Another Example of Professional Lefties Blowing Off Facts

One reason the progressive movement has been largely stalled for the last 30-40 years is because the average person simply doesn’t understand what our movement is supposed to be about. That's entirely our fault. The loudest component of the progressive movement, the “professional left,” as it were, likes to speak broadly about issues, at the same time they obsess over minutiae that really has no basis in reality.  If you look at the liberal press, especially the blogs, you see mostly broad negatives, very few positives and quite a few unhealthy obsessions.

Their latest unhealthy obsession seems to be with banks, specifically "big banks," whatever the hell they are. I suppose it's one of those "you know them when you see them" things, right? Big banks are the root of all evil, as the professional left sees it. If we just get rid of those "big banks," our economy will be fixed, all poor people will become rich, angels will once again dance on the heads of pins, and no police officer will ever again stop a black man for walking through the “wrong neighborhood.”

Okay, that was a slight exaggeration, but only slight.

Look, folks, I’m not crazy about big banks myself, but it's for the same reason no corporation should be allowed to become dominant in any market segment. I actually think Wal-Mart is worse for our economy than Bank of America. While it's true that, if Bank of America fails, the hit to the economy would be worse because they're responsible for more of our cash. But when it comes to day-to-day operation, Wal-Mart’s policies have been far more destructive to the economy over the years than Bank of America’s.

I know this will make the heads of a few pro lefties explode, but big banks were NOT the cause of the Great Recession. They weren't the disease so much as a symptom. They did contribute to it, but they were not the cause. The cause was the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the negligence of the Republican Congress to honor its mandate to “regulate commerce,” as outlined in the Constitution. A mortgage securities market that had once been purposely limited to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and heavily regulated to keep it solvent was opened up by Congress and pretty much completely deregulated. At the same time, a number of very questionable financial instruments were allowed to be created, despite the fact that no one even understood what the hell they were.

Basically, what Congress created and then neglected was an industry in which pretty much anyone could be a “mortgage broker,” and offer up mortgages through a number of “creative financing” schemes, through which people who were paying $700 a month rent could suddenly own a nice, new home for $500 a month. “Brokers” were doing anything they could to get these loans through, including faking paperwork. Banks should have been more diligent in approving the mortgages, but they didn’t have to be, because they didn’t have to deal with the mortgages for long, thanks to the mortgage aftermarket that had built up, thanks to Congress’ and the Bush Administration’s negligence.

ALL banks were approving mortgages they probably shouldn’t have, not just the big ones. ALL banks were dumping their mortgages into the aftermarket, then turning around and investing in the mortgage securities and the derivatives that shouldn’t have even existed, if Congress and the Bush Administration had been doing their Constitutionally mandated jobs. Not just big banks, but ALL banks were doing this. Hundreds of smaller banks went under, because they were doing exactly the same damn thing those wretched "big banks" were. Fannie and Freddie were forced into problems, because the pressure to compete was so strong, even they started to invest in this crap.

If you’re a lefty, and you have an obsession with the "big banks," and try to blame everything bad on them, you’re kind of missing the point. The reason our economy is in bad shape is because of 32 years of neocon economic policies. Corporations are naturally greedy; that’s their job, actually; they’re supposed to use whatever they can to maximize profits. That’s where the government comes in; it’s the government’s job to keep them honest.

The root cause of the economic crisis was large corporations doing what they’re supposed to do, and the government (run by Republicans at the time) not doing their constitutionally mandated job at all.  It wasn’t "big banks," it was all banks. But while the banks were negligent, it was small brokers and speculators who really screwed the system. And the problems banks had weren't because they were banks, but because they were corporations with a shareholder mandate to maximize profits.

We do have other problems with our financial system, including a number of problems that have little to nothing to do with banks, big or small. One of the biggest, in my view, is the predatory short-term loan industry. These are often called “payday loans,” although some folks may put up their car’s title or even a deed to their home to get these loans. These places usually pop up in neighborhoods and areas with many poor or working class folks who have limited access to legitimate banks.

These companies are predatory, they are largely unregulated, and they cause huge financial problems for families. They do fill a financial need, unfortunately, because some people need a little short-term cash to meet expenses, and banks are actually unable to make such risky loans. But they should be regulated, to make sure their lending practices are fair.  

The short-term loan problem has nothing to do with the "big banks." So, imagine my surprise when a link to the following article appeared in my Twitter feed this morning, from ThinkProgress. The general sloppiness of this article surprised me, because it’s relatively atypical for them.

How Big Banks Finance Billions In Predatory Payday Lending

Let's start with the implication of that headline. It's crap, first of all. It's meaningless, but it's also not factual. They don't necessarily finance the lending, anymore than it could be said the loan given to your auto mechanic financed your car repairs. Such a concept is simple-minded on its face, and it's worthy of a Fox News anchor than a reputable progressive "news source."

(By the way, as I was researching this column, I found this same article in roughly the same form other places, so it's not even particularly original.)

This article is a prime example of how we need to stop engaging in Fox News-style BS  on the issues and stick to facts and the truth. Just as importantly, we have to get a handle on a little thing called “perspective.” Here are the “shocking stats” posed by the article that supposedly proves their assumption. I’m going to comment on each of these:

(A)ccording to Credit Slips’ Nathalie Martin, a professor at the University of New Mexico, the nation’s biggest banks are, in a big way, financing this predatory lending:

– Major banks provide over $1.5 Billion in credit available to fund major payday lending companies.

– The major banks funding payday lending include Wells Fargo, Bank of America, US Bank, JP Morgan Bank, and National City (PNC Financial Services Group).

One reason we have a hard time communicating with the average voter, and why the average voter can't relate to us is because we use imprecise terms, and assume they know what we're talking about. 

What are “the major banks”?

And is there evidence that no payday lenders get credit from “minor banks”? In order for this statement to have significance, the author would have to prove two things; that, somehow, providing credit to these folks was somehow against the law, and that only “major banks” were doing it. I would also point out that many payday loan companies are owned by minorities and immigrants; can anyone else besides me imagine a huge uproar if they started denying loans to these folks? I would also point out that $1.5 billion isn’t much credit for an industry that lent more than $45 billion last year. But if it was used for start-up costs, to pay for employees (yes, these companies do provide jobs), buildings, phones, computers and other overhead, they're not really lending that money, so the implication is meaningless.

 – All together, the major banks directly finance the loans and operations of (at minimum) 38% of the entire payday lending industry, based on store locations.

There it is again; what is "the major banks," exactly?

By the way, it almost doesn't matter, because this is an outright falsehood. Banks are subject to very strict controls regarding how they use their money, and it would actually be illegal for them to finance the loans “directly.” And again I ask; how is it illegal for a bank to loan money to a legitimate business operation? You may not like payday loan operations, but they are currently legal. 

– The major banks indirectly fund approximately 450,000 payday loans per year totaling $16.4 Billion in short-term payday loans.

Here is another outright falsehood. There is no such thing as “indirect funding” of payday loans, and the citation of such ridiculous statistics should never be accepted by anyone without a citation. Unless payday lenders are funding the payday loans in cash from a mattress they keep in their offices, I would assume that all of their money touches a bank at some time or another. In fact, most payday loans are deposited directly into the receiver’s bank account from a lender's bank account, so technically, all loans come through two banks. But attributing a specific number to “major banks” is misleading, and impossible to determine, since individual financial transactions are still private. 

But the statement above is bullshit on its face anyway, as anyone with a calculator should know. Do yourself a favor and divide $16.4 billion by 450,000 payday loans.  Are we to believe that the banks are lending an average of $36,444 per loan

Hey lefties; if you're going to repeat statistics you heard from someone, do a bit of a sniff test, and see if they're ripe. 

– Wells Fargo is a major financier of payday lending and is involved with financing companies that operate one third (32%) of the entire payday lending industry, based on store locations.

– All of these above mentioned banks received TARP bailout funds in 2008-09 and have benefited from accessing capital at exceptionally low interest rates from the Federal Reserve.

I hate this kind of sophistry when it comes from the right wing. It makes me livid when it comes from our side of the aisle.  What does any of the above mean, anyway? The implications are all over the place, they’re imprecise, and frankly, they smack of innuendo. There isn’t one actual fact in any of the above, except the generalized statement that the banks they mentioned probably received TARP funds. And it’s possible Wells Fargo is the preferred bank of people who set up these shops. But again; it’s a legitimate business, whether we like it or not. It should be more heavily regulated than it is, but as of right now, if you have $50,000 you’d like to lend to high-risk borrowers and make 400% or more on the money, there’s nothing stopping you. And if you have the credit score that would allow you to borrow a $100,000 from a “major bank” and open such a shop, the bank certainly has no right to stop you. 

