Seven Questions Begging to Be Answered Before a Foreclosure Settlement is Reached

Feb 2, 2012Bruce Judson

foreclosure-gavel-150Why the secrecy? Why the haste? Rushing into an ill-advised settlement with the banks may undo one of our last chances to avert another economic catastrophe.

foreclosure-gavel-150Why the secrecy? Why the haste? Rushing into an ill-advised settlement with the banks may undo one of our last chances to avert another economic catastrophe.

Tomorrow is the deadline for state attorneys general to sign on to a joint federal and multi-state $25 billion settlement of the robo-mortgage scandal. The settlement will involve Ally Financial Inc. (formerly GMAC), Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and Wells Fargo & Co. The details of the proposed settlement have not been released. However, one thing is clear: This settlement puts the nation at further risk of another systematic financial crisis and runs counter to any notion that the actions of the Obama administration will reflect the president's newly energized populist rhetoric.

As a nation, we need to ask several questions. As a participatory democracy, we also have the right to the answers before any settlement is inked:

1. In his State of the Union Address, President Obama announced a new financial crimes taskforce, yet the administration is rushing to finalize this settlement before the taskforce begins its work. Why?

2. What is the public interest in releasing banks that have openly admitted they broke the law in tens of thousands of separate instances from liability?

3. The bank narrative has been that the robo-mortgage scandal reflected procedural issues of no consequence (despite the fact that they constituted fraud, perjury, conspiracy, and a knowing effort to mislead the court). Recently, a new narrative has emerged that suggests these activities were actually the back-end of even greater malfeasance involving tax evasion and the banks' failure to comply with basic rules in securitizing mortgages. If we are a nation where justice is blind, should we not investigate the full truth before we give the offending financial institutions another free pass?

4. Why are the terms of this settlement secret? Prosecutorial negotiations are normally secret in order to prevent the disclosure of evidence that might or might not be relevant to a later trial if the negotiations collapse. This concern does not apply here.

5. This settlement has far more of the characteristics of legislation than of prosecutorial activities. The offending banks have destroyed the wealth, livelihood, and dreams of millions of Americans. Shouldn't the public at least have two weeks to view the proposed terms of the settlement and make their views known to their state's attorney general? And at a time when trust in government is at historic lows, isn't secrecy for this type of activity the wrong way to build the much-needed confidence of the American people?

6. The press also has a constitutionally guaranteed role in our system of governance. In these unusual circumstances, isn't this precisely the type of situation where the nation would benefit from careful scrutiny of the intended settlement by the press?

7. Officials have indicated that the settlement will require banks to write down the principal on homeowner loans. Unfortunately, a portion of the $25 billion allocated for this purpose is far too little, spread across a large number of homeowners, for any write-downs to make an effective difference. So either these statements are effectively meaningless, or the settlement is based on promises of future activities by banks. To date, the nation has witnessed repeated and egregious failures by the banks to live up to promises of future behavior, with no subsequent penalties for such failures. For any release from liabilities to be effective, shouldn't it be contingent on the banks actually delivering on these promises?

Click here to buy Senior Fellow Richard Kirsch’s new book on the epic health care reform battle, Fighting for Our Health.

Since the start of the economic crisis, none of the administration's housing policies have succeeded. Each policy initiative has been fatally flawed. As a consequence, there's no reason to believe that the policy pursued in the current settlement will aid, rather than hurt, the housing market. Meanwhile, the secrecy surrounding this policy initiative makes its potential positive contribution to the crisis even more suspect.

A month ago, I wrote that we were a nation in denial with regard to housing prices and the impact of ongoing foreclosures. Despite a favorable rent to buy ratio, ultra-low interest rates and an "all time low cost of owning a home," housing prices are continuing downward. There is a simple explanation. With foreclosures and the so-called shadow inventory of homes, our housing supply will overshadow demand for many years to come.

With 29 percent of homeowners already underwater, this creates a massive risk for the economy. Some analysts predict that home prices will drop another 10 to 20 percent, which will put many borrowers deeply underwater. With additional price declines, underwater homeowners may start to simply walk away in droves. This will create havoc for our economy, the mortgage securities markets, and it will destroy solvency of the banks as they are forced to write-down their portfolios. The nation will be plunged into another economic crisis.

Unfortunately, all indications over the past several weeks are that this risk is continuing to grow. Indeed, the most recent reports on housing prices showed larger than expected declines in November. This reflected the third month in a row of declines. "The trend is down and there are few, if any, signs in the numbers that a turning point is close at hand," said David M. Blitzer, chairman of the S&P's home price index committee.

In his State of the Union speech, President Obama stressed assistance for "responsible homeowners." Yet the current definition of a responsible homeowner is someone with a job. (Although yesterday the president did say, "We're working to make sure people don't lose their homes just because they lost their job." ) So, at least for the moment, continued unemployment woes will keep this vicious cycle going.

Here's how this relates to the proposed settlement: All of the activities covered by the settlement took place after the crisis began. They were not unforeseen effects of once-in-a-lifetime systematic risk. They reflected willful, knowing, and egregious malfeasance and disrespect for the rule of law. There is no question that laws were broken on a massive scale with potentially enormous civil liabilities and with criminal offenses. The essence of capitalism is responsibility and accountability. The settlement ignores both.

I suspect that the existing testimony of bank officials in open court, which are effectively admissions of guilt, provides sufficient evidence to lead to state and federal suits that would make the banks insolvent. This means that, because of the banks' malfeasance and greed, the nation has the leverage to bargain for a massive write-down of mortgages -- thereby preventing an economic catastrophe. I am not advocating this option, nor am I saying it is good policy. But I do believe it would be a scandal to limit whatever leverage we have to save our economy by once again permitting gross malfeasance.

In late May, my eldest daughter will graduate from college and join the labor force. Will there be jobs for her and her classmates? Will she come of age in a decade of limited employment opportunities, the collapse of the middle class, and unequal justice while a privileged few live lives of abundance because they have corrupted our democracy? As someone who reveres our system of justice, what is the advice I should give her about working hard and playing by the rules? There is still a chance that we can turn all of this around. But rushing to settle with law-breaking banks is certainly not the way to solve the issue of inequality -- which President Obama called the defining issue of our time. It is also the antithesis of capitalism, which is based on adherence to law, a fair bargain, and accountability.

Bruce Judson is Entrepreneur-in-Residence at the Yale Entrepreneurial Institute and a former Senior Faculty Fellow at the Yale School of Management.

Share This

Jeff Madrick and Tom Ferguson Sound Off on Real Messages of the SOTU

Jan 27, 2012Bryce Covert

After Obama's State of the Union on Tuesday, Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellows Jeff Madrick and Tom Ferguson took to the airwaves to dissect it. Was there substance behind the soaring rhetoric? Can the proposed policies really solve our economic ills?

Jeff Madrick joined Eliot Spitzer on Keith Olbermann's Countdown, and his analysis could be summed up as: "It was a tougher speech than I expected."

After Obama's State of the Union on Tuesday, Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellows Jeff Madrick and Tom Ferguson took to the airwaves to dissect it. Was there substance behind the soaring rhetoric? Can the proposed policies really solve our economic ills?

Jeff Madrick joined Eliot Spitzer on Keith Olbermann's Countdown, and his analysis could be summed up as: "It was a tougher speech than I expected."

Despite what some naysaying economic advisers may be telling President Obama, "he said forget about all those constraints," Jeff pointed out. "Let me go after the Chinese, let me develop some tax breaks, let me develop some tax penalties." Those FDR fans among us may remember his famous welcoming of Wall Street's hatred, a stance Obama has mostly shied away from. Yet, as Jeff notes, not only did he go after Republicans in Congress and big oil, "he said some pretty nasty things about Wall Street."

His policy proposals were important too, Jeff said. "Few things are as unambiguous as a need as updating the American infrastructure," and that was a big part of his "constant mention of jobs." Plus there was a heavy emphasis on bringing back manufacturing, although the question remains as to whether that's really possible.

Meanwhile, Tom Ferguson, while "intrigued" by some of the policies, was "underwhelmed" overall. He told Paul Jay of the Real News Network that "when you start to look at the details" of Obama's proposals, they're "almost meaningless."


More at The Real News

Take the plan to have a massive mortgage refinancing program. That could be "a really striking thing and it would likely have a huge effect on the economy," Tom said. But "their record in the last three years is they keep announcing programs and they all fail." Plus the taskforce on mortgage abuses "looks to me like an effort to to rein in the attorneys general" at the state level, he said.

Things were worse when it came to the "utter tameness" of the ideas around money in politics, Tom said. While banning Congress from insider trading is a good idea, "he's not really touching the essence of the money in politics problem," he points out. "He's basically punted on that one." What could he have proposed that would work? "You could do a lot by simply making the federal election commission a serious part of the civil service to get it out from under its ridiculous domination by Congress," Tom suggests. It's not just Citizens United that should be on reformers' radars.

And overall, while some of the economic policies may sound good, the underlying push from the administration for austerity and a focus on the deficit went unaddressed. "My guess is that these folks are not planning to change course on the economy," he concludes.

Share This

Funding the Academic War on Financial Reform

Jan 26, 2012Wallace Turbeville

mortar-board-and-money-150Wall Street is funneling money toward error-riddled studies that stand to muddy the important conversation about implementing Dodd-Frank.

mortar-board-and-money-150Wall Street is funneling money toward error-riddled studies that stand to muddy the important conversation about implementing Dodd-Frank.

"The moon so long has been gazing down
on the wayward ways of this wayward town
my smile becomes a smirk, I go to work" - Cole Porter

Over the holidays, I finally watched the film Inside Job and was struck by the final section highlighting the corruption of academics by the financial services industry. It was a good thing that I had waited so long to drop the DVD into the player. Real life experience had provided important context.

A year ago, I became deeply involved in the issue of position limits and the effects of trading structures on commodities prices. As time wore on, the regulators made clear that any action beyond the bare bones, historic approach would require academic studies supporting the policy. It was a political necessity. My colleague David Frenk and I undertook a study using the techniques of these experts and found statistically significant relationships between the boom/bust cycle in commodities prices and the structural trading practices of commodity index fund sponsors.

Many like-minded advocates warned of formidable hurdles in this effort, since so many academics were beholden to the financial services industry. I was a skeptic, having spent my career in investment banking and trading, shielded from the corruption of experts by a self-interested industry. I learned that an uncomfortably large percentage of study opinion is molded by venality. And I also understand the weight ascribed to the work of experts, with an astounding disregard for quality and even relevance. Eventually, the CFTC sponsored a two-day academic "battle of the bands" (our study was excluded since we are not academics), which led to nothing.

Decision makers enjoy the cover provided by expert studies using statistical methodologies. If a study uses math and accepted procedures to test the robustness of conclusions, it is imbued with a sanctity that can be critically important in a policy fight. Opponents are cowed by assertions about the economy and financial markets that are figuratively cloaked in white lab coats by use of statistics. The all-important questions of the subject matter and scope of the study and underlying assumptions too often go unchallenged, and conflicting interests are largely ignored.

The legitimate appeal of expert analysis is the assumption that the expert is ethically and intellectually committed to independence of thought and is capable of using rigorous and accurate techniques for measuring cause and effect. On the other hand, if the expert serves an interested paymaster, he or she can use this capability to most effectively rig the results and camouflage the deed. They assume the pop culture role of evil mad scientist, opposing the forces of justice. Who would have thought that the danger would come from regression analyses instead of death rays?

It is troubling when biased research is used to influence regulatory outcomes and to wobble the knees of members of Congress inclined to support sensible regulation. But a far more powerful use of biased studies has emerged. The primary legal challenge to financial reform regulation will assert an inadequate consideration of costs and benefits by the regulators. On this field of battle, expert analysis is a powerful weapon.

Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s key headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

Last week, I testified at a hearing before subcommittees of the House Financial Services Committee along with Simon Johnson and six advocates of the industry's positions. The subject was the economic cost of the centrally important Volcker Rule. Before the hearing, Oliver Wyman consultants, on behalf of industry advocate SIFMA, produced a study that measured the cost of the Volcker Rule in terms of the liquidity that would be "lost" if proprietary trading by banks benefitting from the Federal safety net were prohibited. Professor Johnson and I both submitted testimony that pointed out that the major assumptions of the study that were both illogical and assured a conclusion that costs would be large. (We both were economical in our critiques, recognizing that a full catalogue of errors would have challenged the attention span of readers.)

Perhaps we were able to head off the use of the study in oral presentations by the industry advocates. Professor Johnson later wrote a useful article on the study that might discourage further dissemination, but far more is required. Committee members cited it and it is still floating around in the ether. It will no doubt be used in many private conversations in which no one will challenge its veracity.

Late last week, I was asked to look at a new study produced by NERA consulting (as it turns out, a subsidiary of Oliver Wyman) prepared for an energy industry advocacy group. The study sought to measure the costs and benefits of energy traders being designated as "swap dealers." It was filled with errors and unfounded assumptions, even worse than the Volcker Rule piece. (For a critique see this report and the observations of Professors John Parsons and Antonio Mello).

Academics are a concern as well. Professor Darrel Duffie of Stanford published an article at the behest of SIFMA two days before the Volcker Rule hearing that was largely a discussion of his preference for increased capital over the Volcker Rule approach and expressed concerns about effects on liquidity. He appropriately recognized uncertainty about his concerns. Even more appropriately, he acknowledged that in lieu of compensation, SIFMA made a $50,000 donation to the Michael J. Fox Foundation. Nonetheless, the timing of his piece means that it will probably be conflated with the Oliver Wyman study by casual observers.

Costs and benefits will be an enormous subject as financial reform implementation grinds forward during this election year. Legal academics need to weigh in on the proper judicial approach to this issue. And economists and finance academics need both to act as watchdogs and to enlighten the discussion on both sides of the cost/benefit scale. SIFMA and their colleagues have vast resources available to challenge financial reform in the courts and in Congress. Bought and paid for studies must be challenged so they are not accepted as the truth.

Wallace C. Turbeville is the former CEO of VMAC LLC and a former Vice President of Goldman, Sachs & Co. He spent a year during the derivatives rulemaking process drafting more than 50 comment letters on proposed rules while working with Better Markets, Inc.

Share This

Obama Makes the Case for Government

Jan 25, 2012Jeff Madrick

The president didn't go as far as he needed to, but he began to articulate an argument that the American people need to hear.



The president's State of the Union speech last night was not a progressive's delight. But it straightforwardly and strongly put forth a case for government that the president has heretofore not made. Perhaps America is again ready to listen after the dominance of an anti-government narrative for so long.

The president didn't go as far as he needed to, but he began to articulate an argument that the American people need to hear.



The president's State of the Union speech last night was not a progressive's delight. But it straightforwardly and strongly put forth a case for government that the president has heretofore not made. Perhaps America is again ready to listen after the dominance of an anti-government narrative for so long.

Last night, the president covered a lot of territory, and in fact almost all the important bases. He made several unfortunate nods to the right, including proudly boasting of his new offshore oil drilling plans and a renewed offer to use Social Security and Medicare as negotiating tools in order to raise taxes on the wealthy and cut taxes for the rest. He did not suggest that perhaps we could live with this deficit until the economy righted itself. He certainly did not suggest new stimulus, which is what we need. But the overall impact of the speech was to make a case for government.

He took on the loss of manufacturing jobs as his first item of business, after some deliberately patriotic claims about how the world is much safer today. This was important. Most mainstream economists, including many who lean Democratic, have little taste for government interference in the markets to create more manufacturing jobs. They say declining manufacturing is only natural. But Obama rightly said he would use the tax code to penalize those who send jobs overseas and reward those who bring them home. He will set up a task force on unfair trade practices. He called China out for such practices. This was pretty tough talk. Granted, he didn't call for less currency manipulation but that would have been pretty insensitive in a State of the Union address.

He made proposals regarding education, infrastructure, housing, and energy, calling for investment in clean energy as well as dirty energy like fracking and offshore drilling. But he also said in a direct attack on Republicans that we have subsidized oil too long.

He also made a deliberate, explicit case for government regulation in general -- over drilling, on Wall Street, everywhere it was needed. Aside from making the tax system more progressive, his case for regulation was perhaps his most important ideological claim for a strong government. But his case for government -- from tax subsidies to infrastructure investment to higher taxes on the wealthy to a new attack on financial fraud -- was unmistakable.

Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning's key headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

Inequality was high on his list of problems in America. He called for a millionaire's tax. He repeated that America must work for all. He criticized Wall Street with some pretty nasty language, willing to anger more than a few donors there who still think they are doing God's business.

Many are now pointing out that the political climate has changed, less talk of deficits and more talk of inequality. Bravo Occupy Wall Street. They are even talking about inequality at Davos, sensitivity reaching the upper strata who breathe only the fumes of self-regard but now realize even they are jeopardized by the distortions created in many free market economies.

But in the end, the American economy needs the stimulus mentioned above, and the president avoided the issue. Unfortunately, the economy is not as willing to ignore sources of weakness. He did not mention the eurozone crisis, either, or other reasons for concern. But he did say he would present a new mortgage relief scheme. Other than that, is a continuation of the payroll tax cuts enough? And doesn't it now begin to undermine Social Security?

As I said, this was no progressive's delight. He wants those who make $250,000 or less to be spared of any tax increase. At some point, taxes will have to rise somewhat for the middle class if America is to do what is necessary. But in the end, Obama was running for re-election. It was in many ways an us-versus-them speech. Either you are with me or you are with them, them being the irresponsible rich blessed with a tax system so favorable that even America, where we are told (I don't believe this) everyone dreams of being rich, is sick and tired of it. The election will be fought on those terms and I think Obama is on target.

Now we await some details and some real legislative proposals. How good will the mortgage relief plan be? What will an energy policy look like? Will he offer a new infrastructure program? Will he hang tough on his message, in the end?

My view is that Obama should put up his programs as soon as possible, even if a few are politically difficult, and let the Republicans shoot them down if they must. Then he can go to the public and tell them it is the Republican opposition that is holding the nation back. And he would be right.

Yes, we need a lot more than the president is willing to do. He is still above all a moderate politician. But he has a workable plan to be reelected. And let me board the cliché train: do you really want one of the opposition to be president? Let me answer: No, you don't. Even in only four years, irreparable damage can be done to the nation. Look what Reagan did in his first term.

Roosevelt Institute Senior Fellow Jeff Madrick is the author of Age of Greed.

Share This

Fed Transcripts: Why Was Congress in the Dark During the Crafting of Dodd-Frank?

Jan 13, 2012Matt Stoller

Records of the Fed's meetings at the height of the housing bubble provide more evidence that our central bankers need to be held accountable.

Records of the Fed's meetings at the height of the housing bubble provide more evidence that our central bankers need to be held accountable.

The latest release of the Federal Reserve's Open Market Committee transcripts is a doozy. Binyamin Appelbaum read through the transcripts and wrote a great article on what he found. The people on the FOMC straight up did not understand the economy, and that becomes very obvious when you parse their nonchalance through the pivotal year of 2006. That's true as far as it goes, but there's a political angle here as well.

My question is, why don't we have the transcript for 2007? Or 2008? Or beyond that? Why didn't Congress have the evidence that Bernanke was an incompetent central banker when he was up for reconfirmation in late 2009? Why didn't Congress know any of what was revealed yesterday while it was tasked with rewriting the rules governing our entire financial architecture?!? It might have been useful to know that the Fed was staffed by an inept, embarrassing group of fools fiddling over inflation while Rome was being set ablaze.

I wrote a piece on this back in May of 2011:

There’s an easy way, however, for the Federal Reserve to lose its aura of undemocratic secrecy. It could release transcripts of its Federal Open Market Committee meetings within one year — or be compelled to do so with a congressional subpoena.

These committee meetings are the real guts of U.S. economic policymaking. You can already get a summary of each meeting within three weeks. But the actual transcripts — the debates among Fed policymakers at those meetings — are released with a minimum lag time of five years.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, had pledged last year to look into this issue. But he has not acted.

Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s key headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

So, we still do not know what top Fed officials were debating from 2006 through 2010 as the housing bubble ballooned and the banking system collapsed. Were Fed officials privately worrying about the housing market? Were they aware of leverage in the system? Did they understand the dangers of credit default swaps?

The democratically elected Congress should have known these things before attempting to fix the financial system. Several congressional postmortems on the crisis should have had access to these records. And as Congress debates Rep. Mike Pence’s bill to change the Fed’s mandate, it should have access to this information.

Why doesn't Congress issue a subpoena to get the information about FOMC meetings from 2007-2010, so that we know what the Fed is thinking? They do not deserve the presumption of competence anymore. Darryl Issa promised this during the transition to GOP congressional rule in 2010 but he has not followed through. Perhaps he should.

Many people did get what was happening -- 2006 was the year that the big banks began cutting warehouse lines of credit to mortgage originators, which would eventually topple the whole housing ponzi scheme. Dean Baker had been trying to sound the alarm about a housing bubble as early as 2003. Yves Smith started her site Naked Capitalism in 2006 and Josh Rosner began noticing what was going on that year; moreover, the dangers of leverage had been recognized as far back as the early 1990s by such economic luminaries as Jane D'Arista.

It's not just that the people on the Federal Reserve's Open Market Committee -- the real rulers of America -- are insultingly out of touch with reality. It's also that the public does not even get to see what they are doing and that Congress doesn't really want to know. This, more than anything else, is animating figures like Ron Paul, who accuses the Federal Reserve of foisting an unwanted monetary system on the American public.

The reality of our times is that the people in charge of powerful institutions are driven by nothing so much as a desire to be the maintainers of consensus. That is what the FOMC participants were. And if we don't fix this state of affairs and hold powerful people accountable for being incompetent and wrong at least some of the time, America is done for.

Matt Stoller is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute and former Senior Policy Advisor to Congressman Alan Grayson.

Share This

Josh Kosman on the Loopholes That Fuel Private Equity Buyouts

Jan 12, 2012Mike Konczal

kosman_paperback_launchAs a result of a series of attacks and counter-attacks on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's work with Bain, there's been a lot of discussion about private equity, buyouts of firms, and their ultimate relation to the economy.

kosman_paperback_launchAs a result of a series of attacks and counter-attacks on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's work with Bain, there's been a lot of discussion about private equity, buyouts of firms, and their ultimate relation to the economy. So far the discussion has been a back-and-forth on layoffs and "creative destruction," with very little on how laws and regulations structure the way private equity and buyouts happen in this country.

I interviewed Josh Kosman, author of The Buyout of America: How Private Equity Is Destroying Jobs and Killing the American Economy, on this topic. Bob Kuttner reviewed his book in May 2010, and Kosman was on Up with Chris Hayes last weekend. The interview has been edited for length.

Mike Konczal: What are private equity funds, and what do they do?

Josh Kosman: Private equity firms are mostly former Wall Street bankers who raise money to buy companies on credit. They used to be called leveraged buyout (LBO) firms, and when the first leveraged buyout boom went bust in the 1980s they regrouped and called themselves private equity.

The big difference between them and venture capitalist or hedge funds is that the companies that they buy borrow money to finance the acquisitions.

Private equity firms own more than 3,000 U.S. companies and employ roughly one out of every 10 Americans in the private workforce. This is just America, so it doesn't include companies or employees overseas. Some companies include HCA, the largest hospital chain, to Clear Channel, the largest radio station operator, to Dunkin' Donuts. They are in every industry.

MK: People coming to the defense of private equity from both the left-neoliberal and conservative spaces directly invoke or allude to "the market" as a natural, already existing thing. But a key progressive retort to this laissez-faire view of economics argues that all markets are deeply embedded in and constructed through legal, tax, and other regulatory government codes. Your research has found that, far from being natural, private equity exists largely due to issues with the tax code. Can you explain?

JK: The whole industry started in the mid-to-late 1970s. The original leveraged buyout firms saw that there were no laws against companies taking out loans to finance their own sales, like a mortgage. So when a private equity firms buys a company and puts 20 percent down, and the company puts down 80 percent, the company is responsible for repaying that.

Now the tax angle is that the company can take the interest it pays on its loans off of taxes. That reduces the tax rate of companies after they are acquired in LBOs by about half. Banks, also realizing this tax effect, were willing to finance these deals. At the time, you could also depreciate the assets of the company you were buying -- that's not true today.

They saw that you could buy a company through a leveraged buyout and radically reduce its tax rate. The company then could use those savings to pay off the increase in its debt loads. For every dollar that the company paid off in debt, your equity value rises by that same dollar, as long as the value of the company remains the same.

MK: So the business model is based on a capital structure and tax arbitrage?

JK: Yes. It's a transfer of wealth as well. It's taking the wealth of the company and transferring it to the private equity firm, as long as it can pay down its debt.  It think it is real - the very early firms targeted industries in predictable industries with reliable cash flows in which they by and large could handle this debt. As more went into this industry, it became very hard to speak to the original model. Now firms are taken over in very volatile industries. And they are taking on debts where they have to pay 15 times their cash flow over seven years -- they are way over-levered.

Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s key headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

MK: The most common argument for why Bain Capital and other private equity firms benefit the economy is that they are pursuing profits. They aren't in the business of directly "creating jobs" or "benefitting society," but those effects occur indirectly through the firms making as much money as they can.

But even here, "profits" -- how they exist, where they come from, and how they are timed -- have a crucial legal and regulatory function. A recent paper from the University of Chicago looking at private equity found that "a reasonable estimate of the value of lower taxes due to increased leverage for the 1980s might be 10 to 20 percent of firm value," which is value that comes from taxpayers to private equity as a result of the tax code. Can you talk more about this?

JK: That sounds about right. If you took away this deduction, you'd still have takeovers, but you'd have a lot less leverage and the buyer would be forced to really improve the company in order to make profits. I think that would be a great thing.

If you look at the dividends stuff that private equity firms do, and Bain is one of the worst offenders, if you increase the short-term earnings of a company you then use those new earnings to borrow more money. That money goes right back to the private equity firm in dividends, making it quite a quick profit. More importantly, most companies can't handle that debt load twice. Just as they are in a position to reduce debt, they are getting hit with maximum leverage again. It's very hard for companies to take that hit twice.

If you look at Ted Forstmann, an original private equity person who just passed away, he would rail against dividends in this manner -- borrowing money to pay out dividends. He was more interested in taking companies public and selling shares and paying down debts and collecting proceeds that way. I can respect that a lot more. The initial private equity model was that you would make money by reselling your company or taking it public, not by levering it a second time.

Private equity and buyouts started as a way to take advantage of tax gimmicks, not as a way of saying "we're going to turn around companies." And now it's out of control. I look at the 10 largest deals done in the 1990s, during ideal economic times, and in six cases it was clear that the company was worse off than if they never been acquired. Moody's just put out a report in December that looked at the 40 largest buyouts of this era and showed that their revenue was growing at 4 percent since their buyout, while comparable companies were growing at 14 percent.

In January -- so just in the past 12 days -- Hostess, the largest bakery in the country, just went bankrupt. Coach, the largest bus company, just went bankrupt. And Quizno's is about to go bankrupt. All of these were owned by private equity.

MK: This battle is part of a larger discussion of, in Henry Manne's phrase, "the market for corporate control." The tax code is set to overlever firms, which require increases in earnings to go toward debt payments instead of research and development, expansion, and other things that build the firm. What could we change to generate different outcomes?

JK: That's exactly right. Right after this goes on for a few years, you've starved your firm of human and operating capital. Five years later, when the private equity leaves, the company will collapse -- you can't starve a company for that long. This is what the history of private equity shows.

What I'd like to see Mitt Romney do is to show an example of a buyout that went well. The only success stories he's talking about on any level are venture capital investments -- Staples and Sports Authority. Personally I like venture capital, I think it provides a lot of value, but that's not what he did mostly, and that's not what these takeovers are about.

The big fix I'd encourage is an end to interest-tax deducibility for leveraged buyouts. The tax system encourages companies to borrow as much as they can. For certain industries, like telecom, these deductions might make a lot of sense. But it was never intended for financing leveraged buyouts. If you put a cap on this you would find buyouts and private equity firms that were much more focused on building companies.

Share This

Cordray's Recess Appointment Helps Implement a Law That Already Passed

Jan 4, 2012Mike Konczal

President Obama rightfully sidestepped a GOP that insists on dismantling a law that addresses some of the fundamental breakdowns of the crisis.

President Obama rightfully sidestepped a GOP that insists on dismantling a law that addresses some of the fundamental breakdowns of the crisis.

One way to think about how the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act goes about policing finance is that it levels the playing field of rules and regulations between bank and non-bank financial firms. In the lead up to the crisis, financial firms acted like "shadow banks" without having to follow the rules regular banks did. The legal and regulatory infrastructure that evolved since the Great Depression for regular banks was never extended to these new shadow banks.

This was especially true for consumer financial products, particularly home mortgages. There's a solid regulatory network for home mortgages in place when it comes to regular banks. However, when it came to subprime mortgages made through non-bank lenders, those rules didn't apply. Many financial regulators urged Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to have the Fed start regulating subprime and leveling the regulatory playing field. So did the GAO and a HUD-Treasury task force. Greenspan wouldn’t. Hence Dodd-Frank's emphasis on reducing regulatory arbitrage by creating a special Bureau to consolidate consumer financial protection in one place.

But the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) needs a director in order to start working on reducing the uneven playing field. As a recent report noted, "[w]ithout a Director, the CFPB cannot fully supervise non‐bank financial institutions such as independent payday lenders, non‐bank mortgage lenders, non‐bank mortgage servicers, debt collectors, credit reporting agencies and private student lenders." Enter our dysfunctional Senate.

In early May of 2011, 44 Republican Senators signed onto a letter that requested three specific changes before they confirmed any nominee, "regardless of party affiliation," to head the CFPB. The changes included replacing "the single Director with a board to oversee the Bureau" and subjecting "the Bureau to the Congressional appropriations process."

Dodd-Frank, signed into law in July 2010, created a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that had a single director and was consciously funded in a very specific way. In order for the CFPB to fully work, it needs an appointed director -- certain powers don't kick in otherwise. So in effect a minority of Republican Senators say that they won't allow an act of law to be fully implemented unless certain, crucial, parts of the law are overturned.

Sign up for weekly ND2.0 highlights, mind-blowing stats, and event alerts.

People are correctly referring to this as a new nullification crisis (see also here). Brookings Scholar Thomas Mann notes that insisting "that a legitimately passed law be changed before allowing it to function with a director [is] a modern-day form of nullification. Same with the director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. There is nothing normal or routine about this. The Senate policing of non-cabinet appointments is sometimes more aggressive but the current practice goes well beyond that, more like pre-Civil War days than 20th century practice." This has also gone on with the NLRB and, in a way, went on with the debt ceiling battle. Eventually the administration needed to challenge this.

So it's great to see it recess appoint Richard Cordray as director. ThinkProgress outlines the initial legal analysis as to why Obama has the power to do this. Cordray will make a great director for the CFPB and the Bureau will continue to do the excellent work that it has already done.

It's a shame that more confirmations weren't pushed through with this window. A large number of financial regulator positions need to be filled, and even more judicial spots sit empty. In terms of building a longer-term, ascendent liberalism, it is essential to appoint people such as judges and nurture them to become strong leaders in the future.

It is uncertain whether this will shut down the confirmation process in the Senate, which may escalate tensions. If so, it will be a good time to reexamine how confirmations happen in the Senate more broadly. This is a part of government that was never meant to work the way it does now, and it is having serious consequences for the country.

Mike Konczal is a Fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.

Share This

Are the .01% Capitalists?

Dec 22, 2011Bruce Judson

money-question-150The super-rich might not be so outraged by accusations that they haven't earned their money fairly if they didn't know it was true.

money-question-150The super-rich might not be so outraged by accusations that they haven't earned their money fairly if they didn't know it was true.

Thanks to the Occupy movement, the extreme inequality in America has become a focus of the national dialogue. Recently, several of the super-rich have stepped forward to defend their place in society. Leon Cooperman, the billionaire founder of  Omega Advisors, a hedge fund sponsor and previously a senior official at Goldman Sachs, wrote a much publicized letter to President Obama, while Bloomberg News reported that Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase & Co, used a question at an investor conference as an opportunity to say that "Acting like everyone who's been successful is bad and because you're rich you're bad, I don't understand it."

For me, the question is not why there seems to be an outpouring of criticism and anger at the rich but whether it's justified. My answer is straightforward: Many of today's super-rich, particularly in the financial sector, have achieved their wealth in ways that are fundamentally anti-capitalist. As a consequence, people are justifiably wondering whether we have an economy that operates on the principles of capitalism or of oligarchy.

A central tenet of capitalism is that those who create the greatest wealth for society should receive the highest compensation. This is the ideal that has for generations motivated Americans and led to the admiration, indeed often veneration, of the rich. These wealthiest members of our society are seen as the people that have helped make us all somewhat better off.  As a result, they deserve their rewards.

What the Occupy movement and others are questioning is whether making us all better off is, in fact, what has made people "rich" and "successful" (Mr. Dimon's words) in the current era. Are the rich and successful the creators of wealth and jobs for all of us, or are they the predators and moochers (Ayn Rand's term in Atlas Shrugged), the reverse Robin Hoods who succeed by finding ways to redistribute wealth upwards?

To me, it's also notable that the most virulent complaints of the 1% seem to come from those in the financial sector. As I talk with wealthy Internet titans, I hear almost universal praise for our societal focus on income inequality. In essence, the complaints emanating from our financial titans have the ring of Shakespeare's famous phrase in Hamlet, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Let's examine the ways in which many of today's highest income Americans, originating in the financial sector, are reverse Robin Hoods rather than wealth creators:

First, as I have written in earlier articles, the financial sector now operates outside all of the disciplines that are inherent in capitalism, from accountability for terrible business decisions to the enforcement of fair bargains to retribution for malfeasance. On the contrary, Bloomberg News recently disclosed massive secret Federal Reserve support for failing banks. This has led to an emerging consensus that the financial sector is socially useless or acutally destroys our overall societal wealth. Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman wrote in his New York Times column that:

[A]fter the debacle of the past two years, there's broad agreement -- I'm tempted to say, agreement on the part of almost everyone not on the financial industry's payroll -- with Mr. Turner's assertion that a lot of what Wall Street and the City [London's stock exchange] do is "socially useless."

In addition, it seems almost undeniable that, in the absence of the excessive anti-capitalist activities of the financial sector over the past decade, our entire society would now be wealthier. I wonder whether many of the "rich" and "successful" who have emerged in this arena would have achieved this wealth if they had been forced to compete on a level, fair playing field governed by the disciplines and rules of actual capitalism.

Sign up for weekly ND20 highlights, mind-blowing stats, and event alerts.

Second, finance is an intermediary good. It is not an end in itself, but a means of greasing the wheels to make the economy run better. In a capitalist system the purpose of finance is to help limit risk (for example, by allowing a farmer to hedge against price drops in grain) or efficiently allocate investment capital in support of the long-term growth of new enterprises. According to AR Magazine, the top 25 hedge fund executives earned $22 billion in 2010. In addition, a recent report indicated that, despite the recession, Wall Street was on track for a record year in bonuses, while the financial sector now accounts for 29 percent of all U.S. corporate profits. Since the Census Bureau just reported one in every two Americans is poor or low income, this suggests some kind of massive disconnect between the operating purpose of the financial services sector and the wealth it is accumulating for itself versus the benefits is it creating for our larger economy.

Third, in a capitalist economy, all zero-sum activities which have a winner and loser with no growth in societal value,  are, at best worthless. Yet the majority of hedge funds, Wall Street traders, quants (the people who created sophisticated trading models), and issuers of so-called naked Credit Default Swaps all make money largely through zero-sum activities or high-speed trading (which now accounts for an estimated 75 percent of all equity trading in the U.S.), none of which are oriented toward creating value for society. This suggests, as David Cay Johnston pointed out in a recent column, that the entire business associated with so-called naked Credit Default Swaps is zero-sum gambling and should be illegal. At minimum, it has no value in a capitalist economy.

Moreover, the marginal societal benefits of hedge fund activities, if they exist, are almost certainly offset by the other costs they impose on our society. They create the potential for systematic risk to the overall economy, while hedge funds and other high-paying Wall Street activities also lead to the terrible allocation of talent in our nation. An important share of the nation's top talent is now gravitating to high-paying finance activities, engaged in determining new arbitrage strategies rather than creating the businesses that will create the next generation of jobs and real wealth the country so desperately needs.

In short, I would deem the billions of dollars in bonuses and earnings from hedge fund activity, several large lines of business, and high-speed trading on Wall Street to be antithetical to the capitalism that has helped to make America great. I recognize that I am undoubtedly painting with too broad a brush, but the fundamental point remains.

Finally, many of the rich are not playing by the same rules as the rest of Americans, and in our democracy people resent this basic unfairness. Hedge funds and private equity firms have used their political influence to ensure that the carried interest rule -- which allows a large portion of their earnings to be taxed at 15 percent as opposed to ordinary income rates -- remains in place.

So this brings me back to my original question: Are there a sizable number of the "rich" and "successful," particularly among the most notable members in the financial services sector, who don't meet even the most basic definitions of practicing capitalists?

If so, then perhaps the emerging dialogue over wealth in America is justified and represents an important examination of whether the country's economy has strayed from a core value in the capitalist ideal. Is the vitriol we are now hearing really fear that soon crony capitalism, socialism for the rich, and corporatism will no longer guide national policy?

Bruce Judson is Entrepreneur-in-Residence at the Yale Entrepreneurial Institute and a former Senior Faculty Fellow at the Yale School of Management.

Share This

Why Isn't the SEC Cracking Down Harder on Banks?

Dec 15, 2011Bruce Judson

money-justice-scalesBetween underfunding and the perpetual revolving door, it's clear that the SEC isn't helping the system function well.

money-justice-scalesBetween underfunding and the perpetual revolving door, it's clear that the SEC isn't helping the system function well.

In an earlier column, I wrote about the intersection of equal justice under the law and capitalism. The idea of fair bargain is central to a capitalist economy: Both the buyer and seller in any transaction must believe they fully understand the nature of the good being bought or sold (i.e. no fraud is involved). Since no one is omniscient, the remedy for bargains that the buyer or seller believes are unfair is legal enforcement. At the same time, both parties to the transaction must believe wrongdoing by either party will be enforced with equal vigor.

At the time, I referenced the SEC case against Citigroup and criticized the relatively small fine the SEC had imposed, suggesting it was evidence of a broader problem related to meaningful enforcement of the laws by the agency. As background, SEC settlements must be ratified by the court, and a central aspect of these SEC settlements is that defendants "neither admit nor deny the allegations." Rarely does the court fail to endorse an agreement proposed by the SEC, since it's the prosecuting party. Since then, the Citigroup case has received considerable attention, as U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff rejected the proposed settlement, calling it "neither reasonable, nor fair, nor adequate, nor in the public interest."  He both criticized the typical SEC "neither admit nor deny" form of settlement and called the SEC negotiated fine "pocket change" for Citigroup. Today, The Wall Street Journal indicated that the SEC enforcement division is expected to recommend to SEC commissioners that the Judge's decision be appealed.

These recent events beg a deeper look at the system of SEC enforcement. Why has the SEC apparently pursued such minimal settlements? The answers are surprising in that they reflect a wide discrepancy of views.

I found three very different explanations. But they all suggest that we have a broken system that must be fixed so that capitalism can operate properly.

First, the SEC enforcement division is underfunded and therefore lacks the resources to pursue a large number of complex trials. Critics say this reflects a deliberate effort by Congress, influenced by large financial institutions, to prevent punishment for malfeasance.  If true, this suggests yet another example of how our largest financial institutions  are preventing actual capitalism from functioning, often in ways that are not obvious.

Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s key headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

Second, without the no admission of guilt clause, defendants would open themselves up to a stream of well-funded plaintiff actions based on admitted guilt and even risk bankruptcy. In essence, the proponents of this explanation suggest SEC fines are considered a cost of doing business, but if injured customers have an adequate chance of redress then the punishment will more closely relate to the injuries caused by the illegal actions involved and this worries the banks. Judge Rakoff's opinion sharply criticized the settlement in this regard, indicating it "depriv[ed] the pubic of ever knowing the truth in a matter of obvious public importance."

Third, it can be explained by the revolving door, where former SEC enforcement officials are "going to work for the very same firms they used to police." Top SEC enforcement officials represent some the clearest examples of people who move out of government to high paying jobs in the private sector. This has a chilling effect on the efficacy of SEC efforts related to the largest, most powerful institutions. If true, we need to find a fair system that will both attract talent to the SEC but prevent this phenomenon.

There are several implications to these different explanations for what is clearly a broken system. Without the deterrent effect of the credible threat of law enforcement, the financial services industry will continue its malfeasance. The additional deterrent effect of successful private lawsuits based on a pre-existing admission of guilt is lost when the SEC uses the no admission of guilt standard. This raises a central question: Is the SEC's role in our society to punish and deter malfeasance, or is it to help victims more easily recover losses resulting from misconduct? If it is the latter, then finding the actual truth of guilt or innocence would serve a strong societal interest.

Additionally, the knowledge that the SEC always settles suits will inevitably start to enter into the thinking of potential bad actors. Here again the deterrent effect is minimized. It becomes easy to imagine bad actors discussing an issue and saying, "What's the worst that could happen? We will settle with the SEC for far less than we will make on this deal and the details will never become public." Meanwhile, malfeasance by the financial sector has caused millions of people to suffer.

There are solutions to these problems. The Obama administration must insist on far more extensive funding for SEC enforcement. Then we need to remember the famous words of Justice Brandeis, who said, "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." Perhaps, as recently discussed by The New York Times, it's time to reconsider the maximum size and concentration of power in our financial institutions, which seem to consistently interfere with the fair operation of capitalism.

Bruce Judson is Entrepreneur-in-Residence at the Yale Entrepreneurial Institute and a former Senior Faculty Fellow at the Yale School of Management.

Share This

Bruce Judson on the Societal Dangers of Income Inequality

Dec 8, 2011Bryce Covert

money-justice-scalesI got the chance to talk with Bruce Judson, who has been writing the "Restoring Capitalism" column and whose comprehensive plan for reversing the rise in economic inequality will be published as an e-book

money-justice-scalesI got the chance to talk with Bruce Judson, who has been writing the "Restoring Capitalism" column and whose comprehensive plan for reversing the rise in economic inequality will be published as an e-book, Making Capitalism Work for the 99%: A Manifesto, this week. We talked about his work before the financial crisis that examined the startling rise of income inequality in the U.S., how it can lead to social unrest and instability, and what course we must take to correct these trends.

Bryce Covert: You talked about the societal dangers of growing income inequality in your 2009 book It Could Happen Here before it was on the national agenda. What made you pay attention to the trend?

Bruce Judson: I started discussing the book with Harper Collins in 2007. At that time, a number of prominent people were also very concerned about it, including Paul Krugman, Robert Reich, Elizabeth Warren, and Roosevelt Institute Chief Economist Joseph Stiglitz. They all said it was dangerous for our democracy. But I kept wondering why. What happens next? So I started my own research.

In the book, I took a historic perspective on what happens when extreme inequality arises in a society. It describes a series of steps, or a narrative, for how growing economic inequality can ultimately lead a democracy to implode. The book argued that if economic inequality in America continued unchecked, it would lead to a dysfunctional economy, even greater political polarization, ultimately political paralysis, anger and mistrust throughout the society, protests, and eventually reform or some type of political instability.

Sadly, each of the stages of misery seems to be happening like dominoes falling. And I am convinced the Occupy movement reflects the coalescing of the deep and unfortunate anger that pervades our society as a result.

BC: What historical trends stood out as most similar to our situation?

BJ: I was terrified by the similarities between our society and the era of the Great Depression. As a nation, we were moving toward levels of economic inequality we had not seen since the financial crash of the late 1920s. My reading of history, of events surrounding the New Deal era and the Depression, is that excess inequality tended to be associated with high speculation and a lack of appropriate constraints on the financial industry.

In essence, I came to believe growing economic inequality was intimately linked to economic catastrophe, which would be so great that it would tear our social fabric.

BC: Why is inequality so destabilizing and dangerous?

BJ: There are very few things in America that are taboo. But one thing we never, ever talk about is the potential for political instability in the U.S. We're taught as children that we had one great revolution. We take the stability of our democracy for granted.

But economic inequality is very dangerous, and the reason is that in our society wealth and power go together. As wealth becomes substantial, it starts to use its political power to ensure its hegemony and mucks up the important, competitive elements that make capitalism work. Over time, what was formally a vibrant economy with efficient markets becomes an inefficient, dysfunctional one.

Here's a recent example. The New York Times wrote that Wall Street does not want a transparent market for swaps and that Washington politicians were listening to its demands. The reason for the opposition is that, in effect, traders make more money by keeping "prices in the shadows." A transparent market means that you have the equivalent of a stock exchange, where all participants can see the prices of recent trades. That's all it means.

It's hard for me to see how this would even be a serious discussion if the financial industry did not have political influence. Is there any public interest in a market that is opaque, rather than transparent?

BC: What does inequality mean for the middle class, which is the foundation of our country's economy?

BJ: Early America lacked the class barriers then prevalent in Europe: Everyone mixed with each other. This led the more fortunate to have empathy and a visceral understanding for the problems of the less fortunate. As economic inequality has increased, we see far less mixing among people at different income levels. Now everyone has less of a sense that they are part of one large community and that we have a responsibility to each other.

Political theorists, going back to Aristotle, have all concluded that a vibrant middle class is essential for a vibrant democracy. The members of the middle class hope to move up, so they want mobility to remain a desirable option, but they also fear moving down, so they are more likely to support a social safety net. In essence, the middle is the group that ensures stability as a barrier to legislative extremes that unduly reward the wealthy or harm the poor.

Unfortunately, inequality that chips away at the middle class can lead to violence. There was violence that occurred in the Depression, with riots in the Midwest. People also started to take the law into their own hands. In penny auctions, after your farm was foreclosed on, you showed up at the courthouse with all of your friends -- farmers who had their rifles with them -- and took over the bidding and bought back your farm for penny. As income inequality increases, the dispossessed may start to feel they have been treated unfairly and things can get ugly.

BC: Your work also predicted revolution. What's your current take?

BJ: The book did not predict revolution. The book said that if we allow income inequality to continue growing unchecked, then we would face a high risk of political instability or revolution. We discussed earlier how the book detailed a series of stages, or a narrative, for how growing economic inequality can lead to social upheaval. Unfortunately the narrative I detailed seems to be happening.

My best estimate is we have now passed through 60 percent of the narrative. A lot needs to happen before the risk of political instability becomes a reality. I am hopeful that with inequality now on the national agenda, we will see the reforms needed.

Sign up to have the Daily Digest, a witty take on the morning’s key headlines, delivered straight to your inbox.

BC: You've lately been focused on the dysfunctional aspects of our economy, particularly housing. What are their implications?

BJ: My take on much of the dysfunction in our economy today is that we have lost sight of what I call "actual capitalism." Instead, we have a strange system that people have variously described as crony capitalism, socialism for the rich, and corporatism. This shift is destabilizing our economic system as well as our democracy.

The housing crisis is even more significant because of its potential impact on our social fabric. Foreclosure can be one of life's most traumatic events. The 14 million people expected to face foreclosure will have lost their down payment, their dignity, their sense of belonging to a community, and their way of life. Do policy-makers seriously believe we can foreclose on one-quarter of all the mortgages in the nation without any social backlash?

This is a national tragedy. It is also a potentially dangerous brew. It would be natural for many of these millions of people, who are reading about bank malfeasance and enormous salaries in the financial sector, to conclude that they unfairly lost their homes so that a privileged few could realize enormous incomes and remain above the law. What happens to that anger? How will all of the children in these families believe in the American Dream?

What is striking to me is the lack of energy or creativity that has been applied to the problem. To fix our economy and society, we need to prioritize keeping homeowners in possession of their homes. This was one of the main goals of the New Deal, and as a result all kinds of valuable, creative financial mechanisms were created. The 30-year mortgage was effectively invented as part of the New Deal (at the time mortgages typically ran only five years), and the Federal Housing Administration was created in 1934. We absolutely can develop innovative solutions. But we have allowed a dangerous sense of complacency and inevitability to take over.

BC: Does the emergence of the Occupy Wall Street movement make you more or less hopeful for the nation's future?

BJ: It absolutely makes me hopeful that we will start to see some meaningful reforms. The Occupy movement is casting a bright and unforgiving light on some of the unacceptable practices in our society that, sadly, have become commonplace.

I believe the Occupy movement is not going away. The reason it grew so quickly is that it was the flashpoint for the country's anger and widespread feelings of unfairness. It's almost inevitable that in some way it will expand to include people who feel they've been unfairly foreclosed on, the record numbers of Americans experiencing long-term unemployment, and many of the unemployed in general who feel they've been cheated out of the opportunity to work - mainstream America.

The danger is that if the Occupy movement does not succeed, and nothing takes its place, we will move further along the narrative I described.

BC: We are heading into the presidential election season. What kind of leadership will be needed to reverse growing income inequality?

BJ: In Senator Jim Web's terrific book A Time to Fight, he noted that no aristocracy in history has given up its power willingly. Unfortunately, I believe that to change course will require a knockdown drag-out fight. And it's not going to be about consensus. It's going to require political leaders with courage who stand up and fight for what is right.

We certainly saw the need for this kind of conflict in the era of the New Deal. FDR was called a "traitor to his class." During his reelection campaign, he spoke at Madison Square Garden and said that never had the forces of "organized money" been "so united against one candidate" and "They are unanimous in their hate for me -- and I welcome their hatred." This kind of language gives you a sense of the antagonism that arose when Roosevelt worked to reverse extreme economic inequality.

BC: What action do we need to take to reverse these trends?

BJ: My comprehensive thinking on these issues, and how they could be addressed with specific policies, is in the new book, Making Capitalism Work for the 99%: A Manifesto.

Economic inequality has been building for over thirty years. It's so pervasive in our society that no single policy, such as a change in tax rates, will fix it. We need to recognize that reversing this trend will require a determined, systematic approach somewhat like the New Deal.

I think we need to act in four areas:

First, we must return to actual capitalism. This means accountability, the rule of law, fair and competitive markets, compensation, appropriate to the value created for society (by getting rid of many special privileges and protections now given to the financial sector), and several other reforms. If we recreate such a system, we will also see the return of an economic system that is far more conducive to job creation.

Second, we have to talk about tax policy. The capital gains rate is at the lowest point since World War II, and the carried interest rule seems like an unfair privilege.

Right now, 75 percent of all equity trading in the nation is high-speed, meaning computer-driven, activity. This type of massive speculation and arbitrage has little, if any, societal value. The proposed federal transaction tax would help address this. It would raise several hundred billion dollars in tax revenues over the next decade and to some extent tamp down on trading designed to take advantage of minute price variations by making it unprofitable.

Third, we've got to be far more creative in developing policies to keep people as owners of their homes. This must be a priority.

Fourth, we need to return to individual states the right to protect their citizens in economic matters. One missed check on the failure of the federal government in allowing the financial crisis to happen could have been state regulators. The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission found that they tried, but were prohibited from, protecting their citizens because of federal preemption.

Of course there is one overriding issue here. Economic inequality is dangerous because wealth leads to political power. To accomplish a systematic reform agenda, we must eliminate the influence of money in politics; if that prevents all of this, then these ideas are all irrelevant.

Share This

Pages