Is Being an Ideologue a Contributor to Stupidity?

A gratuitously provocative question?

Maybe not.

Consider the following equation:

TA * TR = TB.

Let's say TB represents some "financial obligation" among a group of people. Further, let's say that at some point in time, the group has a TB of 40. And then, almost 30 years later, TB equals 55.

Now, if you don't know the values of TA and TR, what would be logical to conclude about how they must have changed over that period?

This one is so simple, it couldn't stump an eighth grader who wastes most of math class staring out the window. For TB to increase on the right side of the equation, one of the two variables on the left side of the equation must have increased -- or perhaps both did, in some combination.

But what if you're an ideologue? And what if your ideology leads you to think a "TB" of 40 for this particular group is already high? And what's more, you vehemently insist that TR should be as low as possible, and that a lot of economic problems result from a high TR?

So what happens when you see:

TA * TR = 40

Jump to:

TA * TR = 55

It's clear to you what the problem is. TR! Because TR is always the problem! You don't spend a lot of time mulling over what may be going on here. You fixate on TR, because that's what you always fixate on.

In which case, your name might be Ari Fleischer.

Because this equation is really: "Taxable Amount (taxable income of the top 10% of the population) times the Tax Rate (tax rate of the top 10% of the population) = Tax Burden (the percentage of overall federal taxes paid by the top 10% of the population)".

Fleischer, President Bush's former press secretary, recently tweeted that the "Tax Burden" of the richest 10 percent soared from 40 percent in 1979 to 55 percent in 2007. The implication: the TR (Tax Rate) on this group is already high enough, and this group is carrying more than its fair share of the TB (Tax Burden).

But ideology -- his visceral dislike of taxation, and the welfare state, and wealth redistribution -- has made him too dumb to see how a simple equation works.

Because consider this thought experiment: if in 20 years, the income of the top 10 percent explodes and the other 90 percent of the population become their slaves and earn no income (and meanwhile the Tax Rate doesn't change at all), the top 10 percent will pay 100 percent of taxes (up from 55 percent). But what does that show? That they're being taxed too much?

Of course not. It shows that we've regressed to something akin to a feudal society.

There are two variables on the left side of this equation, TA * TR = TB. If you're an ideologue you tend to miss stuff like that. (See Mark Thoma proving here that, yes, the answer to the mystery of what happened with the Tax Burden does lie with "TA," as the richest scored the biggest income gains over the last three decades.)

But ideologues don't do nuance well. They also abhor cognitive dissonance.

This is why I think Peter Wallison has become a sort of trivial hand puppet for the right, a useless one-note screech owl in his vehemence that it was Fannie and Freddie that caused the financial crisis (and he apportions no blame at all to Wall Street's securitization machine). He can't see beyond his ideological blinders.

P.S. For those of you thinking that Fleischer's "tax burden" is a percent, not a straight-up number like 40, yes, I've simplified. But the argument isn't impaired by this simplification. The ratio just introduces a second layer of complexity. If you understand math, you know what I mean. If you don't, I can write it all out ...

Bill Black Takes on the "Fannie and Freddie Did It" Meme

I really enjoyed this piece for its knowledgeable, historical analysis. Black doesn't exactly side with the "It Wasn't Fannie and Freddie" crowd, but he's more unsparing in his criticism of ideologue Peter Wallison, whose position "It Was All Fannie and Freddie" is laughable (and Black shows us even more reasons why).

I'm willing to move up Fannie and Freddie on my list of causes of the crisis to, say, number 6 or 7 from number 11. ;)

Black frames the problem well, I think. What caused problems wasn't Fannie and Freddie's mandate to help the poor -- in other words, all those do-good liberals trying to put welfare Moms in houses they couldn't afford. It was, plain and simple, accounting fraud to lavish bonuses on the top echelon of executives -- the same problem found at investment banks that were more direct causes of the crisis.

Joe Nocera Takes on the Big Lie

I've often thought you could make a case for Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's culpability in the financial crisis: a very, very small case.

So, if you started listing reasons for the crisis, they might come in, say, number 11 or thereabouts.

What amazes me is the persistence of the simple-minded Republican narrative that they were the cause of the financial crisis. Not a cause. But the cause. (And the hard-core faithful don't want any other causes entered into the record, as when the four Republicans on the FCIC voted to ban the words "shadow banking" and "deregulation" from the final report!)

This viewpoint is so ignorant and ill-informed, so contrary to "the truth on the ground" that we know from how this crisis developed and what it looked like as it unfolded, that it strains credulity. Is Peter Wallison so ideologically blinkered that he can't even process a set of historical facts in a logical way?

Joe Nocera had a good recent column about this, The Big Lie.

What I enjoyed best though was the second comment that appeared afterward. Excerpts:

I was a mortgage broker during the housing bubble. I can tell you that a "conforming" loan -- one that was run through Fannie or Freddie's "desktop underwriting" software -- always made us nervous. We got rejected for approval regularly whereas if we sold a subprime loan with a higher interest rate we got approved more easily and made much more on the loan ... rather than blame what was in essence a good government program for the housing collapse I say a lot of it deserves to go to the lenders and brokers who hustled these loans.

Once mortgages became securitized and the lenders had no skin in the game the whole system went to hell.

Exactly, and a flaw I noted in the securitization model (and I'm far from the first person to make the observation) almost two years ago.

Earth to Peter Wallison: Are you listening?

Keep an Eye on That Shadow Banking, Folks

Because it's starting to rear its ugly head again.

Turns out that what may be at the heart of MF Global's gaping hole on its (off) balance sheet: collateral that may have been shifted over to its U.K. unit to permit rehypothecation.

"Rehypothecation" is one of those mouth-filling words that basically says you can repledge the same piece of collateral (a useful trick in the shadow banking world of repo).

In the U.K., the collateral can be endlessly rehypothecated, again and again and again, creating long, unstable, dangerous chains -- and the interesting concomitant, lots of liquidity (which tends to act like a stimulant -- call it cocaine for the financial system -- and we know how hard it is to break a drug habit). Reuter's Christopher Elias:

This churning of collateral means that re-hypothecation transactions have been creating enormous amounts of liquidity, much of which has no real asset backing.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is h-u-g-e. Too few people have wrapped their brains around this. We have central banks that greatly influence money supply/liquidity through their open market operations. Then we have a massive, off-balance sheet system of shadow banking that does the same with no oversight, in complex ways we barely comprehend.

This is a powder keg waiting for a spark.

For more, check out Alphaville's "Shadow Banking and the Seven Collateral Miners."

Europe's Bailout Fund -- Seriously, WTF Is This Thing?

I tried to figure out the EFSF again (the European Financial Stability Facility) and, once again, my brain exploded.

I can't figure out if this Rube Goldbergian mother of all securitization schemes is:

(a) a way to secretly print a whole bunch of euros behind door #24 while everyone is distracted by the elephant and monkey show in Exhibition Room C.

(b) a clever new way of shunting tail-risk into a vehicle that, when it fails, will send fireworks high into the night sky as the eurozone spectacularly implodes.

(c) a way of handing out 1,000 gold-plated pigs when there are only 10 gold-plated pigs in the warehouse, vague promises of 990 more gold-plated pigs, and a whole lot of securitization in between.

(d) a full-employment act for structured finance professionals on the continent.

(e) some combination of the above.

Or add your own speculation below. Because, in this Brave New World of Structured Finance, we're obviously beyond the point where an entity (say the IMF) simply extends a loan to some country (or countries) in fiscal straits.

Here's some more commentary on this bewildering high-finance thingamabobby:

More European Financial Chicanery

Fed Funnels Money to Banks on the Sly

Excellent Bloomberg story showing what was largely an open secret (even if the details weren't known), well before the Fed was forced to cough up the paperwork on its bailout of the U.S. financial system:

Secret Fed Loans Gave Banks Undisclosed $13 Billion

This should be required reading for every American.

The hard-hitting article also reinforces the image of Geithner as a complete tool.

The ground left uncovered: that, for this enormous bailout, we the taxpayer got very little. Our financial regulators, our political leaders, failed to effectively reform a banking system that has metastasized out of control.

New Song Charting on YouTube: "Eat a Banker"

I found this song on YouTube with its timely message for the 99%:

"Eat a Banker"

It has a rather mellow, swaying beat -- not a violent-sounding song at all. I can even imagine it playing softly in the restaurant as some downtrodden poor person is dining on one of those overfed Wall Street bankers. ;)