Blame Reagan For Current Economic Woes, Says Krugman

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman makes some excellent references to events during the Reagan administration that set the stage for the economic disaster we are now experiencing:

We Can Thank Reagan For This Mess

By PAUL KRUGMAN
June 1, 2009, 8:09PM

In 1982, Ronald Reagan signed the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act, declaring:

“This bill is the most important legislation for financial institutions in the last 50 years. It provides a long-term solution for troubled thrift institutions. … All in all, I think we hit the jackpot.”

He was, as it happened, wrong about solving the problems of the thrifts. On the contrary, the bill turned the modest-sized troubles of savings-and-loan institutions into an utter catastrophe. But he was right about the legislation’s significance. And as for that jackpot — well, it finally came more than 25 years later, in the form of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

For the more one looks into the origins of the current disaster, the clearer it becomes that the key wrong turn — the turn that made crisis inevitable — took place in the early 1980s, during the Reagan years.

Attacks on Reaganomics usually focus on rising inequality and fiscal irresponsibility. Indeed, Reagan ushered in an era in which a small minority grew vastly rich, while working families saw only meager gains. He also broke with long-standing rules of fiscal prudence.

On the latter point: Traditionally, the U.S. government ran significant budget deficits only in times of war or economic emergency. Federal debt as a percentage of GDP fell steadily from the end of World War II until 1980. But indebtedness began rising under Reagan; it fell again in the Clinton years, but resumed its rise under the Bush administration, leaving us ill-prepared for the emergency now upon us.

The increase in public debt was, however, dwarfed by the rise in private debt, made possible by financial deregulation. The change in America’s financial rules was Reagan’s biggest legacy. And it’s the gift that keeps on taking.

The immediate effect of Garn-St. Germain, as I said, was to turn the thrifts from a problem into a catastrophe. The S&L crisis has been written out of the Reagan hagiography, but the fact is that deregulation in effect gave the industry — whose deposits were federally insured — a license to gamble with taxpayers’ money, at best, or simply to loot it, at worst. By the time the government closed the books on the affair, taxpayers had lost $130 billion, back when that was a lot of money.

But there was also a longer-term effect. Reagan-era legislative changes essentially ended New Deal restrictions on mortgage lending — restrictions that, in particular, limited the ability of families to buy homes without putting a significant amount of money down.

These restrictions were put in place in the 1930s by political leaders who had just experienced a terrible financial crisis, and were trying to prevent another. But by 1980 the memory of the Depression had faded. Government, declared Reagan, is the problem, not the solution; the magic of the marketplace must be set free. And so the precautionary rules were scrapped.

Together with looser lending standards for other kinds of consumer credit, this led to a radical change in American behavior.

We weren’t always a nation of big debts and low savings: in the 1970s Americans saved almost 10 percent of their income, slightly more than in the 1960s. It was only after the Reagan deregulation that thrift gradually disappeared from the American way of life, culminating in the near-zero savings rate that prevailed on the eve of the great crisis. Household debt was only 60 percent of income when Reagan took office, about the same as it was during the Kennedy administration. By 2007 it was up to 119 percent.

All this, we were assured, was a good thing: sure, Americans were piling up debt, and they weren’t putting aside any of their income, but their finances looked fine once you took into account the rising values of their houses and their stock portfolios. Oops.

Now, the proximate causes of today’s economic crisis lie in events that took place long after Reagan left office — in the global savings glut created by surpluses in China and elsewhere, and in the giant housing bubble that savings glut helped inflate.

But it was the explosion of debt over the previous quarter-century that made the U.S. economy so vulnerable. Overstretched borrowers were bound to start defaulting in large numbers once the housing bubble burst and unemployment began to rise.

These defaults in turn wreaked havoc with a financial system that — also mainly thanks to Reagan-era deregulation — took on too much risk with too little capital.

There’s plenty of blame to go around these days. But the prime villains behind the mess we’re in were Reagan and his circle of advisers — men who forgot the lessons of America’s last great financial crisis, and condemned the rest of us to repeat it.


Link is here:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/6453293.html
 
I think things have been a little worse or a little better but the biggest cause of this mess is the "shock and awe" of oil and gas prices sapping capital out of the larger economy.
 

Facetious

Moderated
f_Greenspanm_2ec58bc.jpg


the real villian. :D

Seriously, the dynamic of an economy is so incredibly complex that most of us just go in the direction of wherever our political favorites take us, it's just easier thata way.

If determining the conditions of an economy were easy, investing on wall st. would be a sinch.

It's all politics at the end of the day I'm 'fraid. Try to figure that out !
 
That's quite the complex issue.
I have to agree with Krugman, but not completely. The "Reagan Revolution" is definitely one of the causes of the current economic crisis. The complete abandonment of Keynesianism in favor of the most radical form of monetarism (an already more aggressive form of economic liberalism), the so-called neo-liberalism (also called "turbo capitalism" or "economic ultraliberalism"), was a mistake, by hindsight. There is no discussing that. Economic liberalism has proven itself to be potentially dangerous time and time again (take for example the so called tulip bubble or the Great Depression). To deregulate the market and reduce the role of the government wasn't a good idea in the age of declared postmodernism. Especially not in a country, whose bankers and brokers are considered the most greedy and ruthless in the world. ;) But then again, if you don't believe in postmodernism or government or any form of capitalism other than monetarism and neo-liberalism, what's to be expected?

But the monetary policy under Alan Greenspan (who was appointed as chairman of the Federal Reserve by Reagan, if I may add) also did it's part, as well es the end of the New Economy and the events surrounding 9/11 (including the following war in Afghanistan).
For example, without the failure and collapse of the idea that was the "New Economy", the market probably wouldn't have leaned that strongly on the real estate sector. The creation of Subprime and Cov-light loans for example happened, because the financial market needed a "Wachstumsmotor" (an expression by German economists, "engine for growth" perhaps) after the New Economy and the New Market had failed. As real estate has a high political and ideological value in the US, why not use this market that is deemed to important to fail, blow it way out of proportion and make myself monstrously rich of it?

If you take these financial and ideological sets, add the negative savings ratio, the permanent negative real interest rates (and consequently the rising level or personal/private gebt), a growing trade deficit and all the other things that either drained assets from the national economy of the US or concentrated them in fewer and fewer hand withing the national economy, it's no wonder that the US was ill-prepared for this crisis.
 
So, let's say he's right, and that deregulation caused this mess.

So, ok, now the US Government is going to fix it? They are going to run the banks, build the cars, and keep inflation low?

Laughable. The US Government can't even balance it's own books, nor can it apparently read anymore since it ignores it's own rules whenever it sees fit (reference the Constitution).

Laughable I say.

This is a VAST over-simplification to a very complex problem that took us 50 years to get to this point. But a LOT of the bad decisions were made by the US government. Let's look at housing. There was a HUGE push in the 90s and early 2000s to "get more people in houses." So, the government played a social experiment, telling the banks to ease their lending restrictions to get more people in homes, especially minorities. BOOM. Foreclosures at an all time high. Housing crisis. Why? Well a 3rd grader can figure it out.... when a person making 60K a year borrows 600k to buy a house, it's trouble waiting to happen. And that's just one example.

Let the market fix itself. THe government screws up everything it touches, including itself. Trust me, I see it EVERY DAY.
 
Let the market fix itself. THe government screws up everything it touches, including itself. Trust me, I see it EVERY DAY.

That's why most of the world's leading economists are smirking, gloatingly and triumphant, about the once know-it-all American neo-liberals. You wrecked a car without brakes and blame the wall you hit, the repair shop fixing your car, the company who built the car or anybody else, but not yourself for taking out the brakes and driving without brakes. And you even claim, that it's a wondercar that can drive on with a smashed engine.

If the US-government hadn't intervened through the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, through TARP, through the Federal Reserve System and other government/federal measures and institutions there wouldn't be a market anymore. Why on earth wouldn't you get that? Last September, when the financial crisis reached its peak, 18 million homes in the US were sitting there empty and the banks were sitting on 11,000 billion Dollars of outstanding real-estate credits and mortgages. The monetary markets were dry, many conduits and investment vehicles issueing bonds or securities (especially Asset-back Commercial Papers, Mortgage-backed Commercial Papers and Credit Default Swaps) were bankrupt and dragged the banks and insurance companies that delivered the Liquidity- or CP-backup-Facilities, even the Support Facilities and Back-Up Lines, with them into the abyss. Despite the fact, that the US spent the biggest amount of liquidity in its history to stabilize the market, within little more than half a year every major investmentbank in the US disappeared from the market (either on their own terms or because of bankruptcy), more than half of the US' entire investment sector had ceased to exist, 25 of the 50 biggest financial service providers of the US had simply vanished. In September alone more than 50,000 (!) jobs were destroyed in the banking, insurance and financing industry, and not due to cutbacks or rationalization, but because the companies were just gone from the face of the earth.
The US-government is one of the safest Support Facilities on the market, as you will. US-government-issued securites and bonds are amongst the safest papers on every market of the world. And the use of that was the only way the economy was to be calmed down and stabilized. If the government hadn't intervened, the market wouldn't have fixed itself, it would have collapsed like a house of cards and with it the whole US-economy.
 
Let's look at housing. There was a HUGE push in the 90s and early 2000s to "get more people in houses." So, the government played a social experiment, telling the banks to ease their lending restrictions to get more people in homes, especially minorities. BOOM. Foreclosures at an all time high. Housing crisis. Why? Well a 3rd grader can figure it out.... when a person making 60K a year borrows 600k to buy a house, it's trouble waiting to happen. And that's just one example.

Let the market fix itself. THe government screws up everything it touches, including itself. Trust me, I see it EVERY DAY.

Very good point. The gov't basically backed all the subprime loans that banks were told to give to buyers. Combine that with the .com "bubble" of the 90's, that should have burst much sooner than it did, and you have the situation that we have now. Only Clinton helped put the recession off. W Bush followed suit and delayed it even more. And now Obama is doing the exact same thing. Like previously stated: Let the market fix itself. The goings on now are not fixing it, it is only patching it up to delay the inevitable.
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
That's why most of the world's leading economists are smirking, gloatingly and triumphant, about the once know-it-all American neo-liberals. You wrecked a car without brakes and blame the wall you hit, the repair shop fixing your car, the company who built the car or anybody else, but not yourself for taking out the brakes and driving without brakes. And you even claim, that it's a wondercar that can drive on with a smashed engine.

If the US-government hadn't intervened through the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, through TARP, through the Federal Reserve System and other government/federal measures and institutions there wouldn't be a market anymore. Why on earth wouldn't you get that? Last September, when the financial crisis reached its peak, 18 million homes in the US were sitting there empty and the banks were sitting on 11,000 billion Dollars of outstanding real-estate credits and mortgages. The monetary markets were dry, many conduits and investment vehicles issueing bonds or securities (especially Asset-back Commercial Papers, Mortgage-backed Commercial Papers and Credit Default Swaps) were bankrupt and dragged the banks and insurance companies that delivered the Liquidity- or CP-backup-Facilities, even the Support Facilities and Back-Up Lines, with them into the abyss. Despite the fact, that the US spent the biggest amount of liquidity in its history to stabilize the market, within little more than half a year every major investmentbank in the US disappeared from the market (either on their own terms or because of bankruptcy), more than half of the US' entire investment sector had ceased to exist, 25 of the 50 biggest financial service providers of the US had simply vanished. In September alone more than 50,000 (!) jobs were destroyed in the banking, insurance and financing industry, and not due to cutbacks or rationalization, but because the companies were just gone from the face of the earth.
The US-government is one of the safest Support Facilities on the market, as you will. US-government-issued securites and bonds are amongst the safest papers on every market of the world. And the use of that was the only way the economy was to be calmed down and stabilized. If the government hadn't intervened, the market wouldn't have fixed itself, it would have collapsed like a house of cards and with it the whole US-economy.

Very good comments! :thumbsup:
 
Well...Reagan knew how to look good riding a horse....that was probably why he got elected.

Perhaps this will finally end the GOP Reagan Idol Worship that occurs every election.
 
The only thing we could really blame reagan for is the large number of illegal immigrants.

And Im sick of ronald reagan fanboys acting like the man was an angel. The man showed plenty of times that he didnt like black people.
 
I don't trust Krugman, in particular and his agendas nor do I trust economists in general. Their biggest claime to fame is that they forecast seven of the last four recessions.
 
Top