Who is to blame?

by Russ Roberts on September 10, 2008

in Regulation

Somebody asked me the other day—whose fault is it that Freddie and Fannie are on the ropes? Is it the fault of the greedy execs? Inadequate monitoring and oversight? Did Congress mess up?

I actually think this is an emergent mess that evolved out of no one’s design. An alliance of bootleggers and baptists that created something that was no one’s intention but that served many people well until it fell apart. It’s a study in flawed incentives and institutional design. The lesson is that government agencies work best when we know what they’re doing and there is some measure of accountability, even if it’s only political. Here’s a little fable on the subject:

Once upon a time, Fannie and Freddie were partners in a business. Well, it wasn’t exactly a business. It was almost a charity. Not quite. It was sort of a government agency. Or maybe it was all three together. When Fannie and Freddie talked to investors, they acted like a business. When they talked to the government regulators, they acted like a government agency.

And when they talked to the American people, they acted like a charity. A charity whose goal was to help more people own a home.

Who could be against that?

But it’s hard to be three things all at the same time. So maybe it’s not surprising that Fannie and Freddie ultimately ended up suffering from multiple personality disorder. Which were they? A business? A charity? A part of the government? No wonder people were confused.

One day, Henry, who worked for Uncle Sam, woke up and discovered that Fannie and Freddie didn’t have enough money to keep the promises they had made. Henry was one of the last ones to find out. A lot of people had been saying for years that Fannie and Freddie were living beyond their means. Now the bills had finally come due. Who was going to get stuck with the bill?

Everybody wanted to blame someone else. Some blamed Fannie and Freddie. But it wasn’t really their fault, they explained. Uncle Sam told us to act like a charity. So we helped a lot of people get houses who wouldn’t have had them otherwise. And our investors told us to make money. We tried to do both. And we’ve succeeded. Unfortunately, our books don’t balance.

When Uncle Sam got mad at Freddie and Fannie for making promises they couldn’t keep, Freddie and Fannie just shrugged. Hey, they said. You said you’d always take care of us. I know you winked when you said it. But can you really blame us for living large? When you have a rich uncle, nephews and nieces with credit cards are known to have a spending problem.

The lesson is clear for Uncle Sam. Fannie and Freddie need new rules, rules so different that we may as well change their names and call them Florence and Floyd.

We also should remember, there really isn’t a rich uncle. There’s just you and me. If we’re going to pay for the misdeeds of Florence and Floyd, let’s make them government agencies with accountability. Or disband Freddie and Fannie and let the people who take the risks risk their own money instead of yours and mine.

Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • muirgeo

    Yup. We never even tried to present you with any substantive arguments or evidence.


    Posted by: Hans Luftner


    Seriously... I can hardly think of any referenced studies or data offered from your side. It's mostly all hand waving, matter of fact proclamations and attempted inculcation to The Invisible Hand.


    Oh yeah the consumption data suggesting we're all equally prospering. That was easiliy and soundly debunked.


    Seriously, what's the real world evidence that has you believing a libertarian society would optimize the human condition much less individual liberty?


    What's the real world evidience that suggest a weakened libertarian government wouldn't quickly be overtaking by corporatist to their own benifit?


    I think there is NONE!

  • muirgeo

    "...it was precisely those risk supervisors that were EMPOWERED by the regulators, namely the credit rating agencies,...."

    Per Kurowski




    Maybe I'm missing your point but the credit rating agencies are private companies. They certainly dropped the ball as well. If they were doctors they be sued at out their pants (actually I think they might be) and they'd loose their license.


    Who could ever trust those nicompoops again?

  • d g lesvic

    Response to Muirgeo:


    The notion that private crooks could bring down a free market is questionable, if not absurd. But what is unquestionable, to me, at least, is that we shouldn't arm them with the power of "government."

  • Hans Luftner

    They demote any potential rebuttal of your's to me to nothing more then name calling because you have nothing factual or substantial in your armament with which to defend yourself with.


    Yup. We never even tried to present you with any substantive arguments or evidence. I'm sure if we did you'd read it. No one has, even once, tried explaining where we think you're mistaken.

  • “The mortgage crisis was a not only a failure of Wall Street at self regulating or of improving risk or of allocating capital properly... Wall Street failed in ALL these areas and it was intentional. A pyramid scheme built to fleece the American public. Probably the biggest heist of all time. It was a failure of oversight based on the presumption that markets are best left to regulate themselves.

    AND THAT's A SLAP IN THE FACE FOR THE LIBERTARIAN POSITION that is best countered with some more good heaping tablespoons full of denial.”


    Posted by: muirgeo


    But it is also a clear slap in the face of those who favor more regulations since it was precisely those risk supervisors that were EMPOWERED by the regulators, namely the credit rating agencies, that played the pipe the financial markets followed over the subprime precipice.


    Though markets were under-regulated in some areas, they were equally overregulated in others… for example banks weakened their credit analysis departments since… why do you need credit analyst for when you have the credit rating agencies to do it for you?


  • muirgeo

    I thought the hedge markets existed precisely to dampen the impact of an event like FNMA's bankruptcy. Guess I'm just out of touch with corporatist reality.


    Posted by: Martin Brock




    There is far more profit in actually hiding risk then offering useful products to avert or minimize risk.


    But we're to believe if we just let it run it's course everything would work out... really... honestly... trust them just a little longer...just a little more time... it will work out. The problem you see is we just never let it run through until it's final self regulating, self correcting glorification reveals itself. All bow in the glory and greatness.. all praise to the Invisible Hand...just give it time.




    "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone."


    -- John Maynard Keynes


  • muirgeo

    I'm assuming this is referring to the resident idiot savant who calls anything he doesn't understand a product of "paper pushing Wall Street assholes" and "Wall Street babies with guns".


    I bet the babies subjected to this particular idiot wish they had guns.


    Posted by: Methinks




    First of all YES absolutely, I can document lots of prospective dated articles from economists, politicians and others predicting the current disaster.


    Secondly its not Wall Street babies with guns... its Wall Street Babies with loaded and cocked guns. Just not a good idea. They /you've proved to need serious oversight. Not just my words but the words of many expert economists... the same ones that saw the huge avalanching catastrophe that the Wall Street crowd was too stupid to see... actually I know they aren't stupid. In fact they are very smart... some even PhD in physics and mathematics and computer sciences... but they are evil smart... the most dangerous of all sorts of criminals. They do a disservice to your LaLa Land Libertopian ideas of how the economy can self regulate itself. In fact they prove it a totally dopey insane unworkable idea. They demote any potential rebuttal of your's to me to nothing more then name calling because you have nothing factual or substantial in your armament with which to defend yourself with.

  • Martin Brock

    So all of this wondrous risk management caves in on itself if some event that people have predicted for years occurs? What does that say about the whole risk management enterprise? I thought the hedge markets existed precisely to dampen the impact of an event like FNMA's bankruptcy. Guess I'm just out of touch with corporatist reality.

  • Methinks

    I don't think I know enough detail about Fan and Fred to either refute or accept the Armageddon cascade argument (although, I think there will be some cascade effect). However, if we are to accept the cascade argument, this means that the existence of Fan and Fred has made our entire financial system more fragile. If their is no significant cascade risk,then this is an unnecessary bail-out. Either way, the argument is against government intervention in the mortgage market - in the future if cascade is a real risk and now and in the future if it's not.


    Dr. T,


    It doesn't matter what the default rate is by itself. What matters is if Fan and Fred's capital base is large enough to absorb the losses from foreclosure. If it isn't (and there's plenty of reason to believe it isn't), then Fed and Fran are insolvent. If they are insolvent, then there are suddenly a large number of assets coming to market and that has a negative impact on the prices of all similar assets, triggering margin calls and more selling of assets across the board to meet margin calls, causing even lower prices, causing more margin calls, etc. This sort of thing happened last summer when creditors suddenly decided that they would actually prefer to be compensated for credit risk. Again, I don't know if this leads to the complete and permanent destruction of the financial system, but I think the situation is worse than you're imagining.

  • Methinks

    Here's a little challenge to the name calling savants here who think they have everything about society and the economy figured to a T.


    I'm assuming this is referring to the resident idiot savant who calls anything he doesn't understand a product of "paper pushing Wall Street assholes" and "Wall Street babies with guns".


    I bet the babies subjected to this particular idiot wish they had guns.

  • vidyohs

    #23 on the muirpidity compilation


    "Having tasted this easy way of living the people wanted more and ever more."

    Posted by: vidyohs


    YEP! And that's why you will never get rid of the welfare state so the best you can do is to optimize it's efficiency... like FDR, Kennedy or Johnson or Clinton did.

    Posted by: muirgeo | Sep 11, 2008 10:29:56 AM"

  • muirgeo

    "Having tasted this easy way of living the people wanted more and ever more."

    Posted by: vidyohs




    YEP! And that's why you will never get rid of the welfare state so the best you can do is to optimize it's efficiency... like FDR, Kennedy or Johnson or Clinton did.

  • muirgeo

    They were the creatures of a "governmental" policy aimed at providing mortgages for those who wouldn't have qualified for them in a free market, and wouldn't have been "sub-prime" but non-existent in the free market.

    d g levsic





    This is absolute regurgitant bull shit!


    Here's the facts.


    Regurgitant


    BULL


    CRAP




    The subprime mortgage disaster is a result of Wall Street and it's creation of complex financial products that where designed intentionally to distort markets with asymmetrical information.


    The mortgage crisis was a not only a failure of Wall Street at self regulating or of improving risk or of allocating capital properly... Wall Street failed in ALL these areas and it was intentional. A pyramid scheme built to fleece the American public. Probably the biggest heist of all time. It was a failure of oversight based on the presumption that markets are best left to regulate themselves.




    The regulated lenders where far more insulated from the problems of that faced those babies with loaded guns and no oversight.


    AND THAT's A SLAP IN THE FACE FOR THE LIBERTARIAN POSITION that is best countered with some more good heaping tablespoons full of denial.


    The story is a nail in the coffin for

  • muirgeo

    "Try lewrockwell.com or mises.org. I know there's tons there because they've been predicting this for at least five years."

    Hans




    Hey, I actually agree with a lot of what is on the Mises site. I give them credit for consistency. They rail against corporate welfare as much or more then public welfare.




    But regarding your claim that I'm unknowingly hurting people.. supposedly by my voting, I think I can at least make an argument that unfortunately we really have only two political choices and the evidence suggest to me that one is much less harmful then the other.


    In fact, I would say the conservatives in control of our government who use classic liberal economic ideology as a foot in the door approach to act on their true cleptocratic ways are far more detrimental to the population then the democratic party. At least the democratic party tells you what they want in the form of better regulation. Right now the reality is that's the choice we have. I think I'm doing less damage in my choices both economically and socially with regards to peoples liberties.


    I honestly would much rather see a Ron Paul or a Libertarian in office then another Republican. But it's just not a choice and a big part of that is the money that corrupts politicians and the so up of our electoral system so favoring incumbents.


    I really wonder why you think I'm dangerous. Did FDR destroy our country? Seems like it prospered until the Viet Nam War. Do the European social democracies that offer health insurance to all their citizen and get 6 weeks off per year really have less liberty then you or I?


    A Swede I was recently backpacking with in Alaska told me of how when her company moved from Switzerland to America and took on a lot of new American employees how she and the other Europeans thought nothing of the offered 6 weeks off while Americans were amazed an ecstatic.

  • vidyohs

    Should have been.


    "Having tasted this easy way of living the people wanted more and ever more."


  • vidyohs

    ?Somebody asked me the other day—whose fault is it that Freddie and Fannie are on the ropes? Is it the fault of the greedy execs? Inadequate monitoring and oversight? Did Congress mess up?"

    Russ Roberts


    It's the people, Russ. We, us, them, the people.


    The Founding Fathers left us with all the tools, the philosophy, and the tradition to keep this a republic of the people, by the people and for the people. We, us, them, the people have the ultimate responsibility for everything that goes on with our government.


    When things go wrong the ultimate responsibility falls back on those ultimately responsible.


    Beginning in the early part of the 20th century the process of enculturating (using class envy as one huge tool) Americans to abandon their old conservative priciples of saving to afford. This shift in enculturation was so successful that by the mid century the people themselves were petititoning government to make the buying before affording much easier.


    The idea of risking, working, and saving before buying became a thing of the past. Our whole nation from the village idiot to the President became enamoured with the idea of having and enjoying before risking, working, and saving.


    Everything in our culture was slanted and geared to make having before affording the new normal and acceptable philosophy. Having tasted this easy way of living wanted more and ever more.


    Well we got what we wanted and we got it good and hard.


    That's a fact that can't be ignored or passed on to someone else.

  • On May 11, 2003 the Financial Times published a letter to the Editor I wrote and that ended with:


    “sooner or later, the ratings issued by the credit agencies are just a new breed of systemic errors, about to be propagated at modern speeds”


    I did never read a single tenured professor speaking out to stop the financial regulators from going crazy and imposing the credit rating agencies on the markets so much.


    I mean… supposedly… what are tenured professors for?


  • Martin Brock

    And a great summary of the Fannie Freddie issue by Paul Krugman

    It's a great summary with one glaring exception, the last two lines.


    "And let’s be clear: Fannie and Freddie can’t be allowed to fail. With the collapse of subprime lending, they’re now more central than ever to the housing market, and the economy as a whole."


    Bullshit. What would the "failure" of FNMA mean anyway? A lot of paper shuffling. That's all. The houses would still be there. Existing mortgages would still exist, and more mortgages would continue to be written. If nothing else, the home builders would extend credit themselves while unwinding their own positions, some of them possibly declaring bankruptcy as well. We obviously have legions of home builders in this country, and a sufficient number would emerge from bankruptcy to meet the real demand. Only the "investors" (including many state agencies) in derivative securities with multi-million dollar price tags would "suffer" the "failure" of FNMA. I couldn't care less.


  • vidyohs

    #22 on the list of muirpidities


    "Seperation of church and state...separation of money and state

    Posted by: muirgeo | Sep 10, 2008 2:22:21 PM"

  • Martin Brock

    ... most classical liberal thinkers or conservative thinkers have a very poor track record in the annuals of the web of predicting the current economic disaster ...

    I'm a "classical liberal thinker", and I can show you posts and emails over the last decade in which I called (certainly not alone) the top of the stock market in 1999 (by announcing my own exit from it) and the bottom of this market following 9/11 and the top of the housing market a couple of years ago. I also called the '87 corporate share crash (along with lots of other people). I didn't call the quick recovery but did see the crash as a buying opportunity, though I didn't take great advantage of it.


    For the record, I'm calling the bottom of the U.S. housing market now. Maybe I'm off by six months or ten percent. We're leading this correction, and that's a good thing. Other housing markets are only starting to fall and have further to go, but our market won't fall indefinitely or even much further, because we're rearranging entitlements to protect established proprietors as usual.


    We have lots of very nice housing in the U.S., so there's certainly no shortage of the real wealth. The tragedy is that Chinese laptop producers can't move here in droves and live in these houses, so we're selling them a lot of entitlement to tax revenue instead, for what it's worth, which ain't much 'cause we won't raise our own taxes much further. As such, we'll buy less from China in the future. That's the collapse of the dollar in foreign exchange markets. Chinese productivity will continue to grow, and they'll consume more of their own produce, and that's a good thing. They'll also consume more of our agricultural output with all of their entitlement to our tax revenue, so we'll pay more for food, but we're a fat lot anyway, so that's not such a bad thing.


    The reason that "classical liberal thinkers" have a poor track record calling economic disasters is that we seldom have any real economic disasters to call. None of the "disasters" I called were real. The U.S. is not headed for a Great Depression or Hyperinflation. We're headed for something like the stagflation of the seventies, and that's bad enough, but few people will starve in the streets here. If you want a real disaster, move to Iraq.


    The biggest problem we face in the U.S. now is demographic. We're right on the cusp of it, because the payroll tax surplus is peaking, and we're hardly discussing it at all. The rest of the world faces similar problems, and ours is not the worst by a long shot.


    I'm going back to bed now. Saw this movie called "Bug" last night. It's really creepy and definitely worth a look if you like nightmares.

  • d g lesvic

    I like Russell Robert's explanation of the "sub-prime mortage" problem very much.


    I would add one thing to it.


    We must understand that these "sub-prime" mortgages were non-free market mortgages. They were the creatures of a "governmental" policy aimed at providing mortgages for those who wouldn't have qualified for them in a free market, and wouldn't have been "sub-prime" but non-existent in the free market.


    If they are the root of the problem, and were created not by the free market itself but the market distorted by political interference, why blame the market itself, rather than the interference, and look to more rather than less interference as the solution of the problem?





  • Hans Luftner

    Show me ONE article from one of your respected experts or even a post from yourselves dating back at least 2 years or more that predicted the current economic conundrum we find ourselves in.


    Only one article. This is a challenge. Which one of the literally thousands to choose from...


    Try lewrockwell.com or mises.org. I know there's tons there because they've been predicting this for at least five years. You won't understand any of it, though, so I won't bother to hand-pick anything for you. You only process emotional rhetoric, so it'll all just go over your head.


    You don't even understand what I'm saying now. There's a good chance you'll react emotionally to it anyway & demonstrate my point. I'm honestly hoping you'll take the bait. It'll be funny. I'll laugh.


    And then there's the funny denials of the causes of the Great Depression. There's an excuse for every single inconvenient fact and no offering of countering facts.


    See? You assert that we conveniently overlook all your incontrovertible facts & that we refuse to provide any alternate hypothesis, yet & you have no idea why I find this statement hysterically laugh out loud funny.


    I won't explain why I think it's funny, because if I do you'll ignore my explanation, but respond to it anyway, then ask the same question again, wondering why no one will tell you, & conclude that it proves that some other idea you have must be valid. You don't understand what I just said, though.


    It's okay. It doesn't make you a bad person. It probably makes you a bad doctor. But I'm sure you're basically a kindly person. You just suffer from a severe reading comprehension deficiency. You don't mean any harm, regardless of all the violence & destruction you unknowingly advocate, sanction, & enable. You don't mean it. You don't know what's going on. I forgive you. But I don't forget. Stay away from my kids.

  • Hans Luftner

    Belittling the idea is easy but when held to a comparison for how the libertarian proposes to achieve his wonderful society with no plan to actual get their... just claiming over and over how great it will be when we do get there rings quite hollow and is in fact the sillier of the two ideas.


    So your defense of your idea is that you're too thick to comprehend a different idea, no matter how many times people explain it to you? That makes sense. I guess when you don't understand one idea, it means that, logically, any flaws we find in your idea must be baseless. I understand now.


    I actually do think politicians should be kept separated from private money, but not the way you mean.

  • muirgeo

    Here's a little challenge to the name calling savants here who think they have everything about society and the economy figured to a T.


    Show me ONE article from one of your respected experts or even a post from yourselves dating back at least 2 years or more that predicted the current economic conundrum we find ourselves in.


    Most of my information comes from various "expert" sources including the professors here. The views I espouse... the ones that seem to fit the facts and make logical sense have come from various experts who have been talking for a long time on the coming crash while IMO most classical liberal thinkers or conservative thinkers have a very poor track record in the annuals of the web of predicting the current economic disaster even to the point where many are not even recognizing it as it falls all around us.




    If the current state of affairs had occurred after a predominant period of democratic governance we would likely be hearing un-ending tales of woe and how disastrous the policies of democrats are. Like the silly ones we hear all the time about the disaster of 4 years of Carter.




    And then there's the funny denials of the causes of the Great Depression. There's an excuse for every single inconvenient fact and no offering of countering facts. It's the life of a denialist from CO2 spectophotometric properties to the booming post FDR economy to the collapsing of the current deregulated economy.

  • muirgeo

    Separating money from politics is a very simple thing. We already do it. You can't give a congressman, directly, $5,000 to vote for a certain bill. Contributions to a campaign are limited to a given amount per year. $100 dollars contribution per per per candidate campaign per year (including the candidate himself. Done deal anything else will be illegal and considered bribery of a public official.


    Belittling the idea is easy but when held to a comparison for how the libertarian proposes to achieve his wonderful society with no plan to actual get their... just claiming over and over how great it will be when we do get there rings quite hollow and is in fact the sillier of the two ideas.

  • brotio

    Expanding on separation of Duck and Cafe:


    Muirduck contradicts himself (What else is new?) by asserting that he'd like to separate money from State when he advocates State-run health care, and State subsidies to corporations he approves of.

  • brotio

    Seperation of church and state...separation of money and state


    separation of idiot and state.


    Separation of Muirdiot and Cafe

  • BGC

    Aren't Fannie and Freddie what Bill Gates would call Creative Capitalism?


    I think they are exactly the kind of multifunctional, profit seeking but supposedly-benevolent organizations that some people are talking about as the future.


    To me it is a major retrograde step to de-differentiate the economy by injecting morality into commerce - capitalism should be about ever-greater specialization, leading to improved productivity, leading to growth.

  • Oil Shock
  • Methinks

    Seperation of church and state...separation of money and state


    separation of idiot and state.

  • Dr. T

    Kevin said: "Martin the Treasury might tell you that the consequence of a liquidation could be a downward cascade in the prices of securities that would do more harm than the alternative."


    I agree. Numerous economists have accepted the excuse of 'cascade' or 'meltdown' prevention for bailing out Freddie and Fannie. However, the $300 billion claimed to be 'at risk' in a meltdown, isn't. The loaned money is invested in homes and land. Only a tiny fraction of the loaned money is at risk: the amount that cannot be repaid x the losses at foreclosure. For example, if 5% of the mortgages are unsalvageable and the loss rate from foreclosure is 30%, then the total loss is only 1.5%. That's a far cry from a meltdown.

  • Martin Brock

    Well put.

  • Oil Shock

    A guy called Brett Woods on Mish's blog.




    Prechter is calling for $600. gold.


    Roubini is calling for more regulation .


    Gross is calling for more bailouts.


    Pelosi is calling for more stimulus.


    Paulson is calling for calm.





    Bunning is calling for resignatio ns.


    Bair is calling for blog control measures.


    Lereah is calling (another) housing bottom.


    Greenspan is calling this capitalism .


    Rice is calling for Russian withdrawal .





    Putin is calling Rice a whore.


    Palin is calling out Obama.


    Chuck Prince is calling for more music.


    Cayne is calling his drug dealer.


    O'Neal is calling it a career.


    Medvedev is calling Putin.





    Ahmadinej ad is calling for jihad (again).


    Dubai is calling Halliburto n.


    Halliburt on is calling Cheney.


    Cheney is calling ( ??? )


    Hillary is calling her lawyer.


    Bill is calling Monica again.


    Edwards is calling Monica's lawyer.


    Cox is calling no one, about anything.





    Yellen is calling it a wage spiral.


    Poole is calling for a rate hike.


    Trichet is calling Berlin, they're not answering.


    Biden is (already) calling for a recount.


    Jintao is (already) calling for a repegging.





    Bernanke is calling it "conservat orship".


    Rogers is calling it "communism" .


    Frank is calling for an investigay tion.


    Paul is calling for abolition of the Fed.


    Limbaugh is calling for abolition of Paul.





    Sinclair is calling for a gold standard.


    Stein is calling for Goldman Sachs to have standards.


    Shedlock is calling it in advance.


    Kudlow is calling it in hindsight.


    Cramer is calling it Armageddon .





    Gartman is calling it a bounce.


    Zell is calling for a new Wrigley.


    Bidders keep calling Zell.


    McCain is calling for another "surge".


    Buffett is calling it an opportunit y.





    Ackman is calling it a shorting opportunit y.


    Bloggers keep calling it Misean.


    CNBC keeps calling it Keynesian.


    Jefferson County, AL is calling it Chapter 11.


    Spitzer is calling it a mistake.





    Cuomo is calling monolines solvent.


    Pandit is calling sovereign wealth funds.


    FASB is calling for more time.


    Wells Fargo is calling Fastow a hero, albeit privately.


    Dimon is calling to agree.





    Short termers call it inflation.


    Long termers call it deflation.


    Baby boomers call it stagflatio n.


    WWII ers call it a depression .


    Historian s will call it...

  • To SteveO, who is looking for income data to investigate claims of a bimodal income distribution:


    First off, if your professor is inferring this from the GINI coefficient, then he is greatly mistaken in doing so.


    You can get a sample of U.S. households from the Census' Current Population Survey. There is an issue with how income is reported to the individuals within households, but you would get the idea of the general distribution using a histogram of the sample.


    A second source would be the Panel Survey of Income Dynamics.

  • Martin Brock

    "Separation of money and state" is a contradiction in terms. Both the Left and the Right share this confusion. The Left pretends that moneyed interests are the bad guys outside of the state requiring the state's discipline. The Right pretends that moneyed interests are the good guys outside of the state requiring liberation from the state. In fact, moneyed interests are part and parcel of the state, and both the Left and the Right perspectives only obscure this fact, largely because the Right hand is always tenderly holding the Left hand.

  • muirgeo

    "A government enterprise can never be commercialized no matter how many external features of private enterprise are superimposed on it." -- Ludwig von Mises


    Posted by: Oil Shock




    I agree. Either completely privatize or keep it fully under government control the hybrid is the worst of all.


    Seperation of church and state...separation of money and state

  • Martin Brock

    Needless to say, I don't accept it. A bankruptcy court is not obliged to liquidate the corporations anyway. It's only obliged to sort out the true, current value of the assets and decide who is entitled to what portion of the value. The Treasury must do this anyway, but it can toss some tax revenue into the mix while controlling the corporate records. That's the only difference. It stinks like a poorly buried shithouse.

  • Kevin

    Martin the Treasury might tell you that the consequence of a liquidation could be a downward cascade in the prices of securities that would do more harm than the alternative. To accept this, you'd have to believe that "cascades" actually exist and are actually value destructive, and then there's the matter of the verbs "could" and "would". This is a nice untestable hypothesis, which seems to be all it takes to justify massive resource commitments by the state.

  • Martin Brock

    Except that the way Congress created these corporations, ...

    The "investors" knew this. It's no excuse for a bailout.



    ... the reward accrued to the executives and stockholders, while the risk (by design, I'll posit) fell to taxpayers.

    It became the design a few weeks ago when Congress and the Treasury Department designed it. The present Congress and Executive are entirely responsible for the recent turn of events.



    Unintended consequences, anyone?

    The recent events are clearly intended. Why does Paulson want taxpayers to bail out the People's Bank of China? It's his call. Why did Congress gave him the authority? It wasn't to sort good paper from bad paper in the mortgage market or to avoid a market meltdown by permitting this business to continue during the sorting out. That's precisely what bankruptcy would have done, only an independent judiciary would be overseeing it instead of theses foxes guarding the hen house.


    So what really happened? Apparently, these mortgage backed securities are only Treasury obligations in disguise, and the FNMA losses aren't really investment losses at all. They're still more deficit spending by the Federal government financed by selling entitlement to tax revenue to people called "investors" who are actually rent collecting parties to a fascistic state.


  • SteveO

    I'm still astounded that Muirgeo needs to post three times in less than half an hour.


    Anyway, this is off topic, but I could use some help, and I know this forum has people with a knack for finding data.


    I have a professor who is claiming that US income is now bimodal, with the difference being the elite knowledge workers and the other poor slugs. This is in contrast to the normally distributed industrial economy, and the sharply distributed land based economy.


    Can anyone shed some light on if this is false, and provide some data. I wish I knew where to go to pull this kind of data and quickly chart it.


    My only reference is remembering Hans Rosling's TED conference video. Among some other amazing uses of data, he shows that income distributions around the world, including the OECD countries is becoming MORE distributed, not less.


    Thanks in advance for any help.

  • Oil Shock

    "A government enterprise can never be commercialized no matter how many external features of private enterprise are superimposed on it." -- Ludwig von Mises

  • Oil Shock

    Mish on Roubini's call for more regulation.


    Mish has been quite right on the housing bubble. He analyzes the situation from an Austrian Business Cycle perspective.

  • scott clark

    Um, the GSEs were designed. They may not have ended up the way the designers intended, but the government did set them in motion, and the government did spin them out to operate as a government sponsored entity, to act in all the ways that eventually got them in trouble. And they may have helped lots of people, but we don't know what kinds of institutions would have arisen if they were not there, we don't know what they crowded out, so its hard to give them full credit for helping the mortgage market. I guess they can get some credit, tempered by today's problem's but there could have been something similar yet more stable developed since the 70's.


    So you can clearly lay blame at the feet of the government. The lesson is that the government can't produce anything, it can only take from some and give to others. The lesson is that people called progressives will always lobby the government to make things that they think will make the world a better place and the govt will accomodate if they think they can get away with it, but they know not what they do.

  • muirgeo

    And a great summary of the Fannie Freddie issue by Paul Krugman


    "But here’s the thing: Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the explosion of high-risk lending a few years ago....


    .... Also, they didn’t do any subprime lending, because they can’t: the definition of a subprime loan is precisely a loan that doesn’t meet the requirement, imposed by law, that Fannie and Freddie buy only mortgages issued to borrowers who made substantial down payments and carefully documented their income."


    Krugman


  • muirgeo

    "I actually think this is an emergent mess that evolved out of no one's design." RR




    Come on now!. Do you really think these complex financial products designed by Wall Street wizards were designed to decrease risk and to improve market information? Or were they designed specifically to hide risk and create opaqueness and circumvent regulation in the market to make a few individuals very wealthy pulling hundreds and hundreds of dollars from the productive economy?

  • Keith

    Quote from True Liberal: "Unintended consequences, anyone?"


    Unintended by whom? I think I'm with Martin Brock on this one. There might not have been an actual conspiracy, but you can bet every person involved, from bank execs to political appointees to elected officials all knew in the back of their minds that if the shit ever hit the fan, the tax payers would get the bill and they'd all dance away singing how they'd "fixed" the problem. And as usual, its capitalism and the free-market's fault. We need more government to keep it from happening again. Now the government is in the mortgage business (show where that is in the Constitution) and the whole cycle begins, again.


  • muirgeo

    "Its not a sub-prime mortgage crisis, its a sub-prime financial system and that's what needs to be corrected."


    Joseph Stiglitz at Lindau




    Stiglitz gives a great summary of the nature of the problem.


    Also recommend the talks by Muhammad Yunus and Danial McFadden.

  • True_Liberal

    Martin: " The organizations did not fall apart. They experimented with new forms of credit, and they miscalculated risks and overextended credit in the process. This experimentation, including many failures, is an inevitable part of free market captalism and is absolutely essential to the system's success."


    Except that the way Congress created these corporations, the reward accrued to the executives and stockholders, while the risk (by design, I'll posit) fell to taxpayers.


    Unintended consequences, anyone?

  • Martin Brock

    ... something that was no one's intention but that served many people well until it fell apart.

    I see it differently. The organizations did not fall apart. They experimented with new forms of credit, and they miscalculated risks and overextended credit in the process. This experimentation, including many failures, is an inevitable part of free market captalism and is absolutely essential to the system's success.


    The failure of the system didn't occur when creditors extended credit poorly. Failed investments do not signal a failure of free market captitalism, because failed investments are an integral part of the system, just as death is an integral part of evolution by natural selection. Failed investments are good. Greed is good only insofar as it doesn't lead statesmen to diminish the benefits of failed investment.


    The systemic failure is happening now as we bail out the borrowers, bondholders and others. Why doesn't FNMA simply declare bankruptcy and let some independent court sort out the claims of shareholders and bondholders? This reorganization doesn't prevent the continuation of FNMA's business, the buying of mortgages and sale of bonds of larger denomination to the People's Bank of China and other incredibly massive players in the global corporative state. Companies continue operating through bankruptcy all the time. It's routine.


    But an independent bankruptcy court would have subpeona power and practically unlimited authority to examine records of FNMA's transactions in recent years. Wouldn't it? I'm no conspiracy theorist. It's simply a fact that the Treasury's takeover of half of the U.S. mortgage market, an incredibly huge act of nationalization, effectively prevents a judicial inquiry into the organization's business. Why would anyone want to circumvent the usual process in this way? It's a fair, painfully obvious question. Why isn't everyone asking it?



    And when they talked to the American people, they acted like a charity.

    People at FNMA never talked to American people. They talked to officers of banks and other corporations who talked to other officers talking to still more officers talking to employees talking to American people seeking home mortgages. The Devil is somewhere in these details, and all this talk of "charity" obscures Him to an incredible extent.



    Fannie and Freddie need new rules, rules so different that we may as well change their names and call them Florence and Floyd.

    No. They need to be liquidated by a bankruptcy court. Maybe two organizations emerge. Maybe one organization emerges. Maybe ten organizations emerge. Maybe no organizations emerge. Others may purchase the reorganized assets. Why isn't that happening? Why is the party of "private property" and "free markets" not demanding it? Why do I feel isolated from both parties simply for asking these questions?



    If we’re going to pay for the misdeeds of Florence and Floyd, let’s make them government agencies with accountability.

    I don't want to pay for the misdeeds, because they weren't my misdeeds. I have my own mortgage to worry about, and my house never rose much in price. "Investors" in FNMA bonds understood the political influences at work, and they "invested" anyway. We should sort out the current value of the mortgages and reduce bondholders' yield accordingly; otherwise, they aren't really "investors" at all. They're only more fascists buying entitlement to tax revenue, and we're cooperating with their transparent effort to reengineer the language to describe themselves as "investors".


    Aren't we?

  • Methinks

    The lesson is clear for Uncle Sam. Fannie and Freddie need new rules, rules so different that we may as well change their names and call them Florence and Floyd.


    That lesson is clear to us. It's not so clear that this lesson is clear to Uncle Sam. As Barney Frank said, "Good luck with that".

blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: