Opinion

Felix Salmon

Friday links reinvest in the community

By Felix Salmon
June 26, 2009

Ryan Chittum buries Carney on CRA

Yes, you can raise tariffs on countries which don’t have carbon caps or taxes

Did the WSJ’s Robert Thomson really say that “readers are losers in a world of content verticals… society is content horizontal”?

Nemo tries valiantly to translate John Jansen into English, with mixed success

Krugman refuted Carney’s points about the CRA before Carney even made them

Jack Welch’s reputation takes another downward lurch as he pushes denialist nonsense from the WSJ editorial page

Ritholtz weighs in on the CRA debate

Comments
4 comments so far | RSS Comments RSS

“2) As revenue is skimmed by aggregators, served up by search results, there is a drought of diversity in journalism. Readers are the losers in a world dominated by content verticals. But society itself is content horizontal—people are interested in wide array of subjects and we all benefit from information described from different perspectives.”

Do you think that Nemo could find the time to translate the paragraph above into English for me?

 

The Strassel article in the WSJ is not actually denialist, it’s skeptical. The denialists make all sorts of unsupportable claims.

For an intelligent look at the skepticism, read climateaudit.org for a few weeks. Another, even easier spot is surfacestations.org.

Some say computerized climate modeling is the econometrics of climatology. Though there are few people who know enough about both to be sure.

Posted by Fred3 | Report as abusive
 
 

The other problem with the CRA is bad argument is when you flesh it out. The CRA caused the housing bubble, which when popped caused the crisis. So if the CRA contributed to inflated home prices, no one was complaining when home prices were going up. This is the same as the tech bubble when people were not concerned about millions funneling to worthless dot-coms as long as their stocks went up.

Take an original $100k home, bad subprime loan pushes price for buyer A, to $150k, the seller of that home (B) pumps a $200k home to $400k with an interest only no-down loan. That seller (C) pumps a $400k home to $800k, and on. B & C were not complaining about the quality of the loan to A because they got ‘rich’ off it.

A defaults first, then B and most likely last C. A, B, and C all did the same thing and poor underwriting was on all three loans. It is hypocritical for B & C to benefit off the initial loan and then to call foul when things turn. This applies even to the toxic non-CRA related loans. People who were in it thick need to accept their responsibility and take their losses and not try to shift blame.

Posted by winstongator | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •