Faith in the powerful? Whose power?

We don’t necessarily envy the role Steve Mnuchin has to play right now, but this article could’t help but get us thinking about the very tenets of the Economorals blog (particularly the last one on the list below). A refresher:

  • Who gets to define “need”? Who gets to define “want”?
  • Ask not (yet) what your economy can do for you.
  • Ask not (yet) what you can do for your economy.
  • Ask first: What purpose does your economic system serve in the first place?
  • Ask then: How closely aligned are the views & values of popular economists to your own, as they relate to the previous question??

The Week: Coronavirus stimulus will make Mnuchin ‘one of the most powerful Cabinet members in modern history’

https://theweek.com/speedreads/905240/coronavirus-stimulus-make-mnuchin-most-powerful-cabinet-members-modern-history

“…a $500 billion funding program, and Mnuchin will oversee how it’s distributed to local and state governments, as well as businesses, the Post notes. He’ll undoubtedly face pressure from corporate executives looking for bailouts from that fund, and will have to weigh those pleas alongside the needs of taxpayers.”

Tagged : / / /

Have we all become “sloths” to our system?

Catholic San Francisco: Complaining, inertia are seeds of the devil, pope says

https://www.catholic-sf.org/news/complaining-inertia-are-seeds-of-the-devil-pope-says

The sin of sloth, marked by careless indifference, apathy and self-pity, is a poison, a fog that envelops the soul and doesn’t let it live”

“The sin of sadness is the seed of the devil, that inability to make a decision about one’s own life, but OK with looking at other people’s lives in order to complain about that, not to criticize them but to lament about oneself”

Tagged : / / /

Beggars can’t be choosers (except when we choose the beggars we like better)

Politico: Washington Is About to Pick Which Companies Survive

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/22/bailout-coronavirus-congress-crisis-142961

A practical viewpoint we can get behind:

“The first rule for getting out of a hole is to stop digging, and that means throwing money at any business that can make more tests, masks or ventilators, provide more hospital beds or medical supplies, or otherwise help get the pandemic under control.”

This one’s a little more slippery:

“It may seem unfair to send other blameless industries to the back of the line, especially after Washington approved $700 billion for too-big-to-fail banks that actually caused the cataclysm in 2008, but it really reflects the same principle. The crisis in 2008 was a financial panic, an all-out run on the financial system that props up the economy; the only way to end the panic was to assure depositors and creditors that their money would be safe in the system, and the only way to do that was to have the government stand behind the banks.”

And while we agree “Jubilee” would come with its own set of moral hazards, we’d be short of calling it any more “crazy” than the alternatives (I mean, relatively speaking):

“This is why one Main Street solution floating around, a “Jubilee”-type mandate where the government suspends all payments on mortgages and rent and other loans for a couple months, could freak out creditors and destabilize the financial system yet again. “That. Would. Be. Crazy!” another crisis veteran told me.”

Unfortunately, it comes down to the simple fact that some will get their money back (and then some) for the risks they took, while others will not. And who or what will determine which category you fall into? It won’t be the quality of your planning & execution, or the efficacy of your risk management protocols, or even your simple prudence. Rather, it will be a decision made by a government bureaucrat. As such, how likely will you be to ever take that risk again? Regardless of the quality, merit, or potential value of your ideas? Probably depends which category the government put you into. From this point forward. #MoralHazard

Tagged : /

What happens when you “throw money at the problem”.

MarketWatch: Exclusive: Fed is ‘throwing money in the wrong place,’ says Sheila Bair, former top banking regulator

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/exclusive-fed-is-throwing-money-in-the-wrong-place-says-sheila-bair-former-top-banking-regulator-2020-03-15

“They are throwing money in the wrong place,” Bair said of an unprecedented move by the Fed on Sunday to slash benchmark rates to zero and start a $700 billion Treasury- and mortgage-bond buying program.

“Lowering interest rates to zero doesn’t help if businesses can’t pay their loans back and they don’t have cash flow,” she said. “We need to get help out there, especially to small businesses and people already losing their jobs.”

“Companies, shame on them, but they have borrowed too much,” Bair said, added that’s a consequence of having 10 years of ultra-low rates.

Tagged : / /

Free money for Wall Street? Or free cash for the people? Is either really “free”?

When it comes to plugging up the gaps in our financial system that will inevitably result from the Coronavirus crisis, it seems to be “pick your poison”:

  1. Targeted bailouts to those corporations and businesses “deemed critical” to the economy (a.k.a. those with the right political connections)
  2. Free cash for everyone (a.k.a. inflationary socialism, or “modern monetary theory” as touted by some)

There will be variations of both scenarios proposed- whether it’s cherry-picking the “insiders” who get the corporate & Wall Street bailouts, and whether those bailouts end up focusing primarily on the banking system vs. direct company support – or “compromising” on the “free cash for everybody” idea and instead setting artificial thresholds for who actually gets the “free cash” (i.e. pity the poor soul who makes $81k/year if the “threshold” ends up getting set at $80k – he/she would have been better asking for a pay cut, or simply working less).

None of it is free, some of it might be slightly more “fair” than others, but all of it is fraught with some degree of moral hazard. Also, all of it ultimately leads to devaluation of our life’s labors – whether through direct currency devaluation and resulting inflation, or by further separating capital from labor, and the financial system from the real economy. Nobody really wins, but some might come out slightly ahead – at least relative to their definition of success.

CBS News: As coronavirus recession threatens, economists recommend cash for people

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/as-coronavirus-market-recession-threatens-economists-say-just-send-money/

“To cushion the economy, “You need something that would be targeted at boosting people’s incomes in the near term — tax rebates, basically cash giveaways, that sort of thing…”

“…less enthusiastic about other reported fixes, such as tax breaks or targeted industry bailouts.”

“Direct payments are preferable to tax cuts or juiced-up unemployment insurance for a number of reasons. Checks “go to everyone, including people that can’t work; come in a lump sum, so they are big enough to matter; and support is [the] same for all”

Tagged : / / /

How well do you trust your “politically elected policy makers”?

Well, according to Ray Dalio, it’s “inevitable” that they’ll be the ones making some really important decisions that get to the very heart of your life’s purpose and value… (so hopefully, the answer is, you trust them?)

CNBC: Ray Dalio says the coming of Modern Monetary Theory favored by far left is ‘inevitable’

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/02/ray-dalio-says-the-coming-of-modern-monetary-theory-favored-by-far-left-is-inevitable.html

“The big risk of this approach arises from the risks of putting the power to create and allocate money, credit, and spending in the hands of politically elected policy makers”

Tagged : /

The rich got richer. Literally. Did you benefit?

New Statesman: How the world’s greatest financial experiment enriched the rich

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2017/10/how-world-s-greatest-financial-experiment-enriched-rich

“Banks have been the biggest beneficiaries,” Paul Marshall, co-founder of Marshall Wace, one of Europe’s biggest hedge funds, wrote in the Financial Times in September 2015. “Asset managers and hedge funds have benefited, too. Owners of property have made out like bandits. In fact, anyone with assets has grown much richer. All of us who work in financial markets owe a debt to QE.”

Tagged : /

Imagine if baseball worked like monetary policy?

What if baseball worked like monetary policy?

Forget guys like Rob Manfred, Bud Selig, Fay Vincent. What if we put someone like Ben Bernanke in charge? Or Janet Yellen? Or Tim Geithner? Or Hank Paulson? It might go something like this…

A tale of two teams – the Savers and the Debtors.

It’s been a tough year for the Savers. Heck, it’s been a tough couple of years. They’ve been bringing up the rear of their division since they got into the league. They don’t get a ton of respect from other teams that have been around the block a few times, but they kept their heads up high all year long, working their asses off, and somehow they find themselves with a shot to make the playoffs on the last day of the regular season.

The Debtors know what it’s like to live large. They’ve been hanging around the top of the league for years now, with a few championship runs under their belt. They’re a bunch of venerable, if slightly washed-up all-stars, with great brand-name recognition who know where they belong – in the World Series. The regular season is sometimes a tough slog. Mentally, it’s hard to get up for every game when it’s “been there, done that”. There’s a certain sense of entitlement that comes with being perennial fan-favorites who know their way around the league, and the celebrity circuit, for that matter.

