The poor are financing the profligate
Martin Wolf’s column – “The prudent will have to pay for the profligate” – focuses on the need for the broad public to help out some who took large risks in the boom, whether individuals who borrowed too much on the expectation that home prices only go up or lenders who lent to much on the assumptions that home prices will only go up so no doc/ no money down loans were safe.
Wolf notes that “In such predicaments, the government always emerges as the lender, borrower and spender of last resort”. US government specifically has emerged as the lender of last resort to both the world’s investment banks and to American households. Tim Geithner of the New York Fed made the case in his testimony today that investment banks now perform some of the functions of banks and also finance themselves by “borrowing short to lending long” and thus are exposed to market equivalent of a bank run. That provides the intellectual justification for the provision of Fed credit to investment banks even though their creditors are not small depositors. The FT reports that the US government – counting the Agencies as a de facto part of the US government thanks to the expectation that they are too big and too important to fail – is now the ultimate source of financing for most US home purchases (Scholtes of the FT: “Fannie, Freddie and the Federal Home Loan Banks, a network of bank co-operatives founded during the Great Depression, provided 90 per cent of the financing for new mortgages at the end of 2007”)
Of course, the various US agencies involved in housing finance are just intermediaries. They borrow the funds that they lend to US households in the market. And who supplies them – and for that matter – the US government with the financing it needs?
Other governments, in large part.
And generally governments in parts of the world that are far poorer than the United States. The very wealthy small Gulf states are the obvious exception.
Ergo, in Wolf’s terms, the world’s poor are financing the world’s profligate.
That was implicit in my lengthy (and rather technical) post on the IMF data on global reserve growth.
But it also shows up in the New York Fed’s data on the custodial holdings of foreign central banks. From that data we know that the world’s central banks added almost $70b ($69.8b) to their Treasury and Agency portfolios in the month of March alone (using the data from April 3 and March 6 data releases; the increase between the March 27 and the February 28 release would be a bit smaller – “only” $50b). That is a huge sum – almost $840b annualized. SAFE’s $2.8b purchase of Total is almost trivial by comparison.
The increase between January 3 and April 4 is only slightly less impressive — $150.8b, or $600b annualized. And the Fed’s data usually understates central bank purchases.
I would go even further – and argue that the world’s poor are effectively subsidizing the world’s profligate.
PIMCO’s Bill Gross has argued that low short-term rates mean that a lot of savers are subsidizing various borrowers (and in particular financial intermediaries). He writes:
“Twelve months ago the yield on your money market fund was 5%+ but your next statement will probably feature something closer to 2%. Did your money market fund (which in aggregate approaches 3 trillion dollars) experience any capital gains in the process? Absolutely not. So it looks like your (the taxpayer’s) contribution to the bailout of banks, or Florida condominium speculators can at least be quantified: 3% foregone interest per year on whatever you own.”
His argument applies globally. Central banks are going to get a lot less interest income on their short-term dollar holdings this year.
Moreover, all central bank that bought a lot of dollars and held on to those dollars in 2003, 2004, 2005 or even 2006 has seen the international purchasing power of their dollars fall. Against Europe. And against commodities. Not requiring an interest premium on their lending to the US even though the US deficit (trade deficit that is) implied a high risk of dollar depreciation against other international assets is form of subsidy.
Indeed, some kind of subsidy may be intrinsic in the scale of central bank demand for “safe” US assets. Big purchases drive up the price and reduce the yield. That hurts the lender – and helps the borrower. And by keeping on buying (see the FRBNY custodial data) despite already buying enough to depress yields, central banks effectively choose to provide this subsidy.
Finally, those central banks that have been borrowing domestically to buy foreign assets in order to avoid currency appreciation will take large currency losses. Those losses could be considered a form of subsidy as well. China might well be financially better off if the CIC invested the funds it is raising domestically rather than externally. Choosing to buy depreciating external assets (to support an exchange rate policy) means choosing to take exchange rate losses. If China’s currency will eventually appreciate by 30% against both the euro and dollar, the $600b China is on track to invest abroad this year will generate a capital loss of around $200b – more than 5% of China’s GDP. That is real money for China and – on the assumption that China’s losses can be used to provide a rough guide to the “transfer” to the US – a real subsidy to various US borrowers.
There is a bit of controversy on whether a central bank’s exchange rate losses can be considered a subsidy. Many students of central banking (including Ted Truman, my former boss) emphasis that foreign exchange reserves have to be held abroad, and what matters is whether they maintain their external purchasing power – not whether they maintain their domestic purchasing power. It doesn’t even matter if those reserves were purchased by issuing domestic debt. A central bank can operate with negative capital – so its ability to perform its core domestic functions is not necessarily impaired by “book” losses from currency moves. The finance ministry doesn’t even necessarily have to write a check to the central bank to make up for its currency losses.
Fair points. But when a government is building up far more safe external assets than it needs rather than adopting policies that would increase domestic investment (issuing bonds to finance railway construction rather than the CIC) or raise domestic living standards (issuing bonds to finance more health care … ) it is reasonable to ask whether their external assets are a good investment. And for many poor countries, the answer is no – they are overpaying for foreign assets to hold their currencies down …
That is a choice. And it implies – I think – an ongoing subsidy from the taxpayers of many poor countries to borrowers in far wealthier countries …
ask yourself what “the poor” (even within poor countries — undeveloped or ‘emerging’ — there are massive wealth/income disparities between powerful elites and the disenfranchised whose interests are by no means aligned) get in return tho; jen would argue, if not a store of value, a medium of exchange and a unit of account…
until the historical reliance/path dependence upon the dollar shifts and it becomes less convenient or prohibitively expensive to use (or a better alternative presents itself), then the implicit subsidies the US receives will continue because the rest of the world (including “the poor”) think the US is somehow exceptional…
The prudent savers are financing the reckless speculators under the Bernanke Fed.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/04/fed-defends-indefensible.html
It should be perfectly obvious that lending freely” to Bear Stearns “would NOT have been a prudent act”. The whole thing was illegal as it was. The Fed tried to skirt the illegality by lending to JP Morgan on behalf of Bear Stearns. Yet the Fed accepted Bear Stearns assets as collateral. And it put taxpayers at risk to do so.
What a bunch of nonsense. What are we to do, have the Fed start lending to every corporation, or just those who overleverage themselves to the point they threaten the whole system?
The mess we are in was not caused by lack of confidence, the mess was caused by greed, rampant overconfidence within corporations, and foolish overconfidence in the Fed’s ability to bail out anyone big enough to matter. Overconfidence drove banks and brokerage houses to leverage up on garbage that is now imploding. Sadly, the Fed did everything it could all along the way to encourage such risk taking. This of course makes the Fed the root cause of this mess.
The Fed’s “make-it-up-as-you-go-along” policy are not going to restore confidence.
Bailout of Bear Stearns by the Bernanke Fed was Criminal and Illegal
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_baum&sid=anrpWCiZbYxQ
The Federal Reserve decided last week to overstep its legal boundaries – going beyond providing liquidity to the banking system and attempting to ensure the solvency of a non-bank entity. Specifically, the Fed agreed to provide a $30 billion “non-recourse loan” to J.P. Morgan, secured only by the worst tranche of Bear Stearns’ mortgage debt. But the bank – J.P. Morgan – was in no financial trouble. Instead, it was effectively offered a subsidy by the Fed at public expense. Rick Santelli of CNBC is exactly right. If this is how the U.S. government is going to operate in a democratic, free-market society, “we might as well put a hammer and sickle on the flag.”
The Fed did not act to save a bank, but to enrich one. Congress has the power to appropriate resources for such a deal by the representative will of the people – the Fed does not, even under Depression era banking laws. The “loan” falls outside of Section 13-3 of the Federal Reserve Act, because it is not in fact a loan to either Bear Stearns or J.P. Morgan. Bear Stearns is no longer a business entity under this agreement. And if the fiction that this is a “loan” to J.P. Morgan was true, J.P. Morgan would be obligated to pay it back, period. The only point at which the value of the “collateral” would become an issue would be in the event that J.P. Morgan itself was to fail. No, this is not a loan. It is a put option granted by the Fed to J.P. Morgan on a basket of toxic securities. And it is not legal.
Not only was the action illegal, the vote itself was illegal. The Fed needs 5 members to vote on such actions and only 4 members were present. Fed Governor Mishkin was missing in action. Was he opposed to this illegal hijacking?
DC — please link your comments to the argument raised in the post.
Guest — dollar reserve holdings are far in excess of what are needed for a medium exchange. the rise in dollar holdings outside the US doesn’t reflect a global rise in transactional balances — i see no evidence that private transactional balances are rising. The dollar functioned perfectly well as a medium of exchange globally in the 90s with much lower levels of reserves globally.
Poor countries do get something in return for financing the US in dollars — an export market. The real debate is not whether they get something financially for holding excess dollar reserves, but rather whether the commercial gains from subsidizing US borrowing and consumption (ergo US imports) outweigh the financial costs.
Great analysis!! How unusual is it for a government to provide most of the financing for home ownership? Is this a prudent use of government resources from a purely economic perspective? What are the ramifications long term of this state of affairs? Thanks.
What is missing from the picture
Where is the credible discussion of the changes in U.S. banking laws that occurred in the last decade? The same changes that have had an impact on (1) creation of the current crises, and (2) subsequent actions by the Federal Reserve System.
Where is that discussion?
First up - Timothy F. Geithner, President and CEO, FRBNY. April 3, 2008:
“The intensity of the crisis we now face in U.S. and global financial markets is a function of the size and character of the financial boom that preceded it. This was a period of rapid financial innovation—particularly in credit risk transfer instruments such as credit derivatives and securitized and structured products. There was considerable growth in leverage, greater reliance on ratings on structured credit products and a marked deterioration in underwriting standards.”
“The innovation in financial products was accompanied by a dramatic increase in the amount of financial intermediation occurring outside the core banking system. The importance of securities broker-dealers, hedge funds, and mutual funds in the financial system rose steadily. Off-balance-sheet vehicles of various forms proliferated, and increased concentrations of longer-dated assets were held in funding vehicles with substantial liquidity risk.”
No kidding, Tim.
Back to basics:
Bank Regulation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_regulation
1 Objectives of Bank Regulation
2 General Principles of Bank Regulation
2.1 Minimum Requirements
2.2 Supervisory Review
2.3 Market Discipline
3 Instruments and Requirements of Bank Regulation…
Emergency Banking Act of 1933 (Emergency Banking Relief Act)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Banking_Act
full text here
http://tucnak.fsv.cuni.cz/~calda/Documents/1930s/EmergBank_1933.html
Securities Act of 1933 (Truth in Securities Act)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securities_Act_of_1933
and here
http://www.law.uc.edu/CCL/33Act/index.html
Glass-Steagall Act of 1935
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act
Glass-Steagall Act repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act), Pub. L. No. 106-102, 113 Stat. 1338 (November 12, 1999)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act
Chronology tracing the Glass-Steagall Act from its passage in 1933 to its death in the 1999
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html
*An excellent read
Back to the April 3, 2008 testimony of Tim Geithner, President and CEO, FRBNY
http://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2008/gei080403.html
Continuing:
“The innovation in financial products was accompanied by a dramatic increase in the amount of financial intermediation occurring outside the core banking system. The importance of securities broker-dealers, hedge funds, and mutual funds in the financial system rose steadily. Off-balance-sheet vehicles of various forms proliferated, and increased concentrations of longer-dated assets were held in funding vehicles with substantial liquidity risk…”
Right again, Tim.
