What would've happened had we screwed up the bank bailouts

The banking system could have been saved without the “bailouts”. Bernanke, supposedly a student of economic history, could have looked at what happened in Japan after their government bailed out the banks. How’s that been working out for them over the past 20 years?

Just in the last couple of weeks you have Geithner saying that Treasury is still prepared to do “whatever it takes” to preserve the status quo, and enlarging the backstop they currently provide Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from $400 billion to “no limit”. Gee, do you suppose that might lead to more excessive risk-taking, the kind that caused the crisis in the first place? Then they’ll provide more bailouts for the next crisis, and proclaim themselves masters of the universe again, just like an arsonist claiming credit for putting out a fire he started himself.

No, thank you. I would much rather see the guilty take their losses, and let unemployment go to 20% for a year while we pick up the pieces.

Instead, you have the government simply giving money from taxpayers to a small elite of already extremely rich people. The bonuses Goldman Sachs paid their bankers, paid entirely out of the AIG bailout (to which GS was a counterparty), totaled close to the entire NASA budget. That is just bonuses for one company. The fact that such things can happen without provoking pitchforks and torches somewhere is puzzling.

Congratulations, you’ve also summed up every single one of smiling bandit’s posts! Maybe you could write him a macro?

Because it’s so fantasically complicated. So much so that the people who caused the problem allegedly didn’t comprehend it, but for some reason were still the best and brightest who needed to be given their big bonuses to keep them on to fix the problem that they didn’t understand.

-Joe

I’m sure that even you understand that a great many economists do not agree with this sentiment. The fact that you consider the GD a normal event is a perfect example of why libertarians are so fundamentally wrong about everything. You actually want the economy to collapse. That is not and never will be a healthy economic policy.

Libertarians have all the expertise necessary to run a McDonalds.

I don’t think he said it was a normal event, but you can’t argue that it was sui generis either. It was a stock bubble fueled by easy credit, just like the dot-com bubble was fueled by easy credit, and just like the real estate bubble was fueled by easy credit. What is healthy about an economic policy that consists of serial bubbles inflated on purpose by government manipulation of the money supply? It’s about as likely to succeed in the long term as communism. In fact, it’s not really a policy at all, it’s a scheme to enrich those who have privileged access to huge amounts of credit. People won’t voluntarily lend them money any more, so they’ve used their clout with the government to in effect force people to lend to them, via the bailouts. And they’ve demonstrated to the few who have been paying attention that they’re not going to stop until the government is unable to borrow any more money. Then you’re going to see the true meaning of “economic collapse”. It’ll be Mad Max time.

Don’t confuse Keynesian economics with open-ended support of a bunch of bloodsucking criminals.

You are positively right. The bubbles need to be avoided with rational economic policy. What is good for growth is slow and steady development. Nobody is talking about supporting bloodsucking criminals. There should be a serious criminal investigation into the economic collapse, but I doubt that it will happen. It still doesn’t mean that in the short term, the bailouts weren’t positively necessary. The fact that the people that most benefited from them were slimeballs doesn’t change that they are the only ones in a position to help. I would have prefered a bottom up bailout starting with the home owners, but that isn’t politically feasible.

<…>

Craziness. Sheer craziness.

The bailouts were horribly implemented on almost every level. They were also absolutely necessary.

Let’s get a clear picture of where we are first, before we get into any counter-factual speculation. First, even with the bailouts, credit markets became so tight that we suffered the worst recession since the Great Depression. Driving this process, of course, was the collapse of household balance statements with the collapse of asset prices, most notably property values, and thus the reduction of personal consumption as households attempted to create a buffer against this storm of wealth destruction with more savings. But if everybody tries to do this at once, then we’re left with the paradox of thrift that Keynes described so well so many years ago.

A healthy economy can redirect additional savings into more investment opportunities. But that’s not what we were left with, was it? As I said, we had the bailouts and we were still left with tight credit markets. The lesson is clear: Without functioning financial markets to redirect that glut of savings, all of that money gets stored and gathers dust in bank vaults. This isn’t the result we were looking for, of course, but how in the name of Jesus Fuck Almighty could that situation have been improved if the credit markets were not simply tight, but nonexistent?

Any one of you who doubts that the bailouts, as horribly designed as they were (and I have countless problems with the way they were implemented) should take another look at China Guy’s post number six. International trade depends, in large part, on big name banks guaranteeing payment if and when an exporter ships the goods. If those letters of credit become worthless because big banks like Citi no longer honor them, then what happens? Not just tight credit, like we’re dealing with now, but the total collapse of credit and thus the freezing of international trade. And this was starting to happen. Food shipments were stacking up in ports, not because there wasn’t enough demand, but because the barest amount of trust that there would be payment for those goods was gone.

Market entry is a wonderful thing. When one company falters, another company can step up to take their place. But what cannot be replaced so quickly is trust in the system itself. Once that’s gone, it’s gone for a long time.

Contrary to what smiling bandit claims, the biggest sin of the Great Depression was not active government malfeasance, but the Federal Reserve’s inactivity as a series of bank runs was destroying the American money supply. This process has been explained over and over again on the boards: prices can’t simply drop overnight. Many prices, especially wages, are sticky and resistant to downward pressure, and that’s exactly how deflationary pressure can cut into total economic output instead of dropping prices to a new equilibrium. The process then feeds on itself, and an economy can get stuck in an equilibrium output level far below its potential.

The bailouts were terribly designed, but in the end, they were a success, in that they prevented that vicious self-perpetuating downward spiral. We were left with tight credit instead of nonexistent credit, reduced international trade instead permanently stalled food shipments. We could discuss for hours all of the horrible ways that the bailouts were designed. There should be no debate about whether nonexistent credit markets are somehow an ideal to which we should be aspiring.

The bailout taught the big bankers a really powerful lesson “screw it up -maybe with government help - and we’ll bail you out”
Why wouldn’t they try high-risk investment again? Theirs backs are covered.
It’s like online poker playing with fictional money.

That is exactly what I was thinking.

When I as arguing against the Goldman bankers being put in charge of fixing the economy, I got berated on this board It was pointed out to me that they were MBA s who had demonstrated great ability and skill in handling the banking industry.
During the creation of the banking crisis they were selling products they had to know were smoke and mirrors. They were lying to their customers and selling them unbacked notes while claiming they were AAA safe. They cajoled and bribed the rating industries into giving them the ratings they needed to convince even the most conservative investor that they were safe. Yet they ,and their banks were swallowing up trillions of dollars. They sold insurance on the risky investments while calling them swaps to avoid scrutiny that insurance would actually get.
Paulson made 800 million dollars at Goldman. Then he claimed he needed carte blanche access to the treasury to fix the economy. My reaction was anybody but him. He helped cause the crisis by his actions for over a decade. There were plenty of economics professors who explained the problems as they were ongoing. They could have fixed the economy without serving Goldman at the same time. Geithner and Paulson never forgot who they work for and it is not the American people. They are still there doling out tax money to themselves while fighting the right to regulate them. It is criminal.

The fact that the global economy didn’t collapse and enter a severe depression. We are in a severe recession, but my understanding is it could’ve been much worse.

As an extremely sad note, wealthy businessmen own both political parties so there will not be regulations designed to stop this from happening again in the future.

It could’ve, or maybe it wouldn’t have been that much worse.

Of course not. The entire system is a fiction, it’s all based on debt and moving debt around. Once in a while massive piles of debt are rendered uncollectable and as such vanish. Debt-backed currency is an illusion. Especially when those illusions are used to drive up the perception of ‘value’ through derivatives.

The system will eat itself. It’s just the natural order.

PPIP: Banks 'Making A Killing' On Government Toxic Asset Program | HuffPost Impact Remember the program PIPP to buy up the bad investments. The banks unload their bad investments on the tax payer and make money while theoretically stabilizing the bank. Now the banks are buying more toxic investments and selling them to the government at huge profits. Oh when will we ever learn?

I am willing to agree with this.

I would also agree with this in terms of making the Great Depression worse. What I despised about the New Deal was that Roosevelt’s worst policies made it continue. The GD would have been over long before WW2 (and in fact, it didn’t really end until about '49). As with a lot of things, the new Deal made people feel better without making them better. Of course, there is a great irony since some very good things came out of it: TVA, for instance. The problem was not that Roosevelt wanted to help, but rather than I think the help his administration offered was so punishing in its long-term impact that much of it had to be culled and eliminated, and even then was highly contingent on a wrecked global economy dependant on American manufactures. it’s no accident that american unions began their long slide (taking down much of our industrial economy with them) in the late 60’s.

Now this is a sexy post. Please post more.

The overall concept of central banks saving the financial system from collapse is a sound one. It’s what has happened in response to every financial meltdown since 1852 with one or two notorious exceptions, notably 1929. Having said that, yes, they did screw the bailouts up. They needed to stop the financial system from collapse but they ended up bailing out institutions that deserved to fail first and dealing with the stability of the overall system second. They screwed both things up, the former totally and the latter partially.

Any healthy system needs a way to correct error and remove waste. Nature has extinction, the economy has loss, bankruptcy, liquidation. Interfering in this process lengthens feedback loops. Error and waste are allowed to accumulate, and you ultimately get a massive collapse.

What they should have done : Guarantee all the toxic debt with the full faith and credit of the US government to prevent the credit system freezing up, like they did. Once the system was stabilised on life support then the FDIC should have put insolvent banks – Citi, BOA on downwards, no too big to fail – into receivership. Senior management replaced, bond/shareholders wiped out, debt written down to zero. The assets – the toxic paper, the accounts, the healthy parts of the bank – sold off to new investors, recovering as much taxpayer cash as possible. The new banks are adequately capitalized and don’t have crushing toxic assets and piles of leveraged debt that prevent it carrying on its normal business.

What we would have gotten for our trillions of taxpayer dollars was a well capitalized, low leveraged, low debt financial sector, capable of making loans and driving the economy forward. Instead we’ve conspired with the big banks to let them zombie onwards, fighting to survive, hoarding capital, not lending, towards a Japanese-style lost decade or worse, probably worse.

And the mortgage mod/F and F bailouts are a disaster too. The banks are buried under piles of bad loans for domestic/commercial real estate and underwater mortgages. And because mark-to-mark was suspended and we now have mark-to-make-it-up, the banks can carry the property on their books at full boat. There’s no incentive to reduce the mortgages and every incentive to lie about the values. Banks should be compelled to write down bad mortgages. Underwater borrowers should be given the option of a cramdown or a foreclosure, sharing the writedown between the borrower and lender. This would get the housing market back on track, essential to any future robust economic recovery. Until we get effective price discovery the housing market will go sideways at best, another lost decade (at best.)

There are millions of foreclosures in the system. They will take the banks down again and again. They have not been mitigated. Until we take care of them we are wasting money. But the big 4 banks have dumped their toxic assets . The local banks will take the brunt of the foreclosures. That is why we lost 150 banks last year. So we are slowly in the process of consolidating the banking power of those that are too big to fail. Everything we have done has made them stronger and richer.