Forum Post: Architects of Ruin - the cause of the economic meltdown
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 15, 2011, 2:09 p.m. EST by frqet43tq3t
(16)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
If there's one thing we all need more of, it's facts. Below is a potion of the book Architects of Ruin by Schweizer.
{part 5/5, (from a different chapter than 1-4)}
In 1994, the young Barack Obama, freshly out of Harvard Law School, joined two other attorneys in filing a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The suit charged Citibank, the giant mortgage lender, with racism because it had denied home loans to several black applicants....Claiming that Citibank had violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act, and the Thirteenth Amendment (which had abolished slavery), Obama and his fellow attorneys demanded that Citibank pay actual damages, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and (of course) attorney's fees. Citibank denied the charges, arguing that the applicants had been rejected because they had poor credit or were requesting more money than the properties were worth.
......
Some people might dismiss the CRA and the ACORN activists as a distraction. What possible influence could they have on the course of the mighty U.S. economy? Such critics should consider that since 1997, housing activists have forced lending agreements on banks to the tune of $4.2 trillion dollars. (To put that into perspective, the entire annual U.S. gross domestic product is just over $14.5 trillion.) The vast majority of these loans were made in the years running up to the financial implosion of 2008. In 2003, for example, $711 billion worth of agreements were signed. In 2004, that number more than doubled to $1.6 trillion. These skyrocketing numbers, staggering to contemplate, come from the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, which bills itself as the "nation's trade association for economic justice" and includes six hundred community organizations that have been active in compelling banks to loan money through the CRA. As we will see, these loans were much more likely to fail than traditional mortgages were, in many instances three or four times as likely to lead to foreclosure.
Spin, spin, spin. Pay no attention to the derivatives market, credit default swaps, or collateralized debt obligations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reazEr_AIBk
{part 2/5} Emanuel had good reason to anticipate success. Coming at the height of the 2008 election, the Wall Street meltdown tipped the balance heavily in favor of Barack Obama, creating a Democrat majority in both houses of Congress and effectively giving the new president a blank check - in his view - to rewrite the American social contract. As a result, the rush to heavy government intervention, new programs, and massive spending was now treated as inevitable. It was the 1930s all over again, and Obama was the new FDR. Free-market economics had been tried and found wanting. Obama referred to its theories dismissively as "failed ideas" and refused to entertain any talk of tax cuts or (God forbid) "doing nothing" in response. To the contrary, the crisis proved that it was time to return to stronger government controls. Anyone standing in the way was seen as part of the political fringe, a die-hard ideologue on par with a Holocaust denier.
This is the self-serving fairy tale propounded by Barack Obama and his allies in Congress and the press. The actual truth about what happened was a much more interesting and complicated – and incriminating - story, too complex to be conveyed in a media sound bite. So it is not surprising that this simplistic story line has become the accepted wisdom. Yet the chorus of liberal triumphalism that sought to usher in a "new" New Deal ignored some inconvenient facts.
The American capitalist system is not unregulated. Given what you have heard in the press, it may surprise you to learn that the banking sector is in fact the most regulated industry in the United States. The nuclear industry is a possible exception.
America has not experienced massive deregulation over the past decade. Strange that his liberal critics should speak of President George W. Bush as a free-market radical, "slashing" and "gutting" regulations. In fact, the Bush administration saw new regulations added to the Federal Register at the rate of a thousand pages a year. If this is deregulation, what would regulation look like?' (Full disclosure: I served as a consultant to the White House Office of Presidential Speechwriting in 2008-2009.)
The federal government did not fail to "police" capitalism. In fact, the opposite is true. The real culprit is not the market but the government; or, more precisely, a socialist distortion of the free market created by the government. Under pressure from liberal activists, the federal government created a series of "protected" markets that were insulated from external economic pressures in order to achieve political ends that could not be realized by other means.
Nor did this happen overnight. It was a massive social engineering project, a grand generational enterprise, thirty years in the making, carried out by an ad hoc alliance of radical activists, labor unions, liberal politicians, federal bureaucrats, and Wall Street financial titans who sought to make getting a mortgage and owning a home a civil right. This is a story that has never been told, mainly because the actual extent of this ambitious multigenerational project has not been fully grasped. But it is vital that we learn it and take its lessons to heart, not just to understand the present crisis but to prevent its ever happening again.
The cast of characters includes three distinct but overlapping groups of people. First came the community activists - idealists such as the young Barack Obama and national organizations such as ACORN - who, beginning in the 1960s, waged war against traditional lending practices in the name of fighting racism and poverty. Inspired by the legendary community organizer Saul Alinsky, their tactics were extremely confrontational, and their goals were frankly socialist: to take money from the rich (in this case banks and other lenders) and give it to the poor on very favorable terms, a process that they called "the democratization of capital" but that had more in common with a Mafia protection racket. I refer to this group as the Robin Hood Gang. Still, the fair housing movement would probably have remained a fringe phenomenon had it not been for strong support from liberal politicians in Washington. Beginning in the 1970s, liberal lions such as Senators Ted Kennedy and William Proxmire oversaw the passage of legislation that empowered local activists to force banks into lowering lending standards. The Congressional Black and Hispanic Caucuses played their part by vociferously demanding new subsidies for poor and minority constituents.
{part 3/5} Finally, a phalanx of powerful liberals, including Bill Clinton, Robert Rubin, Andrew Cuomo, Janet Reno, Deval Patrick, Henry Cisneros, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, Jon Corzine, and many others less well known, began pushing legislation to encourage or compel banks to make risky loans to individuals who should not have received them. These people were part of the new wave of liberal activists turned political careerists who rose to power with the Clintons. These officials conspired to put the full power of the federal government behind the new civil rights crusade to expand minority home ownership - and often reaped political and financial rewards in the process. (Their resulting ethical problems and conflicts of interest nearly crippled the Obama administration at the outset.) As a result, billions of dollars' worth of loans were made to poor and minority applicants who would never have qualified under traditional lending criteria. Meanwhile, the liberal baby boomers who had risen to the top on Wall Street pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into their efforts through the sale of so-called mortgage-backed securities and derivatives. These bankers, like their cohorts in Washington, believed they could do good and do well by extending credit to aspiring minority home owners via new forms of "creative" finance while at the same time racking up enormous fees and bonuses.
This three-headed movement of activists, liberal politicians, and socially conscious "do-good" capitalists on Wall Street got their wish. During the housing bubble, minorities accounted for twice as many subprime dollars borrowed per capita as did whites. Not surprisingly, the Federal Reserve of Boston found that they defaulted on subprime loans at twice the rate of whites. To be fair, there were other important factors. Many have correctly pointed to the availability of cheap money, brought about by the loose monetary policies of the Federal Reserve under Chairman Alan Greenspan, as a major culprit. As Professor John Taylor of Stanford and others have argued, the growth in the money supply created cheap money and helped to inflate the real estate bubble. Greenspan has also been faulted for his policy of letting bubbles inflate and then repairing the damage rather than trying to prevent them. And when the Fed printed more money to increase liquidity as the crisis began, it made things even worse.'
But the heart of the story is the role that radical activists and liberal politicians in Washington played in trying to harness the U.S. financial system to advance their socialist agenda. Properly understood, it is a cautionary tale about the perils of trying to use the power of the state to do good, to help people by giving them a leg up, to "level the playing field." Ironically, such efforts have usually ended up doing the most harm to the very people they were intended to help. The result in this case was no different. This book will illuminate the hubris and impatience of liberal baby boomers who for the most part have spent their careers in government, high finance, and social activism and as a result know almost nothing about how wealth is actually created in the system that has been entrusted to their care. Unlike earlier generations, who valued the free-market system (despite its flaws) for its ability to generate wealth and maximize liberty, the liberal baby boomers - born to affluence, burdened by guilt - saw the capitalist system as inherently flawed and unfair. More important, they saw it as a system that could, and should, be manipulated for "progressive" social purposes. Call it "do-good capitalism": the merging of sixties social values with the rewards of the profit system. The chief buzzwords of this enlightened form of capitalism are the fashionable notions of socially responsible investing and corporate citizenship.
{part 4/5} As the liberal boomers rose to power in the 1970s, '80s, and '90s, they increasingly sought to harness the engine of capitalism to their vision of a good society. Thus, to further their activist goals, liberals in and out of Washington pushed the federal government deeper and deeper into engagement with the housing market, artificially driving the costs of lending down and pumping the system full of toxic debt.
At the same time, liberals in the Clinton administration entered into an unprecedented partnership with the financial industry that amounted to a form of state capitalism. Under Clinton, a series of Wall Street bailouts taught the big financial houses that if they failed, the federal government would come to their rescue. Almost all of the firms sucked up in the vortex of the financial crisis today were bailed out several times in the previous decade from wildly irresponsible investments. This only had the effect of further corrupting their judgment, inuring them to risks by insulating them from the ruthless discipline of the market.
Why has this story been missed? It isn't all that hard to understand. First, of course, the operations of quasi-governmental agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are shrouded in layers of bureaucratic tedium. Few reporters take the time to actually dig into their inner workings. Besides, they are governed by congressional committees, so people naturally assume that someone responsible is paying attention. Few would have thought that the very politicians charged with overseeing the mortgage giants were themselves liberal activists busily engaged in stampeding them over a cliff.
Second, the housing activists, while certainly loud and annoying, have generally been perceived as a fringe phenomenon, or at best a local problem. How could a bunch of ragged-looking radicals shouting themselves hoarse in front of a bank or city agency present a threat to the global economy?
Finally, there was the big surprise on Wall Street. Most Americans could be forgiven for assuming that the heads of major Wall Street firms were thoroughly rational actors who ran their businesses with a cold eye to profit and the bottom line. The notion that they might have been corrupted by a new kind of government-sponsored capitalism that promised huge rewards for little risk would not have occurred to many people. All of this is vital to understanding how we got into the current mess. It is extremely important that conservatives challenge the political fairy tale that the cause of the collapse was unregulated free-market capitalism. Such a partisan myth, once established in the media, is extremely difficult to dislodge.
But more important, this book is meant to be a cautionary tale - an urgent warning - about what the future will hold in an era of liberal economic dominance. The mortgage meltdown was but the first activist - and government-induced bubble; others will surely follow. We need to be constantly on guard against the liberals' urge to meddle in the economic system, using the power of the state to distort markets in order to advance their social goals.
That being the case, two additional facts should be very disturbing to American taxpayers.
First, the same people who caused the debacle have now been tasked with cleaning it up. The Obama administration is full of Clinton retreads, and they show no signs of having learned anything from the damage they have wrought. Do we really want them to be in charge of redesigning the economic system?
Second, the same cast of characters is busy leveraging state power to manipulate capitalism for their next great social cause: the so-called green economy. Just as occurred in the subprime mortgage crisis, federal authorities and environmental activists are working in tandem, browbeating energy companies and the automotive industry, using the power of the state to compel the creation of carbon-trading schemes and the forced development of green technologies that are simply not profitable. This approach essentially co-opts the regulatory power of the government to create false incentives to invest in green technologies.
{part 1/5} Architects of Ruin, Peter Schweizer A Failure of Capitalism - or Liberal Social Engineering?
All of this has led Americans to wonder: What happened? How the heck did we get here? Whose fault is it? Who do we blame? What mistakes were made? How can we get out of this mess?
There has been much debate about this question, but the ultimate source of the problem, it is generally agreed - the triggering event that caused the chain of other dominoes to fall - was the collapse of the subprime mortgage market in the United States. Banks and mortgage companies had made trillions of dollars in loans to individuals with terrible credit. They signed loans with illegal immigrants, offered so-called NINJA (No Income, No Job, No Assets) mortgages, and allowed people with bad credit to leverage their money. When the loans began to fail in large numbers, a new term entered our national vocabulary: toxic assets. And so the crisis began. Still, an underlying mystery remained: What explains this perplexing behavior? Were they nuts? Did they simply take leave of their senses?
The conventional narrative was written in the first days of the collapse. And as usual, the loudest, most obstreperous voices seemed to prevail. "The private sector got us into this mess," Congressman Barney Frank indignantly declared as events began to unfold; "the government has to get us out of it." According to this view, deregulation of the banking industry had encouraged the rise of "predatory lenders" who had pushed home loans on people who couldn't afford them. Those loans were then sold to unscrupulous Wall Street financiers, who repackaged them in the form of mortgage-backed securities. The securities were sold in turn to mutual funds, pension funds, and various foreign investors. But their value was grossly overstated and ultimately rested on the faulty assumption that housing prices would keep rising indefinitely. Once again, the supposed result of irresponsible deregulation of financial markets.
This explanation, coming from Frank, had the obvious benefit of pinning the collapse on hispolitical enemies, the Republicans, while completely exonerating any Democrat (such as himself) who had responsibility for overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-backed lending institutions that traditionally acted as a backstop to the housing market. It is not an accident that Frank has been in the forefront of attempts to minimize the crisis or (when it could no longer be denied) deflect the blame to his opponents. When some conservatives pointed out that Fannie and Freddie had abandoned their sober mission of stabilizing the middle-class housing market in favor of a misguided crusade to expand minority home ownership by forcing banks to lower their lending standards, Frank and his allies brazenly shouted them down. Meanwhile, a chorus of authoritative voices in the press rushed to second the indictment. Nouriel Roubini of New York University blamed "unregulated free market zealotry" for the economic collapse. … Thus Harold Meyerson explained in the Washington Post that "market fundamentalism" had "totally failed" and suggested that we look instead to the German model for a "form of capitalism [which] has proved more sustainable than Wall Street's." Democrats immediately saw the potential of the crisis to tip the scales in favor of more government intervention in the economy. Lawrence Summers, a former Treasury secretary under Bill Clinton who was now Obama's chief economic adviser, predicted that now "the pendulum will swing - should swing - towards an enhanced role for government in saving the market system from its excesses and inadequacies." White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel declared that it would be a shame to let the crisis go to waste.
Is the author credible? very interesting......