Hello? Excuse Me! Brrrring… Anybody Home?

by Will Wilkinson on March 12, 2009

Anatole Kaletsky today argues at length what I yesterday argued very briefly on Marketplace:

Which brings us to the greatest risk facing the world economy: Mr Obama’s failure to present a credible response to the financial crisis or even to assemble a proper economic policy team. After the British Government’s leaked messages of despair about nobody answering the phone at the US Treasury in the preparations for the G20, everybody is now aware that Mr Obama has nominated only two out of 18 deputy and assistant Treasury secretaries. What is less widely recognised is that this decision-making vacuum reflects a deeply worrying feature of US economic policy.

American politicians simply don’t seem to understand the existential threat that their economy is now facing. Instead of uniting to deal with a national emergency far more threatening to their way of life than the terrorist attacks of 9/11, they have responded by dividing more sharply than ever into hostile partisan camps.

Efforts to revive economic activity and to stabilise the financial system that are clearly indispensable on the basis of any economic analysis, whether Keynesian or monetarist or plain business-sense, have been denounced on the Right for interfering with free markets and on the Left for feather-bedding bankers. Instead of rallying around in a moment of crisis, many Americans are openly expressing their hope that the new President will fail and the economy collapse. Candidates for key Treasury posts have been viciously attacked in the media and Congress for trivial tax and administrative infractions inadvertently committed many years ago or simply for having once worked on Wall Street. As a result, these jobs have become almost impossible to fill.

Mr Obama himself seems to have attached a surprisingly low priority to dealing with the financial crisis. He had, for example, selected key State Department officials, from Hillary Clinton downwards even before his inauguration. He has managed to get dozens of these confirmed by Congress in the past two months and immediately put his personal stamp on US foreign policy. Yet there has been no similar focus on creating a properly functioning economic team or launching a coherent new response to the financial crisis.

The lack of urgency, of focus and of national unity in America’s response to the financial crisis is the most surprising – and most dangerous – threat to our chances of recovery.

Kaletsky’s right that conservatives are being stupidly obstructionist, especially about necessary political appointments. But as time goes on, the inattention of the administration to the truly urgent problem facing the country and the world is flabbergasting. The economic crisis does present a window of political opportunity big enough to drive a truck through, and so it’s easy to understand why Democrats have been gleefully loading up the truck with everything they’ve ever wanted ever. But it’s really the height of irresponsibility when the circumstances demand that efforts be devoted to ensuring the window doesn’t widen to the point that the house collapses on the truck. (What is a truck doing in the house? Can you drive a truck through a window? Where is the truck going? Another house? I can haz Tom Friedman!) If Obama does not luck out (and he is nothing if not lucky) and things get a good deal worse, this early episode of rather terrifying mismanagement will not be forgotten.

Those who think this is a mere partisan talking point and amounts to the idiotic claim that it is not possible to simultaneously walk and chew gum need to back away from their own partisanship and get a little perspective. Also, they should reflect on why Obama, despite his undisputed excellence in gum-chewing, has so far done such an embarrassing job of walking.

  • LarryM
    I'm just curious why a libertarian is criticizing the adminstration with not doing more to stem the financial crisis. i mean, isn't treasury's cautious path exactly what a fan of limited goverment would like to see?

    I'm not being snarky here; as someone who increasingly buys into the libertarian critique of the state (though not always buying into into some of the magical thinking about the efficiacy of the "free' market), I have some sympathy for the POV that the administration should be particularly cautious about further interventions into the mess. But whether from convinction or circumstance, isn't that just what the adminstration has been doing?
  • TWylite
    The truck has crashed, the window is smashed, the beast is dead, and the point is taken. But where is the olive tree? Over there in a box. The clarity is devastating.
  • no idea what is going on
    At a minimum, they could be clear about what the new rules are going to be, or when we might learn of them. The dithering issue is that waiting with the idea that something is going to change adds unnecessary uncertainty, not that doing nothing and saying that the rules are not going to change is, in itself, a bad thing.

