Fannie/Freddie, Duopolies, and a Regulation Roundup

Fannie/Freddie

To defend government interference in the economy, some financial journalists are rewriting history to justify Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s actions.

Senior Counsel Hans Bader comments.

“Some commentators at liberal newspapers, like The New York Times‘ Joe Nocera, have arguedthat Fannie and Freddie bought up risky mortgages in order to maintain their market share, not to satisfy affordable-housing mandates, and that this somehow minimizes their role in the mortgage crisis, contrary to the arguments of Peter Wallison, who prophetically predicted that Fannie and Freddie would someday have to be bailed out by taxpayers, and argued in his opinion at the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission that Fannie and Freddie were a major contributor to the financial crisis.”

Duopolies

Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch at Reason explain why duopolies rarely endure.

Fellow in Regulatory Studies Ryan Young comments.

“Political markets are different than economic ones, but duopolies still have many of the same qualities — particularly regarding customer abuse. That’s why I was pleased to see a writeup in this morning’s Politico that the percentage of political independents is at an all-time high in a long-running Gallup poll. A full 40 percent of Americans have now opted out of the Republican-Democrat duopoly.”

Regulation Roundup

Fellow in Regulatory Studies Ryan Young presents a “Regulation Roundup.”

Read here.