My newspaper column out today is about the concept of "moral hazard" - and how there's a difference between financial moral hazard and political moral hazard, the latter of which is even more pernicious than the former. You can see this most obviously in the renomination of Ben Bernanke to head the Federal Reserve. Read the column here.
The term "moral hazard" may seem like a complex and even intimidating idea, but most of us, whether consciously or not, understand the principle because it's basic common sense.
Applaud your kid for punching another kid--rather than grounding him--and you've created a moral hazard that means he'll probably punch other kids in the future. Give your dog a treat--rather than a scolding--after it urinates in the house, and the moral hazard you've engineered makes it likely you'll soon be cleaning up even more sallow stains on your rug. In short, without consequences--or worse, with rewards--for wrongdoing, there is an incentive to do wrong. That's moral hazard.
To date, the national discussion about this concept has revolved specifically around financial moral hazard. And, as evidenced by trillions of dollars in public loans, guarantees and subsidies given to speculators to cover their massive losses, leaders in both political parties have no interest in preventing financial moral hazard--despite stern press releases to the contrary. By rewarding rather than punishing Wall Street for losing irresponsibly risky bets and by holding out the promise of similar bailout rewards in the future, politicians have incentivized even more irresponsible risk-taking for years to come.
But financial moral hazard is only half the story. The other half is political moral hazard--the mother of all other moral hazards. This is why Bernanke has been called "the definition of moral hazard" - because if he is confirmed by the Senate, it will send a message to all other federal regulators that they can fall down on the job and still get promoted.
Read the whole column here to see what I'm talking about.
The column relies on grassroots support -- and because of that support, it is getting wider and wider circulation (a big thank you to all who have helped with that). So if you'd like to see my column regularly in your local paper, use this directory to find the contact info for your local editorial page editors. Get get in touch with them and point them to my Creators Syndicate site. Thanks, as always, for your ongoing readership and help contacting local editors. This column couldn't be what it is without your help.
Global corporations have no incentive to grow jobs in America
if it is more profitable to run factories elsewhere. I see nothing on
the horizon that will change this. NAFTA and the WTO is intact and entrenched.
As for Wall Street we can assume so long as Congress is bought
and refuses to bring back New Deal regulation like Glass Steagall then
the fox is guarding the hen house.
As for Bernanke we must recognize that his term is up and this
is Obama's opportunity to put HIS stamp on monetary policy and amazingly
Obama has decided NOT to change but to go with Bush's appointment.
Let me repeat this.
Obama has decided to go with Bush's appointment for chairman of the
Fedeal Reserve. I have concluded that the Banks made Obama an
offer he could NOT refuse. Obama is blowing a singular chance to
bring change in an area that needs it and has decided to keep
George Bush's appointee instead. This can only mean that the
big banks have far more power than Americans know.
What happened to the men (women) that could make the tough decisions to "take the punchbowl away" before people were too drunk?
Not only are people being rewarded for taking risk, but the people that were responsible are now being punished for being reasonable with their finances. If you have any savings in the bank you are getting crushed by real negative returns. Not only do savers make little to no returns in the form of interest rates, but due to the fed trying to "reflate" bank assets the value of the dollar is down nearly 20% since march.
We should have let the criminal banks go bankrupt, and given the TARP money to mid sized banks that would actually lend the money out to qualified people.
WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!
When money exceed the swapped value, we have bubbles in its many forms. You don't have to have a Chair in Economics to understand this simple fact. 


Obama's "economic team" has to go, because they insist that money has value.
They need to take a 12 step program in arrogance management. They need to think with their hearts rather than their "brains."


Economics isn't some chalk board exercise, but real life anxiety and dirty fingernails.
The President can withdraw his nomination of Bernanke.
The Treasury Secretary serves at the pleasure of the President.
There are the two most glaringly obvious steps to take.
Why not Geithner? Why not Summers?
These two geniuses CLEARLY failed at their previous jobs. The documentation is in, and it is damning.
If you have three tomatoes rotting in your fridge, are you only going to toss one?
Printing all this money is a crime against the public trust. Bernanke must go.
While many regular people seem able to discern the depth of the problem and cry out for Truth and Fairness (read any comments thread on HP), there are precious few in media or government, and even fewer with real power.
We hoped Obama could change things (he promised to do so), but it's telling that so many really intelligent, large-minded people, here and on other sites, have become seriously disillusioned with him (including myself). We have a pending crisis of confidence on the Left, a descent into madness on the Right, and complete bafflement of the mythical Center.
Hang onto your hats, the ride will be wild.
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/audit-the-federal-reserve-hr-1207/
Volker was the last Fed Chairman that did his job correctly. All since them have been political hacks that served Bush , Clinton, Bush and now Obama. They let political pressure affect their decisions. Now add our politicians who think they have an infinite source of income (the taxpayer) and you get our current situation.
Do many here at HP understand America has an income of about $15 trillion (GDP) and a national debt in excess of $100 Trillion (counting all real future liabilities not on the books). In middle class terms a family making $50K is in debt for $300K debt. Do you think that family can ever pay the debt off, of course not. And most first world countries are in just as much trouble and some worst. Greece is about to default.
There will be no "jobs recovery". We will not be back to normal in two to three years. The underlying financial fundamentals all point to much more trouble ahead.
I say this in spite of the fact that I do not like some of the things he has said about fiscal policy at the hearings.
Your criticism is valid, but the folks I'd really like to put in public stocks for a few days are the clowns in the SEC and the "too big to fail" companies that thought crazy derivitives were sound investments.