    If they really are going to let the insolvent institutions fail, then fair enough. Make the rule that when the capital ratio is low enough for any bank, then that bank goes into bankruptcy and be clear about what the rule is. If you are going to bail out, then be clear, and explain exactly how they will be bailed out. It is the policy uncertainty that is the bad news here.

    But maybe the government doing nothing is the let them fail decision. I hope so, but my cynical side says that they are milking the crisis for more Naomi Klein politics.
  • uknowbetter
    The uncertainty is the big killer. No one is going to play a game where they don't know the rules or the rules can change at any second.
  • bbartlog
    Efforts to revive economic activity and to stabilise the financial system that are clearly indispensable on the basis of any economic analysis

    This is a laugh. 'Quick, let's pretend we're unanimous on this point and hope no one notices it's false!'. Has he forgotten the anti-stimulus ad that Cato took out? Signed by I forget how many economists?
    And in any case, I can find you plenty of Austrian economists who will tell you that the stimulus and the bailouts are not 'indispensable' nor even desirable. The author seems to take it for granted that (as the debate said) 'everyone is a Keynesian now', and that's clearly not the case.
  • So another non-yet nominated Obama Treasury official withdraws his nomination today before it happens. Curse those stupidly obstructionist conservatives! How do they do that?

    Link
  • uknowbetter
    They use their racist magic powers.
  • Vangel
    It should be clear by now that Obama is an empty suit who is driven by ideology and has little in the way of knowledge or wisdom.
  • I think Will is right that Obama risks looking bad for not doing more with respect to things like Treasury appointments if things get worse. But it is hard for me to believe that anything Obama, might actually do would help matters, so it is hard for me to get excited about it. I can think of good things someone might do, e,g. a two-year regulatory holiday, payroll tax cuts that might do some good, but these are not within the realm of options being considered by this administration.

    I suspect that Obama really believes that the economy will eventually recover fully on its own and is willing to sacrifice it taking an extra year or so to entrench his other policy priorities that are more important to him than economic growth.
  • Despite all the professional whiners trying to tear down Obama, he remains about as popular with the American public as when he took office:

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-...
  • knb
    And according to Rasmussen's method, Obama's popularity has declined from +25 to +9.

    For what its worth.
  • uknowbetter
    ...but, that's like math, and that's like hard for liberals.
  • knb
    Interesting to hear a liberal use the "whiners" dismissal. For so long, the GOP dismissed all Bush critics as "whiners". The liberals, of course, responded by pointing out that criticism of those in power is really patriotic.

    Does anyone doubt that the left and the right are two sides of the same coin?
  • Will and his kind have yet to offer up any substantial, fact-based criticism of Obama, knb.

    It's been more on the level of junior-high school girls deciding which bands they like and which they don't like, as opposed to criticizing Bush's flagrant and obvious violations of the Constitution.

    Fortunately, the American public seems to be much more mature than Obama's critics.
  • uknowbetter
    You are so deep in the kool-aid.
  • Haha, uknow.

    Stock market up three days in a row.

    If this continues, U, Will and the other squealers will be known as shrill chicken littles.

    Try a little optimism instead of always looking for something nonsensical to complain about.
  • uknowbetter
    Increasing the debt and deficit to unprecedented levels is nonsensical to complain about?

    Why don't you go dig up FDR's skeleton and go play with it, little boy?
  • Are you waving Hoover's boney hand at us?
  • uknowbetter
    Hoover screwed up by interfering and FDR took it to new levels by interfering more. The Great Depression was as 'great' as it was because of FDR's misguided policies:
    http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/FDR-s-Poli...
  • Paul_G_Brown
    I'd echo two sentiments.

    First - I'm slightly disappointed with the administration's response to the financial crisis. But that might be because I'm being impatient. I can come up with all kinds of reasons this is hard.

    One that occurs. Not all of the big banks are in the shit. Wells Fargo, for example, is in decent shape. How do you manage the nationalization and re-privatization process without screwing over the shareholders of Wells, in the medium term?

    But second - it's one thing to stamp your feet and say "do something!" What exactly is the appropriate pro-liberty response here? For the short, and long term?

    My favorite?

    A progressive tax rate on transactions. Do less than (say) $1 billion in transactions? 0%. Up to $50 billion? 1%. Marginal rate on each additional $50 billion? Add another 1%. By the time you reach $2.5 trillion in transactions, you're paying 50%. Why do this? Because the threat to individual liberty posed by the very existence of a large organization is large, and the larger the organization, the larger the threat. The idea is to mitigate somewhat the return on scale large organizations get.
  • mk
    I don't understand why preventing banks from being too big helps us much.

    I can understand the "intra-firm systemic risk" that a given firm will make the same mistakes alot. So if the firm is really big, this adds to systemic risk.

    But in a bubble, it doesn't matter how many firms there are. Everyone was making the same mistakes. If you chopped up Citibank into 10 smaller banks, 9 or 10 of them would have contributed to the bubble.

    Does chopping firms up really reduce systemic risk that much?
  • Paul_G_Brown
    But in a bubble, it doesn't matter how many firms there are. Everyone was making the same mistakes. If you chopped up Citibank into 10 smaller banks, 9 or 10 of them would have contributed to the bubble.

    Actually, this doesn't seem to have been the case. From what I've read, the "rot" is more or less limited to the majority of the mega-banks, and a festering sub-set of the small to medium banks.

    The US financial system has a helluva lot of banks. Some of the biggest of them (Wells Fargo springs to mind) don't have balance sheets that look too bad, even after they were force-fed Wachovia-like-banks. Many (most?) of the small to medium sized, local banks are also just fine, but face significant systematic risk from a collapse of the big banks.

    I think we can all agree that in a more perfect union, failure should mean something. Bad bankers are bad. But pragmatically, the collapse and disappearance of these institutions would be devastating. Just today I learnt than 25 year returns on bonds currently exceeds 25 year returns on stocks. BUT - if these big banks fail, and their bond-holders get pennies on the dollar, that will completely wipe out a lot of the gain and a lot of retirement accounts, and so on.

    We know about things like economies of scale and super-returns to size. So it seems to me that we want to prevent anything from getting 'too big to fail' again, meaning we want to move to incentive models that encourage diversity. Hence the progressive transactions tax.
  • mk
    Actually, this doesn't seem to have been the case. From what I've read, the "rot" is more or less limited to the majority of the mega-banks, and a festering sub-set of the small to medium banks.

    That's very interesting. But why are the small banks safer? Is it because the big banks happened to be the only ones heavily invested in MBS's? (Though I don't know why that would be). What about the counterfactual where there are no big banks? Do the small banks still behave in uncorrelated ways, or does their behavior now become more correlated because they are now servicing the MBS's that in this world are not being serviced by the big banks?

    Put differently, is correlated risk really predictable from bank size, or is it a function of the types and frequencies of assets floating around on the market?
  • Paul_G_Brown
    All excellent questions that should be exercising the minds of political philosphers and pundits. Some notes:

    1. It just isn't clear (to me anyway) what the successful banks have done. Recall that the problem isn't just MBSs. It's also underwriting, insurance risk, and CDOs at this point. And I suspect that in some cases the hanky-panky extended to leveraging these portfolios, which would have made the down side loses much greater.

    2. Not just smaller banks. Some countries (Canada, Australia) seem to have more or less avoided the disease entirely. Their larger banks seem fine. Other countries have seen every major bank blow up (Iceland).

    My GUESS (pure speculation) is that when it all washes up, we will find that banks considered as a population did behave in uncorrelated ways. But when there are so few banks to choose from (on account of the market dominance of relatively few) it only takes a couple of big players making bad bets to pull the whole thing down.
  • mk
    To play devil's advocate, maybe the dithering on the bank crisis is exactly what we need because we can't make a proper decision without first collecting information on the risk exposure of all the major banks susceptible to failure.

    This information gathering is currently happening with Geithner's "stress test."

    Are we sure there's any better path than exactly what we are currently doing?
  • blighter
    Will says: "Kaletsky’s right that conservatives are being stupidly obstructionist, especially about necessary political appointments. "

    Are we talking about treasury appointments here? Because, so far as I know, there haven't been all that many to be stupidly obstructionist about. Aside from Geithner's rather flagrant tax-cheating but they ultimately -- and rather quickly -- let him slide on that one.

    Have there been other Treasury or other appointments crucial to addressing the financial crisis that have been obstructed by conservatives for seemingly petty offenses?

    (Note that I don't think it's all that petty to demand that those appointed to enforce our laws be able to demonstate compliance with those laws. If the laws are actually that onerous that one cannot be expected to comply with them they should be eliminated not kept around and ignored when convenient.)
  • One minute is faulted for action ("don't just do something, stand there") the next minute he is halted for not moving fast enough.

    I think this is simple proof that nothing satisfies.

    (I read a few articles last night suggesting that this might not be such a bad point, in fact, to watch a little, to see what the trends actually are.)
  • uknowbetter
    Will's point seems pretty obvious. If you are going to run around and 'do things', why don't you do the one thing that actually might matter? As opposed to the other 100 things which can wait or don't matter at all.
  • Doesn't that presume an "easy fix" that the President is avoiding? Have China, England, Japan, Germany got their easy fixes in place?
  • uknowbetter
    No, it doesn't.

    It says focus on the one thing you (as in Obama) claim is important. As opposed to claiming totally unrelated things are all important.
  • What's your point then, that Obama should "look busy" on this?

    OH! It's that he shouldn't spend any time on things you are less closely aligned with him on!
  • uknowbetter
    I'm not closely aligned with him on anything. However, he claims there is a banking crisis that is paramount to the economy and yet he is off squawking about education, healthcare, and everything else under the sun.

    His administration should be clear about what they are doing when it comes to banks. If they are waiting for the rest of Q1 to unfold, then say that. If they don't have a clue, then say that. All the uncertainty has been causing big problems.
  • All I can do is chuckle at that.
  • uknowbetter
    So far that's a good description of this administration: laugh or cry.
  • A bunch of free market capitalists manage to lose trillions of dollars and it's Obama's job to come up with "a credible response to the financial crisis" that will please the professional complainers like Anatole Kaletsky?

    What a laugh.

    How much of the public's money should we give these losers is the only "plan" we need.
  • uknowbetter
    1999 NYT article on the crazy 'free market capitalists' Bill Clinton, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac:
    http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/2009/02/oka_...

    Keep lying if you want to, alphie, about the free market when government intervention in the market caused the crisis, but don't expect people with brains to believe you.
  • I remember when Rove & Co. first floated that lie and thought, "nobody, not even the Republican base, is dumb enough to believe that lie."

    Color me surprised.

    The "conservative" movement in this country has turned into a freak show reality program where the wealthy folks who run it compete to see which of them can get you guys to swallow the weirdest "facts."

    Remember when your leader Rush tried to push the "it's Obama's recession" meme back in November and got laughed at even by the gullible right?

    There may be hope for you guys yet.
  • uknowbetter
    You really are clueless.

    Do you deny the government was encouraging the housing bubble?

    You can usually tell the democrats by how much they lie (online and off). Alphie, you have good company with Madoff and Standford (two big-time democrats).
  • Uknow,

    Do you also believe the government was behind 9/11?

    Just checking...
  • uknowbetter
    Wow, no.

    Will's liberaltarian project is destined to fail because liberals are like retarded 3 year olds. They should not be taken seriously.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: