Follow this blog:
RSS

How corporations are crippling U.S. prosperity

By | October 15, 2012, 7:21 PM PDT

"Large parts of our economy are corporate socialism, in which profits are privatized and losses socialized. And then there are the growing subsidies," Johnston says.A dearth of competition in major U.S. industries and a government with policy making that has been severely corrupted by moneyed interests have led to depressed wages and stifled innovation, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist says in a new book.

In essence, you’re being ripped off, and those responsible are taking everyone’s money while assuming very little risk.

David Cay Johnston was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for reporting the inequalities and loopholes that exist in the U.S. tax code and exposing corporate tax evasion. His latest work, The Fine Print: How Big companies Use “Plain English” to Rob You Blind, examines his findings about how the U.S. economy has strayed away from capitalism and into “corporate socialism,” where the free market, its engine of prosperity, has stalled.

Some argue that globalization has caused a smoothing of salaries as developing economies grow. We asked Johnston to make his case about how the alleged subversion of competitive markets could actually be what’s responsible. Here’s our interview with David Cay Johnston:

SmartPlanet: Are our markets competitive or is the game fixed?

David Cay Johnston: A growing number of industries are monopolies, duopolies and oligopolies even as they claim to be in highly competitive markets. Cable, Internet and telephone provide a good example of this. In most places you have one phone company and one cable company offering similarly slow, by world standards, Internet speeds and very similar prices. Computers make it possible for companies to match prices quickly, as airlines do in just a few minutes for millions of fares when one airline changes its pricing structure.

SP: Are we paying too much for goods and services?

DCJ: We pay four times what the French do for a triple play package of cable, Internet and telephone — and they get worldwide TV, not just domestic; their Internet is ten times faster and instead of two country calling, they get long-distance to 70 countries at no extra charge. All that for $38 compared to the U.S. average of $160 including taxes. By one measure we pay 38 times as much as the Japanese per bit of information on the Internet. In states where the electric utilities were broken up so power generation could be a competitive business prices did not fall. Instead since 1999 they rose 48% more than inflation, compared to just 8 percent in states that retained traditional regulation. Everywhere there is a lack of competition, or only the appearance of competition, we pay way too much.

SP: Which companies and industries owe taxpayers their success? Which are the biggest offenders?

DCJ: Wall Street and the Too Big To Fail Banks are, for now, by far the worst offenders. We put $14.7 trillion, the entire economic output of the nation in 2009, at risk under the George W. Bush administration bailout instead of letting these firms suffer the consequences of their own mismanagement. The 401(k) system has generated huge profits for investment firms even as many accounts shrivel, becoming what I call 201(k)s.  We have pipelines earning as much as 55% annual profits on their assets, eight times the average for all business. And even though pipelines are exempt from the corporate income tax, they get to collect the corporate income tax in their monopoly rates, inflating profits. The telephone companies collected $360 billion in rate hikes to build an Information Superhighway, but all we got was a two-lane Irish country road where you have to stop now and then while the sheep graze, our Internet having fallen from first to 29th in the world.

SP: Why would big businesses attempt to escape the rigors of the free market, and what effect does that have on the economy and the standard of living?

DCJ: Big companies are escaping the rigors of competitive markets. When Adam Smith wrote about “the invisible hand” he was pointing out that it is competitive markets, which create efficiencies, innovation and economic growth. But Smith also warned us in The Wealth of Nations in 1776 about how business owners are always conspiring to raise prices and reduce wages, which makes them better off but undoes the benefits of capitalism and slows economic growth. This is a major reason the real median wage (half make more, half less) has been stuck at just over $500 a week since 1999. It explains why the bottom 90 percent had higher incomes in 1973 than now when you adjust for inflation — and back then most families with children had only one parent working outside the home. In 2010, the year after the Great Recession, the bottom 90 percent say their incomes decline. And of the increase going to the top 10 percent, 37 percent went to the top one percent of the top one percent.

SP: In your book, you single out telephone carriers — is it really in their interests to hold back universal broadband services? Can you quantify the impact?

DCJ: Remarkably we have created a system in which the AT&T - Verizon duopoly makes bigger profits by holding back the Internet. Verizon will make fiber optic service, the Information Superhighway, available to just 16 million households, not all of whom will buy. AT&T provides fiber to the street, then old-fashioned coaxial cable to your home or business. And if you live in a rural area or even cities like Rochester, where I live in Western New York, your region is never scheduled to get fiber optic service. Building the universal fiber optic service out economic competitors are all building or have built would encourage the invention of new services and products in America, but instead those will be developed in other countries. After all, if there is no way to use a service why would it be invented? In making rules for business we forget that nothing in our Constitution speaks to riches and profits, but the Preamble cites, as one of the six noble purposes of the United States of America, promoting the general Welfare (upper case in the original).

One study, and it is only one study, says that a universal Information Superhighway at the fastest speeds in the world (we average about 5 percent of the top speeds) would increase economic output by two-thirds. That seems too much in my mind, but then look at how much richer America became after the Industrial Revolution took hold in the last third of the 19th century.

“The average family of four now spends $900 per year on state and local subsidies to corporations, more than a week’s average take-home pay for the typical family of four.”

SP: How could laws and rules have been written this way, and why wouldn’t people notice it all happening? Was it a gradual shift or a more recent trend?

DCJ: Amendment by regulation by rule, one step at a time over many years, corporate lobbyists rewrote the rules. Had they done it all in one big bill we would have noticed. But who pays attention to when two words are changed in subsection q or Section 6108 of some federal or state statute. But some of this was done in the open and no journalists reported on it and no politician had an interest in pointing it out. So five states have taken away your legal right since 1913 to telephone service and put in rules that can literally mean you can only get cell telephone service. Worse, 19 states let corporations pocket the state income taxes withheld from their workers’ paychecks — you read that right, 2,700 big companies in 19 states get to keep the state income taxes of their employees. The best part, from the companies’ point of view, is they don’t have to tell the workers. All of the shift I identify in THE FINE PRINT began in either the 1980s or later, meaning when we abandoned the New Deal for Reaganism, which both parties now embrace.

SP: Is the government itself the problem or is it the lobbying?

DCJ: Government makes the rules, but when the only parties with an interest in writing those rules are rich people, corporations and their professional lobbyists then democracy is corrupted. Lobbying in the sense of a right to petition the government for a redress of grievances is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment. But there is no Constitutional right to give money to politicians so I would ban donations from anyone outside of a lawmaker’s district, ban free travel and prohibit any either lobbying or working for companies a lawmaker’s committees dealt with for life after leaving office, even if that means paying much bigger salaries to members of Congress and state legislatures. The price would be cheap to make sure our laws are balanced and take into account all interests, not just those of big corporations.

SP: Is the government’s approach to regulation harmful to public safety as infrastructure ages? Your book noted how some gas and electric utilities are becoming dangerously dilapidated.

DCJ: Yes. High pressure gas pipelines laid when Truman was president still operate and with distressing results like the 2010 explosion south of San Francisco that blew up an entire city block and killed eight people — and would have killed many more had it occurred just two hours later. Pacific Gas & Electric, the big Northern California utility, got rates to finance replacing its power poles on a 50-year cycle, but instead is replacing them on a 750-year cycle. Finance types are hollowing out many of our utilities, just as they stripped manufacturing companies and then threw out the shells.

SP: Do we already have a corporate socialist economy? Isn’t that income redistribution upward?

DCJ: Large parts of our economy are corporate socialism, in which profits are privatized and losses socialized. And then there are the growing subsidies. The average family of four now spends $900 per year on state and local subsidies to corporations, more than a week’s average take-home pay for the typical family of four. These policies all take from the many to give to the favored few at the top. New Yorkers are being taxed to give at least $1.4 billion to the hereditary ruler of Abu Dhabi, who is worth tens of billions of dollars. I show how taxpayers gave $5 billion to Goldman Sachs in one deal and billions more in other deals — and Goldman makes more than one percent of all the profits of all six million corporations in America, so it hardly needs subsidies.

SP: If this has been such a dramatic occurrence, why has the media failed to cover what’s happening?

DCJ: We used to cover more of this, but the fastest disappearing job in America is journalist. In some cities 75 percent of the reporting jobs are gone. These deals also require journalists with high levels of skills who understand government, regulation, taxes and lobbying, but journalism wages are falling fast. One study showed the average reporter pay is now the national average for all jobs. Consultants have also told newspapers for years that readers want soft features and beautiful layouts more than hard news, which is expensive to produce. That our society worships corporations and the rich also detracts from serious coverage.

SP: People aren’t exactly revolting against the system. What would compel the American people who believe as you do to act to change how the marketplace works?

DCJ: Knowledge. If you do not know that you are being ripped off, and how, then you cannot focus yourself and others on a response. What I write about in THE FINE PRINT should have been page one news in papers across the country –and had it been many of these outrages would have been stopped. Information is power. The companies that profit from the new rules and laws know that so they work very hard to make things obscure and, if they become known to make them sound complicated. As I show, though, once you understand the principles it is all easy to understand.

SP: What do you suggest can and should be done?

DCJ: We need to restore government consumer advocacy offices, especially for utility regulation. We need to restore simple rules that were virtuously self-reinforcing. These include restoring the Glass-Steagall Act, which for seven decades required that the risky business of underwriting and (more recently) gambling in derivatives be done by companies separate from retail banking. That is, donut stop speculators, just make sure they are not speculating with your paycheck. We need to repeal laws that force secret contracts, including the rule that lets railroads with parallel tracks for all but the last mile of a thousand mike trip charge monopoly prices for the whole distance — and keep the precise terms secret even when a government agency is the shipper. We need balance and we need to recognize that most regulations are sought by business to protect their turf, thwart competition, raise prices and limit the ability of customers to get redress from unfair deals.

SP: Are Americans too inclined to think they are all future millionaires?

DCJ: Only one in a thousand people can be in the top tenth of one percent, one in ten thousand in the top hundredth of one percent. The data show that these two tiny groups are getting more and more of the wealth and the income gains while those even at the 95th step on the income ladder are pretty much going nowhere. The super rich have gone in a generation from private jets to private jumbo jets; with one American name owning two personal 747s.

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

David Worthington

About David Worthington

David Worthington is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

David Worthington

David Worthington

Contributing Editor

David Worthington has written for BetaNews, eWeek, PC World, Technologizer and ZDNet. Formerly, he was a senior editor at SD Times. He holds a degree from Temple University. He is based in New York.

Follow him on Twitter.

David Worthington

David Worthington

David does not have financial holdings that would influence how or what he covers. Occasionally he consults for other companies; should David cover a topic in which a client is involved, he will disclose this fact in his writing. His views do not represent those of his employers.

He writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
126
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+2 Votes
+ -
abuse of the word 'socialism'.
that's not what it means. Please stick to the accepted meaning of words otherwise none of us will have a clue what anyone else is talking about. This is not socialism, it's just business. Powerful interests always act to maximise their power and interests. Is that new? The important word here is 'corporation'.
Posted by RHambeau
16th Oct
+5 Votes
+ -
Agree and disagree.
They're Johnston's words, so don't shoot the messenger.

That said, the headline is much too long anyway, and this term certainly doesn't help that fact. I've edited it.
Posted by andrew.nusca
16th Oct
+6 Votes
+ -
Sorry, but it IS an accurate term.
The term is Corporate Socialism, and the concept is that while the profits are indeed tagged for private retention, the FAILINGS of the system are indeed "socialized" -- that is WE CONSUMERS pay for the failures.

If you truly fail to understand this simple feature of today's Capitalism, I point you to the fact that the government recently bailed out the Banks -- rather than let them simply fail, as the "Free Market" myth says they ought to when they screw up.
Posted by Lightning Joe
20th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
It is not "just business"
It is not "just business" to cheat the game -- meaning cheating taxpayers and the public -- by lying and fixing the rules. That is a lame, lame, lame excuse that flawed individuals have been using for decades to cover their bad behavior. If you cannot be an honest business person, stay out of business. The reason the nation is in this sorry fix is because Wall Street people fixed the game on housing, then walked away with millions, each, in bonuses as a reward for tanking their corporations and the nation. There is nothing to be admired in such individuals. Obama's biggest malfunction has been his failure to prosecute people in the financial sector for bad behavior. You may have noticed that the American people are running on a shorter fuse. Stay tuned. There is comeuppance in the wings waiting to take the stage.
Posted by BCHillway
1st Dec
+12 Votes
+ -
a free market?
You said "We pay four times what the French do for a triple play package of cable, Internet and telephone and they get worldwide TV, not just domestic; their Internet is ten times faster and instead of two country calling, they get long-distance to 70 countries at no extra charge. All that for $38 compared to the U.S. average of $160 including taxes. "

This may be true, but the really awkward thing about it is that in France, the primary provider is France Telecom, which drives the prices and keeps them low, which is State-owned and is to all intents a monopoly. You prove, awkwardly, that the best way to run a national universal telecom system and provide low-cost universal service is to nationalize it!! Is that your intention?
Posted by RHambeau
16th Oct
+10 Votes
+ -
seems like that was the point made
whether intentional or not.

I don't do cable, satellite, etc. and the reason I decline the services, and especially "packages" is that I know the prices are a cheat, and secondly, 80% of the available material is garbage that no one with an intellect or education would watch.
Posted by opcom
16th Oct
+2 Votes
+ -
Not only a "cheat"...
...but theft as well.

EVERY "package" of cable channels the industry sells sends money to FAUX Noise as part of the "basic package."

This means that EVERY cable bill paid in America helps support the channel that every (THINKING) American knows is really a Propaganda Channel.

If we lived in Europe, we'd have a CHOICE to pay FAUX or not, based on Ala-Carte channel packages. Not in America, sorry.

Yet another way the Corporatists have us over a barrel.
Posted by Lightning Joe
20th Oct
-3 Votes
+ -
It is a 2 way street Joe.
I hate paying for MSNBC, CNBC,CSPAN, CNN, PBS, CURRENT TV, HEADLINE NEWS and all the other channels that are part of the propaganda arm of the liberal/socialist movement.

I would gladly cut off their funding with an al-a-carte buying plan. Judging by their poor ratings, most of those channels would fail if not kept alive by forced fees.

I would save a lot more money al-a-carte by dropping them than you would save dropping just FOX.
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 22nd Oct
-7
agreed
Posted by cliffmeixner@...  |  Below your threshold
+11 Votes
+ -
You forgot something in your rant cliffmeixner.
I'm a dual citizen of the US and Switzerland (born and raised in the US). In Switzerland we don't have greedy, corrupt, moronic Republicans messing everything up with stupidity. The US has the only people in the world stupid enough to believe in the failure known as trickle down economics. Reganomics was the worst idea in history and Regan was the third worst President the US has ever seen, (only preceded by the 2 Bushes). The US doesn't have to re-invent the wheel, there are plenty of countries that have surpassed the US and they make a great example of what to copy. (and here is a little clue, they all think the Republicants are worthless morons who only know how to run a country into the ground. I happen to agree with them)
Posted by i8thecat4
16th Oct
-6
Dear Dual Citizen
Posted by gjam  |  Below your threshold
-1 Votes
+ -
Big talk indeed...
...from a citizen of a country that gets to remain wealthy as a haven for those who hide their wealth from the Progressives he so admires.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
22nd Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Compare this to India ...
Except for defense, ( no private contractors) , railways ( strictly state owned) , postal service (again state owned) all other services have state owned as well privately held service providers, banking, insurance, air and road transportation, health services, education, you name it. There is abundant competition in every field.

All services are firmly regulated and controlled by the state in the best interest of the people and national security. One has the choice to opt for any from a wide choice.

That is why there are NO burner phones available in India, No communication service is available without 100% verified identity of the individual availing that service. No way to hide caller ID. No way to disenfranchise absolutely any individual by any stupid ID laws. It happens to be a fundamental right as it should be in a true democracy. No filibustering either. BTW we do not have those moronic republicans, either.
Posted by pmshah@...
Updated - 16th Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
Comparisonto India
You obviously don't understand free markets, the freedom and liberty they present to people of a nation. I wouldn't expect you to understand this being from India. A nation the U.S. has help lift itself form poverty.
Posted by gjam
19th Oct
+6 Votes
+ -
ISP prices
Here in Australia there is reasonable carrier competition, and our internet &c is closer to France's than the USA's.
Also, the prices were a higher and the service poorer when we did have a monopoly (Telstra owned pretty well all of the infrastructure, and charged retail prices to other ISPs to start with).
I think his point stands.
Posted by kax@...
17th Oct
+12 Votes
+ -
Its the Regulator....
Its the regulator, NOT France Telecom that dictates wholesale prices in France and herein lies the difference between France and the US (and other states that suffer from uncompetitive telcos); ineffective regulators, stymied by incompetence and corporate lobbyists acting against the consumer.
Posted by dunphy
19th Oct
+11 Votes
+ -
Why not?
Well why not?! Cheap, universal services compared to increasingly expensive, dismal services?? It seems a no-brainer. But somehow this has become an acceptable standard for too many Americans.
Posted by confoundednj
19th Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
Good point
Good point ATT is a subfunction of the NSA anyway!
Posted by Altotus
19th Oct
+17 Votes
+ -
I prefer the term "crony capitalism" to "corporate socialism"...
...since at least in "socialism", the benefits or suffering are theoretically shared by most.

But fundamentally, I totally agree with him. Capitalism needs failure as much as it needs success. By not allowing the fundamentally broken banks to fail, we only encourage the bad actors responsible.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
Updated - 16th Oct
+15 Votes
+ -
You are right - it is capitalism without ethics.
There was a brilliant advert in a magazine that exposes a lot of corruption like this in SA - called Nose Week. They had an advert for a motor manufacturer asking for bailout that went along these lines: "You did not buy our sh*tty cars, so now we will take your money anyway." It points out the absurdity of what happened with the bailout system. These same companies who took hard earned tax payer money - gave no mercy to suppliers who went under. They then retrenched large portions of their workforce. By allowing the abusers of capitalism not to fall - the Bush administration ended capitalism. Regardless of party politics - capitalism needs reform as does the political system.
Posted by gvnll
17th Oct
+9 Votes
+ -
"Capitalism" doesn't need reform. The government does.
"Capitalism" is only a state of reality. It exists under all political/economic regimes. The only difference between these regimes is the degree that the state attempts to manipulate it.

During the Cold War, I used to tell people that there was a far more pure form of capitalism in Russia than there was in the US. It was called the "black market".
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
17th Oct
+5 Votes
+ -
That same "pure" form of capitalism
exists any time the established political system implicitly requires it; the requirement will never be explicit. Whenever the established system tends to strongly favor one group, while denying its benefits to others or when a commodity (e.g. drugs & alcohol) is too strongly regulated or denied by by that system, this "pure" capitalism springs up to make available that which is denied. Thus, "pure" capitalism existed in the USSR under the Soviet regime. It existed under Prohibition. It exists now under drug prohibition.

The problem with "pure" capitalism is it tends toward monopoly, and the potential/current monopolist will do what is necessary to gain or keep the monopoly. As this type of capitalism operates outside the established society, what is necessary is not usually restrained by current social mores. Thus, the gang wars and violence of the 20s were a natural process under "pure" capitalism...and the gang wars and violence of the last three decades are also a natural process.
Posted by NickNielsen
19th Oct
-1 Votes
+ -
That odd...
...since almost every monopoly I can think of is, in fact, established and maintained by government.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
22nd Oct
+5 Votes
+ -
and the lying liars who tell them
The banks also promised to do mortgage workouts if they were bailed out, but then accelerated repossessions. They promised to loan to small business, the real job engine, but instead went back to gambling in the Big Casino. But everyone just accepted the lie and now the DOJ has given Goldman-Sachs a get-out-of-jail-free card by publicly saying they will never prosecute G-S.
Posted by James Mooney
19th Oct
+2 Votes
+ -
Depends on your viewpoint a corporation is a person of a sort
Socialism among the only ones who count the corporate citizens nonhuman immortal immoral psychopathic entities. Not little people. Like humans.
Posted by Altotus
19th Oct
+2 Votes
+ -
Spot on
Also these immortal "persons' tend to have millions and billions to influence their interests too. Last time I checked I didn't have any "free" money to send to a politician let alone buy lunch.
Posted by robertfoleyjr
25th Oct
+13 Votes
+ -
We bought the lie that workers were greedy
Now we pay the price for the excesses of globalizing American companies. I worked for one of those utilities that expanded to Europe and nearly went broke because they tried to use their 1930's business plan too big. Workers in Texas were forced to cooperate with freezing wages while executives were rewarded millions and in one case a billion dollars to fail. They all left and our retirement plans recovered only to be sold to another company that raided the retirement plans. Good luck with maintaining good service and happy workers without letting the workers have some control.
Posted by tubaguy6
16th Oct
+4 Votes
+ -
workers
Unionise!
Posted by kax@...
17th Oct
+2 Votes
+ -
flexible
I know someone who lost all their money to Enron but is Still a Republican and doesn't like that N**er President. Some people just know how to bend over and kick themselves in the ass.
Posted by James Mooney
19th Oct
+4 Votes
+ -
The rest of the story...
"Wall Street and the Too Big To Fail Banks are, for now, by far the worst offenders. We put $14.7 trillion, the entire economic output of the nation in 2009, at risk under the George W. Bush administration bailout instead of letting these firms suffer the consequences of their own mismanagement."

Yep, that's half the story. And then Obama signed Dodd-Frank into law, which institutionalizes "Too Big To Fail." That's the rest of the story.

When it comes to corporatism, with politicians and corporations both bellying up to the public trough, there's plenty of blame to go around.

Here's a crazy idea: Perhaps the solution is less government, not more.
Posted by tthor
16th Oct
+2 Votes
+ -
well said
stop the class warfare!
Posted by cliffmeixner@...
16th Oct
+5 Votes
+ -
More government does not equal "class warfare"
any more than less government equals "free market".

In light of the fact that the average income of 95% of Americans has stagnated or decreased over the past 30 years (when adjusted for inflation) while the earnings of those at the top of the economic pyramid have soared (again, when adjusted for inflation), just who, exactly, do you think is making war on whom?
Posted by NickNielsen
19th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
sure
I am sure Ronny will save us right?
Posted by Kiljoy616
16th Oct
+2 Votes
+ -
We have a better solution...
In India the government would have bought off all the failed mortgages for a dime on a dollar or simply allowed those companies to go bankrupt. Same with the banks and insurance companies. They would simply have been merged into state owned entities under similar conditions with the share holders hanging on to the worthless paper.

A similar approach with renegotiated mortgages, for example repayment plan sans interest, would have gone far in alleviating the miseries of the US population. The buyers would be held responsible but at an affordable rate. The government too would make money on their throwaway purchase price !
Posted by pmshah@...
16th Oct
+6 Votes
+ -
So what percentage of the people in India own homes?
If the US government started arbitrarily seizing mortgages or forced them to be paid off at pennies to the dollar, no company would ever again make a mortgage loan in the US except at huge interest rates.

There was a lot of greed on every side during the real estate bubble. People signed on to mortgages their income could never support, in the vain hope that real estate would continue to increase at ridiculous rates. They were just as overcome by greed as the big Wall Street banks. Rather than enforcing existing regulations to stop the madness, government at all levels instead did everything it could to make these outlandish loans possible.

As for India, the central government struggles under massive debt as it subsidizes fuel and other commodities. It's a game that can't be won in the long run, and its people are barely improving their lot despite these massive subsidies.
Posted by zackers
16th Oct
+5 Votes
+ -
Greedy? For some, not for others...
I think 'greed' is the wrong word for people who were fooled into buying a house, taking on a mortgage they couldn't really afford (or understand), only to become 'upside-down' or foreclosed on a few years later. Greed is illustrated by the Big Banks, the mortgage lenders, allied politicians, etc.

Those are the folks who made out or remain making billions, while not being held accountable for almost tanking America's financial system. Somehow those consumers who you claim were being "greedy," who are now probably a relative-away from being completely homeless, as opposed to 'making out like bandits', doesn't qualify.

Foolish, naive, vulnerable, easily-manipulated, and yes, even a few stupid homebuyers, but 'greedy' isn't the correct word I'd use.
Posted by confoundednj
19th Oct
+5 Votes
+ -
Greedy, yeah, right
A lot of that "greed" is because housing inflated so much it cost a million to buy a bungalow. I recall seeing a lousy little yellow crackerboard house at the bottom of my hill, that would have sold for about twenty grand in the fifties inflate to nearly a half million. Ordinary working people had to take out ruinous loans to buy the same house they could have paid down on minimum wage in the fifties. "Make a fortune flipping houses" was the big scam hyped everywhere. Buy a house for almost nothing, flip it, then the next guy flips it, then the next guy flips it, all for a profit for the Same Friggin House. But at a certain point someone has to pay for all those ill gotten gains.
Posted by James Mooney
19th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
Question
When did the US government tell the banks they were required to abandon safe lending practices? And if government did, in fact, do so, wouldn't the banks have been perfectly justified in telling the government where to go and how to get off when it got there? Do you think the banks wouldn't have done that if compliance meant a decrease in profits?

More information...
http://www.clevelandfed.org/research/commentary/2009/0509.cfm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis
Posted by NickNielsen
19th Oct
+3 Votes
+ -
it's a lie
It's just a repug lie to divert our attention from the banksters so we can hate our own government - mostly fueled by Southerners who still want to win the civil war and bust the union.

Even if the govt relaxed lending requirments, they did Not dream up this idea of slicing and dicing mortgages into worthless instruments, then selling and reselling them all over the planet, inflating their value a thousand time - which is what caused the Real damage. The banks thought that up all on their own.
Posted by James Mooney
19th Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
Actually, they did relax lending standards and bundling mortages.
It all started under Carter. That led to law suits in the late 1980s, but to keep it simple. Here goes.

When the US Government, starting under Bush 41 and moving on through Clinton and Bush 43, relaxed the lending rules the banks started to run out of money to fund all of the mortgages they were making. You can thank the authors of the useless Dodd/Frank bill for being behind many of the questionable changes that followed.

Through Fannie and Freddie the US government started the practice of bundling mortgages so the government would buy them and the banks would then have the cash on hand needed to make more loans. That idea came out of freshman Congressman Marty Meehans office in conjuction with Congressman Barney Frank around about 1993/94.

It was an idea brought up by a Bank of America official at a meeting in Lawrence Mass as part of a pilot project providing mortgages to people whos credit had been trashed by unemployment in the 1991 recession. The origional concept was a noble and well thought out plan that went bad during implimentation.

After realizing that the scope of what they had gotten into was even more than the government could afford, the bureaucrats in Fannie and Freddie pushed Clinton for help. He worked with Congress to repeal Glass/Steagall in 1999 to allow investment banks to get into the game.

The rules were so fast and loose that all semblance of good banking went out the window. Many of the lending rules were managed by the individual federal reserve banks. Some like, the NY and LA fed, went nuts and set virtually no rules. Count welfare and unemplyment payments as income? Sure. No income, no problem.

The level of regional control is why New England saw some of the least impact of the sub-prime crisis. The head of the Boston fed had kept a lid on the crazy lending among New England based banks. It pissed them off at the time, but only 1 bank under his region has failed during this mess. The damage in New England was limited to those mortgages held by the big national banks. Local banks in New England are now thriving.
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 22nd Oct
-1 Votes
+ -
RE: Actually they did....
Nail on the head! I've never figured out why all of the Dodd/Frank stuff receives no mention in the media..even when it was fresh.

Another effect of the "Too Big To Fail" is that the smaller banks in the rest of the country outside of New England that didn't get involved with the scam, did honest business, etc.. are now taking it in the shorts for the TBTF's..
Posted by GregGold
24th Oct
+2 Votes
+ -
Concentration of wealth is involved.
Yes but the taxpayers would have benefited Why do you think they want to raid Social Security and say bad thing about it? Well its full of money what a greedy grab.
Posted by Altotus
19th Oct
+7 Votes
+ -
And I am SICK
of those scum trying to call Social Security an Entitlement, as if its some form of welfare. I worked real hours and had real money taken from my check for SS - it's an Investment. These Goebbels-like brainwashers on the right try to make it sound bad with their word games.
Posted by James Mooney
19th Oct
-1 Votes
+ -
Forced "investment"
You are not the problem with SS as you paid in and thus rightfully expect to benefit. The problem is that the politicians have decided to use the "retirement" program like a welfare program. There are many getting SS benefits who never paid (or paid little). I frequently see billboards with lawyers advertising their services to help get SS disability. I know of healthy people in their 40s who get SS disability and will for the next 30 to 40 years until they die.

These are the reasons why SS is going broke. Like normal when there is a large amount of money involved, the politicians cannot keep their hands off and end up using the money to benefit themselves. In this case making it easier for those who should not get benefits to get them. They do this because those getting the benefits will turn around and vote for the politicians who allowed it. So in effect the politicians are giving away our money to those who don't deserve it so that they can buy their votes.

Wouldn't you have rather invested your "real money" on your own instead of being forced to "invest" in this government give away?
Posted by stevechri@...
20th Oct
0 Votes
+ -
You nailed it.
Too many people think SS is this big pile of money sitting there.

Congress and Presidents, from both parties, have been raiding it for decades.

It is full of IOUs that are coming due soon. At that point it will crush the federal budget.
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 25th Oct
-1 Votes
+ -
An "investment"?
What kind of "investment" is it that is forced by law, and has a guaranteed negative rate of return?

At least Madoff's victims had an opportunity to opt out.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
22nd Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
Iceland
Iceland repudiated their phony debt, jailed the rotten banksters, and is recovering. We are not. Funny how our press says Nothing about Iceland.

And Bjork is cool ;')
Posted by James Mooney
19th Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
Sadly I doubt anyone in the US will be jailed.
Because Congress and Presidents in a decades long Bipartisan effort made everything that was done to create the finacial mess LEGAL to do.

Many of them broke NO LAWS.

We should set a great example for the future. Jail all of the politicians involved.
Posted by Hates Idiots
25th Oct
+12 Votes
+ -
regulation
Do note that the greatest financial and business growth was during a time of Strong regulation of finance and business, no matter the size of govt. Once the corporations got their hooks into govt to entrench themselves, the regulations were loosened--all this does is to advantage the larger companies already in a particular market, as it allows them to freeze or squeeze out the competition.

Also, govt should always hold onto infrastructure that is non-competitve--hospitals, public transport, a few other things. If they don't, all they do is get worse and cost more under private companies.
Posted by kax@...
17th Oct
+3 Votes
+ -
The Ignorant
The trouble is that things like facts and financial history are unknown to the Faux and Limbaugh crowd. They are not only ignorant of facts - they can look right at them and deny them. It's really a form of insanity.
Posted by James Mooney
19th Oct
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!