"End of Wall Street Boom" - Must-read history

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Postby freemason9 » Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:54 pm

Col. Quisp wrote:I'm looking at the TV and I see the Dow has dropped 214 points today. It's at 6848 and falling...now 6845....6842......6839....all within a minute

And a small asteroid zoomed in close to earth this morning, one that was only discovered on 2/27.

Oh, mama, can this really be the end?

now it's at 6829....

Some are :smallviolin: while the empire burns.

Oh shit. Just saw Gibbs on AIG bailout say "We hope this is the end."

Oooh the irony. Of the Black Iron Prison...


The fact of the matter: things can't be fixed until Wall Street is completely eliminated. Allowing "shareholders" to buy shares of profits is a profanity. No wonder the workforce has lost its spirit.
User avatar
freemason9
 
Posts: 1701
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:07 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Col. Quisp » Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:46 pm

6774 now, and falling....(down 288 so far today)
User avatar
Col. Quisp
 
Posts: 1076
Joined: Tue Nov 14, 2006 10:43 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby beeline » Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:33 pm

Col. Quisp wrote:6774 now, and falling....(down 288 so far today)


6763, down 299....we'll hit -300 by the end of the day...
User avatar
beeline
 
Posts: 2024
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 4:10 pm
Location: Killadelphia, PA
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby rrapt » Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:02 pm

According to George on Urban Survival, the market is (probably) on its predicted swoop to a (false) bottom, after which it will rebound to a Dow of 10k or so before plummeting again, this time into the 3-digits territory. As I recall we last saw that in the 1960s when $$ was worth 10 times its current value.
rrapt
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 8:27 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:50 pm

.

AIG-Goldman Axis

Very mild shock: NYT editorial page slams AIG bailout, connects it to Goldman-Sachs as beneficiary and main influence at Treasury. Concludes however with idiotic idea of "nationalization" as a temporary takeover to "restructure" (pass the liabilities on to the taxpayer) and send "smaller, healthier" units out to do all the lending "the economy" supposedly needs (more debt! more interest burden! Yah!).

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/opini ... .html?_r=1


Editorial
The Never-Ending Bailout

Published: March 2, 2009

Americans awoke to the news on Monday that federal officials had spent yet another feverish weekend concocting yet another bailout. This time, the Obama Treasury Department — sounding a lot like the Bush Treasury Department — promised another $30 billion to the American International Group, the giant insurer.

It was the fourth time since September that taxpayers have been called upon to rescue A.I.G. from collapse. It brings the bailout commitment for that one company to some $160 billion.

In a joint statement with the Federal Reserve on Monday, the Treasury justified the move, saying that “the potential cost to the economy and the taxpayer of government inaction would be extremely high.”

That’s a textbook rationale for any bailout. What no one is saying — the Bush folks wouldn’t, and the Obama team seems to have taken the same vow of Wall Street omertà — is which firms would be most threatened by an A.I.G. collapse. The Treasury and the Federal Reserve noted in their statement that A.I.G. is a “significant counterparty to a number of major financial institutions.”

That means that by enabling A.I.G. to avert bankruptcy proceedings, the taxpayer is also bailing out — whom exactly?

Not knowing is not acceptable. At this stage of a deepening crisis, no one is arguing that the government should let A.I.G. collapse into a disorderly bankruptcy. It is too interconnected. During the housing bubble, it used unregulated derivatives to insure mortgage securities that turned out to be toxic — without putting aside reserves in case it had to pay up. If it now went under, there could be a chain of catastrophic defaults among banks that hold the securities and related investments.

The A.I.G. bailouts fail the basic test of transparency: Who ends up with the money? Major financial institutions are not innocent victims of A.I.G.’s demise. They are sophisticated investors, and they should have known the risks being taken — and who profited mightily from the relationship before it all came crashing down.

Whomever the recipients are, they should be investigated for their roles in the crash and, to the extent possible, be made to pay for the bailouts.

The serial A.I.G. bailouts are especially problematic for their connection to the Wall Street bank Goldman Sachs. At the time of the first A.I.G. rescue last fall, it was reported by Gretchen Morgenson in The Times that Goldman was A.I.G.’s largest trading partner, with some $20 billion of business tied into the insurer. Goldman has said that its exposure to risk from A.I.G. was offset, or hedged, by other investments.

What is certain is that Goldman has lots of friends in high places — yet one more reason why this bailout has to be as transparent as possible. Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman’s chief executive, was the only Wall Street executive at a September meeting at the New York Federal Reserve to discuss the initial A.I.G. bailout. Also involved in the discussion was the then head of the New York Fed, Timothy Geithner, who is now President Obama’s Treasury secretary.

It is also painfully clear that more of the same black-hole bailouts are failing to restore stability or confidence. Stock markets worldwide tanked on Monday. A growing chorus of economists and commentators — including this page — are urging the Obama administration to adopt a more comprehensive solution: a government-run restructuring, or nationalization.

The government would not only take an ownership stake in firms that require extensive and ongoing bailouts — as it has done with A.I.G. and Citigroup — but also direct control of the weakest ones. It would get a realistic assessment of the assets crippling them and revamp their finances before returning them to the private sector, where they would be smaller and healthier and could start lending again.

We know that many Americans are uncomfortable with the word nationalization — politicians even more so. But each new bailout of old losers only feeds mistrust of the government and weakens public support for the even tougher decisions to come.



& Bernanke Pitches for up to $750 Billion More Bailout

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... refer=home

Bernanke Says U.S. May Need to Expand Bank Rescue (Update1)


By Craig Torres and Scott Lanman


March 3 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said policy makers may need to expand aid to the banking system beyond the $700 billion already approved and take other aggressive measures even at the cost of soaring fiscal deficits.

“Without a reasonable degree of financial stability, a sustainable recovery will not occur,” the Fed chairman said today in testimony prepared for the Senate Budget Committee. “Although progress has been made on the financial front since last fall, more needs to be done.”

Bernanke’s comments suggest he sees a role for bigger federal outlays as the Obama administration seeks congressional approval for a budget of $3.55 trillion for the fiscal year beginning in October. President Barack Obama has already signed into a law a $787 billion economic stimulus package of tax cuts and government spending.

Obama’s first budget seeks standby authority for as much as $750 billion in new aid to the financial industry. Whether those funds will be needed “depends on the results of the current supervisory assessment of banks” and the evolution of the economy, Bernanke said.

Bernanke said policy makers would have “preferred to avoid” what is likely to be the largest ratio of federal debt compared with gross domestic product since the end of World War II, and he urged lawmakers not to lose sight of fiscal discipline.

Cost to Budget

“But our economy and financial markets face extraordinary challenges,” and doing less now would eventually prove to be more costly, he said. “We are better off moving aggressively today to solve our economic problems; the alternative could be a prolonged episode of stagnation” that would cause budget deficits to swell further, increase unemployment and undermine incomes “for an extended period.”

The Fed has more than doubled its assets to $1.9 trillion during the past year by expanding loans to banks, launching programs to revive commercial paper and other markets and backing the merger of Bear Stearns Cos. with JPMorgan Chase & Co.

The 55-year-old Fed chairman told the Senate Banking Committee last week there’s a “reasonable prospect” the recession will end in 2009 “if the actions taken by the administration, the Congress and the Federal Reserve are successful in restoring some measures of financial stability.”

Stock Slump

Fed policy makers face headwinds from equity markets, with the Standard and Poor’s 500 Index falling this year by 22.5 percent and the S&P Financials Index tumbling 44.2 percent.

The government is still trying to stabilize large financial institutions such as Citigroup Inc. and insurer American International Group Inc. Shares of Citigroup traded at $1.33 this morning at 9:33 a.m., and the government expanded its aid to AIG yesterday after the company reported a fourth-quarter loss of $61.7 billion, the worst loss by any U.S. corporation.

The spending blueprint delivered to Congress last month forecasts government spending this year of $3.94 trillion, up 32 percent from a year ago. That would yield a record deficit of $1.75 trillion in the year ending Sept. 30, equal to about 12 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, the highest since World War II. Government spending of $3.55 trillion next year will include about $350 billion approved as part of the stimulus package.

Stimulus Impact

“By supporting public and private spending, the fiscal package should provide a boost to demand and production over the next two years as well as mitigate the overall loss of employment and income that would otherwise occur,” Bernanke said.

Still, the size of the impact on the economy from government spending is “subject to considerable uncertainty,” Bernanke said. Consumers may decide to pay down debt or save their cash rather than spend it, he noted.

January forecasts by Fed officials suggest “a full recovery of the economy from the current recession is likely to take more than two or three years,” Bernanke told lawmakers last week.

The U.S. unemployment rate rose to 7.6 percent in January, the highest level since 1992. Job losses spanned almost all industries from trucking and construction to retailing and finance.

Fed officials expect unemployment in the fourth quarter to average 8.5 percent to 8.8 percent, which would be the highest since 1983, according to their January forecasts. Gross domestic product will contract 1.3 percent to 0.5 percent, and inflation will run at just 0.3 percent to 1 percent this year, their projections indicate.

Fed Forecasts

Fed officials don’t see labor markets improving until 2011, when growth forecast at 3.8 percent to 5 percent reduces the unemployment rate to a range of 6.7 percent to 7.5 percent.

Economic models used by Macroeconomic Advisers LLC show the Obama stimulus package could keep the jobless rate at about 8.8 percent instead of the 9.5 percent rate that would result without the package.

The Fed is stepping up efforts to stem the worst credit crisis in seven decades by expanding a program aimed at supporting consumer and business loans to $1 trillion from $200 billion and adding commercial real estate. It is also buying $600 billion of debt sold by government-backed housing finance companies and mortgage-backed securities they guarantee.

To contact the reporters on this story: Craig Torres in Washington at ctorres3@bloomberg.net; Scott Lanman in Washington at slanman@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: March 3, 2009 10:08 EST
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby nathan28 » Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:46 pm

rrapt wrote:According to George on Urban Survival, the market is (probably) on its predicted swoop to a (false) bottom, after which it will rebound to a Dow of 10k or so before plummeting again, this time into the 3-digits territory. As I recall we last saw that in the 1960s when $$ was worth 10 times its current value.


As a recovering George Ure reader, I'm going to ask: do you trust this call enough to trade on it?
User avatar
nathan28
 
Posts: 2957
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:48 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Tue Mar 03, 2009 2:35 pm

.

Jane Hamsher on the prowl for "New Democrats" and their gutting of banking regulation and debt writedown proposals. One of'em, Maloney, is my rep. (I very much wanted to see her get the Senate seat so I could run for Congress!)

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/03/03-8

CommonDreams.org

Published on Tuesday, March 3, 2009 by Huffington Post

Ellen Tauscher (D-BofA) Helps Bank Lobbyists Write Our Laws

by Jane Hamsher

I've talked to probably a dozen people involved with the bill allowing bankruptcy judges to write-down mortgages, which would reduce foreclosures by 20% and wouldn't cost the taxpayers one dime. Every single person I spoke to said the same thing -- it's disgusting that banks are writing the legislation, watering it down so it is meaningless with the help of Ellen Tauscher and the New Democrat coalition.

On Saturday I wrote about the efforts of former Wall Street investment banker Tauscher to gut the legislation on behalf of banks, who are holding out hope that they can unload their bad loans on taxpayers and never have to take responsibility for their mistakes.

I promptly got a call from Jonathan Kaplan, Tauscher's press secretary, who said that the New Dem's Executive Director Adam Pase, a former lobbyist for predatory lenders who worked to undermine regulation of subprime loans, was not working on this issue. Nor, he claimed, was Tauscher taking the lead. He said Tauscher was only trying to help homeowners before they got to bankruptcy court, and wasn't trying to weaken anything.

Lo and behold, this morning we find not one but two articles where Tauscher brags about her leadership of an effort to "limit the scope of the bankruptcy bill as much as possible," saying that "it shows we have bench strength, and it shows we can flex." Adam Pace was circulating memos on the bill, and an article in Roll Call this morning (subscription) states that he is "widely credited with bringing a sharp organizational focus that has reinvigorated the group."

The upshot? Nancy Pelosi "buckled" and suspended consideration of the housing bill at a time when it is desperately needed.

(You can tell Speaker Pelosi to stand up to Tauscher, the New Dems, the banks and the lobbyists here.)

Business week also has an article detailing the way that banks are dictating how this legislation is being written. Lobbyist money is flowing into the coffers of Tauscher's New Dems, and nobody on the Hill even bothers to pretend that they are doing anything but representing corporate interests over those of the people who elected them.

New Democrats Bill Foster, Gabby Giffords, Shelly Berkley, Brian Baird, Melissa Bean, Patrick Murphy, John Larson, Dennis Moore and Jim Moran represent districts that will be the hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis. Caroline Maloney and Ed Perlmutter are not on the list, but they are New Dems who have been vocal in their support for Tauscher's efforts.)

How do they explain to their constituents that thousands of homes will go into foreclosure in each of their respective districts without this legislation, dragging the value of other properties in the area with them in an endless downward spiral? Do they really think voters won't notice that they are aligned with the financial services industry against them? You can write a letter to the editor of your local paper letting them know you'll be watching your representative's vote here.

Bank lobbyists worked through Tauscher and others to keep mortgage write-down from happening in 2007, when it could have been really helpful in softening the economic blow. How can Tauscher claim that there's anything "moderate" about working on behalf of the bankers who created this crisis? How do the New Dems justify tying the hands of bankruptcy judges when both Barack Obama and leading economists say it's vital to arresting the economic crisis?

When Democrats were given the keys to Congress and the White House, nobody did so with the idea that they should become the new recipients of K-Street lobbyist money, fattening their own coffers while the public suffers. The idea that they are being "fiscally responsible" is laughable.
© 2009 Huffington Post

Jane Hamsher is the founder of firedoglake.com. Her work has also appeared on The Daily Beat, AlterNet, The Nation and The American Prospect.

COMMENTS:

karlof1 March 3rd, 2009 11:48 am
New Democrat sounds like Old Republican to me. I bet Tauscher can't be recalled by her constituents--a massive democracy deficit and sign of failure of the federal government. We must have mechanisms that allow for the recall of congresspeople who clearly violate the public's interest, as is the case here, and we must eliminate the "need" for continuous "campaign contributions" by having 100% publicly funded elections that mandate free political ads and such.

OldUncleDave March 3rd, 2009 11:39 am
Welcome to the administration of change. All the change the corporations will allow.

herbert r chersonsky March 3rd, 2009 11:33 am
They just change their hats......Almost everyone in the U.S. Congress is there to benefit themselves.....If it isn't Pelosi's husband making money on tuna fish and a relationship that is tied to American Samoa then it is Senator Feinstein's husband, Richard Blum, making billions with contracts with the Department of Defense.........It's ex-congressman, generals, secretary of states etc. making millions from U.S. Government contracts and lobby groups....
When President Obama says, "I want to lower the 1.2 trillion dollar debt," I laugh......He has yet to say "Our National Debt is 10.7 Trillion Dollars and it will be 11.9 trillion dollars by the end of 2009!" This is a mess and everyone who is making over 1 million dollars has to start paying a 50% tax on everything over 1 million with no deductions or itemizations.
It is a mess because Wall Steet and the Military Industrial Complex all got greedy at the same time and they have not stopped to look at what they have done to this country......Not one of them is a patriot, the term has been misused since the murder of almost 3,000 people on 9/11......Lobby groups, congressmen, and the Executive Branch have all lost focus.......End the Invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, neither of them attacked the United States.......bring the soldiers home and put them to work building America not destroying other countries and making greedy people richer.
Why aren't people like Joseph Sitglitz and Paul Krugman doing the advising instead of the same people that got the United States into this mess?
Ethics? None Morality? None Greed and corruption wins it all.

Dammerung March 3rd, 2009 11:51 am
That Nobel-prize winning jackass Krugman DID get us into this mess. Krugman told us to steer right for that iceberg, the hull is impenetrable!
How about taking advice from the people who predicted it and told us how to avoid it - Mises, Hayek, and Rockwell?

Dammerung March 3rd, 2009 11:19 am
This constitutes treason and we should bring out the gallows.

raydelcamino March 3rd, 2009 12:02 pm
Every day that Obama allows the financial industry to remain out of control results in the economic freefall accelerating.
Obama's "team" is 100% insiders. Every one of them has blood on their hands, they were all complicit in causing the financial meltdown and are complicit in continuing to lavish taxpayers' money on their conspirators in the financial industry.
How much worse does it need to get before all the suckers (who sent the Obama campaign money) realize that until they all head for DC and set up camp in front of the Capitol and White House, Obama will continue to pander to the corporations that gave him millions, not the suckers that gave him chump change ?

CommonDreams.org is an Internet-based progressive news and grassroots activism organization, founded in 1997.
We are a nonprofit, progressive, independent and nonpartisan organization.
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.


© Copyrighted 1997-2009
www.commondreams.org
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby rrapt » Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:26 pm

Nathan28..."As a recovering George Ure reader, I'm going to ask: do you trust this call enough to trade on it?"

No I don't; I posted his prediction only as part of the discussion. Thing is nobody knows and nobody can make accurate predictions; only educated guesses, some of which can be dead wrong. So I mix & match to the best of my ability. What angers me is that I never thought I'd have to be my own financial adviser, for the reason that absolutely nobody- nada - in the business of advising has been right or even close to it. All wrong. Oh sorry we made a lil miscalculation, but you'll earn it all back, just you wait & see. NOT.

I like George because he recognizes as I do, that money is tricky stuff; easy to lose if you play with it, especially as it is designed to lose value over time. Rough number: a dollar now is worth about 6% of its 1913 value. And right now dropping faster than ever.

So I tend to snuggle in to the concept of self-sufficiency, where you keep life's essentials close at hand and don't depend on a job, or a bank, or a grocery store. You learn to use tools and local materials, and you keep something handy for bartering. Then if we get back to a burgeoning consumer economy, no great loss; I can consume again, but if not, I don't starve.
rrapt
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2005 8:27 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Penguin » Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:19 pm

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/03/03/wh ... buy-w.html

CNN's Peter Wilkinson has been running the numbers on AIG's record-smashing $62 billion quarterly loss, the largest corporate loss in history (AIG lost about $460,000 per minute in the last quarter). In addition to being sufficient to carpet an area the size of Baghdad in $1 bills, $62 billion is enough to:
1. It could pay off the combined national debts of China, Australia, Mexico and Ukraine, according to 2008 estimates by the CIA Factbook, and still have plenty left over for a good night out.

3. Britain's Queen Elizabeth II might not be moving any time soon, but the money could buy 46 Buckingham Palaces, according to a 2008 estimate of its market value by the Daily Telegraph newspaper. And still leave some remaining to buy her weekend retreat, Windsor Castle.

9. AIG lost $460,000 per minute -- which would pay about half the annual pension of former RBS chief executive Fred Goodwin.
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Penguin » Tue Mar 03, 2009 9:21 pm

rrapt wrote:Nathan28..."As a recovering George Ure reader, I'm going to ask: do you trust this call enough to trade on it?"

No I don't; I posted his prediction only as part of the discussion. Thing is nobody knows and nobody can make accurate predictions; only educated guesses, some of which can be dead wrong. So I mix & match to the best of my ability. What angers me is that I never thought I'd have to be my own financial adviser, for the reason that absolutely nobody- nada - in the business of advising has been right or even close to it. All wrong. Oh sorry we made a lil miscalculation, but you'll earn it all back, just you wait & see. NOT.

I like George because he recognizes as I do, that money is tricky stuff; easy to lose if you play with it, especially as it is designed to lose value over time. Rough number: a dollar now is worth about 6% of its 1913 value. And right now dropping faster than ever.

So I tend to snuggle in to the concept of self-sufficiency, where you keep life's essentials close at hand and don't depend on a job, or a bank, or a grocery store. You learn to use tools and local materials, and you keep something handy for bartering. Then if we get back to a burgeoning consumer economy, no great loss; I can consume again, but if not, I don't starve.


