In one version of the Lord's Prayer, the word "debts" replaces "trespasses", and this is in keeping with the etymology of "redemption". The ancient Jewish law forbade perpetual debt-slavery for fellow-believers, and even provided for ceremonial debt forgiveness every 50 years (which, I imagine, had a feedback effect on the terms and length of loan agreements).
"Hatfield Girl" gives a very vivid picture of our slow slide into dingy, shabby poverty, and it has to be every sane person's earnest wish that we (or our fellow citizens) don't return to the conditions so many suffered before the Second World War. Yet what is causing all this but the heavy chains of debt?
A disclaimer: I often feel that I not only know nothing, but never shall know anything, despite much effort. Then I see how the world is going, and wonder who knows better.
Having said that, I'm trying to work out why, as Karl Denninger says, we don't make the banks eat some of the debt they laid on us. In the comments to the Hatfield Girl piece linked above, "Caronte" refers to "moral hazard", a point I entirely accept. But I say that debt cancellation (or rather, reduction) would be a suitable punishment for the principal offender.
In our society, the relationship between mortgage lender and borrower is unequal. You have to live somewhere, and if you don't buy, you have to rent - and rents will tend to reflect the purchase price of houses.
So what determines the price of houses? Supply and demand. And a major element of demand is how much money is available. By adjusting the ratio of deposits to loans as it suits them, lenders can multiply the money supply, as everyone knows (I say everyone, but actually I don't think the public is fully aware of the simplicity and enormity of this scam). Since 2000 or so, the money in the economy doubled, and so, un-oddly I think, did the price of houses.
The lender can decide how much to lend into the market generally, and consequently influence it; the buyer cannot decide, on an individual basis, to halve the value of the type of house he wants in the area where he needs to live.
So by what right should lenders inflate asset prices, fix on them loans of money they created virtually ex nihilo, then deflate asset prices by reducing lending in difficult times, and expect the borrower to bear the full weight of the consequences?
The borrower may have colluded with the lender to take on an unsustainable debt (or one that exposed the borrower to excessive deflation risk), but for reasons already given I suggest it was a shotgun marriage (or a mass marriage, like those Moonie wedding rallies) with the lender handling the Purdey. For subprime borrowers, I think it's fair to argue that the class of people involved means that the lenders had far better knowledge of the implications, and so are far more culpable.
Rather than prop up the worst of the lenders, let them go down. Why should the taxpayer assume the burden? Pay off the depositors, but shrink the lending book - which is mostly funny money, less substantial in its origins than candy floss - a drop of ink on 80-gram paper.
To quote the inscription on the statue of Justice above the Central Criminal Court, "Defend the children of the poor and punish the wrongdoer." The trespasses of the mighty are less to be forgiven.
2 comments:
Suppose it is believed with absolute certainty that every 50 years, say every year divisible by 50, all debts are forgiven. There would follow a bunching of loan demand as the forgiveness date nears, while willing lenders would simultaneously vanish. The market would no longer match credit demand and supply, total welfare would suffer. Debt forgiveness would only avoid this problem if it was done by stealth, unpredictably, once and for all and never again. Like forgiveness of tax evasion or illegal buildings. Difficult to persuade debtors, (or builders, or taxpayers), that forgiveness would not occur again. Lots of people would be encouraged to borrow beyond what they can afford (or evade tax) – the moral hazard implication. Unsustainable indebtedness would multiply rather than disappear. Moreover, a defaulting borrower does not need forgiveness if she genuinely cannot pay: can’t pay, won’t pay, period. If the defaulting borrower has some residual wealth, though less than the outstanding loan, who is to deprive the creditor of that? What legal or moral right would support state action without creditor compensation?
Would “debt cancellation (or rather, reduction) … be a suitable punishment for the principal offender”? True: “the relationship between mortgage lender and borrower is unequal. You have to live somewhere, and if you don't buy, you have to rent - and rents will tend to reflect the purchase price of houses.” No more than the relationship between employer and worker. There are various way to reduce this inequality, workers can form Trades Unions and cooperatives, and borrowers can found building societies – until New Labour wickedly de-mutualised i.e. privatised this form of social property which was not theirs to privatise. But the main reduction of the inequality comes from competition among lenders (and among employers).
“By adjusting the ratio of deposits to loans as it suits them, lenders can multiply the money supply”. True, there is a credit multiplier at work when banks re-lend their deposits and get some new deposits as a result. If they were prevented from re-lending – by law or by contract – they would act solely as custodians (as in the early days of gold-money) and would charge depositors for the service instead of paying interest. And any act of individual saving would instantly reduce total demand by the same amount and cause unemployment. Besides, the ratio of deposits to loans is regulated by law and is variable at will only when it is higher than a prudential limit. And banks face the consequences of their bad loans, they can go bankrupt and their shareholders can lose all their capital. That’s punishment enough. As long as they are competitive, there is not much of a reason to “punish” them by forcing them to remit those bad loans that still have a residual market value.
“Rather than prop up the worst of the lenders, let them go down. Why should the taxpayer assume the burden?” Absolutely right. “Pay off the depositors” – if the bank can, or if there is a state guarantee. But why “shrink the lending book” by debt remission? If mistakes are always to be automatically corrected ex-post when they are revealed as such, the market disappears and with it all the conceivable advantages that it brings.
An Australian economist whose name now escapes me once wrote an article mocking the theory of general economic equilibrium – with its complete system of futures markets – by imagining a system of “past” markets in which economic agents could undo their past transactions that with the benefit of hindsight turned out to be a mistake. Just imagine. Debt remission would have some of the same effects.
Caronte, many thanks: this is such a detailed and thoughtful comment that I have taken the liberty of copying it into my next piece and attempting a reply there.
Post a Comment