Tuesday, November 24, 2009

November 24 2009: Bonds, herds and game theory


Detroit Publishing Co. Pulp 1890
Girls of the paper mills, taking a water break. Appleton, Wisconsin


Ilargi: Yes, existing home sales were up. But between the effect of last-ditch efforts (before it was extended) to get the $8000 tax credit, falling prices and most of all the ongoing subprime-condition FHA loans and the Fed's securities purchases, is the rise such a surprise? It may lift Wall Street for a bit, but, as Calculated Risk pointed out a few days ago, existing home sales are irrelevant for the economy. Inventory remains sky-high, and that's just the homes that are actually counted. All in all, not very interesting territory, if you ask me.

What I find far more intriguing to see, via Business Insider, is a paper by Jeff Saut at Raymond James. Saut argues that even if there is a bubble in stocks,
"under-invested institutional portfolio managers have to buy stocks into year-end driven by their under-performance, their subsequent "bonus risk", and ultimately their "job risk."

He links this to game theory, and quotes Jeremy Grantham, who says:
"In markets where investors hand over their money to professionals, the major inefficiency becomes career risk.  Everyone’s ultimate job description becomes ‘keep your job!’  (Manifestly) Career risk-reduction takes precedence over maximizing the client’s return. 

Efficient career-risk management means never being wrong on your own, so herding, perhaps for different reasons, also characterizes professional investing.  Herding produces momentum in prices, pushing them further away from fair value as people buy because they are buying."

Now, I find the connection between game theory and economics a very shaky one, even if, or should I say because, 8 Nobel Fakeconomics winners were game theorists. The problem with the connection is that things like perfect rationality, perfect information availability and perfect choices among players are presumed and even taken for granted. Which, you are right, sounds an awful lot like classical economics. Of course we've long known that such presumptions are ridiculous, and that makes game theory on the whole a lousy fit with a field such as economics. What is at the heart of this are game theory solution concepts such as the Nash equilibrium:
A set of strategies is a Nash equilibrium if each represents a best response to the other strategies. So, if all the players are playing the strategies in a Nash equilibrium, they have no unilateral incentive to deviate, since their strategy is the best they can do given what others are doing. (Wiki)
I hope the idea is clear.


Still, the underlying notion Saut introduces is, as I said, intriguing. Just about everyone who follows the economy even a little is wondering why stock markets are rising while the economies they are supposed to reflect are scraping their respective gutters ever deeper? Grantham again:
"Refusing, on value principal, to buy in a bubble will, in contrast, look dangerously eccentric.  And when your timing is wrong, which is inevitable sooner or later, you will in Keynes’ words – ‘Not receive much mercy’" [..] "Today the challenge is not getting the big bets right.  It’s arriving back at trend with the same clients you left with . . ."

In other words, there are scores of large investors out there who are willing to put their clients’ money in what they realize, to an extent, are potentially losing or even bad bets. Going against the ruling trends, say Saut and Grantham, would be -perceived as- riskier than following one's instincts, and even than one's desire to maximize profits for clients. And that is quite a statement. Better to lose with everyone else than to lose alone. Not exactly an attitude that will make you rich, but yes, it might keep you in a job for a while.

Where it gets really good is when we ponder how many of these investors think the risk of losing is over 50%, and then still keep doing what they do. Psychological theories about herding behavior may well prove to be much more useful in understanding this phenomenon than game theory. After all, game theory doesn't seem to cover behavior that doesn't seek optimum returns.

I would add that perhaps there is an additional factor at play. Many of these institutional investors have lost fortunes for their funds last year, and until March 2009. The urgent desire to make up as much of these losses as possible may also tempt them to arrive at irrational risks and decisions. And yes, that may also be because they fear losing their jobs.

There is of course a flipside to all this. One which we all instinctively recognize. We know this can't go on forever. Somewhere down this upward line something will happen that will break the herd. Ever seen a herd panic? I know many of you think the current trend has a lot of life left in it, but herds are inherently unpredictable.

To see how this might work out, it seems reasonable to ask: what are these "game theory driven" investors buying into? We've sufficiently covered the made up and embellished number games from governments and media that accompany the market rally. Which may have outlived itself.

Today brings a veritable avalanche on sovereign debt. And hey, maybe that will do it.

As for US debt, the New York Times reports:
Treasury officials estimate that about 36 percent of the government’s marketable debt — about $1.6 trillion — is coming due in the months ahead.

And that's not the whole story. Tyler Durden noted on November 1st:
As the assets on the US balance sheet become increasingly long-dated, courtesy of QE, and locking in record low rates, US liabilities in turn have shortened their duration to a record level. Almost $3 trillion in US debt will have to be rolled by the end of 2010.

But wait, that's just the existing debt that has to be rolled over. Then there's the new debt that has to be added to keep things rolling along:
Bill Bonner writes that his friend Porter Stansberry estimates the US government alone will need to finance $4.5 trillion worth of bonds next year.

Which, by the way, given that the US added close to $2 trillion in debt in 2009, seems almost certain to be a low ball estimate. It's more likely that the total amount of new and existing US 2010 debt will come in "comfortably" over $5 trillion.

Moreover, the official federal deficit recently broke through the $12 trillion mark. And all this is happening in a situation with very low interest rates. A quote from the NYT article: "The government is on teaser rates". Which seems a good comparison. And which cannot last forever. And no, it can also not last as long as Ben Bernanke wills it to. The $5 trillion US debt in 2010 will have to compete for buyers in a global market that can look forward to a minimum of $12 trillion in sovereign debt being available for purchase.

Perhaps the best shot the US government has in that market is for the stock markets to crash, since that will lift the US dollar, and free up a lot of financial space for the administration. Of course, it would also crash the banks and the housing industry, but then, they are goners anyway. Politically, job creation would be good. Let's see Washington add another $1 trillion to that debt load.

Mind you, CDS bets against Italy are through the ceiling, Greece may fall through the floor any day now, Spain moved into the basement months ago, Japan is celebrating a decade of rigor mortis and China is a bubble with 1.5 billion souls wearing brave faces who have no-one left to sell their earthly goods to.

Everybody has to keep on buying. Until they won't.

And when they no longer do, and they're busy stampeding through the exit, you can apply all the game theory you want.












Even If Stocks Are A Bubble, Everyone Has To Keep Buying
In his latest later, Raymond James strategist Jeff Saut argues that even if there is something like a bubble in stocks, everyone has to keep buying into it, or else they lose their jobs.

Thus, the trend remains your friend.

Nevertheless, we think the upside should continue to be driven by “game theory,” which suggests that the under-invested institutional portfolio managers have to buy stocks into year-end driven by their under-performance, their subsequent “bonus risk,” and ultimately their “job risk.”  Verily, many of the portfolio managers we know remain under extreme pressure to commit their outsized cash positions in an attempt to “catch up” to their benchmarks between now and year-end (see the nearby Credit Suisse institutional cash versus retail cash on the sidelines chart).

Reinforcing that game theory point Jeremy Grantham notes:

“In markets where investors hand over their money to professionals, the major inefficiency becomes career risk.  Everyone’s ultimate job description becomes ‘keep your job!’  (Manifestly) Career risk-reduction takes precedence over maximizing the client’s return. 

Efficient career-risk management means never being wrong on your own, so herding, perhaps for different reasons, also characterizes professional investing.  Herding produces momentum in prices, pushing them further away from fair value as people buy because they are buying.”

Jeremy goes on to note a couple of insightful points: “Refusing, on value principal, to buy in a bubble will, in contrast, look dangerously eccentric.  And when your timing is wrong, which is inevitable sooner or later, you will in Keynes’ words – ‘Not receive much mercy’” – he sums up what that means to the folks who try not to go with the herd and do the right thing, “Today the challenge is not getting the big bets right.  It’s arriving back at trend with the same clients you left with . . .”

Plainly, we agree with Mr. Grantham, which is why we continue to think the improving fundamentals, and earnings, will serve as the “carrot in front of the horse” to keep investors chasing stocks even if we do get a near-term pullback.






Bets rise on rich country bond defaults
The mounting level of debt in the industrialised world is prompting a growing number of investors to use the derivatives market to bet on the chance of rich governments defaulting on bonds. The volume of activity in sovereign credit default swaps – which measure the cost to insure against bond defaults – linked to the US, UK and Japan have doubled in the past year because of concerns about their public finances.

CDS volumes for Italy, which has one of the highest debt burdens of the developed economies, are now the highest for an individual country, according to the Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation. In contrast, the outstanding volume of CDS linked to emerging nations such as Russia, Brazil, Ukraine and Indonesia have been flat or fallen in the past 12 months as investors have become less interested in trading the risks of those countries.

In the past, the CDS market for developed countries was sluggish, because few investors saw the need to buy or sell protection against a risk of default that seemed exceedingly remote. However, rising debt levels and growing political and economic uncertainty has created a more active market, with more investors now seeking insurance. Meanwhile, many banks are prepared to offer protection in exchange for a fee. This fee has recently jumped, since the cost to insure the debt of developed countries has increased since the summer of last year, while the cost of insuring emerging market debt has fallen.

Gary Jenkins, head of fixed income research at Evolution, said: "The biggest single risk hanging over the bond markets is the rapid rise in public debt in the industrialised world. "If we get to a point where the market thinks the levels of debt are unsustainable, then we will see an almighty sell-off in the government bond markets, with yields soaring. Governments need to take action to cut deficits and debt." Fitch Solutions, the data arm of the Fitch Group, said that there is almost as much uncertainty in the CDS market about the outlook for the developed economies and their bond markets as there is for emerging economies.

Comparisons between Italy and Brazil are often used by strategists as an example of the contrasting fortunes of the developed and emerging world. Italy’s debt to gross domestic product ratio is forecast to rise to 127.3 per cent in 2010. On the other hand, Brazil’s debt to GDP ratio is forecast to stabilise at 65.4 per cent in 2010. Nigel Rendell, senior emerging markets strategist at RBC Capital Markets, said: "It is not surprising that investors are increasingly worried about debt in the industrialised world. Debt to GDP of more than 100 per cent is difficult to sustain."





Wave of Debt Payments Facing U.S. Government
The United States government is financing its more than trillion-dollar-a-year borrowing with i.o.u.’s on terms that seem too good to be true. But that happy situation, aided by ultralow interest rates, may not last much longer. Treasury officials now face a trifecta of headaches: a mountain of new debt, a balloon of short-term borrowings that come due in the months ahead, and interest rates that are sure to climb back to normal as soon as the Federal Reserve decides that the emergency has passed.

Even as Treasury officials are racing to lock in today’s low rates by exchanging short-term borrowings for long-term bonds, the government faces a payment shock similar to those that sent legions of overstretched homeowners into default on their mortgages. With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government’s tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. Other forecasters say the figure could be much higher.



In concrete terms, an additional $500 billion a year in interest expense would total more than the combined federal budgets this year for education, energy, homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The potential for rapidly escalating interest payouts is just one of the wrenching challenges facing the United States after decades of living beyond its means. The surge in borrowing over the last year or two is widely judged to have been a necessary response to the financial crisis and the deep recession, and there is still a raging debate over how aggressively to bring down deficits over the next few years. But there is little doubt that the United States’ long-term budget crisis is becoming too big to postpone.

Americans now have to climb out of two deep holes: as debt-loaded consumers, whose personal wealth sank along with housing and stock prices; and as taxpayers, whose government debt has almost doubled in the last two years alone, just as costs tied to benefits for retiring baby boomers are set to explode. The competing demands could deepen political battles over the size and role of the government, the trade-offs between taxes and spending, the choices between helping older generations versus younger ones, and the bottom-line questions about who should ultimately shoulder the burden.

"The government is on teaser rates," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan group that advocates lower deficits. "We’re taking out a huge mortgage right now, but we won’t feel the pain until later." So far, the demand for Treasury securities from investors and other governments around the world has remained strong enough to hold down the interest rates that the United States must offer to sell them. Indeed, the government paid less interest on its debt this year than in 2008, even though it added almost $2 trillion in debt.

The government’s average interest rate on new borrowing last year fell below 1 percent. For short-term i.o.u.’s like one-month Treasury bills, its average rate was only sixteen-hundredths of a percent. "All of the auction results have been solid," said Matthew Rutherford, the Treasury’s deputy assistant secretary in charge of finance operations. "Investor demand has been very broad, and it’s been increasing in the last couple of years."

The problem, many analysts say, is that record government deficits have arrived just as the long-feared explosion begins in spending on benefits under Medicare and Social Security. The nation’s oldest baby boomers are approaching 65, setting off what experts have warned for years will be a fiscal nightmare for the government. "What a good country or a good squirrel should be doing is stashing away nuts for the winter," said William H. Gross, managing director of the Pimco Group, the giant bond-management firm. "The United States is not only not saving nuts, it’s eating the ones left over from the last winter."

The current low rates on the country’s debt were caused by temporary factors that are already beginning to fade. One factor was the economic crisis itself, which caused panicked investors around the world to plow their money into the comparative safety of Treasury bills and notes. Even though the United States was the epicenter of the global crisis, investors viewed Treasury securities as the least dangerous place to park their money.



On top of that, the Fed used almost every tool in its arsenal to push interest rates down even further. It cut the overnight federal funds rate, the rate at which banks lend reserves to one another, to almost zero. And to reduce longer-term rates, it bought more than $1.5 trillion worth of Treasury bonds and government-guaranteed securities linked to mortgages. Those conditions are already beginning to change. Global investors are shifting money into riskier investments like stocks and corporate bonds, and they have been pouring money into fast-growing countries like Brazil and China.

The Fed, meanwhile, is already halting its efforts at tamping down long-term interest rates. Fed officials ended their $300 billion program to buy up Treasury bonds last month, and they have announced plans to stop buying mortgage-backed securities by the end of next March. Eventually, though probably not until at least mid-2010, the Fed will also start raising its benchmark interest rate back to more historically normal levels.

The United States will not be the only government competing to refinance huge debt. Japan, Germany, Britain and other industrialized countries have even higher government debt loads, measured as a share of their gross domestic product, and they too borrowed heavily to combat the financial crisis and economic downturn. As the global economy recovers and businesses raise capital to finance their growth, all that new government debt is likely to put more upward pressure on interest rates.

Even a small increase in interest rates has a big impact. An increase of one percentage point in the Treasury’s average cost of borrowing would cost American taxpayers an extra $80 billion this year — about equal to the combined budgets of the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. But that could seem like a relatively modest pinch. Alan Levenson, chief economist at T. Rowe Price, estimated that the Treasury’s tab for debt service this year would have been $221 billion higher if it had faced the same interest rates as it did last year.

The White House estimates that the government will have to borrow about $3.5 trillion more over the next three years. On top of that, the Treasury has to refinance, or roll over, a huge amount of short-term debt that was issued during the financial crisis. Treasury officials estimate that about 36 percent of the government’s marketable debt — about $1.6 trillion — is coming due in the months ahead.



To lock in low interest rates in the years ahead, Treasury officials are trying to replace one-month and three-month bills with 10-year and 30-year Treasury securities. That strategy will save taxpayers money in the long run. But it pushes up costs drastically in the short run, because interest rates are higher for long-term debt. Adding to the pressure, the Fed is set to begin reversing some of the policies it has been using to prop up the economy. Wall Street firms advising the Treasury recently estimated that the Fed’s purchases of Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities pushed down long-term interest rates by about one-half of a percentage point.

Removing that support could in itself add $40 billion to the government’s annual tab for debt service. This month, the Treasury Department’s private-sector advisory committee on debt management warned of the risks ahead. "Inflation, higher interest rate and rollover risk should be the primary concerns," declared the Treasury Borrowing Advisory Committee, a group of market experts that provide guidance to the government, on Nov. 4. "Clever debt management strategy," the group said, "can’t completely substitute for prudent fiscal policy."




Could sovereign debt be the new subprime?
by Gillian Tett

A few weeks ago, Claudio Borio, head of research at the Bank for International Settlements, warned in a solemn note to Group of 20 leaders that modern financial policymakers are "driving while just looking in the rear-view mirror": western finance officials have focused so much on past risks that they fail to spot new dangers. Worse still, as policymakers rush to implement reforms in response to one financial calamity, they are apt to create distortions that pave the way for the next disaster. Just such an unintended consequence could now be festering in the banking sector, as its balance sheets are increasingly stuffed with government bonds.

These days, there is a near-unanimous belief among western regulators that one way to prevent a repeat of the 2007-08 crisis is to stop banks taking crazy risks with subprime mortgage bonds or complex instruments such as collateralised debt obligations (CDOs). Instead, banks are being urged to hold a higher proportion of their assets in the form of "safe" instruments, most notably sovereign or quasi-sovereign debt. G20 regulators are holding regular meetings in Basel to draw up rules on how banks should do this, as part of a wider reform of financial regulation.

In theory, that move sounds very sensible. One reason why large banks crumbled last year was that many were carrying vast quantities of highly rated CDOs and other toxic paper. These not only lost their value during the crisis, but also became impossible to trade, creating a liquidity shock for the banks. Government bonds, by contrast, remained liquid during the recent crisis (and have been so in the past few decades). So it appears appealing to hold more of them, particularly given that sovereign debt is also widely presumed to be ultra safe; so safe that the yield on government bonds is known as the "risk-free rate".

But could this flight to the "safety" of government bonds in itself be creating subtle new dangers? Government debt, after all, has soared to levels not seen in peacetime for centuries, if ever, in many countries, not least the US and UK. Fiscal deficits are swelling across the western world. And the level of political commitment to curbing those deficits remains uncertain – not least because with yields currently so low there is less pressure on politicians to push through reform.

That does not necessarily mean an outright default looms any time soon; indeed, default seems highly unlikely. However, it is easy to imagine that some countries will end up eroding the value of their bonds by debasing their currencies in the coming years, printing money and stoking inflation. It is even easier to anticipate a sharp rise in bond yields – and a corresponding sharp fall in bond prices – particularly when central banks stop their quantitative easing programmes. Some smart hedge funds are betting on just that.

Yet there has been precious little debate about whether banks should keep loading up on sovereign debt. In Sydney, some Australian banks are grumbling about the Basel liquidity reforms. Ironically, that is because Australia is in the rare, happy position of having low(ish) debt levels, and its local banks fear they will struggle to find the bonds they need to meet the new G20 liquidity rules. In countries where there is likely to be a surplus of government bonds for sale, there is little public discussion at all. Perhaps that is because the banks do not wish to rock the boat; or maybe central banks themselves do not wish to draw attention to the swelling volumes of government bonds they now hold themselves.

Finance ministries are hardly likely to complain about the banks’ investments. Major industrialised countries will need to sell more than $12,000bn worth of government bonds this year and next to fund their fiscal hole. This is a rise of at least a third, or $3,000bn, in just two years. As Mr Borio notes, focusing only on that rear-view mirror is dangerous; whatever causes the next banking shock, it will not be mortgage CDOs. So I, for one, fervently hope that those banks holding government bonds are being cautious enough to hedge themselves against any future crash in their price; so too, for those holding quasi-government instruments, such as agency bonds.

I also hope that when the Basel regulators finally produce their new liquidity rules, the banks will have to build in a significant margin of error to reflect a potential fall in government bonds. This would underline the point to both banks and investors that government bonds are not automatically "risk-free". Most important of all, though, I hope that the current calm in sovereign debt markets does not lull politicians into thinking that they can indefinitely avoid the need to take difficult fiscal choices. For if they do, those "safe" government bonds might start to look considerably less secure – not just to bankers, but to everybody.




Greece tests the limit of sovereign debt as it grinds towards slump
Greece is disturbingly close to a debt compound spiral. It is the first developed country on either side of the Atlantic to push unfunded welfare largesse to the limits of market tolerance. Euro membership blocks every plausible way out of the crisis, other than EU beggary. This is what happens when a facile political elite signs up to a currency union for reasons of prestige or to snatch windfall gains without understanding the terms of its Faustian contract.

When the European Central Bank's Jean-Claude Trichet said last week that certain sinners on the edges of the eurozone were "very close to losing their credibility", everybody knew he meant Greece. The interest spread between 10-year Greek bonds and German bunds has jumped to 178 basis points. Greek debt has decoupled from Italian debt. Athens can no longer hide behind others in EMU's soft South. "As far as the bond vigilantes are concerned, the Bat-Signal is up for Greece," said Francesco Garzarelli in a Goldman Sachs client note, Tremors at the EMU Periphery.

The newly-elected Hellenic Socialists (PASOK) of George Papandreou confess that the budget deficit will be more than 12pc of GDP this year, four times the original claim of the last lot. After campaigning on extra spending, it will have to do the exact opposite. "We need to save the country from bankruptcy," he said. Good luck. Communist-led shipyard workers have already clashed violently with police. Some 200 anarchists were arrested in Athens last week after they torched streets of cars in a tear gas battle.

Mr Papandreou has mooted a pay freeze for state workers earning more than €2,000 a month. This has already set off an internal party revolt. "There is enormous denial," said Lars Christensen, emerging markets chief at Danske Bank. "They don't seem to understand that very serious austerity measures are needed. It is a striking contrast with Ireland," he said. Brussels says Greece's public debt will rise from 99pc of GDP in 2008 to 135pc by 2011, without drastic cuts. Athens has been shortening debt maturities to trim costs, storing up a roll-over crisis next year. Some €18bn comes due in the second quarter of 2010 (IMF). Modern economies have reached such debt levels before, and survived, but never in the circumstances facing Greece. "They can't devalue: they can't print money," said Mr Christensen.

The tourist trade is withering, down 20pc last season by revenue. Turkey was up. It is hard to pin down how much is a currency effect, but clearly Greece has priced itself out of the Club Med market. Wages rose a staggering 12pc in the 2008-2009 pay-round alone (IMF data), suicidal in a Teutonic currency union. Greece has slipped to 71st in the competitiveness index of the World Economic Forum, behind Egypt and Botswana. Greece has long been skating on thin ice. The current account deficit hit 14.5pc of GDP in 2008. External debt has reached 144p (IMF). Eurozone creditors – German banks? – hold €200bn of Greek debt.

A warning from Bank of Greece that lenders must wean themselves off the ECB's emergency funding has brought matters to a head. Default insurance on Greek debt jumped 40 basis points last week. Greek banks have borrowed €40bn from the ECB at 1pc, playing the "yield curve" by purchasing state bonds. This EU subsidy has made up for losses on property, shipping, and Balkan woes. The banks insist that they are in rude good health. EFG Eurobank has halved reliance on ECB funding. "Greek banks are very liquid: we maintain billions in extra liquidity," it said. Yet markets are wary. Recession has come late to Greece, but will bite deep in 2010. It takes three years for defaults to peak once the cycle turns.

David Marsh, author of The Euro: The Politics of The New Global Currency, said the danger for EMU laggards is that the ECB will begin to tighten before they are out of trouble. It is German recovery that threatens to stretch the North-South divide towards breaking point. Athens squandered its euro windfall. For a decade, EMU let Greece borrow at almost the same cost as Germany. It was a heaven-sent chance to whittle down debt. Instead, the country dug itself deeper into a hole by running budget deficits near 5pc of GDP at the top of the boom. Like Labour under Brown, idiot leaders mistook a bubble for their own skill. But the consequences in EMU are more dreadful. Austerity may prove self-defeating, without the cure of devaluation. Greece risks grinding deeper into slump.

The EU can paper over this by transfering large sums of money to Greece. But will Berlin, Paris – and London, also on the hook – feel obliged to bail out a country that has so flagrantly violated the rules of the club, not least by holding Eastern Europe's EU entry to ransom over Cyprus? That is neither forgotten, nor forgiven. During the panic last February, German finance minister Peer Steinbruck promised to rescue any eurozone state in dire trouble. He is no longer in office. The pledge was, in any case, a bounced political cheque even when he wrote it. Greece can assume nothing.




Dealing with America's fiscal hole
For years America’s fiscal problems had a surreal quality. No one disputed that an ageing population and health-care inflation could bust the budget, but that prospect was decades away and procrastination seemed painless. No longer. A giant hole has opened in the budget because of stimulus, bail-outs and a recession that has savaged economic growth and tax revenue. On current policies the publicly held federal debt, 41% of GDP last year, will double in the next decade. Total government debt will move well above the G20 average. In a few years the AAA rating of Treasury bonds, the world’s most important security, could be in jeopardy.

A sudden crisis is unlikely. Other rich countries with far bigger debts relative to the size of their economies, from Italy to Japan, have soldiered on without hitting a wall. Stable politics, transparent laws and economic dominance give America unequalled credibility with lenders. For all the anxiety the declining dollar drew from China this week, it has no serious rival as the world’s reserve currency. America has sensibly used this fiscal freedom to enact an aggressive stimulus programme. This should be maintained for as long as it is needed.

Yet ignoring the future is also costly. The problem is not the deficits in the next couple of years, but in the years that follow. Uncertainty over how taxes may be raised to shrink deficits may already be weighing on business confidence. Worries about inflation or default could start to push up interest rates. Eventually, private investment will be crowded out. Barack Obama and Congress can pre-empt such corrosive uncertainty with a plan to reduce the deficit now. Far from requiring immediate spending cuts or tax increases, a credible plan would reassure markets and allow an orderly exit from fiscal stimulus. The Federal Reserve provides a model: it does not plan to tighten monetary policy in the near future, but has signalled its willingness to do so when inflation threatens.

Where the cutting should begin
America’s deficit problem is in essence a spending problem, so spending must bear the brunt of adjustment. An ageing population and health-care inflation are inexorably driving up the cost of the country’s three big entitlements: Social Security (pensions), Medicare and Medicaid (health care for the elderly and the poor, respectively). Mr Obama has long promised that health reform would cover the uninsured without adding to the deficit, while reining in long-term costs.

Unfortunately, the prospects for controlling costs are tenuous. Achieving large savings will require action on many fronts. Raising the retirement age for Social Security and Medicare would save money while encouraging Americans to work longer, thereby expanding economic potential. Medicaid could be converted to block grants, compelling states to assume more of the burden of cost control. Other spending should also be vigorously squeezed, to stop federal funds being wasted on highways of dubious value or trade-distorting farm subsidies.

Still, cold arithmetic suggests that spending cuts alone cannot deliver enough. Changes to entitlements take effect only gradually. And the scope for slashing non-defence discretionary spending is limited, since it makes up merely one-sixth of total outlays. So Americans are stuck with a budgetary conundrum: they seem to be opting for more government, at least in health care, yet they do not seem prepared to pay for it. Their leaders have indulged this fantasy. Mr Obama has foolishly sworn off higher taxes on 95% of households, and Republicans will not countenance them for anybody. This newspaper strongly prefers small government and low taxes, but if Americans are to have bigger government and a sustainable budget, tax revenues will have to rise.

Taxing politics
Raising tax revenue will hurt less if the tax system becomes more supportive of economic growth in the process. Compared with other countries, America taxes consumption too little and income too much. Redressing this imbalance could, with time, help economic growth. First, broaden the income-tax base by eliminating exemptions, and if possible cutting rates. Second, introduce a carbon tax, the least distorting way to slow the growth in emissions. If that is not possible, sell rather than give away carbon-emission permits, or raise the federal fuel tax. A last resort is a broad consumption tax, such as a value-added tax. This is economically efficient, but could too easily become a politically convenient way to vacuum up more money and expand government.

The economics of fiscal reform are straightforward; it’s the politics that are tough. Mr Obama should start the process with a budget early next year that aims to stabilise, and preferably reduce, the debt-to-GDP ratio in the coming decade. The problem is getting Congress to pass the necessary laws. The polarisation of American politics has left Democrats more set on defending entitlements and Republicans determined to hold down taxes. With mid-term elections a year away, the incentive to compromise is shrivelling.

One way to finesse these toxic politics would be to establish a bipartisan commission to fix entitlements and taxes, as proposed by Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg, respectively the most senior Democrat and Republican on the Senate Budget Committee. Its membership would be drawn from both parties, both chambers of Congress and the White House. Democrats and Republicans alike would have to make sacrifices. To preserve this grand bargain, Congress would be allowed only to approve or reject the commission’s proposal, not amend it.

This is no magic bullet. Although similar processes have been used to negotiate trade deals, the stakes in this case would be far higher, as would the chances of failure. Republicans in particular may balk at co-operating. The commission could deadlock, or see its proposal voted down, precipitating the sort of market disruption the scheme was meant to avoid. But that actually may be an advantage: politicians may conclude that failure is not an option. The best defence against a crisis is to act as though you are facing one.




IMF warns second bailout would 'threaten democracy'
The public will not bail out the financial services sector for a second time if another global crisis blows up in four or five years time, the managing-director of the International Monetary Fund warned this morning. Dominique Strauss-Kahn told the CBI annual conference of business leaders that another huge call on public finances by the financial services sector would not be tolerated by the "man in the street" and could even threaten democracy.

"Most advanced economies will not accept any more [bailouts]...The political reaction will be very strong, putting some democracies at risk," he told delegates. "I do believe that the financial sector needs to contribute both to the costs of the financial crisis and to reduce recourse to public funds in the future," he said.

Mr Strauss-Kahn said that imposing high capital ratio requirements on banks was one price the financial services sector must pay to prevent the threat of further multi-billion dollar bailouts. He pointed to the debate in the US over the Troubled Asset Relief Programme and said that in many countries, including France and Germany, he doubted that politicians would secure the mandate needed to secure any further bail-outs if banks got in to trouble again, in several years' time.

Europe is in dispute over the spiralling cost of the global economic bailout, with Germany and France calling for a reduction in state support as their economies have shown signs of an upturn. In September, George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, sided with Germany and France, accusing Gordon Brown of being in "complete denial" over the mounting bill of the financial rescue packages and agreed with Britain's neighbours that it was time to look for an exit strategy. Countries are recovering from recession at different rates, with Britain lagging behind.

Mr Strauss-Kahn said that while the global economy had made "remarkable" progress in exiting recession, and was on the cusp of recovery, it remained "highly vulnerable" to shocks. He said state support for the world's battered economies must remain in place if a smooth recovery is to be achieved. "We recommend erring on the side of caution as exiting too early is costlier than exiting too late." Mr Strauss-Kahn is one of a series of high-profile speakers at the CBI conference, in Central London. Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg will all speak at the event as they seek to sway influential business leaders before a general election next year.

In his speech, Mr Strauss-Kahn also warned that the huge amounts of capital being pumped into China could fuel a pan-Asian bubble. His comments come after warnings from economists that the economic conditions in China and the rest of Asia are such that asset prices could rip free of their fundamental values unless the bubble threat is addressed. The Chinese banking sector is currently the scene of an unprecedented frenzy of new lending, which could reach up to 11,000 billion yuan (£97.7 billion) by the end of this year.

Mr Strauss-Khan said that the old paradigm of growth generation based on households in the US was dead. The future sources of growth and the recovery will "depend on a new balance between the US and deficit countries on one hand and emerging markets and surplus countries on the other". Emerging markets will provide some of the growth that the US can no longer offer, however he warned that while China and other emerging Asian economies were shifting from exports to domestic demand, they still had some way to go.




China banking regulator gets tough on capital rules
China's banking regulator issued a stern warning to banks to strictly comply with capital requirements or face sanctions, the latest signal that Beijing is worried about possible risks building in the country's financial system after a year of blow-out lending. Banks that fail to comply by the end of the year with capital adequacy requirements—the amount of capital they must hold against their loans—could be punished with limits on market access, overseas investments and new branches, the China Banking Regulatory Commission said in a statement on its Web site. Such sanctions already exist, but have rarely been enforced.

New loans in the first half of this year totaled 7.37 trillion yuan ($1.079 trillion), equivalent to half of the country's gross domestic product over the period, as the government turned to bank lending to power its economic stimulus plans. There are fears that the lending binge could saddle banks with large amounts of non-performing loans, reversing some of the gains achieved over the past decade of financial reforms that were aimed at turning China's state banks into commercial lenders better able to manage risk. The tough statement indicates that Beijing is ready to more actively tighten the credit growth that has been the linchpin of China's economic recovery.

Higher capital requirements act as a constraint on lending, as banks would need to raise additional money before they could make more loans. The capital adequacy requirement was raised to 10% from 8% at the end of last year. At the same time, banks were ordered to set aside credit provisions equivalent to at least 150% of their bad loans. More recently, the CBRC reduced the amount of subordinated bonds—debt that has a lower priority than other claims on an asset, and has higher returns— that banks could count toward their capital requirements. This was after it became apparent that banks were using the debt to lend money to each other, raising the risk that a default could ripple through the entire system.

A spokesman for China Construction Bank Corp, one of the Big Four state lenders, said the banking regulator "is considering imposing stricter capital requirements for lenders" next year, and the bank is closely monitoring the situation. Hu Changmiao said his bank "isn't yet sure" whether the CBRC will decide to raise its capital requirement and if so, by how much, because the regulator "hasn't issued any written notices." A CBRC spokesman said there "won't be any sudden changes" in banks' capital requirements. He denied a media report saying the regulator will require major state-owned banks to have a capital adequacy ratio of 13% from next year.

The spokesman said capital ratios are decided in a "counter-cyclical" way to address "systemic risks," language that indicates Beijing sees these regulatory requirements as one way to cool down a lending boom if it threatens economic stability. In the past, Chinese authorities have curbed overheated lending by imposing sweeping credit quotas. This time, they appear to be adopting a more market-oriented approach, while being prepared to use ad hoc administrative measures as necessary.

Last week, the regulator issued verbal instructions to a mid-sized Chinese state lender that it must limit outstanding loans for the last two months of the year to its level at the end of October, according to an internal bank memo shown to Dow Jones Newswires by a bank executive on the condition that his employer not be identified. The regulator denied issuing such a notice. No other banks seem to have been similar instructed. But medium-sized banks in particular have had trouble maintaining their required capital levels and loan-to-deposit limits, having been especially aggressive in using the stimulus boost to grant more loans and expand their market share. Beijing may be tempted to again directly cap some of their lending limits rather than hope they will adjust their loan portfolio to meet the requirements.

In its statement on Monday, the CBRC said it doesn't plan to impose any controls on the size of bank loans. It also said it aims to promote a stable and continued growth in bank lending, and prevent "big swings" in lending. Lending curbs were last imposed at the end of 2007 to cool an overheating economy, and were lifted in October 2008 with the onset of the global financial crisis. There is little likelihood that loan limits might be rolled out to the entire banking system. Although China is growing faster than any major economy, a sudden pullback in bank lending could shake the country's recovery.

A greater concern for Beijing is likely to be the fallout in two or three years if banks discover that many of their loans won't be repaid. China's last efforts to rid the financial system of non-performing loans five years ago cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars, and the experience is still fresh in regulators' minds. Bank lending has slowed somewhat over the last month, with banks extending 253 billion yuan of new yuan loans in October, the lowest level so far this year and less than half of September's amount. Fitch Ratings analyst Wen Chunling says the banking regulator faces a dilemma. "On the one hand it wants to alert banks over risks. But on the other hand it wants to avoid scaring people with too strong alerts," she said.




Existing Home Sales Surge on Cheap Condos
by Barry Ritholtz

Existing-home sales gained in October on a monthly basis as prices fell and cheaper homes predominated sales. Elevated inventory levels also declined.

Existing-home sales gained 10.1%, reflecting in large part an outsized seasonal adjustment. Sales were 23.5% above the 4.94 million-unit level in October 2008, when the collapse of Fannie, Lehman, AIG, Bank of America and Citigroup had paralyzed the nation.

Median existing-home price was $173,100 in October, down 7.1% from October 2008.

The biggest gains were found in the cheapest homes – especially condominiums and co-ops. Their sales surged 13.2% (seasonally adjusted) and were up an astonishing 40.8% above a year ago. Median prices for condos fell 10.4% below October 2008.

As expected, the prior month’s initial report was revised downward to annual pace of 5.54 million in September (originally reported as 5.57mm annualized). These revisions effectively eliminated the upside surprise of 220k sales last month.

EHSNSAOct2009

It is noteworthy that the NAR claims the seasonally adjusted sales activity is at the highest level since February 2007 (6.55 million). CNN bought this nonsense hook line and sinker (Existing home sales at highest level since 2007) but it is not actually true without some accounting sleight of hand.

As the chart at right shows, the NSA data is quite unimpressive relative to the past few years.

Ultra low interest rates are helping sales somewhat. A 30-year, conventional, fixed-rate mortgage fell to 4.95% Last week, the 30-year rate dropped to 4.83%.

In addition to the low rates and the now extended first time homebuyers’ tax credit, a big spike in foreclosures is attracting bargain hunters. In parts of the country, some foreclosed units are selling for less than 50% of the peak 2005-06 price – especially on the low-end of the price scale. Foreclosure units have been selling briskly in California, Florida, Arizona, and Las Vegas.

Total housing inventory for sale fell 3.7% to 3.57 million existing homes, a 7.0-month supply at the current sales pace. This does not include a variety of so-called shadow inventory: REOs, rental units, vacation properties, and bank-owned strategic non-foreclosures.

>
Seasonal Adjustments Continue to Skew Data:
Mark Hanson notes the ongoing skew of Seasonal Adjustments, and the continuing spin of the NAR:

  1. The month of October was thought to be the end of the stimulus, so it reflects a last minute dash to get in before the tax credit sunset
  2. Rates fell sharply to below 5% in Sept/Oct 2009
  3. Despite this, Oct YTD sales are DOWN a whopping 716k from 2007
  4. NSA sales were up 31k sales MoM to 499k in Oct — the exact same as Aug
  5. NSA sales were up 86k sales from Oct 2008 – but in Oct 2008 rates were high (pre Fed QE) and there was not stimuli of any kind
  6. Median and Avg prices fell again – about 1.5% MoM and 6% YoY – price drop accelerated into shoulder season as price dumping and short sales picked up
  7. Year to date Oct 2008 vs Oct 2009 – 2009 sales finally passed 2008 sales by only 61k houses.

So in a nutshell, prices keep falling month after month and 2009 has produced 61k more real sales over 2008.

>

EHS Nov 09
chart courtesy Barron’s Econoday




Housing Leads the Economy, Existing Home Sales are Irrelevant (November 18)
by Calculated Risk

After reading some of the commentary regarding the housing starts report this morning, it might be useful to reiterate these three points:

Residential investment is the best leading indicator for the economy.

Residential investment will not recover rapidly because of the large overhang of existing vacant housing units.

Existing home sales are largely irrelevant for the economy.


Residential investment is reported quarterly by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) as part of the GDP report. We can also use monthly housing starts and new home sales as indicators of residential investment. I've written extensively about how residential investment is an excellent leading indicator for the economy (also see Dr. Leamer's paper: Housing and the Business Cycle)

This morning several commentators suggested that housing starts were depressed in October because of the expiration of the tax credit (new home buyers had to close by Nov 30th to get the tax credit), and also because of the weather. Probably. But the key point is that housing starts will not increase rapidly because of the large overhang of existing vacant housing units (see 2nd graph here). And that suggests that the economy will not recover quickly either.

Another key point is that existing home sales are largely irrelevant for the economy. This is an important point to remember next week when the NAR announces that existing home sales surged to 5.8 million units or so in October (seasonally adjusted annual rate). Some reporters and analysts will jump on the existing home sales report as evidence of a housing recovery. Others will point to it as showing that the first-time home buyer tax credit is helping the economy.

Both points are wrong. The only contribution from existing home sales to the economy are some commissions and fees. That is good news for real estate agents and mortgage brokers, but not for the overall economy.


The good news is the level of inventory for new and existing homes is declining. The bad news is the inventory of rental units is at record levels - as is the combined inventory of vacant single family homes and rental units. Residential investment will not increase significantly until this overhang is reduced.

The key to reducing the overall inventory is new household formation (encouraging renters to become owners accomplishes nothing in reducing the overall housing inventory). And the key to new household formation is jobs. And usually the best leading indicator for jobs is residential investment. Somewhat of a circular trap. And that suggests the recovery will be sluggish and unemployment will stay high for some time.




Geithner’s Crisis Sleepwalk Is Reason He Must Go
If Timothy Geithner were a Broadway show, the producers would shut it down. Treasury secretaries get attacked all the time and have to take it with aplomb. It’s in the job description. The criticism serves a purpose: A secretary who can withstand the withering attacks of congressmen has what it takes to manage a real crisis. Against this backdrop, Geithner’s performance last week was the most pitiful by a major economic policy maker in ages. Geithner broke the cardinal rule for Treasury secretaries. He lost his cool.

On the ropes at a hearing at the Joint Economic Committee on Nov. 19, Geithner defended himself with the only weapon in the Obama administration’s playbook: whining. But this wasn’t the hip, self-assured whining so artfully employed by President Barack Obama. It was shrill. It was unseemly. It was offensive. When Representative Kevin Brady, a Texas Republican, asked Geithner to resign, Geithner chose not to defend his actions. Instead, he pointed his finger back at Brady: "You gave this president an economy falling off the cliff."

After another Texas Republican, Michael Burgess, suggested that the government should offer tax relief to business and then get out of the way, Geithner took the question as an opportunity to bash the entire free enterprise system: "That broad philosophy helped produce the worst financial crisis and the worst recession we’d seen in generations." The problem, in Geithner’s view, seems to be that Brady, Burgess and other Republicans so messed up the world that even his brilliant policies have yet to fix the problem.

It is an iron law of Washington that policy makers lose their cool when they are on shaky ground in terms of substance. Geithner must know in his heart that he, far more than Brady or Burgess, is responsible for the financial crisis. That’s why minor political theater sets him off. Look at the facts. Geithner was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York for the five years leading up to the financial crisis. The crisis occurred, in part, because Wall Street firms spun out of control. The New York Fed is the cop charged with patrolling Wall Street, the eyes and ears of the financial regulatory system. It fundamentally failed on his watch.

Why did the Fed fail? Might it have been because it was run by a man who misunderstood the circumstances? Here is what Geithner had to say about financial markets in a speech in Atlanta in May 2007, just about a year before the crisis really ignited: "Changes in financial markets, including those that are the subject of your conference, have improved the efficiency of financial intermediation and improved our confidence in the ability of markets to absorb stress."

Later he added, "The larger global financial institutions are generally stronger in terms of capital relative to risk. Technology and innovation in financial instruments have made it easier for institutions to manage risk." That rosy description by a Fed president kind of makes you want to run out and buy stock in Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., doesn’t it? No wonder the Fed failed to press the industry harder. It thought that financial innovations had worked a miracle. Geithner used to be asleep at the wheel in New York. Now he is asleep at the wheel in Washington.

The Treasury secretary is supposed to stand up for correct policy. This Treasury Department sat back and let Congress dictate a costly and ineffective stimulus plan. It looked the other way while politicos in the White House hatched a plan to produce false and laughable claims of jobs created from that stimulus, a procedure that is so flawed that it has attributed job creation to congressional districts that don’t exist.

He has allowed Democrats to play budget tricks to understate the costs of their health-care proposals by trillions, even as deficits soar to levels not seen since World War II. He failed to remind, or at least to convince, the president that a deep recession is a bad time for the government to increase fiscal imbalances by staging a takeover of health care. During the presidential campaign, Obama correctly pointed out that a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should use an auction to distribute the pollution permits. Geithner snoozed while Congress decided to hand out the permits as political favors.

And don’t get me started on the dollar. The operatives in the White House clearly picked Geithner because they could count on him to look the other way while they play their economically destructive political games, just as he looked the other way while Wall Street undermined the economy. Geithner is a reliable political sidekick. As for substance, that is another story. New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote that when he asked him what government could do to promote innovation, Geithner "said that government’s limited job was to get the underlying incentives right so the market could figure out what innovations work best." Wait. Isn’t that the "broad philosophy" that produced the financial crisis? It is time for Geithner to go.




Jamie Dimon seen as good fit for Treasury
As support for Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner wanes on Capitol Hill amid frustration with the Obama administration's handling of the economy, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon is emerging as a potential replacement.

Sources tell The Post that a number of policy makers have begun mentioning Dimon as a successor to Geithner, whose standing in Washington has suffered because of the country's high unemployment rate, the weakness of the dollar, the slow pace of the recovery and the government's mounting deficit. Last week, Geithner faced a withering attack from some Republican members of the Joint Economic Committee, getting into a testy exchange with one congressman who at one point asked Geithner if he would step down.

Dimon, meanwhile, has achieved rock star status during the financial crisis, having navigated JPMorgan through the recession and being a go-to guy when Uncle Sam last year needed Wall Street's help during the collapses of Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual. Furthermore, while many bank chiefs are facing heat over outsize bonuses, Dimon has repeatedly made clear he won't write fat checks to attract or keep talent.

People familiar with Dimon's thinking said he "would love to serve his country," and in recent weeks Dimon has had a noticeably higher profile in Washington, making frequent visits to government officials and earlier this month publishing an op-ed in the Washington Post that makes the case for letting large institutions that take big risks collapse rather than receive government aid.

"It is critical to the standing of the United States in the global financial economy to have a Treasury secretary who has the full support of the president and Congress; a person who has earned respect on their own as a result of hard-won battles in finance to represent this nation," said Dick Bove, a banking industry analyst at Rochdale Securities who this week will publish a report on Dimon. "That is not Timothy Geithner. It is Jamie Dimon."

The timing might be right for Dimon to pursue the Treasury post. He recently put into place a succession plan, and JPMorgan is currently considered one of the strongest banks in the country, even though it, too, faces a threat of sizable consumer-loan losses. However, sources said Dimon also has tried to tamp down enthusiasm for his replacing Geithner, whom the JPMorgan boss continues to support and thinks is doing "a good job," according to sources.

He doesn't want to be perceived as gunning for Geithner's job and is said to be keenly aware of the anti-Wall Street sentiment gripping the country. He has told people he plans to stay at JPMorgan for another "six or seven years," according to one source.

Dimon has long been a big Democratic supporter, and his ties with Obama go back to when he ran Chicago-based Bank One. In addition, White House visitor logs show Dimon has been a repeated guest there. He also was a point man during the previous administration, rescuing Bear and WaMu. This isn't the first time Dimon's name has been floated for Treasury secretary. He was considered a candidate last year and is still viewed as an executive who could be instrumental as Washington looks to overhaul the financial regulatory infrastructure.




Why is Obama Championing Bush’s Financial Wrecking Crew?
by William K. Black

Tom Frank’s book, The Wrecking Crew explains how the Bush administration destroyed effective government and damaged our social fabric and our economy. The Obama administration has chosen to reward two of the worst leaders of Bush’s crew — Geithner and Bernanke - with promotion and reappointment. Embracing the Wrecking Crew’s most destructive members has further damaged the economy and caused increasing political and moral injury to the administration.

Last week was a bad one for Geithner and Bernanke. Senator Dodd said that Bernanke’s confirmation was no longer a done deal. The House Financial Services Committee revolted against the administration, the Fed, and Chairman Barney Frank. It voted for a strong bill to audit the Fed. Senate Banking Chairman Schumer went to a conference at Columbia University — where a generation of students salivated at the prospects of Wall Street wealth — and was overwhelmed by an audience denouncing the continuing stranglehold of the finance industry over successive administrations and the Congress. Neither Barney’s blarney nor Schumer’s schmooze was any avail before an outraged public.

The administration promptly secured a column in the Washington Post claiming that the effort to fire Geithner “buoy[ed]” him because, as the subtitle to the article explained: “Even ex-Bush aides sympathetic, sources say.” The article didn’t note that Geithner is an “ex-Bush” senior official who, with his fellow “ex-Bush aides” (particularly Bernanke and Paulson) produced a chain of disasters: the bubble, an “epidemic of mortgage fraud” by lenders, the Great Recession, and the scandalous TARP and AIG bailouts. Of course they’re “sympathetic” to a fellow member of the Wrecking Crew that destroyed effective regulation and turned the nation over to Wall Street. The craziest part of the story is that the anonymous Obama administration flack that spread this anecdote believes that we should support Geithner because his fellow members of the Bush Wrecking Crew empathize with him because they, too, have been criticized for wrecking the economy.

The Washington Post article then offers a metaphor that serves as an apology for the Bush Wrecking Crew. The metaphor is driving over a cliff: “‘Secretary Geithner has helped steer the American economy back from the brink, and is now leading the effort on financial reform,’ White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.” Geithner pushed back against Republicans who questioned his performance, telling them, “you gave this president an economy falling off the cliff.”

You? How about we? Bush’s financial Wrecking Crew “gave this president an economy falling off the cliff.” Geithner was President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from October 23, 2003 until President Obama chose him as his Treasury Secretary. He was supposed to be the lead regulator of many of the largest bank holding companies. His failures as a regulator were a major cause of the “economy falling off the cliff.” Bernanke held prominent positions in the Bush administration from 2002 to the end of the administration and failed as a regulator an economist. Geithner and Bernanke failed to regulate even after the FBI publicly warned in September 2004 that (1) there was an “epidemic” of mortgage fraud and (2) it would lead to a financial crisis if it were not contained. Their refusal to take responsibility for the harm they inflicted on our nation as leaders of Bush’s financial Wrecking Crew adds to their unsuitability. Rewarding their perennial failures with a promotion and reappointment represents a dereliction of duty by the Obama administration.

The administration apologists praise Geithner and Bernanke for “steer[ing] the American economy back from the brink.” Greenspan, Paulson, Bernanke, and Geithner were the leaders of Bush’s financial Wrecking Crew. They were the guys blinded by their pro-Wall Street ideology that drove the car 120 mph down an icy mountain road and lost control of it. They took us to the “brink” of running “off the cliff” and creating the Second Great Depression. The bizarre claim is that we should praise them because they, and Wall Street, only wrecked the economy — they haven’t (yet) utterly destroyed it. Under their metaphor, we’re supposed to cheer Geithner and Bernanke because once they finally figured out that they were careening toward the cliff, they decided to sideswipe a row of trees in order to avoid going over the edge. They wrecked the car but they walked away from the crash without a scratch. If your teenager gets drunk, speeds, crashes into a school bus (injuring dozens of kids), and flips the Ford Focus — but walks away from the crash — you don’t praise him, give him the keys to the family minivan, and have him drive the soccer team to practices. You take all the keys away from him and ground him.

The Obama administration promoted Bush’s architects of the financial disaster and demands that we hail them as heroes. President Bush was ridiculed for saying: “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.” FEMA administrator Michael Brown stood by while Hurricane Katrina reduced a single large city to ruin. Geithner and Bernanke stood by while scores of large cities were devastated.

I suggest that we will build on the momentum we’ve achieved on the Fed audit by making the following issues our near term financial priorities:

  • 1. Can the Wrecking Crew. Fire the senior leaders of Bush’s and Clinton’s financial Wrecking Crews and stopping treating them as financial experts. President Obama should not reappoint Bernanke as Fed Chairman. He should dismiss Geithner and Summers and cease to take any advise from Rubin. Replace them with the Reconstruction Crew — people with a track record of getting things right and being effective economists, regulators, and prosecutors. Members of Bush’s financial Wrecking Crew run far too many regulatory agencies, often as “Actings.” They can, and should, be replaced promptly.

  • 2. End “too big to fail.” These banks are “systemically dangerous institutions” (SDIs). They should not be allowed to grow. They should be shrunk to the point that they no longer pose systemic risk, and they should be subject to vigorous regulation while shrinking. They are too big to manage and too big to regulate. They are ticking time bombs that will cause recurrent global crises as long as they are SDIs.

  • 3. More white-collar watchdogs. Adopt Representative Kaptur’s proposal to provide the FBI with at least 1000 additional white-collar specialists. Senator Durbin and (then) Senator Obama made a similar proposal several years ago.

  • 4. No more executive compensation looting. End the perverse executive compensation systems that reward failure and fraud. The private sector has made compensation worse since the crisis. Modern executive compensation creates a virtually perfect crime — “accounting control fraud” (looting a company for personal profit).  Until we fix the perverse incentives of executive compensation we will have recurrent epidemics of fraud and global financial crises.

  • 5. Kill TARP and PPIP. Use the funds to help honest homeowners that would otherwise lose their homes because of predatory loan terms.

  • 6. Make the Federal Reserve System public. It is a largely private structure that creates intense conflicts of interest and ensures that it is controlled by the systemically dangerous institutions. We have already decided that such a structure is inherently improper. The Federal Home Loan Bank System was set up along the same institutional lines and suffered from the same conflicts of interest. Congress ordered an end to these conflicts in the 1989 FIRREA legislation. It should end private control of the Fed.

  • 7. Defeat any proposal to make the Fed the “Uberregulator.” The Fed, for inherent institutional reasons, is unsuited to be the “systemic risk regulator.” The Fed has never cared about regulation. The Fed cares about monetary policy and (theoclassical) economic theory and research. Regulation is, at best, a tertiary concern. Its economists wrote frequently about systemic risk — but missed the obvious, massive systemic risk of the financial bubble and the epidemic of accounting control fraud. Its policies intensified rather than restricting systemic risk. Theoclassical economists have no effective theories (or policies) to deal with bubbles or epidemics of accounting control fraud. Greenspan, Bernanke, and Geithner epitomize the Fed’s inability to recognize or reduce systemic risk. Their policies consistently increased systemic risk. Greenspan didn’t believe that the Fed should act against fraud. Geithner testified before Congress that he had never been a regulator (a true statement - but one that should have gotten him fired rather than promoted). Bernanke praised the subprime loans that caused the crisis and were so often fraudulent.

  • 8. Ensure a robust CFPA. Sever the Consumer Financial Product Agency portion from the broader (and deeply flawed) regulatory reform bills in the House and Senate and adopt it into law. Revise the broader bill to strip out its many anti-reform provisions.

  • 9. End the waste of long-term unemployment. Anyone able and willing to work should be employed by the government as an employer of last resort and should help repair our crumbling infrastructure. Paying people to do nothing or allowing them to become homeless (the status quo) is an insane system.

  • 10. Adopt a $250 billion revenue sharing program. American state and local governments are in economic crisis. They are slashing spending at the worst possible time when their services are most vital and when cutting spending is pro-cyclical and will delay our recovery from the Great Recession. Revenue sharing was a Republican initiative. Republicans and “Blue Dog” Democrats killed the revenue sharing provisions of the administration’s proposed Stimulus bill. That was an enormous mistake. The federal government is not like a state government (or a household). It is a sovereign government with its own currency and a central bank. It can - and should - run large deficits during deep recessions, but the states and local governments cannot.


Revenue sharing is the ideal answer to the crisis and it is an answer with an impeccable conservative pedigree. State and local governments should come together and demand a program to offset the state and local cutbacks - roughly $250 billion. (The Obama administration’s claim that reducing the deficit should be a priority - at a time when unemployment has reached tragic levels - is economically illiterate. It repeats the error that FDR made when he listened to conservative economic advisors and slashed the budget deficit during the Great Depression - causing a surge in unemployment and the extension of the depression. The large federal deficits of World War II reversed the policies of his conservative economic advisors and ended the Great Depression.)




Fed's Bullard Wants Asset Buying Program Kept Alive After 1Q 2010
Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis President James Bullard repeated Sunday it would be good to keep the Fed's asset buying program active beyond its current end date, to give the central bank more policy options should it need them. "I would just like to keep (the efforts) active at a very low level," Bullard said of the Fed's ongoing effort to buy mortgage related securities, done in a bid to help support economic growth. The official was speaking to reporters after an event held before students in New York.

Bullard was repeating what he'd told Dow Jones earlier Sunday. In that interview, he said he wants to see the central bank effort to buy mortgage backed securities maintained beyond the first quarter 2010's end. "I have advocated to keep the asset purchase program open but at a very low level, and wait and see what happens, and as information comes in about the economy we can adjust that program while the federal funds rate remains at zero," Bullard told Dow Jones Newswires. He added "no decision has been made" about the program's fate.

Citing the current level of the Fed's overnight interest rate target, Bullard said "as long as we are at zero (percent) we'd be able to send signals to the markets about what we are thinking about the economy, and how much accommodation the economy needs at various points, by adjusting the asset purchases." The central bank has committed to buying $1.25 trillion of agency mortgage-backed securities and around $175 billion of agency debt, as part of a bid to keep borrowing costs low and supportive of economic growth.

Bullard reiterated to reporters keeping the program alive would largely be aimed at keeping Fed options open, and any activity would not have an economic impact. He also repeated to reporters the outlook for Fed policy depends on what happens with the economy. When it comes to the economy, "I wouldn't say I'm worried," Bullard told reporters. "The economy has come in on track during the summer and the fall here" and "it looks like will do well here in the fourth quarter." But he added "I am a little concerned" about the reluctance to hire.

When it comes to some of the issues arising from commercial real estate problems, Bullard said "I am hopeful we'll be able to work with this and it will be contained." In his other comments at the event, Bullard told the audience what happened with the dollar during the financial crisis should allay fears about the currency's value. For all the fears about the dollar, "it is interesting the world came to the dollar" during the crisis, and that the currency rallied in the initial stages of the financial crisis. While the dollar has weakened of late, "at least right now the dollar is still viewed as the reserve currency" and "the place to go," and "we don't want to lose that," Bullard said.

In Bullard's formal remarks he noted growth had returned to the U.S., and he said household spending had stabilized. He described unemployment as "high" and said labor markets were lagging the recovery. The official said "the U.S. is in the early stages of recovery." In his remarks, Bullard said the problem of financial institutions that are deemed too-big-to-fail is real, and must be dealt with, because these institutions exact a cost on the financial system. Bullard defended the Fed's record during financial crises of the last generation, and he added Fed official did warn of the imbalances that led to the financial crisis of the last couple of years.

As financial reform efforts move forward, Bullard said he believes the Fed should remain a regulator of financial institutions. He also said this regulator role enhances monetary policy because it gives the central bank insight into the functioning of the financial system. Bullard also argued against moves that would compromise the Fed's independence, saying that would be bad for inflation and would complicate recovery efforts.




States Hit by Drop in Tax Collections
Tax collections tumbled 11% across 44 states in the third quarter, according to a report that suggests government revenue will remain depressed long after the economy has recovered from recession. Every major source of state tax revenue -- sales, corporate- and personal-income taxes -- fell in the third quarter compared with the same period a year ago, according to a report to be released Monday by the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government at the State University of New York.

The steepest decline was in volatile corporate-income taxes, which fell 19.4% across the 44 states surveyed by the Rockefeller institute. Personal-income taxes fell 11.4%, while sales taxes fell 8.2%. Roughly 80% of states' total tax collection comes from sales and personal-income taxes. With tax receipts heavily dependent on wages and spending, state revenues are expected to continue falling for months or years after the technical end of the recession. The economy continued to shed jobs in October, and employment growth is expected to remain muted even as the economy recovers. Many states could be forced to cut spending further.

"State tax revenues will remain fragile and gloomy at least throughout fiscal years 2010 and 2011," said Lucy Dadayan, a senior policy analyst at the Rockefeller institute. Each of the 44 states surveyed saw overall taxes decrease in the third quarter from a year earlier, and half saw total taxes fall 10% or more. The hardest-hit region was the Southwest, with third-quarter tax revenue falling 21.5%. Of the 38 states in the report that collect income taxes, all saw revenue declines, and 21 had double-digit-percentage declines.

The weakness in personal income taxes has for the most part mirrored the recession that began in December 2007. Far Western states, which have been among the hardest hit by falling home prices and the recession, recorded a nation-leading 15.3% decline in personal-income taxes. California, Oregon and Nevada all have unemployment rates greater than 11%, among the highest in the nation. The report added that despite new taxes and budget cuts in areas including legislators' salaries and higher-education funding, tax revenue is likely to continue falling short of expenses. Indeed, a report last week from California Legislative Analyst's Office showed the state is facing a $21 billion budget shortfall, and California's controller said the state could have trouble making payments as early as next spring.

"Further revenue shortfalls and more spending cuts are mostly likely on the way for many states -- particularly those that did not take significant actions to balance revenues and expenditures in their 2010 budgets," the Rockefeller institute concluded.




One in eleven US homeowners are at risk of losing their property
Almost one in eleven Americans is at imminent risk of losing their home, as the housing crash continues to claim thousands of victims, more than three years after prices began to fall. Data from the Mortgage Bankers Association show that almost 5% of all American homeowners are already in the process of having their properties repossessed, while another 4.5% are at least 90 days in arrears with their mortgage repayments. In total, that means more than 9% – almost one in eleven – are on the brink of being forced to hand back their keys, on top of the many hundreds of thousands who have had their homes repossessed since the crisis began.

"The underlying dynamic in the housing market is just dreadful," said Graham Turner, of consultancy GFC Economics. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner recently persuaded Congress to extend the homebuyers' tax credit – part of President Obama's $800bn (£485bn) stimulus package – until next April. The scheme offers $8,000 to first-time buyers, but mortgage applications dropped off sharply in November, when it was due to expire. The White House, alarmed at the prospect of a renewed slump in the market, extended the credit, and opened it up to existing homeowners.

The US economy expanded at a healthy annual rate of 3.5% in the third quarter – though that may be revised down when new official figures are released this week. But Turner warned that without an end to the housing slump, any recovery will be short-lived, and the Obama White House will come under intense pressure. "We're going to have a political crisis. Obama realises that you can't keep spending money when it's not even having much effect. It will come to a head when the current tax credit expires in April – then people will say, enough is enough."




Wall Street Finds Profits Again, Now by Reducing Mortgages
As millions of Americans struggle to hold on to their homes, Wall Street has found a way to make money from the mortgage mess. Investment funds are buying billions of dollars’ worth of home loans, discounted from the loans’ original value. Then, in what might seem an act of charity, the funds are helping homeowners by reducing the size of the loans. But as part of these deals, the mortgages are being refinanced through lenders that work with government agencies like the Federal Housing Administration. This enables the funds to pocket sizable profits by reselling new, government-insured loans to other federal agencies, which then bundle the mortgages into securities for sale to investors.

While homeowners save money, the arrangement shifts nearly all the risk for the loans to the federal government — and, ultimately, taxpayers — at a time when Americans are falling behind on their mortgage payments in record numbers. For instance, a fund might offer to pay $40 million for a $100 million block of mortgages from a bank in distress. Then the fund could arrange to have some of those loans refinanced into mortgages backed by an agency like the F.H.A. and then sold to an agency like Ginnie Mae. The trick is to persuade the homeowners to refinance those mortgages, by offering to reduce the amounts the homeowners owe.

The profit comes when the refinancings reach more than the $40 million that the fund paid for the block of loans. The strategy has created an unusual alliance between Wall Street funds that specialize in troubled investments — the industry calls them "vulture" funds — and American homeowners. But the transactions also add to the potential burden on government agencies, particularly the F.H.A., which has lately taken on an outsize role in the housing market and, some fear, may eventually need to be bailed out at taxpayer expense. These new mortgage investors thrive in the shadows. Typically, the funds employ intermediaries to contact homeowners and arrange for mortgages to be refinanced.

Homeowners often have no idea who their Wall Street benefactors are. Federal housing officials, too, are in the dark. Policymakers have encouraged investors and banks to put more consumers into government-backed loans. The total value of these transactions from hedge funds is small compared with the overall housing market. Housing experts warn that the financial players involved — the investment funds, their intermediaries and certain F.H.A. approved lenders — have a financial incentive to put as many loans as possible into the government’s hands.

"From the borrower’s point of view, landing in a hedge fund or private equity fund that’s willing to write down principal is a gift," said Howard Glaser, a financial industry consultant and former official at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. He went on: "From the systemic point of view, there is something disturbing about investors that had substantial short-term profit in backing toxic loans now swooping down to make another profit on cleaning up that mess."

Steven and Marisela Alva say they do not know who helped them with their mortgage. All they know is that they feel blessed. Last December, the couple got a letter saying that a firm had purchased the mortgage on their home in Pico Rivera, Calif., from Chase Home Finance for less than its original value. "We want to share this discount with you," the letter said. "I couldn’t believe it," said Mr. Alva, a 62-year-old janitor and father of three. "I kept thinking to myself, ‘Something is wrong, something is wrong. This sounds too good.’ "

But it was true. The balance on the Alvas’ mortgage was ultimately reduced to $314,000 from $440,000. The firm behind the reduction remains a mystery. The Alvas’ new loan, backed by the F.H.A., was made by Primary Residential Mortgage, a lender based in Utah. But the letter came from a company called MCM Capital Partners. In the letter, MCM said the couple’s loan was owned by something called MCMCap Homeowners’ Advantage Trust III. But MCM’s co-founders said in an interview that MCM does not own any mortgages. They would not reveal the investor that owned the Alvas’ loan because they had agreed to keep that client’s identity confidential. Michael Niccolini, an MCM founder, said, "We are changing people’s lives."

In Washington, mortgage funds are lobbying for policies that favor their investments, particularly mortgages held in securitized bundles. They want more mortgage balances to be lowered, which might help mortgage bonds perform better. Big banks generally oppose such reductions, which lock in banks’ losses on the loans. In April, about a dozen investment firms formed a group called the Mortgage Investors Coalition to press their case. One investor who is speaking out is Wilbur L. Ross, who runs a fund that buys mortgages and owns a large mortgage servicing company.

Mr. Ross said modifications that simply lower interest rates or lengthen the duration of a loan, as is typical in the government modification program, do not work well. "They make a payment or two, but then one night the husband and wife will sit down at the table and say, ‘Do we really want to make 140 monthly payments into a rat hole?’ " Mr. Ross said. The Fortress Investment Group, a hedge fund in New York, is one of the firms at the forefront of picking through mortgages. Fortress created a $3 billion credit fund in 2008 partly to buy loans from banks like Citigroup, which were under pressure to purge loans to raise cash.

"They’re going ahead and they are refinancing them and getting their money out right away," said Roger Smith, an analyst at Fox-Pitt Kelton. "What Fortress is doing is actually good for the borrower." Congress, however, may not be happy that hedge funds are making money this way, Mr. Smith said. Fortress, which declined to comment, typically buys batches of loans and works with other companies to evaluate which ones might qualify for F.H.A., Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac refinancing. Sometimes Fortress works with Nationstar, a mortgage servicer and originator that it owns. Other times, Fortress uses an outside partner like Meridias Capital, a lender in Henderson, Nev., that once originated Alt-A loans, which are just above subprime.

After the mortgage market imploded, Meridias began dissecting portfolios of troubled loans for investment funds. Because firms like Fortress purchase blocks of mortgages at distressed prices, they are able to reduce the principal amount of the loans. Nick Florez, president of Meridias, calls such transactions an "incentive refinance." He said he would not agree to take a loan unless he could help the homeowner. He said he was able to reduce the loan amount by 11 percent on average. "I’m giving money away," said Mr. Florez, who is a 35-year-old Las Vegas native. "It’s really a feel-good business."

It is too early to know how the new loans will work. David H. Stevens, the new commissioner of the F.H.A., said he was monitoring F.H.A. lenders but did not have thorough information about which ones work with distressed investors. So far he has not seen a problem from loans coming from hedge funds. "They’re helping to protect people in their homes and they’re refinancing people from a distressed situation," he said.

But he acknowledged that funds have an incentive to aggressively push homeowners into federally guaranteed loans, since the investors get their money back as soon as they complete the refinancing. Seth Wheeler, a senior adviser in the Treasury Department who specializes in housing policy, declined to say whether the investment firms that are lowering principal for homeowners are altruistic or not. "Investors are doing it where it both benefits the investor and the borrower," he said.

Part of the risk may be determined by how the funds compensate the F.H.A. lenders and whether the lenders are beholden to the funds for business. David Zitting, the chief executive of Primary Residential Mortgage, the company that refinanced the Alva family’s loan, said his company did not receive fees from the hedge funds. "They have all sorts of motivations that, frankly, we don’t understand," he said. "We don’t do anything special for them because that’s not fair lending."

The Alvas had to dip into their savings to qualify for their new federally insured loan, since the biggest F.H.A. mortgage they could get was for $285,000, they said. They paid off $21,000 in credit-card and car loans, and put up an additional $29,000 for their new mortgage, depleting their already meager savings. Brian Chappelle, a mortgage consultant, said loans to people like the Alvas, with modest incomes and scant savings, could turn out to be risky. "It does raise risk concerns for F.H.A.," he said. The Alvas are grateful for the help. Their home is, Marisela said, a dream come true. "I’m very happy," she said. "We never thought this was possible."




The 70% Discount on Goldman's $500 Million Gift
It’s been dubbed the apology with a half-billion-dollar gift attached. In an attention-grabbing move this week, Goldman Sachs said it would launch a $500 million initiative to help small businesses with Warren Buffett as a key adviser, an announcement that coincided by hours with a public mea culpa from CEO Lloyd Blankfein for mistakes in the financial crisis. But it turns out Goldman’s program includes its own discount — the kind that only an investment banker could love.

According to a review of Goldman’s program by SmartMoney in consultation with corporate tax experts, the ultimate price tag of the initiative could be far less than the heavily publicized $500 million. A big chunk of the money is destined for charitable institutions, creating potentially sizable tax deductions for Goldman, while other portions are being made as loans that Goldman confirms it expects to be repaid with interest.

All in all, tax experts say, the ultimate cost to Goldman could total roughly $136 million to $150 million—70% or more below the half-billion figure that helped generate so much publicity for the firm this week. Interest income from the loans could lower the final bill even more. Asked about the estimates, a Goldman spokesman didn’t comment on the specific figures but defended the program as a boon to small businesses, while giving Goldman "a modest economic return." Buffett didn’t return requests for comment.

The program, titled 10,000 Small Businesses, drew a wave of media attention. Its advisory board includes Buffett, a big Goldman investor who is well known for his philanthropy, as well as Harvard Business School professor Michael Porter. While Goldman said explicitly that the small-business program was not designed as a public-relations move, many have interpreted it otherwise. Goldman has been the target of criticism for getting ready to pay out billions in bonuses to executives this year after benefitting from the U.S. government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, during the financial crisis—as well as for missteps that some say contributed to the meltdown.

On Tuesday, the same day Goldman announced 10,000 Small Businesses, Blankfein appeared before a room full of CEOs and journalists at an awards ceremony in which he was named CEO of the year by the Directorship Forum, and said Goldman had "participated in things that were clearly wrong and have reason to regret." Those comments suggested a turnaround from earlier this month, when Blankfein drew notice for being quoted in an interview with The Times of London saying he is a banker doing "God's work."

Here’s why the cost of 10,000 Small Businesses is likely to be lower than the $500 million figure. Half of those funds will be charitable contributions to community colleges and other nonprofit institutions to sponsor business education. At an all-in tax rate of 40% for state, local and federal obligations, that could give Goldman a $100 million savings on its taxes over the next five years, says Robert Willens, an independent tax and accounting analyst in New York and a former managing director at Lehman Brothers.

The rest of the Goldman discount is even simpler: Goldman should get back most or all of the $250 million it is also providing for loans to small businesses that a Goldman spokesman says are to be repayed in three to five years at "market rates" for nonprofit institutions that lend to small businesses. Market rates for that type of loan would generally range around 7% to 8%, according to Mark Pinsky, who consulted with Goldman on the program. Pinsky is president and CEO of the Opportunity Finance Network, a Philadelphia-based association of Community Development Financial Institutions, or CDFIs, which are nonprofit institutions that lend to small businesses.

"They’re not paying $500 million," says Benjamin Leff, a tax law professor at American University’s Law School in Washington, D.C. "They’re not even paying $250 million." The Goldman spokesman confirmed that the firm expected tax benefits from the charitable contributions and that it expected the funds being disbursed as loans would be repaid. "The program has a triple bottom line: We’re providing capital to underserved businesses, capacity building for CDFIs and a modest economic return to ourselves," says the Goldman spokesman.

To be sure, at a time when the credit crunch has made it much more difficult for entrepreneurs to secure loans, Goldman’s money will no doubt be welcomed by beneficiaries regardless of how the investment bank’s accounting works out. Already, the program is drawing widespread praise in the small-business community. Says Bill Dunkelberg, the chairman of Liberty Bell Bank, a community bank in Cherry Hill, N.J.: "Even though it’s like 1% of the company’s bonuses, it is nice to fund these things and I’m sure community colleges will appreciate the money." Adds Dunkelberg, "Small businesses can certainly use the money."

Goldman is also taking an obvious risk that it won’t get repaid on the loans. The default rate for these types of loans has traditionally been low – less than 1% prior to the recession, says Pinsky. However, since the downturn, Pinsky expects the default rate to reach 1.5%. To limit potential defaults, Goldman has tasked the program’s advisory board — including Buffett and Porter along with Blankfein — to select CDFIs that have track records of helping successful businesses. In addition, Goldman says it plans to lend only to companies that are at least two years old, have four employees ore more, and pull in revenue between $150,000 and $4 million in the most recent fiscal year.




What if a Recovery Is All in Your Head?
by Robert Shiller

Beyond fiscal stimulus and government bailouts, the economic recovery that appears under way may be based on little more than self-fulfilling prophecy. Consider this possibility: after all these months, people start to think it’s time for the recession to end. The very thought begins to renew confidence, and some people start spending again — in turn, generating visible signs of recovery. This may seem absurd, and is rarely mentioned as an explanation for mass behavior late in a recession, but economic theorists have long been fascinated by such a possibility.

The notion isn’t as farfetched as it may appear. As we all know, recessions generally last no more than a couple of years. The current recession began in December 2007, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, so it is almost two years old. According to the standard schedule, we’re due for recovery. Given this knowledge, the mere passage of time may spur our confidence, though no formal statistical analysis can prove it.

Certainly, people did not always believe that there is a regular "business cycle" that starts and stops in a definite pattern. The idea began to spread in the popular consciousness in the 1920s and reached full bloom in the ’30s — with one major complication, the Great Depression, which received its name in midcourse, from a 1934 book with that title by Lionel Robbins. "There have been many depressions in modern economic history, but it is safe to say that there has never been anything to compare with this," Mr. Robbins wrote. In his narrative, the Great Depression was an extreme event, compared with ordinary "depressions."

"Recession," a kinder, gentler term, began to be used around the time of the 1937-38 contraction to refer to a normal downturn in the business cycle. In January 1938, The Chicago Daily Tribune offered a wry definition of a recession, calling it "a new word for depression, coined by those who don’t like to admit that we’re still in one." People joked so much about the euphemism that in 1938 President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, "It makes no difference to me whether you call it a recession or a depression."

The proliferation of the idea of a more-or-less predictable business cycle intersected with a rapidly growing public interest in psychology. Choice of words can matter greatly for the psychologically aware, and the new word "recession" had a much softer sound than its predecessor. Recessions, as the term came to be used, implied timetables that mark their expected end. Uttering the word does not risk damaging confidence, at least not fundamentally. A diagnosis of a recession can be shrugged off as something from which you will recover, as though your doctor had just diagnosed an illness as a common cold. A depression came to be another matter entirely.

Back in 1931, for example, The New York Times attributed the emerging economic cataclysm to a "mood of pessimism which had been carried to grotesque extremes." In 1932, it compared reckless talk about "depression" to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. President Roosevelt is widely remembered for saying, in 1933, that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." But he was only repeating an oft-told message.

It wasn’t until 1948 that the Columbia University sociologist Robert K. Merton wrote an article in The Antioch Review titled "The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy," using the Great Depression as his first example. He is often credited with having invented the "self-fulfilling prophesy" phrase, but by the 1930s the idea was already as commonplace as the breakfast toast made with modern electric toasters. (Interestingly, the same Robert Merton documented the tendency for important ideas to be falsely attributed to celebrities.)

In fact, in 1937, "Think and Grow Rich," a book by Napoleon Hill, urged readers to adopt a positive mental attitude and to channel the power of the subconscious mind so that real wealth would follow. It became a runaway best seller. Faddish interest had already emerged not only in Freud’s theory of the unconscious mind, but also in the theories of the psychologist Émile Coué, who urged people to recite that "every day in every way I’m getting better and better." He said this "autosuggestion" would bolster the unconscious self.

In important ways, we are still using that 1930s pattern of thinking. We are instinctively fearful of reckless talk about depressions, and we try to support one another’s confidence. We like the idea that modern scientific economics seems to show that all recessions end in due course. For now, our common efforts at building confidence appear to be working somewhat. But the economy has still not recovered, by any means.

Couéism has been discredited generally, as has much of the old business-cycle theory, but they live on in our popular notions about recessions. We may hope that our resorting to euphemism and belief in timetables of business-cycle recoveries work better to restore confidence than they did in the ’30s.

The problem might be put this way: There is still a nagging doubt afloat that the current event is really just another example in that long sequence of recessions. In which mental category does the current contraction belong: recession or depression? We may still be at a tipping point. To the extent that the theory of the self-fulfilling prophecy is correct, there is a case for continued vigilance, to ensure that adverse events don’t encourage widespread talk of the second category.


162 comments:

Ed_Gorey said...

Ilargi,

To that $12 trillion in sovereign debt that must be issued in 2010, one can add the mountain ($7 trillion) of bank debt between now and 2012.

From the FT.com
"About $10 trillion of debt comes due by the end of 2015, including $7 trillion by 2012.......A key government lifeline, the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, which provides federal banking for bank bonds, expired last month. Debt issued under that program, which guaranteed the debt, had relatively short maturities. Banks will have to pay back debt back before 2012, putting their refinancing on a collision course with five-year debt that was sold in 2007, as markets were soaring. It doesn't help that buyers of that government-backed debt tended to be investors attracted to safe government debt, Barclays Capital analysts said. Those investors may not be willing buyers when the banks need to refinance without government backing. The government debt also was sold at markedly cheaper costs"

jal said...

I assume that everyone here has noticed that the talking head are now edging their comments by adding that this rally CANNOT KEEP GOING and that there will be a CORRECTION.

SOME ARE EVEN PUTTING OUT A TIMELINE.

Plus ça change, plus c'est pareil.

( The more it changes the more it's the same.)

jal

snuffy said...

The one thing I see popping up in the air now is a admission by two-lips timmy is that the "rule of crony capitalism"during the republican administration is what triggered this catastrophe.

Everyone is talking about green shoots is smoking green shoots.

This economic bump is a result of the trillions dropped into a black hole,the little fizzle of gamma as a whole star system drops into nothngness

And we are all just waiting for the next shoe to drop.That will most likely be the most dismal Christmas sales in history.

May be o-man will give us all a million dollar tax "gift"...he sure did nice things for all those wall street thieves...its sounding like its Morgan-Stanleys turn at the trough---we cant let the number 2 bank in the us get too hungrey now....all the gold-in -sacks boys are feeling happy now...they need time to hide their ill-gotten funds where no.gov boys will every find it... they need time out of the spotlight...its getting a little too hot....

I saw a explanation that really puts a "t" on the situation"Enough smart people have watched what these people did and explained it to everyone who wasn't sharp enough.Everyone knows.And everyone is pissed.

When the likes of Paul Krugman point out the stark reality that O-man has destroyed his "brand"and has soured a whole group of young folks who really believed in him to politics...as well as a whole generation of progressives who now have figured out that he is a wholly owned subsidiary of gold-in-sacks,the long term damage that asshat has done to the working folks of this country is immeasurable.I take that back.He,and the corp dems,like that slimy chief of staff of his have done this country a favor...NO-ONE will trust a dem or republican...their true colors are now shown...the green of greed.

And that leads us to a real real bad place.This is the kind of true vacuum of power....of "Legitimate" power...that a ideologue can step into.By their own actions,the established powers that be, have given up listening to the voice of the people,and thereby lost the true right to govern as representatives of the people.

By selling their souls to the corporations for a buck,the congress has put this country in grave danger of legitimate civil unrest.If they ram a bill down the throats of the folks that is a giveaway to the insurance companies,as it now looks to be,I expect big trouble.

You might get away with a lot of hinky-shit during good times...folks don't care much about the slimy deals that go on in back rooms when they are fat and sassy..
But when they are hungry,and worried about "losing the House".When the wind is cold ,and the jacket is thin...then they pay very close attention.O-man is probably a little unhappy that he now has the whole country watching every move...and every action of his administration...

Its not going to get better.Continue to batten down hatches..the storm is coming

sleepytime

snuffy

Ruben said...

I think there may be two Davids. Some comments from David are calm, reasoned and well-constructed. Other comments from David are batshit crazy rambling.

I used this cool flash application to look up the name David.
http://www.babynamewizard.com/voyager
It turns out David was the second most popular boy's name in the 1960s. So there really could be a lot of Davids in their late forties posting comments on TAE. I would suggest that David(s) try to add some clarity through the common practice of appending numbers to their names--eg. David492.

Working theories to explain the behaviour of a singular David are: David may have a drinking problem. David may have multiple personalities. David may have regular hard days at the office. Have I forgotten any?

Dr J said...

Ruben - I diagnosed it as end-of-day drinking awhile back. I am not sure there can be two Google identities with the same name.

Dr J said...

"The current upheaval in American society, which has been an enormous threat on many fronts, called forth a president and a constituency that knows how to handle crisis. The voices of sanity are prevailing. The solutions that have emerged on all fronts -- economic, social, and international -- represent the best in the American character." - Deepak Chopra

Interesting that one so "enlightened" should drink so deeply of the Kool-Aid.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/sarah-palin-fooling-none_b_367364.html

Coy Ote said...

Snuffy - "You might get away with a lot of hinky-shit during good times...folks don't care much about the slimy deals that go on in back rooms when they are fat and sassy..."

That is my feeling and has been for a long time. People ignore or even participate in irrelevant and phony activities when they are comfortable, well fed, and feel secure. For millions--per month--that era is ending and they are having to live, as I put it, "closer to the earth."

No more trinket buying, "shopping is my hobby" bullsh&t. More mere scrimping, saving, and trying to survive.

We are mirroring the arrogance and denial that was manifest in 1871 by General G. A. Custer. Let's see now... what happened to him?

John Hemingway said...

@snuffy

couldn't agree with you more. The vacuum of power that O-man and rest have created is deeply troubling,

Greenpa said...

"Have I forgotten any?"

Well, yes. Like our old friend Goritsas, he may be regularly indulging in recreational chemistry.

Gravity said...

The last article hints at the methodology of neuro-linguistic programming to induce psychological responses, used constantly beyond the maximum allowable dosage, so now words like 'growth' are utterly debased, and words like 'politics' have taken on a strong negative connotation, thereby corrupting both the function of the word and the conceptualised process to which the word refers.

The euro cnbc guest on this morning was something special, frantically insisting that we're in a completely normal recession, so full of lurid optimism and slightly manic energy, he became truly radiant with the most intense dissonance.

The crisismas retail projections were phenomenally optimistic, plusstrong sales were forecast, almost as if consumers suddenly have jobs and renewed purchasing capacity.

The voting members of dutch TNT unions, in a display of compassionate solidarity, decided to keep their wage entitlements and let 1100 colleagues be sacked instead. They shouldn't be allowed to make such decisions, having no objective frame of reference to negotiate value judgments involving their own livelihoods in such direct competition with those of their lessers.

Gravity said...

Game theory postulates that all players will conform to maximum utility to game the system, yet the system itself conforms with various utilities to maximally game the players. The gaming mechanisms driving herding utilisers are similar to herding mechanisms driving system utility, maybe.

I also frequent ZH, one commenter in particular doesn't seem fond of 'prechterite cockroaches' for unspecified reasons, I was suprised to find such resentment towards that wavefield which seems quite innocuous, unlike more controversial or harmful schools and fields of economic endeavour such as keynesian devilry, which is justly despised by many.

Coy Ote said...

Dr J - I agree with you on this one.
And I have appreciated much of Deepak Chopra's previous writings.

"...solutions have emerged on all fronts" !!

Oh! Really! They have?!
Well, I don't think it's kool aid Chopra's been into, rather straight Kentucky "shine". It tends to make you giddy while driving back and forth over the yellow line.

Actually I don't fear the self-adoring pretty-faced Palin nearly as much as some other possibilities out there. At least she has no insider connections with Washington, Wall Street, or the big banksters and IMO she is not smart enough to be trillion-dollar-dangerous.

A pretty air head, yes; a "National Socialist" architect, not hardly. Of course this is all moot, I could never support her asinine flag waving and "drill, drill, drill," mentality.

I'm looking for some combination of Ron Paul and D. Kucinich but who looks like a movie star. Haven't seen 'em yet!

Of course things are way too far along the downward path now for even a supermentality from the planet Gravitious Maximus to fix it!

Gravity said...

Oh, wait, its 4.500-11.000 people getting sacked if the TNT union questionaire is followed through,
but still rather selfish of them, those who voted against reduced pay likely don't expect to lose their own job in the layoffs, maybe game-theory would be applicable here.

Ilargi said...

Maybe it's just me, but I sort of automatically combined Dr. J's 9.10 AM and 9.19 AM comments.

jal said...

Does anyone know how to get the list of those 552 banks?

http://money.cnn.com/2009/11/24/news/companies/fdic_list/index.htm
Bank 'problem' list climbs to 552
Number at risk of failing soars in latest quarter. Deposit insurance fund slips into the red for first time since 1992.

The banks that end up on the problem list are considered the most likely to fail because of difficulties with their finances, operations or management.
Still, history has shown just 13% of banks on the list have failed on average.
Regulators however, never make public the names of the banks on the list out of fear the publicity could cause customers to pull out their deposits.
jal

Coy Ote said...

Ilargi - ;-) Could be!
Chopra wrote a pretty good, if damning, article, then waited to pen the last paragraph or 2 after having... er... imbibed?

Actually it was more of a character demeaning article (even if true) than is his norm, it seemed to me. Curious.

Tyr said...

This whole financial crisis sounds like game theory to me : "So Long Sucker is a board game which was invented in 1950 by John Forbes Nash, Mel Hausner, Lloyd S. Shapley and Martin Shubik. It is a four-person bargaining/economic strategy game. Each player begins the game with 7 chips, and in the course of play, attempts to acquire all the other players' chips. This requires making agreements with the other players which are ultimately unenforceable. To win, players must eventually renege on such agreements."

Especially this part sounds familiar : "Nash's name for the game, which was later published under the name "So Long Sucker", was "Fuck Your Buddy"."

toddbrock said...

Where others see gloom, I see opportunities! How about a Federal Deficit Pinball game. You hit the bumper for Chrysler bailout and the deficit rises. Hit the sidebar stimulus package, the war with Iran post, or send the pinball down the black budget hole (cue the audio for Rumsfeld announcing 2 trillion in unaccounted for expenditures back in 2001).

High score breaks the bank! Whoopie!!!

(Perhaps I shouldn't start drinking this early in the morning :)

mistah charley, ph.d. said...

Ilargi's insistence that this is a POLITICAL crisis, not just a financial/business crisis, is becoming more and more self-evident. Several years ago I presented the "suppressed ending" to the movie It's a Wonderful Life to an email list, and a few people were kind enough to say that they thought it might have been genuine. It's fake (and owes something to a Saturday Night Live skit) - but looking at it now, I wonder if it might be a foreshadowing of our future.

It's A Wonderful Life - The Final Scene

Potter's personal health care attendant (the man who pushes his wheelchair) bursts into the party at George and Mary Bailey's house. The mood, which had been festive (just a moment before, we saw the arrest warrant being torn apart and thrown on the pile of contributions from "so many friends") changes immediately, as the tale of Potter's purloining of the disappeared bank deposit is told. At first incredulous, the people become increasingly angry as the depth of depravity of the twisted, misanthropic millionaire becomes clear.

Next we see the crowd carrying torches as they approach Potter's mansion - it is like the evil twin of the house that George, Mary, and their kids have filled with love - equally large, but almost all in darkness, and without any sort of holiday decoration, neither Christmas tree, menorah, or solstice wreath. Ernie drives up in his cab, and siphons some gasoline from the tank into a large metal can. We see him and Potter's former health care attendant splashing the gasoline at the entrances of the house, including the wheelchair ramp. Uncle Billy ignites the flammable liquid by throwing his torch into it, and the rest of the crowd follows suit. The volunteer fire department arrives, but Burt the cop keeps them from coming up the long drive.

Inside the house, through the windows, we see Potter desperately going from room to room in his wheelchair, trying to escape, but it is useless. Uncle Billy watches with grim satisfaction, and we see the flames of the house reflected in his glasses as he mutters "So long, you old so and so."

We recognize other members of the crowd - the same individuals we saw in the "Pottersville bar" scene - and, like then, there are no women or other members of the Bailey family present, except for Uncle Billy.

Clarence the angel, no longer in civilian clothes, but rather in his magnificent new robe and wings, watches sadly from treetop level. The camera pulls back and we see the house beginning to collapse as the flames leap higher. The final scene pans upward from the burning house to the starry sky, and we see in Gothic letters the following Biblical quote: "I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life" (Deut. 30:19).

---------

Returning to the our situation here in the 21st century - will there be a mass uprising, analogous to the spontaneous eruption of the people's justice in the preceding never-filmed scene?

As Irving Berlin put it in his song, may the Creative Forces of the Universe stand beside us, and guide us, through the Night with the Light from Above (metaphorically speaking). Deepak Chopra may think that the Obama regime is the answer to this prayer, but I doubt it. Sarah Palin, also one who moves the masses (admittedly different masses), may not be the one either.

On the other hand, Mike Huckabee, in addition to being a former governor, like Ms. Palin, is a Baptist minister accustomed to appealing for guidance from above. I think it might well be Mike Huckabee leading the torch-carrying crowd.

Who knows if it's good or bad?



aargh! said...

ilargi or Stoneleigh, this is Jesse's take on this article It’s Still the Worst Deflation in US History.

"Is this deflation we have now in the US, the 'worst in history?' Meaning a strengthening US dollar and low money supply growth relative to demand, GDP relative to money suppy as indicated by an abnormally high velocity of money?


Only in the mind and imagination of someone who already believes in a deflationary outcome with all their heart.

Can deflation happen? Yes. That is inherent in a fiat currency.

If the Fed raised the overnight interest rates to 20% tomorrow, we would have a deflation 'lickity split' because that would be an extreme policy action which relative to the underlying demand for money and economic conditions. And this is the Fed's 'hole card,' the means by which they think they can control inflation in the future once the US economy has recovered (if it does sustainably I would add).
"

See what you can do with this, if you don't mind. There is one particular item that might be missing, here in an argument for inflation (or stagflation) and no deflation, but maybe you can see more.

jal said...

552 on watch list ... hummmm 13% failure ... hummm
That means 72 bank failure ... hummm

124 have already failed ... hummm

hummm
... so-called problem list climbed to its highest level since the end of 1993 ...
Somebody is not telling the whole truth.
jal

bosuncookie said...

Problem bank list from Calculated Risk Blog: http://cr4re.com/PBLNov2009.html

Dr J said...

I am not sure there can be two Google identities with the same name.

Neither am I.

By the way, eating animals is wrong and it's bad for you. If you want to lose weight, carb load and get lots of exercise. Keep away from saturated fat and cholesterol.

Ilargi said...

aargh

The David Goldman article doesn't merit much reaction. The contents have little to do with the title. The worst deflation in history? This Doug Short graph says no, and does so quite clearly.

But we are in a deflation, and Jesse keeps his confusion intact with inflation and stagflation on the sidelines. It’s not about whether we will have deflation, we already have it. Not “a deflationary outcome", but a deflationary present.

As we have said a million times, we expect the deflation to continue and deepen substantially, only to give way to inflation a few years down the line, once deflation has gutted much of the economy and international trade relations.

I assume you know how we define deflation. Certainly not the way Jesse seems to do, at least if I read this part right:

”Meaning a strengthening US dollar and low money supply growth relative to demand, GDP relative to money suppy as indicated by an abnormally high velocity of money”

I don’t even understand where people would get such a definition from.


NB: Taxes all around will rise like nuts next year, and people will call that inflation. Nothing to do with it.

.

Coy Ote said...

While Mish is right that many public union members have overindulged in salaries and benefits, I hardly think that is the reason California is going bankrupt.!

Plundering California: How Public-Sector Unions Brought The State To Its Knees

http://tinyurl.com/yj82qnd

My own union, the UAW, did the same thing over the years, overindulged (like our management), which contributed to our severe contraction, and hastened the bankruptcy of the company, but it hardly was a major factor in our country's current dilemma. And of course we were not a "public sector union" which seems to matter to Mish and the Beckites and dittoheads.

The Wall Street banksters drop more in crumbs to the floor than union workers make in a lifetime of genuine work. Still, overindulgence is not excusable especially in times like we have now entered.

rumor said...

Brilliant missive today, Ilargi, and I'm in complete agreement. The perverse incentives for institutional investors seem overwhelming at this point. I suppose we can look forward to "no one could have seen it coming" in the next leg of the crash, too.

Stoneleigh said...

Greenpa,

I'm briefly going to be in what I think is your neck of the woods (near Minneapolis) in mid-December. I'm not sure how much time I'd have, but it might be possible to get together for a chat if you'd be interested. Let me know at theautomaticearth(at)gmail(dot)com.

Problem Is said...

Mr. Ilargi, you always seem to ask the right questions.

While everyone else is searching trough the pile of ruble looking for their lost valuables, you always ask why do we have a pile of ruble in the first place?

"I find the connection between game theory and economics a very shaky one, even if, or should I say because, 8 Nobel Fakeconomics winners were game theorists."

This statement I find particularly poignant.

Is the dismal social studies of Economics so void of ideas that they had to convert the thesis of a schizophrenic mathematician into one of their major pillars of theory?

1. You can't call something a science unless it's theories can be expressed in elegant and concise mathematical formulas. (i.e. Physics, Durac's equation, Feynman's QED).

I have seen Economists fill a blackboard with the supposed equation that explains the behavior.

2. Nash game theory's real contribution was to teach the hapless DOJ how to spot collusion in anti trust cases.

Application of Nash to markets assumes calculating rational actors at all times... Has a Chicago School ring to it, doesn't it?

Since Friedman's theories have been so brilliantly vindicated in this financial crisis, I think Mr. Ilargi crushed another nail on the head with his hammer of prose.

3. Now Economics does have principals that work. All things being equal, people buy more of something at a lower price and...

The Law of Diminishing Returns

The more of any resource you employ, the less output you will gain on the next unit. You employ the 2nd best acre or 2nd best worker or the 2nd best oil well... you will always get a little less output with the 2nd, 3rd 4th best...

It can be shown as a concise mathematical formula. Look at the differential equation for population biology. Populations cannot exceed the carrying capacity of an environment... Verhulst ye ol logistic equation. And neither can production, GDP, interest payment on debt, etc. They all have a limit at the carrying capacity.

One of Economics' principal laws... yet Mr. Ilargi's " 8 Nobel Fakeconomics" and most main stream economists (Read: Fed funded mouthpieces masquerading as experts...) ignore the law time and time again.

Main stream Fakeconomics experts believe:

1. Economies can grow forever with out regard to diminishing returns in resource or carrying capacity of the planet. Negative growth is simply a hiccup.

2. Interest can compound forever. Hence fractional reserve debt based economies.

3. Debt can continue to accumulate exponentially without consequence.

That is why the answer from Fat Larry Summers and Fakeconomics et al is as Jesse captioned in one of his hilarious pictures:

"You don't need no stinkin' jobs, you need loans."

Bennie Bernank-ster and Wall Street's only answer is to re inflate the debt bubble with more debt.

Because those in power make more money off of more debt. Economists are clueless because their income streams, research money, economic posts depend on them being clueless. Don't rock Jamie and Lloyd's boat if you know what's good for you.

Problem Is said...

As An Addendum:

So here we are in Republic de Banana USA.

(wave little US flags -here- my fellow debt serfs)


The crumbling Pravda of Corporate Owned Governance media (yes I invoke the 1st Tenant of Fascism here) increasingly espouses constant and easily disprovable propaganda that support the corrupt political and oligarchy classes. The public's ability to receive news and analysis from trustworthy blogs is essential.

It must be the new paradigm for the US debt serfs to support alternative sources of importance to rebuff the Oligarchy propaganda feed. We must keep the internet open and free from Oligarchy regulation and control via the US puppet government.

We should support those valuable blogs when and where we can.

That is why I, with my tiny cache of ever devaluing рубль aka rubles, Bernanke Bucks, support sites like Automatic Earth with a portion of my meager vodka and salted herring funds...

rumor said...

"The next crash, which can come any day now or a year or two from now, will be something to tell your grandchildren about. It will dwarf what happened in 1929 because the whole world is wrapped up in this financial mania, and governments everywhere are pushing it higher and higher until it bursts. They simply don't know any better than inflating assets as some sort of magical answer - this time using government debt and taxpayer money to fund the bubbles."

bosuncookie said...

Maybe a different kind of theory--The Great Game theory--is driving these actions of the US: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-builds-up-its-bases-in-oilrich-south-america-1825398.html

Ilargi said...

Problem is.

"3. Now Economics does have principals that work. All things being equal, people buy more of something at a lower price and..."

But everybody knows that is not true.

Not since Edward Bernays got serious about PR and advertising. You can easily get people to buy the exact same thing at twice the price by making it look more desirable.

We all know this, and we all deny, to some extent, that it applies to us. For 99% of us, that extent is far larger than we know.

And this is not -or hardly- part of economics theories. It cannot be precisely measured, even if we all know it's there.

Really, the disconnect between economics and the real world is much bigger than 99% of you think.

Dr J said...

I stand corrected. You are too funny! And you have obviously been paying attention.

el gallinazo said...

Much as I like and respect Snuffy and loath the banksters, I have to subscribe to Stoneleigh's prediction that any violence will in short order be directed against the innocent.

As a born and raised Usaco, I see the inevitable outcome of this catastrophe will be the complete and total Nazification of the United States. They just have to find a sufficiently charismatic psychopath to catalyze it when the time is ripe - 2012 I figure. But we are a nation of psychopaths - no hay problema. That's why I got out.

But as I pointed out this morning in a private email to VK, it's the black and the browns who will be thrown in the ovens this time. The banksters will be pulling the strings as usual.

I can't vote where I am living, but at least I can pick and eat the bananas, except they are all green at the moment. A banana republic :-)

-------------------------

For all you armchair quantum mechanics

http://tinyurl.com/yh6zb43

Ruben said...

OMG!!

Dr. J is David!!

el gallinazo said...

I agree completely with the premise of Ilargi's essay of today, and actually reached that conclusion some time ago. The individual investors with an IQ over 70 are out except for the day traders. It's the sober people to whom working class Americans have entrusted their retirement funds who are bouncing the dice off the felt.

Coy Ote said...

15 interesting charts -- a quick flip through and quite interesting

(from LATOC)

http://tinyurl.com/y9gu2hh

David said...

Hello, dear friends,

It's Dr. Jeckyll here. Hope all are doing very well this fine evening!

.

David said...

Hiisssssssss-Raawwwwrrr!

Watch your backsides carefully, blighters,

It's Mr. Hyde that awaits your every slip!

.

I. M. Nobody said...

Coy,

I'm a little surprised that you dismiss Palin so lightly, as being "a pretty airhead." Maybe you were thinking about Carrie Prejean while typing that.

I'd say that Sister Sarah is probably the most Hitleresque of the pretenders. Let me make a short list.

She's a chronic failure.

Strongly attracted to things martial.

Disposed to practice persecution.

Heaps blame on a despised class.

Delusional.

Affects a persona that leads smart people like yourself (or idiots like McCain) to think she would be relatively harmless and controllable in a position of power.

That's enough for me. Don't worry about "National Socialists" in Usanistan. Hitler had to conjure up that misnomer because communism had become rather popular with a lot of Germans. He claimed to be offering a better and home grown alternative. No, our cornpone dictator candidates will offer us better capitalism.

mikel paul said...

Ilargi,
Sir, I am so not on the guest list to actually help here with my opinions. You guys and gals here spin my head so.
But, it occured to me and my right brain of songwriter, kids with musical talent and the odors of the Lassen forest that make me cry, that what you say about the disconnect between the real word and economics is even more wide than you point out.
To my memory, recognition itself is at it's basest point. A revealing minimum. What food tastes like, who's hurting, redwire/hot or black/ground (?), info. that belongs and is paid for by the public is kept private, leaders are followers, and only when I kiss my wife or hug my son do I really know what's important to know.
I know all your and Stones info is highly highly important but perhaps in a way you didn't expect but did hope for. A circle.
We got behind the wheel of this Hummer, all of us. Our species as a whole is still drunk and sadly, many prefer it that way. This next morning after will be a doosey.
The numbers are essential to learn, but the soul work still has to be done.
Thanx for all you, Stone and those here do to impart your honest understandings. It's invaluable.
It's probably just me that with all this happening in front of us, I am never so moved as I am by a nine year old who just wrote their first song...and reveals more than any numbers can hide.

peace

el gallinazo said...

The only way David could be more than one person (or to be more exact, more than one personality) is if his alter ego got hold of his password. So would the good Dr. David please change his password and then destroy it in theatrical Mission Impossible style. We will hope that the cognitive firewall will prevent David Hyde from accessing it. (We can refer to this as the Hyde Amendment). And, oh yeah, be sure to sign out when you are finished.

Coy Ote said...

I M.Nobody - I take your point, but I think she is moot.

1 - Although there are people buying her book and waiting for her to sign it at the tour, still a full 67% WOULD NOT ever vote for her for national office according to late polls.

2 - There are still a great number of men and women who are gender biased and would not vote for a woman--even if it was Helen of Troy or the Mother Mary!

David said...

El G said:

As a born and raised Usaco, I see the inevitable outcome of this catastrophe will be the complete and total Nazification of the United States. They just have to find a sufficiently charismatic psychopath to catalyze it when the time is ripe - 2012 I figure.

And to all those who will claim "It can't possibly happen here!" --

for those with short memories, or who have forgotten (or never learned) American history --

may I refer you to the Internment Camps for Japanese-Americans during WWII.

I fear that the next round of Internment Camps will not be as hospitable to inmates as the last ones were.

.

Coy Ote said...

I.M.No - Oh, and I like that Sister Sarah! As in Three Mules For... ?

;-)

I. M. Nobody said...

el g @6:12 PM,

I dunno, we've had two Dr J's log in today. I don't think google gives a damn about your pseudonym. It's your email address that ID's your account.

Frank said...

@el G About 2012. Google or just hit Wikipedia for Nehemiah Scudder.

I. M. Nobody said...

Coy Ote @6:31 PM,

I too doubt she has a public office in her future. But, taking your two points, I think very similar things could have been written about dear old Adolf in the 1920's. Do remember that his book was written in prison. The world is gonna get weird and crazy stuff happens.

Ed_Gorey said...

More interesting news at the "Irish
Times."

Check out today's lead editorial.

I'm betting some op/ed writer at the New York Times copies it so it can be re-run in the gray lady in about 3-6 months. I doubt enough time will have passed for folks to forget about Wall Street's record Christmas bonuses.

Ruben said...

Hilarious skit on Palin 2012

http://tinyurl.com/ydt5mca

Persephone said...

Good Evening Ilargi, Stoneleigh and all,

The admin seemed to have shut down the Dimon story today. Can't make it SO obvious that the government has been handed over to the banks.
Why would Dimon even express remote interest? There aren't any bonuses at Treasury (are there?)

Did I miss the post about the holes in Bernanke's speech?

NZSanctuary said...

Gravity said...
"...so now words like 'growth' are utterly debased, and words like 'politics' have taken on a strong negative connotation, thereby corrupting both the function of the word and the conceptualised process to which the word refers."

Erk! You are right (and wordy).

I recommend everyone read the following essay on language and politics by George Orwell (Eric Blair) – and/or pass it on to anyone interested in dissecting what is going on in our world.

http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/politics/english/e_polit

This essay is a good base (and refresher) for those interested in freeing themselves from the double-speak and obfuscation so common in media, politics and business language.

Edward Lowe said...

"By the way, eating animals is wrong and it's bad for you. If you want to lose weight, carb load and get lots of exercise. Keep away from saturated fat and cholesterol."

Er... and the evidence for that is ... I know, I know, 30 half baked articles you no doubt will trot out in defense of your religion.

Edward Lowe said...

I think the Dimon piece is the trial balloon of the week. He's been wooing washington hard for any number of months. Yes, financial reg's to be sure, but no doubt he sees the power of sitting atop treasury. Paulson demonstrated that you can cow congress into just about anything with the proper amount of threat and hyperventilation. A very profitable short term business that.

Ilargi said...

Ed Lowe

That was someone posing as Dr. J.

el gallinazo said...

I.M. Nobody

You are absolutely right and I stand corrected. It is your email that is registered with google, not your pseudonym, so false postings are quite simple.

el gallinazo said...

Edward Lowe said...

" A very profitable short term business that."

Secretaries of the Treasury

Robert Rubin - Co-CEO of Gollum Sucks; later temp CEO of Citigroup. Along with the living dead David Rockefeller, A Master of the Universe

Larry Summers - Biggest dickhead and most ugly person to see service in a cabinet for past 500 years. Most famous for proving wrong the old adage, "You snooze - you lose."

Hackenstein - CEO of Gollum Sucks; not quite as ugly as Larry. Famous financial terrorist. Appeared before Congress in the fall of 2008 with 20 tons of CDS strapped to his torso and a $700B robbery demand. Made a successful getaway.

Timmy Two-lips - President NY Fed, architect of the infamous AIG 2008 Bankster Heist; also known as Turbo Timmy for his tax evasion methodology.

I think Jamie Boy is a natural. It's a dirty job, but only the CEO of a trillion dollar banking corporation can walk into it totally prepared to rob the American people of their last nickel.

TAE Summary said...

* Republican crony capitalism caused our problems; Even talking heads say rally can't keep going; Correction is overdue; Next shoe will soon drop though no one can see the next leg of the crash coming; I'm dreaming of a white knuckle Christmas

* Daily Obama Amalgam:
- He is an answer to someone's prayers
- He might give us all a big Christmas present
- His brand is destroyed
- He has soured the youth
- He has pissed everyone off
- He is creating a giant power vacuum

* Congress has sold their souls; No one will trust democrats or republicans ever again; The country is in danger of unrest; Blacks and browns will be punished for the sins of the rich; Batten down the hatches

* The fat and sassy pay no attention to the man behind the curtain; Fatness and sassiness end for millions each month; Save your job at all costs; Shop til you drop

* Deepak Chopra assures us that:
- Crises spontaneoulsy generate leaders
- Sanity always prevails
- Solutions will emerge on all fronts
- Kool-Aid Kool-Aid, tastes great

* The ideologue cometh; USA will be Nazified; Palin is and answer to someone else's prayers, is pretty/dangerous but also pretty/moot; We need the brain of Ron Paul in the head of Mitt Romney

* M.C. Phd presents "It's a Wonderful Death"':
- Potter's butler rats him out
- Bert, Ernie and Bunny Winthrop dispense justice
- Potter feels the heat
- Zuzu sings "Later on we'll conspire, as we dream by the fire..."

* Unions overindulged but Wall Street hyperindulged; Overindulgence is always wrong; So is eating defenseless animals instead of carbs

* Ilargi see things as they are and explains why, Most men dream of things that never were and say WTF?

* Only theories expressed mathematically are science; Economics and boxing are not science; Numbers obscure beauty

* Fakenomics for Dummies:
- Economies can grow forever
- Money can grow forever
- Debt can grow forever
- Go long sucker; Go wrong sucker; So long sucker

* A tale of two Davids: He makes the best of comments, he makes the worst of comments, he is the voice of wisdom, he is the voice of foolishness, he inspires belief, he inspires incredulity, he is the soul of light, he is the soul of darkness ...

* Ex-lax offers temporary liquidity guaruntee program

john said...

Coy Ote and I.M Nobody...

Remember the movie, "Contact" with Jodi Foster. How science was pitted against religion. And which one won out?

I wonder... as the solution unfolds, will it have to fit nicely into the story of a snake talking to a human?

These are powerful forces. And true or not, the solution may only be seen/accepted if it falls in line with the past paradigm. Don't you think?

WgS said...

I'm often in the position of needing to figure out how things work in the world and then explaining them to others in everyday terms.

For instance, How to choose which prescription drug benefit plan best suits the needs of my great-aunt Josephine. Once I figure the best plan for her, I try to develop a way to make sure she will still understand my logic later on her own.

Recently, I had the honor of looking at different types of insurance and investment products being marketed to senior citizens. Frankly, I've decided they're a menace to Josephine for just the reasons Ilargi describes.

...things like perfect rationality, perfect information availability and perfect choices among players are presumed and even taken for granted.

Not only is this not how things work in the world, but to assert it is sets up a large segment of the population to be continuously disadvantaged. In good conscience, I can only advise Josephine to shake her head and walk away.

Of course, this probably means I won't be working any high-paid jobs anytime soon. On the other hand, I can sleep at night.

VK said...

What is the point of having a University degree? If the only outcome of specialization is increasing complexity and thus declining marginal returns which eventually leads to collapse.

So all those people who actually went of to study and become specialised so that they could achieve 'more' in life are actually accelerating the coming collapse. It's so ironic, technology's success is nothing more then a pyrrhic victory. So is too much education actually harmful and dangerous?

Wouldn't it have been much better for our ancestors to have stayed back in Africa and just chilled on the plains and lived in mud huts. No tax, no land rent, clean water and air and lots of time for love. Ok maybe I just romanticised it a bit too much.

FB said...

Hello,

@ Ruben
I too have noticed the same discrepancies in the David(s) and assumed they were two different individuals.

As the situation with Dr J makes clear, it is possible for two people to use the same alias. A while back, someone started using my name (FB) but because I had already been here for a long time, that person kindly shifted to another name. I am not sure what s/he uses now.


@ El G
Did you receive my correspondence on Monday? It theoretically went out to the correct address. Just wondering because I assume you were waiting for the reply from Europe.


@ NZ
Saying that Gravity is wordy is like saying that the pope is catholic. Spewing words in the most obtuse and obscure manner possible is the whole point. We have our very own Greenspan and I personally find it useful to be reminded that words more often serve as obstacles to meaning than as vectors of meaning.

Plus, he listens. When I suggested that he extend the tertiary energy dilation for hyperbolic cascade up to 32%, he did so. What more can you ask? ;-)


@ TAE Summary
Your Daily Obama Amalgam produces a distressing acronym.

Ciao,
FB

Coy Ote said...

One David swaps nuances with El Goliath, the other wants to slay him with a sling.

One Dr. J wants to revive El Goliath with meat and potatoes, the other Dr. J wants to to carb him, veg him, "exorcise" him and let nature take its course.

TAE Summary will be asking all twins for proper identification.

(pardon me I & S) ;-)

Zap said...

Now that our debt is on an extremely short leash, Goldmanites are set to become even more obscenely rich due to the fact that they now have a virtual monopoly on fixed income.


Disgusting

Somethings gotta change

Zap said...

I don't understand game theory but one fallacy I see is the idea of winners/losers

They don't lose on Wall Street, because the fund managers, banksters and the like ALWAYS leave the casino with their pockets full no matter what the outcome of the game.

Kimberly said...

weekly unemployment benefits claims have fallen a lot!

Down to 466,000. There has been a very clear and gradual decrease in weekly unemployment claims for the last 3-4 months - from 600000 to 550000 to 500000 to now 4660000.

This trend certainly seems to imply that job losses are leveling off. Generally, when losses equal 400,000/week an economy starts adding jobs.

How do we explain this data and this trend?

Wolf at the Door said...

It is days like this when it just feels like nothing will ever happen to stop this insanity and I begin to wonder....am I nuts?

Or just as bad am I early? (I mean really really early.)

I think about the intelligent people before me who have been predicting financial and resource collapse (very sincerely and with logical and well thought out rationales) since the 1970's....

They have been waiting a long time for thier collapse and have long since been discredited by now in the eyes of friends and family I am sure.

Obviously the further along the path of insanity we travel the closer such a collapse becomes and I am well aware of the mathematical and logical underpinnings for just such a scenario.

But I still can't help but wonder sometimes if I am going to find myself in 2040 as a 60 something year old man spinning tales of imminent collapse as my kids and grandkids roll thier eyes around me.

Even though I know the emperor has no clothes, at times I must admit, the gov'ts appear to me as Leviathan...invincible and cold and determined to thwart mathematical reality.

And as everybody around me accepts the invincibility of our gov't without even a second thought it makes for a lonely existence as I find I have to continually wall mysef of mentally from family and friends to some extent and serverly censor what I say to avoid being labeled a nutcase.

I really can't decide which would be worse....utter collapse or no collapse and being stuck in this stifling, corrupt, soul sucking system for another few decades as it defies all odds and survives to torture us another day with it's smothering insanity.

I. M. Nobody said...

@john,

I vaguely remember the movie, but I am not groking what question you are asking to have addressed. You talk about a solution, but my perhaps too poorly educated brain failed to detect mention of a specific problem in your post.

I am especially puzzled because I don't recall suggesting any solutions. In fact, I'm trying to wean myself from that sort of activity. Recently, a commenter on Orlov's blog wrote that the late highly respected newsman Eric Sevareid once opined that "the cause of problems is solutions." I have spent most of my adult life solving problems. I am aware of some of the subsequent and bigger problems I helped create. Mr. Sevareid's comment seems sensible to me.

And now in the spirit of violating what I just wrote. If there isn't already, I'm sure there will soon be a whole bunch of john's posting here. May I suggest that you amend your alias in some way. You know like in times long past, when John's were differentiated with handles like John the Baptist, John the Apostle, John the Revelator, etc.

@VK,

I don't know if Universities cause specialization or just reinforce a natural tendency. I do believe they are a branch of the Vampire Squid family and encourage any proclivity for greed. I have always been thankful that I was too poor to attend one and had to settle for technical training in the military.

My older brother got a chance at college and later in life took a degree in anthropology.

He joined an expedition to study the Kalahari Bushmen. He came back rather impressed with their social structure. So, maybe(?) your level of romanticism is fairly well calibrated. .)

I. M. Nobody said...

Kimberly,

What you could make of it is that every week another cadre of Usans equal to approximately one-third of the second largest military force on the planet is being treated to humiliation, despair, poverty and soon enough hopelessness.

There is not an infinite supply of employed persons. If the trend could continue long enough, the new claims number would fall to zero.

getyourselfconnected said...

Kimberly,
on needs to add back all those on the "super extended" unemployment benefit program to get a sense of the true UE rate. I think Mish had a great chart detailing how if job creation even matches some of the better times, we are still almost 5-8 years away from UE at 5-6%. Scary.

Ahimsa said...

El G said:

"Much as I like and respect Snuffy and loath the banksters, I have to subscribe to Stoneleigh's prediction that any violence will in short order be directed against the innocent."

I tend to agree with El G and Stoneleigh. Locally, I increasingly see poor whites being galvanized against minorities by the exclusivist fundamentalist Christian religion and prevailing right-wing views (70 percent of people in my county vote Republican, including most working class and poor whites). Sarah Palin is a heroine around here!

"As a born and raised Usaco, I see the inevitable outcome of this catastrophe will be the complete and total Nazification of the United States. They just have to find a sufficiently charismatic psychopath to catalyze it when the time is ripe - 2012 I figure. But we are a nation of psychopaths - no hay problema. That's why I got out."

Yes, I also think the "Nazification" of the USA will be inevitable. Psychopaths or sociopaths, who make up 4 percent of the populace, already rule this country. As demonstrated by the Stanley Milgram psychological experiments, at least 62.5 percent of people with consciences (unlike the psychopaths or sociopaths who have no conscience and are unable to feel empathy or remorse) will obey authority or follow the ruthless orders of a psychopath ruler or ruling elite.

The burden to those of us with a conscience who do not follow blindly the dictates of authority (especially a sociopathic authority) is that most sociopaths are invisible.

I highly recommend Martha Stout's insightful book, "The Sociopath Next Door."

Ahimsa said...

I.M. Nobody said:

"I'd say that Sister Sarah is probably the most Hitleresque of the pretenders. Let me make a short list.

She's a chronic failure.

Strongly attracted to things martial.

Disposed to practice persecution.

Heaps blame on a despised class.

Delusional.

Affects a persona that leads smart people like yourself (or idiots like McCain) to think she would be relatively harmless and controllable in a position of power."


Well said!!

lord.bacon said...

@ wolf at the door,

I know what you mean.

Conversations with most people are so difficult. So much ANY conversation is built upon a foundation of what the speaker expects from the future. Education, sports, business, entertainment - it doesn't matter what you're talking about, your vision of the future somehow seeps through as an unspoken subtext.

I find myself doing so much self-censoring these days, I don't even want to talk to anybody. When I do have a conversation, I feel like such an actor/liar. I say stupid nonsense that I know is totally wrong a, but I say it anyway because to say otherwise opens the door to a conversation that ends with being labeled - nutcase.

And yeah, on days like today, when the unemployment numbers seem to drift back towards the realm of normal, it does make you wonder.
Perhaps the leviathan wins? I've never seen it lose, so its hard to imagine otherwise.

Ahimsa said...

El G and others, thought this might be of interest:

"Vitamin D is Nature's Antibiotic"

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/life/health-fitness/health/Vitamin-D-is-natures-antibiotic/articleshow/5263795.cms

Greyzone said...

I.M.Nobody:

You appear to misunderstand the unemployment statistics. It is not 500,000 or so per week when they make each weekly announcement.
What they do is take the weekly number and extrapolate it to a monthly number (the 500K number) then announce that, but only after they make seasonal adjustments.

Now when they make an announcement for the prior month, you will notice it is in the same range as these "weekly" announcements. The above is why.

As to the October monthly announcement, and the adjustments this last month to get 460K or so? They dropped about 18% of the unadjusted total, about 560K, that's all.

Now how a "seasonal" adjustment requires an 18% adjustment from the raw total, I leave to your imagination.

Nelson said...

Kimberly,
In addition to what the others have said about the jobless benefits claims, we should look at the way the numbers are massaged -
from Denninger:

In the week ending Nov. 21, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 466,000, a decrease of 35,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 501,000.
(...)
That's good, right? A decrease of 35,000 claims. The first-blush look would be "as expected, holiday hiring of temporary help."
(...)
The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 543,926 in the week ending Nov. 21, an increase of 68,080 from the previous week. There were 609,138 initial claims in the comparable week in 2008.
(...)
So you're going to tell me that seasonal adjustments removed 100,000 claims from the raw numbers for this week, or roughly 18% of the total claims?
An 18% seasonal adjustment?!
(...)
Believe the labor market is improving if you wish - indeed, it damn well ought to be, since seasonal hiring (mostly part-time) should have been in full force last week with Black Friday due in two days.

I. M. Nobody said...

He who usurps the mantle of Lord Bacon Said...

Perhaps the leviathan wins? I've never seen it lose, so its hard to imagine otherwise.

I've never seen a universe created or destroyed, but I have imagined it. According to the legends, only God could defeat leviathan and the purpose in doing so would be to give sustenance and shelter to the regular folk. In my imagination, God left the field a long time ago, hung up the cleats and gave itself over to taking long naps, verrrrry lonnnnng naps.

So, that would seem to set leviathan up for a Malthusian end. When it has finally exhausted all resources for its sustenance leviathan will die. It will not be televised. .)

I. M. Nobody said...

Greyzone,

Very well, I will confess to not giving much time to studying how the Usanistani bureaucracy practices to deceive. Or, should I claim it was Kimberly that deceived me?

So, it's one-third of the military every MONTH.

That's OK then.

jal said...

Re.:
Application of Nash to markets assumes calculating rational actors at all times...

If all actors we acting rationally, (in markets or other areas such as war)

THE ACTORS WOULD NOT BE PARTICIPATING!

jal

lord.bacon said...

Bear Score Card

I read a wide selection of Bearish analysts.

Reading list includes: Mish, Denninger, Martin Weiss, and I&S

I've been keeping a score card regarding who got things right vs. who got things wrong after the October 2008 crash.

Here is what I've found:

Mish and Denninger have been very wishy washy all the way through. Sometimes making dire sounding short-term alarm posts and other times moderating their views. You can't pin them down easily. They are basically short term - medium term fuzzy while long term negative (although Mish has recently tilted toward being more explicitly short-term bearish, with his typical qualifiers so he can always be right).

Martin Weiss got the short term wrong this spring. His analysts were short term bearish when the market rise began in earnest (major mistake). Starting mid-late summer, they switched and said markets would push higher for the last half of 2009 (they got it very right! so far). One Weiss analyst in particular has been very sharp over this period (Claus Vogt). I include Claus' latest entry at the bottom. He's well aware of all the problems that I&S talk about (housing, deficit spending, unemployment, etc.), he simply says it will take until later in 2010 until the markets register these problems. So far (emphasis on so far) for 2009, he's been very right where others have been very fuzzy or wrong. Vogt still thinks markets will push higher through the 1st quarter (and maybe 2nd quarter) of 2010, at which point serious turbulence will return. We'll see, but he's had the best track record of anybody I've read for the last 6 months!

I&S: We've already done 10 rounds of body blows and finger pointing so I won't go there yet again.
-------------------------

latest highlights from Weiss Research Claus Vogt:

"The Fed is well aware of the mortgage reset schedule for the coming years.....mortgages like Alt-A and Option-ARMs. A huge wave of resets is due to commence soon.
From the second quarter of 2010 until the fourth quarter of 2011, hundreds of billions of dollars in these mortgages will reset to much higher rates! And many of them will end up becoming delinquent.....Nevertheless, this looming problem goes a long way in possibly explaining the Fed’s reluctance to return to a more normal monetary policy. And it’s something you should keep in mind."

Lindsay said...

VK - some people get degrees to specialise, but I think most get them becuase in the job market, you are graded on a curve. Just think of all those BA graduates, you go on to do paid work that has nothing to do with their education (and they're not the only ones.

Round here, a Bachelor's is a necessary ticket into the job market. You need one, simply becuase everyone else you are competing with also has one. And I think it escalates, it's becoming so that a postgraduate degree will be necessary too.

I guess at some point, the pattern has to snap, when the cost of the extra education cannot be justified. Kind of parallels the housing market.

Coy Ote said...

Lots of folks here keep studying the statistics, on unemployment, housing, markets, etc. I do too!But may I suggest you just take a look around your town, talk to people, look along the side streets and suburban avenues.
If you live anywhere in the midwest the reality of your environment speaks volumes irregardless of what the current stats may be.

And think... how much more room is there for parking lots, stick built condos, highways and multi-gabled homes stuck in fields and small woodlots? Think of all the hustling, bustling cities, SUV's and semi-trailers crowding the beltways and interstates; consider the enormous quantities of energy that consumes. That has peaked as well and is at apex or trending downward.
I too am sometimes baffled, astounded really, by the apparent resilience of this vast and complex system seeming to defy all the odds in a persistent appearance of stability.

Now, add to the above scenario the tremendous debt load that has accumulated, our fiat currency, and the fact that we have rich, narrow minded--even criminal--bankers and financiers calling the shots, trying to extend this ridiculus effort toward expansion in a headlong rush to a tragic dead end.

It's about over! Don't doubt your own common sense! Just be glad you have finally awakened and take some semblance of preparatory measures, thanks to folks like Ilargi, the Stonelady, and the many interesting, thoughtful posters on this site.

And I am by nature an optimist!

NZSanctuary said...

john said...
"Coy Ote and I.M Nobody...
... How science was pitted against religion. And which one won out?"

This theme will continue to gain importance, IMO. Both the religion of God and the religion of science will draw stronger fanaticism as people attempt to shirk their responsibility for the troubles ahead, lay the blame elsewhere and create false hope of salvation.

Ed_Gorey said...

@ Lindsey

Education bubble

Cause? Government loan guarantees!

It's identical to the housing bubble.

The housing bubble had Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Ginnie Mae.

The education bubble had Sallie Mae and the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program.

If the governement didn't guarantee the student loans, then dramatically fewer would be issued, and the cost of college education would be dramatically more affordable because people would only be able to pay from saved income (does this ring any housing bells?). Since virtually anyone can get a loan (since the downside risk is the taxpayer's), there is virtually no limit as to how high tuition (house prices) can go.

Until......recent graduate income falters and slides and loan repayment collapses and loans cease due to spiraling taxpayer losses.

What becomes of all the grand university campuses - recently expanded for an ever growing student population paying ever higher tuition. What will become of all those high tech bio-engineering centers built on the promise of ever expanding federal R&D grants from the NIH and NSA and DOE?

Implosion. Just like housing. And a lot of unemployed PhDs.

I. M. Nobody said...

NZSanctuary,

Your opinion of the adherents to science and religion sounds reasonable to me. Here's how I see the odds.

Humans only need to survive to support religion. Science seems to require that we thrive. Anybody can practice religion. Science appears to depend on possession of a keen imagination and deep-seated curiosity. If someone is organizing a pool, the safe money would seem to be on religion. .(

Ahimsa said...

Amy Goodman interviews Naomi Klein:


Naomi Klein on Climate Debt: Why Rich Countries Should Pay Reparations To Poor Countries For The Climate Crisis.

With the Copenhagen climate summit two weeks away, best-selling journalist Naomi Klein examines the grass-roots movement behind the climate debate proposal that argues all the costs associated with adapting to a more hostile ecology—everything from building stronger sea walls to switching to cleaner, more expensive technologies—are the responsibility of the countries that created the crisis. Klein also discusses the 10th anniversary of the Seattle WTO protests and the 10th anniversary of her first book, “No Logo.” [includes rush transcript]



http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/23/naomi_klein_on_climate_debt_why

NAOMI KLEIN:

But, what I decided to focus on is not how corporate—the latest gimmicks and techniques of corporate branding, but, rather, how politicians were—and, indeed, how government has absorbed the techniques honed by the corporations in the ‘90s in creating and selling their super brands. And now they’re being used by political parties, by politicians really, to sell themselves.

And I’m afraid, I think, that that’s where Obama fits in, that he really is a super brand on line with many of the companies that I discuss in No Logo. And he has many of the same problems as the companies that I discuss in No Logo, like Nike and Apple and all of these—Starbucks—all of these, sort of 1990s, sort of, lifestyle brands that co-opted many of the, you know—the iconography of the transformative political movements like the civil rights movement, the women’s movement. And that was really the hallmark of 1990s branding.

Lindsay said...

@ Ed Gorey: Absolutely. Here in NZ the government gives 0% interest student loans. Beat that, USA!

By the way, in the next few weeks I will be an unemployed PhD myself. Thank God I have no loans to pay. PhDs are a special case, and that topic deserves a rant in itself. I'll refrain though.

Ilargi said...

If anyone expects anything but hot air from Copenhagen, I pity you. We will do nothing to save this planet. Not ten years ago, not today, not ten years from now. It's simply who we are. Might as well give up the illusion of fighting ourselves.

Coy Ote said...

NZsanctuary - I appreciate, and find your comments interesting, with this peculiarity.

Do I understand correctly that you feel religion and science are both equally unsound?

Not that science is at any particular moment "correct" in it's positions (which are themselves subject to constant change) nor of course is scientific method error proof.

But if injured in, say, an automobile accident would one say "take me to the church" (religion) or "take me to the hospital" (medical science).

It seems to me that the human mind is much more properly exercised searching for truth than it is sticking to a formal dogma.

FB said...

Hello,

If I read you correctly, global warming will produce hot air in Copenhagen.

That is chilling. But not here in the Alps. We are having the warmest autumn in memory. The olive trees were already only 50-60 km distant, I suppose they will continue to march up the valleys.

Ciao,
FB

Ed_Gorey said...

@ Lindsay,

Why not rant about the PhD. Very few scientists give a rat's ass about the larger purpose for which the R&D money is spent.

It's nothing but cash for playing 3 dimensional crossword puzzles. The rest is sophistry. Cure cancer, cure Alzheimer's disease, blah blah. Yeah, in 50 years, after we've built moon bases, solved climate change, and fly around in hover craft like the Jetsons. I've sat in conferences where people crack jokes about the crap they write in grant applications to get the money. I'm sure the government knows it too, and they don't give a rat's ass what the scientist figure out either. Good job Jim, keep up the good work with that science stuff, and make sure keep buying $100,000 spectrophotometers, liquid chromatograhy columns, automated microscopes, computer servers etc. Keep the orders flowing, that's what the money's for after all.

Lindsay said...

@ Ed Gorey

LOL, throw an fMRI machine and electroencephalography nets in there, and keep science-ing!

Actually, my rant is more about my personal circumstances. I've painted myself into a corner. When I started this degree I didn't realise that science in NZ is often operated like a ponzi scheme. Turns out, every PhD in my field from the last few years has either left the country, or changed careers. And here I find myself having to figure out a new career path, becuase I have decided that my partner, his employment, our local family, and living in a safe country that is not running out of water, and has become my home, is a priority.

I take some small comfort from the doomer notion that no countries will afford the luxury of expensive science in the future anyway. And I now have a chance to try and forge a depression-proof career, if I can figure a suitable one out. It migth have been nice if this challenging degree gave me something more worthwhile and permanent though.

I'm sure this is all off topic. Please excuse me, TAEers!

Bigelow said...

Gold hits US$1,190 as more central banks buy

NZSanctuary said...

I. M. Nobody said...
"If someone is organizing a pool, the safe money would seem to be on religion."

That does seem like the path of least resistance in the long run... it's easy for people to lay their faith on that altar. However, I think there will continue to be a reasonable force (both public and strongly corporate) that proclaims that technology can "save" us.

Interesting times may surprise us all, of course...

Dr J said...

Lindsay - about a year ago I read about a Canadian ex-pat doctor who had opened a brothel next to his clinic to subsidize his meagre income. I think it was in a little place on the north island, IIRC. Nice country, NZ, with some sensible laws, too. I found the food disappointing, though.

NZSanctuary said...

Coy Ote said...
"Do I understand correctly that you feel religion and science are both equally unsound?"

No, actually I think both religion and science are highly useful constructs. The main problem lies in how they have been warped from their original purpose.

Formal organisation carries a lot of the blame. Churches (the organisational bodies) end up fighting to protect their own existence and influence rather than empowering people to become more self-aware. Likewise much of science is becoming a doctrine of consensus and a corporate power/control tool.

And people become wedded to the views of the organisational bodies and the consensus, rather than exploring the original principles for themselves. This is blind faith - both in science and in religion.

This is why I have been an advocate of Zen for about 20 years now...

I. M. Nobody said...

Lindsay,

I for one don't think your rant is off topic at all. What you describe is a microcosmic view of what ails the system right up to the top.

You are not by any means the first to encounter that pitfall. My late wife obtained a degree in Art History. No advisor ever suggested to her that it wasn't likely to be a money maker. About three years ago her daughter mentioned that they had very frequent applications by young people with Masters and PhD degrees for employment at the restaurant where she worked.

Thus, my allegation above that Universities must be members of the Vampire Squid family. They will happily take all the money they can from undergrads, postgrads and alumni and never give a damn what happens to them.

I don't think there are any depression-proof careers. You may have an edge though. I recall reading once that during The Great Depression (v1.0) some businessmen were given to bragging about how many PhD's they had doing bookkeeping, sweeping floors, etc.

Keep your chin up and don't be afraid to rant.

NZSanctuary said...

Coy Ote said...
"It seems to me that the human mind is much more properly exercised searching for truth than it is sticking to a formal dogma."

Both SHOULD be a search for the truth. Currently, IMO, most people involved in either are indoctrinated into formal dogma...

lord.bacon said...

@ Bigelow

Gold at $1190. Don't remind me!!! I sold my entire stash at prices ranging from $945 - $960 a few months ago for virtually 0 profit because I expected gold to crash and burn during deflation. Woops! There went $5000 in potential profits.

I. M. Nobody said...

Dr J,

Being the dirty old man that I am I may have detected ambiguity that doesn't actually exist in your Canadian ex-pat doctor tale. I'm just sayin that it seems a little dicey. I mean, I think we barely know the lady. .)

Gravity said...

I recently noticed several instances of economic 'expansion' being used instead of 'growth', an attempt to find a suitable replacement illustrating equivalent meaning, for the shrinking word is now incapable of relaying vectored herding information as intended, the emotive driver has been irreparably damaged by miscontextualised overuse.

But 'expansion' is not good enough a substitute, already possessing a slight negative charge, likely through the spontaneous coupling with militaristic expansion, while lacking the reference to the joyful organic process which is the secret source of the emotive driver in shrivelrot.

When the word 'growth' is debased, the ideology of consumerism is not communicable, if gaining a negative charge, the ideology is swiftly destroyed.

As the word 'politics' attains negative charge the process itself becomes mentally decoupled from the concept of law, so the citizenry and their discourse become conceptually corrupted.

That is why the Fed must remain 'free from politics', because politics itself is seen as frustratively indecisive and rife with interruptive partisan bickering, although it remains the only process by which law may be altered, thus by a destructive process of unwording the Fed becomes semantically removed from the domain of lawful manipulation by the citizenry and representatives, leading from and following into the further corruption of the word and process of law. When 'law' finally gains negative connotation, elective polyarchy is swiftly destroyed.

mistah charley, ph.d. said...

Lindsay - I have a Ph.D. in the meat world, as well as in cyberspace, and while I'm sure you're correct that your professors gave little thought to the local market for their product (i.e. you), look on the bright side. You have written a book, whether or not anybody else ever reads it, and the rest of your life is ahead. It was Mark Twain who said, "I never let my schooling interfere with my education." Let that be true of you as well.

As for me, I used to be an unemployed Ph.D., but now that I'm old enough to get Social Security I'm a retired Ph.D. It's easier for missus charley, m.d. to explain to new people she meets.

Wyote said...

Commenting on the academic elites and their ignorance, a snippet from the latest Joe Bageant post:

"...the sheer gravitational pull of 60 million people circling the drain is starting to draw these elites who do not know they are elites toward the drainpipe. So now we are seeing academic papers with titles such as "Does a white American underclass really exist?" Lemme see now, are there any clues? Well, about 49.1 million people, most of them white, went without food at various times in 2008 (USDA). This is called "food insecurity" in government and academic circles. I suppose the 3.1 million folks sleeping under bridges, in cars, in shelters and cardboard boxes are experiencing "housing insecurity." This includes the 1.4 million homeless children attending our public schools. I suggest they start by asking these people if there is a white underclass in America. You know, get it straight from the horse's mouth. You don't know if you don't ask. I mean, hell, these people might all be just hobo-ing for a lark!"

Happy Thanksgiving, Wyote

Coy Ote said...

NZS - Thanks for the response. Well put!

From Zerohedge - On the released global warming emails and data.
"Global warming exposed as UN-funded fraud"
(With a boatload of emotionally charged paragraphs)
eg: "biggest scandal in the history of science" "vast political and social engineering never before seen in the history of the world."
"A picture emerges of big science funded to the tune of billions of dollars for the purposes of an underlying international political agenda."

As usual we have to ask, is this a purposeful leak at a particular time, a diversion from some other impending event? Why now?
To what extent does it really have a bearing on the reality of climate change dangers?

Let's see, Copenhagen coming up. Hmmm... Nice timing.
Oh well, a lot of miles traveled by CC types, air flights, rental cars, limo's, hotel rooms and gala events surrounding the meetings and speechmaking.

Warm air exhaled from a fine Danish city. Peak futility!

Persephone said...

Ilargi said:
"Perhaps the best shot the US government has in that market is for the stock markets to crash, since that will lift the US dollar, and free up a lot of financial space for the administration. Of course, it would also crash the banks and the housing industry, but then, they are goners anyway."

Brilliant!

Someone please translate this story for me:
Dubai Inc may face shakeup after debt standstill

john patrick said...

I.M Nobody... suggestion taken, name-john is now elaborated ;) And, sorry for the unspecified comment. I had picked up on the tone of some things you and Coy Ote had been writing (and many others).

My point was, as in the movie "Contact," regardless of the logic of science, religion is what appeals to the masses. And if we're spending their money, so to speak, then TPTB give them the ritual answer they seek.

I know. It's all stupid and insane. But, here we are. In the game because of those we love.

Wolf at the Door said...
It is days like this when it just feels like nothing will ever happen to stop this insanity and I begin to wonder....am I nuts?


I think many of the ancient teachers went into the desert (or mountain top) not to get closer to god/wisdom, but rather to relieve themself of the cultural insanity. What else could they do?

I feel the same way. And even when I have convinced a few close friends to at least "think differently" about the situation, at the earliest test they do what they have always done. Behavior is a tough nut to change. Sorrow and suffering seem to be not only unavoidable, but -necessary- for deep neurons to reconnect in new ways. Or, for spirit to break the bondage of matter-centric existence.

Maybe we expect too much of Language. Just because the wind blows through fields of grain and makes noise, the grain does not change into a tree.

el gallinazo said...

Wyote

And don't forget the white rabbits.

David said...

@ Bigelow:

“Maybe [gold] will reach $1,100 or so but $1,500 or $2,000 is nonsense.” That’s what Nouriel Roubini said a few days ago at the Inside Commodities Conference in New York.

The comments from the economist credited with foreseeing the banking crisis were aimed squarely at investing legend Jim Rogers.


Given a choice between a multi-decade seasoned market trader like Jim Rogers, and an Ivory Tower academic like Roubini, whose money would you care to be putting your money on now?

My predication at this point would be that Gold will hit $1500./oz. much quicker than our professor Roubini can imagine.

After all, most prognosticators, six months ago, were predicting gold at $1200./oz. attainable only around 2011-2012.

Methinks gold at $1200./oz. is a matter of hours away.

So many, many people underestimate the power of Real Money, the metal that has undermined the monetary policy of empires for thousands of years.

The empires are long dead, and the yellow metal still stands, unalloyed in its ability to confound the prognosticators.

.

john patrick said...

NZSanctuary...
Formal organisation carries a lot of the blame. Churches (the organisational bodies) end up fighting to protect their own existence and influence rather than empowering people to become more self-aware. Likewise much of science is becoming a doctrine of consensus and a corporate power/control tool.


Everytime I see an ad on TV to "feed the children" or a host of other things, I think to myself, "how come the Vatican or New Age MegaChurch doesn't sell their holdings/property to feed the poor, etc..?"

Because they are more concerned with protecting the system/matrix they own. Same with Government.

I've also wondered why brilliant minds, from Leonardo to Einstein, always used their talent toward enhanced military ends. Did they not think they were responsible for their talent and its use?

Maybe when we learn who we are, and what we can do, we should keep it a secret. Otherwise, it seems that to unleash great "ideas" into an immature world, --this only subjects the ideas to domination and horror by those who have not paid the price to see.

--Thank you TAE and comments.

David said...

@ Ilargi:

How much longer can it go on?

Nov. 26 (Bloomberg) -- The dollar traded near a 14-year low against the yen as signs of a global economic recovery and speculation the Federal Reserve will keep interest rates low decreased demand for the U.S. currency.

The greenback was near a 15-month low versus the euro . . .

“People are feeling safe to continue dollar-carry trades, given the widespread view that interest rates won’t rise anytime soon in the U.S.,” said Kazumasa Yamaoka, senior currency analyst in Tokyo at GCI Capital Co., a foreign-exchange margin service company. “A lack of concern over the weakness of the dollar from Fed also supports this transaction”


Day after day. Week after week. Month after month. With mind-numbing regularity. The drumbeat goes on, and on, and on.

Yes, we do know that You and Stoneleigh have repeatedly predicted the rise of the USD, and we all here do immensely respect your views.

But, What?,How? When? Where? Who? Why?

What is going to be the Actual Trigger that sends the USD skyrocketing, and How will it happen, and When will it occur, and Where will be the flashpoint, and Who will be the actual instigator, and Why will it occur at that particular point in time?

Please do not consider this insubordination, but a request for elucidation.

.

lord.bacon said...

David,

If my memory serves me correctly, you've been on the gold bandwaggon for quite a while.

In previous discussions/arguments about the yellow metal, you've consistently argued that its time was fast approaching.

Congratulations sir! You must be as happy as a clam these days. What is your price target for booking some profits?

WgS said...

This week a judge in New York fired a nice shot over the bow.

Judge wipes out couple's mortgage after bank's 'repulsive' behaviour.

A New York judge was so angry with a bank's "harsh, repugnant, shocking and repulsive" behaviour towards a financially struggling couple that he wiped out their $525,000 (£316,000) mortgage...


Call it V...

Taizui said...

John Patrick,

Buddy Hackett once told of touring the Vatican's priceless art treasures and suggesting that selling just one painting could feed all the hungry in Italy for a year. His Monsignor guide replied, "Absconde rotundo illigitimo."

Perhaps Greenpa, Gravity or another TAE linguist can translate?

Ilargi said...

get your fat bastard ass out of here?!

ogardener said...

Blogger VK said...

What is the point of having a University degree?

Some of us went to Agriculture school :-)

Taizui said...

Ilargi,

Is that a translation, or are you banning me?

Taizui said...

Ilargi,

Actually, in the TV routine I recall, Buddy translated it as, "Get out of here, you fat bastard!" He probably used your translation in his Las Vegas act.

I. M. Nobody said...

Blogger ogardener said...

Blogger VK said...

What is the point of having a University degree?

Some of us went to Agriculture school :-)

And of course nobody (no self-reference intended) practiced agriculture before the land-grant colleges were established. I do hope a spout of erudition from the Gravity Well might come forth to explain how hunter gatherers could have produced such a populous and prosperous civilization prior to that momentous event. .)

David said...

Lord Bacon said:

Congratulations sir! You must be as happy as a clam these days. What is your price target for booking some profits?

Profits? or Prophets?

Well, it goes something like this.

At what point do you want to trade your real money in for paper money? As in, real gold traded for paper with ink on it?

Many, many prognosticators over the last 10 years have picked the "perfect" time to cash out --

Did it make sense at $400./oz?

or at $600./oz.

or at $800./oz?

How about at $900./oz.?

Or even better yet, when there were many, many clamoring for taking ALL the chips off the table at $1000./oz. because "this is the high for the decade"?

That would have been the right move, correct?

Or . . . Maybe at $1100./oz,certainement?

Absolutely at $1200./oz., no???

No?

Well, we can just draw a line here in the sand and say without any further doubt that the time to cash MUST be . . . !!

Right? or Wrong?

Lord Porkbellies, I don't think that I'm at all qualified to answer this question.

You are personally in the best position to be the judge. For your own portfolio. As is everyone else.

NZSanctuary said...

john patrick said...
"I've also wondered why brilliant minds, from Leonardo to Einstein, always used their talent toward enhanced military ends. Did they not think they were responsible for their talent and its use?"

My understanding is that Einstein was very concerned about such things... I could be wrong.

Ilargi said...

David

Stop using so much space and air for your posts or else.

the shadow said...

Chee! A dull dog lot we have here with no happy expectations of Thanksgiving and all the consumer shopping there will be?

Dr J said...

Ilargi - it's a narcissistic personality disorder disinhibited by Etoh.

snuffy said...

The more I think about it the more I believe that demagogue like Palin will be the road that will be traveled.

Most Americans have a deep-seated dislike of the idea of a preacher like Huckibee[sp?]getting in the presidency...although they do want "a church going man"

There is a dislike of the tele-evangelicals that is palatable,cause by way too many of then having some trouble with gays,meth,and cute little girls...

I honestly don't know where the person will come from,but I am sure that the time is nearly right for "the man in a white horse"

All it will take is the current administration to continue this path of ensuring the pig at the trough [banks&investment houses]keep sucking the life out of the economy.
When the cracks cant be papered over with promises and t-bills any more,and it dawns on o-man and his staff they really, really, are in deep kimchee...thats when I expect someone like Ross Perot...

Both parties are now covered in the shit of corporate greed to the point of smelling the same to the public now.
As I have said,we still dont have "our depression on" yet.There is still too much hope in the back of everyone's mind..
It will come from out of the blue I think...something like this disease from Ukraine ...

A crisis these clowns just sit and look stupidly at...

And then..Ta Da!!

Man on a white horse,swept into power in a landslide

Thats when it gets weird...

snuffy

snuffy said...

Happy turkey day all.Enjoy this special time with the ones you love,and the ones you are related to.Hopefully they are one in the same[grin]

snuffy

David said...

the Shadow said:

Chee! A dull dog lot we have here with no happy expectations of Thanksgiving and all the consumer shopping there will be?

I have a Capital Idea!

Why do we not all post our menus of Thanksgiving Dinner/Repast slated for tomorrow? Either planned or recounted afterward?

Right now, here in the Northeast we have yet to suffer a hard frost, so much from tomorrow's dinner will still come fresh from the garden. To Wit:

Tomatoes (still!), peppers (still!),lettuce, potatoes, carrots, beets, kohlrabi, swiss chard, and cabbage.

And yes, here in the household of a vegan soulmate there will be a Tofurky. But also for the guests' some great wines, AND an outstanding fruit tart with vanilla ice-cream, and Port!

Aye, 'twill be a grand dinner!

What say ye all?!

Ilargi said...

and that was the last one david

David said...

Ilargi said...

and that was the last one david

OK, I got the hint.

You don't want me around here anymore. I still can't see what was wrong with that last post of mine. But I'm sorry that it offended you somehow. It was just in fun and good-hearted spirit.

That's fine.

Hasta la Vista.

Ilargi said...

not too bright, are we?

you're the only one who uses a new line for every sentence. ever ask yourself why?

APC said...

"That is chilling. But not here in the Alps. We are having the warmest autumn in memory."

We are still able to pick cepe here in Brittany. That's usually all done by mid October. Very mild here...

M said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lindsay said...

Mr Nobody & Dr Charley: Thankyou for your kind words, they do mean a lot to me.

John Patrick: Are you familiar with Richard Feynman? He worked on the bomb. From his memoirs (which are excellent), it seems he did feel that that work was the best use of his talent, helping is country in the war effort. Although I also think he perhaps got too caught up in the fascinating physics problem to focus too much on the consequences. From what he wrote, he did have some regret afterwards though.

Ruben said...

re: what is the point of a university degree?

My momma always said, "Get yourself an education so you have something to think about while you dig ditches."

She did and she did.

APC said...

A question for our hosts. Really, I have no idea. Heard this on CNBC.

"If the stock market is up 30% and the dollar is down 30%, how much money did you make?"

Are they implying that markets have flatlined?

Thanks in advance...

el gallinazo said...

As I recall, Einstein's only work "for" the military was to use his enormous prestige to write a letter to FDR stating that a fission bomb is a viable reality. Also, one has to bear in mind that they were worried about what would happen if Hitler got the bomb first. They were ethnically Jewish and facing the total extermination of their families. German science and technology was far more advanced than the USA, but they chose (fortunately) to bark up a different tree which fruit was slower to bear. (The Hunt for Zero Point: Nick Cook).

Sarah Palin's greatest obstacle is her gender. Fascist culture has always been very male chauvinist and even the Usaco brain dead are going to have a hard time with this piece of cognitive dissonance.

Coy Ote said...

M - "The sound of that ‘big collapse “ that so many are listening for is a relentless, hollowing trickle eroding from the inside out"

I am someplace in the middle of this notion, and the crash scenario. We are grinding down in the friction of complexity but I hold to the caveat that as time passes (debt builds, resource depletion continues) a trigger event could cause the whole shebang to go "south."

It is rather painfully interesting.

Coy Ote said...

El G - "Sarah Palin's greatest obstacle is her gender."

Yes. For the reasons you gave. And as I detect around here, equally from her own gender.
I also don't think our university types buy in, nor do most blacks and browns.

Unless the whole thing turns into a swimsuit contest she will be popular but moot IMO.

Ilargi said...

Trading on the London Stock Exchange was halted because of a "technical glitch". Shares overall were losing heavily because of the suspected Dubai bankruptcy, and the investment, hence losses, of British banks in Dubai. Until there I was slightly suspicious (very convenient glitch if you fear bigger losses). But when I read that Dubai is the largest single stockholder in the LSE, my suspicion became more than just slight.

NB Trading in London was just resumed, exchanges are down between 2%-2.5% for now.

Ilargi said...

And also, interestingly and in line with what we've been saying about risk aversion, the initial reaction to the Dubai story shows a stronger dollar and weaker stocks and gold. Government bonds should be doing well.

BostonJoe said...

Ilagri,

I read the CNBC news bulletin re Dubai. Honestly, I have little understanding of this. Could you elaborate briefly? Impact re general state of this economic/financial crisis? Just curious. I suppose you will write a treatise on it soon enough. :-)

But it caught my eye. I know nothing. Not much. But it just feels like a trigger for some odd reason. The closing of the London exchange. And the fact that the announcement was made on the Thanksgiving Dow holiday. And the whole oil/middle-east role in the bubble and peak oil. So sorry for my urgency in this request. Just wanted your quick thoughts if you could share. Happy Thanksgiving, btw.

Persephone said...

More on Dubai
A black swan in the desert


I wonder if all the man-made islands created to look like palm trees can be repossessed....

I. M. Nobody said...

Blogger M said...

I find it curious that people are still waiting for ‘the big event” as a river of issues relentlessly carves a canyon in the structure of society.

That makes two of us M.

I've been watching that river for about thirty years. For many of those years it wasn't too hazardous a crossing, except during the occasional flash flood. It appears to me that the canyon is now impassable for many and treacherous for all others, except those with access to helicopters.

I guess when you've reached a canyon too wide to bridge and can't go back or around, what else would you do, but watch the helicopters in case some crash into the canyon due to downdrafts or engine failure. It's what we do. It's who we are.

Dr J said...

Ilargi - interesting piece in the National Geographic on contemporary hunter-gatherers in the Rift Valley.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/12/hadza/finkel-text

getyourselfconnected said...

The Dubai story may well be the "American Home Mortgage" canary in the coal mine that started the panic about subprime when they went belly up. At this point all the bank losses were not only suposed to be over, but write ups on debt were priced in. Amazing really.

Happy Thanksgiving to all that celebrate it, and have a great day to those that do not.

WgS said...

Ahimsa, I really appreciated the link for Amy Goodman's interview with Naomi Klein. Thanks! I hope you (and all at TAE) have a wonderful Thanksgiving with loving friends, family and blessings for all.

Ilargi said...

The Grinch Who Moved Thanksgiving

It seems that in 1939 Thanksgiving was to fall on November 30th, a matter of consternation to the big merchants of the National Retail Dry Goods Association (NRDGA). The presidents of Gimbel Brothers, Lord & Taylor, and other unsentimental vendors petitioned President Roosevelt to move Thanksgiving to the previous Thursday, November 23, thus creating an additional week of Christmas shopping – and to the astonishment of those Americans without dollar signs in their eyes, the president did so. (Not all merchants favored the shift. One Kokomo shopkeeper hung a sign in his window reading, "Do your shopping now. Who knows, tomorrow may be Christmas.")

Opinion polls revealed that more than 60 percent of Americans opposed the Rooseveltian ukase; dissent was especially vigorous in New England. The selectmen of Plymouth, Massachusetts, informed the President, "It is a religious holiday and [you] have no right to change it for commercial reasons." Thanksgiving is a day to give thanks to the Almighty, harrumphed Governor Leverett Salstonstall of Massachusetts, "and not for the inauguration of Christmas shopping."

Although the states customarily followed the federal government’s lead on Thanksgiving, they retained the right to set their own date for the holiday, so 48 battles erupted. As usual, New Deal foes had all the wit, if not the votes. A New Hampshire senator urged the President to abolish winter; the Oregon attorney general versified:

Thirty days hath September,
April, June, and November;
All the rest have thirty-one.
Until we hear from Washington.



.

getyourselfconnected said...

Ilargi,
Thanks for that link. Who knew that Massachusetts (my home state) used to stand up to the government?

Coy Ote said...

Iran "issue" heating up a bit!

"VIENNA – The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency said Thursday that his probe of allegations that Iran tried to make nuclear arms is at "a dead end" because Tehran is not cooperating, and he warned that confidence in Tehran had shrunk in the wake of its belated revelation of a previously secret nuclear facility.
The unusually blunt comments appeared to be a reflection of frustration four days before ElBaradei ends his tenure leading an agency..."

These types of news items always make one wonder whether some critical event was in the works.

On the Dubai thing...
When this rock drops into the international financial bucket what will be swirled around? ... or splashed out!"

http://tinyurl.com/yfwjuyq

I. M. Nobody said...

Blogger getyourselfconnected said...

Ilargi,
Thanks for that link. Who knew that Massachusetts (my home state) used to stand up to the government?

Stomping around Concord, one is given the distinct impression that they once stood up to the Empire.

getyourselfconnected said...

IM Nobody,
that was a LONG time ago.

Ilargi said...

Boston Joe

In a few words: Dubai is the most overbuilt site on the planet. World's tallest skyscraper, largest marina, artificial islands shaped like palm-trees, all advertised as the new playground for the rich and financed through aggressive bond issues, promoted heavily in Europe.

In the past year, real estate prices have fallen by 50%, and you can finish the tale from there.

A black swan it is not, since those are unpredictable events, something the fall of Dubai is certainly not.

.

john patrick said...

NZSanctuary/Lindsay...

As with banking, scientists, economists, and every talent, there is a "caring" way to interact with others. Don't you think?

I raise this issue because it has puzzled me greatly,--how great minds succumb to war/greed, etc.. And, can we expect great minds to solve the issue we are currently in.

I do like Feynman, and all the great scientists/thinkers. Yet--many of them were on the gov't payroll to devise weapons of mass destruction. (Or, build a better catapult for the King).

It seems that at some point or at many points, the individual with talent must/should choose how the talent will be used. To what end?

Should a brilliant economist/banker seek only the highest return?

Coy Ote said...

Ilargi - I enjoyed the "Grinch" article. Printed it out for an after dinner read for family today.

Boston Joe... As for Dubai, think Las Vegas on steroids. Good time to let that hammer drop, while we are all turkey stuffed and drowsy.

Why am I becoming such a cynic? Could it have anything to do with Darwin's adaptation of species? ;-)

Greenpa said...

oh, please please tell me that JP Gollem is deeply invested in Dubai World. :-)

Robert said...

I see Denninger is trying again to put up case against climate change. I think Karl does a pretty good job of investigative reporting about the economic debacle. But he is out of his class when it comes to science.

I suggest readers of TAE take a look at Dr. Jeff Masters comments on the subject of intentionally misleading the public. Please see:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1389

Ahimsa said...

Here's a thought-provoking piece on Thanksgiving by Robert Jensen:

"How I Stopped Hating Thanksgiving And Learned To Be Afraid"

http://theragblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/robert-jensen-how-i-stopped-hating.html

Ahimsa said...

WgS,

Gracias! Igualmente.

NZSanctuary said...

john patrick said...
"As with banking, scientists, economists, and every talent, there is a "caring" way to interact with others. Don't you think?"

Hell is paved with good intentions.

Putting aside the problem of definition, ever notice how intelligence is elevated well above wisdom in contemporary society (to the point that the idea of "wisdom" is sometimes pooh-poohed)... or that intelligence can be mistaken FOR wisdom.

A Zen story:
Mokusen's Hand
Mokusen Hiki was living in a temple in the province of Tamba. One of his adherents complained of the strictness of his wife. Mokusen visited the adherent's wife and showed her his clenched fist before her face.

"What do you mean by that?" asked the surprised woman. "Suppose my fist were always like that. What would you call it?" he asked. "Deformed," replied the woman. The he opened his hand flat in her face and asked: "Suppose it were always like that. What then?" "Another kind of deformity," said the wife.

"If you understand that much," finished Mokusen, "you are a good wife." Then he left. After his visit, she was kinder to her husband.

VK said...

Dubai is the most overbuilt site on the planet.

Eh? Thought it was Shanghai or Beijing or something like that. Though Dubai is a monstrosity!

Most of the apartments and hotels were built for the luxury market whereas maybe only 5% or less of the world's population can afford that. And there's really only so much you can do in Dubai. If you're a rich European playboy, then you've got the alps rather then an indoor ski slope. There's Monaco and Nice. And for fine theatre there's London and Vienna. So much more to do there then see the same things in Dubai - big shopping malls, big hotels and do a desert safari. For fine dining maybe Spain and for partying Ibiza and Malaga. And not to forget Eastern Europe ;)

Stoneleigh said...

Lord Bacon,

I&S: We've already done 10 rounds of body blows and finger pointing so I won't go there yet again.

I am very much of the opinion that the rally is ending. We are seeing spike highs in commodities and a spike low in the US dollar. I think these and equities are reversing trend, or will do so shortly.

Ilargi said...

"Dubai is the most overbuilt site on the planet.

Eh? Thought it was Shanghai or Beijing or something like that."


Dubai is far more overbuilt in relation to the number of people who will wind up actually occupying the buildings.

Ilargi said...

New post up.