Fannie/Freddie and Housing Boom and Bust Predicted 6 years ago

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr071602.htm

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
July 16, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act. This legislation restores a free market in housing by repealing special privileges for housing-related government sponsored enterprises (GSEs). These entities are the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie), and the National Home Loan Bank Board (HLBB). According to the Congressional Budget Office, the housing-related GSEs received $13.6 billion worth of indirect federal subsidies in fiscal year 2000 alone.

One of the major government privileges granted these GSEs is a line of credit to the United States Treasury. According to some estimates, the line of credit may be worth over $2 billion. This explicit promise by the Treasury to bail out these GSEs in times of economic difficulty helps them attract investors who are willing to settle for lower yields than they would demand in the absence of the subsidy. Thus, the line of credit distorts the allocation of capital. More importantly, the line of credit is a promise on behalf of the government to engage in a massive unconstitutional and immoral income transfer from working Americans to holders of GSE debt.

The Free Housing Market Enhancement Act also repeals the explicit grant of legal authority given to the Federal Reserve to purchase the debt of housing-related GSEs. GSEs are the only institutions besides the United States Treasury granted explicit statutory authority to monetize their debt through the Federal Reserve. This provision gives the GSEs a source of liquidity unavailable to their competitors.

Ironically, by transferring the risk of a widespread mortgage default, the government increases the likelihood of a painful crash in the housing market. This is because the special privileges of Fannie, Freddie, and HLBB have distorted the housing market by allowing them to attract capital they could not attract under pure market conditions. As a result, capital is diverted from its most productive use into housing. This reduces the efficacy of the entire market and thus reduces the standard of living of all Americans.

However, despite the long-term damage to the economy inflicted by the government’s interference in the housing market, the government’s policies of diverting capital to other uses creates a short-term boom in housing. Like all artificially-created bubbles, the boom in housing prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, homeowners will experience difficulty as their equity is wiped out. Furthermore, the holders of the mortgage debt will also have a loss. These losses will be greater than they would have otherwise been had government policy not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.

Perhaps the Federal Reserve can stave off the day of reckoning by purchasing GSE debt and pumping liquidity into the housing market, but this cannot hold off the inevitable drop in the housing market forever. In fact, postponing the necessary but painful market corrections will only deepen the inevitable fall. The more people invested in the market, the greater the effects across the economy when the bubble bursts.

No less an authority than Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has expressed concern that government subsidies provided to the GSEs make investors underestimate the risk of investing in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Mr. Speaker, it is time for Congress to act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope my colleagues will stand up for American taxpayers and investors by cosponsoring the Free Housing Market Enhancement Act.

This is what happens when we let stupid people vote.

Dr. Paul could’ve been trying to explain rocket science to the HR, they’d have understood him just as well.

If Washington is so keen on standardized testing in public schools, why don’t we administer a standardized test to politicians?

Heck, let’s make election ballots dual purpose… put a basic exam on the 1st half and the candidates / measures on the 2nd half. Anyone who flunks the 1st half gets their ballot tossed.

You get something entirely different when you don’t let stupid people vote.

That might work if the exam was about the ballots/candidates or other issues to be voted on. If it was just some kind of general knowledge or standardized test it wouldn’t prove much.

I haven’t thought about it in detail, but it seems a public that’s actually knowledgable about a ballot measure or other voting decision is better-equipped to make a “good” decision on it than someone who only saw a couple of (lying, slanted, exaggerated) commercials about it…

I agree with you their, people need to know what canadites stand for before they vote.

Shameless Reference to the Facts

Someone should probably point out that the lobbyists that worked towards
manipulating the housing market on Fannie’s behalf played no small part in that
disaster.

Senior <McCain> advisers Steve Schmidt and Mark McKinnon work for firms that have lobbied for Land O Lakes, the UST Public Affairs, Dell and Fannie Mae.”
-The Washington
Post, http://tinyurl.com/yvdvn4

Of course, with so many lobbyists on your campaign staff, it’s probably difficult to keep a scorecard.

But then, McCain would not stand a chance.

Neither would Obama.

People need to look at the many candidates and choose based on principle. Choosing the lesser of two evils is still evil, but people do it because they don’t want the other to win. If you don’t want to waste your vote by voting third party, then you need to find someone you can trust who would otherwise vote for the other evil and form a pact with them? If you were going to vote for Obama and they were going to vote for McCain, your votes would cancel each other out anyways, so instead you both can agree to vote third party. Vote based on principle for once.

Obama and McCain are both in bed with the corporate elite. Whether you are left or right, there is a third party candidate that better fits most people’s political ideals.

Nader is the only third party candidate who cannot be seduced.

Ron Paul must have read “the Economist” ( a review of the corporate elite :p) who draw similar conclusions at the time.

I once flew on an airplane with Ralph Nader. Maybe I joined the mile high club with him, Billy.

Also predicted 150 years ago, here. :slight_smile:

Casting aspersions on Nader like that–you are low!

Paul also shares some of the blame

By convincing millions of people that the Fed is “creating money out of thin air”, and falsely predicting hyper inflation was the only possible outcome in our current economic system, Paul helped convince people that housing, and prices in general would keep rising. I am not at all surprised if students of Donald Duck economics 101, accepting that inflation was certain, put their money in housing and gold.

Gold fell 75 $ today. So much for Paul’s theory it is “sound money.” Dollar up, gold, oil, food, all down.

If there is anyone who has been completely discredited by the melt down, it is Ron Paul and his crack pot lies about the Fed, and his chicken little never ending rants about hyper inflation is coming !, hyper inflation is coming ! I can’t think of a single public figure who was ever so 180 degrees wrong about anything.

So Ron Paul is to blame because he said that the housing market was in a bubble? Um, bubbles boom and then bust. So, if you listened to Ron Paul, you may have ridden the bubble up and then sell when you think it’d burst.

Maybe you should wait until the crisis plays out before you claim that he has been disproven. Wait until people are done selling assets to get cash to meet their short term needs.

Hyperinflation is but one possibility. It’d be possible to prevent it by adopting a strong dollar policy. It doesn’t look like that is going to happen. So the dollar bubble continues and it’s unknown when it will burst.

Your analysis on one day market changes don’t prove anything. Markets are more accurate long term. Here are the changes for the past year:
Dollar (USDX): + 5%
Gold: + 15%
Oil: + 4%
Dow: - 40%

Which would you rather be in? Keep in mind that the dollar one is in comparison to other currencies, so it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s up in buying power. It buys less oil and less gold than it did a year ago.

Some say gold is not a very high return investment:

“Here’s why: since 1833, gold has had the incredible interest rate of 1.97% per year while the consumer price index, aka, “inflation” increased at a rate of 3.29% per year, since 1913. But that’s not such fair comparison, so how about comparing gold and CPI since 1975. That comes out to be 4.35% and 4.35% for inflation and gold, respectively. Good investment? I think not! Gold’s barely kept up with inflation. Something that I consider an investment performs better than inflation after taxes.”

The events that are playing themselves out right now, were HIGHLY predictable. In fact, they were inevitable given the course we were on and the inaction of our government.

I predicted the bust 4-5 years ago. Maybe I should run for president.

I’d love to hear your prediction with time frames.

Gold is not looked at as an investment, but as a store of value. You could try to play the swings, but that’s trading, not investing.

Starting at 1975 is a bad idea. The USA completely went off the gold standard in the mid 70’s. Fearing this would cause high inflation people bid gold up to over 800 $ and there was also sharp increases in oil cost at this point in history.

If you start at 1980, we have had 28 years or incredible economic expansion, with inflation of about 2.3 %/yr

This proves to me that the system is not inherently high inflationary. We do have a “strong dollar policy”. Perhaps a little to strong. It would be much better for everyone if we don’t end up our first 3 decades off gold with zero inflation overall. Sadly, it looks like there will be a lot of deflation over the next few years. Money appreciation only helps people with money. Historically, it is linked strongly to high unemployment.

swings.jpg