naked capitalism

Even though there has been an increasing level of revolutionary saber-rattling in comments, it’s hard to see what the outlet for the anger against the banking industry will be. The brief surge of letter-writing, e-mails, and calls to Congressmen to forestall the TARP proved useless. But Americans don’t go to the barricades or do general strikes, much the less put heads on pikes.

But this sort of revolt does fit, that of a debtors’ strike. It doesn’t require violence or even public assembly.

The first test of public mood will be whether this video (hat tip Karl Denninger via reader Scott) goes viral.

If you do decide to go this route, check your state’s statue of limitations on this type of debt. And even after that time has passed, if you establish a new relationship with the institution (as in get a new credit card or open a bank account), my understanding is that they can reactivate the obligation. Of course, anyone who gets in this sort of fight would presumably never want to do business with that institution again, but a lot of retailers and affinity groups have cards that are operated by one of the big credit card issuers, so you need to be careful.

Um, this isn’t exactly consistent with the recovery story. From MarketWatch:

Employers’ hiring plans for the upcoming fourth quarter dropped to their lowest level in the history of Manpower’s Employment Outlook Survey, which started in 1962.

A net -3% of employers said they’ll hire in the fourth quarter, down from -2% in the third quarter, on a seasonally adjusted basis…. Before this year, the survey’s previous low point was a net 1% hiring outlook for the third quarter of 1982…

A year ago, a seasonally adjusted net 9% of firms said they would hire in the fourth quarter. … Manpower doesn’t measure the number of jobs. The survey’s margin of error is +/- 0.49%.

And the only sector with a net positive number of establishments seeking to hire is…..financial services! How nice to be an arm of the government, when ironically, the government sector is in negative territory, hiring-wise:

For each industry, here are the figures for the net employment outlook for the fourth quarter, not seasonally adjusted, in order of most negative outlook first.

Construction, -10%, down from 2% for the third quarter

Mining, -9%, flat from -9%

Transportation and utilities, -9%, down from -3%

Government, -8%, down from -4%

Manufacturing, durable goods, -8%, down from -6%

Information, -5%, down from -4%

Manufacturing, nondurable goods, -3%, down from 0%

Other services, -1%, down from 0%

Financial activities, 1%, down from 2%

The headline statistic, which comes out of a study by the non-partisan California Budget Project, in isolation sounds worse than it is (which is not to say that this factoid is good, mind you). Labor force participation before the downturn was in the 66%ish range, so this is a meaningful decline (assuming California levels are similar to the US overall.

From the San Francisco Chronicle (hat tip reader John D):

A report released Sunday says two of five working-age Californians do not have a job, underscoring the challenges in one of the toughest job markets in decades. A new study has found that the last time employment levels among this group were this low was February 1977.

By comparison, the current national unemployment rate of 9.7% is the worst since 1983.

But the current situation is worse that that “2 out of 5″ figure indicates. The study reported that only 57.5% of working age Californians have a job. The Golden State has the fourth highest unemployment rate in the US. And those who have jobs are on average not doing as well as they once did:

Adding to the woes of workers, the report says, those who still have jobs are bringing home less money, the result of stagnant wages that haven’t kept pace with inflation and cutbacks in the number of hours worked per week.

Happy Labor Day.

As much as commentators are trying to put a happy face on recent data releases showing that job losses are slowing, it still means that fewer people are working. Moreover, one element of the poor jobs environment that it not getting enough play is the way wages are deteriorating. Some who have full-time work have been asked to take pay cuts to preserve jobs; those who work part time are seeing their hours cut.

A sign of how difficult things are for some: food stamps users are increasingly employed. From the Financial Times:

The number of working Americans turning to free government food stamps has surged as their hours and wages erode…

While the increase in take-up is often attributed to the sharp rise in unemployment – which on Friday hit 9.7 per cent – the Financial Times has learnt that some 40 per cent of the families now on food stamps have “earned income”, up from 25 per cent two years ago.

The agriculture department, which runs the programme, attributes this rise to workers having their hours cut back.

“I’m sort of stunned, it seems like a dire warning . . . that even the jobs people are retaining in this recession aren’t at the wage level and hours level that they need to provide for their families,” said Heidi Shierholz, economist at the Economic Policy Institute….

Less attention has been paid to those still in the workforce, whose incomes are also being squeezed. The average working week is now about 33 hours, the lowest on record, while the number forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time work has risen more than 50 per cent in the past year to a record 8.8m. Wages and benefits have decelerated.

The food stamp data suggest that “the labour market problems are more significant than you would expect, given just the unemployment rate”, said John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo. “For me it suggests the consumer is not going to rebound or contribute to economic growth for the next year, as the consumer would in a traditional economic recovery.”

Another implication is that when the economy recovers, employers will first return staff whose hours have ben cut back to full time before hiring new staff, so improvements in unemployment will be slow in coming.

By Andrew Kaplan, a hedge fund manager:

It has become fashionable among equities managers of the bullish persuasion to argue that a strong recovery in GDP will occur in 2010 because the “structural adjustment period” of moving back to a more normal savings rate has been completed. We’ve gone from a savings rate of barely 1% in 2008 up to 4.2% in July (ok, so the argument sounded better when the number was 6.2% in May, but still…).

The story goes something like, “consumers took a little time to recognize that their home equity had disappeared, but now they’ve adjusted their savings rates toward the desired level to reflect the fact that they need to save a larger proportion of income for retirement…so this effect will no longer be a drag on growth in coming quarters.”

This is the kind of conventional wisdom which could only emerge among folks in the 99^th income percentile who spend their time primarily with other folks in the 99^th income percentile. You don’t have to look at the data (mortgage delinquencies, foreclosures, credit card defaults, bankruptcies) all that hard to see a very different picture. In fact, it is almost certainly true that the savings rate for 99% of the US population is negative. These people (a/k/a “all of us”) are drowning. And to the extent that our savings rate is less negative than it was one or two years ago, that simply reflects the reality of reduced home equity and unsecured credit lines rather than any conscious effort to reach a “desired level” of savings.

A little data might help here. Unfortunately, there really IS no good data on PCE (personal consumption expenditure) and savings stratified by income percentile. There are a couple of surveys, the triennial “Survey of Consumer Finances” by the Federal Reserve and the “Consumer Expenditure Survey” by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, but the self-reported data is laughable. For 2007, the Consumer Expenditure Survey showed a personal savings rate of 18.4%. In the same year, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which calculates the savings rate as a residual from actual income and expenditure data, showed a savings rate of 1.7%. Either the Consumer Expenditure Survey does a poor job of sampling, or people who fill out surveys are really big liars.

Fortunately, there IS some pretty good data on income stratification in the United States, and a few assumptions can help shed some light. Economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez have made careers of studying US income inequality using IRS data, which goes back to 1913. The most recent data available (for 2007) showed that the top 14,988 households (0.01% of the population) received 6.04% of income, the highest figure for any year since the data became available. The top 1% of households received 23.5% of income (the second highest on record, after 1928), while the top 10% received 49.7% of income (the highest on record).

The fortunate 14,988 had an average income in 2007 of $35,042,705. They had an average federal tax burden, according to Piketty and Saez, of 34.7%, leaving them after tax income of $22.9 million. If you assume a 50% savings rate among this group, you get total savings of $171.5 billion. This is nearly ONE HALF of the total savings for the entire country implied by a savings rate of 4.2% ($365 bn) reported in this month’s Bureau of Economic Analysis data.

I’ve never actually had an after tax income of $22.9 million, so I couldn’t say for sure whether a 50% savings rate is a reasonable assumption, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say that it is, just based on the pure physics of spending money. Buying cars, clothes, and fancy dinners, even at Masa, won’t get you there…the math doesn’t work. Buying a private jet could get you there, but most people, even rich people, don’t buy one of those every year. The only EASY way to spend more than 50% of $22.9 million on an annual basis is to buy lots of houses…but the definition of “personal consumption expenditure” used by the BEA specifically excludes purchases of real estate. They use an imputed rent calculation instead. So I’m going to stick with my 50% number.

If we expand our survey to the top 1% of all households, we find an average income of $1.36 million for 2007. These folks had an average federal tax burden of just under 33%, so their after tax income averaged $916 thousand. If you assume this group had a savings rate of 33%, you get total savings of $452 billion (remember, $171.5 bn of this comes from the top 0.01%, we’re assuming a savings rate of around 25% of after tax income for the “poorer” 99% of the top 1%) This is more than 100% of the personal savings of the entire population, according to the BEA data. It implies that 99% of the US population still has, on average, a negative savings rate of around 1.3%. If you subtract the next nine percent, which likely still has a positive savings rate, the data for the bottom 90% becomes even more depressing, implying a negative savings rate of close to 5%.

Reader Alex C sent a link to an article in the Guardian by Mark Weisbrot in which he surveys some recent findings aht disproved cherished myths about the US economy. Two are related to the widely-held fantasy that America is a land of dynamic entrepreneurship. In fact, a recent study found that the US ranks low among advanced economies in the proportion of people employed by smal businesses. The likely culprit? Lack of universal health care. But you won’t see that on the agenda of organizations like the right-leaning Kauffman foundation, whose mission is to promote entrepreneurship and innovation. And I must say from my own sample that most of the self-employed people I know did not have a career goal of starting a business, but out of necessity, due to job loss or being badly stymied at their employer and unable to land comparable new work.

A second element of the entrepreneurship myth is that the US is a land of economic mobility, that if you work hard and apply yourself, you can improve your economic standing considerable. Again, the US scores poorly in by international standards in economic mobility. The have-nots tend to remain have-nots.

In addition. the high level of US carbon production is due to a surprisingly significant degree to our lifestyle, working long hours to consume, rather than “consuming” more vacation as Europeans do.

From the Guardian:

The Great Recession is allowing some widely held beliefs about the US economy – which were the source of much evangelism over the last few decades – to run up against a reality check….

This month my CEPR colleagues John Schmitt and Nathan Lane showed that the United States is not the nation of small businesses that it is regularly dressed up to be for electoral campaign speeches and editorials. If we look at what percentage of our overall labour force is self-employed, or what percentage of manufacturing workers or high-tech workers are employed in small businesses – well, the US ranks at or near the bottom among high-income countries….

And as both the authors of the paper and Krugman note, there is a plausible explanation for the US’s low score in the small business contest: our lack of national health insurance. There are enough risks associated with choosing to start a business over being an employee, but the Europeans don’t have to worry that they will go bankrupt for lack of health insurance.

A number of other alleged advantages of America’s “economic dynamism” are also mythical. Most people think that there is more economic mobility in America than in Europe. Guess again. We’re also near the bottom of rich countries in this category, for example as measured by the percentage of low-income households that escape from this status each year.

The idea that the US is more “internationally competitive” has been without economic foundation for decades, as measured by the most obvious indicator: our trade deficit, which peaked at 6% of GDP in 2006. (It has fallen sharply from its peak during this recession but will rebound strongly when the economy recovers).

And of course the idea that our less regulated, more “market-friendly” financial system was more innovative and efficient – widely held by our leading experts and policy-makers such as Alan Greenspan, until recently – collapsed along with our $8tn housing bubble.

On the other hand, most Americans pay a high price for the institutional arrangements that bring us these mythical successes. We have the dubious honour of being the only “no-vacation nation”, ie no legally required paid time off and of course some weeks fewer actual days off per year than our European counterparts enjoy. We have a broken healthcare system that costs about twice as much per capita as that of our peer nations and delivers worse outcomes, as measured by life expectancy and infant mortality. We are near the top in terms of inequality among high-income countries and at the bottom for parental leave policies and paid sick days. The list is a long one…

There is another area where the comparison between the American and European model has serious implications for the future of the planet: climate change. “Old Europe” uses about half as much energy per capita as the US does. A big part of this difference is because Europeans, in recent decades, have taken much more of their productivity gains in the form of increased leisure time, rather than working the same (or longer) hours in order to consume more.

We estimated that the US would consume about 20% less energy if it had the work hours of the EU-15. This would have a significant impact on world carbon emissions. Furthermore, when the world economy recovers, there are a number of middle-income countries that will approach high-income status in the not-too-distant future (South Korea and Taiwan are already there). Whether they choose the American or the European model will have an even bigger impact on global climate change.

The major media in both Europe and the United States have played an important role, for decades, in helping politicians capitalise on economic mythology to push policy in economic and socially destructive directions on both sides of the Atlantic. It remains to be seen how much the Great Recession will influence the thinking and reporting of these influential institutions.

Submitted by Edward Harrison of Credit Writedowns.

Yves said her piece about the new affordable FHFA program to allow home ‘owners’ in negative equity to stay in their homes. And I had a crack at it yesterday as well. But, I have some thoughts to run by you here using a specific example of an American homeowner named Maria.

Enjoy. Oh, and feel free to comment.

Let’s say you’re an American named Maria living in Southern California. The year is 2006. You make $45,000 and your husband David makes another $40,000. You have two children aged six and four and your two-bedroom apartment is getting too small. So you decide to consider buying a house. Eventually, you and your husband find a new home. Now, granted you know nothing about mortgage finance. But, your guy at New Century Financial hooks you up and with the help of a teaser-rate adjustable rate-mortgage you are able to afford the home. In the end, you shop around and get another bank you consider more reputable to match New Century’s terms. Sale Price $390,000. As you have no money down and roll up some fees into the mortgage, the final mortgage price is $390,000 with a second piggy back mortgage of $10,000 for a grand total of $400,000 of debt.

Fast forward to 2009. The economy is in tatters but you and your husband have your jobs. You’re doing alright. And, as it turns out, you have picked wisely by buying the smallest house on the block in a really up-and-coming neighborhood. The only problem is that house prices in your metro area are down 40%. Your house, while down less, is still down 20% and is only worth $320,000. This is a big worry because your mortgage was a 3-year ARM and the rate is about to go way up.

Enter the federal government’s “Making Home Affordable” plan. Just the other day HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan announced that mortgages owned or guaranteed by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae can be refinanced up to – get this – 125% loan-to-value. That means, you can take out a refinance loan on your house now valued at $320,000 for up to $400,000. Bingo! That’s exactly what you need to keep your house. Do you do it?

Debtor’s Prison

If you do go ahead, we might as well stick you in the King’s Bench because you are about to find yourself in debtor’s prison. The Blog Seattle Bubble has this nailed (with some nifty charts to boot):

Let’s take a look at some hypothetical home borrowers who currently owe $400,000 in various mortgages with difficult terms or high rates, and whose home is presently worth $320,000. They jump on the new FHFA Home Affordable Refinance Program and refinance into a single 30-year fixed-rate loan at a 5.75% interest rate with a 125% loan-to-value ratio…

With the home value appreciation tweaked to a slightly less rosy scenario, it takes 17 years before our couple can break even selling their house.

Nice, huh? Their comment on this is dead on:

If the goal of this new 125% loan-to-value program is to financially imprison people in their current homes for a decade or more, then it looks like it could be a rousing success. However, I’m not sure how many currently struggling home borrowers would really consider that to be much of a “help.”

I have a post from last year describing circumstances in Japan that are eerily similar. Take a look. It’s called “A cautionary tale: story from 1994 Japan.”

Predatory Lending?

I have another angle too. You’ll notice I mentioned Maria is no financial wizard. She probably does not appreciate the intricacies of mortgage finance. Here are two points to consider.

1. In the state of California, you can just walk away because first mortgages on primary residences are non-recourse. That means that the mortgage is only secured against the house you have bought.
2. However, in the state of California, refinance mortgages are recourse loans. What does that mean? It means you are on the hook for that loan. You cannot just walk away. The bank can come after you and take your car and the stocks in your E-Trade account. They can garnish your wages. They can even take your clothes and the shirt off your back, literally. The only thing they can’t touch is your 401-K. But it’s down 40% anyway.

Why would you trade a non-recourse loan from which you can walk away for a recourse loan that guarantees you’ll end up as bad as some poor slob at Tappahannock? It doesn’t seem like an incredibly appealing choice, does it?

But, of course, this is a classic case of asymmetric information because you don’t know that you are getting a poor trade, but your bank and the government do. In fact, the bank makes more money this way because of incentives it receives for refinancing these loans – incentives, I might add that come straight from the taxpayer to the bank via the Federal Government (see my post “How refinancing helps the likes of Bank of America and Wells Fargo”).

So, to recap, you get shackled to a house with a recourse loan because you don’t know what the bank and government do. Meanwhile, your bank gets to forgo a writedown (remember, your loan was for the same amount as before). And the bank gets a refinance fee which is goosed by government incentives.

Is this predatory lending? Sure sounds like it to me.

A paradox arises to the extent that it is true that the market is dependent on normative underpinning (to provide the pre-contractural foundations such as trust, cooperation, and honesty) which all contractural relations require: The more people accept the neoclasical paradigm as a guide for their behavior, the more the ability to sustain a market economy is undermined. This holds for all those who engage in transactions without ever-present inspectors, auditors, lawyers, and police: if they do not limit themselves to legitimate (i.e. normative) means of competition out of internlized values, the system will collapse, because the transaction costs of a fully or even highly “policed” system are prohibitive. This holds even more so for the regulators that every market requires. If those whose duty it is to set and to enforce the rules of the game are out to maximize their own profits, a-la-Public Choice, there is no hope for the system

Amitai Etzioni, The Moral Dimension: Toward a New Economics

I’ve been amazed at the complacency of Americans in the face of rape and pillage by the moneyed classes. Of course, I underestimate the impact of overwork and media brainwashing. If you are a member of the dwindling middle class, you are probably devoting all your energies to hanging on to your job and trying to be a decent partner and for those with families, parent. Any kind of sustained political action (unless you grew up with it in a serious way) is unlikely to rate as high as a tertiary concern. In our total information society, protesting has high odds of getting one’s mug in a video that could come back to haunt you. An arrest would show up in a background check. What a great way to keep the peasantry in line.

Civil disobedience went out of fashion with Thoreau, if not before then. Bourgeois sensibilities and taking to the barricades do not mix. Oh yes, we may admire Gandhi and Mandela, but they were oppressed and had little to lose in bucking the authoriites (well take that back, Mandela did give that great speech at his trial about being willing to die). In the US, with the exception of the 1960s, protests have been mainly working class affairs We have our mortgages and our social standing to consider.

But times may be a changin’. Angry investors tortured a savings-destoying money manager in Germany. Who knows what would have become of Bernie Madoff if his victims had gotten near him. And in an interesting bit of synchronicity, Leo’s post tonight is about the nouveau pauvre.

If the green shooters are proven correct, the odds of upheaval are close to nil. However, if things get worse, the US may reach a tipping point. But Americans like gore only on the big screen, and we don’t have a tradition of general strikes a more civilized way of registering serious discontent.

Marshall Auerback, at the end of a very good piece “Major Social Upheaval Likely if Bank Bonanza Continues,” suggests another angle, that of payment revolt:

By contrast, the current bonanza for banks is neither economically efficient, nor politically sustainable.
What is driving the change in portfolio preference shifts is not only a misguided paradigm, but also an inability for the Obama administration to make a sensible, coherent case in what they are doing and why they are doing it. Their actions, in fact, seem to suggest that everything is ad hoc and that they are operating out of their depth, in effect continuing the same policies of the Bush/Paulson period, but on a much greater scale.

Ironically, this ultimately will also prove highly inimical to the interests of finance itself. When most of the home owning voters cannot pay their major debt or have no incentive to pay their mortgage debt, there will either be a debtors revolt that society will sanction or there will be a bailout of such a magnitude that mega moral hazard will affect private lending forever. Once these things happen, you will no longer have the social rules for private risk based lending. In other words, financial markets will be unlike anything ever seen before in private economies. Is this really what Wall Street wants, let alone American society as a whole?

Both FDR and JFK had a brain trust that could help forge public opinion. Obama has his halo, Geithner, and Summers. We’ve known from the start that was a misstep.
In the meantime, beyond automatic stabilizers, the door appears to be shutting to further active fiscal ease. I wonder if the stage is already being set for tax hikes, as rumors of a federal VAT (value added tax) have been floating around of late. Add this to rising commodity prices and interest rates, and the profile of any recovery may become increasingly in question, a la 1937-8. Add to that additional bank write-offs, further credit contraction and a minimalist welfare system which leaves nothing in the way of social cohesion, and the prospects for major social upheaval look dangerously likely. What is missing is a vision of a new growth path for the US. If a public backlash is to be marshalled to something more than retribution, that needs to come to the fore. Once you get beyond the pothole and school patching, what industries can be pushed forward through public seed capital or public private partnerships? The economist Hy Minsky pointed out a better way to solve both the liquidity and the income problem, while also providing full employment: by channeling government expenditure through an employer-of-last-resort program.

The current crisis could have been mitigated if increased household consumption had been financed through wage increases and if financial institutions had used their earnings to augment bank capital rather than employee bonuses.
The current system has failed because it was built on an incentive system that did just the opposite.

Auerback also points out earlier in the piece that the Great Depression government-created jobs were anything but makework:

As Adam Cohen in his new book, NOTHING TO FEAR ,

[WPA] workers constructed or repaired more than 125,000 buildings, including 83,000 schools; 800 aiports; 950 sewage plants; and 650,000 miles of roads. They built or improved 78,000 bridges and 25,000 playgrounds; terraced 271,000 acres of eroded land; and taught two million people to read. They also ran a famous Federal Art Project, which hired destitute artists to create murals for public buildings, posters, and paintings. The WPA produced a highly regarded series of state guidebooks and an acclaimed collection of interviews with former slaves, and it played a major role in building the San Antonio Zoo, New York City’s LaGuardia and Washington’s Reagan airports, and the presidential retreat at Camp David. In 1965, on the program’s thirtieth anniversary, The New York Times quoted a dispossessed North Carolina tenant farmer living in an abandoned gas station, who had been rescued by a WPA job. ‘I’m proud of our United States, and everyting I hear The Star Spangled Banner I feel a lump in my throat,’ he said. ‘There ain’t no other nation in the world that would have had the sense enough to think of WPA.”

One of the towns I lived in had a very large WPA-created park, and it looked as if it must have taken quite a bit of manpower. It is still the best feature of a largely blue collar town. But our Darwinist model of capitlism seems to deem it wiser to blame lack of work on individuals’ refusal to accept low enough wages, than consider that in a high-skill society with narrowly defined jobs, that labor is no longer all that fungible and people really can be unemployed through no fault of their own.

But in our current paradign, enforcing market principles takes precedence over human dignity. And it looks like that paradigm will hold until it shatters under its own contradictions.

Submitted by Edward Harrison of Credit Writedowns.

This morning I was reading Simon Johnson’s excellent post “President Obama’s Regulatory Reforms Announcement: A Viewer’s Guide” about what Barack Obama should say when he makes his regulatory reform pitch today at 12:30 PM.  I agree with what he has to say about the need to re-assure us his ‘administration ‘gets it.’  And I suggest you read his commentary.  But, all the while I was reading it, I couldn’t help but think: ‘what about the homeowner?’

See, we have bailed out the financial services industry to the tune of nearly $14 trillion in guarantees and support according to the U.S. bank regulator the FDIC.  Yet, time and again we see differential treatment elsewhere.  Chrysler and GM were forced into bankruptcy and, more recently, California was denied aid.  The preponderance of evidence suggests that President Obama views the banking industry as systemically important in a way these other industries may not be.  The question is: how does he view homeowners, who collectively are American workers, taxpayers and voters?

I ask this because mortgage debt was the trigger for the financial crisis. And I have yet to see any comprehensive legislation protecting homeowners from financial distress, while we have certainly put the financial services industry and its reform front and center.  Just yesterday, in his “Ideas for fixing the economy,” Felix Salmon mentioned an idea first proposed in August 2007 by Dean Baker and Andrew Samwick which I will dub ‘rent-to-own.’ Baker and Samwick propose the following:

There is a simple way to allow troubled homeowners to stay in their homes without also bailing out the mortgage issuers and speculators.

Congress can pass legislation granting current homeowners the right to stay in their homes as long as they like, simply by paying the fair-market rent. In other words, no one gets tossed out on the street, as long as they can pay the rental value of their house. The fair rent would be determined by an independent appraiser — exactly the same way that a lender is supposed to determine the size of a mortgage that can be issued on a home.

Under this plan, homeowners would turn over their property to the mortgage holder. This would generally not be a loss since borrowers currently face crises precisely because they owe more than the value of their house. If the value of the home exceeded their debt, then they wouldn’t have to sign up for the program.

As a renter with secure tenure, the former homeowner would have incentive to do necessary maintenance and keep the home from falling into disrepair. This would prevent the blight that is already hitting neighborhoods where foreclosures have become commonplace.

The mortgage holder would get possession of the house, but they would be stuck having the former homeowner as a tenant. Otherwise the mortgage holder is free to hold or sell the property as they choose. Being stuck with a renter may reduce the resale value of the house, but intelligent investors knew there was risk when they got into the business.

To limit the size of the program and to ensure that it only benefits those who are really in need, there can be a cap placed on the value of homes that qualify. For example, Congress could stipulate that only homes with a market value below the median price for an area are eligible for this plan.

This security-of-housing proposal meets the needs of the homeowners who were victimized by deceptive lending practices and pro-homeownership ideologues. It gives them the right to stay in their home as long as they want. It accomplishes this task in a way that provides minimal opportunities for fraud and should require very little by way of new government bureaucracy.

It also manages to benefit homeowners in crisis without also rescuing the financial institutions that were speculating in mortgages gone bad. This will give the presidential candidates, and other members of Congress, a clear choice between helping distressed homeowners or bailing out financial institutions that should have known better.

Although the Baker-Samwick proposal does not specifically include a rent-to-own provision, whereby the renter has the option within a certain timeframe of buying back the house, it can easily be added.  Clearly this proposal has merits, yet I have heard nothing on this score for months except via Felix’s post.

I might add that there is also a huge amount of shadow inventory – repossessed houses not currently on the market due to the glut of residential housing inventory – which needs to be dealt with.  Calculated Risk has a sobering video from Jim the Realtor which makes this issue plain. This glut of inventory is likely to push house prices down lower, forcing many into negative equity and default.

So, my suggestion is that you should keep the homeowner in the back of your mind as you listen to President Obama make his case for banking regulatory reform.  I certainly want to see real reform, much as Simon does – and I will be listening for cues that we are going to get it.  However, I also think the time is right for homeowners to move center stage as well.

Submitted by Edward Harrison of the site Credit Writedowns.

The chain of events whereby easy money leads to malinvestment that impoverishes a society is now fully manifest in the United States. You remember Victorville, CA where new homes were being demolished because it cost more to maintain them than to demolish them? (see post here) Well, that same phenomenon is going to be at work all across the USA because we have just witnessed one of the greatest episodes of malinvestment in the history of the world.

An article over at the Telegraph discussing this possibility has really grabbed people’s attention (137 diggs, 66 delicious bookmarks, 474 comments at last count) and seems to be everywhere. Here is a snippet.

The government looking at expanding a pioneering scheme in Flint, one of the poorest US cities, which involves razing entire districts and returning the land to nature.

Local politicians believe the city must contract by as much as 40 per cent, concentrating the dwindling population and local services into a more viable area.

The radical experiment is the brainchild of Dan Kildee, treasurer of Genesee County, which includes Flint.

Having outlined his strategy to Barack Obama during the election campaign, Mr Kildee has now been approached by the US government and a group of charities who want him to apply what he has learnt to the rest of the country.

Mr Kildee said he will concentrate on 50 cities, identified in a recent study by the Brookings Institution, an influential Washington think-tank, as potentially needing to shrink substantially to cope with their declining fortunes.

Most are former industrial cities in the “rust belt” of America’s Mid-West and North East. They include Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Memphis.

In Detroit, shattered by the woes of the US car industry, there are already plans to split it into a collection of small urban centres separated from each other by countryside.

Now, Mish has a post over on his blog which reminds us that the median home price in Detroit is now $6,000. Obviously what is happening in Flint right now is coming to Detroit very soon. But, I also want to remind you of the Victorville incident and exurb overbuilding – it is not just cities. No one wants that housing stock. According to Google Maps, it takes 2 hours and 40 minutes to commute 81 miles from Victorville to LA in traffic. That’s not something many people are willing to do. And if you look on a map, you will notice that Victorville, far inland, doesn’t have many other huge cities near by either (Barstow is 34 miles away and has great outlets for those of you who like shopping).

View Larger Map

Translation: Much of the building in Victorville was malinvestment. This is why houses are being demolished there. You should ask yourself how did we get to a place where entire cities are shrinking via demolition (Flint), where other cities have a median home price of $6,000 (Detroit), and where other previously sleepy towns are also shrinking via demolition (Victorville). Why is the U.S. so shattered financially that we must resort to demolition houses in order to move forward? The answer, of course, is easy money.

1. Because of the rise of deregulation, a shadow banking system forms in the United States and globally. Long-Term Capital Management, famously leveraged 100-to-1, the most famous part of the shadow banking system fails spectacularly and is bailed out.
2. The bust frightens the Fed under Alan Greenspan, which pumps liquidity into the market due to this event and the later Y2K scare.
3. We get a massive bubble in shares, especially technology and telecom stocks.
4. The bust frightens the Fed under Alan Greenspan, which, fearing deflation lowers interest rates to 1%.
5. A massive housing bubble expands with huge overbuilding of the U.S. housing stock
6. The bust frightens the Fed under Ben Bernanke, which, fearing deflation lowers interest rates to 0% and engages in both quantitative and qualitative easing.

Do you see something wrong with this picture?

Source

US cities may have to be bulldozed in order to survive – Telegraph