Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Democrats Who Unleashed Wall Street and Got Away With It
That Lawrence Summers, a president emeritus of Harvard, is a consummate distorter of fact and logic is not a revelation. That he and Bill Clinton, the president he served as treasury secretary, can still get away with disclaiming responsibility for our financial meltdown is an insult to reason.
Yet, there they go again. Clinton is presented, in a fawning cover story in the current edition of Esquire magazine, as “Someone we can all agree on. ... Even his staunchest enemies now regard his presidency as the good old days.” In a softball interview, Clinton is once again allowed to pass himself off as a job creator without noting the subsequent loss of jobs resulting from the collapse of the housing derivatives bubble that his financial deregulatory policies promoted.
Former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, right, share a laugh in 2006. Both men share blame for the economic collapse of 2008. It was Clinton’s financial deregulation that legalized the merger of commercial and investment banks, creating institutions that were both risky and too-big-to-fail.
At least Summers, in a testier interview by British journalist Krishnan Guru-Murthy of Channel 4 News, was asked some tough questions about his responsibility as Clinton’s treasury secretary for the financial collapse that occurred some years later. He, like Clinton, still defends the reversal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, a 1999 repeal that destroyed the wall between investment and commercial banking put into place by Franklin Roosevelt in response to the Great Depression.
“I think the evidence is that I am right about that. If you look at the big players, Lehman and Bear Stearns were both standalone investment banks,” Summers replied, referring to two investment banks allowed to fold. Summers is very good at obscuring the obvious truth—that the too-big-to-fail banks, made legal by Clinton-era deregulation, required taxpayer bailouts.
The point of Glass-Steagall was to prevent jeopardizing commercial banks holding the savings of average citizens. Summers knows full well that the passage of the repeal of Glass-Steagall was pushed initially by Citigroup, a mammoth merger of investment and commercial banking that create the largest financial institution in the world, an institution that eventually had to be bailed out with taxpayer funds to avoid economic disaster for millions of ordinary Americans. He also knows that Citigroup—where Robert Rubin, who preceded Summers as Clinton’s treasury secretary, played leading roles during a critical time—specialized in precisely the mortgage and other debt packages and insurance scams that were the source of America’s economic crisis.
Even Clinton, in a rare moment of honest appraisal of his record, conceded that his signing of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA), legalizing those credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations, was based on bad advice. That advice would have had to come from Summers, his point man pushing the CFMA legislation, which Clinton signed into law during his lame-duck days.
When the British interviewer reminded him of Clinton’s comment, Summers, as is his style, simply bristled: “Again, you make everything so simple, when in fact it’s complicated. Would it have been better if the whole financial reform legislation had passed in 1999, or 1998, or 1992? Yes, of course it would have been better. But … at the time Bill Clinton was president, there essentially were no credit default swaps. So the issue that became a serious problem really wasn’t an issue that was on the horizon.”
That is a lie. Credit default swaps had been sold at least since 1991, and collateralized debt obligations of all sorts quickly became the rage during the Clinton years. Summers surely remembers that Brooksley Born, the legal expert on such matters that Clinton appointed to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), warned about the ballooning danger of those unregulated derivatives. Born, who served with Summers as one of four members of the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, tried repeatedly and in vain to get her colleagues to act. When her pleas fell on deaf ears she issued a “concept release” calling attention to an unregulated derivatives market that was even then spiraling out of control.
The CFMA legislation that Summers pushed and Clinton signed was a specific rebuke to Born’s efforts. As Summers testified at the time before a Senate committee: “As you know, Mr. Chairman, the CFTC’s recent concept release has been a matter of great concern, not merely to Treasury, but to all those with an interest in the OTC [over-the-counter] derivatives market. In our view, the Release has cast the shadow of regulatory uncertainty over an otherwise thriving market—raising risks for stability and competitiveness of American derivative trading. We believe it quite important that the doubts be eliminated.”
Those doubts were eliminated by the new law exempting all of that troubling OTC derivatives trading from all existing regulations and regulatory agencies. Summers argued in his congressional testimony that there was no reason for any government regulation of what turned out to be tens of trillions of dollars in toxic assets:
“First, the parties to these kinds of contracts are largely sophisticated financial institutions that would appear to be eminently capable of protecting themselves from fraud and counterparty insolvencies and most of which are already subject to basic safety and soundness regulation under existing banking and securities law.
“Second, given the nature of the underlying assets involved—namely supplies of financial exchange and other financial instruments—there would seem to be little scope for market manipulation of the kind seen in traditional agricultural commodities, the supply of which is inherently limited and changeable.”
Has any economist ever gotten it so wrong?
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


85 Comments so far
Show AllOh well... I thought "never mind his politics" would mean to put that aside and out of the consideration for the moment. It was just meant as a reflection of the media's ability to chose who are "credible' candidates worthy of covering. As it was, the media of the time were very careful not to dwell on his wheelchair. It wouldn't be so today, I don't think.
Got it. Thanks.
George H.W. Bush was disabled , at least as severely as FDR. He was the first mentally retarded president in history(and hopefully the last). His handlers wouldn't even let him debate without remote-controlled answers. His vice (he whose name must not be spoken) was the de-facto president the WHOLE TIME.
That wheelchair was the greatest gift ever given to We The People......
It sent FDR to the Georgia hot springs from where he tooled around the countryside in his specially designed car he could drive with his hands only.....
He used to drive up People's driveways and talk to the people living there..... He mentioned that some families he met and visited for years that were dirt poor - he Never met the father as the father was always working.....
The poor aren't idle or shiftless - in fact if the wealthy in this country ever had to work as hard as the poor would whine and cry with a wail that would reach the heavens......
And the poor and middle classes get to pay 3x the tax rate as the wealthy do......
Romney - overall tax rate - less than 15%
working middle class - 30-35 % plus 7.65 FICA tax promptly put in the general fund adds to almost 43% - damn near 3x what a wealthy predator pays.....
At least FDR taxed those economic royalists.....
He was probably a decent human being.
True that ! I know this happened to me amongst many former Democratic Party supporters but it's too bad that there are still partisan idiots assuming Bush was the major culprit for the 2008 financial crash simply because he was president when it happened. It’s similar to the fools who think Reagan was responsible for the demise of the Soviet Union simply because he was president when the country began to disintegrate. They'll even believe that Reagan alone was responsible for the demise of the unions. True, Reagan escalated it but Clinton moved to the right of Reagan when he shouldn't have. Some "populist" huh? The reality is that Democrats are as responsible for the 2008 crash, if not more responsible, than Republicans. It’s just another example of a “bipartisan” train wreck.
The decline of labor unions here in the United States actually began during the late 1960's, when President Nixon was voted into power. It continued under Carter, began to snowball under Ronald Reagan, the Bushes and Clinton, and continues to snowball even today, under the Obama Administration.
The decline of labor unions here in the United States actually began during the late 1960's, when President Nixon was voted into power. It continued under Carter, began to snowball under Ronald Reagan, the Bushes and Clinton, and continues to snowball even today, under the Obama Administration.
The assault on Labor is not a partisan matter. Looking at history only through the lens of who happens to be in political office produces an extremely distorted view.
It has not "snowballed," it has been relentless and continuous. Most of the anti-Labor activity from Democratic has taken the form of lopping off the head - co-opting or eliminating leadership - and of purging militants and radicals from the national political discussion. In many ways that is more destructive than the more overt and simple-minded, but ferocious and relentless attacks on Labor from the right wing.
Democrats "support" Labor - such as that ever is - to the degree and only to the degree that it helps get them elected. despite that, many party apologists say that we should support the Democratic party because it is supposedly more pro-Labor than the Republicans are. What they really mean is that we should support Labor only so far as that helps Democrats, as that is useful in the partisan electoral nonsense.
The purpose of organized Labor is not to get Democrats elected, yet we hear that line of reasoning constantly. The only possible legitimate purpose for the Democratic party would be to support Labor. If the working class were organized, militant and powerful, it would not matter who the hell were elected. On the other hand, no amount of voting Democratic moves us any closer to that. Voting Democratic moves us away from out goals, not toward them.
Independentminded and TA, I think that those of us who say it started in the 1980s say so because it was noticable. There were plenty of things Nixon did to undermine labor and even with that, he's to the left of Obama and possibly Clinton. Regulated capitalism was still doing ok in the 1970s. Turning from regulated to unregulated capitalism in the 1980s was noticeable.
These things just do not revolve around which politician is in the White House. The president is a functionary, an administrator. Power lies elsewhere.
Capitalism has always done OK, "regulated" or not. The problem is that when Capitalism does well, moist of us do not.
The last sentence is interesting. Kinda reminds me of what school bullies would do when they'd beg promising fair play. True about what you said on things not revolving only around presidents but all that power one individual in the White House can wield says a lot even with limitations of the executive branch or whatever limitations are left anymore.
The whole rotten mess is corrupt and broken. It not a single law passed or people shopping Wal Mart. It a systemic problem from top to bottom and at its root the insistence there be people at the top and people at the bottom because it is somehow "The Natural order". If the premise accepted that one group of people are within their rights to exploit another for personal gain then there should not be any surprise when it happens.
People do not EARN a billion dollars by being nice to one another. They EARN it vy exercising the absolute worse in human behaviour Societies KNOW that and try to pass laws like Glass Steagall which only serve to bandaid over the underlying problem.
The world was still going to hell in a handbasket before Glass Steagall and before "Corporate Personhood". What accelerates it and makes it orders of magnitude worse is that which human kind seems most fascinated with, that being our own technology. Technology magnifies our ability to do harm.
Scientists were developing weapons and chemcials and viruses in labs that would kill off entire populations long befire Glass Steagall. Forests and landscapes were being torn up to get at the resources underneath long before Ronald Reagan, Wars were being fought and Nuclear weapons dropped on Cities long before personhood.
Everything Is Broken"
Broken lines broken strings
Broken threads broken springs
Broken idols broken heads
People sleeping in broken beds
Ain't no use jiving
Ain't no use joking
Everything is broken.
Broken bottles broken plates
Broken switches broken gates
Broken dishes broken parts
Streets are filled with broken hearts
Broken words never meant to be spoken
Everything is broken.
Seem like every time you stop and turn around
Something else just hit the ground
Broken cutters broken saws
Broken buckles broken laws
Broken bodies broken bones
Broken voices on broken phones
Take a deep breath feel like you're chokin'
Everything is broken.
Everytime you leave and go off someplace
Things fall to pieces in my face
Broken hands on broken ploughs
Broken treaties broken vows
Broken pipes broken tools
People bending broken rules
Hound dog howling bullfrog croaking
Everything is broken.
(bob Dylan)
"Has any economist ever gotten it so wrong?"
In economics, hope and faith coexist with great scientific pretension and also a deep desire for respectability.
John Kenneth Galbraith
In economics, the majority is always wrong.
John Kenneth Galbraith
Few can believe that suffering, especially by others, is in vain. Anything that is disagreeable must surely have beneficial economic effects.
John Kenneth Galbraith
Economics is a subject profoundly conducive to cliche, resonant with boredom. On few topics is an American audience so practiced in turning off its ears and minds. And none can say that the response is ill advised.
John Kenneth Galbraith
Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists.
John Kenneth Galbraith
Good one ezeflyer.
Neoclassical economic theory is passed off as "science".
It is hack ideology, not science.
Steve Keen's new edition of Debunking Economics destroys neoclassical (or if you will, neoliberal) economic theory.
One's best leader is one's self. We're not herd animals. When one leads one's self, one is able to act in unison with others when that's appropriate. Teach among each other the skill and ability to decide when to act in unison with others and when not to.
Now I will have to describe how this works in those situations where you think it will not work, where you think "dear leader" is absolutely needed. In this case, having worked hard to achieve a leaderless society, if/when the people find they "must" temporarily "follow dear leader", their efforts will not have been in vain. But instead, their efforts will have equipped them to present a FORMIDABLE force upon dear leader to lead like they want him to. Because if he screws up, just a wee bit, the people will knock him off his pedestal, real quick. This is the power relation that serves the people. It is achieved by empowering the people to lead themselves, individually.
"Clinton is once again allowed to pass himself off as a job creator without noting the subsequent loss of jobs resulting from the collapse of the housing derivatives bubble that his financial deregulatory policies promoted."
And what about "the subsequent loss of jobs resulting from the" Cinton's free trade agreements?
This is like neo-fuedalism where the aristocracy have special "privilege" (which means private law).
The rest of us have different laws we must obey. When the Bankster Mafia Aristrocracy steal trillions (enabled by their political puppets) they are not punished. Instead they are showered with trillions more money stolen from the debt peons/wage slaves/neo-serfs. That's why the top .01% get 80% of the nations income. The rest of us must fight for the crumbs.
Another aspect likens this to neo-fuedalism: NDAA destroys centuries of legal precedent. King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta in 1215. Now the Magna Carta has been nullified. Back to fuedalism, now with a few modern twists. neo-fueldalism.
Politicians are merely puppets for the neo-aristocracy Lords.
That's the magic of the corporatist duopoly - Democrats, as the 'good cop', can implement parts of the corporate agenda that Republicans could never get away with.
If you are ready to stop supporting corporate-sponsored political parties, check out Jill Stein's Green presidential campaign:
http://www.jillstein.org/
Yup - time's a'wastin', we have been complaining about the duopoly for over a decade now; time, past time, to stop pissin' and moanin' and start ousting the whole crew. If we don't, it really will seem that we aren't truly interested in doing anything BUT piss and moan ....
Stein is a great candidate with a great platform - let's go for it ...
Mention that the act was the last one signed by Billy-Bob and watch the blank stares as 'cognitive dissonance ' settles over their heads.
Yes!
For exaple. Howard Zinn's People's History has an entire chapter:
the Reagan/Bush/Clinton (Bush Jr.) "The Bipartisan Consensus".
Zinn makes sweeping (and accurate) claims that no matter which (Duopoly) party is in power, policy shifts ever rightward. He gives many many examples of Dem complicity and betrayal.
During a live radio show, I called in and mentioned that to Dem party member and pundit Norman Solomon (running for Congress now) who was a guest. He was defending and apologizing for the D party. The host of the show, Philip Mulderry was quite rude, and then cut me off! (KPFA Berkeley, CA) Free speech radio? Not on his show.
It seems they don't want to hear the truth. They love to wax poetic about folks like Zinn, yet they seemed to have never read anything he wrote!
Off topic . . . but not really . . . for those who were interested in the recent discussions about Ecuador and for anyone tired of these same old arguments that don't change anything:
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=7866
Regulatory control is set by the government who are advised by the lawyers who are employed by the bankers.
Each year more and more of the red tape destroys macro and micro economic engines. The facts are that more lawyers equals lower growth, lower GNP.
As for the legal club- members don’t need to be just friends, they just need to be attracted to the same aims, monopoly power and more income.
In the USA the big money controls all the seats in power- Democrats or Republicans ?- in the hidden back rooms, they are the same teams.
I don't need an economist to recognize a homeless person washing up in the laundromat.
An Economist is a myopic person with rose colored glasses who is paid by the wealthy to create false theories designed to extract money from the poor while wreaking havoc on the planet, and granted special access to Presidential ears.
Physics is a science. Biology is a science. Economics is not a science. It's an amalgam of rules-of-thumb, folklore, thought experiments, received articles of faith, and the misapplication of higher mathematics, the more arcane and high-falutin' looking, the better.
It need not be that way. It is in the interest of those in power to have us think of economics as folklore and received articles of faith. Massive money and effort have gone into muddling things, creating this or that "school" with different methods for "divining" the "rules" that make it inevitable that the few oppress the many and lord over them.
When the Church ruled, biology and physics were folklore and received articles of faith. When feudal lords and monarchs ruled government and politics were folklore and received articles of faith. Today, the capitalists rule, and economics is folklore and received articles of faith.
If you want to know when the housing crisis started all you have to do is look at percent of home ownership over time at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeownership_in_the_United_States.
In 1994 the percentage started to increase rapidly from 64% to 69% in 2004. There was no large increase in income to account for the ability of so many more Americans to purchase houses. Something else must have driven this change. Somehow the economists never questioned the reasons for this.
But it is hardly surprising since they also missed the fact that in 1987 the private US debt, as a percent of GDP, exceeded the value of this variable in 1929. The crisis was 24 years in the making and nobody sounded the alarm.
The Clinton Administration opposed repeal of Glass-Steagall and fought against it. The bill passed by a veto-proof majority. Vetoing it would only have put Clinton even more at odds with his party.
Note that Clinton's cabinet also had people like Robert Reich, which is probably the reason why things went so extraordinarily well under Clinton.