Posts filed under 'Political Chaos'
“I have to think this train is probably going to leave the station soon and we need to focus our efforts on explaining the story as best we can. There were too many people involved in the deals — too many counterparties, too many lawyers and advisors, too many people from AIG — to keep a determined Congress from the information.” James P. Bergin, NY Fed, in an email to his Fed colleagues
‘Though it is hard to divine much understanding from the unredacted filing, it has become clear that Goldman had more involvement than previously believed: In addition to the credit default swaps it bought from AIG, the filing shows that Goldman Sachs also originated many of the underlying assets that AIG and the New York Fed bought back from Société Générale.
The American people have the right to know how their tax dollars were spent and who benefited most from this back-door bailout,” said Kurt Bardella, spokesman for Issa. “Now that it’s public, let’s see if the sky really does fall as the New York Fed said it would to justify its coverup.”
Other lawmakers believed that the New York Fed was trying to hide its ties to Goldman Sachs.’ AIG Reveals the Story – CNN
“Wednesday’s hearing described a secretive group deploying billions of dollars to favored banks, operating with little oversight by the public or elected officials.
We’re talking about the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, whose role as the most influential part of the federal-reserve system — apart from the matter of AIG’s bailout — deserves further congressional scrutiny…
By pursuing this line of inquiry, the hearing revealed some of the inner workings of the New York Fed and the outsized role it plays in banking. This insight is especially valuable given that the New York Fed is a quasi-governmental institution that isn’t subject to citizen intrusions such as freedom of information requests, unlike the Federal Reserve.
This impenetrability comes in handy since the bank is the preferred vehicle for many of the Fed’s bailout programs. It’s as though the New York Fed was a black-ops outfit for the nation’s central bank…
New York Fed staff and outside lawyers from Davis Polk & Wardell edited AIG communications to investors and intervened with the Securities and Exchange Commission to shield details about the buyout transactions, according to a report by Issa.
That the New York Fed, a quasi-governmental body, was able to push around the SEC, an executive-branch agency, deserves a congressional hearing all by itself.” Secret Banking Cabal Emerges From AIG Shadows – Reilly – Bloomberg
Hat Tip to : Jesse
January 31st, 2010
Let’s hope he doesn’t end up the same way:
“Could it all be a bad dream, or a nightmare? Is it my imagination, or have we lost our minds? It’s surreal; it’s just not believable. A grand absurdity; a great deception, a delusion of momentous proportions; based on preposterous notions; and on ideas whose time should never have come; simplicity grossly distorted and complicated; insanity passed off as logic; grandiose schemes built on falsehoods with the morality of Ponzi and Madoff; evil described as virtue; ignorance pawned off as wisdom; destruction and impoverishment in the name of humanitarianism; violence, the tool of change; preventive wars used as the road to peace; tolerance delivered by government guns; reactionary views in the guise of progress; an empire replacing the Republic; slavery sold as liberty; excellence and virtue traded for mediocracy; socialism to save capitalism; a government out of control, unrestrained by the Constitution, the rule of law, or morality; bickering over petty politics as we collapse into chaos; the philosophy that destroys us is not even defined.
We have broken from reality–a psychotic Nation. Ignorance with a pretense of knowledge replacing wisdom. Money does not grow on trees, nor does prosperity come from a government printing press or escalating deficits.
We’re now in the midst of unlimited spending of the people’s money, exorbitant taxation, deficits of trillions of dollars–spent on a failed welfare/warfare state; an epidemic of cronyism; unlimited supplies of paper money equated with wealth.
A central bank that deliberately destroys the value of the currency in secrecy, without restraint, without nary a whimper. Yet, cheered on by the pseudo-capitalists of Wall Street, the military industrial complex, and Detroit.
We police our world empire with troops on 700 bases and in 130 countries around the world. A dangerous war now spreads throughout the Middle East and Central Asia. Thousands of innocent people being killed, as we become known as the torturers of the 21st century.
We assume that by keeping the already-known torture pictures from the public’s eye, we will be remembered only as a generous and good people. If our enemies want to attack us only because we are free and rich, proof of torture would be irrelevant.
The sad part of all this is that we have forgotten what made America great, good, and prosperous. We need to quickly refresh our memories and once again reinvigorate our love, understanding, and confidence in liberty. The status quo cannot be maintained, considering the current conditions. Violence and lost liberty will result without some revolutionary thinking.
We must escape from the madness of crowds now gathering. The good news is the reversal is achievable through peaceful and intellectual means and, fortunately, the number of those who care are growing exponentially.
Of course, it could all be a bad dream, a nightmare, and that I’m seriously mistaken, overreacting, and that my worries are unfounded. I hope so. But just in case, we ought to prepare ourselves for revolutionary changes in the not-too-distant future.”
January 18th, 2010
 |
| Flagging: a US sailor stands on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS George Washington |
If a week is a long time in politics, a decade is starting to look like an age in geopolitics. Comparing the America that began the 21st century with the America of today is to witness a country that has in some ways quite radically altered its view of itself and its relationship to the world.
In short, the metallic rust of decline has crept into the American soul. “You could argue that the first decade of the 21st century was the last decade of the American century,” says David Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration official and student of US foreign policy. “We are now entering the multipolar century.”
January 16th, 2010
Barack Obama ran for president as a man of the people, standing up to Wall Street as the global economy melted down in that fateful fall of 2008. He pushed a tax plan to soak the rich, ripped NAFTA for hurting the middle class and tore into John McCain for supporting a bankruptcy bill that sided with wealthy bankers “at the expense of hardworking Americans.” Obama may not have run to the left of Samuel Gompers or Cesar Chavez, but it’s not like you saw him on the campaign trail flanked by bankers from Citigroup and Goldman Sachs. What inspired supporters who pushed him to his historic win was the sense that a genuine outsider was finally breaking into an exclusive club, that walls were being torn down, that things were, for lack of a better or more specific term, changing.
Then he got elected.
What’s taken place in the year since Obama won the presidency has turned out to be one of the most dramatic political about-faces in our history. Elected in the midst of a crushing economic crisis brought on by a decade of orgiastic deregulation and unchecked greed, Obama had a clear mandate to rein in Wall Street and remake the entire structure of the American economy. What he did instead was ship even his most marginally progressive campaign advisers off to various bureaucratic Siberias, while packing the key economic positions in his White House with the very people who caused the crisis in the first place. This new team of bubble-fattened ex-bankers and laissez-faire intellectuals then proceeded to sell us all out, instituting a massive, trickle-up bailout and systematically gutting regulatory reform from the inside.
How could Obama let this happen? Is he just a rookie in the political big leagues, hoodwinked by Beltway old-timers? Or is the vacillating, ineffectual servant of banking interests we’ve been seeing on TV this fall who Obama really is?
Whatever the president’s real motives are, the extensive series of loophole-rich financial “reforms” that the Democrats are currently pushing may ultimately do more harm than good. In fact, some parts of the new reforms border on insanity, threatening to vastly amplify Wall Street’s political power by institutionalizing the taxpayer’s role as a welfare provider for the financial-services industry. At one point in the debate, Obama’s top economic advisers demanded the power to award future bailouts without even going to Congress for approval — and without providing taxpayers a single dime in equity on the deals.
How did we get here? It started just moments after the election — and almost nobody noticed.
Previous Next Page
December 13th, 2009
“Hindsight is a wonderful thing,” said Timothy W. Long, the chief bank
examiner for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. “At the height of
the economic boom, to take an aggressive supervisory approach and tell people to
stop lending is hard to do.” Post Mortems Reveal Obvious Risks at Banks, NY Times
November 21st, 2009
Pittsburgh protesters demand G20 do more for jobs
Forbes
“We’re not going to accept a jobless recovery,” said Larry Adams, a postal worker who came from Jersey City, New Jersey, for the protest. …
September 21st, 2009
In Spain: Bleak forecast puts unemployment at 22% in 2010, Edward Harrison relates that the recovery in Spain will be later than elsewhere in Europe because of the extent of deleveraging, and unemployment will continue to rise.
August 5th, 2009
Income inequality can rise and fall for all sorts of reasons. Twenty-somethings just starting out and retired seventy-somethings both earn a lot less on average than peak-earning fifty-somethings. As the age profile of the population shifts, income inequality figures shift, too. So what? Consider another example. A generous immigration policy can widen the income gap in this country while at the same time reducing world poverty. That’s good, if you ask me.
Income inequality can also rise as a side-effect of injustice in our socio-economic system. But injustice should be rooted out because it is wrong, not because it widens the income gap as a side effect. If, just to take a wildly hypothetical example, the government has unjustly dumped loads of taxpayer money on Goldman Sachs, such a narrow allocation of public funds for private use should concern us for its own sake – not because Goldman’s bountiful bonuses are likely to exacerbate income inequality.
A good hard jog and an oncoming heart attack may produce the same racing heartbeat. But the distinction matters. A mathematical abstraction like national income inequality is a similarly ambiguous symptom. We can slash the level of income inequality in an instant by slapping even higher taxes on big earners. Or we can slash the level of income inequality by falling into recession. But neither remedy addresses the real problem, which is persisting poverty, not income inequality.
The corruption of a political system in which crises are used to pay off the governing party’s allies is also a real problem. The current silence about inequality – from news editors, pundits and politicians alike – would be golden if only it were based on a grasp of the limited utility of income statistics in guiding us toward more effective and humane public policy. But that is not the case. Instead, it appears that the commentators who fretted over income inequality so publicly for so long have simply stopped worrying about it. Inequality, it seems, only matters when a Republican is in the White House.
Does Income Inequality Really Still Matter? – Will Wilkinson, The Week
July 31st, 2009
New York Fed President William C. Dudley served 10 years as Goldman Sachs’s chief economist. (By Kevin Clark — The Washington Post)
By
Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, July 20, 2009
NEW YORK — The low-slung cubicles wrap around the ninth floor of a building three blocks from Wall Street, each manned by a young staffer staring at flashing numbers on a flat-screen computer monitor and working the phones to gather the latest chatter from financial markets around the world.
It could be any investment bank or hedge fund. Instead, it is the markets group of the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which has been on the front lines of the government’s response to the financial crisis. Federal Reserve and Treasury Department officials make the major decisions, but the New York Fed executes them. The information gathered there provides crucial insights into the financial world for top policymakers. But the bank is so close to Wall Street — physically, culturally and intellectually — that some economic experts worry that the New York Fed puts the interests of the financial industry ahead of those of ordinary Americans. “The New York Fed sticks out as being not just very, very close to Wall Street, but to the most powerful people on Wall Street,” said Simon Johnson, an economist at MIT. “I worry that they pay too much deference to the expertise and presumed wisdom of a sector that screwed up massively.” Even some former insiders at the Fed say the bank does not pay enough attention to the fundamental flaws in the country’s financial system or to the risks associated with bailing out financial firms — for instance, the chance that banks will be encouraged to take more unwise gambles. These experts worry that the New York Fed has adopted the mindset of a trading floor: well attuned to ripples in financial markets but not to long-term trends and dangers. Last month, for instance, Wall Street bond traders wanted the central bank to ramp up its purchase of Treasury bonds, which would help the traders by driving up prices. But Fed officials in Washington and around the country concluded that such a move would be counterproductive in the longer run, in contrast to some New York Fed staffers, whose views more closely mirrored those on Wall Street. New York Fed employees “play a very valuable role, day in, day out, with detailed contacts with the big financial firms,” said William Poole, a former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis who is now at the Cato Institute. “What I think is missing is a longer-run perspective. They tend to be sort of short-term in their outlook, which is true of a lot of the financial firms. Traders have a horizon of a few hours or a few weeks, at most.” The New York Fed’s home is a fortresslike building, with bars securing the windows on lower floors. Its main lobby resembles a Gothic cathedral: dim, quiet, with stone walls, as if to inspire a mix of fear and awe. Like the other 11 regional Federal Reserve banks, the New York Fed is a curious mix of public and private, part of a system Congress created in 1913 to avoid concentrated power in Washington or New York alone. Its board of directors is composed of bankers, businesspeople and community leaders, who select the bank president with approval from Fed governors in Washington. Banks in New York, Connecticut and parts of New Jersey own shares in the New York Fed, though its profits are returned to the U.S. Treasury. The man in charge is a soft-spoken economist named William C. Dudley, who took over as president in January, replacing Timothy F. Geithner when he became Treasury secretary. With a proclivity for button-down Oxford shirts and rumpled suits, Dudley does not fit the mold of a Wall Street executive. He has won fans across the Federal Reserve System for a collaborative style, as well as a talent for explaining complicated problems in the financial world and drawing up solutions to them. It is his résumé that alarms some critics, who see an example of a too-cozy relationship between financial firms and their lead regulator. One of several bank officials who have worked in the private sector, Dudley was at
Goldman Sachs for two decades, including 10 years as chief economist, before joining the New York Fed in 2007.
Some Fear N.Y. Fed Too Influenced by Wall Street – Washington Post
July 24th, 2009
With so much complexity, and uncertainty about future performance, it is not surprising that the securities are difficult to price and that trading dried up. Without market prices, valuation on the books of banks is suspect and counterparties are reluctant to deal with each other.
The policy response to this problem has been circuitous. The Federal Reserve originally saw the problem as a lack of liquidity in the banking system, and beginning in late 2007 flooded the market with liquidity through new lending facilities. It had very limited success, as banks were still disinclined to buy or trade such securities or take them as collateral. Credit spreads remained higher than normal. In September 2008 credit spreads skyrocketed and credit markets froze. By then it was clear that the problem was not liquidity, but rather the insolvency risks of counterparties with large holdings of toxic assets on their books.
The federal government then decided to buy the toxic assets. The Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was enacted in October 2008 with $700 billion in funding. But that was not how the TARP funds were used. The Treasury concluded that the valuation problem seemed insurmountable, so it attacked the risk issue by bolstering bank capital, buying preferred stock.
But those toxic assets are still there. The latest disposal scheme is the Public-Private Investment Program (PPIP). The concept is that private asset managers would create investment funds of half private and half Treasury (TARP) capital, which would bid on packages of toxic assets that banks offered for sale. The responsibility for valuation is thus shifted to the private sector. But the pricing difficulty remains and this program too may amount to little.
The fundamental problem has remained untouched: insufficient information to permit estimated prices that both buyers and sellers find credible. Why is the information so hard to obtain? While the original MBS pools were often Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) registered public offerings with considerable detail, CDOs were sold in private placements with confidentiality agreements. Moreover, the nature of the securitization process has made it extremely difficult to determine and follow losses and increasing risk from one tranche and pool to another, and to reach the information about the original borrowers that is needed to estimate future cash flows and price.
This account makes it clear why transparency is so important. To deal with the problem, issuers of asset-backed securities should provide extensive detail in a uniform format about the composition of the original pools and their subsequent structure and performance, whether they were sold as SEC-registered offerings or private placements. By creating a centralized database with this information, the pricing process for the toxic assets becomes possible. Making such a database a reality will restart private securitization markets and will do more for the recovery of the economy than yet another redesign of administrative agency structures. If issuers are not forthcoming, then they should be required to file the information publicly with the SEC.
Mr. Scott is a professor of securities and corporate law at Stanford University and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. Mr. Taylor, an economics professor at Stanford and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, is the author of “Getting Off Track: How Government Actions and Interventions Caused, Prolonged and Worsened the Financial Crisis” (Hoover Press, 2009).
Why Toxic Assets Are So Hard to Scrub – Kenneth Scott & John Taylor, WSJ
July 21st, 2009
Despite the administration’s aggressive and costly economic policy initiatives, there is trouble all around.
Barely six months in office, President Obama already finds himself in an economic box. For despite his aggressive and costly economic policy initiatives, the jobs market shows no sign of healing. At the same time, the housing market foreclosure crisis continues apace, while renewed questions are again surfacing about the soundness of the U.S. banking system. To complicate matters, financial markets are now starting to fret about the longer-run inflationary consequences of the unusually large budget deficits in prospect for as far as the eye can see.
In January 2009, on presenting its $780 billion fiscal stimulus package, the Obama administration assured the public that because of that stimulus package U.S. unemployment would not exceed 8 percent. Yet already by June 2009, unemployment had risen to 9.5 percent; including part-time workers, who would prefer to be working full time, unemployment rose to a staggering post-war high of over 16 percent. Worse still, the jobs market shows every sign of being far from bottoming out.
The degree to which unemployment has exceeded the administration’s forecasts has to raise basic questions about the appropriateness and coherence of President Obama’s economic policy approach.
The degree to which unemployment has exceeded the administration’s forecasts has to raise basic questions about the appropriateness and coherence of President Obama’s economic policy approach. These questions pertain not simply to the very poor design of the fiscal stimulus package. Rather they pertain to the adequacy of the measures aimed at stabilizing the housing market and at resolving the country’s most wrenching credit crisis in the post-war period.
At the most basic level, one has to question how much sense it made for President Obama to allow the fiscal package to become excessively back-loaded at time when the economy needed immediate large scale support. If a large fiscal stimulus was indeed needed, why has only $60 billion of that package been dribbled out by June? And why is less than a third of the package scheduled to come into effect in 2009, the year when the package is most sorely needed?
Similarly one has to wonder about the heavy price that the Obama administration paid for effectively outsourcing the package’s design to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic congressional leadership. Should it really have come as a surprise to us that the resulting stimulus package would be laden with pork and with expenditures that are going to be very difficult to roll back? Or should we now be shocked that the package fell sadly short of including fast acting and effective fiscal stimulus measures that might have gotten the most bang for the buck?
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the Obama fiscal stimulus package is the serious way in which it compromises the country’s long-run public finances and fans long-run inflationary expectations. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Obama budget not only implies unusually large budget deficits over the next two years but it implies that, even when the economy eventually fully recovers, the deficit will remain in the region of between 4 and 6 percentage points of GDP. As a result, over the next decade, the public debt will rise in a manner that has never occurred before in peacetime, from around 41 percent of GDP in 2008 to 82 percent of GDP by 2019.
Over the next decade, the public debt will rise in a manner that has never occurred before in peacetime from around 41 percent of GDP in 2008 to 82 percent of GDP by 2019.
The rising tide of unemployment must also raise questions about the Obama administration’s efforts to stabilize the housing market, which the administration correctly views as a necessary condition for producing a meaningful economic recovery. One has to expect that a weaker job market will only exacerbate the country’s present foreclosure crisis, which is adding supply to an already glutted housing market. The Center for Responsible Lending estimates that 2.4 million homes could be in foreclosure in 2009 and as many as 8.1 million homes over the next four years. Yet, the Obama administration’s loan modification program announced earlier this year has to date only resulted in 190,000 offers at mortgage loan modification.
Rising unemployment also has to raise questions about whether the Obama administration is not being overly sanguine about the health of the U.S. banking system. For it would seem that unemployment will now well exceed the worst-case scenario in the bank stress test presented by the administration earlier this year. Yet, despite a weakening unemployment outlook that is sure to boost bank losses, the Obama administration is now cavalierly backing away from its earlier initiatives to reduce the toxic assets that remain on the banks’ balance sheets.
Less than six months into his term, President Obama already faces difficult economic policy choices. He can choose, as he now seems to be doing, to counsel patience and assure us that all is well at considerable cost to his credibility on economic policy management. Or he can own up to the facts that he misread the economy in January and that his economic team now needs to go back to the drawing board. For the sake of the U.S. economy, one has to hope that he has the courage to review the overall coherence of his policy approach before it is too late.
Desmond Lachman is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He was managing director and chief emerging market economic strategist at Salomon Smith Barney and a deputy director in the International Monetary Fund’s policy and review department.
Obama Is Stuck In an Economic Box – Desmond Lachman, The American
July 15th, 2009
President Obama’s visit to Moscow this week may turn out to be a very good thing. Forget all this jibber-jabber about nuclear disarmament.
There is no better reminder than the former Soviet Union for how the fantasies of a few collectivist zealots can turn into unending nightmares for its people — and for how a state-run economy ends up with no economy at all.
If we’re lucky, a little Russian history on this trip will turn into a welcome wake-up call for Mr. Obama.
It’s not that Mr. Obama is some radical who carries a warm nostalgia for the Soviet Union from his university days. He’s way too young and too smart for that.
But the president believes in the state, certainly more than any other recent American president. He believes the state must actively intervene in the economy and that the state can bring about a better future. And it seems he believes it is his destiny to lead the state to that future.
In that way — and others — Obama reminds me of Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Soviet state.
CNBC’s Jim Cramer made the Obama-Lenin comparison back in February. And the more I’ve thought about it, the more it holds.
Associated Press
A painting made during the Russian Revolution, showing Vladimir Lenin surrounded by revolutionaries, date unknown.
Of course, Obama is a reformer, not a revolutionary. And he’s certainly no communist.
But just like Lenin, Obama is a supremely self-confident leader — an intellectual heavyweight and a clever political tactician — an elitist moralizer and a populist champion. And just like Lenin, Obama carries the true-believers’ righteous fervor for “change.”
I was thinking of Lenin as I watched the president’s Rose Garden remarks on energy and innovation last Thursday.
After his eight minutes in front of the teleprompter, the president turned to walk away, and a reporter blurted out a question, “Mr. President, do you have a message for the small businesses on health and economy?”
The president should have just walked away. But it was as if he couldn’t stop himself as he launched into a rambling, haughty answer that I found…well, a bit scary.
It was scary because it demonstrated that Mr. Obama — almost half a year in office — still has no grasp of the everyday realities faced by America’s small businessmen. They can’t make payroll, but the president is directing them to buy LED lightbulbs and urging them to contact “clean energy” CEOs.
And it was scary because it showed that the president is still possessed by an unshakable conviction in the power of the state over the individual and of the future over the past.
As he put it in the Rose Garden, we have to change the health-care system. We have to change how we use energy. We have to change how we “train our young people.” “We are not folks who are scared of the future or look backwards. We always meet the challenges by moving forward.”
Political clichés? Of course.
But the president seems to actually believe his clichés. And some of his Rose Garden remarks could have been lifted from Lenin’s speeches circa 1918 – the same hectoring tone and the same mockery of opponents who long for the “status quo”.
Even Mr. Obama’s call to move “forward.” “Forward!” in fact was one of the Soviets’ favorite slogans.
The good news for those of us who are a little freaked out by Mr. Obama is that even Lenin did an about-face after the utter failure of his initial hard-left economic policies.
By early 1921, faced with the ruin and famine wrought by nationalization of the economy, the Bolsheviks re-instituted a quasi-capitalist economy with its New Economic Policy. Ironically, the NEP was aimed to help small businessmen — the very same people that the Obama economy so desperately needs nowadays.
Lenin called the NEP taking “one step backward to take two steps forward.” While he’s in Moscow, President Obama may want to ask someone at the Kremlin, just what Lenin meant by that.
Editor’s Note: Mr. Newmark was a student in Moscow in 1984, worked with George Soros on Russian economic reform in 1988-89 and ran the Goldman Sachs Moscow office from 1992-1994.
Why Barack Obama Is Like Vladimir Lenin – Evan Newmark, Deal Journal
July 7th, 2009
To read “Our Lot: How Real Estate Came to Own Us” is to relive, in painful, anecdotal detail, the real estate bust that brought our economy low. Through Alyssa Katz, a journalism professor at New York University and the former editor of the magazine City Limits, we remeet the exploited homeowners and the naive investors, and we cringe again at the blundering politicians and opportunistic lenders.
But “Our Lot” is also a reminder that our memories are short, and that the same mix of hope, greed, good intentions and bad policy has been inflating and popping real estate bubbles since the days of LBJ. Behind it all is a conviction shared by nearly all Americans, be they Democrats or Republicans, Wall Streeters or the ARMed and desperate masses, that home ownership is a good thing — good for the neighborhood, the country and the average citizen holding the deed and the debt. “Our Lot’s” long view is perhaps most unnerving for the doubt it casts on that timeworn belief. Salon interviewed Katz by phone.
Isn’t homeownership actually good for you? I thought it was the panacea for almost all social ills, it drove the crime rate down, educational achievement up, and so on.
Yes, well, homeownership is only as good as the amount of home you actually own, and I think the big problem in the last generation or so is that Americans have turned to more and more and more debt to reach for the American dream.
There’s a lot of great examples out there — the Nehemiah homes that transformed East New York in Brooklyn from a really devastated and dangerous place to someplace that’s still really poor and has a high crime rate but has an opportunity to really grow and have a stable bunch of families really invested in building a home there. So all that’s great. Certainly there’s a lot of evidence that homeowners do tend to stay in one place for longer, their kids perform better in school. They tended to be more involved in local politics, community affairs, and block cleanups. The problem is, it’s very hard to separate out the effects of homeownership itself from the fact that people who have a certain economic or social standing are more likely statistically to be homeowners in the first place.
Does this mean that we shouldn’t actively encourage homeownership, using government money or government policy?
I think there’s nothing wrong with using government money, policy, pressure, all those tools to make homeownership more of a possibility than it would otherwise be in the marketplace, simply because the market left to its own devices discriminates aggressively. It rewards people who already have wealth, who have already had a leg up economically, and it’s great to give other people the opportunity as well.
The problem is that homeownership is the only housing policy that this country has ever shown any commitment to. Renters are treated miserably.
And that’s one big distinction you see between the U.S. and European countries that also had very loosely regulated mortgage-security markets and have had problems there. I think one reason you’re not seeing mass foreclosures on quite the scale that you had in the U.S. is that for large proportions of the population in many European countries, including the Netherlands, Germany, France, Switzerland, renting is supported through government policies that, for instance, protect tenants so that they don’t have to worry about getting kicked out at the end of the year.
Whereas in the U.S., homeownership was always the only option. And anyone who can afford to, or thought they could afford to, would choose that option. So that’s really the problem here.
Whose fault is the mess that we’re in now? And how far back do we need to go to start tracing the blame?
I think the message of my book, unfortunately, is that it’s to some degree everybody’s fault, including, I should say, liberal activists, with whom I’m extremely sympathetic, and think were right.
But what we really had was a collision of ideologies over this question of: How do we make it possible for everyone to be a homeowner? How do we eradicate this horrible legacy of discrimination, which had left the homeownership rate for whites much, much higher than that for blacks and Latinos? There was real work that needed to be done there. So I think we really have to go back to the 1970s, when we started to see pretty aggressive policy measures on the part of the federal government to try to level the playing field.
You talk about another real estate bubble in the early ’70s, when everybody who wanted one could get a mortgage. The wreckage that was left behind looks totally familiar.
Yes. Rather infamously, the federal housing administration, which is the government agency that insures mortgages — it’s what built Levittown and all those 1950s suburbs after the war — discriminated very aggressively, on the basis of what was thought to be sound statistical evidence, that the insurance fund would only be safe if it were to insure suburban and overwhelmingly white areas.
So what happened in ‘67 and ‘68 was that federal housing officials reversed that entirely. They proclaimed, initially just in the riot areas and then more broadly across cities, that FHA, the Federal Housing Administration, would now be open everywhere! And in fact, as I note in the book, the only circumstances under which HUD did not insure mortgages is if the house is literally falling down.
Real estate agents and loan brokers descended on inner cities, trying to find borrowers who would be unlikely to pay their mortgages back, because the real-estate speculator would get paid in full by the federal government, and paid more quickly and more generously, because of forgone interest that they would get compensated for. The sooner that borrower went into foreclosure the more generously that entrepreneur would get paid.
When was that mess cleaned up?
About ‘73, ‘74. There were tens if not hundreds of thousands of abandoned houses all over the country as a result of the FHA debacle, and it got a lot of attention at the time and was almost forgotten to history after that.
And then we have the Reagan presidency and — correct me if I’m wrong — but that’s when the securities market for mortgages really blossoms, right?
Absolutely. Mortgage-backed securities had existed since about 1970. They existed in the ’20s too, and that was part of why the Depression happened — they had been made illegal after that. But they came back as a government product in 1970. As I recount in the book, Lewis Ranieri of Salomon Brothers, which was trading in government-backed securities, thought, “Couldn’t we just do this ourselves? Why do we need to have Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae in the middle, why don’t we create these securities?”
In order to do that, they needed to rewrite all those laws that had been passed following the crash in 1929 and thereafter, which was as much a housing and real estate bubble crash as it was a stock market crash.
Who’s to Blame For the Housing Crash? – Mark Schone, Salon
July 2nd, 2009
By Kathleen M. Howley
June 29 (Bloomberg) — Driving through Riverside, California, Bruce Norris pointed to a half-dozen empty houses with “For Sale” signs stuck in untended lawns that he said investors might buy if banks would just extend some credit.
“People today look at us as the enemy,” said Norris, 57, head of Riverside-based Norris Group, which purchases and renovates homes to rent or sell. “That’s a big problem for housing because if we can’t get the financing we need, a lot of these properties are going to sit vacant.”
Four months after President Barack Obama pledged $275 billion to shore up home sales, the engine that powered every U.S. recovery since 1960 is stalled. Bankers’ reluctance to finance buyers who won’t live in properties is one barrier to a turnaround. Stricter qualifying rules and a rise in the cost of residential loans to 5.42 percent have impeded new mortgage lending, which is at a 13-year low. An inventory of 2.1 million unoccupied houses on the market, created by the fastest foreclosure pace in history, may be a drag on a revival.
The $8,000 first-time homebuyer tax credit in the U.S. economic stimulus package and a government program to subsidize some mortgage payments have had little effect, according to Eric Belsky, executive director of Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
“It hasn’t been much more than a see-sawing of data,” Belsky said in an interview. “Housing has led the U.S. economy out of every recession for at least 50 years, and for that to happen again more stimulus is going to be needed.”
Leading Indicator
The residential real estate market improved ahead of the end of the past seven contractions, with home construction starts beginning to climb an average of seven months before gross domestic product picked up and sales gaining about four months in advance, according to data compiled by David Berson, chief economist of PMI Group, a mortgage insurer in Walnut Creek, California.
Expenditures by homeowners — first on transaction fees, then on necessities and luxuries including furniture, gardening tools, kitchen renovations, basic upkeep and property taxes — kept the momentum going, Belsky said.
Existing U.S. home sales in May rose 2.4 percent to an annual rate of 4.77 million, lower than forecast, and the median price was down 16.8 percent from the same month in 2008, according to the Chicago-based National Realtors Association.
There’s little chance the turnover will increase enough this year to end the housing recession, said Andres Carbacho- Burgos, an economist with Moody’s Economy.com in West Chester, Pennsylvania.
‘Lousy Job Market’
“We have a lousy job market and an excess of around 1 million extra homes that has to be worked off,” he said in an interview. “The housing market is not going to hit bottom before mid-2010.”
Housing starts are at their lowest level since 1945, even with a 17 percent increase in May that pushed the annual rate to 532,000 from a 454,000 pace the prior month. So many properties are for sale — 3.8 million as of last month — that it would take 9.6 months to unload them at the current sales pace, according to the Realtors group. The inventory averaged 4.5 months in the six years from 2000 to 2005.
While there is pent-up demand that would eat away at the stock, “people are scared to spend the money because they’re worried about losing their jobs,” said Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts, in an interview.
6 Million Jobs
The unemployment rate, which reached a 26-year high of 9.4 percent in May, will probably exceed 10 percent this year, Obama said at a June 23 White House news conference.
“The American people have a right to feel like this is a tough time right now,” Obama said, calling it “pretty clear” payrolls will continue to shrink. About 6 million jobs have disappeared since January 2008, marking the biggest employment loss of any retrenchment since the Great Depression.
Personal bankruptcies rose 37 percent in May from a year earlier, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute, based in Alexandria, Virginia. Credit card defaults in the first quarter went to 7.79 percent from 4.83 percent a year ago, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. data show. While the share of loans entering foreclosure moved to 1.37 percent, the highest ever, the first-quarter mortgage delinquency rate climbed to a record 9.12 percent, the Washington-based Mortgage Bankers Association said.
Housing in Peril as Financing Breakthrough Fails – Bloomberg
July 1st, 2009
President Obama has officially begun the era of bigger big government by proposing to go on a multitrillion dollar borrowing spree that risks doing to the “full faith and credit of the United States” what excessive borrowing during the housing bubble did to private credit.
Under his budget plan for America’s future, spending will average 23.7% of GDP for at least a decade (a whopping 20% higher than in 2000-08).
Near-record deficits increasing at record rates will push the public debt of the U.S. beyond the economy’s plausible capacity to pay — 70% of GDP by 2012, heading quickly to 82% of GDP in 2019 and on pace to be astronomically higher soon thereafter.
The Avalanche
American families over the last year have already lost 8% of their net worth — in part as a result of inept government meddling, past and present. For many of the same reasons, they are also buried under a mountain of mortgages and private-sector debts gone bad. On top of that, if the president has his way, they will soon be hit with more than a 100% increase in public debt (from $8 trillion this year to $17.3 trillion in 2019).
Furthermore, the Treasury (and taxpayers) will soon have to begin repaying to Social Security more than $5 trillion in payroll tax revenues that the government had taken from the trust fund and spent for earmarks and other purposes.
Even without the Obama surge in debt — and taxes to pay it off — taxpayers face the prospect of 60% to 70% income-tax rates in the future to pay for $48 trillion in unfunded liabilities under existing entitlement programs. Now the president plans to burden the economy’s limited taxpaying capacity with a universal health care entitlement.
Foreigners purchased two-thirds of the Treasury debt sold during 2004-08 — and now own 50% of U.S. public debt.
Scholars at the Peterson Institute for International Economics warn that the “net foreign debt” position of the U.S. is becoming unsustainable.
Even if the bond rating of Treasury obligations is not formally downgraded for risk, foreign investors may start to resist buying more U.S. debt and, if the situation gets worse, may start withdrawing from the U.S. economy the trillions of dollars of capital they have already lent us. Then what?
The current level of private saving in the U.S. is grossly insufficient to make up the shortfall. In fact, Washington is doing nearly everything possible to prevent Americans from adding to their savings.
In theory, the U.S. government can always pay its debts by increasing taxes, but the problem with taxes — and ultimately with big-spending government — is that tax increases harm the economy disproportionately and quickly reduce the economy’s taxpaying capacity.
Before she became the chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisors, Christina Romer demonstrated in a research paper prepared for the National Science Foundation in 2007 that it costs the private-sector economy $4 ($1 of tax and nearly $3 of economic damage) to provide the government with $1 to spend.
In a research paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research in 2006, former CEA Chairman Martin Feldstein concluded that the private-sector cost of an additional dollar of income-tax revenues for the government is $2.50 ($1 of tax and $1.50 of economic damage).
Paying off Obama’s 10-year string of deficits that add up to $9.3 trillion with income tax increases of $9.3 trillion over 10 years would cost the private sector $23 trillion (Feldstein) to $37 trillion (Romer).
In effect, American families would over time lose an amount greater than an entire year of GDP — a blow far more severe than the damage being done to them by the current recession.
Dubious Direction
It is irresponsible stewardship for Obama and Congress to go on a borrowing spree that puts America in the same unsustainable position as an overstretched boomer with too much debt and too little income and whose only option is to refinance at higher costs just to pay the interest.
The responsible alternative is for Washington to spend less — a lot less. Otherwise, the next Washington-created bubble to burst may be the full faith and credit of the United States.
Christian and Robbins are, respectively, the executive director and the chief economist of the Center for Strategic Tax Reform (cstr.org) in Washington, D.C.
Obama’s Plan For a Debt-Ridden Future – E. Christian & G. Robbins, IBD
June 11th, 2009
Gordon Brown may be days from departure. Or – like the twitching body at the end of a hangman’s noose – his final spasms may be more drawn out. But there is an altogether more dramatic subplot being played out as the New Labour government reaches its last act. For the death throes of this government herald the end of something remarkable in British politics – the era of radicalism.
The immediate causes of Mr Brown’s demise may be mundane matters: the limitations of his personality and the cost of Jacqui Smith’s bath plug. He is also being subsumed by an economic tide.
But whatever the reasons for his looming downfall, it is set to mark a definite break with the recent past.
For nearly 30 years British politics has been dominated by radical figures with ideologies quite alien to the political parties that spawned them. First Margaret Thatcher affixed an iconoclastic, radical market ideology to a rather unideological, pragmatic and paternalistic Conservative party. Then in the mid-1990s Tony Blair did much the same thing to Labour.
Neither prime minister was ever of their party. Both frequently defined themselves against their party’s sacred cows and preached continuous revolution. Both evinced little sympathy for institutions and traditions. Both delivered a trio of electoral successes but were ultimately toppled by parliamentary parties that retained an instinctive – almost visceral – discomfort with them.
And after the fall, both saw the flame kept alive by a small but fanatical cadre of loyalists determined to keep the faith even at the expense of party unity and electoral prospects.
Mrs Thatcher was replaced by a man with a more consensual style but whom she and her followers mistakenly believed to be a disciple.
John Major’s government was ruined by events, sleaze scandals, exhaustion and its narrow majority. But it was also destroyed by ideological warfare once it emerged that he was no true heir to Thatcherism. Like Gordon Brown, he became a prisoner of his cabinet; unable to sack ministers he disliked and promote those he trusted. The embattled Tory leader tried reshuffles and relaunches. As Mr Brown this week faced an assault from James Purnell, the ultimate Blairite ultra, so Mr Major faced John Redwood, the purest of Thatcherites. Mr Redwood jumped alone and failed to bring down Mr Major; it remains to be seen how badly Mr Purnell has wounded his target.
One can argue about degree. It is probably true that the Thatcherites penetrated deeper into the Conservative party than the Blairites ever managed with Labour. It is nearly 20 years since Mrs Thatcher’s fall and it has taken almost that long for the Tories to play out their internecine conflict. But David Cameron has finally restored the party to something close to its roots. With his attachment to environmentalism, even at the expense of business concerns; with his avowed support for public services; with his departure from some of the harsher social policies of recent years; Mr Cameron has returned the Tories whence they came. Some – especially those watching from the European mainland – might argue that his euroscepticism is still highly ideological. But even this is tempered compared with his predecessors and, in any case, remains hugely popular within Britain.
Many complain that he lacks policies. This is wrong. What he lacks is ideological dogma. He still inclines towards the free market; he still veers towards nationalism. The old Etonian, Mr Cameron believes in things; but he believes in them in moderation. This puts him back in line with Conservative tradition.
Labour, too, is purging its Blairite appendage. Mr Brown was, of course, a New Labour man himself – Mr Blair’s most important partner in the refashioning of the party away from its hard-left policies – but for him the “Labour” was as important as the “New”. His elevation appeared to offer Labour the best of both worlds. Like Mr Major, he appeared more aligned to the traditional party while offering reassurance to the ultras that he would not destroy all they once believed in. While he shrank from the most free-market aspects of Blairism he never abandoned its economic orthodoxy.
One can never divorce events from all this. Had Mr Brown gone to the country early – as his allies urged before the financial crisis struck – he might well have been re-elected and escaped his current travails. But he didn’t and he hasn’t, and now Labour, like the Conservatives, looks set to return closer to its roots. It will start now, as a weaker premier finds it hard to resist his traditionalist MPs, and will continue after Mr Brown’s departure – whenever that comes.
The sudden enthusiasm in some quarters for the unproven Alan Johnson may, in part, reflect the new home secretary and former postman’s personable nature and inspiring backstory. But Mr Johnson is also a trade unionist who, in office, has backed the rights of public sector workers against economic expediency and the views of the true Blairites.
We cannot yet say how much longer Mr Brown has, but Labour is turning back in on itself and back to its roots. The next Labour leader – whenever he or she comes – is not likely to be an über-Blairite. This may be particularly problematic for Labour, as the country has shown a preference for smaller government and free markets, which the current financial crisis is unlikely to shake over the long term.
Mr Cameron has led the Conservatives back to their roots. Labour is heading down a similar path.
Britain’s 30-year experiment with radical politics is at its end. The new order is dead. Welcome to the past.
Robert Shrimsley is managing editor of FT.com and a former chief political correspondent
Gordon Brown’s Fall: The End of British Radicalism – Robert Shrimsley, FT
June 11th, 2009
ILLITERACY IN HIGH PLACES
by Paul Craig Roberts
If a person lives long enough, he can watch everyone forget everything they learned.
Everyone includes Federal Reserve Chairmen, economists, Bank of America “strategists,” and even Bloomberg.com.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke thinks he can hold down US long-term interest rates by purchasing mortgage bonds and US Treasuries. Sixty years ago the Federal Reserve understood that this was an impossible feat. After an acrimonious public dispute with the US Treasury, in 1951 the Federal Reserve forced an “Accord” on the government that eliminated the Fed’s obligation to monetize Treasury debt in order to hold down long term interest rates.
President Truman and Treasury Secretary John Snyder wanted to protect World War II bond purchasers by preventing any rise in interest rates, which would mean a decline in the price of the bonds.
The Fed understood that monetizing the debt to hold down interest rates meant loss of control over the money supply. The policy of suppressing interest rates could only work until the financial markets anticipated rising inflation and bid down the bond prices. If the Fed responded by buying more Treasuries, the money supply and inflation would rise faster.
Since Fed Chairman Bernanke announced his plan to purchase $1 trillion in mortgage and Treasury bonds in order to help the housing market with low interest rates, interest rates have risen. When will the Fed remember that printing money does not lower long-term interest rates?
According to Bloomberg (June 3), Bank of America strategists are recommending that investors buy Fannie Mae bonds because the rise in interest rates means the Fed will ramp up its purchases in order to prevent rising interest rates from adversely impacting the struggling housing market. When will financial gurus remember that printing money does not lower interest rates?
Treasury Secretary Geithner is another economic incompetent. He told China that he stood for a “strong dollar,” but that China should let its currency appreciate relative to the dollar, which, of course, would mean a weaker dollar. He simultaneously told China that their investments in US Treasury bonds were safe.
His Chinese university audience, being economically literate, laughed at Geithner. It apparently did not dawn on the US Treasury Secretary that if Chinese money is rising in value relative to the US dollar, the value of Chinese investments in dollar-denominated US Treasury bonds is falling.
Congressional Democrats are proving themselves to be as stupid as the Republicans. According to the Associated Press, the Democrats have reached agreement to appropriate another $100 billion to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of the year. What are the Democrats thinking? The federal budget for this year is already 50% in the red. Why add another $100 billion to the red ink, which has to be monetized, thus causing inflation, higher interest rates, and a weaker dollar.
The red ink that Washington is generating is a far greater threat to Americans than any foreign “enemies.”
The hubris is extraordinary. A bankrupt government that has to send its Treasury Secretary begging to China thinks it can spend limitless amounts in a futile effort to control the culture, mores, and political system of distant Afghanistan.
June 6th, 2009
This recession is now the worst since at least 1958, which is as far back as the index of coincident indicators stretches back.
The Conference Board reported today that the index, which is intended to measure how the economy is doing on an overall basis, slipped a little in April. The decline was smaller than in previous months, and two of the four indicators edged up, which could be taken as a sign that the economy is at least getting worse at a slower pace.
As I noted last month, the index was nearing the 5.6 percent decline that it experienced in the 1973-1975 recession. Now it is down 5.7 percent.
One way to put that into perspective is that the decline so far in this recession is more than the maximum falls combined in the two previous recessions, in the early 1990s and then in 2001.
“..the decline so far in this recession is more than the maximum falls combined in the two previous receptions, in the early 1990s and then in 2001.” (Floyd Norris)
May 27th, 2009
http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/
Bernanke’s wager is on a virtual free lunch by printing money.
“Fed chair Ben Bernanke has long argued that central banks can bring down long-term borrowing rates by purchasing bonds “at essentially no cost”. His frequent writings rarely ask whether foreigner investors – from a different cultural universe – will tolerate such conduct. Mr Bernanke is betting that under a floating currency regime there is no risk of repeating the disaster of October 1931, when the Fed had to raise rates twice to stem foreign gold withdrawals, with catastrophic consequences.”
“
May 25th, 2009
In for a dime, in for a dollar. “The GMAC funding is an illustration of how rapidly the government effort to rescue the U.S. auto industry is escalating in cost and scope.” (WSJ)
GM Borrows $4 Billion From U.S. to Push Loans to $19.4 Billion
General Motors Corp., facing rising cash needs before a June 1 bankruptcy deadline, tapped $4 billion more in U.S. aid to push its total to $19.4 billion.
May 25th, 2009
A total of 1 million people get help every day from Germany’s “Deutsche Tafel” food banks — and that number is set to increase because of the recession. The organization’s head, Gerd Häuser, talks to SPIEGEL ONLINE about Germany’s new poverty and the dangers of social unrest.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,622965,00.html#ref=nlint
May 8th, 2009
From Bloomberg:
May 7 (Bloomberg) — The current global crisis is “vastly worse” than the 1930s because financial systems and economies worldwide have become more interdependent, “Black Swan” author Nassim Nicholas Taleb said.
“This is the most difficult period of humanity that we’re going through today because governments have no control,” Taleb, 49, told a conference in Singapore today. “Navigating the world is much harder than in the 1930s.”
The International Monetary Fund last month slashed its world economic growth forecasts and said the global recession will be deeper than previously predicted as financial markets take longer to stabilize. Nouriel Roubini, 51, the New York University professor who predicted the crisis, told Bloomberg News yesterday that analysts expecting the U.S. economy to rebound in the third and fourth quarter were “too optimistic.”
“Certainly the rate of economic contraction is slowing down from the freefall of the last two quarters,” Roubini said. “We are going to have negative growth to the end of the year and next year the recovery is going to be weak.”
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke told lawmakers May 5 that the central bank expects U.S. economic activity “to bottom out, then to turn up later this year.” Another shock to the financial system would undercut that forecast, he added.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=avf2KVFwU8xQ
May 7th, 2009
- May 1: May Day protesters clashed with riot police in Turkey, Greece and Germany while French unions led their biggest ever Labor Day demonstrations amid growing public anger in Europe at unemployment and the handling of global economic crisis (Guardian)
- Unemployment is on the rise across the continent. The European Commission expects an unemployment rate of 8.75% in the EU27 and 9.25% in the eurozone in 2009. In the Euro area, the unemployment rate was 8.5% in February 2009, 1.3% higher than a year earlier (OECD)
- Labor unions in the EU are scandalized that the governments are handing money to banks when workers’ pay is stagnant. Moreover, bailing out banks could mean drawing funds from social welfare programs (Euractiv)
May 4th, 2009
It was surely a surprise when the WSJ hired Thomas Frank to write an opinion column. Anyone who has read either of his bestsellers, What’s The Matter With Kansas? or The Wrecking Crew understands that his view of American politics just doesn’t fit in with the other editorial page writers there. I, for one, am very happy he is writing there and his column today should be required reading for every citizen who cares about the future of this country.
Why Congress Won’t Investigate Wall Street
Republicans and Democrats would find themselves in the hot seat.
The famous Pecora Commission of 1933 and 1934 was one of the most successful congressional investigations of all time, an instance when oversight worked exactly as it should. The subject was the massively corrupt investment practices of the 1920s. In the course of its investigation, the Senate Banking Committee, which brought on as its counsel a former New York assistant district attorney named Ferdinand Pecora, heard testimony from the lords of finance that cemented public suspicion of Wall Street. Along the way, the investigations formed the rationale for the Glass-Steagall Act, the Securities Exchange Act, and other financial regulations of the Roosevelt era.
A new round of regulation is clearly in order these days, and a Pecora-style investigation seems like a good way to jolt the Obama administration into action. After all, the financial revelations of today bear a striking resemblance to those of 1933. In his own account of his investigation, Pecora described bond issues that were almost certainly worthless, but which 1920s bankers sold to uncomprehending investors anyway. He told of the bonuses which the bankers thereby won for themselves. He also told of the lucrative gifts banks gave to lawmakers from both political parties. And then he told of the banking industry’s indignation at being made to account for itself. It regarded the outraged public, in Pecora’s shorthand, as a “howling mob.”
The idea of a new Pecora investigation is catching on, particularly, but not exclusively, on the left.
It’s probably not going to happen, though, in the comprehensive way that it should. The reason is that understanding our problems, this time around, would require our political leaders to examine themselves.
The crisis today is not solely one of bank misbehavior. This is also about the failure of the regulators — the Wall Street policemen who dozed peacefully as the crime of the century went off beneath the window.
We have all heard the official explanation for this failure, that “the structure of our regulatory system is unnecessarily complex and fragmented,” in the soothing words of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. But no proper Pecora would be satisfied with such piffle. The system was not only complex, it was compromised and corrupted and thoroughly rotten even in the spots where its mandate was simple.
After all, we have for decades been on a national crusade to slash red tape and stifle regulators. Over the years, federal agencies have been defunded, their workers have grown dispirited, their managers, drawn in many cases from antiregulatory organizations, have seemed to care far more about industry than the public.
Consider in this connection the 2003 photograph, rapidly becoming an icon of the Bush years, in which James Gilleran, then the director of the Office of Thrift Supervision (it regulates savings and loan associations) can be seen in the company of several jolly bank industry lobbyists, holding a chainsaw to a pile of rule books. The picture not only tells us more about our current fix than would a thousand pages about overlapping jurisdictions; it also reminds us why we may never solve the problem of regulatory failure. To do so, we would have to examine the apparent subversion of the regulatory system by the last administration. And that topic is supposedly off limits, since going there would open the door to endless partisan feuding.
But it’s not only Republicans who would feel the sting of embarrassment. Launching Pecora II would automatically raise this question: Whatever happened to the reforms put in place after the first go-round?
Now a different picture comes to mind. It’s Bill Clinton in November of 1999, surrounded by legislators of both parties, giving a shout-out to his brilliant Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, and signing the measure that overturned Glass-Steagall’s separation of investment from commercial banking. Mr. Clinton is confident about what he is doing. He knows the lessons of history, he talks glibly about “the new information-age global economy” that was the idol of deep thinkers everywhere in those days. “[T]he Glass-Steagall law is no longer appropriate to the economy in which we live,” he says. “It worked pretty well for the industrial economy, which was highly organized, much more centralized, and much more nationalized than the one in which we operate today. But the world is very different.”
It turns out the world hadn’t changed much after all. But the Democratic Party sure had. And while today’s chastened Democrats might be ready to reregulate the banks, they are no more willing to scrutinize the bad ideas of the Clinton years than Republicans are the bad ideas of the Bush years.
“We may now need to be reminded what Wall Street was like before Uncle Sam stationed a policeman at its corner,” Pecora wrote in 1939, “lest, in time to come, some attempt be made to abolish that post.”
Well, the time did come. The attempt was made. And we could use that reminder today.
The odds are against us but if Congress won’t do the right thing here, it is incumbent on all of us in the blogoshpere to keep raising awareness of every policy inconsistency and hypocrisy we see. Sooner or later, public opinion will catch up to the truth.
April 30th, 2009
How do you replace 70% of GDP?
President Obama spoke on the economy yesterday morning, and Helicopter Ben delivered a speech on “Four Questions about the Financial Crisis” yesterday afternoon.
CNNMoney.com reports that in the prepared remarks for his speech, Bernanke said, “Recently we have seen tentative signs that the sharp decline in economic activity may be slowing.”
The ’signs’ he is referring to include recent upticks in home sales and new home constructions, as well as improvements in consumer spending, especially new vehicles.
“A leveling out of economic activity is the first step toward recovery,” said Big Ben. “To be sure, we will not have a sustainable recovery without a stabilization of our financial system and credit markets.”
Bernanke may have wanted to wait until the retail numbers were released before preparing those remarks. Nearly every expert that has been surveyed on this topic believed that U.S. retail sales, which count for half of consumer spending, rose in March, mainly due to the auto industry incentives that began last month.
However, it turns out that retail numbers pulled a fast one – and showed a drop in sales for last month.
Two months of gains has boosted hopes that March’s numbers would follow suit, building a rebound in consumer spending.
But, not so much. The Commerce Department showed that March’s retail sales were down for almost every type of store except necessities, such as food and drugs.
MarketWatch reports: “Retail sales in the first quarter were down 1.2%, compared with the fourth quarter of last year, raising the possibility that real consumer spending may have fallen again for the first three months of 2009 after plunging at a 4% annual rate in the final six months of 2008.
“Economist David Rosenberg of Bank of America’s Merrill Lynch said he expected consumer spending to decline at a 3.7% annual pace in the April through June quarter.”
“The retail sales figures indicated incentives and promotions by car dealers and clothing stores such as Gap Inc. failed to draw customers hurt by a lack of credit and the highest jobless rate in 25 years.”
In other words…outlook not so good for the economy. Americans have clearly been spooked by the high jobless rate. It seems that everyone knows someone who has been laid off, or had hours cut back…and the possibility of it happening to you becomes very real. So you cut back. You make dinner instead of going out…make do with last year’s summer clothes instead of going on a shopping spree.
April 15th, 2009
Previous Posts
