Climate Change Debacle: A Product Of Ignoring Failure And Negative Results

Control of climate research funding was a critical part of the machinations of Maurice Strong and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Dr. Tim Ball

There are two sides to every story. The Chinese express it as Yin and Yang represented by a symbol.

Yin is black and Yang white, but the dots indicate nothing is purely one or the other. Many react with cultural bias by assuming white is good and black is bad.

The idea of balance is possibly one of the greatest victims of political correctness. It has distorted climate science, because they only considered one side and refused to follow the scientific method.

This requires you to have a theory, which you try to disprove. If it's disproved you must then consider the null hypothesis. In the case of the anthropogenic warming hypothesis (AGW) they set out to prove that human CO2 was causing warming and climate change. They claim they proved it, but did so by restricting focus and manipulating data and computer programs. The null hypothesis was not allowed. Normally, they would find that human CO2 was not the cause and then ask the question, if not CO2 then what? It was a question aggressively asked of skeptics and the obvious simple answer was the sun. It's why there was an active campaign to discredit the sun as the explanation. A major confusion is that the null hypothesis is considered a negative, possibly because the word null can mean zero. In the scientific context it means if it isn't this, then it is something else.

Political correctness and the blind drift toward equalization or elimination of differences have prevented identifying successes or failures

Political correctness and the blind drift toward equalization or elimination of differences have prevented identifying successes or failures.  It appeared in the schools when children were no longer allowed to fail. What was overlooked in all this was the function of identifying and promoting differing skills and abilities. I explained to a student who thought because he failed my course, he was a failure. All it meant was that he was not a climatologist. He might be the best in the world in some other area and that is what he should pursue. The concept of testing, passing and failing has become so distorted that reasonable discussion is almost impossible.

Several years ago, I participated in a debate at a Canadian High School on the motion that "School leaving exams are unnecessary." I argued against the motion. Supporting the motion was a declared socialist and faculty member of an education department. Prevailing wisdom, at least in academia and left wing political groups, was that failure was not allowed. Students were passed on to the next grade and eventually graduated from school without ever achieving any measured standard. Teacher's unions argued against them because they were a measure of the teacher's ability. My closing remarks included the comment that everyone in the room should hope the next time they fly that the pilot has achieved a certain level of competence.

Before the Internet existed, exchange of information was slow and difficult. A former colleague was working on his doctoral thesis at a British university while teaching in Canada. It was a math doctorate and required a new theorem defined as a general proposition not self-evident, but proved by a chain of reasoning. After two years working on two lines of reasoning with no success, he met with his supervisor in England. He was advised both lines were explored by former colleagues of the supervisor and abandoned. When he asked where this was in the literature he learned that negative results are not published. Why not? Surely such results are valuable and only deemed without value by the negative label.

The concept of classifying results as negative is part of the practice of not allowing failure. Students are imbued with the idea that a negative result is a failure. For example, in universities they write research papers or carry out lab experiments. They only pursue positive results. For example, if they research a topic they will only consider evidence that supports their original hypothesis. Some will abandon a topic rather than consider the null hypothesis.

We now have people who went through a system that did not consider negative results or failure. This is adversely encouraged by the increasing role of funding in research, and promotion in academia. Funding agencies seek researchers who are disposed to produce results deemed positive and they will only select information and perform experiments to satisfy that predisposition. This practice is why promoters of AGW successfully accused skeptics of being funded by energy companies. They conveniently ignored the fact that government funding is more directed because it always has a political agenda. Control of climate research funding was a critical part of the machinations of Maurice Strong and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Research about acid rain from US coal plants destroying Quebec's maple syrup industry

A few years ago as chair of a national climate research group, a bureaucrat asked for a private meeting. His dilemma involved research about acid rain from US coal plants destroying Quebec's maple syrup industry. The Canadian Prime Minister was publicly pointing the finger. His research showed decreases in yields were due to droughts and a pattern of very early warming followed by hard frost. Both conditions caused dieback, a situation in which the tree will go through its growth cycle to produce seed but with reduced activity – hence less sap. This contradicted what he was told to prove. What to do? It's obvious, but very difficult. He must retain his scientific integrity, but the dilemma is political. He isn't paid to make those decisions so he simply submits his report and it will move up the bureaucracy until someone shelves it, usually protected with an unnecessary high security classification. Within ten years the syrup yields reached record levels and a bilateral panel (3 US and 3 Canadians as required by the International Boundary Commission) confirmed what he found.

Climate science deception by the IPCC and all involved worked because integrity in science and research failed

Climate science deception by the IPCC and all involved worked because integrity in science and research failed. They ignored scientific protocols that require you disprove a theory. They ignored the procedure that if the theory is disproved you must consider the null hypothesis. Only positive results are acceptable and seen as successful, even if they're totally wrong. Too many will do whatever it takes to achieve an objective without a thought to balance or integrity because failure doesn't exist and even if it occurs, you are not accountable; they simply move you to the next grade. Ultimately, you only fail because society fails.

Dr. Tim Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.  Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, Friends of Science and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. This article used by permission originally appeared on Canada Free Press

Dr. Ball can be reached at: Letters@canadafreepress.com

Older articles by Dr. Tim Ball

RELATED ARTICLES:

'Green' jobs become redistribution scam in hands of New Black Panthers

All weather is due to global warming?

The Immortal Tyranny Of Climate Change

EPA and environmental lawyers winning

Obama continues warming push as solar activity declines and cooling continues

Unstoppable solar cycles are key to climate not CO2

UK winter forecaster says global warming is failed science based on fraudulent data

Controlling weather and the economy – LOL

From greenhouse gases to green agenda: 5 energy issues to watch

Loony US Senator Writes Letter to Santa About Global Warming… No, Seriously

The Sierra Club's Mission

The Abiding Faith Of Warm-ongers

There's a mini ice age coming, says man who beats weather experts

D.C. Dim Bulbs Outlaw Edison's Greatest Gift

UN subterfuge…the global warming hoax

Understanding the Cancun climate scam

England set for coldest ever night of MINUS 26C as big freeze destroys travel plans for millions

Has the Obama administration gone insane? Napolitano Says DHS to Begin Battling Climate Change as Homeland Security Issue

The Pyramid of Frauds

Time to Freeze Global Warming

Enforcing the propaganda of climate dogma

Sadistic Judges Back EPA Climate Rules

Inhofe: WikiLeaks climate revelations show Obama's 'desperation'

Climate Distortions Were Achieved. National Weather Agencies Are The Trojan Horses

The politics of fear and hyperbole

Abdication of the West at COP16 Cancun, Mexico

UN official admits climate change is about global redistribution of wealth

Climate Change Not a Political Issue Anymore Except For Mainstream Media

Powerful Democrats help Chinese energy firm chase stimulus money

Taxpayers subsidizing almost half of ethanol costs

Green subsidies falling prey to economic reality across the globe

Cancun Climate Talks Really About Wealth Redistribution

WikiLeaks And Claim Of Warmest Year On Record, Expose Climate Criminality

Cancun climate conference: the warmists' last Mexican wave

Global Warming… no Global Cooling… no Global Warming…NO, IT'S COOLING!!

WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord

Senators warn Clinton against helping poor countries fight climate change

Another Climate Change Scare Is On Thin Ice

Apocalypse Now! (Or Pretty Soon, Anyway)

The U.S.'s 'Little Shop of Horrors' Turns 40

Phony Claims Infest Cancun Climate Conference

Top Science Panel Caught in Another Global Warming Data Fraud

US tells climate conference 'not backing away' from $100 billion climate fund

The Last Fling of the Thermophobics?

There are black days ahead for the carbon industry

Obama plans to avoid congress for global climate agreement

Time For Economic Restoration Now That Climate Change Deception Is Exposed

GOP should say no on Upton energy and commerce chair

Will The Light Bulb Ban Inspire A Conversion?

Boycott the Cancun Climate Circus

Climate Deception Is A Crime Against Humanity?

Global Warming Skeptics Ascend In U.S. Congress

IPCC Exclusions And Inclusions Of Climate Mechanisms Are Both Failures

Another Top International Scientist Jumps off Global Warming 'Titanic'

Cars, Cattle and Ethanol

Why the Government Should Stay Out of Green Energy

Thanks to Congress, Ethanol and Biofuel Mandates Cause Food Prices to Soar

Al Gore presidential aspirations cost US $16 billion in worthless ethanol subsidies and caused world's poor to pay more for food

Electric cars could cause blackouts

Investors Business Daily calls global warming a 'scam' and 'Marxist'

No policy on climate is better than bad policy

UN climate official admits climate hoax is about redistributing wealth globally

November 20, 2009: The Day "Global Warming" Ended

The Left and Energy Policy

Inconvenient nonsense infiltrates the classroom

Man-made global warming – the BIG lie

Climategate: One Year and Sixty House Seats Later

Memo to House GOP: Get a grip on the EPA

The Renewable Electricity Standard Con

Global Warming, Global Taxes pushed by Obama administration

Dems extol facts and science but act on ideology

Time to end the mother of all corporate welfare: ethanol subsidies

Hiding climate truth from journalists

Official Climate Science Ignores Essential and Critical Details Right At The Surface

Biofuel worse for climate than fossil fuel – study

Global crooks – Soros, Summers call for global bank and carbon taxes

Day of reckoning for climate clowns

Obama still intends to redistribute your green with his green agenda

The Green Bubble is about to Burst

Transparency According to Carol Browner: "Put nothing in writing, ever"

Climate History Key to Future; Inuit Travels Provide Political Direction

Whining Kerry says America 'lost our minds'

John Kerry's Big Business Buyoff to get cap and trade passed

Crime, Inc. (also known as cap and trade) highlights -parts A, B, C, D

The many links between failed Shore Bank and Chicago Climate Exchange criminal enterprise

Why they still push carbon trading – money

Is Green Socialism EPA's Real Goal?

Energy and anger

How EPA Could Revive Cap-and-Trade

5 Leftist Lies About the Best Source of Oil on Earth

It ain't easy being green

Dem energy tax just won't die

Pop Went the Climate Bubble

Who's 'In Climate Denial, Again'? The New York Times

Is the EPA Trying to Murder the USA?

Frightening Quotes from Environmentalists

Corrupted Climate Science Exploited Basic Human Realities

Is green the new red (communism)?

Time to get real about climate change

The $10 Trillion Climate Fraud

Climate Science Corruption: Practiced And Perpetuated By Scientific Societies

'Obama's EPA a Growing Menace to Economy' – Sen. Inhofe

BIG GREEN 3, Green Gold: BP, GE & the World's First Carbon Billionaire

The Green $windle

The Big Green machine – The Big Money & The Global Governance Agenda That Fuels Environmentalism

Al Gore's Carbon crusade: The Money and Connections Behind It

Another Massive Energy Tax Looms on the Horizon

Renewable Electricity Promotion Act of 2010 sponsors

Wind energy is a lot of hot air

High and Hidden Costs: There is Nothing Free about the Wind

The Big Green machine – The Big Money & The Global Governance Agenda That Fuels Environmentalism

Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket

The Big Wind-Power Cover-Up – 'green' slime of corruption

UC Santa Barbara emeritus professor of physics quits American Physical Society over global climate hoax

Stink in the air – Carnahan's brother gets $107 million for wind farm

Windmills killing bats by the thousands

The Great Global Warming Swindle – video documentary on CO2

The Green Con Job – higher 'green' energy costs = job losses

The Big Green machine – The Big Money & The Global Governance Agenda That Fuels Environmentalism

Big Green: Emanuel's pot of green gold is called Exelon

No Science, Fake Science, and the Deliberate Destruction of the Nation

Green slime – The people behind Obama's war against fossil fuels

Turning Off the (Incandescent) Light of Liberty

Reid to force renewable energy mandate in lame duck session

Climate propaganda still pushed by media

Congressman Calls For Schools To 'Promote The Agenda' Of Climate Change, Population Limitation

Education secretary vows climate indoctrination

No Science, Fake Science, and the Deliberate Destruction of the Nation

Texas Sues to Block Bizarre "Global Warming" EPA Rules

Rebranding the climate hoax

Green slime – The people behind Obama's war against fossil fuels

Warmist Slander of Scientific Skeptics

Turning Off the (Incandescent) Light of Liberty

Eco-Terror's Inspiration – Al Gore

Two Lies Make A Truth In Green and Liberal Views on Climate Science

Green scheme dims lights of freedom

Founder of The Weather Channel says sue Al Gore

Nazi Dreams were Green Dreams

Meltdown of the climate 'consensus'

Environmental terrorism: Alive, well and dangerous.

The untold story of Waxman-Markey: USCAP and the green industrial complex

Update: Enviro terrorist killed by police – Environmental hysteria causing looney lefties to go off the deep end?

Desperate Greens Make Desperate Claims

UN climate commission found flawed in investigation

IPCC and CRU Rewrite Facts But Can't Rewrite History

The Green $windle

Pushing 'green' for fun and profit

Run Like A Deere From Cap-And-Trade

Wind energy is a lot of hot air

Lone Star state won't participate in Obama's lawless policy

McConnell: Cap-and-trade 'dead' – but watch out for executive orders

Secretary Clinton's Climate Con

Reflected Sunlight Shines On IPCC Deceptions And Gross Inadequacies

Forecaster predicted Russian heatwave, Pakistan flood and exposes CO2 fraud

Banning the Incandescent Light Bulb

Hillary uses Pakistan flood disaster to push climate hoax

Leading US Physicist Labels Satellitegate Scandal a 'Catastrophe' for climate hoax

Cancer of Tropic – the Algoreaholics are still at it

Gore calls for major protests to push his climate hoax legislation

Why Warming Is Falsely Reported When World Is Cooling

Global warming lies, damn lies and easy rebuttals

Blacklisted Scientist Challenges Global Warming Orthodoxy

Big Green Lies are Imploding

Henny-Penny Discovers Feet of Clay

Global Warming, R.I.P

Leftist climate activist bails out of global warming hoax

Carbon Cronyism: Why Cap-and-Trade Is Not Dead Yet

The sky is falling, the sky is falling, the ice is melting

Dems Ditch 'Cap and Trade' but don't be fooled

What you should know about the lie that is coming in cap and trade

Dems change 'climate' saving language to 'pollution'

Cap and trade bill will clobber D.C. and you

EPA pushes ahead to kill energy industry

Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket

Obama is Strangling Big Oil -$7 a gallon gas anyone?

No objectivity in climate debate

The Bait-And-Switch On Cap-And-Trade

Malkin explains Salazar's deception on drilling ban

New $3.4 TRILLION in taxes hits all Americans

Obama's Gulf Oil Spill Commission and the Missing Experts – agenda to pass cap and trade?

Obama Is Wrong; Alternative Energy is Not an Alternative

Obama Trumpets Radical Energy Agenda -Sen. Inhofe

Dems ready for big push on global warming

$7-a-gallon gas?

Krauthammer: Dreamer in chief wants to lead us down green path to destruction

Obama's 'green' jobs role model, Spain, is next European bailout

Green Stimulus Money Costs More Jobs Than It Creates, Study Shows

Obama administration hides truth on 'green' jobs with help of big wind businesses which stand to make big money with government subsidies

The 'green jobs' lie

The Big Wind-Power Cover-Up – 'green' slime of corruption

The Weatherization Boondoggle -'green' union money pit

The Green Pied Piper from Chicago

Billions for 'green jobs,' whatever they are

Myth of 'green jobs' continues

The Green Con Job – higher 'green' energy costs = job losses

Obama Still Backs Job-Destroying Global-Warming Agenda by Sen. Inhofe

Obama Sells Economic Snake Oil

The Great Global Warming Swindle – video documentary on CO2

Cap & Ruin also known as the American Power Act

Obama: Under My Plan Electricity Rates Skyrocket

American Power Act: Oil Spill Does Not Justify Wrecking the Economy

BP is Kerry ally on cap and trade (now known as American Power Act)

John Kerry's Big Business Buyoff to get cap and trade passed

Obama uses oil spill to push cap and trade

Crime, Inc. (also known as cap and trade) highlights

Nonpartisan Proof: Cap-and-Trade Is an Economy-Killer

Obama: Under My Plan Electricity Rates Skyrocket

Cap and Trade is a UN power grab orchestrated by Maurice Strong et al

Exposing the cap and trade bill as a criminal enterprise

Cap-and-Trade: A Scam Based on a Scam

Drive those SUVs! Global Cooling Is Coming — and Beware the Big Chill, Scientist Warns

Iceland volcanoes could cause climate cooling!

Former White house staffer & communist Van Jones on the father of the climate scam Joel Rogers

Crime inc.~ Joel Rogers & The New Green Deal

Al Gore's Carbon crusade: The Money and Connections Behind It

Cap and Trade is a UN power grab orchestrated by Maurice Strong et al

Exposing the cap and trade bill as a criminal enterprise

Cap-and-Trade: A Scam Based on a Scam

Cap and Trade bill would legalize criminal scam by Chicago Climate Exchange

How Obama's 'green' policies will steal your freedom and bankrupt America

http://usactionnews.com/2010/12/climate-change-debacle-a-product-of-ignoring-failure-and-negative-results/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

‘Green’ jobs become redistribution scam in hands of New Black Panthers

As Obama's former 'green' jobs czar self avowed communist Van Jones told us how the 'green' movement would redistribute the wealth of America. Now we see how that is happening.

Is Green Socialism EPA's Real Goal?

Is green the new red (communism)?

Is Keynesianism a socialist Maneuver?

http://usactionnews.com/2010/12/green-jobs-become-redistribution-scam-in-hands-of-new-black-panthers/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

How Government Failure Caused the Great Recession

The interaction of six government policies explains the timing, severity, and global impact of the financial crisis.

By Mark J. Perry and Robert Dell at The American

Today we see how utterly mistaken was the Milton Friedman notion that a market system can regulate itself. We see how silly the Ronald Reagan slogan was that government is the problem, not the solution . . . I wish Friedman were still alive so he could witness how his extremism led to the defeat of his own ideas.

