This topic contains 21 replies, has 2 voices, and was last updated by 4 months, 1 week ago.
October 23, 2013 at 4:02 pm #7474
CK, I don’t recall ever saying that McLean/Nocera were less political than Sowell. What I do recall saying is that I felt that McLean/Nocera seemed to do a good job of keeping their politics out of the book, and that you would have no trouble determining which side of the isle Sowell was coming from. Not my exact words, but close enough.
That said, I also recall that I said that were I to guess, based on what I gleaned from the book, and two live interviews I heard with McLean, I would guess that she leaned to the liberal side. Was that from subtle innuendo from McLean? Who knows, I obviously took some opinion away from the book/interviews.
As far as McLean portraying borrowers as victims, I don’t see that at all. The fact that she repeatedly pointed out how many of the sub-prime loans were actually Re-fi’s, and not some unsuspecting first time, or uninformed low income individual kind of blows that theory. She repeatedly pointed out that the people that were taking those loans should have known better. Your own data posted above in this thread shows how well that she pointed that out.
I also don’t see were McLean was/is advocating for more government action, tho do admit that she did a good job at pointing out the results of a lack of government action, when it probably should have taken action. Yes Sowell did point out certain government actions that McLean didn’t. Did McLean leave that info out because she’s advocating more government action, and pointing out what Sowell did would hurt that cause? Who knows? Maybe.
I’ll roll it around in my head for awhile, but at this point I’m not seeing that McLean had an agenda of advocating for more government action. I also didn’t detect where she made a case for any political agenda, or put the blame more on either side of the political isle, in fact IMO she did just the opposite, she tried very much to remain politically neutral… Maybe that’s why she left out some of the info that Sowell Didn’t?October 23, 2013 at 5:22 pm #7479
You may be right LD, Just noted as I read Sowell’s book, how he pointed out much more so than McLean, how hard some in Congress pushed for more or less a quota. She touched on it, and what I took away was She felt a little more inclined to say the Government took little action in controlling the situation. Seeming to down play that they actually did have more to do with the pushing of Freddy and Fannie to take riskier loans. She mentioned the Affordable housing act, but not to the degree Sowell. He touched more on the Rising Local housing prices, in different areas and the differences there. I am in no way putting her down or saying You Said McLean was less political than Sowell. She did point out that Many of the Barrowers where not first time Barrowers, it is I guess each one’s way of saying that, that caught my attention. It was from her book I got that only 9% or 2.4 million barrowers where actually first time Barrowers. Maybe it is her subtleness in pointing that out as opposed to Sowell’s, I don’t know. She did a good job, as did Sowell. His book seemed to focus on the Government part in it while giving blame to all. Her’s focused more on the Banking side, while giving blame to all. Both gave blame to all, and neither could or did point to one thing, person, or group as being the cause more so than any other. She explained more in-depth about the bundling, of the CDOs, Derivatives, and the Manipulation of them and the ratings than he did. That maybe be where I am mistakenly seeing it. As he explained more in-depth about the Affordable Housing act, Dodd and Franks part or roles in it and the pushing of that. The control agentices had over the Banks to push it. I think She question if more Government control could have helped control it. He question if less Government intervention would have let the market balance it’s self out, and could have controlled it. I like you must mull this over, as I do my options change. It may be just me, but McLean seemed to focus more on the number figures of the multi-million dollar bonuses the Investment bankers and others received, as well as the manipulation of the derivatives and the rating of those, than did Sowell. Sowell seemed to focus on the Affordable Housing Act and other acts and the pushing of those on the lenders. She had a little different focus on the barrowers, than Sowell did, his feelings seemed much the same as Her about barrowing more than they could afford, but his was on the inflated prices of the homes in certain areas. And the inflation that was due in part to the local, state and Federal laws limiting the use of land in those areas. She did not go as in-depth as he did on that.October 23, 2013 at 6:17 pm #7489
CK, tho you haven’t said it yet, I’m glad to see that you enjoyed, and took something away from Sowells book as well.
I guess that the contrast between the two of them is part of why I enjoyed them both… No sense trying to make a serious assessment of a subject if your just looking at an issue from one perspective.
Like I said, I’m going to return to this area of study in the future. When I do I’ll be seeking other perspectives to contrast and compare with what I’ve learned thus far.
In the end we’ll each draw our own conclusions about it all, and that’s as it should be. I’ve said before that I’m by no means an expert on this subject… The people who’s books I’m reading are the experts… At least theoretically… I can only hope that threw this discussion we’ve both been left with a new perspective… IMHO, that’s what the exchange of information should be about. At least for those that are trying to learn something about any given subject.
So like I said, if you run across any good books, or articles on this subject let me know. I do have a reading list, but it’s subject to change at times.October 23, 2013 at 7:58 pm #7491
Enjoyed both books, thanks for the tip on both. I think we agree both books are good and reading both gives a more enhanced view with the benefit of two similar but slightly different views and perspective’s. We may not agree totally but I think we are petty much on the same page as well. Will be starting the book on Jackson soon.October 26, 2013 at 1:36 pm #7903
In the vernacular of the times of the two Distinguished Gentlemen; Jefferson and Jackson and the books we correspond about. LD my Dear sir, dear friend and confidant in if correspondence only, I write you this. The changing of the seasons with it’s demands for the indulgences ( hunting) and duties ( home and farm work) of the season has rendered me unable to devote as much time as I would like to the literary. However I have managed to complete, perhaps two thirds of Mister Meacham’s book on the subject; the Former President Andrew Jackson. I am indeed finding it delightful as well as informative. Much apart from the contemporary History books of our educational intuitions, as they touch primarily on the high points passing over the more controversial aspects of these complex men. As to return the favor on your recommendation, of Mister Meacham’s book on the Subject of Mr. Jefferson. I shall return that favor in kind and do so highly recommend Mister Meacham’s book on the subject of Mr. Jackson. I am sure you will find it every bit as delightful.
Hee hee how was that, me thinks I have read to many letters of times, not just in these two books but the letters of the Founders. Perhaps that is where I get as Cashman calls it my disjointed ramblings. Perhaps abstract thinking, more so disjointed than Mister Meaham, who jumps around a bit in the American Lion much as he did in The Art of Power. As he goes from one time period back to another that ties Later insights and actions to past circumstances. As I read I see much the same problems then as are today. It reinforces my option that so much did and still ties together. The debates on Religion, and the Economy and the role the Government should or should not play in them, the role of the Federal as a whole. And how it all ties together. These where debates of the times of the Founders, as much as of these times as well. Two opposing views and parties, the Federalist ( Hamiltonians) and The Democratic Republicans ( The Jeffersonian’s),. It was called the great experiment at the time, and still goes on today some 236 years later the same debates continue. The name calling, insults, innuendoes continues, just in a different vernacular. The debate over the Affordable Health Care Act, the Affordable Housing Act the books Sowell and McLeans wrote in an attempt to explain in-depth the housing market. These debate’s are not new over the role the Government should play not only in the free market but personal lives as well.October 27, 2013 at 7:01 pm #7976
CK… What the hell did you just say??? ROFLMAO… I have to admit that first paragraph was a Dandy!!!
After reading “The Art Of Power” I guess it was a given that I would eventually read “American Lion” but didn’t have it on the radar anytime soon… Maybe I’ll have to move it up on the list.
I agree about the debates of today vs. the debates of the past. My first thoughts go to the AP, and NSA scandals of today. I wonder how many today compare them to the “Alien, and Sedition Acts” of the Adam’s admin. and the Federalists in congress back in those days. IMO, those acts may very well have cost Adams his second term. I wonder who would be president today had the AP, and NSA scandals been revealed before last years election???
The back stabbing nature of politics hasn’t changed much either. Consider that Adams, and Jefferson were great friends until they got into national/presidential politics. After the election of 1800 they didn’t correspond for many years.
What I don’t think that most consider today is that as a society technology as had a huge impact on our everyday lives, and very much an impact on the government of today. But… That same technology has had very little impact on the political nature of humans as a species. It would seem that we have changed very little in that regard.
That’s not to say that technology hasn’t impacted the politics of our nation, because it obviously has… But human nature itself seems to have changed very little since the founding of our nation. Our society is changing much faster than our species… Whether that’s a good or bad thing remains to be seen.October 27, 2013 at 9:18 pm #7989
LOL, you sir accomplished easing my contempt for the Bankers. I accomplished my goal, to get a laugh out of you. As you said I believe as well the alien and sedition was a large part of why Adam’s lost, an is and has been said it is comparable to our newest laws and the NSA. I am not sure if the American people today fully understand either. There are so many who vote based on what the news media tells them. Many of them depend on the Government for just about everything, thus making a socialist form of Government appealing to them, as generations have been indoctrinated in it. As Franklin said when the People find they can vote themselves money that will be the end of the Republic. And so many of the People have found they can vote themselves money, without fully understanding the consequences of it.
I find it interesting the sex scandal of the Clinton Admin. somewhat pales in comparison, to those of Jefferson, but more so of Jackson. Jackson own scandal of coarse before he became President, but followed him, then of Eaton his Sec of War. The tech has changed but as you say human nature has not. Slavery of great issue in Jefferson’s time, but still Black’s are an issue, elections are still decided in part on that same issue. To more thing change the more they stay the same.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.