Too Big to Fail or Too Stupid to Stop - Screw banks/not people

This morning, amidst news of Moodys cutting Greece's debt rating to Caa1, I came across a phrase I wish I'd thought of first, reading through a friend's morning commentary. The phrase? "Too Stupid to Stop". 

According to Bill Blain, Senior Director at Newedge in London, and self-professed Euro skeptic, "'Too Stupid to Stop' is based on politicians behaving as rational maximisers of their electoral objectives." He was referring to the real reason behind all the bank-demanded bailout loans for austerity measures throughout Europe.

In the United States, that mantra can be extended to include appointed officials, like Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner (still not admitting our record debt increase came directly from the $4 trillion worth of Treasury issuance and other forms of assistance extended to our banking system since late 2008, as we endure his stomach-churning 'show-begging' to the GOP for a debt cap raise) and Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke (ditto). It also, of course, applies to congress people whose political survival depends on corporate and bank contributions and financial support, the ones that believe the Dodd-Frank bill changes anything.

Rather than considering how governments have systematically done, and continue to do, the wrong (as in immoral, unfair, and uneconomically sound) thing by trying to preserve banks, any politicians possessing the ability to think independently (an oxymoron, I know) should be asking themselves instead, how clever they could be about closing them down. Take a cue from Iceland.

But, the 'Too Stupid to Stop" behavior, prevents this from occurring. 

Bill and I used to work together at Bear Stearns in London during the 1990s, before the Euro came into being. Then, arguments in favor of its inception were more about how it would lead to a 'much-needed' consolidation of political-economic control, rather than an engendering of widespread economic well-being to more European citizens, which didn't even enter the realm of political discussion.

Fifteen years, marked by global currency crises, a US recession caused by energy and telecommunications fraud, a bank fostered global Depression, and a persistent strategy to gouge citizens to pay for the sins of bankers, later -  nothing has changed.

What Greece should do is default. Not as a sign of economic weakness, but as a sign of protective strength befitting the notion of Democracy that the country is credited for having brought to the world. Default as an act of much-needed financial defiance and independence from the insatiability of banks.

Last year, Greece's bailout was fashioned in order to make foreign banks and their investors 'whole' on their investments in Greece. It had zero to do with strengthening Greece's local economy or its citizens' financial futures. Indeed, it was designed to further trash the Greek economy, to chain the country to untenable loan conditions that required selling assets at discount prices to pay off new and old debt, while callously condemning its population to decreased average wages and increased unemployment rates, particularly amongst the nation's youth.

Rather than telling those banks that were out the money - THEY HAD RISKED to begin with, to take the free-market, s**t happens, hit, all sorts of austerity measures were attached to the $157 billion bailout loan. They hurt citizens immediately in terms of reducing pension and other social-economic benefits, and hurt them ad infinitum by forcing ongoing fire sales of their national assets which resulted in job losses. The same banks on the hook for lending money to Greece during Phase 1 of the massive global leveraged bet gone wrong, demanded repayment for their risk (otherwise their investors would be upset). Now, they have a greater opportunity to scrounge (read: extract fees) for new deals via brokering European and global firms swooping in for fresh kill, amidst the remains of Greece's assets, such as communication and energy infrastructure.

And yet, rather than say - screw you - to the ECB and the IMF, and all the mega-banking conglomerates that signed off and received fees on deals and debt gone wrong, rather than say - you know what? - we owe a debt to OUR CITIZENS, not the banks that bet against them, and we don't like the terms of this arrangement, Greek politicians are saying - screw you citizens. Again.

Greece is set to present a brand new austerity plan on Friday calling for a FASTER pace of privatization, and more tax hikes on its citizens - just to be able to pay off bondholders and the risk incurred by international banks. This won't end well. If Greece does get a second bailout package, everyone will discover that absent a strategy to revive the local economy, the package will incur further pain, and at some point there won't be any national infrastructure left to sell, and unemployment will skyrocket further. A few bondholders will be happy temporarily because they DON'T CARE whether Greece succeeds or the ECB and IMF keeps creating debt to prop debt (like we do here in the US as a matter of economic policy), same difference. A few banks won't have to write down their losses for the same reason, and a few global corporations will have bought some more assets at rock-bottom prices in a country whose citizens won't be able to afford the payments that will be counted upon to price the related securitization deals. And Greece will be screwed even more.

The better plan would be to disband the Too Stupid to Stop mentality. Screw the banks. Sadly, it's a self-fullfilling downward spiral of incompetence - in Greece, Ireland, Portgual, Spain, Italy, and the United States where the Fed is gearing up for some verison of QE3 in the wake, ironically, of Euro-pay-the-banks, indenture-the-citizens, chaos.  

I have a feeling meanwhile, there will be a lot more Greeks protesting in the streets come Friday. 

Can't blame economic policy on Osama

When William Shakespeare penned the words, “All the world’s a stage“ in, As you like it, it was centuries before tense photos of tense leaders would show tense concern over tense military operations.

What transpired around the killing, or killing announcement, of Osama bin Laden has been astounding. Whether you believe that bin Laden was “taken out” by this NAVY Seal operation, after nearly a decade, two wars, an over 81% increase in the military budget, and thousands of deaths, following the tragic loss of life on 9/11, or whether you believe he was dead and iced years ago and strategically used as a sign of unflappable leadership, is irrelevant. The surrounding uproar was theatre of the extravagant, no matter how you slice it.

But, theatre was invented for distraction, in culture and in politics. So while all the Osama drama was unfolding, the Treasury Department issued another plea for raising the debt ceiling, aka supporting its pro-bank policy. It went something like this:  We need to borrow more to pay social security obligations and not default on our debt, so other countries won’t question our ability to manage an economy  (as if that hasn’t already happened) and we won’t have to pay more to borrow more. If we don’t – you know what’ll happen – yep, another financial crisis.

The actual quote was: “The debt limit is the total amount of money that the United States government is authorized to borrow to meet its existing legal obligations, including Social Security and Medicare benefits, military salaries, interest on the national debt, tax refunds, and other payments.”

Though technically correct, omitting the fact that our leaders chose to float the financial system on such an unprecedented scale with no obvious Main Street benefits - hence the massive and quick debt increase - continues to show an aversion to reality.

Flashback five years. George W. Bush’s second Treasury Secretary, John Snow, pled the same thing. (He wasn’t unique, of course, Congress has acted at Treasury Secretary request to raise the debt ceiling 78 times since 1960, 49 times under Republican presidents, 29 times under Democrats.) Snow threatened he was being forced to cut payments to civil servants, among other things, but didn’t mention the real reason for the debt hike requirement, like the Iraq war or the tax cuts that stifled revenue collection. He had used similar arguments at the end of 2004, at a time when the debt ceiling was about half what it is today.

Raising debt ceilings is a bi-partisan institution. The show is always the same. The Treasury Secretary begs Congress. Congress debates than agrees. No one questions the real reasons we pursued the excess borrowing.

Since Snow made his plea, a number of things happened; a continued war, an extra war, a collapse of the financial system, a subsidization of the financial system, a decline in employment, home prices, average wages for most of the population, and an increase in foreclosures, executive bonuses, and personal bankruptcies.

Hitting the debt ceiling isn’t about spending gone haywire because the Social Security and Medicaid buckets are too small for the people that rely on these programs; it’s about the big-ticket items– like recently, bailouts.

Here are some terms and numbers, intentionally blurred by those that control them. Feel free to jump ahead:

The total US debt is a combination of two things: the public debt (the amount of securities the Treasury issues in order to borrow money from international or national investors) and intragovernmental holdings (the amount of borrowing done from funds like the Social Security trust fund.) Public debt is always higher.

As of April 30, 2011 – the public debt stood at $9.63 trillion dollars and intragovernmental debt at $4.6trillion (68% and 32% respectively of the total debt of $14.24 trillion vs. a debt ceiling, or cap, of $14.294 trillion.)

In April 2010, public debt was $8.41 trillion and intragovernmental was $4.48 trillion (65% and 35% respectively of the total debt.) In April 2009, public debt was $6.91 trillion and intragovernmental was $4.27 (62% and 38% of the total debt. The debt cap then, was $12.14 trillion.

In April 2008, just after federal subsidization of the sale (read: hostile takeover) of Bear Stearns to JPM Chase, and before the rest of the big bailout began, public debt was $5.22 trillion, intragovernmental was $4.08 trillion (56% and 44% of the total debt.) The debt cap then, was $9.815 trillion.

In April 2007, public debt was $4.97 trillion, intragovernmental was $3.78 trillion (57% and 43% of the total debt.) The debt cap was $8.965 trillion.

Basically, what all these numbers show is that; public debt has nearly doubled since before the big bailout, while intragovernmental debt has increased just 15%.  Some (like Geithner, Bernanke, etc.) may argue that this balloon in public debt was required to save our economy, though there’s little evidence of it doing anything but cheaply floating our financial system, not least because nearly half of the additional $4.4 trillion of public debt that was created is stashed at the Fed as either excess reserves, QE1, or QE2. 

Now that the Osama drama has died down a bit, and Congress returns to economic discourse with Tim Geithner over not whether, but by how much, the debt ceiling will be raised, the partisan bickering will resume its thunderous levels of inanity.

No one on the Hill will question the true why behind the debt – because it would lead back to that mammoth fuchsia elephant - we, the elected and appointed, screwed the country to support the power banks, and we’d do it again, in fact, we already are.

With respect to bin Laden, conflicting stories will go on forever – when did he die?, whose body is in the ocean?why didn’t Obama release a photo? But with respect to the economy, it’s super clear -  our debt ballooned and our economy deflated, to subsidize banks and their practices, period. We can’t blame that on Osama bin Laden.