Yeah. Thou my subsistence is far less under my own power than Id like it to be. Food and energywise.
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby Penguin » Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:28 am

http://www.cnbc.com/id/29476319/site/14081545

"Suppose AIG goes bankrupt, it is better that AIG goes bankrupt and we have a horrible two or three years than that the whole US goes bankrupt," Rogers said. "AIG has trillions of dollars of obligations, let them fail, let the courts sort it out and start over. Otherwise we'll never start over."

On Monday, CEO Edward Liddy told CNBC that the insurer is far more stable and secure than it was last fall but acknowledged that it was "difficult to say" if AIG will need even more money from the government in the future.

Bailing out the banks is going to increase the debt spiral and finally cause the destruction of the world's biggest economy, Rogers said.

* Slideshow: Origins of the Financial Crisis, Then and Now

"I think it's astonishing, they're ruining the US economy, they're ruining the US government, they're ruining the US central bank and they're ruining the US dollar," he said.

"You are watching something in front of our eyes, very historically, which is basically the destruction of New York as a financial center and the destruction of America as the world's most powerful country."

Japan's economic "lost decade" was caused by trying to bail out the banks, and the West risks running out of money if it doesn't let the bad banks fail now, Rogers warned.

Systemic risk is going to be the same in 10 months, 5 years of 10 years if the fundamental problem is not solved, he added.

Credit Crisis
CNBC.com
Credit Crisis

"The idea that you have too much debt, too much borrowing and too much consumption and you're going to solve that problem with more debt, more consumption and more borrowing? These people are nuts."

Wall Street and the City of London are going to be "disastrous" for years, like in the 1950s and 1960s, and in 30 years, finance will "dry up and wither away" as we are entering a "long period of hard times," he said.

"Power is shifting now from the money shifters, the guys who trade paper and money, to people who produce real goods. What you should do is become a farmer, or start a farming network," Rogers said.
Penguin
 
Posts: 5089
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2007 5:56 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:33 pm

.

Friedman's Flat-Earth Fortune Flattened!

I read a factoid about Thomas Friedman in Harper's Index that made the crisis seem 97% worthwhile.

Friedman's wife, Ann, is a graduate of Stanford University and the London School of Economics.[2] Her father, Matthew Bucksbaum, was the chairman of the board of General Growth Properties, the real estate development group that he co-founded with his brother in 1954. The Bucksbaums helped pioneer the development of shopping centers in the United States.[3] As of 2007, Forbes estimated the Bucksbaum family's assets at $4.1 billion, including about 18.6 million square meters of mall space.[4] In late 2008 the value of the heavily leveraged firm plummeted and the company was threatened with bankruptcy; Ann's brother John resigned as CEO, ending family executive control of General Growth Properties. In its February 2009 issue, Harper's Magazine (based on information from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission) estimated that the value of the Bucksbaum family fortune shrank by 97 percent since December 2007. [5]


Seeing this associated with the proudly ignorant globalist blowhard for 5th graders Friedman (even if it presumably wasn't related to his "flat-world" advice) is even better than what happened to the "Cramer 2000" index. Too bad this means they've still got something like $130 million, which would have probably been most of the real money anyway (the rest being bad bets with leveraged debts and absurdist valuations of whatever bubbly scam-assets they were running).

Above is from his wikipedia page, which probably not for much longer will introduce him as follows: "Friedman is known for being one of the most biased pro-Israel propagandists in the country. He was an ardent supporter of the invasion of Iraq. Later when it was obvious that the Iraq war was turning into a disaster, Friedman began back peddling his position."

.
Last edited by JackRiddler on Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:39 pm

Sanders v. Bernanke!

http://uk.reuters.com/article/americasR ... 03?sp=true

UPDATE 1-U.S. senator wants Fed to name loan recipients
Tue Mar 3, 2009 8:29pm GMT

Email | Print | Share | Single Page
[-] Text [+]

(Adds details on proposed legislation)

WASHINGTON, March 3 (Reuters) - A U.S. senator berated Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke on Tuesday for refusing to name banks that borrow from the central bank and introduced legislation that would require public disclosure.

In a testy exchange at a hearing before the Senate Budget Committee, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who usually votes with the Democrats, said he found it "unacceptable" that the central bank risked taxpayer money without detailing where the funds went.

"My question to you is, will you tell the American people to whom you lent $2.2 trillion of their dollars?" Sanders asked, referring to the size of the Fed's balance sheet.

Bernanke responded that the Fed explains the various lending programs on its website, and details the terms and collateral requirements.

When Sanders pressed on whether Bernanke would name the firms that borrowed from the Fed, the central bank chairman replied, "No," and started to say that doing so risked stigmatizing banks and discouraging them from borrowing from the central bank.

"Isn't that too bad," Sanders interrupted, cutting him off. "They took the money but they don't want to be public about the fact that they received it."

According to the text of the proposed legislation, e-mailed by Sanders' staff, he wants the central bank to identify any firm that has received financial assistance since March 24, 2008, including details on the type of borrowing, amount, date, terms and the Fed's rationale for lending.

Sanders wants the Fed to publish those details on its website and update them at least every 30 days.

At the hearing, the senator said businesses in his state were in trouble and needed loans, but were not permitted to borrow from the Fed.

"Do you have to be a large, greedy, reckless financial institution to apply for this money?" he asked.

Bernanke said the Fed's lending programs were not gifts or subsidies but rather over-collateralized loans. He said the law restricted the types of firms to which the central bank can lend.

"We have never lost a penny doing it," he said.


You also never lent trillions in the middle of the Millennium Meltdown to banks rendered insolvent by their own fraudulent schemes.


Sanders responded: "Let me just say this, Mr. Chairman. I have a hard time understanding how you have put $2.2 trillion at risk without making those names available, those institutions public."

"It is unacceptable to me that that this goes on," he added. (Reporting by Emily Kaiser, Editing by Dan Grebler)


© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved.


http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/84262/

Sanders grills Bernanke on bank bailout

Tuesday March 3, 2009
Ross Sneyd

Washington, DC

(Host) Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke got a grilling ( today / on Tuesday ) from Senator Bernie Sanders during an appearance before the Senate Banking Committee.

Sanders was angry that Bernanke hasn't disclosed what banks have borrowed from the Federal Reserve.

Here's a sample of their give-and-take.

Sanders: ``Will you tell the American people to whom you lent $2.2 trillion of their dollars?''

Bernanke: ``We explain each of our programs. In terms of our terms, we explain the terms exactly. We explain what the collateral ...''

Sanders: ``To whom did you explain that?''

Bernanke: ``It's on our Web site.''

Sanders: ``Yeah, OK.''

Bernanke: ``So all that information is available ...'

Sanders: ``And who got the money?''

Bernanke: ``Hundreds and hundreds of banks. Any bank that has access to the U.S. Federal Reserve's discount ...''

Sanders: ``Will you tell us who they are?''

Bernanke: ``No, because the reason that is counterproductive and will destroy the value of the program is that banks will not come to ... ‘'

Sanders: ``Isn't that too bad. ... In other words isn't that too bad. They took the money but they don't want to be public about the fact that they received it. We heard a whole lot about AIG. They're on the front pages.''

Bernanke: ``These are very sharp ...''

Sanders: ``I've got banks and I have businesses in the state of Vermont who are in a lot of trouble. Not banks. Our banks, by the way, are doing pretty well. Now how do these guys who are honest business people get it. Do you have to be a large, greedy, reckless financial institution to apply for these moneys?''

(Host) Bernanke says banks that get Federal Reserve loans are actually in good shape.

Sanders isn't satisfied. He introduced a bill that would require the Fed to disclose banks that get loans.


© Copyright 2008, VPR

This is the online edition of VPR News. Text versions of VPR news stories may be updated and they may vary slightly from the broadcast version.


Relevant to above is the latest by Mike Whitney:

March 4, 2009
How Securitization Lit the Fuse
Blowing Up the Economy


By MIKE WHITNEY

"Nothing we do for banks is for banks. It's all for the benefit of the people that depend on banks -- the businesses, the families, the students -- that require credit in order to do things that are important to their future."

--Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, PBS Jim Lehrer News Hour

This isn't a normal recession. In a normal recession aggregate demand declines, economic activity slows, and GDP shrinks. While those things are taking place now, the reasons are quite different. The present slump wasn't brought on by a downturn in the business cycle or a mismatch in supply and demand. It was caused by a meltdown in the credit system's central core. That's the main difference. Wall Street's credit-generating mechanism, securitization, has broken down cutting off roughly 40 percent of the credit that had been flowing into the economy. As a result, consumer demand has collapsed, inventories are growing, and manufacturing has contracted for the 13th consecutive month. The equities markets are in freefall and all the economic indicators are pointed south. The so called "shadow banking system" which provided wholesale funding for mortgages, car loans, student loans, and credit card debt, has stopped functioning entirely.

Journalist David K Richards describes the modern credit system in his article "Humpty Dumpty Finance":

"To begin, it is important to recognize how Wall St. has transformed the bank-based credit system, which existed in the 1930's and prevailed until the mid-1990's, into the 'modern' securities-based credit system we have today. Non-bank sources currently supply more than half the credit needs of businesses and consumers. This transformation in the way credit is supplied has made it difficult for the Federal Reserve to reignite credit growth through massive expansion of the Federal Reserve balance sheet, which was the supposed 1930's style antidote. The old-style banking system, in which banks kept the loans they made on their balance sheets, would have responded quickly to Bernanke's interest rate cuts and aggressive injections of excess reserves. But banks today no longer keep most of the credits they underwrite on their own balance sheets, nor do they keep them in the form of individual loans. Instead, banks gather credits together to form asset-based or mortgage-based bonds which they then distribute or sell to pension funds, insurance companies, banks, hedge funds, and other investors worldwide. ("Humpty Dumpty Finance" David K Richards, Huffington Post)

This new "securities-based" credit system emerged almost entirely in the last decade and had never been stress-tested to see if it could withstand normal market turbulence. As it happens, it couldn't survive the battering. The market for mortgage-backed bonds and other securitized investments disintegrated at the first whiff of grapeshot. As soon as subprime foreclosures began to rise, investors fled the market en masse and securitization hit the canvas. Now the wholesale funding for MBS and other consumer loans has slowed to a trickle. That means that housing prices will continue to crash dragging the stock market behind it.

The Fed and Treasury are determined to revive securitization. They're planning to provide $1 trillion for the so-called "public-private partnership" and the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF). The money is a taxpayer-provided subsidy for a deeply-flawed system which is inherently unstable. Consider this: subprime mortgages were only defaulting at a rate of 6 percent when the entire market for securitized investments folded like a house of cards. The Fed and Treasury are wasting their time trying to fix a dysfunctional system instead of focusing on debt relief for underwater homeowners and struggling working people. That's where the money needs to be spent

It's no surprise that the banks were big players in the securitization racket. Converting mortgages and other debts into securities has many perks including transfer of risk, a reduction in funding costs, lower capital requirements and additional liquidity. Banks can actually create a security and then sell it to itself at a profit in what amounts to an "in house" transaction. There are also considerable benefits from maintaining off-balance sheets operations which, through the magic of modern accounting, allow loans to be held as assets that don't require the same capital reserves as conventional mortgages. All this sleight-of-hand increases the amount of credit that banks can balance on smaller and smaller morsels of capital.

The financial sector now represents 40 percent of GDP, which is to say that the exchange of paper claims to wealth is the driving force behind economic growth. The production of useful things, that actually improve people's lives and raise the standard of living, has been replaced by the trading of complex debt instruments and opaque derivative contracts. Securitization is at the very heart of Wall Street's Ponzi-finance scam. It creates profits by transforming liabilities into "cash flow" which can be sold at market. Bottom line: Factories and manufacturing are out. Toxic paper and garbage loans are in.

As ringleader of the banking fraternity, the Federal Reserve has a big stake in securitization and would like to see it succeed. Bernanke's job is to provide the liquidity and capital that's needed to put the credit markets back in order. To that end, Bernanke has spared no expense to underwrite all of the toxic loans which have presently brought the financial system to its knees. According to Bloomberg:

"The U.S. government has pledged more than $11.6 trillion on behalf of American taxpayers over the past 19 months, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Changes from the previous table, published Feb. 9, include a $787 billion economic stimulus package. The Federal Reserve has new lending commitments totaling $1.8 trillion. It expanded the Term Asset-Backed Lending Facility, or TALF, by $800 billion to $1 trillion and announced a $1 trillion Public-Private Investment Fund to buy troubled assets from banks. The U.S. Treasury also added $200 billion to its support commitment for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac…” (Bloomberg News)

There's literally no end to the Fed's generosity when it comes to providing for its friends on Wall Street. Only a small portion of Bernanke's largesse was bestowed with proper congressional authorization. Bernanke simply doesn't care if the public sees him as the unelected oligarch that he really is.

Securitization soared between 2003 and 2006 when US current account deficit skyrocketed to nearly $800 billion per year. That's when "America's banks discovered that they could borrow money cheaply from Asia and lend it out in higher-yielding domestic mortgages while using sophisticated financial engineering to wall off and strictly control their risks." (Brad Delong) The US was consuming $800 billion more per year than it was producing, but the damage remained invisible because foreign governments and investors were recycling their savings back into US Treasuries, GSE bonds (Fannie Mae), and mortgage-backed securities (MBS). It was a windfall for Wall Street that put the investment banks and hedge funds deep in the clover. A number of economists sounded the alarm, saying that the burgeoning account imbalances were unsustainable, but the business media just brushed them off as Chicken Littles. Now, foreign investment has slowed, the credit markets are frozen, real estate is retreating and $40 trillion of wealth has drained from the global equities markets. The tremors from Wall Street's mortgage-laundering swindle have rippled through the broader economy causing an unprecedented contraction in retail, imports, durable goods, transports, high tech, electronics, and cyclicals. The unemployment roles have mushroomed while asset prices have continue to plummet. The Dow has dropped 54 percent from its peak and is sliding inexorably towards 6,000. Pessimism abounds.

The economy is now caught in a deflationary downdraft. The sharp decline in asset prices is making it more difficult for businesses to roll over loans. Without financing, tens of thousands of businesses will default. Bernanke assumed it would be easy to reflate the bubble economy by increasing the money supply. Now he knows he was wrong; the printing presses haven't worked. The Fed's trillions are sitting in stagnant pools on bank balance sheets rather than churning through the credit markets. Monetary policy has failed; velocity is down and capital injections have not stabilized the financial system.

The TALF and "public-private partnership" is just more grasping at straws; another attempt to stop the debt deflation by trying to rev up securitization. It won't work. Bernanke and Geithner still don't understand the main problem, which is the explosion of private debt.


Of course they do! They're just not going to draw the same conclusion as to what needs to be done, because they're the lead banksters.

Consumers are tapped out and easy credit won't help. Homeowners just lost 28 percent of their home equity in the last two years and more than half of their retirement (401K). They are much poorer than they thought and they need to increase their savings fast. What most people need is a reduction in the face value of their mortgage and a write down on their other main debts. Otherwise they will be forced to curtail spending and circle the wagons. That will trigger an even more precipitous decline. Have Bernanke and Geithner even considered how long the recession will last if the savings rate continues to rise at its present pace?

Until the two Bears Stearns hedge funds defaulted 19 months ago, securitization had been Wall Street's most reliable source of revenue; a real cash cow. It was the main reason that total mortgage debt jumped from $4.5 trillion in 1999 to $11 trillion in 2006; more than double in just 7 years. At the same time, the asset-backed securities (ABS) market, which packaged other types of business and consumer debt into securities, shot up by more than 500 percent to $4.5 trillion. Securitization turned out to be the Mother Lode. The torrent of surplus capital from the savings glut in the Far East (as well as "yield seeking" insurance companies, retirement funds and investment banks) turned mortgage-backed securities and other structured investments into a multi-trillion dollar industry. The process recycled revenue to mortgage originators where low interest rates and lax lending standards kept the volume of MBS high, but the quality low. It's clear now, that securitization created incentives for fraud by transferring credit risk from the originator of the loan to the investor. The originator makes his money on the volume of securities sold; the quality of the underlying mortgages is secondary. This week, the Wall Street Journal reported that 7 out of 10 subprime mortgages vintage 2006 will default. The failure rate proves that the system had deteriorated into little more than a scam.


Makes sense that the dumbest deals were done at the tail-end of the scam.

It was securitization and the 25 to 1 leveraging of toxic assets at the hedge funds, investment banks and private equity firms, that brought on the current financial crisis. When trouble broke out in the subprimes, the secondary market shut down, and the flow of credit from nonbank financial institutions dried up. Unfortunately, the real economy has become addicted to easy credit and sky-high asset prices. Now that the bubble has burst, the phony prosperity of the Bush years has been wiped out in one fell swoop. The stock market has plunged to its 1996 level and housing prices are returning to the mean. The question now should be, do we really want to restore a crisis-prone credit-generating system (securitization) by providing a $1 trillion subsidy to profit-oriented hucksters who are largely responsible for the current recession?


Almost short enough for a slogan, if not a bumper sticker!

As Barack Obama stated last week, "Credit is the economy's life-blood". It should distributed through government-owned and regulated financial institutions that operate as public utilities. Credit is everyone's business. It shouldn't be controlled by speculators.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com


.
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby jingofever » Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:53 pm

A Vanity Fair article on the collapse of Iceland. They are another casualty of Milton Friedman. It's a shame he didn't live to see this.
User avatar
jingofever
 
Posts: 2814
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:47 am

.

Spectacular presentation on "antisocialmedia.net," powerpoint slides attached to recorded audio of lecture delivered by

Judd Bagley at University of Texas, Feb. 10, 2009:

- brief exposition of theory of how to get message across in media, placing different methodologies along two axes: greater or lesser control of message and greater or lesser involvement of receiver. For example: advertising allows total control of message, but at lesser audience involvement; PR has less control of message but greater audience involvement. New social media of Web such as wikipedia can combine advantage on both axes and also produce extremely specific targeting (a third axis he adds). Very interesting. Dealing with a master at social marketing manipulation.

- Excellent explanation of short selling, covered and naked, legal and illegal.

- The role of illegal naked short selling by unidentified hedge funds in the final downfall phases of Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros. In the earlier case of Bear, Lehman actually brokered many of the naked shorts, while Fuld later complained about the pratice when he was hauled up in front of Congress (cannibal culture at work).

- Patrick Byrne (overstock.com) predicting the financial meltdown repeatedly for exactly the reasons it happened as far back as 2005, subjected to a defamation campaign by NY Post and later one Gary Weiss. Byrne was on a crusade specifically against naked short selling.

See: http://www.deepcapture.com/deep-capture ... planation/

- explanation of DTCC, most important and largest institution most people have never heard of (it does the daily clearing of nearly all stock trades and thus at any moment effectively holds all the stock!)

- How DTCC organized Weiss and NY Post as its shock troops against Byrne, and how Weiss using many, many sock puppets effectively gave his book many positive reviews on Amazon and wrote his own wikipedia entries.

- The saga of Slimvirgin the 24-hour Wikipedia editor, which makes me glad I've never had the wikipedia bug and look forward to the day when it is completely and universally discredited as a source on all matters of politics or current events.

- Incredible sleuthing - this part was as gripping as any detective novel - how Bagley figured out all of Weiss's sock puppets, fought an incredible online struggle against Weiss and Slimvirgin and Jimbo Wales Himself, who attempted to create a category of thoughtcrime on wikipedia and even to accept the creation of an "anti-Semitic person" label for biographies (which was going to be applied to Byrne). At one point wikipedia actually banned Bagley's whole neighborhood!

- How he ended up establishing that Weiss was doing the dirty PR work for DTCC in the matter of defending naked short selling and bringing Weiss down for sock-puppetry on wikipedia.

- Really kind of inspiring because I love well-done research that proves itself through logic.

CHECK IT OUT!

http://antisocialmedia.net/lecture1/player.html
Last edited by JackRiddler on Thu Mar 05, 2009 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to Political

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest