Taking Wall Street
The story of the financial crisis in industrialized nations did not begin with the burst of the real estate bubble but, rather, in the ‘80s, when the craziness of financial market liberalization turned into state doctrine. The substantial slackening of government regulations untied the hands of banking and financial institutions, the keepers and administrators of huge capital resources and, for that reason, were able to exercise enormous influence on social life.
There is a crisis in the capitalist system in industrialized nations but, as Tony Judt observed, these difficult times are not only a product of structural inconsistencies, but also of human actions, of the uncontrollable desire of interest groups to acquire wealth. When left to their own devices, they were not at all shy about acquiring that wealth. The irresponsibility of those financial operators led to a general economic crisis, to which there is still no solution.
The fact that every bank and financier didn’t act this way is taken for granted. There are exceptions to the behavior of any group. In this case, however, it was not the exceptions, but the rule of the greedy majority which determined that the numbers wouldn’t fit, that the “industry leaders” would reap juicy bonuses even when their institutions had gone under, and that the government would take money from the people and use it to pay for its damages. Debt in the industrialized world is rising — according to conservative calculations it is over $5 trillion.
The permissiveness of governments was equally grave; they were late to intervene and stop situations that were affecting their countries. The U.S. propped up financial institutions when they were in a bind, and because of the design of the capitalist system, the fall of a bank can drag an entire society into chaos.
However, after the bailout, the government should have demanded their accounts, brought those responsible for obvious fraud to justice and demanded reparations. That occurred only as an exception, as recounted in great detail by Madrick and Partnoy in their article “Should Some Bankers Be Prosecuted?” Few responsible for the financial chaos have appeared in court, protected by a cloud of legal loopholes and, above all, political influences.
In an IMF publication, Tressel, Mishra and Igan identified a clear correlation between the multi-million dollar lobbying by several financial institutions linked to the U.S. housing bubble and the awarding of state bailouts for their operations. The government, which should have “confront[ed] the malefactors” (Paul Krugman), couldn’t, or didn’t, want to jump into the ring and take the bull by the horns.
Occupy Wall Street, whose best translation into Spanish would be “Tomarse Wall Street [Taking Wall Street],” is trying to trap the untouchable bull. It represents the liveliest example of citizens demanding and acting out against the great power of the banking and financial sectors, against the dismal consequences of having lifted the controls from bankers and financial institutions and against the immeasurable influence of Wall Street in politics and government, which made it leave defending the interests of the majority in the background.
There is a crisis in the capitalist system in industrialized nations but, as Tony Judt observed, these difficult times are not only a product of structural inconsistencies, but also of human actions, of the uncontrollable desire of interest groups to acquire wealth. When left to their own devices, they were not at all shy about acquiring that wealth. The irresponsibility of those financial operators led to a general economic crisis, to which there is still no solution.
The fact that every bank and financier didn’t act this way is taken for granted. There are exceptions to the behavior of any group. In this case, however, it was not the exceptions, but the rule of the greedy majority which determined that the numbers wouldn’t fit, that the “industry leaders” would reap juicy bonuses even when their institutions had gone under, and that the government would take money from the people and use it to pay for its damages. Debt in the industrialized world is rising — according to conservative calculations it is over $5 trillion.
The permissiveness of governments was equally grave; they were late to intervene and stop situations that were affecting their countries. The U.S. propped up financial institutions when they were in a bind, and because of the design of the capitalist system, the fall of a bank can drag an entire society into chaos.
However, after the bailout, the government should have demanded their accounts, brought those responsible for obvious fraud to justice and demanded reparations. That occurred only as an exception, as recounted in great detail by Madrick and Partnoy in their article “Should Some Bankers Be Prosecuted?” Few responsible for the financial chaos have appeared in court, protected by a cloud of legal loopholes and, above all, political influences.
In an IMF publication, Tressel, Mishra and Igan identified a clear correlation between the multi-million dollar lobbying by several financial institutions linked to the U.S. housing bubble and the awarding of state bailouts for their operations. The government, which should have “confront[ed] the malefactors” (Paul Krugman), couldn’t, or didn’t, want to jump into the ring and take the bull by the horns.
Occupy Wall Street, whose best translation into Spanish would be “Tomarse Wall Street [Taking Wall Street],” is trying to trap the untouchable bull. It represents the liveliest example of citizens demanding and acting out against the great power of the banking and financial sectors, against the dismal consequences of having lifted the controls from bankers and financial institutions and against the immeasurable influence of Wall Street in politics and government, which made it leave defending the interests of the majority in the background.