Get E-Mail Updates

Elizabeth Warren and Goliath

banner-Finding-Your-Way-in-the-New-Economy

Related Reading

Take Action on This Issue

Tell the Senate: Don't Cut International Aid

Please join us in telling the Senate: Protect foreign aid programs that help the poor and the needy. 

I had a most instructive conversation this week with Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard economist who is also the Chair of the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel. Warren has a way of cutting through the jargon and confusion of many economists and of this economic crisis -- right to the moral core of the issues at stake. I knew her for her keen insights, but I didn't know she was from, as she puts it, a "mixed marriage from Oklahoma" -- Baptist and Methodist -- and that she is a former Methodist Sunday school teacher. In the interview I did with her for Sojourners, her moral and even theological comments were as impressive as her economic analysis of our present crisis. She said the battle for financial regulatory reform is like the battle between David and Goliath. (You can read the interview in the April issue of Sojourners magazine, which comes out in early March.)

Warren's narrative of the U.S. economy, and the banking industry in particular, was very clarifying. For most of U.S. history, our country went through repeated periods of boom and bust, with all the consequences of those cycles. But after the Great Depression, a number of new financial regulations -- rules for the road -- were put into place that were designed to protect average Americans in particular from the continued abuses of the big banks and the often terrible results in bad times for ordinary people. Two important examples were the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation) to protect people's savings and the Glass Steagall Act of 1933 to prevent banks from speculating with depositors' money. And the new rules worked for several decades, creating both prosperity and security for many American families and an emerging middle class. But starting in 1980, the rules were first watered down and gradually removed, and banks were free again to engage in both the abusive and very risky speculative behavior that helped to bring on the Great Depression, and resulted again in the current Great Recession.

She explained how credit card and mortgage application forms used to be only a page or two and were both clear and understandable to the average person -- even allowing people to easily compare and contrast the deals offered. But now, as all of us know, these forms have expanded to 30 pages or more with lots of complications, hard to comprehend provisions, and "fine print" that cleverly hides a long list or traps, tricks, and a myriad of both exploitive arrangements and outright abuses that greatly benefit banks at the expense of borrowers and card holders. In clear moral terms, Warren described the current behavior of our biggest banks as deliberately deceiving, entrapping, and cheating unsuspecting customers into very precarious and ultimately disastrous financial positions. And with no more rules of the road, the banks were leading their customers into the financial ditch. An economic crisis has been the result with massive suffering and pain for millions of Americans.

We are now living in a "lawless" economic environment, according to Warren, where our biggest banks have become our most dangerous predators -- and with no protections for the rest of us against the "law of the jungle," as she puts it. The consequences for our economy, our culture, our families, and even our souls have been disastrous. This is not the way we should want to live, Warren says, and it is creating a world which we should not want our children to grow up in. She makes the urgent case for reform with the compelling analysis of a top economist, the family values of a grandmother, and the moral arguments of a person of faith. The sins of the financial world have become both a moral, and even religious, issue from the perspective of the Methodist tradition "which still shapes me."

Warren is the "mother" of the idea for a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA),which is in the current financial reform bill recently passed by the House of Representatives, and is now slowly making its way through the U.S. Senate. But the big banks are aggressively fighting back, trying to prevent their own regulation only one year after the financial meltdown for which they were in large part responsible. There seems to be no remorse, let alone repentance, from the big banks -- only record new profits enabled by their taxpayer-funded bailouts, and enormous bonuses to the executives who made the very decisions that brought the economic system down on the heads and hearts of so many Americans. The biggest banks in America are giving shame a bad name.

Why are new rules, regulations, and protections necessary? Because of the human condition, the realities of human nature, and a biblically orthodox understanding of human sinfulness. Yes, the reasons we need the protections offered by a Consumer Financial Protection Agency are as theological as economic. And it is amazing to me how many of those who oppose any regulation of Wall Street also claim to be religious conservatives. They subscribe to what I label in my new book, Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street - A Moral Compass for the New Economy, "the myth of the sinless market." I am a conservative Christian too, conservative enough to have a healthy appreciation for human sins, human failings, and fallen-ness, and after witnessing the behavior of America's biggest banks during this economic crisis, an old theological term called human depravity. It is simply bad theology to trust large corporations not to pollute our waters, poison our air, or cheat their unsuspecting customers. They have to be prevented from doing so for the sake of the common good. Good financial and economic rules reflect, not only good economics, but also good theology. And the free market fundamentalism of Wall Street's defenders is, among other things, bad theology.

But as Elizabeth Warren, a good Methodist, warns, the banks are trying everything they can think of to kill financial reform. And we must not let them do that. In the name of a fairer economy, of family values, of moral values, and of sound biblical theology, the faith community must now make itself heard on the urgent issue of financial regulatory reform. We must hold our biggest banks accountable to the common good. So let our Senators not just hear from the bankers, but now also from pastors who see what such abusive banking behavior has done to their families and parishioners, to devastated communities with shuttered houses, to the prison of debt that more Americans find themselves in. People of faith across the land must now tell their elected representatives that we will be "watching and praying" to see what they will do about necessary financial reform. We don't have the money in our financial coffers that the banks do to finance their political campaigns, but we do have our voice and our votes which will be turned against them if they vote against the best interests of our people and for the greed of the bankers. Jesus said it well -- choose this day who you will serve, God or Mammon (Money). Let's now put that choice to our Senators, who need to hear from us this next week while they are in their district offices during the Presidents' Day recess. Critical decisions are being made for or against critical financial reform right now.

portrait-jim-wallisJim Wallis is the author of Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street -- A Moral Compass for the New Economy, CEO of Sojourners and blogs at www.godspolitics.com.

+Click here to get email updates from Jim Wallis

Sojourners relies on the support of readers like you to sustain our message and ministry.

by: Mennoman

02-13-2010 @ 2:30am

The classical conservative answer-- deny de-regulation had anything to do with the current problems we have and invent a new narrative and set of facts to accommodate their ideology that supports totally unregulated markets.

by: Mennoman

02-13-2010 @ 2:33am

Ahhh.. the "Socialist" label. It is the fault of the socialist Democrats who wanted cheap money out there....problem is it happened on George W Bush's watch-- that closet Socialist! What a Commie that Bernake!

by: fundamentalist

02-15-2010 @ 12:06pm

How do you know that progressives aren't inventing a new narrative and facts to accommodate their ideology?

by: fundamentalist

02-15-2010 @ 12:10pm

You think George Bush wasn't socialist-lite? Most Republicans are socialist-lite. Just as only Nixon could go to China, only Republicans can advance socialism to the degree that Bush did. Just because he talked like a free marketeer doesn't mean he was. Look at what he did, not what he said. The only Republican I know of who is a true capitalist is Ron Paul.

by: london escorts agency

08-03-2011 @ 7:32am

Executive Elite Escorts...

Executive Elite Escorts, 2A Vincent Street, London, SW1P 4LD, 020 3468 2105 ...

by: Family

08-04-2011 @ 2:07pm

Lap...

[

by: jonabark

02-16-2010 @ 12:53am

What a wonderful approach to law . If you have no laws then the competition among criminals will naturally promote the most efficient providers of criminal services and hence a society leading the world in all manner of exploitation, theft and violence. Who could possibly ask for more? We may have hit a little pothole on the road to total world wide surveillance, complete military dominance and the blessed promised land of infinite consumption, but Sarah is ready waiting like an Angel sent from on high, helicoptor blades spinning, assault rifle at the ready and the great liberal moose coming into her sites.
Goldman Sachs land the beautiful , the market shed its grace on thee , and crown thy greed while poor folk bleed from sea to fishless sea.

by: liberalinlove

02-18-2010 @ 5:04pm

I can't pretend to know much about economics. I keep going back to spiritual principals, or the bible about lending to the poor, justice, etc. I was raised as a fundamentalist evangelical Christian, and I never did hear the other side of how God wanted his people to run their nation. So when I see "compassionate" economics, I know sometimes they are logical and sometimes they don't make any sense. Spiritually, we are called to care for others without enabling them. I have had such a strong desire to know what it means to love my neighbor as myself. So for me, Sojourners is like a whole new world that has opened up a view of like-minded believers, who appear to love God and their neighbor as themselves.

For me, believing the verses in Isaiah 58, a nation that seeks to know God and does what He calls us to, verse 10 says if we spend our time on behalf of the poor and oppressed, our light will break forth like the dawn. As a believer, I don't know how else to see this chapter, than to look to the needs of the poor.

Adding to that, my bible also tells me, if an able bodied man, refuses to work, he shouldn't be able to eat. Economics in a nutshell for me, is making sure those who can work, do, even if it is picking up trash alongside the road, making sure everyone can access health care, (binding up the wounds) and taking care of widows and orphans, plus insuring justice and fair wage for the sojourners or those without legal rights in our country. I'm told we founded our country on Judeo-Christian principles, yet I'm not so sure this aspect of it has been taught or promoted by the "righteous".

I'm just getting my feet wet on these issues and will continue to read and digest what I hear. So thanks for being a voice that gives me balance.

Rebecca

by: Ene

08-15-2011 @ 11:16am

Screbrue...

[

by: liberalinlove

02-18-2010 @ 7:04pm

I can't pretend to know much about economics. I keep going back to spiritual principals, or the bible about lending to the poor, justice, etc. I was raised as a fundamentalist evangelical Christian, and I never did hear the other side of how God wanted his people to run their nation. So when I see "compassionate" economics, I know sometimes they are logical and sometimes they don't make any sense. Spiritually, we are called to care for others without enabling them. I have had such a strong desire to know what it means to love my neighbor as myself. So for me, Sojourners is like a whole new world that has opened up a view of like-minded believers, who appear to love God and their neighbor as themselves.

For me, believing the verses in Isaiah 58, a nation that seeks to know God and does what He calls us to, verse 10 says if we spend our time on behalf of the poor and oppressed, our light will break forth like the dawn. As a believer, I don't know how else to see this chapter, than to look to the needs of the poor.

Adding to that, my bible also tells me, if an able bodied man, refuses to work, he shouldn't be able to eat. Economics in a nutshell for me, is making sure those who can work, do, even if it is picking up trash alongside the road, making sure everyone can access health care, (binding up the wounds) and taking care of widows and orphans, plus insuring justice and fair wage for the sojourners or those without legal rights in our country. I'm told we founded our country on Judeo-Christian principles, yet I'm not so sure this aspect of it has been taught or promoted by the "righteous".

I'm just getting my feet wet on these issues and will continue to read and digest what I hear. So thanks for being a voice that gives me balance.

Rebecca

by: Recharddo

07-01-2010 @ 2:04am

I feel we have politicians who can't even capture a vision of the governing challenge for a world that would have been incomprehensible even at the time of their birth. I see and hear no passion for either the kind of moral framework Jim Wallis dvocates nor for a functional government that must be much smaller, agile, quick, ..... It can't think. It can't act. It repeatedly "punts" on the major issues. And then tries to do more and bigger to compensate.

by: Recharddo

07-01-2010 @ 2:04am

I feel we have politicians who can't even capture a vision of the governing challenge for a world that would have been incomprehensible even at the time of their birth. I see and hear no passion for either the kind of moral framework Jim Wallis dvocates nor for a functional government that must be much smaller, agile, quick, ..... It can't think. It can't act. It repeatedly "punts" on the major issues. And then tries to do more and bigger to compensate.

by: californiabrown

02-11-2010 @ 8:39pm

When you mention banks, are you talking about small, privately-owned, community-based banks or the really big guys? My father is president of a small, community-based bank who hasn't seemed to benefit at all from deregulation and whose bank certainly didn't get any benefits from TARP. As a matter of fact they are paying a heavy price in terms of raised FDIC taxes for the financial miscues of the big guys. I think it would be helpful to make some distinctions between the public and privately-held banks because banking, in general, can be a great thing when it is concerned about and invested in communities and local economies.

by: duhsciple

02-11-2010 @ 8:53pm

Your father is the kind of banker we celebrate! Local banks in touch with local customers empowering local productivity, amen!

How can we encourage bankers like your father while protecting ourselves from predatory bankers?

by: cephas45

02-11-2010 @ 8:55pm

Unrepentant is the right word. At a recent networking gathering concerning this whole issue, one manager of a regional bank here in New England spoke publicly about the industry's intent to maintain the status quo. He said the industry has made no effort to regulate itself since the whole mess began, and does not intend to do so. He said the industry would do all in its power to maintain the status quo, and predicted that the US Senate would cave on the current bill it's now considering because "those Senators have already been bought and paid for."
Cynical is another good word. Disgusting. Immoral. I won't go on. Didn't any of these guys go to Sunday School?
Thank God for people like Elizabeth Warren.

by: fundamentalist

02-11-2010 @ 9:05pm

I caught an interview with Ms. Warren on the news this morning and think she is headed in the right direction. As this article from Cato http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v32n1/cp... indicates, a lot of the problem in banking has been a plethora of regulations at different times designed to address specific issues that were not coordinated. Regulations often conflict or make risk worse. Regulators aren't even aware of all of the vast number of regulations and how they might affect banks. Ms. Warren is trying to untangle the knots and provide a seamless, coordinated set of banking regulations. I wish her luck.

"But starting in 1980, the rules were first watered down and gradually removed, and banks were free again to engage in both the abusive and very risky speculative behavior that helped to bring on the Great Depression, and resulted again in the current Great Recession."

Actually, US regulations were not removed, but changed to the "safer" European banking regulation called Basel I and II. Everyone, including Greenspan, heralded the new European banking regulations as promoting safety and minimizing risk. Banks bought only AAA and AA rated debt, the least risky debt that can be bought. US government bonds are AAA rated. That debt was rated by one of three ratings agencies, such as Moody's, which federal regulations required banks to use. The only regulation that was removed was Glass-Steagall, which prevented commercial banks from engaging in investment banking. Before the last crisis, no commercial bank did that. They did buy mortgage backed securities (MBS's) from investment banks, but only those rated AAA and AA. Before the Great Depression, banks did engage in risky behavior: they speculated in the stock market. No banks did that this time around.

"We are now living in a "lawless" economic environment, according to Warren,"

That's quite an overstatement. Can anyone count the pages of bank regulations? Banking is the most highly regulated industry except for healthcare. Credit card issuing banks need to be less obscure, but that's light years from being "lawless."

"The sins of the financial world have become both a moral, and even religious, issue from the perspective of the Methodist tradition "which still shapes me."

Keep in mind the Ms. Warren is part of mainstream econ which has no business cycle theory. For mainstream econ, financial crises are random events, ie, they have no cause. When pressed to finger someone, they will go along with the press and politicians and blame bankers.

"They subscribe to what I label in my new book, Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street - A Moral Compass for the New Economy, "the myth of the sinless market."

That's a typical straw man, which means it's dishonest. There is no one who believes in a sinless market. I can't speak for conservatives because their philosophy is too muddled for me to understand. But libertarians object to regulation beyond the rule of law preventing fraud and theft for the same reason Adam Smith opposed it:

1) Regulatory capture. You can create hundreds of new agencies and regulations, but the regulated industries always capture control of the regulating agencies. Banks always control banking regulatory agencies.

2) Regulations always fail, and will fail again in a few years, because no group of men is smart enough to see into the future and how human behavior in the marketplace will change in response to new regulations.

3) Regulations are usually the main problem because they are short sighted, backward looking, contradictory and complicated.

4) Competition does a better job of regulating "sinful" behavior than does state regulation. If competition fails, it's usually because regulation has shackled the market's natural policing power.
Increased regulation of banks will choke off lending. In a few years, people will be asking why banks aren't lending. They will blame bankers. But the fault will lie with the regulations.

Also, keep in mind the reason Jimmy Carter began deregulating industries. New Deal regulation had strangled the economy. No one was investing and production had stalled. The result was high unemployment and high inflation. Deregulation got the economy moving again. Misguided economics will strangle the economy again with the obvious result of high unemployment and greater poverty.

by: Julia Smucker

02-11-2010 @ 9:08pm

Bravo for blowing away conservative/liberal dichotomies with your "fallen market" theology. I hope the policy-makers are listening.

by: liberalinlove

02-11-2010 @ 9:12pm

How do we convince people, the dems aren't ushering in a one world govt, that govt. isn't inherently evil, that Reagan wasn't the last best thing to hit America, and that justice and regulations are about the little guy. My "christian" friends, would no more read a sojourners article than fact check a Rush or Focus on the Family statement.

by: liberalinlove

02-11-2010 @ 9:16pm

Thanks for the insight. How easy it is to undo one theology by adopting an immediate and more convenient one. I needed this.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-11-2010 @ 9:38pm

I think her comments enlightening and interesting--but on the level of "consideration" and not "conclusive."

I'm a layman. I just opened a checking account with Wells Fargo and received over 100 pages of fine print.

What I see is not too much or too little regulation. I see a bloated,lethargic, gluttonous and distracted bureaucracy attempting to regulate at a highway speed of 40--when the world is moving at 80. Financial institutions move rapidly and aggressively to function within an old=world system of laws while exploiting a rapidly changing global market. And the bureaucracy does well to crank out piles of regulations to keep the old junker rumbling along.

I feel we have politicians who can't even capture a vision of the governing challenge for a world that would have been incomprehensible even at the time of their birth. I see and hear no passion for either the kind of moral framework Jim advocates nor for a functional government that must be much smaller, agile, quick, ..... It can't think. It can't act. It repeatedly "punts" on the major issues. And then tries to do more and bigger to compensate.

by: Jesusistheway

02-11-2010 @ 9:52pm

Why should we expect bankers and businesses to operate in any more of an ethical and moral manner than any other of our institutions? Whether it's Government, the Church, higher institutions of learning, or pick an institution of your choice, there has been a general decline in overall civility, morality and ethics and values in our country. Jim Wallis tends to focus on economic "sins" of the rich and powerful. But our problems are much greater than that. Until we recognize the extent of our problems, it'll be like trying to drive in a Midwest blizzard at night.

by: Andrew Meredith

02-11-2010 @ 11:13pm

Thank you for the article. I am looking forward to reading "Rediscovering Values."

by: Millenium_10

02-12-2010 @ 12:15am

I am not a 'regulation fundamentalist' and am not convinced that more regulation is the answer to the current economic crisis. Fundamentalist lists some reasons why above.
Scepticism about regulations or excessive regulations is not about having too optimistic a view of big banks but actually the opposite. The potential for these big private organisations to get in bed with the ruling authorities and manipulate these regulations to their own advantage is likely to increase the more that government control is involved.

It is interesting that Jim talks about regulations being necessary because of the Christian doctrine of the fall and our fallen humanity because it is the very same argument that conservatives use for why the free market is better than a centralised controlled economy. No one is saying that the market is sinless or that big business etc isn't out to screw us over but the real question is what type of system is going to be most effective in curbing these tendencies? Is it government regulation or free market competition?

Another observation I made of the article was that it only blamed big banks for the current crisis as though everyone else are just innocent victims. The real world isn't that simple. Romans says that all have fallen short of the glory of God, all have turned away for him. Everyone is fallen, we are all sinful, whether we are rich or poor. How many millions of people are in credit card debt because of decisions that were freely made?

by: Android Tablets

06-14-2011 @ 5:46pm

Cool story bro.
Encuestas pagadas

by: brentw

02-12-2010 @ 12:46am

Private Vice, Public Benefit?

As a wizened progressive, I have long thought that, for many at least, depravity (or moral turpitude to use a quasi-legal term) is the veritable engine of prosperity, which may be especially true if one listens to those who advocate no or minimal regulation of markets. For, after all, regulation stifles innovation and wealth creation. It fosters an osteoarthritis of the market politic whose bulging arteries swallows up all vital blood flow, all manner of growth, and all of the goodness and the Way of the Way.

And this Way just may be the way of Mandeville and his Fable of the Bees. For it is doubtless true that private vice promotes public benefits. Imagine, as he did in 1705, a prosperous beehive that prospered because every bee, in seeking its own blind self-interest, namely the acquisition of nectar, benefited the entire hive. Now imagine that into this den of self-interest the disconcerting Babel of an outsider who would dare to proselytize the doctrine that one should work not only out of self-consideration but also out of duty to the hive and one's fellow bees. In their paroxysm of other-regardingness, the hive, deprived of its vital fluids, as Sterling Hayden once lamented, dies. Thus the moral of the story is that our selfish behavior makes for public prosperity-pubic vice makes public benefits possible. And if you doubt this, just listen to the Mandarins of Market Magic, the bankers. They, truly, deliver us from the evil of poverty through their ensorcellments.

As Mandeville notes, the libertine has profligate spending habits that creates all manner of jobs---from his concubines, to his tailors, to his florists, to his musicians, to his restaurants-not to mention shady or not so shady hotels-if you pay, who asks?. Thus private spending creates all manner of jobs and thus prosperity. What could be better? This may be the original expression of consumerism, enshrined by Keynes, spend and ye shall prosper.

Obviously, we are here talking about a law of the universe: individualistic greed is the motor of earthly if not heavenly redemption (since our greed promotes the general welfare and thus qualifies us for participation in the blessed afterlife of even more ethereal consumption, one supposes).

So, we are just a bunch of busy bees, who not only do but also should seek our consumptive nirvanas and thus, magically if not otherwise, attain our salvation.

by: fundamentalist

02-12-2010 @ 12:02pm

One of the problems with the way the Feds handled the crisis was treating all banks the same. They did so because they didn't want people to know which banks were in trouble and cause a run on those banks. But the result has been to reward the larger banks and punish the small ones.

by: Android Tablets

06-14-2011 @ 5:46pm

Cool story bro.
Encuestas pagadas

by: fundamentalist

02-12-2010 @ 12:15pm

Thanks! The main problem with our financial system has been the socialist/progressive/Keynesian idea that interest rates should be extremely low. That idea began with socialists, but progressives adopted it and made it part of the Fed's reason for being. Keynes only got in front of the crowd and proclaimed himself their leader. But the stock market/housing boom of the 1920's that resulted from cheap money irritated politicians. Low interest rates expands credit and creates new money out of nothing. Politicians wanted the new money to go into manufacturing, not houses and stocks. So began the massive effort to regulate the flow of cheap money. Progressives have always wanted to achieve two conflicting goals--low interest rates to expand credit and to direct the flow of new money exactly where they wanted it to go. They have been trying for about a century. The latest crisis is only the latest failure.

If the Federal Reserve would quit attempting to goose the economy with low interest rates and stick to maintaining sound money, as the European Central Bank does, then we wouldn't need massive regulation attempting to control the flood of new money. But if the Feds keep expanding credit and flooding the country with money, no amount of regulation will protect us from the harmful effects.

by: fundamentalist

02-12-2010 @ 12:25pm

I appreciate what you're saying in your post, and there is a lot of truth in what you say. However, I'd like you to consider another school of economics known as the Austrian school. FA Hayek (not Selma, unfortunately) was one of its leaders. You can get a good introduction to it in the videos at the fee.org web site.

What you express is without a doubt the dominant thinking in economics. Austrian economists are a small minority. The chief difference between mainstream econ and Austrian econ is the issue of saving and consumption. Mainstream econ promotes consumption as the engine of economic growth, for the reasons you describe in your post. Austrians see savings as the engine because savings go into investment in new businesses which create jobs. Also, savings promotes greater use of capital intensive production (using more equipment instead of labor) which raises worker productivity and therefore wages. Also, Austrians have the only viable theory of business cycles in my opinion.

by: ghockerman

02-12-2010 @ 12:26pm

When we start to think of our largest institutions as something other than a reflection of our collective moral attitudes, than we may miss an opportunity to see that substantive change begins in our own homes and churches.

Waiting for a for-profit industry to develop or be forced to develop a moral conscience will not address the core problem that faces both the greedy homeowner and the greedy banker alike.

by: fundamentalist

02-12-2010 @ 12:45pm

"They subscribe to what I label in my new book, Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street - A Moral Compass for the New Economy, "the myth of the sinless market."

I read an interview yesterday with Justin Fox, author of "The Myth of the Irrational Market." His thesis is similar: the market is not rational and therefore needs regulation.

Free marketeers such as myself do not belief the market is always correct. There is a caveat: the market is the best guide if, and only if, it is a free market. Prices guide decision making in the marketplace. The Church scholars of the School of Salamanca taught that a just price in commerce happens only in a free market. Libertarians add that only prices arrived at in a free market provide good guidance to participants. If prices are distorted through coercion, then buyers and sellers in the market get faulty information and the "market" makes mistakes.

The chief way that prices get distorted is through the Federal Reserve manipulating interest rates. Interest rates are basically the price of renting money. When interest rates are too low, it sets false signals to buyers/sellers to borrow more. That borrowing, in turn, changes the prices of goods that the borrowers purchase and distorts price signals in all aspects of the economy.

Businessmen always make mistakes. Free marketeers believe the market will make fewer mistakes when the market is free. When it is highly regulated, ie, coerced, as it is today, the market cannot help but make massive mistakes.

by: sddave

02-12-2010 @ 1:42pm

Jim, thanks for your interview with Elizabeth Warren. I think it would be a perfect time to reflect as a country and as individuals on Gandhi's observations on the Seven Deadly Sins and on how we have failed miserably. During this time of Lent and season of Repentance, we need to reflect on these.
--- Wealth without Work
--- Pleasure without Conscience
--- Science without Humanity
--- Knowledge without Character
--- Politics without Principle
--- Commerce without Morality
--- Worship without Sacrifice

by: fundamentalist

02-12-2010 @ 1:54pm

The popular explanation of the recent crisis is that deregulation of banking allowed bankers to go crazy and commit fraud against the entire nation. Another, minority, explanation is that credit expansion by the Feds in the 1990's and early 2000's caused first a stock market bubble and then a housing bubble. The collapse of both caused serious harm and a major crisis.

Being able to evaluate both explanations takes a lot of work and especially a knowledge of how markets actually work.

by: PTD

02-12-2010 @ 2:12pm

Mr Wallis' extraordinary vitae not withstanding, he makes the same mistake common to man, attributing to God words he did not say. Mr Wallis states; "Jesus said it well - choose this day who you will serve, God or Mammon (Money). "
It was Joshua who said "choose this day who you will serve." (Jos 24:15) Jesus did speak about the inability of man to serve both God & mammon(Matt 6:24 & Luke 16:13). To try to combine the two into a quote is incorrect.
The greater mistake is trying to fit the world's monetary system to the Kingdom of God standards. Jesus did testify to Pilate; "My kingdom is not of this world"
You don't put new clothes on an old corpse. If you do, it may look pretty, but it's still dead. "The world is passing away and the desires thereof..."
"Sell what you have, give to the poor, and come follow me" Now that is Kingdom
economics 101

by: carlcopas

02-12-2010 @ 5:41pm

I don't disagree with your Lesson. But no regulation also has unintended bad consequences.

I don't see the issue as either regulate or no regulations, but rather can we come up with wise regulation?

by: fundamentalist

02-12-2010 @ 7:48pm

The classical liberal answer was to pass laws prohibiting fraud, theft, coercion, etc. that applied to all businesses. Regulation has more harmful effects than good when the intention is for the state to micromanage particular industries for the benefit of particular groups of people.

In banking regulations, the problem started when the policy of the Federal Reserve to provide easy, cheap credit. Most of that new credit went into stocks or housing, so the regulators tried to direct it to manufacturing with regulations, which have proven impossible, but they won't quit trying. The problem continued with FDIC insurance, which caused banks to take more risk because they didn't have to suffer the consequences of failure. More regulation was added to prevent that risky behavior.

Each regulation causes distortions and harmful effects in the market that call for more regulations.

by: Mennoman

02-13-2010 @ 2:30am

The classical conservative answer-- deny de-regulation had anything to do with the current problems we have and invent a new narrative and set of facts to accommodate their ideology that supports totally unregulated markets.

by: Mennoman

02-13-2010 @ 2:33am

Ahhh.. the "Socialist" label. It is the fault of the socialist Democrats who wanted cheap money out there....problem is it happened on George W Bush's watch-- that closet Socialist! What a Commie that Bernake!

by: gynexin

06-22-2011 @ 10:11pm

For Your Information...

Im new to blogging and recently learnt about trackbacks, which I reckon is a means for me to recognize your web site through a linkback through my site. I saw your web site in the "currently buzzing" segment of one of the bookmarking sites that I wa...

by: liberalinlove

02-18-2010 @ 5:04pm

I can't pretend to know much about economics. I keep going back to spiritual principals, or the bible about lending to the poor, justice, etc. I was raised as a fundamentalist evangelical Christian, and I never did hear the other side of how God wanted his people to run their nation. So when I see "compassionate" economics, I know sometimes they are logical and sometimes they don't make any sense. Spiritually, we are called to care for others without enabling them. I have had such a strong desire to know what it means to love my neighbor as myself. So for me, Sojourners is like a whole new world that has opened up a view of like-minded believers, who appear to love God and their neighbor as themselves.

For me, believing the verses in Isaiah 58, a nation that seeks to know God and does what He calls us to, verse 10 says if we spend our time on behalf of the poor and oppressed, our light will break forth like the dawn. As a believer, I don't know how else to see this chapter, than to look to the needs of the poor.

Adding to that, my bible also tells me, if an able bodied man, refuses to work, he shouldn't be able to eat. Economics in a nutshell for me, is making sure those who can work, do, even if it is picking up trash alongside the road, making sure everyone can access health care, (binding up the wounds) and taking care of widows and orphans, plus insuring justice and fair wage for the sojourners or those without legal rights in our country. I'm told we founded our country on Judeo-Christian principles, yet I'm not so sure this aspect of it has been taught or promoted by the "righteous".

I'm just getting my feet wet on these issues and will continue to read and digest what I hear. So thanks for being a voice that gives me balance.

Rebecca

by: fundamentalist

02-15-2010 @ 12:06pm

How do you know that progressives aren't inventing a new narrative and facts to accommodate their ideology?

by: fundamentalist

02-15-2010 @ 12:10pm

You think George Bush wasn't socialist-lite? Most Republicans are socialist-lite. Just as only Nixon could go to China, only Republicans can advance socialism to the degree that Bush did. Just because he talked like a free marketeer doesn't mean he was. Look at what he did, not what he said. The only Republican I know of who is a true capitalist is Ron Paul.

by: Web Site Builders

07-10-2011 @ 8:30am

Company Website Design...

Take some time to read this they may constitute interest also......

by: californiabrown

02-11-2010 @ 8:39pm

When you mention banks, are you talking about small, privately-owned, community-based banks or the really big guys? My father is president of a small, community-based bank who hasn't seemed to benefit at all from deregulation and whose bank certainly didn't get any benefits from TARP. As a matter of fact they are paying a heavy price in terms of raised FDIC taxes for the financial miscues of the big guys. I think it would be helpful to make some distinctions between the public and privately-held banks because banking, in general, can be a great thing when it is concerned about and invested in communities and local economies.

by: uberVU - social comments

02-11-2010 @ 10:43pm

Social comments and analytics for this post...

This post was mentioned on Twitter by reneerico: For the rec clubbers: Elizabath Warren and Goliath (at Sojourners) http://bit.ly/dyI6RD...

by: duhsciple

02-11-2010 @ 8:53pm

Your father is the kind of banker we celebrate! Local banks in touch with local customers empowering local productivity, amen!

How can we encourage bankers like your father while protecting ourselves from predatory bankers?

by: Plump

08-12-2011 @ 12:10am

All...

[

by: cephas45

02-11-2010 @ 8:55pm

Unrepentant is the right word. At a recent networking gathering concerning this whole issue, one manager of a regional bank here in New England spoke publicly about the industry's intent to maintain the status quo. He said the industry has made no effort to regulate itself since the whole mess began, and does not intend to do so. He said the industry would do all in its power to maintain the status quo, and predicted that the US Senate would cave on the current bill it's now considering because "those Senators have already been bought and paid for."
Cynical is another good word. Disgusting. Immoral. I won't go on. Didn't any of these guys go to Sunday School?
Thank God for people like Elizabeth Warren.

by: fundamentalist

02-11-2010 @ 9:05pm

I caught an interview with Ms. Warren on the news this morning and think she is headed in the right direction. As this article from Cato http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v32n1/cp... indicates, a lot of the problem in banking has been a plethora of regulations at different times designed to address specific issues that were not coordinated. Regulations often conflict or make risk worse. Regulators aren't even aware of all of the vast number of regulations and how they might affect banks. Ms. Warren is trying to untangle the knots and provide a seamless, coordinated set of banking regulations. I wish her luck.

"But starting in 1980, the rules were first watered down and gradually removed, and banks were free again to engage in both the abusive and very risky speculative behavior that helped to bring on the Great Depression, and resulted again in the current Great Recession."

Actually, US regulations were not removed, but changed to the "safer" European banking regulation called Basel I and II. Everyone, including Greenspan, heralded the new European banking regulations as promoting safety and minimizing risk. Banks bought only AAA and AA rated debt, the least risky debt that can be bought. US government bonds are AAA rated. That debt was rated by one of three ratings agencies, such as Moody's, which federal regulations required banks to use. The only regulation that was removed was Glass-Steagall, which prevented commercial banks from engaging in investment banking. Before the last crisis, no commercial bank did that. They did buy mortgage backed securities (MBS's) from investment banks, but only those rated AAA and AA. Before the Great Depression, banks did engage in risky behavior: they speculated in the stock market. No banks did that this time around.

"We are now living in a "lawless" economic environment, according to Warren,"

That's quite an overstatement. Can anyone count the pages of bank regulations? Banking is the most highly regulated industry except for healthcare. Credit card issuing banks need to be less obscure, but that's light years from being "lawless."

"The sins of the financial world have become both a moral, and even religious, issue from the perspective of the Methodist tradition "which still shapes me."

Keep in mind the Ms. Warren is part of mainstream econ which has no business cycle theory. For mainstream econ, financial crises are random events, ie, they have no cause. When pressed to finger someone, they will go along with the press and politicians and blame bankers.

"They subscribe to what I label in my new book, Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street - A Moral Compass for the New Economy, "the myth of the sinless market."

That's a typical straw man, which means it's dishonest. There is no one who believes in a sinless market. I can't speak for conservatives because their philosophy is too muddled for me to understand. But libertarians object to regulation beyond the rule of law preventing fraud and theft for the same reason Adam Smith opposed it:

1) Regulatory capture. You can create hundreds of new agencies and regulations, but the regulated industries always capture control of the regulating agencies. Banks always control banking regulatory agencies.

2) Regulations always fail, and will fail again in a few years, because no group of men is smart enough to see into the future and how human behavior in the marketplace will change in response to new regulations.

3) Regulations are usually the main problem because they are short sighted, backward looking, contradictory and complicated.

4) Competition does a better job of regulating "sinful" behavior than does state regulation. If competition fails, it's usually because regulation has shackled the market's natural policing power.
Increased regulation of banks will choke off lending. In a few years, people will be asking why banks aren't lending. They will blame bankers. But the fault will lie with the regulations.

Also, keep in mind the reason Jimmy Carter began deregulating industries. New Deal regulation had strangled the economy. No one was investing and production had stalled. The result was high unemployment and high inflation. Deregulation got the economy moving again. Misguided economics will strangle the economy again with the obvious result of high unemployment and greater poverty.

by: Julia Smucker

02-11-2010 @ 9:08pm

Bravo for blowing away conservative/liberal dichotomies with your "fallen market" theology. I hope the policy-makers are listening.

Comments sorted by highest rated. After voting you must refresh your page to see the sort order change.

by: californiabrown

02-11-2010 @ 8:39pm

When you mention banks, are you talking about small, privately-owned, community-based banks or the really big guys? My father is president of a small, community-based bank who hasn't seemed to benefit at all from deregulation and whose bank certainly didn't get any benefits from TARP. As a matter of fact they are paying a heavy price in terms of raised FDIC taxes for the financial miscues of the big guys. I think it would be helpful to make some distinctions between the public and privately-held banks because banking, in general, can be a great thing when it is concerned about and invested in communities and local economies.

by: californiabrown

02-11-2010 @ 8:39pm

When you mention banks, are you talking about small, privately-owned, community-based banks or the really big guys? My father is president of a small, community-based bank who hasn't seemed to benefit at all from deregulation and whose bank certainly didn't get any benefits from TARP. As a matter of fact they are paying a heavy price in terms of raised FDIC taxes for the financial miscues of the big guys. I think it would be helpful to make some distinctions between the public and privately-held banks because banking, in general, can be a great thing when it is concerned about and invested in communities and local economies.

by: duhsciple

02-11-2010 @ 8:53pm

Your father is the kind of banker we celebrate! Local banks in touch with local customers empowering local productivity, amen!

How can we encourage bankers like your father while protecting ourselves from predatory bankers?

by: duhsciple

02-11-2010 @ 8:53pm

Your father is the kind of banker we celebrate! Local banks in touch with local customers empowering local productivity, amen!

How can we encourage bankers like your father while protecting ourselves from predatory bankers?

by: cephas45

02-11-2010 @ 8:55pm

Unrepentant is the right word. At a recent networking gathering concerning this whole issue, one manager of a regional bank here in New England spoke publicly about the industry's intent to maintain the status quo. He said the industry has made no effort to regulate itself since the whole mess began, and does not intend to do so. He said the industry would do all in its power to maintain the status quo, and predicted that the US Senate would cave on the current bill it's now considering because "those Senators have already been bought and paid for."
Cynical is another good word. Disgusting. Immoral. I won't go on. Didn't any of these guys go to Sunday School?
Thank God for people like Elizabeth Warren.

by: cephas45

02-11-2010 @ 8:55pm

Unrepentant is the right word. At a recent networking gathering concerning this whole issue, one manager of a regional bank here in New England spoke publicly about the industry's intent to maintain the status quo. He said the industry has made no effort to regulate itself since the whole mess began, and does not intend to do so. He said the industry would do all in its power to maintain the status quo, and predicted that the US Senate would cave on the current bill it's now considering because "those Senators have already been bought and paid for."
Cynical is another good word. Disgusting. Immoral. I won't go on. Didn't any of these guys go to Sunday School?
Thank God for people like Elizabeth Warren.

by: fundamentalist

02-11-2010 @ 9:05pm

I caught an interview with Ms. Warren on the news this morning and think she is headed in the right direction. As this article from Cato http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v32n1/cp... indicates, a lot of the problem in banking has been a plethora of regulations at different times designed to address specific issues that were not coordinated. Regulations often conflict or make risk worse. Regulators aren't even aware of all of the vast number of regulations and how they might affect banks. Ms. Warren is trying to untangle the knots and provide a seamless, coordinated set of banking regulations. I wish her luck.

"But starting in 1980, the rules were first watered down and gradually removed, and banks were free again to engage in both the abusive and very risky speculative behavior that helped to bring on the Great Depression, and resulted again in the current Great Recession."

Actually, US regulations were not removed, but changed to the "safer" European banking regulation called Basel I and II. Everyone, including Greenspan, heralded the new European banking regulations as promoting safety and minimizing risk. Banks bought only AAA and AA rated debt, the least risky debt that can be bought. US government bonds are AAA rated. That debt was rated by one of three ratings agencies, such as Moody's, which federal regulations required banks to use. The only regulation that was removed was Glass-Steagall, which prevented commercial banks from engaging in investment banking. Before the last crisis, no commercial bank did that. They did buy mortgage backed securities (MBS's) from investment banks, but only those rated AAA and AA. Before the Great Depression, banks did engage in risky behavior: they speculated in the stock market. No banks did that this time around.

"We are now living in a "lawless" economic environment, according to Warren,"

That's quite an overstatement. Can anyone count the pages of bank regulations? Banking is the most highly regulated industry except for healthcare. Credit card issuing banks need to be less obscure, but that's light years from being "lawless."

"The sins of the financial world have become both a moral, and even religious, issue from the perspective of the Methodist tradition "which still shapes me."

Keep in mind the Ms. Warren is part of mainstream econ which has no business cycle theory. For mainstream econ, financial crises are random events, ie, they have no cause. When pressed to finger someone, they will go along with the press and politicians and blame bankers.

"They subscribe to what I label in my new book, Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street - A Moral Compass for the New Economy, "the myth of the sinless market."

That's a typical straw man, which means it's dishonest. There is no one who believes in a sinless market. I can't speak for conservatives because their philosophy is too muddled for me to understand. But libertarians object to regulation beyond the rule of law preventing fraud and theft for the same reason Adam Smith opposed it:

1) Regulatory capture. You can create hundreds of new agencies and regulations, but the regulated industries always capture control of the regulating agencies. Banks always control banking regulatory agencies.

2) Regulations always fail, and will fail again in a few years, because no group of men is smart enough to see into the future and how human behavior in the marketplace will change in response to new regulations.

3) Regulations are usually the main problem because they are short sighted, backward looking, contradictory and complicated.

4) Competition does a better job of regulating "sinful" behavior than does state regulation. If competition fails, it's usually because regulation has shackled the market's natural policing power.
Increased regulation of banks will choke off lending. In a few years, people will be asking why banks aren't lending. They will blame bankers. But the fault will lie with the regulations.

Also, keep in mind the reason Jimmy Carter began deregulating industries. New Deal regulation had strangled the economy. No one was investing and production had stalled. The result was high unemployment and high inflation. Deregulation got the economy moving again. Misguided economics will strangle the economy again with the obvious result of high unemployment and greater poverty.

by: fundamentalist

02-11-2010 @ 9:05pm

I caught an interview with Ms. Warren on the news this morning and think she is headed in the right direction. As this article from Cato http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v32n1/cp... indicates, a lot of the problem in banking has been a plethora of regulations at different times designed to address specific issues that were not coordinated. Regulations often conflict or make risk worse. Regulators aren't even aware of all of the vast number of regulations and how they might affect banks. Ms. Warren is trying to untangle the knots and provide a seamless, coordinated set of banking regulations. I wish her luck.

"But starting in 1980, the rules were first watered down and gradually removed, and banks were free again to engage in both the abusive and very risky speculative behavior that helped to bring on the Great Depression, and resulted again in the current Great Recession."

Actually, US regulations were not removed, but changed to the "safer" European banking regulation called Basel I and II. Everyone, including Greenspan, heralded the new European banking regulations as promoting safety and minimizing risk. Banks bought only AAA and AA rated debt, the least risky debt that can be bought. US government bonds are AAA rated. That debt was rated by one of three ratings agencies, such as Moody's, which federal regulations required banks to use. The only regulation that was removed was Glass-Steagall, which prevented commercial banks from engaging in investment banking. Before the last crisis, no commercial bank did that. They did buy mortgage backed securities (MBS's) from investment banks, but only those rated AAA and AA. Before the Great Depression, banks did engage in risky behavior: they speculated in the stock market. No banks did that this time around.

"We are now living in a "lawless" economic environment, according to Warren,"

That's quite an overstatement. Can anyone count the pages of bank regulations? Banking is the most highly regulated industry except for healthcare. Credit card issuing banks need to be less obscure, but that's light years from being "lawless."

"The sins of the financial world have become both a moral, and even religious, issue from the perspective of the Methodist tradition "which still shapes me."

Keep in mind the Ms. Warren is part of mainstream econ which has no business cycle theory. For mainstream econ, financial crises are random events, ie, they have no cause. When pressed to finger someone, they will go along with the press and politicians and blame bankers.

"They subscribe to what I label in my new book, Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street - A Moral Compass for the New Economy, "the myth of the sinless market."

That's a typical straw man, which means it's dishonest. There is no one who believes in a sinless market. I can't speak for conservatives because their philosophy is too muddled for me to understand. But libertarians object to regulation beyond the rule of law preventing fraud and theft for the same reason Adam Smith opposed it:

1) Regulatory capture. You can create hundreds of new agencies and regulations, but the regulated industries always capture control of the regulating agencies. Banks always control banking regulatory agencies.

2) Regulations always fail, and will fail again in a few years, because no group of men is smart enough to see into the future and how human behavior in the marketplace will change in response to new regulations.

3) Regulations are usually the main problem because they are short sighted, backward looking, contradictory and complicated.

4) Competition does a better job of regulating "sinful" behavior than does state regulation. If competition fails, it's usually because regulation has shackled the market's natural policing power.
Increased regulation of banks will choke off lending. In a few years, people will be asking why banks aren't lending. They will blame bankers. But the fault will lie with the regulations.

Also, keep in mind the reason Jimmy Carter began deregulating industries. New Deal regulation had strangled the economy. No one was investing and production had stalled. The result was high unemployment and high inflation. Deregulation got the economy moving again. Misguided economics will strangle the economy again with the obvious result of high unemployment and greater poverty.

by: Julia Smucker

02-11-2010 @ 9:08pm

Bravo for blowing away conservative/liberal dichotomies with your "fallen market" theology. I hope the policy-makers are listening.

by: Julia Smucker

02-11-2010 @ 9:08pm

Bravo for blowing away conservative/liberal dichotomies with your "fallen market" theology. I hope the policy-makers are listening.

by: liberalinlove

02-11-2010 @ 9:12pm

How do we convince people, the dems aren't ushering in a one world govt, that govt. isn't inherently evil, that Reagan wasn't the last best thing to hit America, and that justice and regulations are about the little guy. My "christian" friends, would no more read a sojourners article than fact check a Rush or Focus on the Family statement.

by: liberalinlove

02-11-2010 @ 9:12pm

How do we convince people, the dems aren't ushering in a one world govt, that govt. isn't inherently evil, that Reagan wasn't the last best thing to hit America, and that justice and regulations are about the little guy. My "christian" friends, would no more read a sojourners article than fact check a Rush or Focus on the Family statement.

by: liberalinlove

02-11-2010 @ 9:16pm

Thanks for the insight. How easy it is to undo one theology by adopting an immediate and more convenient one. I needed this.

by: liberalinlove

02-11-2010 @ 9:16pm

Thanks for the insight. How easy it is to undo one theology by adopting an immediate and more convenient one. I needed this.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-11-2010 @ 9:38pm

I think her comments enlightening and interesting--but on the level of "consideration" and not "conclusive."

I'm a layman. I just opened a checking account with Wells Fargo and received over 100 pages of fine print.

What I see is not too much or too little regulation. I see a bloated,lethargic, gluttonous and distracted bureaucracy attempting to regulate at a highway speed of 40--when the world is moving at 80. Financial institutions move rapidly and aggressively to function within an old=world system of laws while exploiting a rapidly changing global market. And the bureaucracy does well to crank out piles of regulations to keep the old junker rumbling along.

I feel we have politicians who can't even capture a vision of the governing challenge for a world that would have been incomprehensible even at the time of their birth. I see and hear no passion for either the kind of moral framework Jim advocates nor for a functional government that must be much smaller, agile, quick, ..... It can't think. It can't act. It repeatedly "punts" on the major issues. And then tries to do more and bigger to compensate.

by: letjusticerolldown

02-11-2010 @ 9:38pm

I think her comments enlightening and interesting--but on the level of "consideration" and not "conclusive."

I'm a layman. I just opened a checking account with Wells Fargo and received over 100 pages of fine print.

What I see is not too much or too little regulation. I see a bloated,lethargic, gluttonous and distracted bureaucracy attempting to regulate at a highway speed of 40--when the world is moving at 80. Financial institutions move rapidly and aggressively to function within an old=world system of laws while exploiting a rapidly changing global market. And the bureaucracy does well to crank out piles of regulations to keep the old junker rumbling along.

I feel we have politicians who can't even capture a vision of the governing challenge for a world that would have been incomprehensible even at the time of their birth. I see and hear no passion for either the kind of moral framework Jim advocates nor for a functional government that must be much smaller, agile, quick, ..... It can't think. It can't act. It repeatedly "punts" on the major issues. And then tries to do more and bigger to compensate.

by: Jesusistheway

02-11-2010 @ 9:52pm

Why should we expect bankers and businesses to operate in any more of an ethical and moral manner than any other of our institutions? Whether it's Government, the Church, higher institutions of learning, or pick an institution of your choice, there has been a general decline in overall civility, morality and ethics and values in our country. Jim Wallis tends to focus on economic "sins" of the rich and powerful. But our problems are much greater than that. Until we recognize the extent of our problems, it'll be like trying to drive in a Midwest blizzard at night.

by: Jesusistheway

02-11-2010 @ 9:52pm

Why should we expect bankers and businesses to operate in any more of an ethical and moral manner than any other of our institutions? Whether it's Government, the Church, higher institutions of learning, or pick an institution of your choice, there has been a general decline in overall civility, morality and ethics and values in our country. Jim Wallis tends to focus on economic "sins" of the rich and powerful. But our problems are much greater than that. Until we recognize the extent of our problems, it'll be like trying to drive in a Midwest blizzard at night.

by: uberVU - social comments

02-11-2010 @ 10:43pm

Social comments and analytics for this post...

This post was mentioned on Twitter by reneerico: For the rec clubbers: Elizabath Warren and Goliath (at Sojourners) http://bit.ly/dyI6RD...

by: Andrew Meredith

02-11-2010 @ 11:13pm

Thank you for the article. I am looking forward to reading "Rediscovering Values."

by: Andrew Meredith

02-11-2010 @ 11:13pm

Thank you for the article. I am looking forward to reading "Rediscovering Values."

by: Millenium_10

02-12-2010 @ 12:15am

I am not a 'regulation fundamentalist' and am not convinced that more regulation is the answer to the current economic crisis. Fundamentalist lists some reasons why above.
Scepticism about regulations or excessive regulations is not about having too optimistic a view of big banks but actually the opposite. The potential for these big private organisations to get in bed with the ruling authorities and manipulate these regulations to their own advantage is likely to increase the more that government control is involved.

It is interesting that Jim talks about regulations being necessary because of the Christian doctrine of the fall and our fallen humanity because it is the very same argument that conservatives use for why the free market is better than a centralised controlled economy. No one is saying that the market is sinless or that big business etc isn't out to screw us over but the real question is what type of system is going to be most effective in curbing these tendencies? Is it government regulation or free market competition?

Another observation I made of the article was that it only blamed big banks for the current crisis as though everyone else are just innocent victims. The real world isn't that simple. Romans says that all have fallen short of the glory of God, all have turned away for him. Everyone is fallen, we are all sinful, whether we are rich or poor. How many millions of people are in credit card debt because of decisions that were freely made?

by: Millenium_10

02-12-2010 @ 12:15am

I am not a 'regulation fundamentalist' and am not convinced that more regulation is the answer to the current economic crisis. Fundamentalist lists some reasons why above.
Scepticism about regulations or excessive regulations is not about having too optimistic a view of big banks but actually the opposite. The potential for these big private organisations to get in bed with the ruling authorities and manipulate these regulations to their own advantage is likely to increase the more that government control is involved.

It is interesting that Jim talks about regulations being necessary because of the Christian doctrine of the fall and our fallen humanity because it is the very same argument that conservatives use for why the free market is better than a centralised controlled economy. No one is saying that the market is sinless or that big business etc isn't out to screw us over but the real question is what type of system is going to be most effective in curbing these tendencies? Is it government regulation or free market competition?

Another observation I made of the article was that it only blamed big banks for the current crisis as though everyone else are just innocent victims. The real world isn't that simple. Romans says that all have fallen short of the glory of God, all have turned away for him. Everyone is fallen, we are all sinful, whether we are rich or poor. How many millions of people are in credit card debt because of decisions that were freely made?

by: brentw

02-12-2010 @ 12:46am

Private Vice, Public Benefit?

As a wizened progressive, I have long thought that, for many at least, depravity (or moral turpitude to use a quasi-legal term) is the veritable engine of prosperity, which may be especially true if one listens to those who advocate no or minimal regulation of markets. For, after all, regulation stifles innovation and wealth creation. It fosters an osteoarthritis of the market politic whose bulging arteries swallows up all vital blood flow, all manner of growth, and all of the goodness and the Way of the Way.

And this Way just may be the way of Mandeville and his Fable of the Bees. For it is doubtless true that private vice promotes public benefits. Imagine, as he did in 1705, a prosperous beehive that prospered because every bee, in seeking its own blind self-interest, namely the acquisition of nectar, benefited the entire hive. Now imagine that into this den of self-interest the disconcerting Babel of an outsider who would dare to proselytize the doctrine that one should work not only out of self-consideration but also out of duty to the hive and one's fellow bees. In their paroxysm of other-regardingness, the hive, deprived of its vital fluids, as Sterling Hayden once lamented, dies. Thus the moral of the story is that our selfish behavior makes for public prosperity-pubic vice makes public benefits possible. And if you doubt this, just listen to the Mandarins of Market Magic, the bankers. They, truly, deliver us from the evil of poverty through their ensorcellments.

As Mandeville notes, the libertine has profligate spending habits that creates all manner of jobs---from his concubines, to his tailors, to his florists, to his musicians, to his restaurants-not to mention shady or not so shady hotels-if you pay, who asks?. Thus private spending creates all manner of jobs and thus prosperity. What could be better? This may be the original expression of consumerism, enshrined by Keynes, spend and ye shall prosper.

Obviously, we are here talking about a law of the universe: individualistic greed is the motor of earthly if not heavenly redemption (since our greed promotes the general welfare and thus qualifies us for participation in the blessed afterlife of even more ethereal consumption, one supposes).

So, we are just a bunch of busy bees, who not only do but also should seek our consumptive nirvanas and thus, magically if not otherwise, attain our salvation.

by: brentw

02-12-2010 @ 12:46am

Private Vice, Public Benefit?

As a wizened progressive, I have long thought that, for many at least, depravity (or moral turpitude to use a quasi-legal term) is the veritable engine of prosperity, which may be especially true if one listens to those who advocate no or minimal regulation of markets. For, after all, regulation stifles innovation and wealth creation. It fosters an osteoarthritis of the market politic whose bulging arteries swallows up all vital blood flow, all manner of growth, and all of the goodness and the Way of the Way.

And this Way just may be the way of Mandeville and his Fable of the Bees. For it is doubtless true that private vice promotes public benefits. Imagine, as he did in 1705, a prosperous beehive that prospered because every bee, in seeking its own blind self-interest, namely the acquisition of nectar, benefited the entire hive. Now imagine that into this den of self-interest the disconcerting Babel of an outsider who would dare to proselytize the doctrine that one should work not only out of self-consideration but also out of duty to the hive and one's fellow bees. In their paroxysm of other-regardingness, the hive, deprived of its vital fluids, as Sterling Hayden once lamented, dies. Thus the moral of the story is that our selfish behavior makes for public prosperity-pubic vice makes public benefits possible. And if you doubt this, just listen to the Mandarins of Market Magic, the bankers. They, truly, deliver us from the evil of poverty through their ensorcellments.

As Mandeville notes, the libertine has profligate spending habits that creates all manner of jobs---from his concubines, to his tailors, to his florists, to his musicians, to his restaurants-not to mention shady or not so shady hotels-if you pay, who asks?. Thus private spending creates all manner of jobs and thus prosperity. What could be better? This may be the original expression of consumerism, enshrined by Keynes, spend and ye shall prosper.

Obviously, we are here talking about a law of the universe: individualistic greed is the motor of earthly if not heavenly redemption (since our greed promotes the general welfare and thus qualifies us for participation in the blessed afterlife of even more ethereal consumption, one supposes).

So, we are just a bunch of busy bees, who not only do but also should seek our consumptive nirvanas and thus, magically if not otherwise, attain our salvation.

by: fundamentalist

02-12-2010 @ 12:02pm

One of the problems with the way the Feds handled the crisis was treating all banks the same. They did so because they didn't want people to know which banks were in trouble and cause a run on those banks. But the result has been to reward the larger banks and punish the small ones.

by: fundamentalist

02-12-2010 @ 12:02pm

One of the problems with the way the Feds handled the crisis was treating all banks the same. They did so because they didn't want people to know which banks were in trouble and cause a run on those banks. But the result has been to reward the larger banks and punish the small ones.

by: fundamentalist

02-12-2010 @ 12:15pm

Thanks! The main problem with our financial system has been the socialist/progressive/Keynesian idea that interest rates should be extremely low. That idea began with socialists, but progressives adopted it and made it part of the Fed's reason for being. Keynes only got in front of the crowd and proclaimed himself their leader. But the stock market/housing boom of the 1920's that resulted from cheap money irritated politicians. Low interest rates expands credit and creates new money out of nothing. Politicians wanted the new money to go into manufacturing, not houses and stocks. So began the massive effort to regulate the flow of cheap money. Progressives have always wanted to achieve two conflicting goals--low interest rates to expand credit and to direct the flow of new money exactly where they wanted it to go. They have been trying for about a century. The latest crisis is only the latest failure.

If the Federal Reserve would quit attempting to goose the economy with low interest rates and stick to maintaining sound money, as the European Central Bank does, then we wouldn't need massive regulation attempting to control the flood of new money. But if the Feds keep expanding credit and flooding the country with money, no amount of regulation will protect us from the harmful effects.

by: fundamentalist

02-12-2010 @ 12:15pm

Thanks! The main problem with our financial system has been the socialist/progressive/Keynesian idea that interest rates should be extremely low. That idea began with socialists, but progressives adopted it and made it part of the Fed's reason for being. Keynes only got in front of the crowd and proclaimed himself their leader. But the stock market/housing boom of the 1920's that resulted from cheap money irritated politicians. Low interest rates expands credit and creates new money out of nothing. Politicians wanted the new money to go into manufacturing, not houses and stocks. So began the massive effort to regulate the flow of cheap money. Progressives have always wanted to achieve two conflicting goals--low interest rates to expand credit and to direct the flow of new money exactly where they wanted it to go. They have been trying for about a century. The latest crisis is only the latest failure.

If the Federal Reserve would quit attempting to goose the economy with low interest rates and stick to maintaining sound money, as the European Central Bank does, then we wouldn't need massive regulation attempting to control the flood of new money. But if the Feds keep expanding credit and flooding the country with money, no amount of regulation will protect us from the harmful effects.

by: fundamentalist

02-12-2010 @ 12:25pm

I appreciate what you're saying in your post, and there is a lot of truth in what you say. However, I'd like you to consider another school of economics known as the Austrian school. FA Hayek (not Selma, unfortunately) was one of its leaders. You can get a good introduction to it in the videos at the fee.org web site.

What you express is without a doubt the dominant thinking in economics. Austrian economists are a small minority. The chief difference between mainstream econ and Austrian econ is the issue of saving and consumption. Mainstream econ promotes consumption as the engine of economic growth, for the reasons you describe in your post. Austrians see savings as the engine because savings go into investment in new businesses which create jobs. Also, savings promotes greater use of capital intensive production (using more equipment instead of labor) which raises worker productivity and therefore wages. Also, Austrians have the only viable theory of business cycles in my opinion.

by: fundamentalist

02-12-2010 @ 12:25pm

I appreciate what you're saying in your post, and there is a lot of truth in what you say. However, I'd like you to consider another school of economics known as the Austrian school. FA Hayek (not Selma, unfortunately) was one of its leaders. You can get a good introduction to it in the videos at the fee.org web site.

What you express is without a doubt the dominant thinking in economics. Austrian economists are a small minority. The chief difference between mainstream econ and Austrian econ is the issue of saving and consumption. Mainstream econ promotes consumption as the engine of economic growth, for the reasons you describe in your post. Austrians see savings as the engine because savings go into investment in new businesses which create jobs. Also, savings promotes greater use of capital intensive production (using more equipment instead of labor) which raises worker productivity and therefore wages. Also, Austrians have the only viable theory of business cycles in my opinion.

by: ghockerman

02-12-2010 @ 12:26pm

When we start to think of our largest institutions as something other than a reflection of our collective moral attitudes, than we may miss an opportunity to see that substantive change begins in our own homes and churches.

Waiting for a for-profit industry to develop or be forced to develop a moral conscience will not address the core problem that faces both the greedy homeowner and the greedy banker alike.

by: ghockerman

02-12-2010 @ 12:26pm

When we start to think of our largest institutions as something other than a reflection of our collective moral attitudes, than we may miss an opportunity to see that substantive change begins in our own homes and churches.

Waiting for a for-profit industry to develop or be forced to develop a moral conscience will not address the core problem that faces both the greedy homeowner and the greedy banker alike.

by: fundamentalist

02-12-2010 @ 12:45pm

"They subscribe to what I label in my new book, Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street - A Moral Compass for the New Economy, "the myth of the sinless market."

I read an interview yesterday with Justin Fox, author of "The Myth of the Irrational Market." His thesis is similar: the market is not rational and therefore needs regulation.

Free marketeers such as myself do not belief the market is always correct. There is a caveat: the market is the best guide if, and only if, it is a free market. Prices guide decision making in the marketplace. The Church scholars of the School of Salamanca taught that a just price in commerce happens only in a free market. Libertarians add that only prices arrived at in a free market provide good guidance to participants. If prices are distorted through coercion, then buyers and sellers in the market get faulty information and the "market" makes mistakes.

The chief way that prices get distorted is through the Federal Reserve manipulating interest rates. Interest rates are basically the price of renting money. When interest rates are too low, it sets false signals to buyers/sellers to borrow more. That borrowing, in turn, changes the prices of goods that the borrowers purchase and distorts price signals in all aspects of the economy.

Businessmen always make mistakes. Free marketeers believe the market will make fewer mistakes when the market is free. When it is highly regulated, ie, coerced, as it is today, the market cannot help but make massive mistakes.

by: fundamentalist

02-12-2010 @ 12:45pm

"They subscribe to what I label in my new book, Rediscovering Values: On Wall Street, Main Street, and Your Street - A Moral Compass for the New Economy, "the myth of the sinless market."

I read an interview yesterday with Justin Fox, author of "The Myth of the Irrational Market." His thesis is similar: the market is not rational and therefore needs regulation.

Free marketeers such as myself do not belief the market is always correct. There is a caveat: the market is the best guide if, and only if, it is a free market. Prices guide decision making in the marketplace. The Church scholars of the School of Salamanca taught that a just price in commerce happens only in a free market. Libertarians add that only prices arrived at in a free market provide good guidance to participants. If prices are distorted through coercion, then buyers and sellers in the market get faulty information and the "market" makes mistakes.

The chief way that prices get distorted is through the Federal Reserve manipulating interest rates. Interest rates are basically the price of renting money. When interest rates are too low, it sets false signals to buyers/sellers to borrow more. That borrowing, in turn, changes the prices of goods that the borrowers purchase and distorts price signals in all aspects of the economy.

Businessmen always make mistakes. Free marketeers believe the market will make fewer mistakes when the market is free. When it is highly regulated, ie, coerced, as it is today, the market cannot help but make massive mistakes.

by: sddave

02-12-2010 @ 1:42pm

Jim, thanks for your interview with Elizabeth Warren. I think it would be a perfect time to reflect as a country and as individuals on Gandhi's observations on the Seven Deadly Sins and on how we have failed miserably. During this time of Lent and season of Repentance, we need to reflect on these.
--- Wealth without Work
--- Pleasure without Conscience
--- Science without Humanity
--- Knowledge without Character
--- Politics without Principle
--- Commerce without Morality
--- Worship without Sacrifice

by: sddave

02-12-2010 @ 1:42pm

Jim, thanks for your interview with Elizabeth Warren. I think it would be a perfect time to reflect as a country and as individuals on Gandhi's observations on the Seven Deadly Sins and on how we have failed miserably. During this time of Lent and season of Repentance, we need to reflect on these.
--- Wealth without Work
--- Pleasure without Conscience
--- Science without Humanity
--- Knowledge without Character
--- Politics without Principle
--- Commerce without Morality
--- Worship without Sacrifice

by: fundamentalist

02-12-2010 @ 1:54pm

The popular explanation of the recent crisis is that deregulation of banking allowed bankers to go crazy and commit fraud against the entire nation. Another, minority, explanation is that credit expansion by the Feds in the 1990's and early 2000's caused first a stock market bubble and then a housing bubble. The collapse of both caused serious harm and a major crisis.

Being able to evaluate both explanations takes a lot of work and especially a knowledge of how markets actually work.

by: fundamentalist

02-12-2010 @ 1:54pm

The popular explanation of the recent crisis is that deregulation of banking allowed bankers to go crazy and commit fraud against the entire nation. Another, minority, explanation is that credit expansion by the Feds in the 1990's and early 2000's caused first a stock market bubble and then a housing bubble. The collapse of both caused serious harm and a major crisis.

Being able to evaluate both explanations takes a lot of work and especially a knowledge of how markets actually work.

by: PTD

02-12-2010 @ 2:12pm

Mr Wallis' extraordinary vitae not withstanding, he makes the same mistake common to man, attributing to God words he did not say. Mr Wallis states; "Jesus said it well - choose this day who you will serve, God or Mammon (Money). "
It was Joshua who said "choose this day who you will serve." (Jos 24:15) Jesus did speak about the inability of man to serve both God & mammon(Matt 6:24 & Luke 16:13). To try to combine the two into a quote is incorrect.
The greater mistake is trying to fit the world's monetary system to the Kingdom of God standards. Jesus did testify to Pilate; "My kingdom is not of this world"
You don't put new clothes on an old corpse. If you do, it may look pretty, but it's still dead. "The world is passing away and the desires thereof..."
"Sell what you have, give to the poor, and come follow me" Now that is Kingdom
economics 101

by: PTD

02-12-2010 @ 2:12pm

Mr Wallis' extraordinary vitae not withstanding, he makes the same mistake common to man, attributing to God words he did not say. Mr Wallis states; "Jesus said it well - choose this day who you will serve, God or Mammon (Money). "
It was Joshua who said "choose this day who you will serve." (Jos 24:15) Jesus did speak about the inability of man to serve both God & mammon(Matt 6:24 & Luke 16:13). To try to combine the two into a quote is incorrect.
The greater mistake is trying to fit the world's monetary system to the Kingdom of God standards. Jesus did testify to Pilate; "My kingdom is not of this world"
You don't put new clothes on an old corpse. If you do, it may look pretty, but it's still dead. "The world is passing away and the desires thereof..."
"Sell what you have, give to the poor, and come follow me" Now that is Kingdom
economics 101

by: carlcopas

02-12-2010 @ 5:41pm

I don't disagree with your Lesson. But no regulation also has unintended bad consequences.

I don't see the issue as either regulate or no regulations, but rather can we come up with wise regulation?

by: carlcopas

02-12-2010 @ 5:41pm

I don't disagree with your Lesson. But no regulation also has unintended bad consequences.

I don't see the issue as either regulate or no regulations, but rather can we come up with wise regulation?

by: fundamentalist

02-12-2010 @ 7:48pm

The classical liberal answer was to pass laws prohibiting fraud, theft, coercion, etc. that applied to all businesses. Regulation has more harmful effects than good when the intention is for the state to micromanage particular industries for the benefit of particular groups of people.

In banking regulations, the problem started when the policy of the Federal Reserve to provide easy, cheap credit. Most of that new credit went into stocks or housing, so the regulators tried to direct it to manufacturing with regulations, which have proven impossible, but they won't quit trying. The problem continued with FDIC insurance, which caused banks to take more risk because they didn't have to suffer the consequences of failure. More regulation was added to prevent that risky behavior.

Each regulation causes distortions and harmful effects in the market that call for more regulations.

by: fundamentalist

02-12-2010 @ 7:48pm

The classical liberal answer was to pass laws prohibiting fraud, theft, coercion, etc. that applied to all businesses. Regulation has more harmful effects than good when the intention is for the state to micromanage particular industries for the benefit of particular groups of people.

In banking regulations, the problem started when the policy of the Federal Reserve to provide easy, cheap credit. Most of that new credit went into stocks or housing, so the regulators tried to direct it to manufacturing with regulations, which have proven impossible, but they won't quit trying. The problem continued with FDIC insurance, which caused banks to take more risk because they didn't have to suffer the consequences of failure. More regulation was added to prevent that risky behavior.

Each regulation causes distortions and harmful effects in the market that call for more regulations.

by: Mennoman

02-13-2010 @ 2:30am

The classical conservative answer-- deny de-regulation had anything to do with the current problems we have and invent a new narrative and set of facts to accommodate their ideology that supports totally unregulated markets.

by: Mennoman

02-13-2010 @ 2:30am

The classical conservative answer-- deny de-regulation had anything to do with the current problems we have and invent a new narrative and set of facts to accommodate their ideology that supports totally unregulated markets.

by: Mennoman

02-13-2010 @ 2:33am

Ahhh.. the "Socialist" label. It is the fault of the socialist Democrats who wanted cheap money out there....problem is it happened on George W Bush's watch-- that closet Socialist! What a Commie that Bernake!

by: Mennoman

02-13-2010 @ 2:33am

Ahhh.. the "Socialist" label. It is the fault of the socialist Democrats who wanted cheap money out there....problem is it happened on George W Bush's watch-- that closet Socialist! What a Commie that Bernake!

by: fundamentalist

02-15-2010 @ 12:06pm

How do you know that progressives aren't inventing a new narrative and facts to accommodate their ideology?