Tag: Dodd-Frank

Final Thoughts On The SVB Situation

The Daily Escape:

Spring wildflowers, Four Peaks Wilderness, AZ – March 2023 photo by Chris Flores

(This will be the final column for this week as Wrongo and Ms. Right are heading to CA for the Napa Valley wedding of granddaughter Nicole. Columns will resume on 3/23)

Several readers commented on how Silicon Valley Bank’s (SVB) major problem went beyond Wrongo’s discussion of asset management. They’re all former bankers and former colleagues of Wrongo, and they rightly brought up liability management as a key contributor to SVB’s problem.

For banks, the deposits that people make are the bank’s liabilities. The essence of banking is borrowing short term (deposits, overnight borrowings and medium term borrowings) in order to lend that money out for a longer term (mortgages, long term loans or, investments in bonds and long dated US treasuries). The difference between what they pay on their liabilities and what they earn on their loans and investments (the spread) is how banks make their profits.

SVB had little risk that their loans wouldn’t be eventually paid back (credit risk), but they did have substantial interest rate risk if rates went up. That included the risk that the face value of the bonds they invested in would decline in value in higher interest rate scenarios.

This is a well-known challenge for all banks. They try to maintain enough of their assets in easily sold investments so if there’s an unforeseen need to pay out cash to depositors, they can meet that need. The bigger the expected (or unexpected) cash need, the more assets the bank must hold that are easily converted to cash.

It wasn’t a surprise to the banking industry that the Federal Reserve (Fed) was raising rates; Chair Powell clearly said they were going to do that until inflation was under control. Basic liability management principles should have told SVB to move to hedge the risks in a rising rate environment by investing more in very short term (near cash) assets. But SVB didn’t. Maybe they thought they knew better.

SVB isn’t alone. The Fed raised interest rates quickly and sharply during 2022, so the face value of bonds fell. According to the FDIC, US banks were sitting on $620 billion in unrealized losses (assets that had decreased in market value but were still on their books at purchase price) at the end of 2022.

Of that amount, Bank of America alone had unrealized losses of around $114 billion, or 18% of the total.

A major risk that the banks didn’t correctly anticipate was the effect of huge cash injections into the economy during the pandemic, along with a prolonged period of historically low interest rates that predated the pandemic. That had ripple effects on all banks. According to Marc Rubinstein:

“Between the end of 2019 and the first quarter of 2022, deposits at US banks rose by $5.4 trillion. With loan demand weak, only around 15% of that volume was channeled towards loans; the rest was invested in securities portfolios or kept as cash.”

Then came the Fed’s rapid rise in interest rates. From FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg:

“The current interest rate environment has had dramatic effects on the profitability and risk profile of banks’ funding and investment strategies….Unrealized losses weaken a bank’s future ability to meet unexpected liquidity needs,”

Banks do not continually adjust the value of their bond portfolio to market. So their unrealized losses can be difficult for an outsider to see. It also means banks find that selling parts of the portfolio will bring in less cash than they may need, because the securities are worth less in the market than they originally paid for them. That happened to SVB.

From Michael Batnick at Irrelevant Investor:

“Without the pandemic, rates are not at zero for two years. Without the pandemic, $638 billion does not go into venture capital. Without the pandemic, rates don’t go from 0% to 4.5% in a year. And without the pandemic, we wouldn’t be talking about a run on the bank.”

So there’s plenty of blame to go around. The SVB management surely failed: More Treasury bills and fewer bonds would have helped, that’s for sure. They had to know that their customer base, which was concentrated in start-ups, were hemorrhaging cash. They knew that they had unrealized losses in their bond portfolio. Shouldn’t they have shortened their asset mix?

Should we blame the regulators or SVB’s auditors? KPMG gave them a clean bill of health just a few weeks before they went belly up. You would think KPMG should have seen what was coming. And the Fed just announced that they are leading a review of “the supervision and regulation of Silicon Valley Bank in light of its failure.”

For SVB, the government drastically changed its policy about insured deposits. Had SVB been “The Bank of Depositors With No Political Clout”, you can bet that the $250,000 insured deposit limit would have been enforced. And depositors with larger deposits would have had to wait for their money.

But, the exception was made, and now, it will certainly happen again. Ben Carlson says it best:

Facebooklinkedinrss

Another Bank Bailout!

The Daily Escape:

Pronghorn in Las Cienegas National Conservation Area, AZ  – March 2023 photo by Alan Nyiri Photography

More about the Silicon Valley Bank (SVB). A joint announcement by Treasury Secretary Yellen, Fed Chair Powell, and FDIC Chairman Gruenberg said:

“After receiving a recommendation from the boards of the FDIC and the Federal Reserve, and consulting with the President, Secretary Yellen approved actions enabling the FDIC to complete its resolution of Silicon Valley Bank, Santa Clara, California, in a manner that fully protects all depositors. Depositors will have access to all of their money starting Monday, March 13…”

This appears to be the mechanics of the bailout:

  1. The Fed gives money to the FDIC as needed.
    2. The FDIC makes all deposits available on Monday. Not just those that are FDIC-insured.
    3. The FDIC then sells the assets of the banks, which will take time.
    4. The difference between the cost of bailouts and the net proceeds from the asset sales is the actual amount the FDIC will have lost.
    5. The FDIC will charge all other banks a “special assessment” to cover the losses.
    6. The FDIC will then pay the Fed back with the special assessment funds it collects.

Much about this makes Wrongo’s blood boil. We have a well-defined regulatory system for the US banking industry. But, as with our lax regulation of train traffic that resulted in the Norfolk Southern accident in East Palestine, these pesky banking regulations were considered a major impediment to Mr. Market.

Regional banks argued that they shouldn’t be held to the same standards as the biggest banks because if they failed, they wouldn’t pose systemic risks to the banking industry or the nation.

So in 2018, Dodd-Frank was amended by the Trump administration to raise the asset threshold at which a bank would be considered “too big to fail” from $50 million to $250 billion. The 2010 original law required that banks considered systemically important keep more capital on hand, undergo stress tests and produce a “living will” that would provide for their orderly dissolution.

But now five years later, the FDIC says that SVB and Signature Bank in NY really do pose a systemic risk to the banking system! The regulators are saying that the threat of a systemic risk gives them the authority to hold all SVB depositors harmless, even if their deposits exceed the current FDIC maximum of $250,000.

Few if any average Americans have $250,000 in a single bank account. Who has bank accounts above $250,000? Corporations.

The FDIC insurance on deposits is meant to assure retail customers, not companies that hold very large balances. Why? Because companies have the ability to perform their own risk analysis. This risk analysis should force them to ask questions about the business practices of the bank, to make sure the bank will properly manage their assets.

The US is going to protect the deposits of corporations in this bailout despite the fact that there’s a product called “Insured Cash Sweep” that cuts your large deposits into pieces that are FDIC insured (i.e. $250k each). In the event of a bank run, those deposits would not be over the limit, so they would be safe.

But, for reasons unknown, the Silicon Valley Venture Capital masters of the financial universe didn’t deign to use it.

American capitalism remains a system that privatizes profits until shit happens. And then? We socialize the losses, meaning it’s up to the federal government and taxpayers to handle the problem. When Biden says the banking system will pay fees via a special assessment, that means the cost will ultimately be paid by depositors and borrowers through higher fees and interest costs.

This is why people have so little faith in our government.

The very serious people in finance and politics were worried that the 2023 version of the US banking system might be close to another 2008-style collapse. So the Treasury, Fed and FDIC had to step in.

The basic problem relates to what’s called “asset management” in the banking biz. The goal of asset management is to maximize the return of the bank’s investment portfolio while maintaining an acceptable level of both liquidity and risk.

For banks, that means keeping a certain amount of cash available to meet the needs of depositors and investing the rest in loans or bonds. SVB invested in long-term bonds in order to realize better returns on their investment portfolio, because short-term interest rates were very low. They, like others, felt it was necessary to maintain a portfolio of higher yielding assets to offset the low market rates generally available to them.

But when mass withdrawals from depositors started to happen, they had to sell bonds at a loss, ultimately leading to default and FDIC takeover. Wasn’t it the job of the SVB executives to foresee this? And adjust their asset management accordingly?

This seems to mean that the $250,000 FDIC limit has effectively gone away. If true, there’s systemic risk that taxpayers will have to bail out bank deposits with uninsured deposits at any bank. Most of those depositors will be corporations. So, new rules must be written. And until then, we’re in trouble.

The big picture is that very few people of means in America ever pay a price for bad management.

And none go to jail.

Average Americans who get caught cheating on their taxes might go to jail if you were represented by an overworked public defender. But if you had the means to hire a high-priced lawyer, most likely, you will get community service, or probation.

It’s never been a fair system. Back in the 2008 Great Financial Crisis, then-Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner worked to save his banker cronies; they didn’t lose money. They didn’t go to jail. The economy was saved, but no one who profited from blowing it up paid a price.

The bottom line: If I’m bad at my job, I’ll get fired. If these bankers are bad, they may get rescued by the government.

And one way or another, we’ll be paying for it.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Sunday Cartoon Blogging – March 12, 2023

Let’s talk about Silicon Valley Bank (SVB). The tech industry’s go-to lender just became the second-largest bank failure in US history. The bank’s customers withdrew $42 billion from their accounts on Thursday. That’s $4.2 billion an hour, or more than $1 million per second for ten hours straight.

We ancient, moss-covered former bankers call this a bank run. That occurs when a large number of customers of a bank withdraw their deposits simultaneously over concerns about the bank’s solvency.

Nearly half of all venture-backed US companies were SVB customers. We’re unsure why the run started, but on Thursday, several Venture Capital firms started telling their client companies that pulling cash from SVB was prudent, and the run began.

While bank deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) up to $250,000, few of SVB’s deposits, by value, were FDIC insured, since its customers were overwhelmingly corporations with much more than $250,000 in the bank. By Friday, there was no cash left in SVB’s coffers. In fact, the cash on hand was negative, to the tune of $958 million.

Do you remember when Trump and Republicans rolled back some of the regulations Dodd-Frank placed on regional banks?:

“Some banking experts on Friday pointed out that a bank as large as Silicon Valley Bank might have managed its interest rate risks better had parts of the Dodd-Frank financial-regulatory package, put in place after the 2008 crisis, not been rolled back under President Trump.”

Trump signed the bill despite a report from Democrats on Congress’s joint economic committee warning that under the new law, SVB and other banks of its size:

“…would no longer be subject to nearly any enhanced regulations”.

This also affects ordinary people. Wrongo has a California friend who banks with SVB. Here’s a quote from her:

“While I’ve been waiting to sign the purchase contract on a condo, I woke to the news that my lender Silicon Valley Bank has been closed and taken over by regulators. That concludes literally 8 months of working on this….and the end of my effort to buy a home.”

So don’t listen to the pleas for another bank bailout. Wrongo would be okay with bailouts if they were accompanied by personal accountability by management. Like, we’ll rescue your institution, but none of the bank senior management can ever work in finance again. On to cartoons.

Tucker’s mendacity:

It takes two teams to play:

Walmart’s OK with pills for boners, but not for pregnancy:

GOP wants to regulate Trans not Trains:

GOP loves doormats:

Most appropriately named movie of this or any year:

Facebooklinkedinrss

Saturday Soother – April 21, 2018

The Daily Escape:

Bluebells in Hallerbos, Belgium – April 2018 photo by shinbaninja. Bluebells bloom only for about 10 days.

Welcome to the weekend. Let’s take a detour from the continuous drip, drip, drip, of Comey, Stormy, Syria, Cohen, Russia, and North Korea. Instead, take a look at an example of GOP maliciousness that passed under the radar, like a cruise missile, but aimed at American consumers.

The NYT’s Thursday business section reported about Senate Republicans passing a piece of legislation that will eviscerate a little bit more of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (Bureau) supervision in the financial sector: (emphasis, brackets and link by Wrongo)

The Senate voted on Wednesday to overturn an Obama-era rule that restricted automobile lenders from discriminating against minorities by charging them higher fees for car loans, in the latest attempt by Republican lawmakers to roll back financial regulations.

Republican lawmakers, along with one Democrat, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, seized on the Congressional Review Act to overturn guidance issued in 2013 by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The 1996 law [Congressional Review Act] gives Congress the power to nullify rules formulated by government agencies but has primarily been used to void recently enacted rules.

After the Government Accountability Office determined late last year that the consumer bureau’s 2013 guidance on auto lending was technically a rule that could be rolled back, Republicans, led by Senator Patrick J. Toomey (R-PA), targeted it for rescission by using the Congressional Review Act. The House is expected to follow suit and also use the Congressional Review Act to void the guidance.

Republicans have been against the Bureau, which was established under the 2010 Dodd-Frank law since it was passed. Trump’s pick to lead the agency, at least on an interim basis, Mick Mulvaney, has largely frozen its rule-making and enforcement.

Democrats and consumer watchdogs criticized the Senate’s move. Rion Dennis of Americans for Financial Reform, said:

By voting to roll back the CFPB’s work, senators have emboldened banks and finance companies to engage in racial discrimination by charging millions of people of color more for a car loan than is justified….Lawmakers have also opened the door to challenging longstanding agency actions that are crucial to protecting workers, consumers, civil rights, the environment and the economy.

Senator Richard Blumenthal, (D-CT) warned that rescinding the Bureau’s guidance would lead to a flood of unfair, predatory lending:

This truly repugnant resolution ignores the unacceptable, undeniable truth that consumers’ interest rates are regularly marked up based on their race or ethnicity — a disgusting practice that continues to run rampant across the country…

A 2011 report from the Center for Responsible Lending analyzed loan level data and found that African-Americans and Latinos were receiving higher numbers of interest rate markups on their car loans than white consumers. The Bureau issued guidance in 2013 urging auto lenders to curb discriminatory lending practices and used that guidance to justify lawsuits that they brought against auto finance companies.

The Department of Justice can still bring lawsuits against auto lenders for discriminatory practices, even if the guidance is nullified. But legal experts say the government could be less successful in bringing such cases without the guidance from a government agency saying the practices are viewed as improper.

Why are Republicans so mean-spirited? This is just gratuitous maliciousness towards African-Americans and other people of color. Who benefits, except a few huge GOP donors in the financial services industry?

This is another example of why TURNOUT in November is all that we have left to save the Republic.

No way to spin it, we’ve had another tough week, so it’s time for a Saturday Soother. Let’s start by brewing a yuuge cup of Sumatra Tano Batak ($21/12 oz.). The beans come from the northern part of the Indonesian island of Sumatra, and are valued for their complex earth and fruit notes. That comes from using unorthodox fruit removal and drying practices called “wet-hulling.” Then the beans are roasted by PT’s Coffee in Topeka, Kansas. According to them, drinking it invokes the experience of eating cherries in a flower garden next to a patch of fresh, fragrant, just-turned earth.

Sounds like it could be the Fields of Wrong on a warm April day.

Now settle back in a comfy chair and listen to the most underappreciated jazz singer, Johnny Hartman. He’s Wrongo’s favorite of that era. Here he is singing “I’ll Remember April” from his 1955 album, “Songs from the Heart”. It was Hartman’s debut album:

Those who read the Wrongologist in email can view the video here.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Congress Greases the Skids for Exxon

(See below for the Daily Escape)

While America’s focus has been on the Orange Overlord’s blizzard of executive orders, and his public love-making with Putin, we were distracted from some of the actions by the GOP’s Congressional worms who are intent on chewing through our regulatory protections.

Did you feel burdened by a Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) rule requiring that American corporations doing business overseas reveal how much money they’re spending in foreign countries? This is called the Resource Extraction Rule, and apparently, it has been a terrible burden for Exxon and other oil firms.

VOX reported that, on the same day the Senate confirmed Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, the House voted to kill a transparency rule for oil companies that Tillerson once lobbied against while CEO of Exxon Mobil. Now it’s on to the Senate and the Orange Leader for action:

Using the little-known Congressional Review Act, the House GOP voted on Wednesday to kill an Obama-era regulation that would require publicly traded oil, gas, and mining companies to disclose any payments that they made to foreign governments, including taxes and royalties.

The Resource Extraction Rule is part of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act. Back then, senators from both parties included a provision requiring greater disclosure from mining and drilling companies’ activities abroad. The hope was to cut down on corruption in resource-rich developing countries by increasing transparency.

Over the past six years, the SEC tried to craft a rule that would give the legislation teeth. But the SEC’s first attempt at regulation was struck down by the courts in 2012. The rule didn’t actually get finished until June 27, 2016. As Charlie Pierce says: (emphasis by the Wrongologist)

In other countries, resource extraction is a polite way of describing corruption and bribery on a grand scale, and it’s also a dead serious matter for local activists who are trying to take on international corporations and their native plunderers in local government.

Remember the Congressional Review Act (CRA). It is the mechanism the GOP will use to undo much of what the Obama administration did in the areas of corporate responsibility and environmental justice.

At its core, the CRA states that any “recent” regulation (the Act’s definition of recent means it only applies to those passed by the Obama administration after June, 2016) can be repealed by a majority vote of both houses of Congress. Any repeal vote taken by the Senate cannot be filibustered, and the list includes more than 50 Obama-era regulations.

