Ever since Michael Douglas’s character Gordon Gekko in the movie Wall Street declared “Greed is Good” capitalism has been cast in a sinister role that it has yet to overcome.

The movie speech was rumored to be taken from a speech given by Ivan Boesky at a college address. Boesky was indicted for insider trader, served time in jail and paid millions in fines.

Capitalism is not about greed; it is about economic self interest, and this is far more than a semantic distinction. When you take a job paying $10 an hour over the job paying only $8 an hour you are displaying economic self interest, not greed. And when you decide to take the job paying $8 an hour over the job paying $10 an hour because you like the conditions or the work at the lower paying job enough to sacrifice the higher pay you are also acting in your own economic self interest. Economics is about far more than money.

When you decide to take a steady job in a traditional workplace rather than make much more money in drugs and prostitution you are also acting in your economic self interest. It is when your economic self interest disconnects from moral and ethical considerations that it becomes greed.

The ultimate power is the power over your own destiny and environment, but power is most often considered in the control over others. Whereas economic self interest in about control over your own destiny, political self interest is about controlling others.

Capitalism is about people acting in each other’s own self interest and the society benefiting as a result. This works because achieving your self interest requires serving others.

Advanced economic theory also realized that self interest and sharing is not mutually exclusive. In “A Beautiful Mind” John Nash had a Eureka moment courting ladies at the beer hall with his college buddies. He realized that Adam Smith was wrong, or at least incomplete. He developed a theory of equilibrium in competitive game theory. Basically this meant that he realized that your best outcome was not to grab as much as you can for yourself, but that your chance of success was enhanced by assuring at least some success for your competitors. Not only are consumers’ well being enhanced by competition, but the outcome for the competitors themselves is improved.

In order to profit you have to provide a product or service some one else values. Bill Gates, Michael Dell, and Stephen Jobs are very, very wealthy because everyone values Microsoft Windows and Office, iPhones, Macs, and laptops.

Few people complain about the wealth of these techno entrepreneurs because they all provide value we understand. The same can be said of Warren Buffet.

Yet we are outraged at the fortunes made in the financial industry where record amounts of value have been destroyed while CEOs made millions in bonuses. We do not understand derivatives, collateralized debt obligations, and financial models: Apparently neither did the CEO’s and boards of the companies selling these products.

The Wall Street mess was the product of “crony capitalism” which is to capitalism what National Socialism (Nazism) is to socialism. Crony Capitalism is a perversion of the principles of capitalism that includes the freedom “for every man to make himself” to use the phrase of Abraham Lincoln. “Crony capitalism” has its roots in the mercantilist tradition of Alexander Hamilton. During our early years Hamilton saw a need for financial interests and the government to work “closely”. He favored a central bank and such “public private partnerships.”

Hamilton was strongly opposed by Jefferson who favored decentralization and saw the favoritism fostered by mercantilism and the influence such financiers could have over our government as a threat to liberty.

Fannie Mae for example was given special treatment and access to low interest funds available to no other financial institution, and exempted from both SEC and FDIC regulation, Fannie Mae lobbied Congress and plied their special regulators with large campaign contributions. Senator Chris Dodd, head of the Senate Banking Committee and then Senator Barak Obama were the two largest recipients.

But the real damage was not compromising two high profile Senators. Fannie Mae was given special privileges in order to carry out the political will of Congress to make housing affordable for people who shouldn’t buy homes. They created the hunting grounds for the unscrupulous.

Bonuses and bailout funds for Fannie Mae did not elicit near the outrage of AIG and the Wall Street banks. The public still thinks it was the ‘Gordon Gekko’ greed of Wall Street rather than the political greed of K Street.

We still blame the economic self interest instead of the political self interest. Articles decry the old capitalism and herald the new era of state capitalism. The last time we heralded state capitalism was in Italy in the 1920’s and 30’s.

Crony capitalism was not limited to Fannie Mac and Freddie Mac. There has been a revolving door between Wall Street and Washington for decades. As long as the complicated instruments served the political greed, political leaders were willing to ignore prudent financial principles and assume that the overpaid magicians knew what they were doing.

The financial scandals of the 1980’s, the S&L collapse under George H Bush, the collapse of Long Term Capital in 1998, The collapse of the high tech bubble should have been a warning that high salaries and bonuses are not synonymous with competence.

But the solution is not to promote more crony capitalism, also called state capitalism or my favorite term used in the book “Nudge” (Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein) , ‘Libertarian Paternalism’  (my vote for oxymoron of the year).

By now we should have learned that when business gets in bed with the government, somebody gets screwed.

We tend to look at our economy as a diversion from the norm after a record financial set back.  But the economy we are in may well be closer to the norm.

The former economy was distorted by government policies that incentivized more money to go into housing than would have likely happened in a freer market. Banks were incentivized into putting large amounts of capital into securities that were not as secure as they were promised.

That is not to say that booms and busts are all the fault of government policies. Free markets do not totally counter the extremes of greed and fear; they just flush them out quicker.

Government policies want to protect us from the pain of adjustment to normal, but these policies only serve to make the recovery take longer, or worse, they avoid the recognition and correction of the extremes that caused the crash, ensuring a bigger crisis later.

This last crash was largely due to the failure to fully address the failure of Continental Illinois, Long Term Capital, and Enron. By blaming the greed of a few individuals we neglected to address systemic failures and regulatory shortcomings.

The prior market was one where the lessons of transparency and disclosure learned after the Great Depression were ignored.  The ability of a home owner to afford a house was ignored in deference to the ’social justice’ of promoting home ownership.

We now insist on down payments that put some of the owner’s skin in the game.  By being forced to seek growth that can be sustained by realistic cash flow, growth will be more sustainable.

Companies are now forced to control expenses, improve margins, and make a wiser and more realistic assessment of risk.  This is what used to be considered normal.  It only seems difficult and painful after a period of easy money, distorted incentives and unsustainable policies.

We are in a period of deleveraging.  It will be painful and some sectors will be hurt more than others.  The more the government tries to protect us from the pain of adjustment, the longer the adjustment will take, the longer unemployment will remain high, and the higher the deficit will grow.

Smaller businesses will suffer more, leaving less competition to the larger companies.  Larger companies will do better, income discrepancies will grow and the tax burden will become less progressive. This is the opposite of what one would expect from a president that wants to share the wealth.

This is the result of legislating so much drastic change that economic and business decisions are frozen in the headlights of uncertainty. Adding such uncertainty to the pain of deleveraging will cause this economy to stagnate for years.

The longer the economy stagnates under the burdens of higher taxes and more regulations, the more that stagnation will become the new norm like it is already in Europe. The potential for long term damage to our economic system is significant.

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

There are those who see our financial problem as a moral failure. In one sense it is, but not in the sense those who wish to frame it in moral tones believe.

To blame greed for the meltdown is simplistic and irrelevant. Greed has been with us forever. Why would it appear in its ugliness now?

I would say that our economic collapse was the fault of a moral supremacy that ignored sound economic principles and common sense.  In an effort to encourage home ownership for the poor, the government demanded that prudent lending standards be forced out of the system. To assure a market the government through Fannie Mae guaranteed mortgages and ridiculous financial instruments to feed the market.

When alarms were being sounded the regulators and legislators were being hounded with political pressure from lobbyists for the very firms they were regulating. Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama were among the largest recipients of campaign funds from Fannie Mae.  Barney Frank and many others loudly protested those who warned of a problem, insisting that these programs providing housing for the lower income were somewhat sacrosanct.

It was the unwillingness to understand the limits of government to fulfill our moral wishes that fed this mania.  It was our pursuit of moral justice through government force that led taxpayer funded ACORN to pressure banks to make high risk loans to those who otherwise would not have qualified.

It was not greed or the absence of morality that caused this disaster; it was the ignorance of basic economic principles and the belief that the government can create wealth by making promises it can’t fulfill and that it can erase risk by ignoring it.  In its malfeasance it made the poor worse off and destroyed equity value for millions of the middle class.

If there is a moral failure it is that the government refused to accept its limitations, and that the voters wanted a government that will promise them everything.

The greed of those who wanted a modest house they could not afford caused us more damage than the titans on Wall Street who found a way to get rich delivering the voters their delusion.

My first article published at American Thinker-

The iron law of bubbles

excerpts:

But this same infatuation with talent can be attached to more than money; it can be attached to power.  With capitalism struggling to recover from yet another smackdown bubble we seem inclined to somehow believe that academics in political power will yield better results.  The same uncertainty that plagues the financial markets also plagues the political environment. The biggest difference is that a financial bubble will be brought down much more quickly. Bad political solutions become institutionalized and linger for decades. In many ways the current financial mess was born from political solutions imposed in response to our previous bubbles.

Our political discourse is largely about the balance between the need to smartly regulate a very efficient but imperfect market, and the desire to merely replace financial power with political power. It often means the balance between individual rights and the interests of the collective. While the economic self-interest of capitalism is suspect after the bubble is burst, we often suffer more from the political self-interest that seeks to correct it.  Our most oppressive laws are often the ones designed to protect us from our own stupidity.