Tyson and Hubbard, blithe technocrats

By Felix Salmon
October 12, 2010

Chrystia Freeland interviewed Laura Tyson and Glenn Hubbard here at Reuters this morning, and the whole thing was surprisingly friendly: the Davos-centric elite talking constructively about what ought to be done, and spending a lot of time agreeing with each other.

The whole interview took the classic form of a journalist asking experts what their opinion is about what should be done: here’s where the two sides agree, and here’s where they disagree. But from my point of view, all three of the people on camera are very much on one side of the much bigger, much more heated, and much more important debate — call it the technocrats versus the populists.

Laura Tyson, for instance, early on talked with an upturned nose about “the political atmosphere in the United States”. These people running for Congress, they oppose TARP, which we members of the elite all agreed was absolutely necessary. There’s “a poisonous atmosphere in terms of how one looks at the financial services industry or the business sector in general”. And she even uses the third person plural:

The population is furious with the leaders of government and the leaders of the business community, both the real business community, quote-unquote, and the financial markets, for getting us into this mess.  That’s how they see it.

Of course, that’s not how we see it. We don’t feel the need to make the distinction between the financial markets and the real business community. And the Obama administration — they’re good guys! They’re reaching out to the business community!

While Tyson looked out of touch, Hubbard was doing his best reasonable-Republican impression, agreeing frequently with what Tyson was saying while still pushing hard for the Bush tax cuts on the rich to be extended. Not to do so, he said, would constitute punishment of the rich, and we don’t want that. When Chrystia pushed him on that point, his mask slipped a bit:

But the bit we were all waiting for was for Chrystia to ask Tyson and Hubbard about Inside Job, the film where they both come off very badly. The film’s director, Charles Ferguson, contributed a pointed blog entry to Reuters about the two of them, saying that they “exemplify the disturbing, opaque conflicts of interest that pervade the economics discipline”. Certainly it’s odd that the two economists, whose entire profession is based upon the premise that incentives matter, should be so resistant to the idea that the millions of dollars they’ve earned from the financial-services industry might in any way color their actions or beliefs.

Chrystia put the question in the gentlest possible way, talking about

the idea that one of the things that created the financial crisis was that experts, policymakers, people like you, became too close to business, not because you’re bad, but because those are the people you hang out with, those are the people on whose boards you serve. And you started to see the interests of the collective — of the state, of the country — and the interests of business as being the same.

Ferguson’s thesis is much harsher, of course: he doesn’t just blame people like Tyson and Hubbard for the financial crisis; he blames these two individuals personally. (Among others.) And yes, he thinks that all that money has corrupted them, made them bad. Ferguson knew how Tyson would respond: “she has confined her remarks on the financial crisis to extremely vague statements about ‘greed,’ ‘human nature,’ etc.” he writes, and that’s exactly what she did, taking advantage of the way that Chrystia phrased the question to answer a theoretical question rather than a personal one.

But Hubbard’s response is more interesting:

I know in my own case, as somebody who’s advocated more regulation and a wholesale mortgage refinancing, I’m kind of a strange bedfellow with the financial services industry, if that’s Mr. Ferguson’s accusation.

Of course this is silly: insofar as Hubbard has advocated more regulation, he’s advocated exactly the kind of more regulation that the financial services industry would be perfectly happy with. And the financial services industry in general would love lots more mortgage refinancing, or any other kind of consumption of its services. Indeed, Pimco’s Bill Gross has been pushing that very idea quite loudly.

After watching the whole thing, I can’t imagine that it did Tyson any favors if she’s angling to replace Larry Summers at the NEC. She was good at talking about “the President’s policies” a lot, but she doesn’t represent the kind of change that the public is clamoring for — she’s happiest talking about economic theory in the abstract, and she’s much less good at relating it to the real lives of real Americans living on mere five-figure salaries. And, of course, there’s no indication at all that the public wants a board member of Morgan Stanley ($350,000 a year for turning up to a few board meetings) to replace Summers in the White House. We’ve had enough of bankers running the country, especially when they’re as out of touch as this, and when they refuse to answer hard questions from the likes of Charles Ferguson.

More From Felix Salmon
Post Felix
The Piketty pessimist
The most expensive lottery ticket in the world
The problems of HFT, Joe Stiglitz edition
Private equity math, Nuveen edition
Five explanations for Greece’s bond yield
Comments
4 comments so far

Gee, an anti-elites article from Felix Salmon. Didn’t he skewer the Davos crown last winter? That’s twice this year – wow.

Posted by Gotthardbahn | Report as abusive

Certainly it’s odd that the two economists, whose entire profession is based upon the premise that incentives matter, should be so resistant to the idea that the millions of dollars they’ve earned from the financial-services industry might in any way color their actions or beliefs.

Uh, certainly it NOT odd when it is obvious that their wealth is accumulated by toadying the official line.
I am a big believer in the free market, but it is obvious that the incentives of the managers of financial institutions and the share holders are not aligned. It is just silly to pretend that being paid in stock, when the price is fragrantly manipulated that managers are allowed to buy the stock at, constitutes any kind of real incentive other than to engage in short term risky behavior. Make money, get huge bonuses, lose money, get huge bonuses.

Posted by fresnodan | Report as abusive

Oh god, Felix has his “populist” hat on again. I guess he needs to do this occasionally to maintain his anti-big bank/elites credibility. That’s fine I guess, but just know that you’re not fooling anyone who actually knows what they’re talking about.

It’s telling that Felix mocks Tyson for saying “And the Obama administration — they’re good guys! They’re reaching out to the business community!” It’s telling because Tyson is right: the Obama administration has been doing the right thing policy-wise, and they have been reaching out to the business community.

And the public isn’t “clamoring for” change at the NEC. The public doesn’t even know what the NEC is, let alone who heads the NEC.

Oh and Charles Ferguson? Please. “Inside Job” was an utter hack-fest.

Posted by jhedges | Report as abusive

Bust ‘em Felix. I’m tired of Tyson, Hubbard, Summers, and all the rest of that generation of self-exculpating, leveraging-up enablers. They ought to be cashiered.

Put Austan Goolsbee into the game. His ideas couldn’t be any more ruinous than his predecessors.

As Helen Lovejoy often says: “Won’t somebody please think of the children?”

Posted by dedalus | Report as abusive
Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/