Friday, September 19, 2008

Ideology and the Crisis

Dangerous cocktail: the baby boom retires and their retirements go bust.
Right now, the oldest baby boomers are 63. The ratio of earners to dependents has been at an all-time high. A vast earner generation is about to begin its transformation into a dependent generation. Probably a more dependent one than anticipated.
The rest of the FT article, on the ideological implications of the crisis, is very good. ... as is this one, from Fortune, on Paulson:
"I'm quite disappointed," says Peter Wallison, a former Reagan administration Treasury official and an expert on Fannie and Freddie. "He certainly isn't a believer in free markets." Others go further: "America is more communist than China right now," declared maverick investor Jim Rogers. "This is welfare for the rich."
Paulson disputed such charges in two expansive interviews with Fortune, the second on the day after he unveiled the Fannie-Freddie rescue plan. (By then he was sufficiently relaxed that he had his feet up on his antique desk.) "I believe in markets," he says. "I also believe there is a role for government."

Thursday, September 18, 2008

McCain's economic voting record

McCain's economic voting record. Very interesting.

Main Street and Wall Street

From Nancy Pelosi
"We are here to work together for solutions ... in a way that insulates
taxpayers, consumers, Main Street from the crisis on Wall Street," she said.

But the crisis began in Main Street and has spread to Wall Street, as David Weidner rightly argues
Though a lack of regulation did have a central role in the financial crisis, it's not a complete explanation, and a response to that factor will not be the whole solution. Deregulation didn't push homeowners to take on mortgages they couldn't afford. It didn't push ratings agencies to sign off on the junk.

Great resource on the events

CNBC's timeline of the crisis

For my money, I can see light at the end of the tunnel

MSNBC reports that the Treasury is planning a solution to the crisis. Big, expensive, and fairly targetted to the problem areas.

Here's more reporting, from the WSJ.
At the center of the potential plan is a mechanism that would take bad assets off the balance sheets of financial companies, according to people familiar with the matter, a device that echoes similar moves taken in past financial crises. It's size could reach hundreds of billions of dollars, one person said.
Another proposal would create federal insurance for investors in money-market funds, something akin to the deposit insurance currently available for regular bank accounts. The move is designed to stem an outflow of funds as consumers start to worry about even the safest of investments, a worrying sign of how the crisis is spreading to Main Street.
Exactly how such an entity might be structured isn't yet clear. The possible plan isn't expected to mirror the Resolution Trust Corp., which was created two decades ago during the savings and loan crisis to hold and sell off the assets of failed banks. Rather, a new entity might purchase assets at a steep discount from solvent financial institutions and eventually sell them back into the market. [...]
The net effect was to send the stock market soaring in one of its sharpest reversals in recent memory. The Dow Jones Industrial Average ended up 3.9%, the index's biggest percentage gain in nearly six years, on record New York Stock Exchange volume. The blue-chip index finished more than 560 points above its intraday low and reclaimed about 90% of its Wednesday losses.
Sounds like Johnnie Mac is listening to an economist or two:

Until recently, Congress appeared unwilling to act on such an idea quickly. But the near-panic of the past 10 days might have changed their calculation, should Congressional approval be needed. Rep. Paul Kanjorski, (R., Pa.) said lawmakers should extend their session to finalize a plan.
But House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said that's unlikely. "I don't think it's going to happen in the next 14 days," Hoyer told reporters at a press conference. "Speaker Pelosi and I are both focused on the Sept. 26 adjournment."
Yesterday, Republican nominee Sen. John McCain sought a broad expansion of government regulation over financial institutions, including the formation of a body to both assume distressed mortgages and help failing investment banks.
Saying the government cannot "wait until the system fails," Sen. McCain called for the creation of an entity that would essentially help companies sell off bad loans and other impaired assets. It is unclear how the body, dubbed the Mortgage and Financial Institutions trust, would operate, including whether or not institutions would seek help or whether the government would intervene on its own behalf.
His rival, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois was less specific about what steps he would take, offering broader outlines of policy proposals that included a "Homeowner and Financial Support Act." The measure, which would inject capital and liquidity in the financial system, is designed to provide a more coordinated response than "the daily improvisations that have characterized policy-making over the last year."

Practical Men and Intellectuals

Says Froma Harrop
McCain's economic philosophy is McCain's fault. He doesn't know much about economics -- and has admitted as much -- so his philosophy became a simple-minded faith in the opinion of others. And look whom he listens to.
And says one JM Keynes

" . . . the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.

Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back. I am sure that the power of vested interests is vastly exaggerated compared with the gradual encroachment of ideas. ... Soon or late, it is ideas, not vested interests, which are dangerous for good or evil."

Another Viewpoint

Alan Reynolds of Cato Institute says that
Left alone, financial markets usually work out the best possible deals among competing interests. Whenever the feds have gotten involved, by contrast, they've taken sides in the tension between stockholders and creditors - invariably throwing stockholders overboard.
therefore, bailouts are bad for stockholders. I would like to read his take on how BearStearns, Lehman, AIG, etc., don't seem to have made very many of those "best possible deals."