Economics 101 (Bush Edition)

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

Wasn’t it so nice for our president to give the country a lesson in economics. He worked hard to reinforce the image of Washington knows best. Unfortunately his lesson left out a few details that are less than flattering for Washington. Let’s review the text of his speech. I’ll skip all the real fluff and focus on those parts of the speech that need correction.

This large influx of money to U.S. banks and financial institutions, along with low interest rates, made it easier for Americans to get credit. These developments allowed more families to borrow money for cars, and homes, and college tuition, some for the first time.

It’s nice to cite the "large influx of money" but the real problem was "{artificially} low interest rates" that were being managed by the Federal Reserve Board. These are what allowed for people to get credit too easily to buy cars and houses that they often had no business buying – certainly not at the inflated prices that tend to follow easy credit. And lets not kid ourselves, loans for college tuition are an inconsequential fraction of this problem but citing them makes it harder to argue against all that easy credit in the first place.

Easy credit, combined with the faulty brainless assumption that home values would continue to rise, led to excesses and bad decisions. (corrections in italics)

The following statement is almost entirely true and when we insert the one final bit of truth it is very damning to the idea of government intervention.

Two of the leading purchasers of mortgage-backed securities were Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Because these companies were chartered by Congress, many believed they were guaranteed by the federal government. This allowed them to borrow enormous sums of money, fuel the market for questionable investments, and put our financial system at risk. (emphasis added)

The one bit of untruth there was the implication that people were wrong to believe that Fannie and Freddie were guaranteed by the government. When push came to shove, the government stepped in and guaranteed both entities. Even if it had not, it was the perception of such a guarantee that allowed those companies to "put our financial system at risk."

The market is not functioning properly. There has been a widespread loss of confidence, and major sectors of America’s financial system are at risk of shutting down.

If the market is allowed to correct itself those sectors would shut down and restart, like a computer reboot. Though the process would be painful in the short term, the problems would be corrected much faster than if we insist on picking our way down the face of the cliff.

Perhaps we should take note of the fact that our government has been actively assisting the market for 7 years allowing the housing market to artificially expand our economy during a time when we should have allowed for a market correction following the Tech bubble and the shock of 9/11. Now the problem is worse than it was which gives us more excuse to pursue the same course with more drastic measures.

Without $700 Billion worth of intervention, Bush predicts:

Even if you have good credit history, it would be more difficult for you to get the loans you need to buy a car or send your children to college. And, ultimately, our country could experience a long and painful recession.

In a free market individuals and businesses would be learning to deal with the difficulties of tighter credit by living within their means, but "We must not let that happen." Because our market has been manipulated with artificially low interest rates and other such "minor" interventions the true value of a new car or a college education has become distorted. I note that Bush did not list buying a house as something that would be more difficult, I’m sure that’s because reckless home buying on easy credit is a visible part of the problem.

Lest we forget our recent history, while we have not had a serious recession (which would generally last less than 12 months) our last 84 months (at least) have been filled with news of job losses and anemic economic growth. We credited the rise of home prices with what little growth we saw and blamed the war, outsourcing, and illegal immigrants in turn for the lack of real growth.

Now we are seeing the one positive thing we saw as the primary cause of our current predicament – and yet we fail to realize that the reason for our unnatural 84 month see-saw is government intervention in the markets. Ultimately we have experienced a long and painful open wound which is now infected which was caused by our attempts to avoid the surgery of a natural market correction.

The president paints a rosy picture of how the proposed intervention would function, but the fact is that the proposal so far lacks any structure to guarantee anything like the picture we are being sold.

I liked the reference to the FDIC:

And through the FDIC, every savings account, checking account, and certificate of deposit is insured by the federal government for up to $100,000.

The FDIC has been in existence for 75 years, and no one has ever lost a penny on an insured deposit, and this will not change.

In order to avoid some panic, let’s remind ourselves that the above statement is true, those accounts which are based on actual cash value are safe so far, and safely insured by the government already. With that safety net, we should take our chances with Wall Street and let the government bail out the savings of those who lose money if their local banks ever fail.

Despite corrections in the marketplace and instances of abuse, democratic capitalism is the best system ever devised.

It has unleashed the talents and the productivity and entrepreneurial spirit of our citizens. It has once made this country the best place in the world to invest and do business. And it gives gave our economy the flexibility and resilience to absorb shocks, adjust, and bounce back. (corrections in italics)

Since then we have decided that we want to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit without having to absorb shocks and adjust. Good luck with that plan.