Zcom_simple

Baker

Geithner's Plan Will Tax Main Street to Make Wall Street Richer




Change Text Size a- | A+


The new consensus among the experts who missed the housing bubble (EMHB) is that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's plan to subsidize the purchase of junk mortgages and their derivatives will help alleviate the stress on the banking system. That's good news.

These geniuses have devised a plan that for $1 trillion (approximately equal to 300 million kid-years of SCHIP, the State Child Health Insurance Program) can alleviate the stress on the banking system. Note that no one claims that $1 trillion spent on the Geithner plan will actually clean up the banking system - that would be asking too much. The EMHB only assure us that this $1 trillion (more than enough to have energy conserving retrofits for every building in the country) will make things better. Isn't that enough?

Oh, by the way, some people will get very rich off the Geithner plan. Some hedge and equity fund managers could make hundreds of millions or even billions off the Geithner plan. And, under current law, they will pay a lower tax rate on this money than a schoolteacher or firefighter. Are you sold yet?

One other outcome of the Geithner plan is that the folks who bankrupted their banks and wrecked the economy will be able to continue to earn multi-million dollar salaries. Of course this is necessary, because who else has the skills to run these banks, other than the people who drove them into bankruptcy?

For some reason, every plan the EMHB have developed so far involves using taxpayer dollars to subsidize the bankrupt banks and keep them breathing a little bit longer, while offering opportunities for other Wall Street actors to get hugely wealthy. Some people say that the EMHB keep coming up with plans that enrich the Wall Street crew because they are so closely tied to the Wall Street financial interests.

It is, of course, possible that the EMHB are too closely tied to the financial industry, but it's also possible that they just lack the creativity and imagination to think of a plan that doesn't enrich the Wall Street crew. After all, these people lacked the ability to see an $8 trillion housing bubble, the largest financial bubble in the history of the world. So, let's see if we can help them out.

The core problem is that many of the largest banks are bankrupt. They are currently concealing this bankruptcy by listing assets on their books at prices that are far above their market value. In principle, they can do this for a long time, unless the government forces them to write-down the value of these assets. As long as the banks are bankrupt, they will not make new loans, limiting the ability of many businesses to get capital.

Instead of Geithner's plan to allow banks to sell these assets at a subsidized price, we can go the other way. Geithner could have announced a plan to clean up the banks, following a standard FDIC-type takeover.

This approach could harness the power of existing bondholders to help the government clean up the banks quickly. Geithner could, for example, promise to honor the banks' commitments to bondholders in full, if the banks recognized their losses immediately. Bondholders, however, would be offered a lower payback rate for each month that the banks waited.

So, if a bank waited one month, the bondholders would only get a guarantee for 90 percent of the value of their assets. If the bank waited two months, the payback would fall to 85 percent and so on. (Note the issue here is bank bonds that the government has no legal or moral obligation to pay off. The government will, of course, pay off the banks' FDIC-insured deposits.)

Under this kind of a plan, bondholders would place enormous pressure on the banks to recognize their losses. Bank executives that refused to own up to the bank's bad assets might even face personal liability. In other words, executives who lie about their bank's assets might not just lose the bonuses that came out of TARP money, they also might lose the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars they "earned" during the housing bubble.

If President Obama's advisers, all of whom are leading members of the EMHB camp, had more imagination, they might have devised a plan like this for dealing with the banking crisis. Instead, they came up with a plan that will enrich Wall Street and further punish Main Street.

Congress can try to bring enough pressure to make President Obama reverse course. At the very least, Congress should insist that when this plan fails, Secretary Geithner and others involved in drafting the plan are sent packing. We cannot continue to have a system that always ignores the mistakes by those on top and only holds those at the bottom accountable. The EMHB already wrecked the economy once; how many more times will they get the opportunity?


Dean Baker is the Co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. CEPR's Jobs Byte is published each month upon release of the Bureau of Labor Statistics' employment report.

187647_730172866_4211116_n

Bankrupt Banks

By Moorey, Crip at Mar 31, 2009 08:51 AM

Simon Johnson (chief economist at the International Monetary Fund during 2007 and 2008) says much the same - that the banks refusal to admit that they are bankrupt is the problem - in his recent piece titled 'The Quiet Coup'. He goes further too, saying:

"The crash has laid bare many unpleasant truths about the United States. One of the most alarming, says a former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is that the finance industry has effectively captured our government—a state of affairs that more typically describes emerging markets, and is at the center of many emerging-market crises. If the IMF’s staff could speak freely about the U.S., it would tell us what it tells all countries in this situation: recovery will fail unless we break the financial oligarchy that is blocking essential reform. And if we are to prevent a true depression, we’re running out of time."

Well worth the read.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

582867

Re: Bankrupt Banks

By Small, Brian at Mar 31, 2009 09:28 AM

Hi Crip, Moorey,

  Your synopsis about emerging margets and 'The Coup' made me think of Naomi Klein and how elites use Crises to ram through their un-democratic agendas. Disaster Capitalism.

Reply this comment


582867

Costs of a Basic Income Plan

By Small, Brian at Mar 31, 2009 01:03 AM

How much money would it take to give every taxpayer (or citizent, or resident) a Basic Income that would keep them out of poverty? The kind of Guaranteed Income Martin Luther King started to advocate. Wouldn't a kind of Social Security for everyone influence the accountable bottom a  lot more than the irresponsible top? (I bet it would drive Petersen and Rubin crazy too)

These geniuses have devised a plan that for $1 trillion (approximately equal to 300 million kid-years of SCHIP, the State Child Health Insurance Program) can alleviate the stress on the banking system. Note that no one claims that $1 trillion spent on the Geithner plan will actually clean up the banking system - that would be asking too much. The EMHB only assure us that this $1 trillion (more than enough to have energy conserving retrofits for every building in the country) will make things better. Isn't that enough?

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

Person

Re: Costs of a Basic Income Plan

By Falvo ii, Samuel at Mar 31, 2009 01:19 AM

According to Google, California's population is 33 871 648.  You need at least $2000/month to afford a modest apartment plus living expenses.  That comes to $6 774 329 600 total, per month, just for California alone.  That comes to $81 291 955 200 per year, every year, for as long as there 33.87 million people living in California.  Times all fifty states, and even accounting for the wide differences in cost of living, it's easy to see how we can rack up $1T in BIG-related expenses each and every year.

Now you know why I am not for BIG -- where are we going to get this kind of cash?  Taxation alone isn't sufficient.  The military, though it costs more, is nonetheless funded on debt.  Thus, any BIG that goes into effect also needs to be funded by debt, since taxes will never be enough to cover this.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

582867

Re: Re: Costs of a Basic Income Plan

By Small, Brian at Mar 31, 2009 09:13 AM

Wow! Thanks for the calculations, What if you threw in the cost of the Iraq and Af-pak wars? Unemployment payments for the laid off (those that still qualify for them) and other 'welfar' programs that might humanely be replaced by Basic Income. And then supposedly the greater spending (by the people that normally wouldn't have any money to spend I guess) generates more taxable economic activity. MInimum wages might need to be raised as guaranteed basic incomes give poverty-stricken people more bargaining power - contibuting to the I'm still working through the idea so you might be right about expenses being exorbitant. Then again if BIG is the most efficient way (as of now) to help more people survive - even enjoy a decent life, hopefully start to organize themselves.. it might be worth it.

Martin Luther King writes JJohn Kenneth Galbraith has estimated that $20 billion a year would effect a guaranteed income, which he describes as "not much more than we will spend the next fiscal year to rescue freedom and democracy and religious liberty as these are defined by 'experts' in Vietnam."

Nabian Case Study finds Administrative costs are just 3% to 4% of the total outlay

far from leading to waste of resources it has encouraged productive use of resources and far from being unaffordable the level of Citizen's Income employed in the pilot project would, if extended to the country as a whole, cost just 2.2% to 3.8% of GDP, and the increased economic activity generated by the Citizen's Income would by itself pay the entire cost.

Reply this comment

Comment_reply

582867

Quick Edit of Comments Broken

By Small, Brian at Mar 31, 2009 09:22 AM

SOrry about the mangled reply below. Enabling Quick Edit for comments doesn't seem to work very well. You do get the Source option but it seems to add each edited version to the original comment somehow.

--Oops, It's Ok Now (3 minutes later) It's nice to see you can edit your source with Quick Edit though. I wonder why it's not an option from the beginning when you comment....

Reply this comment

Loading_border