Justice,
Moral Hazard and Deterrence in the Global Financial Crisis:
Saving
the World but Getting Something Less than Your Pound of Flesh
The
forgiveness and punishment matrix
Strategy
for fixing
the global financial crisis
|
||
Tried
and failed
|
Not
tried yet
|
|
(1) BAILOUT
OF CREDITORS
|
(2) BAILOUT
OF DEBTORS
|
|
moral
hazard – who is not deterred from behavior that harms society? Or, who goes unpunished for past irresponsible
behavior?
|
creditors
|
debtors
|
who is
deterred from future behavior that harms society?
|
debtors
|
creditors
|
This post may not appear to be connected with the theme of this blog, but the relevance is explained toward the end.
There
are two possible approaches to fixing the global financial crisis. Governments
could (1)pass laws and adopt policies that help creditors – banks that made bad
decisions to lend money, or (2) they could pass laws and adopt policies that help
debtors – people who made bad decisions about borrowing money.
It would
be better if neither strategy were necessary because they both involve not making
people suffer for behavior that caused
harm to society. It was bad of the banks to have knowingly loaned too much money to people
who couldn’t pay it back, and bad of millions of people to have borrowed money
that they couldn’t repay.
With Strategy
1, many creditors who were careful will be angry that their competitors didn’t
have to suffer for their mistakes and go out of business. Furthermore, debtors
will be angry that the banks get paid back by governments, but the debtors
still have to pay back their loans or lose their homes.
With Strategy
2, people who were cautious and never
borrowed too much money will be angry that people will have their debts erased
or reduced.
Whatever
is done, there will be unjust results for some people. Every possible solution
is imperfect. Some people are going to be unjust losers, and others will be unjust
winners. However, something must be done to restore the global financial
system. The goal is not to find justice for all but to find the solution that
brings the least overall injustice to society.
Some
economists, such as Steve Keen (for a lively description of his work, see here), are saying that because Strategy 1 failed
in the years 2008-2012, we should now try Strategy 2. They think that common
people (debtors) should take less responsibility than the professional bankers
who loaned too much money to their customers. It is more important to deter
banks from lending too much in the future. If we control the behavior of
financial professionals, we won’t have to worry about stopping consumers from
borrowing more than they can pay back because bankers will be much more careful
about lending to them. The greatest responsibility should be on the creditors
because they failed in their professional duties. The debtors were mostly
amateurs who were enabled by professionals who knowingly misguided them in order to reap
short-term profits.
Who is
angry that someone is getting bailed out and not being forced to take
responsibility for past mistakes?
Strategy
1
Bank A
behaved responsibly and is in good financial condition. The shareholders,
executives and employees are annoyed that their competitor, Bank B, is being
rescued.
Strategy
2
Mr. and
Mrs. Smith have lived in their house for 25 years and they just made their last
loan payment. Their neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Jones, bought their house five
years ago and still have $400,000 left to repay on their loan. But according to
Strategy 2, this debt is erased and they can keep their house. Mr. and Mrs.
Smith are obviously angry about this!
It is
all so very unjust, but there is too much at stake to worry about making things
fair for everyone. Children are going hungry and homeless because of their parents' mistakes. As Paul Krugman has written many times, economics is not a morality play. You might be outraged that millions of people are getting
off the hook while the costs of their follies are carried by those who did no
wrong. But what future social disorder would you be willing to suffer to pursue
your justice? In The Merchant of Venice, the moneylender Shylock didn’t get the pound of flesh
owed to him because it became apparent that getting it required the spilling
of blood. There is a metaphor in this for the present global predicament.
PORTIA:
A pound of that same
merchant's flesh is thine;
The court awards it,
and the law doth give it.
SHYLOCK:
Most rightful judge!
PORTIA:
And you must cut this flesh
from off his breast;
The law allows it, and
the court awards it.
SHYLOCK:
Most learned judge! A
sentence! come, prepare!
PORTIA:
Tarry a little; there
is something else.
This bond doth give
thee here no jot of blood;
The words expressly
are, a pound of flesh:
Take then thy bond,
take thou thy pound of flesh;
But, in the cutting
it, if thou dost shed
One drop of Christian
blood, thy lands and goods
Are, by the laws of
Venice, confiscate
Unto the state of
Venice.
-William
Shakespeare, The Merchant Of Venice,
Act 4, scene 1
Everything
said above applies to the real economy which we call the ecosystem. The past
and present generations have left a debt of damage they cannot repay, and,
strangely, when it’s not strictly perceived as a matter of money, we realize it
is senseless to worry about making the criminals pay. They can’t possibly
compensate for the damage. We know that mining companies declare bankruptcy and
leave behind cleanup costs that often exceed what these companies were ever
worth. The true cost of compensating every loss caused by the Fukushima Daiichi
disaster would bankrupt both TEPCO and the Japanese government. Chernobyl
finished off the Soviet Union.
People
worry more about their neighbors being forgiven for a debt than they do about
the radionuclides in their food, but most of us come to the sensible conclusion
that, pragmatically, there is little to gain in hunting down the individuals
responsible for wrecking the environment. The pursuit of justice would divert our energies and may do as much harm as the crimes it seeks to right. The
younger generation of innocents is stuck with the mess, and the best thing to
do is start over with a fresh approach. Why shouldn’t this also be the attitude
we have toward the global financial system?
Footnote:
A few hours after I posted this, Andrew Leonard wrote at Salon.com about the battle within various branches of the U.S. government over the issue of mortgage principal reductions, also known as "cramdowns." These would rescue any mortgage holder who was underwater by reducing principal until the balance owed on the mortgage was equal to the market value of the property.
Footnote:
A few hours after I posted this, Andrew Leonard wrote at Salon.com about the battle within various branches of the U.S. government over the issue of mortgage principal reductions, also known as "cramdowns." These would rescue any mortgage holder who was underwater by reducing principal until the balance owed on the mortgage was equal to the market value of the property.
I have personal experience with B of A doing a re-write / refi where they could not admit payments were current on the new mortgage. Needed a lawyer to force them to admit the payor was current on payments.
ReplyDeleteBanks may be worse than the federal gov. ( maybe ) .
DB