A Fine Mess

Filed in National by on November 17, 2008

The most frustrating aspect of living through the economic woes of the early 2000’s (aside from how badly it messed up my career path in Computer Science) was watching the limp, tepid response of the Bush Administration to it. The “voodoo economics” that had become passe by the time Bush Sr. was elected were back. The Bush tax cuts barely touched the middle class, and instead were driven towards millionaires and big businesses – and the millionaires were investing the money in big business, while the businesses were investing the money in factories and call centers in other countries. The war in Iraq, too, was of little assistance domestically; unlike World War 2, there was no draft to boost the demand for labor nor did the government repurpose idle factories for the war effort. The only useful tool employed by the government were interest rate cuts, which spurred consumer borrow-and-spend habits that drove up the demand for housing. OK, they extended unemployment benefits too, which is always a good idea during a recession, but that just softens the impact, it doesn’t stimulate growth. The other demand-side tool employed by the GOP was their prescription drug plan, which was a disaster of waste and inefficiency, wholly ill-equipped to deliver its benefits to its intended recipients.

Without any meaningful effort towards job creation, interest rate cuts were left to shoulder the burden all alone. Had a blended approach been taken, we’d have considerably more flexibility to use interest rates in treating the current economic flop. Instead, the utility of interest rate cuts was stretched to the breaking point; they provided a mild boost to the economy and mildly increased inflation; however, real wages remained stagnant. The effect was to basically give America a bigger credit card – people spend more but earned the same amount of money, a condition which benefits both big and small businesses in the short term but ultimately leads to a debt burden that chokes off further spending.

The truth is, none of this would have been enough to bring the economy out of the tank in the mid-2000’s if it weren’t for the Mortgage Snowball.

  1. Low interest rates lead to more mortgage loans and home equity loans, and a favorable environment for subprime lenders.
  2. This leads to more home-buying, home-building, and home improving.
  3. This leads to rising home prices.
  4. This leads to housing speculation, which pushes prices and profits up further.
  5. This drives up the supply of mortgages for use in mortgage-backed securities.
  6. Investment banks make a ton of money by carving up subprime mortgage-backed securities and calling the least risky portion (of a very risky porfolio) AAA safe. In other words, they lied to consumers, in the same manner of “light” cigarettes.
  7. Alan Greenspan and the GOP champions of deregulation allow this to happen.
  8. So do the independent ratings agencies, which are complicit in the scam.
  9. Investment banks know they are selling crap, so they sell Credit Default Swaps on these subprime mortgage-backed securities so wise investors can profit when they inevitably fail. This doubles the amount of profit the banks have now, and doubles the amount they’re going to lose when the loans fail. They justify this suicidal route by assuming housing prices will rise forever and demand for mortgages will never ever abate. This is stupid, why do they do it? Likely because people act irrationally when they are making piles of money – they delude themselves into thinking the good times will never end.
  10. Thanks to Phil Gramm and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (which also created the Enron loophole that worsened the first recession of the decade), Credit Default Swaps are unregulated, meaning that the investment banks don’t need to back them up with the assets necessary to pay on them when securities default. In fact, they can offer multiple swaps on the same security. Remember how we were just doubling both the current profit and the amount of liability? Multiply that by five.
  11. Buckets o’ money – spend some on lobbyists to keep everything deregulated.
  12. Inflation increases, and interest rates are increased to combat inflation.
  13. High housing prices and high interest rates kill off the demand for new mortgages. And the riskiest subprime loans start going bad.
  14. Supply and demand – housing prices fall. Speculators walk away from their souring investments, causing more mortgage loans to fail.
  15. Ordinarily, this would require a minor correction. But these loans were being sold as AAA safe investments, which were then purchased by people needing safe investments (such as pension plans). The failure of these investments panics investors, causing the stock market to tank, hurting the economy at large.
  16. Ordinarily, this would require a major, but fairly ordinary correction. But the investment banks have multiplied the exposure of these loans tenfold. Billions upon billions of dollars are lost to paying off Credit Default Swaps, and the investment banks weren’t required to have the capital to absorb the loss. Mortgage lenders fail, investment banks fail, and the banks have ruined their credit so badly that the interbank lending interest rates (LIBOR) skyrocket.
  17. Banks don’t have money to lend, and no one wants to give them any. Consumers and businesses seeking loans from these banks are out of luck.
  18. Consumer spending tanks. Businesses lay people off. The economy enters a recession.

Underlying this cycle is the fact the wages weren’t really growing in the first place, which means in real terms, we never really got out of the first recession. And so, the only way out of this mess is through good old-fashioned Keynesian governmental deficit spending – build bridges, roads, and trains, improve the social safety nets (single-payer healthcare), send more people to college.

Except that the Bush-Cheney Administration spent all our money in Iraq. And they compounded the amount they wasted in Iraq many times over through fraud and sheer incompetence (a subject I’ll have to return to another time). And so now we face an uncertain future – will our nation have enough money to jumpstart the economy?

Only time will tell – but I am glad we have a president-elect who listens, thinks, and persuades people to work together. We’re in for a rough ride.

Tags:

About the Author ()

X Stryker is also the proprietor of the currently-dormant poll analysis blog Election Inspection.

Comments (16)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. The Economy - A Fine Mess « Election Inspection | November 18, 2008
  1. liberalgeek says:

    Your bedtime stories suck. How the hell am I supposed to sleep after that?

    🙂

  2. xstryker says:

    I think the real question is how Phil Gramm, Alan Greenspan, and George W. Bush can sleep after that. Or even look themselves in the mirror.

  3. xstryker says:

    There, I added a bedtime music video.

  4. jason330 says:

    Given items 1 through 16 – it is a wonder that the $500.00 stimulus checks didn’t work.

    Maybe if they had been for $600.00…?

  5. pandora says:

    Sorry, I keep hearing it’s all Fannie and Freddie’s fault – and those poor black and brown people! Rich people and big business were just victims.

    Nice post, X. Now please stop raising the bar!

  6. xstryker says:

    Jason – the checks did as much as they could – but they did nothing to address the actual problem with the banks, which was getting worse. They should have addressed that first and then sent people stimulus checks.

  7. Rebecca says:

    I’ve been hearing that the “junk” got multiplied by a factor of at least ten and that’s why this thing keeps rolling and getting worse and worse. I didn’t understand that aspect until you just explained it. How much fraud has been perpetrated on the world? A whole, whole lot. I don’t see why these guys aren’t all up on charges. It’s nothing but a huge pyramid scheme.

    Thanks stryker!

  8. Unstable Isotope says:

    Great post. Yes, this is a systemic failure and that’s why we need an overhaul of the whole system. I think a big issue is who do we get to overhaul the system? Most of the experts we have came through this broken system, do we trust them to do the right thing?

  9. X Stryker says:

    Believe it or not, Sheila Bair at the FDIC is my choice for Treasury Secretary. She’s a moderate Republican (pro-choice), but she’s strongly in favor of tighter banking regulations. She’d be a practical, pragmatic choice – more of a doer than a philosopher. After ideologues like Greenspan who hold to dry principles until they catastrophically blow up in our face, we could use some people who appreciate, as Krugman might say, things that “work great in practice but never work in theory”.

  10. cassandra m says:

    Bair has also been working on a mechanism to unwind and to reset mortgages that can reasonably be saved, apparently using loans mad by IndyMac as a test bed. This was smart, practical thinking (vs. simply adhering to some ideology) to at least try to see what could be done with a bank that the FDIC took over.

    The really interesting thing to think about is what the American Economy will look like when we get to the other side of this mess. Everyone is working at deleveraging (consumers, investors and businesses) — will we be so quick to go out on a credit limb after this? Or — how may iPod generations can you skip before you have to get a new one?

    Great post, xstryker!

  11. anon says:

    She’s a moderate Republican (pro-choice)

    A little OT, but… in the future I think being pro-choice doesn’t buy you “moderate” credentials anymore.

    If you want to be a moderate Republican now, you have to vote for some tax increases and some social spending where it makes sense.

  12. Unstable Isotope says:

    Yes, I would definitely prefer a pragmatist to an ideologue. Any one that is doing a good job now would be a good choice. A Republican is fine with me as long as she/he will follow the economic policy set forth by the administration and do their best to make it work and change it where it needs to be changed.

  13. David says:

    Not bad, it is incomplete, but it is a post not a book. It misses Fannie and Freddie. It misses the energy component. It leaves out our need to have a 21st century tax code. It misses the monkeying with commodity rules. Greenspan was not the problem nor is freedom.

    This is the best post of the year on this site. It was insightful and thought out. I may start reading this site more.

  14. cassandra_m says:

    Here we go with the discredited Fannie and Freddie nonsense again.

  15. xstryker says:

    Greenspan was not the problem nor is freedom.

    What’s hilarious is how conservatives can talk about freedom at all. To a conservative, freedom means you can lie to your customers but the government tells you who you can marry and listens to your phone calls. Conservative freedom is “freedom for us to do what we want, not freedom for you to do what you want.” Of course, pure economic conservatives like Greenspan will cling to their uncle Milton and aunt Ayn while their theories crumble with the economy around them. So, David, what do you make of Greenspan’s admission of mistake?

    Greenspan, 82, acknowledged under questioning that he had made a “mistake” in believing that banks, operating in their own self-interest, would do what was necessary to protect their shareholders and institutions. Greenspan called that “a flaw in the model … that defines how the world works.”

    Don’t you think there’s a reason why the SEC exists?