The Powers Of The Big Banks

by: Mike Lux

Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 08:30


Issues related to high finance and the banking industry were never something I had spent a lot of time focusing on, but last September's financial collapse was a moment not unlike 9/11 and national security: suddenly it became really obvious to all people who care about their country that it was essential to understand and start being involved in the issue.

I approached it from my perspective as a political strategist, and it was extremely clear that while some complicated economic issues were involved, the financial crisis was, at heart, a crisis of politics. Wall Street had gotten way too powerful and politicians were letting them have their way with us. Any private business that is "too big to fail" economically also holds an enormous amount of weight politically, and that political weight is at the heart of the problem.

What's important to remember is that the power of these huge financial institutions takes of many forms. Progressives are keenly aware of all the political contributions the financial industry makes and the well-connected lobbyists they employ. That kind of power is certainly important, especially on Capitol Hill where members have to spend practically every day dialing for dollars to pay for absurdly expensive campaigns. But we need to be careful not to focus on only that kind of power when trying to decide how to win back out democracy from the financial industry.

When you have the kind of size that the institutions behemoths do, your power stretches far beyond campaign contributions.  

Mike Lux :: The Powers Of The Big Banks
--Bond traders have a huge amount to say about whether interest rates are lowered and raised.

--Stock speculators and investment banks can literally destroy companies overnight by combining to drive their stocks downward.

--Many in the media make snap judgments over how successful a Presidential initiative on the economy is based on whether the stock rises or falls immediately following a new policy announcement.

--Perhaps mostly importantly, there's this free market, what's good for Wall Street is good for America mentality that has been bought into by many Democrats and pretty much all Republicans.

And then, of course, there's the whole "too big to fail" dynamic in and of itself. As we have just seen in the last eight months, if one of these giant companies is struggling - even when it is due to their own bad decisions - they can run to the government and say "give us all kinds of bailouts and tax breaks and special privileges, or else we will fail and destroy the entire economy"

There is nothing more important to the long term political and economic health of our country than lessening the power and the size of the massive financial conglomerates on Wall Street. They have already destroyed our economy, and will again if we don't solve this problem. They are also the biggest single danger to our democracy.  


Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
But Geithner/Summers are OK with "too big" (4.00 / 1)
We are just kicking the can down the line and postponing the next crisis.  "Too Big" must be addressed but it is not according to the outline of the proposal.

The Fed as a systemic risk regulatory is a joke besides chances are that a monitor will be too late in kicking a "too big" financial conglomerate from making the investment moves that will tank the financial system again.

Sadly, this is another example of not acting bold enough to meet the magnitude of the problem.

RebelCapitalist - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.


The Systemic Risk Regulator... (4.00 / 1)
is a single point of failure.

Any reason why cognitive regulatory capture won't be easier for the big banks under the new regimen?

Thought not. Another FAIL in the making, though after the midterms, so who cares?

The real answer is to break up the big banks, or, better, to turn them into regulated public utilities, but all that is "off the table." Of course.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


[ Parent ]
there's also economic blackmail (4.00 / 4)
e.g. "Make the regulations too tough / taxes too high and we'll move our business elsewhere.  You want us to stay in the United States [or at a more local level, in X state], don't you?"

Tariffs and VATs would put an end to that (4.00 / 2)
If they want access to the US market, let em pay for it.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
Strong stuff (4.00 / 4)
If only Obama dares to use rhetoric like this.

There is nothing more important to the long term political and economic health of our country than lessening the power and the size of the massive financial conglomerates on Wall Street. They have already destroyed our economy, and will again if we don't solve this problem. They are also the biggest single danger to our democracy.  

Be careful, Mike, you tiptoeing off the reservation into Nader-land. Congrats!


Come on, no insults, pls! Mike ain't nuts. (4.00 / 1)
Really, we all know Mike is really trying to accomplish things, totally unlike Nader, who simply loves to be a spoilsport without getting anything done!

[ Parent ]
It was compliment (4.00 / 4)
Say what you will about Nader's personal qualities and political strategy, on substance he's long had an annoying knack for being right.  

[ Parent ]
Disgraceful (4.00 / 2)
I speak as someone whose life and that of my three year old son was likely saved by Nader's auto safety accomplishments last month-about which I published a short diary here.

http://www.openleft.com/diary/...

Suffice to say that had Nader not made this one of his numerous objectives, the auto industry would still be marketing demonstrably unsafe products and many tens of thousands (that is not an exaggeration) of men, women and children would not be living and breathing.

Also, suffice to say that if you (or I) spend the rest of our lives working all day and all night with unshaking resolve and passionate intensity we will be lucky if we accomplish a tiny fraction of what Nader achieves in a year.

This is scurrilous and ignorant and should be retracted immediately.  


[ Parent ]
We're talking about politics here, not about consumer safety (0.00 / 0)
Sry for the misunderstanding. I very much appreciate Nader's early work, of course. His determination on making cars more secure really saved countless lifes. No doubt about that.

However, when he went into politics, he didn't accomplish anything anymore, and his running in 2000 undoubtedly took away some very much needed votes from Al Gore. If this did or didn't turn the election will always be a matter of discussion. So, sry, not to deminish the other qualities of your hero, but I can only see his totally useless running for president as a vain act of self-aggrandizing. If he would have seriously wanted to accomplish something in politics, he should have run for Senator or Representative instead, where he may have had a chance. A fierce advocate of consumer safety in Congress certainly would have been a positive influence. However, he decided instead to not achieve anything anymore, but to simply become the poster guy for the politcally disenfrachised. And imho that's nuts. Just my personal opinion, of course. Sry.


[ Parent ]
Still a compliment.... n.t (4.00 / 1)


They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
The Real Problem is the De-Coupling of Government from Voters' Control (4.00 / 1)
The real problem is that voters lack the political and economic power to control either the government or the economy to ensure that both work in the public interest.

This fact of political life is as true under the Obama administration and the current Democratic controlled Congress as it was under Bush and the previous Republican controlled Congress.

As I explain in my book, Re-Inventing Democracy: How U.S. Voters Can Get Control of Government, which can be read free online, our dysfunctional democracy is no longer controlled by voters but by a shadow government.

This government is run by the special interests that finance the campaigns of our elected representatives, in collusion with the lawmakers who pass legislation that favors the interests of their campaign financiers over those of their constituents.

Because of the pervasive corruption of Washington, D.C. by monied interests and influence-peddling lawmakers, our lawmakers will continue to enact legislation voters oppose, like the bailout, and refuse to enact legislation voters favor, like single payer health care, until voters regain control of electoral and legislative processes.  

Voters do not have the power to control government, or to use the government to control economic and financial predators, because of the anti-democratic devices that political partisans and special interests have embedded into the inner workings of electoral and legislative processes to de-couple government from voters' control. These devices include, but are by no means limited to, lax campaign financing laws.

After observing and participating in corrupted U.S. electoral and legislative processes over the past five years, I have identified and describe in the book breakthrough Internet inventions that empower U.S. voters to wrest control of these processes from the shadow government that now runs them.

IMNSHO, these inventions are our best and possibly our only chance to re-democratize America before the country implodes because its foreign creditors refuse to lend the nearly insolvent U.S. federal government any more money, as Chris Hedges explained yesterday in The American Empire Is Bankrupt, citing Michael Hudson's Financial Times analysis, Washington is unable to call all the shots.  


And thanks to Obama's stellar work with TARP... (4.00 / 2)
Oh, wait....

And Timmy and Larry... Oh, wait...

And breaking up the big banks... Oh, wait....

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  


This article touches on some of the themes here (0.00 / 0)
with a particular emphasis on what makes an institution too big to fail.

The problem isn't the banks (4.00 / 4)
And the problem isn't Wall Street.  You guys are looking at symptoms, not causes.

The problem is mass accumulated wealth.  Right now, a large percentage of our countries wealth is held by a small number of people.  These people literally don't know what to do with their money.  It is actually hard to put that much money anywhere.

Thus, Wall Street and bubbles.

Flatten the wealth distribution and the banks and Wall Street will largely (if not completely) take care of themselves.


You won't flatten the wealth distribution (4.00 / 3)
till you decrease the political power of the banks--the most powerful interest group in both parties.

Call it symptom or cause, the battle against Wall Street has to come first.


[ Parent ]
Feedback loop (0.00 / 0)
I agree it is a feedback loop.  And point by point I agree on taking on Wall Street.

But the real problem is Reagonomics.  We need a more progressive tax structure, higher minimum wage, unionized retail, subsidized health care for the poor, etc., etc.

That is the only way, long term, to decrease the power of Wall Street.  The rest is just trench warfare, battle after battle for short term gain.


[ Parent ]
The RSS feed had a great typo (0.00 / 0)
You said (and have corrected)
"--Bong traders have a huge amount to say about whether interest rates are lowered and raised."

which has the obvious response, yeah but they haven't done squat on Federal decriminalization.


It's a balance of power out of whack (4.00 / 2)
What you describe, Mike, is partly the natural tension between individuals, government, and business (or really NGOs) getting out of whack. But it also is a lack of messaging on the part of the government and individuals to fight back to restore this balance of power.

Take Matson's point about wealth, for example. I wonder how many Americans realize that 18 families alone control $185 billion dollars in assets (e.g. WalMart, M&Ms, Cox Cable) and that in 2006 (?) this group quietly (secretly?) hired a lobbying group to get rid of estate taxes. (I recall this story appeared on OpenLeft but don't remember details.)

It would seem to me that, while Wall Street and wealth are coupled, there is plenty of room to educate the average American about these huge distortions in wealth. And to do it in constructive ways that lead to progressive results.

For example, I think few people would argue that first generation wealth is bad per se, especially if it is the result of creating companies and jobs. And giving that money to a spouse on your death also most people would agree is okay. At most, if first generation wealth comes from creating companies and jobs, there might be upper limits on how much you could earn in a year. (First generation wealth for corporate apparatchiks probably deserves to be taxed heavily because their work mostly involves sustaining existing companies, something many people can do that may or may not result in new jobs.)

However, my guess is that much of the excessive wealth is second, third, and beyond generation wealth. Reasonable people could see limits on second generation wealth (to your kids), perhaps limiting the amount to $10 million (at 5%/year return that's $500k/year for breathing). Maybe the kids inspired the parent(s) to their wealth. But grandchildren and great grandchildren are another story. I don't think most people realize how much wealth is concentrated in the hands of people who did nothing to earn that wealth. As Warren Buffett put it, they're simply members of the lucky sperm club.

My guess is that, if most Americans were educated about how much wealth so few people control, people would clamor for changes to limit that wealth. Especially if the deficit scolds insist we don't have money. Surely progressives could connect the dots for people: tax the trust fund babies, at least, to get universal healthcare. But we've heard nothing on this score in decades.

In fact, messaging to the public seems to be a critical weakness for progressives, educating the public loudly and often to drive action. We mostly focus instead on messaging to our community and to elected officials.


If Only (4.00 / 2)
California were considered "too big to fail!"

Hey, I like that.  Think I'll use it for a diary title.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Free Market Mythology (0.00 / 0)
I think that your last point is the most important.  This myth of the free market has caused greed to overtake compassion and allowed the too big to fail companies to exist.  I think that there is starting to be a look back at this mythology and possibly a change in stance.  NPR had a segment last night with Justin Fox about his new book The Myth of the Rational Market: A History of Risk, Reward, and Delusion on Wall Street.  He addressed the issue of people assuming that the Market was smarter than the rest of us, and how that has proven to be false.  

Hopefully if we broadcast these ideas we can help to frame the debate.


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search