Tag: bailout

Categories
free trade & free markets

When Good Economists Go Bad

It is weird to watch respected economists leap so far off the beam that you question their sanity.

The number who supported the federal bailout made me shake my head. I guess economists can panic, too, get all doe-eyed in the face of a power grab.

My confidence in sanity returned when I read Nobel Laureate Vernon Smith’s amazingly insightful article in the Wall Street Journal. He argued that the Treasury Department has now committed itself to a kind of auction with which it has no demonstrated competence. Smith’s practical take on the bailout folly reminds me of another Smith, Adam, way back in 1776, explaining why markets work better than governments to create the wealth of nations.

Then, a few days later, Paul Krugman received the Nobel Prize for Economics.

I had read Krugman years ago, and was impresssed with his good sense. But then he began writing op-eds for the New York Times, and, uh, I began questioning his sanity. On so many issues he seems to believe that the best government governs most. And he’s a very pro-Democratic Party partisan.

It is worth remembering, though, that Krugman is a left-winger who supports free trade, attributes Europe’s high unemployment to wage regulations, and regards anti-globalization activists as enemies of the world’s poor.

Maybe his new prize will remind him of his good sense. He might even rethink his allegiance to Party.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
too much government

Up and Down and Up and . . .

The stock market won’t serve as a crystal ball. How about a Magic 8-Ball?

I’ve never asked “the stock market” for advice. But millions of people trade stocks. Their actions are presumably reflective of their judgments . . . some sober and rational, others panicky and irrational.

Often there’s no way to tell. But note how, in the push for ever-more government intervention in the economy, traders are said to be dull-witted if they don’t respond with exuberant glee to bailout news. They are thought smart only if they buy, buy, buy when government repeats the same mistakes that got us into this easy-credit-slathered mess to begin with.

Banks fail. Stocks decline. More banks fail. Stocks decline. Government announces a trillion-dollar bailout. Stocks rise.

Then there’s trouble passing the bailout in Congress. The stock market dives hundreds of points!

Oh no! Obviously, we “need” the bailout! So there’s arm-twisting, pork-larding, another hundred billion in taxpayer dollars added to the biggest one-day mortgaging of children’s future ever. Finally, the bailout passes.

And stocks dive even harder! Huh? The capitalists were supposed to be ecstatic about the feast of a free lunch. Therefore, the market must have fallen “despite” — not “because of” — the giant hit taxpayers are taking.

Some science, where 20/20 hindsight imputes particular reasons to a process filled with conflicting reasons.

Me, I’m going to take up tea leaves.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
term limits too much government

A Barney Frank Appraisal

Guess what: The disastrous policies that spawned our recent mortgage crisis prove that congressional term limits would be a very bad idea.

Not my opinion, I hasten to add. It’s the view of one Edward Tucker, writing a letter to the Wilmington [DE] News-Journal. Sorry, Ed, about how this Internet thing keeps your communiqué from dropping immediately into the ash heap of history.

Tucker’s view is typical of those who claim term limits would disastrously eject “experience” from the halls of power. He has nothing but praise for the expertise and gab gift of Representative Barney Frank, who has clung to his seat since 1981.

“The ability of only a few elected officials, such as . . . Barney Frank of Massachusetts, to speak intelligently about financial issues…has been impressive and reminds us that elected officials can grow expertise in office.”

Sorry, Mr. Tucker. But Barney was not one of the few congressmen who had been trying to curb the reckless lending policies of the Federal Reserve and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (The three Big Fat F’s that each deserve a Big Fat F.) Frank was, frankly, one of the chief enablers of federal policies that pushed easy credit and shaky mortgage loans.

Long-time incumbents may become expert indeed at spewing plausible-sounding nonsense in front of the cameras. But expertise in con-artistry isn’t quite the cure-all it’s cracked up to be.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

Don’t Bank On It

It’s not a chorus.

If you’ve been watching the “debate” over how best to con American voters into giving troubled banks $700 billion for bad loans, you might think it’s a chorus in the financial industry, especially from bank presidents.

You might assume they’re all shouting: GIVE US THE BAILOUT MONEY! NOW!

Not so. At least one banker dissents. John Allison, president of BB&T — with $136 billion in assets and 1500 branches — sent an open letter to Congress protesting the bad economics behind the bailout. He notes that his own company, though affected by the downturn, is in a much stronger position than many of BB&T’s competitors.

Why? Well, his bank did not join the orgy of bad lending, despite the enticement of the Federal Reserve’s easy credit policies and government pressure to give loans to bad-risk borrowers.

So why should the government reward the bad economic conduct of institutions that played along with the bad government policies? Why make it harder for the economy to recover by punishing sound and productive economic conduct with burdensome new government taxes?

Allison thinks the debate has suffered from domination, as he says, by those “financial institutions [that] made very poor decisions.”

Perhaps it’s because politicians have a whole lot more in common with foolish decision-makers than wise ones. . . .

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets national politics & policies too much government

$700 Billion Bad Bet

The administration’s proposed $700 billion bank bailout has finally passed the Congress — in large part because of fear that the economy would crumble if “something” wasn’t done.

But the magic men in Washington don’t have any guaranteed fixes in their bag of tricks. Certainly robbing the taxpayers of $700 billion — that’s a billion, 700 times — won’t cure the economy.

It will, long run, hurt the economy. How? By hampering realistic adjustment to current market conditions. It means taking $700 billion from productive economic activities to buy up debt at prices nobody in the private market is willing to pay. As economist Arnold Kling points out, “If [Bernanke and Paulson] were taking their plan to a venture capital firm to seek funding, they would be laughed out of the office.”

How did we get here? In previous years, the federal government compelled banks to give mortgages to persons who really couldn’t afford them. Meanwhile, the easy credit policies of the Federal Reserve made it easy for banks to obey these irresponsible demands.

Hence the housing bubble. Which popped.

The only long-term solution is to get the government out of the market. Stop trying to paper over the horrendous consequences of past government interventions with even worse government interventions. The free market ought to be free. Otherwise, we’ll one day end up with no market at all.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
free trade & free markets too much government

Stimulus, Response

Wall Street and the real estate markets have taken big hits, and so, to prevent a major recession, our president and representatives immediately began one-upping each other about a “stimulus package.”

And my thoughts go back to my classroom days. In biology.

There were these frogs, see. Dead frogs. On the table. Some of the kids would take a battery with some wires attached, and prod the dead frog, stimulating nerves to make the dead, half-dissected frogs jump.

Half the boys in the class thought it a hoot, half the girls thought it gross. Or maybe more than half.

Sometimes I think this is about as much as we ever were prepared for thinking about stimulus packages.

The economy is not a dead frog. it’s alive, and it’s received a shock. A better analogy might be to someone who’s received a blow to the head. You don’t necessarily immediately start applying shock therapy to get the person moving. Ask a nurse what to do. Most of the time, the body repairs itself. In due time. With care taken not to jar the person again.

But a blow to an ecosystem — like an economy — is more complicated than even some guy with a concussion. And, listening to the debate over the stimulus package, and then reading actual, astute economists consider the politicians’ proposals, and Iâ’m thinking . . .

Frog or no frog, the stimulus notions politicians prefer seem more directed towards influencing voters than getting the economy to jump back into action.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.