Miembro del BCE
Fecha de Ingreso: 18-mayo-2007
36 Agradecimientos de 24 mensajes
Leer los comentarios.
Iniciado por John Ryskamp
"The main point is that – leaving aside important issues of moral hazard from fiscal bailouts – there is now a new and increasing recognition that severe credit and financial distress problems cannot be resolved with monetary policy alone. Thus, if a political consensus were to emerge that some financial support of distressed mortgage borrowers is fair and necessary then fiscal – as opposed to monetary alone - solutions may have to be discussed and implemented. The prospect of home prices falling 10 to 15% and two million plus home owners losing their homes is – rightly – becoming a political issue. And political issues lead to fiscal solutions when there is a political consensus that the consequences of no action can lead to severe economic and social fallout from the worst U.S. housing recession in decades."
This is the problem with economists who don't know anything about the law. Anyone with a law degree will ask you instantly: what new rights are you creating in housing possessors if you go down this path? In fact, you can't NOT be creating new rights by doing this, because you are insuring a possessory right which can be enforced by the possessor.
OK fine. What about those who have unsecured debt? There is no clear reason they should not have the same protection as those with secured debt. And what is the extent of these rights? And what about education, medical care? If you are currently being educated, if you are currently receiving medical care, why should that be allowed to be terminated when possession of housing cannot be termined? What in law is the difference?
As I have said all along, what is really going on is that we are in the process of elevating the facts mentioned in the New Bill of Rights, to the level of protection stated in the New Bill of Rights.
But will this happen in the case of housing, in the way which has been suggested? Not at all. Why not? Because not one of them--including Roubini--discusses the implications for individually enforceable rights. There is NO consensus on removing housing from the political system. Those who might benefit from it either oppose it or do not have the power to enforce it.
What is more, the legal establishment has ALWAYS counseled, not only the U.S. Government, but also every other government, NOT to grant increased rights in housing. Why not? Because it decreases the discretion of the political system with respect to these facts.
Thus, the absurd ignorance of economists, who bat these ideas around without ever answering the question: what does this do to the existence of rights, the extent of the rights, and those affected by the rights?
Which is why these discussions are all silly nonsense and will go nowhere. Ask any lawyer what a proposed moratorium on housing evictions will do to the entire legal system. It would completely upend the scrutiny regime established by West Coast Hotel v. Parrish. The political system does not have the mandate to do that. If anything, its mandate is to circle the wagons around the Capital and to hell with the population. The greater the degree of deterioration, the stronger the remaining strong political forces, and the more strongly they will insist that whatever powers of government remain, be used in THEIR interest. What is peculiar to America is that the suburban mentality will provide EXTRA support for this draconian point of view.
Do the polling: I doubt there is much support for more than cosmetic assistance to homeowners.
And by the way, what relief, by analogy, do renters have from the supposed new protection for homeowners? Would you like to be the judge who decides that?
No no, let the revolution take its course.