Posts Tagged ‘bailout’

The culture war

Wednesday, May 6th, 2009

The past eight years has seen the growth of a culture war between traditional values, like marriage and religious belief, and cultural attitudes toward gay rights, gay marriage and the environment. Some of these differences have become heated, such as animosity toward religious believers by gay marriage advocates. Another set of values that is under attack could be called “fiscal prudence” or “The Protestant Ethic.” We work and save and get an education and eventually we own something like a house and a car and some money in the bank. Recently the latter value system has come under attack by a political party that believes in “spreading the money around.” When I was a child, there was a nursery story called “The Three Little Pigs” which emphasized the point that the prudent person is safest in the long run.

Of course, John Maynard Keynes dismissed this idea by pointing out that In the long run we are all dead.

The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again.

We can see that our present leadership is firmly of the belief that short term plans are best because who knows what the future brings ? What we see right now is a war on capitlalism and saving and investing.

There is a major cultural schism developing in America. But it’s not over abortion, same-sex marriage or home schooling, as important as these issues are. The new divide centers on free enterprise — the principle at the core of American culture.

Despite President Barack Obama’s early personal popularity, we can see the beginnings of this schism in the “tea parties” that have sprung up around the country. In these grass-roots protests, hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans have joined together to make public their opposition to government deficits, unaccountable bureaucratic power, and a sense that the government is too willing to prop up those who engaged in corporate malfeasance and mortgage fraud.

The data support the protesters’ concerns. In a publication with the ironic title, “A New Era of Responsibility,” the president’s budget office reveals average deficits of 4.7% in the five years after this recession is over. The Congressional Budget Office predicts $9.3 trillion in new debt over the coming decade.

The US educational system has been busy re-educating the youth about capitalism and the free market.

Just 35% of American voters believe that a free market economy is the same as a capitalist economy. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 38% disagree and 27% are not sure.
This helps explain earlier data showing that 77% prefer a free market economy over a government managed economy while just 53% prefer capitalism over socialism.

That is surprising since I don’t know how a free market operates in any but a capitalist system. I expect that this is a consequence of Marxist professors teaching college students that capitalism, a word coined by Marx, is bad. They aren’t completely stupid, though, because they don’t think the government can run the auto companies. Only 18% expect Obama to do a good job with them. I guess that’s his base. Democrats, as expected, are clueless.

However, two-thirds of Democrats (67%) say it is at least somewhat likely that Chrysler and GM will become profitable again under union and government ownership, a view shared by just 34% of Republicans and 33% of unaffiliated adults.

What is going on ? We are seeing the Chicago Way in action as the Obama people threaten those, like the Chrysler secured creditors, who would like the law to apply instead of Obama “spread it around” favoritism. Megan McArdle, who voted for Obama, has reservations but a little late. We could have told her.

This is troubling, because it’s now clear that the worry many of us had at the time of the bank bailouts has come true: the government is using its intervention in the banking system to pressure banks to give special deals to the government’s special friends.

(The government is apparently still taking the line that they are only intervening because the automakers are splendid, robust companies that got caught in a “perfect storm”. If so, Chrysler must be stuck in the Bermuda Triangle, because owners have been playing “hot potato” with its dying brands for most of the last decade.)

Countries that use their banking systems this way don’t get good results. If you’re a fairly uncorrupt developed country, you get slower growth and bloated “critical” sectors that are usually more critical in providing campaign support, lavishly remunerated make-work jobs, and photo ops, than any products the public actually wants. Then, if something like Japan happens, you have a twenty-year “lost decade” while everyone pretends as hard as hard can be that everything is all right, in the sincere but misguided believe that wishing hard enough will make it so.

If you are a badly managed country, you end up like much of Latin America or Africa, with a dysfunctional economy that booms only along with the price of some commodity you happen to produce.

We are hardly Zimbabwe, or even Venezuela. But if we keep using TARP to create a sort of “Most Favored Borrower” status, we’ll erode the safeguards that keep election to office in America from being the kind of giant spoils system that’s common in much of the world. What the bankruptcy judge did was entirely right and proper–it’s his job to allocate losses among creditors. And it’s always true that some of the credtiors won’t like the deal they get. On the other hand, what the administration did really wasn’t. It got its pet majority stakeholders to screw both their own shareholders, and the other creditors, in order to give a powerful union a sweetheart deal.

Imagine even having to say that “We are not Zimbabwe” under the last president.

This will not end well.

The car czar and why it won’t happen

Tuesday, February 17th, 2009

UPDATE: More from Mickey Kausabout the bailout situation. This may not fly as the public is wise to it. At least 64% of them are.

There was considerable discussion about Obama appointing a “car czar” to solve the problems of the Big Three auto makers. That has now been cancelled. Why ? This might explain it.

President Barack Obama announced Monday that he will appoint, not a “car czar,” but a “Presidential Task Force for Autos” to “fix” the Detroit Three. The task force will headed by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, but it is the first name appointed by Geithner — “Senior Advisor” Ron Bloom — is of real interest for a number of reasons.

Ron Bloom is the UAW’s man in the administration. The only chance to solve the Big Three’s problems is bankruptcy. Not only are their union contracts too expensive, the work rules and other adversarial factors in the relationship will prevent the auto makers from restructuring and becoming competitive once again.

Bloom (and Keilin) made their reputation battling steel companies which, burdened by excessive union costs, suffered through a very similar experience to the Detroit Three thirty years ago. In fact, as the New York Times’s David Streitfeld points out in this superb article, five U.S. steel companies received over $300 million in bailout loans from the Carter Administration in the 1970s.

They still ended up in bankruptcy but, in the meantime, the unions had extracted millions in additional money from the taxpayer. Mickey Kaus knows what the problem is but Obama isn’t interested. This will be another boondoggle and will cost millions, if not billions.

But what’s a billion between friends ?

More on how the financial crisis happened

Saturday, December 13th, 2008

I am still reading about why the financial meltdown occurred. This piece in the Weekly Standard strikes me as another piece of the puzzle.

[W]e ought to recall that there was one candidate who did foresee our predicament with considerable accuracy when it still lay far in the future. Ron Paul, in almost every speech he made during the Republican primaries, spoke of bubbles, reckless credit growth, and the “unsustainability” of present policy. So why isn’t there more demand for the common-sense solutions he put forward? Because common sense is not much use in a financial panic.

I think Ron Paul had some loopy ideas but he did have one good point. Every time the government gets involved in business or the financial markets, it screws things up. That is the fundamental divide between Republicans and and Democrats. When I see someone make a derogatory remark about free markets, I know I am seeing a Democrat, no matter what protestations follow.

This article refers to an 1873 book on banking that is still in print and sounds pertinent to the present discussion. Walter Bagehot, the author, was the editor of The Economist in the 19th century.

Lombard Street was published in 1873, seven years after the sudden collapse of Overend, Gurney & Co., a bank that lost £11 million, spread panic among investors, sparked a run, and became “the model instance of all evil in business.” The crisis made such a deep impression on British finance and government that the country did not have another bank run for 141 years–not until Northern Rock collapsed in the summer of 2007. (English investors must have longer memories than American ones.

He goes into the issue of moral hazard and the dilemma faced by a central bank which, if it offers to be “the lender of last resort” will stimulate the sort of reckless behavior that requires such intervention. I submit that the Mexican bailout of 1995, presided over by Robert Rubin when he was Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury, was the event that led to the present crisis more directly than the Congressional foolishness about affordable housing.

This analysis suggests that international bailouts encourage governments to engage in such risky behavior, just as deposit insurance encouraged weak U.S. banks to engage in risky behavior, worsening the failures and raising the costs to taxpayers.

In Bagehot’s book, the fact that the Bank of England, as lender of last resort, was acting contrary to basic rules of financial prudence, and even contrary to law, could not alter its responsibility in the crisis.

The worst was that the bank could carry out its necessary duties as a lender of last resort only by breaking the law. The basis of the bank’s operating procedure–and of its soundness–was the Bank Act of 1844. We would call it a regime of sound money. It included stringent caps on the ratio of notes issued to reserves held. These caps were hewed to when the economy was running smoothly. Yet at the time Bagehot was writing, a quarter century later, the law had already been suspended three times. Not just that. “No similar occasion has ever yet occurred,” Bagehot wrote, “in which it has not been suspended.” So the law on which the solvency of the British nation rested was ironclad, except when someone felt a need to break it.

Stranger still, never did the Bank of England acknowledge its duty as the lender of last resort. Some of its governors even denied that any such duty existed. Bagehot thought the bank should come clean about what it really was:

There should be a clear understanding between the Bank and the public that, since the Bank hold our ultimate banking reserve, they will recognise and act on the obligations which this implies–that they will replenish [the reserve] in time of foreign demand as fully, and lend it in times of internal panic as freely and readily, as plain principles of banking require.

But there was a reason for the central bankers’ dissembling. If the bank ever acknowledged a duty to rescue banks by generous extensions of credit, it would create a form of moral hazard.

