So along comes Stein with a mea culpa for missing the recent stock market crash.  OK, so a lot of genuinely smart people didn’t think it was going to be as horrific as it turned out to be.  But Stein chalks it up to just one little misstep of the otherwise brilliant Paulson-Bernanke-Geithner team.  “I did not foresee the catastrophic mistake, as I view it, by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. to allow Lehman Brothers to fail,” Stein writes. “That failure left a gaping hole in the financial services industry, and blew away confidence that the Feds knew what they were doing.”

Actually, Stein is sort of onto something here.  At the time Lehman blew up, Paulson & Co. had already engineered the demise of Bear Stearns and the full government takeover of Fannie and Freddie.  Nothing appears to have happened to alter my hypothesis at the time of Lehman’s demise about why it was allowed to happen.  But looked at from the Paulson interventionist standpoint, it was a blunder of the first order.  Lehman’s downfall pretty well doomed AIG (NYSE:AIG) and put a host of money-market funds in grave danger.

At this stage, it was obvious to all that Paulson & Co. were pretty much making it up as they went along.  Stein writes, “After Lehman, I felt sure that the government would realize its mistake and issue blanket solvency guarantees to banks. But that didn’t happen, the stock market fell apart, credit went icy cold and the wheels started to come off the economy. This also took me by surprise.”

This smacks of disingenuousness, an after-the-fact conceit that, “If I’d been in charge, I’ve have known which levers and pulleys to manipulate to make everything just so.”  So what does Ben think ought to be done now?  Well, it has nothing to do with the free market he allegedly reveres.  “The need for the government to take action seemed so clear — and still seems so clear that I cannot believe a day passes without its happening. But the days pass, nothing happens, and I am proved wrong again. And I lose some of my life savings and it hurts.”

Yes, the government is now going to own a piece of insurance companies, just as they’ve moved to own a piece of banks — but government is “doing nothing” in Stein’s view.  It’s enough to leave you speechless.

But no, Stein has one more whopper to lay on us before bringing this column to its merciful end.

And, closer to home, a talented makeup artist who works with me almost daily in my TV appearances asked what happened to people in a recession. (She is young.) I said that fear and insomnia happened to most people but that a few million would actually lose their jobs and millions more would lose income.

“What do they do?” she asked, looking worried.

“They find other work or live off their savings,” I said. “They certainly cut back on their spending.”

“What if they don’t have any savings?” she asked. “I don’t have any savings,” she said. “No one I know except you has any savings.” She looked extremely worried.

This is perhaps the main lesson of this whole experience. It is basic but still unlearned: human beings must have savings. This is not just a good idea. It’s the difference between life and death, terror and calm. So start saving right now, and don’t stop until you die.

Ben, where the hell were you all these years when Alan Greenspan was — by his own admission to Jon Stewart — discouraging people from saving by slashing interest rates, thus encouraging them to speculate wildly, first on tech stocks, then on real estate?

The only redeeming thing about Stein’s column is a postscript in which he says a windfall profits tax on oil companies is a dumb idea.  Yes, it is, Ben.  But you and Kudlow and Cavuto and the rest of you shrieking jackasses don’t help make the case when you’ve been so stunningly, breathtakingly wrong about everything else when Greenspan and Bernanke and Bush were running this country off a freaking cliff.  So do us all a favor:  Just shut up.  SHUT UP!  Go away for a while.  Your “free market” patina is going to make it damn near impossible for genuine free-marketeers to state their case for the next couple of years, at least.  We’re left to cry, not unlike pathetic hardened communists confronted with the demise of the Soviet bloc, “But what’s been happening isn’t really a free market!”

Oh well.  If you can’t change any minds, at least you can take a step to recover from whatever whacking the market has recently dealt you.

Source: Ben Stein’s mea culpa

This from Money Morning:

The leaders of 20 of the world’s most developed nations, the G20, will convene in Washington D.C. on Nov. 15 for an emergency financial summit considered by many to be the 21st century version of the Bretton Woods initiative of 1944. This will be the first chance for European leaders – many of whom blame the current financial contagion on U.S. free market capitalism run – to press for an overhaul of a global financial system the United States has dominated for more than 60 years.

The summit will “seek agreement on principles of reform needed to avoid a repetition of the problems and assure global prosperity in the future,” U.S. President George W. Bush, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and French President Nicolas Sarkozy said in a joint statement.

However, Barroso was more explicit – and less diplomatic – earlier this week when he said that  “we need a new global financial order.”

President Sarkozy has also expressed his desire for a more dramatic remaking of the current financial system, which he says “has distanced itself from the most fundamental values of capitalism.” It was the French president who earlier this week pressed President Bush to call a summit of the G8 and include the developing nations of India and China.

Sarkozy, over the past week, outlined some of the broad principles of reform he hopes to achieve. Specifically he argued that “no bank that works with government money should be allowed to work with tax havens” such as the Cayman Islands. He also raised the issue of curbing executive pay.

“No financial institution should escape regulation,” the French president said, referring to hedge funds and private equity firms. And the world’s most prominent credit agencies – dominated by such U.S. institutions as Moody’s Corp. (MCO), Fitch Ratings Inc., and Standard & Poor’s – should have their role in the global credit market reduced after their “scandalous” behavior.

Sarkozy isn’t alone either. The European Union (EU) is also on board with tougher regulations on hedge funds, limits on executive pay, and new rules for credit rating agencies. And British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who has been instrumental in pushing for reform, has called for 30 cross-border “colleges of supervisors” to be established by the end of the year to monitor the activities of the world’s 30 biggest banks.

Indeed, the recent rash of criticism from leading politicians is indicative of the prevailing sentiment in Europe that the failure of U.S.-style free market capitalism is most to blame for the credit crisis that has put the world economy at risk of a recession. For Sarkozy, Brown and others, reform will not end with increased oversight of financial institutions but extend to the fabric of the global financial system, as well as the U.S. dominance that lies at its heart.

“Europe wants it. Europe demands it. Europe will get it,” Sarkozy said in reference to global financial reform last Saturday.

And while President Bush has insisted that the United States will seek to preserve the foundations of democratic capitalism – a commitment to free markets, free enterprise, and free trade,” Sarkozy has branded the lax regulation that has become the hallmark of the U.S. economic philosophy as a “betrayal of the spirit of capitalism.”

To Europe, the capital excess that is behind the global financial meltdown epitomizes the behavior of an America that has essentially squandered its role as the standard bearer of global finance.

“We cannot continue accepting the increasing deficit of the world power,” Sarkozy said. “Americans for three decades have been living over their limits.”

Bretton Woods – Then and Now

In 1944, the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference – a collection of 740 delegates from 44 Allied nations – convened in Bretton Woods, N.H. The goals were to prevent a repeat of the Great Depression and facilitate the reconstruction of Europe following World War II.

After three weeks of deliberation, delegates agreed to a number of principles that established the rules for commercial relations among the world’s major industrial states and served as the foundation for today’s financial system. To this day, that complex plan is known as the “Bretton Woods system of monetary management.”

The nations participating agreed to fix their exchange rates to the dollar. The dollar was, in turn, fixed to gold at a value of $35 per ounce of gold bullion.  The conference also led to the formation of the Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The Bretton Woods system met its demise in 1971 when U.S. President Richard M. Nixon severed the link between the dollar and gold. Most major world economies now float their currencies. However, such Bretton Woods institutions as the Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) live on in the form of the World Bank and the World Trade Organization (WTO), respectively. The IMF, meanwhile, is currently negotiating broad-based bailouts for Iceland, Ukraine, Hungary, and Pakistan.

And analysts aren’t confident that the upcoming round of dialogue will produce the “very large and very radical changes,” that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has called for and Sarkozy has seconded.

The original Bretton Woods conference took years of coordination and planning. It was also a three-week gathering of the world’s foremost economists, including John Maynard Keynes – not an impromptu political salon for world leaders to pontificate on the obvious shortcomings of the current financial system. And as the IMF’s continued intervention in many struggling world economies illustrates, many of the old Bretton Woods Institutions still have value.

“Things like this that produce real results for the world are planned years in advance,” Edwin M. Truman, who was an assistant secretary of the Treasury under U.S. President Bill Clinton, told The New York Times. “The notion that you’re going to have something come out of this in three months is probably naïve.”

The timing of the conference is also precarious, as it will come just 11 days after a new U.S. president is elected and just a few days before President Bush takes his last official trip abroad. The U.S. president will be joining an annual summit of Asian-Pacific leaders in Peru.

The meeting is being planned in such haste that the White House was not yet certain where it will actually be held. And with so many nations participating – not to mention a lame duck U.S. president – it unlikely the November summit will achieve anything substantive.

Still, there remains the hope that at least a framework of discussion – and perhaps even an outline for reform – can be established.

Instead the leaders who attend will be challenged to “agree on a common set of principles for reform,” White House Press Secretary Dana Perino told The Times. It will then be up to financial experts “to put meat on the bones when it comes to fleshing out the principles.”

Source: Will Calls for a “New Global Financial Order” Result in a Second Bretton Woods and the End of U.S. Dominance?