William Greider has spent forty years examining how powerful institutions affect ordinary people,
He has produced a series of best-selling books: SECRETS OF THE TEMPLE: HOW THE FEDERAL RESERVE RUNS THE COUNTRY, ONE WORLD, READY OR NOT: THE MANIC LOGIC OF GLOBAL CAPITALISM, WHO WILL TELL THE PEOPLE: THE BETRAYAL OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY, and this one, THE SOUL OF CAPITALISM. He's working on a new book with the title: COME HOME, AMERICA.
Usury, to be clear about it, is rich people taking advantage of poor people by lending them money on terms that are sure to make them fail. All three of the great religions, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, had a moral prohibition against usury because they recognized that society can't function like that. People of great wealth and their institutions like banks naturally have the power to overwhelm people of lesser means. And you can't allow that in a decent society. It won't survive.
The larger meaning of usury is wealthy people, whether they're banks or individuals, ought not to be able to use their power, their wealth to exploit people who don't have wealth, great wealth. That's not too complicated. And I'm not being utopian here. I'm just saying that you can reestablish legal-slash-moral limits on the behavior of finance and their wealthy patrons. And if they don't want to observe those rules then they need not apply for emergency loans at the Federal Reserve or the Treasury Department.
We were sold a fantasy, an illusion, which sounded great. Markets make better judgments than government and the public. And that liberating finance and business from prudential rules that society imposes upon them will produce a bigger, better economy and better returns for everyone.
Congress repealed the law against usury. It was done in 1980 and, that was the first stroke, only the first of many, in which they stripped away the regulatory laws from the financial system and from banking. And that allowed the free market modernized gimmicks of one kind or another, all these things we're now reading about, to flourish. And that's where we are. I mean, the gatekeepers said to the banking industry and to the financial industry, "We don't think federal control or regulation is good for you, so we're, therefore, liberating you to do your own thing."
The Federal Reserve had lost control of it, not entirely its fault. But that set up a political climate that said the government is not working and that wasn't wrong at the moment. Let's get the government out of the way.
And that was very appealing as framed by Ronald Reagan and other conservatives. But I think it's fair to say most Democrats yielded to it against whatever their original instincts were because of political necessity. And then the third dimension, maybe the most important, was that you had this very powerful industrial sector, that is banking and finance, that wanted and had pushed for years to get out from under the regulatory controls, limits on interest rates, the law against usury, the merger of commercial banks with investment banks, which had been prohibited in the New Deal because it caused the disaster of 1929.
I can go on and on. But you see the pattern. And the point I keep trying to make to people is that history learned the hard way that you do need prudential controls on industries like banking 'cause they're so central to everybody's well being.
All those fantasies have been destroyed by current events, I mean, wiped out. And if you think about it, as we go through the hard months ahead, America's going to have to take some pain, right? In one form or another. The government's going to have to probably ask for some sacrifices.
How do they do that when the American people have just seen the government rush in three days, five days or less, to bail out the biggest, most powerful institutions in the country? That is, the financial investment houses and banks and major banks.
I think the Govt. bail out is bad. I mean, I think the way they're doing it is terrible. It's not done in the public interest. The bailout is necessary. They are failing at the bailout. And I believe they're failing because they haven't gone far enough.
They need to start thinking of, okay, how do we save the folks? That is, the broad interests of the American people as a nation, as workers, as family, blah, blah, blah. And the way to deal with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and some others like it is to nationalize them. Make them agencies of the federal government. That's what they were originally. And they performed for many years a really valuable service to housing markets.
They sort of re-circulated the capital and the mortgages and so forth. Make them a sub-agency of government. Let the shareholders of Fannie Mae and the rest eat their losses. They were playing risk taker shareholders. Let them suffer the consequences of their wrong bets. And go back to a more normal configuration.
Not a casino. No private shareholders. The bailout of Fannie Mae that they're proposing says, somewhat generously I think, we'll put $300 billion on the table to buy the shares of stockholders in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And just us saying that should give them a lot of confidence. Well, yeah, wouldn't it if you've just had the federal government promise to buy your shares if you don't want to hold them anymore.
They've got what you might call a no-lose proposition. And the other part of that, and this would be simple. You could pass this in three days. Restore the federal law against usury. That won't have too many details to it at first. But it'll be a general statement that the federal government is prohibiting the kind of outrageous predatory practices, which have become general in this country, of not just banks but other financial firms.
Left to their own devices, the private sector will go too far. They will use their power to their own advantage. And that's what we're witnessing now, a kind of recklessness that was set free by political retreat and people, some of them were sincere. Some of them were just on the make. But here's our great American tension. We want an economy that's dynamic, that's growing, puts more jobs out there for people to get, rising wages, all that good stuff. And at the same time, we want an economy that's stable. And that means no inflation, steady as you go, so forth and so on.
And this is the mortal condition. You're not going to escape that tension. Government is a powerful intervener that tries, ought to try, to balance those two desires. For many years, the Federal Reserve served that role and tried to strike a balance.
During the last generation, 25, 30 years ago, the Federal Reserve, the central bank that regulates money and credit, tipped hard in one direction-- toward capital, in favor of capital and against labor. It not only hardened the value of money by suppressing inflation, but it participated very aggressively in the role of stripping away regulatory breaks on financial system and banks. Declined to enforce many of its own regulatory powers that exist in law. And meanwhile, sort of kept a foot on the brake about economic growth and full employment and all those good things that might help working people by encouraging rising wages.
So at the same time the Fed was helping to keep wages down in order to keep inflation from escalating, its policies were, nonetheless, helping banks and investors to inflate the cost of their the value of their assets beyond reality
He has produced a series of best-selling books: SECRETS OF THE TEMPLE: HOW THE FEDERAL RESERVE RUNS THE COUNTRY, ONE WORLD, READY OR NOT: THE MANIC LOGIC OF GLOBAL CAPITALISM, WHO WILL TELL THE PEOPLE: THE BETRAYAL OF AMERICAN DEMOCRACY, and this one, THE SOUL OF CAPITALISM. He's working on a new book with the title: COME HOME, AMERICA.
Usury, to be clear about it, is rich people taking advantage of poor people by lending them money on terms that are sure to make them fail. All three of the great religions, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, had a moral prohibition against usury because they recognized that society can't function like that. People of great wealth and their institutions like banks naturally have the power to overwhelm people of lesser means. And you can't allow that in a decent society. It won't survive.
The larger meaning of usury is wealthy people, whether they're banks or individuals, ought not to be able to use their power, their wealth to exploit people who don't have wealth, great wealth. That's not too complicated. And I'm not being utopian here. I'm just saying that you can reestablish legal-slash-moral limits on the behavior of finance and their wealthy patrons. And if they don't want to observe those rules then they need not apply for emergency loans at the Federal Reserve or the Treasury Department.
We were sold a fantasy, an illusion, which sounded great. Markets make better judgments than government and the public. And that liberating finance and business from prudential rules that society imposes upon them will produce a bigger, better economy and better returns for everyone.
Congress repealed the law against usury. It was done in 1980 and, that was the first stroke, only the first of many, in which they stripped away the regulatory laws from the financial system and from banking. And that allowed the free market modernized gimmicks of one kind or another, all these things we're now reading about, to flourish. And that's where we are. I mean, the gatekeepers said to the banking industry and to the financial industry, "We don't think federal control or regulation is good for you, so we're, therefore, liberating you to do your own thing."
The Federal Reserve had lost control of it, not entirely its fault. But that set up a political climate that said the government is not working and that wasn't wrong at the moment. Let's get the government out of the way.
And that was very appealing as framed by Ronald Reagan and other conservatives. But I think it's fair to say most Democrats yielded to it against whatever their original instincts were because of political necessity. And then the third dimension, maybe the most important, was that you had this very powerful industrial sector, that is banking and finance, that wanted and had pushed for years to get out from under the regulatory controls, limits on interest rates, the law against usury, the merger of commercial banks with investment banks, which had been prohibited in the New Deal because it caused the disaster of 1929.
I can go on and on. But you see the pattern. And the point I keep trying to make to people is that history learned the hard way that you do need prudential controls on industries like banking 'cause they're so central to everybody's well being.
All those fantasies have been destroyed by current events, I mean, wiped out. And if you think about it, as we go through the hard months ahead, America's going to have to take some pain, right? In one form or another. The government's going to have to probably ask for some sacrifices.
How do they do that when the American people have just seen the government rush in three days, five days or less, to bail out the biggest, most powerful institutions in the country? That is, the financial investment houses and banks and major banks.
I think the Govt. bail out is bad. I mean, I think the way they're doing it is terrible. It's not done in the public interest. The bailout is necessary. They are failing at the bailout. And I believe they're failing because they haven't gone far enough.
They need to start thinking of, okay, how do we save the folks? That is, the broad interests of the American people as a nation, as workers, as family, blah, blah, blah. And the way to deal with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and some others like it is to nationalize them. Make them agencies of the federal government. That's what they were originally. And they performed for many years a really valuable service to housing markets.
They sort of re-circulated the capital and the mortgages and so forth. Make them a sub-agency of government. Let the shareholders of Fannie Mae and the rest eat their losses. They were playing risk taker shareholders. Let them suffer the consequences of their wrong bets. And go back to a more normal configuration.
Not a casino. No private shareholders. The bailout of Fannie Mae that they're proposing says, somewhat generously I think, we'll put $300 billion on the table to buy the shares of stockholders in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And just us saying that should give them a lot of confidence. Well, yeah, wouldn't it if you've just had the federal government promise to buy your shares if you don't want to hold them anymore.
They've got what you might call a no-lose proposition. And the other part of that, and this would be simple. You could pass this in three days. Restore the federal law against usury. That won't have too many details to it at first. But it'll be a general statement that the federal government is prohibiting the kind of outrageous predatory practices, which have become general in this country, of not just banks but other financial firms.
Left to their own devices, the private sector will go too far. They will use their power to their own advantage. And that's what we're witnessing now, a kind of recklessness that was set free by political retreat and people, some of them were sincere. Some of them were just on the make. But here's our great American tension. We want an economy that's dynamic, that's growing, puts more jobs out there for people to get, rising wages, all that good stuff. And at the same time, we want an economy that's stable. And that means no inflation, steady as you go, so forth and so on.
And this is the mortal condition. You're not going to escape that tension. Government is a powerful intervener that tries, ought to try, to balance those two desires. For many years, the Federal Reserve served that role and tried to strike a balance.
During the last generation, 25, 30 years ago, the Federal Reserve, the central bank that regulates money and credit, tipped hard in one direction-- toward capital, in favor of capital and against labor. It not only hardened the value of money by suppressing inflation, but it participated very aggressively in the role of stripping away regulatory breaks on financial system and banks. Declined to enforce many of its own regulatory powers that exist in law. And meanwhile, sort of kept a foot on the brake about economic growth and full employment and all those good things that might help working people by encouraging rising wages.
So at the same time the Fed was helping to keep wages down in order to keep inflation from escalating, its policies were, nonetheless, helping banks and investors to inflate the cost of their the value of their assets beyond reality
