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

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

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

Postby JackRiddler » Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:49 pm

The Script to The International wrote:
Calvini: "No, this is not about making profit from weapon sales. It's about control."

Eleanor: "Control the flow of weapons, control the conflict?"

Calvini: "No. No No. The IBBC is a bank. Their objective isn't to control the conflict, it's to control the debt that the conflict produces. You see, the real value of a conflict - the true value - is in the debt that it creates. You control the debt, you control everything. You find this upsetting, yes? But this is the very essence of the banking industry, to make us all, whether we be nations or individuals, slaves to debt."


We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

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

Pro Deficit Keynesianism in a Nutshell

Postby JackRiddler » Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:21 pm

Current post at the recommended http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com/

Mike Norman wrote:Tuesday, June 15, 2010

The Buzz: Why China keeps on buying U.S. debt


Here's how the media and most of the economic mainstream perceive foreign buying of U.S. Treasuries...

"China added to its big position in U.S. debt during the month of April, according to the latest figures from the Treasury Department.

So did Japan. And the U.K. And the big bloc of oil exporting nations that includes Venezuela, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia. All told, foreigners increased their net holdings in Treasury bonds and notes by more than $76 billion.

What did you expect them to buy? Euros?"



Check out that last line: "What did you expect them to buy? Euros?"

The author is so confounded by the foreign buying of Treasuries (after all, the U.S. has HUGE debts and is about to receive a credit downgrade any day, at least that's how most of these guys think), that he's practically at a loss to explain the reason for all this buying. In the end he basically throws his hands up in the air and says it's because it's just worse everywhere else.

Pathetic reasoning.

There's one reason and one reason alone that China, Japan, Saudi Arabia and other countries buy Treasuries and that reason is, when the U.S. runs fiscal deficits those deficits add to the savings of the non-governmental sector (domestic and rest of the world) to the penny.

In other words, if the U.S. government rusns a $1.3 trillion deficit, then the non-government (domestic and rest of the world) took in $1.3 trillion in new money. That's how it works as a matter of accounting. Think about it, the government spent $1.3 trillion more than it took in. Where did that money go? Into the pockets of people here in the U.S. and around the world.

Foreigners as well as many Americans keep that money in Treasuries because it earns them a return. Operationaly, the way it works is that the dolars are simply switched from a checking account at the Fed (where they're held) to a savings account at the Fed, which is called, a Treasury. That's it!

So it's not because the U.S. is the best house in the worst neighborhood that the Chinese, Japanese, Saudis, Venezuelans and others buy Treauries, but rather, because fiscal deficits of the U.S. are equal but opposite to the surpluses of the private sector here and in the rest of the world. Government balances and private sector balances must sum to zero.

And they do.

THAT's the explanation


http://mikenormaneconomics.blogspot.com ... -debt.html

In my blogspot guise I responded:

Nicholas65 wrote:
SNIP

I shall also quote ... your latest post, if I may, because it's a very concise nutshell of modern Keynesian thinking.

It's just so contrary to what everyone's had drummed into them for so long that it also took me years to finally accept its validity, as simple as the concept actually is on its surface.

On the other hand, I don't think it tells the full story. Stimulus alone can't solve underlying economic rot. How it's invested is everything, and we've been making a mess of that for 30 years and far longer.

Much growth is actually illth (the opposite of wealth) - like that oily death spreading in the Gulf. (Whether it lands money in pockets or not.)

There are furthermore objective limits to growth placed by nature, and I think we're running up against some of them.

Nevertheless, there is an important truth in the idea that a deficit means more money in all pockets.

(Notwithstanding the price of debt service, but the US hasn't yet figured out to just issue zero percent bonds to itself. I mean, the banksters would think that terrible.)

And yet I expect a dollar meltdown anyway.

Because the markets are self-reflexive, meaning that they are both irrational and conscious of their irrationality (something also central to Keynes's thinking!).

Sooner or later market signals will be taken on the basis of classical deficit theory.

It will be considered that US debt is too high, deficits too high, and the Fed is buying too many treasuries. It will be an irresistible target for attack by the bond market arsonists, independently of fundamentals, just like Europe was.

And I warn you this attack will not be defended against but welcomed by the majority of the US ruling class as the necessary shock required for staging the austerity plans and the clearly-intended assault on "entitlements."

And keep in mind if China's buying today, they're doing it after substantial diversification in recent months. (Last I looked Japan had become the new No. 1 holder of US bonds.)

Unregulated international capital flows are the killer that no one wants to stop.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

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

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

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Jun 19, 2010 1:10 am

Okay, the following would seem to conflict with part of Vernochet's story. Obama arguing against austerity in Europe and even warns of the Officially Unthinkable, the "double dip recession" that "most economists" think highly unlikely (i.e., is inevitable and has already started). Of course, the call to maintain stimulus is also linked to the idea of policy rationalization across borders, which is more in line with what Vernochet says. Also note discussion of another Basel rules change and, at the end, bank taxes -- argument for global vs. national system. And, of course, it's time to Blame China, which also fits with moves toward a US-EU concordance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/19/busin ... nted=print
(Article reproduced here under fair-use provisions, with original link given, solely for non-commercial purposes of archiving, education and discussion.)

Obama Urges Europe Not to Drop Stimulus Measures Yet

June 18, 2010

By SEWELL CHAN

WASHINGTON — President Obama signaled on Friday that countries in Europe should not withdraw their extraordinary spending programs too quickly.

In a public letter to other leaders of the Group of 20 nations in advance of a summit meeting in Toronto next week, Mr. Obama wrote, “Our highest priority in Toronto must be to safeguard and strengthen the recovery.”

Mr. Obama also addressed currency exchange rates, which are likely to come up at the meeting, and repeated his support for market-based rates, a reference to views that China is holding down the value of its currency.

“This is obviously going to be an issue that we’ll continue to discuss,” a White House spokesman, Bill Burton, told reporters traveling with Mr. Obama to Ohio on Friday, according to the Associated Press.

Mr. Obama also wrote in the letter, “We must be flexible in adjusting the pace of consolidation and learn from the consequential mistakes of the past when stimulus was too quickly withdrawn and resulted in renewed economic hardships and recession.”

That statement represented a signal to Germany and other European countries, which have moved in recent weeks to pare spending, mindful of the wrenching consequences of excessive public debts in Greece, Portugal and Spain. The United States is trying to pare its own substantial deficit. Mr. Obama reiterated a pledge to cut the deficit, now about 10 percent of gross domestic product, in half by the 2013 fiscal year, and to 3 percent of G.D.P. by the 2015 fiscal year, a level he said would “stabilize the debt-to-G.D.P. ratio at an acceptable level” by then.

But American officials are concerned that fiscal retrenchment by too many countries at once could imperil the global recovery.

Mr. Obama warned of the risks of a double-dip recession, which most economists consider unlikely but not impossible.

“In fact, should confidence in the strength of our recoveries diminish, we should be prepared to respond again as quickly and as forcefully as needed to avoid a slowdown in economic activity,” he wrote.

The G-20 leaders’ summit meeting in Toronto marks a critical turning point for the group, which was convened in the final months of President George W. Bush’s administration to respond to the worldwide economic meltdown.

At subsequent meetings in London and Pittsburgh last year, the G-20 agreed to increase government spending, reform their financial systems, work toward more balanced global growth and avoid protectionist trade measures.

Balanced growth refers in the first instance to the large external surplus enjoyed by China, whose economy has grown enormously but remains reliant on foreign consumers. Even as Chinese incomes have risen, workers there have continued to save instead of spend, in large part because the social safety net has frayed.

While trying not to appear to be pressuring the Chinese, the Americans have urged China to increase domestic consumption, in part by allowing its currency, the renminbi, to appreciate, which would give Chinese consumers more spending power.

The letter did not mention countries or regions by name, but the implications of its language were clear. Mr. Obama wrote that “market-determined exchange rates are essential to global economic vitality” — a message to the Chinese, who have been accused of holding down the value of their currency to stimulate their export-oriented economy.

Anger in Congress has been mounting over China’s currency, trade and industrial policies. At the same time, many economists doubt that China will move to let its currency appreciate right away, because the recent decline in the value of the euro has effectively caused the renminbi to gain in value.

“The G-20 has shown impressive solidarity in the crisis phase, but as an uneven recovery begins, maintaining cohesion is becoming more difficult,” said Stewart M. Patrick, director of the Program on International Institutions and Global Governance at the Council on Foreign Relations. “The ‘fellowship of the lifeboat’ will be harder to maintain as the acute crisis passes — countries will be tempted to go their own ways.”

Mr. Patrick, a former State Department official, said Mr. Obama’s letter signaled a belief that the G-20 needed to focus on recovery as the immediate priority, correct imbalances between surplus and deficit countries, and agree on common financial regulations.

Even while Congress finalizes the merger of financial regulatory bills passed by the House and Senate, the United States is looking to the G-20 to lay down higher capital and liquidity standards for banks. The details of those standards will be worked out by an international regulatory body known as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, but a unified position from the G-20 is considered essential for that rule-making to move forward.

“The dangers, if countries go their own ways, are the rise of regulatory arbitrage — where firms go to where regulations are most lax — and some countries being put at a competitive disadvantage,” Mr. Patrick said. “In addition, the lack of common standards increases the level of systemic risk in the global financial system.”

Daniel M. Price, who was President Bush’s personal representative to the G-20, said the letter also indirectly reiterated American support for a global bank tax — a proposal that is supported by Britain, France and Germany but opposed by Canada, Japan, Australia and most big emerging market-countries.

“By invoking the need for a level playing field, the letter implicitly acknowledges that unilateral action on a bank tax could fracture the G-20’s unity and create unwanted distortions in competitive conditions,” said Mr. Price, a lawyer at Sidley Austin. “Some also believe that a bank tax will distract from the difficult work of developing new capital rules, cause credit to contract, and create a headwind to recovery.”

We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

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

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

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Jun 19, 2010 1:13 am

Veeeeerrry interesting - a move to throw open at least some audits, in the hope of a stabilization. Also there's our friend the BIS becoming visible again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/busin ... nted=print
(Article reproduced here under fair-use provisions, with original link given, solely for non-commercial purposes of archiving, education and discussion.)

E.U. Agrees to Publish Results of Stress Tests on Biggest Banks

June 17, 2010

By STEPHEN CASTLE and JACK EWING

BRUSSELS — The European Union agreed Thursday to publish the results of stress tests imposed on major, cross-border banks, a move aimed at restoring confidence in the health of the bloc’s financial sector.

The move would be accompanied by a pledge to show flexibility in applying rules limiting government aid to companies, according to an agreement reached at a summit meeting of E.U. leaders in Brussels.

That would allow European governments to move to recapitalize any banks deemed to be in trouble — before the publication of the stress-test results.

Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Council, confirmed the agreement, and said the stress test results would be published before the end of July.

“I think it’s good news,” said Nicolas Véron, an economist at Breugel, a research organization in Brussels. “Nations have come to the realization they couldn’t go on telling people everything was fine and giving no evidence.”

But the effect could be less reassuring than hoped. Mr. Van Rompuy said the agreement would apply “around 25” systemically important banks.

That means they would not shed light on the financial health of the hundreds of smaller savings or public-sector institutions which dominate the retail banking market in countries like Germany.

Those institutions, which fall under the jurisdiction of national authorities, are often fiercely opposed to attempts to force more disclosure. “Making stress tests public is counterproductive and could in certain cases lead to misperceptions in markets,” Karl-Heinz Boos, director of the Association of German Public Sector Banks, said in a statement.

Yet lingering doubts about their strength could even add to market pressures on some countries.

The draft text prepared by the European Commission president, José Manuel Barroso, called for publication of the test results on a “bank-by-bank basis” and pledged “sufficient flexibility” over E.U. state aid rules, to deal with any problems detected in a “timely manner.”

In effect, that would mean the European Commission waiving its strict rules on state aid, which are meant to guarantee a level playing field for companies across the 27-nation single market.

The text also made it clear that any bank recapitalization would be undertaken by national governments and not as part of a broader E.U. safety net for countries already struggling to deal with their massive debt.

The Europeans were hoping to go to a Group of 20 meeting in Toronto next week with a clear position on the transparency of stress test results.

Stress tests are designed to estimate the potential losses financial institutions could be facing under adverse circumstances, and therefore to prompt corrective action if appropriate.

The debate on publication of results resumed this week when Spain, which faces a lack of market confidence, promised to publish the results of its stress tests in a bid to calm investor worries. Germany indicated it, too, was in favor of more transparency.

But Mr. Boos at the Association of German Public Sector Banks said that stress tests could only be made public with permission of the banks, which none have given. The association represents banks accounting for about a quarter of the German market, including the state-owned Landesbanks which in several cases have already required multi-billion euro bailouts because of investments in securities tied to the U.S. subprime market and other toxic assets.

Mr. Véron predicted that evaluations of the large banks, along with plans by Spanish authorities to disclose results of their tests of domestic banks, will force other countries to follow suit and disclose the financial state of smaller institutions. “Once you have a benchmark for the first 25 banks, then this will have trigger effects,” he said.

One big risk is that some banks will prove to be weaker than has been publicly known, or even insolvent once forced to do a frank evaluation of their financial state. “It could be there will be some delicate moments in the process,” Mr. Véron said. “But it’s much better than the stonewalling we have had.”

French and German banks are the most exposed to debt from Spain, Greece, Portugal and Ireland, according to a report released Monday. French banks had lent $493 billion to businesses, households and governments in the four countries by the end of 2009 while German banks had lent $465 billion, according to the report by the Bank for International Settlements, an institution based in Basel, Switzerland, that acts as a clearing house for the world’s central banks.


Jack Ewing reported from Frankfurt.

We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

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

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

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Jun 19, 2010 1:21 am

One more round of interesting comments from Mike Norman's blog. I'm mixed on his views, but he's a corrective on my own leaning to think it's the dollar that will be crashing by the end of the year, in a move to force austerity and an assault on "entitlements."

There's also a video there of him on RT (the Russian news service), though I haven't watched it yet.

Mike Norman wrote:
Once again we must ask: ‘Who governs?’

"...Keynes argued that demand can fall short of supply, and that when this happened, government vice turned into virtue. In a slump, governments should increase, not reduce, their deficits to make up for the deficit in private spending. Any attempt by government to increase its saving (in other words, to balance its budget) would only worsen the slump. This was his “paradox of thrift”. The current stampede to thrift shows that the re-conversion to Keynes in the wake of the financial collapse of 2008 was only skin-deep: the first story remains deeply lodged in the minds of economists and politicians."

"But this story alone does not explain the conversion to austerity. Politicians clamouring for cuts in public spending do not cite Chicago University economists. They talk about the need to restore “confidence in the markets”. The argument here is that deficits do positive harm by destroying business confidence. This collapse of confidence may come in several forms – fear of higher taxes, fear of default, fear of inflation. Deficits thus delay the natural (and rapid) recovery of the economy. If markets have come to the view that deficits are harmful, they must be appeased, even if they are wrong. What market participants believe to be the case becomes the case, not because their beliefs are true, but because they act on their beliefs, true or false."


Perception is reality. Belief is not truth, but can be acted upon as if it were. That's the paradigm we are in and why our economic outlook can only worsen.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Sell stocks aggressively!!!

Spending cuts are now starting to bite. For the first time in years, we have a fiscal situation where the Federal Gov't is taking in more than it is spending. This is MAJOR FISCAL DRAG!!

In my daily analysis of the Treasury Statement, you can see that the Treasury's cash balance is positive year-over-year. This is a RARITY!!! It has only happened several times in the past and when it has...the market and economy have plunged!! (March 2000 and May 2007!)

Image
Treasury now taking in more money that it is recycling back into economy.
MAJOR FISCAL DRAG!!!

Image
Tax receipts are now above the level of last year! MAJOR FISCAL DRAG!!!

Do yourself a favor...RAISE CASH, GO SHORT, SELL FUTURES, BUY PUTS...WHATEVER YOU CAN DO to position your self for a big market and economic downturn.

Most people believe that cutting spending is the answer. Most people will look at spending reductions and cheer them. However, don't be fooled...when private credit is contracting (as it is) and government does not replace the money lost from the collapse in credit, then a FULL BLOWN DEPRESSION WILL RESULT!!!

This is the beginning of a major collapse. Protect yourself! Go short; raise cash, but whatever you do, prepare for a big market downturn.

(You can short the Euro like crazy and clean up on this!!!) Buy my Euro Crash Alert for $39.95 and get 10 ways to profit from a Euro crash!!
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

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

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

Postby vanlose kid » Sat Jun 19, 2010 1:33 am

JackRiddler wrote:One more round of interesting comments from Mike Norman's blog. I'm mixed on his views, but he's a corrective on my own leaning to think it's the dollar that will be crashing by the end of the year, in a move to force austerity and an assault on "entitlements."

...

Perception is reality. Belief is not truth, but can be acted upon as if it were. That's the paradigm we are in and why our economic outlook can only worsen.


...Tax receipts are now above the level of last year! MAJOR FISCAL DRAG!!!

Do yourself a favor...RAISE CASH, GO SHORT, SELL FUTURES, BUY PUTS...WHATEVER YOU CAN DO to position your self for a big market and economic downturn.

Most people believe that cutting spending is the answer. Most people will look at spending reductions and cheer them. However, don't be fooled...when private credit is contracting (as it is) and government does not replace the money lost from the collapse in credit, then a FULL BLOWN DEPRESSION WILL RESULT!!!

This is the beginning of a major collapse. Protect yourself! Go short; raise cash, but whatever you do, prepare for a big market downturn.

(You can short the Euro like crazy and clean up on this!!!) Buy my Euro Crash Alert for $39.95 and get 10 ways to profit from a Euro crash!!


Mixed, me too. Thanks for linking though. Interesting.

Also, what he's selling ... perception is reality. You get folks to act a certain way (if they believe things are the way you present them) and it has a real-world outcome.

*

on edit: Perception is reality: Marketing 101.

*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

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

Postby vanlose kid » Sat Jun 19, 2010 2:39 am

To clarify my previous post:

Mike Norman is not a mere analyst, he's also a player. He has a stake in the outcome.

Man's selling betting tips at the race track, and though his horse comes in once in a while doesn't mean its the fastest one out there.

*

Game's of chance.

There are rules of the game and then the psychology of the players.

"Analysis" feeds perception; perception influences action; action, in part, determines outcome.

It ain't always the best hand that wins.

*

One gambles on Wall Street.

On stock, futures, derivatives, currency, you name it. It's a casino, not a market.

*

A new commodity?

Federal commission approves box-office futures trading
June 14, 2010 | 2:37 pm

Box- office futures have passed a final regulatory hurdle, clearing the way for the first bets to be placed in the near future, and overcoming objections by Hollywood that sought to block it.

In a 3-2 vote, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on Monday afternoon approved a contract created by the company Media Derivatives that would allow traders to bet on the gross receipts that a movie pulls in during its opening weekend.

Media Derivatives already won CFTC approval for the exchange on which these contracts would be traded – the Trend Exchange -- but it needed the CFTC to sign off on the contract in order to allow traders to begin placing positions.

The idea of betting on future box-office receipts has faced vociferous opposition from the movie industry, led by the Motion Picture Assn. of America, which has said that the contracts would be vulnerable to manipulation and could even hurt how movies perform in theaters.

The decision Monday could still be counteracted by legislation that seeks to ban any trading in box-office futures. The Senate has approved such legislation, but it would need to be approved by the House of Representatives to make it into the final financial reform bill.

The Cantor Exchange, a Media Derivatives competitor, is awaiting approval of contracts for its own movie futures market.

[Update, 7:45 p.m.: For much more, see the story in tomorrow's Times.]

-- Nathaniel Popper

[ http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/enterta ... ading.html ]


*

on edit: JR, sorry to bump in on your thread like this, but I felt it needed saying. I can delete if you should so wish.

*
"Teach them to think. Work against the government." – Wittgenstein.
User avatar
vanlose kid
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

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

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Jun 19, 2010 12:12 pm

vanlose kid wrote:To clarify my previous post:

Mike Norman is not a mere analyst, he's also a player. He has a stake in the outcome.

Man's selling betting tips at the race track, and though his horse comes in once in a while doesn't mean its the fastest one out there.


Yes.

Federal commission approves box-office futures trading
June 14, 2010 | 2:37 pm

Box- office futures have passed a final regulatory hurdle, clearing the way for the first bets to be placed in the near future, and overcoming objections by Hollywood that sought to block it


Something this stupid is another sign that financial sector "innovation" is scraping the rotting, compacted bullshit at the bottom of the barrel. (They barrel bullshit? Obviously!) They've run out of things to fuck up.

I must admit the temptation, and it's going to attract a lot of small-investor suckers insofar as there are any left with cash. Last comparable thing was probably the World Wrestling IPO.

Truth is, shorts on Avatar would have wiped me out.

The idea of betting on future box-office receipts has faced vociferous opposition from the movie industry, led by the Motion Picture Assn. of America, which has said that the contracts would be vulnerable to manipulation and could even hurt how movies perform in theaters.


Once a century, I get to agree with the MPAA. This is exactly what will happen. Money sloshing around Hollywood in hard times will try fucking up the studios, instead of making movies (most of which are considered flops). If you've ever wondered what's more fucked up than making Chuck and Larry's European Honeymoon (a.k.a. Hostel VII), then it's a bet on how it will do. (Hm, let me think about whether I really believe what I just said...)

But I've got a solution for the industry. Maybe they can sell the shorts along with the ticket, assuring your enjoyment is hedged.

I'm seeing potentials here. Maybe Ebert should start up a fund?

The decision Monday could still be counteracted by legislation that seeks to ban any trading in box-office futures.


How about they just ban naked derivatives of any kind?

on edit: JR, sorry to bump in on your thread like this, but I felt it needed saying. I can delete if you should so wish.


I can't imagine why you'd say that! It's not my thread but RI's. I just post a lot. I sure hope people are reading it. Please post more, and feel free to use any pretext. Your stuff is good.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

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

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

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Jun 19, 2010 1:29 pm

Assimilating from American Dream

The Game that Goes On and On: A Swiss Bank, a President, and the Permanent Government

By Russ Baker

Global Research, June 16, 2010
Whowhatwhy - 2010-04-21



Last August, the presidential press corps followed Barack Obama and his family to Martha's Vineyard for their brief vacation. The coverage focused on summery fare—a visit to an ice cream parlor, the books the president had brought along. Nearly everyone mentioned his few rounds of golf, including his swing, and the enthusiasm of onlookers. What caught my eye, though, was the makeup of his foursome. The president was joined by an old friend from Chicago; a young aide; and Robert Wolf, Chairman and CEO, UBS Group Americas. In a decidedly incurious piece, aNew York Times reporter made light of Wolf's presence:

"The president has told friends that to truly relax he prefers golfing with young aides...But he departed from that pattern Monday when he invited a top campaign contributor, Robert Wolf, president of UBS Investment Bank, to join him for 18 holes. Call it donor maintenance."

Wolf, however, is hardly—as the Times suggested— just another donor. For one thing, he is a leading figure in an industry that almost brought down the entire financial system—and then was the recipient of astonishing government largesse. UBS, along with other banks, benefited directly from the backdoor bailout of the insurance giant AIG.

But UBS stands alone in one rather formidable respect—it was the defendant in the largest offshore tax evasion case in U.S. history, accused of helping wealthy Americans hide their income in secret offshore accounts. To settle a massive investigation, UBS forked over $780 million to the US treasury. This settlement came shortly before Wolf rounded out Obama’s golfing party. Given this rather problematical situation, why then would the President choose UBS’s Wolf of all people for this honor?

Wolf declined a request for an interview about his relationship with the President, so it was not possible to pose that question to him. This hardly matters, though, for the story goes far beyond Wolf and UBS. It involves Republicans as well as Democrats, the Bush Administration as well as Obama’s. More importantly, behind the trivialized golf outing on Martha’s Vineyard, lie the interests that increasingly set the course for every administration. And that now game the system so well that the rest of us—wherever we live in the world—are kept fighting for the scraps.

Both Sides Now

When most people criticize those aspects of government that seem most impervious to the democratic process, they cite the permanency and perceived self-interest of the mandarins of the Washington bureaucracy. But when it comes to real power, an ability to come out ahead no matter which party is in power, it’s hard to top certain financial institutions.

UBS is very much a part of that permanent government. Though not a household name in the United States, UBS is a major player in the Beltway game. During the 2008 campaign, while Robert Wolf was courting Democratic hopeful Obama, his UBS cohort, former Senator Phil Gramm, was working the other side of the street. As chairman of the Senate Banking Committee in the 1990s, Gramm, a corporate-friendly Texas Republican, played a key role in the deregulation of the banking industry, an act so central to the nation’s financial collapse. Since 2002, Gramm has been UBS Americas’ vice chairman. In 2008, he was the leading economics adviser for Obama’s opponent, John McCain—and even touted as a possible treasury secretary in a McCain administration.

The bottom line: UBS hedged its bets, and so had an inside track no matter which party took the White House. Thus, when Obama won, it was Wolf who ascended. The new president named the banker-donor to his White House Economic Advisory Board.

The important machinations behind this accrual of influence rarely get attention in the frenzied hustle of the news cycle. One reason is that they do not seem like news at all, since they are essentially woven deeply into the fabric of politics and government, thus hidden in plain sight. Another is that they are dauntingly complex.

Some things are simple, though. Like the fact that a UBS executive is a dubious candidate to serve as an economic advisor to the president. For one thing, the company’s track record at the time of the election was distinctly underwhelming. UBS suffered major losses on subprime lending, and had to raise money from the Singapore government and other entities. As Slate’s money columnist Daniel Gross quipped back in 2008, “UBS used to stand for Union Bank of Switzerland. But perhaps it should stand for Untold Billions Squandered. Or Underwater Bi-Lingual Schleppers.” Furthermore, UBS’ stock lost nearly 70 percent of its value even before the recession really kicked in—making it the worst performing foreign bank operating here.

Given this damning set of facts, Wolf made both an odd choice as a presidential adviser and a peculiar pick for that intimate round of golf.

"Hide Funds Here"

Despite being the world’s biggest manager of private assets, UBS has stayed pretty much below the domestic radar. The Alpine quiet surrounding its activities was, however, quietly shattered in mid-2007, when an IRS audit of a US citizen led to a UBS banker who then revealed certain UBS practices that encouraged wealthy Americans to hide taxable income. UBS bankers had apparently used every trick in the book—including giving customers code names and assisting them with or providing them with untraceable pay phones, encrypted computers, fake trusts, document-shredding and even counter-surveillance training.

The feds did not move quickly on the revelations—but when they did, in good measure thanks to a kick from July 2008 Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations hearings chaired by Senator Carl Levin and the report released in conjunction with the hearings, the UBS affair grew into the largest offshore tax evasion case in US history.

It is worth pointing out that one of three Senate co-sponsors of the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act of 2007, introduced even before the UBS situation was known, was none other than a then-senator named…Barack Obama. The House sponsor was Rahm Emanuel—who would go on to be President Obama’s Chief of Staff. Another, weaker bill was proffered by Sen. Max Baucus of the Finance Committee—parts of which did just quietly become law as part of an employment stimulus bill signed by Obama in March, 2010, with the goal of capturing lost tax income as a way of financing job creation.

In any case, it has become increasingly clear that tax evasion is but a piece of a troubling larger picture. The states of New York, Texas and Massachusetts sued the bank in 2008, accusing it of misleading investors about risks in its auction-rate securities market. UBS executives dumped their own holdings when the supposedly safe investments took a nosedive, yet continued to recommend them to customers. In Puerto Rico, a Bloomberg News reporter found, UBS had created its own closed-loop system for generating profits —it advised the Commonwealth to issue bonds, marketed the bonds to investors through UBS mutual funds, and then loaned the mutual funds money so they could buy the bonds. As James Cox, a Duke law professor and expert on finance and law said at the time, “I’ve never seen such a blatant series of conflicts of interest.”

In a filing last June, New Hampshire's securities regulator charged UBS with "dishonest and unethical" practices in selling notes from the now-defunct Lehman Brothers, causing New Hampshire investors $2.5 million in losses. Wrote one securities lawyer on Forbes’ website: “UBS is going to have to account for why it continued to aggressively market Lehman notes to retail customers as highly conservative investments at the very same time its institutional side was facilitating transactions designed to mask Lehman's financial troubles.”

Further south, Brazilian police arrested officials of both UBS and the insurance giant AIG as part of a half-billion-dollar tax avoidance scheme, alleging that the companies used suspected black market money-changers to spirit the funds out of Brazil to Switzerland. At the time, the daily newspaper O Estado de Sao Paulo published a picture of a man in handcuffs, identified as a UBS executive, and reported that he told one of the arresting officers: "I'm not going to stay in custody. Anyone who has money in [Brazil] does not stay in custody." Things are not necessarily so different up north. The only company official sent to jail in the United States thus far in connection with the massive tax evasion case was, remarkably, the former employee who blew the whistle on the scheme in the first place.

An Attractive Fellow

The Obama-UBS relationship began on a December day in 2006. According to his calendar, the presidential hopeful was visiting New York City to speak at a fundraising dinner for children in poverty. Beforehand, though, he attended a much more exclusive gathering—in the midtown Manhattan conference room of billionaire George Soros—for a dozen wealthy figures eager to have a closer look at the prospect.

One attendee was UBS executive Robert Wolf. Then just 45, he had already been a major fundraiser for John Kerry’s 2004 presidential bid and for congressional Democrats in 2006. For 2008, he had initially backed a moderate, Mark Warner, the former governor of Virginia. But when Warner decided not to run, Wolf turned to Obama, liked what he saw, and signed on.

His motivation, Wolf told New York Magazine in 2007, was simple: “I’d like my children to soon see a president give a State of the Union address and have both parties applaud.” He praised Obama’s early opposition to the invasion of Iraq. And he told Business Week: “I found him to be unbelievably refreshing and smart and thoughtful.” Wolf soon became a top fundraiser. By the time of the New York article, he had already hosted two big cocktail parties, made a lot of calls, and brought in more than $500,000. It was through people like Wolf that Obama was able to match and then pass Hillary Clinton in fundraising for the primaries.

Another person who attended that exclusive session with Obama was a financier by the name of Hassan Nemazee. Nemazee’s story circles back to UBS, through his involvement with Harken Energy, an obscure but supremely well-connected company that UBS took an unusual interest in keeping afloat. In the process, it illustrates how byzantine and pervasive the new trans-partisan money world has become. The complexity helps explain why reporters so often shrug and move on. They should pause more often; within that complexity resides an important truth about American democracy.

The Clintons' Hot Money Man

Over the years, Hassan Nemazee had become, like Wolf, a major Democratic fundraiser and insider. More importantly, he was deep into the Clinton inner circle. So much so, that he and a partner used an investment firm they had recently acquired, Carret Asset Management, to provide a lucrative perch to Terry McAuliffe, the Clintons’ confidante and money man. (This was in the period between McAuliffe’s chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee and his chairmanship of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.)

This indebted the Clintons further to Nemazee, who had been an avid supporter of Bill Clinton’s presidency and major donor to his defense fund during the Monica Lewinsky/impeachment saga. Nemazee for his part was rewarded with appointment as ambassador to Argentina—an offer that was withdrawn, however, when Forbes reported that he had improperly represented himself as a “Latino” in order to secure targeted bond business from the state of California.

As with UBS’s Wolf, Nemazee’s substantial fundraising soon begot true insider status. The campaign even asked Nemazee to publicly defend Ms. Clinton when another top donor, Norman Hsu, was arrested as an alleged swindler and campaign finance fraudster (Hsu was later convicted.)

Nemazee was frequently characterized as a “top foreign policy adviser” to Ms. Clinton. Probably his closest thing to real foreign policy credentials was the fact that his father was one of the richest men in Iran under the dictatorship of the Shah Reza Pahlavi, and a close ally of the deposed leader. At the time of the meeting to size up Obama in Soros’s office, Nemazee was simply window-shopping, as he remained committed to Hillary. But when Hillary dropped out of the race, Nemazee became a major Obama fundraiser. And once Hillary became Obama’s secretary of state, according to insiders, she pushed the administration to take a tougher line with Iran’s revolutionary Islamic government than Obama preferred. In so doing she renewed the appreciation of the retinue around the exiled Pahlavi faction, which still hopes to return to power one day, directly or indirectly.

Notwithstanding Nemazee’s largesse, both Clinton and Obama must have had second thoughts this past September, when the financier was arrested on charges of bank fraud. Since then, Nemazee has pled guilty to defrauding several banks over the course of a decade, through the use of false collateral documentation, to the tune of $292 million. In a brief flurry of coverage, Nemazee’s downfall was smirkily dismissed as just another day in the hothouse of Democratic corruption. The media has shown little further interest in Nemazee, and in what his arc signified.

This is unfortunate as it was not just a story about Democrats—or Republicans either, although they were involved. Rather it was the edge of an amoral iceberg that is essentially trans-partisan and that constantly exerts influence on presidents and would-be presidents of all stripes.

The outline of that larger reality becomes apparent when one traces Nemazee’s path back more than two decades. In that earlier epoch, we find Nemazee mixed up again with Soros and UBS and a would-be president. At that point the rising star was not Barack Obama, but George W. Bush.

Growing a Bush

For many years, Hassan Nemazee has been a business partner of, and shared offices with, a man named Alan Quasha. And both of them have been involved with a company called Harken Energy, a mysterious outfit with links to some of the world’s most powerful and odiferous regimes.

Harken, Nemazee, Quasha (and UBS) first came to my attention while I was researching my 2009 book, Family of Secrets, which is an investigative history of the rise of the Bush family and the special interests behind them. I was examining George W. Bush’s run of good fortune in the 1980s when his failed oil ventures repeatedly became golden as larger ventures scooped them up and increased his remuneration. Texas-based Harken Energy, the biggest of these, paid Bush more than he had ever earned, gave him a nice board position, and basically freed him up to move to Washington and work on his father’s 1988 White House race.

Just as Nemazee and Quasha would later take care of Hillary Clinton’s guy—McAuliffe—so he could concentrate on preparing for her campaign, years earlier they had supported George W. Bush while he helped develop strategy for his father’s campaign. In the process Harken took Bush, a man without much to show for himself as a businessman, and gave him the credibility and financial means with which to embark upon a political career—which he did soon thereafter.

Why had Harken adopted Bush? The few media organizations—Time and The Wall Street Journal among them— that looked into Harken concluded that something was fishy about the venture itself. The company’s structure and transactions were unnecessarily convoluted. It violated most of the rules of sound business practice yet somehow continued to exist despite the fact that it rarely made money for its public shareholders.

It was nigh impossible to figure out where the funding for Harken originated, beyond shell companies in offshore tax havens such as the Netherlands Antilles. But what it actually did was nothing short of astonishing. In 1986, the year George W. Bush entered the picture, Harken had total revenue of four million dollars. Three years later, thanks to a flurry of acquisitions and infinitely complicated transactions, revenue would exceed a billion dollars.

Notwithstanding its general precariousness and obscurity, Harken somehow managed to assemble backing from global superstars, ranging from the billionaire investor Soros (at one point the largest Harken shareholder), and Harvard University’s endowment, to interests tied to the Saudi elite, to then-Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, and to the deposed Shah of Iran. In other words, this obscure company somehow was catnip to brutal and corrupt foreign leaders who had grown fabulously wealthy at the expense of their people—and who collaborated closely with the highest levels of the US military-intelligence-corporate establishment. (Soros’s role seems especially strange; he went on to become the leading single funder of efforts to deny President George W. Bush a second term.) UBS was among the banks that profited from this dubious funding.

UBS had taken a position in Harken at a moment when the company was on the shoals. Coincidentally or not, this also was when George W. Bush—son of vice president George H.W. Bush—was part of the corporate board. UBS’s role struck the Wall Street Journal as odd, in part because UBS was not known for investing in small American firms like Harken.

Facing regulatory difficulties over its investment in Harken, UBS ended up unloading its stock toAbdullah Taha Bakhsh, a Saudi tycoon with separate business ties to James Bath, a key Bush family operative who fronted for Saudi interests in Houston. Bakhsh was also a business partner with a Saudi royal family favorite labeled by the Federal Reserve as a “front man” for BCCI, or Bank of Credit and Commerce International. For those who have forgotten, BCCI was a criminal banking operation whose customers ranged from Western intelligence agencies to drug cartels and terrorist organizations.

Shortly before UBS helped bail out Harken, it had partnered with BCCI in a Geneva-based bank. BCCI was eventually shut down in raids commenced by the British government, after intense investigations by Senator John Kerry’s Foreign Relations terrorism subcommittee and the Manhattan DA. But evidence of its ties to the highest levels of the US government under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, extensively uncovered by investigators, was repeatedly rebuffed by superiors and by regulators. It is worth noting that the Treasury Department official responsible for scrutinizing BCCI’s affairs in the Reagan-Bush administration was assistant secretary for enforcement John M. Walker Jr.—who happened to be the cousin of George H.W. Bush. (Bushes have for generations been involved both in government and banking, with another close relative serving as a top official at Lehman Brothers before it precipitously failed. More on this topic, and on George H.W. Bush’s secret past in deep covert intelligence work, can be found in my book, Family of Secrets. )

Keep in mind that such is the business milieu of Nemazee and Quasha, who jumped with apparently little effort from the Bush to Clinton camps when the moment was opportune—and one of whom ended up a player in the Obama campaign.

Scenarios like this cause the mind to reel. Yet where Ferdinand Marcos, the Saudi royal family, and the Shah converge with the son of an American president, in a deal involving large amounts of money, it is not necessary to untangle all the spaghetti strands to sense that something is amiss. Why, to begin with, would a major international bank get involved with a shadowy operation such as Harken? Whatever the reasons, the bank clearly gained influence with a White House that had family connections to the company.

Clues may be found in 1986, which is when George W. Bush joined the Harken board. It also is the year that Harken’s chairman, Alan Quasha, hooked up with something called Rembrandt Group Holdings, a Swiss-based company headed by a South African billionaire, Anton Rupert. Rembrandt’s vast portfolio included tobacco, financial services, wines and spirits, gold and diamond mining and luxury goods. Soon after that, Rembrandt took over a small, closely-held Denver company, Frontier Oil. Frontier then announced an $ 85-million "revolving credit facility" with….. Union Bank of Switzerland. UBS again.

Few expect international bankers to be paragons of virtue, but the South African connection highlights a particularly unsavory side. This was revealed in a series of reports produced by a coalition of Swiss organizations pushing for reparations to post-apartheid South Africa and cancellation of that country’s debt to Switzerland. The group took particular interest in two South African-controlled companies that were established in Switzerland at the time of global economic sanctions against the apartheid regime – and one of these was Rembrandt.

According to one of the reports from Koordination Südliches Afrika, Swiss banks had played an important role “in financing the apartheid state and its corporations from the very beginning” and that “… the two Swiss banks UBS and CS Group have played a special role.”

UBS’s former chairman, Nikolaus Senn, actually had a medal bestowed on him for service to the white regime. When it became inevitable that apartheid would crumble, Senn nevertheless pronounced his doubts about giving blacks the franchise: “‘One man–one vote’ to me is not a world religion.”

The connections here are worth considering. In 1988, while George W. Bush advised his father’s presidential campaign and sat on Harken’s board, Harken chairman Alan Quasha joined the board of Richemont, a new Swiss-based company controlled by the same South African Rupert family that controlled Rembrandt. UBS’s Senn became Richemont’s chairman.

So George W. Bush was joining an obscure company whose constituent parts were tied to the white power structure in South Africa, and also to the evasion of sanctions against that regime via Switzerland. And UBS played a central role in the arrangement.

The South African regime was not the only one that got in on this money game. Ferdinand Marcos, the late dictator of the Philippines, whose kleptocratic rule was marked by savage human rights abuses and martial law, had a seat at the table too. The father of Alan Quasha, Harken’s chairman, was an American lawyer who lived most of his adult life in the Philippines, and represented clients tied to US intelligence. He remained an advocate of Marcos to the end.

Marcos also was moving billions pillaged from the Philippine and American people (via aid to that country) into Swiss accounts. In fact, Phil Kendrick, who sold Harken Energy to Alan Quasha, recalls having heard rumors back then that the money to buy him out came from Marcos himself. The Bushes and Marcos were famously friendly. As vice president, George HW Bush visited Marcos’s Philippines during its protracted martial law and declared that country, to considerable subsequent ridicule, a great and vibrant example. “We love you, sir, we love your adherence to democratic principles,” vice president Bush said on that 1981 trip. And Marcos’s widow Imelda would speak, elliptically, of how the elder Bush had given her husband advice on how to invest “his” fortune. Bush and Marcos even took lessons from the same golf instructor.

It’s all about access—and golf has long played a crucial role. Back in the 1950s, Senator Prescott Bush, father of HW and a powerful former banker himself, used to have unique access to President Eisenhower as his regular golf partner. By the time of Barack Obama’s little-studied invitation to Robert Wolf to round out his foursome, Wolf (and UBS), too, were already on the inside. Early in the Obama administration, Wolf had quietly been appointed to Obama’s Economic Advisory Board. The fact that UBS is now playing a role in the administration of a liberal democratic “reformer” illustrates just how trans-partisan money interests can be. Though the board has engendered little media notice besides an Associated Press piece that subtly tried to spark broader curiosity, its makeup alone deserves attention—for what it tells us about the group that had the ear of the President as he embarked upon his change agenda.

One of Wolf’s fellow board members is William H. Donaldson, an old friend of the Bush family who served on the board of the tobacco company Philip Morris for two decades. Donaldson headed the investment bank Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, which looked after the financial affairs of George W. Bush over the years. Donaldson was one of the directors brought into Frontier Oil when it was taken over by the Quasha-Rembrandt-Bush-UBS group. President George W. Bush named Donaldson head of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), where he served from 2001-2005. During that period, he presided over changes requested by investment banks that lessened regulation; among other things, the SEC chose to rely on the banks’ own computer models for risk assessments. "If anything goes wrong," said Harvey Goldschmid, another commissioner at the time, "it's going to be an awfully big mess."

And indeed it is.

The staff director for Obama’s Economic Advisory Board, who also serves as a member of the president’s powerful Council of Economic Advisers, is Austan Goolsbee, who along with Donaldson and Bush shared membership in the exclusive Yale secret society, Skull and Bones. Goolsbee has pretty much stayed out of the news, except for a brief scandal during the 2008 campaign when a Canadian government internal memo characterized Goolsbee as reassuring our Northern neighbors that Obama’s anti-NAFTA rhetoric was just that, “political positioning” that did not reflect the candidate’s real position on globalization.

***

People wonder why, year after year, promise after promise, so little seems to change in Washington. But it is usually left to academics and theoreticians to explain, somewhat abstractly and historically, how powerful institutions continue to influence the course of public affairs irrespective of who is in the White House and what party is in charge. Meanwhile, polls show that most Americans think that banks got a much better deal out of the Bush-Obama rescue-stimulus than the average Joe. And they’re right—but they don’t quite get the real story on how such deals come about.

Supporters of Barack Obama argue that reporting on his connections to the powerful “permanent government” can only impede his sincere efforts to reform health care, the financial industry and so on. But such revelations carry an important message: that American presidents, no matter how good their intentions, are inevitably enmeshed in a self-reinforcing web of interests and influences that permits the wealthy to shape our national destiny no matter who controls the government in Washington. Shining a light on the UBS-Obama link can serve as yet another warning beacon to anyone who underestimates the nature of the challenge facing American democracy. Figuring out how our world works—actually works —requires a skeptical eye and a willingness to follow the facts wherever they lead. After all, sometimes a good golf story is just a story about some guys playing golf. And sometimes it isn’t.


Research assistance: Isabel Gautschi

The url address of this article is: http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=19725


And can't resist grabbing this:

The Consul wrote:I can see them on the ninth hole. Obama has just bogied in on a quick tap while Wolf eyes a seven footer for par.

"Let's make this interesting, Mr. President."
"Sure what do you have in mind?"
"If I make the put, then the hole is the Busherh nuclear reactor in Iran and the ball is a three megaton neutron bomb."
"And if you miss?"
"Fifty million in PAC money against whoever the gop candidate is in 2012."
"Make it 100 if you miss and 50 if you make it and you got a deal."

The put goes wide by three inches and long by half a foot, thus averting a cataclysmic act of war.
Walking back to their golf cart Wolf can be heard saying as they drive toward the next hole.
"Okay, next hole, double or nothing."
Obama says nothing, and smiles at Wolf who realizes, at least for now, the game is over.
Back in the club lounge Nemazee is furious, screaming at the top of his lungs at a now druken Wolf.
"You're telling me we're into him for a hundred million and he's not even throwing in a quick bunker buster or a nod for an Israeli airstrike? You idiot. You fool! How can this be?"
"His short game was a well kept secret. What can I say, he set us up."
"Godamed politicians," Nemazee growls, grabbing Wolf's drink and pounding it down. "I remember a time when starting a war was as easy as planting a few stories in the press. Now we have to finance entire elections on both sides years in advance. You know how to handle a rifle and to hunt?"
"Slightly. Skeet shooting mostly."
"You need to go kill a moose with this Palin woman, just in case. Tell her you believe the end is nigh. Drop a moose. And say as you put down the ugly beast with one shot, 'you know, madam governor, not just anyone gets to be the change agent of the apocolypse.'"
"Hmm," says Wolf, droolking on his ice. "I like that."
"And don't you go trying to find out about her implants, okay!!??"
"Jesus, what kinda guy do you think I am?"
After a moment of awkward silence they both break into hilarious laughter. Wolf motions to the bartender for another drink and tells him:
"Leave the bottle."


Which I understand is fiction. But funny.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

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

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

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Jun 19, 2010 2:10 pm

Two from Ellen Brown, one a current analysis, the second her conscise summary of how the Fed works.

http://counterpunch.org/brown06182010.html
(Article reproduced here under fair-use provisions, with original link given, solely for non-commercial purposes of archiving, education and discussion.)

Is the US Next?
Deficit Terrorists Strike England


Weekend Edition
June 18 - 20, 2010


By ELLEN BROWN

The financial sector has sometimes been accused of shrinking the money supply intentionally, in order to increase the demand for its own products. Bankers are in the debt business, and if governments are allowed to create enough money to keep themselves and their constituents out of debt, lenders will be out of business. The central banks charged with maintaining the banking business therefore insist on a “stable currency” at all costs, even if it means slashing services, laying off workers, and soaring debt and interest burdens. For the financial business to continue to boom, governments must not be allowed to create money themselves, either by printing it outright or by borrowing it into existence from their own government-owned banks.

Today this financial goal has largely been achieved. In most countries, 95% or more of the money supply is created by banks as loans (or “credit”). The small portion issued by the government is usually created just to replace lost or worn out bills or coins, not to fund new government programs. Early in the twentieth century, about 30% of the British currency was issued by the government as pounds sterling or coins, versus only about 3% today. In the U.S., only coins are now issued by the government. Dollar bills (Federal Reserve Notes) are issued by the Federal Reserve, which is privately owned by a consortium of banks.

Banks advance the principal but not the interest necessary to pay off their loans; and since bank loans are now virtually the only source of new money in the economy, the interest can only come from additional debt. For the banks, that means business continues to boom; while for the rest of the economy, it means cutbacks, belt-tightening and austerity. Since more must always be paid back than was advanced as credit, however, the system is inherently unstable. When the debt bubble becomes too large to be sustained, a recession or depression is precipitated, wiping out a major portion of the debt and allowing the whole process to begin again. This is called the “business cycle,” and it causes markets to vacillate wildly, allowing the monied interests that triggered the cycle to pick up real estate and other assets very cheaply on the down-swing.

The financial sector, which controls the money supply and can easily capture the media, cajoles the populace into compliance by selling its agenda as a “balanced budget,” “fiscal responsibility,” and saving future generations from a massive debt burden by suffering austerity measures now. Bill Mitchell, Professor of Economics at the University of New Castle in Australia, calls this “deficit terrorism.” Bank-created debt becomes more important than schools, medical care or infrastructure. Rather than “providing for the general welfare,” the purpose of government becomes to maintain the value of the investments of the government’s creditors.

England Dons the Hair Shirt

England’s new coalition government has just bought into this agenda, imposing on itself the sort of fiscal austerity that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has long imposed on Third World countries, and has more recently imposed on European countries, including Latvia, Iceland, Ireland and Greece. Where those countries were forced into compliance by their creditors, however, England has tightened the screws voluntarily, having succumbed to the argument that it must pay down its debts to maintain the market for its bonds.

Deficit hawks point ominously to Greece, which has been virtually squeezed out of the private bond market because nobody wants its bonds. Greece has been forced to borrow from the IMF and the European Monetary Union (EMU), which have imposed draconian austerity measures as conditions for the loans. Like a Third World country owing money in a foreign currency, Greece cannot print Euros or borrow them from its own central bank, since those alternatives are forbidden under EMU rules. In a desperate attempt to save the Euro, the European Central Bank recently bent the rules by buying Greek bonds on the secondary market rather than lending to the Greek government directly, but the ECB has said it would “sterilize” these purchases by withdrawing an equivalent amount of liquidity from the market, making the deal a wash. (More on that below.)

Greece is stuck in the debt trap, but the UK is not a member of the EMU. Although it belongs to the European Union, it still trades in its own national currency, which it has the power to issue directly or to borrow from its own central bank. Like all central banks, the Bank of England is a “lender of last resort,” which means it can create money on its books without borrowing first. The government owns the Bank of England, so loans from the bank to the government would effectively be interest-free; and as long as the Bank of England is available to buy the bonds that don’t get sold on the private market, there need be no fear of a collapse of the value of the UK’s bonds.

The “deficit terrorists,” however, will have none of this obvious solution, ostensibly because of the fear of “hyperinflation.” A June 9 guest post by “Cameroni” on Rick Ackerman’s financial website takes this position. Titled “Britain Becomes the First to Choose Deflation,” it begins:

“David Cameron’s new Government in England announced Tuesday that it will introduce austerity measures to begin paying down the estimated one trillion (U.S. value) in debts held by the British Government. . . . [T]hat being said, we have just received the signal to an end to global stimulus measures -- one that puts a nail in the coffin of the debate on whether or not Britain would ‘print’ her way out of the debt crisis. . . . This is actually a celebratory moment although it will not feel like it for most. . . . Debts will have to be paid. . . . [S]tandards of living will decline . . . [but] it is a better future than what a hyperinflation would bring us all.”

Hyperinflation or Deflation?

The dreaded threat of hyperinflation is invariably trotted out to defeat proposals to solve the budget crises of governments by simply issuing the necessary funds, whether as debt (bonds) or as currency. What the deficit terrorists generally fail to mention is that before an economy can be threatened with hyperinflation, it has to pass through simple inflation; and governments everywhere have failed to get to that stage today, although trying mightily. Cameroni observes:

“[G]overnments all over the globe have already tried stimulating their way out of the recent credit crisis and recession to little avail. They have attempted fruitlessly to generate even mild inflation despite huge stimulus efforts and pointless spending.”

In fact, the money supply has been shrinking at an alarming rate. In a May 26 article in The Financial Times titled “US Money Supply Plunges at 1930s Pace as Obama Eyes Fresh Stimulus,” Ambrose Evans-Pritchard writes:

“The stock of money fell from $14.2 trillion to $13.9 trillion in the three months to April, amounting to an annual rate of contraction of 9.6pc. The assets of institutional money market funds fell at a 37pc rate, the sharpest drop ever.

“’It’s frightening,’ said Professor Tim Congdon from International Monetary Research. ‘The plunge in M3 has no precedent since the Great Depression. The dominant reason for this is that regulators across the world are pressing banks to raise capital asset ratios and to shrink their risk assets. This is why the US is not recovering properly,’ he said.”

Too much money can hardly have been pumped into an economy in which the money supply is shrinking. But Cameroni concludes that since the stimulus efforts have failed to put needed money back into the money supply, the stimulus program should be abandoned in favor of its diametrical opposite -- belt-tightening austerity. He admits that the result will be devastating:

“[I]t will mean a long, slow and deliberate winding down until solvency is within reach. It will mean cities, states and counties will go bankrupt and not be rescued. And it will be painful. Public spending will be cut. Consumption could decline precipitously. Unemployment numbers may skyrocket and bankruptcies will stun readers of daily blogs like this one. It will put the brakes on growth around the world. . . . The Dow will crash and there will be ripple effects across the European union and eventually the globe. . . . Aid programs to the Third world will be gutted, and I cannot yet imagine the consequences that will bring to the poorest people on earth.”

But it will be “worth it,” says Cameroni, because it beats the inevitable hyperinflationary alternative, which “is just too distressing to consider.”

Hyperinflation, however, is a bogus threat, and before we reject the stimulus idea, we might ask why these programs have failed. Perhaps because they have been stimulating the wrong sector of the economy, the non-producing financial middlemen who precipitated the crisis in the first place. Governments have tried to “reflate” their flagging economies by throwing budget-crippling sums at the banks, but the banks have not deigned to pass those funds on to businesses and consumers as loans. Instead, they have used the cheap funds to speculate, buy up smaller banks, or buy safe government bonds, collecting a tidy interest from the very taxpayers who provided them with this cheap bailout money. Indeed, banks are required by their business models to pursue those profits over risky loans. Like all private corporations, they are there not to serve the public interest but to make money for their shareholders.

Seeking Solutions

The alternative to throwing massive amounts of money at the banks is not to further starve and punish businesses and individuals but to feed some stimulus to them directly, with public projects that provide needed services while creating jobs. There are many successful precedents for this approach, including the public works programs of England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, which were funded with government-issued money either borrowed from their central banks or printed directly. The Bank of England was nationalized in 1946 by a strong Labor government that funded the National Health Service, a national railway service, and many other cost-effective public programs that served the economy well for decades afterwards.

In Australia during the current crisis, a stimulus package in which a cash handout was given directly to the people has worked temporarily, with no negative growth (recession) for two quarters, and unemployment held at around 5%. The government, however, borrowed the extra money privately rather than issuing it publicly, out of a misguided fear of hyperinflation. Better would have been to give interest-free credit through its own government-owned central bank to individuals and businesses agreeing to invest the money productively.

The Chinese have done better, expanding their economy at over 9% throughout the crisis by creating extra money that was mainly invested in public infrastructure.

The EMU countries are trapped in a deadly pyramid scheme, because they have abandoned their sovereign currencies for a Euro controlled by the ECB. Their deficits can only be funded with more debt, which is interest-bearing, so more must always be paid back than was borrowed. The ECB could provide some relief by engaging in “quantitative easing” (creating new Euros), but it has insisted it would do so only with “sterilization” – taking as much money out of the system as it puts back in. The EMU model is mathematically unsustainable and doomed to fail unless it is modified in some way, either by returning economic sovereignty to its member countries, or by consolidating them into one country with one government.

A third possibility, suggested by Professor Randall Wray and Jan Kregel, would be to assign the ECB the role of “employer of last resort,” using “quantitative easing” to hire the unemployed at a basic wage.

A fourth possibility would be for member countries to set up publicly-owned “development banks” on the Chinese model. These banks could issue credit in Euros for public projects, creating jobs and expanding the money supply in the same way that private banks do every day when they make loans.
Private banks today are limited in their loan-generating potential by the capital requirement, toxic assets cluttering their books, a lack of creditworthy borrowers, and a business model that puts shareholder profit over the public interest. Publicly-owned banks would have the assets of the state to draw on for capital, a clean set of books, a mandate to serve the public, and a creditworthy borrower in the form of the nation itself, backed by the power to tax.

Unlike the EMU countries, the governments of England, the United States, and other sovereign nations can still borrow from their own central banks, funding much-needed programs essentially interest-free. They can but they probably won’t, because they have been deceived into relinquishing that sovereign power to an overreaching financial sector bent on controlling the money systems of the world privately and autocratically. Professor Carroll Quigley, an insider groomed by the international bankers, revealed this plan in 1966, writing in Tragedy and Hope:

“[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”

Just as the EMU appeared to be on the verge of achieving that goal, however, it has started to come apart at the seams. Sovereignty may yet prevail.

Ellen Brown is the author of Web of Debt: the Shocking Truth About Our Money System and How We Can Break Free. She can be reached through her website.




http://www.webofdebt.com/articles/time_ ... he_fed.php
(Article reproduced here under fair-use provisions, with original link given, solely for non-commercial purposes of archiving, education and discussion.)

THE FED NOW OWNS THE WORLD’S
LARGEST INSURANCE COMPANY --
BUT WHO OWNS THE FED?



Ellen Brown, October 7th, 2008
www.webofdebt.com/articles/time_to_buy_the_fed.php


“Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders.”
– The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s

The Federal Reserve (or Fed) has assumed sweeping new powers in the last year. In an unprecedented move in March 2008, the New York Fed advanced the funds for JPMorgan Chase Bank to buy investment bank Bear Stearns for pennies on the dollar. The deal was particularly controversial because Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan, sits on the board of the New York Fed and participated in the secret weekend negotiations.1 In September 2008, the Federal Reserve did something even more unprecedented, when it bought the world’s largest insurance company. The Fed announced on September 16 that it was giving an $85 billion loan to American International Group (AIG) for a nearly 80% stake in the mega-insurer. The Associated Press called it a “government takeover,” but this was no ordinary nationalization. Unlike the U.S. Treasury, which took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac the week before, the Fed is not a government-owned agency. Also unprecedented was the way the deal was funded. The Associated Press reported:

“The Treasury Department, for the first time in its history, said it would begin selling bonds for the Federal Reserve in an effort to help the central bank deal with its unprecedented borrowing needs.”2

This is extraordinary. Why is the Treasury issuing U.S. government bonds (or debt) to fund the Fed, which is itself supposedly “the lender of last resort” created to fund the banks and the federal government? Yahoo Finance reported on September 17:

“The Treasury is setting up a temporary financing program at the Fed’s request. The program will auction Treasury bills to raise cash for the Fed’s use. The initiative aims to help the Fed manage its balance sheet following its efforts to enhance its liquidity facilities over the previous few quarters.”

Normally, the Fed swaps green pieces of paper called Federal Reserve Notes for pink pieces of paper called U.S. bonds (the federal government’s I.O.U.s), in order to provide Congress with the dollars it cannot raise through taxes. Now, it seems, the government is issuing bonds, not for its own use, but for the use of the Fed! Perhaps the plan is to swap them with the banks’ dodgy derivatives collateral directly, without actually putting them up for sale to outside buyers. According to Wikipedia (which translates Fedspeak into somewhat clearer terms than the Fed’s own website):

“The Term Securities Lending Facility is a 28-day facility that will offer Treasury general collateral to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s primary dealers in exchange for other program-eligible collateral. It is intended to promote liquidity in the financing markets for Treasury and other collateral and thus to foster the functioning of financial markets more generally. . . . The resource allows dealers to switch debt that is less liquid for U.S. government securities that are easily tradable.”

“To switch debt that is less liquid for U.S. government securities that are easily tradable” means that the government gets the banks’ toxic derivative debt, and the banks get the government’s triple-A securities. Unlike the risky derivative debt, federal securities are considered “risk-free” for purposes of determining capital requirements, allowing the banks to improve their capital position so they can make new loans. (See E. Brown, “Bailout Bedlam,” webofdebt.com/articles, October 2, 2008.)

In its latest power play, on October 3, 2008, the Fed acquired the ability to pay interest to its member banks on the reserves the banks maintain at the Fed. Reuters reported on October 3:

“The U.S. Federal Reserve gained a key tactical tool from the $700 billion financial rescue package signed into law on Friday that will help it channel funds into parched credit markets. Tucked into the 451-page bill is a provision that lets the Fed pay interest on the reserves banks are required to hold at the central bank.”3

If the Fed’s money comes ultimately from the taxpayers, that means we the taxpayers are paying interest to the banks on the banks’ own reserves – reserves maintained for their own private profit. These increasingly controversial encroachments on the public purse warrant a closer look at the central banking scheme itself. Who owns the Federal Reserve, who actually controls it, where does it get its money, and whose interests is it serving?
Not Private and Not for Profit?

The Fed’s website insists that it is not a private corporation, is not operated for profit, and is not funded by Congress. But is that true? The Federal Reserve was set up in 1913 as a “lender of last resort” to backstop bank runs, following a particularly bad bank panic in 1907. The Fed’s mandate was then and continues to be to keep the private banking system intact; and that means keeping intact the system’s most valuable asset, a monopoly on creating the national money supply. Except for coins, every dollar in circulation is now created privately as a debt to the Federal Reserve or the banking system it heads.4 The Fed’s website attempts to gloss over its role as chief defender and protector of this private banking club, but let’s take a closer look. The website states:

“The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by Congress as the operating arms of the nation’s central banking system, are organized much like private corporations – possibly leading to some confusion about “ownership.” For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.”

“[The Federal Reserve] is considered an independent central bank because its decisions do not have to be ratified by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branch of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.”

“The Federal Reserve’s income is derived primarily from the interest on U.S. government securities that it has acquired through open market operations. . . . After paying its expenses, the Federal Reserve turns the rest of its earnings over to the U.S. Treasury.”5

So let’s review:

1. The Fed is privately owned.

Its shareholders are private banks. In fact, 100% of its shareholders are private banks. None of its stock is owned by the government.

2. The fact that the Fed does not get “appropriations” from Congress basically means that it gets its money from Congress without congressional approval, by engaging in “open market operations.”

Here is how it works: When the government is short of funds, the Treasury issues bonds and delivers them to bond dealers, which auction them off. When the Fed wants to “expand the money supply” (create money), it steps in and buys bonds from these dealers with newly-issued dollars acquired by the Fed for the cost of writing them into an account on a computer screen. These maneuvers are called “open market operations” because the Fed buys the bonds on the “open market” from the bond dealers. The bonds then become the “reserves” that the banking establishment uses to back its loans. In another bit of sleight of hand known as “fractional reserve” lending, the same reserves are lent many times over, further expanding the money supply, generating interest for the banks with each loan. It was this money-creating process that prompted Wright Patman, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1960s, to call the Federal Reserve “a total money-making machine.” He wrote:

“When the Federal Reserve writes a check for a government bond it does exactly what any bank does, it creates money, it created money purely and simply by writing a check.”

3. The Fed generates profits for its shareholders.

The interest on bonds acquired with its newly-issued Federal Reserve Notes pays the Fed’s operating expenses plus a guaranteed 6% return to its banker shareholders. A mere 6% a year may not be considered a profit in the world of Wall Street high finance, but most businesses that manage to cover all their expenses and give their shareholders a guaranteed 6% return are considered “for profit” corporations.

In addition to this guaranteed 6%, the banks will now be getting interest from the taxpayers on their “reserves.” The basic reserve requirement set by the Federal Reserve is 10%. The website of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York explains that as money is redeposited and relent throughout the banking system, this 10% held in “reserve” can be fanned into ten times that sum in loans; that is, $10,000 in reserves becomes $100,000 in loans. Federal Reserve Statistical Release H.8 puts the total “loans and leases in bank credit” as of September 24, 2008 at $7,049 billion. Ten percent of that is $700 billion. That means we the taxpayers will be paying interest to the banks on at least $700 billion annually – this so that the banks can retain the reserves to accumulate interest on ten times that sum in loans.

The banks earn these returns from the taxpayers for the privilege of having the banks’ interests protected by an all-powerful independent private central bank, even when those interests may be opposed to the taxpayers’ -- for example, when the banks use their special status as private money creators to fund speculative derivative schemes that threaten to collapse the U.S. economy. Among other special benefits, banks and other financial institutions (but not other corporations) can borrow at the low Fed funds rate of about 2%. They can then turn around and put this money into 30-year Treasury bonds at 4.5%, earning an immediate 2.5% from the taxpayers, just by virtue of their position as favored banks. A long list of banks (but not other corporations) is also now protected from the short selling that can crash the price of other stocks.
Time to Change the Statute?

According to the Fed’s website, the control Congress has over the Federal Reserve is limited to this:

“[T]he Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by Congress, which periodically reviews its activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute.”

As we know from watching the business news, “oversight” basically means that Congress gets to see the results when it’s over. The Fed periodically reports to Congress, but the Fed doesn’t ask; it tells. The only real leverage Congress has over the Fed is that it “can alter its responsibilities by statute.” It is time for Congress to exercise that leverage and make the Federal Reserve a truly federal agency, acting by and for the people through their elected representatives. If the Fed can demand AIG’s stock in return for an $85 billion loan to the mega-insurer, we can demand the Fed’s stock in return for the trillion-or-so dollars we’ll be advancing to bail out the private banking system from its follies.

If the Fed were actually a federal agency, the government could issue U.S. legal tender directly, avoiding an unnecessary interest-bearing debt to private middlemen who create the money out of thin air themselves. Among other benefits to the taxpayers. a truly “federal” Federal Reserve could lend the full faith and credit of the United States to state and local governments interest-free, cutting the cost of infrastructure in half, restoring the thriving local economies of earlier decades.
Addendum: Who Owns the Banks That Own the Fed?

Beyond merely stating that all the shareholders of the Fed are its member banks, I’ve been asked to elaborate on who actually owns those banks. Are they owned by powerful foreign banking families as has been alleged? According to a discursive article by Dr. Edward Flaherty, condensed below, the answer is no – not to any provable extent. But that does not mean that the Fed and the U.S. banking system are not controlled from abroad. The central banking system has its own “banker’s bank,” the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, Switzerland. The BIS does control the international banking system, in part by setting capital requirements -- the requirements that have now caused the entire U.S. credit market to freeze up. But that is a subject for a later article. Dr. Flaherty wrote:

“. . . Each of the twelve Federal Reserve Banks is organized into a corporation whose shares are sold to the commercial banks and thrifts operating within the Bank’s district. Shareholders elect six of the nine the board of directors for their regional Federal Reserve Bank as well as its president. . . .

“The SEC requires the name of any individual or organization that owns more than 5 percent of the outstanding shares of a publicly traded firm be made public. If foreigners own any shares of [eight banks claimed by Eustace Mullins to control the New York Federal Reserve], then their portions are not greater than 5 percent at this time. With no significant holdings of the major New York area banks, it does not seem likely that foreign conspirators could direct their actions.

“. . . The law stipulates a small portion of Federal Reserve stock may be available for sale to the public. . . . However, under the terms of the Federal Reserve Act, public stock was only to be sold in the event the sale of stock to member banks did not raise the minimum of $4 million of initial capital for each Federal Reserve Bank when they were organized in 1913 (12 USCA Sec. 281). Each Bank was able to raise the necessary amount through member stock sales, and no public stock was ever sold to the non-bank public. In other words, no Federal Reserve stock has ever been sold to foreigners; it has only been sold to banks which are members of the Federal Reserve System.

“. . . [E]ach commercial bank receives one vote regardless of its size, unlike most corporate voting structures in which the number of votes is tied to the number of shares a person holds. The New York Federal Reserve district contains over 1,000 member banks, so it is highly unlikely that even the largest and most powerful banks would be able to coerce so many smaller ones to vote in a particular manner. To control the vote of a majority of member banks would mean acquiring a controlling interest in about 500 member banks of the New York district.” [Prof. Edward Flaherty, University of Charleston, “Who Owns and Controls the Federal Reserve?” (July 18, 1997); citations omitted.]

Ellen Brown, J.D., developed her research skills as an attorney practicing civil litigation in Los Angeles. In Web of Debt, her latest book, she turns those skills to an analysis of the Federal Reserve and “the money trust.” She shows how this private cartel has usurped the power to create money from the people themselves, and how we the people can get it back. Her eleven books include the bestselling Nature’s Pharmacy, co-authored with Dr. Lynne Walker, and Forbidden Medicine. Her websites are www.webofdebt.com and www.ellenbrown.com.


1 See Ellen Brown, “The Secret Bailout of JPMorgan,” webofdebt.com/articles (May 13, 2008).
2 Ellen Simon, “Fed, Central Banks Move to Boost Global Confidence,” Associated Press (September 18, 2008).
3 Mark Felsenthal, “Bailout Bill Gives Fed New Tool to Boost Liquidity,” Reuters (October 2008).
4 See Ellen Brown, “Dollar Deception: How Banks Secretly Create Money,” webofdebt.com/articles (July 3, 2008).
5 FAQs: Federal Reserve System,” federalreserve.gov.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

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

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

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Jun 19, 2010 2:14 pm

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/opini ... ef=general
(Article reproduced here under fair-use provisions, with original link given, solely for non-commercial purposes of archiving, education and discussion.)

That ’30s Feeling

Op-Ed Columnist

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: June 17, 2010

Suddenly, creating jobs is out, inflicting pain is in. Condemning deficits and refusing to help a still-struggling economy has become the new fashion everywhere, including the United States, where 52 senators voted against extending aid to the unemployed despite the highest rate of long-term joblessness since the 1930s.

Many economists, myself included, regard this turn to austerity as a huge mistake. It raises memories of 1937, when F.D.R.’s premature attempt to balance the budget helped plunge a recovering economy back into severe recession. And here in Germany, a few scholars see parallels to the policies of Heinrich Brüning, the chancellor from 1930 to 1932, whose devotion to financial orthodoxy ended up sealing the doom of the Weimar Republic.

But despite these warnings, the deficit hawks are prevailing in most places — and nowhere more than here, where the government has pledged 80 billion euros, almost $100 billion, in tax increases and spending cuts even though the economy continues to operate far below capacity.

What’s the economic logic behind the government’s moves? The answer, as far as I can tell, is that there isn’t any. Press German officials to explain why they need to impose austerity on a depressed economy, and you get rationales that don’t add up. Point this out, and they come up with different rationales, which also don’t add up. Arguing with German deficit hawks feels more than a bit like arguing with U.S. Iraq hawks back in 2002: They know what they want to do, and every time you refute one argument, they just come up with another.

Here’s roughly how the typical conversation goes (this is based both on my own experience and that of other American economists):

German hawk: “We must cut deficits immediately, because we have to deal with the fiscal burden of an aging population.”

Ugly American: “But that doesn’t make sense. Even if you manage to save 80 billion euros — which you won’t, because the budget cuts will hurt your economy and reduce revenues — the interest payments on that much debt would be less than a tenth of a percent of your G.D.P. So the austerity you’re pursuing will threaten economic recovery while doing next to nothing to improve your long-run budget position.”

German hawk: “I won’t try to argue the arithmetic. You have to take into account the market reaction.”

Ugly American: “But how do you know how the market will react? And anyway, why should the market be moved by policies that have almost no impact on the long-run fiscal position?”

German hawk: “You just don’t understand our situation.”

The key point is that while the advocates of austerity pose as hardheaded realists, doing what has to be done, they can’t and won’t justify their stance with actual numbers — because the numbers do not, in fact, support their position. Nor can they claim that markets are demanding austerity. On the contrary, the German government remains able to borrow at rock-bottom interest rates.

So the real motivations for their obsession with austerity lie somewhere else.

In America, many self-described deficit hawks are hypocrites, pure and simple: They’re eager to slash benefits for those in need, but their concerns about red ink vanish when it comes to tax breaks for the wealthy. Thus, Senator Ben Nelson, who sanctimoniously declared that we can’t afford $77 billion in aid to the unemployed, was instrumental in passing the first Bush tax cut, which cost a cool $1.3 trillion.

German deficit hawkery seems more sincere. But it still has nothing to do with fiscal realism. Instead, it’s about moralizing and posturing. Germans tend to think of running deficits as being morally wrong, while balancing budgets is considered virtuous, never mind the circumstances or economic logic. “The last few hours were a singular show of strength,” declared Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, after a special cabinet meeting agreed on the austerity plan. And showing strength — or what is perceived as strength — is what it’s all about.

There will, of course, be a price for this posturing. Only part of that price will fall on Germany: German austerity will worsen the crisis in the euro area, making it that much harder for Spain and other troubled economies to recover. Europe’s troubles are also leading to a weak euro, which perversely helps German manufacturing, but also exports the consequences of German austerity to the rest of the world, including the United States.

But German politicians seem determined to prove their strength by imposing suffering — and politicians around the world are following their lead.

How bad will it be? Will it really be 1937 all over again? I don’t know. What I do know is that economic policy around the world has taken a major wrong turn, and that the odds of a prolonged slump are rising by the day.

We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

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

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

Postby semper occultus » Sat Jun 19, 2010 5:43 pm

Most people believe that cutting spending is the answer. Most people will look at spending reductions and cheer them. However, don't be fooled...when private credit is contracting (as it is) and government does not replace the money lost from the collapse in credit, then a FULL BLOWN DEPRESSION WILL RESULT!!!


I’m confused , or maybe it’s the writer ( probably both )

Isn’t he confusing fiscal stimulus with monetary easing ?

On page 32 you posted the following via Ambrose Evans-Pritchard

Mr Congdon said the Obama policy risks repeating the strategic errors of Japan, which pushed debt to dangerously high levels with one fiscal boost after another during its Lost Decade, instead of resorting to full-blown "Friedmanite" monetary stimulus.

"Fiscal policy does not work. The US has just tried the biggest fiscal experiment in history and it has failed. What matters is the quantity of money and in extremis that can be increased easily by quantititave easing. If the Fed doesn’t act, a double-dip recession is a virtual certainty," he said.


If banks refuse to lend the created money then I suppose we have to conclude monetary policy doesn’t work either in which we are royally screwed

Re China & the Dollar :
John Loftus in a recent Dave Emory prog asserted that China was set to dump dollar assets until the Saudis informed them that doing so would be so harmful to their financial interests that China “wouldn’t get a drop of Middle Eastern oil” ( quote from memory ) if they did so.

BTW apprecaite your work on this thread – wish I could follow the quantity & quality of info.

This’ll probably annoy you : )

David Smith of the Sunday Times

advanced the hypothesis that the current slowdown might not just be the result of the financial meltdown but could also reflect a supply-withdrawal caused by the sharp increase in the government spending burdens in the US and Britain since 1997. If one applied the usual rule of thumb from panel data studies, that each 1% increase in the government expenditure ratio slowed the growth rate of GDP per capita by 0.125 percentage points, then the increased spending burden in the UK between 1997 and 2010 (OECD forecasts) would have slowed the growth rate in Britain by 1½ percentage points and that in the US by ¾’s of a percentage point. Such a growth slowdown would be expected to provoke a financial crash because the associated reduction in the net present value of future income streams would lead to a collapse in equity valuations and property prices. In other words, he was hypothesising that the global financial crash was partly a symptom of the slower potential growth rate caused by increased government spending burdens, particularly in the US and Britain since the mid 1990’s
User avatar
semper occultus
 
Posts: 2974
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: London,England
Blog: View Blog (0)

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

Postby JackRiddler » Sat Jun 19, 2010 7:32 pm

semper, if you're confused right now, then very often so am I! This is an overwhelming amount of material and I've shifted in how I think about a lot of things.

semper occultus wrote:Isn’t he confusing fiscal stimulus with monetary easing ?


I think he means the monetary easing should be in the form of letting the Fed carry unlimited T-bills so that the government can conduct fiscal stimulus in the absence of the banks providing any through credit (or of big international investors doing anything besides circulating their chips on the casino in a fashion that generates panics).

I post a lot of things here without endorsement. In fact, it's a rare article that I can endorse fully, and then usually only for a time. Right now I'm very hot for Ellen Brown's idea of public-utility banking.

Mr Congdon said the Obama policy risks repeating the strategic errors of Japan, which pushed debt to dangerously high levels with one fiscal boost after another during its Lost Decade, instead of resorting to full-blown "Friedmanite" monetary stimulus.

"Fiscal policy does not work. The US has just tried the biggest fiscal experiment in history and it has failed. What matters is the quantity of money and in extremis that can be increased easily by quantititave easing. If the Fed doesn’t act, a double-dip recession is a virtual certainty," he said.


I'm very unimpressed by the idea that the US has "just tried the biggest fiscal experiment in history" or that it altogether failed. (I expect it did indeed keep the economy from a worse collapse, which will now ensue.) The biggest question that has to be addressed is writing down high levels of mostly illegitimate debt, and this "fiscal experiment" worked to sustain it (by preventing a wave of defaults) and otherwise went into piecemeal measures (a mix of corporate welfare and tax cuts) rather than the promised green investment that might have started new industries in earnest (and is badly needed for even more important reasons having to do with sustaining human life on the planet or some such).

This’ll probably annoy you : )

semper occultus wrote:David Smith of the Sunday Times

advanced the hypothesis that the current slowdown might not just be the result of the financial meltdown but could also reflect a supply-withdrawal caused by the sharp increase in the government spending burdens in the US and Britain since 1997. If one applied the usual rule of thumb from panel data studies, that each 1% increase in the government expenditure ratio slowed the growth rate of GDP per capita by 0.125 percentage points, then the increased spending burden in the UK between 1997 and 2010 (OECD forecasts) would have slowed the growth rate in Britain by 1½ percentage points and that in the US by ¾’s of a percentage point. Such a growth slowdown would be expected to provoke a financial crash because the associated reduction in the net present value of future income streams would lead to a collapse in equity valuations and property prices. In other words, he was hypothesising that the global financial crash was partly a symptom of the slower potential growth rate caused by increased government spending burdens, particularly in the US and Britain since the mid 1990’s


Sure, it annoys me because it's nonsense. The imputed relationship of government spending to lower growth is not causally established and that "usual rule of thumb" is based on a correlation elevated to the level of faith without need to hypothesize an actual mechanics that might be behind it. It makes no sense except to a committed market ideologist. On the contrary, governments spend more when growth declines. Same thing with these two (US-UK) whose spending has sustained growth that otherwise would have been lower (in the US case, in the stupidest way, throwing most of it down the War Hole, which is the greatest tragedy -- the cost in blood and livelihoods, and what that money could have accomplished instead). The disconnect from the real history is that US policy facilitated the housing bubble in every way, and that became so extreme that property prices were absolutely bound to collapse once enough people realized that "future income streams" were predicated on the fiction of perpetually higher property prices.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

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

Le Monde Diplomatique is pretty cool

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:32 pm

Assimilating from
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28618

Thanks to Bruce Dazzling!

http://mondediplo.com/
(Article reproduced here under fair-use provisions, with original link given, solely for non-commercial purposes of archiving, education and discussion.)

When did we elect the bankers to supreme power?

Follow the money

Le Monde Diplomatique

Will those who sign the cheques continue to write our laws? There is at last popular resistance to currency speculation, and it is forcing governments to distance themselves from the financial industry. Although hardly far enough
by Serge Halimi

Shareholders in Société Générale, reassured by a fresh European injection of €750bn into the furnace of speculation, saw the value of their assets rise by 23.89% on 10 May — the same day that French president Nicolas Sarkozy announced that, due to budgetary constraints, a programme of aid that gave €150 to families in financial difficulty would be wound up. From one financial crisis to another, the conviction grows that those in power tailor their behaviour to the mood of shareholders. Politicians from time to time ask the people to approve of parties preselected by the markets for their innocuousness.

Belief in claims about the public good is being eroded by the suspicion of prevarication. When Barack Obama reprimanded Goldman Sachs, the better to justify his financial regulation measures, the Republicans immediately put out an ad summarising the donations that the president and his political friends had received from the company during the 2008 election campaign: “Democrats: $4.5 million. Republicans: $1.5 million. Politicians attack financial industry but take millions from Wall Street.”

When the British Conservative Party, affecting concern for the poor, opposed the introduction of minimum alcohol pricing, the Labour Party accused it of being more concerned with placating the supermarket lobby (since supermarkets use alcohol as a loss leader and many people are delighted to find that beer can cost less than water). When Sarkozy eliminated advertising on France’s state-owned TV channels, it was widely suspected that this would benefit the private stations run by his friends Vincent Bolloré and Martin Bouygues, now free from competition for advertisers’ budgets.

Such suspicions are not new. People resign themselves to situations that ought to cause scandal. They say: “It was ever thus.” It’s true that in 1887 the son-in-law of the French president Jules Grévy used his links with the Elysée Palace to trade in honours. At the end of the 19th century, Standard Oil made certain US state governors dance to its tune. In the dictatorship of finance, the mur d’argent (wall of money) of 1920s France is often mentioned – the financiers whose control of public debt amounted to a daily plebiscite. However, laws were passed to regulate the role of capital in political life. This even happened in the US, during the Progressive Era (1880-1920) and then at the end of the Watergate scandal, always after political mobilisation. France’s “wall o
f money” finances were placed under supervision after the Liberation in 1944. Things may a
lways have been thus, but they’re capable of change.

They are also capable of changing back again. On 30 January 1976 the US Supreme Court struck down several key restrictions on the role of money in politics passed by Congress (the Buckley vs Valeo ruling). The judges reasoned that freedom of expression shouldn’t depend on the financial ability of an individual to engage in public debate — so limiting expenditure amounted to stifling free speech. In January 2009 this ruling was extended to allow firms to spend whatever they wanted, to back, or attack, a candidate. In the past 20 years, with former Soviet apparatchiks who turned themselves into oligarchs and Chinese bosses who hold office in the Communist Party, with European members of the parliament, ministers and executives who go through a US-style revolving door to the private sector, and with the Iranian clergy and Pakistani military intoxicated by the world of business (1) – the slide towards corruption has become systemic. It inflects the political life of the planet.

As Bill Clinton’s mediocre first term drew to an end in 1996, he began preparing his re-election campaign. He needed money and to get it he offered the most generous party donors the chance to spend a night in the White House, even in the Lincoln bedroom. Since this association with the Great Emancipator wasn’t within the reach of those with modest budgets, nor necessarily to the taste of those with large ones, there were other attractions for sale, including coffee with the president at the White House. Potential big donors to the Democratic Party met members of the executive whose job was to regulate their activities. Clinton’s spokesman, Lanny Davis, explained innocently that it was “a chance for regulators to learn more about issues affecting the industry” (2).

One coffee morning may have cost the global economy several trillion dollars, stimulated the US national debt and caused the loss of tens of millions of jobs: on 13 May 1996 some of the most important US bankers had a 90-minute meeting at the White House with leading members of the administration. Besides the president, the secretary of the treasury Robert Rubin, his deputy in charge of monetary affairs, John Hawke, and the man responsible for the regulation of the banks, Eugene Ludwig, were present. So too, by good fortune, was Democratic Party chairman Marvin Rosen. According to Eugene Ludwig’s spokesman, “bankers discussed legislative issues, including ideas for breaking down regulatory barriers between banks and other financial institutions” (3).

After the crash of 1929, the New Deal forbade savings banks from taking risks with their customers’ money, which obliged the state to bail them out lest their bankruptcy should ruin their depositors. The Glass-Steagall law, signed by Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 and still on the statute book in 1996, was loathed by the bankers, who were also eager to profit from the new economy. The aim of the meeting in 1996 was to remind the president of bankers’ feelings about regulation as he was about to seek their finance for his re-election campaign.

A few weeks after the meeting, the Treasury Department announced plans to send Congress a legislative package that would “overhaul banking rules established six decades ago, giving banks broad new powers to venture into insurance and securities businesses” (4). What happened next is well known. Clinton was re-elected thanks in part to his campaign war chest (5). In 1999, the Glass-Steagall law was repealed, worsening the speculative orgy of the past decade (with its ever more sophisticated financial products) and precipitating the crash of September 2008.

In fact, the 1996 meeting (one of 103 such gatherings in the White House at that time) only confirmed that the tide was already running in favour of financial interests. The Republican Party too had benefited from the banks’ largesse and it was a Republican-majority Congress that buried the Glass-Steagall law, true to its liberal ideology and its backers’ wishes. With or without the meetings, the Clinton administration wouldn’t have held out against Wall Street for long; his secretary of the treasury, Robert Rubin, was a former co-chairman of Goldman Sachs. Henry Paulson was at the helm of the Treasury in September 2008; having let Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch – two of Goldman Sachs’ competitors – go to the wall, he bailed out American Insurance Group (AIG), an insurance corporation whose bankruptcy would have affected its biggest creditor, Goldman Sachs.
Immune to shock

Why does a nation, most of whose citizens are not well off, accept that its politicians will put the wishes of businessmen, lawyers and bankers first, so that politics becomes about consolidating economic power relations rather than countering them with democratic legitimacy? Why do the rich, on becoming politicians, feel entitled to enlarge their own fortunes, and to proclaim that the general interest requires satisfying the interest of the privileged classes, endowed with the power to do (through investment) or to prevent (through relocating), who must be constantly seduced (to “reassure the markets”) or kept from leaving (by Sarkozy’s 50% fiscal shield).

Consider Italy (see above), where one of the richest men on earth created a party of his own, Forza Italia, explicitly to defend his business interests rather than join an existing party and seek to influence its direction. On 23 November 2009 La Repubblica published a list of 18 laws that have favoured Silvio Berlusconi’s business empire since 1994 or allowed him to escape legal action. (Costa Rica’s justice minister, Francisco Dall’Anase, has already warned of a further stage, in which a state will not only take care of the banks but will serve criminals: “Drug cartels will take over political parties, finance political campaigns and then take over the government” (6).)

What effect did revelations in La Repubblica have on the Italian right at the ballot box? None, to judge by its success in the regional elections last March. It is as though the everyday loosening of public morals has immunised populations against any reaction to political corruption. Why get angry when politicians want to satisfy the new oligarchs or join them at the top of the rich lists? “The poor don’t make political donations,” was former Republican presidential candidate John McCain’s shrewd observation. He’s now a lobbyist for the finance industry.

The month after he left the White House, Bill Clinton made as much money as he had in all his previous 53 years. Goldman Sachs paid him $650,000 for making four speeches. A single appearance in France netted him $250,000 from Citigroup. In the last year of his presidency, the Clintons declared earnings of $357,000; between 2001 and 2007, the total came to $109m. The best time to cash in on the fame and the contacts garnered during a political career is after that career is over. Directorships in the private sector or consultancies to banks are a lucrative substitute for a popular mandate whose term has run its course. And of course government is all about thinking about the future…

But the desire to hop from public to private sector is not explained by the wish to become a life member of the oligarchy. Private business, international financial institutions and NGOs connected to companies have become places of power and intellectual hegemony to rival the state. In France the prestige of the financial sector, as much as the desire for a gilded future, has diverted many graduates of the grandes écoles – the Ecole nationale d’administration (ENA), the Ecole normale supérieure and the Polytechnique – from a career in public service. Former prime minister Alain Juppé, a former student at two of them, admitted the temptation: “The golden boys were great! Everyone was fascinated by these young people who arrived in London and sat in front of their screens moving billions of dollars around in a few seconds. They earned millions of euros every month. I wouldn’t be entirely truthful if I denied that from time to time I said maybe if I’d done that I’d be in a different situation today” (7).

There were no such qualms for Yves Galland, former French business minister, who became CEO of Boeing France, a competitor of Airbus. Nor for Clara Gaymard, wife of Hervé Gaymard, the former economy, finance and industry minister: after being a civil servant in Bercy and then a roving ambassador for international investment, she became president of General Electric France. Christine Albanel, minister for culture and communication for three years, has been using her communication skills to run France Télécom since March, her conscience untroubled.
The general interest

Half of all US senators become lobbyists when they leave the Senate, often working for the businesses they previously regulated. This is true of 283 members of the Clinton administration and 310 of the Bush administration. In the US, the annual turnover of the lobbying industry is close to $8bn: the returns on investment are hefty. In 2003 the taxes on overseas profits made by Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch were cut from 35% to 5.25%. The bill for lobbying came to $8.5m. The benefit to the bottom line was $2bn. The name of the bill? The American Job Creation Act (8). “In modern societies,” says Alain Minc, graduate of ENA, (unpaid) adviser to Nicolas Sarkozy and (paid) consultant to several big French bosses, “the general interest can be served not only in the state sector but also in business” (9). “The general interest” – that says it all.

The appeal of business, and of the paycheques, has charmed the Left too. “The upper middle class,” François Hollande, then first secretary of the French Socialist Party, said in 2006, “was replaced when the left arrived in power in 1981. It was the state apparatus which gave capitalism its new leaders. Coming from a culture of public service, they attained the status of nouveaux riches, talking to the politicians who appointed them as if they were their masters” (10). Those politicians were also tempted to follow in their footsteps.

More and more of us have hitched our destiny – sometimes unwillingly – to finance through pension and investment funds. Now anyone can defend banks and the stock market by affecting concern for the penniless widow or the employee who bought shares to supplement his salary or take care of his retirement. In 2004 President George W Bush pinned his re-election hopes on this “class of investors”. As the Wall Street Journal explained: “The more these voters are in the market, the more likely they are to support the kind of free-market-oriented economic policies associated with Republican administrations.About three in five adult Americans (58%) have some savings invested directly or indirectly in the markets, compared with 44% six years ago. At every income level, direct investors are more likely to identify themselves as Republicans than as non-investors” (11).

“Governments that have been slaves to finance for two decades will not of their own accord turn on finance unless it threatens them directly to an intolerable extent,” wrote the economist Frédéric Lordon last month (12). The extent of measures that Germany, France, the US and the G20 take against speculation will soon show us if the daily humiliation that markets inflict on states, and the popular anger at the cynicism of the banks, will reawaken any residual dignity in governments tired of being treated like lackeys.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

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

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

Postby JackRiddler » Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:34 pm

One of the things NY Times is sometimes good for is this kind of on-the-ground economic reporting...



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/busin ... nted=print
(Article reproduced here under fair-use provisions, with original link given, solely for non-commercial purposes of archiving, education and discussion.)

The Town That Loved Its Bank
Reprints
This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any article. Visit http://www.nytreprints.com for samples and additional information. Order a reprint of this article now.


June 18, 2010

By ANDREW MARTIN

MAYWOOD, Ill.

LIKE many working-class towns in the Midwest, this Chicago suburb has been on the cusp of better times for decades.

Separated by a river and woods from its wealthier neighbors, Oak Park and River Forest, it shares some of their charms: imposing, century-old homes and stately elms and maples draping the streets. But Maywood is decidedly more blue-collar than its neighbors, and its residents are predominantly African-American. Most of its homes are modest bungalows and frame houses that were built for factory workers whose jobs disappeared long ago. Many storefronts are vacant, and there appear to be more churches than viable businesses.

For more than a decade, a silver-haired banker from River Forest named Michael E. Kelly — owner of Park National Bank in the Chicago area and eight others around the country — took an unusual interest in Maywood. He did things most bankers don’t do.

In 2003, he opened a branch in Maywood, just west of the city, despite the modest incomes of most of its residents. His bank bought an entire redevelopment bond issue from the village and refinanced it at a lower rate to save Maywood money. And in an effort to prop up property values, he came up with the idea of buying homes out of foreclosure, renovating them and selling them at cost.

“He’s from River Forest, O.K.?” says Lennel Grace, a fourth-generation Maywood resident. “If you talk to people in River Forest or Oak Park, they say, ‘Oh, poor Maywood.’ They kind of look down their nose. He’s not that kind of a person.”

“He has a true connection and compassion for the community,” adds Mr. Grace, who is 60. “He understood that all these communities are linked in one way or another.”

Last fall, Mr. Kelly’s private banking empire collapsed, and his profitable, time-tested playbook as a banker and philanthropist failed amid his own misjudgments and the brutal headwinds of the financial crisis. At the direction of federal regulators, his nine banks were acquired by U.S. Bank, the nation’s fifth-largest bank, based in Minneapolis.

His banks are among more than 200 that federal regulators have seized in the last three years, many of them small, community institutions. Other banks have acquired most of their assets and deposits, and quietly reopened branches with new signs and little fuss.

Across the country, many have bemoaned the loss of locally owned banks, worrying that a faceless national bank will have little interest in a community — aside from making profits. Perhaps nowhere has that issue played out more publicly than in the Chicago area, where Mr. Kelly’s Park National Bank was as well known for its philanthropy as for its financial products.

Eight months after Park National’s closing, anger continues to boil, in part because of the unusual circumstances surrounding its demise. And residents rankle because the federal government decided to bail out megabanks like Citigroup, deemed “too big to fail,” while letting a beloved community bank go under. In that context, outrage — and hyperbole — reign.

“Basically, it amounts to the largest bank robbery in the history of the United States,” says David Pope, the Oak Park Village president. As the new owner of Mr. Kelly’s banks, U.S. Bank has become the unwitting lightning rod for local politicians and activists. They demand that the bank, whose parent, U.S. Bancorp, had profits of $2.2 billion on revenue of $16.7 billion last year, curb foreclosures and replicate Mr. Kelly’s philanthropy (which involved giving nearly 20 percent of annual profit to causes like education and affordable housing).

Indignation erupted on a recent evening at a community meeting on Chicago’s West Side, organized by the Coalition to Save Community Banking, a group of activists and ministers.

It was clear from the start that the meeting, at Hope Community Advent Christian Church, wouldn’t go well for the two attending U.S. Bank executives, Robert V. McGhee and William Fanter, who sat squirming in dark suits at a table set above the crowd on the dais.

One speaker, the Rev. Randall Harris, led the audience in a rowdy chant. “U.S. Bank!” he shouted. “Step up!” Others vowed more vigorous protests unless U.S. Bank complied with community demands, which include establishing a $25 million fund to help stave off foreclosures. “We are ready to sit down inside your bank until you take action,” said the Rev. Michael Stinson. “It’s going to get real ugly before it gets pretty.”

When Mr. McGhee, a vice president of U.S. Bank, stood to address the crowd, he was interrupted with angry questions and chants. “We are very much aware of the impact Park had on this community,” he said. “That is not lost on us. We’ve taken copious notes.”

U.S. Bank officials, clearly vexed by a groundswell, say they intend to honor all of Park National’s outstanding commitments. But they also say the level of charitable giving will probably decline to match donations in other areas where U.S. Bank has branches. Because of the complexities of the modern mortgage business, the bank also says it has little legal ability to modify local mortgage loans that it did not originate but for which it acts as trustee.

“This has involved more public-relations issues than we ever had before,” says Richard C. Hartnack, the bank’s vice chairman for consumer banking. “We bought 400 branches in California, and it’s a much bigger place. That’s gone absolutely smoothly.”

But as he notes, there’s a big difference between California and Maywood. In California, he says, “we didn’t have the ghost of Mike Kelly to deal with.”

DESCRIBING Mr. Kelly as a ghost isn’t entirely inaccurate. This 65-year-old banker, who is alive and presumably well, is as intensely private as he is generous. In keeping with his past aversion to the news media, he declined to be interviewed for this article.

According to Congressional testimony and former colleagues, Mr. Kelly took over the First Bank of Oak Park in 1981, and built it into an enterprise with about $19 billion in assets, largely by buying failed or underperforming banks.

He ended up owning nine banks in Texas, California, Arizona and Illinois, all under the umbrella of his bank holding company, the FBOP Corporation. It was the largest privately held bank-holding company in the United States and, before 2008, recorded 25 consecutive years of profits, according to Mr. Kelly’s testimony before Congress in January, in a hearing prompted by the closing of his banks.

Mr. Kelly’s banks were also known for generous charitable donations and a commitment to low-income areas, particularly in the Chicago area. For instance, Park National pledged a $27 million, interest-free construction loan to build a Jesuit preparatory school in Austin, a predominantly African-American neighborhood that abuts Oak Park.

Park National also helped to create a community savings center on the West Side of Chicago that provided low-cost banking services and financial counseling to people who normally don’t use banks. And it set aside $20 million to help homeowners facing foreclosure.

In total, Mr. Kelly’s banks donated a total of $36.7 million to charitable causes in 2007 and 2008. FBOP, the holding company, chipped in a further $17 million in those two years, according to his Congressional testimony.

FBOP banks also provided $583 million in that two-year span for community development loans, including such things as affordable housing and inner-city redevelopment, he told Congress.

“This was the finest community bank in America,” says the Rev. Marshall Hatch, a leader in the community banking coalition. “The loss of the bank is incalculable for our side of town.”

But, of course, Park National is now out of business. So are Mr. Kelly’s other eight banks, which were also acquired by U.S. Bank last October. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation said the cost of the failures to its insurance fund was $2.5 billion.

LEFT in the rubble of that takeover are questions about the viability of Mr. Kelly’s altruistic business model and the fairness of the federal government’s system for closing down — or saving — ailing banks.

Whereas some of the nation’s biggest banks nearly collapsed under the weight of risky loans and dubious underwriting, FBOP’s big problem, according to Mr. Kelly and his regulators, was that it invested nearly $900 million in what appeared to be sure-thing, blue-chip investments — preferred stock in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored mortgage giants. Those investments were considered so safe, in fact, that government regulators encouraged banks to invest in them.

But as the mortgage industry melted down, so did Fannie and Freddie; the government took them over two years ago. Holders of Fannie’s and Freddie’s preferred securities were out of luck, and the loss left gaping holes in the capital cushion at some of Mr. Kelly’s banks.

He had other problems, too. For years, he had prospered by scooping up other banks in times of trouble or lending when others pulled back. He followed the same instincts as the mortgage crisis began to go into overdrive, allowing FBOP’s banks to expand their loan portfolio by 35 percent between 2007 and 2008.

When the credit and real estate markets subsequently fell apart, the deterioration of FBOP’s loan portfolio, particularly in commercial real estate, accelerated, federal regulators testified at the January hearing.

At the hearing, Mr. Kelly testified that he believed his problems with securing new funding during the mortgage crisis were solved when the government announced the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, in October 2008.

Mr. Kelly said regulators urged him to apply immediately for TARP funds and gave him verbal assurances that his application would be approved. But the first round of TARP money was directed at publicly traded banks, not private entities like FBOP, and Mr. Kelly didn’t receive any aid. He testified that a second application for TARP funds stalled as regulators kept changing the criteria.

In a story that has gained much notoriety in Chicago, the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, awarded a Park National subsidiary $50 million in tax credits on the morning of Oct. 30, 2008, to help the bank finance schools, retail development and a community center on the city’s South Side.

Later that day, federal regulators closed Mr. Kelly’s banks.

F.D.I.C. officials said they simply pursued the least costly option for resolving the failed banks, as required by law.

“FBOP’s business strategy — which had previously been successful — left the bank vulnerable to the perfect storm of events that the FBOP banks could not survive, including unforeseen and devastating G.S.E. losses,” testified Jennifer C. Kelly, senior deputy comptroller for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the primary regulator for many of Mr. Kelly’s banks. Fannie and Freddie are known as G.S.E.’s, or government-sponsored enterprises.

“The determinations to place the FBOP banks into receivership were consistent with, or required by, the statutory scheme Congress put in place,” she said.

MR. HARTNACK, the U.S. Bank executive, says that his bank has won over customers in the many markets it has entered over the years, and that it eventually will do so here. But he said big banks will never be mistaken for the old corner bank.

“It is virtually impossible for a very large company to attain that same level of affection that a community bank has,” he says, suggesting that the local banking model has become somewhat antiquated as more consumers bank online. “It’s a charming part of our financial history.”

Mr. Hartnack also points out that FBOP concentrated its donations in the Chicago area. U.S. Bank, he said, tries to spread donations fairly among its more than 3,000 bank offices across the country. As a big publicly traded institution, U.S. Bank also has to consider shareholders who would undoubtedly frown if 20 percent of its profits went to charity.

“It’s probably reasonable to expect some diminishment in total giving but not reneging on commitments,” Mr. Hartnack says of his bank’s takeover of FBOP. “We’ll gradually not make as many new ones until we get the numbers in balance.”

U.S. Bank’s evolving policy in the Chicago area has created a fair amount of angst, in part because the bank donates 1 to 2 percent of its profits. Besides its donations, the bank provides billions in community lending and investments.

Jackie Leavy, a founder of the Coalition to Save Community Banking, said the bank hadn’t been transparent in its intentions. For instance, she says, U.S. Bank has taken over and renamed Park National’s nonprofit arm, which rehabbed homes and redeveloped blighted areas, but has declined to say how much money it is putting into it.

“It’s the bob-and-dodge act,” Ms. Leavy says.

U.S. Bank officials say they are still working out the numbers and don’t feel compelled to share news of every donation with community activists.

Members of the coalition have also criticized U.S. Bank for what they say is its hands-off policy on housing foreclosures. But the bank is in a difficult situation in that regard, given the structure of the mortgage market. Individual mortgage loans were long ago pooled into bonds and then sold to investors as a means of — in theory — reducing investors’ exposure to mortgage losses and therefore allowing banks to underwrite many more mortgages.

Neither U.S. Bank nor Park National was a major originator of mortgages in Maywood or the Chicago area. But U.S. Bank is a custodian of bonds containing those mortgages.

Bank officials say that as trustee, they have no authority to try to restructure mortgages. But that reasoning has done little to appease critics, who say banks are just passing the buck.

Protesters recently rallied against U.S. Bank at a vacant apartment building in Austin, the neighborhood near Oak Park; the bank is trustee for the bonds backed by the property. The back door was ajar, and a pipe in the basement spewed water. The apartments were littered with dog feces and the detritus of past lives: birthday streamers over a doorway, a girl’s pink coat on a hook, computer monitors and dishes.

“The door is open; sometimes I can hear dogs barking,” says Delia Ewing, 84, who lives next door. “I walk in the backyard and see grass taller than I am.”

Given the circumstances, U.S. Bank officials said they contacted the originator of the mortgage, Wells Fargo, and urged it to board up the building.

But U.S. Bank officials say they are dumbfounded that they are being singled out. “We agree that foreclosures are a huge problem,” says Steve SaLoutos, executive vice president of U.S. Bank’s Midwest division. “It’s not a Park National problem, or a U.S. Bank problem, but a national problem.”

He says it’s a frustrating situation for the bank to manage, because it is essentially in the position of cleaning up other people’s mistakes. “Do you isolate the bank that is the last one to put a sign on the building?” he asks.

U.S. Bank, though, has made some friends in Chicago.

At Christ the King Jesuit College Preparatory, the school to which Park National pledged a no-interest loan, the bank is seen as a hero. The school caters to motivated low-income students who agree to work one day a week to cover most of their tuition costs.

As the first new Catholic high school on the West Side in 85 years, it owes its existence to Michael Kelly, but when Park National folded last fall, Christ the King’s future suddenly looked bleak.

“There was so much uncertainty,” says the Rev. Christopher J. Devron, the school’s president, adding that he “prayed a lot, lost a lot of sleep.”

He said he eventually approached U.S. Bank to see if it would take over Park National’s commitments. U.S. Bank sent a team to the school to meet students, and it eventually decided to substantially match Park National’s commitments — not only money but also jobs for students. “You couldn’t argue with the value of what the school was doing,” says Mr. Hartnack.

ON a tour of Maywood, Lennel Grace works through a list of foreclosed homes for which U.S. Bank is either originator, trustee or servicer. At some of the stops, members of the Coalition to Save Community Banking have put signs on the door that read, “Another U.S. Bank foreclosure.”

Mr. Grace, economic development director at Rock of Ages Baptist Church, says foreclosures have devastated the village, creating dangerous eyesores that have decimated property values. Of the town’s roughly 6,800 households, there were 449 new foreclosure filings in Maywood from the beginning of 2009 through the first quarter of 2010, according to the Woodstock Institute, a community development think tank.

“This is not a bad neighborhood,” he says, pulling onto South 17th Street. “But they are buying these houses for nothing.”

Mr. Grace and others say they are well aware that U.S. Bank isn’t responsible for all the foreclosures. But they also said that by acquiring Park National Bank, U.S. Bank accepted the community’s expectations set by Mr. Kelly.

At the meeting at Hope church, Mr. Hatch applauded U.S. Bank for making some steps, like investing in schools. But like many others that night, he dispatched with niceties, and threatened to send busloads of protesters to U.S. Bank’s headquarters in Minnesota unless it started acting more like Park National.

“We have made tremendous progress,” he said, turning to the audience. “Because on the West Side we fight back.”





http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/19/busin ... nted=print
(Article reproduced here under fair-use provisions, with original link given, solely for non-commercial purposes of archiving, education and discussion.)

Peddling Relief, Firms Put Debtors in Deeper Hole

June 18, 2010

By PETER S. GOODMAN

PALM BEACH, Fla. — For the companies that promise relief to Americans confronting swelling credit card balances, these are days of lucrative opportunity.

So lucrative, that an industry trade association, the United States Organizations for Bankruptcy Alternatives, recently convened here, in the oceanfront confines of the Four Seasons Resort, to forge deals and plot strategy.

At a well-lubricated evening reception, a steel drum band played Bob Marley songs as hostesses in skimpy dresses draped leis around the necks of arriving entrepreneurs, some with deep tans.

The debt settlement industry can afford some extravagance. The long recession has delivered an abundance of customers — debt-saturated Americans, suffering lost jobs and income, sliding toward bankruptcy. The settlement companies typically harvest fees reaching 15 to 20 percent of the credit card balances carried by their customers, and they tend to collect upfront, regardless of whether a customer’s debt is actually reduced.

State attorneys general from New York to California and consumer watchdogs like the Better Business Bureau say the industry’s proceeds come at the direct expense of financially troubled Americans who are being fleeced of their last dollars with dubious promises.

Consumers rarely emerge from debt settlement programs with their credit card balances eliminated, these critics say, and many wind up worse off, with severely damaged credit, ceaseless threats from collection agents and lawsuits from creditors.

In the Kansas City area, Linda Robertson, 58, rues the day she bought the pitch from a debt settlement company advertising on the radio, promising to spare her from bankruptcy and eliminate her debts. She wound up sending nearly $4,000 into a special account established under the company’s guidance before a credit card company sued her, prompting her to drop out of the program.

By then, her account had only $1,470 remaining: The debt settlement company had collected the rest in fees. She is now filing for bankruptcy.

“They take advantage of vulnerable people,” she said. “When you’re desperate and you’re trying to get out of debt, they take advantage of you.” Debt settlement has swollen to some 2,000 firms, from a niche of perhaps a dozen companies a decade ago, according to trade associations and the Federal Trade Commission, which is completing new rules aimed at curbing abuses within the industry.

Last year, within the industry’s two leading trade associations — the United States Organizations for Bankruptcy Alternatives and the Association of Settlement Companies — some 250 companies collectively had more than 425,000 customers, who had enrolled roughly $11.7 billion in credit card balances in their programs.

As the industry has grown, so have allegations of unfair practices. Since 2004, at least 21 states have brought at least 128 enforcement actions against debt relief companies, according to the National Association of Attorneys General. Consumer complaints received by states more than doubled between 2007 and 2009, according to comments filed with the Federal Trade Commission.

“The industry’s not legitimate,” said Norman Googel, assistant attorney general in West Virginia, which has prosecuted debt settlement companies. “They’re targeting a group of people who are already drowning in debt. We’re talking about middle-class and lower middle-class people who had incomes, but they were using credit cards to survive.”

The industry counters that a few rogue operators have unfairly tarnished the reputations of well-intentioned debt settlement companies that provide a crucial service: liberating Americans from impossible credit card burdens.

With the unemployment rate near double digits and 6.7 million people out of work for six months or longer, many have relied on credit cards. By the middle of last year, 6.5 percent of all accounts were at least 30 days past due, up from less than 4 percent in 2005, according to Moody’s Economy.com.

Yet a 2005 alteration spurred by the financial industry made it harder for Americans to discharge credit card debts through bankruptcy, generating demand for alternatives like debt settlement.

The Arrangement

The industry casts itself as a victim of a smear campaign orchestrated by the giant banks that dominate the credit card trade and aim to hang on to the spoils: interest rates of 20 percent or more and exorbitant late fees.

“We’re the little guys in this,” said John Ansbach, the chief lobbyist for the United States Organizations for Bankruptcy Alternatives, better known as Usoba (pronounced you-SO-buh). “We exist to advocate for consumers. Two and a half billion dollars of unsecured debt has been settled by this industry, so how can you take the position that it has no value?”

But consumer watchdogs and state authorities argue that debt settlement companies generally fail to deliver.

In the typical arrangement, the companies direct consumers to set up special accounts and stock them with monthly deposits while skipping their credit card payments. Once balances reach sufficient size, negotiators strike lump-sum settlements with credit card companies that can cut debts in half. The programs generally last two to three years.

“What they don’t tell their customers is when you stop sending the money, creditors get angry,” said Andrew G. Pizor, a staff lawyer at the National Consumer Law Center. “Collection agents call. Sometimes they sue. People think they’re settling their problems and getting some relief, and lo and behold they get slammed with a lawsuit.”

In the case of two debt settlement companies sued last year by New York State, the attorney general alleged that no more than 1 percent of customers gained the services promised by marketers. A Colorado investigation came to a similar conclusion.

The industry’s own figures show that clients typically fail to secure relief. In a survey of its members, the Association of Settlement Companies found that three years after enrolling, only 34 percent of customers had either completed programs or were still saving for settlements.

“The industry is designed almost as a Ponzi scheme,” said Scott Johnson, chief executive of US Debt Resolve, a debt settlement company based in Dallas, which he portrays as a rare island of integrity in a sea of shady competitors. “Consumers come into these programs and pay thousands of dollars and then nothing happens. What they constantly have to have is more consumers coming into the program to come up with the money for more marketing.”

The Pitch

Linda Robertson knew nothing about the industry she was about to encounter when she picked up the phone at her Missouri home in February 2009 in response to a radio ad.

What she knew was that she could no longer manage even the monthly payments on her roughly $23,000 in credit card debt.

So much had come apart so quickly.

Before the recession, Ms. Robertson had been living in Phoenix, earning as much as $8,000 a month as a real estate appraiser. In 2005, she paid $185,000 for a three-bedroom house with a swimming pool and a yard dotted with hibiscus.

When the real estate business collapsed, she gave up her house to foreclosure and moved in with her son. She got a job as a waitress, earning enough to hang on to her car. She tapped credit cards to pay for gasoline and groceries.

By late 2007, she and her son could no longer afford his apartment. She moved home to Kansas City, where an aunt offered a room. She took a job on the night shift at a factory that makes plastic lids for packaged potato chips, earning $11.15 an hour.

Still, her credit card balances swelled.

The radio ad offered the services of a company based in Dallas with a soothing name: Financial Freedom of America. It cast itself as an antidote to the breakdown of middle-class life.

“We negotiate the past while you navigate the future,” read a caption on its Web site, next to a photo of a young woman nose-kissing an adorable boy. “The American Dream. It was never about bailouts or foreclosures. It was always about American values like hard work, ingenuity and looking out for your neighbor.”

When Ms. Robertson called, a customer service representative laid out a plan. Every month, Ms. Robertson would send $427.93 into a new account. Three years later, she would be debt-free. The representative told her the company would take $100 a month as an administrative fee, she recalled. His tone was take-charge.

“You talk about a rush-through,” Ms. Robertson said. “I didn’t even get to read the contract. It was all done. I had to sign it on the computer while he was on the phone. Then he called me back in 10 minutes to say it was done. He made me feel like this was the answer to my problems and I wasn’t going to have to face bankruptcy.”

Ms. Robertson made nine payments, according to Financial Freedom. Late last year, a sheriff’s deputy arrived at her door with court papers: One of her creditors, Capital One, had filed suit to collect roughly $5,000.

Panicked, she called Financial Freedom to seek guidance. “They said, ‘Oh, we don’t have any control over that, and you don’t have enough money in your account for us to settle with them,’ ” she recalled.

Her account held only $1,470, the representative explained, though she had by then deposited more than $3,700. Financial Freedom had taken the rest for its administrative fees, the company confirmed.

Financial Freedom later negotiated for her to make $100 monthly payments toward satisfying her debt to the creditor, but Ms. Robertson rejected that arrangement, no longer trusting the company. She demanded her money back.

She also filed a report with the Better Business Bureau in Dallas, adding to a stack of more than 100 consumer complaints lodged against the company. The bureau gives the company a failing grade of F.

Ms. Robertson received $1,470 back through the closure of her account, and then $1,120 — half the fees that Financial Freedom collected. Her pending bankruptcy has cost her $1,500 in legal fees.

“I trusted them,” she said. “They sounded like they were going to help me out. It’s a rip-off.”

Financial Freedom’s chief executive, Corey Butcher, rejected that characterization.

“We talked to her multiple times and verified the full details,” he said, adding that his company puts every client through a verification process to validate that they understand the risks — from lawsuits to garnished wages.

Intense and brooding, Mr. Butcher speaks of a personal mission to extricate consumers from credit card debt. But roughly half his customers fail to complete the program, he complained, with most of the cancellations coming within the first six months. He pinned the low completion rate on the same lack of discipline that has fostered many American ailments, from obesity to the foreclosure crisis.

“It comes from a lack of commitment,” Mr. Butcher said. “It’s like going and hiring a personal trainer at a health club. Some people act like they have lost the weight already, when actually they have to go to the gym three days a week, use the treadmill, cut back on their eating. They have to stick with it. At some point, the client has to take responsibility for their circumstance.”

Consumer watchdogs point to another reason customers wind up confused and upset: bogus marketing promises.

In April, the United States Government Accountability Office released a report drawing on undercover agents who posed as prospective customers at 20 debt settlement companies. According to the report, 17 of the 20 firms advised clients to stop paying their credit card bills. Some companies marketed their programs as if they had the imprimatur of the federal government, with one advertising itself as a “national debt relief stimulus plan.” Several claimed that 85 to 100 percent of their customers completed their programs.

“The vast majority of companies provided fraudulent and deceptive information,” said Gregory D. Kutz, managing director of forensic audits and special investigations at the G.A.O. in testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee during an April hearing.

At the same hearing, Senator Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, pressed Mr. Ansbach, the Usoba lobbyist, to explain why his organization refused to disclose its membership.

“The leadership in our trade group candidly was concerned that publishing a list of members ended up being a subpoena list,” Mr. Ansbach said.

“Probably a genuine concern,” Senator McCaskill replied.

The Coming Crackdown

On multiple fronts, state and federal authorities are now taking aim at the industry.

The Federal Trade Commission has proposed banning upfront fees, bringing vociferous lobbying from industry groups. The commission is expected to issue new rules this summer. Senator McCaskill has joined with fellow Democrat Charles E. Schumer of New York to sponsor a bill that would cap fees charged by debt settlement companies at 5 percent of the savings recouped by their customers. Legislation in several states, including New York, California and Illinois, would also cap fees. A new consumer protection agency created as part of the financial regulatory reform bill in Congress could further constrain the industry.

The prospect of regulation hung palpably over the trade show at this Atlantic-side resort, tempering the orchid-adorned buffet tables and poolside cocktails with a note of foreboding.

“The current debt settlement business model is going to die,” declared Jeffrey S. Tenenbaum, a lawyer in the Washington firm Venable, addressing a packed ballroom. “The only question is who the executioner is going to be.”

That warning did not dislodge the spirit of expansion. Exhibitors paid as much as $4,500 for display space to showcase their wares — software to manage accounts, marketing expertise, call centers — to attendees who came for two days of strategy sessions and networking.

Cody Krebs, a senior account executive from Southern California, manned a booth for LowerMyBills.com, whose Internet ads link customers to debt settlement companies. Like many who have entered the industry, he previously sold subprime mortgages. When that business collapsed, he found refuge selling new products to the same set of customers — people with poor credit.

“It’s been tremendous,” he said. “Business has tripled in the last year and a half.”

The threat of regulations makes securing new customers imperative now, before new rules can take effect, said Matthew G. Hearn, whose firm, Mstars of Minneapolis, trains debt settlement sales staffs. “Do what you have to do to get the deals on the board,” he said, pacing excitedly in front of a podium.

And if some debt settlement companies have gained an unsavory reputation, he added, make that a marketing opportunity.

“We aren’t like them,” Mr. Hearn said. “You need to constantly pitch that. ‘We aren’t bad actors. It’s the ones out there that are.’ ”




This is a hell of an ongoing crime. The government will burn you all to make sure the private contracts made by the likes of AIG are "honored," but fuck you if you paid into a pension plan for 40 years. (It's going to be spectacular when Social Security is similarly invested in the market.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/busin ... nted=print
(Article reproduced here under fair-use provisions, with original link given, solely for non-commercial purposes of archiving, education and discussion.)

In Budget Crisis, States Take Aim at Pension Costs

June 19, 2010

By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH

Many states are acknowledging this year that they have promised pensions they cannot afford and are cutting once-sacrosanct benefits, to appease taxpayers and attack budget deficits.

Illinois raised its retirement age to 67, the highest of any state, and capped the salary on which public pensions are figured at $106,800 a year, indexed for inflation. Arizona, New York, Missouri and Mississippi will make people work more years to earn pensions. Virginia is requiring employees to pay into the state pension fund for the first time. New Jersey will not give anyone pension credit unless they work at least 32 hours a week.

“We can’t afford to deny reality or delay action any longer,” said Gov. Pat Quinn of Illinois, adding that his state’s pension cuts, enacted in March, will save some $300 million in the first year alone.

But there is a catch: Nearly all of the cuts so far apply only to workers not yet hired. Though heralded as breakthrough reforms by state officials, the cuts phase in so slowly they are unlikely to save the weakest funds and keep them from running out of money. Some new rules may even hasten the demise of the funds they were meant to protect.

Lawmakers wanted to avoid legal battles or fights with unions, whose members can be influential voters. So they are allowing most public workers across the country to keep building up their pensions at the same rate as ever. The tens of thousands of workers now on Illinois’s payrolls, for instance, will still get to retire at 60 — and some will as young as 55.

One striking exception is Colorado, which has imposed cuts on its current workers, not just future hires, and even on people who have already retired. The retirees have sued to block the reduction.

Other states with shrinking funds and deep fiscal distress may be pushed in this direction and tempted to follow Colorado’s example in the coming years. Though most state officials believe they are legally bound to shield current workers from pension cuts, a Colorado victory could embolden them to be more aggressive.

Colorado pruned a 3.5 percent annual pension increase to 2 percent, concluding that was the fastest way to revive its pension fund, which was projected to run out of money by 2029. The cut may sound small, but it produces big results because it goes into effect immediately. State plans vary widely, but many have other costly features, like subsidized early-retirement benefits, which could likewise be trimmed for existing workers.

Despite its pension reform, Illinois is still in deep trouble. That vaunted $300 million in immediate savings? The state produced it by giving itself credit now for the much smaller checks it will send retirees many years in the future — people who must first be hired and then, for full benefits, work until age 67.

By recognizing those far-off savings right away, Illinois is letting itself put less money into its pension fund now, starting with $300 million this year.

That saves the state money, but it also weakens the pension fund, actually a family of funds, raising the risk of a collapse long before the real savings start to materialize.

“We’re within a few years of having some of the pension funds run out of money,” said R. Eden Martin, president of the Commercial Club of Chicago, a business group that has been warning of a “financial implosion” for several years. “Funding for the schools is going to be cut radically. Funding for Medicaid. As these things all mount up, there’s going to be a lot of outrage.”

Joshua D. Rauh, an associate professor of finance at Northwestern University who studies public pension funds, predicts that at the current rate, Illinois’s pension system could run out of money by 2018. He believes the funds of other troubled states — including New Jersey, Indiana and Connecticut — are also on track to run out of money in less than a decade, unless they make meaningful changes.

If a state pension fund ran out of money, the state would be legally bound to make good on retirees’ benefits. But paying public pensions straight out of general revenue would be ruinous. In Illinois’s case, it would consume about half the state’s cash every year, bringing other vital state services to a standstill.

Mr. Rauh said he thinks any state caught in that trap would have little choice but to seek a federal bailout. Bigger pension contributions and higher taxes can go only so far.

Many state officials, hoping for a huge recovery in the markets, say that such projections are too pessimistic, and that cutting benefits for future workers must suffice, given laws and provisions in state constitutions that make membership in a state pension fund a contractual relationship that cannot be breached.

Lawyers, though, are raising the possibility that those laws are being misinterpreted.

“It makes no sense to suggest that an employee who works for the state for a single day has acquired a right to have future pension benefits calculated for the next 20 to 40 years under whatever method was in effect on that single first day of service,” states a legal memorandum prepared for the Commercial Club of Chicago, which is concerned that a public pension collapse would badly damage the city’s business climate.

The club’s members include senior executives of big companies, like Boeing, Aon, Kraft, Motorola and I.B.M., that have frozen pensions or slowed the rates at which their workers build up benefits.

Some of those cuts set off titanic battles. The most famous was at I.B.M., which changed its pension plan just when many of its older workers were about to earn sharply higher retirement benefits. Aggrieved workers sued, but after a long battle, a federal appellate court found that the cuts were legal.

“An employer is free to move from one legal plan to another legal plan, provided that it does not diminish vested interests,” or the benefits workers have already earned, wrote Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago. He did not distinguish between corporate employers and states.

Colorado is basing its legal defense, in part, on a 1961 state supreme court ruling that said pension cuts for current workers were allowed if “actuarially necessary,” and will argue that it applies to retirees as well. Other states may not have such legal tools.

In California, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has gone a different route, bargaining with the 12 unions that represent public employees. Last week four of them agreed to let the state cut its own contributions by requiring current workers to pay sharply more for the same pensions. The workers will contribute 10 percent of their pay, in some cases double the previous rate, to the state pension fund. Some other states are raising employee contributions as well, though less sharply.

In New Jersey, the administration of Gov. Christopher J. Christie recently imposed pension cuts on future hires, but has been quietly looking into whether it could also reduce the benefits that current employees expect to accumulate in the coming years.

“Can they change the benefit formula going forward? Sure. It’s not etched in stone,” said Edward Thomson III, an actuary and trustee of the New Jersey pension system who was asked to offer an opinion on whether New Jersey could adopt the federal pension law — the one that covers companies — as its governing statute.

A state assemblyman, Declan J. O’Scanlon Jr., recently introduced a bill to ratchet back a 9 percent pension increase that the state gave most workers in 2001.

“I think this will pass constitutional muster,” Mr. O’Scanlon said. “Otherwise, I fear the whole system will fall apart. Nine years — we’re out of money.”


Amy Schoenfeld contributed reporting.


This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: June 22, 2010


An earlier version of this article incorrectly described Illinois's new pension cap as applying to the pension itself, not the salary used to figure it.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
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