A unique solution to the housing problem

We have had more than our fair share of problems because of the housing bubble out here in southern California, particularly in the farther reaches of the Inland Empire, where houses sprouted like weeds, with little rhyme or reason. Or, more importantly, economic rationale. Now one bank that repo'd some houses has a unique solution: it's tearing them down. It makes more financial sense for them to destroy them than to try and finish them and then sell them. There's almost no salvage value; a granite countertop went for $40, some scrap lumber was traded for a six-pack of Corona. 30, 40, 50 years from now, this will live on as a symbol of a world gone mad.

Bush signs the housing bill

George Bush signed the housing bill today. Good for him. My take on it is here.

This is another example of how George Bush is just not a very good politician. He signed the bill, but Congress gets the credit for pushing the issue. Henry Paulson pushed for it, which is good. So Bush gets credit for hiring a good Treasury Secretary, and listening to said Secretary. But Bush is not going to get much credit for making this happen. From my perspective, it looks like Congress basically put a gun to his head. This is a serious crisis, and Bush has not provided much leadership on the issue. He's very much a lame duck.

The housing bill

A friend of mine texted me the other day to let me know that he was disappointed in the housing bill, because he doesn't want to see his taxes going to bail out people who got greedy and are now being burned. Or something like that. Anyway, he was unhappy.

I don't think anyone is happy about bailing out people who bought houses and signed mortgages for the wrong reasons. But this is a crisis, and it has to be addressed. If we don't help these people out, there will be a lot more economic damage. And I'm not a big fan of increasing our population of the homeless.

Daily Kos has a rundown of the legislative history of the bill, which is fascinating if you're part of that subgenre of political junkies who are seriously into the minutiae of getting bills actually passed. For a policy take, Paul Krugman approves, with some serious caveats. He writes, for about the zillionth time, about how unrestrained greed in unregulated or lightly regulated financial markets allows people to make really stupid decisions.

My take on it is this: it's probably the best of a bad situation. But if we want the greatest possible range of freedom, we must accept the greatest possible range of error. If we want the freedom to be able to make mistakes, we have to allow others the same freedom. And if, when we make mistakes, we occasionally depend on others to help us out of the jam we have gotten ourselves into, we must be prepared to offer the same in return to others. If we want forgiveness with a minimum of judgment, we must be prepared to, again, offer the same in return.