The Number One Goal: Less Power for the Big Banks

by: Mike Lux

Wed Oct 14, 2009 at 16:15


At a retreat this last weekend sponsored by the Roosevelt Institute on financial reform issues (I have to take a break from health care every once in a while to keep my sanity), I met a very impressive guy named Bill Black, who as a regulator was a major reason why the Savings and Loan fraud of the 1980s got discovered and prosecuted. When I got home, I discovered this incredibly smart piece Bill just posted, along with another terrific piece, this one by Bob Creamer, posted earlier that day. Everybody who wants to know how important the battle for financial reform is should real these posts.

The bottom line for me of these articles is that there should be one central goal that drives all policy and legal initiatives for progressives in the coming fights over financial policy- that the biggest banks on Wall Street should have less economic and political power. These companies are already responsible for wrecking our economy, not just in the big economic collapse of last year but in all the ways Black describes regarding the impact on the real economy. If left unchecked, they will continue to drain jobs and income from the rest of the economy, and they will--sooner rather than later, within a few years not a generation or two--cause another major economic collapse, this one almost certainly worse than 2009 because our economy has already been so weakened.  

Mike Lux :: The Number One Goal: Less Power for the Big Banks
The mammoth power of these financial companies is overwhelming both our political system and our economic system. Black's statistic that 40% of our economy's total profits come out of the financial sector is mind numbing and should terrify all of us, but what is even more terrifying is the overwhelming political power they still have in Washington, DC. In spite of the center left party having the White House and big majorities in the House and Senate,and in spite of wrecking the worldwide economy and taking trillions of dollars in government assistance in the last year, they still have the power to stop, weaken and/or slow down even the most moderate of legislative reforms being proposed. That is a testament to the bone crushing power of these banks, which by the way are also the single most unpopular institution in America. A pollster I know who has warned me in the past against making overly broad swipes at corporate America recently did a poll showing that 75-85 percent of Americans think the big banks wrecked our economy, are greedy, and have too much power, Those are worse numbers than any other group, constituency, corporation or entity of any kind in America. Yet their power to dominate DC lives on.

Let me mention one other thing the big bankers have huge sway over: traditional media. A classic story came out in the New York Times on October 13th. Andrew Ross Sorkin was writing about the $23 billion dollar (yes, you read that right, 23 BILLION, another new record) in bonuses Goldman Sachs is likely to give its executives this quarter and asked the question: "So should we be upset about the bonuses?" He admitted that all this money they are making can be infuriating, but then wrote:

"But we can't have it both ways, either, At one moment, many in the nation crossed their fingers hoping Goldman and the rest of Wall Street would be saved to halt the country's downward spiral. But when the banks finally get up on their feet we want them to fall flat again. Mr. Blankfein (Goldman's CEO) can't win."

So I guess our hearts really should bleed for the poor folks at Goldman Sachs. All of us mean liberals beating up on them for finally, after their long arduous struggle, pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps and  once again climbing back up on their feet.

I weep for them.

Seriously, how does anyone write stuff like that with a straight face? After taxpayers bailed out the entire financial system, after Ben Bernake pumped trillions into loans to these banks at virtually no interest, after we actually haven been subsidizing the Too Big to Fail banks at the expense of the smaller independent bankers--after all that, we are supposed to sympathize with these guys?

We need to disempower these bankers. The Justice Department's Anti-trust division should be opening up legal action against the five biggest banks. A modern version of Glass-Steagall should be passed. Elizabeth Warren and the Obama Administration's consumer protection agency for financial products need to be passed. A tax on financial transactions, with special penalties for the biggest frauders should be put into effect. The bill making it more difficult to file class action financial lawsuits against these kinds of companies that was passed over Clinton's veto in the late '90s should be repealed. All of these things and more should be moved on quickly.

Most important of all, though, the DOJ and various regulatory agencies should be going after these big banks who created this bubble and then sold financial products they knew would fall quickly in value. This is the control fraud Bill Black talked about in his post, and what he helped prosecute successfully in the Savings and Loans industry in the 1980s. Some of these traders broke the law, and they should be going to jail. The fact that Bernie Madoff is the only high profile banker going to jail is a disgrace.

Now some will say that this all is politically impossible, that these banks are too powerful. But Black reminded me what the 1980s looked like: Reagan was in the White House and had just deregulated the Savings and Loan industry, both parties with plenty of Congresspeople and Senators helping the Savings and Loan execs do their dirty deeds (don't forget four of the five "Keating 5" Senators were Democrats), the Savings and Loan trade association was ranked in a survey as the third most powerful lobby in America. But the control fraud scammers ripping off widows and orphans who were Savings and Loan customers did go to jail.

And remember this: these big bankers are really arrogant, and the anger at them is building. We can take these bankers down, too. America needs to storm the Bastille that is Wall Street, and rebuild both our economy and our democracy in the process.


Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Millionaire Tax (4.00 / 5)
3. The financial sector's predation is so extraordinary that it now drives the upper one percent of our nation's income distribution and has driven much of the increase in our grotesque income inequality.

The corollary to this is the very rich are largely in the banking sector.  A 50% marginal tax rate at $1 million and an AMT of 50% at $10 million would go a long way in helping, even before actual bank regulation is considered.


Captical Gains (4.00 / 3)
Just as I post that I remember that many in this industry don't even pay income tax.  All their income is considered capital gains.  One would think we could at least fix that little absurdity.

Four hundred and Forty Four (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
Much also from dividends (4.00 / 2)
That also receive 15% tax treatment.  This provision has to go.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

[ Parent ]
An Admirable Goal, But Why Stop There? (1.33 / 3)
Help me understand something Mike..  why is it such a fantastic idea to keep financial institutions from consolidating too much economic or financial authority (which I agree is a fine idea) but it's perfectly okay to allow the federal government, inarguably the most influential single entity in America, to grow as immense, authoritarian and instrusive as it has become (with even more on the way)?  The logic is the same:  power fertilizes corruption and inefficiency and dismembers self-governance.  The result, in either the private OR the public sector, is mal-influence in a variety of very dangerous ways.  How is it anything other than a preposterous contradiction to argue against too much consolidated power in industry while at the same time advocating massive government?

because the people of new york city dont elect the bank directors (4.00 / 2)
nor the people of boisie, salt lake city, gainsville or houston

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
Logical problem (0.00 / 0)
The people we elect can and will be corrupted in much the same way as anyone with power. Otherwise, there wouldn't be bitching over why government is in bed with banks. Anyone given enough power will be corrupted elected or not. Your argument that because government leaders are elected doesn't change that fact. A logical fallacy.

[ Parent ]
Another fallacy (4.00 / 2)
There are corrupt people everywhere, all the time. No matter what the endeavor. The difference is that there is very little leverage that ordinary people have on Wall St. corruption right now. I and you (unless you're of the financial mega-movers) have no resort to the machinations of financial leaders except through government regulation, where we at least get to petition people in office. The fact that you can't recognize this is astonishing.

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...

[ Parent ]
He is trained to ignore this. (0.00 / 0)
All the hallmarks of a GOPpy. He "learned" how to debate, not think.

Conservatives are now incapable of defending democracy.

I fear that the conservative "movement" has lost so many people who are capable of defending democracy, that they no longer even talk about it, see no reason to defend it, and may slip past even that to attacking democracy.

Is there no Churchill on the American right, who sees how far they have fallen, what distance they have gone from American ideals and laws and rights.


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
It wasn't "the American right" that pushed the TARP... (0.00 / 0)
...unless you consider (correctly) supporters of neoliberalism -- Obama and the rest of the D leadership, and the majority of Ds in Congress -- to be "the American right" on economic matters.

ALL of Obama's selected advisers pushed the New Deal-shredding deregulation of Clinton's second term that generated the massive expansion of the banksters power. The economic positions of the Ds then in Congress is indicated by their votes on two keys to that deregulation.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley: 90-8 in the Senate, 362-57 in the House; and

the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000: unanimous consent in the Senate, 292-60 in the House.


[ Parent ]
Did you follow the thread? or do you just have code words you look for? (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
Did you follow the thread? or do you just have code words you look for? (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
Well, let's see... (0.00 / 0)
The article is titled "The Number One Goal: Less Power for the Big Banks." Most of the comments addressed the corrupting influence of concentrations of power (though "Four hundred and Forty Four" was a bit...cryptic).

When a commenter suggested that the growth of government power was also fertile grounds for corruption, the first response was about elections, which ignores the fact that the "choice" in elections is between two neoliberal deregulators. Another commenter chimed in on the potential for corruption of politicians (which is all-but-guaranteed given the legal bribery that is "campaign financing" in the US), the first response was about how we the people have the right to petition the government regulators (now there's some real power for ya). Next was your ad hominem ("GOPpy...'learned' how to debate, not think"...and your labeling anyone who would suggest the possibility of corruption in government growing with the extension of government power as anti-democratic)...followed by your revealing wish for a (warmonger, racist, imperialist) "Churchill of the American right..."

At which point I had to respond.

Now that we're caught up, shall we get back on topic? Got a response to my on-topic comments at 11:15?

I thought the topic might interest you, given your sig line. Tell us about your sig -- and if you vote for candidates who support such beliefs, or if you vote for those who oppose such beliefs. If you vote for those who oppose them -- tell us how THAT strengthens democracy.


[ Parent ]
No, but they elect those who will be appointing the regulators. (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Because of the profit motive (4.00 / 2)
Most people in government aren't in it for the profits.  They care about their work.  They see it as a communal responsibility--that's why it is called "public service." If they wanted money, they'd be in another line of work.  Some elected officials do enrich themsleves, but no where to the same degree as the financial sector.  So maybe you think some policies are misguided, but the gov.t generally isn't actually preying on people (except for the recent Cheney regime).

Moreover, power in the government is divided between the states and federal gov't, among the three branches etc and the electeds have to stand for election.  It is rarely brought to bear in a single-minded way.

Concentrated financial power is used for further enrichment of the already rich at the expense of everyone else, using all manner of exploitive means, and some people are truly left destitute.  When the law refuses to act because of the power of the financial predators, the Predator State that Janmes Galbraith wrote about is complete.

Forget the right-wing drivel.  The government is more your friend than the big banks and the investment houses and the hedge fund predators, because it is at least some of the time trying to help people.  Capitalism requires regulation to keep the totally unscrupulous from fleecing the rest.  And they aren't admirable, they are sick people, predatory psychopaths who think they are god's gift to the world.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


[ Parent ]
Thanks (4.00 / 2)
I always enjoy getting these kinds of questions. I'm on the run right now, can only answer quickly, but will come back and write more about this question at some point.
A quick thought:

I am against a govt that is too big. Dictatorships are bad. What I am for is a democratic government, answerable to voters, that has enough capacity to do what needs to be done for the general welfare of all it's citizens. The big banks and insurers are accountable to no one but themselves, and govt should be strong enough to break them up and keep them from screwing the rest of us over.


[ Parent ]
Couldn't Agree More.. (0.00 / 0)
If only passing and enforcing sensible regulation on the most powerful (and destructive) in American business were the true motivation for Democrats in Washington.  Alas.

[ Parent ]
Bill Black.. (4.00 / 2)
..is a great guy.  Saw him on Bill Moyers some months ago, he's also in "Capitalism: A Love Story".  I'm impressed that you met him.

It's clear to me, at a minimum, that no economic component should be "too big to fail", and the massive amount of influence these banks (and others in the "plutonomy") have in government is a serious threat to a functioning democracy.

I think your ideas for scaling things back are a start, but I wonder how much worse things have to get before the public anger turns white hot and, most importantly is properly focused on the real causes.  


Mike, what do you think about (4.00 / 1)
the Showdown in Chicago? (h/t nasrudin)

JOIN US on October 25-27 for a series of demonstrations when thousands of Americans - retirees, farmers, workers, homeowners, renters, students, clergy, and small business owners - come together on the streets of Chicago to demand a banking system that puts the American people first and a Congress that makes it happen!

The Creamer and Black posts were good stuff.  Thanks

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.


Totally into it. (4.00 / 1)
Have known about it for a while, friends are planning it, will be awesome. I urge everyone who can to go.

[ Parent ]
Tax wealth, NOT work. (0.00 / 0)


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox