White House:
Here are a few highlights:

* There's now a single agency responsible for looking out for consumers: the Bureau for Consumer Financial Protections. Instead of seven agencies dealing with these issues part-time, one agency will be in charge of establishing clear rules of the road for banks, mortgage companies, payday lenders and credit card lenders.
* Mortgage brokers won't make a higher commission by selling people mortgages that they can't afford. This was a major factor in the recent housing crisis. Now brokers and banks have to take into consideration a borrower's ability to repay before giving a home loan.
* You’ll be able to get a free credit score if you’re denied a loan, an apartment, or a job because of your credit, so you won’t be turned down without knowing why. Right now, you get one free credit report a year, but you can’t see your credit score for free, even if a lender or employer rejects your application because you have bad credit.
* No more bailing out banks with our tax dollars, no more "too big to fail." If a company's in trouble because of risky gambles, it will have to liquidate -- and do so before it can take down the rest of the financial system.

The housing crisis is leaving many in the US *bankrupt.

"This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

"It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

"What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

"The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

"This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

"Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

"Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

"I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

"Instead, it was Sen. Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed."

--Orson Scott Card

http://www.linearpublishing.com/orsonscottcard.html

In reply to this comment by NetRunner:

What does the Austrian school of thought have to say about what to do in response to the current problems?

The Austrians do have a proposal, an extremely elaborate and complex one--the only difference is it is subtle in execution and there is no prime mover. It is a solution which involves millions of people--rather than a mere dozen.

The Austrians do not wish to do nothing, by any means, there is much to do to cure the economy. We can discuss the underlying economic principles in another post, but here are some items which would be a good start:

1. The government must aggressively investigate and prosecute all instances of fraud--putting those responsible in jail and levying extremely stiff personal fines.

2. The government should immediately issue a public statement stating that there will be no bailouts or financial aid to companies who failed to properly manage risk. Companies with responsible executives and solid business practices will not be punished, nor will taxpayers. Historically, a large contributor to market volatility has been speculation on impending regulation. This statement will severely calm the market--which is currently rocketing up and down on a daily basis amid speculation on the extent of government intervention.

3. The government is to immediately cease all monetary infusion in order to curb inflation. Inflation significantly retards actual growth. In a healthy economy, economic growth is perfectly matched with monetary growth. As it stands, economic growth is very far behind. Doing this will raise the value of the dollar and increase the real value of savings and lower the prices of goods.

4. A modest reduction in government spending should be followed by an equally sized tax cut. Tax cuts in the 1920s stimulated economic growth, helping to prevent a serious recession. This will create a larger supply of consumer savings available for investment, while also providing incentives for banks to lend.

5. Legislation encouraging mortgages with small or nonexistent downpayments must be repealed. Economists should issue a public statement encouraging lenders and lendees return to the de-facto standard of 20% down on a house. This protects the homeowner from foreclosure by providing a store of value to guard against market fluctuations.

6. Interest rates and housing prices must face a market correction. The artificially low interest rates from 2001-2004 must be allowed to rise in order for loans to become profitable again, and housing prices must be allowed to drop to pre-bubble levels. The result will be both affordable housing for consumers, and low-risk loans for bankers.

7. Market action must be permitted to allow banks to liquidate bad assets, even at a loss. This cash flow will enable banks to rebuild. Those banks which improperly diversified and are unable to rebuild must be allowed to fragment and be sold off to the highest bidder. This will enable responsible, ethical banks to gain larger market share and provide a larger pool of customers with higher-quality, safer loans.

8. Government officials should publicly de-emphasize the politically charged statistic of home ownership, and encourage homeowners to seek to live in their means by pursuing all housing options available.

9. Communities should come together to help support people affected by the housing crisis. Families and friends should offer temporary housing or modest monetary relief to help get people back on their feet--perhaps in exchange for help renovating the house, or other services.

I find it frustrating that the main thrust of the arguments here seem to be based on how one feels about an actor which may or may not be based on ones opinions of the movies he’s done. The real argument that should be playing out is weather or not Palin would be ready to LEAD this country let alone if she’s sane or not.
His (Damon’s) opinions should not held on any pedestal nor should it be driven into the ground. He has a platform and hes using it. OUR platform is Videosift and we are using IT, what's the difference? Don't we all in some small way have pretentious feelings about the comments we leave?
In regards to Palin my not so humble opinion and not an incredibly educated one at that is that she isn’t fit to govern the second smallest state in the United States let alone the most powerful country on the planet. Her pick as a running mate is a disgusting insult and an utterly reckless and irresponsible choice. It not only puts this country at risk but the entire world. A soccer mom is going prevent the second cold war from happening let alone negotiate a nuclear standoff? A soccer mom is going to negotiate with Iran, North Korea, clean up the Iraq mess, continue the fight in Afganistan, help solve the energy crisis, the housing crisis, the health care problem? A religious zealot who has demonstrated that she hates and or is terrified of anyone or thing existing outside of her tiny little box of existance is going to help the poor of this country, the sick, the minority, the gays and lesbians, the non Christians?
This isn’t a joke. This isn’t a movie where the unlikeliest of underdogs pulls off a victory and saves the day. This is the real world where an old man with failing health and a clueless woman with little to zero experience have the potential to govern the lives of millions of people.
I hope I’m not alone when I say that I am terrified.

I love how QM bitches about the so called liberal media. If the media was liberal they would object to the war in Iraq from the start, they would object to lies and obfuscations about the administration of Bush that failed in Afghanistan
And with gas prices
And with food prices
And the economy
And the housing crisis
And our descimated military
And the debt
And emergency management
And healthcare
And North Korea
And Palestine/Israel
And the environment
And the trade deficit
And keeping religion out of government
And our relationships with Europe and the rest of the world
And human rights
And education
And the war on drugs
And food and drug safety
And cronyism
And the dollar
And the Supreme Court
And Medicare Part D. (I forgot about that one.)

The presidents approval ratings are barely hovering in the 20s, and somehow he did good by America? Ha! Whose the one with thier head in the sand.

List from Balloon Juice.

Come on, it's not her economic policy for fixing the housing crisis and foreshadowing downturn, it's her telling a simple, accurate to the original account anecdote.

Perhaps you're being just a bit too frivolous?

I do find it interesting that he is very careful to give the impression that he is not attacking immigrants. On Google video, the website refers you to www.numbersusa.com , which I only gave a cursory overlook. I don't necessarily agree with his aims, in fact it's very difficult to determine what part this plays in the larger immigration debate. I will say that one of the little discussed aspects of immigration is the effect that legal immigration has on the labor market in technology-related fields, for example electrical engineering.

American corporations have succesfully argued that the US must increase the number of H1-B visas issued to skilled workers to keep up with the demand for tech-sector jobs. While I can't speak for the market as a whole, the reality is that migrant labor has the same effect in the communicationslabor market as it does in construction or agriculture. Wages throughout the industry are depressed, and I'll give you a specific example involving my father. He is an independent contractor with a Master's degree in RF engineering, and he competes with workers that will work for 40% of what he charges. Some would say that the market dictates the wages or that he overcharges but the only way he can compete is by being substantially more skilled than the majority of the engineers in the market. He frequently will be hired later to fix a project that went to foreign contractors who are able to underbid him dramatically.

I think it raises a number of questions, beginning with the obvious one. Are the American people benefiting by importimng advanced degree holders when there may be no need for them in the labor market? I understand that corporations are designed to run efficiently, not to manage our economy. What are the consequences of the disappearance of the middle class? This year the savings rate in this country was negative, and there is a looming housing crisis. I suspect that the producer of this video is not an honest broker but I am curious to hear a sincere debate on immigration policy in this country. It is currently hurting both the migrants (moreso illegals in manual labor than professional-class migrants) and it is certainly hurting our economy. That conversation should certainly also encompass our social safety net in this country (Medicare, Social Security, the lack of health insurance by many Americans) and our national debt. I am by no means a nativist, nor do I think we need to close our borders but I do believe in results-oriented policies dictating effective government. I truly enjoy VideoSift because I believe it's one of the rare places where I experience an open exchange of ideas.