Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Busts Keep Getting Bigger: Why?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Derechos Donating Member (892 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-25-11 12:32 AM
Original message
The Busts Keep Getting Bigger: Why?
Paul Krugman and Robin Wells review Age of Greed: The Triumph of Finance and the Decline of America, 1970 to the Present by Jeff Madrick

Suppose we describe the following situation: major US financial institutions have badly overreached. They created and sold new financial instruments without understanding the risk. They poured money into dubious loans in pursuit of short-term profits, dismissing clear warnings that the borrowers might not be able to repay those loans. When things went bad, they turned to the government for help, relying on emergency aid and federal guarantees—thereby putting large amounts of taxpayer money at risk—in order to get by. And then, once the crisis was past, they went right back to denouncing big government, and resumed the very practices that created the crisis.

What year are we talking about?

We could, of course, be talking about 2008–2009, when Citigroup, Bank of America, and other institutions teetered on the brink of collapse, and were saved only by huge infusions of taxpayer cash. The bankers have repaid that support by declaring piously that it’s time to stop “banker-bashing,” and complaining that President Obama’s (very) occasional mentions of Wall Street’s role in the crisis are hurting their feelings.

But we could also be talking about 1991, when the consequences of vast, loan-financed overbuilding of commercial real estate in the 1980s came home to roost, helping to cause the collapse of the junk-bond market and putting many banks—Citibank, in particular—at risk. Only the fact that bank deposits were federally insured averted a major crisis. Or we could be talking about 1982–1983, when reckless lending to Latin America ended in a severe debt crisis that put major banks such as, well, Citibank at risk, and only huge official lending to Mexico, Brazil, and other debtors held an even deeper crisis at bay. Or we could be talking about the near crisis caused by the bankruptcy of Penn Central in 1970, which put its lead banker, First National City—later renamed Citibank—on the edge; only emergency lending from the Federal Reserve averted disaster.

You get the picture. The great financial crisis of 2008–2009, whose consequences still blight our economy, is sometimes portrayed as a “black swan” or a “100-year flood”—that is, as an extraordinary event that nobody could have predicted. But it was, in fact, just the most recent installment in a recurrent pattern of financial overreach, taxpayer bailout, and subsequent Wall Street ingratitude. And all indications are that the pattern is set to continue.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jul/14/busts-keep-getting-bigger-why/?pagination=false
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Dawson Leery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-25-11 12:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-25-11 01:04 AM
Response to Original message
2. Hmm...with this headline, I was thinking there was going to be a whole 'nother story posted.
(with pictures)

I know. I should grow the hell up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cresent City Kid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-25-11 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. You mean the busts in the Pro Football Hall of Fame right?
Seriously though, the pattern of over reaching and bust is apparent and the severity of the bust seems to be proprotional to the lack of regulations or of enforcement of the ones in place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eShirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-25-11 05:45 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. I also clicked thinking to find a story on plastic surgery.
Edited on Sat Jun-25-11 05:46 AM by eShirl
(kick)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Gill Donating Member (183 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-25-11 01:34 AM
Response to Original message
3. Forgetfulness, and lack of knowledge
Because the only people that study and remember these events are economists and bankers. And nobody in Congress listens to economists
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-25-11 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. They listen to the Freidmanites with bated breath.
I remember Sheldon Whitehouse almost pleading and bargaining with some skank from the IMF about investing in infrastructure which she crapped out and then he asked about at least repairing what we have that is the Federal government's responsibility to keep up and she said that was also bad (despite accepting costs would magnify in the future due to inflation and things growing into greater states of disrepair.

I knew right then and there that operation austerity and dismantle was coming. Whitehouse was the only one even trying to make a case all of the "adults in the room" were nodding, agreeing, and discussing cuts and not revenue.

This was with generational high numbers in the Senate and one of the largest majorities in history. They might not have had the power to re-invent the wheel but I find the suggestion that keeping existing bridges up, replacing some water mains, and keeping the integrity of sewage lines should be feasible.

If you need 65-80 fucking Senators to patch bridges then it is time to turn out the fucking lights, admit the great experiment has failed, and apologize to the Brits for the disruption while begging to become a colony again.

They listen intently to the stooges of their patrons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PoliticAverse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-25-11 03:00 AM
Response to Original message
6. Because the risk is socalized and the profits are privatized. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-25-11 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
8. HUGE K & R !!!
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 06:05 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC