Stiglitz: TPP Is an Anti-Democratic Law For the Benefit of Corporations, Not a Trade Agreement

When you have corporations having a very short-sighted view, paying their CEOs such outrageous monies with less money spent on investment, of course you’re not going to make long-term investments that are going to result in long-term economic growth.

And at the same time, there’s going to be less money to pay for ordinary workers. And paying that low wages to ordinary workers, not giving them security, not giving them paid, you know, family leave, all that results in a less productive labor force.

So what we’ve done is we’ve actually undermined investments in people, investments in the corporation, all for the sake of increasing the income of the people at the very top. So there’s a really close link here between the growing inequality in our society and the weak economic performance.”

Joseph Stiglitz

Stiglitz tends to excuse Obama at some point and blames the Republicans, I think he is being naive at best, wrong-headedly kind perhaps to one of the worst betrayals of a public mandate for reform in American history.

Obama is, at the end of the day, a corporate brand, a clever vehicle to attract and divert reform-hungry Americans who are tired of being misused and lied to.  He has betrayed his supporters at every key turn and on every major political and social issue from financial reform to healthcare.

Jeff Sachs: The Pathological Environment on Wall Street (and in Washington, London, and Berlin)

"But there is a sort of  'Ok guys, you're mad, but how are you going to stop me' mentality at the top."

Robert Johnson, Audacious Oligarchy

Thanks to Bill Still for making this available on the web, and thanks to several people who sent it to me.

It is remarkably similar to something I wrote earlier today, but I am certainly not the only one.  Reform and the lack thereof is the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

Sachs certainly livened up a clubby conference of complacent financerati in the Pennsylvania Room at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. The topic is "Fixing the Banking System for Good."  It is not so much what Jeff Sachs said alone, but also how out of touch with reality that group of people may be.

I find this interesting because just today Mary Jo White, the new head of the SEC, has indicated that their policy would be to 'move along' and not look at the financial crisis any longer.

This will continue until there is a problem too large to hide, and the confidence breaks. And then good luck controlling the reaction in the global markets. 

But for now they don't care, because they are operating within hermetically sealed capsules of personal privilege, and are locked into an odd form of group think and willful denial which I call the credibility trap.   In times of general deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. 

And it is killing the economic recovery. 

And for now, anyone who speaks out, who speaks the truth, is ignored, ridiculed, marginalized, and threatened sometimes subtly and sometimes not, and generally isolated because no one will stand up with them. 

Neither austerity or stimulus will work until there is genuine reform. 

Don't forget that the CBC's documentary on the precious metals market is on this evening.  I will post a link with the commentary later, and will link to a video when it becomes available.

There is a strong push for change, and an even greater resistance from those whose paychecks and allegiances require them to oppose it.  This generally makes for an interesting episode in history.

Listen to this carefully. 

Thank you to Janet Tavakoli for this:

"I believe we have a crisis of values that is extremely deep, because the regulations and the legal structured need reform. But I meet a lot of these people on Wall Street on a regular basis right now. I'm going to put it very bluntly. I regard the moral environment as pathological. And I'm talking about the human interactions that I have. I've not seen anything like this, not felt it so palpably.

These people are out to make billions of dollars and nothing should stop them from that. They have no responsibility to pay taxes, they have no responsibility to their clients, they have no responsibility to people... counterparties in transactions. They are tough, greedy, aggressive, and feel absolutely out of control, in a quite literal sense. And they have gamed the system to a remarkable extent and they have a docile president, a docile White House and a docile regulatory system that absolutely can't find its voice. It's terrified of these companies.

If you look at the campaign contributions, which I happened to do yesterday for another purpose, the financial markets are the number one campaign contributors in the U.S. system now. We have a corrupt politics to the core, I'm afraid to say... both parties are up to their necks in this.

... But what it's led to is this sense of impunity that is really stunning and you feel it on the individual level right now. And it's very very unhealthy, I have waited for four years... five years now to see one figure on Wall Street speak in a moral language. And I've have not seen it once. And that is shocking to me. And if they won't, I've waited for a judge, for our president, for somebody, and it hasn't happened. And by the way it's not gonna happen any time soon, it seems.

The Bi-Partisan Criminogenic Fraudulent JOBS Bill

When the Republicans and the Democrats agree wholeheartedly about something these days hold on to your wallets.

Chris Hayes needs to cut down on his caffeine intake a bit, otherwise an excellent discussion. And of course please ignore any obnoxious commercial that precedes it.

I wanted to highlight this because it is Obama's bill. If and when it enables a new round of financial fraud his apologists may attempt to disown it.

But it originated in his Whitehouse and he will put his signature to it before it comes to law.

To say that Obama chose his economic advisors badly is an understatement.

CFTC Commissioner O'Malia Warns of 'Rash Reforms' - "Isolated Incident" - Opposes Position Limits

The CFTC must make haste to prove to the public that MF Global was an isolated incident. It should not become involved in the issues of returning customer funds.

Oh, such wiles are hidden in the voice of reason and 'free market' ideology. Let's not be hasty. After all, it is only customer money, and we are just the regulators responsible for making sure it didn't happen in the first place.

Commissioner O'Malia has also actively opposed 'position limits' on silver and other reforms in commodity trading designed to curtail manipulation.

"O'Malia said the agency had overreached its mandate and echoed the industry's argument that there was no "empirical evidence" to substantiate the rule."

In his opening statement on position limits he said:

"...in addition to failing to detail costs, the two final rulemakings fail to articulate a convincing rationale for eliminating our current regime of principles-based regulation and substituting in its stead a prescriptive “government-knows-best” regime."

Principles based regulation. Unfortunately the principles are being written and administered by the brokerage firm of Dewey, Cheatum and Howe & Assoc.

Let's make haste to show this is an 'isolated incident.' How about making some haste to get the customers' money back, and telling us who took the money and what they are charged with?

How can this possibly be an 'isolated incident?' There's a fine line between an isolated incident and just another episode in a multi-year financial gang bang of the American public by Wall Street's monied interests.

Commissioner O'Malia was appointed by Barack Obama in 2009 according to Huffington Post: Scott O'Malia: Obama Appoints Ex-Lobbyist For Enron-Like Company To Top Regulator Position

Obama's failure to fulfill his electoral mandate, for whatever reasons, is one of the greatest flops since Plan 9 From Outer Space.

Credibility trap. Regulatory capture. Corporate "News." Judas goat reformers.

I fear the truth, and financial reform, will be led down a blind alley, and strangled. The best I can hope for is that the customers' money will be returned out of shame and fear, if not justice and wisdom.

CFTC Chairman Gensler is apparently asking for a December 5 vote to restrict the manner in which brokerages can use customer funds. Hence Commissioner O'Malia's warning on making changes to the status quo, and the new threat from the Congress to pass deep cuts in CFTC funding.

And next year the American public will be given Morton's fork opportunity to choose between two flavors of corporate extrusion, Tweedleflip and Tweedleflop. And so they will hold their noses, and most likely cast their joyless votes.

CFTC official warns about rash reforms post-MF Global
By Christopher Doering
Wed Nov 16, 2011 10:46am EST

WASHINGTON, Nov 16 (Reuters) - A U.S. futures regulator on Wednesday pushed for immediate action in the wake of collapsed brokerage MF Global, including a requirement that all intermediaries should hire an independent party to make sure customers funds are kept separate from the firm's own money.

Scott O'Malia, a Republican commissioner at the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, said in order to show the public that segregation works and that MF Global was an isolated incident, it must act quickly.

However, he warned about going too far with reforms without full knowledge of what happened at the failed brokerage.

"Many have said that the failure of MF Global was not systemic and that we are lucky. I don't view it in the same light," O' Malia said in a statement laying out the "next
steps" in dealing with the mess MF Global left behind.

MF Global filed for bankruptcy on Oct. 31 after investors and counterparties balked at revelations about the firm's bets on risky European sovereign debt.

Roughly $600 million is missing in customer accounts of the company's brokerage, and the CFTC is among the authorities investigating whether MF Global may have improperly mixed that money with its own funds.

O'Malia said the CFTC must ensure that all intermediaries are in compliance with segregation requirements. The agency also must reconsider rules it is crafting to implement the Dodd-Frank financial reform law.

In the three-page statement, O'Malia said it's too early to hail a proposal that would limit investments of segregated customer funds "as the solution to the MF Global problem."

He also warned against a plan that would have the CFTC intervene in insolvency proceedings to facilitate transfer of customer positions and collateral in the face of a shortfall.  "The Commission has not actively intervened in such a manner in MF Global, and so it is questionable whether the Commission would so intervene in the future," O'Malia said.

In light of MF Global's demise, O'Malia said the CFTC should ensure that clearing organizations are able to diversify their membership without introducing risk.

David Rosenberg: Herbert Hoover Obama

I receive an automatic email from Dave Rosenberg of Canadian firm Gluskin Sheff every morning. He is always informed and clever, but occasionally he just makes my day. You can receive his e-letter by registering here.

HERBERT OBAMA?

A long-standing colleague and reader sent this off to me yesterday and it blew
me away. Read on:

Obama’s State of the Union:

“Two years after the worst recession most of us have ever known, the stock market has come roaring back. Corporate profits are up. The economy is growing again.”

Herbert Hoover, May 1st 1930, US Chamber of Commerce Meeting:

“While the crash only took place six months ago, I am convinced we have now passed the worst and with continued unity of effort we shall rapidly recover.”

Obama’s State of the Union:

“Thanks to the tax cuts we passed, Americans’ paychecks are a little bigger today. Every business can write off the full cost of the new investments they make this year. These steps, taken by Democrats and Republicans, will grow the economy and add to the more than one million private sector jobs created last
year.”

Herbert Hoover, October 22, 1932, campaign speech in Detroit:

“It can be demonstrated that the tide has turned and that the gigantic forces of depression are today in retreat. Our measures and policies have demonstrated their effectiveness. They have preserved the American people from certain chaos. They have preserved a final fortress of stability in the world.”

Obama’s State of the Union:

“But now that the worst of the recession is over...”

Herbert Hoover, June 1930, to a delegation requesting a public works project:

“Gentlemen, you have come sixty days too late. The depression is over.”

Obama’s State of the Union:

“The steps we’ve taken over the last two years may have broken the back of this recession…”

Herbert Hoover, State of the Union, December 6, 1932:

“The unprecedented emergency measures enacted and policies adopted undoubtedly saved the country from economic disaster…”

As I mentioned the other day, the only difference I can find between Hoover and Obama is that Herbert Hoover, the Great Engineer, had many impressive accomplishments in the private sector before becoming President. And he still screwed it up. lol. Even Sir Isaac Newton, who could develop a calculus to take the measure of the universe and plot the orbits of the planets, could not plumb the depths and mysteries of a massive financial fraud. I think the strength of such frauds is their incredible size supported only by deceptive simplicity. The scientific mind boggles at such brazen rapacity.

A New Lawsuit Against JPM and HSBC for Silver Manipulation With An Interesting ETF Twist

This lawsuit specifically cites JPM and HSBC as custodians of the largest silver ETFs, SLV and SIVR, and how they used that market positioning to manipulate their knowledge and market positioning as custodians of these funds to manipulate the silver price to their benefit.

The goal of this lawsuit is to move to the discovery process, and to attach itself to the ongoing CFTC and DOJ investigations into the silver market. It will be very interesting to watch this drama unfold over the coming months.

It is always worrisome when the 'house' sits down at the same table as the players and bets against them. It ought to never be permitted except in the course of making a market in limited circumstances, because as the lawsuit also illustrates, the opportunity for private collusion is beyond the scope of the regulators, especially given the ability for the house to deal in dark pools.

And of course the root of the problem is that the Wall Street banks, which had been engaged in massive frauds in subprime debt instruments, were never reformed, and in fact became even larger and more hungry, now devouring whole markets and even small nations in their search for fees and illicit profits.

Paul Volcker's vision of a return to 'narrow banking' may very well prove to have been wisdom as compared to the current financial system of unproductive mammoths still unfolding.

Plaintiffs vs. JPM and HSBC

8. In this case, the vast majority of trading on CME/COMEX and NYSEArca was electronic. While electronic trading was intended to allow for greater efficiency and “freer” markets, it has actually provided greater opportunities to restrain trade in the markets and manipulate prices. Rather than being visible in an “open outcry” pit and subject to the scrutiny of fellow market participants, the vast majority of trading is electronic, involving traders who sit at computer-trading terminals and place orders anonymously. Thus, unlike where pit or open-outcry trading is the dominant form of placing offers and bids, nothing prevents potential manipulators in this market from signaling or outright communicating with each other to drive the market in any direction they deem fit, or from posting sham orders that are intended to drive prices in an artificial way. In other words, because of electronic trading, market participants are generally unable to police one another. Thus, defendants JP Morgan and HSBC, had an opportunity to communicate and signal to each other their market moves (i.e., conspire and
manipulate) without detection by other market participants.

11. Before the Class Period began, JPMorgan had become the custodian and an authorized participant of the largest known concentration of silver bars, the iShares Silver ETF, which holds in excess of 340 million troy ounces of silver, a sum that equals an estimated 1/3 of the total present global supply of silver bullion. As a result, it had actual knowledge of the precise whereabouts of much of the world’s known silver bar supply.

12. In approximately March 2008, JP Morgan acquired Bear Stearns, which held a very large short position in silver. With more of the total short position in silver concentrated in the hands of JP Morgan, it had a further motive to suppress prices.

13. Upon information and belief, JP Morgan works together with HSBC, the other dominant player in the silver and precious metals markets. In July 2009, HSBC became the custodian of the SIVR ETF, which meant that it had physical access to and knowledge of the silver held by that trust. Notably, it named JP Morgan as one of the sub-custodians of the SIVR ETF.

14. As a result of their participation in the silver ETFs, JP Morgan and HSBC had a direct opportunity to confer and discuss with each other the prices of silver held by each of them.

15. In addition, Defendants had a strong incentive to suppress downward the price silver as measured by the NYSE-Arca and CME/COMEX instruments. For example, Defendants could pledge their silver to the ETFs in exchange for ETF shares, sell their shares to other market participants, drive down the prices of silver through trades on NYSE-Arca and CME/COMEX, buy back their ETF shares from investors at lower prices, and return their (now lower priced) silver ETF shares in exchange for the silver bars initially pledged against those shares, the real value of which remained the same, and only notionally appears lower because of Defendants’ suppression.

There are other ETFs which have similar setups and opportunities for market manipulation by the 'custodians' and insiders. There are a few that on the surface appear to be so stacked against the buyer as to approach the level of fraud. Professional traders snigger that those who are not specifically informed enough to find this out for themselves deserve to be 'taken.' I wonder how these smart fellows would feel if the medical profession in which they and their children are customers was managed in the same way. A bull market in infant mortality and thalidomide babies?

This is not some efficient free market but a kind of hell in which no one or nothing can be trusted, a society that dissolves into mere anarchy and madness.

But in fact the common protection of the many against the more powerful, the average person against the insider, with the creation and maintenance of a public infrastructure, are the primary functions of popular government. And if you look to the governments of the developed nations against this benchmark, too many recently appear to be miserable failures.

The source of this failure and its remedy is a familiar tale to those well read in history, and is the great story of the beginning of this century.

"It is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes. Distinctions in society will always exist under every just government. Equality of talents, of education, or of wealth can not be produced by human institutions. In the full enjoyment of the gifts of Heaven and the fruits of superior industry, economy, and virtue, every man is equally entitled to protection by law.

But when the laws undertake to add to these natural and just advantages artificial distinctions, to grant titles, gratuities, and exclusive privileges, to make the rich richer and the potent more powerful, the humble members of society — the farmers, mechanics, and laborers — who have neither the time nor the means of securing like favors to themselves, have a right to complain of the injustice of their government. There are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses."

Andrew Jackson

The problem is not that government is inherently bad. The triumph of evil is always when good men and women do nothing, or even worse, allow themselves to be co-opted by their selfish interests into a system of injustice. No one can control the madness, the will to power, the insatiable hunger to possess. In the end it will always come for them and what they hold most dear, and consume it.

Obama's Failure to Reform: A Bipartisan Crisis And A General Failure of Ethics and Stewardship

I hope everyone has the opportunity to see "Inside Job" in the months ahead.

The issue is not settled. As someone who watches the markets closely every day, often tick by tick, and speaks to market participants around the world, I see an accident waiting to happen in the US financial system. And it is surprising, almost shocking, that it receives so little attention while there is so much focus on the relatively trivial.

We have just witnessed one of the greatest financial frauds in modern history. Where are the indictments? Where is the reform?

It concerns me greatly because it is such a important economy. Such a failure would have unsettling collateral damage on the rest of the world not only because of its size, but through the transmission mechanism of the dollar reserve currency which is pervasive in trade and in most central bank holdings.

Like its cronies on Wall Street, the government in Washington thinks it is Too Big To Fail. It may very well be. But propping it up is probably too great of a task for the rest of the world to bear indefinitely. And so we may have an uneasy year or two ahead.

On Obama's Failure To Carry Out His Elected Mandate To Reform

"First is the danger of futility; the belief there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ills -- against misery, against ignorance, or injustice and violence. Yet many of the world's great movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man. A young monk began the Protestant reformation, a young general extended an empire from Macedonia to the borders of the earth, and a young woman reclaimed the territory of France. It was a young Italian explorer who discovered the New /world, and 32 year old Thomas Jefferson who proclaimed that all men are created equal. "Give me a place to stand," said Archimedes, "and I will move the world."

These men moved the world, and so can we all. Few will have the greatness to bend history; but each of us can work to change a small portion of the events, and in the total of all these acts will be written the history of this generation. Thousands of Peace Corps volunteers are making a difference in the isolated villages and the city slums of dozens of countries. Thousands of unknown men and women in Europe resisted the occupation of the Nazis and many died, but all added to the ultimate strength and freedom of their countries. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage such as these that the belief that human history is thus shaped.

Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance...

The second danger is that of expediency; of those who say that hopes and beliefs must bend before immediate necessities. Of course if we must act effectively we must deal with the world as it is. We must get things done.

But if there was one thing that President Kennedy stood for that touched the most profound feeling of young people across the world, it was the belief that idealism, high aspiration and deep convictions are not incompatible with the most practical and efficient of programs -- that there is no basic inconsistency between ideals and realistic possibilities -- no separation between the deepest desires of heart and of mind and the rational application of human effort to human problems.

It is not realistic to solve problems and take action unguided by ultimate moral aims and values, although we all know some who claim that it is so. In my judgement, it is thoughtless folly. For it ignores the realities of human faith and of passion and of belief; forces ultimately more powerful than all the calculations of our economists or of our generals. Of course to adhere to standards, to idealism, to vision in the face of immediate dangers takes great courage and takes self-confidence. But we also know that only those who dare to fail greatly, can ever achieve greatly.

It is this new idealism which is also, I believe, the common heritage of a generation which has learned that while efficiency can lead to the camps at Auschwitz, or the streets of Budapest; only the ideals of humanity and love can climb the hills of the Acropolis.

A third danger is timidity. Few men are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change the world which yields most painfully to change. Aristotle tells us "At the Olympic games it is not the finest or the strongest men who are crowned, but those who enter the lists. . .so too in the life of the honorable and the good it is they who act rightly who win the prize." I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the world.

For the fortunate amongst us, the fourth danger is comfort; the temptation to follow the easy and familiar path of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who have the privilege of an education. But that is not the road history has marked out for us. There is a Chinese curse which says 'May he live in interesting times.' Like it or not, we live in interesting times. They are times of danger and uncertainty; but they are also the most creative of any time in the history of mankind. And everyone here will ultimately be judged -- will ultimately judge himself -- on the effort he has contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which his ideals and goals have shaped that effort."

Robert F. Kennedy, Cape Town, South Africa, 6 June 1966

William K Black on 'Financial Racketeering;' Government Coverup; a 250% Tax Increase

The interview with William K. Black starts at 13:00 in this video and is well worth seeing.

Gresham's Dynamic: The least ethically inclined have an advantage in the US financial system (in which regulatory capture nullifies enforcement) driven by perverse incentives of oversized bonuses and the failure to investigate and prosecute criminal activity.



In addition to the overhang of unindicted and undeclared fraud that is still in place, distorting the clearing of the markets, there is the issue of an imbalanced economy in which an oversized financial sector exacts what amounts to a draconian tax on the real economy, that is, fees and tariffs and other unproductive drains in excess of anything that the government is levying.

What Do You Get for a 250% Tax Increase?

As I recall the percentage of financial sector profits to corporate profits recently peaked at 41%, from a long run average of less than 16%. Granted, this is a bit theoretical because of the pervasive accounting fraud in the banks and the corporations.

I wonder what the percentage of profit, pre-bonus, is being enjoyed now?

This can be viewed as a form of a tax. If the government raised taxes from 16% to 41% what do you think the impact on the US economy would be? And yet there is little discussion of this, or the racketeering that accompanied such a festival of looting.

Yet conceptually this is what has been accomplished through the deregulation of the banks and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, and of course, regulatory capture. The financial sector acts primarily as a capital accumulation and allocation system, and secondarily to facilitate wealth transferals through pure investment and speculation, the famous school of winners and losers. I would suggest that this latter function has grown out of control like a cancer, and metastasized to drain and debilitate the better part of the political system and the non-financial economy.

I would suggest that this system is broken, and that there can be no sustainable recovery until it is fixed. How can confidence return when most of those in the know realize that the fraud is still in play? Who can take positions with confidence in such a corrupt environment wherein the government acts as the handmaiden to a handful of powerful Banks which engage in large scale frauds as a mainstay of their business, and with virtual impunity?

Stimulus that is not targeted, and especially any subsidy that passes through the Banks, is liable to this tax. It reminds me of warlords stealing charitable relief as it arrives in a Third World country before it can be distributed to the people.

But austerity is even worse, because the kinds of austerity being discussed are specifically targeting the ordinary people who have been badly used already to say the least, and not the perpetrators of one of the biggest financial frauds in the history of the world, and those wealthy few who benefited from a culture of deception which they helped to form.

This is a compounding of the suffering and injustice. If one were to set a recipe for a social and civil revolution it would fit the bill nicely. No one ever said that the pigmen are not self-destructive in their lifestyles and obsessions.

The comparison to the aftermath of the Savings and Loan crisis could not be more stark. Why the inability and reluctance to investigate and indict? What is the government covering up? Who is pulling Obama's strings?

Five More Failed Banks Cost US Government an Additional $334 Million in Losses

The losses from the mortgage securities frauds and the subsequent bubble collapse continue to debilitate the US financial system, particularly the regional banks, in a slow bleed costing the US government additional millions each week. The public relations campaign promoting the idea that the bank bailouts are done and successful, and that the US made money on this egregious abuse of public monies is patently false, and probably can be described as corporatist propaganda.

The banks continue to mount a campaign to resist reform and regulation. They are taking advantage of the weakness of the Obama administration in failing to reform the banking system through liquidations and managed bankruptcies, including indictments and investigations as was seen in the Savings and Loan scandal.

It is difficult to continue to assume good intentions in this administration, or even mere incompetence. The objections put up by Geithner and Summers to the appointment of Elizabeth Warren as the head of the new consumer protection agency shows how reactionary they continue to be, and resistant to fundamental reforms.

American Banker
Failures on Two Coasts Stretch Toll for Year to 108
By Joe Adler
Friday, July 30, 2010

Five bank closures in four states Friday cost the federal government an additional $334 million in losses.

Regulators shuttered the $373 million-asset Coastal Community Bank in Panama City Beach, Fla., the $66 million-asset Bayside Savings Bank in Port Saint Joe, Fla., the $168 million-asset NorthWest Bank and Trust in Acworth, Ga., the $529 million-asset The Cowlitz Bank in Longview, Wash., and the $768-asset LibertyBank in Eugene, Ore. The failures brought the year's total to 108.

The hammered Southeast bore the brunt of the failure activity, as it has for so many Fridays since the financial crisis began. Twenty banks have been seized in Florida in 2010, while 11 have failed in Georgia so far this year.

The two Florida institutions that failed Friday went to one buyer: Centennial Bank in Conway, Ark. The acquirer agreed to take over Coastal Community's $363 million in deposits, Bayside Savings' $52 million in deposits and roughly all of the assets of both institutions.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. agreed to share losses with Centennial on $303 million of Coastal Community's assets, and $48 million of Bayside Savings' assets. The two failures were estimated to cost the FDIC, respectively, $94 million and $16 million.

Meanwhile, the failure of NorthWest in Georgia was estimated to cost the agency nearly $40 million. The FDIC sold all of NorthWest's $159 million in deposits, and essentially all of its assets, to State Bank and Trust Co. in Macon. The acquirer agreed to share losses with the FDIC on about $107 million of the failed bank's assets.

Elsewhere, the FDIC sold all of The Cowlitz Bank's $514 million in deposits to Heritage Bank of Olympia, Wash., which paid a 1% premium. Heritage also acquired about $329 million of the failed bank's assets, and will share losses with the FDIC on about $161 million of those assets. The FDIC estimated the failure will cost $69 million.

Home Federal Bank in Nampa, Idaho, paid a 1% premium to assume all of LibertyBank's $718 million in deposits, and agreed to acquire $420 million of its assets. The FDIC and Home Federal will share losses on $300 million of those assets. The failure's cost was estimated at $115 million.

Obama's Economic Policy Has Doomed the US to Stagnation - Or Worse

This was the very moment of Obama's failure, when he allowed Summers, Geithner and Bernanke to establish the principle of "Too Big To Fail" and set up a financial oligarchy at the expense of taxpayers. We would have expected this out of the Treasury under Hank Paulson, but to see this kind of policy error favoring Wall Street over the US taxpayers from a government elected on the promise of reform is inexcusable, a disgrace.

Be Prepared For the Worst - Ron Paul

Bloomberg
Stiglitz Says U.S. Is Paying for Failure to Nationalize Banks

Nov. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said the world’s biggest economy is suffering because of the U.S. government’s failure to nationalize banks during the financial crisis.

“If we had done the right thing, we would be able to have more influence over the banks,” Stiglitz told reporters at an economic conference in Shanghai Oct 31. “They would be lending and the economy would be stronger.”

Stiglitz has stuck with his view even after the U.S. economy returned to growth in the third quarter and as banks’ share prices climbed this year.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, appearing yesterday on NBC’s “Meet the Press” program, said the country’s economic recovery hinges in part on banks taking more risk and restoring the flow of credit to businesses.

“The big risk we face now is that banks are going to overcorrect and not take enough risk,” Geithner said. “We need them to take a chance again on the American economy. That’s going to be important to recovery.”

President Barack Obama said on Oct. 24 that the nation’s lenders, supported by taxpayers in the crisis, need to “fulfill their responsibility” by lending to small businesses still struggling to get credit.

Companies such as Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. benefited from a $700 billion taxpayer-funded bailout package last year. In contrast, Obama said that too many small businesses are still short of money, adding that his administration will “take every appropriate step” to encourage banks to lend.

Bank Lending

“We have this very strange situation today in America where we have given banks hundreds of billions of dollars and the president has to beg the banks to lend and they refuse,” Stiglitz said. “What we did was the wrong thing. It has weakened the economy and has increased our deficit, making it more difficult for the future.”

While the U.S. economy grew at a 3.5 percent annual rate in the third quarter, the first expansion in more than a year, the Columbia University economist said the recession is “nowhere near” its end, citing rising unemployment and weak demand.

The U.S. government plans to alter the way that a similar rescue would be handled in the future. Draft legislation proposes that banks, hedge funds and other financial firms holding more than $10 billion in assets would pay to rescue companies whose collapse would shake the financial system. (And it is an inherently unfair plan that creates even additional moral hazard by penalizing sound banking by forcing it to pay for reckless bank management. - Jesse)

Citigroup and Bank of America shares have quadrupled from this year’s lows in March.

Let Freedom Wane: The Fed's Role as Regulator and Obama's Failure to Reform

The proposal put forward by the Obama Economic Team to expand the purview of the Federal Reserve as a regulator, perhaps even THE regulator, was always troubling for several reasons.

1. The Fed is in fact not a government institution, but owned by private and corporate banking interests. The failure of self-regulation and regulators who have been 'captured' by the corporations they regulate is one of the great lessons of this crisis.

2. The Fed is notoriously opaque, with the occasional gesture towards transparency, and is often resistant to releasing information to the public in a timely manner, claiming a sort of 'executive privilege.' The Fed is and should remain independent but accountable on review. This precludes them from acting fully and routinely as a government agency responsible to the voters for all of their actions.

3. The Federal Reserve of NY often acts as a member of the 'banking club' with very heavy ties to Wall Street. The objective of financial reform should be to insulate regulators from undue influence by the organizations which they regulate, and more influenced by the law and the public good first and foremost. This is a basic principle of the regulatory process. One cannot successfully regulate their peers when the tough decisions have to be made to uphold justice and expose corruption and conflicts of interest.

This latest incident with Goldman Sachs merely serves to illustrate the too often unilateral decision-making by the Fed in an ad hoc manner, without sufficient explanation.

What the United States needs to reform its financial system is a group of Untouchables who are not on the payroll of Wall Street, or regular participants in the revolving door between government and the industry it regulates. The failure to create this effective reform, and instead gravitate toward ineffective consolidation in one of the key actors in the failure of the system is an error that is as fundamental and basic as one can imagine. It strains credibility that this could merely the result of inexperience.

It was the appointment of Larry Summers that first put us off the Obama 'reform' message. Larry Summers is a holdover from the same team that brought us some of the worst Federal Reserve policy decisions and interference in the regulatory process ever seen.

The Administration needs to convert its vision into action, and stop playing to the Wall Street lobby which created and is still benefiting from this crisis. If that requires replacing the Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel, who is a heavy recipient of Wall Street donations, then so be it.

Whoever is promoting the Fed as uber-regulator within the Obama Administration should be fired, immediately. We hear it is Larry Summers, and this sounds like the politically tone-deaf, impractical, arrogant, and conflicted solution which Larry or Rahm might promote.

Can you imagine what our crisis would have been like if Alan Greenspan had even more power, more control over the markets?

Obama, quite frankly, needs to demonstrate that he is a man of integrity and principled action, vision that is not confined to oratory. He must now demonstrate that he is his own man, and is not owned by powerful special interests that seem to be controlling the American political process in both major parties.

If even a mandate such as Obama received does not energize the Democrats, then the best hope for America is a third party, a Progressive / Libertarian party as was seen at the turn of the 19th century with the rise of Teddy Roosevelt.

Baseline Scenario
A Short Question for Senior Officials of the NY Fed
By Simon Johnson
October 3, 2009

At the height of the financial panic last fall Goldman Sachs became a bank holding company, which enabled it to borrow directly from the Federal Reserve. It also became subject to supervision by the Federal Reserve Board (with the NY Fed on point) – hence the brouhaha over Steven Friedman’s shareholdings.

Goldman is also currently engaged in private equity investments in nonfinancial firms around the world, as seen for example in its recent deal with Geely Automotive Holdings in China. US banks or bank holding companies would not generally be allowed to undertake such transactions - in fact, it is annoyed bankers who have asked me to take this up.

Would someone from the NY Fed kindly explain the precise nature of the waiver that has been granted to Goldman so that it can operate in this fashion? If this is temporary, is it envisaged that Goldman will cease being a bank holding company, or that it will divest itself shortly of activities not usually allowed (and with good reason) by banks? Or will all bank holding companies be allowed to expand on the same basis. (The relevant rules appear to be here in general and here specifically; do tell me what I am missing.)

Increasingly, the issue of “too big to regulate” in the public interest is being brought up – an issue that has historically attracted the interest of the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division in sectors other than finance. Should Goldman Sachs now be placed in this category?

Given that the Fed has slipped up so many times and in so many ways with regard to regulation over the past decade, and given the current debate on Capitol Hill, now might be a good time to get ahead of this issue.

In addition, there is the obvious carry trade (borrow cheaply; lend at higher rates) developing from cheap Fed dollar funding to the growing speculative frenzy in emerging markets, particularly China. Are we heading for another speculative bubble that will end up damaging US bank balance sheets and all American taxpayers?

Robert Reich on Moral Hazard and Obama's Failure

Robert Reich is a top Democrat, former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton, and a member of the Obama transition team.

In his recent blog he excoriates the Obama financial team's actions. And in doing so he echoes the things that have been said here, which we will take as some measure of validation from an intelligent public figure and top representative of the party in power.

Surely Obama must see that his Administration is a failure, beginning with his failure to maintain the promise of change, and address the need to reform the financial system.

Do something, Barack. Get a backbone, and do something for the country, and let the special interests, and the cronies of your cronies, be damned.

Start telling it like it is. Make this historic moment memorable, and not a shame.


The Continuing Disaster of Wall Street, One Year Later
Robert Reich
September 13, 2009

As he attempted to do with health care reform last week, the President is trying to breathe new life into financial reform. He's using the anniversary of the death of Lehman Brothers and the near-death experience of the rest of the Street, culminating with a $600 billion taxpayer financed bailout, to summon the political will for change. Yet the prospects seem dubious. As with health care reform, he has stood on the sidelines for months and allowed vested interests to frame the debate. Nor has he come up with a sufficiently bold or coherent set of reforms likely to change the way the Street does business, even if enacted.

Let's be clear: The Street today is up to the same tricks it was playing before its near-death experience. Derivatives, derivatives of derivatives, fancy-dance trading schemes, high-risk bets. “Our model really never changed, we’ve said very consistently that our business model remained the same,” says Goldman Sach's chief financial officer.

The only difference now is that the Street's biggest banks know for sure they'll be bailed out by the federal government if their bets turn sour -- which means even bigger bets and bigger bucks.

Meanwhile, the banks' gigantic pile of non-performing loans is also growing bigger, as more and more jobless Americans can't pay their mortgages, credit card bills, and car loans. So forget any new lending to Main Street. Small businesses still can't get loans. Even credit-worthy borrowers are having a hard time getting new mortgages.

The mega-bailout of Wall Street accomplished little. The only big winners have been top bank executives and traders, whose pay packages are once again in the stratosphere. Banks have been so eager to lure and keep top deal makers and traders they've even revived the practice of offering ironclad, multimillion-dollar payments – guaranteed no matter how the employee performs. Goldman Sachs is on course to hand out bonuses that could rival its record pre-meltdown paydays. In the second quarter this year it posted its fattest quarterly profit in its 140-year history, and earmarked $11.4 billion to compensate its happy campers. Which translates into about $770,000 per Goldman employee on average, just about what they earned at height of boom. Of course, top executives and traders will pocket much more.

Every other big bank feels it has to match Goldman's pay packages if it wants to hold on to its "talent." Citigroup, still on life-support courtesy of $45 billion from American taxpayers, has told the White House it needs to pay its twenty-five top executives an average of $10 million each this year, and award its best trader $100 million.

A few banks like Goldman have officially repaid their TARP money but look more closely and you'll find that every one of them is still on the public dole. Goldman won't repay taxpayers the $13 billion it never would have collected from AIG had we not kept AIG alive. (In one of the most blatant conflicts of interest in all of American history, Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein attended the closed-door meeting last fall where then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, who was formerly Goldman's CEO, and Tim Geithner, then at the New York Fed, made the decision to bail out AIG.) Meanwhile, Goldman is still depending on $28 billion in outstanding debt issued cheaply with the backing of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Which means you and I are still indirectly funding Goldman's high-risk operations.

So will the President succeed on financial reform? I wish I could be optimistic. His milktoast list of proposed reforms is inadequate to the task, even if adopted. The Street's behavior since its bailout should be proof enough that halfway measures won't do. The basic function of commercial banking in our economic system -- linking savers to borrowers -- should never have been confused with the casino-like function of investment banking. Securitization, whereby loans are turned into securities traded around the world, has made lenders unaccountable for the risks they take on. The Glass-Steagall Act should be resurrected. Pension and 401 (k) plans, meanwhile, should never have been allowed to subject their beneficiaries to the risks that Wall Street gamblers routinely run. Put simply, the Street has been given too many opportunities to play too many games with other peoples' money.

But, like the health care industry, Wall Street has platoons of lobbyists and an almost unlimited war chest to protect its interests and prevent change. And with the Dow Jones Industrial Average trending upward again -- and the public's and the media's attention focused elsewhere, especially on health care -- it will be difficult to summon the same sense of urgency financial reform commanded six months ago.

Yet without substantial reform, the nation and the world will almost certainly be plunged into the same crisis or worse at some point in the not-too-distant future. Wall Street's major banks are already en route to their old, dangerous ways -- now made more dangerous by their sure knowledge that they are too big to fail.

The Crisis of Our Democracy: Corruption in the Financial Markets and Obama's Failure to Reform

This interview with William Black in Barron's is an articulate and reasonably detailed summary of our own view of the current crisis from an exceptionally well-informed and experienced source.

The big question in our own mind is the depth of complicity and the motivations of the government, the media and major institutions in continuing to support this financial corruption through silence or participation.

Is Obama really merely listening to the wrong advice from highly placed sources in the Democratic Party? And how sincere are they? The record of corruption in the Obama Administration in the form of conflicts of interest and tax evasion is already the smoke that warns of fire.

All good questions, more relating to the length of time to a cure rather than its essential character.

The banks must be restrained, the financial system must be reformed, before there can be a sustained economic recovery.


Barron's
The Lessons of the Savings-and-Loan Crisis
By Jack Willoughby
11 April 2009

AN INTERVIEW WITH WILLIAM BLACK: The current bank scandal dwarfs the 1980s savings-and-loan crisis -- and could destroy the Obama presidency.

WILLIAM BLACK CALLS THEM AS HE SEES THEM, which is why we enjoy talking with him. Black, 57 years old, was a deputy director at the former Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp. during the thrift crisis of the 1980s, and now serves as an associate professor, teaching economics and law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. At FSLIC, a government agency that insured S&L deposits, Black prevailed in showdowns with the powerful Democratic Speaker of the House, Jim Wright, and helped identify the infamous Keating Five, a group of U.S. senators (including Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who lost his bid for the presidency in 2008) who tried to quash his attempt to close Charles Keating's Lincoln Savings & Loan. Wright eventually resigned amid unrelated ethics charges, and the senators were reprimanded for poor judgment. Keating went to jail for securities fraud.

For Black's provocative thoughts on the current financial crisis, read on.


Barron's: Just how serious is this credit crisis? What is at stake here for the American taxpayer?

Black: Mopping up the savings-and-loan crisis cost $150 billion; this current crisis will probably cost a multiple of that. The scale of fraud is immense. This whole bank scandal makes Teapot Dome [of the 1920s] look like some kid's doll set. Unless the current administration changes course pretty drastically, the scandal will destroy Barack Obama's presidency. The Bush administration was even worse. But they are out of town. This will destroy Obama's administration, both economically and in terms of integrity.

So you are saying Democrats as well as Republicans share the blame? No one can claim the high ground?

We have failed bankers giving advice to failed regulators on how to deal with failed assets. How can it result in anything but failure? If they are going to get any truthful investigation, the Democrats picked the wrong financial team. Tim Geithner, the current Secretary of the Treasury, and Larry Summers, chairman of the National Economic Council, were important architects of the problems. Geithner especially represents a failed regulator, having presided over the bailouts of major New York banks.

So you aren't a fan of the recently announced plan for the government to back private purchases of the toxic assets?

It is worse than a lie. Geithner has appropriated the language of his critics and of the forthright to support dishonesty. That is what's so appalling -- numbering himself among those who convey tough medicine when he is really pandering to the interests of a select group of banks who are on a first-name basis with Washington politicians.

The current law mandates prompt corrective action, which means speedy resolution of insolvencies. He is flouting the law, in naked violation, in order to pursue the kind of favoritism that the law was designed to prevent. He has introduced the concept of capital insurance, essentially turning the U.S. taxpayer into the sucker who is going to pay for everything. He chose this path because he knew Congress would never authorize a bailout based on crony capitalism.

Geithner is mistaken when he talks about making deeply unpopular moves. Such stiff resolve to put the major banks in receivership would be appreciated in every state but Connecticut and New York. His use of language like "legacy assets" -- and channeling the worst aspects of Milton Friedman -- is positively Orwellian. Extreme conservatives wrongly assume that the government can't do anything right. And they wrongly assume that the market will ultimately lead to correct actions. If cheaters prosper, cheaters will dominate. It is like Gresham's law: Bad money drives out the good. Well, bad behavior drives out good behavior, without good enforcement.

His plan essentially perpetuates zombie banks by mispricing toxic assets that were mispriced to the borrower and mispriced by the lender, and which only served the unfaithful lending agent.

We already know from the real costs -- through the cleanups of IndyMac, Bear Stearns, and Lehman -- that the losses will be roughly 50 to 80 cents on the dollar. The last thing we need is a further drain on our resources and subsidies by promoting this toxic-asset market. By promoting this notion of too-big-to-fail, we are allowing a pernicious influence to remain in Washington. The truth has a resonance to it. The folks know they are being lied to.

I keep asking myself, what would we do in other avenues of life? What if every time we had a plane crash we said: 'It might be divisive to investigate. We want to be forward-looking.' Nobody would fly. It would be a disaster.

We know that with planes, every time there is an accident, we look intensively, without the interference of politics. That is why we have such a safe industry.

Summarize the problem as best you can for Barron's readers.

With most of America's biggest banks insolvent, you have, in essence, a multitrillion dollar cover-up by publicly traded entities, which amounts to felony securities fraud on a massive scale.

These firms will ultimately have to be forced into receivership, the management and boards stripped of office, title, and compensation. First there needs to be a clearing of the air -- a Pecora-style fact-finding mission conducted without fear or favor. [Ferdinand Pecora was an assistant district attorney from New York who investigated Wall Street practices in the 1930s.] Then, we need to gear up to pursue criminal cases. Two years after the market collapsed, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has one-fourth of the resources that the agency used during the savings-and-loan crisis. And the current crisis is 10 times as large.

There need to be major task forces set up, like there were in the thrift crisis. Right now, things don't look good. We are using taxpayer money via AIG to secretly bail out European banks like Société Générale, Deutsche Bank, and UBS -- and even our own Goldman Sachs. To me, the single most obscene act of this scandal has been providing billions in taxpayer money via AIG to secretly bail out UBS in Switzerland, while we were simultaneously prosecuting the bank for tax fraud. The second most obscene: Goldman receiving almost $13 billion in AIG counterparty payments after advising Geithner, president of the New York Fed, and then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, former Goldman Sachs honcho, on the AIG government takeover -- and also receiving government bailout loans.

What, then, is staying the federal government's hand? Have the banks become too difficult or complex to regulate?

The government is reluctant to admit the depth of the problem, because to do so would force it to put some of America's biggest financial institutions into receivership. The people running these banks are some of the most well-connected in Washington, with easy access to legislators. Prompt corrective action is what is needed, and mandated in the law. And that is precisely what isn't happening.

The savings-and-loan crisis showed that, too often, the regulators became too close to the industry, and run interference for friends by hiding the problems.

Can you explain your idea of control fraud, and how it applies to the current banking and the earlier thrift crisis?

Control fraud is when a seemingly legitimate corporation uses its power as a weapon to defraud or take something of value through deceit.

In the savings-and-loan crisis, thrifts engaged in control frauds in order to survive. Accounting trickery proved to be the weapon of choice. It is at work today with the banks, and it is their Achilles heel. You report that you are highly profitable when you engage in accounting-control fraud, not only meeting but exceeding capital requirements. These accounting frauds create huge bubbles, which in turn create large bonuses, which in turn lead to huge losses.

Why then is there so much smoke and so little action?

First, they are inundated by the problem. They are trying to investigate the major problems with severely depleted staffs. Honestly. We have lost the ability to be blunt. Now we have a situation where Treasury Secretary Geithner can speak of a $2 trillion hole in the banking system, at the same time all the major banks report they are well-capitalized. And you have seen no regulatory action against what amounts to a $2 trillion accounting fraud. The reason we don't see it -- aren't told about it -- is that if they were honest, prompt corrective action would kick in, and they would have to deal with the problem banks.

Are there any parallels between the current crisis and the savings-and-loan crisis that give you hope?

Of course. Objectively, our case was even more hopeless in the S&L debacle than in the current crisis. If we were able to do it in such an impossible circumstance back then, we have reason for hope in the current crisis. I know how easily things can get off course and how quickly things can turn back again. The thrift crisis went through several lengthy courses and distortions before it finally was resolved under the leadership of Edwin Gray, the chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, which oversaw FSLIC.

We went through almost a decade of cover-ups by a Washington establishment intent on helping thrift owners. Back then, we had the Justice Department threatening to indict Gray, the head of a federal agency, for closing too many thrifts. Next, there were those so-called resolutions, where the regulators worked day and night -- to create even bigger problems for the FSLIC. Years later, these so-called resolution deals had to be unwound at great expense by closing down even larger failures. Or how about the bill to replenish the depleted thrift-insurance fund that was blocked and delayed by then-Speaker of the House, Texas congressman Jim Wright?

You say the evidence of a breakdown in the regulatory structure comes from the fact that America avoided an earlier subprime crisis in the 1990s.

Exactly. Why had no one heard of the subprime crisis back in 1991? Because America's regulators also faced down the crisis early. The same thing happened with bad credits being securitized in the secondary market. Remember the low-doc or no-doc mortgages done by Citibank? Well, the problem didn't spread -- because regulators intervened.

Obama, who is doing so well in so many other arenas, appears to be slipping because he trusts Democrats high in the party structure too much.

These Democrats want to maintain America's pre-eminence in global financial capitalism at any cost. They remain wedded to the bad idea of bigness, the so-called financial supermarket -- one-stop shopping for all customers -- that has allowed the American financial system to paper the world with subprime debt. Even the managers of these worldwide financial conglomerates testify that they have become so sprawling as to be unmanageable.

What needs to be done?

Well, these international behemoths need to be broken down into smaller units that can be managed effectively. Maybe they can be broken up the way that the Standard Oil split up back in the early 1900s, through a simple share spinoff.

The big problem for the last decade is that we have had too much capacity in the finance sector -- too many banks have represented a drain on our talent and resources. All these mergers haven't taken capacity out of the system. They have created even bigger banks that concentrate risk to the taxpayer, and put off dealing with problems.

And a new seriousness must be put into regulation. We don't necessarily need new rules. We just need folks who can enforce the ones already on the books.

The bank-compensation system also creates an environment that leads to mismanagement and fraud. No one has to tell someone they have to stretch the numbers. It is all around them. It is in the rank-or-yank performance and retention systems advocated by top business executives. Here, the top 20% get the bulk of the benefits and the bottom 10% get fired. You don't directly tell your employees you want them to lie and cheat. You set up an atmosphere of results at any cost. Rank or yank. Sooner rather than later, someone comes up with the bright idea of fudging the numbers. That's big bonuses for the folks who make the best numbers. It sends the message -- making the numbers is what is most important. There is a reason that the average tenure of a chief financial officer is three years.

Compensation systems like I have just described discourage whistleblowing -- the most common way that frauds are found in America -- because the system draws upon the cooperation of everyone.

The basis for all regulation and white-collar crime is to take the competitive advantage away from the cheats, so the good guys can prevail. We need to get back to that.

Thanks, Bill.

Obama's Failure and the Unfolding Financial Crisis

Kevin Phillips is a brilliant and insightfuly political commentator, and we have featured his videos and writings here many times.

His latest essay is worth reading over the long weekend.

"This is a much grander-scale disaster than anything that happened in 1929-33. Worse, it dwarfs the abuses of debt, finance and financialization that brought down previous leading world economic powers like Britain and Holland...

But for the moment, let me underscore: the average American knows little of the dimensions of the financial sector aggrandizement and misbehavior involved. Until this is remedied, there probably will not be enough informed, focused indignation to achieve far-reaching reform in the teeth of financial sector money and influence. Equivocation will triumph. This will not displease politicians and regulators leery of offending their contributors and backers."

It is ironic that Joe Biden predicted that our Community-Organizer-in-Chief would be tested severely in his first days in office. At the time everyone thought it would be some foreign power, some military machine which would temper the character of this new leader with a significant threat to the national welfare.

Little did we suspect that the test of our sovereign republic would come from the Wall Street and the money center banks.


Table for One - TPMCafe
The "Disaster Stage" of U.S. Financialization
By Kevin Phillips
April 7, 2009, 3:34PM

Thirty to forty years ago, the early fruits of financialization in this country - the first credit cards, retirement accounts , money market funds and ATM machines - struck most Americans as a convenience and boon. The savings and loan implosion and junk bonds of the 1980s switched on some yellow warning lights, and the tech bubble and market mania of the nineties flashed some red ones. But neither Wall Street nor Washington stopped or even slowed down.

In August, 2007, the housing-linked crisis of the credit markets predicted the arriving disaster-stage, the Crash of September-November 2008 confirmed the debacle, and now an angry, fearful citizenry awaits a further unfolding. There is probably no need to fear a second coming of nineteen-thirties Depression economics. This is not the same thing; the day-to-day pain shouldn't be as severe.

Indeed, for all that the 1930s evoke national trauma, that decade was in fact a waiting room for national glory and wellbeing. World War Two ushered in American global ascendancy, the "Happy Days" of the 1950s and an unprecedented middle-class prosperity.

Today's disaster stage of American financialization - the bursting of the huge 25-year, almost $50 trillion debt bubble that helped underwrite the hijacking of the U.S. economy by a rabid financial sector -- won't be nearly so kind. It is already ushering in the reverse: a global realignment in which the United States loses the global economic leadership won in World War Two. The ignominy deserved by Wall Street after 1929-1933 is peanuts compared with the opprobrium the U.S. financial sector and its political and regulatory allies deserve this time.

My 2002 book, Wealth and Democracy, in its section on the "Financialization of America" noted that the "finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) sector overtook manufacturing during the 1990s, moving ahead in the national income and GDP charts by 1995. By the first years of the next decade, it had taken a clear lead in actual profits. Back in 1960, parenthetically, manufacturing profits had been four times as big, and in 1980, twice as big." Hardly anyone was paying attention.

By 2006, the FIRE sector, its components mixed together like linguine by the 1999 repeal of the old New Deal restraints against mergers of commercial banks, investment firms and insurance, had ballooned to 20.6% of U.S. GDP versus just 12% for manufacturing. The FIRE Sector, now calling itself the Financial Services Sector, lopsidedly dominated the private economy. A detailed chart appears on page 31 of Bad Money. Some New York publications and politicians try to insist that finance per se is only 8%, but the post-1999 commingling makes that absurd.

This represented a staggering transformation of the U.S. economy - doubly staggering now because of the crushing burden of its collapse. You would think that that opinion molders and the national media would have been probing its every aperture and orifice. Not at all.

Thus, it was pleasing to read MIT economics professor Simon Johnson's piece in the April Atlantic fingering financial "elites" who captured the government for the latterday financial debacle. This is broadly true, and judging from my e.mail, even some conservatives accept Johnson's analysis and indictment. After the furor over the AIG bonuses, the public and some politicians may be ready to start identifying and blaming culprits. This would be useful. Having an elite to blame is a often prerequisite of serious reform.

Nevertheless, the extremes of financialization, together with the havoc we now know it to have wrought, represent a much more complicated historical and economic genesis, one which U.S. leaders must be obliged to confront if not fully acknowledge. Elite avarice and culpability has multiple and longstanding dimensions. It has been fifteen years since Graef Crystal, a wellknown employment compensation expert, brought out his incendiary In Search of Excess: the Overcompensation of American Executives. The data was blistering. Over the last decade, New York Times reporter David Cay Johnston has published two books - Perfectly Legal and Free Lunch - describing how the U.S. tax code, in particular, has been turned into a feeding trough for the richest one percent of Americans (especially the richest one tenth of one percent).

The backstop to avarice provided by a wealth culture and market mania from the late 1980s through the Clinton years to the George W. Bush administration, prompted another set of indictments that still resonate: William Greider's Secrets of the Temple: How the Federal Reserve Runs The Country (1987), Robert Kuttner's Everything For Sale (1997), Thomas Frank's One Market Under God (2000) and John Gray's False Dawn (1998). More recently, Paul Krugman's books have been equalled or exceeded in timeliness by his New York Times columns blasting the perversity of the Obama-Geithner financial bail-out and the malfeasance of the financial sector.

James K. Galbraith, in his 2008 book The Predator State, has elaborated the valid point that too many conservatives over last few decades betrayed their free market rhetoric by supporting a relentless use of state power and government financial bail-outs to advance upper-income and corporate causes. On the other hand, some conservative economists of the Austrian school make related indictments of liberal bail-out penchants.

This could be a powerful framework. All of these critiques have merit, and ideally they might converge as earlier indictments of elite and governmental abuse did during the Progressive and New Deal eras. But I have to return to whether the public will ever be given full information on the fatal magnitude of financialization, who was responsible, and how it failed and crashed in 2007-2009. So far, political and media discussion has been so minimal that the early 21st century American electorate has much less readily available information on what took place than did the electorates of those earlier reform eras.

Towards this end, my initial emphasis in the new material included in the 2009 edition of Bad Money is on what techniques, practices and leverage the financial sector used between the mid-1980s and 2007 to metastasize early-stage financialization into an economic and governmental coup and, ultimately, a national disaster.

Perhaps not surprisingly, I found that the principal building blocks that the sector used to enlarge itself from 10-12% of Gross National Product around 1980 to a mind-boggling 20.6% of Gross Domestic Product in 2004 involved essentially the same combination of credit-mongering, massive sector borrowing, highly leveraged speculation, reckless, greedy pioneering of new experimental vehicles and securities (derivatives and securitization) and mega-trillion-dollar abuse of the mortgage and housing markets that became infamous as hallmarks of the 2007-2009 disaster. During Alan Greenspan's 1987-2006 tenure as Federal Reserve Chairman, financial bubble-blowing became a Washington art and total credit market debt in the U.S. quadrupled from $11 trillion to $46 trillion.

To try to put 20-30 pages into a nutshell, the financial sector hyped consumer demand - from teen-ager credit cards to mortgages for the unqualified - to make credit into one of the nation's biggest industries; nearly $15 trillion was borrowed over two decades to leverage de facto gambling at 20:1 and 30:1 ratios; banks, investment firms, mortgage lenders, insurers et al were all merged together to do almost anything they wanted; exotic securities and instruments that even investment chiefs couldn't understand were marketed by the trillions. To achieve fat financial-sector profits, the housing and mortgage markets might as well have been merged with Las Vegas.

The principal inventors, hustlers , borrowers and culprits were the nation's 15-20 largest and best known financial institutions - including the ones that keep making headlines by demanding more bail-out money from Washington and giving huge bonuses. These same institutions got much of the early bail-out money and as of December 2008 they accounted for over half of the bad assets written off.

The reason these needed so much money is that they government had let them merge, speculate, expand and experiment on dimensions beyond all logic. That is why the complicit politicians and regulators have to talk about $100 billion here and $1 trillion there even while they pretend that it's all under control and that the run-amok financial sector remains sound.

This is a much grander-scale disaster than anything that happened in 1929-33. Worse, it dwarfs the abuses of debt, finance and financialization that brought down previous leading world economic powers like Britain and Holland (back when New York was New Amsterdam). I will return to these little-mentioned precedents in another post this week.

But for the moment, let me underscore: the average American knows little of the dimensions of the financial sector aggrandizement and misbehavior involved. Until this is remedied, there probably will not be enough informed, focused indignation to achieve far-reaching reform in the teeth of financial sector money and influence. Equivocation will triumph. This will not displease politicians and regulators leery of offending their contributors and backers.