Archive for category Centrally Managed Economy
Barney Frank Admits the Truth
Posted by kyle in Centrally Managed Economy, Congress, Democrats, Economics, Financial Crisis, Financial Policy, Statism on August 21, 2010
This is beyond amazing.
Barney Frank, co-author of the housing bubble and the subsequent financial crisis, calls for the elimination of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac!
“August 21, 2010
Barney Frank Comes Home to the Facts
By Larry Kudlow
Can you teach an old dog new tricks? In politics, the answer is usually no. Most elected officials cling to their ideological biases, despite the real-world facts that disprove their theories time and again. Most have no common sense, and most never acknowledge that they were wrong.
But one huge exception to this rule is Democrat Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.
For years, Frank was a staunch supporter of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government housing agencies that played such an enormous role in the financial meltdown that thrust the economy into the Great Recession. But in a recent CNBC interview, Frank told me that he was ready to say goodbye to Fannie and Freddie.
“I hope by next year we’ll have abolished Fannie and Freddie,” he said. Remarkable. And he went on to say that “it was a great mistake to push lower-income people into housing they couldn’t afford and couldn’t really handle once they had it.” He then added, “I had been too sanguine about Fannie and Freddie.”
When I asked Frank about a long-term phase-out plan that would shrink Fannie and Freddie portfolios and mortgage-purchase limits, and merge the agencies into the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) for a separate low-income program that would get government out of middle-income housing subsidies, he replied, “Larry, that, I think, is exactly what we should be doing.”
Frank also said that any federal housing guarantees should be transparently priced and put on budget. But he added that the private sector must be encouraged to re-enter housing finance just as the government gradually withdraws from it.
Some would say Frank’s mea culpa is politically motivated in advance of an election where bailout nation and big government are public enemies No. 1 and 2. Of course, poll after poll shows that the $150 billion Fan-Fred bailout, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates could rise to $400 billion, is detested by voters and taxpayers everywhere.
In fact, these failed government agencies are in such bad shape that they can’t even pay Uncle Sam the dividends owed under the conservatorship deal reached two years ago. That’s right. In order to pay a $1.8 billion dividend on Treasury department stock, Fan and Fred had to borrow $1.5 billion from — you guessed it — the Treasury.
Then there’s this head-scratching detail: In an absolutely outrageous move last Christmas Eve, President Obama signed off on $42 million in bonuses for the top 12 Fannie and Freddie executives, including $6 million apiece for the two CEOs. (Hat tip to attorney Stephen B. Meister.)
Voters are on to all this. So politics may indeed be motivating Barney Frank’s turnaround. But I’m going to credit him with more than that.
I think Chairman Frank watched these government behemoths descend into hell and then witnessed the financial catastrophe that ensued. And I think he has come to realize that the whole system of federal affordable-housing mandates that was central to the real-estate collapse — including the mandates on Fannie and Freddie and the myriad bad decisions made by private banks and other lenders in response to the government’s overreach — simply needs to be abolished.
Noteworthy is the fact that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner has come to a similar conclusion. Geithner told a recent Washington conference on the future of housing finance that the system needs fundamental change. He said, “We will not support a return to the system where private gains are subsidized by taxpayer losses.”
Of course, the withdrawal of housing markets from government programs, and the onset of a reinvigorated private sector for providing mortgages, must be done gradually over a period of years. But it is possible that the federal mortgage madness is coming to an end.
We will have to see if Congress really does say goodbye to Fan and Fred, as Republicans like Jeb Hensarling are advocating. Equally important, we will have to see if the federal affordable-housing mandates created by Congress and implemented by HUD and banking regulators are similarly repealed.
And then we will have to see if reformed federally guaranteed housing insurance includes larger down payments, stricter underwriting standards and greater reliance on private capital markets, lenders and insurers. In other words, we need to see if housing will be restored to a market-based system and removed from the government-backed system that has proved so disastrous.
The broader lesson here is that government planning doesn’t work. And if left to their own devices, market processes will work. I don’t know if President Obama gets this. But my hat goes off to a man who does, Chairman Barney Frank.”
Are Low Rates Counterproductive?
Posted by Tom in Centrally Managed Economy, Deficit, Fed, Financial Policy, Monetary Policy, National Debt on August 12, 2010
John Michaelson’s WSJ post, “The High Costs of Very Low Interest Rates,” presents the dark side of the Fed’s current policy. In it he makes the following points:
- low rates mean low earnings on savings giving consumers less to spend,
- folks close to retirement need to save more to get expected earnings,
- corporate pension plans need to fund more to make up for low earnings, which reduces money available for investment, and
- banks can borrow at zero and buy US bonds at a risk free return, so they do not lend to businesses for investment and job creation.
What’s sad is that the Fed has not learned from Japan’s lost decade experience. In 1990 following the burst of the credit bubble, Japan dropped it rate to an unprecedented .25% It’s government then borrowed to create massive “stimulus.” This froze out private borrowing, investment and consumption creating the lost decade.
Does any of this sound familiar?
I recommend the full article linked above.
Obama Economy
Posted by Tom in Centrally Managed Economy, Employment, Government Regulation, Statism on August 8, 2010
Interesting video on unemployment growth in the era of Obama big government statism. Note that this dose not include those who have given up looking for work. (Click on the full screen icon for larger view.)
Geithner: Transfer Payments Create Wealth!
Posted by Tom in Centrally Managed Economy, Economics, Taxation on August 5, 2010
Larry Kudlow calls it “The Washington War on Investment.” Taxpayer Tim Geithner said that extending tax cuts for the wealthiness Americans would imperil the fragile economic recovery, would harm growth; this because the wealthy save more of their tax breaks than do others.
So, according to Geithner, savings and investment are bad; and the corollary, transfer payments from the government to the unemployed are good. Let’s take a simple case of the dollar in question, the one that winds up as investment or tax. The dollar of tax goes through the government collection machine and comes out at 80 cents, then it goes to the state in need (most of ‘em) so that it can be distributed to the long term unemployed worker or about to be unemployed teacher (bloated administrative bureaucracies don’t get laid off) who receives about 70 cents. He or she spend that 70 cents at the supermarket producing 70 cents of revenue and a penny of profit. The penny of profit nets a half penny of income for the market, half of which as dividends may get invested by the market’s shareholders. Note that none of that dollar went to reducing the deficit and debt that Hussein and Taxpayer Tim loaded on our children and grandchildren.
Alternatively, the dollar not taxed is either saved as Taxpayer Tim would argue or spent. On the save side, that dollar is invested for an economic return. It may go to stocks, bonds, real estate, start-ups, small businesses, etc. But it is invested in expectation of an economic return. It produces, technological advancement, new business, growth, and yes indeed, taxable income! It goes into expected productive investment at best case 100 cents or worst case 92 cents covering transaction costs. So here for growth we have 92 cents versus one-quarter of one cent!
If the dollar is spent instead of invested by the wealthy American, and this is contrary to Taxpayer Tim’s hypothesis, it produces 100 cents of revenue, that is GDP. So here the comparison is 100 cents versus 70 cents for the tax and transfer case. In either case, Hussein Obama and Taxpayer Tim are wrong. And their position will drive this country into ruin.
Larry Kudlow says it better and I recommend a full read of the article: “The great flaw in the thinking of the Democrats is that they are ignorant of the economic power of saving and investment. Saving is a good thing. Stocks, bonds, bank deposits, money-market funds, commercial paper, venture capital, private equity, real estate partnerships — all that saving is channeled into business investment. And whether that capital goes into new start-ups or small businessesor large firms, it finances the kind of new investment in plants and equipment and software and buildings that ultimately creates jobs and family incomes. And that, in turn, spurs consumption.
“But pulling out just one dollar from the private sector and rechanneling it through the government as a transfer to someone else creates nothing. At best it’s a safety net. At worst it may damage private-business activity and actually reduce employment. Without saving there can be no investment. And without investment there can be no enhanced productivity, which is the ultimate source of long-term prosperity and wealth.”
Would that there were there just some modicum of economic intelligence in Hussein Obama’s administration!
The Past, A Prologue
Posted by Tom in Centrally Managed Economy, Deficit, Democrats, National Debt, Statism on August 3, 2010
My friend Ron Tomsic sent this cartoon from the Chicago Tribune, dated April 20th 1934. Note the plan of action in the lower left hand corner.
Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it!
Deflation, A Self Fulfilling Prophesy?
Posted by Tom in Business, Centrally Managed Economy, Deficit, Fed, Financial Policy, Monetary Policy, National Debt, Nationalized Health Care, Taxation on August 3, 2010
When Bill Gross, the bond guru manager of Pimco Total Return Fund, says “it’s happening,” he brings credibility to the deflation first scenario, that is deflation before inflation. According to yesterday’s WSJ article many fund managers are loading up on US Government bonds and hedging stocks. Others expect the Fed to come to the rescue. The Fed has limited options since it has interest rates near zero. According to another WSJ report these options are “unorthodox!” As the Fed mulls these, it may spook investors and highlight the weakness in the economy. So when the Fed is playing offense in trying to reflate the economy, savvy investors might conclude as Gross did that it’s time to play defense. Typically these “unorthodox” measures mean increasing the money supply by buying bank assets good and bad, bonds and mortgage backed securities. Problem is that there are not too many bullets left in the Fed’s arsenal.
To cap matters off, vis a vis the “self fulfilling prophesy,” today’s WSJ leads the front page with “Fed Mulls Symbolic Shift” that is using cash from maturities to buy additional assets instead of letting its portfolio shrink to a stable economy level. The Fed’s $2.3 Trillion portfolio has nearly tripled in size since 2007!
So, what to do? If prices are going to be lower tomorrow, why buy today? And this, ad infinitum! Couple this with Hussein Obama’s proposed tax increases, the pile on of entitlement deficits from Obamacare, and the great uncertainty posed by the regulatory bureaucracy, and you get a bleak picture.
Hope I’m wrong!
July Hayek Dinner: State of the Economy
Posted by Tom in Centrally Managed Economy, Deficit, Economics, Employment, Financial Crisis, Financial Policy, Government Regulation, Individual Freedom, Monetary Policy, National Character, National Debt, Statism, Yucca Mountain on July 21, 2010
Our thanks to Tom Cargill for the excellent presentation last evening and to Jerry O’Driscoll for arranging the meeting in my absence.
Jerry opened with a snapshot on employment trends from selected countries since 2008. The US is at the bottom of the pile and trending down!
Tom picked it up from there with a quick look back on the first decade of this century focusing on four remarkable points: 1. US homeland is vulnerable to attack since 911; the first since the war of 1812. 2. Critics of the market are strong despite the increase in standard of living in the last quarter century. 3. Failures of the welfare state notwithstanding, the US is moving toward socialism. And, 4. the political force toward socialism can be traced to our current great recession.
Technically, the recession is still in full force. The question is what kind of recovery will come, weak flat “U” or “J,” or a double dip. Ten key points are apparent:
- the US has not seen more economic, financial, and political distress since the Great Depression.
- our recession was not caused by market failure but mainly by government failure, both monetary with low rates too long and fiscally with housing policies of Fannie-Freddie.
- yet, the public hypnotized by Obama rhetoric believes market failure was the cause.
- admittedly, the $700 billion financial bailout was necessary to prevent a liquidity crisis.
- but the five “stimulus” packages ignored history and had a negative effect, negative Keynesian multiplier, on the GDP. Wasteful spending directed to leftist programs.
- while we now see some GDP growth, the private sector is not creating jobs and budget pressures will force a decline in public sector employment.
- the private market is not creating jobs due to the great uncertainty of the rules of the game; we are going to state directed allocation of resources not market directed allocation.
- Adam Smith calls man an economic animal, “truck, barter, and exchange” but the uncertainty of the rules creates inefficiencies that lower growth potential.
- the economic game becomes even more uncertain because of the greater role of government; what happens to the chess game if it is announced in the middle of the game that there will be a rule change; Obama is regularly announcing rule changes to come!
- QED, the most likely “recovery” is a flat “J” over the next several years with a chance of a double dip.
Tom now thinks the chance of a double dip is 50/50, an increase from his earlier thinking. Potential economic shocks which will push toward a double dip are: the dramatic increase in taxes next year, and the questionable stability of the European Union. The current divergence in fiscal policy between the overspending US and the rapid austerity in Europe may well be a third negative shock. Tom concluded saying that only a change in the US congress and administration will offer hope of a solid recovery.
We thank Beth Powers and her crew for her comments and patriotic efforts with LibertyInAmerica.org. Please consider a donation to help continue the fine bus treck.
John Dunn provided a positive report on Yucca mountain efforts, see NV4CFE.org.
Finally, our thanks to Mike Herring for treating the group to dinner and drinks, this an an inducement to make contributions to Sharron Angle’s campaign to retire Dirty Harry.
Steve Wynn on the Leftist Democrats Killing the Economy
Posted by Tom in Business, Centrally Managed Economy, Congress, Democrats, Economics, Government Regulation, National Debt, Statism on July 21, 2010
This CNBC interview with Steve Wynn is well worth your time:
Paul Ryan: Fork in Road
Posted by Tom in Business, Centrally Managed Economy, Economics, National Character, Statism on July 16, 2010
You can’t say it any better than Paul Ryan.
Art Laffer’s Lesson in Economics
Posted by Tom in Centrally Managed Economy, Deficit, Economics, Entitlements, National Debt, Stimulus/Bailout on July 8, 2010
Hussein Obama wants to borrow another $50 Billion on the backs of our grandchildren to extend unemployment benefits. Hasn’t worked so far but Obama wants to keep trying! Art Laffer says it reduces incentives to find work.
In a well-reasoned WSJ op ed, Unemployment Benefits Aren’t Stimulus, Laffer shows that welfare makes work less attractive. Historically he charts the unemployment rate against the unemployment benefits:
“While the unemployed may spend more as a result of higher unemployment benefits, those people from whom the resources are taken will spend less. In an economy, the income effects from a transfer payment always sum to zero. Quite simply, there is no stimulus from higher unemployment benefits.
“Given the massive inefficiencies the government creates in securing resources from the private sector, there may also be a large negative income effect over wide ranges of stimulus spending. This is the proverbial “toll for the troll.” These massive inefficiencies could lead to lower output.
“To see these effects clearly, imagine a two person economy in which one of the two people is paid for being unemployed. From whom do you think the unemployment benefits are taken? The other person obviously. While the one person who is unemployed may “buy” more as a result of unemployment benefits, the other person from whom the unemployment sums are taken will “buy” less. There is no stimulus for the economy.”
Art concludes by saying the $3.6 Trillion already spent would have better been used as an 18 month tax holiday! I disagree with this, time limited tax relief begets time distorted economic activity. Permanent entitlement cuts along with permanent tax cuts are what’s needed to restore economic and fiscal sanity.

