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

Category: Stimulus Page 2 of 4

One reason why Hooverism is on the rise

As the G20 votes for global Hoverism, aka: disaster, a friend asked why Hooverism is spreading so widely.  Part of the answer has to do with elites, and I’ll deal with that another time, but let’s talk about why the public supports belt-tightening.

The belief amongst the public, I suspect, is that most of the money was spent on bail outs for the rich, not on them.  They have come to see stimulus as code for “bail out” and as such, do not support it.  While, of course, the bailout and the stimulus were two different things, the fact is that more money was spent bailing out the rich than was spent on the middle class and poor.

Likewise the results (spare me apologists) have been anemic at best.  This is the WORST recovery in post-war history. It is bloody abysmal. Yes, it could be worse, you know it and I know it, but ordinary people have not seen a significant improvement in their ability to get jobs.  The stimulus has not “worked”.  It has not been seen to work.  Not enough, anyway.

Forgive me for saying so, but this was predicted repeatedly.  I wrote it the moment I heard the makeup of the stimulus bill.  If you read the President’s own economic advisers, though they were over optimistic they predicted it wouldn’t do the job either(pdf). It was not just us crazy hippies who have a record of being right over and over and over again, and so are not serious people and must not listened to.

The stimulus was very badly put together (not just in tax cuts, but in how its spending was targeted).  It was not large enough.  It was a piece of crap.

If you want something to be considered as viable policy, it must be SEEN to work.  It must not be arguable.  People must feel good as a result.

Though I’m using the US as my example, this is true in many countries, especially when it comes to spending more money on saving the rich than on helping the middle class and poor.  If ordinary citizens are going to have pay the bills for the bailouts, and don’t feel they’re seeing the benefits (they aren’t) the logical reaction is to say “stop!”

Now, of course, this isn’t why the elites are crying for it to stop.  They want it to stop because they’ve been saved.  Corporate profits have pretty much recovered.  So why spend money helping the middle class and poor folks?

The Jobs Report and the Future

I’m not going to waste a lot of time on the job report, obviously a job report with 411,000 census jobs out of  431,000 total jobs is not, actually, a good one.  Despite their spin, the Obama administration knows this.  They will ram through the jobs bill and try and dump it into the economy as fast as possible.  200 billion is, actually, about as much as the real stimulus per year in the stimulus bill (the tax cuts had no effect on hiring because they went to rent seeking corporate profits).  They will also seek to dump as much of the TARP slush fund as they can.  The insiders seem to have finally realized that if they don’t get a real job recovery before the election, Obama could lose his Congressional working majority or maybe even his majority, and if that happens, the rest of his Presidency will be spent arguing over the equivalent of white stains on dresses.

Can they pull it off?  Well, 200 billion plus another couple hundred billion from TARP is real money.  On the other hand, they are adept at spending tons of money and getting very little for it, plus the Republicans will be as obstructionist as possible: they know that their election chances hang in the balance too.  Add to that the stupidity of conservative Democrats, more concerned with deficits than jobs, and the situation is dicey, especially as Europe goes into hardcore Hooverism with austerity budget after austerity budget and China frets over a housing market which a Bank of China official noted is now further into bubble territory than the US’s was when it burst.

Hang on tight, folks, the economy is going to get a honking big syringe full of adrenaline at the same time as it’s strung out and another bunch of doctors are giving it a pile of benzies.  Hope it can take it.

Krugman is trivially right and essentially wrong

When he says:

In fact, we know what a system in which banks are allowed to fail looks like: that’s how the US banking system worked before the creation of the Fed. And you know what? It wasn’t a smoothly functioning system, with sound banking enforced by market discipline; it was a system periodically wracked by “panics” that destroyed peoples’ savings and plunged the economy into recession.

Finally, because that’s what really happens when banks are allowed to fail freely, promises not to bail out banks in the future aren’t credible. Fail to reform finance now, and there will be two, three, many TARPs in our future.

Again, small banks have been allowed to fail.  Today.  In large numbers.  So it is credible that small banks will be allowed to fail in the future.  It’s not the only thing which has to be done, but it is a necessary step.

The idea is that if every bank is small, no bank knows it specifically is “too big to fail”, and no bank thinks that it might not be one of the banks allowed to fail.

Finance is not going to be reformed enough, in any case. You know it, I know it, Krugman knows it.

TARP is a distraction.  It wasn’t necessary.  What happened, that mattered, was done mostly by the Fed with Treasury’s collusion, but that 700 billion was never needed, since the Fed can pull money out of its bum (and did.)

This is misleading:

Now, in 2008-2009 the shareholders were not cleaned out, and the bondholders left untouched; in part this was a policy decision, but it was also influenced by the lack of “resolution authority”: there was no clean, well-established route for seizing complex financial institutions. We can fix that, and deal with future Citigroups (one of which, given history, is likely to be … Citigroup) the way the FDIC deals with smaller banks: protect the depositors, clean out the shareholders.

This was entirely a policy decision.  While, no, the FDIC hadn’t closed down anything as big as Citigroup before (because before Glass-Steagall was repealed it was illegal to be as large as Citigroup), it had all the authority it needed and could have taken over Citigroup any time it wanted to.

This is a Bush response.  “I fucked up and didn’t do the right thing, so I need more authority, even though I had all the necessary authority.”

Granted, better regulation is needed, but the parts of regulation which failed were prior to the financial collapse.  The necessary authority to wipe out shareholders was in place.  That was a policy decisions—a political decision.  Neither Bush nor Obama was willing to greenlight the FDIC to do its damn job.

This is perhaps the stupidest disagreement I’ve seen in some time: no one who thinks breaking up banks is necessary thinks it is sufficient.  Why is Krugman acting as if they do?  Why does he want to protect large banks from breakup?  Why are we even talking about this?

Insanity is Doing the Same Thing and Expecting Different Results: Real Reform Means Reinstituting Glass-Steagall at Full Strength and Breaking Up Financial Conglomerates

Ok, enough already. I’m sick of people talking about modern markets as if they are something wonderful. No, they aren’t. Obama was absolutely right during the election, they completely fell down on their job, not just for the last 8 years, but for most of the last 28 —whenever Republicans were in charge, and a fair bit when Dems were in charge. Ordinary people haven’t had a raise in damn near 30 years. This is success?

I simply, completely, and utterly fail to see what is so wonderful about the process of securitization. Sure, it allows you to create more financial products. Sure, it reduces the cost of capital somewhat. But are we really better off because of securitization? Of course we aren’t. Without securitization this current market meltdown would have been a hell of a lot milder. What securitization does is take the risk and spread it from the people who might be able to understand it and control it (the people actually issuing the mortgages, for example) to a ton of people who could not possibly know the risk even if they wanted to.

Ratings agency reform is not the solution, they completely fell down on the job and even if incentives were changed they are still not in a position to know whether a mortgage from Mr. Smith is legitimate. Are they going to visit the property? Talk to Mr. Smith? Call his employer? Of course not, they can’t. The only people who can are the people who issued the original mortgage.

Nor should risk be transfered much if at all. Risk must stay with the people who issue the mortgage. If they know it’ll be off their books they won’t do proper due diligence, and no one else can do it. At most, risk should be transfered once and must be transfered in whole and understandable form, rather than taking 20 different incomes steams (or more), melding them together, chopping them into tranches and selling them to people who really have no idea what they’re buying, while you’ve booked your profit and washed your hand, so even if you sold them crap, hahahah, it’s their crap now (or so you think.) Risk must be assumed only by people who can understand it and manage it and who are exposed to the consequences of their decisions. (Ability to manage risk, but knowledge that if they don’t they will get hurt.)

Now let’s talk about this idea that the Fed should basically regulate everyone, with the SEC occasionally peeping over it’s shoulder to see whether market manipulation is ocurring. This is necessary because there are, as Obama points out, no longer clear cut differences between banks, insurance companies, investment banks, brokerages and so on. The repeal of Glass-Steagall put an end to those differences. Glass-Steagall, remember was put in place during the Great Depression to stop another Great Depression from occuring. One of the things that people who lived through the 20s believed caused the Great Depression was not having clear cut boundaries between the businesses, again so that risk was divided appropriately and so that fewer companies became “too large to fail”.

But somehow we think we know better than the people who lived through the last Great Depression; the people who lived through the 20’s and the last great market crackup. So we’ve repealed most of Glass-Steagall and allowed everyone to be in everyone else’s pockets, huge financial conglomerates to mushroom into monstrosities, and allowed unregulated “innovative” financial “products” like collateralized debt obligation (CDOs) to grow into such monstrosites that financial markets were huge multiples of the entire real world economy.

Then it all comes crashing down and people claim to be surprised.

Enough, already. Yes, the world is not exactly the same as it was in the 20’s and 30’s, but we didn’t start having these disasters till after Glass-Steagall and other Depression era securities laws started getting repealed. First set in the 80’s, followed by most of the remainder in 99.

It’s time to break up the great financial conglomerates. Force them to cut themselves up and divide back into brokerage houses, investment banks, retail banks, insurance companies and so on. Put them all under the clear control of regulaters. Reinstitute Glass-Steagall, with very mild modernization, and get rid of most complex derivatives, excessive leverage, the carry trade and so on.

Obama was right during the primaries, the philosophy of the past 28 years has been a failure. Why don’t we, why doesn’t he, treat it as so, and re-institute what worked, re-regulate, then slowly modify from there, with complete transparency and strong regulation.

Financial markets exist to serve ordinary Americans and non-financial American businesses. They haven’t been doing that properly. Time to make sure they do.

This is a repost from September 16th 2008.  Very minor changes made to indicate when Obama said it, otherwise it stands the test of time remarkably well—which should tell you that nothing has been done since then.  The greatest economic disaster since the Great Depression, and a year and half later nobody has tried to fix what caused it to happen.  Priorities, priorities…

Lowest Bank Lending since

Whoever would have expected? (h/t Agonist)

U.S. banks posted last year their sharpest decline in lending since 1942

Of course, this is exactly what we warned would happen.

Can you say Japanification?  Sure you can.  Banks are impaired.  Badly.  So they don’t want to lend.  To get lending going again it was necessary to take over bankrupt banks, to siphon off bad loans, to force both bondholders and stockholders to take their losses.

Larger banks are doing better than smaller banks, which should be no surprise as they’re the ones the Feds concentrated on bailing out because if you bailed out small banks they couldn’t be bought up for cents on the dollar by Geithner and Bernanke’s friends in the financial industry.

Refusing to do the right thing has consequences.  This is one of them.

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.)

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.

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.

Page 2 of 4

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén