Home > Uncategorized > Lehman Day: Making fun of the Second Great Depression Crowd

Lehman Day: Making fun of the Second Great Depression Crowd

from Dean Baker

This week marks the 7th anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the huge investment bank. This collapse set off the worldwide financial panic that brought Wall Street to its knees. The anniversary of this collapse, September 15th, is the day set aside to ridicule the people who warned of a second Great Depression (SGD) if the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve Board didn’t rescue the Wall Street banks.

Just to recount the basic story, there is no doubt that without a government bailout most of the big Wall Street banks would have gone under. Citigroup and Bank of America were both effectively bankrupt and remained on life support with hundreds of billions of dollars of government subsidized loans well into 2010. The remaining investment banks, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, and Goldman Sachs were all facing bank runs. These would have been unstoppable without the helping hand of big government. Many other financial institutions also would have been brought down in the maelstrom, but these giants were for sure dead ducks at the time of the bailouts.  

There is no doubt that the initial downturn would have been more severe if the market was allowed to work its magic and put these banks out of business. But the question the SGD gang could never answer is how this collapse would prevent the government from boosting the economy immediately afterward? After all, then Federal Reserve Board Chair Ben Bernanke once ridiculed people who questioned the ability of the government to boost the economy, commenting the government “has a technology, called a printing press…”

Rather than sitting through a decade of double-digit unemployment, why would Congress not pass a large stimulus package supported by aggressive monetary policy from the Fed? There certainly was no economic obstacle to this path. And the claim that political gridlock somehow would have prevented any stimulus flies in the face of history. Even Republicans have supported stimulus to counter economic slumps. For those too young to remember, the last such incident was the stimulus package signed by President George W. Bush in February of 2008, when the unemployment rate was 4.7 percent.

In short, the idea of the government sitting paralyzed while the unemployment rate sat in the double digits is entirely an invention of the SGD crew. It has no basis in the real world.

It is easy to see why the SGD myth persists. Most obviously, the big Wall Street banks like to pretend they did us all a favor by letting the government bail them out. In their story the bailout wasn’t about saving Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, it was about rescuing the economy.

The second important group that has a major interest in promoting the SGP myth is the politicians who pushed through the bailouts. They naturally want the public to believe that the purpose of the bailouts was to help the country, not their former and future employers. The more central they were to the bailout the more likely they are to push the SGD story. In former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s autobiography, a reference to the SGD appears on almost every page.

The third key group that has been promoting the SGD myth is the economists and policy-types (including reporters) who deal with macroeconomic and financial issues. Their reason for promoting the SGD story is that they need cover for having failed to recognize the housing bubble and the severe downturn that would be an inevitable outcome of its collapse. The SGD myth goes along with the idea that the collapse and continuing weakness of the economy is all very mysterious.

They want the public to believe that the issues involved are complicated and beyond the understanding of normal people. This is why their focus is always the financial crisis. After all, credit default swaps and collaterized debt obligations can be complicated.

On the other hand, the basic story of the housing bubble was pretty damn simple. When the country saw an unprecedented run-up in house prices it should have caught some economists’ attention. After all, the U.S. housing market was the largest market in the world and it was not previously subject to erratic fluctuations of this sort.

The huge construction boom driven by the bubble was also not a secret. Nor was the flood of dubious loans, which even at the time were the subject of jokes about their poor quality by people in the industry.

In short, the story of the housing bubble and the devastation wreaked on the economy by its collapse is a simple one that the great minds of the economics profession should have all seen coming. Rather than acknowledge that they made a colossal blunder, it’s much better to build up the myth that it’s all so complicated. And, if we didn’t give Wall Street everything it wanted, we would be subject to the curse of the SGD.

View article at original source.

  1. louisperetzperetz
    September 16, 2015 at 9:25 am

    Goverment need a new Roosevelt President. That means with a keynesian way for growwing economics with a technology and psychological economics theory. As I say in my book (Money, how to flip the table off) ONly 5 $ (Amazon)

  2. graccibros
    September 16, 2015 at 3:23 pm

    Well, I’ll grant Dean Baker consistency in his arguments over the years. But notice what he leaves out of his narrative: what was the Republican reaction to the actual stimulus program that the Obama administration advanced, one that Larry Summers believed was too small, but the best they could do given the political opposition in Congress? The answer is that no Republican voted for it; and what was Obama himself trying to peddle mid-way through his first term: the grand bargain to help cut the budget – full recovering deficit spending be damned…and Dean well knows that the demand is still far short of full recovery, not just here but in Western Europe. because I’ve read very recent writings of his to that effect.

    I give Dean Baker credit for his rigorous, rational look at the numbers: he won’t be stampeded into any “the sky is falling” economic scenerios unless he sees some statistical support for the bubble and its pending collapse. But he tends to vastly underestimate the quasi-religious and ideological dimensions to a good part of economic thinking today, everything we mean by neoliberalism, including obsessions with debt, deficits and balanced budgets, and compounded in the US by what else can we call it: a fanatical intensity to deny a sitting Democratic president any trace of a “legacy” legislative accomplishment, whether it is a step towards universal health care, enough deficit spending to keep the suicide and bankruptacy rates down, and people employed…or heaven forbid, trying negotiating instead of repeated multi-trillion dollar wars in the Middle East. This fanaticism is much more destructive than its public mask, so dear to die-hard conservative: we’re taking an Alamo stand on our principles…Now Dean might be right, in the end, and could have cited here, as better evidence, the deficit spending that more pragmatic Republican are forced into or drift into wily nilly: under Reagan, Bush I and then Bush II…but am I confident that’s what they would have done with a “D” in the White House facing a stalled economy or worse after having let the banking system go under? Not at all, because full context is crucial. Part of me says that the ideological Right would destroy the economy and the country in an attempt to keep their “principles” pure…

    No wonder Dean never cites Karl Polanyi’s “The Great Transformation”: it’s too uncomfortable a reminder of intellectual and ideological fanaticism over what is too close to current neoliberalism, but in its description of 19th century version of “orthodoxy” : clinging to the gold standard, free trade and balanced budgets unto the end of the world…even the radical left in Bolshevik Russia paid homage to the gold standard, despite having thrown out much of the rest of reigning orthodoxies. Polanyi’s list of all those, across the full spectrum of politics (an even broader one that today’s range if we consider the constrictions in Europe, ones Yanis Varoufakis is trying to break) of those clinging to gold is one of the most shocking and powerful indictments of the power of failed ideas I’ve ever read, and we ignore its contemporary analogies at our peril.

    Sorry Dean, I see no evidence which mounts up to any confidence that had we let the banks collapse that there would have been any different response to stemming the downward pull of economic tides – any greater or more effective than the way Hoover’s mind worked between 1928-1932, including his last ditch attempt to get FDR to sign a personally drafted not to commit to balanced budgets and no deficit spending (as documented by William Leuchtenburg’s bio of Hoover in the compact volumes of the Presidents.)..

  3. September 16, 2015 at 3:35 pm

    The results of central banks pumping endless amounts of cheap money into the banking system, where it it leveraged and used for gambling, have yet to be seen. I think George Orwell (Eric Blair) had it right: While the pigs sat around the kitchen table playing poker, the farm went to rack and ruin.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s