Wednesday, July 30, 2008

China, the Olympics and the Visa Mystery


China, the Olympics and the Visa Mystery
July 29, 2008

Graphic for Geopolitical Intelligence Report

By Rodger Baker
Related Links

* Managing Change in China


Related Special Topic Pages

* 2008 Olympics: Beijing’s Hopes and Hurdles
* China’s Economic Imbalance

Something extraordinary is happening in China, and we are not talking about the Olympics. Rather, Chinese officials have been clamping down on visa applications and implementing bureaucratic impediments to new and renewed visa applications under the guise of pre-Olympic security.

In some ways, Beijing’s plan for a safe and secure Olympics appears based on the premise that if no one shows up, there can be no trouble. But placing restrictions on the movement of managers and employees of foreign businesses operating in China, even if for a limited time as Chinese officials have been at pains to reassure, makes little sense from the standpoint of gaining political and economic benefits from hosting the Olympics. Something just isn’t right.
The Post-’70s Economic Framework

Since China’s economic reform and opening in the late 1970s, China’s economic policy — and thus the basis for the overall development of the nation — has been based on a simple two-part framework. First, draw in as much foreign investment as possible and use the money and technology to strengthen China while using the subsequent economic leverage to secure China. And second, encourage growth for growth’s sake to ensure an ever-increasing flow of money through the system to provide employment and social services to a massive and urbanizing population.

Key to this policy has been creating a very open environment for foreign businesses, which bring money, technology and expertise and use their influence with their own governments to keep stable international relations with China — hence reducing international and economic frictions and increasing the efficiency of the supply chain. For more than two decades, Chinese national strategy has thus revolved around the principle of encouraging investment, joint ventures and wholly-owned foreign enterprises in China. There have been two foundations for this strategy: the evolution of financial facilities for transferring and controlling foreign money with a level of transparency nearing international standards, and the ease of movement of personnel in and out of China.

It is this latter point that recently has been hit the hardest. Over the past several months as the Beijing Olympics drew nearer, the Chinese government has effectively frozen up most financial reform plans. It also has issued a raft of new security measures not entirely unlike other host cities in the post 9/11 security environment. But China has gone several steps further than its predecessor hosts, placing official and bureaucratic impediments on visa applications. This not only has targeted potential “troublemaking” rights advocates, it has also impacted foreign businesses ranging from invited guests to the Olympic games to managers and employees of foreign companies in China.
Business and the New Visa Hassles

The visa restrictions in particular have been a source of angst for foreign businesses and business associations. Many smaller operations may circumvent Chinese regulations and travel on tourist visas (provided they can still obtain them). And there are ways around the tighter regulations or bureaucratic hurdles if one has the right connections or the willingness to apply several times or from different locations. But multinational corporations are less willing to jeopardize their operations by skirting the laws. Instead, they are making their concerns known to Beijing and hoping that restrictions are eased in September, as Beijing has rumored and hinted will occur.

In general, these visa restrictions have been brushed aside by foreign observers as simply paranoia on China’s part regarding protests or terrorist attacks during the Olympics. In many ways, however, this makes little sense. First and most obvious, the Olympics were supposed to highlight the opening of China — not restrict the very people who have made China a key part of the global economy. Second, imposing tight restrictions in Shanghai, the center of the Chinese foreign-domestic economic nexus, makes little sense on grounds of Olympic security since Shanghai is playing only a minor role in the games compared to Beijing and Qingdao. (Think shutting down visas to New York during the Atlanta games in the name of security, though Shanghai admittedly is hosting some soccer matches.)

Shutting down business visas to keep terrorists out makes little sense anyway — it is hard to imagine Uighur militants traveling on business visas as representatives of foreign multinationals. Furthermore, by restricting business visas — even if not across the board in a coherent fashion — China is putting a massive strain not only on the ability of businesses to trust Chinese regulations and business relations with the government, but also on the fluidity of the global supply chain. Shutting down or impeding visas affects much more than delaying the movement of a single individual into China; it impacts the ability of multinational corporations to move, replace or supplement managers and dealmakers in China. A delayed visa applications of just three months still represents an entire quarter that multinational corporations cannot reliably manage their businesses operations i n China, and that doesn’t take into account the visa backlog when restrictions are loosened or lifted.

Disrupting an integral part of the global economy for a full quarter because of an international exposition makes little sense. The Germans in 1936 didn’t do it, the Russians in 1980 didn’t — no one has. One doesn’t simply shut down international business transactions for three months or more to stop a terrorist — and particularly not China, which depends on foreign direct investment. This is not simply an inconvenience for some people: It is the imposition of friction on a part of the system that is supposed to be frictionless. And it is not merely individuals who are affected, but the relations between mammoth companies.
A Period of Erratic Policies

China’s behavior has been erratic for several months now, if not for the past few years, with the implementation of new and often contradictory security and economic policies. These have all been brushed aside as somehow related to preparation for the Olympics. But they are in fact anomalous. China’s behavior is not that of a country trying to show its best side for the international community, nor that of a nation simply concerned about potential terrorist or public relations threats to the Olympic games. In another two months, after the Olympics and Paralympics have ended, it will become clearer whether this was a spate of excessive paranoia or a reflection of a much more significant crisis facing the Chinese leadership — and the evidence increasingly points toward the latter.

As mentioned, China’s economic policies in the reform and opening era have been based on the idea of growth. This in many ways simply reflects the Asian economic model of maintaining cheap lending policies at home, subsidizing exports, flowing money through the system and focusing on revenue rather than profits. In essence, it is growth for the sake of growth. This was the policy of Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. And it led each of those countries to a final crisis point, striking Japan first in the early 1990s and the rest of the Asian tigers a few years later. But China managed to avoid each of the previous Asian economic crises points, as it was on the lagging end of growth and investment curves.

Following the Asian economic crisis, China fully recovered from the international stigma of Tiananmen Square and became the global economic darling. By the time the 21st century rolled around, China was already taking on the mantle of the Japanese and other Asians. It began to be labeled both an economic miracle and a rising power; a future challenge to U.S. economic dominance with all the political ramifications that brought. Were it not for 9/11, Washington would have squared off with Beijing to prevent the so-called China rise. The reprieve of international pressure that came when U.S. attention turned squarely toward Afghanistan and then Iraq freed China’s leaders from an external stress that could have brought about a very different set of economic and political decisions.

With the United States preoccupied, and no other major power really challenging China, Beijing shifted its attention to domestic issues, and its review quickly revealed the stresses to the system. These did not primarily come from “splittist” forces like the Tibetans or the Falun Gong, but rather from the economic policies that had brought China from the Third World to the center of the global economic system. Beijing is well-aware that should it continue with its current economic policies, it will face the same risk of crisis as Japan, South Korea and the rest of Asia. It is also aware that growing internal challenges — from the spread and invasiveness of corruption to geographic economic imbalances, from rising social unrest to massive dislocation of populations ̵ 2; are causing immediate problems.
Economics from Mao to Hu

Mao Zedong built a China designed to be self-sufficient and massively redundant. Every province, every city, every factory was supposed to be a self-contained unit, making the country capable of weathering nearly any military attack. Deng Xiaoping didn’t get rid of these redundancies when he opened the economy to foreign investment. Instead, he and his successors encouraged local officials to work to attract foreign investment and technology so as to raise China’s economic standard more rapidly. By the time Jiang Zemin was in power it had become clear that the regionally and locally driven economic policies threatened to throw China back into its old cycle of decentralization — and, ultimately, competing centers of power. Attempts by Jiang to correct this through the Go West program, for example, came to naught after meeting massive resistance in the wealthy c oastal provinces. The central government accordingly backed off, shifting its attention to reclaiming centralized authority over the military.

Hu Jintao has sought once again to try to address the problem of the concentration of economic power in China’s coastal provinces and cities through his Harmonious Society initiative. The idea is to redistribute wealth and economic power, regain central authority over the economy, and at the same time reduce redundancies and inefficiencies in the Chinese economy. With minimal external interference, Hu was able to test policies that by their very nature were going to sacrifice short-term social stability in the name of long-term economic stability. Growth was replaced by sustainability as the target; longer-term redistribution of economic growth engines would replace short-term employment and social stability.

This was a risky proposition, and one that met strong resistance in China. But the alternative was to sit back and wait for the inevitable economic crisis and the social repercussions thereto. In some ways, Hu was suggesting that China risk stability in the short term to preserve stability in the long run. But Hu didn’t anticipate the massive surge in global commodity prices, particularly of food and oil. This was compounded by increased international scrutiny over China’s human rights record ahead of the Olympics, natural disasters hitting at the availability and distribution of goods, a rise in domestic social unrest triggered by local government policies and economic corruption, several attempted and successful attacks against China’s transportation infrastructure, and the uprising in Tibet. Thus, the already-risky policies the central government was pursuing suddenly looked more destructive than constructive from the point of view of continued rule by the Communist Party of China (CPC).

The global economic slowdown was the external impetus China feared — something that could undermine the flow of capital and leave Beijing unable to control the outcome of a reduction in the inflow of capital. At the same time, the internal social tensions triggered both by Hu’s attempts to reshape the Chinese economy and by the slow pace of those changes created a crisis for the Chinese leadership. It was hard enough internally to control a measured economic slowdown to reshape the economic structure of China, but quite another thing altogether to have such a slowdown imposed on China from outside at the very moment social stability was in a critical state at home.
A Government in Crisis

China’s rapid and contradictory economic and security policies, rising social tensions, and seemingly counterproductive visa regulations appear to be signs of a government in crisis. They are the reactionary policies of a central leadership trying to preserve its authority, stabilize social stability and postpone an economic crisis. At the same time, we see signs that the local governments, and even organs of the central government, are putting up steady resistance to the announcements coming from Beijing. Slapping restrictions on foreign businessmen may make little sense from a broader business continuity sense, but if the point is to begin breaking the backs of the local governments — whose strength lies in their relations with foreign businesses — then the moves may make more sense.

If the central government has reached the point that it is willing to risk its international business role to rein in wayward local officials, however, then the Chinese leadership sees a major crisis looming or already under way. It is one thing to toss out a few local leaders and replace them, quite another to undermine the structure of the Chinese economy for the sake of regaining control over local officials. But if Chinese history since 1949 (and really quite a ways before) is any guide, the core of the CPC leadership is willing to sacrifice social and economic stability to preserve power. One need only look at the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution or the crackdown at Tiananmen Square for evidence of this. Revolution is not, after all, a dinner party, and maintaining CPC control is paramount to the government.

After each major revolution or crisis, China eventually has recovered. The Cultural Revolution was followed by diplomatic relations with the United States, Tiananmen Square was put aside as China joined the World Trade Organization and surged ahead in gross domestic product (GDP). Certainly, there was change among the leadership and in the way the party dealt with policies at home and abroad. But if there is the likelihood of loss of control due to an impending economic crisis, better to have some role in shaping the crisis to preserve the chance of maintaining a role in the future political structure than to sit by and try to clean up as things fall apart. The Party in fact has a long history of taking a self-generated crisis/revolution over an externally or domestically initiated one.

It may be that the contradictory policies Beijing is tossing around these days will simply fade away after September and things will get back to “normal.” But already, Chinese officials are downplaying the previously hyped political and economic benefits of the Olympic games. They are now warning that economic conditions may not be so strong in the future, and at least internally discussing the distinct possibility that at least certain regions of China are facing the same economic crises faced by their mentors Japan, South Korea and the Asian tigers.
Internal Crises vs. the Economy

A recent article in the Global Times, a paper that addresses myriad topics of domestic and international significance and is read among China’s leaders, discussed how economics is not the best measure of strength. It referred to the overall comparative GDP and the size of China’s military in the late 1800s. Then, China was considered at its weakest, but from an economic or military perspective it could have been considered comparable to the global powers of the day. This hints at the deeper internal debate in Beijing, where true national strength and the role of the economy is under discussion. Assumptions that China is only focused on continued good economic ties with the world shouldn’t be taken as gospel — China has a track record of shutting down external connections when internal crises brew.

Numerous polices are being thrown around in firefighting fashion, including blocking or at least hindering foreign business movement in and out of the country and tightening the flow of foreign capital in both directions. They are coming in reaction to flare-ups in economic, environmental, public relations and social arenas. Energy policies are making less sense, imbalances in supply and demand are growing and seemingly contradictory policies are being issued. Social unrest, or at least local media coverage of such unrest, seems to be increasing; either is a sign of weakening control. Local officials are still failing to fall in line with central government edicts. Strategic state enterprises like China National Petroleum Corp., China Petroleum & Chemical Corp. and the China Development Bank are all defyi ng state-council orders — and the State Council itself is apparently going head-to-head with major policy bodies long given control over economic policies.

Something extraordinary is happening in China. And while not everyone may want that to be the case, and so have sought to use the Olympics to explain things away, the easy explanation simply doesn’t make enough sense.

Tell Stratfor What You Think

This report may be forwarded or republished on your website with attribution to

Analysis: HAARP

HAARP refers to the High-Frequency Active Auroal Research Program and consists of a phased array transmitted which is pictured to the right. It is located at approximately 62.39N, 145.15W near the town of Gakona, Alaska.

The purpose of HAARP is to analyze the behavior of the ionosphere which is the part of the atmosphere that extends from approximately 70km up to as much as 1500km. In this area of the atmosphere approximately 0.1% is made up of ionized plasma created by the sun's natural ultraviolet radiation. The ionosphere itself is made up of three layers known, in increasing altitudes, as the D (70-110km), E (110km-250km), and F (250+ km) layers and whose position may be determined by how they interact with radio waves. The exact altitude of the layers changes naturally and constantly. While the "E" layer and part of the "F" layer reflect radio waves, the lowest level--the "D" layer--actually tends to absorb them. Since different parts of the ionosphere absorb or reflect radio waves it can and does have a direct effect on radio waves that passes through it, be it earth-to-earth radio or signals being transmitted to or from satellites.

The purpose of HAARP is to research, both passively as well as actively, the behavior of the ionosphere. This is done by transmitting a focused beam of radio frequency energy, at between 2.8 and 10MHz, directly at a point in the ionosphere between 100 and 350 km in altitude, basically within the "E" layer. The energy focused in this area of the ionosphere lets the HAARP facility monitor the behavior of that area of the ionosphere during the test.

It should be stated that although the facility's total transmitting power is 3.6 megawatts, only about 80% (2.8 megawatts) actually reaches the ionosphere due to antenna inefficiencies (Source).


The conspiracy theories related to HAARP pretty much run the entire spectrum of the imagination of conspiracy theorists. Many of the theories are summarized on sites such as this one.

* Earthquakes: Sites such as this one suggest that HAARP has the capability to cause earthquakes at practically any point on earth. As best I can tell, they suggest that HAARP modifies the ionosphere and, consequently, modifies the magnetosphere. The site above says "The magnetosphere is vital to the stability of the tectonic plates that float on the surface of the earth". However, I haven't found any site, other than similar conspiracy sites, that substantiates any connection between the magnetosphere and stability of tectonic plates. Fluctuations in the magnetosphere are associated with auroral activity, commonly known as the "Northern Lights." Given that the sun causes fluctuations in the magnetosphere constantly and causes significant fluctuations during solar storms, the lack of a link between solar activity and earthquakes further calls into question a link beteen the magnetosphere and plate tectonics. Lacking documentation of a connection between the magnetosphere and tectonic stability, a connection between HAARP and earthquakes is speculation not based on science.

* Missile Tracking: It seems that Jerry E. Smith has created a niche market writing conspiracy books about HAARP and suggesting that, while it was once a research facility, it is now a full-fledged missile tracking system. He believes that HAARP can aim its radio frequency beam at will (actually it can only aim straight up) and that it is in violation of several treaties. As far as I can tell--and I admit I haven't bought his book--there doesn't seem to be any evidence to support his claims and some of them seem to be in direct contradiction to reality. HAARP cannot be aimed anywhere but straight up. He also subscribes to the theory that HAARP effects the magnetosphere which effects plate tectonics. In fact, the site above (PropagandaMatrix) actually seems to have quoted Smith regarding the connection between the stability of plate tectonics and the magnetosphere. Where Smith got it, however, I haven't been able to determine. This man believes that patriots are fools and his main interest in HAARP seems to be in generating interest and paranoia to stoke sales of his book. His history includes writing poems, science fiction and fantasy, and in the 90's he started writing about AIDS, UFOs, and then HAARP. In fact, his first non-fiction work was "HAARP: Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy" and it would seem that the "non-fictional" status blurs the line between fiction and non-fiction.

* Missile Defense: The RadarMatrix site goes one step further than the missile tracking proposed by Jerry E. Smith. The webmaster of RadarMatrix suggests that HAARP is actually the Strategic Defense Initiative and is capable of destroying incoming missiles. There is simply nothing to support this claim and the suggestion that civilian scientists would be present and operating the HAARP facility were that it's real use seems rather improbable.

* Weather Control: Also promoted by RadarMatrix and other sites is the belief that HAARP can control the weather. This theory is also endorsed by Mr. Smith. In the case of RadarMatrix, this is tied into the radar anomalies observed at NEXRAD weather radar sites. Again, there is no evidence to support this. HAARP does its work in the 100km-350km altitude range within the E and F levels of the ionosphere while all weather occurs in the troposphere which only extends up to about 14-18km. I've seen no explanation by those that subscribe to the HAARP/Weather Control theory how it is that HAARP can control the weather when it is operating at an altitude at least 7 times higher than where weather occurs. Again, it seems there is no scientific or logical reason to believe a HAARP/Weather Control conspiracy.

* Mind Control: You probably knew it was coming, but there are those that believe that HAARP can actually offer some kind of mind control or "mood" control. Again, Jerry E. Smith is no stranger to this theory and his HAARP book discusses this, too. According to this site (and I have not verified the information), certain extremely low frequency (6-11 Hertz) waves can cause a person to feel good or depressed. Apparently those that believe in HAARP mind control have somehow come to believe that HAARP not only operates at these frequencies (rather than the 2,700,000 - 10,000,000 Hertz it is known to operate at), but that it can somehow do it remotely--i.e., somehow target the "mind control" to other areas of the earth from Alaska. Once again, it's not so much the evidence against this theory as it is the complete lack of any evidence to support it.

As you can see, you can pretty much pick whatever you want to believe HAARP is capable of and you'll probably find some conspiracy theory promotes that belief. People like Jerry Smith have pretty much decided to pick all of them. But what all these theories have in common is a lack of scientific basis or supporting evidence. They are all based on speculation and usually cite each other as sources for the information providing a very convenient "circular logic" that allows them to build the theories higher and higher while never providing any real evidence for any of it.


Sites such as this one suggest that they can detect when HAARP is active by listening to 3.39MHz. In this case, the site indicates that HAARP came on in a "standby mode at the highest daytime transmitter power." Ignoring for a moment the fact that "standby" and "highest transmitter power" seem to be direct contradictions, HAARP doesn't have a "standby" mode nor does it nor has it transmitted at 3.39MHz except for a HAARP-to-HAM radio test years ago. (Source). Sites that suggest that they can detect when HAARP is operating based on monitoring the 3.39MHz frequency seem to be barking up the wrong tree.


Something else that conspiracy theorists will point to are registered patents that have something to do with HAARP.

1. Patent 4,686,605
"Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere"

This patent is referred to as the key document.

However, this patent covers a technology whereby "excitation of electron cyclotron resonance is about 1 watt per cubic centimeter" while HAARP only achieves 3 microwatts per cm2--thus the patent specifies an energy 333,333 times greater than what HAARP is capable of. Further, the patent requires "excitation of electron cyclotron resonance is initially carried out within the ionosphere and is continued for a time sufficient to allow said region to rise above said ionosphere". In other words, it is the intent of this patent to actually move plasma from the ionosphere above the ionosphere. HAARP does not do this.

In short, the "evils" attributed to this patent (interference with satellites, aircraft, missiles, etc.) depends to a great extent in applying over 300,000 times as much power as HAARP is capable of applying. Considering that 3.6 Megawatts is needed by HAARP to achieve 3 microwatts per cm2, it would appear that the device described in the patent would require 300,000 times that: 1,080,000 megawatts which is 1.08 terawatts.

Let's put that in perspective.

If we compare that to the fact that the world currently consumes about 12 trillion watts (12 terawatts) we can conclude that the energy consumed by HAARP to achieve the power indicated by the patent would require approximately 8% of all the energy currently produced in the world. That's basically the same amount of power consumed by the countries of the United Kingdom, Mexico, Italy, Spain and Pakistan put together. (Source).

Alternatively, it's over 1/4th of all the power production capability of the United States.

Another way of looking at it is that the most powerful nuclear reactors in the U.S. are capable of producing about 1.1 megawatts of electricity each. So HAARP would need about 1000 nuclear plants to generate all the power it would need.

And they get all this power out of six 3600-HP diesel generators? (Source). Or where, in the picture to the right, do we see sufficient energy production capability?

2. Patent 5,068,669
"Power Beaming System"

Another patent that conspiracists point to is this one that is owned by the same company (APTI) that owns the previous patent. The suggestion, I guess, is that if they own a patent similar to HAARP and they also own this patent that relates to beaming energy from one place to another, that HAARP must be beaming energy.

However, the technology described in this patent is very different from that at HAARP.

1. This patent speaks of electromagnetic radiation produced at frequencies of 18-35 GHz while HAARP is only capable of operating between 2.8 and 10.0 MHz. The frequencies required by this patent are about 6000 times higher than that produced by HAARP.
2. This patent requires transmitting antennas on a "movable pedestal." HAARP simply does not have such a movable pedestal.
3. This patent speaks of a single antenna whereas HAARP has 180 individual antennas.
4. This patent speaks of transmitting relatively low amounts of power to an airborne object, such as a plane or satellite. Much of the patent talks about the fact that the device receiving the energy must transmit a "tracking signal" so that the system may beam the energy to the right place. HAARP does not have such a capability. Even if it did, this patent covers energy transmission to an airborne object, not ground-to-ground energy transmission nor does it provide a way for HAARP to "target" its energy to some specific point on earth.

There seems to be no relation between HAARP and this patent whatsoever.

3. Patent 5,041,834
"Artificial ionospheric mirror composed of a plasma layer which can be tilted"

This patent is very similar to the first one mentioned above in that it discussed an atmospheric ionospheric mirror (AIM). The only real difference is this one talks about how to create such an AIM that has an angle to it. That is, the first patent talks about an AIM created at a specific altitude while this one talks about how to create it with an angle. This would allow a radio wave to be bounced off it with more accuracy.

This patent does, in fact, talk about aiming a radio wave, but it should be noted that the work of the antennas themselves are always right above the installation. It can't create such an AIM somewhere else--only right above it. It is assumed that another antenna near the installation would then transmit a communication signal and bounce it off the ionospheric mirror and, thus, achieve communication over the curvature of the earth. But, still, the radio signal bounced off the AIM could only be bounced to points that are visible from wherever the ionospheric mirror is created. Even at 100-350km you couldn't reach the other side of the world to target earthquakes in Iran like some sites suggest.

In summary, they point to interesting patents but the patents themselves don't accurately describe HAARP. About the only thing they have in common is that they both modify, in some way, the ionosphere.


Many websites talk about HAARP and state erroneous information and, based on that, take them to their illogical conclusion. Some common inaccurate information is:

1. Power of HAARP in Billions of Watts. Sites such as this claim that HAARP is capable of transmitting a billion watts and eventually will be able to transmit 4.7 billion wants. In fact, the transmission power of HAARP is limited to 3.6 million watts, of which only 80% (2.8 million watts) is actually transmitted into the ionosphere due to antenna inefficiencies. Sites like the one just cited misstate the power of HAARP by over 3 orders of magnitude--that is, they're off by more than a factor of 1000. So far I haven't seen any of these sites provide any factual basis for their claims.

2. HAARP has Ground-Penetrating Capabilities. This site claims that in 1994 the Congress froze "funding on HAARP until planners increased emphasis on earth-penetrating uses for nuclear proliferation efforts." The only thing I've found that comes close to this claim is this document which reads (on page 728):

"Of the funds authorized in fiscal year of 1996, the conferees recommend that $1.5 million be available for the exploration of the "deep digger" concept for hard target characterization, and that $5.0 million be available for the high frequency active auroral research program (HAARP)."

While HAARP is mentioned in the same sentence as something that would appear to be "ground-penetrating" (i.e. the deep digger), reading the above excerpt causes me to think that the deep digger concept and HAARP are two separate issues. Certainly the only thing that remotely links them is that they're mentioned so close together, but the sentence structure doesn't appear to me to necessarily link the two.


HAARP almost definitely exists for its stated purpose. While it is not impossible that research conducted there may eventually yield information that is of military value, this is true of virtually any research in any field.

There doesn't seem to be any convincing evidence, however, that HAARP can cause earthquakes, control the weather, detect missiles, destroy missiles, or engage in mind control. These theories appear to be vague speculation from conspiracy theorists that cite each other as sources and, thus, build theories that have no factual basis.

Of course, it is always possible that information in the future could show that something clandestine is occurring at HAARP. But until such information or evidence is made available there is simply no basis in fact to believe any of the wild conspiracy theories as they relate to HAARP. It would seem much more probable that the theories are simply the result of active imaginations on the part of conspiracy theorists and/or the efforts of certain quacks to sell their books and DVDs on the topic.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

The Financial Tsunami—The Next Big Wave is Breaking

The Financial Tsunami—The Next Big Wave is Breaking

Fannie Mae Freddie Mac and US Mortgage Debt

By F. William Engdahl 15 July 2008

The announcement by US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson together with Federal Reserve chief Bernanke, that the US Government will bailout the two largest guarantors of housing mortgage debt—the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—far from calming financial markets, has confirmed what we have said repeatedly in this space: The Financial Tsunami which began in August 2007 in the relatively small “sub-prime” high risk US mortgage securitization market, far from being over, is only gathering momentum. As with the Tsunami which devastated Asia in wave after terrifying wave in December 2004, the financial Tsunami we are witnessing is a low-amplitude, long-wave phenomenon of trillions of dollars of financial securities being unwound, defaulted on, dumped on the market. But the scale of the latest wave to hit, the collapse of confidence in the two Government-Sponsored Entities, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, is a harbinger of worse to come in what will be the most devastating financial and economic catastrophe in United States history. The impact will be felt globally.

The Royal Bank of Scotland , one of the largest financial institutions in the EU has warned its clients “A very nasty period is soon to be upon us—be prepared.” They expect the S&P-500 index of US stocks, one of the broadest stock indices in Wall Street used by hedge funds, banks, pension funds could lose almost 23% by September as in their term, “all the chickens come home to roost” from the excesses of the US-led securitization revolution that took hold after the bubble burst and Greenspan lowered US interest rates to levels not sustained since the 1930’s Great Depression.

This all will be seen in history as the disastrous Alan Greenspan “Revolution in Finance,”—the experiment in Asset Backed Securitization, a mad attempt to bundle risk in loans, “securitize” them in new bonds, insure them via specialized insurers called “monoline” insurers (they only insured financial risks in bonds), rate them thereby via Moody’s and S&P as AAA, highest grade. All that was done so that pension funds and banks around the world would assume they were high quality debt paying even higher interest than safe US Government bonds.

Fed in Panic Mode

While he is getting praise in the financial media for his “innovative” and quick reactions to the un-raveling crisis, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke in reality is in a panic mode with little short of hyperinflationary tools at hand to deal with the crisis. Yet, his room to act is increasingly bound by the soaring asset price inflation in food and oil which is pushing consumer price inflation to new highs even by the doctored “core inflation” model of the Fed.

If Bernanke continues to act to provide unlimited liquidity to prevent a banking system collapse, he risks destroying the US corporate and Treasury bond market and with it the dollar. If Bernanke acts to save the heart of the US capital market—its bond market—by raising interest rates, its only anti-inflation weapon, it will only trigger the next even more devastating round in Tsunami shock waves.

The real significance of the Fannie Mae bailout

The US government passed the law creating Fannie Mae in 1938 during the Great Depression as part of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. It was intended to be a private entity but “government sponsored” that would enable Americans to finance buying of homes, as part of an economic recovery attempt. Freddie Mac was formed by Congress in 1970, to help revive the home loan market. Congress started the companies to promote home buying and their charters give the Treasury the authority to extend a $2.25 billion credit line.

The problems in the privately-owned Government “Sponsored” Entities or GSEs as they are technically known, is that Congress tried to fudge on whether they were subject to US Government guarantee in event of a financial crisis as the present. Before now, it always appeared a manageable problem.

No more.

The United States economy is in the early phase of its worst housing price collapse since the 1930’s. No end is in sight. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as private stock companies, have gone to excesses in leveraging their risk, most as many private banks did. The financial market bought the bonds of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because they bet that the two were “Too Big To Fail,” i.e. that in a crisis the Government, that is the US taxpayer, would be forced to step in and bail them out.

The two, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, either own or guarantee about half of the $12 trillion in outstanding US home mortgage loans, or about $6 trillion. To put that number into perspective, the entire 27 member states of the European Union in 2006 had an annual GDP of slightly more than $12 trillion, so $6 trillion would be half the GDP of the combined European Union economies, and almost three times the GDP of the Federal Republic of Germany.

In addition to their home mortgage loans, Fannie Mae has another $831 in outstanding corporate bonds and Freddie Mac has $644 billion in corporate bonds.

Freddie Mac owes $5.2 billion more than its assets today are worth meaning under current US “fair value” accounting rules, it is insolvent. Fair value of Fannie Mae assets has dropped 66% to $12 billion and may as well go negative next quarter. As the home prices continue to fall across America , and corporate bankruptcies spread, the size of the negative values of the two will explode.

On July 14, symbolically the anniversary of Bastille Day, US Treasury Secretary Paulson, former chairman of the powerful Wall Street investment bank Goldman Sachs, stood on the steps of the US Treasury building in Washington, a clear attempt to add psychological gravitas, and announced that the Bush Administration would submit a bill proposal to Congress to make taxpayer guarantee of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae explicit. In effect, in the present crisis it will mean nationalization of the $6 trillion agencies.

The bailout by Paulson was accompanied by a statement by Bernanke that the Fed stood ready to pump unlimited liquidity into the two companies.

The Federal Reserve is rapidly becoming the world’s largest financial garbage dump as for months it has agreed to accept banks’ Asset Backed Securities including sub-prime real estate bonds as collateral in return for US Treasury bond purchases. Now it agrees to add potentially $6 trillion in GSE real estate debt to that.

However, the disaster in the two private companies was obvious as far back as 2003 when grave accounting abuses in the two companies were made public. In 2003 then President of the St. Louis Federal Reserve, William Poole publicly called for the US Government to cut its implied guarantee of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae claiming then that the two lacked capital to weather severe financial crisis. Poole , whose warnings were dismissed by then Fed Chairman Greenspan, called repeatedly in 2006 and again in 2007 for Congress to repeal their charters and avoid the predictable taxpayer cost of a huge bailout

As financial investors warn the Paulson bailout is not a bailout of the US economy but a direct bailout of his Wall Street financial cronies. What until recently had been the largest bank in terms of loans outstanding, Citigroup in New York, has been forced to raise billions in capital from Sovereign Wealth Funds in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere to remain in business. In its May announcement, Citigroup’s new Chairman Vikram Pandit announced plans to reduce the bank’s $2.2 billion balance sheet of liabilities. However, he never mentioned an added $1.1 trillion in Citigroup “off balance sheet” liabilities which include some of the highest risk deals in the US real estate and securitization era it so strongly backed. The Financial Accounting Standards Board in Connecticut , the official body defining bank accounting rules is demanding tighter disclosure standards. Analysts fear Citigroup could face devastating new losses as a result with value of liabilities exceeding the bank’s $90 billion market value. In December 2006 prior to the onset of the Tsunami crisis, Citigroup had a market value of more than $270 billion.

Debt capitalism self-destructs

Debt capitalism self-destructs

By Henry C K Liu

In a period of less than a year, what had been described by US authorities as a temporary financial problem related to the bursting the housing bubble has turned into a fully fledged crisis at the very core of free-market capitalism.

A handful of analysts have been warning for years that the wholesale deregulation of financial markets and the wrong-headed privatization of the public sector during the past two decades would threaten the viability of free-market capitalism. Yet ideological neoliberal fixation remain firmly imbedded in US ruling circles, fertilized by irresistible campaign contributions from profiteers on Wall Street, methodically purging regulatory agencies of all who tried to maintain a sense of financial reality.

This ideology of "market knows best" has allowed the nation to slip into an unsustainable joyride on massive debt giddily assumed by all market participants, ranging from supposedly conservative banks, investment banks and other non-bank financial institutions, to industrial corporations, government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) and individuals.

The once-dynamic US economy has turned itself into a system in which it is difficult to find any institution, company or individual not over their head in speculative debt. Undercapitalized capitalism, also known as debt capitalism, has been the engine of growth for the US debt bubble in the last two decades. This debt capitalism cancer is caused by a failure of central banking.

In the face of a broad systemic collapse of debt capitalism, where capital has become dangerously inadequate and new capital hazardously and prohibitively scarce, having been crowded out by massive debt collateralized by overblown assets of declining value and with a credit crisis that clearly requires systemic restructuring and comprehensive intensive care, those in the US responsible for the financial well-being of the nation seem to have been reacting tactically from crisis to crisis with a script of adamant denial of obvious facts, symptoms and trends, with no signs of any coherent grand strategy or plan to save the cancerous system from structural self-destruction.

This band-aid short-term approach to artificially pop up share prices in the collapsing equity market and to maintain insolvent financial institutions with technical life-support will lead only to long-term disaster for the whole economy.

Yet this approach is preferred by those in authority, trapped in self deception about unregulated market capitalism being still fundamentally sound. They try to calm markets by asserting that the current turmoil is merely a minor liquidity bottleneck that can be handled by the central bank releasing more liquidity against the full face value of collaterals of declining worth.

The message is that somehow, if easy money in the form of debt is made endlessly available, the economy will recover from this credit crunch, notwithstanding that excessive debt has been the cause of the problem; or bad loans can be made good by Congress giving the US Treasury authority to buy up bad loans with unlimited amounts of taxpayer money.

Yet these incremental measures taken so far by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve make the two government units with direct responsibility on the nation's long-term financial health look like panicky rogue traders trading for the national account in desperate hope to score a win in the next quarter by upping the ante, to contain allegedly isolated crisis hot points. The aggregate effect adds up to a broad stealth nationalization of the insolvent financial sector. Their prescription for stabilizing a debt-destabilized market is more public debt to support corporation socialism.

For years, anyone warning that the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), namely Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, should be held to normal capitalization requirements was ridiculed as a fear monger by the powerful lobbying machines these GSEs employed. Capital is considered as superfluous in the new game of debt capitalism held up by complex circular hedging. As a result, the GSEs have become the monstrous tail that wags the dog of housing finance.

The current talk about the need to curb speculation in the commodities and financial markets to stabilize prices is off target, especially for believers of market capitalism. All market transactions are speculative in nature. Speculation can stabilize prices as well as to destabilize them, but only in the short term. Long-term price levels (inflation or deflation), as Milton Friedman aptly observed, are always monetary phenomena. The current turmoil in the financial system, the subprime mortgage implosion, the credit crisis from the seizure in the asset-backed commercial papers market, the undercapitalization of commercial and investment bank, the rating agency dysfunction, the insolvency of monocline (bond) insurers, the massive financial losses by the GSEs and a host of other financial problems percolating under the media radar, are the outcome, and not the cause, of this market turbulence. (See Perils of the debt-propelled economy, Asia Times Online, September 14, 2002 .)

Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, GSEs that have provided mortgage funds for the housing market since 1938, were created as part of the New Deal to help low-income families. They were privatized in 1968 on terms that would alter their social mandate and would inevitably lead them into financial trouble on a big scale. Finally but suddenly, these GSEs find themselves in danger of defaulting on their massive debts, upwards of US$5 trillion, in the course of a single week.

Deeply rooted in US political culture is the view that credit is a financial public utility, much like air and water, and should be equally accessible to all, not just to the rich. Economic democracy has been the core strength of US political democracy. Government loan guarantees for students and home mortgages for low- and moderate-income groups and loans to small business are based on this principle. Yet from time to time, this principle of economic democracy is overshadowed by free-market extremism to push the nation's economy into extended depressions.

The US National Housing Act was enacted on June 27, 1934 , as one of several economic recovery measures of the New Deal to get the nation out of the Great Depression. It provided for the establishment of a Federal Housing Administration (FHA). Title II of the Act provided for the insurance of home-mortgage loans made by private lenders, taking the disaggregated risk in lending to low-income borrowers off private lenders and managing the risk on a national scale with a government agency to take advantage of the law of large numbers, a theorem in probability that describes the long-term stability of a random variable. Title III of the Act provided for the chartering of national mortgage associations by the FHA administrator. These associations were to be independent corporations regulated by the administrator, and their chief purpose was to buy and sell the mortgages insured by the FHA under Title II.

Only one association was ever formed under this authority. On February 10, 1938 , this association, the National Mortgage Association of Washington, became a subsidiary of the Reconstruction Finance Corp, a government corporation. Its name was changed that same year to Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae). By amendments made in 1948, Title III of the US National Housing Act became a statutory charter for Fannie Mae.

Balloon payment barrier

Before the Great Depression, affording a home was difficult for most people in the US . At that time, a prospective homeowner had to make a down payment of 40% and pay the mortgage off in three to five years. Until the last payment, borrowers paid only interest on the loan. The entire principal was paid in one lump sum as the final "balloon" payment. Lenders could demand full payment of the outstanding loan at any time of the lender's choosing, often at time least advantageous to borrowers. This allowed lenders to use foreclosures as a means to take over desirable properties.

During the 1920s boom time in real estate, a rudimentary secondary mortgage market had come into being. The stock-market crash of 1929 ended the real-estate boom and forced many private guarantee companies into insolvency as home prices collapsed. As economic conditions worsened, more and more borrowers defaulted on mortgages because they couldn't come up with the money for the final balloon payment or to roll over their mortgage because of low market value of their homes.

To help lift the country out of the Great Depression, Congress created the FHA through the National Housing Act of 1934. The FHA's insurance program protected mortgage lenders from the risk of default on long-term, fixed-rate mortgages. Because this type of mortgage was unpopular with private lenders and investors, Congress in 1938 created Fannie Mae to refinance FHA-insured mortgages.

As soldiers came home from World War II, Congress passed the Serviceman's Readjustment Act of 1944, which gave the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) authority to guarantee veterans' loans with no down payment or insurance premium requirements. Many financial institutions considered this arrangement a more attractive investment than war bonds.

By revision of Title III in 1954, Fannie Mae was converted into a mixed-ownership corporation, its preferred stock to be held by the government and its common stock to be privately held. It was at this time that Section 312 was first enacted, giving Title III the short title of Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act.

By amendments made in 1968, the Federal National Mortgage Association was partitioned into two separate entities, one to be known as the Government National Mortgage Association (Ginnie Mae), the other to retain the name Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae). Ginnie Mae remained in the government, and Fannie Mae became privately owned by retiring the government-held stock. Ginnie Mae has operated as a wholly owned government association since the 1968 amendments. Fannie Mae, as a private company operating with private capital on a self-sustaining basis, expanded to buy mortgages beyond traditional government loan limits, reaching out to a broader income cross-section.

By the early '70s, inflation and interest rates rose drastically. Many investors drifted away from mortgages. Ginnie Mae eased economic tension by issuing its first mortgage-backed security (MBS) guarantee in 1970. Investors found these guaranteed MBSs highly attractive. Also in 1970, under the Emergency Home Finance Act, Congress chartered the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (Freddie Mac) to buy conventional mortgages from federally insured financial institutions. The legislation also authorized Fannie Mae to purchase conventional mortgages. Freddie Mac introduced its own MBS program in 1971.

Fannie and Freddie charters give these GSEs exemptions from state and local taxes, allow them relatively meager capital requirements, and provide them with an ability to borrow money at lowest possible rates to lend at near market rates. Over the years, this advantage has served not to lower home prices and mortgage payments to help low-income buyers but to enrich debt securitizers and brokers.

Aging credit line

Each agency now has a $2.25 billion credit line with the Treasury, set nearly 40 years ago by Congress at a time when Fannie had only about $15 billion in outstanding debt. It now has total debt of about $800 billion, while Freddie has about $740 billion. Today the two companies also hold or guarantee loans with face value of more than $5 trillion, about half the nation's mortgages. Market analysts estimate that the market value of this liability may be less than 50% unless the housing market recovers. In other words, the GSEs face a $3.5 trillion exposure to default if they cannot raise new funds in the credit market.

In the early 1980s, the US economy spiraled into deep recession. Interest rates were high while house prices while falling, remaining beyond the reach of many low- and moderate-income buyers because income growth stayed stagnant. The US economy faced a dual problem of income deficiency and money devaluation. In this poor housing market environment, Ginnie Mae, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac all created programs to handle adjustable-rate mortgages. The Ginnie Mae guaranty is backed by the full faith and credit of the United States . Today, Ginnie Mae guaranteed securities are one of the most widely held and traded MBSs in the world. Ginnie Mae has guaranteed more than $1.7 trillion in MBSs. Historically, 95% of all FHA and VA mortgages have been securitized through Ginnie Mae. Ginnie Mae is a guarantor, a surety. Ginnie Mae does not issue, sell, or buy MBSs, or purchase mortgage loans. Ginnie Mae is not in financial distress.

Fannie Mae is another story. Many of the innovative mortgage options introduced during the early 1980s to revive the weak housing market in a recession were exploited to fuel a housing bubble with excessive liquidity provided by the Federal Reserve, helping low- and middle-income buyer to buy homes their stagnant income could not afford. Fannie continues to operate under a congressional charter that directs it to channel its efforts into increasing the availability and affordability of home ownership for low-, moderate- and middle-income Americans. Yet Fannie Mae receives no government funding or backing, and it is one of the nation's largest taxpayers as well as one of the most consistently profitable corporations until now.

The company has evolved to become a shareholder-owned, privately managed corporation supporting the secondary market for conventional loans. Its congressional mandate of keeping homes affordable has since been largely forgotten in favor of an unprecedented boom in the housing market. Yet it continues to operate under a congressional charter that provides it with low-cost funds with only perfunctory oversight from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development and the US Treasury.

Fannie Mae has two primary lines of business: Portfolio investment, in which the company buys mortgages and mortgage-backed securities (MBSs) as investments, funding those purchases with debt, and credit guaranty, which involves guaranteeing for a fee the credit performance of single-family and multi-family loans.

Overseas debt holders

During the housing bubble which it essentially helped create with the Fed easy money, Fannie was highly profitable, with high returns for happy shareholders and lucrative compensation for its executives. Above all, it provided a continuous stream of income and profit for Wall Street and central banks around the world while US homeowners were led down a treachery path of eventual foreclosure. According to data from the Council on Foreign Relations, foreign central banks own $925 billion of debt in the two GSEs. China tops the list with $420 billion in Freddie and Fannie debt; Russia and Japan come in second with a combined $407 billion in GSE debt. Others countries that hold the debt include Singapore , Taiwan , and several cash-rich countries in the Persian Gulf .

Fannie's portfolio investment business includes mortgage loans purchased throughout the US from approved mortgage lending institutions. It also purchases MBSs, structured mortgage products and other assets in the open market. The corporation derives income from the difference between the yield on these investments and the low subsidized costs to fund the purchase of these investments, usually from issuing debt in the domestic and international markets. Fannie Mae has $3.46 trillion in MBSs outstanding today, held by a dispersed network of investors, including foreign central banks, topped by China 's.

The GSEs now only pay lip service to accomplishing its mission to provide products and services that increase the availability and the affordability of housing for low-, moderate- and middle-income buyers by operating in the secondary rather than the primary mortgage market.

Fannie Mae purchases mortgage loans from mortgage lenders such as mortgage companies, savings institutions, credit unions and commercial banks, thereby replenishing those institutions' supply of mortgage funds. It either packages these loans into MBSs, which it guarantees for full and timely payment of principal and interest, or purchases these loans for cash and retains the mortgages in its own portfolio. Yet Fannie's role in recent years has been to supply the housing bubble with excess liquidity released by a wayward central bank, by buying at a profit economically unsound mortgages that depended on a continuing spiral of rising home prices way beyond reasonable projection of home buyer income growth. It has turned the US from a nation of homeowners into a nation of foreclosed homes.

Fannie Mae is now one of the world's largest issuers of debt securities, the leader in the $14 trillion US home-mortgage market. Fannie Mae's debt obligations are treated as US agency securities in the marketplace, which is just below US Treasuries and above AAA corporate debt. This agency status is due in part to the creation and existence of the corporation pursuant to a federal law, the public mission that it allegedly serves, and the corporation's continuing ties to the US government through a weak oversight link. It benefits from an appearance, though not the essence, of being backed by sovereign credit that borders on outright fraud and protected by the doctrine of too big to fail.

Fannie Mae debt obligations receive favorable treatment from a regulatory perspective. Fannie Mae securities are "exempted securities" under laws administered by the US Securities and Exchange Commission to the same extent as US government obligations. Also, Fannie Mae debt qualifies for more liberal treatment than corporate debt under US federal statutes and regulations and, to a limited extent, foreign overseas statutes and regulations. Fund managers who buy GSE debt are protected from fiduciary challenges.

Some of these statutes and regulations make it possible for deposit-taking institutions to invest in Fannie Mae debt more liberally than in corporate debt and other mortgage-backed and asset-backed securities. Others enable certain institutions to invest in Fannie Mae debt on par with obligations of the United States and in unlimited amounts. Fannie Mae uses a variety of funding vehicles to provide investors with debt securities that meet their investment, trading, hedging, and financing objectives, not all of which serves the public interest. Fannie Mae is able to issue different debt structures at various points on the yield curve because of its large and consistent funding needs. As the Treasury retired 30-year bonds, these GSE agencies stepped in to fill the void in long term finance.

Ideology triumphant

The privatization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was an ideological move. It was financially unnecessary as sovereign credit could have funded the entire low-, moderate- and middle-income housing-mortgage needs with no profit siphoned off to private investors and brokers. These agency debt instruments played a crucial role in developing and sustaining the credit bubble in the US that is now coming home to roost.

In fact, the funding risk of both agencies was questioned, among many others, by the voice of free-market capitalism, the Wall Street Journal, on February 20, 2002 in an editorial about Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's safety, soundness and financial management, characterizing both agencies as risky, fast-growing companies that "look like poorly run hedge funds" … "unduly exposed to credit risk with large derivative positions", and that they "use all manner of derivatives" and "are exposed to unquantified counterparty risk on these positions". Such concerns would have been avoided if both agencies had been funded directly with government credit, and the cost of housing to low-, moderate- and middle-income Americans would have been lower. As it happens, the government is now faced with the prospect of having to bail out these GSEs with public funds.

The term "undercapitalization" for financial institutions is merely a sanitized euphemism for insolvency. The real source of the present market turbulence is more than just the waywardness of runaway GSEs sidetracked from their public purpose. It is another symptom of the failure of central banking. The world is now witnessing the slow but steady collapse of the central banking regime that came into being in the US in 1913, which has since failed to fulfill its mandate of managing the monetary system to maintain price stability and full employment. Dysfunctional monetary policies adopted by all central banks, led by the US Federal Reserve, have allowed the market to take capital out of free market capitalism to turn it into a gigantic Ponzi scheme.

In the 1990s, the original congressional intent for the GSEs was distorted from making homeownership affordable to low- and moderate-income families to a new role of supporting a housing bubble that enables families to buy homes at prices with mortgages their incomes cannot service. The profit from housing price appreciation went mostly to mortgage originators and banks that bought and sold MBSs to investors who also profited from buying debt with debt collateralized with the debt they bought. Capital suddenly became only a notional value in the market of debt derivatives. Homebuyers bought mortgages with no downpayment, banks and mortgage brokers sold the debt to securitizers who sold it to institutional investors who borrowed using the securities as collateral. The GSEs also became very profitable, leaving homeowners to default on their mortgages as the market turned on them. The whole transaction cycle did not require any capital.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, ranked Aaa by the world's leading credit-rating companies, are now being treated by derivatives traders as if they were rated five levels lower because the issuers are pitifully undercapitalized for the size of the debt they issue. Credit-default swaps tied to $1.45 trillion of debt sold by these two biggest allegedly US-backed mortgage finance companies are trading at levels that imply the bonds should be rated A2 by Moody's Investors Service. The price of contracts used to speculate on the creditworthiness of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and to protect against a default has doubled in the past two months.

Debt guarantee disregarded

Traders are disregarding the government's implied guarantee of GSE debt as credit losses grow and concern rises about the GSEs not having enough capital to weather the biggest housing slump since the Great Depression. Fannie Mae has lost 80% of market capitalization value in the first half of 2008 on the New York Stock Exchange; and Freddie Mac lost 70%. The two GSEs reported combined operating losses of more than $11 billion, and have raised more than $20 billion new capital since December 2007. After Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc released a report on June 7, 2008 , saying a new accounting rule may require the GSEs to raise another $75 billion in new capital, Freddie Mac shares dropped another 18% and Fannie Mae fell 16%.

Still, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), the regulator of these GSEs, declared them as adequately capitalized in regulatory terms. The companies' existing congressional charters give the Treasury the authority to buy as much as $2.25 billion in each of their securities in the event of possible default, against a total liability of over $5 trillion. The works out as an equity injection of less than half-a-cent on each dollar of liability.

Credit-default swaps tied to the senior debt of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have climbed 35 basis points to 70 basis points since May 1, 2008 . A basis point is 0.01 percentage point. The cost to protect the companies' subordinated debt from default rose at a faster rate. That debt is rated Aa2 by Moody's. Credit-default swaps on Fannie Mae's subordinated notes jumped 103 basis points to 190 basis points since May 1, while contracts on Freddie Mac's subordinated notes rose 102 basis points to 190 basis points.

The median credit-default swap on debt rated Aaa by Moody's was 26 basis points as of July 8. It was 76 basis points for debt rated A2, and 180 basis points for debt rated Baa3, the lowest investment-grade ranking. The costs likely reflect counterparty risk, or the risk that the bank or securities firm on the other end of the contract fails. For most companies, the counterparty risk embedded in credit-default swap costs would not be as pronounced because the risk of a default on the underlying debt would be greater than that of the bank backing the protection. In the case of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other companies with Aaa ratings, the default risk for lower-rated banks is greater.

Credit-default swaps are financial instruments based on bonds and loans that are used to speculate on a company's ability to repay debt. They pay the buyer face value in exchange for the underlying securities or the cash equivalent should a borrower fail to adhere to its debt agreements. A rise indicates deterioration in the perception of credit quality; a decline, the opposite. A basis point on a contract protecting $10 million of debt for five years is equivalent to $1,000 a year.

On January 11, 2006 , in Asia Times Online I wrote in Of debt, deflation and rotten apples:

In the US , where loan securitization is widespread, banks are tempted to push risky loans by passing on the long-term risk to non-bank investors through debt securitization. Credit-default swaps, a relatively novel form of derivative contract, allow investors to hedge against securitized mortgage pools. This type of contract, known as asset-back securities, has been limited to the corporate bond market, conventional home mortgages, and auto and credit-card loans. Last June [2005], a new standard contract began trading by hedge funds that bets on home-equity securities backed by adjustable-rate loans to sub-prime borrowers, not as a hedge strategy but as a profit center. When bearish trades are profitable, their bets can easily become self-fulfilling prophesies by kick-starting a downward vicious cycle.

The US charter and the GSEs' role in guaranteeing about 46% of the $12 trillion US mortgages outstanding led to expectations that the government would stand behind the agencies' debt. Standard & Poor's assigned the debt top ratings, citing the agencies' "explicit and implicit support" from the government.

Moral hazard effect

The bailout of Bear Stearns Cos arranged by the Federal Reserve in March signaled to the market that the government would not allow the GSEs to fail or default on their debts. It is clear evidence of the moral hazard effect on the financial market from bailing out one institution. With all the exposure that all banks and non-bank institutions and central banks have to Fannie and Freddie debt default, the ripple effect through the whole financial system would be unbelievable if they were allowed to fail. It was also clear evidence of the "too big to fail" doctrine.

The risk surrounding Fannie Mae was reflected in the GSE's latest sale of $3 billion of two-year benchmark notes at higher yields over benchmark rates than in previous offerings. The 3.25% notes, which mature August 12, 2010 , priced to yield 3.27%, or 74 basis points more than comparable US Treasuries. The company in June 2008 sold $4 billion of 3% notes maturing July 12, 2010, that priced to yield 3.036%, or 65 basis points more than Treasuries.

The government has been leaning on the GSEs to help revive the home mortgage market. Congress lifted growth restrictions on the companies, eased their capital requirements and allowed them to buy bigger, so-called jumbo mortgages, to spur demand for home loans as private lenders fled the market. The decision to use Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as part of a $300 billion housing stimulus plan strengthened perceptions of the government's support of the GSEs. Their share of new conforming mortgages, or loans of $417,000 or less, almost doubled to 81% in the first quarter of 2008, according to the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO), the regulator. It appears that the fire engines caught on fire on its way to the scene of the fire.

Merrill Lynch analyst Kenneth Bruce said in a report that the "highly levered financial institutions" would have pretax credit-related losses of $45 billion, suggesting that Fannie and Freddie are going to have to raise more capital, but the market does not think they are going to be able to raise capital when they need to at a cost they can live with. The New York Times reported on the night of July 13, 2008 (Sunday) that discussions among senior US government officials had heated up with respect to the US taking over Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae before markets opened in Asia. The structure being contemplated is a "conservatorship", which is permitted under a 1992 law and is one that would essentially wipe out the two GSEs' respective equity while allowing their loans to be managed.

Conservatorship is another fancy term of nationalization. The scheme allows the government to pretend the GSEs' liabilities are not its own even after it assumes them. A finding from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, the enterprises' regulator, that the GSEs are "critically undercapitalized" would be needed for conservatorship application. Up to now, the OFHEO has sent out the opposite message to the public. It will have to announce a 180-degree "correction" to shift quickly from "adequately capitalized" to "critically undercapitalized" for the government's proposal to work.

But unlike 1933 in the days of the New Deal when deficit financing was an operative option to revive the economy because the government was relatively free of debt, the US in 2008 is already deeply in debt, having operated with deficit financing in a boom time for more than two decades. Estimates suggest that for each 10% decline in Freddie/Fannie assets value, a loss of $150 billion would result, equivalent to the cost of the Iraq War to date. And Fannie has lost 80% of market capitalization and Freddie has lost 70% to date.

Soaring government obligations

By assuming the GSEs' combined $5 trillion in liabilities, the US government's total obligations would soar from $9.5 trillion to $14.5 trillion. This will raise the per capita national debt from $31,250 to $47,650. The added debt is one and a half times the Bush Administration proposed 2008 fiscal budget of $3.1 trillion. While the agencies own housing-related assets that roughly match their liabilities, the still-collapsing housing market makes their value uncertain. This will unavoidably force the dollar to fall and dollar interest rates to rise. Meanwhile, the turmoil is impeding or even paralyzing the GSEs in their crucial life-support role for the housing market.

An analyst's early July report from Lehman Brothers, an investment bank itself on the brink of collapse, provoked the market panic over the GSEs. Lehman, a major player in the mortgage-backed securities market, lost as much as 20% in intraday trading on talk that PIMCO, the world's largest bond trader, no longer was conducting business with the Wall Street firm. Then William Poole, a respected former chief of the St Louis Federal Reserve, now a private investment advisor since July 1, 2008 , observed that Fannie and Freddie were technically insolvent in the first quarter this year on a mark-to-market basis. Such information was not news - in a 2006 speech, Emil Henry, then a Treasury assistant secretary, likened a failure of one of the GSE companies to a "single gunshot setting off an avalanche" - and had no bearing on the GSEs' solvency in regulatory terms. Yet the new unsettling attention on two market leaders of overwhelming scale in an uncertain climate threw financial markets into a downward spin.

Fannie and Freddie were the original inventors of mortgage-backed security, a key cause of the housing bubble and its subsequent deflation. These GSEs received credit and recognition for ingenuity in unbundling risk and reselling mortgage-backed securities to buyers of varying risk appetite in the global market. It was the secret behind the US housing boom and the enabling idea behind the structured finance market. Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve chairman, praised it ceaselessly as an ingenious breakthrough that did much to widen home ownership. But the development weakened the mortgage originators' oversight of loan quality.

Greenspan accepted the risk as part of the natural phenomenon of "bad loans are made in good times". The backing of the GSEs enabled securitization of "ninja" mortgages (no income, no job or assets), loans that no one would buy if they were not guaranteed by the government. Thus the fault did not lie with mortgage originators, for they would not be able to issue shaky mortgages unless there was a market for them. GSEs' abuse of their alleged government guarantee had rendered market discipline inoperative, allowing the system to go on a wide joyride that was bound to crash of a cliff. Because of their complexity and broad distribution, when securitized debts default, restructuring is almost impossible. There is no effective fire break once the fire begins and quickly engulfs the whole market.

The sooner the need for a systemic restructure is acknowledged and acted upon, the better it would be for the long-term health of the economy, or the future of regulated market capitalism itself. However, hybrid solutions of quick fixes to paper over seismic financial faults are being proposed to enable the evasion of responsibility and for political advantage in an election year.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said on Friday, July 6 this year that the government would support the GSEs "in their current form as they carry out their important mission". On Sunday, the Treasury issued a statement indicating that its main focus was still on supporting Fannie and Freddie in their current form. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play a central role in our housing finance system and must continue to do so in their current form as shareholder-owned companies. Their support for the housing market is particularly important as we work through the current housing correction. GSE debt is held by financial institutions around the world. Its continued strength is important to maintaining confidence and stability in our financial system and our financial markets. Therefore we must take steps to address the current situation as we move to a stronger regulatory structure.

Regulatory reform while necessary cannot be backdated. There are $5 trillion of outstanding debt instruments written under

problematic regulatory oversight that need to be dealt with. Expressions of support for the "current form" that has proved wanting by a wide margin, a new line of credit to support bad loans and a proposed unlimited injection of capital by government that would surely face congressional opposition is a prescription to muddle through a major structural rupture.

Government support

The ability of the GSEs to raise new capital and credit from private sources is totally dependent on government support. Thus the plan to support these GSEs in distress will be much more costly if it must be done through private profit incentives. The outcome is likely to be a new contraction in the supply, and increase in the cost, of mortgage finance - further lessening the chances of an early recovery in the housing market and the wider economy. Private profit incentive overwhelming public interest got the GSEs in trouble. How can more private profit incentives be expected to get them out of trouble?

The Fed has announced that it will allow Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac to borrow from its discount widow, normal open only to commercial banks and since March 2008 open also to investment banks as part of the bail out of Bear Stearns. Under a three-part proposal by the Treasury, the Fed will also be given a consultative role in setting capital requirements and other regulatory standards for Fannie and Freddie, as part of an evolution to be the top regulator and overseer of the nation's financial system.

Former Fed chairman Paul Volcker expressed concern that by expanding its role of lender of last resort to institutions beside commercial banks that previously were not allowed to hold positions in equities, the Fed may have opened itself up to moral hazard dangers if large institutions believe their adventurous behavior will be bailed out by the Fed.

With the Fed, whose perspective tends to align with those of its member banks, taking over many of the regulatory powers of the Security Exchange Commission, whose mandate was originally to protect the interest of small investors, the public interest may face further diminished protection.

Yet the financial market has irreversibly changed with the emergence of structured finance in which loan securitization has taken loans that once had to stay in the balance sheets of issuing banks but are now securitized and sold by brokers to institutional investors worldwide. Default of a major broker default, such as Fannie and Freddie, will be as damaging as failure of a major money-center bank and cause catastrophic collapse of the credit market.

In 1968, then president Lyndon Johnson, as part of his Great Society program, turned Fannie into a shareholder-owned company as part of a national housing policy to make finance capitalism finance the nationalization of housing. It was the beginning of corporate market socialism in the name of populist economic democracy. The public could only benefit if corporate and financial institutional interests could profit first. And the public must pay if market capitalism fails systemically, absolving the losses of wayward corporations and financial institutions.

In 1970, the savings and loan industry, envying the huge profit made by commercial and investment banks from Fannie Mae, called for and received congressional approval for a GSE of their own and Congress created Freddie Mac. Like the Urban Renewal program of the 1950s, the GSEs served a coalition of interest that included liberals who wanted to help low-income households, real state developers that wanted guaranteed demand, home builders that wanted a guaranteed market, local politicians who wanted tax revenue from redevelopment, banks that wanted lucrative risk-free loan proceeds and congressmen who wanted campaign contributions from mortgage lenders.

Too good to be true

Low-income voters were first dazzled by the new homes they were able to acquire with no money down and with monthly payments financed with home equity loans as house prices rose. They acted like Pinocchio in a Pleasure Island - that would soon turn them into jackasses to be sold to work in salt mines. The financial institutions were comforting their pangs of conscience over taking loans off their balance sheets as soon as they made them by excusing themselves with the idea that they were making low-cost mortgage available to millions of homebuyers. Neoliberal economists were celebrating the US miracle of mass capitalism that does not need capital.

The program of passing unsustainable loans to faceless investors benefited also land speculators, home builders, real estate agents, investment bankers, structured financiers and household furnishers. Since the main thrust of the GSE program was to help low- and moderate-income homebuyers, opposition was considered undemocratic.

Yet everyone knows that the GSEs face an interest-rate risk in their long-term mortgages if interest rates should rise over the loan period. To protect itself from interest rate risks, the GSEs use derivatives to hedge against interest-rate risk.

The OFHEO was created by the House Banking Committee chaired by Texas populist Henry Gonzalez in 1992 with minimal power to regulate the two giant GSEs on the ground that GSEs were institutions intended to support the national policy of a nation of homeowners by making housing loans affordable and should be exempt from regulation regulating commercial institutions.

The problem of this good policy intention was that during the era of neoliberal ascendancy, the light regulatory environment was used to negate a more fundamental economic law: the need to increase worker income to match mortgage payments, subsidized or not.

The GSEs have been financially successful because they combine private sector appetite for profit with access to government-backed credit at below market rates. It was a way to nationalize housing through the free market capitalism. The problem was that financial manipulation cannot replace the need for adequate income growth. The mismatch of income with asset price is the definition of a financial bubble. People were buying homes with cheap credit at prices that their income could not afford. The more home prices rose due to cheap credit, the more homeowners fell into the debt trap.

Yet in all the current talk about finding ways to deal with the crisis, not one single voice is heard from official circles about the need to increase worker income. Instead, false hopes on one-time stimulant tax rebates are hailed as the magic bullet.

Suddenly this summer, Fannie and Freddie's relatively anemic capital supply is a serious concern for the market. In one week in July, Fannie's stock plummeted to $10.25, down 74% in 2008. Freddie's shares also dived, closing at $7.75, a loss of 77% this year.

Even as investors stampede out of these battered stocks, the sycophants of free market capitalism in Washington, led by Treasury Secretary Paulson and Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, rushed to reassure the market, pointing out that the mortgage giants' regulators had confirmed that the companies were "adequately capitalized", trying to give the impression that regulators had the problem firmly in hand and that no new capital was needed by the GSEs.

But these two leaders had lost much credibility since in August 2007 when they voiced a similar mantra that problems in the mortgage market were "contained" to subprime loans and would not spread beyond. SEC chairman Christopher Cox tried to calm investors by telling them that Bear Stearns passed financial muster only days before it required a Fed-engineered bail out by JP Morgan Chase with Fed loans.

More than capital adequacy is at risk. The credibility of the team with responsibility for the nation's monetary system and its financial market is heading for a meltdown. Unfortunately, credibility is much easier to lose than to regain. (See America 's Untested Management Team Asia Times Online, June 17, 2006 .)

Recurring anxiety

Anxiety about Fannie and Freddie's liabilities of more than $5 trillion getting too big for the funding authority of the Federal Reserve of a measly $2.5 billion credit line has been a recurring concern in many quarters in recent years. Even after both GSEs were found to be infested with accounting irregularities (Freddie Mac in 2003 and Fannie Mae in 2004), Congress failed to act, except to make the regulator require the GSEs to hold 30% more capital than the minimum previously required, in effect capping their ability to purchase mortgages when the housing bubble was approach its peak.

Still, Fannie and Freddie were allowed to pose as high-growth companies whose shares were safe enough for widows and orphans. GSE market share fell to 45% at the peak of the housing bubble. After the bubble burst, it rose to 68% in the first quarter of 2008.

After empty official assurances failed to convince the market because it was plain for all to see that the two GSEs' direct and guaranteed liabilities were almost 65 times their regulatory capital at the end of the first quarter of 2008, the near-term priority was to restore the rapidly fading confidence of buyers of Fannie's and Freddie's debt, many of whom are foreigners. By increasing the GSEs' credit line and pushing for authority to inject fresh equity if necessary, the Treasury's proposed plan appears to be aimed at allaying fears of widespread counterparty default and market failure. Freddie seemed to have no serious problem offloading $3 billion of new paper on Monday, July 14, although arm-twisting was rumored to have been needed to persuade banks to buy it.

The bigger problem for Washington is that merely stabilizing Fannie and Freddie is not enough. With US banks seriously distressed by the credit crisis, the GSEs, which hold or guarantee 22% of the $24.3 trillion outstanding debts borrowed by US households and the non-financial sector, are a major source of credit. Yet the market is clearly uncomfortable with the inability of the GSEs to maintain its over-bloated balance sheet. The options are either to shrink the balance sheet drastically, thus exacerbating the credit crisis, or to seek a massive injection of new capital, both requiring government action at an unprecedented scale.

Despite these ad hoc measures, which may or may not receive congressional approval, the whole world knows that credit capacity is shrinking drastically in the market. There are rumors that the US is pressing foreign central banks to acquire more GSE debt, but the market is inundated with fear of new crises before the housing market recovers. And the housing market is lying in a coma in intensive care with an oxygen tank of new credit running near empty.

As the housing market collapses, both GSE companies are reporting steep losses. But the subprime mortgage meltdown has also made the GSEs more important than ever in holding up the housing finance sector. Since the credit markets seized up, Fannie and Freddie have regained their central role in mortgage finance after losing significant market share to investment banks during the housing boom. They have issued the vast majority of mortgage securities sold in the last six months because investors have lost confidence in deals put together by big investment banks.

In February 2008, prodded by the Treasury, federal regulators announced they were easing some restrictions on lending by Fannie and Freddie. Then on March 19 the federal government announced that it was easing those restrictions in an effort to calm the turmoil afflicting the mortgage markets. Officials said the change could allow the two GSEs to invest $200 billion more in mortgages.

Alarmed by the sharply eroding market confidence in the nation's two GSEs, the largest mortgage finance companies, the Bush administration announced plans on Sunday, July 13 to ask Congress to approve a sweeping rescue package that would give officials the power to inject unlimited funds into the beleaguered companies through investments and loans.

In a separate announcement, the Federal Reserve said that at the request of the Treasury it would make one of its temporary short-term lending programs at the discount window available to the two GSEs, "to promote the availability of home mortgage credit during a period of stress in financial markets." The program for the GSEs would end when Congress approves the Treasury's proposed plan.

Treasury Secretary Paulson announced dramatically Sunday on the steps of the Treasury building: "The president has asked me to work with Congress to act on this plan immediately. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play a central role in our housing finance system and must continue to do so in their current form as shareholder-owned companies. Their support for the housing market is particularly important as we work through the current housing correction."

Paulson paradox

While officials in successive administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have for many years repeatedly denied that the trillions of dollars of debt Fannie and Freddie issued is guaranteed by the government, the Paulson package, if adopted, would bring the Treasury closer than ever to exposing taxpayers to potentially huge new liabilities. The two GSEs are expected to face significant new losses this year as the wave of housing foreclosures continues and rises. Paulson seemed to suggest that there is no choice but for the government to intervene. The proposed plan, requiring the Treasury to be giving authority by Congress to command unlimited funds to stabilize the GSEs, is predicated on the hope that the very availability of unlimited funds would make it unnecessary to use them. The investment and lending elements of the proposed plan are to last two years.

Over the weekend, Treasury officials sought assurances from Wall Street firms that the $3 billion auction on Monday by Freddie Mac of short-term debt would go off without a hitch. While $3 billion is a relatively small sum for an institution of Freddie's size, officials said they did not want to risk even a small misstep that could set off a new round of problems. Despite repeated assurances by top officials that the companies had adequate cash to weather the current financial storm, Fannie and Freddie had suffered a withering blow of confidence the week before. As a result, Freddie was faced with an uncertain debt offering on Monday. Should Fannie and Freddie fail, $5.3 trillion in mortgage debt would go unpaid. As it happened, the offering went smoothly but everyone knew it was not a normal market.

Freddie Mac continued to try to raise capital from private investors even after a government rescue plan it and its sister company Fannie Mae was announced the weekend before, indicating concern that the government plan may be delayed in Congress. On Friday, July 18, Freddie Mac cleared one of the last obstacles to raising new capital through a planned $5.5 billion stock offering when it received approval to register with US securities regulators. However, Freddie Mac's ability to attract much-needed capital from new and existing shareholders has been potentially lessened by the possibility of a future government stake that might place restrictions on the business. There is also little clarity with regard to where in the capital structure the government might invest, and how dilutive such a move would be to existing shareholders.

The government's rescue plan, which would allow the Treasury unlimited powers until the end of 2009 to increase its credit line to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and invest in their equity, met some strong vocal resistance in Congressional hearings during the week before July 18.

While many expect Congress to have no option except to approve the Paulson plan, a few skeptics were voicing their opposition in public hearings. Senator Jim Bunning, a Republican from Kentucky , described Paulson as "asking for a blank check ... for this unprecedented intervention in our free markets." He also vowed to try his best to stop a proposal that would give the Federal Reserve sweeping new powers aimed at protecting the nation's shaky financial system. Bunning said the Federal Reserve "can't be trusted with the power it already has". He says the Fed's policies in recent years have contributed to economic woes, including surging inflation, a declining dollar and the housing bust.

"When I picked up my newspaper yesterday, I thought I woke up in France . But no, it turns out socialism is alive and well in America . The Treasury Secretary is asking for a blank check to buy as much Fannie and Freddie debt or equity as he wants. The Fed's purchase of Bear Stearns' assets was amateur socialism compared to this," thundered the Republican Senator against his own party's Treasury secretary. In US political discourse, socialism is a dirty word, albeit what Paulson proposes is not anywhere near what socialism is commonly understood to be in the rest of the world, but a scheme to use public funds to save debt capitalism by frustrating the right to fail in market capitalism.

Predatory lending

Ron Paul, Republican congressman from Texas , told Bernanke that the Federal Reserve is a "predatory lender". But he did not mention that by law, predatory lenders forfeit any right of collection.

Lender liability is embodied in common and statutory law covering a broad spectrum of claims surrounding predatory lending. It is a key concept in environmental-cleanup litigation. If a lender knowingly lends to a borrower who is obviously unable to make reasonable beneficial gain from the use of the funds, or causes the borrower to assume responsibilities that are obviously beyond the borrower's capacity, the lender not only risks losing the loan without recourse but is also liable for the financial damage to the borrower caused by such loans. For example, if a bank lends to a trust client who is a minor, or someone who had no business experience, to start a risky business that resulted in the loss not only of the loan but of the client trust account, the bank may well be required by the court to make whole the client.

In the United States , although predatory lending is not defined by federal law, and various states define abusive lending differently, it usually involves practices that strip equity away from a homeowner, or equity from a company, or condemn the debtor into perpetual indenture. Predatory or abusive lending practices can include making a loan to a borrower without regard to the borrower's ability to repay, repeatedly refinancing a loan within a short period of time and charging high points and fees with each refinance, charging excessive rates and fees to a borrower who qualifies for lower rates and/or fees offered by the lender, or imposing new unjustifiably harsh terms for rolling over existing debt. Predation breaks the links between an economy's aggregate resource endowment and aggregate consumption and between the interpersonal distribution of endowments and the interpersonal distribution of consumption.

The choice by some to be predators decreases aggregate consumption, both because the predators' resources are wasted and because producers sacrifice production by allocating resources to guarding against predators. Much of welfare economics is based on the concept of pareto optimum, which asserts that resources are optimally distributed when an individual cannot move into a better position without putting someone else into a worse position. In an unjust global society, the pareto optimum will perpetuate injustice.

Now, there is a close parallel in most Third World debts and International Monetary Fund (IMF) rescue packages to the above predation examples, where sophisticated international bankers knowingly lend to dubious schemes in developing economies merely to get their fees and high interest, knowing that "countries don't go bankrupt", as Walter Wriston, former chairman of Citibank, once famously proclaimed.

The argument for Third World debt forgiveness contains large measures of lender liability and predatory lending. Debt securitization allows predatory bankers to pass the risk to global credit markets, socializing the potential damage after skimming off the privatized profits. The housing bubble has been created largely by predatory lending without any lender liability. The argument for forgiving Third World debt is applicable to low- and moderate-income home mortgage borrowers in the US as well. Let's hear some proactive commitments from the presumptive candidates of both political parties instead of empty populist campaign rhetoric.

Henry C K Liu is chairman of a New York-based private investment group. His website is at