February 21st 2009

  Buy Issue 2797

Articles from this issue:

TERRORISM: The two faces of Eve - nature, nurture or Islam?

EDUCATION: Non-government schools give parents better value

GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS: Obstacles on the road to economic recovery

Bushfires blamed on global warming (letter)


Valuable contributions (letter)

CINEMA: The Wrestler grapples with life's big problems

CHINA: Chinese unrest in face of massive job losses

ECONOMIC AFFAIRS: Can Rudd save Australia from the global slump?

CULTURE: The other side of the ledger

OBITUARY: Fred Schwarz, Cold Warrior, friend of Ronald Reagan

UNITED STATES: Supreme Court contributed to global financial crisis

AS THE WORLD TURNS: Parenting not something to outsource / Diversity fanatics threaten charities

Anti-rural campaign (letter)

CANBERRA OBSERVED: Coalition differences over Rudd stimulus

Deregulation of wheat (letter)

LABOUR AND JUSTICE: The worker in Catholic social teaching, by Gavan Duffy

NATIONAL SECURITY: Secret Saudi funding of Australian institutions

ENERGY: How Australia can become fuel self-sufficient

EDITORIAL: Bushfires: when will we ever learn?

Books promotion page

Supreme Court contributed to global financial crisis

by Joseph Poprzeczny

News Weekly, February 21, 2009
The role of the US Supreme Court in sowing the seeds for last year's banking collapse has been largely ignored, writes Joseph Poprzeczny.

Since the near total collapse of America's banking sector last October, the search for culprits has gathered pace. All the obvious suspects have so far been named - corporate capitalism, greed and failure to regulate.

However, the role of the US Supreme Court has been largely ignored. But we can be certain that when the definitive histories of the global financial crisis 2008 are written, the court will in all likelihood be severely blamed.
Professor Elizabeth Warren
Elizabeth Warren

The seeds of last year's banking collapse, according to Harvard University law school Professor Elizabeth Warren, can be traced back to 1978, the year the Supreme Court ruled on the largely forgotten Marquette Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp., case.

Borrowers protected

To grasp the significance of this case, it is important to realise that for centuries Europe and colonial America protected borrowers by setting limits to what lenders could charge. Usury laws, more recently referred to as usury caps, were part and parcel of commercial life in both medieval European and colonial America.

However, this commenced to change on October 31, 1978, the day a particular group of bank-financed lawyers appeared before the Supreme Court. On December 18, the court ruled that American national banks could charge the highest interest rate allowed in a particular bank's home state to customers living anywhere in America.

Michael Donovan, a Philadelphia-based consumer affairs lawyer, said: "They [national banks] can export rates to other states and override state law limits."

In other words, credit card interest rates applying in a bank's home state would prevail on borrowers living in states where stringent usury caps existed.

Florida-based finance writer Lucy Lazarony reported that, after the Supreme Court ruling, major credit card companies "began relocating to states with liberal or no usury laws".

She said: "New York-based powerhouse Citibank moved its credit card business to South Dakota in 1981.... To hang on to the credit card business, many other states loosened state usury limits."

Professor Elizabeth Warren, author of The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke (Basic Books, 2003), has long been critical of the idea that household indebtedness somehow helps kick along the economy.

She says that each of America's 117 million families is a small economic unit. If these were safeguarded, then Wall Street would itself be less vulnerable to upheavals and crises.

She highlighted these problems years before the onset of the global financial crisis, in an interview with American PBS television's Frontline program on September 20, 2004.

She said that 70 per cent of American families in 2003 said that they were "carrying so much debt" that it was "making their family lives unhappy".

She continued: "Middle-class Americans, hard working, play-by-the-rules Americans, Americans who lost a job, who don't have health insurance, who are in the middle of a divorce - those are the Americans who are carrying enormous credit card debts."

This, she said, was historically out of character for Americans because their ancestors had tended to shun indebtedness.

"Why do you think people left Europe to come to the United States?" she asked. "They left because they were in debt.

"We like to describe it as - 'Oh, it was about religious freedom'. No, it was about debt. They were looking for a way to escape their debts."

Last year, Professor Warren testified before the pre-Christmas session of the Congressional Oversight Panel, created under the Emergency Economy Stabilization Act (2008).

She said that, 30 years ago, the average American saved 10 per cent of net earnings, whereas today a comparable family - even with both husband and wife in the paid workforce - carries debt.

Furthermore, the typical credit card contract in 1971 had only one-and-a-half pages of terms and conditions she said. Today's standard American contracts have 31 pages of tiny print.

These extra pages carry what Warren dubs "tricks and traps", all sorts of extra costs, penalties and charges.

According to Warren, American borrowers are denied the type of stringent protection they take for granted as consumers of processed food, electrical goods, and other goods and services.

In her 2004 interview, she said that after credit was deregulated in the early 1980s, a credit card company would lend to someone at 9.9 per cent interest, but only until the borrower's circumstances changed, after which the company would feel free to double or treble the interest charged.

Says Warren: "Well, you know... nobody signs contracts to buy things that say, 'I'm going to pay you $1200 for the big-screen TV unless you decide, in another month or two months, that it should really be $3600 or $4200 or $4800.' But that's precisely how credit card contracts are written today."

- Joseph Poprzeczny is a Perth-based historical researcher and journalist.

Join email list

Join e-newsletter list

Your cart has 0 items

Subscribe to NewsWeekly

Research Papers

Trending articles

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Memo to Shorten, Wong: LGBTIs don't want it

COVER STORY Shorten takes low road to defeat marriage plebiscite

COVER STORY Reaper mows down first child in the Low Countries

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE Kevin Andrews: defend marriage on principles

COVER STORY Bill Shorten imposes his political will on the nation

CANBERRA OBSERVED Coalition still gridlocked despite foreign success

ENVIRONMENT More pseudo science from climate

News and views from around the world

Menzies, myth and modern Australia (Jonathan Pincus)

China’s utterly disgraceful human-rights record

Japan’s cure for childlessness: a robot (Marcus Roberts)

SOGI laws: a subversive response to a non-existent problem (James Gottry)

Shakespeare, Cervantes and the romance of the real (R.V. Young)

That’s not funny: PC and humour (Anthony Sacramone)

Refugees celebrate capture of terror suspect

The Spectre of soft totalitarianism (Daniel Mahoney)

American dream more dead than you thought (Eric Levitz)

Think the world is overcrowded: These 10 maps show why you’re wrong (Max Galka)

© Copyright NewsWeekly.com.au 2011
Last Modified:
November 14, 2015, 11:18 am