Get E-Mail Updates

Four Steps to Save the Souls of Big Banks

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. 

The biggest banks have an ethical obligation to help alleviate the pain from a crisis they helped create. After being extended such "grace" because of the fear of an economic meltdown, the banks then failed to extend that grace to anybody else, creating a modern "parable of the unmerciful bankers." Knowing no shame, they then decided to use that public money to make themselves even richer, and then pass out billions of dollars in bonuses to their top executives -- while middle-class families were left to fend for themselves. Job loss, unsustainable mortgage payments, and exorbitant bank fees are just a few of the problems facing the middle class. I would suggest four steps that the big banks should take.

First, begin lending again. The big banks have drastically cut lending to small businesses, one of the primary job creators in the U.S. The banks received billions in financial assistance, but instead of helping small businesses, they've used the financial assistance mostly to increase their own wealth. That's just wrong and not in the spirit of how the bailouts were intended.

Second, the banks need to begin to modify mortgages for families facing foreclosure at a much faster rate. Currently, the loan modifications have been taking place at a painfully slow pace, leaving millions of American families in financial distress.

Third, the banks need to curtail their exorbitant overdraft fees. These fees primarily hit the middle class and working poor who are struggling to make their accounts balance. I was on a radio show a few weeks ago when an unemployed man called in to say he'd miscalculated his bank balance by $15. But because of that slight overage, his bank charged him $60 in fees! Again, that is just wrong. Banks received $38 billion in overdraft fees last year -- over half from debit cards.

Finally, and this may be the biggest issue, big banks should actually support common sense financial regulation for the common good, including a robust and independent consumer financial protection agency to make sure that the risky and abusive financial practices that helped precipitate this crisis do not happen again. That would be in the best interest of the country, but also in the best long term interest of good financial institutions. But up until now, the big banks have spent hundreds of millions lobbying against reform.

But truthfully, I am not very optimistic about the big banks' willingness to change -- unless we make some different choices about our own money. That's why my wife Joy and I decided to "fire" Bank of America. We took our little bank account from our branch of Bank of America, and moved it to a local bank that's been more responsible. In fact, there's now a whole movement of people who are taking their money out of the big banks and putting it into smaller community banks. The big banks say they are too big to fail; so let's make them smaller. I've been talking to families who are doing that, churches who are considering it, and even to large denominations who are seriously examining where their money should be. If enough people began to make that choice, especially in the faith community, such actions would soon become more than symbolic, and perhaps finally get the attention of Wall Street.

When I talk to pastors about these issues, they now tell me that the abusive "usury" policies of the nation's largest banks have now become, for them, a family issue because of what is happening to so many of their parishioners; a moral issue because of the fundamental unfairness and injustice of it all; a theological issue because of biblical injunctions against just this kind of behavior; and because of all the above, this is becoming a faith issue for many of us.

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 e-mail updates from Jim Wallis

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

by: letjusticerolldown

03-19-2010 @ 12:45am

I have accounts in two local credit unions and one in Wells Fargo.

The credit unions serve me much better. I support the downsizing of the Big Boys.

Of course, the Big Boys cause lots of damage when they start trampling the china shop; so I guess profit is a good thing. Keeps their hormones in check.

I think the best thing we can do for the US Banking system is get out of this crazy deficit spiral and put in place very vibrant regulatory reform. Regulation is fundamentally about creating the framework for a healthy financial services sector. It is like creating a national system of freeways. Yes it creates lots of restrictions--but fundamentally it creates the mechanism where business can flourish--within bounds. Freeways are safer, faster, and exponentially increase economies.

by: Patricia

03-18-2010 @ 2:15pm

Ahhh...the shining new dawn approacheth with all the best unfettered capitalism has to offer...robber barons...pinkerton thugs...company towns...company scrip...poorhouses...everything old will be new again :).

by: Millenium_10

04-20-2010 @ 7:26am

For a well informed critique of Naomi Klein and her view of the world I refer you to a young Swede from the Cato Institute called Johan Norberg. Excellent and just as passionate.

Also as far as I understand, the Austrian and Chicago schools are quite different and separate from one another.

By the way Sowell is amazing!

by: justintime

03-17-2010 @ 4:57pm

Your authoritarian response confirms the statement:

It [Austrian economics] is structured as a medieval philosophy based on authority, rather than systematic adherence to real-world data.

by: fundamentalist

03-17-2010 @ 4:52pm

" it has even less predictive power than mainstream economics,"

That's an interesting statement because mainstream economics has failed to predict any crisis over the past century, including the Great Depression, while Hayek, one of the leaders in Austrian econ, one his Nobel prize largely for his business cycle theory which predicted the crash that led to the Great Depression. And research by several organizations credit Austrian economists, among others, for predicting the latest crisis.

And what did the mainstream economists of the London School of Economics tell the Queen when she asked them why they had failed so miserably to predict the latest crisis? With a straight face, the LSE told the Queen that they had reliably predicted that no one can predict such crises.

I won't bore readers with detailed rebuttles of Caplan, Krugman, and other critics of Austrian economics except to say this: Caplan and Krugman are nearly totally and completely ignorant of Austrian economics. Krugman knows absolutely nothing about it while Caplan claims to have read the works of Rothbard when in high school. Anyone who has studied Austrian economics understands that Caplan and Krugman battle straw men, not Austrian economics.

I earned an MA in mainstream/Keynesian econ and discovered Austrian econ much later. I didn't really understand economics until I learned Austrian economics. Hayek still has the only viable theory of business cycles. What does Krugman offer? His silly baby-sitting co-op theory which is too childish to even rebutt.

Few professionals beyond academic economists and politicians take mainstream economics seriously. Politicians keep mainstream economists on the payroll for when they need someone with academic authority to rubber stamp their policies. But if you read Mark Skousen's "Structure of Production" you will find that many financial professionals follow Austrian principles without knowing it; they just know that mainstream econ has nothing to do with reality.

by: justintime

03-18-2010 @ 1:05am

Interesting.
So the only way to avoid Wall Street entirely is to keep your money under the mattress?
Do you have any references on this diabolical situation?
I'll check this out with my local banks and my credit union.

Regardless, my passbook savings account now yields 3.51% APR compared with .4%, fees on checking are less than half the Wall Street banks and my 3 children, who use revolving credit, pay the old rates instead of the new usurious rates.
Also, the local banks are loaning to local businesses while the Wall Street Banks are not and this makes me feel better.

Something IS happening though because traffic at my old Chase branch is a small fraction of what it used to be.
I think Chase is going to have to shut this branch down.
If Chase were chased out of my town that would make me feel even better.

What's happening in your town?

by: NMRod

03-18-2010 @ 12:45am

Same old, same old. It's supposedly not the fault of the banksters or Wall Street who were so naive as to be led to destruction by malevolent government. In reality, the greedsters influence-peddled government to do just what they wanted, in an era of anti-regulatory fervor. It's all of the non-financial sector that's suffering mightily, not them - they were bailed out to the tune of trillions, with which they've bonused themselves.

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but this anti-government fervor that the rich and powerful propagandize so mightily, is highly anti-republican and anti-democratic. If government regulation were to be abolished, as so many conservatives are yelling for, then the last bastion against a financial oligarchy's complete dominance would be abolished, even in theory. If government has no right to restrain the rich and their predatory behavior against the majority, then democracy is finished with, for all policy then becomes the province of a financial aristocracy.

by: NMRod

03-18-2010 @ 12:37am

The really, really sad thing is that the financial system is designed to thwart your efforts. The local banks and credit unions are retail outlets, which are forced to funnel deposits and investments to large wholesale umbrella units which are part of the same Wall Street paradigm. That's why the government had to bail out the large central credit union holding companies that serve the many thousands of local credit unions to the tune of billions as well - they had invested the funds and investments of the small local banks and credit unions in the same dicey financial instruments as all the others. They really had no choice - having to be competitive meant they had to participate. All financial roads, unfortunately, now lead to Wall Street.

by: Jezyk Angielski Chorz

08-16-2011 @ 1:11am

kursy angielskiego dabrowa górnicza...

Hey, I think your website might be having browser compatibility issues. When I look at your blog site in Safari, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that, ...

by: fundamentalist

03-18-2010 @ 4:10pm

Pawheel, which regulations would you restore that you think would have prevented the latest crisis?

by: fundamentalist

03-19-2010 @ 2:52pm

No I don't think Krugman's prize was spurious, but keep in mind what he won it for. He won it for work in a small, obscure aspect of international trade. That does not make him an expert in any other area of economics. When he gets outside of his area of expertise, his ignorance becomes very obvious.

And it's clear that he has not bothered to read any Austrian economics. He merely parrots what other ignorant critics have written.

