<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Liberalism’s Bountiful Harvest</title>
	<link>http://www.bloggernews.net/117862</link>
	<description>High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news.</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:39:13 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Rich</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggernews.net/117862#comment-634350</link>
		<dc:creator>Rich</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:37:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bloggernews.net/117862#comment-634350</guid>
		<description>Socialism isnt that bad China has an elite class as we do here, lower class struggles along, middle class is getting better but not at a faster pace then Chinese want.

They say all are equal but is not the case in reality.

Only difference is the Government does  waterboarding more often then we do.

Chinese food isnt that bad either:)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Socialism isnt that bad China has an elite class as we do here, lower class struggles along, middle class is getting better but not at a faster pace then Chinese want.</p>
<p>They say all are equal but is not the case in reality.</p>
<p>Only difference is the Government does  waterboarding more often then we do.</p>
<p>Chinese food isnt that bad either:)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Churchill's Parrot</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggernews.net/117862#comment-634325</link>
		<dc:creator>Churchill's Parrot</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:16:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bloggernews.net/117862#comment-634325</guid>
		<description>My Dear Callum,

A most well presented and thoughtful comment.  We thank you.  

It does not sit well with our political ideaology and we would argue that all this government takeover is both unnecessary and very dangerous.

However, that all remains to be seen. In the meantime, this debate is essential and requires all ideaologies to regard the facts soberly and as objectively as possible.  We thank you for elevating said dabate in this manner.

Cheers,

Charlie</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My Dear Callum,</p>
<p>A most well presented and thoughtful comment.  We thank you.  </p>
<p>It does not sit well with our political ideaology and we would argue that all this government takeover is both unnecessary and very dangerous.</p>
<p>However, that all remains to be seen. In the meantime, this debate is essential and requires all ideaologies to regard the facts soberly and as objectively as possible.  We thank you for elevating said dabate in this manner.</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p>Charlie</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Callum</title>
		<link>http://www.bloggernews.net/117862#comment-634262</link>
		<dc:creator>Callum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:28:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.bloggernews.net/117862#comment-634262</guid>
		<description>Charlie, this crisis was the culmination of two major changes to the banking system. The first was a Laissez Fayre attitude to regulation by the US treasury department allowing banks to lend a much larger multiple of their capital base as well as the new model of "originate and distribute" by using capital markets and not deposits as your base for lending. 

If the bank had no intention of hanging on to the mortgage, why should it care about the quality of the underwriting.

This all worked great as long as the Fed kept rates artificially low and the housing market boomed. But when this stopped all these bad underwriting practices became evident.

This led to writedowns and the seizing up of the financial system. If the Fed and Treasury had failed to intervene this week you could see that this domino effect of failing institutions would have wiped out most of the financial sector. 

Now this may not sit well with your political ideaology, but thank goodness the Treasury department is more pragmatic. Otherwise this crisis may have led to something similar to the 1930's depression.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Charlie, this crisis was the culmination of two major changes to the banking system. The first was a Laissez Fayre attitude to regulation by the US treasury department allowing banks to lend a much larger multiple of their capital base as well as the new model of &#8220;originate and distribute&#8221; by using capital markets and not deposits as your base for lending. </p>
<p>If the bank had no intention of hanging on to the mortgage, why should it care about the quality of the underwriting.</p>
<p>This all worked great as long as the Fed kept rates artificially low and the housing market boomed. But when this stopped all these bad underwriting practices became evident.</p>
<p>This led to writedowns and the seizing up of the financial system. If the Fed and Treasury had failed to intervene this week you could see that this domino effect of failing institutions would have wiped out most of the financial sector. </p>
<p>Now this may not sit well with your political ideaology, but thank goodness the Treasury department is more pragmatic. Otherwise this crisis may have led to something similar to the 1930&#8217;s depression.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
