Default Line
German hints that the bailout of countries in trouble on the bond market would eventually reach a limit have hit European bank shares. Berlin’s new willingness to see the investors take a haircut came as trade union demonstrators in Dublin demanded that Ireland default or write down its debts.
But the flip side of demanding an end of taxpayer guarantees to banks also signals the end of debt-driven government spending. Having run out of the means to prop up profligate governments the politicians are now trying to hand the tab to the creditors. The Telegraph notes that Germany’s leader is handing the hot potato the creditors:
“Have politicians got the courage to make those who earn money share in the risk as well?” Merkel boomed in Berlin on Wednesday – in a speech that was disgracefully under-reported by the Western media.
But the potato came around in a circle. Politicians are now acquiring the sand to tell the bankers they are going to have to “share the pain”. But have politicians got the courage to realize that this means they can no longer borrow money on easy terms again? Well most of them haven’t thought that far ahead. One demonstrator said, “we should default–the idea that the workers of this country should pay for the gambling of the billionaires is disgusting”. But how much more disgusting than the idea that governments were borrowing from billionaires to fund public spending and that this will have to stop?
The crisis is forcing the bailout machine to run down: countries cannot indefinitely force tax payers to bailout banks which are stuffed with toxic bubble assets, some of which were mandated by the governments themselves. It is less a crisis of the principle of capitalism as much as demonstration of what happens when things are distorted by government intervention. What the call for “more regulation” and ‘soak the rich’ proposals miss is that a large part of the crisis was caused by the breakdown of risk signals inherent in the public involvement in the economic high ground. At some point the banks ceased to be ordinary businesses which could fail; and they were that in part because they loaned the government money. They were special, and that broke the system.
The Telegraph argues that the Irish crisis has triggered a European wide meltdown because it would not go along with hiding the decline. “Ireland was among the first Western nations that tried to get real … declaring its banking sector losses, accounting for them on the government’s balance sheet and planning future borrowing so as to meet those liabilities”. But by ditching the makeup the true hideousness of the picture became evident and politically insupportable.
As a result, Ireland’s annual budget deficit has soared. But at least the numbers resemble reality. Most other Western nations, meanwhile, have allowed their banking losses to remain buried, lurking Japanese-style in the “shadow” banking system.
The big countries felt threatened by Ireland’s attempt to impose transparency and the market applause that originally greeted this effort. So the Republic’s stab at “fessing up and growing” its way out of the crisis, was effectively crushed by the big Western powers, who sensed an opportunity, at the same time, to have a go at Ireland’s highly-competitive corporate tax regime.
Now the cat is out of the bag and the fuse is in train. The sum total of these events, says Liam Halligan of the Telegraph means a ‘cataclysmic’ and ‘messy’ end of the Euro. But it also means haircuts for all. Equally importantly, it sounds the death knell of states which have refused to live within their means. The giant welfare state has spent itself into the grave. It is now possible to re-write Nietzche’s monologue of the Death of God in entirely secular terms.
Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: “I seek the Welfare State! I seek the Worker’s Paradise! Is it dead? Or is it just recovering? Has it gone on a cruise?
The madman jumped into their midst and cried; “I will tell you. We have killed it — you and I. All of us with a benefit check are its murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying The End of History? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? States, too, decompose. The Welfare State is dead. And we have killed it.
Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. “I have come too early,” he said then; “my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars — and yet they have done it themselves.
But just as God did not die — He was simply replaced — the Welfare State will find its successor. We all of us want something for nothing. The bubble is burst. Until next time.
Tip Jar or Subscribe for $5






toxic bubble assets, some of which were mandated by the governments themselves.
OK, Congress pretty much forced lenders to make bad loans to poor people – to go along with the bad loans lenders were voluntarily making to everyone else. Any bank would treat such a loan as an “asset”.
However I am not aware of any government mandates to securitize such loans and sell them to third parties, not the bad loans they made voluntarily and not the bad loans they made under duress. Nor do I know of any government mandates to buy such securities, nor to use them in turn as assets, and at huge leverage. Now, that’s not to say Congress was above forcing such issues, but I am not aware that they ever did. The banks, wall street, the rocket scientists did all that.
The question is, of the bad loans made, how many were forced? A high number of loans, but maybe not so high a percentage of money loaned – mostly (very) modest properties. Where do you draw the line? Well, no lines were drawn, that was the whole point, I guess.
–
Finally, to clarify – what does that have to do with the current worldwide crisis, how could a “bad” mortgage loan of $100,000 to an illegal alien in Santa Ana, California cause Dublin to default dragging Berlin along with it? Well, oddly enough, the irrational enthusiasm of the real estate market in Santa Ana, California was inflating worldwide consumption and the activities of the parasitic bankers worldwide, and of the parasitic governments worldwide who used the inflationary proceeds for bread and circuses. And to some extent the same real-estate based enthusiasms were copied in other parts of the world. Hey, but it was great while it lasted, wasn’t it folks?
Richard wrote: “At some point the banks ceased to be ordinary businesses which could fail; and they were that in part because they loaned the government money.”
An axiom in business is, “You become a subsidiary of your largest client.”
And if your main (or sole) client is the US Gov, then your business IS the US Gov. Your incentives for departmental budget increases, for compliance with governmental hiring quotas, and for voting in “certain” ways align perfectly with any other government agency.
And if your enterprise files as “private,” it becomes a fraud.
http://tinyurl.com/28mxpqg
It’ll be interesting to see how this plays out, if there isn’t a war in the “far east” first.
However I am not aware of any government mandates to securitize such loans and sell them to third parties, not the bad loans they made voluntarily and not the bad loans they made under duress. Nor do I know of any government mandates to buy such securities, nor to use them in turn as assets, and at huge leverage. Now, that’s not to say Congress was above forcing such issues, but I am not aware that they ever did. The banks, wall street, the rocket scientists did all that.
When you have a ticking time bomb thrust into your hands, do you need a mandate or even an incentive to find a way to pass it along to someone else, either voluntarily or in disguise?
If your “Social Justice” program requires banks to accept ticking time bombs by the millions, then how can you deny them the means to get rid of those time bombs and still get them to accept them in the first place? You can’t.
This one was on the government. They set up the system. Make a crazy mortgage loan to anything that breathes, then sell it to Fannie or Freddie, take your commission, and go sell some more loans. That’s how they designed the system, and that’s how it worked until it blew up.
We got a mortgage a few years back from Wells Fargo. The one thing I remember from reading all of the documentation was the one where they have to disclose how many of their loans they keep and how many they resell. Keep: 0%. Resell: 100%. We signed the papers and two weeks later got a letter from our new mortgage company. It’s not like this was a big mystery. They decoupled profit from accountability and the results were predictable.
And hence the case for an intense wave of inflation before the final crackup. The last option governments have when they can no longer borrow is the Weimar solution, aka “Q.E.”, aka run the printing presses. Even Weimar managed to milk a year or so out of this one.
And you can see the thinking that leads to it everywhere today – it happens when *everyone* in power gives up even pretending to think about the long term, and instead only cares about what might make that day’s news cycle more bearable. Look at Harry Reid pushing his Dream Act in the Senate while ignoring the Budget completely, look at Obama whining about a meaningless START treaty while ignoring the income tax bomb scheduled to be dropped in 30 days.
It’s a pattern of thought and behavior that guarantees a disastrous end, because it’s a decision that allowing the disaster to happen is actually going to be easier for them personally than taking responsibility for the situation is.
That actually never works out that way, of course, but delusional people in power tell themselves it will and act accordingly.
Josh – “The banks, wall street, the rocket scientists did all that.”
Isn’t this just another step from the origins of the crisis; a down stream effect of root cause? Who would stand athwart history and shout stop when it is the power of the government being questioned. Regulated as such, certainly no bank would. This is a classic case of having your cake and eating it too, or making lemonade in another crass analogy.
The root cause is government largesse turned bribes for votes. Its on going effort to divide and conquer citizens and, in my opinion, it is the underlying hatred and racism of the government itself that emboldens it to create such an imbalance. In a world envisioned by MLK, equality under the law is just that; the laws of the state, but too, the laws of nature and economics. The government created a polar imbalance of power and perverted the system. The system failed because the US gov is the world’s largest hate-based organization.
Jms – “a crazy mortgage loan to anything that breathes, then sell it to Fannie or Freddie, take your commission, and go sell some more loans.”
I like your analysis all in all. But, in my case, no community organizer asked this forty-something white male to make his first home purchase though I certainly would have been in the upper percentile of those who should have been considered. I looked at homes that my parents bought for 30k and now selling for a cool million and thought to myself, ‘no-way’. I couldn’t imagine spending nearly 50% of my income and ten times my annual income to pay a mortgage. Who could? Well, those who were aggressively ‘coached’ to take the loan. This was a ‘bubble’ of Ponzi proportions and me, not the most economically knowledgeable kind of guy, saw it big as day. My brother thanks me every day for talking him out of buying a house four years ago. It smelled like a scam to me even back then.
am @ 6: Josh – “The banks, wall street, the rocket scientists did all that.”
Isn’t this just another step from the origins of the crisis; a down stream effect of root cause?
As I said, all the players were already doing all the bad things completely on their own, all (!) the government did is to step in and say they had to let poor people play, too.
So, what if “rich” people bought up all the small houses for speculative purposes, rented them out to poor people, and then the bubble burst? Nobody seems to be going after the non-mortgage assets of those who stop paying. Should they? A lot of “rich” people leveraged themselves on such late-night get-rich-quick schemes. All those empty condos in Vegas, for example.
The bubble would have burst anyway but somewhat later, and with somewhat less force. I’d want to see some very careful work for any more precise estimates than that.
Again the government stepped in to prop up this scam. A tight rope artist will take risks that he wouldn’t if he knew he was treading over a net. Citibank is a predatory lender and has been screwing me personally for over a decade and they get bailed out? That is simply anti-capitalism. And the greed of the speculators, and yes the poor should be answered by the market and yet, I, who wouldn’t let greed lead me to take unreasonable risks am being punished through taxes to cover this debacle. I don’t see, in a capitalistic system, how this is anybodies but the govs fault.
Live by the sword die by the sword, unless the government comes in and shields the perpetrators.
fwiw, I should have bought a small house I was looking at just before the bubble began, and triple-net, it would have been about a push to today. so, the bubble really was a bubble. which means that overall, as many people won as lost. this often seems to be forgotten in all the hand-wringing.
real-estate exuberance in Miama Beach paid for Irish welfare potatoes for five years. will anybody say thank you?
seriously, should *we* say thank you to Alan Greenspan for having kept the party going for a decade, or two, past the time when the US had a positive balance of payments? sure, now we have to pay up, but hey, he successfully kicked the can down the road for 20 years, and now we get to blame it all on Obama, talk about your cosmic justice. of course if Obama ever saw it that way, … but he won’t, even his advisors are unclear on the situation, and every time he opens his trap and tries to blame it on Bush, he beclowns himself further, Bush had little enough to do with it – other than yes, it did collapse on his watch. Yes Bush even made some motions to reining in Freddie and Fannie, but that was too little and too late, as I rant about above.
Josh – “and now we get to blame it all on Obama”
It had nothing to do with cosmic justice. The problem is is that Obama came into office with full agenda and never read the enormously obvious fact that the game had changed completely and forever. His worse move was to blame the private sector and to reward labor unions while circling the wagons of the public sector, protecting their pensions and benefits because they were the core of his constituency rather than letting markets destroy the wealth where it was natural and if to be managed, across the board. The private sector instinctively began holding on to their wallets and reducing their exposure as the TARP and bailout schemes pumped money in ‘non-producing’ public projects. This did little to bolster the fears of the markets. To this day every small business owner is sitting here wondering what will happen next. Uncertainty has hamstrung our economy and every signal from the administration either harkens darker times, or worse yet, muddles the outlook. Let me see, how exactly does START, The Dream Act, ObamaCare, Cap and Trade, et al solve this problem?
Nobody knows whether they should invest in their business or their existential survival. Where to direct our energies; growth, entertainment, or beans-bullets and bandages? Most entrepreneurs in this country are left thinking: WTF?
The problem has been pride as much as greed. The Masters of the Universe on Wall Street and the Fed, and the ideologues in Washington, knew better. The banksters and the academic theoreticians of modern finance were convinced risk was a “solved problem”. Their “specialist tools” at the Fed and at the securitization houses had it all licked. This appeared as a ready source of easy money for the practitioners of social justice down south in DC, who saw a limitless stream of wealth to be shared and perceived a moral imperative to share it.
There was no arguing with them. Even after it began to blow up, even against the popular will, Congress was intent on creating a new health care entitlement, the most expensive of them all, at a time in which it was most obviously wildly unaffordable. This alliance of interests served to make the errors systemic.
We have the illusion of easy money once created by the financiers then siezed by the government and conflated by them into a globe-wide crisis once the bell struck midnight.
Cowboy – “The banksters and the academic theoreticians of modern finance were convinced risk was a “solved problem”. Their “specialist tools” at the Fed and at the securitization houses had it all licked.”
Sure sounds like a ‘planned economy to me. Certainly at the root of the problem is an un-holy alliance between government, the banking system, and Wall Street. I don’t see where in the constitution that the government, through control and regulation, get to command the organs of commerce, though I admit I may have missed it in the commerce clause or something or other.
Great moments in economics:
“We should default–the idea that the workers of this country should pay for the gambling of the billionaires is disgusting” – European Protester
“The banks should pay for everything, not the people.” – European Protester
“I hope the government will pay for the new high speed rail system so the taxpayers won’t have to.” – Mayor of Tampa, FL
“People receiving housing assistance money should not be required to pick up the trash around their homes to receive it because people who get the mortgage tax deduction are not required to do so.” Rep Maxine Waters, on the floor of the US Congress.
“I am here to get some money to pay my utilities bills. What money? Obama money! Where did he get it? I don’t know, his stash, I guess!” – Black woman standing in line in Detroit, MI
“Every month I have to worry about where to get money to pay my mortgage and make my car payment and put gas in the car. I could have never believed it, but now there is someone who will take care of all of that for me.” – Woman at an Obama political rally in Florida, 2008
It appears that people view money as a national resource, belonging to everyone, and to be mined as required. Unfortunately, they do not view real national resources requiring mining or drilling in that manner.
To make money from a scam, you have to sell something for more than it is worth to a sucker who is willing to buy it. In the housing crisis, who was selling and what sucker was buying?
We have heard the term “predatory lending”. So, the evil bank or broker loans money to Fred, who buys a nice house with little or no money down (borrows nearly the full value of the house) and then either can’t make the payments or loses value on his house. Then, the bank makes out like a bandit when it forcloses on the house and collects, after expenses, between 30%-80% of the amount loaned.
Wait a second. The bank gave $100K to Fred, and eventually gets $30K – 80K back. The bank lost money. That isn’t a great scam for the bank. They are a really bad predator. How were they supposed to make outsized profits on this deal?
Let’s understand what really happens when a loan is created. We think of Fred “receiving a loan from the bank”. In reality, Fred is selling a repayment obligation to the bank in exchange for the money which the bank gives him. The bank then “owns the loan”. The bank owns the right to be paid monthly for 30 years, in exchange for the cash originally given to Fred.
The bank created a loan agreement for Fred and then bought that agreement from Fred. Fred sold that agreement for the price of the loan amount. The mortgage is a separate document pledging Fred’s house as collateral if Fred doesn’t or can’t repay.
The bank or mortgage broker can hold the loan (the loan agreement) or can sell that loan to another institution, typically for a few percent more than the amount loaned.
Fred was not scammed in this transaction. Fred sold a loan agreement. He received money to buy a house. If Fred did not understand that transaction, then it was despite mountains of government regulation and requirements that Fred sign in detail. If Fred was misled about his ability to repay the loan, it was probably because he was too trusting of the safeguards that the government advertises but doesn’t enforce.
Anyway, the mortgage broker gave money to Fred, who in many cases did not have a verified income or credit history. It was the mortgage broker who was scammed.
The twist in this story is that we know someone was scammed, and we assume the mortgage broker would not scam itself, so many conclude that Fred was scammed. But, Fred received the money. In fact, the mortgage broker scammed itself (!) temporarily.
The mortgage broker in this story is certainly scamming someone, the businesses who bought the loan in turn, namely Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other large institutions. Why were they so gullible?
Fannie and Freddie (FanFred) didn’t care. They were implementing policy set by the House Financial Services Committee chaired by Barney Frank (D. MA), and the similar committee in the Senate chaired by Christopher Dodd. Our Congress wanted poorer people to own houses, and set decreasing standards over time for the resources and credit history they needed to supply for a “conforming loan” (a loan which FanFred would buy).
Our economy has been damaged by government greed and corruption, not by usual economics. Our government embraces a convenient form of Keynesianism, only because it justifies tax and spend.
FanFred advertised their decreasing standards, and mortgage brokers were happy to create those loans and sell them to FanFred and others. The brokers were happy to create any loans which they could sell immediately to FanFred, and the politically connected executives at FanFred made big bonuses on the increased volume of transactions.
FanFred is a Government Sponsored Enterprise, but received little money from the government. It borrowed money from private institutions and governments. Those institutional lenders were willing to invest in FanFred because FanFred explicitly guaranteed repayment of principal and interest on any mortgage bonds (repackaged pools of housing loans) resold by FanFred. And, the US government implicitly guaranteed that FanFred would do this.
The scam was complete. Politicians explicitly and implicitly guaranteed FanFred mortgage bonds, supporting huge flows of money into FanFred, to buy increasing volumes of housing loans, at lower and lower standards for repayment. Everyone but the taxpayer made money. When these substandard loans collapsed, the huge losses were placed on the taxpayer by bailing out the institutions. The Congress made good on its implicit guarantee to all of the institutions who supplied money for this ponzi scheme of sub-prime lending.
Why do we not see the prosecution of the banks and mortgage brokers who created all of these bad loans? There are very few to prosecute. They were almost all following the idiotic rules set by Congress. They were scamming FanFred with the full cooperation of FanFred and Congress.
Our recession was promoted by collapsing home prices and mortgage losses, after an extended period of government providing easy money and guarantees to support Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The government is still doing this. The bad housing policy was designed, encouraged, and required by government, mostly by Democrats.
See → We Guarantee It – The Government Caused the Economic Crisis
RWE – “It appears that people view money as a national resource, belonging to everyone, and to be mined as required. ”
It is. It’s called oil.
Josh: However I am not aware of any government mandates to securitize such loans and sell them to third parties, not the bad loans they made voluntarily and not the bad loans they made under duress. Nor do I know of any government mandates to buy such securities, nor to use them in turn as assets, and at huge leverage. Now, that’s not to say Congress was above forcing such issues, but I am not aware that they ever did. The banks, wall street, the rocket scientists did all that.
Let’s review.
Congress said to banks: Home Ownership is the Way Out of Poverty and a Road to Political Stability. Loan money to people who otherwise cannot afford a home and be aggressive about it. Remember that you are in business under our sufferance.
Banks said to Congress: We cant do that and remain in business if we hold a bunch of loans that cannot be paid back.
Congress said to banks: Fine – we’ll create Freddie and Fannie. They will make a secondary market and we’ll find greater fools than you to buy the mortgages that will eventually be worthless. Now, get at that lending, or else.
So the lending business became a service that recycled the banks capital using Fannie and Freddie with a fee taken by the banks on every transaction. So the incentive for the banks was to process lots of loans and the dollars didnt matter, since they were in the secondary market and protected by the two Federal entities and the diversity of the number of mortgages in the instruments.
More transactions led to buying panic and a bubble.
I’m an engineer and I understand it.
I could get into the politics and who did what but that’s been done here in detail.
Mr Garland beat me to it with more detail.- What he said, too.
Boff, I wouldn’t rely on Brits forecasts for the euro, since the beginning, the Brits have nitpicked the possible euro solutions, but if they are in the big mess now, it’s because they were the ones that bet the most on the irish debt, it’s in the City genome to make money out of those that must pay high loans !
Hope the banksters in the kind of deals, will be shaved !
I don’t have the time to do this subject much justice, but I can’t resist. The Josh versus AM et al debate about Who Was Responsible (still on-going I see with no consensus) suggests yet another bigger picture view of Corporatism versus Statism (“You become a subsidiary of your largest client.” – steveaz.) In my view it’s a ‘be careful what you wish for’ type possibility as we watch up close and personal world governments coming to terms with deficit accounts, the math of which demands some form of loss distribution among groups.
An accelerating theme in the post-2008 world is that governments are obsolete. I’m sure there’s a sports metaphor in there somewhere that includes a Hail Mary Pass. I sure hope not because that would leave Corporatism.
Another argument that seems to be gaining traction is that the performance deficit among governments is functional rather than structural, a windy way of saying the failures are people-driven rather than institutional; the logical conclusion being Throw the bums out and start over. I would support trying that first before abandoning government all together.
Lastly, on ‘more regulation’ and ‘soak the rich’, the decade leading up to 2008 is riddled with operatives systematically and deliberately removing or neutering good solid regulatory controls. They must be reinstated. And I agree with Warren Buffett that the top earnings bracket is under-taxed. The ‘rich’ don’t have to get their business suits wet, but they can dip their big toes in a little further.
I have no quarrel with big picture thinking, except when it obscures practical green eye-shade solutions in favor of berets and Berettas. Many of the solutions are technical, which is not sexy, and yet we – in this country and the western world – still look for the stadium fillers to lead us out of the darkness. Don’t understand that, frankly.
As for Ireland, I thought blert claimed the Russian Mafia did them in.
Nicely said AMG.
Josh, A few points to consider:
* The relaxation of reserve ratios promoted apparently from the Basel II accords came in 2004, just a year before Bernacke took over. Most of the over leveraging occurred under Helo Ben.
It wasn’t just American mortgages that were going crazy; it was an international phenomenon. Basel II allowed European banks to run wild as well. Their reserve ratios are even worse than the wild and crazy Bear Stearns, and Lehman as well as the big five of B of A, Citi, Chase, Wells and Goldman Sucks.
• The Fannie/Freddie subprime scam escalated dramatically under Helo Ben, all the while he was raising interest rates( and slowing the economy) on conventional mortgages and business loans.
• It was Helo Ben, along with Henry P, who yelled “Fire” in the theatre of Wall Street causing the Panic, and was the force along with Turbo Tax Timmy, behind TARP , the other assorted bailouts, and QE I and II.
Not to condone his actions, but Greenspan’s moves at least could be rationalized at the time as a response to extraordinary conditions like Y2K, the DotCom bust, and 9-11; Helo Ben’s OTOH have been unprecedented, incredibly destructive, radically anti-free market and without foundation. Bernacke has somehow been at the center of each of the economic hurricanes that have hit us over the last several years. He is a very dangerous fellow with no one to constraint him at the moment.
PS, For once I agree with the trade unionists, just let Ireland default and let the banks eat it.
“We should default–the idea that the workers of this country should pay for the gambling of the billionaires is disgusting” – European Protester”
Ironically (because this protester undoubtedly has no clue about how things will really play out) this is the best possible advice that can be given today.
Ireland SHOULD default. Greece SHOULD default. Spain, Portugal, and Italy SHOULD default. The debt payments that will sink future generations will be wiped out overnight!
Now what will be the consequences? NO MORE BORROWING! Their governments from now on will only be able to spend what they can raise, and since no one will trust their currency they will either have to dollarize or go to some kind of gold standard. Giving up the ability to borrow is a vast loss of power for the State that does it, which (along with wanting to protect the bankers) us why States will do everything that they possibly can to avoid default.
But for the People, the actual ones who will end up paying the bill – Default Now. Far better outcome than paying forever and enabling massive borrowing forever.
I knew my initial mortgage holder never intended to hold it more than a week and didn’t even care if it was closed properly when the closing agent who showed up was not only not an attorney, but was the clerk I recognized from the UPS store. Last week I saw her working at the Kangaroo convenience store.
All I did was sign a folder full of documents adorned with those red sticky markers. Nothing was said, reviewed or questioned. If those documents were scrutinized today, I would bet that the original mortgagee had no valid loan or lien and didn’t care. Generating the largest number of loans was obviously the game; making legal and enforceable ones wasn’t. What the hell did I care?
Now that Europe (and the US, really) can no longer afford to be able to maintain the Welfare State, what happens when an attempt is made to downsize welfare by forcing the chronically unemployed to find work at whatever rate of pay they can, and for welfare mothers to cease having babies that they then expect the State to support?
herb, your order of events is not correct.
unsk, basel II did indeed come along at just the wrong time, for just the wrong reasons, I refer you to cowboy. but mostly there was an idea that the banks would have at least the common sense not to destroy themselves, if not the decency to not rob their customers and the government. turns out this was just all wrong. and The Bernank only made a small attempt to raise interest rates, which I think was well intended, I agreed with it. I’d rather have that Bernank than this one. Although, I have to say, so far the real crisis has again been kicked down the road by – two years, so far. Like a cancer patient being kept alive by desperate meaures, it’s a mixed blessing – will we wake up tomorrow cured? odds are against it, but odds are zero after burial, I guess it’s the classic, “… and maybe the horse will learn to talk.”
cowboy @ 12: Congress was intent on creating a new health care entitlement, the most expensive of them all, at a time in which it was most obviously wildly unaffordable.
But the Demorats and our innumerate POTUS swear that it’s free, saves money to every consumer, every business, and the economy. Frankly this pile of blatent lies angers me more than the entire mortgage crisis (the mortgage crisis scares me more, but it’s at least something along the lines of historical economic bubbles – and great train robberies). The incompetence and gross fraud on the electoral public constituted by Obamacare is unprecedented.
Josh @1
However I am not aware of any government mandates to securitize such loans and sell them to third parties, not the bad loans they made voluntarily and not the bad loans they made under duress. Nor do I know of any government mandates to buy such securities, nor to use them in turn as assets, and at huge leverage. Now, that’s not to say Congress was above forcing such issues, but I am not aware that they ever did. The banks, wall street, the rocket scientists did all that.
I do believe that is what Fannie and Freddie were for. Banks can only keep a small amount of dicey loans on their books, so they sold them to Fannie and Freddie. Fannie and Freddie then packaged them and sold them to Wall Street. Fannie and Freddie then used the money from Wall Street to buy more mortgages. Then they packaged and sold those and so on. These packages came with an “implicit” Federal Guarantee (which made them marketable) that later became explicit. That is why the 500 billion dollar limit the Congress had imposed (after increasing it several times) was lifted, to make Tax Payer liability “unlimited.”
True, Congressman Barney Frank said the Tax Payer would never, ever, ever have to pick up the tab for naughty Freddie and Fannie — let alone those who caught financially transmitted Socialist disease from going to bed with them. Turns out he was mistaken on that point and the entire economy caught the clap. Now, we all know it is important to identify the source of the clap but embarrassment often prevents that from happening. So it is in this case.
2@wws “Now what will be the consequences?”
That’s a good question. It could be that there is merit to a softer landing but I cannot quite compute the math on it. Besides, the gov isn’t talking reeling in spending anytime soon. That is the turd in the pipe that has frozen capital level spending and that would have fueled economic growth. Thus the landing will be more likely a step function with all parties at the top reaching across the table for their counterpart’s lunch and coming up with some new euphemism for “bankruptcy” that will replace term “stimulus”.
Excellent discussion, but I am still confused about a couple of points. Perhaps someone can help clarify.
@15 AMG: You explained this very well, I think. If I understand you correctly, the government pressed the banks to make “social justice” loans that were not economically sound. To succeed, the government had to do two things: guarantee the banks against loss (by buying their loans) and giving them a bit of profit (by paying some points on the packaged loans). This left the government holding a lot of bad paper.
Here is what I don’t understand. If the banks unloaded their bad loans on the government, then why were the banks in trouble? Had they not gotten rid of all toxic assets? That part is not clear to me.
Also, do you not agree that the correction for the problem of making unsound loans and having overly loose credit criteria has tightened lending to a destructive degree?
@22 wws: I understand the principle of how default by Ireland, Greece, Portugal, Spain, etc. will immediately liquidate debt of future generations. And I can understand how it would force any defaulting government to exist for some time on a cash basis, with little or no ability to borrow. And I can also see how all of this will force dollarization or gold backing of the currencies of any nation that defaults. All well and good.
But what would that do to the US? If everyone else defaults and we don’t, won’t we be at a long term disadvantage saddled with debt payments that other countries have shed? And if we do default, wouldn’t that put an end to dollarization of other currencies?
Finally, if hyperinflation ever arrives (as opposed to ordinary high levels of inflation), won’t that be an indirect form of default?
Thank you in advance to any of you who will clarify these confusions for me.
Hdgreene – “the entire economy caught the clap” I applaud this line
There’s a lot that I don’t understand yet, if ever I will. The first is “where did the money go?” For every dollar that was “lost” — by the workers or dupes another dollar was “won” by the scammers. For example, the banksters and fat cats supposedly made out like bandits. But even supposing they were consuming these ill-gotten gains, where is trickle down from that consumption? With all the vast sums being printed by the Central Banks why is there no balm in Gilead?
Someone was explaining to me yesterday that we live in a ‘credit based system’ and all and all this money is piling up in the toils of the economy, like a constipated man accumulates s**t. We keep shoving it in one end, but it never comes out the other.
But the alternative also occurred to me. Value wasn’t being completely transferred from the losers to winners. Part of it is. But most of it is being destroyed or consumed. For example, Ireland is going to fund its bailout by tapping its National Pension Reserve Fund. What are the odds that this fund is going to vanish without a ripple into the vast black hole whose workings the public doesn’t understand?
So to the question, where did the money go, my intuition is that some of it was stolen but most of it has been spent or misallocated. We distorted prices so that it looked like we were earning our keep and saving but in actuality we were spending the “investments” in the future. We were burning hundred dollar bills to light cigars or to use as toilet paper without really knowing it, because the value of our waste was not apparent.
People are going to find their retirement fund isn’t there. Social Security won’t be there. The value of the homes in which they thought to capture their savings won’t be there. And it won’t all of it be stolen. A lot of it will simply be gone.
If debtors default it will have the virtue to stopping the music; throwing a wrench onto the pinball machine or pulling the plug on this clanking mechanism for a while. Large parts of the pricing regime seem to me out of whack and in consequence we never knew or even know the true value of transactions. To some nontrivial extent, the financial meltdown is a crisis of information. The trouble is, a crash is some kind of closing trade which can itself destroy. What needs to continue will be momentarily halted. What has should be halted will have been absolved.
Yet somehow we seem headed for that moment for good or ill.
I chanced upon my friend Montmorency, a homeless man, once a Master of the Universe. I asked him what happened.
Well, he said, what no one thought
Was that the market could be brought
To such a state and in so short a time
In fact we thought ‘twould never end
That we could borrow, tax and spend
While making money risking not a dime
But suddenly it came undone
Just too much debt and when the One
Piled trillions more upon us that was it
And not just us but Europe too
The welfare state just grew and grew
We had a world of bubbles made of spit
And so that’s where we are today
Defaulted bonds and hell to pay
And riots in the streets with burning cars
The Chinese nervous as a cat
The Germans saying that is that
And all my money friends now drunk in bars
And then he cried and waved a hand
I saw he’d sold his wedding band
And noticed that his clothes were torn and soiled
I handed him ten bucks and said
This cannot last, it is not dead
The welfare state has left us soft and spoiled
The politics will find a way
To take us back to that fine day
When checks were given out to one and all
He cried and said he sure hoped so
And as I smiled and rose to go
He sobbed and said we sure did have a ball
Wretchard:
That is the both the best and the most frightening analysis I’ve seen so far.
“But just as God did not die — He was simply replaced — the Welfare State will find its successor. We all of us want something for nothing. The bubble is burst. Until next time.”
I’m guessing that what you are saying is a combination of “be careful what we wish for” and a nod of fearful acknowledgement to the goddess of unintended consequences?
Comments are excellent, More Please!
ps, I’m listening to a compilation of 80s pop songs an younger friend lent me: The 80s were heralded in for Britain by an exceptionally cold winter and many strikes. Listening to Tears for Fears; “Mad world” and looking at the snow on my window sill, I have a strange feeling of Deja Vu. Could this be a new decade of Thatcher and Reagan, or something much different and more frightening?
W – “To some nontrivial extent, the financial meltdown is a crisis of information.”
In a FISA economy, I think the value is by and large dependant upon trust. Trust in the ever lasting worth of investments, be they goods, property, or services. In this case, the goods was property and services. One actor in these complicated interrelationships does something that is not above board (not influenced by the desire to accumulate wealth) and it upsets the system by decoupling mutual interest and mutual responsibility for the outcome and, hence forth, the loss of trust itself. I think people are losing trust in government because they are the ones who have the most disrupting effects on the economy. People will fundamentally trust markets because it is in the best interest of players to grow. Business was run on trust long before it was run on credit, which is just another form of trust. The government that first sought to regulate markets has itself become entangled in the markets, and it is clear that the government is willing to take risks that other parties wouldn’t because they consider the economy to be secondary to its own self promotion and interest. Crimony, there are commercials on TV propagandizing expensive government programs… in Spanish! Government has a competing interest here when it puts its specious ideological values before our national sustenance, which in the end is energy, food production and hard goods.
hdgreen @ 26: do F&F sell MBO directly, or just sell loans to the banks who do the MBO? Perhaps it doesn’t matter. They supply the funds a few points cheaper to qualifying borrowers, and I guess one way or another they stand behind the loans themselves. Bad enough. I should get the details straight, however.
batman @ 28: Here is what I don’t understand. If the banks unloaded their bad loans on the government, then why were the banks in trouble? Had they not gotten rid of all toxic assets? That part is not clear to me.
Also, do you not agree that the correction for the problem of making unsound loans and having overly loose credit criteria has tightened lending to a destructive degree?
Because the banks turned around and bought back the same loans (in pools) securitized as MBOs and CDOs.
It is unclear, at least, that lending has “tightened to a destructive degree”. What is clear is that there is less lending, especially to the least qualified. Well, how harmful can that be? And there is less lending to the lesser and greater qualified because there is no demand in the economy right now. It’s not that there is no lending, but that there is no borrowing. We are awash with cash, compared to demand. The moaning by various parties that “banks aren’t lending” is not so much that we want them to lend, but that the Fed is keeping rates super-low in part to fund such lending, and if they aren’t doing it, then what’s the point? And sure lending is an indicator of overall economic activity, but it’s also turned out to be an indicator of unsound practices, so who exactly wants more of it?
It’s so much pushing on a string, and do you want to blame the string?
Batman, “Here is what I don’t understand. If the banks unloaded their bad loans on the government, then why were the banks in trouble? Had they not gotten rid of all toxic assets? That part is not clear to me.”
My two cents for what it’s worth. i don’t think anyone outside the banks knows for sure their true net worth, with all the accounting games being played and the banks examiners forever looking the other way. But that being said, the big banks are thought to be way over leveraged. Instead of the tried and true 8% plus capital reserves, the big American banks appear to be around 2% or lower and the Europeans even less. So it doesn’t take much to take them down. And I don’t think they securitized all their loans. All that leverage had to go to something. The MBS game apparently was a huge cash cow, so they, like Fannie and Freddie, also did derivatives of the MBS. And per Zerohedge, the Big 5 are thought to have gone over board on derivatives ( not on just MBS) to the cumulative tune of something like 200 trillion smackers! That’s right- Trillion, not billion. A little rounding error on those derivatives and at 2% reserves you’re way underwater. And in this economy- you do the math.
All: Read “All The Devils Are Here” by McLean and Nocera–enlightening and depressing. You’ll be ready to murder somebody.
Where has the money gone?
My guess;
Lots to China, building productive capacity.
Some on greatly improved housing in Ireland. OK, much is badly jerry built (as was most of Ireland’s existing stock of buildings), but these are at least light, dry and warm compared to the dark, damp hovels that were so common. I would argue that they’ll probably do more for the nation’s medical health than the same money spent on state health care
Some improvement to roads.
More IDA business parks, just when business property market was crashing
Lots wasted on non productive bureaucracy e.g.
FAS (pronounced “foss”) the state training agency, one batch of training for long term unemployed cost €800k for each one found a job
The Office of Public Works, why when 25% of the adult male population was working in construction, did the state need its own light bulb changing agency – don’t ask how many it took to change a light bulb, and make sure you google how much the OPW’s history has cost to write so far, with only 2 chapters submitted.
Terminal 2 at Dublin airport, opened a few days ago, 6 times over budget and 12 months late.
I guess that much of the money that was spent has yet to be created – and probably never will be, hence the haircut we’ll all end up taking.
am @ 33: One actor in these complicated interrelationships does something that is not above board (not influenced by the desire to accumulate wealth) and it upsets the system by decoupling mutual interest and mutual responsibility for the outcome and, hence forth, the loss of trust itself.
Well, what if it is aboveboard, that is it is influenced by the desire to accumulate wealth, and is thought to be sound, is endorsed by public, private, and the academy, and turns out to be perfectly unsound? Like the idea that you can separate risk from principle, package it like so much salami, and slice it as you will?
That’s my position, that the basic idea is unsound. OK, alright, that’s only what banks do, have done from time immemorial, so how can it be wrong? Well, you have a point there, phantom opponent. Let me amend it slightly – you *can* slice risk like salami, but slicing it does not make more of it. That is, you have to set the prices right on the slices. Perhaps that is all that is wrong with the MBO/CDO, it was mispriced. Like the no-down loans to the indigent: mispriced. Well, theoretically, yes. The thing is, if the loans were properly priced, at 25% interest (like the payday loans at your corner semi-legal emporium), would there have been fewer of them? Welllll, hard to say, since some huge percentage of borrowers NEVER INTENDED TO MAKE EVEN THE FIRST PAYMENT, and never did. All their advisors told them this, and the banks were not entirely unaware of it. OK, but the rocket scientists carefully pricing their derivatives, what about that? Well, again, if the buyers (eg the Chinese who Hank Paulson berated for not demanding higher yields!) demanded realistic return for the risks involved, again paying 10% on the first tranch instead of 4%, and 33% on the riskiest tranch instead of 6% – would they have sold any such bonds? Hmm, Goldman Sucks (love that) would not want to *pay* that much, would they? They couldn’t buy the assets cheap enough to do it, and the indicated volatility would chase them out anyway. Honest, realistic pricing would have stopped the whole thing cold. But the govmint was standing behind it all, right? And in the end, Gu bless them, they did. Stood behind bogus pricing. Bailed out whatever incompetence and dishonesty was entailed. Moral hazard to the nth degree, paid for by you and me. And the question is, how long can this go on? The individuals in charge of the big banks paid themselves immense salaries and bonuses, and for the most part are still doing so. And they, individually, have not been held to account. Their huge compensation was based on the theory that they were somehow adding that much value to the economy (heavens to betsy that the theory was “because they could”, or “because that’s where the money is”). Well, turns out they added immense negative value to the economy, so why isn’t THAT being distributed back to them now as well?
Herb, according my memory of events, gets the prize for most accurate and most succinct description of the U.S. part of this mess.
In 1970 as I’ve mentioned in these precincts before, I was in a graduate city planning seminar led by Alex Garvin, in which we role-played various folks dealing with the problems of the RED HOOK neighborhood. At that time it was a mostly Black (“African-American”) district, and the residents had great difficulty getting standard rate loans from banks. The banks were said to be “Red-Lining” the neighborhood, a phrase that comes from the practice of literally drawing a bold red line on the map surrounding that district, as a warning to novice lenders to exercise particular scrutiny and rectitude in approving loans to borrowers residing there. (Look up Red Hook, Brooklyn. For most of the 20th century, it was a pretty violent place.)
Herb, according my memory of events, gets the prize for most accurate and most succinct description of the U.S. part of this mess.
In 1970 as I’ve mentioned in these precincts before, I was in a graduate city planning seminar led by Alex Garvin, in which we role-played various folks dealing with the problems of the RED HOOK neighborhood. At that time it was a mostly Black (“African-American”) district, and the residents had great difficulty getting standard rate loans from banks. The banks were said to be “Red-Lining” the neighborhood, a phrase that comes from the practice of literally drawing a bold red line on the map surrounding that district, as a warning to novice lenders to exercise particular scrutiny and rectitude in approving loans to borrowers residing there.
You have to remember — now, I know this is hard for some of you younger folks to believe — that in days long gone, bankers could be subject to civil fines and even CRIMINAL PROSECUTION by state and federal bank examiners for failure to exercise diligence and prudence in establishing the likelihood that a borrower would be able to repay a loan, because that loan was made by using the depositors’ funds!!! The money was not the property of the BANK; it was held on deposit for the depositors, who agreed to let the bank manage the moneys on account, to create revenues from interest charges. This was to be done by investing in business ventures and residential loans that could reasonably be expected to improve the neighborhood NOT degrade it.
So, getting back to the seminar, the sense among these 20-something-year-olds — none of whom had ever worked other than a summer job while living off their parents or paid off a loan larger than a fiver — was that the only possible reason this practice was going on had to be that banks were RACIST. So clearly the solution was to force banks to give loans to the people in Red Hook, or any other neighborhood that had suffered such discrimination.
A few years pass, and many of those people and others just like them are VOTING, AND they’ve moved into ill-deserved positions of power and influence, seemingly without any intervening brush with reality.
First came the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act of 1975, forcing banks to make public all records of their loans. This was meant to give activists clear targets for which banks to stage their sit-ins and shout “RACISTS!” (Hey, got to provide employment for those community organizers!)
Then came the CRA.
The Community Reinvestment Act passed by Congress under the unforgettable (and possibly lethal) presidency of James Earl Carter, “requires that each insured depository institution’s record in helping meet the credit needs of its entire community be evaluated periodically. That record is taken into account in considering an institution’s application for deposit facilities, including mergers and acquisitions.” (That is a quote from the official website, linked via this paragraph.)
Another words (that’s Pogo-speak for “In other words”), the government was using the full bullying force of intimidation, regulation, and potential business-killing DIKTAT, to subtly crowbar and bulldoze depository institutions to give their depositors’ funds to lousy-risk loan applicants, no questions asked. They would be allowed the safety of selling those loans to the newly-created Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. These “semi-private” publicly-funded institutions were designed purely to make the US taxpayer assume the risks that the depository institutions were vacuuming up by making loans willy-nilly to people who had no demonstrable ability to ever pay them back in a BILLION YEARS.
In 2006 Franklin Raines, J Timothy Howard and Leanne G. Spencer were smacked with 101 CIVIL charges — a freaking LAWSUIT by U.S. Regulators NOT CRIMINAL CHARGES! (WHY???) — and were eventually found in court to have used their offices to manipulate the accounting and loan acceptance standards of Federal National Mortgage Association to MAXIMIZE THEIR BONUSES. They had awarded themselves $115,000,000.00 in bonuses over a three year orgy of squandering taxpayer money to buy worthless (“UNCOLLECTIBLE”) loans. Despite huge penalties, they each still managed to keep hold of MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of the money they’d stolen.
Jesus help us, we are being governed by MONSTERS.
u @ 35: i don’t think anyone outside the banks knows for sure their true net worth
Nor inside. How could they? You have a $200,000 loan on a house once valued at $200,000 and now valued at $100,000. You have a signed contract from Mr. Smith that he will pay you the $200,000, but Mr. Smith is demurring, for some reason. Litigation will probably cost $150,000, and Mr. Smith does not have the net worth to pay both the loan and the legal fees (indigence is apparently the ultimate defense in civil cases). OTOH, with a little economic recovery and a little inflation, that house may be worth $250,000 in a couple of years. That was certainly the *plan* two years ago when Mr. Smith shook hands with the smiling banker to consumate the deal.
So, what is it worth? Who knows.
So the banks do some fancy NPV calculations, marking to market, and dispensing Obamabux to mitigate some loans, nibbling away at the problem, and waiting for The Bernank or L’il Timmy G to make good on their promise to raise inflation and monetize it all away, the way it was s’posed to be. And, they hide the real scope of the problem, as millions of perfectly credit-worth borrowers find themselves underwater, and wonder why they are paying for nothing, not to mention those increasingly unemployed who are both underwater and out of cash.
This is a problem where the passage of a lot of time will eventually nibble it all away, but it might be twenty years – and that’s twenty years of tightrope walking and quantitative easing. So, although I didn’t buy a house, I’m paying hundreds if not thousands of dollars per month, via taxes and inflation and probably big chunks of my future social security and medicare benefits, for other people’s houses, and some fat-cat bankers still untouched by it all.
And *then* we can get into social welfare payments and public employees pensions and all that other good stuff in Greece, Ireland, and California.
Batman@28, Maybe someone else has already splained this far better than I can, but my understanding is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack bundled their worthless loans along with a few good ones (“how the heck did that get in here?”)
While the market was still un-suspecting, especially the world market, they sold these bundles of “Paper” to credulous investing institutions in Asia, Europe, Russia, etc. For a number of years, the security of these bundles were not questioned; they were highly rated, because the rating institutions were AT LEAST failing to do their jobs…
So, the worthless loans — the poisoned pills — were included in trades and transactions that eventually filtered throughout the world, coming back in derivative transactions to the same banks that had been forced to make the worthless loans in the first place!
IRONY heaped upon Irony…
Meanwhile, some of the sharp boys in the financial industry saw there was money to be made selling a new form of insurance. New enough that the name they coined— “Credit Default Swap” — didn’t alert the slumbering regulators that these were totally wacko insurance policies that ventured into areas where actuarial statisticians feared to tread.
In the fullness of time, someone was bound to wake up and see the metaphorical emperor striding naked along the boulevard.
Which brings us back to the present unfolding train wreck.
=======================
Josh, that term obamabux really makes my spinal chord shrivel.
I’m quaking at the thought of billions of bundles of monopoly money imprinted with the portrait of the Carbuncle-in-Chief.
Josh – “what if it is aboveboard, that is it is influenced by the desire to accumulate wealth, and is thought to be sound, is endorsed by public, private, and the academy, and turns out to be perfectly unsound? “
It fails, and no amount of cutting the salami is going to mitigate that. My point is that the salami cutters have no right to assign any risk to those who were not even parties to the deal except to increase their prices to stay solvent. I can choose not to do business with them but when one of the parties is the government itself, opting out isn’t an option. The government has speculated with money that not only wasn’t theirs, it did not exist to begin with. The only true commodity was the future prosperity of young and old, and those not yet born. It seems hardly equitable.
“eg the Chinese who Hank Paulson berated for not demanding higher yields!”
That is the locus of the problem. When a business model collapses like the dot.com bubble, everybody takes their lumps, some more than others. But when you have your mortgage with a country that is essentially hostile to you like China, then you have another kind of problem that I don’t think the big brains of globalism quite anticipate. China isn’t going to declare war on Google but they are as at risk as any party in the RE collapse AAA rated or not.
““because they could”
They should live and die like the rest of us. This “too big to fail” line is a fallacy that big government promotes when it is only the gov who is inextricably tied to them. In other words, they are too big to fail because government has put themselves at the gambling table with them.
Where’d the money go? All of these “securities” are ephemeral. They represent agreements between borrowers and lenders and as such are worth the word of the parties. To the extent that they are backed by value, it is the value of the houses (politically ‘Homes’) on which the agreements are based. The money lent under them is gone, baby. Spent. Wasted. Lived on. Just simply gone. But by the borrowers. The houses are still there.
Then how much are the houses worth now? They have a replacement cost. They have a utility cost. They have a ‘price’ between willing trading pair. Do these have any relationship to the earlier mortgage? No, because the market for the houses tanked. The borrower has the utility value of the house and a claim on an insurer for the replacement cost. And the banker or the holder of the MBS might have a claim against the bankrupt borrower for the ‘price’ (realized less any transaction costs for foreclosure) The money’s just gone. Period. Like the value in the stock market. Pfff’t
Ask the Tulip Traders in Holland.
Thanks Mad.
A prominent Dem politician once said even a blind hog finds an acorn occasionally.
“Ooops. Did I just say that?”
Thanks 34 Josh; 35 unsk, and 41 Mad Fiddler — Basically the banks sold the poison to Fannie and Freddie and then bought it back in a new wrapping and ate it. I think I’ve got it.
Now, if someone could please explain the pros and cons of small nation defaults…..and what that would do to the US if we do or don’t default.
The real problem is that for at least 100 yrs. in the US and for longer in Europe they and we have politicized the whole economy and huge instutions. The banks were cartelized by forming the Fed in 1913 and the politicians took it over in 1926 when the headquarters moved to DC. The Fed charter was changed in 1977 to include full employment as one of the prime directive rather than just managing for a sound currency/banking system.
The real issue is politicians run amuck. The answer-reduce the size/power of government. Someone takes a hit and it is those who rely on government for their hand out. They need to be off the tit and in the economy. Government in the US should be at most 9% of GDP; at or about what it was in 1913.
Across the board cuts in all agencies and the elimination of many (the exception being defense) until we hit that number; starting NOW. Term limited part time legislators (eliminate the professionals); no pensions, no perks, Congress meets and are only paid for 6 months of each year, legislation in plain english max. at 100 pages and everyone reads it personally before he votes.
Those changes just for a start.
The whole idea of global trade is either a gutting of our economy and corporate raiding or it is in the prospect of equitable trade. Look at our imbalance of trade and you have your answer to “where did all the money go”. Traditionally there were trade barriers, then trade agreements, and now unfettered looting of our national wealth all to support the shibboleth of free trade. Our counterparts in trade are focused on the long term of securing power by securing wealth and they are doing this by being productive. At just the time our own economy has risen to its highest peak our government decided to grab a piece of that perceived wealth and to write it into its entitlements.
Just as Europe has come to the end of the rope it had made for itself through entitlements and largesse, we have elected an administration that has decided that we needed to be made irreversibly just like them because that is what made Europe so cool.
There’s this guy named Dan Edstrom who has taken it upon himself to chart out what happened to his mortgage, to find out what happened to both the title and the the promisory note after he bought his house. He’s well into a year into it and still has far to go. Here’s the chart so far:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_wkgIzuqJM0w/TOGZGyYLc3I/AAAAAAAAHMo/wfC5uoj-D-w/s1600/Edstrom_MortgageSecuritization_POSTER_17_x_22_v4_1.jpg
He’s got a second chart that details where the chain of conveyance of his deed of title got broken in several places.
It’s becoming quite apparent that the basic questions of “Who owns the note? Who owns the title?” are not easy questions to answer. You’d need a supercompter from a particle collider to track the stream of chain reactions unleashed by your typical mortgage transaction, such as Dan’s.
This was a beautiful situation for the banks at first. They could issue the mortgage, sell it FanFred, buy it back and gain REMIC tax breaks, parcel it up into MBS tranches, submit that package to underwriters who achieved AAA ratings for from the ratings agencies, sell those securities off to investors, and stand in the middle earning fees for doling out parcels of the incoming revenue stream from the original borrowers. Nobody’s the wiser and Bob’s your uncle.
But now the complexity of situation is a huge problem. Foreclosure courts have started to notice that in not a single, solitary case streaming through the crush of foreclosure filings has a proper chain of title conveyance been seen. Not a one. If you can contest that, if you are in possession of or know of a properly conveyed title issued from a post-2000 home purchase, a lot of folks would like to see it. And then, there’s the matter of a promisory note …
Not only are the courts starting to wise up, the investors holding the securitized instruments have started to notice. If the underlying instruments were not properly securitized, and how can they be when nobody can actually produce a correctly conveyed title _WITH_ the correctly conveyed promisory note, the issuer of the said securitized instrument is bound to buy it back.
Even worse, if you have a mortgage, are you sure you’re actually paying the right party? What if homeowners demanded to see the paper trail and asked, who actually has the deed? Who actually has the note?
That’s the pickle the banksters have gotten themselves in, and it’s a whopper. They are potentially on the hook for the MBS, and they’re in serious trouble if foreclosure courts start holding them to the letter of the law. What was a win-win looms to become a lose-lose. If things go the wrong way it will blow all the big banks to the moon, and wipe out or cripple scores of the instutional investors, such as pension funds, who loaded up on all these MBS products.
This will sow economic chaos far and wide, and that’s the gun the banksters have against the head of the politicians. This the underlying fraud, this is the racketeering, that brought us to this day. We are now being tasked, for the good our betters have deemed for us, to look the other way and to take it on the chin and bailout people who, this year alone, plan to dole out $140 billion in bonuses just on Wall Street. For the greater good, of course!
RWE
It appears that people view money as a national resource, belonging to everyone, and to be mined as required. Unfortunately, they do not view real national resources requiring mining or drilling in that manner.
The definitive rentiers are the oil pimps, who like the lilies of the valley neither labor nor spin. The Eco-Socialist-Transnational wannabe aristocrats of America and Old Europe try to do better than the Arabs, Mad Mullahs, Kremlin Kleptocrats and Chavez by extracting wealth for their own consumption from a system that is not allowed to produce anything of value to anyone. They are dupes and once they have sufficiently enfeebled the societies that produced them the genuine article carnivores will pick their bones.
Maybe this is a bit off topic, but I don’t think so.
Has anyone noticed that the government isn’t printing new money? I’ve taken to looking at the currency that flows through my pockets and I haven’t seen a bill any newer than 2006. Now I’m checking every bill and there simply isn’t new money.
Shouldn’t this be a news story?
mf @ 41: yes, there was the idea that if you mix in just a little melamine with the powdered milk, the risk was managed.
Mad fiddler #39:
“…that in days long gone, bankers could be subject to civil fines and even CRIMINAL PROSECUTION by state and federal bank examiners for failure to exercise diligence and prudence…”
In Dr. Thomas Sowell’s book on the mortgage meltdown he points out that following passage of the enhanced CRA in 1993 Attry Gen Janet Reno said she would prosecute bank executives that did not follow the intent of the law and hand out loans to the correct sort of people.
What we have seen here is the type of Inversion that the Left so loves. Responsible people become monsters and the monsters become respectable. The basic principles of Leftist social policy were applied to fiscal policy.
I can’t help but wonder: Where Are They Now? We know that Franklin Raines and his cohorts are not in jail and neither is Bwany Fwank and his Freddie Mac boyfriend. The members of Congressional Black Caucus who defended Raines were mostly re-elected. We know that Geitner and Summerfield are not in jail but on the job with enhanced responsibilities. We know that many of the Whiz Kids who were thinking of derivatives on Wall St are now infesting some other industries (reportedly many have turned to teaching!!!). But where are the people at the Boston Fed who were saying that the new lending practices were just the berries? And the people at Bear Stearns, who poo-pooed the old standards of how much reserves were needed to cover bad loans – where are they? Where are all these idiots today? Or were they really idiots or simply the modern versions of Pretty Boy Floyd and John Dillinger?
A couple of years ago the manager that made the decision to launch the Shuttle Challenger on its final flight came out with a book saying it wasn’t his fault. And a couple of years before that one of the guys from NASA top management of the time came out with a book that said the loss of the Challenger was all Reagan’s fault for not giving NASA enough money. The capacity for self-delusion is often remarkable, but what we have seen lately is simply stunning.
DT, how can you tell which year a bill was printed? I suppose you’d have to look it up by serial number. The Series Year, which is printed on the bills, tells the year the note was designed, not the year it was printed.
Looking at the Bureau of Engraving website, they only list one new series year since 2006, and it’s a 2009 series for $20 bills. Yeah, the series years are supposed to change whenever we’ve got a new Secretary of the Treasury. Ha, looks like Paulson’s still endorsing most new US currency. I betcha there’s some kind of delay or snafu getting the new series years up for Geitner. Totally unsurprising, our govt especially seems increasingly dysfunctional and over-complex.
Begs a question, though. What is Paulson’s sig doing there on new notes? What happened to the legal in legal tender?
Socialism, the religion of the stomach*, is mighty hungry. How can we move forward and upward on an empty stomach?
“Special incentives would be offered”.?
“Hungarians will automatically be transferred into the state system unless they opt out.”
…-
“Hungary takes aim at [seizing] private pension funds
Hungary is trying to force 3 million people now in private pension schemes back into the state system to help it meet strict budget targets.
Special incentives would be offered to those switching into the state pension plan by Jan. 31, Economy Minister Gyorgy Matolcsy said Wednesday. Those people remaining in private schemes will become ineligible for public pensions — a move that would effectively cost them 70 percent of their retirement payouts.
At stake is about 2.7 trillion forints (euro9.8 billion, $13.5 billion) accumulated in individual pension accounts and managed by private pension funds.
The government plan, while not nationalizing private pension funds outright as Argentina did in 2008, is expected to make it very difficult for the 18 funds offering pension services in Hungary to keep operating.
Matolcsy said severe cuts will also be made in how much private funds can charge for fees and operating expenses.
Hungarians will automatically be transferred into the state system unless they opt out.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2634103/posts
*H/T Gustave Le Bon.
The main actors in the financial crisis are the welfare-state governments who wanted to live beyond their means. During the 1960′s and 1970′s we saw the US government engage in deficit spending which led to the inevitable inflation as the debt-based money supply increased. But then the idea of soaking up all that excess money via purchases of securitized debt caught on and we saw huge government debt but no runaway inflation of monetary base.
Here is a paper describing how “Securitization allows FRBs [Fractional Reserve Banks] to withdraw from the market the liquidities they have created and lent out. It reduces the money supply by the amount of liquid assets used to purchase the asset-backed securities. Therefore, it hides the reverse side of bank credit—the increase in the money supply, i.e., inflation. It makes the economic environment appear less inflationary than it should be, given individuals’ growing indebtedness to banks” http://mises.org/daily/3820
We got asset bubbles in housing because the government wanted it that way.
Maz 2 – At least Hungarian’s are given the choice. At this point most Americans would probably opt out. When government can’t regulate their spending within their own means all investments in it are like throwing good money after bad.
Had enough government yet?
Josh @ 1: Right on!
The problem is cultural. It is society wide. In the 1960′s we had an awakening, but not a Christian one. The West got rid of all those dusty, strict morals. We unleashed the 7 deadly sins from their social bonds: Greed, Lust, Envy, Sloth, Anger, Gluttony and Pride.
By the 90′s, these sins became virtues, embraced by a generation that had been abandoned by its parents and schools (they had to go and ‘find themselves’ and ‘not stay in loveless marriages’). Cynical and amoral would be the best short description of the 1990′s. It all came to a huge frothing head of avarice in the past ten years.
Making money at all costs, living the high life, became the utmost in personal aspirations. Banks made a mint selling bad loans to people who couldn’t afford them, and then sold them off as low risk to unsuspecting investors. A win win for them! Wall Street hedge fund billionaires made their billions by engaging in shady and illegal practices like naked short selling. The middle class tried to play the game, first by day trading bubbly dot com stocks, then by flipping houses. When they couldn’t raise their standard of living that way, they went out and borrowed incredible sums to fund McMansions and all their accoutrements. And the poor, they chose sloth, as long as they could get their check. The politicians increased their power by playing to all these interests.
Now what? Well, it’s over folks. Time to get real. How about we try Faith, Hope, Charity, Fortitude, Justice, Temperance and Prudence?
Here’s a link to a video by David Bosse and Stephen Bannon called Generation Zero. They go into more detail about the generational aspects to this crisis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAFiaraA3Bk
You’re so right about the thing of the Hungarians being given a choice, Annoy Mouse. I really fear big holiday weeks anymore, especially ones with big religious overtones like Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter. They are when this administration makes big, sneaky moves to slide them in under the radar. The sunday before last Christmas, after midnight, was a crucial vote on Obamacare. That Christmas Eve the Treasury backstopped FanFred via fiat. Easter brought us Obamacare.
Last week, HHS efectively did to health insurers what the Hungarians have done to private pension funds. The insurers are under margin squeeze; they are marked men walking. Nothing but crickets from the media!
The essential problem stems from the notion that fiat money has intrinsic value. It doesn’t. It never did. It never will. The only purpose it ever had was to facilitate true commerce; the exchange of things like goods, services, and property that do indeed have intrinsic value.
I am a fan of capitalism and free markets, but at the same time I have always viewed as what I call “paper capitalism”, that being banking and “financial services,” as being a necessary evil. They and their practices should only be tolerated so long as they actually do promote actual commerce. When they cease to do so they should be promptly exterminated like a sheep dog that goes bad and starts killing the sheep.
But the current political class has put the cart before the horse. In any rational world the emphasis should be on helping the people who produce goods and services that have intrinsic value. Instead it is put upon the producers to ensure the well being of the paper capitalists who have gone bad because of rabies or terminal stupidity or greed.
Asking whether the government or the private sector is primarily responsible for the real estate bubble is like asking who started the fire: the guy who lit the match or the guy who poured the gas.
Note: there was a real estate bubble in Ireland. Did they have a Fannie and Freddie and CRA? There was a real estate bubble in Spain. There is an ongoing real estate bubble in Vancouver, Canada, where the average price for a home is one million dollars (Canadian). Crack Shack or Mansion, anyone? http://www.crackshackormansion.com/ Is there a CRA there? There is a real estate bubble going on in China right now.
Bubbles occur when the price of borrowing money becomes too low. Lending standards are then relaxed to keep the bubble going, because if it stops there is immediate economic pain. Nobody in power wants to be the one that lets that happen.
It is necessary to have a generation that doesn’t remember the last bubble popping and is self centered and needs immediate gratification. Interest rates in the 1950′s were the same as in the mid 2000′s, yet there was no debt fueled real estate bubble. The GI generation of the 50′s had lived through the Great Depression and WWII, and were not at all interested accumulating massive amounts of debt. They were used to doing without, and were quite happy with the little bungalow and the white picket fence.
So many of our current problems have a single underlying cause:
Scale.
There are natural economies of scale, and natural diseconomies. As organizations grow, they leverage the economies of scale. Eventually, the diseconomies start to kick in, and there is a natural equilibrium that kicks in. Technology can alter this equilibrium, sometimes quite dramatically. But by far the biggest distorter is the government.
And it’s not because the government is filled with evil people. It’s not. There are evil people, to be sure, but most are simply responding to the incentives they face, and the identity to which the aspire. They’re good people in a bad system.
What makes the system bad? A lack of accountability. Once politicians believe they “own” their seat, they can do what they want. And once businesses discover that they can minimize the impact of diseconomies of scale by passing laws mandating them, they go to the politicians demanding such laws.
A huge bank is not as close to its customers as a small, local bank. This is a diseconomy of scale. If a huge bank can spread its government compliance costs across a bigger base of customers, this is an economy of scale.
In a normal situation, this is not a problem. The cost of compliance is not so high that it overcomes the advantages of being close to your customer.
But in today’s environment, the cost of compliance is so high, and the regulations so imposing, that the economy of scale that huge bank enjoys swamps the diseconomies that come from being, well, huge.
What happens then? Well, huge bank enjoys more profit, and small bank gets pushed to the brink. Huge bank gets cheaper capital since it goes to the public markets (themselves so regulated that you have to be a really huge bank to go public); small bank doesn’t. Etc.
The point here is that by creating a single, all-encompassing regulatory regime, you guarantee that the “winners” in such a regime will be too big to fail. You guarantee that small competitors will be crushed. You guarantee that the big players will snuggle up to the regulators.
In short, you guarantee corporatism.
Big businesses are piling up cash at a rapid clip. Small businesses are living on the edge. Have you wondered why? It’s because the centralization of all regulatory authority in Washington is playing completely into the hands of big business interests. They want centralization, as it minimizes diseconomies of scale and accentuates economies of scale. Centralization begets bigness.
The stress on their smaller competitors is giving them pricing power, too. Weak competitors can’t fully compete, and this gives larger competitors more profit. And small competitors are weak because they rely upon the banking system, which is completely on its back, while large competitors go to Wall Street for their capital. The gap in both availability and pricing has become a gulf. Another economy of scale.
Scale is what drove much of the finance industry’s activity in the housing bubble. Securitization? A way to create scale. Standardization? A way to create scale. Regulation? A driver of scale, by increasing costs disproportionately on small players and squeezing out the discretion that helped the small guys succeed.
And Washington had an unquenchable appetite for scale. When you’re in Congress, a billion dollars is trivial. But at a human scale, one billion dollars is immense. If you are 30, and live to be 100, you’d have to spend almost $40,000 per day, every day, for the rest of your life to spend $1B. If you think about this, really think about this, it’s almost impossible.
But Congress spends $10B every day!
This cannot be done responsibly. Let me repeat:
This. Cannot. Be. Done. Responsibly.
I don’t care who you are. I don’t care how noble your motives. It’s simply too much money.
We cannot operate a centralized regulatory apparatus at the scale of the US. $14T of annual economic activity; 306 million people; 4 million firms. It’s not possible.
The scale is too great.
Our only hope for governing this kind of system properly is to break the problem down into smaller pieces. And the natural way to do that is to return a huge amount of authority to the states.
That is why I’ve been working with a group to create the Health Care Compact. You’ll be hearing more about this in the coming weeks, but it’s a way to bring a big chunk of the power and authority that has accumulated in Washington DC back to the states. It’s a serious approach from serious people.
We’re starting with healthcare because it’s where the crisis has already started. There are 22 provisions of Obamacare that get implemented in 2011. Many of them go after Medicare directly, and it’s just the first step. Over $500B is being taken from Medicare to pay for Obamacare, and as it starts getting implemented, there is going to be a huge outcry.
That’s when we need to bring the regulation of healthcare back to the states. We need to give states the ability to keep the money collected in their state within their state and spend it according to the wishes of the state. No more sending the money to Washington DC and begging them to give it back to us, with strings attached.
Let the states compete for who can provide the best healthcare system. Why should we have a one-size-fits-all approach to regulation driven by Congress? That is what happened with the mortgage market, after all. If some states want a single-payer system, fine. Let them pay for it. Other states want to experiment with markets, fine. Make them figure it out for themselves.
Bottom line is that we need to break the problem down into manageable chunks. We need to make the problem smaller; reduce its scale. Only then can we get back on the road to health.
Literally, and figuratively.
L3
Elby – “Asking whether the government or the private sector is primarily responsible for the real estate bubble is like asking who started the fire”
It isn’t if we are living in a free market system. Businesses boom and bust in a process known as creative destruction, but we do not have that luxury with our government. The government in the US’s case has a stake in the outcome and has picked the winners and the losers. In a free market the winners and losers choose themselves.
INRE
Fannie Mae…
Founded in FDR’s America… Yes it’s that old.
Syndicated out into the public market as a Quango in the 1960′s under LBJ.
It’s original purpose was to permit small bank America to bypass the haircut imposed by the ‘City Banks’ ( euphemism for NYC super banks ) when such institutions wanted to ‘discount’ their assets ( pools of their loan portfolios ) in order for these banks to keep on lending in torrid local markets.
Designed for modest bread and butter residential real estate, Fannie Mae would not touch commercial lending. (by statute)
The last time I looked qualifying loans were/are restricted to $407,000. Above and beyond that threshold is the ‘Jumbo’ loan market.
Unloading mortgage pools onto FNMA was a blessing for the small banks — but was not restricted to them. Mega-banks saw the angle, too.
Bankers have a chronic problem of borrowing shorter than their asset maturities. This is most extreme with residential real estate wherein a typical weighted maturity of 360 month paper ends up being about 90 months. Short term funding rates can go to the moon in well under 36 months. Hence. all bankers want this asset held by someone else; but they sure do like to ‘service’ the asset — for a steady fee.
FNMA, because of it’s Quango status was able to borrow wholesale – direct — and issue LONG TERM debt on the cheap. Unlike the servicing bankers, FNMA was able to fully unload interest rate swing risk onto the market. It is notable that CHINA and other Sovereign Wealth Funds were heavy and massive buyers of FNMA debt — it paid a tad more than US Treasuries. It was, correctly, assumed that the US Federal Government would have to step up and cover FNMA. Her obligations were of the same order of magnitude as the US Treasury with consequent impacts upon national politics!
If FNMA had gone no further than the above she wouldn’t need giga-bucks today.
————–
FNMA quality standards did not permit her to have any impact in the ‘ghetto.’
The Marxist Congressional Black Caucus, ( CBC ) schemed to get around this. Being economic illiterates — to a man/woman — they figured that providing flush-money to the ghetto would redress many wrongs.
Step one was the CRAPolicy launched in 1977 by Jimmy the minor. Since the CBC was really only interested in their own hyper-urban back yard the locus for over-sight was upon the urban bankers.
As long as CRAPolicy was restricted the damage was contained.
But the CBC wanted unrestricted central planning — with them doing the planning/evaluation.
Twelve years of Reagan-Bush thwarted the CBC.
However, comes 1992 and the Boston Federal Reserve Bank publishes a ‘scholarly’ work-up on the results of CRAPolicy in the Rte 128 Corridor. In all of the boom times it seems that the big bankers were not losing enough money to ‘justify’ their risk profile in the ghetto.
Clinton takes up the CBC cause ( Our first Black President ) and fleshes out CRAPolicy.
Eventually, he puts the ultimate Democrat pit-bull into the fray: Gorelick!
The Gorelick crafts one missive after another hammering what will evolve into mega-banks/ a reconfigured MONEY TRUST.
A deal is struck: the mega-banks will be allowed to congeal into To Big To Fail/ Money Trust format If and only If (IFF) they salute the Clenis.
Comes the impeachment ‘trial’ and the Clenis uses all his pimping skills to turn out his string of banksters. MASSIVE increases in CRAPolicy funding/mortgages/commitments are vectored into vote critical districts around the nation at the exact same time as the Senatorial Noh Play hits the airwaves. Amazing timing, Noh?
Real estate ‘values’ in the ghetto start to move — really move above long term trends.
It turns out that the banksters commitments specifically include using ACORN troops as advance agents to ENSURE that the RIGHT KIND of poor people are introduced to what was — originally — a race based lending entitlement program.
Obama was personally involved in such efforts, notably getting the hammer down on Citibank.
Comes 1999 and Rubin/Clenis dupe the Repubs into Citibank+Travelers and getting rid of Glass -Steagall.
MERS, the linch pin for the Money Trust was formed under Rubin/Clenis.
And so the order was given: Warp Speed!
———-
Again, back to the FNMA impossibility of touching ghetto mortgages…
Rubin/Clenis/Gorelick and WS brainiacs TRIANGULATED.
They could get ghetto debt in through the out door by having it deemed AAA by Nationally Accredited third parties (S&P, Moody’s & Fitch) AFTER it was insured by MONOLINES (AMBAC, et. al.) and sausaged by WS’s trading desks.(Bear Stearns, et. al.)
Thusly, funds raised by FNMA could be vectored through ( BS ) insured by (AMBAC) assured by (Moody’s) and sent on to ACORN patron banksters with Cartel Boiler Plate.
Who knew that in all this cleverness, the SECURITY INTEREST covering the mortgage was SHREDDED by MERS!
This Second Program — an invention of the Clenis/Rubin/Gorelick axis — that gave us the Sub Prime Fiasco ™ .
Not long after setting up the game, Rubin and Gorelick left Washington to clean up.
They are both mega-millionaires, courtesy of the Money Trust. Rubin took his annuity from Citibank — it must be — he never did any work and had no supervisory duties. The Gorelick took her money the altruistic way: from Quango Freddie Mac.
————–
In a Credit-Money Economy the price point for an asset dominated by passion and other peoples money/ bank credit really gets up and moves.
Hence, we’ve all had the pleasure to watch total boobs make out like bandit re-habbing in the ghetto. Of course, like any let-it-ride bettor, the last ‘investment’ flip must end in tears/ insolvency.
Since all bankers everywhere guide their perceptions like a school of fish — mostly looking sideways — eventually they become reef stricken.
—–
Once the bubble burst, price recision takes the ENTIRE residential market down. Further amplification is had by discharged construction workers, real estate brokers, et. al.
Naturally, the Fed stays completely clueless through the entire cycle. A status unchanged at this late hour.
——
Even now, ACORN, et. al. will not admit that CRAPolicy was racially directed centrally planned outcomes based social-financial engineering.
But then, what could go wrong?
Josh/1; look at the timing –someone somewhere could tell you about some sort of handshake deal in and around the extraction of Glass-Steagall’s teeth –where the banks erase the red lines in return for no prying uncle sam questioning the premises of securitization. The bankster knows he’s gonna lose money when the red lines go –so what’s in it for him? Lay off the losses, via laying off the risks –and nobody gets hurt, see, because the tranches are full of such thin slices, some subprime, some alt-a, some prime. What was in for the gov’t? You’re supposed to believe ‘votes’ –the equivalent of ‘i didn’t read the bill’ –but more and more believe something much deeper red, a gigantic wealth/power transfer from production to consumption, from supply to demand, capital to labor, citizen to state. Endgame, as far as history is concerned, much life to much death.
Then, like every deal every made that for some reason has to be kept secret, its legs were finite. Which would make little difference, except for the 2nd Amendment.
L3 – “by increasing costs disproportionately on small players and squeezing out the discretion that helped the small guys succeed”
You got that right. How big do you have to be to have a building full of lawyers and bureaucrats to keep you above the burgeoning regulation? How big do you have to be to hire a team of lobbyists and to dole out millions in campaign contributions?
Take the problem and divide it by 50? Not a bad idea. Good luck with Health Care Compact
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/110553/
Bernie Marcus of Home Depot in an interview w/ Neil Cavuto (6 minute version)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKNJE5lxhhA
(9 minute version)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDUabZCdaKY
***
This is what you send the non-readers in your circle –
L3 puts his most perspicacious finger on the central problem of an intrusive government. As any enterprise grows larger, it becomes more able to gain the attention of the Rulers. As the Govt grows larger it becomes more necessary to gain the attention of the Govt. Mom and Pop Hardware cannot begin to compete with Home Depot and Lowe’s for Legislative Attention. All very legal and protected by the Constitution. But Equal Under the Law it ain’t. It isnt HD’s or LWE’s fault, they’re playing the game as dealt.
This is the first liberty argument for smaller government.
bl @ 67: 492: The number of days since the average borrower in foreclosure last made a mortgage payment. In other words, people who default on their mortgages can reasonably expect, on average, to stay in their homes rent-free more than 16 months.
yes, but that’s in some part because neither the banks nor the fed want to admit to the situation. yes, it is still freeloader’s heaven, and we’re all sorry we’re not in on it – if we’re not.
blert @ 64: FNMA quality standards did not permit her to have any impact in the ‘ghetto.’ Excellent point. Excellent post. Translated from the blertish, it’s a keeper.
Batman asked: “But what would that do to the US? If everyone else defaults and we don’t, won’t we be at a long term disadvantage saddled with debt payments that other countries have shed? And if we do default, wouldn’t that put an end to dollarization of other currencies? Finally, if hyperinflation ever arrives (as opposed to ordinary high levels of inflation), won’t that be an indirect form of default?”
Last question first, yes, any inflation is always a disguised form of default, as it systematically lowers the value of all old non-indexed debt.
And what would happen if everyone else defaults on their debts but the US doesn’t? Recall that the ability to generate debt functions as a great capital multiplier when an economy is growing, which is why credit is so important to a modern economy. Giving up that ability means giving up the chances to use that kind of multiplier on your economy in any near term future. *If* a nation can get through this crisis without defaulting, it will have a huge advantage in future growth once the world gets past the current down cycle. (this isn’t simply hypothetical; this is the situation China will find itself in soon)
The problem is that some nations (Ireland, Greece, etc) are already so far in debt that attempting to pay it back will negate any future potential growth they might experience. That’s why defaulting makes sense for them – they will get more benefit from a default today than they could ever get from access to future credit markets. They are quite literally past the point of no return.
Is the US past the point of no return yet? I hope not, but I don’t really know. We might be.
p.s. for Keith: Gary Jules version of “Mad World” is one of those rare covers that much improves on the original.
News is that the EU just agreed to a permanent bailout mechanism. It’s a howler. Doesn’t come on-line until 2013, and all EU members’ debt issuances up to that date are backstopped. After 2013, if some country gets in trouble, there has to be a unanimous vote among the other EU members that said country is insolvent rather than illiquid. This seems like letting a group of possums vote on who raided the hen house.
Looks like an open spigot, a vow by the EU to print their way out of anything. QE-infinity. The PIIGS have to be pissed not a little bit, though. Some have been paying 7% on 10-years lately, if the backstop holds they just got raped on that. On the otherhand, this makes it a lot easier for them to weasel out of austerity and keep the party going!
The Irish must be positively murderous!
c @ 72: sounds about right,
yes we’ll all inflate together, when we go,
so the currencies stay in sync,
and it’s harder for the people to see
they’re being robbed blind.
at least, that must be what the finance monsters
are telling each other.
when a loaf of bread is ninety dollars or eighty euros,
is it really so hidden? “oh, but it’s so much worse,
across the pond” both sides will say.
hoorah.
L3 #62:
The Denizens of DC are very, very fond of “One Size Fits All” National Policy solutions. So are the lobbyists seeing to influence them. And it always, always, fails.
My years in the Pentagon led me to realize that every private company wants to be subsidized, to be protected from competition, and to be given free stuff from the government. It’s sad, but true. Some are a lot more successful than others at the game, and naturally the big outfits are better at it. It was always a shock to me to hear a USAF General officer say that such and such an outfit’s latest stupid pocket-lining idea was something that would have to be considered seriously. I did not endear myself to anyone by consistently describing such schemes with the most pejorative terms, and in retrospect I guess it is amazing how many I helped to place in File 13.
Blert #64:
Do not discount the impact of non-ghetto mortgages getting a piece of the action. It’s clear the banks quite logically thought that if giving a mortgage to someone with no lending history and no obvious means of support for properties in virtual war zones was acceptable then giving 3 or 5 or 7 mortgages to people who had demonstrated responsibility in the past and actually had good incomes in order to buy homes in nice new suburbs made even more sense.
Gentlemen, this has happened before. The farmers in the USSR fed their personally owned cattle bread instead of grain because the government artificially supported the price of grain and subsidized the sale of bread. They were not stupid and neither were all the House Flippers.
OT: More good stuff on Powerline, talking about Wikileaks and how it makes Israel seem to much more rational and restrained, even about Iran, than the Arabs – or that the antisemitic libtards would tell us.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/11/027784.php
Cowboy
Looks like an open spigot, a vow by the EU to print their way out of anything.
Sounds like the Germans have been told what is the perpetual blood tax they will have to bear in order to remain in the human race. They may reject the offer and kick out their freeloading cousins, or look for a better deal to the East.
RWE…
Your conclusion is 100% on target.
Once conceived, the scheme expanded into all most all residential markets. The reason is linkage.
A general mania took hold. All entrapped became euphoric.
—-
While Ireland commands amazing statistics — one must observe it in scale.
Like Iceland, her limited population easily produces astounding debt per capita ratios.
If Ireland can unwind her assets over seas, recovery may be possible.
Right now the focus is on her debts, little attention is paid to Ireland’s assets, many of which are top grade, Class A commercial properties in the US.
Honors to blert@64.
My sloppy scholarship gonna get me disbarred sooner or later.
I shoulda read up on the origins of FNMA.
All of us might could benefit from a few more links and citations.
But at least, blert reminds us of the underlying complexity of the vast web of deceit that’s been manipulated by the ratbrainiacs for most of the last century.
Imagine there’s a party going full swing, the liquor is flowing freely and everybody is having a smashing good time. Then some grumpy old sourpuss comes along and tries to shut down the good times. “hey, you are all drunk, lets break this up before the place gets trashed and somebody gets hurt.” Think anybody is going to listen to him, if even such a person would show up at a party like that?
Imagine its 2004, houses are selling for ever higher prices, construction is booming, and the economy is fast approaching full employment. What politician exists that would come along and insist on tighter lending standards, honest appraisals, and honest assessment of risk in mortgage backed securities? If anyone did come along and said that at that time, certainly nobody listened. They couldn’t hear him for the din of the music and laughter.
If those proposals had been taken in 2004, it would have meant a decline in home sales, home construction, and home prices. Individuals and banks would have been bankrupted. Then everybody would have blamed that person for wrecking the economy. This is fundamentally why nothing was done.
Human nature. It’ll bite you in the butt every time.
elby, the Wall Street Journal was printing editorials about it several times a month for years, George Bush and John McCain both made efforts to at least rein in F&F. All the insiders knew there was a bubble and it was about to burst – and yet nobody anticipated the scale of what actually happened.
“The Euro game is up”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/11/027768.php
Josh, yep, and nobody listened to those old fuddy duddies. Kinda proves my point, don’t it? And I would add, they made motions, but didn’t try very hard to rein F&F in. It was never a big issue back then. It was barely a peep, not heard above the roar of laughter and good times.
Speculators, Politicians and Financial Disasters
11/10/08 – WSJ.com from Commentary by John Steele Gordon
“Redlining” was a bank policy to identify usually poor and black neighborhoods for more careful scrutiny before making housing loans. This was decried by government as a bigoted policy by “white bankers”.
Here is the reality. In 1934 the government created “red lining” as a quick, bureaucratic way to assess risk. Always look to the government for intelligent, nuanced decisions.
— Quote —
But historically there was also a class, made up mostly of American blacks, for whom home ownership was out of reach. Although simple racial prejudice had long been a factor here, it was, ironically, the New Deal that institutionalized discrimination against blacks seeking mortgages. In 1935 the Federal Housing Administration, established in 1934 to insure home mortgages, asked the Home Owner’s Loan Corp.—another New Deal agency, this one created to help prevent foreclosures—to draw up maps of residential areas according to the risk of lending in them. Affluent suburbs were outlined in blue, less desirable areas in yellow, and the least desirable in red.
The FHA used the maps to decide whether or not to insure a mortgage, which in turn caused banks to avoid the redlined neighborhoods. These tended to be in the inner city and to comprise largely black populations. As most blacks at this time were unable to buy in white neighborhoods, the effect of redlining was largely to exclude even affluent blacks from the mortgage market.
— —
The CBC was able to reframe the issue as racist…
That F&F were the salvation of Black America…
Now we know, they have become the salvors of ghetto America.
Instead of heaven it’s the scrap yard.
The default line. We all know something bad is happening, but what exactly. Well, I’ve been talking to my season ski pass and he had this to say…
People say that inflation has been low. Yes, fiscal inflation has been low but asset inflation has been out of control. The real estate bubble was massive asset inflation. Every asset bubble is asset inflation.
For 60 years progessive governments have struck a devil’s bargain with their banks. The deal was this. “We the Government are addicted to spending. If the banks feed our spending habit, we the government will look after the banks.” The spending habit was easy to feed when assets were inflating because we all “knew” that wealth was increasing. Utopia!
And the banks were taken care of.
At the same time China used the “Savile Row Tailor” strategy on the US. In the 20′s and 30′s, well born but impoverished English gentry must be clothed by their Savile Row tailor. But they had no money. The deal was this. “We, the Savile Row tailors, will lend you the money to buy our fine suits.” China hit on the same idea except they lent huge amounts of money to the US just so Americans could buy China’s products.
So we had asset inflation and then we had asset deflation. OOPS! The value of the assets backing all the loans to supply the government spending habit, and ordinary folks’ Chinese aquisition programs shrank.
And the banks were taken care of.
Now what?
Well we can try to reinflate asset values but that’s not happening. Or we can massively devalue currencies. Gosh darn; can’t do that in Europe while the Eurozone exists and capital fleeing the euro is going to shore up the US dollar.
My ski pass thinks that the Eurozone will break first. He thinks that the PIIGS will return to their own currencies and massively deflate them. They can’t repay their debts now and will be even less able to repay them after deflation.
Ski pass predicts that they will default on their debts but since the PIIGS are hugely indebted to each other they will partly default to each other. Ski pass says maybe it’s a new form of barter. Don Quixote says “hey Paddy, I’ll default on 50 billion Euros I owe you if you agree to default on 50 billion Euros that you owe me. Never mind that we aren’t using Euros any more.”
Ski pass thinks whoever is holding Don Quixote and Paddy’s loans will be screwed – unless they are a bank. Paddy will print millions of leprechauns and Don Quixote will print millions of windmills and pay back the banks, at least partly. Other creditors will be screwed. Kind of like the GM unions versus other holders of GM debt.
And that’s when monetary inflation will start ….
Ski pass tried to say more but I stopped him with a threat to melt his lower half. I don’t have a good feeling about this.
WC…
I hope that you’re not an aggressive hoser.
That would kill anyone’s ‘pass.’
wc @ 85: fiscal inflation has been low but asset inflation has been out of control.
sounds like deflation to me.
this is what you and ski pass talk about on the ride up? no wonder you think everything is sliding down hill!
waitaminute, asset inflation isn’t deflation, I’m confused, but certainly real estate assets have not been inflating, nor most manufacturing assets. and hasn’t fiscal inflation in terms of money supply been gigundo? heck, we’re all confused these days.
save me one of those hot toddys, I need to clear my head.
…have a hot ruttered bum, josh. oops i mean hot buttered rum
#’s 86 and 87 Josh. I admit that Ski pass is sometimes confused. However he insists that the huge increases in asset values like real estate, that we saw before the crash were a form of inflation that substituted for consumer price inflation. The subsequent bursting of the real estate bubble was a deflation of asset values.
He meant to say currency devaluation, not deflation.
I think he is correct in assuming that no European government owns assets whose market value covers the face value of their sovereign bonds. He also says this is a four beer discussion – meaning clarity may take a hit.
At the end of the day he’s just a humble piece of coloured plastic in a wallet full of the little critters.
“Where did the money go?”
It never existed!
We do not live in a capitalist system.
We live in a debtalist system.
In a capitalist system the majority of “money” is tangible capital (e.g., gold, land, tools).
In a debtalist system such as ours “money” is created out of thin air by the act of lending or borrowing it into existence.
When it is wasted (e.g., by bidding up the price of houses) the “value” disappears after the crash. The debt remains with the borrower unless he defaults.
Kudos for referencing the climate change scandal – ‘hide the decline’ has almost become synonymous with conspiracy and outright lying by supposed ‘experts’.
The strangest thing is that services and goods are still being consumed… they are still being produced, apparently in sufficient amounts for us to live quite comfortably at the moment. Are we, the world, truly in debt? When we say money is gone, what does it mean? What is money, anyway? An intermediary good of exchange, that has no intrinsic value in itself.
A lot of our troubles nowadays stem from the irrational economist view that deflation is ‘bad’. I guess at least half of our economic troubles could be avoided once the ‘experts’ realize that deflation is nothing more than an error correction.
Everybody knows this but it bears repeating –when your lefty pal tells you that yes, liberal lending crapped out but at least the liberal cares enough about the little guy to have given it a try, remind this person that anyone smarter than celery knows that liberal lending drives up prices, and this is what hurts the little guy. Create an ownership society by amping real estate prices?
Sure if little guy owns property it prices higher, but if he trades, the replacement is priced higher too. This is why the mini-trend of shrewd upper middlers selling homes and renting a roof while the cycle plays thru.
Banksters and pols know this of course, so in the light of their having known this from the beginning of the cycle, how can they not stand before us now revealed as nothing but deliberate tyrants building a tyranny by dressing up as champions of the common man?
Now they’ve screwed around and got the banks holding ghost monsters of housing with loan-to-values teetering on the edge of busting out 5000 banks, and are QE2-ing like mad to push away the abyss. They’re making the situation worse by far by preaching QE2 as a ‘deflation measure’, just as every people’s transaction but deeds are inflating. So, credibility is exactly what is needed, and is exactly what is missing.
PS …and the crashing irony is, home prices are trying to fall to a ‘right’ (‘market-clearing’) price –which is all the little guy ever needed from the beginning (assuming a ‘normal’ economy) –and the gov’t fedtreasury has to fight it (as ‘deflation’) to the death, exactly the opposite of the fifteen year old ‘help the little guy’ mission statement of the whole ball o wax.
Add young people trying to make a start to african-americans in general, as two selected identity groups to be wanting a day of reckoning with the liberals, a coming attraction.
As the song says; “Money for nut’in and chicks for free”
Just think, if TARP hadn’t passed, All those mismanaged corporations would be gone, to hopefully be replaced by New Corporations who had management teams that knew a clue when it bit them. The pain would have been worse, but almost over by now. Instead we have a sick economy tettering on the edge of a collapse that in the end will turn out to be as bad or worse then the initial failure. So instead of a lot of pain followed by a recovery, we have a long bout of a little pain followed by a lot of pain. Pardon me, but I don’t see that as an improvement.
S/95; Pardon me, but I don’t see that as an improvement
…you would if you were trying to bust the Dollar and turn the free mkt system inside out.
***
This is off/thread, it’s news about the BP well that is apparently not going to get much play, when imho it oughtta be above the fold and only a typesize smaller than the Dec 08 1941 headline.
Yup, all them subpoena’d witnesses transferred overseas, where no one will wonder that they all inherited fortunes from distant relatives in Shangri La? Naaahhhh. But Transocean IS a Swiss company, so maybe those witnesses are gone fer good –
***
sorry for off thread –just for those following the case –please return to regularly shed dyooled programming –
Wikileaks again. Plastered all over place. Leaking the Iraq war documents was bad enough, but this basically destroys decades of shaky trust between much of the world’s diplomatic circles. It is likely to start wars and kill hundreds of thousands of people or more, not mentioning the fact that it is specifically damaging to the US.
Of course, wikileaks had suppliers. These people should be meted an exemplary punishment, so no one thinks of doing it again. I think that this look a bit more coordinated than coming out of a fer rotten apples.
One more thing. If you were to destroy US and had power, what would you do differently than this? Just my humble opinion about Manchurian-in-chief.
Josh, economics is 99% theory. Very few facts. One of those facts is that ANYTHING is worth whatever somebody will pay for it. Period. A big part of the underwriting process is ‘guessing’ what somebody in the future will pay for something being sold today. Wall Street is founded by that simple fact.
Government attempts to control the future by guaranteeing what the value of something ( real property in this case) will be in the future. That distorts the market. Then the game becomes not guessing if that item will be worth more in the future but if the government guarantee is larger or smaller then what the real value will be. Those that went short are enjoying their limos, those that went long are inspiring Walt.
Meanwhile, the various bailouts were done to avoid financial institutions ( called banks for ease of usage) selling those assets it had overvalued and showing an enormous loss. While those losses would have upset the system, they would have destroyed the best and brightest that created them. I doubt that any of our Congress critters cared one way or the other about the institutions, they did have a vested interest in the ‘elites’ running those institutions.
So the bailouts were done by one set of crooks to protect another set of crooks.
The solution is to throw out the bums. A small start was had a few weeks ago. It has to be done again in ’12 and then again in’14. Remember it takes 3 cycles to teach politicians anything.
The question is, can we the people hold together and keep the heat on for 3 cycles? I hope so. America depends on it. If we don’t, humanity is looking at another 1,000 years of misery. A new Dark Age.
The “failure of capitalism” is never the failure of capitalism. It is always the failure of government.
97 – 2×4 “These people should be meted an exemplary punishment, so no one thinks of doing it again.”
You see when these leaks started. It was good because it only, or mostly, embarrassed Republicans and the military. Double plus good. The CIA has become a gossipy chatter-box and even the most secret agency of them all, the NSA has allowed leaks by left-wing ideologues. Good. But now the State Department, a bastion of the Clintonista revolutionaries, are facing a schism with the Obama left and secrets that would normally never see the light of day, because they are effectively Democrat positions, are now being aired in this lover’s spat of the Left. This is pissing in the soup of the highest order and no sovereign government will ever trust the US with its secrets ever, and I mean ever, again. Double plus un-good.
Meanwhile some poor snook gets a DUI and loses his secret clearance assembling cable harnesses for F18′s then loses his job. He should work for the government and publish secrets for the world to see. He’ll never lose his job by being a real traitor.
AM/100; re WikiLeaks, so fits Part II of Coleridge’s The Rime of the Ancient Mariner
“The sun now rose upon the right:
Out of the sea came he,
Still hid in mist, and on the left
Went down into the sea.
And the good south wind still blew behind,
But no sweet bird did follow,
Nor any day for food or play
Came to the mariners’ hollo!
And I had done a hellish thing,
And it would work ‘em woe:
For all averred, I had killed the bird
That made the breeze to blow.
Ah wretch! said they, the bird to slay,
That made the breeze to blow!
Nor dim nor red, like God’s own head,
The glorious sun uprist:
Then all averred, I had killed the bird
That brought the fog and mist.
‘Twas right, said they, such birds to slay,
That bring the fog and mist.
The fair breeze blew, the white foam flew,
The furrow followed free;
We were the first that ever burst
Into that silent sea.
Down dropped the breeze, the sails dropped down,
‘Twas sad as sad could be;
And we did speak only to break
The silence of the sea!
All in a hot and copper sky,
The bloody sun, at noon,
Right up above the mast did stand,
No bigger than the moon.
Day after day, day after day,
We stuck, nor breath nor motion;
As idle as a painted ship
Upon a painted ocean.
Water, water, every where,
And all the boards did shrink;
Water, water, every where,
Nor any drop to drink.
The very deep did rot: O Christ!
That ever this should be!
Yea, slimy things did crawl with legs
Upon the slimy sea.
About, about, in reel and rout
The death-fires danced at night;
The water, like a witch’s oils,
Burnt green, and blue, and white.
And some in dreams assured were
Of the Spirit that plagued us so;
Nine fathom deep he had followed us
From the land of mist and snow.
And every tongue, through utter drought,
Was withered at the root;
We could not speak, no more than if
We had been choked with soot.
Ah! well-a-day! what evil looks
Had I from old and young!
Instead of the cross, the Albatross
About my neck was hung.”
Update from Bloomberg.
…-
“EU’s Irish Rescue Fails to Stem Contagion; Spain Bonds Drop”
“European governments’ 85 billion- euro ($113 billion) bailout package for Ireland failed to quell the market turmoil menacing the euro as stocks, bonds and the currency declined.
Irish 10-year bonds slid after an early advance, European stocks and the euro declined, and the cost of insuring the debt of Spain and Portugal against default soared to record highs.
“The notion that a rescue package for Ireland would create a firewall and stop the fear of contagion is clearly discredited,” said Preston Keat, director of research at Eurasia Group, a political consultancy, in London. “Portugal and Spain are already facing pressures in the markets.”
Six months after the Greek rescue exposed flaws in the euro’s makeup and fueled doubts whether 16 countries belong in the same currency union, policy makers again found themselves meeting on Sunday in Brussels racing to calm markets.
Finance chiefs also endorsed a Franco-German compromise on post-2013 rescues that means investors won’t automatically take losses to share the cost with taxpayers as German Chancellor Angela Merkel initially proposed to the consternation of bond traders. And Greece was told it could have an extra four-and-a- half years to repay emergency loans totaling 110 billion euros to match the seven-year term under Ireland’s deal.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-29/ireland-s-eu-financial-rescue-fails-to-stem-contagion-as-spain-bonds-drop.html
well, I don’t grok the sovereign debt, esp in and around the euro, really. except ours, and maybe not even that. I like to think I’m somewhat clear(er) on the domestic.
but hey, I’ve been ranting about The New Dark Ages since the mid-90s and the brainless support that appeared to support Clintoon, who was just a buffoon and should have been tossed in short order on his kiester, giving us president Al. In retrospect this might have spared us from any more Hildabeast. sigh. of all the words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these: it might have been.
Buddy #93:
“…anyone smarter than celery knows that liberal lending drives up prices, and this is what hurts the little guy.”
And this applies to the people who scream about the evils of Wal Mart, too. Everyone knows that only millionaires can shop at Wal-Mart, leaving the poor little guys to pay full price at Nordstrom or Nieman Marcus.
Those people who work at Wal Mart are being harmed by that low wage employment, and since poor and middle class people do not shop there, none of them are being helped.
By the way, driving up real estate prices also gives the local municipalities a huge windfall in increased tax revenue, and the Feds a big bump in capital gains for those sold.
WesternCanadian@85, Great post, in a thread of great posts. The Fed has systematically looked the other way while evaluating asset inflation since at least the early eighties. We were told inflation was only rising 2-3% while housing prices shot through the roof.
While the Left’s destruction of America is a very important ongoing long term concern that must be seriously addressed, our immediate problem is the Big Bank’s stranglehold over the economy. The TBTF policy has led the Banks to bet the house time and again on obviously risky investments without concern for bankruptcy or failure, with disastrous results for the rest of us. I would expect any reasonable mark to market audit of their true financial position would reveal that the Big Banks are irretrievably underwater. Failing financial firms, including the big banks, whatever their size, need to be allowed to fail. Our free market system cannot work properly otherwise. The continuing bailouts are just digging our financial hole deeper. Our Constitution and our financial laws need to be applied equally without favor for the influential and powerful, in order to maintain the rule of law. The banks need to put into receivership immediately, and the policies that led to this ruinous fiasco, including the CRA need to be put to an end. This accumulation and concentration of power by the big banks is a threat to our sovereignty and our national security, and must be significantly reduced to a point where Banks can operate in just one state, just like the old days, so we can no longer by threatened by their thievery.
RWE/104; Everyone knows that only millionaires can shop at Wal-Mart, leaving the poor little guys to pay full price at Nordstrom or Nieman Marcus.
Those people who work at Wal Mart are being harmed by that low wage employment, and since poor and middle class people do not shop there, none of them are being helped
RWE wins the Kafka chair @ the University of Mars
***
unsk/105; for starters, just repeal this, and walk-back everything it did, including breaking up into the original entities every TBTF that it let be born:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
(snip)
The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, (Pub.L. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338, enacted November 12, 1999) is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001). It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton and it repealed part of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, opening up the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies. The Glass-Steagall Act prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company.
The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act allowed commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to consolidate. For example, Citicorp (a commercial bank holding company) merged with Travelers Group (an insurance company) in 1998 to form the conglomerate Citigroup, a corporation combining banking, securities and insurance services under a house of brands that included Citibank, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Travelers. This combination, announced in 1998, would have violated the Glass-Steagall Act and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 by combining securities, insurance, and banking, if not for a temporary waiver process.[1] The law was passed to legalize these mergers on a permanent basis. It also allowed traditional investment brokers to create and sell high-risk investment products to traditionally low-risk commercial banks, which worsened the subprime mortgage crisis of 2007. Historically, the combined industry has been known as the “financial services industry”.[citation needed]
(unsnip)
***
Did ‘FinReg” –Barney Frank and Chris Dodd’s Rosemary’s Baby –even take a sidelong swipe at this heart of darkness?
What do YOU think?
Buddy, You’re right. That’s what absolutely necessary. ‘FinReg” too. FinReg is another huge deem and pass regulatory monster with over a hundred new agencies that nobody fully understands yet, lurking out there just waiting to gobble up our freedoms and savings.
Unsk/107; …and Here’s your Huckleberry!
((BTW, the wiki has been re-written, minimizing the connection of the Enron work to the Sarbox work –the Sarbox ‘corrective’ of his earlier Enron work! –and Sarbox of course made the leeway for the Dark Pools –so that ‘USA wouldn’t lose IPOs to London and Hong Kong’ –and of course, the Dark Pools played hell on voters’ wallets and nerves in the 2008 election run-up –esp in the crude futures mkt just before the summer driving season))
–see any ‘break it/fix it’ patterns, do ye? See any Clinton/Obama strange financial law alliance there, do ye?
…saw him interviewed by Liz Clamon not too long ago. He’s no master of small talk, and therefore grotesquely stepped on his pre-loaded escape line re his Bill Clinton employment: “I regret that I could have done more for the American people” when that part of the interview hove into view. She had phrased the question ‘small’ something like ‘Have you enjoyed your long public service career?’
It’s hard to describe it, but a good precinct detective would’ve at that moment switched from trying to clear him to trying to bust him.
Imagine asking someone if they’re enjoying the weather, and they answer “yes, it was weather like this when I didn’t commit any major crimes” –
WWS, Thanks for the Gary Jules pointer
Hi Buddy,
Weather’s horrible here thanks, and no I never…. oops!
I think it was the Rothschild merchant banking family which claimed to always leave the final 10% of a boom for the suckers, before the days of “too big to fail”
Even without the money-go-round ride which the financial services “industry”(sic) provided the politicians. The big British Financial services companies have long provided jobs for the children of politicians and lucrative, under worked advisory roles and non exec positions for retiring ministers, same too for the ex state sector defence oligopolies.
I guess I’ll just sit here on the icy PIG with a packet of popcorn and a pack of 00 buckshot, and watch the fun.
ps, love the terms:
obababux, debtalist etc, this thread is a treasure house.
When did the Spanish government start to ruin their credit?
Was it following the Madrid train bombing that lead to the Socialist victory?
Before then, Spain was doing great with rapid and real economic growth and what seemed to be a clean and successful government.
Or is this just another coincidence of history?
K/110; –heh –figured –anybody who could shoot, pluck and fry the flying fascist as heartily as you did on that Volokh thread just needed the pointer –
BTW, re that thread, for the amount of prog pride on display, an amazing number of perfect squelches went right over their heads.
They ain’t so smart, those smart people.
Of course the prize for the best and most totally corrupt mortgage scheme goes to Countrywide Home Loans, which “forgot” to transfer the notes to the trustee which were bought for mortgage backed securities. What we have, really, are Nada Backed Securities.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2010/11/tom-adams.html
Oops! Ha, ha!
Buddy,
now don’t you go drawing nemesis’ attention to my attempts at bog trotting hubris…
One missed footing and I’ll go right in over my head too, the host and commenters here are seriously sharp and the pace is fast too.
That Volokh thread was a fun place to meet folks though
. I’d better check back to make sure there’s no evil appeared on it.
I still can’t understand the importance ascribed to Glass-Steagall. That bill was, in keeping with everything coming from Carter Glass, a pure disaster (and one gamed to favor big banks & the Fed). Other than that minor quibble, I’m on-board.
112. buddy larsen
That’s okay, buddy. They more than make up for it in self-esteem…
Cowboy, with the GBL attenuation of Glass steagall, the bigster banksters became each other’s partners and each other’s competitors at the same time. Say you and i are partners in a dry cleaners, but i have a dry cleaners of my own across the street –with a silent partner that I can’t talk about. Also, i have a policy which if you and i fail, my other store is the beneficiary. –feeling queasy yet? Well all we need is VOLUME and the structural contradictions can be tabled –
These structural contradictions –you can insure every house in your neighborhood, and not even let the homeowners know you did it, and hide the policies in AIG legally under the new law –are so obviously malevolent that a 10 year old could see thru them –but NOT our Leaders!
Why is that? No really, why is that?
In a competitive world of scarce resources –IOW, ”reality” –nothing can be TBTF unless something else is TSTS (“too small to succeed”). As to whom is in this ignored category, i’d say, every household on up, the way it is right now, afraid to look over the rampart because some Regulator or Taxman will pick you off with a head shot.
@30 Wretchard There’s a lot that I don’t understand yet, if ever I will. The first is “where did the money go?” For every dollar that was “lost” — by the workers or dupes another dollar was “won” by the scammers. For example, the banksters and fat cats supposedly made out like bandits. But even supposing they were consuming these ill-gotten gains, where is trickle down from that consumption? With all the vast sums being printed by the Central Banks why is there no balm in Gilead?
I’ve been surprised that more people don’t ask that question. I don’t know the whole answer, and I don’t even know that I’ll be telling you anything that you don’t already know, but:
It’s not true that every dollar lost by one party is gained by another party. Money can simply vanish – cease to exist. It can do this when a loan is not repaid, and it can do it as a result of a decrease of the sum total of outstanding loans, without any default at all. That’s because money is created by lending, so it can be destroyed by “unlending,” meaning both loan defaults and loan repayments.
In normal times, and even now, the monetary base, or the supply of state money, is only a fraction of the money supply. It’s the total amount of U.S. currency that exists, plus maybe some additional amount on the Fed’s books that “might as well” be currency. I’m not at all sure the 2nd category exists (I’m no expert), so you might as well think of the monetary base as the currency supply.
The greater part of the money supply is created by lending. As you may know, a bank is required to hold reserves equal to about 10% of demand deposits (checking accounts and the like). There is no reserve requirement for savings accounts. The reserves are state money.
Suppose you deposit $1 million into a bank. The bank is allowed to lend $900,000 of it. Now it lends the $900,000 to someone; it adds $900,000 to his checking account. He writes checks to people, and they deposit the checks in some 2nd bank. That bank can now lend out $810,000. A loan is an asset to the lender, so the two banks together now have assets of $1,710,000. A deposit is a liability to the bank, so the two banks together now have a total liability of $1,900,000. We could extend this to 3rd etc. banks. Usually, the money supply is something like 3-5 times the monetary base.
You may be wondering where the banks got the $171,000 of reserves to cover these two loans. The answer has to do with some shuffling around of money between banks when you deposit in a bank a check drawn on some other bank. I sort of forget the details, so let’s skip that.
When a bank is founded, it gets its reserves from the Fed, by trading securities for them. Actually, the Fed holds the securities as collateral, so you should think of the Fed as lending the initial reserves to the bank.
So you can see that even the monetary base is created by lending.
Where does the Fed get the reserves to lend to the bank? It makes them out of thin air. This is called “monetizing the debt,” a phrase which has been misused lately to refer to the recent, supposedly excessive monetizing of the debt. Actually, the Fed always creates state money by monetizing the debt, but until recently it did this at a much slower rate.
Now suppose that someone defaults on a loan. The bank’s asset (that loan) no longer exists, so, ceteris paribus, the money supply is smaller than before. Or suppose that someone repays a loan, and this decreases the total of outstanding loans in the country (no one lends that much money again right away). This also shrinks the money supply.
Here’s something related: Think about an alternate universe in which money changes hands very, very rapidly. There wouldn’t need to be nearly so much currency as we have. Or, think about the fact that, in our universe, the same $20 bill will be used for thousands of dollars of purchases.
I apologize if I’ve told you a bunch of stuff that you already know.
91 fnord In a capitalist system the majority of “money” is tangible capital (e.g., gold, land, tools). In a debtalist system such as ours “money” is created out of thin air by the act of lending or borrowing it into existence.
Not really. Even with the gold standard you can have credit money, and, without being an economic historian, I imagine that they did. More fundamentally, whether we have a capitalist system is not a matter of whether we monetize gold, or monetize debt.
While the devil is in the details, this isn’t all that complicated from 30,000 feet.
In approx. 2003-2006, a lot of crappy, even fraudulent mortgages were packaged into AAA-rated mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that became bank capial, permitting 10X, 20X or more loans to be made against them under Basel II. When the mortgages went south the value and ratings of the MBS were cut, which meant the banks could no longer have that many loans outstanding as they now lacked qualifying capital. So, they had to stop rolling short-term loans and the amount of money in the system contracted. This was compounded by fear that the MBS they held would lose more value, so they tried to cash in their insurance on them, mostly in the form of credit default swaps (CDS), many from AIG. AIG and the monoline bond insurersthat wrote a lot of swaps and/or invested in MBS (AAA-rated, after all) no longer had assets that adequately met liabilities (insurance commitments, including CDS that banks had used to make their lesser assets qualify as capital), further contracting the money in circulation.
It’s a classic financial bubble popping… the details always differ, but the essence is not greatly different from the Mississippi Bubble and the South Sea Bubble ca. 1720. It’s a problem inherent in our fractional reserve banking system, which requires constant monitoring and adjustment to remain somewhat stable… and it probably has to be allowed a small contraction every 5-10 years, to rebalance itself and the quality of its financial asstes. Greenspan and Bernancke didn’t allow these occasional adjustments, every time one appeared on the horizon they would pump teh money supply and knock interest rates down a notch to head it off, until finally there was nowhere else to go, and they upped rates ca. 2005 rather than start an inflationary beast. That, and the commodity spike on 2008 (esp. oil) were the proximate triggers of disaster.
The fact that the system was undergirded by fraudulent crap can be largely laid at the feet of Clinton, Rubin, Greenspan, Summers, Gramm and a few others, actions taken largely in the 1990s to deregulate things like Glass-Steagall, which was done to allow the Citigroup merger, and to never seriously regulate or even monitor CDS’s and the like. Esp, allowing CDS’s where neither party had an interest in the underlying asset–that’s just gambling, not insurance, and meant there was no limit to the amount gambled.
Outstanding post and thread comments. Quite entertaining as well as educational.
I happened to live in CA during their real-estate bubble boom – I remember looking around me thinking this was crazy – who would buy these crap boxes for the amount of money they did – I thought I had gotten taken to the cleaners in 1999. Well, it hit me when I refinanced to a 10 year pay-off in 2004. This time the notarizer came to my house (versus me being told to be at an office at 0839 and to make sure I better have that cash in the escrow account beforehand and “oh, don’t mind that math mistake there – we’ll fix that later, just hurry up and sign) and asked me how much of the re-finance I wished to take out as cash – I looked at her and said – what? I don’t understand – ahh, now I do, ATM machine for people. I had wondered how the people in my lower middle class neighborhood could afford the toys in their driveways. I was fairly sure I earned on a yearly basis a bit more than they did as I purposely had purchased ‘down’ in my house level (percentage of income). Now I knew. I also knew that it would not last – and quickly accelerated my payments on my mortgage and then sold quickly when I had to move.
In all of the discussion, the one of personal responsibility and understanding one’s limits with regard to acquisition of material goods is not mentioned. Perhaps it is implied with the negative references to people wanting handouts. In any case, when I vote, I vote to minimize the reach of the government and when I manage my assets, I do it with an eye towards a bit less risk nowadays….remembering the ants and grasshoppers fable.
Second to lastly – I love the ski pass conversation – I can attest to lots of quiet time riding on ski lifts – never thought to have a dialogue with the ski pass.
Really lastly – I currently live in Europe. Very interesting what is happening – it is slowly dawning on them they can’t have their cake and eat it too. I spoke with some Greeks and they were getting huge haircuts in September….and knowing they’d just have to deal with it. The Germans are irritated as they truly are the workhorse of Europe and will end up getting soaked – it’s a bit galling to have someone cry about having to work after age 50-55 when they are working until 65 or more in some cases….oh, and paying their taxes, unlike some of the economies in southern Europe who have quite the thriving black market economy and joke that will save them in the future.
Also, many in the EU don’t quite understand that the European Commission (an appointed body) truly has the power at the European level and not the European Parliament (elected body). Moreover, every year, the national sovereign control of the member nations gets further eroded by the EC. It’s the current financial malaise that is making them realize that. I was watching some Margaret Thatcher videos on YouTube and finally understood what she was railing against – it has come to pass 20 years later. She was so prescient and a wonderful leader.
Buddy #104:
I used to live on Mars. Really. That was the name of the street where my last house in Californa was.
Went to the east coast on one trip and got to chatting with a waitress. Turned out she had lived in the same housing development, on the next street over, which was named Venus.
Men are from Mars….
RWE, LOL –i bet there were 8 streets, not 9, and “My Very Excellent Mother Just Sent Us Nine Pizzas” became “MVEMJSNP”, without the “U” –i mean, would anyone want to live on…ah, skip it –
Great explanations, SF/119 & M/121 –and gotta say, just now close-reading L3/62 and blert/64, them two is really getting their messages across powerfully –L3′s subtext –’the politics will be easier if we forget about the jerks and just go after their enabling system’ is results-oriented framing for sure.
D/122; lovely reference to the wonderful Maggie. Here’s a favorite pic. Lord, how I miss those two real people running the big show. Wishing ‘Maggie’ well, and always thanking her for her breathtaking achievements.
They’re good people in a bad system.
I am not opposed to the health care compact approach (in fact I support the direction of the movement downward from the feds to the states – let’s see what new cans of worms we can open ::)) but I would still argue over the staffing vs bureaucracy issue.
In 2009, [Kamala] Harris [,newly elected AG of CA] wrote Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor’s Plan to Make Us Safer. Harris looks at criminal justice from an economic perspective, attempting to reduce temptation and access for criminals. [wiki]
I am not so quick to make the people versus architecture distinction.
Tom Delay is facing life in prison.
Maybe we should have reduced his temptation.