[scarmig]

Well, aside from well-meaning paternalism... everyone who overextended themselves with a too-large mortgage did it of their own free will and hypothetically were only screwing themselves. But when things go to shit, the effects of a large number of people screwing themselves spill over to a bunch of complete innocents (well, people who are innocent of everything except existing in our contemporary economy).

[olalonde]

I agree with your observation but I still disagree with the conclusion that we should protect people from themselves for the simple reason that people do not have a responsibility towards the economy. If half Silicon Valley stops going to work tomorrow, the economy will unquestionably take a massive hit. Should we have a law preventing people from stopping going to work? If Zuckerberg decided not to build Facebook, should he be held accountable for all the jobs he could have created but did not?

[scarmig]

In practice for this particular instance, I agree with you on the correct policy position: the amounts of real-world money that would be being put at risk are small compared to the real estate bubble, and the financial nervous centers of our economy are more insulated from this bubble than the one in 2008.

I do think your general principle for appropriate government action is too strong and leads to some questionable results, but that ends up getting too involved in abstract political principles for this particular thread.

[MaysonL]

I think we would all be better off if the Comptroller of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the FDIC, and the Fed had been much stricter in keeping banks and others from making liars' loans.

[emmelaich]

I suspect that the reason that a large number of people screwed themselves over is because sometime in the past some smaller subset was protected from slightly screwing themselves over.