Free market follies

Now that the big-time media is wrapping up its commemoration of the 20th anniversary of the Los Angeles riots, it can get back to its real job: bird-dogging celebrities and cheerleading a “jobless recovery.”

It can get back to its regularly scheduled programming, reporting on the sale price of movie stars’ homes while ignoring the persistent and unpleasant economic and political realities in low-income neighborhoods like south Los Angeles where the riots ignited.

But it was a different story at a terrific conference last week at the University of Southern California called “Up From the Ashes,” sponsored by the school’s Program and Regional  Equity.

It focused on how activists responded to the riots, their accomplishments and defeats, sweet victories and bitter frustrations, and the hard work that remains.

While many gave credit to the Los Angeles police for reforming their approach to minority and low-income communities, on other issues the prognosis was far grimmer. By critical economic measures such as unemployment, availability of affordable housing  access to health care, and the percentage of its sons and daughters in prison, low-income Los Angeles is worse off today than it was in 1992.

At the conference, longtime public transit activist Eric Mann pointed out that as in many other things, Los Angeles has been ahead of its time in its starkly contrasting communities of wealth and poverty.

He also tracked the decline of the government as a problem-solver and the rise of the worship of the free market as the panacea for even the most complex issues.

Mann compared the response to the earlier 1967 Watts riots with the response 1992 Los Angeles riots.

After the earlier riots, the McCone Commission, which had been appointed to investigate, predicted that if poverty and housing issues weren’t addressed, the city would erupt again.

While the War on Poverty initially resulted in some government attention to those problems, it wasn’t sustained. Antipoverty programs dried up as politicians embraced their new philosophy that demonized government as the problem and idealizing the private sector as the solution.

After the 1992 riots, the recovery was left in private hands, specifically to the Orange County-based former baseball commissioner who had organized the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, Peter Ueberroth. While Ueberroth obtained promises for corporate funding for recovery for south Los Angeles, Ueberroth and his corporate colleagues were clueless about the community they were trying to help and the social issues they were wading into. As a result they failed to delivery any real economic benefit or social change. Government also failed to come through with any serious programs, leaving the community stranded once again.

Any gains came, not from corporate or government benevolence, but from determined efforts from the grass-roots, within the community.

Listening at the conference with ears attuned to the 2008 financial collapse and its aftermath, I heard a direct link between the “let the free market fix it” response the 1992 Los Angeles riots and the run-up to the economic meltdown.

The media and the politicians saw the geniuses who ran the big financial firms as not being unable to do wrong, with no need for the traditional oversight put in place after bank speculation led to the Great Depression. This led to the bipartisanship repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which had kept federally-guaranteed banks from engaging in other risky financial businesses, as well as the dismantling of the remaining regulatory structure.

Despite the massive failures of the free market to either regulate itself or solve social problems, we’re still in thrall to this faulty philosophy that the free market should largely be left alone to take on tasks for which it is clearly not equipped.

One of the biggest reasons for this is that the media has itself been so lax in holding the champions of the free market, like Ueberroth and the too big to fail bank bankers, accountable for the consequences of their missteps, broken promises, and failures, preferring instead to cheer them on in their folly.

An Enforcer For the 99 Percent?

 California’s attorney general, Kamala Harris, has staked out the high ground in promising to hold bankers accountable and protect borrowers in the continuing foreclosure crisis.

So far she’s formed a mortgage fraud task force and walked away from the weak settlement with the banks over mortgage servicing fraud that the Obama administration and the majority of state attorney generals have been trying to foist on the public.

Then earlier this week she told the executive who oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the federally bailed out quasi-public agencies, he should quit if he won’t consider principal reduction as a tool to help underwater homeowners.

Here’s hoping that Harris can build on the foundation she’s laid.

She has a real opportunity to set herself apart from other Democratic Party politicians, from the president to the congressional leadership and others who have opted for strong PR rather than real enforcement.

But she has her challenges ahead of her.

