How Is That ‘No’ Vote Going To Look In November?
September 29th, 2008 by joe
I guess in a sense the supposedly 1000-1 against message from constituents puts some of the blame in their lap, but sometimes leaders have to lead.
For the first time in my lifetime, serious people are talking about the possibility of a depression. The credit problem is world-wide. If there is a competing school of thought, a view that the credit crisis isn’t so bad or will take care of itself without great damage being done, I haven’t seen it articulated.
This entry was posted on Monday, September 29th, 2008 at 4:53 pm and is filed under Bloggers, Economics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
A different perspective, Marketwatch column from earlier :
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/dont-call-bailout/story.aspx?guid=%7B0A2E0398%2D2E89%2D4F7F%2DB8C7%2D4150783B1B2E%7D
September 29th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Andrew Jackson 1832
September 29th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
As I read it he is saying the exact same thing about what needs to be done to ease the credit crunch though. Just that it does not need to be expressed in such apocalyptic terms. Sure.
It’s kind of a strange article though because he does not answer “what if we don’t soon ease the credit crunch.”
THAT is the proposition that everything sensible I have read says IS catastrophic.
September 29th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
“what if we don’t soon ease the credit crunch.”
Joe, Yes, that is the unknown. The doomsayers are telling us “Armageddon”, while some are saying “let’s wait and see”.
The answer as always, lies somewhere between these two extremes. But whatever is done, it needs to be a rational solution. Many in the House believed we are not there yet. I think the Senate should go ahead and vote on the measure. If it passes the Senate, it will put more pressure on the House to get something done ?
September 29th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Well I can’t just keep linking to Ace because it is sort of twerpy, but if I WAS going to link to him for a third time today, it would be to the e-mail at the bottom of this post -
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/274468.php
Go down to the second one at “Inspector Asshole (ahem) weighs in below”. It seems plausible, not hysterical, to me.
I read somewhere today that corporations are already buying Treasuries at negative interest just to park their money. I really think there is a good reason the feds are trying to make this happen so fast, and the reason they are not spelling it out to the public is because there would be a run on the banks if they did. Obviously, I hope I’m wrong.
September 30th, 2008 at 7:45 am
Interesting NYT article, asking very good questions on the mortgage market:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/business/media/29carr.html?_r=2&ref=business&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
September 30th, 2008 at 7:47 am
Interesting NYT article on asking why these loans were made (link would not copy so I put the text here, sorry Joe):
September 29, 2008
The Media Equation
Daring to Say Loans Made No Sense
By DAVID CARR
Sometimes, if you want the real answer, you have to ask a dumb question.
Alex Blumberg, a producer at “This American Life,” a public radio show that specializes in old-fashioned storytelling about local slices of Americana, has never owned a house or had a mortgage, let alone covered the financial industry. Nonetheless, he was fascinated as he watched the subprime mess unfold.
His dumb question? “Why are they lending money to people who can’t afford to pay it back?”
In 2006, Mr. Blumberg began bothering his friend Adam Davidson, an experienced business reporter at National Public Radio, about subprime loans. Mr. Davidson, who had a broad knowledge of global capital markets, patiently walked him through collateralized debt obligations, yield and risk curves, and the growing amount of international capital in need of a home. But Mr. Blumberg still didn’t get it. How could securities based on lending money to bad risks be good business?
“I was embarrassed for him,” Mr. Davidson said. “I understood how money flowed around the world and I was talking to big-picture thinkers.”
Soon, Mr. Blumberg was madly surfing the Web and torturing his wife and friends with arcane talk about loan syndication and credit-default swaps. “It was a very unhealthy obsession,” he says now. “I just couldn’t understand how they could expect to be paid off when everyone I knew was maxed out on their credit cards. And these were very big loans.”
He decided to do the story for “This American Life,” a show that has a reputation for discussing things like summer camp and inner demons.
“I told him, I don’t know how you’re going to do a story about mortgage securitization for ‘This American Life,’ but good luck,” Mr. Davidson said. But by December of last year, both Mr. Davidson and the broader markets were beginning to have their doubts about whether the fallout from subprime lending had actually been contained.
The more they talked, the more Mr. Davidson realized the education was going both ways. They eventually came up with a one-hour collaboration between NPR News and “This American Life” called “The Giant Pool of Money” that was broadcast last May and became a much downloaded primer on all the mayhem that followed. (You can find it at thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1242)
Mr. Blumberg and Mr. Davidson were hardly the only ones asking questions. Nearly 19 months ago, under the headline “Mortgages May Be Messier Than You Think,” my colleague Gretchen Morgenson wrote, “as is often the case, only after fiery markets burn out do we see the risks that buyers ignore and sellers play down.”
As the assumptions that had blown air into the bubble began to dissipate, many mainstream reports became increasingly skeptical in their reporting and blogs like Calculated Risk offered increasingly alarming insights.
After large-scale financial disasters, the press is usually criticized — often justly — for ignoring the problem, but it’s hard to make that case with the subprime mess. If no one saw this coming, they were not looking.
“This has been a very slow-moving train wreck,” said Andrew Leckey, director of the center for business journalism at Arizona State University. “But it came wrapped in the warm feelings of home ownership while the executives behind it used obfuscation and a lack of transparency to lie about how deeply they were in the subprime business.”
As Mr. Davidson and Mr. Blumberg showed, there’s more than one way to get behind the lies. Using an ad they placed on Craigslist — “Were you employed in the subprime mortgage industry?” — the pair proceeded to assemble a remarkably likable rogues gallery of participants up and down the subprime food chain. One was Clarence Nathan, who sounded like a nice guy, but his house was in foreclosure, and he did not have full-time employment. He had no assets to speak of, and yet he received a loan for $450,000.
And then Mr. Blumberg asked Mr. Nathan the stupid question: “Would you have loaned you the money?”
Mr. Nathan answered: “I wouldn’t have loaned me the money. And nobody I know would have loaned me the money. I know guys who are criminals who wouldn’t loan me that, and they break kneecaps.”
The pair suggested that an excess of global capital — a doubling in available capital in just six years to $72 trillion — left a “giant pool of money” in need of returns. Enter mortgage-backed securities. A lot of them.
One of the remarkable things about the report is the absence of evildoers, even though the cumulative effect of their behavior is now threatening to upend our nation. Early in the broadcast, we hear from Mike Francis, an executive director at the residential mortgage trading desk of Morgan Stanley. “From our standpoint it’s like, there’s a guy out there with a lot of money. We’ve got to find a way to be his sole provider of bonds to fill his appetite. And his appetite’s massive.”
The story then turns to another Mike, Mike Garner, a bartender in Nevada turned mortgage bundler. Mr. Garner said that market appetites for anything that resembled a mortgage pushed loan standards down: “No income, no asset. You don’t have to state anything. Just have a credit score and a pulse.” (Mr. Blumberg pointed out that the pulse thing was optional: 23 dead people in Ohio were also approved.)
Mr. Garner’s boss had been in the business for 25 years and knew something was wrong. “It makes me sick to my stomach the kind of loans we do.”
It was not a very common response. Glen Pizzolorusso was an area sales manager at WMC Mortgage in New York and a young ninja in this new world. Just out of college, he had five cars, a penthouse and a vacation house in Connecticut. And a taste for good living.
“We ordered three, four bottles of Cristal at $1,000 per bottle,” he said on the broadcast, recalling a night when he had a table at Marquee, a nightclub in Manhattan. “They bring it out, you know they’re walking through the crowd, they’re holding the bottles over their heads. There’re firecrackers, sparklers. You know, the little cocktail waitresses,” he said. “You know so you order three or four bottles of those and they’re walking through the crowd and everyone’s like: Whoa, who’re the cool guys? We were the cool guys.”
Mr. Pizzolorusso himself soon fell behind on his own mortgage. “We could take joy in his deep-frying in his own greed, except for the fact that we all will end up getting billed for the Cristal.” Mr. Blumberg said: “I admire him very much for talking to us. “He was completely honest about how he behaved.”
Kevin Kelly, a writer and thinker who helped invent Wired and The Whole Earth Catalog, is a huge fan of “The Giant Pool of Money.”
“It was not an abstract,” he said. “These were ordinary people doing ordinary things that accumulated in the wrong sequence and creating a system that failed. Normally, the scale prohibits people from understanding, but it was broken down into parts and sets of behavior that regular people could understand.”
It was clear even last spring that the people who perpetrated this fraud knew at some level what they were doing.
Mr. Davidson said that the idiosyncrasy of the instruments, combined with the overlay of technology, allowed the traders to live in denial. They would sit at terminals and use data — historical data that had been gathered before they started giving out money to people with no ability to pay — and decide that the risks were manageable. All of it was unreal, ineffable, tough to know. Except the way it turned out, as Mr. Davidson notes near the end of the story.
“It’s as if the global pool of money thought it was putting trillions of dollars in a savings account, but really, half of it was going into a furnace. The money is gone, burned up, never to come back.”
That was five months ago, and now that same furnace is about to burn public money. Mr. Davidson and Mr. Blumberg are working on a follow-up report to be broadcast next week on “This American Life,” that looks into the wreckage of a calamity their reporting all but predicted.
Mr. Blumberg said that back when they first started, “there were all these respected economists saying that no, it’s not a bubble, and yes, there would be a correction, but it would be a soft-landing and I think people were too intimidated to question that,” Mr. Blumberg said.
“That’s the story of my life, asking the stupid question,” he said.
Email: carr@nytimes.com
September 30th, 2008 at 8:03 am
Try this link.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Thanks Jack, how do you link in the text? I don’t know how to do this.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:22 am
I saw on the news last night that ALL of Pelosi’s handpicked committee heads voted nay on this.
cmac, thanks for the post good read.
“We ordered three, four bottles of Cristal at $1,000 per bottle… Whoa, who’re the cool guys? We were the cool guys.”
Sounds very much like the .com fiasco doesn’t it ?
September 30th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Hope everyone has read the note from Tom Coburn this morning. It’s really important to differentiate between the issue of what got us into this mess, and the issue of what happens next if there is no federal action.
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/29/coburn-supports-bailout-bill/
September 30th, 2008 at 10:45 am
I was listening to Newt Gingrich last night and even he says he would have bit the bullet and voted yes yesterday, basically because he was worried about what Pork would be added to the bill AT THIS POINT. The bill on the table last week was total crap, and Gingrich gave the House Republicans, with the backing of McCain, the credit for getting a vastly better bill, although the bill they voted on was still very flawed.
I think what Newt (and many, including myself) is struggling with is his political vs conservative outlook or “hat.”
September 30th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Joe, I don’t think anyone questions that we need to do something. Some of the points that Coburn raises, part of the solution needs to close these loopholes to keep the fox from getting the $700 billion in chickens that we may end up putting in.
If the solution does not address causality we will be in deeper caca than we are now. This is why we cannot totally differentiate what got us here, and where we go now.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:56 am
One thing I am surprised has not come up, letting those at risk of credit default make penalty free early withdrawals for their IRA or 401K to bail themselves out.
September 30th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Newt has been talking about the SEC suspending the accounting “mark to market” rule for even just 2 weeks (Article cites 3-6 months), eliminating the Capital Gains and repealing Sarbanes-Oxley. Why is this man not running for President? Oh yeah, he’s been divorced twice, hmmmmmmm.
Joe, read this and your head will explode on how wrong the direction we are headed in with the current bill:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZGE5MmE0YmRiODA3YTRiNzFlN2FmNDU5N2I0ZDc3YTE=
September 30th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I know all that is wrong with the bill, that is not the point. That’s why Boehner called it a crap sandwich.
September 30th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
additional insight :
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/shadegg_paulson/2008/09/30/135900.html
September 30th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
All :
The bill that was rejected yesterday was better than the Paulson Plan. The one they will pass at the end of this week will be far better than both.
Given the backdrop of McCain doing his best to throw this election to Obama, forth coming changes to the legislation are going to loom large.
I applaud the efforts of Conservatives in the house. This legislation will be better for their efforts.
At least maybe now we will have a glass of milk to go with that crap sandwich.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Seems the stockmarket got half the loss back from yesterday. Maybe tomorrow it will be even. What does that do to this bill then,hum?
September 30th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Saw a vid that possibly describes the Paulsen plan..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vE9Zq7Gs-U
October 1st, 2008 at 7:37 pm
What a surprise. Looks like certain members of Congress are taking advantage of our national emergency to acquire funding for some pet projects. I can maybe understand and even support whatever the rum earmark is, but wool? wooden arrows?
http://tertiumquids.blogspot.com/2008/10/senate-earmarks-bailout.html