The author of the Laffer Curve in the Wall Street Journal:
When markets are free, asset values are supposed to go up and down, and competition opens up opportunities for profits and losses. Profits and stock appreciation are not rights, but rewards for insight mixed with a willingness to take risk. People who buy homes and the banks who give them mortgages are no different, in principle, than investors in the stock market, commodity speculators or shop owners. Good decisions should be rewarded and bad decisions should be punished. The market does just that with its profits and losses.
No one likes to see people lose their homes when housing prices fall and they can’t afford to pay their mortgages; nor does any one of us enjoy watching banks go belly-up for making subprime loans without enough equity. But the taxpayers had nothing to do with either side of the mortgage transaction. If the house’s value had appreciated, believe you me the overleveraged homeowner and the overly aggressive bank would never have shared their gain with taxpayers. Housing price declines and their consequences are signals to the market to stop building so many houses, pure and simple.
But here’s the rub. Now enter the government and the prospects of a kinder and gentler economy. To alleviate the obvious hardships to both homeowners and banks, the government commits to buy mortgages and inject capital into banks, which on the face of it seems like a very nice thing to do. But unfortunately in this world there is no tooth fairy. And the government doesn’t create anything; it just redistributes. Whenever the government bails someone out of trouble, they always put someone into trouble, plus of course a toll for the troll. Every $100 billion in bailout requires at least $130 billion in taxes, where the $30 billion extra is the cost of getting government involved.
If you don’t believe me, just watch how Congress and Barney Frank run the banks. If you thought they did a bad job running the post office, Amtrak, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the military, just wait till you see what they’ll do with Wall Street.
Some 14 months ago, the projected deficit for the 2008 fiscal year was about 0.6% of GDP. With the $170 billion stimulus package last March, the add-ons to housing and agriculture bills, and the slowdown in tax receipts, the deficit for 2008 actually came in at 3.2% of GDP, with the 2009 deficit projected at 3.8% of GDP. And this is just the beginning.
The net national debt in 2001 was at a 20-year low of about 35% of GDP, and today it stands at 50% of GDP. But this 50% number makes no allowance for anything resulting from the over $5.2 trillion guarantee of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac assets, or the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Nor does the 50% number include any of the asset swaps done by the Federal Reserve when they bailed out Bear Stearns, AIG and others.
But the government isn’t finished. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid — and yes, even Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke — are preparing for a new $300 billion stimulus package in the next Congress. Each of these actions separately increases the tax burden on the economy and does nothing to encourage economic growth. Giving more money to people when they fail and taking more money away from people when they work doesn’t increase work. And the stock market knows it.
The stock market is forward looking, reflecting the current value of future expected after-tax profits. An improving economy carries with it the prospects of enhanced profitability as well as higher employment, higher wages, more productivity and more output. Just look at the era beginning with President Reagan’s tax cuts, Paul Volcker’s sound money, and all the other pro-growth, supply-side policies.
Bill Clinton and Alan Greenspan added their efforts to strengthen what had begun under President Reagan. President Clinton signed into law welfare reform, so people actually have to look for a job before being eligible for welfare. He ended the “retirement test” for Social Security benefits (a huge tax cut for elderly workers), pushed the North American Free Trade Agreement through Congress against his union supporters and many of his own party members, signed the largest capital gains tax cut ever (which exempted owner-occupied homes from capital gains taxes), and finally reduced government spending as a share of GDP by an amazing three percentage points (more than the next four best presidents combined). The stock market loved Mr. Clinton as it had loved Reagan, and for good reasons.
The stock market is obviously no fan of second-term George W. Bush, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ben Bernanke, Barack Obama or John McCain, and again for good reasons.
These issues aren’t Republican or Democrat, left or right, liberal or conservative. They are simply economics, and wish as you might, bad economics will sink any economy no matter how much they believe this time things are different. They aren’t.
Technorati Tags: investment, real estate
Dave says:
As much as I agree with that, I just can’t forget how bad Laffer botched this debate with Peter Schiff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfascZSTU4o
I mean, I don’t know if he can ever out-run this one.
October 27, 2008 — 5:07 am
Michael Cook says:
Hard to disagree with anything in that article. Sad times for us all.
October 27, 2008 — 6:02 am
Todd says:
The age of the Criminal Cronyism, Market Manipulating, Status Quo is over, not prosperity.
As soon as control of the economy is taken away from Houston there will be tons of new opportunities for all.
A new age of prosperity is just getting started, but you have to break free of the past!
October 27, 2008 — 6:40 am
David Shafer says:
Although I generally agree with his sentiments, why do they always have to put in ridiculous statements like:
“If you don’t believe me, just watch how Congress and Barney Frank run the banks. If you thought they did a bad job running the post office, Amtrak, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the military, just wait till you see what they’ll do with Wall Street.”
First off they didn’t run Fannie and Freddie, only were suppose to have some oversight on those two institutions. Secondly, I have no problem with the post office or the military or even Amtrak (other than the lack of ridership on certain lines).
And how can the government do a worse job for these banks than the bankers did?
Leave out that ideological based crap and you might have a decent article.
October 27, 2008 — 9:53 am
David says:
Leave out that ideological based crap and you might have a decent article.
Good point. He gets to talk tough after being placed in time out for two years.
October 27, 2008 — 10:13 am
Keahi Pelayo says:
For our Country’s sake and legacy may McCain pull out an unprecedented victory.
Aloha,
Keahi
October 27, 2008 — 1:19 pm
SM says:
@ David Shafer…
I completely agree, good points. I do have to say that I have started to stay away from the news since there is noting but depressing reports. We all know its going to be a tough time to come, but damn, so depressing.
Sean Murphy, Rofo – San Francisco Office Space
October 27, 2008 — 1:41 pm
Ken Smith says:
IMO there are so many issues that are going to come out of these bailouts that I fell bad for the next President. Every president deals with issues that had been created years before by their predecessors, but the next president has a lot of landmines that can blow up on him.
October 27, 2008 — 2:35 pm
Russell Shaw says:
Thank you so much for finding this article and passing it along.
October 28, 2008 — 12:04 am
Sam Chapman says:
With a hard left government on the way and taxes about to go way up on the very wealthy, I wonder how many of them might pull their money out of the US and move to another country.
October 28, 2008 — 9:11 am
John Sabia says:
Thanks for the article.
that rings loudly and for me typifies this election
October 28, 2008 — 12:22 pm