Facts have a liberal bias, people. There are all sorts of things to hate about big banks and payday lenders. there is absolutely no need to make shit up about either, and it actually hurts the cause to conflate the two into one problem. They're not. 

 

18 comments

  1. With all due respect, I don’t attack the left. I AM the left. I’m attacking BS. One reason we keep losing elections is because too many of us think it’s ok to act like Fox News, and say whatever we think makes our point.
    The mortgage market WAS the source of the economic downturn, and you even actually admit it above. The source of the problem was “toxic securities,” which meant mortgage securities, which had never been assigned a par value, and which were causing everyone to write more mortgages than should have been written.
    You cite the default rate as 6%, which is inaccurate — it went as high as 7.9% at one point — as if the number was insignificant. It’s not. That’s a VERY HIGH default rate. From 1979-2006, the default rate averaged about 1.7%. The system isn’t BUILT for a default rate that high. I could say the same thing about the unemployment rate, right? After all, 91.4% of Americans are working; what is everyone complaining about?
    Read more about the situation here: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2008/200859/200859pap.pdf
    Yes, credit default swaps and derivatives were exposed as dangerous and damaging to the economy, to be sure. They shouldn’t have been allowed to exist. But the cause of the economic meltdown came when insurance companies had to pay out on their insurance policies. That happened because millions of people who shouldn’t have had a mortgage were given one. The banks’ fault in this came because it just became too easy to dump off the paper. They could write a loan and then sell it to the aftermarket and not have to deal with the risk. But ALL banks were doing this. The “big banks” were bailed out, but thousands of smaller banks also got bail-out money, as well. And make no mistake; credit unions were also part of this; that money you put into them gets invested in the same Wall Street firms that took it in the shorts.
    Now, back to the idea of “attacking the left.” How do you know these people are lefties? Because they tell you? Because they claim they share the same stance on issues? Be careful. I know of at least one right wing talk show host who is actually a full on liberal, but needed to make the mortgage payments, and became a right winger for three hours a day, five days a week. There’s no reason others couldn’t do the same. BTW, more than a few of the most prominent professional lefties are ex-right wingers. Yet, note how often they tell people like me — who has been a progressive since I was a young kid — how a “good progressive” should act. If that doesn’t make you suspicious, it should. It is NOT beyond all possibility that right wingers could be saying all the right things, yet trying to undermine us. Their political tactics certainly help the right wing win elections.
    In any case, look more closely; I don’t attack liberals and progressives, I take issue with what they say. That’s a very important distinction.

  2. Gee…do you think Wall Street selling 600 trillion in fake insurance (Credit Default Swaps with zero reserves) had something to do with causing the financial crisis??? I don’t believe my local credit union did that. Do you know what percent of all loans were in default when Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers imploded??? Approximately 6 percent.
    The mortgage market was NOT the cause. Wall Street selling fraudulent insurance on JUST THOSE LOANS was. And there is not one law that forces one bank to make bad loans to anyone. Half of the borrowers who were qualified, BECAME unqualified after their seventeen page “fine print” change their terms.
    And…attacking the “left” will certainly does not help it. As you berate those who attack Obama for the Defense Authorization Act, and rightly so, as the blame should fall squarely on Republicans, it is better to attack the individual…not broad-brush an entire wing or the movement itself. The left has had 30 years of eating itself. Otherwise, good job…and carry on.

  3. The right-wing activists and phony media in this country has got to be laughing their asses off at how easily the professional left can be led to in-fighting and disarray. The “Professional Left” is very gullible and is easily led to believe in government conspiracies, just as much as the right-wing’s base is.
    That’s why you’ll see the Greenwalds, Hamshers and Huffingtons get so much press and attention in the time of Obama.
    They hyperventilate over things that don’t really exist, but that they believe “could” be true or “might happen” and try to turn them into big media stories to really do nothing more than to bring more attention to their own self-interests, aka “grifting” or “pimping”, whichever term you prefer.

  4. You may read the blog, but not for comprehension. I’m not condescending to anyone from whom I can learn. When someone who obviously knows nothing argues using falsehoods and useless assertions, however, I consider that person a fool.
    The system is not rigged. Yet. Of course, assholes like you SAYING it is causes turnout to drop, which hands elections to the RW.
    For someone who condescends to accuse me of believing “schoolboy myths,” you sure don’t seem to care much for truth and reality.
    Did no one teach you the concept of irony?

  5. I suspect you’re always condescending to just about everybody who isn’t you, actually (see — I really DO read the blog).
    In any case, it’s kind of a shame, because I suspect we have more points of agreement, politically, than disagreement. But it’s obvious that your faith in the schoolboy myths of American democracy, while touching, is incompatible with the rigged system that is the reality we’re currently living with.
    That said, good luck to you and adieu.

  6. Incoherent? You’re not very smart, are you? And I’m always condescending to people who are too lazy to bother with facts when they argue. I don’t suffer fools well, and you’re a fool.
    You claim “the discourse drifts rightward even when we WIN elections.” Not only is this a non sequitur, but when have progressives ever won elections? In the last 40 years, we’ve had one clear win, in 2008, and the left immediately abandoned the discourse. The result was a drubbing in 2010 that was worse than the one win we had two years earlier.
    We lose elections because a large percentage of the progressive movement doesn’t participate in the electoral process and they don’t speak to the people who actually swing elections. Once we start doing that, we’ll start winning elections, and we’ll carry more weight in the “discourse.” Yes, that’s right. People listen to us when we participate, not when we stand outside the system, waving our hands and making demands.

  7. Well, that was an interesting, albeit incoherent, rant. With just the right touch of world-class condescension.
    I especially liked this part.
    And the discourse in this country only drifts rightward because the left largely abandons the discourse…Right wingers don’t win elections. We lose them. There’s a distinction to be made there.
    I say especially because, in case you haven’t noticed, the discourse drifts rightward even when we WIN elections.

  8. Ban you? Why would I ban you? You’re a typical phony lefty who thinks he knows more about being a “progressive” than anyone else, and who says nothing that is even supportable. You prove my POINT about the emo left, and you don’t even realize it. Your misunderstanding of the concept of irony betrays you; you’re more like a right winger than you could possibly imagine.
    Do you even GET the asinine irony in the statement, “This entire site is a sweeping unsupported statement about the Pro Left’s inability to appreciate the Total Awesomeness of Obama.”???
    Nothing I say on this blog is unsupported. There is support for all of it. It’s also not an homage to President Obama. I happen to think he’s been a great president, but I don’t just say it; I have hundreds of examples of how great he’s actually been.
    As for the liberality of the Democratic Party, you idiot, perhaps you might read “this entire blog” sometime and get a clue. It’s not very liberal. No shit. Do you know WHY it’s not liberal? it’s because liberals have pretty much abandoned the democratic process and they don’t get involved in the Democratic Party. They expect a democratic institution like a political party to “just change” in order to invite them in. Only, that’s not how politics works. If you want to change a political party, you have to go in and change it. Political parties reflect the politics of their memberships. So, if most of the farthest-lefties out there proclaim their “independence” and leave the Democratic Party, why would anyone in their right mind expect them to “move left”? Progressives JOINING the Democratic Party will move it left.
    And the discourse in this country only drifts rightward because the left largely abandons the discourse. For example; what have you said in this exchange that is even remotely constructive or even accurate? If all you’re going to do is lie and obfuscate, as most pro left and emo lefties do, who do you expect to listen to you? The right wing is already full of shit. If you’re full of shit, too, why the hell would you expect what you have to say to have any more weight than what the right wingers have to say. I mean, NOTHING you have said so far has been true. It’s all either an outright lie or a horrible exaggeration. I tell the truth, you apparently don’t. THAT is why no one listens to much of the loudest portion of the left. THAT is why we lose.
    Right wingers don’t win elections. We lose them. There’s a distinction to be made there.

  9. This entire site is a sweeping unsupported statement about the Pro Left’s inability to appreciate the Total Awesomeness of Obama.
    Here’s my last word on the subject before you ban me — Obama isn’t the problem. It’s a Democratic Party that isn’t remotely progressive or liberal, despite the fact that they play progressive/liberals on TV.
    And despite the fact that the Republicans are every bit as insane as you say, THAT’s why the discourse in this country drifts rightward regardless of who wins elections….

  10. You’re just lying.
    Define “bankers.” If you mean executives with banks made ridiculous bonuses for themselves, no argument. But the FACT is, the banks themselves had to be bailed out because the banks LOST a shitload of money. Once again, YOU use incredibly inaccurate terminology to try to “prove” some sort pf “point” that doesn’t even make sense. There’s no such thing as a “banker” anymore, certainly not where “big banks” are concerned.
    By the way, I never said anything about “bankers.” I said “big banks.” Therefore YOU brought yet another straw man argument into the conversations.
    I showed you what I said; please show the class where the “sweeping statement” about the “pro left” is. As a matter of FACT, what I said was relatively limited, and not at all sweeping. That makes your assertion a straw man argument.

  11. Interesting that actual bankers made out like bandits.
    And the fact is, you made a sweeping statement about the Pro Left not understanding Glass Steagal, and you still haven’t named any of those people.
    Like I said, disingenuous.

  12. Uh, you obviously don’t know what a straw argument is. Example: “You (sic) premise is that the Professional Left — by which you mean any liberal who deliberately fails to see that Obama is Totally Awesome — doesn’t understand about Glass Steagall.”
    1. “You (sic) premise is that the Professional Left — by which you mean any liberal who deliberately fails to see that Obama is Totally Awesome…” is an example of a straw argument. You assume that’s what I mean by “professional left.” You would be wrong.
    2. I SAID (basically) that anyone who blames “big banks” for the meltdown doesn’t understand Glass-Steagall. Note that what you say that I said doesn’t actually match what I said.
    My “basic assertion” at the heart of this post was:
    “I know this will make the heads of a few pro lefties explode, but big banks were NOT the cause of the Great Recession. They weren’t the disease so much as a symptom. They did contribute to it, but they were not the cause. The cause was the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the negligence of the Republican Congress to honor its mandate to “regulate commerce,” as outlined in the Constitution. A mortgage securities market that had once been purposely limited to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and heavily regulated to keep it solvent was opened up by Congress and pretty much completely deregulated. At the same time, a number of very questionable financial instruments were allowed to be created, despite the fact that no one even understood what the hell they were.”
    First of all, I said A FEW pro lefties, which completely nullifies every presumption you made above.
    IOW, YOU are the one making the straw arguments here, not me. I made no straw arguments; I made a simple statement, which I supported. Like I said; if big banks were the cause of the meltdown, please explain why they had to be bailed out. They were stupid and they were thoughtless, and they didn’t perform due diligence. I supported all my statements. OTOH, please show me where I defined “pro left” liberals as you describe, and where I said they don’t understand Glass Steagall.
    And now, you know what a straw argument is.

  13. Uh, actually it is a strawman argument and a particularly disingenuous one at that. You premise is that the Professional Left — by which you mean any liberal who deliberately fails to see that Obama is Totally Awesome — doesn't understand about Glass Steagall. And your proof? Some guy getting it wrong in Think Progress. That's a bit like Thomas Friedmann quoting one of those cab drivers in Dubai who somehow agree with whatever he's writing about that day, i.e. not exactly proof of your sweeping assertion.

  14. It’s not a straw “argument” at all. It’s not possible to point to big banks as the cause of the recession. The root cause was an unfettered mortgage securities structure that big banks took advantage of, to their detriment and ours. Put it this way; if big banks were profiting from this, then why’d they need a bailout?
    Apparently a lot of lefties don’t get Glass Steagall, because they blame the meltdown on big banks.
    And if you can find an argument you don’t agree with to be “offensive,” might I recommend you grow a pair…

  15. “I know this will make the heads of a few pro lefties explode, but big banks were NOT the cause of the Great Recession. They weren’t the disease so much as a symptom. They did contribute to it, but they were not the cause. The cause was the repeal of Glass-Steagall and the negligence of the Republican Congress to honor its mandate to “regulate commerce,” as outlined in the Constitution.
    The second half of that statement is, of course, absolutely true.
    The first half, however, is one of the more offensive straw man arguments I’ve heard lately. Who are these lefties who don’t understand about Glass-Steagal et al?

Comments are closed.