Crony Communist or Businessman?
Is Henry Paulson a crony communist or a businessman? The answer could be the difference between economic disaster and recovery.
Understanding Paulson's role in stopping-or fueling-the credit crisis requires a review of two axioms from Economics 101: 1) A credit crisis occurs when banks stop lending and 2) The amount banks can lend is a multiple of the capital in their vaults. Therefore, ending a credit crisis means prompting new lending-and that means maximally increasing bank capital.
Enter Paulson, the former Goldman Sachs executive and current Treasury secretary. The bailout he fearmongered through Congress aims to waste almost a trillion taxpayer dollars buying banks' bad mortgages-a scheme all but ensuring a disastrous outcome.
If Paulson pays banks exactly what their mortgages are worth, he will not increase banks' capital (or their lending ability)-he will merely convert one asset (mortgages) into another (cash), making no impact on the credit crisis. If, to protect taxpayers, he buys mortgages at lower prices than banks list them, banks will have to write down their capital and consequently contract lending-and the credit crisis will worsen. If Paulson overpays for mortgages, he may marginally augment bank capital, but also incur massive taxpayer losses when he later resells the mortgages at their real price.
The silver lining is a little-noticed provision in the bailout bill allowing Paulson-if he chooses-to buy ownership stakes in banks. According to Robert Johnson, the Senate Banking Committee's former chief economist, this would cost roughly $375 billion less than the mortgage-buying plan-and, better yet, more aggressively attack the credit crisis.
Mortgages may be underpriced today, but they retain some value on banks' books. So rather than purchasing mortgages (a capital-neutral transaction), Paulson could buy bank stock, infusing banks with new capital on top of their mortgages. That would exponentially increase lending capacity, prevent taxpayers from buying toxic assets, give the public a share of future profits and grant regulators ownership leverage to restructure bank management.
This is where Paulson's personal proclivities come in.
A crony communist looking to socialize risk and privatize gain would consider these options and choose to buy mortgages-that is, choose to ignore the credit crisis, reward discredited executives and permit banks to keep any subsequent profits-all while inhibiting a potential government-mandated housecleaning of Wall Street. Indeed, the Financial Times' Wolfgang Munchau says Paulson's mortgage-buying program is driven by "a wish to benefit the investment banks he once chaired, and which stand to gain handsomely from such a package."
A businessman, by contrast, would limit taxpayers' exposure, give us a stake in future gains and demand management control. He would, in short, treat taxpayers like Warren Buffett treats his Berkshire Hathaway shareholders when buying banks with their money.
This is how Sweden successfully confronted its banking crisis in 1992, and how England is addressing its own meltdown today. In fact, world leaders are citing our crony communism as a cautionary tale. "This is not the American plan," said British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in announcing his bank rescue. "We will have a stake in the banks-we are not simply giving money."
The bailout bill's failure to make this course of action mandatory should have killed the legislation in Congress. But banking CEOs and their lobbyists turned "should have" into "didn't." They love crony communism and hate government ownership stakes because, as financial analyst Luigi Zingales says, "Nobody likes to pay for their own mistakes-it is much better to have the taxpayers pay."
Considering the opposition, then, it is a miracle any ownership stake language slipped into law. Whether Paulson now uses that language will signal how deep Washington corruption runs.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
23 Comments so far
Show AllOf course no other governments are going to follow the American bailout plan. If they did, the natives would march down out of the mountains and set the palace on fire.
The national debt is unpayable. Yet the politicians keep adding to it to support useless, needless wars and financial bailout of capitalist endeavors. 300 million people are literally being made into debt slaves. It is just not right. Why aren't we in the streets en masse? I'll tell you one thing, and that is that I will be adjusting my retirement accounts such that there will be no withholding for federal taxes. I didn't borrow the money and I'm not going to pay it back. Literally every day now the government tells me that it has increased my debt. Well, even loan sharks don't force you to borrow money. I'm done. Enough is enough.
-- EKATON --
I really think at this point in the game, taxes don't really matter to them, they'll just print more money. Its the only way all this spending is possible. In fact, in most cases, they don't even print it, they just declare it exists and they treat & move it electronically. They can produce 700 billion, 10 trillion, it doesn't matter as long as enough people buy into the reality.
Beautiful.
NOBODY seems to be reporting about Paulson's interesting background: worked for the Nixon administration, Goldman Sachs, has "intimate relations" with the Chinese elite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Paulson) and his own personal wealth may be $700 million -- most of it in Goldman Sachs stock. How can he possibly oversee this bailout without extraordinary conflict of interest? Why is the media not reporting on Paulson's own personal stake here? Is the guy so powerful as to be above all reproach? Too big too be criticized?
I was reading somewhere the other day that we just gave AIG another $35 billion. On top of the $85 billion we'd already given them.
Meanwhile, at the stock prices of AIG, we could have bought 100% of the shares and completely owned the company for about $7 billion.
The really depressing part is that pumping $85 billion of public money into the firm only raised the stock capitalization by about half a billion. Ie, most of that money just went up in smoke.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
I'm still trying to find out exactly where that money is going. Does anyone know? This is just Gooberball by Paulson and his bunch.
"Whatever hits the fan will not be evenly distributed."
How about another insight?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10495
"may you live in interesting times"
And another
http://www.worldreports.org/news
This is like Nero fiddling as Rome burns, with the US taxpayer the instrument being played like a fiddle.
Was it not a little over a week ago that GW Bush and Pauslon and the rest of his cronies got up to claim that the US face imminent financial collapse/ That the whole us banking system could collpase unless the same institutions got 700 billion dollars from the taxpayer?
And this morning the same guy gets up and tells Americans everything is ok...dont panic!!
What a stooge.
Corporate communism would seem to be a lot to swallow but Paulson and cronies are chowing down like hungry dogs. If we hang around the table and make goo goo eyes at our masters, they my throw us a crumb or two. To hell with that, I'm biting the masters leg and taking the plate.
"Is Henry Paulson a crony communist or a businessman?"
I found the use of the word "communist" here interesting myself. I doubt any self respecting communist would do business like this. They would be more direct and with a lot less self righteous plundering. They certainly wouldn't steal from you in front of your face.
I believe Sirota has insulted communists.
We don't have that many businessmen left like Warren Buffet that take care of their shareholders and is prudent. We have selfish theives running our Corporations.
Good point even crony fascism would be a stretch. This is more of a non structured stick up.
"This is more of a non structured stick up."
I really like this. The truth always looks good in print.
The only "socialism" here is "national socialism." Remember that Mussolini, the founder of fascism described it as corporatism. The blending of private enterprise and the state is the basis of fascism, where the interests of the most reactionary sectors of the ruling capitalist class are inseparable from the state apparatus. The emphasis remains on, and the loyalty to the private sector remain primary -- it's not so much the state taking over private enterprise as vice versa. This goes hand in hand with the stationing of the first batallion of the army in our own country to "defend" (whom do you think) against civil (that's us) unrest. Welcome to the future.
They said it couldn't happen here.
How about 'Natural Socialism?' Admittedly under stress, but chillingly appropriate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medusa_(ship)
I think the use of the term communist is the wrong word, the bailout plan by bush and paulson is nothing more than another attempt at graft. It's pure capitalism, punish and rob the poor to help out the rich fools who are really responsible for the mess they led the world into.
I think it's quite interesting to note the reaction of the brit's to this; 'This is not the American plan'. Finally trying to act like a nation are you Gordie? Good luck with that.
I'd say "communist" for the few and a bad example of a businessman. There are honest business folks who have faced PERSECUTION due to bad economic policies favoring business criminals over the honest ones.
As a former CEO of Goldman Sachs it is very likely that Paulson still holds investments tied to Goldman. If so, Paulson is bailing out his own investment portfolio by stealing from taxpayers. The word criminal is perhaps more appropriate than communist or businessman. Once again, wealth has been transferred from the many to the few via the largest criminal conspiracy on earth, our Federal government.
It should also be pointed out that Goldman Sachs was also the number one donor to Obama's campaign which makes one wonder if this could have influenced Obama in voting for the bailout of the financial institutions on Wall Street.
And don't forget ole Bob deregulate Rubin, Clinton's Sec. of the Treas., also out of Goldman-Sachs and now Citigroup, that also almost got away with taking over Wachovia for pennies on the dollar with the help of the Fed. before Wells Fargo got in the way. Rubin, formerly(?) Obama's chief economic advisor. Where's ole Bob now?
Wow! Really?
And maybe its why he's not running around the country not promising to put all the Wall Street crooks in jail either.
Maybe people are just waking up to this, but I was seeing stories a year ago about how Obama was the candidate getting the most Wall Street contributions. If anyone wants to know why I never liked him, that's a good starting place.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Interesting....the use of the work "Communist". Americans should research the funding and backbone of the Bolshevik revolution.