The Across the Curve blog often has insightful and potent analysis, with a focus on credit markets that reveals some real expertise in the area. Today, however, its author, originally a weak supporter of government intervention, has made a rather public about-face.
We are forced to agree with him. Matters are quickly getting out of hand and deeper government involvement in the essential engines of the economy, and the deficit spending required to entrench it, is looking less and less desirable by the day.
From the outset, I have always been a supporter of government intervention as a means to prevent this unique crisis from taking the system down. I have always believed that the consequences of inaction were greater than the cost of government involvement. I question that assumption now.
The bailouts began with the deal in which JPMorgan took control of Bear Stearns with government assistance and continues to this day with the government intervention in the Bank of America union with Merrill Lynch.
The Federal government will now be an integral part of the financial system for a very long time and will influence decision making and risk taking in that sector during the time in which taxpayers are a partner in those businesses.
I now think that we would have been better off with some truly cathartic event which would have curbed the animal spirits of traders but which would have established a basis for a market prescribed recovery. Succinctly stated, the government is not in the business of taking risk and I would argue is in the business of risk avoidance.
In retrospect, the commonweal would have been better served had nature taken its course and allowed for capitalism to travel its natural course. I fear that this new course has placed on us a path to a very slow recovery and one in which innovation and risk taking will be viewed through the narrow and ill begotten prism of some bureaucrat.
Some Opening Comments [Across The Curve]