In the Arena

Killing Capital

Kathleen Parker, sadly abused by our partners in television (CNN), has a good column today about the new documentary, Inside Job, which chronicles the 30-year sleaze tide that produced the 2008 financial crisis. I haven’t seen the film, but Parker will send me hurtling to the theater. Meanwhile, I hope you’ll go hurtling to the bookstore to buy The Death of Capital by Michael Lewitt, which is a passionate and detailed account of the investment bankers’ disgrace that also proposes some plausible correctives.

One should note that the title is not The Death of Capitalism. Lewitt is a capitalist, a fund manager, but a sane and moral one. He sees “capital” as a process–the making and lending of money, and its equivalents. Capital died in 2008 because the lending part, and the trust that is inherent for capital to function, seized up and would have collapsed but for some fast work by the financial priesthood (whose arrogant lassitude, he makes clear, did an awful lot to cause the crisis in the first place).

Lewitt’s theory is that the farther capital gets from direct, productive investments, the greater the likelihood that chicanery will occur. Over the past 30 years, the focus of investment banking has shifted from loans to actual manufacturers and service-provicers–although the best and most moral bankers still perform this essential function–to casino games involving momentary shifts in the value of commodities. By the 2000s, the “products” used to play those games had become completely alienated from the actual products that were being bet on. Lewitt also performs the valuable function of showing how the very same people who brought you conglomerate mergers in the 1970s and 1980s, and private-equity leveraged-buyouts in the 1980s and 1990s, brought you subprime mortgages and financial derivatives over the past 15 years. The full roster of their crimes is recounted here, the worst of which–in my opinion–was stripping out research and development divisions of the companies bought in leveraged buyouts because they didn’t produce immediate profits…which meant that American companies were constrained when it came to producing new products. The American way of business was upended: instead of buying for the long-term, the bankers were angling for short-term sales and profits. Lewitt, clearly no socialist, is a generous and supple enough thinker to credit Karl Marx with predicting this development.

For the past year, I’ve been arguing that the best way to control this sort of casino gambling is to tax it–and Lewitt proposes a graduated tax on financial transactions, a sophisticated mechanism that would impose a larger tariff on those transactions, like collatoralized debt obligations (CDO) and credit-default swapas (CDS), that are farthest removed from the most productive use of capital: lending money to companies for a new product line or the expansion of an old one.

The financial community will yowl that if we tax their gaming, the game will simply move elsewhere–to London, to Dubai. To which I say, good riddance! I’d rather see the next generation of young American financial geniuses concentrating on how to build a productive economy here–concentrating on making things rather than making bets.

Related Topics: Inside Job, kathleen parker, Michael Lewitt, The Death of Capital, Economy, Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / White House

    Obama’s Persuasive Powers on Gay Marriage Manifest in Maryland

    When President Obama endorsed gay marriage earlier this month, the media grappled with two basic political questions: Was his personal “evolution” a case of  a politician transparently following a national trend toward accepting same-sex unions (accelerated, perhaps, by his chatty number two), and would it hurt his re-election chances by alienating socially conservative voters like black churchgoers? Sure, there was a recognition that it marked a gratifying moment for gay marriage advocates—as well as some grumbling about the President’s view that it remains a state issue, not a federal one. But by and large, there were few suggestions that one man, even the President, would shift public opinion on the issue or affect public policy. Based on a new Public Policy Polling survey out of Maryland, it seems this possibility was underestimated.

    Lewis Eisenberg, Major Romney Donor, Accuses Obama Of Demonizing Wall StreetHuffPost Politics

    Cherokee Zero

    Apparently, Massachusetts voters don’t mind that Elizabeth Warren foolishly identified herself as a Native American early in her academic career–it was, apparently, a case of family pride and wishful thinking about a Cherokee ancestor. That’s good. Warren may be the best public figure when it comes to explaining the depredations of the financial industry and [...]

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    I’ve often said that the only actual value-adding activities in our economy is manufacturing and farming. Everything else is value-extracting.
    .
    The problem is very easy to see when you don’t have a personal stake in it.

  • gysgt213

    “The financial community will yowl that if we tax their gaming, the game will simply move elsewhere–to London, to Dubai.”
    .
    Yes because the world wide finanical fraud did not happen in those places.

  • michaelfury
  • gysgt213

    Joe- I am interested in knowing who the moral bankers are you refer to.

  • newfreedomblog

    Who are the major players in the CDO’s? CDS’s? and Derivatives again?

  • Joe Klein

    Gunny–Google’s long-term investment in an offshore wind-farming transmission system would be one big example. I’m sure there are other new ideas being funded every day…and plenty of older companies being supported when they need to borrow for new equipment and product lines. Just not nearly enough, and too much money and enterprise being siphoned off into casino gambling. Saying that all bankers are immoral is sort of like saying all commenters never get out of their pajamas.

  • gysgt213

    Google is a banker? I would argue that you are trying to humanize a bank. Banks per se were never the problem here. They are neither moral or immoral It was and is the people running the banks, finanical institutions and Wall Street firms and the people charged with oversight and regulation that were doing neither at the behest of the bankers.

  • destor23

    Thanks for the tip on Lewitt’s book. The idea of financial activities becoming divorced from long-term wealth creation as a flaw is an old one but he seems to state it well.

    I’d add one other thing though. When we talk about bank lending and trust we tend to talk about the lender’s ability to trust the borrower. This is of course important. But there are two sides to this trust. The borrower has to be able to trust the lender. One reason that you might not, say, do business with a loan shark is that you can’t trust that they have your best interests at heart. They will kill you to get repaid, even a small amount of money. A payday lender will ruin your credit to obtain a small amount of money. But it kind of goes up the scale. Do you trust your credit card company? I’m iffy on that. I trust them less now than I once did. On one hand, I trust them enough to use them. I believe I will get my reward points, I believe they will help me get refunds if I buy a dodgy product and the vendor refuses to help. I’ve actually had some very good experiences with one of my cards. But I don’t trust them not to change the terms on me. I don’t trust them to take pity on my if I run into an emergency and wind up with a debt I can’t afford. This mistrust reduces the demand for credit and that is as important as its availibility.

    To get back to Lewitt — it’s not just about productive use, it’s about trust on the other side of these deals. Can the workers of a firm bought out by a PE shop trust new management? Can you trust your stock broker? Can you trust the management of the companies you own stock in?

    The pendulum has swung so far in favor of the big players that a lot of little players have dropped out of the game. As individuals, the small players don’t matter. But collectively they matter a whole lot.

  • Ivy_B

    Good to see you back. Hope it was a vacation. You were missed.

  • freeinpa

    “The financial community will yowl that if we tax their gaming, the game will simply move elsewhere–to London, to Dubai. To which I say, good riddance! I’d rather see the next generation of young American financial geniuses concentrating on how to build a productive economy here–concentrating on making things rather than making bets”
    .
    For one of the few times over the past 2 years, there is a nod to the fact that the excesses in our financial system did not begin and end with the Presidency of George Bush. The problems have been over 25 years in the making. One lesson that still evades policy makers and pundits from the recent crisis is to believe that taxes, the cure all snake oil, will cure these problems. Market values whether of companies, real estate or financial derivatives should not be treated as effects but a cause of human decisions. Taxes, regulation or other government regulated attempt to fix behavior is not only a waste of time but dangerous. The lkeft doesn’t like to hear that but there will always be intelligent folks developing services and products globally to counter any regulation. And as history has shown, the innovation pace far outstrips any government oversight.
    .
    Your quick acceptance of everything moving off-shore is just another example of knee-jerk do-goodism. Well intended but horribly misplaced. Let’s not forget how those profits are used. It employs not only those hated financial executives but secretaries, assistants in that same firm, it buys.rent real estate, cleaning services, computers, phones. clothes, food, restaurants, cars, homes, furnishings etc. As that money moves elsewhere so does that national income. To believe it will be replaced by lending to “productive companies” is at best naiive. Business and capital flow to where it is cheapest and it won’t be hear. So this faux-populism of helping the middle class will only serve to strike a final stake in the heart of them. National income will fall just as government entitlements hit full stride.
    .
    The call from the left to tax, ban and over-regulate will have far-reaching consequences. Not all uses of financial instruments are negative. One of the left’s favorite populists, Warren Buffet called them “weapons of mass destruction” and yet Berkskire Hathaway was one of the biggest users of them.
    .
    Seems more like capitalism for me but not thee.

  • destor23

    I guess I feel like the banks, who will run to the government for help whenever they get in trouble (and have done so prominently twice in my lifetime already) also believe in capitalism for me but not thee.

    Buffett on derivatives is interesting. He’s definitely found a use for credit default swaps, though one could argue that he never thought using them as a legitimate hedging tool for liabilities on his books was wrong, only that unbridled speculation in these securities and many other exotics could turn them into financial WMDs.

    It’s also worth noting that derivatives is a big catch all terms. It means any security that derives its value from the value of other securities. That includes some vanilla stuff that you or your friends might use, like stock options.

    The big thing to me is that these banks have to realize that they’re on their own and that the only people who will be protected if they blow up are their depositors or, in the case of insurance companies, policyholders.

  • stuartzechman

    Thanks so much for responding to commentary with clarifying thoughts, Joe Klein, it is always greatly appreciated.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    . Taxes, regulation or other government regulated attempt to fix behavior is not only a waste of time but dangerous.

    Yes, laws against armed robbery and burglary are clearly ineffective so we might as well not have them on the books.
    .
    This is what happens when a ‘principle’ gets completely divorced from empiricism.

  • freeinpa

    I don’t disagree with you about banks. They should not have been bailed out. That was a nightmare legacy cemented by Greenspan. If you recall, he expanded that decision by bailing out Long-Term Capital Management. Also the risk of loss was socialized even further when Congress increased FDIC insurance to higher amounts over the years. For banks that became risk-free capital There is one adage on Wall St that Congress seems to ignore, if there is a way to lose money, banks will find it. Glass-Steagall may have accelerated the process but historically whether it was Latin America, Highly Leveraged Transaction, S&Ls, Real Estate, Oil & Gas etc. banks have overplayed the upside. I will wager than in 10 years their will be another financial crisis regardless of rules and regulations.
    .
    As far as banks or insurance being on their I own, I agree 100%. The problem is not banks coming whining (and they will), its the politicians who have no political will (spine) to let the markets run its course. They fear for their next election (Argument for term limits) or the cries from the masses who may lose money
    .
    The unbridled speculation in derivative is not new. 10+ years ago it was tech stocks, or earlier oil and gas wildcatters or people flipping houses . Its prevalent in a capitalist system, for better or worse. What has happened is we have removed the risk to the investor fro the system as the government quickly jumps in to find a culprit to pay. There are times I believe we would be better off if investors were licensed instead of brokers.

  • freeinpa

    “Yes, laws against armed robbery and burglary”
    .
    I was speaking of the capitalist system. Where you may not like derivatives or financial instruments they are legal and I am unaware of someone ever being shot during the execution one one.

    And laws against armed robbery and burglary, to my knowledge result into those participants moving to another country to partake.

    Thanks for confirming knee-jerk do-goodism where common sense always takes a leave.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Of course the big difference between the tech boom and the housing boom is that people weren’t gambling with a commodity that they literally could not live without.
    .
    It’s quite true that the process that led to where we are didn’t start in 2000. The offshoring of manufacturing jobs accompained by consumers switching from cash to credit as their steady high paying jobs eroded has been ongoing from the 80′s right through the Clinton years and beyond. The selling of unsunstainable mortgage debt was a new wrinkle gowever.

  • destor23

    @paul dirks: Actually, I was referring to the S&L crisis, rather than the tech blowout. I was very young then but it seems to me that was, again, predicated on bad loans made in the hopes of short term profits. The only difference was that they weren’t widely syndicated at that time (though the first pooled debt securities do date to the late 1980s).

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    I was just pointing out as succinctly as I could that your statement about regulations being a waste of time was false. Even the most greedy and amoral entity will do its best to comply with the law. Corporations have entire departments devoted to the process. Regulation may result in unintended consequences but to claim that it’s a ‘waste of time’ is simply untrue.

  • freeinpa

    “The offshoring of manufacturing jobs accompained by consumers switching from cash to credit as their steady high paying jobs eroded has been ongoing from the 80′s right through the Clinton years and beyond.”
    .
    There lies part of the problem. As income for some folks may have declined, their penchant for consumption did not take a matching decline. And spare me the food and health care schtick. The consumption of cars, aided by leasing, continued as length of years cars were held fell or the number of computer, cell phones, ipods, playstations etc went though the roof. The consumer is not blameless and their accomplish in their own destruction was the Fed. By keeping rates low asset prices, namely housing, skyrocketed. Low rates allowed consumers to use their homes as ATMs without ever believing values could fall.
    .
    Believing that the decline in manufacturing is fully responsible is short-sighted. Those ever increasing salaries, benefits and pensions were not competitive with the rest of the world. Capital flowed to where it was cheapest and always will.

  • freeinpa

    What I was merely pointing out, maybe not quite clearly was, there are regulations in place. They failed to be enforced. Adding new ones is a waste of time.

    But your statement below says it all. Whole departments for regulations. How unproductive and wasteful. But it does point that no matter the regulations that are added, companies will find ways around it because they have the minds and resources while governments and regulatory agencies have custodians. As an example how many regulatory agencies examined Madoff? He was examined 9 times with not some much as a hand slap. Yes he is now in prison after billions was lost but whatever happened to the agencies?—Nothing.

    Corporations have entire departments devoted to the process.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    The flaw in your logic is the same one that you no doubt apply to the stimulus. If certain measures are inadequate the solution isn’t necessarily to simply not bother. The solution is to apply adequate measures.

  • freeinpa

    “If certain measures are inadequate the solution isn’t necessarily to simply not bother. ”
    .

    Correct. But the solution is not to add regulations that have no further chance of being enforced either. Go back through history, the problem has more often been poor enforcement not lack of regulations. Banking is one of the most regulated industries between the Fed Reserve, Comptroller of the Currency, SEC, audits, State banking commission etc and they have had issues not from lack of regulation but enforcement. Yet the regulatory empire grows but the results are actually worse. Not unlike the education system in this country.
    .
    And yes, the solution is to apply adequate measures “that work”. Even Obama own admission now is there is no such thing as “shovel ready jobs”. What occurred was a knee jerk reaction that wasted money and missed its targets by a mile. The argument that it was not enough is specious. As a percent of GDP, the US far outspent other countries that have bounced back in better fashion. I have said time and time again here the original stimulus was nothing more than a re-distribution of wealth to political allies.

  • headybrew

    Very interesting discussion/debate between Freeinpa and Paul Dirks. I think you both make valid points. What’s better it is without the all-to-common personal attacks and hyper-partisan BS that is too often seen here in the Swamp.

  • pbmama

    Amen, headybrew. Nice discourse, Gents! And intelligent points from both of you. Thanks!

  • freeinpa

    Thx for reading. It is much easier to have intelligent discussions with people who are reason and common sense. While I will disagree with Paul D on some things (ok many things) he provides well thought out responses. There are several liberals that I can engage that way but there are others, well that ship is sailed and deserve no respect.

  • shepherdwong

    …intelligent points from both of you.”

    Jes but not really. Freeper’s “point” is that the bad things that happen from the failure to regulate is an argument against regulation. To extend PD’s metphor, it’s like saying that because some robbers are never caught enacting laws against robbery are “a waste of time.” It’s actually so idiotic, even a fairly young child can understand the bad logic of it.

  • liberalmeltdown

    I’ll that the discussion above has many valid points
    .
    “Lewitt also performs the valuable function of showing how the very same people who brought you conglomerate mergers in the 1970s and 1980s, and private-equity leveraged-buyouts in the 1980s and 1990s, brought you subprime mortgages and financial derivatives over the past 15 years. The full roster of their crimes is recounted here,”
    .
    I would be interested to hear who he thinks they are and if he includes those that slip in and out of government to banking, etc. in the list.
    .
    The other point is that this has been a process of 30 years or more.
    .
    The banks aren’t done shooting themselves in the foot yet. They may not be able to foreclose on all those sliced and diced mortgages. There’s a little problem with where the notes are and who holds them.

  • liberalmeltdown

    I think you missed where free talked about enforcement being more important than regulations that don’t work because they are unenforceable.
    .

  • liberalmeltdown

    I don’t like the idea of a tax. Are taxes the solution to everything? Should we tax too big to fail? Tax obscene pensions and benefits for public employees.
    .
    How about we make a bank just be a bank. Not a broker/trader/insurer/quasi-government agency. Would you want an auto mechanic/surgeon?

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    The tech boom is quite a bit different than either S&L or this recession. The tech boom was an actual new industry with legitimately new services and “goods” and nobody had a model to truly understand it but everyone knew it had the capacity to revolutionize society – how we live our lives, how we get information, how we buy or sell goods, etc. Few people, if any, actually had a grasp of its limitations and all of those were either academics or working for computer and network manufacturers. While many of the bets were bad, I can’t fault the banks on those loans the way I can fault them on the housing market. In housing, there is a legitimate model everyone understood. It is impossible for a commodity to continuously go up at more than double inflation without either quantity or value plummeting back to earth (and in a necessity market like housing, value is the more likely candidate) so the only way you can say the bet is good in the long run is if you’re an idiot or you don’t understand macroeconomics – and if you’re in the banking industry, the latter proves you’re the former.

  • freeinpa

    “The tech boom was an actual new industry with legitimately new services and “goods” and nobody had a model to truly understand it but everyone knew it had the capacity to revolutionize society”
    .
    To a certain extent I agree. The similarities are the aftermath. Many (not all) IPOs were done on an idea, no business plan, no revenue, no income. People bought the stock they shot up and crashed, not unlike real estate and sub-prime loans. Post-crash? A rush by politicians to make someone responsible and charge (money wise) to recoup losses of investors. Regulators were everywhere but no enforcement. This too was helped by low Fed interest rates. Investors thought prices only go up.

    Again government tried to socialize risk. Spitzer ran around accusing Wall St of all sorts of ills (and there were plenty) but again where was he during the boom. Now you have new regulations as a result in which you receive research fro the firms that tell you nothing now. Small cap research is gone. Did this help the 2008 crash? NO!
    .
    “It is impossible for a commodity to continuously go up at more than double inflation without either quantity or value plummeting back to earth (and in a necessity market like housing,”
    .
    Not just commodities but any asset. And those watchdogs, Congress, the Fed, the SEC et al sit idly bye each time and then try to fix something they had a major part in creating.

  • freeinpa

    One of the points I tried to make is taxes should be used as a source of revenue and not an incentive or punishment to steer human behavior. It is a foundation for abuse and an inefficient use of capital.

    And yes the day of banks being banks would be nice.

  • freeinpa

    :even a fairly young child can understand the bad logic of it.
    .
    Yes there are many things a young child can understand and yet this simple concept escapes your rapid views.

    Regulation without enforcement is worthless. More regulation in addition to curretn rules is just idiotic.

  • http://forgottenlord.livejournal.com forgottenlord

    I was debating throwing in asset but intentionally went with commodity in the end. The reason is actually because I’d just finished talking about the tech industry which has grown faster than inflation even after the bust. However, it has done so at the sacrifice of traditional markets as more people make their transactions online rather than in the store. It can’t sustain its growth and no one should bet on it going up forever, but wealth can be transferred from one asset to another with each asset owned by different entities.
    .
    As for the tech boom: I was talking to a former Nortel employee who pointed out to me that during the tech boom, a lot of these new companies came in with the idea of “hey, we’ll lay a line of fiber across the Atlantic. As the Internet takes off, they’ll need more fiber so we’ll charge money for usage”. The business plan was sound, the logic was sound. The problem? Well, all the other guys with the same idea at the same time that did the same thing. There’s now more fiber on the ocean floor than we’d ever need and the vast majority of it isn’t in use and the company that laid it is now defunct. The really cool thing about it – every time a shark gets hungry for some fiber (they do that from time to time), we can just reactivate one of the other fiber lines without having to send teams out to replace it (like they had to do with the 3 lines that went down in the Mediterranean the other year).
    .
    Again, there is no way that the banks could have figured out the necessity of the service, and I doubt any loan officer you could have gone to would have been able to comprehend it at a level that would clearly demonstrate whether this was a good or bad loan. Yeah, the lack of business plans didn’t help and it really didn’t help that in this industry, your biggest asset is hundreds of thousands of lines of code that can’t be bundled and sold unless it actually had value (making your actual biggest liquidatable asset your user list).
    .
    Strangely, the lack of business plan doesn’t seem to have changed either – an interview I read with the guys who made Twitter clearly showed that they didn’t have scratch all for a business plan: make it cool, then figure out how to make money from it. The few clips I’ve seen from “Social Network” suggests that Facebook took the same approach.

  • ranxem

    RE: Irresponsible bankers cause bankruptcies.

    It is no surprise that we have more and more individual bankruptcies. Before the current financial crisis commercial banks were taking credit card applications without checking the incomes of the applicants. In most cases they did not even require the signatures of the applicants for credit accounts. In order to get credit cards approved by credit card departments, many bankers used electronic applications to enter the incomes of applicants that was more than 400% of the ones stated by customers. In the end, bankers received profits for their approved credit cards and customers were left with high limit credit cards that was impossible to handle based on their real incomes.

    Same happened with mortgage applications. Many mortgage companies didn’t take in the account the actual incomes of the applicants, but instead took incorrect applications and sold them to investment banks. Mortgage corporations’ CEOs and their employees made a lot of money while this business lasted, but the customers were left with high monthly payments and in foreclosures. Unfortunately, little can be done about the CEOs and other executives of those companies that took the applications, because they were under “the corporation umbrella.” What defense do we have against these former executives if they create other mortgage corporations? And we all know that they will.

    Shota
    http://www.ranxem.com

    P.S. Even today, many big banks do not require your signature on your credit card application.

blog comments powered by Disqus