Quote of the day

If under stress of circumstance individuals have made any promise to the enemy, they are bound to keep their word even then.

Syndicate content

Columns

Paul Rogers

Global security


Li Datong

China from the inside


Fred Halliday

Global politics


Mary Kaldor

Human Security


Daniele Archibugi

Cosmopolitan Democracy

Email & RSS

Sign up to oD's editorial summaries email:


Enter your Email


Powered by FeedBlitz


Follow oD on Twitter:


Join our Facebook group:
Add oD to your Netvibes: Add to Netvibes

openDemocracy likes:

Navigation

Recent comments

Signpost Blog


View 12 comments

The week that democracy won

The rejection of the deal to save the United States's financial system is part of a wider victory of the American people who said "no" to an establishment fix, says Godfrey Hodgson  Plus: track the debate with openDemocracy's netvibes page

(This article was first published on 29 September 2008)


If the third week of September 2008 was (as Ann Pettifor described it in openDemocracy) "the week that changed everything", the fourth was the week when Wall Street met democracy. What is remarkable is that, after a fashion, democracy has won.


Also in openDemocracy on the global financial crisis of 2007-08:

Ann Pettifor, "Globalisation: sleepwalking to disaster" (11 December 2007)

Ann Pettifor, "The G8 in a global mess: 1920s and 1980s lessons" (7 July 2008)

Ann Pettifor, "Debtonation: how globalisation dies" (15 August 2007)

Tony Curzon Price, "The end of gentlemanly capitalism" (13 August 2007)

Robert Wade, "The financial crisis: burst bubble, frayed model" (1 October 2007)

Avinash D Persaud, "The dollar standard: (only the) beginning of the end" (5 December 2007)

Fred Halliday, "Sovereign Wealth Funds: power vs principle" (5 March 2008)

The days and night of intense and tortuous negotiations came to a provisional conclusion on 28 September when agreement was at last reached in Washington on a reformed version of the $700-billion bailout package first proposed by United States treasury secretary Hank Paulson on the weekend of 20-21 September. A day later, in a moment of extraordinary drama, the House of Representatives in Washington rejected the deal by 228-205 votes.

It is what happened in the interim - during the painful renegotiation of the plan in the week of 22-28 September - that makes the latest phase of Wall Street's financial meltdown so historic. This is that the momentum of popular and civic opposition to the Paulson plan - to making taxpayers bear the burden of the long-term misjudgments and worse of the US's political and financial leaders - forced the establishment to pause, reflect, reconsider, and revise.

Whatever happens now, this was the week that the balance of power in the United States shifted. The financial crisis still has a long way to go, but it is already clear that this momentous week may have changed the terms of debate in which America's political argument is being conducted.

The way it was

A century-old precedent is relevant here. For there is an echo in the 2008 events of a famous encounter during the panic of 1907. That too was brought on by speculation, and involved the collapse of a bank: the Knickerbocker Trust.

Theodore Roosevelt was then the Republican president. JP Morgan, the bottle-nosed banker (whose two eyes, it was said, blazed like the lights of an approaching express-train) was the king of Wall Street, the Hank Paulson of the day.

A major brokerage was in danger of going bankrupt. It owed stock in Tennessee Coal and Iron, effective owners of Birmingham, Alabama. The bankers assembled in JP Morgan's library, under the eyes of his old-master paintings. The Croesus of the age, playing a patient game, heard them out. A deal was done: Big Steel was allowed to buy Tennessee Coal and Iron, with steel stock used to shore up the brokerage. Confidence was restored - and incidentally (if that is the right word) the deal turned out to be immensely profitable for JP Morgan and the Steel Trust.

A single phrase from an earlier phase of struggle between JP Morgan (the "banker of bankers") and Theodore Roosevelt (the White House's "bull moose") also resonates in the panic-driven negotiations of 2008. In 1902, the Roosevelt administration prosecuted Morgan's holding company Northern Securities for breaking the Sherman anti-trust law (1890). "Send your man to my man", Morgan suggested, "and they can fix it up."

That was the spirit in which George W Bush's secretary of the treasury, Hank Paulson, set out to save capitalism.

The elite fix

Hank Paulson was the head of Goldman Sachs before he went to serve in Washington. In that culture, the big boss-man does what he thinks best; tens of thousands of underlings jump to carry out his will; while hundreds of public-relations flacks explain to an awed world why all is for the best in the best of possible Wall Streets.

In this spirit, Paulson produced three pages over the weekend of 20-21 September to save his world. The document's terms would require the long-suffering taxpayers of the United States themselves to stump up the money to allow Wall Street's institutions to emerge from the crisis of dodgy securities and rotten mortgages with as little damage as possible.


Godfrey Hodgson was director of the Reuters' Foundation Programme at Oxford University, and before that the Observer's correspondent in the United States and foreign editor of the Independent.

Among his books are The World Turned Right Side Up: a history of the conservative ascendancy in America (Houghton Mifflin, 1996) The Gentleman from New York: Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
More Equal Than Others: America from Nixon to the New Century
(Princeton University Press, 2006), and A Great and Godly Adventure:The Pilgrims and the Myth of the First Thanksgiving (PublicAffiars, 2007)

Among Godfrey Hodgson's recent openDemocracy articles on American politics:

"The United States election: time for ‘change'" (10 January 2008)

"America's change election: reality or mirage?" (11 February 2008)

"'Superdelegates' and the US election" (25 February 2008)

"The lost election year" (15 May 2008)

"Barack Obama: at the crossroads of victory" (11 June 2008)"

A game of two halves" (15 July 2008)"

Barack Obama's political tour" (28 July 2008)


The Americans at the sharpest end in this whole crisis are the "ninjas" - those with "no income, no jobs, no assets". They were offered mortgages at 2%, rising - according to the fine print few of them were equipped to read - to whatever the broker in his mercy allowed them to pay (perhaps as much as 10%- 15%). This is how they were offered the opportunity to own their own homes, and so clamber on to the lowest step of the pyramid at whose glittering apex sit ...Hank Paulson and his fellow masters of the universe.

The mortgage-selling was irresponsible, indeed wicked, enough. But what has destroyed some of Wall Street's biggest and richest institutions, and threatened American capitalism ("as we knew it", to add Willem Buiter's qualification) itself, was the cleverness with which these mortgages were wrapped up in fancy "derivatives" and sold on (to the gullible, the cynical or the greedy).

At the heart of the crisis-management in Washington in these epic weeks has been the fact that no one knows for sure what this paper is worth; how much of it there is; or who may own more of it than is compatible with their solvency. Assets that cannot be priced cannot, after all, be sold. And how can assets be priced that cannot even be defined?

Paulson's original grand scheme required the federal government to replace these worthless assets with its - that is, the taxpayers' - hard-earned and reliable money. Thus refreshed and relieved, the banks would start lending again - initially to each other, then to corporations and investors, and eventually to the hapless American public.

The amount Paulson proposed to disburse to his former colleagues and rivals was bold in its immensity: $700 billion - or more, if that's what it would take. The work would be undertaken by the treasury department. There would be the lightest supervision, no higher authority to judge whether the rescue was being carried out competently or even honestly. The three-page scheme was wrapped up and popped out over a weekend, to minimise public scrutiny (see Saskia Sassen, "The new new deal", 23 September 2008).

In retrospect, it could never have worked - for even in the George W Bush administration, it was recognised that such a vast government expenditure would have to pass Congress. True, the government's placemen expressed the administration's trademark arrogance and contempt for democracy at this stage (most notably the Republican leader in the House of Representatives, John Boehner: "We don't need 535 members of Congress adding their best idea. We need to keep it clean, simple, move it through the House and Senate, and get it on the president's desk.") But from millions of Americans came a clean, simple response of their own which their elected representatives have found it impossible to ignore: no.

The Democratic speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi of California, expressed their collective sentiment with three points in response to the Paulson plan: that there must be some supervision of the treasury; help for everyday citizens worried that their mortgages might be foreclosed; and recognition of the fundamental indecency about handing money to the very people responsible for the mayhem while doing nothing for their victims.

That wise and even brave reaction (in face of the administration's doom-laden warnings) was matched by less predictable opposition from Republican footsoldiers in Congress who were forced into mutiny by the lucid and passionate voices of their voters. A congressman from the state of Washington said he was getting 400-500 emails a day expressing his constituents' rage and dismay at what was being proposed.

The people speak

Then, in one of those all-night sessions that Washington loves - where middle-aged politicians relive the crisis sessions of their law-school student days - a provisional agreement was reached that on 29 September 2008 was packaged into a bill - the Emergency Economic Stabilisation Act - and placed before Congress for emergency consideration.

The reformed package was scheduled to be voted on by a House of Representatives (29 September) that has now given a decisive answer, and the Senate (1 October). Its components include giving Congress veto-power over the release of any sum above $350 bn, limiting top bankers' pay, allowing taxpayers to benefit from the banks' recovery, requiring the banking industry in certain conditions to help finance the bailout, and establishing independent oversight of the deal.

It is not clear at the time of writing whether after the House of Representatives' vote - and amid plummeting stock-markets in Wall Street and elsewhere - a later version of the compromise bill or a successor can pass Congress. The impact of this unfolding story on the course of the presidential election is also an unanswered question. What can be said at this stage is that the American people have spoken - and as so often, their instincts were and are for fairness, common sense, and right.

After the week that changed everything, the week that Wall Street met democracy - and blinked first. The people have forced their politicians to bend the knee. The United States is in new territory.

Average rating
(9 votes)
read on

Tony Curzon Price - RSS feeds 

Financial Times - economists' forum

Initiative on Global Markets

Ron Chernow, The House of Morgan (Atlantic Books, 2003)

 
This article is published by Godfrey Hodgson, , and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.

Comments


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Not logged in (not verified) said:



Tue, 2008-10-07 00:49

sure an interesting article. But yet, there's not a lot of new ideas in here. I mean, yes, maybe the paulson plan wasn't the best, but now, I do believe a governement action is essential. To restart the economy, one needs to invest money, to create money. that's what the banks are there for. So, really, shouldn't we give the banks a chance (and therefor, give us a chance) to save what's left so that we can give another start to the economy?

alfredo.bremont said:



Wed, 2008-10-01 18:41

As some philosophers claim everything is upside down, which I agreed with but in this upturn of confusion, democracy in America will not last long! as this mafia manipulation is the outcome of a few that aims to increase their income but the rest of the American citizens will find themselves in the middle of a modern middle age. Were financial barons and media kings have finally achieving their goal, to put the nation on the hands of just a few individuals? Freedom is short but in this case it lasted only a week. As the solution is just the same system with a new face. The reason is simple the capitalist system does not offer any other solution, as the aim is profit, and in order to have a profit you must gain more than what you invest, and as you invest on a capitalist system exploitation, slavery, trickery is what is considered intelligent. Therefore any regulations that can be implanted will arrive at the same conclusion, and give you the same recipe the tax payers are swallowing today; as well anyone that exist on the same system will arrive at the same conclusion. Therefore the only way out is to let the system collapse entirely without fear, as it is fear that the government is feeding you on daily basis. And it is trough fear that he can whip you and them settle you down were he pleases. In short a new revolution is a must; however it is not an armed revolution but an intellectual one. In this respect both candidates are out of the game as they propose the same system with a new face, democrats or republicans will cling to their privileges as long as fear and hope takes hold of the population. However the new paradigm does not include the world’s scenario by which China, Russia and the third world nations will play a determinant role. They can bail out Washington with the petrol dollars, and dollar reserves but what impact will that have on their population as well, Russia that needs cash for its rearmament and defense will need as well capitalistic funds, which they know quite well will kill them in the long term.Therefore wars could become part of the equation; and here is democracy and its revival of common sense does have a chance to succeed and the American people can if they wake up save the planet from its ultimate destruction.  Americans can indeed take hold of their nation and the individuals that were put aside by this animal farm government manipulation (George Orwell’s) can at last be set free and guide the nation towards independence, liberty, decency and freedom.

Logged in Lawrence Efana (not verified) said:



Wed, 2008-10-01 09:32

Nevertheless an awakening article! Economic realism is now given a renewed breathing space to reassess/trim values and mode of compromises. Unfortunately because of the very nature of democracy, that breathing space is not altogether as revolutionary as would be thought, yet significant for current experiences and attempt to define or put across the much talked about or needed change.

That is to emphasise that democracy, because of its bond with politics and economics, is obviously intricate. Where it is well practised, appreciated and understood, it's nice when at the end it wins the day. In spite of the US House reaction to the $700 billion bail-out bill, it remains to see how that is translated to winning the day on the ground in the US presidential election. In that case manipulations and paradoxes of politics might not help the voter in actual choice situations. They need to be better informed if at the end of the day they are to win in earnest.

Hodgson's article as a narrative features thus a stream with two interesting tributaries, no less so if we must look squarely at economic questions - the way they prick on: first American election and voters; and second the Labour and Conservatives in Britain.

Lawrence Efana [Finland]

johnproblem (not verified) said:



Wed, 2008-10-01 09:16

Let the market prevail! Let the faltering companies get eaten by the big survivors! But. But. Let's have a windfall tax on all those CEOs who walked away with more than one mill. Retro-active ten years. And. And. Let's give 1% of the amount got back to the person who comes up with the most rational idea for solving the mess. Politicians and bankers excluded from competing. Man in the street not to be expected to pay.

Ryan C. Jones (not verified) said:



Wed, 2008-10-01 06:33

We learned in the Great Depression that traditional, libertarian economics do not work. Capitalism will eventually fall apart, its workers fired and evicted, unless the government is ready to provide, in the words of Nancy Pelosi, a "golden parachute" to the phenomenally rich bankers and CEOs of Wall Street. Libertarians profess "faith in man" against all evidence. Throughout Western history, the ruling elite, be they strongemen, feudal lords, or bankers, have periodically stumbled and left a mess for the masses to clean.

Colorado Jack (not verified) said:



Tue, 2008-09-30 19:23

I am a U.S. citizen and a Democrat who would (as they say) crawl across ground glass to vote for Democrats this coming election day, and in the runup I am volunteering and giving money. Even for me, Mr. Hodgson's bias is too thick. Nancy Pelosi's position was "wise and brave"? No, it wasn't: she genuinely wanted this foolish bill to pass. Mr. Hodgson says the Republican footsoldiers were "forced into mutiny" by their voters. Fact remains, it was the House Republicans, primarily, who killed the bill. It doesn't fit Mr. Hodgson's narrative for the Republicans, even "footsoldiers," to be the voice of democracy. Just the same, it's true. The irony is thick: Wall Street defeated by Republicans.

stratocat (not verified) said:



Tue, 2008-09-30 13:26

Unhelpful analogy to draw, given the vast historical-contextual difference between the two cases and periods. For the first time, the state had the chance to socialize some major operations of capital, the very developments Hodgson flags as his early case. Democracy thus failed to seize the moment. Ironically, Donald Trump giddily argued that the meltdown of the stock market, which ended up losing 1.2 trillion dollars, was in his words a "beautiful correction." His argument: the market was overvalued, bloated, etc., and there's nothing like a good enema to restore leanness. He can retreat to his penthouse casino, while rank and file Americans may be thrown out of homes and work by the millions. Sadly, Hodgson and Trump (lefty and righty) seem nestled like two peas in a pod. Both champion and ideology severed from the flesh and blood on the ground members of civil society.

cash&burn (not verified) said:



Tue, 2008-09-30 13:22

The author of the piece appears to assume that all debt and credit is a capitalist conspiracy out to exploit the ordinary man. [...]

Credit is a not a vehicle for exploitation but a utility. A very particular kind of utility, but a utility nonetheless.
While the Paulson scheme had many flaws, its intention was to recreate the circumstances allowing for this utility to again be provided. If you look at Libor rates today you will see that this utility is still not available.
This means that all financial transactions are currently in doubt.

It's as big as that. Trying to ensure the financial transactions, such as companies being able to pay their bills, and mortgage-owners can roll over their mortgages, can continue is not 'elitist'. In fact, it's quite the opposite.
I can understand the left's temptation to crow at a point like this, but celebrating likely economic misery for millions, if not billions, and all the consequences that that entails, is difficult to sympathise with.

Daniel Kelley (not verified) said:



Tue, 2008-09-30 09:38

Oh only 350,000,000,000 at a whack, without oversight, well thank god for that.

CEO pay limited... LIMITED TO WHAT!?

I'm all for $10 per hour. What says the CEO controlled congress?

With the banking industry bankrupt, how are they going to HELP OUT while taking billions of dollars from us?

Are they going to send the CEO and VP's and CFO's to harvest broccoli? Or what?

Independent Oversight... Some other bunch of bribed cronies to whitewash the crime...

Sounds hopeful !

buddhaman (not verified) said:



Tue, 2008-09-30 09:32

Talk about spin. Collective suicide is a better description of what happened last night - echoes of the Jamestown massacre in its mass delusion.

Some of the speeches made by the Congressmen and women against this plan were so childish that they give US democracy a terrible name. If they can't see that Main Street and Wall Street are joined at the hip they really don't deserve to be in Congress, whatever their electorate say.

Daniel Kelley (not verified) said:



Tue, 2008-09-30 09:29

WHAT!?

Democracy won!?!?

The author here must be sh!t for brained.

How do you figure multibillionaire bankers ongoing practice of predatory finance with the legislative assistance of the US Congress is a win for the People?

In all likelihood the bailout plan will be pushed through eventually, after it quiets down and enough concessions are made to whoever is today highly vocal. AND some other junk news item is concocted to distract from it's passing...

We're how far into this last round? A matter of a few weeks... Give it 6 months and tell me then the People won over the bankers. At this point, having had the democratic door slammed in their face, no doubt, the bankers are scheming how to make this harder and harder for people. The interest rates on the ARM's are probably going to go even higher than what they were that people couldn't afford them to begin with.

The bankers have sway in so many industries, so it would be likely they'll starve for finance many industries that will have to cut jobs.

We're winning against the bankers? The bankers are holding all of us hostage. They have the guns and the body armor and we're all naked and prone.

englishman said:



Mon, 2008-09-29 19:53

I don't think the political positions are quite as simplistic as stated here. Many of the "republican footsoldiers" are influenced much more by their libertarian views of zero regulation and a free market economy than emails from constituents. As one said, this is a "$700B socialist rescue plan". A case of better dead than red, economically speaking, perhaps.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><b> <i> <br> <p> <div> <img>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You may quote other posts using [quote] tags.
More information about formatting options