>Did you read it? It references Joe Stiglitz's and Peter Orszag's advisory from around 2002:
>
>“the risk to the government from a potential default on GSE debt is effectively zero”
>“the expected cost to the government of providing an explicit government guarantee on $1 trillion in GSE debt is just $2 million"
>
>Yes, how silly of government to have taken on such a monster risk!
>
>Clearly they were led to expect rational behavior from those entrusted to run the system (who are paid huge $ for their assumed competence) and clearly they didn't get it.

Clearly they should've studied history rather than looking at the huge $ their campaigns were being stuffed with to mess with decades old rules designed to protect depositors from bankers' shenanigans.

>You need to decide whether you want more or less government "interference" in markets.

I want no government interference in markets. No subsidies, no bailouts, no quasi governmental entities. I want limited regulatory agencies for establishing and maintaining rules. SEC, FED for example.

>If the market can't be trusted to behave rationally, that's a recipe for government swarming all over it. If the market can be expected to behave rationally without government "interference," you can't blame government when those entrusted to run the market set themselves and everybody else on fire. You can't have it both ways.

How about I have it right down the middle, just like prior to Glass/Steagal's repeal? You know, Goldilocks style. Just right.