ÒFeeding the Chickens by First
Processing the Corn
Through the
CowÓ
By
Richard W.
Crockett
Around 1980, when Ronald Reagan was
elected President, something called Òsupply-side economicsÓ came into
vogue. At the time it may have
looked to the layman like something new, but it was really merely a difference
in emphasis from what had gone before.
Until that time government fiscal policy had been under the influence of
John Maynard Keynes, the British economist, and was dubbed, ÒKeynesian
economics.Ó The implied contrast
is between the Reagan years in the presidency and the earlier era of the
Roosevelt years in the presidency.
The two approaches have had a number of monikers—supply side
economics, some times pejoratively is called Òtrickle-downÓ economics by its
detractors, and Keynesian economics is sometimes understood as Òdemand-sideÓ
economics, to reveal the market bias of each.
Under the influence of Keynesian
economics, Franklin Roosevelt used the expression of Òpriming the pumpÓ to describe how he wanted to stimulate
the economy. The metaphor of
priming the pump comes from the experience familiar to older Americans who may
have had the luxury of living without running water. To get water for their bath or other use they depended upon
a well, and water was retrieved by means of a hand pump. Sometimes the Òleathers,Ó or leather
seal in the pump would dry out and the pumpÕs suction would be lost, not
allowing the retrieval of water by means of the pump. So the solution was to Òprime the pump.Ó This was done by pouring water down an
opening in the top of the pump to remoisten the leather seal so it could seal
the cylinder in the pump, permitting it to draw water. In the Òpump primingÓ metaphor, it is the
demand for water that remedies the dried out seal by flooding the pumpÕs
upper chamber restoring the pumps integrity and allows the water to flow
generally, upon demand.
Trickle-down economics, by contrast
puts the stimulus at Òthe top,Ó in the hands of the producers, or upper stratum
of society, hence the term, Òsupply side,Ó counting on their public-spirited
temperament (or greed) to create jobs through self-motivation and
investment. Former head of the
meat cutterÕs union, Charley Hayes called this Òfeeding the chickens by first
processing the corn through the cow.Ó He was no supply-sider.
The failure of trickle-down
economics has appeared in several places: to use another agrarian metaphor,
Òthe chickens have come home to roost.Ó
The tax breaks for the rich have not produced sufficient investment in
this country, but mainly investment overseas, in China and India and perhaps
some in Mexico, although I believe that MexicoÕs good fortune has been
overstated, considering the number of illegal Mexican immigrants who have come
to this country to escape economic hardship. They seem to be finding more jobs in our troubled economy
than theirs.
The two approaches to economic
management are also relevant to the crisis in the sub-prime mortgage
market. The supply-side or
Òtrickle downÓ approach would argue for a solution that bails out the banks or
other lenders who hold troubled mortgages. This way the banking system does not
collapse and it has an appearance for the investment class as staving off
financial disaster and of preserving the Òsystem.Ó Along with tax cuts for the
well-to-do, this is done mainly through government efforts at Òprinting moneyÓ
and distributing it through the Federal Reserve, through open market operations
of buying securities in the Òopen market,Ó through lowering the Òrediscount
rate,Ó the interest rate at which banks sell commercial paper to the Fed, and
through managing the required reserve ratio, the ratio of banks funds that must
be maintained for safety to the amount that can be loaned out. This is called
Òmonetary policy,Ó in other words using the Federal Reserve System to increase
the money supply. The strategy
makes it easier for banks like Bank of America to Òbuy outÓ Countrywide, the
troubled mortgage company because credit markets in their world are somewhat easier. The problem with this approach is
that it cuts the consumer off at the knees. He remains on the hook for a mortgage that he may not be
able to afford, and when he fails, he is taken out of the market place, no
longer able to get financing for much of anything, adding to the net loss in
the number of potential consumers.
The lenders, if bailed out may remain in play. This is a supply side approach favoring the upper stratum of
society.
An alternative to this approach
would be to fashion a solution that helps the borrowers as well as the lenders
and doesnÕt let anyone off the hook.
Let the federal government through a Housing and Urban Development
program refinance many of the problem mortgages at lower, more favorable fixed
market rates, rates that would allow consumers to keep their homes and pay
their mortgages. No disqualifying preconditions would prevent borrowers who are
in mortgage trouble from participation, as some of the recent Òsupply sideÓ
proposals would do. Some of these
would still fail, but this approach would benefit lenders and consumers as well
as protecting the larger banking system.
HUD would recover much of this money through mortgage payments,
mitigating the costs to taxpayers, and it would have the moral claim to solving
a problem in society by catering to people rather that to corporate
interests. However there is no
doubt opposition to such a proposal from the lending community, which would see
this as government encroachment into their turf and their marketplace.