— Economist Paul Samuelson (January 2009)

The people on Wall Street still don't get it. They're still puzzled—why is it that people are mad at the banks? Well, let's see. You know, you guys are drawing down 10, 20 million dollar bonuses after America went through the worst economic year that it's gone through in decades, and you guys caused the problem.

— President Barack Obama (December 2009)

The banking crisis that began in August 2007 shocked markets and precipitated the Great Recession. To fully explain the banking crisis, one must account for its timing, severity, and global impact. One must also confront a startling historical contrast. If we define "banking crisis" to mean bank failures and system losses exceeding 1 percent of a country's gross domestic product (GDP), we find that in the period 1875-1913, a period of marked expansion in international trade and capital flows comparable to the last three decades, there were only four banking crises worldwide.¹ By contrast, in the period 1978-2009, a period of much more extensive bank regulation, central bank intervention, government protection of depositors and other bank creditors, and government control of mortgage markets, about 140 banking crises occurred worldwide. Of these, 20 were more severe than any crisis from the earlier period of 1875-1913, in terms of total bank losses as a percent of GDP.

Leading financial economists such as Charles Calomiris have argued that a necessary condition for a banking crisis is government policy that distorts the micro-incentives of banks. Likewise, University of Chicago scholar Richard Posner has argued the banks that got into trouble during the recent crisis were simply taking "risks that seemed appropriate in the environment in which they found themselves."²

In the period 1978-2009, about 140 banking crises occurred worldwide.

But then why didn't a banking crisis erupt sooner—say, in the recession years of 1990-1991 or 2001-2002? What changed in recent years that led to business risk-taking capable of wrecking the U.S. housing market and the U.S. banking system and other banking systems throughout the world? Further, why were prudent credit practices reasonably maintained in credit card and commercial mortgage securitization in recent years, but wholly abandoned in residential mortgage securitization?

Some economists have criticized securitization as an inherently flawed business model, particularly since the process of securitization involves a "long chain" of players with "information asymmetries." The buyer of the mortgage or security typically knows less than the seller. But many of the financial institutions involved in subprime securitization (e.g., Citigroup) held portions of their own securitizations, and they have for decades been securitizing credit card loans without major debacles. Calomiris has observed that even during the subprime boom, banks aggregating credit card loans for securitization and investors in securitizations closely examined the identity of originators, their historical performance, the composition of portfolios, and changes in composition over time.³

In contrast, from 2003 until the middle of 2007, the demand for subprime loans and securities proved extremely insensitive to changes in borrower quality and loan structure. There was dramatic new entry into subprime mortgage origination in 2004-2006 as many "fly-by-night" originators offered newer, riskier mortgage products to new customers and homeowners. Yet these new entrants were able to raise funds for origination on terms comparable to those governing originators with longer track records and who were continuing to originate more proven, lower-risk products.

Likewise, since the early 1990s, commercial property mortgages have been securitized just like home mortgages. Throughout most of the residential housing boom from 2000-2006, there was also a boom in commercial real estate values (see chart below). The two real estate bubbles are not directly comparable, because the residential housing downturn was associated with immediate erosion in property market fundamentals and spikes in mortgage default rates. In contrast, the initial decline in commercial property values—which occurred some 18 months after the housing peak—was mostly due to increased risk aversion in the capital markets. Commercial property fundamentals stayed strong in most markets and commercial mortgage default rates remained at historic lows until well after the onset of the recession. The housing bust, the banking crisis, and the recession brought down commercial real estate—not the other way around.

Yet from 2002-2007, the intensely competitive commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) business became dysfunctional at times and lenders frequently complained of "too much money chasing too few good deals." Declining long-term Treasury rates and falling debt and equity risk premia during this period drove up commercial property values, which in turn led to commercial properties being more highly leveraged (as measured by loan amount per square foot or loan amount to original cost). Yet despite some erosion in commercial mortgage underwriting (e.g., the percent of interest-only CMBS loans increased from 6 percent in 2002 to 59 percent in 2007⁴), lender due diligence remained high and disciplined. Also, the 80 percent loan-to-appraised value and 1.20 property cash-flow-to-debt-service ratio, both long-established industry standards, were rarely violated.

In answer to the questions posed above about what specific factors explain the: causes and timing of the banking crisis and the extraordinary departure from historically sound underwriting and securitization standards for residential mortgages, we identify a potent mix of six major government policies that together rewarded short-sighted collective risk-taking and penalized long-term business leadership:

1. Bank misregulation, in particular the international Basel capital rules, including a U.S. adaptation to them—the 2001 Recourse Rule—and the outsourcing of risk assessment by regulators to government-sanctioned rating agencies incentivized (not merely "allowed") the creation and highly-leveraged systemic accumulation of the highest yielding AAA- and AA-rated securities among banks globally. The demand for these securities was met mainly through the increased securitization of U.S. subprime and Alt-A mortgages, an artificially large portion of which carried credit ratings of AAA or AA. The charts below display the typical tranche shares for subprime and Alt-A mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) in 2006, and show that 85.9 percent of subprime MBS tranches, and 95.3 percent of Alt-A tranches, were rated either AAA or AA.

2. Continually increasing leverage—driven largely by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac credit policies and the political obsession with taking credit for increased homeownership—into the U.S. mortgage system. Reduced down payments and loosened underwriting standards were a matter of government policy throughout the housing boom. The two nearby charts illustrate the leverage trends from 2001 to 2007—residential mortgage debt as a share of GDP rose from less than 50 percent in 2001 to almost 75 percent by 2007 (top chart); and the percent of residential real estate sales volume with loan-to-value ratios of 97 percent or higher (down payments of 3 percent or less) increased from about 10 percent in 2001 to almost 40 percent by 2007 (bottom chart). Taken together, these graphs show that housing leverage was increasing to historically unprecedented levels by 2007 at the same time that the quality of housing debt was deteriorating considerably due to an erosion of sound underwriting standards and lower down payments, as discussed above.

Creditors with the lowest cost of capital generally drive underwriting and leverage standards within the segment in which they compete. In the residential mortgage market, with government entities historically being the low-cost providers of capital and the dominant purchasers and guarantors of loans and securities, it is reasonable to hold government accountable for system-wide leverage.

Economist Eugene White has noted that the U.S. housing boom and bust in the 1920s was similar in magnitude to the recent one.⁵ With essentially no government intervention in the mortgage market in the 1920s, system-wide leverage expanded during the boom, but generally only up to the 80 percent loan-to-value level. Also, there were no special incentives provided to the banking sector for a concentrated build-up of balance sheet exposure to high-risk mortgages. Therefore, when real estate prices crashed in 1926, it was not enough to cause a banking crisis and, in fact, bank suspensions nationally were lower in 1927 and 1928 than in 1926. Further, bank losses in the late 1920s were concentrated in agricultural areas unaffected by the boom in residential real estate.

3. The enlargement of the riskier subprime and Alt-A mortgage markets by Fannie and Freddie through the abandonment of proven credit standards (e.g., dropping proof of income requirements) during the 2004-2007 period, and their combined accumulation of a $1.6 trillion portfolio of these loans to meet the affordable housing goals Congress mandated. As of mid-2008, government entities had purchased, guaranteed, or compelled the origination of 19 million of the 27 million total U.S. subprime and Alt-A mortgages outstanding.⁶

4. The FDIC, Federal Reserve, Treasury Department, and Congress undertook explicit or implicit creditor bailouts for large financial institutions starting in the 1980s (First Pennsylvania, Continental Illinois, the thrift industry, the Farm Credit System, etc.) and continuing to 2008 (Bear Stearns). These regulatory decisions led to an absence of creditor discipline of financial institution leverage and risk-taking (especially at Fannie and Freddie) and the "too big to fail" expectation of a government bailout.

Why didn't a banking crisis erupt sooner, say in the recession years of 1990-1991 or 2001-2002?

Creditors—not shareholders—normally control business risk-taking. They do this by: 1) reducing leverage; 2) demanding higher interest rates; 3) declining to finance risky projects; 4) requiring more collateral; 5) imposing restrictive terms and loan covenants; and 6) moving deposits to safer alternatives (in the case of bank depositors, who are creditors of banks). Without excessive government protection of creditors, there is little doubt we would have seen creditors act to reduce risk in the U.S. financial system, particularly with respect to Fannie and Freddie.

5. The increase in FDIC deposit insurance from $40,000 to $100,000 per account in 1980 combined with the unchecked expansion of coverage up to $50 million under the Certificate of Deposit Account Registry Service beginning in 2003. These regulatory errors of commission and omission reduced the incentives of business, institutional, and high net-worth depositors to monitor and discipline excessive bank leverage and risk-taking. When federal deposit insurance legislation was first enacted in 1933, policy makers understood that it contributed to moral hazard, tempting bankers to take short-sighted risks. Accordingly, the initial coverage was limited to $2,500 per account (about $42,000 in today's dollars), resulting in a large portion of bank liabilities without a government guarantee. Today, virtually no depositor has any "skin in the game" and, according to one estimate (Walter and Weinberg 2002⁷), more than 60 percent of all U.S. financial institution liabilities, including all those of the 21 largest bank holding companies, were either explicitly or implicitly guaranteed. There were therefore almost no incentives in recent years to monitor the excessive risk-taking by banks that contributed to the housing bubble and financial crisis.

6. Artificially low and sometimes negative real federal funds rates from 2001 to 2005—a result of expansionary Fed monetary policy—fueled the subprime and Alt-A mortgage boom and widened the asset-liability maturity gap for banks (see chart below). Most subprime and Alt-A mortgages carried low initial rates made possible by low federal funds rates, which spurred borrower demand for these mortgages. In the context of federal funds rates falling faster than long-term rates in the 2002-2005 period, low federal funds rates —widened the duration gap inherent in borrowing short and lending long, making the rollover or refinancing of short-term instruments all the more precarious when the value and liquidity of the subprime and Alt-A mortgage securities this paper was financing became doubtful and the wholesale funding markets started to deleverage. In particular, many large investment banks reached for more firm leverage during the housing bubble and roughly doubled the proportion of total assets financed by overnight repos.

Underlying all these six government policies is the underappreciated problem of government failure, a problem rooted in the absence of incentives to reconcile a policy's social costs and benefits with the costs and benefits to the policy makers. Therefore, the banking crisis should be understood more fundamentally as a government failure than as a market or business failure.

Government failure does not explain every aspect of the banking crisis and ensuing recession. It does not explain, for instance, why JPMorgan Chase, operating under the same regulatory regime and economic incentives as Citigroup, largely exited the residential MBS business as Citigroup and other large banks were ramping up. The crisis certainly could not have occurred without certain private firms (e.g., Citigroup, UBS, Merrill Lynch) engaging in excessive corporate short-termism (or perhaps "greed") along the same lines as Fannie and Freddie. But greed is a timeless and universal component of human nature, and it influences the public sphere at least as much as the private sector. As such, greed has little relevance in explaining the timing and crucial facts of the recent crisis—such as why credit standards and due diligence practices in housing finance deteriorated so much more dramatically than in any other credit segment. The argument we advance is that the interaction of these six government policies explains timing, severity, global impact, and other important features of the banking crisis better than any faulty business practices unrelated to the perverse incentive effects of these government policies.

What is remarkable is that policy experts and politicians sympathetic to the views Paul Samuelson and President Obama have expressed—those who would have us believe that a combination of market defects, business greed, and under-regulation provide the better fundamental understanding of the crisis—rarely, if ever, argue along that line. They call our attention to business deficiencies such as "predatory lending" and incentive-based compensation practices based strictly upon annual performance. They are right to do so. But they do not provide a direct counter argument to the one we make. They do not tell us why the crisis reflects a failure of unfettered capitalism more fundamentally than a failure of government policies.

Why were prudent credit practices reasonably maintained in credit card and commercial mortgage securitization in recent years, but wholly abandoned in residential mortgage securitization?

For example, in his book Freefall, Joseph Stiglitz tells us that "blame for the crisis must lie centrally with the financial markets" and that "the financial crisis showed that financial markets do not automatically work well, and that markets are not self-correcting."⁸ Yet nowhere in the book's 361 pages does Stiglitz directly counter our argument analytically—only rhetorically and briefly, at that. In fact, while Stiglitz points fingers in every direction, what he seems to find most culpable is the cronyism inherent in the government's "too big to fail" bailout policies, which he refers to as "ersatz capitalism." The net effect of the Stiglitz book is to support our argument.

This issue—the relative contribution of government policies versus independent financial market practices to the financial crisis—is all-important. It is the "elephant in the room" of every current and future discussion of financial reform and the role of government in the economy generally.

A more accurate interpretation of the financial crisis as predominantly a government failure could pave the way for real financial reforms that would contribute to both future financial stability and productivity. These reforms would include: 1) the gradual reduction of government intervention in mortgage markets through legislation such as the GSE Bailout Elimination and Taxpayer Protection Act (HR 4889), sponsored by Representative Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas); 2) a reduction in federal deposit insurance and other transparent policy rules to reduce or eliminate creditor expectations of future bailouts, especially the "too big to fail" guarantee; 3) the replacement of elaborate regulatory micromanagement with more equity capital; and 4) a monetary policy rule or quasi-rule to govern the Federal Reserve's policy making.

But just as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ObamaCare") ignores the government's role in creating a crisis of runaway health costs and a low health-outcome-to-cost ratio, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, passed in July, was enacted on the faulty presumption that the fundamental cause of the financial crisis was financial market failure and under-regulation of the financial sector. In expanding government control over financial markets with more systemically imposed micro-regulations and inconclusive future bureaucratic rule-making, the Dodd-Frank Act is fundamentally flawed in its approach to reform Wall Street.

Many of the "Tea Party" Republicans swept into power in the November midterm elections ran on a platform of replacing or reforming ObamaCare. Their success at the polls partially reflects the correct perception of the majority of informed Americans that persistent problems in U.S. healthcare stem primarily from government failure. The same perception holds equally true for the U.S. financial system, and replacement or reform of the Dodd-Frank Act is an equally worthy undertaking.

Mark J. Perry is a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and professor of finance and economics at the University of Michigan in Flint. Robert Dell is a commercial real estate banker residing in Atlanta. They are co-authors of a forthcoming book, Back from Serfdom: A Republican New Deal for Pragmatic Democrats.

FURTHER READING: Perry pointed "Due North: Canada's Marvelous Mortgage and Banking System" and depicted "Congress to Healthcare Market: Drop Dead." He testified before Congress on "The Great Mancession of 2008-2009" and said "Nuclear Power Needed Now."

Notes

1. Charles W. Calomiris, "Banking Crises Yesterday and Today," "Calomiris on the Financial Crisis," and "Banking Crises and the Rules of the Game."

2. "Posner on Friedman on Posner on the Crisis," Causes of the Crisis, September 20, 2009.

3. Charles W. Calomiris, "The Debasement of Ratings: What's Wrong and How We Can Fix It."

4. Congressional Oversight Panel, February 10, 2010, "Commercial Real Estate Losses and the Risk to Financial Stability."

5. Eugene N. White, "Lessons from the Great American Real Estate Boom and Bust of the 1920s."

6. Peter J. Wallison, "Not a Failure of Capitalism—A Failure of Government," and Peter J. Wallison and Charles W. Calomiris, "The Last Trillion-Dollar Commitment: The Destruction of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."

7. John R. Walter and John A. Weinberg, "How Large Is the Federal Financial Safety Net?"

8. Joseph E. Stiglitz, Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy (W.W. Norton & Company, 2010).

RELATED ARTICLES:

How Economics and Politics, not Capitalism, Failed the Country – the Untold Story of the Great Recession of 2008

How Obama and Democrat policies caused the financial crisis

New Obama appointee had role in housing crisis

Building the next subprime crisis

"Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians" for 2009

Fannie-Freddie Fix at $160 Billion With $1 Trillion Worst Case

Covering Their Fannie

The Bottomless Pit Of Fannie And Freddie

Gut FinReg Too

Housing market ruined by leftist good intentions

The "Economic Problem" is Not Economic

15 million homeowners 'under water' – flood of pending foreclosures?

Barney Frank Is Anything But On Housing

The Cynically Ruthless Barney Frank, Enabler Of The Mortgage Meltdown

Barney's new excuse

Barney Frank Must Go – probably to jail

CRAven Cover-Up

Why Radicals Matter

Has the SEC Charged the Right People with Securities Fraud?

Hoyer: No Plans Yet by Democrats To End Fannie, Freddie Bailouts

Democrats rejected a Republican plan to end the government's support of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Why are Fannie and Freddie left out of finance reform?

Republican Opens Investigation Into Hedge Fund and Advocacy Group Groups Deny They Worked to Inflate Housing Bubble

Paulson gets tax deductions for giving million$ to 'non-profit' that lobbies for his billion$ in profits

The Center for LESS Responsible Lending

Repeal CRA, stop blackmailing banks and wrecking the economy

Barney Frank Must Go – probably to jail

2008 Market Crash Should be Investigated

Greenspan Gets It (Why Not Others?)

Greenspan agrees leftist housing laws caused crash

And now they are in charge of everything! We are sure to go broke.

Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis? Bombshell

The Housing Boom and Bust by Thomas Sowell» A must read to all of us who are interested in the housing boom and bust, which led to the current financial crisis.

The history of the housing crisis and why we MUST throw the bums out!

Why is Obama Administration Hiding $5 Trillion More Debt with Accounting Gimmicks That Would Make Enron 'Blush,'?

Invasion of the privacy snatchers -Dodd-Frank

Ten Reasons to Oppose Dodd-Frank – a message for Scott Brown

Only Dodd-Frank bill that should be passed is one to jail them both

The Dodd-Frank Financial Fiasco

House passes egregious finance'reform' bill despite warnings

The End of Community Banking

Job killing finance 'reform' bill nears deal

Finance Bill's Devilish Details

http://usactionnews.com/2010/12/how-government-failure-caused-the-great-recession/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone