The sharp lowering of mortgage interest rates will allow the housing industry to refinance over the next four years but it will still leave a lot of damaged credit that will take the four years to restore. It should work itself out. I have suggested a way to make it faster and more furious with an excellent chance to be very profitable to the government. It is too radical to be tried for now.
This still leaves massive amounts of stranded money all over the globe as everyone retrenches their economies. Europe has not finished their nightmare and the institutional systems are likely not sufficient to fix Eastern Europe let alone Europe in general. They barely understand how bad the financial system is.
There is wreckage elsewhere but most were a lot better insulated than recognized. What is happening though is every country is first internalizing fresh demand to get their own system back on the tracks.
In a way there was a massive balloon of funny money created by our wall street idiots that was never able to land anywhere for the past several years into real goods and was used to support an ever enlarging credit Ponzi scheme. Had any of it actually so landed we would have had massive inflation to contend with. Instead it was kept up in the air until the music stopped.
Since the bubble has burst, all this credit and coin has abruptly disappeared, and we are now living through a very painful readjustment where we reinstate the cost structures of 2000.
A result of this scheme is that governments actually thought that they had tax money to spend over the past several years. Now they have to print money to replace that money that was lost and spent in the past several years sinking the banks. Again the bail out money is merely replacing capital lost and already in circulation. You got the benefit of all that money. You are been taxed to pay it back.
That is where we are at. So what about the question that this article poses? It is obvious that something is wrong. It was not wrong in terms of its thirty years of expansion. No one wants to end that part of the movie.
The fundamental problem with our economic system is that while it harnesses greed properly and allows it to naturally enrich us all and that is good, our institutions are open to been gamed. More clearly, we are all at the poker table, and the game works because there are fifty two cards, four suites and thirteen separate card types. This is immutable.
In our current financial system, we have never settled on a final design for the deck of cards and this has led to every market enthusiasm converted into fraud.
Let me put it another way. How many lawyers do you need to run a poker table?
They tried to lock the cards down in the thirties but did not really appreciate what they were doing. That rule book was thrashed by the end of Clinton’s presidency and we had a B.Com type minding the store since who could not be expected to grasp the gravity of what was transpiring. We can not even blame him because the subtlety of what was happening was beyond only a few.
If the will exists to produce a superior financial system, and I question that, then we begin by constructing a lawyer free rule book. I think Napoleon made a good stab at it and other comparables might help.
Obviously I have plenty more to say about all this but we will leave this for now. I am beginning to appreciate that I actually had an economic research lab at my beck and call for ten years of my life. It is possible for me to actually propose valid changes and understand the underlying foundations.
I will leave you with this thought. Greed is uncontrollable. It can only be regulated through immutable rules. Regulation and greed cannot be combined. A lawyer is paid to combine them. Uncontrolled regulation and greed is treason.
And how in hell can Obama be up to any of this?
The Economic Crisis Isn't All Bad; It's a Chance for Us and Obama to Reimagine How We Live Our Lives
By Benjamin R. Barber, The Nation. Posted January 28, 2009.
Capitalism is on its knees and now we have a chance to create higher ideals beyond career climbing and mindless consumerism.
As America, recession mired, enters the hope-inspired age of Barack Obama, a silent but fateful struggle for the soul of capitalism is being waged. Can the market system finally be made to serve us? Or will we continue to serve it? George W. Bush argued that the crisis is "not a failure of the free-market system, and the answer is not to try to reinvent that system." But while it is going too far to declare that capitalism is dead, George Soros is right when he says that "there is something fundamentally wrong" with the market theory that stands behind the global economy, a "defect" that is "inherent in the system."
The issue is not the death of capitalism but what kind of capitalism -- standing in which relationship to culture, to democracy and to life? President Obama's Rubinite economic team seems designed to reassure rather than innovate, its members set to fix what they broke. But even if they succeed, will they do more than merely restore capitalism to the status quo ante, resurrecting all the defects that led to the current debacle?
Being economists, even the progressive critics missing from the Obama economic team continue to think inside the economic box. Yes, bankers and politicians agree that there must be more regulatory oversight, a greater government equity stake in bailouts and some considerable warming of the frozen credit pump. A very large stimulus package with a welcome focus on the environment, alternative energy, infrastructure and job creation is in the offing -- a good thing indeed.
But it is hard to discern any movement toward a wholesale rethinking of the dominant role of the market in our society. No one is questioning the impulse to rehabilitate the consumer market as the driver of American commerce. Or to keep commerce as the foundation of American public and private life, even at the cost of rendering other cherished American values -- like pluralism, the life of the spirit and the pursuit of (nonmaterial) happiness -- subordinate to it.
Economists and politicians across the spectrum continue to insist that the challenge lies in revving up inert demand. For in an economy that has become dependent on consumerism to the tune of 70 percent of GDP, shoppers who won't shop and consumers who don't consume spell disaster. Yet it is precisely in confronting the paradox of consumerism that the struggle for capitalism's soul needs to be waged.
The crisis in global capitalism demands a revolution in spirit -- fundamental change in attitudes and behavior. Reform cannot merely rush parents and kids back into the mall; it must encourage them to shop less, to save rather than spend. If there's to be a federal lottery, the Obama administration should use it as an incentive for saving, a free ticket, say, for every ten bucks banked. Penalize carbon use by taxing gas so that it's $4 a gallon regardless of market price, curbing gas guzzlers and promoting efficient public transportation. And how about policies that give producers incentives to target real needs, even where the needy are short of cash, rather than to manufacture faux needs for the wealthy just because they've got the cash?
Or better yet, take in earnest that insincere MasterCard ad, and consider all the things money can't buy (most things!). Change some habits and restore the balance between body and spirit. Refashion the cultural ethos by taking culture seriously. The arts play a large role in fostering the noncommercial aspects of society. It's time, finally, for a cabinet-level arts and humanities post to foster creative thinking within government as well as throughout the country. Time for serious federal arts education money to teach the young the joys and powers of imagination, creativity and culture, as doers and spectators rather than consumers.
Recreation and physical activity are also public goods not dependent on private purchase. They call for parks and biking paths rather than multiplexes and malls. Speaking of the multiplex, why has the new communications technology been left almost entirely to commerce? Its architecture is democratic, and its networking potential is deeply social. Yet for the most part, it has been put to private and commercial rather than educational and cultural uses. Its democratic and artistic possibilities need to be elaborated, even subsidized.
Of course, much of what is required cannot be leveraged by government policy alone, or by a stimulus package and new regulations over the securities and banking markets. A cultural ethos is at stake. For far too long our primary institutions -- from education and advertising to politics and entertainment -- have prized consumerism above everything else, even at the price of infantilizing society. If spirit is to have a chance, they must join the revolution.
The costs of such a transformation will undoubtedly be steep, since they are likely to prolong the recession. Capitalists may be required to take risks they prefer to socialize (i.e., make taxpayers shoulder them). They will be asked to create new markets rather than exploit and abuse old ones; to simultaneously jump-start investments and inventions that create jobs and help generate those new consumers who will buy the useful and necessary things capitalists make once they start addressing real needs (try purifying tainted water in the Third World rather than bottling tap water in the First!)
The good news is, people are already spending less, earning before buying (using those old-fashioned layaway plans) and feeling relieved at the shopping quasi-moratorium. Suddenly debit cards are the preferred plastic. Parental "gatekeepers" are rebelling against marketers who treat their 4-year-olds as consumers-to-be. Adults are questioning brand identities and the infantilization of their tastes. They are out in front of the politicians, who still seem addicted to credit as a cure-all for the economic crisis.
And Barack Obama? We elected a president committed in principle to deep change. Rather than try to back out of the mess we are in, why not find a way forward? What if Obama committed the United States to reducing consumer spending from 70 percent of GDP to 50 percent over the next ten years, bringing it to roughly where Germany's GDP is today? The Germans have a commensurate standard of living and considerably greater equality. Imagine all the things we could do without having to shop: play and pray, create and relate, read and walk, listen and procreate -- make art, make friends, make homes, make love.
Sound too soft? Too idealistic? If we are to survive the collapse of the unsustainable consumer capitalism that has possessed our body politic over the past three decades, idealism must become the new realism. For if the contest is between the material body defined by solipsistic acquisitiveness and the human spirit defined by imagination and compassion, then a purely technical economic response is what will be too soft, promising little more than a restoration of that shopaholic hell of hyper-consumerism that occasioned the current disaster.
There are epic moments in history, often catalyzed by catastrophe, that permit fundamental cultural change. The Civil War not only brought an end to slavery but knit together a wounded country, opened the West and spurred capitalist investment in ways that created the modern American nation. The Great Depression legitimized a radical expansion of democratic interventionism; but more important, it made Americans aware of how crucial equality and social justice (buried in capitalism's first century) were to America's survival as a democracy.
Today we find ourselves in another such seminal moment. Will we use it to rethink the meaning of capitalism and the relationship between our material bodies and the spirited psyches they are meant to serve? Between the commodity fetishism and single-minded commercialism that we have allowed to dominate us, and the pluralism, heterogeneity and spiritedness that constitute our professed national character?
President Obama certainly inspired many young people to think beyond themselves -- beyond careerism and mindless consumerism. But our tendency is to leave the "higher" things to high-minded rhetoric and devote policy to the material. Getting people to understand that happiness cannot be bought, and that consumerism wears out not only the sole and the wallet but the will and the soul -- that capitalism cannot survive long-term on credit and consumerism -- demands programs and people, not just talk.
The convergence of Obama's election and the collapse of the global credit economy marks a moment when radical change is possible. But we will need the new president's leadership to turn the economic disaster into a cultural and democratic opportunity: to make service as important as selfishness (what about a national service program, universal and mandatory, linked to education?); to render community no less valid than individualism (lost social capital can be re-created through support for civil society); to make the needs of the spirit as worthy of respect as those of the body (assist the arts and don't chase religion out of the public square just because we want it out of City Hall); to make equality as important as individual opportunity ("equal opportunity" talk has become a way to avoid confronting deep structural inequality); to make prudence and modesty values no less commendable than speculation and hubris (saving is not just good economic policy; it's a beneficent frame of mind). Such values are neither conservative nor liberal but are at once cosmopolitan and deeply American. Their restoration could inaugurate a quiet revolution.
The struggle for the soul of capitalism is, then, a struggle between the nation's economic body and its civic soul: a struggle to put capitalism in its proper place, where it serves our nature and needs rather than manipulating and fabricating whims and wants. Saving capitalism means bringing it into harmony with spirit -- with prudence, pluralism and those "things of the public" (res publica) that define our civic souls. A revolution of the spirit.
Is the new president up to it? Are we?