Huh?

Help me find some logic in this quote from a NY Times editorial today:

No one expects the government to squander tax dollars on bad loans. But there are ways around that, through grants, for instance, and looser standards for the many who straddle the shoulders of good credit and bad credit.

So, instead of wasting money on loans that won't be repaid, the government should just give money away? That solves the problem of bad loans? And looser credit standards would help this too?

I can't find it. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, or taking it out of context.

Share this

Maybe the editorial was

Maybe the editorial was written by some of these monkeys.

Mark, Maybe the editorial

Mark,

Maybe the editorial was written by some of these monkeys.

What have these poor monkeys ever done to you to deserve such an insult?

They make it possible for academic behavioral economists to receive government grants to support absurd theories and all they get in return is payment in quantum improbability grapes.

Regards, Don

Shorter Times: "No one

Shorter Times: "No one expects the government to waste money on bad loans, but it should."

Not that the Catallarchs

Not that the Catallarchs would approve of either, but there is at least a possible difference between a loan that's never paid back and a grant: the up-front conditions. Organisations giving loans tend to focus on whether the loans will be repaid. Organisations giving grants tend to focus on whether the recipient is deserving and the money will be well spent. A grant can be structured to function rather like a procurement auction, too - the grant is paid AFTER the poor people get some goodies, not before.
It's perfectly possible to accept this and still oppose government loans, grants or both. But there is a difference.

Tim, respectfully, every

Tim, respectfully, every time I've used the term "Catallarch" I've been promptly admonished. "Catallarchist" is apparently the prefered title.

Correct. A monarch is the

Correct. A monarch is the ruler of a monarchy, and a monarchist is someone who supports monarchy. We're just catallarchists, because we support catallarchy, under which voluntary exchange rules. Or cattle, or whatever.

I use "catallarch" as a

I use "catallarch" as a shorthand for "someone who blogs at Catallarchy" as oppossed to someone who more generally supports a specific arrangement. Nobody has ever seemed confused about who I mean.

Tim makes a good point. The

Tim makes a good point. The only error I see is "no one expects the gov't to squander money away" which is plainly not true, as I know many people who expect just that.

The word "Catallarch"

The word "Catallarch" reminds me more of big officious looking dudes from the sky who force everyone to have free markets in order to maximize utility and achieve Pareto optimality for all. But yeah, referring to people who blog at this website sounds a bit better.