Bernanke asks “Somebody Stop me”!

Bernanke gave a speech this morning in which he called for more regulation to prevent prevent ‘bubbles’ from occurring. He went on to say that he didn’t believe that the Fed’s monetary policies were the cause of the recent housing bubble. For those of you who have been keeping track of this, I imagine you are as astounded by these statements as I am.

Let’s start with a reprise of other statements Ben Bernanke has made, to get a sense of how well the man who controls our monetary policy, and now also invests in private companies and securities (unlawfully), understands the economy. I know, it’s a bold statement, I mean, I’m just some blogger here, I haven’t shaved in a while, and I don’t have a degree in economics. However, I can read, which seems to give me a leg up on Bernanke.

Bernanke being questioned about the possibility of a housing bubble in July ’05

“I guess I don’t buy your premise. It’s a pretty unlikely possibility. We have never had a decline in housing prices on a national basis, so what I think is what is likely to happen is that housing prices may slow, maybe stabilize, might slow consumer spending a bit…I don’t think it’s going to drive the economy from it’s full employment path though.”

“I am confident that the bank regulators will pay close attention to the kind of loans that are being made, making sure that loan underwriting is done right.” “I do think that this a localized problem and won’t affect the national economy.”

Bernanke on mortgage secuirites market in February ’07

“There is no indication at this point that the subprime mortgage issues have seeped into the broader mortgage market which still seems to be healthy.”

Yeah, uhh, okay, well, Ben, I really think that you might just want to revisit your economic model in light of your complete failure to understand what is actually happening in our economy, but once again, what do I know?

Ben went on to say, as he often does, that predicting bubbles in the early and middle phases is hard to do (I’m paraphrasing here, but am doing so accurately). The fact is that the economists of the Austrian school (in other words, Libertarians, for those of you just joining the fray) were predicting the meltdown that occurred, so one might ask Ben to consider if his perspective is somewhat skewed. Of course, as all social scientists do these days, he has some data to support his contention that the Fed didn’t actually create the incentives for mal-investment that the Austrian’s predicted. He’s no dummy, but the analysis doesn’t seem to hold up. Click on this link to see the Austrian case, with a criticism of the technical fig leaf Ben is hiding behind. http://mises.org/story/2936

I think there is a deeper lesson here for Libertarians. No matter what happens, the current institutions we’ve created are not going to change their behaviors. Regardless how completely we expose the failed policies of politicized, fiat money and monopolistic, fractional reserve banking practices, both politicians and technocrats won’t be swayed from their beliefs in these practices. Why is that? Well, many on the right suspect a great, corrupt conspiratorial cabal of supra-national bankers, corporate titans and politicians gaming the system to their advantage, but always, somehow, they are just out of our view. Others claim vast personal corruption is occurring, which of course impugns the character of many folks in positions of power, claiming they are enriching themselves. I think both of these claims simply aren’t supported by the evidence.

Rather, I believe we live in the  ‘Age of the Social Scientist’ wherein the last one hundred years many very smart people have become convinced of the unlimited power of government as THE tool of societal management.  It’s so seductive to those who want to change or run the world to believe that the instruments of governmental power can help them achieve their goals, that along the way, somehow, the actual results of their failed policies don’t seem to dissuade them from their strongly held beliefs. Critical to this effort is the underlying weakness of the “science” being used. Economics can hardly be called a science, although many treat its aspirations to such as revealed truth. For my money, the Austrian school of economists has been correct about the current crisis and this should bolster its credibility amongst economic oracles, but sadly, this doesn’t seem to be so. If they were to admit the weakness of their models, many institutions and players in the policy making apparatus of government would cease to have value. These institutions have become so detached from reality that they now serve themselves primarily, rather than the people. I believe that this is an ideological corruption that is much more dangerous than lining one’s pockets, and is a symptom of a much greater intellectual corruption. Theoretically, I’ve seen rights/entity analysis which lay out this case very nicely, and point to its inevitability. Simply put, at a certain point, government and its attendant institutions exist to serve themselves and break loose of any constraints we try to impose on them.

I’m coming much closer to the position held by many of my Libertarian brethren that financial collapse is the only possible way we’ll rid ourselves of these horrific practices. However, I’m not at all convinced that what will replace it is desirable at all. I believe there are those on the Left, who hold much greater power than Libertarians, who are preparing for this eventuality, and that some true radicals are hastening it. Given this, I have to conclude that it’s much more likely that we’ll see a more totalitarian state emerge, not a lesser one.