House Rejects Bailout Plan: Wall Street Loses, America Wins

On September 24, President George W. Bush—a self-professed devotee of the free market—addressed the nation in an effort to drum up support for an unprecedented intervention in the U.S. economy. The political elite, left and right, were united in their desire to spend other people’s money to purchase depressed financial assets at premium prices. If the federal government did not step in, said the president, a “financial panic” would likely result. But despite reports all last week that a “bailout deal” was imminent and, finally, that a “reformed” version was “sure to pass,” this would-be massive wealth transfer from the middle class to Wall Street’s reckless plutocrats was defeated by Congress on September 29.

For President Bush, this marked yet another failure in the most unpopular presidency in U.S. history. Democratic leaders, who joined Bush in calling for the intervention, were exposed as allies of the same financial interests that are said to dominate the GOP. The successful opposition to the bailout came from both ends of the political spectrum, with conservatives in both parties and principled liberal Democrats uniting to send a message to Wall Street: “Get off America’s back!”

Stock Market Wipes Out Illusory Gains

As a result of the bailout’s failure, the stock market experienced a historic meltdown on Monday. The Dow Jones Industrial Average plummeted a record 777 points, and the S&P 500 and NASDAQ composites fell by even greater amounts, 8.8% and 9.1%, respectively.

This has led some observers to believe the hype: that the failure to pass the bailout bill put the economy in peril. The truth, of course, is the exact opposite: it was government intervention that promulgated this most recent crisis, and only the promise of continued government intervention was keeping stock prices as high as they were. If the bailout had gone through, perhaps the markets would have rallied—but at what cost? The debasement of the dollar that would have accompanied the massive monetary expansion needed to finance the $700 billion bailout would have eaten away as much of your portfolio’s value as Monday’s crash, even if your account showed nominal gains.

The Roots of the Crisis

The roots of the current crisis stretch back to 1913 with the passage of the Federal Reserve Act or certainly to August 15, 1971, when the dollar’s connection to gold was finally severed. But more directly, we can turn back to that fateful day: September 11, 2001.

After the Twin Towers fell and America began its interminable “War on Terror,” we should have had a rather serious recession. We were, after all, recovering from the Fed-caused inflationary bubble that gave us the tech boom and bust. But instead of allowing the economy to return to normalcy, the Federal Reserve—with the blessing of the Bush administration—slashed interest rates to provide “economic stimulus.” Bush, in particular, encouraged homeownership as part of his “ownership society” platform. Thus, hundreds of billions of newly created dollars were pumped into the economy, staving off a recession—for the time being.

Seven years later, the chickens have come home to roost. Greenspan is out of office, and Bush has one foot out the door. The aggressive interest-rate manipulation they orchestrated led to the boom phase of the housing bubble and set up this inevitable bust. Artificially low interest rates sent false signals to consumers and businesses, incentivizing them to take actions they would have never even considered under a regime of real interest rates set by savings and investment. When economic conditions returned to reality, all of Greenspan and Bush’s excess liquidity hit the proverbial fan—and created quite a mess.

Keep an Eye on the Fed

So IndyMac, Lehman Brothers and WaMu all failed, and we were told there would be more bank failures unless the government intervened. To finance the $700 billion bailout, the government would have issued new bonds, for which the Federal Reserve would have created the money to buy. An extra $700 billion would have been added to the money supply, diluting the value of the dollars in your savings account and redistributing wealth from hardworking Americans to Wall Street hotshots who made bad bets.

Thankfully, this travesty has been averted—for now. But even though the bailout bill failed, don’t expect the Federal Reserve to slow down its monetary expansion. When AIG needed its bailout, Congress wasn’t even consulted: the Fed just “monetized” an $85 billion loan to the ailing insurer, and it could “monetize” $700 billion worth of loans to various beneficiaries just as easily.

But the Fed must tread lightly. The long-dormant populist spirit of the American people has been invigorated. The Federal Reserve has operated with impunity for close to 100 years, but if it thwarts the will of the people by proceeding with the bailout—in defiance of Congress—then it will be exposed as the unaccountable instrument of monetary destruction that it is.

Is Oil-Based Currency a Reality?

Based on a  September 18 Times (UK) report regarding the meeting of Middle Eastern finance ministers, the question was asked about the veracity of a plan for a single currency for the Middle East based on oil.

The answer is both true and false and maybe.

Yes, the immediate goal of the meeting last week was to establish a single currency for the Mideast. In that sense, the new currency would be similar to the euro, where various countries have joined under a common umbrella.

No, there were no (public or published) talks of an oil-based currency, which would effectively replace the U.S. dollar as the principal currency of oil trade.

Maybe? The idea of replacing the US dollar with an oil-based currency is not new. The late Saddam Hussein, various Iranian leaders and others have often broached the idea.

As early as 1987, financier George Soros in his book The Alchemy of Finance outlined just such a plan.

A single, oil-based currency would require the agreement of the various Middle Eastern heads of state as well as further agreement by OPEC.

Recent U.S. financial disasters do not rule out such an eventuality. However, the cumbersome and institutional process required should not add fuel to existing speculation.

The single currency issue addressed (without the use of oil) is planned for slightly more than two years hence. However, instability in world financial markets may prompt more rapid agreement to reach the goal.

The Arab oil ministers meeting agreed in principle to establish a single currency. While there was no mention of oil or another commodity backing the potential currency, there is some speculation that the euro, rather than the U.S. dollar, could be designated for oil trades.

Stephan is a former department chair for economics and taught at various colleges and universities at both graduate and undergraduate levels. If you would like Stephan to answer your economics-related questions, read his post “Got an Economics Question?” and submit your questions in the comments area there.

The Bailout Plan & Wall Street CEOs’ Pays

In the late 1970s, the total compensation of chief executives in large American corporations was 35 times that of the average American worker. In 1993, Congress limited the tax deductibility of executive salaries to $1 million unless it could be demonstrated that the extra pay was linked to performance incentives. This contributed to the practice in later years of very generous grants of stock options, which helped drive executive pay to new heights. According to an estimate by the liberal research organization the Economic Policy Institute, in 2007, an executive’s salary was 275 times that of the average worker.

Wall Street executives, with their eight figure earnings, are at the top of the corporate pay range. Wall Street firms have a bonus system which rewards short-term trading profits. It acts as an incentive for executives to expand their highly profitable businesses in exotic securities and ignore the risks. The present financial crisis is a direct result of the compensation practices at these Wall Street firms, which encouraged executives to maximize profits and ignore risks. The salary levels at some Wall Street firms are appalling, given their performance. After news of the bailout plan spread on September 19, experts felt that it was only reasonable to impose limits on the salaries of executives of firms that would participate in the bailout. It was they who made those risky bets on behalf of their firms.

As Congress and the Bush administration (represented by Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke) deliberated the bailout plan before it was rejected by the House on Monday, lawmakers felt that executives should not be allowed to walk away enriched, especially since many have contributed to the present crisis by taking too many risks. There were calls to impose some limits or approval authority on salaries of executives whose firms seek help.

Presidential candidates Barrak Obama and John McCain have both called for limits on the salaries of such executives. There is a fear among many, including lawmakers, that Wall Street’s tarnished titans might walk away with tens of millions of dollars a year while taxpayers pick up the tab.

A Senate draft document calls for a ban on incentive payments that the Treasury deems “inappropriate or excessive” and a “claw-back” provision requiring an executive to give up pay or severance benefits if the firm’s financial results are later shown to be overstated. Other proposals call for a ban on severance payments and allowing large shareholders, with a stake of 3% or more, to propose alternative slates of board directors. This would be an effort to tackle excessive pay practices by opening up and strengthening corporate governance.

Opponents of the proposals say that pay restrictions will discourage hard work and innovation. It would have an overall impact on the financial sector and the economy. Some feel that it would be best to stretch out payments for several years, encouraging executives to pursue the long-term health and stability of the firms they head. However, the salaries are bound to fall. With consolidation, more people would be competing for fewer jobs, leading to lower salaries.