Don't Blame Wall Street -- The Government Did It!

Houses are not tulip bulbs and they’re not dot-coms. When most bubbles collapse the assets behind the bubble disappear rather quickly as people rush to avoid further losses on cratering assets. The difference with houses is that selling the house (or walking away from it)) leaves the owner in a worse situation than holding on to it, even if the value is expected to continue to fall. With assets wiped out, no money for a dp (you need at least 25% these days) and a default on their record, they have no way of getting another loan and face a foreseeable future of renting. Since rents are often now considerably higher than mortgage payments on the same place, the owners are better off staying put and ignoring the continuing loss of value of their home. The back pressure against selling homes only gets worse as their values fall.

The economy is in a slow death spiral now, with the slow decline in housing prices further depressing the economy, which throws people out of work, which forces them into foreclosure, which drives prices down, which makes it even harder for those who didn’t sell to sell. Worker mobility is close to zero, and businesses are waiting for the next “great idea” to come out of Washington. If they’re lucky, it won’t be as great as Obamacare or Dodd-Frank.

There have been a lot of suggestions for “solving” this. Most involve reducing the principal of loans below the homes’ market values, but what happens when people see daylight and rush to get out of their homes? A further devaluation. So the plans are modified so that those who get their principal lowered have to stay put. If they leave, the gov’t can go after other assets, etc. Another is to subsidize the purchase of empty homes to rent them out. That drives down rent prices and will force current rental property owner to sell. Every “answer” has unintended, negating consequences.

Left alone, it will take a combination of defaults (bank losses) and the gradual paydown of mortgages to below the home value. On average, a house bought in 2006 or 2007 with a fixed 30yr and no DP will not get its principal below today’s value until 2022. Even buyers who put down 20% are just at breakeven, which means they lose their entire DP investment if they sell now.

Devaluation of the currency to pay the federal debt is an inevitability. So why wait and prolong the pain to the economy? Imagine the worst case: gov’t lets mortgages unwind slowly as our economy slowly dies, then when revenues drop below a certain point, it becomes crystal clear that gov’t default is the only recourse. They print a shipload of money to pay off debt because no one is renewing prices rocket uncontrolled and the housing problem is finally solved, amidst the ruins of a once great economy. If they devalue now, let people know why they’re devaluing, put in place safeguards against future bubbles (like, oh, I don’t know… a full-reserve, audited gold standard?), then everyone takes their lumps and we rebuild what is still a vital, intact economy.

I’m as against gov’t intervention as the next guy, but when gov’t intervention causes a bubble, gov’t de-intervention may be required to re-balance the system. At least in this case, where the bubble dynamics of people’s homes prevents a quick orderly correction.

Unfortunately, this graph isn’t adjusted for price-inflation or population growth

Unfortunately, this graph isn’t adjusted for price-inflation or population growth

The Fed site (search FRED Database) allows graphs to be customized in various ways. By combining a couple of graphs there, you should be able to get a feel for what you want.

For current, excellent-quality graphs of key economic measures, the best place I’ve found is the Calculated Risk Graphs Galleries. (By quality, I mean objective and not driven by the need to push some political viewpoint.)

On mortgages, CRE has one that shows Mortgages as a percentage of GDP. That’s one decent way of normalizing the measure over time.

I think it is very important that as Objectivists or as fans of Ayn Rand that we always push for a free market solution, regardless of some thoughts that the government can engineer a “soft landing”. Government manipulation always entails further government regulations and these cause more and more distortions in the market, and we should stand against that on principle. If the government got out of housing altogether and let the market go where it goes, we would have a few rough years, for those just buying a house, but it would be over with fairly quickly. With more government interference, it will just stretch on and on with the next crises bringing even more regulations for “a soft landing.” I am completely against this line of thinking.

Regarding the gold standard, the gold standard did not cause further problems for the Great Depression. If we don’t have sound money (gold or silver, at least gold or silver backed money), then all sorts of problems caused by the Federal Reserve will crop up, including having to have dealt with inflation all these years since the Federal Reserve took over. The gold standard does not put a dampening on the economy, but having fiat money and inflation always spurs booms and then busts, because ultimately, you cannot fake a good economy. The gold standard or better yet gold as money is the only way to go to insure the government is not manipulating our currency.

Here is a free market solution to there being too many houses on the market first proposed by Yaron Brook and currently being debated in Congress: If you are an immigrant and buy a house, then you get American citizenship. Of course, Congress couldn’t make it that simple, they proposed it has to be a $500k house, which would be a really big house in most markets. And, of course, the Conservatives are against the idea of “buying citizenship” and who knows what those Mexicans might introduce to America…maybe tacos or something as horrible as that :slight_smile:

Here is a scary economic story that may lead to much further devaluations of the dollar, if the government goes for it. Bank of America has transferred all of its toxic assets to a branch that is covered by the FDIC – The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. If the government permits this to go through, then the taxpayer will be saddled with additional debt as the FDIC pays out the claims. This could lead to further “quantitative easing” on the part of the government, leading to hyper-inflation, something that many people are predicting anyhow to pay off the national debt.

http://wrightlawaz.com/?p=303&utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=bank-of-america-transfers-derivatives-risk-to-us-taxpayers-2

But, again, if this goes through, it is the fault of the government for setting up the FDIC, rather than the fault of the banks for trying to take advantage of it.

interesting tidbit: Ron Paul voted against Glass-Steagal repeal not because he didn’t want investment and regular banks to join, per se, but because within the context of FDIC, it meant the spreading of moral hazard to more investment.

Occupy Wall Street: “To Hell With Steve Jobs”

http://industrialpro…ith-steve-jobs/

*** Mod’s note: Moved posts - sN ***

If they devalue now, let people know why they’re devaluing, put in place safeguards against future bubbles (like, oh, I don’t know… a full-reserve, audited gold standard?), then everyone takes their lumps and we rebuild what is still a vital, intact economy.

For the follow up posts on the Gold standard, and also some on fractional-reserve banking, please continue here.

Occupy Wall Street: “To Hell With Steve Jobs” http://industrialpro…ith-steve-jobs/

Steve Jobs had a lot of good ideas but the wealth he accumulated was produced by others. Steve Jobs took in the wealth that others produced…Somebody else would have invented the things…I think Steve Jobs and all the other Steve Jobs’s in the world, like most researchers, most R&D, can be salaried employees of the majority…I don’t believe that there’s any need for individuals like Steve Jobs in this system to flourish based on their particular talents or their particular genius…

A “physical labor” theory of value in the 21st century. The guy cannot be this ignorant.

*** Mod’s note: Moved posts - sN ***

For the follow up posts on the Gold standard, and also some on fractional-reserve banking, please continue here.

I replied to the Island Scenario of fixed amount of gold in that older thread that you linked to. My reply is there.

Unfortunately, this graph isn’t adjusted for price-inflation or population growth

Nor is it given as a percentage of GDP… What it does show is that the increase in household debt accelerated most sharply in the lead up to 2003, when only Fannie and Freddie were securitizing mortgages. By the time big banks got into the action acceleration (not growth) had subsided and the trajectory began to curve down, until the bottom fell out.

Can you provide a link that supports the statement that the banks were “forced”?

"caused by the government giving false promises of backing up mortgages " I understand this, and it obviously led to some bad business practices on the banks’ parts. But as far as I can tell they did this willingly. As Yaron Brooks has said, if they make mistakes like that, they should simply fail.

However “government forcing banks to deal with uncreditworthy people” is something I haven’t seen any evidence of. I’ve certainly heard the argument from many, like Limbaugh and others, but could you direct me to something that shows the banks were “forced”, as opposed to just participating in actions that they shouldn’t have, thus leading to consequences that should have caused them to fail?

I’m not denying that such evidence exists, I just would like to see it.

Smoking-Gun Document Ties Policy To Housing Crisis

And it’s still alive today. Obama is building on the fair-lending infrastructure Clinton put in place.

As IBD first reported, Attorney General Eric Holder has launched a witch hunt vs. “racist” banks.

“It’s a more aggressive fair-lending enforcement approach now,” said Washington lawyer Andrew Sandler of Buckley Sandler LLP in a recent interview. “It is well beyond anything we saw during the Clinton administration.”

The document: http://www.ots.treas…files/25022.pdf

For anyone interested in actual facts, rather than right wing slogans:

http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/bloombergs-awful-comment-what-can-we-say-for-certain-regarding-the-gses/

This is the best summary of the whole issue I have seen so far.

Speaking of facts: Case Shiller 100 Year Chart (2011 Update)

That bubble starts in 1998.

For anyone interested in actual facts, rather than right wing slogans:

http://rortybomb.wor…rding-the-gses/

This is the best summary of the whole issue I have seen so far.

If that’s the best summary of the “whole issue”, you obviously either do not understand what the whole issue is or you’re simply spouting left-wing slogans. As long as you ignore the problems with FDIC/Fed regulated banks and the GSE, and ignore the fact that they had to be bailed out, you can continue to pretend that they were not part of the problem or were only led along by the sub-prime devils… poor innocent, ignorant big-banks/Freddie /Fannie!

1 Like

If that’s the best summary of the “whole issue”, you obviously either do not understand what the whole issue is or you’re simply spouting left-wing slogans. As long as you ignore the problems with FDIC/Fed regulated banks and the GSE, and ignore the fact that they had to be bailed out, you can continue to pretend that they were not part of the problem or were only led along by the sub-prime devils… poor innocent, ignorant big-banks/Freddie /Fannie!

Sorry, what left wing slogans have I been spouting? I look at the data then I judge. Show me contrasting data and I’ll change my mind. The data is overwhelmingly one sided in this case.

My favorite part of that link above is where the guy links to previous right wing analysis before the crash - http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv23n3/gunther.pdf - This one advocates the exact opposite position of the one it currently holds. This is proof that the organisation is either wilfully dishonest or unconsciously self deceiving, since they clearly will warp any data to fit their preconceived political views. An honest way would be to warp one’s political views to fit the data.

I submit that most politicians know that CRA was a minor cause of the crisis, yet they will repeat slogans to the opposite effect in order to gain votes from people who haven’t seen the data, or can’t understand it.

Governments will try to do all sorts of odd things, and have the muscle to pull much of it off, for extended durations. People who do not get with the party-program are just as likely to be burned as people who buy it completely.

This quote from you I find interesting. You’re essentially saying that European banks were forced into buying US subprime because if they didn’t they would have lost money anyway? Have I got your argument right here?

Sorry, what left wing slogans have I been spouting? I look at the data then I judge. Show me contrasting data and I’ll change my mind. The data is overwhelmingly one sided in this case.

The data is overwhelmingly one-sided. The Case Shiller analysis shows that the bubble was well underway in 2003, when private firms started packaging mortgages. How do you blame high home prices on the private sector in 2003?

Once home prices were high and rising, and the conventional wisdom, from all sides, including especially Congress and the GSE’s was that they would continue to rise unabated, we were in an unrecognized bubble dynamic. To take what happened after 2003 out of the context of what got us to 2003 is wholly irrational. To conclude that “from 2002-2005, [GSEs] saw a fairly precipitous drop in market share, going from about 50% to just under 30%” ignores the context of the market, in which they went from duopoly status in MBS to two of many competitors, and still they held onto 30% share. Are we to take away that GSE’s were originating fewer mortgages? In 2002, they had 50% of a $700B industry. In 2005, they had 30% of a $1.2T industry. In other words, they were still running at full capacity right through the bubble.

Were the banks culpable in taking advantage of a scenario created by Congress and the GSE’s? Absolutely! But this goes to the underlying issue of regulation v. policing in the banking industry. Once you start regulating an industries parameters, rather than policing fraudulent behavior, you create an environment in which honest businessmen leave for other industries, and frauds and cheats search for ways, within the gov’t rules to make a buck. Alan Greenspan called this phenomena “The Attack on Integrity” in an essay in the early 1960’s (in Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal). The banking crisis of the 2000’s is proof positive that gov’t regulation, as strict as it is in the banking industry, only served to breed dishonesty among bankers.

Once home prices were high and rising, and the conventional wisdom, from all sides, including especially Congress and the GSE’s was that they would continue to rise unabated, we were in an unrecognized bubble dynamic.

So you admit it was the banks fault in going along with the conventional wisdom? You concede that they were not forced to do this?

My favorite part of that link above is where the guy links to previous right wing analysis before the crash …

I did not read that Cato article, so I’ll answer this generally…

Quite apart from the GOP, even true-blue advocates of free-markets often end up cheering the wrong concrete political compromise, even when they are correct in their principles. We live in a mixed-economy with all sorts of rules. When there is a concrete suggestion that some particular law be rolled back without rolling back some other law, the free-market advocate would say that all interference should be removed. Yet rolling back some one part might seem like a good way to make a half-step toward freedom, and they might cheer for it.

In any particular instance, this could well be a mistake, even a blunder. Nevertheless, it is not the free-marketers who are primarily to blame, but the folks (Democrat and Republican) who want to retain the countervailing laws that ought to have been repealed as well. It is not the free-marketers who brought us this hugely complex, unstable and redistributive mess of a system in the first place. They’re not the ones to blame by saying: “See, you guys cheered this part of unravelling the system, without insisting on unraveling all of it.” Instead, look to those whose philosophy kept those other laws in place. Don’t blame the guys who wanted to remove all of the mess, but could not get their way; look to those whose philosophy made them insist on keeping some of the mess in place.

You’re essentially saying that European banks were forced into buying US subprime because if they didn’t they would have lost money anyway? Have I got your argument right here?

Are you aware of how banks that were very cautious pre-1913 were basically rendered unprofitable in the decades after the Fed was created?