The Housing Bubble Was No Mystery

I've not posted about the economic crash recently, although I've made references to it in other posts along the way.  Today I read a short comment on from Dean Baker at the Center for Economic and Policy Research.  He was responding to the announcement from Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen that there will be a new committee in the FED to study and seek to avoid another destabilizing economic crisis like the recent ones, including the Great Recession. 

Reporting on this announcement, the New York Times continues to imply the oft-reported impression that the coming of that crisis was a mystery that no one could see.  Baker's contention is that many people did see it coming, including seeing all the obvious signs of the housing bubble.  Rather than not seeing these foreboding signs, what accounts for the FED's unreadiness and lack of preventive intervention was "an extraordinary level of incompetence."  Former FED Chair Alan Greenspan himself admitted to responding wrongly to danger signs, having been blinded by a false ideology of market economic systems.

Here are Baker's remarks.

September 13, 2014
It Really Wasn't Hard to See the Dangers Posed by the Housing Bubble 

At its peak in 2006, the housing bubble had caused nationwide house prices to rise more than 70 percent above their trend level. This run-up occurred in spite of the fact that rents had not outpaced inflation and there was a record nationwide vacancy rate.

The dangers of the bubble also should have been clear. Residential construction peaked at almost 6.5 percent of GDP compared to long period average of close to 4.0 percent. The housing wealth effect had led to a consumption boom that pushed the saving rate to near zero.

Also, the flood of dubious loans was hardly a secret. The National Association of Realtors reported that nearly half of first-time homebuyers had put down zero or less on their homes in 2005. The spread of NINJA (no income, no job, and no assets) loans was a common joke in the industry.

These points are worth noting in reference to an article discussing the Fed's efforts to increase its ability to detect dangerous asset bubbles. An asset that actually poses a major threat to the economy is not hard to find. It kind of stands out, sort of like an invasion by a foreign army. The failure of the Fed to recognize the housing bubble and the dangers it posed was due to an extraordinary level of incompetence, not the inherent difficulty of the mission.

Narrating the Story of Consumer Debt in the US

An interesting narration of the story of how consumers in the US came to be so heavily in debt appeared recently in the group blog Credit Slips. Kevin Leicht points out that real wages peaked in 1976. Since that time, the economy based on mass consumption has shifted its funding from good wages to open credit. As workers faced the exportation of industry, the decline of wages, and the shift from paying workers to paying executives, the economy depending on consumption had to find a way to keep its engine turning. Credit cards and borrowing were the replacement of a decent wage. Of course, this system ultimately took on the same characteristics of feeding on the very people on whom it depends.

This unsustainable economy has become a smash and grab system that will keep producing bubbles from irrational exuberance. The inevitable crashes will repeat as long as the idiotic assumption remains that a just economy is one in which the few are free to bleed the many until a "market correction" solves the problem. A better economy cannot come without some form of consumer protection which places guardrails and lane markers on the economic highway. Otherwise the behemoths will continue to "take their half in the middle" and push everyone else in the ditch.

Trade and Health Care Costs

I am not what you might call a "free trader," because what usually goes under the name of free trade is really a way of giving advantages to the parties (whether corporations, oligarchies, nations, or private businesses) who already have the greatest financial power. Breaking down "all" trade barriers gives the wealthy an open door to expand their economic power. Theoretically, it opens doors to small businesses, weaker economies, and entrepreneurs to gain access to larger markets, too, but that remains mostly in the realm of possibility when the big players are capable of exploiting the opportunities with greater speed and organizational prowess.

I put "all" in scare quotes above because so-called free trade and so-called free markets are never really free. Deregulation opens up paths of freedom for capital, that is for the financially powerful, but it often keeps up the barriers that would benefit common people. The unseen hand of Adam Smith's market is not strictly pursuing the common good. It is often the unseen hand that writes the fine print in legal documents, adds unrelated earmarks to legislation which benefit a few, holds the cigar and cocktail in the backroom where portentious decisions get made without considering the good of the average person.

Dean Baker calls the bluff of the "free traders" by bringing up health care. He proposes,

Suppose that people in the United States paid twice as much for our cars as people in Canada, Germany, and every other wealthy country. Economists would no doubt be pointing out the enormous amount of waste in the US auto industry. They would insist that we both take advantage of the lower cost cars available elsewhere and take steps to make our own industry more efficient.

For some reason, economists do not have the same attitude towards health care.

He goes on to discuss how the economics of health care is working against the U.S. Too many people in the U.S. operate under the misconception that "America has the best health care system in the world." Obviously the residents of the US have better health care than many places in the world, but the World Health Organization's most recent rankings of the health care systems of the nations of the world places the US at 37th out of 190, barely in the top 20 %. The right-wing free market advocates will pick at the WHO ranking system, pointing out potential problems with the statistics they consider, but taking pot shots does not make the glaring problems go away, especially the growing problems of lack of access.

So paying twice as much for less is not a good deal. If you want to read the rest of Baker's article, you can find it here.

Bailout 15: The Myth of the American Free Market

Dean Baker hit a homerun today when commenting on the constant claims that the U. S. free market is endangered by government intervention. He points out that the market is not free. It is structured in a way that money is transferred regularly from some to others.

American Style Capitalism: Tax Joe the Plumber to Give Handouts to Robert Rubin

The media are busy perpetuating a myth that the United States has been a beacon of "free market" capitalism. This is a lie. The United States never had free market capitalism and certainly the system in place over the last three decades hardly qualifies.

The U.S. put in place policies designed to transfer income from the poor and middle class to the wealthy. This is most evident now with the hundreds of billions of dollars being spent bailing out the banks. For the last three decades, the banks and their top executives, made vast fortunes using a free government insurance policy called "too big to fail," under which bond holders and other creditors could lend money to the banks knowing that the government would honor their debts if they ever got into trouble.

It is an outright lie to call this a "free market." This is a huge government handout. This insurance policy is enormously valuable and the banks did not have to pay a penny for it. The banks are ardent opponents of free market capitalism. None of them have advocated that they be allowed to collapse.

So, the issue over different types of capitalism that is coming up at the G-20 summit is whether the government exists primarily to redistribute money to the wealthy or to serve some other social end.