A Lesson for Krugman, et al, about Canada’s Real Fiscal Restraint vs. the United Kingdom’s Faux Austerity « International Liberty

Here is a post well worth reading.

A Lesson for Krugman, et al, about Canada’s Real Fiscal Restraint vs. the United Kingdom’s Faux Austerity « International Liberty

What is enough?

Earlier this week I saw a post titled Obama and Sowell: who can tell when people have made enough money? on the always-excellent neo-neocon about a speech Obama gave regarding the recent push for financial reform. Neo-neocon’s post has the following quote from this speech (which, in the interest of full disclosure, I have not dug up and read, yet).

Here is the quote.

“We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.”

Neo-neocon’s response:

One of the most interesting things about the Obama quote under discussion is that, if you look at his scripted speech, he was trying to do his version of supporting what Sowell says—that is, of praising the power of capitalism’s ability to allow the aggregate forces of private enterprise and personal initiative to grow an economy. He knows that’s the American way, and that it is necessary for a president to pay some sort of lip service to it. But he couldn’t help blurting out what for him is the truth—that he doesn’t really believe in it at all—and that he and the other brilliant intellectuals surrounding him know much better, both practically and morally.

Let’s unpack what he says. There is a lot in this one paragraph consisting of four sentences.

“I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.” Enough for whom and for what? Is the $5,000,000 Obama made last year primarily from his book sales the level that demarks what is enough? What happens if you exceed what is considered “enough”? Does the government cap it so you can’t receive it? Is it taxed at a 100% rate? Notice too the elitism inherent in this statement, that he and his cohorts know better than the rest of us what is “enough.”

“But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service.” Maybe I’m reading too much into his choice of words but it seems as though he harbors disdain for what is known as the American dream, especially with his choice of “just keep on making it.” Apparently once you’ve had enough you’re supposed to do what? Stop? Give away what is considered excess? Or, if you’re enlightened like Obama you don’t strive to just keep on making money in the first place.

“We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.” Here he seems to be saying that the justification for people succeeding economically is not because it is their right to do so (provided they’re not violating the rights of others). No, he seems to be saying it’s OK for them to succeed (up to a point defined by him, of course) as long as it’s fulfilling a responsibility to grow our economy (i.e., benefit others). I don’t see personal economic success and benefiting others as necessarily being mutually exclusive. Obama seems to be hinting that this success is justified only because others benefit too.

I would argue that socialism and planned economies, which aim to stifle or punish the individual drive for success while supposedly helping the “disadvantaged” accomplishes less of both than free markets. While the free market does a better job of enabling people to achieve personal economic success and benefiting others through the ripple effect of this success in creating opportunities for others or by generating the tax revenue the government needs to fund programs that help others. And that for me is more than enough.

Obama to End Recession in December -- by Holding "Jobs Summit" by Robert Bidinotto

On another website I visit, somebody was complaining about news that Barack Obama was planning to hold a "jobs summit" in December to solve, once and for all, the dire problem of soaring unemployment. How could another meeting at the White House possibly end our recession? this Doubting Thomas demanded to know.

His angry outburst struck me as the woefully short-sighted rant of a Tea Party Nazi. It certainly demonstrated a fundamentally feeble grasp of the nuances and subtleties of modern economic theory, which are clearly understood by our president.

Of course Mr. Obama's "Jobs Summit" will create jobs! Let me count the ways:

First, think of all the boosted employment we will witness in the "Useless Summit" industry: conference organizers, badge-makers, PowerPoint experts, flower-arrangers, coffee-pourers, table-cloth folders -- I mean, the list just goes on and on.

But that's merely AT the conference. What about all the preparations for travel TO the conference?

Think of how many attendee business suits will go to dry cleaners. Think of the airline tickets purchased. The cab rides. The airports. Ponder the army of accountants who will have to go over all the expense reports from this crucial event. Consider all the wear and tear on the transportation vehicles involved -- jets, cabs, limos -- putting them just that much closer to being replaced by new purchases, which in turn will stimulate the auto and airline industries. Consider the White House electric bill alone, and what it will mean for the local power company. Think, too, of all the fuel that will be used up coming and going to the Summit, stimulating the oil and gasoline industries.

And regarding that fuel: Reflect for a moment, if you will, on all the CO2 that attendee jets and limos will emit en route to the Summit. This ginormous release of carbon into our atmosphere would not have occurred, except for the Summit. Yes, Barack Obama would be the first to acknowledge that it creates an environmental crisis; but, as Rahm Emmanuel would say, there is always opportunity to be found in a good crisis.

For example, the CO2 emissions no doubt will be carefully monitored by atmospheric scientists and climate-modelers, leading to scores of "jobs created or saved" in this vital field. Consider also the longer-term ramifications. Emergency remediation efforts for the increased CO2 emitted by the conferees will stimulate entire new cottage industries of new jobs. A "Keynesian multiplier effect" will occur: Each dollar spent by atmospheric scientists and conference attendees on issuing dire reports and forecasts will, in turn, generate $3.26 spending in the printer-paper industry, $1.82 in the lumber industry, $4.37 for Kinko's, $1.85 for the ink industry, $5.50 for overnight deliveries by Federal Express, $7,223.44 in overtime for postal workers -- plus 378,498 downstream jobs created or saved in federal and international regulatory bureaucracies.

These calculations, of course, do not even begin to include the boost to peripheral service industries, such as Washington-area restaurants, hotels, bars, tourist traps, and hookers.

In short, this single event alone could generate enough economic activity to pull us out of the recession! Why, it would be treasonously irresponsible if Barack Obama did NOT hold this summit!

So, enough of the criticism, already. We should be gladdened and relieved that, at last, we have a firm and steady hand on the tiller of our economy. And I, for one, just can't wait for the next stimulative product of his ever-fertile brain.

John Stossel 20/20 Special "Bailouts and Bull"

Just received this notice from Flowidealism.org regarding John Stossel special on the bailout. Here is an excerpt from Stossel's notice.

Hi,

Please forgive the impersonal email, but I want to let you know about my bailout special! With the help of Drew Carey and Reason TV, we look at Big Government's promise to "fix" the economy and other bull.

You can find the outlets in your area on http://abcnews.go.com/2020

Here's what ABC lets me say about it:

The Conceit of the Ruling Class 

Politicians and pundits say government must do "something." It sound like a Viagra ad: "Does your economy have performance issues? If it's hard to achieve and maintain growth, 'stimulus' is right for you!" But shouldn't "stimulus" come with a warning label? "Side effects may include hyper-inflation, dollar devaluation, horrible debt, growth of welfare state, and unrealized expectations. Stimulus has not been proven successful, so it should not be used in the hopes of achieving actual growth ..."

While politicians claim that "all" or a "consensus" of economists agree that something "big" must be done, more than 300 economists say that the government's action do more harm than good. I interview some, calculate the amount the stimulus costs per taxpayer (about $16,000) and ask lawmakers: Where will you get the money? If too much debt was a problem, why is more debt now a solution?

I confront House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer about his claim that "all economists agree."

Is the market striking?

Anyone who has read Ayn Rand’s epic novel Atlas Shrugged would remember the question people asked throughout the story, “Who is John Galt?” The question expressed the confusion and resignation people felt as the United States slowly deteriorated under the yoke of government controls and edicts. John Galt helps to accelerate this decline by recruiting the leaders of various industries to join him in a strike against the forces in government and society who supported confiscating and usurping the wealth they created. Along these lines a Human Events article by Dr. Arthur Robinson titled John Galt Effect proposes that the “men of the mind” (to borrow Ayn Rand’s term) are withdrawing their abilities and contributions in face of growing government intervention in the economy.

As the pendulum of politics now swings toward tyranny in the United States and dangers to those whom they love increase, these men and women partially turn their talents more toward their personal responsibilities. Part of their thoughts, efforts, and ingenuity are lost to society -- and this loss cannot be recovered by either negative or positive incentives.

Throughout our country today, the men of the mind (women, too) are watching the awful scene in Washington and its reflection in state and local capitals throughout the United States. They understand the consequences of the government oppression that has dogged their own footsteps for many years and that will grow much worse in the near future. So, they are taking actions to protect themselves and their families.

We have no way to measure the societal effects of this distraction of the men of the mind. There are immediate effects upon our well being and long term effects from the things that they are no longer working full time to create.

While I agree with the sentiment expressed by Robinson’s piece it is extremely difficult to prove his claims. However, this piece in Forbes DigitalRules, Stocks Hate Obeynomics, seems to provide some empirical support for Robinson’s case.

The results are clear. The market hates Obama’s stimulus package and just about everything related to Obamanomics. … Stocks are down 27% since the Nov. 4th election. Stocks have plummeted more than 40% since Obama sewed up the Democratic nomination in June.

Capital is on strike. And why wouldn’t it be? Private capital has no idea what the future holds in terms of taxes, regulation, trade, deficits and the value of the dollar. None whatsoever.

Capital has figured out one thing, however. The politicians in Washington most hostile to private investment are running the show.

…

Here’s a question. Why did President Obama let an economic fool and earmark liar like David Obey write the stimulus plan that is so disliked by a majority of Americans and positively hated by the stock market? This is the mystery, isn’t it?

… David Obey is its chief architect, after all. During Obey’s near 40-year career in the House, he has nearly always voted for more government subsidies and less trade, according to the libertarian think tank Cato Institute. Let me repeat: The most anti-libertarian Congressman is in charge of the legislative wing of Obama's economic plan.

If you voted for Obama, you might ask: Why? And where is Austan Goolsbee? Even George Will liked the University of Chicago economist and pro-market centrist who was held up as Obama’s economic brain during the presidential campaign.

Goolsbee is missing in action. His ideas are missing in action. They’ve been replaced by the socialist hack David Obey. And the market has noticed.

As I’ve mentioned before, Obama’s proposed solutions to the current economic mess consists of continuing to apply the same Keynesian policies that got us here. The electorate bought the message of change and (appropriately) rejected the legacy of the last eight years. However, the market has seen the future and doesn’t like it. It doesn’t believe the promised “change” is fundamentally different. We can only hope that the state of the country four or eight years from now will bear no resemblance to the dismal collapse depicted in Atlas Shrugged.

Stimulus Package: Saving us from … our saviors?

Historic' Stimulus Is Egregious Waste
Taxing The Truth

These two editorials from Investor’s Business Daily touch on the errors of the stimulus package. In earlier blog posts I’ve discussed how government policies that encouraged banks to loosen their lending policies and the role of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have helped set the stage for the current crisis. Seeing all of the drama and demagoguery surrounding the stimulus package brings to mind an analogy: our current situation is similar to a doctor injecting poison into the victim’s blood, causing a person to almost die, then the same doctor heroically tries to “stimulate” the victim’s heart back to life. We’re supposed to gratefully grovel to the same person who induced the illness in the first place! It would be funny if it wasn’t going to cost us nearly a trillion dollars.

Does the government create wealth or redistribute it?

I recently received this e-mail containing a quote by the late Dr. Adrian Rogers (1931 to 2005) Memphis, TN, that seems particularly appropriate in light of the Obama election.

You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the rich out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend is about the end of any nation.

You cannot multiply the wealth by dividing it.

While I agree with this sentiment it will most likely carry little or no weight with those who, like Obama, want to “spread the wealth” as he said in the famous exchange with “Joe the Plumber” during the election. I’m sure Obama and Democrats don’t argue that the government creates wealth. Instead they feel it is the appropriate vehicle to redistribute wealth.

A key premise behind redistributionism is the idea that the free market unfairly distributes the wealth, that businessmen and the wealthy ultimately don’t deserve what they have, that they succeeded by exploiting others. (In other words, they hold a form of watered-down Marxism.) Therefore redistributionists believe it is moral to use progressive taxation and other measures to right past wrongs and to create a more egalitarian society.

So in order to make any kind of impact on those who argue this way is to show that:

1. The free market isn’t rigged to exploit the lower classes and that everyone has an equal chance to succeed.
2. The distribution of wealth is such that you could tax the top earners at 100% and still not make a major impact on the people at the other end of the income spectrum.
3. It is moral to pursue one’s own interests as long as you don’t violate the rights of others.
4. Perhaps most important, it is immoral to take what one has earned by their own efforts and give it to others.

Obviously accomplishing all of this is more than I can cover here. I’d recommend sites like the Ludwig Von Mises Institute for the economic counter-arguments and the Ayn Rand Institute for the individualist defense.

Obama's Plan to "Save" Us

The World Tribune has an article titled “In the propaganda department, Obama's linguists are leaving Republicans in the dust” that is written by Cliff Kincaid, of Accuracy in Media (a conservative media watchdog group). Buried in this article is a short quote from Peter Schiff of Euro Pacific Capital who offers a warning and a nice, concise explanation of the folly of government spending our way out of the current recession.

[He] warns that a proposal of this kind is comparable to an individual trying to “forestall a personal recession by taking out newer, bigger loans when the old loans can’t be repaid.”

He explains, “Governments cannot create but merely redirect. When the government spends, the money has to come from somewhere. If the government doesn’t have a surplus, then it must come from taxes. If taxes don’t go up, then it must come from increased borrowing. If lenders won’t lend, then it must come from the printing press, which is where all these bailouts are headed. But each additional dollar printed diminishes the value of those already in circulation. Something cannot be effortlessly created from nothing.”

Making Sense of the Current Financial Crisis

Greg Ransom has a nice compendium of articles at PrestoPundit that explain the current financial crisis primarily from the Austrian economics point of view. (This is the school of thought that includes Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek.)

He also has a long post on "Who Is Barack Obama" that I also recommend.

Spreading the Wealth: Obama’s Altruist Trojan Horse

I’ve posted links to Investor’s Business Daily (IBD) because I consistently agree with their editorials. I highly recommend their series titled The Audacity of Socialism. Like most right-of-center publications they properly decry the abuses of liberal policy but fall short of challenging the moral premises behind liberal policy. Therefore it is refreshing to see this quote in the editorial “Defining Problems With Socialism For The Post-Cold War Generation” posted on October 27, 2008.

[Socialists] see capitalism with its profit motive as
vulgar and immoral because it's at odds with altruism — the idea that the
general welfare of society is the proper goal of individuals.

What they fail to realize is society is the greatest
beneficiary of our system of rational self-interest. The poorest of the poor and
the laziest of the lazy still benefit from the genius of the entrepreneur and
the risk-taking of the venture capitalist.

The article starts off also with good advice to McCain: slapping the label socialist onto Obama won’t make nearly as much impact as spelling out the personal consequences of Obama’s socialist policies. To most people, especially the younger generations, the term socialism has no meaning. They would take more offense to saying Obama doesn’t like “Dancing With The Stars.”

Returning back to the first point about the altruist premise behind socialism IBD does fall somewhat into the trap that most conservatives do: saying that the invisible hand of the market ultimately helps people more than government handouts. While I agree this doesn’t go far enough. This answer looks at the recipients, not at those who create values. We also need to reinforce the idea that people own the values they created and obtained. Redistribution inevitably means taking -- by force -- values from people who obtained them by investing their time, energy and resources. Everyone has heard the well known saying that “Time is money.” Well, the reverse is true too: money is time. When someone advocates increasing taxes to pay for their pet redistributionist programs they essentially are laying claim to the time it takes for us to pay for the increased taxes. If you dig deep enough what they are saying is that your life and your time is ultimately not yours.

A lot of issues are packed into the idea of redistribution which I’ll get to shortly. Suffice it to say a moral case can be made against “spreading the wealth around” as Obama would say. Congratulations to IBD for bringing this into the light.

Are our problems caused by too much freedom or too little?

While researching recent posts on the financial crisis I found a publication by the Fraser Institute, a Canadian based organization “measures and studies the impact of markets and government interventions on the welfare of individuals. In our research, we bring together academics, economists, and policy analysts from around the world. The Institute's list of researchers has grown to include more than 350 authors in 22 countries (six of whom have been awarded Nobel Prizes), comprising more than 600 Institute publications and thousands of articles.” The publication, titled “Economic Freedom of the World: 2006 Annual Report,” contains some interesting tidbits that undercuts the accusations that “unfettered capitalism” caused our recent financial woes.

The report analyzes economic freedom in 42 different measures falling into four broad categories:

1. personal choice
2. voluntary exchange coordinated by markets
3. freedom to enter and compete in markets
4. protection of persons and their property from aggression by others.

Results? The U.S. ranks 8^th out of 141 countries. The countries ahead of us (starting with #1): Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Chile, Canada and Australia.

I find it interesting the Switzerland is the only European country ahead of us even though it is clear that Obama’s and the Left’s agenda is to turn the U.S. into another European socialist/welfare state. We can see how well that’s working!

The report reaches several conclusions. The following list is quoted verbatim.

1. Countries with more economic freedom have substantially higher per-capita incomes.
2. Countries with more economic freedom have higher growth rates.
3. Countries with more economic freedom attract more foreign investment.
4. Total investment is slightly higher in countries with more economic freedom.
5. Private investment spending is much higher in countries with more economic freedom.
6. The share of income by the poorest 10% of the population is unrelated to the degree of economic freedom in a nation.
7. The amount of per capita, as opposed to the share, of income going to the poorest 10% of the population is much greater in nations with the most economic freedom than it is in those with the least. [HCS note: the average annual income in the least free quartile is a measly $961 as compared to $8,730 in the most free quartile.]

You might say, so what? Maybe economic freedom isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be, that there are other things more important than making money. Fair enough. Let’s take a look at the rest of the conclusions the report draws from their data.

8. Life expectancy is over 20 years longer in countries with the most economic freedom than it is in those with the least.
9. With fewer regulations, taxes, and tariffs, economic freedom reduces the opportunities for corruption on the part of public officials.
10. Political rights (e.g., free and fair elections) and civil liberties (e.g., freedom of speech) go hand in hand with economic freedom.
11. Environmental stresses on human health are lower and ecosystem vitality is greater in countries with more economic freedom.

However, a closer look at the data in this report also refutes the claims that the 8 years of Republican deregulation lead us to our current financial predicament. The Fraser Report provides the previous freedom rankings all the way back to 1970. Here are the rankings broken down by President.

Reagan (1981 – 1989): rank increased from 4th to 3^rd, economic freedom score increased from 7.5 to 8.3 (with 10 being the maximum score).

Clinton (1993 – 2001): rank stayed at 3^rd, score dropped from 8.3 to 8.2 but peaked at 8.6 in 2000.

Bush (2001 – 2009): rank dropped from 3^rd to 8^th (!), score continued to drop to 8.0 in 2006, the last date available.

Conclusions: economic freedom increased 0.6 points during the Reagan years and peaked during the Clinton administration but started to drop before the end of his term. More importantly, our ranking and score dropped 0.6 points and our ranking slipped 5 spots during the Bush years. To be fair the comparative ranking could indicate that other countries overtook us. However, the decline in our overall freedom score shows that we’re back to where we were in 1990, the end of Bush Senior’s term. How about that for irony!

Premises behind the financial crisis

It has been fascinating to note the host of premises and beliefs that lie behind the current financial fiasco, many of which are implicit or simply are not noticed. (When I say fascinating I mean akin to the kind we feel when driving by a horrific traffic accident where you can’t resist looking.) Due to the length of the list I’m not going to comment in detail. It would take a book the size of the bailout bill to address all of them.

Here they are in no particular order of importance.

Economic egalitarianism: the belief that government should ensure equal economic outcomes. (I discussed this idea in an earlier post.)

Psychology trumps economics: that greed is a more fundamental and better explanation than the principles of economics and the impact of government policy on economic decisions. Misses the point that most people and businesses are motivated to improve their condition and that this force is always at work. Why did greed suddenly cause this meltdown? What allowed it to get out of control? Answer: laws that encouraged banks to lower their lending standards, plus the role of Fannie Mae’s management who aggressively marketed their company as a safe investment while cooking the books.

Question: if banks were driven by pure greed why do they need to be forced to loan more money?

Answer: because they also have to protect their bottom line. In order to make a profit they need to ensure that the people to whom they lend money will be able to pay it back. Greed therefore is balanced by prudence.

I have issues with using the term greed which I believe is used as a derogatory, emotion-laden synonym for self-interest and the desire to improve one’s situation. The dictionary definition of greed is “excessive desire for having.” What is considered excessive? Who determines what is excessive?


Punishment of the good for being good: people who did not overextend themselves by buying homes they couldn’t afford and/or didn’t leverage their home’s equity into credit will pay for the sins of those who did.

The best defense is a strong offence (along with denial of responsibility): blame the mess on the 8 years of Bush, on “deregulation,” “greed” without explaining exactly how. Deny the role of your own policies in the fiasco then demand more of the same to “fix” it.

Good intentions (desire to help the people who couldn’t afford homes) absolve you of blame. This includes the management of Fannie Mae who cooked the books to make their business look better than it really was and to maximize their bonuses.

No distinction made between kinds of “greed”: While I dislike how this word is bandied about I’ll use it for the purpose of illustration. As I said above greed is being used as a purposely negative term for self-interest and the desire to improve one’s condition. Having said that there are at least two breeds of greed: (1) the drive to create or produce value (which is what motivates the businesses in the free market), or (2) the greed of obtaining the unearned (Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae senior management plundering tax payers to line their pockets, people buying homes knowing full well they couldn’t make the payments, lawmakers adding pork programs to the bailout bill, and so on.)

Ends justify the means: the “good” intentions of wanting to help people buy homes justify strong arming banks into suspending prudent underwriting standards (e.g., ACORN [to which Obama has ties] fostering activities to intimidate banks, passage and enforcement of the Community Reinvestment Act.)

Ends justifies the means – Part 2: using the bailout plan as an opportunity to shoe horn additional pork into it for unrelated programs and to get the toe in to door for carbon footprint taxes.

Wishes override reality: if banks don’t make loans according to sound underwriting principles let’s encourage them to be more “flexible.” Reality is negotiable!

The role of government is to ensure businesses are serving the community. This is the foundation of arguments for passing the CRA and other laws. However this flies in the face of the greed argument. If businessmen wanted to rape and pillage, I mean maximize profit, you wouldn’t have to force them to loan money. Their profit motive gives them an incentive to “serve” the community. If certain communities aren’t being served that signals the presence of other forces dissuading businessmen from selling their product or service. Implicit in this argument is the belief that customers have a right to demand the services and goods provided by businesses. Of course, this idea underlies arguments for universal health care and whatever other service or good deemed to be too valuable to trust to the market. (Another topic that’s big enough to fill a book.)

Freddie Mae: If only we had listened five years ago

Robert Bidinotto has posted a link to a damning video showing Congressmen including Barney Frank chastising Armando Falcon, director of the Office of Federal Housing Oversight, who blew the whistle on Fannie Mae in 2004. If you’re interested here are links to the web site and to the most recent (2006) report. The report runs 348 pages but reading the 13 page executive summary gives the lowlights of this appalling story. I have provided some quotes below.

What is even more sickening is the fact that the same web page lists reports going back to 2003. All of them share the same theme: Fannie Mae violated standard accounting rules and engaged in dubious (to put it mildly) practices to accomplish the goals of senior management.

When Franklin Raines became Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Fannie Mae in 1999, he sought to lead the Enterprise into a new era of growth in business volumes and profits by challenging senior management and employees to double EPS in five years. Mr. Raines also made changes in Fannie Mae’s compensation programs that enhanced incentives to achieve that goal.

A combination of factors led Fannie Mae senior management, through their actions and inactions, to commit or tolerate a wide variety of unsafe and unsound practices and conditions. Those factors included the Enterprise’s enormous financial resources and political influence, the expectation that senior management could write the rules that applied to Fannie Mae, financial rewards tied to a measure of profits that management could easily manipulate, and the relative disinterest of senior executives in adhering to standards of prudent business operations.

Fannie Mae’s Board of Directors contributed to those problems by failing to be sufficiently informed and to act independently of its chairman, Franklin Raines, and senior management, and by failing to exercise the requisite oversight over the Enterprise’s operations.

That misconduct ultimately led to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) directing Fannie Mae to restate its financial results for 2002 through mid-2004, the departure of Mr. Raines and the Enterprise’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Timothy Howard, losses of tens of billions of dollars in market capitalization for Fannie Mae shareholders, and expenses for the restatement process, regulatory examinations, investigations, and litigation that the Enterprise has recently estimated will exceed $1.3 billion in 2005 and 2006 alone.

Improper earnings management at Fannie Mae increased the annual bonuses and other compensation linked to EPS that senior management received. Compensation for senior executives that was driven by or linked to EPS dwarfed basic salary and benefits. For CEO Franklin Raines, for example, two compensation components directly tied to meeting EPS goals accounted for more than $20 million for the six years from 1998 through 2003. Three-year EPS goals also played a crucial role in determining the size of the approximately $32 million awarded to Mr. Raines during that six-year period under a long-term executive compensation program. In total, over $52 million of Mr. Raines’ compensation of $90 million during the period was directly tied to achieving EPS targets.

The image of Fannie Mae communicated by Mr. Raines and his inner circle and promoted by the Enterprise’s corporate culture was false. In the words of one current member of Fannie Mae’s Board of Directors, the picture of the Enterprise as a “best-in-class” financial institution was a “façade.” To maintain that façade, senior executives worked strenuously to hide Fannie Mae’s operational deficiencies and significant risk exposures from outside observers—the Board of Directors, its external auditor, OFHEO, the Congress, and the public. The illusory nature of the Enterprise’s public image and senior management’s efforts at concealment were the two essential features of the Enterprise’s corporate culture. Those features, which were both supported by repeated improper manipulation of earnings, are a major theme of the report.

The Bailout: Hey Buddy Can You Spare $700B?

Before I start here are two links to helpful explanations of the economic "crisis." Both come from the Ludwig von Mises Institute. The first, titled The Bailout Reader, lists various articles on their web site. The second, titled The Housing Bubble in 4 Easy Steps, explains how the Fed's manipulations of the interest rate contributed to the housing market bubble. See more below but first I'd like to make a comment on what passes for explanations in the media and among many politicians.

When a systemic problem surfaces like this we need to look at something that leads people to act in a certain way. The popular "explanation" is to lay the blame at the greed of Wall Street and bankers. Question: why didn't bankers greedily loan money to poor folks before the passing of the Community Reinvestment Act during the Carter era and the strengthened enforcement imposed by the Clinton administration? If bankers didn't act this way previously we need to look at a deeper, more plausible reason than greed. Answer: because the change in laws and its enforcement dictated these poor loan choices. Before these laws went into effect the bank's underwriters knew that the rate of default on the loans would make this practice unprofitable. In fact, the people who pushed for these laws did so because the argued banks were "redlining" [not loaning to certain groups of people] and therefore needed to be encouraged [i.e., forced] to do so.

Returning back to the Ludwig von Mises Institute to which I refer at the beginning. I was lucky enough to go to Grove City College for my degree in chemical engineering. Why? At the time I was not aware of Grove City's strong free market economics department, headed by Hans Sennholz, an advocate of the Austrian school of economics. This school, which includes Friedrich Hayek (author of The Road to Serfdom) and Ludwig von Mises, proposed a theory of money, banking and business cycles at odds with the Keynesian model. I happened to become friends with several older students (including Robert Bidinotto) who were taking economics. Out of curiosity I started to monitor Sennholz's classes. What he said made sense so I sat in as many of his classes (with Sennholz's permission) as I could. Sennholz even offered to award me a minor in economics if I paid the school for the credits (which unfortunately I couldn't afford).

I'm probably doing it an injustice in trying to summarise the Austrian approach but in essence they argue that government attempts to foster economic growth by controlling and manipulating the money supply and interest rates ultimately create boom-and-bust cycles that are much more extreme than would occur in an economy where interest rates responded to market signals. Having centrally controlled interest rates leads to mis-investment as businesses plan their future and expansion plans on false information. The analogy which I've drawn in an earlier post is similar to government setting price controls. The inevitable result of government price controls leads to shortages or overstock because no bureaucrat, no matter how brilliant, can predict better than the pricing system of a free market.

The Austrian economists also argue against other attempts by the government to "steer" the economy via legislation. Their arguments are based on economics while others argue that it is immoral for politicians to redistribute wealth by using the full enforcement power of government to ensure we abide by its edicts.

The current financial situation perfectly illustrates both follies of artificially depressing interest rates while forcing banks to make loans to people who normally wouldn't qualify. These policies have resulted in the exact opposite outcomes as the stated intentions of its advocates. Instead of boosting low-income neighbors it will cause them to deteriorate (while leading to frantic calls for even more government "solutions" to fix the problems caused by previous government policies). In a way their egalitarian goals are accomplished but by an opposite mechanism. Instead of helping improve the economic welfare of their intended beneficiaries, the actions of egalitarian motivated politicians makes life more difficult for the middle class, thus pushing them down.

Anyway, I hope you check out the two links at the beginning of this post. Their explanations of what happened makes much more sense than the conventional explanations.

10 Minute Explanation of the Financial Mess

If you have 10 minutes to spare check out this clip that explains how the subprime mess happened. (Thanks to Robert Bidinotto who first posted this clip on his blog.)

The Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae Mess: A good brief explanation

Here is a link to a Fox News bit that does a nice job of explaining what happened with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.

The Unquestioned Premises Behind the Financial Crisis

While it is disturbing to watch the financial debacle unfold, it is even more disturbing that the true culprits escape notice: faulty premises.

Faulty premise #1: egalitarianism. There are different versions of egalitarianism. For instance, our political system rests on the idea that all people should be treated equal in terms of rights, due process, etc. However, economic egalitarianism strives to ensure equality in terms of equal pay, living conditions, etc. The extreme version of this is captured in this quote by Karl Marx: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” Naturally in America this belief fundamentally contradicts the idea of meritocracy, rags-to-riches, and the America dream.

Economic egalitarianism lies behind the Left’s continual efforts to “correct” the “evils” of capitalism and under girds redistributing money from taxpayers to the “underprivileged” via welfarism. [Note how the use of this term implies that the folks who have done well don’t really deserve it, that they are privileged. A privilege being a special favor dispensed by someone.]

Eventually the Left dreamed up a new tact: instead of cash handouts, why not provide easy credit?

The Office of Thrift Supervision (a government agency I never heard of before researching this post) describes the purpose of the Community Reinvestment Act, a key law in this scenario.

History of the Community Reinvestment Act

The CRA was enacted in 1977 to encourage financial institutions to help meet the credit needs of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound lending practices. It extends and clarifies the longstanding expectation that financial institutions will serve the convenience and needs of their local communities. The CRA and its implementing regulations require federal financial institution regulators to assess the record of each bank and savings association in helping to fulfill their obligations to the community and to consider that record in evaluating applications for charters or for approval of mergers, acquisitions and branch openings. The federal financial institution regulators are the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of Thrift Supervision.

The law provides a framework for financial institutions and community organizations to work together to promote the availability of credit and other banking services to underserved communities. Under its impetus, banks and savings associations have opened new branches, provided expanded services, adopted more flexible credit underwriting standards and made substantial commitments to state and local governments or community development organizations to increase lending to underserved segments of local economies and populations.

I added emphasis in the second paragraph. The banks adopted “more flexible underwriting standards” no doubt because this is the only way they could comply with the law’s criteria.

Howard Husock of the Manhattan Institute elaborates.

The Trillion-Dollar Bank Shakedown That Bodes Ill for Cities

Howard Husock

The Clinton administration has turned the Community Reinvestment Act, a once-obscure and lightly enforced banking regulation law, into one of the most powerful mandates shaping American cities—and, as Senate Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm memorably put it, a vast extortion scheme against the nation's banks. Under its provisions, U.S. banks have committed nearly $1 trillion for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects, most of it funneled through a nationwide network of left-wing community groups, intent, in some cases, on teaching their low-income clients that the financial system is their enemy and, implicitly, that government, rather than their own striving, is the key to their well-being.

During the seventies and eighties, CRA enforcement was perfunctory. Regulators asked banks to demonstrate that they were trying to reach their entire "assessment area" by advertising in minority-oriented newspapers or by sending their executives to serve on the boards of local community groups. The Clinton administration changed this state of affairs dramatically. Ignoring the sweeping transformation of the banking industry since the CRA was passed, the Clinton Treasury Department's 1995 regulations made getting a satisfactory CRA rating much harder. The new regulations de-emphasized subjective assessment measures in favor of strictly numerical ones. Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A's for effort. Only results—specific loans, specific levels of service—would count. Where and to whom have home loans been made? Have banks invested in all neighborhoods within their assessment area? Do they operate branches in those neighborhoods?

The reason why I say egalitarianism is a faulty premise is that it violates the basic facts of reality. People are unequal in talents, ambition and, yes, in credit risk. The Left capitalizes on our sympathy for people who are less well off. However, the fact that enough people defaulted on their loans to trigger the tsunami of financial failures should be proof enough of the futility of rewriting reality to meet the desires of egalitarians.

Faulty premise #2: the belief that it is the proper role of government to “level the playing field” by manipulating interest rates and encouraging “flexible credit underwriting standards” in order to achieve egalitarian goals. By trying to suspend the basic laws of economics the CRA and other measures distort the signals normally transmitted by the market.

Recall what happened in the 1970s when former President Nixon imposed price controls to stem inflation? As is usual with price controls Nixon’s created shortages of goods as the prices set by government were below the point set by demand. Forcing banks to provide credit to people who normally wouldn’t qualify leads to increased demand for loans. However, there is one key difference. In dealing with material commodities price controls lead to shortages if the government sets the price below the market clearing level. However since money and credit can be easily created at the government’s whim the supply increases to meet the escalating demand.

Meanwhile the management of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae highly leveraged their organizations with almost no oversight and built a precarious house of cards that was susceptible to the cold wind of falling home prices.

Financial Fiasco: Some Inconvenient Facts

Stephen Hicks has a flow chart (posted September 19) that does a nice job of showing how the current financial fiasco unfolded.

Investor's Business Daily has an editorial titled, Congress Lies Low To Avoid Bailout Blame. Here are some key points from this editorial.

President Bush in 2003 tried desperately to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from metastasizing into the problem they have since become.

[Referring to Bush's actions on September 11, 2003] Bush tried to act. Who stopped him? Congress, especially Democrats with their deep financial and patronage ties to the two government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie and Freddie.

As for presidential contender John McCain, just two years after Bush's plan, McCain also called for badly needed reforms to prevent a crisis like the one we're now in.

Since 1989, Fannie and Freddie have spent an estimated $140 million on lobbying Washington. They contributed millions to politicians, mostly Democrats, including Senator Chris Dodd (No. 1 recipient) and Barack Obama (No. 3 recipient, despite only three years in office). [NOTE from me: Be sure to check the table of top recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac at the end of the article.]

The Clinton White House used Fannie and Freddie as a patronage job bank. Former executives and board members read like a who's who of the Clinton-era Democratic Party, including Franklin Raines, Jamie Gorelick, Jim Johnson and current Rep. Rahm Emanuel.

House of cards built on faulty foundation

As the financial markets roil with the latest developments Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank and even Barack Obama are distancing themselves from the legacy of policies they have endorsed or proposed. They try to blame this mess on Bush’s last 8 years where in fact the roots of this dilemma go back to Clinton and earlier. As this article in Investor’s Business Daily says the main motive of the policies leading up to this was to provide people without good credit ratings to buy homes. So lenders were strong armed into lending to risks they normally wouldn’t have to avoid the wrath of the regulators.

The regulation grew to monstrous proportions during the Clinton administration, obsessed as it was with multiculturalism. Amendments to the CRA [Community Reinvestment Act] in the mid-1990s dramatically raised the amount of home loans to otherwise unqualified low-income borrowers.

The revisions also allowed for the first time the securitization of CRA-regulated loans containing subprime mortgages. The changes came as radical "housing rights" groups led by ACORN lobbied for such loans. ACORN at the time was represented by a young public-interest lawyer in Chicago by the name of Barack Obama.

HUD, in turn, pressured Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase more subprime mortgages, and Fannie and Freddie, in turn, donated to the campaigns of leading Democrats like Barney Frank and Pelosi who throttled investigations into fraud at the agencies.

The problem is that all of us will pay for the sins of these policies while the true perpetrators pontificate about the greed of Wall Street and the “failure” of the market. Most people don’t understand economics (like many politicians) so it’s appallingly easy to throw “bad guys” (i.e., Wall Street) as chum into the water. Meanwhile the true lesson will be lost in this feeding frenzy: when the government tries to force the market to behave in a certain way to achieve egalitarian goals this goal to make everyone equal indeed does becomes reality but not in the way that was intended. We’re all made equal – in terms of financial losses and the pain that goes with it. Instead of a rising tide of prosperity lifting all of our boats we’re drowning in the rising tide of tears and pain, the inevitable consequences of bad premises.

Financial Woes and Free Market Foes

In the aftermath of the most recent financial implosion McCain lays the blame for the recent financial woes on greed thus displaying a dismaying lack of understanding of economics. Meanwhile Obama pontificates about the "ownership society" advocated by Bush really means you're on your own. Well, he's right but not in the way Obama meant. We indeed are on our own .. or should be. As the article titled The Real Culprits In This Meltdown in the Investor's Business Daily notes the roots of this collapse traces back well before George Bush. It traces back even before Clinton but this article has some interesting things to say about the Clinton administration's role. Check it out.

Also recommended, http://www.gregransom.com/prestopundit/ for interesting commentary from a Hayekian viewpoint and for many posts on the Palin impaling by the media.