Home » Money » Popular Front

Popular Front

President Obama has finally taken a more populist tone on the economy by proposing that the TARP money given to the financial institutions in the midst of crisis be repaid by a special tax on large banks.  It’s a good start, but only a start.  What matters is how this plays out over the next few weeks and whether or not it catches on.  Less obvious, however, is that support of this approach is going to be good politics for everyone as we head into an election year, Democrats and Republicans alike.

The proposal at hand is nothing more than a step towards what I proposed in the first place, which is a kind of insurance system for large financial institutions.  The basic is idea is that an independent panel of underwriters should periodically evaluate the risk inherent in the whole system and charge a premium to everyone for the costs of our government being “the insurer of last resort”. When they get behind, as they have done lately, the premiums go up across the board for everyone.

That is something like what the FDIC does.  Back when smaller banks were the engine of our economy, this form of insurance stopped the panics that were triggering bank failures and became the first step towards recovery in the last Depression.  Since our system is a bit bigger and more complicated than it was then, a more comprehensive kind of FDIC is needed to handle the whole job.  That’s what has been created in an ad hoc basis for this crisis.

Why is this still a problem?  Because we do not, as of yet, have any kind of comprehensive reform in place to prevent these abuses from happening yet again sometime later on.  The banks have been fighting it and Congress has been busy trying to figure out the politics of this and health care and a few other things.  What has been proposed is an overly complicated bureaucratic system that lacks clear lines of responsibility and, more importantly, good incentives for good behavior.  That’s where the Republicans need to step up and do something other than whine about “socialism”.

Regulation is, obviously, needed.  What’s less obvious is something that I think that everyone should be able to agree on, which is the need for market-like forces that promote self-regulation in the industry.  That’s where insurance comes in.  The last bubble was created, in part, by fantastic short-term gains by companies that took on huge risks that they really didn’t understand (or care to).  They were able to do this because derivative contracts allowed them to spread the risk out through the whole market in ways that made everything less stable.

This all became a bubble when large (and previously conservative) institutions started to get their butts kicked by high-fliers who could promise very high returns.  There was a ton of competitive pressure for everyone to get into the game, and so they did.  Insurance premiums that assessed this risk properly would have met that pressure with an incentive for the industry to self-regulate in order to keep the premiums down.

Insurance by itself is not self-regulation, of course, but it’s a piece of the puzzle.  The problem is that an oligarchy of banks will always naturally form because competition encourages them to off-load risk on the greater system of banking.  Those who can ditch the risk that they won’t be paid back are the ones who get rich.  Without incentives for banks to act against the oligarchy and be genuinely competitive, which is to say have an immediate reason to resist taking on everyone else’s risk, they will always go along with the latest trends in banking.

That’s where the Republicans come in.  I doubt that they will be able to come up with a system of strong market forces that create a genuinely self-regulating system, but I dare them to try.  Whatever they do come up with will be a genuine contribution to the debate and help us to move forward with a regulation system that will be inherently stronger – and probably less costly overall to the banks.  Why not give it a try?

The only reason for them to not take up this challenge is that they are too embedded in the system as we know it to understand that change is inevitable.  Let’s hope that the dose of populism injected by Obama changes the political game just enough that some kind of regulation – and repayment – becomes a given.  There’d be no excuse for cowardice if the Democrats can ratchet it up just that far.

Of course, I’m still waiting for a real WPA and a focus on the cost of creating jobs.  Those may seem like a distraction in the twisted politics of Washingtoon, but they are how the economy will be restructured properly.  What the Democrats need to understand is that a bit more populism might force some of these other nasty issues, like financial regulation, to move forward much quicker.  Here’s hoping.

This argument is building on a lot of old arguments that I’ve made over the last two years.  Those are imbedded in the links, which I invite you to follow.  Thanks.

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “Popular Front

  1. You’re basically asking them to be more populist and act more like adults at the same time. Good luck with that. 🙂

    Seriously, I doubt that they are going to be able to do any kind of self-regulation because they have no interest in doing so. If pressure is put on banks to either do it right or invite regulation up the ying-yang, they might be willing to take it on. I say it’s time to make that a real threat.

  2. What is on the table for regulation? I heard that with Dodd retiring there is a new push for a legacy bill with his name on it, but has that been written yet? I haven’t heard the details.

  3. They need to have the hammer come down on them hard. I saw how smug they were in front of Congress yesterday – these guys aren’t going to do a thing until they are forced to.

  4. Jim, the Dodd Bill is being written by a series of bi-partisan sub-committees that Dodd is overseeing (still love that word, “oversee”!). We do not have any solid details yet. The complex financial ovisight (ha!) system proposed by Obama hasn’t really gotten anywhere yet.

    I agree that a real threat of serious regulation of the old-fashioned “nothing will happen” style is not a bad idea right now. The problem is that banks clearly think that they can head off something like that by getting their buddies to whine about “socialism” again. The politics has to change to the point where they believe that there is a real credible threat, and I think the best way to do that is to get way out in front of the politics and get seriously populist. I hope that happens – and I hope that a sense of pragmatism helps keep it all real. Yes, I know that’s a lot to ask, believe me!

  5. Who’s getting their mojo back? I really don’t know probably could tell you a thing or two in a couple of weeks. My high school son wants to invest $100 in a stock market club/group at Como school. I ask him can he afford to lose that $100 I have mixed feelings. I’d almost rather have him buy an old car and fix it up but that seems out of style. He hardly can do his laundry a part of me can’t wait to grow old and say I told you so. Part of me still likes the old passbook savings accounts. God I’m old.

  6. I’m with you, Dan. I still say that banking should be boring – every time someone comes up with an exciting new idea in banking, saving, or investing there’s probably something that was overlooked in the process. It sure seems to work out that way.

    I feel old just for suggesting that the way out is some kind of insurance system, after all. Maybe I am old.

  7. Pingback: "Tax the TARP" is probably only a 1st step. Does populism make bad regulation? Maybe not. « Economics Info

  8. Erik take your kid(s) to the #1 bollywood film 3 idiots at wynsong or see it soon on dvd. Follows three indian engineers through college and 10 years later. Great fun and very educating!! Great idea for an essay compare bollywoods 3 idiots to hollywoods transformers talk about optimism vs. pessimism

  9. Dan, that sounds like a good recommendation. It’s really easy to see how we’ve lost our way when we get a chance to contrast our culture with another one. Maybe that’s why so many people are fearful of other cultures!

  10. Pingback: and Statistics « Barataria – the work of Erik Hare

  11. Pingback: State of the Union: Serious « Barataria – the work of Erik Hare

  12. Pingback: Big Issues, Smaller Words « Barataria – the work of Erik Hare

  13. Pingback: Fried in Greece « Barataria – the work of Erik Hare

  14. Pingback: Fault Tolerance | Barataria – The work of Erik Hare

  15. Pingback: Risky Business | Barataria – The work of Erik Hare

Like this Post? Hate it? Tell us!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s