The Savers are the underdog team to say the least – you know, that group of rag-tag go-getters that no one expected would even make it this far. They’ve never been to the playoffs before. They know this is their chance. They leave it all on the table. They knock it out of the park. They silence the home crowd (because they’re the visiting team for this game) with a lead-off home run, and they never look back. They pile on the hits. They pile on the runs. It’s 1-0, then it’s 2-0, then it’s 4-0, then 5, then 6. The crowd is stunned. “That sorry group of losers is going to embarrass us on our home turf!” say the Debtor fans.

It’s the top of the ninth inning, and the Savers add another couple of runs just for good measure. They’ve got a 10-0 lead now. It’s in the bag, they’d figure, and well deserved at that. The Savers will roll out their closer for the bottom of the ninth and he’ll shut ’em down, it’s just a formality. Heck, worst that can happen is he’ll give up a few hits – and the Savers have runs to spare. It’s been that kind of night. The Savers have done everything they needed to do. They’ve done everything right. This is finally going to be their year.

The Debtors come to bat in the bottom of the ninth. Before stepping into the batter’s box, the Debtors’ manager pops out of the dugout and runs over to have a chat with the home plate umpire. They talk, and talk, and talk some more. Something’s not right, it seems. Maybe there’s an issue with the field conditions? Everything looks fine, the Savers think to themselves. Maybe the umpires are concerned about an impending rain delay? Skies seem perfectly clear for now. Then, all of a sudden, the umpire and the manager shake hands – and the manager heads promptly back to his dugout, calling his players over with him. No one’s entirely sure what’s happening. Next, the home plate umpire heads over to the scorer’s booth to have a chat. Hmm, what’s going on, the Savers think to themselves. Their closing pitcher is all warmed up. They just want to get this overwith already. They’re ready to put the finishing touches on a great night and enjoy a well-deserved (and long-time-coming) celebration – they’re finally going to get to the next step, experience a taste of how the “other half” lives (you know, those who get to play in the post-season). Then, finally, the PA announcer’s voice comes over the stadium loudspeaker:

“Attention everyone, attention! The Debtors have been granted permission to borrow 11 runs from a future game (yet to be determined which one??) to apply to tonight’s score! Congratulations Debtors! The Debtors win, 11-10!!”

And the crowd goes wild!! What a comeback, they say!! One for the ages!! One for the record books!! You might just say, the greatest recovery since…

Sound familiar? (ok, enough with the hokiness, of course it sounds familiar, that’s the point).

Needless to say, such is the plight of the “Savers” of the past 10-15 years who have seen the fruits of their hard work & prudence be routinely disrespected and devalued, while the “Debtors” celebrate victory after victory of unearned spoils. Whether Wall Street bankers retaining bonuses for driving their companies into bankruptcy, or next-door neighbors getting to live for free in their no-money-down mansions that banks still haven’t bothered trying to foreclose on after all these years because buyers had no skin in the game in the first place (or because they’re afraid that by dumping all those foreclosures back on the market, prices across the board might actually start to reset to a fair – ahem, lower – value).

As it turns out, baseball may bear more semblance to how a fair, just, and moral economy should operate than the economy itself.

A ninth-inning comeback doesn’t usually happen because the home team decides to change the rules in the bottom of the ninth inning. It happens because of hard work, perseverance, a little luck, and sometimes the complacency of the team that previously held the lead. That very capability – for the “rag-taggers” to engineer a hard-fought victory against the entrenched & entitled – is critical to preserve if we are to have a dynamic economy that produces greater wealth & opportunity for all, as a by-product of allowing individual strivers to fairly and justly compete to constantly move the line of the status quo.

For the Savers, recessions are just like those tough long seasons as underdogs. Savers won’t be deterred. They just might surprise you. They just might put together a 9th-inning comeback of their own when you least expect it. As long as we give them the opportunity to keep playing – and to give them a chance to win fair and square.

If Ben, Janet, Tim or Hank take us up on our suggestion to throw one of their hats in the ring for MLB commissioner, maybe we can ask Rob or Bud to switch places and take their spot atop the Fed or the Treasury?

For the love of the game.

Fake News: “Trump to make homes more expensive for the middle class.”

Some keep harping on Donald Trump’s recent executive order to reverse a planned cut in FHA PMI (private mortgage insurance) rates as “making homes more expensive for the middle class”. What they really meant to say is: “Homes will now be more expensive for those who shouldn’t be buying them in the first place because they don’t have a sufficient down payment saved”.

This isn’t really a difficult one, folks. Just a classic case of creating misleading headlines designed to grab the attention of those who don’t care to read or think much, especially those prone to pre-existing biases (or those who have genuinely been led to believe that you don’t have to pay for things).

Take your pick of a few different online sources for this story if you missed it:

On His First Day in Office, Trump Raises Taxes on Middle-Class Homebuyers
https://theintercept.com/2017/01/20/on-his-first-day-in-office-trump-raises-taxes-on-middle-class-homebuyers/

In First Hour, President Trump Delivers ‘Punch in the Gut to Middle Class’
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/01/20/first-hour-president-trump-delivers-punch-gut-middle-class

Barbara Boxer: We Have To Make The Middle Class Understand That Trump Is Not Their Friend
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/01/25/barbara_boxer_we_have_to_make_the_middle_class_understand_that_trump_is_not_their_friend.html

Trump’s Mortgage Fee Cut Reversal: What it Really Means for House-Hunters
http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/01/24/trumps-mortgage-fee-cut-reversal-what-it-really-means-for-house-hunters.html

In reality, by repealing Obama’s last-minute reduction in private mortgage insurance costs for FHA loans (typically used to buy homes with as little as 3.5% down), homes will remain just as affordable as they were before for everyone else with a 20%+ down payment, maybe even a little more so because all the “subprime” buyers they’ve been competing with, driving up prices, will now be forced to the sidelines while trying to save a little more money. Not a bad thing. Maybe that will actually cause prices to slip a bit – meaning that 20% suddenly becomes a little closer within reach for those still working to get there. Imagine that – markets functioning according to the laws of supply & demand, as mother nature intended. Take the time to do the math, and you just might realize the middle class isn’t necessarily getting such a bad deal after all. Patience can be a virtue, too.

A case of disagreeing on what it means to be “middle class?”. Or a case of disagreeing on the privilege that cheaper debt (but more of it) really affords?

Perhaps, at the end of the day, a few better options for headlines might be:

“Trump to make homes just a little bit easier to buy for middle class folks who’ve worked and saved enough to afford them.”

“Trump to make it slightly less appealing for the middle class to take on more debt.”

10 things I might have done differently if I knew paying my mortgage would become optional

10 things I might have done differently over the past decade or two if I knew paying my mortgage would become optional:

  1. Buy a house before I had a steady job, with the small amount of money I had saved for a down payment (or maybe none at all – if they would give me the loan)
    .
  2. Buy a bigger house than I could afford (if they would give me the loan)
    .
  3. Buy a house in a fancy neighborhood I couldn’t really afford (if they would give me the loan)
    .
  4. Take extra vacations with the money I didn’t have to spend on my mortgage if I stopped paying it, while living in the bigger house in the fancier neighborhood I couldn’t really afford
    .
  5. Buy extra toys with the money I didn’t have to spend on my mortgage if I stopped paying it, while living in the bigger house in the fancier neighborhood I couldn’t really afford
    .
  6. Buy a second house (if they would give me the loan)
    .
  7. Buy a third house (if they would give me the loan)
    .
  8. Borrow against houses 2 & 3 (if they would give me the loan) to take additional extra vacations with the money I didn’t have to spend on my 2nd and 3rd mortgages if I stopped paying them
    .
  9. Borrow against houses 2 & 3 (if they would give me the loan) to buy additional extra toys with the money I didn’t have to spend on my 2nd and 3rd mortgages if I stopped paying them
    .
  10. Rinse and repeat items 1-9?

In the “old normal” some of the steps above (especially #1) might have been considered “taking a risk”. You know, good old fashioned capitalism, and trying to get ahead. I’d work my ass off to make sure I could get ahead of those payments one way or another, and get on the track to building equity in my home, and eventually, to having a solid piece of wealth I could call my own, and potentially use as collateral or capital for future investments or living expenses. I’ll chalk up that mistake to being timid – I should have jumped in early either way.

In the “new normal” all the steps above (especially #2 – #9) have apparently been backstopped and guaranteed by the Federal Reserve (through QE and zero-interest rate policy) and our government. Who would’ve known you could do all those things with no intention of actually having to pay for them, and without having to take on any risk of losing money?

Apparently other people knew it, just not me. Imagine not having to work for a living – just buy a house and get paid to live in it. It almost sounds too easy. Silly me – always imagining things to be more difficult than they really are. Now I get it. Buying a house (or any levered asset for that matter) with debt isn’t about establishing a budget or a business plan for how you’ll actually pay for it – it’s about banking on a bailout. The idea of paying down debt and using your own judgment on your ability to pay down a mortgage based on savings/income (including allowing for periods of unemployment) while weighing against supply/demand factors (assuming others are using their own similar, rational judgment) as a basis for pricing and valuing an asset? How quaint.

Now I understand why prices keep getting bid up – it’s easy to offer “any price” when you have almost no skin in the game, no intention of making payments when times get tough, and no real sense of obligation to actually pay back the loan balance. In that case, I’ll offer $5 million sir, for your shack, and I’ll pay you next Tuesday.

Some examples of this:

Millions Of Homeowners Have Not Made Mortgage Payments In Years
(June 9, 2011 – The Consumerist)

https://consumerist.com/2011/06/09/millions-of-homeowners-have-not-made-mortgage-payments-in-years/

Should We All Just Stop Paying the Mortgage?
(October 16, 2008 – WiseBread.com)
http://www.wisebread.com/should-we-all-just-stop-paying-the-mortgage

Some homeowners may get a free house: No payments? No problem!
(November 6, 2015 – msn.com)
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/realestate/some-homeowners-may-get-a-free-house-no-payments-no-problem/ar-BBmSn2H

“mortgage modifications…to distressed borrowers, many of whom have not made mortgage payments in two years.”
(May 17, 2016 – NY Times)

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/18/business/dealbook/housing-agency-plans-mortgage-sale-reforms-after-criticism.html

I’m a compassionate guy, generally speaking. You have to feel for folks who genuinely got in over their heads and didn’t anticipate the hardships of making those payments every month. It gets harder to stay compassionate when you realize the reason you keep getting outbid for properties is because so many of these “delinquent” owners are sitting in their homes, not making payments, thereby keeping supply off the market, which is in turn helping to re-inflate prices to artificial levels for legitimate would-be buyers with hard-earned savings, down payments, and incomes to bring to the table.

Combine these factors with the residual “moral hazard” effect from the post-2008 bailout era, and you have buyers with minimal down payments further bidding up prices, knowing in the back of their minds it doesn’t really matter what they pay because they’ll be bailed out eventually (or allowed to live mortgage-free like those who came before them) and have little to lose. How do you compete with that if you’ve worked hard for your money? Why should you have to compete with that? Why should you ever want to? What’s the point of having a home “price” anyway if you take the market forces out of the equation? At a certain point, might as well just go full-on communism and simply assign people places to live based on their rank & status. Sure beats the waste of time spent on artificial “bidding wars” in a so-called “market” – and worse, actually “working” for the privilege.

For those who have come to know the “tea party” as a brand-name for those silly deplorables who know nothing of what they speak, lest we forget the modern incarnation of this phrase was actually first coined by CNBC’s Rick Santelli back in 2008, essentially in response to this very topic of housing market folly (and had little to do with the sentiment that seemed to hijack the movement later on):

http://www.businessinsider.com/rick-santelli-tea-party-rant-2014-2

For guys like me and Rick, some will say “sour grapes”. In reality, I’ll be just fine personally (as will Rick), one way or the other. But for a system that supposedly espouses the virtues of hard work, independence, perseverance, and equal opportunity, there certainly appears to be an ongoing layer of hypocrisy in our approach to the housing market, which still hasn’t really changed a whole lot since the dark days of 2004-2008.

My “equal opportunity” to buy a house at a fair price based on my moral understanding of the obligation to pay back debt certainly can’t be considered “equal” when competing with buyers who clearly don’t share that sense of obligation. Relatively speaking, this is a major economic “fail”.