Tuesday, 21 September 2010

Dr. Rajan Fisks Krugman On Frannie Role in Crisis

Guest Post by Jeff Perren

Professor of finance at University of Chicago Raghumam Rajan, takes Paul Krugman to task over numerous errors relating to the origins of the financial crisis. Not least is his demonstration of the ways Fannie and Freddie, and the government policies that drove them, were relevant.

This gem, for example, is delicious since it shows Krugman's ongoing intellectual dishonesty, as his explanations shift.

Critics were quick to point out that Krugman had his facts wrong.

As Charles Calomiris and Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute (Wallison is also a member of the financial crisis inquiry commission) explained, “Here Krugman demonstrates confusion about the law (which did not prohibit subprime lending by the GSEs), misunderstands the regulatory regime under which they operated (which did not have the capacity to control their risk-taking), and mismeasures their actual subprime exposures (which he wrongly states were zero).” ... So, Krugman shifted his emphasis.

In his blog critique of a Financial Times op-ed I wrote in June 2010, Krugman no longer argued that Fannie and Freddie could not buy subprime mortgages. Instead, he emphasized the slightly falling share of Fannie and Freddie’s residential mortgage securitizations in the years 2004 to 2006 as the reason they were not responsible.

Here again he presents a misleading picture. Not only did Fannie and Freddie purchase whole subprime loans that were not securitized (and thus not counted in its share of securitizations), they also bought substantial amounts of private-label mortgage-backed securities issued by others. When taking these into account, Fannie and Freddie’s share of the subprime market financing did increase even in those years.

Rajan goes on to shred Krugman a half-dozen more ways from Sunday. The whole piece is well worth a read.

In the end, as the Grand Poobah says in The Mikado, it's nice to have my opinions confirmed by an expert.


  1. Jeff, that's an excellent article of yours, "A Brief History of the Financial Crisis " in your blog site. Government intervention/s again leads to the recent crisis.

    Krugman is an idiot. I doubt that he reads economic research papers these days, because he' just busy reading unsubstantiated online opinions which skewed his worldview. Keynesian/Stimulus is bad and he hasn't come to grip with that reality.

    Krugman is using his status as an economic Nobel Laureate to spread/spout his nonsense (via media commentaries) to idiots/drones who can't think (i.e., to both policy-makers and the uninformed in the general public).

    We have a local opposition MP here in NZ, named David Cunliffe who is a fan of Krugman. Cunliffe is a proponent of government economic stimulant.

    It's good to see other economists hit back at Krugman for his stupidity.

    I would throw Krugman to Bill O'Reilly of FOX News for a vigorous debate. I saw a youtube video of the 2 arguing, and O'Reilly nearly leapt across the table to punch Krugman and accusing him for misleading the public in making wrong predictions in the past.

  2. Here is the idiot Krugman on Youtube, praising Keynes General theory, which is now known to be a bullshit theory.

    Paul Krugman - Keynes' General Theory of Employment, Interest

    This confirms what I stated above. He doesn't read research papers since if he did, then he must have realised that Keynesian is bollocks.

  3. Thanks, FF.

    Frankly, I re-read it just today for the first time since I wrote it and was a little surprised at how well it's held up.

    On the other hand, I did research it pretty thoroughly beforehand, knowing any weakness would be mercilessly probed. I'm sure they're there, but so far no major attacks.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.