The Bear’s Lair: Coming economic policy disasters

Posted by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 04 November 2008 02:04.

Just time for one last blast before the US election - this one from Martin Hutchinson at Prudent Bear.
GW

The number of economically damaging policy ideas imposed on the United States has greatly increased in the last few months. However from the statements of the Presidential candidates, the next few years may turn this storm of bad ideas into a blizzard. Those with an emotional attachment to the US economy should brace themselves for trauma.

The new salience of bad economic ideas is not particularly surprising. The US economy is heading into an economic downturn that promises to be at least as severe as those of 1974 and 1980-82, whose memory is already fading a generation into the past. Additionally, the 2000-07 period was one in which US voters made very small if any income gains, with such gains arising only through refinancing of ever more gigantic home mortgages. Meanwhile the distant and dislikeable titans of Wall Street apparently scooped up all the money generated by the economy.

Now the housing bubble has burst, the average jaundiced voter naturally sees the free market system and the George W. Bush administration as responsible for the recent not-particularly-pleasant years and the economic horror that has followed. Claims by Republican politicians that the debacle was all the fault of the housing finance agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while partly true are wholly unconvincing.

With voters miserable and facing a disastrous economic position that they believe was caused by free market excesses, it is not surprising that they are looking favorably on statist nostrums. Both political candidates have propounded bad ideas; Obama more than McCain largely because he has more ideas in general. In addition, there are a few bad ideas that have embedded themselves into the system, accepted by both political candidates and the political class as a whole.

McCain’s bad economic ideas are few in number, but in terms of economic ineptitude they’re doozies. Typical of them was the proposal for a gas tax holiday over the summer, which since supplies were tight would have driven up consumption, transferring wealth from the US government to the Saudis. In his urge to connect with populist-minded voters McCain appears either not to have consulted any economists on this bizarre scheme or to have ignored their advice when presented.

Then there’s his proposed $300 billion bailout of subprime mortgage borrowers who cannot make their payments. Like the Troubled Assets Relief Program, this appears principally to be a vehicle for relieving taxpayers of their money. By providing benefits only to those mortgage payers who are not paying their mortgages on time, it rewards the most over-optimistic borrowers and the most feckless lenders at the expense of those who restricted themselves to more manageable mortgages or who maintained careful credit standards over their mortgage lending (not that there appear to have been many of the latter.) Even if the $300 billion was dropped from helicopters (no thanks, Mr. Bernanke, we’ll call you if we need you) it would reduce the value of mortgage loans outstanding, probably by more than its nominal amount, by increasing the chance that borrowers would fall into arrears in order to qualify for a bailout..

McCain’s third major bad idea is the design of his “cap and trade” carbon emissions program. Global warming may or may not be real. It seems likely that the most effective approach to combating it would combine programs of population control (to reduce the number of future carbon emitters) with mitigation efforts such as higher seawalls and heat-resistant crops. Even if restricting carbon emissions were attractive, a carbon tax would be a more efficient way to achieve it than a “cap and trade” system. Finally, at the fourth layer of economic inefficiency (although to be fair, the first three layers seem to be common to almost all politicians) McCain adds an additional nonsense by giving away emission permits. That turns a more or less market-oriented system for achieving something probably pointless into a government handout system. Permits under McCain’s system will be allocated by bureaucrats, either according to some faceless and doubtless erroneous formula or according to the amount of campaign contributions they had given. The arena of government favoritism would thus be considerably enlarged, that of the free market correspondingly diminished.

Turning now to Barack Obama, some of his proposals are well designed and appear likely to achieve their objectives without creating gross economic distortion. It is for example likely that a capital gains tax increase from 15% to 20% will indeed yield additional revenue over the long term, although a further increase beyond 20% might not – wherever the Laffer optimum for capital gains taxes lies, it is almost certainly above a 20% marginal rate. Likewise Obama’s healthcare proposals mix increased government subsidy with considerable reliance on free-market cost reduction measures; they appear well designed if you like that sort of thing.

The principal problem with Obama is his deliberate failure to define himself. The moderate Obama, with a University of Chicago economic advisor and a keen brain attuned to the free market system, would probably be a pretty good President, at least in the economic sphere. However there is also another Obama, possessor of the most liberal voting record in the US Senate and supporter of many of the more damaging schemes beloved by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the barons of the Congressional Democrat left. Finally there is the shadow of a third Obama, born and bred a street radical, friend of ex-Weatherman terrorist William Ayres and supportive parishioner of the highly anti-capitalist parson Jeremiah Wright. It is an interesting question whether Ayres-Obama or Pelosi-Obama would be more economically damaging – their prescriptions would clearly be very different – but there is no doubt that by relying on Moderate-Obama being fully in control throughout, we are taking a considerable chance.

Obama’s tax proposals come in several versions, reflecting his multi-facetedness. One version would simply reverse most of the Bush tax cuts, plus add a moderate social security surcharge for high incomes, taking the top marginal rate of Federal tax up from 35% to 42% or so. The other, produced by Pelosi-Obama, would sock top incomes with the full social security charge and add a further tax increase, taking the top marginal Federal rate well up into the mid-50s (and adding state tax on top of that.) Pelosi-Obama’s tax proposal would be highly economically damaging; Moderate-Obama’s would not.

On trade there is a similar dichotomy. Renegotiating NAFTA and using trade agreements to enforce labor and environmental standards is a Pelosi-Obama approach that could potentially have the same effect on world trade as the infamous 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff. Moderate-Obama’s advisors say he doesn’t really mean it. We’ll have to see.

On housing, Moderate-Obama opposed a 3-month foreclosure moratorium. Pelosi-Obama favors it and appears to be dominant here. Moderate-Obama was right; such a moratorium, like McCain’s foreclosure subsidy, would be highly damaging to the value of outstanding mortgage debt, worsening the banking system’s balance sheet problems.

On Wall Street, Pelosi-Obama is largely dominant, denouncing greed and calling for much tighter regulation. (Of course, the crisis also brought out a hitherto unexpected streak of Pelosi-McCain.) Pelosi-Obama also governs Obama’s co-sponsorship of “card check” legislation, by which the unions would no longer have to win a secret ballot to gain representation at a workplace, but would only need to strong-arm the weaker members of the workforce into signing a representation card. While failing to address the problems of the poor, who generally do not have unionizable jobs, that legislation would drive the US workspace sharply back towards the French model of union dominance of key industries, with consequent decrease in US economic efficiency and competitiveness.

Some of Obama’s other economic ideas seem to derive from Ayres-Obama. His attempt to tie student funding to hours of community service worked derives less from the unionized Pelosi Democrats than from a street-radical’s urge to make snotty middle class kids experience the “real world” of the streets. Likewise, his 2001 regret that the Supreme Court “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth” and “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution” was pure Ayres-Obama. Lovers of the rule of law and well-established property rights must hope that at least on this front Ayres-Obama will remain dormant through an Obama administration.

Finally, there is Obama’s Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund, deploying $50 billion of taxpayer money over 5 years. The nature of this venture depends on whether Pelosi-Obama or Ayres-Obama is dominant in its creation and design. A Pelosi-Obama fund would promote unprofitable ventures by large unionized companies with proven but uneconomic technologies in politically important regions – similar to the Bush administration’s ethanol boondoggle. An Ayres-Obama fund would promote street-environmentalism, devoting its resources to wholly unproven back-of-an-envelope ideas with no obvious profit motivation that were promoted by urban hustler groups. Neither would be economically or environmentally useful – a carbon tax, tilting the playing field towards environmental technologies, would be much more likely to produce useful enviro-tech advances.

In many ways more frightening than the bad ideas supported by one or other candidate are those for which there is a consensus. For example, both parties now appear to believe in larger government. The Democrats welcome it explicitly, whereas according to OECD statistics US public expenditure bottomed out in 2000 at 34.2% of GDP and has now increased under Republican government to 38.3% of GDP in 2008. Given the enthusiasm of both parties for increasing it further, this trend is likely to continue. As I have discussed previously, OECD data since 1960 shows that high levels of public expenditure and rises therein have marked depressing effects on economic growth, being together responsible for over 50% of the differences between countries and periods in growth rates. Little wonder therefore that US growth over the last few years has been sluggish; it is likely to get more so.

A second idea on which there has been general consensus between Presidential candidates, although a modest rebellion in Congress, has been the TARP. The original idea of devoting $700 billion of taxpayers’ money to buying the economy’s least valuable assets, surplus securitized mortgage bonds, has now apparently been abandoned. At least one can hope so – by diverting scarce capital from more productive uses it would have depressed economic growth markedly.

However, instead of breathing a sigh of relief and letting taxpayers off the hook, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson has taken to using the TARP as an all-purpose slush fund, bailing out the banks, and apparently in future providing subsidies to the automobile industry, local governments and anyone else with political connections who needs it. The result is that Treasury borrowing in the year to September 2009 is now estimated to be $2 trillion, around double last year’s level. Needless to say that too will damage the economy. TARP was a terrible and poorly implemented idea; no doubt that is why it is so popular with the political class.

However the bad economic idea for which support in the political class is most whole-hearted is that of excessively low interest rates, far below the rate of inflation. The financial crisis has been caused not by high interest rates, but by excessive leverage. The 3-month interbank dollar LIBOR peaked at 4.82% and overnight LIBOR at 6.87%, neither representing “tight money” in a currency whose inflation is still running at more than 5%. Even those who decry over-loose monetary policy as responsible for the 2002-06 housing bubble fail to identify its responsibility for the stock bubble that preceded it in 1995-2000. As for Fed Chairmen Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke, they are wholly unrepentant of their monetary profligacy, and to a large extent remain the heroes of the political class, in spite of the devastation they have caused.

It is this item of public education that must be stressed repeatedly by those who seek the welfare of the US economy. Deregulation was only a minor cause of the housing bubble and subsequent debacle; the true cause was excessive money supply creation by the Fed, which is not a private sector free-market entity but an agency of government. It is these lessons, that over-easy money will bring long-term disaster and that government has been primarily responsible for this as for so many previous crises, which must be taught to the American people. Only when voters have learned their lessons can we hope that politicians will no longer find political traction for cockamamie and damaging economic nostrums. The campaign against Greenspan and Bernanke, to get Bernanke fired and Greenspan de-deified is not an optional meddling in ancient history, it is the most crucial economic struggle of our time.

Martin Hutchinson is the author of “Great Conservatives” (Academica Press, 2005)—details can be found on his website.

Tags: U.S. Politics

Comments:

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:01 | #

Even if the $300 billion was dropped from helicopters (no thanks, Mr. Bernanke, we’ll call you if we need you) it would reduce the value of mortgage loans outstanding, probably by more than its nominal amount, by increasing the chance that borrowers would fall into arrears in order to qualify for a bailout.

A citizen’s dividend (“dropping money from helicopters”) would _not_ “increase the chance that borrowers would fall into arrears in order to qualify for a bailout” precisely because they already qualified for the same “bailout” as everyone else. It _would_, via inflation, reduce the _real_ value of the mortgages in the hands of the lenders—essentially monetizing the debt, but so what?

I really wonder what Hutchinson meant here.

Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:22 | #

his 2001 regret that the Supreme Court “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth” and “didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution” was pure Ayres-Obama. Lovers of the rule of law ....

Giving the Obamanation its due, I watched that video and I didn’t see him saying that he thought it was the job of the Courts to break free from their Constitutional constraints. He did say that redistribution of wealth was desirable and that since the Judiciary was not allowed to do it, he was entering into the other branches where is _was_ constitutional.

Lovers of ...well-established property rights must hope that at least on this front Ayres-Obama will remain dormant through an Obama administration.

This is the central problem of civilization: People with property rights thinking that they owe nothing for the government that supports their property rights.

To be fair, neither FDR nor Obama nor Buffet, for all their talk of “redistribution” are approaching the problem of “economic justice” from any _real_ sense of justice—as is evidenced by their insistence that taxing income, capital gains, luxuries, value added, inheritance, or just about any form of economic activity is the same as charging a use fee for property rights upheld by the government. They aren’t—- not anymore than velocity is position.

I have to admit that looking over Buffet’s recent pronouncements about taxing income at a highly progressive rate as a “wealth tax” really perturbs me—particularly since he is the country’s wealthiest citizen.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:38 | #

“It is this item of public education that must be stressed repeatedly by those who seek the welfare of the US economy. Deregulation was only a minor cause of the housing bubble and subsequent debacle; the true cause was excessive money supply creation by the Fed, which is not a private sector free-market entity but an agency of government. It is these lessons, that over-easy money will bring long-term disaster and that government has been primarily responsible for this as for so many previous crises, which must be taught to the American people.” (—from the log entry)

The “people” know it. Teach it to the élites if you can. (That’s like “teaching” a career pickpocket to keep his hands where they belong. Good luck!)

Posted by eric on Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:39 | #

Pretty good except for the end… “the true cause was excessive money supply creation by the Fed, which is not a private sector free-market entity but an agency of government.”
Wrong. Private-sector but not free-market, nor government agency. The FED is a private cartel that controls our money supply and thus our government. Since its inception, it has steadily gained in power after continually failing to prevent the economic instability it was supposed to prevent. The problem is not Greenspan or Bernanke, or even “excessive money supply creation.” The problem is money creation—period. The idea of a debt based, fiat currency backed by international central bankers pulling a fractional reserve swindle is the problem. Hutchinson, along with the puppets in Congress and the MSM, never question the legitamicy of the FED.
In fact, he even defends central banks from days past. Referring to another banking scam, Hutchinson had this to say in a Sep. 19, 2008 Bair’s Lair article, “The Wrong Rescues”, “subsequent failure of the Second Bank of the United States, as a result of a primitive vendetta by the financially illiterate President Andrew Jackson, caused the worst economic downturn of the nineteenth century.”
Wrong again. Andrew Jackson intentionally killed the bank, and made it abundantly clear it was his intention, referring to them as “a den of vipers.” At the end of his presidency, the national debt was eliminated! The NOT “worst economic downturn of the nineteenth century” was caused by the “primitive vendetta” of the banking interest, led by Nicholas Biddle (like a FED chairman), not Jackson.
Hutchinson provides good analysis of economics, but he has FED tunnel vision.
Please study the history of banking in the U.S. and Europe. Our current situation is nothing new.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:49 | #

Why is Martin coy about mentioning the Bush Administration’s aggressive support for what Steve Sailer calls “affirmative-action lending”? My impression is the consensus has it that “affirmative-action granting of home mortgages” was the biggest factor in the meltdown, bigger than the deregulation the Dems are squawking about. Martin refers to it only obliquely where he cites the fed’s “excessive money supply creation” but doesn’t explain that a big part of the reason for that was to try to help all the insolvent Mexicans and Negroes, whom Bush, Rove, and the Democrats pressured the banks and Fannie Mae into giving mortgages to, make their mortgage payments.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:53 | #

Is Martin calling for the sacking of Bernanke in his closing sentence? I well remember his warm endorsement of him right after his appointment.

Posted by Z on Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:58 | #

Not much will change with Obama’s election—look for more of the same: more concentration of America’s wealth in the hands of unpatriotic rootless/urban/globalist-oriented Jewish plutocrats and their minions; more degradation and dumbing down of American culture and its people through the corrupt Jew-owned mass media, along with the continued promotion of the Jew-inspired mass urban/suburban degenerate consumerist culture; more immigration invasions (tens of millions of immigrants probably made fully legal under Obama) and thus a continuation decline of America’s once strong White majority; more political correctness (look for the passage of anti-free speech laws during Obama’s admin.), overwhelmingly large government (government jobs for everyone!), more favoring of the degenerate, dirty, unsustainable, and parasitic ‘multicultural’ urban areas over the more clean, moral, sustainable, and self-sufficient rural/semi-rural areas; more more wars for Israel and/or to continue to protect the profits of international finance Jewry…and so on.

“We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability—to support friends [Obama is obviously speaking of Israel here], participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities.”—from “Renewing American Leadership” by Barack Obama: Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007

- http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p0/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

Posted by karlmagnus on Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:22 | #

Sorry, haven’t been here for some time. Thanks for your comments. In order:

1. I was obscure about dropping money from helicopters, sorry. The original Bernanke proposal would distribute it among the populace randomly, which would be inflationary but indeed would help rather than hinder the housing mess. IF however it is dropped on mortgage-troubled homeowners, it encourages others to stop paying their mortgages and thus reduces the total value of mortgage debt outstanding. It turns homeowners into welfare mothers—NOT a good idea.

2. The Fed is an arm of government. You probably need a central bank; ideally like the Second Bank of the United States and the pre-1946 Bank of England it should be private sector. However with a Gold Standard its power is limited—in the late 1990s or 2004-06 there would have been an automatic money supply tightening which would have choked off the excess. If you refuse to have a Gold Standard, you have to have a Volcker who keeps money tight by policy. You could get close to an automatic Volcker by changing the Fed’s statutes (get rid of the full employment rubbish) taking them close to the 1958 Bundesbank Act, which was designed by that real Conservative Konrad Adenauer.

3. I NEVER supported Bernanke; indeed the week before Bush chose him I wrote a column reviewing the runners and saying “all the above are OK but not Bernanke. He has always clearly been an inflationist and we are paying the price.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:07 | #

I apologize, Martin. Just now, thinking I was going to prove your memory, not mine, to be rusty, I searched this site looking for vindication, and the first two statements of yours on Bermanke which I came across were:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_bears_lair_towards_tax_reform/#c16105

(ii) GWB probably has another third rater like Miers to appint to Greenspan’s job—my guess would be Ben Bernanke, who’s useless, but GWB may have some really obscure bank clerk he prefers.

and

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_bears_lair_life_after_greenspan/#c16612

Interesting, Geoff, I didn’t know that but it doesn’t surprise me. Bernanke was clearly the worst of the potential alternatives, by a significant margin. His policy of inflation targeting while fudging the figures (by considering only “core” inflation, minus all the things that are actually going up in price) is hopelessly inflationist, as well as thoroughly dishonest.

My only regret about the above piece is that I thought he was so obviously a bad idea that I didn’t take him seriously enough to trash him properly.

Will be interesting to see how far the bond market drops, now it’s had time to think about him. Probably not enough, or quickly enough to wake the US Senate up to block him, unfortunately, though there is that hope.

Posted by ? on Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:35 | #

Megan McArdle (she touches on the point here, but has fleshed the point out better elsewhere in posts I can’t find) makes a compelling case the raising interest rates exacerbates bubbles rather than deflate them. Why? Because during their peak, bubbles appear to be the highest rate of return available, and will therefore attract more money as the price of borrowing goes up.

Let’s imagine that interest rates are 2%, boring non-bubble investment returns 4%, speculative bubblicious investment returns 6%. Under this scenario, some leveraged investors will be satisfied with the 4 - 2 = 2% return on the boring investment. But if interest rates rise to 4%, those investors will be chased into the speculative investments to get the same 6 - 4 = 2% return.

I dunno, kinda makes sense to me.

Posted by EPS on Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:58 | #

Ezra Pound says:

Greatest blessin’ they ever had. Own paper to pay their own debts. When I think of the INTEREST you boys will be asked to pay, a thousand BILLION dollars of debt if you don’t git busy and BUST the debt system, Jew system, Rothschild and Morgenthau ANTI-Lincoln system. Well, my heart, does it bleed for my country? I would rather have my head work for my country.

If you can’t, or won’t think of the cause of your misery and of this conducement to the slavery of your children for ten generations, God help you.

You are in for billions of DEBT, and you have NOT got your own paper to pay for it. You, most of you, haven’t the groggiest idea what Lincoln was sayin’. You don’t know what he meant by it. Sheer ignorance of coin, credit, and circulation, said John Adams 80 years before Lincoln.

Ignorance, and of course GREED. Greed is your ruin. The lust of evil means to git labor for next to nothin’. Lust of the planter to get African labor and when that showed signs of not payin’ ENOUGH, the lust of the North to get in immigrants, with NO regard to the national welfare, no regard to the RACE. No regard to keepin’ the human breed high. Just blind greed, blind haste to get in as much cheap labor as possible. NOT noticin’, my God—how many people did NOT!—the quick one Sherman and Rothschild put over. The whole government of’ the United States of America handed OVER lock, barrel and stock, to a gang of kike bankers in 1863, several sub-kikes assistin’.

‘We can not permit the circulation of greenback, because we can not control them.” Can not, that is, OWN the nation, BUY the public officials, bleed the whole population.

+ from #45 (June 8, 1942) U.S.(B56) - THE KEYS OF HEAVEN

- http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/pound_ezra/radio42.html

Posted by Bill on Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:33 | #

The US presidential election has now come and gone, it is more than a month since Barack Obama was voted the 44th. President of the United States.

Millions voted for Obama on nothing more than his celebrity charisma and his message “Change yes we can”

Now those millions are in a state of shock and awe as they look at the people with whom Obama is surrounding himself for advice and guidance. His ‘change we can believe in’ voters are lamenting there is not a post-modern progressive among them; in fact his advisors are an amalgam of old Clintonistas and right of centre Bushco types.

Well, all I can say is anybody voting for a politician on the basis of change and yes can deserve all they get.

Is Obama another Clinton, another Blair - whatever works kinda guy?

An interesting take here. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/23/obama/

Comments:

Post a comment:

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Categories

Contributors

Links

MR Central & News

Comments