Page 49 of 170

Money for idiots – we have no choice

David Brooks laments the harsh reality that the bank, auto and mortgage bailouts are rewarding too many people for stupid behavior. Yet, if we want to stop the downward spiral, we have no choice.

It makes sense for the government to intervene to try to reduce the oscillation. It makes sense for government to try to restore some communal order. And the sad reality is that in these circumstances government has to spend money on precisely those sectors that have been swinging most wildly — housing, finance, etc. It has to help stabilize people who have been idiots.

Actually executing this is a near-impossible task. Looking at the auto, housing and banking bailouts, we’re getting a sense of how the propeller heads around Obama operate. They try to put together programs that are bold, but without the huge interventions in the market implied by, say, nationalization. They’re balancing so many cross-pressures, they often come up with technocratic Rube Goldberg schemes that alter incentives in lots of medium and small ways. Some economists argue that the plans are too ineffectual, others that they are too opaque (estimates for the mortgage plan range from $75 billion to $275 billion and up). Personally, I hate the idea of 10 guys sitting around in the White House trying to redesign huge swaths of the U.S. economy on legal pads.

But at least they seem to be driven by a spirit of moderation and restraint. They seem to be trying to keep as many market structures in place as possible so things can return to normal relatively smoothly.

And they seem to understand the big thing. The nation’s economy is not just the sum of its individuals. It is an interwoven context that we all share. To stabilize that communal landscape, sometimes you have to shower money upon those who have been foolish or self-indulgent. The greedy idiots may be greedy idiots, but they are our countrymen. And at some level, we’re all in this together. If their lives don’t stabilize, then our lives don’t stabilize.

There will be those who gripe about this and try to whip up anger and opposition to the administration’s efforts, but they won’t offer practical alternatives. They might call for the banks, automakers and homeowners to go bankrupt, but they probably don’t mean it. If they do, it probably means they have no clue of how bad it can get if they get their wish.

Employee Free Choice Act will go to Senate first

This makes sense. There’s no reason to force moderate Democrats to vote for the Employee Free Choice Act, otherwise known as Card Check, before the Senate tackles it. The real fight will be in the Senate.

Blue Dog Democrats in the House have asked House Dem leaders to postpone a vote on the Employee Free Choice Act until after the Senate votes on it, and the Democratic leadership has agreed, a senior House Dem aide tells me.

The discussions are likely to disappoint some in the labor movement, who see Employee Free Choice as their top priority and had hoped the House would act quickly and pass a strong bill before the Senate passes a weaker version. Proponents and foes of the measure alike say the Senate is expected to be the major battleground over the bill because of the tight Dem majority.

I think we might see a compromise here. Labor wants their bill, but it will be very difficult to get it through the Senate. That said, the current rules are stacked in favor of employers. There’s plenty of room to craft a compromise that makes it easier for unions to organize yet doesn’t go as far as this proposal.

Too much stuff

Unsold stuff is piling up.

The unsold cars and trucks piling up at dealerships and assembly lines as consumers cut back and auto companies scramble for federal aid are just one sign of a major problem hurting the economy and only likely to get worse.

The only way to stop the downward spiral is to boost demand. That’s the point of the stimulus package.

The world is suddenly awash in almost everything: flat-panel televisions, bulldozers, Barbie dolls, strip malls, Burberry stores. Japan yesterday said its economy shrank at an 12.7 percent annual pace in the last three months of 2008 as global demand evaporated for Japanese cars and electronics. Business everywhere are scrambling to bring supply in line with demand.

Downsizing can be tricky, though. No one knows how much worse the economy will get, and while everyone waits for the recession to peter out, businesses are grappling with how to cut costs and survive without sabotaging their ability to grow when the economy picks up.

And there is a lot to cut.

“There is over-capacity in everything,” from “retail to manufacturing to housing,” said Richard Yamarone, chief economist at Argus Research. “If capacity is too large, you don’t need that many people employed, which is another reason we’re seeing such high job losses.”

As long as capacity far outstrips demand, businesses have little reason to expand, buy new equipment or hire workers. Even if the government funds bridge repairs and banks step up lending, many industries still have to go through massive restructuring before growth can resume. But executives say they have to tread carefully. If they put off critical investments in technology or research for too long, they could hobble their recovery and even the economy’s.

Jennifer Brunner enters Ohio Senate race

With the retirement of George Voinovich, many view his Ohio Senate seat as a potential pick-up opportunity for Democrats in 2010. The Republicans will have a solid candidate in Rob Portman, but Ohio has been trending blue over the past two cycles.

Everyone knew Lee Fisher would run for the Democratic nomination, but now Jennifer Brunner has announced she will run as well.

Ohio Sec. of State Jennifer Brunner formally entered the 2010 Senate race today by announcing her candidacy in a video released this afternoon.

“I’m running for the United States Senate to be a part of the solution, to meet our challenges and to help Ohio emerge stronger than ever,” Brunner says in her announcement video.

Joining Brunner in the Democratic primary contest will be Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher, who is set to announce his candidacy at a news conference this evening in Columbus. Gov. Ted Strickland (D) said publicly two weeks ago that Fisher was the “best qualified” candidate among the Democrats considering a bid.

The winner of the Brunner-Fisher primary will likely face former Congressman and U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman (R) in the general election. Portman announced his candidacy a month ago.

Despite her popularity, Brunner will be taking on the Democratic establishment in Ohio. Governor Strickland is behind Fisher, and now Tim Ryan has rushed out an endorsement of Fisher as well.

Brunner has been excellent so far as Secretary of State, and she will be a formidable opponent for Fisher, and for Portman should she get the nomination. In her announcement video, she took a shot at those who helped the get us into this economic threat, a not-so-subtle reference to Portman, who was part of George W. Bush’s economic team.

Greenspan’s cop out

Alan Greenspan deserves some credit for admitting to Congress last year that he made mistakes in not foreseeing the mortgage crisis, but his latest statements in a CNBC documentary, “House of Cards,” suggests he still has not come to terms with the full extent of his failure on the issue.

Alan Greenspan, the former chairman of the Federal Reserve, told CNBC in a documentary to be shown Thursday night that he did not fully understand the scope of the subprime mortgage market until well into 2005 and could not make sense of the complex derivative products created out of mortgages.

“So everybody in retrospect now knows that that boom was developing under the markets for quite a period of time, but nobody knew it,” Mr. Greenspan told CNBC’s David Faber. “In 2004, there was just no credible information on that. It wasn’t until we got well into 2005 that the first inklings that that was developing was emerging,” he said.

Mr. Greenspan’s critics have argued that the former Fed chairman expanded the money supply well beyond the growth in the nation’s gross domestic product by keeping interest rates too low for too long.

The Fed’s “easy money” policy created an excess of cash that inflated equity and asset prices, leading to both the technology bubble of the late 1990s and the housing bubble in this decade.

While Mr. Greenspan acknowledges that he could have done something to avert the housing crisis, he contends his hands were tied.

“If we tried to suppress the expansion of the subprime market, do you think that would have gone over very well with the Congress?” Mr. Greenspan said. “When it looked as though we were dealing with a major increase in home ownership, which is of unquestioned value to this society — would we have been able to do that? I doubt it.”

Mr. Greenspan said that if he had taken steps to prevent the crisis, the outcome would have been painful.

“We could have basically clamped down on the American economy, generated a 10 percent unemployment rate,” he said. “And I will guarantee we would not have had a housing boom, a stock market boom or indeed a particularly good economy either.”

This is a complete cop out on the part of Greenspan, and shows the danger of brilliant economists who get too immersed in the details. They become obsessed with the data and how it fits into their models, but can’t step back to see problems that can be seen by anyone with common sense.

First, the crisis was not limited to sub-prime. It was obvious at the time that many middle-class Americans were buying homes they could not afford, using exotic “interest-only” mortgages. Plenty of experts warned that these could be problematic if the economy turned south, but Greenspan and the administration did nothing. Once Americans started flipping homes like stocks, Greenspan should have known we had a major problem on our hands.

Second, most people understood that there was plenty of fraud in the system. Greenspan goes on to blame the rating agencies, and he’s correct on that front. The rating agencies should be investigated for fraud and gross negligence for their role in this crisis, and Wall Street banks need to be investigated to see just how much they really knew about the mortgages underlying the bonds they were buying and selling.

As for what Greenspan could have done, he’s presenting a false choice that betrays his real concern. He was obsessed with keeping economic growth going, and he suggests that he was concerned that any intervention here could have killed the party.

Well, the party has certainly ended, and the damage is staggering. By 2006 it was obvious that we had a real estate bubble. Greenspan helped to cause it with his loose money policy, and he did nothing to stop it once it became obvious we had a problem.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2026 NorthCoastBlog.com

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