“The defect [of the HIP] is that it's just minor tinkering. Instead, let's repeal the community investment act, privatize or abolish the GSEs. Repeal the income tax, lay off all government employees . . . this plan is illogical since it seeks to artificially make real estate go back up again . . . "
Another:
"The defect [of the HIP] is that is a plan and a planned economy never works. You describe it as a plan to turn the housing market around. Around from what and in which direction? I don’t know if real estate has to come down [and] neither do you . . . the only way to know what should happen is to free the market and watch it work."
I answered as follows. First, there is no way that liberating 46 million accounts and trillions of dollars constitutes minor tinkering.
Second, I think my use of the word “plan” has caused more grief than the actual contents of the plan. Among strong free market believers it is a word that elicits negative reactions. I only chose the word plan in order to try to compete for attention among all the other plans that are out there -- Zingales, Hubbard/Mayer, Feldstein and all the rest. I could have called it a proposal, an idea, or following an ancient Fed official, a banana.
My plan, or banana if you object to the word plan, is non-interference, a level playing field, clearing away the regulatory debris, and letting the owners of capital decide how to apply their capital.
The "planned economy" is not part of my proposal. On the contrary the "planned economy" was introduced to this situation years ago when the current structures of IRAs, Keoghs, SEPs Simples and all the IRS apparatus that goes with them were created. By the way, it should be understood by one and all that this whole apparatus was a giant gift for investment companies, banks, financial planners and accountants.
Surely I am not the only one with money in IRAs, losing money in financial assets and thinking about the future, who might choose to buy a condo in Florida instead with the money if the restrictions were lifted. That would be my choice, freely made, well considered, possibly wrong, but I'm willing to take the risk on that if I am permitted and not ask for a bailout if I am wrong. If someone else chooses to stick with their Fidelity and Putnam funds, I would be the last to tell them they can't.
At least for now, the money in these accounts belongs to the people who own the accounts. (There are professors at the New School who are advising the administration to do something about that too.) Let the people make their own choices. I don't see how that can be objectionable.
[my regular postings are at The Grayling blog]
No comments:
Post a Comment