Congress, the Administration, and Federal Reserve Chairman have repeatedly told us that they are working hard to fix the economy for the American people. by Kenn Jacobine
(libertarian)
Sunday, November 2, 2008
They claim that every action they have taken has been done with the best interests of Main Street not Wall Street in mind. Whether their intentions can be believed is questionable. After all they are politicians. One thing is certain; the ramifications of their actions at least in the short term have not benefited Main Street.
As we all know by now, the goal of Washington's gross intervention in the economy is to unfreeze the credit markets with injections of massive amounts of liquidity. This unfreezing will allow financial institutions to resume regular lending thereby putting us on the road to recovery. In other words, the same device (debt) that got us into this mess will get us out of it. That argument aside, as was reported in this column a couple of weeks ago, the best laid plans of Washington are once again going astray. In that column, I reported that instead of unfreezing the credit markets allowing for a freer flow of capital and lower lending rates, the government's actions so far have actually resulted in higher mortgage rates and consequently less borrowing. This is a result of more government debt pushing up the yields on Treasury notes which in turn raises mortgage rates. Additionally, because Uncle Sam is guaranteeing bank debt, it is becoming more attractive for investors and creating more competition for his own firms - Fannie and Freddie, when they seek to sell their securities. To compete for investors, the nationalized companies must raise their own yields and then charge borrowers higher rates for mortgages. As a matter of fact, mortgage rates are higher now than they were before the Fannie/Freddie bailout was launched.
Higher mortgage rates are an old problem, as this week two other concerns were voiced from Washington over the effectiveness of government measures to fix the economy. It seems that nine Wall Street banks have been asked by Congress to justify billions of dollars in pay and bonuses after they accepted nearly $125 billion of taxpayer funded bailout money. The nine banks include the usual suspects: Bank of America, Bank of New York, Mellon, JPMorgan, Chase & Co., Merrill Lynch & Co., Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs Group, and Wells Fargo & Co.
Then there was the revelation from the White House this week that banks receiving taxpayer money were "hoarding" the funds and not making new loans. Apparently, the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), a key indicator of international lending, remains at elevated levels. Not good. But in all fairness to the banks, at least one of them will not be hoarding their federal largess. It has been reported that the government has approved PNC Financial Services Group Inc. to receive $7.7 billion of taxpayer funds and to use $5.58 billion of it to purchase National City Corp - so much for the funds being used to unclog the markets. The problem ultimately is that the government should not be doing what it is doing in the first place. But beyond that, the capital infusion program has very few strings attached to it. It was felt that too many strings would discourage bank participation. Undoubtedly, too few strings are allowing the banks to take full advantage of the taxpayer. The bottom line is that we are giving hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars of our money to banks that got us into this mess in the first place with virtually no restrictions with the hope that they won't do it to us again? How stupid or corrupt is that? Here's hoping that the banks continue to hoard our money.
Beyond the reported ill effects on Main Street of the government's actions to fix the economy, there are other hidden bad consequences as well. Because the Federal Reserve has decreased interest rates to artificially low levels over the last nine months to stimulate lending (by the way this hasn't worked either) the earnings of many small community banks have been adversely affected. Many of these banks were responsible and took no part in subprime lending. These institutions are important to millions of Americans on Main Street who rely on them for loans and savings accounts. One of the last things we need is a crisis in the community banking industry. Current government policy is already making it hard for these institutions to succeed.
Lastly, another hidden bad consequence of the government's actions is a lowering of the yields on money market and savings accounts. Again, as the Fed lowers interest rates artificially, savings and money market rates also decline. Go online or check your next bank statement to notice that your savings rate has gone done. With more people on Main Street hurting, especially pensioners and those on fixed incomes, the last thing they need is for their last safe haven to be upended by government policy. But that is what is happening.
We could take Washington at its word that it is doing its best to help Main Street through this crisis. The consequences of its actions speak otherwise. Then again, maybe Washington is doing its best; because when it does its best, we are at our worst.
Kenn Jacobine teaches History, English, and Information Technology in a Global Society for the American International School of Lusaka, Zambia. Visit his website at: The View from Abroad.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Kenn Jacobine only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Kenn Jacobine is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jake, the champion of the constitution
Date: 2008-11-02 03:57:07
Have you checked out TOTBKCR lately? Thought you might be interested. Banks have plenty of credit (thanks to our taxes) but they are not sharing it. It just hopped by 500 billion
When the victims of Hurricane Katrina saw truckloads of bottled water coming to where they were sheltered, do you think they yelled out: "Oh no! More water!" Just because water and flooding was the thing that got them into trouble doesn't mean that MORE WATER is NOT the answer to fixing their problems.
The same with the credit crisis. More money, on a temporary basis, will EASE the blocked arteries of our financial markets. You apparently haven't the ability to see that, other than for a financial MELTDOWN of the economy, there are not any other viable alternatives.
The bellyaching about "bailouts" and "helping the rich" and "let them suffer for their mistakes" are just the lonely wails of a sad and sorry plebian who would rather see people suffer than get in and help.
Your last article was sparse on insight. This one seems to follow the pattern.
Since my blogs are so "sparse on insight" I do appreciate you reading them each week.
As to your point, the water analogy: clean water in bottles is to flood as more debt is to debt doesn't jive (it should be savings is to debt). I was actually sticking up for the little guy in my blog which I thought was the liberals' main constituency?
I don't see any deficiencies in my analogy at all. Water to water, debt to debt. Actually quite clear. The savings to debt thing is hardly the point at all.
And, your assumption that Liberals are for the LITTLE guy is about as lame as seeing potholes in the street. Liberals are for FAIRNESS, EQUALITY, OPPORTUNITY, SHARING, INTEGRATING, and TEARING DOWN ELITISM. While that does include the "little guy", it also includes a LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE.
Libertarians, on the other hand, are for one constituency ~ themselves! Leave me alone, don't take my money for taxes, don't tell me what to do, and let me keep my gun. That about sum it up?
By the way, there's nothing special about your articles at all. I try to read as many of EVERYONE'S as I can. I usually only respond to the ones that I think are pretty far off base and need some correcting. Yours definitely fall into that category.
