creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Froma Harrop
Froma Harrop
24 May 2012
Bain And Our Screwed-Up Culture

We recently saluted Leslie Sabo for giving his life to save fellow soldiers in Vietnam 40 years ago. Injured … Read More.

22 May 2012
The United States of Gambling

A surprising fact: Gamblers spent more last year at commercial casinos in Indiana than they did at non-Indian … Read More.

17 May 2012
Grief Is Not a Mental Illness

We moderns seem determined to suppress all unhappiness with one exception: grief. The intense sadness … Read More.

The Street They Should Occupy

Share Comment

As "Occupy Wall Street" sweeps up attention, a smaller group is running something called Occupy K Street. If the goal is to loosen the financiers' grip over the American economy, the folks protesting on K Street are getting closer to bingo. K Street is Washington's famous boulevard of lobbyist influence, the place where money buys politicians to do money's bidding.

Occupy Wall Street and allied movements have been likened to the tea party populists associated with the right. Both rage at the 2008 Wall Street bailout. Both resent the corporate powers' lobbying Congress to rig the game in their favor — the middle class and taxpayers be damned.

But there's a very big difference between these movements. The Occupy people want a more vigilant government overseeing financial activities. The tea partiers do not, oddly favoring a less active government. They have no solutions that, frankly, most Americans, including themselves, would want to live with.

The tea party believes that free markets will punish the wicked. It sees regulation as a weight on the capitalists' animal spirits, off whose trickle we mortals slake our thirst. It's like the tea party doesn't want the cattle trampling the flowers, but at the same time, opposes fences.

The group doesn't get why our financial system must be supervised, because it doesn't know why it nearly collapsed — or even that it did nearly collapse. Tea party honcho Mike Pence, Republican rep from Indiana, offers a peek into this alternative universe of how things work. He recently said that the House passed the bailout legislation — after having rejected it days earlier — because Congress had "larded up" it up in the interim. In other words, the vote changers were bought.

Millions of American stockholders have a very different recollection of that turbulent time. They remember the news channels' famous split screens. On one, House members cast votes against the bailout. On the other, the Dow Jones Industrial Average plunged with the "nays." It lost nearly 800 points that day.

Facing a public already in near panic, Congress quickly reversed course and voted for the bailout.

True, had there been no bailout, the reckless financiers would have been ruined. But the rest of us would be wearing barrels.

Free markets do work, alas. They worked in 1929, when a decade of speculation, frenzied borrowing and other financial excess ended in the Great Depression.

Politicians who opposed the bailout (on the left as well as right) didn't have to deal with the consequences of letting the financial system collapse because other braver lawmakers did their duty. One can rightly complain about the details — that the bailout left the irresponsible far more whole than they deserved — but insisting that it could have been avoided without catastrophe shows a sad grasp of economics and history.

Where the Occupy Wall Street crowd somewhat misses the bull's-eye is its railing against "greed." Few activities are more fruitless than trying to shame the financial industry's players for wanting all they can get. Condemning them for "greed" is like condemning a wolf for eating a stray lamb or (to use a more neutral-sounding metaphor) salmon for swimming upstream. Money is how the contestants keep score. Some may be lovable people, who leave their fortunes to good causes, but money is the object of their game.

And regulation is how you keep the game orderly and nice. If one investment house is making a pile doing wild and wooly things, its competitors may feel compelled to do the same, lest their shareholders complain. So regulations also help prudent bankers avoid pressure to make unappetizing investments.

To get those regulations, you have to go to Washington. You have to find that corner where the lobbyists transfer money to politicians in return for weak or no rules of the road. You have to stop practices that destabilize the financial system. You have to prevent the fat wallets from obtaining sweetheart deals that, for example, let hedge fund managers pay taxes at a lower rate than the police who protect their estates.

We're talking about K Street. That's where the spotlight belongs. Who is delivering what checks to which politicians and for what in return? Occupy K Street could not have too many members.

To find out more about Froma Harrop, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL CO.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS.COM


Comments

3 Comments | Post Comment
Goverment regulation and "supervision" can be an open door to the kind of corruption we see--in the case, for example of good-intentioned loan guidlines to increase home ownership that wound up blowing up in all of our faces. Frankly, the government isn't smart enough (look at the failed Soviet economies) to run it all.
Comment: #1
Posted by: partsmom
Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:51 AM
Government is the adjustable (Crescent) wrench of institutions.  We choose to use it when all other institutions or combinations of institutions are not large enough in resources to accomplish the task, not unbiased enough to be fair, not legally powerful enough to obtain compliance, or just plain inappropriate in the public's perception. A democratic government gets all the thankless, difficult tasks of society. 
The old saying "a bad mechanic blames his tools" applies to the hypocrisy of those "bad mechanics" we have many times elected who have purposely sabotaged our government. It also applies to those who promised real reform, but were either a little too inexperienced, incompetent, naive, unfocused, or all of the above.  Sometimes government is not the most appropriate institution for a task, but more often its failures are caused by the sabotage by corporate lobbyists and opportunistic politicians seeking political advantage at expense of the nation, rather than inherent inappropriateness.
As for homeownership see book excepts below.
Excerpts from "Reckless Endangerment" Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner.
"Of all the partners in the homeownership push, no industry contributed more to the corruption of the lending process than Wall Street [banks]. If mortgage originators like Nova Star or Countrywide [unregulated non-banks] were the equivalent of drug pushers hanging around a schoolyard and the ratings agencies [S & P, Moodys, and Fitch] were the narcotics cops looking the other way, [Wall Street] brokerage firms providing capital [warehouse lines of credit] to the anything-goes lenders [non-bank] were the overseers of the cartel." (p. 263)
"Because higher-quality borrowers were still at this time the domain of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Wall Street could not hope to compete in this arena. So the big investment firms [Wall Street banks] stepped up their interest in alternative mortgage products offered to sub-prime or near-prime borrowers." (p. 136)
Wall Street had financed questionable mortgages before, of course. But it was a during the mania's climactic period of 2005 and 2006 that these firms' activities as the primary enabler to freewheeling lenders really went wild. No longer were the firms simply supplying capital to lenders trying to meet housing demand across America. Now Wall Street was supplying money to companies making increasingly poisonous loans to people with no ability to repay them. And the firms knew precisely what they were doing." (p. 266)
With CDO managers lapping up all manner of mortgages, lenders soon found that their production targets were harder and harder to achieve. Countrywide, NovaStar, Fremont, and the rest responded by ramping up the profits generated in each loan. This meant steering borrowers who would otherwise qualify for lower-cost mortgages into highly profitable but much more toxic loans. (p. 283)
Comment: #2
Posted by: BVA
Fri Oct 14, 2011 1:55 PM
Froma –
I appreciate your effort to be even-handed. If I might interject, your analysis is both right and wrong. It may be fairly stated that the current financial crisis is the byproduct of BOTH regulation AND deregulation. There is also a “secret sauce” for disaster mixed in by legislation. There is some level of sin when we over-simplify, but let me take a crack at it:
Bad regulation at fault – Government intervention to increase home-ownership by incentivizing and mandating mortgage qualification scoring and by requiring Fannie and Freddie to purchase these riskier loans. This was implemented in the name of fairness and social justice, among other related non-sequiturs.
Deregulation at fault – Banks with FDIC insured deposits being “loosed” to participate in riskier businesses—insurance, financial instruments, etc.—without requisite increase in capital reserves OR increases in FDIC insurance requirements. This just ignored increases in business model risk entirely and foolishly turned a blind eye to the most important lessons of the Great Depression.
Legislation at fault – Thy name is legion. But if forced to pick one, I would say it was the sophistic word-play of renaming a financial insurance derivative as “credit default swap” so as to avoid completely the need for capital reserves as a percentage of projected liability AND to allow multi-party participation in insurance policies. So, instead of these re-name insurance policies lessening risk (which is the only legitimate purpose of insurance of any kind), these instruments leveraged risk upon risk and, in some instances, made failing mortgages more valuable to the financial institutions than succeeding ones. This one deserves a march on K Street.
In this light, one can see that both sides have a point. The truth is not always in the middle, but this time it is.
Be well,
Comment: #3
Posted by: Jeffrey J. Hardy
Fri Oct 14, 2011 2:56 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Froma Harrop
May. `12
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
29 30 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31 1 2
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Roland Martin
Roland S. MartinUpdated 20 Jun 2012
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 28 May 2012
Steve Chapman
Steve ChapmanUpdated 27 May 2012

23 Sep 2008 Wall Street Did What Came Naturally

22 Dec 2009 About the So-Called Republican Moderates ...

19 Feb 2008 Vaporous Obama Turns Off Many Centrists