Venting

by Don Boudreaux on March 19, 2009

in Politics

Arnold Kling is dialing down his anger.  I'm dialing mine up — or, rather, circumstances are dialing my anger up.

We can, and should, debate economic theory — for example, what is the value of aggregate concepts? to what extent do investors today take account of the likelihood of higher taxes or inflation tomorrow? does free trade reduce real wage rates?  The list of debatable topics is long.

But at some point I cannot help but assert that, for me, ultimately the greatest value is individual liberty and not the efficacy of free markets.

So when I read articles such as this one from the Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein, my blood pressure (literally, alas) rises.  Here's the most offensive passage:

Then there is Richard "Is This America?" Kovacevich, the chairman of
Wells Fargo. Late last week, Kovacevich gave a talk at Stanford
University, complaining about how unfair it is that the government
forced his bank to take $25 billion in bailout money last year when it
could have easily raised private capital — and then compounded that
outrage by changing the terms of the deal and forcing Wells to cut its
dividend. Kovacevich said it was "asinine" for the Treasury to order
his and other big banks to undergo a special "stress test," explaining
that well-run banks like Wells were routinely doing their own stress
tests.

Kovacevich apparently believes that because his bank is still
relatively healthy, he and his shareholders shouldn't have to assume
the same costs and burdens as banks that aren't, particularly when
those costs and burdens are imposed by incompetent government
officials. That's the way it works in America.

Except, of course, when it doesn't. The reality is that, if the
government had not stepped in to take over Fannie, Freddie and AIG; had
not recapitalized Citigroup and Bank of America; had not provided the
guarantees to allow for the orderly sale of Merrill Lynch and Bear
Stearns; had not become the buyer of last resort for commercial paper
and home mortgages, then the entire financial system would have melted
down by now and taken Well Fargo and its arrogant chairman with it.
Rather than bellyaching about how un-American it all is, Kovacevich
ought to be thanking the government and asking what more he could do to
help.

The idea that private business persons are "arrogant" if they don't genuflect to the hypocritical and utterly immoral scumbags who work on Capitol Hill is outrageous.  The idea that, if government forces a private firm to take taxpayer money, that firm should be grateful and should cooperate with the political theater that plays 24/7 in Washington sickens me beyond words.

And as I predicted here, the notion that only those firms that requested and received government help will be the ones who suffer detailed intrusions by government is naive.  The obnoxious collectivism that permeates the "thinking" of persons such as Steven Pearlstein will press as far as it can to assert control over as many private choices as it can get its greedy and officious paws on.

The single greatest instance of intellectual foolishness today is the continuing pretense that politicians are serious people worthy of serious consideration.  They are scoundrels, each and every one, regardless of party (although some of them, it is true, are more scoundrelly than others).  For any scholar to pretend that these people are disinterested servants of the public welfare — to pretend that the words politicians utter or send out in press releases are meant to promote any goal other than politicians' own glorification and pursuit of power — is for that scholar to be duped to a degree that should be more embarrassing than would be the discovery that that scholar believes the earth to be flat or that Big Foot was in league with Lee Harvey Oswald to murder JFK.

Comments    Share Share    Print Print    Email Email

  • Alicia Fitzgerald
    BB&T lost $20,000.00 of my money and the bank can't/won't try and find it. I have been looking for an address of the CEO, but it seems from what I've just read they come and go. And now they have left the building to go lecture.

    Should I bother to wate a stamp? Who is listening there?
  • dingbat

    AMEN!!!!!

  • T-Doc

    Sing it, Brother Don!!


    We should have this sentence inscribed on the Capitol Building:


    "The single greatest instance of intellectual foolishness today is the continuing pretense that politicians are serious people worthy of serious consideration."


    It's just show biz backed by guns, folks.

  • In school, it's "show and tell".


    In politics, it's "snow and sell".

  • You are welcome Methinks, however it is also true.


    Some powerful try to arbitrarily usurp power, while others are honest (albeit wrong) in their actions, but both are constrained. Simply compare a completely totalitarian state, we have lots of examples from history and current nations, that kills, arbitrarily taxes (including slave labour), tortures, etc. America may not be perfect, and has gotten worse lately (wiretapping, removal of civil liberties, torture of non citizens, and the reaction to the recession), but is far from constraint free in action.

  • Methinks

    The American government and regulators are powerful, but constrained.


    That is the single funniest line I've read all day. Thanks for the laugh, Arare.


    You make a lot of assumptions about the constraints of regulators and the power they have over the regulated industry which are not true. The regulator has the power to bend the industry to it's will.

  • Methinks,


    "Because they don't have the choices and power your presume they do. Their master is the regulator and if you don't do what the regulator wants, your business will come to a painful end. I really don't know how to draw the picture more vividly than "mafia thugs"."


    I believe you underestimate the power of the ultrarich - they actively influence regulation, and have the option of exit to a nice sunny island - yes, a huge cost there but it is a realistic option, if we are to take our own rhetoric of "keep taxes down, or business and the mobile classes will leave" we must admit this is a viable option. Either way we should stop lying (either to ourselves, or to others).


    The American government and regulators are powerful, but constrained. The mafia is much less constrained. Yes, I agree that there is a difference in the mechanism of "strong man" (subjective human action for regulators versus impartial objective reality for the sweetshop), but I think you overestimate what implied and real punishments would be in the bankers case, at the time -- I do not think that any of the bankers would lose their money, go to jail, or any other such threatened actions (whereas the mafia really would take your knees, your family, your property, or your life).


    The bankers were faced with a decision that forked how society would react, they took the immediately easy decision which may lead to serious loss of freedom for everyone, including them.

  • Prof. Boudreaux, You have made my week!


    Thank you!

  • Methinks

    Arare,


    Because they don't have the choices and power your presume they do. Their master is the regulator and if you don't do what the regulator wants, your business will come to a painful end. I really don't know how to draw the picture more vividly than "mafia thugs". Nothing but circumstance compels the sweatshop worker from working in the sweatshop. The same circumstance that prevented me from making a lot of money preening before cameras for a living - I am not tall and beautiful and nobody wants to look at my picture. So, am forced to do something else. But I'm not compelled by government.


    When LTCM exploded, banks came together in a voluntary private consortium to bail out the hedge fund to allow it to unwind its position in a more orderly fashion and prevent avoidable losses. Bear Stearns chose not to participate despite enormous peer pressure. The difference is that the regulator was not forcing anyone to be part of the consortium.

  • Jon Olmsted

    And to think Warren Buffet owns a large chunk of the Washington Post and Wells Fargo.

  • Andy McKnight

    I am no fan of the Washington Post or of Pearlstein.

    There is an issue of interdependence that Pearstein surfaces.If Fann and Fred were left to fail,their preferreds would have been worthless.How much did of a loss did WFC avoid by this action.


    Also AIG's counter party risk (like insurance) would have been in default.


    How much did WFC benefit from the governments actions?


    I do recall fro the WSJ article on the cram down meeting that Dick Kovacevich initally strongly objected and refused Paulson's offer.


    How do you economists factor in interdependence,in acessing accountability and responsibility?


    Don makes very vauable comments on the state of affairs and the key actors (Franks,Dood and Pelosi) which I toatlly agree with.


    How can we educate the American voters?


    Keep it up

  • Randy

    One thing that struck me while watching Edward Liddy testify before Congress on Tuesday was how good he was at it. That is, he is skilled at dealing with politicians. Just part of the job.

  • Arare Litus

    Methinks,


    As unpleasant as a worker in a third world country, with a choice between a sweatshop job as dictated or possible starvation of oneself and ones family? Gee, I will have to wire my money out of the country before it turns into a socialist mess and Randian dystopia, and retire early to a nice island. That sucks - but less than: Gee, I have to work this terrible job or my child will have no future, and no supper either.


    If you can see the logic of the sweatshop being positive, and while not ideal better than not having the choice - yes a choice, then why do the bankers, who have many more options, get off with "oh, they were forced and that is bad"? Why not "they have so many options and power, and not a single one stood up for what is right - that sure reflects poorly on them"? and "they all took money that is coerced from taxpayers - not with some abstract possible future threat, but with direct clear penalties including jail - without a single one of them feeling that this was wrong enough not to do so"?


    I do not mean to suggest that there is no unpleasant aspects, but that is why we say "stand up to", and why we see kids cave into peer pressure - and note that being in the out group in some neighbourhoods is more dangerous than raising the ire of the American government, who are somewhat constrained by public opinion and the ability of the rich to exit if they see the writing on the wall. Does not "our side" make use of this exit possibility to call for lower taxes? It goes for all onerous laws and threats, not just taxes.

  • Methinks

    Arare,


    Your regulator taking you into a room and telling you that you must take the money is not peer and social pressure. The implication is that if you don't take the money, the regulator will make things...ah...extremely unpleasant for you.


    It's more like a "suggestion" from the Mafia.

  • Arare Litus

    MWG,


    Peer and social pressure is not a legitimate argument for libertarians, if I read the philosophy correctly. One can almost define socialism as peer and social pressure writ large (almost is a bit strong, as there are a lot of other negative things claimed as positive in socialism - such as taxing, monopoly, giving power to special interests and politicians, etc. etc. But I think this all goes back to tribalism, which is at its core peer pressure and identification).


    Just because a group is doing something does no imply it is moral, and just because they plea with you to join them does not suggest exploitation and no moral responsibility on your part. Sure it is hard to stand up for what is right, especially when your peers do not and instead take the easy and *wrong* route. But this is simply diffusion of personal responsibility, anathema to a libertarian mindset. Does not every (caring) parent try to teach their children to do what is right, not what is popular or easy?


    I think that the issue of what "free" in free contract means strikes at the heart of the issue. Socialists like to claim that, essentially, natural monopolies or any situation where one side can dictate terms to better favor them is "unfair" and "exploitative" and "coercive". Free market people tend to claim that, by definition, as long as fraud or coercion is not used, the deal is positive. Where should one draw the line of defining coercion? I would call it "use of force or fear to obtain compliance". Is peer perception really fear inducting?


    Socialists say sweatshops are bad, as the terms are not ideal. Free marketers say sweatshops are good, as better may not be as good as best, but it is clearly superior to worse - and working at a sweatshop, as long as it is not forced (i.e. slavery) or fraudulent (i.e. mislead regarding dangers) is clearly better than not doing so *as determined by that worker*. Personal choice, personal responsibility.


    I take the free market position regarding contracts. I believe that thinking the banks were forced is being mislead by a fallacy, but an excellent opportunity to think about the meaning of "free", choice, responsibility, asymmetry in power, etc.


    The only parties forced in this deal, to my eyes, is the taxpayer (and likely people who save, if inflation destroys their hard earned and prudently saved wealth). As bankers clearly know where the money comes from I have as little respect for them as for the politicians: "Gee, all my friends are taking this stolen money, I don't want to make them feel bad, so I will take it too.".





  • MWG

    "This seems misleading -- was this literally forced? "


    The Bank of America CEO said in an interview with 60 Minutes that basically they were brought into a room and told they had to accept it so there wouldn't be a stigma against those that did. They were even told that it was their "patriotic duty". Forced? I don't know, but it definitely wasn't a simple invitation.

  • Arare Litus

    JP & Don,


    I should have said "ambiguous", as misleading typically suggests intent (though this is only one meaning - language is so ambiguous with further context, such as tone of voice, timing, etc.!).


    But, again, "also, the problem is not so much that Wells Fargo was forced to take government money - rather, it's that having received this money unwillingly, Wells Fargo is now forced to abide by a myriad of rules and restrictions imposed by Uncle Sam on "stimulus" recipients.".


    This reply suggests Wells Fargo was forced ("not so much" ... "having received unwillingly"), and indicts that you do believe they were forced.


    I will submit this as similar to how socialists feel about company "exploitation" - having very bad situations and outcomes color how they think and feel about aspects that should not be so readily lead to indictment. As anyone reading this blog (including me) will feel passionately about this we should be able to use this to understand how socialists can really accept and propagate ideas that may be flawed (I say may, as force may indeed have been used, though I suspect not).


    Please do not read this as disrespectful, I have learned much from you and your cohort and believe I have a much clearer understanding of the world and think more clearly due to you.

  • "...the greatest value is individual liberty..."


    Unfortunately for the libertarian, this subjective perspective is in the tiny minority, especially when it comes to economic matters.

  • Seth

    As I read Pearlstein's passage, this Hayek quote from the Road to Serfdom Wiki entry went through my mind: "The principle that the end justifies the means is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule."

  • Don Boudreaux

    Thanks JP.


    And also, the problem is not so much that Wells Fargo was forced to take government money - rather, it's that having received this money unwillingly, Wells Fargo is now forced to abide by a myriad of rules and restrictions imposed by Uncle Sam on "stimulus" recipients. Even if Wells Fargo stuffs the money into its safe, promising not to use it, it is now forced to obey these new mandates.

  • JP

    Arare Litus -- In this context, it doesn't matter whether Wells Fargo was actually forced to take the government money, because Pearlstein's argument is based on the assumption that Wells Fargo *was* in fact forced. Prof. Boudreaux is taking issue with Pearlstein's argument and attitude (and those of others like him), not with the asserted fact that healthy banks were forced to take money.

  • Darren

    Don:


    How about an EconTalk where you can passionately vent said anger?

  • I'm there with you on RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE, Don. It's so far beyond all reason and accountability now. We're in pure circus. But then, we've been in a pure lawless circus for over a year. What a complete mess. GGRRRRRR....

  • Oil Shock

    Here is the irony:


    Overwhelming majority of the economists who hold Austrian views are formally trained mostly in Keynesian and Monetarist tradition, then by some fortunate accident, they get to teach themselves some Austrian truth.


    The critics ( I mean trained economists ) on the other hand has spend next to no time reading the works of Mises or Hayek. I wouldn't be surprised if many have never heard those names at all. But they all have a mouthful of criticism for the Austrian School.

  • Arare Litus

    "if government forces a private firm to take taxpayer money"


    This seems misleading -- was this literally forced? From what I have read it was "strong armed", essentially by stating "take the deal now, as we will not be offering one this good again".


    Remove the rhetoric of "forced" and "strong armed", and it sounds like this to me: a deal was offered, a deal was accepted.


    I have not heard of legal actions or threats used to coerce: coercion being required for "forced" or "strong armed" to be legitimate descriptors of what happened.


    One can argue against the "deal" as being a misuse of money, morally wrong, as well as being a bad idea. I can see a clean argument against the deal, as tax payers are the third parties paying for this and have no say in how their money is being used. There are many reasons to dislike the lemon socialism occurring. But forced on the banks?


    This does not sound like a case of evil government attacking entrepreneurs - it sounds much more like big business, taking what they thought of as a deal in their self interest: is this not the thesis you hold, that both sides of a contract, if not coerced or mislead, do so as they think they will be better off?


    Perhaps I have missed something regarding the "forcing", but how is this forcing interpretation different than how socialists see companies as "exploiting" workers?


    To me this looks likes: government takes money (coercion) from taxpayers, offers it to banks, banks (a special interest group who actively try to distort the market in their favor, no?) are not overjoyed at offer but freely decide it is good enough to be worth it (and this can't be only marginally good as not a single bank refused), and free market advocates become so enraged (justifiably) that they (this seems a systematic effect) let their ideology overwhelm them on the specifics and claim the government "forced" this, despite having given deep thought to "exploitation" issues, meaning of coercion, and other free/socialism ideas.


    I would love to see a post detailing how the bailout deal was actually forced.

  • Lee Kelly

    A lot of economists do not understand economics. Much of what is taught in college classrooms is psuedo-scientific nonsense, little better than propaganda. It obscures simple relations behind complex abstractions, and breeds confusion rather than understanding. The job of an economist today is to misinterpret evidence, misunderstand statistics, misuse mathematics, and pass on their ignorance to the next generation. Only a marginalised minority actually have a good understanding of economics.


    The most important lesson of economics is to realise that no matter how well you understand economic theory, forecasts employ an extraordinary number of assumptions about the world which cannot be tested by anyone. It seems to me that more economists pay lip service to this lesson than live by it. The marketplace, with its diffuse knowledge, can solve the problems that this lesson poses. The intellectual, however, is usually reluctant to accept that anyone or anything is smarter than he.

  • Charlie

    "But at some point I cannot help but assert that, for me, ultimately the greatest value is individual liberty and not the efficacy of free markets."


    I'm glad you said this. I think it points to one of the reasons Austrians have a hard time relating to the mainstream of economics. They place very high value on liberty compared to efficency, so debates that are really about fairness are held under the guise of economics.


    As far as should healthy banks be forced to undergo stress tests, there is an obvious economic rationale. When a banks liabilities rise higher than its assets, it can be cash flow solvent (pay all its bills), but technically be insolvent (have not assets). Of course, owners can still gain wealth by looting the credit-holders--selling off the assets they do have and returning it to owners while they still appear to be solvent.


    Economists see this situation and recognize a compelling interest, they try to weigh that against counterveilling compelling interests and organize society/property rights/regulation efficiently. When Don sees the situation, all he can see is what he perceives as immoral government meddling. There is no real economic reasoning or if there is, it is just to justify his knee-jerk moralism. Perhaps, it is still valuable to the public debate. I still come to this blog, but it is fundamentally different than standard economics methodology.

  • Christopher_Renner
    Methinks: Don, you just lowered by now permanently elevated blood pressure. Thanks.

    Bob D, I think MBA students are required to take only one micro and one macro econ class. I'm not surprised he doesn't know what the Austrian school is. I'd be surprised if he knew who Keynes and Friedman were.


    Methinks, I have a BS in Economics and Business, which was at least 24 credits of econ (I can't remember exactly how many) and "Milton Friedman", "Friedrich Hayek", and "Austrian school economics" were never mentioned in any of those undergrad econ classes.


    Also, I think someone should look into whether or not Pearlstein has plagiarized Soviet or Nazi propaganda with that article. His narrative sounds suspiciously like he just struck "International Jewry" or "the Western Imperialists" and replaced it with "Wall Street".

  • Flash Gordon

    Oil Shock: I recently spoke to a young lady visiting from Switzerland where she is near the end of a masters program in economics at a university in Switzerland. I asked her what she thought of Keynes and F.A. Hayek and the Austrian school. She had never heard of Hayek nor anything in economics called the Austrian school.


    Switzerland and Austria share a border, like Colorado and Kansas.

  • I really appeciate this blog.

    I am glad to see that you overarching value is liberty, and that you consider the actions of the clowns in Washington based on this value.


    The Washington crowd appears to be putting on a show for each other and the adoring press. Of course, those of us who will ultimately pay the price for their stupidity are left out.

  • Dave K

    I am in the middle of reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time. The sentence, "Kovacevich apparently believes that because his bank is still relatively healthy, he and his shareholders shouldn't have to assume the same costs and burdens as banks that aren't," seems straight out of that book. Wells Fargo should have to assume the same costs and burdens as poorly run banks? Huh? How have we gotten to this point? Everyday I see more and more of that book coming true. Scary.

  • Methinks

    Don,


    Whatever you may have been called, at least you have never been and are unlikely to ever be called anything as offensive as "congressman".

  • John V

    Wow...


    Dr. Boudreaux is P.O'd.

  • Don Boudreaux

    iMan,


    I've been called much worse than "Dan"! No worries.


    Don

  • Thank you -- at least someone is reacting appropriately. I went to another libertarian blog and all they are writing about is irrelevant crap that pales in comparison to what's going on in congress. Everyone who cares about freedom should be outraged.

  • Mike

    "The single greatest instance of intellectual foolishness today is the continuing pretense that politicians are serious people worthy of serious consideration."


    My favorite quote from this post. Let's put into perspective what these leaders managed to accomplish:


    1) Set up a goal for "affordable housing for all Americans"

    2) Encourage banks to issue these loans


    3) Set up public institutions to buy these loans on the secondary market, making issuing of them profitable.


    4) Watch the contagion spread until housing collapses


    5) Panic


    6) Force capitalization into banks who don't want it and dictate their behavior.


    A new road to serfdom?

  • vidyohs

    Don,


    It is the thinking and the courage to "put it out there" that made me return to the Cafe once I found it. That is also what keeps me coming back every day, several times a day.


    That this blog attracts some excellent participants who also will "put it out there" certainly adds meat and flavor to the blog.


    I join some others and praise that last paragraph, that is what it is.

  • Oil Shock

    I recently attended a econ class at a major business school. As a part of my MBA application process. The professor went on talking about Neoclassical and Keynesian recession models, as if they are the only theories about recessions. He also mentioned that Neoclassicals are ideologues, but they provide some useful tools for some situations.


    Similar thing happened with another school I visited. One of the professors who came to talk to the prospective students told us that he has a PhD from Harvard in behavioral finance. he said he works on ways to manipulate society so that they will make better financial decisions. Then, when asked about Chicago Booth, he said their a bunch of ideologues except for Sunstein and Thaler.


    BTW, I am not a big fan of Chicago, but I was dismayed by the stupidity of the professors. Forget the students, I wonder if the professors have heard about Mises and Hayek.

  • Sorry, Don, I did not mean to call you Dan.

  • Craig

    Your focus on the immorality of the pols is a non sequitur. Everything you've said would be true even if they were all paragons of virtue.

    Indeed, the greatest threat to liberty is not venality but bad ideas.

  • Dan, that last paragraph almost made me cry. It expresses my own rage perfectly. Thank you.

  • JP

    God bless you, Don Boudreaux!

  • Methinks

    Don, you just lowered by now permanently elevated blood pressure. Thanks.


    Bob D, I think MBA students are required to take only one micro and one macro econ class. I'm not surprised he doesn't know what the Austrian school is. I'd be surprised if he knew who Keynes and Friedman were.

  • Oil Shock

    Thanks Don. I don't know if it is going to make you feel any better, but there are many more who feel like you do.

  • Andy

    Don, my blood pressure is rising too, but your venting is temporarily soothing. Keep it up!

  • ddbb

    Thank you for this post, particularly the last two paragraphs.


    I still do not understand how people can believe that the legislators and regulators who are largely responsible for this mess have any combination of experience and intelligence to fix it.


    I still do not understand how people cannot see that the best thing for everyone is for the legislators and regulators who are largely responsible for this mess to leave everyone alone.


    How on earth is (i) Barney Frank qualified to run a bank, (ii) Chris Dodd qualified to run a financial services company, (iii) Nancy Pelosi qualified to design an automobile, (iv) Barack Obama qualified to make medical decisions, and (v) Joe Biden qualfied to do anything?


    They have been immune from the consequences of their own actions and decisions for decades. They have never had to make the choices, follow the laws and regulations and honor the contracts that private citizens and businesses do every day.


    Once again, Washington is inserting yet more uncertainty into the market. How is anyone supposed to do anything when you know the government will change the rules when the political winds shift? The only answer: government will force you to do something.


    Improvement will come in spite of, not because of, anything these people do. After all is said and done, we will all be left to deal with the mountain of new statutes and regulations and bureaucracy that will result from their efforts and the effects thereof.

  • Chris

    Excellent!


    I see more and more everyday the truth behind these words. The hypocracy and conceit of these politicians is amazing. Well, perhaps not so amazing, and it is becoming less and less amazing each day as I observe their actions.

  • Chris

    Excellent!


    I see more and more everyday the truth behind those words. Amazing the hypocracy and conceit of these politicians. Well, perhaps not so amazing, and it is becoming less and less amazing everyday as I continue to observe their actions.

  • Bob D

    I thought the Jersey Devil helped Oswald. Thanks for clearing that up! Just today I was talking to a Cornell MBA student who said he had never heard of The Austrian School of Economic Thought! He asked me if I was from Austria. I explained to him what it was and encouraged him to check out Cafe Hayek, Mises.org, The Austrian Economists, Etc. If you want to see a defiant banker, watch John Allison Chairman/Ceo BB&T in a speech he delivered to The Ayn Rand Institute recently.

  • MinusTen

    As far as I know, there's nothing stopping Mr. Kovacevich from returning the money. Paulson had to "force" the money on these banks because there was no way of distinguishing the good from the bad banks at the time. So it was either give no money to the banks and let the whole system collapse, or give money to all the big banks. If WFC is in such good shape now, they can simply return the money.

  • Randy

    I find myself flipping the bird at people on CSPAN probably more than is healthy.

blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: