were not restricted by the CRA and their market share, etc).

I have done quite a bit of research (I live in a European country) and all I find is the word of mouth from journalists, columnists etc. - i. e., not good enough.

I obviously can't find the "hard" evidence, and I know it's my own fault, but if you would have the time to provide your readers with the essential links and references on this matter, at least I would be very thankful.

Market fundamentalism may be down for the count but the outcome of the round may depend on how, when and where the next punches will land.

I, too, long accepted the argument that Fannie/Freddie had cut back on subprime and Alt-A lending/insuring and that therefore, they were not significantly responsible for the current financial crisis.

But the argument that the GSEs were a minor player is date biased.

It turns out that the GSEs changed their lending policy in 2006 and throughout 2007 and became the major supporter of subprime and Alt-A lending.

While they may not have been responsible for the price bubble, they were the major contributors to the "risk bubble." And it's the risk bubble created in the 2006-7 time period for which the GSEs are responsible which is killing us.

It seemed that he passed up repeated opportunities to take the air out of McCain's economic baloney in order to state his program clearly, which was, I'm sure, The Plan... these guys have limited time in their debates, etc etc. But yeah, if the ground wasn't shifting so frequently under our feet.

thaaanks