Blog

Dean Baker

By Dean Baker
Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner wants to have the government lend up to a trillion dollars to hedge funds, private equity, funds and the banks themselves to clear their books of toxic assets. The plan implies a substantial subsidy to the banks. It is likely to result in the disposal of these assets at far above market value, with the government picking up the losses.

As much as we all want to help out the Wall Street bankers in their hour of need, taxpayers may reasonably ask whether this is the best use of our money. After all, the $1 trillion that is being set aside for this latest TARP variation is equal to 300 million SCHIP kid years. Congress has had heated debates over sums that were a small fraction of this size. To give another useful measuring stick, the Geithner plan could fund 1 million of the Woodstock museums that were the main prop of Senator McCain’s presidential campaign.

The core problem is that many of our big banks are bankrupt. If they had to acknowledge the losses that they have incurred on their housing related loans (and increasing their loans in commercial real estate) Citigroup, Bank of America, and many other large banks would be insolvent. Thus far, they have avoided reality by keeping these loans on their books at inflated prices.

The Geithner plan is an effort to rescue the banks by using government funding to prop up the price of these bad loans to levels that will allow the banks to stay solvent. It is not clear that the plan is big enough to accomplish this goal, but that is the basic intention. If it doesn’t work, then presumably Geithner will come out with another TARP permutation that involves giving the banks even more money.

There is an alternative. Rather than using government money to keep them alive, we could force the banks to go through a type of managed bankruptcy process like the one that is currently being proposed for General Motors and Chrysler.

Geithner has supposedly ruled out the bankruptcy option because when he, along with Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke, tried letting Lehman Brothers go under last fall, it didn’t turn out very well. Of course, it is not necessary to go the route of an uncontrolled bankruptcy that Geithner and Co. pursued with Lehman.

The government could set up an arranged bankruptcy under which creditors have accepted conditions in advance. While this may not be easy to negotiate, the government does have enormous bargaining power in pursuing such a deal. The creditors (other than insured deposits, which will be paid in full) of these banks may end up with nothing if the government just let the banks sink.

The prospect of even an arranged bankruptcy of a major bank will undoubtedly shake up markets, but many safeguards have been put in place since the Lehman collapse. If the stock market goes down for a few weeks or months, who cares? Running the economy to serve the stock market is a sure recipe for disaster; if President Obama fixes the economy, the stock market will do just fine in the long run.

Anyhow, the Geithner crew insists that there are no alternatives to his plan; we have to just keep giving hundreds of billions of dollars to the banks. Perhaps Geithner is right. But before we throw such huge sums away, further enriching the bankers who wrecked the economy, maybe we should get a second opinion.

Suppose that Congress appropriated a modest chunk of money to have independent economists put together teams to construct alternative plans. Why not give M.I.T. professor Simon Johnson, a former chief economist of the IMF, $5 million to hire a crew to outline his preferred path? Congress could give Joe Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winner and one-time chief economist to President Clinton, who is also a harsh critic of the Geithner plan, a similar sum to put together his own team.

These economists could develop their best plans and put them out for public consumption. Geithner’s crew can then tell us why their plans are unworkable and we must instead hand over the money to banks.

Given how much money Geithner wants to spend – putting it in the hands of the folks that brought on this economic crisis – it would seem appropriate to first examine all the alternatives. After all, we could find out what our options are in this case for the price of just a few A.I.G. executive bonuses. That has to be a good deal in anyone’s book.

Dean Baker is the author of the new book, “Plunder and Blunder: The Rise and Fall of the Bubble Economy.”

This piece was first published on Huffington Post.

Dean Baker

By Dean Baker
Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research

The new consensus among the experts who missed the housing bubble (EMHB) is that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s plan to subsidize the purchase of junk mortgages and their derivatives will help alleviate the stress on the banking system. That’s good news.

These geniuses have devised a plan that for $1 trillion (approximately equal to 300 million kid-years of SCHIP, the State Child Health Insurance Program) can alleviate the stress on the banking system. Note that no one claims that $1 trillion spent on the Geithner plan will actually clean up the banking system – that would be asking too much. The EMHB only assure us that this $1 trillion (more than enough to have energy conserving retrofits for every building in the country) will make things better. Isn’t that enough?

Oh, by the way, some people will get very rich off the Geithner plan. Some hedge and equity fund managers could make hundreds of millions or even billions off the Geithner plan. And, under current law, they will pay a lower tax rate on this money than a schoolteacher or firefighter. Are you sold yet?

One other outcome of the Geithner plan is that the folks who bankrupted their banks and wrecked the economy will be able to continue to earn multi-million dollar salaries. Of course this is necessary, because who else has the skills to run these banks, other than the people who drove them into bankruptcy?

For some reason, every plan the EMHB have developed so far involves using taxpayer dollars to subsidize the bankrupt banks and keep them breathing a little bit longer, while offering opportunities for other Wall Street actors to get hugely wealthy. Some people say that the EMHB keep coming up with plans that enrich the Wall Street crew because they are so closely tied to the Wall Street financial interests.

It is, of course, possible that the EMHB are too closely tied to the financial industry, but it’s also possible that they just lack the creativity and imagination to think of a plan that doesn’t enrich the Wall Street crew. After all, these people lacked the ability to see an $8 trillion housing bubble, the largest financial bubble in the history of the world. So, let’s see if we can help them out.

The core problem is that many of the largest banks are bankrupt. They are currently concealing this bankruptcy by listing assets on their books at prices that are far above their market value. In principle, they can do this for a long time, unless the government forces them to write-down the value of these assets. As long as the banks are bankrupt, they will not make new loans, limiting the ability of many businesses to get capital.

Instead of Geithner’s plan to allow banks to sell these assets at a subsidized price, we can go the other way. Geithner could have announced a plan to clean up the banks, following a standard FDIC-type takeover.

This approach could harness the power of existing bondholders to help the government clean up the banks quickly. Geithner could, for example, promise to honor the banks’ commitments to bondholders in full, if the banks recognized their losses immediately. Bondholders, however, would be offered a lower payback rate for each month that the banks waited.

So, if a bank waited one month, the bondholders would only get a guarantee for 90 percent of the value of their assets. If the bank waited two months, the payback would fall to 85 percent and so on. (Note the issue here is bank bonds that the government has no legal or moral obligation to pay off. The government will, of course, pay off the banks’ FDIC-insured deposits.)

Under this kind of a plan, bondholders would place enormous pressure on the banks to recognize their losses. Bank executives that refused to own up to the bank’s bad assets might even face personal liability. In other words, executives who lie about their bank’s assets might not just lose the bonuses that came out of TARP money, they also might lose the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars they “earned” during the housing bubble.

If President Obama’s advisers, all of whom are leading members of the EMHB camp, had more imagination, they might have devised a plan like this for dealing with the banking crisis. Instead, they came up with a plan that will enrich Wall Street and further punish Main Street.

Congress can try to bring enough pressure to make President Obama reverse course. At the very least, Congress should insist that when this plan fails, Secretary Geithner and others involved in drafting the plan are sent packing. We cannot continue to have a system that always ignores the mistakes by those on top and only holds those at the bottom accountable. The EMHB already wrecked the economy once; how many more times will they get the opportunity?

Dean Baker is the author of the new book, “Plunder and Blunder: The Rise and Fall of the Bubble Economy.”

This piece was first published on Huffington Post.

Dean Baker

By Dean Baker
Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research

Commodity trader Rick Santelli made himself into a national hero of sorts with his televised diatribe about being forced to pay the mortgages of “losers” who could not afford, or would not pay, the full cost of their mortgage. Santelli apparently hit a chord among those who want to blame deadbeat homeowners for the country’s economic woes.

At the risk of spoiling a promising artistic and commercial venture, people should know that Mr. Santelli is firing at the wrong target. The big gainers from the latest plan to help homeowners are not “loser” homeowners, but rather banks and investors, who will earn far more on their loser loans than would otherwise have been possible.

This is easy to see if we just adhere to the most basic rule in policy analysis: follow the money. When we follow the money, we see that the government checks do not go to homeowners.

The government checks are all made out to banks and loan servicers. In millions of cases where homeowners were not keeping up with their mortgages, the government will send checks to banks and investors that make up for much of the shortfall. In addition, the government could send them several thousand dollars more for their efforts in allowing people to stay in their homes.

While this policy is supposed to help homeowners, in many cases the best thing for these homeowners would be to move into one of the millions of vacant housing units. In most markets, they would pay a much lower share of their income for housing if they were renters rather than owners.

Furthermore, with house prices dropping at more than a 20 percent annual rate, the Cubs have a better chance of winning the World Series than these folks have of accumulating any equity in their home. Most of the homeowners who have their mortgages subsidized under this program are looking at short sales in two, three or four years.

Santelli’s screed is part of a continuing effort to blame the poor and minority communities for the economic meltdown. There are millions of people who think the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was responsible for bad mortgages, when most of these mortgages were either made by institutions that were not covered by the CRA or were loans that would not have been covered by the Act even if the institution was covered. Of course, the idea that government bureaucrats were forcing banks to make loans that were hugely profitable at the time is laughable on its face.

At some point Santelli and his followers are going to have to deal with reality. The problem is not poor and moderate-income homeowners or African-Americans or Latinos. The perps in this case where rich bankers, the vast majority of whom were white males.

Their enablers in policy circles were not the bleeding hearts trying to help the poor, but the Wall Street envoys from both political parties; people like Henry Paulson, Robert Rubin and, of course, Alan Greenspan. The people who sank the economy were the rich and powerful, not the poor and minorities.

If Santelli wants to really be the friend of hardworking homeowners struggling to pay their mortgages, he might try yelling about the bank bailouts. According to the latest news reports, the taxpayers just sent another $30 billion to AIG, almost half as much as President Obama set aside to subsidize mortgage payments.

The checks to AIG and other financial institutions may be necessary to keep the banking system operating, but we certainly have the right to demand that the shareholders and bank executives don’t profit from the bailouts. It would be great if Mr. Santelli would speak up about the real beneficiaries from these scams – the bank executives and wealthy shareholders. But the big-mouthed commodity trader probably doesn’t have the courage to attack anyone with real power.

Dean Baker

By Dean Baker
Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research

Jeff Faux, my former boss at the Economic Policy Institute, tells a story from his days as a foot soldier in President Johnson’s War on Poverty. Johnson was asked by a delegation from Alaska if he had an anti-poverty program for their state. Johnson assured the delegation that he had a “great big program” for Alaska. As soon as the delegation left, Johnson rushed into Jeff’s office and told them that they needed to come up with a program for Alaska.

Unfortunately, many liberals have not moved beyond Lyndon Johnson’s thinking on the role of the government in the economy. They still tie progressive outcomes – the guarantee of good quality health care, education, childcare, housing and a secure retirement – directly to big government. While the government must play a role in ensuring these outcomes, the point should be to have good government, not big government, as we usually conceive it.

There is a long list of ways in which the rules set by the government determine economic outcomes. While these rules have an enormous impact on the economy, they do not amount to “big government” in the sense of a large amount of taxes and spending.

Perhaps the most obvious example along these lines is patent protection for prescription drugs. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services projects that the country will spend more than $330 billion in 2012 for prescription drugs. These same drugs would cost roughly $30 billion in the absence of patent protection. This means that the government’s patent monopolies will be redistributing roughly $300 billion in 2012 from patients to the drug companies. (There are alternatives to patent monopolies for financing the research and development of prescription drugs.)

To put this sum into perspective, after-tax corporate profits are projected to be less than $1,400 billion in 2012, so the amount at stake in preserving patent protection for prescription drugs will be more than 20 percent of all corporate profits. Alternatively, imagine getting Congress to appropriate $300 billion a year, or $3 trillion over a 10-year budget window, for our favorite government program(s).

However, in spite of the enormous amount of money at stake, this issue has received almost no attention from the vast majority of progressives. In fact, most progressives have probably never even given the issue of patent protection for prescription drugs a moment’s consideration.

It is easy to find other examples of ways in which government rules determine who gets the money. Along the same lines as patent protection, the entertainment industry and software industry survive in their current form because of the government’s copyright protection. This form of government intervention has made thousands of people, from Rupert Murdoch to Bill Gates, very rich at the expense of the rest of us.

The trade agreements over the last three decades have been deliberately designed to put manufacturing workers, and noncollege educated workers more generally, directly in competition with low-paid workers in the developing world. The predicted and actual result of this policy is to lower the wages of noncollege educated workers in the United States.

Do we want to rebalance the field? Why not set trade rules that put highly paid medical specialists and other big “winners” in direct competition with their low-paid counterparts in the developing world. We can debate whether this is good policy, but there is no dispute that we can use this “market” outcome to bring down the wages of those at the top.

And speaking of wages of those at the top, we can also rewrite the rules of corporate governance so that CEOs and other top executives don’t get to write their own paychecks. The compensation packages of the top five paid executives could be subject to regular approval by shareholders in a vote where unreturned proxies do not count. My guess is that with these rules much less money would go to those at the top.

There are many other ways in which we can change the rules so that less money flows to those on top, leaving more for the rest of us. Changing the rules does not require big government in the sense of large portions of GDP being collected in tax revenue.

It does require that government take an active role in the economy, but it is already taking an active role in the economy in these areas. The difference is that, currently, the conservatives have been setting these rules, while progressives have been polite enough not to pay attention. Instead, they have mostly focused their energy on matters that will have far less impact.

The economic crisis brought on by the collapse of the housing bubble offers progressives unprecedented opportunities. But we have to be prepared to actually think big, and not just think about big programs.

Robert Borosage

By Robert L. Borosage
Co-Director Campaign for America’s Future

 Call it extortion. Every American is now being told to ante up $2000 – an estimated $700 billion in all – to bail out the banks from their bad bets, or they’ll bring down the entire economy.

In the speculative frenzy that allowed the Masters of the Universe to pocket millions personally, the banks filled their coffers with toxic paper that no one wants to buy. Now they sensibly don’t want to lend money to each other, since no one knows if the other is solvent. So they go on strike, and threaten to trigger a global depression, if they don’t get rescued. (for more details go here.)

The bail out will take place simply to avoid that depression. But depressions have some salutary effects – the scoundrels go belly up, the weakest get purged. And, in the wake of the disaster, people demand strict regulation of the money lenders to keep their greed in check, and government spends money on the real economy to put people back to work.

So if we’re going to ask Americans to pay to avoid the depression, we better demand the accounting that wouldn’t otherwise take place.

We need a citizens’ plan on the crisis. Here’s a first draft, derived from discussions with a range of independent experts.

No bail out should go forward without the following minimal conditions:

 1. Taxpayer money; taxpayer accountability.

The Treasury wants unlimited authority to spend $700 billion in a revolving fund with no rules beyond its own discretion. We can’t trust the most spectacularly corrupt administration in memory to decide how they’ll cut the deals with the banks. We’d get fleeced. Instead, the law must require an independent entity, with consumers and workers having a majority of the seats on a board with authority to create rules that will prohibit gaming of the bailout. And the Congress – itself sadly compromised by Wall Street money – should be empowered to name independent monitors and to approve all board members.2. Taxpayers share in the upside.

The Treasury bill would buy the bad paper of firms without taking any equity in the firm. That’s an invitation to larceny. If a firm decides to auction off its toxic paper to the US agency, taxpayers should get equity in that firm, in proportion to the assets we buy. That will deter profitable firms from using the agency as a dump for their toxic paper. And it will insure that if the bailout works and the firms become profitable, taxpayers, not simply bankers, benefit from the upside. 3. Shut down the casino.

No bailout of the predators can go forward without new regulation for the financial system – capital requirements, leverage limits, bans on exotic instruments, transparency, limits on compensation schemes. The shadow banking system – hedge funds, private equity firms – must be brought under the glare of regulators. The Federal Reserve should be directed to police asset bubbles. Over the counter trades – like the credit default swaps – should be brought into public exchanges. Some details should be written into the law; Treasury can be mandated to issue more comprehensive regulations by a date certain, with fast track rules for consideration by the Congress. One thing is clear: any promise to do the bail out now and the regulation later is simply a lie. 4. Curb excessive CEO pay.

Wall Street fatcats shouldn’t be pocketing millions taxpayers are forced to bail them out. Any firm that applies for relief must agree to limit the compensation of any executive – pay, bonuses and perks – to no more than the highest pay offered a senior federal official. Future compensation should be linked to profitability.5. Invest in the real economy.

Ending the bankers strike is not sufficient to avoid a serious recession, as consumers tighten their belts. A major public investment agenda – $200 billion or more – for developing new energy and conservation, rebuilding schools and infrastructure, extending unemployment and food stamps, helping states avoid crippling cuts in police and health services – is vital to get the real economy moving and put people back to work. If we don’t do this, the coming recession will raise the cost of the Wall Street bailout dramatically, as credit card, auto and home loan defaults rise.6. Aid the victims, not just the predators.

No bail out of the banks can take place without a freeze on foreclosures and renegotiation of bad mortgages so people can stay in their homes. Bankers and home owners both made a foolish bet that home prices would keep rising. Many homeowners were misled by predatory lenders to taking mortgages that they didn’t understand and couldn’t afford. It would be simply obscene to help the predators and not those that they preyed on.7. Curb the political corruption.

No contributions from Wall Street PACs or executives should accepted by any legislator or candidate for national office. Paid lobbyists of Wall Street firms should be banned from any legislative contacts. Any meeting with representatives of Wall Street – and many will be needed to understand what is happening – should be posted immediately by legislators in a central place on the web. All those employed over the past five years by troubled firms seeking relief should be prohibited from profiting from the bailout. Without this ban, legions of executives from Bear Sterns or Lehman Brothers will create consulting firms to profit from cleaning up the mess that they made.

These demands will be met with howls of outrage, a renting of pinstripes. It will require a Congress, lathered with Wall Street contributions, to demand a deal that makes sense. This won’t be easy, particularly with Republicans apparently lining up en mass to rubber stamp the Bush administration proposals. But trusting this administration to decide without conditions on how to bailout the banks with $700 billion in taxpayers money is simple lunacy.

These banksters have brought the global economy to the brink of the abyss. They want to use that crisis to give the Treasury a virtual blank check to bail them out. Counting the money already spent, more than a trillion dollars will be spent rescuing them from the mess that they have made. Before agreeing to that, Congress has to demand common sense conditions that insure the taxpayers won’t get fleeced, and this won’t be done to us again.

Make your voice heard. Add your comments below. Write Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and demand that they stand up. Write Senate Republican Leader Mike McConnell and House Minority Leader John Boehner and tell them that saluting the Bush administration is not sufficient. Tell the Committee Chairs Senator Chris Dodd and Rep. Barney Frank that the Treasury proposal is unacceptable. Finance is too important to be left to the bankers. And the bailout is too costly to be left to the Bush administration.

It’s time for citizens to demand common sense.