Homesteading Forum banner

Wall Street did not cause 2008 Crash

503 Views 11 Replies 7 Participants Last post by  Beeman
Those who blame Wall Street are just wrong. Here is how it went.

Wall Street didn't cause crash of '08

By David Frum, CNN Contributor
April 26, 2010 10:50 a.m. EDT


Editor's note: David Frum writes a weekly column for CNN.com. A special assistant to President Bush in 2001-02, he is the author of six books, including "Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again" and is the editor of FrumForum.

Washington (CNN) -- Financial reform? Not exactly. The bill before Congress does nothing to address the fundamental background causes of the crash of 2008.

Wall Street may have been the instrument of the crash. But the crash was made elsewhere: in Washington's failed policies for middle-class families -- and in China's distorted rush for economic growth.

The story is not a simple one. But I hope you will pay attention to the details. If you don't, you may find that the pocket that has been picked is your own.

As you've heard, the crash begins with the huge excess load of debt built up in the last two decades by American households. Why did Americans borrow so much? Some like to tell a story of irresponsibility: We borrowed too much because we were self-involved yuppies who just could not deny ourselves the latest flat-screen doodad for our McMansions.

Maybe that describes some people. But many millions of middle-class families plunged into debt for a very practical reason. Their incomes were not keeping pace with the cost of crucial items of the middle-class lifestyle: housing, medical care, college tuition. At the same time as housing, medical care and tuition were jumping in cost, the cost of borrowing was dropping to historic lows.

Adjusted for inflation, the typical American family earned less in 2007 than that family had earned in 2000. Meanwhile, everyday necessities such as energy were becoming more expensive: By 2007, the typical American family paid more for energy than it did for clothes and entertainment combined.

As everyday bills piled up, families borrowed to pay extraordinary bills. Mom needs nursing care? Junior got admitted to Chapel Hill? The roof needs refixing? No worries -- just cash out with a cheap refinance deal.

In the 1950s, the total debt of all American households amounted to less than one-third the nation's gross domestic product. In 1980, household debt amounted to less than one-half. As recently as 1990, it was still under 60 percent. In 2000, it was under 70 percent. On the eve of the 2008 crash, total household debt had bulged to 96 percent of gross domestic product.

All this borrowing might look like the road to ruin. And in fact it was the road to ruin. But that's not how it looked at the time. At the time, it looked like a bargain. Between 1980 and 2008, the household debt load doubled as a share of the economy. Yet the interest cost to carry that debt rose much more modestly. In 1980, the average American family devoted about 13 percent of its disposable income to debt service; by 2008, the average family was spending about 17 percent of its disposable income to service debt.

Why was debt so cheap?

This takes us to another fundamental cause of the crisis: the growth of China.

Maybe you've heard that we bought a lot of goods from China and now we are deeply in debt to China. That's true obviously -- but the cause and effect are upside down.

China lent us a lot of money so that we would keep buying Chinese goods.

Export booms do not usually last very long. The exporting country accumulates more and more of the importing country's currency. Eventually the exporting country decides it wants to use some of that currency. It exchanges the importing country's currency for its domestic currency -- and that has the effect of making its exports more expensive. The boom bumps up against its own natural limits.

That did not happen with China. Desperately eager to create more and more jobs to employ the tens of millions of peasants flowing into China's huge cities, China not only accumulated dollars by the hundreds of billions -- it held them. Then it went into the foreign currency market to buy still more billions of dollars, sometimes $1 billion a day.

All that dollar buying prevented China's currency from going up in value, which would have increased the price of China's exports -- and that kept China's factories turning.

What do you "buy" when you buy "dollars"? There are only so many Benjamins in the world, nowhere near enough. Buying "dollars" means buying dollar-denominated debt, and far and away the biggest source of U.S. dollar debt is U.S. mortgage debt.

With China so eager to buy, U.S. bankers went to work to create mortgage paper to sell. It didn't have to be good-quality paper -- the Chinese didn't really care about that. Did you get a great deal on your refi in 2005? Thank the Central Bank of China.

American homeowners borrowed because they could not earn enough. China loaned to keep its factories turning. Money flowed in a frenzied torrent across the Pacific. And somebody had to make it all happen: Wall Street. It created the debt instruments China wanted to buy and packaged the mortgages that Main Street felt pressured to sell. With trillions of dollars changing hands, even a small percentage fee could pay a lot of people a lot of billions in fees.

No doubt some of those fee-takers did abusive things. But the whole dynamic was abusive and dangerous. And so-called financial reform is a petty distraction from that larger, more important, and more urgent dynamic: raising American incomes so Americans borrow less, and redirecting Chinese trade to the home market so that the Chinese lend less. Until we achieve those two things, any recovery will only invite the next disaster.

@ http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/04/2....html?hpt=S
See less See more
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Those who blame Wall Street are just wrong. Here is how it went.

Wall Street didn't cause crash of '08

By David Frum, CNN Contributor
April 26, 2010 10:50 a.m. EDT




American homeowners borrowed because they could not earn enough. China loaned to keep its factories turning. Money flowed in a frenzied torrent across the Pacific. And somebody had to make it all happen: Wall Street. It created the debt instruments China wanted to buy and packaged the mortgages that Main Street felt pressured to sell. With trillions of dollars changing hands, even a small percentage fee could pay a lot of people a lot of billions in fees.

and yet, right in the article, the author blames wall street. :shrug:
and yet, right in the article, the author blames wall street. :shrug:
The article blames homeowner spending and China's eagerness to lend us money. Wall Street merely supplied a commodity China was all to eager to buy. If the money had not been readily available for the taking, it would never have happened.
Snip:

"raising American incomes so Americans borrow less,"

so, the only way I know to do this is to raise prices of items, so then we raise salaries, so we can buy those items? I would like to see "show Americans the value of saving" or something.

I don't know about the premise of the article, absolving Wall Street completely.

Would you absolve the Drug Dealers and lay the blame on the users and the cartels that supply them? Is that not similar?

So it is the fact that the money is there, as you put it "readily available for the taking' that is to blame. Boy, can't wait until that one gets used in a Court for a bank robber "But your honor, the money was there, it isn't my fault".

But yes, let's blame China's "distorted rush for economic growth". Why call it distorted? It is doing what it needs, I am sure, for National interest.
See less See more
Many people seem confused by the difference between CAUSING something and CONTRIBUTING to something. They are not the same thing even though they are a bit related.:coffee:
Snip:

"raising American incomes so Americans borrow less,"

so, the only way I know to do this is to raise prices of items, so then we raise salaries, so we can buy those items? I would like to see "show Americans the value of saving" or something.

I don't know about the premise of the article, absolving Wall Street completely.

Would you absolve the Drug Dealers and lay the blame on the users and the cartels that supply them? Is that not similar?

So it is the fact that the money is there, as you put it "readily available for the taking' that is to blame. Boy, can't wait until that one gets used in a Court for a bank robber "But your honor, the money was there, it isn't my fault".

But yes, let's blame China's "distorted rush for economic growth". Why call it distorted? It is doing what it needs, I am sure, for National interest.
I certainly do blame drug users more than dealers. Without the users, there could be no dealers. Read Fourdeuces post above, it explains it very well. Anytime there is a demand for something, someone will supply the product.
We have to raise US incomes by having US folks making more of what we buy, not just by raising prices. Let China earn their money making things for the CHinese.

This is true but I'm still waiting for punishment of the folks who conned people into borrowing too much and made fat profits for doing nothing except creating a housing bubble, in fact causing harm. Tho maybe getting to live in your dream crib for three years then losing it all is worth it?

I don't mean Goldman Sachs I mean mortgage brokers who told people to write in triple their actual income or did it for people without telling them.
We have to raise US incomes by having US folks making more of what we buy, not just by raising prices. Let China earn their money making things for the CHinese.

This is true but I'm still waiting for punishment of the folks who conned people into borrowing too much and made fat profits for doing nothing except creating a housing bubble, in fact causing harm. Tho maybe getting to live in your dream crib for three years then losing it all is worth it?

I don't mean Goldman Sachs I mean mortgage brokers who told people to write in triple their actual income or did it for people without telling them.
But those people who borrowed too much weren't conned into borrowing anything. They sought out these loans. The brokers did not go to their homes and trick them into borrowing. If I go to get a loan for $5,000 and the loan officer tells me he would be glad to loan me $10,000, it is my choice whether to take it or not. It is 100% my fault if I accept the $10,000 loan knowing I will have problems paying it back.
Uh, so you're saying that the Chinese economy is faltering after buying billions of worthless investments that were produced here in the US? Somehow this doesn't match what is happening.

Or are you saying that these worthless investments were produced to fill a Chinese need for investments, but somehow China didn't buy them. US investors bought them.

I think the article is just classic misdirection. The article more or less admits that high risk securities were created deliberately, it just tries to say that there was a good reason for doing it.
G
We have to raise US incomes by having US folks making more of what we buy, not just by raising prices. Let China earn their money making things for the CHinese.

This is true but I'm still waiting for punishment of the folks who conned people into borrowing too much and made fat profits for doing nothing except creating a housing bubble, in fact causing harm. Tho maybe getting to live in your dream crib for three years then losing it all is worth it?

I don't mean Goldman Sachs I mean mortgage brokers who told people to write in triple their actual income or did it for people without telling them.
My grandma use to say... If James(my cousin) told you to jump off the roof, would you do it? If people lie about their income, they did that to reap the benefits of the lie. nobody twisted their pigtails to make them lie.
But those people who borrowed too much weren't conned into borrowing anything. They sought out these loans. The brokers did not go to their homes and trick them into borrowing.
I agree that people shouldn't have borrowed so much. But I understand that there was a very strong emphasis to SELL these loans within financial institutions.

Come on ... people have been evaluating loans for risk, and turning away risky borrowers, for centuries. Suddenly, the loan companies decide that high risk is okay? It was okay because they planned to unload the bad loans on someone else! So let's see ... I have all these toxic loans and want to sell them ... I'm going to tell everyone how toxic they are and see how many sell? The whole mess depends on dishonesty. And guess who that was ... all these banks and financial institutions that the article is trying to defend.

Yeah, go ahead and tell me that Wall Street had nothing to do with this.
I certainly do blame drug users more than dealers. Without the users, there could be no dealers. Read Fourdeuces post above, it explains it very well. Anytime there is a demand for something, someone will supply the product.
All of the drug dealers I knew took cash as they couldn't sell their accounts receivables to investors after having them rated A+.

You want to read about the causes look into the book titled The Big Short or wait as they're making a movie about it.
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top