creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell
14 Feb 2012
The Progressive Legacy: Part II

"Often wrong but never in doubt" is a phrase that summarizes much of what was done by Presidents … Read More.

14 Feb 2012
The 'Progressive' Legacy

Although Barack Obama is the first black President of the United States, he is by no means unique, except for … Read More.

14 Feb 2012
The Progressive Legacy: Part III

The same presumptions of superior wisdom and virtue behind the interventionism of Progressive Presidents … Read More.

Magic Numbers in Politics

Share Comment

Back in the days of the Soviet Union, two Russian economists who had never lived in a country with a free market economy understood something about market economies that many others who have lived in such economies all their lives have never understood. Nikolai Shmelev and Vladimir Popov said: "Everything is interconnected in the world of prices, so that the smallest change in one element is passed along the chain to millions of others."

What does that mean? It means that a huge increase in the demand for ice cream can mean higher prices for catchers' mitts, among other things.

When more cows are needed to produce more milk to make ice cream, then fewer cows will be slaughtered and that means less cowhide available to make baseball gloves. Supply and demand mean that catchers' mitts are going to cost more.

While this may be easy enough to understand, its implications are completely lost on many people in politics and in the media. If everything is connected to everything else in a market economy, then it makes no sense to have laws and policies that declare some given goal to be a "good thing," without regard to the repercussions, which spread out in all directions, like waves that spread across a pond when you drop a rock in the water.

Our current economic meltdown results from the federal government, under both Democrats and Republicans, declaring home ownership to be a "good thing" and treating the percentage of families who own their own home as if it was some sort of magic number that had to be kept growing— without regard to the repercussions on other things.

We are now living with those repercussions, which include the worst unemployment in decades. That is the price we are paying for increasing home ownership from 64 percent to 69 percent.

How did we get from home ownership to 15 million unemployed Americans? By ignoring the fact that there was a reason why only 64 percent of families owned their own home. More people would have liked to be home owners but did not qualify under mortgage lending standards that had been in place for decades.

Politicians to the rescue: Federal regulatory agencies leaned on banks to lend to people they were not lending to before— or else.

The "or else" included not having their business decisions approved by the regulators, which could cost them more money than making risky loans.

Mortgage lending standards were lowered, in order to raise the magic number of home ownership. But, with lower lending standards, there were— surprise!— more mortgage payment delinquencies, defaults and foreclosures.

This was a problem not only for banks and other lenders but also for those in the business of buying mortgages from the original lenders. These included semi-government enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as Wall Street firms that bought mortgages, bundled them together and issued securities based on the anticipated income from those mortgages.

In other words, all these economic transactions were "interconnected," as the Russian economists would say. And when the people who owed money on their mortgages stopped paying, the whole house of cards began to fall.

Politicians may not know much— or care much— about economics, but they know politics and they care a lot about keeping their jobs. So a great distracting hue and cry has gone up that all this was due to the market not being regulated enough by the government. In reality, it was precisely the government regulators who forced the banks to lower their lending standards.

The other big lie is that this was a failure of economists and others to foresee that the housing boom would turn to bust and set off financial repercussions across the economy.

In reality, everybody and his brother saw it coming and said so— including yours truly in the Wall Street Journal of May 26, 2005. As far away as London, The Economist magazine warned about the danger. So did many American publications and individuals. The problem was that politicians refused to listen. They were fixated on the magic number of home ownership and oblivious to the economic interconnections that Russian economists saw long ago and from far away.

To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com. Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His Web site is www.tsowell.com.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM


Comments

1 Comments | Post Comment
Dear Thomas Sowell, Good article. With Federal (local & state) deficits soaring, I wonder why the incompetent politicians are trying to 'sell the Taxpayers' another 'BILL OF GOODS'! Maybe, it's because in their 'hidden 1012 pages, they've taken care of their future, while Americans are becoming homeless!
From 1998 until 2004, I asked the NRCC why Taxpayers couldn't get honest answers from
politicians of all affiliations. The form letters they sent in return, hand stamped, written by a
staffer, made me wonder where the greedy politicians stayed all the time. It further told me that
politicians had no interest in anything except their very deep pockets.

Economy never fully recovered from the 70's! Due to lack of American businesses, higher taxes,
plastic cars and other overpriced consumer products, these greedy politicians should have been
concentrating on America's future. Politicians should have started cutting their salaries,
retirements, taxing and spending and going over the high-dollar budgets, line by line, until
everything was cut back fifty (50%) percent.

The enormous debt brought about by incompetent politicians, high salaries, retirements, social,
welfare programs, and frivolous overspending should have stopped. Instead, it's now boiled over
like a run-a-way train. The only thing the greedy politicians can say is ‘I inherited this debt!'
Instead of cutting and changing what should have been done, they're way of thinking is still ‘we'll
stimulate the economy with more bailouts and handouts' and once the great recession ends, we'll
reduce the deficit!' A little late, wouldn't you say? All Economists and Taxpayers, know the
politicians will never get control of the imbalances; therefore, it's time to hand out pink slips.

I pointed out that all manufacturing jobs had to be brought back to America. We couldn't be a
‘service country'. The only thing America is servicing is unemployment, social and welfare
programs. It's now late October 2009, and the trillions of dollars, borrowed without Taxpayers
consent, is growing to the point it's making Taxpayers think “Who's going to own America when
the interest isn't paid?”

I further pointed out that Social Security belonged only to Taxpayers that had worked and should
be their retirement! Folks, through corrupt and greedy politicians, social security has been
borrowed against for illegitimates and people not wanting to work leaving nothing for the people
that paid money in. Democrat and Republican Taxpayers, of all races, should be outraged by the
radical and socialist proposed Healthcare. Anyone, with common sense, should have guessed that
1012 pages (unread by politicians as usual) wasn't about Healthcare but about hidden agendas and
building a bridge over the sand in the Arizona desert.

What's really going to happen to Social Security since there's no one working to pay into the system
for future generations? Do you think the politicians are going to continue to hand you a check that
you're not entitled to?

Politicians say ‘you must volunteer and give back to your community!' By the way, why don't you
get off your duffs and volunteer at homeless shelters and without the secret service, since this costs
Taxpayers. While I'm on a roll, you could also donate eleven (11) months of your salaries and
retirement benefits to Taxpayers that's having to work two (2) jobs just to survive due to your
incompetency!

By the way, Taxpayers ‘Pledge to Fight Socialized Medicine!'
Comment: #1
Posted by: Shirley deLong
Sat Oct 17, 2009 9:56 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
Thomas Sowell
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

8 Jul 2008 An Internet Fraud

2 Aug 2011 Misleading Words

29 Jun 2010 Gun Control Laws