Here’s an important message to CounterPunch readers from
Here at CounterPunch we love Barbara Ehrenreich for many reasons: her courage, her intelligence and her untarnished optimism. Ehrenreich knows what’s important in life; she knows how hard most Americans have to work just to get by, and she knows what it’s going to take to forge radical change in this country. We’re proud to fight along side her in this long struggle. We hope you agree with Barbara that CounterPunch plays a unique role on the Left. Our future is in your hands. Please donate.
Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.
Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.
CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.
The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.
Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683
Thank you for your support,
Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel
CounterPunch PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558
Why Paulson’s Plan Falls Short
The regulatory framework proposed by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson will not address fundamental problems in the banking sector that contributed significantly to the recession and that must be fixed to rescue the U.S. economy from recession and avoid future crises.
The banks and securities companies, essentially, created overly complex and risky securities when bundling subprime mortgages and other loans into bonds. The banks became engaged in bogus, off books operations and credit default swaps that proved less than worthy. Ultimately, the value of these bonds collapsed, as investors could not adequately evaluate those bonds and discount for their risks.
Now fixed income investors no longer trust the credibility of the banks and securities companies, and these firms can no longer bundle mortgages, consumer loans and business loans into bonds, giving rise to the current credit shortage.
Even with a lower fed funds rate and beefed up access to the discount window, banks lack the credibility to raise funds in the fixed income market to make loans adequate to power the economy out of recession.
The regulatory reform and reorganization proposed by Secretary Paulson would enhance the Federal Reserve’s access to information about investment bank and securities companies activities, and subject many to stricter prudential financial standards; however, it does little to constrain the banks and securities from the kinds of abuses that gave rise to the current crisis. Nor does his plan provide adequate safeguard to avoid future credit crises and recessions from a recurrence of securitization abuses.
Further, Paulson’s plan does not address the problem of the bond rating agencies. Rating services are paid by the banks and securities companies to rate the bonds created by those companies. This has proven a flawed model that Paulson seems unwilling to address.
PETER MORICI is a professor at the University of Maryland School of Business and former chief economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission.