experts push to nationalize u.s. banks

There was an interesting article in the Sunday edition of the Detroit Free Press regarding the idea of temporarily nationalizing U.S. banks. It seems that even the champion of free market capitalism, Alan Greenspan, thinks that it may be necessary. This should be one hell of a wake-up call to everyone who thinks that the financial market will be able to fix itself this time:

WASHINGTON — Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan thinks it's necessary. His successor, Ben Bernanke, doesn't rule it out. From editorial pages to the blogosphere to boardrooms, this is the question on many minds: Should the United States nationalize some banks?

A few months ago, it would have been heretical to suggest that Bank of America could become Bank Owned by America.

Now, however, the U.S. economy is sinking faster than anyone thought possible, and respected economic authorities are suggesting that temporary bank nationalization could be the best solution.

Views of Greenspan, Bernanke

"It may be necessary to temporarily nationalize some banks in order to facilitate a swift and orderly restructuring," Greenspan, the long-revered sage of free-market theory, told London's Financial Times in an interview published Wednesday. "I understand that once in a hundred years this is what you do."

When Bernanke was asked whether he shared his predecessor's views, he didn't distance himself from them during a question session Wednesday at the National Press Club. He answered as if nationalization were inevitable -- after first listing some of the problems it would entail.

"Well, I think as a general rule, it's very challenging for governments to manage banks for a protracted period. And there's the additional problem that if you have a government-run institution, that you tend to lose the franchise value," Bernanke said.

"So I think whatever actions may need to be taken at one point or another, I think there's a very strong commitment on the part of the administration to try to return banks or keep banks private or return them to private hands as quickly as possible."

The term "nationalization" conjures images of the communist Soviet Union or corrupt Latin American dictatorships, but advocates of nationalizing U.S. banks envision a seizure of big banks on the grounds that they already are insolvent except for some accounting sleight of hand.

Banks are sitting on trillions of dollars worth of complex securities, backed by U.S. mortgages that are going into default as more homes are now worth less than the mortgages on them.

If banks were forced to put present-day values on these securities instead of hold-to-maturity values, their liabilities would far exceed their assets. They would be insolvent.

Seizure, surgery, sale

What's needed, nationalization advocates argue, is for the government to seize Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and other large banks, carve out their bad assets, then break them into smaller pieces for quick sale to the private sector.

"Nationalization is the only option that would permit us to solve the problem of toxic assets in an orderly fashion and finally allow lending to resume," Nouriel Roubini, a prominent New York University economist, wrote in an opinion piece Feb. 15 in the Washington Post. "Of course, the economy would still stink, but the death spiral we are in would end."

Other analysts think that nationalization is all but inevitable.

"It's very hard when you get to this point not to do that," said Adam Posen, the deputy director of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a free-market research center.

Posen said he thinks that nationalization is losing its stigma, and he envisions scenarios in which the government could seize the nation's 50 largest banks.

It's inescapable, some say

Most depositors would be safe, since their deposits are insured up to $250,000. Stockholders probably would be wiped out, and bondholders eventually would get shares of any new company.

The government could even make money on some seizures, if history is any guide.

Roubini and Posen said they think that a bold, drastic step is inescapable, and that a failure to take it now would only make it costlier and more difficult later.

Today's problem is the $1.2 trillion in assets whose underlying collateral is shoddy subprime mortgages, which have eroded faith in the broader U.S. housing market. For now, the Obama administration is mum on nationalization.

the fairness doctrine

Lately, I have been hearing a lot of discussion on liberal talk shows about the Fairness Doctrine and the Equal-time rule. I think that if the Democrats in Congress choose to try and re-institute either of these things, it will end up hurting their own cause. For one thing, no matter how good their intentions may be, it is a stupid idea.

Personally, I am not entirely happy with how our public airwaves are managed by the FCC, but if radio stations want to broadcast conservative talk shows because that is what brings in the listeners and advertising dollars, then forcing them to broadcast liberal talk shows will potentially cost those stations listeners and advertising dollars. This would obviously hurt those stations. In addition, pushing the Fairness Doctrine will backfire because Republicans will frame this as an attack on free speech. Even more so with the Equal-time rule. Public opinion generally sides with those who are perceived as defending free speech.

That being said, I can certainly understand how some people see this as a good idea in that these are supposed to be public airwaves and having the majority of corporate radio stations flooding the airwaves with only one political viewpoint regarding controversial issues is problematic for those who want their own opposing viewpoints to be heard.

Because liberal talk shows are not as profitable for radio stations in predominately conservative markets, their views are simply not heard, or even censored by conservative-leaning station owners. In theory, it sounds good to propose that a broadcaster's coverage of controversial issues should be balanced and fair. Even so, I still do not think it is a good idea for a variety of other reasons.

One of the main reasons is that I want more than just conservative and liberal (i.e. Democratic and Republican) views to be expressed on our public airwaves regardless if they have the most money, or a wider audience, etc. I do not think that any one party or political ideology should dominate the public airwaves, but that can only be remedied by actually opening the public airwaves to the public. Barring that, profitability is the main factor in determining what programming will be available on stations in any given market.

In general, stations play whatever they think will bring in the highest ratings, which in turn will bring in the most advertising dollars. Forcing stations to give equal time to both will just cause friction, potentially reduce ratings and advertising dollars and eventually turn public opinion against whomever is responsible.

The way I see it, the most pragmatic solution for liberals who are concerned about gaining more airtime is to improve their shows and get better hosts. The better the shows and hosts, the more listeners will tune in to those shows. The more popular these shows and hosts become, the more stations will pick them up. I also think that there should be more impartial public service broadcasting-type stations and/or programming made available because no matter how popular these shows and hosts become, many stations in traditionally conservative markets will still not pick them up because their listeners are not interested in them, or their conservative station owners are biased against them, etc. The same holds true for traditionally liberal markets and station owners as well.

Nevertheless, I do think that the way the FCC regulates our public airwaves needs to be reviewed, especially in regard to media consolidation. As it stands, it is getting easier for a single company to dominate local media markets. In 2007, for example, the FCC voted to "relax its existing ban on newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership" (FCC's Review of the Broadcast Ownership Rules).

Instead of auctioning off our public airwaves, I would really like to see the airwaves, or at least a spectrum of them, open to the community, to see an explosion of local and community radio stations giving voice to the citizens and not just powerful corporate entities and and political parties. That is my idea of fair.

happy presidents day

tax wall street

I submitted a copy of my last post, "tax the speculators," to the editorial board at the Oregonian, and an edited version is going to be published in Wednesday's edition. Even though it has been edited quite a bit, I am happy that more people will be exposed to the idea.

Here is the original:

I am certainly no expert when it comes to our tax system, but I agree with Ralph Nader 100% that we should tax the speculators on Wall Street. Considering that we as a nation are faced with a gigantic deficit, a deepening recession and tax cuts that will further limit revenue on both the state and federal level, I think that Congress should seriously consider instituting what University of Massachusetts economist, Robert Pollin, describes as a “small tax on all financial-market transactions, comparable to a sales tax.”

Not only have Wall Street speculators done their fair share to get us in this mess, but a transaction tax would go a long way toward helping Wall Street pay for its own bailout. It seems more than fair to institute a tax of 0.25% on a stock trade or 0.02% on the purchase of credit default swap when most people in the United States have to pay anywhere from 5% to 8% sales tax on whatever they buy.

I am surprised that there has not been more discussion on this issue seeing as how this modest tax proposal would not only generate more revenue and discourage rampant speculation, but according to economist Dean Baker, a modest financial transactions tax would “easily raise an amount equal to 1% of GDP” and potentially “finance a 10% across-the-board reduction in the income tax.”

That is why I am urging everyone to lobby their member of Congress to support this proposed tax policy. I know that the subject of new taxes is not a popular topic of conversation these days, but in drastic economic times such as this, something has to be done to help raise more revenue, curb speculation and, more important, stabilize the market. And I am convinced that this is a step in the right direction. It is time that someone besides the American tax-payer is asked to help shoulder this burden.

And here is the edited version:

Considering that the nation is faced with a gigantic deficit, a deepening recession and tax cuts that will further limit revenue on both the state and federal level, Congress should seriously consider instituting what University of Massachusetts economist, Robert Pollin, describes as a "small tax on all financial-market transactions, comparable to a sales tax."

Not only have Wall Street speculators done their fair share to get us in this mess, but a transaction tax would go a long way toward helping Wall Street pay for its own bailout. A tax of 0.25 percent on a stock trade or 0.02 percent on the purchase of credit default swap is fair when most people in the United States have to pay a sales tax of 5 percent to 8 percent.

This would not only generate more revenue and discourage rampant speculation, but according to economist Dean Baker, a modest financial transactions tax would "easily raise an amount equal to 1 percent of GDP" and potentially "finance a 10 percent across-the-board reduction in the income tax."

It is time that someone besides the American taxpayer is asked to help shoulder this burden.

This is the first submissions of mine to be printed, and to be honest, it feels kind of good to have something I wrote in my local paper. I think that whenever we feel we have a good idea, or just something to say, we should try to put our thoughts out there for people to see.

tax the speculators

I am certainly no expert when it comes to our tax system, but I agree with Ralph Nader 100% that we should tax the speculators on Wall Street. Considering that we as a nation are faced with a gigantic deficit, a deepening recession and tax cuts that will further limit revenue on both the state and federal level, I think that Congress should seriously consider instituting what University of Massachusetts economist, Robert Pollin, describes as a "small tax on all financial-market transactions, comparable to a sales tax."

Not only have Wall Street speculators done their fair share to get us in this mess, but a transaction tax would go a long way toward helping Wall Street pay for its own bailout. It seems more than fair to institute a suggested tax of 0.25% on a stock trade or 0.02% on the purchase of credit default swap when most people in the United States have to pay anywhere from 5% to 8% sales tax on whatever they buy.

I am surprised that there has not been more discussion on this issue seeing as how this modest tax proposal would not only generate more revenue and discourage rampant speculation, but according to economist Dean Baker, a modest financial transactions tax would "easily raise an amount equal to 1% of GDP" and potentially "finance a 10% across-the-board reduction in the income tax." Wouldn't that be nice?

That is why I urge everyone who feels the same to lobby their member of Congress to support this proposed tax policy. I know that the subject of new taxes is not a popular topic of conversation these days, but in drastic economic times such as this, something has to be done to help raise more revenue, curb speculation and, more important, stabilize the market. And I am convinced that this is a step in the right direction. I think it is time that someone besides the American tax-payer is asked to help shoulder this burden.

a new model

As an interesting side note that happens to parallel current events, I have started reading Karl Kautsky's The Class Struggle, which was given to me as a Christmas present. So far I have found some of Kautsky's concerns regarding the drawbacks and weak points of the capitalist system amazingly prescient, especially in regard to commerce and credit, although the fact that he was decidedly biased against it seems to have blinded him to the potential ability of future generations to solve some of these problems. Nevertheless, I have found many his arguments against the capitalist method of production to be rather strong, even eye-opening.

The beginning of chapter three, for example, provides a simple yet excellent overview of the main causes contributing to the current world-wide economic crisis. In regard to credit, he notes that, "Credit is ... much more sensitive than commerce to any disturbance. Every shock it receives is felt throughout the economic organization" (47). Besides making a strong argument for why this type of system makes it increasingly more difficult for small production (e.g., small farmers, small business owners, etc.) to succeed, he stresses that this credit based system ultimately renders modern industry "more and more complicated and liable to disturbance, to carry the feeling of uncertainty into the ranks of the capitalists themselves and to make the ground upon which they move ever more uncertain" (48).

But the type of careful direction that is needed to insure the uninterrupted operation of this modern system of production is hindered by the very institution of private property on which it is founded. As Kautsky summarizes: "While the several industries become, in point of fact, more and more dependent upon one another, in point of law, they remain wholly independent. The means of production in every single industry are private property; their owner can do with them as he pleases" (50-1).

It has become increasingly apparent to me that to be able to effectively manage a world-wide, credit based economy, a certain amount of outside interference is unavoidable. In the United States, however, this leaves us with quite a dilemma. On the one hand, "socialism" is often distrusted and seen as an enemy of capitalism and democracy. The word itself usually invokes authoritarian and oppressive examples of institutionalized socialism such as the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Socialist Unity Party of Germany, etc. But as we have seen, without a certain amount of intervention, whether in the form of stricter regulations and oversight or outright nationalization, the system is extremely vulnerable to abuse, disruption, etc.

Every day I am becoming more and more convinced that the United States must adopt an economic model similar to those that have taken shape in Europe — with a mixture of capitalist and socialist aspects — out of sheer pragmatism. I truly believe that we have to do something drastic about this growing economic crisis or else our economy may very well crash even harder than it did in the 1930s. And even though I realize this is not a perfect system either, I not only think that it will be more flexible and pragmatic when faced with such economic difficulties, but I think this is where we are already headed. I am just afraid that we will make it unnecessarily complicated in order to disguise this fact from ourselves, thereby making it less efficient and, ultimately, ineffective.

the current economic crisis part 2

While reading a recent discussion regarding the new $800 billion stimulus package that is currently being debated by Congress, I saw a couple of comments suggesting that this plan will not only fail to inspire confidence and compound the real problems due its insincerity, but that it is a "Frankenstein" bill cobbled together from a variety of different ideas and ideologies that should be broken down and presented individually. And, in my opinion, I think that there is at least some truth to both of these statements.

To take the more obvious observation first, the bill is a monstrosity of allocations and I think that the bill should be streamlined, or at the very least, broken up into separate bills. In the present bill, for example, there is an allocation of $25 million for ATV trails. There is also $650 million set aside to continue the coupon program for the transition to digital television. Now, compared to the $800 billion total, $675 million does not seem all that much, but honestly, how will this stimulate the economy in any meaningful way? There are things in this bill that I think are helpful, such as money meant to be spent on ready-to-go infrastructure projects and unemployment benefits, but I think this $675 million is a waste of money and I am sure that there are more allocations such as these hidden throughout the bill.

As for the idea that this plan is not entirely sincere in its aim to stimulate the economy, I partially agree. I think that the people writing this bill hope it will, but I do not think that they are all that confident about what they are doing. As with the last bill, there is no guarantee that the money will be spent the way they want it to be unless there is more government interference. Look at what happened with the last $700 billion bailout.

The government funnelled massive amounts of tax-payer money to the major banks while slashing interest rates in the hope that this would stimulate more lending. But what really happened? The banks (e.g., Bank of America, Citigroup, etc.), full of bad assets and basically insolvent, hoarded the money instead. My guess is that the same will happen with any new influx of capital unless the government takes a more hands on approach by either temporarily nationalizing the banks, finding out how bad their bad assets really are and begin lending again, or by including specific guidelines on how the money should be spent by banks who solicit government help and assigning government accountants to these institutions to make sure that the money is used accordingly.

One of the main problems with this situation, however, is that the government is loathe to do anything that looks "socialist" because this is still a bad word in America. I find it funny, though, that the free marketeers of the the previous administration who advocated a market with little regulation or oversight were happy with the status quo when the market was strong and the economy stable, but as soon as the massive amount of corruption and mismanagement eroded the free market into a cesspit of credit-based consumerism that no longer had the ability to live beyond its means, those same free marketeers demanded swift and decisive action from the government in the form of using tax-payer money to shore up the weakened economy by buying bad assets from failing companies, guarantying bad debts acquired by failing companies, helping failing companies merge, etc. etc. The problem is that they simply gave the money to these companies with little to no strings attached.

The previous bailout plan, as well as the unprecedented authority given to the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, was one step closer to nationalizing certain sectors without actually nationalizing them. In my opinion, this was a slight of hand that simply added an extra layer of bureaucracy to the process of stabilizing the economy, which ultimately left the tax-payer even more unprotected. The reason is that without directly nationalizing these industries or at least including specific guidelines on how the money should be spent, and leaving them in the hands of the very same corrupt, greedy or just incompetent CEOs that have time and again proven to be unreliable, much of our money has be squandered (e.g., After Bailout, AIG Execs Head to California Resort) or simply hoarded (Some Banks Hoarding Bailout Money). I am not a big fan of nationalizing certain sectors and leaving the rest to sink or swim in the shark infested ocean that is the free market, but if that is the direction we are heading in, why not do it right? Why just give these companies another huge infusion of cash when we have no control over how they spend it, no means of tracking how they spend it, etc.?

I am somewhat hopeful in that I have heard Congressman Barney Frank say that the money will be tracked this time around, but I have not heard anything about how they plan to make sure that all of this money will be used appropriately, whether by the states, or the private financial institutions, etc. As for the entire financial sector, well, it is an absolute mess that needs to be cleaned up. For starters, I think that the Glass-Steagall Act should be reinstated. It was a good idea then, and it is an even better idea now. I also think that this supposed "shadow economy" created by hedge funds and investment banks needs to be investigated by federal regulators (that is, of course, assuming that there are any true regulators left seeing as how all of this managed to slip past most of them over the past decade).

And this is only one part of the problem! I wish I had the time to get into the credit card industry and the high rates of interest they charge (I think we should consider new usury laws targeting credit card companies, "national" banks, etc.), not to mention our manufacturing and trade difficulties. But the main point is that if nothing is done to fix the present system and provide protections from further abuse and mismanagement, we are definitely going to compound the real problems for a much, much worse future. I just hope Congress gets their collective heads out of their asses long enough to figure this out.