An ambitious politician who chaired the president’s campaign in California in 2008, Harris will have to go against the political grain if she really wants to hold bankers accountable and fight for homeowners.

Prosecuting bankers is never easy. Her agency, the state attorney general’s office, has had a woeful record on consumer protection. It’s been a long time since John Van de Kamp, when he was attorney general, launched his aggressive antitrust campaign.

As we know, bankers have been lubricating the political system to protect themselves against the consequences of the excesses. They spare no expense in hiring legal talent and defend themselves with a self-righteous fury. The legal system has had an unfortunate tendency to show great deference when the lords of the universe show up.

But as William Black, the former bank regulator turned law professor, has pointed out, it can be done. Bankers can be held accountable. It was done after the savings and loan debacle in the 1980s.

If prosecutors have the tenacity, the resources and the chops, they can go after bankers like they do gang members. First you go after the less powerful, more vulnerable players, squeezing them to gain information, and find documents to gradually build cases against the higher-ups.

Harris will be at a disadvantage without federal help – when prosecutors decide to take out a gang, they form a multiagency task forces, using all the agencies of federal, state and local officials.

We’ve seen just how disinterested the feds are in going after bankers. Local prosecutors around the country haven’t shown much stomach for the job either.

But if she is pursues her task in a determined and savvy way she will find wide and enthusiastic support among a crucial group that have become disenchanted with other politicians – the 99 percent.

If you’re in the Los Angeles and you want to hear more about this from William Black himself, he’s scheduled to participate in a stellar panel at Occupy LA at City Hall moderated by Truthdig’s Robert Scheer. Black, a law professor at University of Missouri-Kansas City, will be joined by Michael Hudson, Joel Rogers, a professor of law, political science and economics at the University of Wisconsin, and via live stream, Michael Hudson, a financial analyst who also teaches economics at UM-KC.

 

The Never-Ending Bailout

Even though banks' super-charged profits and eye-popping bonuses are back, they want you to keep paying the costs of their foreclosures.

In California, where the foreclosure crisis has hit with brutal force, it will cost communities between $600 billion and $1 trillion in lost property value, almost $4 billion in lost property tax revenue, and over $17 billion in local government costs between 2008 and 2012, according to Ellen Reese, a University of California Riverside sociologist and Jan Breidenbach, who teaches housing policy at USC, writing in the San Bernardino Sun.

That amounts to be about $20,000 per foreclosure that local governments [meaning you] have to pay every time a bank forecloses on a home.

One California legislator has made a modest suggestion: have banks pay those costs at the time of the foreclosure, so taxpayers don’t have to absorb them later.

The way the banks have responded, you would think that the legislators had proposed seizing the banks and distributing the bankers’ money on Main Street.

The mortgage bankers’ association, in best fear-mongering fashion, told its members that making the banks pay the costs of their failed loans would dry up all future home lending in the state.

In her April 6 letter to her membership, the association’s president, Pam Sosa, doesn’t offer any suggestion how the costs banks are currently passing on to you and me could be mitigated.

Meanwhile the California Bankers’ Association says if the bill becomes law, they’ll simply pass the cost on to their customers.

Why should the banks have to pay when they’ve done such a stellar job convincing the politicians that you won’t mind picking up the tab for the bankers’ losses?

If you thought that the financial collapse would curtail the banks sense of entitlement to write their own rules for their business, you would be wrong.

If you thought that the financial collapse would have made the banks think twice before demanding that we pay the costs when their business goes south, their reaction to AB 935, sponsored by San Fernando Valley Democrat Bob Blumenfield, demonstrates that you would be wrong.

Of course, the real purpose behind AB 935 is not to get the banks’ money. It is provide more of a financial incentive to the banks to work out sustainable modifications that would allow homeowners to remain in their homes. The Obama administration’s Home Affordable Mortgage Program has had little success in encouraging banks to modify loans because in part, the incentives it offers to the banks are too small But the banks find it tough to make their case on the merits. They can’t argue they don’t have enough money to pay their own way. Instead they rely on fear tactics and the inside game, which has served them so well in getting legislators and regulators to water down efforts to crack down in the wake of the financial collapse. In the depths of the recession in California, at the same time bankers were collecting billions in bailout, they were spending $70 million in lobbying fees and campaign contributions to thwart or weaken legislation that would have protected homeowners in the foreclosure process.

Testifying earlier this week on behalf of AB 935, economist and blogger Mike Konczal described foreclosures as a “lose-lose situation.” A foreclosure fee that accurately covers the real costs the community will have to pay will encourage more sustainable modifications, he said. He also debunked the mortgage bankers’ argument that it would have an impact on new lending, because it will only be applied to already existing loans. Citing recent Federal Reserve statistics, Konczal said relatively few homeowners are actually walking away from their “under water” homes, “and are willing to pay to do right by their communities and their promises. It would be great to have a financial system that met them halfway."

But the banks disagreed. They fought back hard on AB 935. Late Tuesday, Peggy Mears of Alliance of Californians for Community Protection sent around an email to say that the legislation appeared to be dead for the year, stuck in legislative committee.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Back to the Future of Reform with Sen. Chris Dodd

Dodd moves to scale back Consumer Financial Protection Agency plan

In an attempt to lure the Republican votes needed to get a sweeping overhaul through the Senate, the Banking Committee chief is circulating a plan for a less powerful Bureau of Financial Protection.

-- Los Angeles Times, March 2, 2010

Dodd Proposes Financial Protection Committee Housed in Treasury Department

In new attempt to lure the Republican and Democrat votes needed to get semi-sweeping overhaul through Senate, the Banking Committee chief is circulating a plan to create a Financial Protection Committee inside the U.S. Treasury.

-- Los Angeles Times, March 28, 2010

Dodd Proposes Professor of Financial Protection at University of Connecticut

In renewed attempt to lure the Republican and Democrat votes needed to get modest financial fixes through Senate, the Banking Committee chief is circulating a plan to give the University of Connecticut $150,000 to hire a professor to teach the public about financial protection.

-- Los Angeles Times, April 15, 2010

Dodd Proposes Dial 1-900-4Protection Line

In a leisurely attempt to lure the Republican and Democrat votes needed to get itsy-bitsy, not too scary reform bill through Senate, the Banking Committee chief is circulating a plan to set up a 900 number to be answered on weekends by volunteers from credit card customer service departments. Costs of the program will be defrayed by charge of 99 cents per call.

-- Los Angeles Times, May 20, 2010

Dodd Proposes Facebook Financial Protection Page

In further attempt to lure the Republican and Democrat votes needed to get any kind of friggin’ bill through Senate, the soon to retire to the financial industry Banking Committee chief is circulating a plan to create a Facebook page where consumers can share financial protection ideas with each other.

-- Los Angeles Times, June 15, 2010

Dodd Proposes Wall Street Protect Consumers

Fuhghettaboutit.

-- Los Angeles Times, July 4, 2010

Sol Price, Capitalist Hero

In the pantheon of contemporary American capitalism, there are few living heroes. Now there is one fewer. Sol Price, the legendary retailer, unprecedented philanthropist, counselor to people and presidents alike, died last month at the age of 93. He was a mentor and a friend to many including myself, a modest man whose straightforward approach to his business and the nation’s could be epitomized by the question to which this web site is dedicated: “where’s our money?”

On Friday, more than a thousand friends of Sol Price packed a San Diego ballroom to mark his passing.

One of them was Jim Sinegal, who was just a kid when he met Sol while unloading a bunch of mattresses at FedMart, Sol’s first venture into retailing, back in the nineteen fifties in San Diego. Sinegal was there in 1976, when Sol and his son Robert pioneered the “big box” membership store. Its features are commonplace now, but back then, they were a revolution in retailing: the stores relied on word of mouth rather than paid advertising. Expenses were cut to the bone by building concrete warehouses and locating them where real estate was less costly. Hours were limited. Instead of tens of thousands of stocked items, you’d find only thousands. But they’d be top quality, and, because they were bought in bulk and overhead was so low, much cheaper for the consumer. And for a long time, the stores refused to accept credit cards – because Sol did not like the idea of his customers going into debt.

Sol always considered himself an agent of the consumer. “We tried to look at everything from the standpoint of, Is it really being honest with the customer?” Sol told Fortune Magazine in 2003. “If you recognize you’re really a fiduciary for the customer, you shouldn’t make too much money.”

They called the company the Price Club. I always found it fascinating that he was born with a last name so nearly eponymous with the savings ethic that marked his retail philosophy. Today, after a 1993 merger, the $71 billion company is known as Costco. It has 566 stores, with over 56 million members. Sinegal is its President.

(A note for those who consider invention the province of the young: Sol was 60 years old when he started the Price Club.)

Sam Walton, the founder of WalMart and later Sam’s Club (names he acknowledged cribbing from FedMart and Price Club), said, “I guess I’ve stolen – I actually prefer the word ‘borrowed’ - as many ideas from Sol Price as from anybody else in the business.” But in contrast to the WalMart approach, Price offered employees high wages, employment stability, full health care coverage and invited unions to represent store workers.

Sol’s honesty and integrity were the core of his being, and guided his conduct as a businessman. Sinegal told the story of how Price refused to set up restrooms separated by race in Texas. How he once persuaded a hosiery supplier to cut his wholesale price deeply upon the promise of volume sales, but when the volume failed to materialize, Sol repaid the wholesaler the difference, a gesture unheard of then – or now.  Or how he refused to lowball the owners of a bankrupt company forced to sell their assets. “Never kick a man when he is down,” Sol said.

“It is impossible to make him bigger in death than he was in life,” Sinegal said Friday.

Sol became famous around the world for his business acumen, but it was his philanthropy that distinguishes him from so many other ultra-rich.  “Sol told me, ‘we make money so we can give it away,’” recalled Sherry Bahrambeygui, a young, super-smart lawyer he recruited to help manage the Price family’s business and charitable endeavors.

Sol lived the quintessentially American rags to riches story, and I saw that background reflected both in his demeanor – he was direct, to the point, and would not tolerate flattery or prevarication – and in his careful, frugal approach to everything he did, from how he lived to his businesses and philanthropy.

The son of a labor organizer, Sol grew up during the Great Depression and decided to study law, graduating from University of Southern California Law School in 1938. During World War II, he practiced law by day, but spent his nights training maintenance workers to service engines at a San Diego airfield. Unlike most businessmen, who often whine about lawsuits and support efforts to roll back consumer protection laws, Sol was a strong supporter of the right to go to court. All of his actions were guided by his strong sense of what was just and fair.

Though his personal wealth was estimated at $500 million, he lived in a modest home, drove himself to work until he no longer could, used pencils rather than pens, and, I’m pretty sure, wore a Timex watch.

Sol instituted his most ambitious philanthropic project close to home. Working with local officials, Sol, his son Robert and a small staff operating out of his office in LaJolla revitalized the dilapidated City Heights section of San Diego. He, his family and their charities donated over $150 million to build schools, housing, a library, recreational facilities, a police station, and provide a host of family services to City Heights residents. No detail was too small to escape his attention; he was known to insist on the particular kind of shrubbery to be included in the landscaping. His work at City Heights confirmed his belief that the most efficient and effective way to provide health care to kids was through the school system – an approach that was briefly contained in the health care legislation now before Congress.

Another project arose from the loss of a grandson to cancer at age fifteen. The Aaron Price Fellows program enrolled promising high school students in a special curriculum that taught about government and civic involvement. One of its graduates, San Diego City Councilman Todd Gloria, joked on Friday that some might say a “ten pound bag of rice” was Sol’s legacy. Not so for the six hundred Price Fellows. “I would not be where I am today were it not for Sol Price,” Gloria said. When asked to identify themselves, dozens of Price Fellows in the audience stood up – a diverse group of young, smart, eager people who will be California’s next generation of leaders.

An unabashed Democrat and liberal, Sol supported many advocacy groups, from Public Citizen and the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C., to the Center for Public Interest Law at the University of San Diego, and the group I founded in 1985, Consumer Watchdog.

Asking Sol for money was nothing like anything I had ever experienced. At our first meeting, in the 1990s, I had barely said hello before he gruffly sent me away, with instructions to come back with an organization budget and a profit and loss statement. I was taken aback. “Non-profits aren’t supposed to make a profit,” I protested. He chuckled that chuckle that I quickly learned preceded a shaking of his head and then a short but tough lecture. “What happens if your expenses are greater than what you bring in?” he asked. “Why should I invest in something that might not be around?” I returned with the data, which we poured over, Sol all the while questioning my assumptions, my strategies, asking me where every penny went, forcing me to consider how we could do our work more effectively (even if it ended up costing more). Once he was satisfied with the plan, Sol became a major supporter.

After electricity deregulation turned into a costly scam in 2000 and Consumer Watchdog took a lead role in trying to protect Californians against a taxpayer bailout of the energy industry, Sol helped us raise money from people he knew all over the state. I recall one day asking for his views on various possible solutions to the crisis. He imparted some wisdom that clearly had served him well. “You don’t always have to have all the answers. Sometimes it’s important just to ask the right questions.”

Sol’s support for well-run non-profit groups was widely recognized. What was less well known is how he took care of the people he came in contact with. Sherry Bahrambeygui described Sol as having an ability to connect with individuals in a deeply personal way. I experienced it as an almost uncanny sixth sense. One day in the fall of 1997 I drove down to his office, intending to discuss a grant for Consumer Watchdog. But when I sat down, he said to me, “what about your own financial situation? What’s your plan for the future?” In truth I had been so absorbed in my work that I’d too often neglected those matters. What made him ask remains a mystery to me. But we then spent many hours together, me and the founder of Costco going through my own finances! I later learned that I was one of many to whom he had offered personal advice and assistance.

For years after that, I would visit him every month, sometimes with my family. The man who was brutally honest and laser-like when scrutinizing a balance sheet or a business proposal was also a witty storyteller who liked to talk politics and history with friends and family over dinner. His insights into human nature were entertaining and often eerily prescient. He knew everyone and enjoyed connecting people. Among those he introduced me to were his close friends Brian and Gerri Monaghan, who became my friends as well. On Friday, they whispered to me with a laugh that if Sol had been in attendance at his memorial he would have left after fifteen minutes – he was never comfortable being the center of public attention, much less adoration.

I saw Sol just a few weeks before he died. His wife Helen had passed the year before, and he seemed, for the first time, weary. He was distant and uncharacteristically quiet. Yet when I wondered aloud why people seemed to grow more conservative as they grow older, a twinkle came back into his eye and he said, “I think it’s because they sense their own mortality and become more fearful.” I saw no fear in his eyes. I will always be grateful that I had one last chance to thank him for all he had done.

There were many poignant moments at last Friday’s tribute – laughs, gasps at previously unheard anecdotes, and the occasional swiping away of tears as people recalled, publicly or privately, their own moments with Sol. But the time I choked up was at the very end, after Robert spoke about his mom and dad’s 78-year marriage, then thanked the crowd and left the podium. There was polite applause, and it seemed that it was time to go. But then something changed; the applause grew louder, and suddenly everyone was standing, and, facing the now-empty stage, clapping their hands together in a sustained thunder for many minutes – a last ovation for Sol.

In an age defined by forgettable billionaires who built little but monuments to their own narcissistic folly, Sol Price left a remarkable and enduring legacy. He changed corporate America’s relationship with consumers and the lives of the many thousands of people who knew him.