Financial orthodoxy is well-intentioned, but sometimes it ends up causing more problems than one might think. One of the core ideas in it is moral hazard, that if you bail people out, that they’re not going to pay as much attention on who they lend to, who they borrow from, or what have you. Now, back before 1913, when the Fed was created, and certainly before 1933, when FDR created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, that was the case. If you put your money in a bank, and the bank somehow went under, first, there was nobody to bail out the bank. And secondly, there was nobody to bail out you, the depositor. Well, people still had to use banks, but they didn’t use them quite as much as they normally do. Banks were underutilized. And that’s actually bad for the economy, because banks are a very efficient way of collecting the national saving and putting it to use.
Now, what they ended up doing was making a compromise. FDIC only insured deposits at first up to 40,000, then it went to 100,000. But still 100,000 in the 21st century wasn’t much, it may seem a lot to an individual, but think about a small business that has to make payroll. It’s not hard to have a monthly payroll well in excess of $100,000. So where are you going to keep the money so that your payroll checks clear?
Well, in the 2008 financial crisis, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson foolishly opposed raising the FDIC cap. As a result, we had a mini bank run. Small business people and others had to start spreading their money around on an almost daily basis, in order to make sure that their money was insured. People were very nervous about which bank would go under. In the end, that kind of banking chaos greatly contributed to the financial crisis that collapses the housing market and all the rest.
This time around, in 2023, Treasury Secretary Yellen played it much wiser. When those banks failed, like Silicon Valley back in 2000, excuse me back in March, she implicitly guaranteed that all depositors would be protected. Result: No bank run, no financial panic, no crisis, no deep recession.
Well, financial orthodoxy doesn’t just exist in America, it applies everywhere. And right now, it’s China, an unusual place for sure to have financial orthodoxy, but it’s creating a similar problem, although somewhat different. You see in China, if you want to buy a new house, ie a new apartment somewhere, you have to pay all your money down before it’s built. Right. Why? Because there was so much demand that builders could command that. So homeowners had to go out, pool all their life saving for the down payment, and then take out a mortgage for the rest on a house that didn’t even exist. Well, guess what? A lot of those builders during COVID ended up not being able to complete the buildings that they had already sold. So people out there were stranded. Their life savings was gone for the down payment, and they were saddled with a mortgage, but didn’t have a house to show for it. This created a big hit to consumer demand in China, particularly among the growing middle class.
China has had a lot of problems with an economic recovery, even though it lists lifted its ridiculous COVID restrictions. Why? Why would you trust, say, the homebuilding industry, or any other industry, if they took your money away? And besides, your money is gone, so you can’t spend. So what Xi needs to do, Xi Jinping, the head of China, is he needs to basically create the equivalent of the FDIC, but in this case retroactively. He’s either got to give the homebuyers their money back, or he’s got to bail out the builders so that they can finish the construction on the buildings that they’ve sold. Well, he’s not doing it, in part because he’s afraid of moral hazard. But also because he doesn’t think it’s right for the government, which has the access to the money, by the way, to bail out others. Now, he’s got a little bit of a case, their national debt is 80% of GDP versus about 105% in the US, the total debt in the economy is 280% of GDP, which is more than what we have in the US. So piling more debt on the on the Chinese nation, you know, is not the smartest idea. But it’s a lot smarter than letting people go broke because the builders didn’t finish the houses they’d already paid for. The government has a responsibility, perhaps, to plug this hole, that or they have bigger economic problems. And they also have problems with the social contract.
The problem with this orthodoxy is: Is it sensible for a small business owner or a potential homeowner to know the financial condition of the bank or the construction company that’s promised to build their home? Nobody has that capacity to do research, only the government regulators do. So in fact, the moral hazard is really on the government to make sure that it is checking on the solvency of these companies like we do for banks. Well, that’s a different version of financial orthodoxy. But it’s not the one that prevailed in the US for a long time. And it’s certainly not the one that prevails in China. And isn’t China kind of a strange place to go back to good old fashioned pre-1913 financial orthodoxy? This is Larry Lindsey for Straight Arrow News.
Larry Lindsey
President & CEO, The Lindsey Group
Commentary
Our commentary partners will help you reach your own conclusions on complex topics.
Is the US looking for a war?
7 hrs ago
Peter Zeihan
How future generations could shift US support for Israel
Yesterday
Peter Zeihan
Why election of European Commission president is so important
Wednesday
Peter Zeihan
‘Both completely corrupt’: What Americans think of Biden, Trump
Tuesday
Dr. Frank Luntz
China can learn from US history in housing, financial crisis
Larry Lindsey
President & CEO, The Lindsey Group
By Straight Arrow News
The Chinese housing crisis has attracted coverage and criticism from observers around the world, raising concerns about its potential to destabilize China’s entire economy. The U.S. experienced its own financial crisis in 2008, the country’s worst economic disaster since the Great Depression.
Straight Arrow News contributor Larry Lindsey reviews the history of modern financial crises in America and concludes China should learn from them. There are good ways out of the Chinese housing crisis, Lindsey argues, but whether Xi Jinping will choose any of them is a different question.
Well, financial orthodoxy doesn’t just exist in America, it applies everywhere. And right now, it’s China, an unusual place, for sure, to have financial orthodoxy, but it’s creating a similar problem, although somewhat different.
You see in China, if you want to buy a new house, i.e. a new apartment somewhere, you have to pay all your money down before it’s built. Why? Because there was so much demand that builders could command that. So homeowners had to go out, pool all their life savings for the down payment, and then take out a mortgage for the rest on a house that didn’t even exist.
Well, guess what? A lot of those builders during COVID ended up not being able to complete the buildings that they had already sold. So people out there were stranded. Their life savings was gone for the down payment, and they were saddled with a mortgage, but didn’t have a house to show for it. This created a big hit to consumer demand in China, particularly among the growing middle class.
Financial orthodoxy is well-intentioned, but sometimes it ends up causing more problems than one might think. One of the core ideas in it is moral hazard, that if you bail people out, that they’re not going to pay as much attention on who they lend to, who they borrow from, or what have you. Now, back before 1913, when the Fed was created, and certainly before 1933, when FDR created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, that was the case. If you put your money in a bank, and the bank somehow went under, first, there was nobody to bail out the bank. And secondly, there was nobody to bail out you, the depositor. Well, people still had to use banks, but they didn’t use them quite as much as they normally do. Banks were underutilized. And that’s actually bad for the economy, because banks are a very efficient way of collecting the national saving and putting it to use.
Now, what they ended up doing was making a compromise. FDIC only insured deposits at first up to 40,000, then it went to 100,000. But still 100,000 in the 21st century wasn’t much, it may seem a lot to an individual, but think about a small business that has to make payroll. It’s not hard to have a monthly payroll well in excess of $100,000. So where are you going to keep the money so that your payroll checks clear?
Well, in the 2008 financial crisis, Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson foolishly opposed raising the FDIC cap. As a result, we had a mini bank run. Small business people and others had to start spreading their money around on an almost daily basis, in order to make sure that their money was insured. People were very nervous about which bank would go under. In the end, that kind of banking chaos greatly contributed to the financial crisis that collapses the housing market and all the rest.
This time around, in 2023, Treasury Secretary Yellen played it much wiser. When those banks failed, like Silicon Valley back in 2000, excuse me back in March, she implicitly guaranteed that all depositors would be protected. Result: No bank run, no financial panic, no crisis, no deep recession.
Well, financial orthodoxy doesn’t just exist in America, it applies everywhere. And right now, it’s China, an unusual place for sure to have financial orthodoxy, but it’s creating a similar problem, although somewhat different. You see in China, if you want to buy a new house, ie a new apartment somewhere, you have to pay all your money down before it’s built. Right. Why? Because there was so much demand that builders could command that. So homeowners had to go out, pool all their life saving for the down payment, and then take out a mortgage for the rest on a house that didn’t even exist. Well, guess what? A lot of those builders during COVID ended up not being able to complete the buildings that they had already sold. So people out there were stranded. Their life savings was gone for the down payment, and they were saddled with a mortgage, but didn’t have a house to show for it. This created a big hit to consumer demand in China, particularly among the growing middle class.
China has had a lot of problems with an economic recovery, even though it lists lifted its ridiculous COVID restrictions. Why? Why would you trust, say, the homebuilding industry, or any other industry, if they took your money away? And besides, your money is gone, so you can’t spend. So what Xi needs to do, Xi Jinping, the head of China, is he needs to basically create the equivalent of the FDIC, but in this case retroactively. He’s either got to give the homebuyers their money back, or he’s got to bail out the builders so that they can finish the construction on the buildings that they’ve sold. Well, he’s not doing it, in part because he’s afraid of moral hazard. But also because he doesn’t think it’s right for the government, which has the access to the money, by the way, to bail out others. Now, he’s got a little bit of a case, their national debt is 80% of GDP versus about 105% in the US, the total debt in the economy is 280% of GDP, which is more than what we have in the US. So piling more debt on the on the Chinese nation, you know, is not the smartest idea. But it’s a lot smarter than letting people go broke because the builders didn’t finish the houses they’d already paid for. The government has a responsibility, perhaps, to plug this hole, that or they have bigger economic problems. And they also have problems with the social contract.
The problem with this orthodoxy is: Is it sensible for a small business owner or a potential homeowner to know the financial condition of the bank or the construction company that’s promised to build their home? Nobody has that capacity to do research, only the government regulators do. So in fact, the moral hazard is really on the government to make sure that it is checking on the solvency of these companies like we do for banks. Well, that’s a different version of financial orthodoxy. But it’s not the one that prevailed in the US for a long time. And it’s certainly not the one that prevails in China. And isn’t China kind of a strange place to go back to good old fashioned pre-1913 financial orthodoxy? This is Larry Lindsey for Straight Arrow News.
Election 2024 will boil down to the Great Lakes states
Pollsters and pundits have been engaged in a long debate about how Biden or Trump might win the 2024 election, with much of their focus spent on the “swing state” electoral battlegrounds. While the winners of Alabama or California may be obvious, for instance, who wins Pennsylvania is a more difficult question. Watch the above…
Jun 10
Why the Fed should consider Theory of Reflexivity when fixing policy
The Theory of Reflexivity, often used in the context of economics and financial markets, implies that investors don’t base their decisions on reality but on their perceptions of reality. This creates a feedback loop where investors’ perceptions influence economic fundamentals, which in turn alter investor perceptions. Watch the above video as Straight Arrow News contributor…
Jun 3
Federal Reserve surpassed its own wildest expectations
On May 14, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics released the most current producer price index (PPI) report, which showed an increase of 0.5% month-over-month in April. After the report’s release, U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Jerome “Jay” Powell said that while he believes the current policy rate is restrictive by many measures, the Fed needs…
May 20
Polls give slight advantage to Trump in Electoral College
With the U.S. general election only six months away, leading candidates President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump appear to be engaged in a very close contest. In their 2020 race, the winner of the Electoral College was ultimately determined by a relative handful of voters in just a few swing states, even though…
May 13
College sports is big money but not everyone benefits
March Madness has wrapped up and Caitlin Clark has emerged as a household name as well as a wealthy student athlete. Earning over $3 million throughout her college career, her success stands in stark contrast to the previous notion that collegiate athletes shouldn’t earn anything beyond their scholarship. Straight Arrow News contributor Larry Lindsey examines…
Apr 29
Underreported stories from each side
Group accuses Pa. teachers union of illegally using money to back Shapiro’s 2022 campaign
8 sources | 0% from the left
Getty Images
Some House Republicans slam Vance as Trump’s VP pick: ‘The worst choice’
8 sources | 0% from the right
Reuters
Latest Stories
Congress still trying to figure out how to reduce wasteful military spending
Watch 2:29
2 hrs ago
US Navy, Air Force making waves with new weapons at RIMPAC
Watch 6:03
2 hrs ago
Israeli PM Netanyahu meets with Trump at Mar-a-Lago
Watch 2:54
2 hrs ago
Growing US nuclear power resurgence reaches the nation’s heartland
Watch 1:19
3 hrs ago
Beer from the sun, other solar thermal projects get government funding
Watch 2:04
3 hrs ago
Popular Opinions
In addition to the facts, we believe it’s vital to hear perspectives from all sides of the political spectrum.
Trump has an excellent opportunity with Black voters
8 hrs ago
Star Parker
Don’t fall for GOP’s cheap racist attacks on Kamala Harris
9 hrs ago
Dr. Rashad Richey
Americans must reject Trump to defend our democracy
Yesterday
Jordan Reid
Why all the changes in European parliamentary governments?
Wednesday
Newt Gingrich