Back to Economists' Forum homepageBy Lawrence Summers
Anyone who cares about the health of the US economy should welcome the enactment of the Treasury’s rescue plan for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with other measures to support the housing market. While there is room for argument about details, the risks to the financial system were too great to allow delay.
No one should suppose, however, that the issue is now satisfactorily resolved, even for the short term. Emergency legislation was necessary because market participants were unwilling to buy Fannie and Freddie’s debt; investors doubted that the government-sponsored enterprises were healthy enough to repay it and did not draw sufficient reassurance from the implicit guarantee of federal support. If their debt proves easier to place now, it is only because this guarantee has been strengthened, not because anything has changed at the GSEs.
The remainder of this column can be read here. Debate from our panel of economists appears below.
Leading economists discuss topics raised by 
Award-winning FT writers and some of the world’s top political and business figures examine the far-reaching implications of the credit crunch on our investment system in our special series on the 
News, data and opinions on market-moving economics. Read posts from Chris Giles, the FT's economics editor, Krishna Guha, US economics editor and Ralph Atkins, Frankfurt bureau chief.