The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com

Do we have a plan, people?

The reports keep coming (and they started, sort of, right here on this blog) that Treasury is putting together a plan that will involve recapitalizing banks (in exchange for equity stakes), temporarily guaranteeing all deposits, and guaranteeing all bank debt maturing in the next 36 months or so. There's talk in D.C. that they may make some kinda big announcement on it today. (Update: Now the talk is probably not today.)

What this amounts to is the Swedish solution--a plan of action nearly identical, albeit it of course on a much larger scale, to what the Swedish government undertook during a banking crisis in 1993. And while I certainly am not gonna take credit for introducing this idea (the Swedes should get that, and they in turn give some of it to Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his bank rescue in 1933; plus some guy at the Cleveland Fed wrote a paper on "The Swedish Experience" [pdf] more than a year ago), there was a time early this year when I and Merrill Lynch's David Rosenberg were about the only people discussing it as a legitimate possibility and others seemed to think we were a little nuts. Wrote Paul Krugman back in March:

Justin Fox suggests that we learn from the way Sweden dealt with its financial crisis at the beginning of the 90s. I'm looking into it.

What Justin doesn't mention, however, is that (according to Reinhart and Rogoff [pdf!]) the resolution of Sweden's financial crisis imposed a fiscal burden — that is, required a taxpayer-financed bailout — equal to 6 percent of GDP. That would be $850 billion in America today. Just saying.

The Swedes say that they ended up recouping a lot of their losses and that in the end the cost was somewhere between 2% and 0% of GDP. But whatever: At the time my response to Krugman was:

[A]n $850 billion price tag attached to a cleanup that resolves most of the current credit problems, wipes out the shareholders of insolvent institutions, and leaves us with a more rational regulatory setup (as the Swedish bailout seems to have done) actually sounds like a pretty good deal to me.

I'll stand by that. And if Treasury needs any advice on exactly how to proceed, Stefan Ingves, one of the main behind-the-scene architects of the Swedish rescue, is in Washington for the IMF-World Bank meetings (he's now head of Sweden's central bank). So is Bo Lundgren, who was Sweden's Minister of Fiscal and Financial Affairs in those days and now runs the Swedish National Debt Office. I have Lundgren's cell phone number in case Hank Paulson needs it.


4 Comments to “Do we have a plan, people?”

  1. lp1 Says:

    Just curious....

    the Swedish solution "worked", in part, because that nation has a very strong social safety net for its citizens. Does your bailout scheme include additional spending to ensure that the social/economic impact of the proposal do not result in disproportionate (and undeserved) suffering for poor and lower-middle class americans?

    Additionally, its clear that much of this crisis is due to its "pyramid scheme" nature -- money and debt became a commodity in its own right to not merely trade in, but speculate with. Do your recommendations include safeguards against this happening again? (I'm personally in favor of a graduated sales tax on investments that is pegged to how long the investment has been held--and no tax if an investment is held for two years, and higher capital gains taxes on profits realized through higher stock prices than on dividend distribution.)

  2. That Anonymous Dude Says:

    I think we should all just move to a central lending platform like https://us.zopa.com/

  3. That Anonymous Dude Says:

    and as another idea, why don't we get those developing world micro-lenders to come here and start making some loans.

  4. Don the libertarian Democrat Says:

    I have been for a version of the Swedish Plan because:

    1) It worked.

    2) It's clearer, easier to understand, and therefore easier to assess, and so likely to be cheaper than hybrid/compromise plans.

    3) It's what the markets are actually counting on.

    4) It will be easier to exit.

    Do you agree that it will be easier to exit? I do, precisely because it is clearer and easier to assess.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

advertisement

About Curious Capitalist

Justin Fox

Justin Fox is TIME's business and economics columnist. This is his blog. Read more

Barbara Kiviat

Barbara Kiviat just celebrated her 5 1/2-year anniversary covering business and economics for TIME magazine. Read more

Feed Icon RSS Feed

AddThis Feed Button

Daily Email

Get The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com in your inbox and never miss a day:
 
Delivered by   FeedBurner

The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com Archives

October 2008
Choose a day to view headlines.

< Previous Month
> Next Month

S M T W T F S
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

More TIME Blogs

  • Swampland
    A blog about politics by TIME's Karen Tumulty, Joe Klein, Ana Marie Cox, and Jay Carney
  • The China Blog
    Daily detours through the world's fastest changing nation by TIME correspondents
  • Tuned In
    A blog about all things television from TIME's TV critic, James Poniewozik
  • Looking Around
    Reflections on art and architecture by TIME critic Richard Lacayo
  • The Middle East
    TIME correspondents blog about life in the hottest and holiest region in the world
  • Nerd World
    Geek culture blog by TIME's Lev Grossman and The Simpsons' Matt Selman
  • Work In Progress
    A blog about life on the job and the job of life by TIME's Lisa Takeuchi Cullen
advertisement