Robert Reich's Blog

Robert Reich was the nation's 22nd Secretary of Labor and is a professor at the University of California at Berkeley. His latest book is "Supercapitalism." This is his personal journal.

My Photo
Name: Robert Reich

Latest book, "Supercapitalism," is now out in paperback. For copies of articles, books, and public radio commentaries, go to www.robertreich.org. This blog is available as an RSS feed. Public radio commentaries are now available as a podcast.

Sunday, September 21, 2008

What Wall Street Should Be Required to Do, to Get A Blank Check From Taxpayers

The frame has been set, the dye cast. Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson, presumably representing the Bush administration but indirectly representing Wall Street, and Fed Chief Ben Bernanke, want a blank check from Congress for $700 billion or possibly a trillion dollars or more to take bad debt off Wall Street’s balance sheets. Never before in the history of American capitalism has so much been asked of so many for (at least in the first instance) so few.

Put yourself in the shoes of a member of Congress, including our two presidential candidates. The Treasury Secretary and Fed Chair have told you this is necessary to save the economy. If you don’t agree, you risk a meltdown of the entire global financial system. Your own constituents’ savings could go down with it. An election is six weeks away. Besides, in the last two days of trading, since rumors spread that the Treasury and the Fed were planning something of this sort, stock prices revived.

Now – quick -- what do you do? You have no choice but to say yes.

But you might also set some conditions on Wall Street.

The public doesn’t like a blank check. They think this whole bailout idea is nuts. They see fat cats on Wall Street who have raked in zillions for years, now extorting in effect $2,000 to $5,000 from every American family to make up for their own nonfeasance, malfeasance, greed, and just plain stupidity. Wall Street’s request for a blank check comes at the same time most of the public is worried about their jobs and declining wages, and having enough money to pay for gas and food and health insurance, meet their car payments and mortgage payments, and save for their retirement and childrens’ college education. And so the public is asking: Why should Wall Street get bailed out by me when I’m getting screwed?

So if you are a member of Congress, you just might be in a position to demand from Wall Street certain conditions in return for the blank check.

My five nominees:

1. The government (i.e. taxpayers) gets an equity stake in every Wall Street financial company proportional to the amount of bad debt that company shoves onto the public. So when and if Wall Street shares rise, taxpayers are rewarded for accepting so much risk.

2. Wall Street executives and directors of Wall Street firms relinquish their current stock options and this year’s other forms of compensation, and agree to future compensation linked to a rolling five-year average of firm profitability. Why should taxpayers feather their already amply-feathered nests?

3. All Wall Street executives immediately cease making campaign contributions to any candidate for public office in this election cycle or next, all Wall Street PACs be closed, and Wall Street lobbyists curtail their activities unless specifically asked for information by policymakers. Why should taxpayers finance Wall Street’s outsized political power – especially when that power is being exercised to get favorable terms from taxpayers?

4. Wall Street firms agree to comply with new regulations over disclosure, capital requirements, conflicts of interest, and market manipulation. The regulations will emerge in ninety days from a bi-partisan working group, to be convened immediately. After all, inadequate regulation and lack of oversight got us into this mess.

5. Wall Street agrees to give bankruptcy judges the authority to modify the terms of primary mortgages, so homeowners have a fighting chance to keep their homes. Why should distressed homeowners lose their homes when Wall Streeters receive taxpayer money that helps them keep their fancy ones?

Wall Streeters may not like these conditions. Well, you should tell them that the public doesn’t like the idea of bailing out Wall Street. So if Wall Street doesn’t accept these conditions, it doesn’t get the blank check.

169 Comments:

Anonymous Doug said...

Mr. Reich, I am copying your tax-free 'workout' solution to the financial crisis to both of my senators and to my Congresswoman. I am encouraging others to do the same.

If your idea is feasible (and I don't see why it isn't), it should at least be put on the table.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Thomas D said...

You mean the 'die', not the 'dye'...

Politically, how much time can be spent on negotiations over all these kinds of conditions? Not much I would guess. Congress needs already to have made up its mind NOW to have a chance of getting anything for the taxpayer in the next few days.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Blogger Mike said...

As the chosen leader of the party doesn’t Obama have a responsibility to lead Democratic members of Congress during this crisis? How about his stated willingness to reach across the aisle? I applaud his refusal to publicly challenge Paulson’s role—but his lack of personal involvement in working out this deal is profoundly disturbing. I have a high respect for Frank, Schumer, Dodds, Shelby, etc., but we have leaders of the nation for a reason—someone at the very least needs to coordinate the response to situations.

Are we going to elect a President who will not lead his own party much less the nation? Perhaps, unlike Bush and McCain, he *does* have the ability to comprehend issues and choose capable advisers, but does not believe that it is his role to take charge. I beg to differ.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous doug (again) said...

Come to think of it, everyone reading this should write in. Yes that means YOU. YOU THERE. RIGHT NOW. STOP what you're doing and WRITE your senators and congressperson!

Tell them - NO taxpayer bailout, until all tax-free alternatives are considered! Let's save a trillion dollars people.

Just copy the text below:

Dear Senator/Congressman/woman

Please read Robert Reich's tax-free solution to the financial crisis. If this is a feasible option, why is it not on the table?

From http://robertreich.blogspot.com/

"A better idea would be for the Fed and Treasury to organize a giant workout of Wall Street -- essentially, a reorganization under bankruptcy, for whatever firms wanted to join in. Equity would be eliminated, along with most preferred stock, creditors would be paid off to the extent possible. And then the participants would start over with clean balance sheets that reflected new, agreed-upon rules for full disclosure, along with minimum capitalization. Everyone would know where they stood. Bad debts would be eliminated. Taxpayers wouldn't get left holding the bag. And there would be no "moral hazard" incentive for future financial wizards to take giant risks with other taxpayers' money."

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with you one hundred percent and have said so to Kevin McCarthy (R) and Nancy Pelosi (D). This bail out is insane to those of us who work for a living!! I expect that I will be working until the day I die. Forget retirement. Thank you George Bush, Ronnie Regan, and all of you greedy fat cats.
Kathleen Fisher

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Blogger kayxyz said...

Smelly and fishy: Paulson has stated he'll leave his position Dec-Jan, but suddenly the Treasury Sec'y will have "unrevieable" powers under the plan. Contradiction?

Disband Congress. If the lobbying cannot be outlawed, then Congress should disband. Even in the HBO production of John Adams, one charater states that the intent of Congress is that "your NEIGHBORS" should be your representatives. None of my neighbors are my representative, and I certainly disregard Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr.

The US Congress's original composition and job description was to attend sessions, vote on a very few bills, then return to their states where they held full time positions.

Someone said every Congressional committee should be covered at all times, day and night, by CSPAN or more likely YouTube, for transparency. All meetings with lobbyists certainly should be. K St should be under constant surveillance.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Blogger Live Blogging said...

IANAE but there's been a lot of talk about these derivatives and MBS's being opaque, but certainly the value of these things is non-zero. To that end, isn't there an opportunity to take these ideas to formulate a government-sponsored auction of these (possibly re-bundled) assets to investors who can 1) spread out the risk and 2) compete for the recapitalizing the U.S. financial markets?

If Sec. Paulson is empowered to operate with a reduced balance figure, can we cut the proverbial baby in half and buy ourselves time to work out a better solution?

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Blogger Don said...

Please post your views on Daily Kos. I've been blogging about your posts for two days, and Seb. Mallaby's column in the Washington post today. I've got a large response, but you could get quite a bit more. If you can't do it, do you mind my constantly pushing your blog. Take care, Don

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Blogger Fred Dodsworth said...

You reflect wisdom. Thank you for this, a rare commodity in these hyperinflated, morally bankrupt times. I loath the typical Republican response: socialize the risks and losses but let the aristocrats privately reap the profits. An additional addendum to your recommendations should be re-jiggering the tax structure to make the wealthy pay for 'their' bail out.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous RS Love said...

This is all fine and good but it doesn't do anything to fix the systemic corruption in Congress (they should be required to disclose any and all assets they own with family members in hedge funds, AIG, financial stocks, partnerships that own these instruments, law firms litigating, et.).

It doesn't resolve the fact that the bond rating agencies helped rig and fuel the disaster. It doesn't break-up the mega financial services that put us in this mess in the first place when the Republican-sponsored GLB was rubber-stamped by then President Clinton with blessings from Rubin and Summers. In fact, Rubin was richly rewarded for his role by taking a top level management position at CitiCorp within months prior to the final vote.

And it doesn't do anything to put these criminal (enemies) CEOs and executives in jail like their fellow mobsters (Enron, Worldcomm, etc)

And finally, where is the budget for this mess? Are we prepared to cut-back on our military spending, leave Iraq and start shutting down military bases to pay for this purchase/bail-out project?

Does the American taxpayer understand that we're broke? That their children's future was stolen from them by fellow citizens with help from Congress? Have we come to the end of democracy because we couldn't control capitalism's inherent, destructive flaws that fuel greed and corruption?


Communism never worked
Socialism won't work either
but Capitalism is totally broken


RS Love

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Blogger Paula H.Greene said...

Even the most economics challenged persons understand throwing good money after bad has potential for disastrous losses. Today's GLenn Greenwood at Salon.com tries to help by explaining the sheer folly of approving a blank check with zero clear projected outcomes for its' use. We are left wondering if it is too late for common sense to prevail, and then a ray of hope when one of your readers, doug, suggests copying your tax-free "workout" solution and sending to senators and legislators today. thankyou for the common sense idea.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Come Christmas time I am going to be watching very closely at these bonuses given out on Wall Street.
If any of them dare to give big fat bonuses after what they just did to us I will urge people to scream to high heaven and hopefully a month later we will be swearing in President Obama and we need make sure he does something about that.
I am simply livid about this bail out.
Here these fat cats are walking away after causing the worst disaster enconomically in history and we, the little guys, are paying for it.
Where is their responsibility for this mess.
Why do we pay for their greed and incompetence.
My husband just got laid off and yet we are expected to pay for this and are holding the bag while these greedy snakes don't have to atone for any of it???
I cannot express my outrage.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Trish said...

Dr. Reich,

Do you know if Wall St. will be bailed out and if so will the banks still get to foreclose on homes? They get everything and the public is screwed? I have asked this question all over the internet and some wouldn't post it on their blogs and others have no clue.

Also, I just got out of an advanced economics class that I took over the summer. I wish every American could have been in that class. Our professor didn't pull any punches and told us what would happen if the gov't started bailing out Wall St. (aka, our gov'ts rich friends)

Let me tell you all, what he said WASN'T pretty. And I know that our gov't knows it. I'm sure this is why they are going hysterical on the news. All they are doing is making the situation worse.

Let me tell you, all the people I know are PISSED. Not ONE of them want the gov't to make a quick decision like this. We all know that Congress makes terrible decisions when they are under pressure. (you know, like the blank check which will further bankrupt our gov't.)

This is absolutely insane. I urge every American to start doing research of their own and NOT to listen to people they don't know. Only listen to professionals.

I find that HONEST conservatives are saying the exact same thing as every liberal out there. They are also pissed that their party has been taken over by crooks and liars.

You better all get ready because I truly believe our gov't is setting us up to default on our debt. There are different figures out there but most agree there are between 400-600 TRILLION dollars in derivitives alone.

Now someone please tell me how "THE TAXPAYER" is going to fix this? Please someone tell me.

Thom Hartmann said it the best the other day when he said "What they are doing is like threading a needle in a 100 mph wind." Think about that.

They have been LYING to us since the beginning of this mess. Do you really think they are telling us the truth now? I sure don't.

And we wonder why some call the public sheep. They are being lead to their own slaughter and don't even realize it.

So, what is the difference between deflating our money away by a market crash or INFLATING it away as they are doing now? Although it would be painful I'd take the deflation over the hyperinflation anyday.

Good Luck to you all, you are going to need it.

PS, wait until the Public really starts waking up. My friend was walking after work the other day. You know what she saw in the ditch on the side of the freeway? Two tents. One with the parents and one with the children. You tell me everything is going to be ok!

Dr. Reich Please keep speaking for us. Please call every person in Congress that you can and let them know what the people are thinking.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Blogger dalas v. said...

Brilliant plan. I hope you still have the connections to grab someone's ear and talk some sense into it.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Paulson says of the bailout, "We have to do it clean and we have to do it fast." (We know scary stuff and you just need to trust us.) Haven't we learned anything from the AUMF?

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Blogger Satyagraha said...

Mr. Reich, I hope you have the ear of folks in Congress. Are you part of the discussion going on this weekend? Is there any chance your reasonable suggestions will be incorporated into the Bill, so the Republicans are not allowed to apply the "Shock Doctrine" this time to our entire national economy?!!

I hope your voice and specific suggestions are heard! I'll be referring everyone to this article. And I'm glad there is at least one clear and sane economic voice out there, since I have no more trust for the Robert Rubins of the world than I do for the Republican economic leadership.

Cheers,

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Trish said...

I have another question. Now I'm just kidding here but OTHERS WON'T BE.

Since I know own all the mortgages in America and pay the insurance too, can I just move my Happy but into any house I want?

I own them and pay the insurance why not? Let's see, I'm sure some of the people that caused this mess are carrying a mortgage on their "stuff" I want to call in the loan and go live in their house.

Do you see the kind of thing that can happen with this mess?

Do you see why it is so important that Congress make a rational decision and not a decision out of fear?

If you all pray, start now.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Perry said...

What has been left out of recent discussions is the fact that this, the Iraq mess, and the defunding of America were created in a lower tax environment. We are blowing all our government (the peoples') resources without having put aside enough to cover the costs and for "rainy day" needs. I suspect that much of the tax savings kept by investors and corporations went to overseas investments. The rest was lost on the housing bubble. Where the hell are we going to get the money for bridges and roads, much less health care, education, and the environment?

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Blogger we_are_toast said...

6) All agreements entered into by the Secretary of the treasury and taking effect immediately shall be subject to a 30 day review process by the congress and shall be altered or repealed by a majority vote of the congress.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Reich: Like Doug, I have just copied your conditions for the government bailout and sent them to my senators and congressman. I am so grateful to hear suggestions from someone who knows how the financial system works and also knows how hard it is for working people to make it in today's economy. Back in the 1930s, financial players jumped out of windows because they were personally wiped out. Now, however, it seems the tycoons deflect all of the financial responsibility onto the most seemingly gullible entity next in line and the working people are left holding the bag. Dr. Reich, I sincerely wish that Obama would bring you on board as one of his financial advisers.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Nemo said...

...the dye cast.

You mean "die". As in "alea iacta est" - J. Caesar, 49 B.C.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Justin Rietz said...

In fact, Congress could quite easily say "Sorry, no deal. Let the Maserati driving Wall Street financiers fail." Bailout or no bailout, the U.S. economy is headed for long and painful downturn, and the financial system has already begun the inevitable meltdown.

The reason the bailout will be agreed to is that the U.S. Congress is in the hands of Wall Street special interests. Christopher Dodd received well over $100,000 in campaign contributions from Freddie and Fannie, and Nancy Pelosi wasn't far behind. Their response to the current crises was determined well before the crises even began.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Reich, your suggestions are the Magna Carta of our time. Let's do it. Quick, send it to Barack before John "Bend-like-a weed" McCain steals it.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think this isn't punitive enough.
It's not like smart people weren't sounding the alarm about these absurd "credit default swaps" years ago, yet the "masters of the universe" at Lehman Bros. et al continued to push these toxic "vehicles" into the market.

No, I think the CEO's and executives who brought us this train wreck should surrender all of their stock options, bonuses, 'deferred compensation' and every other form of hidden pay going back for, say, 5 years? I'd let them keep perhaps $100,000 per year, maximum. So they can see how the upper middle class lives for a while.
Just sayin.

Geoffrey Wittig, M.D.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am a Ron Paul supporter. The bill in its present form is a disaster-the end of America as we know it. It looks like these bozo politicians will pass something -we have been blackmailed with financial Armageddon - so I support Secretary Reich's conditions - with one more - That Bud Paulsen resign. As Chairman of Goldman sachs, he was one of the principal architects of this mess. I would also like to see Bush/Cheney impeached(thank you Nancy Pelosi for dropping the ball on this one -hopefully Cindy Sheehan will kick your sorry ass) - I would also like all the Wall Street crooks who made zillions on this reckless ponzi scheme to give all the money back - before we take it. I also hope Americans wake up and throw 98% of Congress out of office. They are as big a bunch of crooks as the Wall Street scum.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Blogger D Pickard said...

Krugman is right: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/no-deal/


On thinking about it, the name of this plan (since they so nicely left it open) should be "Get'm Hank" ala the Ghostbusters "Get'm Ray" scene.


It's freakin' childish in it simplicity. It really is like five or six people got into a meeting, came out with a few notes on how to give away $700 Billion, and are trying to pass it off as a "plan" for a fix of the financials that they, themselves had a hand in breaking.


Obama needs to strongly, and very carefully, give some pushback on this.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What angers me most is that we can't afford adequate care for our troops when they return home injured or with PTSD but somehow we can afford to give away billions to fraudsters who have never served their country in a time of war. I agree that there should be stipulations on any bailout. Free market afficionados are the biggest phonies in the world. When the free market tanks they go crying to the taxpayers for a bail out.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Blogger Walt French said...

"... extorting in effect $2,000 to $5,000 from every American family..."

A little too quick here, no? That should be, from every American citizen.

I can imagine many Americans, with this gun to their heads, would say something like, "millions for defense and not one red cent for blackmail," or "you go to Hell & if you take me with you I'll sue your sorry rear end to the 7th level."

So I'm not sure that even all 5 of your nominees are going to make Americans feel very good about it.

At the heart of this mess are two bedrock principles that the hard-right ideologues have violated. First, securities markets with asymmetric information, per Akerlof, drive out the good investments with the bad. And second, per Diamond & Dybvig, illiquidity in the presence of ANY risk practically guarantees a run on banks. These well-accepted economic gems are our best descriptions about what makes markets work.

The Paulson stopgap must assert these principles as part of the stopgap and the next administration must set up long-term structures to enforce them. The long-term solution will necessarily include
* the outright banning of OTC derivatives,
* a radically strengthened FASB 140 for full disclosure of Enron-type accounting games,
* FDIC-like insurance for money funds,
* the prohibition of "independent" ratings agencies ever taking one dime from any issuers (the issuers can pay a filing fee to the Feds, to whom the ratings firms would be responsible) and
* a Too Big To Fail License tax so that Wall Street can never again get away with putting a gun to our heads.
* a McCain Commission to study whether a Fed-like securities control should be created, just as the Fed eliminated the multiple currency crises of the 19th century.

The above are too complex for the stopgap, but in your spirit, I propose some that might be added:

* Money funds will be insured immediately at a fee of 0.2% per annum (a punitive rate for a good fund but a realistic one for bad ones who most need it). At such time as the Feds can get around to assessing the risk of the funds, the rate will be adjusted for risk on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. The revenue implications are not unattractive.

* Every money fund that wants protection must report on its initial application all times in the past 10 years that its sponsoring bank has bought an impaired asset from the fund, so investors have a better sense of risks that the manager takes.

* I'm not clear about unintended side effects, but lean towards requiring all insured money funds to disclose ALL purchases of assets to its investors, 10 days after purchase... even if they are no longer held.

These proposals should prevent money funds from abusing the federal insurance.

* Every firm that seeks any protection under these regulations must open its entire book of obligations to the US taxpayer. Many of the worst risks are off-balance-sheet entities, derivatives or insurance clauses that trigger debt downgrades when something else happens. These high-risk triggers are much of the problem.

* The Secretary will announce that the immediate and direct intention of this plan is to directly benefit the American citizenry, and that any above-market price purchases constitute transfers of equity (creation of senior stock) to the Treasury. The plan is NOT a bailout, it is the protection of our markets from disorderly collapse of failed management, effected via a conservator.

These two might shore up the protection against the worst moral hazard anybody has ever heard of.

Finally, the declaration that the action is not subject to any court's jurisdiction is yet another egregious violation of the Covenant that is our Constitution. There is no reason to turn this financial crisis into a Constitutional crisis. The clause has to go.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Blogger notsofast said...

Robert said….
“Put yourself in the shoes of a member of Congress, including our two presidential candidates. The Treasury Secretary and Fed Chair have told you this is necessary to save the economy. If you don’t agree, you risk a meltdown of the entire global financial system.”

Amen. Well-said. Haven’t we been here before? I remember when the Bush administration led us to war with similar pronouncements of gloom and doom if we failed to act immediately against Saddam. He was going to launch drones and mobile vehicles armed with biological and chemical weapons and systematically wipe out the western world. hahaha

This manufactured “crisis” is even worse. We already see a sheeplike media getting whipped into a frenzy and suspending judgment buying what they’re selling hook, line and sinker. Editorial boards to cub reporters are panicked about their own investments and retirement plans and consequently unable to carefully determine if this plan makes sense or not. And let’s not forget Congress. They appear to have again given in to the herd mentality and accept that you can only save main street by bailing out the wall street crooks. Let’s get relief to where it’s really needed instead of promoting crony capitalism.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

Dr. Reich,

You are aware this added $700 Billion to $1 Trillion Bailout -- on top of forecasted 2009 Deficit of $500 Billion -- to take over Wallstreet's toxic Debt effectively puts on HOLD all plans to cut middle class taxes, Invest in our decayed social-infrastructure, expand health care, improve the educational system, etc. So Mainstream suffers on many fronts for an extended period while it saves Wallstreet.

So, can you not in a further essay explain why Congress should be given a Blank Check?

The American public is wondering if it is true the Bailout is the lesser of two evils on the assumption collapse of the Bad Apples in our seriously complex, interwoven financial system would be a worst disaster for middle class America.

Would love to see more clarity on the validity of this major assumption, although I'm ready to accept it ... but just not quite yet.

Assuming we have no choice, I certainly support your conditions as bare minimum requirements. I would add that any Treasury losses incurred on the bad Debt assumed would be compensated for, according to some formula, with the right to additional shares in the bailed out Wallstreet firm.

I believe more precise Solvability conditions for bailed out firms as well as more precise protections for those hundreds of thousands of households facing foreclosure are necessary.

Also, the Treasury should have the right or the Board of Directors must be required to make certain that a new financial instrument will not be approved without a thorough independent analysis of the product's understandability, safety and financial system friendly effect before it can be offered to the market. Some delay here for strict due diligence on new financial instruments (e.g., credit default swaps) is not something to be against. After all, consider how long it takes the pharmaceutical industry to get a new medicine on the market.

Lastly, today's interwovenness, or interconnectedness and diversity of financial systems globally have been wrongly always been considered to be a good thing. Rules are relaxed as risks are spread and the system as a whole gives an impression of stability. So the thinking goes that this is sign of power.

But more often than not this interconnected diversity is a problem and not an automatic indication of power or strength. As firms are forced to merge with stronger competitors resulting in fewer, and much, much larger financial institutions (e.g.,Bank of America and Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and possibly Wachovia), this will create new more complex problems of Oversight and Tranparency.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's an alternative idea that makes some sense in these confusing times.

Solution: Declare All Credit Default Swaps Null and Void

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2008/09/solution-declar.html#more

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

Dr. Reich,

correction: next to last paragraph, 2nd sentence:

... have wrongly always been ...

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know what everyone is missing here? This isn't going to work.

Watch...

The magnitude of this thing...even Paul Krugman, he was on Bill Maher on Friday, said, "I looked at the data and thought this is the end of the world."

The clip is up on Youtube, I suggest you all go watch it.

You are fooling yourself, these people, Paulson, Bernanke, and the Bush Administration, have been lying since the beginning of this thing. What on earth makes any of you think they are telling the truth now?

The should let Wall St. collapse and use our tax dollars to bail out the American home debtor. The gov't must immediately invest, with our tax dollar, programs to get people back to work. Infrastructure.

At this point I would rather bail out the auto and airline industry than Wall ST. We still have many banks that are sound in this country. There is a list out of them.

Other banks and investment firms will rise out of the ashes and when they do they need to be HEAVILY regulated by US THE PUBLIC.

When are we going to learn? Our grandparents are rolling over in their graves.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

Anonymous,

Yes, you're right to point out for further discussion the idea of declaring Credit Default Swaps null and void (if legally feasible). AIG is into this instrument heavily, I understand.

We need cool deliberate heads looking at options vs. this critical, overwhelming Loan Bailout which exponentially increases our national Debt.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Frank Thomas:
I might be anonymous, but I see forests where other men see trees. A whole class of invented financial instruments has proven to be a disaster of untold proportions for the whole world.
Drastic times call for drastic measures. Declaring CDSs null and void might be exactly the fix.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Blogger Mike said...

Dr. Reich,

I have two comments on your plan:

-It looks like you're trying to defend against the moral hazard in your conditions for the bailout of Wall Street, yet people who bought houses they shouldn't have are also subject to the same moral hazard. The people who really are being doubly harmed by most plans currently being floated are people who thought the entire housing market was insane and sat out, waiting for prices to drop. They have to pay for the bailout and they won't be able to afford housing prices that have fallen to sensible levels.

-It is clear that the financial system has a major impact on public welfare. In engineering we have professional engineers, a certification that requires a pledge to the public welfare that is greater than any company they might work for. Professional engineers sign off on buildings, safety systems, and anything that might impact the welfare of the population. A trillion dollars is a lot of money. It's enough to save millions of lives or bring Africa up to an equal standing with the west. Perhaps what we need is for all new financial instruments to be approved by "professional financiers" who can be drawn and quartered should something like this ever happen again. This system has generally worked well in construction. There aren't too many hospitals falling down and while we speak of our "crumbling infrastructure," I'm not in fear every time I cross a bridge. I am in fear for any money in investments.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Aspasia said...

Dr Reich


Would you please advise Barack to get involved with this unprecedented bailout this week. So he can, from the Senate floor demand an explanation to the American people.

For 30 years Wall Street and Washington DC have told the American worker to take it on the chin. We’ve watched over the years as our unions were crushed, our wages suppressed and our jobs sent over seas as we were forced to compete against third world nations for jobs. For 30 years we’ve been told to take it on the chin because that’s what was good for the over all economy. Now Wall street is asking us to mortgage our children’s future to bail them out of this mess they’ve made, why should we do it? Most of us have already been driven into poverty. Why shouldn’t we let wall street fall? Let the rich loose their homes and their jobs for a change maybe a dose of their own medicine may help them make better decisions in the future.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

Aspasia,

You would be better advised to ask Obama to do some ‘splainin’!

Get the larger story here.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Ron from PA said...

Dr. Reich, as soon as the recent mega-financial institution toxic mess and subsequent bailout was announced, John McCain--a staunch & outspoken proponent of deregulartion--called for the Chairman of the SEC to be fire.

Some of the other more right-leaning pundits have tried to blame the recently hired Chairman of the Fed, Ben Bernacki.

Among the more objective economists, it appears that most of the crisis has resulted the GOP's many years of deregulation.

The GOP's shameful attempts to scapegoat one person appears to be trying to find a scapegoat to take the focus off of their failed policies. Many talking heads are trying to spin this to actually point to Obama!

No one is better than you, Dr. Reich, at analyzing and quickly explaining these types of issues to the American public. I sincerely hope to see you heavily on the airwaves in the coming days. This nation needs your expertise and talents more than ever!

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous CSTAR said...

These requirments will only happen if citizens show congress and Wall-street they mean business. Citizens need to make Wall-street and congress tremble at the extent of popular outrage.

How about we show up with a million people on WS and hang around for a few hours? The specific demands are less important than the clear message: we mean business.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I loved this post, and others. I am recommending _Supercapitalism_ and have recommended _The Future of Sucess_ to many people. I do not always agree with the proposed solutions but appreciate the intellectual honesty and the clarity.

I posted this on a conservative chat site (Ann Coulter Official Chat). This is not (usually) a conspiracy theorist /black helicopter seeing hang out, but often a place to vent in very Un PC terms. The anger over these bailouts and the lack of accountability is quite high on the right.

It is interesting to follow the history of this, from repealling Glass-Steegal(spelling?), to passing CRA to encourage/mandate sub prime home loans,to the bipartisan joy over high home "ownership", to the money flow between Fannie Mae and Congress, to the lack of transparency on Wall Street.


I don't read this blog often, but might start, if I can stop from getting mad about what I read.

BTW, I consider myself far right. I am worried about something. When I read about China shootng someone in the head for causing something like this, and harvesting their kidneys, I feel a warm glow.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

#1 Clawbacks.. seize assets and bonuses

#2 Somebody has to stand up for the prudent living in a 900 sq ft house with no debt..

It drives me nuts when I have to hear "keep people in their homes".. does this mean keep people in their 3500 sq ft home with a pool and hot tub? What do the prudent get out of this bail out? Maybe a free house? Maybe a free house overlooking the valley and ocean with a pool and hot tub?

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

I think Obama’s role (and the Democrats role) in this housing mess has, with today’s downward/upward ticks, just begun to be reflected in the polls.

I now predict this will be the issue that results in Obama losing in a year when, owing ENTIRELY to media dishonesty, it should have been a slam dunk for a Democrat to win the Presidency.

With a little luck, the highest hopes of this Democrat PUMA blogger may be realized and may result in the Extreme Radical Totalitarian Left losing their strangle hold on the Democratic Party. There are many other Democrats who share that hope.

It would be good for the country to see a Democratic Party that could represent a viable alternative to the Republican Party (if for no other reason than to keep the Republicans better focused on their core principles).

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So how does capital flee successfully before the barn door gets closed?
Quickly, now ....

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Blogger Rain said...

Good suggestions. I hope the leaders are listening to you. Obama has suggested some things similar to these; so perhaps he is. A blank check won't solve this problem. We know what 'they' do with blank checks.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Blogger Churchlady said...

These sensible requirements will no doubt be rejected as the 25 cent fee on large accounts was by the then Secretary of the Treasury in the GHW Bush administration during the S&L fiasco. The fiction is that we cannot impose such regulations because this is a 'free market' society. Were the Democrats to reimpose needed regulations, the fear is that the Bush-Cheney-Paulson team would find that an admirable excuse to suspend the election in the interests of 'national security'. Paulson even now is demanding a two-year control over the bailout. That alone should send chills down every taxpayer and citizen's back.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Blogger Churchlady said...

For those not believing that Sen. Obama is positing a solution, try Huffington Post. He most certainly is, and in concert with his fellow Democrats. His is an equally sensible solution, though I'd like to see him adopt Professor Reich's idea of our individual ownership in the companies we bail out. That IS the American way.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Blogger John said...

I like the proposal overall. One problem is that you cannot legally stop Wall Street execs from making personal contributions to candidates. It is covered by free speech. However, we can shutdown the PACs and lobbying operations of the firms that get funding from the govt.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous - a concerned hen said...

I agree.

Clearly Farmer W has allowed the foxes to guard the hen house for far too long.

What I'd like to know is when and how he is going to hire someone other than the foxes to do the guarding, because it's time, sir.

-a concerned hen

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Blogger Lorraine DeLuca Placido said...

In the same vein, I guess.
http://delucaspeak.blogspot.com/

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Blogger Adriel said...

I concur. If we let this bailout go forward without conditions, we will never get as good a chance to stop the madness.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Tacy Hartman said...

Prof. Reich, what you propose is not enough. We'd be better off having a depression-style agency that actually buys the mortgages, not the pieces in the securitized vehicles, that can write down the interest rates, and perhaps stabilize the housing market. This bill will NOT do that. All it will do is stabilize Wall Street for a short moment - which is pretty much gone anyway now that Goldman and JP Morgan are converting to bank holding companies.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Blogger robtomorrow said...

Glad to hear someone talking sense, in the midst of all this insanity!

Why aren't you advising Senator Obama on this mess? Or a better question is why isn't he listening to you?

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Blogger Jim Driscoll said...

How cute: SBVOR is still denying that there's an economic problem. Gosh, even the Republicans seem to have come around on that one, eh?

Dr Reich - you forgot "Ban all dividends for the rest of the decade, increase taxes on stock speculators. Where anyone who holds a stock for less than a year is clearly a speculator."

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Blogger Jim Driscoll said...

Oh, and unless you want to spend $1 Trillion on people who think a Lexus is an economy car, call your senator and congressman, and remind them that you'll be voting this November based on who DIDN'T sell their grandchildren down the river.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Blogger SBVOR said...

Jim,

Which part of:

“Sure, with all the turmoil in the financial sector, the larger economy is struggling”

did you not understand?

That said, the data do not even support a recession, much less the second coming of the Great Depression.

Just ask Dr. Edward E. Leamer or review the objective, quantitative facts in historical context.

Every politician knows better than to contest too strongly the incessant drumbeat of the propaganda spewed by so-called “journalists”. Contradict them too strongly and they will crucify you with their lies (just ask McCain).

McCain was absolutely correct to say that “the fundamentals of the economy are sound”. “Sound” is NOT synonymous with “wonderful”. The economy could be better. But it IS “sound”!

That said, McCain was ill-advised to so directly contradict the utterly false narrative of the so-called “journalists”. And, that is where the backtracking came from. Welcome to politics in a world where media lies are stronger than objective, quantitative data.

Again, all these histrionics just make every one of you look like a silly puppet dangling on the strings of so-called “journalists”, naively swallowing and regurgitating every bit of hysteria they’re selling.

We are facing major problems in the financial sector (courtesy of Obama and the rest of the Dems). But, the larger economy is STILL GROWING and is projected to CONTINUE to grow throughout 2008 AND 2009. That is NOT indicative of the second coming of The Great Depression!

Get a FREAKING GRIP!

If you ever get in touch with reality, be sure to let me know.

P.S.) In your avatar, were you going for the condescending Little Chuckie Gibson look (peering over the glasses and all)?

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Daniel Lauber said...

This bailout defies logic. It's going to be a bill that runs hundreds of pages and Congress will be expected to vote on it in a few days. We'll have another instance of Congressmen voting on a bill few have read or even understand.

And we'll have piecemeal legislation to solve a problem without fully understanding its causes (beyond greed and a lack of adequate, focused regulation) -- so the legislation may not actually accomplish much besides getting the folks who produced the crisis off the hook and keeping them wealthy. This is insanity.

I'd love to see Obama and McCain issue a joint statement to slow down, analyze the cause and draft legislation that addresses the causes of this crisis so it will not happen again, so that the folks who caused the crisis are not rewarded, and that the average guy and gal actually benefit from it. That'll be the day.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Steven Walser said...

I like your idea for Wall street to have to give equity in exchange for their bailout. I'd go one further though and propose that all these shares be put into a trust for the benefit of the American people directly by issueing shares in the trust to each person as they retire. Could be in lieu of a portion of their SS benefits or additional to these benfits.
This avoids the problem of the government owning a big portion of the financial markets of the US and also satisfies those who want pivate accounts in SS.
If we put a hard bargainer in our corner we should be able to drive a pretty good deal with the current need of the financial wizards that got us into this mess. A large dilution of their ownership would be truly just. Who knows, those of us who don't really expect to see SS solvent when we retire, might be pleasantly surprised.

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Blogger tiptoe said...

Paulson looked like a deer in the headlights. He looked like he was caught by surprise. He looked kinda stunned.

Where the hell were ALL these people? In the banks counting their bounty, perhaps?

I'm SO PO'ed about the whole thing, I'm beyond words.

DUH!

tt

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It seems like they are sending us a bill and then expecting us to pay theirs. I don't see how the rules don't apply to them "large corperations and such" but they do for us. I like your ideas and agree that there needs to be some sort of kick back to the people after all this is said and done.

they send out an economic stimulus to the people of $300-$1200 and that is suppose to be some great thing. "They" all sit back and think what a great thing they did for the people. Screw showing these so call fat cats what its like to live upper middle class. as a 23 year old 2 time veteran I want them to see what its like to live lower middle class busting your butt everyday to make ends meet. This is their problem, they created it let them pay to fix it. Too bad we can't refuse the Gov't of support. i wish I could just say "nope, im not helping. I'll pay the same rediculous taxes I was before but no more for this."

Sunday, 21 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

«#2 Somebody has to stand up for the prudent living in a 900 sq ft house with no debt..»

In America, losers LOSE!

«It drives me nuts when I have to hear "keep people in their homes".. does this mean keep people in their 3500 sq ft home with a pool and hot tub?»

In America, winners WIN!

:-)

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Blogger New England Opinion said...

I cannot even believe that the plan as proposed is being given any serious consideration.

It is a spit in the face of democracy to give a non elected official such powers. What about the Fed? Will we now have a pissing contest between the Fed chief and the Treasury Secretary all without any control by the people's representatives (congress).

It's time for a new model. The "free market capitalist" cowboys have wrecked havoc on our economy. They acted irresponsibly like a spoiled child on a spending spree with his parents money. Now he wants mommy and daddy to fix it and can't even muster up an "I'm sorry" but instead starts making a list of new demands!

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Write your congressmen people, and quick, and let them know how you think. It's your only chance to keep from getting saddled with the bill for this mess. Here's a link that gives the email addresses of every Senator and Representative in Congress by state and district.

http://www.conservativeusa.org/mega-cong.htm

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This goes far beyond being a partisan issue. Am I the only one feeling duped here? It becomes all too clear on Talking Points Memo web site http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/ 09.21.08 -- 8:48PM "The Big Question: 2+2=4?"

What is happening right now is criminal and instead of people going to jail they'll be going to the bank.

This will be more than a comma in history. It will mark a pivotal moment in our country's history when our democracy came to an end.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Many people are communicating to their representatives about the Paulson plan. Perhaps another communication should be made pointing out that while the representative may wish to proceed with haste in responding to Paulson, you will not be hasty in making your voting decision. you will take the time to make a wise choice.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Comments from DC and the street are "DON'T TURN THE BAILOUT INTO A CHRISTMAS TREE" - that is, don't add things that would help Main Street.

But isn't it already a Christmas Tree - but for Wall Street?

Why do they get to celebrate Christmas but not "The American People"?..

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous John Lawrence said...

Treasury Secretary Paulson has proposed a $1 trillion bail-out for Wall Street in a hastily developed, barely thought out stop-gap plan to bail out investors. But as opposed to the S&L bail-out where they created the Resolution Trust Corporation to hold mortgages for US real estate, Paulson's plan will not hold real estate; it will hold the securities based on real estate. In other words it will hold paper and not real property. His plan will bail out speculators and those who hold derivatives and other casino-like bets. He will pay for worthless pieces of paper that represent the securitization of mortgages not the mortgages themselves.

The problem is with the securitization in the first place which is a direct result of the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act which was replaced by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Modernization Act of 2000 which opened the flood gates for the creation of collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) which were a combination of a number of mortgages which were then cut up into pieces called tranches and then in turn securitized and sold to investors. They were securitized in such a way that an investor could buy a AAA rated tranche or various degrees of quality down to junk with accordingly different rates of return. Then derivatives, derivatives of derivatives and insurance based on these securities were also created and traded.

The first thing that needs to be done is to flat line derivatives. For example, say an investor shorted a tranche of a CDO which represents a combination of many mortgages. This is a derivative not based on a single mortgage, but on a slice of a combination of mortgages. Say the investor paid X for the short and, if he won the bet, he would have collected 100X. Well, the bank that should have paid him can't so Paulson is proposing that the taxpayers pay him instead. This has nothing to do with the underlying mortgage! Instead, the guy should be given back the amount of his bet at most and nothing more. Sure, in a fair and square world he won his bet, but if the banks can't pay him why should the taxpayers? You say that this will cause investors to lose confidence in the system? Bull twickey. Better the investor than the tax payer. And why should American taxpayers bail out foreign banks and Sovereign Wealth Funds?

Secondly, Congress should repeal Gram-Leach-Bliley which made the derivatives and the CDOs possible. Then in the future what happened won't be able to happen again, and let the investors regain their confidence in the financial instruments that then will be available under those circumstances like plain vanilla mortgages, stocks and bonds. Investors should be able to rebuild even more confidence in a simplified system without exotic instruments. However, their greed will have to be contained. If they don't like that, tough.

Third, the Treasury Department, having taken control of all the securities, should then proceed to unravel them - combine the tranches to get the original CDOs and then decollateralize each CDO to arrive at the original mortgages. Then investors can be paid off with the government holding the original mortgages and not the securities. Investors should be given back their original investments minus any bets they placed. The betting money on derivatives should not be paid back. Insurance bets such as credit default insurance should not be paid. Credit default swaps should not be paid. With investors given back their original investments in mortgage backed securities and the government holding the original mortgages, the government can then proceed to sell off or auction off or hold those mortgages until property values rise. They could also just take control of the property the mortgages are based on and sell that property off or hold it until property values rise thus incurring for the taxpayers as little loss as possible.

As far as helping out the people who are about to be foreclosed on, that should be easy to do once the government has unraveled the CDOs and is holding the original mortgages even if they have to be recreated. The government can then renegotiate mortgages with home owners in danger of foreclosure.

If certain firms go under because they're not getting paid back what they think they should be getting, so be it. So pay back the original investors in tranches of CDOs, don't pay back derivatives or bets including short selling, re-enact Glass-Steagall making securitization of mortgages illlegal, let the banks that write the mortgages hold them from now on and let the government sell off the mortgages and/or real estate on which the mortgage backed securities were based.

Also published here

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Blogger PG said...

Bob-

What is your reaction to the claim that these "bailouts" are a form of Socialism?

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr Reich. I have been a huge fan of yours ever since I saw you speak in 2006 at UC Berkeley's Political Science Lecture Series. I am so impressed with your mind, your policies and your wicked sense of humor. In times like these your opinion is the one I most trust. Have some coffee at the Intermetzo Cafe for me.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have heard a lot of political jockeying amidst this financial crisis, and it displays a type of political greed that is more sickening than the supposed corporate greed that many folks are blaming. News flash to everyone: there has always been greed in business…it is human nature to pursue business endeavors for the purpose of creating wealth for oneself. This has been the case since the beginning of time. Corporate greed did not just appear in the last few years and it is not the cause of the situation we are in. Let’s keep it real. The problem we are in is the result of too easy money bidding the housing market into a bubble. The government has control of the money supple & therefore the cost of money and it was the government that allowed Fannie Mae to back mortgage loans at rates below market (via guarantee), and it was ordinary people who saw the next door neighbor getting rich during the boom in housing, & so went to the bank to borrow for themselves. The securities that were ultimately backed by these mortgages lost value as home prices went down as the bubble deflated. Wall Street did not do this. However, Wall Street was holding the bag (they held these securities) when the music stopped, and this is why so many have gone out.

The whole securitization process enabled by Fannie Mae was for the purpose of expanding the market for mortgage backed securities. The government’s intent was for these securities to be a good investment for investors, including investment banks. We the people were real happy all this was being facilitated back when we wanted a house that was too big for us, but now we cry sour grapes, just like children. It’s on us, folks.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr Reich,

Although I like your ideas, I still don't think we should go through with this horrendous bailout.

I especially hate the idea of declaring financial martial law and giving the Treasury Secretary carte-blanche over all our money. When did we stop being a democracy and become an Oligarchy?

This will make all the ultra rights dreams come true. There won't be any money left outside of serving this debt for any social programs we may even lose social security.

The fatcats are having a field day laughing about this all the way to their offshore bank accounts. I would like to see some heads on pikes for this mess.

Why should we trust this administration? They have lied about crises in the past. Look at the Iraq war they rushed us into.

Please help stop this insanity.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous jemarie said...

Mr Reich,

Your ideas make all of the sense in the world....I hope Obama incorporates these into his discussion on this bailout.
The frenzy that is now happening is reminicint of the frenzy created prior to the IRAQ war. Look where that got us....
If a bailout plan is necessary, it should be well thought out and managed properly. I am sick of the methods of the BUSH administration...

Jemarie

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Blissex said...

«It is a spit in the face of democracy to give a non elected official such powers.»

That's a figleaf -- the Secretary of the Treasury takes orders from the President or gets fired. This administration strongly believes in the unitary executive, never mind the unitary cabinet. The powers may be exercised by the Secretary, but they are in effect granted to the President.

«how the rules don't apply to them "large corperations and such" but they do for us.»

Do you make campaign donations? American politics is pay-per-play, and nobody likes freeriders. Why should your representative give you free gifts?

«Where is their responsibility for this mess. Why do we pay for their greed and incompetence.»

You (the majority of USA voters) voted for the guys that created this mess, repeatedly and quite enthusiastically you (many if not most USA voters) loved to see the fruits of that in ever rising values for your houses and stocks.

«The reason the bailout will be agreed to is that the U.S. Congress is in the hands of Wall Street special interests. Christopher Dodd received well over $100,000 in campaign contributions from Freddie and Fannie, and Nancy Pelosi wasn't far behind.»

And how much did they receive from *you* and the other voters? If you don't pay, you don't get to play. If Dodd and Pelosi had gotten more campaign funds from their voters than their "sponsors", they might have a better attitude.

«the claim that these "bailouts" are a form of Socialism?»

Fascism is a form of socialism: corporate socialism.

«Why should we trust this administration? They have lied about crises in the past. Look at the Iraq war they rushed us into.»

A majority of voters elected them twice. The uSA is still a democracy. A majority of Congress approved all the laws and authorizations they wanted. The USA is still a representative democracy.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Blogger reader110 said...

Sent to Tom Price, 6th Congress, GA

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous allencharlesreport said...

The one caveat I have for the new agency, which plans to put these bad debt mortgages in, is that a provision in the restructuring should provide a way for people that are in these mortgages to be able to stay in the home. One idea would be to renegotiate the value of the property back to an equity position with the caveat that they could not sell their home, for eight to ten years or some other appropriate time frame. The reason that I would like to see this put into the terms for use of this agency to stabilize the mortgage market is that if something isn’t done the power structure that will be controlling this new agency will likely sell off these homes at a larger loss than leaving people in the homes or working out something for them. If this doesn’t happen many insiders, the money crowd, Wall Street types you know the folks that got us in this mess to start with will come in and buy these properties up for pennies to the dollar at taxpayer expense leaving the homeowner homeless the taxpayer on the hook for the costs and the rest us no better off than we are now. There could be a deed restriction on these homes that required them to pay the proceeds out of the home or of the equity of the home as a penalty for moving too fast. The whole idea for this bailout is to stabilize the mortgage market, financial market, and the economy.

It seems that everything is being done to protect the Wall Street companies but nothing is being done to protect Joe Six-pack that was just trying to buy a home to live in. Speculators might be able to keep the homes but would have agree to keep the property to off the market for the same period of time or lose their investment.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The solution to our situation leaves us at a Hobson's choice, but the approval to move forward must be constrained with accountability and regulation.
Why should we approve a blank check without prudent risk management, which is what put us in this situation to begin with.

A financial depression might be better then the psychological depression I've been going through in watching all this greed and injustice.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sent to Rep. Paul Brown, 10th GA & Sens. Chambliss and Isakson of GA.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

John Lawrence,

You've give a lucid, pragmatic, and likely cost-effective approach to the Bailout DEBT Bonanza now being promoted so feverishly.

You get at the root cause of our troubles which is the whole process of SECURITIZATION ... involving an exotic pyramid concept of money expansion that's neither Transparant nor Understandable.

It's no surprise you don't see this financial skullduggery in Europe, although a few major European financial institutions have bought US collateralized debt obligations...
and have learned a costly lesson (UBS of Switzerland, Northern Rock of UK, Deutsche Bank, etc.) The European financial system is far less complex and more traditional.

Back to simple financial lending basics before the greed and slim Wall Street financial sharks, their lobbyists and political partners turn us into a pauper nation, assuming they have not already done so.

A resounding `Yes´ to your recommendations: (1) Flat line derivatives;

(2) Repeal the Gram/Leach/Bliley Modernization Act;

(3)See to it that the Treasury Dept. gets original CDOs and decollateralizes them to get to the original mortgages.

(4) Renegotiate mortgages after they are decollateralized to put a stop to massive foreclosures underway now against the desperate working middle class.

Would be interesting to hear the price tag for this policy option compared to Congress´s Blank check Bailout ... which sounds like it has no limits!
Frank Thomas, The Netherlands

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Blogger Weaseldog said...

Dear Hens, it's come to our attention, that you blame your benefactors, the foxes, for the recent losses in your numbers.

Some malcontents have even gone so far as to bear false witness, and claim to have seen a fox carrying away a hen or two.

Truth be told, that hen was been carted off to receive medical treatment after being mauled by the dogs.

Now we have tried our best to defend you against the dogs which are allowed to run loose in the yard. But alas, we are too few and we are worn out from the effort.

From now on to gain strength, we will henceforth require all of your eggs as payment for additional services that we will have to barter for, to continue the unparalleled protection you have enjoyed since you brought us into your employ.

Be assured that the dogs that have perpetrated these crimes against you, shall be dealt with.

Now, we're calling for three hens to volunteer to host a private party in the fox den tonight. Interested hens must be plump and healthy. Meet outside the hen house at six.

Sincerely, your loving benefactors, the Foxes.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Blogger Weaseldog said...

Blissex, you make a good point.

The fact that we pay taxes and our taxes pay our representatives salaries and their unlimited medical benefits, isn't a factor.

If we want to be heard, we have to each out bribe the special interest groups.

the job of elected representatives is to vote the way of the highest paying bribe. No other consideration should be considered.

The law, patriotism, ethics, morals etc... have any bearing. The purse that tinkles loudest, defines our legislation.

If we want our representatives to vote in the interest our nation, we should become billionaires and bribe them. If we don't want to do that, then we should expect that traitors will destroy our country from within. And we can do nothing to stop them, because we don't have the right to defend our nation from domestic enemies of the Constitution of the United States of America.

After all, the enemies of the US Constitution are the highest bidders.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Blogger Weaseldog said...

If McCain wants responsible parties fired, should we start with McCain and Gramm?

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sbvor,
When McCain said that the fundamentals of the economy were strong he said that "fundamentals" were the American workers. He wasn't referring to the economy itself.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your ideas are well thought out and thought provoking and certainly, in principle, its hard to disagree with any of them. But its the surrounding hyperbole that kills any credibility you build with your proposals.

Yes, "Wall Streeters" were responsible for poor financial and risk management and just plain greed. But you are ignoring the fundamental role of the worst offender - your average taxpaying consumer, who has ridden the asset bubble and instead of responsibly managing the paper wealth he/she is building, blew it all by over-leveraging themselves. Blame the lender? Blame the lendee!

If taxpayers are paying for the bailout of mismanaged firms, they are also paying for their OWN mismanagement of their debt. No one told Joe Q Public to over-leverage the living hell out of his overpriced home to buy that over-priced SUV that sucks back gas like a hoover, so that he could drive to his local mall to consume, consume, consume beyond his/her means.

Come on, take some responsibility mr. and mrs. taxpayer. Don't just shovel all the blame onto the "greedy Wall Streeters". Thats the easy way out.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bartkid sez,
For $700 B, can we not cut out the middlemen and just forgive that much worth of subprime mortgages?

Go ahead, point out where I am so naive.

I know I am naive, because I think $700 B should buy at least four years of Republicans STFU.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous silverfox said...

We need a new government agency to deal with this mess, the FGIC, or Federal Greed Insurance Corporation. All premiums are paid by the taxpayers, while all benefits are payable only to Wall Street millionaires. It will be the crowing glory for the current conservative Republican administration.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And by strong, McCain meant smelling.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ECONOMIC HURRICANE REPORT: 2 p.m, 9/22/08, DJIA -250 and dropping. Bail out looks academic. Watch that Hang Seng later today/tommorow - by Wednesday 8 years of the Republican, "greed-is-a-good-thing", philosophy will have its day of reckoning. And all the king's horses and all the king's men won't be able to put Credit-Dumpty back together again.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As an average tax-paying consumer I blame television advertising and HGTV for all my overspending and debt problems. Wall-street only provided the credit-dope, I am the true credit-dope fiend.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would like to propose the following questions for consideration, analysis and public discussion in bailout context:

1. what is the estimate of the amount of money (uninvested) that the top 1%, top 5% of the population has kept/saved from the bush tax cuts since they were put into effect.



or put another way, what is the amount of money the u.s. treasury would have received if the tax cuts had not been passed? (perhaps assuming they would have proportionally similar tax deductions before and after the tax cuts?)

2. in the bailout plans currently in place for freddie and fannie, aig, etc. as well as the new bailout proposal. is there a way of estimating the extent to which and ways in which the top 1%, top 5% income group would be affected vs. those in lower categories. (e.g., if someone in top 1% is a large shareholder, corporate executive of organization benefiting from bailout, employee of bailed out organization, small sharefholder, non shareholder or employee).

3. Consider finding a way to illustrate use of taxpayers funds to bailout failing insurance and finance companies that republicans wanted to be part of a privatized social security system, vs. using fewer taxpayer dollars to get real health care insurance with universal single payer health system?

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can you respond to this article blaming the democrats for the financial crisis... and for everything else in the universe. I'd like some logical ammunition in countering this kind of silliness. And I'm sure democrats in general could use some as well:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aSKSoiNbnQY0

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Jeff said...

Bob,
Yours was the most inspiring class I had at KSG because, despite your incredible professional accomplishments in academia and government, you never lost touch with the average American. Your policy analysis is helpful and needs to be heard and heeded (again) in D.C.
I have always been an incurable optimist -- until recently. I feel so sorry for my kids, inheriting this huge bill from free-wheeling, greedy, short-sighted managers (business and government), most of whom did little for this country while filling up their own bank accounts.

What a complete change from the previous (my parents') generation who put Country, God, family, neighbors before themselves. And they had every reason to be greedy, having fought their way through both Depression and War. But they lived within their means, and were content to have only what they deserved – even less – as long as they had good health, a roof over their heads, food on the table, and education for their kids.
The following generation of self-absorbed American corporate titans and purveyors of special interests abused that freedom. I’m livid, and for the first time in my life, very pessimistic.
Get back in, Bob, and help salvage the sinking ship.
Jeff

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why should banks profit from managing this mess?? [NY Times front page this morning] They got us into it. They worked pro bono on AIG, they should continue.

And now everyone is clamoring to get under the bailout tent. Stop the madness!

Obama must get out front and lead this with clear, direct language and some emotion, please!

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

john lawrence:

I like it! Lots of good ideas. Will take awhile to unravel but teams of unemployed former brokers coupled with some forensic accountants should be able to effect.

I would add to your future regulatory changes, banning short selling altogether. I see short selling as nothing more than adding more crap tables to the game. The big players practicing this trading option have the resources to drive market price down just by the volume of their activity. The average investor, primarily buying long, can see significant gains in his portfolio gone by the end of any given day if the shorts attacked one of his stocks.

If we can't ban short selling altogether the next best thing would be banning naked shorts and adding back the uptick rule. I would guess in this day of electronic trading the uptick rule is a minor inconvenience to the short sellers. It would seem easy enough to get around by someone whose profession is watching the market moves all day long.

I might also second guess paying back original investors in CDOs their original investments. Off the top of my head the foreclosures that have taken place or may occur would mean some losses in original value are going to be incurred. Why should taxpayers bear those losses? Perhaps settle with the original investors for 60-70% of their original investment, after all they did take a risk, and if in the end there is excess left over they could receive more after a nominal fee for all the government work is subtracted.

Wholeheartedly agree on the players of exotic instruments.

Just like an accountant to make a simple solution complicated. ;)

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

Dr. Reich,

Just a couple of points regarding the $700 billion, perhaps $1trillion, Bailout of risky Debt of banks : in addition to the $700 billion is the $85 billion invested in AIG, the $29 billion for support for the takeover of Bear Stearns, and $200 billion for mortgage lenders/packagers Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. This $ 1trillion plus sum exceeds in a blink of the eye total expenditures in Iraq/Afghanistan to date and is more than twice our annual Defense expenditures.

These are colossal numbers which exclude further potential risk exposure surprises with the enormous Credit Default Swap market insurance firms have become so intoxicated with ...or should I say, 'toxicated' with.

The idea is that the Treasury will buy toxic bank Debt at bottom prices and later sell it back to Wall Street. Leaving aside the question who will buy this risky Debt and how much will they pay for it, there is another dilemma.

And that is the less the Treasury pays for the Debt, the greater will be the banks'losses (which is fine with me). But this will likely lead to declining consumer confidence and stock markets, a continuing credit crunch, and economic instability. The ultimate result will be more jobs lost.

So, ironically, it's a "Tails I Lose" (Wall Street) and "Heads You Lose" (the Taxpayers) situation. The question is who should lose the most in trying to halt this disastrous spiral and who the least ... the answer is obvious.

The next question is how to fundamentally rid ourselves of this financial casino system for a system that is solid, simple, and stable. Dr. Reich, John Lawrence, Bruce Barnes and many others have provided some excellent insights on this question

It also means relooking at our structurally out-of-balance Economic Model with its self-destructive focus on excessive Consumption and utterly inadequate reliance on Savings and Investment to drive our economy's GDP growth ... without exploding debt in all directions.

I hope legislators of both parties are carefully reading Dr. Reich's writings and responses to same with an open mind.

This is a time for all politicians to be self-critical of mutual failures in meeting their fiduciary, caretaker responsibility for the general public's interests ... Mainstream America as well as Upstream America. One can not do without the other.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you Robert Reich for being one sane voice that is offering an alternative solution. At least one person still makes me proud to be an American. I've about given up on the rest of the government clown car.

I also have sent your plan to my Senators: Durbin & Obama. My rep: Mark Kirk. And a handful of other Senators. Whether or not they will have courage...it's hard to hold out hope on that one.

It seems to me that Congress is offering up the taxpayers to the parasites of Wall Street to feed upon.

Henry Ford said "Wall Street makes it money over the graves of the workers".

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

Dr. Reich,

I forgot to mention one other constant contributor of detailed, highly thoughtful analyses on this blog ... Art Layman.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If one accuses Wall Street of greed, he has to include all the original borrowers who took out mortgage loans & home equity loans that they then could not repay. Most of these folks were financing investment properties, hoping to get rich like everyone else; and taking out home equity loans so that they could buy the new car & keep up with the Joneses. None of the big Wall Street investment firms were doing this initial lending. Only later in the process of securitizing the loans into tradable investment products did the investment banks enter the process. Blaming Wall Street is just liberals attempting to find a scapegoat so they can take up the cause of the middle class against the “evil” rich crowd. Same old story & I’m not buying it.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

You're ignoring completely that this is a chain reaction event between commercial banks and investment banks first starting with the snake-oil lending practices, then knowingly passing on toxic mortgages to investment banks who then knowingly packaged same flakey mortgages (without any due diligence) for the next chain of suckers, the investors. A typical network pyramid of money making expansion by creating exotic financial paper instruments and collateralized credit obligations on a massive scale with flagrant or phoney asset assessed values behind them. So it's a system failure at all levels, including appalling total lack of oversight and strict controls by Federal and State authorities.

Most seeking home loans were duped, others got in over their heads but prudent, ethical lending practices were thrown out the window. Not surprisingly, the ordinary folks feel the greedy lenders had a responsibility to say no "you can't afford this loan, stay in your apartment," but they didn't. Cheap money policy of Greenspan and long periods of stagnant wages of working middle class further fed the debt fever to take out home equity loans for consumption purposes -- to keep standard of living from declining.

The biggest losers in all this have been the working middle class, thrown out of their homes or about to be. It's not a clash of the middle class against the rich. It's about the middle class against the crooks who cooked up and consumated irresponsible loans, then joined the money securitization tree with others -- all unprofessionally thirsting at the hole of fast money, stock options and fat bonuses.

There's blame enough to go around everywhere. So, you're old-fashion name calling "you liberals" is steriotyping dogma that gets us nowhere. Do you have any constructive ideas? Let's hear them. We're in a mess up to our ears that threatens the entire nation's financial security.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Reich,

I too have echoed your suggestions to my elected representatives.

Thank you for sharing your insights!

jlowrie

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous The Bag of Health and Politics said...

1. A tax increase. Not on the middle class mind you. But those earning over $3,000,000 should have to pay 50% of their income in taxes. Those earning over $20,000,000 should have to pay 60% of their income in taxes. And those earning over $50,000,000 should have to pay 85% in taxes. In short, this is a "fine, we'll bail you out, but we'll use your money to do it." Democrats are operating on the false assumption that tax increased will be opposed by the public. The public wants to sock it to Wall Street, and they're very much in support of increased taxes for the rich.

2. A repeal of the bankruptcy reform bill that makes it impossible for people with medical debt to meet their mortgage premiums.

3. A doubling of the Capital Gains tax on gains over $50,000.

4. Universal access to the FEHB, with subsidies, for chronically ill "catastrophic" cases. Subsidized premiums that make it so a person doesn't have to pay more than a health person would on the private market to access health insurance. This would drastically reduce federal outlays on emergency care.

5. A repeal of the deregulation which caused this mess.

6. The resignation of Hank Paulson and Ben Bernake effective November 5th, 2008.

7. What you described except for this--no CEOs or other executive's pay shall exceed $168,000 (the salary of a Member of Congress). Nobody actually needs any more than that...Also, I would not implement your profit sharing idea.

The point is this: if it's so big of a crisis, they have to bend. They can't just say, "our way or the market will collapse." This is a giant opportunity for the Democratic Majority to do something which benefits the people. If they can't get these 7 things, they should pass a plan which protects Main Street and not Wall Street, and watch as the President vetoes it. If they did that, Obama's election would become a forgone conclusion, and they'd have a couple months to come up with a new "New Deal" designed to clean up after the most massive failure ever to inhabit American government.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The blame for the mortgage/credit crisis can span all participants from Wall Street all the way down to the unqualified home owners.

- borrowers should not qualify
- homes not worth appraised values
- loan officers not fiduciary and full disclosing
- secondary market over-engineered
- lack of transparency in obtuse financial instruments
- lobbyists blocking & repealing regulation
- regulators dumb-founded & out of touch
- politicians disconnected & unable to lead
- Wall street over greedy

My son was a lucky recipient of this greed Ponzi scheme:

He bought a commercial building by qualifying on GROSS business earnings
He had very little business net profits
He turns the building over for $400K

Where did this wealth come from????

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Sharon G said...

If this check is approved, there will be no money for ANY economic, health or education programs proposed by Obama. He will then go down as the lamest president anyone can think of. I'm sure the fat cats and their friends in Congress figure, "Get it while the gettin's good" and an Obama presidency will be left holding the (empty) bag.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can someone please tell me what would be wrong with this: I would like to take some money out of my retirement savings to pay off some debts, including higher-interest credit cards but I would like to have the early-withdrawal penalty waived. Is it a fair trade-off, economically speaking, to pay down my debts (without the penalty), thereby putting me in a better cash-flow situation while at the same time freeing up that money to be loaned to someone else?

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Zach L. said...

Shouldn't the former Secretary of Labor know that "dies" not "dyes" are cast?

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Blogger In Debt We Trust said...

I agree wholeheartedly with your statements Mr. Reich.

In fact, Congress should demand preferred shares in Wall St. corporations for every taxpayer. Dividends will be mandatory on a quarterly basis with funding shortfalls to come from upper management's salaries.

www.debtsofanation.blogspot.com

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Blogger yrb said...

I really like Prof Reich's suggestions. And especially I like John Lawrences' added suggestion to decollateralize the securities to get back to the original mortgages, which in turn should be held by the government. I agree that the investors should get minimum compensation. They have the financial sophistication to know they were engaging in a very risky investment. Homeowners must be helped, with the added restriction that homeowners will be allowed to refinance their mortgages where the home is their *primary* residence. This bailout should not reward the speculators who bought multiple homes on leverage. Again, these speculators knew what risks they were taking and should not be rewarded.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes! I love it. What about direct money to homeowners? Our home value has dropped by about 20% in the last few years, how about paying off some of our principle? That would allow us to spend more and pump up the economy.
-rj40

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Blogger kayxyz said...

Why does Paulson stipulate that the Treasury Secretary's action be nonreviewable?

Because if McCain wins, Phil Gramm will likely be Treasury Secretary LOL or if you believe the vote machines have been programmed and rigged since 2004, there's your answer.

The Democrats can drag their feet as long as they want, b/c polls show most of the nation blames the Republicans for the economy crisis.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Blogger Howard said...

Here's another idea for equity (no pun intended): When a company declares bankruptcy, there's a "look-back" period, whereby payments made by the company for a certain period of time in the past are called back, or reversed. Can legislation be passed to create a "look back" period to call back the billions in bonuses etc. made by companies that the taxpayer is now bailing out?

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA

WHAT A SCREAM I TELL YA!!!! MY SIDES ARE SPLITTING!!!!!!!!HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

i am holding my breath.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous donna said...

No, they don't have to say yes. Let them fail. If they bail out the top without providing for those at the bottom, we end up in depression, same as the 30s. Bernanke knows this.

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous karen ristau said...

Instead of more relief at the top, let's turn it around:

The U.S.Treasury sends a check for $1 million(taxable income, of course) to every household in the U.S. - roughly 120 million - bar none - a vast amount, certainly.
Immediate relief on every front - our economy surges with ultra-liquidity, small businesses boom, debts paid, etc.
Meanwhile, the investment bankers and fund managers who ran us into this ditch can stay there - the firms who've leveraged themselves off the cliff with derivatives and short sales deserve to fail. Instead of saving them, we the people write the giant check to ourselves.
Trickle-up economics!

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Blogger I need my house rented now.com said...

( Rent out your home ! that's the answer ) ! Home owners don't let the bank take your home or foreclosed on you, Bear sterns, AIG, Lehman brothers, Fannie may, Freddy Mac, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lench all out of business or bankrupt and they want the tax payer, You to bail them out for as much as $ 3, trillion dollars in, 2009.

Well we home owner's are tire and fed up with this mortgage debt. Rent out NOW and continue to keep your equity in your house, long term. If you have affordable home for rent from $ 500 to $ 1,800.00 month, than we have renters all over the U.S. of America, that want to see and rent your home, NOW ! on our site.

( http://ineedmyhouserentednow.com http://ineedmyhouserentednow.com

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous M. Economy said...

( Rent out your home ! that's the answer ) ! Home owners don't let the bank take your home or foreclosed on you, Bear sterns, AIG, Lehman brothers, Fannie may, Freddy Mac, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lench all out
of business or bankrupt and they want the tax payer, You to bail them out for as much as $ 3, trillion dollars in, 2009. Well we home owner's are tire and fed up with this mortgage debt. Rent out NOW and continue to keep your equity in your house, long term. If you have affordable home for rent from $ 500 to $ 1,800.00 month, than we have renters all over the U.S. of America, that want to see and rent your home, NOW ! on our site.

( http://ineedmyhouserentednow.com http://ineedmyhouserentednow.com

Monday, 22 September, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

Dr. Reich, Readers

Our National Debt at the end of Clinton's term was $5.6 Trillion.

It's expected to increase to $9.7 Trillion by end of Bush Jr.s'
term, an increase of $4.1 Trillion in 8 years under Bush compared to an increase of $1.6 Trillion in 8 years under Clinton.

Here's how the $9.7 Trillion year-end 2008 National Debt will climb exponentially with announced Bailouts and 2009 Budget Deficit:

(1)Purchase of..........$700 Bil.
of Bad Debt

(2)Bear Stearns..........$29 Bil.

(3)Freddie/Fannie.......$200 Bil.

(4)AIG...................$85 Bil.

(5)2009 Budget Deficit..$500 Bil.

TOTAL INCREASES.......$1.514 Tril.

GRAND TOTAL NEW
NATIONAL DEBT........$11,200 Tril.!

Looks like our direly needed Economic Stimulus plans for Investing in upgrading and modernizing our health, human and social/infrastructure sectors, not to forget Alternate Fuels, is on indefinite HOLD.

This calls for an even more aggressive and creative set of ideas to eliminate tax loopholes and implement fair tax changes to pay for Economic Recovery. These ideas combined with cost cuts, especially in Defense expenditures, are critical to survive the explosion of our National Debt and related Interest cost on this Debt.

For a list of six good action ideas
that will generate $400 Billion a year in added tax revenues to finance a broad/based recovery and address the exceptional inequalites and resultant speculation, a MUST READ is Chuck Collins´recent article in Nation entitled:

`Tax The Speculators: A Fair Plan to Pay for Economic Recovery´

Mr. Collins llist 6 actions I shall not go into detail on here:

(1) Institute a financial transactions tax
(2) Impose an income tax Surcharge Rate on incomes over $5 million
(3) Eliminate the tax preference for Capital Gains
(4) Progressive inheritance taxes
(5) Eliminate taxpayer subsidies for excessive CEO pay
(6) Close Offshore corporate tax havens.

Read the details.

Total annual Revenues generated equal: ±$400 Billion!

As one person remarked, `this is Investment Capital in our productive economy and ordinary people rather than the speculative and supperrich sectors of the economy.´

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have some coffee at the Intermetzo Cafe for me.

Coffee is for closers!

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Anonymous Alexandra Hamilton said...

REALIZING That the current Government has looked on as this mess developed, and has trashed public confidence;
REALIZING That the financial system as we knew it is dead, and therefore cannot be and should never have been trusted to essentially run this country;
BELIEVING That it is not the U.S. Government's business to be in investment banking;
REALIZING That this is the People's Country, these are the People's Institutions, and this is the People's Money, and the People should be back in control of running their own country;
DETERMINED Not to have my dream taken away or destroyed by unaccountable greedy people.

I have decided to come up with my own solution for social and economic reform:

Purpose of section 1:
(1)Taxpayer burden must be kept to a minimum;
(2)Stability of financial system must be furthered;
(3)Mortgages, credit-card debt, loan, student-loan debt holders must be relieved so as to be able to repay there debt within a reasonable time frame.

Section 1 Short term measures (to be enacted within several days):
(1)restructure mortgages, loans and credit-card debt of private households, fixing maximum interest rate p.a. at 6% eliminate excessive fees, so that they are again affordable;
(2)The 700Bln must be funded partly by all the bonuses accumulated over the last 10 years by Board members and top-tier executives of financial institutions partaking, cash. shares shares, real estate, houses, cars, and the like;
(3)Financial institutions partaking must contribute as to the administrative costs of the 700Bln fund, by submitting cash, shares, real estate, houses,cars, and the like;
(4)Financial institutions partaking waive any right to maximum extent permissible by law to have decisions reviewed by other administrative agencies or courts;
(5)The assets for this fund may be bought by reverse auction but not for more than 20% of their nominal value;
(6)Any benefit from the 700Bln fund will go into funding Sec. 2 measures or into national debt reduction;
(7) mortgage securities may include residential and commercial mortgages, with residential mortgages being preferred;
(8) mortgage securities may not include Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) or Credit Default Swaps (CDSs), or any other similar or non-regulated instrument;
(9)financial institutions not coming forward with necessary information, making false, incomplete or misleading statements in relation to those assets or purchases will be held in contempt and fined USD 100'000 for every day they are held to be in contempt;
(10)financial institutions can be held liable for any damage caused to taxpayer;
(11)Hedge funds are ineligible to participate;
(12)Purchase, non-purchase, sales or hold decisions cannot be reviewed by courts or other administrative agencies, with the exception of law enforcement agencies;
(13) Congress may not demand that specific mortgage-related securities be sold, bought or held;
(14)GAO may review and publish accounts, analysis and findings at any time;
(15)The Senate Banking Committee may call the Secretary or other people working for the Secretary at any time to testify about activities;
(16)Congress may not revoke or alter this Act before one year after the Act comes into force has elapsed;
(17)The amount of USD 700,000,000.00 may not be increased;

Purpose of section 2:
(1)Current situation of people earning low or minimum wages and being heavily endebted just to finance basic things needed for daily lives is not what was meant with the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution.
(2) The need for people to work long hours, or even have two or more jobs just to finance their basic needs, is unconstitutional as this must be considered to be "involuntary servitude";
(3) As stated in the Declaration of Independence it is the job of the Government to further and guarantee the People's inalienable rights as stated in the U.S. Constitution in every aspect of live;
(4) As founding member of the U.N., signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and propagator and sponsor of Democracy, Rule of Law and Human Rights around the world, it is the U.S. Government's duty to fully apply those principles at home.

Section 2 - Medium- and Longterm Measures (to be written into law by the next Congress)
(1) Reform social security. Scrap different programs for people in need and Medicaid and pay every US Citizen a monthly "basic income" of USD 2800, which will cover basic needs for housing, food, clothing. This way people will no longer have to work to make a living. The basic income will not be taxed;
(2) Allow people to earn an "additional income" by working on their terms and as much as they want, depending on their needs. The additional income will be taxed, but only lightly until it reaches USD 200,000, above that see (6);
(3) Freeze all mortgages for primary homes in trouble and restructure them, so people can afford them, there will be no need for foreclosure;
(4) Set the maximum interest rate for debt that can be charged to 15% p.a., define maximum allowable charges;
(5) Tax consummation through VAT;
(6) Tax additional incomes (see 2) above 200,000 progressively the higher the income, the higher the tax, starting at 12% reaching 79.9% at 5mln;
(7) Tax large fortunes - above 200mln - progressively the higher the income, the higher the tax, starting at 35% and reaching 79.9% at 2bln;
(8) Tax large heritages - above 200mln per person - progressively starting at 35% reaching 79.9% at 2bln;
(9) Ban lobbying by corporations in any legal shape or form. Corporations were not meant to benefit from any right guaranteed in the bill of rights. They are neither "natural persons", nor do they belong to "the People". Therefore they cannot "petition the Government".

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Blogger econoclast said...

The entire bailout model is deeply flawed. There are enormous conflicts of interest in allowing Wall St "experts" to price the toxic securities they will be buying. It's putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. The RTC model is far superior. Let the market decide the value of these securities in an orderly liquidation over a period of time. It's almost certain there is no equity in the bailed-out institutions, so giving taxpayers an equity stake is just not addressing the issue. Please please lobby for RTC2!

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Blogger Craig said...

Dr. Reich

It would seem that an issue with the assets of these Wall street failures is the value of the underlying assets. That us, sub prime loans. I think the appropriate bailout is the one for the individual that would keep the individual in their house and restore value to the loan. Then the banks would find some value in the assets. Giving these firms a bailout screws the taxpayer and the individual borrower. Bail out the borrower rather than the bank. If that doesn't help the bank, et al, then something else is the problem.

I heard that a fundamental issue is banks' unwillingness to loan to other banks, this locking up the credit market. So be it. I would suggest that the $700B be loaned to the banks, collateralized, rather than handed to them as a gift.

I am elated to see that you are Obama's economic advisor.

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

please re-start your YouTube blog!

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Reich
Your tactical recommendations will resolve the current financial crisis, but I would urge you to also include a larger more strategic perspective for campaigning against corporate malfeasance. We need to lobby for a “shareholder bill of rights” and an independent “corporate governance model”. Capitalism must have a fiduciary model to balance greed and to provide management accountability. The labor force and the country should come before corporate raiding.
The tax system can be adjusted to reward good corporate citizenship. Job creation at home should provide tax relief to balance wage disparities. Incentives for strategic research: energy independence, energy conservation, pollution reductions, etc. should all have tax relief to encourage fairness and strategic direction.
Where is the leadership ?????

McCain is still carrying baggage from his POW days… he won’t let go of this. His running mate the soccer-mom, moose hunter will not help McCain get over his post traumatic war syndrome.. McCain has too much of a hair trigger on our nuclear war heads. We cannot continue to be the “world police”. Democracy is not for every culture, especially religious fanatics.

We need to fix our own democracy with fair elections and lobby reform. We have achieved the worst that democratic model can strive to achieve.

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

Dr. Reich,

Coming back to you Condition (1) of giving the Taxpayers a stake in the bailed out firms, this equity stake should be extracted BEFORE the Treasury starts injecting cash.

That taxpayers simply fund Wall Street banks with no return other than interest takes banks off the hook and puts taxpayers on the short end ...and is, therefore, simply unacceptable.

Taxpayers must be rewarded for the unusual risks being taken here. They should share in the eventual profits from later sale of distressed mortgage instruments and a return to profitabilty of the insolvent bank. Any plan to buy the bad debt and distressed assets underlying the debt without demanding equity is pure idiocy.

Sweden´s pugnacious ownership approach insured success with their similar earthshaking financial crisis in 1992. Through tough ownership demands for share capital BEFORE writing a check, the Swedish government eventually got most of its huge bailout financing back.

Thus, `moral hazard´,i.e., the issue of absolving or eliminating responsibility of insolvent banks for their bad decisions, was done away with. All parties got their fair returns for risks taken and lost and risks taken and won.

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Anonymous John said...

Can someone explain:

The Fed and Treasury are saying that it would be wise, and in the taxpayer's best interest, to buy these "toxic assets" at hold-to-maturity prices versus fire-sale prices. With the assets hard to value, why should the tax payers basically pay retail prices for these assets instead of a discount for the risk we are taking on the unknown liquid value? Can someone explain this logic to me? I hope that I may be just missing something.

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Blogger Weaseldog said...

John, the banks need cash. Paulson would be happy to just write them a check as a gift, but he knows that Congress won't approve that.

So the taxpayer will get the bank's toxic paper, because it has a pretend value of whatever Paulson valued them at.

The more the taxpayer pays for them, the more pretend value they have. So on the books the more money is wasted, the more value there appears to be.

Now he only get's to spend $700billion at a time. So he's going to have to unload that paper, before he can buy more.

So if he buys high, and sells low, the banks will have the liquidity in the short term to buy back the paper, so they can resell it back to the taxpayer again.

So Paulson may buy a note on a $200,000 house, for $200,000. Then he can go back to the bank who can argue that resale value isn't that high, as the windows are broken, the plumbing and electrical wiring has been stolen and the back half of the house was consumed in a fire. So Paulson sells the note back to for $5,000, and the bank can afford it, because they sold it for $200,000.

Then that same note can go back into the toxic waste bin, and the process repeated.

It's a very logical process.

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is Armageddon rearing it's ugly head from the dark corners of speculative capitalism and is yet to emerge in full form. The ability/inability of our Congress to successfully characterize how we got into this mess, will likely determine our outcome as a nation...whether we survive as a country in the coming months. It's not merely "change" we need from either of these two candidates, but conversion....a New Deal if you will. Our country now faces a threat so formidable that, by comparison, seems pale and far more sinister than the one faced in 1776. Such an internal foe requires nothing short of revolutionary insight as a society to overturn the ill-conceived notion that capitalism itself can substitute as social polity. Government needs to distance itself from the influence-peddling of the finance world once and for all as the division of church and state dictates. The subsuming underlying problem in this nation underwriting the current dilemma is that we are a debtor nation trying to create profit from thin air. Until that reality is overturned, there will likely be no long term solution to such a falsely conceived socio-cultural-politico-economic hegemonic ideology.

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The majority of citizens in this country are not fulfilling their obligation to participate in a democracy and they don't exercise their right to vote.
It is also pathetic that most Americans are uninterested and have become apolitical.
All citizens are accountable. Rather then complaining and blaming others that are participating in the democracy and running this country (albeit in the ground).
Get out and vote, you idiots !!! ….. WE NEED CHANGE AND WE NEED IT NOW

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bush leaves a legacy of destruction in the Middle East and here in America:

He has a failed attack on terrorism:
"North Korea is backing away from pledges to abandon nuclear weapons. A Palestinian-Israeli peace pact before Bush leaves office is unlikely. Violence is flaring in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iran continues to pursue its nuclear work in defiance of international demands. Russia is giving us the middle finger"

While Bush is chasing a few diaper-heads in the name of democracy ... our nation has become socialistic, more energy dependent, and in debt for several generations..

We are not safer...
We are not richer....
We are not better-off...

Bush legacy is one of shame and failure.

McBush will continue this lunacy..

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Anonymous Frank Thomas said...

John, Weaseldog

Your questions are why Sweden forced the banks to WRITE DOWN their assets losses right away BEFORE coming to the government for recapitalization bailout.

Sweden also drained a lot of the share capital away also to compensate taxpayers for risks taken. When markets improved, Sweden got its return by taking some of the banks public again.

This quickly rushed Bailout by the Treasury is geared to save the financial Establishment. By paying too much for the assets of banks that are responsible for the crisis, Treasury projects the illusion of the banking system's creditworthiness.

When the true deteriorated value of the assets is determined, taxpayers lose ... especially if there is no ownership.

There's such a rush to pass this measure that options and clever, creative thinking are no doubt being compromised. It's our government putting together a hasty Gamble, where the losses come to the Taxpayers, but not the gains.

I find it irresponsible Treasury's measure does not demand equity in exchange for the purchase of toxic debt backed by distressed asset values... that noone knows the extent of.

On this massive Bailout, we clearly appear to be in the world of the "unknown unknowns" -- the ones we don't know we don't know.

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Anonymous John said...

I opened a blog post to my previous question, if anyone would like to add to it please do. There seem to be varying ideas. http://keepitcleaneconomics.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Seems to me you (Reich) should be on all the talk shows (including Mr. O'Reily's) ASAP. You talk sense, especially about giving money to people who already have made millions upon millions. the guy at Goldman Sachs made 73 million last year. and he needs our help? Get your PR people to get you booked!

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Blogger Weaseldog said...

We don't need to see O'Reilly, Hannity, Malkin or Coulter screeching at Robert. There is nothing to be gained by appearing on those infotainment shows.

Congress isn't going to listen to the public anyway. They are vetted by the same people that will demand that they vote for this legislation.

As to the power of the vote, yes we have the power to vote for a variety of corporate servants that are trotted on the stage to give us the appearance of choice. But it's like choosing from contestants in a dog show, no matter which you pick, you're still picking a dog.

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some dogs are better house trained then others...
Bush is peeing on our rugs and crapping in everyone's flowerbed

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Blogger Weaseldog said...

Yeah, maybe I should have used a different animal as an example...

Or argue that you can't pick a horse as a winner in a dog show.

I'll go back to using the analogy of the 'prettiest turd contest'. I was being too nice.

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was watching the hearings and a classic response from the feds when asked about tying assets to equity stakes was basically; no we don't want to scare the timid little bunnies, bless their innocent souls, their scared enough.

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Anonymous Carol Goldstein said...

to John Thomas who posted extensively about retroactively(?)repelling the year 2000 Gramm Leach Bliley Act that repealed the Glass Steagall Act thereby (in his theory) unwinding CMOs and custom derivatives such as credit swaps.

I'll leave aside the wisdom or constitutionallity of broad brush ex post facto legislation nullifying contracts. But as a former securities industry professional who was there,I must inform you that CMOs as we know them today existed as early as the mid-1980's and were wide-spread, although not widely publicized, by the mid-1990's. They were part of the impetus behind regulated investment banks, aka securities broker/dealers, developing corporate structures where the ultimate parent company was an unregulated entity.

Glass Steagall repeal was the culmination of many market adptations, not the genesis, and a simple repeal of that repeal won't cure many of the present ills.

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

anonymous:

I have the same concern. We are going to subject our economy and our countrymen to a very risky bailout scheme which will in the interim cause pain and suffering for many, regardless the end result, and then we are told that we can't do anything that might scare our target audience away from the gifts? What is that all about?

I told a friend in an email yesterday when discussing the upset in Britain over the $2.5 billion accrual setup by Lehman management for bonuses for NY staff; We Americans got gall! We not only look a gift horse in the mouth, we take the gift and then shoot the horse.

I'm afraid our good friends Messrs. Paulson, Bernanke and Cox have made a huge dent in their urgency, dire argument if we have execs out there who feel they have choices left. Almost like shooting the horse before even being offered the gift.

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Blogger Weaseldog said...

Bernanke seems to have partially answered the question of what the taxpayer will pay for toxic paper.

The price we will pay is the 'Hold to Maturity' value.

And they'll decide how to determine that value.

Bernanke pointed out that the more the taxpayer pays out, the better the banks look. If the taxpayer doesn't dole out enough cash, then it won't restore confidence in the banks.

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would add a requirement that any homeowners getting a bailout should have the amount of the help reflected as a lien in favor of the IRS on their property. Not fair if they sell 5, 10, 20 years later at a windfall-- doesn't work that way for the rest of us.

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Blogger Jacquelyn said...

I believe H. Poulson and B. Bernenke want to ensure they have a place of employment once they get run out of Washington "on a rail".

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Blogger Weaseldog said...

I'm reading comments here and there from self-professed experts who say that they know Paulson and Bernanke's exact plan. What they will and will not buy, what they will pay, and what the returns are.

Does anyone here feel like they have a detailed idea of how this will work out, and confidence that they can predict the future effects?

"We will be greeted as liberators" - oft heard quote in 2003.

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Regulation, valuation, compensation limits, first rights of ownership...

All of these terms & conditions come at the price for borrowing my money.

Not one of you bloggers would give a neighbor $1000 without some expectations and contract terms applied.

Cheney is controlling oil and Paulson is controlling investment banks.. get a clue !!!

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

weaseldog:

I was sure that the first results would be all Wall Street execs would go to church, pray for forgiveness, and pledge their futures to bettering the plight of the common man, relinquishing any future remuneration to the church.

I was wrong?

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Blogger Weaseldog said...

Art, only time will tell if you are right or wrong.

I can say, I'd like to try whatever it is you're drinking.

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What about renters? Reich's maudlin expressions about people losing their homes ignore themm completely. Apparently, the only struggling Americans are those struggling to pay a mortgage.

His proposal to help "homeowners'' might as well say: Put a gun to the head of every renter in America and demand that all future income be transferred to people who have mortgages. If the renter happened to be one who got evicted to make way for condo conversions for the ownership society, all the better.

After all, this whole mess is a cruel joke on people who try to work their way ahead, rather than gamble their way to prosperity.


Reich argues that homeowners should get bailed out because it's wrong to help only Wall St. fat cats. Well, to a renter, these "struggling homeowners'' are just wannabe real estate barons.

They don't need to be kept in "their homes.'' They need to be transitioned into rentals ASAP, rather than continuing to drag down the economy with their unpaid debts.


"Keeping them in their homes'' is a dishonest statement. If we're going to write down mortgages, then renters need similar protections. Go 8 months without paying rent? Cool. The government will back you up. Can't afford your rent anymore? The government will lower it for you. Oh, and you can write 75 percent of it off as a tax deduction.

While we're at it, let's agree that all homeowners who are bailed out have to open the homes to anyone in trouble (medical, financial, you name it). After all, these are no longer private properties.


Then, and only then, can we say that this bailout has done anything to help hard-working, middle-class Americans.

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Blogger John M. said...

"...Cheney is controlling oil and Paulson is controlling investment banks.. get a clue !!!"

...What investment banks? They're all gone.

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Blogger Art A Layman said...

weaseldog:

As is always the case, by this time of day I can't remember what I'm drinking.

I'll try to let you know first thing in the morning when I am, shall we say, more awake.

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow !!!

McBush has spent 2 decades pushing deregulation and now he has recently gotten "religion" and wants to promote financial regulation.

Maybe he is recovering from one of his war injuries and is starting to think clearly.

Maybe he is repenting for his sins related to his "Keating Five" savings & loan involvement.

Now McBush has Palin on a crash study course in foreign policy, not allowing her to speak to the press. She is boning up for the debate. They are trying to make her an expert at foreign policy by having her meet dignitaries for 1 hour meetings. Why doesn’t she just sign up for an online foreign policy class and study in her pajamas.

I’m amazed that the women voters in this country accept McBush for his high family values … he dumped his disfigured wife and remarried a millionaire heiress one month latter …

McBush is a cheater, fraud, and a hustler … wearing his war hero badge on his sleeve. He was a dumb a__ that got shot down, he didn’t do anything intentionally or heroically … this is a sympathy vote.

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Anonymous M&M said...

I work for one of the few remaining Wall Street firms and I have to say that I think the idea plan of requiring some type reimbursements to tax payers for a bailout makes complete sense.

I'm not really convinced that it is even the right move, but if it is, holding the firms accountable for paying it back with interest is a no-brainer. Even if the gov't winds up eventually making money on the whole scenario, which most people don't realize is a possibility (a slim one, but one nonetheless), everyone else pays interest when they get a loan, so why shouldn't the Wall St firms.

One other thing that people should realize is that this mess is not just the result of Wall Street fat cats greed. The people who borrowed way over their heads to get into a home that they had no business being in are at fault as well.

Regardless of who is to blame though, if the taxpayer's will be footing the bill for a bailout, they should surely see a portion of any potential profits.

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Blogger Broken Yogi said...

Mr. Reich,

I'm not sure if you're reading all these comments, but I have an idea regarding this bailout I wonder if you could evaluate, or if others here could give their opinion on.

I like your ideas and skepticism regarding the bailout, but I'm not sure it addresses the full "threat" from this situation. As I understand it, the real threat here is that unless there is a bailout of some kind, the credit markets will collapse, credit will become very difficult to obtain, and this will lead to a severe recession/depression.

So as I see it, the real issue is how to deal with the threat of a credit market implosion that prevents the credit markets from functioning properly. The rationale of the bailout is that this will restore confidence in the credit markets, and thus allow credit to be re-extended into the market, allowing businesses and individuals to obtain the necessary credit to keep the economy going.

However, there's both a problem and a solution here that seems almost obvious to me. The problem with the bailout is that it rewards the very people who created this mess in the first place, and it burdens taxpayers with the fallout instead of those who are responsible. It also presumes that the only people who can be trusted to extend credit now are the same people who screwed it up before. But is this the only recourse?

Why not do the bare minimum of a bailout, perhaps buying up some of the credit securities at their current, real value, rather than their book value, and putting the failed companies into receivership. Then, instead of giving them that 700 billion or more, why not create a giant publically owned credit origination corporation that can offer cheap loans to worthy, responsible lenders out there who can keep the credit markets liquid. Wouldn't this have the effect of making sure that enough credit was available for consumers and business, without actually having to be on the line for all these mistakes?

Now, perhaps the situation is so bad that even this won't work, at least not alone, but I'd really like to know why not.

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Blogger robtomorrow said...

Just heard Senator Obama's press conference today. 9/23

He has listed three of your conditions 1 taxpayer equity, 2.CEO compensation limits, and 5 relief for troubled homeowners as conditions that must be met.

3.lobbing reform, and 4. new regulations, weren't mentioned buat are self evident and will be taken care of in subsequent legislation.

Tuesday, 23 September, 2008  
Blogger Sandi said...

To add insult to injury, now some of the Republicans want to suspend the capital gains tax for two years, allegedly to "help get these toxic loans sold !?!?! What arrogance! What stupidity!

Wednesday, 24 September, 2008  
Anonymous DrDan said...

Why not test the credit liquidity systems problem by a Congressional act to reduce homeowner's mortgage interest to 2% for two years?

Why wait for more mortgages to fail and for unoccupied home prices to bottom out way below their true value?

Why force people to go to court individually when the realtors, mortgage initiators and appraisers all participated in the optimistic deception that sucked homebuyers in and then passed the mortgage on in bundles?

Why not wait for the international summit Sarkozy proposed at the UN for a global approach to this problem instead of gambling $800 billion on an isolated national approach that is likely to fail?

Wednesday, 24 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Readers,
Dear Former Labor Secretary, Dr. Reich.

I respectfully disagree with everything you said and everything you represent.

Example of market reviving you bring is a wrong. Market is languishing and real market is the BOND and Currency Markets (dwarfing Stocks Market 10 times trade a day and more). Please, enough of you economic teahings. You tried to sell to your readers that a private FED is the "fourth branch of GOV". I doubt you are so unknowledgeble.

In any case, MR DOllar AND Mr BONDS have told you all you need to know. STOP MADDLING. Leave things to the nature to resolve. Mess made in Wahsington/Wall-STREET will only be washed by nature as the Men/Women dwelling on our shores(especially in GOV) today are all too corrupt to do it.

=============================

Anybody with half a brain and ONE EYE still working could see that the day the Mrs P & B convinced Mr G to announce the "PLAN", the DOLLAR ( measure of our health as a nation) has taneked and Interest rates shot up from 3.24 to 3.87( 20%) in two days. Making it impossible for Americans to buy from and/or travel oversees and making it impossible for future mortages to go lwer as they are based off of the aforementioned 10 year notes!

All of you, who think have the solutions, listen to the markets, they have always told you the truth( unlike politicians , like former labor secretary) that, there is no free lunch.

Come to My Boris's University of ANTI-SOPITALISM and you will know in no time, how uneducated , in economy, finance, 99.999% of USA is today and how corrupt all the rest are.

Ok the place is
ANTI-SOPITALIST

Not ONly that, please see, how hours before the plan announcement, we ANNOUNCED to the world the end of free money ( if not free lunch) as the Interest rates in the world will rise and will naturally punish anyone who thinks that markets can be manipulated.

Thursday, 25 September, 2008  
Anonymous meg said...

appreciate 'doug's' suggestion and will do the same.

i am a bit slow to respond here partly because i am thinking to myself "how dumb does this situation have to get?" i am not an economist. i am jane q. tax paying citizen like everyone else here. i get intimidated by the likes of the experts and perhaps that's part of the problem. i, like many others seem to think they must know and i don't~in the meantime i am left holding the bag while wall street execs luxuriate?

there was an interview on NPR the other day~someone was being interviewed who has made millions in the past few years and his parting comment was: he'd find it difficult to live on $400-500,000 a year salary. that if he'd known his salary would have to go so low, he would have gone into acting or the theatre.

stunning! did anyone else hear this interview? i only caught a piece of it...i'd like to get more details of who it was and the context.

Thursday, 25 September, 2008  
Blogger Gerald said...

Do you know whether either party has incorporated your ideas? Do you think that they will?

Would you be willing to join the Obama administration in some capacity to work in this area?

Thursday, 25 September, 2008  
Blogger The Mind Machine said...

I have been a big fan of yours for years now. I only wish you were in the white house as the treasury secretary since you would have the decency to make sure conditions are fairly laid out. I will send this to my reps, all of my friends and encourage them to send, and post to my twitter and plurk accounts so all of my other friends around the country can see this. Thank you so much!!!

Friday, 26 September, 2008  
Anonymous Distingue Traces said...

Hillary Clinton, in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, has also just proposed taxpayer equity in bailed-out companies.

It could happen.

Friday, 26 September, 2008  
Anonymous Distingue Traces said...

Clinton's editorial

Friday, 26 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I want more (or less) than proposed here. Before even a dollar is allocated to any bailout, a detailed list of consequences if nothing is done and a comparison list of project tasks if bailout occurs needs to be presented to the American people. These lists should be presented by economists from opposing points of view & written in plainspeak.
Despite this "crisis" apparently being one more giant step in the "Project for the New American Century", this administration has been very short on detailed project planning tasks and communication while very long on scare tactics. I don't trust what we're being told --Diane

Friday, 26 September, 2008  
Anonymous Chris Tolbert said...

Hello Mr Reich,

I saw your interview on the Conan OBrien show tonight, and then Googled your new book, which led me here. I totally agree w/ your stance about Paulson's reasonings, but more importantly, I wonder why no one is talking about the removal of Christopher Cox.

If the job of the SEC is to maintain oversight of Wall Street, and this "unforseen meltdown" of the housing market is the cause of this recession, then the SEC clearly isn't working, and the head needs to be removed.

Saturday, 27 September, 2008  
Anonymous Rozann Kraus said...

Mr. Secretary
Your proposal is, in my humble opinion, too soft, therefore totally workable. Currently, the corruption in capitalism is so pervasive and toxic, any deserving 'loss of privileges' wouldn't hold.
As for the correction of die for dye, if the republican reign continues, the pluperfect use of dead will suffice.

Saturday, 27 September, 2008  
Blogger The Public Eye said...

Hear, hear! But you're right when you say, in a later post, that the devil will be in the details. You better believe that Wall Street will not only be interested in "the details" but will have its team of lobbyists working feverishly to influence them . . . .

Sunday, 28 September, 2008  
Blogger ylDave said...

There are so many reasons why the idea of a bailout plan is a bad one. We are intervening to prevent a normal correction to an overdeveloped financial sector (constituting 1/3 of corporate profits in 2006 according to official US statistics) which got to it present bloated state in response to the excessive liquidity of the Greenspan years which juiced the economy and cushioned downturns for years and years but led to first the stock market bubble and now the housing bubble and subsequent meltdowns.

Dave
Just Say No to the Bailout Plan

Sunday, 28 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I used vote almost exclusively Republican, but they have become the party of severe erectile dysfunction. I for one would have so much respect if they would be the party of "just say no" again. But they're not. A truly sad turn of events, must be the ghost of Hoover and Coolidge.

Monday, 29 September, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

wow gold
wow gold
wow gold kaufen
world of warcraft gold
wow
wow gold
buy wow gold
cheap wow gold
wow gold
cheap wow gold
wow gold
cheap wow gold
cheapest wow gold
eve isk
mp3 players
sell wow gold
portable mp3 players
portable mp3 player
buying gold world of warcraft
4GB MP3 PLAYER
2GB MP3 PLAYER
wow gold
cell phones
phones cell
wow gold kaufen
cheap cell phones


ipod
wow
ipods
ipod nano
wow gold
ipod touch
apple ipod
wow leveling
ipod shuffle
digital cameras
wow powerleveling
digital camera
canon digital camera
wow gold
dvd player
portable dvd players
eve isk
mp3 player
zubehoer mp3 player
cheap world of warcraft gold
8GB MP3 PLAYER
mp3
world of warcraft buy gold
mp4
mp3 players
buy cheap wow gold



mp3 player
free online games
wow geld
play war games
free online war games
wow level service
online games
wow europe
wow gold verkaufen
mp3 player accessories
mp3 player accessory
gold wow
cell phone accessories
Bluetooth Headset
po wow
Bluetooth Headsets
dvd players
des po wow
portable dvd player
digital camcorder
gold wow
digital camcorders
mp3 mp4 player
wow leveling service
4GB MP3 PLAYER
mp3 player kaufen



wow lvl 60
lecteur mp3
mp3 mp4 player
cheap wow power leveling
mp3
mp4
wow powerlevel
mp3 mp4 player
mp3 mp4 player
power level
mp3 player kaufen
wow lvl
wow lvl 70
wow power leveling
wow leveling
wow powerleveling
power level
wow lvl
level wow
wow level
wow powerlevel
lord of rings online gold
lotro gold
lotro gold
HDRO gold

Tuesday, 30 September, 2008  
Blogger fav.or.it said...

Home owners http://Ineedmyhouserentednow.com

Rent out your home! that's the answer! Home owners don't let the bank take your home or foreclosed on you, like Bear sterns, Washington Mutual bank , Wachovia Bank, AIG, Lehman brothers, Fannie may, Freddy Mac, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch all out of business or bankrupt and they want the tax payer, You to bail them out for as much as $ 3, trillion dollars in, 2009. Home owner's if you're tired and fed up with this mortgage debt. Rent your house out NOW and continue to keep your equity in your house
vacation, or buy more property long term as a investor. If you have affordable home for rent from $ 500 to $ 1,900.00 month, than we have renters all over the U.S. of America, that want to see and rent your home, NOW !.

go to the -(SIGNUP PAGE) http://Ineedmyhouserentednow.com

* Free privacy of your home being on our site, so your neighbors don't know your renting or the hassle of price of buying renting signs and posting them thru your lawn or the neighbors hood hoping to get a respone from one lead or inquire.
* Free national exposure to your home listings for renters looking to move in or out of state.
* Free email forwarding inquiring to your home listing posted nationally
* Free, a service to you the ( home owner ) that once you place your home listings with us from your local city that you get national and local, exposure and if not rented in 6 months
* Free for the next 6 months of listing in your city if not rented in 6 months, free! Guaranteed,We will take that home off the market for you, exposing your home to thousands and thousands of home renters across the country looking for your home.
* 24 hour email, monitoring to our home owners if you have any questions to your home listing !
http://Ineedmyhouserentednow.com

sent from: fav.or.it

Saturday, 04 October, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The early cause, and still main problem, with the now more general and complicated credit crisis was the subprime mortgage crisis. It was due to defective, dangerous subprime adjustable rate mortgages ("ARMs"), having two or three year fixed rates and then adjusting to ridiculously high rates. They were designed, underwritten, packaged, sold and insured by Wall Street firms who made billions doing it. Unfortunately, most of the ARMs were virtually guaranteed to blow up for both the borrower and the lender unless they couldn't be refinanced about the time of the first rate adjustment. The problem with the rate adjustment is almost entirely to due to the simple problem of a ridiculously high margin (typically 5% to 8%) used in the formula to adjust the interest rate after the fixed rate period (most prime credit ARMs use a margin of 2.25% to 2.75% and a slightly different index; most FHA ARMs use 2.0% and a lower rate index).

Virtually anybody who knows even a little about the crisis agrees that subprime ARMs were the original cause. Yet, incredibly, I have not encountered a single proposal by anybody to regulate those ARMs. It's as if millions in the populace were suffering from poisoning by an inadequately untested food additive, and regulators and lawmakers were focused on bailing out the bonds of food companies, but nobody even mentioned removing the additive from food or helping the poisoned to get care, if they didn't have health insurance.

In April, 2007, before the problem became systemic, Congress considered and rejected the earliest, simplest and most effective solution to the problem, modifying by government fiat the terms of subprime ARMs to something more reasonable, say similar to a 5-year FHA ARM, or, better yet, a fixed rate. At the time Secretary Paulson talked Congress out of doing it in deference to the newly-formed Hope Now Alliance of lenders and servicers who were supposed to get that job done voluntarily, but didn't. That failure has resulted in a general banking and credit crisis far worse than anything in modern times.

Now Congress once again forsakes the obvious and cost-free solution and hands $700 billion to the same Mr. Paulson to dole out to try to save the Wall Street perpetrators. Incredibly, Congress put language in the bill that empowers and "encourages" the Secretary to modify the loans, but doesn't require it. The government should not, and doesn't need to, beg Mr. Paulson to do the job. Further, if Congress had now simply modified the subprime ARMS by fiat while terminating foreclosures related to the adjusted ARMs, instead of trying to buy the mortgage securities, overnight the related mortgage securities would be worth almost the same as GNMA mortgage securities (for FHA loans), and that would also go a long way toward solving problems with lender and investor balance sheets, mortgage insurance, and some derivatives.

There might be time still for this global solution to the subprime ARM part of the problem to succeed, since most of the existing ones still haven't had their first rate adjustment. Too bad we had to see so many homeowners lose their homes, venerable old banks and other companies go under and the problem spread like wildfire into all areas of global finance and economics before Congress did something significant, however insufficient. My guess is that Congress won't do anything directly to save homeowners until the next Secretary of the Treasury comes back with hat in hand for an even bigger bailout, since the current one will not solve the underlying problem in a timely manner.
Worried Citizen

Saturday, 04 October, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi Friends,

What best of all, Dollar or Euro? This question worry many peoples.
But only you make your choice! Remember - your love and your personal intelligence make you rich. :)

--
Maria
http://www.mysex-blog.com

Sunday, 23 November, 2008  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

徵信, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 感情挽回, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇, 外遇

徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信,

Thursday, 12 February, 2009  

Post a Comment

<< Home