"Quantitative Easing??" Try, "Printing More Idiots"

Is the Fed Repeating
Wall Street's Sins?

Joe Nocera: At a certain point, Wall Street ran out of clients to sell [securitized debt] to. So the only way it could keep the machine going was to buy it themselves.

Jon Stewart: So, they infected themselves. At the end, they themselves became vampires.

[Which suggests] a new theory on the financial crisis: it occurred because of an idiot shortage. If I'm the Fed, I just print more idiots.

--Bethany McLean and Joe Nocera Interview; The Daily Show (11/16/2010)

That's it!

Instead of calling the Fed's current monetary policy something arcane like "quantitative easing," how about calling it "printing more idiots?"

At least, that's how I understand it.

Just like Wall Street ran out of "idiots" to sell securitized debt to, the U.S. Treasury has started to run out of investors to buy (more) U.S. debt.

China already stuffed to the gills with U.S. bonds?

Ditto for Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Saudi Arabia and all our trading partners on the other side of our yawning trade deficit?

No problem -- we'll buy the bills and bonds ourselves!

Two years, five years, ten years . . . you name it.

In fact, we -- the Fed -- will buy so much, we'll actually drive interest rates down.

Which is quite an accomplishment, given that long term interest rates have already collapsed, and short term rates are effectively zero.

Nothing could possibly go wrong with such a scheme . . . . right??

Obama & Wall Street: 'Moderation in the Pursuit of Justice'

The Limits of Triangulating

Now that Congress has passed financial reform legislation, aren't people upset about past Wall Street abuses just being scolds and cranks?

Shouldn't they -- we -- just get over ourselves?

My answer is "no," because the abuses aren't past.

On the contrary, shockingly little has changed (never mind accountability for misdeeds).

Financial Reform Scorecard

To review, here is a litany of all the things that went wrong leading up to the crash:

Wall Street actively encouraged subprime lenders to lower their already low standards — and then bought those loans knowing they were likely to default, but not caring. Traders up and down Wall Street made millions in bonuses selling products that were “ticking time bombs.” Moody’s, one of the three big credit ratings agency, quadrupled its profits in seven years by handing out triple-A ratings like candy. Regulators ignored impassioned entreaties to investigate fraudulent lending practices and excessive leverage. These were not anomalies. This was standard operating procedure in the years before the crisis.

--Joe Nocera, "Still Stuck in Denial on Wall Street"; The New York Times (10/2/2010)

So all that's different now, right?

Not exactly.

The big banks aren’t being broken up, the way they were in the 1930s. Bankers aren’t being hauled off to jail. No serious effort has been made to rein in executive compensation — or even to claw back millions of dollars in bonuses that were based on what turned out to be illusory profits. Most of the financial practices and products that brought us to the brink remain legal under the new Dodd-Frank legislation — though they will, finally, be regulated.

--Joe Nocera, "Still Stuck in Denial on Wall Street"

Splitting the Difference

When confronted with knotty social issues -- gays in the military, abortion, immigration policy, etc. -- splitting the difference (dubbed "triangulating" in the Clinton years) is smart politics.

When confronted with overwhelming evidence of egregious lawbreaking and greed, the consequences of which have cost millions of people their jobs, homes, and savings -- triangulating is a terrible political strategy.

FDR understood that when he said, "“Wall Street is unanimous in its hate for me — and I welcome their hatred."

So did Barry Goldwater, that bleeding heart Socialist, who famously said: 'extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.'

Roosevelt-Lite

"Making Bankers Mad"

The Obama plan is little more than an attempt to stick some new regulatory fingers into a very leaky financial dam rather than rebuild the dam itself . . . Firms will have to put up a little more capital, and deal with a little more oversight, but once the financial crisis is over, it will, in all likelihood, be back to business as usual.

--Joe Nocera, "Only a Hint of Roosevelt in Financial Overhaul"; The New York Times (6/17/09)

"Back to business as usual" is not a ringing endorsement, if you believe, as I do, that today's economic crisis actually has some culprits (besides Bernie Madoff). So, it's disappointing to see the early reviews on Obama's proposed financial reforms come in "thumbs down."

Nocera saved the best line(s) of his piece for last:

If Mr. Obama hopes to create a regulatory environment that stands for another six decades, he is going to have to do what Roosevelt did once upon a time. He is going to have to make some bankers mad.

For now, it's everyone else who's mad -- or should be.