Americanly Yours

How exactly did we get to the point where government owned banks started charging credit card holders fees for paying off their balances every month?

The government passed laws like the Community Reinvestment Act which essentially mandated banks to loan to people who would not have been able to obtain loans otherwise.  Then, the government and the Federal Reserve created money out of thin air and lent it to banks at absurdly low rates.  Flush with new and cheap money, these banks massively increased their lending to “sub-prime” borrowers (begin bubble).  With the money supply growing at unprecedented rates in the 1990’s and this decade, there was always enough money for banks to make loans.  Borrowers were able to take out second mortgages at very low rates.  Home builders rapidly built houses to meet soaring (bubble-induced) demand.

As with all bubbles, this one burst, leaving home builders unable to sell newly built houses and borrowers unable to meet their obligations.  Banks had sold off the rights to their lender’s payments so they would have more money to make new loans.  This left the banks in the same boat as homeowners who could not make their payments.  But, while homeowners and home builders had to file for bankruptcy and sell off their assets to pay their debts, the banks used their lobbyists, fear, and their ownership of the Federal Reserve to convince our government to bal them out.

The government and the Federal Reserve then printed up a bunch of money–they simply created it out of thin air–and gave it to the banks in exchange for ownership.

This happened on October 3rd, 2008.  I can understand the government’s perverse rationale that led it to bail out these banks.  What I can not understand is why, over a year later, the government continues to own large stakes in these banks.

The government has now taken to regulating the salaries of banking officials, as well as the actions and practices of these banks.

So, it comes as no surprise to the observant that the government would use its power and control to create perverse incentives.

Bank of America and Citigroup–two firms now under the ownership of the federal government have begun implementing new fees.  These fees are not on late payments, gong over one’s credit limit, or cash advances.  Instead, these government owned banks have announced fees for customers who regularly pay off their balances.  Customers who leave monthly balances on their cards will not be charged the fees.

A fee is similar to a tax (especially if t is levied by a government owned entity).  Both taxes and fees use pricing to create incentives to change behavior.

Because Bank of America and Citigroup are owned by the government, a fee on those who pay off their balances regularly can be viewed as a tax on them.  Because those who leave monthly balances on their cards are exempt from these fees, this can be viewed as a subsidy for those who leave balances.

Our government is creating perverse and dangerous incentives: they are incentivizing debt and discouraging good and proper financial habits.

But, you cant hardly be surprised by this.  After all:  our perverse government’s perverse actions do tend to lead to perverse incentives.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Today was an interesting day for automaker news.

First, President Obama took an unprecedented step of basically firing a private sector CEO, by requesting that GM CEO Rick Wagoner step down:  “On Friday I was in Washington for a meeting with administration officials.  In the course of that meeting, they requested that I ‘step aside’ as CEO of GM, and so I have.”

GM’s shareholders should have probably fired Wagoner at least 5 years ago.  They didnt.  Who ran the company should have been of no importance to the government.  However, rather than allow GM to go bankrupt, the US government (in its infinite wisdom) gave GM and Chrysler $17,400,000,000 [$17.4 billion] in loans and took an ownership stake in the two companies, effectively nationalizing 2 of the 3 American automakers.

My “favorite” part of this was that the government gave GM their $13,400,000,000 [$13.4 billion] knowing that GM planned on cutting 47,000 American jobs.  That means that we paid GM $285,000 for each job that they cut.  Just wonderful.

But, back to the issue at hand.  My opinion is that President Obama took a dangerous and shameful step by demanding the resignation of a private sector CEO.  One of my main problems with the bailouts besides the economic aspect is that they are impossible to handle objectively.  For example, Bank of America has received $45,000,000,000 [$45 billion] from the government–over 3 times the amount received by GM, yet Bank of America’s CEO Ken Lewis has kept his job.  The same is true at Citigroup and many other government owned banks including JPMorgan Chase and Wells Fargo.

And of course there is Chrysler.  Chrysler was bailed out the same day as GM, and yet their CEO, Bob Nardelli has retained his job and has not been “asked to resign” by President Obama.

The law and our government needs to be objective and treat everyone the same way.  If the government feels that it is necessary to bailout and take over the operations of private companies, then it needs to treat all companies which receive government aid in the same manner.  It is the only fair way.

But the news doesnt end there.  President Obama also made some interesting statements today.  While he did grant Chrysler an additional month’s worth of aid and gave GM an additional two months worth of aid (by the way another example of the government active subjectively, rather than objectively), he signaled that the two companies might be forced to file for bankruptcy.  A government review board went over the restructuring plans submitted by the two companies and decided that they were not viable plans, thus allowing President Obama to take a much needed hard line on the companies.

I tenatively applaud this step.  We just have to see how this works out.

I hope that President Obama is serious when he says that GM and Chrysler will be allowed to fail if they do not take the necessary steps.  Those steps include negotiating further concessions from the labor unions and bondholders.  My guess is that the companies will be able to gain the necessary concessions and then will receive more aid from the government, allowing President Obama to gain credit for taking the hardline approach, but clearing the way for the government to send more taxpayer [or freshly printed] money to these companies.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

Yesterday, Wal-Mart announced a massive $2 billion employee bonus plan which “include[s] $933.6 million in bonuses that the retailer is handing out Thursday.  There is another $788.8 million in profit sharing and 401(k) contributions, and hundreds of millions of dollars in merchandise discounts and contributions to the employees’ stock purchase plan.”

This is quite an amazing plan, especially for a retailer that is derided by critics for under compensating its employees.  Despite the recession, this bonus is over 10% higher than last year’s employee bonus.

This is not an executive bonus plan; these bonuses will benefit Wal-Mart’s (literally) blue collar employees–the cashiers, customer service representatives, and stockers.  Wal-Mart’s generous bonus will hand these employees an average of $933.60 per person, with over half of that paid out to employees yesterday!

Now, lets contrast this bonus with Mr. Obama’s “stimulus” plan:

Mr. Obama’s “stimulus” plan pays each worker $400 through a “tax cut.”

Wal-Mart is paying each worker an average of $933.60.

—-

Mr. Obama’s tax cut comes in the form of a payroll tax deduction, averaging $13 per week for the rest of the year.

Wal-Mart’s bonus includes more money per worker up front than the total paid out by Mr. Obama’s plan.  It also includes various other benefits to be paid out in the future, including discounts, contributions to retirement funds, and increased ownership for workers in the company.

—-

Mr. Obama’s “tax cut”/”stimulus” is being financed with debt, and workers will have to pay back their “tax cuts” in the future.

Wal-Mart’s bonuses are being paid for with cash, coming from the company’s profits.  The workers get to keep their bonuses, and will not have to pay back the money in the future.

———

Which do you think is more generous benefit?  Mr. Obama’s “tax cut” that will have to be paid back in the future, or Wal-Mart’s cash payment and investment in their workers future livelihoods.  I know which I would prefer.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet

Please help me promote my site:

Share on Facebook

Become a fan on Facebook

I received my property tax bill the other day and noticed a substantial increase.  I think that property taxes are entirely inappropriate and should be abolished for several simple and logical reasons.

If you buy a house or some land, you become the owner of that property.

When the government charges a property owner a property tax, they are essentially charging the owner to use property that he already owns.  To me, at least, this idea is completely baffling.  I could not imagine how vocal the opposition would be if the government began assessing a 5% annual tax on the value of your jewelery or your ipod.  Why then should the government be allowed to charge you money to live in a house that you have already purchased?

The government does this because it has a captive audience, meaning that most of us cannot simply pick up and move our property to another county.  They also claim that in exchange for the increases, you will be given a better standard of living—new roads, better schools, and more parks.  I’m not even going to address the fallacy of these claims now.

The main problem now is that the government is raising property taxes at a time when foreclosures are growing and the unemployment rate is surging higher.  Simply put, people are hurting for money and they are afraid of losing their jobs.  This is the wrong time for the government to raise property taxes on its citizens.

You might be saying that you dont own your home, and therefore the increases in property taxes do not affect you.  However, you are wrong.  If you rent your home or apartment, the owner of the property still has to pay property taxes to the government.  Any increases in his property taxes will likely lead to increases in your rent.  Homeowners arent the only people who are required to pay property taxes.  Businesses also pay them.  When property taxes on businesses increase, so does the cost of goods and services produced by the businesses.  Even worse, these increased costs on businesses could cause companies to cut down on their employees’ hours, or even cause the businesses to fire some workers.
Property taxes are immoral because they result in the government charging you a fee to use something which you have already purchased.  When the government charges a property tax, they are essentially saying that even though you have already bought the land, the government still considers it to be their land, and they reserve the right to charge you to use it.  In fact, you could argue that property taxes are nothing more than the government charging you rent to use your own property.

Besides this, property taxes are not fair to older Americans.  Retired Americans who are earning a fixed income from Social Security or their corporate pension already have to deal with inflation in the costs of everyday goods.  It is unfair for them to also have to continue to pay taxes on something that they may have purchased decades ago.

Americanly Yours,

Phred Barnet