Investing Curiouscatblog

Tag: capitalism

  • The Best Way to Rob a Bank is as An Executive at One

    William Black wrote The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One: How Corporate Executives and Politicians Looted the S&L. I think he a bit off on the “owning one,” being the best way to loot. The looters are not owners, they are executives that loot from owners, taxpayers, customers… And those looters pay politicians a great deal of money to help them. He appeared on Bill Moneys Journal discussing the huge mess we know are in and how little is being done to hold those responsible for the enormous crisis created by them.

    Fraud is deceit. And the essence of fraud is, “I create trust in you, and then I betray that trust, and get you to give me something of value.” And as a result, there’s no more effective acid against trust than fraud, especially fraud by top elites, and that’s what we have.
    …
    The FBI publicly warned, in September 2004 that there was an epidemic of mortgage fraud, that if it was allowed to continue it would produce a crisis at least as large as the Savings and Loan debacle. And that they were going to make sure that they didn’t let that happen. So what goes wrong? After 9/11, the attacks, the Justice Department transfers 500 white-collar specialists in the FBI to national terrorism. Well, we can all understand that. But then, the Bush administration refused to replace the missing 500 agents. So even today, again, as you say, this crisis is 1000 times worse, perhaps, certainly 100 times worse, than the Savings and Loan crisis. There are one-fifth as many FBI agents as worked the Savings and Loan crisis.
    …
    Well, certainly in the financial sphere, I am. I think, first, the policies are substantively bad. Second, I think they completely lack integrity. Third, they violate the rule of law. This is being done just like Secretary Paulson did it. In violation of the law. We adopted a law after the Savings and Loan crisis, called the Prompt Corrective Action Law. And it requires them to close these institutions. And they’re refusing to obey the law.
    …
    In the Savings and Loan debacle, we developed excellent ways for dealing with the frauds, and for dealing with the failed institutions. And for 15 years after the Savings and Loan crisis, didn’t matter which party was in power, the U.S. Treasury Secretary would fly over to Tokyo and tell the Japanese, “You ought to do things the way we did in the Savings and Loan crisis, because it worked really well. Instead you’re covering up the bank losses, because you know, you say you need confidence. And so, we have to lie to the people to create confidence. And it doesn’t work. You will cause your recession to continue and continue.”
    …
    And their ideologies, which swept away regulation. So, in the example, regulation means that cheaters don’t prosper. So, instead of being bad for capitalism, it’s what saves capitalism. “Honest purveyors prosper” is what we want. And you need regulation and law enforcement to be able to do this. The tragedy of this crisis is it didn’t need to happen at all.

    Related: Fed Continues Wall Street Welfare – Credit Crisis the Result of Planned Looting of the World Economy – Lobbyists Keep Tax Off Billion Dollar Private Equities Deals – Poll: 60% say Depression Likely – Canadian Banks Avoid Failures Common Elsewhere – Too Big to Fail – Why Pay Taxes or be Honest

  • There is No Invisible Hand

    There is no invisible hand by Joseph Stiglitz, 2001 Nobel Prize in Economics

    This year’s [2002] Nobel Prize celebrates a critique of simplistic market economics, just as last year’s award (of which I was one of the three winners) did. Last year’s laureates emphasised that different market participants have different (and imperfect) information, and these asymmetries in information have a profound impact on how an economy functions.

    In particular, last year’s laureates implied that markets were not, in general, efficient; that there was an important role for government to play. Adam Smith’s invisible hand – the idea that free markets lead to efficiency as if guided by unseen forces – is invisible, at least in part, because it is not there.
    …
    That such models prevailed, especially in America’s graduate schools, despite evidence to the contrary, bears testimony to a triumph of ideology over science. Unfortunately, students of these graduate programmes now act as policymakers in many countries, and are trying to implement programmes based on the ideas that have come to be called market fundamentalism.

    Let me be clear: the rational expectations models made an important contribution to economics; the rigour which its supporters imposed on economic thinking helped expose the weaknesses underlying many hypotheses. Good science recognises its limitations, but the prophets of rational expectations have usually shown no such modesty.

    Related: Greenspan Says He Was Wrong On Regulation – Ignorance of How Markets Work – Leverage, Complex Deals and Mania – Estate Tax Repeal – Misuse of Statistics – Mania in Financial Markets

  • Using Capitalism in Mali to Create Better Lives

    Don’t let the talking heads on TV convince you that capitalism is about corrupt businessmen that think they are entitled to loot companies. That is about the powerful accepting money from their golfing buddies to share the loot among themselves. Capitalism is about places like Trickle Up, micro-finance, appropriate technology and entrepreneurs making better lives for themselves and their families. Donate to Trickle Up (I do).

    Related: High School Student Provide Clean Water Solution – Creating a World Without Poverty – Microfinancing Entrepreneurs – Ignorance of Capitalism

  • A Survival Plan for Global Capitalism

    This week the Financial Times starts a series on the Future of Capitalism with A survival plan for global capitalism

    Finance has already changed irrevocably. The grand investment banks which once strode alone have either collapsed, or joined the flock of retail banks. Governments are now borrowers, lenders, investors and insurers of last resort for much of the financial system. The future of finance will be determined by their efforts to disentangle themselves from the thickets of guarantees they have been forced to make. The depth of the crisis will determine how easily they manage it.

    The fiscal cost of this episode is unclear. In some countries, it may be state-busting. Some nations will need to cope with extraordinary fiscal tightenings in the coming years. The domestic impact of government spending – and its geopolitical ramifications – could yet be colossal. Again, much depends on how soon the downturn ends.

    There is one certainty. While recessions are inevitable, deep depressions or slumps – or whatever you call them – are neither necessary nor welcome. They destroy wealth, sap happiness and crush old certainties. What is more, increasing poverty is a grave threat to world stability and democracy. Revolutions often start as bread riots, and economically-stagnant countries make belligerent neighbours. Growth must be restarted.
    …
    governments must take responsibility for dealing with their financial systems. The toxicity which started in mortgage-backed securities is spreading through the world’s banks as ever more assets go bad in the recession. Politicians must make sure that their banking systems are adequately capitalised and deal with the illiquid securities at the heart of this crisis.

    The Financial Times has done a good job of presenting the credit crisis, the current state of affairs and what can be done.

    Related: Leverage, Complex Deals and Mania – Too Big to Fail = Too Big to Exist – Monopolies and Oligopolies do not a Free Market Make – posts on capitalism – Ignorance of Capitalism – Greenspan Says He Was Wrong On Regulation

  • Myths About Adam Smith Ideas v. His Ideas

    Gavin Kennedy is a professor and director of contracts at Edinburgh Business School. He authors the Adam Smith’s Lost Legacy blog discussing the mis-attributions to Adam Smith, which are all too common now. A good example is, Perpetrators of Myths Mislead Generations of Students, Some of Whom Grow Up to (mis)Advise Legislators:

    The notion that Smith had a ‘theory’ of ‘an invisible hand’ leading all players in markets to act in pursuit of their self-interests and raise annual output and annual employment is a myth, invented (‘made up’ would not be too strong a charge) by advocates of pro-corporate capitalism, then becoming rampant in the USA in the 1950s.
    …
    Smith’s intellectual arguments, and personal warmth for the growth of commercial society, were driven by the conviction that growth across agriculture, industry and specific, targeted public expenditure, such as defence, justice, and public works and public institutions, would assist the spread of opulence, especially to the labouring poor and their families, albeit slowly and gradually, but steadily too, if legislators and those who influenced them were careful not to approve monopoly schemes to narrow markets and restrict competition, not to indulge in spasms of ‘jealousy of trade’, protectionism, forming loss-making colonies and conducting wars for trivial ends (i.e., not for defensive purposes only).

    Introducing, a mystical or miraculous force at work in markets detracts from the real and detailed policy measures that may required from time to time to ensure steady growth, competition, and liberty for all, and not just for the amoral ends of privileged monopolists and their cronies.

    Related: Not Understanding Capitalism – Ignorance of Capitalism – Monopolies and Oligopolies do not a Free Market Make – Estate Tax Repeal, Bad Policy

  • International Development Fair: The Human Factor

    I am a big fan of helping improve the economic lives of those in the world by harnessing appropriate technology and capitalism. It is wonderful what can be done to improve the lives of so many people with some intelligence and effort. This talk does a great job of showing how engineers thinking about the economic realities in the much of the world can design solutions to help. Without understanding the economic realities you cannot be effective.

    Smith recounts other ventures: a bicycle pedal-powered, corn-shelling machine in Tanzania, which entrepreneurs can rent out, and which saves hours of drudgery for women who traditionally remove kernels of corn by hand; a backpack for storing hundreds of doses of vaccine that can be delivered as an inhaled powder and therefore require no refrigeration; cell phone services that allow Brazilian day laborers and bosses to vet each other in advance, and permit Indian health workers to follow up on TB patients.

    Concludes Smith, “Something like 90% of the world’s resources creates products and technologies that serve only the wealthiest 10% of the worlds’ population. There’s a revolution afoot to promote R&D to get designers to work on technologies for the other 90%.”

    Related: Nepalese Entrepreneur Success – Creating a World Without Poverty – Engineering a Better World: Bike Corn-Sheller – High School Inventor Teams @ MIT – Smokeless Stove Uses 80% Less Fuel

  • Greenspan Says He Was Wrong On Regulation

    Greenspan Says He Was Wrong On Regulation

    Greenspan alternately defended his legacy and acknowledged mistakes. Waxman asked whether the former chairman was wrong to consistently oppose regulating the multitrillion dollar derivative market that has contributed to the financial crisis. “Well, partially,” said Greenspan, before stressing the difference between credit-default swaps and other types of derivatives.
    …
    Even Greenspan seemed genuinely perplexed yesterday by all that had happened, hard-pressed to explain how formerly fundamental truths about how markets work could have proved so wrong.
    …
    “When bubbles cause huge problems is when they cause the financial sector to seize up,” said Frederic S. Mishkin, a Columbia University economist and, until recently, Fed governor. “The right way to deal with that kind of bubble is not with monetary policy,” but with bank supervision and other regulatory powers.
    …
    While endorsing some expanded regulation yesterday, such as requiring the companies that combine large numbers of loans into securities to hold on to significant numbers of those securities, he also repeatedly retreated to his libertarian-leaning roots, and warned of the dangers of overreacting.
    …
    “I made a mistake,” Greenspan said, “in presuming that the self-interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, were such as that they were best capable of protecting their own shareholders and their equity in the firms.”

    The key is to strive for properly functioning markets. Unfortunately that does not mean allowing those that give large payments to politicians to foist huge risks on the economy by exempting themselves from sensible regulation. I guess some people get confused that the benefits of “free markets” are not the same as standing back and allowing powerful interests to manipulate markets and risk economies. The benefits of a free market are provided to the economy when the market is free not when large, powerful organizations are allowed to exert undue influence on markets.

    I don’t really understand how people could think “free markets” are about letting special interests be free to manipulate markets. It is not really something that should be confusing to people that have thought enough to have an opinion on the benefits of free markets. The dangers of monopolies and business people conspiring to extract benefit (for those in the cartel, trust, conspiracy…) by manipulating the market was well know from the initial minds putting together capitalist theory. And the obvious method to allow the benefits of the free market to be maintained was regulation to prevent those that sought to manipulate the market for their benefit.

    And the dangers of overly leveraged financial institutions should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of understanding of financial history. Then make those overly leveraged financial institutions large (too be to fail) types and you really are asking for disaster. Add in a extremely large use of debt by the public and private sectors (living beyond your means). Then throw in encouraging reckless short term thinking by providing enormous cash bonuses for paper potential profits and you really have to wonder how anyone could think this was not a perfect design to assure a financial meltdown.

    Related: Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist – Fed to Loan AIG $85 Billion in Rescue – 2nd Largest Bank Failure in USA History

  • Treasury Now (1987) Favors Creation of Huge Banks

    Treasury Now Favors Creation of Huge Banks, New York Times, 1987:

    Top officials at the Treasury Department have concluded that the Government should encourage creation of very large banks that could better compete with financial institutions in Japan and Europe.

    The Treasury plan, which would permit the acquisition of banks by large industrial companies, was also endorsed by Alan Greenspan, in an interview before President Reagan nominated him this week to be chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.
    …
    Mr. Gould acknowledged that any policy promoting the creation of very large financial institutions encounters deep-seated sentiments that date from the founding of the Republic. But he thinks the nomination of Mr. Greenspan could provide an important stimulus for change. Mr. Greenspan contends that many of the laws restricting commercial banks severely limit their ability to adapt to a changing marketplace.

    The Reagan Administration has met frustration in its efforts to lessen regulation of banking, largely because Paul A. Volcker, the current Federal Reserve chairman, has firmly opposed any move that would begin to break down the barriers that prohibit large nonbanking companies from owning banks. Mr. Volcker has also been rather grudging in his support of changes that would allow interstate banking and the underwriting of securities by banks.
    …
    ”We have been the beneficiaries of living in a relatively insulated big economy, and only recently have we found out that the Japanese can make automobiles better than we do,” said Hans Angermueller, vice chairman of Citicorp. ”We are discovering that the same thing may apply in the financial services area, and to meet that challenge, we need to get leaner, meaner and stronger. We don’t do this by preserving the heartwarming idea that 14,000 banks are wonderful for our country.”

    The New York Times web archive is a great resource for viewing the historical trends to turn away form the capitalist ideas of free market competition and instead move toward large market dominating banks. You get the impression from people talking about “free markets” that they have never actually read Adam Smith, Ricardo, Mills…

    Related: Ignorance of What Capitalism Is – Not Understanding Capitalism – Canadian Banks Avoid Failures Common Elsewhere – Monopolies and Oligopolies do not a Free Market Make – Estate Tax Repeal
    (more…)

  • Too Big to Fail

    re: New Rule: If your company is to big to fail, your company is too big to exist. The next Prez. needs to split up huge companies like we did with AT&T.

    Exactly right. Companies too big to fail have massive negative externalities that should be managed through regulation. And the discussion (see link) of this claiming that the huge, anti-capitalist, companies that exist now are not monopolies and therefore anti-trust laws should not be used makes no sense. Anti-trust laws are not for monopolies. Trusts were huge anti-competitive organizations that sought to eliminate the free market and extract benefits by distorting the market. Those laws were adopted not to regulate monopolies but to regulate anti-competitive behavior.

    The free market theory formulated by Adam Smith et.al. was based on perfect competition where no one entity could influence the market. In reality that is not possible but approximations of it can exist (we are far from such a state today, however). Fine, the anti-capitalist large corporations are not monopolies – they are oligopolistic that can still extract profits through their ability to distort the free market. Is the fact they are not a monopoly really that relevant?

    Enforcing rules that prevent businesses from using their size and power to extract outsized profits is the right thing to do. Anti-trust laws are the proper tool. when politicians are paid lots of money by people with the gold to allow them to cripple the free market and create large corporations that profit, not by competing in a free market, but by manipulating the market that is a bad practice. It won’t change until people stop electing politicians that reward those that pay them for favors. And that is unlikely to happen anytime soon.

    What we can hope is that there is some limit on how egregious the favors politicians grant those paying them money are. Maybe this latest escapade (and the costs of those favors to bankers) will cause a reduction in the favors granted. I don’t have high expectations for the changes though.
    (more…)

  • Ignorance of Capitalism

    Chatting with Obama by Bill O’Reilly

    You can decide if that’s change we should believe in, but keep in mind that the unintended consequences of government interference in the marketplace are impossible to predict. Free markets have a way of chafing under government imposition.

    I really wish people understood capitalism. Capitalism requires regulation. It was known to all the economist in Adam Smith’s time that the government must regulate or powerful forces that would not allow the free market to function as it should – which destroys the potential of capitalism. This is not some minor point, it is absolutely essential to the theory of how capitalism provides value to society.

    The ignorance that equates allowing manipulation of the market by powerful forces undermining capitalism (which is supported by those that claim to support capitalism – “regulation distorting free markets”) with disrupting the free market annoys me. I know I should accept that ignorance is just rampant but sometimes I can’t get over it. I truly support capitalism and seeing it abused by so many ignorant pundits and politicians is distressing.

    And when those with influence constantly reinforce ideas based on ignorance then many, that can’t think for themselves, accept idiotic ideas like “free markets” should allow oligopolies to consolidate reducing the benefits of capitalism, that polluters should be allowed to push negative externalities onto the public, that allowing trust fund babies to receive massive inheritances is good (capitalism is meant to reward those that contribute, not reward those who were related to someone useful) and that the inheritance tax is bad (it is the BEST tax that exists, arguably along with taxes on negative externalities) and on and on.

    The idiotic idea that government regulation of markets is interference is equivalent to saying police interfere with freedom by enforcing laws against violent crime. Yes the watchmen must be watched. You can have bad policing and bad regulation; but the idea that policing the free market, in itself is wrong, is so ignorant we have to stop accepting such claims as if they were anything but ravings of radicals or ignorant people (or people that are both).

    By the way I am using ignorant with the sense of “lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified.” Sometimes the word is used to claim the other person’s opinion is wrong, which is not an accurate way to use the word. It is my opinion that those espousing crazy ideas like, free markets are those without regulation, don’t understand capitalism is based upon the idea of perfect competition. If they do, but have decided that fundamental aspect (along with negative externalities, rewards based on who your parents are instead of what you produce…) of capitalism is wrong, but they have a new theory that somehow updates capitalism I am waiting to hear about it. I am basing my guess of their ignorance on their statement seeming to be completely disconnected with capitalist theory.
    (more…)