« Pressure from the Public | Home | Responsibility and the Bailout: Will They Resign If It Fails? »

The Almost-Done Deal, and the Era of Angry Populism

user-pic

The Senate will vote tonight; the House is scheduled to vote tomorrow morning. Will the deal fly? Probably. Wall Street's gyrations since Monday have scared the hell out of a number of holdouts, notwithstanding all the negative emails and phone calls they continue to receive from constituents.

An important distinction here. While more Americans are coming around to "supporting" the bailout bill, the vast majority still hate the idea of bailing out Wall Street. They're for the bailout bill now only because they fear that a failure to pass it will have worse consequences -- drying up credit at a time when Main Street is struggling. But make no mistake: America is mad as hell. They resent what they perceive as extortion by the Masters of the Universe.

Angry populism has always been a potent force in American politics. And
now, with wages dropping, jobs insecure, fuel and food and
health-insurance costs soaring, and millions of homes in jeopardy -- and
what's perceived to be a massive tax-payer bailout of some of the richest
people in the land -- angry populism is about to explode. McCain has
already tried to cast himself as an angry populist, even though he still
wants to give the very rich a bigger tax cut than George W. gave them, and
cut taxes on big corporations (oil companies alone would reap $1.2 billion
a year under McCain's plan). Barack Obama, whose plans for middle-class
tax relief and afforable health care will genuinely help America's middle
and working classes, has been expressing more indignation lately on behalf
of them. But anger doesn't come as easily to Obama as it does to McCain --
even though McCain seems quite ready to aim his anger anywhere and
everywhere.

Democrats should be angry populists, given their traditional role of
protecting and championing the underdogs in American politics, and
especially considering the absurdly wide gap that's opened up between the
rich and everyone else. But in recent years Democrats have ceded the
mantle to Republicans, who now mimic the faux populism of Sean Hannity and
other right-wing talk show demagogues. (The recent maneuvering in the
House over the bailout bill is really over this. House Democrats are
getting the same angry mail that House Republicans are receiving, and
don't want to be seen as lending their support to this ugly bill without
Republicans signing on.)

In fact, the bailout bill isn't really taxpayer supported. It will be
funded by additional federal debt, issued mostly to foreign governments --
especially the Chinese and in the Middle East. And, strictly speaking,
it's not even a bailout. The Treasury will buy and hold mortgage-backed
securities whose value is now unknown because there's no market for them,
until housing prices start rising again, by which time the securities
should be worth something -- perhaps even more than the Treasury pays for
them. (Note that there continues to be great confusion about the extent to
which the Treasury will hold a reverse auction, paying banks the minimum
price at which they're willing to sell the securities -- perhaps 20 cents
on the dollar -- or whether the Treasury will buy the securities outright
for their face values and take warrants or shares of stock in return.)

But whatever it's called and however it's financed, it's still an outrage.
America's foreign policy is made no more flexible by going into deeper
hock to the Chinese and the Middle East. And the deal still subjects
American taxpayers to some risk, especially if the housing market doesn't
bounce back for many years. Worse, the bill can't help but prop up the
earnings many Wall Street executives whose malfeasance, greed, and
stupidity got us into this mess in the first place. And it does nothing
for average Americans except avoid economic calamity. (The provision
ostensibly helping distressed homeowners is to be used at the discretion
of the Treasury Department, so it's mostly a sham.)

The larger economic outlook is not encouraging. All signs point to the
economy worsening, bailout or no bailout. Unemployment will continue to
rise. Median earnings will continue to drop, adjusted for inflation. More
Americans will lose their health insurance.

The Era of Angry Populism has only just begun. Let's hope Obama wins, and
is able to mobilize the anger into fierce pressure on Congress to get his
agenda enacted, as well as reform Wall Street and Washington.


108 Comments

| Leave a comment

Here is a part of the recent IBD editorial that asks the a great question:

"The result of (Fannie's and Freddie's) rapid growth unconstrained by market forces and a weak regulator was years of mismanagement, flagrant earnings manipulation, and systems-and-controls problems.

Managements of both companies were forced out, earnings were misstated by an estimated $16 billion, fines exceeding one-half billion dollars were imposed, and remedial costs will exceed $2 billion."

Yet Congress did nothing. Fannie and Freddie continued to enjoy a virtual monopoly of the housing finance market, holding nearly half the nation's $12 trillion in mortgage assets in 2007.

And what happened to Fannie's and Freddie's top executives, almost all with deep ties to the Democratic Party?

Did they get perp-walked to prison like WorldCom's Bernie Ebbers, Tyco's Dennis Koslowski, Adelphia's John Rigas, ImClone's Sam Waksal, or any of the others who did time for corporate misdeeds in the early 2000s?

No. Jim Johnson, former Walter Mondale aide, became head of Barack Obama's vice presidential search committee. Franklin Raines, who headed Fannie from 1998 to 2004, the years of its worst excesses, pocketed nearly $100 million in pay and bonuses from Fannie. He, too, became an adviser to Obama.

Other Fannie-Freddie alumni did equally well.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel has been front and center in crafting a new rescue bill. Ex-Clinton Justice official Jamie Gorelick careens from career catastrophe to catastrophe, and still gets top jobs. It pays to have ties.

Meanwhile, as previously documented, Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Chris Dodd repeatedly thwarted reforms. Yet today they stand front-and-center as Democrats try to "fix" a problem they created.

As such, any investigation into Fannie and Freddie must include Congress, both current and past.

There's lots of evidence that the two mortgage giants had become little more than taxpayer-guaranteed front companies for Democrats, who used them to reward supporters with cheap loans and to provide jobs for out-of-work politicians."

Wow. Imagine if Enron executives had done this, oh wait, they did and went to jail!

>Wow. Imagine if Enron executives had done this, oh wait, they did and went to jail!

There's dumb, and there's loony, and this conspiracy theory is in the latter category.

Congress doesn't prosecute criminal cases. Every single one of those Enron executives was prosecuted by the Bush Justice Department.

Especially given everything that's come out about DOJ's illegal pro-Republican bias under the Bush Administration, it's just nutty to suppose they would go after their Republican friends at Enron, but give any Democrats a pass.

Get real.

Good point.

Do you believe Bush will proscute Barney and Chris and all the Freddie and Fannie executives who made millions, while falsifying the books?

Vintage club, you really have no understanding of the Fannie Freddie debate, esepcially as it transpired in the boom to bust years just after the millenium, and you seem to have even less understanding of their weird exactly private not exactly public status.

Therer's nothing worse than when know nothings shout really loud.

user-pic

Investors Business Daily is the Rush Limbaugh of the business world. Unbiased promotion of news and understanding is not a motivating factor.

user-pic

Bingo.

VintageClub is clearly an IBD ditto-head.

No question there's blame to go around, and both political parties have a share. But I encourage you to read on here at TPM, VC, and soak up a little bit of perspective.

-- ARG

Franklin Raines, who headed Fannie from 1998 to 2004, the years of its worst excesses, pocketed nearly $100 million in pay and bonuses from Fannie. He, too, became an adviser to Obama.

That's been a popular canard of the McCain campaign, and it's false because Franklin Raines has NOT been an advisor to the Obama. The the Obama campaign, Raines, and the Washington Post (which is usually cited as the source) have all denied the claim.

Meanwhile, the McCain campaign is headed by Rick Davis, whose lobbying firm was receiving $15,000/month from Fannie Mae for nobody-knows-why until August.

Suggestion to the McCain campaign and McCain supporters: People who live in glass houses ....

Ah, IBD. The guy who came up with the "CANSLIM" method of picking stocks ... which didn't work, but did get him enough suckers er I mean subscribers that he was able to make money printing a newsletter. :-)

Interresting that you only name Democrats, so I'd say this is a fine piece of propaganda, unworthy of this blog.

user-pic

Back in the 50s Milton Berle had a TV show and one of the acts was a guy named Sid something or other.

This guy, dressed like a carnival barker, would come on stage with a suitcase and a collapsable table. He would open the table and put the suitcase on top and open it. He would then start his spiel selling his wares.

One thing about this act always stuck with me, and I'm reminded of it everytime I see the Congress pull a stunt like the Senate is pulling with the bailout. After a minute or two into his act selling his wares he would pull up his sleeves and say to the audience:

"OK, YA SAY YA WANT MORE FOR YOUR MONEY, TELL YA WHAT I'M GONNA DO....."

Its deja vu all over again.

I so sick of this BS. Congress should never agree to take worthless assets. Its just free money to the wealthy, who cheated. Basically the wealthy in this country knew this bailout would happen. So they pumped the value of the assets then sold them via the bailout to the government. Crooks the whole lot.... Period. STOP THIS MADNESS!!!!!!

user-pic

They're not worthless, they're temporarily unmarketable. There's a difference. The government is injecting liquidity to replace illiquidity. I think Reich is right and that there's a good chance the government will make a profit on this. Read what Buffett said about it.

user-pic

It's amazing to me, a socialist, that so many people are suddenly waking up to the fact that there are (and always have been) obscenely wealthy people in this country. We have been 'bailing' them out, subsidizing them, financially enabling them, one way or another for years.

The only difference now is that their near-criminal skulduggery has become today's news. Until we're willing to take a long, hard look at our economic system, giant warts and all, business will go on as usual, and as usual we'll take it in the neck.

user-pic

The Treasury will buy and hold mortgage-backed
securities . . . .
Robert Reich

And lots of other instruments like CDSs, CDOs, SIVs, and whatever other derivatives happen to be around, yes?

Professor Reich seems to have been reading the headlines. Got to drill down, baby.

And just where are you getting your information that all the paper out there is worhtless, Ellen? On the quie vive with Vikram Pandit, are you?

Or do you also just read headlines?

user-pic

Try, here, dear.

I'll leave it to you to locate the applicable provision.

That wasn't the question. The question was: "where are you getting your information that all the paper out there is worthless?"

As far as I can tell from most reporting, the problem is the value is unknown because they are so intertwined. To be sure, some of the paper will be worth less than the cost of the transaction, but much of it should be worth something. Perhaps a lot.

Not saying this is the best way to fix this problem, but it does seem to be the best we can actually get passed in the current environment and doing nothing is clearly not an option.

user-pic

Yeah, tell us everything you know about all this worthless paper we'll be buying. Give us the inside scoop. Because from what I can tell, even the financial experts don't know how to value much of it. So, clearly, you're privy to some seriously inside info. Spill the beans, professor.

user-pic

The phrase "worthless paper" which has gotten you two Kool Aid drinkers so exercised isn't mine.

It's anna am's a/k/a Ms. Crane. Go talk to her about it.

Note for the readerly challenged among us: I simply pointed out that the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized, under the provisions of the bill, to buy many types of assets in addition to MBSs.

user-pic

You're currently in your manic phase, right? How long does that last, exactly?

Rather than blaming Barney Frank and the Democrats for the financial collapse under the Bush administration, Bill Fleckenstein, who wrote a book on our former Fed chairman, blames Alan Greenspan:

Alan Greenspan is the man who, during his nearly 20 years in charge at the Fed, did the most to help create the predicament that is our decimated financial system and warped economy.


The sorry state that we find ourselves in is a function of the Fed's interest-rate-targeting policies. More specifically, it was caused by the policies of Alan Greenspan, the Fed chief from 1987 to 2006.....

.........When Greenspan was in office he went to great lengths to suggest that housing couldn't experience a bubble. And, as The Journal pointed out, he also tried to make the case in 2004, when many of us were already certain a disastrous bubble was in full bloom, that "a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity."

This illustrates my strongly held (and well-documented) view that when it comes to matters of economics, Greenspan is utterly clueless and unable to learn from his mistakes.

link to Fleckenstein articles on MSN:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Commentary/ByAuthor/BillFleckenstein.aspx

He wasn't clueless, but he was ideological. Conservatives have been highly motivated to make "free markets" real, with the purpose to make the status of the upper classes more intrenched than ever. They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. The result is going to be unprecedented loss of living standards for middle and lower income peoples. This was the desired result. The law does not apply to them, they make the law.

user-pic

I agree.

user-pic

My distaste for Alan Greenspan dates back to the time of his 1985 "seasoned and expert" letter written on behalf of Charles Keating; thus, it pains me to come to the defense of the old coot.

Greenspan did keep the Fed funds rate too low for too long (unless you we're Bush II trying to get reelected with Greenspan's help). But low interest rates -- even if they caused or contributed to the housing price bubble -- didn't cause our current difficulties (whatever they may be).

Simply put, investment banks packaged mortgage loans and grossly overpriced the resulting securitized products. They were assisted in their fraud* by rating agencies whose income growth was dependent upon being hired to rate the investment banks' products.

If you can demonstrate that Greenspan ought to have detected the fraud and put a stop to it and chose not to do so, then, his responsibility is clear. So --

Can you?

* A lengthy, continuous pattern of negligence suggests intentionality -- here, fraud.

One piece of this that still leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth: Why aren't more people comfortable with calling it fraud?

user-pic

The simple answer is that all the people who know what went on are managers of other people's money who have violated minimum fiduciary standards and are in mum's-the-word, CYA mode, currently.

Every mortgage placed in a pool and embedded in a MBS came with an application file, attached. No one, neither the packagers nor the fiduciaries who purchased the instruments, did "due diligence." It was not in their financial interests to do so, and --

They had a fall-back excuse -- black box algorithms. Now, they claim that these algorithms were unsound but that at the time, no one knew (or could have known) that to be the case.

Maybe, they're right, but maybe, financial forensics would show that they knew that what they were putting in those black boxes was unsound. And the burden of proof is upon them.

Trials have a way of clearing up confusion.

user-pic

It's always due diligence. But oversight of those s'posed to be doing due diligence is always waaay behind the eightball (all those damn computers these days.) I know, been taking the USPAP test every five years since the S & L crisis, and laughing at it while doing so, along with colleagues.

I am beginning to think that for anything to work we must pay for each party Congress to have their own advisors equivalent to the chairman of the Fed, if only to offer translation and alternative narratives of what is going on....

"Fraud" is really unfair. It's more of a consensual illusion of banks, rating agencies, and investors. The "smartest guys in the room" spread the risk around to so many counter-parties that were "too big to fail" that no one took a serious look at the underlying assets. Until it was too late.

user-pic

Well, that's the conventional answer -- the excuse du jour.

But, is it true?

user-pic

Can I prove Greenspan knew about the fraud?
Almost.
My only evidence (so far) is this:

In 2003, I was a just a computer programmer earning $95K/year in Washington DC, but I could not buy a condo because (despite being in the top 10% of income earners) I was priced out.
Why?

Because I was looking at "traditional (90/15/5) mortgages, but in 2003 50% of all homes bought in DC were purchased using negative amortization ARMS, because that was the only way the borrowers could qualify.

My point:
No one with even a modicum of sense thought those borrowers could make the payments once the adjustments began.
Anyone who could do basic algebra, and who looked at the conditions of those mortgages knew those mortgages were going to be defaulted within 3 to 5 years.
So, either Greenspan was :
1. asleep at the wheel
2. incapable of doing basic math
or 3. perpetuating fraud.

user-pic

You make some good points and they do go some way, by implication, toward convicting Greenspan -- at least of being partially responsible.

If you want further support for your position, Google "Edward Gramlich."

You can play around with the question of what effect Gramlich's warnings to Greenspan about the lax underwriting standards subprime lenders were indulging in would or should have had on your average-every-day-type responsible Federal Reserve Chairman .

Note. I don't think your 2003 DC-Northern Virginia mortgage statistics are correct (I could well be wrong). Do you have a link to some report or other?

No one with even a modicum of sense thought those borrowers could make the payments once the adjustments began.
The theory (I would attribute it to some particular persons or groups if I had any idea whose theory it supposedly was, but I don't) was that these borrowers would refinance or sell before that point ... and since home prices only ever go up, and very fast at that, they would now be very far away from being underwater.

Obviously this theory is ridiculous—I thought so myself; I had sold my California house in 2002 and was worried that I might be too late (! I could have waited another two or three years and cleared at least another $100k)—but clearly some people bought into it.

It wasn't just the low interest rates (for clearly political reasons, as you point out.) Greenspan also refused to use the existing power of the fed to regulate the quality of the mortgages banks were issuing. Then he also encouraged the banks to create new and more risky types of mortgages. Finally he encouraged buyers to buy ARMs and other subprime garbage mortgages.

Alan Greenspan was not solely responsible for the housing bubble, but no one else is even close to him for the degree to which he created it and encouraged it.

It's a dead giveaway that he raised the fed rate to 6.5% in 2000 to slow the economy down. One of three clear factors that predict the change of party in a Presidential election year is an economic slowdown. By November 2004 Greenspan had the interest rate at 1.75% (to, of course, keep Bush in the White House.) But starting in February 2005 Greenspan began increasing the interest rate 1/4% per month for 17 consecutive months. That was what led to the mortgage defaults. CountryWide announced unprecedented defaults and foreclosures in early 2007, and they had watched them increase as Greenspan increased the interest rate.

Greenspan did more than anyone else to create and prolong the housing bubble, and he triggered the resulting mortgage crisis and credit crisis. His close friend Ayn Rand would be proud of him.

user-pic

You have a whole passel of criticisms (mostly justified), here.

ARMs for one. The issue is whether Americans are paying too much for mortgages because they're paying a premium for the put attached to the standard 30-year mortgage (the right to refinance the mortgage if rates go down). There are good arguments on both sides.

More interesting to me is the issue of the politicization of the Fed Chairman's position (setting interest rates; advising on fiscal policy, etc.)

The prime function of a central bank is to act as the lender of last resort (to replace J. P. Morgan holding court in his library, Sunday morning, October 20, 1907).

Maybe we should rid ourselves of the FOMC.

Get rid of the FOMC?

Now I know for certain. You're a libertarian pretending to be a progressive.

user-pic

No -- but I can see how you might think so.

I'd like to hear your arguments in support of the need to have a governmental organization setting interest rates -- as well as the costs and benefits of accepting that need.

P.S. To stay on this subthread while giving yourself adequate space, consider "reply buttoning" from ellen or DF way upthread.