Congress « TheCenterLane.com

Latest Obama Cave-in Is Likely To Further Erode His Base

December 15th, 2011 Posted in Uncategorized

Dec, 15 2011

Comments Off

Well, he did it again. Despite the fact that President Obama had vowed to veto the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which allows for indefinite detention of American citizens without trial, the White House announced that the President will breach yet another promise and sign the controversial bill.

Jeremy Herb at The Hill reported on the administration’s concern that if Obama were to veto the bill, there might not have been enough votes in Congress to prevent an override of that veto. In other words: Obama was afraid of being embarrassed. The report noted the defensive language contained in the official White House spin, to the effect that some minor changes in wording were made to satisfy the President:

The White House backed down from its veto threat of the defense authorization bill Wednesday, saying that the bill’s updated language would not constrain the Obama administration’s counterterrorism efforts.

* * *

The administration won some changes in conference committee, which wrapped up Monday, including the addition of a clause stating that FBI and local law enforcement counterterrorism activities would not be altered by the law.

Big deal. Let the outrage begin! At the Huffington Post, Michael McAuliff noted that the President had already decided to back down on his veto threat before the House of Representatives passed the bill:

The switch came just before the House voted 283-136 to pass the National Defense Authorization Act despite impassioned opposition that crossed party lines, with Democrats splitting on the bill and more than 40 Republicans opposing it. Numerous national security experts and civil liberties advocates had argued that the indefinite detention measure enshrines recent, questionable investigative practices that are contrary to fundamental American rights.

At the Human Rights Watch website, no punches were pulled in their criticism of Obama’s latest betrayal of those very principles his supporters expected him to advance:

The Obama administration had threatened to veto the bill, the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), over detainee provisions, but on December 14, 2011, issued a statement indicating the president would likely sign the legislation.

“By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side.”

* * *

The far-reaching detainee provisions would codify indefinite detention without trial into US law for the first time since the McCarthy era when Congress in 1950 overrode the veto of then-President Harry Truman and passed the Internal Security Act.

* * *

“It is a sad moment when a president who has prided himself on his knowledge of and belief in constitutional principles succumbs to the politics of the moment to sign a bill that poses so great a threat to basic constitutional rights,” Roth said.

Many people might not know that quantitative equity research analyst and former hedge fund manager, Barry Ritholtz (author of Bailout Nation) is an alumnus of the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York, where he served on the Law Review, and graduated Cum Laude with a 3.56 GPA. Here are some of the recent comments made by Mr. Ritholtz concerning the National Defense Authorization Act:

While this is shocking, it is not occurring in a vacuum. Indeed, it is part of a 30 year-long process of militarization inside our borders and a destruction of the American concepts of limited government and separation of powers.

* * *

Other Encroachments On Civil Rights Under Obama

As bad as Bush was, the truth is that, in many ways, freedom and constitutional rights are under attack even more than during the Bush years.

For example:

Obama has presided over the most draconian crackdown on leaks in our history – even more so than Nixon.

* * *

Furthermore – as hard as it is for Democrats to believe – the disinformation and propaganda campaigns launched by Bush have only increased under Obama. See this and this.

And as I pointed out last year:

According to Department of Defense training manuals, protest is considered “low-level terrorism”. And see this, this and this.

An FBI memo also labels peace protesters as “terrorists”.

At his blog, The Big Picture, Ritholtz made these points in a December 3 argument against the passage of this bill:

You might assume – in a vacuum – that this might be okay (even though it trashes the Constitution, the separation of military and police actions, and the division between internal and external affairs).

But it is dangerous in a climate where you can be labeled as or suspected of being a terrorist simply for questioning war, protesting anything, asking questions about pollution or about Wall Street shenanigans, supporting Ron Paul, being a libertarian, holding gold, or stocking up on more than 7 days of food. And see this.

Once again, President Obama has breached a promise to his supporters out of fear that he could be embarrassed in a showdown with Congress. Worse yet, Obama has acted to subvert the Constitutional right of Due Process simply because he wants to avoid the shame of a veto override. As many commentators have observed, George W. Bush was not plagued by any such weakness and he went on to push a good number of controversial initiatives through Congress – most notably the Iraq War Resolution. I find it surprising that so many of President Obama’s important decisions have been motivated by a fear of embarrassment, while at the same time he has exhibited no concern about exposing such timidity to both his allies and his opponents – wherever they may be.

2012 National Defense Authorization Act, Bailout Nation, Barack Obama, Barry Ritholtz, Benjamin N Cardozo School of Law, civil liberties advocates, Civil Rights, Congress, Constitution, constitutional principles, constitutional rights, counterterrorism, cum laude, defense spending bill, Democrats, Department of Defense, detainee provisions, disinformation, FBI, fear of embarrassment, freedom, George W Bush, Harry Truman, hedge fund manager, House of Representatives, Huffington Post, Human Rights Watch, indefinite detention, indefinite detention of American citizens, Internal Security Act, Iraq War Resolution, Jeremy Herb, John T Burke Jr, Kenneth Roth, law, law review, legislation, Libertarian, limited government, local law enforcement, McCarthy era, Michael McAuliff, militarization, national security experts, NDAA, New York, President Nixon, President Obama, propaganda, protest as low-level terrorism, protesters as terrorists, quantitative equity research analyst, Republicans, Ron Paul, separation of powers, terrorist, The Big Picture, The Hill, updated language, veto, veto override, Wall Street, Washingtons Blog, White House

More Favorable Reviews For Huntsman

December 5th, 2011 Posted in Uncategorized

Dec, 05 2011

Comments Off

In my last posting, I focused on how Jon Huntsman has been the only Presidential candidate to present responsible ideas for regulating the financial industry (Obama included). Since that time, I have read a number of similarly favorable reactions from respected authorities and commentators who reviewed Huntsman’s proposals .

Simon Johnson is the former Chief Economist for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) from 2007-2008. He is currently the Ronald A. Kurtz Professor of Entrepreneurship at the MIT Sloan School of Management. At his Baseline Scenario blog, Professor Johnson posted the following comments in reaction to Jon Huntsman’s policy page on financial reform and Huntsman’s October 19 opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal:

More bailouts and the reinforcement of moral hazard – protecting bankers and other creditors against the downside of their mistakes – is the last thing that the world’s financial system needs. Yet this is also the main idea of the Obama administration. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told the Fiscal Times this week that European leaders “are going to have to move more quickly to put in place a strong firewall to help protect countries that are undertaking reforms,” meaning more bailouts. And this week we learned more about the underhand and undemocratic ways in which the Federal Reserve saved big banks last time around. (You should read Ron Suskind’s book, Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President, to understand Mr. Geithner’s philosophy of unconditional bailouts; remember that he was president of the New York Fed before become treasury secretary.)

Is there really no alternative to pouring good money after bad?

In a policy statement released this week, Governor Jon Huntsman articulates a coherent alternative approach to the financial sector, which begins with a diagnosis of our current problem: Too Big To Fail banks,

“To protect taxpayers from future bailouts and stabilize America’s economic foundation, Jon Huntsman will end too-big-to-fail. Today we can already begin to see the outlines of the next financial crisis and bailouts. More than three years after the crisis and the accompanying bailouts, the six largest U.S. financial institutions are significantly bigger than they were before the crisis, having been encouraged by regulators to snap up Bear Stearns and other competitors at bargain prices”

Mr. Geithner feared the collapse of big banks in 2008-09 – but his policies have made them bigger. This makes no sense. Every opportunity should be taken to make the megabanks smaller and there are plenty of tools available, including hard size caps and a punitive tax on excessive size and leverage (with any proceeds from this tax being used to reduce the tax burden on the nonfinancial sector, which will otherwise be crushed by the big banks’ continued dangerous behavior).

The goal is simple, as Mr. Huntsman said in his recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece: make the banks small enough and simple enough to fail, “Hedge funds and private equity funds go out of business all the time when they make big mistakes, to the notice of few, because they are not too big to fail. There is no reason why banks cannot live with the same reality.”

The quoted passage from Huntsman’s Wall Street Journal essay went on to say this:

These banks now have assets worth over 66% of gross domestic product—at least $9.4 trillion, up from 20% of GDP in the 1990s. There is no evidence that institutions of this size add sufficient value to offset the systemic risk they pose.

The major banks’ too-big-to-fail status gives them a comparative advantage in borrowing over their competitors thanks to the federal bailout backstop.

Far be it from President Obama to make such an observation.

