econintersect.com
       
  

FREE NEWSLETTER: Econintersect sends a nightly newsletter highlighting news events of the day, and providing a summary of new articles posted on the website. Econintersect will not sell or pass your email address to others per our privacy policy. You can cancel this subscription at any time by selecting the unsubscribing link in the footer of each email.



posted on 05 January 2018

The Great Financial Crisis Was Not About A Failure Of Intermediation

Written by , New Economic Perspectives

Modern Macro Got the 2008 Crisis Painfully Wrong

Lawrence J. Christiano was the lead author of the article announcing the Dilettante doctrine that I discussed in the first column in this series. His ‘dilettante article’ claimed that modern macro got the last crisis so wrong because it ignored the ‘shadow’ financial sector. I have found a 2008 article by him and two Minneapolis Fed co-authors that illustrates modern macro’s blindness to the shadow financial sector.

shadow.banking


Please share this article - Go to very top of page, right hand side, for social media buttons.


The article is entitled “Facts and Myths about the Financial Crisis of 2008" and the first footnote says that they wrote the article based on information available on October 25, 2008. The purpose of the article was to demand that proponents of fiscal and monetary stimulus prove a specific “market failure" justifying stimulus. Christiano and his co-authors agree that the Nation is in a “financial crisis" and that it could lead to a serious recession, but see no reason for the government to act.


Christiano and his co-authors agree that the Nation is in a “financial crisis" and that it could lead to a serious recession, but see no reason for the government to act.


To review the bidding, at the time the modern macro devotees were calling on the government not to act, Bear Stearns, IndyMac, Lehman, AIG, Fannie, Freddie, Merrill Lynch, Wachovia, and Washington Mutual had failed or been bailed out or acquired. Several hundred mortgage-banking firms had failed. Every money market mutual fund had suffered a massive run (the largest in world history) that was broken only by massive federal aid and guarantees. Housing prices were in free fall. CDOs were experiencing astonishing credit rating downgrades. The leading credit firms of GE and the automobile companies were insolvent, unprofitable, and desperate for bailouts. The remaining two major investment banking firms were converting to bank holding companies on an emergency basis so that they could borrow from the Fed.


Recessions like the Great Recession are about insufficient demand leading to severe unemployment and underemployment.


By late October 2008, every macroeconomist would have been aware of these facts and focused on how they were causing the financial crisis to metastasize at an appalling rate. Christiano and his co-authors at the Minneapolis Fed and U. Minnesota, however, did not even use the word “shadow" financial sector in their article. They warned against stimulus:

“Indeed, many economic theories implies [sic] that such massive intervention will likely do more harm than good."

[I]t is incumbent on policy-makes [sic] to provide hard evidence that good borrowers with relatively safe projects are unable to get credit because of the increased cost of intermediation due to a breakdown in the system of financial intermediation,

No, that is nonsensical. Recessions like the Great Recession are about insufficient demand leading to severe unemployment and underemployment. The problem was not that lenders were refusing to lend money to manufacturers to build new plants. The problem was that manufacturers rightly believed that demand for their products was falling sharply. The manufacturers did not want to borrow and increase production capacity in such circumstances. American households believed they had excessive debt and were cutting consumption to repay debt, creating a classic “paradox of thrift." These are the classic, sensible grounds for government fiscal stimulus. If Christiano’s advice had become policy the results could have been catastrophic.


American households believed they had excessive debt and were cutting consumption to repay debt, creating a classic “paradox of thrift."


Christiano’s claim that there was no apparent “market failure" by the end of October 2008 was bizarre. First, there was a massive market failure because the largest bubble in history arose in the United States (and the contemporaneous real estate bubbles in Ireland and Spain were, proportionately, even larger). Second, there were legions of market failures producing the epidemics of ‘accounting control fraud’ that drove the financial crisis in the U.S. and other nations. These market failures involved failures in many markets. The real estate bubble, for example, revealed market failures in appraisals, underwriters, loan brokers, compliance, auditing, law, credit rating, due diligence, securities, CDOs, and CDS.


there was a massive market failure because the largest bubble in history arose in the United States


Christiano claimed that the stock markets reacted adversely to the adoption of fiscal stimulus.

[V]arious stock markets have fallen dramatically, especially in the week after the bailout plan was passed.

That claim was disingenuous. The House of Representative’s rejection of the ‘bailout plan’ on September 29, 2008 caused first a national and then a global collapse in stock market prices. The plan’s adoption on October 3, 2008 led to a powerful, positive effect on bank stock prices. It is true that after TARP’s passage, the global economic news continued to get far worse and stock prices fell substantially, but no one attributes that to TARP.

Fortunately, Christiano’s piece appears to have produced the unintended consequence of convincing Narayana Kocherlakota, when he stepped down as Chair of U. Minnesota’s economics department to become President of the Minneapolis Fed, that the incestuous relationship between the Fed and the department had produced a harmful degree of inbred macro dogma. Freshwater macro devotees went berserk in their criticism of Kocherlakota when he diversified the Minneapolis Fed’s macroeconomic scholars’ views.


This article was adapted from the commentary posted at New Economic Perspectives, 19 December 2017.


>>>>> Scroll down to view and make comments <<<<<<

Click here for Historical Opinion Post Listing










Make a Comment

Econintersect wants your comments, data and opinion on the articles posted. You can also comment using Facebook directly using he comment block below.




Econintersect Opinion








search_box
Print this page or create a PDF file of this page
Print Friendly and PDF


The growing use of ad blocking software is creating a shortfall in covering our fixed expenses. Please consider a donation to Econintersect to allow continuing output of quality and balanced financial and economic news and analysis.







Keep up with economic news using our dynamic economic newspapers with the largest international coverage on the internet
Asia / Pacific
Europe
Middle East / Africa
Americas
USA Government




























 navigate econintersect.com

Blogs

Analysis Blog
News Blog
Investing Blog
Opinion Blog
Precious Metals Blog
Markets Blog
Video of the Day
Weather

Newspapers

Asia / Pacific
Europe
Middle East / Africa
Americas
USA Government
     

RSS Feeds / Social Media

Combined Econintersect Feed
Google+
Facebook
Twitter
Digg

Free Newsletter

Marketplace - Books & More

Economic Forecast

Content Contribution

Contact

About

  Top Economics Site

Investing.com Contributor TalkMarkets Contributor Finance Blogs Free PageRank Checker Active Search Results Google+

This Web Page by Steven Hansen ---- Copyright 2010 - 2018 Econintersect LLC - all rights reserved