Comments on: Let’s keep making the same mistakes http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/lets-keep-making-the-same-mistakes.html where orders emerge Mon, 16 Jan 2012 02:06:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: briana http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/lets-keep-making-the-same-mistakes.html/comment-page-1#comment-184411 briana Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:44:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6640#comment-184411 hay my name is briana hay my name is briana

]]> By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/lets-keep-making-the-same-mistakes.html/comment-page-1#comment-183754 Anonymous Thu, 01 Oct 2009 18:00:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6640#comment-183754 Muirgeo claimed:<I>No way bud. That BS and you know it. Mos tof the worst subprime loans happened outside of govenrment mandates. </I>I don’t expect you to understand this, but I’ll try one more time on a very basic level.What you fail to grasp is the way government intervention works. No, the government didn't call up Countrywide Financial and demand that they begin issuing subprime loans -- just as the government doesn't call up employers and tell them to hire “X” number of minority workers next week. Instead, the government passes laws making "discrimination" in lending a crime -- just as they made "discrimination" in hiring a crime. The Fair Housing Act, the Community Reinvestment Act -- all of that long list of legislation I mentioned in my first post -- all of it established and reinforced the illegality of discrimination in lending.And in both cases -- as is generally the practice with government regulation -- the normal burden of proof is reversed; if you are accused of discrimination in lending by, say, your local ACORN outfit, or if you are accused of discrimination in hiring by your local Al Sharpton-type, <B>you are presumed guilty and must prove your innocence.</B>Let me make sure you understand this point: <B>At any point in time, if you are a lender or an employer, you must be able to prove that you have NOT discriminated in the granting of loans or the hiring of people.</B>Putting aside, for a moment, the blatant injustice of denying to an employer or lender the very rights granted to accused criminals -- the bottom line is this: <B>to the government, the only thing that counts as proof that you have not discriminated is the racial makeup of your workforce or your loan portfolio.</B>Think carefully about what this means. It means if you have a low percentage of minorities in your workforce, it doesn’t matter a whit to the government if this is due to the fact that no minorities applied for work at your firm -- just as it doesn‘t matter a whit to the government if those minorities that applied had terrible work records. The lack of a “sufficient” number of minority employees is considered proof that you are guilty of discrimination. Likewise for lenders. It doesn’t matter if few minorities come forward asking for loans from a given mortgage lender -- just as it doesn’t matter if the minorities that do come forward are uncreditworthy. The government doesn’t care a whit about that. <B>If a lender doesn’t have a “sufficient” number of loans to minorities on his books, he’s considered guilty of discrimination -- even if it is due to factors completely out of his control.</B>What’s more, the lender must <B>prove</B> this “nondiscrimination” even if there is NO accusation from anyone against the firm. The mechanism for this is the periodic audits that are done under the Community Reinvestment Act. Bank examiners come into your bank and look at all their records. They demand to see the proof that you’ve not discriminated. You have to have those minority loans on the books.In addition, you have ACORN running a shakedown by threatening various banks and mortgage institutions to go public with an accusation of discrimination -- and accusation sure to bring on more banking regulators.So eliminating actual racial discrimination in lending is not necessarily sufficient to keep a lender out of trouble. <B>If there aren’t a sufficient number of qualified minorities seeking loans at a given institution, the institition has to find some way to get them to apply and to get them approved, so the minority loans get on the books -- even if all indicators are that the loan is risky .</B>This is how government “mandated” the issuance of sub-prime loans. <B>It put lenders in a position wherein there was no choice but to accept ever-less-creditworthy minorities and to make every-more-risky loans. There was no other way to prove to government that they were not discriminating.</B>That is the “stick” that government wielded. It also used a number of “carrots”. One “carrot” was in the form of the GSEs that were encouraged to create a secondary market for these loans, so that institutions would not have to carry too many of these risky loans simultaneously. The other HUGE “carrot” was the Federal Reserve, who drove interest rates to historic lows, thereby enabling lenders to put extremely attractive initial rates on these riskier loans. In addition, the Federal Reserve -- as lender of “last resort” -- represents an implicit promise that government will be there to bail you out if you get into trouble.Now I have not dealt with the element of time in this comment. The government’s “stick” was not applied all at once, but rather, the pressure to comply with the nondiscrimination requirement was ratcheted up over time. Likewise with the “carrots”. The net effect was to artificially inflate the demand for residential mortgages and residences. Millions of renters were induced to become owners. Home prices soared. The bubble was created. But reality would soon intervene.That’s the end of my effort to educate you, muirgeo. If you cannot grasp how government engineered the creation of the subprime mortgages and the entire housing bubble, there is no use discussing what happened at AIG, Bear Stearns and all the rest. Muirgeo claimed:No way bud. That BS and you know it. Mos tof the worst subprime loans happened outside of govenrment mandates. I don’t expect you to understand this, but I’ll try one more time on a very basic level.What you fail to grasp is the way government intervention works. No, the government didn’t call up Countrywide Financial and demand that they begin issuing subprime loans — just as the government doesn’t call up employers and tell them to hire “X” number of minority workers next week. Instead, the government passes laws making “discrimination” in lending a crime — just as they made “discrimination” in hiring a crime. The Fair Housing Act, the Community Reinvestment Act — all of that long list of legislation I mentioned in my first post — all of it established and reinforced the illegality of discrimination in lending.And in both cases — as is generally the practice with government regulation — the normal burden of proof is reversed; if you are accused of discrimination in lending by, say, your local ACORN outfit, or if you are accused of discrimination in hiring by your local Al Sharpton-type, you are presumed guilty and must prove your innocence.Let me make sure you understand this point: At any point in time, if you are a lender or an employer, you must be able to prove that you have NOT discriminated in the granting of loans or the hiring of people.Putting aside, for a moment, the blatant injustice of denying to an employer or lender the very rights granted to accused criminals — the bottom line is this: to the government, the only thing that counts as proof that you have not discriminated is the racial makeup of your workforce or your loan portfolio.Think carefully about what this means. It means if you have a low percentage of minorities in your workforce, it doesn’t matter a whit to the government if this is due to the fact that no minorities applied for work at your firm — just as it doesn‘t matter a whit to the government if those minorities that applied had terrible work records. The lack of a “sufficient” number of minority employees is considered proof that you are guilty of discrimination. Likewise for lenders. It doesn’t matter if few minorities come forward asking for loans from a given mortgage lender — just as it doesn’t matter if the minorities that do come forward are uncreditworthy. The government doesn’t care a whit about that. If a lender doesn’t have a “sufficient” number of loans to minorities on his books, he’s considered guilty of discrimination — even if it is due to factors completely out of his control.What’s more, the lender must prove this “nondiscrimination” even if there is NO accusation from anyone against the firm. The mechanism for this is the periodic audits that are done under the Community Reinvestment Act. Bank examiners come into your bank and look at all their records. They demand to see the proof that you’ve not discriminated. You have to have those minority loans on the books.In addition, you have ACORN running a shakedown by threatening various banks and mortgage institutions to go public with an accusation of discrimination — and accusation sure to bring on more banking regulators.So eliminating actual racial discrimination in lending is not necessarily sufficient to keep a lender out of trouble. If there aren’t a sufficient number of qualified minorities seeking loans at a given institution, the institition has to find some way to get them to apply and to get them approved, so the minority loans get on the books — even if all indicators are that the loan is risky .This is how government “mandated” the issuance of sub-prime loans. It put lenders in a position wherein there was no choice but to accept ever-less-creditworthy minorities and to make every-more-risky loans. There was no other way to prove to government that they were not discriminating.That is the “stick” that government wielded. It also used a number of “carrots”. One “carrot” was in the form of the GSEs that were encouraged to create a secondary market for these loans, so that institutions would not have to carry too many of these risky loans simultaneously. The other HUGE “carrot” was the Federal Reserve, who drove interest rates to historic lows, thereby enabling lenders to put extremely attractive initial rates on these riskier loans. In addition, the Federal Reserve — as lender of “last resort” — represents an implicit promise that government will be there to bail you out if you get into trouble.Now I have not dealt with the element of time in this comment. The government’s “stick” was not applied all at once, but rather, the pressure to comply with the nondiscrimination requirement was ratcheted up over time. Likewise with the “carrots”. The net effect was to artificially inflate the demand for residential mortgages and residences. Millions of renters were induced to become owners. Home prices soared. The bubble was created. But reality would soon intervene.That’s the end of my effort to educate you, muirgeo. If you cannot grasp how government engineered the creation of the subprime mortgages and the entire housing bubble, there is no use discussing what happened at AIG, Bear Stearns and all the rest.

]]> By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/lets-keep-making-the-same-mistakes.html/comment-page-1#comment-183628 Anonymous Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:13:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6640#comment-183628 Welcome, there is always room for another Chihuahua up on the porch where muirduck, Gil, DK, various other little pets, and now you, can run back and forth yapping at big dogs. I'll be content to see your contributions and see if you can actually get down off the porch and run in the street. Dazzle me Junior. Welcome, there is always room for another Chihuahua up on the porch where muirduck, Gil, DK, various other little pets, and now you, can run back and forth yapping at big dogs.

I’ll be content to see your contributions and see if you can actually get down off the porch and run in the street.

Dazzle me Junior.

]]> By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/lets-keep-making-the-same-mistakes.html/comment-page-1#comment-183625 Anonymous Thu, 01 Oct 2009 06:26:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6640#comment-183625 Go here and watch this presentation for more information: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename... Looked at all the slides and listened for 10 minutes. No where does he explain how crap loans now could be repackaged as CDS's where they couldn't 15 years ago. He NO WHERE answers the question/ addresses the issue that this could NOT have happened had Glass-Steagall been in effect and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act not been passed. He failed miserably but explained things away predictably and just as his audience needed to hear. He's a charlatan pushing blind faith for the true believers. New question. So why aren't lenders being forced to still make crappy loans? Did the government mandate that "made" Bear Stearns and Countrywide offer bad subprime loans end? Go here and watch this presentation for more information: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename...

Looked at all the slides and listened for 10 minutes. No where does he explain how crap loans now could be repackaged as CDS’s where they couldn’t 15 years ago.

He NO WHERE answers the question/ addresses the issue that this could NOT have happened had Glass-Steagall been in effect and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act not been passed.

He failed miserably but explained things away predictably and just as his audience needed to hear. He’s a charlatan pushing blind faith for the true believers.

New question. So why aren’t lenders being forced to still make crappy loans? Did the government mandate that “made” Bear Stearns and Countrywide offer bad subprime loans end?

]]> By: iamse7en http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/lets-keep-making-the-same-mistakes.html/comment-page-1#comment-183620 iamse7en Thu, 01 Oct 2009 04:20:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6640#comment-183620 Thank you so much for that presentation by John Allison. It is excellent. I've been reading a ton about this whole crisis, reading Ron Paul's book now, and will read Meltdown by Woods next, but really appreciate the great link. Half way through the lecture now, and it's very well done! Thank you so much for that presentation by John Allison. It is excellent. I’ve been reading a ton about this whole crisis, reading Ron Paul’s book now, and will read Meltdown by Woods next, but really appreciate the great link. Half way through the lecture now, and it’s very well done!

]]> By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/lets-keep-making-the-same-mistakes.html/comment-page-1#comment-183618 Anonymous Thu, 01 Oct 2009 03:33:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6640#comment-183618 running for messiah? yeah, illuminate us all, reveal the truth would you? bring it on, as bluntly as you can, cuz my skillz are sharp as the edge you lost some ten year ago, dude! pwnd by some kiddo nice! running for messiah?

yeah, illuminate us all, reveal the truth would you?

bring it on, as bluntly as you can, cuz my skillz are sharp as the edge you lost some ten year ago, dude!

pwnd by some kiddo
nice!

]]> By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/lets-keep-making-the-same-mistakes.html/comment-page-1#comment-183617 Anonymous Thu, 01 Oct 2009 03:28:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6640#comment-183617 man, you take blog comments waaaaay too seriously made me laugh tho, thanks once I saw this web comic about some guy who said 'wait, somebody is wrong on the Internet, I gotta fix it' and I just pictured him going ape shit and cutting and pasting 'and up' a bunch of times, thinking he's clever... its just some comment man, don't overcompensate for the shit you put up with on real life... chill out dude also, calling people kid like its offensive? duuude, being a kid rules! we get to party all the time, we have the energy and the dontgiveafuckness you only wish you had get a life you middle-aged, middle-class, whose great achievement in life was burning some other middle-aged middle class stranger on some blog thread waaay to go! =D man, you take blog comments waaaaay too seriously

made me laugh tho, thanks

once I saw this web comic about some guy who said ‘wait, somebody is wrong on the Internet, I gotta fix it’ and I just pictured him going ape shit and cutting and pasting ‘and up’ a bunch of times, thinking he’s clever…

its just some comment man, don’t overcompensate for the shit you put up with on real life… chill out dude

also, calling people kid like its offensive? duuude, being a kid rules! we get to party all the time, we have the energy and the dontgiveafuckness you only wish you had

get a life you middle-aged, middle-class, whose great achievement in life was burning some other middle-aged middle class stranger on some blog thread

waaay to go!

=D

]]> By: jojo http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/lets-keep-making-the-same-mistakes.html/comment-page-1#comment-183616 jojo Thu, 01 Oct 2009 03:24:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6640#comment-183616 <a href="http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/neppc/memos/2009/zhao042409.pdf" rel="nofollow">Federal Reserve Bank of Boston </a> Memo dated April 2009 - The Impact of Recent Credit Market Turmoil on New England State Housing Finance Agencies Is it the same mistake or is trying to rectify the unintended consequence of how the Feds propped up the GSEs. Hasn't the Feds heavy purchasing of MBSs via Fannie & Freddie kept interest rates artificially low crippling the Federal Housing Agencies (Agencies)? Then there the need to have someone step in to act as a liquidity provider. I was under the impression that after liquidity facility providers were downgraded last fall, that regulations of some sort prevented entities such as Money Market funds from holding assets in which a liquidity provider does not have the appropriate rating. Hopefully, the fed acting as a liquidity provider or, the insurer of last resort, is a temporary measure. The Feds (the taxpayers) only pays if the Agencies default on their bonds. Also, I believe Agencies service the loans they originate so there's an inducement to keep loan losses to an acceptable tolerance and one that is acceptable to the bond holders. To my knowledge, the Agencies default and foreclosure ratios have been lower than other affordability programs offered by Fannie/Freddie or insured by FHA or USDA. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston
Memo dated April 2009 – The Impact of Recent Credit Market Turmoil on New England State Housing Finance Agencies

Is it the same mistake or is trying to rectify the unintended consequence of how the Feds propped up the GSEs. Hasn’t the Feds heavy purchasing of MBSs via Fannie & Freddie kept interest rates artificially low crippling the Federal Housing Agencies (Agencies)?

Then there the need to have someone step in to act as a liquidity provider. I was under the impression that after liquidity facility providers were downgraded last fall, that regulations of some sort prevented entities such as Money Market funds from holding assets in which a liquidity provider does not have the appropriate rating. Hopefully, the fed acting as a liquidity provider or, the insurer of last resort, is a temporary measure. The Feds (the taxpayers) only pays if the Agencies default on their bonds.

Also, I believe Agencies service the loans they originate so there’s an inducement to keep loan losses to an acceptable tolerance and one that is acceptable to the bond holders. To my knowledge, the Agencies default and foreclosure ratios have been lower than other affordability programs offered by Fannie/Freddie or insured by FHA or USDA.

]]> By: mesaeconoguy http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/lets-keep-making-the-same-mistakes.html/comment-page-1#comment-183609 mesaeconoguy Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:53:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6640#comment-183609 <i>So how do we arrive at the conclusion that the US govt policy was a factor? It seems to be merely politically convenient to supppose [sic] that, but there's no evidence</i> Wrong. See here: <a href="http://www.independent.org/publications/policy_reports/detail.asp?type=full&id=30" rel="nofollow">Anatomy of a Trainwreck</a> Absent the incentives provided, and the wildly out-of-control political patronage corruption of GSEs, the "bubble" would have been much smaller. Fannie & Freddie, Barney Frank’s hobby horses, were THE major drivers, acting as lender of last resort. So while they may not appear as top line lenders (which they sometimes were), they wound up as ultimate purchasers and guarantors of most of these loans, the incentive for which was politically-driven, as was the securitization, as was the ratings, as was the entire sector. You clearly have little understanding of the mechanisms at work. So how do we arrive at the conclusion that the US govt policy was a factor? It seems to be merely politically convenient to supppose [sic] that, but there’s no evidence

Wrong. See here: Anatomy of a Trainwreck

Absent the incentives provided, and the wildly out-of-control political patronage corruption of GSEs, the “bubble” would have been much smaller.

Fannie & Freddie, Barney Frank’s hobby horses, were THE major drivers, acting as lender of last resort. So while they may not appear as top line lenders (which they sometimes were), they wound up as ultimate purchasers and guarantors of most of these loans, the incentive for which was politically-driven, as was the securitization, as was the ratings, as was the entire sector.

You clearly have little understanding of the mechanisms at work.

]]> By: Sam Grove http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/lets-keep-making-the-same-mistakes.html/comment-page-1#comment-183599 Sam Grove Thu, 01 Oct 2009 01:25:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6640#comment-183599 <i>Really you are asking people to believ ethe government forced these investments banks to do what they did, AIG too</i> Straw man, I made no claim that the government "forced" these investment banks to "do what they did". While you are complaining about Wall Street, aren't you a bit discomfited knowing that Wall Street won the election? Bush=petro industry Obama=Wall Street Even for a serf, you sure are a dupe. Really you are asking people to believ ethe government forced these investments banks to do what they did, AIG too

Straw man, I made no claim that the government “forced” these investment banks to “do what they did”.

While you are complaining about Wall Street, aren’t you a bit discomfited knowing that Wall Street won the election?
Bush=petro industry
Obama=Wall Street

Even for a serf, you sure are a dupe.

]]> By: mesaeconoguy http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/lets-keep-making-the-same-mistakes.html/comment-page-1#comment-183592 mesaeconoguy Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:13:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6640#comment-183592 No, you're the liar here, Dr. retard. See my comments above. No, you’re the liar here, Dr. retard. See my comments above.

]]> By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/lets-keep-making-the-same-mistakes.html/comment-page-1#comment-183591 Anonymous Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:12:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6640#comment-183591 junearunga, Nice is not always my goal. Sometimes truth spoken or written bluntly is much more important. I hope you turn out to be nice, then I can be nice to you. junearunga,

Nice is not always my goal. Sometimes truth spoken or written bluntly is much more important.

I hope you turn out to be nice, then I can be nice to you.

]]> By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/lets-keep-making-the-same-mistakes.html/comment-page-1#comment-183589 Anonymous Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:09:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6640#comment-183589 Get some experience with Duplicitous Kuehn before chastising me please.Nitpicking DK can be abusive just by showing up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up, of course that is just on one thread from the hosts.Besides, if the hosts can tell him to cut it back, which they have done, should I feel terrible about reminding him? Nah, t'ain't so, I don't feel terrible at all.Last but not least junearunga, no one destroys Duplicitous Kuehn doncha know? DK never admits someone else has had the final say, or made the better point, it is always the "yeah but". Stick around kiddo and you will see my conclusive point.DK is like the annoying little "know it all" kid who sat behind you in the second grade and always had his hand up, and when the teacher didn't call on him and another kid got to give the answer, he still had his hand up because he could add to the other kid's answer and it was terribly important that he do so; and, if the teacher didn't give him the opportunity he would blurt it out anyway.:-D Get some experience with Duplicitous Kuehn before chastising me please.Nitpicking DK can be abusive just by showing up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up and up, of course that is just on one thread from the hosts.Besides, if the hosts can tell him to cut it back, which they have done, should I feel terrible about reminding him? Nah, t’ain’t so, I don’t feel terrible at all.Last but not least junearunga, no one destroys Duplicitous Kuehn doncha know? DK never admits someone else has had the final say, or made the better point, it is always the “yeah but”. Stick around kiddo and you will see my conclusive point.DK is like the annoying little “know it all” kid who sat behind you in the second grade and always had his hand up, and when the teacher didn’t call on him and another kid got to give the answer, he still had his hand up because he could add to the other kid’s answer and it was terribly important that he do so; and, if the teacher didn’t give him the opportunity he would blurt it out anyway.:-D

]]> By: MWG http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/lets-keep-making-the-same-mistakes.html/comment-page-1#comment-183587 MWG Thu, 01 Oct 2009 00:03:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6640#comment-183587 ...but of course muir already knew this as it is very common knowledge. …but of course muir already knew this as it is very common knowledge.

]]> By: mesaeconoguy http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/lets-keep-making-the-same-mistakes.html/comment-page-1#comment-183584 mesaeconoguy Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:53:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6640#comment-183584 They are 3 private firms, Fitch, Moody's and S&P, known as NRSROs (Nationally Recognized Statistical Ratings Organizations) chartered by the Federal Government to perform securities ratings functions. No other firms may engage in this activity, thus they are a government-sponsored oligopoly. They are 3 private firms, Fitch, Moody’s and S&P, known as NRSROs (Nationally Recognized Statistical Ratings Organizations) chartered by the Federal Government to perform securities ratings functions. No other firms may engage in this activity, thus they are a government-sponsored oligopoly.

]]> By: mesaeconoguy http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/lets-keep-making-the-same-mistakes.html/comment-page-1#comment-183583 mesaeconoguy Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:50:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6640#comment-183583 Okay, let’s take that sequentially: 1. <a href="http://www.bos.frb.org/commdev/commaff/closingt.pdf" rel="nofollow">piece of crap loan</a> [one of several piece of crap enabling movements to "expand lending" see #2] 2. loan bought - see above, also CRA (1977), Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (1975), Equal Credit Opportunity Act (1974), Fair Housing Act (1968) et al. 3. <a href="http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-19902035.html" rel="nofollow">repackaging & securitization</a> (note the year: 1997, when was G-B-L/repeal of Glass-Steagall again? Oh, 1999, that’s right. Thanks.) Just stop talking, muirgeo, I beg you. Please. You're killing us with your stupidity & ignorance. But it's incredibly entertaining at times. Okay, let’s take that sequentially:

1. piece of crap loan [one of several piece of crap enabling movements to "expand lending" see #2]

2. loan bought – see above, also CRA (1977), Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (1975), Equal Credit Opportunity Act (1974), Fair Housing Act (1968) et al.

3. repackaging & securitization (note the year: 1997, when was G-B-L/repeal of Glass-Steagall again? Oh, 1999, that’s right. Thanks.)

Just stop talking, muirgeo, I beg you. Please. You’re killing us with your stupidity & ignorance. But it’s incredibly entertaining at times.

]]> By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/lets-keep-making-the-same-mistakes.html/comment-page-1#comment-183582 Anonymous Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:48:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6640#comment-183582 I recently closed on a house. The closing documents included numerous single sheets that had just one or two sentences requiring a separate signature as confirmation that I understood what I was getting into. It bordered on ridiculous. I was told that each sheet was the product of a lawsuit. That people in any significant numbers were tricked into signing mortgages is impossible to believe. I recently closed on a house. The closing documents included numerous single sheets that had just one or two sentences requiring a separate signature as confirmation that I understood what I was getting into. It bordered on ridiculous. I was told that each sheet was the product of a lawsuit.

That people in any significant numbers were tricked into signing mortgages is impossible to believe.

]]> By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/lets-keep-making-the-same-mistakes.html/comment-page-1#comment-183581 Anonymous Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:38:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6640#comment-183581 I know people who grew up in the Soviet Union. They had absolutely no respect for the law there. Black markets were rampant, and people did everything they could get way with, without any ethical inhibition. And they carried that same irreverence to government authority with them here. I know people who grew up in the Soviet Union. They had absolutely no respect for the law there. Black markets were rampant, and people did everything they could get way with, without any ethical inhibition. And they carried that same irreverence to government authority with them here.

]]> By: Anonymous http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/lets-keep-making-the-same-mistakes.html/comment-page-1#comment-183580 Anonymous Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:37:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6640#comment-183580 Actually, he did. You need to read more carefully. I can only hope you treat your patients with a more thorough reading of the medical material. Actually, he did. You need to read more carefully. I can only hope you treat your patients with a more thorough reading of the medical material.

]]> By: mesaeconoguy http://cafehayek.com/2009/09/lets-keep-making-the-same-mistakes.html/comment-page-1#comment-183575 mesaeconoguy Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:24:00 +0000 http://cafehayek.com/?p=6640#comment-183575 Very well said, again, Michael. Very well said, again, Michael.

]]>