Skip to main content

Like most non-economists I have been following the financial crisis with some bemusement and no little concern.  The numbers seem so staggering as to be beyond imagination.  The financial instruments so exotic as to be beyond comprehension.  The scale of fiscal irresponsibility with other people's hard earned cash so huge as to be absolutely staggering.  And now the consequences appear likely to be so severe as to usher in a new Great Depression, with money being issued in quantities reminiscent of Weimar or Zimbabwe, and perhaps even a World Resource War as shadowy globalised elites seek to control what remains of an increasingly devastated planet and its diminishing resources and powers of regeneration.

To the non-expert, a perhaps over-simplified series of battle lines seem to be emerging.  Even the market fundamentalists like Greenspan appear to have discovered a flaw in their models of what should be happening in deregulated free market economies.  But most seem to accept that there are some financial institutions which are simply too big to fail and that the consequences of their failure would be even worse than the enormous costs of bailing them out.  Fiscal conservatives who baulk at even small increases in social welfare, education or public health care spending seem to have no difficulty contemplating unimaginably huge sums of taxpayers money being devoted to bailing out hugely irresponsibly if not criminally run financial institutions.

The theory appears to be that the taxpayer may get much of that money back when economies recover and asset prices eventually rise to something like their pre-bust levels.  This is where the progressives like Krugman beg to differ, arguing that the market may currently be correctly valuing many of those assets, and that there is no guarantee that the taxpayer will ever get any of that money back.  In their view some of the major financial institutions are unavoidably insolvent, and throwing taxpayers money at them now will simply reward gross irresponsibility without rescuing the current system in any way whatsoever.  In effect, it is the heist of the century where the poor are robbed by the the rich, and the most greedy and morally corrupt rich at that.

The Obama regime now appears to be siding with the "too big to let fail" argument, and preparing to spend absolutely huge sums on trying to rescue the current system.  This has progressives seriously worried that the most promising President of his generation is about to make a fatal mistake, condemning the US to impoverishment, depression and stagflation for at least a decade, and ensuring that he will be a one term President.  Ironically a McCain Presidency would never had the political capital to attempt such a massive bail-out, and would have been opposed tooth and nail by a Democrat Congress if it tried.

So what is to be done?  Jerome is depressed and has rightly pointed out that there is no argument for the taxpayer covering speculators bets that banks and Insurance companies like AIG no longer can.  Krugman is also increasingly shrill in his opposition.  And Nationalisationdoesn't appear to be on the agenda.  Even if it were, would it not increase the likelihood of the taxpayer shouldering the losses after the rich have walked away with their ill-gotten gains?  I want to propose what might be a simple solution, one undoubtedly suggested by others, although I haven't seen it put forward yet.  Perhaps it is my simple mind which cannot comprehend what others have proposed.  Undoubtedly there will be economic experts here ready, willing and able to put me straight on this.

The problem, as I see it, is that no one seems to know what the toxic assets hidden on and off financial balance sheets are actually worth, or might be worth in the future.  What seems clear is that at current valuations, many financial institutions are in fact insolvent.  If the real economy does actually recover, some may be able to trade their way out of difficulty, but all will face acute cash flow difficulties as their debt obligations become due.  Asset prices will remain hugely depressed for so long as the market is flooded with forced and distressed sellers.

So my suggestion is that Governments should set up huge investment funds to buy up these assets at current market prices because then the taxpayer also has some prospect of reward should assets prices recover somewhat. Effectively Governments would be putting a floor on current asset prices and thus helping to generate the confidence necessary for any future recovery. Of course this will not help those financial institutions which simply are insolvent at the moment, but taking their toxic assets off their hands at current prices will at least stop their forced disposals depressing the market still further.

It seems to me that there is no other way that current assets can be properly priced - except by reference to current market prices - as any other pricing mechanism - e.g. linked to whatever prices are required to enable different institutions remain solvent would be different for each institution and any global premium over market prices would enable some institutions to make huge profits whilst failing to save others.

It seems to me that the "gaming the system" mentality is deeply ingrained in the culture and organisational structures of those institutions - as is witnessed by their determination to continue to pay enormous salaries and bonuses whatever the real state of their balance sheets - and thus only allowing those institutions to go into Chapter 11 or whatever insolvency provisions apply can generate the cultural and political changes required to prevent similar behaviours being continued indefinitely.

So yes, there will be further Lehmens and turmoil in the stock markets, and those who measure Obama's success via the Stock Market indices will have much to criticise him for in the short term.  However it seems to me that the sums of money required to return the major institutions to solvency are so huge as to be beyond any President's ability to deliver on an ongoing basis, and even a President with Obama's political capital has only one more shot at saving the system by getting more funds out of Congress, and when that proves to be insufficient - as it almost undoubtedly will - not only will those institutions fail in any case, but they will have brought the prospect of any sort of progressive reform and a second Obama term down with them.

I have long had a sense that the US, in particular, is in the grips of a particularly vicious class war, but that only one side is doing the fighting.  The rich are absolutely ruthless in depriving the poor of basic employment rights, social security, education and health care, whilst "progressives" are incredibly timid in terms of taking the rich on at their own game.  

So my argument is that Governments should buy up assets at market prices now whilst they are cheap - whilst there is a realistic prospect of being able to sell them for more later - and screw the rich who let their greed get the better of their judgement or moral scruples.  If that results in major insolvencies and financial dislocations, so be it.  Far better to utilise Government resources in stimulating the real economy rather than poring money into financial black holes that - even when they were "healthy" actually produced nothing in the real world except obscenely rich speculators.

Obama and his European counterparts would need to have the balls to ride out a very sharp, but hopefully much shorter depression.  However they would also then not allow themselves to be outflanked by right wing populists and demagogues who will condemn them for bailing out the banks.  It's time progressives stopped being so God-damned "responsible" in trying to shore up the current system, and realise that we are, truly, in a revolutionary epoch right now, whether we want to be or not.

Sadly the EU seems to be moving in the opposite direction. As Nanne argues, there is little prospect of an effective opposition to the re-election of Barroso as President of the EU Commission and the continued dominance of neo-liberal policies and parties in the EU Parliament itself - even though neo-liberalism has been hugely discredited by the Global fiscal and economic crisis and just as Obama attempts to move the US in the opposite direction.  Is it any wonder when the EU electorates are so apathetic about the EU Parliament elections when there is virtually no alternative candidate for the EU Commission, and no significant popular debate as to the policy direction the EU should take as part of the EU Parliamentary elections?

Originally posted to Frank Schnittger on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 08:42 AM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The problem with current market values (4+ / 0-)

    Is that the current market value of these toxic CDOs, CDSs, and so forth, approximates zero.

    So, the banks won't write them off, attempting to hide their bankruptcy.

    To a Democrat, "democracy" means "free elections." To a Republican, "free markets."

    by XOVER on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 08:48:33 AM PDT

  •  An additional suggestion (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    marykk, Frank Schnittger

    Post Treasury Links on
    Let the people see where the money is going - complete transparency

    The goal of life is living in agreement with nature. - Zeno

    by yellow dog in NJ on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 08:50:57 AM PDT

  •  Houses are fixed -- for the most part (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    irate, marykk, Dems 2008, Frank Schnittger

    Most people who are judging the toxic asset plan have no idea about how the mortgage side works.

    Most economists are not real estate specialists.

    Paul krugman said on a taping of morning joe: " Anyone can be a economist there are no licensing requirements."

    It is more difficult to define the professional category of "economists" than to define regulated professions such as engineering, law or medicine. While a lawyer, for example, may be generally defined as a person possessing a law degree and state license to practice law, there is not a legally-required educational requirement or license for economists. In some job settings, the possession of a Bachelor's or Master's degree in economics is considered the minimum credential for being an economist. However, in some parts of the US government, a person can be considered an economist as long as they have four or more university courses in economics. As well, a person can gain the skills required to become a professional economist in other related disciplines, such as statistics or some types of applied mathematics, such as mathematical finance or game theory.

    Quick story.

    My daughter fell out of a shopping cart and landed on her 2 front teeth. She was only 2 1/2 at the time.  Every MD and dentist, atleast 4, told us the teeth must be pulled. They said the teeth will turn blue and rot and will fall out in 2-6 months.

    This was a unacceptable diagnosis for me so i did some research on my own. I found out that if i get a wire put on her 2 front teeth, then the gums will heal and strenthen and hold the teeth in place. 2yrs later my daughter's teeth are still there and good as new.

    Moral of the story:

    Do your own research. Pay attention to the plans that make simple and logical sense.  Never trust the so called experts. Experts get in wrong all the time.

    Geithner's plan is very simple and logical. Everyone will win if the policies are enacted the way he is purposing.

  •  George Will, "climatologist" .,,, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Cassiodorus, Frank Schnittger

    on "This Week" just announced that the solution to the banking crisis is "free markets". "Free markets" have worked just fine for hundreds of years.

    "The dirty little secret,,,is that every republican politician wants Obama to fail,," rush limbaugh

    by irate on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 09:00:19 AM PDT

  •  Pricing assets of housing is easy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dems 2008, Frank Schnittger

    The mortgage assets will be short paid or short sold.

    When the mortgage get short sold at 20-30 cents on a dollars and then the banks sell the mortgages bulk to the Us gov't.  The Govt will then  sell them to private real estate investor-- or hedge fund managers investing in real estate. The US govt will make a profit ( taxpayers)

    Most people are confusing the the free market principle of the whole economy vs the housing free market.

    The free market principles work with housing because the assets are fixed-- and other semi fixed areas of the real estate market.

    The geithner plan will work

    •  And the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Frank Schnittger

      free market as it relates to the whole economy is flawed. The Us economy is a complex beast with many variables.  The free market of the housing market does not equal the flawed free market idea as it relates to the whole overall economy.

      They are two different animals.

  •  A "Democrat" congress? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Frank Schnittger

    I know that's a small thing to pick out of this diary but it stopped me from reading further...

    -7.62, -7.28 "We told the truth. We obeyed the law. We kept the peace." - Walter Mondale

    by luckylizard on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 11:25:02 AM PDT

    •  you have to make allowances (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      melo, luckylizard

      for us Europeans.  The finer points of US political vocabulary are sometimes beyond us, and certainly no offence was intended.

      "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

      by Frank Schnittger on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 03:49:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        melo, Frank Schnittger

        Didn't mean to presume.  I usually don't jump on things like that, either.  I must be crabby today:-(  I did actually read on and enjoy the diary!

        -7.62, -7.28 "We told the truth. We obeyed the law. We kept the peace." - Walter Mondale

        by luckylizard on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 03:58:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Democratic (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          I did actually know there is a sensitivity around the name of the Democratic party but the diary was a bit of a rush job and I was too lazy to check out which was the version which caused offence.  I think Nate Silver did a post on in some time ago so I really have little excuse for not remembering or taking more care.

          "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."

          by Frank Schnittger on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 04:21:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site