The One Percent Doctrine and the Financial Meltdown.

Ilya, citing a column by Steven Landsburg, asks why a bailout is necessary. In Landsburg’s words, “Just because the banks disappear doesn't mean the lenders will. Borrowers will still want to borrow and lenders will still want to lend. The only question is whether they'll be able to find each other.” That’s the question and the problem with answering the question is that no one knows the answer. History suggests, however, that the probability they won’t “find each other” is not zero; let’s call it one percent. If there is a one percent chance that the current financial meltdown causes a catastrophic outcome—not just people out of work and the reduction in the standard of living, but predictable bursts of xenophobia, beggar-thy-neighbor policies, global political instability, and all the rest—how much should the government do to prevent that from happening and at what cost? Does this question sound familiar? What about the government’s answer?

Eric Muller (www):
Astute.
9.23.2008 10:51am
Ed Ness (mail) (www):
Here's one solution: Just bail out everyone!
9.23.2008 10:57am
Sarcastro (www):
[I was gonna make a joke about civil liberties and terrorism till I clicked on that link. Damn!]
9.23.2008 10:59am
wm13:
Actually, avoiding the situation of people out of work and a reduction in standard of living would seem sufficient to me to justify government action.

P.S. It seems pretty silly to suggest that modern financial systems might be entirely unnecessary, rendered superfluous by the interwebs. I think we do know the answer to that question.
9.23.2008 11:03am
constant (mail):
If there is a one percent chance that a bailout will cause a catastrophic outcome (e.g. by exacerbating the underlying problem, like giving an alcoholic another bottle of whiskey, and delaying a genuine cure such as the let-the-failures-fail cure), how much should the government avoid doing to prevent that from happening and at what cost?
9.23.2008 11:06am
PLR:
The world is swimming in debt, not just consumer debt but commercial debt and agricultural debt (food!) as well, and much of it is not intended to be paid off at maturity, just refinanced. If there are too many failures in the lending industry, there are going to be far too many debtors chasing far too few lenders. The natural outcome will be that some businesses will fail to get refinancing and will be forced to liquidate (to whom?), and those that can get financing will get it on onerous terms and high interest rates (thus making future defaults and business failures more likely).

Not an economist, just speculating here.

Maybe we need to pick and choose who we bail out.
9.23.2008 11:30am
Oren:
PLR, it's hard to liquidate during a liquidity crises (which I think is part, but not all of our current problem). If you are forced to liquidate, your debtors (because you are massively leveraged) will not get a fair price for their assets, furthering aggravating the uncertain-pricing side of the problem.

I agree with you in principle, but in practice, I think the government is needed to help wind down this crises slowly and let the losses take place as they need to.
9.23.2008 12:05pm
Jerome Cole (mail) (www):

Astute.


Landsburg iz idiot. if Amerika haz no bank no one get cheezeburger and ur gonna lose ur bucket. Srsly, try to do ipo with no IB and terrorists will be in ur basez shootin ur doodz. Government bailouts iz in ur financial system stealin ur dollars but still need bank. Even cats know.
9.23.2008 12:05pm
AF:
Isn't the probability they won't find each other more like 99%? If you can't borrow from a financial institution, who else are you going to borrow from?
9.23.2008 12:14pm
Houston Lawyer:
What happens to those creditors who have major loans outstanding that will come due over the next few months? In a liquidity crisis, they will not be able to refinance. I'm not talking about unhealthy companies, I'm talking about your average run of the mill corporation that can easily make its interest payments on time.

Our economy runs on liquidity. When it is reduced, as it has been lately, transactions that would have been done are not done. We have seen a lot of this in the last year.

I'm not saying that the currently proposed bail out is the right thing to do, but I am an advocate of the government doing quite a lot to keep the wheels from coming off.
9.23.2008 12:31pm
nutbump (mail):
Say No to bailout for China!
Paulson is chinaman, he does not care about America.
9.23.2008 1:06pm
EH (mail):
Ed Ness' link touches on an interesting question that I've been wondering about: what would be the cost of just paying off the troublesome mortgages?
9.23.2008 1:27pm
Harry Eagar (mail):
Santayana was right.

Nothing like a little financial panic to bring out the nuts who think FDR caused the past panic.

Sheesh.
9.23.2008 6:01pm

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.