Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Gerald Warner: Capitalism didn't kill the banks – socialism did

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 23 November 2008
AT LAST – the death of capitalism has occurred, as so often predicted by all those rheumy-eyed revolutionaries bumming drinks off students in pubs ("See me, son, ah'm a socialist. Did ye ever read a book called The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists? Magic!"). Zzzz…
The thesis is that the banking system, propelled by the centrifugal force of its own greed, has spun off its axis, as it was always predestined to do through the operation of Marxist historical inevitability, and a new order is arising under which th
e financial institutions are progressively falling into public ownership. Under the stimulus of this unlooked-for remission, even the moribund Labour Left is sitting up and taking some thin gruel.

Alas for all those ragged-trousered philanthropists holding a mirror hopefully to the nostrils of capitalism, a detailed diagnosis shows that socialism is not the cure but the cause of the malady. The notion that capitalism cannibalised itself is bunkum and the evidence is irrefutable. Amid all the myriad analyses of the financial collapse, one sole premise commands universal assent: the crisis originated in the sub-prime mortgage meltdown in America.

If we establish what caused that, we shall have discovered the root of the banking crisis. Well, that is easy: it was Gordon Gekko and his ilk, was it not? Actually, no: it was Bill Clinton and his cronies, with their politically correct affirmative action. That is the fact of the matter – the Clinton administration compelled the banks to lend to minorities, to comply with racial and social quotas that defied all the rules of banking.

In 1994 the New York Times reported jubilantly that the Clinton administration was leaning heavily on lenders to embrace people in low-income neighbourhoods or minority groups.

From then on, the madness gathered pace. In 1999, pressured by Clinton, Fannie Mae started a programme of extensive expansion of loans to people with low to moderate credit. Clinton's housing secretary Andrew Cuomo warned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that such loans must amount to 50% of their portfolio by 2001. Other government agencies joined the crusade. In 1999 the Justice Department was reported as trying to establish "a system of racial quotas in lending, regardless of credit risk".

Clinton's Federal Reserve compelled banks to accept welfare cheques and unemployment benefit as income sources to qualify for a mortgage. As the PC terror grew, brokers advised clients to claim they were 1% Native American to qualify for loans. These included the lunatic "Ninja" (No income, no job, no assets) loans. The most flagrant example was a $480,000 (£324,000) mortgage to an illegal alien from Mexico.

The scale of the engineered destabilisation of the housing market was astronomic. In 1994 the share of sub-prime mortgages to total origination was 5% ($35bn); by 2006 it had grown to 20% ($600bn). No market could survive subversion on that scale. When the Justice Department is intervening in the housing market, to describe the economy as either "free" or "capitalist" is a bad joke. That was Clinton's legacy. The Oval Office Onanist may have done wonders for the US dry-cleaning industry, but he destroyed the housing market and, by extension, the banking sector.

Yet, today, his party has been mandated by a brain-damaged electorate to cure the disease it caused. Nothing succeeds like failure. The beneficiaries here are Gordon Brown and his interventionist party. People are still talking about the "£37bn bailout". Did they not notice a further £3bn bleeding out of Northern Rock on Friday?

So it will continue. Alistair Darling ordering banks how to conduct their business; banks hoarding taxpayers' money while charging exorbitant rates; HBOS dying noisily. All the testosterone-charged takeover frenzy of the past decade, with bankers borrowing zillions to buy institutions they could not afford, has come home to roost. This was not capitalism, but a dependency culture. For many, addictive dependency shifted from state handouts to private handouts based on phantom credit.

Those proclaiming the death of capitalism have misread the situation. The US succumbed to Frankfurt School Marxism by allowing PC enforcers to do for the American financial system what the Communist Party did to the economy of the Soviet Union for 70 years. In Britain, the dependency culture transferred much of its clientele from social security offices to bank managers' waiting rooms. Capitalism did not die by its own hand; but it may yet prove to have been murdered.





The full article contains 748 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

LiamX,

Glasgow 23/11/2008 00:59:10
The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists ia a fabulous book. And the 7:84 stage version at the Citizens Theatre in the '80s was fantastic.

Love your writing Gerald! The logic is so skewed it's like a spoof.
2

,

23/11/2008 01:00:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

Plodjfriss, Hammer of the Numpties,

Edinburgh 23/11/2008 01:02:42
Sorry, don't know what happened there. I just wanted to concur with #1. Next week: "Black is white"
4

donald,

glasgow 23/11/2008 07:08:44
"Labour's left" are as far left as Gerry the Warner Brit Brit Brothers and joined at the lip.
5

Mikey,

23/11/2008 08:07:11
Warner's writing reminds me of the American neo-con (code for Nazi) who explained the Republican's defeat in the Presidential election by opining that the reason they lost was because "George W Bush is a communist!"

