Road to Ruin: Bernanke's Reappointment is just the status quo

by: Ian Welsh

Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 06:00


I wasn't sure whether to bother writing about Bernanke's reappointment.  Why?  Because it's just the status quo.  But perhaps it's worth spelling out the status quo.

Bernanke bailed out the banks and the rich.  You know this, but what is not clear to many people is that bailing out the banks and fixing the banking system were not connected at the hip.  It was possible to fix what was wrong with the banks by taking the big banks into receivership and then using them to lend directly.  Wipe out the shareholders, write down the bondholders to the actual value of the banks, but keep lending to the real economy, and indeed increase lending and capital flows, by, say, deciding to refit every single building in America for energy efficiency and generation, and to take every clunker off the road.

The banking class, and the rich as a group, tanked the system.  They committed what amounted to systematic fraud, and earned billions of dollars of bonuses for themselves by crashing out the system and daring Bernanke and other politicians (and Ben is nothing if not a pol) to do something about it.  Bernanke folded, and threw trillions of dollars at them.

Despite what Bernanke's, Paulson's, Bush's and yes, Obama's, apologists say, this was not necessary.  It resulted from a deep confusion of banks with what banks do, and a deep desire to keep the same class of people in charge of the economy, despite their manifest failures.  Ben Bernanke, Paulson, Geithner, Bush, Obama and so on could not imagine taking out their friends—could not imagine letting them suffer the consequences of their results—could not even understand that their friends were parasites who were not necessary for the continuation of the system but were instead the people who had caused it to collapse.

The end result of this is going to be two things.

First - a lost decade or more, just like Japan (I prefer the phrase "bright depression".)

Second - another collapse, even worse than this one.

The books have not been cleared, the garbage has been left on them, just like in Japan, but the US is not Japan, it is not a suprlus society which sells more than it consumes.  It is, itself, a parasitical society which needs blood from donors to survive.  Furthermore the American ruling elite left in place by this decision is much sicker and more shameless than the Japanese one (where people comitted suicide in shame over what had happened). Having gotten away with it once, they will do it again, indeed the huge bonuses they are paying themselves indicates they still think of themselves as the smartest people in the room, and they're right in a sense.  They sold America a pig-in-a-poke, and took America for trillions of dollars.  Rule number one of running scams is never give a sucker (that's you) an even break.  They aren't going to, and the end result will be another crisis, which is even worse.

Japanification is not a stable solution set given the realities of America's deep structural deficit and the essential con-artist nature of its elites.

All Bernanke's reappointment tells you is that the game is still on. While Bernanke did save the rich, they still lost a lot of money.  They want it back.  And they're going to get it back, even if it means they suck the last drop of America's blood and the host drops dead.

Welcome the new American century.  Unless you're in the charmed circle of con artists and grifters, you aren't going to enjoy it much.

Ian Welsh :: Road to Ruin: Bernanke's Reappointment is just the status quo

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
heck of a job bennie ... (0.00 / 0)
Almost all the people that are praising him and calling for a 2nd term are from wall street.  Who'd a thunk it?  Fuck, he looked the other way while they robbed us and then he told us to look the other way while he robbed us for them.

And how hard is it to create money and flood it into our banking system when you got the key to the money printing presses?  Really, they, wall street, act like this is some great accomplishment when all this dude did was print up money and hand it over to his wall street pals in exchange for their bad securities until they were back on their feet.  When you get down to it, that's what the hell he did ... and arranged some bailouts that he also backstopped using the same methodology: absorbing their bad securities and giving them free money. I mean really ... how fucking brilliant is that?!  There are some board games that require a greater degree of sophistication to master than that ... children's board games.

But at least it ain't summers ... I guess ... would there be much difference?

Z    


heck of a job bennie ... (0.00 / 0)
Almost all the people that are praising him and calling for a 2nd term are from wall street.  Who'd a thunk it?  Fuck, he looked the other way while they robbed us and then he told us to look the other way while he robbed us for them.

And how hard is it to create money and flood it into our banking system when you got the key to the money printing presses?  Really, they, wall street, act like this is some great accomplishment when all this dude did was print up money and hand it over to his wall street pals in exchange for their bad securities until they were back on their feet.  When you get down to it, that's what the hell he did ... and arranged some bailouts that he also backstopped using the same methodology: absorbing their bad securities and giving them free money. I mean really ... how fucking brilliant is that?!  There are some board games that require a greater degree of sophistication to master than that ... children's board games.

But at least it ain't summers ... I guess ... would there be much difference?

Z    


It's sad, indeed. (4.00 / 4)
Bernanke a second term? The guy who missed the largest financial bubble in the history of the world, giving us the worst downturn since the Great Depression?  Gambling with our FDIC insurance deposits pisses me off. The economy for the rich is back, but they still have the whole economy as a hostage locked inside the temple. I think the FDIC should have more power and should have more power than the Fed, even.

I support Sheila Bair's proposals in order to make that a reality as it was legally done to clean up the S&L crisis through legislation. This secretive nature and gambling with the major landmark that has proven Keynes and Roosevelt's polices more stable with more stable banking preventing bank runs when nothing else did until Reagan's term and that Fed board overruled Paul Volcker who was against the slow repeal of Glass Steagall(one of the only things I can say positively about him because I don't think bringing down inflation is the end all to be all) till it finally happened fully in 1999. Your description of a Japan style liquidity trap and how we are parasites is correct, however we are squandering the only window we have. We are not at a deathly critical stage as debt to GDP ratio is concerned yet, but if Bernanke keeps shoveling cash into our shadow banking system and we never have full access to each of these banks loan tapes and until we can audit all 12 Fed Banks at once(since individually they can move capital around to deceive) we really will be on the road to fiscal ruin and we won't be bale to seriously invest in this country at all.

I also hate those who profess to understand things they don't. For all his years of studying the depression, Bernanke still doesn't get it; he's right about the full gold standard failures and price controls being flawed, but that's about it. He's unqualified for the job. Bernie Sanders is standing up to him, but he can't do it alone. I fear the next crash will be worse and we won't be able to paper it up.

Anyway, I read here a lot, but this is my first post here. Good diary.



Yeah (4.00 / 1)
It's been maddening to see the establishment, including Krugman, rally behind this bumbler. Dean Baker, at least, isn't buying it.

"Bernanke Completely Missed the Housing Bubble and Downplayed Its Consequences Even After it Burst"

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/b...

Failing upward: it's the Washington way.


[ Parent ]
Oh (4.00 / 1)
There's a quick hit by Nasrudin linking to a Baker column calling on Bernanke to be fired.  

[ Parent ]
Indeed. Dean Baker's been on this since 2002 (0.00 / 0)
while Bernanke somehow missed an 8 trillion dollar housing bubble that didn't keep pace with inflation among many other factors Baker lays out. That's a great piece.

That's disappointing about Krugman; I thought he was losing faith, and rightfully so by some of his writings, but he is a recovering neoclassical economist(his early years) now full fledged Keynesian for sometime, though that part of him comes out from time to time and so that might explain it. I admire a good bit of his work, but at the same time, he seems to subscribe to a certain economic orthodox where only people in the club via certain economists matter and those like Robert Kuttner(whom I like better along with Baker and there was a bitter feud between the two in the pages of the American Prospect) and Robert Reich don't belong, even though they are right about political realities that affect economic theory, and Krugman sometimes isn't and the status quo definitely isn't even if they are members of that club. I give him his due and I still read him, but I take that into account like my disagreements with him on trade, because politics ruins trade theory via Chapter 11 provisions corporations use to game FTA and all trade agreements alike.

Bernanke should be fired. I hope by some miracle he is not confirmed in the Senate, but I doubt the club for millionaires will go against their master.

Anyway, I guess I'm on a late night ramble, but I remember you and it's good to see you, David. I always enjoy your posts.





[ Parent ]
Perhaps that's because (4.00 / 1)
the TARP avoided a second depression, and most of the economists on the left know it.

Very few economists: not Stiglitz, not Krugman, not Bradley Delong agree that there is going to be a second collapse.  Roubiani does see some risk of a second recession, but the bottom line is all three would say the bailout of the banks was absolutely necessary.  Was it done the right way: I don't think so and I think there criticisms are valid.  

But the bottom line is a second depression was avoided, and that is an accomplishment.


[ Parent ]
That avoids the question (4.00 / 1)
of what Bernakne did leading up to the near-Depression, his failure to see the housing bubble for what it was. Baker's post has nothing to do with TARP, which would've have been (seen as) necessary if Bernanke and others had acted sooner.

[ Parent ]
It is very odd (4.00 / 1)
to see liberals buy into conservative thinking about the last 7 years.

Coservatives are blaming Bernanke and Greenspan for the housing bubble because private markets never fail, and so someone in the Government must be blamed.  So, the conservatives say, the housing bubble was a product of too much liquidity.  

This is, of course, utter nonsense for a number of reasons:
1.  Greenspan had no reason to tighten the money supply from 2002 to 2007 because we were in the midst of a jobless recovery and there was virtually no inflation.  
2.  A tighter money supply would have caused the dollar to go up, which would have worsened our trade situation.

The reason the housing bubble was created was because the securities markets and the housing markets were not regulated..  That, by the way, is mostly the SEC's job.

You can blame Bernanke for not ensuring banks had adequate capital, but that is more Treasury's job than the Feds.

As I said, I see people who call themselves progressive repeating neo-classical economics all the time and they don't even know it.


[ Parent ]
Don't put words in my mouth (4.00 / 1)
I didn't say the Fed causes the bubble. I said Bernanke (and Greenspan) failed to identify it once it was building. That's a fact.

Now, I admit that monetary policy isn't the best way to head of a bubble-burst (though some people disagree: I'd like to hear Dean Baker expand on what Bernanke could have done. In any case, a Fed chair helps to drive economic policy and activity with his comments to Congress (and to investors.)

When a single utterance of the Fed chair has such power, surely it's not too much to ask that about the big questions they're, you know, right.


[ Parent ]
That is (4.00 / 1)
When Dean Baker, who has a annoying knack for being right, says:

After Greenspan, there was probably no one else better positioned to combat the bubble.

I'd like to know what he means. I'm out of my depth here.


[ Parent ]
Essentially (0.00 / 0)
Barker is arguing that the Fed should have been tighter, which would have reduced the number of jobs being created, and resulted in higher unemployment.

Now I suppose you can argue that should have done via fiscal policy, but in effect Greenspan tried to implement a full employment policy.  This is a progressive approach.

Historically Liberals worry more about unemployment than inflation (at least until Clinton).

Didn't mean to put words in your mouth, by the way.  

But there is a fair amount of the left (it happened here on the front page a few days ago) citing the right on economics.  And it is very strange to see.  


[ Parent ]
Really? .. (0.00 / 0)
Now I suppose you can argue that should have done via fiscal policy, but in effect Greenspan tried to implement a full employment policy.  This is a progressive approach.

And you know this how?  Or was he trying to make cheap money available to his banker buddies and in effect goose Wall Street?


[ Parent ]
Many on Wall Street (0.00 / 0)
were consistenly saying for years that Greenspan was being too loose.  This goes back to the 90's when unemployment fell under 5, well below what was previously thought of as the natural unemployment.


[ Parent ]
that's just the thing ... (4.00 / 1)
rates as low as they are now are not a recipe for regular sustainable  .. smart growth ... they are just a recipe for disaster down the road .. and sadly .. people are so used to cheap money ... that taking away the punch bowl is going to be extremely painful

[ Parent ]
Talk about missing the point (0.00 / 0)
And this argument has nothing to do with conservative economics; that is an ad hominem. Greenspan lowered the target nominal interest rate in order to inflate the bubble because of his misguided faith in financial derivatives he even admitted was a flaw now. Your periods are mixed up as well. We are talking about in right after Gramm Bleach Bliley and the Commodity Futures Modernization act went through which Bill Clinton signed into law in 1999 and Congress passed which deregulated derivatives and the separation of commercial and investment banking this putting more onus on the SEC whihc was not set for this job to replace these depression era regulations signed into law by FDR. So much for your "Republican attack" falsification.

You also got Dean Baker's argument wrong; the rate of inflation was paced at the rate of housing prices which then went out of whack as soon as the Housing bubble went up.

You do know Alan Greenspan is a follower of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, right? free market fundamentalists.

The Fed under Greenspan and Bernanke enabled the bubble and supported the deregulation that caused the bubble packaging toxic assets into CDOs where insurance contracts credit default swaps were then put on these toxic assets to where the entire worth of the world couldn't cover what was put inside the tranch of this toxic debt with insured contracts where no one loses.

Baker saw this early on. Ask James Galbriath, son of John Kenneth Galbriath if you need some authority on that.

So sorry, I'm afraid Bernanke is not the right choice and he is unqualified for the job.



[ Parent ]
With Krugman .. (0.00 / 0)
it's personal .. don't forget .. Bernanke was Krugman's boss(chair of the Econ. Dept.) at Princeton for a time .. so they know each other really well on a personal basis

[ Parent ]
"new american century" (0.00 / 0)
Nice turn on a neoconservative classic.  

Every day I pray (0.00 / 0)
"Please don't let us end up like Brazil!"

(I'm afraid it may be too late.)

GDP - per capita (PPP):

$10,100 (2008 est.)
note: data are in 2008 US dollars

Unemployment rate:
8% (2008 est.)

Population below poverty line:
31% (2005)

Household income or consumption by percentage share:
lowest 10%: 0.9%
highest 10%: 44.8% (2004)

https://www.cia.gov/library/pu...


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox