6 ms·

The self-dealing by the banks since 2008 has been almost wholly underwritten by the Fed and the Treasury. Beyond TARP there are myriad guarantees, lending progr

The self-dealing by the banks since 2008 has been almost wholly underwritten by the Fed and the Treasury. Beyond TARP there are myriad guarantees, lending programs, and regulatory exemptions, all designed to provide the banks with greater profit and allowing them to offload risk, usually to the Fed or the taxpayer. Indeed, if you look closely, much of the "profit" in the banking system today is coming from banks borrowing at Fed subsidized rates and lending that money back to the U.S. government.

jonnathanson 15y ago
This, more or less. Most of the profit in the banking industry comes from being able to take on massive risk, while simultaneously being cushioned from that risk by the government. Risky positions and derivatives are extremely profitable, but for most people -- those without guaranteed bailouts, or cushy borrowing rates -- the risk is too great. For investment banks, as we've seen, the risk is minimal to nonexistant (or at least the banks seem to function as though it is). Traditionally, the role of the financial industry was to "provide access to capital," primarily by underwriting, facilitating, and assisting in the execution of large transactions and deals for corporate clients. This role is, ostensibly at least, productive to the overall ("real") economy. Over the last 30-odd years, and especially over the last decade, the center of profit for the financial industry has shifted away from its traditional role (transactional facilitation), and toward the taking of proprietary positions in various capital markets. It's simply too tempting not to -- as Uncle Sam will lend you your leverage virtually free of charge, and he'll also be there to mop up your mess if you make one. Imagine being able to gamble at a roulette table with free money, and being given more chips every time your bet busts.
- djm 15y ago
  I'd like to add that responsibility for banks providing loans backed by the taxpayer ultimately falls on voters. This is what fannie mae/sallie mae etc are all about. Disconnecting access to credit from the ability to repay it inevitably results in loans that will default. Politicians sold people stuff like fannie mae and people voted for it by electing them. And I guess voting in favour of such things is inevitable when not all voters are taxpayers. An extreme solution might be limiting votes to people who are paying taxes. This seems logical but is obviously politically impossible.
  - jonnathanson 15y ago
    "...I guess voting in favour of such things is inevitable when not all voters are taxpayers." I get the premise of this logic, i.e., that poor people don't pay taxes and therefore don't care about spending taxpayer dollars. I've seen it presented hundreds of times. But I think, in all honesty, that such a theory is giving the poor too much credit. It assumes that the poor are making conscious decisions based on rational evaluations of their economic incentives. I'm not convinced they think that way. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that they're even informed enough to know what they're doing when they vote on such things. Some of the blame lies on the voters for voting without understanding, sure. But the politicians -- many of whom are paid for by lobbies -- bear greater responsibility for selling bullshit to underinformed voters, and for coucing the bullshit in emotionally manipulative ways.
    - onemoreact 15y ago
      To back this up, well over 20% of people eligible for food stamps don't apply.
trunnell 15y ago
Almost. > [programs are] designed to provide the banks with greater profit and allowing them to offload risk Yes, the Fed is essentially paying the banks to loan money. It's not because the Fed is corrupt, though. It's because that's how bad the economy is. Normally, banks will happily lend money. But when the risk of default is greater, as it is in a recession, banks are stingy with loans: they only loan to those with better credit-- and at a higher interest rate. Bank liquidity is so tight right now (yes, it's their own fault) and the economic outlook so dim that if they had their druthers, banks wouldn't lend at all. If that happened, the economy would have an even worse outlook. Luckily, the Fed can encourage banks to lend by giving them a discount on money (usually around 0.25%). Right now, however, the Fed can't give a discount because the rate is already at 0%. Thus, the present situation of the Fed basically throwing money at the banks, begging them to lend it out to the broader economy. This is what is known as an edge case. Don't like it? Join the club. What's happened since 2008 has sickened the remaining responsible, ethical folks managing the economy. But it's not right to impugn the Fed with the actions of a few irresponsible investment banks. If you read Sorkin's account in Too Big to Fail it's plain to see how Paulson and Geithner's actions amounted to making the best of a bad situation. In their case, it's important to distinguish between the appearance of impropriety and actual impropriety.
- gnosis 15y ago
  "Thus, the present situation of the Fed basically throwing money at the banks, begging them to lend it out to the broader economy." Why doesn't the government just eliminate the middleman and lend the money out to "the broader economy" themselves?
- Andrew_Quentin 15y ago
  Why doesn't the Fed just lend this money to ordinary people and businesses directly at 0% interest? If we are going to have such a system whereby the Fed must print money, which means that the money in the system looses value, then why must the ordinary people or businesses be charged twice by first the lowering in value of the money and second the paying of a higher interest rate, often much higher, to the end bank which lends it? This system currently concentrates wealth and thus power to the banks. Why, when we probably do not even need them at all and can simply have a massive national bank.

jonnathanson 15y ago

This, more or less. Most of the profit in the banking industry comes from being able to take on massive risk, while simultaneously being cushioned from that risk by the government. Risky positions and derivatives are extremely profitable, but for most people -- those without guaranteed bailouts, or cushy borrowing rates -- the risk is too great. For investment banks, as we've seen, the risk is minimal to nonexistant (or at least the banks seem to function as though it is). Traditionally, the role of the financial industry was to "provide access to capital," primarily by underwriting, facilitating, and assisting in the execution of large transactions and deals for corporate clients. This role is, ostensibly at least, productive to the overall ("real") economy. Over the last 30-odd years, and especially over the last decade, the center of profit for the financial industry has shifted away from its traditional role (transactional facilitation), and toward the taking of proprietary positions in various capital markets. It's simply too tempting not to -- as Uncle Sam will lend you your leverage virtually free of charge, and he'll also be there to mop up your mess if you make one. Imagine being able to gamble at a roulette table with free money, and being given more chips every time your bet busts.

djm 15y ago
I'd like to add that responsibility for banks providing loans backed by the taxpayer ultimately falls on voters. This is what fannie mae/sallie mae etc are all about. Disconnecting access to credit from the ability to repay it inevitably results in loans that will default. Politicians sold people stuff like fannie mae and people voted for it by electing them. And I guess voting in favour of such things is inevitable when not all voters are taxpayers. An extreme solution might be limiting votes to people who are paying taxes. This seems logical but is obviously politically impossible.
- jonnathanson 15y ago
  "...I guess voting in favour of such things is inevitable when not all voters are taxpayers." I get the premise of this logic, i.e., that poor people don't pay taxes and therefore don't care about spending taxpayer dollars. I've seen it presented hundreds of times. But I think, in all honesty, that such a theory is giving the poor too much credit. It assumes that the poor are making conscious decisions based on rational evaluations of their economic incentives. I'm not convinced they think that way. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that they're even informed enough to know what they're doing when they vote on such things. Some of the blame lies on the voters for voting without understanding, sure. But the politicians -- many of whom are paid for by lobbies -- bear greater responsibility for selling bullshit to underinformed voters, and for coucing the bullshit in emotionally manipulative ways.
  - onemoreact 15y ago
    To back this up, well over 20% of people eligible for food stamps don't apply.

trunnell 15y ago

Almost. > [programs are] designed to provide the banks with greater profit and allowing them to offload risk Yes, the Fed is essentially paying the banks to loan money. It's not because the Fed is corrupt, though. It's because that's how bad the economy is. Normally, banks will happily lend money. But when the risk of default is greater, as it is in a recession, banks are stingy with loans: they only loan to those with better credit-- and at a higher interest rate. Bank liquidity is so tight right now (yes, it's their own fault) and the economic outlook so dim that if they had their druthers, banks wouldn't lend at all. If that happened, the economy would have an even worse outlook. Luckily, the Fed can encourage banks to lend by giving them a discount on money (usually around 0.25%). Right now, however, the Fed can't give a discount because the rate is already at 0%. Thus, the present situation of the Fed basically throwing money at the banks, begging them to lend it out to the broader economy. This is what is known as an edge case. Don't like it? Join the club. What's happened since 2008 has sickened the remaining responsible, ethical folks managing the economy. But it's not right to impugn the Fed with the actions of a few irresponsible investment banks. If you read Sorkin's account in Too Big to Fail it's plain to see how Paulson and Geithner's actions amounted to making the best of a bad situation. In their case, it's important to distinguish between the appearance of impropriety and actual impropriety.

gnosis 15y ago
"Thus, the present situation of the Fed basically throwing money at the banks, begging them to lend it out to the broader economy." Why doesn't the government just eliminate the middleman and lend the money out to "the broader economy" themselves?
Andrew_Quentin 15y ago
Why doesn't the Fed just lend this money to ordinary people and businesses directly at 0% interest? If we are going to have such a system whereby the Fed must print money, which means that the money in the system looses value, then why must the ordinary people or businesses be charged twice by first the lowering in value of the money and second the paying of a higher interest rate, often much higher, to the end bank which lends it? This system currently concentrates wealth and thus power to the banks. Why, when we probably do not even need them at all and can simply have a massive national bank.