|
"You are wasting your life and your talents writing about Alan Greenspan every
day," said an old friend.
For years, we have been working on Greenspan's obituary. As far as we know,
the man is still in excellent health. But we do not want to be caught off guard.
Maybe we could even rush out a quickie biography, explaining to the masses
the meaning of Mr. Greenspan's life and work.
Perhaps our friend is right. But then again, we weren't doing anything special
before we started keeping up with the Fed chairman. Besides, we see something
in Alan Greenspan's career...his comportment...his betrayal of his old ideas...his
pact with the Devil in Washington...and his attempt to hold off nature's revenge
at least until he leaves the Fed...that is both entertaining and educational.
It smacks of Greek tragedy without the boring monologues or bloody intrigues.
Even the language of it is Greek to most people. Though the Fed chairman speaks
English, of course, his words often need translation and historical annotation.
Rarely does the maestro make a statement that is comprehensible to the ordinary
mortal. So much the better, we guess. If the average fellow really knew what
he was talking about, he would be alarmed. And we have no illusions. Whoever
attempts to explain it to him will get no thanks; he might as well tell his
teenage daughter what is in her hotdog.
We persevere anyway, more in mischief than in earnest.
The background: The U.S. economy faced a major recession in 2001 and had a
minor one. The necessary slump he held off by a dramatic resort to central
planning. The "invisible hand" is fine for lumber and poultry prices. But at
the short end of the market in debt, Alan Greenspan's paw presses down, like
a butcher's thumb on the meat scale. The Fed quickly cut rates to head off
the recession. Indeed, never before had rates been cut so much, so fast. George
W. Bush, meanwhile, boosted spending. The resultant shock of renewed, ersatz
demand not only postponed the recession; it misled consumers, investors and
businessmen to make even more egregious errors. Investors bought stock with
low earnings yields. Consumers went further into debt. Government liabilities
rose. The trade deficit grew larger. Even on the other side of the globe, foreign
businessmen geared up to meet the phony new demand; China enjoyed a capital
spending boom as excessive as any the world has ever seen.
What the Greenspan Fed had accomplished was to put off a natural, cyclical
correction and transmogrify an entire economy into a monstrous ECONOMIC bubble.
A bubble in stock prices may do little real economic damage. Eventually, the
bubble pops and the phony money people thought they had disappears like a puff
of marijuana smoke. There are winners and losers. But in the end, the economy
is about where it began - unharmed and unhelped. The households are still there...and
still spending money as they did before...and the companies still in business.
Only those that leveraged themselves too highly in the bubble years are in
any trouble - and they probably deserve to go out of business.
Even a property bubble may come and go with little effect on the overall economy.
House prices have been running up in France, for example, at nearly the same
rates as in America. But in France there is very little mortgage refinancing...or "taking
out" of equity. The European Central Bank was repeatedly urged to lower rates
in line with those in America. It refused to budge. Without falling rates,
there was no "refi boom." Nor were European banks offering "home equity lines
of credit." Property could run up...and run down...and the only people who
cared would be the actual buyers or sellers, who either cursed themselves or
felt like geniuses, depending on their luck.
But in Greenspan's bubble economy something remarkably awful happened. Householders
were lured to "take out" the equity in their homes. They believed that the
bubble in real estate priced created "wealth" that they could spend. Many did
not hesitate. Mortgage debt ballooned in the early years of the 21st century
- from about $6 trillion in 1999 to nearly $9 trillion at the end of 2004.
Three trillion dollars may not seem like much to you, dear reader. But it increased
the average household's debt by $30,000. Americans still lived in more or less
the same houses. But they owed far more on them.
We had given up all hope of ever getting an honest word out of the Fed chairman
on this subject when, in early February, in the year of our Lord 2005, the
maestro slipped up. His speech was entitled "Current Account." Jet lagged,
his defenses down, the poor man seems to have committed truth.
"The growth of home mortgage debt has been the major contributor to the decline
in the personal saving rate in the United States from almost 6 percent in 1993
to its current level of 1 percent," he admitted. Thus, he did bring the up
the subject. Then, he began a confession: The rapid growth in home mortgage
debt over the past five years has been "driven largely by equity extraction," said
the man most responsible for it. By this time, listeners were beginning to
put Mr. Greenspan at the scene of the crime. And pretty soon, even the dullest
economist in the room was adding 2 and 2. Mr. Greenspan lowered lending rates
far below where a free market in credit would have put them. With little to
be gained by putting money in savings accounts...and a lot to be gained by
borrowing...households did what you would expect; they ceased saving and began
borrowing. What did they borrow against? The rising value of their homes - "extracting
equity," to use Mr. Greenspan's own jargon. The Fed chairman had misled them
into believing that house prices increases were the same as new, disposable
wealth.
But the world's most famous and most revered economist didn't stop there.
He must have had the audience on the edge of its chairs. He confessed not only
to having done the thing...but also to having his wits about him when he did
it. This was no accident. No negligence. This was intentional.
"Approximately half of equity extraction shows up in additional household
expenditures, reducing savings commensurately and thereby presumably contributing
to the current account deficit.... The fall in U.S. interest rates since the
early 1980s has supported home price increases," continues America's answer
to Adam Smith.
People take money out of their homes. With this source of spending power available
to them, they see no reason to save. Instead, they spend - often on foreign-made
goods. With no savings available domestically, America must look overseas for
credit.
"The obvious and most important point is that rapid growth of U.S. mortgage
debt did not come out of thin air," comments Stephen Roach. "It was, of course,
a direct outgrowth of the Fed's hyper-accommodation of the post-bubble era
-- namely, short-term interest rates that have been negative in real terms
for longer than at any point since the 1970s."
The crime of which Mr. Greenspan is guilty is fraud. Putting interest rates
at an artificially low level, the Fed chairman intentionally misled Americans.
Were it not for the Fed's low rates and easy lending policies, Americans wouldn't
have thought themselves so rich. Their houses wouldn't have gone up so much;
they wouldn't have taken out so much equity, because they wouldn't have had
any equity to take out. They would have had to spend less, which would have
reduced the U.S. current account deficit and diminished household indebtnedness.
"Lacking in job creation and real wage growth," explains Roach, "private sector
real wage and salary disbursements have increased a mere 4% over the first
37 months of this recovery -- fully ten percentage points short of the average
gains of more than 14% that occurred over the five preceding cyclical upturns.
Yet consumers didn't flinch in the face of what in the past would have been
a major impediment to spending. Spurred on by home equity extraction and Bush
Administration tax cuts, income-short households pushed the consumption share
of US GDP up to a record 71.1% in early 2003 (and still 70.7% in 4Q04) -- an
unprecedented breakout from the 67% norm that had prevailed over the 1975 to
2000 period...At long last, Chairman Greenspan owns up to the central role
he and his colleagues at the Federal Reserve have played in fostering these
developments."
Our own Fed chairman, guardian of the nation's money...custodian of its economy...night
watchman of its wealth...
How could he do such a thing? And yet he has done it. He turned a financial
bubble into an economic bubble. Not only were the prices of financial assets
ballooned to excess...so were the prices of houses...and so were the debts
of the average household.
Where does it lead? The force of a correction is equal to the deception that
preceded it. Mr. Greenspan's whopper must be followed by a whopper of a slump.
Regards,
|