Unemployment Is Up, but the Banks Are Doing Well
Last Friday's job report showed that most of the US is experiencing enormous economic pain, even if America's economy is now in a recovery. Overall unemployment rose to 9.8%, with the unemployment rate for men hitting a new post-depression high. The economy shed another 260,000 jobs in September and the previous figure for jobs lost in the recession was revised up by more than 800,000. The average workweek continues to shorten. With real wages falling, this ensures that most workers will be taking home shrinking wages.
For the vast majority of people in the country, who derive the vast majority of their income from working, the economy looks really awful. But the economy is not looking bad for everyone.
As we are constantly reminded, the financial crisis is behind us and the banks are back in their feet. In fact, they are more than just back on their feet. In many ways they are doing better than ever. The most recent data from the commerce department shows that the financial industry profits now account for more than 31.5% of all corporate profits. This is a higher share than at any point during the housing bubble years.
Of course, it is not that hard to make profits when you get to borrow money from the Fed at almost no interest and then lend it back to the government at 3.5% interest. Suppose the state of California was given the privilege of not only borrowing $1 trillion from the Fed at near zero interest but also using the money to buy Treasury bonds paying 3.5% interest. The $35bn in annual interest rate subsidies would take care of California's huge budget deficit pretty quickly.
But hey, California is just a big state. It's not a Wall Street bank. Congress is not going to tolerate special treatment for state governments.
The "save the banks" crew continues to peddle a seriously misleading story, mostly without challenge. They tell us that we had no choice. If we didn't give the banks trillions of dollars in their hour of desperate need, then the situation would be even worse.
There is no doubt that a complete collapse of the financial system would have complicated the recovery. However, handing the banks trillions, no questions asked, was not the only alternative.
Last year we faced a situation in which nearly every major bank faced bankruptcy: they could not pay their debts without the help of the government. Rather than just make below market loans, with few or no conditions, we could have made loans conditional on changing the way the banks did business. This would mean prohibiting them from dealing in complex derivative instruments, limiting leverage and seriously cutting executive compensation. (How does a $2m absolute cap - counting bonuses, stock options and other perks - sound?)
We could have done this because the US government held all the cards. If they didn't get money from us they would have been out of business. We could have told them to run around Wall Street naked, to walk on hot coals, to wear stupid looking hats, the choice was shutting down their banks and looking for new jobs.
Instead, we just handed them the cash, no questions asked. Now the banks are bigger and badder than ever and paying out big bonuses, just like before. As things stand, they will be an even bigger drain on the economy in the years ahead than they were in the years leading up to crash.
And, if anyone thinks that the banks have learned something about safe business practices, they have not been paying attention. What the banks have learned is that if you wreck your bank, and incidentally bring down the economy in the process, you can just send your lobbyists to Congress and the White House with empty bags and ask to have them filled up with money. The lesson is that Congress will say yes.
The politicians and the media can be counted on running to protect the banks in their hour of need. While tens of millions of people losing their jobs or their homes is just an unfortunate aspect of the modern economy, the collapse of Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, or Bank of America is a tragedy that our elites just can't fathom.
So, be prepared to endure many more years of high unemployment, under-employment and declining real wages. Upwards of two million people are likely to lose their homes in 2010 and 2011. But the good news is that the economy is recovering and the banks are alright.




















Dean Baker is happy enough to rehash some old news, bash a universally unpopular entity like Goldman Sachs, and shed crocodile tears about unemployment, and...
He's also smart enough to keep his miserable suggestion for how to make things better away from TPMCafe, where it was sure to get bashed.
He saved that garbage for Truthout, where comments are carefully moderated, and establishment tools like Dean Baker can post crap without fear of attracting too much hostility.
So we give Big Business a huge tax-break, and "in principle they should want to hire 5 percent more workers,"
And why not? Tax-payers just gave them all the money they need!
This is exactly like the multi-trillion-dollar give-aways to criminal bankers, which "in principle" should have made them want to lend out more money... but it didn't.
The bankers just used the money to pay down their own debts and make bargain acquisitions, and what's to prevent Big Business from doing exactly the same thing with the huge tax-break Dean Baker wants to give them?
Nothing.
If tax-payers want to created millions of jobs, wouldn't directly hiring millions of unemployed workers for public-works projects be infinitely more reliable than trusting Big Business to "do the right thing?"
Yes.
But Dean Baker and all the other little economists who depend on banks and corporations don't want you to think those naughty thoughts!
Public-works programs are socialism!
More give-aways and tax-breaks are the American Way!
I suppose it's a compliment to TPMCafe that the sold-out clown Dean Baker didn't roll out his miserable plan here, where comments are not moderated.
So thanks for the respect, Dino, and shove your tax-breaks where the moon don't shine!
If tax-cuts cured unemployment, we would already be living in a paradise of full employment, after 8 long years of Bush/Cheney's stinking tax-cuts for billionaires, and you might think that this brute fact would be obvious even to a third-tier economist like Dean Baker, but...
"Whose bread I eat, his song I sing."
October 5, 2009 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
My criticism of "Honest Dean" Baker is open to the apparently justified criticism that tax credits would only apply when workers were hired, unlike tax cuts or other more transparent give-aways.
But in the real world, there are infinitely many ways for Big Business to diddle provisions about actual hiring, and the weasels who rule the world hire an army of lobbyists to write those provisions into every bill.
Representatives and Senators can occasionally whip up a little public outrage about bonuses at Goldman Sachs, for example, but when it comes to fighting through every comma in every line of legislation, they don't have enough high-quality staff for that monumental task, and if anyone demonstrates a knack for it, he or she can make ten times as much money as a lobbyist than a staffer.
Bloggers and old-media journalists are even less capable scrutinizing legislation line by line, and so instead of pretending to be shocked, shocked, every time yet another Congressional boondoggle accomplishes exactly the opposite of what it was supposed to accomplish, and the rich just get richer...
It makes more sense for bloggers and journalists to agitate for programs which are inherently transparent, like public works, where the bosses never get a chance to filter the money through their sticky little fingers.
And part of that sort of (at least) potentially effective public consciousness raising is...
Bashing establishment tools like Dean Baker, who pretend they don't foresee the inevitable boondoggles in programs like tax-credits, until it's too late to do anything about it.
October 5, 2009 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ruta, thanks for the link to the Truthout article.
But I have to say that the Truthout piece is a completely different post, with a different point, than the topic of this thread.
I am not in full agreement with Dean's suggestion about the tax credit. But I do not think your characterization of his position is complete.
In that article, Dean also said...
So this is not his main plan. Also, he said...
So Dean conceded the main point of your two-post rant above, that surely some businesses would find ways to "diddle" the provisions of such a program.
So, bottom line, except for providing the link (again, thanks), I don't see the point of your rant. Unless it is "I don't like Dean Baker!"
-- ARG
October 6, 2009 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
The time to act on this was when the banks were getting their "bailout" The old farce by conservatives is that wealth is created but in truth is a zero sum game. the more wealthy the rich get the poorer everyone else gets because like I said many times before money and wealth are merely arbiters of status. In other words money is access to real world goods and services, so when it accumulates in just a few hands the majority suffer. The loss in jobs and thus status by the lower classes is proportional to the wealth transfer to the upper class. Unless that is addressed, their will be violence and much more suffering.
October 5, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the short term, everything is a zero-sum game. In the long term "we are all dead", no, wait, that's that what I meant :-) ... over a longer span, it's possible to have a positive-sum system. However, the experiments of the last few Republican administrations show that tax cuts are not the trick.
October 6, 2009 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmm . . .
Does this mean that out local McGarbage and Taco Swill will be receiving tax breaks and training credits for hiring more part-time employees at minimum wage and no benefits so they can open the two extra serving lines that have been closed since the downturn?
Just wondering . . .
~OGD~
October 6, 2009 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Most studies show that labor demand is highly inelastic (this is why increases in the minimum wage have little effect on employment), so a tax credit that modestly decreases the cost of labor is unlikely to have much effect on employment. On the other hand, there would be many opportunities for employers to game this tax credit.
The most obvious is simply bringing some jobs on payroll that are currently contracted out. For example, if a company currently contracts out its custodial services it can instead hire people on its payroll to do this work and get the $3,000 tax credit. This would lead to no net gain in jobs. It would have been helpful if this piece had included some analysis of this tax proposal."
Dean Baker, http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press
October 6, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re- state ownership of banks.
there is a guy running for governor in FL, Farid Khavari, a PhD economist and author of ENVIRONOMICS and 8 other books.
He has a detailed proposal and a 2-minute video about the benefits and workings of a state-owned bank in FL. The state would earn Billions per year providing 6% CDs, 2% fixed/15 yr mortgages, 6% credit cards. The average family would save over $400,000 in 40 years. (in CA it would be more like a million).
Also relates to a plan that creates a MILLION JOBS in private sector, good pay and benefits--with NO SUBSIDIES.
www.khavariforgovernor.com
October 8, 2009 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink