Why Wall Street is Melting Down, and What to Do About It
Hank Paulson didn't blink, so Lehman Brothers went down the tubes. The end of socialized capitalism? Don't bet on it. The Treasury and the Fed are scrambling to enlarge the government's authority to exchange securities of unknown value for guaranteed securities in an effort to stave off the biggest financial meltdown since the 1930s.
Ironically, a free-market-loving Republican administration is presiding over the most ambitious intrusion of government into the market in almost anyone's memory. But to what end? Bailouts, subsidies, and government insurance won't help Wall Street because the Street's fundamental problem isn't lack of capital. It's lack of trust.
The sub-prime mortgage mess triggered it, but the problem lies much deeper. Financial markets trade in promises -- that assets have a certain value, that numbers on a balance sheet are accurate, that a loan carries a limited risk. If investors stop trusting the promises, Wall Street can't function.
But it's turned out that many promises like these weren't worth the paper they were written on.
That's because, when the market was roaring a few years back, many financial players had no idea what they were buying or selling. Worse, they didn't care. Derivatives on derivatives, SIVs, credit default swaps (watch this one!), and of course securities backed by home loans. There seemed no limit to the leverage, the off-balance sheet liabilities, and what credit rating agencies would approve by issuers who paid them to.
Two years ago I asked a hedge fund manager to describe the assets in his fund. He laughed and said he had no idea.
This meant almost no limit to what was promised. Regulators -- Alan Greenspan in particular -- looked the other way.
It worked great as long as everyone kept trusting and the market kept roaring. But all it took was a few broken promises for the whole system to break down.
What to do? Not to socialize capitalism with bailouts and subsidies that put taxpayers at risk. If what's lacking is trust rather than capital, the most important steps policymakers can take are to rebuild trust. And the best way to rebuild trust is through regulations that require financial players to stand behind their promises and tell the truth, along with strict oversight to make sure they do.
We tell poor nations they have to make their financial markets transparent before capital will flow to them. Now it's our turn. Lacking adequate regulation or oversight, our financial markets have become a snare and a delusion. Government only has two choices now: Either continue to bail them out, or regulate them in order to keep them honest. I vote for the latter.
Ironically, a free-market-loving Republican administration is presiding over the most ambitious intrusion of government into the market in almost anyone's memory. But to what end? Bailouts, subsidies, and government insurance won't help Wall Street because the Street's fundamental problem isn't lack of capital. It's lack of trust.
The sub-prime mortgage mess triggered it, but the problem lies much deeper. Financial markets trade in promises -- that assets have a certain value, that numbers on a balance sheet are accurate, that a loan carries a limited risk. If investors stop trusting the promises, Wall Street can't function.
But it's turned out that many promises like these weren't worth the paper they were written on.
That's because, when the market was roaring a few years back, many financial players had no idea what they were buying or selling. Worse, they didn't care. Derivatives on derivatives, SIVs, credit default swaps (watch this one!), and of course securities backed by home loans. There seemed no limit to the leverage, the off-balance sheet liabilities, and what credit rating agencies would approve by issuers who paid them to.
Two years ago I asked a hedge fund manager to describe the assets in his fund. He laughed and said he had no idea.
This meant almost no limit to what was promised. Regulators -- Alan Greenspan in particular -- looked the other way.
It worked great as long as everyone kept trusting and the market kept roaring. But all it took was a few broken promises for the whole system to break down.
What to do? Not to socialize capitalism with bailouts and subsidies that put taxpayers at risk. If what's lacking is trust rather than capital, the most important steps policymakers can take are to rebuild trust. And the best way to rebuild trust is through regulations that require financial players to stand behind their promises and tell the truth, along with strict oversight to make sure they do.
We tell poor nations they have to make their financial markets transparent before capital will flow to them. Now it's our turn. Lacking adequate regulation or oversight, our financial markets have become a snare and a delusion. Government only has two choices now: Either continue to bail them out, or regulate them in order to keep them honest. I vote for the latter.

90 Comments:
Dr. Reich,
It's all quite obvious after these months of analyzing the breakdowns in our financial institutions (i.e., sub-prine fiasco) that Transparency, Oversight Rules and Regulations have to be stiffened up significantly at many levels and followed up on extremely diligently... and Woe to the future violators who should see what prison life is like for egregious financial malpractices.
Proper Risk Management policies within financial institutions must also be part of the Oversight responsibility of an appropriate State and/or perhaps Federal government agency. As mentioned long ago, I worked as a Trainer at ING´s offices in Holland. I was greatly impressed with their Risk Management procedures which are strictly enforced throughout the corporation. Not surprisingly, ING´s losses from all the financial malpractices we are witnessing with each new financial calamity today have been very, very minimal.
Excellent commentary!
Free markets are good in theory. Unfortunately, the theory requires one to abstract markets away from the messiness of human affairs. Human ignorance, irrationality, greed and corruption are either ignored or presumed away by a misguided notion that the effects of such qualities are normally distributed around a mean of rational behavior and so cancels out. Our current financial crises are thus the products of following ideologies that ignore the messiness of human affairs, preferring the idealistic and unrealistic theoretical purity.
Free markets can work, but only when the messiness of human affairs is mitigated by a counterbalancing force of culture or regulation. The proper operation of the free market may seem an incentive to encourage "Wall Street" towards honesty and transparency, but actions are taken by individuals, not "Wall Street". It is individuals who cheat or make self-serving decisions that can work counter to the ideal theories of the free market. When these actions are at the noise level, they hurt few or spread the externalities so thinly that they are not a problem. However, in our current situation suboptimal behavior has become widespread and part of the "Wall Street" culture. People have forgotten their mother's urging them towards ethical and thoughtful behavior when she asked: "Would you jump off a cliff merely because your friends are doing it?"
If we want to have the theoretical benefits of a free market, it is time we clean up the mess and make the incentives towards thoughtful and ethical behavior stronger by making the penalties for unethical behavior harsher. We must also make regulations that create transparency so that unethical behavior cannot thrive in the margin under a shadowy cloak.
On a larger philosophical point, it is time we stop listening to policy recommendations from economists and ideologues who elide irrational and unethical behavior from their world view. Economic policy is not executed in a pure world. Ours is a world full of immoral, unethical, and irrational behavior that are part of human nature. If it were otherwise, we would have no need for laws as there would be no crime.
Excellent post.
I have two wishes: First, that there is an Obama Presidency. Second, that there is a place in it for Robert Reich.
hear hear! Dr. Reich, Berkeley's great (i'm going to school here) but get yer butt in the whitehouse. You can do so much good there.
Bad, subprime mortgages are causing the meltdown. But isn't the asset (the home) still standing? It seems like all is gloom and doom on Wall Street, so I must ask: Who owns the homes that have been caught up in this financial crisis? The homes have lost value, but they are still worth something, aren't they?
We need appropriate regulatory oversight. No doubt.
What we also need is some stiff law enforcement. Nothing and I mean nothing is going to change significantly until some of the major players in this epic Ponze scheme go to jail.
People are not going to do business with the SAME individuals who conned them out of billions of dollars. As you say, the trust is gone.
That's why, if McBush is elected, our economy is going to crash harder than hurricane Katrina. Overseas central banks and governments are going to say, "wtf, they kept in office the same gangsters that conned us out of our money".
Old catch phrase, "flip that house"
New catch phrase, "brother can you spare a dime"
"... or regulate them (financial markets) in order to keep them honest. "
A bit late, don't you think?
There can be no doubt this country is crooked from top to bottom and from sea to shining sea.
AIG is about to go BK with various downgrades tonight, Tuesday market could be a real downer.
Letting Democrats or Republicans try to right the sinking economic ship is certainly a joke given that they are responsible for the mess, so little chance that anything other then bandaids will be applied no matter who is elected.
These type of national credit crisis can run on for years so my guess is the DOW settles around 7K and moves sideways for 10 to 15 years while the two major parties argue over who's to blame.
Sir,
Did I hear you correctly when you stated, on BBC radio, that you and President
Clinton went too far with de-regulation during your time in office? My understanding, from your comments on BBC, is that the your decisions on reducing regulation allowed this situation to occur. By no means am I trying to hold you or President Clinton responsible for the malpractices that have transpired. Seeking clarification.
V/r
BLA
Ok hindsight is 20/20. Where were you in 1998 when Mr. Clinton repealed Glass-Stegall.
Yes deregulation is partly to blame but so is the big G. GSE's where bound to fail, so long as government is in the business of picking winners and obscuring the natural pricing mechanisms inherent in a free market. As a result markets will not be able to properly evaluate risk. The Government is now in the process of transferring this same disastrous policy to the energy markets
Why is it that GSEs failed when they were heavily regulated?
Frankly Government regulations will always be fighting the last battle and not say that we don't need more transparency but the problem also lies heavily in the continuing practice of trying to inflate out of every bubble and trying to use tax payers own money to avoid market crashes.
Since LTCM and their bailout this moment of clarity has been building. The result has been the volatility that has marked the last 10 years.
Like a person with a vicious infection who takes a cold medicine to treat the symptom and not the cause. Our time has come.
I laugh at the idea however that either candidate would some how correct our current situation.
the Street's fundamental problem isn't lack of capital. It's lack of trust.
Completely agreed.
But, anyone really thought about how to bring about trust?
That's why instead of easing and easing endlessly. The government should tighten up credit standards. Raise reserve ratio requirements. Force banks to release their balance sheet monthly or weekly instead of quarterly in these period. Force rating agents to adjust their ratings for trouble institutions with a deadline. Not to negotiate a rating with the institution that is supposed to be rated. That doesn't make sense.
This are the exact steps need to restore confidence.
What they are doing now is exactly the opposite. Helping banks concealing their problems wouldn't give confidence the their counter parties, would it?
Don't bother the rates, FED. Don't live in the illusion that you can decide what rate the bank use. Helicopter Ben, if you keep doing what you do. US dollar is doom and USA is well going to doom.
the saying is "when the tides goes away, you see who is swimming naked"
If you find naked people a disturbing scene, shoot the naked dude, not pouring water into the sea.
lrm21, I couldn't have said it better myself.
All this talk about how free markets don't work is bunk. Our financial system does not operate in a free market. When, oh God, when will we understand that?
If Wall Street is melting down there is nothing that can be done because it is a finely orchestrated scheme perpetrated by the wealthiest, most powerful men on the planet.
for the American Empire, The age of luxury, is *over*
Vandals at your doorstep
It's time to write a stern letter to the foxes that have taken over the poultry farm.
We have to tell them that we hope that they'll transform themselves into creatures that we can trust. Like maybe cows or horses.
*************************
The system won't be reformed until the hundreds of people responsible are replaced. That won't happen until the system crashes completely.
Bad loans are going bad, someone has to take the loss. Right now we are seeing a game of musical chairs, the music has stopped and everyone is rushing to sit down.
This has nothing to do with trust. Trust is needed only if you want to start a new bubble. What the market had was not trust, but faith - a belief system without any verifiable evidence to back it up.
Anyone will lend you money if you can prove that you will be able to repay it. "Trust" only comes in when you can't.
There is no way out of this without the losses being realized. The lenders are trying to blackmail the government into taking the hit. Until recently this was a sure thing since they had operatives on the inside to do their bidding.
With the power realignment going on now, they are still scrambling to figure out who to pay off to get what they need.
The GOP is going to be out of power and the Dems haven't yet indicated who the bag man will be.
I think the Republicans will win this election, non-regulation will continue and the subsidies to corporations will continue. I don't see the American people becoming wiser. They will buy the argument made by the right that cracking heads is what's needed (called 'enforcement') and that 'big gubment' (aka regulation) is against freedom, liberty and babies.
(Big sigh)
The good-old-greed boys finally shit in their own nest.
They were such a smart bunch of guys that they actually financially engineered themselves out of business.
Finance is balancing risk and reward, but the greedy forgot about disclosure on the risk side of that equation, so the market couldn't price in the risk factor.
Why didn't all those wail-street PHDs model the downside risk????
They are supposed to be smarter then average investors.
Leverage is a form of gambling. You should not be able to play unless you have the cash to play. Borrowing money to gamble that financial instruments will continue to increase in value is purely a GAMBLE.
The powerful lobby groups of the banking and investment world looked at oversight and regulation as a bad thing, but in hindsight, it might have saved their asses.
The markets are global now and are borderless. We need global standards to protect ourselves from other greedy bastards that buy influence in other governments.
The McBush-Falin ticket will not have the aptitude to address needed changes for our economy.
Jeff, you're probably correct. As HL Menecken observed:
"No one in this world, so far as I know — and I have researched the records for years, and employed agents to help me — has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people. Nor has anyone ever lost public office thereby."
Paul Krugman believes that the two individuals principally responsible for the current crisis are Alan Greenspan and McCain advisor Phil Gramm, who almost certainly will be Secretary of the Treasury in a McCain Administration. Krugman states that if anyone can put the country in an economic depression, Gramm can.
Will that be sufficient to disabuse the public of this dysfunctional ideology? As Thomas Frank observed in What's the Matter with Kansas,"there is no bad economic turn a conservative cannot do unto his buddy in the working class, as long as cultural solidarity has been cemented over a beer."
yeah guys,
all this just boils down to greed. They should have seen this in Michael Douglas movie Wall Street (1987).
Dr. Reich:
Here is a better explanation to our current economic foes.
This is the kind of comprehensive analysis I was hoping to get from this blog.
http://www.forbes.com/home/2008/09/15/banks-economy-fed-oped-cx_bw_bs_0915wesburystein.html
More accountability, not more regulation!
Will Mr. Reich comment on the community reinvestment act of 1977 that was later revisited by the Clinton admin. in 1995, which led to the subprime mess? All roads led back to Democrats attempting to force banks to lend to folks that were otherwise considered credit risks. Of course these are facts and have nothing to do with the Bush admin. Now what about investigating Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? I mean we wasted taxpayers' funds trying to uncover a bogus conspiracy with the oil industry. Heck why not discuss Sen. Obama's ties to Fannie Mae. See let's discuss something just as long as it is routed in facts and not balderdash, which is common theme for Democrats and Obama supporters.
Gee, Professor, I guess you forgot about the third option: socialize not the risk but the entire banking sector. Allow all banks to fail that took on bad risks and then use a government entity set up for the purpose to buy up the assets of these failed banks at fire-sale prices. Fully capitalize them with taxpayer funds and start lending money that banks are currently too fearful to lend.
Proponents of bailouts seem convinced that the consequences of not bailing them out would to too horribly to contemplate, but is that actually true? In fact, the horror that everyone is fearing would actually NOT BE ALL THAT HORRIBLE. Or rather, if we had enlightened people running our federal government, the 'horror' would not be all that bad for the Average American and it would be over so quickly, people would wonder what the big deal had been that everyone had been so worried about.
Let's go through this a step at a time... How would the Average American be hurt by a complete collapse of the financial sector of the economy? The answer is that he/she would be hurting only if aggregate demand were drop as a consequence of banks lending less money and businesses spending less money. Without intervention by Congress, businesses that are too heavily leveraged would go out of business and many people would lose their jobs. But if the federal government were to increase its spending enough (by taxing the rich and spending that money on infrastructure & human capital) aggregate demand could not only be maintained, we could also easily increase AD if that is what we wanted to do.
To maintain aggregate demand at the levels we desire, it might be desirable for Congress to create taxpayer-owned banks that would buy up the assets of failed private banks at fire-sale prices, fully capitalize them with public funds, and then provide whatever loanable funds might be desired by borrowers. If loan demand is inadequate to maintain aggregate spending at the desired level, then Congress can simply spend more money on public investment.
So what's the problem? What's the horror? The evil geniuses who created our private financial markets would suffer massive losses because they did not prepare themselves for excessive risk. They would lose Big Time, as they should. Within a month of two after such institutions fail, the government could be replacing them with publicly owned entities that have no reservations whatsoever about lending to would-be borrowers.
It would all be over within 6 months and very few people would be unemployed while competing firms buy up the assets of failed firms. As long as demand is strong, everyone would be working and pumping money into the economy at the same time that the few remaining players in the privately-owned financial sector are finding new ways to make a living while competing with The Taxpayer's Bank (one that is not interested in maximizing profits while taking on risks that everyone else must pay for, but only in serving the public interest) and which writes the rules that they must abide by.
(If a reminder is necessary: the Great Depression continued on as long as it did for only one reason: the Federal Government did not spend enough money to eliminate unemployment until World War II began and then unemployment dried up almost over night. Roosevelt's Congress did not authorize enough spending because too many members of the opposition and of the banking community warned that the consequences of 'inflating' the economy would be disastrous. Too bad they listened. Millions of people suffered terribly for no good reason.)
So help me out, Prof. Reich. What is this horror that everyone fears?
CFPeterson, how can we hold people accountable, when they haven't run afoul of any regulations?
You have to have rules, before you can hold people accountable for breaking them.
The people that got us into this mess, did it through mostly legal means.
They changed the laws to make it legal to destroy our economic system for short term gains.
Thank you for this very informative post. I have found Alan Greenspan's comments on the market in the last week to be somewhat self-serving. Greenspan seems to forget that he played a major role in pumping more money into the economy making it easier to borrow money. I can only surmise Greenspan is making the talk shows in order to cover his role in this financial crisis.
Rumor has it that the Fed is now bailing out AIG.
I'm looking for links now.
The key word here is "transparency." The wheeler-dealers don't know what they've invested in. The average investor is clueless and largely helpless. The only guide we have to the reliability of funds, annuities and the like -- the destination of most of the money going into 401(k)s, IRAs and pension funds -- is past performance, which could be meaningless now that we see the recent past has transpired inside a financial bubble.
You can scour the fine print of your portfolio (as I've been doing for the past couple of days), and still have no clear idea of where your money has landed and how exposed you are to shaky securities and vulnerable institutions.
How can you trust when you can't verify?
It is the workers of America that consume.
It is the workers of America that provide growth.
It is the workers of America that save via pensions, IRAs, etc.
It is the workers of America that pay most taxes
It is the workers of America that NEED to vote.
Politicians and CEOs are the crooks of the 20th and 21st centuries.
They are destroying America for a profit.
As America hangs itself and the Republi-bunkins are selling rope.
You said: "Or regulate them in order to keep them honest. I vote for the latter."
Oh, how I agree with you. Um... A dollar short and a day late. (Sorry, pun slightly intended.)
You said what to do: I'm still waiting for your answer. So, what do we do?
More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly. - Woody Allen
Dr. Reich,
This article is why I'm one of your biggest fans (6'5" 245.) Transparency and accountability are great in finance AND in politics.
When is someone going to call Palin out on the fact that Alaska doesn't produce 20% of America's Energy? There's no accountability!
Alex
No taxation without representation.
Incidentally, what you have described is a Ponzi scheme, a classic Ponzi scheme.
Wow.
Dr. Reich,
I heard you on the radio this morning speaking about the need for transparency on Wall Street and in Corporate America and my ears perked up. Transparency is something that midwives, doulas and advocates for safer & better birth seek as well, and for similar reasons. Our actions should be undertaken because they are evidence-based rather than simply common practice. I linked to your blog in my own today on this topic & thought I would let you know. http://doulamomma.blogspot.com/2008/09/birth-and-wall-street.html
best,
Kim Collins, doula & birth advocate
When left alone to do as they please, some will always game the system.
The complete irony is that grandpa deregulation was the 1st to come out calling for new regulation. Just have to figure out which face he's using today. Thanks, but no thanks, John!
@Marketeer: Even a market more free than in your wildest dreams can fail utterly, when will you understand? Furthermore, failing markets, how free or well regulated they would have been, can drag whole societies with them if you don't have some kind of fall back scenario. Do you want to take that risk? I guess the 30s depression has not been harsh enough to burn that lesson in the American psyche. You want to know why 'socialist' Germany has such strict financial rules? Because they experienced first hand that failing markets can result into wars costing millions of lifes. So when will Americans learn? I am afraid not until the American people experiences war at home as a result of this financial meltdown. In the meean time: keep on dreaming with your 'free' market ideology
I just saw you on the Jim Lehrer Newshour and I think I love you Robert Reich! Thank you for always being the calm and wise voice amongst a choir of shrieking pundits! I wish you would speak on behalf of the Obama campaign on a regular basis. Thank you!
Roll call please of anyone and everyone in the White House and in Congress who either backed or signed this legislation in 1999... we reap what we sow
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
The same cast of characters are back again and this time, they're being sought out as expert advisors to both parties. Clinton-Rubin-Summers were rubber-stamping the Republican backed legislation that lined the pockets of major players such as Citi. Who is running this country? Wall Street or Main Street?
These clowns who were selling and marketing CDOs like they were risk-free investments and then giving customers the mouse-type prospectus after the fact; criminal. Makes the Den of Thieves look like saints in comparison.
Whatever change Obama stands for; it will be pocket change by the time he's in office. I don't need a hearing or a commission to explain how we got here. It's called greed and hubris. I guess it wasn't enough of a warning shot back when LTCM melted down and we had to bail them out too. The year? 2000
And finally, I think Greenspan should have an asterisk placed next to his name as a major contributor to the meltdown of 2008. And what is he doing today? Take a guess.
Dr. Reich,
As a Republican, I regularly find your views the most reasonable and intelligent ones offered.
It is often painful to watch you on Larry Kudlow's show because his delusional mantra of "free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity" usually drowns out your voice of reason.
The financial crisis we are currently experiencing is a poster child for Kudlow's beloved flawed theories of Milton Friedman. Friedman's theories exist only on paper as they cannot be found anywhere in the real world and, in fact, if taken to their extreme negate democracy.
I wish that our Republican Party would find its historical roots where leaders like Theodore Roosevelt kept a watchful eye on corrupt business practices. Roosevelt realized that government regulation and oversight was necessary to ensure proper behavior of financials and other large corporations. Trust of business activites was directly related to our country's economic stability.
Instead, now we have to pick up the pieces of a broken economy at the taxpayer's expense with the bailout of Bear, Fannie, Freddie, and now AIG.
Trust is a long way off at this point.
Dr. Reich,
I have a question. It appears that there is really only one reason for the government's AIG bailout. It is simply too damned big and its business has complex and many unknown implications should it collapse. In addition to attempting to add transparency to the complexity and present unknowns, is there some way that policy could be developed that would prevent a single corporation from exposing our economy to this type of risk should it collapse? Is it possible to limit an institution's business in a particular sector to a certain percentage of the total business in that sector? I just read that BofA's acquisition of Merrill gives it north of 11% of total deposits in the US. What are the implications of that?
Ernie
Hi Mr. Reich. You need to update your profile photo :)
The Republicans wrecked the economy!
It's as simple as that. Their failed policies have turned our country into a 3rd world nation.
Out of ignorance, out of greed, or out of selfishness, if you vote Republican you are voting against our country!
Art Layman, cc: Dr. Reich
Suggest you read, if you haven't done so, David Brooks' essay, "Experience Matters" where he is now joined by a number of conservative leaning writers that Sarah Palin in not qualified to be even VP.
It's only a pity Brooks writes in his typical elevated style rather than in Plain English ordinary past and present generations, like yours and mine, can relate to in our "Gut." As I, among others, have written so often, our country needs Brains AND Experience (including life experience) to match the complexity and convoluted mix of dire problems facing us.
It's nice to see, though, that the traditional ultra and more moderate conservative writers are recognizing upfront how poorly qualified Palin is for anything at this level.
Traditional conservative values have always placed a high priority on Achievement, Competence and Experience. But this reality does not come across by high-powered reasoning and writing with which the general public feels no bond. Many would likely fall asleep trying to read the 'sometimes' wise thoughts of a David Brooks, David Frum or George Will ... particularly concerning the often past "high-hat" writing style of George Will.
What a job Joe Biden has before him -- to speak plainly, directly and with Substance to Mainstream, hardworking Americans ... and doing so without bombastic, repetitive rhetoric and without resort to the synthetic slogans and "jingoism" of a Sarah Palin.
Obama must also do the same of which I'm confident he can do with genuine effect, once he gets down to it. He's got to show he's also a "meat and potatoes man."
Afterall, he does come from a quite average background that he's made something extraordinary of.
Frank Thomas, The Netherlands
Art,
Minor correction 1st paragraph,3rd sentence:
...that Sarah Palin is not ...
Youtube has a number of videos featuring Robert Reich if you've missed him on television.
Here's a good one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCMIgzSWkeU
An even better Robert Reich video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17iMHrh6pe0
Dr. Reich:
Speaking of qualifications and character, following arrived in my Email basket via-via acquaintances:
"I'a little confused. Let me see if I have it straight ......
If you grow up in Hawaii, raised by your grandparents, you're exotic, different.
If you grow up in Alaska eating moosehamburgers, that's a quintessential American story.
If you spend years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black Predident of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers thousands of new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law lecturer, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district of over 750,000 people, become Chairman of the State Senate's Health and Human Services Committee, spend 4 years in the U.S. Senate representing a State of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment, Public Works and Veterans Affairs Committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.
If your total resume is: local weather girl, 4 years on the city council and 6 years as mayor of a town with less than 7,000 people, then you're qualified to become the country's second highest ranking executive.
If you have been married to the same woman for 19 years while raising 2 beautiful daughters, all within Protestant churches, you're not a real Christian.
If you cheated on your first wife with a rich heiress, and left your disfigured wife and married the heiress the next month, you're a Christian.
If you teach responsible, age appropriate sex education, including the proper use of birth control, you are eroding the fiber of society.
If while governor, you staunchly advocate abstinence only, with no other option in sex education in your State's school system while your unwed teen daughter ends up pregnant, you're very responsible.
If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family values don't represent America's.
If your husband is nicknamed "First Dude" with at least one DWI conviction and no college education, who didn't register to vote until age 25 and once was a member of a group that advocated the secession of Alaska from the USA, your family is extremely admirable.
Ok, much clearer now."
Mr. Reich, yesterday in your interview with Judy Woodruff and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, you made the observation that McCain's idea of appointing a "9/11 commission" was Washington shorthand for doing nothing. I thought it was an excellent point. But did you happen to notice Holtz-Eakin's response? He said this: "Well, I, uh, this is, uh, you know, sadly predictable. I think if you look back, you'll see Barack Obama has said many favorable things about the 9/11 Commission."
You didn't call him on it, and neither did Judy Woodruff. I must say I was a bit shocked that you both let the comment pass unchallenged. Are we now to believe that "9/11 commission" has become a generic term for any investigative committee? Or is this the setup for another bamboozlement of the American public by the McCain campaign?
Dr. Reich,
We are seeing the results of Capitalism run AMOK, swept up by its greedy drives for profit and shareholder gains at all costs, and to hell with the consequences for hardworking, loyal employees.
Now, the tax paying money of those same employees is the last resort final lifesaver of the very unregulated, lobbyist powerful companies giving us dismissed workers, a financial crisis and state of national bankruptcy that approaches times of the Great Depression.
Whta's happened to our values of prudence and stable reward for hard work? We are a country in decline culturally, socially and economically. Politically we've been decadent for decades.
I'm disgusted and depressed with all that's wrong with our democracy.
Great post!
Their collective timing's good, no? A Pres election in less than 2 months. Hey, let's get ours now, they're saying.
*gag*
tt
Does anyone else find the two definitions of the oft-bandied term "oversight" ironic:
1) an unintentional omission resulting from failure to notice something
2) supervision: management by overseeing the performance or operation of a person or group
Apparently there is currently too much "Type 1" oversight as a result of not enough "Type 2" oversight.
Anonymous said...
“We are seeing the results of Capitalism run AMOK, swept up by its greedy drives for profit and shareholder gains at all costs, and to hell with the consequences for hardworking, loyal employees.”
“The line of credit to AIG, which is available for two years, is designed to help the company meet its obligations, the Fed said. Interest will accrue at a steep rate of 3-month Libor plus 8.5%, which totals 11.31% at today's rates.” (CNN)
hahaha sounds like capitalism is alive and well. Bernanke and Paulson sound like they should be running a pawnshop somewhere armed with baseball bats. lol
CP
NotSoFast, AIG's liabilities dwarf the amount they are being loaned over the table.
They won't be paying back with interest. We'll loan them more and more until our financial system goes bust.
In for penny, in for a pound, an arm, a leg, a head....
Frank:
Am in total agreement with your assessment.
Brooks, Frum and Will, appeal to an elitist audience(irony?). Those Republicans who read them are not likely to be swayed by their contrarian positions simply because I tend to think their opinions are conventional wisdom among thinking Republicans and thus are not really contrarian. As for the Dems who read them it amounts to little more than a yea, verily! Likely the best impact will be from the press picking up and spreading the news. MSNBC was making a big deal of it yesterday.
I was struck by what I see as somewhat of an anomoly in both Brook's and Will's argument ( I have not read the Will article). I am not very familiar with the Federalist Papers but am aware that they were written by only a handful of those involved at the time. I would agree that our founders did have a view of a government made up of well experienced "common folk" but to a great extent they viewed most all the populace at our founding as "common folk". We had no royalty and no large population of a peer group steeped in governing experience. I believe that this idea of a government made up of "common folk", as opposed to a ruling elite, was a major complaint of De Toqueville.
At the same time the wrangling over who should be given the right to vote, leading to Franklin's jackass statement, argues against a favorable view of the truly "common folk". Further, in the Constitution they established the Senate as appointees by the state governors. I doubt they envisioned a governor appointing a successful cobbler to the Senate.
Clearly the model was a continuance of the English model with a "House of Commons" and a "House of Lords" with the turnover period for the "lower house" possibly intended to limit the political influence of its members. To the best of my knowledge, the framers, of both the Declaration and the Constitution, were not representative of the "common folk".
To their credit, the founders did seem to favor thinkers, brilliant minds exhibiting wise, grand judgments, to lead them. Obama would seem consistent with that model. I do not however see a desire, on the part of our founders, to create a governing body, well experienced in the facts of life but lacking true thinking and leadership capacities.
One could argue that Obama would have been far more successful in their time than in ours. Eloquent speakers with uplifting messages were admired and promoted in those times. The political stage has since been taken over by the stage hands or the supporting casts. The stars are portrayed as out of touch, as disinterested in the plights of the common man. Yet, historically, with the exception of Abe Lincoln, almost all of our greatest presidents have come from backgrounds which could easily be described as elite, or far from common, and most of them came to office with minimal hands-on experience in governing. Even Eisenhower, who clearly came from humble beginnings, by the time of his presidency had achieved non-governmental heights that placed him among the few, not the many.
I see Frum as a polished, more intellectual, version of Rush or Sean. I don't see where he is significantly influential in the movement.
Will, to me more of a Libertarian with a strong conservative bent, a deadly combination, appears to be a merger of a frustrated English teacher and an Aristotle wannabe. You don't dare read him without the latest unabridged dictionary by your side. Surely not a person devoid of elitist tendencies.
Brooks may be the conservative's everyman. He can be objective in his analysis, perhaps owing to his Democratic background, but to your point, his profession requires that he sometimes be rather haughty in his writings. Of the group he may be read with ambivalence by both sides but doubtful he swings many voters one way or the other.
We have become victims of our political process. All of our founders knew that the success of a democracy depended on well informed voters. You can't be well informed if you wait until the final months of elections to fortify yourself with knowledge of both sides. You are not well informed if you come to the conclusion that all of our problems are simple and the solutions are right there in those sound bites and slogans. You are not even sensible if you believe that your candidate should or would always make decisions consistent with your view of the world. Insuring "domestic Tranquility" and promoting "the general welfare" does not mean that you get your way and I don't get mine. It does not mean that majority should rule in all cases. It is the attempt to strike a balance between all interested parties, and that's us folks, to derive solutions that serve all our collective best interests and individual freedoms. It is compromise, seeking the best ideas from both camps and melding them into the best possible solution, at the time. This means we must also realize that today's good ideas may appear as tomorrow's follies. The best intentions of any man or woman can often be proven in hindsight to have been a dumb idea. Governing doesn't come with a crystal ball providing a perfect view of future ramifications.
Is interesting to me that "centrist" is becoming a bad word. It's traveling the same road as "liberal". Centrism is not an ideology in and of itself. It is bipartisanship. It is the recognition that both sides of an issue have valid points and that the best solutions should consider all valid points.
There are a few here taking Clinton to task for signing legislation that reversed Glass-Stegall - admittedly, I would have vetoed anything that had Phil Gramm's name on it, but that's me, apparently I'm not a "centrist". First, of course we have to find someone, and only one person to blame something on. Ignore the fact that this legislation passed both Houses. Forget that there were innumerable academics who wrote and preached that Glass-Stegall was antiquated law and needed to be reversed. No need acknowledging that many businessmen and leaders, honorable ones, felt that continuing this law was making us uncompetitive in world finance because other countries did not have similar restrictions. Give no credence to the idea that there were economies of scale - cost savings - by allowing banks to offer investments and insurance. The idea now is shown to have been a bad idea. Not because in principle it was but because an industry decided it was an open door to anything goes and leverage rules the day. The fact that it was initated by Republicans and opposed by many Democrats did not at the time mean it was a bad idea. In reality it was failing to tighten oversight and follow the bouncing ball that rendered it so troublesome.
Realize I am trumpeting your ideas here but as you can see I agree with them. My cynical concern is I'm not sure we can get there from here. Obama certainly offers us the better chance to achieve your goals.
Weaseldog,
Have you forgotten that McCain just assured us that our economy is fundamentally in good order? But he agrees the problems should be studied by a special Commission. Then he'll get back to us one or two years later! He's a born leader! Yes, indeed.
notsofast:
"If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."
Once my uncle was the envy of the neighborhood. There was nothing that he couldn’t buy. Big cars, fancy boats, vacations you name it he had it all. The neighbors sought out his friendship hoping that some of his prosperity would rub off on them. Then it happened. The neighborhood banker that was lending my uncle all that money got nervous. The banker decided that it was better to take a loss rather than lend my uncle more money. Now my uncle has nothing and is the shame of the neighborhood.
Anonymous,
A very moving, sad story about your uncle... which is coming close (hopefully, only close) to a virtual reality duplication in our nation's currently terrible financial situation.
Why doesn't the government bailout the regulatory agencies that should be providing some oversight, rather then the abusers.
It looks like the investment bankers got their monies worth with their lobby efforts. The lobbyists did a great job at blocking sensible legislation.
I guess a free enterprise system is free to implode on itself.
Hopefully the rest of the world will learn a lesson about how un-tethered greed can bring a system down to it’s knees.
McBush and the republi-bunkin platform ... the fundamentals are fine.
The republican mantra has been... we have too much regulation, it chokes creativity, it stifles competition, it gets in the way of greed !!!
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe he was referring to Uncle Sam.
And Dr. Reich...if you are going to be advising Obama, I hope you have realized the error of your ways when it comes to Glass-Steagall.
Anonymous,
I have to respond to your, forgive me, rather misinformed, naive statement:
"Hopefully the rest of the world will learn a lesson about how un-tethered greed can bring can bring a system down to its knees.
Take it from an American from Maine who has lived over 30 years in Europe and who has been for many years a consultant to international Dutch firms, the mature European countries have NOTHING to learn from us about financial PRUDENCE and GREED.
Rather, we could learn much about the sound financial practices and strict transparency prevalent here. Balanced budgets and Deficits not exceeding 3% of GDP are policies powerfuly in effect here. Healthy European Savings rates have been financing much of our Deficits for many years! Now, Asia is taking over most of that responsibility as Europeans have become a little "weary and leary" of financing our annual Deficits ... largely caused by negligent controls of proper Debt management practices and a culture of over-spending.
I´m utterly impressed with the sound financial policies in effect in the Netherlands that are conceived in the interests of ALL Dutch citizens. The balance among Consumption, Savings, and Investment as Drivers of the Dutch Economic Model is such that the Dutch economy can withstand downturns rather well without creating personal financial stress for its citizens on a broad scale.
There are more "Cushions"of financial safety and prudence built in the financial model here. Same applies for most of the Scandinavian countries and Ireland.
Dr. Reich: Couldn't the crisis among financial institutions have been avoided if Congress had acted to prevent foreclosures (and ponied up the money to revise mortgages to make them affordable)? After all, the crisis seems rooted in bad mortgage loans. And wouldn't it have been a better use of taxpayer money to have prevented foreclosures than to bail out major institutions?
Dr. Reich-
I just saw you talking with David Gregory. GET BARACK OBAMA TO SAY THOSE THINGS!!!
Robert, I do not think you have gotten to the root. E-mail me at benjaminfeinblum@gmail.com
Here is the root, I want to discuss this with you personally.
Solution to economic crisis. OBAMA will will this election if he has the answer to the root of our problems and builds solutions around them. This is the root of the problem.
#1 Understand the root of the crisis
#2 Create a solution
#1: Massive trade deficit is not being by savings, it is being funded by credit, the equity in our homes, and the value of our assets.
(Research I have been looking at today:
#2: Begin a shift in the attitude of American's and the leadership towards money and where we send it. We should keep it in our pockets.
Concept, if we send $700,000,000,000 overseas. Where is that money coming from? If American's are not saving their money, we don't have cash in our accounts, how are we funding that deficit.
My theory is that we feel ok with the deficit because we are pulling it out of our market place in ways are not so visible. An economy losing money, does not have the money in it to support increasing home prices.
If we send money overseas, we are removing money from all of our markets - stock markets - housing markets - auto markets. Thus, we are seeing massive crashes in all of these things.
Bottom Line: We have an attitude that all of this spending, sending money overseas this way with a massive trade deficit is killing our economy from the inside out.
When we spend money that we don't have, we later can't borrow that money for a home. We have borrowed it for consumption and sent the borrowed money overseas.
Please, consider my theory on the relationship between money attitudes that make it ok for us to send 700 billion dollars overseas and the resulting loss of ability for our country to support the prices we established in our markets.
Sincerely,
Benjamin Corey Feinblum
ps. I have articles and data to give you that are not able to be put online here.
Excellent mercantalist argument benjamin
Unfortunately the easy credit practices of the past decades were the driving force of growth in our economy, making a lot of people very rich. But now that the credit bubble has busted wide open and credit will become much harder to get from now on, what else will there be to fuel economic growth ?
Our consumer driven economy requires it's citizens to have extra cash to spend, and when the cash is gone than credit fills the gap. But now with both easy credit and extra cash rapidly disappearing, the consumer can not continue the spending patterns of previous decades, so it appears we may be headed for some very unhappy times, and it isn't likely that anyone in Washington, now or next year or maybe even next decade, will be able to do much to improve events
Just think, if McCain is sworn in in January (4 months away), he's going to create a 9/11 commission. That will take at least another year to study the situation. Meaning we are 16 months or more away from feeling McCain's decisive leadership. Heck... We will be preparing for mid-term elections by that point. Nothing like the status-quo to give me a warm fuzzy feeling inside.
Before trust can be restored, there's another abstract term that has to be checked off the dictionary list: Ethics. Read the financial blogs, starting with Financial Ninja. He's Canadian and owes no allegiance to the United States or its political parties.
The "fundamentals" were ignored. The risk managers, trained in fundamental risk concepts were equally ignored.
Excellent analysis.
Dear Dr. Reich
I saw you on Larry King tonight. Excellent and right on target. Now if only you could reach Ben Stein..... :-)
Keep up the great work, we need more rational individuals like yourself to get this nation back on track.
Dr Reich,
Free markets, little or no regulation etc sounds good but the USA is to large a country for it to work; better to have more controls-regulations, less wild-growth but know that we are stepping on firm-ground and not quicksand.Intl trade might also have to change as we now know it, since our consumer-habits always put us on the loosing end...lifestyle and consumer-goods purchase options are great but we pay a high price for this: outsourcing jobs,never-ending trade-deficits, high credit-card debt, no US personal savings or diminishing yearly. We must change and adapt to a new world economy where other players are very strong, this is not the 50's or 60's. Tom Fletcher
KayXyZ,
A while back you suggested itulip (which is now my main source for macroeconomic information) and now financial Ninja. These sites are great! Please keep em coming.
Thank you Dr. Reich,
While I recently have felt the desire to play the devil's advocate with regards to the free-market stance of the current administration and the bailout of AIG, i.e., "shouldn't we just let them fail!" I have failed to hear what might have been the effects of letting them fail; and what might be the "risks" to taxpayers of now "covering" assets that the market itself has deemed less than valuable.
Might you look into your crystal ball and give us a sense of where this could have gone and where it might now go with regards to taxpayer risk.
Thank you again for your insights.
Perhaps the answers and solutions are just around the corner in Nov.
The Moose Skinners will know what to do...I almost feel positive again about my future...which is, after working hard all my life, doing military service for my country, living by my countries laws and rules, respecting others around me..hey, I might not end up living on some street corner after all...I just might be able to afford one of those big cardboard boxes...gee...thanks America...
Dr. Reich:
You say lack of trust is the problem, but actually too much trust was the problem. If one wants to survive out in the real world, he better concentrate on due diligence, discipline, and responsibility, and leave the concept of trust as a church & family concept.
Americans having been experiencing a "silent depression" in this country for 30 years as the real standard of living has eroded. The lack of employment opportunities has added pressures that disconnect the moral fibers of the family (both parents working, long commutes, etc). We are a country with significant social-economic problems that has turned use into a creditor nation.
It is no wonder that the credit "house of cards" (no pun intended) has collapsed.
Supply side economics, deregulation, corporate tax incentives for outsourcing, disfunctional regulatory agencies, unjustified war... the list goes on and the Republi-bunkins continue to drive this country into a ditch in support of the rich in the country.
WHAT ABOUT THE COMMON WORKERS AND GOOD FAMILIES IN THIS COUNTRY ????
WHERE IS MORALITY, ETHICS, AND COMMON SENSE ???
I blame it on the rich and greedy wall street bankers, and to a point your local banker at the savings and loan. Back in the 1980's I was in the mobile home business. We sent a lot of paper to a S & L locally. The bankers knew that paper was bad and still bought it. GREED!!! we were ask to sign limited recourse on the loans, mostly 18 months on a 180 month loan. What would we do? Go find a post office box and a money order and send in enough payments to get out from under the liability. The S & L wanted to make the easy money at 19 and 21 % APR and they eventually paid the price by going under. somewhere out there are a lot of mobile homes that didn't get paid for !!!
Dr. Reich,
I agree with you...the mortgage companies and banks made the mess...let them clean it up. They issued the sub-primes out of greed, and Wall Street pumped up the value with hedges and derivatives, taking bonuses last year of over $60 million per analyst (a fact known through a personal acquaintance). Will these windfall profiteers have to give back this profit? No, the American taxpayers will have to pay for their greed. Hedges and strips and derivatives should be restricted. If people want to gamble with their own personal money, that is fine, but a lot of the money in the market is pension money. To gamble with this money is irresponsible, and we all know that hedging is a gamble. Let the banks and mortgage companies re-write their mortgages for the current value plus costs, package that into a new 30 year fixed mortgage at a NON-Subprime Rate...6% to 6.5% max. Give people a chance to start over, and give banks and mortgage companies a stream of income. No loss to tax payers, no further loss to mortgage companies and banks. Yes, some people may walk away, but in three to five years, the value of that real estate will be back to last years values.
Best,
Susan Carr
Kellogg Northwestern
EMBA Class 2007
Dr. Reich,
The crisis is still far from over, the changes in landscape are hovering like black clouds
Fed has done the bailout using its reserves and gave life to Bears& Stern, morgan stanley and goldman sachs.
I wonder what will happen to the dead packages, The subprime hedging and its securities when they were at peak, they were exchanging hands riding billions of dollars. Today they value almost nothing
Is there going to be any excercise to open those assets which are locked and considered just papers, Fed in some way going to own stakes in companies like AIG, morgan and stanley, Goldman sachs. How and when will we see the actual valuation of those
Till now the question on the rating agencies have been popping their rounds; the bond ratings have been changing day in day out these days. How will they give a sincere evaluation again which investors should believe on?
This calamity in the wall street has not only hit the financial system but many other sectors. Long term loans on projects are hard to take, interests on them are impacting the infrastructure initiatives. SOme Greenfield projects waiting for the bridge loans all are witnessing ripples due to this DRAMA.
Banks and institution overnight have gone conservative, either they are realising their value or they are restraining for further investment
please throw light on someforecast how the system will get reformed
I wish someone would answer the person who asked: "Who owns the homes that have been caught up in this financial crisis? The homes have lost value, but they are still worth something, aren't they?"
that's what I've been wondering. If a mortgage isn't paid, doesn't the lender, or somebody, now own the house, the solid asset the loan is based on? and despite the plunge in current prices, isn't the house still worth most of its original value, so the loss is just the difference between the two values? or not? clearly I don't understand the situation.
Dr. Reich,
I don't disagree with any of your points. In fact, I couldn't agree more that there is currently a major lack of trust towards Wall St. from the point of the investor.
I understand that if there is no bailout there are other implications to the market, but wouldn't they pale in comparison to the implications of a bailout itself? Mainly that financial institutions will always have a safety net, therefore, continuing their devious and poor financial tactics? For that reason I agree with you and think a bailout is a bad idea.
But I don't see increased regulation being the solution either. You can't legislate morality. Murder is against the law, yet people still do it. Stealing is against the law, yet people still do it. The kids who went into Columbine broke over 17 gun laws. Even if there were 100 more, I don't think that would have deterred them.
Charles Carroll, one of the original signers of the Declaration of Independence said, "Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."
My point isn't that we need to turn everyone into a Christian. Secular folk can be just as, if not more, moral than your average church attender. My point is that I think "some" additional regulation is obviously in order, but I hope we don't think regulation alone will fix this problem. The true problem is a severe lack of morality.
-Ryan
Great article- no more bailouts. Funny thing about W's speech is he sounded like he new what he was talking about but really he did not have a clue nor does Paulson. All you have to do is look up what a credit default swap is and with hedge funds there are trillions of dollars of these worhtless promises out there that are just an attempt like Enron to speculate wildly on certain financial instruments. I bet george had no idea what they were when he talked about them in his speech. How about other garbage we are supposed to buy like auction rate securities or piggyback 100% financeed loads or "Ninja" loans. Get back to the basics of finance and mortge insurance and some sanity and trust will come back.
If we buy the garbage the supply will be endless. No wonder the Chinese banks, Israeli banks and others are now under orders not to buy any more of these investments from American Banks. What do you think the Chinese will do with all the greenbacks they are hoarding? Euros? Watch the dollar crash. It will be worth less than a peso due to Bushenomics, and he has an MBA!
Irm21:
Hate to burst your bubble but Glass-Steagall was dead long before it was replaced by the Finance Moderization Act in 199(?). Greenspin had plundered section 20 of the act which deals with whether banks can invest on Wall Street. Done through an interpretation of that portion of the act, he was able to get 5% of Gross Revenues as the initial limit of investment. By 1996 it was up to 25% of a bank's Gross Revenues. Section 20 was the heart of Glass-Steagall and kept banks and Wall Street apart.
The clincher came, when Travelers and Citigroup wished to merge.
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
If Al Quaeda or some other Arab connection had caused the markets to fall as they have in the last few days, George Bush would have declared a new war … somewhere ... maybe everywhere. What’s the difference of who caused the problem? The United States has been under internal attack from its business leaders who are waging a war of FINANCIAL TERRORISM on the American public.
Look at the definitions of terrorism. The purposes are to instill fear. What could be instilling more fear than the potential collapse of the American economy, the loss of homes and savings, the depletion of National security, and the prospect of living in poverty?
Also by definition, the Republicans have recently been terrorized even more than Democrats. Republicans tend to gain more financially from investments than do Democrats. However, a financial condition such as we face today affects us all. So let me describe my own Axis of Financial Evil against whom the United States should declare an all out war and not relent until absolute victory has been achieved. The Axis of Financial Evil includes:
• George W. Bush, President of the United States
• Richard Cheney, Vice-president of the United States
• Former U.S. Senator Phil Graham
• Senator and Presidential Candidate John McCain who doesn’t have a clue how to handle the current financial crisis or how it has developed.
• Any and all officers of investment and commercial banks who have propagated the current crisis in the housing and lending markets.
• Any and all officers of major investment firms who have supported financial misconduct by encouraging investments in unsecured financial instruments.
• Any and all officers of American companies who have divested their interests in the United States and moved production operations to developing nations solely for financial reasons.
• Any and all legislators of State and Federal governments who have enabled corporations to move productive operations and income producing opportunities out of the United States by providing tax incentives and not implementing fair re-import taxes.
• Any and all wholesale and retail businesses who support off-shore production by importing and making available for sale in the United States inferior and subsidized products imported from outside the United States. The Nation’s two major retailers, among others, are at fault.
• Any and all candidates for Federal offices who support a policy of “trickle down” economics through their individual support of tax incentives for higher income individuals and a tax rate differential between taxes on wages and taxes on investments (the Capital Gains Tax).
• Any and all lower and middle individuals who do not recognize their own financial predicaments and the potential impact they could and should have as a result of dramatic changes in the American tax and economic systems.
In our capitalist system, money naturally “trickles up” to investors and owners. This simple fact has created a phenomenal number of American millionaires and billionaires. Hooray for those who have been so successful. Unfortunately, this has created an upper income culture of greed resulting in financial practices aimed at keeping the wealth “at the top”. Events of the last few weeks have proven that these practices do not work.
When individuals and small businesses, the economic heart and soul of America, are deprived of their abilities to borrow and to purchase, the system collapses. If there is NO MONEY “trickling up” to owners and investors, there will certainly be no money trickling down in the form of investment and job creation.
I might add that there should be few, if any incentives for most forms of investment. Investment, again by definition, results in financial return. America’ economic history has demonstrated that there are always investors / entrepreneurs who will step in with capital to meet market needs and consumer demands. Investment returns only increase the profits of investors, they do not necessarily enable supply to meet demand. The United States has achieved Capitalist maturity and there is an adequate population of entrepreneurial investors interested in new market opportunities.
Having listed the evils facing the U.S. economy and society, the following is a list of initiatives, incentives, and programs that each of us should support.
• Any and all forms of artificial wealth creation through the creation of new financial instruments should be declared ILLEGAL by all levels of government.
• Any and all programs, policies, and actions that encourage and result in increased manufacturing in the United States should be supported and implemented.
• Any and all programs, policies, and actions that result in increasing manufacturing exports from the United States should be supported and implemented.
• Any and all programs, policies, and actions that discourage the import of foreign made products under the guise of “American Made” should be discouraged in the form of import taxes.
• Legitimate competition in the world marketplace, through the provision of cost-competitive, quality-proven, and non-government subsidized products, should be supported and encouraged.
• Candidates for Federal level elected positions should be expected, if not required, to demonstrate and explain their positions in a language other then words which may include the presentation of data and projections in the form of charts, diagrams, or other means that provide and adequate and definitive basis on which voters may make their decisions.
I sincerely hope that this philosophical statement will reach enough open minds to make a positive difference for individuals and businesses at all levels and all spectrums of the American economy. Should you have any comments to share, please let me know.
markkeillor@hotmail.com
The Worldwide DEBT is the problem.
The best solution for the present economic crisis would be a REBOOT or restart of the entire debt system for the ENTIRE WORLD.
1. A data base listing ALL DEBT, government, business and personal needs to be created. The list would need to list the debt and debt holder with a bank that could make an accounting of the debt. Included would be all national debt of all nations, all mortgages car notes and credit cards for individuals. All outstanding bond and other debt for corporations, The idea is to list ALL DEBT of any kind owed.
2 . Every government on the planet would need to call a special secession of it’s legislature.
Using the same authority that governments have to use or create FIAT CURRENCY the legislatures and Central Banks need to authorize the creation of ACCOUNT CREDIT in an amount equal to all the listed debts in the world.
3. The Various governments and Central Banking Systems then need to make an accounting change equal to the debt in the form of an ACCOUNT CREDIT or CREDIT zeroing out ALL THE DEBT in the entire world, and crediting all debt-holders in the world.
The following day the economy of the entire world would restart and the Stock Markets of the world would react to the new renewed capital in the banking systems, the Capital now available to restart all business and the disposable income to the individual people would restart and grow the retail sectors and the manufacturing sectors of the entire world.
Allen Charles Report
http://allencharlesreport.blogspot.com/
The Worldwide DEBT is the problem.
The best solution for the present economic crisis would be a REBOOT or restart of the entire debt system for the ENTIRE WORLD.
1. A data base listing ALL DEBT, government, business and personal needs to be created. The list would need to list the debt and debt holder with a bank that could make an accounting of the debt. Included would be all national debt of all nations, all mortgages car notes and credit cards for individuals. All outstanding bond and other debt for corporations, The idea is to list ALL DEBT of any kind owed.
2 . Every government on the planet would need to call a special secession of it’s legislature.
Using the same authority that governments have to use or create FIAT CURRENCY the legislatures and Central Banks need to authorize the creation of ACCOUNT CREDIT in an amount equal to all the listed debts in the world.
3. The Various governments and Central Banking Systems then need to make an accounting change equal to the debt in the form of an ACCOUNT CREDIT or CREDIT zeroing out ALL THE DEBT in the entire world, and crediting all debt-holders in the world.
The following day the economy of the entire world would restart and the Stock Markets of the world would react to the new renewed capital in the banking systems, the Capital now available to restart all business and the disposable income to the individual people would restart and grow the retail sectors and the manufacturing sectors of the entire world.
Allen Charles Report
http://allencharlesreport.blogspot.com/
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,
cheap wow power leveling buy wow power leveling cheapest wow gold CHEAP power leveling BUY wow gold CHEAPEST wow powerleveling WANGGONGwow goldwow goldffxi gilwow gold
Post a Comment
<< Home