Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • 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

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Henry Paulson: Good Businessman or Very Bad Communist?

By David Sirota, AlterNet. Posted October 10, 2008.


Is Paulson looking to socialize risk and privatize gain? The answer could be the difference between economic disaster and recovery.
Advertisement

Is Henry Paulson a crony communist or a businessman? The answer could be the difference between economic disaster and recovery.

Understanding Paulson's role in stopping -- or fueling -- the credit crisis requires a review of two axioms from Economics 101: 1) A credit crisis occurs when banks stop lending and 2) The amount banks can lend is a multiple of the capital in their vaults. Therefore, ending a credit crisis means prompting new lending -- and that means maximally increasing bank capital.

Enter Paulson, the former Goldman Sachs executive and current Treasury secretary. The bailout he fearmongered through Congress aims to waste almost a trillion taxpayer dollars buying banks' bad mortgages -- a scheme all but ensuring a disastrous outcome.

If Paulson pays banks exactly what their mortgages are worth, he will not increase banks' capital (or their lending ability) -- he will merely convert one asset (mortgages) into another (cash), making no impact on the credit crisis. If, to protect taxpayers, he buys mortgages at lower prices than banks list them, banks will have to write down their capital and consequently contract lending -- and the credit crisis will worsen. If Paulson overpays for mortgages, he may marginally augment bank capital, but also incur massive taxpayer losses when he later resells the mortgages at their real price.

The silver lining is a little-noticed provision in the bailout bill allowing Paulson -- if he chooses -- to buy ownership stakes in banks. According to Robert Johnson, the Senate Banking Committee's former chief economist, this would cost roughly $375 billion less than the mortgage-buying plan -- and, better yet, more aggressively attack the credit crisis.

Mortgages may be underpriced today, but they retain some value on banks' books. So rather than purchasing mortgages (a capital-neutral transaction), Paulson could buy bank stock, infusing banks with new capital on top of their mortgages. That would exponentially increase lending capacity, prevent taxpayers from buying toxic assets, give the public a share of future profits, and grant regulators ownership leverage to restructure bank management.

This is where Paulson's personal proclivities come in.

A crony communist looking to socialize risk and privatize gain would consider these options and choose to buy mortgages -- that is, choose to ignore the credit crisis, reward discredited executives and permit banks to keep any subsequent profits -- all while inhibiting a potential government-mandated housecleaning of Wall Street. Indeed, the Financial Times' Wolfgang Munchau says Paulson's mortgage-buying program is driven by "a wish to benefit the investment banks he once chaired, and which stand to gain handsomely from such a package."

A businessman, by contrast, would limit taxpayers' exposure, give us a stake in future gains and demand management control. He would, in short, treat taxpayers like Warren Buffett treats his Berkshire Hathaway shareholders when buying banks with their money.

This is how Sweden successfully confronted its banking crisis in 1992, and how England is addressing its own meltdown today. In fact, world leaders are citing our crony communism as a cautionary tale. "This is not the American plan," said British Prime Minister Gordon Brown in announcing his bank rescue. "We will have a stake in the banks -- we are not simply giving money."

The bailout bill's failure to make this course of action mandatory should have killed the legislation in Congress. But banking CEOs and their lobbyists turned "should have" into "didn't." They love crony communism and hate government ownership stakes because, as financial analyst Luigi Zingales says, "Nobody likes to pay for their own mistakes -- it is much better to have the taxpayers pay."

Considering the opposition, then, it is a miracle any ownership stake language slipped into law. Whether Paulson now uses that language will signal how deep Washington corruption runs.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: risk, paulson, bailout, private

David Sirota is a best-selling author whose newest book, "The Uprising," was just released this month. He is a fellow at the Campaign for America's Future and a board member of the Progressive States Network -- both nonpartisan organizations. His blog is at www.credoaction.com/sirota.


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:
Crony Communism = Bourgeois Socialism
Posted by: pdxjoe on Oct 10, 2008 3:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Karl Marx already identified 150 years ago what you call "Crony Communism," and critiqued it in his Communist Manifesto, in the section on "Socialist and Communist Literature." There he called it "Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism," which "is summed up in the phrase: the bourgeois is a bourgeois — for the benefit of the working class." It was one of a many of other "socialisms" of the time, many predating Marx by decades. Equivocating this bailout's tacit "bourgeois socialism" with Marxism is untenable, intellectually dishonest, if not downright gutless.

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

Joseph Culligan
Posted by: reunionpi on Oct 10, 2008 4:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Henry Paulson, 5 weeks before he became Treasury Secretary, got a FANNIE MAE/FREDDIE MAC 30 year fix mortgage/loan for his 82 year old mother in May 2005 for 5.37%, (below rate)

webofdeception.com

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

Comrades Bush, Paulson and Bernanke Welcome ...
Posted by: left_libertarian on Oct 11, 2008 10:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
you to Commie Style USA....

long lines for the working class

and fine wines for the ruling class

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

He's just helping out business associates
Posted by: fanny666 on Oct 14, 2008 1:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Check out the connections Paulson has with these failing institutions.

(similar to the great website theyrule.net)

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

Why aren't the top Economists included in The Kashkari Commission..?
Posted by: TJColatrella on Oct 15, 2008 9:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
David; your column makes perfect sense and I ask, why is it that the Commission Kashkari has assembled does not include some of the economists who saw this coming and have so much to offer towards a real solution..such as..

Professor Stiglitz, Professor Krugman, Professor Greenberger, Brookley Born or others..

The problem is we still have the same barbarians as the gate keepers, who created this mess, now trying to solve it..!

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

Au Contraire!!
Posted by: talkville on Oct 22, 2008 3:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Taking the word 'communist' in this very loose and a-historical and superficial sense, Paulson would fit quite comfortably these days within the ranks of the Chinese Central Committee and its bureaucracy. It is there that the Capitalism is donning its new suit and discarding those old Weberian-style clothes.

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