Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

OnyxCollie

(9,958 posts)
28. Richard Wolff is concerned
Tue Apr 9, 2013, 06:48 PM
Apr 2013

and I'll take his word over yours.

Capitalism in Crisis: Richard Wolff Urges End to Austerity, New Jobs Program, Democratizing Work
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/3/25/capitalism_in_crisis_richard_wolff_urges

RICHARD WOLFF: Yes. On the question of "too big to fail," there really isn’t much to say. In 2008, our banks failed—all of them—the way the Cyprus banks failed and for very similar reasons. They took in a lot of depositors’ money, and they made risky bets they shouldn’t have made, and they failed, and so they didn’t have the money to honor their obligations, and they turned to the government for a bailout. And when the government hesitated, because it’s public money to bail out a privately failed bank, they were told, in another kind of blackmail, "We’re too big to fail. If you don’t bail us out, we will collapse and take the entire economy with us." And that was a persuasive argument. Particularly after they allowed Lehman Brothers to fail and that nearly did take the economy with it, that was a convincing argument.

~snip~

Number two, we seem to need, as a nation, to believe that we have the power to control, limit or regulate, whether it’s the Glass-Steagall Act that came out of our disaster of the 1930s or the Dodd-Frank Act, which came out of the disaster that started in 2008. We seem to want to believe we can leave in place private banks, no matter how big they are, and hedge them about with regulations. The proof of the Whale trades in London, the proof of everything we know, is that these banks have the money, the staff, the resources to work their way around the regulations at least as fast as we impose them on them. That’s what these hearings fundamentally show. They can make trades that are too risky. They can lose wild amounts of money. They can turn to the government and demand to be helped and bailed out each time. And they get it. We are telling them, in a classic example, "Look, do whatever you want. You don’t have any risk of fundamental failure and punishment." Regulation doesn’t work, because we believe in place an entity, a large corporation, with the money and the incentives to get around it.

~snip~

AMY GOODMAN: What lessons have been learned since 2008? And today, could the U.S. see the same situation as Cyprus?

RICHARD WOLFF: Absolutely. We have banks that are literally telling us, because we know from our controls that they are trying, even, to regenerate it. They’re trying to get people to borrow more money again. We’re not changing the wage structure of America, which means that Americans are required to go into debt to supplement their wages. You know, the irony is, we are trying, in the language of some of these folks, to kickstart our economy, to get it going again. But the problem is, our economy was a train heading into a stone wall in the first years of this century, and if we get our economy going again, without fundamental changes, what we’re doing is putting that same train back on the track heading towards the same wall. Cyprus shows us what’s happening.

Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-administration-pushes-banks-to-make-home-loans-to-people-with-weaker-credit/2013/04/02/a8b4370c-9aef-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_singlePage.html

The Obama administration is engaged in a broad push to make more home loans available to people with weaker credit, an effort that officials say will help power the economic recovery but that skeptics say could open the door to the risky lending that caused the housing crash in the first place.

President Obama’s economic advisers and outside experts say the nation’s much-celebrated housing rebound is leaving too many people behind, including young people looking to buy their first homes and individuals with credit records weakened by the recession.

In response, administration officials say they are working to get banks to lend to a wider range of borrowers by taking advantage of taxpayer-backed programs — including those offered by the Federal Housing Administration — that insure home loans against default.

Housing officials are urging the Justice Department to provide assurances to banks, which have become increasingly cautious, that they will not face legal or financial recriminations if they make loans to riskier borrowers who meet government standards but later default.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Can you eat stocks? demwing Apr 2013 #1
Doesn't matter how big of a fire I build ... Kennah Apr 2013 #54
Bank Of America Dumps $75 Trillion In Derivatives On U.S. Taxpayers With Federal Approval OnyxCollie Apr 2013 #2
I so appreciate you posting these links. I had read about this and it, too, is snappyturtle Apr 2013 #3
It seems likely to happen. OnyxCollie Apr 2013 #5
Meanwhile, Wikipedia says that "In nominal terms, the total 2011 GWP was around US$69.11 trillion." Occulus Apr 2013 #6
Like an aneurysm about to burst. nt OnyxCollie Apr 2013 #7
I'm starting to think that letting it all fall apart is the only possible path to a lasting remedy. Occulus Apr 2013 #9
Misleading figure for a couple of reasons: geek tragedy Apr 2013 #11
Glad someone has a clue. Lucky Luciano Apr 2013 #35
Financial transactions are not part of GDP MindPilot Apr 2013 #16
The notional amount of their derivs was about $75T. Lucky Luciano Apr 2013 #34
your math isn't wrong. Volaris Apr 2013 #40
uh Occulus Apr 2013 #41
sorry. But on a brighter note, think of it this way: Volaris Apr 2013 #43
Hmmm. Then how about this tactic. Occulus Apr 2013 #45
See, THAT'S why I come here, Volaris Apr 2013 #46
You're welcome. Occulus Apr 2013 #47
You always think this couldn't possibly happen mercymechap Apr 2013 #4
It's not so much that any one of us would be a mother lode for a bank but snappyturtle Apr 2013 #13
If/when it happens I'm sure PBO will propose a policy to "protect" the VERY VERY VERY poor..... forestpath Apr 2013 #8
A work program OnyxCollie Apr 2013 #10
A FEMA camp program, more likely. WinkyDink Apr 2013 #50
ACLU: Debtors’ prisons are alive and well in (Ohio) OnyxCollie Apr 2013 #53
I'm reading the actual FDIC BOE plan and am a substantial portion of the way through it, Benton D Struckcheon Apr 2013 #12
...and just finished it. Benton D Struckcheon Apr 2013 #14
Well, in the bank's view, the depositors are safe as they get stock in lieu of $$. snappyturtle Apr 2013 #15
No, that's not what it says. Benton D Struckcheon Apr 2013 #17
Actually the FDIC-BOE article says from the beginning snappyturtle Apr 2013 #27
I'm not addressing the article, I'm addressing the primary source, the actual plan. Benton D Struckcheon Apr 2013 #30
I was using the same source as you. Unfortunately, I used the term 'article'. nt snappyturtle Apr 2013 #37
Where does it "say from the beginning that depositers are unsecured creditors"? muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #57
It doesn't. What I meant to say was that from the beginning to the end of snappyturtle Apr 2013 #58
Here's the paragraph that Benton refers to just above muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #24
It's a post Cyprus interpretation of the document that doesn't stand up to even cursory scrutiny, Benton D Struckcheon Apr 2013 #32
Well, it's not 'obvious' to me. Maybe you should also read snappyturtle Apr 2013 #36
According to the CRA amendments to the Gramm-Leach Act, OnyxCollie Apr 2013 #18
Read that again Benton D Struckcheon Apr 2013 #19
90 billion > 75 trillion OnyxCollie Apr 2013 #22
That's notional value Benton D Struckcheon Apr 2013 #23
Richard Wolff is concerned OnyxCollie Apr 2013 #28
Thanks for posting these links too...love me some Richard Wolff. I find snappyturtle Apr 2013 #29
That's just an appeal to authority Benton D Struckcheon Apr 2013 #31
Richard Wolff is an economics professor. OnyxCollie Apr 2013 #33
You still have not acknowledged the difference between derivative notional and derivative value. Lucky Luciano Apr 2013 #38
Well, what's the difference then? OnyxCollie Apr 2013 #39
I would estimate that dividing by 25 is about right. Lucky Luciano Apr 2013 #42
Even dividing by 25 is still a shitload of money. nt OnyxCollie Apr 2013 #44
Remember that is gross. If I have two trades on the book with you... Lucky Luciano Apr 2013 #52
Is the plan you are reading titled dixiegrrrrl Apr 2013 #25
My bank is so nice... fadedrose Apr 2013 #20
Literal one would be just plain silly as Satan's minions aren't likely to catch fire. Kennah Apr 2013 #55
It certainly would screw the majority of Social Security recipients, who Cleita Apr 2013 #21
Gee, one might almost think that was part of the plan. WinkyDink Apr 2013 #51
Theoretically, the FDIC insures deposits. JDPriestly Apr 2013 #26
I've done more reading on this doc by the FDIC and BOE. snappyturtle Apr 2013 #59
K&R DeSwiss Apr 2013 #48
THAT would finally = revolution. Bankers would be murdered. WinkyDink Apr 2013 #49
Madame Guillotine, please pick up your voicemail. Kennah Apr 2013 #56
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»THIS scares me: from Jona...»Reply #28