Skip to main content

Inanities in a crisis

You aren't smarter than the market. It really is that simple.

The media is filled with plain silly inanities these days as everyone is focused on the crisis du jour on wall street. Here is one that grabbed my eye:

"The Depression itself was a dynamic sequence. It wouldn't have happened if the Fed hadn't insanely tightened credit in response to the stock market crash, rather than the correct policy of easing interest rates."

First, that monetary policy lead to the depression is a highly controversial explanation favored by money-supply ideologues. But the Fed did not have a policy of "tightened credit". They simply couldn't expand the money supply by printing dollars because, at the time, each dollar had to be backed by gold bars at Fort Knox.

Where the government did act to make the problem worse was cutting federal spending in response to reductions in tax revenue. Essentially the folks in charge ran government like a business, cutting expenses in response to reduced revenues, instead of using their almost unlimited borrowing power to stimulate the economy by keeping right on spending.

Finally, this ignores the central cause of the depression. People couldn't afford to buy the products they were producing. When the market crashed, as every speculative bubble will, businesses had enormous inventories of unsold goods. Think about what would happen today if every industry had the same oversupply that the housing market has. The housing market is in a depression now. That was the state of everything going into the great depression.

Of course blaming the great depression on low wages, cuts in government spending and market speculation are not messages that are very welcome in today's business environment. So we hear inanities about monetary policy that just coincidentally seem to justify the government stepping in to bail out the speculators when bubbles pop.

But that is just one example of what is turning into a propaganda fiesta with the media whacking pinata's and spewing out some businesses message. A recent NYT story described falling real estate prices and sales as "necessary" in order for the market to clear out the inventory of homes. Now you might ask how falling sales will help clear out the excess inventory. The answer is that it obviously doesn't. In fact, falling prices combined with falling sales indicates the opposite, the problem is getting worse and we are a long way from the bottom. Even with lower prices, the number of customers for homes continues to decline and the supply of homes available continues to grow. Of course that is not a good message if you are trying to get people to open their wallets and buy an overpriced house. Thus, whack! and the real estate industry's message comes flying out of the media's pinata.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Self-Directed Real Estate IRA's the New Scam?

You aren't smarter than the market. It really is that simple. You know the marketing folks have been out talking when the New York Times does a fluff story on some new way to make more money with your investments. So watch out for the new scam promoted by the same media advisers who told you a few years ago to buy the most expensive house a lender would finance. Paul Sullivan story is about people'e successful investment of their retirement money in real estate using a self-directed IRA. He provides us with several "success stories".  Of course they are all recent converters to this idea and, not surprising, all but one of the people whose story Sullivan tells are also in real estate sales. The problem isn't really Paul Sullivan. Its that there is no one who makes money by digging out the horror stories from people who invested their retirement funds in real estate at the height of the housing bubble. There aren't any public relations firms devoted to de

The Stock Market hasn't gone up, the Value of the Dollar has Just Gone Down.

You aren't smarter than the market. It really is that simple. The New York Times had an article about the stock market's recent gains. The story noted that while the market had gone up 11% since the election, the dollar had dropped 10% against a basket of foreign currencies during that same period. They described this as "almost a mirror image." Unfortunately it is exactly a mirror image for people who hold those foreign currencies. Lets say they paid a $100 for a share of stock the day of the election and they exchanged 100 units of their own currency for that $100. Now if they sell that stock they will get $111 dollars, but when they exchange that $111 dollars, they will get back 100 units of their own currency. They have earned nothing, in their own local currency's terms the price hasn't changed. In a world investment market, the price of stock is set by what people around the world are willing to pay for it. Most people are still paying the same pr

Who is to blame for this mess?

There seems to be a lot of discussion to who is to blame for the financial crisis. But an awful lot of the media coverage is highly misleading. Here is synopis: 1) The meltdown in the financial market had little to do with people getting mortgages they couldn't afford. The collapse of the mortgage backed CDO's was caused by the collapse in the value of the houses which provided the collateral. It turned the mortgages behind the "collateralized debt obligations" (CDO's) into mostly un-collateralized debts. The result was that they went from AAA rated bonds to junk. 2)So what caused the housing bubble and collapse? Many people blame the fed, but don't have the story right. The fed did play a role. By keeping interest rates on Treasury Bonds low, they provided a market for alternative bonds that would pay a greater return. But the major cause of the housing bubble was the creativity of the investment banks. These are not the retail banks that make home mortgages