|| Print ||
|Wednesday, July 06, 2011|
An email from one of the authors of Reckless Endangerment, Josh Rosner, pushes back against my post on the book and how it is being used by conservatives to try to blame the financial crisis on Fannie, Freddie, the Community Reinvestment Acts (CRA), and Democrats:
Let me make several points in response.
First, I didn't mention the CRA when I was talking about the book; I was careful not to. When the book is discussed, I only talk about Fannie, Freddie, and Democrats (see the quote below, for example). I did bring up the CRA and discussed why the notion that the CRA caused the crisis is at odds with the evidence, but only after trying to turn the discussion toward the more general story the right is trying to sell to the public. It wasn't meant to be connected to the book.
Second, with that said, I think I could have done a better job of introducing the topic. I wrote:
I might have said:
Third, and most importantly, if they "don't take either stance," then I hope that the authors are pushing back just as hard, or harder, against the way the book is being used by those on the right trying to sell the idea that Fannie and Freddie, and yes, the CRA, caused the crisis. When George Will wrote:
Did he get an email? I was careful not to say the authors blamed the CRA, but I don't see the same care in the two paragraphs above. The CRA and the authors are discussed as though the authors are making this argument. Have they asked for a correction from the Washington Post? Have they demanded that others pulling the same tricks rescind their words? I don't know if they have or not, if they have, great. I encourage you to get more aggressive and public in your protests against the book being used for these purposes. But if not, I would ask why I got an email, but others didn't.
Finally, we seem to agree that it wasn't the CRA. What we disagree about is the role of Fannie and Freddie. I expected the authors would disagree with my view that Fannie and Freddie did not play an important role in causing the crisis. After all, as noted above, the book disagrees with Democrats who "pretend" that the GSEs did not play an important role. That's why I presented a fact-based argument (as opposed to pretending) as to why I think this points a finger in the wrong direction.
Mark Thoma is a professor of economics at the University of Oregon.
|A Complex Portrait: Immigration, Jobs and the Economy|
|Woman of Steel|
|Kill the Meeting|
|Ferguson bakery saved by crowdfunding|
|Obamacare yields more than 1M applicants in first week of open enrollment|
|Price of already-built homes in Seattle area drops|
|Apple hits record-high value|
|Fed's ability to regulate questioned|
|Budweiser to move away from Clydesdales|
|Mergers lucrative for departing CEOs, but not necessarily shareholders|
Is your business ready to join us in the call for action? This opening panel includes Oregon businesses who will discuss why they signed the Oregon Climate Declaration, the investments they are making to reduce carbon emissions, and how their actions are affecting their companies.
Get ready for two days of special events produced with the EPA, Portland Timbers and ISOS before and after the GoGreen Conference on October 16.
Plenty of employers seem “dazed and confused” after the recent vote to legalize marijuana. In light of Measure 91 passing, what are some issues for private-sector Oregon employers to consider?
Rotary’s Oregon Ethics in Business aims to raise consciousness about business ethics by honoring exceptional companies.
Barran Liebman’s annual employment law seminar is an industry classic.
Is my drug-free workplace policy up in smoke?
More than 400 "Change Makers" will gather to invest in a socially sustainable community.