벤 노튼과 마이클 허드슨의 대담 스클립 입니다.
Economist Michael Hudson discusses the collapse of four US banks in two months, giant JP Morgan Chase taking over First Republic Bank, and how government regulators are in bed with the bankers.
Economist Michael Hudson joins Geopolitical Economy Report Ben Norton to discuss the collapse of four US banks in two months, giant JP Morgan Chase taking over First Republic Bank, and how regulators – and the government itself – are in bed with the bankers.
In March, Norton also interviewed Hudson on the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, Silvergate Bank, and Signature Bank.
BEN NORTON: Hi, everyone. I’m Ben Norton, and this is Geopolitical Economy Report. Today, I have the pleasure of being joined by Michael Hudson, the brilliant economist and author of many books.
Michael is also the co-host of a program here, Geopolitical Economy Hour, which he does every two weeks with friend of the show Radhika Desai.
I had Michael on in March to discuss the collapse of three U.S. banks in just one week – that was Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and Silvergate Bank.
Yet the crisis has continued since then, and I knew I needed to bring back Michael to talk about the latest developments.
In just two months, four banks in the United States have collapsed. And we now see the latest example this May is First Republic Bank, which is the second-biggest bank in U.S. history to collapse, and which went down and was taken over by JP Morgan.
This is the biggest bank to collapse since 2008, when Washington Mutual collapsed. Although, as Michael has often pointed out, what we should be saying is it was the biggest bank in the U.S. that was “allowed” to collapse, because he pointed out that many banks were actually insolvent, but weren’t allowed to collapse.
Now, First Republic Bank had $207 billion in assets. And there are similarities between this collapse and the previous collapses.
A similarity with First Republic is that the majority of its deposits were uninsured. About 68% of its deposits were above the federally insured limit of $250,000. So that means that there were $120 billion worth of uninsured deposits.
And what’s interesting about First Republic compared to other banks is it had very wealthy clients, and many of them had long-term, low-interest mortgage loans.
So as an example, the CEO of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, had a $6 million mortgage with First Republic Bank, and that was at 1% interest.
That’s obviously below inflation, so Bloomberg pointed out that Mark Zuckerberg – a billionaire – was “borrowing for free” for a 30-year mortgage on a mansion.
This is just one example of the kind of clients that were at First Republic Bank.
---)))First Republic 은행은 예치금 대부분은 연방정부의 지급보증 한도를 넘은 금액이며 이는 120billon 에 달한다.
FR은 많은 억만장자 고객들을 갖고 잇고 이들은 장기 저리 담보 대출을 받앗다.
예를 들어 ..주그버그의 경우 6 millions 담보 대출을 1%로 이자율로 받앗다...이는 인프레이션율 보다 낮다..
이는 이런 억망장자들은 실제 이자 부담없이 30년간 대출을 받은 것이다.
---이들이 이 돈을 어디다 썻을까요??
문재인 정권때의 부동산 폭등은 정부의 짱구짓 말고는 설명 할 수 없다고 햇지요.??
물론 가장 나쁜 놈들은 부동산 투기꾼들과 이를 부추긴 정치권(특히 국힘당)이지만... 이런 투기질이 가능하게한 환경에 대한 책임은 정부가 져야 합니다.
문재인은 노무현 정권 시절의 쓰라린 부동산 실패 경험을 갖고도...또 한번의 부동산 투기 광란질을 허용한 것이니...그냥 말로 쌩 빙쉰쐣끼지요......증말 이런 빙쉰쇅끼는 만고에 없습니다..
다른소린 진실로 노무현과 문재인을 싫어 합니다.........생각만으로도 구역질이 납니다..
부동산 공급이 부족 하여 폭등햇다는 ...개도 웃을 개 소리로...부동산 투기질을 권력 쟁취를 위한 수단으로 한껏 즐겻던 국힘당 쥐쇗끼들은 그래도 견딜만 합니다..
어쩧던 갸들이 권력을 갖은 것은 아니쟎어..
문재인 정권의 부동산 폭들은 부동산 공급 부족 이라면 줄기차게 개 소리를 나발 거렷던
신 세대 신 정치인 ...하버드 콤프타 학과 출신 이 준석..
저 자가 대체 뭘 공부하엿고...무슨 자신감으로 저런 말을 저리도 씨불거릴 수 잇을까??
무식하면 용감하다 햇습니다....
경제에 대해 ...부동산에 대해 도대체 아는 것이라곤 없는 백차 아다다다에게 누군가 수요, 공급를 살짝
던저 주니 ....덜껏 받아 처 먹은 것이지요..
이 자가 도데체 자신의 말의 뒷 감당을 어떻게 하려고 저러나 ....싶엇는데
오룝쑈........암도 그런 말을 안 합니다..
-수요과 공급 무엇 하나 바뀐것이 없는데 왜 부동산이 뚝뚝 떨어지냐??...
-그동안 줄창 나발 거린것이 다 개소리엿다...그 책임 어떻게 질레????
이런것 아무도 안 물어 봅디다..
-이준석이 내부 총질 햇다는 독박 뒤짚어 쓰고...존나 억울하게 짤렷다..
-성렬이 씨발놈..........끝...
다른소린 이런 민주정치가 정말 싫습니다...정말로 진실로 싫어요.
아예 민주주의라는 단어만 들어도 식은 땀이 나고 온몸이 오싹 오싹 해 집니다..
Now, when I had Michael on last time, he explained how one of the reasons that Silicon Valley Bank collapsed is because it had invested a lot in long-term bonds. And because the Federal Reserve has been aggressively raising interest rates, the value of those bonds has significantly decreased.
So when there was a run on the bank, the bank had to sell those bonds that had lost value and use that to try to pay the depositors. But it didn’t simply have enough, in the end, and it collapsed.
Now, in the case of First Republic Bank, it wasn’t too exposed to bonds like Silicon Valley Bank was, but it did have a lot of long-term mortgages, about $100 billion worth.
So now we see that JP Morgan is taking over First Republic Bank. And JP Morgan has been given a sweetheart deal.(달콤한 거래)
In fact, JP Morgan reported that it expects to make $2.6 billion off of this deal.
As part of the agreement, JP Morgan does not have to pay First Republic Bank’s corporate debt. And the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the U.S. government-backed company, has agreed to a loss-sharing agreement.
So because of some of the long-term mortgages that have lost value, if JPMorgan ends up losing some of the value on mortgages and commercial loans, the FDIC agreed to bear 80% of the credit losses.
Meanwhile, the FDIC is estimating this is going to cost $13 billion to its Deposit Insurance Fund.
That means that, in just two months, since the beginning of March, the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund has paid out around $35 billion to save Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and now First Republic Bank.
So, Michael, those are the basic facts.
Now, that doesn’t explain what’s happening at a macro scale in the economy, but it does show that it’s another example of how these private banks are getting bailed out by the government, while large banks like JP Morgan, the largest bank in the United States, is given a sweetheart deal, where it’s going to make billions of dollars.
The FDIC is bearing the cost. And this is despite the fact that, as Pam Martens and Russ Martens pointed out at Wall Street on Parade, JP Morgan is actually ranked by regulators as the riskiest bank in the United States.
So giving JP Morgan Chase control over this bank that already had financial issues makes it even riskier for the U.S. financial system.
So I talked about a lot of things there, but those are the basic points.
I want to get your analysis, Michael, and especially in response to the JP Morgan takeover and the increasing concentration of these large banks, the sweetheart deal it got, and the FDIC bailout.
What do you think about all of that?
-))svb는 장기채에 투자 하고 잇엇고..연준이 금리를 올리자 장기채 가격은 떨어 졋습니다(수익율과 가격의 역 관계) 예금 인출이 일어나자 ..폭락한 장기채를 팔아서 확보된 현금으로 지급해야 햇고 이것이 은행 붕괴을 초래 햇습니다.. First Republic Bank는 svb 처럼 장기국채의 위험에는 노출 되지 않앗쓰나 100billions 의 장기 담보대출을 갖고 잇썻고 그 효과는 같습니다.
jp모건은 파격적인 달콤한 조건으로 frb를 인수햇습니다.. 사적 은행인 jp 모건에 막대한 이익을 안겨주고 그 비용을 정부기관인 FDIC 가 떠 않는 방식입니다...결국 미국국민들의 돈으로 또 다시 사적기업의 돈 잔치판을 벌려 준 것입니다.
jp 모건은 최대 금융기관에 걸맞는 막대한 파생상품을 갖고 잇고..가장 위험한 금융기관이면서 동시에 정부에서 절대 죽일 수 없는 가장 안전한 금융기관입니다.....jp모건의 frb 인수는 그 만큼 jp모건을 더 위험은행을 만들엇습니다..그 만큼 미 금융의 대한 위험도 증가햇고 ...미국국민들의 부담은 더 늘엇습니다.
jp모건의 frb인수를 마치 기마이라도 쓴듯, 미국의 거대 은행이 인수씩이나 해 준듯이 설명하는 자칭 한국의 금융전무가들의 개 소리를 듣고는....그냥 정신이 없더라고요..
이들의 이런 종교적 광신은 어디서 오는 것일까??
죽어도 미국 살아도 미국 오로지 해골엔 미국에 대한 절대적인 종교적 환상만 처 담아 다시며 행복하게 살다 되지는 기이한 방식은
죽어도 우리 갱상도 교주..살아도 오직 우리 갱상도 교주..오로지 노무현 교주님에 대한 절대 사랑으로 행복하게 살다 되지는 노무현교 미츤개들의 방식과 너무 같습니다.
어떻게 이런 어처구니 없는 짓이 계속 발생 할 수 잇는 것이냐??
미국의 민주주의는 이런 환경에서 대체 무슨의미를 갖으며 무슨 작동을 하고 잇는 것이냐??
마이클 허드슨은 ..그런것에 대한 답변을 와조 아주 쉽게 해 줍니다..
결론 부터 말하면....
미국의 자본주의 시스템이 본래 부터 그런 것이다는 겁니다.
자신들이(자본가들-억망장자들, 금융가들) 목적을 달성하기 위한 방식으로 미국의 민주주의 체체가 구성되어 잇고..그런 목적을 위해 너무 잘 작동중이다는 것이지요.
그딴것을 미국의 선진금융이라며 배우자고 개 욤병질 떨어 되는 미츤개들이 바로 한국의 정치인, 관료들이고
노무현의 동북아 금융허브는 .....악의 화신입니다..
2003년 12월 11일 오전 청와대에서 열린 동북아 금융허브 추진전략 국정과제회의에서 故 노무현 전 대통령과 참석자들이 국민의례를 하고 있다. /연합뉴스
이 자는 살아 잇엇다면...다른소리 욕 처 먹느니라 배 터저서 죽엇을것 같어..
증말 소름끼치게 싫어...
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, the entire U.S. banking system is just as insolvent as the banks that you’ve just mentioned.(미 전체 은행이 부실하다)
What’s amazing is that all of this is treated as if somehow it was unforeseeable. And people are saying, like Queen Elizabeth said in 2008, did nobody see this?(2007년 금융붕괴때 영국 여왕이 경제학자들에게 왜 당신들은 이런것도 몰랏써냐??....물엇던 일화를 말함 )
Well, I’ve been writing about this, exactly how this would occur for the last 15 years, ever since I wrote [my book] Killing the Host.
And the reason the banks are insolvent now is because of President Obama’s program and his Secretary of the Treasury, Tim Geithner, who appointed the current Federal Reserve President, Powell.
오바마와 가드더, 포웰에 책임을 묻는 것은 다분히 정치적인 분석입니다...
미국의 회전문 인사는 악명을 훨씬 넘어 거의 신의 영역으로 들어 섯습니다..
우선 오마바, 가스너, 폴웰을 이야기 햇지만....금융붕괴의 책임은 당연히 공화당 정부에 잇습니다,,,
그런데 정권과 관계 없이 월가의 금융사기꾼들은 월가와 정치권과 관료의 영역을 자유럽게 넘나 들며...알토랑 같은 직위와 정보 와 돈을 챙겨 처 먹고 잇습니다.......
미국을 따라하지 않으면 몸살을 앓는 한국의 경우라도 다를것도 없고, 단지...한국의 경제 규모가 미국에 비해 상대적으로 적기 때문에 잘 보이지 않는 것 뿐입니다...
하지만 상대적으로 한국의 금융 마피아 계급들의 무게는 미국 보다 더 하면 더 햇지 덜 하진 않습니다.
미국의 민주주의는 이런 계급의 제어에 눈꼼 만큼도 작동하지 못 합니다..
오히려 이런 계급은 민주주의라는 체체를 업고 만들어졋습니다.
문제는 민주주의입니다...
정확히 말 하자면 민주주의로 치장된 과두주의(올리아키) 입니다.
국민들은 기껏해야 4년 단위 5년단위로 나란히 나란히 줄 서서 ..표나 찍어 주는 역할만 처 합니다..
그것도 무슨 전쟁을 치르듯이 패를 갈라 죽자 살자 자기편만 옳다며 자시편 사기꾼들에 올빵질을 처 하지요.
그러면서 민주주의를 지켯다느니..정의을 세웟다느니 어짜니 저짜니 ...그말 쌩 지뤌들을 떨고 잇지요.
노무현은 가장 진보적인 정치인이란 사기질로 권력을 잡앗습니다
노무현이 연 파생시장은 이명박 정권때 4경5000조에 달해 ...그 절대 규모나 상대 규모로 기네스 기록을 세웟습니다..
민주주의??............
내 뫄흠쏘그 진죵환 나흐 돼통룡??
삶은 돼야지 돼가리가 벌떡 일어나 웃을 일입니다.
When President Obama decided to bail out the banks, instead of writing down the bank loans to what would have been reasonable levels, instead of saving the junk mortgage victims from their houses, he decided to go along with his boss, Robert Rubin, the former Treasury Secretary under Bill Clinton, and save Citibank and the other big banks that were the most troubled banks of all.
(오바마는 자신의 공약과는 정 반대로 오로지 금융가들만 살렷습니다..)
And they’re still the most troubled banks of all, except they have a government guarantee, just like Obama gave them, that no matter how much they lose, they will not lose the money. No matter how much the banks lose in negative net worth, the economy will lose, not the banks.(손해가 나더라도 (실물)경제에서 나지 결코 금융에서 나지 않게 만들엇다)
All of that became implicit when the Federal Reserve decided to help the banks that were insolvent in 2008 and 2009, to help them recover their net worth by quantitative easing.
That is creating $9 trillion worth of Federal Reserve balance sheet support of the banks to enable the banks to drive down interest rates to near zero, 0.1%, which is about what banks were paying their depositors.
(허드슨은 9 trillions의 양적완화를 이야기 햇습니다....그런데 이는 측정방법에 따라 달라집니다...허스든의 금액은 매우 보수적으로 측정된 금액입니다..)
And the banks used all of this increasing liquidity. What were they going to do with the [liquidity]?
Well, they lent them out largely to private capital firms. In other words, they lent them out to operators on Wall Street who borrowed from the banks to buy out companies and take them private.
Then they would have the companies borrow money from the banks for billions of dollars of money and pay this money out as special dividends to the private capital companies that had bought them out, leaving companies as bankrupt shells(이런것이 잇다 정도만 알아 둬도 되겟습니다), such as Bed Bath & Beyond.
은행은 양적완화로 풀린돈을 주로 월가의 개인 케피탈 회사에 대출 하엿고 그돈으로 회사을 사들여 개인회사화 시켯다..그리고 이 회사가 은행으로 부터 수십억 달러 대출을 받게 하여 개인 케피탈 회사에 대한 특별 배당금을 지급하게 하여 털어 먹엇다.
Well, as long as interest rates were just about zero, you had free credit and you had a debt-fueled stock market boom, the biggest bond market boom in history, and a real estate boom.
(양전완화와 제로 금리 정책은 주식시장, 채권 시장, 부동산시장의 거품을 만들엇다)
All of these things you and I have been discussing for many years now, and I’ve been discussing it on my website and my Patreon group.
What happened then was that the Federal Reserve, under the lawyer, Mr. Powell, he’s not an economist, he’s a lawyer, serving his clients, which are Chase Manhattan, Citibank, and the big banks, to decide, well, there’s a danger of wages rising and we’ve got to keep wages down in order to maintain the profit of the stocks(이는 포웰의 초지일관된 주장이며 정책입니다....) that are fueling the stock market gains.
The Federal Reserve decided and announced that it was going to begin raising interest rates from 0% to 4%.
Now, at the time this was publicly announced, I talked to many businessmen, many investors, many CEOs, and every single individual that I knew said, — Oh, they’re going to raise the interest rates. That means that if we hold a long-term government bond, like a 30-year bond, or a 5-year bond, or a 10-year bond, the price is going to go down, because when interest rates go up, the price of bonds go down.
Everyone I knew moved into short-term government bonds, that is, Treasury bills, three-month Treasury bills, or maybe two-year Treasury notes, because they didn’t want to take the loss that occurred if you’re holding a 30-year bond.
And holding a 30-year mortgage is just like holding a 30-year bond. All of a sudden, interest rates are going up, but you’re holding a security, a mortgage or a bond that pays a very low interest rate and whose price has fallen by 30%, maybe even 40%.
Now, that means that if you’re a bank and you have depositors and your assets are reduced in market price by 40%, what are you going to do if your deposits aren’t reduced? You have negative equity.
Well, just about every bank in the country moved into a negative equity position, because all the banks have made fairly long-term loans.
And as the Federal Reserve raised interest rates, that lowered the price of the mortgages that banks held, the Treasury securities that banks held. All of this was going down.
Now, after Silicon Valley Bank went under, for instance, Yves Smith on Naked Capitalism, which is my favorite financial site to follow on these things, said, — Well, Silicon Valley Bank just hopelessly mismanaged their portfolio in holding on to these long-term government bonds. Why did they do it?
은행이 장기 담보 대출을 갖고 잇는 것은 장기 국체를 갖고 잇는것과 같다.
금리를 4%로 올렷을때 장기 담보대출을 갖고 잇는 은행 자산의 가격은 하락 한다..
장기국채와 당기 담보 대출 자산의 가격이 다 하락하게 되고
결국 미국의 거의 모든 은행들이 부의 자본금을 갖게 되엇다
예를 들어 svb는 주로 장기국채만을 보유, 폴트폴리오 관리에 실패 햇다....왜 이런 것이 벌어지는 것일까??
