advertisement
RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Two Ways to Constrain the Casino Economy

by Elizabeth Palmberg 02-27-2009

Heads, Wall Street executives win; tails, the taxpayers lose. That’s the message of past months, which clearly show that investment banking and other big swaths of the U.S.’s “financialized economy” are, for all intents and purposes, insured by the U.S. government. I’m not against that insurance — the financial sector really is too big to fail without taking the rest of us down with it — but I don’t think it should be free. In particular, we should put some constraint on the casino economy in the following two areas:

Curb very-short-term speculation. The housing bubble (and, before that, the food bubble that plunged 100 million people into poverty, and the oil speculation fueling last year’s sky-high gas prices) shows that, when markets are focused on super-fast speculative trading and executives are rewarded just for this quarter’s stock performance, then long-term foresight — the kind of real investment that benefits everyone — goes out the window.

All those risky mortgages would never have been sold if they were going to be owned long-term by the bank that gave them, as in the past. These days, however, brokers sell mortgages to Wall Street, which slices and blends them into (not so secure) “securities” for gullible global investors. Their absentee cash fueled hugely irresponsible lending, causing housing prices to skyrocket — until the inevitable crash. And mortgages-via-Wall-Street are now creating a new kind of pain: a bank may find it in its best interest to renegotiate with a recession-stricken borrower rather than foreclose — but the company that administers a mortgage-backed security is afraid that, if it shows any leniency, it will get sued by some of its many investors.

(To try to deny the Wall Street problem, conservative pundits are brazenly trying to blame the poor for the mortgage meltdown by targeting the Community Reinvestment Act, which fights redlining by asking banks to make “safe and sound” efforts to actually lend some money in the communities where they are located. But this argument is a load of hooey, as Alan Greenspan told Congress when asked about the CRA: “… the real toxic mortgages occur with the huge increase in securitization and largely the demand from abroad.”)

What can we do to put the casino economy back in touch with reality? We still want markets in which people can buy and sell things — just not quite so extraordinarily fast. One simple step would be to put an extremely low tax of .25% or less on each stock, security, or commodities future purchase. This would have basically zero effect on long-haul investors, while discouraging day traders and hot-money speculators.

Look hard at new forms of “investments.” When any new kind of investment is invented — and Wall Street has come up with some doozies in recent years — the burden should be on the inventor to demonstrate why it shouldn’t be regulated.

Exhibit A is, of course, those mortgage-backed securities, which — with the help of credit ratings agencies riddled with conflicts of interest — were sold as much safer than they actually were. Many of the people on the ground who sold the mortgages knew better — one long-term broker felt “sick to [his] stomach” at the loans they were making and selling to Wall Street — but the market from the “giant pool of [global investment capital] money” was too good to pass up.

Exhibit B: One of the roots of the present financial crisis, “credit default swaps,” are basically a form of insurance for corporations — but they were not called insurance, because their makers wanted to evade the sensible regulations that are put on insurance (i.e., that the insurer have reasonable financial reserves).

Call them “exotic,” “sophisticated,” or whatever the adjective du jour is – just call them to account. There are several proposed bills before Congress that would put some brakes on irresponsible speculation.

In the case of food commodity futures, which have such a dire effect on the world’s poor, the good folks at the Maryknoll Office of Global Concerns have a sign-on letter to Congress, which you can read and get your organization to endorse here.

Elizabeth Palmberg is an assistant editor of Sojourners.

Categories: Economics
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • I think it's going to take a cultural change, already alluded to -- we need to wean ourselves away from trying to "hustle an easy buck instead of earning a good man's dollar" ("Son of a New York Gun" by Gino Vannelli). That said, I think American society has fooled itself into thinking that we can simply enlarge the economic pie so that we can all have more.
  • Lord_Voldemort
    Actually, the pie can be enlarged through innovation; that's why we have a society where the vast majority of people in this country have adequate food, clothing, and shelter, something that hasn't always been true throughout human history. What we've fooled ourselves into thinking is that government can enlarge the pie simply by fiat. It doesn't work that way.

    LV
  • That was beside the point because, in fact, people simply wanted more of the pie at the expense of everyone else and blamed the government when it wouldn't allow them to get it legally -- it essentially became a form of class warfare that favored the rich at the expense of the poor. Anyway, you have to get your resources from somewhere; a focus on the "casino economy" tried to sidestep that reality -- same as in the 1920s.
  • Eric77
    It's not besides the point; Lord V. was responding directly to a point you were trying to make.

    But your other point was a good one. We need a cultural change in this country. Too many people have an attitude of entitlement, whether it's the belief of someone that he should be able to get rich quick from trading a few securities or screwing a few people over or the belief of someone else that he deserves a bigger house or fancy vacation because he sees someone else enjoying those things.
  • You are right in saying that people have an attitude of entitlement; however, these days it's really the rich who drive it (and who else could?). That's why I question the relevance of such people complaining about government -- which, in essence, means the inability to do just whatever they wanted without answering to anyone.
  • PASTOR JEFF
    America's pie got bigger because of government confiscation and reappropriation of land with it's contingent resources, massive government investments in infrastructure, exploitation of immigrant labor, government protection of intellectual property through the patent and copyright offices and, more recently, tax codes which incentivized certain behaviors and corporate welfare in the form of tax breaks and subsidies to the "working poor".
  • Lord_Voldemort
    Elizabeth,

    Nobody that I'm aware of blames the poor for the Community Reinvestment Act. We conservatives blame Congress, whose members are quite well-off, for passing the law.

    Just thought I'd clarify that. Unless you have a specific example to point to, please do not repeat this canard.

    LV
  • letjusticerolldown
    Democrats act on behalf of ACORN trying to put the screws on banks to make loans to poor households so that the poor vote and keep the Dems in power. These equations get made everyday all over the place. And the critique is not disconnected from poor persons, who in the storyline, are treated as disempowered dependents of the State intent on begging instead of productive labor.

    Around 1990 I was part of an "ACORN style" group. HUD was looking at a big stock of aging and dysfunctional urban housing projects. Banks had lousy track records of pulling cash out of poor communities and putting none back in. Feds were interested in new ways to deal with public housing and with getting persons into home ownership. We targeted a smaller regional bank to implement new packages of loans and commuity-based counseling to get persons into homes. They relented and worked out a program that served the needs of all. This helped them meet CRA and pressured the largest banks to follow suit.

    But these waves were followed by the predators.

    It would be wonderful to have an honest and open exploration of the CRA. It's successes and failures. Including how a good policy can set in motion a predatory cycle.

    There is real economic opportunity in poor communities. The problem is not a lack of cash. There is real opportunity for poor persons and real opportunity for existing entrepreneurs. There is opportunity for just businesses and for vultures. The absence of Government controls and the intervention by government with controls and resources all create different opportunities for different predators.

    The existence of predators and what they do is not an inherent critique of any intervention or non-intervention. Any course of action or non-action by government must take into account unintended consequences and how the enemies of a just society will attempt to exploit the situation.

    When government acts directly as the predator--that is a different story. When the Fannies were snatching up all the subprimes from the predators we had government in lock-step with the predators. I suspect the same is true with the relationship of the New York Fed to Wall Street.
  • Eric77
    I don't think most of these people are reading what you actually wrote. It's as if their brains on are autopilot. It's like they can't read the phrase "the poor".
  • Nobody that I'm aware of blames the poor for the Community Reinvestment Act.

    In fact, I also have heard just that -- just wish I could remember from whom.
  • Lord_Voldemort
    Well if you ever do remember be sure and let us know.

    LV
  • duhsciple
    rush limbaugh on the radio
  • jeffp
    what quote, made when
  • duhsciple
    primary and secondary sources for Rush's criticism of the Community Reinvestment Act... for what it's worth, i think it is unwise to make loans to people who cannot afford them... don't know what the answer is in terms of empowering them to afford such loans

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_092...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpJP9e_FuEs

    http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2008/10/12/...

    http://www.propeller.com/story/2008/09/29/racis...
  • letjusticerolldown
    Mortgage industry is predicated on idea that virtually all persons cannot afford their home. The basic 30-yr-mortgage is essentially an "interest-only" product.

    Essentially, the housing stock is owned by banks, etc; through which they lay claim to 25%-40% of all our income. By agressive lending, they can manufacture an increase in housing values, making the borrowers think they are actually building some equity before they sell and take on another 30-year mortgage. They don't want you to afford the house--just enough to pay them enough so they can make a profit on their money.
  • duhsciple
    thanks for the insights
  • jeffp
    You're confused. The question isn't Rush has criticized CRA. The question is whether he has blamed poor people for the CRA.
  • duhsciple
    Confused? Me? Confused? Wouldn't be the first time.
  • Eric77
    Please, go back and read what Lord V. was saying. He didn't say "no one is criticizing the CRA".
  • duhsciple
    Okay
  • BuckeyeDon
    Whether anyone is actually saying it directly or out loud is perhaps open to debate. But editorial writers are commenting on it, so the idea must be circulating and had to come from somewhere.

    Here are a few links:
    Newsweek

    Boston Globe

    Washington Post

    Slate
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertisement
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement
advertisement


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008