Back To The Basics

(Cross-posted at Heritage)

In the New York Times today, David Brooks has a column in which he describes two theories about the financial crisis: “greed” and “stupidity.” The “greed” theory is not what you might be thinking—it is not the simplistic notion that Wall Street is just full of greedy capitalists that swindle the people out of their money. It is a little bit more sophisticated than that, because it involves the government bailing out the banks. They do this, of course, because politicians earn handsome rewards for it. This theory has some merit.

The second theory, “stupidity” is also more sophisticated than it sounds. Wall Street did not know that it was engaged in such risky behavior. The theory as presented blames the complex financial instruments, but one could as easily blame monetary policy, subsidies, bailouts, or policy uncertainty, for creating this ignorance.

Government certainly had a hand in creating this crisis, yet now these same leaders are attempting to blame free markets, and resurrect socialism. Right before our eyes we are seeing the pattern: even as government spending backfires, we cede more control to it, and the love and faith in politicians grows. Even free market economists forget the basics.

Now more than ever, we need to return to the fundamentals. We need to relearn our Adam Smith, our Frederic Bastiat, the roots of liberalism and the morality of freedom. Only if the people understand these basic principles do we have a chance. Then we can see through the politicians, and not let them take our freedom and control our lives.

Changing Places: Europeanization as a Good Word

(Cross-posted at Heritage)

The financial crisis has exposed a trend that has been in the works for some time. Since the fall of communism, some of the more socialist countries have learned lessons from the Soviet collapse: free markets work, and government planning does not. Meanwhile, the capitalist countries have slept through these lessons, and have been slowly becoming more socialist.

The financial crisis has made this crystal clear. For example, US car companies, and now auto parts dealers, have received bailout money. Sweden, every liberal’s favorite social-democratic country, has let their signature car company, Saab, fail.

While the US Federal Reserve has been finding creative ways to print our way out of this financial mess, the European Central Bank has resisted this doomed inflationary policy. The European Union is actually concerned about high taxes, inflation, and excessive spending.

From the formerly communist Czech President of the European Union, we have a warning that Obama’s spending frenzy is a “road to hell,” but from the formerly free market United Kingdom, we have the Prime Minister calling for a Global New Deal.

It seems that, in the 21st century, “European style economy” might come to mean “free market” and “American style capitalism” might be a new term for “socialism.”

The Golden Age of Political Entrepreneurship is Here

(Cross-posted at Heritage)

As Joel Kotkin detailed in the Washington Post this weekend, the Wall Street Bailout and Trillion Dollar Deficit Plan being pushed through Congress this month mark the transfer of power from commercial cities like Chicago, New York, and San Francisco, to Washington DC.

In the business world, campaign contributions and lobbying efforts have replaced cost cutting as the way to maximize profit. Going to Washington with hands outstretched can prevent bankruptcy, and can provide a stimulus to the bottom line. Competing without such government aid is becoming more and more difficult, and rebels who shun such tactics are a dying breed.

This “political entrepreneurship,” or use of political power in place of competition, is not new. In fact, as far back as the “robber baron” age, some businesses preferred to use the power and purse of Congress, rather than have to do the hard work of cost cutting and innovation necessary to be a successful market entrepreneur. The true “robber barons” were not businessmen competing freely in the market, but those businessmen who gained monopoly advantage by lobbying Congress and buying market power.

Today, we still have some “robber barons,” protected by government and producing shoddy products, but we also have endless more miles of red tape on regular business, an incomprehensible tax code with favors for special interests, and subsidies and “pork” for every conceivable interest group request. It. Yet with all this spending and protection, we’re told we need more “stimulus,” and we need to “protect” more jobs.

In the academic world, two developments are driving the movement from economics to politics. The all-round analysis of economics, which can take into account all interactions and effects of various policies, has been abandoned for narrow subtopics and mathematical abstractions. Meanwhile the economists themselves have taken political views and ignored economics in their policy recommendations (for example, Paul Krugman).

But, the movement away from rational and realistic economics – the realization that there are limited resources and limited time, and that we cannot at once waste time digging holes and filling them up again, and also be productive and create prosperity – and toward politics – the art of deception, favoritism and trading favors – will necessarily bankrupt the country.

If You Can't Explain It, It Probably Isn't Right

I spoke to a non-economist today about the housing crisis, credit crunch, financial crisis, bailouts and recession. She had some basic insights about supply and demand, listened and agreed with me that the policies were likely to blame (regulations pushing low-income loans, interest rates, subsidies and so on), and we agreed that expanding these policies would make it difficult for entrepreneurs to spur recovery. My explanation was consistent with - in fact was pretty much exactly - the Austrian position.

Could a Keynesian explanation and solution have been as easily explained? The person I spoke to was not predisposed toward a free market solution or a government answer. I wonder if some of the credit crunch explanations that get into all the complexities are necessary, and with their confusing intricate details and delicate cures, whether they are able to get at the essence of something so big and far-reaching.

Of course, some simple explanations - especially ones that blame some minority group - are a distraction, scapegoat. So, perhaps if the explanation is complicated, it is unlikely to be right, but if it is simple it could be right or wrong. Then it just comes down to common sense. Since anyone is able to understand it, it comes down to being rational and honest in examining the logic. What do you think?

The new New Deal

Cross Posted at Heritage

Could the current crisis usher in a new “New Deal”, with a new brand of corporatism to replace the free market system? Certainly European leaders are arguing that case. The current economic “crisis,” may itself have been caused by bad policy. Yet, is provides a great pretext for an expansion of government.

During the 1930s, as part of the New Deal, Franklin D. Roosevelt nationalized banks, set prices, wages and work hours, and promoted public works programs to employ the unemployed. The New Deal, or the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) to be precise, was supported by many industrial leaders, some of whom had helped draft the legislation. Cartels, inflated prices and subsidies were great perks for established business, especially those that would have trouble staying ahead in a free market.

Businesses then, as now, cried to Congress about their need for a bailout, and the disaster which would be wrought by their bankruptcy. NIRA was eventually declared unconstitutional. The decision made the important point that “extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional powers.”

Until then these laws were widely supported and considered critical to recovery from the economic crisis of the time. Yet intervention did more to cause and prolong the crisis than to aid recovery.

Although these measures were defended as being necessary during an emergency, and only temporary, many still exist today. For example the emergency farm supports created with the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) have morphed into the current Farm Bill, which still pays farmers not grow food.

Like the New Deal period, we are seeing waves of nationalization, bailouts of unrelated industry, and expansion of central bank power. The nationalization of banks during the New Deal was actually smaller than what we are doing today – as a percentage of GDP it was the equivalent to about $500 billion. Today the state took shares in the largest nine banks and bailouts total well over a trillion dollars.

As John Goldberg points out, the stake that government now holds in these banks is actually greater than the stake it held in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and it is quite likely that this temporary measure might too become the regular state of affairs.

If Obama is the next president, he would like to see a return to union domination and government mediation in wages and hours. Obama also favors public works programs to employ those out of work. He has already proposed at least two kinds of programs like this: his “transitional jobs” program which hires the unemployed, and his National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank. With the excuse of an ongoing recession, he could easily roll these into New Deal sized public works projects.

But, prior to the New Deal we had small government. Prior to this new “New Deal” we already have enormous government and massive debt. The Deal we sign today would be for European style socialism, with European style unemployment and stagnation.

Causes and Cure for the Credit Crunch

This crisis is often complicated way out of proportion to what is necessary. It is really quite simple. This article makes a nice rundown, and I will give you some basic bullet points. Then I will attempt to convince you that the best medicine is to let the market detox.

Causes

The crisis was triggered by a collapse in housing. There was first a bubble - with housing prices rising and rising and rising and everybody knew it couldn't last - and then it popped. Crash. And then - oops - it took down all related lending, since so many firms had a major portion of their lending wrapped up with mortgages. Hence, credit crisis.

Now, what could have caused the bubble and the pop? Well, before jumping right to culprits, lets remind ourselves what drives prices up and down: supply and demand. So, for prices to rise, there must be greater demand than supply (lots of bids on few houses) and for prices to crash, there must suddenly be greater supply than demand.

OK. So what could have gotten supply and demand out of whack? In normal times, if demand is high and prices rise, more suppliers will come in, prices fall again; but here the supply never caught up with demand. Why?

Supply and Demand

Several policies and programs have been put into place to encourage home ownership, but which drove a wedge between supply and demand. These include:

(1) Fannie and Freddie which ensure cheap mortgages as they buy bad loans back from places like AIG and which dominate at least half of the housing market, drove reasonable lenders out of business, and made poor lending and bad loan packaging possible by being a massive customer (read: subsidy) to places like AIG.

Demand: Much more demand by the lower income buyers, demand for bad loans by gov.
Supply: Private market crowded out by Fannie/Freddie except those making loans that gov. buys

(2) The Community Reinvestment Act which forces lenders to offer cheap loans (with quotas) and which, together with Fannie and Freddie, led government to create the securitized secondary mortgage market, and which also drove potentially profitable lenders out of business, expanding Fannie and Freddie's dominance.

Demand: Much more demand by the lower income buyers, demand for bad loans by gov.
Supply: Private market crowded out again, only the few big ones can meet gov. quotas

(3) Fed-induced low interest rates which made mortgages more affordable, tax write offs and personal tax credits for mortgages, etc.

Demand: Much more demand by all buyers
Supply: Supply contingent on interest rates staying low, otherwise defaults


Now, what was the point of Fannie and Freddie? Their charter states that it is to ensure loans to those who cannot normally afford them by buying low-income private loans up on a secondary market. This is not a recipe for profit maximization, it is a recipe for excessive risk. Now, it is non-profit insurance - risk sharing - in theory. If that could work.

But it can't for several reasons. Moral hazard and plain old demand will go up, when rates are this low, so losses grow. Government has actually fed the demand of low income buyers, not only by offering them cheap housing but also by driving interest rates down, offering tax credits, etc. In fact, they kept expanding and expanding further into low-income and sub-prime lending, in the dream of reaching 70% home ownership.

Meanwhile those who would offer low-income loans at rates which would allow profit are all crowded out of the market. The only ones left who can make a profit are those who depend on Fannie and Freddie to buy their risky loan packages. So long as Fannie and Freddie stay in business, they are OK. But Fannie and Freddie can only appear as if they are above water so long as housing prices keep rising, so long as fuel keeps going on the fire of demand.

But they are going deeper and deeper and crowding out everything around them. They are swollen with risk and poised right in the center of the credit market, waiting to explode.

Why did it all come a head now? Because:

Between 2005 and 2008, Fannie purchased or guaranteed at least $270 billion in loans to risky borrowers — more than three times as much as in all its earlier years combined, according to company filings and industry data.

Boom.


Cure

I keep stressing that we understand what caused the problem. The reason for this is that (as the first link above mentions) the cure that we are putting in place is actually more of the same-- more of what caused the crisis. If the crisis was caused and fueled by these policies, why do we expect them now to save us?

Fannie and Freddie caused the crisis by not pursuing profitable business strategies - by risky lending and loss-making pricing - and yet, Paulson promises that to cure our ails he will make sure that Fannie and Freddie stop worrying about being profitable. Put the homeowner first.

Fannie and Freddie caused the crisis by expanding into the sub-prime market, the answer to foreclosures a year ago? Expand Fannie and Freddie's mandate for low-income lending. Today? More of the same.

Fannie and Freddie caused the crisis by subsidizing a risky secondary market for mortgage-back securities. Our initial response a year ago? Buy more bad loans. Our current plan? Buy more mortgage backed securities (bad loans).

The fed fueled the fire with easy money. Answer? Easy money.

This is classing government intervention feeding on itself.

What is the right cure? Leave it be. Let the market restructure. Don't feed the crisis. If you think it will hurt, you may be right. But won't $700 billion in transfer from taxpayer to government also hurt? Won't feeding the loss-making machinery of socialized companies, which will need to be bailed out again and again hurt? Won't subsidizing failing companies which drive out regular business hurt too?

There is no pain-free answer. But there are cures that hurt because they detoxify, and there are cures that feel good right now, like a mamosa over breakfast after a drinking binge, but fail to actually solve the problem. In fact, they make it worse. And the final detox hurts more.

This crisis, the more I learn of it, the more it reminds me of the transition in Russia. We have to cut the strings. We are being made a muppet.

What I wrote to my Congressman

Mr. Congressman,

I urge you with all my heart to vote NO on the bailout bill. I was very pleased when the bill first failed in the House - finally Congress had heard the American people, and refrained from rushing blindly to enact desperate and far-reaching legislation that would only exacerbate economic troubles.

The new bill is hardly any better than the old bill. Passing the bill would be foolish, short-sighted and a slap in the face of the American taxpayer, and voter.

I urge you to stop, consider carefully other options, and consider what the market can do on its own. The people are even ready to accept a short term economic hit, if it will lead to a necessary shakeup, so that this won't happen again.

Government has stepped outside of its constitutional role - as Senator Coburn pointed out - for too long. Government and the Federal Reserve is to blame for this mess, and a government bailout will only make it worse, as it will prevent the adjustments that need to be made, and allow companies to keep making bad decisions.

Several letters have been written and signed by economists which object to the bailout and which offer alternative policy proposals. The American public deserves serious consideration of alternatives.

Please, I urge you, VOTE NO on the bailout.

Your concerned constituent,

Guinevere Nell

Will Warren Buffet be seen as a savior?

For some reason, when someone can make a profit on something, it is rarely seen as moral, while if its done unprofitably, and even with taxpayer money, it holds the moral high ground. So, when pharmaceutical companies save millions of lives, they are greedy profiteers; but when government hobbles together a weak program to deliver medicine, it is doing vast good.

Now, we can compare government’s massive $700 billion proposed bail out program, with one man’s $5 billion purchase. Sure, it’s a lot smaller, but what if a few dozen of the richest men all decided to buy failing or at-risk companies cheap, restructure them and try to profit from them? Would this be hailed as the greatest men of Wall Street coming together to save the economy? Somehow I doubt it. Instead, it would likely be seen as the greedy profiteers taking advantage of a dire situation to buy up all the world’s riches. They would be called names like “robber baron” or “viper.”

But, how does a program of private for-profit purchasing of the firms differ from a government program? There are the things that make it less “moral”:

1. You won’t have to pay more in taxes in order to pay for the purchase.
2. You won’t lose your job because others have to pay more in taxes.
3. The companies will be restructured with the intent of making each of them more profitable, so they will likely become more efficient and begin hiring more people, driving your wages up.


There are other differences, especially if we end up having to compare nationalizations with private purchases – but with a little luck, the proposal won’t go that far. Still, I have to wonder whether we wouldn’t be better off if government refused to do anything, and people like Warren Buffet came to the rescue.

Bailouts Making the Crisis Worse?

Economic policies often have unintended consequences. While the decentralized actions of individuals in the market can effectively coordinate the supply of goods – Adam Smith’s invisible hand – centralized government actions cannot. So, when market crises come about, it is important to ask certain questions before looking to government to correct the failure.

First, was it a failure of decentralized actors? Was a market failure, or irrational speculation, at the root of the problem, or was it government intervention that caused it? The financial markets have not been free of regulation, and they have been bailed out before. Those companies most regulated were the ones that led the crisis. Similarly, in countries with even more regulated and state owned financial sectors, the crisis has taken down those nationalized firms.

If it was intervention that caused the problem, then there may be no need to tie the hands of the market to prevent future crises. Instead we could roll back the interventionist policies we’ve been using, potentially allowing firms more flexibility to solve market failures on their own. Even the most benign regulation might prevent the market from innovating, adapting and spurring growth. Literally throwing money at the problem, and then seizing companies at will, cannot solve the underlying problems.

Second, it is important to ask both what would happen without bailouts and what is likely to happen with them. Many commentators simply consider the first, and have a doomsday scenario, but they have not considered carefully how the bailing out itself might cause both short term, and of course long term, damage. In the short term some say that the bailouts “are actually making it harder for financial firms to raise the money they need to muddle through the credit crunch.”

Further intervention is likely to make it worse if intervention caused the crisis in the first place. In the long run you have serious moral hazard problems – this is well known. Trying to dodge some of these problems, the Fed is being inconsistent in its bail out policy. Playing favorites is a well loved perk of discretionary policy making because it allows for rent-seeking by firms and politicians. With bail outs and subsidies, bad firms and bad investments are propped up like petty dictators, serving themselves but not the people. All this waste is laid at the foot of the tax-payer.

Finally, if we create a crisis through use of intervention and then respond to the crisis with more intervention, which in turn makes the crisis worse, and then respond to that crisis with yet more intervention – when will it ever stop?

As CNN reports, “This is the federal government's most far-reaching intervention in the financial markets since the Great Depression of the 1930s.” It will cost hundreds of billions now, and much more later, if it causes more crises down the road. So, it is critical that we ask: do we need these bail outs, and what are we setting ourselves up for?

Mortgage Socialization

Cross-posted at Heritage.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created during the New Deal by the Roosevelt administration in order increase home ownership. With government backing and price controls, the supply of housing was artificially increased, with the funds coming from the taxpayer.

Even when Fannie and Freddie were made into government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) in the 1960s, they were still provided the financial support of the Federal Government. Because of their implicit government guarantees, these policy-based suppliers came to dominate the housing market.

As GSEs, Fannie and Freddie purchased 44% of subprime mortgage securities and were the biggest buyer of Countrywide loans. They became an industry duopoly, owning or guaranteeing about half the $12 trillion mortgage market. Risk was socialized, spread across all taxpayers through government guarantee, while profit was concentrated and private. This is a prototype case of government thriving on “concentrated benefits and dispersed costs.”

The ability to do this is what drives government expansion, taking from the masses and channeling the money to a minority – or special – interest. With these special interests, campaigns were launched, politicians entrenched and bureaucracy expanded. Hence Fannie and Freddie represent a massive rent seeking operation, to funnel money into the hands of officials at the expense of the taxpayer.

And yet none of this was sustainable, because it wasn’t profitable. Inevitably there would be collapse. Fannie and Freddie engaged in Enron-style accounting, and mafia-like corporatist tactics. It was their privileged status that led to the corruption, and that distorted the housing market and helped to inflate the housing bubble (also made possible by loose monetary policy).

The government takeover only makes all of these things worse. In the short run there is relief that a market collapse won’t occur imminently, but like the Soviet Union during perestroika, the fear of pain during reform can only lead to the delay of collapse and a more painful landing. Further concentration can only cause further waste, as competition, profit guidance and valuable price signals give way to bureaucracy, rent-seeking, inflation and misdirected investment.

As nationalized firms, Fannie and Freddie are government agencies, relying entirely on public funding. They have no reason to keep costs low, and every reason to allow short-term political objectives to guide their choices instead. Indeed, the Treasury has made it very clear that they will specifically move away from profit guidance. Treasury secretary Paulson said on Sunday that the entities “will no longer be managed with a strategy to maximize common shareholder returns.”

Paulson has promised that the fees they charge banks for loan securitization services will be examined “with an eye toward mortgage affordability,” even as they are neck deep in bankruptcy. This reminds me, again, of the logic of perestroika – instead of freeing prices up and allowing some market adjustment, so that the economy could finally get on track, a compromise was made. Prices would be “based on social costs,” companies were allowed to “take into consideration cost-effectiveness” but “speculative price increases aimed at excessive profit” were forbidden.

The logic of the expanding U.S. government is becoming just as warped. The socialization of risk caused the housing crisis, and the response is to nationalize. Risky lending driven by policy not profit caused the collapse and the “reforms” will reduce fees and shun profitability. If we keep moving in this direction, we’ll pass through our own reverse perestroika, and end up a socialist state.

Rent-Seeking and The Housing Crisis

Recently, a scandal has broken out that provides great insight into the housing crisis. Countrywide Mortgage brokers have been treating Congress to VIP lending rates. Accepting donations of $100 or more is illegal for these politicians, but scandals like this are not uncommon. The deeper question is why a profit-seeking business like Countrywide would want to offer discount rates to government officials in the first place. It is, of course, because they expect something in return.

If government could not offer these businesses any preferential legislation, exemptions from taxes or relief from anti-business regulations, there would be no incentive to buy them off.

Economists call this kind of activity rent-seeking. When firms spend money – or decrease their profit – in order to ensure favorable treatment by government it is not efficient. They produce no more output, and instead the resources are wasted. The favorable treatment gives them a monopoly position or an advantage over their competitors and the consumer suffers.

It also encourages government officials to pass more kinds of regulations that strangle business so that there are more chances to offer relief in exchange for pay-offs from the businesses. So, it creates a feedback loop leading to more regulations, more bribes and then even more regulation.

The only way to end the cycle is to limit the scope of government with a clear line preventing government from offering any kind of preferential treatment to firms.

But rather than moving toward a smaller scope of government, we are currently headed in the opposite direction. The new housing bill is set to bail out firms on a preferential basis – often by helping those, like Countrywide, who made the most risky sub-prime loans. In the future, these businesses will remember the compassion of Congress and will take these risks again.

Local governments will benefit too – with $3.9 billion in community development block grants. These grants are provided so that local governments can purchase, renovate and resell foreclosed homes. The proceeds can then be used to do this again next time that government subsidies followed by government bailouts lead to a new round of foreclosures. In this way, government can cause a crisis, solve it, and cause a new one, little by little expanding its scope in the process.

Have we not learned the lessons of the National Recovery Administration, when subsidies and bailouts, public works programs, and stringent regulations led us to a consolidation of government and big business that strangled private initiative and threatened the liberties we hold dear? Apparently we have not – a recent Time Magazine poll showed that 82% favor public works projects and 70% say more government programs are needed for those struggling.

The more that we allow government to solve our economic woes, the more that it expands its scope and creates new woes, just to have something more to solve. This is the rent-seeking power of government at its most frightening.

Cross-posted at the Heritage blog.

Note that the Center for American Progress was very enthusiastic about the community development block grants - HT Econlog for that.