The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Class Warfare Page 34 of 36

Banks In Britain Will Absorb Cost of 50% Bonus Tax

Even I am slightly surprised, though not shocked:

City bankers will suffer little or no impact from the bonus supertax imposed by the government last month, according to a Financial Times poll of leading investment banks.

Most banks, polled in an anonymised survey, said they would absorb all or part of the cost of the one-off 50 per cent tax by inflating their bonus pools, even at the risk of irritating the government and their own shareholders.

The sense of entitlement is breathtaking.  The banks simply need to be broken up, and the remaining ones turned into utilities with regulated profit levels and compensation levels.  Clearly the people in charge cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of either society or even the shareholders they claim are their primary responsibility.

Until this is done, I will add, the middle class will not see any real gains in real disposable income after all taxes (which includes interest, which is a tax) are taken into account.  It’s you or them folks, and they are damn well determined it isn’t going to be them.  They are parasites, not symbiotes, they sicken their host and can even kill it, rather than making it stronger.

And you are their hosts, from whom they suck blood to stay alive and grow fat.  Except unlike the huge swollen ticks gorged on blood who are their direct kin, no amount of blood is ever enough.

Oh Wait, the Freddie/Fannie Scam is Now Unlimited

Update: Go read Numerian.

Per Bloomberg:

The U.S. Treasury Department will remove the caps on aid to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the next three years, to allay investor concerns that the companies will exhaust the available government assistance.

The two companies, the largest sources of mortgage financing in the U.S., are currently under government conservatorship and have caps of $200 billion each on backstop capital from the Treasury. Under the new agreement announced today, these limits can rise as needed to cover net worth losses through 2012.

The Obama administration is “beginning to realize it’s not getting better and it’s not likely to get better” soon in the housing market, said Julian Mann, who helps oversee $5.5 billion in bonds as a vice president at First Pacific Advisors LLC in Los Angeles. “They don’t want the foreclosures now, so they’re saying, we’ll pay whatever it takes to continue to kick the can down the road.”

Basically, at this point, almost all mortgage lending is guaranteed by the federal government under the FHA, or it doesn’t happen.  Private lending has pretty much dried up.

Since there’s no way Freddie and Fannie took unlimited losses, one has to wonder what all this money is going to be used for.  Is it to make up losses they don’t want to admit?  Is it to make future bad mortgage loans?  Is it so they can take bad debt from the banks and put the government at risk for it?

Notice also how they’ve made an unlimited commitment without consulting Congress.  You only need Congressional approval to spend money on wars and healthcare, when it comes to bailing out banks, apparently the Presidency controls the power of the purse all by itself.

It’s also interesting that this is unlimited till the end of 2012.

(See also the earlier post when it was just a 400 billion increase, not unlimited.)

The 400 Billion Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac Robbery

Jane Hamsher connects the dots over at FDL. The NYTimes has reported:

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which buy and resell mortgages, have used $112 billion — including $15 billion for Fannie in November — of a total $400 billion pledge from the Treasury. Now, according to people close to the talks, officials are discussing the possibility of increasing that commitment, possibly to $400 billion for each company, by year-end, after which the Treasury would need Congressional approval to extend it.

Now, on the face of it, this makes no sense whatsoever.   They’ve only spent $112 billion of 400 billion and they need another 400 billion?  There two most likely possibilities, which aren’t mutually exclusive are that Freddie and Fannie have a ton of bad crap on the books that they haven’t acknowledged yet.  I have always believed that their losses would be much higher than originally acknowledged.  The second is what Jane suggests, and which I think must be part of the picture:

The White House knows it can’t get approval for more TARP money through Congress, so the administration is going to double the commitment to Fannie and Freddie from $400 billion to $800 billion, and then they can use the money to buy up more toxic assets from the banks

Jane also points out that due to a bill Rahm authored, there is no inspector for Freddie and Fannie.

Because there is a good chance the Fed will be audited, and because banks are still very impaired with bad debt (ie. they still need to be bailed out) Freddie and Fannie may be the only place left to store all the toxic financial wage—to take it off the banks hands.  In the meantime, this is a back door extension of TARP, done this way because the administration knows that Congress would never approve it.

Citygroup Roulette

So, Citigroup is being allowed to pay back its TARP money minus billions of taxes they should pay, but also:

Bank regulators including the FDIC and Federal Reserve want to permit a phase-in of capital requirements that rise starting next month under a change approved by the Financial Accounting Standards Board. The rule, passed in May, eliminates some off- balance-sheet trusts, forcing banks to put billions of dollars of assets and liabilities on their books.

If they don’t have enough money to recognize their liabilities, why are they being allowed to pay back their TARP money?  (Bear in mind, that it is certain that they have many more liabilities than just these.  They are only being forced to recongize some of their liabilities.)

Well:

  • TARP needs to be seen to make a profit
  • TARP is going to be used by the President for further stimulus.  With 40% of Democrats saying they’re going to stay home in 2010, Obama needs a money Congress can’t deny him.  The banks give the money back to TARP, and Obama can use it as a slush fund.
  • With TARP repaid Citi can pay better bonuses, avoid reorganization and are out from under the government’s thumb.

Citigroup is almost certainly bankrupt, if it were actually forced to bring everything back on balance sheet and value assets at market prices.  But hey, job in America is making sure Bankers never face any responsibility for destroying millions of lives while paying themselves billions.

And Job is being taken care of.

Knowing your interests

Are the rich just like us? In one sense they are – they eat, sleep and defecate just like everyone else. They love, cry and die – just like everyone else. But when you’re dealing with policy – no, they aren’t just like everyone else. It’s fashionable (one of those evergreen fashions) to argue that the policies that benefit the rich, benefit everyone. There are certainly policies that benefit everyone, but there are few policies which primarily benefit the rich which are to everyone’s interest. Let’s run through this in a bit more detail.

Rich
Most rich people get most of their money from investments – also know as unearned income. So when investment income is taxed at a lower rate than earned income (what you get on your paycheck), which it is – then those who rely primarily on earned income are being taxed at a higher effective rate. This is a deliberate policy choice.

When jobs are outsourced, the profits still flow back into the hands of US investors. While many people own stock and bonds (especially through pension funds) this disproportionately benefits the rich because the rich (as noted above) disproportionately receive their money from unearned income.

When the domestic economy does badly, but corporate and general investment profits are up – the rich do fine because the cost of things they want (like servants) goes down as supply goes up. Those few people they do deign to employ cost less.

When tax changes are made that are less progressive (moving to fees or flat taxes, for example, and away from income tax) it benefits the rich – because they earn more money and regressive taxes benefit those with more.

When estate taxes are gotten rid of – it benefits the rich (or rather their children).

When public schools are defunded it benefits the rich. Their kids aren’t going to them anyway, and now they don’t have to pay for your kids to go there.

When capital flow laws are relaxed it benfits the rich. Do you need to move a million dollars out of China in a few minutes to get an extra .1% overnight return? No?

When the spread between inflation rates and the interest rate is high it benefits the rich, because most of them are creditors. It hurts the middle class and the poor – because they are debtors.

When bankruptcy laws are tightened it hurts the poor and the middle class and helps the rich.

The Middle Class

When jobs are plentiful, it benefits the middle class. But if you’re already middle class and you keep your job, but others are losing theirs, you can win relatively – especially if prices are dropping relative to your salary.

When jobs pay well and are keeping up with inflation, it benefits the middle class.

When house prices go up it benefits the middle class – because they have the majority of their money in their houses – that’s their savings account. It hurts the poor, because they can’t get housing and it hurts the subset of the middle class that doesn’t yet have a house, because they can’t get one.

When medical care prices increase it hurts the middle classes because their employers stop paying for it, pay for less or leave the country to a domicile where either the government provides it (Canada) or they don’t have to provide it.

The Poor

When rent, food or fuel costs go up it hurts the poor because they spend most of their income on those three things. It hurts them disporoptionately compared to the pain to the rich.

When the economy doesn’t produce new jobs it hurts the poor because they then can’t get jobs, especially the long term poor who are only hired when those with more recent experience are used up.

When medical care becomes more expensive it hurts the poor, because they can’t afford it. So they live in pain, or with chronic diseases and get treated only when it’s close to mortal and they can’t be turned away.

When mandatory sentencing for blue collar crime goes in it hurts the poor because more of them commit crime and it takes away their husbands and their sons.

When some drugs are made illegal while others with psychoactive effects are legal but prescribed only to those who can afford both price controlled drugs and doctors scripts it hurts the poor.

Yes Virginia, the rich are different…

not because they are better or worse than us, not because they are bad people, but because they have different interests and different incentives and they live in a world that is different from the one the middle class or the poor live in. Policies that enrich them could enrich everyone. There are policies and economies that help everyone. From 1945 to around 1970 the rising economy made everyone better off equally – the rich, the middle class, the poor. Everyone prospered together.

It can be that way, but it doesn’t have to be. You can make the pie bigger – or you can make your slice larger. Over the last thirty years Americans have fought over the pie. Warren Buffett once noted that if there was a class war then his class was winning. There is a class war and the rich are indeed winning – and it is one of the things that is slowly destroying the United States.

As Stirling has said in the past – everyone can be prosperous. But everyone can’t be rich. Choose what sort of society you want – or have others choose for you.

(Another repost from BOP. 2004. This is basic class and policy analysis stuff.  I would make some changes to the definition of rich these days, to make sure the the managerial capture class was unambiguously included.)

Ouch

Peter Morici puts banker bonuses in perspective:

How much is $140 billion?

The U.S. economy grew at a $89 billion annualized rate in the third quarter. That was the first growth since the second quarter of 2008 and came to $22 billion in actual growth in the third quarter.

The bankers, after causing the greatest economic calamity since the Great Depression, are rewarded with six times the growth accomplished so far in the much heralded “economic recovery.”

Meanwhile, seven million families face foreclosure and 25 million Americans can’t find full time work.

I believe I will laugh, so I don’t cry.  America is so very, very broken, that this could ever happen.

Hahahahahahahaha.

Where the Economy Stands and Where It’s Going

Much as I like Elizabeth Warren, I’m not going along with this:

“Even so,” the panel concluded, “there is broad consensus that the TARP was an important part of a broader government strategy that stabilized the U.S. financial system by renewing the flow of credit and averting a more acute crisis.”

It added, “Although the government’s response to the crisis was at first haphazard and uncertain, it eventually proved decisive enough to stop the panic and restore market confidence.”

Why?  Well, because…

The panel’s 134-page report noted that after 14 months of the program, problems remain. Banks resist making loans, toxic mortgage-related assets still clog big banks’ balance sheets and smaller banks are vulnerable to troubles in the commercial real estate sector.

Here’s what happened, not just with TARP but with the overall bailout, of which TARP was only one part.

Because banks were not forced to recognize bad loans and assets, but have been allowed to keep them on the books it did not restart lending.  Instead the money given, loaned and guaranteed has been used to allow banks to not take their losses, and they have used that money in addition to increase leveraged financial plays and for buyouts of other financial firms which are even more distressed.

We’re going to hear a lot of triumphalism over the next year, because the economy is probably going to “recover” more strongly than many expect, not primarily because of the stimulus, but because of increased military spending.  Military Keynesianism is the only type of Keynesianism both parties agree with, and it should be no surprise that Obama escalating in Afghanistan, because that’s spending he can get through Congress and it directly creates jobs.  It’s not the best possible stimulus, not even close, but it’s far better than tax cuts, or tax cuts in drag, which is what much of the stimulus spending actually was, since it allowed States to avoid raising taxes on the rich.  (And yes, Virginia, I’m here to tell you that right now raising taxes on the rich and spending it to create broad based demand and jobs would be very stimulative.)

Japanification has occurred.  To be specific, Japanification is when a society’s banks are unable to lend adequately because they have huge numbers of bad loans on the books which have not been recognized, and which they have to pay down over many years.  The IMF forecast last year, which did not include a stimulus bill, assumed that the economy would have about the level of unemployment it has now.  The IMF is one of the few organizations which saw the crisis coming and which was screaming warnings from the rooftop, so they are not Pollyanas.

The US economy has shifted down a step.  The new “normal” is going to be higher unemployment and lower relative wages than was considered acceptable even under Bush, let alone under Clinton.

Meanwhile, the “decoupling” fools were talking about happening last year, is happening this year.  Most Asian economies are recovering much much more strongly than Europe and the US.  Why?  Because they are creditor nations with surpluses.  Their businesses and consumers can get credit, and their governments can run stimuluses much more effectively than the US can.  They are also production societies which actually still concentrate on making real things, not on leveraged financial plays and suburban expansion of worthless communities without a real economic base to support them.

Meanwhile the US is trying to get the financial economy and the housing bubble going again.  As long as the US is willing to keep shipping real productive capacity and the remaining few areas where the US has a technological advantage to Asia, and particularly to China, those nations will let the US try its financialization game again, but don’t expect them to be enthusiastic about it.

And once they’ve got what they need, it’ll be time to cut the US off.  When the US makes nothing anyone else wants, why should the rest of the world play?

Can you say dollar/Yuan parity?  Sure you can.  Within 20 years.

Enjoy the next year, it’s going to be better than you expect, though unemployment will not recover all that much.  But don’t expect the OK times to last, because they won’t.  Nations which make less and less  the rest of the world wants, don’t do well in the long run.  The game of liquidating America’s advantages has been going on for over 30 years now, and the long run is now the medium run.

Soon it will be the short run.

When even the smart, competent people aren’t willing to face the reality of what’s happening in their own country, that country has nowhere to go but down.  This will be a one step forward, to steps back decline, and triumphalists will scream about how wonderful each step forward is, but the trend is clear and there is no reason to expect it to change anytime in the next 10 to 15 years.

Dubai’s Problems and America’s

Well since Numerian has written about it, I don’t have to, since he’s done a better job than I would have anyway.

Dubai gambled that it could turn itself into the Beverly Hills of the Persian Gulf now that it has no oil. It lost its gamble. The people who could afford a $10,000 purse have taken a big beating in the financial crisis and recession, and they are embracing a more moderate and discreet spending lifestyle. Dubai not only has half-finished buildings, it has many completed buildings uninhabited, like Miami and Las Vegas and other overbuilt desert mirages.

Couldn’t happen to a nicer city built on slave labor.  While this is “bad”, well, if it had to happen to someone…  Of course, who else might it happen to?

So here we have a country that used to have oil which has now run out of the same. It has turned to massive amounts of debt to sustain not only its existing lifestyle, but to build a fantasy land of McMansions, luxury malls, trophy office buildings and theme parks for the wealthy. It has nothing anyone wants to buy and consequently stocks the shelves of its stores with goods from other countries it buys on debt. It has done all this using impoverished labor that works under a modern form of indentured servitude, in which the typical worker incurs excessive debts of their own that can never truly be paid off by their earnings. It creates an enormous income disparity between its privileged few and the huddled masses kept out of sight.

Sound familiar? When do you think global investors will start connecting these dots and ask: exactly what is backing the debt of the United States that has flooded the markets in the past nine years under Bush and Obama? At least Dubai had a presumed rich uncle in Abu Dhabi that would come to the rescue, even though now everyone realizes that was a very costly mistaken assumption. In the case of the US, the United States was the rich uncle everybody else looked to in order to solve global problems. Now that rich uncle has gone crazy in its own orgy of gambling, whoring, and over-indebtedness.

Except there is no one – absolutely no one – who can come to the United States’ rescue.

Go read the entire thing. Of especial interest is the question Numerian raises, but doesn’t answer—why didn’t the other Emirates bail out Dubai?  Are they running out of money? Oil?  Or just fed up with Dubai’s profligacy?

Note also that this is another indication that the last 10 years, economically, did not happen.  Much of the building that didn’t occur in the first world, happened in Dubai.  And that was an illusion, same as banks profits were.

So, of course, the current plan is to try and reboot the Busheconomy.  Get the land casino going again, reboot the financial casino, and party like it’s 2005.

Which is an even stupider plan than it was the first time since at least when Bush did it there was more of a real economy to cash out.  Being stupider than Bush is an accomplishment. In fact, it’s an accomplishment that is literally mind boggling.  My mind hurts every time I try and think like anyone stupid enough to do it.

Page 34 of 36

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén