4 ms·
I'm sorry to come back to this so late, but I've been otherwise occupied, and I think the topic really matters. I agree with the GP that the bailouts were a suc
by pjmorris 7y ago
I'm sorry to come back to this so late, but I've been otherwise occupied, and I think the topic really matters. I agree with the GP that the bailouts were a success for the banks and an 'ongoing disaster' for many others.
> Banks don't need those assets to make loans.
I agree with you on the endogenous theory of money (cf. Steve Keen), and understand that banks aren't constrained by 'loanable funds.' I was meaning capital and regulatory reserves, and mentioneing them only to acknowledge that not every dollar of the Fed's money creation went to asset price inflation. Just most of them.
> So the Fed and banks having 0 reserves or having 100 trillion reserves is nearly irrelevant - it is interest rates that matter, and those are set directly by the Fed board.
This is where I think you err. Once a bank's minimum capital requirements are met, its managers are going to look for maximizing returns on the capital available to them. To say that that will not have effects on the economy at large doesn't make sense to me.
> Also, if you recall, the banks were famously not giving loans after the bailouts, despite having the capital to do so [4]. I guess that also doesn't help your claims.
How so?
Here are the chief claims I've made:
> The 2+ Trillion dollar expansion of the Fed balance sheet during the crisis costs taxpayers every day that they pay interest on a loan enabled by that 2T+ expansion.
> The core function of a bank is to evaluate risk.
> Debtors have been defaulting for millennia, it's a well-understood process.
> The financialization and securitization of housing was the creation of bankers, not borrowers.
I don't see how any of these are contradicted by the data in the St. Louis Fed 'Bank Lending During Recessions' article you linked. The entire investment world recognised that they'd underpriced risk for years, and there was a correction.
> If you're going that far afield,
I don't think this is far afield at all; I think it's critical to consider the effects of additional capital, in the form of debt, on the real economy.
> then it's simple to point out what financial trouble they would be in if the Fed didn't make those loans. People would likely be far worse, in which case it makes the argument for those loans even stronger.
Which people? The banks, yes. A creditor's assets are someone else's debts, so larger debts are good for banks. Generally borrower's situations are improved by brrowing less, at lower interest rates for a given asset.
> Here's [1] an IGM Forum economist poll of most of the country's top economists on whether or not the bailouts improved unemployment. I'd guess being unemployed is worse than claimed interest rate hikes.
Here are my favorite comments from the economists in that poll:
> There were much better policies, but what was done was better than nothing, give the bad policies that preceded.
> The question presumes Paulson’s forced alternative. If the only choice is between evil and Armageddon, evil might look ok.
From experience, being unemployed is terrible. Avoiding it on a mass scale is crucial. But avoiding unemployment is a pretty narrow question compared to the entire picture. Wages (real, median) have pretty much stagnated while housing (both a necessity and an asset) has inflated above historical norms (see Robert Shiller's chart from 1890-2005, and the Case-Shiller indexes.) That puts pressure on employed people that the poll question leaves out of consideration.
> Here's [2] their answer to the question: "the benefits of bailing out U.S. banks in 2008 will end up exceeding the costs" - resulting in strong support with certainty (especially considering the types of questions these polls ask - check other questions).
First, I note that the number of economists who strongly agree is outnumbered by the group who are uncertain or disagree.
> Now that the Fed is selling off MBS [3], shouldn't that cause the reverse of what you claim absorbing them did? Because those effects are not see in the markets. Maybe your effects did not happen?
There's been a ~10% decline after a ~400% increase. How much of an effect would you expect to see?
Lastly, my favorite comment from the second pol:
> Not compared to an ideal policy of an orderly reorganization imposing losses on creditors according to seniority. But better than chaotic.
He sort of sounds like Bagehot, "“Lend without limit, to solvent firms, against good collateral, at 'high rates". The choice that was made was to lend without limit to the largest firms against all collateral at low rates. That choice has consequences as well as benefits, and I would urge you to seriously consider both.
- ChrisLomont 7y ago>This is where I think you err. Once a bank's minimum capital requirements are met, its managers are going to look for maximizing returns on the capital available to them. To say that that will not have effects on the economy at large doesn't make sense to me. How did I err? Banks have unlimited capital available, borrowable at Fed rates. It does have an effect on the economy - it lets the economy grow at rates demanded by commerce instead of being constrained by too little capital or by being overflooded with capital. But the fact remains banks getting assets bought by the Fed has almost zero effect on loans, which was your claim. This is empirically true as I demonstrated, and have given the theoretical reasons for. >Here are my favorite comments from the economists in that poll: Yes, you can post-select the side you want to be true. Now take the entire post instead of cherry-picking the answer you believe. It's not worth providing evidence of complex things with nuance to someone who has chosen their side and post selects the parts they like. So stop being dishonest with the evidence. >Wages (real, median) have pretty much stagnated Wages are a tiny part of total remunereation or of cost to employ. Fortunately BLS tracks both those variables - then the fact is that total remuneration has increased due to perks and legal requirements (go check the data), and cost to employ has gone up (due again to legislation requireing more cost per employee that is now paid by employers yet benefits the employee). BLS tracks all these - wages is far too simplistic. Also, demographics have changed - a younger workforce is earlier in a career, and gets paid less, yet can still make more at each point in a career than previously. This is also a true effect and can be teased out of Census data. Also, median wages now includes women and minorities, who have seen tremendous growth in their median wages for decades. The only class that has lost some is white men, and even there the losses are not very large. So the "flat wages" is far from the truth on the quality of life gains people have seen. I doubt many would like to live at the equivalent wage in 1980 compared to now. >while housing (both a necessity and an asset) has inflated above historical norms (see Robert Shiller's chart from 1890-2005, and the Case-Shiller indexes.) Case-Schiller ignores (among other things) that the size of houses has increased. Not even factoring in quality increases like better insulated, lower cost to maintain, safer, when you simply factor in cost per square foot the values are remarkably flat for decades. [1] The increase in size is mostly because people want and can afford bigger houses than in the past. In short, your wage and housing views are too simplistic and ignore important nuances that reverse the evidence for the position you're taking. In both cases you're moving too many variables to make the claims you're making, and by holding important variables constant you get the opposite conclusions, ones which are the correct measurement regarding quality of life improvements. >Lastly, my favorite comment from the second pol: If you've chosen your answer the the point of not reading all new data with equivalent belief, then I see how you've reached your current world view. The comments you pick from so many while ignoring the totality or central points of the polls shows tremendous bias in your ability to absorb well sourced data. As such it's not worth it to continue if you treat this like climate deniers. Every complex system will have uncertainty - but the uncertainty is not the central feature of this one. >First, I note that the number of economists who strongly agree is outnumbered by the group who are uncertain or disagree. This precisely shows me you're dishonest. Why pick those categories while ignoring the "agree" one? To make the result not be what it is? For anyone reading this far, here are the results: Strongly agree 10%, Agree 49%, uncertain 13%, disagree 13%, strongly disagree 0%, no opinion 0%. That you cite those two cases while ignoring so many counter to what you want to be true is dishonest and misleading at best. With this level of intellectual dishonesty there is no reason to continue. It's not worth trying to deliver good evidence when you're clearly going to misread and selectively cite it. [1] https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/todays-new-homes-are-1000-square-feet-larger-than-in-1973-and-the-living-space-per-person-has-doubled-over-last-40-years/ https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/todays-new-homes-are-1000-squ...