Payday loans
Cialis

Looking for Someone to Blame

This recession is a wholly-owned result of the U.S. government's involvement in the private sector.

Barney Frank makes me want to puke.

I would like to blame the entire financial meltdown on him, but unfortunately there are plenty of others in Congress on whom the blame must fall. In the case of AIG, TARP, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and all the other assaults on every dollar any one of us plus our children will earn, the blame must fall on Congress. Not just this Congress, but those stretching back to the late 1960s and earlier.

As of March 15, 2009, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the national debt had reached $11 trillion, the largest in U.S. history. The annual Gross Domestic Product, the value of all the goods and services the U.S. sells to the world, is estimated to be between $13 and $14 trillion. Do the arithmetic.

Then pause and consider that a vast portion of the annual federal budget is already committed to entitlement programs like Social Security that began in the 1930s as a response to the Great Depression.

Social Security, along with Medicare and the endless permutations of programs that redistribute money from the public treasury, constitutes at least two-thirds of any budget from the gitgo. It breaks down to Social Security: 23%; Medicare: 12%; Medicaid: 7%; other means-tested entitlements: 6%; mandatory payments (pensions, etc.): 6%; and the net interest on debt: 11%.

The wailing about AIG paying bonuses is pure populist political theatre. Because of various regulations regarding the highest levels of compensation, financial houses have always sought ways to reward productive executives, by other means, among them being bonuses.

The history of this mess can be fairly easily tracked, going back to 1968 when the government converted the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) from a government entity to a "government sponsored enterprise" purchasing and securitizing mortgages. This removed Fannie Mae's debt from the government's books. Two years later in 1970, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) was created by Congress to buy mortgages in the secondary market.

The notion that the government had to get involved in the private mortgage loan marketplace goes back to the geniuses who prolonged the Great Depression during the successive administrations of Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Democrat, a liberal, and a man with absolutely no experience in the private sector.

Congress continued to pass one piece of legislation after another to involve itself in the banking sector of the nation all in the name of social justice and things like community investment. In essence they encouraged people to take on more debt than they could afford.

In 1974, household debt was $705 billion. By 2000, it would total $7.4 trillion. Since by then people could not deduct interest on their consumer loans such as credit cards and auto loans, but could take out home equity loans to pay off debt, they were sucked down a rabbit hole of mortgage-related debt.

The fragility of the banking system was evident to all when, starting around 1989, savings and loan banks began collapsing, requiring the government to create a Resolution Trust Corporation which closed hundreds of insolvent banks. It cost the government $105 billion to resolve the crisis and the net loss to taxpayers was estimated to be $40 billion by the end of 1999. Chump change compared to the enormity of the present problem that is also tied to bad loans and the subsequent securitizing (bundling) and resale of such loans.

At the heart of the issue was the government requirement that banking and mortgage loan companies abandon centuries of knowledge and experience when it comes to evaluating who qualifies to receive a loan in favor of making loans to virtually anyone with a pulse.

By 2000 there were $160 billion in subprime loans, up from $40 billion in 1994. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could not buy this essentially worthless paper fast enough. The Department of Housing and Urban Development would soon require Fannie Mae to dedicate 50% of its business to low and moderate-income families with the goal of financing more than $500 billion under the auspices of the Community Reinvestment Act.

In 2004 U.S. home ownership peaked at 69.2%. The actual re-sale value of homes began to dip leaving homeowners with properties against which they could no longer acquire equity loans. Although it must be said that the vast majority of mortgages are still being paid today, many were unable to meet their payments. (The government's answer, of course, is to use public monies to bail them out or to directly interfere with the terms of their mortgages.)

Subprime loan institutions began to go belly up. Having obeyed laws requiring that they make bad loans, they now were out of business. Companies like AIG that had bought billions in "securitized" mortgage packages found themselves with "toxic" paper, much of which could not even have a dollar value assessed.

By 2007, home sales continued to fall as fewer loans were being made as the collapse of the subprime mortgage industry reached warp speed. In April, the Federal Election Commission fined Freddie Mac $3.8 million for having made illegal campaign contributions to members of the House Committee on Financial Services that oversees it.

Suffice it to say that just about everything Congress did, along with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, worsened the situation for banking, investment, and insurance companies like AIG. Throughout the decline, those charged with the responsibility to oversee it were getting sweetheart mortgage deals and pulling in lots of campaign funding. In 2008, the economy headed south in terms of the stock market and existing home sales. It wasn't a trickle. It was a flood.

By October 2008 the then-Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Paulson, asked for and received $700 billion in order to stem the bleeding in the banking and investment sector, but some went under anyway and others were purchased for pennies on the dollar. Some of the sales were made on the demand of government officials, including Timothy Geithner, the current Secretary of the Treasury.

All of which brings us to the latest round of House Committee hearings in which the perpetrators of the financial meltdown and current recession rant about AIG bonuses in an effort to divert public attention from their own malfeasance.

This recession is a wholly-owned result of the U.S. government's involvement in the private sector. I like to remind people that the government has owned Amtrak for some forty years and it has never made a profit.

Did I mention that President Barack Obama received $101,000 in AIG contributions during his campaign?

Share

6 comments to Looking for Someone to Blame

  • Ivan Ivanovich

    Alan invites us to do the math. I tried to make a graph of the numbers but comparing the $180 billion to the size of the retention bonuses would not show up. Then thinking of a stack of $100 bills and assuming that each bill was 0.003 inches think I found:

    $218,000,000 (total in AIG bonuses) * .003 / 100 = 6,540 inches / 12 = 545 feet

    $218,000,000 / 4,500 (number of people receiving a bonus) = $48,444 per person

    $48,000 * .003 / 100 = 1.44 inches

    $180,000,000,000 (Total AIG bailout) * .003 / 100 = 450,000 inches / 12 = 37,500 feet / 5,280 = 7.1 miles

    I think we can all imagine a stack of $100 bills less than an inch and a half high vs. a stack 7.1 miles high. Divide all that by the population of the USA (300,000,000) and we get 1.6 cents for bonuses per 100 persons and $60,000 in bailout money for the same group. It all seems like much ado about nothing, once you do the math.

    But then, I saw a robin attacking the mirror on my truck. It happens each spring when the birds are planning for mating season and the males want to keep other males out of their territory. The dumb robin sits on my window ledge and pecks at the mirror, believing the reflection to be a rival. I wouldn’t mind so much but, in the process, the stupid thing gets so worked up that he shits all over my door. Maybe we are a nation of bird brains?

  • efalicp

    Alan.. Although there is a lot of truth here, it is only a partial explanation because it doesn’t explain why the same thing is basically happening all over the globe. You can blame barney Frank, FNMA etc for a significant part of our problems, but how do you explain the mess in Britain, Iceland or Spain? I think when you look towards the Federal Reserve, Central Banker to the world (as the dollar is the reserve currency), you start getting closer to the unifying theory. It was the huge amounts of liquidity, fiat currencies and central bank interference that promoted leverage everywhere that created the environment that inevitably resulted in a crash.

  • There is a reason why I have not explained the global aspects of the financial crisis. It is because this is a brief commentary, not a book.

    The other reason is that I am not an economist. I am a writer who addresses business and science topics. If I can explain even a small part of a very complex topic, I consider that a job well done.

  • efalicp

    But it points to somewhat of a flaw in your reasoning. You state you did not intend to tackle the global aspects of the problem, but when the same or similar problems are seen all over the globe, domestic political considerations in the U.S. cannot explain the problem or be blamed for it. In other words, Barney Frank did not bring down the government of Iceland, something else did. It behooves us to figure out what did and I believe the answer lies not merely with our wretched Congress, but more importantly with worldwide fractional reserve banking, fiat currencies and central banking.

  • Well, if you are prepared to offer me a substantial grant of money to fully explore the issue, I will be glad to accommodate you.

    History suggests that, every so often, nations and even whole parts of the world go crazy, do stupid things, and/or both. I hope this explanation proves helpful.

    Seriously, why don’t you write your own damned commentary?

  • Ivan Ivanovich

    Alan
    Don’t be too upset. After all we are just exercising our First Amendment rights while we canJ

    After thinking about this subject a bit, I have a question. How long will it be before we start hearing numbers quoted in Quadrillions? Or will the Orwellian Ministry of Truth switch to the European way of quoting large numbers where a billion is a milliard and a trillion is a billion? That’s basically what they have done with the unemployment figures. When I began my career an 8% unemployment rate meant that 8% of the male citizens were without a job. Now it means that 8% of the men, women, and illegal immigrants have filed for benefits.

Leave a Reply

Articles Archived by Topic