Strongly worded, perhaps, but civil. You can decide. I find that the video takes a long time to load. My prepared remarks begin around 25 minutes in. Right after I finish, the Committee Chairman mentions this blog. The Q&A starts about 15 minutes later.
Mar 29 2011
On Judge Napolitano's "Freedom Watch" on March 25, Austrian economist Bob Murphy claimed that the unrest in the Middle East was due to rising food prices which in turn are due to the Fed printing money. I'm not sure about the rising food price/political unrest issue--that could well be true. But I'm pretty sure that ...
Mar 29 2011
Another passage by Matt Zwolinski on poverty and desert that keeps coming back to me:[A]ny measures we take to diminish the likelihood of false positives - people getting welfare who don't deserve it - will probably increase the likelihood of false negatives - people not getting welfare who should. Most plausible...
Mar 29 2011
Strongly worded, perhaps, but civil. You can decide. I find that the video takes a long time to load. My prepared remarks begin around 25 minutes in. Right after I finish, the Committee Chairman mentions this blog. The Q&A starts about 15 minutes later.
READER COMMENTS
Dave
Mar 29 2011 at 2:45pm
No, he was clearly prepared to “reprimand” you regardless of how you said it. Your answers in regard to low-down-payment mortgage schemes were fantastic. The rebuttals of “but that makes it too hard for the folks we wish would buy houses” totally miss the point.
Eric falkenstein
Mar 29 2011 at 3:49pm
Ratcliffe stated some sample of low down payment loans had below average loss rates. I’m sure they did, given the relative adverse selection for teaser rates and ninja loans. But to assume then that down payments are sufficient at 5%, and presumably, below, seems like a lot of wishful thinking.
It’s the same flawed extrapolation that led to Ninja loans and low down payments in the first place.
tms
Mar 29 2011 at 4:16pm
How is this discussion supposed to be “productive” if their was no disagreement?
Well done!
hsearles
Mar 29 2011 at 5:09pm
I must second tms, they simply expected the economists and special interests there (very good observation, by the way) to agree with them to boosts their egos and give more credence to their plans. If anything, Barney Frank’s remark about econlog was the bit of demagoguery there, not your comments.
dullgeek
Mar 29 2011 at 5:22pm
I wonder how much less confident you came off because you seemed to be trying to deliver it w/out reading it. When you paused – presumably to remember the next specific point you were going to make – I wonder if it was taken as lack of confidence.
I think that the commentary calling your testimony simply a “reading of your blog” was intentionally meant to belittle your testimony. But honestly, I think when you go into the lion’s den, unless you’re a lion, you should probably expect to get eaten.
Daniel Klein
Mar 29 2011 at 5:36pm
Inspiring.
The calumny was classic, too.
Seeing this is terribly instructive about the nature of politics/government. Your performance should be shown in every political economy and political science course.
chipotle
Mar 29 2011 at 5:50pm
I could not identify one specific thing that you said that was un-civil.
On the other hand, you could’ve been less blunt. But why paint in muted tones when Technicolor© is available?
You could’ve appealed to their vanity/patriotism (‘I trust that the distinguished representatives will not let us repeat the folly of the 2000s again!’) or you could’ve taken a Socratic approach (‘How can we make sure that Americans never engage in reckless overborrowing again?’).
But, no, Arnold, you decided to go with unvarnished honesty. And you got a reprimand from the Chairman, who instantly revealed himself to be an ass.
Take heart–Congressional testimony is mostly just a charade, anyway.
Another Dave
Mar 29 2011 at 6:13pm
I agree with the first Dave’s comments. The mention of your blog was premeditated and inevitable. I guess next time, just keep your hand closer to your chest.
Jeffery
Mar 29 2011 at 8:59pm
Thank you for having the brass to stand athwart this latest attempt to resuscitate the housing zombie and yell “STOP”!
Some of the grandees seemed downright perturbed that their expertise in managing this latest round of magic regulation that will raise home values while keeping housing affordable was likened to gambling.
Sen Robert Menendez seems like a tool, btw.
MikeDC
Mar 29 2011 at 10:13pm
Definitely showing this to my classes
Mark
Mar 29 2011 at 10:32pm
Well, first I would say that you don’t want to insult your hosts if you want to get invited back. But I do admire your candor.
Second, I like the statement that a home without equity is just a rental with a put option.
Steve Brown
Mar 29 2011 at 11:34pm
Members of Congress, as a group, probably do not deserve civility. I can’t think of a more disreputable public institution in America today.
“Mothers, don’t raise your sons(and daughters) up to be politicians.”
Jack
Mar 30 2011 at 8:17am
Blunt, but civil. Thank you!
Hearing the politicians, I can’t help but think of Raghu Rajan’s arguments, he is exactly right: housing policy is today’s Panem et circenses (bread and games). They will not let it go.
Bill
Mar 30 2011 at 11:36am
dullgeek attempts to link signaling a lack of confidence to your presentation style. My gawd, how could anyone have confidence in anything the chairman mumbled / attempted to read if that were the case?
dullgeek
Mar 31 2011 at 3:42pm
Bill makes a good point.
Comments are closed.