Krugman on Stress Test Optimism: Not So Fast
By Susie Madrak Saturday May 09, 2009 10:30amKrugman suggests we shouldn't be all that happy just yet over the results of the stress tests:
Can the economy recover even with weak banks? Maybe. Banks won’t be expanding credit any time soon, but government-backed lenders have stepped in to fill the gap. The Federal Reserve has expanded its credit by $1.2 trillion over the past year; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have become the principal sources of mortgage finance. So maybe we can let the economy fix the banks instead of the other way around.
But there are many things that could go wrong.
It’s not at all clear that credit from the Fed, Fannie and Freddie can fully substitute for a healthy banking system. If it can’t, the muddle-through strategy will turn out to be a recipe for a prolonged, Japanese-style era of high unemployment and weak growth.
Actually, a multiyear period of economic weakness looks likely in any case. The economy may no longer be plunging, but it’s very hard to see where a real recovery will come from. And if the economy does stay depressed for a long time, banks will be in much bigger trouble than the stress tests — which looked only two years ahead — are able to capture.
Finally, given the possibility of bigger losses in the future, the government’s evident unwillingness either to own banks or let them fail creates a heads-they-win-tails-we-lose situation. If all goes well, the bankers will win big. If the current strategy fails, taxpayers will be forced to pay for another bailout.
But what worries me most about the way policy is going isn’t any of these things. It’s my sense that the prospects for fundamental financial reform are fading.
Does anyone remember the case of H. Rodgin Cohen, a prominent New York lawyer whom The Times has described as a “Wall Street éminence grise”? He briefly made the news in March when he reportedly withdrew his name after being considered a top pick for deputy Treasury secretary.
Well, earlier this week, Mr. Cohen told an audience that the future of Wall Street won’t be very different from its recent past, declaring, “I am far from convinced there was something inherently wrong with the system.” Hey, that little thing about causing the worst global slump since the Great Depression? Never mind.
Those are frightening words. They suggest that while the Federal Reserve and the Obama administration continue to insist that they’re committed to tighter financial regulation and greater oversight, Wall Street insiders are taking the mildness of bank policy so far as a sign that they’ll soon be able to go back to playing the same games as before.
So as I said, while bankers may find the results of the stress tests “reassuring,” the rest of us should be very, very afraid.








Login or Register to post comments.
krugman's opinion suggests that
the American public is "FUCKED"
no matter which direction the
economy goes. the banks win regardless.
it just appears that anyone in dire
financial stress may just as well
declare bankrupcy....why even try.
I don't trust the system whatsoever.
When I was younger, I didn't see it for what it was, so I bought into it bigtime - meaning became dependent on it.
Nowadays, I'm eliminating my debt, setting aside contingency funds and preparing a "plan B" for adopting an entirely new way of life.
The Banksters are in control.
They sold products based on fraud that proved dangerous to the financial well being of the world, a world that stopped buying those products in 2007.
The Banksters are still holding something like a trillion more of those bogus assets euphemistically called toxic.
Well at least in this regard they have it exactly right, SUCKERS, the assets are TOXIC.
The Banksters can't sell them to anyone in the private sector because anyone with that kind of money NOW knows better.
Except for the hapless US taxpayer who is the sucker of last resort.
The Treasury and the Fed are attempting to transfer these toxic assets off the bank's balance sheets and ONTO the balance sheet of the US taxpayer.
Instead of receiving government largesse the Banksters should be receiving jail time.
To draw an analogy, it is as if the car makers had made cars that BLEW UP three blocks from the sales lot and now want the taxpayer to buy all the defective cars they can't sell because they will BLOW UP.
Except they design a stress test to show that they blow up only if you drive them over five miles an hour.
They would be in jail.
Here in the May Atlantic (along with Simon Johnson's must read Quiet Coup here.):
A very informative graph which will be found through the links but the direct is here.
Isn't that the whole point of a fractioanl reserve, central bank-based monetary system?
Why does the government need private banks acting as middle man between the people's money and the people?
I know this question is at the heart of centuries of debate, but why do we need to create finacial oligarchs to dispence OUR dollars?
Eliminate the middle-man! Especially since they have proven over and over again, that they are untrustworthy.
I asked the same question over and over to some of my friends in the financial sector: why do we need to keep a system in which if we do not give OUR money to the banks, so that they can led it back to us at interest, the system collapses.
If we're going to be screwed either way, I rather just keep my money and not have to pay the interest on it.
There are essentially three things that got us into this mess. The problem was the Gramm-Leach-Bliley legislation undoing the Glass-Steagall Act that prevented banks from merging with insurance companies and investment corporations, which allowed the creation of the "too big to fail" financial institution, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act which allowed the "too big to fail" corporation to gamble, and elimination of white collar crime enforcement by not back-filling FBI agents reassigned to fighting terrorism.
To reverse this, we need to reinstate these things. Instead Gheitner wants an über-regulator that's going to detect problems at the problem institutions, even as their own CEOs testified that they themselves didn't have a grasp on the situation.
The U.S. Government - the best government money can buy. We're really talking about symptoms here - the underlying root cause is systemic corruption of the government due to corporate bribery.
What on earth could be more scary than these thugs running our country and the world by extension?
WHY NOT let them bomb. Just allow a collapse of their whole dog and pony show.
We the people just might, just MIGHT, find ourselves suddenly FREED of the might of these thugs and killers.
I for one, am willing to go for it. Let it fall. Who cares.
Login or Register to post comments.