Bailout
Bonds?
by
Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Are you all
for Obama's economic plans? Do you think that bailing out failing
companies, and throwing trillions into the national money pit, is
just the ticket for stimulating the economy back to recovery?
Then you might
get the chance to put your money where your ideological convictions
are. The Obama administration is cajoling investment companies to
create bailout bonds. These would be similar to the bonds that wartime
presidents created to find sucker-investors for their wars. Americans
were browbeaten into buying them as a patriotic duty. So too those
who say "yes, we can" to the bailouts will be asked to do their
patriotic duty, and buy the debt of loser companies.
It's all part
of the war on depression, which is destined to be as successful
as the war on drugs. But, hey, if it is a good investment, why not
buy bailout bonds? Well, there's a problem. The bonds represent
credit extended to companies and projects that are proven market
failures. Creating these bonds is a way of institutionalizing the
principle of buying low and selling lower.
So why would
anyone do it? Well, an article in the New York Times says
it is a good deal because the bonds represent underpriced assets.
The economy will recover and the mortgages with them. "If all goes
well, the funds will eventually sell the investments at a profit."
Catch that?
"If all goes well…"
If all goes
well, I can leap out my window and fly to the moon and be back by
lunch.
Here
is a tip for understanding market economics. When you hear that
something is overpriced or underpriced, these comments are always
and everywhere without exception a speculation. The prices
that exist right now, in any market, are precisely the right prices
that need to exist. If there were certainty that a price should
be higher or a price should be lower, the price would already
be higher or lower. That is because investors are always looking
for a sure thing, and the reality of a certain future is always
bid back to the present, with a premium embedded for the cost of
time transfer.
In the absence
of price controls, you can trust that today's prices embody the
existing conventional wisdom, which is pretty good most of the time,
and certainly not something a journalist is in a position to second
guess. On the other hand, maybe you are an entrepreneur who can
outwit the conventional wisdom. That is your profession and your
means of income. It is your job to give history a shove forward.
But here is
the problem. If an entrepreneur believes that these mortgages and
other "toxic assets" are underpriced, he doesn't need a special
bond to act on his hunch. He can just buy the stocks of the companies
holding the assets or he can go one better and buy the assets themselves.
What does the
creation of a new bond do? It is there as a subterfuge, something
to pull the wool over your eyes, with the wool made of fancy financial
language that masks a very grim reality.
But
now comes the billion-dollar question. How will these bonds be rated?
If market conditions prevail, there is no reason for the bailout
bonds to be rated any higher than the toxic assets that back them.
If I have a mud pie and wrap it in mud, it doesn't become edible.
It becomes more of the same.
Thus do we
come to the most important aspect of the bailout bonds, which is
not being publicly discussed, namely who is going to back them?
The answer is you and your money, which is also called the "full
faith and credit of the U.S. government." The bonds will be backed
by the usual way that the government gets money, which is to tax
it or inflate it away.
In this case,
the bonds will indeed achieve a higher rating than they otherwise
would, in precisely the same way that the Fannie and Freddie financial
instruments backed by mortgages received a higher rating than they
otherwise would, because the government was implicitly backing them.
In other words,
this entire tactic is an extension of the exact path that got us
into this mess in the first place!
So it is with
every new plan, every new strategy, every new program, every new
idea from the regime. They are all some variation on a theme that
repeats the mistakes of the past. It's like a person who bumps into
a wall, and keeps bumping into the wall again and again. Every new
plan for going forward keeps coming back to the same reality of
bumping into the wall.
What
would we say about this person? We would say he is obtuse and refuses
to learn from his mistakes. So it is with all government programs
that have been put in place since this crisis began. They are the
very embodiment of what it means to not learn from past error.
If private
markets have learned from past mistakes, they will stay away from
these bonds. They will freely tell others not to buy them either.
But then what
happens, especially as the depression deepens? In the First World
War, such people were sent to jail. That tended to have a chilling
effect on open discussion of the subject.
Will Obama
try such tactics? Surely this great humanitarian will not resort
to fining and jailing people for not supporting his war effort.
Or can he really go to such lengths? If history is our guide, the
answer is: Yes He Can.
Books
by Lew Rockwell
April
10, 2009
Llewellyn
H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him
mail] is founder and chairman of the Ludwig
von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com,
and author, most recently, of The
Left, The Right, and The State.
Copyright
© 2009 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in
part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Lew
Rockwell Archives
|