Why are people against the bailout?
I would like to propose that one reason people oppose the government bailout is because they want revenge on the companies that helped lead us into this disaster. Even though they know they will lose money and it doesn’t help them at all, at a very basic level a part of them want to see the companies suffer.
Consider a study conducted by group of Swiss researchers led by Ernst Fehr (and by the way don’t you think it’s ironic that the Swiss are the ones doing research on revenge?) who examined revenge using a game we call The Trust Game. Here is how it is set-up: You are paired up with an anonymous participant. You are kept in separate rooms and you will never know each other’s identity. The experimenter gives of you $10. You get to make the first move. You must decide whether to send your money over to your partner, or to keep it. If you keep it, both of you get your $10 and the game is over. However, if you send him the money, the experimenters quadruple the amount and add it to the $10 so that the other player has his original $10 plus $40 (10 multiplied by four). The other player then decides whether to keep all the money, which means that they would get $50 and you would get nothing or they could send half of it back to you, which means you would have $25 each. This is the basic trust game and the question, of course, is whether you and people like you will trust the other person and send them the money- potentially sacrificing your financial well being-and whether the other person will justify the trust and share their earnings with you.
But the Swiss version of this game did not end there. If you sent your money to the other player and if he or she did not send the money back, you would have the opportunity to punish the bastard. You could spend money to make them suffer. In fact, for each dollar that you spend, they would lose $2. What do you think, if you were playing the game and the other person betrayed your trust, would you choose this costly revenge? Would you sacrifice your own money to cause them to suffer? The experiment showed that many people punished and they punished severely, yet this was not the most interesting part of the study.
What I didn’t tell you was that while the participants were making their decisions, their brains were being scanned by Positron Emission Tomography (PET). So that the experimenters could observe participants’ brain activation while they made these decisions and were able to see what parts of the brain correlated with their desire to punish. The basic picture that emerged from the brain imaging was activation in the striatum, which is somewhat surprising as this is a key part of the way we experience reward. In other words, according to the brain activation it looks like punishing others or, more specifically, the decision to punish others is related to a feeling of pleasure in the brain. What’s more, it turns out that those who had a high level of striatum activation, punished others to a higher degree. All of this suggests that punishment, even when it costs us something, has biological underpinnings. And this behavior is, in fact, either pleasurable or somewhat similar to pleasure.
While we somehow understand revenge on an intuitive level between individuals, I do suspect that companies, assuming that people are rational, completely miss and underestimate the motivation people have for revenge. Perhaps lawmakers ought to take this motivation into account as they draft a new bailout plan.
Perhaps lawmakers ought to take this motivation into account as they draft a new bailout plan.
They do take this motivation into account. In fact, they share this motivation. Here’s an anonymous member of Congress on the bailout: http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8374
“I also find myself drawn to provisions that would serve no useful purpose except to insult the industry, like requiring the CEOs, CFOs and the chair of the board of any entity that sells mortgage related securities to the Treasury Department to certify that they have completed an approved course in credit counseling. That is now required of consumers filing bankruptcy to make sure they feel properly humiliated for being head over heels in debt, although most lost control of their finances because of a serious illness in the family. That would just be petty and childish, and completely in character for me.
I’m open to other ideas, and I am looking for volunteers who want to hold the sons of bitches so I can beat the crap out of them.”
The reason they don’t go for revenge is because the people they’d have to hurt are their campaign donors and the people who own the media outlets they need.
Will it really hurts us if we don’t bail them out in the proposed manner?
I think there are a few factors at play other than base resentment of wall street prompting revenge wishes.
One is a lack of trust in the government’s ability to turn things around. People don’t trust the government will take measures that will effectively use money or effectively bail things out.
Another is to avoid more of the same in the future… They don’t want the government to just slap their hands and say “Don’t worry, we’ll help you out, I know you didn’t mean to flush the economy down the toilet” – they want the screws turned so that they know the executives won’t fall using a “golden parachute” only to be seceded by new executives who will do more of the same; They want things to /change/ and they assume things are more likely to change if the consequences are owned up to.
And of course, there are a number of people who see this as another step towards becoming a socialist state that they don’t want to see.
Personally, I would like to see the government use their time and money to take some measures to lessen the impact of the problems we have and provide groundwork to restore things in the future. I think it is important for people to realize that there are consequences for actions, and the markets can’t always swing up. This is as much for consumers as it is for the financial institutions… I think people are putting too much importance on having dream lifestyles they can’t afford, and we could use a healthy punch in the face to re-evaluate our priorities. I don’t think we should try to sweep reality under the rug by ignoring the underlying consumer culture that led to this, and I don’t think businesses should have their cake and eat it to (capitalists when times are good, socialists when bad)
Dan, your analysis seems correct. However, a factor that has severely exacerbated the situation is the mischaracterization of the government action by the news media. While the headlines blare “bailout,” the Treasury is not seeking approval for a bailout at all. Rather, they are seeking authorization (which they don’t really need, but Paulson thought was a good idea) to invest in mortgage securities. At the moment, there is no market for these securities, so they don’t have a market value. They do, however, have substantial intrinsic value. When the Treasury steps up to the plate, a market will be created and the worst of our problems will vanish since the market will be unfrozen. Paulson will be able to acquire these mortgages at fire sale prices. So, the taxpayer stands to make a huge profit. If the news media conveyed this to the public, their greed (another fundamental human emotion) may overcome the desire for revenge.
I’d guess that the pleasure of revenge is part of our instinctive social-dominance drive, which gives us the urge to be top dog. A lot of what passes for parenting and political leadership looks like a mindless quest for dominance to me.
As for the bailout, I think people recognize that the government is a one-trick pony. Adding immense amounts of debt and executive power is their answer to everything. And it hasn’t been working very well.
WOW!! I think all those involved in this mortage crises pay back all the commissions that they made, from the realtor to the mortage broker to the banker and the developer. That would solve the money dilema.
The poor consumer should be sent back to school to be reeducated so that they can learn that there is no free lunch. Almost everyone knows that if the consumer can not afford a reasonable downpayment they can not afford the class no matter how the mortage is packaged.
That’s what happens when things are deregulated. Every game has rules and regulations. They the games have penalties and umpires for a reason(so that either party does not cheat the other). What is wrong with all those Business people? I’ will tell…morals are not taught in school..that is what is wrong with all thos MBAs and all those politicals scientists. Re-educate all those rascals.
I would like to propose that one reason people oppose the government bailout is because they want revenge on the companies that helped lead us into this disaster.
CONGRESS (the democrats esp) caused the problem 10 years ago by telling banks to give those “inner city black people, you know the people who have such crap for credit and live in poverty these loans because we (in congress) want to feel good about more ‘working’ Americans having home ownership. We’ll just ignore the fact that the reason they don’t own their house is because they can’t qualify for credit under ANYthing resembling sanity. And we’ll let you the banks (who don’t want to be labeled as politically incorrect or *shudder* discriminatory and who know this policy is an utter disaster) to sell your worthless paper to Fanny/Freddie.”
CONGRESS interferred BIG time in the mortgage business for mind-boggingly STUPID reasons and Wall Street went for it like a ham sandwich? Riches!! No risk!! We’ll just get bailed out by the feds when the house of cards collapses.
Any bank stupid enough to engage in sub-prime DESERVES to fail. And the Congress-criminals (liberal democrats) who put this scheme in motion need to be out of a job (pref. in prison). They started this and Piloci and her band of lunatics have NO business proposing anything but their mass resignation for being such mental rejects.
I would like to propose that one reason people oppose the government bailout is because they want revenge on the companies that helped lead us into this disaster.
CONGRESS (the democrats esp) caused the problem 10 years ago by telling banks to give those “inner city black people, you know the people who have such crap for credit and live in poverty these loans because we (in congress) want to feel good about more ‘working’ Americans having home ownership. We’ll just ignore the fact that the reason they don’t own their house is because they can’t qualify for credit under ANYthing resembling sanity. And we’ll let you the banks (who don’t want to be labeled as politically incorrect or *shudder* discriminatory and who know this policy is an utter disaster) to sell your worthless paper to Fanny/Freddie.”
CONGRESS interferred BIG time in the mortgage business for mind-boggingly STUPID reasons and Wall Street went for it like a ham sandwich. Riches!! No risk!! We’ll just get bailed out by the feds when the house of cards collapses…
Any bank stupid enough to engage in sub-prime DESERVES to fail. And the Congress-criminals (liberal democrats) who put this scheme in motion need to be out of a job (pref. in prison). They started this and Piloci and her band of lunatics have NO business proposing anything but their mass resignation for being such mental rejects.
sorry about the double post. your .php page throws an out of memory error so I thought it didn’t go thru.
Why punish murderers? Most murderers would never murder again.
The answer, of course is that we wish to deter that group of future potential murderers.
Do you not read the news? For 30 years we have seen a stream men becoming obscenely wealthy while doing nothing useful. (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Lee Iacocca don’t count). At the same time there is an increasing stream of simply preposterous accounting scandals.
As it becomes routine for fat cats to engage in preposterous accounting fraud and still walk away with hundreds of Millions of dollars one has to ask if, perhaps, we have to do more than stop the bleeding.
As the old question goes: What’s the first thing to do to treat a snake bite? Kill the snake so he doesn’t bite again–because it is the quantity of poison that kills.
Who offered the best solution: Neville Chamberlin or Winston Churchill?
Before you get sucked into stories about how our financial system is going to collapse, perhaps we should look at the credibility of the people advocating this plan. What else have they advocated?
Also, since when has a one-day stock market crash led to anything significant. Even in 1929, the market peaked in December, two months after the so-called crash; and in ’87 the market went higher. Having prosecuted white collar crime for years, I can tell you that most fraud starts with the premise that the sucker has to act quickly or all will be lost.
And if the head of Lehman’s took home $500mill in compensation for driving his company into the ground, don’t you think he should chip in a little to help out?
Maybe our subconscious desire for the pleasure of just punishment is an evolutionary device that has provided a firm foundation for successful societies as they have evolved over thousands of years.
Remember also, your first guess is usually the best.
I think that the Swiss study is really nice. And I agree that maybe part of the opposition is related with this rewarding need for revenge. But it seems like people reactions were somewhat irrational. Because if we follow your reasoning, it means that American people will accept to sacrifice their personal wealth if it hurts the perpetrators of this financial disaster. But I think that an important amount of opponents are driven by other reasons.
For example, it is really reasonable:
…To question if the same people that originated and/or did not anything to prevent the problem, are legitimated to ask for such amount of money.
…To question if you must exchange billions of real dollars for something like “toxic assets”. Honestly, it doesn’t sound like a big deal.
…To question if some of the “experts” that supports the plan are not experiencing a very human emotion, that is, the fear to lose their own jobs and assets.
…To question if it is a good deal to give billions and your future to a very few guys that are close to immunity. Do you imagine the potential for dishonesty that the situation implies?…
And many other reasonable concerns that people may think about.
Moreover, we can see this bailout proposal as a typical example of increasing risk taking as losses increase. It is not clear what would happen if the plan fails, to whom ask for the money or the credit to “inject liquidity” to the “economy”? (Whatever it means). Maybe there is a Federal Reserve inside the Federal Reserve, which will absorb those future “public” toxic assets (please, think for a while about the final meaning of the inoffensive word “absorb”). Very often, all the stuff about financial crisis appears to be obscure, risky and close to irrational.
I don’t really know if the original, the final version, or whatever alternative is the best option, and suspect that nobody knows it. So apart of the relieving revenge, I think that there are many Americans that are concerned and hesitate about the consequences of this plan, for very reasonable and even rational reasons.
But maybe, as your revenge point implies, if some guys go to jail, with a lot of cops, FBI, CSI, plus all the media present, and then Mr. Who-knows presents… the ultimate plan to rescue Americans from financial terrorism!!, maybe some people will be less worried about the content of the plan.
Reasonably yours,
Carlos
I think that the Swiss study is really nice. And I agree that maybe part of the opposition is related with this rewarding need for revenge. But it seems like people reactions were somewhat irrational. Because if we follow your reasoning, it means that American people will accept to sacrifice their personal wealth if it hurts the perpetrators of this financial disaster. But I think that an important amount of opponents are driven by other reasons.
For example, it is really reasonable:
…To question if the same people that originated and/or did not anything to prevent the problem, are legitimated to ask for such amount of money.
…To question if you must exchange billions of real dollars for something like “toxic assets”. Honestly, it doesn’t sound like a big deal.
…To question if some of the “experts” that supports the plan are not experiencing a very human emotion, that is, the fear to lose their own jobs and assets.
…To question if it is a good deal to give billions and your future to a very few guys that are close to immunity. Do you imagine the potential for dishonesty that the situation implies?…
And many other reasonable concerns that people may think about.
Moreover, we can see this bailout proposal as a typical example of increasing risk taking as losses increase. It is not clear what would happen if the plan fails, to whom ask for the money or the credit to “inject liquidity” to the “economy”? (Whatever it means). Maybe there is a Federal Reserve inside the Federal Reserve, which will absorb those future “public” toxic assets (think for a while about the final meaning of the inoffensive word “absorb”). Very often, all the stuff about financial crisis appears to be obscure, risky and close to irrational.
I don’t really know if the original, the final version, or whatever alternative is the best option, and suspect that nobody knows it. So apart of the relieving revenge, I think that there are many Americans that are concerned and hesitate about the consequences of this plan, for very reasonable and even rational reasons.
But maybe, as your revenge point implies, if some guys go to jail, with a lot of cops, FBI, CSI, plus all the media present, and then Mr. who-knows presents… the ultimate plan to rescue Americans from financial terrorism!!! maybe some people will be less worried about the content of the plan.
Reasonably yours,
Carlos
“Revenge” has such an interesting negative connotation. How about “not rewarding” instead?
-> I would like to propose that one reason people oppose the government bailout is because they want to “not reward” the companies that helped lead us into this disaster.
Isn’t that smart and rational risk management? Would you continue supporting a company or person who demonstrated bad judgment?
I admit part of me felt that way.
But here is my letter to my Senators, and Congress.
Dear …,
I understand that we have been set back to the Financial Stone Age.
I understand that the financial wheel will not turn unless 2 things happen:
1. The top of the financial food chain has to write down all debt to zero.
2. Workers (all the rest) have to work for the value of labor.
This “rescue legislation” will create huge suffering. Prices on the basics will astronomically rocket out of the viable financial universe of real people. All labor will cease. But rather than have labor cease for just a year, by propping up the failed dollar, the standoff will drag on for 5-7 years.
We have to accept that the Financial Clocks have been set back to Zero and we are at the beginning, in Year 1.
We have to accept that this “rescue plan” will cause years of untold mass suffering by devaluating the dollar and elevating the price of real goods.
We have to accept that the top of the food chain has to start with ZERO.
We have to write down all debt, appropriately, to zero from where it all now sits on the books-Undone.
All the rest have to work knowing that the paychecks aren’t going to come until the financial wheel starts to roll again.
If there is one thing Congress can now do, it’s this:
Loan the value of money to companies to finance their payrolls while the companies write all debt back down to ZERO.
It has to be done. We can DO IT NOW and GET ‘ER DONE. Or we can wait 7 years and start over after everyone suffers an exorbitant amount.
Make no doubt about it, we are at a financial Armageddon, and both sides of the issue have to accept the reality that their way of seeing the world of Finance is an illusion that now lies in shards on the ground. Better to pick up the pieces and start again now, smarter and wiser, than to wait 8 years for those in denial to realize the bitter truth of this standoff:
“We need them and they need us.”
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Lisa Wagner
I totally agree that people are out for revenge. It is irrational why people would be against the bill when paychecks are late, people are being layed off, business can’t buy material and one cannot do the binge mall shopping with credit lines cut. But for years wall street has stuffed it in the ears and mouth of the “masses” with their outrageous bonuses and rediculous severance for failed performance. Why Joe-smoh struggles to find a present for his child at xtmas, wall street traders and execs are shopping for the latest Porsche for xtmas.
So is this the revenge of the masses? Probably, and they want to take this opportunity to snipe the hands of wall street. I think people don’t feel the bailout has enough revenge appealing restrictions to change the excessive compensation of the wall street folks. And these compensations was justified by “we take a lot of risk”. Well people are saying if you didn’t share the booty when it was good then why are we sharing the garbage now its bad?
I think one item that would appeal to people is to put a 5yr mandatory requirement to invest 3% of income in society like infrastructure repair or sponsor social programs. Wall street has to repair their image in main street.
surned
Dan, I enjoyed hearing you discuss this on NPR.
I, too, enjoyed hearing the study discussed on NPR. And in a very base way, I enjoyed the thought of punishing those responsible.
However, who *is* responsible?
As the saying goes:
Watch your thoughts, they become words.
Watch your words, they become actions.
Watch your actions, they become habits.
Watch your habits, they become your character.
Watch your character, it becomes your destiny.
With personal consumer debt at such staggering levels, with many local and state governments operating under budget deficits, and with our own federal government operating a $10 trillion deficit (that’s $10,000,000,000,000.00, for my kids who like to see all the zeroes) are we really all that surprised there is a need for a $700 billion ($700,000,000,00.00) cash injection to save our “private sector” economy?
We reap what we sow. Depression-era survivors have great insight. Pay cash. Credit used conservatively and wisely is good. Credit used to satisfy impulses is not good. Excercise self-restraint. Know about your investments – don’t just give Uncle Warren money to invest in his latest tip that’s a winner – unless your Uncle Warren is Warren Buffett! :^)
As to why revenge “feels so good” – mutate the “Golden Rule” – Do unto others as they have done unto you.
Then again, shouldn’t we take it one step further – Do unto others before they do it to you?
@shogun
10 years ago, the House was in the hands of the Republicans, not the Democrats. Remember Newt Gingrich? He became Speaker in 1992.
Anti-redlining laws came in in the 1970′s So they’ve been around nearly 40 years. It is really a stretch to think that this has any causal relationship to what’s going on now.
Furthermore, it strikes me as a distraction from what really went on, which was massive fraud perpetrated by mortgage brokers, and finance people further up the food chain.
I see them as more responsible than the homeowners. If your child asks you to eat the whole batch of cookies and you say, “sure, go ahead”, who’s responsible? Kids want to eat cookies, people want to buy homes. If the guy says, “Yes, you can get a loan!” Why would they argue?
And I sure as hell wouldn’t want any of those subprime brokers making loans of MY money.
I’ve been thinking about this a lot (as we all have) and it just occurred to me tonight… I’m be more than happy to agree with the “rescue” plan if Congress will do two things…
1. Hold themselves accountable (by name… not House or Senate but by individual names) if this thing doesn’t work. I want to know who screwed up!
2. Agree to some punishment if their plan doesn’t do what they are promising it will do. Punishment and an agreement that they will resign their post… Immediately!
I want to see some accountability before I will agree to this approach.
Hi Dan,
We met at MIT and I’m excited to get back in touch. My comment isn’t directly related to revenge but it does tip the conversation back toward behavioral theory. Bazerman and others have a new working paper on what is essentially moral luck. In their studies subject non-normatively rate an act as less ethical when there is a negative outcome and more ethical when there is a positive outcome — as compared to control groups that judged the act “without an outcome.” Like an optical illusion, juxtaposing a questionable act with different outcomes can make the act itself look different. In this case the actions of Wall Street few thought the actions immoral until there was a negative outcome. Perhaps this is moral luck at work. Or perhaps it is the negative outcome itself that drives a need to assign blame – a scapegoat theory. I have posted thoughts on both concepts on my own blog at
http://www.prospecttheory.net
Citations on the working papers mentioned are below:
Francesca Gino, Don A. Moore, and Max H. Bazerman, “No harm, no foul: The outcome bias in ethical judgments,” HBS Working Paper Number: 08-080, February 2008
Gino, Francesca, Lisa Lixin Shu, and Max H. Bazerman. “Nameless + Harmless = Blameless: When Seemingly Irrelevant Factors Influence Judgment of (Un)ethical Behavior.” Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 09-020, August 2008.
Hi everyone, Dan,
While reading Dan’s comment I tried to allow myself to feel the ‘revenge’ and it was powerful. I guess, I also tried to rationalize my emotions immediately I realized they were uncomfortable – despising someone, wanting to hurt someone, wanting to feel better than the guilty, a kind of vicious self-righteousness. So, I resisted the urge to rationalize, as much as I could, and went with the flow. Wow – what a sensation of pleasure! Like I might imagine it feels like to be a ‘sadistic psychopath’. I have often wondered where the pleasure was in inflicting pain on other people. This seems to be it.
Let’s hope the plan works – because if it doesn’t we’ll all suffer; but let’s also hope that the governement come up with a system, or at least a spin, that allows the mob to feast on their pound of flesh and quench their thirst for revenge. Afterall, if it’s in a blood then perhaps we’ve just got to face it.
Martin
Do this. Point your finger as if you’re blaming someone. How many fingers are pointed back at you? The point is, blame is no blame good.
Several problems with the discussion in this and other blogs.Anger and jealousy blind one to how to solve the problem(as an old Indian saying goes the man seeking revenge thinks I don’t mind losing an eye if the enemy loses both; and track the money where people made money by clear wrong doing and these two can be connected;perhaps a matter for forensic accountants. The overriding thing is to reduce the immediate damage and put the economy on an even keel.Deficits must be resorted to if necessary but the money must be spent not by the politicians alone but with the help of trusted experts where the the long term economic and social returns are assured; with little waste avoiding all “pork” and ideological hobby horses, as well as wars.
But all on a warfooting!Think of the UK during the 2nd WW!
What do you think of the bailout now? Those funds have been used by failed companies to buy good companies. Some companies have bought the bad companies just to get bailout money. Their is no accountability. The funds are not being used for their original purpose. We are merely rewarding poor decision makers by giving them our tax money and mortgaging our future away. This bailout fiasco will have repercussions for a Long time. It would have been better to just let them fail.
This was a well marketed ploy to save rich companies. Our markets have survived much worse in the past.