Politics: Angry about the bailout

The people are upset.

The average Joe and Jane American made a careful decision about the home they bought or have decided to rent because they weren't in a position financially to buy a home.

Now, they see the government using their tax dollars to bailout people who recklessly bought homes when they really couldn't afford them and to rescue a mortgage lending industry that took foolish risks. The people are rightly angry and are loath to trust the government to fix a problem that the government helped create!

Of course, the financial mess is still out there, what are we to do?

Saw this item on CNN.com yesterday. Makes sense to me. What do you think?

Excerpt:

The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.

This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.

Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.

The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.

The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.

Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.

In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources.

The boldface portions are what struck me!

No comments:

Aging Parents - Random things from this season of life, part I

A handful of years ago, I entered the phase of life of helping out in looking after aging parents.  At this moment in 2024, my dad passed on...