Rss Feed Tweeter button Facebook button Delicious button

Skip to content

Wednesday, May 16th 2012


January 20th Lunchtime: The Recession Diaries

Enough is enough.  Nationalise the banks.  Nationalise them now.  A midnight strike.  Put us and the economy out of our miseries.  And start the long road back, if not to recovery, then at least to the starting point where recovery begins.

The opposition parties should have a field day in the debate over the Anglo-Irish natinalisation bill.  To say the Government has botched the banking crisis is in danger of speaking a tautology.  Now is the time for a road-map. Cataloguing the litany of incompetence - of the banks, the financial regulators and the Government - may well take us past midnight. But we have to get up in the morning. So I’m going to try my hand at financial cartography. And I will be sure not to comment adversely on the health of our banks because Noel Dempsey will have me up before a star chamber on counts of treason and economic sabotage (if you think that’s far-fetched, ask the poor economist in Latvia who dared speculate on the health of their currency).

Nationalising the banks is not a knee-jerk opportunistic call from some leftie hiding in the long grass, waiting for just that moment to have a go at financial capital when its at its weakest.  It is now a rational, common-sense and (and this is just as important) almost inevitable policy choice.  It is also becoming a mainstream proposal.  Professor Willem Buiter, writing in the Financial Times, has made an excellent argument for nationalisation - concentrating on the perverse and contradictory effects of current British policy of drip-drip-drip capitalisation and its effect on lending policies (well worth a read).  Bringing banks under public ownership would allow the Government to pursue a coherent policy, overcome the contradictions, clean out the bad practices (and those that exploited those practices to their own private gain at our economic expense), create a financial system that serves the economy rather than the other way around, and on the way make the taxpayer some money in the medium-term.  If we act now, we can put the situation right in quicker time and on a more equitable basis.  If we don’t we face the spectre of ‘dead banks walking’.

Once we nationalise, what do we do next?

First, turn Anglo-Irish into dump, a financial land-fill if you will (what a fitting legacy Sean Fitzpatrick has left the Irish economy). Let’s take all the bad assets held by other banks and chuck them into the new Anglo-Irish Rubbish Dump, Ltd. (or Economic Amenity Point if you want to euphemise). Under the current system we would have to come up with a price for these bad assets - a tricky enough exercise with huge risks for the taxpayer.  If all the banks were under public ownership it would mean shifting the ‘assets’ from one public body to the next which would simplify the process.

Second, collapse the five banks into two or three or whatever works. Reconfiguring the banking landscape would be a major step forward in creating more confidence in the system and creating a smaller number of banks will allow us to concentrate the necessary recapitalisation more effectively with greater return.

Third, establish a new public enterprise retail banking system. I’ve discussed this before - a new system modeled on the community development banks in the US or something like the BBK in Spain. These could be linked up with An Post or even credit unions, providing a wide range of services through all regions and every strata of society with particular emphasis on those trapped in financial exclusion (over 20 percent have no bank account, rising to a majority in the lowest income groups). Such a bank has the potential of building new public confidence and providing real accountable services to all households and businesses.  It would also help ensure competition.

The total price tag of this could be considerable - but there are no cost-free ways to prevent our banks from shuffling about zombie-like.  However, the cost of public ownership may not be the priciest item.  For instance, with the two major banks trading at mere cents, one more moderate dollop of state capitalisation would pretty much buy up the damn thing, or give the state effective control.  But where could the financing come from?

First, just because an asset is bad doesn’t mean you can’t sweat it. Many of the assets are leveraged against other businesses and individuals’ personal wealth. Well, let’s get that sweat mojo happening: long-term rescheduling, liens, equity, sheriff’s at the door, or just plain patience (e.g. holding on to any land banks that might be in the current asset column would, in the medium-term, increase in value and give the state a direct say in future planning needs).

Second, we could re-tool ICTU’s excellent proposal:

‘If the Irish government borrowed the money to invest in the banks, it could do so at 4 percent interest (it is currently 5 percent, but this is exceptionally high) and lend it on at 12 percent, making a handsome profit for the taxpayer, on shares. If the Irish government took ordinary shares, it could (but not necessarily) eschew interest, but we would share in the upside when the banks’ shares recover.”

Third, we could issue special bonds to credit unions which have considerable surplus savings; or ‘Granny bonds’, bonds specifically direct at over-55s who have high savings ratios. These bonds might deliver higher returns than what can be gotten in ordinary savings accounts.

Fourth, we could make forensic use of the Pension Fund to provide equity.

A total package could be developed so that over the medium-term the banks would discharge the entire cost of cleaning out their balance sheets and recapitalisating them. Indeed, the state could make a profit. Further, there would, hopefully, be no need to maintain the guarantee beyond it’s two-year remit - and that would, hopefully, help arrest the escalating cost of government borrowing.

So there you have it - a road-map, admittedly short on details but with the destination in sight. There are important issues to flesh out - do we take Anglo-Irish under public control or let it fall as Morgan Kelly suggests?  I suspect the cost of letting it fall could turn out high given that we have guaranteed depositors.  Would a ‘bad bank’ under democratic accountability do a better job of sweating assets and negotiating with bondholders?  Quite possibly.  Under this Government?  That’s a big ask.  And what about Irish Nationwide, a smaller Anglo-Irish up to its teeth in dubious property assets?

What is the end game?  Do we privatise the banks when we’re out of this mess and pocket the difference?  We can figure that out later - for if we insist (and we should) that no change of ownership will be tolerated until the total cost has been paid back to the taxpayer, and then some, we will have public-owned banks for some time.  The issue is not what happens in ten years but what happens in two.

Were the Left to make this call, we could start dictating the agenda rather than responding to it.  It would put Fine Gael in the shade since, not only do they not have any idea how to resolve the fiscal crisis, they have no fathomable policy on the banks.  We would be leading the charge against the Government.

And it could be potentially popular.  There is, quite rightly, resentment at bank bail-outs which are effectively pay-offs to management and shareholders who took the money in the good times and now gobble up taxpayer subsidies in the bad.  Nationalizing the banks means we can clear all this dead-wood out - with no golden parachutes.  Further, much of the business sector would welcome the move.  Unlike some of the business lobbyists who are trapped in their ideological prisons, most business people are fairly pragmatic.  If they need credit or overdrafts or loans underwritten - they’re not going to care too much whether that comes from publicly-owned banks or privately-owned ones (and in the case of the latter, they know there’s not much chance there).

So there’s the battle cry.  Three simple words:  nationalise the banks.  Or if you’re not into that whole brevity things: take the banks into public ownership.

Either way, it works for me.  And it can work for the Left.  And, most of all, it can work for the economy.

Discussion

We welcome and encourage lively discussion from the public about articles on Irish Left Review. You can leave a comment using the form at the bottom of the page. Please read through the existing comments before posting your own.

  1. Comment by: bogdodo

    Jan 22nd 2009 at 12:01

    Yes, but do it in a way that limit’d the public’s liability. Willem Buiter has proposals which include:

    a) Nationalise all the retail banks.
    b) Removing guarantees apart from on new loans and deposits - let the developers go bust sooner rather than later. (I’m not so sure that smaller depositors should not be protected to some degree - presumably their deposits could be transferred to ‘good banks’.)
    c) Invoking limited liability for the state on existing exposure to defaulting creditors.
    d) Firing all the existing top management without compensation
    e) Setting up of new unencumbered banks (as you have suggested).

    Add to this support for peer-to-peer lending and existing infrastructure such as An Post and it might just fly?

Leave a Comment

(required)

(required, will not be published)

Sins of the Father

Sins of the Father:

Tracing the Decisions

That Shaped the Irish Economy,

by Conor McCabe

from The History Press

Now Available as an e-Book.

Subscribe by Email

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner



Irish Left Review on Facebook

Best of the Web

  • On ABC Radio National, PM program: ‘Stupendously idiotic’ policies for Greece can’t work.

    Good answers….

    MARK COLVIN: Well it’s being imposed effectively from Germany, isn’t it? What are the chances that Germany is going to have any patience with a Greece which has failed to form a coalition, which is going into uncharted territories, as you say, with a new election?

    YANIS VAROUFAKIS: It’s like asking the question, what kind of patience am I going to have with gravity? It doesn’t matter.

    (sound of Mark Colvin laughing)

    Gravity is a law of nature and I cannot do anything about it. Similarly, Germany at some point, and I think that that point has already come, Germany will realise that it is absolutely impossible to, for a country like Greece, or for Spain for the matter, to exit this debt deflationary spiral, through cutting. This cannot be done even if every single Greek and Spaniard and Italian wants to do it.

    Even if God, his angels and, you know, every good man and woman on this planet wanted to implement this German prescription on the European periphery, it cannot be done for the same reasons why I can’t fly without an aeroplane.

    MARK COLVIN: So what’s the alternative? Where’s the money going to come from for pump priming?

    YANIS VAROUFAKIS: Well, I don’t think we should have pump priming. What I think we should have in Europe is a little modicum, tiny whiff of rationality.

    No comments »
  • Video: David Graeber and David Harvey in Conversation

    David Graeber and David Harvey discuss their new books, Debt: The First 5000 Years, and Rebel Cities, respectively.

    25 April 2012 at The CUNY Graduate Center

    No comments »
  • Choonara, McNally and the US rate of profit | Michael Roberts

    As readers of my blog will know, ad nauseum

    Oh go on then, say it again, once more with feeling….

    I think there has been a secular downtrend visible in the US rate of profit, but there is also a profit cycle in the US capitalist economy that lasts from trough to trough about 32-36 years.  I reckon that the last peak year of 1997 set the marker for the end of the ‘neoliberal’ up phase from 1982.  The down phase then began to exert pressure on the US capitalist economy.  It forced an even bigger switch from productive investment in manufacturing, transport and communications into financial and property sectors to maintain profits through the expansion of what Marx called fictitious capital, or credit.  That laid the basis for the crisis in 2007 and the ensuing major slump.  In that sense, Marx’s law of profitability did operate to cause the crisis.  The great up phase in profitability after 1982 had finished in 1997, some ten years before the Great Recession.  We are still in the down phase, which will last for at least another three to seven years, on my reckoning, in what is really a long depression like the 1880-90s in the US and the UK.

    But remember the data for these arguments are for the US only.

    No comments »
  • Owen Jones: This austerity backlash across Europe could transform Britain

    But, along with the booting out of France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, the Greek elections could mark the beginning of the end for Europe’s Shock Doctrine. “This is a message of change, a message to Europe that a peaceful revolution has begun,” declared Alexis Tsipras, the leader of radical left coalition Syriza, which trebled its seats in Parliament and came second. Given the failure of any party to form a government, new elections beckon, and Syriza can expect to do even better. But, already, the results have boosted the confidence of all those taking on the austerity offensive across Europe. In the Netherlands, the anti-austerity Socialist Party looks set to stage a breakthrough in the upcoming elections. Those calling for a “No” in the upcoming Irish referendum on the EU Treaty - slammed as an “Austerity Treaty” by opponents - feel momentum is on their side, too. “The people of France, the people of Greece are against the policies of austerity and it is now the moment for Ireland to add our voice to that,” declared Mary Lou McDonald, a leading anti-Treaty politician.

    No comments »
  • UK’s poorest families face tightest squeeze on income, figures show

    Austerity and class war in the UK

    The UK’s poorest families are facing the tightest income squeeze of any group due to higher rates of inflation and lower wage boosts, according to new analysis of official figures conducted by the Trades Union Conference (TUC).

    The bottom 10% of the country by income are facing effective inflation rates of 4.1% versus just 3.3% for the richest, while official Office for National Statistics (ONS) statistics from 2011 show the wages of the bottom 10% of earners rose just 0.7% compared with increases of 1.6% for the richest.

    Taken together, the two measures suggest real wages for low-income families in Britain are falling twice as fast as those of their richer counterparts. In real terms, the bottom 10% of wage earners are 3.4% poorer than they were a year before versus a 1.7% drop for the top 10% year-on-year.

    Some stuff on how the effective inflation rate for the UK is calculated:

    The UK’s official measure of inflation, the CPI, stands at 3.5% and is calculated by measuring changes in prices of thousands of items from different categories: food, utility bills, recreation and more.

    New research by the TUC has re-calculated this figure from 2010 to February 2012 using data showing how each group spends its money. Families in the bottom 10% spend a much higher proportion of their income on food and household costs such as utility bills than the richest 10%, and owing to lower levels of spending do not benefit nearly so much from smaller increases in recreation, clothing, restaurants and other leisure activities caused by the stagnant economy.

    No comments »
  • The Art of War | Frieze

    The Benjamin of Battles, the flâneur of warfare.

    The attack conducted by units of the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) on the city of Nablus in April 2002 was described by its commander, Brigadier-General Aviv Kokhavi, as ‘inverse geometry’, which he explained as ‘the reorganization of the urban syntax by means of a series of micro-tactical actions’.1 During the battle soldiers moved within the city across hundreds of metres of ‘overground tunnels’ carved out through a dense and contiguous urban structure. Although several thousand soldiers and Palestinian guerrillas were manoeuvring simultaneously in the city, they were so ‘saturated’ into the urban fabric that very few would have been visible from the air. Furthermore, they used none of the city’s streets, roads, alleys or courtyards, or any of the external doors, internal stairwells and windows, but moved horizontally through walls and vertically through holes blasted in ceilings and floors. This form of movement, described by the military as ‘infestation’, seeks to redefine inside as outside, and domestic interiors as thoroughfares. The IDF’s strategy of ‘walking through walls’ involves a conception of the city as not just the site but also the very medium of warfare – a flexible, almost liquid medium that is forever contingent and in flux.

    No comments »
  • Treaty not a safe option but a perilous experiment | Terrence McDonough

    “There will be no disaster in the event of the need for a second bailout. It is the adoption of the budget provisions of the treaty which is a risky and perilous experiment”, says  NUIG professor of economics Terrence McDonough.

    He points out that alternative funding options will be available if Ireland votes no, while voting yes, rather than being the safe, conservative course ensuring ‘stability’ as those advocating a yes vote in the Fiscal Compact Treaty Referendum say, will lead to unprecedented situation which could lead to economic disaster.

    “Take a country at the bottom of a depression. Force it to run budget cuts and tax increases year after year after year. Force this same policy on its neighbours and trading partners. Run this into the foreseeable future and hope it results in stability, confidence and recovery. This is emphatically not the safe option. This is a dangerous experiment, completely without historical precedent.”

    No comments »
  • The “Stability Treaty” Video | A CounterSpin Collective Remix

    A CounterSpin Collective remix of the Irish Government’s information video on the upcoming referendum on the so called “Stability Treaty”. We reject the idea that any copyright laws apply to government propaganda or other publication paid for exclusively by people’s taxes. This applies to works of fiction like the original video.

    Via Soundmigration

    No comments »
  • It’s a No vote until Ireland starts to support the development of the indigenous sector

    Commenter on the Irish Times website, leaves this below the article where Barry O’Leary, chief executive of IDA Ireland calls for a yes vote in the Austerity Treaty. I’m including it here because he makes an essential point about what is wrong with industrial policy in Ireland.

    Barry,
    you are a State Appointed executive on a comfortable salary with possibly a decent pension. You are NOT like other men (quote from the Pharisee and the Publican).

    You have come trotting out to tell us mere mortals that your future is best served by being pro Treaty.

    I work for a brilliant Irish company that is in wonderful growth for the past 3 years in the midst of the deepest downturn and your kind (Enterprise Ireland) allowed us to be taken over by a foreign multinational. We had a market leading product set designed here at home and you allowed the cream of Irish invention fall into foreign ownership. We are profitable and still growing (from 230 to 600). This could have been a model of how Irish design and technology can succeed. Yes the Irish owners needed out but there could have been a way of keeping the profits generated in Ireland. Ours was a situation where the GNP and the GDP converged as there was no profit repatriation…… .THERE IS NOW……… clowns running the show again.

    Your kind of leadership is NOT PATRIOTIC when you let things like that happen. You represent the Inferiority Complex of the Irish State in one aspect.

    Please trot off back into your leather boardroom chair and plan your next trip to Venice, and let the rest of us get on with reviving this country’s self respect. Europe will just have to know that we were once a very brave people who could put our country first against great odds…. Now we have your cabal of well paid public Quango drivers “educating us”……. that is REALLY how far we have fallen……..
    NOT ME, NO FURTHER. and NO FISCAL COMPACT.

    No comments »
  • Without state spending there’d be no Google or GlaxoSmithKline | Mariana Mazzucato

    Where would Google be today without the state-funded investments in the internet, and without the US National Science Foundation (NSF) grant that funded the discovery of its own algorithm? Would the iPad be so successful without the state-funded innovations in communication technologies, GPS and touch-screen display? Where would GSK and Pfizer be without the $600bn the US National Institutes of Health has put into research that has led to 75% of the most innovative new drugs in the last decade?
    The state’s role in each of these cases was not just about correcting “market failures”. What the state did was to take on the greatest risk, before the private sector dared to enter - acting as an “entrepreneurial” state. In biotech, venture capital entered 15 years after the state invested in the biotech knowledge base. In nanotech, scientists in the NSF coined the term before business understood its potential returns.

    Even modern-day Keynesians have not recognised this enough. The state is not only important to kickstart the economy during recessions through fiscal stimulus, but also to lead the way during boom periods that coincide with the beginning of new technological and market opportunities. In such periods, the private sector waits for the state to first make the heavy and risky investments. Indeed, Keynes himself indirectly recognised this in a letter to Roosevelt in 1927 when he described business as “domesticated animals” that needed the state to become lions.

    However, typically state investment rarely sees any return on this - certainly nothing close to what those who put money in later on in the process get.

    To end this parasitic situation, it is important to think creatively how the returns from state investments can be retained to benefit the public that has funded them, and be reinvested in the next round to generate more. This could include “income contingent loans”, where state investments in particular companies and technologies reap a return if/when the companies make it big. Or also in the form of a public investment bank or fund, which retains equity in such investments. The Brazilian development bank (BNDES), which provides long-term “patient” finance to Brazilian industry - a key source of its success today - makes a 20% return on equity from its direct investments in high-growth sectors like biotech and renewables. A large percentage of this return is redistributed into the economy by the treasury. And one of the sources of Germany’s “competitive” position in Europe is due to its system of public investment banks that creates a virtuous circle of investment in the regions. Invest, reap a return, and reinvest.

    1 comment »

Link Archives »

Authors