The Quiet Coup (Simon Johnson)

by Chris Sturr | March 31, 2009

This article, which hypothesizes that an “American financial oligarchy” has (re)emerged and is turning the United States into a Banana Republic, is getting a lot of attention. (See our Jan/Feb 2009 cover story for a related argument, though the meat of this one is the financial elite part.) Krugman mentioned it in his March 29th column. And Brad DeLong has a post about it on his blog, with many comments, some of them interesting. The excerpt I’m giving below is not from the beginning of the article, fyi.

The Quiet Coup

By Simon Johnson | The Atlantic | May 2009

Becoming a Banana Republic

In its depth and suddenness, the U.S. economic and financial crisis is shockingly reminiscent of moments we have recently seen in emerging markets (and only in emerging markets): South Korea (1997), Malaysia (1998), Russia and Argentina (time and again). In each of those cases, global investors, afraid that the country or its financial sector wouldn’t be able to pay off mountainous debt, suddenly stopped lending. And in each case, that fear became self-fulfilling, as banks that couldn’t roll over their debt did, in fact, become unable to pay. This is precisely what drove Lehman Brothers into bankruptcy on September 15, causing all sources of funding to the U.S. financial sector to dry up overnight. Just as in emerging-market crises, the weakness in the banking system has quickly rippled out into the rest of the economy, causing a severe economic contraction and hardship for millions of people.

But there’s a deeper and more disturbing similarity: elite business interests—financiers, in the case of the U.S.—played a central role in creating the crisis, making ever-larger gambles, with the implicit backing of the government, until the inevitable collapse. More alarming, they are now using their influence to prevent precisely the sorts of reforms that are needed, and fast, to pull the economy out of its nosedive. The government seems helpless, or unwilling, to act against them.

Top investment bankers and government officials like to lay the blame for the current crisis on the lowering of U.S. interest rates after the dotcom bust or, even better—in a “buck stops somewhere else” sort of way—on the flow of savings out of China. Some on the right like to complain about Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, or even about longer-standing efforts to promote broader homeownership. And, of course, it is axiomatic to everyone that the regulators responsible for “safety and soundness” were fast asleep at the wheel.

But these various policies—lightweight regulation, cheap money, the unwritten Chinese-American economic alliance, the promotion of homeownership—had something in common. Even though some are traditionally associated with Democrats and some with Republicans, they all benefited the financial sector. Policy changes that might have forestalled the crisis but would have limited the financial sector’s profits—such as Brooksley Born’s now-famous attempts to regulate credit-default swaps at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, in 1998—were ignored or swept aside.

The financial industry has not always enjoyed such favored treatment. But for the past 25 years or so, finance has boomed, becoming ever more powerful. The boom began with the Reagan years, and it only gained strength with the deregulatory policies of the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. Several other factors helped fuel the financial industry’s ascent. Paul Volcker’s monetary policy in the 1980s, and the increased volatility in interest rates that accompanied it, made bond trading much more lucrative. The invention of securitization, interest-rate swaps, and credit-default swaps greatly increased the volume of transactions that bankers could make money on. And an aging and increasingly wealthy population invested more and more money in securities, helped by the invention of the IRA and the 401(k) plan. Together, these developments vastly increased the profit opportunities in financial services.

Not surprisingly, Wall Street ran with these opportunities. From 1973 to 1985, the financial sector never earned more than 16 percent of domestic corporate profits. In 1986, that figure reached 19 percent. In the 1990s, it oscillated between 21 percent and 30 percent, higher than it had ever been in the postwar period. This decade, it reached 41 percent. Pay rose just as dramatically. From 1948 to 1982, average compensation in the financial sector ranged between 99 percent and 108 percent of the average for all domestic private industries. From 1983, it shot upward, reaching 181 percent in 2007.

The great wealth that the financial sector created and concentrated gave bankers enormous political weight—a weight not seen in the U.S. since the era of J.P. Morgan (the man). In that period, the banking panic of 1907 could be stopped only by coordination among private-sector bankers: no government entity was able to offer an effective response. But that first age of banking oligarchs came to an end with the passage of significant banking regulation in response to the Great Depression; the reemergence of an American financial oligarchy is quite recent.

Read the full article.

Leave a comment

Comments (0)

  1. A Banana Republic as an economic role model for the rest of the world at the G-20 Summit?Argentine negotiators were in favor of including a reference about the channel of transition to facilitate that those millions from financial salivations approved by developed countries reaches directly the real sectors of the economy. To justify it, Argentina exposes itself as a model: After the crisis of 2001-2002 (that has parallels with the actual global crisis in its origins; high debt and financial collapse) the economy of the country had a fast recovery fueled by public expending, companies self financing, with a very low participation of the financial sector (15%). After the G 20 reveals the final document we will know if this suggestion made from own experience was successful.

  2. A Banana Republic as an economic role model for the rest of the world at the G-20 Summit?Argentine negotiators were in favor of including a reference about the channel of transition to facilitate that those millions from financial salivations approved by developed countries reaches directly the real sectors of the economy. To justify it, Argentina exposes itself as a model: After the crisis of 2001-2002 (that has parallels with the actual global crisis in its origins; high debt and financial collapse) the economy of the country had a fast recovery fueled by public expending, companies self financing, with a very low participation of the financial sector (15%). After the G 20 reveals the final document we will know if this suggestion made from own experience was successful.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: