Of Presidents and Training for the Job, 2015

More and more I have been struggling for the words to express my concern over the frightening incompetence of the current President of the United States.  Barack Obama's economic blunders deepened and prolonged the recession and bequeathed to us the most anemic recovery of modern times.  Most of us have been seriously harmed by those policies, some more than others.  Unfortunately, the extent of his economic errors are obscured by the benighted economic management in Europe, which amazingly is managing even to underperform ours.

President Obama's politics have yielded the opposite of what he publicly promised:  division in place of unity, secrecy and deception in place of open government, exclusion of those who disagree with him in place of inclusive embrace of open debate, privilege for the few in place of opportunity for the many, racial bigotry for political gain in place of a "post racial" society, rule by breaking laws and ignoring the Constitution in place of rule of law.  I am sure that you could easily lengthen the list.  Again, these perfidies have been to some degree obscured by congressional Democrat leaders far too willing to compromise their duties of office and the rights of the legislative branch of government, all to cover up and support the Obama Administration's outrages on the nation and the political institutions of the Republic.

Most frightful of all, however, is President Obama's dangerously bungling foreign policy.  No friend of the United States is safe from this Administration's blunders.  Vladimir Putin, the boss of a second rate economic and military power—albeit one with a formidable nuclear arsenal—has been able to engage in 19th Century military adventures of invasion, conquest, and territorial acquisition against little more than vacuous bully talk from Obama, the emptiness of which has produced similarly pitiful responses from the leading Powers of Western Europe, derision from Moscow, and fear among America's friends only recently escaped from the Soviet Union.  China commits aggression against India and the Philippines, threatens Japan, and toys with close relations with Russia to isolate the United States, while openly engaging in cyber attacks on the U.S. government and American industry.  Islamist barbarians increasingly brutalize Muslims, Jews, Christians, and humanists alike, undeterred by inchoate responses from Obama, who asserts leadership while failing to lead, other than with his transparent policies of pusillanimity and indecision.  American allies in the Middle East feel abandoned or betrayed, while enemies are emboldened; the best counter strategy that Barack Obama is able to envision is a plan that might delay but will not prevent the nuclear arming of the mullahs of Iran—committed to the incineration of Israel, the more Jews killed the better.  Each day seems to extend the list of foreign policy failures.

While considering the consequences of an amateur in the Oval Office, I came across a brief note I wrote during the 2008 presidential campaign.  It might be immodest for me to point out how correct my warnings proved.  I can make no claims to perspicacity, as all of this was rather obvious.  No self congratulations are in order.  It is too dangerous a world to trust the Presidency of the United States to one whose inexperience is only matched by his hubris.  This is what I penned August 25, 2008, just before Barack Obama received the nomination of the Democrats:      


There are some jobs you just cannot safely do without proper training and experience. Flying an airplane is one that comes to mind. Driving a bus is another. I would put being President of the United States in the Twenty-First Century on the list, too.

President of the United States was a tough job in the days of George Washington. It was even a challenge in the days of Millard Fillmore. It has not become any easier in recent years, and next year it will be a very big job. Considering the global responsibilities of the United States, with several irresponsible oil-drunk regimes threatening peace and freedom (ours and other’s) around the world, can we afford to enroll our new President in a foreign policy on-the-job-training program?

Economically as well, there is little room for error. So far we have gone through a year and a half of the housing market bust without falling into a recession. But our economic growth is anemic. A small false step or two can put us into a full-blown economic decline, exploding banking and financial markets that will then take years to recover. It is important that economic policy next year be led by someone who understands economic growth and how to promote it. The formula for growth—low taxes and steady prices—is well known to those who have learned the lesson; we do not need a novice who does not have enough experience to know that you cannot tax and spend your way to prosperity. We cannot afford his experiments with our jobs and livelihood.

That is why it is breathtaking that a major political party is on the verge of nominating for President someone so inexperienced as Barack Obama.  I am unable to recall a single nominee for President, by any major party, less prepared for the office than Barack Obama.  Really, there is the challenge for you. Name a nominee—Republican, Democrat, Whig, Federalist—less prepared than Obama.

Barack Obama likes to liken himself to Abraham Lincoln. I cannot claim to have known Abraham Lincoln or assert that he was a friend of mine, but I do say, Barack Obama is no Abraham Lincoln. Even liberal exaggerations of Obama’s undistinguished career cannot make it compare favorably with the long and grueling life experiences that schooled Lincoln for the White House.

In short, Obama does not have the training for the job. It may be that the Democrats’ talent pool is so thin that he will be nominated. But the job of President is too important—to all of us—to be extended to someone so unready.

Of Struggling Economies and Finishing the Job

The Obama Administration is having trouble keeping the economy down.  In spite of all the battering that the economy has taken from Obama policies, it keeps showing signs of life—weak, hesitant, surely not robust, but they are there, like the weak patient who wants to get out of bed and shuffle downstairs to sip some chicken soup.  Instead, the Administration, like some 18^th century doctor, wants to try some more blood letting to get the bad humours out of the system. 

People want to do things.  Businessmen have new ideas that they want to have a go at.  Men and women like to build, grow, and develop their lives.  No one needs to tell them to do it.  You just need to get out of the way.  The most productive, the most energetic, the most inspired, the hardest workers will do it best.  We can still remember when the economy was like that, when the news was full of new products, new ventures, new growth, and new jobs.  That is the light America shines to the world and what despots throughout the world hate about the American experiment.

President Obama came to power with a different vision for America, what he thought was a mandate to spread the wealth around, to take from those who succeeded the most in economic activity and growth and find ways in which he and his administration could give it to those who were less productive—or not even productive at all.  In other words, his plan was to tax success and reward failure.  So far, it has worked as designed, even if he has not yet finished with his efforts.  We are getting less of the success and more of the failure.

The trillion dollar “stimulus” plan was a good example.  President Obama and friends hit the economy with a special trillion dollars of new Washington spending that went to support cronies and fund new projects that soon added to the landscape littered with failed businesses.  The “stimulus” plan added to the deficit and became a seemingly permanent part of federal largesse, but it failed to add to the economy.  In fact, it made legitimate businesses compete for funds and customers against those who enjoyed government subsidies.  Hard to do.

The housing market makes up about a quarter of the economy, when you include people who build houses, furnish houses, maintain houses, and so forth.  That market was in full decline as the housing bubble burst in 2007 and kept deflating.  But eventually all the extra air comes out of economic bubbles (if you do not keep pumping new air into them), the crashing market reaches bottom and starts to recover.  The Obama Administration has made sure that it stayed on the bottom a long time.  Normal economic crashes and recoveries look like a “V” on a graph charting their progress.  The housing market under the Obama Administration looks like an “L”.  Note the tiny turn up at the end of the letter.  That is what the Administration’s friends would try to convince us is the recovery.  And they would like to divert our attention from the several thousand pages of new mortgage regulations that will go into effect in the next several months to whack the housing markets again.

Sure, mortgage rates are incredibly low, but that is not a healthy sign.  Have you tried getting a mortgage lately?  The paperwork, already a mountain, has become overwhelming.  And do you think that those rates would be so low if there were a real recovery in demand for houses and mortgages?  There is more (or less):  many people who qualify for mortgages today will have trouble qualifying in the future under the new rules.  The Obama Administration’s new consumer Bureau has been putting off those rules until after the election, but they are promising to issue them by the end of the month.

The summers of 2009, 2010, 2011, and even 2012 were each supposed to be the “Summer of Recovery” with the “green shoots” of new economic activity showing life each spring.  Yet each year those summers saw instead new economic setbacks as the green shoots wilted.  Sometimes the damage came from threats of new tax policies that would raise rates but give “tax breaks” to people who spent their income in ways approved by the Obama Administration and the tax code.

Businesses were threatened with new carbon taxes and other innovative and contorted ways to penalize any use of carbon dioxide, part of the air that we as humans produce with every breath.  Even a Congress with heavy majorities of legislators from President Obama’s own party choked on that idea.  Not to be deterred, the Obama Administration just imposed restrictions by fiat through the Environmental Protection Agency—all part of the war on carbon, which includes the energy industry as its victims.

The business climate remains in turmoil, as waves of new regulation and Obama campaign promises to bail out new favorites in the economy continue changing the rules and make business planning impossible.  Who would take a risk at trying something new when Obamacare and other employee regulations make it hard to know what the expense will be for new hires?  American businesses are sitting on somewhere between one and two trillion dollars in funds, waiting to know when it would be safe to invest them.  Employers are trying to put some of that cash to work, but they are being very cautious in doing so, not what the words “free enterprise” bring to mind.

The Obama Administration and its apologists call the recent unemployment report “good.”  The unemployment rate went up, above the level when President Obama came to office; 5 million people are long-term unemployed, up by 200,000 from the month before; and the economy has 4.4 million fewer jobs than at the peak of its last growing period before Obama took office.  The excitement apparently comes from the net increase of 171,000 jobs in the past month, above the experts’ predictions of 125,000.  Watchers have learned to lower their expectations for this administration, so that they greet with cheers any signs of life above their reduced standards.  Maybe for President Obama that continued anemic performance is good, but America can do better.  America has done better, much better.  We cannot afford to lower our vision. 

Our future and the future of our children and grandchildren must not be crippled by looking at 2% economic growth as being “good” or even acceptable.  If we want a better future for our children and grandchildren, in fact if people my age want a secure retirement, we need to get back to an America where 4% annual growth or better is the norm.  The social welfare state is expensive, not the least of which being the cost it exacts from the future to pay for the promises of today.

Fortunately, the economy still refuses to die, in spite of all the beating that it has received at the hands of the Obama Administration, but the economy is not well.  Let’s not give the Obama team another four years to try to finish it off.

Of the G-20 and Running the World

When you think about it, it is ridiculous.  In fact, it would be pitiful, if they were not so serious and did not have the power to do seriously bad things.  I am referring to the leaders of the Group of 20 (G-20) nations, who recently met in Mexico, thinking that they run the world.

If the question were put to you, “Who runs the world?” there could be several correct answers, but none of them would be this group of people, or any subset of them.  Nevertheless, because they think that they do run the world, and because they act on that belief, they do a lot of things that not only do not work but that make things worse.  Then they gather again and try something else, much of which is designed to clean up the mess caused by their previous foray in hubristic action.

The world is a complex place, with billions of people each doing complex things and interacting with each other in complex ways.  Then the planet itself does a lot of complex things.  Take the weather, for instance.  With computers and a hundred years of scientific study, weather forecasters have succeeded in the ability to predict the weather with a passable degree of accuracy two or three days out.  Beyond that, the accuracy of forecasts declines to about 50-50 (flip a coin) and drops from there.  The ability to change the weather, after a lot of work and investment, remains elusive. 

You have to be very smart, or think that you are, to convince yourself that you can in any significant way control the economy of your own nation, let alone of the world together.  The Russians, who are very smart people, tried it for 70 years with less than success and with the death and misery of tens of millions of their people.  The communist Chinese gave it a go, too.  Lately they have been reluctantly recognizing that there might be a better way—though they act like they are still not so sure.

Consider how many of the most serious problems facing mankind today are caused by people like these G-20 government leaders who fancy that they run things.  A few examples:

• The economic malaise in the United States.  The U.S. economy has just passed through a very deep recession, caused by government programs that encouraged people to buy houses that they could not afford, investors to invest in the mortgages used to buy those houses, banks to take government investments in their capital that they did not need, and people who could afford to pay their mortgages to walk away and leave the keys on the counter.  To solve those problems, the U.S. government spent a trillion dollars it did not have, increased rules and regulations on businesses that could otherwise create new jobs, “created” a quarter of a million new jobs at the cost of eliminating a million jobs in the private sector, and threatened investors and small businessmen with stiff tax increases.  Economic activity remains in the doldrums.

• The second economic recession in Europe.  The European economy went into recession about the same time that the U.S. economy did, for rather similar reasons.  It then weakly recovered, briefly, and then went back into recession when the promises that the governments of southern European countries made over decades to buy votes at last became more expensive than they could borrow money for—let alone pay for.  Now, every couple of weeks Greece, Italy, or Spain goes into economic crisis, the rest of the European leaders make empty promises to solve the problem, followed a couple of weeks later by new crisis and another round of promises.  That has been going on for about a year, while economic activity heads south.

• The availability of energy.  From the gasoline that we put in our cars, the electricity that lights our houses, to the natural gas that warms our offices and homes government rules affect the availability, price, distribution, and supply of energy.  The United States imports enormous amounts of oil from unstable countries that use the money we pay for it to threaten our people at home and abroad.  Meanwhile, we have more than enough supplies of coal, natural gas, and oil located in oil shale and oil sands and off our own shores to meet all of our needs now and for the foreseeable future, but government efforts to run the energy business prevent us from using them.

These are just three groups of examples of many.  Once again I call on the wisdom of William Tecumseh Sherman, the great Union general of the Civil War, who famously refused to run for President of the United States with the assertion that if nominated he would not run, if elected he would not serve.  He gave his friend and colleague, U.S. Grant, who did not make such a refusal, a piece of excellent advice:

My opinion is, the country is doctored to death, and if President and Congress would go to sleep like Rip Van Winkle, the country would go on under natural influences, and recover far faster than under their joint and several treatment.

(William T. Sherman, letter to General Ulysses S. Grant, February 14, 1868, in William Tecumseh Sherman, Memoirs of William T. Sherman, p.922)

If someone should ask you, “Who runs the country?”, the correct answer is, “no one.”  Plenty pretend to, and many others wish to, but none do and none can, and we would all be better off if they would stop trying.  Our nation’s founders would have recoiled in horror at the question, because they intentionally created a nation that no one could run.  Why else have three branches of a federal government, one of which is divided into two separate houses, and state governments take their share of governmental authority?  They had seen Europe and knew of Asia where people for thousands of years had royally messed things up by trying to run their countries.

Instead, the American founders created a system where each person would run his own life.  The leaders in government were to run the government, that for the most part was to stay out of people’s lives and keep foreign governments at bay should they have any thoughts of trying their hand at running the lives of Americans.

That vision of the founders has been fading.  Today, make a list of the things that you can do that do not involve some sort of authority or permission from government.  It will not be a long list, and it has not been getting any longer in recent years.  Then ask yourself if life has been getting any better.  If it has, congratulate yourself on your power to overcome.

Of Business Losses and Government Help

In recent days JPMorgan Chase bank announced that it suffered $2 billion in trading losses, and Washington is all a-twitter.  You would think that a government that runs deficits of one and a half trillion dollars would hardly notice any event of $2 billion, but the chattering classes who think that they should have some role in running everything are all chattering about it and how it clearly demonstrates the need for more regulation, i.e. more need for them to be involved in running private businesses.

Mind you, JPMC’s $2 billion loss is a lot of money to you and me, but this does not particularly affect you and me.  JPMC suffered the loss, and given the size of the bank and its earnings (it usually makes somewhere in excess of $4 billion each quarter) it will little affect its bottom line.  JPMC is not asking anyone else to cover its losses, other than its own shareholders, and they will not feel it much if the bank continues to be as well run as it has been.

Ah, but perhaps you are thinking that JPMC got some of that TARP money so involved in the financial panic.  That is true, JPMC was one of the banks whose arms were twisted hard by Treasury Secretary Paulson to take a forced government investment.  Those TARP investments spooked regular, private sector investors, who immediately ran for the sidelines, and the financial crisis was on, propelled (as most are) by bad government efforts to “fix” things.  JPMC did not want the money or need the money and in a few months paid it all back—with substantial interest—as quickly as Congress and the regulators would allow them to.  It reminds me of the elderly gentlemen who finally yielded to family cajoling to take a ride in a stunt plane.  Afterward he thanked the pilot for the two rides, his first and his last.  TARP was such a bad deal for those who received the investments (except for the couple of financial firms that might really have wanted it), that I do not think that any would want a second ride, perhaps not even again at gunpoint.

The recent loss by JPMC, in any event, was one well covered by the bank’s earnings in other of its many lines of business.  Curiously, I do not hear the chattering classes get exercised when each quarter Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac announces several more billions of dollars of losses, losses that they do ask for the Treasury Department to make whole.  Maybe that is because the regulators already run Fannie and Freddie.  Actually, there was a little bit of noise in the past few days when Fannie Mae announced that it had actually turned a profit for the last quarter, the first time in years.

One thing that disturbs me in all of the Washington humbuzzah over JPMC’s trading loss is the implicit notion that there is something wrong about a business losing money on an investment, something wrong enough to call forth a government role.  It seems to me that losses are just as much a sign of a normal market as gains are, that healthy markets have a good share of both.  Nobody seemed to lose money during the housing bubble, no matter what they did, but that was hardly a sign of a healthy market place.

What markets do when they are allowed to is reward good business decisions and punish bad ones, with gains and losses providing some of the most effective means of helping businessmen and their investors understand truly which is which.  JPMC made some bad business decisions and lost money, and the counterparties to those trades made good ones and earned money.  What role can government play in all of that other than to mess it up?

To get government involved in this process rests upon at least two preposterous notions.  First, it suggests that it is somehow the role of government to make sure that businesses do not lose money, otherwise, why all the fuss?  That, of course, was the Soviet business model that did so much to create modern Russia.  Second, and following on the first mistaken notion, it supposes that government officials will know better how to avoid business losses.  Anyone really believe that?  Share with me your examples, and I will pass them on to the Federal budget planners.

Of Public-Private Partnerships and Public Corruption

One of the popular phrases in Washington that makes me cringe every time that I hear it is public-private partnership.   This is a foreign concept, alien to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  The Founders fled from the institution.  It had a rich history in Europe, and our Founders hated it, because it tended toward abuse (as it does today).  They had been methodically abused by it.

One example, the infamous British East India Company was a public-private partnership that engaged in colonization in America and elsewhere (perhaps most notably, India), harnessing the colonies with oppressive collars of monopolies that forced the colonists to do business only through the Company that enjoyed the privileges and powers of the Crown.  Those privileges were used to underpay the colonists for what they produced and sold and overcharge them for what they bought.  Fortunately for America, the Founders became champion smugglers, taking advantage of a land with an extensive seacoast and rich with usable harbors.  The smuggling was fortunate also for Britain, for without it the new British colonies in America would have been strangled in their cribs.

The Boston Tea Party was a colonial revolt against monopoly powers exercised in the name of the British Government by the East India Company.  That this revolt took place in Boston was not unusual, as the power and influence of the Crown-endorsed Companies were stronger in Virginia and other places to the south than they were in New England.  The New Englanders were less accustomed to it and therefore felt its oppressions more keenly.  Crown companies had much less of a role (but were not unknown) in lands settled by freedom-seeking Puritans and Pilgrims.  The Jamestown Colonies were from the beginning Company expeditions.  But the Virginians and many other Americans grew increasingly weary of those public-private partnerships and the corruptions that they fomented.  The wide lands of North America encouraged a freedom that the public-private partnership of Crown and Companies was not able to stifle.

It took royal favor to create the public-private partnerships, and the maintenance of royal favor to continue them.  No surprise, then, that such favor had to be funded by steady payments from the partnership to the government officials possessing power to control the royal favors.  In exchange, government discretion, including the judging of right and wrong, was all too often influenced by what favored the partnership rather than what favored justice.

This was how public-private partnerships were corrupting on a personal level.  They were also corrupting to the State, corrosive of freedom.  In no small degree British freedoms from the King have been built by the power of taxation controlled by Parliament.  With great skill over centuries British Parliaments wielded the power of managing the government purse to win new freedoms from the British Kings.  Since there is money to be made by using government power in public enterprises, however, sovereigns can find ways to cash in on that value and avoid the accountability that comes with having to seek new taxes to pay for their programs.  In the great conflict between the Parliament and King Charles I, the King was long able to avoid resorting to Parliament and acceding to its demands for freedom by funding his operations through the sale of royal privileges to and by reaping revenues from the companies and other public-private partnerships.  He carried it too far and eventually lost his head, but the American Founders did not fail to learn the lesson.

Neither did our modern Presidents, many of whom have revealed a fondness for public-private partnerships as a means to extend government programs and influence, even to the exclusion of congressional and public oversight.  Franklin Roosevelt loved creating government-sponsored monopolies, even while giving many speeches against the evils of monopolies.  Today our economy is riddled with public-private partnerships, large and small, and they as always tend toward abuse. 

At the heart of the recent financial recession was the housing bubble supported by two of the greatest public-private partnerships in American history, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Created to promote government housing policy without using taxes or appropriations—and thereby escaping public accountability—their government privileges allowed them to borrow all the money they needed at prices little above government rates and use that advantage to drive competition out of the middle of the housing markets that they occupied.

When the housing bubble at last burst, the Treasury’s TARP used a public-private partnership with banks (most but not all of whom were unwilling partners) to push investors out of the banking markets and turn the financial crisis into a financial panic.  Once in office, the Obama Administration embraced TARP, to which they added a trillion dollar stimulus package that accelerated our budget deficit crisis.  The Obama stimulus package was lousy with public-private partnerships, a significant reason why it failed so miserably to stimulate our economy, destroying one or more jobs for each one that it promised to create through government favor.

The Faustian bargain at the core of the public-private partnerships corrupts all involved and touched by them:  the government that creates them, the partners who sell their souls for the advantages, and those disadvantaged by the whole unfairness.  Former Congressman Dick Armey—a foe of public-private partnerships—has often warned that when you partner with the devil, you are always the junior partner.

Of Depressions and Government Rescues

The government is running out of things to do. I am referring to the economy and with reference to improving the economy. A successful government program to recover from the financial crisis and recession that the government caused is turning out to be much harder than presidential candidate Barack Obama promised.

All prolonged recessions and depressions are caused by governments. The recent financial crisis occurred, first, because the elaborate house of cards of government promises and guarantees that dominated the mortgage and housing markets was flattened by a puff of the wind of reality. With government reinforcement and in fact much prodding, builders were encouraged to build more houses bigger and faster than people could use them, realtors were rewarded for selling them, mortgage brokers were drawn to get mortgages for people who could not afford them, and investors were lured into thinking that there was no risk in pumping their money into funding these mortgages. Reality eventually took over, as it always does.

All of this would have caused a major recession, but former Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson ensured that the recession would turn into a full blown financial panic. Nearly every Sunday in the fall of 2008 Paulson was on national camera, little hiding his deer-in-the-headlights expression, announcing the latest desperate and ill-conceived Federal financial rescue program. Remember that the disastrous $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (that was not used to purchase assets after all) was Paulson’s idea. The markets were spooked by it. Markets tanked when Congress defeated it and tanked again when Congress passed it about a week later (sweetened with enough pork to buy needed votes). Investors went on strike.

President Obama has been unsuccessful, coming up on three years, in ending the strike. In fact, each time investors have shown some interest in coming back some new government plan or program has renewed enough uncertainty to drive investors back to the sidelines. For example, in early 2009 bank stocks were starting to recover until the Administration decided to impose stress tests to see how banks would fair if the Obama recovery plan failed. Investors returned to their seats to watch, and even the regulators’ findings that the banks could weather continued recession did not bring more than a tepid response from bank investors. The Obama Administration’s plan to restructure the entire banking and financial system—realized in the Dodd-Frank Act—has served to warn investors against taking new investment risks until they could see how it would all play out. It now seems clear that the financial crisis has been replaced by a regulatory crisis, with the regulators already falling way behind the mandates of the last Congress to write hundreds of new rules and no bank able to make any business plans extending much beyond a few months.

The housing markets remain at depression levels. New Dodd-Frank rules are making it much harder for families to get, lenders to offer, and investors to fund new mortgages for new houses. Is an economic recovery even conceivable with housing and mortgage markets mired in depression?

Our government has tried pulling its other levers. The United States has never, ever, witnessed the amount of government spending intended to stimulate the economy artificially. The Federal Reserve has expanded the money supply by trillions of dollars. Most of that Federal Reserve money has gone into funding government deficits, driving down the value of the dollar, and stimulating the prices of gold, silver, oil, and other commodities. The government takeover of the healthcare system, it was argued, was the only way to control medical costs that were said to be harming the economy.

Of course, there are more government actions waiting in the wings. The Administration wants to raise taxes dramatically, especially on investors and businesses—the energy business, the banking industry, investment firms, anyone who uses carbon (one of the elements necessary to life and essential to breathing), “rich” people, and small businesses that would be caught in the definition of “rich people.”

And yet the economy remains in the doldrums. Nothing seems to work. It conjures up memories of the Great Depression, that economic recession that Franklin Roosevelt was eager to take over. Through the whole decade of the 1930s FDR tried one thing after another to restore economic recovery, but nothing worked. Instead, FDR helped weaken world faith in representative government, greatly encouraging the willingness of desperate people to embrace the desperate measures of the dictators in Italy, Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union who gave us World War II.

The Obama Administration has tried everything that government can do. Why not now try getting government out of the way and letting the people solve this one as they always have? Investors still have plenty of money ready to invest, if they were only confident that the rules would not change and that their investments would not be taxed away. Businessmen would be eager to hire new employees if they only knew how much the employees would cost and that some new government program would not impose new costs and burdens on their business. Banks would love to lend to businesses and provide mortgages if the regulators would stop changing the rules and discouraging banks from making loans to anyone other than to the government.

Maybe there is the worry that government will not get credit for the recovery if there is no new government program to point to, no government guarantee to praise, no stimulus spending to trumpet. Maybe that would be O.K. But I would be ready to vote for the government leaders who removed the obstructions to investment, lowered tax rates, lifted regulatory burdens, and dispelled the clouds of regulations and barriers to growth that are gathering on the horizon.

Of Dishonest Money and a Poorer Future

Interest rates in the United States are low, far lower than they would normally be. The Federal Reserve has been pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into the economy to keep them low. Is that a good thing? For the federal government it might be—in the short run—but for savers it is bad. One percent back on your savings is pretty low. The persistent, artificially low interest rate policy of the Federal Reserve Board has become a major transfer of wealth from private savers to the federal government. Low interest paid by the Treasury means low interest earned by savers. Measured against inflation, you may be letting the federal government use your money for less than nothing.

Perhaps even worse, the low interest rate policy of the Federal Reserve is supporting the colossal spending binge of the federal government. The federal government can spend trillions of dollars it does not have, because the cost of government borrowing is so cheap.

It is not naturally cheap. Normal markets would not support the continued massive deficits from Washington. When the government spends more than it takes in it has to borrow from you and me, or more particularly from our pension plans and insurance programs, as well as from banks (and foreigners, a subject for another day). Savers and banks do not, however, have an unlimited appetite for lending to the government, especially at the low rates that the government offers. In past decades, persistent federal deficits would result in rising interest rates, as investors would demand a higher return to keep them willing to buy more government bonds.

Some months ago, when the ballooning federal deficit showed no signs of easing, the Federal Reserve stepped in and started buying up hundreds of billions of dollars of government debt just as investors were backing away. Interest rates on government borrowing would have gone up, but the Federal Reserve bought up the oversupply of debt and pushed interest rates down. Interest rates on government borrowing today remain at historically low levels, six-month Treasury securities going for about one-tenth of one percent. That is way below the rising rate of inflation, which lately is at about 2.5% and going north. That means that many investors in government debt are actually losing money, the return on their government debt falling behind the rate of inflation, the government paying back the money it borrowed with dollars that buy less than the ones that they took in. Federal Reserve policies are helping this go on.

Speaking of inflation, the Federal Reserve announced this past week that it is O.K. with inflation of 2.5%, that in fact the Federal Reserve sees inflation trending toward 3% for the coming years. Some of us who remember back to the Jimmy Carter days when inflation approached closer to 20% than 10% might be tempted to think that 3% inflation sounds pretty good. Keep in mind, though, what inflation means.

Remember what money is. Money is an exchange of promises. I promise that I will give you, say, $100 worth of value, whether my goods, my time, or my services, in exchange for which you give me a certificate—money—that can be exchanged for $100 worth of goods, time, or services with someone else. Money lets me take that promise and put it in my pocket and carry it around to where I think that it will be of most use to me. Money is enormously efficient. I do not work for the grocery store. I work at my job and get paid and then take my money to the grocery store and exchange it for groceries. The store exchanges that money, in turn, for more goods, as well as to pay the salaries of the people who work there. They in turn take that money and use it for what they want.

Inflation makes all of that dishonest. I get paid the $100. If I wait a year to spend it, and there is a 3% inflation rate, that $100 dollars will then only by me what about $97 would have bought when I got paid. Of course, that is an even bigger deal if the inflation rate is 10%, my $100 only being worth some $90 of goods and services in my example. But even 3% can be a very big deal, a far bigger deal than the Federal Reserve seemed to acknowledge this past week.

Consider retirement. Not enough people do, but you should. Perhaps you are an average couple saving and investing and hoping to have a retirement income of say $80,000 per year. You have figured that you can live on that. With an inflation rate of 3%, you had better think again. Your $80,000 retirement income will only be able to buy what $40,000 or less buys today. Setting aside adequate money to save and invest for retirement is hard enough. Inflation makes it all much harder.

Massive government deficits are already driving the Federal Reserve to cheapen the return on your investments (in order to keep the federal deficit from snuffing out the weak recovery). The inflationary pressures that they are building up inside the federal volcano will undermine your retirement even further. The longer we wait to solve the deficit problem, and the interest rate and inflation dangers it spawns, the worse it all gets. Government may not be able to create wealth, but it can surely take it away.

Of Financial Panic and Lessons Learned

Late last month I met with a group of German businessmen. They were on a visit to improve international understanding through cross-Atlantic dialog. As you can imagine, they were most interested in how the economy was doing. The German economy is off to a quicker recovery than is the U.S. economy, but in all fairness the Germans have not had to overcome as much government help as we have (during and following the financial panic of 2008)—although they are very worried about having to swim while being chained to drowning economies like Greece and perhaps others of the European community.

Among the specific issues that they asked to discuss was the question, “Have we learned lessons from the recent world economic crisis?” As I pondered that question, I came up with a list of eight lessons that we perhaps have learned. There are certainly others you or I might add, but here are the eight lessons learned that I came up with at the time, in no particular order of priority:

1. Economic and financial models are not as good as advertised. Much of the financial regulatory program of recent years was based upon the notion that regulators and the firms that they regulated had come up with powerful models to identify how well financial firms and the economy were doing, models that could be relied upon to control the economy. In fact, confidence in models was so high, that policymakers were starting to rely upon them to help predict the future. It turns out that economic reality is far more complex than any models, regardless of how powerful the computers are that run them. Once again we have seen that no group of policymakers, regardless of how smart they are or how much information they have, can control the economy any more than they can control the weather, and we should not fault them for failing to do so. We can only fault them for trying.

2. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not the best run companies in the world. This lesson seems so painfully obvious that it is hard to believe that there was a time when people held them out as examples for emulation of corporate and financial management. But that was their reputation. We now know that the government privileges that they enjoyed allowed them to become sloppy in many crucial ways, especially in the management of their financial risk.

3. The biggest risk to the financial system is regulatory risk. Nearly every one of the financial firms that were strongly “persuaded” by policymakers to take government TARP money suffered market and reputational damage from those investments far worse than any financial challenges that they had. Nearly all of the largest recipients of TARP money paid it back as fast as the Congress and the regulators would let them, at a very expensive rate of interest. While a few have complained of these and other regulatory costs, more would if they were not afraid of the danger of being sent to the cornfield if they did, so they just say that it is “all very good” as their highest new costs today come from government regulations.

4. Economic reality always catches up with you, eventually. By the laws of economics, housing prices cannot long continue to exceed the rate of economic and population growth, but during the housing bubble the myth was that housing prices do not go down, at least not by much and not for long. The same was said about oil prices, by the way, as they grew even faster than housing prices. All came down, and all who believed and acted as if they would forever go up paid for expensive lessons. The same lesson is true today about government deficit spending. In spite of economic reality, too many policymakers act as if there is no limit to how much debt the government can put into the market. That false notion will crash on the rocks of economic reality, eventually.

5. Accounting rules, especially mark-to-market rules, are highly pro-cyclical. Accounting rule makers are on a multi-year crusade to force all companies to value practically everything by what you can sell it for in the market place right now. That means that in times of exuberant markets everything will look great and better than it really is, transferring market manias onto the financial books of companies. It also means that in times of panic, all things will look worse than they really are, accounting rules making sure that panic prices are written onto companies’ financial books. Mark-to-market financial rules were the amplifiers that helped puff up the housing balloon, just as they helped feed the subsequent financial panic.

6. You can hide risk, mask risk, but you cannot avoid risk. All economic growth comes from someone taking a risk. There is risk in whether a new invention will be well received in the market place, or whether a new store will succeed in its new location, or whether the new employees will do a good job, and on and on. There is a natural human tendency to want to harvest the rewards of investment without being exposed to its risks. So people try to get others to take that risk, or try to pretend it is not there, but the risk will be there, and the less obvious it is the less likely that people will take precautions to manage it. The biggest problem from the housing boom was that people thought that building houses and lending people mortgages to buy them were riskless, when in fact they are loaded with risk. A variety of things masked that risk. When it finally asserted itself, people who thought that they had made no-risk investments panicked. The same is happening today with people who invest in “no-risk” government securities. You might be able for a time to hide the risk; you cannot avoid it.

7. Bad underwriting is bad. When a lender decides to lend money he first evaluates the ability of the borrower to repay the loan. That evaluation is called underwriting, it is the lender making the determination that the loan is a good investment. Lenders and others will make mistakes: borrowers will get into unforeseen troubles, their new invention might not work as well as thought, their business might face a new and better competitor, some tax or new regulation might eat away anticipated profits. The lender expects that some small portion of loans will run into repayment problems, and the lender plans for that by setting aside reserves for loan losses. But when the lender does not pay attention to the risks that he can see, then he engages in bad underwriting, and no amount of reserves can absorb those losses. Would we have had a housing bubble and then a housing crash if so many mortgages were not provided to people who could not afford the houses that they were buying? Not enough lenders looked carefully enough into that question.

8. Financial firms cannot long offer products that policymakers and the public do not understand. Recent legislation and regulations are aimed at curbing some of the most successful financial products and practices, largely because policymakers and the public do not understand them. In times of financial turmoil, policymakers look for something to do, and one of the first things that they try to do is stop what they cannot understand. The public is vulnerable to the rants of people seeking to deflect criticism from their failings to products or practices that the public does not understand. The credit default swaps market was one of the few financial markets that worked extremely well throughout the recent financial turmoil, never freezing up while other markets pretty much stopped. As another example, bank investments in the securities markets—other than loans—were an important source of diversified income for banks, helping keep banks afloat when bank loans were suffering heavily from people and businesses that defaulted. Recent legislation and regulations are placing heavy new burdens on these profitable activities, and in some cases banning them entirely, because policymakers do not understand them. Financial firms have to be more active in explaining everything that they do, or they will continue to find many of their newest and best financial activities curbed in times of regulatory fear.

As I say, you can probably add to this list, as could I. As I ponder now the question that the German businessmen put to me, the actual lessons that we have learned seem to me less important than whether we will remember the lessons.

Of What Government Knows and What It Will Do

The biggest cause of the lingering financial trouble and the 2008 financial panic has been bad government policy. The markets did not fail. The markets did just what government policies encouraged them to do, namely over-invest in housing while paying little attention to the risks. That created twin bubbles in house prices and in the ways that building houses and buying houses were financed.

When the bubbles burst, the government leadership panicked, and the markets followed their leadership. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson predicted imminent disaster, and the Federal Reserve rather than playing an independent steadying and calming hand reinforced those predictions (although without the public “fire in the theater” shouting of the Treasury Secretary).

Perhaps the best that can be said about the federal financial leaders during the financial crisis is that they did the best that they knew how to do. The problem was, that they did not know what to do. Each new memoir or retrospective published by one of these financial leaders reveals that they were acting on insufficient knowledge, insufficient information, and most of all insufficient understanding of what was going on. In other words, none of them knew enough to know what to do, and none of them knows enough now.

No one can ever know enough. The economy is just too big; there is too much for anyone but God to know. In an economy as large and diverse as ours, with billions of economic decisions being made all in the same day, it is impossible for anyone to know enough at any one time—of all that is involved—to be able to make the right decisions to control the economy, even if there were someone wise enough to do it.

That problem is not solved by creating a committee to control the economy. While any one person who serves as decision maker will suffer from lack of knowledge and will wear blinders towards the parts of the economy he either does not understand or is not watching at the moment, a committee of people has its own major shortcomings. Not the least of these is the proclivity of any group to be captured by group think, by the members of the group reinforcing each other to form a consensus and not venturing to upset things by questioning or looking beyond the consensus.

That is usually what happens with economic and financial bubbles. A key idea, usually a wrong idea, captures the group imagination. So many people come to believe this idea—like the odd notion that housing prices rarely if ever decline—that they all act on it, building up artificial values that increasingly depart from reality. When there is no government involvement, these bubbles burst soon enough and are resolved pretty quickly. Government leadership can hasten the formation of group think when an idea is part of official policy, and government policies can help to keep it going. Then, because government officials are slow to admit their own mistakes, government policies slow down the quick and natural adjustments that the market provides when the bubbles burst.

Unfortunately for all of us, the new Dodd-Frank financial regulatory legislation increases the power of new government financial czars to try to control virtually any aspect of the financial system that they choose. That error is not diminished by requiring these financial czars to meet together in committee from time to time, in a new Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC).

This last week two of the financial czars testified before a commission created to discover what caused the recent financial trouble and to recommend what to do about it (seems that if people were serious about this commission it would have made sense to pass new legislation only after the commission finished its work). One of the commission’s members, John Thompson, asked this question: “Why should we believe that this Council (the FSOC) is going to be uniquely different and keep us out of trouble?” (Donna Borak, “FCIC Presses Bernanke, Bair: Will Dodd-Frank End Bailouts?”, American Banker, September 3, 2010) Good question, but it got a poor answer, basically the observation that government regulators have more authority now. That is akin to saying that I will improve my aim because now I have more ammunition and a bigger gun.

Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke admitted that even with all the new power given to the federal financial czars it will take political will to use it. “If there’s a lack of political will, there’s probably no solution that is sustainable.” Even were we to believe beyond all experience that any federal regulators or group of federal regulators could possibly know enough, where is the evidence that there would be the political will to break through the regulatory group think? Where would there have been the political will to bring the housing bonanza to a halt, or even to rein in the politically powerful housing giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which at least the Federal Reserve was seeking to do, against strong opposition from Congress—the stronger political will opposed needed reform)?

You do not need political will, however, if discipline in the markets is not a political decision. Market solutions do not require any political action or the exercise of political will by some federal financial czar or council of czars. No one needs a federal agency to drive down the stock of a badly managed company. Enron was beaten up by the markets long before Congress got around to it. The financial firms that disregarded risks in the housing bubble were put out of business by the markets—except for the firms that the government decided to prop up.

Which highlights the danger we are now in: today, as a result of the Dodd-Frank Act we have a financial system dependent on the government. Every important financial decision has now become a political question for one or more regulators to chew on and manage. Ready or not, here they come.

Of Financial Safety and Lost Liberty

Americans are about to lose more of their liberty, in a very big way. Like the oil leaking away from the deep well in the Gulf of Mexico, American financial liberty will be steadily draining off with few ideas on how to stop the leaking once it has begun.

First the housing markets panicked, then the Paulson Treasury panicked, and then the financial markets panicked. Now panic has hit Congress. Ignoring that the housing-financial crisis was set up and fomented by bad government regulatory programs, Congress is on the verge of enacting legislation that will give to government regulators authority to control any financial activity in the United States.

You may think that I am exaggerating a bit here, getting carried away by rhetoric. I wish that I were. Looking at the provisions of the legislation that the Senate is now debating and is scheduled to pass in the near future, I cannot think of a single financial transaction that government agencies would not be able to control. By control, I mean set rules as to how the transaction would be structured, to whom it could be offered, by whom it could be offered, how it could be advertised, how it would be priced, or even whether it could be offered at all.

Let us consider a simple financial service: a home equity line of credit, or HELOC. With a HELOC a customer can borrow money from the bank up to the amount of equity that the customer has in his house. The attractiveness of the HELOC is that you do not have to sell your house in order to use the equity in it to help pay for college, fund needed remodeling, or even start a small business. With the loan backed by the equity in the house, the borrower gets a far lower interest rate than he would without that collateral.

The legislation would create a new, totally independent federal bureau of consumer regulation. This new bureau—headed by a one person consumer czar endowed with power that would make an old Russian despot jealous—could determine, for example, that it would be “unfair” or “abusive” if the amount of money that a customer could borrow under a HELOC were reduced by the bank when the value of the customer’s house declined. I am not making this up. At a recent Federal Reserve meeting self-appointed consumer advocates, who would dominate the new bureau, complained that banks during the housing bust were lowering HELOC amounts for no good reason other than that home prices declined, neglecting that what makes a HELOC affordable is that it is backed by the value of the house. The value of the house goes down, so must the value of the collateral and the loan amount secured by the collateral. The law would not require, however, that the new consumer bureau be guided by common sense.

Other provisions of the proposed law would allow government agencies to break up any company in America, or make it set aside any reserves, or give up any line of business—and allow the agencies to play favorites by acting one way with one company and very differently with another—as long as the agencies claimed that their actions were appropriate to deal with systemic risks. The agencies would be the sole judges of what makes for a systemic risk. Or, to look at the authority another way, the federal financial agencies would be able to define what they consider to be “safe” financial conduct and effectively ban everything else, and steer individuals and businesses into government-identified safe financial activity.

