The Wall Street Journal  has an op-ed today by Charles Gasparino, a CNBC on air-editor and author, in which he explains why the government encourages the risk that led to our current crisis.

We’ll never know if LTCM’s demise would have tanked the financial system or simply tanked a couple of firms that bet wrong. But one thing is certain: A valuable lesson in risk-taking was lost. By 2007, the years of excessive risk-taking, aided and abetted by the belief that the government was ready to paper over mistakes, had taken their toll.

With so much easy money, with the government always ready to ease their pain, Wall Street developed new and even more innovative ways to make money through risk-taking. The old mortgage bonds created by Messrs. Fink and Ranieri as simple securitized pools had morphed into the so-called collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), complex structures that allowed Wall Street banks as well as quasi-governmental agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to securitize ever riskier mortgages.

Mr. O’Neal, the man considered most responsible for Merrill’s disastrous foray into risk-taking, told me in an interview last year that in the fall of 2007, when he saw that the firm’s problems were insurmountable, he had a deal to sell Merrill to Bank of America for around $90 a share. But Merrill’s board rejected it, believing he would be selling out cheaply. The CDOs would eventually recover, they argued, as the Fed pumped life into the markets.

Likewise, nearly to the minute he was forced to file for bankruptcy, former Lehman CEO Dick Fuld believed the government wouldn’t let Lehman die. After all, government largess had always been there in the past.

All of which brings me back to Mr. Fortsmann’s comment about policy makers helping turn a cold into cancer. What if the Fed hadn’t eased Wall Street’s pain in the late 1980s, and again after the 1994 bond-market collapse? What if policy makers in 1998 had allowed the markets to feel the consequences of risk—allowing LTCM to fail, and letting Lehman Brothers and possibly Merrill Lynch die as well?

There would have been pain—lots of it—for Wall Street and even for Main Street, but a lot less than what we’re experiencing today. Wall Street would have learned a valuable lesson: There are consequences to risk.

via Charles Gasparino: Three Decades of Subsidized Risk – WSJ.com.

This is another case of where we think government behavior can get different outcomes than we get in our personal lives. The results are the same. How many of you know a parent that constantly bails their child our of trouble? Does it lead to less trouble? How about someone who gives money to a drug or alcohol addict? How about someone who always gives or lends money to that one person who always seem to be broke? In our personal lives, we call these people enablers. They are not helping the person in question. They are enabling them to continue the bad habits they are claiming to help.

This is no different when the government does it. Are we to believe that executives and banks will not be more cautious if they know that the government will not bail them out? Of course they would be. The problem is mommy government has always bailed out and enabled her baby Wall Street. The behavior will continue as long as Washington continues enabling. Don’t fall for the excuses. Mommies always have what they believe are good reasons for bailing out their children, but the problem is they aren’t letting their children learn their lessons.

In a very long article in the Wall Street Journal today, they are highlighting a supposed genius economist who is developing a new paradigm of thinking of how the markets work and in particular the use of leverage by banks. Unfortunately, in the entire article, the writer and apparently the economist never mentions monetary policy, negative interest rates, or incentives and their effects on behavior. These supposed geniuses start off with the assumption that the market is irrational and just decides to go haywire out of the blue. They completely ignore incentives and how the change in incentives changes behavior. The new paradigm was reached a while ago. Someone tell this genius to grab some books and read up on Austrian economics.

Mr. Geanakoplos is among a small band of academics offering new thinking about those cycles. A varied group ranging from finance specialists to abstract theorists, they are moving to economic center stage after years on the margins. The goal: Fix the models that encapsulate economists’ understanding of the world and serve as policy-making tools at the world’s biggest central banks. It is a task that could require a thorough overhaul of the way those models work.

via Crisis Compels Economists To Reach for New Paradigm – WSJ.com.

Ron Paul, who seems to be the only politician with a clue, writes in Forbes about how the Fed is the cause of our current crisis, and how they are doing the same thing now that they did to create this crisis. Many talk about our current crisis as the result of building the housing boom out of house of cards. What happens when you find out your entire currency and banking system is built out of the same cards?

Be Prepared for the Worst

Ron Paul, 10.29.09, 09:20 AM EDT

Forbes Magazine dated November 16, 2009

The large-scale government intervention in the economy is going to end badly.

Any number of pundits claim that we have now passed the worst of the recession. Green shoots of recovery are supposedly popping up all around the country, and the economy is expected to resume growing soon at an annual rate of 3% to 4%. Many of these are the same people who insisted that the economy would continue growing last year, even while it was clear that we were already in the beginning stages of a recession.

A false recovery is under way. I am reminded of the outlook in 1930, when the experts were certain that the worst of the Depression was over and that recovery was just around the corner. The economy and stock market seemed to be recovering, and there was optimism that the recession, like many of those before it, would be over in a year or less. Instead, the interventionist policies of Hoover and Roosevelt caused the Depression to worsen, and the Dow Jones industrial average did not recover to 1929 levels until 1954. I fear that our stimulus and bailout programs have already done too much to prevent the economy from recovering in a natural manner and will result in yet another asset bubble.

via Be Prepared for the Worst – Forbes.com.

Rather than letting the free market deliver credit to consumers, Chris Dodd needs to grandstand for his constituents. He wants the government to limit interest rates on credit cards.

Senate Banking Chairman Chris Dodd has been hearing from constituents upset because banks have been raising the interest rates on their credit cards. This week Mr. Dodd decided to do something about it. He proposed a bill imposing an immediate freeze on those rates.

“At a time when families are struggling to make ends meet, jacked up rates can quickly create crushing debt,” Mr. Dodd said in a statement. “People need to be responsible with their money, but they shouldn’t be taken to the cleaners by outrageous rates.”

If customers are being taken to the cleaners, it is because lawmakers like Mr. Dodd sent them there. In May, Congress passed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act, which bars rate increases without a 45-day notification. To reduce their risk under this law, banks are rushing to raise rates before it takes effect in February. Thus the Senator’s latest political grandstand.

via Dodd Tries to Freeze Credit Card Rates – WSJ.com.

This is no different than price caps. What do price caps do? In order for price to be driven down, you need demand to decline while supply remains steady, supply to increase while demand remains steady, or demand to decrease while supply increases. If you artificially limit price, while not lowering demand, you automatically lower supply. It will happen no other way, so while Dodd does some showing off, he is decreasing credit in the market, which we are told is one of our biggest problems right now. I have an idea. How about Dodd tells his constituents to quit borrowing money. The credit card companies can’t charge you if you don’t ask for their services.

We may have the dumbest people in America running the country. Even most of the politicians pushing for the expanded Fed powers admit that the Fed caused the housing bubble. So, what is their fix? I think most rational people would say let’s take power away from the Fed. Oh no, not the geniuses sitting in the Capital. They want to give the Fed more power to screw up the economy. Apparently, this disaster isn’t bad enough yet. They want to see if the Fed can collapse the entire system.

By SUDEEP REDDY

WASHINGTON — Get ready for a fiery debate about the role of the Federal Reserve.

The latest financial-regulation legislation moving through Congress would give the Fed new oversight powers, including the authority to force large firms to shrink if their size threatens the broader economy.

The draft bill, released this week by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) gives the central bank more direct authority than outlined in a proposal earlier this year.

The expansion of the Fed’s role is sure to become a flash point in the debate over the overhaul of financial regulations.

On one side are Mr. Frank and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who favor giving the Fed broad authority. On the other side are lawmakers who want power spread out among agencies. Many also charge that the Fed’s regulatory missteps helped to cause the financial crisis.

via Congress Weighs Scope of Fed’s Authority – WSJ.com.

In a great article on Reason.com, the view that the Fed caused our current crisis is highlighted in great detail. While the article focuses on the anti-Fed movement in general, you can see from the quotes and understanding of politicians and economists that the Fed is responsible for the housing boom.

Blame-the-Fed sentiment now stretches across the spectrum of economic thought, from Keynesians such as DeLong to monetarists (who generally want the bank to maintain a fixed rate of money supply growth). In October 2008, the monetarist Anna Schwartz, co-author with Milton Friedman of one of the most important books of monetary economics, A Monetary History of the United States, told The Wall Street Journal: “If you investigate individually the manias that the market has so dubbed over the years, in every case, it was expansive monetary policy that generated the boom in an asset. The particular asset varied from one boom to another. But the basic underlying propagator was too-easy monetary policy and too-low interest rates that induced ordinary people to say, well, it’s so cheap to acquire whatever is the object of desire in an asset boom, and go ahead and acquire that object.”

While Anna Schwartz believes the Fed is neccessary, she admits that the Fed’s expansive monetary policy causes a boom in an asset market, the most recent being the housing market. The last one being the tech bubble.

