Government Intervention Into
Financial Markets Caused the
Economic Crisis
By Shane Flait © 2010
The recent boom and bust crisis
of our financial markets is not
the failure of free market
capitalism. It's a result of
government intervention into the
financial markets. It's this
intervention that prevents the
free market forces from bringing
markets into balance to offset
the possibility of runaway booms
or busts.
The changing price for any
commodity, good, or service in a
free market supplies information
about the markets associated
with that product, coordinates
the supply and demand for that
product, and supplies incentives
or de-incentives about supplying
or demanding more of that
product.
The financial markets are driven
by interest rates which is the
price of money. The interest
rates determine the matching of
the supply of money from savings
with the demand for money in the
investment and debt-related
markets.
Increasing interest rates favor
the supply of saving but makes
investing more expensive. Lower
interest rates frustrate the
supply of savings but makes
investing cheaper. There's a
rate that matches these markets
under prevailing conditions of
institutional incentives and
responsibility.
Government intervenes and
interferes in the financial
markets - undermining free
market forces - through its
monetary policies. Such policies
control the supply of money
which, in turn, effects the
interest rate. Increasing the
supply of money can force down
the interest rate (money's
price) - just like the over
abundance of any product, and
vice versa.
But making too much money
available in the hands of
consumers and government without
a commensurate increase in goods
and services will bid up the
price of those goods and
services. This results in
inflation - a lowering of the
dollar's purchasing power. Too
much inflation will force savers
and lenders to demand higher
interest rates to offset their
money's loss of purchasing power
during the time they lend it.
Government regulates the money
supply to foster growth in the
markets to increase productivity
and employment, especially to
offset current or impending
recessions that result in
reduced productivity and rising
unemployment. Yet at the same
time, it tries to minimize too
much inflation from occurring.
But this perverts and
destabilizes the markets.
It regulates lending
institutions, guarantees home
mortgage loans - under Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac type
investment agencies - presumably
to protect bank consumers and
help citizens acquire homes.
Unfortunately, by trying to
regulate the money supply to
government’s purposes,
regulating the banks, and
guaranteeing loans, the
government undermines or
destroys the free market forces
that keep the markets balanced
with appropriate incentives,
de-incentives and
responsibilities for savings and
investments.
Without free market forces
operating, the markets move away
from equilibrium and have
nothing to keep them from a
running away toward boom or
bust.
From 2003 to 2007, the
government, to offset the
recessionary fears from the end
of the century equity market
bust, expanded the money by 50%
through its monetary polices to
stimulate investment through
'easy available money or
credit'. This unnaturally forced
down interest rates to near zero
levels and created enormous
money availability for
investing.
Such low interest rates made
direct saving pay very little
return, while making investment
and borrowing very inexpensive.
The result was an enormous
housing boom as people - nervous
about the recently busted equity
markets - invested in real
estate. It also frustrated
normal savings rates, and highly
aggravated the amount of debt
consumers incurred.
Booming real estate investments
fostered an explosion in
mortgages. These were funded by
banks, government agencies'
guaranteed loans through Freddie
Mac and Fannie Mae, and newly
created mortgage-backed
investments.
For lending institutions and
other money suppliers to compete
and remain in business under the
demands for mortgages with
unnaturally low interest rates
and rising house prices, they
lowered their loan
qualifications - and thereby
increased the risk to future
investors in all mortgage-backed
investments.
Lending institutions- along with
the government-related agencies
Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae
lowered their loan application
requirements so even the
noncreditworthy borrowers got
loans.
And of course, the government
guaranteed those loans which
certainly enhanced risk-taking
since the government would be
picking up the 'check' under any
defaults. Mortgage-backed
investments packages obscured
the underlying loan risks to
better compete for offering
higher interest rates to
investors.
So, the result of the government
forcing low interest rates
through over expansion of the
money supply was to destroy the
free market forces resulting in
runaway booms driven by 'easy
money'. The booms included the
mortgage-backed real estate
boom, the boom in all the
financial investment supporting
it, and the debt boom for
consumers.
But of course, all booms end
when the missing benefits that a
free market would supply becomes
apparent. What was missing in
this government fostered
financial crisis was the natural
de-incentive for lending - i.e.
defaults and the associated
investment losses. The bust
began in 2008 when the
overabundance of noncreditworthy
borrowers began defaulting on
their loans.
By this time, the money and
mortgaged-based investment boom
had infiltrated the investments
of most of the major financial
institutions. Many of these
'default-related' investments
became next to worthless causing
them enormous losses. Such
investment were called 'toxic
asset'. With such assets, many
large financial institutions,
themselves, began to fail. The
financial crisis instigated in
the U.S. put additional
countries into recession.
The recession then made
financial institutions wary of
lending any money they had for
fear of further loan defaults
and loss.
And so we're brought back into
recession again with
productivity down and employment
high, after government's
interference in the financial
markets. But the boom and bust
economy has been with us for the
last 100 years that the Federal
Reserve System has regulated the
money supply.
What's government's position?
'Capitalism - i.e. the free
market - doesn't quite work'.
It needs more regulation by
government. They say that the
whole crisis is the fault of
'greedy lenders' who made
irresponsible loans for
profits.
Of course, the government
prevented the free market from
working with the natural market
forces that would have held
lenders to responsible
standards. Government forced
irresponsible lending by
perverting the markets and
interest rates by infusion of
available money.
What's government's solution?
'Get us out of recession by
expanding the money supply to
keep rates low and promote
lending' - as usual.
They’re bailing out banks with
an expansion of the money supply
and forcing bankers to lend when
they don't feel responsible
lending. They want to regulate
the banks more and determine
what they can and cannot invest
in. They even want to regulate
how bankers can actually pay
themselves salaries and
bonuses.
That surely will throw more
‘wrenches’ into the workings of
our institutions.
Slowly we should come out of
recession. Business will pick up
and depressed housing prices may
slowly work their way up. Down
the line we can anticipate more
booms and busts.
How would Capitalism - i.e. a
free market - handle the
economy?
I guess we won't know. That's
because of several
circumstances.
The government wants to be in
control of the economy as much
as it can so politicians and
regulators can take credit
whenever things improve and
further blame others and grab
more control when things get
worse. That’s where their power
and benefits reside.
And worst still is that there
are special interest groups that
depend on government
intervention. They will push to
keep more government
intervention since they that's
how they make money their money
too. All this happens when
government just gets to big.
Get the word out.
End