The End of Reaganism

The Gipper came to us with his sunny, phony, Hollywood style, pushing the common man but talking of unleashing the wonderful forces of the free market.

If only we could get the government off our backs, cut taxes and let the Magic of Capitalism roar about unfettered.

And it did. Republicans and Democrats alike joined in. Ronald Regan got rid of Paul Volker, the inflation hawk disciplinarian and picked instead Alan Greenspan, free market maven, utterer of the often incomprehensible statement and one-time devotee of Ayn Rand, the libertarian Big Sister.

Finance had a ball after Bill Clinton helped get rid of the Chinese walls between investment and commercial banking. Greenspan did his part to crank up markets while keeping rules at bay. Offshoring American jobs? Excellent, it’s just the way it goes. All boats rise, ya know. If Americans lose their jobs, it just the way it goes. It’s a New Economy, after all. Investments? Why not go after that alpha with your hedge fund. No, no don’t regulate. The people who created the funds and the derivatives who drive them are rocket scientists. Twenty-something federal regulators can’t even understand what they’re talking about. Securitize bad mrotgages. No problemo!

And, despite what you’ll read on Bacon’s rebellion today (if you can understand MassOverconsumption and all the other cute, but innane definitions), you may forget that a lot of the columnists and readers are right-wing conservatives who partied on, Wayne, right with the Reaganites. If you ever wanted to read a mantra of free market mumbo-jumbo, BR is the place to do it. Instead of little busts of Lenin, these people ought to have little Gippers on their desks.

Now comes Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz on today’s Huffington Post:

“The globalization agenda has been closely linked with the
market fundamentalists — the ideology of free markets and
financial liberalization. In this crisis, we see the most
market-oriented institutions in the most market-oriented
economy failing and running to the government for help.
Everyone in the world will now say this is the end of market
fundamentalism. In this sense, the fall of Wall Street is
for market fundamentalists what the fall of the Berlin Wall
was for communism — it tells the world that this way of
economic organization turns out not to be sustainable. In the
end, everyone says, that model doesn’t work. This moment is a
marker that the claims of financial market liberalization
were bogus.”

Say it ain’t so, Joe.

Peter Galuszka


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

47 responses to “The End of Reaganism”

  1. Joe Stiglitz sounds a lot like Pat Buchanan. Have the left and right bent so far in their respective directions that they are now meeting on the dark side of the moon?

  2. Anonymous Avatar

    Unleashing the wonderful forces of the free market is going to require that we carefully define who owns what, and then allowing them to buy and sell freely.

    Then the government needs to go back to its core business of protecting people and property, rather than usurping them for supposed and unverifiable public benefits.

    Under these conditions the wonderful forces of a free market will determine how much public benefits are worth, and how much of them we can afford to have.

    Let people vote with their own pocketbooks, and keep them out of others’. THEN you can let them enjoy the fruits (or husks) of the risks they are willing to take on their own behalf.

    And dno’t forget that lower prices associated with globalization have gone a long way to alleviate the wealth gap between rich and poor. Products and services the rich buy have gone up in price far faster than the basic commodities the poor buy.

    That’s small consolation when you see that the rich still have a lot more left over at the end of the year. But there is also another story here.

    It isn’t always the same “rich”. Poor people do move up the brackets and rich people do move down. The avreages and medians are not telling the whole story here.

    RH

  3. Anonymous Avatar

    Groveton,
    The meet on the dark side of the moon is a scary thought but it is happening.

    John McCain has come out for regulation of finance!

    Peter Galuszka

  4. Anonymous Avatar

    Few business people, except for entrepreneurs and small business operators, really believe in free markets.

    What are the attributes of a free market? (Taken from the University of Alberta’s website.)

    Private Ownership and the Freedom to Buy and Sell. The goods and services must be able to be owned by individuals who are free to buy them or sell them at the best price they can get.

    Free Competition. Sellers of goods and services must have the freedom to sell whatever they want for any price. There must be competition between firms in order to keep prices low.

    Prices are Set by the Forces of Supply and Demand. The prices of goods are set by how much of a given good is available and how much the consumers want to buy it.

    Consumer Sovereignty. The decisions about what a society will produce must be made by consumers. They make these decisions by buying products. Every time a consumer buys something, he/she is voting with money.

    Profit Motive. Businesses will try to make as much money as possible. They will only be able to do this by providing the goods and services that the people in the society want and need. Adam Smith, the famous free market economist, called this “the invisible hand” which guides individual businesses to serve the best interests of society by providing the goods and services demanded by the people.

    I didn’t see anything about government subsidies. Nothing about former congressional staff members becoming lobbyists. No manipulative task forces designed to wrestle subsidies from competitors or taxpayers.

    I have a friend in the real estate business. He opposes zoning except for health and safety reasons. He thinks that market forces alone should drive what is built and where. But he also says that a commercial landowner needs to pay for all infrastructure needs that his/her project causes.

    You add 500 workers, you pay for all of the costs for additional road capacity, sewer, water, etc. But then you build what you want to house the 500 workers. IMO, few Tysons Corner landowners would accept this condition.

    I think that the same principles should apply to other businesses. Why do we let people who run corner delis fail, but not those who operate New York financial services companies?

    TMT

  5. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Ah, the end of Reaganism, is it? The demise of free market “fundamentalism”?

    I’d characterize the unfolding financial fiasco as the logical culmination of special interests taking over the federal government lock, stock and smoking barrel.

    I would remind you that it was the free market “fundamentalists” who first raised the alarm over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. The Wall Street Journal editorial page has been railing against them the dubious duo for years. John McCain and other Republicans were the ones who tried to stop the excesses of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae a few years back, and Dems like Barnie Frank and Chris Dodd — not exactly your classic free marketeers — who protected them from tighter oversight.

    Who have been the biggest beneficiaries of Freddie and Fannie PAC money? I’ll give you a clue. One of the top beneficiaries is running for president, and he’s promising to change the culture of corruption in Washington. And his name is not John McCain.

    (You might also ask yourself where were Senators Schumer and Clinton during the lead-up to this disaster. As I recall, neither one claims to be a Reaganaut or a free-market fundamentalist.)

    As for the deregulation of the financial industry, yes, that was a contributor to the current financial fiasco. As you rightly observe, the donkeys and elephants all cheered deregulation on. Deregulation was driven as much by campaign contributions as free-market philosophy.

    I would argue that deregulation was a necessary condition of the current fiasco, but not a sufficient condition. The financial mess stems from a deregulated industry responding to repeated decisions of Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve Board over the years, in actions supported by both parties, to address every economic jolt by juicing up the money supply, creating a lot of loose money and speculation. The Fed also created a lot of moral hazard, intervening in every financial crisis to bail out the latest “too big to fail” malfactor, with the result that the big boys on Wall Street got laxer and laxer with their handling of risk.

    Free market “fundamentalists” believe that the No. 1 job of the Fed is to preserve the value of the currency, not to fix every financial crisis around the world or to keep the economy out of a recession.

    It may well be appropriate to impose some restrictions on the financial industry — I would argue for more transparency and limits on how much leverage they can take on.

    Other than taking potshots at the advocates of free markets, how would *you* propose addressing the current problems?

  6. Anonymous Avatar

    TMT:

    Great quotes.

    “Private Ownership and the Freedom to Buy and Sell.”

    We can only wish.

    I actually think it is a primary precursor to “full locational cost”

    RH

  7. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    The adjustments in the financial markets are fixes, corrections, to businesses. It's not the end of finance, or globalism, or capitalism – unless people get suddenly very stupid.

    The blame game falls to the special interests – not code for anything, but a name for people who pay for everything they get from government – who ran the scams for as long as they could. And the corporate head sheds who figured to do the same and hired good lawyers to write airtight contracts.

    R & D are guilty parties. Many federal legislators have failed to do their Congressional oversight duties – and are as corrupted as members of the Virginia General Assembly.

    The challenge is to fine tune with reform with a scalpel, not an axe. Oversight is within the Constitutional powers of the federal government. Bailouts and buyouts and management isn't – and is patently absurd for government to try to run businesses, when they do so poorly at simply doing their duty with government.

  8. Anonymous Avatar

    Jimbo Bacon,
    You really amaze me, So you are pure in your free market fundamentalism. You target only quasi government entities as Fannie and Freddie, but you leave out (conveniently) Countrywide, Bear Stearns, AIG, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lycnh and who’s next?
    Only the “special interests” have gummed up your [ure philosophy. Maybe it’s the philosophy that’s wrong. Think about that. Maybe if you let these sharks swim freely, we all get eaten. And maybe there really is a role for government regulation. And maybe it is the end of Reaganism that you so love.
    As far as James Atticus Bowden, the same applies. Maybe you can ask Sarah Palin (if she gets the question) if Jesus would approve.

    Respectfully yours,

    Peter Galuszka

  9. Rtwng Extrmst Avatar
    Rtwng Extrmst

    Gee I think Peter needs to take a chill pill. Sounds like he may have had a few $’s invested in Lehman. You sound a bit bitter sir…

    The truth is Jim and James have it absolutely spot-on! The current financial mess (if as you should, you follow the money) leads right to the doorstep of Fannie and Freddie. They set up loose mortgage rules to supposedly increase home ownership for the poor. The result was a huge inflation of the Real Estate market as these quasi-government corporations allowed many who previously could not qualify for loans to do so at the risk of the taxpayer. Not only though did poor people take advantage, but people who previously could afford modest homes now could afford bigger homes, and those who could afford bigger homes in the past could afford mansions, etc., etc. Then the market environment that was created was invested in greatly by many of the companies you listed above. When the mortgage bubble burst, these companies got left holding the bag (to their own shame mind you), and fat cat appointees at Fannie and Freddie took home 10’s of Millions of $’s.

    The Bush administration and many in Congress including McCain tried to sound the clarion bell on this in 2003 and 2005 trying to bring about reform. However, as everyone knows unless you have 60 votes in the Senate, you can’t get anything done. In steps Chris Dodd and his Dem (and some Rep) losers and voila, no reform! As long as the mortgage boom continued, there was no outcry of the public to do anything, and most legislators as they tend to do, ignored it.

    One point here that needs to be underscored. McCain is admitting that this mess was caused by people from both parties. On the other hand Obama and his cronies in Congress (especially Pelosi) seem to think this is all the Republicans’ fault. Perhaps Pelosi and Obama should have been doing their Constitutional job of oversite in these areas rather than trying to run their own unConstitutional personal foreign policy from the office of the Speaker of the House and the Senate as both of them have done. They should be ashamed of themselves. To try to claim that this mess is strictly the fault of Republicans is evidence of either their outright insincerity or mental incompetence!

  10. “Other than taking potshots at the advocates of free markets, how would *you* propose addressing the current problems?”
    .
    .
    “Only the “special interests” have gummed up your philosophy. Maybe it’s the philosophy that’s wrong.”

    I gotta agree.

    It’s very, very difficult for me to believe that this is little more than a few “special interest” bad boys being naughty….an isolated aberration – and not the norm.

    JB asks what we should do.

    It’s clear.

    We must have regulation just as we must have law and order.

    How about we de-regulate Prescription Drugs?

    Would we then blame the inevitable disaster on “isolated” actions of a few folks who did the wrong thing?

    Should we trust the free market to produce Prescription Drugs or must we regulate it?

    Isn’t this a no-brainer?

    We had 8 years deciding how much regulation was needed in the financial markets – 8 years from the folks who claim the are the experts at the free market “done right”.

    Now.. these same folks are blaming .. Dems… greedy CEOs, and whoever else they can find.

    And now, it’s everyone’s fault but the folks who had 8 years to show how it should be done?

    So much for the party of personal responsibility.

    I think there is a gene missing from our packyderm friends.

    Reagan and the free market can do no wrong. It’s simply not allowed.

    🙂

  11. Anonymous Avatar

    So, the official, Republican/Libertarian excuse and apology are starting to take shape here, thanks to Bacon, Bowden and others.
    (1) The philosophy is pure. “Special interests” mucked it up.
    (2) Fannie and Freddie did it. They are easy targets because they are “governmental” agencies (even though they sold stock and acted like corporations and were). By sticking it to Freddie and Fannie we avoid sticking to where we really should.
    (3) Let’s stick our head in the sand about everything else.

    What happened is that the rest of the financial industry, mostly relatively unregulated non deposit investment banks and insurance firms like Merrill and Lehman and AIG got greedy and went into all kinds of science fiction products like credit default swaps and derivatives so complicated no one could understand them. Many of these were based on securitized mortgages and the mortgages were extremely loose (Republicans like loose).
    And it all came tumbling down. You folks conveniently leave out entirely this very important chapter and that’s what I find so annoying. While both parties are to blame, the GOP is moreso. Why? Because they controlled Congress during most of this adventure and people like Phil Gramm and McCain and others led the anti-regulation moves. Because it’s an election year, we’re all supposed to forget about this. McCain is now a regulator. I don’t see Barney Frank playing a role since he has not been in his position as House Financial Services Chief for even two years.
    As for me, no I have no exposure to Lehman Brothers. I have investments through, but not in, Merrill. I do remember not two years ago when now-bust New Century Financial was offering me teaser mortgages EVERY WEEK for 125 percent the “market value” of my house which was a lot more than I ever could sellit for. Thank God I stuck with my 6 percent fixed and that I put down something like 25 percent.
    Love all you guys so much. You remind me of the country song:”Cleopatra, Queen of Denial.”

    Peter Galuszka

  12. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    PG: After you savor a bit of de-caf and take some deep breaths, consider this please:

    What regulations should the Federal government exercise?

    I don’t know what is in the U.S. Code for banking and finance. (I have read the U.S. Code and many DoD Regulations for Defense – because that is my day job).

    What should be there – other than minimums for banks to hold in reserve to cover their loans?

    If too many people have loans that they can’t afford or barely afford, then any shock to them will cost them their home and leave their mortgage holder empty handed. The mortgage holder,lending institution, can handle some losses up to a tipping point. Obviously, we are at the tipping point for many institutions.

    How many would fail – and not be bought by another institution – if there is no Federal bail out? I dunno.

    There are a couple of clear fixes. Privatize Fannie and Freddie. Fix the CRA legislation. See what regulations and audits need to be revised.

    If you want to go on a witch hunt for blame, then start with both parties – the professional pols – in Congress who stood in the way of energy development since 1973 – and screwed things up with the ethanol mandate, etc. When the chickens came home to roost on energy the people who were hurt the most were the folks with no discretionary income to handle increased energy prices – and pay the mortgage.

    If you’re still not satisfied with guilty parties, then investigate the heads of every bank/corp that failed – like Enron and World Bank got theirs.

    The cross walk between ‘special interests’ and the lending institutions is simple: follow the money. Who got paid for what.

    (You may recall in my review of the Supercapitalism book, I suggested that maybe donations from corporations might be taxed – and maybe all political donation should be taxed heavily (like 50%)).

    The economy will adjust to the losses. The key to recovery is to look at not destroying the means to create capital with wrong regulations and taxes.

  13. from the link: “Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.”

    In terms of regulation philosophies – doesn’t this boil down essentially to whether or not one believes that the Government should involve itself in “buyer beware” transactions?

    Here’s the TRUTH:

    the rules forced lenders to NOT REDLINE – QUALIFIED applicants who lived in geographic areas that lending institutions often unilaterally refused to provide loans – no matter how qualified the individual applicants might have been.

    so.. they turn this around into “they had no choice”.

    folks – look at WHERE many of these sub-prime loans were made – in suburbia for high-dollar 3000 square foot McMansions – not modest housing in city cores.

    The reality?

    They had “no choice” but to say that they could not do such a thing unless the government would help insure such loans – carte blanche regardless of the borrower’s qualifications.

    In other words – a government-sanctioned, open-ended license to sell high priced credit to those ill-equipped to deal with what amounts to legalized loan sharking.

    No one forced these companies to provide loans to people with bad credit records and questionable employment histories and without enough down payments to assure adequate collateralization.

    They did so because they had convinced their cronies in Govt to insure any and all loans no matter how unqualified the applicants were and cloaked this practice as being forced on them under the guise of making home ownership available to more people.

    In essence – the co-opted the government to insure legalized loan sharking – in the name of providing a “public good”.

  14. Anonymous Avatar

    “McCain is admitting that this mess was caused by people from both parties.”

    Both parties are most interesting in promoting the success of their party, not the welfare of the people, as McCain has said. But when all is said and done, McCain is still beholden to the party. Whether it is him or someone else is liable to make little difference in the current political climate.

    RH

  15. Anonymous Avatar

    J.A. Bowden,
    This will have to be quick as I have to do my other blog and it’s Doggie Swim Day at the swimming pool.

    Here are some ideas as for regulation:

    (1) One of the problems for these companies is that as their financial instruments get more creative and complex the companies do not know how to accurately value them. There are no rules, no guidelines and we’re stuck with a lesson unlearned from Enron. If there is no way to accurately value these products, then companies can’t know what their liabilities really are. They can’t know their debt and they can’t reassure anyone of anything.
    (2) There should be some oversight and limits on creating such new products. I used to cover hedge funds, for instance, back when they made a lot of money. The arrogance of the managers was stupifying. They said they couldn’t stand for regulation because the regulators were too stupid and inexperienced to understand what they were doing. Well, so, too, are the investors whom the feds are supposed to be protecting by law.
    (3) These credot default swaps have gotten the financial firms into a lot of trouble. Take AIG. It is really two companies — a good, solid insurance firm and a razle-dazzle financial firm. The latter is what the bailout is all about. They got their tentacles into everything everywhere with NO oversight. Paulson should have dug in and said no bailout like Lehamn, but he figured AIG was too big to fail.
    (4) While we’re at it, there should be a no bailout policy. If we’re talking free market and managing risk and laa-dee-dah, then so be it. If market oriented conservatives want a real free market, then let them have it. But let them fail and let the market sort things out and rebound. And no golden parachutes for the execs who screw up. This can be legislated. They are today’s Welfare Mothers.
    (5) Some new form of Glass Steagall should be reconsidered. We need more walls at this point, not fewer.

    More later.

    Peter Galuszka

  16. this is not rocket science.

    it is.. in my mind… purposeful muddying of reality.

    and the reality is that goals to increase affordable housing and to discourage discriminatory loan and housing practices…

    .. do not force lenders…to provide loans to unqualified applicants….

    .. and lenders would NEVER do such a thing if they had not been given a virtual guarantee that they could unload such loans to companies where such loans would be insured by Fannie/Freddie Mac.

    bottom line:

    the goal of increasing home ownership does not require making bad loans.

    but this is the current “spin” and what is amazing to me is that people are buying this.

  17. Anonymous Avatar

    One last point. Steve Pearlstein of the Wash Post has a good point today:

    Foreigner lenders which have provided us with tremendous loans over the past decade or more are finally callingin some of the debt. We’ve been living above our means on their cheap money and it’s finally time for some discipline. At the middle class level it will affect home, car and education and credit cards. AT the investment bank, constantly rolling debt over and over will stop.

    There is a limit to how much the federal government can bail us out for. And today’s news is the giant credit injection form a collection of central banks around the globe.

    Peter Galuszka

  18. One caveat to Peter’s thought:

    the “Federal Government” is taxpayers – you know – the same taxpayers that our de-regulated free market friends say that should be allowed to keep more of their own money (lower taxes) to make their own decisions how to spend…

    isn’t this philosophical foobar in action?

  19. Anonymous Avatar

    Larry,
    Love your irony.
    By the way, if you want some amusement, check out the Buttermilk and Mollasses blog showing Chris Mathews sticking it to Eric Cantor for pretending that the GOP has nothing to do with this mess and that McCain is running against an alien party.
    More irony. McCain of the GOP is running for CHANGE from the GOP.

    Go figure.
    Peter

  20. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Here’s another angle in the “blame game” that I haven’t seen talked about much. Zachary Karabell makes the point in today’s WSJ that accounting rules put into place to prevent any more Enrons played a big role in killing AIG.

    “Call it the revenge of Enron. The collapse of Enron in 2002 triggered a wave of regulations, most notably Sarbanes-Oxley. Less noticed but ultimately more consequential for today were accounting rules that forced financial service companies to change they way they report the value of their assets (or liabilities). Enron valued future contracts in such a way as to vastly inflate its reported profits. In response, accounting standards were shifted by the Financial Accounting Standards Board and validated by the SEC. The new standards force companies to value or “mark” their asets according to a different set of standards and levels.

    … Beginning last year, financial companies exposed to the mortgage market began to mark down their assets quickly and steeply. That created a chain reactino, as losses that were reported on balance sheets led to declining stock prices and lower credit ratings, forcing these companies to put aside ever larger reserves (also dictated by banking regulations) to cover those losses.

    One could argue, as AIG did, that the losses aren’t “real” until they are realized through the sale of assets. Too bad. AIG has to live with the rules and mark down its assets. It knew the rules, and it should have planned accordingly. I have no sympathy. Nevertheless, the chain reaction feeds on itself, and panic spreads.

    My point is not that “regulation” is to blame and “free markets are pure,” as Peter characterizes my view. It’s that the causes of the financial meltdown are very complex, reflecting the interaction of forces that we still don’t fully understand. Taking pot shots at “Reaganism” and “free market fundamentalism” doesn’t shed any light whatsoever. And I have yet to see an analysis that blames the current turmoil on the deregulation of the banking industry in 1992. Indeed, were it not for that deregulation, Bank of America never would have been able to bail out Merrill Lynch.

  21. Anonymous Avatar

    Jim,
    I read the Journal piece and am not sure I agree with it. It sounds like yet another dissing of Sarbanes Oxley which in all likelihood PREVENTED more meltdowns during our period of irrational exuberance. Just to say that new accounting reviews forced financial firms to mark down their assets faster and this caused the biggest financial crisis since 1929is somehow disingenuous.
    And, true bliever that you are, it is somehow disingenuous of you to dismiss the End of Reaganism because to do so cuts to the very heart of all that you value — the power of markets,individual choice, the evil of government, etc.
    Face it Jim, the game is over. You can’t pretend it isn’t just as Eric Cantor can’t pretend that the Bush Admininistration had nothing to do with any of this.

    Ha.
    Peter Galuszka

  22. Anonymous Avatar

    “Taking pot shots at “Reaganism” and “free market fundamentalism” doesn’t shed any light whatsoever.”

    Perhaps the way PG does it such statement do more harm than good but in fact “reaganism” a “free market fundamentalism” are the basis of Irational Exuberance.

    They are an unsustainable driver of what Dr. Risse calls Mass OverConsumption.

    “And I have yet to see an analysis that blames the current turmoil on the deregulation of the banking industry in 1992.”

    You need to look harder.

    “Indeed, were it not for that deregulation, Bank of America never would have been able to bail out Merrill Lynch.”

    An who will bail out B of A?

  23. rightwingliberal Avatar
    rightwingliberal

    “the reality is that goals to increase affordable housing and to discourage discriminatory loan and housing practices do not force lenders to provide loans to unqualified applicants”

    Actually, yes they do.

    They do because they force lenders to make loans in areas where the property values are too unstable to back up the loan, greatly increasing the chances that the homeowner will simply “walk away” and let it foreclose.

    Also, LG and PG, you clearly don’t understand Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s roles. They were the foundation of the entire inflated housing market. Lenders had little or no risk from these bad loans, because they could just dump them on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. From there, it was the taxpayers’ problem.

    Had the implict (now explicit) bailout option been ruled out (or if Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were genuinely private instead of GSEs), lenders would have been far more prudent, and many of them wouldn’t have been left holding the bag when Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac finally did go down.

    The free market had nothing to do with this. This was government failure from start to finish.

  24. Anonymous Avatar

    rightwingliberal.

    I think I do have a basic understanding of Fannie and Freddie. WHat I have been trying to argue (apparently without much success) is that Fannie Freddie are but one part of this mess.
    Many of the bad mortgages were for second and third houses for the upper midle class and beyond. IN other words, not exactly in the league for Fannie and Freddie. Plus, there was a huge second mortgage/line of credit industry that simply assumed that housing values would simply rise.
    Plus, these big guys on Wall Street and other places securitized the mortgages into many more forms than ever. Plus, they had credit default swaps — gambling that people won’t pay — that are what’s no doing everyone in. Incomprehensible and impoossibly complex derivatives fan the flames because no one can figure out what’s an asset or a liability. Part of this week’s turmoil is not knowing for sure what’s good and bad.
    It’s simply too simple and pat to say this is a Freddie and Fannie show. It is partly a goverment problem (or lack of regulation problem), but it is much more complex and multi-faceted than you seem to make it out to be.

    Peter Galuszka

  25. Anonymous Avatar

    Peter – you’re not only smoking, but inhaling too.

    Deregulation of energy trades. In 1990, a court decision left it unclear as to whether the CFTC could regulate those transactions. In response the House (controlled then by Ds) passed a bill (395-27) to exempt these energy trades from CFTC jurisdiction. Guess who sponsored the companion Senate bill. None other than Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT). The exemption was reaffirmed in 2000, with Gramm as a sponsor, along with Tom Harkin D-IA).

    TMT

  26. ….”They do because they force lenders to make loans in areas where the property values are too unstable to back up the loan, greatly increasing the chances that the homeowner will simply “walk away” and let it foreclose.”

    ahhh…. so all these foreclosures for 400K “spec” homes in the Loudoun and other outer burbs were forced loans….for “affordable” housing…

    right…… I got it now…

    I’ll allow a right-leaning free market philosophy that worships de-regulation – fair enough…

    but what do we do when these same folks go hide in the closet…. or as one commentator put it… run from the battlefield as they discard their uniforms?

    Where are the anti-regulation folks right now?

    answer: running from the battlefield ..shouting… it’s everybody’s fault.. and this is too complex to blame on anyone.

    stand up – be a man – admit that we need the big R:

    R-e-g-u-l-a-t-i-o-n

    not Reagonomics … with or without Greenspan sprinkles

  27. Anonymous Avatar

    TMT,
    Of course Democrats joined the parade. In, fact, one, if so inclined, can trace the dereg movement to Jimmy Carter with airlines and whatnot.
    The GOP, however, made dreg their entire pitch.
    As far as me inhaling and not just smoking, one can only wish. After this week, I can use something to ease my pain and I know Bill CLinton feels it.
    Peter Galuszka

  28. Anonymous Avatar

    “ahhh…. so all these foreclosures for 400K “spec” homes in the Loudoun and other outer burbs were forced loans….for “affordable” housing…”

    C’mon Larry

    There’s lots of different reasons for foreclosures in lots of different areas. There was PLENTY of blame to go around on this one.

    The banks were under pressure to alleveiate former problems with redlining.

    Brokers did push loans they knew would be no good.

    People did buy homes on spec

    People did buy homes they couldn’t afford.

    Frannie Mac did relax their standards (again, under pressure)

    Wall street did repackage loans of even lower standrds.

    Wall street and investors did double leverage debt intruments.

    But the bottom line is that the vast majority of people are still n their homes, either paid for or with mortgaes that they can afford.

    Unless this avalanche wipes out their jobs, healthcare, and equity all in one swell foop.

    Peter G is right on this. There are lots of answers but no one simple answer.

    Meanwhile foreigners wh were willing to lend for a share of the profits, now want a share of the equity. We better plan on getting used to immigrants, because they are going to be our landlords and bosses.

    RH

  29. …”But the bottom line is that the vast majority of people are still n their homes, either paid for or with mortgaes that they can afford.”

    ummm.. I’ve heard this… you know like only 3% of mortgages are in trouble…

    so what’s all the hand wringing… county and budget budget shortfalls..and the need for taxpayer bailouts …

    .. if things are being blown out of proportion?

    I would say that there IS a simple answer and that what we have going on is … furious handwaving….to attempt to obsfuscate this simple answer.

    and that answer is this – those who made profits from mortgages gave mortgages to people who did not qualify – for good reason – and they did this – not because they were willing to risk their own investors money –

    no.. they did this because Fannie and Freddie guaranteed that they’d buy those mortgages…

    so.. why not hand out mortgages to every Tom, Dick and Harry – literally that walked into the loan office wanting a 400K home that they knew they could not pay for.

    All they wanted was to buy the home.. keep it for a short period of time and flip it..

    NONE of this …would have ever happened if the Mortgage companies required 20% down and a documented employment history – you know like they used to require 30 years ago when many of us had to come up with that 20% or pay for MGIC insurance.

    and why did I have to do that?

    because the lender/investors and not Fannie/Freddie were going to eat that loan if it went bad.

    We have too many folks trying every which way they can think of to find excuses and/or claim that this is too complicated to figure out.. and the truth is simple..

    Our Government basically agreed to guarantee bad loans and loan companies were more than happy to write as many as they could.

    It don’t get no simpler than that.

  30. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    It’s the Dems fault. It’s the GOP’s fault. It’s your fault, no my fault. Fact of the matter is the politiicans can implement all the regulations they want and it won’t make a difference.

    That’s because the issue is heavily leveraged derivatives which are valued on assets, faith, or nothing at all. And it’s not an American problem, we just happened to be the trigger that set things off. In case you haven’t noticed, the whole world is involved. And national regulation has no bearing on international finance, other than to screw our own businesses.

    Not to worry though, once the dust has settled there will be new regulation on a whole host of subjects that will have a huge impact on our domestic financial affairs. Those regulations will be made not by our inept politicians, but by the international financial facilities. No vote, no charade and lots of political pontificating as appointed representatives sign control of our economy over to world bureaucrats. After all, it’s the only way to keep greedy Americans from destroying the world.

  31. Anonymous Avatar

    What fries my ___ is the fact that no one seems to be worrying about the next Enron or Freddie Mac, etc. Some of those might be prevented.

    How much money will be needed to bail out Dulles Rail? How much money will be needed to build infrastructure to support 220 M square feet at Tysons?

    The impacts on local taxpayers would likely be much larger proportionately than any of today’s fiascoes.

    Yet, we cheer all of these decisions as progress.

    TMT

    P.S. Peter I could inhale too this week. It’s been quite the week for me as well.

  32. the primary regulation that we need is this.

    The Federal Government will not buy/insure loans that are not properly collateralized.

    This is not a radical concept.

    Most well-operated Pension Plans will not buy mortgage securities that are not adequately collateralized.

    If the “free-market” wants to traffic in sub-prime and ARMS – let them do it and let the investors take the downstream hits – just like any business that engages in risky market behaviors.

    This is simple stuff.

    When you get a car loan – most companies are not going to loan you anything more than what that car will bring if it had to sell – tomorrow on the open market – otherwise known as it’s trade-in value – which is clearly stated in the NADA guides that anyone can access.

    The same needs to be true of home loans – regardless of “affordability” issues.

    20% down is a prudent policy that assures that the buyer has his own money invested and if he plans to later “flip” the house (or just sell it when he changes jobs) – then that person has their own money to worry about also.

    When the buyer does not have their own money involved – it’s a lot like renting instead of “owner-occupied”.

    Without their own money at stake, they are essentially free to walk away – for any number of reasons that suit them but not the least of which is a loss in value – and they have no dollars themselves that will be lost if they walk.

    this is not an earth-shattering revelation.

    All the current dialogue about who sold what mortgage to who and then what they did with it.. and all the different ways mortgages have been sliced and diced… through convoluted paths – is downstream of the fundamental reality – which is what is the worth of a mortgage where the mortgagee has no financial stake – equity – in it.

