Robert Kuttner

 

Recent Posts by Robert Kuttner

  • Drawing the Wrong Lessons

    Nov 3, 2010Robert Kuttner

    downarrow-money-150Fiscal austerity now will guarantee a Democratic loss in 2012.

    downarrow-money-150Fiscal austerity now will guarantee a Democratic loss in 2012.

    With the Republican takeover of the House, a lot of the usual suspects are already declaring that Obama needs to be more of a centrist. That's neither smart nor possible -- the Republicans are out to destroy his presidency no matter how accommodating he tries to be. What the economy needs is jobs and economic recovery. The voters punished Obama for failing either to deliver recovery or to fight harder for it.

    But there is an even worse course than accommodation: austerity. The president has painted himself into a fiscal corner by appointing a commission whose members are due to report December 1. Though a fixed degree of deficit-reduction by a particular date is a perverse idea, the commission seems determined to pursue that course. There are only four relative progressives on the commission, out of eighteen members, and they are under pressure to leave Obama with plenty of room to make a deal that would trade tax increases for cuts in entitlements and other spending.

    Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, event alerts, and reading/film/music recs.

    The only thing that might save Obama from this fate is Republican aversion to any sort of tax increases. Even so, if Obama is preaching belt-tightening and the Republicans are calling for tax cuts, the Republicans win. Austerity is bad economics in a deep slump, and bad politics as well. The White House even discouraged Democrats from pledging not to cut Social Security, in order to keep his options open. For details on why austerity is bad politics and worse economics, see the website of the new growth coalition, OurFiscalFuture.org. The Prospect also recently published a special report on growth versus austerity, which makes the case for a recovery program and rebuts the austerity arguments.

    The lesson of the election is that voters expected bolder leadership of Obama, and don't much care for a prolonged slump. To promote the recovery of the economy -- and his presidency -- the President needs to be for jobs and economic growth, and dare Republicans to stand in the way.

    Robert Kuttner’s new book is “A Presidency in Peril.” He is co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos.

    Share This

  • The Stealth Attack on America’s Best-Loved Program

    Jun 18, 2010Robert Kuttner

    golden-coffer-150As Obama’s Fiscal Commission prepares for its June 30 hearing, New Deal 2.0 invited leading thinkers to participate in our Social Security’s Fiscal Fitness series, which examines the soundness of the program, its relationship to the federal deficit, and the vital role it plays in Ame

    golden-coffer-150As Obama’s Fiscal Commission prepares for its June 30 hearing, New Deal 2.0 invited leading thinkers to participate in our Social Security’s Fiscal Fitness series, which examines the soundness of the program, its relationship to the federal deficit, and the vital role it plays in America’s economic future.

    Washington bipartisan elites have been working to weaken Social Security since the mid-Clinton Administration. Clinton, prodded by his Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, was on the verge of cutting a deal with Newt Gingrich to partially privatize America's most successful retirement program.

    The intermediary was Clinton's White House chief of staff Erskine Bowles. The same Bowles is now the co-chair of Obama's fiscal commission -- which also has designs on Social Security. Corporate Democrats keep turning up, like bad pennies.

    As I reported in my 2007 book, The Squandering of America, liberals can thank Monica Lewinsky for saving Social Security from that earlier bipartisan deal. Why? Because when the frisky Clinton was being impeached, and Congressional liberals were holding their noses and reluctantly saving him from ouster, they were in no mood to have him trash Social Security. New details have been reported in the recent book, The Pact, by Steven Gillon, about Clinton's dealings with Gingrich.

    But what is it with Democrats like Bowles, Rubin, and Rubin's protégé Peter Orszag, now director of the Office of Management and Budget and another of the deficit hawks who would weaken Social Security in order to cut the deficit? Don't they get that Social Security, along with Medicare, is one of the Democrats' crown jewels? Don't they appreciate that two-thirds of elderly Americans depend on Social Security for at least half their income?

    As Nancy Altman pointed out earlier in this series, the argument that Social Security is adding to the federal deficit is a bum rap. Ever since Congress in 1983 acted to anticipate the retirement of the baby boom generation by raising Social Security taxes and pushing back the retirement age from 65 to 67, Social Security has contributed trillions of dollars to a government surplus. The intent was to pre-fund the additional cost of the boomers. George W. Bush pilfered that surplus for his wars and his tax cuts for the rich, but even so, Social Security is still in great shape for at least 30 more years.

    Social security taxes wages. Get wage growth back to historic postwar norms, and Social Security is in surplus forever. Restore the traditional fraction of wages that are taxed, so that affluent people do not get a free ride on part of their income, and the proclaimed crisis disappears. There is no need to further cut benefits, or further raise the retirement age, or raise taxes on working Americans. If only Citigroup's balance sheet were as healthy as Social Security's!

    So why the continued political threat to America's best loved and most successful government program?

    The main reason is that Wall Street looks at all that money and imagines the fees that could be collected if it were diverted to private accounts. It's no wonder that Democrats like Robert Rubin (Goldman Sachs and Citigroup) and Republicans like Peter G. Peterson (Blackstone Group) are the mainstays of the bipartisan crowd proclaiming a crisis of Social Security and promoting a cut in benefits, or privatization -- both of which would produce more reliance on Wall Street products.

    These are the guys who brought us the financial collapse, with its devastating effect on pension savings, 401k's, home equity, and other private resources on which retirees depend. Now, with no sense of shame, they are going after the one part of the system that was not undermined by the calamity -- public Social Security.

    This is appalling economics, but happily it is dumb politics.

    Politicians relying on superficial poll results may think the American people care more about the abstract goal of budget austerity than the very real one of protecting Social Security. They are in for a big surprise.

    Remember the voters who, with no appreciation of the contradiction, warned the government not to mess with Medicare? Just wait till the government tries to mess with Social Security.

    If the Obama fiscal commission, as reliably reported, comes in with a grand scheme to cut social spending, including Social Security, and raise taxes on working Americans, the commissioners will be rewarded with a resounding Bronx Cheer.

    Robert Kuttner's new book is "A Presidency in Peril." He is co-editor of The American Prospect and a senior fellow at Demos.

    Share This

  • Wall Street on speed

    Jul 28, 2009Robert Kuttner

    wall-street-200The New York Times recently reported that the latest scheme--or scam--on Wall Street is something called High Frequency Trading. Very sophisticated financial firms, such as Goldman Sachs, are tipped off by the New York Stock Exchange's own computers to pending buy and sell orders.

    wall-street-200The New York Times recently reported that the latest scheme--or scam--on Wall Street is something called High Frequency Trading. Very sophisticated financial firms, such as Goldman Sachs, are tipped off by the New York Stock Exchange's own computers to pending buy and sell orders. Armed with ultra sophisticated computer algorithms, the insiders anticipate the direction of the market based on what they learn about supply and demand for a given security. They can make an extra penny here and an extra penny there at the expense of us suckers, adding up to billions.

    "Nearly everyone on Wall Street is wondering how hedge funds and large banks like Goldman Sachs are making so much money so soon after the financial system nearly collapsed," wrote the Times' Charles Duhigg in a front page piece that was the talk of New York and Washington. "High-frequency trading is one answer."

    As debates in the blogosphere in the last couple of days have made clear, there are a couple of possibilities of what is at work here. One is that Goldman and others are literally using privileged information to make trades ahead of markets, in which case they are committing a felony. Specifically, the abuse is known as "front-running," or trading ahead of customers, and it is an explicitly illegal form of market manipulation. Front running is epidemic on Wall Street--the whole point of an investment bank trading for its own account is to take advantage of its specialized knowledge of markets--and the SEC or the Justice Department shuts down front-running when it becomes too blatant to ignore.

    The other possibility is that the Goldmans of the world have found themselves a nice loophole. Tapping into the Stock Exchange's own computers and other sources of trading activity is something that anyone in theory could do, but only a few privileged insiders have the sophistication to exploit what they find. Often orders are placed, only to be cancelled. Their purpose is to figure out what the market is willing to pay, and then get in ahead of it.

    But suppose that High Frequency Trading doesn't violate any law. It still is the essence of what's wrong with the recent metastasis of money markets into private game preserves for insider-traders.

    Consider for a moment some first principles. The legitimate and efficient function of financial markets is to connect investors to entrepreneurs, and depositors to borrowers. There is no legitimate reason whatever for this to be done by the millisecond. At bottom, the process is pretty simple. The intermediary--the bank, savings institution, or investment bank makes its fees for making a judgment about risk and reward. How likely is the loan to be paid back? How high an interest rate should it charge? How should a new issue of securities be priced? The investor decides whether to indulge a taste for risk or for prudence.

    But the hyperactive trading markets and creations of recent decades such as credit default swaps and high speed trading algorithms add nothing to the efficiency of financial markets. They add only two things--risk to the system, and the opportunity for insiders to reap windfall profits.

    Therefore, whether or not Goldman's lawyers have figured out how it can engage in High Frequency Trading and stay within the law, there is a strong case that this entire brand of financial engineering should be prohibited. The whole game should be slowed down. Bona fide investors should get in line under the rule of first come, first served. Anything else should be considered illegal market manipulation. No dummy transactions. There is absolutely no gain to economic efficiency from having prices of securities change in milliseconds, and much gain to the opportunities for manipulation.

    The need to restrain traders from exploiting their privileged knowledge is an old fight. During the New Deal, for example, many reformers proposed that floor specialists for investment bankers and brokerage houses simply be prohibited from trading for their own accounts. They should be there simply to execute buy and sell orders for customers. Otherwise, the conflict of interest would be overwhelming--and this was before computers. These reformers were overruled, but insider trading was explicitly prohibited (and good luck catching it).

    Now, as then, it is a mark of Wall Street's stranglehold on politics that the most sensible of remedies seem impossibly radical. One very good way to damp down the dictatorship of the traders, and raise some needed revenue along the way, would be through a punitively high transactions tax on very short term trades. Genuine investors should get favored fax treatment. Pure traders should be taxed, and very short term manipulation taxed into oblivion.

    If the financial crisis has proven anything, it is that capital markets have become an insiders' game in which trading profits crowd out the legitimate business of investment. The whole business-models of the most lucrative firms on Wall Street are a menace to the rest of the economy. Until the Obama administration recognizes this most basic abuse and shuts it down, it will be more enabler than reformer.

    Roosevelt Institute Braintruster Robert Kuttner is co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect magazine and a Demos Distinguished Senior Fellow. This piece originally appeared at The Huffington Post.

    Share This