A Primer on the Wall Street Meltdown

19 10 2008

By Walden Bello*

Many on Wall Street are still digesting the momentous events of the last ten days:

  • 1-3 trillion dollars worth of financial assets wiped out.
  • Wall Street effectively nationalized, with the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department making all the major strategic decisions in the financial sector and, with the rescue of the American International Group (AIG), the US government now runs the world’s biggest insurance company.
  • The biggest bailout since the Great Depression, with $700 billion, being desperately put together to save the global financial system.

The usual explanations no longer suffice.  Extraordinary events demand extraordinary explanations.  But first…

Is the worst over?

No, if anything is clear from the contradictory moves of the last week—allowing Lehman Brothers to collapse while taking over AIG, and engineering Bank of America’s takeover of Merrill Lynch–there is no strategy to deal with the crisis, just tactical responses, like the fire department’s response to a conflagration.

The $700 billion buyout of banks’ bad mortgaged-backed securities is not a strategy but mainly a desperate effort to shore up confidence in the system, to prevent the erosion of trust in the banks and other financial institutions and preventing a massive bank run such as the one that triggered the Great Depression of 1929.

What caused the collapse of global capitalism’s nerve center?  Was it greed?

Good old fashioned greed played a part.  This is what Klaus Schwab, the organizer of the World Economic Forum, the yearly global elite jamboree in the Swiss Alps, meant when he told his clientele in Davos earlier this year: “We have to pay for the sins of the past.”

Was this a case of Wall Street outsmarting itself?

Definitely. Financial speculators outsmarted themselves by creating more and more complex financial contracts like derivatives that would securitize and make money from all forms of risk—including exotic futures instruments as “credit default swaps” that enable investors to bet on the odds that the banks’ own corporate borrowers would not be able to pay their debts!  This is the unregulated multitrillion dollar trade that brought down AIG.

On December 17, 2005, when International Financing Review (IFR) announced its 2005 Annual Awards — one of the securities industry’s most prestigious awards programs—it had this to say: “[Lehman Brothers] not only maintained its overall market presence, but also led the charge into the preferred space by … developing new products and tailoring transactions to fit borrowers’ needs…Lehman Brothers is the most innovative in the preferred space, just doing things you won’t see elsewhere.”

No comment.

Was it lack of regulation?

Yes—everyone acknowledges by now that Wall Street’s capacity to innovate and turn out more and more sophisticated financial instruments had run far ahead of government’s regulatory capability, not because government was not capable of regulating but because the dominant neoliberal, laissez-faire attitude prevented government from devising effective mechanisms with which to regulate.

But isn’t there something more that is happening? Something systemic?

Well, George Soros, who saw this coming, says what we are going through is the crisis of the financial system is the crisis of the “gigantic circulatory system” of a “global capitalist system that is…coming apart at the seams.”

To elaborate on the arch-speculator’ s insight, what we are seeing is the intensification of one of the central crises or contradictions of global capitalism which is the crisis of overproduction, also known as overaccumulation or overcapacity.

This is the tendency for capitalism to build up tremendous productive capacity that outruns the population’s capacity to consume owing to social inequalities that limit popular purchasing power, thus eroding profitability.

But what does the crisis of overproduction have to do with recent events?

Plenty.  But to understand the connections, we must go back in time to the so-called Golden Age of Contemporary Capitalism, the period from 1945 to 1975.

This was a period of rapid growth both in the center economies and in the underdeveloped economies—one that was partly triggered by the massive reconstruction of Europe and East Asia after the devastation of the Second World War, and partly by the new socio-economic arrangements that were institutionalized under the new Keynesian state.  Key among the latter were strong state controls over     market activity, aggressive use of fiscal and monetary policy to minimize inflation and recession, and a regime of relatively high wages to stimulate and maintain demand.

So what went wrong?

Well, this period of high growth came to an end in the mid-seventies, when the center economies were seized by stagflation, meaning the coexistence of low growth with high inflation, which was not supposed to happen under neoclassical economics.

Stagflation, however, was but a symptom of a deeper cause: the reconstruction of
Germany and Japan and the rapid growth of industrializing economies like Brazil, Taiwan, and South Korea added tremendous new productive capacity and increased
global competition, while social within countries and between countries globally limited the growth of purchasing power and demand, thus eroding profitability. This was aggravated by the massive oil price rises of the seventies.

How did capitalism try to solve the crisis of overproduction?

Capital tried three escape routes from the conundrum of overproduction: neoliberal restructuring, globalization, and financialization.

What was neoliberal restructuring all about?

Neoliberal restructuring  took the form of Reaganism and Thatcherism in the North and Structural Adjustment in the South.  The aim was to invigorate capital accumulation, and this was to be done by 1) removing state constraints on the growth, use, and flow of capital and wealth; and 2) redistribute income from the poor and middle classes to the rich on the theory that the rich would then be motivated to invest and reignite economic growth.

The problem with this formula was that in redistributing income to the rich, you were gutting the incomes of the poor and middle classes, thus restricting demand, while not necessarily inducing the rich to invest more in production.

In fact, neoliberal restructuring, which was generalized in the North and south during the eighties and nineties, had a poor record in terms of growth: global growth averaged 1.1 per cent in the nineties and 1.4 in the eighties, whereas it averaged 3.5 per cent in the 1960’s and 2.4 per cent in the seventies, when state interventionist policies were dominant.  Neoliberal restructuring could not shake off stagnation.

How was globalization a response to the crisis?

The second escape route global capital took to counter stagnation was “extensive accumulation” or globalization, or the rapid integration of semi-capitalist, non-capitalist, or precapitalist areas into the global market economy.  Rosa Luxemburg, the famous German revolutionary economist, saw this long ago as necessary to shore up the rate of profit in the metropolitan economies.  How?  By gaining access to cheap labor, by gaining new, albeit limited, markets, by gaining new sources of cheap agricultural and raw material products, and by bringing into being new areas for investment in  infrastructure.  Integration is accomplished via trade liberalization, removing barriers to the mobility of global capital, and abolishing barriers to foreign investment.

China is, of course, the most prominent case ofa non-capitalist area to be integrated into the global capitalist economy over the last 25 years.

To counter their declining profits, a sizable number of the Fortune 500 corporations have moved a significant part of their operations to China to take advantage of the so-called “China Price”—the cost advantage deriving from China’s seemingly inexhaustible cheap labor. By the middle of the first decade of the 21st century, roughly 40 t0 50 per cent of the profits of US corporations were derived from their operations and sales abroad, especially China.

Why didn’t globalization surmount the crisis?

The problem with this escape route from stagnation is that it exacerbates the problem of overproduction because it adds to productive capacity.  A tremendous amount of manufacturing capacity has been added in China over the last 25 years, and this has had a depressing effect on prices and profits.  Not surprisingly, by around 1997, the profits of US corporations stopped growing.  According to one index, the profit rate of the Fortune 500 went from 7.15 in 1960-69 to 5.30 in 1980-90 to 2.29 in 1990-99 to 1.32 in 2000-2002.

What about financialization?

Given the limited gains in countering the depressive impact of overproduction via neoliberal restructuring and globalization, the third escape route became very critical for maintaining and raising profitability: financialization.

In the ideal world of neoclassical economics, the financial system is the mechanism by which the savers or those with surplus funds are joined with the entrepreneurs who have need of their funds to invest in production.  In the real world of late capitalism, with investment in industry and agriculture yielding low profits owing to overcapacity, large amounts of surplus funds are circulating and being invested and reinvested in the financial sector—that is the financial sector is turning in on itself.

The result is an increased bifurcation between a hyperactive financial economy and a stagnant real economy.  As one financial executive notes, “there has been an increasing disconnect between the real and financial economies in the last few years.  The real economy has grown…but nothing like that of the financial economy—until it imploded.”

What this observer does not tell us is that the disconnect between the real and the financial economy is not accidental—that the financial economy exploded precisely to make up for the stagnation owing to overproduction of the real economy.

What were the problems with financialization as an escape route?

The problem with investing in financial sector operations is that it is tantamount to squeezing value out of already created value.  It may create profit, yes, but it does not create new value—only industry, agricultural, trade, and services create new value.  Because profit is not based on value that is created, investment operations become very volatile and prices of stocks, bonds, and other forms of investment can depart very radically from their real value—for instance, the stock of Internet startups that keep on rising, driven mainly by upwardly spiraling financial valuations, that then crash. Profits then depend on taking advantage of upward price departures from the value of commodities, then selling before reality enforces a “correction,” that is a crash back to real values.  The radical rise of prices of an asset far beyond real values is what is called the formation of a bubble.

Why is financialization so volatile?

Profitability being dependent on speculative coups, it is not surprising that the finance sector lurches from one bubble to another, or from one speculative mania to another.

Because it is driven by speculative mania, finance driven capitalism has experienced about scores of financial crises since capital markets were deregulated and liberalized in the 1980’s.

Prior to the current Wall Street meltdown, the most explosive of these were the Mexican Financial Crisis of 1994-95, the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997-1998, the Russian Financial Crisis of 1996, the Wall Street Stock Market Collapse of 2001, and the Argentine Financial Collapse of 2002.

Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, Wall Streeter Robert Rubin, predicted five years ago that “future financial crises are almost surely inevitable and could be even more severe.”

How do bubbles form, grow, and burst?

Let’s first use the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997-98, as an example.

  • First, capital account and financial liberalization at the urging of the IMF and the US Treasury Dept.;
  • Then, entry of foreign funds seeking quick and high returns, meaning they went to real estate and the stock market;
  • Overinvestment, leading to fall in stock and real estate prices, leading to panicky withdrawal of funds—in 1997, $100 billion left the East Asian economies in a few weeks;
  • Bailout of foreign speculators by the IMF;
  • Collapse of the real economy—recession throughout East Asia in 1998;
  • Despite massive destabilization, efforts to impose both national and global regulation of financial system were opposed on ideological grounds.

Let’s go to the current bubble.  How did it form?

The current Wall Street collapse has its roots in the Technology Bubble of the late 1990’s, when the price of the stocks of Internet startups skyrocketed, then collapsed, resulting in the loss of $7 trillion worth of assets and the recession of 2001-2002.

The loose money policies of the Fed under Alan Greenspan had encouraged the Technology Bubble, and when it collapsed into a recession, Greenspan, to try to counter a long recession, cut the prime rate to a 45-year-low of 1 per cent in June 2003 and kept it there for over a year. This had the effect of encouraging another bubble—the real estate bubble.

As early as 2002, progressive economists such as Dean Baker of the Center for Economic Policy Research were warning about the real estate bubble. However, as late as 2005, then Council of Economic Adviser Chairman and now Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke attributed the rise in US housing prices to “strong economic fundamentals” instead of speculative activity.  Is it any wonder that he was caught completely off guard when the Subprime Crisis broke in the summer of 2007?

And how did it grow?

Let’s hear it from one key market player himself, George Soros:  “Mortgage institutions encouraged mortgage holders to refinance their mortgages and withdraw their excess equity.  They lowered their lending standards and introduced new products, such as adjustable mortgages (ARMs), “interest only” mortgages, and promotional teaser rates.”  All this encouraged speculation in residential housing units.  House prices started to rise in double digit rates.  This served to reinforce speculation, and the rise in house prices made the owners feel rich; the result was a consumption boom that has sustained the economy in recent years.”

Looking at the process more closely, the subprime mortgage crisis was not a case of supply outrunning real demand.  The “demand” was largely fabricated by speculative mania on the part of developers and financiers that wanted to make great profits from their access to foreign money that flooded the US in the last decade.   Big ticket mortgages were aggressively sold to millions who could not normally afford them by offering low “teaser” interest rates that would later be readjusted to jack up payments from the new homeowners.

But how could subprime mortgages going sour turn into such a big problem?

Because these assets were then “securitized” with other assets into complex derivative products called “collateralized debt obligations” (CDO’s) by the mortgage originators working with different layers of middlemen who understated risk so as to offload them as quickly as possible to other banks and institutional investors.  These institutions in turn offloaded these securities onto other banks and foreign financial institutions.

When the interest rates were raised on the subprime loans, adjustable mortgage and other housing loans, the game was up. There are about six million subprime mortgages outstanding, 40 percent of which will likely go into default in the next two years, Soros estimates.

And five million more defaults from adjustable rate mortgages and other “flexible loans” will occur over the next several years.  But securities the value of which run into trillions of dollars have already been injected, like virus, into the global financial system.  Global capitalism’s gigantic circulatory system was fatally infected.

But how could Wall Street titans collapse like a house of cards?

For Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Bear Stearns, the losses represented by these toxic securities simply overwhelmed their reserves and brought them down.  And more are likely to fall once their books—since lots of these holdings are recorded “off the balance sheet”– are corrected to reflect their actual holdings of these assets.

And many others will join them as other speculative operations such as credit cards and different varieties of risk insurance seize up.  The American International Group (AIG) was felled by its massive exposure in the unregulated area of credit default swaps, derivatives  that make it possible for investors to bet on the possibility that companies will default on repaying loans. Such bets on credit defaults now make up a $45 trillion market that is entirely unregulated. It amounts to more than five times the total of the US government bond market.  The mega-size of the assets that could go bad should AIG collapse was what made Washington change its mind and salvage it after it let Lehman Brothers collapse.

What’s going to happen now?

We can safely say then that there will be more bankruptcies and government takeovers, with foreign banks and institutions joining theie US counterparts, that Wall Street’s collapse will deepen and prolong the US recession, and that in Asia and elsewhere, a US recession will translate into a recession, if not worse.  The reason for the last point is that China’s main foreign market is the US and China in turn imports raw materials and intermediate goods that it uses for its exports to the US from Japan, Korea, and Southeast Asia.  Globalization has made “decoupling” impossible.  The US, China, and East Asia are like three prisoners bound together in a chain-gang.

In a nutshell…?

The Wall Street meltdown is not only due to greed and to the lack of government regulation of a hyperactive sector. The Wall Street collapse stems ultimately from the crisis of overproduction that has plagued global capitalism since the mid-seventies.

Financialization of investment activity has been one of the escape routes from stagnation, the other two being neoliberal restructuring and globalization. With neoliberal restructuring and globalization providing limited relief, financialization became attractive as a mechanism to shore up profitability. But financialization has proven to be a dangerous road, leading to speculative bubbles that lead to the temporary prosperity of a few but which ultimately end up in corporate collapse and in recession in the real economy.

The key questions now are: How deep and long will this recession be? Does the US economy need another speculative bubble to drag itself out of this recession.  And if it does, where will the next bubble form?  Some people say the military-industrial complex or the “disaster capitalism complex” that Naomi Klein writes about is the next one, but that’s another story?

*President of Freedom from Debt Coalition and Professor of Sociology at the University of the Philippines.



Statement of Prof. Walden Bello

29 07 2008

President of Freedom from Debt Coalition
On the Occasion of the State of the Nation Address
28 July 2008

Today is Mrs. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s eighth State of the Nation Address. Again, she will be reviewing her performance in the past year and set the policy agenda for the next year. According to her staff, will tackle the issues of a national social welfare program addressing the crisis, value added tax, family planning and other policy statements.

After eight years in power you would think she would have been able to set the conditions for economic growth. Being an economist, you would expect her to have come up with an integrated and strategic development plan that would support the different economic sectors. Instead Arroyo has been more concerned about dodging political controversies, covering up for anomalies in government transactions and sometimes even resorting to theatrics to save her own skin from the issue of electoral fraud. Meanwhile, the lack of attention and investments in important economic sectors such as energy and agriculture has made the country vulnerable to crises.

Mrs. Arroyo would have us believe that the current crisis is not of her making, that external factors like the rise in the international prices of rice and oil are to blame, that before early this year, the country’s economic fundamentals were good.

The administration claims that in 2007 the recorded growth rate of the GDP was a high 7.3%. But that figure has been discredited by business consultant Peter Wallace and even the World Bank as a statistical fluke that masks a 5.4% decrease in imports. Instead, the real picture as painfully experienced by Filipinos every day does not look good at all.

The reality is indicated by the same brutal numbers: more poor people in 2007 than in 2000, more people without jobs, a real decline in average family income, the shrinking of the middle class as more people jump ship and swim to other shores.

The World Bank chimes in, with data illustrating an increase in poverty incidence between 2003 and 2006 with the level of poverty incidence very closely approximating the year 2000 levels. In 2006, 27.6 million out of 84 million Filipinos have fallen below the poverty line. So after eight long years, what has this administration really achieved?

For the past 25 years the record of the Philippines in terms of economic growth has been terrible, the worst in Southeast Asia. Second-tier ASEAN states such as Laos, Cambodia and Myanmar are faring much better with average GDP per capita growth rates ranging from 3.8 to 6.6 % in the past fifteen years or so. Compare that with the measly 1.6% for the Philippines.

So what has ailed the Philippine economy for so long? The usual culprits international financial institutions point to are protectionism and high wages. However as we will go to show, these are not the things weighing the economy down but the chronic inability to invest on economic infrastructure with annual budgets eaten away by debt service payments and the negative impacts of trade liberalization and debt conditionalities.

One scapegoat is the alleged protectionist policies and high wages. Contrary to the usual; claims, the Philippines, to its detriment, has pursued a more profound liberalization program compared to its Asian neighbors beginning in the 1980s. As for the high wages argument, High wages also benefit the Philippine economy because it stimulates consumption. In a situation where there is a dearth of capital investments, an increase in wages will lead to a higher level of aggregate demand that will result in a utilization of current excess capacity in industry, leading to faster growth and more employment.

So if those identified are not the culprits of the stagnation we are currently experiencing, then what are? Bad economic decision-making since the mid 1980s. Why do we focus on key policy decisions? The reason is that these decisions—in particular the fateful decision to channel government financial resources to debt repayment instead of capital expenditures—go a long way towards explaining why our neighbors leaped forward as we stagnated.

Owing to pressure from international creditors, the fledgling democratic government of President Corazon Aquino adopted the so-called “model debtor strategy” in the hope of continuing to have access to international capital markets. This approach was cast in iron by Executive Order 292, which affirmed the “automatic appropriation” from the annual government budget of the full amount needed to service the foreign debt. What this has achieved is channeling of government revenue to debt servicing. In 1986-1993 around $30 billion went to paying off interests to creditors, money which should have gone into public investments on infrastructure and social services that would eventually lead to attracting higher levels of private investments. Succeeding administrations have, including the current one, have followed the model debtor strategy.

As of December 2007, Philippines has an accumulated external debt of $61.83 billion, which amounts to 55.8% of the GDP. Apart from Marcos administration, Arroyo’s has incurred the highest levels of borrowing. Debt incurred by her administration between 2001-2005 totaled P2.44 trillion compared to the combined borrowings of the Aquino, Ramos and Estrada administrations which stood at P1.46 trillion.

After making the decision to religiously service our debts at the expense of public investments, beginning 1994 our economic managers decided to pursue a radical program to unilaterally reduce all tariffs to zero to five percent by 2004. If the hemorrhage of payments on the foreign debt blew a hole on the expenditure side, trade liberalization, by reducing a very critical source of government revenues, blew a hole on the revenue side. Aside from crippling local industries owing to the entry of cheap foreign products, trade liberalization resulted in a radical decrease in customs collection. The overall result of this double punch was a state that could not invest because it had so little to invest—a government that could not act as an agent of development. As with the model debtor strategy, the Arroyo administration has not broken with the policies of trade and financial liberalization.

The Philippine experience has shown how important economic decision-making is in determining economic success and failure. When coupled with massive corruption, such as that which pervades Malacanang today, wrong policies can condemn a country to permanent stagnation. This corrupt and unimaginative administration that is compliant with foreign financial interests is one that most Filipinos would like to put behind them.


Gay, Pregnant and Marked for Harassment

29 06 2008

Gay, Pregnant and Marked for Harassment
By Jonas Bagas
Philippine Daily Inquirer


MANILA, Philippines – Remember the “flower platoon”?

Back when the Reserve Officers Training Course (ROTC) was still mandatory for male college students, it symbolized discrimination against gay students. Real men marched in real platoons; gay students were with their pansy fellows in the flower platoon. Their only duty was to cheer for their manly counterparts or run errands for them.

Well, the “flower platoon” disappeared with the abolition of compulsory ROTC in 2001, but the underlying biases that created it still persist. They come in the form of unwritten rules or the ubiquitous “morality clause” in the student manual. They are meant to crack the whip on what some sectors still describe as “moral deviants”—lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders (LGBT), as well as unmarried pregnant students.

Some schools run by religious congregations or organizations, like St. Joseph’s College in Quezon City, ask unwed pregnant students to drop out or take a leave of absence until after they deliver their babies.

An admissions officer at the Saint Pedro Poveda College in Quezon City says the issue is simply about being consistent with the Catholic faith. “Pregnancy outside of marriage sends the wrong message about premarital sex,” she explains.

But for women’s rights activists, policies against pregnant students are discriminatory. Dr. Guy Estrada-Claudio of the UP Center for Women Studies believes that these policies are very judgmental on women’s sexuality. “It punishes women in the end. To be pregnant, women have to be in a heterosexual marriage. They are not given a choice,” she says.

She cautions, too, about the danger of schools being complicit in sexual abuse, especially if the context of the pregnancy is unknown. “Schools could be punishing students who are in fact victims of rape or incest,” she adds.

Not all Catholic schools discriminate against unmarried pregnant students though. The College of the Holy Spirit in Manila and Miriam College in Quezon City, for instance, have taken a progressive stance on the issue.

In De La Salle University, however, while unmarried pregnant students are not punished, the prohibition could apply to unmarried pregnant female faculty members, if the rather vague clause “public scandal” in the faculty manual were applied.

Notes DLSU professor Natty Manauat: “The rule is contained in a broad and vague morality clause in the faculty manual, but I don’t think it has ever been applied. But that’s exactly the problem—it is there and it can be arbitrarily imposed.”

The same vague policies on morality hound lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students, who are brought under control through their attire and physical appearance. In the Philippine Normal University in Manila, effeminate gay students are barred from sporting long hair, using make-up, or wearing earrings while inside the university. Curiously though, masculine and ostensibly heterosexual students are allowed to wear long hair and earrings, and even apply foundation on their face.

In San Beda College in Manila, masculinity tests used to be imposed on presumably gay students. Students can’t enrol if they fail the arbitrary test administered by a panel composed of school officials and faculty members who rate a student according to their perception of masculinity.

Even in the more liberal enclave of the University of the Philippines, discrimination still exists. Perci Cendaña, the first openly gay chair of the UP University Student Council, recounts that during the campaign period, homophobes resorted to nasty tactics against him. “There were even graffiti in some men’s restrooms during the campaign period with phrases like ‘Perci Kadiri’ and ‘Bading ’wag iboto.’ It was a great disappointment because this was UP,” he says.

How then does one address discrimination and stigma against LGBT students and unmarried pregnant students? The Student Council Alliance of the Philippines, a broad network of student councils and governments, views discrimination as a sign of a poor democracy. “Education knows no sex, religion, physical status or gender,” says SCAP Sec. Gen. Paula Bianca Lapuz.

SCAP has been pushing for the passage of the Students Rights and Welfare Bill (HB2584) to ensure equality inside schools and campuses. Also pending in Congress is the Anti-Discrimination Bill (HB956), authored by Akbayan Rep. Risa Hontiveros-Baraquel in partnership with the Lesbian and Gay Legislative Advocacy Network (LAGABLAB), which would penalize discrimination against LGBTs in schools, workplaces, and other areas.

Unless these bills are enacted, kicking stigma out of our schools remains a test we all have to face and pass.


STATEMENT of former UP President and now chairperson of Laban ng Masa Prof. Francisco Nemenzo

7 03 2008
A democratic alternative to GMA
The belated involvement of Makati Business Club and other elite groups in the campaign to oust Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is welcome. But we should not let them steal victory from the people.
The ouster of GMA will bring no significant improvement if the system of elite rule is left intact. Whoever accedes to Malacanang in this political framework will remain a captive of the greedy and colonial-minded elite. Read the rest of this entry »