iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Dylan Ratigan

Dylan Ratigan

Posted: April 29, 2010 12:34 PM

As we find our economy subsisting on massive government spending and no-strings-attached bailouts, borrowed, of course, from future generations, what solutions do the same leaders who got us into this mess offer?

You already know the answer -- more government handouts.

The latest gambit?

Politicians like Judd Gregg and Ben Nelson are fighting to keep the crooked $600 trillion derivatives market unreformed. The dirty not-so-little secret about derivatives? In their current form, they are basically government insurance where the bailed-out mega-banks get to keep the premiums but the taxpayer pays the claims.

Senator Gregg points out that good, honest American companies like Harley-Davidson and Caterpillar use these derivatives to hedge against things like currency changes and costs of materials. Hedging against price fluctuations is something that any smart business would want to do and should be encouraged.

What Senator Gregg doesn't point out is that companies can already do this WITHOUT secret derivatives. They just have to buy them on a market exchange or, if it's something unusual or exotic, go to an actual regulated insurer like Lloyd's of London. If Mariah Carey can get her legs insured, I am pretty sure that Caterpillar can find a regulated insurer to cover a seasonal drop in steel prices.

The reason no one wants to cut this scam off is because it works out great for everyone except the taxpayer/sucker who actually pays the claims. The buyers get cheap insurance backed by the US government, the banksters (the big four: JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America , Citigroup and Goldman Sachs) get to keep the premiums and WE THE TAXPAYER pay the claims -- and trust me, AIG is just the tip of the iceberg (note: Fannie + Freddie) in this ongoing derivative bailout!

Just because a few good, American companies like Berkshire Hathaway (major stockholder: Ben Nelson) like getting a sweet deal from the taxpayer doesn't mean that we should keep giving them one. This is especially true when CEOs like Warren Buffet already knew they were a deal too good to be true when they bought them. It is time for us to cut off their welfare checks.

Too many politicians in this country have decided that socialism buys votes, especially when their generation doesn't have to pay for it. But thankfully, there are politicians willing to keep our great country from falling further into this abyss and are willing to put an end to this ridiculous taxpayer giveaway.

Call or write your Senator and tell them to support real derivative reform or that they will pay the consequences come election time.

 

Follow Dylan Ratigan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DylanRatigan

 
 
  • Comments
  • 168
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FWDpost
04:51 PM on 05/12/2010
While derivatives are an important issue, I am more concerned with media pundits who are deficit hawks, ready to destroy the middle class' social security to insure the rich don't have to pay higher taxes. These are the people who keep talking about raising the retirement age, which is easy when you sit behind a desk, but fatal if you ride a truck and collect trash. Means testing is another of their pushes, because they don't think working people deserve to succeed and retire decently. Only the rich and commentators with agents who make hundreds of thousands or more a year are ENTITLED to enjoying the last few years of life..
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
John Cunningham Bowler
10:28 PM on 05/02/2010
It would be helpful to explain the difference between futures markets and derivatives:

I can buy steel on the futures market, I agree to buy it in the future for a price set today.

I can buy an unregulated derivative against a future purchase at a given price. This means that if the price goes up I get *paid* the extra cost.

The difference, the difference that counts, is that with a derivative *I don't have to buy* - I just get the money if the cost goes up (and have to pay for the derivative regardless.)

I can't speculate on a futures market because, at the end of the day, I end up with a million tons of steel that I have to find space for in my back yard (it will fit, but it really cramps my style.)

I can speculate on derivatives because I never own nothing, not at all. It's just money.

It's convenient for a large buyer to buy derivatives because a large buyer may decide not to actually buy. CAT radically ramped back their production at the end of 2008; had they bought futures, they would have had the same back-yard credibility problem I would have.

But CAT can find other ways to justify their accountants' salaries, which is why this article is correct. The problem I have is that it is so totally lacking in explanation. I guess explaining things might mean people stop believing in god, or pundits, or whatever.
12:59 PM on 05/03/2010
No, you are totally incorrect. Futures- along with options, swaps, etc- are all a form of derivatives. There is nothing that is inherently more "safe" about futures than these other derivatives. They are all societally useful in certain contexts, and extremely risky securities in other contexts. What made the default swaps especially problematic in the mortgage boom was (a) components of the underlying mortgages were able to receive high ratings due to the way they were sliced and diced (enabling them to be purchased by normally risk averse investors) and (b) the counterparties (i.e. the AIGs of the world) utilized ridiculously poor models (that for example basically assumed real estate only goes up in value) and were not adequately well capitalized for the risks they were insuring.
02:47 PM on 05/02/2010
Direct and to the point. Good job. Thanks.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
newunderground
Freelance social critic
09:41 AM on 05/02/2010
Socialism for the banksters crumbs for us.
03:07 AM on 05/02/2010
Derivative trading dragged down the entire economy. Never have so few benefited *the traders, banks* at the expense of an entire nation. And yet Senators are saying it should go on?

The next step is to look at who made financial contributions to Sens.Gregg and Blue Dog Nelson.

In mining, banking healh insurance, everything, it is always the money.

What did Deep Throat say? Follow the money.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/30/fbi-investigating-fed-off_n_558544.html

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/demons-and-demonization/

http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/reuters_is_excellent_in_diggin.php
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
realitytrumpsbull
Two 'alves of coconut!
02:13 AM on 05/02/2010
What I derive from this is that there's a lot of 3-card monte going on, and I don't get a good feeling of security from that. I think GS is a symptom, the problem is too much speculation, and too much lock-stepped, computerized ROI stuff.

Big companies make big promises of big bucks, but too many promises, and too many promissory notes can mean big problems, instead, like, what happens when one of these investment trading houses can't cover their bets anymore? Well, we all know the answer to that one...
photo
OliverTwist
Contrarian advocate for truth and justice
01:07 AM on 05/02/2010
When the government gives money to bail out businesses for outfoxing themselves while trying to screw over regular people that's Capitalism - not Socialism.
02:37 AM on 05/02/2010
That is neither it is fraud...

Capitalism is in favor of failure that is the way the best succeed.
photo
OliverTwist
Contrarian advocate for truth and justice
07:39 AM on 05/02/2010
I never met a capitalist who did not favor government assistance for their investments.
photo
Husaria
Question all authority
05:19 PM on 05/02/2010
1 ) Capitalism: small business or private citizen who cannot afford to buy / sell a govt official. When the fail, they go broke.

2 ) Socialism: BIG business or private citizen who can afford to buy / sell govt official. When they fail, capitalism ( see # 1 ) will bail them out and decrease their risk.
10:11 PM on 04/30/2010
THE ONLY TASK FOR CONGRESS AND THE US GOVERNMENT IS PLANNING HOW TO DISMANTLE THE DERIVATIVES CESSPOOL.

The rest is irrelevant. The debt is a sideshow played up by the derivatives felons!
07:50 PM on 04/30/2010
Speaking of socialism and bailouts - when are people going to start paying back the money they got in the food stamp bailout? The subsidized housing bailout? The Medicaid bailout? I want that hard earned money back too.
02:38 AM on 05/02/2010
Not a bad idea. Very true, all govt should be paid back if possible.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Uncle Bill
ex-lawyer and teacher
11:02 AM on 05/02/2010
There has been such a payback for years, you just didn't know about it. Any parent getting AFDC who is owed back child support signs over the right to collect their child support to the government up to the total of the AFDC payments. Now you know one of the major reasons behind the drive to chase deadbeat dads of 10 years ago- states were recouping their costs. Research someplace other than Fox news and tea party websites and you'll be surprised at what you find.

None of those programs were bailouts- they were always government programs, like the defense budget, subsidies to grain exporters, subsidies for R&D by universities and government institutions that benefitted private ag and pharmaceutical companies etc. Just because you don't like some government programs for the benefit of people doesn't make them illegitmate, anymore than the peace advocates who want their taxes back for what went to the Pentagon and arms manufacturers. Get over it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sampson2
Gardener
09:02 PM on 05/02/2010
Well said. Fanned
12:47 PM on 04/30/2010
Businesses were able to adequately hedge currency and material risks in the 90s without the "banks gone wild" derivative action in the 2000's. Go back to that.
12:44 PM on 04/30/2010
We are and have always been a country that has always combined capitalism and socialism.

I believe (and every American I have ever met-otherwise no roads, social security, VA etc) the statement below:

"Socialism is required for things that we absolutely must have, like health care, the common defense, police and firefighters, clean air and water, and so forth.

Free markets are wonderful for all the crap we can live without"

We can live without Google but we die without health care.

Capitalism can and always has existed beside Socialism. They complement each other. They both need to be balanced against each other to prevent injustices by either ideology.

That is what our two party system is supposed to be about but the corruption of our system has thrown it out of balance. Go too far to the right, we get fascism. Go too far left we get communism.

"We The People" are supposed to be in power, but we have let it be stolen from us like Jefferson, Franklin, Eisenhower and many others warned.

Corruption is not a problem in our government--it has become our system.

Until EVERYONE starts talking and blogging and marching for Campaign Reform it is useless discussing anything that might challenge the special interests.

The will of the senate is the will of the special interests.
http://change-congress.org/
http://www.fairelectionsnow.org/volunteer/petition
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Agathon
Wherever you go, there you are.
12:59 PM on 04/30/2010
well done.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sampson2
Gardener
09:05 PM on 05/02/2010
WOW! Well thought out and coherently presented. Could not have put it better if I tried.
Fanned.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
zlohcuc
"Serving millions from atop the Allegheny"
12:18 PM on 04/30/2010
Keep up the good work Mr. Ratigan, you are one of the few honest journalists covering this story with passion and conviction. You obviously have legions of critics and that is likely attributable to the fact that what you are saying is making so many people uncomfortable
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:26 AM on 04/30/2010
Whoever wrote this nonsense needs to go back to school and learn what a derivative is. Geez, what tripe!!
01:15 PM on 04/30/2010
Thats a weak response sir. He was dead on.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:16 PM on 05/02/2010
Okay, let's get specific. "In their current form, they are basically government insurance where the bailed-out mega-banks get to keep the premiums but the taxpayer pays the claims."
Do you contend that is a "dead on" description of what a derivative is? Is that what a call, a put, or a futures contract amounts to? Yes, derivatives were used to take positions that couldn't be closed out and that contributed to the failure of Lehman, e.g., but that's like saying a baseball bat was used to kill someone so baseball bats are inherently evil. Derivatives were misused because the wise guys' funky math told them they'd taken risk out of the equation, a delusion that came back to bite them on the ass. The fact that the banks were TBTF had nothing to do with derivatives and everything to do with excessively low interest rates and no cap on leverage. I stand by my original statement that the article is over-simplified and uses the term "derivative" too broadly.
11:03 AM on 04/30/2010
thanks for carrying the torch on this in prime time. the clearest, strongest voice i come across.
10:46 AM on 04/30/2010
You got it almost right.

Actually, it is government (taxpayer) funded insurance for gambling losses. No more, no less.

Naked CDS's don't appear to have any more attachment to anything in the economy than poker chips.