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)

  • "Two Ways to Constrain the Casino Economy"
    who ever are doing these ways, two things they will fall- succeeded or failed
  • JabbaJaw
    The actual type of economy won't be sustainable for a long time. We live in a capitalistic world where people need to produce, but people are raising in number until the jobs industry won't be able to cover all of them. This is very serious business.
    ___________________________________
    Online Casino Reviews
  • ratish
    Online roulette casinos|Casino online win Onlinggamingpro, is the most popular online gaming portal offering exciting features , bonuses and reviews for online gambling, roulette casinos, poker, bingo and many more.
  • ratish
    Online roulette casinos|Casino online win Onlinggamingpro, is the most popular online gaming portal offering exciting features , bonuses and reviews for online gambling, roulette casinos, poker, bingo and many more.
  • ratish
    Online roulette casinos|Casino online win Onlinggamingpro, is the most popular online gaming portal offering exciting features , bonuses and reviews for online gambling, roulette casinos, poker, bingo and many more.
  • ratish
    Casino slots online|Online gambling reviews
    Onlinggamingpro, is the most popular online gaming portal offering exciting features , bonuses and reviews for online gambling, roulette casinos, poker, bingo and many more.
  • John Parker
    should put some constraint on the casino economy in the following two areas Online Casino
  • John Parker
  • OnlineCasino
    Just as long as Obama doesn't enforce Communist ways on our Democracy I'll survive. We've gone through many recessions in the past and you know what; We rocked them all! I think Obama will do great in getting us back on track. And one way he'll do it is by lift the UIGEA!
  • jonabark
    According to the FDIC and the Federal Reserve there is no empirical evidence that the CRA contributed to the 2008 financial crash. Also San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank Governor Randall Kroszner has stated that no empirical evidence had been presented to support the claim that "the law pushed banking institutions to undertake high-risk mortgage lending". In a Bank for International Settlements ("BIS") working paper, economist Luci Ellis concluded that "there is no evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act was responsible for encouraging the subprime lending boom and subsequent housing bust," relying partly on evidence that the housing bust has been a largely exurban event. Others have also concluded that the CRA did not contribute to the current financial crisis, for example, FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair, Comptroller of the Currency John C. Dugan, Tim Westrich of the Center for American Progress, Robert Gordon of the American Prospect, Daniel Gross of Slate, and Aaron Pressman from BusinessWeek.

    Not exactly a group of flaming radicals. My sense is that conservative pundits have have evaded the obvious Bush /republican party / Greenspan responsibility for the crash blaming it on greedy housing bubble queens as Dems have evaded the Rubin/ Clinton connection blaming it on greedy republicans. What is sure is that greed, and not a pursuit of greater justice or equity for the poor has bankrupted the banks. The recommendations for reform in this article are modest and reasonable and in my view understate the need for reform.

    Also, Voldemort and E77 don't answer Pastor Jeff's explanation of pie growth. Which seems to me more of an explanation of who ate the pie and why.
    I personally have never seen a pie grow. Pies in my experience diminish according to quality and appetite. Right now it is bye bye miss, Mrs and Mr American Pie, Drove my Chevy and Ford and Chrysler to the levy and the levy was dry. Them good old war profiteers were drinking blood and getting high an now its time for everyone to cry.

    Where was conservative outrage while the bankers and war profiteers looted the country and the neocons murdered hundreds of thousands and initiated nation wide unwarranted spying? Instead they reserve their outrage for attempts to improve education, health and opportunity for those hurting the most. On this blog they argue for Ron Paul's ideas and vote for Bush, Cheney McCain etc.
  • Lord_Voldemort
    Letjusticerolldown,

    It is astonishing to see the lengths that people will go to turn a criticism of a poorly designed law and regulations into "brazenly blaming the poor".

    Congress passed CRA. Congress itself is composed primarily of wealthy individuals.

    Regulators then issued rules based on CRA. Since these regulators are mainly professionals -- lawyers, economists, etc., there were very few poor people involved in this process as well.

    To the extent that poor people were involved, it was largely on the periphery. I hate to burst your bubble about this, but the vast majority of Congressional districts are not competitive. And poor people do not lobby much. Oh, some interest group may have a poor individual give testimony or do news interviews, but that poor individual was almost certainly chosen for his or her adherence to the philosophy of the lobbying group, and coached in advance on precisely what to say.

    The bottom line is that politics is overwhelmingly a game for the middle-class and up, and that goes for both parties. In a society where most of the population is in the lower middle class or better, there's no getting around that.

    (On the whole that's a good problem to have -- the only way that the poor will ever drive politics is through numbers, and if the majority of your population is poor, by definition you have a poor society.)

    As far as just what went wrong with CRA, because of inadequate or non-existent means tests, CRA was indirectly responsible for ill-considered loans to middle-class borrowers who used the funds to "flip" houses, in essence engaging in real-estate speculation. As I understand it, the CRA's effects on real estate speculation, and the inevitable real estate "bubble", did more damage than loans to poor families.

    So even if you want to go beyond Congress and the regulatory agencies, the blame falls mostly on people who are middle-class or better. And I think if you read what most conservatives are writing, you'll see they are aware of the distinction.

    Right now the left, which by-and-large supported CRA, is trying to equate criticism of CRA with blaming the poor. At this point, they aren't helping the poor in this as much as they are using the poor as a shield to cut off examination of their handiwork. We just can't let them get away with that.

    LV
  • letjusticerolldown
    LV

    To be precise, Ms Palmberg asserted that conservative pundits were "brazenly trying to blame the poor for the mortgage meltdown by targeting the Community Reinvestment Act." She did not assert pundits were brazenly blaming the poor directly; but that the focus on the CRA was a veiled 'blaming of the poor.'

    Your assertion that the focus of the critique is on Congress and the CRA is consistent with what she wrote. You both agree the critique is focused on Congress' CRA.

    You disagree in that she sees pundits framing the CRA so as to associate with poor persons. Therefore, if the financial meltdown was caused by the CRA--it has a close connection to poor persons.

    So do pundits make this between the CRA and poor persons?

    The few quotes I gave you connected the following persons to the CRA:

    1. welfare recipients
    2. bad-credit customers with “dog-food” wages
    3. (those on) welfare rolls ... hasten(ing) the collapse of American capitalism
    4. people with poor job histories
    5. people with marginal credit
    6. people with inadequate incomes
    7. these people are largely minorities
    8. minority borrowers who do not meet the normal criteria

    And just for clarity sake, are you saying, as you hear the conservative punditry class, that you do not hear the following argument being made???

    Democrats are kept in power by a web of special interests whose votes they have purchased with social programs that make these seem constituents forever dependent on government. ACORN is a perfect example of duplicitous and predatory and corrupt behavior that connects the votes of poor people for Democratic candidates to obtaining special benefit from government for poor people. And there is no better example of this corruption than poor people organized through ACORN putting the screws to banks and public officials to use the CRA to illegitimately put bad loans into poor communities.
  • duhsciple
    Okay
  • duhsciple
    Confused? Me? Confused? Wouldn't be the first time.
  • Lord_Voldemort
    Buckeyedon,

    If those liberal commentators had any examples of conservative commentators blaming the poor, they would be harder to dismiss. But the bottom line is, they don't. What they have mainly is a lot of conservative commentators blaming Congress and regulatory agencies for CRA. That's not the same thing.

    As for why a liberal would want to blame the poor for the financial crisis, you're asking the wrong question. The real question is: who would want to misrepresent conservative views and make conservatives appear meaner than they actually are? I've got some guesses on that one.

    The remark about Christian charity wasn't directed at you specifically and if I had it to do over I probably would have been a little less pointed. But the bottom line is, it isn't a good testimony to spread that aren't backed up by some sort of proof. I'm trying very hard to understand where you guys are coming from but I have yet to see that proof.

    Right now it looks to me like someone came up with a lie, and whether Sojo is fully aware of that or not, they are helping to spread it.

    Or maybe it's all a big misunderstanding. Wouldn't it be a better testimony for Sojo to be clearing things up, rather than contributing to the confusion?

    LV
  • letjusticerolldown
    I understand all government interventions are not equal. And that is all I am trying to say. There has been alot of chatter about socialism and destroying a free market system. I do not think we have government in a limited and appropriate role. But government gets twisted out of shape when the society gets things twisted in dysfunctional ways. So I have serious concerns. But the question, in my mind, is not socialism vs free market--but rather how much government, when, where, how, to what end, etc.

    Government, hopefully, provides the stable and safe legal, regulatory, political structure within which citizens and corporations can excercise their freedom and thrive. The more self-control we can exercise the less external intervention we need. Government is a very lethargic and slow-moving entity. That is necessary for stability.

    But when technology, social change across the world, crisis, information and commerce move so fast it is hard for government to keep pace. There has been much criticism of the government regulating too much and too little leading up to this financial quagmire. Again I think it frames the question wrongly. The banking system needed reformed regulation. But the new system both opened the door to accelerated changes and failed to provide the regulatory framework in which business could safely function.

    In this day and age government must be very stable and very nimble. We can see how the rise of a different kind of warfare has challenged the military. A little gang with boxcutters confounded the trillion dollar army. It is a parable for the government as a whole. A group of 'innovative'money changers drove the global economy off a cliff. A group of hackers could easily bring the transportation, communication, banking, commerce, energy, trading, and information sectors to a screeching halt.

    If I had a brain tumor I would want a very smart neurosurgeon with very good hands, very good eyes, with great technology, and to act fast. Government as it is construed today would solve the problem by chopping my head off.
  • My point was not that government shouldn't have a role in governing. It was that government shouldn't have a role in choosing the outcomes and manipulating the system.

    And the only organization that has guns (legally) to advance their interest is the government. That's why we pay taxes. That's why we're all being screwed right now with these bills being passed to put our children into debt. (I jokingly pointed out last night to my wife that those octuplet kids are paying for themselves because the tax deficit used to finance them with welfare money will be paid back by their own generation.)
  • letjusticerolldown
    I don't think the question is whether government should be involved in the market but rather how. What are the appropriate roles, boundaries and purposes of governmental action related to economic activity.

    If you and I engaged in an economic transaction--the moment we made an agreement to exchange and conducted the exchange--we selected a means whereby we governed our transaction. Someone is going to establish control of how exchange occurs.

    If government just allows a marketplace to develop (e.g. methamphetamines) it will be but one fast minute before someone establishes governance and someone else introduces guns to advance their interests in that market.

    In a free market, I might decide with my bank that I have a number in my bank account. That number might read $10,231. Tomorrow I might wake up and find out the bank did not like that agreement and decided the number is actually zero. What do I do?
  • Eric77
    Please, go back and read what Lord V. was saying. He didn't say "no one is criticizing the CRA".
  • 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".
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


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