In any case, I tend to agree with this caustic dismissal of our newly renominated savior, published by John Hussman of the Hussman Funds www.hussmanfunds.com .
“Our forecast is for moderate but positive growth going into next year. We think that by the spring, early next year, that as these credit problems resolve and, as we hope, the housing market begins to find a bottom, that the broader resiliency of the economy, which we are seeing in other areas outside of housing, will take control and will help the economy recover to a more reasonable growth pace.”
Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Chairman
On Friday, investors took great cheer in an optimistic statement by Ben Bernanke suggesting good prospects for economic growth ahead. We might be inclined to place a sliver of credibility in Chairman Bernanke's assessment – if not for the fact that the quote above wasn't from last week at all, but rather, hails back to November 8, 2007, just before the recent recession began. You might recall that the S&P 500 was pushing 1500 at the time. The implosion of the global credit markets was still just a slight rumble.
As it happens, that was also the week our recession warning composite shifted clearly into negative territory, prompting the weekly comment Expecting A Recession, where I wrote “On Saturday, the consensus of economists surveyed by Blue Chip Economic Indicators indicated expectations that growth will be sluggish into next year, but that there will be no recession. Unfortunately, the economic consensus has never accurately anticipated a recession. For my part, the outlook has changed. I expect that a U.S. economic recession is immediately ahead.” That was followed the next week with Critical Point, which opened with a saying of Rudiger Dornbusch: “The crisis takes a much longer time coming than you think, and then it happens much faster than you would have thought.”
A good economist thoughtfully recognizes “general equilibrium” – resources moved to one place must be taken from somewhere else. Securities or monetary liabilities, once issued, must be held by someone in the economy until they are retired (the failure to recognize this is the basis for the “cash on the sidelines” fallacy). Instead, Bernanke's economic research is a minefield of partial equilibrium analysis. Helicopter Ben is a lot like John Maynard Keynes, who wrote in his General Theory “If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with banknotes, bury them at suitable depths, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again, there need be no more unemployment.”
Solving economic problems, to our Fed Chairman, is as easy as throwing money out of helicopters. Not surprisingly, throwing money out of helicopters has been the basic core of his strategy during this crisis. This does not involve complex thought about debt restructuring, moral hazard, incentives, equitable distribution of resources, or other factors. All it requires is the three second tape playing in Bernanke's head - "We let the banks fail in the Great Depression, and look what happened." And then the tape repeats. Never mind that the cause of the upheaval was not the failure of banks per se, but the disorganized Lehman-style failure of banks. The tape isn't long enough to encompass such nuances.
Ben Bernanke (like Tim Geithner and his predecessor Hank Paulson), shows no hesitation in diverting the real resources of the American public to defend and compensate the bondholders of mismanaged financial companies who made reckless loans and who should have (and equally important, could have) been expected to write down principal or swap debt for equity as an alternative to receivership. This is not decisiveness. It is timidity and poor stewardship. Worse, the underlying problems are not healed - only band-aided temporarily by a flood of public money.
Unfortunately, the resources used in the recent bailout were not just free money tossed out of a helicopter. Only a partial-equilibrium economist thinks that way. No, this was an allocation of trillions of dollars of real resources that could be spent improving access of poor families to health care, finding cures for life-changing diseases, providing better education, and reversing the crowding-out of productive private investment. A public servant willing to act this carelessly with the resources entrusted to him, and so strongly in defense of fellow bankers, frankly does not deserve the job. Most likely, we will face the same credit issues a few quarters from now, given that the lull in the adjustable-rate reset schedule is near its end. We continue to expect a fresh acceleration of credit losses as we enter 2010. It would be best if we faced these challenges with more thoughtful leadership.