In case the recent financial panics tempt you to think that all of this is a good idea, remember that we have tried this all before, and very recently. The example—housing—is staring us in the face. Maybe policymakers in Washington are too close to it all to notice.

In the housing fiasco, the government determined that mortgages were very safe (as demonstrated by Federal Housing Administration programs that allow homeowners to have a negative equity position on day one of their new government-guaranteed mortgages), that investing in mortgages was safe (hence the creation of government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to encourage investment in mortgage securities), that packaging mortgage securities was safe (as demonstrated by AAA ratings for packages of securities, awarded by credit rating agencies that were franchised by the Securities and Exchange Commission), and that housing assets on bank balance sheets were safe and worthy of incentives by regulatory standards that allowed banks to hold relatively little capital for their mortgage loans.

So, given how well the government identified safe financial activity in the housing markets we can expect the government officials to be equally mistaken in identifying other forms of safe financial activity. Even as I write this, government officials are working on new plans to establish rules to require banks to stock up on various types of government debt. These rules are based upon the near-sighted assumption that government debt is safe—ignoring the rising flood of Greek government debt, held back only temporarily by sandbags filled with fiat money from other European governments.

On the wall in my family room I have a framed $500 government bond. Only one coupon from it has been clipped, a semiannual payment for $15 in interest. The next coupon is payable on July 1, 1865, by the government of the Confederate States of America. That coupon and all the rest of the coupons through 1894 remain unredeemed. The proposal by Congress to exchange American financial freedom for the wisdom of government to identify safe financial activity has the crackle of Confederate money.

Of Government Collusion and Market Discipline

There is a lot of noise and confusion about what caused the recent financial panic. The Obama Administration believes that the basic problem is that markets do not work right, people are too dumb to choose for themselves, and that regulatory agencies were not able or were unwilling to keep up with bank shenanigans. Their solution: more of the same, that is, create a variety of new government agencies and bureaus that have the authority to dictate and control any part of or player in the financial system, including control of financial customers large and small (look in the mirror for the definition of financial customer). This neglects the fact that government agencies were the most blameworthy in the recent financial panic. In fact, it is impossible to have a long, sustained economic recession or depression without government policies causing it. (I will save for another day how the policies of the Federal Reserve and the Franklin Roosevelt administration made sure that an economic downturn became a depression lasting for a decade.)

Let me address the first of these points in the Obama administration’s justification for taking over the financial system. First of all let us consider the markets. It is true that the markets did not perform right. That was because government rules, structures, and programs did not allow the markets to perform right. The government guarantees bank deposits, so depositors do not care very much how safe or sound a bank is. Government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, bundle up mortgages into securities that investors assume have little or no risk. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) approves and controls the small number of credit rating agencies, and investors believe that these agencies are right when they give to a particular company or investment their highest credit rating (such as AAA), a rating that is thought to present little or no risk. The SEC has protected these agencies from competition and from market discipline for their errors while providing little in the way of regulatory discipline.

With those and other government protections in place the appearance of risk just about disappeared from the mortgage markets. Different investors have different appetites for risk. It was not the people hungry for high risk returns that fueled the housing bubble. Many of those with the weakest appetite for risk, seeking the safest investments, were drawn to the mortgage markets. In this government-manufactured atmosphere of little or no risk, many mortgage firms, increasingly non-bank mortgage firms, made it more and more possible for people to buy houses that they could not afford. Once the mortgage firm made the mortgage, regardless of the ability of the borrower to repay, the firm sold the mortgage to the GSEs, who sold it on to investors who poured trillions of dollars into what they thought was a safe haven. Then the mortgage firm went on to make more mortgages. Investors were shielded from asking whether the mortgages were any good, that is, whether the person buying the house could actually afford it.

That mispricing of the risk pulled more and more money into mortgages and real estate, driving prices up and up, pulling in more and more investors as the prices rose, until it was impossible to put one more Jack on the house of cards without it tumbling down. People panicked when “safe” investments turned out to be risky. Then the government started panicking, bailing out some firms and not others, changing the rules almost weekly, demanding hundreds of billions of dollars from taxpayers in order to pick financial winners and losers. Investors, not knowing where the government would turn next, panicked some more.

It was government interference in the market that failed, not the markets. Without all of the government camouflage, investors would have insisted on knowing that the mortgage borrowers could afford their houses before funding loans to buy them. Ask yourself this: would we have had the whole housing blow up if people who could not afford to buy houses were not given mortgages? Yet the Obama Administration, even today, is tripping over itself to find new ways to guarantee new mortgages, in many cases especially for people who cannot afford their houses. Where have all the subprime mortgages gone? They have gone to the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), where they have a government guaranty. (Watch what happens to the FHA house of cards in the coming months.) When will they every learn? Oh, when will they ever learn?

Giving more power to the kind of government agencies that helped create these problems hardly seems like the sensible answer. That is what the Obama Administration proposes, though. Instead of controlling the markets with more government interference and masking of risk, more bailouts for firms that should be allowed to fail, more power for some new government bureau to pick winners and losers and to tell people which financial products they can and cannot have, we should be exposing financial players more to market discipline. We should make it harder to hide risk and easier for investors to recognize the risks and allow the markets to charge higher prices for higher risks and lower prices for lower risks.

Market discipline has always been the quickest and surest regulator. It rewards the efficient provider of what the buyers in the market want, and it punishes the incompetent. Very importantly today, the market is stingy about bailouts.

Of Freedom and the Bad Deal

Too many people in this country and elsewhere are making a Bad Deal with their government. Perhaps Americans have been slower to make the Bad Deal, because our nation was founded, and refounded with each new wave of immigrants, by people who were fleeing the Bad Deal in their own countries. The Bad Deal is, we surrender part of our freedom to our government in exchange for a promise that the government will remove from us some of the risks of our bad decisions.

Businessmen make good and bad decisions. With the good decisions, they provide a very popular good or service in exchange for which they make a lot of money. With the bad decisions, people either do not want the good or service or they can find it somewhere else cheaper. The businessman makes less money or may even go broke and lose his investment.

In most countries, that is considered too chaotic and disorganized. That is particularly so when it comes to big businesses. Even where such countries will let small businesses fail, they keep the big businesses propped up.

With the loss of the risk of failure, the benefits of successful risk taking grow anemic. The folks in the government providing the protection from failure demand a piece of the action. In the more clumsily corrupt countries, government officials take bribes or are directly invested in the protected business. In the more sophisticated countries, the process of “sharing” in the prosperity of the protected business is more camouflaged. There are special taxes and fees paid to the government, or the business is guided by the government into activities that benefit the current government leadership and its friends.

The housing loan giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are examples of that in our country. They were created by Congress and given special privileges that stifled competition and lowered their costs, allowing their businesses to expand until they became two of the largest companies in the United States. Investors lent them an unending supply of money at very low interest rates on the assumption that the government would never let the companies fail. In exchange, Fannie and Freddie had very elaborate programs for making Congressmen and Senators look good in their districts, with fancy press conferences where Fannie or Freddie officials bragged about all the mortgages supported in the district and how important the Congressman or Senator had been to Fannie’s or Freddie’s success.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac gave up significant freedom of decision in their business plans in order to get the government protection. Their experience, though, demonstrates a central problem of the Bad Deal: while the government promises to protect us from consequences of our bad decisions, it does not protect us from bad decisions by government. At last the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac house of cards tumbled down. It happened when the bad decisions urged on them by their government “friends” left the firms powerless to withstand the swirling winds from the air escaping out of the housing balloon. Fannie and Freddie helped puff up the balloon under government guidance together with other failed government programs. The firms failed, and the government had to take the companies over entirely.

Now the Obama Administration is offering to take over the consumer’s job of making his own financial decisions. They propose a new consumer regulator to stand in the consumer’s place, with the assignment to design all of the financial products that banks and other firms must offer to their customers. Normally customers and financial companies have figured this out among themselves in the market place. The Administration calls these new products (to be designed by a five-man board in Washington) “plain vanilla” products. The Obama Administration believes that simple is better. If you do not want plain vanilla, if you need a loan or a checking account or a savings account or a credit card with some extra features, good luck, because the new agency will be poised to pounce on any financial firm that dares offer it to you. It reminds me of the old Model T Ford. You could get it in any color you wanted, as long as the color was black. Thank goodness Chevrolet came along and offered blue, or we would never have had Mustangs.

Which again is the point: when government makes the decisions, there is little incentive for things to get better. In promising to eliminate your risk, the government does not want to risk some innovation going wrong.

Sure, businesses and consumers making their own decisions make mistakes. Then they learn from their mistakes, pick themselves up, and try again and usually do better. But Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the recent financial panic and the coming rise in interest rates and inflation, are a few near-term reminders of how government can make mistakes, real whoppers. Long experience over the centuries has shown that mistakes by the government are the bigger risk. When we accept the Bad Deal and surrender our freedom of action to the government, who will protect us from the government’s mistakes?

Of Bubbles and Treasury Debt

Over the last decade our economy has been buffeted by what appears to be an accelerating series of economic bubbles. It is more than coincidence that this has occurred while government interference in the economy has increased.

That is not to deny that free markets are fully capable of producing economic bubbles, as market participants miscalculate investment risks and rewards and copy-cat each other as they do so. These market participants, however, if left to their own devices will also pay the price for their mistakes. Knowledge that they are at risk acts as a moderator and corrector, limiting the degree of risk investors are willing to take in the first place (and the willingness of lenders to provide money to support the bubble), and leaving the way clear for other investors to come in and pick up the debris (at a profit) when the bubble bursts.

When government is involved non-economic factors are inserted into the calculation of risk, and they affect who pays for the risk. With the existence of federally-supported mortgage guaranties, investors paid very little attention to whether mortgage lenders verified the ability of borrowers to make payments. A government guaranty always means that risks will be undervalued and that someone else (usually the taxpayer) gets to pick up the tab for the miscalculation.

It is neither exaggeration nor hyperbole to recognize that for more than a year the government has been handing out guaranties at a rate never before seen in the history of mankind. That is to say, that mountains of financial risk miscalculations have been made and are being made every day, and the unavoidable consequences are accumulating.

Perhaps the most dangerous miscalculations are those involving the debt issued by the U.S. Treasury. Investors are mistakenly acting as if there is no risk in placing their money in Treasury securities. These investors overlook the risk that buying Treasury securities--with an effective interest rate of 4 one-hundredths of one percent (the rate last week for 1-month Treasuries)--puts investors at risk if interest rates rise even a little bit and exposes the investors to even mild inflation.

Inflation is unlikely to remain mild. Along with all those government guaranties there has been a mountainous accumulation of new money provided by the federal government. All that money has to go somewhere. Right now it is awaiting some slight shock to send it avalanching down on the economy. Much of that money is for the moment being hoarded by investors and businesses afraid to spend it or put it to work while economic prospects remain unsettled and policymakers keep confusing the markets with one economic policy, regulation, restriction, or plan after another. No one wants to play the game while the referees are adjusting the rules.

So the government money makers keep pushing more money out to fund investment even while they toy with new disincentives to investment. People park the money instead in bank deposits (which are growing at record levels) and Treasuries (driving Treasury interest rates down to almost nothing).

That will not continue. At some point, the willingness of investors to hold dollars in accounts earning practically nothing will have played out. They will get their fill of Treasury securities. Foreign investors are already there, in recent weeks reducing their holdings of U.S. Treasury debt. Treasury interest rates will have to rise to attract investors, but as Treasury interest rates rise those who invested in Treasuries at very low interest rates will be on the losing side of their investment. They will start unloading their Treasury investments, further driving Treasury prices down and interest rates up, causing even more losses to those who invested in recent months in the Treasury bubble.

The spiral will be hard to stop, particularly as the Administration will be desperately trying to borrow more money, unheard of new amounts of money, to fund their planned multi-trillion dollar deficits. Interest rates will have to go up very high very fast in order to fund that voracious new appetite of the government for debt. The high interest rates will choke off many new sparks of economic recovery, leaving a lot of money around chasing after fewer goods and services for sale.

The Treasury bubble will likely end in a race that we have not seen for more than a quarter century. The race will be on for which will go higher, inflation or interest rates.

Of Presidents and Training for the Job

There are some jobs you just cannot safely do without proper training and experience. Flying an airplane is one that comes to mind. Driving a bus is another. I would put being President of the United States in the Twenty-First Century on the list, too.

President of the United States was a tough job in the days of George Washington. It was even a challenge in the days of Millard Fillmore. It has not become any easier in recent years, and next year it will be a very big job. Considering the global responsibilities of the United States, with several irresponsible oil-drunk regimes threatening peace and freedom (ours and other’s) around the world, can we afford to enroll our new President in a foreign policy on-the-job-training program?

Economically as well, there is little room for error. So far we have gone through a year and a half of the housing market bust without falling into a recession. But our economic growth is anemic. A small false step or two can put us into a full-blown economic decline, exploding banking and financial markets that will then take years to recover. It is important that economic policy next year be led by someone who understands economic growth and how to promote it. The formula for growth—low taxes and steady prices—is well known to those who have learned the lesson; we do not need a novice who does not have enough experience to know that you cannot tax and spend your way to prosperity. We cannot afford his experiments with our jobs and livelihood.

That is why it is breathtaking that a major political party is on the verge of nominating for President someone so inexperienced as Barack Obama. I am unable to recall a single nominee for President, by any major party, less prepared for the office than Barack Obama. Really, there is the challenge for you. Name a nominee—Republican, Democrat, Whig, Federalist—less prepared than Obama.

Barack Obama likes to liken himself to Abraham Lincoln. I cannot claim to have known Abraham Lincoln or assert that he was a friend of mine, but I do say, Barack Obama is no Abraham Lincoln. Even liberal exaggerations of Obama’s undistinguished career cannot make it compare favorably with the long and grueling life experiences that schooled Lincoln for the White House.

In short, Obama does not have the training for the job. It may be that the Democrats’ talent pool is so thin that he will be nominated. But the job of President is too important—to all of us—to be extended to someone so unready.