patrick.net

kentm says

At points like this I'm fond of pulling out this old horse:

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

and this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/24/germany-economic-recovery-recession-lessons_n_692534.html

Those are both good, but Sherk isn't going to read them or understand them. I'm pretty sure he isn;t real, but is just a foil for the liberals, because nobody could believe all the crap he says. Too many softballs he throws and never a good argument. I know republicans who can make fairly thoughtful legitimate points. If Sherk were real, he would have had at least one by now.

Good points from others above, about the rich profiting off the poor. Actually this whole thread is interesting (although for parts of it I only see quotes) as were the initial insight from Patrick, about Republicans and Democrats.

I agree with Patrick's original point. The key difference is who you view as an unproductive parasite. For some it's the mythical Welfare Queen, for others it's the executive who sits atop the labor of thousands. If you're a salesman, you think you are the revenue-generating part of the enterprise. If you are in advertising, everyone else is just support for you. And so on.

This is so obsolete. Repub/Dems are funded by the richest arm wranglers. We the people need to bear arms, revolt. The corruption is in every direction.

lenar says

"The government is good at one thing. It knows how to break your legs, and then hand you a crutch and say, 'See if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk.'" -- Harry Browne

Could you please give some examples to illustrate this ?

I suppose that you are going to say that if the best job someone can get right now is a $6.50 per hour service sector job, that's the governments fault? Even if it were in some indirect ways, what about all of the lobbyists who write the laws for our government ? Did you see the charts in the article posted by kent ( http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts )

What's you're explanation for how we got here? Is it that the concentration of wealth towards the top wasn't happening fast enough ?

Do you have a plan for what would improve conditions for the middle class and poor, or is it, "they're toast, deal with it ?"

Maybe it's no pain, no gain? What we need is some real suffering to teach people how to improve their lot in life. A little social darwinism is in order perhaps? Is that it (keep in mind we already have record breaking prison populations)?

marcus says

Could you please give some examples to illustrate this ?

I suppose...

It's nice to be "supposed", albeit wrongly. That aside, I'm not sure that you understood my initial point, otherwise you wouldn't be jumping from it to asking about my thoughts on how to fix the entire system (and possibly preserve rain forest, while we are at it).

The initial point was this. A person may disagree (even very vocally) with the system and with the kind of a trade-off that it offers. However. That person shouldn't be expected to reject or return the benefits and only keep the "getting shafted" part. That's not how opt-out works.

As to your question about examples - come on. Please.
Social security? People who were and still are paying into the system suddenly find out that getting paid back is "an entitlement", with negative connotation
Public school system? No one can "opt out", yet everyone who can afford to send kids to a private school is doing exactly that.
Fannie and Freddie? oh, this is patrick.net, no comment should be needed
The war on poverty? The war on drugs? The war on Iraq?
Government can't even execute a straightforward business proposition in a manner comparable to private enterprises, USPS and Amtrak be the examples.
Where you even serious asking?

shrekgrinch says

70% of income tax revenues come from the top 20% of taxpayers. The bottom 50% of taxpayers don't pay shit in income taxes. And...the lowest of the low get money back via the Earned Income Tax credit as well.

Oh, oh an excellent argument!

Wait, one moment ...

Let's look at this from another angle.

What portion of the 'work' is done by the richest 20%? By work, I do not mean board room decisions to merge or not to merge, to expand into new markets, etc - I mean the real work, without which there would be nothing.

Who does the cleaning in this country? Who does the manual labor, the manufacturing (what's left of it - now that the rich have exported those jobs to cheaper markets), who mans the phones and opens/closes the storefront? Is it the top 20%?

Granted, the top 20% includes some very hard workers - but what about the top half percent?

Wealth distribution is the core problem here - taxation is a way of addressing this (maybe not the best way - just 'a way'). Wealthy people think that their 'share' of the pie is whatever they can get - poor people don't have control over their share in a meaningful way.

So yes - the top 20% do pay the majority.

The argument that you are completely missing here, Shrek, is that the top 20% never earned their share. They stand on the shoulders of giants - hard working giants - undercompensated giants. And naturally the super wealthy (not talking about doctors here) want to preserve the current state of inequality.

This is not to say that the 'welfare state' of our economy has some problems. People should work - and some don't! Complaining about them getting a few crumbs for nothing, however, is just stupid when the unproductive inheritors of massive amounts of wealth get not crumbs, but piles and piles of pies, without ever earning a single bite.

I say we should institute a 100% death tax. At least then inequality of wealth would not be so easily perpetuated - sure, some would make lots of money by working hard and playing smart and then continue to make massive amounts of money without doing the work ... but at least their kids would start from scratch (or closer).

Where you even serious asking?

I don't understand.

You said this (which is what I quoted - you know how this works right)

lenar says

"The government is good at one thing. It knows how to break your legs, and then hand you a crutch and say, 'See if it weren't for the government, you wouldn't be able to walk.'" -- Harry Browne

Whcih obviously is over my head, because it almost sounds like you are saying that the government only solves problems that it first creates.

So I ask for examples.

Your response was all about some other comment by another person I guess.

lenar says

Fannie and Freddie? oh, this is patrick.net, no comment should be needed
The war on poverty? The war on drugs? The war on Iraq?
Government can't even execute a straightforward business proposition in a manner comparable to private enterprises, USPS and Amtrak be the examples.
Where you even serious asking?

It's okay, I get that you are probably an alter ego of someone I have on ignore. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I guess Iraq might sort of be one, that is a problem that we created before fixing it.

But poverty ? The War on Drugs ? The USPS ? Amtrack ?

Welfare, programs for the poor, deadbeat loan mods by Obama, corporate welfare, inflation, outsourcing... They are in agreement to screw the working class.

marcus says

It's okay, I get that you are probably an alter ego of someone I have on ignore. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

An alter ego of who? Please be more specific, so that both I and that person could have a good laugh.

marcus says

Whcih obviously is over my head, because it almost sounds like you are saying that the government only solves problems that it first creates.

First of all, it was Harry Browne who said that (and I'm not his reincarnated alter ego either, in case you wonder) And you are mistaken - the moral of the saying is not that government only solves the problems that it first creates.

It occurs to me that our attitudes about monopolistic profits have softened since the 60s, in part because so many of us hope to lead a blissfully unproductive retirement.

Everyone needs to stop complaining about the top 20%. It's not the top 20%; it's the top 0.5%. This is the income graph sorted by income levels from the NY Times.

The top 0.5% are almost entirely composed of people playing zero sum games in the financial industry and executives of transnational corporations who siphon wealth from their employees.

It's not the well-off doctor, salesman, or even highly paid sports celebrity that sucks all your wealth away. It's the money manipulators in the financial sector and the executives everywhere. That's the only group that needs to be taxed. This group has more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans. They are not, however, producing more wealth than the bottom 150 million.

Bug Notice

There's a bug in the form submission/processing code dealing with image links. It's been around for a while, but I just determined exactly what the steps to reproduce are.

Create a posting with an img link tag, but do not put the img tag inside of a paragraph tag. When the posting is published, paragraph tags are added, but the img link tag will not contain the source attribute.

The one thing that Republicans and Democrats always agree on is to NOT accept any election reform, particularly in changing elections to instant runoffs, because doing so would take away their job security.

Instant runoff elections have been mathematically proven to be better representations of the public than our current system. The fact that none of the politicians in either major party call for adopting instant runoff elections proves that none of them will place America's interests before their own.

Dan8267 says

It's the money manipulators in the financial sector and the executives everywhere. That's the only group that needs to be taxed.

They don't need to be taxed more than everyone else. A successful money manipulator directs resources the way that turns out most efficient. When this happens, economy wins much more than when a coal miner exceeds expectations.

There is much bigger problem than lack of taxation among money manipulators. It's anti-capitalism in spirit, socialism-induced lack of personal responsibility among them. Capitalism says, a loser should fail. US government says, a loser who is TooBigToFail should be bailed out because it's in nation's interest. Bankers say, bailout shows as profit on the books so we'll give ourselves more fat bonuses. I say - not a dollar of community funds should've been spent on bailouts until we work through the personal funds of those involved.

But that's not how it works.

lenar says

They don't need to be taxed more than everyone else. A successful money manipulator directs resources the way that turns out most efficient. When this happens, economy wins much more than when a coal miner exceeds expectations.

There is DOGMA that holds this as a core belief.

However theres' damn little evidence that the financiers seek to be efficient. If they were efficient, their costs would be contained as surely as any other service sector. The long-term effect of finance seems to be obfuscation, diffusion of responsibility, and hovering up an ever larger share of the real economy.

Vicente says

However theres' damn little evidence that the financiers seek to be efficient. If they were efficient, their costs would be contained as surely as any other service sector. The long-term effect of finance seems to be obfuscation, diffusion of responsibility, and hovering up an ever larger share of the real economy.

But of course. There is no personal responsibility. They get to keep the winnings and shift the losses through taxation, bailouts, and printing paper. This is much deeper than just a taxation issue.
Nothing wrong with the dogma though, it just wasn't designed for "I win or you lose" type of the world that we get to live in.

lenar says

But of course. There is no personal responsibility. They get to keep the winnings and shift the losses through taxation, bailouts, and printing paper. This is much deeper than just a taxation issue.
Nothing wrong with the dogma though, it just wasn't designed for "I win or you lose" type of the world that we get to live in.

See here's where I think you are wrong. The problem existed long before TBTF and other nonsense. In every boom and bust, the financiers gained. Like some email that was quoted saying "I hope we are all retired before this blows up" the mentality is NOT about creating an efficient economy. It's about enriching the middleman. They claim that an efficient economy is an inevitable byproduct of this, however the overriding drive for next quarter's profits and hitting a big score and cashing out young means the real goal now is simply diverting more for themselves to play circle jerk games with. One RESULT of this distortion is TBTF and bailouts, it's the ultimate expression of how powerful financiers have finally become. They cannot be questioned or as they claim the entire edifice will come crashing down.

Dan8267 says

Everyone needs to stop complaining about the top 20%. It's not the top 20%; it's the top 0.5%.

Yep, that is often totally ignored when people whine about the unjust burdens foisted upon the "top 20%". The person at the 95% mark has a lot more in common with just about anyone in the bottom 94% than they do with someone in the top .5%.

Nice graph BTW.

Vicente says

In every boom and bust, the financiers gained.

Not quite. See the results of the panics of 1825, 1866 in England. Many banks were left in ruins and bankers tried for fraud. Many riches had to readjust their lifestyles, including financiers.

But then again, they didn't have the benefit of infinite resource reallocation that comes with the power of Federal Reserve.

lenar says

But then again, they didn't have the benefit of infinite resource reallocation that comes with the power of Federal Reserve.

Exactly. They have hoodwinked everyone that they are THE most vital cog in the national machinery. Thus everything from our institutions to our view of economics considers them essential and untouchable. Federal Reserve is just a private banking cabal with a patina of government mandate. It's a matter of you BELIEVING that they have the power and importance that they want you to. Middlemen are always optional if useful. The way you described them above as being needed for efficient market function, is precisely one of the brainwashing planks they rest on.

America has had its two worst depressions during the reign of the Federal Reserve. That says everything.

Dan8267 says

America has had its two worst depressions during the reign of the Federal Reserve. That says everything.

? The 19th century wasn't anything to write home about.

The Fed didn't force people to borrow $14T by 2007:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CMDEBT

We did that on our own.

Dan8267 says

America has had its two worst depressions during the reign of the Federal Reserve. That says everything.

No, we had the Panic of 1873, the Panic of 1837, the Panic of 1819, the Panic of 1857, the Panic of 1896, and the Panic of 1907.

The Panic of 1893 is considered to be the second worst depression in U.S. history.

Prior to 1929, the Panic of 1893 was actually referred to as The Great Depression.

Unemployment peaked at 18%.

Dan8267 says

America has had its two worst depressions during the reign of the Federal Reserve. That says everything.

Except that it doesn't. Before the Fed, we had more frequent and longer in duration recessions. Check out this article, which cuts short of the Panic of 1837:

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2011/08/24/5-economically-illiterate-campaign-themes

Between 1854 and 1907, for example, there was a new recession every 4.1 years or so, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research. The average downturn lasted 22 months. Since 1945, which is generally considered the modern economic era, there has been one downturn every 5.5 years, with an average duration of just 11 months. Before the latest recession hit, that postwar period was known as the "Great Moderation."

As Bellingham Bob said, the Fed didn't force people to overleverage themselves.

People seem to complain about the Fed a lot (usually capitalized in certain circles as the FED, which makes it really obvious), but most of these complaints seem driven by ideology rather than any pragmatic solution.

Vicente says

The way you described them above as being needed for efficient market function, is precisely one of the brainwashing planks they rest on.

It's getting boring. Please re-read what I wrote and then see if you still feel like disagreeing.

corntrollio says

Except that it doesn't. Before the Fed, we had more frequent and longer in duration recessions. Check out this article, which cuts short of the Panic of 1837:

Greetings.
According to your quote, there was a recession every 4.1 year or so. This suggests a fairly short cycle and makes me question the "longer in duration" part of your statement. It also makes me wonder about their used definition of a recession.
By today's standards, a recession that lasts only 2 years (presumably) is almost a miracle.

Both Democrats and Republicans alike have been pushing for the housing inflation.

It just got heavily accelerated under Bush administration to a point it broke the country since everyone got onto that train.

Yes, Ft. Wayne. I'm really confused by some of the claims here.

The Fed sets the rates. The Fed sets the reserve requirements. The Fed also provides most of the information and advice on the banking industry.

People respond to incentives. The easy credit conditions set by the Fed were a major (but not the only) component of the Bubble.

There was also heavy marketing by mortgage brokers, investment banks, and commercial banks to bring in everybody who could fog a mirror to sign for loans, prime or subprime.

As somebody mentioned on another thread, when you see the poor aggressively marketed a particular asset - particularly one that has already been run up a great extent - it is a major red flag that a bubble is about to burst.

And in the mid 2000s, the Fed did not take any action to reign in the bubble until it was already bursting, because it didn't think there was a serious one to begin with.

“Housing markets are cooling a bit. Our expectation is that the decline in activity or the slowing in activity will be moderate, that house prices will probably continue to rise.” - Bernake to Committee on Financial Services, 2006 (PDF p. 29)

A timeline of quotes from mostly Bernake during the bubble and burst:
http://robvstate.com/2010/01/04/bernanke-quotes/

(Yes, it's an AnCap blog, but includes links to all the original sources)

There seems to be no consequences for being wrong when it comes to these matters, no changing of the guard when there is a major incident on their watch. And many people, not just gold bug permabear newsletter pushers, from business to academia to various bloggers on all sides of the spectrum, saw it coming, stated their reasons. At the time, they were mocked by the same ones who now claim that "nobody could have seen it coming".

thunderlips11 says

And in the mid 2000s, the Fed did not take any action to reign in the bubble until it was already bursting, because it didn't think there was a serious one to begin with.

There was a time, not so long ago when long term interest rates, that is mortgage rates were determined by the treasury bond market. And the treasury bond market was somewhat independent of short term interest rate manipulation by the federal reserve.

For example at times, bonds would drop dramatically (interest rates going up) in reaction to perception that short term interest rates were too low. This was based on market prices. I do not claim to understand all of the reasons that this changed. Maybe part of it is that enough time had passed since the Volker era, that the market perceives inflation more or less permanently out of the system.

Maybe there was and still is an undercurrent of deflationary pressures under our economy which has allowed this to develop. At this point that is clearly the case. Extreme stimulus of several kinds and yet there still is not a fear of inflation driving interest rates up.

I guess my point is that the fed doesn't act in a vacuum. IF there isn't a market for treasuries at current interest rates, at least under normal circumstances, the fed can't keep interest rates lower than the market wants. As of recently the fed has participated in long term debt market in unprecedented way, which of course is another reason for current circumstances.

But that was not the case leading up to the bubble peak.

thunderlips11 says

The easy credit conditions set by the Fed were a major (but not the only) component of the Bubble.

The Fed certainly contributed to the housing boom of 2002-2004. These prices were not unsustainable as long as rates remained low (or wage income inflated along with rising rates).

The bubble was 2004-2007. This was when all the suicide lending programs (that are banned now -- pay option/negative am, teaser rates with prepay penalties, liar loans, etc) became widespread.

When you point your finger at the Fed you've got 3 fingers pointing at yourself.

Greatly complicating analysis was the fact that the boom/bubble was feeding itself. People were plowing money they got from housing investments back into their next housing investments. REIC employment boomed as the skimmers engorged on the skim from points, YSPs, and commissions. Retail and services boomed as the bubble money pinged through the economy.

Around $1T/yr flowed into housing during the bubble. It was one helluva flow.

I was kinda clueless until the Casey Serin broke in late 2006 tho. Before that, I thought things were only going to crash like the 1980s. Once all the suicide lending became clear, I knew things were going to be a lot lot worse.

marcus says

There was a time, not so long ago when long term interest rates, that is mortgage rates were determined by the treasury bond market. And the treasury bond market was somewhat independent of short term interest rate manipulation by the federal reserve.

That hasn't changed. It is still true.

Bellingham Bob says

The Fed certainly contributed to the housing boom of 2002-2004. These prices were not unsustainable as long as rates remained low (or wage income inflated along with rising rates).

Exactly. There is a big difference between home appreciation and a housing bubble. Personally, I don't think low interest rates were all that much to blame. Look at today's rates--there don't seem to be any bubbles inflating right now.

The lack of loan underwriting standards is much more to blame. Or people taking on more debt than they can afford. However you want to phrase it/whoever you want to blame.

Far more of the interest rate factors causing the bubble can be attributed to the "shadow banking system" and mortgage back securities, specifically CDOs.

As you know, they were rated as triple A even though they were made out of junk mortgages, and I guess those who knew they were junk figured they could hedge with derivatives such as credit default swaps. It seems like the very existence of those and the degree to which they were used to hedge CDOs must have meant that a lot of people had a clue that the CDOs were in fact not what they were made out to be.

corntrollio says

Dan8267 says

America has had its two worst depressions during the reign of the Federal Reserve. That says everything.

Except that it doesn't. Before the Fed, we had more frequent and longer in duration recessions. Check out this article, which cuts short of the Panic of 1837:

More frequent, yes. More severe or long lasting, hell no.

History of Depressions in the United States

Dates Years
1807-1814 7
1837-1844 7
1873-1879 6
1893-1898 5
1929-1939 10
2000-2011+ 11+

Of course, economists and journalists stop using the word depression after 1939, so there may be others.

In any case, the First Great Depression lasted 10 years and the Second Great Depression has so far lasted 11 years and is likely to last at least five more years. The housing bubble may have masked the Depression, but looking at job and income data, clearly the Housing Bubble was all glitter and no gold.

Of course, due to technological advancements and cheap food, this depression does not feel as bad as the last one, but the economics is just as bad.

I suspect that in the 19th century, journalists where just more willing to acknowledge depressions than they are now. Covering depressions, like covering falling housing prices, doesn't sell ad space -- except here on patrick.net.

Bellingham Bob says

The bubble was 2004-2007. This was when all the suicide lending programs (that are banned now -- pay option/negative am, teaser rates with prepay penalties, liar loans, etc) became widespread.

I agree with you both that financial innovation was a key contributor, maybe THE factor.

But what about the reserve requirements being reduced steadily over the time period?

The commercial banks had to write the loans to sell on to the investment banks to bundle, right? And the investment banks also leveraged even more heavily thanks to low reserve requirements?

A discussion here by Ritholtz:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/excessive-leverage-helped-cause-the-great-depression-and-the-current-crisis-and-government-responds-by-encouraging-more-leverage/

Also, low rates encouraged investors to seek the better rates available in MBS, particularly the subprime tranches?

If rates had been higher, would MBS have been as attractive?

marcus says

Maybe part of it is that enough time had passed since the Volker era, that the market perceives inflation more or less permanently out of the system.

This, I think, is a potential weakness for us - we have experienced only mild inflation for so many years, that the possibility of it returning in the US is 'inconceivable'.

But there is no sign of inflation that I can see right now, except among certain commodities.

Part of me wondered if solid economic growth happens when inflation is low, and that much of the gains we have seen have really just been arbitrage and speculation.

In the case of Republicans, they don't want the government taking tax money and giving it to poor people who didn't earn it.

You mispelled two words. Allow me to correct.

In the case of Republicans, they don't want the government taking your money and giving it to other people who didn't earn it.

Much better.

This, I think, is a potential weakness for us - we have experienced only mild inflation for so many years, that the possibility of it returning in the US is 'inconceivable'.

Delusion? Meet thunderlips11.

Only if you subtract all the costs that make CPI look like the big fat joke that it is.

thunderlips11 says

If rates had been higher, would MBS have been as attractive?

But the rates were in large part determined by the demand for, and the price people were paying for the MBS. Here is where investors understanding the CDOs and the fraufulent ratings were big factors.

Clearly no money down or 3 percet down loans at decent interest rates would not have been occuring if not for the CDOs.

Could the Fed have understood what was happening, and made it more difficult, or even warned about what was happening. Sure.

When I look at the RE bubble, and also what happened to oil in 2005, I can't help but wonder whether at least many hoped this would cause a general inflation, not realizing that in the global market, it just wasn't going to happen (yet).

That is, is it possible that many stood by in hopes of a few years of extreme inflation ?

As you know, they were rated as triple A even though they were made out of junk mortgages, and I guess those who knew they were junk figured they could hedge with derivatives such as credit default swaps.

Not all the mortgages in an MBS were junk. Just a "marginal" percentage of the MBS was junk. But even that wasn't junk.

It was only junk once the mortgage holder stopped making payments.

Relax any standards and you'd get exactly what you asked for - eventual chaos and a breakdown of the system altogether.