Coopgeek vs. the Wall Street Journal

I always have to take a deep breath before I try reading the Wall Street Journal’s editorial. It almost always irritates me. Today I almost threw it.

Today’s absurd rant was about how the stock market’s loss of 25% this year is Obama’s fault because he isn’t more reassuring to capitalists in his policies and pronouncements. However, it fails to mention that the last three weeks of Bush’s term saw a drop of about 1080 point (360/week), and the first five weeks of Obama’s shift we’ve lost about 1200 points (240/week). This is hardly a dramatic worsening – maybe even an improvement if my basic math is right – and shows us that even respectable capitalists are kind of making stuff up.

The editors have a point that people who are in the business of making money have little reason for encouragement. They might even be right that Obama’s policies are a bad idea. Nobody should be surprised that our two political parties (which both largely share the blame for decades of neglect) should be trying to emphasize the ways that the other has caused or worsen this problem, and to some extent this is important because the government can either make this thing better or worse. But ultimately this mess is beyond what government can handle. The problem is more fundamental than that.

The piece closes with the complaint, “This is no way to nurture a wounded economy back to health.” They have a funny idea of health: For years we’ve had an economy based on warfare and exploitation; on manufacturing a fraction of what we consume and relying on temporary residents to harvest our crops (and ship their wages back home); on “growth” that generally occurs in essentially parasitic sectors like incomprehensible investment products, marketing, and way more real estate than we need.

A fundamental breakdown has occurred, and the Journal’s moronically cheerful claim that “what goes down will come up,” shows their failure to grasp the extent to which things are shifting. Ask the Romans, Portuguese, Vikings,or Aztecs about whether that claim is true. The current crisis is only the acute stage of an illness that has been brewing for years. This is the heart attack, but the arteries have been clogged since well before 2008.

I chose that combination of ex-empires for a reason. It is a sampling of the possible fates that may be awaiting us. Anyone who has not done so should immediately read Jared Diamond’s Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed, which essentially addresses the question that is eventually faced by all empires that have outstayed their welcome on the planet: Do we change what we’ve been doing or do we keep it up and go right off the cliff? This is a frightening thing to contemplate, but contemplate we must. Our ability to find new solutions will have a direct impact on whether this transition is just really uncomfortable or entirely catastrophic.

The concept of ownership has been tied in knots. In its efforts to avoid nationalizing our largest banks, insurance giant AIG, and two of the big three automakers (and who knows what else), the government has kept shoveling money into them in arrangements whose complication defies comprehension.

In any case, the people who “owned” these entities have only a dubious claim. Most of them never set foot in the operations their speculation helped to finance. The capitalist system of financing was such that people were encouraged to borrow money whenever possible. This extended both to cases where the borrower couldn’t afford the loan and to times when money wasn’t needed.

I once attended a five-day training on economic development that started with the advice that it was foolish to use your own money for business expansion. The opportunity cost was too great, and it was better to use money to leverage more money. The added expense of interest was worth it. It was counterintuitive, but it all added up in the looking-glass world of the financial bubble.

This lack of clear ownership also applies to home mortgages. Before the boom, a mortgage was typically held by the lender; if something went wrong with the creditor, ownership reverted to the bank as compensation. However, if a mortgage was sliced into many derivatives, combined with many other mortgages and sold to the four winds—as it has been in many cases to whip more air into the real estate bubble—it isn’t clear who owns the paper corresponding to any single house.

So in a foreclosure, who should get the house? Who knows? There might be hundreds of people with competing claims. There might be thousands. For all I know there might be millions by the time you unwind all the derivatives. N

In many cases, credit agreements are intact and we should leave them so; we need all the stability we can get. But in a growing number of situations, a web of investors, creditors, suppliers, and taxpayers have competing claims to dwindling resources. In these cases, we should look beyond our old ideas of financial ownership to discern who is really invested in the business or dwelling. More importantly, who is best positioned to keep things moving? 

Often, this will be the employees. Sometimes, the customers will have the greatest interest. In the case of dwellings, the residents generally are best-positioned to keep things stable. There may be some economic boost to be had from hiring contractors to “trash out” foreclosed homes, and then later sell people new household goods that wind up in landfills as a result of this process. But I don’t think that we really want to base our recovery on such unproductive and unsustainable (and heartbreaking) practices.

Our old system of ownership is disintegrating, and in cases where there is no clear ownership we need to let go of it as quickly as possible before the rot spreads further. We cannot afford to protect the “investment” of people who are not really invested (i.e. actively involved in the property) unless it really makes sense to do so. In many cases the money is already gone and only bookkeeping tricks are preventing insolvency.

If we let outdated notions of property rights hobble us, we are likely to watch further deterioration and even greater displacement. The more stubborn we are, the harder the lesson will eventually be.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Coopgeek vs. the Wall Street Journal

  1. You really need to get the “big picture”.

    Please re-read the Constitution for the United States of America, Article I, Section. 8

    It says in part: “The Congress shall have Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes…”

    Congress failed to “regulate Commerce” and instead gave us massive deregulation under the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GBLA), Title V, Subtitle A, Financial Privacy 15 U.S.C. § 6801-6809. see:

    This ten year old law eventually gave us today`s housing collapse, created the identity theft engine and enabled spectacular big business greed.

    The irony is that big business, rather than Congress, is taking the blame for all of this.

  2. coopgeek says:

    I agree that the big picture includes Congress, working as a willing accomplice to the looting of our economy. However, the looting was primarily carried out by big business, which hollowed out our manufacturing and agricultural sectors in search of the lowest costs. Thanks for contributing this information about the specfics of Congress’ failure.

  3. Lawful modestly regulated capitalism enables all of us to take risks to achieve maximum profits. We have the opportunity to do such under the US Constitution. In the process, such capitalism give us jobs and money to spend on what we want to spend it on. These are `Blessings of Liberty.` This is freedom. Conversely, unregulated commerce typically results in anarchy and lots of other undesirable results which make entire countries fail. The engine of failure is greed, dishonesty and corruption.

    Balance is the key. Congress is responsible for this task.

    Congress failed in this regard and is still in denial. Instead of fixing the problem at the expense of losing lobbyist`s cash to fund their re-elections, Congress enacted the clearly unconstitutional `stimulus bill` to fix the problem. Such will not fix much at all and should never have become law. This does not absolve big business of any fault. They are indeed entitled to much disdain and their lobbyists should be ignored.

    Political Parties and ideologies are not in the Constitution. This problem is not about liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat. This is about adherence to the Rule of of Law doing the right thing.

    In this regard, Congress was, and still is, the prime enabler of the problem. And, big business is the lobbyist devil that continues to tempt Congress to keep doing the people they represent wrong.

  4. coopgeek says:

    I make a distinction between a market economy and a capitalist one. A capitalist economy is a type of market economy that is based on an ideology of holding capital above people (and everything else). I believe that is inherently unsustainable, since it puts in place processes of concentration that reward greed and aggression. In contrast, a cooperative market economy (including ESOPs and other forms of community and worker control) has balance built into it. Because democracy is internal to the structures of the businesses that use the markets, they are more likely to be self-regulating and “modest.” (great choice of words, thank you). Regulation is still needed, but not as much because business relationships are not based on conflicts of interest. In contrast, big business (which is admittedly a vague and hot-button term that I should use less) is inherently capitalist. The difference between the hundreds of members of ICMIF (all autonomous companies with varying degrees of internal democracy) and AIG is a case in point, which I explore in my most recent post. For another instructive example, please check out this British Model:

  5. I spoke of `capitalism` in the broadest terms, and meant to contrast it with other broader terms like communism, socialism, etc. which are not governmental powers granted to Congress under the US Constitution. I do apologize for any confusion in this regard of appearing to exclude any other `free market` or `free trader` type economies or economic models.

    The people of the United States are first governed by the US Constitution which permits all types of economies. However, the people come first pursuant to the Declaration of Independence: `We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.`

    Thus, economies, regardless of structure, execution or acronym, enjoy at best the second position of importance in the US. The people are always first in importance. In the US, if one chooses any number of economic models, consistent with the US Constitution, one is perfectly free to do so, join with others in such an endeavors, and operate within such economic structures they choose. This is guaranteed by the US Constitution. However, if an economic model is not consistent with the US Constitution, the only alternative is to change the US Constitution.

    All of my previous remarks point to Congress abusing the US Constitution which is a fact only a few members of Congress have admitted on the Federal Register and most will not comment on because they want to change the US Constitution without a vote. Unfortunately, there is no political will to challenge Congress` misdeeds in this regard. So, the current political evil prevails.

    A specific or general economic model did not create the current problem – – Congress abusing the US Constitution is the root cause. All else are symptoms of the disease of political corruption.

    In short, the fuel for disaster continues to flow and we all will have something to complain about until Congress gets back to their appointed task.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s