global financial crash yay!

D

droid

Guest
...

Socialism for the Rich, Naked Capitalism for Everyone Else

For twenty-eight years, since the beginning of Ronald Reagan's first term, we have been subjected to a steady stream of Republican propaganda claiming that if we just got government out of the way and "off our backs," deregulate the economy, and let the market work its magic, prosperity would "trickle down" to the average American citizen. In the mid-1980s, corporate lobbyists descended on Washington, threw huge amounts of campaign cash around, and told us that deregulating the Savings and Loan industry would be a great idea. John McCain and his good friend Charles Keating from Arizona were big advocates of this scheme that turned out to be a disaster that cost taxpayers $500 billion. Phil Gramm, when he was Senator from Texas (and John McCain's choice for president in 1996), worked up another "deregulation" bill that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1999 that repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, thereby destroying a key firewall between commercial and investment banks.

We witness the same over-confident, smug market fundamentalists and laissez-faire devotees, businessmen and women who hate "government" when it provides aid to families with dependent children, or food stamps, or health coverage for poor people -- businessmen and women who denounce as creeping "Socialism" any attempt by the government to redistribute some of the nation's wealth to the working middle class or to the poor -- now come to Washington, hat in hand, begging the federal government to fix their self-created problems brought on by their own unbridled greed and recklessness and demanding massive infusions of tax-payer dollars in the form of bail out after bail out.

It's Socialism for the rich and laissez-faire capitalism for everybody else.

What Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and now American International Group Corporation have in common is that they all hired Washington lobbyists and lavished campaign donations on politicians to push through with no public support the radical deregulation of the financial sector. Then they proceeded to create entire new categories of "financial products," derivatives and the like, that amounted to nothing but a giant Ponzi scheme. And when it all collapsed due to their Wild West, shoot 'em up, freebooting, 19th Century-style rapacious business practices, they turn to the government for a hand out to keep the whole goddamned system from descending into another Great Depression.

For historians like myself, and for people like Kevin Phillips, William Greider, and other observers, this collapse of our financial sector was like watching a slow motion train wreck. The laissez-faire proponents for the past thirty years have perpetrated the biggest lie ever told to the American people. And George W. Bush, as with everything else, took this lie to its extreme. He gave the financial industry everything it wanted, and he appointed their lackeys and puppets to run the regulatory agencies that were set up in the wake of the Great Depression to avert exactly the kind of catastrophe that we're witnessing on Wall Street today.

George W. Bush spent the first months of his second term on a 60-city tour where he answered prefabricated questions in phony "town hall" meetings claiming that privatizing Social Security -- taking $1 trillion out of the trust fund and throwing it to his backers on Wall Street -- would be a great idea. And even though the Republicans ran the House of Representatives with Denny Hastert and Tom DeLay, and the Senate with Bill Frist, and the presidency, the American people did not fall for this legalized form of grand larceny. And it's a good thing they didn't. Had Bush been able to get his way and throw a third of the Social Security trust fund at these same damaged, greedy firms we would be witnessing with the current financial meltdown the demise of Social Security.

The libertarians like Ron Paul, Bob Barr and others tell us that the government should not bail out these Wall Street hucksters and gangsters and should let them go down and pay the price for their own mismanagement and bad investments. I agree philosophically with this point of view. But I don't think it's realistic unless one is willing to see the nation enter an economic collapse that would probably look a lot like what Japan and Argentina endured in the late 1990s only worse. The fact is these giant firms, with their billionaire owners and their army of pin-striped men driving Jaguars and flying in private jets to their summer homes to visit their mistresses, have a stranglehold on the nation. They are too big to fail because it would bring on another Great Depression.

Everybody knows that what is needed is exactly the opposite from what we've had for the past three decades. Instead of a government that is asleep at the switch and filled with cronies and hacks from the industries that are supposed to be subject to oversight, we need an activist state that rebuilds the firewalls between the commercial and investment banks; we need a "re-regulation" of the economy, especially key sectors that the entire nation depends on -- finance, energy, health care, food, etc. In short, what we need is a "New" New Deal in this country. We need an IRS and a Justice Department that can strike fear in the hearts of these captains of industry.

Ronald Reagan is often looked upon as the Republicans' Franklin Roosevelt. But Reagan sold the nation a bag of goods. We can finally see clearly the failed results of this three-decade experiment in laissez faire capitalism. It has nearly destroyed the middle class in this country, greatly widened the gap between the super rich and everybody else, destabilized vital sectors of our society, and made the United States a laughing stock abroad.

As a historian I always wondered what evidence of the free market utopia people like David Brooks (with his "ownership society") and the army of ideologues and market fundamentalists marching in lockstep out of the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute and Gover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, and all the other shills and hucksters who sold this tripe to a naive public like a greasy used car salesman selling a lemon -- I always wondered where is their laissez-faire utopia? Are they referring to what America looked like in 1880? A time with nearly zero federal government regulations? With no child labor laws, no limits on the hours worked, no weekend or paid overtime, no minimum wages, no workers' safety regulations, no Security and Exchange Commission, no Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, no worker pensions or Social Security, no right to form independent labor unions, and no vote for women. Is this their laissez faire utopia that deregulation was supposed to produce?

Today, we have the worst of both worlds. Government bailouts for the rich -- naked capitalism for everybody else. This whole mess could have been avoided if the generation that followed the New Deal had the common sense and decency to understand that you cannot turn over capitalism to the capitalists. Greedy individuals will always figure out clever new ways to make their own piles of money at the expense of their fellow citizens and at the expense of their nation's wellbeing. Whether it's the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980s or the Dot.Com bubble of the 1990s or the Enron collapse or the mortgage meltdown -- it's always the same old story. They pass on the wreckage to the taxpayer as they always do. It's time to put to rest once and for all the Big Lie that deregulation and privatization of government institutions will bring the nation anything other than calamity after calamity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/socialism-for-the-rich-na_b_127121.html
 

vimothy

yurp
Sure, sure -- regulation good, de-regulation bad. Thank God we've got men like Joseph Palermo to sort that out for us!

Does he discuss 'regulatory abitrage' (SIVs, etc)? No, no point making it complicated.

What about the role of 'easy money'? What about the fact that we have credit bubbles because we have (furthermore, want) a command and control monetary policy where central banks can shift interest rates to regulate changes in output? Nah, that kind of makes a mockery of the whole thesis.

What about the asymmetrical policy doctrine that holds that asset bubbles should be ignored on the way up and vigorously propped up on the way down? Listen, man, the problem is de-regulation, not government action!

What about the fact that the US is still ranked no. 1 on the WEF Financial Development Index and Report? No, no, because that might imply some sort of trade off between innovation and regulation, and as we now know, regulation good, four legs bad.

What about the fact that, in addition to wrecking the American dream, the Reagan economic boom lead the US out of the decade of slow growth that preceded it?

What about the fact that most of the arguments along the lines of Palermo's are just versions of the decades old generic conservative argument for heroic capitalism a la Andrew Mellon? Nah -- def. don't want to mention that...
 
D

droid

Guest
Hmm... I like that format:

What about the fact that free market policies are often forced onto developing economies (Russia/Brazil/Argentina) causing a huge amount of pain and transfer of wealth to the rich whilst at home they are ignored the moment trouble starts brewing?

What about the fact that real wages in the US rose every decade from 1830 to 1970 but have been declining ever since 1974 (even during your golden Reagan years)?

What about the historically high levels of the debt service portion of disposable income?

What about the massive perennial taxpayer investment in the defense industry which acts as a subsidy for Hi Tech companies?

What about the utter hypocrisy of a policy of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor?
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"What about the role of 'easy money'? What about the fact that we have credit bubbles because we have (furthermore, want) a command and control monetary policy where central banks can shift interest rates to regulate changes in output? Nah, that kind of makes a mockery of the whole thesis."
I don't think that anyone is denying that "easy money" has been a huge cause of the credit crunch but I don't see how that undermines the whole thesis (by which you mean the idea that companies should be more tightly regulated I guess).
 

john eden

male pale and stale
What about the utter hypocrisy of a policy of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor?

To be fair to Vimothy it seems he is completely against regulation, including the tax payer bailing out failing companies.

What I am not clear about is what happens if this policy is followed through. (As I am something of a simpleton when it comes to economics).

Depending on who you listen to this bailing out is either

a) Prudent, as it will help to stave off financial apocalypse
b) An ironic socialistic bit of solidarity, i.e. banks being nationalised
c) Like King Canute trying to stem the tide of inevitable financial apocalypse
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"What I am not clear about is what happens if this policy is followed through. (As I am something of a simpleton when it comes to economics)."
Yeah, same question here, or maybe the opposite question - if AIG was allowed to go under, what exactly would happen? How bad would it be? How do they measure this? How reliable are their models?
Presumably even Vimothy would accept that some theoretical level of damage would be bad enough to necessitate rescuing a company (right?) so it's surely a question of where on the "damage scale" the results of a given company's demise lie.
 

vimothy

yurp
Hey droid -- why don't you just ignore my responses and post a tangentally related set of complaints instead? Oh, wait a sec...

What about the fact that free market policies are often forced onto developing economies (Russia/Brazil/Argentina) causing a huge amount of pain and transfer of wealth to the rich whilst at home they are ignored the moment trouble starts brewing?

I'm not totally sure what you mean here. Free market policies are ignored the moment trouble starts brewing? There is an asymmetry between developed and countries by definition. The idea behind suggesting policies that might encourage development is presisely that. Therefore, development economists put forward policies that they think will work because they have worked here already or because they think they will encourage development along similar lines.

And of course, there are problems with reform that stem from the nature of the state being reformed rather than the ideolgy of developmentalists.

But I think the era of the so-called "Washington Consensus", like the era of command and control that it superceded, is pretty much over.

What about the fact that real wages in the US rose every decade from 1830 to 1970 but have been declining ever since 1974 (even during your golden Reagan years)?

What, so how come real wages were rising from 1830 to 1970? Must have been those high marginal tax rates and extensive government programmes, right?

What about the historically high levels of the debt service portion of disposable income?

Bad, yes.

What about the massive perennial taxpayer investment in the defense industry which acts as a subsidy for Hi Tech companies?

Also bad. What's your point, exactly -- that subsidising certain industries is unfair?

What about the utter hypocrisy of a policy of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor?

I'm not a fan of that either.

Now, what about addressing my actual responses to the argument Palermo put forward?
 

vimothy

yurp
I don't think that anyone is denying that "easy money" has been a huge cause of the credit crunch but I don't see how that undermines the whole thesis (by which you mean the idea that companies should be more tightly regulated I guess).

Because its not as simple as saying deregulation and Reagan are the reason that the financial system is collapsing. It's also because, 1, we have activist central banks who use monetary policy to regulate output (making booms boom-ier and the recessions shallower -- leading to credit bubbles) and 2, it's central bank policy to only try to affect asset bubbles after the fact.

This is straight-up Keynesianism, not the unfettered free-market. Which isn't to say that everything's gravy as far as free-market economics goes. I think it's certainly been found wanting recently, but lets not try to dress every problem in our favourite ideological outfit.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"Because its not as simple as saying deregulation and Reagan are the reason that the financial system is collapsing. It's also because, 1, we have activist central banks who use monetary policy to regulate output (making booms boom-ier and the recessions shallower -- leading to credit bubbles) and 2, it's central bank policy to only try to affect asset bubbles after the fact."
Well, it's not as simple as blaming it entirely on deregulation but couldn't it be that both deregulation and poor monetary policy have contributed to the recent problems? What I mean is that the fact of loose monetary policy does not automatically mean that regulation hasn't been too lax.
If you don't have a central bank or government to set interest rates what's the alternative? Do any countries use alternative systems?
 

vimothy

yurp
The heart of the matter

What I am not clear about is what happens if this policy is followed through. (As I am something of a simpleton when it comes to economics).

Depending on who you listen to this bailing out is either

a) Prudent, as it will help to stave off financial apocalypse
b) An ironic socialistic bit of solidarity, i.e. banks being nationalised
c) Like King Canute trying to stem the tide of inevitable financial apocalypse

No one really knows for sure and therein lies the problem...

Think of the Great Depression as the paradigmatic financial crisis. Following the Great Depression there were two responses that broadly (but certainly not identically) map onto the US conservative / liberal divide.

One story or reponse was what we might call "liquidationism", taking its name from Andrew Mellon, the treasury secretary at the time. He famously said,

Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people.​

That is, leave system alone so that the bad investments can fall and resources can be reallocated in profitable ways. This is a classical response to a problem that, according to some, classical economics doesn't predict and can't handle. Hoover got pretty pissed at Mellon in the end

The other notable response was from Keynes. Keynes thought that the idea that the economy 'ought' to go through a bust, as if it were somehow moral or earned or necessary, was pretty ridiculous. He said,

It seems an extraordinary imbecility that this wonderful outburst of productive energy [over 1924-1929] should be the prelude to impoverishment and depression. Some austere and puritanical souls regard it both as an inevitable and a desirable nemesis on so much overexpansion, as they call it; a nemesis on man's speculative spirit. It would, they feel, be a victory for the mammon of unrighteousness if so much prosperity was not subsequently balanced by universal bankruptcy. We need, they say, what they politely call a 'prolonged liquidation' to put us right. The liquidation, they tell us, is not yet complete. But in time it will be. And when sufficient time has elapsed for the completion of the liquidation, all will be well with us again.

I do not take this view. I find the explanation of the current business losses, of the reduction in output, and of the unemployment which necessarily ensues on this not in the high level of investment which was proceeding up to the spring of 1929, but in the subsequent cessation of this investment. I see no hope of a recovery except in a revival of the high level of investment. And I do not understand how universal bankruptcy can do any good or bring us nearer to prosperity...​

So the idea for Keynes was to intervene to make the shocks less shocking, because why the fuck not? Stupid to put people out of work for the glory of some 'heroic' economic ideal.
 
Last edited:

vimothy

yurp
Well, it's not as simple as blaming it entirely on deregulation but couldn't it be that both deregulation and poor monetary policy have contributed to the recent problems? What I mean is that the fact of loose monetary policy does not automatically mean that regulation hasn't been too lax.

I agree. That's what I was trying to say in para 2 of the post you responded to.

EDIT: In fact, I'm not even sure that "easy money" is such a bad idea. I guess it's a trade off -- financial instability for higher employment.
 

crackerjack

Well-known member
One story or reponse was what we might call "liquidationism", taking its name from Andrew Mellon, the treasury secretary at the time. He famously said,

Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate. It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up from less competent people.​

That is, leave system alone so that the bad investments can fall and resources can be reallocated in profitable ways. This is a classical response to a problem that, according to some, classical economics doesn't predict and can't handle. Hoover got pretty pissed at Mellon in the end

He did? Hard to imagine why, like there's something inhuman about wagging your finger while the people you're elected to serve starve.
 

vimothy

yurp
He did? Hard to imagine why, like there's something inhuman about wagging your finger while the people you're elected to serve starve.

Hoover hardly without fault (!) and Mellon was also the architect of the "wonderful outburst of productive energy" that Keynes praised.
 

swears

preppy-kei
Wasn't the problem with short selling that it was easier to benefit from insider information? It's easier to tell when your firm's going to shit than when it's going to do well in the future.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
"short selling banned now, at last...
jesus."
Like I said before I don't really see the sense in this. On the other hand should have the same controls as going long, if you sell twenty-five percent of a company you should have to declare that in just the same way as if you own the equivalent because you have the same amount of vested interest in its performance - although you don't have the same level of control of course.
 

IdleRich

IdleRich
Interesting statistic in today's Guardian:

"...figures from research house Dataexplorers.com show the amount of HBOS stock on loan - regarded as the best proxy measure for short selling - decreased on Tuesday, having remained almost flat on Monday. This suggests short-sellers were decreasing, not raising their bets - evidence that short-selling has not been a significant factor this week."
Though that doesn't take account of naked shorting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_short_selling
 
Top