Well, here’s why they did it. Imagine what would have happened if Silicon Valley Bank or any bank in America would have acted just like the private individuals who move their personal retirement accounts or their personal financial accounts into short-term treasuries.
They all would have begun to sell their 30-year mortgages or other long-term mortgages. This by itself would have crashed the price of 30-year mortgages.
If they would have sold their 30-year Treasury bonds and said, — Well, we’d better move into short-term treasuries, imagine if all the banks would have decided, we heard what the Federal Reserve said, they’re going to raise the interest rates to 4% and lower the value of these securities by 30 or 40%. Let’s all dump them.
Well, the act of selling them would have caused the prices to decline to a point where indeed, right away, they would have been yielding this 4%. Obviously, there’s very little they could do.
That’s because finance and credit in the United States are privatized.
The crisis that we’re going through today is not the kind of crisis that China would experience because China has made money and credit and banking a public utility.
금리가 4%로 오르게 되면 그들은 장기체를 던저 버리고 단기채로 갈아 타려 할 것이다.결국 4%의 수익율이 달성될 수 잇는 정도 만큼 장기채의 가격은 하락 하게 된다....이런 가격 하락 위기는 미국의 금융과 신용이 민영화 되엇기 때문이다....중국은 통화와 신용이 공공재로 만들어지고 사용되기 때문에 이런 위험은 일어나지 않는다.
In the United States, it’s all privatized and part of it is subject to the balance sheet constraints of: What do you do if interest rates go up, the value of your assets goes down, while your liabilities, that is what you owe depositors, continues high?
Well, some of the newspapers said, — Well, why didn’t Silicon Valley Bank and other banks simply take out an option and hedge?
왜 svb는 옵션을 이용 하거나 헤지를 하지 않앗는가??
In other words, the suggestion was, — Well, if you know you’re going to have a $100,000 mortgage that’s going to be worth $60,000, why don’t you just get someone to guarantee that in two years or so when the Fed increases interest rates to 4%, you can still go to the counterparty that’s holding the derivative and say, — Okay, now this is only worth $60,000. I want you to pay me $100,000 for it.
Well, how are they going to find a sucker who would have gone into that?
Because the banks that write the derivatives and the futures and the options read the newspapers also and they all read that the Federal Reserve says it’s going to raise the interest rates to 4% and reduce the value of assets to only about 60%.
So they would have said, — Sure, we’ll write it. You’ll have to give us a $100,000 mortgage. That’ll cost you $40,000 for the insurance.
In other words, nobody wants to lose any money. And the fact is, whoever held these long-term securities was going to lose money.
Well, this is exactly what happened to the savings and loan institutions in the 1970s, in the 1980s. There was nothing the banks could do.
니나 할것 없이 죄다 신문을 읽고 frb가 금리를 상승 시킬 것이다는 것을 다 알고 잇엇다.
특정 기간후 가격이 60,000 달러로 떨어질 것이 분명한 채권을 100,000에 사겟다는 멍청이를 도대체 어디서 찾을 수 잇나??
이런 것은 1970년대 1980년대의 저축은행 사태와 꼭 같은 것이다.
The banks were able to survive for a few years despite the fact that the Fed was raising interest rates to 4%.
The banks said, — Well, there’s only one way that we can avoid facing the fact that our assets are much less than our liabilities by just keeping the deposits there. Let’s keep paying the depositors what we were paying all along, 0.2%.
— We hope our depositors are really, really stupid and inertia, and it’s so hard to change a bank account and take money out and buy a government security short term or to buy another financial security. Maybe this inertia will just save us and nobody will do anything.
우리는 우리의 예금주들이 진정으로 멍청하고 무능하여 은행 계좌를 옮기거나 은행예금을 인출하여 단기 국채를 구입 하거나 다른 금융증권을 사는 것을 무지하게 어려워 할 것이다고 간절하게 소망하고 잇다.
— But we’ve got to get really stupid people in charge of the Federal Reserve who don’t realize that the banks are insolvent. We’ve got to get flacks, public relations people, for the Fed, like Paul Krugman, who said, — No problem at all. Everything’s going to be okay. Our financial system is great. Nothing to worry about.
우리는 은행들이 부실하다는 사실을 모르는 진정한 빠갸야로를 연방준비은행의 책임자로 앉혀야 한다. 우리는 폴 크루그먼 같은 홍보 담당자들을 구해야 한다. 크르그먼은 ...전현 문제가 없다..모든것이 잘될 거야. 우리의 금융 시스템은 훌륭해. 걱정할 것 없어..라고 씨불 거렷다.
And as long as you can get the Fed saying there’s no problem and the newspapers saying interest rates are going up, forget about the fact that when interest rates go up, the price of mortgages and bonds go down.
If you can just ignore that basic balance sheet fact, depositors are just going to be quite happy earning their [0.2%] on their savings account, even though anyone smart has already taken their money out of the bank and invested in government securities that are yielding 4%.
Now, I know many people, friends of mine, who’ve taken their money out of the bank and invested in two-year government notes or short-term money market funds, and they’re getting 4%. Why on earth would they leave the money in the banks?
Well, Silicon Valley Bank and the New York Bank that just went under, went under largely because they cater to the wealthiest depositors, the high-income depositors.
And if you’re a wealthy depositor, you’re smart enough to know that, — Well, when the banks move into negative equity, they can’t cover the deposits. We’d better pull our deposits out now. And instead of making 0.2%, we want to make 4% also. That’s what the Federal Reserve has done for us.
--))은행에 예금 하면 0.2% 이자만 받는다..그 돈 인출하여 2년 국채나 단기 펀드를 구매 한다면 4%의 이자를 받을 수 잇다...어떤 미친놈이 자신의 돈을 은행에 남겨두려 할까??
So the Federal Reserve had painted itself into a corner during quantitative easing. By lowering interest rates to just about zero, the Fed has guaranteed that if you ever move out of this position, if you ever go beyond the Obama policy of saving the banks by inflating the capital markets, then you’re going to drive the capital markets bankrupt, insolvent.
So we’re now finally facing the insolvency that Obama and Trump and Biden early on were able to avoid. And it’s just a seventh-grader, well, maybe an eighth-grader, could have done the arithmetic.
그래서 마침내 오바마와 트럼프와 초기 바이든 초기정부에서 까진 어찌 어찌 피할 수 있었던 지급불능에 직면하게 되었다. 국민학교 5,6한년 정도도 이 정도의 산수는 할 수 잇다.
Anybody who compares the market price of bank assets to the acquisition price and realizes, well, banks have lost 30 or 40% of their asset values, their deposits are high, anyone doing this is going to say, let’s take our money out of the banks and make a lot more money by buying government two-year notes or ten-year treasuries and lock in these high interest rates now.
And that’s exactly what’s happening. And the newspapers say, — Well, this is such a surprise. Who could have guessed?
And of course they’re moving it into banks like Chase Manhattan or Citibank, which indeed, as Pam Martens said, are serial abusers and violators of regulations.
Of course they’re moving there because the government says, — No bank depositor, no financial investor will lose any money. We promise you that the economy will lose money, not the banks, not the financial sector.
— We promise you that if we have to pay more money to support the financial sector, we’re willing to cut back Social Security. We’re willing to get rid of Medicaid and Medicaid.
— We’re going to get rid of social spending because the economy needs the banks not to lose any money, because that’s, to us politicians, they’re our campaign contributors. They’re who we’re really working for. They’re who we’re protecting. That’s our job as politicians.
우리는 약속합니다.. 손해을 본다면 실물경제가 볼 것이고, 은행이나 금융부분이 보게 하지 않을 것입니다.
우린 금융부분에 필요한 더 많은 지원을 위해 복지 비용을 날려 버릴 것입니다.
경제가 손해를 보지 않기 위해서는 은행을 필요로 합니다.그리고 은행은 우리 정치인들에게 선거자금 공급원입니다. 우리가 진짜로 일해주어야 하는 사람들은 그들이고 우리가 보호하고 잇는 사람들입니다.. 그게 정치인으로서 우리가 할 일니다.
---)) 미국 민주주의의 작동원리입니다..
미국은 교통 경찰이 딱지 대신 몇 달러를 챙기거나...행정기관에서 급행료를 챙기는 따위 부정 부패는 없습니다.
그들은 이런 것을 투명성이라고 하지요...그리고 이 투명성을 그 사회의 발전의 조건이라 나발 거립니다...
사회의 투명성이 그 사회발전의 조건인지...그런 감각적인 판단을 다른 소린 잘 못 하겟습니다.
그런데 미국 만큼 시스템적인 부정과 부패가 만연되고 고착화된 나라는 없습니다.
이런 시스템적인 부정 부패는 죄다 법률적으로 합법화되어 잇기 때문에 부정 부패로 인식 조차 되지 않습니다..
한국 같은 미츤개들은 그런것을 선진의 조건이라며 기어코 따라 할려고 피 똥을 쏴지요..
진실로 븅쉰쇗끼들입니다.
미국이 양차 대전을 통한 막대한 부의 축적이 없엇다면...미국과 같은 신의 축복을 받앗다는 거대하고 풍요로운 땅과 자원이 없엇다면....미국이란 민주주의 체체가 과연 생존 가능한 체체엿을까??...
다른소린 아니라고 봅니다..
미국은 특이한 환경이 만들어낸 특이한 체체이지...보편성을 갖은 것도 아니고, 어떤 나라가 따라해야 할 그런 체제는 전혀 아닌 것이지요.
And it’s just amazing that nobody is just coming right out and saying this except the few people that are carefully avoided by The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the usual suspects when it comes to saying there’s no problem at all.
So why do they go to Chase?
Because the government has said, — No matter how much money the banks lose, even if Chase and Citibank are insolvent, because after all, they have long-term mortgages, they have long-term loans, they have long-term securities, but no matter what, we’re going to create enough money to bail them out.
무슨 일이 일어나도 미국은 거대 은행을 베일아웃 시켜줄 수 잇는 충분한 돈을 찍어 뿌릴 수 잇다.
Well how much money are we talking about?
Well what has been pushing up all of the prices of the mortgages and the stocks and the government bonds that the banks hold was this $9 trillion in quantitative easing. To make the banks whole from the loss, the government will have to create suddenly another $9 trillion.
The entire economy will not only move into what Mr. Powell calls a recession, but a deep depression, a total financial collapse.
경제전체가 파월 장관이 말하는 불황으로 이동 중일 뿐만 아니라 좀더 깊은 불황,즉 완전한 금융붕괴로 이동할 것이다.
And that’s obviously, it’s almost inconceivable that that can happen, but as long as the government says no bank depositor will lose money, the government will pay. Well, somebody has to lose money, and who do you think it’s going to be, whether it’s the Biden administration or the next Republican administration?
미 정부가 은행 예금자들의 예금 지급을 보장 한다면 누군가는 손해(지급)을 감수 해야 할 것인데 그들이 누구일까?....경제가 찌르러질 것이다.
The economy will lose money. This is not only the disaster of Fed mismanagement, because the Fed is managing a financial system that has been privatized and financialized and debt leveraged to the point where it is unsustainable.
And the government and the media are not confronting the fact that the existing debt overhead of the banking system and the financial system and the private capital, that all of this is unsustainable, and we’ve reached the point of unsustainability.
Fed는 는 지속 가능한 한도 까지 금융 시스탬을 관리하고 잇다...그런데 이것이 더 이상 지속 가능 하지 않는 지경까지 온 것이다.
Well, if eighth graders can see that the banks are insolvent, even investors and even some economists can do the mathematics and see how insolvent they are and realize that we’d better take our money and run...
국민학교 산수 정도만 하는 사람이라도 은행이 어느 지경이며 당연히 은행예금을 빼는 것이 더 좋은 것임을 알수잇다
So you’re now having the wealthiest 1% of the country taking their money and running, and that’s what’s causing this problem.
You can expect the wealthiest 1% to contribute very heavily to the 2024 presidential campaign.
미국은 은행 에서 돈을 빼어 도망가고 잇는 1%의 때부자들을 갖고 잇고..이것이 이번 문제의 원인이다...이들 1% 때 부자들은 2024년 선거에서 엄청난 정치자금을 제공 할 것으로 예상 된다..
BEN NORTON: Very well said. And Michael, I want to emphasize how this highlights regulatory capture.
So you talked about how essentially the so-called regulators are working for the banks.
Now the irony is that, as Wall Street on Parade pointed out, JP Morgan has been rated by regulators to be the riskiest bank in the United States. It’s also the largest bank, and it just swallowed up First Republic Bank.
Now, this also violates antitrust laws. That’s what’s so incredible.
So not only is the US government further empowering and enlarging this risky bank, but antitrust laws say that a financial institution that holds more than 10% of all of the insured deposits in the US cannot expand further and buy up another bank.
Obviously JP Morgan, as the largest bank, has significantly more than 10% of insured deposits in the US. So now it’s growing even further, in violation of the antitrust laws on the books.
--)))Wall Street on Parade(이 싸이들의 글도 여려차레 링크해 드렷습니다)에 지적 하엿듯이 jp모건은 미국에서 가장 위험안 은행이 되엇다.동시가 가장 거대한 은행이며 fr 은행을 꿀꺽 처 먹어 버렷다... 이는 독과점법 위반한 것이다..합중국 정부는 이 위험한 은행에 더 힘을 보태주고 더 거대하게 만들엇다..
그런데 독과정 금지법에서는, 미국내에서 연방정부 지급보장예금을 10% 이상 갖고 잇는 금융기관은 더 이상 규모를 확대하거나 다른 은행을 매입할수 없게 되어 잇다...명백하게 독과점 금지법을 위반한 것이다.
And again, I want to highlight this fact, that the FDIC’s deposit insurance fund, according to its filings at the end of 2022, had $128 billion. And in just two months, it’s already spent $35 billion.
So about one quarter of the entire deposit insurance fund to bail out these banks, Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, First Republic Bank. And now we see this crisis spreading further.
So who is watching the watchmen? Who is regulating the regulators? I mean, they’re working for the banks, clearly.
2022년말 기준으로 fdic의 예금자 보험기금은 128billion 이엇다...두 달만에 35billion을 써 버렷다.
Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, First Republic Bank.등을 베일아웃 하는데 1/4 을 써버린 것이다.
대체 누가 감독자를 감독 하는 것인가? 누가 제어자를 제어 하는 것인가...그들이 진정으로 은행을 위해 일하고 잇는 것인가??
MICHAEL HUDSON: I think you’re missing the point to put the blame on the regulators. The problem’s not that the banks control the regulators and regulatory capture. They’ve captured the government. And it’s the government that appoints the regulators.
So you can’t just blame the regulators, because if the government has been captured by the financial sector, then they’re just going to appoint new regulators who’ve gone to the same business school and have been brainwashed in the same neoliberal “Chicago School” economics that would do exactly the same as the regulators are doing now.
The regulators can only regulate within the existing legal system and the existing political system. They can’t change the political system. And the problem is systemic itself.
The existing financial system cannot survive in the way that it is now structured, because it makes any increase in interest rates drive banks insolvent.
And the government has said, — We’re not going to support the small banks, we’re not going to support the local commercial banks or the smaller revenue banks. They’re not our campaign contributors.
— We know who the campaign contributors are. The Citibank, Chase Manhattan, they’re the big financial firms and the private capital firms.
So the government has basically announced, if you want to keep your money safe, move it to one of the five big systemically important banks. “Systemically important” means, it’s a bank that controls government policy of the financial sector in its own favor.
And you want to be part of a system where the banks [in which] you have your deposits are in control of who gets elected in government to appoint who becomes the Federal Reserve regulator and the various bank agency regulators.
That’s what President Biden says is the key to American democracy. Not realizing the semantic terminological distinction between democracy and oligarchy.
그들이 합중국 정부를 접수 하엿고 정부는 그들을 제어할 사람들을 임명한다..진짜 문제는 시스템 그 자체인데 그들은 기존의 법체체 내에서 기존의 정치체체안에서만 제어를 할 뿐이다...제어 하는 척 시늉만 한다..
기존의 금융시스템에서의 금리 인상은 곧 금융기관의 지급 불능 상태을 의미 한다.
미 합중국 정부의 메세지는 분명하다.
당신의 돈이 안전하기를 원한다면 5개 거대은행으로 돈을 옮기라는 것이다....
이는 그들 금융가들이 통제하는 정부를 통해 자신들의 유리한 정책을 구현하고 잇는 것이다..
중소은행, 지역 은행 따윈 어떻게 되던 상관하지 않는다..거기서는 어차피 정치자금이 나오지 않는다.
미 정치권에 중요한 것은 막대한 정치자금을 대줄 The Citibank, Chase Manhattan, 개인 케리털 회사 등일 뿐이다.
권력이 누가 됫던...민주당 이던 공화당이던, 오바마던 트럼프던...그들은 어차피 꼭 같은 대학을 나오고 꼭 같은 사고를 하는 꼭 같은 놈들을 그들의 새로운 관료로 임명할 뿐이다.....권력이 아무리 바뀌던 바뀌는 것은 없다....
--))) 미국 민주주의의 작동방식입니다....
마이클 허드슨 아류의 좌파 지식인들이 줄기차게 말 해 왓던 것이고...이런것을 민주주의라고 한다면
소가 웃을 일이지요.
다시한번 분명하게 합시다..
이런것은 민주주의가 아닙니다....
셀던 울린이 말 한...전도된 전체주의던...아님 올리아키던(과두체제) 또는 다른 어떤 단어로 표현되던
분명한 것은 ....지금의 미국의 체체...또는 미국과 서구인들이 주도 하는 그 민주주의라는 체체가 그들이 주장해온 그런 민주주의는 결코 아니라는 것이고....한국의 민주주의가 민주주의라고 한다면.....개가 웃을 일입니다.
민주주의란 인민이 원하는 것을 구현 할 수 잇는 정치제제를 말 합니다.
미국의 상위 3명의 때 부자는 미국의 하위 50%가 갖고 잇는 부 보다 더 많은 부를 소유하고 잇습니다.
미국인민들이 개 되야지 짱구 븅쉰들이 아닌이상 이런 사회를 원 한다고 말 할 수 는 없습니다.
그런데 미국의 민주주의는 이런 현기증 나는 부의 격차를 줄이기는 커녕 오히려 더 확대 하고 잇습니다.
미국의 인민들이 원하는 것을 구연 할 수 없는 정치체제인 것이고....
최소 이런것을 민주주의라고 할 수는 없습니다.
노무현 집권기간동안...
최대의 빈부격차가 벌어졋고
최고의 부동산 투기질이 벌어졋고
최고의 비 정규직 노동자들이 만들어 졋습니다............................3관 참피온.
-이미 권력은 시장으로 넘어갓다.............노무현
이런 세상이 사람사는 세상이라면 ....삶은 돼야지 돼가리가 벌떡 일어나 웃을 일이고.
이런 자가...진보적 서민적 인간적 대통령이라면......개 죶을 빨 일입니다.
권력이 누가 됫던...민주당 이던 국힘당이던, 노무현이던 박그뇌던 바뀐것은 아무것도 없습니다..
교주님에 미처 날튀는 팬텀들만 바뀔 뿐입니다....
그들은 어차피 꼭 같은 대학을 나오고 꼭 같은 사고를 하는 꼭 같은 놈들을 그들의 새로운 관료로 임명햇고
꼭 같은 짓을 반복해서 해 왓습니다..권력이 아무리 바뀌던 바뀌는 것은 없습니다....
삼성과 가장 끈끈한 관계를 유지 햇던 정권은 노무현 정권입니다.....
혹자는 ...노무현을 이건희의 양자라고 빈정거리기도 햇지요..
기자들은 자신들의 기사와 사진에 어떤 것이던 의미를 담는다고 햇지요?
노무현과 삼성과의 관계를 이 사진만큼 더 적라라 하게 보여주는 사진이 잇을까 시포요..
내 마흠속그 진죵환 나희 갱상도 돼통령??
에효............니기미..
다른소린 노무현도 증말 싫어 하지만,,,
청와대에서 처 먹은 뇌물이 뽀록나서 억울하게 되졋다는 노무현 사마니즘의 광기는
정말 소름 끼치게 싫습니다.....
이런 정신질환자들은 생각 자체 만으로도 소름이 쫙쫙끼칩니다.
BEN NORTON: Yeah, very well said. And I’ve mentioned, we both have mentioned a few times here, Wall Street on Parade, the amazing financial blog by Pam Martens and Russ Martens.
I highly recommend everyone checking out their website. I’ve invited them on before, but unfortunately they don’t do interviews.
But Michael, they published another article that discussed the $247 trillion in derivatives that 25 U.S. banks are exposed to.
And they speculated that one of the reasons, in March, that these large banks, 11 big banks in the U.S., deposited $30 billion in First Republic Bank to try to save it.
Now, at the time that was portrayed as this great benevolent act by these large banks to try to prevent First Republic Bank from going under.
But Wall Street on Parade speculates that actually one of the reasons they did that was to try to save themselves over their exposure to $247 trillion in derivatives.
And they pointed out that the four big banks that contributed the most to try to save First Republic Bank, the systemically important banks, have 58% of the $247 trillion in derivatives.
--)) 이런 내용 고대로 글로 올려 드렷습니다.
So that means that they have over $140 trillion worth of derivatives. I mean, just saying that number sounds just unfathomable. It sounds like we’re talking about imaginary figures.
But what we’re essentially seeing is that the entire U.S. financial system is a big casino. And there are bets that are several times the size of the entire U.S. GDP in the U.S. banking system.(물론 파생의 규모를 어떻게 측정 하느냐에 따라 ...다릅니다...파생은 그 특성이 차액만 결제 하는 경우가 대부분입니다...그렇지만 결제만 고려한 net 금액으로 따진다고 해도 이런 투기판이 지나치게 크고 그래서 항상 위험 하다는 것입니다....이런 도팍판을 그들의 투자론은 파생 상품의 가격조절 기능이라고 쌩을 까지요.....이런 도적놈들이 타짜들 보기를 또 개 졸로 봅니다.....지들은 고급 대학 나왓고 영어 존나 잘 한다는 것이지요......진정한 씨발놈들입니다..)
I mean, what’s going to happen with these derivatives?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, I describe what has happened before in [my book] Killing the Host. Remember when Greece elected the Syriza party, and it was obvious that Greece could not pay the $50 billion in foreign debt that it had.
And there was a lot of pressure by the incoming government, Varoufakis and others, saying, you’ve got to write down the debts.
And the European Central Bank was all set to write down the debts. The head of the IMF pointed out that the Greek billionaires actually had $50 billion of their own money stashed in Switzerland, of tax avoidance money.
And this $50 billion could have been grabbed by the government and used to repay Greece’s foreign debt.
Well, they were about to write down the debt when President Obama sent his Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, over. Obama made a speech, Geithner made a speech. I quote them in Killing The Host.
He said to Europe, — No, no, you can’t let Greece let these bonds go under and default, because the American banks have made such a big bet on derivatives that they would lose money, and you Europeans have to lose the money, not America. That’s how our democracy works.
And so the Europeans said, — Okay, we will make Europe lose money, we’ll make Greece go bankrupt, just so that your American banks, who’ve contributed the most money to Mr. Obama’s presidential campaign, will not have to lose a single penny on their bad derivatives, because now they’re good derivatives because we’ve destroyed the Greek population to help you.
This was probably the most vicious of all of Obama’s actions, apart from the destruction of Libya.
What had happened to Greece under the Syriza government and the bankruptcy is exactly what’s happening on a vastly increased scale today.
The Treasury Secretary’s job is to protect the big banks.
And Ms. Yellen has said, — Just as we’re supporting an unsupportable loser in Ukraine, we’re going to support the unsupportable losers, seemingly, in the American banks.
— We will do whatever it takes so that the big banks do not lose money, even though they’ve made a bad bet, a bet that would have lost all the money, a bet that would have left them insolvent, a bet that would have led them to be taken over by the FDIC and turned from a private bank into a government bank.
— We’re going to prevent that, because that would be socialism. And that’s what we’re fighting against in America, just as we’re fighting against that in Europe.
So you’re having, I won’t characterize what kind of a political system we’re under, but the Treasury Secretary, the Treasury as a whole, has been just as captured by the financial sector as the Federal Reserve.
And you want to look at the Treasury as the bad guys in this. You want to look at the people who are working under Ms. Yellen.
And I think that Pam Martens makes this very clear when she goes through all of the balance sheet maneuverability for this.
When I have a question, I’ve called her to ask for explanations. I mean, you’re right. Her site is the go-to site for this.
So the bottom line is, the whole U.S. economy is being sacrificed to banks that have made bets, and they’ve been bad bets.
Their bets have gone wrong, and they’re bailed out by the Treasury, saying, — Even if you make bad bets, no matter what, we’re going to rescue you, no matter what it takes for the economy at large.
That is the hard iron fist of the financial system controlling the economy as today’s central planner.
BEN NORTON: Yeah, and we now see that this crisis that we’ve seen in the U.S. banking system is spreading, especially to medium-sized banks.
The latest reports show that PacWest is on the verge of collapsing. Also Western Alliance is being targeted and their stocks are falling very rapidly.
And once again, to go back to Wall Street on Parade, they specifically single out short sellers. They say short sellers are targeting these banks because they can see that they could potentially be the next banks to go down.
And they’re trying to make money off of this.
And over at Wall Street on Parade, Pam Martens and Russ Martens argued that the U.S. government is putting its own national security at risk, the stability of the financial system at risk, by not suspending the short selling of federally insured banks.
So what do you think about this argument that short sellers should not be allowed to do this because they’re helping to fuel the collapse of these banks in order to profit from it?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, it’s sort of like when they tried to ban betting on horse racing or ban the numbers racket.
The banks can always make, inherently, the equivalent of a short sale. And if they don’t do it in the U.S. economy, they’ll do it offshore in the Cayman Islands. So it is very hard to do something.
The government certainly has the money to hire somebody, a first year BA graduate in business could tell just what the short sellers are saying.
A short term graduate or Pam Martens herself could look at the banks and say, this bank has negative equity, and the government can immediately take it over into the public domain.
But the government won’t do that because they’ll say that’s socialism. And socialism, which we used to call democracy, but now they’ve [renamed] democracy socialism because they think it’s a bad term.
And they say, no, we have to let private enterprise rule. And private enterprise is gambling.
Most banks have not made money, as much money in interest as they’ve made in capital gains. And the biggest capital gains have been derivatives and short sales and options.
So the financial sector isn’t about making loans to industrialists to build factories and employ labor to produce more goods.
It’s made to make loans to gamblers, because that’s where most of the money is made. That’s what the financial system is. And to characterize the system as if it’s part of the economy is the sort of mythology of our time.
The financial system is external to the economy. It’s like a parasite on the economy, using the government as a means of extracting money from the economy or using its own money-creation abilities to make sure that it creates enough money to make sure that the wealthy financial institutions cannot lose.
Smaller financial institutions can lose, but that’s okay to the government, because the big fish eat little fish, and the small banks are taken over by the big banks.
So ultimately the logical result is, if there are only four or five systemically important banks, meaning banks that we’re not going to let go under, and no matter how much they lose, you won’t lose your money in these banks, well, that means, hey, folks, take your money out of your local bank and put it in one of the big banks, because they’re now running things.
That’s the message. And I don’t know why the newspapers and media don’t come right out and say that, or why don’t the banks themselves.
Why doesn’t Chase take out a one-page argument in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and say, — Hey, folks, you notice how they bailed us out? We’ll always be bailed out. You’re not going to lose your money here. Put your money in our bank.
That’s a good advertising slogan. Why don’t they think of that?
BEN NORTON: Well, Michael, to conclude here, I just want to give you a quote from [JP Morgan Chase CEO] Jamie Dimon.
He insisted in a media interview that with JP Morgan taking over First Republic Bank, he said, “There may be another smaller one, but this pretty much resolves them all. This part of the crisis is over.”
So, JP Morgan Chase wants us to think that we’ve gone through the worst, that the solution has been pretty much solved. What do you say in response to Jamie Dimon?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, all of the banks have suffered the same problem that began with Silicon Valley Bank and the other banks that have gone under.
All of the banks have seen the market price of their mortgage loans and their government securities fall by a large amount, so much that the amount of the decline in their assets has wiped out the equivalent of their net worth.
So they’re in negative equity. They’re technically insolvent, except that the government doesn’t ask the banks to report what is the actual market price of your assets.
That’s a secret. And it’s a secret because if people could see the market price of the assets and what their liabilities, they’d see that their net worth is worse than that of the average homeless person on the New York subways.
And so they just don’t do that.
The fact is that we’re still in the problem that the Federal Reserve painted itself into when it moved to zero interest rates. Any increase in interest rates causes a crash in real estate and bond prices and implicitly stock prices.
And if the government doesn’t bail out the banks, they’re going to be insolvent, like somebody who’s bet the fortune at a racetrack or a casino and has lost their money.
So of course [Dimon] is going to say everything’s okay now.
But what that means is, well, it’ll be okay if the depositors leave their money in the banks and their savings accounts that are paying 0.2% and don’t go to an investment bank or broker and buy government money market funds or Treasury bills.
If they don’t go to Vanguard or one of these companies that’ll set up an account for them to buy Treasury bonds or local government funds, and are willing to give up the money in the banks and let the banks make money off the financial distress, not themselves, then everything will be okay.
But for the bank depositors and for the public to be quiescent, they have to be stupid. And that’s the role of The New York Times and The Washington Post and the other media.
You’ve got to have a financially stupid public. And the best way to do it is to have the university courses teach stupid economics, like that’s what Chicago School is all about, the economic curriculum in the United States.
Don’t look at debt problems. They don’t look at balance sheet problems. None of the problems that are occurring today appear in the economic curriculum that people have to learn in order to see how the economy works.
It’s all a mythology. It’s a fairytale. And you could say it’s sort of the superstition of our time. I won’t dignify it by calling it a religion, even though many banks look like the ancient Greek and Roman temples.
It’s really just a superstition that the financial system works to help the economy instead of, how can we make money from the economy by taking over the government and capturing the whole government, not only the regulators.
BEN NORTON: Well, that’s a good note to end on. I want to thank you, Michael Hudson, an economist and author of many books.
People should go check out his website at michael-hudson.com.
And Michael also co-hosts the show Geopolitical Economy Hour here with Radhika Desai.
I will also link to his previous interview with me, where we talked about the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and Silvergate Bank this March.
Michael, it’s always a real pleasure. Thanks for joining me.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, thanks for having me, Ben.