The clip above shows Franklin D. Roosevelt campaigning for the US presidency in 1933, using eerily familiar rhetoric. The clip opened the second portion of last week’s episode of The Explainer (which you can watch on YouTube), which focused on the Great Depression (in it, I asked my guest to expound on his blog post, Smartly protectionist). The Great Depression has provided a lot of grist for the mill in recent years, for example see A history lesson from the Great Depression – How the World Works – Salon.com
Today, I was going to focus on what’s going on in America but I’m down with the flu so it will have to be for next week.
For the past couple of weeks watching Bloomberg’s been a riveting experience as experts try to grapple with the goings-on in markets in the US and elsewhere. Non-experts, too: Question for a Management Class makes for quite interesting reading.
On the eve of the US House of Representatives voting on the bailout, a group of American economists released an open letter calling on representatives to reject the bailout plan. Columnist Will Hutton in The Guardian pointed out the argument at the heart of the economists’ opposition (and, by all accounts, among US voters who had House Republicans spooked about a popular backlash if they voted for the White House-proposed bailout plan):
And although some conservatives in Britain and America continue to make the ideological case against any government action as a response to the recent turmoil – governments necessarily do everything worse than the market – they have no alternative proposal about how to restore trust once it has gone. Trust is a reciprocal relationship, dependent upon a desire to be considered decent and honourable. Even in the dog-eat-dog financial markets, trust and integrity are matters of self-interest. However amoral you may be, it is in your interest to care about your reputation, because if you behave badly you will not do business with me – or others – on favourable terms again.
But the scale of the personal rewards now available in London and Wall Street – £15m-£20m at the top is the norm – along with the greed-is-good doctrine associated with extreme laissez-faire economics, has trashed the need for individuals to worry about integrity. They don’t need to be concerned about their reputations; they just need one deal or one year at the top and they need never work again. The incentive structure has so departed from one of the principal norms of fairness – proportionality between value added and reward – that it has eviscerated trust relationships and integrity.
Everybody tries to ‘game’ the system on their route to vast personal fortunes – whether short-selling, packaging up dud mortgages as prime mortgages or telling lies about their financial viability – and the result is that the system is getting wise. The best course today in any financial transaction is to presume zero integrity. Credit is drying up and with it the very lifeblood of the economy.
Worse, now that the system is in trouble, financiers are turning to taxpayers in the US and Britain for help without understanding the other key principal of fairness – that we will consider helping those who for no fault of their own get into trouble, but not those who freely created their own bad circumstances.
Hank Paulson certainly acted decisively in launching his plan, but the former Goldman Sachs CEO, who negotiated a special exemption from tax when he took the job, like his former Wall Street colleagues is not well endowed with the fairness gene. It polluted the very design of the scheme.
He knows that unless the US government does something comprehensive, the entire financial system is at stake, but his original plan was designed to bail out the system intact. It made no demands that any financial executives sacrifice pay or bonuses despite having driven their firms and wider economy to the point of bankruptcy. He does not want the government to provide new bank capital to help recapitalise a bust banking system. Instead, he wants the government to buy their toxic debt and so leave the banks unreformed. On top he wanted complete discretion to act as he chose without any oversight.
American economists of every persuasion signed a joint letter complaining not at the aim of the bail out, which is plainly vital, but for its lack of fairness. Conservative papers and politicians echoed the complaint. Suddenly, Wall Street is coming back to earth. The transactions from which it skims such riches are built on the savings of ordinary Americans to whom it has obligations, as it has to other Wall Street firms. What we know now about the yet to be agreed compromise is that Paulson has accepted Congressional oversight, will offer direct help to distressed US homeowners as well as banks, and will accept some constraints on the worst excesses of executive pay.
But the core proposal remains. The government will buy toxic debt rather than inject government funds into the banks’ capital base, in other words, reject even partially nationalising the entire US banking system as the Swedes had to in 1992. I don’t know – nobody does – whether the Paulson plan would be sufficient or whether ultimately the Americans will have to go for nationalisation. What I do know is that unless there is a radical and government-led change in ownership, structure, regulation and incentives so that the principles of fairness are put at the heart of the Anglo American financial system – proportionality of reward and fair distribution of risk – there is no chance of the return of trust and integrity upon which long-term recovery depends.
In the end the House of Representatives rejected the White House plan. FT.com / In depth – House rejects US bail-out bill, stitched the news together with failures and rescues in the UK, Benelux and Germany; and in House to Wall Street: Drop dead – MarketWatch says the Republicans were the ones who blinked:
Republicans voted against the bill by a two-to-one ratio, and in the process rejected their own leadership, who had worked for nearly a week to craft a bill that could gain a majority. Nearly 100 Democrats also voted against the bill, spurning their leadership.Many Republicans in the House were never persuaded that the credit crunch in the financial system is an impending disaster deserving of taxpayer aid. Politicians who had cut their teeth on free-market principles couldn’t accept the idea that the federal government should back up the banks who had foolishly bet everything on the housing bubble.Or they didn’t want to face the voters in six weeks and explain why a Republican would vote for the biggest government bailout ever.
In his blog, Howard Lindzom put it bluntly:
The market has been demanding a large scope bailout plan for weeks. The market has been chewing through financials one by one until it gets what it wants.
Let’s not kid ourselves, the markets are rigged. The bailout is a wimpy ass way to deal with the problem for sure, but a $1.2 trillion loss in market cap was just TODAY’s tradeoff. The market wants some extra rigging short-term and a meltdown is/was the trade-off.
The people in Washington know very little about a lot of things. That is their specialty, their claime to fame. They know shit ass less than nothing about the stock market and the MOOD of America that matters (money). Today, you saw what a bad mood can bring from traders. Tomorrow and for the next week you will see what panic brings as the selling accelerates.
This crisis though is not about the stock market, it is about THE CREDIT MARKETS. There is NO access to capital. We are shut down for business. Way worse than after 9/11 when the markets were closed. At least than, we were out shopping at the request of our President. Now we are just deer in the headlights at the whim of the House of Reps and Congress and Senate who just seem out to punish the rich. Bullshit politics. Everybody has a chance to be famous. They are really punishing everybody else.
The FED is out of bullets and we have absolutely zero leadership or hopes of any leadership soon.
On that sobering note, as the New York exchange plunged (777 points), and then Asia, too (biggest drop since 1987), An analyst on Bloomberg dryly said, “Cash seems to be the safest place to put your money now.” Commodity prices had their biggest drop in 52 years (since the index began). The Australian Prime Minister issued a statement appealing to the US Congress to pass the emergency measure, a sentiment echoed by the Japanese Finance Minister.George W. Bush will address his countrymen shortly before the markets open on Tuesday.
This seems a colossal game of “chicken,” with political leaders answerable to voters pitted on a collision course with financiers normally dismissive of nations, sovereignty, etc., demanding a bailout from the political leaders, otherwise everything comes crashing down. It’s interesting that as today wore on, the analysist began to speak rather confidently of the bailout being passed by the end of the week.
The Republican nightmare is obviously straight out of the Hollywood version of populist Huey Long’s barely fictionalized movie biopic, All the King’s Men:
Here at home, people have been nervous ever since insurance giant AIG ended up being taken over by the US government to prevent its collapse. See Business – Are my Philam investments safe? in INQUIRER.net
There are also concerns, now, over the possibility of bank runs and to head off potential panic, the Central Bank has tried to make soothing noises. See Business – How safe is my money in the bank? also in INQUIRER.net
Salve Duplito, who authored the two articles above, then goes on to point out that instead of hand-wringing, some sober planning is in order for ordinary people: Money Smarts » How are you dealing with the crisis?
As for the economists, Nouriel Roubini takes a kind of grim satisfaction in not turning out to be a Cassandra (see The Worst Financial Crisis Since the Great Depression and the subsequent The Shadow Banking System is Unravelling:Such demise confirmed by Morgan and Goldman now being converted into banks) while Roubini then looks at the proposed 700 billion dollar bailout plan and compares it to other bailouts in the past: Is Purchasing $700 billion of Toxic Assets the Best Way to Recapitalize the Financial System? No! It is Rather a Disgrace and Rip-Off Benefitting only the Shareholders and Unsecured Creditors of Banks
Whenever there is a systemic banking crisis there is a need to recapitalize the banking/financial system to avoid an excessive and destructive credit contraction. But purchasing toxic/illiquid assets of the financial system is not the most effective and efficient way to recapitalize the banking system. Such recapitalization — via the use of public resources — can occur in a number of alternative ways: purchase of bad assets/loans; government injection of preferred shares; government injection of common shares; government purchase of subordinated debt; government issuance of government bonds to be placed on the banks’ balance sheet; government injection of cash; government credit lines extended to the banks; government assumption of government liabilities.
A recent IMF study of 42 systemic banking crises across the world provides evidence on how different crises were resolved. First of all only in 32 of the 42 cases there was government financial intervention of any sort; in 10 cases systemic banking crises were resolved without any government financial intervention. Of the 32 cases where the government recapitalized the banking system only seven included a program of purchase of bad assets/loans (like the one proposed by the US Treasury). In 25 other cases there was no government purchase of such toxic assets. In 6 cases the government purchased preferred shares; in 4 cases the government purchased common shares; in 11 cases the government purchased subordinated debt; in 12 cases the government injected cash in the banks; in 2 cases credit was extended to the banks; and in 3 cases the government assumed bank liabilities. Even in cases where bad assets were purchased — as in Chile — dividends were suspended and all profits and recoveries had to be used to repurchase the bad assets. Of course in most cases multiple forms of government recapitalization of banks were used.
But government purchase of bad assets was the exception rather than the rule. It was used only in Mexico, Japan, Bolivia, Czech Republic, Jamaica, Malaysia, and Paraguay. Even in six of these seven cases where the recapitalization of banks occurred via the government purchase of bad assets such recapitalization was a combination of purchase of bad assets together with other forms of recapitalization (such as government purchase of preferred shares or subordinated debt).
In the Scandinavian banking crises (Sweden, Norway, Finland) that are a model of how a banking crisis should be resolved there was not government purchase of bad assets; most of the recapitalization occurred through various injections of public capital in the banking system. Purchase of toxic assets instead — in most cases in which it was used — made the fiscal cost of the crisis much higher and expensive (as in Japan and Mexico).
Thus the claim by the Fed and Treasury that spending $700 billion of public money is the best way to recapitalize banks has absolutely no factual basis or justification. This way of recapitalizing financial institutions is a total rip-off that will mostly benefit — at a huge expense for the US taxpayer – the common and preferred shareholders and even unsecured creditors of the banks. Even the late addition of some warrants that the government will get in exchange of this massive injection of public money is only a cosmetic fig leaf of dubious value as the form and size of such warrants is totally vague and fuzzy.
Others have tried to translate the amount in human terms:CJR: What Can You Buy For $700 Billion?
It would reimburse banks, home owners, and local governments for nearly 9 million foreclosures – It could prevent over 200 million foreclosures – It could buy 8.6 billion monthly Metrocards – The government could rebuild Katrina-ravished New Orleans and Gulf Coast… three and a half times – Roughly 538 Yankee Stadiums could be built – 5.4 million students could be sent to a public university – It equals nearly 520 times the amount of Amtrak’s current operating budget – It is $14 billion more than the U.S. spent during the Vietnam War
Another economist, Carsten Hermann Pillath, offers up an approach based on evolutionary economics and cultural science, bringing up game theory and the prisoners’ dilemma (see The financial crisis: a humble evolutionary economist’s perspective).
Over at Left Flank, you can find links to scientists weighing in with their efforts to relate the financial news with Chaos Theory! See Black Swans and Charlatans.
Jeff Jarvis, in Stewardship v. ownership of our news, money, and society took a cue from the unfolding crisis and criticizes mainstream media and it’s efforts to control how their content is processed, used, and redistributed on the World Wide Web.
The political fallout, if any, is something else, altogether. I’ve been silent for some weeks because I’ve been trying to get beyond simply reacting to the news, and instead, trying to make sense of where we are and where we ought to go; I’ll attempt to start piecing my thoughts together when I’ve recovered from the flu.
there was a problem with the comments database but it’s fixed now.
Yeah been trying to post comments last night for several times and I though I was banned already….
test lang…
im definitely against the bail-out plan and im so happy that the congress voted it down. I hope the senate will do the same…
Notwithstanding his preference for McCain/Palin, kudos to Jemy for his active contribution to the discussion on The Explainer.
Get well soon mlq3.
my take on this bail-out plan: those market players are gamblers aiming for huge profit. they lose. why should ordinary taxpayers who will gain nothing from their greed bail them out?
just a thought.
Since credit is drying up in the US, doesn’t that mean the Philippine government will sooner or later find it more difficult/more expensive to borrow money? And isn’t this going to have disastrous consequences for our government, since it’s kept afloat primarily by debt, then by remittances?
..as if naman the ‘ordinary taxpayers’ did not have a hand in this..
they could have said ‘no’ when banks were handing out ‘generous’ and toxic sums of utang….spend spend spend…..create that warm fuzzy feeling….
renmin well to her credit, this is where the president can say paying down debt from e-vat was worth it… and shifting to borrowing domestically, i guess.
I know a company that had to cancel (or rather, “postpone indefinitely”) its plans to employ 10 additional H1B consultants. Reason : bank disapproved loan request for additions to its working capital funds.
This can get worse — to mean firings.
With or without a bailout, Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase & Co. already gained a lot from this financial mess for a small price and with FDIC help. The $700 B bailout is just gravy.
UP n grad,
Expect more cancellations if Obama wins the presidential election.
to supremo: but this image of the White House resident doing a polka to “… bomb, bomb… bomb.. bomb Iran” to motivate a nation to ‘be happy, don’t worry” is quite a big worry.
mlq3 – You didn’t have to get the flu just because USA convulsed. Get up big boy, and get well. Think of the country without you.
renmin – A disaster for Gloria’s government could be a blessing for the people, in the long run.
UP n grad,
Both a President Obama or McCain can’t afford a war with Iran. McCain is interested more with a surge in Afghanistan. Obama will most likely not do anything because it will be election time again by the time he is done talking.
mlq3 – as i understand it, her pushing the EVAT (or rather RVAT) wasn’t so much about paying down debt (the additional 100 billion or so isn’t gonna do that) as demonstrating greater ability to pay the creditors, and so opening up fresh lines of credit–i.e., so she can borrow more.
This government takes on new debt to pay the interests on old debts. If credit becomes more expensive and the cost of debt servicing rises, then down the line we can expect cuts in social services spending–as in the aftermath of the 1997 financial crisis, when the DBCC imposed negative or zero growth ceilings on the social services budget from 1998 to around 2006.
Well, for the past two years the Philippine government had a bonanza in its finances.
First, the strong peso (going as low as 40 pesos to one dollar) allowed RP to lower its debt service costs. Second, the windfall from the EVAT, specially with the spike in oil prices, created a ‘buffer’ fund. Let’s hope these ‘rainy days’ will now be put to good use.
On a related subject, Mr. Bill Luz of Ayala Foundation , on 20/20 hindsight, now says that its good the OFWs went into consumptive investment (house & lot, condos, etc.) instead of investing in the stock market where they could have been burned with the global financial meltdown. Luz calls these OFW’s practical investments.
Really, KISS is good. Keep It Simple but Safe.
PSI (at 11:18pm), what Bill Luz observed validates the position i took in this discussion over at FV, (which at that time was the unpopular stand). That being said, i think OFW’s should participate in the recently PERA if only out of patriotism.
[above should read..’recently signed into law PERA’.]
cvj,
Yes, indeed. And i believe so was I.
“Another area of business which OFWs could pursue, instead of sinking their savings in the stock market, is to get a franchise. The franchise will include setting up the operation, training of the franchisee, provision of goods, supplies, and services. A good franchise will involve step-by-step engagement, which have been proven successful in several markets.
There are still many affordable franchises, both home-grown and foreign.”
PSI, i agree. It turns out that going into franchise may even be less risky than betting on the stock market. Or at least if you lose your money, it would be your own fault.
cvj,
‘i think OFW’s should participate in the recently signed into law PERA’
Why would OFWs invest their money in the Philippines when government financial instituitions like the GSIS are known to invest outside the Philippines? Congress just wasted their time crafting PERA.
Here we go again, creating new laws with their attendant bureaucracies.
The foreign currency deposit law has been in the books since the 70’s. Use that with better incentives to attract those abroad who are rushing toward more liguidity in their holdings.
This should allow the private banking sector more liguidity and funding for productive credit accommodations.
And follow the lead, by increasing the PDIC coverage per individual depositor.
Can we do this?
supremo, as i said above, for patriotic reasons.
cvj,
People invest to make money not to show their patriotism.
it will be most patriotic if, fifteen or twenty years from now, the (future) retirees are financially-stable where the Philippine government can use more of its funds more to educate the young and less to pay for medicine and surgery for the old.
supremo,
“Why would OFWs invest their money in the Philippines when government financial instituitions like the GSIS are known to invest outside the Philippines? Congress just wasted their time crafting PERA.”
not all investible funds of GSIS are invested abroad. and so what if GFIs invest abroad?
and no, PERA’s enactment isn’t a waste of time. among other things, PERA exempts retirement accounts from tax, to encourage savings and investment in certain investment products
and its more for the protection of the OFWs, giving them one way of safekeeping their hard-earned money
“People invest to make money not to show their patriotism.”
Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, said they agreed to take over Bear Stearns because they felt its their obligation to their country
it must be great to make money and at the same time show patriotism.
who among us (overseas flips) pays voluntary sss/gsis contributions? raise your hands for an informal poll.
cheers
Supremo, the more patriotic Filipinos there are, the greater the chances of that the Philippines will develop economically. I’m just doing my part.
nash, not yet but will do so.
anthony scalia,
‘not all investible funds of GSIS are invested abroad. and so what if GFIs invest abroad?’
I did NOT say all. It is wrong for GFIs to invest abroad if capital is badly needed in the Philippines.
‘PERA exempts retirement accounts from tax’
Income tax credit up to 5% of the PERA account contribution is small.
‘and its more for the protection of the OFWs’
PDIC only insures bank deposits up to 100,000 pesos. I’m sure PERA accounts are not insured.
‘it must be great to make money and at the same time show patriotism’
You are comparing several billion dollars of investment backed by the Federal Reserve Bank with several hundred thousand pesos of investments. Dimon is not using his own money.
cvj,
You are doing your part but you admit to not contributing to SSS and you are asking Filipinos to be more patriotic by opening PERA accounts. I got lost on the doing ‘your part thing’.
nash,
I don’t contribute to SSS.
supremo, as i told nash, i plan to restart my SSS contributions. as for ‘doing my part,’ i’ve already been doing so by investing whatever i can save in the Philippines (i.e. life insurance, retirement fund). i don’t have enough to spare for stocks though.
cvj,
I already own a house and 3 lots there. I think that’s enough.
imho, more than enough. anyway, good for you.
Bush is a sitting duck lang pala
Texas: 15 out of 19 voted against the bailout
Arizona: No one voted for the bail out…
Meanwhile incoming President Barack Obama should start writing a stirring speech to convince the consumerists to be more austere…
I wonder how long before our very own Tongressmen realise that 2010 is just tomorrow and GMA is reduced to a sitting duck?
On PERA: I’m still pessimistic with this program because our government system remains so corrupt and so disorganize in terms of business process. It first needs to establish a sound pension system and a sound tax administration system efficient enough to ensure the public trust. Financial transparency remains to be a problem. Although the BILL has been approved in August 22 this year, I have no choice except to accept and agree with the BILL not only for patriotic purposes but it will motivate OFW to save instead of spending it lavishly on things not necessary. For me… I will not invest on PERA, I will invest on land in the provinces not in high rise Manila. The air pollution should not be included on my investment. Fresh air and beach front lot in the province will give me better return in terms of quality and real money in the future 🙂
Explainer #4 made mentioned that McCain is better President than Obama for Philippine economy. I agree with the professor.
leytenian: That’s probably ‘cuz you and McCain are Beach Boys fans. “… bomb, bomb, bomb….. bomb, bomb Iran.”
But “McCain–bomb-bomb Iran was only number-4 in Time’s 2007 List of Campaign Gaffes”. Number-5 was John Edwards’ $400-haircut. #1 was Giulani’s “”I was at ground zero as often, if not more, than most of the workers. I was there working with them. I was there guiding things….”
 Rudy Giuliani
Nice idea asking if people here are walking their talk.
So while we are on the subject, aside from the usual savings and retirements accounts which are lodged in the governmental or private financial sector, try turning your sights to the many credit unions and/or cooperatives that litter the countryside. While the private financial sector has at most a market penetration of 15% or less, those credit unions serve those who otherwise do not have access to credit and financial services. That would truly be patriotic and compassionate to who have less in life.
And in the process, provide adequate return for your investment.
but leytenian: time is working against you, and maybe in 3 weeks, you’ll be another of the “females for Obama” crowd. If you can believe ‘dem surveys, it is reported:
. . . . Obama leads McCain by 17 points with women, 55%-38%. Before the conventions, women preferred Obama by a margin of 10 points, 49%-39%. After McCain picked Palin as his running mate, the gap narrowed to a virtual tie, with Obama holding a 1-point margin, 48%-47%.
Allegedly (but you can deny it) the survey results valid for whites and non-whites.
McCain is so low in the polls right now, he needs a miracle quick… much as we wet our pants with a Sarah Palin presidency, mukhang this recession was the knockout blow. During the cabinet meeting, McCain was so SILENT, hardly contributing anything, there goes his much vaunted ‘experience’….nagmukha siyang Lito Lapid…
…and we are all eagerly awaiting the Palin-Biden debate after her CBS interview gaffes!
UP N,
i know Obama is leading but online surveys are popular for young voters. female like me don’t go online and click to vote for McCain. Will see who will win in November? it’s too soon to assume.
If Obama will win and will increase taxation on corporation, then BPO job to Philippines will suffer. Immigration qouta will remain the same and outsourcing of jobs will not be the democrats policy. why pinoy are now against our country’s benefit. Are majority of Pinoys receiving food stamps in NY and California? why ? I thought mga social kayo diyan? buti pa si island girl… understand the benefits of free market with Maverick regulation of McCain… hahaha
I am just being loyal to Republican and patriotic to my beloved country Philippines… 🙂
I am very pessimistic with Obama not because of him but because of how his own people will destroy him before Obama destroy his own country. Obama is not even patriotic to his own. Here’s why…
A Pattern of Concerns | Not Fit To Be Commander in Chief
Take Note of Obama’s wife and his Pastor Wright…I agree with McCain that Obama is dangerous not only to America but to my beloved Philippines 🙂
http://www.obamamustgo.com/
UP n grad, Both a President Obama or McCain can’t afford a war with Iran. McCain is interested more with a surge in Afghanistan. Obama will most likely not do anything because it will be election time again by the time he is done talking…..Supremo.
—————————————————————-
I dont know supremo, but during ths bail-out drama, It was actually Mc Cain who overtalked and grandstanded. I like better the way Obama behaved.
And its becoming clearer now that Palin is more of a baggage to Mc Cain than an asset. Have you watched her two interviews in NBC and CBS? The prospect of having her as a president in case Mc Cain cannot finsih his term. scared the hell out of me
I dont what is your basis when said that there will be more “cancellations” if Obama wins.? And what makes Mc Cain a better choice for you?
@UP n
“bomb, bomb, bomb….. bomb, bomb Iran.â€Â
with what??? cruise missiles? let me count, that’s 5 bombs so with the cheapest missile, that amounts to $3M.
can they even afford that? 😀 maybe they will borrow off mortgage-backed credit..
…”..female like me don’t go online and click to vote for McCain”
???
Another hint of irony for someone who puts lots of links and google searches on the punditry tambayan….
rego,
‘during ths bail-out drama, It was actually Mc Cain who overtalked and grandstanded.’
The Dems said McCain did not talked much during the meeting with Bush. Obama was in the meeting too and he talked. Who ‘grandstanded’ now?
‘I dont what is your basis when said that there will be more “cancellations†if Obama wins.?’
Leytenian already provided the answer and I agree.
‘Immigration qouta will remain the same and outsourcing of jobs will not be the democrats policy.’
If you’re not a citizen yet better work on it rego or they will kick you out.
‘its becoming clearer now that Palin is more of a baggage’
I don’t care about the VP position. Remember it’s a PRESIDENTIAL election.
‘And what makes Mc Cain a better choice for you?’
Maybe you didn’t watch the debate or you’re not paying attention. Obama said at least 5 times ‘Senator McCain is right blah blah blah.’
Now explain to us here why you are for Obama.
nash:”can they even afford that? maybe they will borrow off mortgage-backed credit..”
Maybe they can start shooting toxic mort…ars.
“If Obama will win and will increase taxation on corporation, then BPO job to Philippines will suffer. ”
All the more reason for corporations to outsource. Going the way of cheaper labor and then cheaper taxes via BPO is a decision made in the board room. Not in DC.