False Profits
Sunday 07 February 2010
by: Leslie Thatcher, t r u t h o u t | Book Review

(Photo: Polipoint Press)
False Profits: Recovering From the Bubble Economy
By Dean Baker
PoliPoint Press, 2010
He who feels punctured must once have been a bubble.
- Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching, 6th century BCE
As the nation struggled to recover from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, the people who got us here are desperately working to rewrite history. The basic story of this economic collapse is very simple. The Federal Reserve Board, guided by its revered chairman, Alan Greenspan, allowed an $8 trillion housing bubble to grow unchecked.
- Dean Baker's "False Profits"
The delicious double-entendre of Dean Baker's most recent title is enhanced by the book's cover photo of a trio of false prophets, Ben Bernanke, Alan Greenspan and Henry (Hank) Paulson, all of whom are thoroughly excoriated within the book's pages for their responsibility in feeding, prolonging, misdiagnosing and incorrectly responding to the 2007-2009 financial meltdown and the associated economic collapse. However, the book also chronicles the loss of $8 trillion of housing "wealth," $1.4 trillion in annual demand, whatever financial security the vast majority of baby-boomers ever had, "increases" in homeownership rates and any other widespread economic gains associated to the post-2000 period. Truthout has published Dean Baker's columns about net job losses for 2000-2010, a decade that also saw a 26 percent drop in the stock market, the elimination of the $236 billion federal budget surplus President Bush inherited and its transformation into a record deficit and the overall deliquescence of any societal and most people's personal economic "profits."
While most of us find ourselves economically worse off after the last ten years, some have done extremely well and most of those who bear the burden of responsibility for the American economic catastrophe have suffered no consequences whatsoever: financial, social or professional. Writing about Bernanke specifically, Baker's remarks are equally apposite to other titans of finance, central banking and the financial regulatory regimes:
It would difficult to imagine someone with a comparable record of disastrous failures being allowed to remain in most jobs. Would a nurse who routinely administers the wrong medicine and causes his patients to die be allowed to keep his job? Would a bank teller who leaves the cash drawer open remain in her position? How about the school bus driver who comes drunk to work?
In most lines of work, a certain level of competence is expected. Unfortunately, this is not the case for those who set US economic policy. [1]
Baker places the burden of blame on regulators and the political establishment because they utterly perverted their mission:
Progressives do conservatives' bidding when we denounce them as "market fundamentalists." We should, instead, be exposing their use of government to set up structures that ensure the market works to benefit the wealthy. We could then bring our policies into focus as those designed to ensure that market outcomes will benefit the bulk of the population.
The market is just a tool, like a wheel or a hammer. It would be bad politics and bad policy for progressives to make a big scene attacking the wheel. It is similarly bad politics and bad policy to put these attacks on the market at the center of a political agenda. [2]
Baker never attacks the wheel; instead he demonstrates how it was deliberately allowed to run wild. As Baker himself warned as early as summer 2002, all indicators pointed to the rise in housing prices as a classic bubble, divorced from any tether in reality, yet the regulators, media and most mainstream economists kept pumping hot air into that bubble. Further, Dean Baker exposes the pathetic excuses that the regulators did not have the necessary tools to put on the brakes for the self-serving and specious rationalizations they are. [3] Ever debunking the myth that somehow it was the "free" market at work, he relentlessly exposes how regulation, regulatory bodies and the public officials charged with supervising the financial industry have used their power to favor a narrow swathe of private interests over the public good. And, as always, Baker highlights what alternatives were and are available to turn that equation around. Baker's relentless exposé of what is actually subsidized and who profits from specific policies, how wealth is transferred and how all this activity is disguised fuels his narrative with "true prophet" power.
"False Profits" combines impeccable scholarship - assembling an array of relevant facts and data totally accessible to non-economists - with Baker's acerbic, but unforced, wit and verve. His iconoclasm constantly renews its sources and consistently targets those "false prophets" in all sectors who contribute to misleading the American people. Baker is the journalists' economist, the reality-based economist: whatever other case he may be making, he invariably demonstrates why correct and timely information and clear understanding are essential to economic problem-solving, as well as how "fudges" harm everyone.
The book's structure begins by a backward look, an analysis of precisely how we reached the present situation and what our present situation actually is (in chapters, "Economic Collapse: It Is Their Fault," "Surveying the Damage" and "The Terrible Tale of the TARP"), then pivots on an exposition of why correct diagnosis and analysis are so crucial ("Will They Ever Discover the Housing Bubble?"), develops the case he has presented with three chapters of prescription ("Stimulus: It Is Just Spending," "Real Stimulus: Programs to Boost the Economy" and "Reforming the Financial System") and concludes with a resounding final call for accountability ("Remember the Housing Bubble").
Unfortunately, recent events - the absence of any effective policy to slow down foreclosures; the most probably ineffective and unquestionably inadequate stimulus measures in the just-presented budget; financial services regulatory proposals that do not address the causes for regulatory failure - suggest that the present administration is only slightly more willing to learn from Dean Baker's acute analyses than was its predecessor. And Ben Bernanke's reconfirmation as Fed chairman is just the most recent and flagrant sign that the administration has no intention of investigating, let alone punishing, the regulatory - and individual regulators' - blunders that led to the present pass.
Economics is a science of human behavior. It rests on the observation that people respond to incentives. Consequently, Baker's apparently political argument that there must be consequences for the failures of judgment and action that resulted in the economic meltdown is a quintessentially economic one. With no disincentives for failure and the ever-present incentives for complicity offered by the industry that has captured them, regulators will continue to fail the whipping boy who pays for their transgressions - us.
1. Dean Baker, "False Profits," p.5.
2. OpCit. p.9.
3. Read the book for the argument, but the unequivocal conclusion is, "The regulators - first and foremost the Fed - had all the tools necessary to combat the bubble. They chose not to." (p.153)

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.




Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
Ken Lewis: "I'm taking Ben
Sun, 02/07/2010 - 17:41 β Anonymous (not verified)Ken Lewis: "I'm taking Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson down with me"
Great! You can all go to hell as far as 'Murica is concerned. Take the OCC and Geithner with you.
Put this review of Dean
Sun, 02/07/2010 - 18:34 β S.O.Teric (not verified)Put this review of Dean Baker's book together with another article in his issue of TRUTHOUT, "HOUSE LIKELY TO END INSURERS' ANTITRUST EXCEPTION" with its tagline, "However, the effort to remove the 65-year-old exemption is a small step that's unlikely to have much direct impact on consumers, according to independent analysts." There are three ways to take this: 1] Hooray! The evil government will fail at attempts to limit American freedom; 2] the interlocking directorship of Wall Street, the Fed, and the US Treasury is a triple-headed hydra that even Hercules couldn't defeat, so we're screwed; 3] keep chipping away at the Beast, cauterizing its decapitated necks [so they won't grow] back. I suppose there are others. Any ideas?
nationalize the Federal
Sun, 02/07/2010 - 19:08 β Anonymous (not verified)nationalize the Federal Reserve Bank,to begin with.
(1) "...those who bear the
Sun, 02/07/2010 - 20:40 β John Cutler (not verified)(1) "...those who bear the burden of responsibility for the American economic catastrophe have suffered no consequences whatsoever: financial, social or professional."
(2) "It would difficult to imagine someone with a comparable record of disastrous failures being allowed to remain in most jobs" and "In most lines of work, a certain level of competence is expected. "
Compare these two statements from this perspective: it looks to me like it's not "[in]competence" and "failure" at all -- rather, the False Prophets performed **splendidly** from the perspective of paragraph (1). They merely steered policy and function in the direction the corporatacracy was already going.
It's "disastrous" and a "failure" only from the standpoint of "...the bulk of the population."
John
Mr. Cutler's point had
Sun, 02/07/2010 - 22:19 β Texas Aggie (not verified)Mr. Cutler's point had occurred to me as well. The same point applies to just about everything that happened during the Cheney/Bush administration. It looks like they failed, totally and completely, until you ask yourself what their goals were. When you realize what they were trying to do, it strikes you that they were tremendously successful.
They were responsible for a massive transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. They enriched their buddies in the military/industrial complex while at the same time making the people who work for a living evermore under the control of the powerful. They stripped the middle class, a potential threat to the wealthy, of any semblance of power. In short, they did exactly what they set out to do.
Together, now, let's do it:
Sun, 02/07/2010 - 22:40 β Avenging Angel (not verified)Together, now, let's do it:
WE ARE SICK AND TIRED OF THIS RIP-OFF AND
WON'T TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!
Which may relieve us of a small amount of frustration but
which will accomplish nothing unless we take to the streets. Or are we all a bunch of drones nodding as we watch the dismembering of our democracy?
The Repugs did a great selling job (starting with Nixon) of getting away with the claim that demonstrations don't get anything done but get some people arrested or worse. Indeed, their play-book indicated a full-front attack on any kind of organized protest. This was cynically demonstrated at the inauguration of the "War President", when the protestors were herded into a "Free Speech Zone" about 4 blocks away from the action.
So, for those who are tired of words, here's a simple remedy: Protest, protest, protest, in any way possible.
And who just happened to be
Sun, 02/07/2010 - 22:49 β frank1569 (not verified)And who just happened to be one of the biggest 'winners' of 'failed' Fed Reserve policy? Take a wild f**king guess:
"Federal Reserve posts record $46.1 billion PROFIT in 2009."
What a coincidence, eh? Reminds me of a book... "The Shock Doctrine" I think it was... cause a catastrophe, then play savior while raking in the cash.
False prophets indeed...
Frank1569, Yes, but most of
Sun, 02/07/2010 - 23:45 β Jeff (not verified)Frank1569,
Yes, but most of that profit was returned to the U.S. Treasury. Not that I am a big fan of the Fed, but facts are facts and you shouldn't try to deceive by leaving out some of them.
I agree with other posters
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 00:59 β Genessender (not verified)I agree with other posters here: the creation of the latest economic crash should be examined from the perspective of the Shock Doctrine. Who has benefitted? To claim that Milton Friedman acolyte Alan Greenspan had no idea what he was doing--indeed, Greenspan's own claim that he never thought bankers would crash their own companies for their personal profit--beggar belief and provide them and him with unwarranted political and legal cover.
Not so much as to whom have
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 02:34 β Anonymous (not verified)Not so much as to whom have benefited, but this is only half the story. The last two years were precipitated by events which had world implications. The so called FED was called out when the SEC had liens put on it by China and others. This led to scramble due to the freezing of the system. The bailouts were due to this action as the scam had been uncovered.
Will this lead to currency structure changes? The greenback is now on life support with so many desiring to abandon this as the reserve.
What happens next in Iran will determine how this plays out.
This is now getting very interesting. Problem is that it has the distinct possibly of leading to world wide anarchy and the continuation of said 'Shock Doctrine'.
Q: "Would a nurse who
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 04:02 β jahf (not verified)Q: "Would a nurse who routinely administers the wrong medicine and causes his patients to die be allowed to keep his job? Would a bank teller who leaves the cash drawer open remain in her position?" ~Dean Baker, "False Profits"
A: That depends on whether the lives of the patients of said nurse were of any value to employer of the nurse. In the case of the teller, that would depend on whether the right people got their hands on the cash as a result of the teller leaving the drawer open.
Americans shouldn't be surprised to get this behavior when they insist on putting only the most corrupt of people into office.
Dean Baker goes on to say, "In most lines of work, a certain level of competence is expected. Unfortunately, this is not the case for those who set US economic policy." I would suggest that all these people were more than competent in achieving their aims. (Ask yourself again just who has got the money.)
... or, what John Cutler
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 04:04 β jahf (not verified)... or, what John Cutler said.
Mr. Cutlet, I totally agree.
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 04:36 β Progressive.Libertarian (not verified)Mr. Cutlet, I totally agree. The last year has proven neither party has any attention of serving anyone other than their corporate donors.
it's really not a question
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 04:58 β Anonymous (not verified)it's really not a question of competence.
it's a matter of outright criminality. the only question is when will these pigs be stripped of ALL assets and imprisoned.
This is why we make laws and
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 15:57 β Anonymous (not verified)This is why we make laws and also why there needs to be consequences when they are broken. The spirit of the American people is hanging by a thread. This govt. deserves riots in the streets when Sarah Palin becomes president!
The two people who mentioned
Mon, 02/08/2010 - 16:42 β Paul W (not verified)The two people who mentioned the Shock Doctrine, by my fellow-Canadian Naomi Klein, hit the nail on the head. The late, unlamented Milton Friedman had a lot of acolytes who ended up in major string-pulling position.
All together now: Where did Obama go to school? The University of Chicago! Where did Milton Friedman sit like a broody hen on his economic egg bombshells, where they hatched out as Shock Doctrine vultures, as he nurtured them into positions of regulatory power - the White House itself - for decades? The Department of Economics at said University of Chicago!
Connect the dots. Read the book, along with Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States.
It's all explained. How it works. Why it works, and has since day one of America's birth, for the benefit of the rich and powerful.