What I’ve noted more than anything else during the debate in the progressive community over the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 is a startling lack of wide-lens analysis. Most of the discussion has been related to whether the bill is a giant looting of the treasury to benefit the GOP’s banker friends or a necessary measure to get credit flowing again. Other analyses have focused on mandates, adequacy of oversight, foreclosure protections, and the likelihood it will fulfill its ostensible purpose. But here is something to think about. What does it mean for our government to buy $700 billion of distressed mortgage-debt? How will the mere fact that the government owns that debt change the structure of the national debate and the interaction between the parties?
Set aside, for a moment, what we’ve become familiar with. You know all the dividing lines between and within the parties. You know what we’ve been fighting over ever since the Gingrich Revolution swept the Republicans into power. Forget it. The federal government is now an investor in your mortgage and the value of your home. If they don’t protect those things, you won’t be the only one that loses money and budgetary flexibility.
Now…think about this. If you are a budget hawk, your number one priority is going to be to preserve the value of the $700 billion of Big Shitpile that you’ve just purchased. As home values drop, foreclosures increase, and the government loses money. Budget hawks will want, first of all, to stop the bleeding. But they will quickly discover that no normal tinkering or small-ball can stop the downward spiral. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, you now own the problem. And you will drop a lot of the ideological rigidity that has defined your party for the last fourteen years (at least) to look for anything that might work.
This Economic Recovery Bill is a gamechanger. In my opinion, it’s kind of a backdoor infusion of socialism. Nothing in the bill directly stinks of socialism (except for some degree of equity warrants), but that won’t matter. When the government owns your mortgage debt they want to be paid. They don’t want foreclosures. For this reason, I don’t think there is any need to worry about a lack of mandate on Treasury to renegotiate loans. They will do it.
For the doubters, think about this. When your bank chops up your mortgage and sells it off, they have no incentive or capacity to waste man-hours renegotiating your mortgage. Even if Lehman Brothers owns a slice of your mortgage, they have no mechanism to renegotiate your mortgage terms. They don’t even know you. As long as the Shitpile remained locked up in frozen near-worthless assets, there was no way to tackle the foreclosure issue in an efficient and systemic way. We had to restore some level of one-on-one transactional reality between the borrower and the lender. The legislation that just passed is vague on how this is going to happen. But it has to happen, and the government is massively incentivized to make it happen.
This housing crisis, which is now a direct budgetary crisis for the federal government, is going to fundamentally re-order how conservatives and progressives think about government. There will be a new consensus, but that consensus will be shifted, by necessity and new incentives, far to the left. It isn’t the bill itself that is responsible, but the overall financial crisis. But even this fairly crappy Paulson-inspired bailout will eventually be seen as a fairly radical-leftist bill. And, that’s before Obama (hopefully) gets sworn in and changes the bankruptcy laws, etc.
How fast they work. Bush has signed the Bill.
As a renter who has been waiting years for these insane southern CA housing prices to become affordable again, I just hope the government doesn’t get in the way of a normal reset to reality.
Two years ago, my girlfriend at the time sold her condo and purchased a house here in Los Angeles. I warned her about the housing bubble, but everyone in her family kept telling her that “real estate always goes up”. So I couldn’t change her mind, I could just help her get the best house and a good 30 year fixed rate.
Let me tell you how insane the prices were back then. This was the peak of the real estate bubble, banks giving out no-doc loans for nothing down and even offering loans that are interest-only for ten years. If you could sign your name you could get a mortgage. Appraisers and real estate agents were in on the game, just like the banks.
In that environment, houses in the ‘hood started at $400,000. I’m talking houses in Compton for $400,000. Gang-infested neighborhoods. Hollywood, where I live, the houses started at $700,000 despite costing half that much just five years earlier. You could not find a 3 bedroom house in greater Los Angeles, even in poor immigrant neighborhoods, for under $500,000. Think about that. People buying homes in poor neighborhoods where the monthly mortgage payments would be $4000/month or $48,000/year. My ex was able to find a really cute house in an okay neighborhood for $580,000, which seemed a good deal at the time compared to the dozens of other houses we saw. I still kick myself over it, since she’s probably lost $200,000 in equity since then. I should have stopped her from buying, period.
Housing prices have fallen about 30% since then, but they still aren’t back to a normal level based on real incomes. I fear the government is trying to catch a falling knife with this $700 billion plan. It would take major intervention and market distortion to keep prices from falling further, and in the end that would be unfair to those who played by the rules and waited for prices to come down.
My prescription would be to go after not only the banks, but many of the buyers who walked away from their homes after the equity went under. They signed those loans, they should have to pay some of it back rather than put it on the taxpayer. Also, anyone who has a judge write down their principal should forfeit any profit they eventually make from the sale of the home, at least up to the amount they were marked down.
it’s precisely the downward spiral aspect of this, coupled with the government’s incentives to stop the fall, that makes me think the government has just bought itself socialism through the backdoor.
They can’t wave a magic wand and make housing prices stay at ludicrous levels. As you say, any effort to tinker will be cut in half by the falling knife. They will be forced to restructure the whole home/auto/college financing system and diversify to offset inherited losses. They just took the whole shebang over and they don’t even know it.
One way is to just inflate your way out of it. $600,000 house wants to be $300,000? Just crank up 100% inflation and viola(diacritical mark here)! Market forces price the house at $600,000. Of course, gasoline is $8 a gallon and a Big Mac costs $5, Gold is $1800 an ounce, Oil is $200 …
I’m not advocating this, but it is certainly tempting to politicians.
“And you will drop a lot of the ideological rigidity that has defined your party for the last fourteen years (at least) to look for anything that might work.”
oh bullshit. bull-fucking-shit of the highest order.
reminder: the gop expected the original bill to pass and prepared ads to run against the democrats who supported it. You think those ads are simply going to go away now? that the GOP won’t totally jump all over the democrats for this anyway?
Those ads aren’t going to work as well. The public opinion on this shifted radically over the last few days since the market drop on Monday.
That’s why the guys in the House changed their mind and why the support in the Senate was so overwhelming – they went from having outraged voters calling them with demands that they not vote for it to getting outraged small business owners from their districts screaming at them to fix the problem and stop playing politics.
At this point the House GOP’s stunt of running against he bailout will probably backfire on them. They missed their opportunity to tap into public outrage on Monday when they tanked the vote and the market tanked immediate afterward.
eh, that’s tomorrow. Tomorrow is irrelevant.
my point stands. Imagining that the GOP is going to drop their ideological rigidity is a pipe dream.
hey, speaking of pipe dreams how’s your bailout doing?
first of all, they just did drop their ideological rigidity. Look at the Roll Call.
secondly, I am talking about down the line when Republicans sitting on the Budget Committees have to do the books.
The Republicans piss and moan about Social Security and Medicare but they still operate within their framework. They stopped talking about abolishing the Depts of Energy and Education, too, didn’t you notice.
This is a big event and it will shift the country to the left, even the Republicans.
“Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, you now own the problem. And you will drop a lot of the ideological rigidity that has defined your party for the last fourteen years (at least) to look for anything that might work. “
yes, here are republicans dropping that ideological rigidity:
This post is based on the assumption that the US government will be buying mortgages.
But the things I’ve been reading indicate that Paulson wants the money to buy up toxic derivatives that are backed by the the mortgages, not the actual mortgages.
And the mortgage backed securities that they’re buying up are “toxic” because they aren’t worth the bits they use to store them in the database at this point, though their fictional value is much higher. In order to make this scheme work we have to buy them at the fictional price, not their market price.
Is that not true anymore? Will the government be buying actual mortgages? That make the plan slightly less bad if that’s the case because at least they get an asset out of this mess. (I thought the “not getting actual assets” was why we were getting warrants from the banks in the first place.)
The value of one is dependent on the value of the other. Plus, there is a whole process of deaggregation to be carried out.
At some point, the government has untangle the mess and create a direct link between themselves and the borrower, which is what the owners of the derivatives were incapable of doing.
“Hello, I’m from the government and I’m here to help you. If you give up your cable and internet connection expenses, you’ll be able to afford your new, renegotiated morgage payment. What? You lost your job? Well, you should rent it out to cover your payments to the government…”
I know you think this is a good thing. I sure hope you’re right.
I, uh, don’t think it is a great thing. I’m a socialist in the sense of Scandanavian-style socialism. But only to a degree. I’m also basically a libertarian on everything from foreign policy to civil rights to corporate welfare.
Exactly right.
In fact, preventing foreclosures may actually impair the value of these securities!
There will be all sorts of unintended consequences from this ill thought out bill. That’s why many (if not most) economists warned it could cause more harm than good.
This bill was conceived as a way to help out Wall Street financial firms. Period. It is not good for the American taxpayer or the real economy.
The controlling language (.pdf)
That’s my question too. I’ve tried fairly hard to find an answer, but so far nada. The paper holders should just have to eat the derivatives while the government buys the mortgages. But that might be too good to be true. I hope we get some actual facts about what we’re buying pretty soon — it’s the least our “representatives” can do.
the paper holders have already seen their investment plummet to near-nothing.
I’d also add, that the paper-holders are not, in any kind of necessary way, the true villains here.
Anyone might have bought a Residential mortgage-backed security, for example.
The true villains are the people that dreamed up these high risk bond vehicles and the idiots that allowed and participated in the largest moral hazard scheme in recorded history.
Stock Market Saved!!!!1!
brendan, this is a fairly simple scam that we should have taken advantage of.
buy on the anticipation of good news, and then sell once the good news is confirmed. It’s a great way to make a fast buck. It happened in the Asian markets when the Senate passed the bill. It means nothing either way.
this bill simply isn’t going to work.
wall street’s already saying it’s not going to be enough.
believe me, i want it to work, dude: I’m in the middle of applying for a loan to install a new gas furnace in my house. I need the credit markets to thaw too.
Ah, buy the rumor and sell the news?
That may be a good trading strategy but it’s no way to govern a country:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/10/3/161140/106/509/606658
I can’t digest all this fast enough for a useful comment, so before it all scrolls away I’ll just say this is a very rich and provocative set of ideas. I hope we’ll have more discussions at this level as events continue to unfold.
Moving to the left? If that means more government involvement, ownership, etc. then I was moving that way with or without this bill. The question remains, however…government ownership for whose benefit? When I look at Obama’s triumvirate of Rubin, Summers and Buffet, I’m not reassured that his will be a government with a radically different ideology. Obama can talk all he wants about building the economy from the bottom, but I don’t see any meat on those rhetorical bones.
We weren’t alive, but think about the 1920’s.
We had a Republican congress and a Republican president and the Democrats went along, complaining, fighting their battles, and things were fairly static.
The Democratic Party of 1928 bore little resemblance to the Democratic Party of 1931 or, especially, 1933. And that is in spite of having most of the same members, chairmen, and leaders.
What changed was the circumstances under which they were operating. That’s what I’m saying here.
I’ve got no argument about that, but I don’t think it means that we’re heading (in the short term) toward any kind of traditionally “left” society. I still think we’re in deep shit here. I think this plan–at least economically–will be a disaster. Politically it may be a necessary step on the road to…somewhere, but it will take more than government warrants to move the country away from the corporatism that we mistake for security.
For Treasury Dept., Now Comes Hard Part of Bailout
An excellent bit of analysis, but an even wider lense shows that tho the problems with foreclosures and these obfuscating financial instruments started this mess may have CAUSED the problem, it’s not necessarily the point of attack to SOLVE the problem.
There you go looking backward again…(kidding)
But seriously, I’d rather just inject liquidity via direct investments versus betting that this $700 billion steamer turns into fertilizer. What if it turns out there is only $150 billion worth of assets in the the shitpile? What banks are going to survive having to pay the taxpayers for that? When? What happens then?
Even more disillusionment, prolonged recession and, eventually, direct investment and participation in short term paper markets..
What these votes have done that is very effective is to give the impression of action. That is good. And ultimately your point re: renegotiations can be applied to all good ideas missing in these plans: NOW THERE IS TIME.