By L. Randall Wray
[Blogger's Note: This post was authored By Professor L. Randall Wray, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, Research Director with the Center for Full Employment and Price Stability and Senior Research Scholar at The Levy Economics Institute. It originally appeared at Economonitor's Great Leap Forward Blog and is cross-posted here with permission of the author.]
As the Global Financial Crisis rumbles along in its fifth year, we read the latest revelations of bankster fraud, the LIBOR scandal. This follows the muni bond fixing scam detailed a couple of weeks ago, as well as the J.P. Morgan trading fiasco and the Corzine-MF Global collapse and any number of other scandals in recent months. In every case it was traders run amuck, fixing “markets” to make an easy buck at someone’s expense. In times like these, I always recall Robert Sherrill’s 1990 statement about the S&L crisis that “thievery is what unregulated capitalism is all about.”
After 1990 we removed what was left of financial regulations following the flurry of deregulation of the early 1980s that had freed the thrifts so that they could self-destruct. And we are shocked, SHOCKED!, that thieves took over the financial system.
Nay, they took over the whole economy and the political system lock, stock, and barrel. They didn’t just blow up finance, they oversaw the swiftest transfer of wealth to the very top the world has ever seen. They screwed workers out of their jobs, they screwed homeowners out of their houses, they screwed retirees out of their pensions, and they screwed municipalities out of their revenues and assets.
Financiers are forcing schools, parks, pools, fire departments, senior citizen centers, and libraries to shut down. They are forcing national governments to auction off their cultural heritage to the highest bidder. Everything must go in firesales at prices rigged by twenty-something traders at the biggest and most corrupt institutions the world has ever known.
And since they’ve bought the politicians, the policy-makers, and the courts, no one will stop it. Few will even discuss it, since most university administrations have similarly been bought off—in many cases, the universities are even headed by corporate “leaders”–and their professors are on Wall Street’s payrolls.
We’re screwed.
Bill Black joined our department in 2006. At UMKC (and the Levy Institute) we had long been discussing and analyzing the GFC that we knew was going to hit, using the approaches of Hyman Minsky and Wynne Godley. Bill insisted we were overlooking the most important factor, fraud. To be more specific, Bill called it control fraud, where top corporate management runs an institution as a weapon to loot shareholders and customers to the benefit of top management. Think Bob Rubin, Hank Paulson, Bernie Madoff, Jamie Dimon and Jon Corzine. Long before, I had come across Bill’s name when I wrote about the S&L scandal, and I had listed fraud as the second most important cause of that crisis. While I was open to his argument back in 2006, I could never have conceived of the scope of Wall Street’s depravity. It is all about fraud. As I’ve said, this crisis is like Shrek’s Onion, with fraud in every layer. There is, quite simply, no part of the financial system that is not riddled with fraud.
The fraud cannot be reduced much less eliminated. First, there are no regulators to stop it, and no prosecutors to punish it. But, far more importantly, fraud is the business model.
Further, even if a financial institution tried to buck the trend it would fail. As Bill says, fraud is always the most profitable game in town. So Gresham’s Law dynamics ensure that fraud is the only game in town.
As Sherrill said, without regulation, capitalism is thievery. We stopped regulating the financial system, so thieves took over.
A century ago Veblen analyzed religion as the quintessential capitalist undertaking. It sells an inherently ephemeral product that cannot be quality tested. Most of the value of that product exists only in the minds of the purchasers, and most of that value cannot be realized until death. Dissatisfied customers cannot return the purchased wares to the undertakers who sold them—there is no explicit money back guarantee and in any event, most of the dissatisfied have already been undertaken. The value of the undertaker’s institution is similarly ephemeral, mostly determined by “goodwill”. Aside from a fancy building, very little in the way of productive facilities is actually required by the religious undertaker.
But modern finance has replaced religion as the supreme capitalistic undertaking. Again, it has no need for production facilities—a fancy building, a few Bloomberg screens, greasy snake-oil salesmen, and some rapacious traders is all that is required to separate widows and orphans from their lifesavings and homes. Religious institutions only want 10%; Wall Street currently gets 20% of all the nation’s output (and 40% of profits), but won’t stop until it gets everything.
There is rarely any recourse for dissatisfied customers of financial institutions. Few customers understand what it is they are buying from Wall Street’s undertakers. The product sold is infinitely more complicated than the Theory of the Trinity advanced by Theophilus of Antioch in 170 A.D., let alone the Temple Garments (often called Magic Underwear by nonbelievers) marketed today. That makes it so easy to screw customers and to hide fraud behind complex instruments and deceptive accounting.
A handful of thieves running a modern Wall Street firm can easily run up $2 trillion in ephemeral assets whose worth is mostly determined by whatever value the thieves assign to them.
And that is just the start. They also place tens of trillions of dollars of bets on derivatives whose value is purely “notional”. The thieves get paid when something goes wrong—the death of a homeowner, worker, firm, or country triggers payments on Death Settlements, Peasant Insurance, or Credit Default Swaps. To ensure that death comes sooner rather than later, the undertaker works with the likes of John Paulson to handpick the most sickly households, firms and governments to stand behind the derivative bets.
And the value of the Wall Street undertaker’s firm is almost wholly determined by euphemistically named “goodwill”—as if there is any good will in betting on death.
With these undertakers running the show, it is no wonder that we are buried under mountains of crushing debt—underwater mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans, healthcare debts, and auto-related finance. Simply listing the kinds of debts we owe makes it clear how far along the path of financialization we have come: everything is financialized as Wall Street has its hand in every pot.
Thirty years ago we could still write of a dichotomy– industry versus finance—and categorize GE and GM as industrial firms, with Goldman Sachs as a financial firm. Those days are gone, with GM requiring a bail-out because of its financial misdealings (auto production was just a sideline business used to burden households with debt owed to GMAC, the main business line), and Goldman Sachs buying up all the grain silos to run up food prices in a speculative bubble. Obamacare simply fortifies the Vampire Squid’s control of the healthcare industry as it inserts its strangling tentacles into every facet of life.
Food? Financialized. Energy? Financialized. Healthcare? Financialized. Homes? Financialized. Government? Financialized. Death? Financialized. There no longer is a separation of the FIRE (finance, insurance, and real estate) and the nonFIRE sectors of the economy. It is all FIRE.
Everything is complexly financed. In the old days a municipal government would sell a twenty year fixed rate bond to finance a sewage system project. Now they hire Goldman to create complex interest rate swaps (or even more complex constant maturity swaps, swaptions, and snowballs) in which they issue a variable rate municipal bond and promise to pay the Squid a fixed rate while the Squid pays them a floating rate linked to LIBOR—which is rigged by the Squid to ensure the municipality gets screwed. Oh, and the municipal government pays upfront fees to Goldman for the sheer joy of getting screwed by Wall Street’s finest.
The top four US Banks hold $171 Trillion worth of derivative deals like this. Derivatives are really just bets by Wall Street that we will get screwed—it is all “insurance” that pays off when we fail. Everything is insured—by them against us.
What is healthcare “insurance”, really? You turn over your salary to Wall Street in the hope that should you need healthcare, they will allow your “service provider” to provide it. But when you need the service, Wall Street will decide whether it can be provided.
Oh, and Wall Street’s undertakers have also placed a bet that you will die sooner than you expect, so it wins twice by denying the coverage.
Finally, US real estate—the RE of the FIRE–underlies the whole kit and caboodle. That is the real story behind the GFC: given President Clinton’s budget surpluses and the simultaneous explosion of private finance, there simply was not enough safe federal government debt to collateralize all the risky debt issued by financial institutions to one another back in the mid 1990s. Wall Street needed another source of collateral.
You see, all the top financial institutions are dens of thieves, and thieves know better than to trust one another. So lending to fellow thieves has to be collateralized by safe financial assets—which is the traditional role played by Treasuries. But there were not enough of those to go around so Wall Street securitized home mortgages that were sliced and diced to get tranches that were supposedly as safe as Uncle Sam’s bonds. And there were not enough quality mortgages, so Wall Street foisted mortgages and home equity loans onto riskier borrowers to create more product.
Never content, in order to suck more profit out of mortgages, Wall Street created “affordability” products—mortgages with high fees and exploding interest rates—that it knew would go bad. Even that was not enough, so the Squids created derivatives of the securities (collateralized debt obligations—CDOs) and then derivatives squared and cubed—and then we were off and running straight toward the GFC.
Wall Street bet your house would burn, then lit a firebomb in the basement.
Mortgages that were designed to go bad would go bad. CDOs that were designed to fail would fail.
Suddenly there was no collateral behind the loans Wall Street’s thieves had made to one another. Each Wall Street thief looked in the mirror and realized everything he was holding was crap, because he knew all of his own debt was crap.
Hello Uncle Sam, Uncle Timmy, and Uncle Ben, we’ve got a problem. Can you spare $29 Trillion to bail us out?
And that is why we are screwed.
I see two scenarios playing out. In the first, we allow Wall Street to carry on its merry way, as the foreclosure crisis continues and Wall Street steals all homes, packaging them into bundles to be sold for pennies on the dollar to hedge funds. All wealth will be redistributed to the top 1% who will become modern day feudal lords with the other 99% living at their pleasure on huge feudal estates.
You can imagine for yourselves just what you’re going to have to do to pleasure the lords.
This will take years, maybe even a decade or more, but it is the long march Wall Street has formulated for us. To be sure, “formulated” should not be misinterpreted as intention. No one sat down and planned the creation of Western European feudalism when Rome collapsed. To be sure, the modern day feudal lords on Wall Street certainly conspire—to rig LIBOR and muni bond markets, for example—and each one individually wants to take as much as possible from customers and creditors and stockholders. But they are not planning and conspiring for the restoration of feudalism. Still, that is the default scenario—the outcome that will emerge in the absence of action.
In the second, the 99% occupy, shut down, and obliterate Wall Street. Honestly, I have no idea how that can happen. I am waiting for suggestions.




101 Comments

Sherrill should have known better, Capitalism Is Thievery. Why would you think that regulating thievery would be a good thing?
Second, how could deregulators be anything but thieves?
Presenting this as if it were an intellectual fad is a derogation of political-economic analysis. The true crisis is a concealed loss of confidence in the system by it’s profiteers — which loss of confidence it then projects on the proles.
Capitalism has always been a swindle. The brains waited a mite too long to tell the truth.
Buh-bye.
Read this on Ives Smith’s naked capitalism.
Very disturbing.
Oh I made this comment on David Seaton’s lastest diary but it fits here even better.
You suggest a real laissez-faire economy would have saved us?
Don’t worry, that theory will never be tested. The looting must continue.
This is not your grandfathers’ Great Depression.
You suggest a real laissez-faire economy would have saved us?
Don’t worry, that theory will never be tested. The looting must continue.
This is not your grandfathers’ Great Depression.
You suggest a real laissez faire economy would have saved us?
Don’t worry, that theory will never be tested. The looting must continue.
This is not your grandfathers’ Great Depression.
No I did not. I suggested noting of the kind. Just stating my view of the situation.
When it comes to jumping to conclusions, you qualify for international competition.
Well thank you comrade. So, what action do you recommend?
Well thank you comrade. So, what action do you recommend?
And that’s the whole idea:
When “enough” …
And when will that be?
Well I got a bet on another 5-10 years. At least. It may just keep going perpetually for a while before it collapses.
Currently most people don’t see how precarious our position is. And they won’t see it. They will refuse.
This may actually become the new normal.
The 1% aren’t stupid. They own the place. Their have distributed enough ammo across the country for 100x+ the number of people.
No, it will collapse, NOT because the people rise up, but because the entire system will fail.
Relying on the public for anything is a mistake. They’re so brainwashed they won’t care even if the sky is falling.
Just IMHO.
You may be right.
But to answer your question, I do not know when that will be. It’s difficult to almost impossible to predict when peoples breaking point is.
But when enough people reach it, that is when mob rule takes over. Witness those who simply snapped and then went postal.
I think it’s time to bring back good old-fashioned asset nationalization.
Democratised.
The Temples and the Priests who take and offer the Sacrifices these days are working The Gods they know all around. As the author above sums it up very well we are being sold Religion again only this is the Updated Version where The Great Cathedrals which when being built across Old Europe took hundreds of years to complete with some still not completed part is skipped. This is about Money For Temple Priests To Get And Keep that the Roman Church while quite good at shaking the pockets of Good Catholics or making them Crusade or do Inquisitions seldom went to this level of greed and lust to do.
We live in an era when our currencies are Ultimate Monopoly Game Money and the zeroes get added by electronic means easier and faster than any Lord,Baron or King or Emperor could ever do with real gold or gems or taxes based on what the slaves and peasants could carry.
What is One Dollar worth today? Who knows? Who cares? Many of us here in America are willing to work these days for $10 an hour with no beneys if we can or could find the job that paid this. Getting $15-$20 an hour? For many Americans this would be fantastic. Funny thing is these $10 or $15-$20 an hour jobs translate most often into still just being poor but working to be so. If Wall Street and the TBTF Bankers worked for the paychecks like so many Americans do only to be able to stay even or slow the fall behind that would be salutary all around. Doubt we will see it though.
At some point the ruses need to be seen for what they are. Buying crap built new houses or old,wore out vintage houses with junk mortgages that are fully intended to not ever get paid off is just high priced renting done with unseen trapdoors and spider webs of deception of all sorts. Now the One Percenters are cutting to the chase and just buying up all the housing stock,pocketing any potential payouts eight ways until Sunday and then just doing the LandLord gig via another layer of percentage taking and moving targets pick offs. What is not to like about this Modern Day Religion?
It will take a revolt or invasion or Earth just clearing the decks so completely that the little starts are the only game in town to stop what is taking place or where we are going. Electing American Presidents or any of the 535 Americans to the Gallery Of Fools we Americans call Congress is at this point an expensive carnival show which plays us like rubes with little intent to do otherwise.
What Americans meanwhile are doing to the ME or across Asia or now plotting to do to Africa or again to Central and South America is the real stick being poked into the hornets nest. Actually thinking that the other humans on the planet are really stupid is a version of arrogant ignorance that Americans seem especially attracted to. So we cannot afford SS or decent healthcare for everyone and the austerity will go on while Wall St. and TBTF Banks loot the American Treasure Chest over and over. The Pentagon/CIA are some Real OverLords we Americans have put in place post WW2 that are likely running large parts of The USA Show these days. Don’t be taken in by the WH and Capitol Hill Political Theatre. The Pentagon and Langley are where USA real power is held and worked from. So shut up. Pay up now. When the Bad Times do get here just get out of the way. Fast if you can and if possible. Or just hope what Rome sells is true.
The religion is not just an opportunistic fraud. The clergy has cynical justifications. If the Pentagon recognizes global warming is a threat to national security and the vocational universities that Americans over-consume, the faith is only a necessary, albeit crude, lullaby to herd them.
The compradors have self-defense in depth, comrade.
Second the motion. Let’s start with the banks, and then let’s get back the profits from fraud the 1% took. Then let’s end all the contracting out to the private sector by the Government. For profit companies don’t do a better job than good old-fashioned non-political civil servants. The private sector government contractors just create more waste, fraud and abuse in pursuit of profits.
I can give you an example of a well run government although how it could be done from where we are is not clear.
The civil servant can be a “strong hand of careful wisdom”. The framework is where the wisdom resides. I give this using the example of India with a better constitution.
India has a better government with “socialism” and “fraternity” added and “pursuit of happiness” deleted. I copy the preamble from the wiki:
WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;
and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Preamble_to_Constitution_of_India.pdf&page=1
India supports the commons well, low taxes to the agriculture sector, free university education, rural employment for infrastructure development, funding for science and technology development etc. Its banking is mostly government owned and operated by well qualified civil servants (from the Indian Administrative Service) and the plutocracy is kept away. Letting banks be private is a disaster because it gives money creation power to the wealthy which leads to corruption of the government.
Railways, oil and gas, National Airlines, post and telegraph, Ship building, Steel Industry are government owned. There are also many private airlines. Private enterprise is not discouraged but anything related to mineral wealth is owned by the government.
The treasury and fed are combined into a central bank and money creation is not restricted by “debt limits”. It offers T bills for sale but is not required to do so. It is left to the banking department.
There are many parties and proportional representation in elections. In general, coalitions govern better than a two party bought-and- paid- for government as in USA. In the lower house of the parliament, 50% for men, 33% is reserved for women( a proposal not finally voted on)and the rest for socially backward classes and tribes.
The idea “government is your enemy” will never fly in India.
The wealth inequality in India is similar to that of Canada and Australia. Of course, India is much poorer than western democracies but is doing the right things for the future of the country.
“Profits from fraud.” F that. Treble damages, baby.
And all the intellectual con men should be left with only their one “asset”.
Thanks for the reminder about India; truly a great and fascinating nation.
A few years back i was saying, to those still sober enough to listen, that if we put our best and brightest to work we could destroy the environment much quicker and be done with the continuation of our natural world. Hell they got the ignorant and greedy to do it all at a good clip now. If even all the workers of the world rise and allow no safe harbor for the comprador class it’s game over. I don’t see any restructure of society as a viable endeavor. One can only imagine the rest.
The guy’s sign in the picture implies that prior to a recent “hi-jacking” the government was not run by criminals. When exactly was that? We often compare the depression today with the one 80 years ago. Who was running things then, or during the depressions before that, or any time during the whole boom-bust cycle seemingly inherent to capitalism? The entire nation was stolen from Native Americans and Mexicans and fueled by cheap slave, indentured servant and prison labor. For most of its history, only white guys who owned property mattered politically. The US has engaged in a major war every generation since its inception, all of them arguably expansionary. At what point was this nation not run by criminals? “[F]ixing “markets” to make an easy buck at someone’s expense” sounds like an awfully accurate description of the place over the last 200+ years.
“We’re screwed.” Who do we mean by “we”? Who “we” are also informs our notions of criminality. Are undocumented immigrants, the 2.5 million US citizens in prison (25% of the world prison population), the owning class, or folks who gave criminals their salaries to gamble with the “we” in question?
It looks more like what we may be witnessing is not the result of criminals suddenly running things, but the typical increased entropy and devolution of a capitalist Western empire that no longer makes things and has switched to shuffling numbers around. Things were good for parts of the citizenry while the US was on the upswing of empire (for instance, I hear no complaints from The Greatest Generation–who ran the war against Vietnam).
I’m not sure if the parable of the frog and the scorpion applies here, but this reality does: ““The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor.” –Voltaire. Who are we?
“This post was authored By Professor L. Randall Wray, Professor of Economic…”
A post by one of the high priest complaining about the very religion he propagates to the masses, the irony is almost absurd. In all those words, this fool dances around the reality of capitalism by pointing out all its flaws and then says this systems needs to be regulated and fixed, oblivious to the fact that the system has been working the same way as intended since its inception. This just another Dean Baker post pointing out the obvious and saying nothing.
Along with the 21-31Trillion that the world’s elite have squirreled away in the tax havens.
“I am not a criminal”. Uh huh.
I’m realizing the authoritarians are crawling out of the wordwork into the light of day. Blaze on, comrade.
One of the great myths in the US, promulgated from almost every pulpit and lectern, is that the rich came by their wealth legitimately; that through hard work, skill, brains, and even luck (that optimistic, American ingredient), wealthy US citizens came to their riches honestly. What could be further from the truth? The US is a nation that owes its very existence to stealing land and a great portion of its wealth to slavery. Check the recent veneration for Steve Jobs while his Chinese “employees” work in near slavery conditions. But the rub is that to vilify the likes of Jobs is to implicate ourselves in the crimes of exploitation, murder and theft. So maybe it is more palatable to create another myth by telling ourselves that we were “hi-jacked.”
US citizens are 5% of the world’s population and yet we consume 30-40% of the available resources—depending on what research you look at. I see almost no one voluntarily curbing their consumption and very little talk about doing so. And despite this disproportionate share of the wealth, the US is at the bottom of the barrel compared to other industrial nations in wealth equity, freedom, education, health care, etc. Lord, it’s a high price to pay for 24-hour shopping and a new car every 3 ½ years (the average rate at which they are now consumed).
Maybe, just maybe, the accumulation of wealth that we see in the US, not only for the owning class but for a great many other citizens as well, is an inherently criminal act? Maybe that criminality is not an aberration but a founding principle?
If we want to see the people who run corporations behaving ethically maybe we should stop buying their products? If we don’t want to see imperial wars prosecuted against nations that are poorer and weaker than ours, maybe we should stop consuming more than our share?
Mindless consumption is the very thing destroying the environment but economist who teach/preach about the consumer/capitalist economy can’t see that through their graphs and charts.
The USA is the bastion of mindless consumption, think about the countless advertisements the average American is exposed to a day consciously and unconsciously, we are literally programmed to consume things we don’t necessarily need. All these ads say the same things; buy,consume, money is your god. It is like the scene from the movie “They Live” by John Carpenter when the protagonist puts the glasses on for the first time. This constant barrage is necessary to keep up this mindless consumption going or the whole house of cards come tumbling down. American even have a holiday dedicated to mindless consumption, Black Friday.
Economist are the high priest to this destructive religion.
It is the human’s fault that the system doesn’t work seems to be the running excuse for most economist. The pretzel reasoning that passes for logic for these people is astounding.
The language we use always gives the game away. The word “consumer” has replaced the word “citizen” over the past several decades when talking domestically about residents of the US–”citizen” is still used in international topics.
Have you ever seen Christmas celebrated outside the US (if you happen to be a US citizen)? It is a totally different holiday.
Turns out the patient I diagnosed has today admitted she and her husband left the military.
Uh huh.
It seems to operate like any religion. There is an assumption about a transcendent, immutable Truth at the core of the system. And while experts are free to debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the questioning of the central Truth is verboten, which also explains why all failures of the belief system must result from human error. Doubt is the one unforgivable sin.
Relatedly, have you read these?
http://www.amazon.com/Unconscious-Civilization-John-Ralston-Saul/dp/0684871084/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343255090&sr=1-3&keywords=john+ralston+saul
http://www.amazon.com/Doubters-Companion-Dictionary-Aggressive-Common/dp/0743236602/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343255351&sr=1-4&keywords=john+ralston+saul
“But modern finance has replaced religion as the supreme capitalistic undertaking.”
Thanks for this excellent explication, Wray. I’m just not convinced that what we are seeing here is a bug and not a feature, or that regulation does anything other than slow down these eventualities, or that the financialization in the US is fundamentally different from what happened to the Western empires of the past.
He’s not a neo-classical economist like Krugman and nearly everyone else. Randy is one of the leaders of the MMT approach to economics. Here’s a primer: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/p/modern-monetary-theory-primer.html There’s a lot to it. But if you read; then you’ll no that he’s no high priest of the old religion.
What is going on now with the plundering of the economy is often compared to the Gilded Age of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. My sense is that the present situation is much, much worse. Statistics developed on this point would be most informative.
Why does Krugman reject MMT? (He has stated such in his blog.)
James Galbraith is also a proponent of MMT.
Thank you, letsgetitdone.
Thank you, L. Randall Wray.
Five to ten years before enough people “realize”.
Then, how much longer until the full significance of the truth sinks in?
Neo-feudalism? You bet!
How long have those who have commented been talking about what is wrong?
Now, what does anyone propose that we do?
Except continue … TRYING to educate and inform?
Then, and NOW … being willing to go to prison or worse?
Waiting for the “leaders” or someone “else” to “save” us?
Or “believing” that everything will take care of itself?
Recommended to the entire FDL community even, and especially, to those who intend to vote for the “lesser” weevil, who insist that everyone else do likewise, and who cannot tolerate anyone pointing out the truth, the clear and evident facts of the evil, or delineating the consequence, for everyone, for the capacity of the planet to support human existence … of “more of the same”.
Semantic evasion, widely “practiced” today, is simply another term for dishonesty, for deceit, for deception and for the glib, careless destruction of necessary trust.
DW
Geez, it sounds like Professor Wray is a little ticked off about all this shit. I mean how these banksters gonna make their bonus if they can’t steal it from you? Come on people have a little love here./s
Back when we bailed these fuckers out didn’t everyone think that was the end of it? Once and done. So Dimon goes out and loses maybe seven billion dollars of his shareholders money and he and his friends fix the libor rate to steal money from your local community. And then, well, along comes Walker and says we gotta lay off the teachers to balance the budget. The freaking game is rigged. But, hell, we got the volcker rule. Who needs Glass-Steagall. Break up the banks!!!!!
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could do something real for a change like hire some people. give me some money and I’ll go hire some people. We got lots of things to do here in this city. Fuck, it’s all ass backwards.
How in the Hell did this school get so many great people that really know about $$$$$?
Yes Main Street is screwed
I think the Professor is not like Baker or Krugman. At least he doesn’t get the vapors over the debt “burden”. On the other hand, he is helpless to stop this shit. No one wants to pay any attention. Havn’t you heard? We got two political parties in a death grip. They won’t tell each other where the rest rooms are.
The guy’s sign in the picture implies that prior to a recent ‘hi-jacking’ the government was not run by criminals. When exactly was that?
Indeed, that sign might as well say “I fell off the turnip truck this morning!” But I guess that’s understandable, since most of the US population is evidently still on the turnip truck.
What most people don’t understand is that the State in the US is not based on anything like “democracy” — it’s based on the charters of the colonies on the east coast, which were either puritan-founded, London-based corporations or penal colonies. Given this foundation, and the 400-year project of building more exploitation upon a base of exploitation, it shouldn’t be difficult to understand that this “selling out” routine is not really the truth. But it’s probably about as much truth as teevee-sotted people can handle, for now.
Bad news keeps coming. Didn’t we read yesterday that Timmy is in on the fix to “foam the runway” for foreclosures. So Wray says we are screwed. Nah, we is fucked.
Reform won’t work because the reformers only will advocate what is pragmatic and thus evade the untenability of capitalism. It also reflects the lesser evilism mindset DW referred to above: During the massive shagging Americans have been taking over the past 30+ years, a glorious neoliberal future was cynically hung before us. Now, at the consummation, we are told that massive fraud explains our dire situation. Reformers would have us believe we should feed capitalists more until new accumulation centers kicks in.
This is just a better lie. Like their failure to break through the obvious con before the crash, they now fail to reveal the vicious reality of capitalism. And note, Prof. Wray is now saying that the crooks preclude his glorious solution.
Well, that’s some progress.
The thing is, why would this enlightened site reiterate that delusional perception? Because it’s not just TV-besotted people who believe in a fantasy.
I put that very question to one of the UMKC School of Economics faculty and he told me it was due to there being a number of faculty positions opening up at around the same time and the remaining UMKC School of Economics faculty convincing the university administration to allow them to develop the program.
My understanding of what the UMKC Economics faculty wanted to create is an approach to economics that is distinctly different from that of the University of Chicago’s School of Economics.
With the Gov’t essentially “captured” why would “Nationalization” work any better? So, we nationalize the OIL companies as an example and the Pols then hire the same Corp. thieves that run it and the first thing they do is say we need to privatize it so it can be run by us efficiently and it’s just another huge bail-out. Look at AIG as an example. Anyone go to jail or even lose their bonuses over at AIG? Your assuming that once Nationalized honest pols and bureaucrats will be in charge. WRONG! The criminals have seized all the POWER at all levels. Only a massive Revolution complete with hangs and long prison terms will even begin to scratch the surface of this. Not going to happen.
Note that most people here take an enlightened investor position on the situation in Greece, and advise them to break from the EU. That’s not the goal the Greek left is shooting for. They want reform of the EU, which means reform of neoliberalism (I don’t think this is far enough). And Scotland, which was considering breaking from Britain but now clutches for economic security has yet to address what Greece is now (TRNN, Scotland Debates Independence, Prof. David Miller):
Shoot higher, firepups.
“Control fraud” and regulatory capture is insufficient to deal with the globalized crime of capitalism. A school cannot fix this and these intellectuals should have known better.
“TRYING to educate and inform?”
Comrade, there remains massive ignorance, disinformation, and failed paradigm. Now the real question is whether this can be resolved via internet.
No?
As has been posited throughout the comments, the fix was in a long long long time ago. There’ve been cycles where so-called “middle class” citizens enjoyed a nice standard of living, but that has always BEEN at the expense of some citizen somewhere else, whether here or in some third world country.
There’s never ever been true “democracy” or “equality” here in the USA bc, even when the “economy” has been better for most US citizens, it’s still been much much much worse for people living somewhere else. But when US citizens are preached at by bought-off snake oil salesmen in pulpits to believe that “God” smiles on us because we are “better” and “deserve” to consume in an out of control fashion… well… whatever.
The party’s definitely OVAH… but the final outcomes have not yet been reached, which means more “discomfort” (to say the least) for all concerned. As they say: wake up sheeples…
AND, the professor answering my question about UMKC’s Economics program said that back before the UMKC School of Economics was developing into its present form the program was not considered to be prominent or prestigious enough in the eyes of the PTB that might have wanted to stop their program from developing as it has.
Imagine that.
Imagine what you will.
Don’t get you.
It’s a great place to consider going to college.
Comrade, we can’t give up to these assholes.
I agree. One of my sons is planning to going there.
…”to go there.”
Gotcha.
I thought that might do it you ya.
Do you consider yourself a comprador, comrade.
Martin Luther didn’t like the Pope either. MMT is still more dancing around reality and doesn’t address the problem of mindless consumption.
Martin Luther didn’t like the Pope either. MMT is still more dancing around reality and doesn’t address the problem of mindless consumption.
Thank you
Haven’t read those but they seem like worthwhile reads.
First of all, huge sigh.
I don’t live entirely off of the corporate grid, but I actively do a lot to lessen feeding a corrupt system. My attitudes on comradeship are somewhat shaped by my deep admiration for Senator Paul Simon of Illinois.
(TRNN, Report on the Greek Left, Leo Panitch):
The problem here, in this country, is that liberals believed in the regulatory efficacy and now that that’s mortally wounded, they cannot bring themselves to uproot the illusions they maintained in service to the empire.
Good man. But:
Comradeship, what is needed to confront the monstrosity he/we became, is much more than Paul Simon could provide.
The internet can help, however, the slow and laborious process of speaking, face to face, with others and slowly exposing them, over time, to salient facts, while placing those facts in the context of capitalism’s complete unsuitability to a humane and sustainable civil human society, must be expected to be fundamentally necessary …
Otherwise, Ludwig, as you well know, fuzzy, inept thinking, inculcated myths of American “exceptionalism” and infantile, knee-jerk “belief” will linger … perhaps long enough to prove fatal to our existence, in terms of the planet’s capacity to support, or tolerate, that “existence”.
Just so you know, I hold that you are doing exceptionally well in that “process” of the ongoing educational “effort”, and I thank you, Ludwig, for so doing, in a patient, consistent, and most interesting manner.
DW
Very good piece.
Krugman disagrees with MMT on the validity of the IS/LM model and its implications for inflation. MMT believes that demand-pull inflation is very unlikely to occur before full employment is reached provided that a Job Guarantee program is legislated. OK believes that high deficits can more easily trigger inflation and even hyper-inflation according to a particular formulation of his related to the IS/LM model coupled with the Quantity Theory of Money, which he still accepts even though Keynes refuted it in the 1930s.
The IS/LM model was originally formulated by John Hicks, a contemporary and friend of Keynes. Later in life Hicks himself repudiated his model saying it was invalid. But by this time Paul Samuelson and others in his neo-keynesian school had accepted it and modified Keynesian theory using it.
In particular, the neo-keynesians used it to create a rapprochement with classical economics through a new synthesis which later developed in modern neo-liberal economic doctrine with its preference for monetarism and monetary policy over fiscal policy as a means of managing the economy.
Krugman is part of the neo-liberal school, though he is on its “left” “deficit dove” wing, which is friendlier to using fiscal policy, but also believes that interest rates are highly reliant on bond markets, which can impact them very negatively and can be stimulated to do so by high debt-to-GDP ratios.
MMT, in turn, believes that the Fed can target interest rates and bring them as low it wants to whatever the bond market would like to do. It also holds that IS/LM and the Quantity Theory of Money are both wrong and that Krugman’s fears about inflation, his view that the budget must eventually be balanced, and his view that monetary policy is more often an effective tool in managing the economy, are all false propositions. In my view the debates between PK and the MMT economists have been clearly won by the MMTers. In the vernacular, economists like Scott Fullwiler, Randy Wray, Jamie Galbraith, Bill Mitchell, and Pavlina Tcherneva have largely discredited him as a serious economic thinker. Here’s one of my own critiques of PK’s views with links to some others. And here’s a really good one from Scott Fullwiler with lots of links to others.
What ever it is that is required of us, we do it standing on the shoulders of those that came before us while also supporting those that come after us.
Yes?
That, right there, is a golden comment.
Also “ironcomments” notes about mindless consumption. (q.v.)
He is, but he’s not one of its major developers.
a) Whose shoulders?
b) Respect for giants is not the core of comradeship.
Propositions? These are not propositions, they are agendas. It is irresponsible to mask the political with the technocratic.
You have disproof that verification of theory is the prime concern of the capitalist system. Yet, you continue to argue theoretical beliefs.
Hmm.
That’s true. But MMT is also not opposed to addressing that problem, or inconsistent with attempts to address it.
Sorry, I don’t make the same distinctions as you do. I don’t believe in the separation between the political and the technocratic in the first place. In any case, these views are propositions as well as agendas. And as propositions they are false. The budget never needs to be balanced provided that a nation has demand leakages to savings and foreign trade. In addition, monetary policy is a comparatively weak and blunt instrument compared to fiscal policy. It is false to say that it can pull us out of an recession or a depression.
a) Whose shoulders?
- every person that has done anything to form the world on which we live.
b) Respect for giants is not the core of comradeship.
- OK.
Societal ills will not be solved by economic “theories” still working under the rubric of capitalism. Greed and continuous growth is still the central belief in this reformist religion.
Economist are modern day viziers whispering into the ears of our leaders. These charlatans advise our leaders in the same way, with smoke and mirrors and mathematics.
Truly democratic societies will not be driven by economic indicators and forecast but by the needs of the people. A government based on egalitarianism and justice not by how much money is being moved around.
A quick note on these charlatans so-called “theories”, how many “Economist surprised” articles are pumped out? How many times do these people get to miss the mark before they are shone for who they are?
shown, not shone.
You don’t believe there is a difference between a proposition and an agenda? That’s wrong on both an epistemological level and on an ethical level.
The “false propositions” are held because there is no criteria for abandoning them, or if there is, it cannot be confessed.
Even this, I believe, is misleadingly phrased:
What you meant to say is “The budget should not be balanced if the nation has …” Instead, you present it as if “demand leakages” compensate a budget imbalance, which is inverted. Moreover, those “demand leakages” can be a major problem, such that, eventually, deficits become one also.
Why does this MMT smell fraudulent?
Above in response to letsgetitdone @ 79
MMT is just more button pushing and lever pulling on the same old unsustainable system.
It’s nauseating. The explanation of MMT requires a research project. At a minimum, if there were confidence in it, clear answers to questions should be provided to laypeople.
Instead, not only is it hidden behind jargon, there appears to be deliberate obfuscation.
Thank you very much for this great summary–my goal is to learn more about MMT through the tutorials offered online by New Economic Perspectives.
Politically, I believe there’s an important role for both Krugman and the MMT proponents. Even if Krugman is fundamentally wrong in his economics (I am not learned enough to speak to this), there is an important role to play on the part of intellectuals, economists specifically, who are just to the left of the prevailing perspective and can speak to those in power on their own terms.
But there is also a compelling need for those who expound the real, deeper truth, and in time will be able to change the nature of the conversation.
Caleb, I agree with eCAHN who suggests that Krugman’s essential “function” is to serve as the “limit” to what is “acceptable”, in terms of “leftist” perspective … those in power do NOT listen to Krugman even though he is held up as example of how “tolerant” the masters want the rest of us to “believe” that they are.
Krugman is a proponent, despite his presumed annoyance and loud, sighing despair about “austerity”, of “more of the same” … he staunchly supports capitalism, as it “is”, more or less, and shills for Obama and the Democrats.
DW
“Indeed, that sign might as well say “I fell off the turnip truck this morning!” But I guess that’s understandable, since most of the US population is evidently still on the turnip truck.”
The US history and civics most of us learn in public school is, apart from the dates and names of the protagonists, entirely fiction. Its a secular religion designed to inculcate in the citizenry thoughtless, memorized acceptance of the national Mysteries of Faith.
And penal colonies. Indeed. Did anyone even hear about them in school? They are a significant aspect of the history of the US. It’s no wonder folks think the thing has been hi-jacked, what with the kind of indoctrination most of them have received–and by the same class of people who are now robbing them.
“teevee-sotted” Accurate turn of phrase.
“Reform won’t work . . .”
Nice summation.
I hope you like them, “The Unconscious Civilization” especially. Here is an apt quote from it in reference to this issue and “hi-jacking.”
“It is also worth noticing a curious characteristic of ideologies. They usually insist, in their justificatory argument, that humans once lived in a happy, if somewhat crude or innocent, natural state. An Eden. By simply passing on through the inevitable steps proposed by whatever particular ideology is in question, we are promised that we will re-enter Eden at a higher, more sophisticated level. The origin and the end of the human cycle.
Marx promised this. The Nazis promised this. And, indeed, the market-forces ideologues promise this. Suffering is inevitable in the short or medium term, but Paradise is the next stop.”
“The problem here, in this country, is that liberals believed in the regulatory efficacy and now that that’s mortally wounded, they cannot bring themselves to uproot the illusions they maintained in service to the empire.”
Sounds about right. The difference between the liberals and the conservatives when it comes to economic ideology in the US reminds me of the debate within Christianity between salvation by grace (invisible hand, laissez faire free-market capitalism) versus salvation by good works (regulated free-market capitalism).
Liberals are strange creatures. I couldn’t confidently describe them.
The best description of both conservatives and liberals–as two sides of the same coin, or rather two reactions to the same problem–comes from Wilhelm Reich in “The Mass Psychology of Fascism” (intro or 1st chapter, if I remember).
That’s not what I said. I said: “I don’t believe in the separation between the political and the technocratic in the first place. In any case, these views are propositions as well as agendas. And as propositions they are false.”
The general reasons why I think there’s no radical distinction between these two things is because there’s no radical distinction between fact and value. I discuss this here and here at some length.
No the false propositions are held because of willful disregard of evidence and people supporting one another on their willful disregard. For example there’s plenty of evidence that the IS/LM model is false. John Hicks said so himself after understanding the evidence. Yet Krugman, a self-styled Keynesian still adheres to to it. Further mainstream projections about what would happen to US interest interest rates in 2009 have been totally invalidated by the facts since that time. On the other hand, MMT predictions about what would happen to those rates remain unrefuted.
No, I said what I meant. If one has demand leakages to savings and a current account deficit as we do in the United States, then we never need to balance the Federal budget and should not do so. This is a logical consequence of the sectoral financial balances model. As far as the demand leakages being “a major problem” they can become one if a nation sovereign in its own fiat currency doesn’t compensate by running a sufficiently high deficit to compensate for the leakages. But otherwise such leakages are not in themselves problems.
Because you haven’t researched the voluminous research on it and because something in it threatens your belief system. Try working your way through this. Also, I think you’ll find Billy congenial.
I’m very wary of viewing things in terms of “capitalism” and “socialism.” I’m old enough to remember when “capitalism” meant ownership of the means of production by private individuals, and “socialism” meant ownership of the means of production by the government. Now both terms are used as vague labels that are primarily pejorative depending on the writer. MMT is about mixed economies, it leaves to the people the judgment about how much of the economy should be owned privately and how much of it should be owned in common.
I generally agree with this. But the viziers aren’t MMT economists.
I agree that democratic societies are driven by the needs of the people expressed in their own demands and actions. But I also think it can often be useful to use indicators to both measure what those needs are, to measure progress toward them, and to measure the impact of government fiscal and monetary policies on that progress.
I think this may apply to most economists; but I don’t think it applies to economists who use the MMT approach. Their predictions go unrefuted, and on the other hand, have often been corroborated since 1995 or so. So, I don’t MMT economists have been “surprised” very often over that time.
Sorry Caleb, I think PK’s main function is to siphon off dissatisfaction and defend the status quo. His critique of the existing isn’t radical enough!
That’s nonsense! Try this. It’s easy and quick to read and is in simple language. certainly much less jargon-filled than other economists I might name both classical and modern in all economic paradigms.
Of course. Yet,
and
Yes, it certainly is convenient to believe there is no fact-value distinction. So, whereas as a layman such as myself would attribute Krugman’s willful disregard of the evidence as a violation of scientific norms and associate it to the interests of an immensely powerful class of people who profit by not admitting evidence, you would say that Krugman is entitled to confuse his facts and values?
I say this tongue in cheek and, of course, it is not “what you said” (thank god for that). Besides you’re being indefinite, you are evading a major problem with your “science”. What are the criteria for a proposition to be refuted when you are experimenting on people (and profiting by it)?
I like my interpretation much better. You have good cause to avoid it. Given the biases of your “science”, you don’t think it would be important to specify those criteria?
Oh, surely. Except that what I understood you to say and what you meant to say were two different things. Suppose I said, “I never need to buy milk provided Elsie is producing.” But surely, I could buy milk even then.
Demand leakages are not compensation for the lack of a balanced budget, they are the cause.
And then the nugget:
In other words, demand leakages to foreign trade that occur
because of industry export is not a problem. Hmm. So those former workers should be on the dole to what extent?
Yes, we have some serious matters here that are being evaded.
Why does this MMT smell fraudulent? No, I would say because the cavalier handling of language and consequences is disturbing. And that I can’t be right (without going into the voluminous research).
Thank god there’s a difference between politics and technocracy.
This sounds like an argument between believer LGID suggesting that the members of a competing sect are full of shit and Ludwig the atheist. And the belief system in question here seems not to be Ludwig’s but capitalists’.
Also, part of the misunderstanding in the debate is to what extent an abstraction can be, if at all, translated into something one can put their hands on. Which is easy to get confused about because there is an overlap in an economic system where, unlike religion, one can exchange an abstraction for something tangible provided the transaction is between believers. (What is tangible in religion is what happens after death, although this varies by religion and TV preachers certainly insist the abstract can be traded immediately for the tangible—“Just put your hands on the TV!”) Analogous to currency, religious abstractions posit that if there is more grace than sin, you are in the black, while more sin than grace and you are in the red. But religious abstractions, like currency, ultimately can’t be eaten or used to keep you warm.
Mosler in the link @98 does a great job describing this religious system and the invented, faith-based nature of currency. The problem with it—the fly in the ointment—is inflation. He mentions this, but in passing and lightly. As he should because it is inflation that exposes his religion; it exposes the very place where the intangible is supposed to translate into the tangible.
If the Catholic Church gave indulgences to everyone, whether they asked for one or not, the value of an indulgence would be exactly zero, hence the need to control the issuance of the abstraction. If grace were given away immediately, irrevocably and universally, who would go to church? If every single person were guaranteed eternity in paradise, why bother with religion at all?
In its use of limiting control mechanisms, the religion of Capitalism operates the same way. It is why the comfort of the rich depends on the abundant suffering of the poor. It is for the same reason why going to paradise is only valuable because others go to hell. Capitalism is the secular expression of monotheism.
As a believer, Mosler is part of the problem and not the solution because the legitimacy of the belief system is never questioned. And we are talking about a belief system that is inherently violent. Violence (thievery) has to be done to some so that good can be done to others. This dynamic explains why the idea that if everyone just worked hard enough they could all get rich is a myth. The reason why it is bogus to imagine that the system got hi-jacked or that unregulated capitalism is thievery is because capitalism WITH regulation is thievery. Regulation does not stop the thievery. It only slows down the destruction caused by it. (We could suggest that all life consists of the violent, thieving consumption of other life and therefore Capitalism and Christianity are legitimate, but that’s a tangent for another day.)
From this perspective, LGID’s position is actually conservative in that it does a better job of maintaining the legitimacy and continuation of the religion. If we can just get back to strict regulation of grace, the religion will be valuable again. Meanwhile, the “thieves” have drunk all the communion wine, issued every special dispensation they can think of, given away every piece of the cross (especially including the ones they had manufactured), and are in the process of dismantling the temple/selling off the temple stone. Their reward will certainly be in heaven.
The regulators will wreck the joint just as well, they just won’t burn it down as quickly or as greedily as the regulators will, because both are believers in a religion that is inherently unsustainable in that it assumes constant growth, trades in invented abstractions, and demands the extraction of excess profit within a finite, tangible world.
But in the end, these are all just words—whether Bernanke’s or Krugman’s or Wray’s—and debates about angels on pinheads. What is crucial is that a critical mass of citizens believe and participate; that they act according to the articles of faith. It is all that has ever made any religion legitimate.
Solution: Stop believing.
Dammit. Should read: “The regulators will wreck the joint just as well, they just won’t burn it down as quickly or as greedily as the DE-regulators will . . .”