creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Steve Chapman
Steve Chapman
12 Feb 2012
False Fears About a Nuclear Iran

"The stupidest thing I have ever heard." — Meir Dagan, former head of Israel's intelligence agency,… Read More.

9 Feb 2012
Appease This!

On April 1, 2001, a U.S. spy plane and a Chinese fighter collided over the South China Sea, forcing the … Read More.

5 Feb 2012
The Flaws of Mitt and Newt

Newt Gingrich has an exquisitely sensitive moral antenna, and Mitt Romney's remark suggesting indifference to … Read More.

Repeating Our Economic Errors

Share Comment

We all know how we got into this economic mess. We spent too much, borrowed with abandon and acted like the bills would never come due. So what's the prescription for getting out? Spending more, borrowing more and acting like the bills will never come due.

When something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. This alleged cure deserves special scrutiny because it invites our policymakers to redouble the very policies that caused the crisis. Congress and the new administration are all too eager to abandon restraint so that we can overcome the consequences of excess.

Take mortgages. The current recession stems from the popping of the real estate bubble, which came about because too much money went into housing. But now the Obama administration and House Democrats are pushing to assure more investment in housing.

They intend to raise the limit on loans that mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac can buy from $417,000 last year to $729,750 in some markets. And James Lockhart, who oversees the two companies as head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, told The Wall Street Journal they should accept a lower rate of return than in the past in order to help Americans buy homes.

But it's worth remembering where our problems began: with an oversupply of housing. Channeling more funds into the residential sector will encourage more home building, which will worsen the glut, which will push prices down even further and generate more foreclosures, which will deepen the recession.

The sad reality is that the housing sector has gotten too big and will have to shrink. A lot of people who prospered from catering to the inflated demand for housing, from carpenters to real estate agents, will have to find new ways to make a living. That's what the end of a bubble means.

But plenty of people in Washington are nostalgic for the good old days. It's not just in housing. The Treasury and the Federal Reserve had to inject hundreds of billions of dollars to shore up banks battered by loans that went bad — toxic debt, it was called.

So we want banks to be more prudent, right? Wrong. Congress is complaining that banks that received federal aid are being overly stingy.

Well, yes. If a lot of your loans go bad, it's a sign that you need to exercise more care. That's especially true during a recession, which can wipe out companies that once were profitable. Any bankers who want to keep lending at the rate they did before are asking to become insolvent, and more insolvent banks would drag down the economy.

The economy foundered partly because we were too dependent on debt to finance current consumption, and that was unsustainable. But burning some $825 billion on fiscal stimulus, as President Obama proposes, means more of the same. We will be borrowing money to prevent a decline in our current standard of living. That money will eventually have to be paid back, which will require a decline in our future standard of living.

One defense of the stimulus package is that it will finance needed investment in infrastructure and other public goods. Unfortunately, government spending is particularly prone to waste because governments, unlike private companies, don't have to worry about going out of business if they spend unwisely.

This round of spending is sure to be even more wasteful than the norm. Why? Because the government is in such a hurry to get it done, making it harder to vet projects properly. So the return on investment will be lower than usual, and maybe negative.

All this federal spending is supposed to stimulate the economy. But plenty of reputable economists are doubtful. And even if the old-fashioned Keynesian approach is sound in theory, it is probably useless in practice. The Congressional Budget Office says only 7 percent of the infrastructure money requested by Obama will be spent by September. Less than half the highway funds would be spent in the next four years. Most of the outlays will come after they are no longer needed.

But practical realities are no match for our desire to keep living beyond our national means. We spent our way into this mess, and it's too tempting to think we can spend our way out.

Steve Chapman blogs daily at newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman. To find out more about Steve Chapman, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
Sir;... Your revisionist history deserves revision... Allow me... The people had no choice but credit... Small business had no choice but credit... Government had a choice, but was allowed no choice but credit... Try to tell someone whose wages are short and whose bills are long that he does not need credit???Look at the whole economy... Could the people with credit or without ever buy back what they produced???Capital must export, and to sell abroad all products must be cheap... So wages are driven into the dirt, pushed so low that no one can endure any emergency expense... And; the people need credit, which reduces resources even more, making everyone poorer yet... But what does that mean to the boss??? Does any man faced with bills ask for his due???If a man can get by without confrontation, and without demanding his rights, and that means credit, will he not use credit??? And look at your housing markets...The price is inflated... Why is it so high???Why should anyone sell at a loss??? Once upon a time in America, property supported the whole government.... And, under pressure of taxes, property was cheap, and the price of labor to make it profitable was dear... Now, property is dear, and wages are low, and doubly low because they are taxed, and so the price of property is nothing beside the price of money... But wait...Isn't property ownership a good goal in the eyes of government??? Not so high as the goal of extreme profits on money lending... And it is money one buys with a home.... And while that price has always been subsidized by government, costing the government revenue; interest was still extreme...And what taxes should always have done by driving down the price of property; high interest, ruinous interest, and interest on every conceivable commodity has done instead... Too much credit equals too little hope... The profits of Wall Street do not equal the well being of America... Quite the opposite is true, that everyone working for the profit of distant bankers has equaled local ruin across this land... And the goverment which has spent its moral value propping up the immoral value of profit without labor, initiative, or invention has ruined itself as it expedited our ruin... Government has to serve the needs of the whole people...The whole people needs to survive on what they produce...If credit were necessary short term for any emergency need, it should not be a necessity as it is across the whole of society, so that govenment, and population cannot possibly survive without it... Now; Government could and should tax wealth, and property.... Wealth in few hands is poison to society... No government should employ credit... If what it does is worth doing it should be done with taxes... I know that many on the right complain that only fifty percent in this land pay income taxes... My understanding is that when we first accepted an income tax, that it only affected 11% of the people... The people saw it as fair, or they would not have supported it...But eventually the majority of the cost of government was loaded onto labor, which could not bear the cost... Rather than tax the rich; the rich in goverrnment taxed the poor, or relied upon credit, and this has only fed more money to the rich... So who has credit been good for??? If it has brought the land to the point of ruin, then it has helped no one...If we get through this the poor will be poorer, and the rich will be richer, and the rich will be able to sell out the poor cheap, and for a profit.... But no one can deny that they have had a part in this; that they forced credit on us when everyone knows it is wrong, even foolish... Because, credit was the price we all had to pay to get ahead in life even while it put us behind...Fair wages, and fair taxes might help our troubles...Democracy is the only cure.
Comment: #1
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:55 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Steve Chapman
Feb. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 31 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Judge Napolitano
Judge Andrew P. NapolitanoUpdated 16 Feb 2012
Austin Bay
Austin BayUpdated 15 Feb 2012
Michelle Malkin
Michelle MalkinUpdated 15 Feb 2012

10 Sep 2009 Lessons of Obama's School Speech

24 Jul 2011 Tim Pawlenty's Illusion of Dullness

24 May 2009 Peace with China, and Other Surprises