Wall Street Socialism
This weekend, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, former head of the Goldman Sachs investment house, provided us with a perfect demonstration of Wall Street socialism.
He announced that the Bush administration would seek congressional approval to bail out Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, the government created, but privately owned, profit-making housing finance companies that hold or guarantee nearly half of the US mortgage market -- some $5 trillion in debt. Paulson seeks and will get an unlimited line of credit to guarantee their debt, as well as authority to purchase their shares to supplement their capital base. The Federal Reserve announced it was ready to provide lending while waiting for Congress to act. Paulson said the new subsidies were designed to sustain the two institutions in "their current form."
Perfect. The two institutions have always been more foul than fish. Created by the government in the 1930s to help lubricate the US mortgage market by buying mortgages from the banks so they would have the cash to make more mortgages, Fanny and Freddy were able to borrow money at a discount because of a widely shared assumption that the government would stand behind their debts if push came to shove. Their operations were regulated, limited by laws detailing what mortgages they could assume (They were essentially prohibited from diving directly into the subprime muck). But as they grew and profited, their executives pocketed lavish salaries and bonuses -- giving them an incentive to grow even more (and as we discovered earlier this decade, to cook the books). Last year, for example, the Chair of Freddie Mac took home a cool $18,289,575.
Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd reaped a 7 percent rise in pay to $13.4 million in 2007 while the company lost $2/1 billion and its shared fell 33%. Nice work if you can get it.
Now with the bursting of the housing bubble, push surely has come to shove. Foreclosures are soaring, the two institutions have sustained billions in losses, their shares have plummeted, and, according to former St. Louis Federal Reserve President William Poole, one and possibly both would be bankrupt if their assets were marked down to their current market value.
So now the Bush administration proposes to make the federal guarantee explicit and even to offer taxpayer money to help recapitalize the two banks if needed. Everything has been nationalized -- except the profits and the pay scales of the bank's executives.
That's right. If the guarantees work, private speculators, having driven the stock down, will clean up on the upside. And the bank's CEO's will continue to pocket the multi-million dollar salaries that are de rigueur on Wall Street. Call it Wall Street socialism. Their losses are socialized; their profits are pocketed. You and I will pay for their failures. And if conservatives have their way, their families will pocket their successes, without even having to pay a tax for the transfer of the estates we've helped to create.
These enterprises are operating on our tab now -- completely. Why not just nationalize them, as even that font of economic convention, Sabastian Mallaby suggested yesterday in the Washington Post. Sure, we'd have to add the $5 trillion in debt to the federal balance sheet, but we could add the assets also. And after Paulson's announcement, global investors are already toting up their debts onto the federal balance sheet.
Why pay dividends to shareholders when they are essentially playing with our money? Why pay managers of public enterprises the bloated pay packages of Wall Street speculators? Why allow them to finance lobbyists to shield them from accountability? The fiction of their separate existence has been exploded; let's save the dough and run them efficiently.
Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are only the most recent and extreme version of Wall Street socialism. The Bush administration has done essentially the same for private providers of college loans. The Federal Reserve has made taxpayers the guarantor not simply of the banks that it regulates, but the shadow banking system of hedge funds and investment houses that it doesn't regulate. After the bailout of Bear Sterns, they basically are gambling with our money. The Federal Reserve has now traded more than $500 billion in federal bonds for the toxic paper of private banks and investment houses, some $200 billion of it in mortgage backed securities, worth dimes on the dollar. This massive subsidy -- justified as necessary to keep the banking system afloat -- is not accompanied by limits on what gambles the speculators can make, how much debt they can take on, what rewards they can pocket. They are playing with house money -- not exactly an incentive for prudence.
Republicans seem ideologically committed to these kinds of arrangements. In Medicare for example, conservatives have demanded that the government subsidize private insurance companies to compete with public Medicare, even though Medicare provides healthcare much less expensively. When Bush and the DeLay Congress drove through the prescription drug bill, they included a provision that PROHIBITS Medicare from negotiating cheaper prices for drugs, effectively turning the bill from a benefit to Seniors to a multi-billion subsidy to private drug companies (not surprisingly, after Wall Street, the drug companies finance one of the most lavish and powerful lobbies in Washington).
