June 1, 2009

What Krugman Says

While the day's news will swirl around the murder in Wichita, there's something else in the Times that should not go unnoticed.

Nobel prize winner in economics (so he's presumably an expert in these matters) had this to say about the roots of our current economic crisis:
For the more one looks into the origins of the current disaster, the clearer it becomes that the key wrong turn — the turn that made crisis inevitable — took place in the early 1980s, during the Reagan years.
Specifically, the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act signed into law by Reagan in 1982:
The immediate effect of Garn-St. Germain, as I said, was to turn the thrifts from a problem into a catastrophe. The S.& L. crisis has been written out of the Reagan hagiography, but the fact is that deregulation in effect gave the industry — whose deposits were federally insured — a license to gamble with taxpayers’ money, at best, or simply to loot it, at worst. By the time the government closed the books on the affair, taxpayers had lost $130 billion, back when that was a lot of money.

But there was also a longer-term effect. Reagan-era legislative changes essentially ended New Deal restrictions on mortgage lending — restrictions that, in particular, limited the ability of families to buy homes without putting a significant amount of money down.

These restrictions were put in place in the 1930s by political leaders who had just experienced a terrible financial crisis, and were trying to prevent another. But by 1980 the memory of the Depression had faded. Government, declared Reagan, is the problem, not the solution; the magic of the marketplace must be set free. And so the precautionary rules were scrapped.
And finally:
Now, the proximate causes of today’s economic crisis lie in events that took place long after Reagan left office — in the global savings glut created by surpluses in China and elsewhere, and in the giant housing bubble that savings glut helped inflate.

But it was the explosion of debt over the previous quarter-century that made the U.S. economy so vulnerable. Overstretched borrowers were bound to start defaulting in large numbers once the housing bubble burst and unemployment began to rise.

These defaults in turn wreaked havoc with a financial system that — also mainly thanks to Reagan-era deregulation — took on too much risk with too little capital.

There’s plenty of blame to go around these days. But the prime villains behind the mess we’re in were Reagan and his circle of advisers — men who forgot the lessons of America’s last great financial crisis, and condemned the rest of us to repeat it.
Thus Spake Krugman.

9 comments:

Social Justice NPC Anti-Paladin™ said...

Wow quoting Paul Krugman. None can never dispute him. Nobel prize winner in economics (so he's presumably an expert in these matters) Let look at his NobelThe Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 2008
"for his analysis of trade patterns and location of economic activity"Now we know why Krugman wouldn't take Mankiw's betGreg Mankiw after he questioned the Obama Administration's economic growth projections as being overly optimistic and Paul Krugman slammed him for it

Wanna bet some of that Nobel money?
Krugman's response:
[... silence ...]
Our Inordinate Fear of InflationBut, let’s grant that the current monetary moves aren’t immediately inflationary. What happens when the economy recovers and the banks do begin to spnd those extra reserves? Krugman attempts some sleight of hand, in an effort to make it appear that he addresses that concern.

"Still, don’t such actions have to be inflationary sooner or later? No. The Bank of Japan, faced with economic difficulties not too different from those we face today, purchased debt on a huge scale between 1997 and 2003. What happened to consumer prices? They fell."

Yes, they did. But since Japan hasn’t had a real economic recovery even today, and is entering its third “Lost Decade”, that really isn’t a compelling argument.
BTW,

BLAME REAGANOne of Paul Krugman's most evil columns yet, this morning, in which he blames Ronald Reagan for today's financial crisis, thanks to his signing of the Garn-St. Germain Act in 1982, which liberalizd bank regulation. Looks like Reagan wasn't alone. From Wiki:
The bill is named after its sponsors, Congressman Fernand St. Germain, Democrat of Rhode Island, and Senator Jake Garn, Republican of Utah. The bill had broad support in Congress, with co-sponsors including Charles Schumer and Steny Hoyer. The bill passed overwhelmingly, by a margin of 272-91 in the [Democratic-controlled] House.

Dave said...

Shorter Heir to the Throne:

"It's not Reagan's fault because some Democrats in Congress went along."

Infinonymous said...

Deregulating financial institutions -- including evisceration of the Glass-Steagall Act -- was a public policy disaster. Those who arranged it -- the leaders driven by mindless dogma concerning government and markets, followers readily cajoled by bankers' expense accounts -- should be ashamed and excoriated.

The ideologically driven never learned a speck of a lesson, however, and the wined-and-dined show improvement only when cornered.

EdHeath said...

Krugman actually does qualify his remarks late in his column: "Now, the proximate causes of today’s economic crisis lie in events that took place long after Reagan left office — in the global savings glut created by surpluses in China and elsewhere, and in the giant housing bubble that savings glut helped inflate."

I personally would be fine with blaming Reagan, but Krugman apparently wants to be intellectually honest, within his version of the framework of the world. Now, you may disagree with Krugman in his description of the world, and you may cite instances where he disagreed with another economist on some matter, and didn’t respond to his response (for whatever reason). But Krugman makes it clear that what happened during the Reagan administration what more of a general push away from savings than a specific cause of an economic downturn some twenty years later. As to whose theories will turn out to be correct when there is a recovery, I would be content to wait and see. I hope Manikiw is not suggesting we *not* try and re-regulate the financial markets. I think they have proven they need to be forced to check borrowers incomes and other financial statements, they need to have strict guidelines on how much they can loan based on that income, etc and that they need to be absolutely upfront and clear about all parts of the terms of a loan/mortgage.

Meanwhile, I don’t see how democrats voting for what ultimately turned out to be a bad idea means that Krugman is wrong. I strongly suspect Reagan lobbied for this piece of legislation, along with the banking industry. A lot of pressure from powerful interests. Hopefully some few people have learned from that lesson.

Clyde Wynant said...

Chuck Schumer probably went along because he's in the heart of the Financial world. Not excusing him, just some clarity.

The degree to which people will rise up to "protect" Reagan is always funny. I don't even bother arguing back, since they are clearly not able to deal with reason.

But let's note this about the Dems and Reps alike; once the financial "industry" (such a ridiculous concept, isn't it?) started to grow like kudzu, and became massive contributors to political campaigns, most all of them looked the other way when it came to regulation. God knows, trying to re-regulate would have been incredibly hard, but I'm not sure anyone worked at it...not with all those donations rolling in....

Social Justice NPC Anti-Paladin™ said...

Another link

We Didn’t Know Krugman’s Nobel was for Fiction
The Garn-St. Germain Act was an effort to save the S&L industry from the consequences of government regulation. During the inflation of the late 1970s (note to Krugman: thanks in part to the policies of Ronald Reagan’s political opponents)

Bitter Clinger said...

I read the editorial in its entirety this morning and even then I didn’t get it. Krugman has got to add a few words on where the linkage is to today’s housing bubble besides vague accusations. I don’t see anything about sub-prime loans, CDS’s, or MBS’s. How can he say something like that? Does he think we are stupid and can’t google? I know he is a genius and I am just a bitter clinger so maybe you can write a couple of hundred words for me on how they link up? If you want to blame pre-history, you might as well blame Woodrow Wilson’s passing of the Federal Reserve Act, but then, that would make you a Conservative! Summary of the Reagan’s Deregulation:

Federal law enacted by Congress in 1982 authorizing banks and savings institutions to offer a new account, the Money Market Deposit Accounta transaction account with no interest rate ceiling to compete more effectively with money market mutual funds; gave savings and loan associations the authority to make commercial loans; and gave federal regulatory agencies the authority to approve, for the first time, interstate acquisitions of failed banks and savings institutions.
The following are highlights of the numerous provisions of the act:
(1) savings and loan associations were authorized to make commercial, corporate, business, or agricultural loans up to 10% of assets after January 1, 1984.
(2) the deposit interest rate differential, allowing savings and loans and savings banks to offer rates on interest-bearing deposit accounts l⁄4 of 1% higher than commercial banks was lifted, as of January 1984.
(3) the act authorized a new capital assistance program, the Net Worth Certificate Program, under which the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp. And the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Would purchase capital instruments called Net Worth Certificates from savings institutions with net worth to assets ratios under 3%, and would later redeem the certificates as they regained financial health.
(4) the act permitted savings associations to offer checking accounts (demand deposit accounts) to individuals and business checking accounts to customers who had other accounts.
(5) savings and loans were authorized to increase their consumer lending, from 20% to 30% of assets, and to expand their dealer lending and floor-plan loan financing.
(6) the act raised the ceiling on direct investments by savings institutions in nonresidential real estate from 20% to 40% of assets, and also allowed investment of 10% of assets in education loans for any educational purpose, and up to 100% of assets in state and municipal bonds.
(7) the act preempted state restrictions on enforcement by lenders of due-on-sale clauses in most mortgages for a three year period ending October 15, 1985, and authorized state chartered lenders to offer the same kinds of alternative mortgages permitted nationally chartered financial institutions.
(8) authorized the Comptroller of the Currency to charter Bankers' Banks, or depository institutions owned by other banks.
(9) made state chartered industrial banks eligible for federal depository insurance.
(10) raised the legal lending limit for national banks from 10% to 15% of capital and surplus.
Thanks, BC

Bram Reichbaum said...

Paul Krugman is actually Chuck Norris, only at night and in a disguise. Don't mess with Paul Krugman.

EdHeath said...

As I stated previously, Krugman said, in today's column, that the story he tells us from the Reagan era is *not* directly related to our current financial crisis. But if you don't want to actually read the words in his column, if you want to make stuff up, that's fine with me.

What I think Krugman was saying was that the reckless behavior of Reagan in deregulating the financial industry helped create the climate of the second Bush administration, and their behavior in ignoring the housing bubble and the behavior of financial industry over the last eight years.

Now Heir to the Throne cites a website where it is stated that Garn St-Germain was trying to save the S&L’s, which were being pounded by the inflation of the seventies (and before you say Carter, I will say Nixon and Ford). Except that Reagan was supposed to be our savior who pulled inflation down. According to the website Heir linked to, it was too late for the S&L’s, their losses were too great.

Or, they had no business getting into unfamiliar markets, and were pummeled by the competition, like banks should not have gotten in stock market and other financial instrument trading in the last eight or so years.

The website Heir linked to mentioned that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae took over for the S&L’s in the mortgage industry. It (once again) claims that Bush and the Republicans in Congress wanted to toughen regulations on Freddie and Fannie, but were unable. Apparently the Republican majority in Congress (which passed the Patriot Act and the warrant-less wiretapping laws) was unable to get together on this.

Talk about fiction.

The website also mentions the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act, which they claim was championed by the first President Bush. It is really amazing that conservatives, feeling threatened by Krugman reminding us of history, resort to an example where a Republican they considered a wimp signed a law passed by a democratic majority Congress that increased regulation of banks. It must have really hurt to claim that Republicans wanted a law like that.