Studying the financial bubbles we can see several common characteristics.

During the bubble inflation we see markets taken to an extreme by financial greed, but as Walter Sowell so appropriately metaphored on the housing bubble, “blaming the crash on greed is like blaming an airplane crash on gravity”; it is accurate but not very useful. We have had greed with us since the Garden of Eden.  Why does it only seem to rear its head to an extreme only every few years?

We see common sense dissolved in ‘new paradigms’, ‘permanently high plateaus’, ‘irreversible trends’, and ‘progressive thinking.’  Motivated by financial gain we believe whatever will support our belief in the unsupportable.

During the dot.com bubble we accepted billion dollar valuations of companies with no customers, no available products and only promising markets.  As 25 year old entrepreneurs became billionaires we believed that they were smart. There is this common aspect of bubbles that equates wealth with intelligence.  We want to believe that our new wealth is a reflection of our superior insight rather than mere luck.

When these bubbles burst and reality restores common sense we do not want to accept our own foolishness for buying into the speculative fever, we want to blame someone.  The geniuses who adorned the magazine covers as the faces of the bubbles either become villains or fade to obscurity.

In the distant past bubbles were fueled by individual greed buying into bad ideas, or at least good ideas taken to an extreme. But more recently bubbles have been enlarged by government policy.  Beyond just misguided monetary policy, the recent housing bubble was fueled by government policy that added to the demand for housing by pushing programs to help people buy homes who could not afford them.  By eliminating down payments and guaranteeing otherwise obviously risky loans the Government through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac created one of the biggest bubbles seen to date.

The cover of Newsweek with the picture of Al Gore as “The Thinking Man’s Thinking Man” strikes me as a sign of a new bubble inflating. The subtitle “Al Gore’s new plan for the planet” is the hubris of bubbles.

We never seem to recognize bubbles when we are in the middle of them. They only seem visible when they burst.  Yet the new green industrial complex is growing with massive investments that seem guided more by wishful thinking and paranoia than common sense and reason.

From the administration’s stated belief that green energy will provide the jobs that will lift us out of massive unemployment and recession to the policies that will create the drive to capitalize on the new government direction, we now see massive investment into irrational markets.

Al Gore is the chairman of Generation Investment Management, an investment firm making capital investments in firms with potential to capitalize on the green movement and policies. He is also founder and chairman of the Alliance for Climate Protection, an outfit promoting the green economy. With money from people interested in promoting the public interest of environmentalism, the Alliance for Climate Protection is spending $300 million to promote the lifestyle that will benefit the investments of Al’s firm.

To be sure others besides Al Gore are on Capitol Hill promoting climate bills that will financially benefit their own interests.  Members of the Bush administration were chastised for their oil interests and criticized for letting it influence their policy decisions.  But we are assured that those now promoting their financial interests in their preferred energy sector are altruistic.

Gore is the face of the green industrial complex, but there are many seeking to profit from their foresight and concern to help save the planet. Gore is a genius for getting public policy firms to advertise heavily to support the market for his investments. The best entrepreneurs from the previous bubbles were never able to get $175,000 to make speeches promoting their industry. Gore may be the first green billionaire.

As in previous bubbles skeptics are marginalized, often demonized. As in so many previous bubbles delusional certainty is hurled at skepticism and reason more like an offensive than a defensive weapon . Gore boldly claims, “The debate is over.”

Believers who do not know which end of the test tube the cork goes into post scientific articles to confirm their belief. Confirmation, not information, is the object of their reading.

As I read about the genius of Al Gore on the cover of Newsweek,  I recall the prophetic words of John Kenneth Galbraith in his book , “A Short History of Financial Bubbles,” .

“Genius is before the fall.”

To blame the mere shortage of cash for the evils caused by incompetence and corruption is the favorite lie of socialists and crony capitalists everywhere. Socialists always say there is no problem of inequality or poverty that can’t be solved with cash.  It is cash alone that separates the rich from the poor- not talent or skill or hard work or thrift. Similarly, in the socialist view it is only access to capital that separates “greedy” and “monopolistic” (read “successful”) firms from the thousand flowers that would bloom if only the government would create a “level playing field” and “enforce competition.”

After the socialists becpme the government and begin evolving into crony capitalists, their favored beneficiaries- Soviet state-owned factories, Japanese banks, Fannie and Freddie in the United States- are always described as faultlessly devoted, idealistic, and hardworking, or at least essential.  If they underperform (and they always underperform), it is only because they are short of cash- which the government then always provides in some form or another.

From Panic by Andrew Redleaf and Richard Vigilante

George Melloan writes in The Wall Street Journal,  The Lessons of Basel’s Bean Counters

Summarized:

In 1988 the banking regulators from  20 leading industrial nations of the International Monetary Fund met in Switzerland and created Basel I to create a common set of banking standards by setting risk based capital standards, and assigning degrees of risk.

But the Japanese banks were bragging about their compliance when they tanked in the 1990’s.

So they created Basel II.  Standards were toughened to include trading in securities and derivatives. All of this seemed irrelevant in stopping the meltdown of 2008.

Excerpt:

The international banking tumult of 2008 was not a result of insufficient rules or even primarily of noncompliance with the rules. Banking is perhaps the world’s most regulated major industry. As in Japan in 1990, the imperatives of politics simply overrode what the rule makers and rule enforcers were trying to accomplish, turning their labors to dust.

The 2008 crisis resulted when the Fed-created credit bubble collapsed and soaring housing prices deflated as well. To promote “affordable” housing, Bill Clinton had excused the two giant government-sponsored housing finance agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, from normal banking rules, allowing them leverage ratios far in excess of the limits on ordinary lenders. Banks were forced to write risky mortgage loans, a large number of which were then folded into mortgage-backed securities that Fannie, Freddie and others sold internationally with triple-A ratings.

This business seized up, crippling banks throughout the world, when holders began to realize that the assets that backed the securities, home mortgages, were going under water at an alarming rate. One of the great ironies of our times is that the two strongest defenders of the Fannie-Freddie shell game, Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, are now in charge of reforming banking regulation.

The better solution is clear rules, commonly understood financial prudence, and control of debt.  Yet our current government administration, which practices none of this, proposes to fix our financial system. I have yet to hear a peep out of Congress taking any responsibility for our financial mess.  This will only increase the likelihood or repeating or worsening the next crash.

With the clarity of time we can look back at the brink of the collapse that hit us just prior to the last national election.  In the midst of the collapse we were stunned and angry, and tended to blame the party in power. Although the Democrats had controlled both houses of Congress since 2006, the disaster took its bigger toll on the Republicans.

While the roots of this collapse extend back through many administrations of both parties, it is important to know what did not cause this as well.

Some blamed the deficits, others blamed deregulation, but many just saw the main cause as unbridled greed.  I contend that while there were deficits, and there was greed, none of these played a critical role in fomenting this crisis.

As Thomas Sowell noted, blaming this crisis on greed is like blaming an airplane crash on gravity.  It is true but it doesn’t really explain anything. Worse if we just blame the undeniable then there is no need to examine human error, design flaws, or study ways to keep it from happening again.

Greed has been with us since the dawn of man. Why did it decide to show its ugly face in September of 2008? Greed is encumbered by the limits of a rational society and in a capitalist system it is encumbered by competition.  I may want to charge $2,000 a ton for steel, but competition keeps me from charging what I want, and even forces me to keep my payroll and expenses in line.

Our government tries to contain the fear of greed with regulations. If we are to blame greed we must face the failure of our regulations, or we may even need to face the possibility that our regulations fostered greedy behavior.  The second most common blame was the laissez faire attitude that had fostered deregulation of the financial markets.   Usually this is directed at the repeal of the Glass Steagal Act which separated lenders from investment banks. This law was repealed under The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, which was signed by President Clinton.

But other nations, notably Canada, also repealed similar legislation and they did not experience the financial crisis we did. But Canada also did not suspend prudent lending standards to force the spread of home ownership beyond its natural market.

Nor was deregulation the norm under George W Bush. In fact just the opposite was true.

Elliot Spitzer noted that we did not suffer from the lack of regulators or regulations. There were plenty to do the job, but they seem to lack the courage and the will to do the job.  We needed better regulations, not more of them.  In many cases the regulated industries such as Fannie Mae  (exempt from SEC and FDIC regulation) spent enormously on lobbyists and campaign contributions to thwart efforts to regulate them.  It was successful for them.

The biggest recipient of campaign contributions from AIG was Barak Obama. The biggest recipient of the PAC assembled by the largest mortgage lender for Fannie Mae, Country Wide Finance,  was Barak Obama. The largest recipient of campaign funds from Fannie Mae was ….. yes, Barak Obama. The second largest recipient in these three cases was Chris Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

The deficits which seemed so irresponsible at the time now look like pocket change.  Deficits do matter but it depends how long they last, how large they are relative to GDP, prevailing interest rates, and what the deficits are spent on.  Personal debt spent on a house or investment equipment may seem prudent, the same debt spent on a boat or jewelry would not.

While the debt incurred under George Bush was arguably bad, it was not a critical factor in causing the meltdown.  We incurred controversial debts under Ronal Reagan and incurred little repercussion from the financial industry.

Bubbles are nothing new and may just be a part of the pricing mechanism. The Federal Reserve was created to bring stability to our financial system. It first test was the Great Depression of 1929, and it failed miserably.  Nearly 80 years later with the value of the dollar down 95% and in the middle of the worst financial crisis in our adult lives, we should ask if it is part of the problem.

Eliminating commonly perceived causes should help us focus on solutions that will work. If we delude ourselves into blaming greed, deficits, and individual demons we risk designing solutions that not only will not work, but will like make the problem worse

“Fannie and Freddie played the political game even more fiercely than their opponents, spending millions of dollars on armies of lobbyists on Capitol Hill. Each company was a revolving door for the powerful in Washington- both Republican and Democrat. Newt Gingrich and Ralph Reed, among others, worked as consultants for Fannie or Freddie; Rahm Emanuel was a board member of Freddie.”

“By the 1990’s, Fannie’s chief executive could boast, without much exaggeration, that “we are the equivalent of a Federal Reserve system for housing.”  At their pinnacle the two mortgage giants- neither of them and originator of loans- owned or guaranteed some 55 percent of the $11 trillion U.S. mortgage market.  Beginning in the 1980’s, the two companies also became important conduits for the business of mortgage- backed securities.  Wall Street loved the fees it collected from securitizing all kinds of debt, from car loans to credit card receivables, and Fannie’s and Freddie’s portfolio of mortgages were the biggest honeypot around.”

“But in 1999, under pressure from the Clinton administration, Fannie and Freddie began underwriting subprime mortgages. The move was presented in the press as a way to put  homes within the reach of countless Americans, but providing loans to people who wouldn’t ordinarily qualify for them was an inherently risky business.”

From Too Big To Fail by Andrew Ross Sorkin