Every time capitalism fails, people like Warner see socialists/communists at the tiller. What they can't, and won't, face is that the reason capitalism fails is because of its cyclical boom and bust nature! Capitalism is built to fail!

Bankers and share dealers produce nothing. They are like bookies in that they accept bets on how a company will perform, while using OUR money to finance the bet!

The only difference between bookies and the capitalist system is that bookies are rarely wrong!
6

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 23/11/2008 09:14:13
The logic of this piece is.....well.... illogical?

As one US political commentator recently stated:
"Once this irritating recession is out of the way
just watch the American economy take off and rise
to even greater heights."

The business of America will always be business!
7

Newton_Invented_Gravity,

23/11/2008 09:20:57
I smell bullsh**t from Gerald (yet again). This idea of Clinton causing the credit crunch has been repeated ad nauseum by every conservative, desperate to relieve themselves of any blame for the current financial problems. It all seems just a bit too convenient, not to mention unlikely that all these banks would blindly do what Mr Clinton asked them to 'even though they knew it was the wrong thing to do'-(and I bet the fat profits they were making I'm sure sweetened the pill somewhat)

It's far more realistic to say that the credit crunch is the result of a combination of different factors and is a failure of government as well as the capitalist system. But of course Gerald and his ilk are always right and never make mistakes so we can't have that!
8

Newton_Invented_Gravity,

23/11/2008 09:24:33
The people proclaiming 'the death of capitalism' are those on the very extreme left. Gerald is on the same extreme on the right of the political spectrum, which is why he finds it necessary to address these people.
9

Bolivarian Scot,

London 23/11/2008 09:52:21
The idea that Bill Clinton's affirmative action programmes caused the current banking crisis has been circulating on US conservative websites (eg Human Events) for several months therefore it was only a matter of time before Gerald Warner cottoned on.

There is no doubt that sub-prime lending is much riskier but banks waded in willingly, and with their eyes open, because of the juicy margins and collateral (security) on property that was rising in value. In other words, they judged that their bad lending would be recoverable.

Similar logic was applied to residential lending for non-sub-prime borrowers. Result: the US real estate market boomed, tempting still more lenders and borrowers into the fray.

Unscrupulous real estate agents and brokers sat in the middle but regulators did little because the all-knowing banking sector said they wanted "light-touch" oversight and minimal government interference (or "socialism", as Gerald Warner would call it).

So far, so predictable.

However, it was the banks' decision to package up the sub-prime lending into bizarre and complex financial instruments that turned a local scandal into a global disaster. Ratings agencies such as Moody's and S & P colluded in the madness by assigning inappropriate "low-risk" status to many of those toxic instruments (which were rightly described by the US investigative journalist Greg Palast as "gold-painted turds"). The sub-prime products were sold (for a fee), time and time again, to third parties, until no-one knew how much of the toxic debt was "out there" (we still don't).

Then the music stopped.

What really cripples the interbank lending markets (and markets in general) is UNCERTAINTY. It's surprising that a free-marketeer like Gerald Warner overlooks that basic fact. Space constraints, Gerald? Or an inconvenient truth?

Incidentally, sub-prime lending began in Clinton's era but, speaking as a former bank lending officer, the reality is that sub-prime lending
10

Bolivarian Scot,

23/11/2008 09:54:24
/....... (CONTINUED)

Incidentally, sub-prime lending began in Clinton's era but, speaking as a former bank lending officer, the reality is that sub-prime lending generally goes bad after about 2 years. The major defaults became evident in early 2007, implying that the bulk of dodgy lending took place around the middle of the current decade.

Now the reality is that the general public is paying for the excesses of the privately-run financial community, whose public ownership will be a purely temporary phenomenon.

It is disgusting how rightwing commentators try to blame nearly every problem on the weakest and poorest elements of society.

Expect the next banking crisis in about 2025, when a new generation of hotshot bankers will have forgotten the lessons of the current meltdown (same as the current shower forgot about the Lawson boom, the 1980s US Savings & Loans scandal etc).
11

Forward not Back,

23/11/2008 10:12:59
While the premise of the article is correct, i.e. that banks made loans to people who couldn't pay them back, the real problem was the loosening of monetary policy by Greenspan, riding the deflationary effects of manufacturing jobs being exported to China. That money, created out of thin air, is now disappearing at different speeds and it will mean the people who borrowed it will suffer for a long, long time, unless the printing presses are switched on across the world to inflate the debt away.

Zimbabwe coming soon to a country near you.
12

Itchy,

23/11/2008 10:45:04
"it was Bill Clinton and his cronies, with their politically correct affirmative action. That is the fact of the matter – the Clinton administration compelled the banks to lend to minorities, to comply with racial and social quotas that defied all the rules of banking."

This is correct. The current crisis is the result of intervention in the money supply and every boom and bust is the result of this intervention as well. Thick and dishonest socialists observe this in action, declare that free markets have failed and call for more power for the state.

#5 "Every time capitalism fails, people like Warner see socialists/communists at the tiller. What they can't, and won't, face is that the reason capitalism fails is because of its cyclical boom and bust nature! Capitalism is built to fail!"

Case in point. Totally dishonest and iliterate statement.
13

Itchy,

23/11/2008 10:47:16
#10 "Now the reality is that the general public is paying for the excesses of the privately-run financial community, whose public ownership will be a purely temporary phenomenon. "

The general public is paying for the failure of the Federal reserve. The Fed is a central bank and a central bank is a key feature of the communist manifesto.
14

Bolivarian Scot,

UK 23/11/2008 13:44:31
# 12 and # 13 Itchy -

Was it the beneficiaries of "affirmative action" who forced the banks to lend recklessly and package up the toxic debt into CDOs and other esoteric "financial WMDs" (as the arch-capitalist Warren Buffet called them)?

Did the beneficiaries of "affirmative action" picket the rating agencies and force them to collude in the fiction that toxoc debt was AAA-rated?

Free market failure, in other words, was by far the biggest culprit - painful as that may be to worshippers of market forces.
15

Patrick from Hamilton,

Hamilton 23/11/2008 14:58:46
#14 Bolivarian Scot

I could be wrong , but wasn't it the job of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (set up in 1938 by the Democrats) to package up these bad loans alongside good ones and sell them on ?

Wikipedia says these are "government sponsored enterprises".

Sounds a wee bit more complicated than "The Eevil CaPITalists done it . Up the Revolution !" as espoused by most of the comments here .
16

Newton_Invented_Gravity,

23/11/2008 15:01:16
'Sounds a wee bit more complicated than "The Eevil CaPITalists done it . Up the Revolution !" as espoused by most of the comments here .'

Have you bothered to actually read the comments on this thread? Most people are not saying that at all.
17

dpradzinski,

Highland, Ca, USA 23/11/2008 15:44:11
It is indeed socialist when the government is the backer of these loans. When banks do not have to worry about risk because big government is backing the loan they make, loans that are too risky and that no ordinary capitalist bank would make, they will continue to make loans that are not viable. As Democrat Barney Frank, one of the architects of this collapse, said in 2005 those loans were "riskless"! Government does not produce anything. They get their money from the citizens by taxing them. Banks have a budget, they employ people, they create work, they receive interest on the loans they make and they make loans. And if they manage their money wisely they have more to lend. Government just takes it away from citizens (taxes) when they need it. Socialism caused this entire downturn because government began taking a bigger and bigger stake in banks forcing them to lend, backing loans causing banks to throw caution to the winds. Almost all of the posters on this thread need to take an economics class. Socialism always collapses because when government continues to take money to give to those who do not work there is no 'incentive' for those who do work to continue working. Soon everyone is on government welfare and no one is working. Where does the money come from? Big business? Big business goes overseas looking for better operating conditions and so they should. it is the people who contract services with one another, who come up with new ideas, that buy and sell to each other (capitalism) that make a country work. NOT GOVERNMENT. For 200+ years America has proven this to work. Now government is interfering and look what they've wrought! Socialism does not work. There is no free lunch! Socialism is for those who do not like to work who think they are owed a living, who think they should retire at 50 and live off government, (whose retirement is actually being provided for those worthless people by the working people of this country). Americans love to work. That i
18

salmondella,

UK - Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland 23/11/2008 15:45:38
The champions of capitalism only attack socialist ideas when they believe that those ideas might be a threat to them and their rich cosy wee world that they have enjoyed for so long may be crumbling. A year ago the S word would not have had a mention by anyone except the hard left - now it has suddenly come into the fore. Why? - because the credit crunch has demonstrated that capitalism can no longer take the world forward and is on a steep decline. The desperate measures taken by world leaders to save the financial systems may stop the rot for the time being but the crisis will return and be even deeper.
19

Valentinus,

Glasgow 23/11/2008 16:52:44
It's sadly all too typical of SOS to be touting through its more threadbare columnists an explanation of the credit crunch first trailed in conservative US journals months ago (and in The Spectator on 1 October). The 'Culprit Clinton' hypothesis has since been exposed as an entirely bogus analysis even by right wing US policy and finance centres (see Businessweek October 20). In no way did the Clinton drive for the extension of home ownership entail the creation of the byzantine financial instruments and funny-money credit procedures subsequently pursued by the astrophysicists of Wall St. Indeed, the population deciles to which the Clinton administration directed mortgage provision have proved among the most resilient in the current meltdown (at least since overtaken by the recent wave of unemployment). In addition, none of the toxic financial packages now poisoning the system existed until Bush came to office. Gerald Warner's cocktail of accounting half-truths and urban myths would not pass muster in a First Year Economics class. The Hall of Mirrors financial logic pursued by the Northern Rocks and Leaman Brothers of Western banking were the consequence not of the drive to give more Americans half-decent housing (and which, in fact, had only a modest net effect on home ownership levels), but of ineffective financial regulation and truly breathtaking levels of material greed.
20

Zidoda,

USA 23/11/2008 18:35:27
Greed is checked by the actions of the market, unless (and to whatever degree) the market is not free. Greed does not go away in socialism (nor do any human foibles), it is just elevated to the highest level (those who run the government), and is not checked.
21

Bolivarian Scot,

London 23/11/2008 19:06:20
# Patrick from Hamilton asked: "I could be wrong , but wasn't it the job of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (set up in 1938 by the Democrats) to package up these bad loans alongside good ones and sell them on ?

Wikipedia says these are "government sponsored enterprises".

Sounds a wee bit more complicated than "The Eevil CaPITalists done it . Up the Revolution !" as espoused by most of the comments here ."

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the biggest players in the US secondary market for mortgages, providing liquidity by collateralising mortgages of all kinds (not just sub-prime), but the collateralised debt obligations (CDOs) - Warren Buffet's "financial WMDs" - are concocted by private sector players and comprised of a variety of asset classes. Furthermore, the WMDs / CDOs were onsold time and time again not by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac but by private banks, each earning a nice wee commission every time, till no-one knew how much of the toxic debt was "out there".

They were able to do so because the private sector ratings agencies unwisely categorised sub-prime debt as AAA-rated (low-risk) and the risk assessment by the banks themselves was predicated upon assumptions about ever-rising real estate values and, er, wishful thinking.

The Wikipedia article that you mention says that Tom Lund and Daniel Mudd, senior executives at Fannie Mae, warned well in advance about the potential problems caused by increasingly lax private sector lending practices. It is also worth bearing in mind that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae aren't the only US institutions that collateralise debt to provide liquidity to the banking system.

In short, the really big, bad decisions were made by the private sector. Of course, borrowers who took on more debt than they could afford must also be accountable but again, commission-hungry private sector brokers were somewhat unscrupulous in explaining to customers the potential pitfalls, to say the least, because government regulation was t
22

Bolivarian Scot,

UK 23/11/2008 19:10:21
/......... (CONTINUED)

In short, the really big, bad decisions were made by the private sector. Of course, borrowers who took on more debt than they could afford must also be accountable but again, commission-hungry private sector brokers were somewhat unscrupulous in explaining to customers the potential pitfalls, to say the least, because government regulation was too lax.

In short, the private sector is more accountable than sub-prime borrowers, which is the nasty gist of Gerald Warner's article.
23

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 23/11/2008 20:07:07
Gerald Warner is just copying the Spectator Magazine. He does it every week. It was rubbish when they wrote it, and it's rubbish now.
24

Observer. 1,

Glasgow 23/11/2008 20:16:27
The crisis may have originated in the US but what left the UK ready to fall like a skittle when it hit us ? Thatcher's property owning democracy, that's what. In times gone by people rented their houses and got paid their wages in a pay packet at the end of the week. And a bank account was where you stored your money to get the housekeeping out and write cheques for larger purchases. That wasn't that long ago, my parents lived like that, as pensioners now they still do.

It was Gordon Gekko and the greed is good culture that got us into this mess. The looney right can holler as much as they want, they are not blaming socialists for this. This happened on their watch, they are to blame.

25

Finlang,

France 24/11/2008 01:18:28
Gerald Warner is a sub-prime far-right girner. This is what he is all about.
26

Patrick from Hamilton,

Hamilton 24/11/2008 01:31:01
#24 Bolivarian Scot

Thanks for the reply , it was more enlightening than most of the stuff before or after in the thread .
27

Itchy,

24/11/2008 17:40:31
"14 Bolivarian Scot,UK 23/11/2008 13:44:31
# 12 and # 13 Itchy -

Was it the beneficiaries of "affirmative action" who forced the banks to lend recklessly and package up the toxic debt into CDOs and other esoteric "financial WMDs" (as the arch-capitalist Warren Buffet called them)?"

It was the state that held down interest rates. BTW you are committing the Marxist fallacy of assuming that businessmen favour capitalism. Warren Buffet was opposed to President Bush's proposed elimination of the death tax.

"Free market failure, in other words, was by far the biggest culprit - painful as that may be to worshippers of market forces."

Where is this free market you talk of? You completely ignore all the regulations and taxes in places by the state. Total economic illiteracy from you.
28

Itchy,

24/11/2008 17:43:20
#19 "The champions of capitalism only attack socialist ideas when they believe that those ideas might be a threat to them"

Like Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin's socialist ideas? They were a threat to a lot of people.

" Why? - because the credit crunch has demonstrated that capitalism can no longer take the world forward and is on a steep decline"

Credit crunches are a feature of interventionism. Socialist do not differentiate between capitalism and interventionism because they are stupid and dishonest and are supporters of dictatorship.
29

Itchy,

24/11/2008 17:46:09
#25 "It was Gordon Gekko and the greed is good culture that got us into this mess."

It was the dishonest left that got us into this mess by controlling the money supply in the form of central banks.

Central banks are a Marxist idea and are in the communist manifesto.
30

Bolivarian Scot,

UK 24/11/2008 19:14:56
# 29 Itchy said: "It was the state that held down interest rates. BTW you are committing the Marxist fallacy of assuming that businessmen favour capitalism. Warren Buffet was opposed to President Bush's proposed elimination of the death tax.....Where is this free market you talk of? You completely ignore all the regulations and taxes in places by the state. Total economic illiteracy from you."

I'm quite happy with my grasp of economics, thanks. It's been my bread-and-butter for the last 20-odd years. For example, I know enough to realise that the banks went into sub-prime lending because they saw profitable and safe business, not because Clinton or any other politician somehow "forced" them to do it!

I take your point about businessmen not necessarily favouring free markets. I believe that Don Corleone, the Godfather, said something similar about monopolies being more "efficient" than open competition. Nowadays, bankers like to keep profits but socialise losses.

The idea that the crisis would have been avoided if there had been zero regulation is not one that stands up to serious scrutiny.

As for fallacious assumptions, you seem over-keen to categorise all critics of the free-market system as "Marxists". Quite a leap of faith, that.
31

Bolivarian Scot,

London 25/11/2008 07:27:19
Patrick from Hamilton said:

"Bolivarian Scot....Thanks for the reply , it was more enlightening than most of the stuff before or after in the thread."

Thanks for that, Patrick.

Clearly, government / regulators share some of the blame, eg for encouraging cheap credit post-9/11, for "irrational exuberance" in economic forecasting etc. But I am totally convinced that the lion's share of the problems originated in the private sector.
32

Andrew76,

Missouri, USA 22/01/2009 19:13:10
Oh my... These comments are depressing.
For those still in denial, let me repeat: the financial crisis in the U.S. was not caused by the private sector. A free market requires a seperation of economics and state. We haven't had that in over 100 years. We have a central bank that arbitrarily sets interest rates, a pillar of statist economies. This is true. Disagree till you're blue in the face.
Banks gave out loans not only because of the aforementioned CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) which all but required by law that banks give loans to those who otherwise could not afford them. The bigger problem was the subsidization of risk, ie: the implicit understanding that if any of these sub-prime loans were to go bad, that the U.S. government would step in and rescue the banks. Wanna know how I know this? BECAUSE THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED YOU TWITS!!! Have the banks not been bailed out? Have all the risky loans not been subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer?
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are both GOVERNMENT CHARTERED entities. They knew that the taxpayer would be forced to step in should they fail, so why worry about risk?
To blame this on the free market is to admit your fundamental ignorance of the situation at hand, and of economic law in general. Read "Economics In One Lesson," by Henry Hazlitt before it's too late.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.