Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Don't Bail Out Wall Street, Bail Out the Middle Class

Posted by Kathy G, The G-Spot at 12:05 PM on September 20, 2008.


Forget Wall Street: what we need is massive debt relief for individual households.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

As the financial meltdown continues apace, one thing we're bound to be seeing a lot of are articles like this one, inviting readers to join the pity party for the real victims -- all those former Master-of-the-Universe investment bankers whose investment portfolios have taken such a rude hit of late, and who are now forced to make such heartrending decisions as the following:


Who can they let go from the staff? Most would rather do without the nanny than without the cleaner. With any luck the cleaner likes children anyway and will help out in a pinch. If there is a cook, she goes before the nanny. The cleaner also knows how to roast a chicken and wash up. Forget the garden altogether - expect to see a lot of weeds as the crisis worsens - although the unemployed may take some comfort in doing the gardening themselves. 

Oh noes!



Even more tragic are the breathless reports informing readers that "one tumbling titan after another" is being forced to give up his high-end mistress. "I can't afford her anymore!" they plaintively wail.


To which I say  -- cry me a river, bitchez! You were the geniuses who engineered this fiasco, in spite of credible warnings that a financial disaster of epic proportions was in the making. If these dudes are, in effect, being killed by their own swords -- being economically wiped out by the insanely complex and wildly unsound investment strategies and financial instruments that they themselves invented, refined, and foisted on the rest of the world -- well, that would be poetic justice now, wouldn't it?



But they aren't the only ones who will be hurting, of course. My brother, a middle manager at Merrill Lynch with a mortgage to pay and a wife and three kids to support, is very worried about his job. And he's one of the lucky ones, given that the acquisition of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America has at least allowed that firm to survive.



And there's no question that the turmoil on Wall Street will be reflected on Main Street, as credit becomes harder to come by for businesses and individuals alike, and the entire economy contracts as a result.



As we've seen thus far, when it comes to the suffering of their buddies on Wall Street, Bush, Paulson, and company have been the milk of human kindness itself, engineering lavish, taxpayer-funded bailouts for Bear Sterns, Fannie, Freddie, and AIG. But when it comes to the suffering of middle Americans, that same milk abruptly turns dry, sour, and very curdled indeed. We've seen precious little help, for example, for individuals overwhelmed by debt and in danger of losing their homes. Yet, according to economist Noriel Roubini, the most effective way to deal with the current crisis would be a program that brings relief to distressed homeowners in danger of defaulting on their mortgages.



As you may know, Roubini is the "Dr. Doom" who was one of the few economists who saw the writing on the wall and predicted the current crisis. He studied of economic crises that took place in the 90s in places like Asia, Mexico, Brazil, and Russia, and saw that all those economies shared common weaknesses:


On the eve of the crises that befell them, he noticed, most had huge current-account deficits (meaning, basically, that they spent far more than they made), and they typically financed these deficits by borrowing from abroad in ways that exposed them to the national equivalent of bank runs. Most of these countries also had poorly regulated banking systems plagued by excessive borrowing and reckless lending. Corporate governance was often weak, with cronyism in abundance.
[. . .]

After analyzing the markets that collapsed in the '90s, Roubini set out to determine which country's economy would be the next to succumb to the same pressures. His surprising answer: the United States'.

At the time, Roubini's Cassandra-like warnings about the U.S. economy fell on deaf ears, but now they look all too prescient. As one of the few people who forecast the disaster that is now hitting U.S. markets like a tsunami, he has surely earned the right to be taken very seriously indeed.



And this is what he's saying: of all the fiscal tools available, "government purchase of distressed mortgages to provide debt relief to households " would be "the most important and effective to resolve this severe financial and economic crisis." Here's why: the root of the problem, he says, is that households are carrying too much debt. The actions taken so far to resolve the crisis -- tax rebates for households, and bail-outs of institutions like AIG and Freddie Mac, will not solve the problem, for the following reasons:


First, you cannot grow yourself out of a debt problem: when debt to disposable income is too high increasing the denominator with tax rebates is ineffective and only temporary; i.e. you need to reduce the nominator (the debt). Second, rescuing distressed institutions without reducing the debt problem of the borrowers does not resolve the fundamental insolvency of the debtor that limits its ability to consume and spend and thus drags the economy into a more severe economic contraction.

Since government purchase of mortgages at a discount would leave many distressed banks even more undercapitalized than they were in the first place, we may also need to create a public institution that would recapitalize those banks (an RFC-like agency, if you will). For more details about how a mortgage relief and public recapitalization program might work, read the whole post.



One point Roubini strongly emphasizes is that it's important for lawmakers to enact this kind of program as soon as possible. If we wait for a new president, the situation will only continue to rapidly deteriorate. Not only will this make a solution even more costly than it already is, but it will make what is already bound to be a severe recession even worse. Unless policymakers act soon, he warns, we may be facing a multi-year recession "like the one that afflicted Japan for a decade after the bursting of its real estate and equity bubble."



Now there's a scary thought.

Digg!

Tagged as: economy, middle class, wall street, depression, economic recession

Kathy G Runs The G-Spot blog.


Going Extreme: Demint Says Recruiting Electable Moderates "Doesn't Make Any Sense"
You thought only the left formed up into circular firing squads.
Post by Jed Lewison. November 8, 2009.
House of Representatives Passes Health-Care Reform Bill in Historic Vote
With the vote of a single Republican, Democrats passed the Affordable Health Care Act for America.
Post by Adele Stan. November 7, 2009.
Anti-Woman Amendment to Health Care Passes House
The Stupak amendment -- an anti-choice measure that could virtually eliminate insurance coverage for abortion -- will be attached to the health-care reform bill.
Post by Adele Stan. November 7, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
NO Bailouts for Wall Street - F%%k 'em
Posted by: left_libertarian on Sep 20, 2008 1:49 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Remember what they told the average worker when they lost their lost to out-sourcing? Suck it up.

Well suck it up Wall Street!!

FU!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bail out no one and let the whole thing crash.
Posted by: andabottleof_rum on Sep 20, 2008 2:59 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's good to read the "middle class" needs help. This term barely seems to mean anything, except "not rich" and "not destitute." It can mean the real middle class, who are usually professionals with advanced or entrepreneurs, and who tend to have six-figure incomes. It can also mean the lower-middle class, who are the office workers, low-level managers etc. Or it can mean the working-class, who often make $12/hour if they're lucky.

I never know what to make of talk of the middle class. The whole conversation is ill defined. The working class has been struggling for decades; well, they've always been struggling but it's grown worse in the last few decades. Few outside the working class have given a damn. Now that white-collar workers are struggling and their investments are taking a hit, society is supposed to care.

A third world existence is in our future, if we're lucky to have so much. The level of consumption today is way, way beyond sustainable. Yeah, letting the "middle class" crash is like giving a victory to the ruling class, but this is inevitable anyway. They'll always be in charge and always be above the masses; that's the nature of the ruling class. It's pointless to get very upset about this. We should be preparing ourselves psychologically for a much harsher existence, with less food, fewer amenities, more uncertainty, increasing childhood mortality, greater health problems, less access to formal education (and even informal education), and decreased life expectancies.

We should accept that life is inevitably hard and the natural state of things is for life to be short and disappointing if you set your goals high. We should learn to be content with simply being alive today amid the bizarre, intriguing, and mysterious events that we witness all around us in our societies and the natural world.

Learn to let go.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

To anyone reading this comment, I urge you to consider the fact that you
Posted by: andabottleof_rum on Sep 20, 2008 3:03 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
are alive and have access to a computer. You're not that bad off.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Consumerist Liberals?
Posted by: mutatron on Sep 20, 2008 7:56 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And there's no question that the turmoil on Wall Street will be reflected on Main Street, as credit becomes harder to come by for businesses and individuals alike, and the entire economy contracts as a result.

People need to get their stories straight. The truth is that credit should have already cost more just as gasoline should have been more expensive all along. Americans, liberal and conservative, get slapped with the costs of profligate consumerism and whine all the way to their huge flat-screened surround sound entertainment systems they brought home in their Hummers after they stopped for a bucket of fried chicken, and now those chickens are coming home to roost.

You claim you're liberals, but down deep you're just Consumers like anybody else with "Drill, baby, drill!" for your own mantra.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Who the F*CK are you talking to? Posted by: rancespergl
Financial Industry Bailout?
Posted by: asjogren on Sep 20, 2008 8:22 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is there no discussion about addressing the root cause of the financial crisis? I am told that it is caused by a mortgage problem. I assume that is because too many people are not paying their mortgages. I worry that the current "bailout" is addressing a symptom - not the problem.

Suppose we address the problem at the financial institution level. What will be the result? Will foreclosures continue? Will many communities end up with a number of boarded-up homes? What will be the collateral damage to families, communities, and the housing industry? I fear that the housing industry (building and remodeling) is going to be in serious trouble soon.

I would like to explore an alternative idea. What if we addressed this financial crisis at the root? What if we found a way to get say 97% of the mortgages to get paid on time? Would the Finance Industry still need bailout?

What problems need to be addressed to solve this problem at the root?
- many house values are less than the mortgage amount
- many ARM mortgages are resetting to rates beyond affordability

What if we offered new mortgages with fixed rates where the new mortgage amount is less than the current house value. For example, suppose a house was bought at $400K is now worth $320K and has a current mortgage amount of $390K. What if we "ate" $80K of this mortgage - say the Bank ate $35K and the taxpayer ate $55K? A new fixed rate 30 year mortgage could be written at very low rates for $310K.

I propose that:
1) the Finance Industry would survive
2) more people would keep their houses
3) the Housing Industry could continue
4) house values would decline in an orderly fashion
5) communities would be less impacted

What I don't know is how much this will cost.

How about some discussion? What can we ask from the homeowner being assisted? Perhaps 200 hours of community service? It seems to me that this has a higher probability of success than the current Financial Industry bailout.

We cannot save every mortgage. But if we can save enough, perhaps we can have an emergency landing instead of a crash.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is ailing you people?
Posted by: modeler on Sep 22, 2008 12:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dont you realize that the president is only trying to help out his friends and financial advisers? You must have forgotten Enron and the other little scandals perpetrated by his chums. Afterall what is 700 Billion? Just a 7 with 11 zeros (like Bush himself) attached to it. Nor even 100 billion per year of this disastrous Repugnican regime. Afterall the elimination of Saddam Hussein didn't cost anymore. What is 700 billion to get rid of rhe Bushit. Come to think of it hanging him would be cheaper.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What is ailing you people? Posted by: Patriot46
Top to Bottom...
Posted by: adp3d on Sep 23, 2008 6:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everyone culpable in this "scandel" needs to suffer some consequences. Of course the "Masters of the Universe" as they like to refer themselves need to accept responsibility and make amends, from finanicial to social(jail time). How about the middle men as well as the people actually writing and approving the sub-prime loans at the street level. Finally, how about the people actually accepting the loans. If you are making 30k a year you should know that you can't afford a 200k house. Amoung the people who need to be protected are the elderly and those taken advantage of by crooks and unscrupleous brokers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]