Opinion

Chrystia Freeland

Dan Ariely: How to fix Wall Street

Chrystia Freeland
Dec 1, 2010 11:53 EST

Dan Ariely, author of “The Upside of Irrationality,” has some (unsurprisingly) unconventional recommendations for restoring the health of the financial system and fixing Wall Street pay. He told Chrystia that the government’s effort to recapitalize the banks and restore liquidity to the financial system are half-hearted since it has done little to restore trust in the industry:

I think what is really dangerous is the feeling of mistrust and revenge towards bankers. People at AIG have told me that they’ve been punched — physically, people punched them in restaurants. There’s a deep mistrust. And what’s interesting is that people are inherently trusting creatures, but when our trust is being betrayed we get incredibly upset and willing to take revenge … Now, I think the banking industry in general, and also Washington, don’t understand how deep the trust has been betrayed. And what we need is not just to increase liquidity and not just to create sunshine policy. What we need is to restore the trust in banking, and unless we do that I don’t think things will truly recover.

Ariely mentions an experiment he calls the “trust game” that illustrates how vindictive people become once they feel betrayed. It involves two players: A and B. Player A is given $100 and is told he can either go home with the money or send the money to Player B. If he sends the money to Player B, the $100 will quadruple to $400. If the money gets to Player B, he could either go home with the $400 or split the money 50-50 with Player A.

It turns out that, contrary to economic orthodoxy, Player A often sent the $100 to Player B and Player B often reciprocated and split the $400 with Player A. The interesting insight comes from the cases where Player B opted to keep the $400 and Player A felt so betrayed that he was willing to pay Ariely out of his own pocket to punish Player B when that option was offered.

When it comes to reforming how bankers are paid, Ariely told Chrystia his research indicates that the standard equation of “money=motivation” is too simplistic, even in the uber-capitalist realm of Wall Street. To demonstrate this, Ariely ran an experiment in which people get paid to build Lego robots. In one variation called the “Sisyphean condition,” Ariely disassembled the freshly-built robots and asked the participants to start over. Though they were paid the same amount as other participants whose robots were not destroyed, those in the Sisyphean condition reported that they got much less value than other group. Here’s how Ariely describes his findings and how it applies to Wall Street:

[S]ure, people work for money. But meaning is another ingredient, and that’s just only one of them. Competition is another. There’s lots of other ones, and if we understand those other components, we could get people to work much more for much less pay. Or, put it differently, the amount of money people get right now on Wall Street, partially it’s for salary but partially it’s doing all those other things that we could get in other, cheaper ways. As a shareholder in many of the banks, I want them to pay people an efficient way that would maximize my value. I don’t think what they’re doing right now is the right approach.

Posted by Peter Rudegeair

COMMENT

People mistrust those that have acted, AND CONTINUE TO ACT criminally with impunity at the expense of the American people and the United States of America, and the issue is “trust”? Hooey. The issue is a Wall Street/Washington cultural void of honor, integrity, and most of all, accountability.

Furthermore, “recapitalize the banks and restore liquidity” did nothing more than enable banks to continue engaging in ultimately nonviable business practices delaying the inevitable write down of losses. Although banks have been able to shift great portions of their paper losses to the American people to bear, the fiscal healing cannot occur until those losses are realized. Things will get very interesting when the paper losses must become real losses, at the expense of social safety nets such as the food stamps that are keeping about 43 million Americans from going postal.

Posted by Pumpkin731 | Report as abusive

‘We can’t inflate our way to prosperity’

Chrystia Freeland
Oct 12, 2010 14:43 EDT

“There is no other policy tool available [besides quantitative easing],”‘ Laura Tyson, a former chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisors, said at this morning’s Reuters/YouTube live debate on how to fix the economy. Tyson argues that additional Fed purchases of long-term bonds is the most viable way to energize the U.S. economy since a new fiscal stimulus bill is unlikely to pass Congress:

She appears alongside Glenn Hubbard, another former CEA chairman, who maintains the Fed will spend another $1 trillion to lower rates by 20 basis points. “We can’t inflate our way to prosperity,” he said.

Tyson disagrees and thinks the risk to inflation is low. She admits we have to convince the rest of the world that the U.S. has no intention to inflate away its debt.

Their conversation then turned to China. Both agree that the increasingly fiery rhetoric Washington directs toward Beijing is counterproductive and that the U.S. is better served by enacting policies to reduce its trade deficit:

HUBBARD: If [the U.S. and China] both keep beating up on each other and try to beggar our neighbor, we’ll get into a very bad place. China does have a protectionist policy. It does have a mercantilist policy. And I think focusing on those things quietly rather than from the hilltops, as the administration is doing, would be the right answer.

TYSON: [the rhetoric towards China is] a mistake for them and it’s a mistake for us. … but I honestly think that, just like Glenn does, the exchange rate is not the issue here … frankly, I think we’ve seen much more of a sign that the Chinese are rebalancing and restructuring than we’ve seen in the United States so far. [...]

HUBBARD: [If you focus] on export led growth, you’re guaranteeing, at some point, to have a large financial crisis, because you’re building up a lot of negative net present value projects in China.

As for a second fiscal stimulus, Tyson said the U.S. should spend $1 trillion on infrastructure over the next five years. She thinks direct aid to states should be a priority at a time when 25% of the nation’s children live in poverty and state and local governments are forced to lay off 88,000 teachers because of budget shortfalls.

Surprisingly, Hubbard conceded that a second stimulus would be helpful, but said it should only take the form of investment incentives and a mass refinancing of mortgages held by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While infrastructure spending could be stimulative, he says shovel-ready projects are few and far between.

Posted by Peter Rudegeair

COMMENT

I’m afraid that as predicted, the great experiment of democracy is about to come to an end. Politicians have found they can get re-elected easily by spending money they have confiscated from hard working taxpayers on programs and entitlements. Unfortunately, our founders did not consider that representation without taxation might be as bad as taxation without representation. We have come to the point that the non taxpaying voters outnumber the taxpayers, and they are voting themselves ever more entitlements with the help of our politicians!

Posted by zotdoc | Report as abusive

Chrystia Freeland
Jul 16, 2010 11:13 EDT

Chrystia’s take on the financial regulation bill and Goldman Sachs’ settlement with the SEC, on the PBS NewsHour, Thursday, July 15, 2010.

COMMENT

Obama is such an anti-liberal for even thinking of signing this wimpy bill. I should have guessed upon learning that Goldman Sachs was his #1 campaign supporter that he would cater to Wall Street over the middle class. I can’t believe I voted for him. http://Storyburn.com has the most read general life, job related and home foreclosure stories on the web.

Posted by STORYBURNeasy | Report as abusive
  •