Huntsman’s policy page on financial reform included a discussion of repealing the Dodd-Frank law:

More specifically, real reform means repealing the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, which perpetuates too-big-to-fail and imposes costly and mostly useless regulations on innocent smaller banks without addressing the root causes of the crisis or anticipating future crises. But the overregulation cannot be addressed without ending the bailout subsidies, so that is where reform must begin.

Beyond that, Huntsman’s Wall Street Journal piece gave us a chance to watch the candidate step in shit:

Once too-big-to-fail is fixed, we could then more easily repeal the law’s unguided regulatory missiles, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. American banks provide advice and access to capital to the entrepreneurs and small business owners who have always been our economic center of gravity. We need a banking sector that is able to serve that critical role again.

American banks also do a lot to screw their “personal banking” customers (the “little people”) and sleazy “payday loan”-type operations earn windfall profits exploiting those workers whose incomes aren’t enough for them to make it from paycheck-to-paycheck. The American economy is 70 percent consumer-driven. American consumers have always been “our economic center of gravity” and the CFPB was designed to protect them. Huntsman would do well to jettison his anti-CFPB agenda if he wants to become President.

Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute, exhibited a similarly “hot and cold” reaction to Huntsman’s proposals for financial reform. What follows is a passage from a recent posting at his Rortybomb blog, entitled “Huntsman Wants to Repeal Dodd-Frank so he can Pass Title VII of Dodd-Frank”:

So we need to get serious about derivatives regulation by bringing transparency to the over-the-counter derivatives market, with serious collateral requirements. This was turned into law as the Wall Street Transparency and Accountability Act of 2010, or Title VII of Dodd-Frank.

So we need to eliminate Dodd-Frank in order to pass Dodd-Frank’s resolution authority and derivative regulations – two of the biggest parts of the bill – but call it something else.

You can argue that Dodd-Frank’s derivative rules have too many loopholes with too much of the market exempted from the process and too much power staying with the largest banks. But those are arguments that Dodd-Frank doesn’t go far enough, where Huntsman’s critique of Dodd-Frank is that it goes way too far.

Huntsman should be required to explain the issues here – is he against Dodd-Frank before being for it? Is his Too Big To Fail policy and derivatives policy the same as Dodd-Frank, and if not how do they differ? It isn’t clear from the materials he has provided so far how the policies would be different, and if it is a problem with the regulations in practice how he would get stronger ones through Congress.

I do applaud this from Huntsman:

RESTORING RULE OF LAW

President Huntsman’s administration will direct the Department of Justice to take the lead in investigating and brokering an agreement to resolve the widespread legal abuses such as the robo-signing scandal that unfolded in the aftermath of the housing bubble. This is a basic question of rule of law; in this country no one is above the law. There are also serious issues involving potential violations of the securities laws, particularly with regard to fair and accurate disclosure of the underlying loan contracts and property titles in mortgage-backed securities that were sold. If investors’ rights were abused, this needs to be addressed fully. We need a comprehensive settlement that puts all these issues behind us, but any such settlement must include full redress of all legal violations.

* * *

And I will note that the dog-whistles hidden inside the proposal are towards strong reforms (things like derivatives reform “will also allow end-users to negotiate better terms with Wall Street and in turn lower trading costs” – implicitly arguing that the dealer banks have too much market power and it is the role of the government to create a fair playing field). Someone knows what they are doing. His part on bringing down the GSEs doesn’t mention the hobbyhorse of the Right that the CRA and the GSEs caused the crisis, which is refreshing to see.

If Republican voters are smart, they will vote for Jon Huntsman in their state primary elections. As I said last time: If Jon Huntsman wins the Republican nomination, there will be a serious possibility that the Democrats could lose control of the White House.

2012 Presidential campaign, 70-percent consumer-driven, bailouts, bankers, banking sector, Barack Obama, Baseline Scenario, Bear Stearns, big banks, CFPB, Chief Economist, collateral requirements, Confidence Men, Congress, conservative, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, consumer-driven economy, consumers, CRA, Department of Justice, derivatives regulation, Dodd-Frank, economic center of gravity, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial institutions, financial plan, financial reform, financial system, Fiscal Times, future financial crisis, GDP, Gross Domestic Product, GSEs, hedge funds, IMF, International Monetary Fund, John T Burke Jr, Jon Huntsman, leverage, little people, loopholes, megabanks, Mike Konczal, MIT Sloan School of Management, moderate, moral hazard, New York Fed, Obama Administration, over-the-counter derivatives, overregulation, payday loan, policy statement, President Obama, primary elections, private equity, Professor of Entrepreneurship, punitive tax, regulation, Republican nomination, Republican Party, Republican Presidential campaign, Republicans, resolution authority, robo-signing, Ron Suskind, Roosevelt Institute, Rortybomb, rule of law, securities laws, Simon Johnson, systemic risk, taxpayers, Tim Geithner, Title VII of Dodd-Frank, too big to fail, transparency, Treasury Secretary, unconditional bailouts, Wall Street, Wall Street Journal, Wall Street Transparency and Accountability Act of 2010, Washington, White House

European Sovereign Debt Crisis Gets Scary

November 28th, 2011 Posted in Uncategorized

Nov, 28 2011

Comments Off

The simplest explanation of the European sovereign debt crisis came from Joe Weisenthal at the Business Insider website. He compared the yield on the 5-year bond for Sweden with that of Finland, illustrated by charts, which tracked those yields for the past year:

Basically they look identical all through the year up until November and then BAM. Finnish yields are exploding higher, right as Swedish yields are blasting lower.

The only obvious difference between the two: Finland is part of the Eurozone, meaning it can’t print its own money. Sweden has no such risk.

While everyone’s attention was focused on the inability of Greece to pay the skyrocketing interest rates on its bonds, Italy snuck up on us. The Italian debt crisis has become so huge that many commentators are voicing concern that “sovereign debt contagion” across the Eurozone is spreading faster than we could ever imagine. The Los Angeles Times is now reporting that Moody’s Investors Service is ready to hit the panic button:

Throwing more logs on the Eurozone fire, Moody’s Investors Service said early Monday that the continent’s debt crisis now is “threatening the credit standing of all European sovereigns.”

That’s a not-so-subtle warning that even Moody’s top-rung Aaa ratings of countries including Germany, France, Austria and the Netherlands could be in jeopardy.

Meanwhile, every pundit seems to have a different opinion about how the crisis will unfold and what should be done about it. The latest buzz concerns a widely-published rumor that the IMF is preparing a 600 billion euro ($794 billion) loan for Italy. The problem with that scenario is that most of those billions would have to come from the United States – meaning that Congress would have to approve it. Don’t count on it. Former hedge fund manager, Bruce Krasting provided a good explanation of the Italian crisis and its consequences:

I think the Italian story is make or break. Either this gets fixed or Italy defaults in less than six months. The default option is not really an option that policy makers would consider. If Italy can’t make it, then there will be a very big crashing sound. It would end up taking out most of the global lenders, a fair number of countries would follow into Italy’s vortex. In my opinion a default by Italy is certain to bring a global depression; one that would take many years to crawl out of. The policy makers are aware of this too.

So I say something is brewing. And yes, if there is a plan in the works it must involve the IMF. And yes, it’s going to be big.

Please do not read this and conclude that some headline is coming that will make us all feel happy again. I think headlines are coming. But those headlines are likely to scare the crap out of the markets once the implications are understood.

In the real world of global finance the reality is that any country that is forced to accept an IMF bailout is also blocked from issuing debt in the public markets. IMF (or other supranational debt) is ALWAYS senior to other indebtedness of the country. That’s just the way it works. When Italy borrows money from the IMF it automatically subordinates the existing creditors. Lenders hate this. They will vote with their feet and take a pass at Italian new debt issuance for a long time to come. Once the process starts, it will not end. There will be a snow ball of other creditors. That’s exactly what happened in the 80’s when Mexico failed; within a year two dozen other countries were forced to their debt knees. (I had a front row seat.)

I don’t see a way out of this box. The liquidity crisis in Italy is scaring us to death, the solution will almost certainly kill us.

Forcing taxpayers to indemnify banks which made risky bets on European sovereign debt is popular with K Street lobbyists and their Congressional puppets. This has led most people to assume that we will be handed the bill. Fortunately, there are some smart people around, who are devising better ways to get “out of this box”. Economist John Hussman of the Hussman Funds, proposed this idea to facilitate significant writedowns on Greek bonds while helping banks cope the impact of accepting 25 percent of the face value of those bonds, rather than the hoped-for 50 percent:

Given the extremely high leverage ratios of European banks, it appears doubtful that it will be possible to obtain adequate capital through new share issuance, as they would essentially have to duplicate the existing float. For that reason, I suspect that before this is all over, much of the European banking system will be nationalized, much of the existing debt of the European banking system will be restructured, and those banks will gradually be recapitalized, post-restructuring and at much smaller leverage ratios, through new IPOs to the market. That’s how to properly manage a restructuring – you keep what is essential to the economy, but you don’t reward the existing stock and bondholders – it’s essentially what we did with General Motors. That outcome is not something to be feared (unless you’re a bank stockholder or bondholder), but is actually something that we should hope for if the global economy is to be unchained from the bad debts that were enabled by financial institutions that took on imponderably high levels of leverage.

Notably, credit default swaps are blowing out even in the U.S., despite leverage ratios that are substantially lower (in the 10-12 range, versus 30-40 in Europe). As of last week, CDS spreads on U.S. financials were approaching and in some cases exceeding 2009 levels. Bank stocks are also plumbing their 2009 depths, but with a striking degree of calm about it, and a definite tendency for scorching rallies on short-covering and “buy-the-dip” sentiment. There is a strong mood on Wall Street that we should take these developments in stride. I’m not convinced. Our own measures remain defensive about the prospective return/risk tradeoff in the stock market.

The impact this crisis will have on the stock market explains why mainstream news media coverage has consistently understated the magnitude of the situation. It will be interesting to observe how the “happy talk” gets amped-up as the situation deteriorates.

Austria, bad debts, bailout, bank bondholders, bank leverage ratios, bank stockholders, banks, Bruce Krasting, Business Insider, Congress, credit default swaps, creditors, debt restructuring, debtors, default option, European banking system, European sovereign debt crisis, eurozone, Finland, Finnish bond yields, France, Germany, Global Economy, global finance, Greece, Greek bonds, Hussman Funds, IMF, IPOs, Italian debt crisis, Italian liquidity crisis, Italy, Joe Weisenthal, John Hussman, John T Burke Jr, K Street lobbyists, leverage, Los Angeles Times, mainstream news media, Moodys Investors Service, nationalization, Netherlands, recapitalization, stock market, Sweden, Swedish bond yields, taxpayers, Wall Street

Harsh Reality

November 24th, 2011 Posted in Uncategorized

Nov, 24 2011

Comments Off

Several years ago, at one of the seven Laurie Anderson performances I have attended, Ms. Anderson (now Mrs. Lou Reed – although I seriously doubt whether she uses that moniker) described her first meeting with Philip Glass. Immediately after meeting Glass, she anxiously asked him: “Are things getting better or are things getting worse?”

These days, that same question is on everyone’s mind. It appears as though the mainstream news media are hell-bent on convincing us that everything is just fine. Nevertheless, many of us remember hearing the same thing from Ben Bernanke and Hank Paulson during the summer of 2008. As a result, we ponder the onslaught of rosy prognostications about the future of our economy with a good degree of skepticism. Regardless of whether there might be some sort of conspiracy to convince the public to go out and spend money because everything is all right . . . consider these remarks by Steve Randy Waldman from a discussion about market monetarist theory:

Self-fulfilling expectations lie at the heart of the market monetarist theory. A depression occurs when people come to believe that income will be scarce relative to prior expectations and debts. They nervously scale back expenditures and hoard cash, fulfilling their expectations of income scarcity. However, if everybody could suddenly be made to believe that income would be plentiful, everyone would spend freely and fulfill the expectations of plenty. The world is a much more pleasant place under the second set of expectations than the first. And to switch between the two scenarios, all that is required is persuasion. The market-monetarist central bank is nothing more than a great persuader: when “shocks happen”, it persuades us all to maintain our optimism about the path of nominal income. As long as we all keep the faith, our faith will be rewarded. This is not a religion, but a Nash equilibrium.

The persuasion described by Steve Waldman has been drowning out objective analysis lately. Obviously, the sovereign debt crisis in Europe has created quite a bit of anxiety in the United States. The mainstream media focus is apparently targeting that consensual anxiety with heavy doses of “feel good” material. One must search around a bit before finding any commentary which runs against that current. I found some and I would like to share it with you. The first item appeared in Bloomberg BusinessWeek on November 22:

Pacific Investment Management Co.’s Chief Executive Officer Mohamed A. El-Erian said U.S. economic conditions are “terrifying” as the nation struggles to recover from recession.

The odds of the U.S. returning to recession are as much as 50 percent, El-Erian said during an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “In the Loop” with Betty Liu. U.S. economic growth was worse than expected and congressional policy makers are gridlocked over what to do about the economy and the deficit, which risk exacerbating an already weak recovery, he said.

“We have less economic momentum than we thought we had and we have no policy momentum,” said El-Erian, who also serves as co-chief investment officer with Pimco founder Bill Gross at the world’s largest manager of bond funds.

“What’s most terrifying,” he said, “we are having this discussion about the risk of recession at a time when unemployment is already too high, at a time when a quarter of homeowners are underwater on their mortgages, at a time then the fiscal deficit is at 9 percent and at a time when interest rates are at zero.”

Let’s not forget that all of this is happening at a time when we are plagued by the most dysfunctional, stupid and corrupt Congress in our nation’s history. President Obama is currently preoccupied with his re-election campaign. His own leadership failures are conveniently re-packaged as products of that feckless Congress. As a result, Americans have plenty of justification for being worried about the future.

One of my favorite commentators, Paul Farrell of MarketWatch, recently shared some information with us, which he acquired by attending an InvestmentNews Round Table, as well as from reading Gary Shilling’s expensive newsletter:

Get it? Main Street America, you should “expect very slow growth” in 2012. That was the response when asked what “scenarios are you painting for your clients?” The panelist at a recent InvestmentNews Round Table then added: “It’s going to be ugly and violent.” Why? Because the politicians “are driving things” and they are “capricious, which leads to volatility.” And clients are “not really happy,” but “they lived through ‘08 and ’09,” so 2012 will be “just a little bump in the road.”

* * *

So don’t kid yourself folks, recent economic and market “ugliness and violence” not only won’t end soon, it’ll get meaner and meaner for years after 2012 elections … no matter who wins. Only a fool would believe that a new bull market will take off in 2013. Ain’t going to happen. That’s a Wall Street fantasy. Fall for that, and you’re delusional.

In fact, you better plan on a very long secular bear the next decade through 2020. With the European banks, credit and currency on the edge of a global financial meltdown, there’s a high probability that a black swan virus, a contagion will sweep the world, making all investing “uglier” and more “violent” for Americans in 2013, indeed for the rest of the decade.

* * *

Shilling sees “a secular bear market really started in 2000 and may persist for a decade as a result of slower GDP growth,” yes, persist till 2020 “with 2% to 3% deflation.” He warns: “Nominal GDP might not gain at all,” like recent flat-lining. Which coincides with the expectations of America’s professional financial advisers.

Are you still feeling optimistic? Consider the closing thoughts from a piece by Karl Denninger entitled, “The Game Is About Done”:

30+ years of lawless behavior has now devolved down to blatant, in-your-face theft. They don’t even bother trying to hide it any more, and Eric “Place” Holder is too busy supervising the running of guns into Mexico so the drug cartels can shoot both Mexican and American citizens.

What am I, or anyone else, supposed to do in this sort of “market” environment? Invest in…. what? Land titles are worthless as they’ve been corrupted by robosigning, margin deposits have been stolen, Madoff’s clients had confirmations of trades that never happend and proved to worthless pieces of paper instead of valuable securities and while Madoff went to prison nobody else has and the money is still gone!

Without enforcement of the law — swift and certain — there is no deterrent against this behavior.

There has been no enforcement and there is no indication that this will change.

It will take just one — or maybe two — more events like MF Global and Greek CDS “determinations” before the entire market — all of it — goes “no bid” as participants simply stuff their hands in their pockets and say “screw this.”

It’s coming folks, and I guarantee you this: Whatever your “nightmare” scenario is for such an event, it’s not bearish enough.

Keep all of this in mind as you plan for the future. I would not expect that you might hear any of this on CNBC.

2020, Ben Bernanke, Bernie Madoff, Betty Liu, Bill Gross, black swan virus, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, Bloomberg Television, CDS, central bank, CNBC, Congress, debt contagion, deficit, deflation, economic conditions, economic growth, economy, Eric Holder, European sovereign debt crisis, Federal Reserve, Gary Shilling, GDP, global financial meltdown, Greece, gridlock, Hank Paulson, In the Loop, interest rates, Interfluidity, InvestmentNews Round Table, John T Burke Jr, Karl Denninger, Laurie Anderson, Lou Reed, market conditions, market monetarist theory, MarketWatch, MF Global, Mohamed El-Erian, Nash equilibrium, Pacific Investment Management, Paul Farrell, Philip Glass, Pimco, politicians, President Obama, recession, robosigning, secular bear market, securities, Steve Randy Waldman, Steve Waldman, The Game Is About Done, unemployment, Wall Street

Congressional Sleaze In The Spotlight

November 14th, 2011 Posted in Uncategorized

Nov, 14 2011

Comments Off

Last February, I wrote a piece entitled, “License To Steal”, concerning a certain legal loophole which allows members of Congress to trade stocks using “insider information”:

On January 26, 2009, Congressman Brian Baird introduced H.R.682, the “Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act” (STOCK Act). The bill was intended to resolve the situation concerning one of the more sleazy “perks” of serving in Congress. As it presently stands, the law prohibiting “insider trading” (e.g. acting on confidential corporate information when making a transaction involving that company’s publicly-traded stock) does not apply to members of Congress. Remember how Martha Stewart went to prison? Well, if she had been representing Connecticut in Congress, she might have been able to interpose the defense that she was inspired to sell her ImClone stock based on information she acquired in the exercise of her official duties. In that scenario, Ms. Stewart’s sale of the ImClone stock would have been entirely legal. That’s because the laws which apply to you and I do not apply to those in Congress. Needless to say, within six months of its introduction, H.R.682 was referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties where it died of neglect. Since that time, there have been no further efforts to propose similar legislation.

At a time when the public is finally beginning to understand how our elected officials are benefiting from a system of “legalized graft” in the form of campaign contributions, more attention is being focused on how the “real money” is made in Congress. A new book by Peter Schweizer – Throw Them All Out – deals with this very subject. The book’s subtitle is reminiscent of the point I tried to make in my February posting: “How politicians and their friends get rich off insider stock tips, land deals and cronyism that would send the rest of us to prison”.

Peter J. Boyer wrote an article for Newsweek, explaining how Peter Schweizer came about writing this book. Schweizer is the William J. Casey research fellow at the Hoover Institution and as Boyer pointed out, Schweizer is considered by liberal critics as a “right wing hit man”. It’s nice to see someone from the right provide us with an important treatise on crony capitalism. The book exposes insider trading by both Democrats and Republicans – hell-bent on profiteering from the laws they enact. Boyer’s essay provided us with some examples of the sleazy trades made by Congress-cretins, as described in Throw Them All Out. Here are a few examples:

Indeed, Schweizer reports that, during the debate over Obama’s health-care reform package, John Boehner, then the House minority leader, was investing “tens of thousands of dollars” in health-insurance-company stocks, which made sizable gains when the proposed public option in the reform deal was killed.

* * *

One of the more dramatic episodes in the book recounts the trading activity of Republican Rep. Spencer Bachus, of Alabama, who, as the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, was privy to sensitive high-level meetings during the 2008 financial crisis and proceeded to make a series of profitable stock-option trades.

Bachus was known in the House as a guy who liked to play the market, and in fact he was pretty good at it; one year, he reported a capital gain in excess of $150,000 from his trading activities. More striking is that Bachus boldly carried forth his trading in the teeth of the impending financial collapse, the nightmarish dimensions of which he had learned about first-hand in confidential briefings from Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed chairman Ben Bernanke. On Sept. 19, 2008, after attending two such briefings, Bachus bought options in an index fund (ProShares UltraShort QQQ) that effectively amounted to a bet that the market would fall. That is indeed what happened, and, on Sept. 23, Bachus sold his “short” options, purchased for $7,846, for more than $13,000—nearly doubling his investment in four days.

Around the time Congress and the Bush administration worked out a TARP bailout, Bachus made another options buy and again nearly doubled his money.

* * *

After the first briefing from Bernanke and Paulson, brokers for Democratic Congressman Jim Moran, of Virginia, and his wife sold their shares in 90 companies, dodging the losses that others who stayed in the market would soon face. Republican Rep. Shelley Capito, of West Virginia, sold between $100,000 and $250,000 of Citigroup stock the day after the first meeting, recording capital gains on Citigroup transactions in that rocky period.

Peter Schweizer’s analysis of the bipartisan culture of corruption on Capitol Hill reinforces one of my favorite criticisms of American government: Our Sham Two-Party System. The Republi-Cratic Corporatist Party owes its allegiance to no population, no principle, no cause – other than pocketing as much money as possible. Just as there have been some recent “pushback” efforts by outraged citizens, Schweizer is now advocating a “Throw Them All Out” campaign. This could have a potentially significant impact on Congress, because the term of office in the House of Representatives lasts for only two years. Consider Schweizer’s thought at the close of the Newsweek piece:

“I was troubled,” he says, “by the fact that the political elite gets to play by a different set of rules than the rest of us. In the process of researching this book, I came to the conclusion that political party and political philosophy matter a lot less than we think. Washington is a company town, and politics is a business. People wonder why we don’t get more change in Washington, and the reason is that the permanent political class is very comfortable. Business is good.”

I concluded my February 28 posting with this point:

“Inside information” empowers the party in possession of that knowledge with something known as “information asymmetry”, allowing that person to take advantage of (or steal from) the less-informed person on the other side of the trade. Because membership in Congress includes a license to steal, can we ever expect those same individuals to surrender those licenses? Well, if they were honest . . .

A successful “Throw Them All Out” campaign would obviate the necessity of attempting to convince this Congress to pass the “Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act” (STOCK Act). If the next Congress knows that its political survival is depending on its passage of the STOCK Act, we might see it become law.

2008 financial crisis, and Civil Liberties, Ben Bernanke, Bush Administration, campaign contributions, Capitol Hill, Citigroup, Civil Rights, Congress, Congressman Brian Baird, Congressman Jim Moran, crony capitalism, cronyism, Democrats, health care reform, health-insurance-company stocks, Henry Paulson, Hoover Institution, House Financial Services Committee, House of Representatives, HR 682, ImClone, information asymmetry, insider information, insider trading, John Boehner, John T Burke Jr, legalized graft, License To Steal, Martha Stewart, Newsweek, Our Sham Two-Party System, outraged citizens, Peter J Boyer, Peter Schweizer, political elite, President Obama, ProShares UltraShort QQQ, public option, Republi-cratic Corporatist Party, Republicans, Securities Exchange Act, Shelley Capito, short sales, Spencer Bachus, STOCK Act, stock option trades, stock trading, Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, Subcommittee on the Constitution, TARP, Throw Them All Out, Throw Them All Out campaign, Washington, William J Casey research fellow

Losing The Propaganda War

October 31st, 2011 Posted in Uncategorized

Oct, 31 2011

Comments Off

The propaganda war waged by corporatist news media against the Occupy Wall Street movement is rapidly deteriorating. When the occupation of Zuccotti Park began on September 17, the initial response from mainstream news outlets was to simply ignore it – with no mention of the event whatsoever. When that didn’t work, the next tactic involved using the “giggle factor” to characterize the protesters as “hippies” or twenty-something “hippie wanna-bes”, attempting to mimic the protests in which their parents participated during the late-1960s. When that mischaracterization failed to get any traction, the presstitutes’ condemnation of the occupation events – which had expanded from nationwide to worldwide – became more desperate: the participants were called everything from “socialists” to “anti-Semites”.

Despite the incessant flow of propaganda from those untrustworthy sources, a good deal of commentary – understanding, sympathetic or even supportive of Occupy Wall Street began to appear in some unlikely places. For example, Roger Lowenstein wrote a piece for Bloomberg BusinessWeek entitled, “Occupy Wall Street: It’s Not a Hippie Thing”:

As critics have noted, the protesters are not in complete agreement with each other, but the overall message is reasonably coherent. They want more and better jobs, more equal distribution of income, less profit (or no profit) for banks, lower compensation for bankers, and more strictures on banks with regard to negotiating consumer services such as mortgages and debit cards. They also want to reduce the influence that corporations – financial firms in particular – wield in politics, and they want a more populist set of government priorities: bailouts for student debtors and mortgage holders, not just for banks.

In stark contrast with the disparaging sarcasm spewed by the tools at CNBC and Fox News concerning this subject, The Economist demonstrated why it enjoys such widespread respect:

So the big banks’ apologies for their role in messing up the world economy have been grudging and late, and Joe Taxpayer has yet to hear a heartfelt “thank you” for bailing them out. Summoned before Congress, Wall Street bosses have made lawyerised statements that make them sound arrogant, greedy and unrepentant. A grand gesture or two – such as slashing bonuses or giving away a tonne of money – might have gone some way towards restoring public faith in the industry. But we will never know because it didn’t happen.

