AIG Bailout: Is the U.S. Going the Way of the Soviet Union?

First, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were seized—Communist style—by the federal government. Then Lehman Brothers—which was worth $45 billion as recently as November—announced plans to file for bankruptcy. And now AIG, formerly one of the largest companies in the world, has been taken over by the Federal Reserve.

In 2000, American International Group, an insurance giant, was worth $250 billion. As late as August of 2008, the market set the battered company’s value at $80.4 billion. But following heavy losses on “Black Monday” (September 15, 2008) and the following day, AIG’s market cap now stands at just $10 billion—down over 94% for the year.

What Austrian Economists Knew All Along

These losses may be unprecedented, but they’re not unpredicted. Theorists from the Austrian school of economics have been prognosticating the implosion of the fiat-money-fueled financial system for decades. And according to Cato Adjunct Scholar Dr. Robert Higgs, we haven’t seen anything yet.

Higgs, who’s also a Senior Fellow at the Independent Institute and an Adjunct Scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, predicts that many more financial dominoes will fall, with the end game being the collapse of Social Security and Medicare. “The question is not whether they will fail, but when,” Higgs says, “and then how the government that can no longer sustain them in their previous Ponzi-scheme form will alter them to salvage what little can be salvaged with minimal damage to the government itself.”

Higgs compares what he sees as the impending collapse of the U.S. financial system to what happened to the Soviet Union. And he points out that Keynesian economists—such as textbook king Paul Samuelson—didn’t see the Russian collapse coming, just like they didn’t see the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Austrian theorists, however, did.

“Who Killed the Economy? …Greenspan’s the Popular Choice”

And their theories are starting to catch on. Key to the Austrian view is the notion that the birth of the Federal Reserve and subsequent inflation of the U.S. money supply created the boom of the Roaring Twenties and the subsequent bust of the Great Depression. Adherents to the teachings of leading Austrians such as Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard and Nobel Laureate Friedrich von Hayek have long held that Alan Greenspan’s inflationist policies would produce another major depression, and now that it’s come to pass, people are for once correctly fingering the culprit.

For example, a recent front-page story on Yahoo! Finance was titled, “Who Killed the Economy? So Far, Greenspan’s the Popular Choice.” The reasons stated in support of this view are Greenspan’s push for “financial deregulation,” his “unwavering support” for the Bush tax cuts and his role in “keeping interest rates too low for too long.”

The Three Indictments Against Greenspan’s Fed

The first—the idea that “deregulation” is responsible for the meltdown—is completely at odds with the Austrian view and conveniently in line with the views of the political establishment. Yes, the same leaders who have rejected Austrian theories in favor of Keynesianism and Monetarism, and who lavished praise on Greenspan as he split his tenure almost equally over Republican (a little Reagan, Bush I and a little Bush II) and Democratic (eight years of Clinton) presidential administrations, are now calling for more regulations. Why should the people who support this view be given any consideration when they’ve been 100% wrong up to this point?

There is a hint of truth in Greenspan’s second supposed crime: his support for the Bush tax cuts. While the Austrian view rejects taxation entirely, Bush’s “tax cuts” were anything but—they were redistributions. After all, the government’s budget deficit increased as the tax cuts were implemented, and government spending went through the roof. Obviously, the federal government was borrowing and printing money to pay its bills—thus expanding the money supply—and these tricks are only possible under a fiat money regime.

Finally, the third argument strikes the heart of the truth. Alan Greenspan kept interest rates “too low for too long.” But what is “too low”? Who is to decide? In the Austrian view, it’s the free market—not central economic planners at the Federal Reserve—that should set interest rates.

There is No Silver (or Gold) Bullet

The Austrian school demonstrates that central economic planning cannot work. The Austrians stood alone in their prediction that the Soviet Union would collapse under its own weight, and for now, they’re largely standing alone in making a similar prediction for the U.S. financial system. More regulation—becoming more Soviet-like—would only hasten the system’s demise. Raising taxes, while arguably preferable to inflationary deficit spending, would definitely worsen the current recession/depression. Obviously, interest rates should have been higher during the Greenspan years, but what can be done about that now?

The harsh reality: nothing. A recession or depression will be necessary to set things right. Government cannot magically fix problems—bad investments need to be liquidated, and intervention only makes the inevitable worse when it finally does come to pass. The question we must ask ourselves is how do we prevent this from happening again?

The obvious answer is that we need to stop the Federal Reserve’s artificial money creation. The only way for interest rates to be neither “too low” nor “too high” is if they are set on the basis of savings and demand. We must stop ignoring the enormous entity—half elephant, half donkey, and all evil—in the room. That hybrid monstrosity, of course, is the Federal Reserve System itself, which was created by Congress and can be destroyed by Congress.

Just Out of Med School? Watch Out for Those Placement Agents

Most of you are familiar with the headhunters of the financial world. Bankers and finance people are notorious for migrating from one firm to another. Typically, it is the headhunters that cold call and go after the best and brightest of any firm. It is a lucrative business based on the concept of a placement fee or a commission.

Medicine has its own version of headhunters called placement agents. Typically, these staffing companies target newly minted young MDs and try to place them into an existing practice. For those types of physicians who are in high demand, such as specialists, the placement fees can be astronomical. After all, typically, a physician usually only moves once or twice in his entire career. Some do not ever move from their first job. This is in stark contrast to those in the corporate world who may move every few years for upward mobility. The main difference is that a physician is a small business owner and spends years building up his reputation and practice. Like any small business owner, moving locations is expensive and definitely dings your business for a while.

Thus, placing a specialty physician into a practice can earn the placement agent a fee in the tens of thousands of dollars, if not more. It is a big business that inundates resident and new physicians with mail, email, phone calls, and a lot of schmoozing. If you make the mistake of getting your name on one of these lists, you will never get out from under the deluge of marketing materials.

Unlike the regular corporate world, staff placement agents typically have no medical background. They know a lot about the field from their work, but if you ask them about the scope of any physician’s practice, you will soon leave them with a confused look on their faces. They want to move a very lucrative and highly valuable product – the physician who has gone to school for decades.

AIG, Fannie and Freddie, and Lehman Brothers: Why Should I Care About Them?

OK, I know Lehman Brothers just tanked, Fannie and Freddie have been seized, and AIG has been taken over by the Fed, but can we put all that aside for just a few minutes and talk about me for a change, please? I have liquidity problems of my own, and that being the case, I only have so much patience for Wall Street melodrama anyway anymore. It’s getting exhausting. I mean, seriously, what are are you and I going to do about it right this minute? Won’t things still be totally, terminally screwed up tomorrow? Am I right? Of course I am. So let’s take a little “me” break today for a change of pace.

Here’s what’s going on this month in Evelyn’s life:

Last Friday, I got a letter from the escrow department of my mortgage company letting me know that the dying, rust-belt city where I still own a small house in a bad neighborhood (because I couldn’t sell it after I moved to another state to take a job) has decided to hike my property taxes by $610 a year, thus causing a shortfall in my escrow account. I now have a choice. I can send the mortgage company $610 today, or I can pay an extra $50 each month on the house payment for the next twelve months.

The city, which is in northern Indiana, was once a major manufacturing center but has been decimated in recent years by the fall of the U.S. steel and auto industries. The government there is now in serious financial trouble. The tax base has eroded, companies have moved overseas, businesses are failing, unemployment is off the charts, and now, thousands of people are losing their homes to foreclosure.

Because the situation is so dire, and because the city has already cut essential services to the bone and still can’t generate the revenue needed to maintain normal operations (not public services, just day-to-day government operations), the city has seized on an opportunity and is hiking property taxes in the poorest neighborhoods so that the owners will be forced into foreclosure and the city can then sell the property back to the mortgage companies for pennies on the dollar (plus the cost of the back tax bill).

That strategy is indeed generating a small but steady stream of revenue for my old home town. It is also creating boarded up, bombed-out slum neighborhoods full of squatters, crack addicts, and meth labs, just like inner Detroit or the neighborhoods in Flint, Michigan. My dying city is literally eating itself to stay alive, and appeals by concerned citizens to turn the trend around fall on deaf ears. When there is nothing else to eat, we eat each other. Just shouting, “Stop it!” isn’t effective in such situations, no matter how passionate the shout may be.

“Scrapping” (the practice of pulling scrap copper and steel out of abandoned homes and buildings) has become a huge cottage industry here, and though such break-ins are illegal and the trade is dangerous, it continues to grow. A few months back, two homeless men were killed by other scrappers who wanted their haul. They stole the stolen scrap from the men, killed them, and stuffed them down a manhole. Such is life in the post-industrial Midwest in 2008.

On the block where my little house is located, fully half of the buildings are vacant and boarded up. I had my house on the market for a year and a half, asking only what was left on the mortgage and offering to pay all closing costs, everything negotiable. Not one person ever viewed the house, much less made an offer. The house has a new roof, a new furnace, new siding, and new appliances, and I couldn’t get anyone to even view it, much less make an offer, and this at a negotiable asking price of $39,000.

After a year, my real estate agent started to get testy. “People want nice kitchens and bathrooms. Why don’t you put some money into these two rooms and see if that helps?” I have no money to put into upgrading a house in a slum neighborhood in a dying city; I can barely pay my own bills where I am, and honestly, if no one is looking at the house, what difference would it make if I installed gold leaf appliances? A house two doors down is still for sale for $8900. Four years ago, when I bought this house, it was in a nice neighborhood. A new grade school was built right across the street in 2005. All that doesn’t matter.

So when my realtor asked me after a year and a half of not showing my house even one single time why didn’t I remodel the place, I said, “Why don’t you?”

That was the end of my realtor.

After flailing around for a couple more months once the realtor fled, I was finally able to rent the house to my daughter’s mother-in-law. She likes it there, and renting to her also means that our kids get to keep their privacy. But now, with the tax increase, I pay more on the mortgage than I take in for rent. I still take the homestead deduction because, if I don’t, the property taxes will shoot up to $4000 a year on a house I can’t sell at any price: not for the $37,000 I owe on it, not for $20,000, and not for $4000.

People tell me, “Walk away. Don’t waste another cent.” But I do still see some good coming out of renting it: one less bombed-out house in my town, a place where my daughter’s mother-in-law is happy, the knowledge that I am not directly contributing to the decay of a major urban center. So for now I will pay the extra $50 a month and pray for the best. But I know it can’t last.

Like a lot of Americans right now, I am always one disaster away from bankruptcy. So, apparently, is our entire financial system. That cheers me up a little bit (as in, at least it’s not personal), but it’s hard to maintain my good humor when I keep getting love letters from the city, the mortgage company, the insurance company, and God knows who else. I get depressed sometimes. And now the bank where I took the job (the one that landed me farther north with an unsold home in Indiana) is on a short list of four or five big regional banks most likely to tank in the near future, right behind WaMu.

So, OK, Wall Street is (once again) having a very, very bad week. That’s a problem. Pundits are all over the TV and radio explaining that this promises to be the worst financial disaster since the Great Depression, and that no easy fixes loom on the horizon. A hard correction is in process, they say, and it won’t be finished this year, next year, or maybe the year after that. (A few weeks ago, these same pundits were saying that it was way too early to call the current economic slowdown a recession.)

Here’s what bugs me today: while Wall Street is having its Very, Very Bad Week, Main Street is having a very, very bad yesterday, today, tomorrow, and what’s more, a fairly miserable foreseeable future. For every Bear Stearns that goes down, thousands of cities lose jobs, tax income, and infrastructure. For every Lehman Brothers that cashes in, millions of people like you and me lose homes, cars, and retirement benefits. For every AIG that goes bust by betting high on the wrong horse, another couple generations of kids can kiss college and all hope of progress goodbye.

So yes, I’m worried about Wall Street.

What I want to know is, when will Wall Street worry about me?