here is what we are looking at...but on steroids
and global and in control of the "government",
but not the people ( government ), for the most part.
from the g.w. link above.. " looting of the country "
.
Nobel prize-winning economist described the root of the financial crisis in 1993
Alex Floum
, Economic Policy Examiner
May 4, 2009
.
"
Nobel prize-winning economist George Akerlof co-wrote a paper in 1993 describing the causes of the S&L crisis and other financial meltdowns. As summarized by the New York Times:
In the paper, they argued that several financial crises in the 1980s, like the Texas real estate bust, had been the result of private investors taking advantage of the government. The investors had borrowed huge amounts of money, made big profits when times were good and then left the government holding the bag for their eventual (and predictable) losses.
In a word, the investors looted. Someone trying to make an honest profit, Professors Akerlof and Romer [co-author of the paper, and himself a leading expert on economic growth] said, would have operated in a completely different manner. The investors displayed a âtotal disregard for even the most basic principles of lending,â failing to verify standard information about their borrowers or, in some cases, even to ask for that information.
The investors âacted as if future losses were somebody elseâs problem,â the economists wrote. âThey were right.â
The Times does a good job of explaining the looting dynamic:
The paperâs message is that the promise of government bailouts isnât merely one aspect of the problem. It is the core problem.
Promised bailouts mean that anyone lending money to Wall Street â ranging from small-time savers like you and me to the Chinese government â doesnât have to worry about losing that money. The United States Treasury (which, in the end, is also you and me) will cover the losses. In fact, it has to cover the losses, to prevent a cascade of worldwide losses and panic that would make todayâs crisis look tame.
But the knowledge among lenders that their money will ultimately be returned, no matter what, clearly brings a terrible downside. It keeps the lenders from asking tough questions about how their money is being used. Looters â savings and loans and Texas developers in the 1980s; the American International Group, Citigroup, Fannie Mae and the rest in this decade â can then act as if their future losses are indeed somebody elseâs problem.
Do you remember the mea culpa that Alan Greesnspan, Mr. Bernankeâs predecessor, delivered on Capitol Hill last fall? He said that he was âin a state of shocked disbeliefâ that âthe self-interestâ of Wall Street bankers hadnât prevented this mess.
He shouldnât have been. The looting theory explains why his laissez-faire theory didnât hold up. The bankers were acting in their self-interest, after all...
Think about the so-called liarsâ loans from recent years: like those Texas real estate loans from the 1980s, they never had a chance of paying off. Sure, they would deliver big profits for a while, so long as the bubble kept inflating. But when they inevitably imploded, the losses would overwhelm the gains...
What happened? Banks borrowed money from lenders around the world. The bankers then kept a big chunk of that money for themselves, calling it âmanagement feesâ or âperformance bonuses.â Once the investments were exposed as hopeless, the lenders â ordinary savers, foreign countries, other banks, you name it â were repaid with government bailouts.
In effect, the bankers had siphoned off this bailout money in advance, years before the government had spent it...
Either way, the bottom line is the same: given an incentive to loot, Wall Street did so. âIf you think of the financial system as a whole,â Mr. Romer said, âit actually has an incentive to trigger the rare occasions in which tens or hundreds of billions of dollars come flowing out of the Treasury.â
In fact, the big banks and sellers of exotic instruments pretended that the boom would last forever, siphoning off huge profits during the boom with the knowledge that - when the bust ultimately happened - the governments of the world would bail them out.
As Akerlof wrote in his paper:
[Looting is the] common thread [when] countries took on excessive foreign debt, governments had to bail out insolvent financial institutions, real estate prices increased dramatically and then fell, or new financial markets experienced a boom and bust...
Our theoretical analysis shows that an economic underground can come to life if firms have an incentive to go broke for profit at society's expense (to loot) instead of to go for broke (to gamble on success). Bankruptcy for profit will occur if poor accounting, lax regulation, or low penalties for abuse give owners an incentive to pay themselves more than their firms are worth and then default on their debt obligations.
Indeed, Akerlof predicted in 1993 that the next form the looting dynamic would take was through credit default swaps - then a very-obscure financial instrument (indeed, one interpretation of why CDS have been so deadly is that they were the simply the favored instrument for the current round of looting).
Is Looting A Thing of the Past?
Now that Wall Street has been humbled by this financial crash, and the dangers of CDS are widely known, are we past the bad old days of looting?
Unfortunately, as the Times points out, the answer is no:
At a time like this, when trust in financial markets is so scant, it may be hard to imagine that looting will ever be a problem again. But it will be. If we donât get rid of the incentive to loot, the only question is what form the next round of looting will take.
Are We Powerless to Stop Future Looting?
The Times mentions two real solutions to the problem of looting:
The biggest Wall Street paydays should be held in escrow until itâs clear they werenât based on fictional profits.
Above all, as Mr. Romer says, the federal government needs the power and the will to take over a firm as soon as its potential losses exceed its assets. Anything short of that is an invitation to loot
So there are ways to prevent looting. The only question is whether the government will implement them.
"
....
and some have the cowardice to complain about demonstrators? sheesh.
i guess ignorance is its own punishment?
titsay
prguitarman
discoholicmusic
yousharknotpass