The financial meltdown on Wall Street is more than a cyclic correction brought on by a mismanaged business cycle. It is emblematic of a problem at the very foundation of the right wing economic philosophy that became conventional wisdom during the Bush years -- and would be continued in a McCain presidency.
The zealots of unfettered "free markets" cast aside the critical lesson that the world learned during the Great Depression: left to their own devices, unregulated financial markets do not necessarily function to benefit the society as a whole -- or, in the end, even many individual market participants.
The fundamental premise of right-wing economics is the incorrect view that if every market actor pursues his own economic interest, the "invisible hand" of the market place will assure that the "common good" results. But of course, common sense tells us that is not always true. Two quick examples:
The first is referred to as the "tragedy of the commons." Suppose an island nation depends on the fishing harvests from the surrounding sea for its livelihood. It would obviously be in the interest of the community never to take more fish from the sea than can be replenished through the reproduction of fish. That way, everyone on the island will continue to have fish for the long haul.
But it is in the interest of each individual fisherman to catch as many fish as he can. This is especially true if the fish stocks grow scarcer. To continue to have enough fish for himself and his family, each fisherman competes more and more vigorously for the remaining fish. In the end, this behavior will assure that the fish supply is depleted, and that no one has any fish.
In this situation, if everyone pursues his own individual interest, the common good is not served. But if everyone looks out for each other, and recognizes that all have a common group interest, they will manage the fish resource to assure a self-sustaining fish supply that can feed everyone for years to come.
The other example is the classic case of economic recession. In a recession, it is in each economic actor's self-interest to increase his savings and cut spending, since the recession threatens his income. But by each pursuing his own individual interest, all of the actors together reduce the economy's overall spending. And that deepens the recession. If, on the other hand, the entire group of economic actors works through its government to increase national spending and reduce overall savings, it will stimulate the economy and the recession will end -- benefiting everyone.
The American mortgage market now provides us with another clear example of how this fundamental premise of right-wing economic thought is dead wrong.
For many years after the Great Depression, most mortgages were provided by banks and savings and loans. Traditionally these institutions would originate their own loans, evaluate the risk, and maintain a relationship with the borrower. It was in the self-interest of the institution to make loans -- that's how it made money. But it was also in the institution's interest to assure that the borrower could pay the loan back, because it was lending its own money.
Over the last thirty years, the mortgage market has fundamentally changed. Now most loans are originated by brokers or other mortgage companies who make their money through "origination fees" and often payments from big, unregulated lenders. Once these loans are made, they are then packaged and sold as securities through the secondary mortgage market.
Mortgage originators had every incentive to make all the loans they could, but absolutely no incentive to assure that the borrowers could pay the loans back. Credit standards were relaxed, new "sub prime" products were introduced, "no-document" loans were issued.
This system provided a great deal of liquidity to the mortgage industry. But it also removed the risk of making the loan from the loan originator and handed it to a huge, diffuse "market." No longer did any individual or institution have any individual incentive to prevent bad loans.
The problem was simultaneously hidden and exaggerated by the creation of complex derivatives -- securities that sliced and diced the risk and allowed it to be sold and resold.
As long as housing prices went up, the problem of bad loans were hidden by the rising equity of the collateral -- the homes that were being financed. But once prices stopped rising and began to drop, the bottom fell out.
Left to its own devices, the mortgage market itself could not solve this problem. It was in the loan originator's interest to issue more and more risky loans and it wasn't in the interest of any individual market player to control for risk, since the securities representing that risk could be sold a minute after they were purchased.
The only solution to this problem would have been the kind of regulation that was put into place for banks during the New Deal. With banks and with savings and loans, regulators guarantee a substantial portion of the depositor's money, but they also ensure that the mix of loans and the bank's overall financial structure is sound. Today the major source of mortgage capital is not banks or savings and loans, but from financial institutions that are almost free of regulation.
The same went for the two institutions that were set up to create this "secondary mortgage market," Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac, before they were taken over by the government last week.
The kind of regulation that was necessary was opposed by the Bush administration -- and the entire right wing business and economic establishment -- that is trying desperately to hold onto power by electing John McCain to continue the Bush presidency.
So now the chickens are coming home to roost. The taxpayers are helping to bail out some of the players, the stock market is tanking, mortgages are harder to get -- further reducing home values and making the problem worse.
And unbelievably, John McCain told his audience that he would "clean up Wall Street."
John McCain's chief economic adviser is Phil Gramm -- a former economics professor -- who is now Vice Chair of UBS, a huge international financial company. He's the guy who said that the problems of the American economy were "in the minds" of the American people -- that we are "a nation of whiners." Gramm is an ardent advocate of precisely the right wing economic philosophy that caused this problem in the first place.
Gramm and McCain believe in letting the guys with all the money do pretty much what they want because, they say, it will ultimately benefit us all. They are the ultimate crusaders for "trickle down economics."
The problem is that the foundational principles of this economic view have been proven wrong by history. And after a while, the victims are no longer limited to the vast majority of Americans that has suffered for the last eight years -- the pain even spreads to the wealthiest denizens of Wall Street. As Barack Obama said yesterday, we hear a lot about the benefits of the economy "trickling down;" now we're beginning to see the pain of the economy "trickle up."
The central lesson of this saga is clear. If you like the Bush economy, hire McCain. Over the next seven weeks, however, Americans who care about our economic future have to join Barack Obama in saying: enough.
Robert Creamer is a long-time organizer and political strategist, and the author of the recent book "Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win," available at amazon.com
here is the link:http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/31/news/economy/rubin_benner.fortune/
Who is Obama's economic advisers? The Ex CEO's of Lehman and Fannie Mae GREAT CHOICES
Who was running the oversight committee on Fannie and Freddy Democratic Franks
Who was in control of both houses of congress the past 2 years...democrats
Who has NO opinion on the AIG bailout...Obama
Who during the gas crisis did nothing except go on vacation...Democrats
Who are McCain's economic advisors? Phil and Wendy Gramm, those who not only gave us the CURRENT crisis, but also Enron!
Who has been in control of both houses for 12 of the last 16 years?....republicans
Who created the gas crisis this year, and last year, and the year before all the way back to 2003??? republicans!
The iodea that "we will go out and look after and resurrect our place where the wild cowboys cant get at the monet has a n added notion-- part of the money isnt even going to arrive at Tombstone bank-- so how can Mary jane borrow the money for her wedding dress and little house when the money is less[er] --- Perhaps those banks Susan financed will help and will cvretwe more service jobs as well and more sheriffs to look just after them --oh dear
Ken Courtis of Goldman Sachs Asia and now Group eastern General has just had a discussion on Australias National ABC TV current affairs abc.net.au/lateline.
He has told the west that China has interests in Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac and implies that they must be protected. He says that power must shift re the control the financial sector away from the USA and to China and Asia.
This to me shows the survivor of this melee displaying observable features of this melee at an instant and that is that ideology is playing a part in the non theories and this is as observed by Isiah Berlin [Mr Courtis appears to be jewish. ] British Jews have not yet responded to Mr Courtis but the coincidental appointment of a Mossad girl to Prime Minister of Israel in the first news for a long time from that eastern region .
Morgans appears to be collapsing and so power has been shifted in line with what Mr Courtis has indicated is and has to happen as a matter of ideology [ Isiah Berlin warns against ideology]
Are you listening to the Presidents crisis speech as it occurs about sometime now
It has also been my observation that when the republicans are in power they give the government away to big business, corporate interests and the richest part of society. Then when the economy tanks the democrats are voted in to fix it. Usually the damage is to great to be fixed in 4 or even 8 years. However, the democrats will set programs in place to that will fix the problems.
Then in the next election cycle when the problems are still w/ us the republicans will blame the democrats for not keeping their promise and get elected. A year or 2 into their 1st term the democratic fixes will take effect and the republicans will take credit for them while they proceed to counteract the gains and the cycle will begin again.
If you follow then Schumpeter do u think in the present climate of the USA that democracy is the rule of the politician --
Do you see democracy threatened by the events at the moment and their timing near election in USA and possiblity of first African American President
--The chaos may show a sub prime or a magnus at instant in time-- but what theory created the following----The latest trouble spot is an area called credit-default swaps, which are private contracts that let firms trade bets on whether a borrower is going to default. When a default occurs, one party pays off the other. The value of the swaps rise and fall as the market reassesses the risk that a company won't be able to honor its obligations. Firms use these instruments both as insurance -- to hedge their exposures to risk -- and to wager on the health of other companies. There are now credit-default swaps on more than $62 trillion in debt, up from about $144 billion a decade ago.
One of the big new players in the swaps game was AIG, the world's largest insurer and a major seller of credit-default swaps to financial institutions and companies. When the credit markets were booming, many firms bought these instruments from AIG, believing the insurance giant's strong credit ratings and large balance sheet could provide a shield against bond and loan defaults. AIG believed the risk of default was low on many securities it insured.
As of June 30, an AIG unit had written credit-default swaps on more than $446 billion in credit assets, including mortgage---spooked investors, who reacted by dumping its shares, making it harder for AIG to raise the capital it increasingly needed.
There see-- thats the problem defined by the theory-- what theorem
What theorem in the melee-- the theorems they tried to hoist on world leading mathematician bertrand Russell who gave up and went to philosophy-- theorems they would not define as unknowns or non existent and nothing to do with anything--
People got to work, they make something and someone sells them something and they might buy a house and an insurance policy roughly proportional to the labour paid for --the thing they make makes profits and so--thats theirs and their community--they pay for a bureaucracy versus a parliament as well and hope things work out
Bloomberg i am told-- in 2006 published the fact that one ceo of Lehmans was given 38 billion. That according to Bloombergs the 650 billionwhich is -was-its assetts was exceeded previously in what can be said to be a few score days but in parrallel time, by the fact that the amount bonuses paid to Lehmans staff ceos [the elite] exceeded their total assets.
now if you take Bohrs theory and divide by two then on all exports put a negative sign so that preferred trade can occur then we can--- well their pretty good bonuses --now about infinitessimal space and protons colliding -- lehmans will be there tomorrow
Isiah Berlin points out that ideology is the opposed to politics and the idea of Liberal [of any colour] thought ie positive and negative liberty
This very good article might suggest that the allocation of resources has not occurred , plural democracy however diminished has been negated
The article might also suggest that there is a group, a tribe , us, we, and that the idea from the tribe has been negated [[ the "idea" as explained by Emile Durkheim. and its origins from the necessary tribe in anthropology as opposed to tribalism in but not negating - in political thought ]]
This administration and the Republican's view on how you keep America strong hasn't worked.
They think that if you give tax deductions to the top 5% and large corporations that they will create jobs for the average person who will spend their money putting it back into the system .Now that might sound good to some people but what has happened is a great deal of these large corporations that don't pay taxes or pay little compared to their profits have moved overseas or are outsourcing jobs to people in foreign countries and not giving those jobs to the average American's .Those that do get jobs are generally those in the corporate fields not the average Joe.With inflation high ,the cost of living high and the minimum wage low their wrong thinking has created the problem we now have with loss of jobs and foreclosures .
So nothing has been trickling down as they say it does .
What we really needed was to create jobs here in our country for the blue collar workers not just the white collar corporate workers .It is the poor working class and the middle class that support the economy and keep it strong and both have been ignored far too long !
We also need to do something about holding those lenders accountable .
McCain is so out of touch if he still thinks our economy is basicly sound .
Obama economic policy makes far more since than
Logically those who suffered that fate on a false premise of legislation and jurisprudence
Communist sytems have older leaders , more wisdom and intercede in matters economic in very quick ways. The political theorists say that a communist system must likewise fail because it lacks and does not allow the threat of invention and imagination-- this would threaten the elites. So we have as saul points out communist ceo,s of the USA and West using something unknown - a thing -- a behaviour perhaps- which can only described on its outcomes. If Chicago New Right -Communist or not-is joined in some strange line to these ceo.s and John Nash saw this it is unknown. What is known is that activity is based on unknown theorems which are not theorems but closer to happenings- perhaps like the fishermen offering their wives and 90 percent of their catch in order that the bigger tribe will not encroach on them
It's interesting that the "new" mortgage loans started when Reagan was Prez. It was called trickle down economics, supply-side economics, and Reaganomics. It had another name, too - "voodoo economics." Even Bush the First didn't like it.
Well, now we see the results of voodoo economics. As Dr Phil would say - how's that working out for you?
Democrats must call them on it every time.
Doesn't everyone know that Clinton and Democrats left Bush/Cheney Republicans and taxpayers a $281 Billion surplus? If I'm not mistaken, Republican McCain says he voted with Bush/Cheney 90% of the time.
With 8 years of Republicans, we owe $357 billion, and we're worried that other countries might call in their loans.
I think we'd better show the world that a new party is in town, and it's not a couple of pretend mavericks from the same Republican party.
Time for a change, all right.
And one more point. Had we kept Clinton's number going, even with the economic turndowns that we have experienced, the US govt would have been positive almost $500 billion this year alone. That means that bush has turned this year around by almost $1 TRILLION dollars!!!!
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2008/09/best-congress-fannie-could-buy.html
Now let's take a look at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. I noticed you failed to mention that both of those institutions are filled with Democrat supporters and other liberal-left suck-ups. For instance, take Franklin Raines, the former White House budget director under Clinton. Raines served as vice chairman and chairman/CEO of Fannie Mae for a total of ten years during the years between 1991 and 2004. I'm sure you're aware that he left Fannie Mae under a cloud of controversy dealing with fraud. Seems he chose to accept "early retirement" rather than face a lawsuit brought by the office of federal housing enterprise oversight to recover over $50 million in ill-gotten bonuses. BTW, Raines currently serves on Obama's economic advisory council...hmmmm.
1. De-Regulation
2. Cut Taxes for the wealthy
3. Big Military Spending
4. Bust up the Labor Unions
5. Cheap Labor
6. Cut Social programs
7. Money from the rich will Trickle down to the poor
Lets not forget the unforgettable "Just say no" programs of the 80's when crack cocaine devestated cities across America...and one of my all-time favorties...
"No Child Left Behind"
The financial / housing / mortgage bubble is just the beginning....
What happens when more jobs continue to be shipped over to China and GM-Ford or Chrysler goes under?????
What happens when cities start to go bankrupt because they can't raise bond money or make payroll????
What happens when we invade Iran and get the crap beat out of us, because the Army grunts are burnt out????
What happens when gas rises to $5.00 a gallon and stays at $5.00 a gallon???
Just asking...............