Barry Ritholtz has a good summing-up of a new paper (pdf) by three IMF economists on the link between lobbying and risk-taking by lenders. The gist: Firms that made the riskiest loans spend the most on lobbying Congress. And what were their lobbying aims?
"¢ prevent any tightening of lending laws that reduce the benefits of short-termist strategies over long-term profits;
"¢ allow systematic underestimation of default probabilities by overoptimistic bankers;
"¢ not just to originate loans that carry more risk, but to convince legislators that such lending is prudent;
"¢ to thwart bills aimed at lax lending standards and riskier loans;
"¢ to tighten regulations that restrict entry by others preventing competition;
"¢ to have a higher probability of receiving preferential treatment in a crisis.
The Huffington Post also has an epic new examination of what it calls "the cash committee""”the House Committee on Financial Services. The gist is that the committee's Democratic ranks are heavy on moderate-to-conservative first- and second-termers that House leadership put on the committee so they could raise lots of money from financial interests, thus increasing their chances of getting reelected but decreasing the committee's chances of passing meaningful financial reform.The general takeaway here is that Congress is a bit, ahem, compromised when it comes to dealing with the financial sector. It's compromised in dealing with lots of other industries too, of course, but the finance-insurance-real-estate crowd is bigger and richer than any other industry, plus it just caused the worst economic downturn since the Depression. Those who would address the financial problems of the past few years with better laws and regulations (a group of which I am a member) have a big problem when the rulemakers are captured not just by the industry they regulate but the dodgiest parts of that industry. So what do we do about this?
1. Get out of the regulating business. This is the libertarian solution, and while it reeks a bit of libertopianism, there is a basic truth behind it: The less affected by regulation and/or government spending an industry is, the less it spends on campaign contributions and lobbying, as a general rule.
2. Shine a light on what's going on so the public interest can trump private interests. This does work sometimes. And the increased attention paid to the House Financial Services and Senate Banking committees over the past couple of years has made life more difficult for financial industry lobbyists (at least, that's what people in the financial industry say). Because the Republican Congressional leadership has decided its most promising political strategy for the first two years of the Obama Administration is to be against everything, though, it's hard to put together majorities without including goodies for the most bought-and-paid-for Democrats.
3. Do something about all that lobbying and campaign giving. The problem here is that past efforts at campaign finance reform seem to have only made things worse. I've been enamored for a few years with an idea I got from an English constitutional scholar whose name I've forgotten who was cited in some piece by Milton Friedman that I can't find at the moment (any help from readers on this would be greatly appreciated). Writing around the time that the British government was beginning to hand out old age pensions, this crotchety fellow wrote that of course recipients of such government handouts shouldn't be allowed to vote. Because if they did vote, they'd just vote for more handouts.
Now I love the idea of proposing that Social Security recipients shouldn't be allowed to vote. But we're reaching the point where Social Security isn't really a handout"”past generations of recipients got far more out than they put in, but we Baby Boomers will be getting only a modest return on our money and who knows what the Gen Xers will get (once they're done saving the world). So let's apply the idea to campaign contributions: if a company benefits from government guarantees and handouts, none of its employees can be allowed to give to Congressional campaigns. This would presumably require a constitutional amendment, would raise all sorts of difficult questions about what constitutes a government handout (do tax credits count?), and would of course inspire an epic hunt for loopholes. But it's at least fun to contemplate, isn't it?
A maximum voting age to go with the minimum? Eh, maybe. Not sure I like some of the social security based implications though. For example, if you're too well off to get social security you still get to vote. So rich old people can vote but middle class and poor old people can't? Ewww. . Getting out of the regulating business wouldn't really help anything. We got into the regulating business in the first place because of rampant abuse in its absence. Finance reform never really works because its like asking thieves to write the anti-theft laws. Muckraking probably has the best chance of success out of all the options you listed. Using judicial style regulatory appointments (which we largely do) and appointing people who aren't inextricably linked with the financial industry (which we don't) would also help a lot. . Finally, did you see the piece in yesterday's NYT about companies creating and selling junk securities and then heavily betting on their failure? (Like, not minor hedging bets, but this-is-where-our-profits-come-from bets). That just screams breach of fiduciary duty and conflict of interest to me. Your thoughts?
Correction: Finance reform should be Campaign Finance Reform. Though on second thought, the analogy also works for regular finance reform given the revolving door between regulatory agencies and Wall Street.
Investment banks generally don't have a fiduciary duty to the purchasers of their products. Possibly as a result, they are also probably the most conflict-of-interest-ridden businesses on the planet.
Then wouldn't giving investment banks a fiduciary duty to the purchasers of their products be one of the single most important systemic reforms we could make? And how on earth have the investment banks managed to maintain that status? What's the theoretical rationale behind that? I'm really curious. Thanks.
If you try to take away my right to vote, I'm going to vote against it.
From their inception and throughout their history, wherever they have been tried, reserve banking systems have proved to be inherently fraudulent systems beyond the control of any regulation. They always make a small number of bankers very rich at the expense of the general population.
The reserve monetary system's basic concept of a central bank holding something of value, gold, silver, diamonds or in the case of our Federal Reserve, government bonds in reserve and creating money as loans of that value is flaw.
Two systemic flaws are immediately evident: banks lend only the principal and loans must be repaid with interest but no one creates the interest resulting in impossible contracts and inevitable foreclosures when the contracts are viewed as a whole; and borrowers must owe more money to the banks than is in the economy resulting in a chronic shortage of currency throughout the economy.
No amount of regulation can change these shortcomings.
Well, that's one way to look at it I guess, but money supply isn't just a function of the amount of currency in circulation. It's also a function of the velocity of money, i.e. how fast it turns over in cycle. . Loans and interest are also repaid over time, which coupled with inflation reduces the amount paid back in real dollars. Finally, when banks make loans, it increases the effective money supply, thus preventing any shortage of money in the economy. (currency and the money supply are different things btw, you should try to avoid using the terms interchangeably in the future)
[...] "Firms that made the riskiest loans spend the most on lobbying Congress." So, what to do about them.Close [...]
Get e-mail updates from TIME's The Curious Capitalist in your inbox and never miss a day.
The Curious Capitalist Favorite Links Adam Lashinsky Barry Ritholtz Brad DeLong Calculated Risk Econbrowser Econlog Epicurean Dealmaker Ezra Klein Felix Salmon Floyd Norris Greg Mankiw Growthology James Pethokoukis John Gapper Marginal Revolution Mark Thoma Matt McAlister Megan McArdle Michael Mandel Mike Moffatt Nicholas Carr Paul Kedrosky Paul Krugman Philip Coggan Planet Money Roger Parloff Ryan Avent The Stash adFactory.getCmAd(300, 250, "global", "tout").write(); adFactory.getCmAd(300, 100, "article", "tout").write(); ArchiveDecember 2009SMTWTFS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 More News from Our Partners CNN The future of brain-controlled devices Google Nexus phone to debut Tuesday? Send us your Consumer Electronic Show questions Huffington Post Stephanie Frost Documents Closing Her Account With Bank Of America, Switching To Community Bank (VIDEO) Grant Cardone: Training Pays Off! Rob Johnson: Reviving Confidence in the American Economy: China, Investment and the Deficit Hawks DailyFinance.com A Resurgent Dollar Could Be 2010's First Surprise Will Stocks Rise 30% in 2010? Montana's Stimulus-Funded Tennis Courts Draw Hypocritical Volleys Rotten Tomato RT's 2010 Movie Preview Critics Consensus: The White Ribbon Is Certified Fresh RT's Ten Most Popular Movies of 2009 Life Soap Box Anarchy in the UK World War II: In Praise of the RAF Iran's Protests Turn Bloody--Again More on TIME.com » Fundraising, Fearmongering from Pete Hoekstra Undiebomber vs. Shoe Bomber: Two Responses Money Resolutions You'll Never Keep Quotes of the Day » Get & Share $Launchpad.CreateMenu({ wid : "491cae4a5db36d0d", actionElement : "myWidget",servicesInclude: ['facebook','yahoo','email','google','live','myspace','netvibes', 'wordpress', 'digg','embed'] }); "Why doesn't he want to admit we're at war?" DICK CHENEY, former vice president, criticizing Barack Obama's handling of the botched terror attack on Christmas day More Quotes » var ad = adFactory.getAd(88, 31); ad.setPosition(13) ad.write(); Today in Pictures » Smoke and Ice Stay Connected with TIME.com Learn More » Subscribe to RSS Feeds Sign Up for Newsletters Add TIME Widgets Read TIME Mobile on Your Phone Become a Fan of TIME Get TIME Twitter Updates adFactory.getCmAd(115, 42, "homepage", "tout").write(); © 2009 Time Inc. All rights reserved | Privacy Policy | RSS | Newsletter | TIME For Kids | LIFE.com Subscribe | Contact Us | Terms of Use | Media Kit | Reprints & Permissions | Opinion Leaders Panel | Help | Site Map TiiAdTrackRevSci(); function tiQuantcast() { } _qoptions={ qacct:"p-5dyPa639IrgIw", labels:tiQuantcast() } BF_BB_DATA = null; (function( ){ document.write(''); var sid="740V07"; var c=""; var b=""; BF_BB_SCRIPT=document.createElement('script'); BF_BB_SCRIPT.type="text/javascript"; BF_BB_SRC="http://buzzbox.buzzfeed.com/wd/BuzzBox?sid=" + sid + c + b + '&it=1&cb=' + (new Date()).getTime(); setTimeout(function() { document.getElementById('BF_BUZZBOX').appendChild(BF_BB_SCRIPT); BF_BB_SCRIPT.src=BF_BB_SRC; },1); })(); Powered by WordPress.com VIP var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www."); document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E")); try { var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-10268691-1"); pageTracker._trackPageview(); } catch(err) {} _qoptions = { labels:"adt.0,language.en,vip.timecuriouscapitalist" };_qacct="p-18-mFEk4J448M";quantserve(); st_go({'blog':'5320466','v':'wpcom','user_id':'0','post':'7763','subd':'timecuriouscapitalist'}); ex_go({'crypt':'RDZ8LFkxbXF2TVluJVFmT0xoZkVaUCVrM3R3cCU2Wi10dT9ta3VEZG89N3pwOFdMRVB3Rls4VHhUemlpOFY0W1V+X0prOW16LU5rfktuc29XPUtiMXlVUyY9aiszRzc2TzlTclRIeDFxMkZPLmJMVVZSRkNNc2ZfVmZQNWtmcT9daVVdZnx8L0N4MmxNd1VIdlRRLTJxandHZFREVG9WalRBcD9JKzNVL2htaXA2a0RQWiUuY18/U3JOMUhdRC84S1s9Pzl3P01xY3FuU00/bFloZmJy'}); addLoadEvent(function(){linktracker_init('5320466',7763);}); Read Full Article »