Be sure to read Mish's take on this. Really good.

Bush Moves to Aid Lenders

WASHINGTON -- President Bush, looking for ways to respond to the subprime-mortgage crisis, will outline a series of policy changes and recommendations today to help borrowers avoid default make sure lenders aren't defaulted on, senior administration officials said.

snip
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/

Mish's take is just like what the MasterCard commercials say, "Priceless". John



Prudentbear has less humour:

The one thing all bubbles have in common is that they eventually pop, and ours just did. Unlike the popping of the last bubble in 2000-2001, this one will fall directly to our economy’s bottom line. And this time the Fed can not step up to the plate with unlimited liquidity injections.

A record percentage of our GDP is comprised of consumer spending. The source of this spending was the housing bubble. Would our savings rate really be negative were it not for housing related “wealth?” Could consumers really have spent as much as they did without the benefits of temporarily low teaser rates and the ability to extract equity from their homes? How many service sector jobs are directly related to that extra spending? When the low mortgage payments and home equity disappear, so too will the spending and jobs they engendered.

Those who feel that the economy will keep growing must believe that discretionary consumer spending is unrelated to wealth or expenses. In other words, they believe that individuals will spend as much with no home equity and $3,000 per month mortgage payments as they did with $200,000 in home equity $1,500 monthly payments. Factor in other rising expenses; such as food, energy, insurance, and taxes and discretionary spending will not just slow, it will completely collapse.


http://prudentbear.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4743...

Just wait, the other shoe will soon drop. The dollar will decline in value, and the cost of imports will go up. TPTB must have decided that higher prices for Chinese junk at Sprawl-Mart & fuel at the gas pump would probably generate less flack than a further decline in house values.

But hey the "official" U.S. debt limit stands at 8.989 trillion as of yesterday and no talk of raising the limit nor is there any media talking head to ask, "Where's the Beef?". John

By those clocks numbers, we will be at 9 trillion dollars by this time next week or sooner. And seeing as we can never pay off this debt, what in the real world is going to happen to the USA in 20 years?

The cost of China sourced goods will go up only if they show some restraint in currency manipulation by buying less dollars and letting the yuan float, as all other major currencies do. So far they have refused to do either. So worry not - that $25 DVD player may soon go to $15.

I'll confess up front I'm a physicist, not an economist. It always troubles me when I hear that spending of one sort or another is going down because consumers have to spend their money elsewhere. The paradox I see is that the money still goes somewhere. It doesn't vanish. Or does it?

Say a person borrows against equity and buys a new big screen TV. They now have to pay that money back through higher monthly payments.

Say that ARM rates go up by the same amount so that person doesn't buy the big screen TV. They just make the payments. However, the lender gets more money and they turn around and either use that money to lend to other people to buy homes or they take it as profit and go out and buy a Mercedes or a yacht.

Why is one different for the economy than the other?

Unlike energy, money can be spontaneously created or destroyed without changing forms (being exchanged for goods or services.)

When you buy something (like a house) and then its price drops, the money representing the difference in price is destroyed.

If we take your example forward a few steps:

The ARM rates go up by a huge amount. Millions of borrowers stop buying all products except what they need to live.

Most people work for companies that don't provide what people need to live. Nobody is buying their products anymore. Millions of borrowers who work for these companies are laid off.

Unemployed people can't afford the ARM payment anymore. They try to sell the house, but nobody else has cash either. This causes house prices to plummet, which reduces people's ability to get out of house debt by selling the house. Eventually many default on their home loan.

The lenders at first make a lot of money. The relatively few people who make yachts or Mercedes do OK as a result. As more and more borrowers default, however, the lenders begin to lose a lot of money, too. Because now the houses are worth much less, and the original borrower won't ever pay off the original debt.


However, the lender gets more money and they turn around and either use that money to lend to other people to buy homes or they take it as profit and go out and buy a Mercedes or a yacht.



What you are describing is exactly what has been happening in the US economy which is transitioning into a rentier economy in which 10% of the population owns 99% of the assets. The other 90% of the population own next to no assets and remain indebted to the property owners.


From a political economy point of view, the 10% will have effective control of all apparatus of government and will manage it to serve their interests. This is already taking place. The 90% keep running faster and faster just to stay in place and fail to understand why their effort is fruitless.


This economy is far, far different from the Jeffersonian ideal in which each citizen was a property holder and each therefore had a vested interest in the governing structure. The US is transitioning back to the very political economy that it rebelled against 200 off years ago.


The wealthy buy luxury goods and services so if you offer these goods you will do well. The wealthy also invest for the greatest return and if this turns out to be in India or China then that is where the investment flows, the factories get built, the employment increases, and the exports originate.


There is nothing inherently wrong with any of this. We are just re-arranging the chemical bonds to come up with a new molecule that contains all the original elements but which functions in a different way. This is the position of a moral relativist.


On the other hand, 10% of the population are making out like bandits and fleecing the other 90% out of their wages, their property, their communities and their avowed form of government. From the perspective of a true conservative this is an abomination, a call to arms, grounds for an attack on the ruling class and a return to the status quo.


The $800 trillion dollar question bubbles up when this state borrows, and borrows, and borrows. At a certain point the creditors have as much or more influence as the citizens, perhaps more. The creditors observe the 10% moving their funds offshore and do likewise. The result is a major economic collapse in which the 90% suffer while the 10% again make out like bandits.

What remains to be seen is how long a rentier society can continue when a significant number of the 90% own guns, many of the 10% do not, and most of the military -- including the officers -- originate from the 90% rather than the 10%.

Historically, rentier societies featured a disarmed proletariat/peasantry, and an officer corps drawn from the propertied classes. This was how social control was able to go hand-in-hand with economic control.

When there is too much of a disconnect between the ruling class and the officer corps, then the thought inevitably occurs to the officer corps that the ruling class could just as easily be THEM, and that there really is nothing to stop them from taking over. There is a lot of historical precedent for this, too.

The 10% may make out like bandits, but then again bandits make out like bandits -- until they swing from the end of a rope.