• Monthly
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $other
  • use PayPal

CounterPunch needs you. piggybank-icon You need us. The cost of keeping the site alive and running is growing fast, as more and more readers visit. We want you to stick around, but it eats up bandwidth and costs us a bundle. Help us reach our modest goal (we are half way there!) so we can keep CounterPunch going. Donate today!
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Socializing Losses

In another installment of the demise of free-market optimism, the US House of Representatives has passed the package effectively giving the green light to the government to protect the two mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.

Both these monuments of the mortgage landscape guarantee something in the order of $5.2 trillion of America’s $12 trillion market.  The package raised the national debt limit to $10.6 trillion.  Refinancing for mortgages is also provided, upwards of $300 billion. A measure where some $4 billion worth of local government grants for the purchase and refurbishment of foreclosed properties has also been slipped in.

The package, authored primarily by Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, has successfully seduced George W. Bush.  Despite initial rumblings of dissatisfaction, the President had to relent.  He had been cornered, looking mean spirited for threatening to veto a package for its $4 billion block grant program.  All fine to help Wall Street, not ‘ordinary’ Americans struggling on the mortgage belt.

But both Fannie and Freddie are curious anomalies in the free market system.  While they operate as private companies with stocks, they have that curious title of ‘government-sponsored enterprises.’  They purchase loans from lending institutions and package them as bonds, thereby selling them to investment firms (for instance, pension funds).

The nature of their constitutions, it must be said, seems to give them a direct link to government assistance in the event of crisis.  As Paul Krugman of the New York Times points out, this system tolerates a pernicious practice: ‘profits are privatized but losses are socialized’.

The package is being labeled as revolutionary as the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation of the 1930s, a New Deal creation that was designed to soften the brutal Great Depression foreclosures.

But this package is getting more opposition than previous bailout and subsidizing measures that have provided a blank check for economic imprudence and incompetence.  During the Reagan administration, it became clear that, on the one hand, supply side economics and private buccaneering would be encouraged; on the other hand, if that buccaneering should fail, the state would happily extend the purse.

This package, which is bound to pass both houses, may be different in so far as it targets Fannie and Freddie mortgage holders, not the pirating exploits of Wall Street.  But the argument is the same, whether one is shoring up the foolish ventures of a well-moneyed executive, or the foolish decisions of a small home owner: preventing economic slide.  To not rescue such institutions as Mac and Mae would see half a million house owners on the streets.  Mortgage prices will be driven up as a result.

The package has proven revealing in how it has split the Republican Party.  Consensus in the minority party of both houses has dissolved (some 45 Republicans joined 227 Democrats in passing the bill).  House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio was baffled at this mobilization of the treasury to bailout bad loans. The fiscally responsible Republican, or so one is supposed to think, is bucking the trend of the fiscally irresponsible glutton.

Opponents of the package cannot be dismissed lightly.  Whether you agree with the ‘sink or swim’ attitude of the finance measure, a dogma that is of only limited utility these days, the package was never asked for by the two giants.  It comes as a rather costly, unsolicited gift.

Some columnists insist on a sober assessment – Krugman insists that a government rescue may be needed but only to patch over problems which have otherwise been ‘overblown’. In the second place, these giants had little, if almost nothing to do with the high-risk speculation that engulfed the American housing market after the 1990s.  Nor can they actually engage in subprime lending.

In short, Fannie and Freddie were actually regulated to begin with.  The scale of the market meltdown has simply proven so extensive, that Fannie-Freddie regulated mortgages have not been enough to insulate the market and its desperate borrowers. Nor have these giants assured a deep enough capitalization.

Many will wish that the Treasury’s authority will never be used – but this precedent is yet another aimed nail into the coffin of free market buccaneers.

BINOY KAMPMARK was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn Collge, University of Cambridge.  He can be reached at bkampmark@gmail.com

 

 

 

 

 

More articles by:

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

May 23, 2019
Kenn Orphan
The Belligerence of Empire
Ralph Nader
What and Who Gave Us Trump?
Ramzy Baroud
Madonna’s Fake Revolution: Eurovision, Cultural Hegemony and Resistance
Tom Engelhardt
Living in a Nation of Political Narcissists
Binoy Kampmark
Challenging Orthodoxies: Alabama’s Anti-Abortion Law
Thomas Klikauer
Why Reactionaries Won in Australia
John Steppling
A New Volkisch Mythos
Cathy Breen
So Many Wars: Remembering Friends in Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Kurdistan and Turkey 
Chuck Collins
Ending the Generational Abuse of Student Debt
Robert J. Burrowes
Understanding NATO, Ending War
Nyla Ali Khan
Dilution of “Kashmiriyat” and Regional Nationalism
May 22, 2019
T.J. Coles
Vicious Cycle: The Pentagon Creates Tech Giants and Then Buys their Services
Thomas Knapp
A US War on Iran Would be Evil, Stupid, and Self-Damaging
Johnny Hazard
Down in Juárez
Mark Ashwill
Albright & Powell to Speak at Major International Education Conference: What Were They Thinking?
Binoy Kampmark
The Victory of Small Visions: Morrison Retains Power in Australia
Laura Flanders
Can It Happen Here?
Dean Baker
The Money in the Trump/Kushner Middle East Peace Plan
Manuel Perez-Rocha – Jen Moore
How Mining Companies Use Excessive Legal Powers to Gamble with Latin American Lives
George Ochenski
Playing Politics With Coal Plants
Ted Rall
Why Joe Biden is the Least Electable Democrat
May 21, 2019
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Locked in a Cold War Time Warp
Roger Harris
Venezuela: Amnesty International in Service of Empire
Patrick Cockburn
Trump is Making the Same Mistakes in the Middle East the US Always Makes
Robert Hunziker
Custer’s Last Stand Meets Global Warming
Lance Olsen
Renewable Energy: the Switch From Drill, Baby, Drill to Mine, Baby, Mine
Dean Baker
Ady Barkan, the Fed and the Liberal Funder Industry
Manuel E. Yepe
Maduro Gives Trump a Lesson in Ethics and Morality
Jan Oberg
Trump’s Iran Trap
David D’Amato
What is Anarchism?
Nicky Reid
Trump’s War In Venezuela Could Be Che’s Revenge
Elliot Sperber
Springtime in New York
May 20, 2019
Richard Greeman
The Yellow Vests of France: Six Months of Struggle
Manuel García, Jr.
Abortion: White Panic Over Demographic Dilution?
Robert Fisk
From the Middle East to Northern Ireland, Western States are All Too Happy to Avoid Culpability for War Crimes
Tom Clifford
From the Gulf of Tonkin to the Persian Gulf
Chandra Muzaffar
Targeting Iran
Valerie Reynoso
The Violent History of the Venezuelan Opposition
Howard Lisnoff
They’re Just About Ready to Destroy Roe v. Wade
Eileen Appelbaum
Private Equity is a Driving Force Behind Devious Surprise Billings
Binoy Kampmark
Bob Hawke: Misunderstood in Memoriam
J.P. Linstroth
End of an era for ETA?: May Basque Peace Continue
Weekend Edition
May 17, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Melvin Goodman
Trump and the Middle East: a Long Record of Personal Failure
Joan Roelofs
“Get Your Endangered Species Off My Bombing Range!”
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Slouching Towards Tehran
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail