Posts Tagged ‘interventions’

Milton Friedman On Monetary And Fiscal Policy

Sunday, May 16th, 2010

I found this passage from Milton Friedman in 1958, as seen on John B. Taylor’s blog, to be notable, especially given the immense monetary and fiscal policy actions taken to “improve” our economic situation:

“The available evidence…casts grave doubt on the possibility of producing any fine adjustments in economic activity by fine adjustments in monetary policy….and much danger that such a policy may make matters worse rather than better…The basic difficulties and limitations of monetary policy apply with equal force to fiscal policy.

Political pressures to ‘do something’ …are clearly very strong indeed in the existing state of public attitudes.

The main moral to be had from these two preceding points is that yielding to these pressures may frequently do more harm than good. There is a saying that the best is often the enemy of the good, which seems highly relevant. The attempt to do more than we can will itself be a disturbance that may increase rather than reduce instability.”

_____

back to <home>

SPX at 1135.68 as this post is written

Share

Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac Situation

Wednesday, February 10th, 2010

An article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal presents a thorough summary of the situation at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  The article is titled, “No Exit in Sight for U.S. As Fannie, Freddie Flail.”  Here is the link to the story:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704362004575001042824028862.html?KEYWORDS=no+exit+in+sight+for+us

I’ve commented extensively on the U.S. real estate situation, and the national attempts to intervene in this market.  Those posts can be found under the “Real Estate” and “Intervention” categories.

With regard to the aforementioned article, there are three items that I feel are especially notable.  For now, I will post them without comment; I may comment on them in the future.  The first is this:

“On a recent afternoon, employees at Freddie’s headquarters here peppered Mr. Haldeman with concerns about the company’s future. He responded that they were “fortunate” to have such a clear mission—the government’s foreclosure-prevention drive. “We’re doing what’s best for the country,” he told them.”

The second is this:

“We’re making decisions on [loan modifications] and other issues, without being guided solely by profitability, that no purely private bank ever could,” Mr. Haldeman said in late January in a speech to the Detroit Economic Club.”

The third is this:

“The government is willing to tolerate such open-ended exposure for two reasons. First, it sees the companies as essential cogs in the fragile housing market. Fannie and Freddie buy mortgages originated by others, holding some as investments and repackaging others for sale to investors as securities. Together with the Federal Housing Administration, they fund nine in 10 American mortgages. Worries about potential insolvency would cripple their ability to fund home loans, which would hamstring the market….By using Fannie and Freddie for such initiatives, the White House doesn’t have to go to Congress for funding. The Treasury and White House can simply issue instructions to Fannie and Freddie via their federal regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, or FHFA.”

_______

In December 2008, I wrote an article titled, “Business Planning Principles Applied to the Stimulus / Intervention Efforts.”  That article can be found listed along the right-hand side of the home page.

I wrote the article for many reasons…perhaps chief among them because it was clear that the various interventions lacked a suitable managerial framework.  The “exit strategy” bullet point in the article seems particularly germane to the current intervention efforts being orchestrated through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

back to <home>

SPX at 1070.52 as this post is written

Share

Political Volatility

Monday, January 25th, 2010

Over the last few years the political scene has become more volatile, swinging from heavily Republican to heavily Democratic.  Now, it appears as if the political volatility is increasing yet again, with the recent election of Scott Brown and the unexpected hurdles Ben Bernanke is facing during his reconfirmation.  Many incumbents (and political appointees) who until recently seemed to hold “safe” positions may well find themselves open to losing elections.

Many would view this increased volatility as a positive sign the political system is “working.”  Of course there is credence to this view.

However, from an economics perspective, there are other consequences as well.  The implications are potentially vast. 

Desperate politicians may well feel an increased need to “do something” to prove that they are mindful of, and acting upon, our economic problems.  “Doing something” about our economic problems often entails some type of intervention or other variant of spending money.  As we have seen, the size of these interventions is often implied to denote their worthiness, with larger interventions purportedly more beneficial than smaller ones.  When one listens to politicians speak of their intervention legislations, it almost seems as if they view large interventions as a “badge of honor.”

I have written extensively about interventions, and will continue to do so.  They are very much misunderstood.  Of particular concern is that as time goes on and our financial problems grow in size, there has been a growing insensitivity to the ever-increasing size of the interventions.  Whereas just a couple of years ago a $150 Billion intervention would seem large, now that same size of intervention would be considered small.

While I have previously written that  interventions would continue, it is important to understand what factors are driving the trend.

back to <home>

SPX at 1102.00 as this post is written

Share

Foreclosures

Thursday, June 4th, 2009

Here is an interesting New York Times editorial regarding foreclosures.  Please note that I don’t necessarily agree with many of the recommendations, but the editorial does a nice job of summarizing some of the problems:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/opinion/02tue1.html?_r=1

“Solving” our residential real estate problems is going to be most difficult, in my opinion.  It is a very complex issue with realms of complexity that are not understood.   Once you add politics, as well as the emotional factors inherent in residential real estate, the issue becomes frightful.

Recently I read someone say that the only way for the housing market to recover is to let prices fall to a point where the market would “clear itself,” so to speak.  It might well come to that – but I’m afraid that the “market clearing price” (on an all things considered basis at some point in the future) would be much lower than anyone would care to imagine.

Share

Rep. Barney Frank interview – my comments

Monday, June 1st, 2009

Here is a recent interview of Rep. Barney Frank on CNBC.  I found the first few minutes to be interesting, as well as disconcerting in many ways:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/30980892

What nearly everyone, especially the decision-makers in Washington, don’t seem to grasp is the risks inherent in large-scale market interventions.  One question to ask might be, ”If large-scale market interventions are so beneficial, and carry no or little risk, why haven’t we been doing them previous to the onset of the Financial Crisis?”  

Furthermore, there seems to be little discrimination between “quick-fix” solutions to problems vs. those of substantive value. 

It all gets back to the issue of Sustainable Prosperity – what will America’s economic future be and how can we insure that it will be an “Economic Greenfield” and not an “Economic Brownfield?”

As an aside, I did send Rep. Frank an email message on January 14 alerting him of my concerns at the time, as well as of ProsperityByPen.com

Share