On the contrary, Wall Street appears to have set its many brilliant minds the task of infuriating the public still further, by repossessing homes of serving soldiers, introducing fees for using debit cards and so on. Goldman Sachs showed a typical tin ear by withdrawing its sponsorship of a fund-raiser for a credit union (financial co-operative) on November 3rd because it planned to honour Occupy Wall Street.

The Washington Post conducted a poll with the Pew Research Center which compared and contrasted popular support for Occupy Wall Street with that of the Tea Party movement. The poll revealed that ten percent of Americans support both movements. On the other hand, Tea Party support is heavily drawn from Republican voters (71%) while only 24% of Republicans – as opposed to 64% of Democrats – support Occupy Wall Street. As for self-described “Moderates”, only 24% support the Tea Party compared with Occupy Wall Street’s 45% support from Moderates. Rest assured that these numbers will not deter unscrupulous critics from describing Occupy Wall Street as a “fringe movement”.

The best smackdown of the shabby reportage on Occupy Wall Street came from Dahlia Lithwick of Slate:

Mark your calendars: The corporate media died when it announced it was too sophisticated to understand simple declarative sentences. While the mainstream media expresses puzzlement and fear at these incomprehensible “protesters” with their oddly well-worded “signs,” the rest of us see our own concerns reflected back at us and understand perfectly. Turning off mindless programming might be the best thing that ever happens to this polity. Hey, occupiers: You’re the new news. And even better, by refusing to explain yourselves, you’re actually changing what’s reported as news. Because it takes a tremendous mental effort to refuse to see that the rich are getting richer in America while the rest of us are struggling. Maybe the days of explaining the patently obvious to the transparently compromised are finally behind us.

By refusing to take a ragtag, complicated, and leaderless movement seriously, the mainstream media has succeeded only in ensuring its own irrelevance. The rest of America has little trouble understanding that these are ragtag, complicated, and leaderless times. This may not make for great television, but any movement that acknowledges that fact deserves enormous credit.

Too many mainstream news outlets appear to be suffering from the same disease as our government and our financial institutions. Jeremy Grantham’s Third Quarter 2011 newsletter will be coming out in a few days and I’m hoping that he will prescribe a cure. My wilder dream is that those vested with the authority and responsibility to follow his advice would simply do so.

bailouts, bankers, banks, Bloomberg BusinessWeek, CNBC, Congress, corporations, corporatist news media, Dahlia Lithwick, Democrats, financial firms, Fox News, fringe movement, giggle factor, Goldman Sachs, hippies, Jeremy Grantham, John T Burke Jr, mainstream news outlets, moderates, occupation events, Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Wall Street - Its Not a Hippie Thing, Pew Research Center, poll, protests, Republicans, Roger Lowenstein, Slate, Tea Party, The Economist, The Washington Post, voters, Wall Street, Zuccotti Park

Secret Phone Call

August 4th, 2011 Posted in Uncategorized

Aug, 04 2011

Comments Off

I’ve been reading a great number of articles by commentators who have expressed outrage concerning President Obama’s shocking capitulation in the negotiations involving the debt ceiling bill. Despite the Democratic Party’s tactic of blaming the “Tea Party terrorists” for the all cuts – no revenue, pro-billionaire legislation, a few pundits have seen through this fog to point out that Obama actually got the bill he secretly wanted all along. Glenn Greenwald presented a solid case for this theory at Salon.

Polling guru Nate Silver wrote two items on August 1, in which he analyzed the Congressional voting and demonstrated that President Obama – despite having been afforded the opportunity to include provisions in the bill to make it more economically stimulative and less onerous for those experiencing the greatest hardship from the economic crisis – decided to leave some available provisions “on the table”.

Nate Silver initially made this observation:

Fiscal austerity at a time of economic distress, and on largely Republican terms, is not what Democrats thought they were getting when they elected Mr. Obama in 2008. Mr. Obama might have done more to make short-term stimulus – like further reductions to the payroll tax, which would not have violated the Republicans’ ostensible goals – the price for long-term austerity.

Although it is impossible to prove one way or the other, I am not persuaded by the notion that Mr. Obama could not have delivered a better result to Democrats had he done more to stand his ground. Despite the dissent in the Republican caucus, which had originally seemed like a tactical victory for Democrats, the compromise wound up looking more like Mr. Boehner’s original bill than Mr. Reid’s.

Later that evening, Mr. Silver provided an analysis, which exposed Obama’s abandonment of the objectives he was elected to promote:

These results seem to suggest that Mr. Obama left something on the table. That is, Mr. Obama could have shifted the deal tangibly toward the left and still gotten a bill through without too much of a problem. For instance, even if all members of the Tea Party Caucus had voted against the bill, it would still have passed 237-to-193, and that’s with 95 Democrats voting against it.

Specifically, it seems likely that Mr. Obama could have gotten an extension of the payroll tax cut included in the bill, or unemployment benefits, either of which would have had a stimulative effect.

* * *

With that payroll tax cut, the deal becomes a much easier sell to Democrats – and perhaps also to swing voters, particularly given that nobody spent much time during this debate talking about jobs. Plus, it would have improved growth in 2012 and, depending on how literally you take the economic models, improved Mr. Obama’s re-election chances.

As many observers have noted, the plutocracy has been able to accomplish much more with Obama in the White House, than what would have been achievable with a Republican President. This latest example of a bipartisan effort to trample “the little people” has reinforced my belief that the fake “two-party system” is a sideshow – designed to obfuscate the insidious activities of the Republi-Cratic Corporatist Party.

What follows is the transcript of an imaginary telephone conversation between President Obama and Roger Ailes of Fox News:

Obama: Hi Rodge!

Ailes: Hi Barry! Congratulations on the debt ceiling bill! Great work!

Obama: Thanks. I won’t have to renew the Bush tax cuts again until after the election. That’s a relief! Unfortunately, we’re getting some bad polling numbers now. Problems with the base. I need you guys to lean on the “liberal” stuff a little harder. Both O’Reilly and Hannity have been doing OK on it – but I just wish they would get back to some more of the “socialist” accusations. That would really help rehabilitate my cred with my estranged base.

Ailes: The “socialist” shtick was more Beck’s routine – but I’ll get them on it.

Obama: I found some old pictures of myself with Bill Ayers that you guys might want to use . . .

Ailes: Ayers is sooooo 2008! We need something new. We need to get you to Syria for a meeting with Bashar al-Assad. When you shake hands with him – make sure you bow! We can get a lot of mileage here from that!

Obama: No! That will piss off too many liberals – especially the Jews. I’m trying to keep the smart people in my corner!

Ailes: OK. OK. We just really need to get you on some sort of apology tour or something. You could start traveling around to abortion clinics and promising them some federal aid . . .

Obama: Great one, Rodge! I love that!

Ailes: I’ll plant some of our protesters along the way – the ones who’ve already been cleared by the Secret Service.

Obama: Yeah! Bring back that guy with the fake assault rifle! He was a trip!

Ailes: I have someone better. This guy has been posing as a “Tea Party activist” at “town meetings”. He’s a great new talent!

Obama: We could set up another “Joe the Plumber”-type of confrontation with that guy!

Ailes: Definately! I’ll have my people put a script together. That story will have some legs that will carry us all the way to the election! . . . Speaking of legs – I’m getting some good numbers in on Bachmann!

Obama: How’s our girl doing?

Ailes: Great! She’s really gonna’ kick some ass in Iowa!

Obama: I saw her on with Sean the other day. She’s doing a great job! Are you guys going to start a scandal involving Mitt?

Ailes: I need to maintain plausible deniability about what Rupert’s operatives are up to. You know . . .

Obama: Gotcha! ‘Nuff said!

Ailes: Well, I’ll let you get back to work. You must have loads of angry campaign donors trying to bend your ear right about now . . .

Obama: Yeah . . . But that’s not where the real money is.

Ailes: Amen!

2012, abortion clinics, all cuts – no revenue, apology tour, austerity, Bashar al-Assad, Bill Ayers, Bill O’Reilly, bipartisan effort, Bush tax cuts, campaign donors, Congress, debt ceiling bill, Democratic base, Democratic Party, economic crisis, economic stimulus, fake two-party system, federal aid, Fiscal austerity, Fox News, Glenn Greenwald, Harry Reid, Iowa, jobs, Joe The Plumber, John Boehner, John T Burke Jr, liberal, liberals, little people, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, Nate Silver, Obama - Ailes telephone conversation, Obama re-election campaign, on the table, payroll tax, payroll tax cut, plutocracy, poll numbers, President Obama, pro-billionaire legislation, Republi-cratic Corporatist Party, Republican, Republican President, Roger Ailes, Rupert Murdoch, Salon, Sean Hannity, Secret Phone Call, socialist accusations, swing voters, Syria, tea party activists, Tea Party Caucus, Tea Party terrorists, telephone conversation, two-party system, unemployment benefits, vote on debt ceiling bill, White House

Giving Centrism A Bad Name

July 28th, 2011 Posted in Uncategorized

Jul, 28 2011

Comments Off

It seems as though every time some venal politician breaches a campaign promise while attempting to grab a payoff from a lobbyist, the excuse is always the same: “I’ve decided to tack toward the center on this issue.” “The Center” has become stigmatized as the dwelling place of those politicians who lack a moral compass.

I get particularly annoyed by those who persist in characterizing Barack Obama as a “centrist”, who is mimicking Bill Clinton’s “triangulation” strategy. During his campaign and throughout the early days of his Presidency, Obama successfully posed as a centrist. Nevertheless, his track record now demonstrates a policy of what Marshall Auerback described as “gutting the Democratic Party of its core social legacy.” I particularly enjoyed reading the comments to Auerback’s above-quoted piece about Obama entitled, “Worse Than Hoover”. Most of the commentators expressed the opinion that Auerback went way too easy on Obama. Here are some examples:

Sandra:

We have to stop comparing Obama to these iconic American figures. Obama is an opportunistic corporatist. There is no there there.

Rex:

I’m beginning to wonder if we are still giving Obummer too much credit. Common view seems to be trending toward he’s a manipulative scumbag.

Wasabi:

He’s very useful to the plutocracy. A Repub president could never persuade Dems to cut SS, Medicare, and Medicaid and all sorts of other essential programs.

He got the glory and the thrill of winning the election to become the 1st black president and I suspect that’s all the narcissio-path ever really wanted as far as the presidency is concerned. He certainly doesn’t look like he’s enjoying himself right now. I think he’s ready to cash out and is trying to create a scenario where he becomes an untenable candidate. He also wants to maintain his celebrity appeal so he’s going to try to posture as the adult of adults that was just too good for dc …

Steelhead23:

From a more technocratic perspective, I tend to see Obama as a consummate politician – able to inspire – but sadly lacking in intellectual curiosity and overflowing with ego, thus unable to quench his ignorance. This leaves him extremely susceptible to “experts” whom he parrots with enthusiasm. It was experts who helped him pick his advisers and now his expert advisers are misleading him and making him complicit in this quest toward neo-feudalism.

Keep in mind that those comments were not posted at Fox News or some right-wing website. They were posted at Naked Capitalism, where the publisher – Yves Smith – offered a comment of her own in reaction to Marshall Auerback’s “Worse Than Hoover” posting.

Yves Smith:

Obama is an authoritarian narcissist, an ugly combination.

He also seems unaware of the limits of his knowledge. That can render many otherwise intelligent people stupid in their decisions and actions in their blind spots.

Obama’s foremost critic from the Left is Glenn Greenwald of Salon. Mr. Greenwald has frequently opined that “… Obama wants to be attacked by liberals because of the perception that it politically benefits him by making him look centrist, non-partisan and independent . . . It’s not merely that he lacks a fear of liberal dissatisfaction; it’s that he affirmatively craves it.” Greenwald emphasized the foolishness of following such a course:

But that’s a dangerous strategy. U.S. presidential elections are very closely decided affairs, and alienating the Left even to some degree can be lethal for a national Democratic campaign; shouldn’t the 2000 election, along with 2010, have cemented that lesson forever?

I doubt that Obama is attempting to follow anything similar to Bill Clinton’s “triangulation” strategy. If Obama had been attempting such a plan, it has already backfired to an embarrassing degree, causing irreparable damage to the incumbent’s reelection prospects. Barack Obama has lost his credibility – and in the eyes of the electorate, there is no greater failing.

To get an appreciation for how much damage Obama has caused to his own “brand”, consider this article written by Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs for the Huffington Post:

Thus, at every crucial opportunity, Obama has failed to stand up for the poor and middle class. He refused to tax the banks and hedge funds properly on their outlandish profits; he refused to limit in a serious way the bankers’ mega-bonuses even when the bonuses were financed by taxpayer bailouts; and he even refused to stand up against extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich last December, though 60 percent of the electorate repeatedly and consistently demanded that the Bush tax cuts at the top should be ended. It’s not hard to understand why. Obama and Democratic Party politicians rely on Wall Street and the super-rich for campaign contributions the same way that the Republicans rely on oil and coal. In America today, only the rich have political power.

*   *   *

America is more militarily engaged under Obama than even under Bush. Amazing but true.

*   *   *

The stimulus legislation, pushed by Obama at the start of his term on the basis of antiquated economic theories, wasted the public’s money and also did something much worse. It discredited the vital role of public spending in solving real and long-term problems. Rather than thinking ahead and planning for long-term solutions, he simply spent money on short-term schemes.

Obama’s embrace of “shovel-ready” infrastructure, for example, left America with an economy based on shovels while China’s long-term strategy has given that country an economy based on 21st-century Maglev trains. Now that the resort to mega-deficits has run its course, Obama is on the verge of abandoning the poor and middle class, by agreeing with the plutocrats in Congress to cut spending on Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and discretionary civilian spending, while protecting the military and the low tax rates on the rich (if not lowering those top tax rates further according to the secret machinations of the Gang of Six, now endorsed by the president!)

*   *   *

America needs a third-party movement to break the hammerlock of the financial elites. Until that happens, the political class and the media conglomerates will continue to spew lies, American militarism will continue to destabilize a growing swath of the world, and the country will continue its economic decline.

The urgent need for a third-party movement was also the subject of this recent piece at The Economic Populist:

If the country had a legitimate third party to vote for, the Democrats and Republicans would be in serious trouble. Of course, the political system is geared to prevent third parties from emerging, so the country flounders about, looking for leadership from pusillanimous Democrats or ideological Republicans who consider raising taxes a mortal sin. The voters are probably a few steps away from concluding what is meant to be hidden but by now should be obvious: American democracy doesn’t exist, and the political system in Washington is beyond repair. What is worse: there are people and organizations who like things just the way they are and will fight any attempts at reform.

* * *

None of this suggests that Barack Obama is even considering abandoning his servitude to corporate interests. He’s merrily going along from one fundraiser to the next, raising millions of dollars each week from hedge fund managers and corporate lobbyists, so that he can get reelected as a “centrist” and bipartisan deal maker. This is based on his reading of what The People want – an end to the divisiveness in Washington – but Obama is fundamentally misreading the problem in Washington. It isn’t the rancor, name-calling, and petulance that is constantly on display which worries the American people. It is the backroom deals, the hidden bailouts, the tax evasions, the deregulation initiatives, the lack of prosecution for criminal behavior, that is more than frustrating Americans, because the beneficiaries of all this are wealthy people and corporations who have shifted power and money to themselves. Voters want this system overthrown – even the Tea Party voters, who keep searching for Republicans who will finally say no to corporate money.

In the mean time, we are stuck witnessing America’s demise. If you think that Obama’s critics from the Left are the only people voicing a dispirited attitude about our country’s future, be sure to read this essay at Counterpunch, “An Economy Destroyed”, written by Paul Craig Roberts – Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during the Reagan Administration and the co-creator of Reaganomics:

Recently, the bond rating agencies that gave junk derivatives triple-A ratings threatened to downgrade US Treasury bonds if the White House and Congress did not reach a deficit reduction deal and debt ceiling increase. The downgrade threat is not credible, and neither is the default threat. Both are make-believe crises that are being hyped in order to force cutbacks in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

* * *

The US economy is driven by consumer demand, but with 22.3 per cent unemployment, stagnant and declining wages and salaries, and consumer debt burdens so high that consumers cannot borrow to spend, there is nothing to drive the economy.

Washington’s response to this dilemma is to increase the austerity! Cutting back Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, forcing down wages by destroying unions and offshoring jobs (which results in a labor surplus and lower wages), and driving up the prices of food and energy by depreciating the dollar further erodes consumer purchasing power. The Federal Reserve can print money to rescue the crooked financial institutions, but it cannot rescue the American consumer.

As a final point, confront the fact that you are even lied to about “deficit reduction.” Even if Obama gets his $4 trillion “deficit reduction” over the next decade, it does not mean that the current national debt will be $4 trillion less than it currently is. The “reduction” merely means that the growth in the national debt will be $4 trillion less than otherwise. Regardless of any “deficit reduction,” the national debt ten years from now will be much higher than it presently is.

The longer you think about it – the more obvious it becomes: We really need to sweep all of those bastards out of Washington as quickly as possible and replace them with intelligent, honest individuals who are willing to represent this country’s human inhabitants – rather than its corporations, lobbies and “special interests”.

2000 election, 2010 election, American democracy, An Economy Destroyed, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, austerity, authoritarian narcissist, banks, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, bipartisan, bond rating agencies, bonuses, Bush tax cuts, campaign contributions, centrist, China, Columbia University, comments, Congress, corporate interests, corporatist, CounterPunch, credibility, debt ceiling, default, deficit reduction, deficits, Democratic Party, Democrats, deregulation, economic decline, economist, economy, electorate, experts, Federal Reserve, financial elites, Gang of Six, Giving Centrism A Bad Name, Glenn Greenwald, hedge funds, Huffington Post, independents, Jeffrey Sachs, John T Burke Jr, liberals, lobbyists, Maglev trains, Marshall Auerback, media conglomerates, Medicaid, Medicare, middle class, militarism, Naked Capitalism, narcissio-path, national debt, neo-feudalism, non-partisan, Obummer, Paul Craig Roberts, plutocracy, plutocrats, political left, political system, politicians, Presidential election, public spending, raising taxes, Reagan Administration, Reaganomics, Republicans, Salon, shovel-ready infrastructure, Social Security, Steelhead23, stimulus legislation, taxpayer bailouts, Tea Party, The Economic Populist, the political center, third parties, third party, third-party movement, Treasury bonds, triangulation, unemployment, voters, Wall Street, Washington, White House, Worse Than Hoover, Yves Smith

Ignoring The Smart People

July 14th, 2011 Posted in Uncategorized

Jul, 14 2011

Comments Off

The clowns in Washington seem to be going out of their way to ignore the advice of respected economists as they focus on deficit reduction while ignoring the worsening unemployment crisis. The fact that mainstream news outlets are oblivious to the consequences of foolish economic policy doesn’t really help. President Obama now finds himself wedded to a policy of economic destruction, while at the mercy of his opponents, simply because he ignored the good advice he was receiving back in 2009.

The urgency of our current predicament is lost on the asshats vested with the responsibility and authority to implement a “course correction”. As I pointed out last month, bond guru Bill Gross of PIMCO made an effort to debunk the myth that balancing the budget “will magically produce 20 million jobs over the next 10 years”. More recently, Princeton economics professor and former vice-chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Blinder, wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal entitled, “Our National Jobs Emergency”. After discussing the most recent non-farm payrolls report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Professor Blinder made this observation:

The horrific June employment number made it two in a row. With the latest revisions, job growth in May is now estimated to have clocked in at only 25,000 jobs. So that’s 25,000 and 18,000 in consecutive months. Given the immense size of total U.S. payroll employment (around 131 million) and the sampling error in the survey, those numbers are effectively zero. Job creation has stopped for two months.

If we were at 5% unemployment, two bad payroll reports in a row would be of some concern yet tolerable. But when viewed against the background of 9%-plus unemployment, they are catastrophic.

* * *

All this adds up to a national jobs emergency. Tragically, however, it is not being treated as such. When is the last time you heard one of our national leaders propose a serious job-creating program?

The operative word here is “serious.” Every day brings new proposals to slash government spending. But as I noted on this page last month, those are ways to kill jobs, not create them. As a matter of fact, despite all the cries of “big government” or even “socialism,” public-sector employment has been falling.

Fortunately, Professor Blinder had some good ideas for private-sector job creation. One such idea was a tax credit for firms that create new jobs:

As one concrete example, companies might be offered a tax credit equal to 10% of the increase in their wage bills (over 2011 levels, say). No increase, no reward.

You might think Republicans would embrace an idea like that. After all, it’s a business tax cut and all the new jobs would be in the private sector. But you’d be wrong. Frankly, I’m not sure why. Maybe it’s seen as “left-wing social engineering.”

Professor Blinder then proposed an alternative:

Suppose we allow firms to repatriate profits at some super-low tax rate, but only to the extent that they increase their wage payments subject to Social Security. For example, if XYZ Corporation paid wages covered by Social Security of $1.5 billion in 2011, and then boosted that amount to $1.6 billion in 2012, it would be allowed to repatriate $100 million at a tax rate of 5% or 10% instead of the usual 35% rate. The tax savings to the company would thus be $25 million-$30 million for raising its payroll by $100 million. That’s a powerful incentive.

Did anyone in Washington pay serious attention to Professor Blinder’s Wall Street Journal article . . . or were they all too busy shorting Treasuries to give a damn?

Oxford-educated economist Martin Wolf wrote a piece for the Financial Times, in which he lamented the antics of those entrusted with the power of managing financial and economic policy:

It is not that tackling the US fiscal position is urgent. At a time of private sector deleveraging, it is helpful. The US is able to borrow on easy terms, with yields on 10-year bonds close to 3 per cent, as the few non-hysterics predicted. The fiscal challenge is long term, not immediate. A decision not to allow the government to borrow to finance the programmes Congress has already mandated would be insane…. Yet, astonishingly, many of the Republicans opposed to raising the US debt ceiling do not merely wish to curb federal spending: they enthusiastically desire a default. Either they have no idea how profound would be the shock to their country’s economy and society of a repudiation of debt legally contracted by their state, or they fall into the category of utopian revolutionaries, heedless of all consequences.

* * *

These are dangerous times. The US may be on the verge of making among the biggest and least-necessary financial mistakes in world history. The eurozone might be on the verge of a fiscal cum financial crisis that destroys not just the solvency of important countries but even the currency union and, at worst, much of the European project. These times require wisdom and courage among those in charge of our affairs. In the US, utopians of the right are seeking to smash the state that emerged from the 1930s and the second world war. In Europe, politicians are dealing with the legacy of a utopian project which requires a degree of solidarity that their peoples do not feel. How will these clashes between utopia and reality end? In late August, when I return from my break, we may know at least some of the answers.

At this point, those “answers” are beginning to look pretty scary. Of course, the Republicans are not the only ones to blame. Let’s take a look at the wonderful job Mike Whitney of CounterPunch did when he dropped the entire matter back onto President Obama’s lap:

How do you light a fire under Washington, that’s the question? Is Congress even aware that we’re undergoing a major jobs crisis or are they too busy bickering over tax cuts for fatcats or how much money they can divert from Social Security to Wall Street?

Look; unemployment is over 9% and rising. The states are firing tens of thousands of teachers and public employees every month because they need to balance their budgets and they’re not taking in enough revenue. The stimulus is dwindling (which means that fiscal policy is actually contractionary in real terms) And the 10-year Treasury has dipped below 3 percent (as of Monday morning.) In other words, the bond market is signaling “recession”, even while the dope in the White House is doing his utmost to slice $4 trillion off the deficits.

Does that make any sense?

Maybe if you’re Herbert Hoover, it does. But it makes no sense at all if you were elected with a mandate to “change” the way Washington operates and put the country back to work. Obama is just making a bad situation worse by gadding about in his golf togs blabbering about belt tightening. It’s enough to make you sick.

Get with the program, Barry, or resign. That would be even better. Then maybe we can find someone who’s serious about running the country.

As I pointed out on November 4, 2010 . . . someone has to challenge Obama for the 2012 Democratic nomination and I have someone in mind . . .

10-year bond yields, 2009, 2012 Democratic nomination challenge, Alan Blinder, balancing the budget, belt tightening, big government, Bill Gross, BLS, Bureau of Labor Statistics, business tax cut, change, Congress, CounterPunch, dangerous times, debt ceiling, deficit reduction, deficits, economic policy, economists, eurozone, Federal Reserve, federal spending, financial crisis, Financial Times, fiscal crisis, fiscal policy, foolish economic policy, government debt default, government spending, Herbert Hoover, Ignoring The Smart People, job creation, job growth, job-creating program, jobs crisis, jobs emergency, John T Burke Jr, June employment number, Maria Cantwell, Martin Wolf, Mike Whitney, non-farm payrolls report, Our National Jobs Emergency, Oxford, payroll employment, Pimco, President Obama, Princeton economics professor, private sector deleveraging, Professor Blinder, public-sector employment, recession, repatriate profits, Republicans, repudiation of debt, social engineering, Social Security, socialism, tax credit, tax cuts for fat cats, tax savings, The Wall Street Journal, unemployment, unemployment crisis, utopian revolutionaries, Wall Street, Washington, White House

Discipline Problem

July 11th, 2011 Posted in Uncategorized

Jul, 11 2011

Comments Off

At the conclusion of a single, five-year term as Chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Sheila Bair is calling it quits. One can hardly blame her. It must have been one hell of an experience: Warning about the hazards of the subprime mortgage market, being ignored and watching the consequences unfold . . . followed by a painful, weekly ritual, which gave birth to a website called Bank Fail Friday.

