Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Nationalize Fannie Mae? It Worked Until It Was Privatized

By Robert Kuttner, Huffington Post. Posted September 9, 2008.


Amid all the hubbub, it's important to remember Fannie Mae's pedigree.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

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

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Are the "New Atheists" As Bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Frank Schaeffer

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
How a Public Jobs Program Could Put America Back on Track
Julianne Malveaux

DrugReporter:
Pot Is More Mainstream Than Ever, So Why Is Legalization Still Taboo?
Steven Wishnia

Environment:
Why We Need Bees and More People Becoming Organic Beekeepers
Makenna Goodman

Food:
The Raw Milk Revolution: Behind America's Emerging Battle Over Food Rights
Makenna Goodman

Health and Wellness:
New York May Stop Heartless Health Insurers from Dropping Coverage When It Stops Being Profitable
William Ehart

Immigration:
NYC Marathon Raises Question of Who Is American Enough?
James E. Johnson, Jr.

Media and Technology:
Focusing on Fort Hood Killer's Beliefs Is an Easy Out to Avoid the Deeper Reasons for the Massacre
Mark Ames

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Michelle and Barack's Marriage Has in Common with 56 Million Other Ones
Annabelle Gurwitch

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Fetus-Shaped Potatoes? Going Undercover Inside the Weird World of Right-Wing Abortion Foes
Ann Neumann

Rights and Liberties:
"My Kids Want to Hide Their Identity; They're Scared Someone Will Attack Us": U.S. Muslims Being Targeted
Jaisal Noor

Sex and Relationships:
Instant Sex: Has the Digital Age Destroyed Relationships or Made Them Better?
Vanessa Richmond

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Why Natural Gas Is Not a Clean Energy Panacea
Stan Cox

World:
With Unemployment at 40 Percent, Afghan Teens Enlist in Army, Police
Lal Aqa Sherin

More stories by Robert Kuttner

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

In the past several days, before the U.S. Treasury Department acted to seize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, several people asked me if I thought it was a good idea for the government to "nationalize" the two mortgage giants. In virtually none of the coverage of the Bush administration's latest emergency action did anyone bother to tell the backstory. Fannie Mae, nee the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), began life as a government invention. It was born "nationalized" -- and it worked beautifully until it was privatized.

FNMA was part of the New Deal's trinity of housing agencies -- the other two being the Home Owners Loan Corporation and the FHA agencies that Roosevelt formed in order to literally create the modern mortgage system. Before the New Deal, there were no long-term, self-amortizing mortgages. The loan was due and payable at the end of the term -- usually five years -- and if you couldn't persuade a bank or savings-and-loan to roll it over, you lost the house. After foreclosures exploded during the Depression, Roosevelt invented a whole new system. FNMA's job was to buy approved mortgages from banks, to replenish their working capital, so that they could make more mortgages. As the biggest buyer, FNMA also maintained standards.

The system worked like a fine watch. Home-ownership rates soared. Loan standards were generous but not stupid. Nobody in the home mortgage business got filthy rich, and mortgage lenders hardly ever went broke. The government's bank insurance funds regularly turned a profit. And here's a quaint, archaic concept: It operated in the public interest.

Then in 1968, as part of a general budget reform, government technocrats decided to get FNMA off the government's books. This was intended as a purely technical revision. It was tacitly understood that Fannie was to keep doing the same thing it always did -- buy mortgages from banks, turn them into securities, keep some and sell others, but maintain its standards and service to the public good.

It took about two decades for the wise guys to realize that there was big money to be made. And I am sorry to report that this was a bipartisan trough. In the Clinton era, many of the wise guys at FNMA were Democrats.

Criticism was limited to the Right and Left. The Wall Street Journal and libertarian think tanks regularly warned that Fannie was getting too big and too speculative with an implicit government guarantee. A few progressives like your faithful writer objected that FNMA's true purposes were being perverted and the system was being put at risk so that insiders could get very rich.

After 2000, Fannie also served to abet the subprime mess. For the most part, Fannie refused to buy the very worst subprime loans, but it was happy to buy so called "Alt-A" loans, which were a slightly milder version of the same abuse -- very risky loans with exorbitant interest costs (and profits) and almost nonexistent standards. Those loans are now going into default at almost the same rate as subprime loans.

Under private management, Fannie did a 180. It was perverted from a government-sponsored and well managed agency that served the public interest into a privatized casino whose big bets enriched a few insiders and then helped crash the entire system.

So now, the Bush administration is playing half-of-FDR. It is saving capitalism from itself as Roosevelt did -- but without getting serious about regulatory standards going forward. The taxpayers will bail out Fannie, but the rules for regulation of the mortgage system have yet to be written. That will await the next administration. And if the next administration is led by John McCain, the top financial guy is likely to be former Sen. Phil Gramm, the senate's biggest cheerleader for reckless deregulation.

Here is the cycle: The government invents something virtuous; the private market takes it over and loses hundreds of billions; the government then bails it out. This is best understood as socialized risk, privatized gain. Yes, the shareholders of Fannie Mae will deservedly lose a bundle -- it's always the shareholders who take a hit -- but the insiders who thought up subprime and the executives of Fannie Mae during the roaring '90s already made their pile.

Surely there is an Obama teachable moment here. It isn't even that complicated. To wit:

  • Ordinary homeowners got suckered so that a few fat cats could get very rich.


  • The needless damage to the mortgage sector has wreaked much wider harm on the economy -- causing other people to lose jobs, not get raises, lose health coverage and suffer losses to their net worth because of collapsing housing prices.


  • This was all the fruit of ultra-free-market ideology, as carried out by an opportunistic Wall Street-Washington axis.


  • In competent hands, government can do some things more reliably than Wall Street.


(That only took 84 words, less than a typical TV spot. This could also be the subject of a major, high-profile Obama speech, laying out all the gory details and drawing the lessons.)

What has Barack Obama said about the Fannie Mae rescue? Here's what the Obama campaign put out Sunday afternoon, the same day that a new USA Today poll was finding McCain ahead by 10 points among likely voters:
Given the substantial role that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play in our housing system, I believe that some form of intervention is necessary to prevent a larger and deeper crisis throughout our entire economy. I will be reviewing the details of the Treasury plan and monitoring its impact to determine whether it achieves the key benchmarks I believe are necessary to address this crisis.
First, this plan must not focus on the whims of lobbyists and special interests worried about their bonuses and hourly fees, but instead on strengthening our economy and helping struggling homeowners who are also being hit by lost jobs, stagnant wages and spiraling costs of everything from gas to groceries. Second, the plan must protect taxpayers, not bail out the shareholders and management of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Third, once we ride out the current crisis, the plan must move toward clarifying the true public and private status of our housing policies. In our market system, investors must not be allowed to believe that they can invest in a "heads they win, tails they don't lose" situation.
That's it. The entire statement.

He'll be reviewing the details of the Treasury plan and monitoring its impact to determine whether it achieves the key benchmarks ... ? Gawd, did they hire John Kerry's second-string 2004 speechwriter? That would put even a policy wonk to sleep.

I will be reviewing the Obama campaign and monitoring its impact -- to see whether these people get off their fannies.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: economy, new deal, fannie mae

Robert Kuttner is the co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect magazine, and is a Distinguished Senior Fellow at the think tank Demos. He is the author of Obama's Challenge: America's Economic Crisis and the Power of a Transformative Presidency, just released by Chelsea Green.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
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:
LOL ... Barrack O'Bilderberg is Wall Street !
Posted by: mmckinl on Sep 9, 2008 12:26 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look where his contributions come from !

For ordinary citizens it's heads we lose, tails we lose.

For a great article on the Fannie and Freddie Bailout read this one by William Greider ...

The Silence of Lambs

Your choice for President : Barrack O'Bilderberg or John "Mussolini" McCain.

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

» Hold Up Posted by: mgmyers79
» this is what you guys want right Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
As Always
Posted by: progdem on Sep 9, 2008 1:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kuttner delivers an informative and relevant article as always.

