Why We Would All Be Better Off Without the Republican Party
Economic History Seminar: Debin Ma (2010), "Incentives and Information: an Institutional Analysis of the Traditional Chinese State and Great Divergence in the Early Modern Era"

Dean Baker Once Again Driven into Shrill Unholy Madness by Zachary Goldfarb and the Washington Post

To sell overvalued and buy undervalued assets is something that financial firms are supposed to do: it is how they do the Lord's work.

And Dean Baker reads Zachary Goldfarb in the Washington Post so the rest of us do not have to:

Why Is It Front Page News That Goldman Bet Against the Housing Bubble?: The Washington Post's most widely cited source on the housing market during the run-up of the housing bubble was David Lereah, the chief economist of the National Association of Realtors, and the author of Why the Housing Boom Will Not Bust and How You Can Profit From It. In many articles, Lereah was the only expert cited. This was ungodly bad reporting. Today's paper has a front page story, the main point of which appears to be that Goldman Sachs made bets against the housing market and stood to profit from the collapse of the bubble. (The story actually leaves this conclusion in question.) It's not clear what in this story would be newsworthy and especially what would make it front page news.

If Goldman did bet against the housing bubble, then its actions were helping to bring the bubble to an end before it caused even further damage to the U.S. economy. Goldman's actions would have the effect of making homes more affordable for new buyers. It would also help to increase the national saving rate (a top Washington post priority), by eliminating bubble-generated wealth that was spurring consumption. In short, while Goldman's actions were undoubtedly taken for profit, they would be beneficial to the economy as a whole.

Goldman has been accused by the Securities and Exchange Commission of misrepresenting its issues of collaterized debt obligations in order to get investors to take the long-end of the housing market. This is a serious accusation and presents the possibility of substantial civil, if not criminal penalties. However, there is nothing at all improper about placing a bet against a bubble in the market. It is not clear what the Post thought to be the news in this story.

Why oh why can't we have a better press corps?

Comments