When I first was introduced to Austrian econ I was skeptical. I had already earned an MA in mainstream (Krugman) econ. So I read a lot of the works of critics. It quickly became obvious to me that the critics weren't criticizing Austrian economics at all, but a straw man. I could understand that with just an elementary understanding of Austrian econ. The more I have learned, the more convinced I am that most critics haven't bothered to learn Austrian econ.

BTW, Austrians don't disagree with mainstream on microecon, just with macro, and even in macro there is a lot of agreement. The main disagreement is over business cycles. Mainstream econ has no theory (they assume cycles are random) while Austrians have a very sound theory.

by: fundamentalist

03-19-2010 @ 1:23am

I'm not being disenenuous. I simply know more about the subject that what one can get in a single NPR story by reporters who know very little about economics and don't want to know anything.

China suffered very little and their stimulus was no greater than ours. And I don't recall anyone forcing any nation to allow free capital movements. If so, why didn't they force India? Before the Asian financial crisis, most developing countries begged for cash flows from the developed world. They needed the money to grow their economies. India adopted socialism with the British in the late 1800's and continues most of that socialist tradition today.

by: Fun

07-31-2011 @ 8:51pm

Deck...

[

by: NC77

03-16-2010 @ 11:20pm

The CRA legislation created subprime mortgages. Congress is looking to further expand the CRA so subprime lending will contine rather than go away. This will continue to exascerbate the problem and we will are likely to see the second dip of this recession (from the financial meltdown) come 2011 or 2012.

It is not the banks fault, except perhaps through their naivete and ignorance of what was going on, i.e., worthless mortgage backed securities being packaged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and sold to the market as viable investments. The financial meltdown was the fruit harvested from the seeds of government meddling with "social' engineering the qualifications for mortgages and home ownership.

Next time let the banks fail. Don't give them a bailout. A child doesn't learn responsibility until you hold it accountable for its actions.

by: bielizna

07-19-2011 @ 11:53am

bielizna damska...

Hey there! This is kind of off topic but I need some help from an established blog. Is it tough to set up your own blog? I'm not very techincal but I can figure things out pretty quick. I'm thinking about making my own but I'm not sure where to begi...

by: Patricia

03-18-2010 @ 5:51pm

I was listening to an interesting report on NPR this morning detailing the consequences of IMF policies regarding the free movement of capital (money). Apparently, free, unregulated movement of money is not always a good thing - imagine that!

And, also interestingly, the nations who resisted IMF policy and western pressure and continued strictly regulating the movement of capital, like India, had neither the huge bubble build up of those nations committed to free capital movement (including ours), NOR, the huge crash those nations (including ours) experienced in the wake of the withdrawal of all that capital.

I wonder why we don't hear more about the successes of the regulation of capital markets?

by: justintime

03-18-2010 @ 5:39pm

I'll let pawheel answer for himself, but my response to your question, fundo, is to restore provisions in the Glass-Steagal Act which established a firewall between commercial banking and investment brokerage firms.

Please give us YOUR suggestions for preventing a future financial collapse, fundo.
Or do you think all forms of financial market regulation are futile?
If so, why?

by: Treasure Hunters Roadshow

05-13-2011 @ 12:47pm

good sh*t...

[..]this was AWESOME.[..]...

by: uberVU - social comments

03-17-2010 @ 11:03am

Social comments and analytics for this post...

This post was mentioned on Twitter by huntercenter: RT @Sojourners: Four Steps to Save the Souls of Big Banks by @jimwallis http://su.pr/1WEoUK...

by: Police Car Auctions

06-27-2011 @ 8:34pm

Police Car Auctions...

Hey there, I think your website might be having browser compatibility issues. When I look at your website in Opera, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then tha...

by: fundamentalist

03-18-2010 @ 8:09pm

China doesn't restrict the movement of capital and it didn't suffer a bubble either. In fact, a lot of countries don't restrict capital movements and didn't suffer either.

by: fundamentalist

03-18-2010 @ 8:06pm

justintime: " restore provisions in the Glass-Steagal Act "

That wouldn't have prevented the crisis. No commercial banks got into trouble for doing investment banking. Commercial banks got into trouble for buying MBS's, mortgage backed securities, from Fannie and Freddie. G-S would have done nothing to prevent that.

The banks that failed and the Feds bailed out were all investment banks.

The only regulation that might have helped would have been one requiring much higher reserve requirements for investment banks. But the main thing that needs to be done is to stop the Federal Reserve from creating bubbles like the housing bubbles through massive credit expansion.

by: fundamentalist

03-17-2010 @ 8:22pm

So you think FA Hayek won the Nobel prize for advancing a medieval economics based on authority? That's quite a stretch. Why don't you learn about Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and other Austrian economists instead of accepting the straw man version from someone who knows nothing about it.

BTW, the professors at George Mason university would be very surprised that they teach medieval economics based on authority.

by: justintime

03-16-2010 @ 9:01pm

Big corporate Wall Street banks have no incentive to take any of the logical four steps Jim has laid down to save their souls.
They have no souls to save.
They're not even real people, how could they have a soul?
And yet they claim all the human rights individual American citizens are granted under the US Constitution - and then some.

Citibank, Chase and Wells Fargo had been chiseling my family with usurious credit rates and fees, while bribing elected officials to neuter banking regulations.
At the same time they're paying less than .5 % APR on passbook savings accounts and not lending to small businesses in our local economy.
In actual fact they're a drag on the local economy.

We asked ourselves, "Why do we need sociopathic Wall Street banks involved in our lives at all?
We decided we're much better off without them.
So we shook off all three of these parasitic Wall Street corporations.
Now we patronize two local banks and a credit union, where we enjoy reasonable fees for banking services and better savings rates.
We also feel good that the local banks are actually loaning money into the local economy.
Last January I suggested to several local banks that they advertise to attract customers away from the Wall Street banks.
Local bank ads now appear in the local newspapers on a regular basis.
I think it's working.
I don't know how long it will take but even heartless corporations with no soul understand the bottom line.

by: fundamentalist

03-17-2010 @ 1:59pm

I think the best explanation of the crisis is Thomas Woods' "Meltdown." Although actions by the banks and Congress contributed, the main culprit in the crisis is mainstream economics. Mainstream econ, which is essentially Keynesian, tells the Federal Reserve, all bankers and politicians that massive credit expansion by the Fed (through low interest rates) never causes harm under any circumstances. Yet it is clear to financial pros and Austrian economists (though not to the Fed) that low interest rates in the 1990's and 2000's caused the housing bubble. Had the bubble not burst, then neither Fannie, Freddie, or the banks would have lost money and gone broke. But credit expansion is never sustainable and always, always ends in a bust. Mainstream econ can deny it as much as it wants, but history is on the side of Austrian econ.

by: Millenium_10

04-20-2010 @ 7:26am

For a well informed critique of Naomi Klein and her view of the world I refer you to a young Swede from the Cato Institute called Johan Norberg. Excellent and just as passionate.

Also as far as I understand, the Austrian and Chicago schools are quite different and separate from one another.

By the way Sowell is amazing!

by: fundamentalist

03-17-2010 @ 1:52pm

Wallis: "First, begin lending again."

To do that, banks would need to lower their credit standards. That's what got banks in trouble in the first place. Banks only make money when they are lending. Currently, the only credit worthy customer they can find is the federal government, but the last thing they need to do is lower standards.

Wallis: "Second, the banks need to begin to modify mortgages for families facing foreclosure at a much faster rate."

I agree, but it looks like consumers are forcing banks to do this by walking away from mortgages.

Wallis: "Third, the banks need to curtail their exorbitant overdraft fees."

I agree, but it seems like a minor issue.

Wallis: "Finally, and this may be the biggest issue, big banks should actually support common sense financial regulation for the common good

by: Taylor Lautner Workout Routine

05-15-2011 @ 2:17am

Taylor Lautner Workout...

Also you might wanna' check out this blog I found here......

by: pawheel

03-23-2010 @ 8:30pm

I would have to agree with Justintime, the Glass-Steagal act seemed to keep things on a fairly stable course from the 30s till recently. that law has been picked at for 30 or 40 years, but it was pretty much removed in 99 by a bipartisan group of deregulators. I know you have more knowledge of economics than I do, but the last decade or so has seen our economy go on a major roller coaster ride compared to the 50 or 60 years preceding it when Glass-Steagal was still on the books, even in a reduced form.
Fundamentalist, can you seriously argue that we are better off now, with the banks still able to create the same derivatives and other financial slight of hand products that brought us down in 2007 and 2008 - remembering that if they cause another crash no law has changed to keep us from having to bail them out again and again if needed? They were also allowed to keep whatever value they chose on their books for the bad real estate loans they still carry, and may yet repackage and resell. You know what? I think I may have just persuaded myself to switch to the pro deregulation side: The government lets the banks do what they want anyway, and seems to have no power to stop them even if they wanted to, so why not?
Seriously, the Federal Governent makes me so angry, both parties, and the easily manipulated tea party that I joined the Greens, and will never vote for either of them again anyway. My wife and I agree that the only thing keeping us in this country is my kids and grandkids.

by: My Blog Title

05-27-2011 @ 8:43pm

Title...

CMA salaries are as great as other medical jobs.....

by: kosmetyki naturalne

07-21-2011 @ 10:44am

kosmetyki naturalne...

I'm really enjoying the design and layout of your website. It's a very easy on the eyes which makes it much more enjoyable for me to come here and visit more often. Did you hire out a designer to create your theme? Fantastic work!...

by: justintime

03-17-2010 @ 1:05am

It is not the banks fault, except perhaps through their naivete and ignorance of what was going on, i.e., worthless mortgage backed securities being packaged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and sold to the market as viable investments. The financial meltdown was the fruit harvested from the seeds of government meddling with "social' engineering the qualifications for mortgages and home ownership.

You apologize for the big banks, while blaming the meltdown on "government meddling".
This couldn't be any further from the truth - Wall Street banks are anything but naive and ignorant children.
And your solution to the meltdown would have resulted in an even worse disaster for the American economy - Wall Street banks are 'too-big-to-fail' without serious damage to the American economy.

A practical solution would have been to do what FDR did back in the 30's.
FDR took over the failed banking system; the government wrote down the losses, managed banking operations, broke up those 'too-big-to-fail' banks, laid down effective financial regulation and then, after the banks returned to solvency, sold them back into the private sector.

Conservative "laissez faire" economic ideology, Wall Street influence and GOP politics prevented this proven practical and effective strategy from being utilized.
Too bad for America!

by: justintime

03-17-2010 @ 9:37pm

I have read Hayek and LVM, as well as Milton Friedman and his heir apparent, Thomas Sowell.
Hayek won the Nobel prize in economics in 1974 - 36 years ago.
Since then his neoliberal economic policies have been implemented by the Chicago School, the IMF and the World Bank in many nations around the real world - with uniformly disastrous results which you can read about in:
"A Brief History of Neoliberalism" by David Harvey.
"The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" by Naomi Klein

These books do not present straw man arguments.
They document the incalculable human suffering around the world caused by the imposition of misguided neoliberal economic policies.

By the way, Bryan Caplan teaches economics at George Mason University.
Why don't you read his essay, "Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist"?
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

by: fundamentalist

03-17-2010 @ 9:23pm

In case anyone is curious, http://hayekcenter.org/ has an article on FA Hayek's influence. Hayek was one of the leading lights of Austrian econ. Here are some excerpts:
"Information costs are reduced by the existence of large numbers of buyers and sellers. Under these conditions, prices embody the same information that would require large search costs by individual buyers and sellers in the absence of an organized market. (footnote 4: The original contributions were those of Hayek (1937 and 1945))." (Douglass North, Structure and Change in Economic History, New York: Norton, 1981, p. 36)
Bruna Ingrao and Giorgio Israel say in their study The Invisible Hand: Economic Equilibrium in the History of Science? On p. 233 we find this:
"[Hayek's] equilibrium theory offered a wealth of suggestions that were to be taken up in the literature of the 1940s and 1950s. The idea of intertemporal equilibrium, which was to be precisely defined in axiomatic terms by Arrow and Debreu, took shape in his writings of the 1920s and 1930s."
"I can date my own personal 'revolution' rather exactly to May or June 1933. It was like this. It began . . with Hayek. His Prices and Production is one of the influences that can be detected in The Theory of Wages; it could not have been otherwise, for 1931 was a Prices and Production year at the London School of Economics . . I did not in fact find it all easy to fit in with my own ideas. What started me off in 1933 was an earlier work of Hayek's, his paper on 'Intertemporal Equilibrium', an idea which I found easier to reduce to my preferred (Paretian or Wicksellian) pattern." (John Hicks, The Theory of Wages, 2nd Edition,1963, p. 307)
".. it was from Hayek that I began [the breakthrough essay "Equilibrium and the Cycle" (1933), the original beginnings of Hick's influential work on the topics of intertemporal equilibrium, monetary theory, and trade cycle phenomena] ". (John Hicks, Money, Interest and Wages, Cambridge: Harvard U. Press, 1982, p. 28).
"There were four years, 1931-1935, when I was myself a member of [Hayek's] seminar in London; it has left a deep mark on my thinking." (John Hicks, Classics and Moderns, New York: Basil Blackwell, 1983, p. 97).
B. Ingrao & G. Israel, "Hicks elaborated the concept of temporary equilibrium, perhaps the most original contribution of Value and Capital, following the path laid down by Hayek and the Swedish school." (B. Ingrao & G. Israel, 1990, p. 239)
"Hayek was making us think of the productive process as a process in time, inputs coming before outputs ..". (John Hicks, Classics and Moderns, New York: Basil Blackwell, 1983, p. 359).
"I did not begin from Keynes: I began from Pareto, and Hayek (footnote 10: There is evidence for this, in the paper 'Equilibrium and the Cycle') ..". (John Hicks, Classics and Moderns, New York: Basil Blackwell, 1983, p. 359).
Even Hicks' landmark development of indifference curve analysis seems to have got its start with a suggestion from Hayek, as Hayek explains:
I had a curious influence on Hicks .. I told him about indifference curves. He was a pure Marshallian before. And I remember a conversation after a seminar, when he had been talking in Marshallian terms, when I drew his attention to [Vilfredo] Pareto.

by: nuclearferret

03-17-2010 @ 9:00pm

Changed your bank and credit accounts to a different bank? Sounds like the "voting with your feet" a capitalist system allows for. A bank does business in a way you don't like? Take your money elsewhere. Don't like the credit card interest rate? Find lower ones, or better yet, live within your means.

by: Evil Eye Bracelets

06-09-2011 @ 9:13pm

Hamsa gods Evil Eye Bracelets...

Totaly recomended site you shoul buil trackbaks to!...

by: State

08-01-2011 @ 6:39pm

Lad...

[

by: pawheel

03-18-2010 @ 12:36pm

I agree with Justintime. The same thing that happened in the 20s and 30s is happening now, for the same reasons. The financial elite have gotten enough control of our government to get the rules changed so they can have as much freedom as possible to do what they do best, short term profit gains without any concern for who it hurts outside of their business.
The US became a world leader in the 20th century, a country many others looked up to. Is it coincidence that it was the same time period that our national financial regulations restricted the scope of what banks and other financial businesses could do? Some will say the 2 are unrelated, I disagree.
Please Jim, use your time and platform for something other than trying to get the banks and financial industry to grow some sense of common good, shame or other emotions relating to the greater good. Like Don Quixote, you are chasing windmills.
Whether you believe it is a good or bad thing, deregulation has put us where we are. it's time to put that in reverse, but the owners of our federal government, the financial industries, won't allow it.

by: prgrs_ev

03-19-2010 @ 7:03am

Krugman won the Nobel also...but I'm sure you think the award was spurious.

by: dwan

03-21-2010 @ 1:09am

Are the big banks beginning a new form of slavery by taking what is left of the middle class' financial resources until they own what was ours and then rent it back to us at unmerciful rates?

by: Patricia

03-18-2010 @ 10:12pm

I think you're being a bit disengenuous regarding China.

They did indeed suffer mightily in the recent meltdown, and the main reason they are not doing as badly as we are is due to their government's much more massive stimulus efforts. Those communists are in fear for their political lives there - having bought compliance with consumerism - they jumped right in with huge government support measures in order to keep the calm and protect their rule.

The point of the piece I heard was that the IMF itself has admitted it was wrong to try to force free capital movement on everyone and that it's not always in the best interest of the nation that is being flooded with capital, and then suddenly bled dry when capitalists lose interest.

by: justintime

03-17-2010 @ 4:04pm

Austrian economics?

Austrian Economics is a fringe academic view which is greatly preferred by many libertarians on ideological grounds. However, it has even less predictive power than mainstream economics, and has many commonsense problems. Many libertarians and other conservatives look to Austrian economics because they find their preferred positions explained with clear moral stories. But the great fault of Austrianism is that it is not scientific. Science is a better way of knowing than philosophy, because scientific theories have to explain close to all the scientifically collected data. For all the faults of conventional economics, it is far closer to a science than Austrianism because it relies heavily on data. Austrianism has a methodological disrespect of data. It is structured as a medieval philosophy based on authority, rather than systematic adherence to real-world data.

Austrian Business Cycle Theory
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2009/...
To sum up, although the Austrian School was at the forefront of business cycle theory in the 1920s, it hasn't developed in any positive way since then. The central idea of the credit cycle is an important one, particularly as it applies to the business cycle in the presence of a largely unregulated financial system. But the Austrians balked at the interventionist implications of their own position, and failed to engage seriously with Keynesian ideas.

The Hangover Theory: Are recessions the inevitable payback for good times? by Paul Krugman
http://www.slate.com/id/9593
A few weeks ago, a journalist devoted a substantial part of a profile of yours truly to my failure to pay due attention to the "Austrian theory" of the business cycle-a theory that I regard as being about as worthy of serious study as the phlogiston theory of fire. The hangover theory [Austrian business cycle theory] is perversely seductive-not because it offers an easy way out, but because it doesn't. It turns the wiggles on our charts into a morality play, a tale of hubris and downfall. And it offers adherents the special pleasure of dispensing painful advice with a clear conscience, secure in the belief that they are not heartless but merely practicing tough love.

Myth: The Austrian School of Economics is "apart and above" mainstream economics.
Fact: The Austrian School is a classic example of crank science.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-ausmain.htm
The Austrian School of Economics is a tiny group of libertarians at war with mainstream economics. They reject even the scientific method that mainstream economists use, preferring to use instead a pre-scientific approach that shuns real-world data and is based purely on logical assumptions. But this is the very method that thousands of religions use when they argue their opposing beliefs, and the fact that the world has thousands of religions proves the fallibility of this approach. Academia has generally ignored the Austrian School, and the only reason it continues to exist is because it is financed by wealthy business donors on the far right. The movement does not exist on its own scholarly merits.

Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist by Bryan Caplan
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

What say you to these critiques, fundo?

by: Rob Rasner YouTube

06-14-2011 @ 2:42am

Rob Rasner Tells You Its An Incredible Posting Well Done!...

Top story; thought we could include several unrelated data, although really worth taking a look fyi have you learn on Japan have extra difficulties too ?...

by: fundamentalist

03-18-2010 @ 1:06pm

Justintime: "Since then his neoliberal economic policies have been implemented by the so-called Chicago School (Friedman et al.), the IMF and the World Bank

by: Pigpen

08-11-2011 @ 9:51pm

Fungus...

[

by: letjusticerolldown

03-19-2010 @ 12:45am

I have accounts in two local credit unions and one in Wells Fargo.

The credit unions serve me much better. I support the downsizing of the Big Boys.

Of course, the Big Boys cause lots of damage when they start trampling the china shop; so I guess profit is a good thing. Keeps their hormones in check.

I think the best thing we can do for the US Banking system is get out of this crazy deficit spiral and put in place very vibrant regulatory reform. Regulation is fundamentally about creating the framework for a healthy financial services sector. It is like creating a national system of freeways. Yes it creates lots of restrictions--but fundamentally it creates the mechanism where business can flourish--within bounds. Freeways are safer, faster, and exponentially increase economies.

by: justintime

03-17-2010 @ 4:57pm

Your authoritarian response confirms the statement:

It [Austrian economics] is structured as a medieval philosophy based on authority, rather than systematic adherence to real-world data.

by: fundamentalist

03-17-2010 @ 4:52pm

" it has even less predictive power than mainstream economics,"

That's an interesting statement because mainstream economics has failed to predict any crisis over the past century, including the Great Depression, while Hayek, one of the leaders in Austrian econ, one his Nobel prize largely for his business cycle theory which predicted the crash that led to the Great Depression. And research by several organizations credit Austrian economists, among others, for predicting the latest crisis.

And what did the mainstream economists of the London School of Economics tell the Queen when she asked them why they had failed so miserably to predict the latest crisis? With a straight face, the LSE told the Queen that they had reliably predicted that no one can predict such crises.

I won't bore readers with detailed rebuttles of Caplan, Krugman, and other critics of Austrian economics except to say this: Caplan and Krugman are nearly totally and completely ignorant of Austrian economics. Krugman knows absolutely nothing about it while Caplan claims to have read the works of Rothbard when in high school. Anyone who has studied Austrian economics understands that Caplan and Krugman battle straw men, not Austrian economics.

I earned an MA in mainstream/Keynesian econ and discovered Austrian econ much later. I didn't really understand economics until I learned Austrian economics. Hayek still has the only viable theory of business cycles. What does Krugman offer? His silly baby-sitting co-op theory which is too childish to even rebutt.

Few professionals beyond academic economists and politicians take mainstream economics seriously. Politicians keep mainstream economists on the payroll for when they need someone with academic authority to rubber stamp their policies. But if you read Mark Skousen's "Structure of Production" you will find that many financial professionals follow Austrian principles without knowing it; they just know that mainstream econ has nothing to do with reality.

by: Patricia

03-18-2010 @ 2:15pm

Ahhh...the shining new dawn approacheth with all the best unfettered capitalism has to offer...robber barons...pinkerton thugs...company towns...company scrip...poorhouses...everything old will be new again :).

by: justintime

03-18-2010 @ 1:05am

Interesting.
So the only way to avoid Wall Street entirely is to keep your money under the mattress?
Do you have any references on this diabolical situation?
I'll check this out with my local banks and my credit union.

Regardless, my passbook savings account now yields 3.51% APR compared with .4%, fees on checking are less than half the Wall Street banks and my 3 children, who use revolving credit, pay the old rates instead of the new usurious rates.
Also, the local banks are loaning to local businesses while the Wall Street Banks are not and this makes me feel better.

Something IS happening though because traffic at my old Chase branch is a small fraction of what it used to be.
I think Chase is going to have to shut this branch down.
If Chase were chased out of my town that would make me feel even better.

What's happening in your town?

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

by: justintime

03-16-2010 @ 9:01pm

Big corporate Wall Street banks have no incentive to take any of the logical four steps Jim has laid down to save their souls.
They have no souls to save.
They're not even real people, how could they have a soul?
And yet they claim all the human rights individual American citizens are granted under the US Constitution - and then some.

Citibank, Chase and Wells Fargo had been chiseling my family with usurious credit rates and fees, while bribing elected officials to neuter banking regulations.
At the same time they're paying less than .5 % APR on passbook savings accounts and not lending to small businesses in our local economy.
In actual fact they're a drag on the local economy.

We asked ourselves, "Why do we need sociopathic Wall Street banks involved in our lives at all?
We decided we're much better off without them.
So we shook off all three of these parasitic Wall Street corporations.
Now we patronize two local banks and a credit union, where we enjoy reasonable fees for banking services and better savings rates.
We also feel good that the local banks are actually loaning money into the local economy.
Last January I suggested to several local banks that they advertise to attract customers away from the Wall Street banks.
Local bank ads now appear in the local newspapers on a regular basis.
I think it's working.
I don't know how long it will take but even heartless corporations with no soul understand the bottom line.

by: justintime

03-16-2010 @ 9:01pm

Big corporate Wall Street banks have no incentive to take any of the logical four steps Jim has laid down to save their souls.
They have no souls to save.
They're not even real people, how could they have a soul?
And yet they claim all the human rights individual American citizens are granted under the US Constitution - and then some.

Citibank, Chase and Wells Fargo had been chiseling my family with usurious credit rates and fees, while bribing elected officials to neuter banking regulations.
At the same time they're paying less than .5 % APR on passbook savings accounts and not lending to small businesses in our local economy.
In actual fact they're a drag on the local economy.

We asked ourselves, "Why do we need sociopathic Wall Street banks involved in our lives at all?
We decided we're much better off without them.
So we shook off all three of these parasitic Wall Street corporations.
Now we patronize two local banks and a credit union, where we enjoy reasonable fees for banking services and better savings rates.
We also feel good that the local banks are actually loaning money into the local economy.
Last January I suggested to several local banks that they advertise to attract customers away from the Wall Street banks.
Local bank ads now appear in the local newspapers on a regular basis.
I think it's working.
I don't know how long it will take but even heartless corporations with no soul understand the bottom line.

by: NC77

03-16-2010 @ 11:20pm

The CRA legislation created subprime mortgages. Congress is looking to further expand the CRA so subprime lending will contine rather than go away. This will continue to exascerbate the problem and we will are likely to see the second dip of this recession (from the financial meltdown) come 2011 or 2012.

It is not the banks fault, except perhaps through their naivete and ignorance of what was going on, i.e., worthless mortgage backed securities being packaged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and sold to the market as viable investments. The financial meltdown was the fruit harvested from the seeds of government meddling with "social' engineering the qualifications for mortgages and home ownership.

Next time let the banks fail. Don't give them a bailout. A child doesn't learn responsibility until you hold it accountable for its actions.

by: NC77

03-16-2010 @ 11:20pm

The CRA legislation created subprime mortgages. Congress is looking to further expand the CRA so subprime lending will contine rather than go away. This will continue to exascerbate the problem and we will are likely to see the second dip of this recession (from the financial meltdown) come 2011 or 2012.

It is not the banks fault, except perhaps through their naivete and ignorance of what was going on, i.e., worthless mortgage backed securities being packaged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and sold to the market as viable investments. The financial meltdown was the fruit harvested from the seeds of government meddling with "social' engineering the qualifications for mortgages and home ownership.

Next time let the banks fail. Don't give them a bailout. A child doesn't learn responsibility until you hold it accountable for its actions.

by: justintime

03-17-2010 @ 1:05am

It is not the banks fault, except perhaps through their naivete and ignorance of what was going on, i.e., worthless mortgage backed securities being packaged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and sold to the market as viable investments. The financial meltdown was the fruit harvested from the seeds of government meddling with "social' engineering the qualifications for mortgages and home ownership.

You apologize for the big banks, while blaming the meltdown on "government meddling".
This couldn't be any further from the truth - Wall Street banks are anything but naive and ignorant children.
And your solution to the meltdown would have resulted in an even worse disaster for the American economy - Wall Street banks are 'too-big-to-fail' without serious damage to the American economy.

A practical solution would have been to do what FDR did back in the 30's.
FDR took over the failed banking system; the government wrote down the losses, managed banking operations, broke up those 'too-big-to-fail' banks, laid down effective financial regulation and then, after the banks returned to solvency, sold them back into the private sector.

Conservative "laissez faire" economic ideology, Wall Street influence and GOP politics prevented this proven practical and effective strategy from being utilized.
Too bad for America!

by: justintime

03-17-2010 @ 1:05am

It is not the banks fault, except perhaps through their naivete and ignorance of what was going on, i.e., worthless mortgage backed securities being packaged by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and sold to the market as viable investments. The financial meltdown was the fruit harvested from the seeds of government meddling with "social' engineering the qualifications for mortgages and home ownership.

You apologize for the big banks, while blaming the meltdown on "government meddling".
This couldn't be any further from the truth - Wall Street banks are anything but naive and ignorant children.
And your solution to the meltdown would have resulted in an even worse disaster for the American economy - Wall Street banks are 'too-big-to-fail' without serious damage to the American economy.

A practical solution would have been to do what FDR did back in the 30's.
FDR took over the failed banking system; the government wrote down the losses, managed banking operations, broke up those 'too-big-to-fail' banks, laid down effective financial regulation and then, after the banks returned to solvency, sold them back into the private sector.

Conservative "laissez faire" economic ideology, Wall Street influence and GOP politics prevented this proven practical and effective strategy from being utilized.
Too bad for America!

by: uberVU - social comments

03-17-2010 @ 11:03am

Social comments and analytics for this post...

This post was mentioned on Twitter by huntercenter: RT @Sojourners: Four Steps to Save the Souls of Big Banks by @jimwallis http://su.pr/1WEoUK...

by: fundamentalist

03-17-2010 @ 1:52pm

Wallis: "First, begin lending again."

To do that, banks would need to lower their credit standards. That's what got banks in trouble in the first place. Banks only make money when they are lending. Currently, the only credit worthy customer they can find is the federal government, but the last thing they need to do is lower standards.

Wallis: "Second, the banks need to begin to modify mortgages for families facing foreclosure at a much faster rate."

I agree, but it looks like consumers are forcing banks to do this by walking away from mortgages.

Wallis: "Third, the banks need to curtail their exorbitant overdraft fees."

I agree, but it seems like a minor issue.

Wallis: "Finally, and this may be the biggest issue, big banks should actually support common sense financial regulation for the common good

by: fundamentalist

03-17-2010 @ 1:52pm

Wallis: "First, begin lending again."

To do that, banks would need to lower their credit standards. That's what got banks in trouble in the first place. Banks only make money when they are lending. Currently, the only credit worthy customer they can find is the federal government, but the last thing they need to do is lower standards.

Wallis: "Second, the banks need to begin to modify mortgages for families facing foreclosure at a much faster rate."

I agree, but it looks like consumers are forcing banks to do this by walking away from mortgages.

Wallis: "Third, the banks need to curtail their exorbitant overdraft fees."

I agree, but it seems like a minor issue.

Wallis: "Finally, and this may be the biggest issue, big banks should actually support common sense financial regulation for the common good

by: fundamentalist

03-17-2010 @ 1:59pm

I think the best explanation of the crisis is Thomas Woods' "Meltdown." Although actions by the banks and Congress contributed, the main culprit in the crisis is mainstream economics. Mainstream econ, which is essentially Keynesian, tells the Federal Reserve, all bankers and politicians that massive credit expansion by the Fed (through low interest rates) never causes harm under any circumstances. Yet it is clear to financial pros and Austrian economists (though not to the Fed) that low interest rates in the 1990's and 2000's caused the housing bubble. Had the bubble not burst, then neither Fannie, Freddie, or the banks would have lost money and gone broke. But credit expansion is never sustainable and always, always ends in a bust. Mainstream econ can deny it as much as it wants, but history is on the side of Austrian econ.

by: fundamentalist

03-17-2010 @ 1:59pm

I think the best explanation of the crisis is Thomas Woods' "Meltdown." Although actions by the banks and Congress contributed, the main culprit in the crisis is mainstream economics. Mainstream econ, which is essentially Keynesian, tells the Federal Reserve, all bankers and politicians that massive credit expansion by the Fed (through low interest rates) never causes harm under any circumstances. Yet it is clear to financial pros and Austrian economists (though not to the Fed) that low interest rates in the 1990's and 2000's caused the housing bubble. Had the bubble not burst, then neither Fannie, Freddie, or the banks would have lost money and gone broke. But credit expansion is never sustainable and always, always ends in a bust. Mainstream econ can deny it as much as it wants, but history is on the side of Austrian econ.

by: justintime

03-17-2010 @ 4:04pm

Austrian economics?

Austrian Economics is a fringe academic view which is greatly preferred by many libertarians on ideological grounds. However, it has even less predictive power than mainstream economics, and has many commonsense problems. Many libertarians and other conservatives look to Austrian economics because they find their preferred positions explained with clear moral stories. But the great fault of Austrianism is that it is not scientific. Science is a better way of knowing than philosophy, because scientific theories have to explain close to all the scientifically collected data. For all the faults of conventional economics, it is far closer to a science than Austrianism because it relies heavily on data. Austrianism has a methodological disrespect of data. It is structured as a medieval philosophy based on authority, rather than systematic adherence to real-world data.

Austrian Business Cycle Theory
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2009/...
To sum up, although the Austrian School was at the forefront of business cycle theory in the 1920s, it hasn't developed in any positive way since then. The central idea of the credit cycle is an important one, particularly as it applies to the business cycle in the presence of a largely unregulated financial system. But the Austrians balked at the interventionist implications of their own position, and failed to engage seriously with Keynesian ideas.

The Hangover Theory: Are recessions the inevitable payback for good times? by Paul Krugman
http://www.slate.com/id/9593
A few weeks ago, a journalist devoted a substantial part of a profile of yours truly to my failure to pay due attention to the "Austrian theory" of the business cycle-a theory that I regard as being about as worthy of serious study as the phlogiston theory of fire. The hangover theory [Austrian business cycle theory] is perversely seductive-not because it offers an easy way out, but because it doesn't. It turns the wiggles on our charts into a morality play, a tale of hubris and downfall. And it offers adherents the special pleasure of dispensing painful advice with a clear conscience, secure in the belief that they are not heartless but merely practicing tough love.

Myth: The Austrian School of Economics is "apart and above" mainstream economics.
Fact: The Austrian School is a classic example of crank science.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-ausmain.htm
The Austrian School of Economics is a tiny group of libertarians at war with mainstream economics. They reject even the scientific method that mainstream economists use, preferring to use instead a pre-scientific approach that shuns real-world data and is based purely on logical assumptions. But this is the very method that thousands of religions use when they argue their opposing beliefs, and the fact that the world has thousands of religions proves the fallibility of this approach. Academia has generally ignored the Austrian School, and the only reason it continues to exist is because it is financed by wealthy business donors on the far right. The movement does not exist on its own scholarly merits.

Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist by Bryan Caplan
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

What say you to these critiques, fundo?

by: justintime

03-17-2010 @ 4:04pm

Austrian economics?

Austrian Economics is a fringe academic view which is greatly preferred by many libertarians on ideological grounds. However, it has even less predictive power than mainstream economics, and has many commonsense problems. Many libertarians and other conservatives look to Austrian economics because they find their preferred positions explained with clear moral stories. But the great fault of Austrianism is that it is not scientific. Science is a better way of knowing than philosophy, because scientific theories have to explain close to all the scientifically collected data. For all the faults of conventional economics, it is far closer to a science than Austrianism because it relies heavily on data. Austrianism has a methodological disrespect of data. It is structured as a medieval philosophy based on authority, rather than systematic adherence to real-world data.