Now it makes sense to me for the government to subsidize housing mortgages and college loans. Encouraging home ownership and higher education are central to sustaining the broad middle class that is America's triumph. But I can't imagine why we need to let bankers and investors pocket the upside, when they are playing with our money and we're covering their losses. Public enterprise may be staid and bureaucratic, but it's a lot cheaper and more efficient than the perils of Wall Street socialism.
Robert L. Borosage is the president of the Institute for America's Future and co-director of its sister organization, the Campaign for America's Future.
© 2008 Huffington Post
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
32 Comments so far
Show AllThe difficulty of Wall Street Socialism is that given corporate lobbyists, all advantages of socialism are delivered unfairly to capitalists rather than to the economy as a whole.
When Wall Street co-opts or usurps the rights and sovereignty of government, there are bound to be problems, and a nation who allows it is no longer free - but ruled by corporate dictators as surely as if they had been taken over by terrorists with guns. Absent guns, is not a comfort when a nation has been taken over. The result is the same.
The government in Washington will do anything to keep Wall Street going strong, but very little to help Main Street.
In her acceptance speech in Chicago last Saturday, Cynthia McKinney said, "And while Bear Stearns gets a bailout, you and I sink or swim." That's the bottom line.
I reject the notion that we should automatically rescue failing major corporations like Chrysler, the Savings & Loans, Bear Stearns, or Fannie Mae. There is plenty of room for discussion of pro-con on the issue, but it seems obvious that to give and get nothing in return stinks. If We the People are footing the bill, we need an appropriate return on our investment.
There's another name for Wall Street Socialism: fascism.
John M. Wages, Jr.
US House, MS Dist. 1
www.VoteJohnWages.com
It is estimated that about $7 trillion dollars a day is betted by the speculators.
A tax on that would solve a lot of problems.
Don't forget the US military! Socialized invasions with private profit!
DD, please. Pretending that the Democrats are different from the Republicans is no more real than pretending that that massive crisis in capitalism we are witnessing is just a lack of consumer confidence!
The Green Party supports the Tobin tax, a tax on monetary speculation. I would think that we could update it to include a tax on credit derivative speculation, and the massive amounts of money that is betted on daily by the speculators across the world. Real people are affected by this massive casino, and the more they speculate, the worse it is for people. Tax them!
We workers are taxed at about 30% or more for our earned wages, the rich are taxed about 15% for their unearned profits, and the speculators aren't taxed at all! This is ridiculous.
Quit screwing around with the Democrats and Republicans while the ruling class fleeces us.
The idea of a "free market" has always been a gimmick to get the little people to go along with the program, i.e. to take their own fleecing without complaint, and sometimes (especially for the feeble-minded little people) even to join the fleecers in fighting against those who try to address the injustice of it all. No such state of nature ("free market") can exist for more than a moment, as without a powerful government the powerful players in the market would naturally collude and engage in other questionable practices to warp the market to serve their own interests, and with a powerful government those powerful players would exert great pressure on individuals in the government to obtain government assistance in warping the market to serve their interests. It always has been and always will be a market that mostly serves the interests of the players powerful enough to shape it to their own liking.
"Paper money is a whore – an abomination that transfers wealth from the many to the few."
Buy Gold and Silver!
Flash. Repugs hate Obama because he has the most liberal voting record. Can't be all bad can he?
They were always going to be bailed out. Everyone has worked on the assumption that the government implicitly guarantees them, and the market would have collapsed without that implicit guarantee. Nothing to see here, business as usual.
Let's vote for some out-and-proud socialists, instead of these closeted, self-hating ones like Obama and McCain.
The Dimocrats are just as culpable as the Repugnicans, and electing more of them only will make things worse. In the article above, we see what the Repugnicans really are about. So here is a little about the Dims. I quote "a spokesman for the Obama campaign declined to comment, noting only that former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson stepped down from his campaign post in June. Johnson headed Fannie Mae from 1991-1998, leaving with a $21 million payout. Even after he left, Fannie continued to pay him an annual fee of at least $300,000 per year for consulting services and a $71,000 monthly pension, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commissions." Also "Jamie Gorelick, deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration and a chief policy adviser to Hillary Rodham Clinton, is rumored to be a possible attorney general in an Obama administration. She was vice-chairman of Fannie Mae and sat on its board of directors."
-- Lisa Lerer politico.com
Two sides of the same coin that are equally corrupt, criminal, and GREEDY!!
As terrifying as it must be to Wall Street investors to witness the daily hemorrhaging of Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE), it is fascinating to see the ways in which the current crisis is being "managed" (I'm tempted to write stage-managed).
As if on cue, Ben Bernanke issued reassurances that the two GSEs were not in "danger of failing" in the hopes that this would assuage investors' fears for their solvency and slow the sell-offs of the past few days.
Go to the online version of today's New York Times and you'll find a well-placed article describing a drop in oil prices and a 200 point increase in the DOW. Of course you won't find a mention anywhere in that article of the fact that both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac posted losses today, because that would work against the intent of this piece of "journalism"--really just a propaganda effort to instill confidence in the financial system.
Equally interesting is the way the online Wall Street Journal displays its daily stock information. The site gives you the option of looking at the 1-day, 10-day, 1 month, 3 month, and 1 year results for any stock, BUT--and here's the really interesting bit--the site defaults to displaying the 1-day results in order to present to the casual viewer a far rosier picture of the stock performance of entities like Fannie and Freddie.
Go over to the website and check it out. Just think how different your reading experience would be if the first thing you saw was not the 1-day results for Fannie (FNM) or Freddie (FRE) but their performance so far this year!
Essentially, what is going on is a psychological game, a deliberate campaign to restore a confidence that really ought not to exist. Ben Bernanke's assurance that Fannie and Freddie aren't in danger of failing no doubt sounds good to some people who aren't aware of the two companies' debt to equity ratios (exact figures on this are somewhat hard to come by, but a conservative estimate of this would be in the neighborhood of 25 to 1 or so). The two of them are so highly leveraged as to make Bernanke's words sound pretty hollow. It is only because of the implicit understanding that the government won't allow them to fail that his words have any teeth to them at all, but investors are understandably reluctant to pump money into companies with such poor debt to equity ratios.
It'll be interesting to see how it unfolds.
I am really, really sick of the Repub vs. Dems crap. It should be obvious to ANYONE with reasoning skills to see that both sides are completely corrupt. It's useless to point fingers, they are ALL complicit. Our REAL rulers are the corporate elite, the very ones that are profiting from shortfall as stated in this article.
People will never rise up together until they get over the "it's the other side that is the problem" mentality and realize that our entire system is completely, utterly, and systemically broken/stolen.
zzz,
Can you name a single meaningful republican accomplishment since they "took" control of the government from 2000-2006?
Daniel David,
Can you name a single meaningful democratic accomplishment since they took control of Congress two years ago?
patience, patience, their time will come.
I overheard executives joking, way back in 1970, about "privatizing the gains and socializing the losses." heh heh heh. It's been pretty obvious for decades now, that BigBiz and Wall Street are the biggest Welfare Queens on the block.
And it isn't just Republicans - they may wear different team uniforms on occasions, but they're all playing the same game.
The GAO would then appoint someone to sit on the boards of FNMA and FDMC and represent the US citizens' interest in these companies.
Ditto for all other federal bailout proposals.
The US Gov't should not give one penny unless the US Treasury receives stock in exchange at fair market value. We are a capitalist nation, after all, right?
Privatize profit...socialize expenses and losses...its the American way.
Anybody who criticizes this system must want to destroy America's way of life.
OK, I meant "Borosage," not Kuttner.
Kuttner writes, "Now it makes sense to me for the government to subsidize housing mortgages and college loans. ... But I can't imagine why we need to let bankers and investors pocket the upside..."
- Why do we let "bankers and investors pocket the upside"? Because that's how capitalism works. In a capitalist state, the government inevitably functions as the agent of capital. Bankers & investors LIKE to "pocket the upside," so they make damn sure their servants in Congress arrange that for them.
There is no other possible outcome. Any legislators who tried to oppose it would be accused of being "anti-business." Obviously, none of them are willing to risk that.
The Democratic convention is going to be a riot. Consider the colorful history of the organized criminals who will be in attendance: weapons manufacturers, Wall Street grifters and other corporate cut throats and thieves. Aside from notorious MIC fundies like Steny Hoyer, consider Joe Lieberman, who conveniently swapped letters and will be somewhat ironically attending the R convention. Ignoring both parties is the way forward, work feverishly to overthrow the status quo (Wall Street socialism). The future is at hand!
Daniel David,
Your partisan leanings is what makes the Democratic Party as dysfunctional as it can ever be. Sure, the GOP did their part of the damage but since enough of the Democratic Party chose to side with those devils when push came to shove, it just went to show that the Democratic Party is just nothing more than a bunch of loser opportunists. You already know that President Obama will be no different from President Mccain just like President Clinton was no different from President Reagan so stop your partisan propaganda already. If Nader wins a great deal of the popular vote and even tips the balance to Mccain, too bad. The Democrats had 8 years to refute Nader's claim that there wasn't a difference between the Ds and the Rs but that they went out of their ways to defend it.
Somebody follow the Treasury's newly-printed, increasingly worthless money from the Fed's discount window into the commodity markets. How better to replenish the investment bank and hedge fund coffers than speculation/investment driving up the price of necessities like food and energy and investing in foreign currencies? All while present and future American taxpayers (the ones without loopholes and havens) cover the losses from their last binge. Sweet!
Daniel David,
Your rejoinder to scottk (and attempted defense of the Dems thereby) only reveals a certain myopic preoccupation with the executive branch, as if the Democratic controlled Congress (remember that they controlled both houses for a considerable time) was somehow powerless and reluctant to bailout the savings and loans.
That's a good trick!
scottk,
I thought Reagan and GHW Bush were the presidents in the 1980's. Was there someone else I'm forgetting?
For those interested in this subject, check out Kucinich's economic advisor, Michael Hudson's reading of the situation:
Rewarding the Bubble's Enablers
Why the Bail Out of Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae is Bad Economic Policy
http://www.counterpunch.com/hudson07152008.html
scottk,
You're absolutely right. Notice that Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) has been working hard to incorporate the Paulson bailout into his housing legislation for quick passage.
So far I haven't heard a lot of furor from Dems over Paulson's plan to continue the privatization of Fannie and Freddie's benefits and the socialization of their losses.
A condition of any bailout plan should be--as Borosage suggests--socialization of the assets of Fannie and Freddie and not simply their losses.
Daniel David,
So do the Democrats, remember when the Democrats bailed out the savings and loans during the 1980's.
"Republicans seem ideologically committed to these kinds of arrangements."
Indeed. That's why you want Washington filled with Democrats. Yes, it's that simple. No, they're not all the same.
Part of the message of the spirit of 1776 was"no taxation without representation". The time has arrived for that slogan to be shouted, once again, across this country. We the people pay the taxes yet it is the wealthy who benifit. Where are our representatives in government? Apparently on the take from the monied interests. Governments and people continuely fail to learn from history. Revolutions occure due to that failure.
Some of you may have missed the hearings on C-Span on this subject with Secty Paulson...
The real kicker here is that he wants UNLIMITED federal funds to bail out the two Freddie and Fannie! Even if it costs trillions!!!!
That's how far outside of sane thinking this idiot has roamed....
You and I have to live within our means; but Wall Street can always suck at the taxpayer trough and call it "Free Enterprise!"
Where is Madam DeFarge when we need her?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madame_Defarge