Bought the book, unpacked it and noticed the endorsement from Bill Clinton on the cover. "Oh no," I thought to myself. "A Clinton whitewash." Entertained thoughts of putting it up for sale, but in the end I decided what on earth, Blinder's worth reading.
And so it proved.
I've read the lot. From Kaletsky to Krugman, from Stiglitz to Shiller, and what they all have in common is an angle; an axe to grind. Blinder, you feel, has written this book as a mere starting point. He just wants to get the facts documented as they happened. And he's not out to cover his tracks either. He does not spare his former masters any punches. The Clinton administration's misdeeds could very easily have been shoved under the carpet, since that presidency ended a good seven-eight years before the crash, but there's mention of both the "well-publicised drives to increase homeownership -including by relatively low-income families" (p. 59) and of the Clinton Treasury having been on the wrong side on the regulation of financial derivatives (p.279).
Blinder has done his level best to produce an honest, meticulous account of the crisis. That is by far the strongest part of the book. He starts with seven causes of the crash. Most accounts concentrate on one or two, but he gives us a long, if prosaic, list:
1. the bubbles in housing and housing-related debt,
2. leverage,
3. lack of regulation, especially of shadow banking,
4. disgraceful practices in subprime lending,
5. complexity,
6. the poor incentive structure and inflated significance of rating agencies,
7. compensation-related incentives and Other People's Money.
As you can see, he keeps it simple and he keeps it all within the realms of finance. You won't find tirades about inequality, global imbalances, or the global glut of savings here. The case is built from lower-level, almost technical, stuff.
I was particularly impressed by a distinction he makes about the Fed. When it comes to the housing bubble, the way he puts it "the enemy is us." People fooled themselves into thinking they had discovered the financial wizard inside them and bought more house. To blame the Fed is probably disingenuous. Low Fed-administered rates, on the other hand, are blamed for the frenzy of housing-related debt that fed back (pun not intended) into the housing market. So the Fed can only be held accountable for what the author calls the "bond bubble" but not the housing bubble. I personally disagree a bit with the author on this. I think he underestimates the power of the feedback loop between more housing-related debt and housing prices going mad as the Wall Street / mortgage banking axis went ape, "sourcing" more "product." But it is a very legitimate distinction and one well worth making.
He then dives straight into a day-by-day account of the two most intense years of the crisis and how it unfolded. What institution got hurt when, how the authorities responded, what worked, what didn't, and all of it as if you were in the control room. You really feel like you were riding along with Bernanke, Paulson and Geithner as they battled the crisis. He also makes a very good distinction between the first part of the fight, which was all about bailing out Bear, Fannie and Freddie, Merrill, Lehman, AIG, Wachovia, WaMu, Citi and Bank of America, and the second part of the fight, where the authorities changed tack and concentrated on saving entire markets, rather than individual institutions: the money market, the CP market, the market for bank bonds etc. I'm convinced he correctly identifies this as the turning point where the "war was won" and depression was averted.
Very importantly, this book is ACCESSIBLE. The author explains everything in plain English. I think you can follow the whole thing without being an expert. With non-expert readers in mind, the author has tons of "boxes" interspersed through the book, that explain all sorts of financial concepts in plain English: "Leverage and Financial Returns," "What is a Derivative," "Insolvency vs. Illiquidity," "The Moral Hazard Debate," "Contagion and Financial Panics," "Signalling and Stigma," "Bid-Ask Spreads," "Keynesian Economics and Stimulus," "The Expectations Theory of the Yield Curve," "Quantitative Easing," "Proprietary Trading" and "Information and Free-Riding." I really really wish he had dedicated another box to explaining what the Fed does outside of a crisis and how we have substituted Federal obligations (backed by taxes on Americans) for gold at the heart of the monetary system and that all money used is printed. He often refers to this, and clearly he is at total peace with it, but he assumes his readership also understands this. Many people don't.
Regardless, the great thing about the first, dunno, 200 pages of the book is that it is a 100% honest account of how we got into and out of big trouble. I would recommend it with zero reservation to anybody who would like an objective historical overview of the crisis in plain English. The account is straight and plain, it has a beginning and an end, it's balanced and it never attempts to over-reach.
Sadly, it's a bit downhill from there. Not terribly downhill. But not as strong as the first half of the book, that's all.
For example, I loved the chapter about Dodd-Frank. It's really all there. You find out where it started, what's in it, how it got there and what's left open. There are extensive tables to help you track the reforms. I think I'll make a spreadsheet of that table and keep it on my computer so I can carry on keeping track for myself as we go on.
On the other hand, the book goes partisan at some stage. When it comes to discussing the Obama stimulus package, it goes almost into full-front attack on the Republican party. It's a crying shame. It means I can't recommend his book to my Republican friends and family. They will read the first 200 pages, which I find excellent and fair, and then they will read what the author has to say about the stimulus and they will (unjustifiably) doubt the first 200 pages. They will think I duped them into reading a Democrat pamphlet, and a 400-page pamphlet at that. Ach!
And it goes catty too. If anything, I find Blinder is far too careful (dare I say American?) in going out of his way to never doubt the guys in charge. He defers to Paulson's and Geithner's best judgement when it comes to their single-mindedness with reference to bailing out some institutions and people who had been on horrible behaviour (though he does decry that only one man, Lee Farkas, has been convicted of any crime relating to the crisis to this day) and he is not merely deferential to Bernanke (in a very strong chapter on "Unconventional Monetary Policy"), his prose amounts to grovelling. He thinks TARP is the best thing since sliced bread and chooses to not mention that some of its financial returns were funded by other parts of government. So be it. But in that context it is very dissonant to hear him repeatedly pan Larry Summers. If there is no room for backseat drivers, and that's very much the tone of the book, leave him alone. It is unthinkable to me that Summers broke more rules than Paulson, Geithner or Bernanke or that he was anywhere nearly as conflicted or involved, for that matter.
My conclusion about this book is that it's a fantastic guide to the crisis for the uninitiated. Not for me, though, because I've lived the crisis from my trading desk and because I've read tons about it. With five years' worth of hindsight, I was hoping for some synthesis after the exquisite analysis.
Blinder defines the problem narrowly enough to declare the response a triumph. He does not ask where we're left, other than to refer to issues everybody with a pulse knows about, like the future costs of Medicare and the need for both lower spending and higher taxes in the future, but lax fiscal policy now. If you watch CNBC for an hour somebody will mention all of that. Twice.
The only concession he makes is to call the foreclosure situation a "train wreck" and to admit that it should have been dealt with better. But, having discussed moral hazard extensively, he does not tell us if he thinks we're now awaiting the next moral-hazard-induced train wreck or if we're OK. Having started his book by stating the whole crisis was caused by letting Lehman go, he does not return to the topic to let us know if this was a rhetorical flourish or what he considers to be fact. He does not offer a view of where we'd be without Lehman, of whether it was one of many accidents waiting to happen or the one key we'd have to turn to avoid the crisis (which is a commonly held view of the establishment). He does not attempt to tell us if the 2008 victory was Pyrrhic or decisive.
Also, his perfunctory chapter on Europe should have been left out, it is not to the standard of the rest of the book.
Same goes for his ten commandments and seven recommendations. Blinder strongly commends Paulson / Geithner / Bernanke for their "laser-beam focus" on the narrow issue-at-hand. He should follow his own advice, decide where the economy needs to head and then go making recommendations for the future and focus them around this one core. Instead, he goes scattergun.
So I think what we have here is 200 pages of a five-star book that focuses on analysis, maybe even a six star book, followed by an honest but flawed three-star book that does not do a terribly good job of synthesis. I'm better off for having read it, though, and I have not found a better one.
Halfway through the book I was ready to say my search was over, that's what rankles...