Bair’s tenure at the helm of the FDIC has been – and will continue to be – the subject of some great reading. On her final day at the FDIC (July 8) The Washington Post published an opinion piece by Ms. Bair in which she warned that short-term, goal-directed thinking could bring about another financial crisis. She also had something to brag about. Despite the efforts of Attorney General Eric Hold-harmless and the Obama administration to ignore the malefaction which brought about the financial crisis and allowed the Wall Street villains to profiteer from that catastrophe, Bair’s FDIC actually stepped up to the plate:

This past week, the FDIC adopted a rule that allows the agency to claw back two years’ worth of compensation from senior executives and managers responsible for the collapse of a systemic, non-bank financial firm.

To date, the FDIC has authorized suits against 248 directors and officers of failed banks for shirking their fiduciary duties, seeking at least $6.8 billion in damages. The rationales the executives come up with to try to escape accountability for their actions never cease to amaze me. They blame the failure of their institutions on market forces, on “dead-beat borrowers,” on regulators, on space aliens. They will reach for any excuse to avoid responsibility.

Mortgage brokers and the issuers of mortgage-based securities were typically paid based on volume, and they responded to these incentives by making millions of risky loans, then moving on to new jobs long before defaults and foreclosures reached record levels.

The difference between Sheila Bair’s approach to the financial/economic crisis and that of the Obama Administration (whose point man has been Treasury Secretary “Turbo” Tim Geithner) was analyzed in a great article by Joe Nocera of The New York Times entitled, “Sheila Bair’s Bank Shot”. The piece was based on Nocera’s “exit interview” with the departing FDIC Chair. Throughout that essay, Nocera underscored Bair’s emphasis on “market discipline” – which he contrasted with Geithner’s fanatic embrace of the exact opposite: “moral hazard” (which Geithner first exhibited at the onset of the crisis while serving as President of the Federal Reserve of New York). Nocera made this point early in the piece:

On financial matters, she seemed to have better political instincts than Obama’s Treasury Department, which of course is now headed by Geithner. She favored “market discipline” – meaning shareholders and debt holders would take losses ahead of depositors and taxpayers – over bailouts, which she abhorred. She didn’t spend a lot of time fretting over bank profitability; if banks had to become less profitable, postcrisis, in order to reduce the threat they posed to the system, so be it. (“Our job is to protect bank customers, not banks,” she told me.)

Bair’s discussion of those early, panic-filled days during September 2008 is consistent with reports we have read about Geithner elsewhere. This passage from Nocera’s article is one such example:

For instance, during the peak of the crisis, with credit markets largely frozen, banks found themselves unable to roll over their short-term debt. This made it virtually impossible for them to function. Geithner wanted the F.D.I.C. to guarantee literally all debt issued by the big bank-holding companies – an eye-popping request.

Bair said no. Besides the risk it would have entailed, it would have also meant a windfall for bondholders, because much of the existing debt was trading at a steep discount. “It was unnecessary,” she said. Instead, Bair and Paulson worked out a deal in which the F.D.I.C. guaranteed only new debt issued by the bank-holding companies. It was still a huge risk for the F.D.I.C. to take; Paulson says today that it was one of the most important, if underrated, actions taken by the federal government during the crisis. “It was an extraordinary thing for us to do,” Bair acknowledged.

Back in April of 2009, the newly-appointed Treasury Secretary met with similar criticism in this great article by Jo Becker and Gretchen Morgenson at The New York Times:

Last June, with a financial hurricane gathering force, Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. convened the nation’s economic stewards for a brainstorming session. What emergency powers might the government want at its disposal to confront the crisis? he asked.

Timothy F. Geithner, who as president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank oversaw many of the nation’s most powerful financial institutions, stunned the group with the audacity of his answer. He proposed asking Congress to give the president broad power to guarantee all the debt in the banking system, according to two participants, including Michele Davis, then an assistant Treasury secretary.

The proposal quickly died amid protests that it was politically untenable because it could put taxpayers on the hook for trillions of dollars.

“People thought, ‘Wow, that’s kind of out there,’ ” said John C. Dugan, the comptroller of the currency, who heard about the idea afterward. Mr. Geithner says, “I don’t remember a serious discussion on that proposal then.”

But in the 10 months since then, the government has in many ways embraced his blue-sky prescription. Step by step, through an array of new programs, the Federal Reserve and Treasury have assumed an unprecedented role in the banking system, using unprecedented amounts of taxpayer money, to try to save the nation’s financiers from their own mistakes.

Geithner’s utter contempt for market discipline again became a subject of the Nocera-Bair interview when the conversation turned to the infamous Maiden Lane III bailouts.

“I’ve always wondered why none of A.I.G.’s counterparties didn’t have to take any haircuts. There’s no reason in the world why those swap counterparties couldn’t have taken a 10 percent haircut. There could have at least been a little pain for them.” (All of A.I.G.’s counterparties received 100 cents on the dollar after the government pumped billions into A.I.G. There was a huge outcry when it was revealed that Goldman Sachs received more than $12 billion as a counterparty to A.I.G. swaps.)

Bair continued: “They didn’t even engage in conversation about that. You know, Wall Street barely missed a beat with their bonuses.”

“Isn’t that ridiculous?” she said.

This article by Gretchen Morgenson provides more detail about Geithner’s determination that AIG’s counterparties receive 100 cents on the dollar. For Goldman Sachs – it amounted to $12.9 billion which was never repaid to the taxpayers. They can brag all they want about paying back TARP – but Maiden Lane III was a gift.

I was surprised that Sheila Bair – as a Republican – would exhibit the same sort of “true believer-ism” about Barack Obama as voiced by many Democrats who blamed Rahm Emanuel for the early disappointments of the Obama administration. Near the end of Nocera’s interview, Bair appeared taken-in by Obama’s “plausible deniability” defense:

“I think the president’s heart is in the right place,” Bair told me. “I absolutely do. But the dichotomy between who he selected to run his economic team and what he personally would like them to be doing – I think those are two very different things.” What particularly galls her is that Treasury under both Paulson and Geithner has been willing to take all sorts of criticism to help the banks. But it has been utterly unwilling to take any political heat to help homeowners.

The second key issue for Bair has been dealing with the too-big-to-fail banks. Her distaste for the idea that the systemically important banks can never be allowed to fail is visceral. “I don’t think regulators can adequately regulate these big banks,” she told me. “We need market discipline. And if we don’t have that, they’re going to get us in trouble again.”

If Sheila Bair’s concern is valid, the Obama administration’s track record for market discipline has us on a certain trajectory for another financial crisis.

2008 financial crisis, AIG, AIG counterparties, another financial crisis, Attorney General Eric Hold-harmless, bailouts, bank executives, Bank Fail Friday, bank holding companies, banking system, banks, Barack Obama, breach of fiduciary duty, clawbacks, comptroller of the currency, Congress, credit markets, Democrats, Discipline Problem, economic crisis, exit interview, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve of New York, foreclosures, FRBNY, Goldman Sachs, Gretchen Morgenson, guarantee all banking debt, Hank Paulson, Henry Paulson, Jo Becker, Joe Nocera, John C Dugan, John T Burke, John T Burke Jr, lawsuits against officers of failed banks, Maiden Lane III, market discipline, Michele Davis, moral hazard, Mortgage brokers, mortgage-based securities, New York Fed president, non-bank financial firms, Obama Administration, Obama economic team, plausible deniability, Rahm Emanuel, Republican, risky loans, September 2008, Sheila Bair, Sheila Bairs Bank Shot, short-term thinking, subprime mortgage market, systemically important banks, TARP, taxpayers, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Tim Geithner, too-big-to-fail banks, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary, Turbo Tim, Turbo Tim Geithner, Wall Street, Wall Street villains, windfall for bondholders

TheCenterLane.com

© 2008 – 2024 John T. Burke, Jr.

Latest Obama Cave-in Is Likely To Further Erode His Base

More Favorable Reviews For Huntsman

European Sovereign Debt Crisis Gets Scary

Harsh Reality

Congressional Sleaze In The Spotlight

Losing The Propaganda War

Secret Phone Call

Discipline Problem

Tip Jar

Recent Posts

Stock Market

Blogroll

Archives

About TheCenterLane.com