You can't have a bitchin' "austerity" movement without an International Conspiracy of Dunces -- meet Our Davy Brooks

Once upon a time, Doonesbury's Roland Hedley went spelunking in Reagan's brain. Would anyone have the courage to attempt the same quest in Our Davy Brooks's brain?

by Ken

I expect many of you have already seen this, but I don't think you'll mind looking at it again. (Sorry I can't provide a link. Somehow as of this writing it still doesn't seem to have been added to the Borowitz Report website. Well, there's a link!)

BOROWITZ REPORT
June 17, 2011

Greece Offers to Repay Loans with Giant Horse
Steed Wheeled Into Brussels at Night

BRUSSELS (The Borowitz Report) – In what many are hailing as a breakthrough solution to Greece’s crippling debt crisis, Greece today offered to repay loans from the European Union nations by giving them a gigantic horse.

Finance ministers from sixteen EU nations awoke in Brussels this morning to find that a huge wooden horse had been wheeled into the city center overnight.

The horse, measuring several stories in height, drew mixed responses from the finance ministers, many of whom said they would have preferred a cash repayment of the EU’s bailout.

But German Chancellor Andrea Merkel said she “welcomed the beautiful wooden horse,” adding, “What harm could it possibly do?”

I've intentionally led off with a light moment because, as promised, we're about to descend into the murky, incomprehensible depths of DavyBrooksWorld.

Just this morning on the radio I heard some pompous economic semiliterate, commenting on the Greek crisis, saying that we know how to deal with their debt problem but now we just lack the political will to do so. Of course what he means is that we know the forced-austerity technique, which transforms the ill-gotten gains of the financial players who've made out like bandits in the runup into a price to be paid by people who've gotten no benefit from it.

The "serious" people who tut-tut about the Social Security "crisis" tut-tut in exactly the same way. We know what has to be done; we just lack the political gumption to do it. Or the state budget crises raised to toxic proportion by the economic meltdown: Hoodlums like the new governors of Wisconsin, Florida, and Ohio know how to deal with it -- and they've got the political gumption to do what has to be done: "solve" the problems on the backs of people who didn't cause them, thereby protecting the movers and shakers who did, and in many cases got rich, or I should say richer, doing it.

I suppose if you just wanted to pick on Our Davy Brooks, you could equally well deconstruct every pile of manure Our Davy shovels onto the NYT op-ed page. The levels of stupidity and dishonesty are really that predictable.

I can think of several reasons why I've glommed onto the column he wrote last week, hailing an astonishing discovery, the most important discovery since the discovery of sunshine: that the economic meltdown was caused by . . . Freddie Mac! (Or maybe Fannie Mae, I forget which.)

First, I had a moment of instant revulsion when I noticed the blurb for that column (for which, on principle, I'm not going to provide a link; that seems to me just encouraging him) on the day's NYT e-newsletter. It didn't take a particularly keen olfactory detector to smell a turd. It looked to be, only three years late, yet another assault on the best scapegoat the Far Right has come up with to deflect blame from the class of movers and shakers whose private parts they live to lick.

Maybe too I was primed because I once made the mistake of allowing a wingnut commenter to drag me into his inexhaustibly "sourced" conviction that the true cause of the economic meltdown was the Community Reinvestment Act of 2008, by which the government held guns to the head of scrupulously honest bankers and forced them to lend money to vile scum of the criminally poor class (not very hidden subtext: overwhelmingly people of inappropriate skin pigment) for the purpose of sinking the economy. Of course those inexhaustible citations, if you look at them, turn out to be either just plain bogus or twisted-beyond-recognition distortions, all to buttress the ideological delusions they've made up in their head, all of which are totally impervious to facts, which the Far Right has come to consider its deadliest enemy.

Now my point here, and the reason I bring it up, is that this is exactly the way Our Davy Brooks works. His trick -- and I'm not equipped to say whether it's a stroke of genius or a stroke of luck -- is to wrap his ideological rigidities in a veneer of "centrism." But he practices "journalism" the way David Brock -- as he reported in Bllinded by the Right -- discovered was the standard practice of the Far Right pseudo-journalists he'd attached himself to, among whom he had made himself the shiningest star. It occurred to him rather belatedly that where actual journalists set out to find out what the story is, his people started out with the story fully written in their heads and then went out in search of anything they could find, or more likely twist, to seem to support it.

THE POINT IS NOT THAT FANNIE
AND FREDDIE ARE BLAMELESS

To start with, it appears that that book Our Davy read, well, he doesn't seem to have actually read it, just glommed onto the part that fits his ideological fixation. I'm told by people I trust a lot more than Our Davy that he ignored substantial parts of the book that dealt with the Fed, Wall Street, and nonbank financial parties.

More to the point, though, he's just got the Fannie-Freddie story wrong. Which is not to say that Fannie and Freddie don't deserve brickbats. Here's economist Dean Baker's take:

The trillions of dollars that the geniuses at the private investment banks funneled into the housing market were the force that inflated the bubble to its 2006 peaks. Fannie and Freddie were followers in this story, jumping into the subprime and Alt-A market in 2005 to try to maintain market share. They were not the leaders.

Just to be clear, Fannie and Freddie were serious bad actors. They are both huge companies that do nothing else but deal with housing. It is incredible that they did not recognize the housing bubble and take steps to try to deflate it, and protect themselves, before it grew to such dangerous levels.

Suppose that Fannie and Freddie started demanding appraisals of rental values and refused to buy any mortgage where the ratio of sale price to annual rent was higher than 20. This action by itself likely would have shaken some sense into the housing market. I said this back in 2002, when I first warned of the housing bubble and predicted the collapse of Fannie and Freddie. I also frequently criticized Fannie and Freddie in public forums, including debates with their chief economists. Unlike Brooks, I wasn't worried about non-issues as economic disaster loomed on the horizon.

However:

As much as Fannie and Freddie deserve blame for incompetence and corruption, no serious person can make them the main culprits in this story. The Wall Street crew made hundreds of billions on pushing fraudulent mortgages. Furthermore, if we had competent economists running the Fed, they would have been shooting at the housing bubble as early as 2002 also. This does not mean raising interest rates in an economy that was struggling to recover from the collapse of the stock bubble. (I'll say that again, since people have a hard time understanding "do not raise interest rates." The Fed should not have raised interest rates.)

If Greenspan had paid attention to the economy he would have had the Fed's staff devoted full-time to document the evidence for the housing bubble and he would have used every public appearance (e.g. congressional testimonies, public speeches, international forums) to warn of the risks posed by the housing bubble. He also would have used the Fed's full regulatory authority to police the mortgage issuing practices of the banks under its supervision. He also would have prodded other regulators to use increased scrutiny for the institutions under their control. (Greenspan was never shy about making suggestions to others.)

My guess is that these actions would have by themselves crashed the bubble and done so long before it grew to such dangerous levels. They would be essentially costless, so it is difficult to see why a vigilant Fed chair would not have followed this route.

It is difficult to believe that these actions would not have been sufficient to deflate the bubble. After all, the David Brooks of the world can ignore Dean Baker warning of the housing bubble, they cannot ignore the Fed chair issuing such warnings, backed up by endless Fed papers documenting the case.

But Our Davy has found his narrative, and restored the earth to its rightful axis. And people continue publishing and reading his gibberish.

#