Obama & McCain Conflicting On Net Neutrality

longacre writes "For all their incessant bickering in the first two presidential debates over conflicts of interest and government regulation, PopMech columnist Glenn Derene is puzzled that the candidates have yet to be challenged on a vital issue directly related to both those topics: Net neutrality. John McCain and Barack Obama have stated elsewhere their opposing views on the issue, with McCain being opposed to Net neutrality and favoring light regulation of the Internet, while Obama is in favor of neutrality and seeks Government involvement. In any case, since there is no standard accepted definition of 'network neutrality,' until the candidates elaborate on their positions (which they both declined to do for this piece, nor anywhere else so far, for that matter), 'both sides can make a credible case that they're the ones defending freedom of innovation and open communication.'"

Comments

Re:Government Involvement?

[baker.alex]

You mean the fact that Fannie and Freddie were allowed to socialize their risk while privatizing their profit had nothing to do with our current situation? How about the fact that Clinton forced the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to include a provision strengthening the Community Reinvestment Act? So our government passed a bill that perpetuated the very policy that caused banks to make these bad loans in the first place while simultaneously allowing commercial banks to invest in these bad loans. A recurring theme here is government involvement in supposedly free markets. Our current financial crisis can be traced far beyond the GLBA.

Re:Government Involvement?

[Abcd1234]

You mean the fact that Fannie and Freddie were allowed to socialize their risk while privatizing their profit had nothing to do with our current situation?

Fannie and Freddie were barely involved in the subprime market before things started really getting crazy. Look it up. It wasn't until fairly late in the game that Fannie and Freddie really started trading in high-risk instruments, and only because the market was beginning to turn sour and the feds looked to them to stabilize things.

Sorry, bub, but while it's a great conservative talking point, you're *dead wrong* on this one.

How about the fact that Clinton forced the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to include a provision strengthening the Community Reinvestment Act?

I've said it before, and I'll repeat myself *yet again*... CRA had very little to do with the US's current financial woes. Here, read this. Since you probably won't, I'll quote:

He noted that approximately 50% of the subprime loans were made by independent mortgage companies that were not regulated by the CRA. Another 25% to 30% came from only partially CRA regulated bank subsidiaries and affiliates.

Further:

According to Janet L. Yellen, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, independent mortgage companies made "high-priced loans" at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts; most CRA loans were responsibly made, and were not the higher-priced loans that have contributed to the current crisis.

And in case that wasn't enough:

A 2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower. CRA banks were also half as likely to resell the loans.[62]

So, once again, nice conservative talking point, but dead wrong. Shocker there.

Good try, though.