Thursday, December 11, 2008

The Inevitable Boom vs. bust Cycle

Inevitable? You’re f-ing A right it is, and here is why:

Human nature.

When times is good, as in the 20’s and in the last decade, we feel good about ourselves and our positions in life. We spend money. We take out loans. We begin to see those investments that would have, ten years ago, been considered risky as hell, as being totally normal, every day things. All of those above things simply act to make the up cycle that much bigger. Economies love the spending of money. They LOVE it. The economy keeps going up, up, up, until it reaches a pre-determined, yet wholly invisible threshold, where the gains from that point on are fake. People have overspent. They’ve run out of money to spend. The banks are beginning to get nervous that they’ve lent too much to too many, and slow down the lending spree. All that we need now is a catalyst. It could be anything. In this case, it was home foreclosures exposing the entire real-estate market to be built up on fake money. In 1928, it was marginal spending and trading being exposed, showing the stock market to be built up on fake money. Either way, it results in the bust cycle rearing it’s ugly head.

So what can we do about it? What should we do about it?

To both of these questions, I say, nothing.

Now, as soon as all of the left-leaning “government can fix it” folks in the audience stop chattering and gasping, I’ll tell you why.

It resets the cycle. The same generation that spent frivolously and wantonly in the 20’s re-learned what it meant to live for tomorrow, and to be frugal and save. If the 20’s had been allowed to continue, unfettered by marginal trading, something else would have brought us down. Wanton, uncareful crop usage, brought about by favorable climatic conditions and the carefree, anything goes attitude of the 20’s would have resulted in agricultural collapse (and it partially did, in Oklahoma, anyway). I guess my point is that human nature demands boom and bust cycles, because as soon as we get comfortable, we begin to destroy ourselves with frivolities and the throwing of caution to the proverbial four winds. This inevitably brings about another bust. The folks that lived through the depression became frugal, wise, and savvy to what it means to do without. They lived within their means from that point forward. In fact, I truly believe that the depression set us up for victory in WWII, because I seriously doubt that the materialistic, good-times society of the 1920’s could have handled the deprivation associated with a real world war.

The folks of the depression era handed down their frugality to their children, and them to their children, and through each generation, the message got watered down. Now, the current generation is being reminded what wanton infrugality will get them. If it weren’t for the housing markets failing, something else would have gotten us here, eventually. It is basic human nature, and human nature cannot be overcome. My hope is that we learn from this, and re-set the cycle so that we may pass down this lesson of frugality to our children and grandchildren.

I might add one more point. There is one way to eliminate the boom vs. bust cycle. The way to eliminate this cycle is through absolute and total socialism, by eliminating any boom and keeping us all in a constant state of bust. As long as we aren’t comfortable, and we are struggling to meet the next day’s needs, we won’t have the ability to set ourselves up for the next fall. If you never leave the first step of the ladder, you have no where to which you may fall.

20 comments:

Heidi said...

Goober -

Yet again, I agree with you. But that doesn't make the transitions any less painful. The people who did the reasonable thing (didn't get a mortgage they couldn't afford, etc) are dragging the rest of the country along and paying for the reckless ones.

Heidi said...

Oh, and EAT ME.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I see. So now it's the business cycle!

I was waiting for this. When the economy goes south due to bad conservative fiscal policy and decades of ideologically-inspired neglect, it's THE BUSINESS CYCLE.

When there's a downturn and democrats are in control it's FAILURE.

You'll never get away with it. This crisis has "PROPERTY OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY AND CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY" written all over it.

ALL. OVER. IT.

alan said...

So, by your definition, me not being able to sell my house by paying someone $5,000 to take it off my hands is my fault. When I bought it I should have gone for a bigger loan which I knew I couldn't afford that way I could have gone in to foreclosure instead of a 1 bedroom apt less than 300 miles from where I now work.

I won't disagree that part of the problem of the housing market is the result of venture capitalists who expected to make money off of over inflated prices. And a good many did. They took advantage of a very liberal lending package which provided for "everyone" to be able to have the American dream of owning a mansion house whether they could actually afford it or not.

boom, bust, boom, The same cycle has gone on for eons. It never changes, only the collective altered memory of what caused it changes. It's going to be painful, I will not be able to retire like I wanted to because I have 2 kids in college right now and they can't find jobs to support themselves let alone pay for school.

Funny thing is, I didn't plan on retiring from the workforce, just the job I currently do. Maybe 25 years isn't enough.

Anonymous said...

A very typical HLF post from another blog where she calls herself "Dino". This is her input to a discussion concerning a typical Illinois Democrat electorate.

Look at the walking shitstains salivate over their new Whitewater!

You'll have to do better than this if you think Americans are going to let you destroy a man elected with a plurality in an economic meltdown.

Vile pieces of shit.

Posted by: DINO

You note she has the same thoughtful and intelligent input as she has here. She is a true piece of work, she it not? Near as I can tell, she's the very best liberals have to offer in the way of humanity. It's so sad. It's her and her ilk; the users and exporters of smut, that have given the West the Islamic alias "Great Satan".

Anonymous said...

Yeah, but does she have a nice rack?

Anonymous said...

QUOTABLE QUOTES
"I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."
– Winston Churchill

Anonymous said...

Anonymous sweetie,

Who is this Dino woman you speak of? And who are you, pray tell? Is that you Jimbo? Or perhaps Kenny?

You know I love you both with all of mommy's hearts.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous sweetie,

Who is this Dino woman you speak of? And who are you, pray tell? Is that you Jimbo? Or perhaps Kenny?

You know I love you both with all of mommy's hearts.

Anonymous said...

SORRY GOO-BAR. HERE'S THE REAL STORY. THIS IS IT. ANYTHING ELSE IS BULLA-BULLA. IT IA ALL A RESULT OF THIS:

Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending
By STEVEN A. HOLMES
Published: September 30, 1999
New York Times
In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.
''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''
Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.
Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.
Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.
Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.
In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.
Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.
In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.
The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.

THEY COUNTED WELFARE AND FOOD STAMPS AS INCOME TO APPROVE THEM FOR THE SUB PRIMES.

WHEN YOU HAVE NO (OR NEGATIVE) EQUITY IN SOMETHING, IT'S REALLY EASY TO BLOW IT OFF AND WALK AWAY.

Anonymous said...

O, and Heidi...... can I?

Heidi said...

Well, there's not much else here.

My entire building was going to have a potluck today. The email that went out evidently didn't reach all the offices (I know of several people that had no clue it was occurring). The meager amount of food that showed up already looks like a herd of locusts has gone through and it's not even 10 am yet. I brought two dishes. One is all gone and the other is on its way out. I may have to run to Burger King for lunch, because it looks like there may not be any food left.

So, I hold up my potluck as an allegory for the topic at hand. I did what I was supposed to do, other people benefited and I will be left with nothing.

Ok - I'm done feeling sorry for myself.

Anonymous said...

Best get used to it Heidi.

Anonymous said...

"So, by your definition, me not being able to sell my house by paying someone $5,000 to take it off my hands is my fault. When I bought it I should have gone for a bigger loan which I knew I couldn't afford that way I could have gone in to foreclosure instead of a 1 bedroom apt less than 300 miles from where I now work."

I never said anything of the sort?

I said that society in general got themselves in over their heads. I don't know your story, so I didn't say "Alan got himself in over his head". The reason you couldn't sell your house is because the economy collapsed due to all of this.

Not even really sure where you got the idea that I'm saying that everyone affected by the crash is responsbile for it.

Anonymous said...

"THE BUSINESS CYCLE."

Not the business cycle, the HUMAN NATURE cycle. Look at anything, even things not business related, and you'll see the human nature cycle at work. This isn't a normal part of a free market. despite normal, slight fluctuations, a free market should trend towards stasis, or slight positive, or slight negative growth. Any time you see a big bubble, it is going to be followed by a big pop, because something has jacked up the free market's stasis by creating an artificial influence.

In this case, it was improper and horribly inadvisable lending practices brought about and allowed by pressures from Fannie and Freddie, compounded by a change in accounting rules that caused businesses that were solvent to become insolvent overnight.

It wasn't something that house republicans missed, either. A few years back, a bunch of them tried to do something about this mess but were blocked by your democratic cohorts up there in DC.

We tried to do something. YOu blocked it. Now, it's our fault, I guess...

Goofy bugger.

Anonymous said...

And yes, I tire of people saying they should get a bailout, or a renegotiation of terms, or some other concession, because they are struggling.

If I had signed an ARM on my house, I could have gotten my mortgage payment down to 60% of what it is now. I chose to do the right thing, the harder thing, and pay more in a fixed rate mortgage, and now, I am being asked to pony up for all the other folks that didn't do the right thing and wanted tog et rich quick.

This get rich quick attitude is eactly what my OP was about. Folks need to be reminded what "play now, pay later" truly costs every 60 years or so. Look back even before the Great Depression. Anytime there was a big boom, you could trace down the artificial externatlity that created it, and you could also find a recession or depression to follow it.

Anonymous said...

HLF said...
Anonymous sweetie,
Who is this Dino woman you speak of?
December 11, 2008 10:10 PM


Don't play stupid, stupid.

You are the only "blogger" (I use the term loosely) who uses the term "brainstem" as derogatory slang towards conservatives.

You are transparent as a storefront window, Dino. A store front window full of butt-toys in the San Francisco Tenderloin district.

And I’m not your “sweetie”, moron. Not “Jimbo” either – but I like Jimbo’s term for you. “Dipshit” isn’t it? It fits so nicely. I saw a post on Moonbattery that said you were on this blog being a jerk. I just came over to see for myself if you are as big a fool here as over there. I’m satisfied. You are.

Anonymous said...

But anon, what else can one say about a group of people whose only interest is their 1) stuff, 2) money, 3) selfish pleasure.

BRAINSTEM

Anonymous said...

Hey lookie! Even Bernankes says you conservatives idiots are full of shit on the whole CRA, Fannie/Freddie thing!

Bernanke: CRA Not To Blame For Housing Crisis

WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- The federal law encouraging banks to lend to low- and moderate-income customers is not to blame for the current housing crisis, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said in a recent letter to a member of Congress.


Bernanke, responding to a letter from Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., said the Fed's experience with 1977's Community Reinvestment Act - including data on the subprime loan market - "runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties."
Bernanke, continuing in the Nov. 25 letter to Menendez, said declining home values, inadequate risk management of complex financial instruments, and lending models that favored quantity over quality all contributed to the current problems.

"The available evidence to date, however, does not lend support to the argument that CRA is to blame for causing the subprime loan crisis," Bernanke wrote.


There you have it idjits.

Anonymous said...

OH NO! Not the Wall Street Journal TOO!

Don’t Blame CRA (The Sequel)

A pair of economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco added another piece of evidence to the case that the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act wasn’t the cause, or even a major contributor, to the subprime mortgage debacle.

In a paper focused on California that was presented at a Fed conference on housing and mortgages in Washington, D.C., Elizabeth Laderman and Carolina Reid say the data “should help to quell if not fully lay to rest the arguments that the CRA caused the current subprime lending boom by requiring banks to lend irresponsibly in low and moderate-income lenders.” Fed governor Randall Kroszner made a similar case earlier this week.

Among the specific findings in “Lending in Low- and Moderate-Income Neighborhoods in California: The Performance of CRA Lending During the Subprime Meltdown”:

Overall, lending to low and moderate income communities comprised only a small share of toal lending by CRA lenders, even during the height of the California subprime lending boom.
Loans originated by lenders regulated under CRA in general were “significantly less likely to be in foreclosure” than those originated by independent mortgage companies that weren’t covered by CRA.
Loans made by CRA lenders within their geographic assessment areas covered by the law were “half as likely to go into foreclosure” as those made by the independent mortgage companies.
28% of loans made by CRA lenders in low income areas within their geographic assessment areas were fixed-rate loans, compared with 18.2% of loans made by independent mortgage companies in low income areas.
12% of the loans made by CRA lenders in these areas were high-priced loans, a technical definition of subprime, compared with 29% of the loans made by those lenders outside their assessment areas and 52.4% of loans made by independent mortgage companies in low-income areas.


Poor conservatives! No one with any brains will let you blame the poor!