증평 모녀 일가족 자살 사건 교훈, 은행 사회화 토론과 실천 필요성 socialization of banks

April 10 at 10:56pm · 

은행을 공동체 소유로 바꿔야 한다. 

6 대 시중 은행들 6조 넘는 영업이익 잔치를 벌이는 가운데 , 1~2억 빚 걱정에 세 명 일가족이 자살했다

. 41세 젊은 엄마와 딸이 자살했다. 약초캐는 심마니 남편이 자살한 후에 연이은 불행, 어머니도 별세했다. 남편은 생활고를 호소했었다고 한다. 결국 일가족 3명이 자살하고 말았다. 사회적 한이 맺힐 것 같다. 

- 개인 생계형 빚을 죄악시 말아야 한다.

- 언젠가는 갚을 수 있도록 사회적 공조 체제를 갖춰야 한다. 은행이 본래적 역할을 회복해야 한다.

- 시민은행, 민중은행 기초 모델부터 만들어 나가야함을 다시금 느끼게 하는 우리 모두의 비극이 증평 일가족 자살 사건이다.

April 12 at 7:40pm · 

 · 

박정희는 초등학교 학생들에게 은행계좌를 의무적으로 만들어라고 명령했다. 급우 삼재 군은 저축왕 상장을 받았다. 복리 이자 계산법도 몰랐던 초등학교 학생들은 이자 몇 십원이 우리들 통장에 붙는 것을 보며, 우리 집 강아지 해피가 새끼를 쑴풍쑴풍 낳는 것처럼 기뻐하기도 했다. 금리 마이너스가 된 지금과는 상전벽해다.

흥미롭다. 스티글리치가 현재 미국 은행은 대기업과 자본의 영구적인 복지만을 도모할 뿐, 개인 시민들에게는 관심이 없다고 비판했다. 

한국 은행들은 영업이익을 놓고 잔치를 벌이고 있다. 한국 야구팬들은 야구시청하다가 자칭 '의리 사나이'가 출연하는 고리대금업 광고를 봐야 한다.

이자 낳는 자본이 이자를 더 이상 낳지도 않는데 부가 증식되는 이 그리스 로마 신화와 같은 시대에 우리는 살고 있다.

- 스티글리츠가 사회주의란 개인의 복지를 위한 것이라고 말한 점이 흥미롭다.

America's socialism for the rich

Joseph Stiglitz

The US has a huge corporate safety net, allowing the banks to gamble with impunity, but offers little to struggling individuals

Fri 12 Jun 2009 20.00 BST First published on Fri 12 Jun 2009 20.00 BST

-

With all the talk of "green shoots" of economic recovery, America's banks are pushing back on efforts to regulate them. While politicians talk about their commitment to regulatory reform to prevent a recurrence of the crisis, this is one area where the devil really is in the details – and the banks will muster what muscle they have left to ensure that they have ample room to continue as they have in the past.

The old system worked well for the bankers (if not for their shareholders), so why should they embrace change? Indeed, the efforts to rescue them devoted so little thought to the kind of post-crisis financial system we want that we will end up with a banking system that is less competitive, with the large banks that were too big too fail even larger.

It has long been recognised that those America's banks that are too big to fail are also too big to be managed. That is one reason that the performance of several of them has been so dismal. Because government provides deposit insurance, it plays a large role in restructuring (unlike other sectors). Normally, when a bank fails, the government engineers a financial restructuring; if it has to put in money, it, of course, gains a stake in the future. Officials know that if they wait too long, zombie or near zombie banks – with little or no net worth, but treated as if they were viable institutions – are likely to "gamble on resurrection". If they take big bets and win, they walk away with the proceeds; if they fail, the government picks up the tab.

Sign up for Guardian Today US edition: the day's must-reads sent directly to you

 Read more

This is not just theory; it is a lesson we learned, at great expense, during the Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s. When the ATM machine says "insufficient funds", the government doesn't want this to mean that the bank, rather than your account, is out of money, so it intervenes before the till is empty. In a financial restructuring, shareholders typically get wiped out, and bondholders become the new shareholders. Sometimes the government must provide additional funds; sometimes it looks for a new investor to take over the failed bank.

The Obama administration has, however, introduced a new concept: too big to be financially restructured. The administration argues that all hell would break loose if we tried to play by the usual rules with these big banks. Markets would panic. So, we not only can't touch the bondholders, we also can't even touch the shareholders – even if most of the shares' existing value merely reflects a bet on a government bailout.

I think this judgment is wrong. I think the Obama administration has succumbed to political pressure and scaremongering by the big banks. As a result, the administration has confused bailing out the bankers and their shareholders with bailing out the banks.

Restructuring gives banks a chance for a new start: new potential investors (whether in equity or debt instruments) will have more confidence, other banks will be more willing to lend to them and they will be more willing to lend to others. The bondholders will gain from an orderly restructuring, and if the value of the assets is truly greater than the market (and outside analysts) believe, they will eventually reap the gains.

But what is clear is that the Obama strategy's current and future costs are very high – and so far, it has not achieved its limited objective of restarting lending. The taxpayer has had to pony up billions, and has provided billions more in guarantees – bills that are likely to come due in the future.

Rewriting the rules of the market economy – in a way that has benefited those that have caused so much pain to the entire global economy – is worse than financially costly. Most Americans view it as grossly unjust, especially after they saw the banks divert the billions intended to enable them to revive lending to payments of outsized bonuses and dividends. Tearing up the social contract is something that should not be done lightly.

But this new form of ersatz capitalism, in which losses are socialised and profits privatised, is doomed to failure. Incentives are distorted. There is no market discipline. The too-big-to-be-restructured banks know that they can gamble with impunity – and, with the Federal Reserve making funds available at near-zero interest rates, there are ample funds to do so.

Some have called this new economic regime "socialism with American characteristics". But socialism is concerned about ordinary individuals. By contrast, the US has provided little help for the millions of Americans who are losing their homes. Workers who lose their jobs receive only 39 weeks of limited unemployment benefits, and are then left on their own. And, when they lose their jobs, most lose their health insurance too.

America has expanded its corporate safety net in unprecedented ways, from commercial banks to investment banks, then to insurance and now to cars, with no end in sight. In truth, this is not socialism, but an extension of longstanding corporate welfarism. The rich and powerful turn to the government to help them whenever they can, while needy individuals get little social protection.

We need to break up the too-big-to-fail banks; there is no evidence that these behemoths deliver societal benefits that are commensurate with the costs they have imposed on others. And, if we don't break them up, then we have to severely limit what they do. They can't be allowed to do what they did in the past – gamble at others' expenses.

This raises another problem with America's too-big-to-fail, too-big-to-be-restructured banks: they are too politically powerful. Their lobbying efforts worked well, first to deregulate and then to have taxpayers pay for the cleanup. Their hope is that it will work once again to keep them free to do as they please, regardless of the risks for taxpayers and the economy. We cannot afford to let that happen.

Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2009