Moral hazards for Democrats
It's bad business for Obama's party to reward him for rewarding Wall Street shills
Topics: Bank Bailouts, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, Democratic Party, Goldman Sachs, Timothy Geithner
The Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Ben Bernanke, right, gestures, with U.S. Treasury secretary Timothy Geithner, in the background, during a break at the G20 Finance Ministers meeting, in St. Andrews, Scotland Saturday, Nov. 7, 2009. The world's top financial ministers and central bankers from the Group of 20 rich and developing nations, met to secure future global growth and break a deadlock over the cost of fighting climate change. (AP Photo/Andrew Winning, Pool)(Credit: Associated Press)Washington’s favorite term these days is “moral hazard.” Though this buzzphrase may seem like a complex and even intimidating idea, most of us, whether consciously or not, understand the principle because it’s basic common sense.
Applaud your kid — rather than grounding him — for punching another kid, and you’ve created a moral hazard that means he’ll probably punch other kids in the future. Give your dog a treat — rather than a scolding — after he urinates in the house, and the moral hazard you’ve engineered makes it likely you’ll soon be cleaning up even more sallow stains on your rug. In short, without consequences — or worse, with rewards — for wrongdoing, there is an incentive to do wrong. That’s moral hazard.
To date, the national discussion about this concept has revolved specifically around financial moral hazard. And, as evidenced by trillions of dollars in public loans, guarantees and subsidies given to speculators to cover their massive losses, leaders in both political parties have no interest in preventing financial moral hazard — despite stern press releases insisting the contrary. By rewarding rather than punishing Wall Street for losing irresponsibly risky bets and by holding out the promise of similar bailout rewards in the future, politicians have incentivized even more irresponsible risk-taking for years to come.
But financial moral hazard is only half the story. The other half is political moral hazard — the mother of all other moral hazards.
Consider, for instance, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke. He’s the top regulator who not only sowed financial moral hazard with the Fed’s post-meltdown bailouts but openly admits that as the crisis developed, his Federal Reserve “should have done more — we should have required more capital, more liquidity. We should have required tougher risk-management controls.”
Firing Bernanke would tell other regulators that there are consequences for negligence. Instead, President Obama rewarded Bernanke with renomination and thus manufactured a pernicious problem. As economist Dean Baker says, just as bailouts create a financial moral hazard giving speculators no incentive to avoid excessive risk, so Bernanke’s renomination creates a political moral hazard whereby regulators “will not have an incentive to do their jobs properly [because] there are no consequences” for failure.
David Sirota is a nationally syndicated newspaper columnist, magazine journalist and the best-selling author of the books "Hostile Takeover," "The Uprising" and "Back to Our Future." E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com. More David Sirota.


Comments
81 Comments