Americans have had enough of the nightmare of irresponsible big institutions getting bailed out by the US government using their tax dollars. The average citizen on Main Street should not pay for the risky and reckless behavior of corporate giants on Wall Street.
Bailout is the most unpopular word in the language today. In Texas, the Republican nomination for governor was decided when the heavy favorite, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, was derided as “Kay Bailout”, for her vote in the U.S. Senate.
Now, the Senate Democrats have proposed legislation to overhaul financial markets by establishing government scrutiny and regulation to almost any financial product, from payday loans to workers to derivative trades by investment bankers.
The bill's prospects are unclear. So far it has no Republican support and the lobbyists hired by financial interests are already on the attack. But their defense was destroyed when they took the bailout money to remain solvent. When they begged the US government to loan them trillions of dollars to save them from bankruptcy, they put themselves in the hands of the federal government obligated to make sure it never happens again.
Hence the absolute requirement for regulation of trading, for adequate capital, for consumer protection, for mortgage regulation, for transparent records, etc. When an institution needs a rescue to survive, it gives away part of its independence. If they are too big to fail because their failure will have negative consequences to the entire American and world economies, they must be restrained in conducting business in a manner that increases the risk of failure.
We all know that financial institutions and big business have enormous power in Washington. They will resist most serious reforms and effective regulation or at least try to weaken them. The battle will be a serious test of American democracy. If serious regulation does not establish controls over outright gambling with other people's money, over deceptive practices, over risk-taking for bonus payments, the nation will have capitulated to practices that could bring down the Republic.
We can't have anymore of this business of, heads I win, tails you lose. The national interest must be protected. No more gambling with depositors’ money with the assurance that the government will bail out the losses and a fat bonus will await the gambler if the house wins.
Showing posts with label Bailout. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bailout. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Sunday, March 22, 2009
A.I.G. Bonuses - The Last Straw
A.I.G. Bonuses - The Last Straw
By Jerome Grossman
The national explosion of anger over the bonuses awarded to financial officers at American International Group indicates that the tipping point has been reached in the accumulated resentments on American financial inequality.. For generations, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the income gap between the 95% of U.S. population lumped together as working class and middle class, and the 5% who earned $250,000 or more per year, has widened significantly. The 5% have more clout. They dominate U.S. politics, education, culture, taxation rules, charitable institutions, media, and business, acting as a kind of American nobility with benefits handed down from generation to generation.
Then comes a time when a relatively insignificant event captures the attention of the masses who begin to connect their anger at the current violation with the other half-remembered abuses. Then comes real change. Sometimes a popular leader emerges to dramatize the exploitation, like William Jennings Bryan, who galvanized the Democratic Party with “You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold,” dramatizing the economic ills plaguing farmers and industrial workers. He won the Democratic nomination twice although not the presidency. But he won many of his reforms, backed by an aroused citizenry, were adopted, including the income tax, popular election of senators, woman suffrage, popular knowledge of newspaper ownership etc.
Today Americans are worried that the bailout was designed for the benefit of those who created the crisis. They suspect that America has been taken over by a small class of connected insiders who use money to control elections, buy influence, systematically weaken financial regulation and get government money to bail them out when they get into trouble.
The A.I.G. bonuses remind the 95% of:
• The bailouts of the banks and bankers from their own mistakes
• The failure to bail-out the average citizen from unfair mortgages and job layoffs
• The bankers who gambled with depositor money at enormous risk to build bonuses for themselves
• The low tax rate paid by the wealthiest Americans on the top portion of their earnings now at 35%, once 91% under Eisenhower, 70% under Nixon, 50% under Reagan. What happened to the progressive tax based on ability to pay?
• The special tax rate for capital gains of 20% used by the wealthiest Americans
• The special tax breaks given to insiders as earmarks
• Some business executives maintain control by appointing their friends to boards of directors
• Some business executives vote themselves enormous salaries
• Some business executives vote themselves stock options, some of which are back-dated to take advantage of stock price increases
• Some business executives vote themselves enormous retirement packages not based on performance
• Some business executives discharge workers and speed up the rest of the work force to increase short term profits and stock prices
• Some business executives maintain headquarters outside the U.S.A. and shift corporate income from country to country to avoid taxes
Will the anger about A.I.G. bonuses subside? Or will an organization of citizens spring up to fight for their interests? Will another William Jennings Bryan denounce the current abuses and agitate for fairer wages and fairer division of the profits of our technological society? Will the current anger dissipate into the day-to-day problems of an economy in decline? Will the A.I.G. bonuses be the last straw?
By Jerome Grossman
The national explosion of anger over the bonuses awarded to financial officers at American International Group indicates that the tipping point has been reached in the accumulated resentments on American financial inequality.. For generations, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the income gap between the 95% of U.S. population lumped together as working class and middle class, and the 5% who earned $250,000 or more per year, has widened significantly. The 5% have more clout. They dominate U.S. politics, education, culture, taxation rules, charitable institutions, media, and business, acting as a kind of American nobility with benefits handed down from generation to generation.
Then comes a time when a relatively insignificant event captures the attention of the masses who begin to connect their anger at the current violation with the other half-remembered abuses. Then comes real change. Sometimes a popular leader emerges to dramatize the exploitation, like William Jennings Bryan, who galvanized the Democratic Party with “You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns. You shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold,” dramatizing the economic ills plaguing farmers and industrial workers. He won the Democratic nomination twice although not the presidency. But he won many of his reforms, backed by an aroused citizenry, were adopted, including the income tax, popular election of senators, woman suffrage, popular knowledge of newspaper ownership etc.
Today Americans are worried that the bailout was designed for the benefit of those who created the crisis. They suspect that America has been taken over by a small class of connected insiders who use money to control elections, buy influence, systematically weaken financial regulation and get government money to bail them out when they get into trouble.
The A.I.G. bonuses remind the 95% of:
• The bailouts of the banks and bankers from their own mistakes
• The failure to bail-out the average citizen from unfair mortgages and job layoffs
• The bankers who gambled with depositor money at enormous risk to build bonuses for themselves
• The low tax rate paid by the wealthiest Americans on the top portion of their earnings now at 35%, once 91% under Eisenhower, 70% under Nixon, 50% under Reagan. What happened to the progressive tax based on ability to pay?
• The special tax rate for capital gains of 20% used by the wealthiest Americans
• The special tax breaks given to insiders as earmarks
• Some business executives maintain control by appointing their friends to boards of directors
• Some business executives vote themselves enormous salaries
• Some business executives vote themselves stock options, some of which are back-dated to take advantage of stock price increases
• Some business executives vote themselves enormous retirement packages not based on performance
• Some business executives discharge workers and speed up the rest of the work force to increase short term profits and stock prices
• Some business executives maintain headquarters outside the U.S.A. and shift corporate income from country to country to avoid taxes
Will the anger about A.I.G. bonuses subside? Or will an organization of citizens spring up to fight for their interests? Will another William Jennings Bryan denounce the current abuses and agitate for fairer wages and fairer division of the profits of our technological society? Will the current anger dissipate into the day-to-day problems of an economy in decline? Will the A.I.G. bonuses be the last straw?
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Too Big to Fail
Too Big to Fail
By Jerome Grossman
At least twenty oversized American banks have histories of reckless behavior, including bad lending and gambling with derivatives, that have left them insolvent, in fact, bankrupt. They have poisoned the economy and should pay the price for their mistakes just like every other business.
However, because their machinations affect so many investors, depositors and other businesses, they have been given a pass, saved by massive injection of federal government funds. By basic capitalist standards, this is a gross violation of business integrity, weakening the structure of our economic system. The violated principle is summarized as “Too big to fail.” One Nobel Prize winning economist called it “looting”.
The managers of such institutions knew how to take advantage of their special status. They took excessive risk for mountainous profits that would entitle them to massive bonuses if successful - or a government bailout if the investment failed. The techniques were often complicated; but some were based on inadequate reserves that purposely underestimated the financial exposure. The managers were in financial clover: heads I win, tails you lose, “Too big to fail.”
In the current crisis, the government is rescuing the managers once again, lending $700 billion as bailout money. That amount, leveraged on an accepted basis of ten to one, could have supported $7 trillion of lending capacity in a new or reorganized bank, more than enough to serve the nation's business. We didn’t go that route; they are “Too big to fail.” President Obama has given primary responsibility for the financial crisis to Lawrence Summers, head of the National Economic Council, and Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury. The president can do better than these two conventional figures stuck in the past.
There may be an uncomfortable analogy in the position of the United States in world affairs: “Too big to fail.” Decade after decade we overspend on military equipment, organize the largest military budget the world has ever seen, enter failed military quagmires in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, yet we get token troop support from nations around the world even though their populations disapprove of our military invasions. A remarkable 737 American military bases with hundreds of thousands of American troops are situated in 130 countries, a worldwide presence that protects the governing elites on virtually every continent. Is the U.S.A. “Too big to fail” because its collapse would upset the political and military status quo all over the world?
Where does the U.S. get the money to finance its domestic and foreign errors? In large part from China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and the other countries that buy U.S. Treasury bonds in the hope that they will be redeemable despite our enormous national debt of $10,942,165,294,650.89 or roughly eleven (11) trillion dollars. China's economy depends on the sales of goods to the U.S. The Saudis have big investments in the U.S. and depend on U.S. military power to protect them from their own people and keep the oil flowing. The Japanese are inheriting our automobile business
In spite of their mistakes, the banks and the U.S. maintain their prime positions in the world because they are “Too big to fail.” How long can it last? Their gross errors of management are too expensive, depressing profits and living standards by forcing greatly increased costs on the entire world. Adam Smith, the patron saint of capitalism, would tell the nation and the world that these arrangements are too inefficient and unstable to be continued indefinitely.
By Jerome Grossman
At least twenty oversized American banks have histories of reckless behavior, including bad lending and gambling with derivatives, that have left them insolvent, in fact, bankrupt. They have poisoned the economy and should pay the price for their mistakes just like every other business.
However, because their machinations affect so many investors, depositors and other businesses, they have been given a pass, saved by massive injection of federal government funds. By basic capitalist standards, this is a gross violation of business integrity, weakening the structure of our economic system. The violated principle is summarized as “Too big to fail.” One Nobel Prize winning economist called it “looting”.
The managers of such institutions knew how to take advantage of their special status. They took excessive risk for mountainous profits that would entitle them to massive bonuses if successful - or a government bailout if the investment failed. The techniques were often complicated; but some were based on inadequate reserves that purposely underestimated the financial exposure. The managers were in financial clover: heads I win, tails you lose, “Too big to fail.”
In the current crisis, the government is rescuing the managers once again, lending $700 billion as bailout money. That amount, leveraged on an accepted basis of ten to one, could have supported $7 trillion of lending capacity in a new or reorganized bank, more than enough to serve the nation's business. We didn’t go that route; they are “Too big to fail.” President Obama has given primary responsibility for the financial crisis to Lawrence Summers, head of the National Economic Council, and Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury. The president can do better than these two conventional figures stuck in the past.
There may be an uncomfortable analogy in the position of the United States in world affairs: “Too big to fail.” Decade after decade we overspend on military equipment, organize the largest military budget the world has ever seen, enter failed military quagmires in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, yet we get token troop support from nations around the world even though their populations disapprove of our military invasions. A remarkable 737 American military bases with hundreds of thousands of American troops are situated in 130 countries, a worldwide presence that protects the governing elites on virtually every continent. Is the U.S.A. “Too big to fail” because its collapse would upset the political and military status quo all over the world?
Where does the U.S. get the money to finance its domestic and foreign errors? In large part from China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and the other countries that buy U.S. Treasury bonds in the hope that they will be redeemable despite our enormous national debt of $10,942,165,294,650.89 or roughly eleven (11) trillion dollars. China's economy depends on the sales of goods to the U.S. The Saudis have big investments in the U.S. and depend on U.S. military power to protect them from their own people and keep the oil flowing. The Japanese are inheriting our automobile business
In spite of their mistakes, the banks and the U.S. maintain their prime positions in the world because they are “Too big to fail.” How long can it last? Their gross errors of management are too expensive, depressing profits and living standards by forcing greatly increased costs on the entire world. Adam Smith, the patron saint of capitalism, would tell the nation and the world that these arrangements are too inefficient and unstable to be continued indefinitely.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
A Fair Deal for the Homeowner
A Fair Deal for the Homeowner
By Jerome Grossman
Banks and other financial institutions need capital to replace losses incurred when they bought real estate mortgages that collapsed.
Homeowners need capital to replace losses incurred when they signed real estate mortgages for values that collapsed.
The United States Congress is bailing out the bankers but not the homeowners. Why? According to the Wall Street Journal 10/1/08, "A chorus of business leaders and trade groups urged Washington to enact a financial markets rescue plan…. General Electric Co.... Verizon Communications Inc.... Microsoft..... AT&T..... Caterpillar Inc...... The Business Roundtable...."
Here is a fair question. Who was lobbying for the homeowners? If the US government will buy the mortgages from the banks, mortgages that may or may not prove to be worthless, why not credit each homeowner with his/her share of the bailout to reduce the mortgage and avoid a foreclosure? The banker gets the money, the homeowner stays in the home, and the politician gets wisdom, all for the same amount of money.
Wouldn't that be fair? Wouldn't that satisfy two political constituencies instead of one? Why should one end of the failed transaction be subsidized and not the other? Is it because one has political clout and makes campaign contributions?
By Jerome Grossman
Banks and other financial institutions need capital to replace losses incurred when they bought real estate mortgages that collapsed.
Homeowners need capital to replace losses incurred when they signed real estate mortgages for values that collapsed.
The United States Congress is bailing out the bankers but not the homeowners. Why? According to the Wall Street Journal 10/1/08, "A chorus of business leaders and trade groups urged Washington to enact a financial markets rescue plan…. General Electric Co.... Verizon Communications Inc.... Microsoft..... AT&T..... Caterpillar Inc...... The Business Roundtable...."
Here is a fair question. Who was lobbying for the homeowners? If the US government will buy the mortgages from the banks, mortgages that may or may not prove to be worthless, why not credit each homeowner with his/her share of the bailout to reduce the mortgage and avoid a foreclosure? The banker gets the money, the homeowner stays in the home, and the politician gets wisdom, all for the same amount of money.
Wouldn't that be fair? Wouldn't that satisfy two political constituencies instead of one? Why should one end of the failed transaction be subsidized and not the other? Is it because one has political clout and makes campaign contributions?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
