Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

All of these were done 25, 50, or 100 years ago. The basis for the mortgage industry as we know it was developed during the new deal.

I need some serious convincing that the effects securitization of everything has been a net win.

The markets for most of this stuff are made or directly supported by the Federal government.



I think it's fine:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/embed/?s=unitedstamonsupm0&d...

Look at that innovation! How is your life doing recently? I feel like mine is four times better. Oh no wait land is way more expensive and I'm working to pay my landlord every month. Should I go to my bank and make a huge bet on record low rates or wait for them to print some more whilst wages are static?


So tax land rents, not labor.


I agree. Land value tax. It would cut the banks down to size in no time as it would cut down land speculation which makes up the bulk of bank lending.


I'd simply be interested in seeing more of working people's spending money available to increase the economy. I am not sure that this must be at the expense of banks.

One natural experiment in the effects of speculation is home prices in Texas ( which taxes land rents more than most states ) vs. Florida ( which taxes them less ).

It would also help address some examples of misallocation of land. Since the tax base is now largely market driven, it's all but impossible to game.


Well, it's a very small sample, but Florida was one of the hardest hit by the housing bubble a few years ago, while Texas had relatively stable housing prices. California also was heavily impacted by the housing bubble and it has Prop 13.


Careful, money supply is not at all the same thing as inflation, see:

http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation/Money_Supply_an...

Because we are in a big "liquidity trap": http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/monetary-policy-...

The fed printed money can only be loaned, not just given away. This limits its direct impact on inflation. On the other hand, it certainly would cause inflation if it made it out of the banks. But banks will only loan if they think they can make money: only if there is economic growth to take advantage of, otherwise it just sits.

At this point we should not limit growth based on lack of liquidity, so it's probably not a bad thing that the fed is pumping money into the banks.

I read that some in the fed suggest that interest rates should be raised. The expectation of future higher rates might encourage people to borrow and spend now: https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/a...


securitization is just the process of transferring risk from those who think they can't hold it to those who think they are very good at holding it. It is a tool, and it is a very good tool. A shovel is a tool and if I take a shovel and kill someone with it, that doesn't make the tool itsel bad


I didn't say it was bad, just not particularly useful in proportion to the other effects.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: