Thomas Sowell’s View of the Housing Bubble

As is typical of Thomas Sowell, his argument concerning the role of the collapse of the housing bubble in the Great Recession is blatantly and intentionally one-sided. According to Sowell, the federal government basically forced banks to give loans to unqualified buyers who then went into a financial nose dive and defaulted on their mortgages. He does correctly, at least in part, pin-point actions of the federal government that caused a rise in risky mortgages. But if people defaulting on their mortgages was the only problem the national economy faced, collapse of those risky mortgages alone would never have caused the Great Recession of 2007-2009.

Contrary to what Sowell writes, the causes of the Great Recession were very complex and required the cooperation of Democrats and Republicans in Congress and Presidents Clinton and Bush. Without getting into mind-numbing detail, basically what happened was the 1999 Congress repealed the 1933 Glass–Steagall Act, which regulated the way banks operated (what it did was prevent banks from gambling with their clients and their own funds). The 1999 bill that paved the way for the Great Recession was sponsored by Senator Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001. During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (D-Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that, if passed, the bill would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government. But Dingell’s voice was in the minority and the bill was passed into law in 1999 as the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.

At nearly the same time, the federal government deregulated financial instruments/agreements called mortgage-backed securities (MBSs), credit-default swaps (CDSs), and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs). Specifically, in 1999, Congress passed legislation prohibiting the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the federal agency that oversees the futures and commodity options markets, from regulating financial derivatives — MBSs, CDSs, and CDOs. That deregulation, coupled with the result of the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, allowed financial institutions to gamble big time by bundling housing mortgages and selling them as secure financial instruments to investors around the world. That deregulation was vigorously supported by Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, and by two U.S. Treasury Secretaries, Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers. The head of the CFTC, Brooksley Born, resigned in protest, stating publically that deregulating exchange-traded financial derivatives dramatically increased risk to the national economy.

Shortly after that, the Federal Reserve, pushed by Alan Greenspan, kept interest rates very low, increasing the home buying trend by encouraging thousands of marginally qualified buyers to jump into the market. Add to that the federal government’s move to get more minorities in the housing market (Sowell’s argument) by loosening mortgage restrictions.

So, what most main-stream economists think happened is that banks desperately wanted to rapidly expand their services and profits and lobbied hard for massive federal deregulation. The Congress and the President(s) were happy to oblige and passed legislation that opened the door to the practices that brought about the Great Recession.

Certainly, Sowell’s one-sided idea (the federal government did it) is largely supported by conservative organizations, like the Wall Street Journal and the National Review, but are rejected by most main-stream economists. Nearly every open-minded person who has examined what led up to the Great Recession sees multiple precipitating causes, including massive federal deregulation of banks that led to an unsupervised market, Alan Greenspan’s keeping interest rates way too low in 2002-2005, federal loosening of mortgage restrictions, and the housing bubble.

Note that my brief description above doesn’t go into what happened in Congress during W’s first few years in office when additional financial deregulation laws were passed.

I must conclude with a personal observation. Real life is seldom as simple or straightforward as hardline ideologues, conservatives or liberals, want it to be.

Paul Ryan’s America

What’s not to like about Paul Ryan? He’s a young, handsome, engaging, articulate, hard-working politician, a devoted family man and a practicing Catholic who says he lives his faith and has been called “an intellectual leader of the Republican Party.” He’s also running for Vice-President, which makes his views all the more critical to the national electorate. So, it behooves us, as voters with inquiring minds, to try to understand exactly what Ryan stands for as a politician and what he would like to accomplish. So, let’s go to his documented record.

Ryan has stated in public speeches and in documents released to Congress and the media that his vision for America is “protecting the weak.” Here’s a direct, related quote from Ryan the candidate: “The truest measure of any society is how it treats those who cannot defend or care for themselves.” But out of the other side of his mouth he advocates cutting Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program in half by 2050 (CHIP provides health coverage to nearly eight million children in families with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid but who cannot afford private health insurance). That’s a 50 percent reduction from current spending levels in less than 40 years.

Let’s do some very simple math. In 2010, the total U.S. population was about 308.75 million. In that year the official poverty rate was 15.1 percent so the number of U.S. residents living in poverty was about 46.5 million. For sake of providing a conservative estimate of exactly what Ryan’s ideas for America entail, I will not assume that current trends will continue into the future but will use the more conservative estimate of the national poverty rate in 2050 of 12.5 percent. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates a 2050 population of 438 million, which means the number of U.S. residents living in poverty would be about 54.75 million. So if Ryan’s vision for the future were to be implemented through 2050, that means 65.75 million poor Americans would receive exactly one-half of the Medicaid and CHIP funds currently in our national budget that is allocated for 54.5 million poor (46.5 million plus 8 million).

Please tell me what part of that vision involves “protecting the weak.” Shafting the weak and powerless would be a far more accurate assessment, but, perhaps I’m being harsh. Surely Ryan, as a practicing Catholic, is more sensitive than that to the needs of the unfortunate.

But’s that’s not the case, Ryan’s records demonstrates. He also advocates cutting all other federal spending — with the exceptions of Social Security, Medicare, and the Department of Defense — by more than 70 percent. That number is neither a mistake nor an exaggeration, 70 percent and perhaps even more depending on details not yet provided in Ryan’s budget. Those spending cuts would be so draconian that they would adversely affect the entire national budget, with the exceptions noted above. So, what does that mean to the federal government in real world terms? Here’s a brief summary of agencies and programs that would be cut drastically.

Department of Agriculture — Forest Service, food and nutrition assistance, farm price supports, crop insurance.

·     Housing and Urban Development — Community Development Block Grants, Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity, Federal Housing Administration (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae), public housing, rental assistance.

·     Department of Health and Human Services — Food and Drug Administration, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control, Head Start, Indian Health Service.

·     Department of Education — student loans and scholarships, vocational and adult education programs.

·     Veterans Administration — health care, National Cemeteries, and veteran benefits including veteran loans, insurance, vocational rehabilitation, employment, and higher education.

·     Justice Department — FBI, DEA, ATF, Federal Marshall Service, the federal prison system.

·    
Federal court system.

·     Department of the Interior — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, Geological Survey, National Park Service.

·     Homeland Security — FEMA, TSA, Secret Service, Customs and Border Protection, Coast Guard, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

·     Department of Commerce — Census Bureau, NOAA, National Weather Service, Patent Office, National Institute of Standards and Technology.

·     Department of Transportation — Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, and AMTRAK.

·     Department of Labor — Unemployment insurance programs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Mine Safety and Health Administration, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Veterans Employment and Training Service.

·     Other agencies include NASA, Small Business Administration, EPA, National Transportation Safety Board, National Science Foundation, DOE National Laboratories, energy efficiency programs, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, federal autism programs (Medicaid), job training, national flood insurance, alcohol and substance abuse counseling, federal civilian compensation, foreign development aid, and hundreds more.

In other words, every federal department and program would suffer such brutal budget cuts that many if not most would disappear entirely while the others become so eviscerated as to be unable to carry out their legislated missions. So, Ryan’s vision for this country is, for all practical purposes, to eliminate the role of federal government in our lives. What readers must ask is whether they want their entire lives to change dramatically.

But, wait, Paul Ryan’s vision for America isn’t complete until taxes on the wealthiest individuals and families are cut while taxes on the poor and the middle classes are raised. So, where Ryan stands, based on his own words, is squarely on the side of the trickle-down theory where the wealthy create jobs for everyone else simply because their taxes are decreased. It’s the same idea as feeding horses more oats so sparrows will thrive on their enriched droppings. People like us, of course, are the sparrows. I call it Republican Fecal Economics.

In 1980, the marginal income tax rates for the top income bracket adjusted for inflation was 70 percent. Since then that tax rate has been cut in half, to 35 percent. So, where are all the jobs created by that halving of the top bracket rate? Since the 1980s have the rich been stumbling all over themselves in creating the plentiful new job opportunities as Ryan predicts or am I simply delusional?

Ryan’s cruel vision is that of a heartless nation that turns its back on the poor and needy while allowing the wealthy to get fatter by gorging themselves at the tax relief trough. That’s not the America I know and love. But that is Paul Ryan’s vision for America, without exaggeration.

Why Sustainability Won’t Work

In a world where ever expanding population is reality, we are expected to reach nine billion by 2050, the challenge of meeting the needs of that population in a just and equitable manner within the Earth’s ecological capacity is a major difficulty for people who believe development can be sustainable. One of the most intractable problems facing the “sustainability” movement is how to persuade rapidly developing countries not to follow the development trail blazed by the West. “Do as we say, not as we do,” is the West's increasingly desperate mantra. If that does not happen and rapidly developing nations start consuming energy and water, eating meat and processed foods, and using automobiles and air travel at levels approaching those of Westernized countries, then it's game over for the environment and probably for Western culture as we know it.

The thing that affluent countries—meaning the U.S., Canada, Australia, etc.—are desperate to avoid is to have to radically alter their energy-intensive lifestyles. Although some European countries have made tentative moves in that direction, they have fallen woefully short of genuine progress. Telling people who love their comfortable, energy-intensive lifestyles that the only real solution is to cut back drastically on energy use is political suicide. No sane politician who wants to stay in office is ready to advocate such a position.

Westerners are only willing to make enormous personal sacrifices when faced with direct threats to life (such as war and invasion); indirect threats like global warming do not qualify. Even if every one of the energy hog countries adopted the most technologically advanced, energy efficient solutions to curtail their energy use, if the majority of the people in developing nations would adjust their energy consumption to that level, carbon emissions would be far too high to be sustainable.

Naturally, since we spoiled Americans (among others) will continue to refuse to adopt less energy profligate lifestyles, we will be forced to turn to geoengineering to address rising CO2 levels. Too bad we have an incredibly poor grasp of the unintended consequences of such behavior. But I can guarantee those lessons will be learned the hard way. When it comes to the carbon cycle, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Soon or later, the piper has to be paid.

Fresh Water

Most people I know enjoy taking showers, especially after the scorching summer we've had already. Afterwards, you feel so wonderfully refreshed. Compared to showering, taking a bath is, well, a tepid experience. Obviously, all types of bathing use water. Other things we do also use water but many of those uses are hidden or, at least, not particularly obvious. I was reminded of that recently when I read a Fidelity Investment newspaper ad that was intended to shock readers by informing them it takes 35 gallons of water to produce a single cup of coffee and 635 gallons to produce one hamburger (I believe those numbers are exaggerated but that’s another column).

Naturally, Fidelity wanted readers to think about financial investment opportunities, such as new technologies to produce fresh water in areas that need it. Instead, I thought about how water affects our daily lives. Few people in West St. Louis County think of fresh water as a problem, not even in the drought we have now. Not with the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers in our backyards, so to speak. If you stand on the bank of either river and watch the water flowing by it seems almost limitless.

When we brush our teeth we use one gallon. A ten-minute shower uses about 25 gallons. A toilet flush takes between one and three gallons. Washing your hands or face takes one gallon. About 100 gallons of water are needed to make one cotton shirt. Producing one pound of wheat takes 80 gallons. (Source: http://ga2.er.usgs.gov/edu/sq3action.cfm)

Although West County residents seldom think about water shortages, we are not insulated from fresh water supply problems. Witness what has been happening over the last thirty years on the Great Plains. Also known as America’s Breadbasket, the Great Plains is one of the world’s most fertile and productive agricultural regions. Agriculture there, from which all Americans benefit in terms of food products, is largely sustained by groundwater irrigation from the Ogallala Aquifer. That massive underground system of nearly 175,000 square miles stretches from central Texas through southern South Dakota. Nearly 30 percent of all irrigated land in the U.S. uses groundwater from the Ogallala.

Only problem is, that Aquifer has been depleted over the past several decades by excessive withdrawals for crop irrigation. You might have seen the tell-tale green circles when you fly over the region. That situation isn’t critical yet but needs to be carefully analyzed and viable options pursued before it’s too late.

No matter what your opinion may be on environmental issues in general, water use today and in the near-term future is an important challenge because of present-day tight supply and looming population growth. And here you might think about the one billion plus people in China who are getting used to a diet higher in animal protein, especially beef, and remember Fidelity Investment’s statistic of 635 gallons per hamburger and the 35 gallons used to produce each cup of coffee.

Please note that this essay was first published as an Opinion Shaper column in the Suburban Journals, on July 25, 2012.

Jared Loughner’s Plea

Allow me to start this essay with a brief quote: “Experts had concluded that Loughner suffers from schizophrenia, and officials at a federal prison have forcibly medicated him with psychotropic drugs for more than a year.” Washington Post 8-8-12

So, what we have is a society (and its legal system) that forcibly medicated an acutely mentally ill man, who was found to be so sick and non-functional at the time of his arrest that he could not be tried (because the judge found him so impaired that he was unable to understand the charges or participate in his defense), until he could appreciate exactly how fucked up he was when he pulled the trigger, and then incarcerate him in federal prison for the rest of his life. All because he committed violent acts while mentally ill but was not “insane” under federal law (don’t even ask about Arizona law because that totally fucked up state doesn’t recognize mental illness as affecting individual actions).

It doesn’t take a brilliant legal scholar to see that Americans are so angry with and so frightened of people who have serious mental illness that it is far better to throw them into prison than to recognize and treat their illness. After Ronald Reagan was shot and John Hinckley “got off” by successfully pleading that insanity rendered him incapable of rational judgment, the key federal law dealing with insanity pleas was changed drastically. The goal of Congress was to raise the bar defining insanity so high that practically no one, no matter how mentally ill they are, would be “let off” so to speak by finding them not guilty by reason of insanity and then putting them in a mental hospital for treatment.

As a society we are obsessed with the punishment of those who violate our rules, witness the recent Texas execution of a black man with an IQ of 61 and our coldhearted eagerness to try children as adults and throw them into prison for life. Throwing those sick fuckers and rascally little bastards into prison should make our chests swell with pride to be Americans. Hey, we’re the BEST country in the world. If you didn’t know that all you have to do is ask us. We’ll be glad to tell you exactly how backward all the other countries are and how God has smiled directly on our form of government. We are, after all, an exceptional country.

More Bad News from Coastal Louisiana

People who understand how crude oil affects living organic material must have seen the writing on the wall. And, yes, we’re talking about the April 2010 BP-Deepwater Horizon oil spill. A group of scientists from the University of Florida and two Dutch universities recently reported what they found after studying direct and indirect effects of the oil spill on Louisiana’s coastal marshes. Please note that the study combined biological and geomorphological field investigations with control sites (reference marshes) and coastal morphology modeling techniques so the researchers could understand the complex dynamics of key coastal processes. They were concerned about the health of Louisiana coastal habitats since salt marshes provide critical ecosystem services to plants and sea life.

The researchers found the oil-affected marshes had hydrocarbon concentrations more than 100 times that of unaffected reference marshes, a near total loss of above ground vegetation extending up to 30 feet from the water’s edge, and oil-driven plant death on the seaward margins more than doubled pre-existing rates of shoreline erosion. In simple English that means that the marshes on which most commercial and sport fishing depends on for vital nursery services are disappearing at twice the previously measured rate. Although the study found clear evidence of plant recovery at affected sites, overall the oil spill caused an accelerated decline of salt marshes that were already being degraded at an alarming rate as a result of stress introduced by human activities.

The authors conclude by stating: “It (the study) warns of the enhanced vulnerability of already degraded marshes to heavy oil coverage and provides a clear example of how multiple human-induced stressors can interact to hasten ecosystem decline.”

The trouble is most of us have already put the BP-Deepwater Horizon disaster in the “out of sight, out of mind” category and have moved on, literally and figuratively. We don’t want to think about the consequences or relate them to human actions other than those that can be categorized as technological accidents. We just want to get on with our lives as though nothing happened.

Source: Silliman, B. R., van de Koppel, J., McCoy, M. W., Diller, J., Kasozi, G. N., Earl, K., Adams, P. N., and Zimmerman, A. R. (2012). Degradation and resilience in Louisiana salt marshes after the BP-Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Published online before print June 25, 2012, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1204922109; Retrieved on June 26, 2012, from http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/06/20/1204922109.full.pdf+html

Jon Christensen and Cities of the Future

A few minutes ago I read an article in Grist in which a grad student interviewed Jon Christensen, an environmental history professor at Stanford, about what kinds of cities will we build to encourage human and ecological health. Sad to say, it sort of struck a nerve because it was sooooo pie-in-the-sky. My comment on that interview follows.

Comment

Since we have demonstrated so powerfully as a global civilization that we do not wish to design and build cities that foster both human and ecological health, what possibly could lead anyone to believe that we have the political will or the determination to do that in the future? Academics who live in ivory towers generally know a great deal about theory but are not as well informed about the down and dirty practice of planning and building real cities populated with real people, many of whom are conservatives who soundly reject anything that smacks of green, sustainable, or urban-ecological responsibility.

The visceral desire by certain members of the student generation to do "something" about our mounting ecological crises has to be informed by the applied challenges of identifying and implementing solutions that can pass real-world political tests. To this date, I have seen nothing in the U.S. that would lead me to believe that effective urban-ecological planning solutions can appeal to both progressives and conservatives. Especially not at a time when millions of conservatives believe that Agenda 21 and sustainability are part of a plot by international socialists to deprive Americans of their property rights and individual freedoms. Anyone out there who does not believe that last sentence has probably not attended public hearings on land use planning and urban development in the last several years.

Plus, what in the world would we do about the many trillions of dollars already invested in cities that basically give the finger to ecological health? Too many people are comfortable in large square-foot homes on large lots in low-density suburbs, driving their SUVs everywhere. Check out mall and school parking lots if you want to see the scale of the problem we face.

That problem is NOT ecological in nature, it is cultural. And changing cultural direction-orientation is very difficult owing to inertia, indifference, ignorance, mindset, and greed. If that's the goal of student planners and ecologists, good luck; because they are going to need it.