There are people of fame on the left who do not deserve it (Kos).

There are people who do not get the recognition they deserve on the left, for doing the hard work and keeping the truth circulating. And Kuttner is one of them.

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

Great article...its time for FDR!
Posted by: Col. Jackleg on Sep 9, 2008 4:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While the neocons rename everything after Reagan and Bush and denigrate every social advancement made during the previous century, it just might be time for the Dipocrits to stand and deliver the homage FDR deserves!
But for FDR's leadership and persuasion, every aspect of American life today would be non-competitive with the emerged G-8. Reagan/Bush et al have always hated the New Deal and its expansion during Johnson's exemplary Great Society days but where the hell are the Dipocrits now? Millions of Americans make it today because of FDR and LBJ but they are relegated to obscurity and disregard by a collection of craven sons-of-bitches that should be punched out every time they leave the confines of their respective cribs. It won't happen and we will hear more and more bullshit about how the middle class families are being screwed.....Duh, bone up on your FDR folks and light a fire under the asses of the Dipocrits, AARP and every other pretender currently advocating middle class sanctity.

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

Yes it did work until...
Posted by: bobtr900 on Sep 9, 2008 5:00 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...it was privatized, Our CIA and NSA also worked until they, too, were privatized and then beset by Cheney-Bolton(John). Once privatized(80%) now they serve the highest bidder, which might be China, now that the 'spend and borrow' Republican Bushies are in control and will sell anything to the highest bidder.

The Bushie Rethugs will sell anything to the highest bidder, even America; just as they are doing now with our infrastructure, including our Public Schools and our roads and bridges. They serve mamon, the golden idol as do their religious right wingers, including my own religion.

Big Religion and Big Business, one and the same.

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

World war 3 nationalists vs globalists
Posted by: solrev on Sep 9, 2008 5:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The two companies should be merged and nationalized with the government providing all the home mortgages in the US. The low interest home loan profits could be used for a national healthcare plan and social security. All we have to do is institute a government that will secure the entitlements of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Welcome to the revolution of 2012.

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

Thank you
Posted by: Cybershaman on Sep 9, 2008 5:43 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For saying what no one else has the guts to say!
I knew the Bush League were piling the bad private debt onto Freddie and Fannie back in January.

Privitization schemes are the modern way for Republicons to make their friends and family into billionaires. That Son of a Mitch Daniels has managed to turn Indiana's food stamp, welfare, and Medicare programs into a stinking mess by privitizing their management. There used to be a word for this. Oh yeah, extortion! THAT'S their modus operandi, exploitation and extortion. The GOP really is an organized crime syndicate.
And I know the Dems aren't much better. The underlying problem is that the wealthy, and their children, are killing the cow by milking it too much. Or maybe a better analogy is the vampire infant. Not content with suckling at the mothers breast they have bitten off the nipple to feed directly on the mothers blood.

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

» Sen Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank Posted by: theVRWCwhodatesLiberals
And who was...
Posted by: bobtr900 on Sep 9, 2008 6:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And who was the 'Master Blaster' for totally deregulated Big Fascist Business, it was none other than St. Reagan. And who put St. Reagan into the WH? It was none other than the evangelical fundies(not all evangelicals) and the Catholic(my religion) fundies, thats who. And they are to blame for this greed and lust for limitless financial and political power.

Ask Falwell(dead), Pat Robertson and the Pope about it, they know, they did it. Poverty, chastity and obedience go hand in hand with starvation and death, for profits. Just look at all the Latin American countries and ask their starving citizens, who must leave their families and immigrate to the U.S. as so many thousands of children grow up without fathers(and sometimes mothers). And this is what they call Family Values, as in Pro-Life and Family Values.

Just ask the RR's, the religious right hypocrites about that, and just listen to the hours or days of unending theology and biblical quotations about those issues. Then realize that whilst they were expounding and exhorting, just how many more people died, children died, and families were rent asunder, as they insist it was all for Jesus.

It's strange, I don't remember Jesus ever talking about any of that. But I do remember Him saying that we must NOT merge church and state, when He said:'render unto caesar...and 'render unto God...'. But then those 'Moral Relativists' only remember the bible that serves their purposes.

They seem to remember all the passages that spoke about how to get rich quick, while stealing from others(Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not covet)and damning everyone else (Thou shalt not bear false witness) who doesn't believe in their BushCo government's thievery for oil profits and our/their government's 'Culture of Death for Profits' agenda.

Maybe it's just time to give up and leave their Bushie Repub government's agenda for endless profits and endless political power to them. Because it seems that Big Business and Big Religion are truly, one and the same.

The thieves are all hard at work; they either want to steal our goods or our good name or our souls or our bodies. But then some form of stealing is what they do best. Big government, Big Business and Big Religion are now, all one and the same. Somehow, I just never realized that God gave my soul to the Pope(my religion) and not directly and only to me.

Oh well, live and learn-- it's something new every day. As goes the Bush-Rethug government, so too goes Big Religion. As Sinclair Lewis opined something like: 'when tyranny comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a Cross. Maybe Satan dwells with them, the evil seems to be the same.

Armageddonists and Rapturists alike, seem not to remember that Jesus said something like: 'even the Son does not know the day or the hour of the Father's choosing, but they insist they do know those things. The Pope will insist the BVM told him, while the Rapturists (GWB and Pastor Hagee) know the bible tells them so. So then, what if neither are correct, imagine that possibility. Jesus did not know, but they do know. Wow, wow and wow. I guess they are connected in a manner that He was not.

One thing does lead to another. The Religious Right gave us Ronnie Raygun, he gave us unregulated business(Bidness or Binness) and it now gives us rampant greed and consumerism. Wasn't it the RR's friend GWB who said something like: 'just go shopping', after 9/11. I guess the message is that 'we the people' must keep the wheels of commerce rolling so they can perpetrate war, and the 'Culture of Death for Profits. Profits must be good for Big Business and Big Religion, as well as Big Republican 'spend and borrow' Government.

Oh well, all is well that ends well, but will it and when?

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

» that was an excellent comment Posted by: deborama
» RE: And who was... Posted by: Cybershaman
Either we the taxpayers are gonna pay now or keep borrowing from China until
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 9, 2008 7:03 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
China flips the FORECLOSURE SWITCH. All Bush/Cheney had to do and did is like anything else, borrow another billions from China and say "See, problem solved !"

GOD IS SEVERELY PUNISHING AMERICA TO ETERNAL DAMNATION FOR ELECTING AMORAL MOTHERFUCKERS AND RUBBERSTAMP/CAVE-IN PUPPETS !!!!!

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

Kucinich's economic advisor on Freddie/Fannie bailout
Posted by: fanny666 on Sep 9, 2008 9:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rewarding the Bubble's Enablers: Why the Bail Out of Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae is Bad Economic Policy

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

www.zeitgeistmovie.com
Posted by: ksun77 on Sep 9, 2008 9:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Watch this movie! Then let's have some EVOLUTION. Forget REV-olution. More of the same old stuff won't help us here.

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

» RE: www.zeitgeistmovie.com Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: www.zeitgeistmovie.com Posted by: richholland
Kuttner does it again
Posted by: jebpgh on Sep 9, 2008 10:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kuttner is one of the clearest and easiest to read commentators on economic issues. I dare say, he hits the mark better than Paul Krugman. Kuttner has nailed this issue - but it won't work in the current environment. The Democrats under Clinton gave up on a populist playbook on economic policy. Bob Rubin killed it off along with Larry Summers and Alan Greenspan. This really dangerous combination of talent and loyalty to the private sector undercut the role of the public sector in protecting and moderating markets. Bush just continued the direction to its inevitable conclusion when they used housing like ATMs to offset the effects of the technology bubble collapse in 2000.

Now the place is really spinning out of control and no one can really get hold of it because the system is no longer a "system" but a viral re-generating money machine. Every intervention creates more - not less - problems. Kevin Phillips nailed this in his new book.

Obama has the same problem the Clintons had - and would have had in this election - Wall Street is just as likely to join the Democrats as the Republicans. Influence is influence and after their experiences with Bill and Bob, well, that influence can be pretty powerful shit! I don't know how you flush them out now that they are in.

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

It's Time for the Overreaction.
Posted by: FoonTheElder on Sep 9, 2008 11:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fannie and Freddie have gone broke due to the abuses in the real estate market. Now is time for the overreaction.

Their goal still makes sense. I see no problem with allowing people who can make the monthly payments the opportunity to own a low or no down payment home. This is now going to go away. Once again the big shots get bailed out while everyone else pays the bill.

The problems are when you don't even check income or credit because all that the mortgage company is going to do is pass these on to other investors and let them take the hit. Of course the mortgage company is only concerned about big commissions, so their incentive is to sell everything regardless of whether it makes financial sense.

The other problem was the 'flip your house' craze where loads of people were putting nothing down on any home or condo they could get their hands on. After all, the prices can only go up! And go up they did, until the investment bubble burst. These are the people who needed to be required to put money down on a home, seeing as it isn't their principal residence.

The problem wasn't all of the no down payment loans, the problem was that everyone in the system wanted to take their cut and pass the frauds off to someone else. It is like all Ponzi schemes that eventually come to an end.

What does our government do? Save the monied interests, such as Wall Steet and China, who pay big bucks to lobby Washington. Everyone else is on their own. It's still socialism for the big businesses and top 2% and cold hard capitalism for everyone else.

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

» RE: It's Time for the Overreaction. Posted by: FoonTheElder
For privatization to work there have to be losers, and often immediate ones.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Sep 9, 2008 11:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anytime you privatize something with the implicit guarantee of the U.S. taxpayer, you open the door for speculation.

Speculation is fine and dandy, when done by folks who are concerned enough about their holdings that they due diligent research, when done by folks who can afford lackeys to do it for them, or by folks who just have money to burn or want to prove a point. Speculation is fine, as long as there is risk.

In Franie Mac and Fuddy Mae, however, the U.S. government and private interests conspired together to guarantee shareholder investments with U.S. taxpayer dollars. It was all reward, and the only risk was that American voters might find out what the Parties of Money and Power (demoboobs and republicrats) were doing with the public trust. Predictably, American voters only got interested after the government/private conspiracy failed largely enough to begin costing people jobs, promotions, quality of life, etc.

By giving taxpayer guarantees to Mae and Mac and then allowing for speculation, these conspirators--government and shareholders--have failed the American people. Mae and Macshould be utterly dissolved; lending should be the responsibly of localized/regional banks, whose managers are forced to make more "good bets" than "bad bets" when it comes to deciding whether someone with a credit score of 2 has the potential to repay a $325,000 home loan.

I don't see a problem with shuffling off some of my tax dollars towards people in exceptional situations: VA loans, targetted loans to increase home ownership in impoverished areas, farm loans, etc., but by and large lending needs to be local, where the manager has a vested interest (his job) in making good deicisions for the company.

Making lending local puts a barrier between our tax dollars, greedy speculators, and greedy, irresponsible, lieing people who are willing to fake information to be a so-called "home owner" with a balloon mortgage.

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

ANYBODY.......
Posted by: ALANHESTER on Sep 9, 2008 1:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.......who wants to "sell"
a tax cut
"free trade"
or anything else that benefits only the rich should be tortured and decapitated immediately!

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

» have some humanity Posted by: aalif ba ta tha
Good article....
Posted by: Spiritgirl on Sep 9, 2008 2:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can we post the points made in 85 words or less on a bill-board truck in front of the White House!

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

Barrrack O'Bilderberg Says No Recission of the Tax Cuts for the Rich !
Posted by: mmckinl on Sep 9, 2008 4:45 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They would be delayed ! And since all his programs depend on the money from rescinding those tax cuts how's he gonna pay for them?

I'll bet ... this guy can't be trusted on anything.

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

Russia and china should not subsidize bankrupt american and british economy
Posted by: avatar_singh on Sep 9, 2008 5:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
even the american admit that usa is taking other countries for a mug in order to rescue corrupt american economic suystem. where is IMF now the same IMF whioch imposed conditions and destryed Russian ecvonomy 10years ago and argentian economy after that?

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney09082008.html

An Interview with Economist Michael Hudson
The Worsening Debt Crisis: Who Got Us into This Mess and What are the Real Political Options?



When you look at the balance sheet of U.S. assets available for foreign central banks to buy with the $2.5 to $3.5 trillion of surplus dollars they hold, real estate is the only asset category large enough to absorb the balance-of-payments outflows that U.S. military spending, foreign trade and investment-capital flight are throwing off. When the U.S. military spends money abroad to fight the New Cold War, these dollars are recycled increasingly into U.S. mortgage-backed securities, because there is no other market large enough to absorb the sums involved. Remember, we do not permit foreigners – especially Asians – to buy high-tech, “national security” or key infrastructure. The government would prefer to see them buy harmless real estate trophies such as Rockefeller Center, or minority shares in banks with negative equity such as Citibank shares sold to the Saudis and Bahrainis.

But there is a limit on how nakedly the U.S. Government can exploit foreign central banks. It does need to keep dollar recycling going, in order to prevent a sharp dollar depreciation. The Treasury therefore has given informal assurances to foreign governments that they will guarantee at least the dollar value of the money their central banks are recycling. (These governments still will lose as the dollar plunges against hard currencies – just about every currency except the dollar these days.) A failure to provide investment guarantees to foreigners would thwart the continuation of U.S. overseas military spending! And once foreigners are bailed out, the Treasury has to bail out domestic American investors as well, simply for political reasons.

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

» RE: Capitalism doesn't work Posted by: richholland
The Two-Step Corruption Dance
Posted by: JakobFabian01 on Sep 9, 2008 9:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I can only comment as I did not long ago on William Greider's excellent article (which another poster mentioned above):

'I agree with William Greider: Make Fannie Mae what is was before, a regulated non-profit agency.

Deregulating Fannie Mae and then creating Freddie Mac for "competition" has only created another corrupt oligopoly. This trust has gone bust. The reformers of the 1930s knew what they were doing!

This terrible two-step corruption dance, in which Republicans lead the push to deregulate, and then Democrats lead the push to bailout, has got to stop. This kind of foul bipartisanship is good for nobody.'

Posted by JakobFabian at 07/15/2008 @ 07:02am

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

"Criticism was limited to the Right and Left." -- what do you mean?
Posted by: halg on Sep 13, 2008 2:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a confusing sentence, even in the context of what follows. You continue on to mention Libertarians, who consider themselves neither left nor right (and upon some thought myself, I agree with them) and seem to make a reference to Wall Street.

So are you saying the WSJ is "Left" and the Libertarians are "Right" -- or do you mean the liberals AND conservatives criticized Wall Street and the Libertarians -- or are you saying something else completely?

I expect some posters may chime in with their own interpretations of this sentence which I am sure will be interesting. But I am really most interested in what the author actually meant.

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

Valid arguments undermined by a witless reference to "ultra free markets"
Posted by: Beached Whale on Sep 18, 2008 7:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As the author pointed out, criticism of Fannie Mae was not limited to progressives. Clearly, then, the problems were more fundamental - as he went on to demonstrate ably. However, his suggestion that the problems were due to "free markets" or capitalism is hogwash.

It seems that any time guys with ties make lots of money (questionable or otherwise) 'capitalism' is to blame. The mere fact that the author was able to point to a strategem involving private gain and socialized costs indicates that it was anything but capitalism (corporatism, fascism, even neo-mercantilism, but certainly not capitalism).

One of the main ingredients required for capitalism is an independent and reliable judiciary that will enforce contracts and agreements. Regulatory bodies are set up to fulfill that function with specialized expertise, but the sine qua non of their effectiveness remains independence and reliability. Sadly, regulatory agencies and oversight committees are regularly packed with dubious grandees overly concerned with their remuneration rather than their responsibilities.

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

  • 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