So far, the Stream Protection rule that restricted coal companies from dumping debris and waste into nearby waterways has been revoked, along with the Social Security gun rule that prevented mentally impaired persons from buying guns.

Now, they’ve gutted the Resource Extraction rule.

Under the CRA, the SEC is barred from crafting a new rule that has “substantially the same form” as the repealed regulation. So, Congress has thrown a rose to the oil and gas and mining industries that will be difficult to reverse.

Despite GOP concerns, similar rules are in place in the European Union. Reporting by the United Kingdom, France, Norway and Canada shows $150 billion in payments to governments in more than 100 countries.

Sounds like something citizens should know about.

The GOP’s argument is that American oil and gas companies need to make these under-the-table payments, in order to compete in third world countries.

This is America under the GOP: We can’t afford to provide the world’s best education to our kids. We can’t afford to take care of our elderly, but we absolutely must have policies that allow Exxon and friends to bribe foreign governments.

 

The Daily Escape: The National Library of China, in Beijing’s educational district.

(Image by Tian-yu Xiong for the National Geographic)

Facebooklinkedinrss

GOP Plans To Gut Dodd-Frank

Do you trust the banks and brokerage houses to govern themselves? Do you think that reducing banking regulations will help the economy, or your personal financial situation? Before you answer:

  • Remember that the economic meltdown of 2008 was caused by overreach by the financial industry.
  • Remember that it took the next eight years to climb out of the Great Recession and return to pre-2008 employment levels.

Dave Dayen in the Fiscal Times points out that there will be a vote this week in the Congress that will say a lot about how willing the Democrats in Congress will be to fight the deregulation avalanche that’s about to come crashing down on We the People. From Dayen: (brackets and emphasis by the Wrongologist)

As early as Wednesday, the House will take up H.R. 6392, the Systemic Risk Designation Improvement Act. This bill would lift mandatory Dodd-Frank regulatory supervision for all banks with more than $50 billion in assets, meaning those financial giants would no longer be subject to blanket requirements regarding capital and leverage, public disclosures and the production of “living wills” to map out how to unwind [the bank] during a crisis.

The intent of the new regulation authored by Blaine Leutkemeyer (R-MO), isn’t about helping the biggest banks, but the relatively smaller regional players, firms like PNC Bank, Capital One and SunTrust. An estimated 28 institutions would be affected. The eight “global systemically important banks” would remain subject to the standards: Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, Wells Fargo, Bank of New York Mellon, Morgan Stanley and State Street Bank.

But the so-called regional banks are not small operations. These 28 regionals have combined assets of about $4.5 trillion. It is useful to remember that in the 2008 crisis, regional banks like Washington Mutual and Wachovia also came crashing down.

The American Banker says that the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), the new super-regulator charged with monitoring systemic risk, will be gutted by the Trump administration: (brackets and emphasis by the Wrongologist)

Because the FSOC is headed by the Treasury secretary…[a cabinet post selected]…by the White House, a Trump administration is unlikely to continue any of the council’s…priorities, including the designation of nonbanks or continued regulation of those firms already designated.

It is obvious that if this bill passes and is signed by President Trump, financial regulation will be relaxed, not by repeal, but through atrophy. Republicans want to replace any mandatory rules for regulation with discretionary ones. That way they can claim that they’re merely improving the system by putting the decisions in the hands of the experts instead of members of Congress.

A next step will be to hire regulators dedicated to turning a blind eye to what the financial industry does. The chair of FSOC is the Treasury Secretary. Trump’s candidates for Treasury Secretary include Steven Mnuchin, Trump’s national finance chair and the most likely choice for Treasury, who sits on the board of directors of CIT, a financial services company with more than $50 billion in assets. The Treasury Secretary will ensure that the rest of the FSOC board is made up of regulators and presidential appointees who share Trump’s laissez-faire philosophy.

President Obama will veto this bill if it passes the Senate before January 20th. But the Republicans plan to roll it out this week, instead of waiting for Trump to enter the Oval Office. They want to gauge just how much backbone Democrats have after their thumping in the election. More from Dayen:

This is really a moment of truth for those Democrats. If Republicans put up a big bipartisan vote in the House for this, the Senate will be more inclined to try to pass it down the road. And it will serve as a test case for Democratic resolve more generally.

Wall Street-friendly Dems have already endorsed tailoring Dodd-Frank rules to eliminate smaller regionals from the rules. This bill is a big change, and the question is whether Democrats play ball with Trump’s deregulation agenda, or will they recognize the harm it will cause?

This is an early test for those Dems whose seats are at-risk in 2018 and 2020.

Financial deregulation has rarely been a partisan political matter. Democrats and Republicans have typically worked together to roll back rules and loosen up the Wall Street casino.

HR 6392 could represent a return to those times, or it could be the moment when Democrats join together and say “no”, forcing Republicans to support the banking industry agenda on their own.

Party line resistance by Democrats could be in their longer-term best interest.

Facebooklinkedinrss

Too Much Focus on GDP

(Wrongo is back from his project. Regular blogging begins again today.)

In our lifetime, Gross Domestic Product, or GDP, has been transformed from a narrow economic indicator to our universal yardstick of progress. This spells trouble. While economies and cultures measure their performance by it, GDP ignores central facts such as quality, costs, or purpose. It only measures output: more cars, more accidents; more lawyers, more trials; more extraction, and more pollution. All count as success in the GDP equation. In fact, our cumulative real GDP growth since 2008 is 6.9%.

But we need to focus on other yardsticks to understand what is really going on with our economy. First, take a look at the growth in job openings (blue line) vs. growth in hourly wages (red line):

fredgraph 81715

In the past, the two have usually moved in tandem, which makes sense, since the laws of supply and demand should also apply to employment. But since 2011, and most notably in the past year, they have diverged starkly, with wages drifting back to where they were in 2012, while unfilled job openings have skyrocketed: Job openings are now higher than at the height of the tech boom in 2000. And yet, worker’s wages um, suck.

What happened? Perhaps huge numbers of people are now returning to the labor market after years on the sidelines. We know that many people want a job, but stopped searching for lack of opportunities, while many others want more than the part-time work they’ve managed to find. The uneven pace of wage growth shows there is plenty of slack in the labor market. This is supported by Bloomberg’s report that we still need another 2.4 million jobs to reach “full employment”, (5.1%).

So by definition, we can’t be in a tight labor market.

Some of the difficulties driving American job growth are the problems in the global economy. We see low growth in the developed world, coupled with the continuing impact of automation and the movement of much of our remaining manufacturing jobs to low-wage developing nations.

Take a look at another chart, showing the growth in productivity vs. growth in wages:

Hourly compensation vs productivity 81715

Hourly compensation grew in tandem with productivity until 1973. After 1973, productivity grew, but the typical worker’s compensation has been relatively stagnant. This divergence of pay and productivity has meant that the majority of workers did not benefit from productivity growth.

This is another way of saying that the economy could afford higher pay, but didn’t provide it.

The analysis confirms that since 1973, the largest factor driving the gap between productivity and median compensation has been the growing inequality of wages. The divergence between wages and productivity we see above, along with increasing concentration of wealth in the very top of the social strata, are not just correlated, they have a causal relationship.

The two charts demonstrate the shift of income from labor to capital. Larry Mishel of EPI notes that from 2000 to 2011, there was a shift from income derived from labor to income derived from capital, accounting for roughly 45% of the gap shown above.

Workers have lost their share of gains in productivity. It was stolen by capital.

Thorsten Veblen distinguished between the Captain of Business, whose focus was on goods production, and the Captain of Finance, who concerned himself with manipulating money. He deplored the replacement of Industry by Finance; and the situation today is far worse than in the early 1900s. (Veblen died in 1929.)

The development of finance since the late 1970s has been near-pathological. It has been essentially unregulated, left free to become an oversized parasite. It has assimilated more and more of our traditional economic activity through “financialization“. The recklessness of that was made clear by its damage to the housing market in 2008, followed by the huge loss of jobs that occurred in its aftermath.

It is that crisis that leaves wages weak today. It is those jobs that we have been looking for the past eight years.

It is well past time to put finance back in its place. The Dodd-Frank law will never be enough, since it continues to allow the very innovations in finance that can take down the financial system, even while pretending to decrease them.

Capitalism has a phenomenal capacity to lift people out of poverty. But it does so at a cost. Capitalism changed before, and it’s time for it to change again. Free markets have existed for thousands of years; capitalism as we now know it, for fewer than 150.

Effective and productive free markets should also provide workers a living wage. If today’s capitalism isn’t the means to that end, it is time to change it.

Facebooklinkedinrss