Newsletter

Get a weekly recap in your inbox every Sunday of our best stories from the week plus a primer for the days ahead.

Find It

Search our directories for...

Restaurants

Restaurants

Bars

Bars

Events

Events

Attractions

Attractions

View All

View All

Comments

12 responses to ““Anatomy Of A Train Wreck””

  1. John M says:

    Personally I prefer WFAA’s explanation of the Federal Reserve system. Apparently it involves gardeners in suits and a hose or something.

    http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa081210_mo_fedreserve.4f3f4b9f.html?ocp=2#slcgm_comments_anchor

  2. John says:

    “Prowness” — ????

  3. Incognizant says:

    Well, if the guy has a lot of Prow, why not?

  4. yeah, right says:

    This is a good example of why the Federal Reserve needs to be independent of political influences.

    I’d look at how Richard F. Syron, former head of Freddie Mac, was appointed president of the Boston Fed and put in the position of directing research towards presenting evidence that now seems not so independent.

  5. km says:

    He does business lying down?

  6. Josh Pearson says:

    Just reading the headline, I thought this was a follow up on Tim’s Frontburner For Your Ears post earlier.

  7. 84692 says:

    Damn you Josh.

  8. mm says:

    Seems like a rehash, along the lines of “the whole economic crisis happened because Clinton wanted minorities in houses they couldn’t afford”, ignoring a lot of the other reasons.

  9. The Other RLS says:

    I think I know this Prowness fellow. He needs to be spending more time at his day job, which does not involve mortgages.

  10. wja4507 says:

    @mm – exactly what are the “lot of other reasons” that the professor ignored? Did you even read it? If so, show me where his empirical data is incorrect, or statistical analysis misses the mark. It’s a fine article and I agree with Wick.

  11. mm says:

    @wja4507 – Yes, I read the article. His empirical data seems fine, and statistical analysis is top notch.

    And “ignored” might be too strong a word, but the role of the speculators was definitely downplayed. The people who bought houses they couldn’t afford got their scolding, as did the federal agencies that enabled it. But the speculators who were just as big a part of the problem seemed to get off light, in my reading.

    In fact, the author himself confirms this: “This report concludes that, in an attempt to increase home ownership, particularly by minorities and the less affl uent, virtually every branch of the government undertook an attack on underwriting standards starting in the early 1990s.”

    Seems analagous to saying that banks deserve to get robbed, if nobody is there to stop the criminals.