Understanding the Current Crisis: "What Will Do the Most to Increase the Concentration of Power?"
Economist Arnold Kling digs Matt Taibbi's groovy extended narrative about the causes and fallout of the economic crisis in a recent Rolling Stone. (I directed interested Hit and Run readers to it in this post from last week.) Kling's summation of the lesson:
I think that Taibbi's basic "power play" narrative is correct. His view that the government money going to AIG is more of a bailout of Goldman Sachs than of AIG strikes me as on target. However, his implication that it is a one-way takeover of Washington by Wall Street is incorrect, in my view. I think that all along we have had a Washington/Wall Street industrial complex, particularly with regard to housing finance.
For quite a while, but especially over the last nine months, the best way to predict developments in politics and finance has been to ask: what will do the most to increase the concentration of power? Every headline, from the Geithner regulatory plan to the proposed cap on the charitable deduction, to the resignation of the General Motors CEO, should be viewed in that light.
Reason's 2007 interview with Taibbi.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
First?
And the winner of the Kindle2 is . . .
You were that time. Slashdot too busy for you today?
So do you suffer from Borderline Personality Disorder or what?
*,
Are you truly unaware that anybody can post with any handle here and several (at least 2 anyway) people are posting as this one?
We are all TofuSushi now.
"Are you truly unaware that anybody can post with any handle here and several (at least 2 anyway) people are posting as this one?"
Sure. Whatever.
Anyway, the quoted question "what will do the most to increase the concentration of power?" is the right one to ask.
As someone on another blog wrote "Obama is in Europe. Now's our chance to take back the country.
I think that all along we have had a Washington/Wall Street industrial complex, particularly with regard to housing finance.
One need not be particularly athletic to leap to this conclusion.
I am not disparaging Mister Kling; I think he is absolutely correct.
And the "bailing out Goldman (or whomever)" theory is also one I agree with; I have been saying, for quite some time, that government "assistance" for homeowners is exactly the same as your dad handing you a dollar to give to the guy in the ice cream truck. Everybody knows where that dollar is really going to end up.
"NolongerTofuSushi"
I beg to differ.
I AM TOFUSUSHI!!!!!!
Al Haig sez different.
I am TofuSushi.
Matt Taibbi's groovy extended narrative about the causes and fallout of the economic crisis
I read the whole thing yesterday and was much impressed, informed and entertained to boot. Would somebody please publish Joe Cassano's London address, so informed protesters, suitably armed, can instead destroy the property of one of the prime perpetrators of the financial meltdown? Bonus points for beheading Cassano himself.
Thank you.
Oops- got a little ahead of m'self.
Now's our chance to take back the country.
Al Haig sez different.
-that's how it was s'posed to be-
And what about the power financial ponzi schemers had over our 401(k)s?
Everybody knows where that dollar is really going to end up.
A g-string somewhere?
Taibbi gives the repeal of Glass-Steagall a major role in the meltdown.
Can anybody explain what changed when Glass-Steagall was repealed, and how this was related to the general crisis?
You know what would stop the consolidation? Legalizing pot. There are many benefits it would bring. Including more money. Also, it would be good in other ways.
Meanwhile, instead of just being a WitlessWitness ToHistory, perhaps Reason could consider actually doing something for once. I really have to wonder, are Beltway cocktail party invites so important that Reason can't ruffle a few feathers? Does their charter prevent them actually doing something and they're only allowed to whine?
Hmmm, I was musing about something similar just last night regarding CO2 controls.
A side note - If my profanity and cynical insulting dismissals of opposing viewpoints increases for a while, blame it on the SCHIP bill. The more astute here will make the connection.
Shut the fuck up, Chris Kelly.
Shut the fuckup Lonewacko, you retarded pain in the ass.
Really, crawl back into your xenophobic shithole you laughingly call a website and fucking die.
The more astute here will make the connection.
Can we call you "patches"?
"Can anybody explain what changed when Glass-Steagall was repealed, and how this was related to the general crisis?"
Glass-Steagall stopped retail banks from owning investment banks and offering those services.
So, for instance, before Glass-Steagall, your neighborhood bank couldn't sell you a mutual fund, they'd sometimes rent out space inside their branch to a company that could, but even that was iffy at first.
Once retail banks could own investment banks and visa versa, there was a merger wave. Some of these institutions got so big and complicated that they couldn't be regulated the same they had been.
Think of JP Morgan Chase as one example.
So it used to be that regulators had reserve and risk exposure guidelines that had to be held to, but if the investment bank is making big bets in credit default swaps on the investment side, well then the rules that were designed to limit the retail side's exposure to risk really don't apply anymore.
Anyway, the argument is that once the industry consolidated, it couldn't be regulated like it was, and that the consolidation made for some behemoth companies like Citigroup that were just too big to fail...
In my personal opinion, the "too big to fail" idea is based on bad reasoning. I remain unconvinced that bailouts were necessary--the bailouts weren't inevitable. ...our politicians decided to bail them out, but they didn't have to.
But back to the subject, that's what the argument boils down to. Repealing Glass-Steagall led to industry consolidation which made companies too big to regulate effectively and too big to fail. So, as some are saying now, we need to reintroduce something like Glass-Steagall again, and break the behemoths up into retail and investment banking operations again.
Actually, the British are talking about introducing something like Glass-Steagall even now. Talking about how the "Big Bang" was a mistake in that one way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_(financial_markets)
I love everything about Lonewacko. I love how he always makes the same post, and I really love how he always gets the same response.
Shut the fuck up, Lonewacko.
Right on, Warty. In this crazy world, it's comforting to have a thing that is constant, that you can always count on, like the turning of the tides.
Shut the fuck up, LoneWacko, indeed.
It's really soothing.
Shut the fuck up, Lonewacko.
"I love everything about Lonewacko."
I WOULD LOVE TO EAT HIS LIVER!
Warty,
What I love is his complete and utter irrelevance. And the fact that Reason is so tolerant that they let a mental patient post the same thing over and over and over and over again.
Shut the fuck up, Lonewacko.
Thanks, Ken. I notice that Drudge has a "Two banks seized in Mississipi"-type headline up every now and then, but have retail bank failures (which I think is what GS was designed to address) really been such a big deal? Indymac got a lot of headlines, but didn't all those angry people in lines end up getting their FDIC insurance?
"What I love is his complete and utter irrelevance. And the fact that Reason is so tolerant that they let a mental patient post the same thing over and over and over and over again."
I miss a lot of things about Cavanaugh. One of 'em is the way he used to police the place. Nobody strikes that balance as well as he did, and I'm speaking as someone who sometimes got ticketed.
"What I love is his complete and utter irrelevance. And the fact that Reason is so tolerant that they let a mental patient post the same thing over and over and over and over again."
They have too. As long as they afford TutuSissi the same opportunity, they really have no choice. Reason is fair like that.
didn't all those angry people in lines end up getting their FDIC insurance?
Yes.
The people comparing our current "crisis" to the Depression neglect to mention that the FDIC will prevent the monumental destruction of the money supply caused by (uninsured) bank failures in the '30s.
I think we should have provided money as needed to the FDIC, and *not* gone down the TARP road. But, what do I know?
Some guy named Friedman used to talk about the role of liquidity in the Depression. I wonder what ever came of that.
"For quite a while, but especially over the last nine months, the best way to predict developments in politics and finance has been to ask: what will do the most to increase the concentration of power? Every headline, from the Geithner regulatory plan to the proposed cap on the charitable deduction, to the resignation of the General Motors CEO, should be viewed in that light."
Furthermore, every time I click on the "Reason" website, black helicopters start circling my condo.
Thanks.
I haven't had a crisis to worry about in a few days now. With all due respect you should have your stapler privileges taken for using the word crisis for anything short of an asteroid about to hit earth. The word has gotten so much air time I convulse when I hear and see it now.
/rant off
"Thanks, Ken. I notice that Drudge has a "Two banks seized in Mississipi"-type headline up every now and then, but have retail bank failures (which I think is what GS was designed to address) really been such a big deal? Indymac got a lot of headlines, but didn't all those angry people in lines end up getting their FDIC insurance?"
Yes. I think you're right about that. I didn't think much of what the FDIC did to Washington Mutual's shareholders, but I fully supported using FDIC for insuring deposits, so long as it was already there.
But, yes, so long as the deposits are insured, why should we care about the shareholders? ...with Washington Mutual being a prime example. Washington Mutual's shareholders lost, essentially, everything, but Washington Mutual's depositors hardly noticed, I'm sure.
I think it's the assumed inevitability of the bailouts that's the biggest part of the argument to bring back Glass-Steagall though. That and the supposed impossibility of regulating a retail bank like it's a retail bank when its investment arm is taking on risks like it's an investment bank.
I'd point out too that... What prompted the fear in regulators hearts and on Wall Street? It was the Lehman failure. But even when an investment bank like that failed, sure it was scary as hell there for a few days, but if the banks we're bailing out all ended up the same way Lehman did by way of liquidation? I think our economy would be a whole lot better off for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehman_Brothers#Liquidation_via_bankruptcy_court
For goodness' sake! Barclays assumed $45.5 billion in Lehman's trading liabilities!
That obviously wasn't taxpayer money. It didn't add to the national debt. Doesn't add any inflationary pressure. Like I said, if bailouts are inevitable because bankruptcy and liquidation is so awful, then why is it that the Lehman liquidation went so well? ...compared to the bailouts?
The Lehman liquidation was more or less over in a matter of weeks too, but we won't see the end of the bailouts for a long time.
I continue to wonder why banks in other countries do not separate investment and commercial banking activities with no problem.
It might be because the separation of the two isn't the problem. The problem is much larger and much more pervasive. It's the culture of the US banking community. Screaming the problem was Graham Leech Bliley is nothing short of an complete misunderstanding of the problem.
Bailouts have their own cascading effects, as we've seen.
I am unconvinced that the global contagion of letting the banks fail would be worse than the lingering malaise of zombie banking and stimulus shooting.
Unfortunately, once you start shooting smack, it's hard to stop. What we really need is an economic rehab clinic.
I believe this sentence:
Screaming the problem was Graham Leech Bliley is nothing short of an complete misunderstanding of the problem.
fails the Turing Test.
Warty, Sugar Free and Ken Shultz-
The more the merrier!
Furthermore, every time I click on the "Reason" website, black helicopters start circling my condo.
You're right Alan. Thinking that the government would cynically use a crisis to increase power and never give it back is paranoia.
Now that Dems are in charge, when do you think the Patriot Act will be reprealed?
Long Live Lefiti!
A Toast to Tofusushi!
Let's give it up for Lonewacko!
Let them speak. Once in a while, they actually have something interesting to offer. Example: Second sentence in the second paragraph of OLS's 4:23 post.
IMO, some of you guys forget that Free Minds and Free Markets do not admit of exceptions for trolls, be they tedious, tendentious, trifling or otherwise.
Shut the fuck up, Lonewacko.
In keeping with the spirit of this cliche:
Earth to "Shut the fuck up, Lonewacko" dweebs: Get some new material. Thanks.
I agree with Alan. You people don't realize how bad this would have gotten if we had let Goldman Sachs fail. Without loans there would be no houses OR food in this country.
Nobody told me applications for new spoof troll had been opened.
"I believe this sentence:
Screaming the problem was Graham Leech Bliley is nothing short of an complete misunderstanding of the problem.
fails the Turing Test."
Really?
Feel free to support the argument. You should start with the standard regulations dealing with the separation of investment and commercial banking activities in other countries. Then move to the more general regulations dealing with risk in foreign banks, namely capital adequacy ratios. Be sure to pay attention to the regulation and actual capital adequacy rates held by banks. This will give you at the least an anecdotal argument for culture and/or better regulators. There are also banks in the US that will "prove" my statement, but foreign banks have never really separated the two activities and that provides a longer period of time for something similar to the current financial situation to occur.
Or you can leave your argument as it stands and provide more evidence of my point.
P.S.
Turing, despite its significant flaws, is a measure of artificial or machine intelligence, not human intelligence. Dumb Ass.
"but didn't all those angry people in lines end up getting their FDIC insurance?"
Not in Libertopia baby!
WTF is this with libertarians saying "hey no biggie if those banks fail, FDIC."
I mean FDIC would not exist in Libertopia.
It's like the libertarians who say "hey, we don't need single payer, poor people get taken care of by Medicaid."
Turing, despite its significant flaws, is a measure of artificial or machine intelligence, not human intelligence. Dumb Ass.
But how does it measure the intelligence of "shut the fuck up" traditionalists, or for that matter, bank (non)regulators? I often think they're nonbiological entities, if for no other reason than the sheer bloody-minded persistence.
Oddly enough I said compare the regulations between US banks and foreign banks (or a few US banks) and NOT compare the regulations of US banks to unregulated foreign banks.
I know such fine points are often missed by those with knee jerk tendencies, but please try to pay attention. I only have so many "Dumb asses" I allow my self to use throughout a single day due to an attempt to improve my tact. Dumb ass.
mng, that's like saying "well, in leftytopia the investment banks wouldn't have existed in the first place, why do they bother to have an opinion?"
like, durrr.
I like it very much, thank you
custom jerseys
cheap custom jerseys