Greenspan Lays it Out

by Dave on October 24, 2008

There’s been plenty of finger-pointing and chest-pounding over the economic meltdown. The “Maestro,” Alan Greenspan, had his say yesterday:

Many Republican lawmakers on the oversight committee tried to blame the mortgage meltdown on the unchecked growth of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the giant government-sponsored mortgage-finance companies that were placed in a government conservatorship last month. Republicans have argued that Democratic lawmakers blocked measures to reform the companies.

But Mr. Greenspan, who was first appointed by President Ronald Reagan, placed far more blame on the Wall Street companies that bundled subprime mortgages into pools and sold them as mortgage-backed securities. Global demand for the securities was so high, he said, that Wall Street companies pressured lenders to lower their standards and produce more “paper.”

“The evidence strongly suggests that without the excess demand from securitizers, subprime mortgage originations (undeniably the original source of the crisis) would have been far smaller and defaults accordingly far lower,” he said.

Despite his chagrin over the mortgage mess, the former Fed chairman proposed only one specific regulation: that companies selling mortgage-backed securities be required to hold a significant number themselves.

“Whatever regulatory changes are made, they will pale in comparison to the change already evident in today’s markets,” he said. “Those markets for an indefinite future will be far more restrained than would any currently contemplated new regulatory regime.”

If there’s anyone who had the inside track on this whole mess, it’s Greenspan. It’s nice to see that he stood up and took some blame and owned up to his mistakes. Now there’s a man of character.

{ 1 trackback }

» The Death of an Analogy
October 30, 2008 at 7:17 pm

{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }

maz October 25, 2008 at 3:16 am

Let’s take out all the added stuff and see what Greenspan said.

“The evidence strongly suggests that without the excess demand from securitizers, subprime mortgage would have been far smaller and defaults accordingly far lower,” he said.
“Whatever regulatory changes are made, they will pale in comparison to the change already evident in today’s markets,” he said. “Those markets for an indefinite future will be far more restrained than would any currently contemplated new regulatory regime.”

So my question still remains, were did the “excess demand from securitzers” come from? Could it be the demand by Congress to loan money to people not qualified?

Bar Stool Economics by David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. ‘Since you are all such good customers, he said, ‘I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his ‘fair share?’ They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

‘I only got a dollar out of the $20,’declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,’ but he got $10!’

‘Yeah, that’s right,’ exclaimed the fifth man. ‘I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!’

‘That’s true!!’ shouted the seventh man. ‘Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!’

‘Wait a minute,’ yelled the first four men in unison. ‘We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!’

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.

Other Jim October 25, 2008 at 4:54 am

He’s a hack. Probably up on his roof right now looking for Canada.

Joe October 25, 2008 at 6:12 am

All you really need to do is take the Sub-prime Primer to fully understand the cause of the mortgage meltdown.

Dave October 25, 2008 at 7:56 am

It may be in part the demand to loan to unqualified people. Of course, if the Republicans didn’t like that, they had SIX YEARS to do something about it. It was during those six years that a majority of these bad loans were written.

It could be the gutting of Glass-Steagall, courtesy of Phil Gramm, which created the environment under which those loans could be repackaged.

It could be the greed of the bankers and securitizers, who either didn’t care or didn’t understand what they were setting up.

I don’t get this thing about blaming the dumb people who bought those loans. Of course they deserve some blame. But how about blaming the people working in the banking and security industries who knew far more about what was going on and what the risks were, but wrote the loans and packaged them? Do they not share blame? I’m tired of hearing people defend them by saying that the big, bad Democrats held a gun to their heads and made them write those loans, because it’s a bullshit excuse.

And the barstool economics story is a really cute way of dumbing down something that’s a lot more complex than a silly anecdote.

Leave a Comment