This is what happened with the Mexican bailout. The banks that were headed by Rubin’s friends were “too big to fail.” That event led straight to today’s crisis. Yes, Congress was foolish but that is always true of Congress. A more sober consideration is whether this is a fundamental failing of democracy.

Read the rest of the article. I have already ordered the book.

The US auto industry

Wednesday, November 26th, 2008

We have been reading about the trials of the Big Three auto makers for weeks now. Last week, Fox News had a retired General Motors VP on complaining that GM won the Second World War and so we should be happy to bail them out now. We owe them.

I see almost no mention of the other car makers in the US, like Toyota, Honda, BMW and Mercedes Benz. I guess they don’t need a bailout. The fact remans that hundreds of thousands of cars are made in the US by other companies. What is the big difference between them and the Big Three ?

The United Auto Workers Union.

I was also reading, for the fourth or fifth time, Max Hasting’s history of Overlord, the D-Day invasion. In it, he has a section on the weapons and material of the Allies, compared to the Germans. At one point, he makes a statement that, in every instance, the Allies’ infantry and armor weapons were inferior to the Germans’. The only exception was the Garand rifle, invented by a US Army civilian. The most egregious example was the Sherman tank. I have a book written by a former engineer officer who was assigned to a tank recovery battalion in Normandy in WWII. The title of the book is Deathtrap, the name given to the Sherman by many of its crews. During his service in France and Germany, from the invasion to the end of the war, US armored units suffered 600% losses in Sherman tanks. That is, they lost their entire force of tanks six times over before they were done. The US built 88,000 Sherman tanks (not 40,000 as in that link), of which 40,000 were handed over to the British. Finally, the British equipped the Sherman with a more powerful gun and called those tanks the “Firefly.” The British Sherman crews called the tank “Tommy cookers” and “Ronsons.” Both names referred to the tendency of the tank to catch fire easily when hit.

My point in relating this bit of military history (although it may be news to some) is to make a point. After the war, US auto makers quickly resumed civilian production and were unsurpassed in the auto business until the 1970s when German and Japanese auto makers had recovered from war damage and had caught up with superior designs. The US auto makers excelled in making large numbers of mediocre cars and tanks. They were not innovative. The Germans designed and built the Tiger tank, whose proper name was panzerkampfwagen VI, in three years, the same time frame in which the Sherman was designed and built.

What we have now is an industry that is second generation Industrial Age, heavily burdened with old union contracts and pension obligations, trying to compete with fourth generation industries. It excelled in building large numbers on long, fixed assembly lines. Henry Ford established that pattern in the 1920s. They have not improved upon his work since. A bailout will begin the socialization of American industry with five year plans and all the accoutrements of a planned economy.

UPDATE: Here is more on the rest of the auto industry, which has been very much ignored by Washington. I’m sure they hope it continues.

The banned SNL skit about the mortgage crisis

Tuesday, October 7th, 2008

NBC quickly moved to ban a Saturday Night Live skit that actually explained the mortgage crisis very well. That was the problem. It named the real crooks.

Enjoy.

Fascism comes to Washington

Monday, September 29th, 2008

UPDATE: The bailout bill failed in the House with 133 Republicans and 95 Democrats voting NO.

Larry Kudlow believes the next version to be voted on will be worse. Will the Democrats pass a hard left bill ?

More evidence that the free press is a myth. Too bad. At least I’m 70 years old.

This bailout bill is very worrying. In the 1920s, Weimar Germany made two fatal decisions. One was to rearm with the assistance of the new Soviet Union. Germany was barred from having an Army General Staff, the innovation that had made the Prussian Army almost invincible. They were also severely limited in the size and composition of the German Army. The Soviets allowed German Army facilities and armament plants on their territory.

The second decision was to deal with the onerous provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, with respect to war reparations, by starting an inflation that quickly became hyperinflation. The result was a collapse of middle class confidence. The present housing crisis and the collapse of the financial services industry, due to political manipulation of rules on lending, has had a similar effect on the US middle class. They don’t realize it yet but this new legislation is the first step to fascism. Government, principally the Democratic party and its presidential nominee, is now empowered to choose winners and losers in the financial sector. These people already vote overwhelmingly for Democrats and contribute to Democrats. They have sent money to both sides but the people who created this crisis with CRA got the vast majority.

What does the future look like ? The Wall Street Journal seems optimistic, but I’m not.

We’re also told the government ownership provisions in the bill are narrow enough not to ruin the securities auctions. The government will get warrants to benefit from any market upside in return for buying the securities, and this will probably be reflected in the price the feds pay for the debt. Our Treasury sources say the warrant provision is de minimis enough that it shouldn’t interfere with price discovery, which is one of the major goals of this exercise.

We now have a situation very similar to corporate capitalism but we are about to have a government with veto-proof majorities and a like-minded president that does not believe in capitalism. That is how fascism comes to power. Obama is already threatening prosecution for “misleading” anti-Obama ads. There is some controversy about who is issuing threats but I just saw a Missouri prosecutor threaten those who “mislead” voters with ads. He was on TV and identified as a prosecutor. Sounds like fascism to me.

The deal

Sunday, September 28th, 2008

UPDATE: This comparison looks better but the bill isn’t signed yet.

JP Morgan did a much better job with the Panic of 1907, a financial panic resulting from the San Francisco earthquake and immense insurance losses. I reviewed a book on this topic last spring.

The negotiations in Washington seem to have resulted in a deal. The resulting legislation is being drafted and will be posted on the internet at noon today. That will be the only positive development, in my opinion. The cause of this crisis has been described here in other posts. The essence of the solution, and the reason why I am pessimistic about it, is that the solution has been drafted by the same people who caused the crisis. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are the parents of the monstrosities that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have become. The disastrous expansion of subprime mortgages has poisoned the credit markets of the world.

The story of John McCain’s suspension of his campaign has still not been very well explained. The Democrats have majorities in both houses of Congress. They did not need Republican votes for the original Paulson package if they were able to keep all their own people in line. What happened was that the House Republicans were not going to vote for the bill and Pelosi had stated that she would not bring the bill to the floor unless she was assured of 110 yes votes by Republicans.

When McCain announced he was returning to Washington, the Democrats quickly announced that they had arrived at a solution and his action was unnecessary. What they did not say was that they did not have the Republican votes that Pelosi said she needed.

“You were being asked to choose between financial meltdown on the one hand and taxpayer bankruptcy and the road to socialism on the other and you were told do it in 24 hours,” Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, head of the conservative group, said. “It was just never going to happen.”

If they were willing to pass the bill without Republicans, they were correct. They had a deal. The problem was that it was a deal between the Bush Administration and the Democrats. However, Pelosi was still determined to have Republican votes as cover for the huge groundswell of anger directed at the Congress and Wall Street over the crisis. What McCain did was sit down with the House Republicans and make sure they were included in the negotiations. The Democrats poisoned the bill with ludicrous provisions to fund radical socialist groups like ACORN, which has had many members convicted of vote fraud and which has been involved in expanding the toxic mortgages that are at the root of the problem. The worst provision was this:

DEPOSITS. Not less than 20 percent of any profit realized on the sale of each troubled asset purchased under this Act shall be deposited as provided in paragraph (2).

USE OF DEPOSITS. Of the amount referred to in paragraph (1) 65 percent shall be deposited into the Housing Trust Fund established under section 1338 of the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act of 1992 (12 U.S.C. 4568); and 35 percent shall be deposited into the Capital Magnet Fund established under section 1339 of that Act (12 U.S.C. 4569).

REMAINDER DEPOSITED IN THE TREASURY. All amounts remaining after payments under paragraph (1) shall be paid into the General Fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.

That means that ANY transaction that realizes a profit, regardless of profits, or losses, on the overall bailout program, will deposit 20% of that profit in a fund which goes to ACORN and similar organizations. These “community organizer” groups are at the root of the problem. They are Democrat activist groups and affiliated with the far left of the party, like Obama, who once worked for them.

A current comparison of provisions is linked here. It is a Word file. At present, the Republican leadership is circulating this list of provisions to correct a few concerns. However, not everybody is satisfied. A House aide sends this warning:

1) This is, essentially, the same bill. Total deal is $700b, which Paulson or next Treasury Secretary can spend the first $250b even if he believes unnecessary. He/She can spend second $450b if thought necessary. A new bill isn’t passed with veto proof majorities to repeal it. This is substantively identical to the original Paulson plan. Congress always had the power to repeal some or all of the authority if it has veto proof majorities.

2) As for Acorn and bankruptcy, they were never in the bill. Dodd/Frank tried to push those in mid/week, they weren’t in the plan already rejected by conservatives on Monday. Even Obama conceded that those provisions would come out. They were simply a red herring, used for extra bargaining power by the left.

3) Lipstick has been put on the pig, and perhaps some Members will be fooled by it, but their constituents will not. I think some political careers will be ended over this.

When I ask this aide if there is anything to be happy about, this aide replies:

Unclear. Still confusion over whether the “insurance” is a fig leaf (secretary’s choice to use – in which case, he wouldn’t) or substantive (mandatory).

We will see how this turns out but I am very pessimistic this morning.