Even the Obama administration has gotten into the act. “Monetary policy around the world was too loose too long,” Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told PBS interviewer Charlie Rose in March. “And that created this just huge boom in asset prices, money chasing risk. People trying to get a higher return. That was just overwhelmingly powerful.”

Even Geithner, although he doesn’t blame Greenspan and the Fed directly, basically said the Fed’s low interest rate policies caused the spike in housing prices and encouraged the risk that politicians now blame on greed. Did Geithner forget he was on TV?

In this time of political ferment, Stephen Axilrod, a longtime Federal Reserve staff director and monetary policy guru, has issued a memoir from MIT Press titled Inside the Fed. Axilrod admits that Fed interest rate actions precipitated the crisis without letting that fact dent either his admiration for the institution or his belief in its necessity. Still, Axilrod notes something that should encourage Fed skeptics of all varieties: that “a country’s monetary policy is almost necessarily limited by conditions generated from the political, philosophic, and social ethos of the time.”

Here former Federal Reserve, and lover of the Fed, admits the Fed’s actions caused the housing bubble. He then says the Fed is only as powerful as political, philosophical, and social conditions permit.

But the Fed doesn’t have a stellar track record of timing monetary shifts with scientific precision, and any actions that rein in inflation, thereby cutting off the short-term stimulative effect that governments love, are bound to be politically dangerous both to the Fed and to the president who appoints its overseers. As Bernanke admitted at his televised town hall meeting in July, the Fed can maintain its independence only if it can “show that we are producing good results,” and while he added lip service to independence, the people he must show those results to are Congress and the administration. Though he was appointed to a new four-year term in August, if he flubs inflation, Bernanke will be facing a whole new wave of political attacks.

Bernanke states here that the Fed must show results to Congress and the Administration, which highlights the biggest problem with the Fed. While we have plenty of confirmation that the Fed caused the housing bubble, we still have politicians that want it to exsit. Why?

Because they want the Fed to, as Bernanke said, “produce good results.” What are good results? Was all Americans owning a home a good result? Was refinancing your equity away to drive up consumer spending a good result? Was as Austrian economist show, driving up unwarranted business investments a good result?

This is at the heart of the problem for any government institution. While the Fed claims its independence, it is swayed by politics.  The market delivers based what billions and billions of individual transactions say. It is fine tuned by every transaction made. Government on the other hand tries anticipating what the market needs, and it is always wrong. This is why communism was an abject failure. Government cannot conceive of the circumstances and motivations of billions of transactions. There is no difference in the ability of communist dictators trying to decide the right amount of light bulbs to be produced, and the Fed trying to decide what interest rates should be. Both of them are trying to decide for the market what they believe should be over what would normally be decided by millions of individuals acting in their own interest.  It has never worked, and it will never work. It eventually led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Now let’s hope it leads to tearing down the wall of the Fed.

Are we really going to hand over health care to a government who enslaves our future generations to bail out their buddies on Wall Street? TARP was sold as a bailout of banks in respect to freeing up credit. It turned out to be a slush fund to spread the wealth around to the wealthy.

The Troubled Asset Relief Program will expire on December 31, unless Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner exercises his authority to extend it to next October. We hope he doesn’t. Historians will debate TARP’s role in ending the financial panic of 2008, but today there is little evidence that the government needs or can prudently manage what has evolved into a $700 billion all-purpose political bailout fund.

We supported TARP to deal with toxic bank assets and resolve failing banks as a resolution agency of the kind that worked with savings and loans in the 1980s. Some taxpayer money was needed beyond what the FDIC’s shrinking insurance fund had available. But TARP quickly became a Treasury tool to save failing institutions without imposing discipline (Citigroup) and even to force public capital onto banks that didn’t need it. This stigmatized all banks as taxpayer supplicants and is now evolving into an excuse for the Federal Reserve to micromanage compensation.

TARP was then redirected well beyond the financial system into $80 billion in “investments” for auto companies. These may never be repaid but served as a lever to abuse creditors and favor auto unions. TARP also bought preferred stock in struggling insurers Lincoln and Hartford, though insurance companies are not subject to bank runs and pose no “systemic risk.” They erode slowly as customers stop renewing policies.

TARP also became another fund for Congress to pay off the already heavily subsidized housing industry by financing home mortgage modifications. Not one cent of the $50 billion in TARP funds earmarked to modify home mortgages will be returned to the Treasury, says the Congressional Budget Office.

via TARP Should Not Be Extended – WSJ.com.

Those who love the government and think they will serve justice up on a platter of compassion, need look no further than the scam of TARP that was pulled on the American public. I’m sure the Wall Street Journal was all for the bailouts, and now they say the government didn’t enforce discipline. How do you force discipline on companies by bailing them out. The free market delivers discipline by the prospect of failure. When that failure option is removed by the government, discipline goes with it. This is a great lesson in A) don’t trust the government when it tells you something has to be done right away or society will suffer and B) government would sell your children in to slavery quicker than you can say TARP if that is what it takes to bailout their buddies. Don’t believe me, that is exactly what they did.

Since the mortgage crisis began, the left has used the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act as a battering ram to break down the pro-free market argument. The left, the media and even some conservative politicians claim it was not having enough regulation that caused the mortgage crisis and ultimately the economic melt down that we are currently experiencing.

This really is a silly argument on its face. How does removing an act, which separates commercial and investment banking, cause risky behavior? Causation is what the statists are claiming. This would be like saying removing a guard rail is what caused me to drive off the road and into a tree. I’m sure we can all agree, it wasn’t the guard rail. It was my reckless driving. Similarly, it wasn’t the removal of the Glass-Steagall act that caused the current mess, it was the risky behavior. But, why was there risky behavior? Why would I drive off the road and hit a tree? Something must influence these actions.

In the case of driving off the road and hitting the tree, maybe I was drinking, or maybe the speed limit sign said 100mph. Both of these influences would be considered the the causes, would they not? Also, by the standard of the left, removal of the guard rail would cause every driver to drive recklessly and hit the tree. If all drivers fly off the road and hit the tree, surely there must be something that causes them to do so. It would have to be a 100mph sign heading into a blind bend, or maybe a mandatory rest stop where all must fill up on liqueur before heading back down the road. Either way, both would cause the reckless behavior.

Similarly, in the mortgage crisis, something influenced the behavior of the entire market. Bankers didn’t wake up one day and say, “Hey, let’s be really risky.” Bankers were enticed into being risky by the government. The government encouraged the risky behavior with artificially low interest rates by the Fed and legislation (ie. regulation) by congress that was trying to promote so called affordable housing. “Everyone should own a home” was the mantra of the past decade.

First, the government and community organizing groups through their power of controlling and influencing how banks operate forced the banks to lend to borrowers that would otherwise be deemed risky. This was not just the left. The Bush administration jumped on board with similar pushes. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s purpose was to push affordable housing, and they are the ones who basically establish the market in which bankers operate. Who do you think created the mortgage backed security instrument of which this monster was created?

Second, another part of the Glass-Steagall act that everyone forgets, but which everyone loves is the establishment of the FDIC. While it may seem like an excellent idea, how does saying, “Don’t worry. If you fail, the government will bail out your depositors.” effect behavior. Would that not increase risky behavior, knowing that you cannot harm the customers? Doesn’t that make customers less critical of who they deal with for their banking knowing that they have nothing to lose?

Third, the Federal Reserve artificially lowered interest rates to a historic low, reaching a negative real interest rate. In order to lower the interest rate, the Fed increase the money supply and encourages the banks to push out that money via loans. The whole point of this is to cause an expansion in the economy. Well, we got an expansion alright. As, Thomas Sowell says, “You can open the flood gates, but you can’t control where the water goes.” In this case, the water went into real estate. One could argue that the government did control the water somewhat with their push for affordable housing and their everyone should own a home legislation.

Another problem for the statists argument is if the guard rail of the Glass-Steagall act was still there, would we have still had a meltdown? While I cannot prove something that didn’t occur, one only need to look at the last meltdown with the dot com bubble. That was also Fed induced with money flooding the market. With the Glass-Steagall act in place, the money was forced into another sector, and we still had a meltdown. One can say it was not as big of a meltdown as our current one. The problem there though is the argument is just a matter of proportion. We didn’t have the historic low interest rates in the last meltdown and we didn’t have government passing legislation saying, “Everyone should own dot com stocks”.

Now we could get into the consequences of our entire banking structure and the problems with fractional reserve banking, but that would require too long of a post, and it would probably take me into deeper waters than I’m prepared to swim. The point of this post is to demonstrate that the anti-free market crowd doesn’t seem to understand causation. You can’t hold the free market accountable for something it did not create. Removal of the Glass-Steagall act was not the cause, just like removal of a guard rail doesn’t cause the driver to hit the tree. It both cases, it is outside influences, and in our current meltdown causation lies with the government.

For some reason, Americans have been sold on what I’ll now term “the free ride theory”, in which we think we can live our collective lives like we’ve lived our lives over the past decade by racking up our collective debt for today’s keep up with the Jones. Under the Bush administration we racked up debt for a prescription drug program, pork projects and wars. Not to be shown up, Obama has increased our yearly deficits four fold. Is there any end in sight?

No, of course not.

Why stop spending when you can buy votes with so called free goodies. We need to nationalize health care, because we don’t want to pay Wal-Mart for our $4 prescriptions. We need to bail out banks, because supposedly we’ll all lose our jobs if we don’t. We have to take over GM, so that a company, which none of us wants their products, can stay in business. We have to bribe granny with a $250 check, because we don’t want to lose her vote. We have to spend billions to create so called “Green Jobs” because there is no market for them. We’re talking about bailing out newspapers; although most of us get news on the internet. We pay farmers to destroy crops, because we think prices need to be high enough for them to keep producing. With all this frivilous spending, how do you think it is going to be paid for? It is going to be paid by the enslavement of your children, my children and our grandchildren.

This is not just colorful language. It is grounded in the reality we will soon bare witness to.

What is debt? Debt is you promising tomorrows labor for today’s expenditures. When you buy that new car with a loan, you are saying I am going to work X number of hours in the future to get you the money for this plus interest, so that you can give me the car now. If you don’t work those hours, you don’t make the money. If you don’t make the money and pay them, they take the car back. Personal debt is bad enough, but at least you are only enslaving yourself.

What is the most dispicable aspect of what we (yes that includes me) are doing is we are not just enslaving ourselves. We are not saying, I will pay for this. We are building up so much debt that my two year old daughter, my nine year old son, your children, our children’s children and who knows how many generations to come will be enslaved. We are not pledging our future labor for today’s useless expenditures. We are pledging ours and future generations. We aren’t even giving them the chance to say NO. We are saying, “Sorry future Americans, but we want ‘free health car’. We don’t want any job losses (they haven’t stopped have they). We want bridges to nowhere. We want research how to manage the smell of manure! And we want you to pay for it.”

Now, economists would argue that deficits cancel themselves out. They explain this by saying that while we borrow the money, the future generation will hold the Treasury Bonds (an asset) and receive the interest plus principle of those bonds. This basically negates the theory that debt robs one generation by the previous. While this may be true, I emailed the economist that had this in his book. I asked “that may be true if all the debt was held by Americans, but what if China is holding a large portion of that debt. Would that not mean, that A) China is holding the Treasury bond as an asset, and B) won’t they be receiving the interest.?” He responded Yes, that is correct. The book would only apply if future generations means all people regardless of borders. So, not only are we enslaving our future generations, we are enslaving them to China, Japan and other nations. We are saying we want all this stuff, and we are willing to make the next generation work for it in order to transfer the value of their production out of the country. Does this sound like a recipe for a brighter future for our children? While our children are working, the rewards of their work is not bettering their lives. It’s being transferred out to better the lives of foreign nations.

Does this sound like it’s just theory? As of right this  second (it goes up constantly), each citizen owes $343,785. If you have a family of four as I do, multiply that by four, and you get your household debt. Just this week, Moody’s rating agency said the US is a few years away from losing our AAA credit rating. This has never happened. It would be catastrophic to our country and economy. It would mean higher interest on the debt, which would mean even more future labor pledged to today’s expenses.

What does it say that our Secretary of State is begging China to buy more of our debt? We are begging our children’s masters to enslave them. How moral are we?

The financial crisis, we are still in the midst of, undoubtedly woke a lot of people up to the evils of excessive debt. Unfortunately, it has not awoken our politicians. While many families have cut back spending to bring their lives under control, they have at the same time asked the government to continue and even ramp up the very actions that caused them harm in the first place.

While this post is a little depressing, hopefully it will serve as a call to action. A call to stop asking for free handouts from the government that your children will be enslaved for. Stop electing politicians who promise the world and buy votes with pork. Vote for politicians who are going to address the debt problem and speak the truth. With every government policy you hear about ask “How is that going to lower the debt?” Lastly, realize that nothing from the government is free. Everything you ask for from the government comes at the lost liberty of you and your children.

Guys, here’s a great video on the free market. Pay particular attention to who the immoral actors were in the mortgage crisis.