From townhall.com:

The bailout passed!

Too bad.

When so many politicians speak with one voice in support of the biggest act of government intervention in the economy in generations, I cringe.

Everybody talked about the “freeze” in the credit markets, but why, I wonder, were the cable news programs that repeated the credit-freeze mantra pausing for commercials from companies trying to lend me money? Ditech and LendingTree still hawk mortgages at under 6 percent. Some credit freeze.

Economist Robert Higgs of the Independent Institute looked at the credit numbers kept by the Federal Reserve. He writes: “Although certain financial institutions are undeniably in deep trouble — difficulties of their own making … — credit markets in general have not ceased to operate. Moreover, lenders are extending credit in historically great amounts“.

Maybe this is why CNN business reporter Ali Velshi broke ranks when reporting on “dried up” credit and said, “When I say ‘dried up,’ I don’t mean there’s no money. But you’d better have good collateral and good credit.”

What’s wrong with that?

To those who say that without banks nobody can borrow, economist Steven Landsburg offers this response: “Banks don’t lend their own money; they lend other people’s (their depositors’ and their stockholders’). Just because the banks disappear doesn’t mean the lenders will. Borrowers will still want to borrow, and lenders will still want to lend. The only question is whether they’ll be able to find each other [A]s any user of Match.com can tell you, the technology for finding partners has improved since [the 1930s]. When a firm wants to raise capital, why can’t it just sell bonds over the web? Or issue new stock? Or approach one of the hedge funds that seem to be swimming in cash? Or borrow abroad?”

I suspect that the bailout will do more harm than good, like “aiding” an alcoholic by giving him booze. It perpetuates the moral hazard produced by government guarantees that created the problems in the first place. It acts as an enabler by giving more money to opportunistic lenders who assumed they’d be bailed out. And of course the politicians made a bad bailout bill worse by adding in tax breaks for stock-car racers, movie producers, “alternative” energy, etc. Then they insisted that all health insurance must cover mental illness, a requirement that will launch an orgy of fraud and make health insurance unaffordable for millions. The conceit of the anointed knows no bounds.

After the bailout passed, the stock market turned lower. Was it because investors then thought harder about how the politicians will misspend our $700 billion? All government can do is move money from one part of the economy to another. What makes anyone assume the government knows best where the money should be?

Steven Horwitz, an economics professor at St. Lawrence University, got it right when he wrote, “There will be short-term pain if we don’t bail out these firms, but that is the hangover price we pay for 15 years or more of binge lending. The proposed bailout cannot prevent the pain of the hangover; it can only conceal it by shifting and dispersing it among the taxpayers and an economy weakened by the borrowing, taxing and/or inflation needed to pay for that $700 billion. Better we should take our short-term pain straight up and clean out the mistakes of our binge and then get back to the business of free markets without creating an unchecked executive branch monstrosity trying to ’save’ those who profited most from the binge and harming innocent taxpayers in the process“.

Sure, without the bailout, there might have been a severe recession. Bubbles must pop. But it’s important that we let bubbles pop. Markets would then find a floor and recover.

Now the politicians are blowing some new air into the bubble, but we may have a recession anyway. And with more intervention, regulation and ambiguity about what the real market prices for those government-supported securities are, investors won’t know where the real bottom is.

So any recession will last longer. And the moral hazard the bailout perpetuates will lead to new bubbles … and then demands for another bailout.

Free enterprise sounds nice. We should try it sometime.

When it comes to the financial “crisis” (I still don’t like using that word…it’s an invitation to deprivation) I’ve heard various explanations for what got us here, but most of them go something like this:

“Greed got us into this mess”, or, “Banks were way too leveraged so they could make a buck in the short term”, or, “lenders took advantage of borrowers who didn’t know any better and gave them more loan than they could afford”.

I have several questions in response: When did people all of the sudden become more greedy?  Can you give me a date?  Did greed suddenly increase in the mid 1990’s?  Were people in prior decades not greedy?  Is greed a new phenomenon?  When did banks all of the sudden decide to become overleveraged?  If they could have made all kinds of money being overleveraged before, why did they wait until the mid 1990’s?  Why weren’t banks pushing these risky loans long ago?

The obvious answer to all of these questions is the old adage, “there’s nothing new under the sun”.  Greed is not new, and people are no more greedy today than they’ve ever been.  Banks did not all of the sudden decide to overleverage and start pushing bad loans - to do so would be against their own (greedy) interest, as we now see with many collapsing.  If you want to make greed the culprit, you have to also make it the culprit for everything else that happens in the economy, since people are always greedy (or, if you prefer a less pejorative term, self-interested).  That means when wages rise, stocks grow, unemployment drops, gas prices go down and poverty shrinks you have to also blame greed.  Greed is ever-present, so it’s unfair to only blame it when things go bad but not when things go well.  Blaming greed is like blaming gravity.

These childish analysis cannot account for our current financial situation.  But what can?  Why would banks all of the sudden make overly risky loans?  If it wasn’t in their interest to do so before, why now?  Because the rules of the game changed.

I’ve blogged on it here before, and there is lots of great analysis elsewhere (look here and here), but the bottom line is Uncle Sam changed the rules of the game by mandating banks to take bigger risks, creating a “moral hazard” by implicitly or explicitly promising to bailout those who failed, and by sending false signals through the market via artificially low interest rates (which induce more lending than real economic productivity would warrant).  To summarize, banks and financial institutions behaved in a way counter to their own long-term interest because government made it beneficial and in some instances necessary to do so.