The Bailout Made Easy

 Posted by on 30 September 2008 at 5:03 pm  Economics, Finance, Politics
Sep 302008
 

The cover from this week’s edition of The Economist reduces the bailout to its essentials:

(Unfortunately, the article itself supports the bailout.)

In contrast, 8 years ago Howard Husock wrote the following about the Community Reinvestment Act in “The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities“:

…Even without a no-down-payment policy, the pressure on banks to make CRA-related loans may be leading to foreclosures. Though bankers generally cheerlead for CRA out of fear of being branded racists if they do not, the CEO of one midsize bank grumbles that 20 percent of his institution’s CRA-related mortgages, which required only $500 down payments, were delinquent in their very first year, and probably 7 percent will end in foreclosure. “The problem with CRA,” says an executive with a major national financial-services firm, “is that banks will simply throw money at things because they want that CRA rating.” From the banks’ point of view, CRA lending is simply a price of doing business—even if some of the mortgages must be written off.

…Looking into the future gives further cause for concern: “The bulk of these loans,” notes a Federal Reserve economist, “have been made during a period in which we have not experienced an economic downturn.” The Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America’s own success stories make you wonder how much CRA-related carnage will result when the economy cools.

I think we’re finding out exactly how much right now…


Share This Post

Bush Vs. Ott On The Bailout

 Posted by on 30 September 2008 at 12:15 pm  Economics, Finance, Politics
Sep 302008
 

As one would expect, President Bush called for a massive financial bailout in his recent speech to America. So much for fiscally conservative Republicans.

I prefer this fictional Bush speech from satirist Scott Ott a lot better. Here are a few excerpts:

Bush: Congress Must Act to Save Stupid People

…”To sustain this shining city on a hill,” Mr. Bush said, “we need to rescue the ignorant, irresponsible folks — from Wall Street to Capitol Hill to Main Street — who got us to where we are today. We must guarantee that no American suffers the soft bigotry of being forced to live with the consequences of his bad decisions.”

…”If these giant companies fail, then America will be left with nothing but thousands of small to mid-sized financial firms that made prudent investment decisions during the past 15 years.”

…”It is a moral imperative that we guard the civil rights of these idiots,” he said. “If we fail, then we face the specter of free market capitalism run amok, and millions of Americans will feel the painful lash of personal responsibility across their backs.”


Share This Post

Correspondence on the Bailout

 Posted by on 29 September 2008 at 11:31 pm  Economics, Finance, Politics
Sep 292008
 

Objectivist historian John Lewis recently sent his representative a terse note against the bailout. His representative responded with the pro-bailout crap. And Dr. Lewis wrote a lengthy, informative, and very pointed reply. He has given me permission to reproduce the whole correspondence, but you might just want to skip down to his reply. Then you might want to forward it to your representatives in Washington.

Here’s the first letter:

From: John Lewis

Dear Speaker Pelosi and all US Representatives:

I oppose all bailouts of financial institutions by the US government.

Government regulation and meddling is solidly to blame for this crisis.

We must reduce government involvement in the economy now.

Sincerely;
Dr. John David Lewis
Visiting Associate Professor of Political Science, Duke University
Senior Reasearch Scholar, Social Philosophy and Policy Center

Here’s the reply from Representative David Price of North Carolina:

Date: September 29, 2008
From: Congressman David Price
To: Dr. John David Lewis
Subject: Reply from Congressman David Price

Dr. John Lewis

Durham, NC 27705

Dear Dr. Lewis:

Thank you for contacting me about our country’s financial crisis and the proposed recovery legislation. Today the House defeated this legislation, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, by a vote of 205 to 228, despite my support.

Like you, I do not have any interest in “bailing out” Wall Street firms and business leaders who have speculated recklessly, endangered our country’s consumers and homebuyers, and resisted regulation that would protect the public interest. My concern is for Main Street – for the people depending on a sound economy and the availability of credit to buy a house or car, to run their business and meet payroll, and to save for college and retirement.

Like it or not, we are all in this together, and the entire economy is threatened as we teeter on the edge of a 1929-style meltdown. Today Wachovia Bank, a North Carolina mainstay, collapsed. But this goes much deeper than bank failures. Last week, the City of Raleigh could not find a buyer for a $300 million bond, and Wake County cancelled its planned $472 million bond issue for school construction, Wake Tech, libraries, and open space acquisition. Both have AAA bond ratings.

Although President Bush lacks the credibility to be of much help, I take the dire warnings of economic analysts very seriously, particularly in light of everything that has happened in the last few weeks. But I could not support Secretary Paulson’s request for a blank check for $700 billion to purchase mortgage-backed securities and stabilize the markets.

I thus became part of the intensive discussions over the last ten days to rewrite the Treasury plan in several critical respects. The legislation which came before us today would:

o Provide strict independent oversight and accountability for all activities undertaken by the US Treasury

o Release the $700 billion in installments, with multiple reviews along the way

o Make certain that the entire $700 billion is recaptured by the Treasury and thus by the American taxpayer, by requiring that taxpayers share in any profits resulting from the government’s help and providing for assessment of the financial industry for any remaining losses

o Forbid “golden parachutes” and limit other compensation for executives of participating financial institutions.

o Require the government to work with participating institutions and loan servicers to help deserving homeowners negotiate reasonable repayment terms and stay in their homes

The defeat of the bill prolongs and perhaps deepens the crisis. Coordinating with the Senate, the House will need to return within days to try again. Perhaps the economic situation will then lead some members to reconsider. Perhaps the bill can be changed in ways that attract a majority; I certainly have a list of improvements I would like to see. But considering the members who voted “no,” I will want to scrutinize carefully any changes designed to attract them.

I am committed over the next few days to continue working to avert financial collapse and get the best possible deal for America ‘s taxpayers and homeowners. I welcome and share your concern about this situation and will be glad to hear from you at any time.

Sincerely,

DAVID PRICE

Member of Congress

Here’s Dr. Lewis’ stellar response:

Date: Monday, September 29, 2008
From: John Lewis
To: Congressman David Price of North Carolina
Subject: Reply from Congressman David Price

Dear Congressman Price;

Thank you for your frank and fast response. I should be clear. I am opposed to bailing out these firms. But what I am more opposed to is the entire political culture of regulation–including manipulation of interest rates, Sarbanes-Oxley, changes in accounting rules, the Community Reinvestment Act, and a scad of others–that has fostered this mess. Two weeks ago no politician in Washington knew this was coming. Suddenly, after several all-nighters, they have enough knowledge to grant a quarter of a trillion dollars to a government bureaucrat, to dole out as he sees fit–and to promise another half-trillion, should his actions make it worse.

Meanwhile, the country focuses on the allegedly evil CEOs, “speculators” (read “investors”), and loan initiators who were earlier damned for NOT making loan money available to high-risk borrowers. I remind you that the Community Reinvestment Act penalizes firms for not making such risky loans. Now, suddenly, those firms are villified for following the law. Well, that’s government–it faces no penalties, except a periodic popularity contest, and can contradict itself with impunity.

Most of all, I resent the politicians and punditrs who are claiming, contrary to evidence, that it is now “impossible to get a loan” on Main Street. It is impossible to borrow millions on Wall Street, but regional banks that made prudent investors are not in danger–unless the government further coerces them.

The government is not saving Main Street–it is nationalizing it. Is it not true that, with the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government now holds paper on tens of millions of American mortgages? What does granting American citizens “equity positions” and “profits” in companies seized by the government mean, except communism? Don’t we condemn Hugo Chavez for nationalizing oil companies?

I will also recall, as a student of economics, that the Great Depression was caused by a string of obnoxious legislation, and was then cruelly extended by massive government interference. Contrary to prevailing, but long-discredited, opinion, the government did not save us from that mess. It created, and prolonged, it. Twenty years earlier, JP Morgan ended the panic of 1908 in a few weeks–bankers in 1929 could not so act. Today, Morgan would have been jailed for the private pooling of assets he arranged. Is it not true that AIG was told by the Attorney General of New York that it would not be allowed to sell sound assets in order to save the holding company? Who is to blame for the collapse of a huge, and largely sound company, excpet those who forbhid its executives from acting?

You will forgive me if I have no respect for the likes of Senator Schumer, who started a run on a bank with his irresponsible statements and then claimed virtue for them, or Senator McCain, up to his neck in the Keating scandal, or Senator Dodd, whose reputation was on the rocks until this crisis saved him, or Senator Obama, who had not a clue at a White House meeting last week, and then went on-script before the press to cover his ignorance. You will please forgive me if promises of “oversight” by these PR men do not instill confidence.

I much more respect the CEOs who have spent their years in the business, and who face actual consequences for their errors. They do not have access to hundreds of billions of dollars of other people’s money–and they do not expect their stockholders to approve busines plans that cannot foretell whether they will lose three-quarters of a trillion dollars, or get some of it back in five or twenty years. They do not have their hands in the pocket of every person who produces in this country.

The truly brave politicians are those who recognize that the government is largely to blame for this mess, and should start emergency repeal of regulations now. Only this can allow responsible CEOs to start making decisions based on sound economics, rather than fear of breaking a law.

Sincerely;
John Lewis

Dr. John David Lewis
Visiting Associate Professor of Political Science, Duke University

Thank you, John!


Share This Post

Opposing the Bailout

 Posted by on 27 September 2008 at 2:00 pm  Activism, Economics, Finance
Sep 272008
 

If you want to let your elected officials know that you oppose the $700 billion Bush Bailout of Wall Street, you can use this website to send them an e-mail.

For example, Rob Abiera has sent the following excellent letter to his elected officials:

Dear *** SENATOR/REPRESENTATIVE XXX ***

I am writing as a constituent to ask you to oppose the Bush Administration’s request for $700 billion to bail out Wall Street. The healthiest thing for our economy would be to allow the market to work and let those firms deal privately with the consequences of their own actions. I don’t believe in accepting responsibility for other people’s actions and I have no desire to see my taxes used to help some Wall Street firms out of a situation which they created, not me. The answer to the current economic situation is not handouts to Wall Street tied to more regulations. The answer is to get the government OUT of the economy.

I’m sure that I disagree with Senator DeMint of South Carolina on other issues, but on this issue I have seen no better statement of the truth about this situation than his recent press release.

In this instance, Senator DeMint speaks for me, as well.

*** YOUR NAME ***
*** YOUR ADDRESS ***

Rob also included the text of Senator DeMint’s Press release.

I liked Rob’s letter a lot, and I’ve already sent similar e-mails to my own Senators and Representative.

BTW, Alex Epstein has a good piece on the bailout on the Fox News website, “The Bailout: Just a $700 Billion Hedge Fund?

Update from Diana:

I send the following letter to my representatives, plus various other politicians and officials:

Dear So-And-So,

I’m writing to tell you that I strongly oppose any bailout of Wall Street.

The current crisis was created by government controls and regulations. The only rational solution is to allow the market to correct itself by allowing full freedom of trade. The ban on shorting financial stocks should be lifted now: the markets cannot function properly without shorting. The government should not bail out any Wall Street firms — nor anyone else. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for other people’s irresponsibility.

Then, to preserve economic health in the long run, all of the myriad anti-capitalist controls on the markets must be repealed. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be totally privatized. The Community Reinvestment Act must be repealed.

Do not blame the current crisis on the free markets. Such crises are the inevitable product of a dangerous hybrid of capitalist markets and government controls. More government meddling will only exacerbate the problem. The only real solution is to move to a fully free market in which the government upholds and protects the rights to property and contract. Only then will every person be free to act on his own rational judgment in pursuit of his own wealth, security, and happiness. That’s what America should be all about.

I sent that to:

You need not write anything so lengthy and detailed as my letter. Just a single line saying that you oppose the bailout — and that you oppose government controls of the financial markets — would be fantastic.


Share This Post

The One Minute Case for Stock Shorting

 Posted by on 24 September 2008 at 3:27 pm  Economics
Sep 242008
 

Galileo Blogs gives a nice “One Minute Case For Stock Shorting“. He makes the case that, “Short selling is moral and should be permitted.”

More Americans (citizens and policy makers alike) need to read this.


Share This Post

U.S. Economic Freedom Index

 Posted by on 23 September 2008 at 10:30 am  Economics, Politics
Sep 232008
 

The Pacific Research Institute recently published the U.S. Economic Freedom Index: 2008 Report. It’s an analysis and ranking of the 50 United States by economic freedom. You can download the full PDF for free. (The annotated US map is also cool.)

Objectivist historian Eric Daniels contributed to the book. He wrote the first chapter, and contributed to the third.

Happily, Colorado is ranked #3! I pity all you poor bastards in New York, #50.


Share This Post

Yaron Brook on the Economic Crisis

 Posted by on 22 September 2008 at 12:08 am  ARI, Economics, Finance
Sep 222008
 

The September 19, 2008 issue of Time magazine recently quoted Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute, in its recent article on the economic crisis:

What Would Ayn Rand Have Done?

…But as the largest bailout in government history unfolded in almost dizzying waves over recent days, a very different view prevailed at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, an outpost of free-market, anti-government thinking located just a few blocks from the newly aggressive and highly interventionist Department of Treasury in downtown Washington.

“It’s a complete disaster,” said Yaron Brook, the executive director of the center. “Its a form of national socialism of the financial markets…This is socialism 101.”

…Brook doesn’t blame speculators, traders or financiers for the market’s near-collapse, but instead blames government for having overregulated the markets in the first place. The business leaders bailed out by government this week “are victims,” he said, “and the government set it up.” Washington underreacted to previous crisis, let Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spin wildly out of control as quasigovernment agencies while taxpayers piled up unsecured debt in their names. The crisis, he added, was “really fed throughout by government policies.”

He also notes that the current Republican administration is doing more harm in intervening in the marketplace than a Democratic administration likely could have.


Share This Post

Who Has The Wealth?

 Posted by on 6 August 2008 at 12:01 am  Economics, History
Aug 062008
 

Megan McArdle has written an interesting analysis of the following map showing GDP per capita in various countries:

She writes:

When you see the map, it becomes radically apparent just how firmly Britain was the root of the Industrial revolution. With the lone exception of Japan, the darkest places on the map are either next to Britain, or former British colonies. And aside from Saudi Arabia and Chile, all the growth seems to spread outward from those Anglosphere points of infection. Nowhere, not even Saudi Arabia, has the income density of Western Europe and North America.

Of course, the interesting question is why is there this distribution?

Dr. William Bernstein (a neurologist turned financial analyst/historian) does a pretty good job of answering this question in his book, The Birth of Plenty : How the Prosperity of the Modern World was Created. In particular, he analyzes history and economics over the past 400 years and makes a good case that there were four key factors that allowed men in some countries to prosper, whereas men in other countries couldn’t. The four key factors he identifies are: “property rights, the scientific method, capital markets and communications”. He argues that countries prospered to the extent that these factors were present. And in particular, when Great Britain embraced all four of these, it then led to the explosion of wealth known as the Industrial Revolution.

Although Bernstein’s analysis is fairly good, it does not quite go far enough. His four factors can be further essentialized to two: reason and rights.

His first factor, “property rights”, is self-explanatory. Property rights is the direct application of the concept of rights to humans living in a material world. It is a recognition that if men are to live, they must live under a government which respects and enforces certain principles with respect to how men should deal with physical objects, and with other men. In particular, it establishes objective principles of property ownership, and all of the corollaries (e.g., the right to use, sell, trade, dispose of, and exclude others from one’s property.)

His second factor, “the scientific method”, is the application of reason to the practical world — namely, using man’s mind to understand the nature of reality and the causal factors that allow men to shape the world for their purposes.

The third factor, “capital markets”, is an extension of property rights into the realm of finance. When men have confidence that their property rights will be respected in the long term under an objective rule of law, they are able to devise increasingly complex contracts to suit their financial needs, with terms involving time intervals that could span months, if not years. Men could create financial instruments that permit them to engage in lending, insurance, futures and options. Similarly, the birth of the limited liability corporation and the associated rise of stock markets greatly facilitated the ability of investors to shift their capital to ventures that could yield the greatest return, allowing both investors and producers to create and execute long-range plans over a period of years, if not decades.

The fourth factor, “communications”, is the practical outgrowth of both reason and property rights. Even the apparently simple task of guaranteeing the safety of roads for travel and commerce required a government able to protect individual rights from thieves and highwaymen. More sophisticated forms of communications and transport, such as the telegraph and railroads, became possible only as men’s reasoning minds created the necessary technology in a context where they could be turned into viable businesses under the protection of a government that respected property rights.

All of these factors were mutually reinforcing, in that the respect for rights and reason created prosperity which allowed for more innovations in science, technology, capital markets and communications, which led to more prosperity, etc. But the roots of this prosperity were ultimately philosophical. Without a proper understanding of rights, grounded in a philosophy of reason, none of the prosperity of the Anglosphere would have been possible.

Therefore, it is no coincidence that the GDP map tracks closely with countries that still respect reason and rights, which tracks closely with the Anglosphere. The prosperity of modern-day Japan follows from the sweeping cultural and political changes imposed on that country during the American occupation following World War II, and some regard it as a part of the “Anglosphere” in that sense.

(Note: William Bernstein is pretty good when it comes to historical discussion, but he is definitely not an advocate of full laissez-faire capitalism. For a more consistent defense of free market capitalism on both philosophical and historical grounds, I’d recommend the book by Andrew Bernstein, The Capitalist Manifesto: The Historic, Economic and Philosophic Case for Laissez-Faire. To the best of my knowledge, there is no relation between William Bernstein and Andrew Bernstein.)


Share This Post

Pathetic Pickens Plan

 Posted by on 28 July 2008 at 12:02 am  Economics, Politics
Jul 282008
 

T. Boone Pickens is all over the airwaves and internet with his “Pickens Plan” to develop wind power (can anyone say “public relations campaign?). You’d think that a billionaire couldn’t get that way without knowing some basic things about economics, but you’d never know it by reading the Pickens Plan. Maybe Pickens is more mixed-economy pull-peddler than straight-up capitalist and that’s how he made his bucks. Can’t say I know too much about him, he’s never impinged on my consciousness before the Pickens Plan hit the airwaves. Hope I forget about him soon.

In essence, the main reason we’re supposed to give the Pickens Plan the time of day is because: buying foreign oil is a massive “transfer of wealth” that will impoverish and endanger us. Featured prominently in his TV and web messaging is his complaint that the U.S. is going to spend $700 billion on foriegn oil this year.

To address point-by-point the third-rate argumentation and simplistic reasoning of the Pickens Plan would be shooting fish in a barrel and I’m not going to bother. His method is to pander to the xenophobia, economic ignorance, and intellectual laziness in the worst of his audience. I do, however, want to take a moment to blow off some steam about the economic argument he makes, which I find most offensive coming from a freaking billionaire.

Here’s the pitch on the Pickens Plan website:

It’s an addiction that threatens our economy, our environment and our national security. It touches every part of our daily lives and ties our hands as a nation and a people.

The addiction has worsened for decades and now it’s reached a point of crisis.

In 1970, we imported 24% of our oil. Today it’s nearly 70% and growing.

As imports grow and world prices rise, the amount of money we send to foreign nations every year is soaring. At current oil prices, we will send $700 billion dollars out of the country this year alone — that’s four times the annual cost of the Iraq war.

Projected over the next 10 years the cost will be $10 trillion — it will be the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind.

Alex Epstein at ARI has a great column on “oil addiction” and what our real national security issues are, so I’ll let him handle that one. I want to give T. Boone a little lesson in Econ 101 to address this “transfer of wealth” nonsense he’s got his panties in a bunch over.

Have you ever heard of division of labor, Mr. Billionaire Pickens? You know, that neat little arrangement where people produce what they’re best at producing, and then trade their goodies with each other? That economic principle that makes possible our elevated standard of living? That mode of production the opposite of which is a life of squalor on a self-sufficient farm? No? Well, here’s a little tutorial. We buy foreign oil because foreigners produce it more cheaply than we can domestically. And we buy it with the money we earn by producing the things we can most cheaply and efficiently produce. Now, we can get into the weeds over why this is the case, but as long as it’s the case, it’s completely rational to buy foreign oil. The consequences of going through a withdrawal from this “addiction” would be: getting on an express train to a 19th century standard of living. (A train fueled with coal, by the way.) Capice?

Oh, and can I offer you a little help finding that $700 billion you’re acting like we’ve irretrievably lost? Here’s a hint: we actually bought a product with that $700 billion, it’s called oil. I suppose that if it were better for us, we could buy the oil and then turn right around and sell it again — then we’d get our $700 billion back and all would be well, eh? Of course, then there’d be the little detail that we wouldn’t be able to get to work in the morning, or fly our airplanes, or power our factories . . . but we’d have that $700 billion. For what it would be worth, under those circumstances.

Bottom line here, T. Boone — wealth isn’t money, wealth is what you buy with money. Wealth directly supports our lives, but money is just paper. Ever try to eat money, or get your car to run on the paper money is made of? Even if money were gold coins, there is literally nothing in gold that can keep body and soul together. Unless those foreigners themselves turn around and buy some actual products with their money, the wealth transfer will all be from the foreigners to us — we’ll have oil, and they’ll have a bunch of paper. And who knows? Maybe those foreigners will use that $700 billion to buy from the United States some of that wealth they need to survive. Ya think? (Sheesh.)

Pickens is pushing wind power as an alternative. I’ll leave it to someone else to address the technical details of why it’s not feasible. Why? Because I don’t have to address those details. If wind power were a viable alternative, potentially a real value in our real every day lives, you can bet that selfish, profit-seeking entrepreneurs would have been all over it by now, confident that people would buy it. And they’d put the research dollars into it — look at the hundreds of millions drug companies will spend developing a drug, confident of future sales. Maybe one day wind power will be a viable alternative, but at present it just isn’t a money-making enterprise, or T. Boone wouldn’t have any trouble privately raising the money needed to develop it.

So you know what? I don’t think the Pickens Plan is a plan to “save America.” I think it’s a plan to extort $1.2 trillion tax dollars from hard-working American citizens to fund schemes T. Boone can’t persuade people to voluntarily support, by scaring them half to death with horror stories of impoverishment at the hands of evil foreigners.


Share This Post

The Mortgage Mess

 Posted by on 24 July 2008 at 3:51 pm  Economics
Jul 242008
 

The July 18, 2008 issue of Forbes has a good analysis by Yaron Brook of the home mortgage mess and how the government created the crisis in the first place:

The financial peril of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the government-sponsored, government-regulated mortgage giants regarded as instrumental in solving the nation’s mortgage market problems–has one benefit. It should help expose the lie that today’s financial problems are the result of an insufficiently regulated market.

And Amit Ghate points towards good retrospective in the July 14, 2008 Wall Street Journal detailing years of corruption and ineptitude in those two quasi-governmental agencies.

Articles like these rebut the usual claims that villainous lenders are to blame, as if they would somehow benefit from defaulting clients.


Share This Post

Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha