Forbes outlines reforms needed
CNN
Transcript
Forbes magazine is preparing an in-depth report on the global financial crisis. And for the first time in his 18 years as chief executive of Forbes and editor-in-chief of the magazine, Steve Forbes himself will be on the cover. I spoke to him a short time ago about the U.S. government's decision to use public money to rescue the banking system. I put it to him that many in America see that as socialism. Well, I think the government helped create this debacle through easy money. That goes against my free market principles. Franny and Freddie created by the government, that going against my free market principles. This mark to market is an absurdity that came out of the government. So having created the problem, it can darn well help solve the problem and create conditions, short term, should be short term, where you get the credit system back on its feet, have proper regulations, have some tax cuts, so the economies can get moving again, and we'll pull out of this thing. Now, there will be a conference in the next month or so on the future of the world financial system. Do you think that we need a new global architecture, new global financial architecture, or do you think that the reform can start closer to home? I think it's got to be both. After all, the idea of pumping in equity came out of the U.K. Our Treasury Department was a little slow on that one. But I think ultimately I would like to see, I think it's a new financial architecture, perhaps not what some people have in mind, but I think a recreation, a modernized version of the old Bretton Woods monetary system, which grew out of World War II, was destroyed in the early 1970s, can provide a basis for getting monetary stability, instead of the kind of chaos we've had for over 30 years. You started this interview with a lot of criticism of the Fed. The U.S. Federal Reserve is seen as, if you like, the foremost central bank around the world. It has to be. It guards the world's largest bank. It's the largest economy. Do you feel that the Fed itself needs to be reformed, that perhaps its guidelines need to be rewritten, it needs perhaps to start off on a different footing? I do. I think its responsibility should be downsized to two tasks. One is maintain a strong and stable dollar, which it manifestly has not done. And number two, deal with financial panics when they come along. If they get the dollar part right, financial panic should be a once in 50 year, a once in 100 year. Instead of the every few years we've had since the 1970s. Steve, you mentioned the word panic there, and that's a reminder that emotion plays a very large part in what's going on. I'm constantly reminded when I look at what's going on, of what John F. Kennedy said, we have nothing to fear but fear itself. How do you generate the right emotion, the emotion that will wipe away this dreadful lack of confidence, which is toxic to the whole system? Well, you start with fear. Well, you start by having a stable currency, so that people can have faith that they're not going to get whipsawed by massive currency changes. That's number one. Number two, continue to do sensible things like pump equity into banks again, so they become less fearful, they start to operate like banks again. Get rid of, in my country, and I think the Europeans are already doing it, this crazy mark-to-market stuff, which is gratuitously destroyed values, so that lending institutions don't feel they're going to suddenly find themselves wrecked or destroyed, even though their cash flows are positive. You start with those three things, and then the system can start working again, especially if you have an environment, cutting tax rates, where the animal spirits, as John Maynard Keynes liked to say, can come into play again. And now, after all, confidence follows real actions. When positive actions are done, confidence then starts to revive. So do the right things first, and confidence will follow suit.
Forbes weighs in on economy woes
CNN
Transcript
I think it begins with our own central bank, the Federal Reserve, which four years ago created excess liquidity, created excess money. That created global excess liquidity, started a commodities boom, and really destructively spilled over into the housing market where everyone figured, why not let lending standards come down? Because after all, housing prices always go up, don't they? So that started it. So there's a failure there, you would be prepared to admit, on the part of lenders. They were irresponsible, clearly. They picked up a ball that had been thrown there, if you like, by the Fed. But they were partly responsible as well. Well, the Fed created the conditions for the bubble, and everyone participated in it. It wasn't just the banks and mortgage lenders, new players in the game. Wall Street got involved too. You saw the same thing happen around the world, package these things, spread them all over the place, securitization. So it became a game changer. It was a global mania, a global bubble of a kind, sort of a global version of the tulip bulb mania. A lot of critics of markets would say that the problem is that there was a lot of greed in there. Everyone wanted to put their long snouts in the trough. And this was what went wrong. And in order to get around this problem, we should not be so greedy, and we should rein in the markets. What do you think? Well, human nature has not changed for thousands of years. The real question is, what were the conditions created to allow this thing to happen? One big one was the Federal Reserve. It had not had a weak dollar policy. The Bush administration had had a strong dollar policy. This never would have reached the proportions it did. We had two entities here, Freddie and Fannie. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac helped fuel this thing, underwrote a trillion dollars' worth of less-than-prime mortgages. And then when the bubble burst a little over a year ago, government continued to make mistakes, including this arcane accounting principle called mark-to-market, which ended up destroying banks and insurance companies that were still cash flow-possessing. So, the Fed is now a big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big, big