Category Archives: Bailouts

CEI Podcast for August 23, 2012: Bailouts as Corruption


Have a listen here.

Senior Fellow Matt Patterson argues that when government is big and powerful enough to dispense favors like bailouts, special interests will flock to Washington to get a piece of the pie. Corruption is the inevitable result, as the GM/Delphi/UAW bailout showed. The only effective way to limit corruption, Patterson argues, is to limit government.

“Because That’s Where the Money Is.”

In one of those too-good-to-be-true urban legends, a man once asked the famous criminal Willie Sutton why he robbed banks. “Because that’s where the money is,” he replied. Fast forward eighty years or so, and one sees that the business world has learned from Sutton’s wisdom.

LightSquared is a technology company that is going through chapter 11 bankruptcy despite receiving a $267 million government loan. Its satellite-based high speed wireless network has a fatal flaw: it interferes with GPS devices, making it useless. The FCC is blocking it, leaving the company with essentially zero business until they can solve the problem.

The company has laid off about half of its workforce so far. But The Hill’s Brendan Sasso and Kevin Bogardus found out that LightSquared is making sure to retain its most lucrative employees. Those would be its lobbyists, not its engineers:

Despite the financial troubles and staff cutbacks, LightSquared has yet to disband its lobbying army — an implicit acknowledgment that the company’s future is contingent upon what happens in Washington.

In other words LightSquared, just like Willie Sutton, knows where the money is. And it isn’t in the marketplace.

Businesses fail all the time. If they don’t create value for their customers, they don’t deserve to stay in business. Capital that is being wasted by these companies is then freed up for more valuable uses. Schumpeterian creative destruction doesn’t work without that destructive part. When Washington puts its thumbs on the competitive scales as it has with the LightSquared loan, it should surprise no one that companies suddenly swarm Capitol Hill for a piece of the action.

The result is less destruction, but also less creation. Corporate welfare means less innovation and less economic growth. It creates plenty of jobs for lobbyists and lawyers, but at the expense of other jobs that create actual value for consumers – such as many of LightSquared’s layoffs, who could be finding a technical solution for its GPS interference problem.

Bill Clinton’s Economic Nationalism

Over at RealClearPolicy, I recently reviewed Bill Clinton’s latest book, Back to Work: Why We Need Smart Government for a Strong Economy. You can read the review here. It’s a thought-provoking book, so there’s plenty I didn’t have room to say. Hence this post. Where the review focused mainly on Clinton’s philosophy and rhetoric, this post is mainly about Clinton’s economic policy proposals. I’ll still take him over Bush or Obama, but some of his policy ideas make an economist’s head shake.

Two things are worth pointing out before we dig into the weeds of policy. One is that Clinton seems to believe that you are for something if you want to increase government spending on it, and against it if you want to cut government spending on it. The logic does not necessarily follow. Many people think the federal government should not be involved in the automobile industry. Therefore, they are against American-made cars. Yes, the logic is that weak. This bit of tunnel vision is not unique to Clinton, but it weakens many of his arguments.

The other point is a surprising one. Nationalism pervades the book; this is the belief that one person matters more than another if they are a citizen of one country instead of another. One expects this from Republicans. But it’s surprising to hear from a Democrat, let alone the man who passed NAFTA. It’s as though after decades of stump speeches telling voters that they’re better than everyone else, he started to truly believe it. Many of Clinton’s policy proposals leave no possibility but to believe that he is an American nationalist; let us explore.

Trade as a Battle

Clinton repeatedly refers to other countries as “the competition.” We have to beat them, or they’ll beat us. It’s as though he believes that for China and India to have more, America must have less. This simply isn’t true, according to global GDP data. Besides falling for the zero-sum fallacy, this reveals an ugly mindset.

Suppose we beat our competitors in Clinton’s zero-sum world. Rich Americans would be redistributing wealth away from the global poor and giving it to themselves. This kind of reverse redistribution is hardly progressive.

Outsourcing

Clinton’s economic nationalism also expresses itself in his calls for factories to “insource” jobs they currently outsource overseas. Americans deserve a job more than others. In so doing, he ignores basic economic principles. One of them is that giving someone a job doesn’t therefore mean one less job for everyone else; the zero-sum fallacy strike again. Another is the division of labor.

The finer the division of labor, the greater the wealth workers can create; Robinson Crusoe lived in poverty for all his cleverness. If the U.S. were to become self-sufficient, its division of labor would be limited to about 310 million people. But it could be more than 7 billion people if the world was fully open to trade. Imagine what 7 billion people could accomplish together, if they were all able to pursue their specialized comparative advantage.

Renewable Energy

Continuing his nationalist rhetoric, Clinton calls for the U.S. to ramp up its renewable energy production, with the eventual goal of complete energy independence. To do this, we would have to divert resources from other, more productive sectors of the economy. The price of energy independence is less wealth, and a less specialized division of labor. We’d have to stop doing things we’re good at just to get the same amount of energy we already had before.

One also questions Clinton’s method of achieving energy independence. He would transfer billions of dollars from taxpayers to private businesses. He argues that this would create jobs, wealth, and would make America more energy-independent. He does not mention the opportunity costs involved — taxpayers would have have spent their money on other things they valued more if they had been allowed to keep it.

Assume that the economics of renewable energy are as bright as Clinton claims. Then there is also no need to subsidize it. Profits are deadly effective at luring entrepreneurs. If it’s economically viable, it doesn’t need a subsidy. And if it isn’t economically viable, no amount of subsidy will make it so.

Clinton also ignores public choice concerns. Taxpayer dollars tend not to be transferred to private businesses on the merits. Political connections play a large role. It is possible that subsidies given to the right companies would produce the results Clinton is after. But the possibility of that actually happening is vanishingly small. He does not address this problem in his book.

Exports

Clinton wants the U.S. to double its exports. Germany’s exports are roughly 40 percent of its GDP; the U.S. exports 11 percent. Clinton believes that increasing exports without raising imports would create jobs and wealth. While it would put people to work, it wouldn’t make them any wealthier if all the value they work so hard to create is shipped overseas.

Increasing exports would increase the amount of currency in the U.S., true. But currency is not wealth. Dollars cannot be eaten, driven, or otherwise consumed. Wealth is stuff. Goods and services. Dollars only have value because they can be exchanged for wealth. Given the choice between a car and a bunch of green pieces of paper, most people would take the car. Millions of people make that choice every year, and millions more are saving up to do just that.

Exports are the price we pay for imports. They are neither a good thing nor a bad thing in and of themselves. There is no need to artificially increase them.

Clinton’s nationalism-influenced thoughts on trade are very similar to the mercantilism that economists have been openly mocking for centuries. Considering that Clinton is the man who passed NAFTA, this is very disappointing.

Stimulus

Clinton also believes that fiscal stimulus softened the recession’s impact. He cites a study arguing that it kept employment 1.5 to 2 percent higher than it would have been without stimulus. But again, he forgets opportunity costs. Every dollar spent and every job created under the stimulus was a dollar and a job taken away from somewhere else.

Stimulus works by taking some money out of the economy and then putting it back in – less transaction costs, of course. The best possible outcome is negative. Even allowing for a Keynesian multiplier over 1, the politicking and waste that go into any large spending bill almost guarantee that the stimulus hurt the economy.

Bailouts

Clinton praises TARP and the auto industry bailouts. Even if all the loans are repaid, the bank and auto bailouts will still be costly, as George Mason University’s Russ Roberts has pointed out. This is because capitalism is a system of profit and loss. Not one or the other. Both. Profits encourage risk. Losses encourage prudence. When government removes losses from the equation, it also removes prudence. Banks take more and more risks, because they know they won’t bear the losses from the ones that don’t pan out. This does not save the financial system. It undermines it.

The auto bailouts saved the American auto industry, Clinton claims. But it didn’t need saving. A couple of firms were in danger, and the bailout saved them. But Ford, Toyota, Honda, and the many other American companies that make cars in America using American workers were doing just fine. The bailouts locked scarce resources into inefficient companies that had good political connections. The opportunity costs are massive.

Immigration

Clinton has some good immigration ideas, not least because he lets go of his nationalism on this issue. He would like to allow more high-skilled immigrants into the country, especially the ones with advanced degrees in the STEM fields – science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. These types of immigrants are far more entrepreneurial than most native-born Americans. They would create a lot of jobs, which is Clinton’s main concern.

More importantly, they would also create much more wealth in America’s relatively entrepreneur-friendly environment than in countries with less liberal institutions. It could well be that the next Google or Microsoft will never be founded because the strict H-1B visa quota kept the wrong person out.

Summary

Almost all of Clinton’s ideas outside of immigration involve more government, instead of less. This could be because of a lack of creativity. It may be because of the planner’s hubris: “I am clever. Put me in charge.” It could also be because of an antipathy to the disorderly, and unpredictable ways of creative destruction and the market process. His plans are so much tidier, so much neater.

But the source of his ideas doesn’t matter so much. It matters if they’d work or not. Would they create more wealth and jobs on net? From the economist’s perspective, the answer is yes in a few cases, but mostly no. Clinton might like his work to be treated as one of pragmatism, but it is really a work of ideology. Given how moderate his presidency was compared to either of his successors, this is disappointing.

Halftime in America

A bit of bailout humor at Clint Eastwood’s expense. Click here if the embed doesn’t work.

Profits and Losses

Here’s a letter I recently sent to the New York Times:

TO THE EDITOR:

Amar Bhidé argues that “governments should fully guarantee all bank deposits — and impose much tighter restrictions on risk-taking by banks.” (“Bring Back Boring Banks,” Jan. 4).

The lure of profit is why banks take on risk in the first place. But the specter of loss encourages them to be prudent about it. When governments remove losses from the equation, banks lose any incentive to keep their risk-taking in check. Someone else will pick up the tab if a plan doesn’t work, so why not take a chance? Hence the financial crisis.

Capitalism is a system of both profit and loss. Wishing losses away would have consequences quite different from Bhidé’s good intentions.

RYAN YOUNG
Washingon, Jan. 4, 2012
The writer is a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Tim Carney Knows How Washington Works

Tim’s latest column, “Bail them out, regulate them, then work for them,” is a must-read.

Amy Friend, a former staffer for Sen. Chris Dodd, played a large role in writing the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill. And she just got a new job at a lobbying firm. Tim explains:

There are two types of people on K Street: access people, who can get you in the door; and policy people, who know what’s on every page of every relevant bill and regulation. Friend is the latter. While business will dry up for other Dodd alumni on K Street, Friend is valuable because — to quote one Republican lobbyist — “she knows what’s on page twenty-three-[bleep]ing-hundred of that bill,” and every other page, too.

In other words, Friend didn’t just write a landmark piece of legislation — she wrote her meal ticket.

Tim doubts that Friend is corrupt. But her story is very common in Washington. Lobbying wouldn’t be such a booming business if regulation wasn’t, too. And the revolving door between the Hill and K Street can be very profitable, even when no corruption is involved. Most people forget that regulators act just as self-interestedly as the people they regulate.

Timothy Geithner, Political Strategist

The TARP bank bailout program polls poorly. 58 percent of Americans think the bailouts were unnecessary. Timothy Geithner, in recent remarks, subtly reminded voters that the hated bailouts were originally a Republican proposal. It began with George W. Bush, remember.

This is a clever bit of strategy from Geithner. President Obama and Congressional Democrats get most of the blame for TARP. And they deserve plenty of blame for not repealing the program. But Geithner is right. TARP began with Republicans.

The midterm elections will probably be very kind to Republicans. Geithner is saying, in effect, “be careful what you wish for.”

He’s right. If the GOP does regain control of Congress, little good is likely to come of it. They will probably do a decent job opposing the White House’s proposals. That could slow spending growth.

But what the country needs are spending cuts. And Republicans have serially proven they can’t be trusted with the public purse.

When Republicans last held power they passed the largest new entitlement program since the Great Society, nearly doubled federal spending in 8 years, gave billions of dollars in subsidies to businesses and farmers, and generally made a mess of things. The TARP bailouts and the largest spending stimulus in U.S. history were their closing flourishes.

Republicans  did all the things they ran against in 1994. Many GOP candidates are saying similar things in 2010. But remember Geithner’s counsel about TARP. Only a fool would believe that Republicans will actually cut spending. Beltway fever catches quickly. And it’s contagious.

Of course, Democrats are just as bad. As I say with every election involving Democrats and Republicans, whoever wins, we lose. The best that we independents can do is nudge the intellectual climate in a better direction. Geithner has kindly reminded us that we need to redouble our efforts on both conservatives and progressives.

The Real Cost of TARP

Russ Roberts nails it over at Cafe Hayek:

Please remember that the cost of the TARP isn’t the cost to taxpayers. Even if banks paid back every single penny, the cost of the TARP is that it reduces current and future prudence.

State of the Union Live-Blog

Meant to post this earlier. Here’s last night’s live-blog of the State of the Union:

8:46 Welcome to CEI’s live-blog of the 2010 State of the Union address. President Obama will be touching on all kinds of issues tonight. And I’ll have something to say about them all. But I’ll be paying special attention to what he has to say about regulation and spending. Keep refreshing this post every few minutes for fresh commentary.

8:54 Important people are filing in. Pundits are bloviating. Welcome to Washington.

8:58 Here comes the cabinet.

9:00 Peter Orszag and Christina Romer are there. Romer has done some excellent research on the Great Depression, by the way. Any monetarists out there would find much to like about what she has to say about monetary policy vs. fiscal policy.

9:06 The President enters. Much applause.

9:06 While waiting for the applause to die down, I’ll add that Romer thinks that monetary policy is what drives business cycles. Fiscal policy, such as stimulus spending, has little effect. I largely agree.

9:10 Speaker Pelosi introduces the President. Much applause. Many “thank yous.”

9:11 It begins.

9:11 He refers to the Constitution. Heh.

9:12 American exceptionalism. Neocons cheering somewhere, no doubt.

9:13 He inherited a bad situation. True enough. We must act? Not so much. The recession is largely a creation of over-active monetary and regulatory policy. Not a lack of policy.

9:14 First reference to “the children.”

9:15 He has said both “hope” and “change” already. Campaign 2012 has begun.

9:17 First standing ovation.

9:18 A government that matches our decency? Public choice theory is unknown on Capitol Hill, apparently.

9:18 He hates the bailout. Good! Why did he go through with it, then?

9:18 It was necessary. Unemployment would have doubled. Hyperbole. Now banks know they can continue taking stupid risks and get bailed out for it.

9:19 touts his fee on big banks that received bailouts.

9:20 20 tax cuts. Net tax cuts. While spending goes through the moon. Tax cuts are great, but spending cuts are more important. A tax cut now is a tax increase later if spending isn’t cut to match. An increase. Not a decrease. An increase.

9:22 Many jobs created. Touting the stimulus. Which takes money out of the economy, wastes some of it on bureaucracy, then puts it back into the economy. First instance of the broken window fallacy.

9:23 Anecdotes, people helped by stimulus spending. He sees what is seen. But not what is unseen. Those jobs, and that money, came from somewhere else. Each job created is one lost elsewhere.

9:25 Jobs, jobs, jobs. Bryan Caplan’s make-work bias lives.

9:25 Business creates jobs. Government can help. But only by taking money from somewhere else, and hurting businesses elsewhere. No net effect.

9:26 $30 billion transfer from “Wall Street” to “small businesses.”

9:27 small business tax credit. Eliminate capital gains tax on small businesses. Nice, but tax code simplification would be better. Lobbyists will be all over this one.

9:28 Infrastructure!

9:28 Rail! It’s the 19th century all over again.

9:29 Clean energy. Higher energy bills for all!

9:29 Keep jobs in America! Efficiency be damned! USA! USA! USA!

9:30 Jobs bill, ASAP. But full employment requires…

9:31 still waiting…

9:32 still waiting… the virtues of China’s economy…

9:33 financial reform! For starters. But don’t punish banks. Prevent recklessness. Good. Prevent dumb risks. House has already passed some reform. But lobbyists are all over.

9:34 And they will be as long as Washington is doling out money.

9:34 Plank 2: Innovation and science. More clean energy. More nuclear power. More offshore oil. More biofuels and clean coal. Comprehensive clean energy bil. Cap-and-trade light?

9:36 Consensus on global warming. Jeers from the crowd. Acknowledges doubts, touts clean energy again.

9:37 Plank 3 – trade. More exports! Double them in 5 years = 2 million jobs. National export initiative. Trade, of course, has almost zero effect on the number of jobs. It only affects the kinds of jobs. Also take measures to decrease imports. Renegotiate Doha. Is this a new protectionism?

9:40 4th plank – education. Only reward success. Not failure. Nice. Of course, that would mean less federal involvement in education, not more. Washington has no idea how to educate kids hundreds or thousands of miles away.

9:41 End taxpayer subsidy to banks for college loans. Substitute a tax credit and increase Pell grants. Forgive student loans after 20 years. Why bother paying back, then? This will bode well for future deficits.

9:43 Social Security fix – lend more to homeowners. Yeesh.

9:43 Health care!

9:44 Acknowledges unpopularity.

9:44 Anecdotes!

9:45 Blames insurance industry for regulatory failures. Emphasis on preventive care; no empirical research is cited for obvious reasons.

9:46 We can save money by spending money.

9:46 Reduce deficit by $1 trillion over 20 years. Last year and this year alone will incur nearly $3 trillion in deficits.

9:47 Temperatures cooling? Oh wait, he’s talking about health care.

9:48 Open to other proposals. Not bloody likely.

9:48 Pass a health care bill, any health care bill.

9:49 Spending.

9:50 Blames Bush for the deficit. Rightly so! Where’s he going with this, though?

9:51 Adding debt was the right thing to do. No mention of “the children” who will ultimately pay for it.

9:51 freeze certain types of discretionary spending for three years. This excludes most spending.

9:52. Save $20 billion this year. Or less than one percent of total spending.

9:53 Bi-partisan fiscal commission. Not exactly the Gramm Commission. Good idea, but beware the execution. Wayne Crews and I have done some research on this.

9:54 Pay-Go budget keeps spending in line. The data say otherwise.

9:54 Oh, the freeze won’t take effect until next year. The crowd laughs.

9:55 Says Bush cut regulations. Actually, he passed more than 30,000. See CEI’s Ten Thousand Commandments study for the exact numbers.

9;56 Deficit of trust in Washington, not just dollars. There’s a reason for that, you know. Two of them are the Republican and Democratic parties.

9:57 Excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs. That isn’t actually true.

9:58 Doesn’t like the Citizens United decision. Or the First Amendment, for that matter. Wants a new campaign finance regulation bill. Presumably so it can be struck down on First Amendment grounds like the last ones.

9:59 I’m liking what he has to say on earmarks. Good luck to you, sir.

10:00 “can’t wage a perpetual campaign.” Tell that to Organizing for America.

10:01 Partisan politics get in the way of doing things. He’s right. And that’s exactly why I like gridlock.

10:02 Hey Republicans, no filibusters, please.

10:03 Will be talking more to the other side of the aisle.

10:03 National security!

10:04 Hope again. I haven’t been keeping track, but that’s at least 3.

10:05 Start getting out of Afghanistan in mid-2011. Good!

10:06 Out of Iraq by August. Good! Foreign aid to Iraq. Bad for Iraq!

10:07 Pork for veterans. Taking a page right out of the Gracchi playbook.

10:08 Nuclear deproliferation. I applaud the sentiment, but prohibition doesn’t work. Good luck to you, sir.

10:11 Would love to hear what Bill Easterly has to say about all the government-to-government transfer programs he’s touting.

10:12 Haiti. I completely agree with the ends. But the effectiveness of the means needs to be questioned.

10:13 Hate crimes. Thought crimes?

10:14 Let gays in the military. Nice! About bloody time.

10:14 Immigration. He has a positive view of immigration. Let’s hope that means much-needed liberalization. The more immigrants, the better. Those who are illegal, make them legal. It is the right thing to do. Obama says this is bi-partisan. I wish he was right.

10:16 Decries cynicism. There’s a reason for all that, you know.

10:19 Anecdote!

10:19 Another anecdote!

10:19 A third!

10:20 A fourth!

10:20 “I don’t quit!” Reminds me of Brett Favre’s advice to a startled referee: take two weeks off, then quit.”

10:21 End of speech.

10:26 Here comes Bob McDonnell’s Republican response. Get ready to be disappointed!

10:30 Thank yous and much applause.

10:31 Jobs. Jobs for all! Good end. The means?

10:31 So far, indistinguishable from Obama.

10:32 Calls for less taxation, regulation, etc. Quotes Jefferson. Says government is trying to do too much. Now he sounds different.

10:33 Likes Obama’s spending freeze. Says it’s small. Not often one hears a politician calls a spending non-increase anything other than draconian.

10:34 Likes bipartisanship. I like gridlock. Boo!

10:34 Likes the Shadegg health insurance reform. And medical malpractice reform. No specifics, though.

10:35 Energy. More of everything! Why isn;t anyone saying, “let the market decide?” Why must government, no matter the party, pick winners and losers?

10:36 Government energy policy can create jobs. Oh, wait, that costs money and jobs from elsewhere. Broken window fallacy again.

10:37 Education. Likes merit pay and school choice. Nothing about reducing federal involvement in this state and local issue.

10:38 Wars abroad. Daughter served abroad. Laudable. But nothing to do with the merits of nation-building.

10:39 Doesn’t like giving due process to the underwear bomber. Well, he’s probably guilty. Let’s find that out for sure and then punish him accordingly, then! What’s to be gained from denying due process?

10:40 I’m liking his rhetoric about taxes, spending, and regulation. But I’ll believe it when I see it. Which is probably never.

10:41 Haiti. Less than a paragraph.

10:42 Big role for government in creating opportunity.

10:43 One more call for bipartisanship, and a big sop to the Religious Right. An utterly conventional speech. If you thought liberals and conservatives have fundamental philosophical differences, think again. Two sides of the same coin.

10:44 That’s all for tonight. CEI scholars will have more in-depth analysis for you tomorrow. Thanks for reading!

Regulation of the Day 102: The Size of Banks

Louis Brandeis was a hero of the Progressive Era. One of the central tenets of his philosophy is that when it comes to business, big equals bad. Even if consumers benefit. Doesn’t matter. Big is bad.

This is not an exaggeration. Business historian Thomas McCraw wrote that “a deep-seated antipathy toward bigness clouded his judgment.”*

Then there is Brandeis on consumers: “servile, self-indulgent, indolent, ignorant.” That’s a direct quote, by the way.** It was his justification for wanting to fix prices in favor of small businesses. Consumers invariably prefer low prices. The problem is that sometimes big businesses offer those low prices. And this upset Brandeis to no end. How dare consumers take price into account! The size of the business is more important!

This is not a rigorous line of thought.

But it’s one the current administration has bought into. The White House is expected to propose today a maximum allowable size for banks. Because big is bad.

This reform is unlikely to have its desired effect. The reason banks behaved so badly during the housing bubble is because the regulatory and political climate gave them an incentive to. It had nothing to with size. The solution, then, is to channel incentives in a better direction. Reward good behavior. Punish bad behavior. Any reform that ignores incentives will fail every time.

On one hand, as long as bankers know that the government will bail out their losses, they’ll take as many crazy risks as they can. Where’s the incentive to be careful if taxpayers will cover the bill when you mess up?

On the other hand, a size cap might actually make banks too risk-averse. Loans are risks taken in the hope of future profit. But too much profit — too much good lending — could potentially make a bank run into size problems with the government. This is not the kind of incentive structure the administration should be shooting for.

Today’s fixation on size is just as misguided as Brandeis’ was. Consumers and banks alike would be better served by letting profits encourage risk, and losses encourage prudence, as Russ Roberts put it. That means no size restrictions. No bailouts either.

*Thomas McCraw, Prophets of Regulation, p.99.
**McCraw, p. 107.