    The housing boom itself – was a essentially a PONZI scheme of more and more homes being built to satisfy a brand new type of buyer market – which is folks who NOW qualified for a loan who previously did not – BECAUSE of lowered standards for qualification.

    so.. we boosted the housing market by bringing in a whole bunch of new buyers – and that in turn – created a higher demand for homes – which drove the prices up and up.

    and it would work as long as more and more new buyers could be “created”.

    but like most ponzi schemes – when no more buyers are available – the whole thing collapses.

    and then.. the folks who have no equity in the homes they signed loans for – when the value of those homes collapsed – they had no reason to continue to pay the loan.

    After all.. many of them had bad credit to start with -and they literally had nothing to lose.

    So… all of these new “buyers” are going to go away – and that is why they say that the current inventory of homes will take years to work down – because those “new” buyers are gone – and those homes will have to be acquired by people with good credit – a much smaller pool of buyers.

  33. Anonymous Avatar

    “..you know like only 3% of mortgages are in trouble… “

    Yeah, I’ve heard only 1.5%. Whatever it is it is a small amount to have caused so much trouble.

    I’ve got a pair of pruning shears with a double lever to increase the cutting power. They work great from my end, but I’d hate to get a finger caught in the other end: leverage works both ways.

    “all of these new “buyers” are going to go away “

    I don’t think so. When the prices get right they’ll be back even if they have to “magically” come up with 25% down. Those houses are NOT going to sit around empty. I just lost another tenant, who was able to find an affordable home due to the current situation. How they got a loan, I don’t know.

    Speaking of the need for more regulation, I see farmers markets have come under scrutiny for passing out free samples. Seems if you prepare apple butter for sale, thats one thing, but if you open a jar to give samples, now you fall under a whole different level of – regulation.

    Priorities, folks, priorities.

    RH

  34. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    Someone must have been watching what the EU is doing. Over there they have baking contests at country fairs. Seems there is a new regulation that limits the amount of taste testing done for the contest. Once the test is done, the entire pie is to be destroyed.

    Do you ever get the feeling that we are right back where we started in 1776?

  35. This is an exceptionally dense post. I’ll just comment on one particular sentence in the interest of brevity.

    Finance had a ball after Bill Clinton helped get rid of the Chinese walls between investment and commercial banking.

    Foolish Glass-Steagall nostalgia anyone? Pete refers to Gramm-Leach-Bliley here, but prefers not come right out and say so for whatever reason.

    Two aspects of GS are germane:

    1. Establishment of the FDIC. It is still here and unchanged by GLB.

    2. Separation of retail and investment banking. This was officially ended by GLB, though the separation died for all intent and purpose a couple of years earlier when Citigroup merged with Travelers. If this were a big part of the current crisis, then “dual-use” banks would be at the heart of the problem. That is not the case. The problems lie mainly with retail outfits like Countrywide and investment houses like Bear Stearns.

    Just thought I’d mention that.

  36. re: “all of these new “buyers” are going to go away “

    I don’t think so.”

    given the fact that the pool of new buyers was PRIMARILY those who could not qualify for a traditional loan in the first place and are at the heart of the current crisis… because it is THOSE mortgages to folks who cannot afford them that have plummeted in value….

    you better hope that .. the reform we are hearing about INCLUDES ..NOT giving loans to folks who don’t qualify.

    If we don’t do this – i.e. get back to good loan practices and we continue the practice of ninja loans, ARMs and subprime, then what will be accomplished that will insure that we don’t repeat the problem?

    I would say that folks who believe that the bailout will occur – but we’ll continue to make ninja loans are so far out of touch with realities that I hope/pray that the folks in charge are not thinking this way.

    No matter what you are trying to accomplish in the way of making more homes available to those who traditionally can’t afford them – you cannot make loans to people with poor credit records WITHOUT adequate collatoralization.

    And .. no sane bank – commercial or investment is going to make such loans if the Feds will not buy them or back them up.

    and that is fundamentally what happened.

    Those bad loans would have NEVER been made if the Feds had refused to back them up.

  37. Want to understand the truth here?

    Take someone with a bad credit record, conveniently “forget” to check his employment status, don’t require an equity stake from him then make a balloon-note loan (i.e. lowball the initial payments) and what would you expect to happen?

    Well.. if you get your money up front in the form of mortgage fees… and you know the loan itself will be re-packaged with a gazillion other loans just like it and sold to a 3rd party whose ownership of said securities is essentially insured by Freddie Mac…

    In other words.. the folks who made the loans did not care because they would not own the loans nor have to deal with the virtually inevitable default.

    Reality Number 2:

    When this kind of a loan previously no made, could now be made – a whole brand new (large) market for new homes was created which was a boon to new home construction and the sale of existing homes – a seemingly “win-win” for everyone concerned…

    .. and after all – 30-40% of our economy was based on land development……and home sales.

    What that influx of now newly-“qualified” buyers did was to affect the supply of homes – superheating the home-building industry and driving up the price of not only new, but existing homes.

    When most of the newly-qualified market was exhausted and the number of new buyers flattened out -the price of homes started to adjust – downward – and those with questionable credit records and jobs.. holding balloon-note loans – lost their only option of quickly flipping their homes before the increasing payments overwhelmed them.

    but it was no problem to walk away from the loan – as they had none of their own money in it to start with…. so they walked away…

    Need proof:

    Just take a look at your own county and check on your own county’s upcoming budget.

    What is happening now (I hope) is that the folks who did not qualify for loans to start with – will be flushed from the market and we’ll return to loan environment where the loan applicant will have to have, a decent credit record, a verifiable employment status/history and 20% equity in the property.

    If we do not do this – all I can say if hold on to our collective butts – because the insanity will not end..

  38. Anonymous Avatar

    “given the fact that the pool of new buyers was PRIMARILY those who could not qualify for a traditional loan in the first place “

    That is simply incorrect.

    RH

  39. Anonymous Avatar

    “and after all – 30-40% of our economy was based on land development”

    Also incorrect. 25% is more like it, unless you include all the auxiliary sales like furniture.

    Either way, what will we do to replace 25% of our economy? Wipe that out and you are talking riots in the streets.

    RH

  40. Anonymous Avatar

    The ability to walk away is written into the mortgage. The banks could have changed the high risk loans so that they were not non-recourse loans, but they didn’t do it.

    The fact that some people with bad credit “took advantage” of the terms of the lan agreement is whose fault exactly?

    RH

  41. Anonymous Avatar

    Brian
    I see your point about the GLB bill which is very much linked to Glass Steagall.
    I think you say that these forms of dereg and others allowed all kinds of new products and combinations to be formed. As Gretchen Morgenson of the NYT writes this moring, why a government bailout of AIG when it is an insurance companies that basically sets premiums and stonewalls claims? Because AIG is so much more than an insurance company — it has morphed in a purveyor of financial instruments of all types and is so intangled with the rest of the finance community it couldn’t be allowed to fail, or so the logic went. The point I was trying to make is that the general wave of deeg created the atmosphere for this to happen. Academics lster may try to pin what happened on this bill or that one.

    Also, when you say my post was “exceptionally dense” do you mean it is exceptionally stupid or just complex?

    Peter Galuszka

  42. Darrell -- Chesapeake Avatar
    Darrell — Chesapeake

    http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSN2148303920080921

    Bailouts for all… except the taxpayers.

    You ain’t seen nothing yet.

  43. “The fact that some people with bad credit “took advantage” of the terms of the lan agreement is whose fault exactly?”

    It’s the fault of the idiot who would buy and/or insure such a mortgage from the originator.

    None of these loans would not have been made if the originator was the one that would eat the loan if the borrower walked.

    As long as Fed Fannie/Freddie was willing to buy/insure packaged securities which consisted of these bad loans – then it was like free money to the originators.

    The originators would make the loan, make their money and dump the bad loan on another sucker – Fannie/Freddie and/or companies that we would bail out – in other words – US.

    and yes… you INCLUDE ALL of the spin off business activity when you talk about the housings and the economy.

    And no.. you don’t have riots because the money that is in the economy finds something else to be spent on… it does not go away…

    A guy with a spotty job record and bad credit STILL rents homes and buys cars and food… with his money…

    If you want riots – tell every taxpayer that they have to pay a thousand dollars more every year from now on – until we pay off the bad loans….

  44. Anonymous Avatar

    “the money that is in the economy finds something else to be spent on… it does not go away…”

    So you are saying that we will wind up trading one kind of irrational spending and investment on another?

    Assuming you are right, we are going to spend the money anyway, how much of it will be spent/invested here?

    Just ask Morgan Stanley/Mitsubishi.

    RH

  45. Anonymous Avatar

    FYI, the reverse spin has begun.

    The WSJ has editorialized this morning that dereg hadn’t nothing to do with this. Why gee, of course not. Why’d I think it did?

    And the Richmond Times-Disgrace has an innane front pager about Tom Bliley saying his dereg bill knocking down walls between the commercial and investment side had absolutely nothing to do with the mess.

    Funny that the two remaining independent investment giants suddenly want to become banking entities subject to more regulation.

    What a strange world we live in.

    Peter Galuszka

  46. re: "So you are saying that we will wind up trading one kind of irrational spending and investment on another?"

    no – who says that the ONLY choice is to spend money irrationally in the first place?

    Money does not disappear and go "poof".

    It DOES go, as you say, round and round unless you put it in a mattress.

    If you put it in a bank or some other repository where essentially it will be produced and delivered to you "on demand", it does not sit in a bank vault.

    Your money – whether you spend it on something or save it in an "on demand" account or for that matter in a term account – does not sit unused.

    What it actually gets spent on – in terms of whether it is useful/productive or not is a separate distinction.

    People who say that taxes make money go "poof" are simply wrong.

    The Government does not put the money in a vault or mattress either.

    They pay salaries with it.. and buy good & services with it – and it does go round and round.

    Believe it.

    NoVa is living proof of it.

    The argument made is that the Government "wastes" that money whereas the guy that keeps it instead of paying taxes – does not – which is purely and totally a matter of opinion.

    For instance, the Government might spend that money on up-armoring a humvee to keep a solider alive whereas the taxpayer might buy himself a home entertainment system.

    Which is "more valuable"?

    whis is LESS of a waste?

    Here's the ultimate irony.

    You have the company that makes armor for Humvees lobbying against higher taxes – on the pretext that the government "wastes" money…

    ..yes… on up-armored humvees among other things….

Leave a Reply