What Happened to “Free-Market” Conservatives (or Neo-liberals)?
With the housing bubble in full meltdown, our political leaders are busily ignoring all the things they have said about the market over the last quarter century and looking to throw all the money that they can find to sustain the bubble. This would be comical, if it weren’t so painful.
Remember all the steel workers and autoworkers who lost their jobs due to trade agreements that were supposed to advance economic efficiency over the last quarter century? How about the workers in the airline, trucking, and telecommunications industry who lost jobs due to deregulation, which was also supposed to increase economic efficiency?
Well, it’s a new day. Nothing these people (or their economists) said matters anymore. It housing bubble support time!
For years, economic policy was supposed to be guided by market principles. If our autoworkers couldn’t compete with their counterparts in Mexico or China, who got paid $1 an hour, then it would be inefficient to have trade protection that would keep them employed here. The same applied to regulations that might keep high paying jobs in key sectors of the economy. Educated people all knew that interfering with the market was harmful to the economy, and if we ever forgot this basic truth, the Washington Post regularly ran sanctimonious editorials to remind us.
Well, it’s a new day. The housing bubble is melting down and Congress and the Fed are throwing money everywhere. After all, this isn’t about auto workers and truckers, it’s about Wall Street banks, and the politicians are pulling out all the stops to come to the rescue. In addition to the money that the Fed is throwing at the banks through subsidized loans at its discount window, it is also granting free insurance to the investment banks – a gift that is potentially worth hundreds of billions of dollars.
Now Congress is jumping into the act. Remember way back in the fall when they couldn’t find $7 billion to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program? Well, now Congress can finds hundreds of billions of dollars to support a housing bubble. It’s a worthy goal. After all, the Wall Street crew might lose their shirts if the housing bubble continues to deflate.
Congress will not be able to support the housing bubble indefinitely, but they might be able to do it long enough to allow the big boys to cash out and pass more of their bad loans onto the taxpayers and other suckers.
The political support for this bailout package may make it unstoppable, but if it does go through, we should be clear that there are new rules. In the post bailout world, anyone who makes claims about forcing workers or the poor to take pay cuts or do without benefits in the name of economic efficiency is simply a fool or liar.
Anyone who cared about economic efficiency would be yelling at the top of their lungs against this bailout. Anyone who can throw untold hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars at the rich to save their hides, has no concerns about economic efficiency, they just want to help the rich. In such a world, the rest of us have the right to demand the same sort of handouts from the government. And those who stand in the way are simply lackeys of the rich and powerful, who pretend to care about principles of economics.
[Addendum: There is one other very important part of this story that I neglected to mention above. Efforts to sustain the housing bubble ensure that houses will be unaffordable for young people or to families moving into bubble inflated markets. For this reason, perhaps the house price support program should be dubbed the "The Housing Unaffordability Act." Every member of Congress would be proud to have their name attached to that one.]










Comments (18)
I have credit card debt. If the government doesn't pay it for me, the entire financial system will collapse. Seriously, if it takes this to get my credit cards paid off in one fell swoop then I will declare that I am a counter party to a whole lot of "derivatives transactions" and hope that nobody knows what that means long enough for my check to clear.
April 1, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I got a payment due on my Amex card. Can I jump on your "derivatives transaction" train and get some federal support, too?
April 1, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
If no money for you than no money for me so I say... money for you!
April 1, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Two words:
Election Year
April 1, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the post bailout world, anyone who makes claims about forcing workers or the poor to take pay cuts or do without benefits in the name of economic efficiency is simply a fool or liar.
Or a greedy bastard.
April 1, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tax cuts aren't giving the rich enough anymore. Now we have to start sending them everyone else's tax money.
Gotta "replenish the ol' coffers" after all
April 1, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember the neo-con's Project for the New American Century that gave us Iraq??
I suggest a Democrat's Project for the New American Century. This project will entail blowing the Reagan as Great President Myth to smithereens by enlisting Democrat PhDs in History, Economics, Poli-sci, and Constitutional Scholars to man a think tank called; The Reality of the Reagan Presidency and its Legacy on the United States.
Okly when you destroy the Reagan myth will you begin to take this country back from the supporters and practitioners of Unbridled Capitalism.
April 1, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note:
I forgot to add:
Issue reports on your Reagan research to the public and the media every 3 months.
Invite C-SPAN to cover some of your meetings?
April 1, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's really pretty simple. Most Congresscritters are rich. Rich people have their money in investment banks. Investment banks going under means these rich Congresscritters stop being rich.
It's all a matter of whose ox is gored.
April 1, 2008 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Their neoliberal leader, Phil Gramm, is working as an economic adviser to McCain. I'm sure we'll hear more from him once they've thought of a plausible explanation for why over-regulation caused the mortgage crisis.
April 1, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Their neoliberal leader, Phil Gramm, is working as an economic adviser to McCain. I'm sure we'll hear more from him once they've thought of a plausible explanation for why over-regulation caused the mortgage crisis.
April 1, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bernanke and Paulson aren't bailing out the wealthy; they are saving the financial system* for the benefit of the workers. Isn't that what all serious, responsible economists are saying?
* Quaere. Is there a single respected economist -- preferably with some macro cred -- who argues that the Fed is wrong to act to halt the run on the investment banks and to continue to backstop them? If you find one, kindly provide links.
April 1, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes most respected economists believe B&P are saving the financial system . With certain adverse consequences ,while millions of families lose their homes. Good for The System. Bad for The People.
As a completely unrespected non economist I'd prefer the mirror image : a program of Government loans partially subsidizing the reset payments for the less egregious mortages.
(Maybe even some of the egregious mortgages could be salvaged if the creditors were prepared to take an appropriate hair cut )
Bottom line: Good for the People. Not so good for the System.
April 2, 2008 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is nothing necessarily improper for a central bank to act as a buyer of last resort of assets which are being marked down well below "fair value" during a panicky financial crisis.
The real question, it seems to me, is whether B & P are paying silk purse prices for pigs' ear assets -- or indeed, whether Tweedledee and Tweedledum are extracting adequate haircuts from the bailed out lenders. Because the Fed's machinations are taking place behind the Oz curtain, there is no way we taxpayers, the ultimate losers if they're paying too much, can know.
I don't mind socialism (faster please), just socialism of the riddle wrapped in an enigma variety.
April 2, 2008 3:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's classic capitalism to invest when that investment itself creates the value which justifies it. Think of the "company store".
Similarly ,there may be a "sweet spot" at which a Government Supported Entity's "sour's ear" investment in defaulting properties creates the "silk purse" of real estate values sufficiently high to (finally) justify it.
April 2, 2008 9:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
sow's ear
April 3, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
When one is facing bankruptcy instead of the Red Army, "Better dead than red" doesn't sound so brave anymore, just stupid.
But seriously, free-market-as-panacea hypocrites aside, don't we need some sort of intervention here? Whether or not it constitutes a "bailout" (i.e. a further enabling of ponzi schemes and bubbles) depends on what we get in return for the intervention, right?
In other words, if the Fed accepts toxic CDOs at face value and we adopt the Paulson plan, Wall St more or less gets a free ride and we pass the buck a few more years (months?) down the road. Not sure how long we can keep on doing that.
But if a real "haircut" is imposed on the value of all this mortgage debt and we get some real regulation we can both pull out of our nosedive and fix the system, or at least get it working a bit better than it had been. The "haircut" comes by reducing mortgage loan amounts (helping the consumer) and by greatly reducing the value of the outstanding CDO's and thus also of the financial stocks that hold them. Regulation comes via a quid-pro-quo with the investment banks: if you want the Fed to bail you out just like a regular bank, then the Fed gets to regulate you just like a regular bank.
But yeah, the might(or money)-makes-right rantings of the marketeers should now come with a disclaimer that the author/speaker accepted taxpayer money to save his/her hindquarters. Just like every Rush broadcast should come with a Surgeon General's warning that the speaker once lived on welfare and listening too much can result in reduced ability to think rationally.
April 3, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dean,
Something none of the pundits have suggested -- from either side of the political divide -- is the most direct approach to having to clean up when financial companies get so big we cannot afford to let them fail.
Why not a simple regulation limiting the size of financial services companies to a maximum upper limit (relative to the GDP)? "Too big to fail" can be managed directly; don't let any financial services company so big we can't allow it to fail.
And let the "invisible hand" correct for bad decisions by executives?
April 6, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink