financial meltdown « TheCenterLane.com

Preparing For The Worst

November 19th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Nov, 19 2009

Comments Off

November 19, 2009

In the November 18 edition of The Telegraph, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard revealed that the French investment bank, Societe Generale “has advised its clients to be ready for a possible ‘global economic collapse’ over the next two years, mapping a strategy of defensive investments to avoid wealth destruction”. That gloomy outlook was the theme of a report entitled: “Worst-case Debt Scenario” in which the bank warned that a new set of problems had been created by government rescue programs, which simply transferred private debt liabilities onto already “sagging sovereign shoulders”:

“As yet, nobody can say with any certainty whether we have in fact escaped the prospect of a global economic collapse,” said the 68-page report, headed by asset chief Daniel Fermon. It is an exploration of the dangers, not a forecast.

Under the French bank’s “Bear Case” scenario, the dollar would slide further and global equities would retest the March lows. Property prices would tumble again. Oil would fall back to $50 in 2010.

* * *

The underlying debt burden is greater than it was after the Second World War, when nominal levels looked similar. Ageing populations will make it harder to erode debt through growth. “High public debt looks entirely unsustainable in the long run. We have almost reached a point of no return for government debt,” it said.

Inflating debt away might be seen by some governments as a lesser of evils.

If so, gold would go “up, and up, and up” as the only safe haven from fiat paper money. Private debt is also crippling. Even if the US savings rate stabilises at 7pc, and all of it is used to pay down debt, it will still take nine years for households to reduce debt/income ratios to the safe levels of the 1980s.

To make matters worse, America still has an unemployment problem that just won’t abate. A recent essay by Charles Hugh Smith for The Business Insider took a view beyond the “happy talk” propaganda to the actual unpleasant statistics. Mr. Smith also called our attention to what can be seen by anyone willing to face reality, while walking around in any urban area or airport:

The divergence between the reality easily observed in the real world and the heavily touted hype that “the recession is over because GDP rose 3.5%” is growing. It’s obvious that another 7 million jobs which are currently hanging by threads will be slashed in the next year or two.

By this point, most Americans are painfully aware of the massive bailouts afforded to those financial institutions considered “too big to fail”. The thought of transferring private debt liabilities onto already “sagging sovereign shoulders” immediately reminds people of TARP and the as-yet-undisclosed assistance provided by the Federal Reserve to some of those same, TARP-enabled institutions.

As Kevin Drawbaugh reported for Reuters, the European Union has already taken action to break up those institutions whose failure could create a risk to the entire financial system:

EU regulators are set to turn the spotlight on 28 European banks bailed out by governments for possible mandated divestitures, officials said on Wednesday.

The EU executive has already approved restructuring plans for British lender Lloyds Banking (LLOY.L), Dutch financial group ING Groep NV (ING.AS) and Belgian group KBC (KBC.BR).

Giving break-up power to regulators would be “a good thing,” said Paul Miller, a policy analyst at investment firm FBR Capital Markets, on Wednesday.

Big banks in general are bad for the economy because they do not allocate credit well, especially to small businesses, he said. “Eventually the big banks get broken up in one way or another,” Miller said at the Reuters Global Finance Summit.

Meanwhile in the United States, the House Financial Services Committee approved a measure that would grant federal regulators the authority to break up financial institutions that would threaten the entire system if they were to fail. Needless to say, this proposal does have its opponents, as the Reuters article pointed out:

In both the House and the Senate, “financial lobbyists will continue to try to water down this new and intrusive federal regulatory power,” said Joseph Engelhard, policy analyst at investment firm Capital Alpha Partners.

If a new break-up power does survive the legislative process, Engelhard said, it is unlikely a “council of numerous financial regulators would be able to agree on such a radical step as breaking up a large bank, except in the most unusual circumstances, and that the Treasury Secretary … would have the ability to veto any imprudent use of such power.”

When I first read this, I immediately realized that Treasury Secretary “Turbo” Tim Geithner would consider any use of such power as imprudent and he would likely veto any attempt to break up a large bank. Nevertheless, my concerns about the “Geithner factor” began to fade after I read some other encouraging news stories. In The Huffington Post, Sam Stein disclosed that Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio (a Democrat) had called for the firing of White House economic advisor Larry Summers and Treasury Secretary “Timmy Geithner” during an interview with MSNBC’s Ed Schultz. Mr. Stein provided the following recap of that discussion:

“We think it is time, maybe, that we turn our focus to Main Street — we reclaim some of the unspent [TARP] funds, we reclaim some of the funds that are being paid back, which will not be paid back in full, and we use it to put people back to work. Rebuilding America’s infrastructure is a tried and true way to put people back to work,” said DeFazio.

“Unfortunately, the President has an adviser from Wall Street, Larry Summers, and a Treasury Secretary from Wall Street, Timmy Geithner, who don’t like that idea,” he added. “They want to keep the TARP money either to continue to bail out Wall Street … or to pay down the deficit. That’s absurd.”

Asked specifically whether Geithner should stay in his job, DeFazio replied: “No.”

“Especially if you look back at the AIG scandal,” he added, “and Goldman and others who got their bets paid off in full … with taxpayer money through AIG. We channeled the money through them. Geithner would not answer my question when I said, ‘Were those naked credit default swaps by Goldman or were they a counter-party?’ He would not answer that question.”

DeFazio said that among he and others in the Congressional Progressive Caucus, there was a growing consensus that Geithner needed to be removed. He added that some lawmakers were “considering questions regarding him and other economic advisers” — though a petition calling for the Treasury Secretary’s removal had not been drafted, he said.

Another glimmer of hope for the possible removal of Turbo Tim came from Jeff Madrick at The Daily Beast. Madrick’s piece provided us with a brief history of Geithner’s unusually fast rise to power (he was 42 when he was appointed president of the New York Federal Reserve) along with a reference to the fantastic discourse about Geithner by Jo Becker and Gretchen Morgenson, which appeared in The New York Times last April. Mr. Madrick demonstrated that what we have learned about Geithner since April, has affirmed those early doubts:

Recall that few thought Geithner was seasoned enough to be Treasury secretary when Obama picked him. Rubin wasn’t ready to be Treasury secretary when Clinton was elected and he had run Goldman Sachs. Was Geithner’s main attraction that he could easily be controlled by Summers and the White House political advisers? It’s a good bet. A better strategy, some argued, would have been to name Paul Volcker, the former Fed chairman, for a year’s worth of service and give Geithner as his deputy time to grow. But Volcker would have been far harder to control by the White House.

But now the president needs a Treasury Secretary who is respected enough to stand up to Wall Street, restabilize the world’s trade flows and currencies, and persuade Congress to join a battle to get the economic recovery on a strong path. He also needs someone with enough economic understanding to be a counterweight to the White House advisers, led by Summers, who have consistently been behind the curve, except for the $800 billion stimulus. And now that is looking like it was too little. The best guess is that Geithner is not telling the president anything that the president does not know or doesn’t hear from someone down the hall.

The problem for Geithner and his boss, is that the stakes if anything are higher than ever.

As the rest of the world prepares for worsening economic conditions, the United States should do the same. Keeping Tim Geithner in charge of the Treasury makes less sense than it did last April.

AIG, Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, American capitalism, American International Group, bank bailout, bank stocks, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, blog, Capital Alpha Partners, centrist, Charles Hugh Smith, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Daniel Fermon, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, Ed Schultz, equities markets, European Union, FBR Capital Markets, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial meltdown, financial reform, Geithner factor, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, Gretchen Morgenson, House Financial Services Committee, huge financial institutions, investment banks, Jeff Madrick, Jo Becker, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Joseph Engelhard, Kevin Drawbaugh, Larry Summers, liberal, lobbyists, moral hazard, MSNBC, New York Federal Reserve, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Oregon Congressman Peter DeFazio, Paul Miller, Paul Volcker, Political, Politics, Preparing For The Worst, President of the United States, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Reuters, Sam Stein, SEC scandals, securities, socialized loss and privatized gain, Societe Generale, stock markets, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, The Business Insider, the center lane, The Daily Beast, the economy, The Huffington Post, The New York Times, the Telegraph, The White House, thecenterlane, Timmy Geithner, too big to fail, toxic assets, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, troubled assets, Troubled Assets Relief Program, Turbo Tim Geithner, unemployment, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, wealth transfer, Worst-case Debt Scenario

Avoiding The Kool-Aid

November 5th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Nov, 05 2009

Comments Off

November 5, 2009

Ask NOT what your country can do for you —

But ask what your country can do for its largest banks.

— “Turbo” Tim

All right . . . “Turbo” Tim Geithner didn’t really say that (yet) but we’ve all seen how his actions affirm that doctrine. Former federal banking regulator, Professor William Black, recently criticized Geithner for not protecting the taxpayers when Turbo Tim bailed out CIT Group to the tune of 2.4 billion dollars this past summer. CIT has now filed for bankruptcy. Henry Blodget of The Business Insider described Professor Black’s outrage over this situation:

The government was in no way obligated to lend the struggling CIT money and, in fact, initially refused to provide it bailout funds. More importantly, being the lender of last resort, the government should have guaranteed we’d be the first to get paid if CIT eventually filed Chapter 11. By failing to do so, “it’s like he [Geithner] burned billions of dollars again in government money, our money, gratuitously,” says Black.

After Tuesday’s election defeats for the Democrats in two gubernatorial races, the subject of “bailout fatigue” has been getting more attention.

Acting under the pretext of “transparency” the Obama administration has developed a strategy of holding meetings for people and groups with whom the administration knows it is losing credibility. Jane Hamsher of FiredogLake.com has written about the Obama team’s efforts to keep the disaffected Left under control by corralling these groups into what Hamsher calls “the veal pen”. She described one meeting wherein Rahm Emanuel used the expression “f**king stupid” in reference to the critics of those Democrats opposing the public option in proposed healthcare reform legislation.

A different format was followed at what appeared to be a “message control” conference, held on Monday at the Treasury Department. This time, the guest list was comprised of a politically diverse group of financial bloggers. One attendee, Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism, described the meeting as “curious”:

None of us knew in advance how many attendees there would be; there were eight of us at a two-hour session, Interfluidity, Marginal Revolution, Kid Dynamite’s World, Across the Curve, Financial Armageddon, Accrued Interest, and Aleph (and of course, others may have been invited who had scheduling conflicts).

*   *   *

It wasn’t obvious what the objective of the meeting was (aside the obvious idea that if they were nice to us we might reciprocate. Unfortunately, some of us are not housebroken). I will give them credit for having the session be almost entirely a Q&A, not much in the way of presentation. One official made some remarks about the state of financial institutions; later another said a few things about regulatory reform. The funniest moment was when, right after the spiel on regulatory reform, Steve Waldman said, “I’ve read your bill and I think it’s terrible.” They did offer to go over it with him. It will be interesting to see if that happens.

*   *   *

My bottom line is that the people we met are very cognitively captured, assuming one can take their remarks at face value. Although they kept stressing all the things that had changed or they were planning to change, the polite pushback from pretty all the attendees was that what Treasury thought of as major progress was insufficient.

*   *   *

Several of us raised questions about whether what their vision for the industry’s structure was and that the objective seemed to be to restore the financial system that got us in trouble in the first place.

Michael Panzner of Financial Armageddon and When Giants Fall adopted Ms. Smith’s description of the event, adding a few observations of his own:

. . . it wasn’t clear that there was a “plan B” in place if things do not recover in 2010 as many mainstream analysts expect. In fact, the suggestion from one official was that the tenure of the current crisis would likely be nearer the shorter end of expectations.

There was also a bit of a disconnect between the remarks various Treasury officials have made in public forums and what was said at the meeting. … Yesterday, however, a number of those present clearly acknowledged that things could (still) go wrong and said such fears kept them awake at night. While that is not unusual in and of itself, at the very least it adds to doubts I and others have expressed about the true state of the financial system and the economy.

Finally, the meeting seemed to confirm the strong grip that Wall Street has on the levers of legislative power.

The most informative rendition of the events at the conclave came from Kid Dynamite, whose two-part narrative began with a look at how Michael Panzner interrupted a Treasury official who was describing the Treasury’s current focus “on reducing the footprint of economic intervention cautiously, quickly and prudently”:

Michael Panzner jumped right in, addressing a concept I’ve written about previously – that of “extend and pretend,” or “delay and pray” – the concept of attempting to avoid recognizing actual losses and or insolvencies, and growing out of them after enough time. Panzner called it “fake it ‘till you make it.” I mentioned that I felt like we were undergoing a “Ponzi scheme of confidence” – but that confidence mattered less than ever in the current environment where, contrary to perhaps the prior 10 years, confidence can no longer be “spent.”

Kid Dynamite’s report contained too many great passages for me to quote here without running on excessively. Just be sure to read his entire report, including Part II (which should be posted by the time you read this).

David Merkel of The Aleph Blog also submitted a two-part report (so far — with more to come) although Part 2 is more informative. Here are some highlights:

As all bloggers there will note, those from the Treasury were kind, intelligent, funny … they were real people, unlike the common tendency to demonize those in DC.

* * *

To the Treasury I would say, “Markets are inherently unstable, and that is a good thing.” They often have to adjust to severe changes in the human condition, and governmental attempts to tame markets may result in calm for a time, and a tsunami thereafter.

* * *

As for the bank stress-testing, one can look at it two ways: 1) the way I looked at it at the time — short on details, many generalities, not trusting the results. (Remember, I have done many such analyses myself for insurers.) or, 2) something that gave confidence to the markets when they were in an oversold state. Duh, but I was dumb — the oversold market rallied when it learned that the Treasury had its back.

John Jansen from Across The Curve included his report on the meeting within his usual morning posting concerning the bond market on November 4. In a subsequent posting that afternoon, he referred his readers to the Kid Dynamite report. Here’s what Mr. Jansen did say about the event:

. . . those officials expressed real concern about the downside risks to the economy (as did blogger Michael Panzner of Financial Armageddon) and since I think that the relationship between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve has morphed into something somewhat incestuous I suspect that the Federal Reserve will not jump off the reservation and take the first baby steps to exiting its easy money policy.

The report at the Accrued Interest blog drew some hostile comments from readers who seemed convinced that Accrued was the only blogger there who actually drank the Kool-Aid being served by the Treasury. Their reaction was easily understandable after reading this remark (which followed a breach of protocol with the admission that Turbo Tim was there in the flesh):

It was a fascinating experience and I have to admit, it was just plain cool to be within the bowels of power like that.

Huh? All I can say is: If you like being in powerful bowels, just take a cruise over to duPont Circle. Actually — it was at his next statement where he lost me:

I am also on record as saying that Geithner was a good choice for Treasury secretary.

— and then it was all downhill from there.

The administration’s “charm offensive” has moved to the dicey issue of financial reform, where it is drawing criticism from across the political spectrum. Given the fact that they have all but admitted to a strategy of simply reading The Secret and willing everything to get better by their positive thoughts — Michael Panzner might as well start writing Financial Armageddon — The Sequel.

Accrued Interest, Across the Curve, American capitalism, bailout fatigue, bank bailout, banking lobby, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, blog, centrist, CIT bailout, CIT Group, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, crony capitalism, David Merkel, delay and pray, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, duPont Circle, economic crisis, economic intervention, economic meltdown, economics, economists, equities markets, extend and pretend, fake it till you make it, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Financial Armageddon, Financial Armageddon -The Sequel, financial bloggers, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial meltdown, financial reform, Firedoglake, government guarantees, Henry Blodget, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, Interfluidity, investment banks, Jane Hamsher, John Burke, John Jansen, John T Burke Jr, Kid Dynamites World, liberal, liquidity provider of last resort, lobbyists, Marginal Revolution, message control, Michael Panzner, moral hazard, Naked Capatilism, News, Obama Administration, Obama administration charm offensive, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Political, Politics, Ponzi scheme of confidence, President of the United States, pretext of transparency, Rahm Emanuel, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, socialized loss and privatized gain, Steve Waldman, stock markets, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, The Aleph Blog, the banks, The Business Insider, the center lane, the economy, The Secret, the veal pen, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, wealth transfer, When Giants Fall, William Black, Yves Smith, zombie banks

Offering Solutions

October 22nd, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Oct, 22 2009

Comments Off

October 22, 2009

Many of us are familiar with the old maxim asserting that “if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.” During the past year we’ve been exposed to plenty of hand-wringing by info-tainers from various mainstream media outlets decrying the financial crisis and our current economic predicament. Very few of these people ever seem to offer any significant insight on such interesting topics as: what really caused the meltdown, how to prevent it from happening again, whether any laws were broken that caused this catastrophe, whether any prosecutions might be warranted or how to solve our nation’s continuing economic ills, which seem to be immune to all the attempted cures. The painful thorn in the side of Goldman Sachs, Matt Taibbi, recently raised an important question, reminding people to again scrutinize the vapid media coverage of this pressing crisis:

It’s literally amazing to me that our press corps hasn’t yet managed to draw a distinction between good news on Wall Street for companies like Goldman, and good news in reality.

* * *

In fact the dichotomy between the economic health of ordinary people and the traditional “market indicators” is not merely a non-story, it is a sort of taboo — unmentionable in major news coverage.

That quote inspired Yves Smith of Naked Capitalism to write a superb essay about how “access journalism” has created a controlled press. What follows is just a small nugget of the great analysis in that piece:

So what do we have? A media that predominantly bases its stories on what it is fed because it has to. Ever-leaner staffing, compressed news cycles, and access journalism all conspire to drive reporters to focus on the “must cover” news, which is to a large degree influenced by the parties that initiate the story. And that means they are increasingly in an echo chamber, spending so much time with the influential sources they feel they must cover that they start to be swayed by them.

* * *

The message, quite overly, is: if you are pissed, you are in a minority. The country has moved on. Things are getting better, get with the program. Now I saw the polar opposite today. There is a group of varying sizes, depending on the topic, that e-mails among itself, mainly professional investors, analysts, economists (I’m usually on the periphery but sometimes chime in). I never saw such an angry, active, and large thread about the Goldman BS fest today. Now if people who have not suffered much, and are presumably benefitting from the market recovery are furious, it isn’t hard to imagine that what looks like complacency in the heartlands may simply be contained rage looking for an outlet.

Fortunately, one television news reporter has broken the silence concerning the impact on America’s middle class, caused by Wall Street’s massive Ponzi scam and our government’s response – which he calls “corporate communism”. I’m talking about MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan. On Wednesday’s edition of his program, Morning Meeting, he decried the fact that the taxpayers have been forced to subsidize the “parlor game” played by Goldman Sachs and other firms involved in proprietary trading on our coin. Mr. Ratigan then proceeded to offer a number of solutions available to ordinary people, who would like to fight back against those pampered institutions considered “too big to fail”. Some of these measures involve: moving accounts from one of those enshrined banks to a local bank or credit union; paying with cash whenever possible and contacting your lawmakers to insist upon financial reform.

My favorite lawmaker in the battle for financial reform is Congressman Alan Grayson, whose district happens to include Disney World. His fantastic interrogation of Federal Reserve general counsel, Scott Alvarez, about whether the Fed tries to manipulate the stock markets, was a great event. Grayson has now co-sponsored a “Financial Autopsy” amendment to the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency bill. This amendment is intended to accomplish the following:

– Requires the CFPA conduct a “Financial Autopsy” of each state’s bankruptcies and foreclosures (a scientific sampling), and identify financial products that systematically led to a large number of bankruptcies and foreclosures.
– Requires the CFPA report to Congress annually on the top financial products (the companies and individuals that originated the products) that caused consumer bankruptcies and foreclosures.
– Requires the CFPA take corrective action to eliminate or restrict those deceptive products to prevent future bankruptcies and corrections

– The bottom line is to highlight destructive products based on if they are making people “broke”.

From his website, The Market Ticker, Karl Denninger offered his own contributions to this amendment:

This sort of “feel good” legislative amendment will of course be resisted, but it simply isn’t enough. The basic principle of equity (better said as “fairness under the law”) puts forward the premise that one cannot cheat and be allowed to keep the fruits of one’s outrageous behavior.

So while I like the direction of this amendment, I would put forward the premise that the entirety of the gains “earned” from such toxic products, when found, are clawed back and distributed to the consumers so harmed, and that to the extent this does not fully compensate for that harm such a finding should give rise to a private, civil cause of action for the consumers who are bankrupted or foreclosed.

It’s nice to know that bloggers are no longer the only voices insisting on financial reform. Ed Wallace of Business Week recently warned against the consequences of unchecked speculation on oil futures:

Is today’s stock market divorced from economic reality? Probably. It is a certainty that oil is. We know that because those in the market are still putting out the same tired and incorrect logic that they used successfully last year to push oil to $147 a barrel while demand was plummeting.

Because oil is not carrying a market price that fairly reflects economic conditions and demand inventories, overpriced energy is siphoning off funds that could be used for corporate expansion, increased consumerism and, in time, the recreation of jobs in America.

Did you think that the “Enron Loophole” was closed by the enactment of the 2008 Farm Bill? It wasn’t. The Farm Bill simply gave more authority to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to regulate futures contracts that had been exempted by the loophole. In case you’re wondering about the person placed in charge of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission by President Obama — his name is Gary Gensler and he used to work for … You guessed it: Goldman Sachs.

2008 Farm Bill, access journalism, American capitalism, bank stocks, banking crisis, banking lobby, Barack Obama, blog, Business Week, centrist, CFPA, Commentary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission CFTC, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, Congressman Alan Grayson, conservative, Consumer Financial Protection Agency, controlling the markets, corporate communism, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, Dow Jones industrial average, Dylan Ratigan, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, Ed Wallace, Enron loophole, equities markets, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, Financial Autopsy amendment, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial meltdown, financial reform, Gary Gensler, Goldman Sachs, government guarantees, Government Sachs, huge financial institutions, info-tainers, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Karl Denninger, liberal, market manipulation, Matt Taibbi, moral hazard, Morning Meeting, mortgage-backed securities, MSNBC, Naked Capitalism, NASDAQ 100 index, New York Stock Exchange, News, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Offering Solutions, oil futures, Opinion, Political, Politics, Ponzi scam, President of the United States, proprietary trading, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, S&P 500 index, Scott Alvarez, SEC, SEC scandals, securities, Securities and Exchange Act, Securities and Exchange Commission, socialized loss and privatized gain, Standard and Poors 500, stock markets, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, the economy, The Market Ticker, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, transparency, Treasury Department, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Yves Smith, zombie banks

Kill The Whales

October 8th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Oct, 08 2009

Comments Off

October 8, 2009

Those whales are back in the news again — this time due to calls for their slaughter. In case you’re wondering what kind of person would advocate the killing of whales, I would like to identify two people who recently spoke out in favor of such action. The first of these individuals is one of my favorite columnists at The New York Times, Gretchen Morgenson, winner of the Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for her “trenchant and incisive” coverage of Wall Street. The second is the chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Sheila Bair. Two women want to have whales killed? Yes. However, the “whales” in question are those infamous financial institutions considered “too big to fail”. On October 3, Gretchen Morgenson wrote a piece for The New York Times, entitled: “The Cost of Saving These Whales” in which she defined “to big to fail” institutions as “banks that are so big and interconnected that their very existence threatens the world”. She discussed the problems caused by the continued existence of those whales with this explanation:

During the credit bust, our leaders embraced the too-big-to-fail policy, reluctantly bailing out large institutions to save the system from collapse, they said. Yet even as the crisis has abated, these policy makers have shown little interest in cutting financial monsters down to size. This is especially disturbing given that some institutions have grown even larger as a result of the mess.

It is perverse, of course, to reward big banks’ mistakes with bailouts financed by beleaguered taxpayers. But the too-big-to-fail doctrine benefits the banks in other ways as well: the implication that an institution will not be allowed to fall gives it significant cost advantages over smaller, perhaps more responsible competitors.

On October 4, Sheila Bair of the FDIC gave a speech before the International Institute of Finance at their annual meeting in Istanbul, Turkey. At the outset, she pointed out that “the first task” in creating “a more resilient, transparent, and better-regulated financial system” would be to scrap the “too big to fail” doctrine. She went on to explain how to go about killing those whales:

To do this we need a resolution regime that provides for the orderly wind-down of banking and other financial enterprises without imposing costs on the taxpayers.

The solution must involve a practical and effective mechanism for the orderly resolution of these institutions similar to that used for FDIC-insured banks.

This new regime would not permit taxpayer funds to be used to prop up a firm or its management. Instead, senior management would be replaced, and losses would be borne by the stockholders and creditors.

On September 23, 2009 Treasury Secretary “Turbo” Tim Geithner testified before the House Financial Services Committee to explain his planned financial reform agenda. Here’s what Turbo Tim had to say about the plan for dealing with the “too big to fail” problem:

First, we cannot allow firms to reap the benefits of explicit or implicit government subsidies without very strong government oversight. We must substantially reduce the moral hazard created by the perception that these subsidies exist; address their corrosive effects on market discipline; and minimize their encouragement of risk-taking.

So, in other words … the government subsidies to these institutions will continue, but only if the recipients get “very strong government oversight”. In his next sentence Geithner expressed his belief that the moral hazard was created “by the perception that these subsidies exist” rather than the FACT that they exist. Geithner’s scheme of continued corporate welfare for the biggest financial institutions is consistent with what we learned about him from Jo Becker and Gretchen Morgenson in their New York Times article back on April 26. That essay gave us some great insight about Turbo Tim’s blindness to moral hazard:

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.

And more often than not, Mr. Geithner has been a leading architect of those bailouts, the activist at the head of the pack. He was the federal regulator most willing to “push the envelope,” said H. Rodgin Cohen, a prominent Wall Street lawyer who spoke frequently with Mr. Geithner.

Geithner’s objective of putting the prosperity of the banks ahead of any concern for the taxpayers was again demonstrated in this AFP report from October 6:

On proposed changes to the financial system, Geithner said it was “legitimate” for banks to be influential and admitted that reform could “pose risks to financial innovation.”

Nevertheless, he stressed that “the most important issue is that if stability (of financial institutions) is not guaranteed, it will become harder to raise capital.”

On October 6, Newsweek published an interview conducted by Nancy Cook with William Black, a former federal regulator during the Savings & Loan crisis and a professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri – Kansas City. The interview included a discussion of the government’s response to the financial crisis. One remark made by Mr. Black reinforced my opinion about Turbo Tim:

“Some of the things Bernanke did were very bad, but he is in sharp contrast to Geithner who has been wrong about everything in his career. When Geithner was once answering a question in response to Ron Paul, he said, ‘I’ve never been a regulator.’ He was then the President of the New York Federal Reserve, and he purports that he was never a regulator? That is a demonstration of what is wrong with the Federal Reserve banks if the head of the unit doesn’t think he’s a regulator. He’s a disaster.”

It should come as no surprise that Richard Carnell, a Professor at Fordham Law School and former Assistant Treasury Secretary for President Clinton, would have this to say about Geithner’s financial reform agenda, when asked for his comments by Kim Thai of Fortune:

The plan includes useful reforms. But it’s also naive, timid, misguided, politically inept, and intellectually dishonest.

It places naive faith in regulation. Yet regulation failed disastrously over the past decade. Bank regulators had ample powers to keep banks safe but did too little, too late. They let banks use $12-13 in borrowed money for every $1 in shareholders’ money. The administration’s response? Give regulators more powers.

[The plan] preserves a preposterous tangle of overlapping regulators. And it didn’t arrive until June, seven months after the election. By then the crisis had faded and special interest politics had come roaring back.

It entrenches bailouts for large financial institutions. Voters know that’s rotten policy. It makes firms like General Electric divest their banks. That serves no purpose. It’s like trying to ward off the Mexican Mafia by fortifying the Canadian border. Small wonder voters remain skeptical.

It appears as though Turbo Tim is not up to the job of killing those whales. Perhaps the President should find someone who is.

AIG, American capitalism, American International Group, bank stocks, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, blog, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial meltdown, financial reform, Fordham Law School, Fortune Magazine, government guarantees, government subsidies, Gretchen Morgenson, H Rodgin Cohen, Hank Paulson, Henry Paulson, House Financial Services Committee, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, International Institute of Finance, investment banks, Istanbul, Jo Becker, John Burke, John C Dugan, John T Burke Jr, Kill The Whales, Kim Thai, legacy assets, liberal, lobbyists, Michele Davis, moral hazard, Nancy Cook, New York Federal Reserve Bank, News, Newsweek, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, Politics, President Clinton, President of the United States, Pulitzer Prize, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, revolving door, Richard Carnell, Ron Paul, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Act, Securities and Exchange Commission, Sheila Bair, socialized loss and privatized gain, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, The Cost of Saving These Whales, the economy, The New York Times, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Turbo Tim, Turbo Tim Geithner, Turkey, United States Senate, United States Treasury, University of Missouri Kansas City, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, William Black, zombie banks

More Heat For The Federal Reserve

October 5th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Oct, 05 2009

Comments Off

October 5, 2009

On Thursday, October 1, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke testified before the House Financial Services Committee. That event demonstrated how the Fed has fallen into the crosshairs of critics from both ends of the political spectrum. A report in Friday’s Los Angeles Times by Jim Puzzanghera began with the point that the Obama administration has proposed controversial legislation that would expand the Fed’s authority, despite bipartisan opposition in a Congress that is more interested in restricting the Fed’s influence:

Worried about the increased power of the complex and mysterious Fed, and upset it did not do more to prevent the deep recession, Capitol Hill has focused its anger over the financial crisis and its aftermath on the central bank. The Fed finds itself at the center of a collision of traditional political concerns – conservatives’ fears of heavy-handed government intervention in free markets, and liberals’ complaints of regulators who favor corporate executives over average Americans.

More than two-thirds of the House of Representatives has signed on to a bill that would subject the central bank to increased congressional oversight through expanded audits. A key senator wants to strip the Fed of its authority to regulate banks. And the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee wants to rein in the Fed’s emergency lending power, which it used to help engineer the sale of Bear Stearns Cos. and bailout American International Group Inc.

The article noted the observation of Jaret Seiberg, a financial policy analyst with Concept Capital’s Washington Research Group:

“The Fed is running into unprecedented opposition on Capitol Hill,” he said.

“In the Senate, there’s open hostility toward any expansion of the Federal Reserve’s authority. And in the House, you certainly have Republicans looking to focus the Fed solely on monetary policy and strip it of any larger role in financial regulation.”

Mr. Puzzanghera’s report underscored how the Fed’s interventions in the economy during the past year, which involved making loans (of unspecified amounts) and backing commercial transactions, have drawn criticism from both sides of the aisle. The idea of expanding the Fed’s authority to the extent that it would become a “systemic risk regulator” has been criticized both in Congress and by a former member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors:

House Republicans want to scale back the Fed’s power so the bank focuses on monetary policy. And many have opposed the administration’s proposal to give the Fed the new role of supervising large financial institutions, such as AIG, that are not traditional banks but pose a risk to the economy if they fail.

“I’m not alone with my concerns about the Fed as a systemic regulator,” said Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.). Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) has similar concerns, as do others on his panel. In fact, Dodd has proposed stripping the Fed of all of its bank oversight functions as part of his plan for creating a single banking regulatory agency.

Former Fed Gov. Alice M. Rivlin also said it would be a mistake to increase the Fed’s regulatory powers because it would distract from the central bank’s monetary policy role.

“Do we want to augment the regulatory authority of the Fed? . . . My answer is no,” said Rivlin, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “My sense is many people would be nervous about that augmentation.”

The colorful Democratic chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank, recently published a report card on the committee’s website, criticizing the Fed’s poor record on consumer protection. The report card contrasted what Congressional Democrats had done to address various issues (categorized under the heading: “Democrats Act”) with what the Fed has or has or has not done in dealing with those same problems.

Meanwhile, Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, is making the rounds, promoting his new book: End The Fed. A recent posting at The Daily Bail website includes a YouTube video of Ron Paul at a book signing in New York, which resulted in a small parade over to the New York Fed. Although the Daily Bail piece reported that Paul’s book had broken into the top ten on Amazon’s list of bestsellers — as I write this, End The Fed is number 15. I would like to see that book continue to gain popularity. Perhaps next time Chairman Bernanke testifies before a committee, he will know that something more than his own job is on the line. It would be nice to see him make history as the last Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

AIG, Alice M Rivlin, Amazon books, American capitalism, American International Group, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Ben Bernanke, blog, Brookings Institution, centrist, Christopher Dodd, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, Concept Capital, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, consumer protection, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Daily Bail, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, economic crisis, economics, economists, End The Fed, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Board of Governors, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Federal Reserve Transparency Act, financial crisis, financial meltdown, financial reform, government guarantees, House Financial Services Committee, HR1207, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, Jaret Seiberg, Jim Puzzanghera, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, last chairman of the Federal Reserve, liberal, liquidity provider of last resort, lobbyists, Los Angeles Times, money printing, moral hazard, More Heat For The Federal Reserve, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, Ron Paul, Scott Garrett, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Act, Securities and Exchange Commission, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, the economy, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, wealth transfer, YouTube, zombie banks

Spread The Word

September 29th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Sep, 29 2009

Comments Off

September 29, 2009

I’ve seen quite a few articles and broadcasts from “mainstream” news sources during the past few weeks that have actually made me feel encouraged about the public’s response to the financial crisis and our current economic predicament. Six months ago, the dirty picture of what caused last year’s near-meltdown and what has continued to prevent the necessary reforms, was something one could find only by reading a relatively small number of blogs. Michael Panzner wrote a book entitled Financial Armageddon in 2006, predicting what many “experts” later described as unforeseeable. Mr. Panzner now has a blog called Financial Armageddon (as well as another: When Giants Fall). At his Financial Armageddon website, Mr. Panzner has helped ease the pain of the economic catastrophe with a little humor by educating his readers on some novel measurements of our recession level — such as the increased use of hair dye and “The Hot Waitress Index”. (He ran another great posting about the increasing number of disastrous experiences for people who tried to save money by cutting their own hair.) Meanwhile, Matt Taibbi has continued to serve as a gadfly against crony capitalism. Zero Hedge keeps us regularly apprised of the suspicious activities in the equities and futures markets, which are of no apparent concern to regulatory officials. Some bloggers, including Jr Deputy Accountant, have criticized the manic money-printing and other inappropriate activities at the Federal Reserve — which resists all efforts at oversight and transparency. One no longer experiences the stigma of “conspiracy theorist” by accepting the view that our financial and economic problems were caused primarily by regulatory failure.

On September 23, Dan Gerstein wrote a piece for Forbes, about the impressive, 25-page article concerning last year’s financial crisis, written by James Stewart for The New Yorker, entitled: “Eight Days”. At the outset, Mr. Gerstein noted how the New Yorker article provided the reader with some shocking insight on someone we all thought we knew pretty well:

But the biggest eye-opener was that the most incisive and damning questions raised by any of our leaders during this existential crisis came from none other than the era’s top free-market cheerleader in Washington, George W. Bush.

* * *

Paulson and Bernanke alerted Bush that AIG was about to fail, warned of the massive ripple effect AIG going bust would have on the global economy, and explained why the Fed could not intervene with an insurance company to stop this systemic threat. In response, Bush asked “How have we come to the point where we can’t let an institution fail without affecting the whole economy?”

The question raised by President Bush is still tragically apt, since nothing has been accomplished in the past year to break up or downsize those institutions considered “too big to fail”. Mr. Gerstein’s experience from reading the New Yorker article helped reinforce the understanding that our current situation is not only the result of regulatory failure, but it’s also a by-product of something called “regulatory capture” — wherein the regulators are beholden to those whom they are supposed to regulate:

Once disaster was averted and the system stabilized, Paulson, Geithner and Bernanke had no excuse for not laying down the law to Wall Street — figuratively and literally — in the ensuing weeks. By that I mean restructuring the deals we struck with the banks to get far better returns for taxpayers and rewriting the rules governing the financial system to prevent them from ever thinking they could gamble risk-free with our money again.

* * *

There’s no apparent sense of apartness or independence between regulator and regulated. To the contrary, there’s a power imbalance in the wrong direction, with the regulators dependent on and even at the mercy of the regulated. What does it say about the integrity and even the sanity of this system when the doctors have to ask the inmates how to restructure their treatments?

I was particularly impressed by Dan Gerstein’s closing remarks in the Forbes piece. It was encouraging to see another commentary in a mainstream media source, consistent with the ranting I did here, here and here. Mr. Gerstein expressed dismay at the lack of attention given to the unpleasant truth that we live in a plutocracy which won’t be changed until the people demand it:

That’s why I was so disappointed to find Stewart’s epic article buried in the elite pages of the New Yorker. It should have been serialized on the front pages of every newspaper in the country last week, so every American would be reminded in full detail of just how warped and rigged our financial system has been — and why it still is. Maybe then it might sink in that getting mad won’t get us even in the power struggle with the financial elites for control of our economy, and that change won’t happen until taxpayers demand it. You want public accountability for Wall Street? Let’s start with an accountable public.

Each time an article such as Dan Gerstein’s “Too Close For Comfort” gets widespread exposure, we move one step closer to the point where we have an informed, accountable public. It’s unfortunate that his commentary was buried in the elite pages of Forbes. That’s why I have it here. Spread the word.

AIG, American capitalism, American International Group, bank bailout, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, blog, centrist, Commentary, Commodity Futures Trading Commission CFTC, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Dan Gerstein, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, Eight Days, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Financial Armageddon, financial crisis, financial meltdown, financial reform, Forbes, George W Bush, government guarantees, Hank Paulson, Henry Paulson, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, James Stewart, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Jr Deputy Accountant, liberal, liquidity provider of last resort, Matt Taibbi, Michael Panzner, money printing, moral hazard, New York Stock Exchange, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, regulatory capture, Republican, Republican Party, SEC, Securities and Exchange Act, Securities and Exchange Commission, socialized loss and privatized gain, Spread The Word, stock markets, systemic risk, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, the economy, The Hot Waitress Index, The New Yorker, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, Too Close For Comfort, transparency, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Turbo Tim Geithner, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, When Giants Fall, Zero Hedge, zombie banks

The Broken Promise

September 21st, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Sep, 21 2009

Comments Off

September 21, 2009

We expect those politicians aiming for re-election, to make a point of keeping their campaign promises. Many elected officials break those promises and manage to win another term anyway. That fact might explain the reasoning used by so many pols who decide to go the latter route — they believe they can get away with it. Nevertheless, many leaders who break their campaign promises often face crushing defeat on the next Election Day. A good example of this situation arose during the Presidential campaign of George H.W. Bush, who assured America: “Read my lips: No new taxes!” in his acceptance speech (written by Peggy Noonan) at the 1988 Republican National Convention. Although he didn’t enact any new taxes during his sole term in office, he also promised the voters that he would not raise existing taxes after telling everyone to read his lips. When he broke that promise after becoming President, he was confronted with the “read my lips” quote by everyone from Pat Buchanan to Bill Clinton.

Back on July 15, 2008 and throughout the Presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised the voters that if he were elected, there would be “no more trickle-down economics”. Nevertheless, his administration’s continuing bailouts of the banking sector have become the worst examples of trickle-down economics in American history — not just because of their massive size and scope, but because they will probably fail to achieve their intended result. Although the Treasury Department is starting to “come clean” to Congressional Oversight chair Elizabeth Warren, we can’t even be sure about the amount of money infused into the financial sector by one means or another because of the lack of transparency and accountability at the Federal Reserve. (I seem to remember the word “transparency” being used by Candidate Obama.) Although we are all well-aware of the $750 billion TARP slush fund that benefited the banks to some degree, speculation as to the amount given (or “loaned”) to the banks by the Federal Reserve runs from $2 trillion to as high as $6 trillion. So far, the Fed has managed to thwart efforts by some news organizations to learn the ugly truth. As Pat Choate reported for The Huffington Post:

Bloomberg News filed a federal lawsuit in November 2008 in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan) challenging that stonewalling and won the case. Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska on August 24 ruled that the Fed had “improperly withheld agency records” giving it a week to disclose daily reports on its loans to banks and other financial institutions.

Three days later, Federal Reserve lawyers asked the courts for a delay so that they could make an expedited appeal of her decision. Several major banks, operating through an organization named “The Clearing House,” filed a supporting brief with the appeals court, claiming that the Federal Reserve had provided its members emergency funds under an agreement not to identify the recipients or the loan terms.

The Clearing House brief described its members as, “[T]he most important participants in the international banking and payments systems and among the world’s largest intermediaries in interbank funds transfers.” They include ABN Amro Bank, N.V. (Dutch), Bank of America, The Bank of New York Mellon, Citibank, Deutsche Bank Trust (Germany), JP MorganChase Bank, UBS (Switzerland), and Wells Fargo.

* * *

Why are the Fed and the banks fighting so hard to keep the loan details secret? Congress and taxpayers cannot know until they have the information the Federal Reserve is keeping from them, but several plausible explanations exist.

One is that the Fed has taken a great deal of worthless collateral and is propping up failed companies and banks. A second is that the information will make the issue of paying out huge Wall Street bonuses in 2009 politically radioactive, particularly if it turns out the payments are dependent on these federal loans.

Finally, the Federal Reserve probably does not want that information to be part of the forthcoming Senate hearings on the re-confirmation of Ben Bernanke, current Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

President Obama’s failure to keep his campaign promise of “no more trickle-down economics” is rooted in his decision to rely on the very same individuals who caused the financial crisis — to somehow cure the nation’s economic ills. These people (Larry Summers, “Turbo” Tim Geithner and Ben Bernanke) have convinced Mr. Obama that “trickle-down economics” (i.e. bailing out the banks, rather than distressed businesses or the taxpayers themselves) would be the best solution.

On Saturday, Australian economist Steve Keen published a fantastic report from his website, explaining how the “money multiplier” myth, fed to Obama by the very people who caused the crisis, was the wrong paradigm to be starting from in attempting to save the economy. Here’s some of what Professor Keen had to say:

While economic outsiders like myself, Michael Hudson, Niall Ferguson and Nassim Taleb argue that the only way to restart the economic engine is to clear it of debt, the government response, has been to attempt to replace the now defunct private debt economic turbocharger with a public one.

In the immediate term, the stupendous size of the stimulus has worked, so that debt in total is still boosting aggregate demand. But what will happen when the government stops turbocharging the economy, and waits anxiously for the private system to once again splutter into life?

I am afraid that all it will do is splutter.

This is especially so since, following the advice of neoclassical economists, Obama has got not a bang but a whimper out of the many bucks he has thrown at the financial system.

In explaining his recovery program in April, PresidentObama noted that:

“there are a lot of Americans who understandably think that government money would be better spent going directly to families and businesses instead of banks – ‘where’s our bailout?,’ they ask”.

He justified giving the money to the lenders, rather than to the debtors, on the basis of “the multiplier effect” from bank lending:

the truth is that a dollar of capital in a bank can actually result in eight or ten dollars of loans to families and businesses, a multiplier effect that can ultimately lead to a faster pace of economic growth. (page 3 of the speech)

This argument comes straight out of the neoclassical economics textbook. Fortunately, due to the clear manner in which Obama enunciates it, the flaw in this textbook argument is vividly apparent in his speech.

This “multiplier effect” will only work if American families and businesses are willing to take on yet more debt: “a dollar of capital in a bank can actually result in eight or ten dollars of loans”.

So the only way the roughly US$1 trillion of money that the Federal Reserve has injected into the banks will result in additional spending is if American families and businesses take out another US$8-10 trillion in loans.

* *   *

If the money multiplier was going to “ride to the rescue”, private debt would need to rise from its current level of US$41.5 trillion to about US$50 trillion, and this ratio would rise to about 375% — more than twice the level that ushered in the Great Depression.

This is a rescue? It’s a “hair of the dog” cure: having booze for breakfast to overcome the feelings of a hangover from last night’s binge. It is the road to debt alcoholism, not the road to teetotalism and recovery.

Fortunately, it’s a “cure” that is also highly unlikely to work, because the model of money creation that Obama’s economic advisers have sold him was shown to be empirically false over three decades ago.

*    *    *

I’ve recently developed a genuinely monetary, credit-driven model of the economy, and one of its first insights is that Obama has been sold a pup on the right way to stimulate the economy: he would have got far more bang for his buck by giving the stimulus to the debtors rather than the creditors.

* * *

The model shows that you get far more “bang for your buck” by giving the money to firms, rather than banks. Unemployment falls in both case below the level that would have applied in the absence of the stimulus, but the reduction in unemployment is far greater when the firms get the stimulus, not the banks: unemployment peaks at over 18 percent without the stimulus, just over 13 percent with the stimulus going to the banks, but under11 percent with the stimulus being given to the firms.

*    * *

So giving the stimulus to the debtors is a more potent way of reducing the impact of a credit crunch — the opposite of the advice given to Obama by his neoclassical advisers.

This could also be one reason that the Australian experience has been better than the USA’s: the stimulus in Australia has emphasized funding the public rather than the banks (and the model shows the same impact from giving money to the workers as from giving it to the firms — and for the same reason, that workers have to spend, so that the money injected into the economy circulates more rapidly.

*    * *

Obama has been sold a pup by neoclassical economics: not only did neoclassical theory help cause the crisis, by championing the growth of private debt and the asset bubbles it financed; it also is undermining efforts to reduce the severity of the crisis.

This is unfortunately the good news: the bad news is that this model only considers an economy undergoing a “credit crunch”, and not also one suffering from a serious debt overhang that only a direct reduction in debt can tackle. That is our actual problem, and while a stimulus will work for awhile, the drag from debt-deleveraging is still present. The economy will therefore lapse back into recession soon after the stimulus is removed.

You can be sure that if we head into a “double-dip” recession as Professor Keen expects, the President will never hear the end of it. If only Mr. Obama had stuck with his campaign promise of “no more trickle-down economics”, we wouldn’t have so many people wishing they lived in Australia.

1988 Republican National Convention, ABN Amro Bank, American capitalism, Australia, bank bailout, bank stocks, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, Bill Clinton, blog, Bloomberg news, campaign promises, centrist, Citibank, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, Deutsche Bank Trust, economic crisis, economics, economists, Elizabeth Warren, equities markets, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial institutions as too big to fail, financial meltdown, financial reform, George H W Bush, government guarantees, hair of the dog, insolvent banks, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, JP Morgan Chase Bank, Judge Loretta Preska, Larry Summers, liberal, liquidity provider of last resort, Michael Hudson, money printing, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, Nassim Taleb, neoclassical economics, New York Stock Exchange, News, Niall Ferguson, no more trickle down economics, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, one trillion dollars, Opinion, Pat Buchanan, Pat Choate, Peggy Noonan, Political, Politics, President of the United States, Read my lips No new taxes, Republican, Republican Party, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, socialized loss and privatized gain, Steve Keen, stock markets, stress tests, systemic risk, systemic risk regulator, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, The Bank of New York Mellon, the banks, The Broken Promise, the center lane, The Clearing House, the economy, The Huffington Post, the money multiplier myth, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, toxic assets, Treasury Department, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, Turbo Tim Geithner, UBS, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Wells Fargo, zombie banks

A Helluva Read

August 31st, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Aug, 31 2009

Comments Off

August 31, 2009

We are constantly being bombarded with predictions and opinions about where the economy is headed. Since last fall’s financial crisis, people have seen their home values reduced to shocking levels; they’ve seen their investments take a nosedive and they’ve watched our government attempt to respond to crises on several fronts. There have been numerous programs including TARP, TALF, PPIP and quantitative easing, that some of us have tried to understand and that others find too overwhelming to approach. When one attempts to gain an appreciation of what caused this crisis, it quickly becomes apparent that there are a number of different theories being espoused, depending upon which pundit is doing the talking. One of my favorite explanations of what caused the financial crisis came from William K. Black, Associate Professor of Economics and Law at the University of Missouri – Kansas City School of Law. In his lecture: The Great American Bank Robbery (which can be seen here) Black explains that we have a culture of corruption at the highest levels of our government, which, combined with ineptitude, allowed some of the sleaziest people on Wall Street to nearly destroy our entire financial system.

William Black recently participated in a conference with a group of experts associated with the Economists for Peace and Security and the Initiative for Rethinking the Economy. The panel included authorities from all over the world and met in Paris on June 15 – 16. A report on the meeting was prepared by Professor James K. Galbraith and was published by The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. The paper, entitled Financial and Monetary Issues as the Crisis Unfolds, is available here. At 16 pages, the document goes into great detail about what has been going wrong and how to address it, in terms that are understandable to the layperson. Here’s how the report was summarized in the Preface:

Despite some success in averting a catastrophic collapse of liquidity and a decline in output, the group was pessimistic that there would be sustained economic recovery and a return of high employment. There was general consensus among the group that the pre-crisis financial system should not be restored, that reviving the financial sector first was not the way to revive the economy, and that governments should not pursue exit strategies that permit a return to the status quo. Rather, the crisis exposes the need for profound reform to meet a range of physical and social objectives.

As to the question of where we are now, at the current stage of the economic crisis, Professor Galbraith recalled one panel member’s analogy to the eye of a hurricane:

The first wall of the storm has passed over us: the collapse of the banking system, which engendered panic and a massive public sector rescue effort. At rest in the eye, we face the second: the bankruptcy of states, provinces, cities, and even some national governments, from California, USA, to Belgium. Since this is a slower process involving weaker players, complicated questions of politics, fairness, and solidarity, and more diffused system risk, there is no assurance that the response by capable actors at the national or transnational level will be either timely or sufficient, either in the United States or in Europe.

There is plenty to quote from in this document, especially in light of the fact that it provides a good deal of sound, constructive criticism of our government’s response to the crisis. Additionally, the panel offered solutions you’re not likely to hear from politicians, most of whom are in the habit of repeating talking points, written by lobbyists.

Focusing on the situation here in the United States, the report gave us some refreshing criticism, especially in the current climate where commentators are stumbling over each other to congratulate Ben Bernanke on his nomination to a second term as Federal Reserve chairman:

American participants were almost equally skeptical of the effectiveness of the U.S.approach to date. As one put it, “Diabetes is a metabolic disease.” Elements of a metabolic disease can be treated (here, “stimulus” plays the role of insulin), but the key to success is to deal with the underlying metabolic problem. In the economic sphere, that problem lies essentially with the transfer of resources and power to the top and the dismantling of effective taxing power over those at the top of the system. (The speaker noted that the effective corporate tax rate for the top 20 firms in the United States is under 2 percent.) The effect of this is to create a “trained professional class of retainers” who devote themselves to preserving the existing (unstable) system. Further, there were massive frauds in the origination of mortgages, in the ratings processes that led to securitization, and in the credit default swaps that were supposed to insure against loss. In the policy approach so far, there is a consistent failure to address, analyze, remedy, and prosecute these frauds.

* * *

Meanwhile, major legislation from health care to bank reform continues to be written in consultation with the lobbies; as one speaker noted, legislation on credit default swaps was being prepared by “Jamie Dimon and his lobbyists.”

One of the gravest dangers to economic recovery, finally, lies precisely in the crisis-fatigue of the political classes, in their lack of patience with a deep and intractable problem, and with their inflexible commitment to the preceding economic order. This feeds denial of the problem, a deep desire to move back to familiar rhetorical and political ground, and the urge to declare victory, groundlessly and prematurely. As one speaker argued, the U.S.discussion of “green shoots” amounts to little more than politically inspired wishful thinking — a substitute for action, at least so far as hopes for the recovery of employment are concerned.

Lest I go on, quoting the whole damned thing, I’ll simply urge you to take a look at it. At the conclusion of the paper was the unpleasant point that some of the damage from this crisis has been irreversible. There was an admonition that before undertaking reconstruction of the damage, some careful planning should be done, inclusive of the necessary safeguards to make it possible to move forward.

Whether or not anyone in Washington will pay serious attention to these findings is another issue altogether. Our system of legalized graft in the form of lobbying and campaign contributions, guarantees an uphill battle for anyone attempting to change the status quo.

A Helluva Read, American capitalism, bad publicity, bailout king, bank bailout, banking crisis, banksters, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, blog, centrist, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, credit default swaps, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, derivatives crisis, Dow Jones industrial average, economic crisis, economics, economists, Economists for Peace and Security and the Initiative for Rethinking the Economy, equities markets, Federal Reserve, financial crisis, financial meltdown, Financial Stability Plan, green shoots, huge financial institutions, insolvent banks, investment banks, James K Galbraith, Jamie Dimon, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, legacy assets, legalized graft in the form of lobbying and campaign contributions, liberal, market manipulation, moral hazard, mortgage-backed securities, NASDAQ 100 index, New York Stock Exchange, News, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Political, Politics, PPIP, President of the United States, quantitative easing, Republican, Republican Party, S&P 500 index, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, socialized loss and privatized gain, Standard and Poors 500, stock markets, TALF, TARP, TARP bailout, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, the banks, the center lane, the economy, The Great American Bank Robbery, The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, The White House, thecenterlane, toxic assets, Treasury Department, Troubled Asset Relief Program, troubled assets, United States Senate, United States Treasury, University of Missouri Kansas City School of Law, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, William K Black, zombie banks

Invoking Thomas Paine

August 24th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Aug, 24 2009

Comments Off

August 24, 2009

In January of 1776, Thomas Paine wrote a 48-page pamphlet, entitled: Common Sense, in which he argued the case that the American colonies should be independent from Britain. He published the pamphlet anonymously, providing only a hint of authorship with the statement: “Written by an Englishman”. This aspect of Paine’s pamphlet brings to mind the debate over the issue of anonymity in the blogosphere, which became quite heated-up this past weekend. As it turned out, a writer for one of Rupert Murdoch’s newspapers, who uses the surname “Whitehouse”, targeted the Zero Hedge website, accusing its publisher (who uses the pseudonym: Tyler Durden — i.e. Brad Pitt’s character from the movie Fight Club) of being a fellow who was “banned from the securities industry” for making $780 on an “insider” trade. For whatever reason, Naked Capitalism’s Yves Smith (whose real name is Susan Webber) saw fit to write a posting (now removed from the site) critical of the “messianic zeal and strident tone” of the material at Zero Hedge, despite the fact that Tyler Durden has written many guest posts for her own Naked Capitalism site. She also criticized the use of pseudonyms by bloggers, particularly at financial sites — because the practice “raises questions about credibility”. She differentiated her own situation with the explanation that her true identity could be ascertained with only “a modicum of digging”. Making a point more supportive of Zero Hedge, she shared her suspicion about the motive behind the attempt to identify Tyler Durden as a disgraced trader:

. . . this story is appearing now precisely because Durden is getting to close to some even more damaging stories than he has provided thus far.

Ms. Smith (or Webber) believes that “Tyler Durden” is actually a pseudonym used by a number of writers at Zero Hedge.

As a result of that posting, Naked Capitalism lost one of its best contributors: Leo Kolivakis of Pension Pulse, whose final contribution to Naked Capitalism can be found here. Mr. Kolivakis then immediately joined the team at Zero Hedge, providing this explanation. When reading his posting, be sure to read the comments, which are always entertaining at Zero Hedge.

I enjoy both Naked Capitalism and Zero Hedge and I will continue to keep them both on my blogroll, despite this dust-up. In response to the intrigue concerning the identity of Tyler Durden, his cohort, Marla Singer submitted this proposed op-ed piece to The New York Times, reminding readers of the anonymous writings by Thomas Paine.

This past weekend brought us another invocation of Thomas Paine, with the publication of a piece entitled: “Common Sense 2009”, which appeared in The Huffington Post. The author did not conceal his identity, since he has made a point of generating controversy about himself throughout his life. He was none other than Larry Flynt. Flynt began with the explanation that last fall’s financial crisis was caused by the fact that “the financial elite had bribed our legislators to roll back the protections enacted after the Stock Market Crash of 1929”. He rightfully criticized President Obama for attempting to lay part of the blame for this disaster on “Main Street”. Beyond that, he noted how Obama continues to facilitate the same bad behavior that started this mess:

To date, no serious legislation has been offered by the Obama administration to correct these problems.

Instead, Obama wants to increase the oversight power of the Federal Reserve. Never mind that it already had significant oversight power before our most recent economic meltdown, yet failed to take action. Never mind that the Fed is not a government agency but a cartel of private bankers that cannot be held accountable by Washington. Whatever the Fed does with these supposed new oversight powers will be behind closed doors.

Obama’s failure to act sends one message loud and clear: He cannot stand up to the powerful Wall Street interests that supplied the bulk of his campaign money for the 2008 election. Nor, for that matter, can Congress, for much the same reason.

Larry Flynt then offered a bold solution to break the hold of the plutocracy that has been controlling our country for too long:

I’m calling for a national strike, one designed to close the country down for a day. The intent? Real campaign-finance reform and strong restrictions on lobbying. Because nothing will change until we take corporate money out of politics. Nothing will improve until our politicians are once again answerable to their constituents, not the rich and powerful.

Let’s set a date. No one goes to work. No one buys anything. And if that isn’t effective — if the politicians ignore us — we do it again. And again. And again.

This initiative is a much more effective and constructive use of populist rage than what saw at recent “town hall” meetings and “teabagging” events. Besides: If anyone knows what can and cannot be accomplished by “teabagging” – it’s Larry Flint.

American capitalism, anonymity in the blogosphere, bad publicity, bank bailout, banking crisis, banksters, Barack Obama, blog, Brad Pitt, campaign finance reform, centrist, Commentary, Common Sense, Common Sense 2009, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, conservative, crony capitalism, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, Dow Jones industrial average, economic crisis, economic meltdown, economics, economists, equities markets, Federal Reserve, Fight Club, financial crisis, financial meltdown, insolvent banks, investment banks, Invoking Thomas Paine, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Leo Kolivakis, liberal, market manipulation, Marla Singer, moral hazard, Naked Capitalism, NASDAQ 100 index, national strike, New York Stock Exchange, News, NYSE, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Pension Pulse, Plunge Protection Team, Political, Politics, populist rage, PPT, President of the United States, Republican, Republican Party, restrictions on lobbying, Rupert Murdoch newspaper, S&P 500 index, SEC, securities, Securities and Exchange Commission, self-dealing insiders, socialized loss and privatized gain, Standard and Poors 500, stock markets, Susan Webber, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, taxpayers, teabagging events, the banks, the center lane, the economy, The Huffington Post, The New York Times, The White House, thecenterlane, Thomas Paine, town hall meetings, Treasury Department, Tyler Durden, United States Senate, United States Treasury, use of pseudonyms by bloggers, Wall Street, Wall Street lobbyists, Wall Street meltdown, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich, Whitehouse, Yves Smith, Zero Hedge

Ron Paul Struts His Stuff

August 17th, 2009 Posted in Uncategorized

Aug, 17 2009

Comments Off

August 17, 2009

Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas has become quite a popular guy, lately. Back on February 26, he sponsored his own bill, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, (HR 1207) which would give the Government Accountability Office authority to audit the Federal Reserve and its member components, requiring a report to Congress by the end of 2010. On July 29, a Rasmussen poll revealed that 75 percent of those surveyed were in favor of auditing the Federal Reserve, with only 9 percent opposed to such a measure. Lew Rockwell’s website recently featured an article by Anthony Gregory, discussing the Rasmussen poll results and the popularity of Ron Paul’s proposed legislation:

While much of the hostility toward Obama’s domestic policy might be seen in partisan terms, distrust of the Fed completely transcends typical ideological or partisan lines. While all Congressional Republicans support Ron Paul’s bill to audit the Fed, so do more than a hundred Democrats, demonstrating the impact of the wide public outrage over the Washington-Wall Street shenanigans since the financial downturn.

The Federal Reserve, a centerpiece in the bipartisan establishment, an essential component in both war finance and economic management, is now the least trusted government agency. More than two thirds of Americans do not believe the Fed is doing a good job. Two years ago, virtually no one even talked about the Fed; it was an obscure institution assumed to be necessary, wise and uninteresting. Anyone who brought it up was accused of being outside the sphere of respectable opinion. Now its champions are on the defensive, and they are desperately scrambling to restore public awe for the central bank behind the curtain.

But the opposition to Obama’s economic policies, both on the right and on the anti-corporate left who view his ties to the banking industry with suspicion, along with a growing disappointment on the left as it concerns civil liberties and war, may eventually constrain Obama.

The mistrust of the Fed, discussed by Mr. Gregory, was based on a Gallup Poll, also conducted during July, which revealed that the Federal Reserve is now “the least trusted” of all government-related entities.

Despite protests from the academic world and an unsupportive editorial from The Washington Post, support for Ron Paul’s bill continues to gain momentum. Howard Rich, Chairman of Americans for Limited Government, wrote a favorable commentary on this proposal, pointing out that he initially thought it was a rather strange idea. He eventually looked at the situation with this rationale:

From its founding in 1913, the Fed has existed as an island of almost total independence — setting interest rates, managing inflation and regulating banks according to the will of its Chairman and seven-member Board of Directors.

It cannot be audited. Its ledger is not disclosed. Its meetings are private. Its decisions are not up for debate.

Of course, this ongoing shroud of secrecy ignores the fact that the Fed — as it exists today — is a completely different animal than it was even two years ago.

No longer merely a “regulatory” agency, the Fed has used the current economic crisis as an excuse to dramatically expand its role. With zero transparency, accountability and effectiveness, it has printed and loaned trillions of dollars since mid-2007 in a costly and unsuccessful effort to mitigate fallout from the sub-prime mortgage crisis.

The question of where those trillions of dollars went is exactly what is on the minds of most people demanding more accountability from the Fed. Was any favoritism involved in determining what banks received how much money? Dean Baker wrote an opinion piece for The Guardian, arguing against the re-appointment of Ben Bernanke for another term as the Fed chairman. The subject of favoritism in the Fed’s response to last fall’s financial meltdown was apparently a matter of concern to Mr. Baker:

By this measure, Bernanke’s performance is very poor. He has refused to provide the public, or even the relevant congressional committees, with information on the trillions of dollars in loans that were made through the Fed’s special lending facilities. While anyone can go to the Treasury’s website and see how much each bank received through Tarp and under what terms, Bernanke refuses to share any information on the loans that banks and other institutions received from the Fed.

Where we do have information, it is not encouraging. At the peak of the financial crisis in October, Goldman Sachs converted itself from an investment bank into a bank holding company, in part so that it could tap an FDIC loan guarantee programme. Remarkably, Bernanke allowed Goldman to continue to act as an investment bank, taking highly speculative positions even after it had borrowed $28bn with the FDIC’s guarantee.

The idea that the Federal Reserve could loan trillions of dollars to unidentified beneficiaries on secret terms has resulted in outrage from across the political spectrum. In his rebuttal to The Washington Post‘s editorial criticizing Ron Paul’s Fed transparency initiative, Independent (and self-avowed socialist) Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont had this to say:

This legislation wouldn’t undermine the Fed’s independence, and it wouldn’t put Congress in charge of monetary policy. An audit is simply an examination of records or financial accounts to check their accuracy.

We must not equate “independence” with secrecy. No matter how intelligent or well-intentioned the Fed chairman and his staff may be, it isn’t appropriate to give a handful of people the power to lend an unlimited supply of money to anyone it wants without sufficient oversight.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. The American people have a right to know what is being done with their hard-earned taxpayer dollars. This money does not belong to the Fed; it belongs to the American people.

The tremendous upsurge in support for the Federal Reserve Transparency Act was obviously what motivated Ron Paul to write an essay on the matter for Sunday’s edition of The Philadelphia Inquirer. With such a strong wind at his back, he confidently trashed the arguments of his opponents and began the piece with this assertion:

The Federal Reserve’s unprecedented intervention into the U.S. economy has inflamed more Americans than almost any other issue in recent memory.

Congressman Paul then proceeded to pound away at the criticism of his bill, reminding me of a boxer, who sees blood flowing down into his opponent’s eyes:

The most conservative estimates place the potential cost of the Federal Reserve’s bailouts and guarantees at about $9 trillion. That is equivalent to more than 60 percent of the U.S.economy, all undertaken by one organization, and almost all of those transactions are exempt from congressional oversight and public scrutiny.

The Fed and its apologists are using bogeymen to deflect criticism. If the Fed were audited, they argue, monetary policy would be compromised as Congress tries to direct the Fed’s actions, and the Fed’s record of economic stability and low inflation would come to an end. Nothing could be further from the truth.

* * *

The Fed’s mismanagement created the Great Depression, the stagflation of the 1970s, and now our current economic crisis. Over the nearly100 years of the Fed’s existence, the dollar has lost nearly 95 percent of its purchasing power. A “mild” rate of inflation of 2 percent per year means that a baby born today will see the dollar’s purchasing power erode by a further 75 percent over his lifetime. If this boondoggle is the Fed’s definition of stability and sound management of the dollar, I would hate to see what instability looks like.

Yet that is exactly what we face today and in the near future with a federal government and a Federal Reserve working hand in hand to bail out favored Wall Street firms with sums of money that have quickly reached absurd proportions.

* * *

The fact that a single entity, the Federal Reserve, has dominated monetary policy for so long has been detrimental to the economy. As long as we try to keep up the fictions that the Federal Reserve works to benefit the American people, that attempting to fix interest rates will not distort the economy, and that the Fed can end a recession by injecting liquidity, we will never free ourselves from the boom and bust of the business cycle.

A necessary first step to restoring economic stability in this country is to audit the Fed, to find out the multitude of sectors in which it has involved itself, and, once the audit has been completed, to analyze the results and determine how the Fed should be reined in.

When one sees a former Republican Presidential primary contender enjoy this type of momentum, the inevitable question is whether Ron Paul might make another run for the White House. Justin Miller had this on his mind last month when he discussed this subject for The Atlantic:

Paul is just as plausible a candidate to run for the Republican nomination as are Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, or Mike Huckabee who were tested in polls this month. Like them, Paul’s run for the White House (twice) before and has said he isn’t opposed to doing it again, albeit he said it’s “unlikely.” What’s more likely, based on the circumstantial evidence, is that the Republican voters would receive Paul better than they did last year. Feature him in polls from now on and we can test this hypothesis.

As President Obama continues to alienate the liberal base of the Democratic Party, Ron Paul might be just the person the Republicans would want to nominate in 2012. He’ll be 77 years old at that point — just in time for a single term.

2012, American capitalism, Americans for Limited Government, Anthony Gregory, audit the Federal Reserve, bank holding company, banking crisis, Barack Obama, Ben Bernanke, blog, centrist, Citigroup, Commentary, comprehensive bank bailout plan, conflict of interest, Congress, Congressional oversight of the Fed, conservative, crony capitalism, Dean Baker, Democrat, Democratic Party, Democrats, economic crisis, economics, economists, equities markets, FDIC, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve is the least trusted, Federal Reserve Transparency Act, financial crisis, financial meltdown, Gallup Poll, Goldman Sachs, Government Accountability Office, government guarantees, Hank Paulson, Henry Paulson, Howard Rich, HR 1207, huge financial institutions, investment banks, John Burke, John T Burke Jr, Justin Miller, Lew Rockwell, LewRockwell, liberal, liberal base of Democratic Party, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, moral hazard, New York Stock Exchange, News, Obama Administration, Obama Presidency, opacity, Opinion, Political, Politics, President of the United States, Rasmussen poll, Republican, Republican Party, risk-taking, Ron Paul, Ron Paul Struts His Stuff, Sarah Palin, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, Senator Bernie Sanders, socialized loss and privatized gain, stock markets, systemic risk regulator, taxpayer subsidies to investment banks, The Atlantic, the banks, the center lane, the economy, The Guardian, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Washington Post, The White House, thecenterlane, too big to fail, transparency, Treasury Department, United States Senate, United States Treasury, Wall Street, wealth transfer, welfare for the rich

TheCenterLane.com

© 2008 – 2024 John T. Burke, Jr.

Preparing For The Worst

Avoiding The Kool-Aid

Offering Solutions

Kill The Whales

More Heat For The Federal Reserve

Spread The Word

The Broken Promise

A Helluva Read

Invoking Thomas Paine

Ron Paul Struts His Stuff

Tip Jar

Recent Posts

Stock Market

Blogroll

Archives

About TheCenterLane.com