The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Financial Crisis Page 6 of 12

Apparently Axelrod and the Administration Want a Democratic Wipeout

Seriously, when the Administration says they oppose a countrywide freeze on foreclosures only weeks before the election, it’s hard to interpret their statements any other way.

I’m guessing the calculation is that Obama’s squeeze of entitlement spending for the middle class is more likely to pass if there are more Republicans in Congress.  (ie. they are completely corrupt and utterly in the pocket of bankers who are giving more money to Republicans.)

Or they could be complete and utter morons with an out of control drug habit.  I mean anyone who says, like Axelrod did, that ““I’m hoping that with more seats, Republicans will feel a greater sense of responsibility to work WITH us” is clearly not just in denial, he is as Peter Dauo said, hallucinating.

How the Foreclosure mess would play out in an actual Republic Of Law and an actual Free Market

Here’s how this plays out in an actual free market society which follows the law (ie., not this one.)

You go through and figure out if you can prove title to the property. If you can’t, those who were insured go to the title insurance companies.  A huge legal battle ensures, with the title insurance companies claiming that they were the victims of fraud from their clients, the banks.  Eventually, the title insurance companies pay out whatever they have to pay out that they can pay out, and most of them probably go bankrupt.

The banks then go bankrupt, which, well, they already are anyway, so maybe we should stop pretending.

The title insurance companies did not do their due diligence.  They deserve to be destroyed for not doing their jobs.  The banks engaged in and colluded with systemic fraud, they deserve to go out of business and their executives should go to jail.

And no, the real economy does not take it too hard on the chin.  You wipe out a ton of debts, those people are no longer underwater and can buy.  The banks are taken over by the FDIC, the shareholders are wiped out and the bondholders take a bath.  The Fed refloats the banks (after breaking them up) and they go back to lending the way they should have.  It costs LESS in the long run to do this than it does to keep extending and pretending, and non-zombie banks can actually lend.

Yes, the investor class takes it on the chin and this includes some widows and orphans, and that’s bad (throw in some undoing of “welfare reform” if you feel bad for them. Not that “slash food stamps” Obama is likely to.)  But it’s better than eternal zombie banks and illegal foreclosures up the wazoo.  And the investor class is essentially worthless anyway, they have spent the last 30 years investing in asset bubbles and offshoring industries and jobs, not in the useful productive domestic economy.  Letting them take their losses (and these are their losses) is a good thing, and is the free market thing to do.

It also wipes out a class of people who are driving the buying of politics, and who tend to prefer Republicans, if you want to do some crass political calculation.  Which, frankly, would be nice, since apparently Dems crass political calculations are done with an abacus they don’t know how to work.

Addendum: a friend sends me this suggested course of action by Karl Dennniger, which I think is a good one.  Odds of being pursued?  Minimal.  But we can hope.  As Denninger points out, if private interests steal the homes of millions of citizens with the collusion of government, well, that doesn’t lead anywhere pretty.

Tax Cuts for the rich create jobs outside the US

The standard right wing talking point that tax cuts for the rich and for corporations create jobs is true: Tax cuts for the rich create jobs overseas.

The tax cuts’ two bills, in 2001 and 2003 – changed laws so that personal income tax rates were reduced, exemptions for the Alternative Minimum Tax increased, and dividend and capital gains taxes also cut.

Yet in the debate, it seems of no moment to either side whether the tax cuts were effective in achieving their goal of spurring business investment and making the US economy more competitive.

Our own examination of US non-residential investment indicates that the reduction in capital gains tax rates failed to spur US business investment and failed to improve US economic competitiveness.

The 2000s – that is, the period immediately following the Bush tax cuts – were the weakest decade in US postwar history for real non-residential capital investment.

Not only were the 2000s by far the weakest period, but the tax cuts did not even curtail the secular slowdown in the growth of business structures.

Rather, the slowdown accelerated into a full decline.

The logic of this is simple enough.  If you have money to invest, you’re going to invest it where it’ll return the most.  Right now and in the past couple decades that is either in leveraged financial games, or it is in economies which are growing fast and have low costs.  The US does not have high growth compared to China or Brazil or many other developing countries.  It has high costs compared to those countries as well.

If you can build a factory overseas which produces the same goods for less, meaning more profit for you, why would you build it in the US?

Until that question is adequately answered, by which I mean “until it’s worth investing in the US”, most of the discretionary money of the rich will either go into useless speculative activities like the housing and credit bubbles, which don’t create real growth in the US, or they will go overseas.

There are a number of ways this question can be answered.

  • You could slap taxes on foreign capital flows;
  • you could slap tariffs on foreign goods produced in low cost domiciles so that companies have to produce in the US to have access to the US market;
  • you could push industries which are hard to outsource but don’t actually decrease American competitiveness.  The housing bubble increased the cost of doing real business in the US by inflating real estate costs.  A massive buildout making every building in the US energy neutral or an energy producer would increase US competitiveness.
  • you could try and do what America once did: have a tech boom.  If the future is being produced in a country then everyone has to invest there and when things are changing fast you can’t offshore production, because speed matters and offshoring is slow. This is why real wages increased during the tech boom of the 90s.

There are other answers as well, but the point is simpler: you must answer the question “why invest in the US instead of a low cost, high growth country?” Until you answer that question tax cuts will not only not do any good, but in a sense will do harm, by increasing the speed at which jobs are offshored out of America.

Geithner and the White House’s Panglossian Never-Never Land

Amazing:

Geithner endeared himself to Obama and senior White House advisers by advocating a response to the financial crisis that later proved correct.

Seriously, the White House lives in some alternate dimension, some reality known only to the initiates of their esoteric cult, a world where the banks aren’t still lending less, aren’t hurting the recovery by gouging customers, where small banks aren’t still going belly up at a frantic rate, where foreclosures aren’t hitting new highs and where unemployment isn’t still through the roof.

Must be nice to live in the White House’s Panglossian alternate dimension.

How to be a big pundit

Figure out the truth once it’s too late to matter.

Analysis is mostly about noticing the obvious, but for the obvious to do any good it helps to notice it before it’s too late to matter.

Let me reiterate: Republicans understand opposition politics.  Also, policy matters.  As I was saying back during the stimulus debate, if the economy sucks, the incumbent party gets blamed for it,  and that means you have to make it work.  I don’t know if Democrats will lose the House (the consensus amongst the few analysts I trust seems to “no, but they will lose a lot of seats”).  I do know that they’ll be losing more seats than they should be.

The only reason Dems aren’t having a complete meltdown is that a sizable part of the Republican party is mad dog insane.

Even that won’t save them forever if they can’t figure out how to do policy right.

And, sorry to say it, they can’t.

Serious People Notice Banks Are Gouging Consumers and Tanking the Economy

Well, better late than never:

rates on 10-year Treasury bonds are only about 3 percent, many consumers still carry tens of thousands of dollars of credit card debt at 20 percent or more. This burden has been a continuing drag on spending. The federal government could reduce it by borrowing at 3 percent and lending to consumers at 8 percent under a one-time debt-restructuring plan.

With their debt service payments cut by more than half, consumers could increase spending immediately. And the five-percentage-point spread on money lent under the program would help cover its administrative costs, and maybe even relieve short-run government budget pressure.

This is, of course, correct, though I’d only push it up 4%, myself. I originally suggested this February 9, 2009. It was the right thing to do then, it’s still the right thing to do.

As David Anderson notes, this would be a huge help to ordinary people:

Going from 18% to 8% interest, the individual with $10,000 in credit card debt would see their initial monthly payment go from $250 a month to $167 per month. Using a declining minimum payment formula of (monthly interest expense +1% of current balance), the debt burden at the end of the year is still $9,000 but the interest expense declines from $1,570 to $700. That gap of $870 is greater than the ARRA Making Work Pay tax credit and it most likely would be targeted at individuals with a high marginal propensity to spend (as evidenced by credit card debt.) If balances or interest rates are higher, the freed up cash flow would be even greater.

Also the government can make real, significant money by doing this. All it is is arbitrage. If you can borrow money cheap and lend it at higher rates that’s free money. Not only would that help consumers, and the economy, it would also reduce the deficit. Win/Win/Win. If Blue Dogs are really sincere about their belief in deficit reduction they should jump all over this suggestion.

Note that rates being so high is a classic case of market failure. The banks are charging more than they need to in order to make a profit. In an actual free market other banks are supposed to step in and undercut them, but that isn’t happening. We could argue about why (they’re a collusive oligopoly or they’re broke being the most probable causes), but in the immediate term, it doesn’t matter, what matters is fixing it.

But I doubt it will happen. Why? Because the banks are making a TON of money by gouging customers, and they own DC. I suspect the best we can hope is that this is a warning shot across their bows, a message to reduce the looting or pillaging to “acceptable” levels.

Which will be a heck of a lot higher than you might like, but hey, they run the place.

How bailing out the rich created the Depression

The other day, Krugman wrote that we’re in the beginning of a new Long Depression.

Forgive me, but he’s wrong: this isn’t the beginning, it’s been going on for about two years now.

During a Depression there are periods where GDP grows.  There are periods where jobs grow.  It’s just that the periods of job growth don’t last.

There were opportunities to end the Depression before it really dug in its heels.  The last one was at the beginning of Obama’s term.  Kicking out of the Depression required two things.

The first was an adequate stimulus. This didn’t just mean a large enough stimulus, though the one offered was not large enough, it meant one properly constructed.  Tax cuts for ordinary Americans are not stimulative, because folks like banks who have pricing power (you must have a credit card, loans, etc…) will simply take that money away by raising rates and fees.  And it doesn’t mean short term shovel-projects, it means making commitments which will last for years so that businesses, when making plans know that hiring is worth it because those employees will be needed for more than a year or so.

Likewise the US has some serious problems with the structure of the American economy.  The cornerstone of the stimulus had to be reducing US dependence on oil because as long as the US economy is so dependent on oil, full fledged growth is simply not possible.  The days of $20/barrel oil aren’t coming back, and every time the price of oil gets too high, it puts great pressure on the US economy (and every other modern nation.)

The second thing which had to be done is to force the banks to actually eat their losses.  Wipe out the shareholders and let the bondholders take their losses.  All the money plunged into the banks (and it was much more than the TARP money, which was the smallest part of it) was wasted.  Banks are not lending, and restoring lending is what the bailouts were sold as doing.  Moreover they have raised borrowing rates and fees on those who need credit most, soaking up money which otherwise would be helping the economy rather than simply being sopped up to plug holes in bank balance sheets.

The trillions of dollars spent attempting to bail out the banks weren’t just wasted, by keeping zombie banks alive they made the situation worse.  Further by not wiping out the wealth of banks and those rich folks who made foolish investments which wrecked the world economy, they created a political problem: to whit, as Durbin said—the banks still own Congress.  (Along with the military industrial complex, pharma and various other monied interests).  Because monied interests still own Congress, they have made it impossible to fix America’s structural problems.

Six percent of GDP could have been saved by doing health care reform properly, but that didn’t happen.  The current “financial reform” bill under consideration is so week that I don’t know of one credible outside analyst who thinks it is sufficient to make sure there isn’t another financial crash, and on and on.

Historically speaking periods of high concentration of wealth only end when the rich lose it in a huge crash.  They are never ended by, say, high marginal taxation—high marginal taxation only occurs after the losses have occurred as those who saw the run-up do their best to make sure it can’t happen again.

That lasts until the generations who saw the mania and crash start dying off and losing power.  So you start seeing really serious decreases in marginal tax rates and slashing of financial regulations when the generations who lived through not just the Great Depression but the Roaring twenties were no longer around.

The cliche that a crisis is an opportunity is, sadly, true.  But it is only an opportunity if you take it.  What politicians, and this includes Obama and Geithner, as well as Bush, Paulson and Bernanke, did, was they protected the rich from their own folly, and made  ordinary people pay for it.  The wealth of the rich has mostly recovered, corporate profits have recovered, but for ordinary people the economy still sucks and there is no reason to believe it isn’t about to start sucking even more.

The financial elites think that what they can do is create an economy with a permanently high unemployment rate and that Americans (and Europeans, for that matter) will put up with it, because what choice do they have?

We are going to have another kick at this can, because the legislation being put in place is not sufficient to prevent another financial crisis.  This is a Depression, and it is not going to go away.

Next time I hope we will consider doing the right thing.  Make those who crash the system take their losses and break the power of the rich over government.

Be very clear, it’s you, or it’s them.  You break their power, or they will continue to push your wages towards parity with China.

And they are very determined it’s not going to be them.

Are you determined it’s not going to be you?

The Housing Bubble Was Based On Fraud

Once again:

Recent filings by two Federal Home Loan Banks — in San Francisco and Seattle — offer an intriguing way to clear this high hurdle. Lawyers representing the banks, which bought mortgage securities, combed through the loan pools looking for discrepancies between actual loan characteristics and how they were pitched to investors.

You may not be shocked to learn that the analysis found significant differences between what the Home Loan Banks were told about these securities and what they were sold.

The rate of discrepancies in these pools is surprising. The lawsuits contend that half the loans were inaccurately described in disclosure materials filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Half of them were fraudulent.

Half

There would have been no housing bubble without widespread fraud.  None.

Virtually every major bank executive in the US should be indicted for fraud.  The fact that there aren’t even serious investigations, let alone indictments, tells you everything you need to know.  Everyone in the system knows it was all fraud, they knew it at the time, and that is exactly why there are no real investigations.

Page 6 of 12

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén