Home » Money » Values


I was challenged recently to explain what happened to our economy in simple terms.  I set myself a limit of 800 words, and as you can see I failed.  But I like this essay and I hope you do, too.  I don’t want to take out anything.

It’s all about the value of money.  You can reach into your wallet and pull out a portrait of Jackson and say, “Here’s the value, it says 20 right there.”  But money is much more than numbers you see on a bill or a 401k; no matter how you look at it, what it is all about is what we value as a culture.  When something goes horribly wrong with money it’s because something went wrong with our values.

In finance, the center of the world used to be banking.  It was a boring occupation based on taking deposits and paying an interest rate on them while loaning out the money at a slightly higher rate.  The “spread” between the rates for loans and interest was where they made money.  When rates started to change pretty rapidly, banks could still make money by keeping the spread relatively fixed.

The spread was often magnified greatly when the bank borrowed money cheaply from other banks or, ultimately, the Federal Reserve.  They then loaned it all out at a slightly higher rate.  The net worth of the what the bank has in is called capital” and the amount of money that they could get from the outside is called “leverage”.  Traditionally, leveraging of no more than 9 to 1, meaning the bank had in 10% of its own capital, was normal.  The key to it all was managing the “risk” or the chance that the person they loaned money to might not pay it all back.

This is boring stuff, I realize.  So did banks.  A series of theorists who won Nobel Prizes in Economics had other ideas as to how they make money – and a lot more of it, too.  The focus was on risk because that’s where things often went wrong. If you could predict the chances of someone not paying you could come up with a way of insuring a pool of loans as a unit and not worrying about it.  The cost of covering those defaults is known.

These became known as “Credit Default Swaps” because the risk of default was sold off to someone else to manage separately.  It’s called a “derivative” because it’s one step removed from the market, a financial tool that serves only financial markets.  The only problem with managing risk this way was that it presumes a normally functioning market, which is to say that we can assign a value to all the loans and the insurance against default on those loans because we know what people will pay.

This big assumption has failed us before.  LTCM and Enron are the most obvious examples, but many “Hedge Funds”, comprised mainly of derivatives, have failed because they priced something wrong.  But let’s ignore that for a while.  Let’s ignore that other Nobel Prize winning theorists showed that the new instruments increased the risk to the whole system, too.

As we went through the 90s, these innovations created a tremendous amount of wealth.  New start-ups that would never have had access to credit before got it, creating the first wave of the Tech Bubble.  When many of them exceeded expectations, even more money poured in.  Through Initial Public Offerings, the first sales of stocks, the risk of default started to be shared by the stock market.  As long as there was more money coming in all the time the market was able to price the risk of default as well as it thought it could.

This is where values come into the equation, because the growing dollar value of this market made it possible for people to appear to make something from nothing.  Much more money was made managing money than producing goods and services, meaning that talented young people went into finance.  Energy was put into applying this magic to other areas, and nothing looked better than the mortgage market.

Mortgages are backed by something of value, a house, which in some parts of the USofA was where this money had been going into like crazy.  They also have reliable payments that produce a steady stream of cash coming in, too.  The principles of managing risk with the latest theories were applied to mortgages, and soon no one could get enough mortgages.  The standards were relaxed to the point where anyone could get a home, and very quickly the value of homes started to climb everywhere.  At the heart of it, however, was the idea that risk had been effectively eliminated  – despite the fact that tremendous value was being created from nothing at all.  Leverage at Citibank went up to 35 to 1, meaning they had only 2.8% of their own money in the machine.

In other words, the entire economy was based on a kind of Ponzi Scam not all that different from what Bernie Madoff ran.

Another statement of values came from Alan Greenspan’s Federal Reserve, the outfit that kept interest rates low during this period.  Their reasoning was simple: if you buy a computer for $2k and 3 years later buy a new one for $2k, most of us would say that computer prices are flat.  But the Feds saw that the new one had twice the power of the old one, meaning that computer prices fell by 50%.  Got that?  You can be twice as productive with the new computer so it’s worth twice as much – even if you spend your time on twitter.  This is called “Hedonic Adjustment”, and it’s what kept money from the heart of the whole system cheap.  There was no inflation if you do enough math on the numbers, forgetting that the numbers are supposed to reflect value.

It all ended rather abruptly last September when the market for Credit Default Swaps simply broke one day.  Too many loans were coming in bad, so the insurance provided by a Credit Default Swap was going higher and higher in price – until no one wanted to touch any of them.  Without this in place, the whole system collapsed.  There was no new money being generated to feed the Ponzi Scam.

The value at the heart of all of this is the expectation of something from nothing. Old- fashioned banks managed risk from close at hand, partly because they had decent stake in the system; the new thinking was that risk could be managed by formulae and new financial instruments. In short, the value is that money does not come from work, but from other money.  Seeing it generated spontaneously didn’t alarm, it delighted.

The new theories at the heart of all of this are not inherently bad or dangerous, but our lack of basic values is.  The ability to loan money to risky ventures or people who don’t traditionally have access to it creates access to the economy that is vital, but using the same methods to create supposed wealth from nothing is dangerous.

It comes down to what we value.  The value of the market is nothing more than our values as a culture and as a people.  If we value labor and intelligence, we will put more money into those.  When we value blindly playing games with money, we will have more of that.  Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves what makes a sustainable life that is decent and good.  What got us where we are today is a lack of basic values – not just in the market, but in our lives.

20 thoughts on “Values

  1. This concept is complicated enough that 800 words could not have done it justice. I do think you’ve been a complex idea more easy to understand. The fact that it is so difficult though, is why the Bernie Madoff’s of the world (and you know there are smaller players who essentially did what he was doing on a different scale) got away with their scams for so long.

  2. What you seem to be saying is that this was inevitable from about 1990 on, right? Did you say that back then, or when did you see it? I think you are right, but I didn’t realize how much it all depended on something from nothing.

  3. Cristy: I need to work on making things shorter. The problem is that to me, the art of saying a lot in a few words is poetry – and it only gets more dense!

    Bonnie: Sustainability, in economic and human and environmental terms, has to be what it’s all about. Without that, there is only eternal conquest. I may write about a historical parallel on Wednesday.

    Bruce: See? You got it in 2 words, not 1200! It can be done! 🙂

    Janine: I have been saying all along that this had to happen. I’m a Democrat largely because in 1988 Mike Dukakkis said that “We can’t have an economy based on everyone doing everyone else’s laundry” – and I’ve never heard it said better before or since. The expectation that we can get something from nothing is our real problem. A few generations ago people would not have fallen for this nonsense on the upswing, so there would have been less pain on the downside. I’m sure of it.

  4. Erik, I wasn’t gonna write but fter reading other comments I felt the need to do so. Good essay but I’m not sure the pulpit works. read salon for more on the AIG mess.
    James Fallows/John Anderson have been writing similar thoughts for 30 years. I was not a big fan of Dukakkis although he debate well I thought. He bragged up MASS. state too much, I think part of its success in the 80’s was due to Reagan’s defense contractor build up. Looking forward to your next essay on historical parallels.

  5. Erik, your essay got me thinking and that’s a good thing! So I pulled out an old historical book from the local library and gleaned a few ideas. Here’s a few in no particular clear order.
    Print culture differentiated from oral culture by: 1. Dissemination of info (wider, increased output and intake)
    2. Standardization (type, casting)
    3. Reorganization (codifying, catalogueing
    4. Data collection
    5. Preservation

    Replacement of discourse by silent scanning.
    Replacement of face to face contact by reading and yet lectures are still attended and sermons delivered and plays performed.
    Historically (i.e. reality based, concrete)
    churches (and sermons) were at one time coupled with news (local and regional) and that included info on real estate transactions. To hear a sermon people had to come together. To read they have to draw apart.
    Readers are then more likely to be more atomistic and individualistic. Communal
    solidarity was diminished and yet at the same time new forms of group identity begin to emerge.
    “Propaganda” is developed. I’m using that value loaded word neutrally. Even social actions such as the exchange of goods and services (and even charity) is effected by the advent/change to a printed culture.
    Schools were effected, more age segmentation, feminine books and masculine books. we see duplicated images of rulers alongside those of saints/icons.
    “Just for a minute compare the affects of listening to a Gospel passage read from the pulpit with reading the same passage at home for oneself. In one the Word comes from a priest/pastor who is at a distance and on high, in the second it seems to come from a silent voice that is within.”
    “Views of how family life should be conducted were formerly casual (even cooking recipes were unwritten) Elizabethans who purchased domestic guides/books received
    a more “standardized” format.” Type casting = role playing.
    “Possibly no social revolution in European history is as important as that which saw book learning become the focus of daily life during the childhood to adolescence to the young adult years”
    “Just as the printing press changed the bible and the church(es) it also changed science and helped lead to the scientific revolution.”

  6. My apologies I’m not good at formatting things I even struggle with spellcheck. Duh old man!

  7. Dan:

    I always say that my goal is to get people to think and that they return the favor. Glad that I did, and especially glad you did!

    My next piece is already in the can, but you are talking about a larger framework for all human activity. Yes, I like it! I’ll think on it some. In another hour you’ll have what I’ve been thinking about. 🙂

  8. Pingback: The Rules « Barataria - the work of Erik Hare

  9. Pingback: New Times « Barataria - the work of Erik Hare

  10. Pingback: Money « Barataria - the work of Erik Hare

  11. Pingback: Double Take « Barataria - the work of Erik Hare

  12. Pingback: Specialists « Barataria - the work of Erik Hare

  13. Pingback: Difficult Stuff « Barataria – the work of Erik Hare

  14. Pingback: Insured « Barataria – the work of Erik Hare

  15. Pingback: Currency « Barataria – the work of Erik Hare

  16. Pingback: Starts with an Excuse « Barataria – the work of Erik Hare

  17. Pingback: Why Economics? | Barataria - The work of Erik Hare

Like this Post? Hate it? Tell us!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s