Purified Kleptocracy: New Bank Bailout Plan Aims to Enrich Private Investors

by: David Sirota

Sat Feb 07, 2009 at 13:48


Well, at least they're being honest about the kleptocratic goals of the new bank bailout plan:

The new financial industry rescue plan, to be outlined in broad terms on Monday in a speech by the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, will not require banks to increase their lending. That is despite criticism that institutions that already received money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, either hoarded it or used the funds to acquire other banks.

The incentives to investors could be in the form of commitments to absorb some of the losses from any assets they purchase, should their values continue to decline. The goal is to relieve the banks of their worst assets so that private investors might then provide more capital.

So, in a nutshell, banks get more taxpayer cash, but taxpayers will not force the banks to lend more, nor will taxpayers have the leverage to throw out the economy-destroying management of the banks that we now own. Instead, our money will be used to ensure that huge private investors that put money into those banks don't lose any money on their risk.

You know, during the Bush administration, people threw the term "kleptocracy" around a lot. But back then, at least taxpayers were getting something for our money. For example, sure - we wasted a shit-ton of cash on Halliburton contracts, but at least Halliburton pretended to fulfill lots of essential services, even if they were ripping us off in the process.

Now, there's no pretense. Taxpayer money is being handed over to the Manhattan millionaires who created this crisis, and we get absolutely nothing in return - not even the illusion of anything, really. In that way, the Masters of Wall Street and Washington have done what no one thought would be possible: They've turned this moment of political change and economic meltdown into an opportunity to distill kleptocracy into its most pure form.

David Sirota :: Purified Kleptocracy: New Bank Bailout Plan Aims to Enrich Private Investors

Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Ahhhhhhh. Disaster Capitalism at it's best. (4.00 / 3)
And they won't even try to explain how they came up with this "solution".  Smoke 'em if you have 'em.   Leave tips on the night stand.

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - SCOTUS Justice Louis Brandeis

This plan, above all, (4.00 / 7)
is why I was unsatisfied with Chris's claim yesterday that Obama isn't a corporatist new liberal. The plan is too important and too blatant in its awfulness to be just another piece of evidence. It strips away all ambiguity on that question.

"Corporatist new liberal" (0.00 / 0)
Isn't there something a little more vivid that you could call Obama?

At this point, doesn't he deserve something that sounds more like an insult?

I admit that on a progressive website like OpenLeft, nobody wants to be called a "corporatist new liberal," but it sort of reminds me of insults at a chess club:

"Leonard still plays the Nimzo-Indian Defense!"

And then all the chess geeks laugh at Leonard.


[ Parent ]
"Demopublican" "Republicrat" (4.00 / 2)
"Kleptocrat"  "Oligarch"  Take your pick!

[ Parent ]
My pick... (0.00 / 0)
My pick would be quickly disappeared by troll ratings from the little mob of true believers who patrol OpenLeft, so I'm happy enough to let others try to define the indefinable Mr. Obama, in this instance.

[ Parent ]
sounds like this TALF thing -- "depends heavily on hedge funds" (4.00 / 3)
WSJ -- http://online.wsj.com/article/...

... the Obama administration is considering turning to a new program run by the Federal Reserve that has been a challenge to launch and depends heavily on hedge funds.

The Term Asset-backed Securities Loan Facility, or TALF, was announced in November after investors stopped buying securities backed by consumer debt. Under the $200 billion program, the Fed will make loans to almost any U.S. firm that is willing to use the government financing to buy securities tied to credit-card, small-business, student and auto loans. ...

We're gonna pay firms to buy other firms' existing assets -- and at the same time make sure they don't lose money doing it??? is that what it is?


It's good that more and more people get it. (4.00 / 7)
When you don't have good people, you don't get good outcomes.

it's a mess, and I have a lot of questions (4.00 / 2)
The program is not very well described. I actually think the statement quoted above is about attracting new private investors, not protecting the old one, which is not so bad.  We know they are not nationalizing or even getting a large share of the banks they are rescuing, and not asking for more money from Congress now but probably will later, so that's very bad.  

Here are some  confusing quotes:

This suggests we get something at the expense of existing shareholders, which might be okay:

It will also enable the government, when it provides a new round of investment, to convert the warrants for preferred stock it has already received from many institutions into common stock. The move, which essentially would swap debt for equity, would help relieve the balance sheets of those institutions, although it would also hurt other existing shareholders by diluting their common stock.

To me, the key word is "enable," which suggests they are saying "we can do this good thing" but actually won't.

It's the next part that seems very opaque to me. I would really like to have someone explain it, since it is the heart of the program:

[Expanding a program that] lent money to investors to buy securities backed by student, auto and credit card loans, as well as loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration.

We're loaning money to help people buy loans?  Why is the middle man necessary?  Is there some leveraging being disguised here? I think we are trying to prop up the price of existing loans [securities] by helping private investors buy them who don't have [or aren't willing to put up] the cash?  It would make sense if the private investors were taking the risk and we were making a safe loan, but it seems that elsewhere we guarantee them against losses. That really does sound like kleptocracy.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.


did they mean this? (0.00 / 0)
"Expanding a program that] lent money to investors to buy securities backed by student, auto and credit card loans, as well as loans guaranteed by the Small Business Administration."

I would say they are trying to lend out money to people who will buy toxic assets, toxic student and auto loans, and cred card debt,  

whatever you think people owe you, that is what you owe people


[ Parent ]
Please post this on kos (4.00 / 1)
so I can recommend it.

I know, you will take heat from dhinmi, but I like pissing him off.

He went wilding on me the other day.


Is Effective International Regulation The Answer? (4.00 / 1)
Dani Rodrik is a rare combination of freethinking spirit and hard-nosed empiricism. He answers this particular question "NO", and implies there would not be much downside to a "segmented" financial system. (i.e., one that is country-specific in its structure, vs. the current globalized system).

People like Dani, Krugman, Buiter, and Setser really ought to be a part of Obama's circle.

http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani...


Populism (4.00 / 2)
I think your populism is a bit misplaced. Most bank bonds are bought by entities looking for a stable return. Until recently banks were not sexy.

This means that the bond holders were generally pension funds or mutual funds that attracted individuals saving in the IRA's.

If these bonds are allowed to suffer a big loss there will be a cascade into the pension community. Look at the grief that Madoff caused. Most of the people who have lost money were looking for stable returns (what he promised) and many of them have now lost a substantial part of their funds. Imagine this multiplied a hundred fold if a big bank fails to make good on its bonds.

The speculators that everyone wants to see get their comeuppance tend to invest in hedge funds and the like. Obviously they were willing to take on risk given that they are paying 2% off the top and 20% of profits. The fund has to have hefty returns just to cover the fees.

The lack of understanding of the various parts of the investment world is going to produce unexpected outcomes and the loss of pension funds will be one of the most troubling if things aren't done carefully.

Policies not Politics


And it's hard to legislate lending (0.00 / 0)
especially now, when the trend shows loan demand is falling rapidly.

At this point, even if a bank wanted to lend, there are few who want to borrow.

That psychology would have to change, and it's not going to happen via tax cuts, tax credits, and bailouts.


[ Parent ]
Lending (4.00 / 2)
Obviously, you can't regulate exactly how much lending takes place, but you can make sure lending requirements aren't too high and interest charged is reasonable.  (Heck, given enough data you probably can come close to regulating how much money is lent by setting rates and requirements to known demand to end up at the desired amount.)  You can also monitor requests and denials to make sure money is available to those who need it.

The irony is banks got into this mess partially by lending too easily.  But the solution to the problem is to make sure they lend easily, because they have now overreacted and have tightened the money supply.


[ Parent ]
Sure, once demand returns.. (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
at least (4.00 / 1)
in europe they are forcing banks that got govt bailout money to lend, it can be forced

whatever you think people owe you, that is what you owe people

[ Parent ]
oh lord (0.00 / 0)
will congress go along with this? the people? doubt it

They went along for tarp (4.00 / 2)
I think people need to start protesting the streets.  We need some civil disobedience.  Stop traffic.  This is dire.

[ Parent ]
Investment & Emerging Economies, It Wasn't Just The Market... (0.00 / 0)
This is a terrific, ground-breaking piece by Brad Setser, Council on Foreign Relations.

http://blogs.cfr.org/setser/20...


I didn't want Obama to fail (0.00 / 0)
but he has done nothing but put foxes in charge of the henhouse since elected, and unless he fires the foxes and replaces them with hens we are fucked and so is he.

This is the most asinine (4.00 / 2)
bill I've ever seen.

The rationale for bank bailouts was supposed to be the credit crunch. We needed to get banks lending again. With the gutting of any provision to require that lending, this plan, like the one before it, is exposed as a complete and utter fraud.

These banks are raiding the Treasury with one hand, and with the other they are throttling existing credit customers by ratejacking their APRs to 30+%.  Even if the impotent "stimulus" package generates some benefit to consumers, those benefits are going directly back to banks again to pay overwhelming debt interest. And if the day comes these banks DO start lending again, millions of Americans will have credit rating so dismal, they won't qualify for a single red cent.

This is a criminal scam of epic proprtions. And everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) in Washington is guilty.


two bailouts for banks none for america (4.00 / 1)
how much power do banks have if they can get two bailouts while people losing their homes get none, while public infrastructure cannot get its own bailout, and after the banks broke every promise they gave to get the last bailout,

The United Banks of America,  

whatever you think people owe you, that is what you owe people


don't worry (4.00 / 2)
Ben Nelson, Susan Collins will be all over this as wasteful spending.

or something ...


Halliberton's still getting contracts (4.00 / 1)
The Obamacon doesn't mind bleeding us dry to keep the gravy train going for them, KBR just got another fat contract, in spite of the fact that their shoddy work is electrocuting our troops.

We have to take a real stand.


kleptoracy? (0.00 / 0)
Isn't this just more supply side scam? Give money and advantage to the rich in hope that someday, somehow some of it will trickle down where it is really needed? This is exactly backwards from what the public voted for, and what we fault the elected republicans for still advocating. We surrely do need a new party to represent the majority, because neither does now.

Government by organized money is no better than government by organized mob..... FDR

If we don't Nationalize certain essential assets and infrastructure, we will fail..! (0.00 / 0)
    The only thing that will really turn things around as I see it, is if we Nationalize certain essential assets of our economic system including these major banks..!

   Unfortunately, we will lose precious time and millions of American will suffer needlessly before our compromised elected Representatives...see the light...

   It's simply a matter of using what works, the best of both systems in balance and designed to serve the people and promote commerce and individual effort, so as to enable our people and our economic system and companies to compete and the only way to do this is to Nationalize the industries and that infrastructure which are the very underpinnings of our system..from Health Care to Energy, Steel whatever it takes..

   

     "Ours is not a system based upon trust but one of suspicion.."  Thomas Jefferson


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