Exactly three years ago today, at the height of the market crash,
I pointed out on my blog (and my radio program) that the biggest banks in America were granted well over $1 trillion in ultra-low interest rate loans by the Federal Reserve. These loans were granted so the biggest banks would have money to stuff the financial holes that their trillion dollar (derivative) bets had created. They also helped
purify toxic crap and kept the banks out of court.
Best of all, the loans were backed by the
government American taxpayer.
Thinking how bad things were - and so people could see for themselves - I
explained (very slowly) how to find the more than $1 trillion in loans in the Federal Reserve's December 11, 2008 "Flow of Funds Accounts" release.
Things were so bad at the end of 2008 that the banks borrowed $1.2 trillion on December 5, 2008. Let's repeat that ...
the banks had to borrow $1.2 trillion on one day.
Worse, much of the collateral the banks put up to secure the loans was either inflated, or simply toxic
crap. These toxic instruments are the stuff you and I will get stuck paying for over the next few decades.
Putting it All in Perspective
To put $1.2 trillion in perspective, think about this little nugget: $1.2. trillion is much more than what President Bush spent on the TARP bailout ($750 billion), and far more than what President Obama asked for in the Stimulus Program ($825 billion, of which $275 billion were tax cuts). And it's also far more than the
$907 billion we owed as a nation in 1980.
As you can imagine, the Federal Reserve and the big banks fought to keep $1.2 trillion in bailout loans a secret. To do otherwise would have alerted America to how much trouble the banks were really in back in 2008 (they're still in trouble). It was the largest loan-bailout in U.S. history, after all.
Fortunately for America's biggest financial institutions most Americans didn't catch on to what was happening. This includes the vast majority of our incredibly hypocritical "We Just Found Financial Jesus" Tea Party movement. Most them still don't have a clue. Nor do they seem to understand how the banks used more than $1 trillion in low interest loans to profit off of the U.S. taxpayer.
How the Banks Profited ...
Thanks to
Bloomberg News we can see exactly
who profited from the barely above zero interest loans made to Wall Street's biggest banks. One thing's for sure. It wasn't the American taxpayer. Here's the details.
Simply put, the banks made
about $13 billion in taxpayer funded profits (play with the
interactive here). How did they do it, you ask? Simple. They
borrowed the money at rock bottom interest rates from the Federal Reserve, then "walked down the street" (as it were) to
purchase Treasury Bonds from the federal government that paid
almost 3% interest. A classic case of robbing Peter (the American taxpayer) to pay Paul (themselves).
But wait, it gets better (or is that 'worser'?).
Flush with cheap taxpayer-backed loans America's bankers began lobbying Washington to stop the movement for more regulations. Their argument? Since they were so healthy - and weren't bankrupt - they didn't need pesky regulations. Regulations and oversight distracted them from making money.
That's right. While America's biggest bankers were on government life support - and had one hand in the taxpayer's pockets - they were also pretending they had done nothing wrong. Ergo, they didn't need to be regulated.
While TARP and taxpayer backed loans enabled banks and Wall Street to dodge bankruptcy, America's biggest banks began turning away and punishing customers who lost their jobs and homes as a result of the 2008 market collapse. Bankrupt citizens facing tough times as a result of the market collapse had to be punished.
Long story short? In spite of collapsing the economy, and asking the American taxpayer to underwrite their market stupidity, the banks demanded market-like discipline be imposed on the American public. It didn't matter that the American taxpayer had helped turn their toxic investments and stupid bets into market gold.
Aren't double standards beautiful?
The Chutzpah Behind the "Self-Esteem" Loans ...
Let's make this real simple. If the banks had not received government loans, or had been forced into bankruptcy or receivership, the lobbying efforts of the banks would have been comical (they still are in my book, but that's another story).
But stuffed with TARP bailout money, and with emergency loans from the Federal Reserve (
who created brand
new loan "
facilities" for troubled banks), America's biggest failed banks were
able to escape market justice and pretend things were just fine. Congress played along ... as they continue to do today. But here's the kicker.
In a classic WTF moment, the banks argued that they were simply borrowing from the Fed (again, at least $1.2 trillion in one day) so other banks
wouldn't feel "
stigmatized" by having to take loans from the Federal Reserve. Huh? Are you kidding me? How clueless are these people? They didn't want other banks to feel shame for making stupid decisions, so banks
had to borrow money from the Federal Reserve? Unbelievable.
At the end of the day, the thinking behind our banker bailout programs is akin to the logic behind toddler leagues. You know, the leagues where parents don't keep score so they don't hurt little "Johnny's" feelings. Incredible. Apparently bankers and Wall Street need self-esteem programs too.
Keep this in mind the next time your friend wants to discuss corporations and rugged individualism in America.
The End ...
This, my friends, is just one reason why it's difficult to take the
status quo "happy talk" about profits, falling unemployment, and Wall Street success stories seriously. It's all backstopped with trillion dollar federal loans and taxpayer furnished bailout money.
The happy talk about Wall Street means little for jobless and foreclosed upon Main Street. Monopoly Man's successes mean nothing to Joe Six-Pack. This is especially the case since it's all backstopped with taxpayer money, still overly complex loan structures, lax regulatory oversight, and record debt loads.
So - again - my question is Where's the Tea Party outrage on all of this?
- Mark
God wants me to speak out here ... At the end of the day I'd like to say who cares about any of this stuff. Seriously. The problem is that conservative politicians and the family values crowd have a tendency to tear down and demonize anyone who disagrees with their moral imperatives on their way up the political ladder. But then we learn about people like Ken Mehlman (gay), David Vitter (whore mongerer), Larry Craig (bathroom enthusiast), Mark Sanford ("I'll spend Father's Day with my mistress in Argentina"), John Ensign ("I do staffer's wives"), Newt Gingrich (serial cheater), Ted Haggard ("Spank me, I'm cured of the gay"), et al. I think most of us are not too concerned about what politicians do with their love lives. It's between them and their significant others (and God). But the moral posturing on the way up suggests that they deserve to be politically isolated and singled out when they get caught. If you want to have an affair? Fine. But be sure you don't build your political profile around family values. There's no conspiracy or evil ploys here. Think it through ...
