As promised, here’s the continuation of an earlier post. At one point during our exchange, Chris said, “I still hope that one of these days, people will realize that respectful and ethical discourse between differing opinions is the only way to properly govern…but, I guess that’s just the idealist in me.” I totally agree, even though these days I seem to be flipping back and forth between idealism and cynicism.
In response to Chris’ comment, I said:
Here’s the problem as I see it. There are two aspects to the problem. The mortgage meltdown is part of it. The freeze you’re proposing would mean in effect nationalizing all the entities that own US mortgage paper. A lot of those securitized mortgage derivatives were sold overseas. So it’s a global problem. We don’t have the laws to enforce a freeze. I suspect such a freeze would create a true panic. And that would bring down the entire system. We’d be plunged into a global economic depression. Don’t forget that China holds half a trillions of dollars of paper. Should they decide we’re toast economically and call in their chits, we’d all be taking crash courses in Mandarin.
The other major issue, also with global implications, is the credit crunch, which actually precipitated the rush to a bailout. Most businesses, large and small, depend on lines of credit to smooth out the normal ups and downs. The credit crunch makes credit much more expensive. As credit tightens, businesses struggle and fail. Higher unemployment and reduced private sector spending ripple throughout the economy. Ultimate result of a credit freeze is a depression. In fact, that’s one thing that separates a recession from a depression. Easy credit means more debt – for people, businesses and government. Necessary but needs to be used wisely.
I think Bush’s meeting and McCain’s injecting himself into the mix was political grandstanding. He brought a campaign aide with him, NOT a Senate aide like Obama did. That’s when things blew up. Coincidence? Perhaps. But given his history, his political philosophy, and his penchant for drama, it’s questionable. [See previous post.]
You might want to take a gander at a couple of columns from the Washington Post. Eugene Robinson and E.J. Dionne aren’t buying McCain’s explanation as “non-political” either. Nor are the folks on CNN. Unfortunately, the people who get all their news from Fox get a very different take on whether it was a stunt or a brilliant move. Jon Stewart nailed the comparison.
Turns out the list the Sen. Shelby was waving around came out of the Chicago School of Business — the intellectual home of disaster capitalism. You’ve heard me mention Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine. Her thesis is that these folks look for and even precipitate disasters, then go in while people are in shock and set up their own brand of extreme laissez fairecapitalism, along with a fascist style of governance. They wouldn’t be able to succeed if people weren’t in shock. It’s classic neoconservative economics, except that they call it neoliberalism. So far the US has resisted it, at least domestically. But the current situation is ripe for them. And a lot of the other pieces are in place to make it happen here — some of Bush’s national security directives, for example.
The reality is that we (both Dems and Repubs) have been keeping this thing going for quite some time, probably since Reagan. Deregulation is part of it, but we’re wallowing in debt. National, local and state government debt, but the huge amounts of consumer debt has kept the economy afloat. We’re hardly a producing nation any longer — unless you count all these exotic financial instruments “products.” [Ok, I know that’s a bit of an exaggeration, but let’s face it, we’re not producing tangible products like we used to.] It’s been more like a giant Ponzi scheme, and the house of cards is about to collapse. Paulson’s original proposal was extreme — too much concentrated power with no accountability or oversight — but the general principles that had been agreed to, until McCain rode in like the Lone Ranger, looked reasonable. As Paul Krugman says, we need some adults. Paulson needs adult supervision. The question is who can provide it.
I don’t think they need a final agreement immediately. A set of basic principles would probably be enough to calm the markets. So they’d have time after that to fill in the details. If somehow McCain and the Repubs manage to pull off a victory, all bets are off.
The other thing is that the bailout won’t cost as much as the pot of money on the table. It’s basically the working capital. They’re talking about buying loans at discount, refinancing/restructuring them, then re-selling them, hopefully at a profit. In the meantime, you’ve kept people in their homes and made the money from their payments. As the institutions you’ve bailed out get healthier, their stock value improves, and since you own an equity share, you’re making capital gains when you sell your shares. And finally, since you’re the government, you don’t have to pay taxes on the revenue! One of the proposals I heard today was that the feds would make only half the money available without additional Congressional approval. That would tend to “encourage” efforts to get the loans healthy and sold so they could re-use the money as needed.
One of the proposals is to create a quasi-independent “corporation” like the RTC. Buying up loans was what the RTC did during the S&L mess in the late ’80s and early ’90s. Eventually most of those loans were sold off. Some had to be written off — mostly the crony ones — but they were the minority. And even though they were relatively loans, they were a very small percentage of the grand total. But people are going to take advantage when there aren’t adequate regulations or enough inspectors. You’d think we’d learn!
Chris came back with:
You’d think we would learn…not just from our own experiences as a nation, but from the experiences of others. For instance, Sweden went through a similar crisis (although, in many ways, much more of one than ours) in the 90’s. What worked for them as a bailout was to buy the bad loans from the banks that gave them at a reduced (or at least current market value) price. The plan from Paulson (from what I understand) says NOTHING of buying these loans at current market value, but in fact states that we should buy them based on what their market value would be when the market recovers and the businesses that issued them have recovered from this fallout. To me, that is pure BS! Why in the hell should we, as taxpayers, spend more for these loans than the private sector would to bail these institutions out? And if we are going to do so, why shouldn’t that expenditure be one that pays off the individual loans to the point where they are brought back within market expectations? In essence, my question is: why are we bailing out the “golden parachute” holding major corporations instead of bailing out the individual homeowners? Granted, there is the argument that we cannot “reward those who made the bad decision to take on more debt than they could handle”. But what about the argument that we cannot reward those who intended to make a profit by giving loans to people who, according to all former “regulated” conditions, could not handle them? Even if we demand no golden parachutes and changes in leadership and new regulations on these corporations, are we not simply sending a message that “well, if you’re a poor person who was told ‘you’d be better off paying this rent money into a home that you haveequity on, and now we can finance you’, it’s still your fault for getting into this bad loan, but now we’ll bail out the corporation that gave you the bad loan”. Oh, but by the way, you’re still screwed, and we’re not about to help you out, because that would be sending a bad message that people can make irresponsible decisions, and end up not paying for them? Unless, of course, you are a major financial corporation, in which case, you can make bad decisions that everyone ELSE ends up paying for, including those now homeowners who should never have been given the financing they got in the first place? It just seems to me that it would be cheaper and easier to bail out the individual bad loans to the point that people CAN be held accountable as opposed to bailing out the entire bad loan industry. Somehow, I can’t quite wrap my head around this one.
So, I responded:
Given that many Americans view Sweden as socialist, I doubt their solution would be considered politically viable — at least not publicly. But what you describe as the essence of their plan is what worked here for the S&L mess, except that calling the agency the Resolution Trust Corporation made it sound more like a private sector entity. It eventually was folded into the FDIC.
I share your concerns about the bailout. But doing nothing and just letting it all collapse isn’t an option. The stakes are way too high. I just don’t see a viable alternative. The AIG deal is a loan, and we’ve bailed out companies with before with loans. Lockheed and Chrysler come to mind. Those loans were paid off. The difference here is that we also now own 80% of AIG. So, the feds essentially control the company. AIG has lots of valuable assets. Theirs was a liquidity problem. The cash infusion let them keep running, and the first thing the new “owners” did was to fire the CEO. And the FBI is investigating AIG, Fanny, Freddie and Lehman. There may be arrests, trials and jail time for their CEOs… as long as they don’t drop dead like Kenny Lay did. I still think the feds should have gone after a good chunk of Lay’s money, but I wasn’t sheriff, so I didn’t get a vote on that one.
The dollar amount of Paulson’s plan is eye-popping and completely mind-numbing. Section 8 of the draft plan was clearly unacceptable to everybody except Paulson/Bush. It clearly wasn’t going to fly. So it’s gone — unless the disaster capitalists somehow prevail, in which case we’re all totally screwed. I truly don’t see that happening without some sort additional huge disaster or a coup.
Here’s the text of the original
proposal. I don’t see anything in it that speaks to purchase price conditions. And assuming the process is more open than originally proposed, your concerns aren’t likely to materialize.
USA Today listed the key elements of the principles that apparently had been agreed to before McCain showed up:
1. Authorize $700 billion for the government to purchase troubled assets and buy equity in distressed financial firms. Require the Treasury Department to make rules to prevent excessive compensation for executives whose companies benefit from the rescue.
2. Establish a strong oversight board with authority to halt the program, a special investigator general to monitor it, and regular government audits.
3. Require the government to renegotiate mortgages it acquires under the program with the aim of helping borrowers keep their homes.
4. Phase in the money for buying troubled assets, with $250 billion available immediately, $100 billion to be released if the Treasury secretary certifies it is needed, and the last $350 billion available with another certification, but subject to a congressional vote to block it.
One thing that both parties realized early on was that the taxpayers wouldn’t stand for golden parachutes. In fact, there’s been talk of limiting exec pay for the participating companies to $400k — same as Bush makes. I’m thinking that would fly well on Main Street and not give the Wall Street types much room for argument that didn’t sound selfish.
It just really pisses me off that McCain chose to try to play hero to try to save his campaign. Another instance of not putting country first. I’m not sure who initiated the idea of the WH meeting yesterday — Bush? McCain? — but it’s pretty clear that’s when things blew up. Reports says that McCain had very little to say — in other words, didn’t contribute ANY leadership. Meanwhile, Obama demonstrated both leadership and a command of the problem, peppering Paulson with questions, seeking still more and newer information on the situation and on his thinking. Of course, that’s in addition to having been in frequent contact with him well before the meeting, when he might actually be able to do some good.
The blow-up proves just how tenuously the GOP is holding together. It’s been cobbled together with several mutually incompatible factions for quite a while, and this may actually be its death knell. Heard someone saying last night that the bailout deal may negate any benefit the Palin nod had. McCain pulled in the social conservatives but is about to lose the fiscal ones. The latter group may opt to write in Paul or vote for Barr instead. The social conservatives will continue to drool over Palin — unless they’re also fiscal conservatives. They might just decide to stay home.
——————
I didn’t see this one until after our email exchange, but here’s an interesting alternative to the Paulson plan, even with its probable modifications.
The GOP’s plan calls for more deregulation. That’s gotten us into a mess every time. I can’t fault McCain’s suggestion to review the existing regs and consolidate them and the “oversighters” into something coherent. But MORE deregulation? No way, no how, NOT! The other key component of the GOP plan calls for private money to solve the problem. The LA Times has been all over this whole story. They’re reporting that credit has all but frozen. Banks aren’t even lending to each other, and other credit is so pricey that it might as well be unavailable. Given this, one must wonder just where all that private capital would come from.
So, as of Saturday, Sept. 27, there still isn’t an agreement. I remain very concerned about the implications of taking on more debt bailing out the institutions that got us to this point. The GOP plan is seriously flawed. Doing nothing isn’t an option. I just don’t see any viable alternatives. A fine mess we’ve gotten ourselves into. I guess all I can hope for is that Congress will put enough teeth into the plan so we taxpayers aren’t left hung out to dry and that those administering whatever solution do as good a job fixing things as the geniuses who got us here did in screwing things up.
Read Full Post »