Dow+17.46up+0.17%
10,023.42
Nasdaq+7.12up+0.34%
2,112.44
S&P+2.67up+0.25%
1,069.30

MSN Money video

Video on MSN Money
This video requires the installation of the free Adobe Flash Player. Click here to download.
More video on MSN Money . . .

MSN Money poll

  1. Who's right?

Vote to see results

Click here to see results without voting

  1. Who's right?
    1. Paul Krugman.
      24%
    2. Bill Fleckenstein.
      53%
    3. Neither.
      23%
13273 responses, not scientifically valid, results updated every minute.
Bill Fleckenstein

Contrarian Chronicles6/8/2009 12:01 AM ET

Blame Reagan for our financial mess?

Noted economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman says yes, but that's just nonsense. The seeds of today's crisis were planted before the Gipper even took office.

By Bill Fleckenstein
MSN Money

This week . . . a rant.

First of all, let me say that I almost never read Paul Krugman's New York Times column, as I noticed several years ago that he has an uncanny ability to understand a problem but totally misdiagnose the cause.

During the "W." years, Krugman would frequently outline an economic problem, then go out of his way to blame the president. A lot of poor decisions did flow from George W. Bush, as he was basically in over his head. But this Nobel Prize-winning economist was a Johnny-one-note when it came to W.

But I did read Krugman's May 31 column because of its headline: "Reagan did it" (registration required). I thought, wow, I need to see what this is all about. Here goes:

The devil in deregulation

Krugman wants us to believe that all of our financial ills can be traced directly back to the presidency of Ronald Reagan and deregulation. As usual, he finds the source of trouble -- almost. He identifies a specific piece of legislation that he claims started us on the path to so much financial trouble: the deregulatory Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982.

Close but no cigar. The actual offending cancerous legislation that kicked off the move toward extra reckless lending did involve then-Rep. Fernand St. Germain, a Rhode Island Democrat. But the problem legislation was the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of March 31, 1980.

It's important to note that the law was enacted two years before the act Krugman cites -- and nearly a year before Reagan took office. The earlier legislation contained a provision that increased the limit for deposit insurance from $40,000 to $100,000 at a time when $100,000 was a lot more money than it is today.

Tracing the roots of reckless lending

Believe it or not, I felt in 1980 that it was a bad law that would lead to recklessness. That's because the excessive increase became an incentive for depositors to be less disciplined regarding the health of their depository institutions.

I made this very point at the height of the tech mania in a speech titled "Spinning Financial Illusions: The Story of Bubblenomics," which I gave at the Contrary Opinion Forum on Oct. 1, 1999:

The seeds of this bubble were sown way back in 1980 when Congress passed the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act, calling for the phasing out of Regulation Q, which allowed financial institutions to compete with money market funds. A piece of that legislation was financial cancer: raising the insured deposit maximum to $100,000.

That seemingly innocuous change (thank you, Fernand St. Germain) spawned "brokered deposits," the primary driver of the reckless lending practices of the 1980s. Money sought out the highest bidder with no regard as to how it might be used.

As a result, we witnessed the funding of overleveraged LBOs and the overbuilding of real estate long after the 1986 Tax Act made it uneconomical to speculate in property. It is hard to overstate the significance of this legislation in creating the excesses of the 1980s, which set the stage for the even greater excesses of the 1990s.

(The entire speech can be found in my column of Oct. 14, 2002.)

Video on MSN Money

Are shorts to blame? © CNBC
Are shorts to blame?
Bill Fleckenstein and Kalorama Partners CEO Harvey Pitt, a former SEC chairman, discuss whether short-selling has been responsible for the market's recent turmoil.

Back to Krugman's column: He wraps up his indictment with a statement that demonstrates his utter lack of understanding about what has transpired over the past quarter-century: "There's plenty of blame to go around these days. But the prime (my emphasis) villains behind the mess we're in were Reagan and his circle of advisers -- men who forgot the lessons of America's last great financial crisis, and condemned the rest of us to repeat it."

That is just nonsense. The person to blame for the increase in deposit insurance was none other than St. Germain, who saw to it that the deposit insurance increase was put into place.

Continued: Who's to blame? Greenspan

 1 | 2 | next >

Rate this Article

Click on one of the stars below to rate this article from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). LowRate it 1Rate it 2Rate it 3Rate it 4Rate it 5High

Search for a Bill Fleckenstein article by topic or stock symbol.

MSN Money Video

Fund data provided by Morningstar, Inc. © 2009. All rights reserved.
StockScouter data provided by Gradient Analytics, Inc.
Quotes supplied by Interactive Data.
MSN Money's editorial goal is to provide a forum for personal finance and investment ideas. Our articles, columns, message board posts and other features should not be construed as investment advice, nor does their appearance imply an endorsement by Microsoft of any specific security or trading strategy. An investor's best course of action must be based on individual circumstances.
Join the discussion!
Sort by:
1 - 10 of 665
Friday, June 05, 2009 7:26:27 PM

Uhmmm. Maybe some other culpable parties?

 

Clinton and the 1997 GOP Congress which quadrupled the capital gains tax exclusion on primary residences--a powerful impetus behind the housing bubble.

 

The whole securitization thing, which really got going in the 2000s, was no doubt enabled by deregulation, was it not? How about Senator Gramm and Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin--in addition to Alan Greenspan.

 

If a 250% increase (from $40,000 to $100,000) in the insured deposit limit in 1980 ultimately led to the financial crisis of 28 years later, does this mean that an equivalent increase (from $100,000 to $250,000) in 2008 will lead to another financial crisis down the road? If Greenspan's 1% Fed Funds rates from 2003 to 2004 contributed to the housing bubble, what of Ben Bernanke's 0.25% Fed Funds rates which are operative as we speak?

 

 

 

 

Friday, June 05, 2009 9:33:19 PM
"Reagan didn't do it. Greenspan did it, aided and abetted by almost everyone in the regulatory apparatus who abdicated their responsibility."

I saw this happening in real time too going back to the 1980s.  I agreed with you when you were "out in the wilderness" so to speak in the '90s and goofballs like that Haynes guy at CNBC were mocking you to your face on television. I also agree with Krugman in part having to do with Reagan setting up a more systematic deregulatory policy and an atmosphere that it was OK for what came about to blossom.

That's all well and good but, the question is how do you adjust the system so that another Greenspan can't do what he did?
How do you adjust the system so that "everyone in the regulatory apparatus" does what they are placed there to do?  How do you get a Harvey Pitt or a Christopher Cox or any of the other insiders who get appointed to that post to be a watchdog for the people instead of a lapdog for the banks?  How do you adjust the system so that someone like Rep. St. Germain can't get a bill passed like the one he did?

They're all guilty Bill but, what does it matter if ultimately there is no solution to protect "We The People" from this happening over and over again every 50 to 70 years or so?



Saturday, June 06, 2009 8:40:53 AM
Bill,
You're just plain wrong on this one. I read Krugman's article, and also looked up other commentary about the law, and there is just no question; Krugman is correct. The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act clearly allowed the massive buildup of debt that caused the 2008 crash. There will be no significant recovery until we've dealt with the debt bubble; one way or the other (as you've pointed out numerous times).

I discovered you're writing a couple years ago, when everybody was all giddy about the "goldilocks" economy, and usully enjoy you're writing, but in this case you're plain wrong.

The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act is what allowed the SEC to "allow financial companies to essentially leverage themselves to infinity".

However, there is also a difference in focus, Krugman is only concerned about the main street economy; your focus is from an investment point of view.

Sunday, June 07, 2009 3:35:07 AM
CREDIT! There is the rub. The affect of cause, the why, the where, the when and who is the future unforeseen. Many years ago I asked an old-timer who lost a business in the Depression what was the cause. He said it was credit and explained to me the domino affect of a credit collapse. Dumb and ignorant Representatives are to blame. Capitalists will rape, steal and plunder if you let them and they will come from all over the world to do so. I learned this stuff in grammar school.
#5
Sunday, June 07, 2009 6:17:11 AM

Every time the government decides to add additional regulation and safety nets to protect us (from ourselves) there are unintended consequences.  Behavior is modified over time such that we generally take bigger risks and save less.  If we know there are bailouts and safety nets there is less incentive to act with prudence.  Add in Fed generated artificially low interest rates and you have the recipe for the bubble and bust cycles.  Check the increase in stock volatility after the creation of the Fed in 1913 on Shillers stock charts from 1870-2009 http://www.irrationalexuberance.com/ for yourself.  I am more likely to walk a tightrope if I know there is a safety net.

 

 

Sunday, June 07, 2009 10:22:28 AM
We did it to ourselves because we, as a species, want more than we are willing to pay for, want it now, and many of us will act dishonestly to achieve our ends.  We want the government to guarantee security without too much red tape.  We continue to make the same mistakes: over-extending credit, not paying attention, allowing fraud, electing short-sighted politicians . . . and then we panic periodically.  Same old story with different details. 
Sunday, June 07, 2009 11:37:41 AM
Nil
#8
Sunday, June 07, 2009 9:01:25 PM

genedio,

just thought i'd point out to you that:

"If a 250% increase (from $40,000 to $100,000)"

 

is actually a 150 percent increase.

Monday, June 08, 2009 1:12:00 AM
Even looking two years back you're still not going for the true root cause. To find that, you need to go back to the 1300s, when fractional-reserve banking was invented in Italy. As far as the one regulation/law in this country that can be considered the root, you should look at the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which created a central banking cartel that exists today, with an initial 40% gold reserve standard (designed from the outset to inflate, clearly). The reserve limit is potentially 0% as of 1980, but the practice of central banking, fractional-reserve banking, and all of it being backed by the force of government guarantee and legal tender laws is the core of this problem, just like every recession/depression since 1913 and probably many before then as well.
Monday, June 08, 2009 3:13:02 AM
Little bit one sided on this one. 
1 - 10 of 665
To add a comment, pleasesign in