And the actions of the Fed to save the day:
http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/Understanding_Fed_Lending.html
All of this overlooks the central question of whether the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 was a sound law. After all, the lobbying effort to kill the Glass-Steagall Act of 1935 was huge.
“After 12 attempts in 25 years, Congress finally repeals Glass-Steagall, rewarding financial companies for more than 20 years and $300 million worth of lobbying efforts. Supporters hail the change as the long-overdue demise of a Depression-era relic.” …”Just days after the administration (including the Treasury Department) agrees to support the repeal, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, the former co-chairman of a major Wall Street investment bank, Goldman Sachs, raises eyebrows by accepting a top job at Citigroup as Weill’s chief lieutenant. The previous year, Weill had called Secretary Rubin to give him advance notice of the upcoming merger announcement. When Weill told Rubin he had some important news, the secretary reportedly quipped, “You’re buying the government?”"
*****
well, empirically — even with dollar reserves “far in excess” of what ’should’ be required — the US continues to be subsidised, by your own account… well, why? to DC’s consternation and to twofish’s assertion (that wall street’s interests are aligned with foreign elites) it’s because “the commercial gains from subsidizing US borrowing and consumption (ergo US imports) outweigh the financial costs.”
so what constitutes “US imports” that may or may not be captured by goods/service/financial transactions? technology transfers? security guarantees? accounting/exchange convenience? developmental/institutional ‘bootstrapping’? all of the above? all of these seem more fruitful avenues of inquiry by process of elimination/occam’s razor…
iow, i think you’ve more than established that reserve growth by official institutions is far from abating, but far from being resolved is, again, why?
i’ll grant your presumption that GCC and china are simply wrong — that they’re substituting short term gain for (disastrous) long term pain — and that inflation will eventually force them to depeg. but, presuming that by now all the actors involved must be well aware of the ‘unstable equilibrium’ risks that BWII presents, which you’ve assiduously laid out, reserve growth/exorbitant privilege continues apace; it may not fit within _your_ ‘rational’ framework, but then that presupposes either irrationality or a different framework is in play.
NO COMMENT :
George Bush Arrives In Croatia.
The British Minister of Foreign Affairs, David Miliband, said that the letter of call from NATO is a great success for Croatia.
Croatian president and premier are against NATO referendum.
Croatia: Anti-Bush demonstrations are forbidden.
Amnesty International Backs Anti-Bush Protests.
Brad,
The poor are financing the profligate. The point is, the Wall Street bailouts are being financed by savers, pensioners, wage earners, investors and the elderly on fixed incomes, who all suffer staggering increases in their costs of living, as the Fed uses inflation to rob Main Street to pay off Wall Street. Inflation is the Neo-liberal stealth tax imposed by Bernanke to bailout Rubin’s Citicorp and Goldman Sachs.
“The poor are financing the profligate.”
how else can it be ? can anyone devise an ecosystem in which the rabbits eat the fox ? money flows from the poor to the rich. if political emotions get in the way of looking at that coolly - consider this : the slump will finance the boom. not only that but the very deregulated boom will be paid for by a very regulated slump, as the wise guys with 20/20 hindsight blame deregulation for the mess.
it’s not fair, is it ?
Speaking as a fox, I would have to say that rabbits have, on occasion, done a lot of damage to foxes.
silly me — i thought that in general the rich (Who have more money) financed the poor (who have less … )
not so sure that we will have a regulated slump tho. there hasn’t exactly been any new regulation passed so far and the economist is already worried about the risk of over regualtion …
Brad,
In the sense you mean, no question about it: Poorer nations are financing wealthier ones. Regarding the Middle East, what you say is not quite right…at least in some countries, Dubai, for example. It depends heavily on transit poor labor from other countries.
As with China, Mexican poverty seems independent of its trade and account surplus over the U.S.
I think a case by case examination would turn up slightly different realities. There may be countries that are trying to use its wealth to better the lot of its poor. Venezuela? Others…Mexico, China…no.
How that new-found wealth is being used, case by case, is of interest.
Brad,
In the sense you mean, no question about it: Poorer nations are financing wealthier ones. Regarding the Middle East, what you say is not quite right…at least in some countries, Dubai, for example. It depends heavily on transit poor labor from other countries.
As with China, Mexican poverty seems independent of its trade and account surplus over the U.S.
I think a case by case examination would turn up slightly different realities. There may be countries that are trying to use its wealth to better the lot of its poor. Venezuela? Others…Mexico, China…no.
How that new-found wealth is being used, case by case, is of interest.
A good reminder of the oddity of the situation.
One thing that will be interesting to see is whether there will be any complaints/anger over (inevitable) losses.
The only real backlash I’ve seen noted is with Blackstone/the Chinese public, but that’s arguably because the funds were explicitly transferred to a SWF from SAFE and it was the first investment.
Please keep repeating to yourself:
“The Fed is a privately owned institution…the Fed is a privately owned institution…the Fed is a privately owned institution…”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8518
Wall Street is bailed out at the US taxpayer expense. The US middle class bailout the billionaires.
Many interesting points, and a very apt title. I agree with most of what you say but I beg to differ in some points that you cite.
Bill Gross says that taxpayers are bailing out the banks. Not yet, though they seem posed to do so. It’s his clients (people with fixed income assets) who are footing the bill for the time being. The more people that realizes that, the more severe the credit crunch will be.
“foreign exchange reserves have to be held abroad, and what matters is whether they maintain their external purchasing power”. Foreign exchange reserves may also be held and are held in gold in the vault. The US has the largest chunk of foreign reserves in gold by far.
“A central bank can operate with negative capital”. Surely they can, but the profits of a Central Bank accrue to the government, so if they have losses the government lacks that source of revenue.
Brad
As much as the tax system tries to make things egalitarian-like; it’s not, as one might put it, the rich have the resources to run away/enrol in tax avoidance schemes , they also have enough $ to get themselves into a lot of trouble by losing enough $ to ask society to bail them out. Maybe SocGen being screwed was a portent; societies tend to get screwed by some errant individuals. Pardon the bad language. By the way, did a double take on this post ‘cos yves had a similar one some time ago, but a fresh perspective is always nice!
“A central bank can operate with negative capital”. Surely they can, but the profits of a Central Bank accrue to the government, so if they have losses the government lacks that source of revenue.
Written by eurolander on 2008-04-05 05:12:21
might the US be an exception? could that be on the cards? maybe foreign central bankers might find the counterparty too big to fail, sound familiar?
Well the rich don’t have much money to lend since they are spending it all on the good life for themselves; the poor do have money to lend since they are not spending enough of it on themselves.
Judy –
the US is either too big to fail or too big to save; I would rather not test which it is.
All that remembers me the next actions of USA (taken in South-America by Barrick Gold Corporation, to make profitable theirs business):
To dynamite and break glaciers into pieces and move them in trucks from one mountain to the next (so that we can extract the gold under it). And glaciers will be reborn in the new places, ’cause we decided it!
A very clever solution, for Cheney Corp.
To make the MSM speaking of the benefits of this approach is cheaper that to deal with the problem. It’s cheaper that stopping priests talking about ecological disasters in mass, and paying people to give conferences in the area.
The Chinese?
Let’s nuke Iran!
Even George Soros seems to be too progressive for USA’s financial mess, supporting Obama in the 40th anniversary of M.L. King.
That’s a big change, if it were true?
And Brad, you nailed it: too big to fail or too big to save, that’s the matter, black or white.
The illegal rescue of BS, couldn’t be seen as an effort of USA to avoid a cheap buying of the jewels of the crown, by the nasty Arabs or Chinese?
The price is good, as far as USA is a sovereign country, on top of her cheap working class (or all americans are out of a working class?). 28 million food people on stamps-would draw the line between social people and out-society people in western standards.
So what?
The wages in western world, in general, are much lower than in the USA.
So…?
We are used to live spending less. School, Health Service and University are almost free. We pay oil twice (half price, half tax).
Little things that make share benefits and profits, nothing else.
As I told before, it wouldn’t be so difficult to get out of this mess, but who knows?
koteli
PS: Sometimes, I think about if farm-lenders and workers in Kansas fields are receiving the benefits of doubled prices in grain-stoke-exchanges of Chicago. If your grandma would be pleased in those times. If the benefit were well distributed among the workers.
Silly me!
Then, I listen to “Fields of Gold” by Eva Cassidy, in looking for some hope and relief.
Brad,
I think it is very clear that Chinese authorities believe that the gains from subsidizing US imports outweigh the risks of financial losses on Chinese dollar reserves. The same is true for Japanese financial authorities. As to why China prefers to keep the proceeds from exports in US financial instruments rather than invest in domestic sectors, perhaps Chinese authorities feel that doing so enhances their power domestically. Doling out these funds to domestic projects would result in some loss of control given that Beijing can’t micromanage the entire country.
Movie Guy wrote:
“All of this overlooks the central question of whether the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 was a sound law.”
On the 13th of September 1991, Congress was unequivocally warned on the foolishness of deregulating the investment banking system, at a hearing of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance Committee on Energy and Commerce of the 102nd Congress: “A bill to Amend the Federal Securities Laws to Equalize the Regulatory Treatment of Participants in the Securities Industry”
The full testimony can be read here (http://www.newsforreal.com/written.html) and it is an eye-opener. A synopsis (with an hilarious cartoon at the bottom can be read here. (http://www.newsforreal.com)
But the forces of greed and spoliation of savings were not to be denied what they considered (and still consider) their “due”. After all, since they are so damn smart, they most certainly “deserve it”. (Must be true, since the actual Vice President said so on TV)
Good, Brad! Please keep up the commentary on social impacts of bad economics. Spell out the regional and worldwide social impacts and consequences of the evolving mess and how it is attempted resolved. Thanks.
Fact is, I’m sure you read the biography of Charles Ponzi — he was able to keep up his business for a very very long time and might have gone on much longer had the govt. not finally arrested him and frozen his assets.
Being that the current financial scheme is orchestrated by the Wall Street in combination with the Fed, it can only end in a massive disaster. Ponzi, to his credit, had never missed a payment on his notes before he was arrested. This crisis will end far more painfully because there won’t be anything left but unpaid IOUs. Most Ponzi investors were able to receive around 20 or 30 cents on the dollar I believe. I could be wrong about that but my point: This is exactly what Ponzi did — he kept coming up with a ‘new’ new plan.
http://www.fakepaycheckstubs.com
If you work at home in a job that lists you as an independent contractor then you have reached one of those positions that millions of people envy. There are many people who would love to work from home but it simply is not feasible for everyone. For one thing, when people work from home as independent contractors they often have no way to prove how much income they are earning. If you need verification of income for a bank loan or even for certain welfare programs then you are simply out of luck.
What happens when you have to show the bank how much money you are making? They normally will not simply take your word for it. You need proof before they will even consider your loan request. This is why most households who have someone working from home also have someone who works in a traditional job. They simply need to be able to prove how much at least one of them is earning. One way however, to prove your income to whomever you need to show it to is to find software that allows you to print your own paycheck stubs. Now, don’t go thinking that you can print fake paychecks with software like this. Prison time would definitely not help you to secure a bank loan.
You can however, print off proof of your earnings with specific software that will allow you to show your income when you need to. This software would also be a wonderful solution to someone who receives direct deposits or for small business owners who typically pay in cash. Having the ability to show your income for tax purposes, loans or any other reason can help you to keep your income verified and organized for later use as well. So, instead of swearing to the banker that you do in fact earn as much as you need for that loan, think about actually having the ability to show them a paycheck stub. You might just find that you like being able to prove your income once and for all without begging your employer to send you a paper that certifies you are making what you say you are.
http:/www.fakepaycheckstubs.com
液压升降机，苏州升降机，苏州升降机厂，苏州升降机有限公司，施工升降机，丝杆升降机，液压升降平台，电动升降平台，天津升降平台，液压升降平台车，升降平台车，沈阳升降平台，天津登车桥，液压登车桥，移动式登车桥，移动登车桥，移动式液压登车桥，固定式液压登车桥，超市货架，北京货架，南京货架，货架公司，货架厂，广州货架，塑料托盘价格，山东塑料托盘，求购塑料托盘，北京塑料托盘，苏州塑料托盘 ，宁波塑料托盘，折叠式仓储笼，天津仓储笼，苏州仓储笼，南京仓储笼。南京货架，南京货架厂，南京货架公司|上海货架，上海货架厂，上海货架公司|无锡货架，无锡货架厂，无锡货架公司|苏州货架，苏州货架厂，苏州货架公司|北京货架，北京货架厂，北京货架公司|货架公司，北京货架公司，宁波货架公司|广州货架，广州货架厂，广州货架公司|服装货架，服装货架设计，广州服装货架|超市货架，北京超市货架，上海超市货架|仓储货架，北京仓储货架，上海仓储货架|托盘货架，重型托盘货架，托盘货架公司|货架厂，广州货架厂，北京货架厂|仓库货架，北京仓库货架，上海仓库货架|深圳货架，深圳货架厂，深圳货架公司|重型货架，次重型货架，成都重型货架|精品货架，北京精品货架，广州精品货架|天津货架，天津货架厂，天津货架公司|角钢货架，角钢货架厂，万能角钢货架|沈阳货架，沈阳仓储货架，沈阳货架公司|青岛货架，青岛货架公司，青岛仓储货架|轻型货架，北京轻型货架，角钢轻型货架|山东货架，山东货架厂，山东货架公司|杭州货架，杭州货架厂，杭州货架公司|中型货架，上海中型货架，广州中型货架|济南货架，济南货架厂，济南货架公司|郑州货架，郑州货架厂，郑州货架公司|展示货架，上海展示货架，产品展示货架|库房货架，货架厂，北京库房货架|武汉货架，武汉货架厂，武汉货架公司|河南货架，河南货架厂，河南货架公司|货架设计，仓库货架设计，货架设计公司|不锈钢货架，深圳不锈钢货架，上海不锈钢货架|阁楼货架，阁楼式货架，阁楼货架公司|移动货架，电动移动货架，北京移动货架|物流货架，上海物流货架，仓储物流货架|佛山货架，佛山货架厂，佛山货架公司|定做货架，杭州定做货架，天津定做货架|江门货架，贯通式货架，防静电货架|宁波货架，宁波货架厂，宁波货架公司|石家庄货架，石家庄货架厂，石家庄货架公司|重庆货架，重庆货架厂，重庆货架公司|河北货架，河北货架厂，河北货架公司|哈尔滨货架，哈尔滨货架厂，哈尔滨货架公司|悬臂货架，悬臂式货架|图书货架，广东图书货架，深圳图书货架|浙江货架，浙江货架厂，浙江货架公司|货架制作，北京货架制作，上海货架制作|西安货架，西安货架厂，西安货架公司|木托盘，上海木托盘，天津木托盘|北京塑料托盘，苏州塑料托盘，宁波塑料托盘|上海塑料托盘，广东塑料托盘，青岛塑料托盘|武汉塑料托盘，山东塑料托盘，南京塑料托盘|钢制料箱，折叠式料箱，网格式料箱|上海仓储笼，南京仓储笼，天津仓储笼|仓储笼图片，折叠仓储笼，折叠式仓储笼|北京仓储笼，广州仓储笼，宁波仓储笼|货架|托盘|料箱|仓储笼|手推车|登高车|置物架|垃圾桶
Socializing the debt is okay, as long as we also socialize all the ownership!