Private money wasn’t available for good reason. This is the mother of all subprime loans.
Robert Samuelson reminds us of a stunning fact:
As is well known, the crisis began with losses in the $1.3 trillion market for “subprime” mortgages, many of which were “securitized” — bundled into bonds and sold to investors.
He is actually minimizing the figure to make some other point, but the idea that so much money was lent into what was once, quite properly, a marginal business is, for me, all you need to know about level of regulatory breakdown that brought us to this.
Also recommended:
Gretchen Morgenson calling for disclosure of what taxpayers are actually buying:
Now, inquiring minds want to know, whom did we rescue? Which large, wealthy financial institutions — counterparties to A.I.G.’s derivatives contracts — benefited from the taxpayers’ $85 billion loan? Were their representatives involved in the talks that resulted in the last-minute loan?And did Lehman Brothers not get bailed out because those favored institutions were not on the hook if it failed?
We’ll probably never know the answers to these troubling questions. But by keeping taxpayers in the dark, regulators continue to earn our mistrust. As long as we are not told whom we have bailed out, we will be justified in suspecting that a favored few are making gains on our dimes.
And Kevin Phillips talking to Bill Moyers about how the financial sector, instead of financing the economy, came to dominate it.
KEVIN PHILLIPS: But what’s here that doesn’t get the attention is the United States in the last 20 years undertook an enormous transformation of itself with no attention paid. And what it means is and what makes all this so frightening is the country is at risk because of the size of the financial sector that has never been graded on its competence and behavior in any serious way. They are the economy at this point. And we are now seeing what happens when a 20 to 21 percent of GDP financial sector starts to come unglued.
BILL MOYERS: But there are people, Kevin, who disagree with us, who say that this financial industry has created great wealth for America in the last 25 years.KEVIN PHILLIPS: Oh, it’s created great wealth for a small slice of America. But if you go back and we remember the manufacturing heyday, the auto workers in Michigan had fishing cabins up on the lake. And the middle class had been fattened by the rise of the blue-collar middle class. Well, there’s no rising blue-collar middle class now. The middle class is shrinking.
The pie in a financial economy goes to the one or two percent — or even less- that have capital skills and education. We have never had so much polarization and wealth disparity and just groaning wealth right at the top of ladder as we have now under finance.
You had essentially a financial sector that, let’s say, was sort of neck and neck with manufacturing back in the late 1980s. But they got control in a lot of ways in the agenda. Finance has been bailed out. I mean, everybody thinks this is horrible now what we’re seeing in terms of bailouts. Even a lot of the people who do it think it’s bad.This has been going on since the beginning of the 1980s. Finance has been preferred as the sector that got government support. Manufacturing slides, nobody helps.

The NYT produced a revealing text graphic Sunday and attached it to this story,
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/business/21paulson.html
Titled 'The Treasury secretary's evolving public statements,' Mr. Paulson was quoted:
August 16, 2007 WSJ interview
"When you have periods of benign markets... market participants aren't going to be as vigilant as they should be. One of the natural consequences of the excesses is that some entities will cease to exist."
January 18 On short-term growth package
"The fundamentals of the economy are strong, and I believe our economy will continue to grow."
March 16, 2008 Interview with Fox News
"I've got great confidence in our financial institutions. Our markets are resilient."
July 20, 2008 Interview, Washington Post
"In my judgment, we are closer to the end of the market turmoil than the beginning. Market liquidity and investor confidence are gradually improving, although not across the board."
September 7, 2008 Statement on Fannie Mae takeover: "Nothing about our actions today in any way reflects a changed view of the housing correction or of the strength of other U.S. financial institutions."
September 14 Statement on Lehman Brothers bankruptcy: "These initiatives will be critical to facilitating liquid, smooth functioning markets, and addressing potential concerns in the credit markets."
September 16 Statement on A.I.G: "These are challenging times for our financial markets."
September 19 NYT "The clogging of our financial markets has the potential to have significant effects on our financial system and our economy."
In the article by Peter Baker, "Allan B. Hubbard, a former national economic adviser to Mr. Bush," observed:
“Hank is just the most hyperactive, get-it-done kind of guy who’s always trying to get the problem solved and move on. He’s impatient to fix things.”
Baker quoted Mr. Paulson:
“It just happened dramatically,” Mr. Paulson said in an interview on Friday. “There was only one way that we could reassure the markets and deal with a very significant and broad-based freezing of the credit market. There was no political calculus. It was overwhelmingly obvious.”
So here's my discomfort with Mr. Paulson's observations. If the finance industry was optimal up until two weeks ago, if we trust Mr. Paulson's observations, what happened in two weeks that he and all the smart people who work for him did not foresee?
When I decide to buy something, I consider alternatives. I ask questions. And so too, with this purchase, largest in U.S. history, it makes sense to ask: What will $800 billion buy if it is not tossed to the bankers in what Krugman has called a "trash for cash" deal?
What is this "crisis" really about? That bankers were too willing to lend too much money for houses that aren't worth what people paid?
Why should our children and grandchildren pay for that? What exactly is wrong with letting gamblers' chips fall where they fall?
How far would $800 billion go toward fixing U.S. bridges, roads and tunnels, or in investing in technology to come up with vehicles that don't need gasoline? Or in providing universal health care or affordable college education? How far would parts of $800 billion go in fixing public elementary and high schools?
Why is Mr. Paulson, the hyperactive 'get it done kind of guy,' suddenly suggesting there is any wisdom at all to throwing good money after bad?
Who benefits from this breathless deal that Mr. Paulson wants to push through Congress with absolutely no consequences for the gamblers who "suddenly" laid the U.S. economy prostrate?
Why can't fixing this "sudden" problem wait until January? We just don't have enough information.
I do not believe the business press has begun to inquire into questions for which the answers do matter.
Posted by Bonnie Britt on Mon 22 Sep 2008 at 01:41 PM
I second that, Bonnie Britt. I, too, wonder, where's the transparency Gretchen Morgenson asks for? And Paul Krugman's suggestion sounds very reasonable to this average taxpayer.
I hope to read more calls in the business press for greater transparency, time, accountability, and Congressional debate on the proposed massive bailout. We have too little information at this point.
If I recall correctly, Kevin Phillips also told Moyers that AIG isn't the last failure he expects.
Thanks, Dean Starkman.
Posted by Suzanne Batchelor on Mon 22 Sep 2008 at 04:03 PM