financial crisis

Archive for Tag “financial crisis”


John Allison at Adam Smith Institute, UK

In London next month, the Adam Smith Institute will host John A. Allison, former chairman and CEO of BB&T, who will give The Ayn Rand Lecture. Mr. Allison, a member of the board of directors of the Ayn Rand Institute, will discuss the long-term consequences of the financial crisis. The event is strictly by invitation only; queries should be directed to the Adam Smith Institute. From an announcement about the event:

US banking luminary John Allison – who is unafraid to speak frankly about the grim reality of the financial crisis – delivers the ASI’s prestigeous Ayn Rand Lecture in the City of London on 21 June.

While others blame bankers’ bonuses or credit derivatives, Allison believes the root problem is that banking is not capitalist enough – as demonstrated by the multi-billion bank bailouts and the fact that interest rates are set by central banks rather than by the market.


Paul Krugman: Housing bubble instigator, not predictor

Recently on his blog, Paul Krugman claimed that he predicted the recent housing bubble as early as 2004. His cited 2005 op-ed certainly does speak of an impending housing bubble. But whatever credit he deserves for seeing it should be revoked because by his own admission he was calling for the Fed to maintain low interest rates, which was a major cause of the housing bubble. (For more information, see this course by Yaron Brook. For more general information on the impact of central banks on boom-and-bust cycles, read up on Austrian Business Cycle Theory, which is most famously advanced by Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek.)

Of course, Krugman insists that he was calling for low interest rates, but not for a housing bubble. But these artificially low interest rates misled many people to go into debt to either build or purchase houses—houses they could not afford when interest rates rose later. Once rates were rising, the Fed faced the following alternative: either they would have to continually expand the money supply to maintain these artificially low rates and thus, through inflation, continue robbing people of the purchasing power of their savings. Or they would have to eventually let rates return to normal and thus, letting those who went into debt feel the pain. In either case, a large number of people were inevitably going to be hurt by this Fed policy, as is what actually happened when the bubble burst.

In essence, Krugman’s calling for low interest rates while insisting that he was not advocating for a resulting asset bubble is demanding for a cause without its effects. It is just as absurd as if he wanted to smack a buzzing hornet’s nest while simultaneously insisting that he has zero intention of aggravating stinging insects.

Image: Wikimedia Commons


A look back: Rich v. Poor, Controls breed controls, Madoff v. Selfishness, Healthcare rationing

With a new year approaching, we looked back at some of the topics we discussed on VFR since the blog was launched. Here, we highlight a few of our favorite VFR posts that you may enjoy revisiting (or reading for the first time, if you’re a new reader).

Posts by Don Watkins.

Image: Wikimedia Commons


The return of the $1000 down mortgage

In case anyone believed that the reckless lending and borrowing of the housing boom would never happen again, read this story: “The Return of the $1,000 down mortgage.” Once again, borrowers are putting essentially zero money into the house they buy, encouraging them to buy houses they can’t afford and to walk away if the value of their houses decline.

If you are wondering how the government is letting this happen, you’ve got it backwards; as was the case leading up to the financial crisis, the government is making it happen through its many manipulating tentacles:

This offer does not come from a subprime lender, looking to reel in thousands of unqualified and ill-advised homebuyers, only to slap them with add-ons, fees and variable rates. It is not a teaser or a trick. The advertisement references a program initiated by the National Council of State Housing Agencies and Fannie Mae, the taxpayer-backed, government-sponsored enterprise that buys up mortgages from lending banks.

The pilot program is called “Affordable Advantage,” and it has now been adopted by three states — Massachusetts, Wisconsin and Idaho. (Other states, such as Pennsylvania, California and Colorado, have similar state programs.)…Fannie Mae helped to create Affordable Advantage after the state government agencies tasked with expanding homeownership found they were having trouble doing their job.

The idea that it is the government’s job to “promote homeownership” or create “stimulus” is the root cause of the financial crisis. This idea was carried out by the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. Until that idea dies and these entities lose their power to manipulate the economy, the financial carnage will just continue.

Image Source: Wikimedia Commons


Government Spending Didn’t End the Great Depression

Given that our country is mired in a severe recession, the history of the Great Depression—especially the history of how we got out of it—is rightly regarded as relevant to fixing today’s problems.

Some popular accounts would have us believe that the Great Depression ended via a) FDR’s New Deal and/or b) World War II. Translation: it was ended via a) a veritable government takeover of the economy, including massive wealth transfers to pay for make-work projects and/or b) an extremely costly war, both in money and in lives. Keynesian economists (and the politicians they influence) have used this supposed history to justify claims that more government spending, no matter what form, is the key to economic recovery.

But economic historian Burton Folsom and his wife, Anita Folsom, have written a forceful Wall Street Journal piece debunking the popular mythology of the Great Depression.

Read the rest of this entry »


Wanted: a real debate over financial regulations

Throughout Washington, the most powerful politicians (including Barack Obama) and bureaucrats (including Ben Bernanke) are sparring over the apportionment of new government powers–in particular, how much additional power should the Fed have–to prevent future financial crises. (See stories here, here, and here for more background.)

But notice that this “debate” essentially features only one position on the financial crisis: that it was caused by insufficient government control of the economy, especially by the Fed–and therefore that the solution is more controls. But what about the position that the government, in particular the Fed, was the essential cause of the crisis? Without the Fed lending out money at below the rate of inflation, without government-guaranteed mortgages, without government bailout guarantees, the housing bubble never would have gotten off the ground.

Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, et al. want to pretend that such a position doesn’t exist. Read the rest of this entry »


The coming inferno?

Ben Bernanke won a second four-year term at the head of the Federal Reserve yesterday with a 70-30 vote in the Senate. Alex Epstein pointed out the absurdity of reconfirming Bernanke on foxnews.com. Bernanke is among the individuals most responsible for the financial crisis, and he hasn’t changed his financial philosophy in the least. Yet nearly three-quarters of the Senate—and President Obama—think he saved us from disaster. To use one of Alex’s metaphors, we just elected the arsonist to put out the fire.

Image: Gage Skidmore on Flickr


Barney Frank should quit his day job

For years, Barney Frank has been the most prominent cheerleader of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–the colossal failures that have cost taxpayers $110 billion to date. Frank has long denied any problems with the government sponsored entities designed to “promote home ownership” by making or guaranteeing loans the free-market wouldn’t.

“These two entities—Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” he famously said, “are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”

Frank also explicitly endorsed the reckless lending that proved Fannie and Freddie’s downfall: “I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing. . . .

Last week, Barney Frank changed his mind: “The remedy here is…as I believe this committee will be recommending, abolishing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…”

But don’t celebrate just yet. Frank didn’t call for a meaningful abolition–he called for “abolishing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in their current form and coming up with a whole new system of housing finance” (emphasis mine). Read the rest of this entry »


Inside the mind of a financial dictator

 The scene: an ostensibly civilized White House gathering between President Barack Obama and executives from the nation’s largest financial institutions. The subject? According to President Obama:

My main message in today’s meeting was very simple: that America’s banks received extraordinary assistance from American taxpayers to rebuild their industry, and now that they’re back on their feet we expect an extraordinary commitment from them to help rebuild our economy . . .[this] starts with finding ways to help creditworthy small and medium-sized businesses get the loans that they need to open their doors, grow their operations and create new jobs . . . we expect them to explore every responsible way to help get our economy moving again.

A hallmark of dictatorship is the view that individuals, including market institutions, are incapable of making rational decisions for themselves, and thus must be compelled to act rationally by some higher authority. Obama’s latest meeting illustrates that he holds this view of banks, and that he is more than happy to be the higher authority that tells them when to lend and whom to lend to.

Read the rest of this entry »


The resurgence of central planning

Since the start of the financial crisis, ARC has been pointing out that the cause was not the free market, but the unfree market. Another way of putting the point is that what failed was central planning.

Central planning puts economic decisions in the hands of a few government “experts,” rather than private individuals on an unhampered market. Interest rates in the U.S., for example, are not determined by supply and demand–they are determined by rates set by central planners at the Federal Reserve. And banks don’t set their own lending standards–those standards are dictated by central planners via the Community Reinvestment Act.

Read the rest of this entry »