Austrian Business Cycle Theory
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2009/...
To sum up, although the Austrian School was at the forefront of business cycle theory in the 1920s, it hasn't developed in any positive way since then. The central idea of the credit cycle is an important one, particularly as it applies to the business cycle in the presence of a largely unregulated financial system. But the Austrians balked at the interventionist implications of their own position, and failed to engage seriously with Keynesian ideas.

The Hangover Theory: Are recessions the inevitable payback for good times? by Paul Krugman
http://www.slate.com/id/9593
A few weeks ago, a journalist devoted a substantial part of a profile of yours truly to my failure to pay due attention to the "Austrian theory" of the business cycle-a theory that I regard as being about as worthy of serious study as the phlogiston theory of fire. The hangover theory [Austrian business cycle theory] is perversely seductive-not because it offers an easy way out, but because it doesn't. It turns the wiggles on our charts into a morality play, a tale of hubris and downfall. And it offers adherents the special pleasure of dispensing painful advice with a clear conscience, secure in the belief that they are not heartless but merely practicing tough love.

Myth: The Austrian School of Economics is "apart and above" mainstream economics.
Fact: The Austrian School is a classic example of crank science.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-ausmain.htm
The Austrian School of Economics is a tiny group of libertarians at war with mainstream economics. They reject even the scientific method that mainstream economists use, preferring to use instead a pre-scientific approach that shuns real-world data and is based purely on logical assumptions. But this is the very method that thousands of religions use when they argue their opposing beliefs, and the fact that the world has thousands of religions proves the fallibility of this approach. Academia has generally ignored the Austrian School, and the only reason it continues to exist is because it is financed by wealthy business donors on the far right. The movement does not exist on its own scholarly merits.

Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist by Bryan Caplan
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

What say you to these critiques, fundo?

by: fundamentalist

03-17-2010 @ 4:52pm

" it has even less predictive power than mainstream economics,"

That's an interesting statement because mainstream economics has failed to predict any crisis over the past century, including the Great Depression, while Hayek, one of the leaders in Austrian econ, one his Nobel prize largely for his business cycle theory which predicted the crash that led to the Great Depression. And research by several organizations credit Austrian economists, among others, for predicting the latest crisis.

And what did the mainstream economists of the London School of Economics tell the Queen when she asked them why they had failed so miserably to predict the latest crisis? With a straight face, the LSE told the Queen that they had reliably predicted that no one can predict such crises.

I won't bore readers with detailed rebuttles of Caplan, Krugman, and other critics of Austrian economics except to say this: Caplan and Krugman are nearly totally and completely ignorant of Austrian economics. Krugman knows absolutely nothing about it while Caplan claims to have read the works of Rothbard when in high school. Anyone who has studied Austrian economics understands that Caplan and Krugman battle straw men, not Austrian economics.

I earned an MA in mainstream/Keynesian econ and discovered Austrian econ much later. I didn't really understand economics until I learned Austrian economics. Hayek still has the only viable theory of business cycles. What does Krugman offer? His silly baby-sitting co-op theory which is too childish to even rebutt.

Few professionals beyond academic economists and politicians take mainstream economics seriously. Politicians keep mainstream economists on the payroll for when they need someone with academic authority to rubber stamp their policies. But if you read Mark Skousen's "Structure of Production" you will find that many financial professionals follow Austrian principles without knowing it; they just know that mainstream econ has nothing to do with reality.

by: fundamentalist

03-17-2010 @ 4:52pm

" it has even less predictive power than mainstream economics,"

That's an interesting statement because mainstream economics has failed to predict any crisis over the past century, including the Great Depression, while Hayek, one of the leaders in Austrian econ, one his Nobel prize largely for his business cycle theory which predicted the crash that led to the Great Depression. And research by several organizations credit Austrian economists, among others, for predicting the latest crisis.

And what did the mainstream economists of the London School of Economics tell the Queen when she asked them why they had failed so miserably to predict the latest crisis? With a straight face, the LSE told the Queen that they had reliably predicted that no one can predict such crises.

I won't bore readers with detailed rebuttles of Caplan, Krugman, and other critics of Austrian economics except to say this: Caplan and Krugman are nearly totally and completely ignorant of Austrian economics. Krugman knows absolutely nothing about it while Caplan claims to have read the works of Rothbard when in high school. Anyone who has studied Austrian economics understands that Caplan and Krugman battle straw men, not Austrian economics.

I earned an MA in mainstream/Keynesian econ and discovered Austrian econ much later. I didn't really understand economics until I learned Austrian economics. Hayek still has the only viable theory of business cycles. What does Krugman offer? His silly baby-sitting co-op theory which is too childish to even rebutt.

Few professionals beyond academic economists and politicians take mainstream economics seriously. Politicians keep mainstream economists on the payroll for when they need someone with academic authority to rubber stamp their policies. But if you read Mark Skousen's "Structure of Production" you will find that many financial professionals follow Austrian principles without knowing it; they just know that mainstream econ has nothing to do with reality.

by: justintime

03-17-2010 @ 4:57pm

Your authoritarian response confirms the statement:

It [Austrian economics] is structured as a medieval philosophy based on authority, rather than systematic adherence to real-world data.

by: justintime

03-17-2010 @ 4:57pm

Your authoritarian response confirms the statement:

It [Austrian economics] is structured as a medieval philosophy based on authority, rather than systematic adherence to real-world data.

by: fundamentalist

03-17-2010 @ 8:22pm

So you think FA Hayek won the Nobel prize for advancing a medieval economics based on authority? That's quite a stretch. Why don't you learn about Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and other Austrian economists instead of accepting the straw man version from someone who knows nothing about it.

BTW, the professors at George Mason university would be very surprised that they teach medieval economics based on authority.

by: fundamentalist

03-17-2010 @ 8:22pm

So you think FA Hayek won the Nobel prize for advancing a medieval economics based on authority? That's quite a stretch. Why don't you learn about Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and other Austrian economists instead of accepting the straw man version from someone who knows nothing about it.

BTW, the professors at George Mason university would be very surprised that they teach medieval economics based on authority.

by: nuclearferret

03-17-2010 @ 9:00pm

Changed your bank and credit accounts to a different bank? Sounds like the "voting with your feet" a capitalist system allows for. A bank does business in a way you don't like? Take your money elsewhere. Don't like the credit card interest rate? Find lower ones, or better yet, live within your means.

by: nuclearferret

03-17-2010 @ 9:00pm

Changed your bank and credit accounts to a different bank? Sounds like the "voting with your feet" a capitalist system allows for. A bank does business in a way you don't like? Take your money elsewhere. Don't like the credit card interest rate? Find lower ones, or better yet, live within your means.

by: fundamentalist

03-17-2010 @ 9:23pm

In case anyone is curious, http://hayekcenter.org/ has an article on FA Hayek's influence. Hayek was one of the leading lights of Austrian econ. Here are some excerpts:
"Information costs are reduced by the existence of large numbers of buyers and sellers. Under these conditions, prices embody the same information that would require large search costs by individual buyers and sellers in the absence of an organized market. (footnote 4: The original contributions were those of Hayek (1937 and 1945))." (Douglass North, Structure and Change in Economic History, New York: Norton, 1981, p. 36)
Bruna Ingrao and Giorgio Israel say in their study The Invisible Hand: Economic Equilibrium in the History of Science? On p. 233 we find this:
"[Hayek's] equilibrium theory offered a wealth of suggestions that were to be taken up in the literature of the 1940s and 1950s. The idea of intertemporal equilibrium, which was to be precisely defined in axiomatic terms by Arrow and Debreu, took shape in his writings of the 1920s and 1930s."
"I can date my own personal 'revolution' rather exactly to May or June 1933. It was like this. It began . . with Hayek. His Prices and Production is one of the influences that can be detected in The Theory of Wages; it could not have been otherwise, for 1931 was a Prices and Production year at the London School of Economics . . I did not in fact find it all easy to fit in with my own ideas. What started me off in 1933 was an earlier work of Hayek's, his paper on 'Intertemporal Equilibrium', an idea which I found easier to reduce to my preferred (Paretian or Wicksellian) pattern." (John Hicks, The Theory of Wages, 2nd Edition,1963, p. 307)
".. it was from Hayek that I began [the breakthrough essay "Equilibrium and the Cycle" (1933), the original beginnings of Hick's influential work on the topics of intertemporal equilibrium, monetary theory, and trade cycle phenomena] ". (John Hicks, Money, Interest and Wages, Cambridge: Harvard U. Press, 1982, p. 28).
"There were four years, 1931-1935, when I was myself a member of [Hayek's] seminar in London; it has left a deep mark on my thinking." (John Hicks, Classics and Moderns, New York: Basil Blackwell, 1983, p. 97).
B. Ingrao & G. Israel, "Hicks elaborated the concept of temporary equilibrium, perhaps the most original contribution of Value and Capital, following the path laid down by Hayek and the Swedish school." (B. Ingrao & G. Israel, 1990, p. 239)
"Hayek was making us think of the productive process as a process in time, inputs coming before outputs ..". (John Hicks, Classics and Moderns, New York: Basil Blackwell, 1983, p. 359).
"I did not begin from Keynes: I began from Pareto, and Hayek (footnote 10: There is evidence for this, in the paper 'Equilibrium and the Cycle') ..". (John Hicks, Classics and Moderns, New York: Basil Blackwell, 1983, p. 359).
Even Hicks' landmark development of indifference curve analysis seems to have got its start with a suggestion from Hayek, as Hayek explains:
I had a curious influence on Hicks .. I told him about indifference curves. He was a pure Marshallian before. And I remember a conversation after a seminar, when he had been talking in Marshallian terms, when I drew his attention to [Vilfredo] Pareto.

by: fundamentalist

03-17-2010 @ 9:23pm

In case anyone is curious, http://hayekcenter.org/ has an article on FA Hayek's influence. Hayek was one of the leading lights of Austrian econ. Here are some excerpts:
"Information costs are reduced by the existence of large numbers of buyers and sellers. Under these conditions, prices embody the same information that would require large search costs by individual buyers and sellers in the absence of an organized market. (footnote 4: The original contributions were those of Hayek (1937 and 1945))." (Douglass North, Structure and Change in Economic History, New York: Norton, 1981, p. 36)
Bruna Ingrao and Giorgio Israel say in their study The Invisible Hand: Economic Equilibrium in the History of Science? On p. 233 we find this:
"[Hayek's] equilibrium theory offered a wealth of suggestions that were to be taken up in the literature of the 1940s and 1950s. The idea of intertemporal equilibrium, which was to be precisely defined in axiomatic terms by Arrow and Debreu, took shape in his writings of the 1920s and 1930s."
"I can date my own personal 'revolution' rather exactly to May or June 1933. It was like this. It began . . with Hayek. His Prices and Production is one of the influences that can be detected in The Theory of Wages; it could not have been otherwise, for 1931 was a Prices and Production year at the London School of Economics . . I did not in fact find it all easy to fit in with my own ideas. What started me off in 1933 was an earlier work of Hayek's, his paper on 'Intertemporal Equilibrium', an idea which I found easier to reduce to my preferred (Paretian or Wicksellian) pattern." (John Hicks, The Theory of Wages, 2nd Edition,1963, p. 307)
".. it was from Hayek that I began [the breakthrough essay "Equilibrium and the Cycle" (1933), the original beginnings of Hick's influential work on the topics of intertemporal equilibrium, monetary theory, and trade cycle phenomena] ". (John Hicks, Money, Interest and Wages, Cambridge: Harvard U. Press, 1982, p. 28).
"There were four years, 1931-1935, when I was myself a member of [Hayek's] seminar in London; it has left a deep mark on my thinking." (John Hicks, Classics and Moderns, New York: Basil Blackwell, 1983, p. 97).
B. Ingrao & G. Israel, "Hicks elaborated the concept of temporary equilibrium, perhaps the most original contribution of Value and Capital, following the path laid down by Hayek and the Swedish school." (B. Ingrao & G. Israel, 1990, p. 239)
"Hayek was making us think of the productive process as a process in time, inputs coming before outputs ..". (John Hicks, Classics and Moderns, New York: Basil Blackwell, 1983, p. 359).
"I did not begin from Keynes: I began from Pareto, and Hayek (footnote 10: There is evidence for this, in the paper 'Equilibrium and the Cycle') ..". (John Hicks, Classics and Moderns, New York: Basil Blackwell, 1983, p. 359).
Even Hicks' landmark development of indifference curve analysis seems to have got its start with a suggestion from Hayek, as Hayek explains:
I had a curious influence on Hicks .. I told him about indifference curves. He was a pure Marshallian before. And I remember a conversation after a seminar, when he had been talking in Marshallian terms, when I drew his attention to [Vilfredo] Pareto.

by: justintime

03-17-2010 @ 9:37pm

I have read Hayek and LVM, as well as Milton Friedman and his heir apparent, Thomas Sowell.
Hayek won the Nobel prize in economics in 1974 - 36 years ago.
Since then his neoliberal economic policies have been implemented by the Chicago School, the IMF and the World Bank in many nations around the real world - with uniformly disastrous results which you can read about in:
"A Brief History of Neoliberalism" by David Harvey.
"The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" by Naomi Klein

These books do not present straw man arguments.
They document the incalculable human suffering around the world caused by the imposition of misguided neoliberal economic policies.

By the way, Bryan Caplan teaches economics at George Mason University.
Why don't you read his essay, "Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist"?
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

by: justintime

03-17-2010 @ 9:37pm

I have read Hayek and LVM, as well as Milton Friedman and his heir apparent, Thomas Sowell.
Hayek won the Nobel prize in economics in 1974 - 36 years ago.
Since then his neoliberal economic policies have been implemented by the Chicago School, the IMF and the World Bank in many nations around the real world - with uniformly disastrous results which you can read about in:
"A Brief History of Neoliberalism" by David Harvey.
"The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" by Naomi Klein

These books do not present straw man arguments.
They document the incalculable human suffering around the world caused by the imposition of misguided neoliberal economic policies.

By the way, Bryan Caplan teaches economics at George Mason University.
Why don't you read his essay, "Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist"?
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm

by: NMRod

03-18-2010 @ 12:37am

The really, really sad thing is that the financial system is designed to thwart your efforts. The local banks and credit unions are retail outlets, which are forced to funnel deposits and investments to large wholesale umbrella units which are part of the same Wall Street paradigm. That's why the government had to bail out the large central credit union holding companies that serve the many thousands of local credit unions to the tune of billions as well - they had invested the funds and investments of the small local banks and credit unions in the same dicey financial instruments as all the others. They really had no choice - having to be competitive meant they had to participate. All financial roads, unfortunately, now lead to Wall Street.

by: NMRod

03-18-2010 @ 12:37am

The really, really sad thing is that the financial system is designed to thwart your efforts. The local banks and credit unions are retail outlets, which are forced to funnel deposits and investments to large wholesale umbrella units which are part of the same Wall Street paradigm. That's why the government had to bail out the large central credit union holding companies that serve the many thousands of local credit unions to the tune of billions as well - they had invested the funds and investments of the small local banks and credit unions in the same dicey financial instruments as all the others. They really had no choice - having to be competitive meant they had to participate. All financial roads, unfortunately, now lead to Wall Street.

by: NMRod

03-18-2010 @ 12:45am

Same old, same old. It's supposedly not the fault of the banksters or Wall Street who were so naive as to be led to destruction by malevolent government. In reality, the greedsters influence-peddled government to do just what they wanted, in an era of anti-regulatory fervor. It's all of the non-financial sector that's suffering mightily, not them - they were bailed out to the tune of trillions, with which they've bonused themselves.

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but this anti-government fervor that the rich and powerful propagandize so mightily, is highly anti-republican and anti-democratic. If government regulation were to be abolished, as so many conservatives are yelling for, then the last bastion against a financial oligarchy's complete dominance would be abolished, even in theory. If government has no right to restrain the rich and their predatory behavior against the majority, then democracy is finished with, for all policy then becomes the province of a financial aristocracy.

by: NMRod

03-18-2010 @ 12:45am

Same old, same old. It's supposedly not the fault of the banksters or Wall Street who were so naive as to be led to destruction by malevolent government. In reality, the greedsters influence-peddled government to do just what they wanted, in an era of anti-regulatory fervor. It's all of the non-financial sector that's suffering mightily, not them - they were bailed out to the tune of trillions, with which they've bonused themselves.

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but this anti-government fervor that the rich and powerful propagandize so mightily, is highly anti-republican and anti-democratic. If government regulation were to be abolished, as so many conservatives are yelling for, then the last bastion against a financial oligarchy's complete dominance would be abolished, even in theory. If government has no right to restrain the rich and their predatory behavior against the majority, then democracy is finished with, for all policy then becomes the province of a financial aristocracy.

by: justintime

03-18-2010 @ 1:05am

Interesting.
So the only way to avoid Wall Street entirely is to keep your money under the mattress?
Do you have any references on this diabolical situation?
I'll check this out with my local banks and my credit union.

Regardless, my passbook savings account now yields 3.51% APR compared with .4%, fees on checking are less than half the Wall Street banks and my 3 children, who use revolving credit, pay the old rates instead of the new usurious rates.
Also, the local banks are loaning to local businesses while the Wall Street Banks are not and this makes me feel better.

Something IS happening though because traffic at my old Chase branch is a small fraction of what it used to be.
I think Chase is going to have to shut this branch down.
If Chase were chased out of my town that would make me feel even better.

What's happening in your town?

by: justintime

03-18-2010 @ 1:05am

Interesting.
So the only way to avoid Wall Street entirely is to keep your money under the mattress?
Do you have any references on this diabolical situation?
I'll check this out with my local banks and my credit union.

Regardless, my passbook savings account now yields 3.51% APR compared with .4%, fees on checking are less than half the Wall Street banks and my 3 children, who use revolving credit, pay the old rates instead of the new usurious rates.
Also, the local banks are loaning to local businesses while the Wall Street Banks are not and this makes me feel better.

Something IS happening though because traffic at my old Chase branch is a small fraction of what it used to be.
I think Chase is going to have to shut this branch down.
If Chase were chased out of my town that would make me feel even better.

What's happening in your town?

by: pawheel

03-18-2010 @ 12:36pm

I agree with Justintime. The same thing that happened in the 20s and 30s is happening now, for the same reasons. The financial elite have gotten enough control of our government to get the rules changed so they can have as much freedom as possible to do what they do best, short term profit gains without any concern for who it hurts outside of their business.
The US became a world leader in the 20th century, a country many others looked up to. Is it coincidence that it was the same time period that our national financial regulations restricted the scope of what banks and other financial businesses could do? Some will say the 2 are unrelated, I disagree.
Please Jim, use your time and platform for something other than trying to get the banks and financial industry to grow some sense of common good, shame or other emotions relating to the greater good. Like Don Quixote, you are chasing windmills.
Whether you believe it is a good or bad thing, deregulation has put us where we are. it's time to put that in reverse, but the owners of our federal government, the financial industries, won't allow it.

by: pawheel

03-18-2010 @ 12:36pm

I agree with Justintime. The same thing that happened in the 20s and 30s is happening now, for the same reasons. The financial elite have gotten enough control of our government to get the rules changed so they can have as much freedom as possible to do what they do best, short term profit gains without any concern for who it hurts outside of their business.
The US became a world leader in the 20th century, a country many others looked up to. Is it coincidence that it was the same time period that our national financial regulations restricted the scope of what banks and other financial businesses could do? Some will say the 2 are unrelated, I disagree.
Please Jim, use your time and platform for something other than trying to get the banks and financial industry to grow some sense of common good, shame or other emotions relating to the greater good. Like Don Quixote, you are chasing windmills.
Whether you believe it is a good or bad thing, deregulation has put us where we are. it's time to put that in reverse, but the owners of our federal government, the financial industries, won't allow it.

by: fundamentalist

03-18-2010 @ 1:06pm

Justintime: "Since then his neoliberal economic policies have been implemented by the so-called Chicago School (Friedman et al.), the IMF and the World Bank

by: fundamentalist

03-18-2010 @ 1:06pm

Justintime: "Since then his neoliberal economic policies have been implemented by the so-called Chicago School (Friedman et al.), the IMF and the World Bank

by: Patricia

03-18-2010 @ 2:15pm

Ahhh...the shining new dawn approacheth with all the best unfettered capitalism has to offer...robber barons...pinkerton thugs...company towns...company scrip...poorhouses...everything old will be new again :).

by: Patricia

03-18-2010 @ 2:15pm

Ahhh...the shining new dawn approacheth with all the best unfettered capitalism has to offer...robber barons...pinkerton thugs...company towns...company scrip...poorhouses...everything old will be new again :).

by: fundamentalist

03-18-2010 @ 4:10pm

Pawheel, which regulations would you restore that you think would have prevented the latest crisis?

by: fundamentalist

03-18-2010 @ 4:10pm

Pawheel, which regulations would you restore that you think would have prevented the latest crisis?

by: justintime

03-18-2010 @ 5:39pm

I'll let pawheel answer for himself, but my response to your question, fundo, is to restore provisions in the Glass-Steagal Act which established a firewall between commercial banking and investment brokerage firms.

Please give us YOUR suggestions for preventing a future financial collapse, fundo.
Or do you think all forms of financial market regulation are futile?
If so, why?

by: justintime

03-18-2010 @ 5:39pm

I'll let pawheel answer for himself, but my response to your question, fundo, is to restore provisions in the Glass-Steagal Act which established a firewall between commercial banking and investment brokerage firms.

Please give us YOUR suggestions for preventing a future financial collapse, fundo.
Or do you think all forms of financial market regulation are futile?
If so, why?

by: Patricia

03-18-2010 @ 5:51pm

I was listening to an interesting report on NPR this morning detailing the consequences of IMF policies regarding the free movement of capital (money). Apparently, free, unregulated movement of money is not always a good thing - imagine that!

And, also interestingly, the nations who resisted IMF policy and western pressure and continued strictly regulating the movement of capital, like India, had neither the huge bubble build up of those nations committed to free capital movement (including ours), NOR, the huge crash those nations (including ours) experienced in the wake of the withdrawal of all that capital.

I wonder why we don't hear more about the successes of the regulation of capital markets?

by: Patricia

03-18-2010 @ 5:51pm

I was listening to an interesting report on NPR this morning detailing the consequences of IMF policies regarding the free movement of capital (money). Apparently, free, unregulated movement of money is not always a good thing - imagine that!

And, also interestingly, the nations who resisted IMF policy and western pressure and continued strictly regulating the movement of capital, like India, had neither the huge bubble build up of those nations committed to free capital movement (including ours), NOR, the huge crash those nations (including ours) experienced in the wake of the withdrawal of all that capital.

I wonder why we don't hear more about the successes of the regulation of capital markets?

by: fundamentalist

03-18-2010 @ 8:06pm

justintime: " restore provisions in the Glass-Steagal Act "

That wouldn't have prevented the crisis. No commercial banks got into trouble for doing investment banking. Commercial banks got into trouble for buying MBS's, mortgage backed securities, from Fannie and Freddie. G-S would have done nothing to prevent that.

The banks that failed and the Feds bailed out were all investment banks.

The only regulation that might have helped would have been one requiring much higher reserve requirements for investment banks. But the main thing that needs to be done is to stop the Federal Reserve from creating bubbles like the housing bubbles through massive credit expansion.

by: fundamentalist

03-18-2010 @ 8:06pm

justintime: " restore provisions in the Glass-Steagal Act "

That wouldn't have prevented the crisis. No commercial banks got into trouble for doing investment banking. Commercial banks got into trouble for buying MBS's, mortgage backed securities, from Fannie and Freddie. G-S would have done nothing to prevent that.

The banks that failed and the Feds bailed out were all investment banks.

The only regulation that might have helped would have been one requiring much higher reserve requirements for investment banks. But the main thing that needs to be done is to stop the Federal Reserve from creating bubbles like the housing bubbles through massive credit expansion.

by: fundamentalist

03-18-2010 @ 8:09pm

China doesn't restrict the movement of capital and it didn't suffer a bubble either. In fact, a lot of countries don't restrict capital movements and didn't suffer either.

by: fundamentalist

03-18-2010 @ 8:09pm

China doesn't restrict the movement of capital and it didn't suffer a bubble either. In fact, a lot of countries don't restrict capital movements and didn't suffer either.

by: Patricia

03-18-2010 @ 10:12pm

I think you're being a bit disengenuous regarding China.

They did indeed suffer mightily in the recent meltdown, and the main reason they are not doing as badly as we are is due to their government's much more massive stimulus efforts. Those communists are in fear for their political lives there - having bought compliance with consumerism - they jumped right in with huge government support measures in order to keep the calm and protect their rule.

The point of the piece I heard was that the IMF itself has admitted it was wrong to try to force free capital movement on everyone and that it's not always in the best interest of the nation that is being flooded with capital, and then suddenly bled dry when capitalists lose interest.

by: Patricia

03-18-2010 @ 10:12pm

I think you're being a bit disengenuous regarding China.

They did indeed suffer mightily in the recent meltdown, and the main reason they are not doing as badly as we are is due to their government's much more massive stimulus efforts. Those communists are in fear for their political lives there - having bought compliance with consumerism - they jumped right in with huge government support measures in order to keep the calm and protect their rule.

The point of the piece I heard was that the IMF itself has admitted it was wrong to try to force free capital movement on everyone and that it's not always in the best interest of the nation that is being flooded with capital, and then suddenly bled dry when capitalists lose interest.

by: letjusticerolldown

03-19-2010 @ 12:45am

I have accounts in two local credit unions and one in Wells Fargo.

The credit unions serve me much better. I support the downsizing of the Big Boys.

Of course, the Big Boys cause lots of damage when they start trampling the china shop; so I guess profit is a good thing. Keeps their hormones in check.

I think the best thing we can do for the US Banking system is get out of this crazy deficit spiral and put in place very vibrant regulatory reform. Regulation is fundamentally about creating the framework for a healthy financial services sector. It is like creating a national system of freeways. Yes it creates lots of restrictions--but fundamentally it creates the mechanism where business can flourish--within bounds. Freeways are safer, faster, and exponentially increase economies.