No market for you products? Then create a “fake” market!

bankers perpetrated one of the greatest episodes of self-dealing in financial history.
Faced with increasing difficulty in selling the mortgage-backed securities that had been among their most lucrative products, the banks hit on a solution that preserved their quarterly earnings and huge bonuses:
They created fake demand.”

The best thing we could do is to rid ourselves of all regulations, knowing that when left to their own  self governance, corporate managers will always do the right thing. Sure they will!
This story, while not the least bit surprising, should blow another hole in any (libertarian) theory that the players in a “free market” will choose to be honest and will be preeminently concerned about maintaining their reputations in order to attract more (voluntary) business.

Crisis in the middle class

Great article in the Financial Times about the destruction of the American middle class.

The slow economic strangulation of the Freemans and millions of other middle-class Americans started long before the Great Recession, which merely exacerbated the “personal recession” that ordinary Americans had been suffering for years. Dubbed “median wage stagnation” by economists, the annual incomes of the bottom 90 per cent of US families have been essentially flat since 1973 – having risen by only 10 per cent in real terms over the past 37 years. That means most Americans have been treading water for more than a generation. Over the same period the incomes of the top 1 per cent have tripled. In 1973, chief executives were on average paid 26 times the median income. Now the multiple is above 300.

The trend has only been getting stronger. Most economists see the Great Stagnation as a structural problem – meaning it is immune to the business cycle. In the last expansion, which started in January 2002 and ended in December 2007, the median US household income dropped by $2,000 – the first ever instance where most Americans were worse off at the end of a cycle than at the start. Worse is that the long era of stagnating incomes has been accompanied by something profoundly un-American: declining income mobility.

Senator Kaufman’s letter on FinReg

Read it here

That being said, unfortunately, I believe the bill suffers from two major problems.  First, the bill delegates too much authority to the regulators.  I’ve been around the Senate for 37 years.  As I said on the Senate floor on February 4th of this year and in several speeches since then, I know that many times laws are not written with hard and clear lines. Laws are a product of legislative compromise, which often means they are vague and ambiguous.  We often justify our vagueness by saying the regulators to whom we grant statutory authority are in a better position than we are to write the rules – and then to apply those regulatory rules on a case-by-case basis.  But, as I have said, this was not one of those times. This was a time for Congress to draw hard lines that get directly at the structural problems that afflict Wall Street and our largest banks.

Second, the legislation does not go far enough in addressing the fundamental problem of “too big to fail.” Instead of erecting enduring statutory walls as we did in the 1930s, the bill invests the same regulators who failed to prevent the financial crisis with additional discretion and relies upon a resolution regime to successfully unwind complex and interconnected mega-banks engaged across the globe. I am also disappointed that key reform provisions like the Volcker Rule and the Lincoln swaps dealers spin-off provision were scaled back in conference.

The bill mainly places its faith and trust in regulatory discretion and on international agreements on bank capital requirements and supervision.

38 million Americans using food stamps

What does it say about our “equal opportunity” society when so many of our friends and neighbors can’t afford to pay for food?

Food stamps have become “mainstream.”

Read about it here:

Still, some critics see it as welfare in disguise and advocate more restraints.

So far their voices have been muted, unlike in the 1990s when members of Congress likened permissive welfare laws to feeding alligators and wolves. But last month, a Republican candidate for governor in South Carolina, Andre Bauer, criticized food stamps by saying his grandmother “told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed.”

Do we really care about spending freezes?

So Obama throws a bone to “conservatives” and will now propose a spending freeze. The problem is that any prposed freeze won’t effect the portions of our national budget that are most problematic, entitelemnt programs and the defense budget.

Why is it a non starter that we can’t reduce  spending on “defense?”

We are now on track to spend between 800 billion and 1 trillion dollars on defense spending for fiscal year 2010. Is it possible that our resources could be allocated more judiciously on projects that could benefit the rank and file US citizen? How about a large-scale massive jobs program? Or providing capital to fast track a green economy?

Most people’s eyes glaze over when the topic of deficits are broached. Do the 17 % of the population that is underemployed really care about deficits? Do the 45 million without health care really care about deficits?

Once again, the spineless Democrats cave.

Temp jobs are flourishing…aren’t you glad you took out those student loans?

The employment figures released for December showing that another 85, 000 jobs were extinguished.

This  WAPO article makes the point that one “positive sign” is that temp jobs increased by 47,000. Color me cynical.

Although I m extremely happy for everyone that has a job in this economy, please tell how,  in the grand scheme of the economic universe is it a positive to have more people being hired as temps? What does  temporary mean to you?

Turning a temp job into a full-time job is no sure thing. It’s estimated that only 30-40% of temp jobs result in  full-time employment.

Until we can put our words into action (aka green economy) I’m betting that hiring  temps will be the new model of our economy for a very long time. Low wages combined  low job security can only mean that we’re in for some “lifestyle shock” in the years to come.  How low can we go? How transient will we become?

With regard to lifestyle changes, maybe Buddhists are on to something when they tell us that we should not cling to the impermanent.

One positive sign is that the number of temporary jobs rose by 47,000 jobs. Employers, it would seem, are reluctant to add permanent workers, but — faced with higher demand for their products — have little choice but to bring on temps. That could presage broader job creation in the future.

Less encouraging, the average workweek for non-supervisory workers was unchanged at 33.2 hours. Employers cut back the hours of their employees dramatically through the deep economic downturn of the last two years, and so far are restoring those hours at only a glacial pace.

Average hourly earnings were up slightly, however, 0.2 percent, to an average of $18.80 an hour.

The unemployment rate remained high, as many forecasters expect it to for many months. Not only did the nation continue to shed jobs, but the labor force shrank as 661,000 people pulled out of the workforce entirely, neither working nor seeking a job.

2010 predictions from a few of the high priesthood

Robert Shiller thinks strategic defaulters (aka: those willing to simply walk away from their homes) will increase because it’s becoming more socially accepted. I think he is right. Middle America watches what is happening in DC with disgust when they see banks that are bailed out with our tax dollars  having record years in terms of profits while middle America gets not so much as the perfunctory bone.

Read it here:

More Paul Volker

It’s a damn shame Obama chose to take the advice of Summers/Geithner over Paul Volker. He’s one of the few knowledgable and credible voices out there arguing for allowing the “too big to fails” to fail..

From BuisnessWeek:

How should we create a well-oiled financial system?
The kind of reform I’ve been advocating is acceptance of the fact that the core of the system remains commercial banking. If that breaks down then you have an enormous crisis. And commercial banks have expanded into areas I don’t think are so central. I would cut back their so-called capital market activities—hedge funds, equity funds, commodities trading, trading in derivatives. They’re all legitimate functions, but they’re not so central. And I don’t want to protect all those functions. I don’t want to protect everybody because when people act like they’re protected, you get in trouble. So let’s leave the capital markets to their own devices without any expectation of government protection and keep the existing safety net for the commercial banking system.

In my judgment we don’t need to regulate the capital markets so heavily. You have some extreme cases where individual institutions are so big and so vulnerable, yes, you might want some regulation of capital and leverage, but that would be the exception. But if they fail, let ‘em fail. We will have some kind of a new resolution process. Some agency will go in there and say, “You’re going to fail, but we’re going to provide a more orderly exit.”

Obama sells his soul to Wall Street

Matt Taibbi’s piece in The Rolling Stone is an absolute must read. If you’re like me and you were wondering where the hell all the “change” is, this article will clarify for you why there hasn’t been any, nor will there be any,  financial reform in this country.  Obama has surrounded himself with the same  thieves and thugs that live and move and have their being in the corrupt self -designed Wall Street. Here’s some change for you. “Financial Reform” will be designed to keep the “too big to fail” parasites alive into perpetuity by using our tax dollars as a backstop.  Lesson learned. Fascism lives.

Morning, the National Mall, November 5th. A year to the day after Obama named Michael Froman to his transition team, his political “opposition” has descended upon the city. Republican teabaggers from all 50 states have showed up, a vast horde of frowning, pissed-off middle-aged white people with their idiot placards in hand, ready to do cultural battle. They are here to protest Obama’s “socialist” health care bill — you know, the one that even a bloodsucking capitalist interest group like Big Pharma spent $150 million to get passed.

These teabaggers don’t know that, however. All they know is that a big government program might end up using tax dollars to pay the medical bills of rapidly breeding Dominican immigrants. So they hate it. They’re also in a groove, knowing that at the polls a few days earlier, people like themselves had a big hand in ousting several Obama-allied Democrats, including a governor of New Jersey who just happened to be the former CEO of Goldman Sachs. A sign held up by New Jersey protesters bears the warning, “If You Vote For Obamacare, We Will Corzine You.”

I approach a woman named Pat Defillipis from Toms River, New Jersey, and ask her why she’s here. “To protest health care,” she answers. “And then amnesty. You know, immigration amnesty.”

I ask her if she’s aware that there’s a big hearing going on in the House today, where Barney Frank’s committee is marking up a bill to reform the financial regulatory system. She recognizes Frank’s name, wincing, but the rest of my question leaves her staring at me like I’m an alien.

“Do you care at all about economic regulation?” I ask. “There was sort of a big economic collapse last year. Do you have any ideas about how that whole deal should be fixed?”

“We got to slow down on spending,” she says. “We can’t afford it.”

“But what do we do about the rules governing Wall Street . . .”

She walks away. She doesn’t give a fuck. People like Pat aren’t aware of it, but they’re the best friends Obama has. They hate him, sure, but they don’t hate him for any reasons that make sense. When it comes down to it, most of them hate the president for all the usual reasons they hate “liberals” — because he uses big words, doesn’t believe in hell and doesn’t flip out at the sight of gay people holding hands. Additionally, of course, he’s black, and wasn’t born in America, and is married to a woman who secretly hates our country.

These are the kinds of voters whom Obama’s gang of Wall Street advisers is counting on: idiots. People whose votes depend not on whether the party in power delivers them jobs or protects them from economic villains, but on what cultural markers the candidate flashes on TV. Finance reform has become to Obama what Iraq War coffins were to Bush: something to be tucked safely out of sight.

Around the same time that finance reform was being watered down in Congress at the behest of his Treasury secretary, Obama was making a pit stop to raise money from Wall Street. On October 20th, the president went to the Mandarin Oriental Hotel in New York and addressed some 200 financiers and business moguls, each of whom paid the maximum allowable contribution of $30,400 to the Democratic Party. But an organizer of the event, Daniel Fass, announced in advance that support for the president might be lighter than expected — bailed-out firms like JP Morgan Chase and Goldman Sachs were expected to contribute a meager $91,000 to the event — because bankers were tired of being lectured about their misdeeds.

“The investment community feels very put-upon,” Fass explained. “They feel there is no reason why they shouldn’t earn $1 million to $200 million a year, and they don’t want to be held responsible for the global financial meltdown.”

<!–


–>

Volker rips bankers

Now we know why Obama has marginalized Volker’s opinions. Can’t ruffle any feathers now can we?

The truth hurts!

One of the most senior figures in the financial world surprised a conference of high-level bankers yesterday when he criticised them for failing to grasp the magnitude of the financial crisis and belittled their suggested reforms.

Paul Volcker, a former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, berated the bankers for their failure to acknowledge a problem with personal rewards and questioned their claims for financial innovation.

On the subject of pay, he said: “Has there been one financial leader to say this is really excessive? Wake up, gentlemen. Your response, I can only say, has been inadequate.”

As bankers demanded that new regulation should not stifle innovation, a clearly irritated Mr Volcker said that the biggest innovation in the industry over the past 20 years had been the cash machine. He went on to attack the rise of complex products such as credit default

Read more here