The Right Opinion
Politics vs. Economics
They say "all politics is local." But economic decisions impact the whole economy and reverberate internationally. That is why politicians' meddling with the economy creates so many disasters.
The time horizon of politics seldom reaches beyond the next election. But, in economics, when an oil company invests in oil explorations today, the oil they eventually find and process may not make its way to market and earn a profit until it is sold as gasoline a decade from now.
In short, the focus of politicians is extremely limited in both space and time -- and all the repercussions that lie beyond those limits carry little, if any, weight in political decisions.
At one time, many state banking laws forbad a bank from having multiple branches. The goal was limited and local -- namely, to prevent big, nationally known banks from setting up branches that many locally owned banks could not successfully compete against.
But, limited and local as such state banking laws were, their impact was both national and catastrophic, when thousands of American banks failed during the Great Depression of the 1930s. The vast majority of the banks that failed were in states that had laws against branch banking.
Why? Because, when there is a single bank in a single place, the fate of both its depositors and its borrowers depends on what happens there. If it is a wheat-growing region, a drop in the price of wheat means people deposit less money in the bank at the same time when more borrowers are unable to repay their loans.
Banks caught in that kind of crossfire went under on a scale that shrank the total amount of credit in the country and helped plunge the national economy into depression. In Canada, where banks were free to have branches all across the country, not one bank failed during the same years when thousands of American banks failed -- and Canada did not yet have deposit insurance until 1967.
A Canadian bank with branches in all sorts of places across the country -- with all sorts of different industry, commerce and agriculture -- had their risks spread, instead of being concentrated, as in the United States. Problems in a place where one branch was located would not collapse the whole bank.
Our own more recent housing boom and bust began when local politicians in various places began severely restricting the building of houses, in the name of "open space," "smart growth" or whatever other political slogans were in vogue.
As housing prices skyrocketed in such places as coastal California, both renters and home buyers in these particular places often had to pay half their monthly income just to put a roof over their heads. This in turn led to Washington politicians declaring a need for nationwide laws and policies to create "affordable housing," even though people in most of the country were paying a lower share of their income for housing than in previous years.
This political crusade for "affordable housing" was at the heart of laws, regulations and even threats from the Department of Justice, against mortgage lenders who failed to lend to as many low-income and minority borrowers as the politicians wanted them to.
Regardless of the additional problems that occurred as these mortgages were bought by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, or were later bundled into securities sold by Wall Street, the fundamental problem was that many people simply stopped making their mortgage payments -- as was perfectly predictable when lending standards were forced down by the government.
The politicians and bureaucrats who forced lenders to lower their standards had limited goals in mind -- namely affordable housing and more minority home ownership. But the repercussions when the housing markets collapsed spread all across the American economy and led to financial crises overseas, where financial securities based on American mortgages were widely sold.
All politics may be local but the repercussions reach around the world, and even extend to generations yet unborn, who will be left to cope with the national debts resulting from this debacle.
Quick fixes for the economy now are unlikely to get investors to make job-creating investments, which depend on long-term factors ignored by politicians who are focused on the 2012 elections.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

13 Comments
Rocky
Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 9:29 AM
concise and lucid...unlike the noise generated by the political machine...and yet this TRUTH about what started the mess we're in is often drowned out by the very people who initiated this mess. Worse yet, their 'slogan of the day' aimed at those of us who want to declaw the government so that this mess can be undone and allow the economy to move forward is...'deregulation got us into this mess'. To which I say, 'no, it was government intervention (primarily through Freddie and Fannie) into the market place that distorted the market and created this mess'!
Duke of Earl
Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 11:34 AM
Dr. Sowell;Prescient and insightful as always. The problem is that the truth that often returns to bite the politician/government official in the back-side is ALWAYS funneled to the those of us who CAN see the forest and the trees.The policy and the programs ARE never at fault. It is the manner in which the opponents processed the policies and the programs that cause the difficulties; such as now. Barney Frank & Christopher Dodd were absolutely and unequivocally correct in forcing the banking industry to violate all of the safeguards and protections to finance mortgages to those who couldn't afford them, etc.And, Dr. Sowell, when you find the facts that prove the policies/programs wrong; the policy wonks simply ignore the facts as inconvenient.Duke
Case Ace
Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 12:11 PM
Reminds me of Chris Dodds quote when the housing crisis was in free fall. When asked about the solvency of Freddie & Fannie, he replied "they are not going bankrupt, they just need more money" (!) The federal leviathans answer to EVERYTHING.
Robert A. Hall
Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 12:35 PM
If I win one of those super lotteries (yes, I know I need to buy a ticket), I’m going to establish a foundation to deliver books to members of Congress. I will start with Dr. Sowell’s “Basic Economics” and “Applied Economics,” as well as Mark Steyn’s “After America.” Probably wouldn’t do any good, but we have to try. I will link to this from my Old Jarhead blog.Robert A. HallAuthor: The Coming Collapse of the American Republic(All royalties go to a charity to help wounded veterans)
p3orion
Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 1:07 PM
We can leave it to others to discuss the reasons that minorities, on average, have less income and poorer credit.But the problem in the mortgage industry (and then in the banking industry after banks bought those mortgages) was that everyone had to pretend that the higher numbers of minorities getting loans somehow reflected an increase in their creditworthiness, rather than government mandates and coercion. (To this day, the standard mortgage application still requires notation of the applicant's race.)Just as insurance companies do not know when a particular person may die, but can quite accurately predict the number who will die in a given group, mortgage lenders know how many defaults there will be for a given credit rating or debt load. The higher interest rates reflect those risks, and return the balance to the equation; that is, the lender's profit for a bunch of subprime loans at 8% would, in theory, be about the same as a similar stack of conforming loans at 4%. There were companies here and there who tried to take advantage, but in general the market forces prevented most of that.Unfortunately, though, in the explosion of home purchases (following Democrat meddling to increase home ownership among minorities, creditworthiness be damned) housing prices started increasing dramatically as the supply failed to keep up with demand. (Artificial restrictions on building such as in California only made things worse, which is why they led the nation in high housing costs.) Lenders took note of that increase in home prices and were able to see that, in a rising market, a loan that might be foolhardy now would be OK in a year or so, since the increase in price would mean the bank could still recoup its investment with a foreclosure; the loan might be for 100% of the home's current value, but next year it would be only 95%, and so on. Remember, in addition to knowing about how many borrowers would default, lenders could also predict about how long, and could tell if a loan made financial sense given the assumption of a STEADY RISE IN VALUES. Thus, they were able to justify even more loans, further increasing demand, which further inflated values, which made even riskier loans justifiable. It was a quite a vicious little circle.What the lenders failed to take into account was the effect that those perfectly predictable foreclosures would have on the market, and that the rise in values could NOT be depended upon to remain steady. Once foreclosures reached a certain fraction of the market, home prices began to decline. Now the lenders could not count on inflation to justify a loan later on. It got harder for buyers to qualify for a mortgage, which reduced demand, which brought prices even lower. We're just now starting to break out of this second vicious circle which brought us all down, and the bubble of commercial real estate still has yet to burst. Fortunately, lending standards were generally more conservative there all along, and were subject to less of a Congressional "thumb-ob-the-scale," although that's why we should always be wary of calls to increase minority small business loans. We need to learn to trust the market; if the loans make sense, they'll make sense, regardless of the color of the applicant's skin. What's the lesson that should be learned? That the economic troubles of the last few years were NOT the result of greed or too little regulation. They were the inevitable result of too MUCH regulation of a business that was doing just fine before Congress got involved.
p3orion
Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 1:10 PM
We can leave it to others to discuss the reasons that minorities, on average, have less income and poorer credit.But the problem in the mortgage industry (and then in the banking industry after banks bought those mortgages) was that everyone had to pretend that the higher numbers of minorities getting loans somehow reflected an increase in their creditworthiness, rather than government mandates and coercion. (To this day, the standard mortgage application still requires notation of the applicant's race.)Just as insurance companies do not know when a particular person may die, but can quite accurately predict the number who will die in a given group, mortgage lenders know how many defaults there will be for a given credit rating or debt load. The higher interest rates reflect those risks, and return the balance to the equation; that is, the lender's profit for a bunch of subprime loans at 8% would, in theory, be about the same as a similar stack of conforming loans at 4%. There were companies here and there who tried to take advantage, but in general the market forces prevented most of that.Unfortunately, though, in the explosion of home purchases (following Democrat meddling to increase home ownership among minorities, creditworthiness be damned) housing prices started increasing dramatically as the supply failed to keep up with demand. (Artificial restrictions on building such as in California only made things worse, which is why they led the nation in high housing costs.) Lenders took note of that increase in home prices and were able to see that, in a rising market, a loan that might be foolhardy now would be OK in a year or so, since the increase in price would mean the bank could still recoup its investment with a foreclosure; the loan might be for 100% of the home's current value, but next year it would be only 95%, and so on. Remember, in addition to knowing about how many borrowers would default, lenders could also predict about how long, and could tell if a loan made financial sense given the assumption of a STEADY RISE IN VALUES. Thus, they were able to justify even more loans, further increasing demand, which further inflated values, which made even riskier loans justifiable. It was a quite a vicious little circle.What the lenders failed to take into account was the effect that those perfectly predictable foreclosures would have on the market, and that the rise in values could NOT be depended upon to remain steady. Once foreclosures reached a certain fraction of the market, home prices began to decline. Now the lenders could not count on inflation to justify a loan later on. It got harder for buyers to qualify for a mortgage, which reduced demand, which brought prices even lower. We're just now starting to break out of this second vicious circle which brought us all down, and the bubble of commercial real estate still has yet to burst. Fortunately, lending standards were generally more conservative there all along, and were subject to less of a Congressional "thumb-ob-the-scale," although that's why we should always be wary of calls to increase minority small business loans. We need to learn to trust the market; if the loans make sense, they'll make sense, regardless of the color of the applicant's skin. What's the lesson that should be learned? That the economic troubles of the last few years were NOT the result of greed or too little regulation. They were the inevitable result of too MUCH regulation of a business that was doing just fine before Congress got involved.
davidmac
Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 1:58 PM
One of the politicians problems (besides the myopic short-sightedness) is that many of them have a pathological need to feel righteous. By artificially letting unqualified people get mortgages, the politicians felt good about themselves (consequences be damned). That feel-good rush was, to the pol, all they needed. It mattered not a whit to the pol that the homeowner lost his house and had his credit ruined. The pol just blamed straw men such as "fat cats" on Wall Street or "predatory lenders" in the banking industry.Too many Americans fell for the "feel-good" fix, too. They thought it was wonderful that the minorities were finally getting "affordable" housing. The liberal public never thought for a minute that maybe borrowers should be objective about their ability to repay loans on big ticket items. No, the self-righteous jones was warping their point of view. Now the chickens have come home to roost. I only hope that the democrat party and its liberal accolytes have kicked the feel-good habit.
Jonathan Sipe
Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 3:32 PM
Mr. Sowell,Fannie and Freddie were not the first failed "invetments" by our Federal Government and they deffinately were not the last. It seems that the Democrats just can't turn down spending money on a peogram in the name of equality. It is their unending crusade to make everything and everyone in this country completely equal. This crusade will not do a single thing to help the economy. The Democrats just need to get out of the way and let the market work. Every program that they spend money on to "jump start the economy" and make things equal has been a complete failure. They will never admit that though and unless they are stopped we are all doomed.
pete
Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 3:34 PM
>"The politicians and bureaucrats who forced lenders to lower their standards had limited goals in mind -- namely affordable housing and more minority home ownership."<Partially correct. Politicians were more concerned with buying votes, affordable housing was the payment. I got a loan for a house I knew was above my pay grade and would be a struggle to keep, but it was "collateral." I made payments for a little over a year and took out a second for "repairs and upgrades." That allowed me to pay cash for my first caddy and a house full of nice, hi-end furnishings. Last year I filed BK, took my furniture and my caddy and moved into an apartment I can afford. The bank got the house, I got a nice car and a house full of Duncan Fife. Thanks bill clinton and liberals. Thanks also to conservative tax payers who ended up stuck with the bills.
Jonathan Sipe
Wednesday, September 28, 2011 at 5:14 PM
Pete,So, you took a loan and bought a house that you knew you couldn't afford. You knew that bankruptcy was in your future. How dare you keep the Cadillac and furniture. Had you and the rest of the followers not bought taken taxpayer money to buy homes that they couldn't afford then the housing market would not have collapsed. You were knowingly irresponsible just like the rest of the loan recipients and you are just as responsible as the politicians for the economic debacle that we are trying to recover from right know. You should be selling that Cadillac and furniture and start paying back your debt. You are part of the problem so why don't you take resposability for your actions and right your wrong.
vanben
Thursday, September 29, 2011 at 10:25 PM
Once we got past the "severely restricting the building of houses, in the name of "open space," "smart growth" or whatever other political slogans were in vogue." I pretty much agree/can't argue with - but you can't convince me that WE ALL shouldn't have some say in where (and what)we build. Some places shouldn't be touched - even by the 'well to do'. vanben
vanben
Thursday, September 29, 2011 at 10:36 PM
How does "severely restricting the building of houses, in the name of "open space," "smart growth" or whatever other political slogans were in vogue. change the "price of chickens"? After that "statement" I agree BUT we need to protect some (a lot!!) or places from the 'well heeled' too.vanben
TC Hogan
Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 12:01 PM
When one is required to fill in "race" on any form, the insertion of "human" should be acceptable in every case. Otherwise, the inhabitants of this planet may never get over the fact that the Lord of the Universe created us all in His image! And it is incumbent upon each of us to decipher just how to emulate that image.