Bailout is not the only option!

There was buzz the other day about a large number of economists that sent a letter to the congress suggesting that there was a better way to handle the mortgage crisis. Now today, Jeffrey Miron a Senior Lecturer of Economics at Harvard explains what the content of that communication included (from CNN):

The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.

This represents well understood fact except for Democrats in the House and Senate (and much of the media as well). This statement really brings the issue home:

The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.

So what to do?

The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.

Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.

In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources.

A massive transfer of wealth from taxpayers to Wall Street isn't the only answer. And congress should do their job and investigate every potential option with an eye toward the bill paying taxpayer first and Wall Street executives second.

Read the entire article here.

---