Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Weekend Economists' Alfred Hitchcock Perspective: June 5-7, 2009

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 06:00 PM
Original message
Weekend Economists' Alfred Hitchcock Perspective: June 5-7, 2009
Edited on Fri Jun-05-09 06:01 PM by Demeter
Musical Intro:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3eCdM3uS8Q

"Good evening."

"I am speaking to you all from the grave, but do not be concerned. After a long and productive life, I am enjoying the rest. Cast your sympathies upon yourselves, for you are living through the greatest catastrophe, and the greatest challenge to Western Civilization, the world has ever known.

"I tried during my theatrical career, to bring a shiver of horror for your amusement at competitive prices. Today's horror masters are playing for keeps.

"I hope, when the the producers of the current spectacle come to the ending credits, that I will be able to reassure you all that the criminals have been apprehended and judiciously punished for their transgressions. Alas, we shall have to wait and see. That is what puts the "terror" in Terrorism".

You may view my collected works, courtesy of this marvelous new invention called the Internet, at the following sites:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/282/alfred-hitchcock-presents-revenge


Meanwhile, consider the state of the world and its economy...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 06:02 PM
Response to Original message
1. FDIC to wind down Atlanta's Silverton bank
http://www.reuters.com/article/gc06/idUSTRE5545DZ20090605

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp said on Friday that it would wind down Silverton Bank, a failed Atlanta bank that regulators seized last month, and sell its assets instead of trying to sell it as a whole.

Regulators took over the bank on May 1 and created a "bridge bank" to run Silverton while they searched for a buyer.

But the FDIC said its marketing efforts did not result in any interest in acquiring Silverton.

"Prior to the FDIC's appointment as receiver, Silverton had initiated a marketing effort which was allowed to continue until a whole bank acquisition was no longer feasible," it said in an e-mailed statement.

Silverton, which provided services to other banks rather than to consumers, had about $4.1 billion in assets and $3.3 billion in deposits.

A consortium of private equity firms, including Carlyle Group CYL.UL, Lightyear Capital, Harvest Partners and Colony Capital, was in talks to buy the bank, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. FDIC Also Takes Down Bank of Lincolnwood, Lincolnwood, IL

On Friday, June 5, 2009, Bank of Lincolnwood, Lincolnwood, IL was closed by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, Division of Banking and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was named Receiver.

All deposit accounts have been transferred to Republic Bank of Chicago, Oak Brook, IL ("assuming institution") and will be available immediately. On Saturday, June 6, 2009, the former Bank of Lincolnwood locations will reopen as branches of Republic Bank of Chicago.

There was no publicly owned stock in Bank of Lincolnwood. If you are an equity shareholder, your shares are in Lincolnwood Bancorp, Inc., Lincolnwood, Illinois, the holding company for Bank of Lincolnwood, and not the institution. Lincolnwood Bancorp, Inc. and the interests of equity, debt holders or other creditors of Lincolnwood Bancorp, Inc. are not included in the closure or receivership of the institution. Please do not file a claim with the Receiver, rather contact Lincolnwood Bancorp, Inc. directly for information:
Lincolnwood Bancorp, Inc.
4433 West Touhy Ave, Suite 310
Lincolnwood, Illinois 60712

Any claims by equity holders were not acquired.

Please note: there are time limits for filing a claim, as specified in the notice.


In accordance with Federal law, allowed claims will be paid, after administrative expenses, in the following order of priority:

1. Depositors
2. General Unsecured Creditors
3. Subordinated Debt
4. Stockholders


No dividends have been declared at this time.

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/individual/failed/banklist.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tclambert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #2
91. "N by NW":
Roger Thornhill: Apparently the only performance that will satisfy you is when I play dead.
Phillip Vandamm: Your very next role, and you'll be quite convincing, I assure you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 06:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. Consumer borrowing plunges by $15.7B in April
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090605/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_consumer_credit_3



WASHINGTON – Borrowing by consumers fell by $15.7 billion in April as U.S. households continued to trim spending and put away their credit cards amid a severe recession.

The Federal Reserve said Friday the April decline was the second largest ever in dollar terms following March's drop of $16.6 billion. March's decline originally was reported as $11.1 billion, which had been the most on records dating to 1943.

The April decline was more than double the $6 billion drop that economists had expected. Analysts believe consumers will remain cautious as long as the unemployment rate keeps rising, which it did again in May.

In percentage terms, consumer credit fell at an annual rate of 7.4 percent in April, following a 7.8 percent drop in March. The two declines were the largest since an 8.1 percent drop in December 1990.

Households have been spending less and saving more as they try to replenish their nest eggs in the face of huge declines in home values and investment holdings.

Americans' personal savings rate jumped to 5.7 percent in April, the highest since February 1995, according to government data released earlier this week. The level of savings — $620.2 billion — was the most on records dating to January 1959.

The category in Friday's report that includes credit card debt dropped at an annual rate of 11 percent in April, following an 11.2 percent plunge in March.

Auto loans and other non-revolving credit fell at an annual rate of 5.3 percent, following a 5.8 percent decline in March.

In a separate report, the government said the jobless rate jumped to a 25-year high of 9.4 percent in May as employers cut a net total of 345,000 jobs....The $15.7 billion drop in consumer borrowing in April left total consumer credit at $2.52 trillion. The Fed's measure of consumer credit does not include home mortgages or other loans secured by real estate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 06:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. Hugin Wanted Birds: U.S. chicken industry on the mend
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-chicken-producers-on-the-mend?siteid=yahoomy

Investors bid up Tyson, Sanderson hoping producers have learned their lesson

By Matt Andrejczak, MarketWatch

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- The volatile U.S. chicken industry, battered by the bankruptcy of its largest producer late last year, is piecing itself together again.

Nine months ago, oversupply, weak prices and a drop in spending by consumers at sit-down restaurants landed poultry producers in a world of hurt, made even worse by their traditional reluctance to cut production for fear of surrendering market share to competitors.

"The industry very rarely cuts production like this," Sanderson Farms CEO Joe Sanderson, Jr. told investors at a Stephens Inc. conference June 2. "It is a unique scenario."

Chicken producers, not known for being a well disciplined bunch, are showing rare signs of restraint. This is helping to boost meat prices and strengthen troubled balance sheets pummeled by overproduction and high feed-grain costs.

"Producers have seemingly remained rational," BB&T analyst Heather Jones said in a recent research report.

Chicken producers are seeing strong demand for chicken at grocery stores.

The turnaround is coming just in time for summer barbequing, the seasonal peak for chicken demand. While the economic downturn is still crimping sales at restaurants, consumers are buying more chicken for homemade meals, industry executives say.

There is "excellent demand for fresh chicken at retail grocery stores," Sanderson President Lampkin Butts told investors this week.

Tyson Foods said earlier this week its chicken business is performing better than expected just a month ago. The unit, which lost $332 million in the six months ended March 28, is once again showing a profit.

With fewer birds hitting the market, prices are stabilizing.

Boneless breast meat prices, a key profit maker for producers, are averaging around $1.53 a pound, up from $1.30 in February, the companies said, citing statistics from industry tracker Urner Barry. Wings are fetching $1.32 a pound, and leg quarters are 49 cents a pound; both are selling well above their five-year averages.

Georgia Dock whole bird prices -- a barometer for prices in grocery stores -- are at 88 cents a pound, or 10 cents above the five-year average.

Investors have taken notice of change. Since March, shares of Tyson Foods, Sanderson, and even bankrupt Pilgrim's Pride have all surged, outpacing solid gains by the Dow Jones Industrials Average and the S&P 500 over the same period.

So far this year, Tyson is up 52%, while Sanderson is up 39%. Once a penny stock, Pilgrim's Pride is trading above $5.

Near the end of last year, producers cut output and clamped down on capital expenditures to help reverse losses. Tyson Foods shortened fixed-price delivery contracts to combat unpredictable swings for the price of corn and soybean meal, the main ingredients in chicken feed. And exports have picked up, especially to Mexico and Lithuania, which ships the chicken along to other Eastern European countries.

Another reason for optimism is the continued cutback in weekly egg sets, or fertile eggs allowed to hatch. Meanwhile, Pilgrim's Pride, reorganizing under Ch. 11 bankruptcy protection, has been idling plants while getting its books in order. Last month it repaid a $450 million bankruptcy financing loan.

Industry-wide production has been cut by 6% over the past nine months. Total pounds processed have dropped by slaughtering fewer birds and keeping them leaner.

The cut back, for instance, means Laurel, Miss.-based Sanderson will process 2% more pounds of chicken in 2009 compared to last year. In 2008, the same gain was 21%.

A tough lesson

Chicken producers have a lengthy history of jockeying for market share by outproducing competitors, even at the expense of profits. But last year's carnage was so severe it appears to have forced some behavior changes.

"We will continue to match supply and demand," Donnie Smith, who runs Tyson's poultry unit, said at a recent investor presentation. "We are going to take a much more long-term view of our business than perhaps we have in the past."

One thing Tyson is now focused on is selling entire birds. In the past, the Springdale, Ark.-based company concentrated more on higher-margin breast meat portions.

But there are still plenty of hurdles on the horizon. Producers could still be tripped up by a three-month spike in soybean and corn prices, which has the potential to curtail further recovery by the industry and slow momentum behind their share prices.

Since March, soybean prices quoted in the Chicago Board of Trade have jumped 45%, with the July futures contract closing in on $12.25 a bushel. Corn prices are up 20% over the same period, with the July futures contract trading around $4.50 a bushel.

Corn farmers across much of the Midwest are late planting their crop this year due to weather delays, raising concerns they could face a painful repeat of last year's feed price spike. Feed grains make up at least 50% of the cost of raising a chicken.

"We have got to pay very close attention to these commodity markets," Tyson's Smith said. "If inputs do go higher that could take the steam out of the chicken segment."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. "You know, I've often wondered what the Audubon Society's attitude might be to this picture."
A quote from Hitch himself... WRT "The Birds".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 06:24 PM
Response to Original message
6. Abramoff's Family Supposedly Living Just Above The Poverty Line


I only mention this because I've recently thought
That it seems
Like poetic justice if Jack had invested in Bernie
Madoff's schemes.

VERSE CASE SCENARIO

http://blog.buzzflash.com/peyser/1171
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
7. Dave Lindorff: If We Only Had a Leader with Guts, What a State-Run GM Could Do

http://blog.buzzflash.com/lindorff/245

* Dave Lindorff

If the government were to actually take charge of GM, instead of playing the pathetic role of passive owner, the bankrupt and seriously troubled auto giant could move beyond just making more cars and more problems to become a forward-thinking pioneer in actually solving problems.

Instead of just cranking out more and more steel dinosaurs and contributing more to the greenhouse gas crisis and the country's reliance on imported oil, a state-owned GM could start making and selling a line of electric vehicles, maybe marketing them as a package deal to car-buyers together with installed solar panels or wind generators, so that each car buyer would have his or her own source of off-the-grid electric power.

By selling solar and wind units in the millions, GM could bring down the cost of personal power generation to reasonable levels, making a huge dent in the nation's carbon footprint.

GM, by becoming a major alternative power producer, would also have a whole new source of revenue and domestic jobs, as well. It might even become an exporter again. A state-owned and run GM could also become a major promoter and producer of mass transit alternatives, from subways and high-speed rail systems to computerized street-level light rail and people mover systems, further protecting the future jobs of GM workers.

Instead of shutting down "surplus" car plants and letting these huge investments in industrial infrastructure decay and collapse, or be razed, these huge facilities (9-12 are slated for shutdown at this point) could be geared up for alternative uses, saving jobs and whole regional economies.

These are the kinds of things no quarter-to-quarter-obsessed managerial team slathering for that next annual executive bonus check would ever consider, but they are certainly directions a state-run GM could go.

If, that is, leaders in Congress and the White House could somehow be deprogrammed out of their blind faith in the mumbo-jumbo cult of America's state religion of "Free Enterprisism."

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-area journalist. His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. What Makes Sense for Health Care Makes Sense for Autos, Car Industry Needs Public Option Too
http://blog.buzzflash.com/lindorff/244

* Dave Lindorff

Just imagine for a moment that you are a retired contractor, struggling to get by on your pathetically shriveled 401(k) when your ne-er-do-well child suddenly comes to you saying he's got this idea to start buying derelict homes and rehabbing them for resale. He asks you to stake him with a $100,000 loan (about half of what you've got left in your retirement fund), promising to repay you when he sells his first couple of houses. You know the kid's flat busted and has been laid off from his job as a dishwasher, so you want to help, but you've also seen his carpentry skills: the doghouse he build in high school fell apart on a windy day, and his own house has a leaking roof, needs repainting, and all the plumbing leaks. You've also seen his business skills: He plays the Lotto excessively, hasn't saved a penny, and buys most of his supplies at the local 7-Eleven.

Would you front this kid half your money?

Well, if you really loved the kid, and if he was in danger of losing his house, you might want to help. But the smart thing to do would be to offer to go in with him in the business, acting as the contractor, so that you could train him in the necessary business and contracting skills, and at the same time make sure the rehab jobs got done properly.

That might work out. Your son might never learn to be a master carpenter, but at least you'd have a good shot at getting your investment back.

What wouldn't make sense would be to just hand over the $100,000, and say, "I'm going to stay out of your way son. Good luck, and remember to pay me back when you sell a few of those houses."

Crazy, right? And yet that's the Obama Administration's auto industry "rescue" plan.

We Americans like to fancy ourselves the supreme rationalists, but when it comes to economic policy, we are as mired in superstition and religious dogma as any theocratic society in the world.

Our religion is "free-market economics," which posits that an "invisible hand" of competition takes care of all problems, leads to the optimum outcome in terms of distribution of wealth and standard of living, and ensures maximum success in business.

Looking at the auto industry rescue program objectively, you have to ask why President Barack Obama would insist that the government, despite being the major owner of both Chrysler and General Motors, is refusing to demand a primary say, or really any say, in running those companies. I mean, if you are the major shareholder -- and in this case "you" is not just the government, it is all of us, the taxpayers -- you should be running the company. It is the government that should be naming all the members of the boards of directors of the two firms, and it is the government that should be deciding who will be the chief executives.

The government, on behalf of "We, the People" who elected our leaders, should also be making sure that these large, critically important firms, make decisions about vehicle design that further our national goals, such as reducing the demand for imported oil, and reducing the production of CO2 and other pollutants.

The high priests of America's state religion -- the leading economists on Wall Street, in the K Street lobbies, and at the various so-called think tanks that dot Washington, DC -- all rant and sermonize that letting "government bureaucrats" run the auto companies would be a recipe for disaster, but this is absurd.

After all, did the vaunted managers that their free-market religion so venerates do such a great job of running these firms? Hell no! They ran them into the ground. Chrysler already had to be rescued by the government once, and never really recovered. GM has been a failing enterprise for decades, as its management shipped production and jobs overseas, while continuing to produce shoddy and oversized dinosaurs here at home, letting foreign companies such as Toyota and Honda eat them for lunch.

Now that we are on track to invest over $100 billion in rescuing these companies, why would we taxpayers want to leave these same kinds of managers, with their MBA degrees from the B-School seminaries, in charge?

Seriously, how much worse of a job could the government do than what they've done?

The workers in Detroit know how to build cars, and what's more, they know what they and their neighbors want to buy and to drive. They also want their companies to be around for a long time -- not just for them, but for their kids and their grandkids. Meanwhile, the American public wants car companies that will be around for a long time, and they also want to reduce both dependence on foreign oil imports and production of dangerous greenhouse gases, which means they want companies that will produce cars that are stingy about gas mileage. So I say let the unions and the public run these companies.

It is only pseudo-religious free-market dogma that prevents us from making these companies truly public property.

.......................

To tell the truth, the same thing can be said about the banking sector. We've just had a frightening demonstration of what leaving such a critical industry in the hands of capitalist owners and managers can do.

Now that we've poured trillions of dollars into propping these zombie enterprises up, it's time to take control of them too.

At a minimum, if it makes sense to have a so-called "public option" health insurance plan to keep the private insurance industry honest and to force it to treat insured customers well, it surely makes sense to have a government-run bank to keep the private banking industry honest.

Ditto with the car industry. We still have Ford, which is privately owned, and also the foreign makers. So why not have the public option in the auto industry, too?

One thing doesn't make any sense: pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into an industry and then leaving it in the hands of the same kinds of managers who destroyed it in the first place.

That would be just like having our retired contractor write his wayward son a check for half his retirement assets and then go home to his TV to sit around and hope for the best.

DAVE LINDORFF is a Philadelphia-based journalist. His latest book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006). His work can be found at www.thiscantbehappening.net.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THOMAS PAINE HAS ENTERED THE BUILDING!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #16
56. "Alicia: My car is outside. "
"Devlin: Naturally."

Notorious (1946)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tclambert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 03:37 PM
Response to Reply #16
89. No, no, no. Lindorffff is all wrong!
1) Do you want Geithner, Summers, and Bernanke running GM? You know those are the kind of guys the government would put in charge.

2) "The workers in Detroit know how to build cars, and what's more, they know what they and their neighbors want to buy and to drive." Yeah, what people want to drive is big cars and even bigger cars. The fickle devils change their minds in favor of tiny cars only when the price of gasoline goes up a lot. You watch, when electric cars become commonplace, the demand will turn toward bigger electric cars.

3) The problems with car companies often come when non-car people take over. Bean counters and MBAs try to cut corners, make poor quality machines to save on costs, and slavishly follow market opinion research. The car business is like the music business or the publishing business. There is art involved. You want to succeed, you need a hit. Somebody who is really into cars makes better decisions on what kinds of cars to make. (Personally, I'm really happy about Roger Penske buying Saturn. This is a supreme car guy. He was a race car driver, owns a racing company, as well as hundreds of car dealerships, and a truck leasing company. Saturn's future is now looking up.)

4) The fact is, Detroit IS building good cars. GM and Chrysler's problems have nothing, NOTHING to do with the quality of their vehicles versus Ford's. Or Toyotas. The problem is from outside. The recession and the credit crisis have cut the entire car market by close to 5 million cars a year. Ford's current "success" (really lesser problems more than success) came from irony. They were in worse shape, worse peril three years ago and mortgaged everything they could to obtain huge lines of credit. That is why they don't need the loans now. They got them earlier, before the recession made the other car comapnies scramble for credit. But GM and Chrysler didn't need the credit until the credit market imploded.

5) "The government, on behalf of "We, the People" who elected our leaders, should also be making sure that these large, critically important firms, make decisions about vehicle design that further our national goals." Well, the government has been doing that, stupidly, for decades. Energy policy, gasoline taxes (low here, higher in Europe and Japan), spending on alternative energy research (or lack thereof), mass transit policy (or lack thereof), decided on by the government, have, for the past thirty-five years, led inevitably to gas guzzling SUVs. If the government and we, the people, truly wanted small, fuel-efficient cars, then they and we were doing it wrong.

6) This starts with a false analogy. Comparing the auto companies to a "ne-er-do-well child" misses the mark completely. To make a more accurate analogy, compare them to a child who has successfully run a business for a hundred years, then was robbed blind by business partners. (Those business partners would be the Wall Street banks, and the petroleum industry.)


I wish the auto manufacturers had made more courageous decisions in years past. But all this accusation of massive incompetence on their part is incorrect. Look back at your other posts and note who has been charged with corruption and fraud. Anybody from the auto industry? Anybody? Compare that to the financial industry. Are there any firms untainted by accusations of malfeasance?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
41. A public GM could also build trains and "rail buses"
such as they have in other countries, single-car electric vehicles that run on train tracks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. GM used to build some good locomotives.
I drove them for over 30 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #7
54. John Kovac: What do you know about a ship?
Connie Porter: Among other things, he just happens to own a shipyard, that's all.
John Kovac: Has he ever been in it?

More classic Hitchcock from "Lifeboat" (1944)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
8. It's about time you got to work!
I posted this earlier in SMW. It was a brazen theft of a thread by regnaD kciN. I thought it was good here, and Tansy would appreciate it. And besides, Rand could be a character out of a Hitchcock movie.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x453691

The Insanity of Ayn Rand.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tallulah-morehead/the-insanity-of-ayn-rand_b_211209.html

The movie was written by the novelist-nutball, Russian-American, writer-philosopher Ayn Rand. She promoted a form of highly-anti-communist philosophy called "Objectivism," probably because it is so objectionable.

Being virulently anti-Communism-and-Socialism, she believed that ownership and rights of property were sacrosant, although when Howard Roarke, her Ideal Man, blows up other people's property because he doesn't like it, it's a righteous act, not a violation of other people's rights of property. Ayn was a hypocrite.

Ayn is having a small vogue right now (very small, as the country is becoming far less happy with rightwing nutballs), because her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged, an insane novel that makes The Lord of the Rings seem like a speedy short story, is celebrating its fiftieth anniversary just now. This means that the people who began reading it the day it came out, are nearly through it by now, those that haven't hanged themselves.

Have you ever seen a photograph of Ayn Rand? For a woman who wants strong muscular men to drill her like a jackhammer, Ayn went to a lot of trouble to look like a Bloomsbury literary Lesbian. In fact, she looked rather like a young Rosa Klebb, only not as sexy.

Ayn died the day after John Belushi died, although I don't think she did so to cheer us up again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Smoked Whitefish, Doc. A Michigan Delicacy, Cannot Be Hurried
All those little bones, you see.

Be glad I didn't open the cherry wine. We'd have to have a Dean Martin retrospective, instead.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 06:33 PM
Response to Original message
9. Keeping Them Honest (Health Insurance) By PAUL KRUGMAN
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/05/opinion/05krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion



“I appreciate your efforts, and look forward to working with you so that the Congress can complete health care reform by October.” So declared President Obama in a letter this week to Senators Max Baucus and Edward Kennedy. The big health care push is officially on.

But the devil is in the details. Health reform will fail unless we get serious cost control — and we won’t get that kind of control unless we fundamentally change the way the insurance industry, in particular, behaves. So let me offer Congress two pieces of advice:

1) Don’t trust the insurance industry.

2) Don’t trust the insurance industry.

The Democratic strategy for health reform is based on a political judgment: the belief that the public will be more willing to accept reform, less easily Harry-and-Louised, if those who already have health coverage from private insurers are allowed to keep it.

But how can we have fundamental reform of what Mr. Obama calls a “broken system” if the current players stay in place? The answer is supposed to lie in a combination of regulation and competition.

It’s a sign of the way the political winds are blowing that insurers aren’t opposing new regulations. Indeed, the president of America’s Health Insurance Plans, the industry lobby known as AHIP, has explicitly accepted the need for “much more aggressive regulation of insurance.”

What’s still not settled, however, is whether regulation will be supplemented by competition, in the form of a public plan that Americans can buy into as an alternative to private insurance.

Now nobody is proposing that Americans be forced to get their insurance from the government. The “public option,” if it materializes, will be just that — an option Americans can choose. And the reason for providing this option was clearly laid out in Mr. Obama’s letter: It will give Americans “a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep the insurance companies honest.”

Those last five words are crucial because history shows that the insurance companies will do nothing to reform themselves unless forced to do so...

MORE AT LINK
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. "That's Precisely Why I Don't Care for Russian Roulette. I Never Seem to Win"
Edited on Fri Jun-05-09 06:47 PM by Demeter
http://www.hulu.com/watch/20/alfred-hitchcock-presents-triggers-in-leash

"It's like a Western without the horses...we did try to find some horses, but they couldn't remember their lines..."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Krugman forgot two warnings.
1) Don't trust Congress.

2) Don't trust Congress.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
11. "Funeral March of a Marionette"!?
I had forgotten that's what Alfred's theme was called...

Yeek! No wonder Walt and Alfred didn't see eye to eye.

Walt Disney refused to allow him to film at Disneyland in the early 1960s because Hitchcock had made "that disgusting movie Psycho (1960)".

To which Mr. Hitchcock replied....

"To me Psycho (1960) was a big comedy. Had to be."

I can see his thoughts on this... After, all... It was Walt who made the horror movie about the little wooden puppet coming to life.

Oh, and one other thing...

In addition to a fear of the Police, Alfred was also revolted by eggs.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
We will have to do Abbott and Costello next....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. What about my heroes?
Larry. Curley. Moe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #17
23. Them Too
Which Weekend Would be convenient? 4th of July is reserved for Gilligan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #23
43. Anytime.
I would have said "Three Stooges", but you might have thought I was talking about Bernanke, Summers, and Geithner.

Calling Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ozymandius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 09:33 PM
Response to Reply #17
48. Wise guy - eh?
I resemble that remark.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #17
52. Where else, but, Hitchcock are you going to get slapstick like this!
Willy: -to the delirious Gus- There's Rosie! She's waiting for you!
-Willy pushes Gus overboard-


From: Lifeboat (1944)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tclambert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 04:08 PM
Response to Reply #52
94. From "N by NW"
Judge Anson B. Flynn: How long have you known your client?
Victor Larrabee: Seven years, Your Honor.
Judge Anson B. Flynn: Do you know him to be a reasonable man?
Victor Larrabee: Absolutely.
Clara Thornhill: Ha!
Roger Thornhill: Mother!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #13
55. "Alicia: Dev, is that you? I'm glad you're late. This chicken took longer than I expected."
Edited on Fri Jun-05-09 10:46 PM by Hugin
"Alicia: Dev, is that you? I'm glad you're late. This chicken took longer than I expected. I hope it isn't done too much. It caught fire once."

:rofl:

Notorious (1946)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 03:50 AM
Response to Reply #55
61. Then again, We Could Always Have a Weekend of Chicken Jokes
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #61
82. "Does the cat have any chickens"?
Larry, reading to Moe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
14. Vanguard merging Treasury Funds

6/5/09 Low yields push Vanguard to money-fund steps
Firm to merge pair of funds and partially close another


As money-market-fund yields remain stubbornly low, Vanguard Group said this week it's taking steps to keep returns positive.

The firm said it will merge two of its Treasury funds and drastically limit new deposits in a third fund.

Vanguard said the $6.7 billion Treasury Money Market Fund will merge into the cheaper $21.8 billion Admiral Treasury Money Market Fund in early August.

"By moving the assets to a lower-cost fund, we can better preserve yield," said Rebecca Cohen, a Vanguard spokeswoman, of the decision to merge the two Treasury funds.

The firm has also closed Federal Money Market Fund to new accounts and institutional money and slapped a $10,000 daily limit on existing retail accounts.

Treasury Money Market Fund's latest seven-day yield was 0.05%, after the fund's expense ratio of 0.28%. The Admiral fund's seven-day yield was 0.18%, and that fund charges 0.15%. The merged fund is to operate at the lower expense ratio.

Cohen said the two funds follow a "substantially similar" strategy.

The decision to partially close Federal Money Market Fund, which had a seven-day yield of 0.33%, is likewise an effort by Vanguard to keep the fund's yields positive.

"New cash must be invested in securities at current yields, which are historically low. This can dilute the fund's overall yield, to the detriment of current investors in the fund," said Cohen.
Staying low

Vanguard's moves come as the money-market-fund business faces up to months of negligible yields on its offerings because the Federal Reserve's target overnight lending rate among banks is between zero and 0.25%. Several fund firms have waived fees on some of their money-market funds to ensure investors don't lose money. See full story.

Vanguard, which offers its money-market funds at cost, opted to close its two Treasury funds to new money in January. As yields continued to slide, it saw the merger as the best option.

"We believe the moves we've taken should preserve the funds' yields for the foreseeable future," said Cohen.

But even if the moves keep yields positive, it's likely they'll stay low for a while.

"I think it'll be an extended period of time and it could easily be into next year," said David Glocke, manager of the two Treasury money-market funds.

Glocke said that until the economy stabilizes the Fed won't want to stop its stimulus efforts and raise its target rates. For now, banks aren't lending to consumers at levels needed for growth, he added.

"I think it might not be that banks don't want to lend, but that consumers may not have strong interest in adding to their debt balance, which is creating less demand," said Glocke. "If the Fed sees the same thing, may not happen until some time in 2010."

Cohen said Vanguard's board of trustees "will be closely monitoring the yield environment and take additional steps if warranted" but declined to speculate what those steps could be.

Despite the difficulties, Cohen said Vanguard remained committed to its money-market business. "We strongly believe that the money-market fund is a great product for investors, providing safety, liquidity and income," she said. "And we believe they will endure through this challenging yield environment."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/as-yields-stay-low-vanguard-takes-money-fund-step?siteid=rss&rss=1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. Verrry Interesting!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 06:58 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Reuters: Treasury bloodbath soaks top fund managers


6/5/09 Treasury bloodbath soaks top fund managers

By Jennifer Ablan - Analysis

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Investors have been blindsided by one financial catastrophe after another over the last 18 months, but throughout the tumult, the government bond market has been their friend.

Until now.

A brutal drop in long-dated Treasury prices has caught even the best money managers off guard -- in some cases wiping out as much as 60 percent of the gains they booked in last year's huge rally in U.S. Treasuries.

The Vanguard Group, Fidelity Investments, T. Rowe Price and Hoisington Investment Management have seen their government funds down anywhere between 10 percent and 30 percent, as record amounts of debt flood the market to pay for the swelling budget deficit.

What's stunning about the portfolio declines is the swift plunge in Treasury prices within a short period of time despite the Federal Reserve's buyback purchases intended to hold down interest rates. Benchmark 10-year Treasury yields have surged to levels not seen in more than six months, resulting in meaningful losses for many portfolios.

The 10-year T-note and 30-year Treasury bond are down 8.58 percent and 24 percent, respectively, in terms of price for the year to date.

"If I were clairvoyant and knew we were going to have a sell-off of this magnitude, I would've been all in cash, but I'm not," said Van Hoisington, whose flagship Wasatch-Hoisington U.S. Treasury Fund is down more than 20 percent.

To be fair, not all Treasury-oriented funds like Hoisington's represent an expression of a firm's macro view of economic growth or lackthereof. Some bond funds, such as the Vanguard Extended Duration Treasury Index Institutional, hold Treasuries for actuarial reasons.

SOME BULLS SMILE THROUGH THE PAIN

Even so, the losses are massive. Some of the rise in yields and slide in Treasury prices is due to investors' appetite for riskier fare like stocks, junk bonds and corporate debt, which have been performing well on signs the recession is easing.

Indeed, for much of 2008 and earlier this year, investors piled into U.S. government debt during the credit crisis, sending yields to historic lows and triggering talk of a bubble similar to that of the Nasdaq's Internet-led bubble, which expanded in the late 1990s and burst in March 2000.

But there also have been concerns about America's long-term financial health, which has set in motion a huge domino effect -- leading money managers such as Hoisington to stay bullish on Treasuries.

"We ain't seen nothing yet in terms of the gazillion amount of Treasuries coming to fund our stimulus programs," said Dan Fuss, vice chairman of Loomis Sayles, which oversees more than $107.7 billion in assets.

UNITED STATES' AAA VULNERABLE

On May 21, Moody's Investors Service said while it is comfortable with America's AAA debt rating, it is not guaranteed forever against the backdrop of its deteriorating fiscal position. That helped exacerbate market fears that the United States remains ever more vulnerable to lose its coveted triple-A rating with its need to borrow $2 trillion -- or 14 percent of the country's total economic output and more than twice the record of 6 percent set in 1983.

That also has set off a chain reaction, notably with the so-called "bond vigilantes." Veteran Wall Street strategist Ed Yardeni coined the term "bond vigilantes" to describe the huge appetite for yield of investors in the 1980s, who got burned in the '70s; these investors demanded higher yields to compensate for perceived risks of inflation and budget deficits.

The phenomenon seems premature to some investors in Treasuries.

"If zero growth is gonna result in inflation, it's a new economic paradigm as far as I'm concerned," Hoisington said.

His fund was up an astounding 37.77 percent in 2008.

"We do not have a forecast of runaway growth, nor does the Fed," added Brian Brennan, manager of the T. Rowe Price U.S. Treasury Long-Term bond fund, which is down nearly 11 percent. Conversely, his fund was up more than 23 percent last year.

The standout of the crowd, however, is Vanguard. Its Extended Duration fund, which is down over 33 percent so far this year, "is not an expression of our macro call," Ken Volpert, head of the Taxable Bond Group at The Vanguard Group, where he oversees about $200 billion in assets, told Reuters.

Volpert said the fund, which was up 55.52 percent in 2008, is primarily intended for pension plans and other institutional investors that want to closely match long-term liabilities with a portfolio of U.S. Treasury securities of similar long-term duration. He added that credit conditions have improved dramatically and confidence has come back into the markets and economy to feed the belief in recovery.

Even so, "somebody lost their shirt ... 33 percent is no small chunk of change," said Jeff Tjornehoj, research manager at Lipper Inc, a funds research firm owned by Thomson Reuters.
http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv/idUSTRE55468F20090605
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 07:10 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. Whoops! No Wonder the Chinese Laughed at Little Timmy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ozymandius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #19
49. Are they talking about what happened on May 27th?
Edited on Fri Jun-05-09 09:36 PM by ozymandius
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #49
64. I think so

I was reading elsewhere that Bernanke is in a pickle. He's trying to keep rates low with the 'Quantitative Easing', but mortgage rates really shot up. Not sure what Bernanke does next.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #64
67. How About Resigning, Bernanke?
If your passport is current, you might get out ahead of the pitchforks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. Yeh, I have my IRA in Vanguard Treasury Fund
Edited on Fri Jun-05-09 07:05 PM by DemReadingDU
As long as the Treasury yield is higher than the Vanguard fee, then I'm not worrying. But it's getting real close. If it turns negative, my next safe option is to redeem it, pay the taxes, and put the cash (whatever's left) in 'Sealy'.





:hi:

Thanks for the weekend thread!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. You are entirely welcome. thanks for Stopping in!
Appreciate especially the gleanings you bring to the feast. A real junk (bond) food fest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ozymandius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #21
50. Me too.
Edited on Fri Jun-05-09 09:39 PM by ozymandius
I do love these movie theme WE threads.

:hi:

edit: to remove an 'e' so as not to mean 'pee'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #21
53. Deep in "Sealy"!
It's done wonders for my back... ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
20. You Knew It Was Coming: US Fed Chairman demands plan to cut social programs
http://rjones2818.blogspot.com/2009/06/us-fed-chairman-demands-plan-to-cut.html


Original article, by Barry Grey, via World Socialist Web Site:

Testifying Wednesday before the Budget Committee of the House of Representatives, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke demanded that Congress and the Obama administration map out a program of austerity measures to bring down record budget deficits. Bernanke made clear that the heart of this program should be sharp cuts in social spending, including basic entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare.



Well, duh! You didn't expect Bernanke to come out in favor of increased social spending, did you? Indeed, austerity budgets are part of the neoliberal playbook. Let the financial institutions plunder a country, and then make that country's population suffer a shrinking of their safety net.

“Maintaining the confidence of the financial markets,” Bernanke said in prepared remarks to the committee, “requires that we, as a nation, begin planning now for the restoration of fiscal balance.”



I bet he said this one with a straight face. The financial markets are, to a great extent, what have failed us in this crisis of capitalism. I should think it would be the financial markets which need to regain our confidence. Silly me.

The phrase “confidence of the financial markets” is a euphemism for the interests of Wall Street and major international banks and investors. In demanding the preparation of austerity measures to be imposed on the American people, Bernanke was speaking in behalf of the financial elite whose massive taxpayer subsidies have been the major cause of the explosive growth over the past year of the federal deficit and the US national debt.



And it's been Bernanke and the Fed which have been doing most of the shoveling. At least $12.8 trillion has be poured into the financial markets in an attempt to right them. You would think Ben wouldn't be quite so keen to cut our social safety net, if only to be nice to the people who are financing his spending binge.

I'll let you read the rest of the article. You'll read how unemployment is expected to continue to rise at an astounding rate. You'll read how the Obama administration's policies fit rather nicely with Bernanke's vision. You'll be left to wonder how well allowed this to happen to ourselves, and what we're going to do about it. You'll also be left to wonder how the US economy ever got to the position of being on the precipice of being a third world economy.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/fed-j04.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burf Donating Member (745 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #20
33. In a related story:
From Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis:

Minnesota Governor To Begin "Unallotments"

Minnesota's top state finance official on Thursday formally notified Gov. Tim Pawlenty that the state will not take in enough money to pay its bills over the next two years, setting the stage for the governor to start using his executive power to unilaterally cut spending.

In a letter to Pawlenty, Management and Budget Commissioner Tom Hanson wrote that, as expected, the spending he and the Legislature approved for 2010-11 would exceed the state's revenue collections by $2.7 billion.

"Therefore, at the beginning of the next fiscal year (July 1), it will be necessary to reduce allotments of appropriations or transfers," Hanson wrote.

Under state law, Pawlenty can't start to cut spending until the commissioner notifies him that the state faces a budget shortfall. Hanson's letter satisfies that requirement.

snip

Pawlenty is looking to cut health and welfare spending, college and university appropriations and state agency budgets. That's a good start, with start being the operative word. Eliminate would be a better word for many state agency departments.

Link: http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/

May I also say a big "Thank You" to Demeter for all you do in the making of the WEE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 07:42 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. Thanks burf. that's Really Bad News for Minn.
Our local saint, Gov. Jennifer Granholm, has been fighting like an angel against the state legislature, trying to keep the basics funded. The legislature refuses to do any increase of taxation, and believe me, there are some who aren't hurting at all here. We're getting several prisons shut down, and 4000 relatively harmless people released...so they can starve on the streets, I suppose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 10:52 PM
Response to Reply #20
57. Alicia: Waving the flag with one hand and picking pockets with the other, that's your "patriotism".
Notorious (1946)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
22. I Forgot this in the intro
Edited on Fri Jun-05-09 07:13 PM by Demeter


Born Alfred Joseph Hitchcock
August 13, 1899(1899-08-13)
Leytonstone, London, UK

Died April 29, 1980 (aged 80)
Bel-Air, Los Angeles, California, USA

Other name(s) Hitch

The Master of Suspense

Years active 1921–1976
Spouse(s) Alma Reville (1926-1980)


Sir Alfred Joseph Hitchcock, KBE (13 August 1899 – 29 April 1980)<1> was a British filmmaker and producer who pioneered many techniques in the suspense and psychological thriller genres. After a successful career in his native United Kingdom in both silent films and early talkies, Hitchcock moved to Hollywood. In 1956 he became an American citizen while retaining his British citizenship.

Hitchcock directed more than fifty feature films in a career spanning six decades. He remains one of the most popular and most recognised filmmakers of all time and his works are still popular today. His image has endured partly due to cameo appearances in his own films and the series of television dramas he hosted, the eponymous Alfred Hitchcock Presents....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Hitchcock
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. I loved Vertigo and Rear Window


I need to go look up some movie quotes.


Hey, have we done Twilight Zone yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. No, Not Yet.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #22
73. "Self-plagiarism is style." - A. H. (Link to Biography on Google Books)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 07:19 PM
Response to Original message
28. Mark Fiore Presents: The Bear Flag Banana Republic!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 07:25 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. Lotta sad truth there
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #28
35. Helpful hint to Gov. Arnold:
"In films murders are always very clean. I show how difficult it is and what a messy thing it is to kill a man."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
29. MoJo Interview: Geoffrey Nunberg, linguist
http://www.motherjones.com/media/2009/06/mojo-interview-geoffrey-nunberg

Mother Jones: Credit crisis, credit crunch, depression, recession, slowdown, downturn—why do you think we have so many terms for our current financial situation?

Geoffrey Nunberg: To a large extent, the uncertainty about what to call it has a lot to do with the uncertainty about what it is—and how optimistic or pessimistic you are and what you have done with that 401(k). The word "recession" was originally introduced as a euphemism for "depression." And very quickly those words acquired the connotations they were designed to escape. I'm kind of nostalgic for the days when we just called them "hard times." The new language gives an aura of precision that really isn't justified. In fact, whatever economists tell you, words like "recession" and "depression" are really no more accurate and precise than "bad hair day."

MJ: Have the words become politically polarized? Are some terms are more common among financial pundits on the right or left?

GN: I think both sides have an interest in avoiding the darker language. The Republicans because they started it, and the Democrats because they have to fix it. The thing about words like "depression" is that people fear they are self-actuating. If you call it a depression, whether you're the administration or someone on the financial side, you'll lower confidence.

MJ: Any thoughts on the torture semantics debate?

GN: You find people using these terms like "enhanced interrogation techniques." In one speech Bush used the word "professionals" 26 times—the idea being not only that these people knew what they were doing but also that they weren't taking any pleasure in it. The idea that these pudding-faced American kids who were working in McDonald's a year earlier could be capable of that is very disturbing to a lot of people.

MJ: It seems like the media have really made a decision not to use the word "torture."

GN: With a few exceptions—The New Yorker is one—the American media have almost categorically refused to use what Rumsfeld referred to as "the torture word." From the minute that story broke, though, the European press had no trouble using that word or its equivalent in French and German and Italian. Even Rupert Murdoch's Times. Even though the Fox network wouldn't go near the word. So it was a singularly American refusal to address this as torture. It had partly to do with the ease with which the American media are cowed by pressures from the right. And afraid of being accused of bias.

MJ: How about the right's current fondness for the word "socialism"?

GN: That term was part of the Republican lexicon for years and years. Any time the Democrats proposed any legislation on child labor, social security, the Republicans immediately cried socialism—to the point where in 1952 Harry Truman said that when you hear someone saying "down with socialism," they really mean "down with progress." Within 20 or 30 years, the word "socialism" had pretty much vanished from the lexicon of the right. Bush and Cheney never talked about socialism. So it's a very recent reinvention, and one that came late in the campaign. They went after Obama: "He's a celebrity," "He's elitist," "He's out of touch," and "Oh. By the way, he's a socialist." It may have had to do with the realization that the traditional cultural politics weren't working in this campaign, and the need in some way to turn the discussion to the economic issues in a way that would be favorable to the Republicans. It may also have to do with a kind of psychological state the Republicans are in right now. When a party suffers this kind of defeat, there's a part of it that folds in on itself to lick its wounds and becomes even more strident in its language...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. "Drama is life with the dull bits cut out."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 07:31 PM
Response to Original message
32. What Will People Do For Free?
Edited on Fri Jun-05-09 07:33 PM by Demeter
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/06/what-will-people-do-free

By Kevin Drum | Thu June 4, 2009 5:54 PM PST

Barron YoungSmith remarks on the fact that Craigslist actively avoids making a profit:

As Paul Starr has explained, newspapers only flourished during the past few centuries because they functioned as intermediaries between readers and advertisers — fundamentally, they survived because they were institutions that stood between people.

Now, along comes Craigslist, which sees cutting these sorts of intermediaries out of the equation as a form of public service. It considers that mission so important that it is willing to forgo huge potential profits and compete against classified pages everywhere while charging virtually nothing for what it offers. In that kind of environment, it's pretty ludicrous to think that newspapers could survive.

Probably so. Especially since Craigslist works better than newspaper classified advertising. I've got some old darkroom equipment that's been sitting in my garage for ages, and if I had to go through the hassle of taking out a newspaper classified ad to sell it, it would still be there. But last night at about 6 pm I suddenly decided to advertise it on Craigslist. Two hours later I got a response from a guy in Long Beach. This morning he came by, took a look at the whole setup, and hauled everything off. I'm a few dollars richer, he's excited at the prospect of setting up a darkroom, and the whole transaction took less than 24 hours. Amazing.

MORE AT LINK

I WANT TO ADD AS A NOTE: THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT WE DO HERE ON THIS WEBSITE, AND IN THESE THREADS SMW AND WEE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 08:18 PM
Response to Original message
36. Fuld's alma mater to teach financial literacy
http://www.thedeal.com/dealscape/2009/06/fuld_alma_mater_to_teach_finan.php


Thursday's item from the "can't make this up" department: Wilbraham & Monson Academy, the Massachusetts boarding school that brought us former Lehman Brothers Inc. CEO Richard Fuld, is creating an on-campus trading floor that it claims will take financial literacy to "a whole new level," according to this story in The Wall Street Journal.

Which begs the question: Why bother with the trading floor? The school's most famous alumnus has done his part in supplying a case study for how not to run a financial institution. A whole new level of financial literacy? How's this for financial illiteracy: Fuld's mismanagement of Lehman is one of the most blatant examples of incompetence in modern finance. That he accomplished this through some of the very methods the school is now trying to teach its next generation of alumni should be lesson enough, one would think.

Yet judging by the canned marketing-speak the Journal quoted in its story, the school does not appear to have caught on to any of the lessons of Lehman's collapse. "Students can use state-of-the-art financial-markets software to learn to research, analyze, and decipher patterns in the context of a financial trading environment," the Journal quoted the school as saying.

How is any of that supposed to teach kids financial literacy? It sounds more like a business school course description or the training manual from a prop desk, circa 2006. Even if the students at Wilbraham & Monson Academy know the basics of economics and accounting already (and how many high school students are proficient in these areas? I mean seriously?) it is really just teaching them to be glorified gamblers.

To be sure, financial literacy is in short supply these days, and any attempt to fill this void, even (especially?) by a secondary school institution, should be supported. But let's leave the models, software and patterns, especially "in the context of a financial trading environment," where they belong: with quants, math Ph.D.s and other eggheads (and the few prop desks and hedge funds that still claim to employ these techniques). Kids really shouldn't play with this stuff, lest they end up like Dick Fuld. -
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
37. Since so Many Wondered: SEC VS Mozilo - Where Does This Go?
http://brucekrasting.blogspot.com/2009/06/sec-vs-mozilo-where-does-this-go.html

The SEC announced they are going to take on Lee Mozilo. They have charged him with insider trading and misleading shareholders. Shocking!

Several months ago the SEC sent Mozilo a Wells letter. This a very bad letter to get in the mail. The one to Mr. Mozilo read like this:

Dear Lee,

We know you are dirty and we are coming after you. We are looking everywhere and we will find enough to indict you in the near future.

Even if the evidence is bubkiss you are going to trial. We will pick the jurisdiction and the jurors. With your tan and reputation we will get a jury to convict you. So you are looking at hard time.

Why don’t you come in with some lawyers and we can talk this over. If you are willing to write a big check, say $250mm, well, maybe we can make this go away.

Look forward to hearing from you,

Your Pal,

The SEC

It looks like Lee said no to that offer. This sets up a very interesting case. I think that the SEC is nuts to take this line. They are opening up something that should not be opened. This has potential to go in a lot of bad directions.

They are going after Lee as an insider. Well, I hope all those good lawyers at the SEC did not spend too much time on that one. One can safely assume that the Chairman/CEO is an insider. No? They say he sold stock based on that ‘insider’ information. Here again the public record says he did. So what? Lots of CEOs have programs to sell stock. So long as the details are public there is nothing wrong with that as far as I know.

It is possible that Lee did not properly register his stock sales. If so he is dead meat. I doubt that is the case. Lee was a very litigious guy. He had lawyers around him all the time. I bet that he had the necessary approvals and filings in order before the stock was sold. If that were not the case his lawyers would have told him to write the big checks after the Wells notice.

The issue of providing misleading information to shareholders is a can of worms. Earlier this year Fed Chairman Bernanke said, “There was a time in November when I was not sure the system would survive”. Well, he did not disclose his feelings to the public in the fall. Paulson and Geithner had tons of information they did not disclose either. But they are the government and are supposed to keep information from us.

Similarly there are several Freedom of Information suits outstanding against the Fed. The objective is to get the NY Fed to release a detailed list of its holdings. The Fed has resisted in court, arguing that to release this information would be injurious to the Fed and therefore the taxpayer. So far the courts have sided with the Fed. This disclosure of information issue is more complicated than it looks. It appears that there are different rules for public officials and officials of public companies. Very fine lines.

If the SEC nails Lee on providing misleading information there are at least twenty other guys who are ex financial big shots who will be looking down the barrel of the SEC’s gun. Some of them are still big shots at big banks. This is a domino problem. If they get Lee, they will go for Chuck Prince and Bob Rubin. If they go in that direction do they also go after Pandit and Lewis? Talk about a slippery slope.

A perfect example of providing misleading information to shareholders occurred last July. Here is the relevant headline:


"Mortgage financiers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are adequately capitalized," said James Lockhart, director of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise, which regulates the two enterprises.

Sixty days after Mr. Lockhart made these remarks the Agencies were put into receivership. No doubt but that Mr. Lockhart was an insider at FNM and FRE. Common and preferred shareholders who believed in the words from the chief regulator of the GSE’s lost a bundle. This example is not a case where significant information regarding the health of the Agencies was withheld from the public. This was a very deliberate effort to provide misinformation to the public. In the days that followed the comments by Mr. Lockhart both Treasury Secretary Paulson and President Bush repeated his words. All three of them knew better. But, equity holders got crushed. I doubt the SEC is looking into that one.

It looks to me like the SEC wants show trials. I think the America people want to stone some of the folks who got us into this mess. The SEC charges against Mozilo have the potential to backfire.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tclambert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #37
95. But no indictment. These guys can't get arrested no matter how hard they try to look like mobsters.
From North by Northwest : "Roger Thornhill: Well, didn't you hear what I said? I want to be taken to police headquarters. I'm a dangerous assassin, I'm a mad killer on the loose."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 05:15 PM
Response to Reply #95
98. Excellent Quote! You Surely Liven Up the thread!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tclambert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #98
107. Thanks. Wish I had more time on the weekends to participate.
I can only manage the occasional drive-by, usually on Sunday.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 08:28 PM
Response to Original message
38. Oil price tipped to soar on Chinese demand
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6433708.ece

Goldman Sachs raised its oil price forecast for the end of 2009 to $85 a barrel from $65, anticipating dwindling supply and rising demand this year and next.

Its forecast also put prices at $95 by the end of 2010, led by economic recovery in China.

Influenced by these predictions, US light crude rose $2.39 to $68.51, while Brent was up $2.52 to $68.40, sparking fears of a further increase in prices at the petrol pump.

The Goldman Sachs research note, by Jeffrey Currie in London and David Greely in New York, said that the recent rally in US crude was likely to be the first stage in a sustained oil price rally.

The bank’s forecast of recovery in economic activity centres on China and other emerging market countries outside the rich West. Goldman Sachs expects Chinese oil demand to decline by 115,000 barrels per day in 2009, but to grow by 343,000 barrels in 2010.

It has ruled out a strong rebound in US oil demand over the next 12 months, as the pace of American economic activity is expected to remain low. Demand in the US is down 7.7 per cent year-on-year and Goldman Sachs expects that it will decline by 980,000 barrels per day in 2009 and by a further 60,000 in 2010.

Key to the anticipated recovery in the oil price will be the willingness of the production cartel Opec, in particular Saudi Arabia, to keep down production and draw inventories back to ten-year average levels, as non-Opec production continues to decline. Goldman Sachs warned that constraints on storage capacity remained a risk.

However, John Hall, an independent energy analyst, accused Goldman Sachs, one of the world’s largest oil traders, of scaremongering. He said that last December the bank had slashed its forecast for crude oil prices to just $45 a barrel for 2009, in a sharp U-turn from its prediction of $200 made just months earlier in May 2008.

Oil prices peaked at $147 a barrel in July 2008 and then fell sharply to less than $35 in December, as the rapidly deepening global economic downturn reduced demand for energy.

Mr Hall said: “Goldman’s numbers are all over the place. You need to consider the fact that the world is awash with oil on land and sea. And if the recession is really over, tell that to General Motors and LDV.”

Referring to Goldman Sachs’ forecast of a spike to $95 by the end of 2010, he asked: “Who would pay those prices? I don’t think that the Chinese would go that far.”

Mr Hall said he expected a correction in the oil price in the not too distant future: “It could hover where it is now and then come down.”

Last week Opec held production levels, saying that weak demand was “likely to remain for some time”.

Luke Bosdet, a spokesman for the AA, which represents 13 million motorists in the UK, said that at 100.6p per litre, prices at the petrol pump were already 10p up on March, adding £5 to the cost of a full tank.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 08:34 PM
Response to Original message
39. Why the Present Depression Will Be Deeper than the Great Crash of 1929
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogjune09/depression06-09.html


Galbraith's conclusions about the causes of the Great Depression point to why the current Depression will be deeper.


Continuing our analysis of The Great Crash of 1929 by John Kenneth Galbraith: by understanding the causes of the Great Depression as elucidated by Galbraith, we can observe the differences between the present and 1929. These reveal why today's Depression will be even deeper than the 1929-1941 one and why today's policy "fixes" as pursued by that great student of Depression, Ben Bernanke, are fighting the last war--a Keynesian stimulus strategy doomed to catastrophic failure.

I hesitate to call this topic "important" because such announcements instantly cut my readership in half. Thus I am inclined to call this topic "edgy," "explosive" and "contrarian," all of which sound more interesting than "important" (yawn).

Galbraith begins his exploration of causes by noting that "economics does not allow final answers on these matters. But, as usual, something can be said."

First, he demolishes the notion that abundant credit caused a speculative orgy.

The long-accepted explanation that credit was easy and so people were impelled to borrow money to buy common stocks on margin is obviously nonsense. (page 169) On numerous occasions before and since credit has been easy, and there has been no speculation whatever. Furthermore, much of the 1928 and 1929 speculation occured on money borrowed at interest rates which would have been considered especially astringent.

Far more important that rate of interest and supply of the credit is the mood. Speculation on a large scale requires a pervasive sense of confidence and optimism and conviction that ordinary people were meant to be rich. (emphasis added, CHS)

Next, Galbraith looks to the wellspring of credit which has been virtually nonexistent in our current speculative boom: savings. (Or at least domestic i.e. U.S. savings.)

Savings must also be plentiful. If savings are growing rapidly, people will place a lower marginal value on their accumulation; they will be willing to risk some of it against the prospect of a greatly enhanced return.

Speculative excess is somewhat self-regulating--or should be unless manipulated by the very state which is pledged to protect the economy from such excesses. Galbraith notes:

Finally, a speculative outbreak has a greater or less immunizing effect. The ensuing collapse automatically destroys the very mood speculation requires.

Moving from the causes of speculative excess to that of Depression, Galbraith rejects a cyclical cause: "No inevitable rhythm required the collapse and stagnation of 1930-1940."

As for the business cycle--expansion of plant, credit and inventory once over-extended, requires a contraction to restore balance--Galbraith grants it viability, but he rejects it as the cause of the Depression:

In 1929 the labor force was not tired; it could have continued to produce indefinitely at the best 1929 rate. The capital plant of the country was not depleted. In the preceding years of prosperity, plant had been renewed and improved.

Finally, the high production of the twenties did not, as some have suggested, outrun the wants of the people. There is no evidence that their desire for automobiles, clothing, travel. recreation or even food was sated. A depression was not needed so that people's wants could catch up to their capacity to produce.

So then what did trigger the Great Depression? Galbraith sets aside the speculative collapse itself for a moment and digs for problems in the real economy. He begins by noting worker productivity rose by 43% between 1919 and 1929 even as wages, salaries and prices all remained comparatively stable. This enabled increasing profits, which due to the large income disparities of the era, flowed largely to the well-to-do.

What did the wealthy do with this new-found capital?

A large and increasing investment in capital goods was a principal device by which the profits were spent. (page 175) It follows that anything that interrupted the investment outlays--anything, indeed, which kept them from showing the neessary rate of increase--could cause trouble.

The effect, therefore of insufficient investment--investment that failed to keep pace with the steady increase in profits--could be falling total demand reflected in turn in falling orders and output.

As I understand this, the proximate cause was a vast income disparity which placed much of the prosperous era's profits in the hands of a small wealthy class, who then mal-invested the profits. If that isn't ringing some bells in your head, then please recall that income disparity, which fell from 1946-1970 or so, has been rising ever since. Bingo--profits flowed increasingly into the hands of a elite wealthy class who then squandered/mal-invested the vast profits, undermining the entire economy.

Galbraith then turns to the causal relations between the collapse of the speculative stock market and the ensuing Depression. Once again, Galbraith fingers income disparity: 5% of the populace garnered a full third of personal income.

This highly unequal income distribution meant that the economy was dependent on a high level of investment or a high level of luxury consumer spending or both. The rich cannot buy great quantities of bread. If they are to dispose of what they receive it must be luxuries or by way of investment in new plants and new projects.

As the stock market crashed, those with the most to lose--the wealthy--found their cashflow and capital massively crimped. Since the entire economy was dependent on them spending and investing freely, the economy crashed, too.

You see where this leads in terms of the 1990s-2006 boom. The stupendous profits skimmed in the great dot-com boom flowed disproportionately into a few hands, who then mal-invested the gains (in a macro context) in a completely unproductive burst of overbuilt housing and commercial real estate. The ensuing bubble drew in all those who in Galbraith's words believed they deserved to be rich and as those hapless speculators crashed they took the entire middle class of homeowners with them.

Galbraith also fingers two other causes of the Great Depression: Faulty corporate structure and flawed banking structure. The parallels to the present are achingly obvious; here's Galbraith's terse description:

The fact was that American enterprise in the twenties had opened its hospitable arms to an exceptional number of promoters, grafters, swindlers, imposters and frauds. This, in in the long history of such activities, was a kind of flood tide of corporate larceny.

As gargantuan as the flood of corporate larceny was in the 20s, the present era certainly exceeds it by a large margin.

Here is Galbraith's trenchant comment about the banking practices of the 20s:

Since the early 30s, a generation of Americans has been told, sometimes with amusement, sometimes with indignation, often with outrage, of the banking practices of the late 20s. In fact, many of those practices were made ludicrous only by the depression. Loans which would have been pefectly good were made perfectly foolish by the collapse of the value of the collateral he had posted.

The same, I fear, cannot said of the present: millions of guaranteed-to-default mortgages made to impossibly unqualified borrowers were never good nor prudent. The same can also be said of millions of auto/truck loans, millions of credit cards, millions of home equity lines of credit, etc.

Even worse, of course, the banks of the present era achieved heights of leverage via off-balance sheet derivatives, the securitization of mortgages and other financial legerdemaine that even the greediest, most venal bankers of the 20s could not even imagine.

Lastly, Galbraith blames "the dubious state of the foreign balance," i.e. the imbalance of foreign trade and flow of funds. In 1929, the problem seems to be that the U.S. was a magnet for capital inflows even as it managed a trade surplus. That imbalance doomed the global economy. Now of course we face the opposite imbalance but the same result will follow: the U.S. continues to run a staggering, unprecendented trade imbalance even as it sucks up an unprecedented share of global capital/savings.

Galbraith concludes: "Had the economy been fundamentally sound in 1929 the effect of the great stock market crash might have been small. But business in 1929 was not sound; on the contrary it was exceedingly fragile. It was vulnerable to the kind of blow it received from Wall Street."

You mean like the evaporation of $12 trillion wealth we've just experienced in the U.S.?

But the present is far more fragile and vulnerable than the U.S. economy of 1929, for the following reasons. In 1955 Galbraith could not possibly have foreseen or anticipated these current conditions:

1. A Federal government which since the "Reagan Revolution" of 1981 (e.g. don't tax and spend, just borrow and spend) has borrowed during so-called good times on a scale once reserved for rare Keynesian stimulus to combat serious recession. Thus we find ourselves at unprecedented levels of debt (comparable in terms of GDP to the entire cost of World War II) and our current Depression has barely begun.

2. A corrupt-to-the-core corporate structure riddled with bogus accounting, reliance on financial trickery for profits and misdirected/worthless regulatory oversight.

3. A banking sector of such debauchery and fraud that the excesses of the 1920s are reduced to the pranks of slighty-naughty choirboys and girls.

4. A Federal system of entitlements (Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security) which has grown far faster than the underlying economy for decades and now threatens the very solvency of the government itself, so stupendous are the future obligations.

5. A global military hegemony which costs more than all the other militarys and intelligence operations of the entire world put together. The U.S. military consumes more oil than the nation of Sweden (9 million residents).

6. An industrial, transportation and energy infrastructure that, rather than being rebuilt during the past 26 years of debt-based "prosperity," has crumbled in a long decline. Rather than invest in electrical power grids and energy-efficient transport systems, the U.S. squandered the trillions of borrowed dollars on toys, gewgaws, electronics made elsewhere, malls and commercial towers with only transient value and millions of bloated, inefficient poorly constructed homes no one needed or could afford: "assets" which were not productive at all, "assets" which are now capital traps on a scale heretofore unimaginable

7. A paucity of U.S. savings (and thus of domestic capital) with only one historical parallel: the depths of the Great Depression when unemployment was 25%.

8. A huge reliance on financial leverage, debt, borrowing and trickery for corporate profits; the U.S. exports soybeans, increasingly worthless dollars and "financial innovations" which are now exploding in economies from Ireland to India with the destructive force of superweapons. In exchange for this dubious paper, we have accepted actual tangible goods from the rest of the world.

They are now slowly waking up to the fact they've been conned on a scale few can grasp.

9. Globalization has reworked the global supply chain in an astonishingly brief period of time. As a result, the arbitrage of currencies (foreign exchange a.k.a. forex), wages, governance (less is more profitable) and environmental regulations (zero is the most profitable) have all placed advanced post-industrial economies like the U.S. at great structural disadvantages.

10. The U.S. claims to be competitive but much of this competitiveness is highly selective and thus illusory. Everything in the U.S.--labor, goods, buildings and taxes--is high-cost, overregulated (except for finance, banking and governance) and vulnerable to unpredictable lawsuits and officially sanctioned looting. Other than recent immigrants, non-U.S. employers find the workforce is often surly, unappreciative, narcissistic, entitlement-obsessed, unhealthy, poorly educated, unmotivated and more inclined to get-rich-quick schemes than actual enterprise or productivity.

The middle management labors under impossible demands to enrich stockholders next quarter and heavy turnover insures few stay in any job long enough to learn it effectively. Team cooperation is a doublespeak fraud imposed by "facilitators," creating a phony work environment where employees and managers alike pretend to care. This bogus environment breeds a looting, game-the-system mentality in which everyone is grabbing for all they can before retirement, restructuring, reassignment, resignation or getting fired.

A "quarterly profits are God" mentality reduces the workforce (even the good workers) to units of input which are pared back or hired without regard to morale or loyalty. This managerial and cultural pathology makes a mockery of worker loyalty and breeds the very qualities of distrust and "I got mine" attitude which undermines both productivity and workplace happiness.

11. Last but certainly not least, the U.S. economy is highly depedent on cheap, abundant fossil fuels--the very fuels which are in the global depletion phase, happy stories about unlimited natural gas and tar sands to the contrary.

For all these reasons, we can anticipate the Depression currently unfolding will be deeper, longer and more destructive than the Great Depression.

Let's recount the chain of events which partly parallel the Great Depression and partly diverge in meaningfully more destructive ways from that previous era:

1. The postwar income convergence (i.e the rise of the great middle class, the reduction of poverty and the relative reduction of the Plutocracy's share of national income) reverses in the early 1970s as the "true prosperity" of the postwar era ends and is replaced by income flowing increasingly to the top as stagflation, globalization and the decline of dollar gut the purchasing power of the middle class.

2. The rising productivity of the 50s and 60s slips to the flatline through the 70s and early 80s, only picking up again as computer software and hardware revolutionize the back office, sales, manufacturing, just-in-time shipping/production, etc.

3. Concurrent with this gradual return to productivity is the rise of finance as the key profit-center of corporate America. As income skews ever more heavily to the top 1%/5%, then capital (productive assets) become ever more heavily concentrated in the hands of the financial Plutocracy. The top 1% now owns some 2/3 of the nation's entire productive wealth.

4. As profits rise (from rising productivity) then the profits flow not to wages (which remain flat to down 1975-2009 for all but the top 10% professional class) but to those who own the capital.

5. As the middle class experiences a decline in their income and purchasing power (for reasons cited above: declining dollar, rising income disparity, and wages falling due to global wage arbitrage) then they turn more and more to borrowing and ever greater debt to fund what they have been brainwashed by the media to believe is "the American dream" of imported luxury goods, bloated homes, vacuous cruises, etc.

The only other mechanism available to the middle class to increase household income is for Mom/Aunt/Grandmom to enter the workforce, which she does in the tens of millions, with sociological consequences which are still unfolding.

6. This advert/media-driven desire to borrow to fund the "good life" is hugely profitable to the money-center banks, which expand rapidly into mortgage securization, derivatives and consumer credit to the point that they come to dominate corporate profits.

7. The financial Plutocracy, observing that actually producing goods is not very profitable unless you can fix prices as per ADM (Archer Daniels Midlands) or gain government subsidies and tax giveaways (oil lease depreciation, etc.) sinks its capital into the FIRE economy (finance, insurance and real estate), eschewing real-world investments as comparatively unprofitable.

Though rarely noted, this is a longstanding trait of capitalism stretching back to 1400-era Venice. When trade became less profitable than mainland farmimg, the Venetian Elite stopped funding trading and bought farms on the mainland. As a side effect, Venice ceased to be a military and trading power. But the Elite remained immensely wealthy.

8. As the tech bubble expands, middle-class investors see the Plutocracy (those with enough capital to qualify as angel investors and vulture, oops, I mean venture capital) reaping huge gains, and they enter the dot-com stock bubble buildup with a vengeance.

9. In a happy accident, the Soviet Empire collapses just as productivity begins its computer-fueled rise in the U.S. In a so-called Unipolar World in which U.S. military, political and financial influence is unrivaled, non-U.S. investors seek the relative safety and high returns (based on appreciation of the dollar) of U.S. financial instruments.

10. The dot-com bubble implodes in a speculative meltdown (dot-bomb), and retail investors (a.k.a. the middle class 401K investors) are devastated. The ephemeral wealth they once possessed, however briefly, fuels their speculative desire to get into the next get-rich-quick game, which just so happens to be "something everyone understands:" real estate and housing.

11. Having exhausted the dot-com play, Elite capital is seeking a new high-profit home. The miracles of derivatives (CDOs, credit default swaps, etc.) and securitized debt (mortgage tranches, etc.) open up vast new opportunities for leverage, off-balance sheet shenanigans and outright fraud/debauchery of credit. As chip wafer plants disappear from Silicon Valley (too dirty, too costly, etc.) then they're replaced with paper: mortgage-backed securities.

12. Sniffing gold in them thar exurban hills, the under-capitalized and over-indebted U.S. working class and middle class reach for the chalice of easy-money gold: leveraged real estate.

13. With the Federal financial regulatory agencies in a Republican/Democrat-enforced somnambulance, the coast is clear for brigands, shysters, fraudsters, con artists, liars, cheats, and assorted riff-raff in the realtor, mortgage and appraisal businesses, who all feed the ravenous maw of the money-center banks' apparently limitless appetite for real estate assets to securitize and leverage in exotic and highly profitable ways.

14. For a wonderful five years circa 2001-2006, the game is afoot and no-down-payment Jill and $100 million bonus Jack are immensely enriched. Meanwhile, the underlying real economy is becoming ever more imbalanced and ever more fragile as real production and real productivity plummet as everyone rushes to the speculative riches of exurban McMansions and malls.

15. This last best speculative leveraged bubble pops, gutting a Wall Street which had grown utterly dependent on leverage, debt, gamed/fraudulent accounting and bubbles for its rising profits.

16. Doubly devastated by the implosion of housing and their stock investments (mostly in retirement funds), the middle class faces the terrible consequences of its 26-year stupor of ever-rising debt and leverage. Alas, the Emperor's clothes are revealed as remarkably transparent.

17. Just as in the Great Depression, to its great surprise, the Elite has also suffered catastrophic losses and declines in capital and income.

18. Having borrowed and squandered trillions of dollars since 1981 on unaffordable entitlements, military misadventures and assorted worthless bridges-to-nowhere pork spending, the Federal government (The Fed and the Treasury) finds that its ability to borrow its way out of its current debt hole somewhat annoyingly limited. The rest of the world has finally caught on to the con, and Chinese university students are openly mocking Treasury Secretary Geithner's Orwellian claim of "we support a strong dollar." The miracle is that he was not pelted with tomatoes and tarred and feathered for making such absurd statements.

19. With the global media concentrated in a scant few corporate hands (less than 10), this pulling away of the curtain is deleted/excised from media coverage in a ruthless campaign of pure "green shoots" propaganda.

20. As the wheels fall off the U.S. economy and the bubbles cannot be re-inflated, fruitless attempts at holding back the tide with incantations (stop, tide, I am Obama/Geithner/Bernanke!) and loopy sand castles (the bottom is in, buy now! Green shoots are sprouting everywhere except in the real economy!) abound. Unresponsive to propaganda, the real world grinds down into a global Depression without visible end.

Is this "edgy" enough to be worthy? I hope so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost Dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 03:24 AM
Response to Reply #39
60. Yup. Concentration of wealth, rampant corruption
and unfettered greed.

In history, new religions and therefore societies have been born out of less.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 03:53 AM
Response to Reply #60
62. Will We Get a Bang, or a Whimper, This Time?
I suspect whimper.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost Dog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #62
66. Yes, I also suspect suspect this is going to turn out to be a very, very pathetic
chapter in at least some peoples' historical record.

Pathetic, unless you find yourself in one of those bombed villages/wedding ceremonies, for example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
40. The WSJ on Stephen Friedman
http://skepticaltexascpa.blogspot.com/2009/06/wsj-on-stephen-friedman.html

"Stephen Friedman has appropriately resigned as chairman of the New York , amid a flap over his ownership of Goldman Sachs shares. ... Friedman owned about 46,000 shares and was a director, but that violated no rules when was a broker-dealer regulated by the . But Mr. Friedman became subject to that ban when applied to become a bank holding company last autumn. ... Half of the financial world already thinks runs the US Treasury and the Fed, however unfairly. The American public is furious about the bailouts of AIG and banks, engineered by the Fed and Treasury, that have helped the likes of . And guess who Mr. Friedman's search committee picked as Mr. Geithner's successor when he left to run Treasury? Another Goldman alum, William Dudley", my emphasis, Editorial at the WSJ, 11 May 2009.

Only half? Unfairly? Hahahaha the Mogambo Guru would say. Look at the AIG bailout. WSJ, stop protecting GSG. Dudley is a GSG "alum"? He may be the only one. Or do you believe Robert Rubin and Henry Paulson were GSG "alums"? The NY Fed's composition could not be more inappropriate. Next, supposedly "independent" CPAs will take board seats at their auditees! The stupidest thing in this piece was the large type "center", "Bad judgment threatens the Fed's independence". What independence is the WSJ talking about? The Fed is a creature of the banks. It always has been.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
44. A Brief Economic History of the US, With a Butch Cassidy and Sundance Kid theme
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 08:51 PM
Response to Original message
45. FDIC Keen to Designate Citi a Problem Bank, Change Management
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/06/fdic-keen-tto-ciits-rating-change.html


The Wall Street Journal has an eyepopping item tonight:

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. is pushing for a shake-up of Citigroup Inc.'s top management, imperiling Chief Executive Vikram Pandit...

The FDIC, under Chairman Sheila Bair, also recently pressed a fellow regulator to lower the government's confidential ranking of Citi's health -- a change that would let regulators control the firm more tightly.

The FDIC's willingness to take an increasingly tough position toward one of the nation's largest and most troubled financial institutions is setting up a bitter clash between regulators -- some of whom disagree with the FDIC's position -- and between the FDIC and Citigroup, whose officials have argued that Ms. Bair is overstepping her authority.


Yves here, Not being privy to details (and I see no corresponding story at the New York Times to allow for triangulation), inquiring minds wonder whether the Journal has been spun a tad, since the piece also makes clear that the bank believes Bair is overreaching.

Look at the logical relationship it sets up: Bair wants to oust some Citi top brass, ergo she wants to lower Citi's score at the FDIC.

Frankly, it seems more plausible the reverse is what is happening: Bair thinks Citi deserves a lower ranking, and given how long Citi has been on the ropes, a management change is in order.

Now Bair has been argued to have been trigger happy on WaMu, taking over the bank and cramming down bondholders, with the result that JP Morgan looks to have gotten a very nice deal. However, readers have said a run was starting on WaMu. Given how nervous despositors were then, the FDIC may have been afraid of a run as WaMu morphing into something worse. I know people (savvy, not the survivalist types) who were pulling meaningful amounts of currency out of banks in the September-October period out of fear of a possible bank holiday. So I don't think the case is as clear as the Monday morning quarterbacks make it out to be. A run on WaMu could have created a great deal of collateral damage.

The reason I have some sympathy for the FDIC is that the US has violated the best practices playbook for dealing with troubled banks. If they get significant contributions from the state, the board and top brass go. The authorities install new management and set broad guidelines, sometimes timetables for particular objectives to be met, but do not meddle on a day-to-day basis.

Given Citi's globe spanning operation, and its nearly $1 trillion in maybe-not-so-off balance sheet exposures (Advanta's credit card woes are instructive here) which were enough to mobilize Paulson to try to solve them via the MLEC (our take was the MLEC was mainly about salvaging Citi, with far and away the largest SIV exposures in aggregate), it isn't hard to imagine that it is still in lousy shape. And if Bair is right, that it really does deserve lower marks from its regulators, her agitating is not out of line. Indeed, she might have waited (or been urged to wait) until equity and credit markets were on a good enough footing so that unfavorable news about Citi would not have disproportionate impact.

In fairness, the article actually comes out and says (admittedly a fair way into the story) that Citi is in worse shape than other big banks. But it spends even more time on the turf war charge, which makes it sound as if the FDIC is significantly, if not primarily motivated by the desire to make a land grab.

Back to the story:

"The FDIC is our tertiary regulator," behind the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve, said Ned Kelly, Citigroup's chief financial officer...

Still, some officials across the government are frustrated at the company's pace of change. FDIC officials in particular are concerned about the lack of senior executives with experience in commercial banking. Mr. Pandit himself comes from an investment-banking background, but most of the bank's current problems stem from troubled consumer loans.

Federal officials have reached out to Jerry Grundhofer, the former U.S. Bancorp CEO who recently joined Citigroup's board, to gauge his interest in the top job...

The FDIC's aggressive stance comes just ahead of the Obama administration's big revamp of financial oversight, which is expected in mid-June. Several regulators, including the FDIC, are hoping to win additional powers, and some may end up losing authority.

The FDIC's influence has grown in the past year because of Ms. Bair's willingness to challenge her peers, as well as her agency's central role responding to the financial crisis. Ms. Bair warned about the housing crisis before many of her colleagues.

The FDIC traditionally hasn't been nearly as assertive in management of a large firm. But Ms. Bair's agency is heavily exposed to Citigroup. The FDIC is helping finance a roughly $300 billion loss-sharing agreement with the company.

It also insures many of Citigroup's U.S. bank deposits. Citigroup has issued nearly $40 billion in FDIC-backed debt since December...

Since late 2007, Citigroup has had more than $50 billion in write-downs and loan defaults. It's in substantially worse shape than many of its peers, many of whom have been able to raise billions of dollars in fresh capital recently.

The Fed, in its recent stress tests of the nation's 19 largest banks, estimated that Citigroup could face up to $104.7 billion in loan losses through 2010 under the government's worst-case economic scenario. The test found that Citigroup could face nearly $20 billion in losses in its huge credit-card portfolio, which is suffering from rising defaults.

However, the Fed's conclusion that Citigroup needed to beef up its capital by only $5.5 billion to withstand a deteriorating economic environment surprised many investors and analysts, who feared the company faced a much steeper shortfall....

In private conversations with other regulators, FDIC officials have argued the government should be tougher on Citigroup. In what is becoming a classic Washington turf battle, the Comptroller of the Currency has countered that replacing the bank's management could be too disruptive. The agency, which oversees Citigroup's national bank division, believes Citigroup needs more time to implement its turnaround strategy.

In March, senior officials from the FDIC and Comptoller sparred over the confidential financial-health rating the government assigns to the company's Citibank unit, people familiar with the matter said. The FDIC wanted the rating lowered, these people say. Banks rated a 4 or 5, on a scale of 1 to 5, are deemed "problem banks," which means they're at greater risk of failure.

Government officials decided to keep Citigroup off the "problem" list at the end of March, which became clear after the FDIC disclosed that the 305 banks on the anonymous list had a total of only $220 billion in assets, meaning Citi couldn't be among them.

Still, Citigroup officials believe that the FDIC will push them onto the "problem" list if they don't remove Mr. Pandit and his team. They fear being on the list could limit Citigroup's access to federal programs and prompt trading partners and clients to yank business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #45
58. "H. H. Hughson: How many did you kill? "
"John Robie: 72. But, I know something that'll please you: none of them were insured."

"To Catch a Thief" (1955)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
46. Why Bernanke is right to be worried By Mohamed El-Erian
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4e9dadca-5057-11de-9530-00144feabdc0.html

Fed chairman Ben Bernanke’s congressional testimony on Wednesday warrants careful attention by market participants – this at a time when policy measures play an unusually large role in determining both absolute and relative values in many markets.

In his prepared written remarks, Mr Bernanke correctly points to the ongoing healing in critical elements of the financial markets, including inter-bank and commercial paper transactions. He also notes the improved functioning of the corporate credit market which has enabled many companies to raise needed and precautionary capital.

Yet, the most interesting aspects of his testimony are elsewhere. They relate to his more nuanced outlook about the economy and his attempt to place fiscal issues in their proper place.

Mr Bernanke acknowledges that, despite the ”green shoots”, there are still question mark over which components of demand will kick into gear once the cyclical inventory pick-up runs its course, as it will inevitably do so over the next few months. Indeed, the chairman notes that ”businesses remain very cautious and continue to reduce their workforces and capital investments.”

Concerns about a sustainable recovery are not limited to the dynamics of the immediate cyclical recovery. Mr Bernanke also notes that ”even after a recovery gets under way, the rate of growth of real economic activity is likely to remain below its longer-run potential for a while, implying that the current slack in resource utilisation will increase further.”

Yet he stops short of addressing what, increasingly, will be on many people’s minds going forward. Specifically, the longer-term question goes well beyond the notion of a prolonged period of below-potential growth. The level of potential growth itself is likely to decline. Indeed, this is a central element of what we, at Pimco, call the ”new normal”.

When it comes to fiscal issues, the chairman is not timid about worrying about longer-term questions – and rightly so. He is explicit about the need for greater clarity on how fiscal sustainability will be restored after this period of emergency policy actions.

Mr Bernanke states that ”even as we take steps to address the recession and threats to financial stability, maintaining the confidence of the financial markets requires that we, as a nation, begin planning now for the restoration of fiscal balance. Prompt attention to questions of fiscal sustainability is particularly critical because of the coming budgetary and economic challenges associated with the retirement of the baby-boom generation and continued increases in medical costs.”

He does not stop here. He goes on to warn that ”near-term challenges must not be allowed to hinder timely consideration of the steps needed to address fiscal imbalances. Unless we demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal sustainability in the longer term, we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth.”

These are strong words, and appropriately so given the worrisome fiscal outlook facing the US. By necessity, Mr Bernanke will increasingly be in the business of countering monetisation and inflation concerns.

Indeed, the markets have already fired a couple of clear warning shots in the last couple of weeks, as illustrated by recent moves in US bonds and the dollar.

The chairman’s challenges on this count are neither easy nor amenable to quick solutions. Moreover, as markets increasingly look into the underlying factors, as inevitably they will, they will recognise the difficulty that the government faces in credibly committing to the needed primary fiscal adjustment in the absence of high economic growth.

The bottom line is that we should come away from Mr Bernanke’s testimony with at least two conclusions: the chairman seems more cautious about the growth outlook when compared with other recent public statements; and he wants to push fiscal sustainability issues clearly away from the Fed’s domain and back where they belong, with Congress and the administration. He is correct on both counts. He would have been justified on Wednesday in being even more forceful; and he mostly probably will be in the next few months.

The writer is chief executive and co-chief investment officer of Pimco. His book ‘When Markets Collide: Investment Strategies for the Age of Global Economic Change’ won the 2008 FT/Goldman Sachs Business Book of the Year

YOU ARE JUST WHISTLING PAST THE GRAVEYARD, MY BOY, JUST LIKE BUMBLING BEN
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 09:09 PM
Response to Original message
47. Sweet Dreams, Everybody
Don't let the Birds, Psycho, or Vertigo get you....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatholicEdHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
51. Lights out for more Twin Cities stores
http://www.startribune.com/business/47106337.html

The Twin Cities area has seen a steady increase in empty storefronts in the last year, and the situation isn't likely to improve anytime soon, according to a report released this week by a national commercial real estate services firm.

The report by Marcus Millichap said the vacancy rate for retail space is approaching a 15-year high. By year end, the vacancy rate is forecast to be 10.3 percent, compared with 8.7 percent in 2008 and 7.4 percent in 2007. As a result, rents for retail space, which are already down from last year, are expected to retreat significantly. Asking rents are forecast to finish 2009 at $17.52 per square foot, an annual decline of 2.5 percent.

The rise in shuttered storefronts here mirrors what's happening around the country, according to Solomon Poretsky, manager of Marcus & Millichap's Twin Cities regional office.

Beyond the current recession, which has left consumers shopping for little more than the basics, Twin Cities developers kept building retail centers, even as the economy was slowing. About 800,000 square feet of retail space was added to the market last year, and about 895,000 square feet is expected to be completed this year...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 03:54 AM
Response to Reply #51
63. And Minnesota Was Doing So Much Better Than the Rest of the Rust Belt
Is this due to Pawlenty?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatholicEdHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #63
80. Some of it is
Minnesota has had a influx of people from other areas, most have settled in the outer suburbs of the Twin Cities. Their view is a "Cold Omaha" style approach with low taxes and fewer services. This has changed the local GOP from a moderate, across the aisle for the good of the people, to every person for themselves.

This is just magnifying the overall downturn. Pawenty's policies of accounting shifts, the "no new taxes" pledge have really hurt over the years. I think we are still better than Ohio, Michigan, and other Rust Belt areas, but it is not the same Minnesota you think of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-05-09 11:26 PM
Response to Original message
59. Kick
Easier to find in the morning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 07:53 AM
Response to Original message
65. Vanguard dropped participation in Treasury Guarantee Program for 3 funds

Check this out. I was under the impression that the Treasury Guarantee Program was extended for all money market funds. Not so.

12/2/08 original extension to 4/30/09
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/VanguardViewsArticlePublic?ArticleJSP=/freshness/News_and_Views/news_ALL_mmtreasguaruntee_12022008_ALL.jsp&src=NMC&returnLink=/freshness/News_and_Views/news_ALL_mmtreasguaruntee_12022008_ALL.jsp

4/8/09 updated extension, until 9/18/09
note: Three Vanguard funds that invest primarily in high-quality, short-term U.S. government or government agency securities—Admiral™ Treasury Money Market Fund, Treasury Money Market Fund, and Federal Money Market Fund—will discontinue participation after April 30, 2009.

click to read which funds still participate...
https://retirementplans.vanguard.com/VGApp/pe/PubVgiNews?ArticleName=MMarketExtEight
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
68. Dean Baker Phones It In:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press

On Vacation

I'm escaping from Washington and the blogging world for the next two weeks. I'm back on June 15th, barring unpleasant encounters with wildlife.

Until then, don't believe anything you read in the newspaper.

June 01, 2009

Robert Samuelson Has Discovered the Cause of the Productivity Slowdown in the 70s!

Give Robert Samuelson a Nobel Prize. He told readers today that: "Johnson's economic policies, inherited from Kennedy, proved disastrous; they led to the 1970s' 'stagflation.'"

Wow, it was Johnson and Kennedy's economic policies that caused the sharp slowdown of productivity growth in the 70s? That's impressive. For the last 35 years economists have struggled to find the explanation for the sharp slowdown in productivity growth, from close to 3.0 percent annually to 1.5 percent annually. Now Samuelson tells us he has the answer. That is really impressive.

Of course, before we give Mr. Samuelson the Nobel for this accomplishment maybe he should fill in a little more of the "how." In other words, what were the horrible things that Kennedy and Johnson did that depressed productivity growth for more than a quarter century after they left office. Whatever it was, it sure must have been really bad.

AND HERE I THOUGHT IT WAS TRYING TO HAVE YOUR GUNS AND BUTTER, TOO! AND THEN THERE WAS THE CONGLOMERATE CRAZE...


There Was a Reason to Call Chrysler Bondholders "Speculators"

The Washington Post devoted the bulk of its front page article on the GM bankruptcy to the pressing question of whether the bondholders are being treated fairly. At one point It noted that Obama had dismissed Chrylser's bondholders as "speculators."

There was a good reason for Obama to describe the bondholders, or at least those refusing to accept the government's proposed conditions, with this term: they were speculators. These bondholders had not been holding the debt for years only to find their company going bankrupt. In most cases they had bought the debt for 30 cents on the dollar (the going market rate), with the expectation that they could push the Obama administration for a better deal.

In short, these were not long-term lenders but speculators who hoped to make a quick buck. (if you buy debt at 30 cents on the dollar and can push to get 33 cents, this is a 10 percent return on an asset that may have only been held for a few months. That is real money.)

This article does make the obvious points as to why the bondholders are not being treated unfairly -- they would get no more money in liquidation and the government, as the last investor, gets to decide how the various claim holders get treated -- but readers are likely to get the impression that the bondholders' claim of unfair treatment is more serious than it is. Just because a powerful interest group can stage an expensive lobbying claim does not mean that its argument should be treated as credible by a serious newspaper.


May 31, 2009

Do You Hate Unions and Working Class People? You Can Write for the Washington Post. No Knowledge Necessary!

The Washington Post showed yet again why it is known as "Fox on 15th Street." It ran a column today that blamed the United Auto Workers for the bankruptcy of Chrysler and GM. So what if Toyota has managed to profitably run a plant in California represented by the UAW for more than two decades? So what if wages of unionized autoworkers in profitable car companies in Europe and Japan are the same or higher than in the United States? So what if the proximate cause of the bankruptcy was incompetent economic management in Washington and an explosion of incompetence and greed on Wall Street?

At the Washington Post, the line is blame the unionized auto workers -- after all, they earn $57,000 a year. Except of course by the calculation in this column. Richard K. Bank, a man with no obvious qualification other than his dislike of unions told Post readers that the G.M., Ford, and Chrysler have labor costs of close to $110 an hour. The would come to $220,000 a year for a full-time worker. Of course, this has no basis in reality, but it helps advance the anti-union case, so it's good enough to get in the Washington Post.

May 29, 2009

USA Today's Latest Scare Story on the Deficit

Suppose that President Obama announced tomorrow that he was going to increase spending on the military by an amount equal to 10 percent of GDP ($1.5 trillion a year or $6 trillion over the course of his presidency). This would not affect USA Today's calculation of debt burdens at all. Suppose that he announced that he would eliminate the corporate income tax and institute a special zero tax bracket for incomes over $100,000. This would also increase annual deficits by about $1.5 trillion. This change also would not affect the deficit as highlighted by USA Today in a front page story.

USA Today's deficit does not take account at all of projections of future income tax revenue or projected spending in most government programs. It only considers commitments to a narrow set of retirement programs and Medicare and it only counts the projected payments of taxes designated for these programs by people already in these programs.

This gives a really huge number to scare people with, but it has virtually no meaning whatsoever. If you think this is the burden passed on to our kids, you would be mistaken. As soon as our kids start working, say a summer job for a high school kid, they become part of the problem. They are among the people to whom the debt is owed. In fact, the 16 year-old would be a huge contributor to the problem since the projected value of his or her Social Security and Medicare swamps the projected cost of these programs for people in their fifties and sixties.

The long and short is that USA Today wants to scare you into supporting big cuts in government social programs. It is easy to show using normal arithmetic that these programs are easily affordable if we fix health care. If we don't fix health care then the programs are not affordable, but we will also have wrecked our economy, so who cares about the programs.

Anyhow, serious people focus on fixing health care. USA Today and its horror show crew whine about big deficit numbers to scare people.


If China Stops "Manipulating" Its Currency It Will Stop Buying U.S. Treasuries

The Washington Post made yet another contribution to the nonsense about China literature. First we had the "alleged manipulation" of China's currency. This implies that there is some mystery surrounding China's currency policy. What is the mystery? China has a managed exchange rate that keeps its currency below market levels as official policy. What exactly are we looking for here. There is nothing in dispute.

Next we are told that Geithner can't really press China about this policy because they may stop buying our Treasury bonds, causing interest rates to rise. This should raise a huge cry of "huh?"

If China were to stop "manipulating" its currency, it would have to stop buying U.S. treasuries. These actions are one and the same thing. China keeps down the value of its currency by buying dollars. This is really simple -- supply and demand -- it keeps down the price of yuan by supplying more and increases the demand for dollars by buying up dollars.

If we want China to stop manipulating its currency, then we want it to stop buying U.S. government bonds, it's that simple. (The Fed can offset any reduction of Chinese purchases of Treasury bonds by buying more itself.)



Wall Street Journal Joins Recovery Optimism Drive

When April new homes sales came in worse than expected most observers might have thought this was bad news about the state of the economy, but not the WSJ. The headline of the WSJ article told readers: "New-Home Sales Rise as Prices Tumble." The lead sentence began: "new-home sales climbed a second time in three months during April, an encouraging sign for the housing market," before noting that prices are still falling.

Okay, what was the upturn in April? Well, the annual selling rate of 352,000 was 1,000 above the downwardly revised level of 351,000 reported in March. This number was the third worst figure on record and was 34% below its year ago level.

The basic story was that January housing numbers were awful across the board, presumably in large part because of worse than usual weather. The more recent data looks good only compared with January. Otherwise it is about as bad as can get, but let's give the WSJ credit for this effort at economic cheerleading.



NPR Says Investors Are Out to Lunch

It told listeners on the headline news on Morning Edition that stock prices rose yesterday due to a fall in new unemployment claims, a surge in durable goods orders, and an increase in new home sales. If these reports were really the basis of investors' optimism, then we should all be very scared since it would mean investors are really clueless.

New unemployment claims were reported at 623,000 for last week. This is down by 13,000 from the 636,000 reported for the prior week, but it is down by only 8,000 from the number that had been reported before yesterday's upward revision. It is also a number consistent with a very rapid pace of job loss. New claims were running at the rate of less than 600,000 a week in November, December, and January, when the economy was losing more than 600,000 jobs a month. (Note, the weekly claims refer to the number of people who filed for unemployment insurance in that week. The monthly job loss refers to the net change in employment over the course of a month.)

As noted in an earlier post, there was no surge in durable goods orders. There had been a downward revision to the March data that was equal to or larger than the extent to which the April numbers exceeded expectation. New orders for capital goods, the investment component of this measure, fell sharply in April.

Finally, new homes sales reported for April were up by 1,000 from the level reported for March, but this 4,000 below the level previously reported for March. The April sales level is the second lowest on record.

In sum, none of these reports are especially good. In each case, they could have been worse, but none provide any evidence of growth, nor even much evidence that the rate of decline is slowing. Whatever modest improvement they show from the weak reports in prior weeks/months is well within the margin of error for these reports.

As a more general proposition. No one knows what was in the mind of the millions of investors whose actions moved the market yesterday. Media outlets should attribute the claim of what was in their minds to a specific source rather than pronouncing it as a matter of fact, as NPR did this morning.

--Dean Baker
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 08:47 AM
Response to Original message
69. Betting the Fed: its days as a shadow government may be numbered. Robert Kuttner
http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=betting_the_fed


The Federal Reserve can do what democratic institutions can't. But its days as a shadow government may be numbered.

In the banking panic of 1907, J. Pierpont Morgan personally organized a syndicate of financiers to provide $25 million to collapsing banks. It was this panic that finally persuaded Congress in 1913 to create the Federal Reserve System -- not a single central bank but 12 regional reserve banks and a weak board of governors in Washington. The New York Federal Reserve Bank, with its intimate links to Wall Street, quickly became the reserve system's most influential player. Congress hoped that with this new system in place, financial crises would be rare, and relief would no longer depend on individual bankers like Morgan.

A century later, the Federal Reserve itself turned to JPMorgan Chase, the successor to the original House of Morgan. In the March 2008 midnight rescue of Bear Stearns, an insolvent $600 billion investment bank with anxious creditors throughout the banking system, the Fed put up $29 billion to guarantee Morgan's emergency takeover of Bear. In a century we have come full circle, from Morgan serving as central banker to the nation, to the Federal Reserve serving as investment banker to Morgan, Citigroup, Bank of America, and numerous others.

The Federal Reserve is unique among America's governing institutions. Its combination of outsized power and lack of democratic accountability exceeds even that of the CIA, which at least reports directly to the president. The Fed's powerful regional banks are accountable to private boards made up mostly of bankers. When current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was named president of the New York Fed in 2003, the search committee was chaired by private-equity mogul Peter G. Peterson and dominated by private financiers. The campaign to get Geithner the job was led by Robert Rubin of Citigroup.

All of this clubbiness was by design. In creating the Fed, Congress appropriated a radical idea from the populists for a more stable and resilient banking and currency system -- but put it in the safely conservative hands of private bankers. This insularity is troubling enough in ordinary times. It is downright scandalous in the aftermath of an economic crisis brought on by banking excesses that in turn were enabled and indulged by the Fed.

The economy was crashed by the activities of a shadow banking system -- mortgage companies, hedge funds, private-equity firms, buyers and sellers of credit-default swaps, and corrupted credit-rating agencies -- none of which were regulated by anyone and none of which troubled the Fed. The system's financiers were often bank holding companies whose activities were supposed to be supervised by the Fed but in practice were not.

As a shadow government, the Fed has mirrored the shadow banking system. Now the Fed has put its own balance sheet at risk, courting inflation down the road -- and inviting a long-overdue backlash.

Arguably, there is some justification for the Fed's insulation from short-run political pressure when it comes to monetary policy. But critics across the spectrum are asking why the Federal Reserve should not be subject to the same kind of scrutiny as other agencies in its roles as regulator and emergency lender. Instead, these functions have become entangled in a fashion that defies accountability.

By creating massive liquidity that will eventually either find its way onto the national debt or be monetized as inflation, the Fed is now conducting fiscal as well as monetary policy. It is picking winners and losers, with no stated criteria. The Fed continues to waive regulatory scrutiny in the hopes of coaxing a wounded financial system back to life. It bails out institutions deemed "too big to fail," but in preventing the collapse of several banks, from Merrill Lynch to Bear Stearns to Wachovia to National City, its preferred strategy has been to orchestrate mergers to create even bigger banks, thus redoubling the too-big-to-fail problem.

The Fed has all but taken over the banking system, stretching its emergency powers beyond their limits, flooding in trillions of dollars using its power to create money, orchestrating shotgun mergers, contriving jerry-built schemes to inflate the value of dead financial assets, while largely ducking public accountability. Treasury Secretary Geithner, a far less self-assured public figure than Fed Chair Ben Bernanke, has been the political lightening rod for congressional frustration and withering media coverage. But these schemes depend entirely on the deep pockets of the Fed. And of course before Geithner moved to Treasury, he was point man for the Fed.

There is plenty to criticize in Geithner's stewardship, but the all-powerful institutional role of the Fed is the more important story. Until recently, the Fed, despite its missteps, retained something of its aura of neutral servant of the public good, above politics and beyond reproach. But this may be changing, and fast.

***

In 2006, before the sub-prime crisis, then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson floated the idea, with few details, of making the Fed a "systemic risk regulator," usurping powers from other bank regulators and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). At the time, the Bush administration was promoting further deregulation, and the idea of a systemic risk regulator was a useful fig leaf; the Fed is the most ideologically tame and Wall Street friendly of the regulatory bodies.

Paulson's plan was the antithesis of sound regulation. If bank regulators did their day-to-day jobs and there were no holes in the regulatory structure, no financial institution would ever reach the point where it posed systemic risks. Conversely, if the Fed gained power at the expense of tougher regulators, there would be more systemic crises requiring costly bailouts.

In late April, startling testimony by former Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis revealed that the Fed and Treasury had strong-armed him into purchasing Merrill Lynch even after it came to light that Merrill's losses were far larger than had been revealed. Legally, when there is a "material change" in the condition of a merger partner, the acquiring party may back out of the deal. But according to Lewis' testimony, confirmed both by Paulson and by official minutes of meetings, Paulson and Bernanke pressured Lewis into violating his own legal fiduciary duty to his shareholders, who had to approve the deal based on accurate information. Relying on no legal authority whatsoever, the Fed and Treasury threatened to remove the board and management of Bank of America if they refused to go forward and demanded that Lewis not divulge the conversation. Based on these revelations, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York wrote a five-page letter to the SEC and key Congressional committee chairs, suggesting that the Fed and Treasury may have improperly interfered with Bank of America's legal duty to its shareholders.

The idea of a systemic risk regulator has now morphed into something potentially more robust -- but there is little Congressional appetite to entrust the function to the Fed. As understood in the current policy debate, a systemic risk regulator would monitor unregulated institutions such as private-equity firms and hedge funds, it would conduct more stringent examinations of any very large institution, and it would look at the potentially risky interconnections among institutions. As one senior congressional staffer explains it, "You could have 15 banks that all look fine when you examine them separately, but if it turns out that they all made the same bets and the bets go bad, it could take down they system. Nobody currently has the authority to explore these interconnections."

However, the idea of giving the job to the Fed is now all but dead because of its overreaching. As recently as mid-April, Barney Frank was favorable to lodging systemic risk regulation in the Fed, but a majority of his own House Financial Services Committee has turned against the plan. So have Chris Dodd, chair of the Senate Banking Committee, and the ranking Republican, Richard Shelby of Alabama. "Some of the biggest failures in the world occurred on their watch," Shelby recently said of the Fed. The backlash is bipartisan.

The consensus candidate for systemic risk regulator is now a panel of the several regulatory agencies, while regulation of hedge funds and private-equity firms is more likely to go to a strengthened SEC. Other indications of backlash against the Fed's role as shadow government include a provision attached to the budget resolution in the Senate that requires the Fed to identify the financial institutions that have received $2.2 trillion in taxpayer-backed loans, something the Fed has refused to do voluntarily. Advocates for the provision in the House range from left-liberal Congressman Alan Grayson of Florida to arch libertarian Ron Paul of Texas. A very senior regulatory official told me, "People are now waking up to all the dubious stuff the Fed has taken onto its own balance sheet and all of the things it has done with absolutely no accountability. It is totally turning people off to the idea of giving the Fed even more power."

***

The Financial collapse turned critical in a frantic week last September, which began with the Fed and Treasury's joint decision not to save Lehman Brothers. Barely a day later, the trio of Paulson, Geithner, and Bernanke reversed course and decided to bail out the insurance conglomerate American International Group. This was also the week that the Treasury and the Fed orchestrated the shotgun acquisition of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America.

The events set off a belated stock market crash, and the week ended with Paulson coming before Congress to warn of an imminent financial collapse and to request emergency funding of $700 billion for the banks. This should have been the moment for policy to shift gears, into a more systemic and transparent long-term strategy for the recapitalization and regulation of the banking system.

In every systemic financial crisis of the past century, Congress had stepped in to legislate remedies rather than allow the Federal Reserve to spend un-appropriated or un-accounted funds. But far from representing a return to the normally transparent process of government aid to industry, Congress' reluctant approval of $700 billion for Paulson's Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) program on Oct. 3 was a momentary departure from a process that continues to be orchestrated behind closed doors by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, largely shrouded in secrecy. According to The Washington Post, the latest Geithner-Bernanke plans were conceived and drafted by such leading investment houses as Goldman Sachs and Pimco, which of course stand to gain or lose many billions depending on what the government does.

Treasury's role in the plan is at least subject to review by the Congressional Oversight Panel and the special inspector general, provisions that were added by Congress as conditions for legislating the money. Both agencies have the right to demand documents, and both have been scathing in their criticism of the Treasury. But neither the panel nor the inspector general has any authority over the Fed.

The cycle of nontransparent financial rescues has fed upon itself. As a surly Congress has resisted additional direct appropriations, the Fed and Treasury have invented ad-hoc programs with names like the Term Auction Facility, the Commercial Paper Funding Facility, TARP, TALF, CAP, P-PIP -- about 15 in all -- relying mostly on Fed funding. The details are mind-numbing, but the basic idea is to pump money into banks and non-banks alike, in exchange for the dubious collateral that financial institutions want to unload -- securities backed by used-car loans, credit cards, commercial paper, credit-default swaps, and sub-prime loans.

P-PIP, which stands for Public-Private Investment Program, is an especially dubious policy. The Treasury will leverage its last $100 billion of TARP money against a trillion dollars of credits and loan guarantees mostly from the Fed. This money will ostensibly be used to attract private capital, but the private capital from hedge funds and private-equity companies will be as little as 6 percent of the total. The government will guarantee the losses, but share only half the gains. Skeptics point to the opportunities for gaming the system in multiple ways and note that creating a gamblers' market in toxic assets is unlikely to bring their true value back from the dead.

Criticism of the Fed's expanding role hasn't only come from members of Congress. At least three presidents of regional reserve banks have not been shy about questioning the rescue plan. Thomas Hoenig, president of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank, warned that unless the Fed gets its money back from these dubious new loans, "I think we risk a very serious inflationary problem with new bubbles." William Poole, president of the St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank until March 2008, declared that the Fed was risking "massive inflation." In February, Jeffrey Lacker, president of the Richmond Federal Reserve Bank, refused to go along with the Fed-Treasury plan until the Treasury signed an unprecedented accord promising to absorb any losses incurred by the Fed.

Where will the Treasury get the money? It will issue bonds, adding to the national debt. You could say that the Fed is essentially serving as a money laundry for eventual Treasury borrowing. Alternatively, the Fed could just create more credit, a process that risks inflation -- increasing unease among many of its senior officials.

The dissent expressed by the Fed bank presidents reflects a classic axis of the heartland versus New York. This tension has always existed, but in the current crisis there is deep resentment on the part of the regional banks that Wall Street is getting gentler treatment than community banks that were far less implicated in the financial engineering that caused the crisis but which are now suffering as demand for good credit dries up and are paying higher fees to cover the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's (FDIC) losses from less careful banks. Bank examiners are being far tougher on the loan portfolios of ordinary commercial banks than on the securitized junk clogging the balance sheets of the big, money-center banks. Hoenig reflected this feeling of a double standard when he recently testified before Congress that the 12 regional reserve banks were established by Congress "specifically to address the populist outcry against Wall Street." The Fed suffered a further setback to its credibility when it was revealed that Stephen Friedman, a Goldman Sachs board member who is also chair of the New York Fed, bought up distressed Goldman shares for a tidy profit after the Fed had expedited conversion of Goldman to a bank holding company that could get government benefits.

***

The Fed became an all-purpose piggy bank by default. Even in normal times, the Fed and its decision-making should be rendered more accountable. In this financial emergency, we need to create a transparent, democratic alternative to the secret bank rescues, one that would rely on explicit legislation, direct appropriations, and temporary receivership for insolvent banks. A government corporation or expanded FDIC would be given explicit authority to take a large failed bank into receivership, audit its losses, replace existing management, decide how much of the financial hole should be made up by bondholders versus taxpayers, and then return a restructured bank to health. This process is known as resolution, and it gets the bank and banking system back to health fast.

This alternative has been fiercely resisted by Wall Street, since it would likely end in the breakup of at least two large banks, with management displaced and stockholders wiped out. Both Geithner and White House economic chief Larry Summers disparage this approach as "nationalization." However, this is almost exactly the approach used in the bailout of automakers. It is the approach used by the FDIC when it shuts down and reopens failed smaller banks. And the same strategy was followed in the late 1980s and early 1990s when Congress created the Resolution Trust Corporation to revive a collapsed savings and loan industry. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation of the 1930s -- invented by Herbert Hoover, expanded by Franklin Roosevelt -- did much the same thing.

This alternative has the support of some conservatives, such as Alex Pollock of the American Enterprise Institute and Walker Todd, a former senior official of the Federal Reserve banks of Cleveland and New York, who is a leading historian of Roosevelt's Reconstruction Finance Corporation. Hoenig has called for a new RFC, with the enthusiastic backing of Kansas' very conservative Republican senator, Sam Brownback. Why do many on the right prefer something seemingly socialistic? As Todd explains, "It's far better to do this transparently through a public agency than to pervert the mission of the Federal Reserve."

As evidence of the emerging left-right consensus on this proposition, The Wall Street Journal recently ran an editorial that reads as if it could have been written by Joseph Stiglitz or Paul Krugman. "The sounder strategy," the Journal argues, "is to address systemic financial problems the old-fashioned way: bank by bank, through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and a resolution agency with the capacity to hold troubled assets and work them off over time. If the stress tests reveal that some of our largest institutions are insolvent or nearly so, it's then time to seize the bank, sell off assets and recapitalize the remainder. (Meanwhile, the healthier institutions would get a vote of confidence and could attract new private capital.)"

The administration insists that it has to use the Fed because Treasury can't get any more money out of Congress. But if the Treasury and Fed were more forthcoming with Congress, and were willing to shut down zombie banks and force shareholders to take losses, the plan would be more credible, and Congress would be more likely to provide funds. So-called "stress tests" -- not comprehensive examinations but projections of how much capital different banks would need under different economic scenarios -- are another awkward policy ploy by Geithner and Bernanke, mainly to buy time. However, few observers think that Citigroup or Bank of America can raise the capital it needs within the mandated six months. While Geithner and Summers have insisted that they oppose "nationalization," the administration is supporting legislation for standby resolution authority -- which amounts to the same thing. So by next fall, Geithner and Bernanke may well find themselves back before Congress with a plea for funding to finally do the job of recapitalizing banks properly.

***

When I was a young congressional assistant in the 1970s, the banking committees were often in the hands of old-fashioned progressives who had an abiding wariness of the Fed. In the House, Wright Patman, a Texan populist, had the radical idea that the Fed should be a fully accountable public institution. One of Patman's successors was another Texan progressive, Henry Gonzalez, who regularly badgered the Fed to let in more sunlight. Both men were treated by the press as kooky relics of the William Jennings Bryan era, while Fed chairs such as Arthur Burns, William McChesney Martin, Paul Volcker, and Alan Greenspan were deified as apolitical stewards of the public interest. In the Senate, more mannered progressives who chaired the banking committee, such as my former boss William Proxmire of Wisconsin and later Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, also sought to bring the Fed under greater public scrutiny, with only limited success. In retrospect, Patman looks less like a kook than a seer.

Greenspan has already fallen from grace, and Bernanke could be next. And though the Fed continues to play an outsized role in containing the crisis, its influence as a largely unaccountable shadow government has already peaked. The only question is how much further damage we will have to endure before both the financial system and its all-too-friendly central bank are rendered more accountable to a broad public interest.


Robert Kuttner is co-founder and co-editor of The American Prospect magazine, as well as a Distinguished Senior Fellow of the think tank Demos. He was a longtime columnist for Business Week, and continues to write columns in the Boston Globe. He is the author of Obama's Challenge and other books. For more read our "about the editors" page.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
70. In Depth Coverage of Detroit in Distress
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
71. GM as a canary in the US economic coal mine
Edited on Sat Jun-06-09 09:02 AM by Demeter
http://dailyreckoning.com/us-stuck-in-inflation-causing-positions/


...Americans are in the habit of spending huge amounts of money...with no intention of ever paying it back. Consumers did it in the '09s and '00s. Now the feds are doing it. The federal deficit for this year alone is four times last year's record. The official US debt is exploding. Bill Gross says it will be 100% of US GDP within 5 years. Our guess is that it will reach that level even sooner.

At 100% of GDP...even mainstream economists believe the situation will be irreversible...interest payments will be more than the US can afford. At that point, forced to borrow more and more just to keep up with the interest, the system will go into a Ponzi-scheme endgame. You can protect your investments from the inevitable fallout with seven super shields, available here.

"Our expectation is the government won't be able to exit" from its deficit spending positions, said Gross in an interview on Bloomberg Radio. The programs "will be semi-permanent positions on their balance sheets."

Once you go down that road, it's hard - maybe impossible - to come back. The US won't be able to pay off its debt...and it won't be able to unload GM. Nor will the Federal Reserve be able to sell its holding of bonds onto the open market - without causing yields to rise.

Even Ben Bernanke says that "long-term deficits threaten the financial stability" of the nation.

As we've pointed out many times, the problem is more political than financial. The bums in Washington could still straighten up - if they wanted to. We've already told them how they could bring the deficits...and the economic downturn...under control. But they're not about to take our suggestions. Instead, they're "gonna have fun, fun, fun until Daddy takes the T-bird away..."

Daddy China, that is. The Middle Kingdom. The Red Menace. Now, the leader of the bond vigilantes.

Remember the bond vigilantes? They are supposed to keep a lookout for inflation. And when they see it increasing, they come riding into town guns ablazing...they sell bonds and force up yields, thus bringing inflation back under control.

Inflation rates and bond yields have generally been going downhill for the last 26 years...so the old vigilantes have retired. But now China seems to be strapping on its six guns. Are you prepared for when this bubble gets shot out?

...Bill Gross: "I think it is important to recognize that General Motors is a canary in this country's economic coal mine; a forerunner for what's to come for the broader economy. Their mistakes have resembled this nation's mistakes; their problems will be our future problems. If the US and General Motors have similar flaws and indeed symbiotic fates, they appear to be conjoined primarily by the un-competitiveness of their existing labor cost structures and the onerous burden of their future healthcare and pension liabilities. Perhaps the most significant comparison between GM and the US economy lies in the recognition of enormous unfunded liabilities in healthcare and pensions. Reportedly $1,500 of every GM car sold in the dealer showrooms goes to pay for current and future health benefits of existing and retired workers, a sum totaling nearly $60 billion. The total future healthcare liability for all US citizens can be measured in the tens of trillions."

WELL, I HOPE AND PRESUME HE IS REFERRING TO EXECUTIVE WAGE SCALES, PENSIONS AND HEALTH CARE LIABILITIES, SINCE ONE CEO IS EQUIVALENT TO HUNDREDS OF EMPLOYEES, AND EVEN MORE IF THEY ONLY GET MINIMUM WAGE...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 08:59 AM
Response to Original message
72. Deficit Spending Track
"Washington is on track to issue more than $5 trillion in new debt over the next 18 months," begins Ian Mathias in today's issue of The 5 Min. Forecast. "Total interest payments on government debt are plotted to exceed $800 billion in the next 10 years, up almost five-fold from 2009. That's if long bond yields stay under 5%, as the Congressional Budget Office forecasts. Every one percentage point higher, says Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff, will cost the U.S. government an extra $170 billion annually.

"Perhaps our only saving grace; the whole western world has bought into America's economic school of thought.



"'The Fed can only manipulate interest rates so far,' notes our currency trader Bill Jenkins. 'Then the market takes over. Our Treasury bonds are becoming a greater and greater risk to people who buy and hold them. Of course, basic market theory holds that to assume greater risk going forward, one must have a higher rate of return. So no matter what the Fed "dictates" by lowering rates, they are on their way up!'"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 09:12 AM
Response to Original message
74. Monetizing Debt: The Grandest of Larcenies By Bill Bonner
http://dailyreckoning.com/monetizing-debt-the-grandest-of-larcenies/

06/05/09 London, England “Either cuts in spending or increases in taxes will be necessary to stabilize the fiscal situation,” said Ben Bernanke in response to a question posed by a member of Congress. Then, he added…

“The Federal Reserve will not monetize the debt.”

That last sentence has a ring to it. It reminds us of Richard Nixon’s “I am not a crook.” Surely, it is destined to make its way into the history books, alongside Bill Clinton’s “I did not have sex with that woman” and the builder of the Titanic’s “even God himself couldn’t sink this ship.”

Monetizing the debt is precisely what the Fed will do. But it will not do so precisely. Instead, it will act clumsily…reluctantly…incompetently... …accidentally…and finally, catastrophically.

That’s our prediction, here at The Daily Reckoning. Prove us wrong!



First, a look at the market. Yesterday, investors seemed to think it over and change their minds. Their first reaction – on Wednesday – to Geithner’s reassurances to the Chinese and Bernanke’s reassurances to Americans was positive.

“Maybe these guys are on the level, after all,” they said to themselves. “Maybe the dollar won’t fall apart.”

But after 24 hours of deep reflection and heavy drinking they came to their senses: “What was I thinking? Of course they’re going to undermine the dollar…what else can they do?”

So yesterday they were back at it – buying assets that are priced in dollars but that move in the opposite direction. The euro went right back to where it was at the beginning of the week, at $1.41. Gold, which had lost $18 on Wednesday, recovered $16 on Thursday. Oil had slipped $2 after Bernanke’s comments; yesterday, it gained $2.

Stocks rose too – with the Dow up 79 points.

A friend sent a recent report from analysts with Barclays Bank. Barclays is advising private clients that the “bear market is probably over.”

Anything is possible, of course. But for the many reasons we’ve described in these reckonings we doubt that we’ve seen the last of this bear. Or the last of this recession. What we’ve seen so far is merely a classic post-crash bounce. Nothing more.

Which is WHY the Fed will eventually monetize the debt. “Monetizing” debt, by the way, is larceny on the grandest scale. Rather than honestly repaying what it has borrowed, a government merely prints up extra currency and uses it to pay its loans. The debt is “monetized”…transformed into an increase in the money supply, thereby lowering the purchasing power of everybody’s savings.

Of course, the Fed will not want to do such a dastardly deed; but it will do it anyway. Even good people do bad things when they get in a jamb. The feds are already in pretty deep…and they’re going a lot deeper.

The European Central Bank came out yesterday and said that its forecasts for the recession were on the low side. Instead of putting total output back 3.5% this year – as it had estimated in March – it now thinks the setback will be between 4% and 5% of GDP.

Unlike Japan’s slump of the ’90s and ’00s, this depression is worldwide. Americans aren’t buying like they used to. So, foreigners aren’t selling. Everyone gets poorer as expected income and profits disappear…and turn into losses.

Meanwhile, in America, today’s jobs report shows that unemployment is still on the rise. People without jobs can’t buy stuff – neither the kind of stuff you get at the grocery store…nor the kind of stuff you get from real estate agents. Since they don’t buy stuff, manufacturers don’t make stuff. And since they don’t make stuff, they don’t need the stuff that stuff is made of, nor the employees who turn the raw stuff into the finished stuff.

Result: the stuffing gets knocked out of the economy.

Also, while Tim and Ben reassure investors, long bond yields go up. The Chinese have shifted from buying long bonds to buying short bills. This causes the return on bills to go down, but it pushes up yields on the 30-year bond…to which long-term fixed-rate mortgages are calibrated.

Last week, according to Freddie Mac, the average 30-year mortgage had a fixed rate of 4.9%. This week it’s 5.27%. At the margin – which is where most people live – this extra cost of financing pinches would-be homeowners. Either they buy a smaller house…or they pay less for it.

It also pinches anyone who needs to refinance – which includes not only sub-prime borrowers, but many others too. MSN Money reports:

“The next group of Americans to lose their homes seemed to have good credit and affordable loans. But those families have been walloped by the recession.

“In the housing market, a lot of prime mortgages are becoming subprime as a new wave of foreclosures begins to hit. Mainstream homeowners – those previously ‘safe’ borrowers with sound credit who have conservative, fixed-rate mortgages – are getting into trouble at an alarming rate.

“In the first quarter, the percentage of these borrowers who were behind on their mortgages or in foreclosure had doubled from a year earlier, to nearly 6%. For the first time in the housing crisis, these homeowners accounted for the largest share of new foreclosures.

“Job losses are a major reason once-safe borrowers are falling into trouble. With unemployment likely to rise, the problem will only get worse. So the core challenge at the heart of our economic crunch – a poor housing market that infects banks and the whole credit system – is not going away soon. That’s bad news for the stock market and the economy in general.

“‘A couple of months ago, a lot of people had hoped that the housing collapse was about over,’ says money manager and forecaster Gary Shilling, a well-known bear who called the housing problems early in the cycle. ‘But it was more hope than reality.’

“Economists call rising delinquencies and foreclosures among prime borrowers the third wave of trouble. The first two waves were housing speculators going bust and subprime borrowers – those with poor credit histories and some version of no-down or low-down adjustable-rate mortgages – getting into trouble.

“Mark Zandi, the chief economist for Moody’s Economy.com, calls the third wave a ‘significant threat’ to the economy. ‘“It is gathering momentum,’ he says. ‘The problem is now well beyond subprime and deep into prime.’”

Following this article was a series of comments. One, filed on Wednesday, was particularly interesting:

“This is my world crashing down on me. I own apartments and I rent to poor people. I more than most know what people are experiencing. While my properties are struggling, the income they generate has not dropped significantly to threaten the payment of any loan. Unfortunately, my loans are due this year and I am simply unable to borrow money to replace the loans I am currently servicing successfully. What can I do? All my capital reserves are gone, but effectively, I am losing my job because the banking system and market will not allow me to borrow money. If you bought my property today at the current market rate, your cash on cash return would be over 15%. This type of return in the Atlanta Real Estate market has not been seen in decades. When employment growth rises in Atlanta in 12 to 24 months, the cash on cash return will be over 20%. I probably will not survive. I will lose everything, my house, my business and my savings. I will have to start all over…”

Now, dear reader, we ask you a question: Is a politician from either party willing to stand in front of this man and tell him that interest rates are going up? Or how about telling him that Congress is raising his taxes? Even if the goal were only to balance the budget ten years from now, it would take a permanent, across-the-board tax increase of 60% to do so. (See below…) Would any politician in his right mind vote for such an increase? Ben Bernanke talks about cuts in spending and tax increases. But Bernanke is not up for election. Besides, practically every economist in the country in telling Congress it needs to spend MORE money, not less. Cut spending and increase taxes in a recession? Are you kidding?

We are in a serious, multi-year depression. No increase in taxes and no decrease in spending will be seriously considered until we are out of it. But if it follows the patterns of the past, then genuine, durable healthy growth will probably not return for many years…maybe 5…maybe 10…maybe 20. Long before then the US will have too much debt to carry…let alone pay back. It will have no choice but to “monetize” this debt by means of inflation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tclambert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #74
93. "N by NW"
Roger Thornhill: How do we know it's not a fake? It looks like a fake.
Bidder: Well, one thing we know. You're no fake. You are a genuine idiot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 09:15 AM
Response to Original message
75.  The Countrywide Civil Suit By Ian Mathias
http://dailyreckoning.com/the-countrywide-civil-suit/

On the brighter side, looks like Angelo Mozilo might get what he deserves.

The SEC announced a civil suit against Mozilo yesterday. The former Countrywide CEO will be slapped with securities fraud and insider trading charges. Investigators cite private e-mails from Mozilo, in which he called his new brand of mortgages “poison,” suggesting that Countrywide was “flying blind” — all while publicly talking up his biz as a lender of the highest standard. We can’t really blame him for selling $140 million worth of Countrywide stock, but evidently, the SEC also takes issue with the timing and methodology in which he sold it… another nail in his coffin.

Good riddance to Mozilo. We wish him the very worst. And if the SEC is declaring open season on corporate misrepresentation, we can think of a few old friends likely renewing their passports this morning: Fuld, Cayne and Thain, to name a few.

The FDIC is attempting a CEO shake-up of its own. Rumor has it that chairwoman Sheila Bair is pushing for the resignation of Vikram Pandit, Citigroup’s head honcho. Bair claims that Pandit is simply unsuited for the job… he’s got a background in the very investment banking model that got Wall Street into this mess, and Bair supposedly wants someone with consumer lending experience.

Between FDIC-backed debt issuance and cash infusions from the Treasury, the U.S. government has provided Citi with nearly $85 billion in assistance. Evidently, that’s enough money to buy Uncle Sam a say in who runs the show. We object to the whole premise of this shake-up — it’s a slippery slope of the highest order. But we hate to admit it… Bair’s got a point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 09:29 AM
Response to Original message
76.  New GM, Chrysler Leaders -- Wrong for the Jobs
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-parker/new-gm-chrysler-leaders_b_210066.html


It took fewer than 60 years for America to forget the causes of the Great Depression, unbridled greed and avarice in the banking industry and on Wall Street, until we made all the same mistakes again, and invented some new ones, too.

But throughout the reorganization of the US auto industry, some of the much more recent lessons of the past 30 years have already been forgotten.

Frighteningly, at least to those of who focus on the product side of the auto industry, few if any of the Obama Auto Task Force members and the new leaders of Chrysler and GM taking over after the bankruptcies have product-sector experience.

And as you'd have thought Detroit and Washington might have learned the past few years, the Harvard MBAs in the auto executive suites wouldn't know a good car if they got run over by one.

And ultimately it's the cars which are going to save GM and Chrysler.

The announcements this weekend that GM will build a series of small cars in the US rather than make them in China, and that Fiat will sell their Mini-like Cinquecento (500) in some Chrysler dealers within the next 18 months were welcome, but not nearly enough to guarantee these companies' futures.

With the sad facts now well-known, with Chrysler's assets being sold to Fiat and General Motors entering bankruptcy, the men appointed to lead these companies post-bankruptcy don't have any background in the automotive business.

In the last year, since dropping fuel prices and the collapse of the credit market sealed the fate of the former auto giants, I suggested the US government spend time and money recruiting some of the top executives from the world's car companies, asking them to take a highly-paid sabbatical from their own firms and share their expertise with GM and Chrysler for a two- to three-year period. It would be patriotic in a world sense.

While even I thought it a little outrageous, I still think it's a better idea than who Washington has come up with to run GM and Chrysler.

Robert Kidder will be the new chairman of Chrysler and Al Koch will be "chief restructuring officer" at that's left of The General.

Business consultant Robert Kidder is now set to become the new chairman of Chrysler Group as it emerges from bankruptcy. Kidder, 64, will replace the ill-fated and bumbling Bob Nardelli, who was hired in 2007 after Daimler sold Chrysler to private equity group Cerberus.

A new board of directors, to be formed after the bankruptcy, will hire a new CEO for Chrysler. But that position is expected to be filled by Sergio Marchionne, CEO of Fiat. Yet Kidder will initially hold the top Chrysler job.

Kidder's résumé includes a stint as CEO of Duracell. He currently is a lead director at investment firm Morgan Stanley and CEO of 3Stone Advisors of Columbus, Ohio, which manages a private equity fund focused on investing in water-quality testing. Great -- Nardelli did such a wonderful job at Chrysler after his hiring by private equity fund Cerberus.


Bob Nardelli was hired in 2007 to run Chrysler by Cerberus; it's been an unmitigated disaster for the company, Nardelli, a former Home Depot chief, having no automotive background

Cross-town from Auburn Hills, GM plans to name turnaround executive Al Koch to serve as its chief restructuring officer to help the company through bankruptcy protection.

Koch, a managing director with AlixPartners LLP, is a veteran turnaround specialist who helped Kmart Corp. through its bankruptcy protection reorganization. He will lead the separation of the automaker's assets into a "New GM" and the remaining parts of the company that will form "Old GM." Koch will lead the management team that winds down the "Old GM" company once the automaker emerges from bankruptcy.

Another finance guy from another private equity firm.

Unless and until GM and Chrysler and the Obama Auto Task Force develop a balance of middle and senior management which can handle not just the finance side of these companies but the product sides -- developing the cars and trucks Americans and the world will want to buy in the near-term -- there's little chance for either GM or Chrysler to make successful rebounds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tclambert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 04:01 PM
Response to Reply #76
92. This one I agree with.
"Frighteningly, at least to those of who focus on the product side of the auto industry, few if any of the Obama Auto Task Force members and the new leaders of Chrysler and GM taking over after the bankruptcies have product-sector experience." - Like I've been saying.

"ultimately it's the cars which are going to save GM and Chrysler." - and that is exactly right. But as it takes about five years to develop a new car model, their future will be set by the cars already in the development pipeline. Luckily, they have some pretty good cars coming along. At least so I hear.

One disagreement, though. "Kidder's résumé includes a stint as CEO of Duracell." Robert Kidder's background in battery technology might actually prove useful for future cars. Hybrids and electric cars will need something like a thousand pounds of batteries each. That pushes the production capacity of battery manufacturers beyond anything they've done before. Just estimate how many pounds of batteries you have in your car and your home right now. A hundred pounds would be a lot. The Morgan Stanley part of his résumé makes me worry.

Roger Penske taking over Saturn makes a lot of sense to me. And I bet Steve Parker would agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 09:47 AM
Response to Original message
77. Green Shoots. LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 09:58 AM
Response to Original message
78. Vertigo: Only one is a wanderer; two together are always going somewhere.

more quotes from Vertigo
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0052357/quotes


time for me to go a-wandering

Have a good day!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 10:05 AM
Response to Original message
79. Rear Window quote -


Stella: You heard of that market crash in '29? I predicted that.

Jeff: Oh, just how did you do that, Stella?

Stella: Oh, simple. I was nursing a director of General Motors. Kidney ailment, they said. Nerves, I said. And I asked myself, "What's General Motors got to be nervous about?" Overproduction, I says; collapse. When General Motors has to go to the bathroom ten times a day, the whole country's ready to let go.

more quotes from Rear Window
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047396/quotes



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #79
81. Now THAT'S Irony!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LongTomH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #79
83. Now I'm going to have to rent the DVD of Rear Window!
It's been years since I last watched it and I think I may have missed many of the good lines!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #83
84. Me too!

I've forgotten half the movie too. lol
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hugin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #83
88. It's shown quite often on TCM...
If you have cable.

That's where I last watched it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 07:07 PM
Response to Original message
85. See Hitchcock's greats on HULU
Vertigo: http://www.hulu.com/vertigo

39 Steps http//www.hulu.com/watch/63055/the-39-steps

they don't have rear window, or the man who knew too much, alas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #85
87. Wow, Awesome!
Edited on Sat Jun-06-09 09:19 PM by DemReadingDU
Thanks for the links!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tclambert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #85
108. I think hulu only has clips of vertigo, not the full film.
Looks like they have Sabotage, Secret Agent, and The 39 Steps in full. And they have years worth of Alfred Hitchcock Presents and Alfred Hitchcock Hour.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-06-09 07:57 PM
Response to Original message
86. OMG!! I Wish I Had Found This Last Week!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tclambert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
90. Here's a quote from "North by Northwest"
"Roger Thornhill: In the world of advertising, there's no such thing as a lie. There's only expedient exaggeration."

You may substitute economics or politics for advertising, and it still works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tclambert Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #90
109. I always loved Hitchcock's droll comments about advertisers
on his TV shows. He pushed his sponsors' tolerance and sense of humor as far as he could.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 05:07 PM
Response to Original message
96. Revenge of the Nerd Paul Wilmott is out to save Wall Street's soul—one dork at a time.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/200015/page/1

Matthew Philips
NEWSWEEK
From the magazine issue dated Jun 8, 2009

Imagine an aeronautics engineer designing a state-of-the-art jumbo jet. In order for it to fly, the engineer has to rely on the same aerodynamics equation devised by physicists 150 years ago, which is based on Newton's second law of motion: force equals mass times acceleration. Problem is, the engineer can't reconcile his elegant design with the equation. The plane has too much mass and not enough force. But rather than tweak the design to fit the equation, imagine if the engineer does the opposite, and tweaks the equation to fit the design. The plane still looks awesome, and on paper, it flies. The engineer gets paid, the plane gets built, and soon thousands just like it are packed full of people and sent out onto runways. They fly for a while, but eventually, because of that fatal tweak, they all end up crashing.

In a way, this is what's happened in quantitative finance. The planes are the complex derivatives—like collateralized debt obligations—that now lie smoldering on the balance sheets of banks. The engineers are the "quants": those math and science Ph.D.s who flocked to Wall Street over the past decade and used mathematical models to build these new investment products. These are the people Warren Buffett was talking about when he said, "Beware of geeks bearing formulas" in his letter to shareholders this year. The quants aren't entirely to blame for the financial meltdown; there's plenty of guilt to be shared by regulators, top executives and the investors who bought the instruments the quants created. Yet while aeronautical engineers who willfully designed a faulty plane might be on trial for criminal negligence, Wall Street's math gurus are, for the most part, still employed. Strangely, the banks need quants more than ever right now. If anyone's going to figure out how to price these toxic assets, it's them. Quantitative finance isn't going away, but it is in desperate need of reform. And one man—a math geek himself—thinks he knows where to start.

Paul Wilmott is a 49-year-old Oxford-trained mathematician and arguably the most influential quant today, the brightest star in their insular, nerdy universe. The Financial Times calls him a "cult derivatives lecturer." Nassim Taleb, the mathematician and author of the bestseller The Black Swan, calls him the smartest quant in the world. "He's the only one who truly understands what's going on ... the only quant who uses his own head and has any sense of ethics," says Taleb. Wilmott stands atop a veritable quant empire. His wonk-made-simple textbooks sell for hundreds of dollars. A subscription to his bimonthly magazine, Wilmott, costs $695 a year. His Web site, Wilmott.com, is the nerve center of the quant community, with 65,000 registered users and a chat forum that buzzes over such topics as geodesic stochastic manifolds and swaption vol arbitrage....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 05:12 PM
Response to Original message
97. U.S. Jobs Propaganda Gets More Desperate
http://seekingalpha.com/article/141494-u-s-jobs-propaganda-gets-more-desperate?source=email

With another fraudulent U.S. monthly jobs-report due out today, the U.S. propaganda-machine is uttering one absurdity after another.

Thursday, it was trumpeting the news that “continuing claims” fell last month for the first time in five months. The first point to make here is that if last month's number had not been revised higher (as is happening every month) then continuing claims would have increased, not decreased.

The second point to make about this nonsense is that the tiny decline of 15,000 (from a total of nearly 7 million) is statistically insignificant. In other words, there is a statistical “margin of error” with all such reports and that margin of error is much greater than 15,000.

Finally, even if this report had shown some marginal decrease in “continuing claims” (greater than the margin of error), it does not imply an improvement in the job market. This is a neutral statistic regarding month-to-month changes in employment.

The reason? If the number of people continuing to receive unemployment decreases, there are two equally probable explanations as to what has occurred to change this number. It might mean that some of these people found jobs, or, it could simply mean that their unemployment insurance expired.

When the propagandists present a statistically insignificant number which does not imply a positive change in this market as unambiguously “good news”, then this is nothing less than a deliberate attempt to deceive.

Similarly, the propagandists have frequently reported that the weekly lay-offs statistic is “improving”. Yet every one of these “improvements" occurs only because the previous week's “final estimate” is always revised higher – since the original number is always a “low-ball” estimate of the real weekly lay-offs. Thus, despite all these “improvements" in the weekly lay-off figures, there has been no statistically significant improvement – at all.

Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is expected to pretend that the net job-losses for May will be slightly over 500,000. This doesn't even qualify as an estimate, since it is a complete fabrication. I have dealt with this issue previously (see “U.S. economy to lose 20 MILLION jobs this year”). However, with the propagandists continuing to produce these outrageous lies every month, it is sadly necessary for me to repeat my denunciation of these ridiculous lies.

In early 2008, at the beginning of the collapse of the U.S. economy, there were roughly 1.3 million lay-offs each month. The net job losses for those months was virtually flat. Thus, as a matter of simple arithmetic, last year (when the U.S. economy was much stronger), there were roughly 1.3 million new positions being created each month to offset those weekly lay-offs.

This year, the weekly lay-offs have totaled 2.5 million to 3 million every month. Obviously, the U.S. economy is producing far fewer positions than it was in early 2008. In other words, the U.S. economy is producing far fewer than 1.3 million new position each month. A reasonable estimate (if not generous) is that the U.S. economy is producing half as many new positions each month (i.e. roughly 600,000 new positions).

If we add that reasonable number of new positions (600,000) to the total monthly lay-offs of between 2.5 million and 3 million, we see that the U.S. is losing a minimum of 2 million jobs per month. This is more than three times the fictional numbers produced by the BLS. There is no possibility that a huge error of this magnitude could be an honest mistake.

Thus, the supposed monthly job-loss numbers from the BLS are deliberate, manufactured fraud – which should be painfully obvious to anyone capable of performing simple arithmetic. Anyone who defends these numbers is (implicitly) either a liar or an idiot.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #97
101. He Means Crap Like This?
Surge in Labor Force Shows U.S. Workers Gaining Confidence

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ap0Qp8qaW85k

By Shobhana Chandra

June 5 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. labor force posted the biggest back-to-back jump in six years, a sign Americans who’d quit looking for work are gaining confidence their search will pay off as the recession eases.

The labor pool rose to 155.1 million in May from 154 million in March, the largest two-month increase since January- February 2003, Labor Department figures showed today in Washington. The participation rate, or the share of people either working or looking for a job, climbed to 65.9 percent, the highest since October.

“Some among the ranks of job losers see a greater chance of finding a job and have begun to look in earnest,” John Ryding, chief economist at RDQ Economics LLC in New York, said in a note to clients today. It strengthens the argument that “the recession may have ended in May or June,” he said.

The gain in the labor force in part helps explain why the jobless rate jumped to 9.4 percent in May, the highest since 1983. Payrolls fell by 345,000, the least in eight months, today’s report also showed. The data reinforces signs the deepest economic slump in half a century is starting to abate, even as economists predict any expansion may be muted.

Other reports corroborate that some of the gloom is lifting from the jobs outlook. A Conference Board survey showed the group’s index of consumer expectations in May rose to the highest level since December 2007, and the share of people who said more jobs will be available in the next six months climbed to the highest level in more than five years.

For some economists, the combination of a jump in the labor force and a drop in employment in May also points to how tough it will be to actually find work in the months ahead.

“Getting the unemployment rate down will be a long, drawn- out task,” said Nigel Gault, chief U.S. economist at IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Massachusetts. Still, “the worst news is behind us, and job declines should progressively soften as the year proceeds.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
99. U.S. Pushed Fiat Deal on Chrysler Internal Emails Reveal Resentment; Court Upholds Pact
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124424451815990495.html#mod=djemalertNEWS

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration rushed an alliance between Chrysler LLC and Fiat SpA despite Chrysler's worries about Fiat's financial health and its willingness to share technology, according to internal company emails.

The emails show Fiat ignoring requests for documents and trying to change contract terms late in the talks. A Chrysler adviser at one point said the deal risked looking as if the U.S. auto maker and the Treasury Department, which helped broker the pact, were "in bed with a shady partner." In another note, an official referred to the Treasury Department as "God."...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemReadingDU Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #99
102. This is not going to go well.

You can't hurry a bankruptcy, somebody is going to get screwed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #102
105. Probably Everybody
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 05:22 PM
Response to Original message
100. The Age of Diminishing Endowments
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124425383780391015.html

Richard Levin, the longest serving president in the Ivy League, had enjoyed a charmed run at Yale. In his first 15 years Yale's endowment notched up the best returns of any university's, and its innovative investment strategy became a model for many others. Mr. Levin rode the bull market to restore morale, launch a building spree, and strengthen the school in sciences and internationally. Yale dollars even spruced up shabby New Haven.

Then came the Great Recession. What went up so fast for elite universities -- Yale's endowment grew to $23 billion last summer from $3.1 billion in 1993, Mr. Levin's first year -- dropped like a stone. The impact was immediate: Mr. Levin announced a 5% spending cut in December (later adjusted to 7.5%), then froze faculty pay and most large capital projects. By the end of this month he says the endowment will be marked down by a quarter to around $17 billion. Harvard, the only university with a larger endowment, got caught out on arcane fare like interest rate swaps and now projects a 30% decline, to about $24 billion.

"We had a run that was historically unprecedented, and at the tail end of that it looked like we were getting too rich," Mr. Levin says, recalling that members of Congress were then starting to complain about rich private universities' "hoarding" money. "Well, that's quickly been amended," he deadpans.

University endowments once invested primarily in stocks and bonds. Yale's longtime chief investment officer, David Swensen, pioneered a new strategy that found better returns in less traditional vehicles like hedge funds, private equity partnerships and real estate. The Swensen approach produced a 16% average annual return the past decade through last June. But the steep and sudden drop has left schools heavily invested in assets that can't be quickly sold for cash.

An academic economist who sounds as if he knows his school's finances as well as anyone here, Mr. Levin defends the so-called Yale Model against emboldened critics. "We made huge excess returns on the way up. When it's all over and things stabilize I think we'll find the overall long-run performance is better than if we didn't." But he acknowledges the downside. "The challenge for the Swensen strategy is in the area of liquidity. I think it is fair to say all of us, including Yale, didn't anticipate that." In response, universities are borrowing at unprecedented levels. Harvard recently tapped the bond market for $1.5 billion, Stanford and Princeton borrowed $1 billion each, and Yale $800 million "just to support our liquidity," says Mr. Levin.

So what does the dawn of the era of unplenty mean for the future of his university, and others? Mr. Levin, a youthful 62, finds some comfort in the numbers to downplay the impact on Yale.

Long ago, private universities designed "spending rules" for their endowments to support them less lavishly in flush years and more in the tough. That cushions the blow to the budget. "We'll spend 6.5% or 6.7% of our endowment next year when the endowment declines," he says. "That's the flip side of the spending of 3.8% we were spending when the endowment was rising very rapidly." While the endowment will provide some 43% of next year's budget, tuition -- once the principal source of income -- accounts for just 11% after financial aid. Yet if the investments don't rebound over the next few years, Yale and other schools in its league will have to rethink long-term priorities and expansion plans.

Universities weren't the only lavish spenders in the bubble years, and they dodged a bullet when only two years ago Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) tried to pass legislation to force them to shell out even more of their endowments to slow tuition increases. The current crisis vindicates relatively conservative endowment spending rules. "Managing university finances is very tricky business," Mr. Levin says. "We're nonprofits. We're not supposed to accumulate large surpluses."

Tuition is always a big issue. Earlier this year, smack in the midst of the recession, Yale raised it 3.2% to $47,500, including room and board. Mr. Levin is unapologetic. "If we are to maintain a 10-to-one ratio of students to faculty, if professors get average salary increases, we're going to go up faster than inflation" -- during his tenure, on average, a percentage point above inflation.

Four years of college at $200,000 strikes lots of people as indecent. "You're talking about sticker prices," Mr. Levin says. "The actual net price people pay, tuition minus financial aid, is basically not changed at all. If you look at the average net price for all of our students, it's actually declined over the last decade." That makes for an average cost of $18,000 per student per year now, compared to $19,000 a decade ago. Mr. Levin says the boom provoked "something of an arms race to give more financial aid," and opened private schools up to a larger -- and as a result stronger -- pool of students "that used to think that elite private schools were inaccessible to them." Yale may be "more affordable than ever," he says. But then Yale's president admits "this logic only applies to five schools" who offer "need blind" admissions.

Some schools may go belly-up because of the crisis. Ohio's Antioch College closed last year. "As always happens in a recession, we'll see some of the tuition-dependent institutions run into trouble," Mr. Levin says. "Sadly, it hits some schools that play an important social role like the historically black schools. And then state schools get hit. Though they don't get shut down, their budgets get starved."

As Mr. Levin points out, tuition at public schools has gone up faster than at private schools -- on average, 2.5% plus inflation -- to make up for state budget cuts. "They've not kept pace with the private institutions in terms of resources. That's very sad, because the great state universities here are really unique and fabulous institutions."

The financial pinch is forcing schools to impose hiring freezes and consider shuttering departments with lower enrollments -- say, French literature. This trend also calls into question America's long-held commitment to a liberal over a vocational higher education. Mr. Levin is quick to say "that's not a worry for flagship universities."

Rick Levin knows plenty about troubled institutions. In the early 1990s, Yale fit that bill. Its neglected and aging physical plant required urgent renovation. The budget was deep in the red. A faculty revolt helped force the resignation of senior administrators, who included prominent conservatives disliked on the liberal campus. In addition, Yale had the worst record of labor strife of virtually any school and found itself in one of America's most crime-ridden towns. (In 1991, a 19-year-old student named Christian Prince was gunned down near campus.)

The economic revival and endowment boom helped turn things around. But Mr. Levin also brought a vision: America's third-oldest university needed to shape up or lose its leading position. He focused on boosting science, sometimes neglected at a place renowned for its humanities, and taking the university global. He expanded ties with China. A tenth of Yale's undergraduate student body now comes from outside the U.S. When Mr. Levin took over, only 3% did.

As with other schools that might like to switch neighborhoods -- think of Penn, Columbia, the University of Chicago -- the economic downturn exposes Yale's New Haven handicap. In recent years, the city's largest employer and landowner tried to improve long-strained town-gown relations and gentrify the areas around campus. So when Mayor John DeStefano came with an emergency request to help cover New Haven's $29 million deficit, Yale in February increased its voluntary financial contribution to the city by 50%, to $7.6 million -- despite its own shortfall. (As a nonprofit, Yale pays little in taxes.) Financially, he says, "the city is in deep trouble."

Yale lives in fear of a return of the old New Haven. "The principal reason students didn't come here was the city," Mr. Levin says. "The downtown was . . . fairly grim. There were all the drug gangs running around. We felt from the start we had to make a serious commitment to be a good partner and a good neighbor. It's been good for both. We virtually developed the downtown with our resources. There's a lot of great restaurants. It's a destination. Even the New York Times has written about 'an irresistible' weekend destination. None of that could be said about New Haven in 1993."

There were stumbles too. Early in his term, controversy ensued after Mr. Levin returned a $20 million alumni gift intended to establish a new program for the study of Western Civilization. What the New Yorker called "the Bass grant fiasco" of 1995 upset a lot of alumni and became a national story about the culture war between left and right on campus. "Not a happy episode. I learned a lot from it," he says. "I should have found some way to satisfy the donor's generous intent." Cardinal rule for all university leaders: Thou shalt never upset an alumni giver.

On the touchy matter of ideological diversity on American campuses, he says, "I think we're beyond the culture wars -- certainly at Yale. I think we have a healthy coexistence between scholars devoted to the study of the traditional canon of Western civilization and those that are interested in more innovative approaches." Certainly, he continues, "university faculties as a group are left-of-center, part of that is a generational phenomenon." At the younger end, faculties are "less liberal," he says.

The quality of U.S. secondary schools, state funding cuts and now diminishing endowments are the perceived threats to America's global pre-eminence in higher education. "There are a lot of countries investing in making universities stronger, especially in Asia," Mr. Levin says. "And now Saudi Arabia, with its very huge investment to build a university of science and technology. There will be more competition for American universities. Europe, I think, has fallen by the wayside."

But, he adds, "Global education is not a zero-sum game. The rise of universities in Asia will be a benefit to the entire world. . . . it will take a very long time to unseat the Oxfords, Harvards and Yales of the world from the top positions."

For all the anxiety about the future for universities, it's hard to think of American institutions that have been as durable, surviving revolution, war and depression. At Yale, they like the refrain, "Older than the Republic." In his corner office at Woodbridge Hall, Mr. Levin sits in the chair used by the school's seventh president, theologian Ezra Stiles. His tenure ended in 1785.

Mr. Kaminski is a member of the Journal's editorial board.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
103. Securitization: The Biggest Rip-off Ever By Mike Whitney
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22775.htm

June 05, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- -Is it possible to make hundreds of billions of dollars in profits on securities that are backed by nothing more than cyber-entries into a loan book?

It's not only possible; it's been done. And now the scoundrels who cashed in on the swindle have lined up outside the Federal Reserve building to trade their garbage paper for billions of dollars of taxpayer-funded loans. Where's the justice? Meanwhile, the credit bust has left the financial system in a shambles and driven the economy into the ground like a tent stake. The unemployment lines are growing longer and consumers are cutting back on everything from nights-on-the-town to trips to the grocery store. And it's all due to a Ponzi-finance scam that was concocted on Wall Street and spread through the global system like an aggressive strain of Bird Flu. The isn't a normal recession; the financial system was blown up by greedy bankers who used "financial innovation" togame the system and inflate the biggest speculative bubble of all time. And they did it all legally, using a little-known process called securitization.

Securitization--which is the conversion of pools of loans into securities that are sold in the secondary market--provides a means for massive debt-leveraging. The banks use off-balance-sheet operations to create securities so they can avoid normal reserve requirements and bothersome regulatory oversight. Oddly enough, the quality of the loan makes no difference at all, since the banks make their money on loan originations and other related fees. What matters is quantity, quantity, quantity; an industrial-scale assembly line of fetid loans dumped on unsuspecting investors to fatten the bottom line. And, boy, can Wall Street grind out the rotten paper when there's no cop on the beat and the Fed is cheering from the bleachers. In an analysis written by economist Gary Gorton for the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta’s 2009 Financial Markets Conference titled, "Slapped in the Face by the Invisible Hand; Banking and the Panic of 2007", the author shows that mortgage-related securities ballooned from $492.6 billion in 1996 to $3,071.1 in 2003, while asset backed securities (ABS) jumped from $168.4 billion in 1996 to $1,253.1 in 2006. All told, more than $20 trillion in securitized debt was sold between 1997 to 2007. How much of that debt will turn out to be worthless as foreclosures skyrocket and the banks balance sheets come under greater and greater pressure?

Deregulation opened Pandora's box, unleashing a weird mix of shady off-book operations (SPVs, SIVs) and dodgy, odd-sounding derivatives that were used to amplify leverage and stack debt on tinier and tinier scraps of capital. It's easy to make money, when one has no skin in the game. That's how hedge fund managers and private equity sharpies get rich. Securitization gave the banks the opportunity to take substandard loans from applicants who had no way of paying them back, and magically transform them into Triple A securities. "Abra-cadabra". The Wall Street public relations throng boasted that securitization "democratized" credit because more people could borrow at better rates since funding came from investors rather than banks. But it was all a hoax. The real objective was to turbo-charge profits by skimming hefty salaries and bonuses on the front end, before people found out they'd been hosed. The former head of the FDIC, William Seidman, figured it all out back in 1993 when he was cleaning up after the S&L fiasco. Here's what he said in his memoirs:

“Instruct regulators to look for the newest fad in the industry and examine it with great care. The next mistake will be a new way to make a loan that will not be repaid.” (Bloomberg)


That's it in a nutshell. The banks never expected the loans would be paid back, which is why they issued them to ninjas; applicants with no income, no collateral, no job, and a bad credit history. It made no sense at all, especially to anyone who's ever sat through a nerve-wracking credit check with a sneering banker. Trust me, bankers know how to get their money back, if that's their real intention. In this case, it didn't matter. They just wanted to keep their counterfeiting racket zooming ahead at full-throttle for as long as possible. Meanwhile, Maestro Greenspan waved pom-poms from the sidelines, extolling the virtues of the "new economy" and the permanent high plateau of prosperity that had been achieved through laissez faire capitalism.

Now that the securitization bubble has burst, 40% of the credit which had been coursing into the economy has been cut off triggering a 1930's-type meltdown. Fed chief Bernanke has stepped into the breach and provided a $13 trillion dollar backstop to keep the financial system from collapsing, but the broader economy has continued its historic nosedive. Bernanke is trying to fill the chasm that opened up when securitization ground to a halt and gas started exiting the credit bubble in one mighty whooosh. The deleveraging is ongoing, despite the Fed's many programs to rev up securitization and restore speculative bubblenomics. Bernanke's latest brainstorm, the Term Asset-backed securities Lending Facility (TALF), provides 94 percent public funding for investors willing to buy loans backed by credit card debt, student loans, auto loans or commercial real estate loans. It's a "no lose" situation for big investors who think that securitized debt will stage a comeback. But that's the problem; no one does. Attractive, non recourse (nearly) risk free loans have failed to entice the big brokerage houses and hedge fund managers. Bernanke has peddled less than $30 billion in a program that's designed to lend up to $1 trillion. It's been a complete bust.

To understand securitization, one must think like a banker. Bankers believe that profits are constrained by reserve requirements. So, what they really want is to expand credit with no reserves; the equivalent of spinning flax into gold. Securitization and derivatives contracts achieve that objective. They create a confusing netherworld of odd-sounding instruments and bizarre processes which obscure the simple fact that they are creating money out of thin air. That's what securitization really is; undercapitalized junk masquerading as precious jewels. Here's how economist Henry CK Liu sums it up in his article "Mark-to-Market vs. Mark-to-Model":

"The shadow banking system has deviously evaded the reserve requirements of the traditional regulated banking regime and institutions and has promoted a chain-letter-like inverted pyramid scheme of escalating leverage, based in many cases on nonexistent reserve cushion. This was revealed by the AIG collapse in 2008 caused by its insurance on financial derivatives known as credit default swaps (CDS).....

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve jointly allowed banks with credit default swaps (CDS) insurance to keep super-senior risk assets on their books without adding capital because the risk was insured. Normally, if the banks held the super-senior risk on their books, they would need to post capital at 8% of the liability. But capital could be reduced to one-fifth the normal amount (20% of 8%, meaning $160 for every $10,000 of risk on the books) if banks could prove to the regulators that the risk of default on the super-senior portion of the deals was truly negligible, and if the securities being issued via a collateral debt obligation (CDO) structure carried a Triple-A credit rating from a “nationally recognized credit rating agency”, such as Standard and Poor’s rating on AIG.

With CDS insurance, banks then could cut the normal $800 million capital for every $10 billion of corporate loans on their books to just $160 million, meaning banks with CDS insurance can loan up to five times more on the same capital. The CDS-insured CDO deals could then bypass international banking rules on capital. (Henry CK Liu, "Mark-to-Market vs. Mark-to-Model" http://www.henryckliu.com/page191.html )


The same rule applies to derivatives (CDS) as securitized instruments; neither is sufficiently capitalized because setting aside reserves impairs one's ability to maximize profits. It's all about the bottom line. The reason credit default swaps are so cheap, compared to conventional insurance, is that there's no way of knowing whether the dealer has the ability to pay claims. It's fraud, on a gigantic scale, which is why the financial system went into full-blown paralysis when Lehman Bros defaulted. No one knew whether trillions of dollars in counterparty contracts would be paid out or not. There are simply more claims on wealth than there is money in the system. Bogus mortgages and phony counterparty promises mean nothing. "Show me the money". The system is underwater, and it cannot be fixed by more of the Fed's presto liquidity. Here's what Gary Gorton says later in the same article:

"A banking panic means that the banking system is insolvent. The banking system cannot honor contractual demands; there are no private agents who can buy the amount of assets necessary to recapitalize the banking system, even if they knew the value of the assets, because of the sheer size of the banking system. When the banking system is insolvent, many markets stop functioning and this leads to very significant effects on the real economy...."

Indeed. The shadow banking system has collapsed, not because the market is "frozen" or because investors are in a state of panic after Lehman, but because derivatives and securitization have been exposed as a fraud propped up on insufficient capital. It's snake oil sold by charlatans. That's why European policymakers are resisting the Fed's requests to create a facility similar to the TALF to start up securitization again. Here's a revealing clip from the Wall Street Journal which explains what's going on behind the scenes:

"Bankers are pushing European policy makers to consider a U.S.-style program to aid the region's economy by reviving the moribund market for bundled consumer loans. Officials at the European Securitisation Forum, a trade group representing banks and other market participants, said Tuesday that central bankers should consider stepping in with a program similar to the U.S. Federal Reserve's Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility, or TALF, which provides loans to private investors who buy new securities tied to consumer loans...

After suffering heavy losses on securities stuffed with poorly made loans, investors are reluctant to wade back in, and Europe lacks big players like the Pacific Investment Management Co. in the U.S., whose buying can mobilize other investors....The market also faces uncertainty over how European regulators will change the rules of the game, in part by imposing tougher capital requirements on banks, the main buyers of securitized assets in Europe.

One European Commission proposal would dramatically hike the capital required of banks holding a securitized asset if the originator allowed its share of that asset to fall below a 5% threshold....

Paul Sharma of Britain's Financial Services Authority said regulatory action is likely to shrink the investor base for ABS, in part by increasing the capital cushions banks will have to hold against ABS holdings in their trading books. He also argued that ABS were inappropriate for banks to hold as liquid assets, because they have proven difficult to sell in a market crisis.

"There is very much a query in the minds of regulators as to whether there is a significant future for securitization," said Mr. Sharma, though he added his own view was that the market did have a future role." ("In Europe, a U.S. Way To Fix ABS Market?" Neil Shah and Stephen Fidler, Wall Street Journal)

See? In Europe regulators still do their jobs and make sure that financial institutions have money before they create trillions of dollars in credit. They don't stick with their heads in the sand while crooked bankers fleece the public. Bernanke's job is to step in and put an end to the hanky-panky, not add to the problems by restoring a credit-generating regime that transferred hundreds of billions of dollars from hard-working people to fatcat banksters and Wall Street flim-flammers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #103
104. Time to Break Up the Banks By Peter Rothberg



June 05, 2009 "The Nation" -- Last April, I wrote about A New Way Forward,

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/actnow/425015

a new and growing movement organized via the web and founded by young people who want to take back the power of the ordinary citizen to affect our economic structure. The organization's coming-out party took place last April 11 with more than sixty coordinated events coast to coast all making the case for alternative bailout plans based on the public's interest.

This new video, which neatly breaks down the causes and effects of the economic crisis, is the basis for the next day of action staged by A New Way Forward.

<embed src="http://blip.tv/play/AYGBqjGW6XE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="510" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed>

Next week on June 10, at small and large events nationwide, there'll be numerous screenings of the video along with panels, workshops, teach-ins, protests and rallies. As the banking industry continues its secret lobbying in DC, A New Way Forward advocates using antitrust laws and competition to limit the influence of big banks and shed light on the shadow banking sector. These events are part of a continuing effort to forge a serious grassroots discussion of the economy ad how to leverage antitrust law toward a more populist bailout. Find an event near you. If there's nothing near you, click here for tips on how to host your own event.

Organizers are planning many different events, from small group house parties to large group public gatherings. In Washington DC, Former Chief Economist of the IMF Simon Johnson will be keynoting what's expected to be a large event in the Gold Room of the Rayburn House Building. The organizers hope to attract citizens with a disparate range of views who will hold one idea in common: our current economic trends must be reversed. Join ANWF's Facebook group for updates, and learn more about the plan for structural change and what we can achieve.
Peter Rothberg writes the ActNow column for the The Nation. ActNow aims to put readers in touch with creative ways to register informed dissent. Whether it's a grassroots political campaign, a progressive film festival, an antiwar candidate, a street march, a Congressional bill needing popular support or a global petition, ActNow will highlight the outpouring of cultural, political and anti-corporate activism sweeping the planet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-07-09 06:07 PM
Response to Original message
106. Illiteracy in High Place: Forgetting What We Learned By Paul Craig Roberts
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22768.htm

June 04, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- If a person lives long enough, he can watch everyone forget everything they learned.

Everyone includes Federal Reserve Chairmen, economists, Bank of America “strategists,” and even Bloomberg.com.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke thinks he can hold down US long-term interest rates by purchasing mortgage bonds and US Treasuries. Sixty years ago the Federal Reserve understood that this was an impossible feat. After an acrimonious public dispute with the US Treasury, in 1951 the Federal Reserve forced an “Accord” on the government that eliminated the Fed’s obligation to monetize Treasury debt in order to hold down long term interest rates.

President Truman and Treasury Secretary John Snyder wanted to protect World War II bond purchasers by preventing any rise in interest rates, which would mean a decline in the price of the bonds.

The Fed understood that monetizing the debt to hold down interest rates meant loss of control over the money supply. The policy of suppressing interest rates could only work until the financial markets anticipated rising inflation and bid down the bond prices. If the Fed responded by buying more Treasuries, the money supply and inflation would rise faster.

Since Fed Chairman Bernanke announced his plan to purchase $1 trillion in mortgage and Treasury bonds in order to help the housing market with low interest rates, interest rates have risen. When will the Fed remember that printing money does not lower long-term interest rates?

According to Bloomberg (June 3), Bank of America strategists are recommending that investors buy Fannie Mae bonds because the rise in interest rates means the Fed will ramp up its purchases in order to prevent rising interest rates from adversely impacting the struggling housing market. When will financial gurus remember that printing money does not lower interest rates?

Treasury Secretary Geithner is another economic incompetent. He told China that he stood for a “strong dollar,” but that China should let its currency appreciate relative to the dollar, which, of course, would mean a weaker dollar. He simultaneously told China that their investments in US Treasury bonds were safe.

His Chinese university audience, being economically literate, laughed at Geithner. It apparently did not dawn on the US Treasury Secretary that if Chinese money is rising in value relative to the US dollar, the value of Chinese investments in dollar-denominated US Treasury bonds is falling.

Congressional Democrats are proving themselves to be as stupid as the Republicans. According to the Associated Press, the Democrats have reached agreement to appropriate another $100 billion to continue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of the year. What are the Democrats thinking? The federal budget for this year is already 50% in the red. Why add another $100 billion to the red ink, which has to be monetized, thus causing inflation, higher interest rates, and a weaker dollar.

The red ink that Washington is generating is a far greater threat to Americans than any foreign “enemies.”

The hubris is extraordinary. A bankrupt government that has to send its Treasury Secretary begging to China thinks it can spend limitless amounts in a futile effort to control the culture, mores, and political system of distant Afghanistan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC