Moral Hazard
Mar 31st, 2008 at 1:07 pm by Susie
Robert Reich on exactly who gets rewarded for risky behavior:
Indeed, the history of modern American business is littered with federal bailouts, loan guarantees, and no-questions-asked reorganizations. Some are well known, such as the Chrylser bailout of 1979, the savings and loan bailout of 1989, and the airline bailout of 2001. Most occur in the relative dark, such as the 1998 bailout of giant hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management (courtesy of former Fed chair Alan Greenspan), the not infrequent bailouts of under-funded corporate pension plans by the government’s Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation, price supports for big agribusinesses facing market downturns, or the current bailout of Wall Street being engineered by Ben Bernanke’s Fed.
Behind every one of these bailouts are CEOs or financial executives who were rescued from their bad bets.
CEOs get away with stupid mistakes all the time. Some, like Robert Nardelli, the former CEO of Home Depot, drive their company’s stock low that their boards eventually oust them. But they leave with eye-popping going-away presents nonetheless. (Nardelli got several hundrd million dollars on his departure.) If you’re an average American who gets canned from his job, even through no fault of your own, you probably won’t even get unemployment insurance (only 40 percent of job-losers qualify these days). Conservatives tell us that unemployment insurance reduces their incentive to find a new job quickly. In other words, moral hazard.
Some CEOs use bankruptcy as a means of getting out from under pesky labor contracts they might have “known they could not afford” when they agreed to them (Northwest Airlines most recently, for example). Others use it as a cushion against bad bets. Donald (”you’re fired!”) Trump’s casino empire has gone into bankruptcy twice — most recently, last November, when it listed $1.3 billion of liabilities and $1.5 million of assets – with no apparent diminution of the Donald’s passion for risky, if not foolish, endeavor. After all, his personal fortune is protected behind a wall of limited liability, and he collects a nice salary from his casinos regardless. But if you’re an ordinary person who has fallen on hard times, just try declaring bankruptcy to wipe the slate clean. A new law governing personal bankruptcy makes that route harder than ever. Its sponsors argued — you guessed it — moral hazard.
Bush’s “ownership society” has proven a cruel farce for poor people who tried to become homeowners, and his minuscule response to their plight just another example of how conservatives use moral hazard to push their social-Darwinist morality. The little guys get tough love. The big guys get forgiveness.
I was very interested in his statement that 40% of those who lose jobs are ineligible for unemployment, since that would mean that the true unemployment figures are much higher.

You got it backwards: if only 40% are eligible, that means 60% aren’t. And that means the real job loss rate is two and a half times as large as they say it is.
Of course, they’ve been tweaking this number for ages. I think it was during the Nixon administration when they changed the calculation by factoring in the armed forces, making the rate look lower than it really was during the “stagflation” years. And you know the part about how, if you decide it’s no longer worth your while to try looking for work, they don’t count you as unemployed?
How did they figure unemployment during the Depression? Did they have unemployment insurance then?
I think I’ll spend some quality time with my friend Google.
I believe Ian Welsh has estimated 12% now at least. Great Depression about 25%.
Perhaps instead of “unemployed” we should be looking at the number of employed. After all, the employed should be paying taxes and therefore should be pretty easy to track. Proving the negative generally is impossible.
Ask Iran how they will prove that they are not seeking nuclear weapons, or Iraq how they could have proven that they did not have chemical weapons. If someone asks you to prove the negative, you can assume that they don’t really want you to do so and won’t believe you if you try.